[ back ]
In Response to Shuman's Commentary on Christmas
(by John Klimenok, Jr Plainfield - December 19, 2012)
In Response to Shuman's Commentary on Christmas
Editor:
In his "It's That Time of Year... Again" commentary in the 12-5-12 issue of The World, G. E. Shuman claims that there is a "war" on Christmas. He is perturbed that "American Christians have to suffer through irritating and unrelenting anti-holiday, insulting news stories from the national media."
Citizens having various religious backgrounds, or none at all, pay taxes for the common good and should not have to support religions they don't believe in. To allow religious displays, like creches and crosses, on public property funded by taxes is in conflict with the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution because the government would then be endorsing a specific religion.
Mr. Shuman evidently has forgotten or does not care to recognize that there are other holidays that occur in December, like Hanukkah and Kwanzaa. The reason that the anti-holiday sentiment is always aimed at the "Christian holidays" and not "the Muslim or Buddhist holidays" is simply that most Muslims and Buddhists don't try to shove their religious beliefs down people's throats by trying to force their religious displays into tax-funded venues.
He ends his commentary by stating his belief that Jesus "really is coming back here, probably very soon" and that "He's not gonna be happy." Why hasn't Jesus returned already? There are several passages in the New Testament that strongly indicate that he would return soon after his death. Examples are Matthew 10:27, 16:28, and 24:34; I Corinthians 7:29; 1 Thessalonians 4:17; and Revelations 1:3 and 22:10.
2 Peter 3:8 ("one day is with the Lord as a thousand years") is sometimes used to explain why Jesus has not returned. According to most Biblical authorities, 2 Peter was written in the second century; Peter was executed in the year 64. 2 Peter is an example of pseudo-epigraphy, a document written by an anonymous author who saw the problem of Jesus' non-return and tried to explain it with a, quite frankly, pathetic rationalization.
What fits the facts and makes the most logical sense? (1) That Jesus' father was God who somehow impregnated a young woman, and that Jesus was resurrected and observed by many of his followers afterward, and will someday soon return? Or, (2) That Jesus was, in some ways, a very remarkable person who was crucified about 1970 years ago and can never return because he's dead?
John Klimenok, Jr
Plainfield
[ back ]
