Monday, December 23, 2024

White Supremacy Must Reign Supreme

Woke means treating non-white people like people. Can’t have that! And then he’ll scare away the New Jersey drones. Which, you’ll note, have already left the news. Kind of like CRT has. What does CRT have to do with the price of eggs, anyway? 🍳  He was also going to get Congress to raise the debt ceiling or shutdown the government (I think he actually thought shutting it down on Biden’s watch at Trump’s direction would be a good thing for Trump). How’d that work out?

These are all things that require acts of Congress, including actually making DOGE a government agency. That’s not gonna happen on Day One any more than the round up of immigrants can begin. Trump may sign a stack of EO's right there on the inauguration platform.  But only Congress can allocate funds (for detention centers) or establish more immigration courts (for the backlog of cases Trump creates if he starts rounding up immigrants he deems "illegal"); or rename mountains or military bases; or, for that matter, decide education funding will depend on whether or not CRT is found lurking in the school lockers or the recesses of the teachers' minds (which are, after all, government property, right?).

I'm tired of jump scares everytime Trump says "FROG!"  He's a deranged lunatic surrounded by boobs who think government and law are subject to whim and wish.  It's a terrible sign for the Administration, but it's an even worse sign for any rising authoritarianism Twitter dwellers and internet pooh-bahs see lurking around the national corner.

Most of all I'm sick of the racism.  But that's as American as cherry pie and birthright citizenship.
Posted by at No comments:

History! What A Concept!

Wikipedia:
In 1867, United States Secretary of State William H. Seward worked with former senator Robert J. Walker to explore the possibility of buying Greenland and, perhaps, Iceland. Opposition in Congress ended this project.

So let's just say it's not for sale if nobody is buying.  

Greenland has once again said it is not for sale after US President-elect Donald Trump said he wanted to take control of the territory.

"Greenland belongs to the people of Greenland," its prime minister said on Monday, a day after Trump repeated comments about the Arctic island that he first made several years ago. 

Or selling. 

[Trump's] comments prompted a sharp rebuke from Greenland's Prime Minister Mute Egede, who said: "We are not for sale and we will not be for sale."

"We must not lose our long struggle for freedom. However, we must continue to be open to co-operation and trade with the whole world, especially with our neighbours," he said.

Just to point out that, yes, Trump is talking about this.  But Trump could just as credibly say he's going to flap his arms and fly to the moon.  Or insist that he's a svelte figure of a man who is the model of physical perfection.  Oh, wait, he's done that one....

One claim is as ridiculous as the other.

Maybe we could start with buying Canada....

Posted by at No comments:

Leegill Nollij

Corey Lewandowski:
"We know that people come to this country just to have their children here," he continued. "So, listen, the open question of, can this be done through executive action or does a federal law need to be passed, is one that the attorneys will ultimately decide."

 Alright, let’s clear this the fuck up:

Facts of the case 
The Chinese Exclusion Acts denied citizenship to Chinese immigrants. Moreover, by treaty no Chinese subject in the United States could become a naturalized citizen. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to parents who were both Chinese citizens who resided in the United States at the time. At age 21, he returned to China to visit his parents who had previously resided in the United States for 20 years. When he returned to the United States, Wong was denied entry on the ground that he was not a citizen. 
Question 
Is a child who was born in the United States to Chinese-citizen parents who are lawful permanent residents of the United States a U.S. citizen under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? 
Conclusion 
Because Wong was born in the United States and his parents were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,” the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment automatically makes him a U.S. citizen. Justice Horace Gray authored the opinion on behalf of a 6-2 majority, in which the Court established the parameters of the concept known as jus soli—the citizenship of children born in the United States to non-citizens. Justice Joseph McKenna took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Just to underline: there was a federal law passed.  The Chinese Exclusion Acts.  The Court swept those statutes away as easily as one would sweep away a pesky fly.  And executive action doesn't have the force of law of a statute.

The Kim Wong Ark decision traces the concept of jus soli back to it's roots in English common law, and points out in a detailed accounting of the case law in America:

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:

"The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth."

19 How. 60 U. S. 576. And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."

1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41. 

Yes, Dred Scott is the infamous Supreme Court case.  The opinion goes on to list similar sentiments in cases from Rhode Island (cited above); Massachusetts; North Carolina; and New York:

That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.

The Ark Court even cites jus soli as common to the law of Europe:

The Code Napoleon of 1807 changed the law of France and adopted, instead of the rule of country of birth, jus soli, the rule of descent or blood, jus sanguinis, as the leading principle; but an eminent commentator has observed that the framers of that code

"appear not to have wholly freed themselves from the ancient rule of France, or rather, indeed, ancient rule of Europe -- de la vielle regle francaise, ou plutot meme de la vielle regle europienne -- according to which nationality had always been, in former times, determined by the place of birth."

1 Demolombe Cours de Code Napoleon (4th ed.) no. 146. 

Getting closer to the question of who is a citizen, and how:

It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad, during that period, of American parents who had not become citizens of the United States before the act of 1802, and that the act of 1855, like every other act of Congress upon the subject, has, by express proviso, restricted the right of citizenship, thereby conferred upon foreign-born children of American citizens, to those children themselves, unless they became residents of the United States. Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.

So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents. 2 Kent Com. 39, 50, 53, 258 note; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 371.

Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States. 

If you're going to replace jus soli, or limit its application based on immigration status, you have to resort to jus sanguinus.  But you can't "displace in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty."

And then, a little history lesson on the 14th Amendment:

In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.

The Civil Rights Act, passed at the first session of the Thirty-ninth Congress, began by enacting that

"all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to the contrary notwithstanding."

Act of April 9, 1866, c. 31, § 1; 14 Stat. 27.

The same Congress, shortly afterwards, evidently thinking it unwise, and perhaps unsafe, to leave so important a declaration of rights to depend upon an ordinary act of legislation, which might be repealed by any subsequent Congress, framed the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, and, on June 16, 1866, by joint resolution, proposed it to the legislatures of the several States, and on July 28, 1868, the Secretary of State issued a proclamation showing it to have been ratified by the legislatures of the requisite number of States. 14 Stat. 358; 1 Stat. 708.

The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution begins with the words,

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of he State wherein they reside."

As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect. Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States. The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia (1879), 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.; Ex parte Virginia (1879). 100 U. S. 339, 100 U. S. 35; Neal v. Delaware (1880), 103 U. S. 370, 103 U. S. 386; Elk v. Wilkins (1884), 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101. But the opening words, "All persons born," are general, not to say universal, restricted only by place and jurisdiction, and not by color or race -- as was clearly recognized in all the opinions delivered in The Slaughterhouse Cases, above cited.

There's also some loose talk among Trump's advisors that "subject to the jurisdiction" doesn't include undocumented immigrants.  Which, among other things, will come as a surprise to the immigrants and Border Patrol or ICE.  And to the courts, for that matter:

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 28 U. S. 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

The Court considered the question of birthright citizenship settled law before the Ark case came before it:

This sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is declaratory of existing rights and affirmative of existing law as to each of the qualifications therein expressed -- "born in the United States," "naturalized in the United States," and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" -- in short, as to everything relating to the acquisition of citizenship by facts occurring within the limits of the United States. But it has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents, and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.

The effect of the enactments conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of American parents has been defined, and the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion of the United States, notwithstanding alienage of parents, has been affirmed, in well considered opinions of the executive departments of the Government since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. 

The 14th merely codifies into the Constitution what was already well-settled law:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides -- seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher's Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,

"independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations."

Ex.Doc. H.R. No. 10, 1st sess. 32d Congress, p. 4; 6 Webster's Works, 56; United States v. Carlisle, 16 Wall. 147, 83 U. S. 155; Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a; Ellesmere on Postnati 63; 1 Hale P.C. 62; 4 Bl.Com. 92.

Besides, it allows Trump to claim citizenship:

To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States. 

As for that loose talk about immigrants not being subject to the "jurisdiction of the state," i.e., the federal government, I offer Plyler v Doe, which rests on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, finding that immigrants are "persons" within a state's jurisdiction who are subject to equal protection of law.   Because, contrary to the preferences of Trump, "persons" does not mean only  "white people" or even immigrants with the proper paperwork. 

There really is a forest of laws you'd have to cut down to eliminate birthright citizenship, or even just restrict it to the "right" people.   Yes, I know, the Roberts court repealed Roe and made up a whole new doctrine of immunity for Presidents.  But any Court can repeal any other court's decision; stare decisis is not the absolute defense some want it to be (otherwise we'd still be stuck with Dred Scott and several other dreadful opinions); and making things up is what the critics of Roe said (with justification, in part) was wrong with Roe (it's certainly a part of most critiques of Trump v US).  Cutting down a forest of laws, however?  I don't think even the Roberts court wants to do that.

Posted by at No comments:

You And What Army?

"We will demand that the Panama Canal be returned," Trump declared a day earlier. He took to his own social media site, Truth Social, to issue a threat to local Panama officials about the famous Panama Canal. 
The next day, it was reported that the President of Panama said, "As president, I want to clearly state that every square meter of the Panama Canal and its adjoining zone is Panama’s and will remain so." 
Trump responded Sunday afternoon, replying to that quote with a vague and cryptic, "We'll see about that!"
The power to declare war still rests with Congress. Trump can’t turn possession of the Canal into a national emergency. Even if he thinks possession of the Canal would curb immigration. 🤷🏻‍♂️ 

In other news that makes you wonder if he’s aware of Congress:
I am pleased to announce Ken Howery as my choice for United States Ambassador to the Kingdom of Denmark. Ken is a World renowned entrepreneur, investor, and public servant, who served our Nation brilliantly during my First Term as U.S. Ambassador to Sweden, where he led efforts to increase Defense, Security, and Economic Cooperation between our Countries. As a Co-Founder of PayPal and venture capital fund, Founders Fund, Ken turned American Innovation and Tech leadership into Global success stories, and that experience vill be invaluable in representing us abroad. For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity. Ken will do a wonderful job in representing the interests of the United States. Thank you Ken, and congratulations! 
Donald Trump Truth Social 05:35 PM EST 12/22/24
(emphasis added)

Does he think Greenland is green and ripe for golf course development? Is he threatening to use the army to take Greenland, too?

Either way, he’s clearly desperate to reclaim his authority from Elmo.
Posted by at No comments:

O Come, O Come Emmanuel

Posted by at No comments:

O Emmanuel

The Great Antiphons are responses to the praying of the Magnificat in the Vespers service, during the last week of Advent.  So, to put the antiphon more properly in its liturgical context:

My soul extols the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has shown consideration for the lowly stature of his slave. As a consequence, from now on every generation will congratulate me; the Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name, and his mercy will come to generation after generation of those who fear him. He has shown the strength of his arm, he has put the arrogant to rout, along with their private schemes; he has pulled the mighty down from their thrones, and exalted the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty. He has come to the aid of his servant Israel, remembering his mercy, as he spoke to our ancestors, to Abraham and to his descendants forever. (Luke 1:46-56, SV)

O Emmanuel, ruler and lawgiver, desire of the nations, savior of all people; Come and set us free, Lord our God.




O come, O come, Emmanuel,
And ransom captive Israel,
That mourns in lonely exile here,
Until the Son of God appear.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, Thou Rod of Jesse, free
Thine own from Satan's tyranny;
From depths of hell Thy people save,
And give them victory o'er the grave.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, Thou Dayspring, from on high,
And cheer us by Thy drawing nigh;
Disperse the gloomy clouds of night,
And death's dark shadows put to flight.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, Thou Key of David, come
And open wide our heav'nly home;
Make safe the way that leads on high,
And close the path to misery.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, Adonai, Lord of might,
Who to Thy tribes, on Sinai's height,
In ancient times didst give the law
In cloud and majesty and awe.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to thee, O Israel.
Posted by at No comments:

The Sermon In The Cradle

Now when Jesus was born in Benin of Nigeria in the days of English rule, behold, there came wise men from the East to London.

Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Blacks? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

When the Prime Minister heard these things, he was troubled, and all England with him.

And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scholars of the land together, he demanded of them where this new Christ should be born.

And they said unto him, in Benin of Nigeria; for thus it was written by the prophet:

And thou, Benin, in the land of Nigeria, are not the least among the princes of Africa: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my Negro people.

Then the Prime Minister, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

And he sent them to Benin, and said, "Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also."

When they had heard the Premier, they departed; and lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding joy.

And when they were come into the house, they saw a young child with Mary, his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts: gold and medicine and perfume.

And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to England, they departed into their own country another way.

Save one, and he was black.  And his own country was the country where he was; so the black Wise Man lingered by the cradle and the new-born babe.

The perfume of his gift rose and filled the house until through it and afar came the dim form of years and multitudes. And the child, seeing the multitudes, opened his mouth and taught them, saying:

Blessed are poor folks  for they shall go to heaven.

Blessed are sad folks for someone will bring them joy.

Blessed are they that submit to hurts for they shall sometime own the world.

Blessed are they that want to do right for they shall get their wish.

Blssed are those who do not seek revenge for vengeance will not seek them.

Blessed are the pure for they shall see God.

Blessed are those who will not fight for they are God's children.

Blessed are those whom people like to injure for they shall sometime be happy.

Blessed are you, Black Folk, when men make fun of you and mob you and lie about you. Never mind and be glad for your day will surely come.

Always the world has ridiculed its better souls.


--W.E.B. DuBois, 1921


(I know. Too “woke.”)

Posted by at No comments:

Fourth Monday of Advent 2024



THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 7 And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years.

8 And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course,

9 According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. 10 And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense. 11 And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. 12 And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him. 13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. 14 And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. 15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. 16 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. 17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

18 And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years. 19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings. 20 And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.

21 And the people waited for Zacharias, and marvelled that he tarried so long in the temple. 22 And when he came out, he could not speak unto them: and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple: for he beckoned unto them, and remained speechless. 23 And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house.

24 And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying, 25 Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. 36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. 38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; 40 And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. 41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. 45 And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.

And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,

47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.

50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.

51 He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.

52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.

53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.

54 He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;

55 As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.

And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.

57 Now Elisabeth's full time came that she should be delivered; and she brought forth a son. 58 And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.

59 And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father. 60 And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John. 61 And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name. 62 And they made signs to his father, how he would have him called. 63 And he asked for a writing table, and wrote, saying, His name is John. And they marvelled all. 64 And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spake, and praised God. 65 And fear came on all that dwelt round about them: and all these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill country of Judaea. 66 And all they that heard them laid them up in their hearts, saying, What manner of child shall this be! And the hand of the Lord was with him.

67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying

Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;

70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:

71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;

72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;

73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,

75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;

77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,

78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,

79 To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.

And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. 2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) 3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) 5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. 6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. 7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid
him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. 11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. 12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. 16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. 17 And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. 18 And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. 19 But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. 20 And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; 23 (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) 24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. 26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. 27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, 28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,

Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:

30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,

31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;

32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. 34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; 35 (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.

36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; 37 And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. 38 And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth. 40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.

[I would post the Scholar's Version of Luke's first two chapters if only to blow the cobwebs off the familiar words, or to present a clearer text than Early Modern English (the language of the King James Version) provides.  But I didn't have to type this one from scratch, and the beauty of the KJV is on its best display in the many songs Luke puts in his nativity story.  So muddle past the "holpens" and the spellings and archaisms as best you can.]

Matthew's nativity begins with the genealogy of Jesus of Nazareth, an important history for the children of Abraham (not yet the "Jews" in Matthew's day) since the Exile, the other great defining historical event in Hebraic history, after the Exodus from Egypt.   Luke's story ends with it, although I didn't post it here.  This indicates either that the writer of Luke knew Matthew's gospel, or at least the "Special Matthew" that writer got his/her nativity from; or the idea of a genealogy of Jesus was already so widespread even the Gentiles "Luke" wrote for expected it to be a part of the story.  That they expected a nativity story is obvious.  That a nativity story would be more of a Gentile than Hebrew expectation perhaps needs to be noted.  Egyptian pharaohs marked their birthdays because they were gods; Roman emperors marked their accession to power, and became, by the time of Julius Caesar, divi filius, "son of god."  There is a great deal that is radical here, in both nativity stories; claims of humanity and divinity which mix like oil and water.  But where Matthew puts his story squarely in Abrahamic history, starting with the genealogy and continuing outward to the gentile Magi, Luke starts the story outside the Holy Family, and moves slowly towards them.  Jesus' place in the world is through extended family, not through extended ancestry.

The story starts with Zacharias, a priest doing his priestly duties in the Holy of Holies.  It's helpful to understand this is an inner sanctum of a Temple laid out in three "layers."  There's the outer public area, where the adult Jesus will overturn the tables of the money-changers during Passover; there's an inner courtyard where only men may enter (a very exclusive boy's club), and then the inner room to that which only priests can enter on certain days.  Whether this is one of those days is doubtful; Luke's grasp of Hebraic liturgy and ceremony is not strong; but when the priest entered the holiest of places, where God might possibly appear, a rope would be tied to his ankle, in order to drag him out if the presence of God should strike him dead.  God is so wholly other that when God appears in creation, creation trembles:  winds blow, the earth shakes, bushes catch fire but don't burn; that kind of thing.   Only the greatest of prophets can face God and live:  Moses does it twice (the bush, and atop Sinai), Ezekiel does it once, in a vision; Elijah does it once, as well.  Zacharias gets the next best thing:  an angel, which word we get from the Greek for "messenger" (we turned it into a winged being providing protection to children).  A messenger here doesn't mean an errand boy, but more of a modern ambassador, a person with authority and robed in the power of the ruler.  To speak to an angel is to speak to God, but to survive the experience; the angel is God's representative, but not so holy and wholly other as to be a danger to mortal existence.

Still, Zacharias, the priest, the man, the representative of authority coming down from God to the people, makes a fatal error.  He doubts.  There are four stories of woman facing infertility and receiving the blessing of a child from God in the Hebrew Scriptures; three of them involve direct communications with the mother, two involve communication with God by the father, in none of them does the father or mother doubt the promise of God, or even question it.  The closest is Sarah, who laughs at such good news; which is why she names her son Isaac, the one who brings laughter.  Zacharias stands apart, and for his doubt he is silenced until his son is named.

The silence is significant because everyone in Luke's nativity story sings when they hear good news.  Mary's Magnificat is a response to her cousin's joyful greeting; the angels sing to the shepherd at the good news that Christ is born; Simeon sings out at the revelation that the savior he has waited to see has been shown to him.  Luke's gospel is probably the reason we have so many Christmas songs (or probably not, but it's a lovely idea).  It's certainly the reason we think angels have wings; but we'll get back to that.

So Zacharias leaves the temple unable to speak, and that's a sign to everyone else that something significant has happened.  It's also a sign that Gabriel's words are true. and that everything else predicted in this story will happen.  This is a story as much about the future as it is about the past.  But then, the scriptural stories of promises of children are always stories about the future, not the past.  There are echoes here of those stories:  in Genesis 16 Sarah laughs at the idea she would finally have a child, and wonders if it can be true.  In Judges 13 Manoah asks the angel of God for the angel's name, but doesn't get it:  "Why do you ask my name? It is beyond understanding," is the answer, a perfectly Hebraic answer where even the name of God is withheld.  Gabriel gives his name to Zacharias as evidence of his authority, and also so we will know the same messenger appears to Mary (as the angel in Judges appeared first to his wife, and then to Manoah).  Mary echoes Hannah in 1 Samuel:  when she is praying for a child at the Temple, Eli the priest thinks she is drunk.  When she pours out her heart to him, he realizes his error and tells her:  "Go in peace, and may the God of Israel grant you what you have asked of him."  Hannah responds:  "May your servant find favor in your eyes."

But Mary is not an old woman hoping still to have a child; she is a young woman who has not "known a man."  And she is braver than Zacharias: "And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him."  But Mary is not afraid, just concerned:  "Fear not, Mary," says Gabriel; but she is just disturbed at why she should be announced as blessed among women.  Mary is not afraid; Mary is humble.  We can confuse this with the expected subservience of women, then and to some extent still, now.  But Mary is properly humble before God; her response is "How is this going to happen?", not "That's impossible!"  In that difference we already see the raising up and casting down that she will sing about to her cousin Elizabeth.  And when the angel announces the future, declares what is to come, Mary responds almost with the words of Hannah:  "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word."

Are those the words of a strong woman?  Or words of groveling submission?  It really isn't for me to say.  

The last speaker was ANDREA, a young married woman, and now OSCAR, her young husband breaks in:  "God is selfish because he wants us to be his slaves. He wants our submission. Just him.  I don't see why Mary has to call herself a slave. We should be free!  Why just him?  That's selfishness."

ALEJANDRO, who is a bachelor:  "We have to be slaves of God, not of men."

Another young man:  "God is love.  To be a slave of love is to be free because God doesn't make us slaves.  He's the only thing we should be slaves of, love.  And then we don't make slaves of others.'

ALEJANDRO'S MOTHER says:  "To be a slave of God is to serve others.  That slavery is liberation."

I said that it's true that this selfish God Oscar spoke about does exist.  And it's a God invented by people.  People have often invented a god in their own image and likeness - not the true God, but idols, and those religions are alienating, an opium of the people.  But the God of the Bible does not teach religion, but rather he urges Moses to take Israel out of Egypt, where the Jews were working as slaves, He led them from colonialism to liberty.  And later God ordered that among those people no one could hold another as a slave, because they had been freed by him and belonged only to him, which means they were free...

The words of the "last speaker" referred to there are these:

in the words of a woman named Andrea, "[Mary] recognizes liberation.... We have to do the same thing.  Liberation is from sin, that is, from selfishness, from injustice, from misery, from ignorance - from everything that's oppressive.  That liberation is in our wombs too, it seems to me."   Especially intriguing for our study is these "uneducated" and "unofficial" interpreters' grasp of nuance, even in their most revolutionary ideas. In a discussion about whether "the proud" automatically equates to "the rich," some argue that even a poor person can become "an exploiter in his heart" if she or he years to be rich and acts in a correspondingly exploitative manner.  Others regard God's humbling of the arrogant, rich, and powerful; the exploiters must be liberated,according to Solentiname resident Olivia, "from their wealth.  Because they're more slaves than we are."
I mention this because there is a lively discussion still to be had about Luke's story, about Mary's words, and I don't want to offer my exegesis as the last word, or even an authoritative word, on how to understand them.  Is Mary's humility proper, or improper; a sign of strength, or a sign of weakness?  That should be a lively discussion.  What is interesting is that Mary's acceptance prompts Gabriel to tell her more, as if to prove his word is true and can be trusted.  We learn it has been six months or more since Zacharias saw Gabriel in the Temple, and that the future he promises Mary is confirmed in the future he promised to Zacharias.  But it's also the mention of Elizabeth that sends Mary to see her cousin, and that carries the story forward as now the journeys of this nativity story begin.

This first journey is a voluntary one, in strong contrast to the later journey to Bethlehem.  Like that story, it involves staying at the house of a family member, so in the narrative this trip foreshadows the more famous one.  But it also prompts the first spontaneous overflow of powerful emotions, which doesn't happen to result in a song, but it certainly prompts one.  This first journey also marks the first appearance of Luke's idea of "Holy Spirit."

And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. 45 And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.
That idea of the Holy Ghost is important here, because it gives Elizabeth knowledge she couldn't otherwise have had.  She underlines the blessing on Mary who, unlike Elizabeth's husband, believed.  But how would she know that, except for the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?  See it as a theological or religious element if you will; it is at least a narrative device for Luke to underline what Sojourner Truth divined so many centuries later:

"That man say we can't have as much rights as a man 'cause Christ wasn't a woman.  Where did your Christ come from?  From God and a woman.  Man had nothing to do with it."
Because you will notice so far we have four characters in this story, and of the three mortals only one is male; and he whiffed it.  Mary and Elizabeth carry the weight here, and carry it effortlessly.  And in another foreshadowing of the stay in Bethlehem, Mary stays with Elizabeth for three months; or until just about the time Elizabeth's son is born.  But to skip to that is to race past the first significant song in Luke's gospel.

I have to intrude here because, after reading this story in Luke on and off for nearly six decades, I noticed something new in it. “Holy Spirit” is one of Luke’s near-inventions (or a revelation to him, if you prefer). What I’d overlooked for so long is that the Holy Spirit makes an appearance earlier than I realized. Gabriel tells Zacharias that his son, John, will be filled with the Holy Spirit from birth. That wasn’t the surprise, to me. It was that Luke was so clearly foreshadowing the next appearance of Gabriel, in the annunciation to Mary. When Mary asks “How can this be?”, Gabriel explains that Jesus will be born if the Holy Spirit. Luke is connecting the two men as closely as possible, and setting his readers up to understand this new concept as both inspirational (in Elizabeth when she greets Mary; in Mary’s response to Elizabeth’s greeting; in Zacharias singing the Benedictus, and Simeon the Nunc Dimmitus), in the life and teachings of John the Baptizer (Luke 3); and generative (the conception of the Christchild).

Which brings us back to Mary’s song, already (I hope) in context. I'll start that discussion by quoting myself; at length, as it turns out:

Quite a lot to claim on just the word of an angel; a lot of expectation for her child. But she doesn’t speak in the future tense; she sings about the present. She praise what God has done, not what God will do; she focuses on the fulfillment of the promise, not a new expectation.

And everything is shattered: thrones, wealth, worthiness; all mean nothing. Hunger and low estate are reversed, power and arrogance are defeated. All without firing a shot. All without anything yet having really happened. How can this be?

One other thing: this is not a political statement. This is not about a greater power than all others on earth, overwhelming what we know and wiping it out. If reason is really going to save us from ourselves, it can only do so by overpowering emotions; it will only do so when we all finally and fully think alike, and praise the same things, and damn the same things, and there is no deviation. It will only finally rule supreme when human emotion is wiped out, and desires and wants are expunged. Reason will only finally be our best and highest ruler when everyone is a slave and no one thinks unlike the rest, and the philosopher kings take their rightful place, and we all learn to bounce our ball in sequence on the coldly perfect planet of Camazotz.

The Magnificat is not a political song. It is not the Maccabees taking on Rome and precipating the slaughter of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. It is not the Pax Romana that finally fell, never to rise again. It is not the plea of the Populists, of New Deal Democrats, the Yippies, or the Green Party. The Magnificat is not about what will be, but about what is.

It is not about resistance, about plans to rule and overpower, either malicious or benign. It understands implicitly: there is no power without resistance. It is not a song of resistance, or a song of prediction.

It is a song of now. 
That's one interpretation, and I stand by it.  There are others, such as to point out how this song fits the context of Luke's story.  Mary starts with praise of God by God working through Mary:  "My soul magnifies the Lord."  Which still could be a political statement, as Dom Crossan and Jonathan Reed pointed out:

On the one hand, "lord" was a polite term usable by slave to master or disciple to teacher. On the other, "the Lord" meant the emperor himself. 
To speak of God as "Lord" is to speak as a handmaiden; or it is to jump right past the emperor; to declare this Lord will pull down the mighty from their seats, is to predict political chaos and the destruction of the Pax Romana.  Or it is to declare the vision of streams in the desert and every valley filled and every high place made low, that all might see the glory of the Lord.  But notice first how much it is a praise of God, and a thanksgiving for blessings already received, for Mary and for the children of Abraham.  And then she explains why she is praising God:  not just for what God has done, but for what God is going to do.  Notice how each prediction is balanced, how each declaration of what God will do declares justice and restoration of order:

He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.

God shows strength, but that strength scatters the proud "in the imagination of their hearts."  The proud imagine themselves mighty and dreadful; but even in the safehold of their imaginations God scatters them.

He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.

Here are the valleys raised and the mountains lowered; and this theme will be a major one throughout Luke's narrative.

He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.

Or, as Jesus will say a bit later in Luke's gospel:

Congratulations, you hungry!
You will have a feast.

Damn you rich!
You already have your consolation!
But for now Luke puts all the power in the hands of women. The story returns to Elizabeth after Mary leaves. Her delivery brings the blessings of the community to her, recognizing her blessing from God. And she's in charge when it comes time to name the baby. When she says the boy will be named John, Zacharias writes his agreement and that finally frees his tongue. Mary and Elizabeth have their agency; Zacharias has to learn his lesson.

Like Mary's Magnificat, [Zacharias'] Benedictus is a doxology and a prophecy, a truth-telling, about the present and the future.  As befits a priest, he recalls the covenant history starting with Abraham, connecting the child yet to be born (Mary's) to the genealogy yet to be given (waiting in Luke's narrative until after the nativity story is over).  Mary's Magnificat is about revolution; the Benedictus is about salvation; fittingly, about blessings.  And again, to quote myself:

And as soon as Zecharias fulfills the word of the Lord as spoken by the angel, he can speak again, and he sings. We call that one the Benedictus, because the Latin version begins: “Benedictus Dominus, Deus Israel.” Mary’s song praises what God will do; Zecharias' song praises what God has done. Together they tie up the strands of history, past and future, and make them one moving knot through the present, but all of time connected through that knot, through the moving present. Ironically, Zechariah’s song also does one more thing, in a way Luke never could have foreseen or intended. It ends with the one use of the word “epiphany” in all the Gospels.

The word means “revelation,” but it also means “light, illumination.” Epiphanai, sings Zecharias: Epiphanai tois en skotei kai skia thanatou kathamenois: light to those in darkness and in death’s shadow. Epiphanai: light, to show us the way. And so the Christmas stories connect again, through music.
That connection is, specifically, with Matthew's story of the Magi, celebrated by the church as the Epiphany.  But hold on to that image of the knot of past and future moving as the present through history; Luke will make much use of it before the nativity story is through.

Now we get to the most famous part of the nativity stories and, again, we get it wrong. We condense the timeline so much we have Joseph and Mary arrive in Bethlehem in the day, and she gives birth that night. As Luke actually tells it, they spend several days before she gives birth.  And she lays the baby in the manger because the house is full, not because the holy family is in a stable. Stables are a northern European structure from many centuries later.

We hasten Mary's pregnancy the better to heighten the narrative tension and prove the world a cruel and harsh place, inimical to the savior; and ignore our role in making the world that way.  It doesn't happen that Mary is forced to a stable to give birth while animals look on, and it doesn't happen that she is in labor even as Joseph tries in vain to find a place to stay.  We invented that part to make their plight worse than even Luke says it is, to overlook the power of the government in forcing the family on this journey, to overlook a system that makes Mary and Joseph poor ("Carpenter" meant one step up from beggar, not a journeyman tradesman with a union card.  Jesus' father is no better off than the fishermen he will recruit later; he recruits them because he's one of them, he grew up as poor as they live.).  We want the story to be a bit crueler so we can tell ourselves we'd have taken better care of them if we'd been there; but we don't now.   Brueghel and Auden are our corrective.  Luke sets up the obstacles to our comfort; over the centuries we've done our best to flatten them out.

Joseph appears for the first time in this narrative, and he has no role in it except "husband."  His role here is social:  to make Mary and Jesus legitimate.  Mary still takes center stage; where she is silent in Matthew's telling, she is the actor in Luke's.  More reversals, because the angels never speak to Joseph, but they go out to the hills where the shepherds are awake (!) and sing to them.

The thing about shepherds is, they aren't the pale and idyllic figures of later Romantic literature (some 1800 years later!).  They are outlaws, bikers, people on the fringe of a society that has a very large and broad fringe (imagine a funnel with a point at the top for the Emperor, a very attenuated reach up to the Emperor, and a very, very broad base out of all proportion to the peak.  It's a system of patronage, where wealth concentrates at the top and trickles down to the bottom, a bottom where the majority live, and where very little wealth trickles down.  On the far edge of that bottom, you find the shepherds.).  They stink, and they steal.  You can't brand sheep, and if a few more come home with you than you left with, that's to your benefit.  They live outside town, they aren't welcome among polite company, they have their own rules of behavior and they scare most people, the way working class workers do to this day.  If such a thing were known then, they would be migrant immigrant labor.  This is who the angels sing to; this is who comes to see Mary's baby.

Luke is dealing in social-economic concepts we've all but lost today.  The shepherds aren't comic figures from medieval mystery plays (the ones we turned into Christmas pageants with children in bathrobes and a few live animals); they aren't the unsullied pure hearts of the Romantics.  They make the carpenter Joseph look rich; their business practices would shame Micheal Cohen and Donald Trump.  But they are invited; they get the news first:

8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. 11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. 12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
Again, the first thing the angels do is reassure.  Maybe they have learned from Mary; maybe they expect better of priests like Zacharias.  But they tell the shepherds not to be afraid, and they tell them the sign:  a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.  Someone like them, in other words; a child of poverty, born to peasants, the Savior, the Anointed One, the Christ, the Lord.  And there's that word again; it can hardly mean "master" this time, not when applied to a peasant's baby swaddled in a feeding trough.  It has to be political; and we forget, too, so many millennia later, how dangerous that claim would be.  But Herod doesn't hear it, nor does Caesar; only shepherds hear, and then they hear the gloria:

Gloria in excelsis Deo!

We know that much of it, from the Vulgate, in the Latin of St. Jerome.  The rest, again, we interpret to our own purposes.  I read a comment recently that garbled the rest of that line, limiting it to "men of goodwill" by turning it around and making it come out backwards.  Men of good will, of course, meant people who agreed with the speaker.  Luke's gospel, as much as Matthew's, tries to destroy boundaries beginning with the nativity; we work as hard as we can to replace them.  God is funny like that; some consider it proof God is not us.  Some pay no attention; boundaries are a great comfort.

The blessing is, of course, the Christmas wish:  peace on earth, good will toward men.  Toward men because the good will comes from Heaven, and God is not human.  It is a wish, a blessing, a sign that God is active in history, a wish that we would be active, too.

As an aside, this part of the story is probably where we get the idea that angels have wings; how else could they be in the sky?  Of such small features are mighty theories made.

So the shepherds show up, and see the child, and are convinced by what the angels told them and what they found; and it is Mary who stores all this in her heart.  Joseph?  He's a cipher.  And while the shepherds praise God and start spreading the evangel, the good news, of what they have heard and seen, they don't get a song.  There is a fourth song coming, but it will be by another named individual.  In the meantime, no one listens to the talk of shepherds, at least no one with political or temporal power, so there is no danger to the child, and the story moves on to his presentation at the Temple.  This occasions another journey, though we seldom notice it.  Time passes and the scene shifts to Jerusalem, the setting for the conclusion of the nativity story, and the final song, a song again inspired by the activity of God.

This journey to Jerusalem is not a minor narrative point; it is a counterbalance to the decree of the census.  This journey, like the one to Bethlehem, is required of the Holy Family; but this journey is in accordance with the laws of the God of Abraham, not the whims and needs of Caesar (who is only doing it to assess taxes, another burden on the poor by the rich).  God uses the census to have Jesus born in the city of David; God's law brings the Holy Family to Jerusalem so they can be a blessing to, and receive a blessing from, Simeon; and so Mary can get one more thing to store in her heart:

And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. 26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. 27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, 28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,

Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:

30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,

31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;

32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. 34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; 35 (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.

36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; 37 And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. 38 And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.
For the second time the Holy Spirit is the in spiritus, the inspiration, for song; and again, the Holy Ghost inspires a man.  Simeon bookends Zacharias, offering a doxology to God and another prophecy about the child, as well as a second prophecy to the mother, this time (and for the first time in Luke's narrative) with a dark warning, also to Mary.  Joseph wonders, as his wife does, but Mary gets all the messages.  This is not a slight against Joseph but more of Isaiah's streams in the desert, of low places raised up and high places brought low.  The image of streams in the desert is life where apparently all is lifeless (Elizabeth's pregnancy); the handmaiden of the Lord is blessed among women, and women are just as important as men (Anna seems almost the afterthought here, but she is a prophetess and given a lineage, just like Zacharias as the beginning (Simeon is simply "just and devout")).  And it is Anna who, like the shepherds, spreads the evangel, the good news of the child.  God uses the most marginalized to spread the message of the angels, just as God chose the most marginalized to be the Holy Family.  Luke's nativity ends with the years of Jesus' childhood passed over, years left to others to fill in with infancy gospels about what Jesus did before Luke's story takes up again.

Luke's gospel emphasizes the poverty, the fringe of society, the powerlessness of the Holy Family.  That's in Matthew's story, too, but we overlook the danger that forces them to flee to Egypt, stay several years there, and then return not to Bethlehem, but to Nazareth so they can remain incognito.  Luke's story doesn't draw the attention of Herod or any rulers; who listens to shepherds, then or now?  These two nativity stories are diptychs, each telling the same story in only slightly different ways.  Matthew emphasizes the light to the nations and the threat to world power; Luke emphasizes the poverty and the redemption that comes from the fringes toward the center.  Both stories ultimately affirm the same theme:  glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good will toward men.  Not that we have that yet; but we have the faith (trust) that it will come.
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, December 22, 2024

🚽

According to the report, while attending the Army-Navy game the previous weekend, an insider claims Trump believed he made it clear what his expectations were, which forced Johnson to make concessions to Democrats — which in turn angered his caucus. 
According to the Post, "Lawmakers were irate when Johnson laid out details about his bicameral and bipartisan proposal in a Tuesday morning meeting. When Johnson described it as a collaborative process, Ways and Means Chairman Jason T. Smith (R-Missouri) exclaimed 'not true,' according to people in the room," adding that the House Speaker also ended up getting grief from Trump. 
"Several people close to Johnson say the speaker talked frequently with the president-elect and kept him abreast of ongoing negotiations," the Post is reporting. "But another Trump adviser described him as blindsided by the bill’s contents and furious. The first adviser said the president-elect was with Musk at the time, and Trump told NBC he encouraged Musk to post messages condemning the bill." 
“I told him that if he agrees with me, that he could put out a statement,” reportedly Trump said. 
The report notes that is when Musk flooded his X account with over a hundred posts that had Republicans scrambling to put together the final budget that only passed with the help of Democrats, but still left far-right members of his caucus fuming and refusing to support it.
Of course it’s very likely Trump is telling this story (“I told Elon what to do”) because of images like this: But that hardly matters, because the tl:dr here is that Trump is still an incredibly incompetent boob who has learned nothing about governance and who won’t get shit done without the Democrats guiding him to the toilet.

It also explains why Trump is already trying to change the subject:
Because Laura Loomer told him the Canal has something to do with immigration?

🚽 
Posted by at No comments:

Music for Advent Dead by Christmas

Posted by at No comments:

Fourth Sunday Of Advent "Oh, tell me I may sponge away the writing on this stone!”

 


“I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year. I will live in the Past, the Present, and the Future."

Micah 5:2-5a

5:2

But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.

5:3

Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in labor has brought forth; then the rest of his kindred shall return to the people of Israel.

5:4

And he shall stand and feed his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they shall live secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth,

5:5

and he shall be the one of peace.

Psalm 80:1-7

80:1

Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, you who lead Joseph like a flock! You who are enthroned upon the cherubim, shine forth

80:2

before Ephraim and Benjamin and Manasseh. Stir up your might, and come to save us!

80:3

Restore us, O God; let your face shine, that we may be saved.

80:4

O LORD God of hosts, how long will you be angry with your people's prayers?

80:5

You have fed them with the bread of tears and given them tears to drink in full measure.

80:6

You make us the scorn of our neighbors; our enemies laugh among themselves.

80:7

Restore us, O God of hosts; let your face shine, that we may be saved.

Hebrews 10:5-10

10:5

Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me;

10:6

in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure.

10:7

Then I said, 'See, I have come to do your will, O God' (in the scroll of the book it is written of me)."

10:8

When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law),

10:9

then he added, "See, I have come to do your will." He abolishes the first in order to establish the second.

10:10

And it is by God's will that we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Luke 1:39-45, (46-55)

1:39

In those days Mary set out and went with haste to a Judean town in the hill country,

1:40

where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth.

1:41

When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the child leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit

1:42

and exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.

1:43

And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me?

1:44

For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy.

1:45

And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her by the Lord."

1:46

And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord,

1:47

and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

1:48

for he has looked with favor on the lowly state of his servant. Surely from now on all generations will call me blessed,

1:49

for the Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name;

1:50

indeed, his mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation.

1:51

He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.

1:52

Of He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly;

1:53

he has filled the hungry with good things and sent the rich away empty.

1:54

He has come to the aid his child Israel, in remembrance of his mercy,

1:55

according to the promise he made to our ancestors, to Abraham and to his descendants forever."


One note about the Ghosts: they have no power. 

Christmas Present can passively bestow the blessings of the season on individuals; the other two ghosts can only show, they cannot otherwise intervene. All three ghosts can show Scrooge things, but they cannot force him to change, bend him to their will, even accept the lessons. They can’t even force Scrooge to travel with them; he does so if his own volition. In this, Marley has prepared the way. Scrooge knows that the Ghosts mean to help him, so he goes with them.

The ghosts present the power of powerlessness. They are some of the most powerful creatures in literature, able to change the heart of the grasping, clutching, covetous old sinner Ebenezer Scrooge. And yet they exert no power to do this. Scrooge changes entirely of his own volition. His character is remade because Scrooge remakes it.

In the third and final visitation, Scrooge pleads with the Spirit that he may be saved. He does more than plead, though. He abases himself. Haughty, cold, arrogant Scrooge is gone. Faced finally with the hard evidence of his mortality, he falls to his knees. There, like a washerwoman scrubbing the floor, he pleads with the Spirit:

“I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year. I will live in the Past, the Present, and the Future. The Spirits of all Three shall strive within me. I will not shut out the lessons that they teach. Oh, tell me I may sponge away the writing on this stone!”

“Sponge”? I can think of many more effective ways to remove words carved in stone. But Scrooge has become last of all, and servant of all. And he is praying that writing is not carved in stone.

In Mary's Magnificat we see Scrooge, finally, on Xmas Day, rejoicing in what the Spirits have done for him. The actual Christmas Day, not the one he spent with the Spirit. This one includes Scrooge. But to get there he has to suffer the fate of the powerful, cast down from their thrones. The first shall be last, after all; and the first of all will be last and servant of all. For Scrooge that means learning to live in the past, present, and future: integrating all the time of his life into the now, aware of his relationship to others, and to himself. He had cut himself off from his life and his family, and he has to recover those connections in order to redeem himself.

The future Scrooge sees is not the one that has to be, but the one that will flow naturally from his choices in his life. There’s a Hebrew prophets quality here. The stereotyped mistake about the prophets is that they pour out the bowls of God’s wrath in punishment for Israel’s apostasy. But the prophets tell Israel it is suffering the consequences of their actions and that God is allowing them to reap what they have sown, while God remains faithful to the covenant and to Israel. So Scrooge, too, is not condemned, but shown his choice: accept the fate he has forged for himself (as Marley said), or escape Marley’s fate (as Marley hoped). Marley suffers the consequences of his indifference in life, but gets one chance to save Scrooge, in death. The universe is not cruel; but we suffer the consequences of our actions; or the rewards of our compassion.

Advent is a church season. It is celebrated in liturgy. An important part of the liturgy is always the confession of sins. Confession is the result of self-examination. Scrooge is brought to confess his sins, not by the demands of the silent and frightening Spirit of Christmas Future, but by that self-examination. Scrooge finally faces himself and confesses his wrongs and asks for no more than a chance to change. If his fate is written in stone then this entire journey has been useless. But if he cannot confess his sins and try himself to change, no power on earth can help him. 

It turns out the preparation of Advent is, finally, in confession. Scrooge doesn’t confess his sins, so much as he confesses he wants to be a better man. It’s a sincere admission; otherwise it’s a bootless one. It is the experience that makes him confess. It is the confession that makes him change. There’s a very liturgical quality to that.

But the visit of the third Spirit raises the question of time in Scrooge’s story of redemption. It’s not one that can be raised in the real world, so it has no counterpart in the Advent liturgy. 

We know Marley arrives on Christmas Eve. Thereafter we only know the clock strikes to tell the time, and the hour is one a.m. Christmas Day when the first Spirit arrives. But yesterday is all the past with that Spirit, and we assume all the visions are from the 12 days of Christmas. Christmas Present is, of course, the contemporary Christmas Day for Scrooge, but it passes into night and Scrooge has one more Christmas Spirit to go: that of Christmas Future. That Spirit shows Scrooge visions of Christmas Days in the future: the absence of Tiny Tim, and the absence of Scrooge. These are visions of what will be; but not of what must be. Now, we know the past is set in stone, the future is unwritten. But how closely do we observe that in Scrooge’s story?

Marley says the Spirits will come one night apiece. Instead they come one after the other, always at the same hour. And the Spirit of Christmas Present shows Scrooge the Cratchit family celebration, and the party at his nephew’s house. Which, it turns out, are also shades of what might be; because Scrooge alters them. He sends the prize turkey to the Cratchits, and goes to Christmas dinner at his nephew’s house. And to prove to us, the reader, that the visits really happened:

He turned it gently, and sidled his face in, round the door. They were looking at the table (which was spread out in great array); for these young housekeepers are always nervous on such points, and like to see that everything is right. “Fred!” said Scrooge. Dear heart alive, how his niece by marriage started! Scrooge had forgotten, for the moment, about her sitting in the corner with the footstool, or he wouldn’t have done it, on any account.
Only the past is set in stone: the present and future are unwritten. The confessional lesson of Scrooge’s tale is that redemption never comes too late. The liturgical lesson is that all time is redeemable, even if every year we have to redeem it again. If there is a liturgical counterpart, it is that all time is redeemable, and that through self-examination our encounter with others that shows us who we are (“this is the truth sent from above”), we are moved to confession and repentance (“the truth of God’s unchanging love”), and finally redemption. All through our own acts. 

Never forget that even the Specter of the Future wavers in the face of Scrooge’s confession and plea for mercy.  “We are wound with mercy/round and round.” Advent reminds us of this, prepares us for this, welcomes us into this. We only have to do the work of acceptance.
Posted by at No comments:

O Ruler Of All Nations

The Great Antiphons are responses to the praying of the Magnificat in the Vespers service, during the last week of Advent.  So, to put the antiphon more properly in its liturgical context:

My soul extols the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has shown consideration for the lowly stature of his slave. As a consequence, from now on every generation will congratulate me; the Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name, and his mercy will come to generation after generation of those who fear him. He has shown the strength of his arm, he has put the arrogant to rout, along with their private schemes; he has pulled the mighty down from their thrones, and exalted the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty. He has come to the aid of his servant Israel, remembering his mercy, as he spoke to our ancestors, to Abraham and to his descendants forever. (Luke 1:46-56, SV)

 O Ruler of all the nations, the only joy of every human heart, O Keystone of the mighty arch of humankind: Come and save the creature you fashioned from the dust.


Praise to the Lord, the God of Israel For he has turned to his people and set them free.

 He has raised for us a strong deliverer from the house of his servant David. 

So he promised: age after age he proclaimed by the lips of his holy prophets, 

that he would deliver us from our enemies, out of the hands of all who hate us; 

that, calling to mind his solemn covenant, he would deal mercifully with our fathers.

This was the oath he swore to our father Abraham, 

to rescue us from enemy hands and set us free from fear, so that we might worship 

in his presence in holiness and righteousness our whole life long. 

And you, my child, will be called Prophet of the Most High, for you will be the Lord's forerunner, to prepare his way

and lead his people to a knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins:

for in the tender compassion of our God the dawn from heaven will break upon us,

to shine on those who live in darkness, under the shadow of death, and to guide our feet into the way of peace.

--Luke 1:69-79, REB
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)