72 days out, because I, Andrea Hoxie, a life-long Independent, am compelled to respond to this kind of nonsensical attack on Democrats

    1.     It is said that to be a Democrat today, you have to believe that a pre-born human baby is not a human being deserving of protection from killing, and neither is a baby that was born 10 minutes ago if the mother decides she doesn’t want to keep it.

Hoxie says that Democrats don't want to kill babies.  They value life and understand that birth is just the beginning, that children need adequate food and shelter, that children should be nurtured and loved, not warehoused, caged or sold for the pleasure of deviant, pedophiliac micreants or slave labor.

    2. It is said that to be a Democrat today, you have to believe that  capitalism, which has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and despair worldwide, is evil; but socialism, which has caused the oppression, impoverishment, starvation, and death of hundreds of millions of people over the past century, is the only hope of the future.

Hoxie says that the last three Democratic presidents had to clean up the messes of their Republican predecessors.  Capitalism has not  lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and despair; in recent years it has created more wealth for people who are in need of no more.  It is not evil, but the people who abuse it are.  Capitalism has exported American jobs to foreign countries, putting more people out of work, with the domino effect of foreclosures, evictions, homelessness, and declining health.  

   3.     It is said that to be a Democrat today, you have to believe that  the best solution for rioting, looting, arson, and violence in the streets is to defund the police.

Hoxie says that a worthwhile solution for rioting, looting, arson, and violence in the streets is 1) for police to cease their abuses of authority and stop killing people in the streets; 2) keep your white skinfolk from contributing to chaos by deliberately destroying property and starting fires; 3)  divert some funds from police (who should not be outfitted, equipped and armed as soldiers in combat in the first place) and use those funds to deal with issues police should not have to deal with, like social services and mental health.

    4. It is said that to be a Democrat today, you have to believe that all the gains in the economy under Trump were really caused by Obama, but the worldwide economic crash following China’s unleashing of a pandemic was caused by Trump.

Hoxie says that all the gains in the economy under the Obama administration have been lost under the current administration, not because China unleashed a pandemic, but because the current administration failed to do what could be done to contain it. 

    5.     It is said that to be a Democrat today, you have to believe that  Trump has a plan to rig the next election that involves making the Obama Administration remove thousands of mailboxes several years ago. Also, that the Post Office is removing little-used mailboxes in Oregon because the key to Trump’s reelection is for him to win Oregon.

Hoxie says that *45 has a plan(s) to rig the next election just as he did his first.

    6. It is said that to be a Democrat today, you have to believe that on that [previous] subject, that nobody ever complained about the US Post Office being slow, inefficient, and unreliable until Trump was elected.

Hoxie says that the US Post Office has become even more slow, inefficient, and unreliable because of the removal of sorting equipment, among other measures, that further slow down delivery of mail.

    7. It is said that to be a Democrat today, you have to believe that  America is an oppressive, racist, white supremacist nation that’s the root of all evil in the world and its culture is inferior to that of other nations, including the many nations where people are willing to risk their lives just for the chance to come to America.

Hoxie says that America has become more of what it used to be:  an oppressive, racist, white supremacist nation, not the root of all evil in the world, but a contributing factor to the birth of terrorist organizations whose initial leaders were used, abused, misused and cast aside by American agencies.  We can be better than that.

    8.     It is said that to be a Democrat today, you have to believe that Trump built “cages for children” on the border during the Obama Administration.

Hoxie says that while the fence enclosures were built during the Obama administration, they were for temporary use, not to warehouse children for months, and not to deny parents the right to reclaim their children as has been done in the current administration.  Records will show that the current administration made little attempt to even track children so that they could be reunited with their parents.

    9. It is said that to be a Democrat today, you have to believe that viruses spread like wildfire at church services, but not at crowded protest rallies for leftwing causes. Also, viruses spread at bars that serve chips, but not at bars that serve sandwiches. Because “science!”

 Hoxie says that the threat of Covid-19 does not discriminate between bars and sacred spaces, and that “opening up the economy” has been detrimental to many.  (The threat of ebola was contained under the Obama administration but allowing our medical and scientific experts to do what they are equpped to do.  Three people died of ebola in the United States.  Compare that to 170,000+ who succumbed to Covid-19.) And because God gave us not only the desire to gather for worship, but a brain that we should not have to check at the door.  So, for many, worship in the “church of the livingroom” is safer and healthier than elbow-to-elbow in a sanctuary.

    10. It is said that to be a Democrat today, you have to believe that  people with male genitals are women just because they say they are, but people who say that actually having female genitals makes them women are intolerant, transphobic bigots.

Hoxie says that until some people have a family member who is predisposed to deviate from their physiological gender, they treat all such people as “other.”  Those so predisposed are also Americans too.  

    11. It is said that to be a Democrat today, you have to believe that hospitals must be forced to give gynecological exams to “women” with male genitals, and taxpayers forced to pay for abortions for them.

Hoxie says that from her perspective, abortions are not acceptable measures of birth control, but if an unborn life is not viable and would suffer endlessly, or a mother’s life is in danger, or, God forbid, conception is the result of rape, the decision to abort is between a mother and God.  Hoxie cannot see how taxpayers are okay with paying millions for *45's golf outings but would deny a woman relief under some circumstances.  

    12. It is said that to be a Democrat today, you have to believe that, again on that subject, that someone born male who developed a muscular masculine physique before deciding he was a girl has no unfair physical advantage in sports over the much smaller teenage girl whose face (s)he is crushing into the wrestling mat.

Hoxie says that the one point on which I agree:  “that someone born male who developed a muscular masculine physique before deciding he was a girl has no unfair physical advantage in sports over the much smaller teenage girl whose face (s)he is crushing into the wrestling mat.” Problem is, I do not believe Democrats believe this.

    13. It is said that to be a Democrat today, you have to believe that Trump botched the response to COVID-19 by xenophobically shutting down travel from China and crashing the economy with a shutdown, but Democrats would have prevented both the pandemic and the crash by not stopping travel from China and shutting down the economy sooner, harder and longer. Also, it’s absolutely impossible for Trump to keep people from crossing our border, but he could have kept a virus from crossing our border.

Hoxie says that *45 indeed botched the response to COVID-19, not by shutting down travel from China, but by throwing out the pandemic play book left to him by the previous administration (you know, the one that cleaned up the mess of ITS previous administration), by stifling our medical and scientific experts, by pirating medical supplies purchased by organizations and institutions for their own use, by not maintaining our stockpile of supplies and equipment.  Some stuff should be rotated out periodically because over time it looses its efficacy.  It’s called rotating the stock.

    14. It is said that to be a Democrat today, you have to believe that t an acceptable way to express how much you care about black lives is to burn black neighborhoods, loot black-owned businesses, and tear down statues of abolitionist leaders. Also, that all black lives matter except those of black cops, black Republicans, and black pre-born babies.

Hoxie says that all lives will not matter until Black lives matter, and all looting and burning and destruction are not effectuated by Black people.  As to Black cops, Black Republics, and Black pre-born babies:   Black cops have been beaten by their white co-workers.  Black Republicans who pledge allegiance to *45 are no longer Republicans; they are Trumplicans.  Black pre-born babies, when born, deserve the care as white babies, an idea that is lost on those who care only for their “pre-born” status.

    15. It is said that to be a Democrat today, you have to believe that t free healthcare is a right, free college is a right, free food is a right, a guaranteed paycheck is a right, and citizenship for illegal immigrants is a right, but free speech and freedom of religion are not rights.

Hoxie says that no human being is illegal, even though said human being may be undocumented.   Nothing is free – not healthcare, college or food.  How they are acquired, however, should not be oppressive.  Other countries have found a way to balance basic needs like healthcare, education and food.  Many of our institutions, especially those Ivy League monstrosities built on the backs of Hoxie's fore parents, are more financial sound than many countries.  There is no such thing is a guaranteed paycheck.  The guarantee should be that people have access to education and training so that they can be responsible citizens and provide for themselves and their families through work for which they are fairly compensated.  Citizenship for undocumented workers who were brought here as children, and who know only this country as home, should not be obstructed by onerous regulations and should not be used as bargaining chips.  Free speech and freedom of religion are rights, AND the rights of each stop where the rights of another start.   Say what you want, and if you incite hate, riotous behavior that puts another in jeopardy, you have gone too far.  Worship whomever and however you want, and don’t try to dictate to others whom and how they should worship.  

    16. It is said that to be a Democrat today, you have to believe that  the people who presided over the rise of ISIS, the Iraq and Afghan wars, a nuclear Iran and North Korea, and even Iran falling to the Mullahs in the first place, are trusted diplomatic professionals, while the man who crushed ISIS, dealt with Iran and North Korea, and crafted a historic Middle East peace agreement is a dangerous amateur who’s destroying our foreign policy.

Hoxie says that to this day, thee is no such thing as peace in the middle East.  That is as it has been for decades.  And yes, *45 is a dangerous amateur who has all but destroyed our foreign policy. 

    17. It is said that to be a Democrat today, you have to believe that  disproven rumors are evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to undermine a presidential election, but Democrats paying Russians for disproven rumors and using them as “evidence” to launch a Deep State coup is NOT collusion with Russia to undermine a presidential election.

Hoxie says that now, even some critically thinking Republicans have accepted evidence that *45 colluded with Russia to undermine a presidential election,  There is no Deep State coup being planned.  There is only a deeply deluded, demented  occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, whose swift disposition I pray for daily.

    18. It is said that to be a Democrat today, you have to believe that  2 + 2 only equals 4 because of white supremacy.

Hoxie says that 2 + 2  equals 4 AND white supremacy is a reality.  One has nothing to do with the other.  Hoxie also says that many white people, bless their little souls, think they’re superior just because they lack melanin.

    19. It is said that to be a Democrat today, you have to believe that  there are 57 genders but only one acceptable political viewpoint.

Hoxie says that regardless of the number of genders and their variations due to chromosomal differences, hormonal imbalances or whatever, there are lots of political viewpoints.  And then, there is what is the sound, reasonable viewpoint that without a change, the country will get to a point of no return and there will be no redemption.  Politics be damned!  This is NOT the time for us vs. them, red vs. blue, black vs. white, gay vs. straight.  In Hoxie's lifetime, this is the most critical time for people to unite and hold this country before a few misplaced folks at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC, destroy it.

    20. It is said that to be a Democrat today, you have to believe that  burning a flag is protected free speech, but objecting to someone burning a flag is not.

Hoxie says that courts have ruled that burning a flag is protected free speech.  It is objectionable to her, only because of what is supposed  to symbolize, and to many.   It is far more objectionable that men and women who have dedicated their lives, and many who have given their lives, in defense of what the flag is supposed to symbolize, to be treated like they are less than and other, by those who have hidden behind their parents' wealth and dishonest doctors, to escape their duty to serve.

Thank you Mike, whoever the heck you are, for your list that was so offensive and reprehensible that it inspired me to create my own.  

Defining Sin for a Contemporary Culture

First, I freely admit that this is not an original title.  I ran across this phrase earlier this evening as I perused my Facebook home page, trying to catch up on what is happening with my FB friends.  There was the usual stuff:  a new picture of my grand-nephew, P.H., a happy child of a fantastic mom; a rehashed obituary of the Pillsbury Dough Boy which still makes me laugh aloud [I refuse to use LOL -- oops -- I just did :( ]; an update from a musician acquaintance who writes often of sports (much better than getting it via television news) and church-related issues (sometimes funny, sometimes serious, generally thought-provoking); a couple of Friend Requests; more messages to which to respond than I really want to; you get the gist.  Amidst those common tidbits was a post that dealt with one of the most controversial issues of the day with LIKES and COMMENTS that followed.  Among those comments was a phrase regarding how we should define sin for a contemporary culture.   That phrase has so haunted me that I have revisited that blurb several times now.  It conjures up thoughts of recent discussions in my Sunday School class and Wednesday Bible studies at South Main Baptist Church (plug for SMBC).


Second, I also admit that this writing may offend others, including folks who may, loosely or sincerely, use the term friend in relation to me.  My hope, however, is that as I respect their rights to believe as they wish, they will respect mine, and perhaps this is a point on which we may have to just agree to disagree.


Third, I freely admit that I am a sinner.  I know guilt.  And shame.  Therefore, I judge no one; I condemn no one.  Judgment and condemnation of others are simply not in my purview.  It is enough for me that each morning and evening I can look in a mirror while brushing teeth and be grateful that God has  given me another day for work on my own human failings.  With that said, I freely admit, however, that some behaviors I simply hate:  lying, stealing, killing -- you know -- the stuff of the Ten Commandments (which is also foundational stuff for our laws).  Then there are also infractions like smoking, wearing fragrances ad nauseam, driving with a phone plastered to the side of one's face, and other behaviors that are a lot more than mere annoyances.  


Okay, on their faces, the also infractions are not normally construed as sins; yet, they have the potential to cause irreparable harm to the body, and not just the body of the smoker, fragrance wearer, or telephone-talking driver, but others around them as well, and even death.   For those who suffer with medical conditions caused through no fault of their own, to be subjected to the exacerbating effects of tobaccos and perfumes by people who put their rights to so engage themselves above all else is, to those who so suffer, a threat to their well-being.  They think of terms like assault and attempted murder.   Trust me; I know this to be true, and often have to work at stifling deep-seated anger and frustration, and the urge to kill them before they kill me.  And statistics show that folks who drive while engaging in telephone conversations are more likely to be involved in vehicular crashes resulting in debilitating, life-change injuries, or death.


So much for the prefatory.  The rest is pretty short, though not simple, and starts with a question.  How does one define sin for a contemporary culture?
Short answer:  I don't have a clue.  I never gave a thought to sin evolving as mankind devolved.  


Next question:  Well, why not?
Well, how about this question in lieu of an answer:  What makes one think that because the world has changed in technology, temperament and tolerance, that what was sin 4,000 or 3,000 or 2,000 years ago is different today?  


Well, there are schools of thought that condone killing under certain circumstances.  
Well, that may be true, and even while God gave the Word to the Israelites Thou shalt not kill, He also instructed them to kill all the people in the lands they were to occupy.  It seems then, that there is killing, and then there is Killing.


And what about the scripture that says God "hardened" Pharaoh's heart?  
Well, the Book does say that (Exodus 9:12).  Does how the Creator uses His creation give the created license to act contrary to His instructions?  I think not.  This passage has often troubled me.  Why would God harden Pharaoh's heart in such a way that ultimately led to Pharaoh's death?  And on several occasions I have had to remind myself that God can use anyone or anything He wants to, in any way He wants to.  In that regard I sometimes envision this scenario -- and while I cannot prove it was the way it happened, you cannot prove it did not:  


After losing his son to the plague that befell all of the first-born in Egypt who were not protected, Pharaoh  allowed the Israelites to leave, and in anger (and probably a lot of other negative emotions), pursued them until he, along with his followers, were consumed by the Red Sea.  The aftermath:  Pharaoh ascends to heaven and is welcomed by the Almighty for a job well done.*     


As I said, I cannot prove it, but neither can you disprove it.  Just admit it is something to consider (or not) and let's move along.*


And what is this DEVOLVING business?  
Well, I'm glad you asked.  A simple definition of devolve is to pass on or delegate to another.  In the context of this little blog, mankind is ever devolving.  The more knowledgeable and advanced we become, the more we shirk our responsibilities and commitments, passing them on into the ether where they become the responsibilities and commitments of some unknown force or entity as we continue to live in a foggy La-La Land, making excuses for our actions or lack thereof, buying into every frenzied trend of entertainment, including every gadget imaginable, 99.99999999% of which are made in other countries, providing jobs to others while 99.9999999% of corporate America embraces downsizing, rightsizing, cutbacks, layoffs and outsourcing, and any other gimmick one can envision, in the end making our country a slave to the rest of the world.  (Sorry about the outburst; I'll have to save that for another time.)


So what does all that have to do with devolving -- and sin?
Such great questions you ask!  Devolving and sin really go hand in glove.  While in a state of devolution, one succumbs to any compulsion to say and do anything one chooses without regard to the rights of others or the Way of the Almighty.  As Pastor Steve (www.smbc.org) might say, We live in God's world but not in God's Way.  And when one chooses to live his own way, justifying whatever one says and does according to one's situation or circumstances, or the thorn in one's flesh,** one shuts the door on the Father's grace which is sufficient for those who believe.  


Well, you really didn't answer the question and you definitely did not define sin for a contemporary culture.
True, and frankly, who can?  Still, without judging or condemning any, loving all through Christ Jesus while hating the thoughts, words and deeds that are not of the Father's Way, I do commend all to Him, whose grace is sufficient for all, for His power is made perfect in weakness, even so-called contemporary ones.  


The bottom line is this:  
The advent of situational ethics did not rewrite the Bible; rather it just gave us something through which to ride our chariots when looking for a loophole.  What the loophole does not account for, however, is the love that will make a parent suffer through disciplining, and even confinement in prison, of a child for the child's sake; or one not taking a life because one is not the giver of life.


Lying is still lying.  Killing is still killing.  Adultery is still adultery.  Stealing is stealing, even though in our contemporary ilk stealing has all kinds of labels -- misappropriation and embezzlement, for instance.  Covetousness -- well it's still that too, so if it's not yours, forget about it.  


For this writer, who often drafts documents for others with revisions so numerous that they end with the year, month, day and time (for example, 2011 0325 2219 means the 25th day of March 2011, 10:19 p.m.), there are no revisions to sin.  The 2000 AD version is  the 2000 BC version.  


So, dear ones, give yourself a break.  All of that energy devoted to establishing some new benchmark for sin by today's standards might best be expended with the Father, Who is strength for today and bright hope for tomorrow.  I dare you to try Him, even in your contemporary situation.  His faithfulness was great whenever the book of Lamentations (3:23) was written, and, trust me on this, it's pretty great today, 2011 0327 2252.


To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before His glorious presence without fault and with great joy -- to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore!  Amen. (Jude 24-25).


Praying that you lean and not stumble . . .










__________________
*A note to Bible scholars:  This is my blog; these are my thoughts.  Let's leave it at that.
**⁶ Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say, ⁷ or because of these surpassingly great revelations. Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. ⁸ Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. ⁹ But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. (2 Corinthians 12:6-9 NIV)

Where are All the Mahatmas?

The Merriam Webster word of the day is "mahatma."  http://www.merriam-webster.com/word-of-the-day/2010/12/30/ --  a person to be revered for high-mindedness, wisdom and selflessness.    The moment I saw the word "revered" I thought about all the "reverends" I know.  And I thought of how that word is generally self-attributed and very much overused to the point of abuse.   


It really galls me when people say my name is 'reverend doe.  Sometimes my follow-up question is what did your mother name you?"  (Of course, this is no different from people who say my name is Doctor Doe or Attorney Doe or -- or Evangelist Doe -- or my all-time grating-on-my-nerves one -- Lady Minister Doe.   News flash folks:  Your name is not your title or what you do for a living.     


The one time I saw "Rev. Andrea Hoxie" in an article written by the late "Bud" Johnson, one of my dearest sparring partners (verbal, of course), I had to give him a call; we had a serious conversation, including a little discussion of Psalm 111:9.


Words are important.  They encourage, convict, condemn, support, dissappoint, exhort, admonish, and deify -- or at least, attempt to do so.  Sometimes they begin with a thought; sometimes not.  These words I write today began with a thought -- primarily the possibility of offending those whom I love and respect, some of whom are oftentimes referred to by that "R" word. And then, I thought of those folks, and remembered why I respect them.  They accept me as I am, including the sometimes radical and unconventional Andrea who goes against the grain.   Even when we agree to disagree, it is without condemnation.  


Some folks are probably thinking right now:  Why would she write something so offensive?  So inflammatory?  What difference does is make that we call our priests, preachers, pastors and ministers "Reverend"?   Well, consider this:  Does it make a difference when someone calls you a receptionist when you're a secretary?  A gal when you're an administrator?  A secretary when you're a paralegal?  A boy when you're a man?  A hooker, prostitute or whore when you have reserved your body exclusively for your spouse?  


Words do matter.   We speak them and they take life, become flesh.  How many children have taken paths uttered by mean-spirited, impatient, ignorant folks who told them they would never amount to anything?  Yes, words matter.  


So, now, a few questions:  

• Does that certificate of ordination, license to preach, divinity degree, or your spouse's call to the ministry justify use of the handle Rev.?   
• Do you preach and teach God's word with authority, and then live as if there is no God, or as if He is blind and deaf?
• Do your beliefs, thoughts, attitude, behavior, and actions reflect reverend?
• Do you try to justify extra privileges to accorded to you because you use the handle?
• Is your general comportment the same whether you are at or away from home?

In other words, are you truly  a mahatma?  Or do you just wear the mask?  Here is a hint if you have difficulty answering the question:  The one man most of us know as Mahatma was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.  It is said that he protested against the title Mahatma that was conferred on him by others.   This simple-living man seemingly cared nothing for the transient trappings that are coveted by others.   He was wise, selfless and high-minded.  Mahatma?  And because of his wisdom, selflessness and high-mindedness, he was revered.  Reverend?


Even while we have high regard for the wise, selfless, high-minded folks of this world, there is but One, Who is indeed Reverend.   And He is called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.  And at His name, every knee shall bow and every tongue acknowledge and confess that He is Lord.  Jesus, the Christ.   Reverend.



  To Tell the Truth (V. Michael McKay)

Obstacles: Keeping the Main Thing the Main Thing (Part I)

There's nothing like a good Bible Study to stir the pen. Okay, the keyboard.

I'll keep this short, but first a little housekeeping:

1. This writing is not about bashing your religion.
2. This writing is not about bashing your denomination.
3. This writing is not about bashing you.
4. If you take offense, well, I'll finish this item 4 later . . .

I'm sure you know the story of the woman who always cut a head of cabbage in half, cooked one half and discarded the other, because that's they way her mother did it, and that's the way her mother's mother did it. It turns out that her grandmother did it that way because her pot could only hold half a head of cabbage.

Alright, it might have not been a head of cabbage, but surely you see the message here: Oftentimes we do things out of tradition. At least that's the word that is frequently tossed about as the salve to heal all frustrations spawned by the never-ending question: Why? Why? Why this way and not that? Why?

Earlier this year while conducting a choir rehearsal this exchange took place:

Andrea: You know folks, I only see you a couple of times a year and we have a limited time to prepare for worship, so would you hold down the excess talk so we can get through this?

Male choir member: Well, you know, we have our traditions.

Andrea: Yes, and your traditions might take you straight to hell.

As a child I wondered why we do some of the things we do, especially among our church congregations and in our houses of worship. Why must we wear white on first Sunday? Why must someone plop that little doily thing on my head while I'm playing the communion service? What do you mean I have to cover my head? What do you think that stuff that grows out of my scalp is for? (Not intentionally, but since I tend to move around a bit when playing the piano, that little doily thing often landed on the floor.)

And just a few years ago, my best friend said to me: I'd love to come to your Christmas concert but I just have on a plain dress. My reply: Well, I'm sure you'll fit in just fine. Why was this little exchange so weird to me? As usual, I'm glad you asked. Until recently I suffered tremendously with insomnia, sometimes going for three or four days without real sleep. I decided to try a change of venue and checked into a downtown hotel for a couple of nights. (Checking into hometown hotels was nothing new for me. I did the same thing while in seminary when I had writer's block.) After checking out of the Crowne Plaza, I drove straight down Main Street, and as I approached my Place of worship, and it being Sunday and all, I had a tremendous yearning to attend the 8:30 worship service as I normally do. I parked my Jeep in the usual spot, and approached the side entrance, tentatively, just as our Minister of Music arrived. He greeted me with his normal gigantic smile, eyes twinkling, teeth flashing, and greeted me: hey girl! Come on in here! What was so unusual about that? Girl was sporting a warmup suit and athletic shoes.

The really cool thing is that no one who spoke to me that day gave any indication that I grossed them out because of my attire. They looked at me -- not my togs.

Now, before I dwell on clothing and the reader thinks it's just about fashion, let's move on. Since I promised to keep this short, I'll have to deem this writing Part I, and will end with this:

Traditions aren't all they're cracked up to be, according to Paul in the second chapter of Galatians.

News flash: Not only is it not about tradition, it's not about the rituals. And it's not even about the religion. But it's all about the relationship.

Happy Holidays??? Leave it to us to bastardize another word.

THIS RANT IS RATED "E" FOR EVERYONE.

Holiday is a word derived from the combination of holy and day -- a day set aside for a religious observance.   We took it a step further with our national days of observance -- Lincoln's birthday (now Presidents' Day), Independence Day, Memorial Labor Day, blah, blah, blah.  

When I was a kid we had time off for school at the end of the year and it was the Christmas break.  We actually had Christmas programs -- not Holiday programs -- at school -- complete with manger scenes and the singing of O Come All Ye Faithful and other such tunes that dare mention the Christ Child -- or Jesus.  And now, self-appointed PC police in every state of the nation have stifled even so-called Christians from saying Merry Christmas.  To display a manger scene in certain areas is verboten.   Happy Holidays is the catch-phrase of the season, which each year looks less and less like the celebration of the birth of the Savior of the World (at least for those of us who believe), and more like the season to create nostalgic moments of family gatherings for the primary purpose of exchanging gifts -- or regifting gifts -- all for the sake of some commercial bottom line.   

It is not lost on me that Jesus was probably born in what we now call March or April (or sometime around those months) and that to relate His birth to sleighbells and snow is ludicrous whimsy.  I made peace with that a long time ago.   What I refuse to make peace with is the commercial madness of this time of year.  

Perhaps it would be better to move Christmas -- the real Christmas -- the celebration of Jesus's birth -- to another time of year.  But I suppose things would really be thrown off if we were celebrating his birth around the same time of year he was crucified and resurrected.  It would throw off everyone's social calendar.  Can you imagine purple-draped crosses and hay-filled mangers side-by-side?  Or for one's heathen neighbor, Easter bunnies and reindeer on your neighbor's front lawn?  Have you ever thought of the logistics of some commercial concerns that rely on the Christmas season to make or break their year's profits???

To my Christian friends:  Do you say happy holidays?  Or do you say Merry Christmas?  Or does it vary depending on to whom you are speaking and whether you are at work or home or out and about?   Just curious.

And to my Jewish friends:  Do you say happy holidays?  Or do you say happy Hanukkah?   And if you say the latter, do you say it to everyone or just your fellow congregants?   Just curious.

And to my unbelieving friends (yep, got those too):  What do you really make of this day -- other than determining how many presents you need to purchase and for whom, and how many presents you expect to receive and from whom?  Do you get those warm, fuzzy feelings from attending family gatherings?  Or do you get wasted at your firm's holiday party?  Or both?

It seems that of all the religions in the world, Christianity, which accounts for about 33%(half of which are unfortunately Roman Catholic, but that's for another day) (according to the CIA's world fact book), is the one religion that is stifled in its attempts to celebrate God, at least in the United States.   The Constitutional right of free speech is easily tossed aside if Jesus is the subject.  Oh, it seems to be okay if one is Buddhist or Hindu or whatever else.  And, by all means, the Satanists and Wiccans must be allowed to practice their craft or whatever they call it.  But let anyone talk about Jesus.  Heads turn, eyes are cast down, and under-the-breath mutterings commence.  

News flash to Christians:  if you are ashamed to own Him, He will be ashamed to own you (see Luke 9:26).

One last thing about the process of bastardizing:   I am aware that this time of year was chosen to celebrate the birth of the Messiah because it was a pagan holiday or coincided with the winter solstice, and perhaps it was an opportunity to align with the old habits of new believers by having them celebrate something Christian on a day that they formerly celebrated something else.    

For whatever the reason, if you're celebrating Christmas, celebrate Christmas.  If you're observing Hanukkah, observe Hanukkah.    If either of these days mean something to you, I implore you to treat them as if they do.   And if you just want to spend a ton of money, incur a lot of debt, eat too much food and drink too much liquor-laced egg nog, I suppose you have nothing better to say than HAPPY HOLIDAZE.