Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Coming soon to a school near you...

Now that Christmas Card season is over for me, I can turn my attention to more pressing issues - like the annual re-running of a "Charlie Brown Christmas". I recently read an article about how the special came about way back in the early 60's. As Charles Schultz and the producers were putting the story line together, one of the producers asked Mr. Schultz if he was certain he wanted to include the part where Linus reads from the Gospel of Luke. Schultz replied "If we don't do it, who will?".

How soon do you think it will be before Linus' speech gets edited out and replaced with something about "being nice" and "recycling" and "being tolerant"?


Josemaria Lazaro Paulo Jeronimo Martin Carvalho-von verster said...

Very Soon,Faster than We Can Say: Venite Adoremus!!

Soutenus said...

It has already happened in the "Christmas" book.
Here is a comment my friend left on FB: "I was in a store and they had this book, so I was going to get it, and I opened it to Linus's speech and it was skipped! I almost cried. Loved this part in the movie."

Paul Nichols said...

That's terrible Soutenus. The publisher of that book should be drawn and quartered.

Anonymous said...

"How soon do you think it will be before Linus' speech gets edited out and replaced with something about "being nice" and "recycling" and "being tolerant"?"

Is being tolerant a bad thing? kinda thought that was part of being Christian? am i wrong about this?

Soutenus said...

To "Anonymous"
Being tolerant is good Christian quality.
The idea here is that "being nice" and "recycling" and "being tolerant" are phrases that do not describe Christmas.

And taking Christ out of Christmas does not fall under the description of tolerance.

In the case of this editor I think it is safe to say he felt he would reach a wider market by taking Christ out of the Christmas story. That's greed.

As Christians we are called to NOT be tolerant of greed OR taking Christ out of Christmas.

Paul Nichols said...

"Tolerance" should be a two-way street. In today's culture, however, "tolerance" simply means that those who profess a belief in Christ shut the heck up and "tolerate" all of those who don't. In reality, it's not even "tolerance", it's more akin to denying Christ, or apologizing for Him.

Believers in Christ, in today's culture, are expected to keep quiet and/or deny their faith, and to deny or change what their Holidays stand for.

If "tolerance" was a two-way street, then every holiday should be subject to revisionism and/or deconstruction:

Labor Day probably offends the lazy and unemployed.

Independence Day probably offends the communists, any English who happen to be visiting at the time, or who happen to be stateside permanently.

Mother's Day & Father's Days certainly offends the same-sex marriage crowd, and probably offends those who are childless by choice.

Should St. Valentine's & St. Patrick's days be changed to something less "Saintly", like maybe, "Generic Feelings of Affection Day" or "Go Drink a Pint of Green Beer Day"?

And what about Memorial Day? Should we change that lest we offend those who hate the military?

Should President's Day be changed, since it might offend all the fans of Vice Presidents?

And don't get me started on MLK day.

Every day set aside in this country *could* be obliterated in the name of "tolerance" simply because some people don't like them.

Why is that only the Christian holidays are targeted by the "tolerance" police?