Sunday, December 14, 2014

The Massacre of the Innocents.

Today's lesson comes from Matthew 2:16–18: The Massacre of the Innocents.
When [the Magi] had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. Get up, he said, take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him. So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son." When Herod realised that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old or under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.
It is part of the Narrative of the Birth of Christ, yet this incident is only mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew and later Christian authorities who use this gospel as a source.  It is repeated each year with the singing of the Coventry Carol, which came from that City's Mystery Play:
Lully, lullay, Thou little tiny Child,
Bye, bye, lully, lullay.
Lullay, thou little tiny Child,
Bye, bye, lully, lullay.
O sisters too, how may we do,
For to preserve this day
This poor youngling for whom we do sing
Bye, bye, lully, lullay.
Herod, the king, in his raging,
Charged he hath this day
His men of might, in his owne sight,
All young children to slay.
That woe is me, poor Child for Thee!
And ever mourn and sigh,
For thy parting neither say nor sing,
Bye, bye, lully, lullay.
Some people have doubted this was an actual historical event since it is only mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew.  Some people see this as being a contrived feature of the Gospels to show that Jesus was the Messiah by fulfilling the prophecy of being called out of Egypt.

Today is the anniversary of a mass shooting where 20 small children were shot.  This incident was well reported and documented, yet there are some who would deny that it happened.

Unfortunately, this is only one incident where children fall victim to firearms violence.  It seems that children are shot both intentionally and accidentally on a daily basis in the States.

There are those who would twist an archaic passage in the US Constitution which deals with an obscure institution, the Militia, which some would like to say would cause this to be an unintentional consequence of a "right" to own weapons outside the context of that institution.  This is despite the Constitution's purposes of  "insuring domestic tranquility" and "promoting the general welfare" as well as saying that people should not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Instead, we see people acting like Herod and countenancing a new slaughter of the innocents.  For what purpose?

Unlike the unborn, these are not speculative lives: they are persons who were living, breathing, and playing.  They had parents who wanted to bring them into this world. They would have had futures had there not been the easy access to firearms which leads to these new massacres of the innocents on a daily basis. 

For those who would say they want to protect the unborn: why do they not wish to also protect the born?   As Sister Joan Chittister pointed out:
I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.
I will add that you cannot call yourself pro-life if you tolerate the daily massacres of the living innocents on top of the"pro-birth" attitude mentioned by Sister Joan Chittister.

In short, if you are going to truly proclaim yourself as being "pro-life" then you should want to protect the lives of those who are actually alive.  You would also want to see that their welfare was assured in keeping with the Gospel.  You need to think of the child who was born into poverty who talked of peace on earth and good will to mankind in this season.

18 comments:

  1. Swiss cheese. Full of holes. Logic of a birdbrain.

    orlin sellers

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, that was one of the most rambling posts I've seen in a while. Herod--massarcre of the innocents, probably didn't happen; Sandy Hook, did happen, some might not think it did (where were you going with this?); then a sudden, rambling bit where you show that you are not pro-life but decide to preach at those who you assume are about what the appropriate way for them to be pro-life is (of course, if they adopt this position, you'll thank them for supporting your welfare policies and still accuse them of a war on women for being pro-life).

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm pro-choice, always have been. Your assumption that gunnies are all pro-life bible thumpers is a fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one says ALL. But the general profile of a gun rights fanatic is one who is conservative, racist, pro-life, and hypocritically, pro-capital punishment.

      Delete
    2. I thought you leftist socialist were against 'profiling'.
      I'd be careful who you call 'racist' after seeing those emails from the Left Coast Hollywood liberal socialists.

      orlin sellers

      Delete
    3. Nice stereotype you've built in your head. Course, it's just more accusations of racism from one of the few people here who actually shows racial bias.

      As for the combination of "racist" and "pro-life" into the stereotype, it's pretty rich considering that it's pro-life people who want abortion clinics to stop locating in and preying on low income neighborhoods, and it's pro-abortion types like Jonathan Gruber and his research buddy who ran farther with the idea in Freakonomics who point to abortion as a social good that removed a lot of poor children from existence, leading to a fall in crime.

      Delete
  4. Likewise if you are going to truly proclaim yourself as being "pro-choice" then you shouldn't be so selective about the issues you allow people to make choices on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. no no no - Laci wants to be the one choosing. You can't let the dumb masses make choices for themselves, only the enlightened elite (liberals) can make the choices.

      Delete
    2. Yep, that sums it up. When Laci, Dog gone, and Mike say they are "pro-choice" that means "I am all for me getting to make your choices for you".

      Delete
    3. Cmon, Mike! You want to make the choice of gun vs. security system vs. Both for us, you want to make the decision of "carry or not" for us, the decision of whether to go to certain shops, the decision of whether to buy certain insurance coverage or not, etc. etc. etc. Heck, your dear leader even said that we don't want American mothers making the choice to stay home and care for their kids instead of pursuing a career of their own.

      Delete
    4. Bullshit. What I want is to make guns much harder for unfit and unqualified people to have access to. Why would you oppose something like that? Because 1. you know you'd be among the unqualified, or 2. because you hate being told what you can and cannot do, like an immature adolescent.

      Delete
    5. You're forgetting about all the things you want to ban for everybody- not just the unfit:

      No, you can't have a pistol grip on that rifle.

      No, you can't have 11rds in a magazine.

      You have to store your guns this way.

      Etc., etc.

      These are choices that you want to make for other people.

      Delete
    6. Etc., etc., you cannot murder someone because you're mad at him, you cannot steal someone's car because you like it better than your own, you cannot fuck your girlfriend if she says no.

      There are lots of rules in a civilized society.

      Delete
    7. Notice that in every example you gave there was a victim.

      Delete
    8. MikeB: “There are lots of rules in a civilized society.”

      Do you think all the extra rules they have in North Korea makes them more civilized than us? A government can be uncivilized to the people by taking away free choice.

      Delete
    9. That's really stupid, TS. I didn't say the more rules the more civilized, did I?

      Delete