In the news recently there have been two stories about nativity scenes at occupy protest sites, and while both stories are similar they each came across very differently.
First comes a story in which the protesters were filmed viewing the nativity scene to which they responded that it was in "bad taste".
While watching the video pay close attention to the protestor concerned that the manger scene would be offensive. Notice the "F*ck the police" hat he's wearing. Also for those who don't notice he's also wearing a patch on his jacket advertising the punk rocker G.G. Allen, a man notorious for defecating on stage and throwing it at his audience and making several claims that he would kill himself live on stage during one of his shows (to which he failed to do dying of a drug overdose). Outright hysterical that such a hat and performer are deemed ok but yet the birth of Jesus, a man who preached peace, is considered offensive.
According Occupy Boston, the play told the traditional Christmas story of Jesus’s birth in Bethlehem with “a special focus on his solidarity with the poor and oppressed”.
He [Robin Lutjhoann, a student at Harvard Divinity School] says, “Christmas is actually about a poor man, who was born homeless and showed people a better way to live out of compassion and out of love instead of out of greed.”
They held signs saying “Occupy the Manger”, ”God believes in unwed pregnant teenagers” and “Shepherds are the 99%”.
While this second group clearly doesn't understand or know the full story, at least they are promoting it in a positive light.
For starters Mary was married to Joseph so she wasn't exactly an "unwed pregnant teenager".
Then there's the idea that Mary and Joseph were poor, however the bible doesn't state that anywhere. The birth in the manger was caused by circumstances, not poverty. There was no more room at the inn. That implies Joseph had the money to pay for a room had their been one available.
Some biblical scholars even believe that Joseph was well off such as the one in the following except:
"There is notoriously little accurate information about Jesus's circumstances. But what there is clearly indicates that his family was well-to-do, and that his upbringing was of a kind available only to those with status and financial resources...Jesus is obviously literate and well educated...when education was essentially an adjunct of class." (Baigent, Lee & Lincoln, 1986, 30-31).
Literacy was a sign that you were in the top 3 to 5 percent and Jesus was able to read and write in Greek evident by his expert command of the scriptures.
There's more evidence that Joseph and Mary were those same people the occupiers protest against than the 'poor'.
At least this second group is trying even if they fail to actually learn the story as it's printed in the bible.
In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ ”
It would be one thing if they were the ones promoting giving to others and helping those in need but instead they are the ones demanding and asking for the profits of others while offering up nothing in return. I guess in the occupy version there is more happiness in taking from the top 1% than it is to do any kind of hard work.