Big-Brained Primate Calls Birth of Christ "Legend"

If you were the Archbishop of Canterbury, even an Archbishop who considered himself to be educated, enlightened, and well-read, you might take it upon yourself this Christmas to thank God for sending His Son Jesus Christ to save humanity from hellfire. You might take the opportunity, even if you have a liberal arts degree, to point out God's love for all of His children. OR, if you were Dr. Rowan Williams, you might grant interviews in which you tell the entire world that it all sounds quite nice, but it's just a "legend," and that, as most atheists argue, "you can't prove it!" Well, all I can say is, I can't prove Amelia Earhart is dead, but I just take it on faith. Don't get me wrong, I understand where he was coming from. When he says, in his interview with Simon Mayo of the BBC, "Christmas was when it was because it fitted well with the winter festival," he's talking about Saturnalia, the Roman feast in honor of their god Saturn. It makes sense. If I were a Roman emperor trying to convert people to Christianity, I wouldn't want to tick them off by yanking away a popular holiday. That's not the point, though, as even a primate like the good doctor should know. The point is not when we celebrate, or if the magi were kings, or if there was in fact a little drummer boy. The point is that we celebrate! It sounds to me as though the Archbishop is trying very hard to "fit in" with the secular left by showing off his big, fat, enlightened brain by opening his big, fat, enlightened mouth. We get it, you know your history and you have a healthy skepticism. What about faith, though, Dr. Williams? Why marginalize the rest of us who just believe, and celebrate that belief? Was it a good idea to try to score points with the seculars at a time when we are fighting for the right to say "Merry Christmas" to a sales clerk without getting sued? As my mother used to say, for the skeptic, no proof will ever be possible. For the believer, no proof will ever be necessary. I don't care if scholars want to debate the actual date that God sent His only son to be born and crucified for us, and it is to be expected that there will be doubters of the immaculate conception, but don't make the rest of us out to be a bunch of superstitious boobs because we believe that God could love us that much, that there could be miracles.

ACLU Pours Gasoline on Christmas, Catch Selves on Fire

It's official, folks, the "turn the other cheek" rule has been met, for we are out of cheeks. I discovered on WorldNetDaily.com an interesting story by Bob Unruh about tiny little Fort Collins, a town mostly populated by Christians and Jews, which seeks, at least officially, to distance itself from its' constituency by chasing the chimera of "diversity." That's right , a city task force, led by an ACLU volunteer, wants to be more "inclusive" by excluding Christians and Jews. Originally, I made the assumption that by some mistake, the people voted for people that obviously don't represent them, but it' seems to me now, after a little thought, to be law suit driven. This is a disgusting example of "cover your ass syndrome," or CYAS. What does this task force want to enforce? Well...all lights must be white. Red and green are just to symbolic of Christianity (huh?). Garland is Okay, but it can't have any ribbons (huh?). Too symbolic. No Menorahs, no Christmas trees, no wreaths with bows on them will be allowed, and if you even whisper the word "Nativity," you will be branded an ignorant bigot. As reported in WND, Seth Anthony said, "I expect criticism from people who feel like we are taking Christmas away. And I expect we will get criticism from people who think educational display endorses religions," Anthony said. "(But) to the extent we can, recognizing that offending no one will be impossible, we want to be inclusive." Yeah...inclusive by EXcluding the very people who celebrate this holiday! Well, the duly elected Sheriff of Larimer County, Jim Alderden, will have none of it. He is reported as saying, ".....restricting symbols of Christian faith on public property is beyond the pale. In recognition and celebration of Christmas, members of the LCSO will be displaying a Christmas tree – not a holiday tree – on our front lawn at 2501 Midpoint Drive. We will be decorating the tree on December 1 at 10:00 a.m. and invite members of the public who share our faith or object to government intrusion into our religious freedoms to join us," he said. Let us not forget that the purpose of the Bill of Rights declares the right to freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. One of our founding fathers, John Adams, contributed to the constitution of Massachusetts by calling upon the "great legislator of the universe." I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about congress or the ACLU. As it turns out, the public agrees with their elected official. A quote I found on WND proclaims, "If the city council decided to not acknowledge Christmas on public grounds this year then all city offices should be open for business on Dec. 25th, white lights shining! Don't want to offend anyone by stopping city business for a day to celebrate a holiday not everyone believes in." Well said, citizen. I tell you what...I won't make a fuss about Christianity being displayed in public so long as the mailman shows up at my door on 25. December 2007, weekday or not. No overtime, no complaints, no excuses. Let's take it a step further...change the name of St. Paul, Minnesotta to Citizen Paul, Minnesotta! Would that make the ACLU happy? Maybe. But it seems obvious by public outcry that the more the ACLU and their ilk try to burn out religion from the public square, the more they find themselves tied to the stake. Why do they do it? All so some Muslim doesn't sue the city for a billion dollars for the mention of Christ on the day we celebrate His birth. The Sherriff has the right idea. No religious symbols on public property? Fine. Let every private citizen put the biggest Nativity scene they can on their front lawns. Try to ignore that.