Blueneck's Guide to Christian Symbolism
Merry Christmas MMVI! May the blessings of Christ be upon you on this anniversary of His incarnation.
One thing that has struck me this year is the total disregard of the majority of the population here in once-Great Britain toward the proper etiquette of winter holiday title usage. For goodness sake, real damage could be done! Perhaps the airlines should warn passengers travelling from metropolitan areas of the United States to cover their children's ears, lest some ignorant well-wisher disrupt her/his/its secular development with the "C" word. Perhaps British Airlines could use the woman who is no longer permitted to wear a "crucifix" at work despite the montage of tribal religious symbols now on display at every major British airport.
Speaking of Nadia Eweida, I have intended to post something about this for quite some time. Despite what you may think, I am not going to ramble on at length about the de-Christianization of Western society (for that, see above). No, the real story here is the invincible ignorance of the press regarding matters of religion and faith, and most other things besides. Time and again throughout Ms. Eweida's appeal to display the Christian symbol, the press referred to the item of jewellery as a "crucifix", despite showing a picture of Ms. Eweida wearing a plain cross with no corpus attached. Although this may seem a rather trivial error, the distinction is one that no uneducated person reared in the most nominally Christian country should miss. Is it possible that not a single reporter or editor remains at these outlets who knows the difference between a cross and a crucifix?
It is thus with great sorrow that I include the following "Blueneck's Guide to Christian Symbolism":
One thing that has struck me this year is the total disregard of the majority of the population here in once-Great Britain toward the proper etiquette of winter holiday title usage. For goodness sake, real damage could be done! Perhaps the airlines should warn passengers travelling from metropolitan areas of the United States to cover their children's ears, lest some ignorant well-wisher disrupt her/his/its secular development with the "C" word. Perhaps British Airlines could use the woman who is no longer permitted to wear a "crucifix" at work despite the montage of tribal religious symbols now on display at every major British airport.
Speaking of Nadia Eweida, I have intended to post something about this for quite some time. Despite what you may think, I am not going to ramble on at length about the de-Christianization of Western society (for that, see above). No, the real story here is the invincible ignorance of the press regarding matters of religion and faith, and most other things besides. Time and again throughout Ms. Eweida's appeal to display the Christian symbol, the press referred to the item of jewellery as a "crucifix", despite showing a picture of Ms. Eweida wearing a plain cross with no corpus attached. Although this may seem a rather trivial error, the distinction is one that no uneducated person reared in the most nominally Christian country should miss. Is it possible that not a single reporter or editor remains at these outlets who knows the difference between a cross and a crucifix?
It is thus with great sorrow that I include the following "Blueneck's Guide to Christian Symbolism":
Ms. Eweida's cross
A crucifix
A cross
Did you put down the Latte long enough to get that?
Labels: 2006, Christianity, Culture, Ryan and Morag
posted by Ryan | 12:48 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home