Thursday, December 25, 2025

Something to Know - 25 December

As someone who can be categorized into the realm of the non-believers, I have wondered about my journey in life as a child to adulthood today about the story of Christmas.  What is Christianity and has it evolved over the centuries?   I find this piece by Nicholas Kristof to be very timely.

What Would Surprise Jesus About Christmas 2025?

By Nicholas Kristof

Opinion Columnist

               A photograph of shadows of people against fabric in front of a metal fence.

This is the latest in my occasional series of conversations about Christianity. Previously, I spoke with the 
Rev. Timothy Keller, President Jimmy Carter, the evangelical writer Beth Moore, Professor Elaine Pagels 
and others. Here I speak with Bart Ehrman, a prominent New Testament scholar at the University of North 
Carolina and the author or editor of more than 30 books. Our conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

You have a new book coming out soon, "Love Thy Stranger," arguing that Jesus taught a revolutionary message that transformed Western moral thinking. What was that message?

The heart of Jesus' message is that loving "others" means caring not only for family and friends but even for strangers — whoever is in need, whether we know them or whether they are like us. This kind of altruism was not promoted — or even accepted — in the Greek and Roman worlds that Jesus came out of. But it is a view that completely transformed the thinking and ethical priorities of the Western world down till today.

I admire that message of Jesus about helping strangers, but did it really transform the moral conscience of the West? White evangelicals overwhelmingly voted for President Trump, and he's not helping strangers but deporting them and breaking up families.

That's right: A number of outspoken Christian leaders and Christian communities promote views that are quite contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Even so, his teachings continue to affect most people in the West, whether Christian or not. When a hurricane hits, many of us feel inclined to send money for disaster relief. Or we volunteer in soup kitchens to help people we don't know. These practices are rooted in teachings of Jesus that became ethical norms once Christianity became the dominant religion of the West.
Public hospitals, broad social programs that focused on the poor, orphanages, poor people's homes, disaster relief — these didn't really exist before Christianity took over the empire, and they obviously have made a huge difference in the lives of millions.

But Christianity has also been used to justify slavery, pogroms and more.

I am not claiming that the world became a moral place because of Christianity. The first Christian emperor was Constantine, one of the bloodiest emperors in the history of the Roman Empire. But I am saying that this inclination to help complete strangers in need came into the Western world through the teachings of Jesus and led to an enormous cultural change.

Already in the ancient Christian church we hear of incredible acts of altruism toward strangers. Toward the end of the first century, some Christians in Rome sold themselves into slavery to buy freedom for others. The idea that we should make some level of sacrifice for those in need has become rooted in the Western psyche.

Speaking of slavery, why did Jesus not condemn slavery? He didn't seem to have a larger message about broader social justice, did he?

No, he didn't condemn it, nor did virtually anyone else in antiquity. With respect to Jesus, it's safe to say he and his followers were far less concerned with institutional injustice than individual suffering.

Many of us have broader views. We tend to urge ethical behavior because we want to make society a better place for the long haul. But for Jesus, there wasn't going to be a long haul. He preached that the end was coming in his own generation. That created a real urgency for helping those who were suffering, but a relative apathy for institutional reform.

The Gospel of Matthew suggests that those who go to heaven are those who feed the hungry and help the sick. Meanwhile, Bible-thumping members of Congress are trimming food stamps and pushing millions off Medicaid. I struggle to understand that.

I do too. So many people who claim to follow Jesus appear to have no idea what he actually taught. When I was an evangelical, we thought it was important to know what the Bible said and act on it. But today the evangelical movement focuses largely on social agendas not promoted in the Bible while ignoring ethical injunctions the Bible makes repeatedly. Whatever one's views of abortion today, it is simply wrong to say the Bible opposes it. The Bible never mentions a deliberate attempt to abort a fetus, and the only biblical passages that relate to the question of whether a fetus is to be treated as a living person with human rights indicate the answer is no (e.g., Exodus 21:22-25). What the Bible does stress, page after page, is the need to care for the poor, the outcast, the "other."

So too with gay rights: People regularly quote Leviticus about how it's a sin for a man to sleep with a man (Leviticus 18:22). But they then ignore the very next chapter, which explicitly insists that immigrants to your country are to be treated just the same as citizens (Leviticus 19:33-34). Why do people focus on one verse instead of the other? They simply pick what they find useful for their own views.

Jesus presumably kept kosher, regarded Saturday as the Sabbath, regarded himself as Jewish. So was Jesus himself a Christian?
Well, it depends what you mean. Jesus was completely Jewish, and he did not envision a religion that would not be Jewish. His followers were all Jewish as well. But starting with Paul, Christianity shifted to become a gentile religion.

If Jesus were to time-travel and show up for Christmas 2025, what would surprise him the most?
I don't think Jesus would recognize Christianity today. The idea that he was a pre-existent divine being who came into the world as a newborn is not found in any of his own teachings in our earliest Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and I think he would be flabbergasted to hear it.
Then what should we be thinking about when we gather with families on Dec. 25 and seek inspiration at a difficult time?
The Gospels are stories intended to convey important messages. I find the message of Christmas to be very moving. It's about God bringing salvation into a needy world through an impoverished child. This is a child who will grow up and give his life for others.

I don't think this is historical. But I believe stories can be true, meaningful and powerful even if they didn't actually happen. Many of us read great novels that help guide our thoughts about how we want to live. The Christmas story is like that, with power to shape how we think and behave toward others.



--
****
Juan Matute
CCRC


Wednesday, December 24, 2025

Fwd: Bari Weiss Declares CBS Will Have Zero Tolerance for News


Forwarded from the wait at the doctor's office
Sent from Gmail Mobile


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: The Borowitz Report <borowitzreport@substack.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 24, 2025 at 4:12 AM
Subject: Bari Weiss Declares CBS Will Have Zero Tolerance for News
To: <juanma2t@gmail.com>


"Someone tried to slip some news into this past Sunday's episode of '60 Minutes,'" Weiss said. "Fortunately, I was able to catch it in time."
͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—At a tense all-hands meeting on Wednesday, editor-in-chief Bari Weiss announced that, going forward, CBS News will institute a zero-tolerance policy towards news.

"Someone tried to slip some news into this past Sunday's episode of '60 Minutes,'" a visibly angry Weiss told the gathering. "Fortunately, I was able to catch it in time."

She reminded the newsroom that "as journalists, we all answer to a higher master: David Ellison."

Next Sunday, CBS will air the first Weiss-edited episode of "60 Minutes," now called "4 Minutes."


Profile in Assclownery: David Ellison

TBR investigates the Lucky Sperm Club member who wants to control both CBS News and CNN: nepo-oligarch and Eric Trump doppelgänger David Ellison.

The Borowitz Report continues to publish thanks to the support of readers like you.

Share

Leave a comment

 
Share
 
 
Like
Comment
Restack
 

© 2025 Andy Borowitz
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104
Unsubscribe

Get the appStart writing

Something to Know - 24 December


Those who know me, know that the first paragraph of HCR this morning is something that I can object to regardless of my current beliefs, and would be the same if I were a loyal believer in Christianity.   It is a dangerous assumption that J.D Vance has chosen.


Heather Cox Richardson from Letters from an American heathercoxrichardson@substack.com 
Unsubscribe

8:10 PM (1 hour ago)
to me
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

Speaking today at Turning Point USA's annual "AmericaFest" conference, Vice President J.D. Vance said, to great applause: "The only thing that has truly served as an anchor of the United States of America is that we have been, and by the grace of God we always will be, a Christian nation."

Actually, we haven't.

Vance's statement flies in the face of our Constitution, whose First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…." James Madison of Virginia, the key thinker behind the Constitution, had quite a lot to say about why it was fundamentally important to make sure the government kept away from religion.

In 1772, when he was 21, Madison watched as Virginia arrested itinerant preachers for attacking the established church in the state. He was no foe of religion, but by the next year, he had begun to question whether established religion, which was common in the colonies, was good for society. By 1776, many of his broad-thinking neighbors had come to believe that society should "tolerate" different religious practices; he had moved past tolerance to the belief that men had a right of conscience.

In that year, he was instrumental in putting Section 16 into the Virginia Declaration of Rights, on which our own Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the Constitution—would be based. It reads, "That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other."

In 1785, in a "Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments," he explained that what was at stake was not just religion, but also representative government itself. The establishment of one religion over others attacked a fundamental human right—an unalienable right—of conscience. If lawmakers could destroy the right of freedom of conscience, they could destroy all other unalienable rights. Those in charge of government could throw representative government out the window and make themselves tyrants.

Madison believed that a variety of religious sects would balance each other out, keeping the new nation free of the religious violence of Europe. He drew on that vision explicitly when he envisioned a new political system, expecting that a variety of political expressions would protect the new government. In Federalist #51, he said: "In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects."

In 1790, the year after he took office as the nation's first president, George Washington assured a Jewish congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, that in the United States of America, "[a]ll possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship." The government of the United States, he wrote, "gives to bigotry no sanction" and "to persecution no assistance." He wished that Jewish Americans "continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants— while everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid."

The next year, the states ratified the First Amendment to the Constitution. In order to ensure men had the right of conscience, it reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…."

In 1802, President Thomas Jefferson called this amendment "a wall of separation between Church & State." In a letter of January 1, 1802, he explained to a group of Baptists from Danbury, Connecticut, how that principle made him refuse to call for national religious days of fasting and thanksgiving in his role as head of the government.

Like Madison, he maintained that "religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship." "[T]he legitimate powers of government reach actions only," he wrote, "[and] not [religious] opinions."

"[T]hat act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'" he wrote, built "a wall of separation between Church & State."

In the early years of the nation, Americans zealously guarded that wall. They strictly limited the power of the federal government to reflect religion, refusing even to permit the government to stop delivery of the U.S. mails on Sunday out of concern that Jews and Christians did not share the same Sabbath and the government could not choose one over the other. The Constitution, a congressional report noted, gave Congress no authority "to inquire and determine what part of time, or whether any has been set apart by the Almighty for religious exercises."

But the Civil War marked a change. As early as the 1830s, southern white enslavers relied on religious justification for their hierarchical system that rested on white supremacy. God, they argued, had made Black Americans for enslavement and women for marriage, and society must recognize those facts.

A character in an 1836 novel written by a Virginia gentleman explained to a younger man that God had given everyone a place in society. Women and Black people were at the bottom, "subordinate" to white men by design. "All women live by marriage," he said. "It is their only duty." Trying to make them equal was a cruelty. "For my part," the older man said, "I am well pleased with the established order of the universe. I see…subordination everywhere. And when I find the subordinate content…and recognizing his place…as that to which he properly belongs, I am content to leave him there."

The Confederacy rejected the idea of popular government, maintaining instead that a few Americans should make the rules for the majority. As historian Gaines Foster explained in his 2002 book Moral Reconstruction, which explores the nineteenth-century relationship between government and morality, it was the Confederacy, not the U.S. government, that sought to align the state with God. A nation was more than the "aggregation of individuals," one Presbyterian minister preached, it was "a sort of person before God," and the government must purge that nation of sins.

Confederates not only invoked "the favor and guidance of Almighty God" in their Constitution, they established as their motto "Deo vindice," or "God will vindicate."

The United States, in contrast, was recentering democracy during the war, and it rejected the alignment of the federal government with a religious vision. When reformers in the United States tried to change the preamble of the U.S. Constitution to read, "We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the sources of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the Ruler among nations, and His revealed will as of supreme authority, in order to constitute a Christian government, and in order to form a more perfect union," the House Committee on the Judiciary concluded that "the Constitution of the United States does not recognize a Supreme Being."

That defense of democracy—the will of the majority—continued to hold religious extremists at bay.

Reformers continued to try to add a Christian amendment to the Constitution, Foster explains, and in March 1896 once again got so far as the House Committee on the Judiciary. One reformer stressed that turning the Constitution into a Christian document would provide a source of authority for the government that, he implied, it lacked when it simply relied on a voting majority. A religious amendment "asks the Bible to decide moral issues in political life; not all moral questions, but simply those that have become political questions."

Opponents recognized this attempt as a revolutionary attack that would dissolve the separation of church and state, and hand power to a religious minority. One reformer said that Congress had no right to enact laws that were not in "harmony with the justice of God" and that the voice of the people should prevail only when it was "right." Congressmen then asked who would decide what was right, and what would happen if the majority was wrong. Would the Supreme Court turn into an interpreter of the Bible?

The committee set the proposal aside.

Now, once again, we are watching a minority trying to impose its will on the majority, with leaders like Vice President J.D. Vance trying to rewrite American history.


--
****
Juan Matute
CCRC


Tuesday, December 23, 2025

Andy Borowitz


The Borowitz Report borowitzreport@substack.com 
Unsubscribe

4:04 AM (5 hours ago)
to me
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

The Best Political Cartoons of 2025

From a two-time Pulitzer winner.

Dec 23
 
READ IN APP
 

In 2024, the acclaimed editorial cartoonist Ann Telnaes quit The Washington Post after they censored her work. She moved to Substack, and this year won her second Pulitzer. Here are some of her greatest hits from 2025.

Ann imagines the masterpieces that will appear in Trump's revamped Smithsonian art collection:


--
****
Juan Matute
CCRC