Something on my Mind: Why Christmas?

Believe it or not, I may be one of the greatest fans of Christmas in the country. Well, at least the county. On my street? My home? There is very little about Christmas that I dislike, apart from the crass materialism and nauseating sense of entitlement that is choking the life out of it.

Christmas delight for me can be summed in the following words: creed, need, read, and feed—and not necessarily in that order.

You name it, I like it: presents, trees, lights, board games, family, pace, snow, naps, good will, and so on. While I may not start as early as Wal-Mart (“Good afternoon, shoppers, and welcome to the start of the Christmas season. It is a balmy 25+ outside on this late August Monday. Snow suits are on aisle 15, beside the bathing suits”), I do get into the mood at about this time of year.

I have my own reasons for relishing the Christmas season, as I'm sure you have yours. They may not even be the same ones, but hey, it's Christmas, so we're all in a jolly mood, aren't we? Christian people often speak of the “reason for the season,” so you may want to ask them what that means.

Anyways, your reasons for enjoying this season may fall into one or more of the following categories:

Financial I am a wannabe businessman, what with my responsibilities in education and teaching projects, plus the farm life, so I do think businessly (not a real word, Maurice). However, as I don't have a retail outlet or online sales, whereby I sell actual products, the Christmas season doesn't affect me as it would someone, say, in a brick and mortar building.

I understand that something like 20% of the year's revenue comes in around the Christmas season, so it's crucial to have a good sales around this time of year. More power to them. Many happy returns, you might say, just not the ones on Boxing Day

Their answer to “Why Christmas?” is likely the revenue it brings. Fair enough.

Traditional Then there are those traditional saps, like me, who love kittens, feel-good stories, and musicals—plus all the traditions that Christmas brings. I have alluded to them about three paragraphs north. Believe it not, I think I like the good will that is in the air the best: It gives people a chance to be nice for a while, and really mean it.

Your family has its traditions, we have ours. Traditions build memories, bring people closer, and smooth over the rough edges in many relationships. I don't think anyone can say that some are “right” traditions, while others are “wrong.” “Good” and “better” would be a more accurate way to express it.

Some traditions may fly better than others; some may be suitable for a family with young children, others may work better for families with older kids. Try having a family, as we did, with younger and older at the same time. We had to get both creative and simple and do what was best for all.

So another answer to “Why Christmas?” is simply the memories it brings.

Historical This one seems harder to tackle, but only because history seems so open to misinterpretation these days. And more so if it's so-called religious history. Ironically, the reason for Christmas on a historical basis may be its strongest argument.

When I investigate the Good Book, as well as other historical sources, I find secular people such as Herod, Caesar Augustus, and Quirinius—king, emperor, and governor, respectively—mentioned.. I read of real places such as Syria, Galilee, and Bethlehem—country, province, and city, respectively--mentioned. I see events such as a mass of moving magi (astrologer-kings from present-day Iraq), of an empire-wide census, and of a spectacular solar event (the moving star).

Not only history affirms the birth, so does geography and astronomy. The secular and biblical timeline mesh very nicely.

These people, places, and passages can be verified by “outside” secular historians. There is no religious element to them. It's a fact a “Jesus” (aka “Immanuel”) was born in time over 2,000 years ago. What we do with the facts, of course, is up to the seeking historian in all of us.

So another answer to “Why Christmas?” is simply the confidence it brings.

Biblical Finally, for those of us who actually pick up the Good Book and read it for what it purports to be—an essential account of God speaking to man—we are convinced that there was a special birth, there were shepherds in the fields by night, with the result that humanity has never been the same since.

There's no denying Christmas (and all the good that comes out of it). To deny it would be short-sighted and irrational. Excesses and greediness aside, make a point to celebrate the birthday of a King.

I'm sure I read that in a history book somewhere.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something on my Mind: If I were the Immigration Minister

I think I missed JT's phone call the other week, in his quest for cabinet ministers. I was half hoping I would be his next Immigration Minister. Perhaps if he reads the following, he will be impressed with my ideas, and give me a quick buzz.

You see, it's just a matter of time before we Canadians will be challenged with what to do with the refugee crisis. I know there's a Liberal promise of taking in thousands soon, but those are just words--Liberal words, at that.

If there's no plan, it's “Lookee, our 25,000 Muslims for Christmas are here. Now what?”

One response is to ignore it and hope it goes away. Let them stay in Europe, we might suggest. Or we could re-direct the refugees to perhaps Iceland; they have lots of space. A third alternative is to do something along non-government lines (say, a church or community organization) and sponsor a family or two. Personally, I see the latter as the best option: less top down, more ground up.

The refugee crisis over there could soon become a refugee crisis over here. I just hope the powers-that-be have some sort of plan as to how to handle it. If not, I know of a county-famous columnist who has some splendid ideas on re-settlement...

But before I share my brilliance, there are some startling facts that are beginning to emerge over this, also known as the “Syrian refugee crisis.” You may or may not be aware of them, so here is some food for thought:

1. Many of the refugees are not, in fact, Syrian. We call them Syrian refugees, when actually they're refugees from other Muslim countries. I don't have a problem calling them what they are; I just have a problem calling them what they're not.

2. There are many healthy young men among them, without any seeming legitimate claim to refugee status. Does that alarm you like it alarms me? Can you spell I-S-I-S I-N-F-I-L-T-R-A-T-O-R-S? You may feel it's paranoid to think that; I think it's naive to not to think that.

As we bring these “refugees” over to North America, will the illegal ones sneak in among the real ones? And what are the ramifications of that? Refugees, yes; illegals and spies, no.

3. Have you ever wondered where these refugees are headed to? Or perhaps better stated: Where they aren't headed to? Why do the refugees appear to not want to go to other Muslim countries, or why do other Muslim countries appear to not want them?

I find it strange—that is, somewhere between amusing and confusing--that the “evil West” is the first place they head to when they have the opportunity. If the West is so debauched, why are Muslims flocking to it? You may recall that part of the Christian heritage that we used to enjoy is to help our fellow-man. It seems that few, if any, other faiths practise that—particularly the Muslim one.

So on a positive note, what are the plans to settle them in our country? I have a few ideas, but who am I—just another faceless voice amidst the mass of voiceless faces? But I do have this column as a platform for some ideas.

I humbly suggest that we re-settle the 25,000 souls in the interiors of many provinces. Even a vague estimation would be a few hundred to a few thousand refugees per province (depending on its size). I would steer these people clear of the major urban centres, and re-locate them into small hamlets and villages scattered throughout our nation.

In fact, I can think of quite a few hamlets and villages within a radius of two hours of this column that could do with a shot in the arm. Then there's more as we head farther north.

The infrastructure—roads, utilities, and houses—are already there. Everything would be affordable and accessible to these people. Empty houses, schools, plus commercial and manufacturing facilities would be filled. The few existing residents would have many new neighbours or potential buyers for their houses.

If you're still not clear what I'm saying, think in terms of the hundreds of Mexican-Mennonite families that have rejuvenated many hamlets and villages throughout our province.

There are lot of red flags with my idea, I know that. Even I have some cautions. (Maurice, obviously, I haven't thought everything out, so cut me some slack.) There are cultural, vocational, and religious issues to work out...no kidding. I am simply saying fill up the empty (and willing) hamlets and villages in a controlled, purposeful manner. Make sure there's plenty of accountability for their re-location—unlike our native reserve debacle.

Just biding my time for Justin to phone.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com

Something on my Mind: I am a Christian

Had I been in Roseburg a few weeks ago, there's a good chance I would have been shot to death. Roseburg, as you know, is not in Libya, Somalia, Iran, or Yemen. That would be Roseburg, Oregon, and Oregon, as in the state below Washington.

Never saw the day coming where there would be bloodshed for being a Christian on North American soil.

You likely know the story, but let me refresh your memory. In short, an unstable, warped student in a junior college moved among his classmates, asking them one question: “Are you a Christian?” If they identified themselves as a follower of Christ, he shot them dead on the spot; if not, he shot them in the foot. By the time he was finished, nine fellow-students were dead.

Out of this Roseburg story, two public figures' responses stood out in my my mind:

Barak Obama: His response to the massacre was “unfortunate.” (I wanted to say “disgusting,” but, though that was a more accurate word, it seemed too harsh.) He attempted to turn this national tragedy into a political issue with his gun control stance.

Earth to Obama: The guns were, in fact, legally registered, but that didn't stop the bloodshed. From a human standpoint, nothing could have stopped the massacre. I don't know when the powers-that-be will understand that people's hearts must be changed, not federal laws.

On that day, had someone been allowed to carry a gun to school, the bloodshed would have been negligible. What we needed that day were more guns, not more rhetoric.

I find it offensive, even from this distance, that the president would controvert a very sad day for many Oregon families into a platform for one of America's most divisive issues.

Ben Carson: Ben Carson is the poster boy for what's right with America. Like millions of other blacks in America, he was raised without a father. His mother decided that no dad and no money, and that skin colour and social inequality, were not excuses for failure.

Through grunt labour, self determination, and seized opportunities, through the long, arduous road of determination, Benjamin Carson became Dr. Ben Carson, exceptional neurosurgeon. Just after the Roseburg massacre, he also made it clear that he was a Christian. (I knew that already, but he made it public by holding up a sign with the words, “I am a Christian” written on it).

Rather than make a lame political statement (like Obama) that has no basis in logic, fact, or common sense, Carson repeats the very statement that got others killed. If I were in the States, I would be very happy to have that man—and not the other one—as my president.

What a juxtaposition of responses on the part of these men! There are some uncanny similarities between these two men: Both are black, both involved in politics, both are professing Christians, and so on. There are some significant dissimilarities, too, but I'll leave the research up to you.

Those two people contrast in their responses, though we can't forget that there were others that day. One was an army vet who prevented further bloodshed; and the others were the martyrs themselves, especially starting with the second victim.

Sgt. Mintz: I don't know why we're don't hear more about this guy than we do. He's took a number of shots in his attempt to save others. Strange how that works: some took one shot and died; he took five and lived.

You would think that President Obama would have spent more time lauding this hero, taking the opportunity to highlight unselfish heroism, honouring this living example of what makes America great. We need heroes to inspire us, not tongue-lashings to discourage us.

The martyrs: It takes supreme courage to live for one's faith, and just as much to die for one's faith. The first victim didn't know what would happen when he or she answered “Yes” to the gunman's question. But the second student did...and the rest did. They are the unsung heroes, too, in this story.

Dr. Carson and I are quite different. You name it: profession, skin colour, citizenship, religious affiliation, and the list goes on. He has more courage than I would have after such a terrible event. But the main thing we have in common is a Bible-based faith.

Like Carson, I am a Christian. But unlike those nine martyrs in Oregon, I am still living for my faith, not dying for it..yet.

 

--

Sent using Postbox:
http://www.getpostbox.com