|
Mark Steyn: Children? Not if you love the planet
This is the time of year, as Hillary Rodham Clinton once put it, when Christians celebrate "the birth of a homeless child" or, in Al Gore's words, "a homeless woman gave birth to a homeless child." Just for the record, Jesus wasn't "homeless." He had a perfectly nice home back in Nazareth. But he happened to be born in Bethlehem. It was census time, and Joseph was obliged to schlep halfway across the country to register in the town of his birth. Which is such an absurdly bureaucratic overregulatory cockamamie Big Government nightmare that it's surely only a matter of time before Massachusetts or California reintroduce it. But the point is: The Christmas story isn't about affordable housing. Joseph and Mary couldn't get a hotel room that's the only accommodation aspect of the event.
Just for a moment, let us accept, as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and the other bestselling atheists insist, that what happened in Bethlehem two millennia is a lot of mumbo-jumbo. As I wrote a year ago, consider it not as an event but as a narrative: You want to launch a big new global movement from scratch. So what do you use? The birth of a child. On the one hand, what could be more powerless than a newborn babe? On the other, without a newborn babe, man is ultimately powerless. For, without new life, there can be no civilization, no society, no nothing. Even if it's superstitious mumbo-jumbo, the decision to root Christ's divinity in the miracle of His birth expresses a profound and rational truth about "eternal life" here on Earth. Posted by: Fred 2007-12-16 |
|
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=213449 |