ICTHUS reminds me of a James Carroll article that I read last week, and the way we’ve “evolved” Christmas. Indeed, to make it complimentary to the very thing that it originaly opposed in the first place: empire. Not that “opposition” to ANYTHING was its message, but that the consequences and effects of the new kingdom were inevitable to “challenge” the grand claims and idolatrous philosophies and policies of the Roman Empire.

The Politics of the Christmas Story

Christmas in America has turned the nativity of Jesus on its head. No surprise there, for if the story were told today with Roman imperialism at its center, questions might arise about America’s new self-understanding as an imperial power. A story of Jesus born into a land oppressed by a hated military occupation might prompt an examination of the American occupation of Iraq. A story of Jesus come decidedly to the poor might cast a pall over the festival of consumption.

On Christmas day I called Bush’s message that day “BS”, not because I felt his content was wrong, but becuase he invoked the values without much of any kind of record to back it up. His policies (or whoever’s policies they are) are ANYTHING but. His pronouncements wreak of hypocrisy and are thus, mere sentiment.

The Carroll article I link to here talks about Herod as a Roman puppet, and I immediately draw the parallel to Bush as the “front man” for the neocon dream of worldwide dominance and economic paradise achieved through , well……imperialism. They call it “freedom and liberty”, but it is basically “lording it over the earth”, and thus, EMPIRE.