That prayer to Jesus is inappropriate at a company party?

Never understand why people who dont believe in Jesus celebrate Christmas, it is literally a celebration of his birth!
It was a Christmas celebration, a prayer was said. If you dont like it, suck it up and forget about it and let those who are celebrating the real reason for Christmas say a prayer.
Jesus is the reason for the season!
Merry Christmas and God Bless you x

I couldn't really get worked up over this. Someone says a prayer, you bow your heads and that's it, you get on with the meal and enjoy the evening. No different to going to someone's house and them saying grace. It's really not a big deal!

It’s a bit strange, but not offensive in my opinion. Maybe the woman who said the prayer is very religious and was heavily involved in organising the event. We are in a Christian country after all, so these things are not to be entirely unexpected.

The party sounds like it was full of absolute melts. Def not a party to ever attend again

Saying a Christian prayer, yeah it is

Calling for a Christian prayer is not “deviating slightly”!

Yes I'm sure that's the type of thing that goes on all up and down the country, someone deviates from that slightly and is accused of all sorts lol

Or “A woman came to the microphone and said “Thank you all for you all for coming. I hope you all have a lovely time, and a very, very happy Christmas”.

We don't know what the prayer was.

I have posted above on how it could be problematic.

Here is an example of prayer being weaponized.

'Islamophobia: Critics decry Christian prayer at swearing-in of Muslim lawmaker - ABC News (go.com)

One day this thread will be studied as an example of how many people could be brainwashed into thinking Christmas is not a Christian festival, that the UK (head of state, also head of the church, bishops sitting in the legislature, church of england state schools, majority religion Christianity) is not Christian country and religious beliefs are not expressly protected by the Equality Act. The denialism is hilarious.

But a Christmas party is esssntially a celebration of the birth of Jesus. Why is it inappropriate to honour his birth at a party in his name?

How about this
"A woman came to the microphone and said a short prayer in the name of Jesus as thanks/blessings for the food"
Hardly the same now is it?
Doesn't sound all fire and brimstone to me. I think you're catastrophizing at this stage.

How about this
"A woman came to the microphone and said a short prayer in the name of Jesus as thanks/blessings for the food"
Hardly the same now is it?
Doesn't sound all fire and brimstone to me. I think you're catastrophizing at this stage.

How about this ?

" Bless you all, in the name of Jesus, the one and only true Lord, And a reminder for all here, if you don't fall to your knees and worship Jesus, the only true one, you will burn in hell for eternity. Merry Christmas"

This is too often overlooked in Christianity. The whole message of the religion is to join their club, and if you don't it's off to hell you go.

Fair enough. Bart says it too.

So the encyclopedias need updating, if that is the consensus.

it’s not a battle of academics because no serious academic believes this in 2025, I’m sure you won’t be able to find a published paper pushing this theory from the last 10 years. Did you read the Ehrman link?

“The theory attributing the December 25th date for Christmas to pagan origins first gained significant traction in the 18th and 19th centuries. It was during this period that scholars began to draw parallels between Christian practices and pre-existing pagan traditions.

A notable example is James G. Frazer who published a highly influential book The Golden Bough in 1890. His overall approach was to find cross-cultural parallels between different religious traditions in the past.
Consequently, he suggested that the reason why Christmas is on December 25th has to do with the pagan festival of “Sol Invictus”.
However, upon closer examination, this theory encounters several historical and contextual challenges. One of the key issues is the lack of any contemporary evidence from the early Christian period directly linking the choice of December 25th for Christmas to pagan festivals.
The bishop Ambrose (4th century) described Christ as the sun but he never made the connection between the December 25th and pagan festivals.

Moreover, Christ was often depicted with imagery associated with the sun or as a sun god in various forms of art, including coins and mosaics, particularly in the late Roman and early Byzantine periods (4th to 6th centuries). This iconography was part of the broader cultural and religious context of the time.

Despite that, no Christian or pagan authorsuggested that Christians deliberately chose December 25th as Christmas because of the “Sol Invictus” festival. While this is, to be honest, an argument from silence, some arguments from silence have the force!

The first source that links these two things together comes from the 12th century! It claims that the early Christians changed the celebration of Jesus’ birthday from January 6 to December 25th because of the “Sol Invictus” festival.

Basing a theory about something that occurred in the 3rd or 4th century on a source written c. 800 years later isn’t a proper way to do serious historical work.

The fatal flaw in the theory of pagan origins for Christmas is related to the chronology. I’ve mentioned that in 274 C.E. Emperor Aurelian established the feast of the birth of Sol Invictus on December 25th.

But several decades earlier (c. 203 C.E.), a bishop from Rome, Hippolytus, wrote: “For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th, Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, but from Adam, five thousand and five hundred years.” (Comm. on Dan. 23.3.)

In other words, Christians believed that Jesus was born on December 25th decades before Aurelian introduced the “Sol Invictus” festival. This represents a serious blow to the popular theory that seeks the origins of December 25th and Christmas in a particular pagan festival.
”

it’s not a battle of academics because no serious academic believes this in 2025, I’m sure you won’t be able to find a published paper pushing this theory from the last 10 years. Did you read the Ehrman link?

“The theory attributing the December 25th date for Christmas to pagan origins first gained significant traction in the 18th and 19th centuries. It was during this period that scholars began to draw parallels between Christian practices and pre-existing pagan traditions.

A notable example is James G. Frazer who published a highly influential book The Golden Bough in 1890. His overall approach was to find cross-cultural parallels between different religious traditions in the past.
Consequently, he suggested that the reason why Christmas is on December 25th has to do with the pagan festival of “Sol Invictus”.
However, upon closer examination, this theory encounters several historical and contextual challenges. One of the key issues is the lack of any contemporary evidence from the early Christian period directly linking the choice of December 25th for Christmas to pagan festivals.
The bishop Ambrose (4th century) described Christ as the sun but he never made the connection between the December 25th and pagan festivals.

Moreover, Christ was often depicted with imagery associated with the sun or as a sun god in various forms of art, including coins and mosaics, particularly in the late Roman and early Byzantine periods (4th to 6th centuries). This iconography was part of the broader cultural and religious context of the time.

Despite that, no Christian or pagan authorsuggested that Christians deliberately chose December 25th as Christmas because of the “Sol Invictus” festival. While this is, to be honest, an argument from silence, some arguments from silence have the force!

The first source that links these two things together comes from the 12th century! It claims that the early Christians changed the celebration of Jesus’ birthday from January 6 to December 25th because of the “Sol Invictus” festival.

Basing a theory about something that occurred in the 3rd or 4th century on a source written c. 800 years later isn’t a proper way to do serious historical work.

The fatal flaw in the theory of pagan origins for Christmas is related to the chronology. I’ve mentioned that in 274 C.E. Emperor Aurelian established the feast of the birth of Sol Invictus on December 25th.

But several decades earlier (c. 203 C.E.), a bishop from Rome, Hippolytus, wrote: “For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th, Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, but from Adam, five thousand and five hundred years.” (Comm. on Dan. 23.3.)

In other words, Christians believed that Jesus was born on December 25th decades before Aurelian introduced the “Sol Invictus” festival. This represents a serious blow to the popular theory that seeks the origins of December 25th and Christmas in a particular pagan festival.
”

Ah right. So It's a battle of academic qualifications then :-)

Nah, that's out of my lane.

When will the encyclopedias be updated?

Brittanica says :

"One widespread explanation of the origin of this date is that December 25 was the Christianizing of the dies solis invicti nati (“day of the birth of the unconquered sun”), a holiday in the Roman empire that celebrated the winter solstice as a symbol of the resurgence of the sun, the casting away of winter, and the Heralding of the rebirth of spring and summer."

And :

"A second view suggests that December 25 became the date of Jesus’ birth by a priori reasoning that identified the spring equinox the date of the creation of the world and the fourth day of creation, when the light was created, as the day of Jesus’ conception(i.e., March 25). December 25, nine months later, then became the date of Jesus’ birth. For a long time the celebration of Jesus’ birth was observed in conjunction with his baptism. celebrated January 6."

No mention of John the Baptist.