Staff Reports
In a dizzying world where political correctness reigns supreme and facts are twisted like carnival pretzels to suit a particular narrative, the Minneapolis police chief decided to serve up a baffling interpretation of the nativity story. Apparently, equating the Holy Family’s journey to Bethlehem with current immigration issues is the new fashionable spin attempting to rewrite biblical stories to fit modern agendas. Never mind that Joseph and Mary were merely fulfilling a census requirement in their homeland; let’s turn them into refugees at the drop of a hat to fit the open borders narrative.
This inventive take on the nativity story raises a pertinent question: Why do so many folks who, in their own words, were “raised Catholic” selectively use biblical tales to prop up their arguments, while ignoring or even railing against its teachings elsewhere? It seems that while the Bible is unwelcome in schools, government, and public life in general, it’s okay to misinterpret it if it can be shoehorned into justifying open border policies. This double standard is all too common. If Chief Brian O’Hara really cared about his Catholic roots, maybe he’d recall that the Bible also talks about respecting the laws of the land.
Let’s not forget the age-old wisdom of giving to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, as stated in the Good Book. That sounds much more like acknowledging and respecting laws, including immigration laws. Yet, when cornered with biblical teachings on other more uncomfortable topics—like the sanctity of marriage or the inherent value of life—the Bible suddenly becomes irrelevant. It’s all fun and games to bring up biblical stories until someone mentions traditional marriage, and then it’s suddenly a case of “don’t force your religion on me.”
This selective biblical interpretation is particularly amusing when considering issues that the Bible addresses directly and unequivocally. On matters like the sanctity of life, the nature of marriage, and even the basic biological fact of gender, the Bible doesn’t mince words. But somehow, in the bewildering playground of liberal interpretations, these teachings get pushed aside in favor of more convenient narratives.
The real irony here is how scripture, deeply embedded in culture even among those who choose not to realize it, is being repurposed. ‘No room at the inn’ wasn’t a commentary on immigration policy; it simply meant there was no physical space. But that hasn’t stopped the contortionists from making it a tale of exclusion worthy of a modern-day parable. So while the Minneapolis police chief might attempt to use his “raised Catholic” credentials to spin the Christmas story into an immigration fable, discerning minds should remember the actual teachings and context of the Bible. It’s more about following the law and moral principles than it is about endorsing an open borders policy.
In the end, rewriting biblical history to fit a modern narrative isn’t just misleading; it’s downright disingenuous. Let’s appreciate the simplicity of the original nativity story, rooted not in modern politics, but in the profound significance of faith, love, and being quite literally at home for Christmas.
