Even though he does not read this blog,I must first apologize to my good friend Legolas. Several years ago, he told me that his kids (none of whom had, or have, yet been born) would not "believe" in Santa Claus. In my typical "I'm-right-and-you-are-wrong" fashion, I let him have it. I lambasted him, asking how he was going to keep his children from spoiling it for other kids. Telling him that it was foolish and unnecessary, that Santa was harmless. Legolas: I'm sorry.
Some of you may be questiong why "believe" is in quotation marks. As a student of history, I have every intention of telling Isaac the true story of Saint Nicholas, My hope is that he will believe that this generous man truly did exist, but that he is either currently with the Lord, or awaiting judgement day (depending on your theology on such matters). So Isaac will believe in the person that we now refer to as Santa, but he will not believe that Santa still exists. There are several reasons why.
I'll begin with what I view as the most obvious: Santa detracts from Jesus. In our ultra consumer-driven culture, Santa represents the giving and receiving of gifts on Christmas. While some I know try to justify this by saying that the wise men gave gifts to Christ, or that Jesus was the ultimate gift to man, I see this as justification after the fact. If Jesus is the ultimate gift, shouldn't we be giving to Him? And if it's the wise men, Santa shouldn't begin his breaking and entering spree til some time in January. Kris Kringle's detraction from the true "reason for the season" is further exacerbated by the current over-use of Santa to sell at Christmas time. (You may have noticed that "Christmas time" now begins the day after Halloween, rather than the day after Thanksgiving, as it used to.) Anecedotally, The Queen of Hearts and I were at a family Christmas party last year. The Queen's father has a massive family and there were probably two dozen "Santa-aged" children present. Many parents found their kids to be uncontrollable until... Santa arrived. (So it was the Queen's female cousin in a Santa suit, these kids wanted to believe so much, that it didn't seem to bother most of them that Santa sounded like a woman). Suddenly, there were 24 little angels in the room seated quitely at Santa's feet awaiting what great gift he would bestow upon them. It was as though he had attained the status of deity for these young minds. I was highly disturbed. Not only does Santa detract from Jesus, he almost usurps his position.
Second, I would rather not lie to my child regarding an apparently immortal, strangely powerful, loving being who can visit every home that celebrates Christmas in a single night giving material gifts. A being who doesn't really exist. Primarily because I want him to believe in the immortal, omnipotent, all loving, omnipresent, giver of the single greatest gift: salvation. If he learns that I lied about Santa, does he then doubt the existence of God and Christ? A relative of mine was explaining how his second grade daughter came home questioning the existence of jolly old St. Nick. Apparently, a child at school told her Santa wasn't real. The father of this seven year old then set out an elaborate plan to convince her that Santa did exist. His end purpose was to further deceive his child. No thanks, I'll pass.
Something I realized recently is that our Santa myth sets up the potential for an incorrect (and potentially damaging) view of God. The similarities between Santa and God are quite evident as I listed above. There are two great differences that could be confusing if a child believes in Kris Kringle. First, both Jesus and St. Nick both truly lived, but only one is still alive. Second, what do you have to do for Santa to give you something other than coal? You must be good! Every sidewalk Santa asks the same thing, "Have you been a good [boy/girl] this year?" However, God's blessings are not contingent on our behavior. They are based on His grace and love, not whether or not we cursed when we got our finger caught in the blender when we were trying to get out that last bit of milk shake. This second difference is one that many believers struggle with anyway, it does not need to be subconsciously encouraged.
I see in the Bible many calls to be counter-cultural. Because America is supposedly a "Christian Nation," we often feel that it's ok to be an American Christian because they are almost synonmous. I no longer see it that way and this is just one way that we will hopefully stand out as believers. We are Christians who happen to be Americans. Our loyalty to the kingdom of God comes first.
Will Isaac be missing out on anything? I remember when I learned that Santa didn't exist. I figured it out because Santa and the Easter Bunny had the same handwriting. I was pretty mad at my parents for lying to me for years. (The night before Easter, my mom would wear a hat with bunny ears on it, so in case we woke up we'd think we saw the Easter Bunny. I did see the Easter Bunny, and told kids that I had, til I was in third grade). I'm hoping that Isaac will miss out on all of that.
We'll try to explain to him that some people believe that Santa exists and we shouldn't try to convince them otherwise. However, for his whole life, I hope Isaac will know the following truths: Jesus loves him, the Red Sox are the best team in baseball, and Santa doesn't really exist.
This may be just my opinion, but it's being put into action.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Friday, December 15, 2006
A little bit of everything
Once again, I apologize for the extended delay between posts. I hope that there are still people out there who periodically check this venue of discussion to make sure I am still alive. Apu, thank you for letting me know that you do, feel free to encourage others to do the same.
Alright, this will be another epic multi-issue post. I will try to remain current and not post on things that are no longer relevant.
First, on a personal note, it's been a bit difficult living here in CT. We haven't yet found a home church, which means our access to a community of believers is limited. We did find a Baptist church that holds its services entirely in Polish. Isaac is sitting up now and doing long division. (Ok, that second part isn't entirely accurate.) I am still unemployed but I am waiting to hear about a non-sports, non-film job opportunity for which I interviewed. The flip side of the lack of income/lack of work issue is that it's been nice being home with Isaac and Vanessa and enjoying Isaac's early months of growth.
Next, to current affairs (I'll hit sports last so that I don't lose those of you who don't much care about sports):
Newsline: Boston. So the Governor-elect of MA has decided to throw off the chains of tradition and not allow anyone to conduct a background check on the people who he is going to appoint to public office. Allow me to shed some light on the predicament MA has willingly gotten themselves into: You have a defense laywer who has defended convicted rapists, murderers, and cop killers, among others. Mind you, he's assuredly gotten some people acquitted or he wouldn't have been as successful as he's been, and not every sentence is a life sentence. Now this man is running the Commonwealth's government and will not allow background checks on his appointed officials. Does that instill a sense of confidence in you? Does he owe some people "favors?" I can't help but wonder what they are hiding.
Newsline: The Supreme Court: The highest court in the nation is currently hearing a case that once again involves the desegragation of schools. Did you think that was decided with Brown v. Board of Education? Think again. There are two states that are involved in this litigation. These two states regularly bus children to different school systems to ensure that the schools are integrated so that they comply with the historic ruling listed above. The problem is not that the schools refuse to be integrated, but that the schools that have been receiving the bussed students are now forced to turn away students from their own town, forcing those students to be bussed to the school from which the non-resident students would be attending. Why is this before the Supreme Court? Only the white students are being turned away. Apparently, the school already has too many white students. Now take a moment and replace the word "white" in the above sentences with "black" or "hispanic" or "minority." Outraged? Why not before? Bottom line: Bus in whomever you like, that's not the issue. However, do not tell parents who live in your town and pay taxes that go to fund your school that their children are not allowed to attend there. Schools are funded by town budgets so the town has a choice. A) Refund the taxes of the people whose children are being shipped to another town against their will (and pay for the added expense those children cause in said other town.) or B) Let the kids go to school with the children who live next door to them.
Newsline: Connecticut: Enfield, Connecticut has a graduating class of about 450 students. Their gymnasium holds 800 people. For those who don't feel like doing the math, that's less than 1 family member per graduating student (especially if you count faculty and staff who would be attending.) In the past, the school has held their graduation ceremony at the Bushnell in Hartford. (For those of you in Boston, think "The Wang".) This was no inexpensive endeavor, however. The school had to cut a check for $18,000 for the use of that venue. There is a "mega-church" in Enfield that seats just about the same number of people as the Bushnell and is only asking $6,000 for the use of their sanctuary. What a great deal for this school (a school that was spending $18,000 of the tax payer's money). I bet we all know what's coming next. The ACLU has stepped in. They are fighting the school system saying that they can't have it in a church because that "favors one religion over another." The church has promised to remove all of their banners and mobile religious symbols. Behind the staging area is a stain glass window of a dove. The ACLU laywers say that the issue isn't the symbols, simply the symbolic nature that the building is a church. Any guesses on how many complaints they've had from the 450 families who have graduation seniors? One. So that one person could possibly take $12,000 from the sports, computers, art, music, another teacher's aide, field trips, you name it, all because they are offended that the graduation might be held in a building that is a church. For crying out loud, what if everything someone was offended by didn't happen or exist? No more rap music. The middle finger is outlawed. Forget all of the profanity you know. Most of prime time TV is a big no-no. The Religious Right is disbanded. Political parties are parties no more. The Yankees cease to exist. You see what I'm getting at. Really, sometimes people need to suck it up and deal. (One more thing about the offended people and the church. They wouldn't be offended if the graduation was catered by Dunkin Donuts saying that was the town showing favor of one doughnut place over another, demanding that it be catered by a non-Dunkins, non-Krispy doughnut provider. Why is it that the church is so offensive? Is it because it appears to require one to change how they live? (when in actuality, once one has faith, it is the Holy Spirit that encourages the change?) What would these people have done in acient Greece? "Can't do that, that favors Hermes over Ares, or Aphrodite over Hades.")
Sportsline: New Orleans: So I am no longer pulling for the New Orleans Saints. I was hoping they'd do well with the reconstruction of their city and Reggie's rookie year, not to mention the resurgence of Drew Brees. However, they committed one of the most despicable actions in sports and, therefore, have lost my support. They purposefully ran up the score against Dallas last week. Now it's one thing to have a potent defense and perhaps recover a fumble or grab an interception and run it back. Or get a turnover and run a potent offense against a porous D. That's not what happened. Up by 25 points in the fourth quarter, New Orleans lined up as though they were going to kick the ball away and instead executed an on-sides kick. An on-sides kick! Despicable, low, no good, needless. It's something my brother-in-law does against me in Madden '07. It's not something a professional head coach does against his former team. Maybe the coach had Brees in his fantasy league and wanted to make sure he got some extra fantasy points because they already had the spread beat if he had money on the game. If that had been done by a high school coach he'd be fired (or at least fined.) That kind of unsportsman-like coaching has no place in the NFL.
Sportsline: Boston: So Theo has finally made his fantasy come true. The Red Sox have signed Julio Lugo. Why Epstein has been infatuated with this player, I have no idea. He steals, he strikes out, and he bunts. This is not the Moneyball player that Theo claims to adore. I'll miss the most reliable defensive short stop the Red Sox have ever had. Maybe we can sign him and move him to second, because there is no way that Loretta is sticking around. Also on the theme of the Red Sox, they better sign "The Monster" or they wasted $51.1 million. I heard a rumor that he was signed for $52 million over 6 or 10 years, but that has been unconfirmed at this time. Making the total cost for this player $103.1 million. (and Scott Boras, the jerkiest agent in sports would get $5.2 million over 6 or 10 years. He doesn't really need any other players, does he? He's kinda like Jay Mahr's character in Jerry Maguire, you gotta deal with him, but nobody really likes him.) I wonder if the Sox will see another complete team turnaround like they did last year. Everyone gone but Papi and 'Tek. Yup, once again they are trying to trade Manny, will they never learn? I'm out of WEEI range so my news may be old. But it's met with the same mixed emotions it would be if I heard it from Jerry and John, Dale and Holey, or The Big O, Pete, and Buck.
Finally: If you've made it this far, I have a question to pose for which I have no answer. I've been wrestling with this and would like others' input. Here it is: Is health care a human right? Please comment with your answer (and who pays for it...)
Again, sorry it's been so long. Thanks for wading through these issues with me. I hope it will be less than a month before you receive another installment of that which is just my opinion.
Alright, this will be another epic multi-issue post. I will try to remain current and not post on things that are no longer relevant.
First, on a personal note, it's been a bit difficult living here in CT. We haven't yet found a home church, which means our access to a community of believers is limited. We did find a Baptist church that holds its services entirely in Polish. Isaac is sitting up now and doing long division. (Ok, that second part isn't entirely accurate.) I am still unemployed but I am waiting to hear about a non-sports, non-film job opportunity for which I interviewed. The flip side of the lack of income/lack of work issue is that it's been nice being home with Isaac and Vanessa and enjoying Isaac's early months of growth.
Next, to current affairs (I'll hit sports last so that I don't lose those of you who don't much care about sports):
Newsline: Boston. So the Governor-elect of MA has decided to throw off the chains of tradition and not allow anyone to conduct a background check on the people who he is going to appoint to public office. Allow me to shed some light on the predicament MA has willingly gotten themselves into: You have a defense laywer who has defended convicted rapists, murderers, and cop killers, among others. Mind you, he's assuredly gotten some people acquitted or he wouldn't have been as successful as he's been, and not every sentence is a life sentence. Now this man is running the Commonwealth's government and will not allow background checks on his appointed officials. Does that instill a sense of confidence in you? Does he owe some people "favors?" I can't help but wonder what they are hiding.
Newsline: The Supreme Court: The highest court in the nation is currently hearing a case that once again involves the desegragation of schools. Did you think that was decided with Brown v. Board of Education? Think again. There are two states that are involved in this litigation. These two states regularly bus children to different school systems to ensure that the schools are integrated so that they comply with the historic ruling listed above. The problem is not that the schools refuse to be integrated, but that the schools that have been receiving the bussed students are now forced to turn away students from their own town, forcing those students to be bussed to the school from which the non-resident students would be attending. Why is this before the Supreme Court? Only the white students are being turned away. Apparently, the school already has too many white students. Now take a moment and replace the word "white" in the above sentences with "black" or "hispanic" or "minority." Outraged? Why not before? Bottom line: Bus in whomever you like, that's not the issue. However, do not tell parents who live in your town and pay taxes that go to fund your school that their children are not allowed to attend there. Schools are funded by town budgets so the town has a choice. A) Refund the taxes of the people whose children are being shipped to another town against their will (and pay for the added expense those children cause in said other town.) or B) Let the kids go to school with the children who live next door to them.
Newsline: Connecticut: Enfield, Connecticut has a graduating class of about 450 students. Their gymnasium holds 800 people. For those who don't feel like doing the math, that's less than 1 family member per graduating student (especially if you count faculty and staff who would be attending.) In the past, the school has held their graduation ceremony at the Bushnell in Hartford. (For those of you in Boston, think "The Wang".) This was no inexpensive endeavor, however. The school had to cut a check for $18,000 for the use of that venue. There is a "mega-church" in Enfield that seats just about the same number of people as the Bushnell and is only asking $6,000 for the use of their sanctuary. What a great deal for this school (a school that was spending $18,000 of the tax payer's money). I bet we all know what's coming next. The ACLU has stepped in. They are fighting the school system saying that they can't have it in a church because that "favors one religion over another." The church has promised to remove all of their banners and mobile religious symbols. Behind the staging area is a stain glass window of a dove. The ACLU laywers say that the issue isn't the symbols, simply the symbolic nature that the building is a church. Any guesses on how many complaints they've had from the 450 families who have graduation seniors? One. So that one person could possibly take $12,000 from the sports, computers, art, music, another teacher's aide, field trips, you name it, all because they are offended that the graduation might be held in a building that is a church. For crying out loud, what if everything someone was offended by didn't happen or exist? No more rap music. The middle finger is outlawed. Forget all of the profanity you know. Most of prime time TV is a big no-no. The Religious Right is disbanded. Political parties are parties no more. The Yankees cease to exist. You see what I'm getting at. Really, sometimes people need to suck it up and deal. (One more thing about the offended people and the church. They wouldn't be offended if the graduation was catered by Dunkin Donuts saying that was the town showing favor of one doughnut place over another, demanding that it be catered by a non-Dunkins, non-Krispy doughnut provider. Why is it that the church is so offensive? Is it because it appears to require one to change how they live? (when in actuality, once one has faith, it is the Holy Spirit that encourages the change?) What would these people have done in acient Greece? "Can't do that, that favors Hermes over Ares, or Aphrodite over Hades.")
Sportsline: New Orleans: So I am no longer pulling for the New Orleans Saints. I was hoping they'd do well with the reconstruction of their city and Reggie's rookie year, not to mention the resurgence of Drew Brees. However, they committed one of the most despicable actions in sports and, therefore, have lost my support. They purposefully ran up the score against Dallas last week. Now it's one thing to have a potent defense and perhaps recover a fumble or grab an interception and run it back. Or get a turnover and run a potent offense against a porous D. That's not what happened. Up by 25 points in the fourth quarter, New Orleans lined up as though they were going to kick the ball away and instead executed an on-sides kick. An on-sides kick! Despicable, low, no good, needless. It's something my brother-in-law does against me in Madden '07. It's not something a professional head coach does against his former team. Maybe the coach had Brees in his fantasy league and wanted to make sure he got some extra fantasy points because they already had the spread beat if he had money on the game. If that had been done by a high school coach he'd be fired (or at least fined.) That kind of unsportsman-like coaching has no place in the NFL.
Sportsline: Boston: So Theo has finally made his fantasy come true. The Red Sox have signed Julio Lugo. Why Epstein has been infatuated with this player, I have no idea. He steals, he strikes out, and he bunts. This is not the Moneyball player that Theo claims to adore. I'll miss the most reliable defensive short stop the Red Sox have ever had. Maybe we can sign him and move him to second, because there is no way that Loretta is sticking around. Also on the theme of the Red Sox, they better sign "The Monster" or they wasted $51.1 million. I heard a rumor that he was signed for $52 million over 6 or 10 years, but that has been unconfirmed at this time. Making the total cost for this player $103.1 million. (and Scott Boras, the jerkiest agent in sports would get $5.2 million over 6 or 10 years. He doesn't really need any other players, does he? He's kinda like Jay Mahr's character in Jerry Maguire, you gotta deal with him, but nobody really likes him.) I wonder if the Sox will see another complete team turnaround like they did last year. Everyone gone but Papi and 'Tek. Yup, once again they are trying to trade Manny, will they never learn? I'm out of WEEI range so my news may be old. But it's met with the same mixed emotions it would be if I heard it from Jerry and John, Dale and Holey, or The Big O, Pete, and Buck.
Finally: If you've made it this far, I have a question to pose for which I have no answer. I've been wrestling with this and would like others' input. Here it is: Is health care a human right? Please comment with your answer (and who pays for it...)
Again, sorry it's been so long. Thanks for wading through these issues with me. I hope it will be less than a month before you receive another installment of that which is just my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)