A century ago, the eyes of the nation turned to a small Tennessee town, where a populist Democrat sparred with a burgeoning activist group in a trial that would set the stage for decades of legal and academic battles. In July 1925, John Scopes stood trial for teaching his students at a Dayton, Tennessee, school that humans had evolved from other forms of life. At the time, teaching human evolution violated state law after the Butler Act was signed in the spring of that same year, not to mention it ran counter to the beliefs of many residents of the deeply Christian town. Scopes was defended by the American Civil Liberties Union — founded just five years prior — and famed lawyer Clarence Darrow. The prosecution was assisted by former Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, who was the Democratic nominee for president in 1896, 1900, and 1908. The trial went on for 11 sweltering summer days, with diversions into debates on the science behind evolution and biblical history. In the end, Scopes was convicted of violating state law and fined $100. While Scopes lost the battle, his side won the war. Evolution became the sanctioned explanation of human origins, and teachers were prohibited from discussing any other theories. Today, the vast majority of scientists still believe in human evolution, or the idea that humans, plants, and animals all share a common ancestor. They view the Scopes trial as a warning about mixing religion with education, and have used the centennial to sound the alarm about new state laws that allow discussion of challenges to evolution in the classroom. However, many Americans, and a contingent of skeptical scientists, remain unconvinced by evolution. They view the Scopes anniversary as an opportunity to challenge the evolutionary consensus. Critics of evolution typically fall into two camps. One argues that the complexity of life indicates design outside of the evolutionary process. They say that the evolutionary mechanism cannot explain the development of the intricate cellular machines that make up living things. Called “intelligent design,” this theory does not rely on religion or a personal God, and includes adherents across the religious spectrum including many Christians. Intelligent design advocates say that the debate over evolution is not settled, and that more scientists will join their side the more we learn about human origins. This camp aims to avoid politics, preferring to battle things out in academic journals and research symposia. The second camp makes a faith-based argument, rooted in the Bible. They say that God created humans, animals, and plants with built-in genetic diversity that allowed for adaptation and the development of different species. This is typically referred to as creationism. Creationists see in the Scopes trial a warning for how Christians should act today. Wary of becoming Bryan — devout, but unprepared to defend his religious beliefs — they warn that Christians must understand the Bible to effectively argue that science does not conflict with the account of creation in the Book of Genesis. They also warn that the rise of evolution as a governing paradigm undermined human dignity, paving the way for abortion and assisted suicide. Of course, skeptics of evolution cannot relitigate the Scopes trial. But they are trying to correct the historical record. Scopes Stereotypes What many Americans know about the Scopes trial is actually based on a popular play and film inspired by the trial. “Inherit The Wind” tells the story of a teacher prosecuted by a small religious town for teaching human evolution. The play, which is often taught in schools, portrays critics of evolution as backwards fanatics denying scientific evidence. Critics say “Inherit the Wind” misleads the public about key facts about the case, whitewashes inconvenient facts about the biology textbook in question, and has perpetuated stereotypes about opponents of evolution as backward rubes. Dr. John West, the vice president of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank, told The Daily Wire that there are many facts of the case that don’t come across in its telling. For example, the 1925 textbook at the center of the Scopes trial — Civic Biology, by George Hunter — was deeply racist and promoted eugenics. “The dirty little secret that very few people actually talk about … is that Hunter’s civic biology was a ravingly racist and pro-eugenics book,” West told The Daily Wire. “It’s kind of a riot today because if you actually tried to teach out of that textbook today, teachers would probably be fired.” For example, the textbook said that the Caucasian race was the “highest type of all” humans, and said some people were “parasites” unfit to reproduce. “If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading,” the textbook said. “Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race.” West also said that Bryan, the progressive Democrat politician who helped prosecute Scopes, saw the trial as a battle for parental rights. Bryan believed that parents should not be forced to send their kids to government schools that would undermine their Christian faith. Instead, he believed the teachers should avoid the issue of human origins altogether, according to West. Clarence Darrow with William Jennings Bryan via Getty Images. The arguments made in favor of “science” were also far from scientific. Evidence used to support evolution during the trial was discredited in the following years. For example, the prosecution pointed to a tooth belonging to an alleged ape-man known as “Nebraska Man” that was referred to as an example of evolutionary evidence. The tooth was later found to belong to a type of wild pig, not an ape or human. Still, evolution remains in the scientific mainframe. And contemporary advocates say that, initial missteps notwithstanding, it’s still the only logical theory. Evolution Dr. Ken Miller, a professor emeritus of biology at Brown University in Rhode Island, describes evolution as “a process, which we can see working in the world today by which species can adapt and change to new circumstances.” Darwin first advanced the concept in the 1850s, when he observed beak changes of finches during a visit to the Galapagos Islands. It quickly gained traction, built off the foundational principles of natural selection (adapting physical characteristics to survive) and random genetic mutation. A key plank of evolutionary theory is the idea that all living things — plants, animals, and people alike — emerged from the same entity millions of years ago. “It’s accurate to say that all life on Earth — monkeys, humans, and trilobites, and my dogs sitting behind me — share a common ancestor,” said Bertha Vazquez, a former middle school teacher and the director of education at the Center for Inquiry. “Just depends how far back in history you want to go. And I think that’s a beautiful idea, isn’t it? 
The idea that all life on Earth is connected and share common ancestry.” Evolution of Man: Photo by The Print Collector/Print Collector/Getty Images) Vazquez says that there is evidence for evolution throughout the fossil record and what we know about genetics. Miller told The Daily Wire that people should know evolution acts on species, not individuals, over generations, and that there is more evidence for life in the past than most people think, and that evolution is happening all around the world today. Examples of visible evolution we encounter today include humans becoming able to drink animal milk, and the changes undergone by viruses, such as the various types of flu viruses. Proponents of evolution argue that its critics have yet to prove themselves scientifically. Miller has been opposed to intelligent design and proponents of creationism for decades, first debating the issue in the 1980s. “I realized that the whole anti-evolution movement was dangerous for science because it was telling people that science is corrupt.
 It was telling people that evolution is a lie, and therefore, the entire scientific enterprise is based on a lie,” he said. “I would publicly oppose efforts to distort, ban or limit the teaching of evolution in the schools.” In 2005, he testified in the federal case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District after a local Pennsylvania school board was challenged over a policy mandating the teaching of intelligent design. The judge ended up ruling against the school board, asserting that intelligent design was religious and not scientific. Miller said that one challenge to evolutionary theory was the presence of male and female sex in humans, animals, and plants. He said it would work against the preservation instinct to evolve into two sexes. “That means the population can’t grow as quickly as it could if there was only one sex, and everybody could have babies. So sex exacts a price on a species. It cuts your reproductive potential in half by having about half the population,” he said. Glenn Branch, the deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, told The Daily Wire that there were no legitimate challenges to evolutionary theory. “Evolutionary theory is incomplete and that’s a good thing because evolutionary biology is a living science, there are open questions, there are areas of controversy and disagreement. There’s always something more to know,” he said. In a similar fashion, Vazquez said that opponents of evolutionary theory simply deny the evidence. “If you don’t believe in evolution, it’s like going to a math conference where you have the greatest math minds on Earth who are discussing calculus and beyond calculus, and you’re going in there with a poster that says two plus two equals five. I mean, science has moved way beyond this simple controversy,” she told The Daily Wire. Branch said that intelligent design was a highly secularized version of creationism. His organization began in the 1980s to oppose the teaching of creationism in public schools. “If a school permits a teacher to present creationism in any language, as scientifically credible, that school district is going to be on the hook legally because the First Amendment guarantees that there will be no establishment in religion, that binds not only the federal government, but also lower governments, including states and counties and towns,” he said. Branch said that creationists “are eager to cloak themselves in science” but generally unwilling to have a scientific argument. Not all advocates of evolution are atheists or anti-religion. Miller is a Catholic and says that he does not believe there is a conflict between his faith and evolution, though he does not describe himself as a theistic evolutionist. Branch also said there was not necessarily a conflict between evolution and faith. Around a third of Americans say that they believe that God created humans with some level of evolution at play, Gallup found. This would include the views of those who describe themselves as theistic evolutionists — those who believe God set the stage for evolution and sat back. However, a significant number of people believe that human evolution does conflict with their faith. Creationism  Creationism, a view held by nearly 40% of Americans, is a position largely held by evangelical Protestants. In general, creationists say that God created the world in six 24-hour days; that humans and animals were largely created in their current form; and that the global flood described in the Book of Genesis is responsible for things like the Grand Canyon and the fossil record. Two large organizations representing their views are Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. Ken Ham, the founder of Answers in Genesis, explained that a large part of the debate is about what and how different terms are used. He says that creationists believe in natural selection and have no problem with animals like the polar bear and grizzly bear coming from the same ancestor. He describes this as speciation of different kinds, explaining that dogs, cats, and bears would all fall into different “kind” family categories. “When God made the original kinds, he put all that genetic diversity in the DNA, an incredible amount of information, because you could have millions, trillions of combinations because of the amount of genetic diversity that’s right there in the DNA,” he told The Daily Wire. “Creationists certainly believed that animals change because of the genetic diversity that’s already there.” Creation of Adam: Photo by GraphicaArtis/Getty Images. “Natural selection and adaptation have nothing to do with evolution. It’s got everything to do with genetic diversity and the characteristics that will enable an organism to survive or otherwise,” he said. He said what most people think of when they hear evolution is the idea that humans descended from apes millions of years ago. He argued that what evolutionists refer to as Neanderthals are just humans with different genetics than humans today. Creationists note that those referred to as Neanderthals exhibit examples of human civilization, like making their own instruments, makeup, jewelry, and weapons. They point to studies showing that some individuals today share up to 4% of their DNA makeup with Neanderthals. Ham also said that there was a major difference between “observational science” and “historical science.” He said both creationists and evolutionists had access to the same observable evidence, but that historical science was “dealing with the past” when no one was alive. “Creationists and evolutionists all have the same evidence. It is not the evidence that’s different. It’s how you interpret the evidence, which depends upon the beliefs, the presuppositions you have to start with,” he told The Daily Wire. “This idea that atheists don’t have a religion is nonsense, everyone has a worldview, a worldview determines your morality, and your worldview has a foundation.” He said that the evolutionary worldview contradicted the biblical account of creation, which he said Christians should interpret historically and not allegorically or poetically. Ham disagrees with many advocates of intelligent design, who are generally open to the idea that the Earth has been around for millions of years — a theory he says would undermine the Bible. Ham’s organization has built a creation museum and replica of Noah’s Ark in Kentucky, both of which he says get about 1.5 million visitors per year. The exhibits explore creation science in light of the Bible. Ark Encounter in Kentucky: Photo by Stephen Zenner/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images. Dr. Randy Guliuzza, the president of the Institute for Creation Research, also argues that there is much evidence for creation. “The misconceptions are that science is all on the side of evolution and that there’s very little science to back up the creation account. But nothing could be further from the truth. The real science backs up the biblical creation account, particularly in biology, where you just see incredibly engineered systems all the way down to the molecular level,” he told The Daily Wire. “The amount of engineering that we see in one single cell exceeds the engineering of any major city in the United States. I mean, that is just compelling evidence that life was supernaturally engineered,” he added. He said that there were similarities between biological and human engineering, adding that human engineering mimics biological engineering to perform similar functions. Guliuzza said that there was no conflict between his faith and science, saying every scientist brought a perspective to the evidence. “What I really see is that nature is doing exactly what the creator God intended it to do, which is to reveal His incredible genius, his wisdom, and his power through the created things,” he told The Daily Wire. But there are some in the scientific community who share creationists’ belief that evolution can’t explain our universe — but not necessarily their religious convictions. Intelligent Design Dr. Casey Luskin, who has a PhD in geology, is a colleague of West’s at the Discovery Institute. He is a critic of evolution who argues in favor of intelligent design, which he describes as “a scientific theory, which holds that many features alive in the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause, because they contain the kind of information and complexity, which in our experience only comes from intelligence.” As a movement, it largely originated in the 1980s and 1990s with the work of academics like Dr. Michael Behe, an outspoken Catholic critic of evolution and a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. In 1996, Behe published a book called “Darwin’s Black Box,” in which he argued that Charles Darwin was largely ignorant of cellular function when he developed his theory of evolution in the 1850s. Statue of Darwin: Photo by Steve Christo/Corbis via Getty Images. “Back in the 19th century biology was relatively primitive and then in the meantime, science has discovered that the cell is run by complex molecular machines, which are real hard to account for by his mechanism of random mutation and natural selection,” Behe told The Daily Wire. Behe said that recent scientific research has found that the “great majority of favorable mutations” are those that break down or degrade genes already present in a plant or animal, not those that are new to the organism. For example, he said that the reason that polar bears have white fur and can tolerate high levels of cholesterol, unlike normal bears, is because of broken, not advanced, genes. “It turns out that Darwin’s mechanism is not doing what it was thought to do,” he said. “It’s not building new things, it’s breaking down old things, and sometimes that helps.” Central to Behe’s thesis is “irreducible complexity,” the idea that all parts of an entity must come together before they can function. Behe believes evolution cannot account for the formation of complex entities that fall apart if one component is missing. Human cell: Credit: OsakaWayne Studios via Getty Images. He uses the example of a mousetrap that needs a spring, hammer, a holding bar, and a wooden platform to work. In the cellular world, he points to a bacterial flagellum, which he describes as an outboard motor used by bacteria to swim. The components of the bacterial flagellum include a motor, a propeller, and clamps to keep it attached to the cell membrane. He said that without any of the key components, it falls apart. Behe says these kinds of machines pose problems for evolution because random mutations and natural selection cannot explain complex cellular systems. He also disputes the idea that intelligent design is inherently religious. ”We are not invoking God, we’re invoking intelligence. I argue, in ‘Darwin’s Black Box,’ that these systems require purposeful intelligence design and that we know the effects of intelligence. We see what intelligence can do,” he said. Behe is bullish on the future of the intelligent design movement, and is “very confident that eventually, it will be accepted within mainstream science again, simply because that’s where the science is headed.” The Discovery Institute has a list of over 250 peer-reviewed papers published in mainstream academic journals, including The Quarterly Review of Biology and the Journal of Theoretical Biology, which it says support intelligent design. Many academics have faced criticism and professional consequences for allowing discussion of or signalling support for intelligent design. Smithsonian Institute research biologist Richard Sternberg was slammed in 2004 after he allowed a paper by intelligent design proponent Stephen Meyer to be published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Many of his colleagues at the Smithsonian attacked him over the publication controversy. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel found that Sternberg faced “a hostile work environment” with the “ultimate goal” of forcing him out of the Smithsonian Institution in retaliation for allowing publication of the peer-reviewed paper. In 2007, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure at Iowa State University after he spoke out in favor of intelligent design. While the university said the reason was because of his research, emails obtained by the Discovery Institute show his colleagues slamming him behind his back and wishing that he would leave the school. One colleague said he should be included among “religious nutcases” while another said he was disqualified from teaching science because he does “not understand what constitutes both science and a scientific theory disqualifies him from serving as a science educator.” What’s Next? A 2024 Gallup survey on the views of Americans on man’s origin shows that 37% believe that God created humans without evolution, 34% believe that man originated through a combination of humans and evolution, and another 24% believe in evolution without God. Evolutionists say the disparity between the scientific community and the general public is driven by religious concerns. They argue that more education is needed to show the public that, in their view, evolution does not conflict with religion. They also want to continue to push states to adopt more comprehensive science standards from a firmly evolutionary perspective and warn about academic freedom laws that have been passed in some states, like West Virginia, that allow for teachers to address the concept of intelligent design if asked without fear of retribution. Critics of evolution are also positive about their future, despite their minority status in the public square. The Discovery Institute points to the continued academic output of their scholars and the hundreds of articles they’ve published. Groups like Answers in Genesis point to the roughly 1.5 million yearly visitors it gets to its Creation Museum and life-sized Noah’s ark recreation. What happens over the next 100 years depends on who you ask. Advocates for intelligent design, creationism, and evolution all say that the momentum is on their side as more and more scientific discoveries are made. One of them has to be right.

Newly released FBI documents expose the shocking extent of the bureau’s deliberate cover-up of Hillary Clinton’s foreign bribery schemes and pay-to-play operations through the Clinton Foundation during the 2016 election. FBI Documents Reveal Deliberate Suppression of Clinton Foundation Investigation FBI New York Assistant Director Diego Rodriguez prepared detailed questions for Hillary Clinton regarding foreign bribery allegations through the Clinton Foundation, according to documents released to the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 15. The investigation, codenamed “Cracked Foundation,” uncovered evidence of pay-to-play schemes involving foreign governments. FBI agents had intercepted conversations between Clinton and Indian hotel magnate Sant Singh Chatwal discussing foundation donations and campaign debt, yet Washington headquarters deliberately ignored these serious allegations during Clinton’s July 2016 interview. HILLARY CLINTON'S email scandal and the WEINER laptop. The FEDS covered it up. Hillary Clinton could NOT be proven guilty by the FBI from her infamous email scandal without taking OBAMA down with her and that's exactly ONE reason why they covered it up. But there is more… So… pic.twitter.com/tddXrCV3Dw — The SCIF (@TheSCIF) December 16, 2025 When Clinton finally appeared before FBI agents two months later for questioning about her private email server in the separate “Midyear Exam” investigation, agents asked nothing about the foreign bribery evidence or allegations that the Clinton Foundation operated as a personal slush fund. This deliberate omission represents a stunning betrayal of justice and constitutional accountability, demonstrating how the deep state protected Clinton while she pursued the presidency. Saudi Arabia’s Massive Illegal Campaign Contributions ZeroHedge reported in 2016 that Saudi Arabia funded approximately 20% of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, according to claims made by the Saudi Crown Prince to Jordan’s official Petra News Agency. This revelation exposed breathtaking hypocrisy as Clinton simultaneously criticized Saudi support for extremist organizations while secretly accepting their illegal foreign contributions. Federal law explicitly prohibits foreign nationals from contributing to American political campaigns, making these payments a serious felony that undermines election integrity and national sovereignty. Update: DOJ discloses 'shady donation deal' between Hillary Clinton and FELON millionaire from India! 'That's the only way to buy them, get into the system' — Sant Singh Chatwal! FBI believes Chatwal used the Clinton Foundation to give massive foreign donations to her 2016… pic.twitter.com/AdAfzvG7Wg — US Homeland Security News (@defense_civil25) December 28, 2025 The Saudi funding scheme represented just one component of a broader pattern of foreign influence peddling that compromised American interests. Clinton’s willingness to accept money from nations with documented ties to terrorism while publicly condemning their activities demonstrates the corrupt double standards that have eroded public trust in government institutions and constitutional principles. WikiLeaks Exposes Clinton Campaign’s Brazen Acceptance of Foreign Money WikiLeaks emails revealed that Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta responded “Take the money!!” when advisers raised concerns about accepting cash from registered foreign agents. The leaked communications exposed a $12 million commitment from the King of Morocco that Hillary Clinton personally helped facilitate, along with evidence of systematic efforts to “scare our people into giving bigger sums” through coordinated fundraising schemes involving foreign nationals. These emails documented how Clinton’s team plotted to circumvent campaign finance laws while presenting her as a reformer who would limit big money in politics. The hypocrisy extends beyond mere campaign rhetoric into active deception of American voters about the foreign influences shaping her policy positions and political priorities.

Mary Hopkin emerged from Pontardawe, Wales, with a background rooted in traditional Welsh music and folk singing. Her first major break came in 1968 after she won the television talent competition Opportunity Knocks, an appearance that brought her to the attention of Paul McCartney. McCartney signed her to the Beatles’ Apple label, marking the formal beginning of her recording career and placing her at the center of one of the most visible label launches of the late 1960s. Her debut single, “Those Were the Days,” arrived in 1968 and became an immediate international success. The song reached number one in The post Top 10 Mary Hopkin Songs appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

From Louisiana comes the story of a corporate dream fulfilled, as a man succeeded his father as CEO of the family business, invested in innovation which paid off, and guided the business through a big sale. But there was something else that Graham Walker had in his mind to achieve when he prepared to hand […] The post Boss Gifts Employees $240M in Bonuses After Selling Family Company appeared first on Good News Network.

Somewhere between 30%-50% of Americans make New Year’s resolutions, reports from last year show. A study from YouGov revealed some of the more common resolutions made and whether people think they’ll keep their resolutions. More than a quarter of participants chose “saving more money,” while the second most popular resolution was “improving physical health.” However, Dr. Michelle Rozen’s research reveals that 94% of people fail to keep their New Year’s resolutions. “In fact, Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) reports that 88% of people who set New Year’s resolutions fail before the end of January.” Resolutions might be popular but those who keep them are few. Most of us have probably had this experience. For me, I remember having a few years in a row where I made the commitment to exercise more and eat better. Quickly, within a week or two, I began to make excuses. Exercising involved waking up earlier or staying up later at night. Eating healthier meant that if we had a family celebration or a work party that I could not partake in the dessert. Admittedly, once the commitment became a challenge, I abandoned it. Reflecting on what I would like to change in the upcoming year has made me more honest about how I made these resolutions in the past and how important it is to choose something that is more meaningful. In all honesty, I never made a formal commitment. I would tell myself that I wanted to go to the gym or stop eating as much ice cream. If people asked if I had any resolutions, I would tell them I am going to work out more and eat better, but it was vague. These are two aspects that I am going to change for 2026. Choosing something to give up means I need to formally choose it by writing it down and sharing it with my wife and closest friend. Doing this makes the promise more real and I can count on them to keep me accountable. Second, it’s important to make the resolution more concrete in its expectations and therefore more meaningful. Setting a clear goal is what Rozen calls, “getting granular.” Being as specific as possible is arguably the most important trait found in those who actually keep their goals and follow through on them. With this in mind, I want to be granular about something that will be truly meaningful. While exercising and having a healthy diet is pivotal for the human person, this year I want to focus more on things that last and that go beyond myself. This year, I am committing to more prayer time which requires less screen time and will enable me to be more intentional about the time I spend with my family. This means that I am committing to waking up each morning and praying for 15-30 minutes. I’ll focus on a Bible passage and journal about it while allowing it to fuel my meditation. I have three kids (aged 5, 3, and 1), so the morning makes the promise more concrete. It is also truly the only way I can keep this commitment long term. I know that when I pray in the morning, I am a better man, husband and father. This connection with the living God makes me more grateful, more patient and more willing to sacrifice. Seeing my oldest child, Ben, enter kindergarten this year and become a little boy instead of a toddler has sparked in me a desire to be more present to all my kids and my wife in conversations. I know that what keeps me from doing this is my attachment to my phone and work computer. So, to accomplish this I am going to place my phone in my bedroom when I get home from work. I am making a rule to not go on my work computer in front of my children. These two changes (ones that I have already started incorporating in my routine in December), have already brought more of a focus on wasting time with my family rather than being caught up with social media or work emails. Ultimately, my hope is that being more prayerful will make me more grounded in what is most important in life. It will connect me with the God of love and encountering God first thing will propel me to be more vigilant in keeping my promise to be off my screen and more engaged with the precious time I have with my wife and kids. I cannot imagine a more important resolution to make—and to keep. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Making New Year’s Resolutions That Matter appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Evolution probably should have consulted the sailors who died of scurvy first.

Maybe this year wasn't so bad after all.

The cultural powers that be determined long ago that a film needn’t deal directly with the Nativity of our Lord and Savior to qualify as a “Christmas movie.”Many films apparently qualify simply by virtue of their plot events’ proximity to December 25, their festive backdrops, and their occasional visual reference to Coca-Cola Claus, starred pines, and/or the birth of God.In a way, the Christmas imagery does visually what the movie’s eponymous theme song does sonically: tease at something lovely and wonderful beyond the nightmare.Rest assured as the bare-footed cop wastes German terrorists at his estranged wife’s office party; as the two burglars repeatedly fall prey to an abandoned adolescent’s mutilatory traps; and as the inventor’s son unwittingly turns his Chinatown-sourced present into a demon infestation — these are indeed Christmas movies.Given the genre’s flexible criteria, Terry Gilliam’s 1985 masterpiece “Brazil” also qualifies.State SantaIn truth, the Python alumnus’ film about a bureaucrat’s maddening investigation of his totalitarian government’s execution of the wrong man is a far stronger entry than “Die Hard,” “Home Alone,” “Gremlins,” and other such flicks.Not only is there Christmastime imagery throughout, but such visuals are also of great importance, providing insights both into the treachery of the film’s principal antagonist — the state — as well as into what appears missing in Gilliam’s dystopian world. In the opening scene, a man pushes a cart full of wrapped presents past a storefront window framed by tinsel and crowded with “Merry Christmas” signage, television sets, and baubles.Next we enter an apartment where a mother reads “A Christmas Carol” to her daughter, a father wraps a present, and a boy plays at the foot of a well-dressed evergreen.After numerous scenes featuring gift exchanges, mutterings of “Happy Christmas," and Christmas trees, we meet a kindly faced man dressed as Santa.Jingle hellsThis is, however, no feel-good Christmas movie.The storefront window is firebombed.Armored police storm into the family’s apartment, jab a rifle in the father’s gut, and take him away in a bag while his wife screams in horror.The gifts exchanged and piling up throughout the film — besides the offers of job promotions and plastic surgery — appear to all be versions of the same novelty device, a meaningless “executive decision-maker.”The kindly faced man dressed as Santa is a propaganda-spewing government official who rolls into the protagonist Sam Lowry’s padded cell on a wheelchair to inform Lowry — played by Jonathan Pryce — that his fugitive lover is dead.With exception to the heart-warming domestic scene interrupted by the totalitarian bureaucracy’s jackboots at the beginning of the film, the Christmas imagery rings hollow and for good reason.Extra to dehumanizing workplaces, purposefully meaningless work, bureaucratic red tape, and paperwork that’s so bad it ends up killing Robert DeNiro’s character — at least by the tortured protagonist’s account — the regime’s population-control scheme relies on consumerism.The regime has, accordingly, done its apparent best to empty Christmas of the holy day’s real significance and meaning, donning it as a costume to sell and control.RELATED: Santa Claus: Innocent Christmas fun or counterfeit Jesus? Beyond the nightmare“Brazil” is not, however, an anti-Christmas film.The emptiness of the costume prompts reflection about its proper filling — a reflection that should invariably lead one to Christ.In a way, the Christmas imagery does visually what the movie’s eponymous theme song does sonically: tease at something lovely and wonderful beyond the nightmare Gilliam once dubbed “Nineteen Eighty-Four-and-a-Half.”“I had this vision of a radio playing exotic music on a beach covered in coal dust, inspired by a visit to the steel town of Port Talbot. Originally the song I had in mind was Ry Cooder’s 'Maria Elena,' but later I changed it to 'Aquarela do Brasil' by Ary Barroso,” Gilliam told the Guardian. “The idea of someone in an ugly, despairing place dreaming of something hopeful led to Sam Lowry, trapped in his bureaucratic world, escaping into fantasy.”Whereas the recurrent theme from the samba references a fantasy the regime can crush, the various indirect reminders that Christmas is about more than presents and half-hearted niceties reference a hidden truth and source of eternal hope: that God was born in Bethlehem.