Hamas’ invasion of Israel last month has called us to look at several ethical issues around war. Let’s look at the involvement of noncombatants and then the taking of hostages.

It may seem odd to think of there even being “rules of war” but there is agreement on some things. When we think of war we divide people into combatants and noncombatants. Combatants are those who are armed, have some method of identification (e.g. a uniform) and participate in battle. But others may be in the vicinity of battle but are not involved in the battle. They may be medics, chaplains, journalists, or bystanders.

Hamas’ invasion of Israel on October 7th has led to a dizzying number of violations. Hamas didn’t target Israeli soldiers or bases. Of the initial 1200 Israelis killed the New York Times reports 70% were civilians. No war is completely clean and civilians always suffer from wars because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But this was blatant. And inexcusable.

Now that we’re into the 2nd month of this war we’re also dealing with wounded Palestinians. Problem is they have also used hospital patients as “human shields” hoping that Israel will not attack. In other words they are counting the Israeli’s having a stronger moral compass than they do.

And now about hostages. Every war has prisoners of war (POW’s); problem is that true POW’s are all combatants who were captured in battle. There is also the expectation that they will be able to receive aid from humanitarian organizations like the Red Cross.

However we may feel about the treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza there is simply no justification for what Hamas has done. I pray they hear this.

More later.

Sometimes it seems like election seasons are getting longer and longer and the respite between them gets shorter and shorter. Our next Presidential election is set for November 5, 2024. For no clear reason I’ll start the “Election 2024 Chronicles” category on (or near) May 5th, 18 months before.

It’s already getting interesting. President Biden has already announced his intent to run for reelection; that’s a concern because he’s already 80 years old. Many of us have concerns about this, but frankly don’t see an alternative. If he does win in 2024 I hope he’ll spend at least part of his term looking forward to a younger successor.

I had hoped he would seek the nomination without rivals but it appears that isn’t happening. Robert Kennedy, Jr. has announced his intent to run and he’s problematic at best. He’s an attorney and spent much of his career in environmental law. That’s good but in the last several years he’s advocated against vaccines and has promoted the lie that vaccines in children make them more susceptible to autism. There’s no way he can win but he may cause some damage.

On the Republican side we already know that former President Donald Trump is running. He’s lied about so many things it’s hard to keep track but he still argues that he was cheated out of the 2020 election. He is currently under indictment in New York for bribing someone to keep quiet about their affair. There are likely other indictments to come.

Right now he is still the frontrunner despite all this. But there are several others who have also indicted they will seek the nomination, and others who we assume will make that announcement soon. They have a problem because they don’t wish to go head to head with Trump but they also want to give a reason voters should support them. My suspicion is that they are aware of Trump’s age (he’s only 3 1/2 years younger than President Biden) and hope that a health crisis will pull him out of the race.

Keep posted. I’ll have more soon.

Growing up Catholic has given me the gift of imagining how the birth of Jesus looked. Mostly we have a mash up of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and until I began to study Scripture in college I didn’t give much thought to it. But in the years since it’s become clear that the birth narrative can’t have happened as it is read. Here are some thoughts:

The Census: Luke 2:1 places Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem instead of Nazareth where Mary and Joseph lived. This was necessary as the Old Testament prophet Micah stated (Chapter 5) that the Messiah will come from Bethlehem. According to Luke, Mary and Joseph needed to travel to Bethlehem because the Roman ruler (Caesar Augustus) demanded that everyone return to their ancestral home and since Joseph descended from King David he needed to be there. Matthew (Chapter 2) places Jesus’ birth during the reign of King Herod who died between the year 5 BCE and 1 CE (formally 5 BC and 1 AD) but Luke places this when Quirinius governed Syria who didn’t begin his reign until 6 CE. Now we can put that down to a simple mistake, but there’s more. Say what you will about the Romans, they kept good records. And there’s no record of a census “of the whole world” as Luke states. Furthermore, a census lists where you live, not your ancestors; that means there would have been no need for them to go to Bethlehem. As an aside I was born in Washington D.C. My father was born in Gardner, Massachusetts and his father was born in Notre Dame, New Brunswick (Canada). If you go back far enough my 8th Great Grandfather was born in France. Where do I go for a census?

Virgin Birth: Most Christians believe that Jesus was born of Mary but not of Joseph as she was a virgin (Matthew 1:18). Matthew wrote that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20); this was important because it fulfilled the prophecy from Isaiah 7:14 that they could recognize the Messiah when “the virgin shall be with child, and hear a son, and shall name him Emmanuel.” But there is a translation problem. Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew but by the time of Jesus most people read its translation to Greek. The word Isaiah used in Hebrew is “almah” which was translated into the Greek word “parthenos.” But almah doesn’t necessarily mean virgin as much as “young woman.” So why is this important? Throughout history there has been a persistent rumor that Jesus was conceived by Mary and a Roman soldier. It’s not hard to see how the followers of Jesus could look back to Isaiah and see the word parthenos and couple Matthew with Isaiah.

Does this mean Jesus wasn’t the Messiah? No. As I was once told a story can be true even if it didn’t happen the way we think. I’m not a fundamentalist (who believes the Bible is without error in fact as well as faith) because of passages like this. My belief in Jesus does not depend on the accuracy of facts.

If Jesus had a human father that doesn’t negate my belief that he was the Messiah. But I have to admit that the concept of the virgin birth has led to a long held and persistent belief that virginity is good and sex is bad. And that’s bad. There’s nothing I see in Scripture that tells me that sex is bad, or evil, or sinful. And while we rightly revere Mary because of her willingness to give birth to Jesus in some pretty awful circumstances, her marital status should not matter.

So let’s celebrate Christmas this year for what’s good. Jesus brought us redemption, eternal life, and the ability to love in hard circumstances. Let’s not care so much about Bethlehem or virginity.

I write this in the days after Christmas, having watched parts of countless movies, some old, and some new. My wife loves Christmas and spent the last few weeks addicted to the Hallmark Channel. It got me thinking about Christmas movies.

As long as there have been movies we’ve experienced movies about Christmas. Charles Dickens (1812-1870) may have started this with his novel A Christmas Carol, first published in 1843.

The first half of the 20th Century gave us movies that many of us remember from our childhood. I can’t keep up with the number versions of A Christmas Carol but that was far from the only Christmas movie. We also enjoyed It’s A Wonderful Life, White Christmas, Holiday Inn, Miracle on 34th Street, and A Charlie Brown Christmas (among several other cartoons).

All of these movies explored some aspect of conversion. Some character, normally the main character, found his life was changed by the birth of a child 2,000 years ago.

Ebeneezer Scrooge recognized that his choice of profit over love wouldn’t go well for him. George Bailey learned that his life made him a hero, not a sucker. Charlie Brown learned that his heart captured the real meaning of Christmas and he’s not a blockhead.

The birth of a child calls all of us to recognize the possibilities of new life. I think all of us see a newborn and wonder where his (or her) path will lead and hope it’s a path that’s good for everyone. And I think we watch these Christmas movies to remind ourselves of the reality of this.

That said, I have to confess I watch parts of several Hallmark movies with a little concern. In fairness Hallmark is a for profit company and they make movies to make money, not to remind us of who we are.

But if what I saw indicates anything it indicates this: We celebrate Christmas because it allows young, beautiful people to find each other and fall in love. A young man moves back to his hometown and connects with an old girlfriend and they find they were destined from the start. A young woman accepts a job promotion and works alongside a man who seems arrogant but really is trying to heal from a toxic breakup.

This may mark me as a grumpy old man but these movies trouble me. The birth of Jesus didn’t inaugurate a new world where young, beautiful people can finally find each other and fall in love. The birth of Jesus meant that people like Ebeneezer Scrooge and George Bailey and Charlie Brown were more valued than they thought.

And if Faux News finds out about this please understand that this isn’t an attack on the Hallmark Channel or another example on the war on Christmas.

It’s just a reflection from an old guy in California.