When shoppers head to the store during the Christmas season, it is assumed the price is borne by the party giving the gift. However, should these yuletide bequeathals originate from questionable sources, the price extracted can in fact be too high for the recipient.
Though allegedly an act of selflessness and altruism, the act of gift giving is as much about bringing praise and a sense of self-satisfaction to the giver. The act, in fact, bestows a degree of legitimacy upon the giver in the eyes of the receiver and can boost the ego or esteem of the party giving the gift.
This oft-denied reality bounced to the surface this past Christmas quicker than a Hooter girl on a trampoline when the even more ribald counterparts of these risque serving wenches attempted to create a favorable impression of their questionable profession.
In 2003, floozies from Teaser’s strip club distributed toys at the Statesville, North Carolina housing project. This past Christmas, however, administrators declined donations from these purveyors of the lust of the flesh.
The problem is not so much with these loose women and their patrons wanting to spread Christmas cheer to children who allegedly won’t have anything under their trees (apparently these people have never heard of dollar or thrift stores) but rather the way in which these seductresses have gone about doing so in the past.
Often those playing secret Santa deposit their gifts on the doorsteps of the economically challenged, never revealing their identities. No doubt that is why the word “secret” is emphasized; apparently there’s something about the concept ditzy blondes cannot seem to grasp as they distributed the gifts in such an ostentatious manner that they would make a pimp’s tailor blush.
Instead of quietly distributing the gifts under the cover of evening, these ladies of the twilight showed up in limousines and scanty outfits. Those opposed to these titillating histrionics where accused of having a 1940’s mentality (certain aspects of which might actually do us some good).
But perhaps even worse and even more shocking is one of the sources of support for these women of questionable repute. Pastor Jeff Porter of the First Baptist Church of Statesville told the Record and Landmark that the holidays are when differences are to be set aside because “Christmas gives us the chance to cross barriers for the less fortunate. The Bible is full of times when folks of all backgrounds took one step closer to God by acting like Jesus.”
In other words, we ought to set aside our most cherished values and beliefs. Interesting, isn’t it, how those holding to traditional standards are expected to lower them rather then requiring those in the gutter to elevate themselves. The Bible is indeed full of examples where individuals of all backgrounds “took one step closer to God by acting like Jesus.”
However, such accounts of redemption were only accomplished by committing one’s life to the standards to which Christ has called us. It may come as a shock, but there is more to the Biblical message than the proto-Marxian redistribution of goods and property of the hippy Jesus promulgated by apostate ecclesiastical syndicates such as the National Council of Churches.
While Jesus did stress the need to assist the downtrodden, even more central to His message was the condemnation of sin throughout the course of His ministry. Thus, how can individuals claim to be acting in the Lord’s name when they don’t believe sin actually exists, for if they believed sin did they would not take their cloths off in public or advertise that they do so without embarrassment.
Jesus kept His pants on. Shouldn’t those eager to follow His example do the same?
Try as religious liberals might to excuse various transgressions such as homosexuality and fornication by obfuscating Biblical injunctions against these acts, there is little that can be done to deny the connection between acknowledging one’s sin nature and the shame of public nudity.
In Genesis 2:25, before falling into sin, it says Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed. But after eating of the forbidden fruit, Genesis 3 tells us Adam and Eve realized they needed to conceal their bodies now that sin pervaded every aspect of their being.
Ever since that day our first parents felt the need to cover up their privates, only two groups have countered the moral need for clothing. On the one hand, there are the ignorant such as the National Geographic jungle savages who know no better and on the other are those who unabashedly flout the standards of propriety and decorum.
The deep theological ramifications of nudity in the current dispensation aside, is it really wise to glamorize careers in the sleaze racket as impressionable young eyes look on? If you have no problem portraying strippers and exotic dancers in a favorable light and as pillars of the community, would you like your daughter, sister, or mother to take off her clothes off for a living in front of a bunch of dirty old men?
Furthermore, would you feel comfortable accepting Christmas gifts from a stripper who goes out of her way to make sure you and your child know she is a stripper? If not, why not?
Interesting how the most effusive proponents of hedonistic solipsism become as prudish (sometimes even more so) as the rest of us when their own children are involved. Kind of like how Madonna won’t let her own children watch TV but has made a career of thrusting her own bosoms into the face of the American people.
It has been said there is no such thing as a free lunch. The same could be said of gifts as well. For even though such items do not cost the recipient anything in terms of money, they can extract a price in terms of the indebted loyalty they end up demanding.
Copyright 2005 Frederick Meekins
No comments:
Post a Comment