News & Comment - Christmas 2006
PETA Mistakenly Targets Alaska Church
Associated Press
November 25, 2006 7:18 AM EST
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - The pastor at Anchorage First Free Methodist Church was
mystified. Why was the activist group People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals chastising him? No animals are harmed in the church's holiday nativity
display. In fact, animals aren't used at all.
People, however, do dress the parts - Mary, Joseph, the wise men, etc. The
volunteers stand shivering at a manger on the church lawn in a silent tribute to
Christmas.
The Rev. Jason Armstrong was confused by an e-mail this week from PETA, which
admonished him for subjecting animals "to cruel treatment and danger," by
forcing them into roles in the church's annual manger scene.
"We've never had live animals, so I just figured this was some spam thing,"
Armstrong said. "It's rough enough on us people standing out there in the cold.
So we're definitely not using animals."
Jackie Vergerio, PETA's captive animals in entertainment specialist, said her
organization tracks churches nationwide that use real animals in "living
nativity scenes."
Kent comments:
There's a job description for you: "captive animals in entertainment specialist." Try as I might, I can't seem to think a more pointless group than PETA. They do serve one purpose, perhaps. They make people want to stop hunting animals, and start hunting humans - at least the humans of PETA!
Perhaps PETA isn't the most pointless group one might encounter. For example, in early December there came a letter from the KENTUCKY COUNCIL OF CHURCHES which read, in part:
It has been a busy year for the Kentucky Council of Churches. Our Annual Assembly, just completed, brought together the delegates and guests to talk about "becoming a new church." We talked together about what is happening to denominations and the impact of these changes on the ecumenical movement.
This past; year I saw Madeleine Albright, the former Secretary of State on C-Span . . . she said that increasingly nations are turning their backs on the institutions that were created in past generations for collaborative problem solving, and for joint action, in favor of going it alone.
Our member denominations are suffering from much the same problem: more money is being given to the church, but less and less of it goes to the denominational and ecumenical structures created in past years for collaboration, reconciliation, and shared witness.
The letter goes on to say that the Council cannot count on the support of denominations, and needs individuals to make direct contributions. On the return envelope was an list of the levels of support possible, with the somewhat loaded question of "At what level will you support reconciliation, justice, peacemaking, and unity?" The list, from least to greatest, read:
Friends: any amount at any time
Advocates: $10 per month
Activists: $25 per month
Witnesses: $50 per month
and lastly (and Kent wouldn't kid you about this one)
Ecumaniacs: $83.33 per month.
Kent comments:
Things I learned from this letter from the Kentucky Council of Churches: 1) the Council is about as pointless as the United Nations, and 2) if only I could spare $83.33 per month, I too could become an "Ecumaniac." So this holiday season, if you have a left-leaning Christian friend, why not give the gift that keeps on giving? Make that nutty friend an "Ecumaniac." Merry Christmas.
Enquirer news services, December 2, 2006: St. Albans, W. Va.
Christ is missing from Christmas in this small town. The community's holiday display has a manger with shepherds, a guiding star, camels and a palm tree, but no baby Jesus, Mary or Joseph. The parks superintendent said Jesus was left out because of concerns about the separation of church and state. But Mayor Dick Callaway said it was done for purely technical reasons.
Kent comments:
Could a better metaphor of Christmas in twenty-first century America be imagined? Of course, with no baby Jesus, there is no need for Mary and Joseph. But to whom is the guiding star guiding us? Wouldn't you love to know about those "purely technical reasons" why the baby Jesus had to be left out of the "holiday display"? Was the traditional "divine glow of the Son of God incarnate" a violation of local zoning ordinances?
but wait, here comes the even more confusing follow-up story:
December 04, 2006
ASSOCIATED PRESS
ST. ALBANS, W.Va. (AP) - Baby Jesus will be in the manger for Christmas after all, even if Mary and Joseph won't be there to coo. Officials have put the infant back into the town's nativity scene after news reports about the omission prompted e-mails from as far away as South Korea.
"The baby is in the manger," Callaway said Monday. Jesus will be included, but Mary and Joseph are still out.
The manger scene, one of 350 light exhibits in the town's annual Festival of Lights, had included shepherds, camels, and a guiding star, but no Jesus, Mary or Joseph. The parks superintendent said Jesus was left out because of concerns about the separation of church and state. But Mayor Dick Callaway said it was more a technical issue and an oversight.
"The purpose isn't to support a particular religion," Callaway said. "It's just to show one more side to the season."
Kent comments (again):
So the mayor says it is an "oversight." You know how it is when you are putting your manger scene together, especially without that all-important check list. You remember your shepherds, camels, and guiding stars, BUT it's easy to forget Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. But of course we don't want to "support a particular religion." Wouldn't you love to know what was going on in the mind of the Mayor when he decided to succumb to public pressure and put Jesus back into the manger, but "stand his ground" against Mary and Joseph?