DYSPEPSIA GENERATION

We have seen the future, and it sucks.

Three Prongs (The War on Christmas)

27th December 2011

Freeberg lays out the telltale signs.

Things, usually things that are part of a cherished tradition, that some busybody with authority thinks need to go the way of the Dodo bird because they’re not secular enough in nature. My prongs are not part of any kind of test, they are observations. Observations which, from what I can tell, endure from one “War on Christmas” incident to the next…not a single one of the three ever falter or fail. There may be exceptions, somewhere, but I’m still waiting to find some.

Somehow, the atheist and the Buddhist and the Hindu and the Muslim are supposed to suffer some actual injury when they see a Nativity display on an Air Force base, like a slug writhing in agony beneath a salt shaker.

14 Responses to “Three Prongs (The War on Christmas)”

  1. Dennis Nagle Says:

    More whining from the Christophiles. Just keep it in your homes or on your private property, and there won’t be any problem.
    If the atheists were to put up some big display on the courthouse lawn stating unequivocably that Christmas is a lie, you’d see plenty of folks screaming about being injured and offended.

    A pointed reminder, if one were needed, that freedom from religion is not a Christian value.

  2. Whitehawk Says:

    Dennis, if public displays of our Christian heritage get your tights in such a painful wad why don’t you move to a country that was not founded by Christians on Christian principles? Say Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? China? Take your pick.

    Merry Christmas.

  3. RealRick Says:

    Ahh, but it’s not freedom FROM religion, it’s freedom OF religion. No one is holding a gun to your head (as they might in a Muslim country) and forcing you to swear allegiance to a religion. Nor are you suffering because the neighbors have a Santa Claus inflated on their lawn.

    Interesting that one who finds humans to be the highest beings in the universe would also find them to be incredibly ignorant and troublesome.

  4. Dennis Nagle Says:

    Whitehawk, please read your history. This is not “a Christian nation founded on Christian principles”. Most of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians, (look up the difference) and many of them had nothing but contempt for Christianity–indeed, for organized religion in any form. And the US cannot be a Christian nation, as the constitution expressly forbids such ‘establishment’. (For the record, the fact that most of the people living here are Christians doesn’t make the nation Christian anymore than the fact that most of the Salt Lake City Chamber of Commerce members are Morman thereby makes it a Morman organization.)

    And RealRick, freedom OF religion implies freedom FROM having someone else’s religion thrust in your face all the time. No one is holding a gun to my head to swear allegiance to Christianity, but posting huge Christmas trees and creches on public property certainly implies official recognition of one particular brand of belief. I happen to believe in the Santa Skeleton on the Cross, but you read the sort of tollerance MY religious symbol received.

    As for my neighbor, he’s entitled to put anything he wants on his lawn. The Santa doesn’t bother me–it’s the ‘Rick Perry’ signs that make my teeth ache…

    And for the record I’ve never said that humans are the highest beings in the universe. There may be something higher; I don’t know. What I HAVE said is that your particular Judeo-Christian mythology has never been demonstrated to be true.

  5. Whitehawk Says:

    “This is not “a Christian nation founded on Christian principles”.” I’m afraid you are the one lacking in history knowledge Dennis. You can’t honestly continue to deny the profound Christian influence in the founding of the U.S. You should not read what some pointy headed academic says about who our Founding Fathers were. Read they’re own words. Try http://www.wallbuilders.com/ for a sample. Read the preamble to your own state:Michigan 1908, Preamble — We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, establish this Constitution…

    Read Original Intent- Barton. De Tocqueville was a liar if what you say is true. This meme that we were not founded a Christian nation has to die.

    The greatest part of British America was peopled by men who, having shaken off the authority of the Pope, acknowledged no other religious supremacy: they brought with them into the New World a form of Christianity which I cannot better describe than by styling it a democratic and republican religion. This contributed powerfully to the stablishment of a republic and a democracy in public affairs; and from the beginning politics and religion contracted an alliance which has never been dissolved.- de Tocqueville.

  6. Dennis Nagle Says:

    You will have noted, of course, the complete absence of “Christ” in all of this so-called ‘Christian’ commentary. As I said, the founders were Deist; they weren’t atheists, they just weren’t Christian.

    But of course the Christian viewpoint has no room for any other interpretation of ‘God’ than the version they were raised with. That’s one of the primary reasons they cannot accept the true meaning of ‘agnostic’; in their minds it always equates to ‘atheist’.

    And valuable and important as de Tocqueville’s writing may be, he was not one of the founding fathers. Read Jefferson’s take on religion if you really want an eye-opener.

  7. Whitehawk Says:

    “You will have noted, of course, the complete absence of “Christ” in all of this so-called ‘Christian’ commentary. As I said, the founders were Deist; they weren’t atheists, they just weren’t Christian.”

    Once again you are using inaccurate sources.

    “Read Jefferson’s take on religion if you really want an eye-opener.”

    Jefferson was the least religious of the hundreds of Founders in his time. No surprise there. But it can’t be denied he was a admirer of Christ’s teachings and the importance of Christianity noting:

    The precepts of philosophy, and of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only. (Jesus) pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man, erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head. -Thomas Jefferson

    I have read Jefferson. He wrote “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth” to be distributed to Indian tribes. He also approved several measures during his presidency funding CHRISTIAN Missionaries to Indian tribes. Come on man. Don’t take it spoon fed from a liberal prof. Read what they said and DID themselves.

    “And valuable and important as de Tocqueville’s writing may be, he was not one of the founding fathers.”

    You can’t be serious. You discount de Tocqueville’s writing because he was not a Founding Father? Don’t let facts get in the way of your opinion. He was writing while many who knew the Founders were still alive and his account could have been blown out of the water.

    Liberals have so much to lose by the facts being known. Read John Jay, Benjamin Rush, Zephaniah Swift, Noah Webster, Roger Sherman, John Adams, Patrick Henry, Alexander Hamilton, John Witherspoon, George Washington, Joseph Story, John Hancock, Samuel Adams…

    Let them tell you in their own words what they believed. It’s time to say the king is naked. They were not deists but Christians and in most cases devout ones. They encouraged the teaching of Christianity and embraced its principles in policy and our founding documents.

  8. Dennis Nagle Says:

    Thomas Jefferson
    John Adams
    Benjamin Franklin
    James Madison
    John Jay
    George Washington
    Alexander Hamilton

    Of those listed–all universally acknowledged to be among the most important of the founders–only John Jay was what would be recognized today as ‘Christian’.
    As Deists, Washington, Adams, and Jefferson–the first three presidents under the Constitution–variously in their writings rejected two of the three pillars of Christianity, namely the need for salvation and the divinity of Jesus. How can you with a straight face say they were Christian in any meaningful sense of the word?

    In addition, Article 11 of the 1796 treaty between Tripoli and the US specifically states in black and white: “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion…” (bold added). This treaty was written under Washington and signed by Adams.

    You are correct, a pernicious and persistant meme must end. But it is the meme that this is ‘a Christian nation’ which must be laid to rest. In the words of John Adams: “The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”

  9. Whitehawk Says:

    “As Deists, Washington, Adams, and Jefferson–the first three presidents under the Constitution–variously in their writings rejected two of the three pillars of Christianity, namely the need for salvation and the divinity of Jesus. How can you with a straight face say they were Christian in any meaningful sense of the word?”

    No comment on Jefferson’s Christian promotions?

    WASHINGTON refers to Lord Jesus several times in his personal prayer book. His adopted daughter gave a very public rebuke to those who made the claim he was not Christian, he made the declaration to the Delaware Indians: “You will do well to wish to learn our arts and way of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention.”

    ADAMS see below.

    ‘John Adams: “The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”’ I would love to see the source for this quote and read it in context.

    “In addition, Article 11 of the 1796 treaty between Tripoli and the US specifically states in black and white: “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion…” (bold added). This treaty was written under Washington and signed by Adams.”

    Really, the Treaty of Tripoli? Seems desperate. Nevertheless…

    The wording is neither Washington’s (He never saw it. The Treaty arrived in D.C. after he left office)or Adam’s though Adam’s did sign it. Gen. William Eaton (a major player in the conflict) appointed by Adams and advanced by Jefferson describes the Barbary Powers conflict as a Muslim aggression toward a Christian nation. Read about it in Original Intent pg 125-130.

    Adams himself said: “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were…the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty as unalterable as human nature.” Doesn’t sound like he believed we were not born a Christian nation.

    The FEDERAL government is not founded on any religion, religious affiliation (generally understood to be among Christian sects) was left to the states who at the time were much more independent (and who were all Christian by the way.) The federal government was restricted to a neutral stand on matters of religion. (Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion nor restricting the free exercise thereof…) This is a more consistent interpretation of this obscure clause.

    You are misrepresenting the meaning and purpose of this clause, just like my lib prof’s. That the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT does not favor Christianity in this sense in no way indicated we were not born as a Christian nation.

    Sorry, Dennis. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Early Federal Courts have confirmed this conclusion, Founding Fathers nearly unanimously agreed, even those who were not avowed Christians. (e.g. Franklin).

    If you are not happy with this country being founded a Christian nation on Christian principles, you should find another that wasn’t. Instead of trying to change history, change residency.

  10. Dennis Nagle Says:

    Ah, yes, the “If you don’t like it here, go away!” argument. Very pithy. Are you by any chance a Texan?

    The very definition of a Christian is one who “accepts Jesus Christ as one’s personal savior”. That is not my definition, it is the definition embraced by its adherants.

    It rests on three principles: 1) that we are in need of salvation; 2) that Jesus Christ was the divine agent of that salvation; 3) that blood sacrifice–namely the death on the cross–was effective in achieving that salvation. I defy you, or anyone, to find evidence that the founders believed all, or even ANY, of these three principles. If they did not, then they were not Christian.

    They were self-proclaimed Deists. YOu would do well to understand and acknowledge the difference.

    They embraced “Christian principles”, not because said principles were divinely authored–indeed, several of them specifically rejected the divinity of Jesus–but because they decided that they made rational sense as a framework for organizing a social order. I happen to agree with them. But said principles are not unique to Christianity; they are found in every religion, in fact in every social order, even those having nothing to do with religion. They all have the same basic set of rules: Don’t lie. Don’t cheat. Don’t murder. Don’t steal. Accept authority. Don’t play around with another man’s woman. Etc.

    What you are really saying is that the founders were ‘virtual’ Christians because they believed in some of the same things that Christians believe. But the fact that I love burritos and mariachi bands doesn’t thereby make me a ‘virtual’ Mexican. They accepted the message but rejected the messenger. They were in effect saying that Christ got it partially right. To state chategorically on that basis that this was founded as a Christian nation is a stretch, even for you and your fellow like-minded Christophiles.

    As to the treaty with the Tripoli pirates, it is far from desperate. It is, in fact, the only instance where the subject is addressed directly in a context where it needed to be spelled out. Gen. Eaton was merely relaying back what the Tipolitan ambassador had told him as being the justification for attacking neutral ships at sea, which was essentially the same thing that Tim loves to hammer on here: That all non-believers are sheep free for the fleecing, that rules don’t apply when dealing with non-Muslims, and that the Prophet enjoined them to make war on Christians. This was not Eaton’s construction of the framework of the conflict, but rather that of the enemy as reported to him. It was therefore important to spell out specifically that this is NOT a ‘Christian nation’ and therefore the Tripolitan justifications based on conflict between faiths did not apply.

    As with your defense of de Toqueville, Adams had more than enough opportunity to quash or change the phrase had he so desired or had he disagreed with it.

    What the states did or did not do is irrelevent. The topic is not whether we were founded as Christian states, but as a Christian nation. Please stick to the subject.

    In any event, the fact that the founders based the Constitution on certain principles they found expressed in Christianity DOES NOT grant a tacit a priori license to set up religious dioramas on public property every year.

  11. Whitehawk Says:

    “What the states did or did not do is irrelevent. The topic is not whether we were founded as Christian states, but as a Christian nation. Please stick to the subject.”

    To ignore the structure of the nation’s government as sovereign states united under one LIMITED federal government is to misunderstand how the country was born and operated until the civil war changed the whole idea of sovereign states.

    In any case the influence of Christianity on our birth is irrefutable yet you persist. You continue to insist that key founders were not Christian because they did not accept Christ’s Deity yet you have yet to give me a source for your claim. All whom you mention esteemed the Bible and promoted/recommended its teaching to everyone. Dennis, the Bible teaches the Deity of Christ. Were they Deist AND hypocrites? All correspondence and quotes I find support my claim. What I read of your quote of John Adams, where I can find it, reveals you are misrepresenting it. Apparently this comment was in response to a petty squabble between sects of Christians that he had grown weary of hearing about. It was not intended as a profession of his belief, only his recognition of the silliness going on between Christian sects of the day.

    “As to the treaty with the Tripoli pirates, it is far from desperate. It is, in fact, the only instance where the subject is addressed directly in a context where it needed to be spelled out.

    Um, no. Not the only instance where the subject is addressed directly where it “needed” to be spelled out. From the original Continental Congress to the early days of the Constitutional Congress proclamation after proclamation in respect to “Almighty God”, the printing of an English Bible to promulgate the “Christian Religion” to the “inhabitants of the United States”, the observance of prayer worthy of “Christian imitation” made the SAME DAY the final wording of the first amendment was approved, the list is endless and one hardly knows where to start or stop, Dennis. Liberals grab an out of context or misunderstood phrase and try to flip the tiger with his tail.

    Gen. Eaton was merely relaying back what the Tipolitan ambassador had told him as being the justification for attacking neutral ships at sea, which was essentially the same thing that Tim loves to hammer on here: That all non-believers are sheep free for the fleecing, that rules don’t apply when dealing with non-Muslims, and that the Prophet enjoined them to make war on Christians. This was not Eaton’s construction of the framework of the conflict, but rather that of the enemy as reported to him. It was therefore important to spell out specifically that this is NOT a ‘Christian nation’ and therefore the Tripolitan justifications based on conflict between faiths did not apply.”

    You are misrepresenting Eaton’s comments. His personal diary includes: “April 8 th: We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen. We have a difficult undertaking!”

    The title of the book documenting the conflict was titled: The life of the late Gen. William Eaton…commander of the Christian and Other Forces…which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between The United States and The Regency of Tripoli.

    We were formed a Christian Nation from a Christian people. The principles of Christianity are what have guided us as a people until the last 50-60 years. Progressivism is what has ruled the last 5 decades and look where it has gotten us. We are on the verge of collapse.

    May God Bless American once again. Why is this so important to you prove we were not born a Christian nation?

  12. Dennis Nagle Says:

    Again you miss the distinction: References to ‘God’, ‘Almighty God’, etc. do not refer to a specifically CHRISTIAN God. But like most Christians, it’s close to the Christian God, and close is good enough. The Deists were not atheists. They believed in God, just not yours.

    That they found much good in the Bible does not mean they bought every word of it hook, line, and sinker. Denying the inerrancy of the Bible is one of the identifying hallmarks of Deism. I find much to admire in the Vedas, but I am not a Hindu. I find much to admire in Budhist teachings, but I am not a Budhist. That many in Congress were Christians is not in dispute, any more than one disputes that there are many Republicans in Congress today. The fact that they pass legislation promoting their views, however, cannot be used to ‘prove’ that those views are or were universally accepted as being the fundamental law of the land.

    You might as well argue that we were founded a Slaver Nation because many were slave-holders and managed to get their ‘peculiar institution’ confirmed in law on many occaisions.

    I can go on, but what’s the point? The primary reason you believe that this is a ‘Christian nation’ is because you are a Christian and you want it to be a Christian nation; somehow you feel that that gives you–and all other like-minded Christians–special status and sanction to push your faith agenda in every public place and through every public office and public servant. If it were left to you, the blasphemy and heresy laws you have cited would still be in full effect, probably added as yet more ammendments to the Constitution, Easter would be a mandatory national holiday, and no one would be allowed to buy or sell except they were marked on the forehead and in the hand with the mark of the Cross. In that regard you share much with the sharia-loving Islamists.

    And THAT is why this is important to me. Such theogracy is functionally identical to totalitarianism, and anathama to freedom. It, and the myths and lies which support it, must be opposed at every turn. All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.

    Have a nice New Year. I’m done here.

  13. Whitehawk Says:

    “I can go on, but what’s the point? The primary reason you believe that this is a ‘Christian nation’ is because you are a Christian and you want it to be a Christian nation; somehow you feel that that gives you–and all other like-minded Christians–special status and sanction to push your faith agenda in every public place and through every public office and public servant. If it were left to you, the blasphemy and heresy laws you have cited would still be in full effect, probably added as yet more ammendments to the Constitution, Easter would be a mandatory national holiday, and no one would be allowed to buy or sell except they were marked on the forehead and in the hand with the mark of the Cross. In that regard you share much with the sharia-loving Islamists.”

    No, Dennis. You could not be more wrong if you were trying, which I suspect you are. I once believed what my liberal prof’s taught; that Christianity and the Bible had little to do with our birth and greatness. Then I was exposed to the writings of men like Barton, De Mar, and Federer. I began to read what the Founders said THEMSELVES.

    Because we were a Christian nation built on Christian principles we knew that man was created to be free. So powerfully have we believed this that we have in the darkest of times sent men and women to fight and die in terrible places around the world for the freedom of other men and women. That is a Christian value. We leave the countries we have conquered to be free to govern themselves and they find the blessings of freedom.

    It is no secret there have been abuses but our understanding of good and evil is the product of being a Christian nation. You quote Edmund Burke. He also said: “Among a people generally corrupt liberty cannot long exist.” Where do we get the understanding for what is good and what is evil? From the Bible.

    “And THAT is why this is important to me. Such theogracy is functionally identical to totalitarianism, and anathama to freedom.”

    Christianity is where we got our understanding of freedom. “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” And, Gal 5:1 “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” The Founders were Christian and did not set up a Theocracy. There is a huge difference between us and Islam. You have benefited from this and can’t find a way to appreciate it.

    Americans actually believed these things and ACTED on them and a superpower was born.

    “It, and the myths and lies which support it, must be opposed at every turn. All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.”

    Again, how do you determine what is evil? How do you determine what a lie is without an absolute moral standard? And if there is no God why is lying wrong?

    You are cutting down trees to save the forest.

    So you concede?

  14. Whitehawk Says:

    From The Light and the Glory by Peter Marshall and David Emmanuel page 284 and 285:

    What we came across inside ranked in excitement with the discovery of Columbus ‘s heaven sent rebuke. When he was about 20, George Washington filled 24 pages of a little manuscript book with some of the most beautiful prayers we have ever read. All of them were written out in his own hand, and he titled the little book Daily Sacrifice. The first entry was subtitled Sunday morning, and contain these words:

    “That my heart, therefore, gracious God, be so affectionate with the glory and majesty of (Thine honor) that I may not do my homework, but wait on the and discharge those weighty duties which are now requires of me…”

    … In Monday morning’s entry, Washington had written:

    “Direct my thoughts, words and work, wash away my sins in the immaculate Blood of the lamb, and purge my heart by Thy Holy Spirit… Daily frame me more and more into the likeness of Thy Son Jesus Christ.”

    And in Monday evenings:

    “Thou gavest thy Son to die for me; and has given me assurance of my salvation, upon my repentance and sincerely endeavoring to conform my life to His holy precepts an example.”

    The man who wrote these words was no deist, but a devout Christian.