It’s almost time for the most irrelevant conflict of modern times, the annual “War Against (and for) Christmas,” fought to honor (or dishonor) the “Prince of Peace.” Most Americans really aren’t paying attention – we’re too busy having a good time celebrating the holidays, with or without a sense of sacred significance.
The main teams in this contest are the totalitarian freethinkers at the Freedom From Religion Foundation, vs. an assortment of self-styled “Christians” who gladly commit the sin of pride for an intellectual sense of martyrdom, while continuing to enjoy the creature comforts of the American economy, and the freedom to run their mouths without running any risk of actually being devoured by lions.
Is there any scientific significance to this pointy-headed war of words? Only to those who take seriously the question, is it scientifically possible for the Son of God to be born of a virgin. That is logically, scientifically, and spiritually, an absurd question.
If there is a transcendent God, who made all that is, seen and unseen, then ipso facto that God could abrogate the laws of science at will. Why, in that case, are there material laws that can be scientifically tested and discovered at all? Well, if there were not, then to transcend or abrogate those laws would hardly be a miracle – it would be a routine, humdrum sort of affair.
As for virgin birth, compared to God giving the world his only son, the possibility that a virgin could conceive and give birth is rather commonplace. After all, there are recorded instances of a rooster laying an egg – because sexuality in chickens is easier to shift by a simple imbalance of hormones than in human beings.
Through the swirling clouds of dust kicked up by this empty conflict, the enduring principles of the First Amendment remain quite solid. “Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion…” That means nobody is required to celebrate Christmas if they don’t choose to. After all, the Pilgrims and Puritans made it a criminal offense to indulge in such “Popish frivolity.” “Nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That means, if you want to celebrate Christmas, in all the spiritual significance of its origins, no law can stop you.
For those who are offended by someone’s else’s assertion that “Jesus is the reason for the season” … too bad. Retreat into the sanctity of your own living room, where it is your entirely your call what to permit. For those offended by someone else’s cheerful “Happy holidays” … ditto. Repair to the church of your choice and rub elbows with those who are of one accord with yourself.