Keep Muhammed in Christmas

nativity

One reason why I was so concerned over the recent reports of Queen Elizabeth II’s health problems is because this idiot is next in line to replace her:

Normally at Christmas, we think of the Birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. I wonder, though, if this year we might remember how the story of the nativity unfolds, with the fleeing of the holy family to escape violent persecution. And we might also remember that when the prophet Muhammad migrated from Mecca to Medina he was seeking the freedom for himself and his followers to worship.

All this from Charles, the Prince of Tampax, in his Christmas message, while raising the otherwise weighty and important subject of religious persecution around the world. Why don’t we use the occasion of a Christian holiday (and a holy day) to conflate different religions based on most superficial similarities and equate Jesus and Mohammed as if they have anything in common in any meaningful sense? After all, according to Prince Charles, both Jesus and Mohammed were refugees escaping persecution. Except that Mohammed proceeded to take over his city of refuge, and then used its resources to wage a guerrilla campaign against Mecca before finally subjugating her eight years later; a modus operandi that has inspired many other refugees named Mohammed ever since.

We are increasingly cursed with being lectured about religion by people who know nothing about it and otherwise don’t care about it except to use it as a cudgel against those who do. This accounts for the recent uproar on the left side of the social media when the RNC chair and the incoming White House chief of staff Reince Priebus mentioned “the good news of a new King” in his Christmas message. You don’t need an advanced degree in Flyover Studies to know that Reince was referring to Jesus and not Trump; you merely need the most basic acquaintance with Christianity, such as can be acquired through passive listening to Christmas carols. You know, “Hark the herald angels sing, ‘Glory to the newborn king’,” and all that.

This also accounts to the regular-as-a-clockwork annual lectures about baby Jesus and the immigration policy, as epitomised in this tweet:

babyjesus

Literally everything in this tweet is wrong. Jesus was not an anchor baby, Mary was not an unwed mother as we understand that term today, and the Holy Family were not illegal migrants. But the ability to write 140 characters of sheer historical and religious ignorance is seemingly not a disqualification from lecturing Christians about their religion and its implications for the modern life.

So let me explain it as simply as possible so that even the most theologically-challenged leftists can understand:

– Jesus was a Jew born of Jewish parents (Mary in the literal sense, Joseph in the legal one; if not actually married at the time, they were certainly betrothed or engaged) in the ancient Jewish land of Judea, which have been their tribal home for almost two millennia and their kingdom for more than one. To believe that Jesus was a stranger in his own land you must be either an anti-Semite or the United Nations. But I repeat myself.

– When Jesus was born, Joseph and Mary were on the road in order to comply with a stupid government requirement, not to escape persecution (though there is no historical evidence that the Romans required people to take the census only in their original hometown).

– The birth took place in a stable because “there was no room at the inn”. This was not an excuse to justify any sort of discrimination. As we all know, hotels are often fully occupied and have no vacancies. They do not lack compassion, just room.

– Jesus, Mary and Joseph did become refugees in the modern sense of the term when they escaped to Egypt to protect the little Christ from King Herod’s Slaughter of the Innocents. Note, however, that unlike so many of the contemporary “refugees” taxing and overloading Western humanitarian programs, the Holy Family did not sojourn to Europe but sought refuge in the first place¬†where it was safe to do so, as the UN Refugee Convention stipulates should be the case. Furthermore, once Herod died and it was safe to go back home, they did – again as envisaged by the Convention; a refuge being a temporary solution to a temporary problem, not a winning number in the lottery of life.

– Christianity is a personal ethic and not a political prescription like, for example, Islam. It recognises the division between the church and the state, the City of God and the City of Man; between God and Caesar, furthermore acknowledging that human, unlike divine, institutions will always be imperfect. The call to love, compassion, and charity are calls on an individual; you cannot subcontract these sentiments to the state to exercise them on your behalf, and even more so you cannot use the state to force others to love their neighbour. It was the Good Samaritan, not the Good Samaritan Government or a Compulsory Samaritan Insurance Levy for Traveller Assistance.

Comments

comments