Happy Holidays!
There. I said it. That horrible, terrible, most anti-Christian display of syncretism known to man.
The horror.
Before the the fire is lit under the tar kettle or the knives are put to pillows to produce the wispy goose down for my Yuletide adornment please allow me to explain myself.
In America a few things can be counted on in consideration of the year's closing act. 1) Retail stores will continue to steadily ease the appearance of Christmas decor and music ever closer to the Fourth of July and people will continue to be offended by the phraseology used to wish goodwill during the weeks surrounding the Winter Solstice.
Almost makes one want to switch to "Go fart fire" or maybe "Have a terrible winter". Something like that.
Anyway.
The funny thing is, the person most likely to correct you towards "Merry Christmas" is proportionately just as likely to express "support for Israel", whatever that means.
Which makes me think...either you love Israel or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
Now, while most of the Jewish people I have met appear to harbor no obvious animosity to wreaths, candy canes, Jolly ol' St Nick, O Tannenbaum or even live reenactments of shepherds watching their flocks by night breaking away from the task to welcome the birth of Christ, I think it is ignorant on the part of us, as Christians, to expect them to "Have a Merry Christmas or get on a boat and go back where you came from".
Seriously. They're Jewish. We love Jewish people, right? You know, Jewish people, King David, Elijah, Solomon, Jesus, John, Peter, Paul and a bunch of ladies named Mary. Jewish people.
A pleasant "Happy Holidays" gives a polite inclusion to a group of people that were being persecuted before Jesus celebrated His first Hanukkah. It also includes the Federally-recognized holiday "New Year's Day" as well as "Thanksgiving", which apparently has something to do with pro football, elastic waistbands and Christmas, although there are those that refer to people known as "pilgrims" that founded Macy's or something like that. I'll have to research those claims for an entry next November. Maybe by then I'll have the tar and feathers removed.
Until then, I hope whatever holiday you prefer is as glorious, magnificent, merry and happy as it can possibly be. And SMILE, this is the most wonderful time of the year.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Thoughts on "Recent" Developments
The news is disconcerting.
A man walks into a school and kills a couple dozen people, mostly small children, before taking his own life.
I don't know his name. I haven't seen his face. I don't care to be enlightened to either. He's not someone I care to know about or remember. I'm not sitting in judgement of him. That's not my chair. I just don't want to know him.
Why did this specific incident happen? I don't know.
There will be those who use this event to push their agenda of gun control. There will be those that say this was caused by song lyrics or movies or video games. And still those that think its because there's not enough prayer in school. There's never a deficiency of ignorance in America.
I think the problem lies in our culture. Not the entertainment choices of our culture but in the role we have pushed masculinity into. "Gentlemen" have become the exception, not the rule.
In most cases these acts of senseless violence have been carried out by young men. Often times these young men are outcasts or bullied. The gun represents power that they wield. It would be the same with a knife, a baseball bat or a fertilizer bomb. The motivator is power. The ability to be strong or intimidating because that's what young men are taught they should be.
We don't (as a culture) teach young men about the masculinity of caring for a child, holding a door, demonstrating common courtesy, loving one woman for her whole life, protecting the weak and dozens of other traits that our grandfathers just did because "it's what men do."
Robert E. Lee, no stranger to violence, put it this way:
"The forbearing use of power does not only form a touchstone, but the manner in which an individual enjoys certain advantages over others is a test of a true gentleman.
The power which the strong have over the weak, the employer over the employed, the educated over the unlettered, the experienced over the confiding, even the clever over the silly — the forbearing or inoffensive use of all this power or authority, or a total abstinence from it when the case admits it, will show the gentleman in a plain light.
The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong he may have committed against him. He cannot only forgive, he can forget; and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which impart sufficient strength to let the past be but the past. A true man of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help humbling others."
That's the difference in a man like Lee and one of these shooters. The difference between protecting and harming. The difference between taking and giving.
The man Lee was describing would never shoot up a school, wouldn't kill his wife, wouldn't bomb a post office, wouldn't fly an civilian airplane into an office building. He uses power justly. He forgives. He moves on.
These are the men we need today. Where are these men?
A man walks into a school and kills a couple dozen people, mostly small children, before taking his own life.
I don't know his name. I haven't seen his face. I don't care to be enlightened to either. He's not someone I care to know about or remember. I'm not sitting in judgement of him. That's not my chair. I just don't want to know him.
Why did this specific incident happen? I don't know.
There will be those who use this event to push their agenda of gun control. There will be those that say this was caused by song lyrics or movies or video games. And still those that think its because there's not enough prayer in school. There's never a deficiency of ignorance in America.
I think the problem lies in our culture. Not the entertainment choices of our culture but in the role we have pushed masculinity into. "Gentlemen" have become the exception, not the rule.
In most cases these acts of senseless violence have been carried out by young men. Often times these young men are outcasts or bullied. The gun represents power that they wield. It would be the same with a knife, a baseball bat or a fertilizer bomb. The motivator is power. The ability to be strong or intimidating because that's what young men are taught they should be.
We don't (as a culture) teach young men about the masculinity of caring for a child, holding a door, demonstrating common courtesy, loving one woman for her whole life, protecting the weak and dozens of other traits that our grandfathers just did because "it's what men do."
Robert E. Lee, no stranger to violence, put it this way:
"The forbearing use of power does not only form a touchstone, but the manner in which an individual enjoys certain advantages over others is a test of a true gentleman.
The power which the strong have over the weak, the employer over the employed, the educated over the unlettered, the experienced over the confiding, even the clever over the silly — the forbearing or inoffensive use of all this power or authority, or a total abstinence from it when the case admits it, will show the gentleman in a plain light.
The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong he may have committed against him. He cannot only forgive, he can forget; and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which impart sufficient strength to let the past be but the past. A true man of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help humbling others."
That's the difference in a man like Lee and one of these shooters. The difference between protecting and harming. The difference between taking and giving.
The man Lee was describing would never shoot up a school, wouldn't kill his wife, wouldn't bomb a post office, wouldn't fly an civilian airplane into an office building. He uses power justly. He forgives. He moves on.
These are the men we need today. Where are these men?
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Style vs Substance
Modern politics have deteriorated at a rapid pace since the introduction of televised coverage. Today appearances are everything. You hear that presidential candidates are more likely to win if they are taller, better looking, a better speaker, blah, blah, blah. It's gotten to the point that you can get probable election projections from TMZ.
To highlight the absurdity of this truth, I wanted to share some folks we'd have missed out on if TV predated the republic.
John Adams. First VP, second President, ambassador extraordinaire, heavily influenced the Declaration of Independence. Short and fat, newspapers of his day called him "His Rotundity". Would have never been elected in this climate.
Thomas Jefferson. First Secretary of State, second VP, ambassador extraordinaire, author of the Declaration of Independence, gifted architect, ok, due to limited space, let's just say that he was the smartest man ever born on this continent. While he stood 6 inches taller than the average man of his day, he was a weak speaker and even refused to speak before Congress, opting to mail his State of the Union addresses to them. He would have never been considered for a party's nomination today.
James Madison. Almost as smart as Jeff...ok, let's not get carried away but the guy WAS brilliant. Father of the Constitution and the only sitting president to ever physically engage an enemy in battle - he fired a cannon at British forces attacking DC. He was 5'4" and about 100 pounds. You do the math.
Alexander H. Stephens. Congressman and governor of Georgia. VP of the CSA, successful attorney and benefactor to numerous college students. He was 5'9" and about 100 pounds. He looked like death eating a soda cracker and reportedly had a shrill, high-pitched voice that could not be heard over a crowd. Not exactly JFK.
Even Abe Lincoln himself once retorted "If I had two faces do you really think I'd be wearing this one?"
I could go on and on. The point is, before we sensationalized politics, people were judged on substance, on issues, on things that mattered. Now people are judged on height, weight, age, "gravitas", skin color, religion, alleged birthplace, whatever.
Who have we missed out on that could have helped our present condition?
How can we expect politicians to take politics seriously when votes are doled out with such superficial standards and at what point do we begin to take candidates seriously based on policy?
To highlight the absurdity of this truth, I wanted to share some folks we'd have missed out on if TV predated the republic.
John Adams. First VP, second President, ambassador extraordinaire, heavily influenced the Declaration of Independence. Short and fat, newspapers of his day called him "His Rotundity". Would have never been elected in this climate.
Thomas Jefferson. First Secretary of State, second VP, ambassador extraordinaire, author of the Declaration of Independence, gifted architect, ok, due to limited space, let's just say that he was the smartest man ever born on this continent. While he stood 6 inches taller than the average man of his day, he was a weak speaker and even refused to speak before Congress, opting to mail his State of the Union addresses to them. He would have never been considered for a party's nomination today.
James Madison. Almost as smart as Jeff...ok, let's not get carried away but the guy WAS brilliant. Father of the Constitution and the only sitting president to ever physically engage an enemy in battle - he fired a cannon at British forces attacking DC. He was 5'4" and about 100 pounds. You do the math.
Alexander H. Stephens. Congressman and governor of Georgia. VP of the CSA, successful attorney and benefactor to numerous college students. He was 5'9" and about 100 pounds. He looked like death eating a soda cracker and reportedly had a shrill, high-pitched voice that could not be heard over a crowd. Not exactly JFK.
Even Abe Lincoln himself once retorted "If I had two faces do you really think I'd be wearing this one?"
I could go on and on. The point is, before we sensationalized politics, people were judged on substance, on issues, on things that mattered. Now people are judged on height, weight, age, "gravitas", skin color, religion, alleged birthplace, whatever.
Who have we missed out on that could have helped our present condition?
How can we expect politicians to take politics seriously when votes are doled out with such superficial standards and at what point do we begin to take candidates seriously based on policy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)