It’s Christmas time. It’s that wonderful time of year when we go out of our minds buying gifts for each other in attempt to placate our desire for acceptance. It’s that wonderful time when we are reminded how many days are left to buy such items. It’s that wonderful time when we are reminded constantly that it’s a time for family & friends, and if you don’t have either, you’re a big loser. And it’s that wonderful time of the year when every non-Christian religious group and/or secularist comes out of the woodwork to protest Christianity, tell us that Christmas is a sham,
and tell us Christmas isn’t just about Christmas, it’s about Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Solstice, or Ramadan (which came early this year).
Oh, and let me remind you it’s about the birth of Jesus, too. But you may not know that given that “Wonderful time of the year” is expressly forbidden from mentioning Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the manger, or anything Christian. It may end up offending someone.
In fact, when the Queen gives a Christmas speech on the BBC, there’s a “rebuttal“. I swear I’m not making this up. A rebuttal. What does that say about Western Society when “Merry Christmas” is so offensive it requires a rebuttal. This year’s rebuttal is going to be given by Khadija, a British citizen from Zimbabwe, who wears the nijab, or traditional Muslim head covering. She’ll be talking about the importance of being oppressed by religion. Wait! My bad. She’ll be talking about how the nijab is important to her in her daily life of submission to radical Islam, er, I mean, God.
The last line of the article really got me thinking:
Channel 4’s spokesman also said that the controversy has “generated a debate about multiculturalism, secularism and integration – a debate in which British Muslims have played a key role and one that will shape the future of British society”.
There’s been a lot of talk about “multiculturalism”. Now, what is “multiculturalism” you say? According to a source:
refers to a belief or policy that endorses the principle of cultural diversity and supports the right of different cultural and ethnic groups to retain distinctive cultural identities. It has often been criticized for being too symbolic and not politically radical enough in challenging racism.
And now comes something from my childhood– the idea of America as a “melting pot“.
The melting pot is a metaphor for the way in which homogeneous societies develop, in which the ingredients in the pot (people of different cultures and religions) are combined so as to lose their discrete identities to some degree, yielding a final product which has a more uniform consistency and flavor, and which is quite different from the original inputs.
Now, when I was growing up, I was taught and understood that all people are equal in America, as far as citizenship goes. Opportunity should not be denied on physical characteristics but rather evaluated on ability. Discrimination is bad. Right?
But now here’s Multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is good. Multiculturalism is bad. Well, what is it, folks?
America was originally a destination of diversity. People of different religions fled to America. Prisoners, exiles– all welcome on our shores. We promised to make sure everyone who came to our shores was given a fair shake, so long as they pledged allegiance to the nation. Everyone was reborn as an American. Not a German, Irishman, Englishman, Protestant, Catholic– everyone was welcome and we promised not to fight each other.
But then the ignorant started objecting to the immigration of the Irish. Or they railed against the heathen Injun. Or they objected to the blanket “freeing” of slaves. Or they objected to the Italians. Or the Mexicans. Or the Chinese. Let’s just say that there’s always a segment of the population that is so threatened by anything that they will take up arms, regardless of the silliness of their position. And the opponents of such racism clearly stated that these immigrants were no longer just immigrants– they were Americans. And at that point, all racism should cease.
Now multiculturalism comes around. We should be tolerant of other peoples’ lifestyles, be they gay, Muslim, Wiccan, Dennis Kucinich— regardless of who they are and what they are, we should respect them. Fine. No problem here. I didn’t need multiculturalism to tell me to treat all citizens of this country the same.
But therein lies the rub. Many “multiculturalists” support illegal immigration. I didn’t really have a problem with illegal immigration– it’s been ingrained in the farming sector for years, and without it, farmers have to find that labor elsewhere– and it’s a job not many people are willing to do. But then 9/11 happened, and we have constant threats of people who want to hurt us on our soil. So we have to secure the border, and that means a wall, and that idea, on principle, sucks, because it stands against the idea of America, where people can come and live freely. If we erect a wall, it’s telling people, “Sorry. America’s full. Try Australia!”
But it’s not just about jobs. It’s about living off the system. Take it from a new citizen. Illegals don’t have to pay into the system they use, so they put a drain on the state. The greater the number of illegals, the greater the strain, and the higher the likelihood the system will fail. So, the bleeding has to stop.
Some people say, “Hey, all they have to do is become citizens!” Do you know how much paperwork goes into becoming a US Citizen? Many people hire a lawyer. My friend shelled out $3,000 to a lawyer to become a US Citizen (after he was already married to a US citizen). Some people have to do that. They say the paperwork is “easy”, but it’s not to the undereducated. There’s the Green Card, which is a Permanent Resident card that permits foreign nationals to work in the US. And that’s a five-year waiting period. It’s not easy becoming a citizen. But we shouldn’t discard those who want to come here and work, so I think the “Guest Worker” system is a great idea. Blanket amnesty? Horrible. If they wanted to be an American, they would have pursued citizenship by now.
Another rub is the reverse of multiculturalism. I live in a distinct culture that I have adopted as my own. It’s called “America”. When people come to my country and do not assimilate, they form little pockets of non-national identity. During the “immigration marches”, many protesters were carrying Mexican flags. They’re not protesting for rights for immigrants– they’re protesting to take parts of America back for Mexico. It’s the Aztlan movement, and it has nothing to do with tolerance. The same with radical Muslims. Take the “Flying Imams”. They claim they are being discriminated against (racism!), but in reality everything they did was a warning sign to have them removed from a flight. Fortunately the flight crew wasn’t cowed into being “sensitive” to their needs. In fact, it was the Imams who were being insensitive to their fellow passengers. And that’s not multiculturalism because you’re placing your culture above mine.
Multiculturalism’s real danger is that in celebrating other cultures, we denigrate the national identity— the national culture. Our culture is one of acceptance. Our culture is one of diversity. Our culture is one that recognizes the the right for all people to be here. But if the other culture doesn’t recognize the original culture as a distinct culture, then we have a problem. American culture is one of the best in the world. That doesn’t mean we should grovel for apologies when the President says “Merry Christmas.”
This season is about the birth of Jesus. And if there’s anything that defines this country and what it’s done for the world, it’s best described as Christian in that it follows the compassion of Jesus. No other religion teaches the peace that Jesus sought. Nowhere else do we find the compassion of the Christ. Nowhere else do we find the role-model that is Jesus.
That doesn’t mean we should grovel for our peace. It means we must be fair and strong.
That is our culture. That is America.