Fallen Heroes

Over the last few months, when my brother and I have gotten together we've been renting the "Twilight" movies and syncing them with RiffTraxx, which is a humorous voice-over commentary ripping on a given movie. Having heard the "Twilight" riffs were hilarious, we decided it was the ONLY way to watch the series of movies, and of course, we split our sides doing so.

Understand that the viewer controls the volume of the actual movie, and it's important to be able to hear the lines as often the commentary references them. So it was that yes, I watched the Twilight movies (well, through "Eclipse" and observed a few patterns that sadden me.

Initially, I wondered what the draw was on this particular series. While I don't mind the fictional premise, the way it plays out is surprisingly overly-emo and totally...depressing. Yes, really. We got to the end of the second movie and thought it both went on for WAY too long and quite honestly, if I'd been watching it without RiffTraxx I might well have hung myself by the end. (Yes, this is hyperbole!)

Having watched three of them now, though, I considered the patterns. What is the draw of these angst-filled, dark, depressing, overly-emo movies?

The answer came to me at Adoration yesterday and  perhaps more fully this morning at Mass, on the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. It seems odd, doesn't it, to have such a weird Epiphany on such a Holy day in such a Holy season, doesn't it? At the same time, that is how Christ comes to us; in the darkness, in our struggles, as we ponder the profoundly wounded part of our human nature; the nature Jesus took on to restore and glorify.

Bella, the protagonist of the Twilight series, is a teenage girl who happens to be "in love with" an animated corpse and his corpse family (Yeah, they're vampires, but they are non-living ergo, they are corpses and not human any longer), and this corpse is "in love" with her, while at the same time, so is a Werewolf. And "poor Bella" is for some inexplicable reason at the center of everything and constantly being rescued by the Vampire and Werewolf families who are always having to protect her...even dying to do so. And they won't let her participate much in her own salvation. She's supposed to just go along for the ride, and while she's unconscious or bleeding again or sleeping because she nearly died of hypothermia out of pure stupidity (as portrayed by the movie), we are subject to long monologues and dialogues and much pontificating over who loves her the most and who is best for her...etc etc etc. It goes on and on and gets to be quite tiresome.

Now..I get it. There's a wounded heroine in Bella that calls to the wounded depths in many of us, which makes sense; we as humanity are wounded. Bella is young, vulnerable, and for some reason, an object of desire. She yearns for eternal love, and this is true of all of us. We were all created to love and to be loved by God for eternity.

Yet as usual, "love" is misunderstood. Too often "love" is shown to be so one-dimensional, something for self-fulfillment, perhaps something that calls for a little sacrifice...but only a little. Nothing too painful but then again, that's ok when there's a weird hero there to save the day.

And what weird heroes start to appear in fiction and even real life when "love" is so badly warped as it is in our society. A vampire as one's true love and hero? A Werewolf to carry and comfort one? How does that work?

Objective Salvation - the Truest Hero

This morning at Mass I pondered the Crucifix and the humility of Christ, who entered the world in the same way He left it: through a cave. He came humbly, born into the filth of animal dung and laid in a container marked with the saliva of camels, sheep, and oxen. He came quietly for no one wanted Him then, He came to die even for those who did not believe and did not care or know that He ever existed, and He left the world as a criminal, accursed.

And yet, Jesus entered human history "in the fullness of time", entered into our suffering in all ways except sin, for it was our sins He came to redeem. It was our suffering He dignified and called us to unite with His own, which He suffered entirely on our behalf. Jesus comes to us silently and does not "rescue" us in Hollywood Drama, but lifts us up to the supernatural level that does not render us dead or mutated, but rather, makes us fully human and fully alive - for eternity.  

The world desires heroes with great film presence and lofty lists of triumphs against dubious enemies. The world desires heroes that transform  us but - into something non-human. The world demeans humanity while it pretends to elevate it. The world wants a hero that will save the "victims" and not require the victim to lift a finger to save herself. And the victim only wants to be saved from a life of mediocrity and elevated to the mere trophy of a hero who really isn't that heroic. And in the case of Twilight, the hero is, respectively, a blood-sucking corpse living eternal death, and an apparently-stinky guy who turns into a large canine at will. The heroes in such fiction are fallen and yes, perhaps there is a draw there, as well, for we have been conditioned to believe man cannot be perfected and cannot be saved.

In so many ways, every day I look around me, observing our culture through our entertainment, world events, daily interactions, and I fear that we, as a culture, throughout the world, have lost hope. It's not just in popular fiction, but in what our culture clearly values. Our "heroes" are actors with addictions and political agendas, and athletes making obnoxious amounts of money while running dog-fighting rings on the side and maybe running over cops just because they can afford the lawyers to get them off the hook for stuff for which a normal citizen would be penalized to the extent of the law and maybe beyond.

Our cultural heroes are all fallen images of the darkest side of human nature. They have no objective morality, nothing that is consistent, nothing that can be measured and nothing anyone would really want to follow...yet they do. The moral relativism of our society reveals a lack of hope.

This morning I gazed upon the crucifix and pondered how it rose out of the wood of the manger, for as the Church Fathers observed and theologians continue to observe, the wood of the manger and wood of the cross are one and the same. They cannot be separated, and our hero has not fallen...He is risen! And when He rose, He descended to the depths of Hell and ascended to open the gates of Heaven, having restored the dignity of human nature, having, freely paid the ransom for we who choose to be victims of sin.

We do not merit so great a Redeemer! 

Jesus does not strut or preen before us, seeking our popular adulation. He simply IS, and He comes to us, truly, substantially, His very Presence, through the Sacraments. He reaches all of our senses and waits for our response. He is a gentleman who, although created us without our permission, will not save us without our cooperation.

In the eyes of Christ, we are no longer victims, but Children of the Father, brothers and sisters, and subject to His Mother who intercedes on our behalf so that we may cooperate with God's grace more completely. That is not to say Jesus did not accomplish all, but rather, that He is more greatly glorified when we reach out to Him and CHOOSE the path of righteousness and holiness. He is glorified more perfectly when we CHOOSE to turn from sin and fight our temptations, growing, deliberately, in virtue. God is glorified when we embrace the virtues He gives us instead of giving into the temptations that seek to destroy us.

God's Grace is freely given, but it's not cheap; it requires our own participation, our own sacrifices, because becoming fully human wasn't one moment in history; it is constant, for all of us. We are pilgrims on this earth, also born into filth and we will never be fully free and fully redeemed until we move from this world and into eternal glory, should we choose to love God with all our hearts, all our souls, and all our strength.

A real hero doesn't leave a wake of victims but elevates and transforms them, making them ever more human and ever more divine, as God always intended.

Thank you, Jesus.

**  *** **

[AUTHOR'S NOTE:  This is not intended to be a review of Twilight or exploration of all themes within the books or movie. The use of Twilight characters is incidental and used to illustrate a far more important point.]

What Do Sin and Belly-Button Lint Have In Common?

Observation 1:

Yesterday I was watching, via Netflix DVD, the 1980's show "Perfect Strangers". 

This probably has to be one of the best comedies ever, and it's so refreshing to actually LAUGH at things that are funny but not in a squirmy "I shouldn't be laughing at this" kind of way.

In any case, Balki, from the mediterranian country of Mypos, was working on a lint painting. He explained to cousin Larry that the legend of its origin had to do with their spiritual leader. The man apparently made a trip to the top of a mountain where he sat staring at his navel for sixty days and sixty nights, and returned to his people with a lint painting.

Seriously, doesn't that make you giggle?

Then I reflected a bit on navel-gazing. Are you ready for my observation?  Here it is:

If you don't navel-gaze on occasion, you'll never find the lint you missed.

Ponder that one for a bit...

Observation 2:

This morning's Divine Office, first reading, was taken from the book of Hosea.

The book itself is startling, expressive, and ultimately redemptive in character, but I always cringe at the names.

The prophet Hosea, at God's direction, took a harlet named Gomer as his wife, and she gave birth to a son. Then the Lord said to him,

Give him the name Jezreel

for in a little while

I will punish the house of Jehu

for the bloodshed at Jezreel

And bring to an end the kingdom

of the house of Israel;

Ugh. Brutal name for the poor infant son!

But wait! There's more!

Gomer gave birth to a daughter, and the Lord ordered Hosea,

"Give her the name Lo-ruhama;

I no longer feel pity for the house of Israel;

rather, I abhor them utterly.

And it even gets worse when Gomer gave birth to another son:

Give him the name of Lo-ammi,

for you are not my people,

and I will not be your God

That's just from today's reading! There's even more!

Although I do love the book of Hosea, which is an allegory expressing the spousal love of God for His Bride, the Church (and what a fallen Bride she is), the names given here cause me to ponder concupiscence, for truly, it is not God who rejects us, but we reject Him. We are the ones telling Him, "We will not be your people and You will not be our God."

That's what sin does.

Sometimes I am very saddened upon the necessary navel-gazing, looking for that lint I missed the last time I went to Confession. But when I really think about it, I am overwhelmed with gratitude that I am not named Gomer, Jezreel, Lo-ruhama or Lo-ammi, or for that matter, Mahershalalhashbaz.

That is all.

** ** **

P.S. You checked your belly-button for lint, didn't you? ;-)

A Que Dedicadas?

There's been a phrase going through my mind all evening (which admittedly wasn't very helpful when trying to take my Canon Law test!).  The phrase is one I learned many years ago while preparing to go to Mexico for a semester.  It's a phrase used by the Mexican people which really highlighted, at least at the time, a huge difference in philosophy between our two countries. 

Here, in the United States, if we meet a new person, we might ask them, "What do you do?"   We are fishing for professional information;  where they work, their history, their 5-year plan.  And they tell us that they're an engineer working for x company, or a nurse working for x hospital or clinic, etc.   And we nod and smile and they ask us the same question right back, prompting us to give a similar answer. 

But the question, in Spanish, was "A que dedicadas?"   meaning, "To what do you dedicate yourself?"

That has an ENTIRELY different connotation and meaning.  

They weren't asking for employment information with that question. Rather, their query would go right to the heart of our humanity:  who are we, really?   

If we were to ask someone here what they DEDICATE themselves to, they might be taken aback, thinking it too intimate a question for a stranger to ask.  And yet, they might just answer, and in that answer, tell us a lot more about themselves in even a shapshot than the employment question could EVER capture.   And it's a wild card - one never knows what the other is going to say. 

I had to wonder, then, if someone asked me that question, what would my answer be? To what DO I dedicate myself?  

The implications of this question are amazing. It can help us do an examination of conscience as we look over our day and what we dedicated our time to doing.  It can help us identify our true passions in life, and perhaps help us gain perspective and direction in determining what's really important.   It can help us realize that maybe we aren't living up to our potential. 

For...if we are honest and admit we don't dedicate ourselves, in the very practical sense, to what we are truly called to be doing, then it means we must make a change.  

Tonight I'm going to go to sleep with this thought.  I know what I OUGHT to be dedicated to, and to whom, but...is my life bearing that out?  Even more deeply, I need to consider what I do dedicate myself to; my truest, most profound decisions, those things that bring me the most joy, those things that lead me closer to God.  

I cannot ask this question outside of the context of the will of God, for in order to become holy, I don't want to do anything outside of His will or anything that will prevent me from cooperating with His grace.  

So, to all of my readers.....to what do YOU dedicate yourself?   ?A que dedicadas?  

Answer if you like....or just ponder...

Inclusive Language and Affirmative Action

Last week I was speaking with a baby boomer who happened to be reading through one of my answers to the questions I had to turn in for class. John Paul II uses the term "man" throughout his works and so I adopted his same terms in order to answer the questions in the proper context and of course, without unweidy extra letters and words.

The woman turned to me as she read it and said, "And by MAN it also means WOMAN, right?" She nudged me conspiratorially and said sotto voce, "We have to update these men!"

I, of course, as typical of me, opened my mouth and gave my immediate opinion: "I HATE inclusive langage."

She was shocked and stared at me as though I were some sort of creature under glass. "Really?!"

I nodded, looking her directly in the eye, my blood already boiling. "Yup. I think it's incredibly offensive, and I'm speaking as an ex-cop and ex-firefighter."

I have always hated inclusive language. I grew up hearing the term "man" as a description of all humanity, and I did not have a problem with it. I remember the song we always used to sing in church, "Let there be peace one earth, and let it begin with me....with God as our Father, Brothers all are we...." was changed to some hokey phrase that, in my opinion, wrecked the meaning of the song. I NEVER felt excluded by the term "brothers" because I had always understood this to mean "brothers and sisters." But when I heard the "inclusive language" I felt EXCLUDED in such a way that apparently attention needed to be drawn to my "difference." It didn't make any sense to me.

Was I just a genius? No, not really. But I do look back and realize that I did have a certain amount of common sense which had not been disrupted by the lowest common denominator.

The understanding of language and context has always come easily to me, so perhaps I should not be so hard on those to whom it does not. But let's be realistic; the use of inclusive langue implies that women are too stupid to understand context and theology.

I compare it to "Affirmative Action" which implies that women and other designated "minorities" are too stupid or unqualified to get certain jobs. While Affirmative Action hasn't been all bad, it does get to a point where the goals it sought to meet have changed and in fact, are no longer needed in some places. I have come to loathe the term and the use of it. Why, you may ask?

Because, as I stated, it implies that I, as a woman, cannot possibly qualify for some things without something to help me do so. Inclusive language is the same thing. Not only does it change meanings of things, it's unweildy and insulting, and by its use, it sets apart those it professes to "include".

When I was first getting into Law Enforcement, I worked my butt off, knowing that I had a lot to overcome. At skills training, I put in extra time in the gym, I paid attention in class, and truth be told, I excelled both academically and physically. I actually take great pride in the fact that I did very well physically, far exceeding the "passing" requirements on the physical tests, especially considering that most of it catered to tall people and things that came easily to most men. I learned to adapt (some things with the help of my male counterparts), and for those things I could not seem to find a technique to overcome I worked extra hard to obtain the required strength. And to be fair, the skills program I went to actually had some standards that were more stringent for women, in recognition of the differences in the female body and thus our abilities for certain tasks.

I have constantly met people who claimed that I only got into skills, or, when I was done with my formal education, got hired as a cop because of "Affirmative Action."

All I can say to those people is a very uncharitable "Bite me!"

I worked HARD to prove to myself and to the world that I could do the job; and considering that I was then and am still only 5'3", and managed to not only compete with but beat many of the men in my class...take that "benefit" of Affirmative Action and stuff it where the sun don't shine.

(I may remove this post or edit this later, so read and comment now while it's hot!)

I got really SICK of being told that I only did what I did because of some legislative BS. It was a complete denial of the reality of the hard work I put in to legitimately qualify for every goal I sought. I did it on my own merit, on the network of references that I built through solid work ethic, and of course, by the grace of God.

Maybe some women are comfortable with the idea of coasting along on some kind of legislation that permitted laziness and lawsuits for alleged "discrimination." I knew some women like that and I did my best to distance myself from them. They make all of us look like a bunch of fools. And amazingly, every woman I knew in that particular category was a rabid feminist who couldn't be bothered to put in the extra effort in the gym or with the books or whatever was required to take them out of their myopic navel-gazing worldview.

Then I was hired as a cop and still heard the same old BS from the ignorant; "You only got hired so they could fill a quota."

Is there anything that attacks anyone's professional and personal dignity more than such an idea?

Move on to firefighting; I've also run into a bunch of ignoramuses who suggested that women in firefighting can't do the job because they don't have to work as hard in training.

WHAT!?

Yeah, I gave those people an earful, too. (I used to cuss like a sailor and I didn't hold back when provoked. I'm not proud of it but it DID make people think twice before saying such inflammatory things.)

The reality is this; women CAN do the job, and admittedly, it comes a lot easier to men because men are built for it. But they suffer for the job, too. I can give you lists of names of men who have wrecked their knees, their shoulders (shoulder injuries are common to firefighters and can be very debilitating), their lungs, hearing, etc. No one is made for that job, but it is necessary and we should thank those who do it, men and women both. The fact is that although women can do the job, we have to work THREE TIMES AS HARD as men in order to do it, and our bodies really are't built to take that kind of physical stress.

In my early days on the job, I ran into one of the first women hired by the department. She told me to get promoted as soon as possible and get off the rigs; she explained that her body was worn out, she had worked hard for nearly 20 years to keep it up, and she'd been quite the feminist, but finally, she had to realize that she couldn't do it anymore because she'd never been designed that way. She couldn't seem to get the politics to get promoted off the rig so she worked for the "cushiest" possible job in the station, that of Fire Motor Operator (FMO), and was counting down the days to retirement while praying to get through the next physical checkup. She needed the pension she'd worked so hard to earn and was so close!

Radical feminism has done nothing more than destroy women; it's destroyed our bodies, it's destroyed our hearts, its destroyed our consciences. It's introduced trash such as inclusive language in an attempt to also destroy our intellect.

So we come full circle, don't we?

Let me be clear; I'm a feminist. I do believe that women can and should have the same opportunities as men in most cases. Yet that does not mean that I have checked my brain at the door. I know that when the Bible says "man" it also includes "woman" in the plan of salvation. No one needs to spell that out to me. The context is there and the inherent dignity we all have is written not only into the pages, but upon our hearts and souls.

If we look at other languages, we see that inclusivity isn't even a part of their culture. Apparently only Americans or other English-speakers are dumb enough not to understand actual context.

In Spanish, the use of -o or -a at the ends of words signifies the genders of the words. Some words are feminine even if applied to men, some words are masculine even if applied to women. And then there is the use of direct objects and words that apply to mixed company. What to do?

Let's take the term: todos. Everyone.

Todas - everyone (applied to a group of females)
Todos - everyone (applied to a group of males)

Todos - applied to a group of mixed men and women.

In Mexico, I never met a woman who was offended to be included in a group referred to as "todos".

The reality is that language by its very nature is already inclusive unless the context excludes a certain group. It does not take a brain surgeon to figure out context.

We do not need inclusive language in the Church; we do not need rabid feminist propaganda to wreck what is not broken. When we women go to Mass, we see images of the women who have gone before us, primarily Mary, our Mother, who paves the way to Jesus Christ. Our femininity is not denied, but is included in the worship and is in fact an integral part the Mystical Body of Christ.

Inclusive language denies our dignity as women by the implication that we have to be set apart. We MUST not be set apart from the whole for it is men and women who complete one another.

And what does Affirmative Action have to do with this? Nothing. I just felt like spouting off about a secular insult to the integrity of women everywhere.

I'm a woman. I get to do that kind of thing. It's in my nature. Deal with it.

The Word is "CHRISTMAS" Say it with me....

This culture is so unbelievably idiotic I'm not sure I can take it anymore, thus today is my long-overdue rant.

People, the word you are looking for is "Christmas". Really. It is a Christian holiday which celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ, our savior. Thus the name "Christian" ie: one who follows Jesus in the belief that he is the Messiah fortold in the Old Testament. The very Son of God, 2nd person of the Trinity. And the word "Christmas"; this is the joining of two words, "Christ" and "Mass". Which is what we Catholics do on that holy day...we go to MASS to celebrate the birth of CHRIST.

Yes, we are aware that December 25th is not Jesus' actual birthday, because we don't really know what time of year he was born. Yes, we realize that pagan religions celebrate the Winter Solstice or "Yule" somewhere around December 21 or 22. Yes, we realize that originally, wreaths were a pagan symbol, but we have commandeered it and redefined the meaning as a representation of our own beliefs in eternity, everlasting life, resurrection, etc., etc.

We also realize that while we have celebrated Christmas on December 25 for centuries, that some joker decided to invent another holidy sometime in the 1960's, but I have actually never met anyone who truely celebrates Kwaanza...they tend to be more focused on their Savior as opposed to their culture, which they celebrate around the calender.

People take note...it is not necessary to avoid saying the word "Christmas" for fear of offending people who don't celebrate it. Such logic is in fact, not logic at all and only caters to the lowest common denominator: that being the small percentage of Atheists who are money-mongering greed hounds only looking to get their sour faces splashed across history, because without that, they believe they will not exist when they die. So they employ the ACLU (Anti-Christian Liberties Union) to bully everyone into submission...all so they can have a photo in a newspaper somewhere.

Most atheists and agnostics probably couldn't care less that Christians celebrate Christmas, and likely just smile on our beliefs with a certain air of enlightened superiority, much as a parent will smile at a child who still believes that fairies dance in circles in the back yard duirng the spring. Or some other childhood fancy. Offended by our beliefs? No, because as far as most of them are concerned, "to each their own."

And then you have other religions that popular thought apparently has tried and condemned of the very intolerance of the misguided souls making these strange decisions. They have determined that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, pagans, neo-pagans, etc., might be offended that the word "Christmas" is used.

What idiocy!

If we Christians were NOT celebrating our beliefs, all of the above listed religions and all others would likely think us quite strange. For what is the point of having a faith if we are not going to celebrate it joyfully and publicly? By not proclaiming our joy at the birth of our Savior, not only are we avoiding doing what Jesus himself told us to do (Go and make disciples of all nations), but we are behaving as though this holy day is something to be ashamed of. Not exactly any kind of testimony to the other religions out there who DO celebrate their faiths and would like to continue to do so.

Muslims are not offended that Christians in America celebrate their beliefs. Jews are known to encourage people to know their own beliefs and to embrace and celebrate them. Buddhists and Hindus just want to be left alone to practice what they believe, whether within our without the public eye. Pagans and Neo-Pagans just want to be left alone as well and tend towards relativism - "do what you will". (That last is a Wiccan precept).

If people are offended that Christians would dare to publicly celebrate their beliefs, this is not indicative of a problem with Christianity...it is a problem with those who have chosen to be offended and further indicative of a problem with narcissism. "I don't like it...thus I am going to destroy everyone else's joy to bring them to my level, thus I will be superior."

Give me a freakin' break.

The news media, the newspapers, businesses, etc., are being so careful to avoid using the word "Christmas" it's actually painful. And I don't think it's my imagination, but even the news anchors seem to be a little strained and have let a few references to "Christmas" slip through. I hope they get to keep their jobs in spite of the "offense" they "might have caused".

Throughout the news in the last couple days have been references to "holidays" with clear contextual references to Christmas alone, not to New Year's. Holiday Lights. Give me a break. The only people putting up lights are people who consider themselves Christian in some way. Thus they are "Christmas Lights". It's perfectly ok to call them that. "Holiday Lights" is a meaningless, inane term which says nothing but "that guy over there might sue me or beat me with a club if I make any reference to Christ".

Holiday shopping. Get real. The stores are not marketing to people who do not celebrate Christmas...they are marketing to the main population of the United States, because THE MAJORITY celebrate Christmas and are shopping for gifts for their loved ones. Let's call it what it is; CHRISTMAS SHOPPING.

If someone who does not celebrate Christmas happens to go to the store, they are not being forced to purchase gifts or observe our Holy Day. They can feel free to disregard the hoopla, and you know what? We Christians don't care, either. We do not expect people who don't share our beliefs to celebrate with us, although they are certainly welcome to do so. If that person is offended, that's their problem.

What's amazing is that this careful avoidance of actual reference to the Holy Day Christians celebrate is not carried over to the other holidays of the year, but I can name a few that perhaps should be modified, if we use the dominant lack of logic that dictates public policy:

* Valentine's Day. Perhaps we should change the name or subdue the marketing because this holiday can be extremely difficult for those who may be widowed, or too young to understand what romantic love is, or diabetics who can't have all the sugary treats peppered throughout the stores and sitting out in candy dishes. Or what about singles? Perhaps singles will be offended by such "in your face" focus on happy couples because maybe they are ugly or misfits or will never find their true love. So let's be sure that they are taken into consideration. Or what about those who are unhappily married, seperated, or divorced? Doesn't Valentine's Day just rub salt in the wound? How awful that we dare to celebrate such a day.



* July 4- Independence Day: Yup. With all the patriotic and nationalistic red, white, and blue, flags waving, children's faces painted, fireworks, etc., this holidy should be squashed, too. It might be offensive to immigrants who are unhappy with our current immigration system and their sympathizers. Or offensive to Democrats...for obvious reasons. Or it might be offensive to people who were in wars in the past and suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder...those fireworks could send them sailing in fear! Or what about people who are just visiting the United States? Perhaps our celebrations are an affront to their own national pride, and we can't take the chance of offending tourists, can we?

* Labor Day. Oh, yeah. What an offense against the people on Disability who can't work, or people who have chosen to live in welfare? (Yes, I'm serious) Or what about people who have been laid off, or fired? How DARE we celebrate and honor workers?


* Veteren's Day. Oy, what a holiday that calls the Dems to task! Can't offend the Dems! And those who were rejected from military service for some reason and never had the opportunity to follow their grandfather's footsteps into Veteranhood. We can't offend those people, either. Or those who don't know anyone in the military services. Doesn't this holidy just leave them out on the fringes? We must have holidays that can include everyone.


What IDIOCY! Yet this is the dominant thought in our culture, and we expose the ridiculousness of it when comparing what they do to Christmas to other holidays. There is a clear double-standard here which applies only to Christians and our celebrations.

So let's stop being a bunch of wusses, lift up our heads, our hearts, and our voices, and proclaim from the rooftops that we are celebrating the very birth of Jesus Christ and take the world to task! We have been COMMANDED to Go, and make disciples of all nations, and we are failing miserably because a few bullies have claimed that people they know nothing about may be offended at the expression of our joy in the birth of Jesus Christ.

Jesus did not come to bring peace and goodwill without effort, and in fact, he was quite a revolutionary. He ticked off a lot of people...and died a horrible death because if it. If we are going to allow ourselves to be beaten into submission over a few legal threats, then we don't deserve to call ourslves "followers of Christ." Let's get a backbone and remember what December 25th is really about, and stop being so hesitant to announce it to the world!