"The Holy Family with the infant St. John the Baptist (the Doni tondo)" by Michelangelo c.1506, Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence
Whilst I am still picking up the pieces from my technical issues here on ATB, I am posting an article I know you will find interesting, written by Brent Bozell, my inimitable publisher over @ NewsBusters. Difficult to cut as every word is brilliant, I give you the whole thing, in sincere hope that Brent will not object to ATB's presumptuous indulgence:
We lead fairly schizophrenic lives during the Christmas season in America. Our popular holiday rituals are bifurcated between the sacred and the secular; between the very worldly commercial extravaganza of Christmas as offered by our department stores – when they have the guts to employ the word “Christmas” – and Christianity celebrating the birth of Our Lord.
Hollywood hasn’t been so split on this question. It is firmly ensconced, and comfortable, in the secular world. Year after year, it offers commercial Christmas movies this time of year, with Grinches and Rudolphs, good Santas and Bad Santas, the Kranks and the Muppets. We’ve been Scrooged, been on Christmas Vacation, and taken rides on the Polar Express. We’ve seen the Christmas-as-a-backdrop movies like “Home Alone,” which, like so many others, might offer something about the Christmas “spirit” but wouldn’t dare to touch the Birth of Christ itself.
No, what we haven’t seen in decades from Hollywood is a reverent recounting of the birth of Jesus in a stable in Bethlehem. But the void is now filled. The New Line studio is set to release a movie to retell that tale. It’s simply called “The Nativity Story.”
The pre-publicity story line is easily written: Hollywood saw the box-office receipts of “The Passion,” looked around for another story line to attract that long-forgotten audience, and is going back to the Christian audience for some very profitable seconds. It’s clear that New Line hopes for that response, since all the graphics and colors, and even the soundtrack of the film and its promotions make it look like Mel Gibson prepared a pre-quel.
Unlike other movies that the some in the media comically have claimed might rub off some “Passion” magic as they trashed and satirized Christians, “The Nativity Story” is reverent, generally true to the Gospel, and a moving experience for the Christian faithful. It reminds the audience that these distant figures in the stained glass window were real humans with real struggles and real suffering, and responded to their calling with timeless devotion to their creator.
Those looking for the standard Hollywood fare will be disappointed. The story of Our Lord’s passion is packed with drama and violence, and similarly though to a far lesser extent are these elements present in the story of the birth of Christ. But whereas “The Passion” is replete with conflict – the essential ingredient in the Tinseltown soup – the story of the birth of Jesus has none of it. Mary obediently accepted God’s will, as did Joseph. The Magi, the shepherds, the peasants – all who beheld the Child Jesus, believed. Thus in the movie we see Joseph take Mary on a donkey to Bethlehem. She has a baby. Shepherds and kings arrive with awe. Without a religious background, it might seem too saccharine to excite the taste buds of your average popcorn-chomping cineplex citizen.
The makers of “The Nativity Story” have included action, and (sanitized) violence in the story because they were present, too. Thus we watch the armored goons of Herod on horseback executing the terrible command to slaughter the first-born sons in Bethlehem under the age of two in the futile attempt to foil the plans of God, while the Herod character chews the scenery with dead-eyed menace. Still, it seems a bit forced, the resignation to the reality that today’s moviemaker must find some way to “entertain” today’s moviegoer in this age of bombastic sound effects and computerized whiz-bangery.
But at its heart, this is a gentle, serene, beautiful story about the creation of the Holy Family; how Mary quietly accepted that which logically could not be understand [sic]; how facing a life as outcasts once their community in Nazareth learned Mary was pregnant before marriage, Joseph took Mary on the long, arduous trip to Bethlehem; and how, contrary to all human expectation, the King of Kings chose birth in the most humble of settings, the animals' manger.
“The Nativity Story” is part of a promising trend in Hollywood: pleasing the religious segment of the marketplace. Fox has created a new FoxFaith line. Small films made by Christian hands, from the football film “Facing the Giants” to “One Night with the King,” about the biblical story of Esther, are making noticeable profits in limited release.
Time and Newsweek go a little overboard with cute headlines like “Hooray for Holy-wood,” but that’s fine. Nor can we expect that Tinseltown will forego the appeal of sleaze at Christmas or any other season. More stupid “Christmas” movies that have nothing to do either with the Christmas story or the Christmas spirit will appear. It’s all the more reason to savor “The Nativity Story” now, while you can. New Line deserves a cheer for making this movie, just as the public needs to be reminded of that which the ACLU would rather it forget.
UPDATE: The Nativity Story is not welcome in the 'politically correct' city of Chicago. But for us, the eternally politically incorrect, like my friend The Anchoress, we are very much looking forward to seeing it...
Such a fool to make a sweeping statement as the atheist above does. 'Religion is evil.' Yes, perhaps for establishing our much-beloved university system, for leading to western law, for giving us, quite literally, knowledge of the past (during the Middle Ages Christian monks copied ancient maunscripts that time has since stolen). Oh, and of course, religions 'ignore scientific progress.' But, correct me if I'm wrong, it was Christian monks and priests, and surely devout Christians, who built a foundation upon which science stands today. Gregor Mendel? A monk. Descartes, Pascal, Newton, Galileo? Devout christians. Should I fail to mention the influence of Islam upon the development of mathematics? Or how would you respond if I mentioned the Jesuits, who seek nothing more than to find God in everything? Aren't they responsible for such institutions as Boston College and Duquesne University. Perhaps religion is evil. But you must be a denier of truth to think so.
God Bless You, and Merry Christmas.
Posted by: Alex | Thursday, December 14, 2006 at 12:41 AM
Since so many of my liberal peers seem to like to mince words and tread around the issue carefully, I will make myself clear.
Religion is evil. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinudism, Shinto. They otherize, they encourage violence, they willfully ignore modernist and scientific progress. They are a pitiful, weird, and outrageous template for morality. Their claims surrounding faith are indistinguishable from one another. They encourage ignorance.
That being said, I do enjoy the winter holidays from a secular perspective of societal bonding.
Posted by: atheist | Wednesday, December 13, 2006 at 09:33 PM
Lady, where are you?
Posted by: AFMedic | Friday, December 08, 2006 at 08:06 PM
Ooops.. I meant the New York Post.
WAPO actually had this nice post by Sister Joan Chittister in their "On Faith" discussion area:
"I Too Was the Child In-Between"
This is a question I understand all too well. The fact is, I was one of those children. My mother was Irish Roman Catholic. My father was Presbyterian. Whose God was really the True God?
It was not an easy arrangement in a religious world where ‘we,’ whoever that was, were right and ‘they,’ whoever we named as “other,” were wrong.
Like even greater numbers of children today, I was the child in-between it all, trying to figure out how it was that God–all merciful, all loving--the God, whom the catechism assured me, had made everyone, loved some of us more than the rest of us.
And why? Because we all went to different places to worship that same God in different ways. What was even worse, I finally came to understand, was that most people had never even heard of our church at all. So how could they be there?
Very confusing, if you’re a child. Very confusing if you’re an adult. And very hard on God, as well. After all, what kind of a God is it who creates people just to condemn them for not being what they do not even know about.
Clearly, the problem is not that the mind of a child is unable to grasp the notion of a God who loves everyone. In fact, “Unless you be as little children,” Jesus says, “you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.” No, the problem lies in the mind of adults who want to own everything. Even God.
But God is no one’s race, no one’s flag, no one’s color. And those who say so make God very puny, indeed.
So the answer is so profound it’s simple–which is why children will understand it even if many adults do not.
The answer is that there is only one God and that God made everyone, loves everyone. Because we are all different, however, God speaks to us in many tongues.
In the end, we are all on our way back to God. But everyone goes to God differently, in their own way--in the ways they have learned to find God and hear God and see God and love God best.
In the end, it will be only that love that counts. Not the tradition, not the denomination, not the language in which we set out to live that love.
No doubt about it: The love of God any child will understand easily. Exclusion, on the other hand, they may have difficulty accepting.
Now if we could only get adults to understand the same thing."
Posted by Joan Chittister, osb on December 8, 2006 12:10 PM
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/joan_chittister/2006/12/it_is_not_a_question_of_gods.html
"On Faith" panelist Joan Chittister is a Benedictine Sister, former prioress, international lecturer, and award-winning author of 35 books. Her weekly web column, "From Where I Stand," which she writes for the National Catholic Reporter newspaper, has a regular readership of more than 10,000."
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Friday, December 08, 2006 at 06:27 PM
Those that have New York Times accounts should check out Paul Krugman's comments on modern day "Cassandra" analogies.
"Shortly after U.S. forces marched into Baghdad in 2003, The Weekly Standard published a jeering article titled, “The Cassandra Chronicles: The stupidity of the antiwar doomsayers.” ...
People forget the nature of Cassandra’s curse: although nobody would believe her, all her prophecies came true.
The Washington Post ruefully conceded that the paper’s account of the debate in the House of Representatives over the resolution authorizing the Iraq war — a resolution opposed by a majority of the Democrats — gave no coverage at all to those antiwar arguments that now seem prescient...
At worst, those who were skeptical about the case for war had their patriotism and/or their sanity questioned. The New Republic now says that it “deeply regrets its early support for this war.” Does it also deeply regret accusing those who opposed rushing into war of “abject pacifism?”
Former President George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, explaining in 1998 why they didn’t go on to Baghdad in 1991: “Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.”...
Barack Obama, now a United States senator, September 2002: “I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”..."
Howard Dean, then a candidate for president and now the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, February 2003: “I firmly believe that the president is focusing our diplomats, our military, our intelligence agencies, and even our people on the wrong war, at the wrong time. ... Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.”..."
http://www.nytimes.com/
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 8, 2006, NYT
Modern Republicanism... seldom in doubt, frequently wrong... I could say that, however there were some very good Republican Statesmen and Generals who provided sound advice and were ignored...
I understand the Washington Post and other rightest rags are smearing James Baker now... turning on their own.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Friday, December 08, 2006 at 05:19 AM
Alexandra,
You are missed. Happy holidays.
Warmest Regards,
JCC
Posted by: RunningRoach | Friday, December 08, 2006 at 12:23 AM
Michelangelo lived in the time of Savonarola... two interesting guys.
Michelangelo: Highly significant of the artist's style, the group with the Virgin, Saint Joseph and the Child shows the peculiar twisting of the limbs and the evidence given to body's muscles, a pattern that clearly appears in michelangiolesque sculpture. Brightness of colors, lighting effects, emphasize impressiveness of the sacred figures. The nudes on the background, whose poses and gestures are all connected to classical sculptures, symbolize pagan mankind, the world before coming of Christ; on the right the little St John indicates the passage, through the baptism, from the pagan age to the christian age.
http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/m/michelan/2paintin/1doniton.html
Michelangelo studied anatomy with the help of the Prior of the Hospital of Sto Spirito, for whom he appears to have carved a wooden crucifix for the high altar. A wooden crucifix found there (now in the Casa Buonarroti) has been attributed to him by some scholars. The next few years were marked by the expulsion of the Medici and the gloomy Theocracy set up under Savonarola, but Michelangelo avoided the worst of the crisis by going to Bologna and, in 1496, to Rome.
http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/m/michelan/2paintin/1doniton.html
Savonarola: Born at Ferrara, 21 September, 1452; died at Florence, 23 May, 1498. The Dominican reformer came from an old family of Ferrara. Intellectually very talented he devoted himself to his studies, and especially to philosophy and medicine. In 1474 while on a journey to Faenza he heard a powerful sermon on repentance by an Augustinian and resolved to renounce the world. He carried out this decision at once and entered the Dominican Order at Bologna without the knowledge of his parents. Feeling deeply the widespread depravity of the era of the Renaissance, as is evident from the poem "On the Decline of the Church", which he wrote in the first year of his monastic life, the young Dominican devoted himself with great zeal to prayer and ascetic practices. In the monastery at Bologna he was entrusted with the instruction of the novices. He here began to write philosophical treatises based on Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas...
...Savonarola preached with burning zeal and rapidly won great influence. He was looked upon and venerated by his followers as a prophet. His sermons, however were not free from extravagance and vagaries. Without regard to consequences he lashed the immoral, vain-glorious, pleasure-seeking life of the Florentines, so that a very large part of the inhabitants became temporarily contrite and returned to the exercise of Christian virtue. Both his sermons and his whole personality made a deep impression. He bitterly attacked Lorenzo the Magnificent as the promoter of paganized art, of frivolous living, and as the tyrant of Florence. Nevertheless, when on his death bed, Lorenzo summoned the stern preacher of morals to administer spiritual consolation to him. It is said that Savonarola demanded as a condition of absolution that Lorenzo restore its liberties to Florence; which, however, the latter refused to do. This however cannot be proved with absolute historical certainty. From 1493 Savonarola spoke with increasing violence against the abuses in ecclesiastical life, against the immorality of a large part of the clergy, above all against the immoral life of many members of the Roman Curia, even of the wearer of the tiara, Alexander VI, and against the wickedness of princes and courtiers...
In prophetic terms he announced the approaching judgment of God and the avenger from whom he hoped the reform of Church life. By the avenger he meant Charles VIII, King of France, who had entered Italy, and was advancing against Florence. Savonarola's denunciation of the Medici now produced its results. Lorenzo's son Pietro de Medici, who was hated both for his tyranny and his immoral life, was driven out of the city with his family.
The French king, whom Savonarola at the head of an embassy of Florentines had visited at Pisa, now entered the city. After the king's departure a new and peculiar constitution, a kind of theocratic democracy, was established at Florence, based on the political and social doctrines the Dominican monk had proclaimed. Christ was considered the King of Florence and protector of its liberties. A great council, as the representative of all the citizens, became the governing body of the republic and the law of Christ was to be the basis of political and social life. Savonarola did not interfere directly in politics and affairs of State, but his teachings and his ideas were authoritative. The moral life of the citizens was regenerated. Many persons brought articles of luxury, playing-cards, ornaments, pictures of beautiful women, the writings of pagan and immoral poets, etc., to the monastery of San Marco; these articles were then publicly burned. A brotherhood founded by Savonarola for young people encouraged a pious, Christian life among its members. Sundays some of this brotherhood went about from house to house and along the streets to take away dice and cards from the citizens, to exhort luxuriously dressed married and single women to lay aside frivolous ornament. Thus there arose an actual police for regulating morality, which also carried on its work by the objectionable methods of spying and denunciation. The principles of the severe judge of morals were carried out in practical life in too extreme a manner. Success made Savonarola, whose speech in his sermons was often recklessly passionate, more and more daring. Florence was to be the starting point of the regeneration of Italy and the Church. In this respect he was constantly looking for the interposition of Charles VIII for the inner reform of the Church, although the loose life and vague extravagant ideas of this monarch in no way fitted him to undertake such a task.
These efforts of Savonarola brought him into conflict with Alexander VI. The pope, like all Italian princes and cities, with the exception of Florence, was an opponent of the French policy. Moreover, Charles VIII had often threatened him with the calling of a reform council in opposition to him. This led Alexander VI to regard all the more dubiously the support that Florence under the influence of Savonarola gave the French king. Furthermore the Dominican preacher spoke with increasing violence against the pope and the Curia. On 25 July, 1495, a papal Brief commanded Savonarola in virtue of holy obedience to come to Rome and defend himself on the score of the prophecies attributed to him. Savonarola excused himself on the plea of impaired health and of the dangers threatening him. By a further Brief of 8 September the Dominican was forbidden to preach, and the monastery of San Marco was restored to the Lombard Congregation. In his reply of 29 September, Savonarola sought to justify himself, and declared that, as regards his teaching, he had always submitted to the judgment of the Church. In a new papal Brief of 16 October written with great moderation the union of the monastery of San Marco with the Lombard Congregation was withdrawn, Savanarola's conduct was judged mildly, but the prohibition to preach, until his vindication at Rome, was maintained...
...On 12 May, 1497, he was excommunicated. Under the date of 19 June he published a letter "against the excommunication" as being fraudulently obtained and sought to show that the judgment against him was null and void. The Florentine ambassadors at Rome probably hoped to prevent any further measures on the part of the pope, but their hopes were unfounded, especially as Savonarola became more defiant. Notwithstanding his excommunication he celebrated Mass on Christmas Day and distributed Holy Communion. Moreover, disregarding an archiepiscopal edict, he began again on 11 February, 1498, to preach at the Cathedral and to demonstrate that the sentences against him were void...
...In Florence itself the opposition to Savonarola grew more powerful, and an adversary from the Franciscan Order offered to undergo the ordeal by fire in order to prove him in error. Savonarola himself did not want to take up the challenge, but some of his ardent adherents among the Dominicans declared themselves ready for it. The ordeal for both sides was to take place on 7 April, 1498, before a large public gathering. Everything was ready for the test, but it did not take place. The people now turned against Savonarola. There were outbreaks and the monastery of San Marco was attacked; Savonarola and a fellow-member of the order, Domenico da Pescia, were taken prisoners. The papal delegates, the general of the Dominicans and the Bishop of Ilerda were sent to Florence to attend the trial. The official proceedings, which were, however, falsified by the notary, still exist. The captured monks were tortured; Savonarola's following in the city fell away. On 22 May, 1498, Savonarola and two other members of the order were condemned to death "on account of the enormous crimes of which they had been convicted". They were hanged on 23 May and their bodies burned...
...In the beginning Savonarola was filled with zeal, piety, and self-sacrifice for the regeneration of religious life. He was led to offend against these virtues by his fanaticism, obstinacy, and disobedience. He was not a heretic in matters of faith. The erection of his statue at the foot of Luther's monument at Worms as a reputed "forerunner of the Reformation" is entirely unwarranted...
Note: Ordeals were a means of obtaining evidence by trials, through which, by the direct interposition of God, the guilt or innocence of an accused person was firmly established, in the event that the truth could not be proved by ordinary means. These trials owed their existence to the firm belief that an omniscient and just God would not permit an innocent person to be regarded as guilty and punished in consequence, but that He would intervene, by a miracle if necessary, to proclaim the truth. The ordeals were either imposed by the presiding judge, or chosen by the contesting parties themselves. It was expected that God, approving the act imposed or permitted by an authorized judge, would give a distinct manifestation of the truth to reveal the guilt or innocence of the accused. It was believed from these premises that an equitable judgment must surely result.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13490a.htm
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Wednesday, December 06, 2006 at 07:12 PM
Just our little secret Gang of One.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Tuesday, December 05, 2006 at 06:26 PM
http://yinglebells.wordpress.com/
check it out. If you think its good, please post the link.
Thanks.
Posted by: Steve Weiss | Tuesday, December 05, 2006 at 05:39 PM
Ay yi yi! Ghost, I so can't believe you saw me fighting! I am very embarassed now. Please, keep this between us, mkay? :-)
Posted by: Gang of One | Tuesday, December 05, 2006 at 11:11 AM
Good points Joseph. I like Christmas much better as a celebration than as a political football... personally, I'm all for having more holidays, Christian or not.
Now, if we could just do something about people wrestling in the aisles of WalMart for dibs on holiday goodies... well... what the heck... if they want to wrestle for holiday goodies, let them... but they should at least be made to wear protective helmets and mittens.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Tuesday, December 05, 2006 at 04:46 AM
Merry Christmas. May all your wishes come true. And may the fevered fantasies of power, terror, and persecution surrounding Christianity and its place in America be cooled by both sanity and celebration.
Sanity goes like this: there is no earthly reason why the secular and the non-Christian should not celebrate the day as a Festival of Lights, if they so choose. Why would anyone wish them to parrot beliefs they do not share? We are pluralist country of many creeds. This is a fact, not an agenda.
None of this prevents Christians from celebrating the day as the birth of the Son. Nor are there many bloodthirsty Muslim enemies lurking in our department stores, however many there may be abroad. And brooding on them is hardly a recipe for celebration.
Would anyone here have even heard the Angels, if they were watching their flocks by night? It's a question worth considering.
Celebration goes like this: You celebrate what you care about. No one can celebrate on demand. Christians have celebrated Christ for 2000 years. Hollywood has been barely around for 100 of them.
However, there is very little that is celebratory in Blogland about Christmas or anything else. What is quoted in the post above contains only the briefest glimpse of Christian celebration of the Nativity. That it at least contains that is what I, as a non-Christian, celebrate most.
The Christmas holiday is sacred for Christians and fun for almost everyone else in America. Why ruin it with a pugnacity that is the least compatible of emotions with celebration? And why spoil a non-believer's fun with the Festival of Lights?
Why fix what ain't broke?
Posted by: Joseph Marshall | Monday, December 04, 2006 at 09:30 PM
"By morphing the the religious iconography to mock their opponents political positions..."
Correction... it is not clear what the political position is of their "opponents" other than enforcing Church-State separation... Really don't know what they would think of the degree to which the morphed creche accurately describes their position.
Thus... it should read "alleged positions"... but even that is not correct... because there seems to be some sort of innuendo and smear tactic involved that appears to deliberately misrepresents their opponents.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Saturday, December 02, 2006 at 06:38 PM
Yeah gringoman...
'Students plan 'ACLU Nativity Scene'
Features 'Gary and Joseph,' no Jesus, Nancy Pelosi as angel
"Campus activists plan to display an "ACLU Nativity Scene" at the University of Texas in response to the civil liberties group's "extreme" campaign to remove Christmas from the public sphere."
"We've got Gary and Joseph instead of Mary and Joseph in order to symbolize ACLU support for homosexual marriage, and of course there isn't a Jesus in the manger," said Tony McDonald, chairman of the Young Conservatives of Texas branch on the Austin campus."
Interestingly, the "Young Conservatives" are demonstrating the phenomenon that the civil liberties (Church-State separation) people are working against.
A Civil Liberties activist would argue that the singular presentation of religious iconography on public grounds is in fact not an issue of pious display, but an official political statement endorsing a particular religion, in violation of the Constitution.
By morphing the the religious iconography to mock their opponents political positions, they appear to affirm that their intended use of religious iconography on public property is in fact intended for the purpose of political statement, and worse, minority persecution... neither Christian, nor Constitutionally supportable.
Also, the entire "public display" issue could very well be dealt with with a "diversity-supporting" public program of displaying religious iconography of all religions represented in a community during their holiday season, or selected time for presentation. Even atheists could have their annual "moment on the lawn"... you would have to regulate and have certain parameters... It would be Constitutional to dis-allow displays from religions that discriminate or endorse the persecution of fellow citizens within their tenets... but all that could be ironed-out.
By the way, the question I was answering was slightly different than the one you posed in your response.
I know you were kinda hinting around about the issue... but what I was responding to was:
"ps. Despite being your kind of Christian, you do not seem to be taking a position on a somewhat burning question suggested by gringovision: Would it be all right for the Baby Jesus to have two Mommies?"
Not exactly:
"...gringo-posed question of whether Christians need limit themselves to a traditional representation and concept of the Nativity."
I'm not exactly sure why Christians would deviate from the doctrinal display unless there was some new scriptural revelation... unless there was some ulterior motive other than pious display.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Saturday, December 02, 2006 at 06:25 PM
GD,
Your mini-treatise on the gringo-posed question of whether Christians need limit themselves to a traditional representation and concept of the Nativity was not uninteresting. I wasn't sure who you were referring to as the Child's' "foster parent,"---Mary or Joseph. That said, you revealed that you can accept the idea of the Baby Jesus having two Mommies. I.e. you clearly established your anti-Falwellian street cred.
Incidentally, I don't know whether students from the University of Texas have been reading this thread, but you may have heard that they are planning an "ACLU-inspired" manger scene. Instead of Mary and Joseph, there will be Gary and Joseph.
Am I correct in assuming that your New Testament exegesis could accept---in the interests of gender equality---the notion of a Baby Jesus with two Daddies?
Full disclosure: I should point out that the manger scene being planned down in Texas portrays the Three Wise Men as Marx, Lenin and Stalin.
I suspect you would not approve of that. You've made it clear that you don't consider Socialism---or even Marxianity---to be a religion.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53181
Posted by: gringoman | Saturday, December 02, 2006 at 12:30 PM
Wonderful posts by all, and I cannot help but insert the naratives put forth in The Urantia Book, as they unite so many of the spiritual truths we've come to accept and believe, as well as shoot down much of the dogma that has prevailed through two millenia of Church doctrine. Some may be offended that the catechism of the Christian theology is is refuted by The Urantia Book and by my posting excerpts here. But I can assure each and everyone here that my intentions are not to foment trouble, but to bring a different perspective to these discussions. In this spirit, I post here a part of the narrative that refutes -- somewhat indirectly -- the notion of the immaculate conception. I trust that those with ears to hear and eyes to see will read my postings from Uranti Book and further investigate these papers with an open mind. After all, there is more between heaven and Earth than is revealed in one's philosophy, is there not?
Posted by: Gang of One | Saturday, December 02, 2006 at 10:42 AM
It's definitely time for Alexandra to post a new picture... though I really like this one... but here goes... answering gringoman's question about two mommies for Jesus:
"ps. Despite being your kind of Christian, you do not seem to be taking a position on a somewhat burning question suggested by gringovision: Would it be all right for the Baby Jesus to have two Mommies?"
Yes... It would appear that Jesus's parenting involved one foster parent that had no natural ties to the Child... it is questionable whether human sexual dimorphism is even an issue for God, since He requires neither human reproductive processes nor the associated organic apparatus in order to create human beings, of either sex.
Those scriptural and theological facts taken together suggest that the birth of Jesus from the womb of The Virgin Mary was largely a gesture indulging human limitations, and to some degree the maintenance of virginity out of wedlock deference to human concerns and customs. Yet God did, none the less, establish his Son as "atypical"; a result of His paranormal birth circumstances, requiring that an abnormal parenting relationship, specifically parenting by a foster-parent-to-a-virgin-birth would obtain.
The acceptability of abnormal circumstances for Christ's birth and parental arrangement would suggest God Himself perhaps had some latitude with respect to His Son's human arrangements, probably derived from His omniscience and other infinite qualities; therefore the hypothetical substitution of a female foster parent-partner to a virgin birth for the scripturally depicted "male" foster-partner to Mary is not much of a "leap of intellect" for human beings, let alone God.
For example, Mary, instead of marrying Joseph, could have miraculously conceived and birthed the Christ, and then raised Him with a nanny-servant as a parenting partner, or with a female relative...
I realize that never happens in real life, but in the case of Jesus that small miracle might have happened as a hypothetical alternative.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Friday, December 01, 2006 at 09:09 PM
from GD: There is no Christianity without Judaism. I would go as far as to say their is no Islam without Judaism. The persecution of Jews is quite ironic in that respect.
gringoman replies: GD, I'm pleased to experience such a rare moment of agreement with you. Of course Christianity and Islam could not exist without their ancestor Judaism. I take it further. Christianity obviously originated as a Jewish revolt from High Priest Judaism. In the course of time it evolved into a very Westernized form of Jewish religion, assimilating Greek intellect and Roman hierarchies. Christianity is the son of Judaism. Islam, the "grandson," is a much purer and elementary form of semitic religion, Unlike Christianity, it has steadfastly resisted Westernization. It may have flirted with the "pagan infidels" in Spain, and even studied Aristotle at one time, but it has never assimilated. Take a religious statue or painting worthy of ancient Greece and defying the Biblical strictures against graven images. Today a real Jew will tolerate it. A Christian will adore it. A true muslim wants it blown up.
By the way, your evasion of the question on the conceivable parenting of Jesus suggests to me that you see it as nothing but a joke. Let's get clear. It might seem that way to some, yet, for those who will look further, it cuts immediately to an issue that tends to divide the evangelical from the more "progressive" type Christian. And that's why I wanted to see if you are ready, as an anti-Falwellian, to confront and take a stand here on the holy hypothetical. Would you yourself be comfortable with the representation of the Baby's parentage---possibly in a nouveau manger scene-- as something other than the traditional male-female arrangement? We know the Falwellian response. It would be interesting to know if the "progressives" stand with Falwell here, or are forging another way in their battle against gender inequality and discrimination. Think about it.
Posted by: gringoman | Friday, December 01, 2006 at 02:03 PM
Shohreh Aghdashloo as Elizabeth is the upcoming X-Mas drama The Nativity Story due on Dec 1st for worldwide release.
http://www.iranian.com/PhotoDay/2006/November/aghdashloo.html
Shohreh Aghdashloo (Persian: شهره آغداشلو, born 11 May 1952) is an Academy Award nominated Iranian-American actress and self-proclaimed activist. She is outspoken against her native Iran's current government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shohreh_Aghdashloo
Posted by: Red Violin | Friday, December 01, 2006 at 12:43 PM
Since we seem to be getting into a discussion of the Gospel and the nature of Jesus's teaching, I humbly again offer this insight:
Read the rest here.
Posted by: Gang of One | Friday, December 01, 2006 at 08:19 AM
Karen the Bible has to have both the Old and New Testament. The life and death of Jesus Christ is all about the fulfillment of prophecy within the Jewish faith... Christians think Jesus is their Messiah...
There is no Christianity without Judaism. I would go as far as to say their is no Islam without Judaism. The persecution of Jews is quite ironic in that respect.
It is not so much that people quote Old or New Testament... it is more about the point they are trying to make... my point was that when you are trying to make statements about Christian understanding of Christianity itself, New Testament is certainly more relevant, and the words identified with Christ himself, certainly more powerful. The New Testament IS the Christian part of the story... granted it can only be understood within Judaic context.
A study of how and when the Bible was actually compiled, and for what reasons is also illuminating... not to mention the fact that one of the basic rifts in Christianity has to do with Sola Scriptura as well as "allegorical" versus "literal" translations of the Bible and Codices from which it came.
"Codice" is the plural of "Codex"
Word History: Codex is a variant of caudex, a wooden stump to which petty criminals were tied in ancient Rome, rather like our stocks. This was also the word for a book made of thin wooden strips coated with wax upon which one wrote. The usual modern sense of codex, “book formed of bound leaves of paper or parchment,” is due to Christianity. By the first century B.C. there existed at Rome notebooks made of leaves of parchment, used for rough copy, first drafts, and notes. By the first century A.D. such manuals were used for commercial copies of classical literature. The Christians adopted this parchment manual format for the Scriptures used in their liturgy because a codex is easier to handle than a scroll and because one can write on both sides of a parchment but on only one side of a papyrus scroll. By the early second century all Scripture was reproduced in codex form. In traditional Christian iconography, therefore, the Hebrew prophets are represented holding scrolls and the Evangelists holding codices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Friday, December 01, 2006 at 05:14 AM
Husbands are also told to love their wives as their own bodies (sorry, no Ch/vs). What i don't get, is that when given verse- it's not good enough that it's from the Bible: The Word of G*D. No, it has to be from the NT, because the OT is BC- not very Christian(i do not agree, am just recounting what has happened to me). So, onto the NT: "quote". Nope- has to be from someone who actually KNEW Christ- Paul never even met the Messiah!! So, "quote", say- John. Nope- it wasn't uttered from the lips of the Christ.
~sigh~- i hate manipulation of the Bible. It's all- or nothing, for me. And, it's supposed to be hard to swallow and follow. It's painful, but it's growth.
Or not.
Posted by: karen | Thursday, November 30, 2006 at 11:21 PM
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
Gringoman, I've pointed out before that the message of Christ is very difficult to follow... He did apparently suggest we do many things that are counterintuitive to our nature... here he was discussing the parable of the supper and the need to renounce all worldly desires and concerns... yes, even ones own family... to literally "hate" ones corporeal sinful existence in search of the spiritual Kingdom of God.
None of this is any harder than his great Commandment to love one another...
John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
A study of the Lord's words definitely gives one the impression that actually following Him is a very very hard thing to do... The Christ was not of human nature, and to follow Him involves renouncing our own.
When human beings attempt to follow this literally, their lives begin to look more like Francis of Assisi than Jerry Falwell.
That is why I think it so arrogant that a collection of heretical Pharisees enthralled with personal power should claim for themselves the exclusive "right" to be called Christian.
"On a certain morning in 1208, probably 24 February, Francis was hearing Mass in the chapel of St. Mary of the Angels, near which he had then built himself a hut; the Gospel of the day told how the disciples of Christ were to possess neither gold nor silver, nor scrip for their journey, nor two coats, nor shoes, nor a staff, and that they were to exhort sinners to repentance and announce the Kingdom of God. Francis took these words as if spoken directly to himself, and so soon as Mass was over threw away the poor fragment left him of the world's goods, his shoes, cloak, pilgrim staff, and empty wallet. At last he had found his vocation. Having obtained a coarse woolen tunic of "beast colour", the dress then worn by the poorest Umbrian peasants, and tied it round him with a knotted rope, Francis went forth at once exhorting the people of the country-side to penance, brotherly love, and peace. The Assisians had already ceased to scoff at Francis; they now paused in wonderment; his example even drew others to him. Bernard of Quintavalle, a magnate of the town, was the first to join Francis, and he was soon followed by Peter of Cattaneo, a well-known canon of the cathedral. In true spirit of religious enthusiasm, Francis repaired to the church of St. Nicholas and sought to learn God's will in their regard by thrice opening at random the book of the Gospels on the altar. Each time it opened at passages where Christ told His disciples to leave all things and follow Him. "This shall be our rule of life", exclaimed Francis, and led his companions to the public square, where they forthwith gave away all their belongings to the poor."
Francis started out life as a prince and warrior, by the way.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06221a.htm
There are actually few Christians that wholly and literally practice Christianity in any rigorous way, and that is probably a good thing on some level...
So, gringoman, I really don't find your "counter-quote" all that startling or even contradictory. Christ, it seems, was quite consistent and quite clear that Human Beings don't have clue about God, and that even beginning to understand and prepare oneself for the Kingdom of Heaven, and his Father depended on our acceptance of Him... the Son possessing a Divine nature... those that would follow His path would in literal and metaphorical ways actually have to negate their own human nature...
Most of us realize that we necessarily fall quite short of the mark are are dependent on our hope of God's infinite mercy, in this life, and the hereafter.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Thursday, November 30, 2006 at 07:18 PM
Aaron Sorkin, best known for "West Wing" and darling of the left-has a show on this season, "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip." One character in the show, Harriet Hayes (played by Sarah Paulson) seems to be a victim of Christian-bashing every episode. What's more, it's presented and reasonable and warranted because she made the unforgivable mistake of appearing on a Christian TV show promoting her new album when she was pursuing a singing career. Maureen Ryan, the TV critic with the Chicago Tribune, wrote a piece last week where she asked "Amid the preaching, Sarah Paulson has tried to make her character, Harriet Hayes, a real person, but she's fighting a losing battle. Hayes, a devout Christian in Hollywood (shocker!), is routinely browbeaten for her beliefs, a "dramatic" gambit that is as tiresome as it is insulting. Who would really attack a co-worker for her beliefs every day? That's not just insufferably presumptuous, it's plain bad manners." Bad manners, indeed. Too bad there's no way to address such behavior legally. Oh wait. I hope she's keeping a journal. But more importantly, what is Sorkin's motivation for this character and this behavior. It's presented as warranted and perfectly acceptable. Is this what really goes on in Hollywood? Is this how reasonable people should act? Since these people are "throwing truth at power" in Sorkin's worldview and thus presented as "heroes" to the downtrodden masses, I guess it is.
There is no Christian-bashing in America. And there is no "Left" either. Just ask GD. Would GD ever tell you something that isn't true?
Posted by: Darrell | Thursday, November 30, 2006 at 01:00 PM
From a source that has its adherents and its detractors; for what it is worth, it [The Urantia Book] is a very compelling read:
Posted by: Gang of One | Thursday, November 30, 2006 at 12:37 PM
from GD
You will note that with few exceptions, while claiming to be Christians, evangelical fundamentalists rely on the fear of God, frequently citing Old Testament quotations.
The New Testament, and Christ's teachings were really quite a new deal, and my point was that he was frequently in confrontation with the religious and political "authority figures".
==============================================================
from gringoman
Of course the evangelicals are attracted to the fire and brimstone of the Bible, especially the thunderings of the Old Testament which so disturbs the nice cloistered Christians as they carefully nibble their milk toast. It's more often evangelical sons who go off to battle while the sophisticated types are draft dodging, or sipping their lattes while figuring out how to absolve the religion of Holy War that killed 3000 in a sneak attack on the World Trade Center.
Of course Jesus was a "new deal." So was FDR's New Deal. New Deals can go in many directions. FDR's emergency measures for "relief" eventually degenerated into a massive Welfare State he never intended.
Mohammed was a "new deal" too. Results? Modern Jews have long since evolved from the massacres and mutilations practiced by their remote forebears, but today's "Religion of Peace" somehow manages to keep much of that "Old Time Religion" alive and well in stonings, beheadings, holy war and even genital mutilation (many muslims out-doing their Old Testament inspiration. After all, the Hebrew prophets, later adopted by the muslims, never, so far as we know, put the knife to female genitalia, as is practiced today all over Egypt etc.)
As for the general portrayal of Jesus as Prince of Peace, yes, but like all stereotypes this is also a stereotype, useful for the saccharine. Oodles could be said on this. Too time consuming right now. Same for the interesting volumes that could be spoken on the inner War of the Monotheists, and how this is really the greatest, and by far the longest, civil war in history, and may even be approaching in this century, sooner rather than later, its greatest apocalypse.
So you still want to cherry pick? But maybe not Paul, who virtually created what is known as Christianity today? Okay. And of course you'd prefer to keep a distance from that very unruly, unsanitized Old Testament? It's a little too "evangelical" for well-behaved High Churchies, right? Okay. Let's sign off with a little NT item.
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26) The word "hate" here is miseo, the Greek word for "hate," from which we get the prefix in "misanthropy" and "misogyny." The same writer uses miseo in such verses as: "Blessed are ye when men shall hate you." (Luke 6:22)
The concept of devaluing your family is reflected by Matthew: "And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:37-38) Why not love your family first? This sounds like something an uneasy dictator would say.
ps. Despite being your kind of Christian, you do not seem to be taking a position on a somewhat burning question suggested by gringovision: Would it be all right for the Baby Jesus to have two Mommies?
Posted by: gringoman | Thursday, November 30, 2006 at 11:27 AM
"But who wants to play this tiresome game of cherry-picking quotations, citing King James chapter and Wiki verse, all for the sake of one's boring agenda? Isn't it a pastime more suited for babes and sucklings?"
Not at all... and you will note that my quote was New Testament, and the actual words of Jesus Christ.
You will note that with few exceptions, while claiming to be Christians, evangelical fundamentalists rely on the fear of God, frequently citing Old Testament quotations.
The New Testament, and Christ's teachings were really quite a new deal, and my point was that he was frequently in confrontation with the religious and political "authority figures".
Now, Protestants, by and large are in rebellion from the authoritarian Catholic Church... however, the worst among them simply created their own authoritarian basis for governenance based on charismatic preaching... literally worshipping the "sales pitch" and the art there of, and frankly are extremely weak theologically, not even comprehending why their reliance on Sola Scriptura is itself a major error... interestingly they ended up extemely fractured and more authoritarian and cult-like than the Catholics ever dreamed of being. (I'm not talking about Protestants like typical Lutherans and Episcopalians here).
Deuteronomy
n : the fifth book of the Old Testament; contains a second statement of Mosaic Law [syn: Deuteronomy, Book of Deuteronomy]
Regarding jawbones and asses, we would find that in Judges.
Book of Judges
n : a book of the Old Testament that tells the history of Israel under the leaders known as judges [syn: Judges, Book of Judges]
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Thursday, November 30, 2006 at 04:08 AM
"Too bad the story of the nativity is not the "true" inspiration behind the holiday."
Did anybody tell Dan Brown?
Except December 25th is as good a guess as any. And that date can be traced back to the earliest Christians--their attempts to figure out the date of Jesus’ birth based on calendrical calculations that had nothing to do with pagan festivals. "The idea that the date was taken from the pagans goes back to two scholars from the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Paul Ernst Jablonski, a German Protestant, wished to show that the celebration of Christ’s birth on December 25th was one of the many “paganizations” of Christianity that the Church of the fourth century embraced, as one of many “degenerations” that transformed pure apostolic Christianity into Catholicism. Dom Jean Hardouin, a Benedictine monk, tried to show that the Catholic Church adopted pagan festivals for Christian purposes without paganizing the gospel." Calculating Christmas, http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-10-012-v
It's an interesting one-page read for anyone interested. The early calculation of December 25th stems from the concept of “integral age” of the great Jewish prophets: the idea that the prophets of Israel died on the same dates as their birth or conception.(same source, ibid.) So it's really a back calculation from their assigned date of March 25th for Jesus's death(March 25th plus nine months equals December 25th). Some 1st- and 2nd-century Christians may have gone with birth option(of birth or conception choices) and celebrated Jesus's birth on March 25th.
Posted by: Darrell | Thursday, November 30, 2006 at 12:27 AM
So it was the jawbone of an ass?
Posted by: Darrell | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 11:55 PM
GD,
I'll bet you know this one too:
"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them; Then shall his father and mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of the city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
But who wants to play this tiresome game of cherry-picking quotations, citing King James chapter and Wiki verse, all for the sake of one's boring agenda? Isn't it a pastime more suited for babes and sucklings?
So I'll resist the temptation to stone you with other selected cherries from the New Testament.
Funny, whenever you're holding forth on Christianity, or throwing scripture at us like The Nation's version of Preacher Man, I sense someone who really thinks about Mary and Joseph. The questioning. The wondering. Possibly even a touch of progressive angst. And then the very important question, a really big one, pushing the theological envelope....
"But why couldn't the Baby Jesus have two Mommies?"
Posted by: gringoman | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 11:47 PM
Alexandra- Thanks for the update on Kenny. 8 kids! Keeping up with our one (plus job, household/repair chores, dog/cat duties, etc.) fills all my time (except for reading this blog). Happy Holidays to him and to all. Shalom, Mac Brachman
Posted by: mac Brachman | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 11:26 PM
"In other words, as elite Christians, GD and this exalted feminista have proudly jumped out of the Bible Belt and apparently into another commonwealth---the State of Sterility."
Wow gringoman... that is really weird.
Christ was quite the social, religious and political liberal... you'll note that the majority of His friction was with the Pharisees... you know, the legalistic, self-aggrandizing, sanctimonious harlequins delivering daily ostentatious displays of piety, but no authentic spirituality. (Sound familiar? Go check out the Evangelical Fundamentalist Megachurches).
I think those Christians who believe in Liberalism as a political and governmental model can do quite effective theological battle with the so called "christians" who hope to impose their sectarian views on the Nation and world.
And, by the way, secularism is not a competing religion... it is a constituent of political and governmental philosophy that allows for various religions to be practiced peacefully within a constitutional framework.
5:20 For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
5:21 You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.
5:22 But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
THE HOLY GOSPEL OF
JESUS CHRIST
ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW
Also:
15:7 Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying:
15:8 This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me.
15:9 And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men".
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 06:59 PM
For some reason, GD's version of Christianity, so willing to manipulate the Church/State so-called issue like the ACLU and globoLefty---as opposed to the Jerry Falwell righties---want it manipulated, reminds me of a strange woman. I refer to the eminent Episcopalian feminite, Katherine Jefferts Schon. Mark Steyn hangs her on the wall of his recent column:
Which brings me to our second Jill: the new Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, the first woman to run a national division of the Anglican Communion. Bishop Kate gave an interview to the New York Times revealing what passes for orthodoxy in this most flexible of faiths. She was asked a simple enough question: "How many members of the Episcopal Church are there?"
"About 2.2 million," replied the presiding bishop. "It used to be larger percentage-wise, but Episcopalians tend to be better educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than other denominations."
This was a bit of a jaw-dropper even for a New York Times hackette, so, with vague memories of God saying something about going forth and multiplying floating around the back of her head, a bewildered Deborah Solomon said: "Episcopalians aren't interested in replenishing their ranks by having children?".....
Steyn continues....
The fertility rate in the Gaza Strip is one of the highest on earth. If you measure the births of the Muslim world against the dearth of Bishop Kate's Episcopalians, you have the perfect snapshot of why there is no "stability": With every passing month, there are more Muslims and fewer Episcopalians, and the Muslims export their manpower to Europe and other depopulating outposts of the West. It's the intersection of demography and Islamism that makes time a luxury we can't afford.
Incidentally, this is not to cast any aspersion on GD's gender,or sexual orientation---whatever that or these may be. These matters are and should remain private. But he and this Bishop Kate do seem to share a common sense of "tolerance" and "education" and "understanding" that helps maintain their superiority to what they see as the Republicans' "breeding boobs." In other words, as elite Christians, GD and this exalted feminista have proudly jumped out of the Bible Belt and apparently into another commonwealth---the State of Sterility.
gringovision
Escaping Politically Correct
Posted by: gringoman | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 05:42 PM
Oh... and Darrell... again I will say that Christians are not persecuted in America... it is a chimera argument... a straw man... it doesn't exist. If you feel persecuted, I would, if I were you, examine my own perspective. You do want your Jewish and Islamic friends to have a nice Holiday Season, don't you?
And feel feel free to wish everybody Merry Christmas, ok? It is ok you know... this is America, and I haven't heard of any Christians being the object of any pogroms lately.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 05:15 PM
Darrell, the statement had two parts. 1. The quote by ADL referencing the Pope's involvement with the NAZI Youth, and referencing the Pope's statements on Christmas of 2000 establishes there was a problem... that the ADL is aware and sensitive to it, and that the Pope acknowledged it.
Part 2 was a demonstration of how a rightest political organization, specifically the NAZI Party, manipulated religious iconography and even the Pope at the time to legitimize itself and its anti-semitic rhetoric and policies.
The two parts were addressing the issue of Church-State separation, and I am for it, being an American and all.
Sorry you couldn't follow that.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 05:06 PM
"It was from the Antidefamation League Darrell, not the ACLU... and once again you missed the point."
Yes, it was the ADL. Shame on them. And shame on me for not wanting to spend a nanosecond longer on your words than I have to. You mentioned the ACLU and the ADL as champions of trying to promote the separation of church and state in order to avoid the problem of the past, and yet chose an example that does not illustrate such a problem. Ratzinger was fourteen at the time and not part of the clergy of any religious organization, nor an employee of any government: Hitler Youth was not a Christian program by any stretch of the imagination. But that still doesn't exonerate you for choosing to quote it here. What is your excuse? Once you know that membership in the Hitler Youth was compulsory, only someone trying to deceive would bring it up to begin with.
How can my comment lack substance when I use direct quotes and show pictures?
If your comment doesn't represent the truth-- only lies, half-truths and distortions-- then it doesn't matter how many quotes and pictures you show. If you "welcome" a new leader by casting aspersions, when the facts are exculpatory and should remove that point forever more from any serious intellectual discussions. Pravda and Izvestia had picture and quotes, but still lacked substance as purveyors of the truth. Everything within their pages promoted an agenda, as do your words. That why you only quote left-leaning sources to "present" your truths. Sources that twist and distort everything to fit their agenda. And their vision of a "truth" that is far removed from reality.
More than trying to separate church and state, you are trying to separate Christianity from the American culture. Why would people try and ban Christmas themes from nongovernmental entities like stores or private property? Or noncompulsary Christmas pagents at schools. Or greetings by regular citizens in the street. Where were the Democrats when these issues came up? On the side of those pursuing the bans, if not leading them. Shame on them. Go ahead and have seminars teaching Democrat hopefuls how to PRESENT an image of religious values, without actually having them. Or exercising them. That will fool the American people! And promote the religion of the Left. When is THAT going to be separated from the state and its institutions, including our schools?
Posted by: Darrell | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 01:22 PM
It was from the Antidefamation League Darrell, not the ACLU... and once again you missed the point.
http://www.adl.org/
How can my comment lack substance when I use direct quotes and show pictures?
Substance isn't all about accurately repeating Republican Party mantras and solidifying wedge issues. Christians are not being persecuted in America. America was founded on principles intended to allow maximum liberty to ALL individuals, and the practice of any religion that does not infringe on the rights of others.
When I say "Happy Holidays", I mean, "Happy Holidays" and not "Merry Christmas". When stores and other mercentile establishments say "Happy Holidays", they do so to get everybody's business.
The packaging of the "Christ in Christmas" issue is a political wedge campaign... nothing more, nothing less. My previous post demonstrated how religious iconography can be manipulated for the most nefarious purposes, and indicated that the concept of separating Church and State is tantamount to true Divine Inspiration.
Here are some excerpts from a book with which I agree...
"SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
.
Read them again.
Those sixteen words, inspired by Thomas Jefferson and written by James Madison, represent both America's greatest invention and her greatest strength. They establish the only thing really new in the United States Constitution: the separation of church and state.
Despite all its monarchial faults, Great Britain had already introduced a limited executive, a bicameral legislature, and three distinct branches of government, each operating within a system of checks and balances. What was original to the Constitution--what constituted our unique American experiment--was a ban on any official state religion: keeping the state out of the church's business and, just as important, keeping the church out of the state's business. It is our gift to the civilized world.
Before going any further, an important clarification: I am not, as some will no doubt charge, advocating a "naked public square"--where all religious expression is muzzled.
Religion, in fact, has influenced public decision making from the very foundation of this nation--usually, for the better. The strong faith of our Founding Fathers had a profound impact on the new system of governance they built. Their moral character helped make the American Revolution far different from the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution.
And I admit that Democratic presidents, too, have often blurred the line between religion and politics. Franklin Roosevelt shocked and angered many Protestant leaders by giving Myron C. Taylor ambassadorial status as his personal representative to the Vatican and by naming New York's Cardinal Francis J. Spellman military vicar of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Indeed, it was President Clinton, not President Bush, who first proposed handing out federal funds to faith-based institutions. The welfare bill he signed in 1996 contained a "charitable choice" provision enabling religious congregations to receive public funds for programs like job training, counseling, and day care. And, wouldn't you know it, the first governor to take advantage of the new Clinton money was Texas's own George W. Bush. As part of their presidential campaign in 2000, Al Gore and Joe Lieberman promised to expand Clinton's own "faith-based initiative." And no modern candidate used more God-talk in his speeches than Lieberman.
So religion has always been part of American politics, on both sides of the aisle. But never before has there been such pressure to merge the two--or, in effect, make politics a subset of religion, and religion a subset of politics.
In fact, tearing down the First Amendment's historic wall of separation between church and state is the express aim of religious conservatives today, and they make no bones about it. After an October 2004 meeting with President Bush, Philadelphia's Cardinal Justin Rigali issued a statement deploring "separation of church and state" as "a misinterpretation of the Constitution."
He's joined by virtually all leading evangelical ministers. Dr. James Dobson derides "the wall that never was." Televangelist D. James Kennedy urges razing the "diabolical wall of separation that has led to increasing secularization, godlessness, immorality and corruption in our country." For his part, Pat Robertson sees separation as something far more sinister, foisted on us by atheistic Communists of the Evil Empire. In 1982, he told the Senate Judiciary Committee:
We often hear of the constitutionally mandated "separation of church and state." Of course, as you know, that phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. . . . We do find this phrase in the constitution of another nation, however . . . that of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics--an atheistic nation sworn to the destruction of the United States of America.
As Robert Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State points out in his book Why the Religious Right Is Wrong, the modern Soviet constitution was written in 1947. Jefferson first used the phrase "wall of separation of church and state" in 1802. So, the idea that we got it from them is patently absurd.
Robertson's confusion notwithstanding, in the end it's left to the Reverend Jerry Falwell, as he does on most issues, to lead evangelicals in the wrong direction. By upholding separation of church and state, he says, Supreme Court justices "have raped the Constitution and raped the Christian faith and raped the churches." Of the most outstanding contribution of our Founding Fathers, Falwell writes: "The idea of separation of Church and State was invented by the devil to keep Christians from running their own country."
Close your eyes and you'd swear it was not Falwell or Robertson speaking, but Elmer Gantry. In the film based on Sinclair Lewis's classic 1927 novel, Burt Lancaster, playing the hellfire preacher, says the ultimate goal of fundamentalists is ". . . a crusade for complete morality and the domination of the Christian church through all the land." He thunders: "Dear Lord, thy work is but begun! We shall yet make these United States a moral nation!""
As I said... the issue of "Christ and Christmas" is a political campaign solidifying a wedge issue that the Republican Party has mined for a number of years. The true message of Christ is tolerance... not intolerance... and separation of Church and State allows everyone to practice their tolerance... their true Christianity. Devising a governmental structure with checks and balances such that no power block can easily dominate was the genius of the American forefathers who, rather than religious zealotry of any kind, went to great lengths to not repeat the bitter lessons of the past with respect to religion.
Excerpts from:
"How the Republicans Stole Christmas: The Republican Party's Declared Monopoly on Religion and What Democrats Can Do to Take It Back", by Bill Press
http://www.powells.com/biblio?show=0385516053&page=excerpt
See also the December issue of Harper's Magazine:
"Through a Glass, Darkly: How the Christian Right Is Reimagining U.S. History", By Jeff Sharlet
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 07:06 AM
Mac,
Kenny has been inundated and not able to post anything for a while. Life tends to get in the way at this time of the year, and he is blessed with 8 children!
Posted by: Alexandra | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 01:50 AM
As usual Ghost, your comments lack substance.
Just curious... How did you die? Right now I am thinking you were struck by the jawbone of an ass. Am I close?
"Though as a teenager he was a member of the Hitler Youth, all his life Cardinal Ratzinger has atoned for the fact..." Well, that's very big of you, ACLU (and Ghost)! Except he had nothing to "atone for" since membership was required by law (since December 1936) and the lad had no choice, being automatically enrolled on his fourteenth birthday in 1941. No choice, but the one he chose--not to participate. Maybe next time, he will choose his country of birth more carefully. His father, by the way, was a bitter enemy of Nazism. In 1941, one of Ratzinger's cousins, a child with Down syndrome, was killed by the Nazi regime in its campaign of eugenics.
Posted by: Darrell | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at 01:19 AM
Too bad the story of the nativity is not the "true" inspiration behind the holiday.
http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p235.html
Jesus may even have been born in the spring http://www.geocities.com/glory_ark/springbirth.html
But, it is a great STORY. I'm sure it'll make somebody a lot of money.
Posted by: Gary | Tuesday, November 28, 2006 at 11:52 PM
Hi mac Brachman... always enjoy your comments as well. As usual, I will say a few good words for Liberalism, Secularism... ensuring freedom of, and from Religion... what a hard job it is... how sometimes great motivations are misplaced and overreactions are enjoyed by all.
Well, a couple impressions... once again we had to "dig" awfully hard to find this moment in which the Christian majority are allegedly "oppressed" once again by secular culture. And it is only a certain sect of "christianity" that seems to feel the need to be persecuted... not the majority... I certainly don't feel persecuted, and for most around me who make "Merry Christmas" a big issue, it is more about political shorthand than religious virtue. The mighty Republican Party has made itself out to be the "savior" of Christianity in America... because it gets votes from a particular block of voters.
I would like to point out, however, that the pursuit of Liberal secularism, and some of the zealotry involved with the removal of religious iconography from public places in America received a big boost from the historical autopsy of post-WW II Europe. And, organizations such as the ACLU, as well as the Antidefamation League from time to time have made reference to the problems of certain past practices with respect to the facilitation of religious persecution and the legitimization of bigotry.
A few examples:
Anti-Defamation League Welcomes Election of Cardinal Ratzinger As New Pope
4/19/2005 2:56:00 PM
..."Having lived through World War II, Cardinal Ratzinger has great sensitivity to Jewish history and the Holocaust. He has shown this sensitivity countless times, in meetings with Jewish leadership and in important statements condemning anti-Semitism and expressing profound sorrow for the Holocaust. We remember with great appreciation his Christmas reflections on December 29, 2000, when he memorably expressed remorse for the anti-Jewish attitudes that persisted through history, leading to "deplorable acts of violence" and the Holocaust. Cardinal Ratzinger said: "Even if the most recent, loathsome experience of the Shoah (Holocaust) was perpetrated in the name of an anti-Christian ideology, which tried to strike the Christian faith at its Abrahamic roots in the people of Israel, it cannot be denied that a certain insufficient resistance to this atrocity on the part of Christians can be explained by an inherited anti-Judaism present in the hearts of not a few Christians."
Though as a teenager he was a member of the Hitler Youth, all his life Cardinal Ratzinger has atoned for the fact. In our years of working on improving Catholic-Jewish ties, ADL has had opportunities to work with Cardinal Ratzinger. We look forward to continuing that relationship."...
Also,
The following page the introduction says:
"The following photos provide a pictorial glimpse of Hitler, how his Nazis mixed religion with government, and the support for Hitler by the Protestant and Catholic Churches in Germany. In, no way, does this gallery of photos intend to support Nazism or anti-Semitism, but instead, intends to warn against them."
http://nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
Featuring:
Hitler With Whip (acting like 'Jesus')
Hitler's close friend, Dietrich Eckart, told of overhearing Hitler showing off to a lady by denouncing Berlin in extravagant terms: ". . . the luxury, the perversion, the iniquity, the wanton display and the Jewish materialism disgusted me so thoroughly that I was almost beside myself. I nearly imagined myself to be Jesus Christ when he came to his Father's Temple and found the money changers." Eckart described Hitler as "brandishing his whip and exclaimed that it was his mission to descend upon the capital like a Christ and scourge the corrupt."
And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables.
--John 2:14-15
Also pictures:
"Hitler at Nazi party rally
Note the "Church of our Lady" in the background as if it represented the foundation of the party. Photo taken in Nuremberg, Germany (circa 1928).
Church & State
Hitler in front of "Church of our Lady" in Nuremberg, Sept. 1934. Photographer, Heinrich Hoffmann.
The Concordat between the Vatican and the Nazis
Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli (later to become Pope Pius XII) signs the Concordat between Nazi Germany and the Vatican at a formal ceremony in Rome on 20 July 1933. Nazi Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen sits at the left, Pacelli in the middle, and the Rudolf Buttmann sits at the right.
The Concordat effectively legitimized Hitler and the Nazi government to the eyes of Catholicism, Christianity, and the world."
Certainly, anti-Semitism and bigotry was a cultural flaw throughout Europe in the period... However, the Rightest Fascist and Nazi Governments either wrote the book on the political manipulation of religion, or read all the previous books of history and implemented them in a masterful way.
Are people who want to say "Merry Christmas" and go see the "The Nativity" fascists or nazis? Not at all...
However, challenges to public practices of governmental endorsement of religion (however occasionally misguided, as in Alexandra's example for this post) do serve to remind us what a potent pandora's box of unintended consequences can result from mixing politics and religion in America, or anywhere else, for that matter.
For all those for whom it is popular to argue for the "christianization" of the government, I would say that the concept of separating Church and State is in fact the highest of modern divine inspiration, allowing us to practice true Christianity much more fully.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Tuesday, November 28, 2006 at 08:54 PM
This is all about censorship. Censorship is becoming America's favorite past-time. The US gov't (and their corporate friends), already detain protesters, ban books like "America Deceived" America Deceived (book) from Amazon and Wikipedia, and fire 21-year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings. Out of spite alone, this nativity must be seen.
Posted by: Hank G | Tuesday, November 28, 2006 at 07:59 PM
For that matter, where has Kenny P. been lately? Shalom, Mac Brachman
Posted by: mac Brachman | Tuesday, November 28, 2006 at 07:00 PM
GD? Where are you? I don't always agree with you, but I miss your posts just the same. Don't be so ghostly... Shalom, Mac Brachman
Posted by: mac Brachman | Tuesday, November 28, 2006 at 06:58 PM
Glad you are back!
Hope all is well.
Posted by: rich | Tuesday, November 28, 2006 at 06:34 PM
Hamas acknowledges that in about 6 months it will recommence open hostilities with the State of Israel (whatever that means). I am no longer listening to anything coming from the mouths of Muslims or their apologists.
I have grown weary of Muslim grievances. I just wish they would quietly disappear so I can get on with the business of helping people who really need our help. I have had it with the whining and seething, the bruised vanity and all-too-fragile pride of Islam (both of which in themselves are a sin), the demands for an ever larger slice of their already-too-big economic pie.
God deliver us from the slobbering and drooling Islamic masses.
Posted by: Crusader.NoRegrets. | Tuesday, November 28, 2006 at 03:28 PM
So the City of Chicago does not want to sponsor the Christkindlemarket festival while "The Nativity Story" is a sponsor.
Do any of these idiots reflect on the fact that Christkindle is German for "Birth of Christ"?
Posted by: PapaBear | Tuesday, November 28, 2006 at 09:11 AM
UPDATE: The Nativity Story is not welcome in the 'politically correct' city of Chicago. But for us, the eternally politically incorrect, like my friend The Anchoress, we are very much looking forward to seeing it...
Posted by: Alexandra | Tuesday, November 28, 2006 at 12:15 AM
seejanemom,
This confused land needs Christian women who understand the difference between winning the peace and whining the peace. At this time of year does even the Pope make a distinction? Understandably, you tried to clear the air and promote moral clarity ---at the supermarket check-out line, was it?--- when you told the Bush-bashing peacenik to "shut his friggin' piehole."
That was a yuletide laugh (whether he shut it or not.)
Posted by: gringoman | Monday, November 27, 2006 at 11:49 PM
Slow is the tide that will change the torrential storm of secular progressivism in our culture today. But it WILL change.
Until then, I'll just replay The Waltons and Little House DVDs. The kids don't know the difference.
Posted by: seejanemom | Monday, November 27, 2006 at 01:58 PM