generic cialis no prescription wp-image-86799″ />
‘Tis the time of year for the annual “war on Christmas” complaints.
The idea is that there is a secular plot to undermine Christmas through the use of terms like “Happy Holidays,” “Holiday Tree,” “holiday cards,” etc. People get downright incensed when department stores and such put up “Happy Holidays” signs.
Christmas was always a private religious holiday until President Ulysses S. Grant signed a law designating Christmas as a national holiday in 1870. At that moment, Christmas was officially secularized (First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law establishing a religion”). Congress had no right to declare a national religious holiday — by designating Christmas as a holiday for all Americans, it was, Constitutionally-speaking, declaring Christmas to be a non-religious, secular holiday.
The following Christmas songs were written by Jews (cribbed from a web site, but I first heard the story on a locally produced radio show of an NPR affiliate station):
The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire) – Writers Mel Torme and Bob Wells…Jewish
Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, Holly Jolly Christmas and Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree – Johnny Marks was a Jew who specialized in Christmas songs.
Santa Baby – written by Fred Ebb and Joan Javits (both Jews, Javits of the famous family)
I’ll Be Home for Christmas – Walter Kent, who wrote the music and Kim Gannon, who co-wrote the lyrics…Jewish
Silver Bells – Jay Livingston and Ran Evans…Jewish
It’s the Most Wonderful Time of the Year – George Wylie (not his birth name) is also famous for writing the Gilligan’s Island Theme Song
Sleigh Ride – Mitchell Parish who wrote the lyrics, was Jewish and born “Michael Hyman Pashelinsky” obviously.
Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow! – lyricist Sammy Cahn and music composer Jule Styne … Jewish
There’s No Place Like Home for the Holidays – Al Stillman, the lyricist…Jewis
White Christmas – Irving Berlin wrote this one… his birth name Israel Isidore Baline
Of all the Christmas songs, the one with the largest national air play on TV and radio is the “Chestnuts roasting” song.
All this music was a direct result of declaring Christmas to be a national (secular) holiday. Were Christmas treated the same way as Easter (not a national holiday), it would have about the same impact, culturally speaking — i.e. an important day for religious Christians, but something on akin to Halloween or Valentine’s Day for the un-Churched.
Would we really wish Easter to rise to the level of Christmas, as a secular holiday?
Christmas is a huge holiday in Japan, where a grand total of ONE PERCENT of the people are Christian. On one of my trips to Japan, I was there for several days after Thanksgiving. On every block there was not just one but about a dozen public Christmas trees — everywhere in downtown Tokyo. Lots and lots of silver streamers and other decorations. Lots of TV commercials, promoting Christmas products. Enormous live Christmas trees in the lobbies of the big hotels. And everywhere you go it’s “Merry Christmas” (“Merikurisumasu” –> “Me-ree-koo-ris-mahs-u”). Not “Happy Holidays.”
Huge holiday. All “Merry Christmas” — but devoid of any and all religious meaning.
I personally think that “Happy Holidays” is a much better term for use in commercial advertising, secular decorations, greetings from non-Christian people, etc. The way to put the Christ back in Christmas is to take Christmas out of the secular culture, which means not to force secular people to say “Merry Christmas,” when all they are really trying to say is “Happy Holidays.”
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
P.S. Merry Christmas
Rich: A little known fact, Robert E Lee freed all his slaves before the war started, but his wife insisted they all learn to read and that the women learn to sew before they were allowed to leave. You have been to his plantation, I am certain. It is Arlington.
@johngalt:
Perhaps Lib1 is a vampire and the very sight of Holy symbols used in faith causes him pain, burns and threatens his continued existence. He must remove their threat so that he and his kind can continue to feast on the blood of hardworking people.
That or he is just another intolerant, religious bashing, bigoted ass.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Out of curosity, why would you want to be confirmed in a specific denomination when you don’t accept the teachings of that denomination? You support early term abortion, that denomination does not. You don’t believe in the concept of hell, so I doubt you believe in the concept of pergatory, that denomination does. You seem to think that the denomination is there to serve you (your needs) when it is really there to serve the teachings of Christ and to be practiced to serve His glory, not your needs.
You will become representative of what is wrong with the Catholic Church and it’s ministers who do not follow the true teachings of Jesus Christ. I noticed that your parish is Jesuit. Why am I not surprised? The Jesuits are the bane of Catholic Church ministry. They are part of the problem, not the answer, with their subscription to the “social justice” agenda.
It is a shame that the Church doesn’t practice shunning.
@Skookum:
Let us not forget, that before he became President, Lincoln was of the opinion that states had the right to peacefully leave the union. Another fact is that slavery was used by Lincoln to continue to the war, not end it. That was the purpose of freeing the slaves in only the rebelling states. The Copperheads wanted to let the South secede and even voted for that during their 1864 convention.
The southern states did not want war, although it was popular talk, just as getting out of the Union is now in some circles. But Texas was different. In it’s original consitution, accepted by the Union when it first joined in 1845, had the right to secede, and only gave up that right when it rejoined the Union after the War of Northern Aggression had ended.
Was Lincoln a tyrant? Most definately. And as President, violated Constitutional rights at will. But that is never taught in history classes. Lincoln knew that Grant was hard core, and Grant knew that Sherman was using a “total war” policy that subjected civilians to horrors that were not necessary. Phil Sheridan, another “total war” supporter who cared naught for civilian’s rights, was later assigned, by Grant, to wipe out as much of the Native American population as possible. These were not honorable men. But history is written by the victors, and the dark side of the North is never talked about or told to students.
@Skookum:
I happen to be related to Robert E. Lee. He is a great-great-great uncle of mine. Too bad most people only relate him to the slavery aspect of the war. He happened to be a great patriot of the country, and the Constitution, fighting for the rights of the states against the federal government. Just another example of how the history taught in our schools is more the work of fiction than a true historical perspective and representation of what has happened.
Before the war, Lincoln offered his own justification for secession:
Encouraging the people of Texas to secede, Lincoln was quite Liberal with his feelings on secession from the country of Mexico. “A Sacred Right” did he believe his own words or was he being an opportunist?
Was he actually a racist who became noble about the human condition of man when it was politically expedient? These are valid questions, but questions that are ignored in school. Why? Is it because we can’t stand to see our sacred myths questioned or tarnished. The man was no saint and he did un-American deeds that would qualify him as a tyrant in any other country or in his own country if a free press existed at the time. When you end the freedom of expression you have crossed the Rubicon as far as being a tyrant.
LARRY,
hi, this is a TESTIMONY of your beliefs,
and because you are a GREAT SPECIALIZE SCIENTIST,
aiming to live for a CENTURY like your FATHER,
I believe that you have encountered GOD, by only seeking him,
and persevere until you find HIM,
you know what helped on your quest?
that’s your never ending research on finding the healing of HUMAN’S MOST EVASIVE DESEASE,
BEST TO YOU, and your exceptional FATHER,
which has a big part of your YOU
@johngalt:
John, I realize that States Rights is a very commonly given cause from the Civil War, and a way to divorce slavery from the issue. It goes hand in hand with the noble “Lost Cause” mythology, which seeks to portray the South as freedom loving victims of the tyrannical North and the Federal government, while sweeping slavery under the rug. But I ask you, what was the main “right” that divided the South and North? Slavery, of course. More specifically, it was the question of whether slavery would be allowed to spread into the territories (the future states). Slavery was an institution that needed to grow to survive. Due to the fear of slavery being banned outright, the South sought to maintain a 1-to-1 ratio of slave to free states, while the North sought to keep slavery from expanding at all. These two viewpoints were mutually exclusive in the face of new states being admitted on a regular basis. All these given differences between the North and South, when you get down to the core, were driven by this institution of slavery. Against mountains of historical evidence, Confederate apologists seem to want to pretend there was no historical context to these alleged stands on principal: The South loved states rights. Why? They just did! I think we know better.
@Tom:
Did you miss the part where I stated that I’ve come “full circle”?
While what you say above is true, it doesn’t overshadow the issue of “state’s rights” that was also a big point of contention, especially where the tariffs on the southern states were concerned. And the question that I asked at the end of what you highlighted is important to understanding what I was trying to say. It’s my belief that the taxes and tariffs were imposed, at least in part, as a response to the slavery in the southern states. Thus, my full circle, in that the Civil War was, in fact, fought mainly due to slavery. It’s my failure that I didn’t elaborate on that more, in my response to Rich.
So yes, I agree with your assertion that “when you get down to the core, were driven by this institution of slavery.”
@retire05:
As a former alterboy and veteran of 13 years of Catholic school, I think I’m qualified to humbly recognize a Christ-like attitude when I witness it. Surely Retire shuns in His Name and is bathed in His Grace. For He said: drape thyself in an armor of righteous self-regard and marinate thy inflated ego in pride, for thou hast shunned he who did not live up to thy arbitrary standards, and therefore risen in the Lord’s esteem as thou predicted thou would.
@johngalt:
Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant when you wrote that. I went back and read your post again. Thanks for elaborating.
Hi Liberal:
You ask:
Here’s my professional bio: http://medpedia.com/users/110
Random answers to random questions:
I truly didn’t want to make this about any specific religion, but some people here are aware that, in my case, I did end up with Catholicism, which is about the last place that I’d have predicted that I’d end up. Retire05 is a very orthodox Catholic and is resentful of non-orthodox (sometimes called “cafeteria”) Catholics.
What started out as a discussion about Christmas quickly morphed into another of these never ending conservative vs. liberal debates, and now there is a little side discussion about orthodox Catholics versus cafeteria Catholics. It’s a debate which can never be resolved through reasoned argument, supported by always debatable appeals to Scripture and Tradition. It goes to the definition of The Church. Who is empowered to define The Church? Who “owns” The Church? What is The Church? I think that this is really the essence of most of the orthodox versus cafeteria debate.
The things in which I believe are those which speak to my heart. I don’t consciously pick and choose; that’s a trivialization of what’s going on. That in which I believe can either be proven true or else touches my soul in a manner which compels belief. I’m not wired to believe what I’m told when it can not be proven, when it seems implausible, and when it neither speaks to my open heart nor touches my soul.
My faith in Catholicism is by now very real, but it is not based on a belief that Magesterial teachings are inerrant. The clergy are essential, but not authoritative. They are guides like a GPS is a guide. They almost always get you to the general vicinity, but you are ultimately responsible for getting yourself where you are trying to go.
Will I ever be a true Catholic? It depends on what the definition of “true” is. It’s a definition which may be debated by humans but determined only by God.
I continue to ponder the 1969 quotation by then Fr. Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI):
“Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.
“This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal [God], and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism.”
Joseph Ratzinger, Part I, Chapter 1, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Vol. V of COMMENTARY ON THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II, ed. Herbert Vorgrimler (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969, p. 134)
He was only a theologian, back then. But if Fr. Ratzinger could himself be capable of thinking in such terms, then it should be understandable that people like me do receive official Church teachings with varying degrees of acceptance.
One specific post-script: You (Retire) say:
Neither Hell nor purgatory is a component of the Nicene Creed. I’ve asked other Catholics: “is it a sin not to believe in Hell? Does one go to Hell as a punishment for not believing in Hell? How does one make oneself believe in Hell if one doesn’t? What is the actual disadvantage in not believing in Hell?” And all the aforementioned goes double for purgatory. I’m wondering: does anyone believe that it’s a sin not to believe in Hell or that belief in Hell is a non-negotiable criterion for being a member of any religion, other than satanism?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
johngalt
I just love to hear someone like you say of his roots,
because you are becoming an ENDANGER SPECIES slowly but surely,
and fast too,
now I KNOW by the way you comment, I wanted to make you PRESIDENT,
because your genes carry the knowledge of AMERICA’S ROOTS,
even if you don’t realize it, your words bring the core
which those ancestors left for you to continue, the AMERICAN DREAM AND KNOWLEDGE
to teach the ignorant, why it’s so important to cast a vote for AMERICA,
not for a personal need, because without AMERICA those are nothing,
and if they vote the wrong person for their own feeling, they are even not worthy
to be call AMERICAN,
because they never gave to AMERICA, AND ALL SHE ASK OF THEM IS TO MAKE SURE THEY VOTE THE BEST FOR HER TO BE ENLIGHTEN WITH THE AURA OF AMERICA THE GREATEST NATION ON EARTH,
BUT they did not even gave that vote for AMERICA,
so you can say proudly, I AM AN AMERICAN,
BUT THEY CANNOT, EVEN IF THEY SAY IT, IT’S FALSE
JG, very interesting about the sharing minute traces of Lee’s DNA, I too have some DNA from a slightly earlier phase of history, Andrew Jackson or at least my dad swore that was the gospel. Unfortunately, I have been known to share some of the same behavioral characteristics, AJ is probably one of the most common people to share DNA with us little people who share the same DNA with approximately 2,500 other people from the same time period and if we co back an eon or two, there is a good chance we may all carry the DNA of Caesar. He was an active young man, prolific and knowledgeable in the early breeding techniques of indigenous women from around the world. From Britain to North Africa to Asia Minor to Germany and Gaul he left DNA traces and the likelihood of a lusty brood to continue on with some of his habits.
General Lee was a far more genteel type; however, I will always wonder why he chose to send Pickett on that uphill grade toward that stone wall and the Hornets’ Nest.
@Tom:
No problem, Tom. I went back and reread what I wrote and saw how someone could have been mistaken there. Like I said, probably my fault for not being clearer on that point. Thanks for pointing it out.
Tom, if memory serves correctly, (and often it does when I say this) the federal government was being supported in large part by the tariffs on imported goods. The South had almost no industrial base; consequently, manufactured goods came from the North or Europe. The South was at the mercy of the North in that respect. they paid dearly for all their manufactured goods to protect the northern industrial base.
Now, if president Lincoln was faced with the sudden loss of tariff duties that were supporting the federal government, is it reasonable to assume he would be in a panic at the thought of the government collapsing at the sudden loss of the main support revenue. Remember, he blockaded Southern ports; did the blockade have anything to do with slavery, obviously not, he meant to continue collecting those tariffs. It is easy to laugh off the idea, but if that is the main source of revenue for the government, the tax base cannot be reorganized in a matter of months to suit a new president who was not all that popular so that he can support his government.
We must also remember, the United States was the only country out of 12 in the Western Hemisphere and the world that resorted to war to end slavery, why? Maybe he couldn’t ask the states that elected him to pay more in taxes so that the Southern states could secede in peace. Oh, that might have pushed the limit on his base.
I am not a Southern apologist by any stretch of the imagination; although, I found Southern people to be the kindest warmest people I have ever met. I seek the truth and after all these years, I am gaining insight on the lies being taught in bogus history books by people who have no more grasp of history than I would know how to fly a jet fighter. Painting these false images of history to present a PC mosaic to young minds is criminal. I only seek the truth and I will challenge the PC BS’ers to three rounds in the octagon. Of course I jest, but I seek the truth and refuse to accept anything less, whether it was over a hundred years ago or in September 2012.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
No, I don’t “resent” cafeteria Catholics, which you obviously are, more like disrespect them. Of course, you used the word “resent” for effect, but I hold the same opinion of cafeteria Catholics, called that because they pick and choose which tenets they accept and dismiss the rest, as I do limousine liberals, which also applies to you. i.e. limousine liberals claim to support paying higher taxes, yet, do not do so although it is perfectly legal to send the IRS a check for more than your legal tax liability, as well as hiring the brightest tax lawyers to avail them of every known deduction possible.
You argue that there is no need for you to accept that which you do not believe in; hell. Yet, every Sunday you stand in front of the alter and recite the Apostle’s Creed which includes:
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended into hell
So you dismiss the actual Apostle’s Creed as you profess your faith. Hypocrite.
Tell me, Larry, when you pray, do you just ignore the Act of Contrition which also mentions hell? Or do you dismiss Mark 9:42? Do you also pick and choose those parts of the Bible that only support your own personal views? Who owns the Church? Christ, and yet, you dismiss his teachings but claim the mantilla of a Catholic. Again, I have no respect for cafeteria Catholics any more than I do limousine liberals as you are simply opportunists.
As to the clergy; they simple represent the Church in the same way you represent medicine.
It is a sin to not accept not only the words of Jesus Christ, but the teachings of His Church, as well? I guess there will come a point where you will find out.
Hi Retire,
Regarding profession of faith: I’ve not missed a mass in a year. At all masses, we’ve professed the Nicene Creed (from 325 AD), which makes no mention of Hell. We’ve never once professed the Apostles’ Creed; so I am not a hypocrite. If and when that ever comes up, I won’t profess the part about believing in Hell. I’ve already stated that I don’t believe in every teaching of the Church magesterium. I don’t close my heat to anything; perhaps one day I shall believe in everything. I believe in many more things than I believed in a year ago; so one does make progress.
You are so quick to kick non-orthodox Catholics out of the Church. You should re-read the parable of the shepherd and his sheep.
Regarding the Apostles’ Creed:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0060.html
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Larry
a story here;
one man ask the other, why do you beleive in GOD,
the man said,; I prefer to believe and find he doesn’t exist,
then not believe and find he exist,
I find it appropriate here
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
“Let’s be clear about this. Catholics are obliged to believe in the existance of the Devil and of Hell. These are de fide doctrines taught by the Church without the possibility of error.”
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/11/hell-and-the-enemy-exist-priests-and-bishops-who-dont-teach-about-them-will-probably-wind-up-there/
If you were baptised, in spite of the fact that you support early term abortions, and doubt the existance of Hell, the priest who baptised you should be removed from his parish until he understands that Catholic doctrine is not up for his, or your, personal interpretation.
Hi Retire, I was baptized in 1953 in a Lutheran Church. I don’t need to be re-baptized. Also. your link doesn’t work. I’d read it, but it goes nowhere except to my Internet provider who asks me what I am looking for. I am very grateful that it is unlikely that God will delegate the judgement of my soul to you.
Merry Christmas.
By the way, stop saying that I support early term abortions. I don’t. What I do support is not sending women and doctors to jail at the point of a gun over this most personal of decisions. As a professional, I’ve never participated in an abortion nor referred a woman for an abortion, nor have I been involved in an abortion in my personal life in any way.
Stated another way, you are in favor of criminalizing early term abortions, but I cannot in good conscience support this. Please do read what Fr. Ratzinger wrote about conscience and Church teachings. Of course, this is not official doctrine or dogma; it is simply the once stated opinion of a gifted theologian who went on to become Pope. If ever asked for my position on abortion by a priest or bishop, I’ll be honest. If you wish to “report” me to my archdiocese, I suppose that there is nothing I can do to stop you. It goes with the territory of not hiding behind pseudonyms.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
My link works perfectly fine. Try it again. Unless you are not interested in the opinions of a Catholic priest. Or type into your search engine “Fr. Z’s blog”
Larry, do you believe that human life begins at conception? If not, then you do not accept Catholic teaching, and your profession of being a Catholic is that you are Catholic, in name only. If you do believe that human life begins at conception, does the killing of a human life warrent punishment in a moral society? (and just where di I say that I believe abortion should be criminalized? Or are you just making crap up agains?) You can’t have it both ways, like so many false Catholics do, by saying “I’m not personally for abortion but I don’t think I have the right to tell others what to do.” That is nothing more than liberal clap-trap that should be dismissed, by every rational thinking person, as exactly that.
Oh, yes, I could report you to your Bishop. But you see, Larry, I’m not a progressive like you, and conservatives don’t do the harmful things that progressives subscribe to. You judge me by your own political philosphy because you can’t understand anything else. The original response was to your entry on this blog supporting secularism. You have allowed, wrongly, to let your progressive philosophy bleed over into your religious beliefs. That is wrong on so many levels.
You don’t accept the concept of hell; you don’t think there should be repercussions for the taking of a human life; you support policies that can be called nothing but Marxist. So tell me, just exactly what part of Catholic doctrine DO you believe in? The Virgin Birth? After all, isn’t that a physical impossibility? So how can you accept that, how can you accept a man could die from crucifixion only to rise again and walk the earth and yet, not believe in the concept of hell? Yes, you are a cafeteria Catholic.
Tom #110 You gave me the best laugh in some time. Thanks
@Tom:
Oh, were I St. Nicholas to your Arian.
@Richard Wheeler:
You losers do compliment each other in more ways than one.
Still proud how the taxpayer bailed out your mortgage, Richard?
@Richard Wheeler:
I know you’ve had a smile on your face ever since ND won, but I’m glad to add to your mirth.
Retire05 Like I said it was my Conservative Congressman’s idea. He didn’t
want to lose me to Texas.Talk about Hades— Dallas in the summertime.
BTW Larry and Tom consistently make you look foolish. I believe your acid rantings have managed to drive away true Conservatives,Mata and Aye. A real loss for Curt.
Tom One to go and it won’t be easy.
@ilovebeeswarzone: #119
You reminded me of the little girl telling a man about Jonah. When she came to the part about Jonah being in the big fish’s belly for three day, the man interrupted her and said, “I don’t believe Jonah was in the big fish’s belly for three days. The little girl told the man that when she gets to Heaven, she will ask him. The man replied, “I don’t believe that Jonah went to Heaven.” The little girl said, “In that case, you can ask him.”
@retire05:
I’m sorry, I never read The Hobbit.
Poor Retire5. I don’t think most of our viewers realize how hard it is for you to live here on Earth, surrounded by these contemptible fallen people, people who, despite going to those tony schools, are too stupid to realize that you’re their moral superior. I can see why dogma appeals to you. Nothing quite like a laundry list of rules to separate the champs from the chumps, and consequently allow the greatest champ of all, the Eagle Scout of Christianity, that rare joy, that consecrated feeling, of contempt and hatred for those who didn’t measure up. This is what He died for after all, right, so that you could feel superior to those who didn’t do 6AM Monday morning Mass that cold, rainy day?
Liberal1
you talk about evolution and separated it with the CREATION,
it doesn’t fit, it is going together,
YOU SEE, GOD created all, then he created human, that is right,
but the FORCE OF EVIL WAS THROWN IN THE EARTH by GOD
with the battle of ANGELS,
then GOD WAS DONE WITH THE CREATION,
AND THE DEVIL SCREW EVERY GOOD THING WITH HIS POWER OF LYING AND INCITING,
and dividing,
he succeeded as the humans procreated, they did not want to mix with the bad humans who had the mark of the devil
but there was some who mix with the good one, and vice versa,
and the fight for evolution of both began with waging war to protect the good breed who stayed with
the master GOD, with the other evil who stayed with the angel of death the devil,
as the mixing went on more as the generations where added, they separated into further lands,
and depending on the degree of bad genes one have,became the constant inner conflict of humans
till today where we are face with it and it has become so clear for those who pay attention,
that they can even feel the ones who has the more bad genes than good ones making them doing destructing things on this EARTH, THEY SEEK ONLY TO DO ANY WRONG THEY CAN,
as oppose to the other with more good genes also in conflict because they are harass by the other until they decide to wage war to eliminate the bad one, but there are more and more who escape the elimination and like te same evolution process they seek to mix their genes,
that’s why the many groups of a society where seeking to not allow other
known for their practices of life showing bad genes, to enter in their civilisation,
we still see that happening in COUNTRIES,
BUT the generations rising the human number make them to emigrate other COUNTRIES,
AND THOSE WHO WHERE NOT careful on that very important truth, are becoming a displace civilisation
unhappy wondering what they did wrong to have fallen into the noose of lost FREEDOM THEY KNEW BEFORE BUT HAS NOW ESCAPE THEM ON THEIR OWN LAND, which force them to lock themself inside their house more than ever,
Smorgasbord
IT took me a while but I FIGURED IT NOW,
THAT IS FUNNY,
BYE
@ilovebeeswarzone: #131
Here is a video any Canadian who loves there country will love. Any military person will too. A Belgian boy’s salute to Canadian troops. This is also my salute to all our troops, from George Washington to the ones just signing up. THANK YOU!
http://www.military.com/video/forces/tribute/saluting-the-canadian-contingent/660920873001/
Smorgasbord
priceless thank you, a treasure
and the one for IRAK also
@ RANDY
let us know where you are on the picture.
@Tom:
Oh, you caught me in a mistake. I should have said:
Were I St. Nicholas to your Arius.
But your first clue should have been St. Nicholas. As to The Hobbit I am quite sure you have never read it. Not only is St. Nicholas not in it, it was written by a man whose life, and writings, were directed by his Christianheld beliefs.
You love to ridicule me. That is fine. You have the freedom in this nation to do that. But unlike you, I believe there is something greater than self. And unlike you, I do not accept the dogma of government as governments come and governments go.
@johngalt: Congratulations! You have shown a basic understanding of rudimentary logical principles: Anyway, the Principle of Identity and the Principle of Falsification. Now, my question to you is, “Why don’t you use these logical principles—and many more that you could actually intuit—instead of resorting to name-calling (such as referring to an opposing view or adversary as juvenile, arrogant, Marxist, socialist, communist, or other such terms without any evidence)?” I think people use these kinds of words are not only a form of insult, but are actually a means of not doing the research—which can be time consuming and plainly hard work; and, in some cases, as an aid to not thinking.
Now speaking of evidence based statements, you asked me to furnish you with evidence of a society which has been destroyed be religion—obviously in an attempt to falsify my contention that religion destroys society (if I say religion destroy societies, I should be able to give an example—right? Wrong. By use of the word ‘bane’, I’m using it in the sense of ‘harm’. Harming society, not destroying it. Although my statement, “Religion is the bane of society”, was meant as a hyperbolic statement—as are most usages of the term—let’s go ahead and investigate its factual basis.
First, let’s go with your meaning—destroy. Let’s do a little linguistic analysis: By destroy, do we mean completely annihilate the society—vaporizing it; or do we mean cripple it the point it can’t function like it once did? After all, it does make a difference in our evidence. If you believe in the Bible—literally—then God as good as wiped Sodom and Gomorrah off the map, for religious reasons. There are other tales in the Bible about religious decimation of societies in the name of God—and if you believe in the Bible, literally, you must accept this evidence.
If, on the other hand, we mean destroy in the sense of cripple a culture, I think a case can be made for the Native Americans in the country—and certainly the Christian culture had a role to play in the murder of those infidels (as it did in regard to aboriginal people all over the world), and destroying their culture, as they knew it—if for no other reason but salving the killers’ consciences, knowing they were sending these ungodly heathens to purgatory.
As far as ‘harming’ a society, I think the case can be made that if you’ve ‘crippled a society’, then you’ve harmed it. But, even using my meaning, the question takes on a double meaning: a) Are we talking about religion harming the society from the inside; or b) A religion harming a society from the outside. We’ll take the last option first. In the country of East Timor, once a Catholic country, the Muslims in an adjacent country declared jihad and annihilated most all the Christians and turned the country into a Moslem culture. Would you consider this a destruction or harming of a society by religion from the outside?
Concerning religion harming or destroying a society from within, that’s more difficult proposition to gain evidence about—since in most religious societies, religion is so intertwined with society that if one survives, the other does too. Plus, religion has the amazing quality to do a ‘chameleon act’, by changing its social tenets to fit the situation. I think a case can be made for religion playing a large role in the church’s leaders seizing power over the Roman emperor and interfering with the way the empire worked, thereby effecting the demise of the empire. http://www.allfreepapers.com/History-Other/Internal-Factors-Fall-Roman-Empire/16050.html Also, I can’t remember the name of particular American Christian sect—living life similar to the Amish society—which is shrinking in population based on its religious practice to not allow interfaith marriage, which will result in the decline and ultimate death of their society, if not stopped.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Thank you for your credentials as a medical researcher—it’s always good to know with whom you’re speaking.
Merry Christmas, Y’all.
2 notes on the Great Tyrant that most Yankophiles/Confederophobes just do not know:
1. Lincoln was not even on the ballot in some of the Southern States. “President WHO?”
2. Lincoln planned to ship the ex-slaves to Liberia. All of them.
@Liberal1 (Objectivity):
At least one of you has, because you haven’t.
Liberal1
what do you call what is going on in SCHOOLS banning GOD, the FLAG, those other banning CROSS on those hills been there for many years, and much more attacks on a CHRISTIAN RELIGION which gave some of it’s WISDOM to the FRAMERS seeking for it to write the most important DOCUMENT of the history of this AMERICA, AND THE WORLD,
why today since theses last OBAMA YEARS EXPLODING IN EVENTS WHICH KEEP HAPPENING
MORE VISIBLE AS THEY ARE MADE UP, and brought to our attention
is it from the inside? hell yes it is, and deliberated and push from the leadership and their COMMUNIST UNION rules which command their policy on those teachers who work for them not for the children they indoctrinate instead of teaching the way to an person learn to judge which is wrong as oppose to who is right, even the teacher creating an opposition for the student becoming the pawn between the teacher and their parents, which give rise to generation of confuse young as they grow,
making them even more vulnerable they choose to follow the CAMPAIGNER SHOUTING TO THEM
VOTE FOR REVENGE.
is that from the outside now, hell yes it is
so conclusion it start from the inside because of the outside,
right?
@retire05:
To absolutely no one’s surprise, we see that underneath all the bluster you’re just a garden-variety glass-jawed bully. You think it’s fine and dandy to preach to others about their moral faults and toss around personal attacks like confetti on New Years, but someone points out what a hypocritical, narcissistic know-it-all you are and your first reaction is to crawl into a little ball of self-pity and play the victim/martyr.
@Skook:
If you’re suggesting that Lincoln should have acceded to secession, that of course is another argument all together. You probably believe that from a principle standpoint, which I can respect, but I ask you from a practical standpoint, what organization, or government for that matter, can function with the threat of secession hanging over its head for any disappointed party to avail itself to? This viewpoint sounds close to Anarchy to me, but perhaps I’m misunderstanding. For better or for worse, our government is set up to more or less cater to majority rule, which is certainly an improvement on the authoritarian rule that defined almost all functioning governments that came before. As I mentioned in another post, the South feared that that majority rule was going to threaten their way of life, a plantation society built upon slave labor. The trends in population and states were moving against them. So the rules were not in their favor, and they decided to leave the game. You’re correct, the North could have said, “fine, leave”, and hundreds of thousands of people may have lived. But you leave our the costs of secession. What would two antagonistic states with a large boarder mean to the development of North America? Are we talking perpetual war? What does a weakened United States mean to world history, to take one example, our part in ending the rise of global fascism in the 20th century? And lest we forget, what does secession mean to those who were actually slaves? As we know, many in the North were willing to die to end slavery. This was not something that could have simply ended in an amicable parting.
I regret if that’s the way my comments came across. My comment on Confederate apologist wasn’t aimed directly at you, but at those who purposefully try to push slavery out of the picture when describing the War. I would of course never criticize anyone for pursuing the truth in any area, although i might reserve the right to criticize their conclusions. You’ve raised many intriguing points that I do appreciate.
@Skook: I’m a little late to the party here, but you are correct about the tariffs. A lot of people either don’t know or forget about the Nullification Crisis of 1832 which was over a cotton tariff that benefited the North’s economy and hampered the South’s and almost led to war when South Carolina threatened secession. It was a prelude as to what was going to happen in 1861 with the big issue being slavery. At that point in time (1832), the South would have most likely won. Lincoln used Jackson’s response as his model in 1861. By that time there were no more Henry Clays, i.e. “The Great Compromisor”, to strike a deal to pacify both sides. Either way, in the big picture both boiled down to state’s rights and the Constitution. It’s just that in 1832 the main issue was a tariff and in 1861 it was slavery.
A few other points that have been made here before. Before Lincoln emancipated the slaves, he told the South they could keep them if they returned to the Union. The main reason for emancipating the slaves was military necessity. By that time in the war, Lincoln knew the only way to win was total war which meant freeing the slaves. Remember that originally the war was only supposed to last 90 days. One of Lincoln’s original plans for the slaves was to ship them to Haiti. After several hundred died in the process, he abandoned the idea. Another idea was to give the freed slaves their own state. Records show that most of those fighting for the North did so to preserve the Union. Most of those fighting for the South did so for independence.
The South began emancipating their slaves in March, 1865 in exchange for military service although blacks were serving a lot earlier than that. The Louisiana Native Guard was a regiment of 1,400 blacks and was formed in 1861. 3,000 more blacks mobilized for the defense of New Orleans in 1862 as the First Louisiana Guard. They ended up being brought into the Union Army when Butler took the city. In 1861, Alabama and Tennessee also mobilized blacks. There were two regiments in Memphis and unlike the blacks serving in the North, they were paid and given the same rations as whites who served. Blacks both served and fought for the South during the war participating in major battles including Manassass, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, and Petersburg. Finally, the Civil War didn’t end slavery, the 13th Amendment did, which goes back to this being a Constitutional issue.
Finally, using the name Civil War is not as an accurate of description of what happened as it should be. A far more accurate name would be a war of secession or rebellion. In 1866, Congress authorized the collection of records and correspondences of the Union and Confederate armies by the War Department. These records were called “The Official Records of the War of Rebellion” not the Civil War.
@another vet:
Hi another vet,
Just to add a little a balance to your portrayal of blacks serving in the War, I’m sure you’re aware of the South’s stance on blacks serving for the Union, whom they certainly did not treat the same as white soldiers.
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/blacks-civil-war/
@Liberal1 (Objectivity):
You mean like when you use “ultra-conservative”, Lib1? Or is it different in your case because you happen to be so “enlightened”, compared to the rest of us?
As for religion being the ‘bane’ of society, you haven’t shown anything but examples of religion and religious actions destroying other societies. If that was the intended meaning of what you said, then you would have a point. Then again, there are plenty of examples of tribes and nations destroying others that had nothing to do with religion, aren’t there?
You might have a point on the Roman Empire and it’s fall. Except, of course, that there happen to be many factors involved, with the Christian religion being but one of them.
Here;
http://www.roman-colosseum.info/roman-empire/causes-for-the-fall-of-the-roman-empire.htm
Christianity is listed amongst 13 other factors, none of which is related to religion.
Or here;
http://www.historyking.com/roman-history/fall-of-rome/Causes-For-Fall-Of-Roman-Empire.html
Which contends that Christianity, while leading to a deterioration of feelings of loyalty and patriotism towards Rome, also led to the people of Rome concentrating more on personal salvation than reliance upon the state.
Or here;
http://www.rome.info/history/empire/fall/
Where it talks about many reason for the fall of Rome, all of them interweaving amongst one another, with the rise of Christianity being but one of the many.
Or here;
http://www.edwardgoldsmith.org/28/the-fall-of-the-roman-empire/
Where many reasons are listed, Christianity not being one of them.
Or here;
http://www.roman-empire.net/articles/article-003.html
Where the author admits to many reasons for the fall of Rome, but Christianity is not specifically mentioned.
And I could go on listing different sites with different authors on writings about the Fall of Rome, who, when they do list the ‘rise of Christianity’ as a reason, do so only as part of a much larger list of reasons. So, in order for even the Fall of the Roman Empire to make your example, you’d have to show that without the rise of Christianity, none of the other factors would have been enough, by themselves, or all together, to cause the decline and eventual fall of the Roman Empire.
What’s more, it could easily be argued that the rise of Christianity actually saved the people of the Roman Empire from complete destruction.
Either way, I don’t see Rome as being a great example of your assertion that “religion is the bane of society”.
Oh, and you’re a Marxist, just so we’re clear on that.
@Tom:
This is the biggest reason why I believe that Lincoln grabbed power and became, in essence, a tyrant. That it was out of necessity rather than a gathering of power for power’s sake. And as I said, I believe it was to Rich, I firmly believe that Lincoln would have been that rare individual who after gathering the power necessary in order to achieve his goal, would have relieved himself of that power just as quickly, when it wasn’t necessary.
@johngalt:
I agree. Well put.
@Tom: I’m aware that blacks weren’t treated all that well in the South nor did they serve in as great of numbers for the South as they did for the North and many of those were laborers and teamsters etc. Frederick Douglas, a former slave and one of the most prominent blacks at the time, advised Lincoln to use blacks in the Army because the South would eventually do so and he believed that if given their freedom, blacks would have fought for the South. Blacks weren’t treated all that well in the North either. Ironic as it may seem, blacks served and fought for Forrest, most notably in his victory over Union forces at Murfreesboro, Tennessee. You can see LTC Pankhurst’s, of the 9th Michigan Infantry, report in the Official Records, Vol XIII, Chap XXV, p. 688 if there is any doubt. It was his unit that was defeated. The big point is that the Civil War wasn’t quite as cut and dry as people are made to believe. It is one of our most misunderstood wars. In my own state of Illinois, I live fairly close to where the Farnsworth family lived. They were noted abolitionists some of whom fought in the war. On the other hand, there was also a movement in Illinois to secede from the Union because they didn’t believe slavery was worth dying for. Another example would be George McClellan saying he would use his troops to put down any slave rebellions in the South during the war. Northerners, with the probable exception of the abolitionists, weren’t exactly black loving people who went to war for a noble cause to free the oppressed. That isn’t lost cause theory. It’s historical fact that is evident when you research the topic. For some reason people either choose to ignore it possibly because that is what they were taught in school or because it gives a sense of self righteousness.
@Tom:
I don’t think the plantation system characterized the South any more than Palo Alto or Aspen characterize the West.
In the plantation system, there was no room for White employment; yet, the overwhelming majority of Confederate soldiers were White. I maintain that the South was an agrarian society, but the overwhelming majority of worker were from small farms with one team of mules, which the White owner drove.
The Gone With the Wind type plantation was only a fantasy for the average Southern farmer.
Reading from the journals of the Confederate troops with Lee as far North as Gettysburg, they were amazed at the richness of the small farms in the North. Of course they are still wealthy, but this is an indication of how close the margin of profit was for the poor farmer of the South. Taxing that margin of profit for the plow, harrow, and other implements he needed would have contributed to the willingness to go to war.
The population and immigration centers were in the North, where industrialization supports large density populations.
Was the war popular in the North? There were riots over conscription. The war had gone on way too long and the casualty lists were unbelievable. A comparison with today’s population would record over five million deaths. How many Americans would be willing to say our Middle East excursions would be worth five million deaths. Very few people had the luxury of traveling and to the average Northerner, what difference did it make if the South seceded, they could buy the cotton whether they were apart of the US or a neighbor like Mexico or Canada. Abolitionists were no longer well regarded and were enduring a certain amount of blame for an unpopular war.
The lost revenue may have been a factor for the average citizen, but I doubt that there was a great deal of feeling to maintain the union after just seventy years and a culture that was so different that it still allowed slavery.
The full force of the industrial age was almost upon us, and agricultural slavery would have had almost no purpose except for tobacco farming, which to this day remains a labor intensive part of agriculture. Within a few decades, it would have been impractical to keep slaves on the farm. Slavery would have died a natural death within that time and perhaps a more humanistic approach could have turned things around for the former slave in a productive manner.
In North America and the rest of America, our native people have suffered when they are overwhelmed by a more technologically advanced culture. We have native stone age people that are expected to compete without the required generations of acculturation. The slave was manipulated into a similar position and expected to somehow take his new freedom and be productive. Maybe some of them could have managed with a team of mules and sixty acres, but you need the family and education. Not only the education from books, but from having family members who were starting from a literate perspective. Harriet Tubman said she had freed a thousand slaves (realistic estimate of several hundred) by way of the Underground Railroad, but insisted she could have freed a thousand more if they only knew they were slaves. This tells me there was a complacency among the slave group and a reluctance to leave their world for an unknown foreign culture. Indicating a huge deficit of awareness that would need to be overcome to be successful in this exotic land of the North with its idea of freedom.
@another vet:
I completely agree with you that it wasn’t cut and dry, and that there was plenty of racism in the North. This doesn’t change the fact that the South was fighting largely to perpetuate slavery and the North largely to end it, so far as ending it became a necessary part of maintaining the Union. So I will grant you that there were other factors, but I don’t see the point in bringing them up as mitigating factors when they absolutely pale in comparison to the horror of slavery. This reminds me of that infamous claim about Mussolini, that he made the trains run on time. So what? The guy was a fascist dictator. And likewise, when people state that the South had solid “States Rights” reasons to secede, I feel the same way: so what, they had four million slaves in bondage. They have no claim to the moral or philosophical high ground. There is ample reason not to cast the war as a noble North vs. an evil South, but let’s not lose sight of the big picture either. The South simply refused to give up slavery, even when offered compensated emancipation.
To your points regarding blacks fighting in the War, let’s not forget that those who fought for the North were free men who volunteered. Those who fought for the South were largely slaves forced to, or slaves who “chose” to fight in exchange for a promise of freedom. I don’t see how the two situations can possibly be considered analogous.
@Skookum:
That is a great point. But let’s be honest, when we talk about a society, particularly in military terms, we talk about the power structure, not the guys in the trenches. The Confederate Army was no different than Caesars’ or Napoleon’s in terms of what castes the officers and the solders were drawn from. Yet we don’t say that Napoleon was any less of a tyrant because an illiterate farm boy had no ill-intent toward anyone in particular on the march toward Russia. What you’re really talking about is the tragedy of war, its disproportionate affect upon those who stand to gain the least. I’m sure most of those poor Southern boys who died, died because they felt they were protecting their homes. But the real reason they died is because their leaders put them in the meat grinder to protect their own way of life, a way of life that kept poor Southern whites as sustenance dirt farmers while the Nathan Bedford Forrests of the Southern world lived like kings.