It's Christmas -- time to mock the Christians
Posted December 14, 2006
If I wanted to win friends and influence people, I would think long and hard before belittling the nation's majority religion during its holiest season. But every year, without fail, writers launch cheap shots against Christianity -- mocking devout Christians as they celebrate the birth of their Lord.
Newsweek religion writer Lisa Miller's Dec. 18 cover story is one such example. "The World of the Nativity" starts with a groundbreaking discovery: Jesus was conceived out of wedlock and there are nagging doubts about the child's paternity.
Here's the lead: "Sometime around the beginning of the Common Era, a nice Jewish girl comes to her fiance with a problem. She is pregnant; he is not the father... Her explanation, that the baby was conceived by God, must have sounded implausible, desperate, even insane."
Newsweek doesn't buy Mary's explanation for a minute, of course. It also rejects the datekeeping system (B.C./A.D.) that most of us use. And the Bible? What a crock... "On close inspection, the details of the Nativity don't add up particularly well," Newsweek declares. "The birth narrative appears in just two of the four Gospels, Matthew and Luke, and they differ a great deal..."
But Miller's story looks like a puff piece compared to what appeared on our Christmas Eve editorial pages today.
Titled "Jolly Santa has more appeal than Jesus" Ric N. Caric claims in a lengthy op-ed that "the Jesus story is becoming increasingly less attractive and plausible." Caric, a Morehead State University government professor, writes:
"Why have a god who needs and wants to be loved so much that he makes loving him the first law for humanity? Why have a god who cooks up the unlikely plan of tearing his substance apart to create a son who is man and god all in one?
Why make the gruesome sacrifice of that son into the key evidence of the god's love for humanity and belief in that sacrifice humankind's only hope for escaping an eternity of suffering?
Just as there's a big element of masochism in God's sending his son to suffer as evidence of his love, there is a great deal of sadism in God's throwing into the flames of hell anybody who doesn't return his love by believing the whole implausible story.
We have a right to hope for better in our gods."
According to Caric, Jesus is a jerk. Santa, on the other hand, "is one of the few white European figures who translates easily into other cultures," Caric writes.
Perhaps there are readers who enjoy December "Christians are Stupid" editorials , who look forward to the "Experts doubt Jesus rose from the dead" Easter exposes. Maybe there's a market for "Abraham May Not Have Existed" Yom Kippur articles or "Scholars say Muhammad was Sexist" Ramadan centerpieces.
Personally, I prefer not to poke people in the eye -- especially on their high holy days. I'd love to hear what you think.
Archived Comments
Without getting too explicit, one would imagine that at some point, Mary was "physically inspected" to test her story, and there must have been physical evidence that she had been with no man. Otherwise, nobody would have believed her story.
But that's not the point of the original piece, of course. It's intent is to bash, not to examine honestly.
What was available then was trust, Joseph loved and trusted Mary, thank God for that. Really looking at what people write, is it a reflection of themselves and their beliefs simply because of a lack of faith. Could it be , in the media, conflict sells. Remember, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
As I think you might have guessed by now, I'm of the "Poke 'em in the eye" school. First off, every religion has its share of stories that no reasonable person would ever even consider believing outside the context of their faith. And it's valid to point out the absurdity of taking these stories literally, especially given how much prostletyzing fundamentalists do.
If someone gets offended by some ridicule, too bad. I think it says more about the fragility of their faith than it does about the appropriateness of the critique.
I'd actually prefer a god who resembles a college professor.
I'm inclined to agree with perplexed on this one--but just think for a moment, what would have happened if the journalists of the Riyadh Chronicle or the Mecca Herald-Leader had tried to put on a similar series of articles about the origins of Islam? We're STILL better off with freedom of the press, no matter who gets offended, or who bites (or is too wise to bite) at what bait. As others have pointed out as well, such articles and editorials as these always give concerned Christians a chance to sharpen their apologetics skills.
Who's Ric Caric? And thirty or so years from now, no one will even ask that question. There will always be scoffers as there always have been. It's always struck me as a tad unusual, though, why a scoffer would choose to be a religion writer. If I chose to be a sports writer it would be because I had some interest in sports. I wouldn't bother with it if my sole purpose was to trash the forward pass or the three-point shot. It wouldn't speak very well of me to engage in the pursuit of something I despised.
I think that with all of this mockery of Christmas, that it is time to turn to the Bible and see what it says on the subject...
Amos 5:21-23
21 I hate, I despise your feast days (X-Mas holiday festivities), and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies (the odors of Xmas like eggnog and evergreen trees). 22 Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts (like the gluttonous eatings and drunken ravings of those celebrating Xmas). 23 Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs (Jingle Bells, Santa Claus is Coming to Town, etc); for I will not hear the melody of thy viols (Mormons singing, kids caroling, etc).
Jeremiah 10:2-4
2 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. 3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest (they go pick out a tree), the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe (and they cut it down). 4 They deck it with silver and with gold (lights, tinsel, bells, garland, stars, angels, "ice-cicles", etc); they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
So there you go tree worshipers! GOD HATES CHRISTMAS! And all of you that practice it will go straight to HELL when you die!
Now put that in your hat and smoke it, Bill O'Riely!
I was even more surprised to see my Jesus/Santa op-ed in the Herald-Leader than Frank Lockwood. If Mr. Lockwood thinks about it though, he would have to admit that the best day to publish a Jesus/ Santa comparison would be Christmas Eve.
I did not characterize Jesus as a "jerk" at all. In fact, I viewed the analogy between a lenten, self-sacrificing Jesus and our overly stressed selves with some sympathy.
But I was pretty tough on "God the Father." My underlying question is whether: a. God the Father loves humanity so much that he sacrifices his only son; or b. God needs the love of humanity so much that he sacrifices his only son. My op-ed reflected the opinion that the Christian god "needs" love so much that he monstrously created and sacrificed his son.
A second question informed my thinking for this op-ed as well. That is why a majority of Christians seems to put so much more emphasis on the gift giving and family dimensions of Christmas than the religious-Jesus aspect. I didn't come up with this question myself. Ministers and Christian critics of Christmas have been asking this question as long as I can remember. My own answer to this question--that the core beliefs of Christianity aren't very appealing--may be an unsettling argument at Christmas. However, I do believe it is something that needs to be considered.
God may or may not hate christmas, but it certainly isn't the birthday of Jesus of Nazareth - he was clearly born in a sukkah on the first day of Sukkot in September, as Luke clearly says, and was circumcized on the 8th day of the festival. And if you read Matthew, they were living in a regular house by the time the Magi arrived: the gold, frankencinse and myrrh symbolizing the Temple - the dedication of Chahukkah, not the pagan birthday of the horus/mithras/tammuz or whatever you want to call the sun-god whose day is Dec. 25th during Saturnalia. Every time you look at a mother-and-child icon, you're just seeing the catholic version of the thousands of Ishtar-and-child idols that pre-date christianity by a considerable margin and was incorporated into the theology, along with a lot of other pagan nonsense. That is historical fact, known to scholars, historians, archaeologists, and theologians all over the world. So why not just admit it - christmas is a fraud that promotes class warfare (santa gives good children gifts, therefore poor kids are bad) and hedonism and yes, paganism. God said to "Come out of Babylon" - not to promote it! What would Jesus do? Just what the gospels say he did: Celebrate Sukkot and Chanukkah, not pagan festivals.
God has chosen the foolishness of preaching to confound the wise of this world. The truth of the gospel is foolish to those who are perishing. Our Morehead State U. professor is a case in point. Someone please tell him he is wrong and decieved.
Concerning the verse quoted from Jeremiah 10:2-4. If you read the context of those verses, they are speaking of idols, not decoration. Hence, if a person wanted to worship the Christmas tree, that would be sin. If a person decorates a tree... that’s decoration, not idolatry. Not to mention, I’m pretty sure Jesus was clear in John 3:16 and in John 14:6 that he was the determining factor in eternal life. My relationship with him is the matter at hand, my sin and the evil in the world are what he came to overcome. (Ex. Read the books of Romans and Ephesians.)
All we have to do is look in the Bible and see why all of this is being said. The Bible makes predictions of ridicule, man laying with man and woman with woman. We have taken a view of complacency and said 'free speech'. This country was founded for religious freedom,free speech, right to bear arms, etc. We Christians have taken a backseat on our religious views, and let 'politically correct' speak for us. Don't let complacency speak for you. Speak for yourself!! Express your belief in Jesus as the begotten son of God. Continue to hold high your beliefs.
"It also rejects the datekeeping system (B.C./A.D.) that most of us use."
The usage of BCE/CE has been going on for some time. I would hardly think that the National Geographic Society, the Smithsonian, the United States Naval Observatory, The Norton Anthology of English Literature, and several style guides are involved in some sort of anti-Christian plot.
So what you are saying Bob is that its okay to take part in a pagan (heathen) religious practice, so long as we know that the tree isn't a god - even though the Bible tells us not to??
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that people will go in order to justify their vain customs. It has always been that way.
When Christianity was being spread across Europe, the pagan people just could not bear to give up their beloved customs. So the "church" assimilated them. That is where we get Christmas, Easter, Valentine's Day, and a slew of others.
All who celebrate these customs are spitting in the face of God and they will go to hell for it.
There are a few assumptions here. First, we assume that it's not rude to question the Christmas story on Christmas... I guess I doubt the 'suck it up' paradigm, mostly because I don't see exposes on war crimes in Vietnam on Veteran's Day or long treatises on slave ownership and women's rights on the Fourth of July. Maybe a story on Lincoln's possible mental problems on President's Day? MLK's philandering... eh, you get the idea. Most holidays get a cheerful front line 'Happy ____' and a story about people celebrating, in my experience anyway.
Second is the concept that people moving over to a more secular/moderate Christmas is somehow proof of weakness in Christianity's core doctrines. Personally, I just thought it was polite. I mean, your average nondenom churchgoer doesn't really have a lot of options for special rituals or observances on Christmas. I mean, at the very least, I don't. Probably an extra church service. So, I'm not sure if the preference is anything but practical, and then I'm really not sure that it has anything to do with 'core doctrines'.
Do you really think your average harried mall shopper the week before Christmas is intending to send a message to God and organized religion about how they're too masochistic? Really? Seems a bit odd.
Hey Bart: I heard the other day, that computers were a sign of the Mark of the Beast and that anyone using a comoputer was going to hell. That that come from you?
Jesus' coming changed everything. His coming again will make that evident to all the world. Most Christians don't seem to understand that the Feast of the Nativity points us to the most radical event of all time.
Ouch Bart - Have you considered why you are such an angry man?
& Ric don't you think Greg's got a point? the tone of your article is rather embittered
or is it a case of "methinks thou doeth protest too much"
& if that's the case and you are genuine in your interest to find out the 'truth' can i suggest you read "Can Man Live Without God" by Ravi Zacharias.
Ouch Richard - Have you considered by Jehovah is such an angry God?????
Shhhhhhh Lisa, don't let our nefarious secret out! Signed, your affectionate uncle, Screwtape...
To answer Greg and Richard?
Am I going to be remembered 30 years from now. That would make me 82. So, I'll probably still be in the minds of my friends and family. Longer than that, I don't know. Given that I'm not bucking for either hero or saint status, it doesn't really bother me though.
I wouldn't consider myself a "religion writer." I write about lots of things. My Sept.25 op-ed was on the war in Iraq and I blog on American politics and culture at Red State Impressions (http://red-state.blogspot.com/). My main academic research area is 18th and 19th century popular culture. Hence, the interest in Santa Claus. I began to develop an interest in the Sermon on the Mount while reading a Children's Bible to my daughter and gradually broadened my reading in the stories of Jesus life from there. Like the interests I've developed in African-American thought and feminism, I see my interest in the Bible primarily as part of my efforts to become a better professor.
Bart: Do you realize you put your Mr. fred phelps on a pedestal and turned him into an idol. You know you can go to hell for that.l
Silly Christians--who else would wait 2000 years for the return of a dead man? I suggest that every Christian, most especially fundamentalists and right-wing Catholics, could benefit from dropping LSD or a mouthful of psyliocybin to break them out of the trap of superstition and text-worship and teach them what the world of the spirit is really about!
First of all, a lump of coal to Bart.
Second, as far as Mr. Caric's questions about God, here is something that is helpful to me: Just because I may not understand something does not necessarily make it untrue.
I used to use the "why would God this, or why would He that" to justify my unbelief. I eventually realized, though, that God could exist just as He is described whether that is my preference or not.
It has always amazed me why people never seem to understand what "Christians" are all about. It is not about presents or trees or decorations, but it is about the "SPIRIT". If one believes in a Jesus who walked the earth, that man had to have a birthday-just as you and me. And if they believe in any type of savior at all-then they must logically accept the fact of good vs. evil--God vs satan. If there was not a God of some sort, then why would anyone respect any sort of law--why not do and say what pleases you. If there is no God-then there would be no morals. Think about what kind of world that would turn into. Then you may thank God for giving us his child, and how that must of hurt letting his child leave this world in a cruel way. Jesus is the Reason for the Season.
Then again, I've loved for a while the hypocrisy of the "looney left" in Hollywood and elsewhere that raises Cain and invokes their doctrine of "political correctness" every time a real or perceived slight happens to non-Christians.
But these "looney lefties" seem to fall silent when a real or perceived slight happens to Christians or to Christianity. In fact, these same champions of being PC don't speak up when Christianity is in the cultural crosshairs. In fact, most of these "looney lefties" tend to promulgate messages that run counter to Christian values. It seems to be the norm that their actions and opinions and their on-screen and on-air performances tend to promote selfish, hedonistic, and immoral values.
As for asking why God does this or does that or doesn't do this or doesn't do that, I gave up on pondering that a while ago. I realized that God reveals the "why" in His time and not ours; it's a great source of peace for me.
Lisa, May God grant you sight, and in seeing may you find true peace.
Such uninformed rubbish offers Christians an opportunity to refute. Yet do those who opine on the nature of Jesus, perfect Man and perfect God, bother to read what Christians say?
It is interesting that Jewish and Muslim holidays don't seem to draw similar accusations. Jesus Christ and His people draw the lightening.