Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Political Correctness Busybodies Attack Senior Citizens’ Christmas Tree

December 7, 2012 by  

Political Correctness Busybodies Attack Senior Citizens’ Christmas Tree
PHOTOS.COM

Residents at a senior housing complex in California are outraged that management of the building has ordered them to remove their Christmas tree from a communal area because “it’s a religious symbol.”

On Tuesday, JB Partners Group Inc. sent a memo to staff at The Willows senior apartment building in Newhall, Calif., demanding they take down Christmas trees and menorahs in communal areas, according to Los Angeles Daily News.

“We’re all angry. We want that tree,” Fern Scheel, a resident of the complex told the news outlet. “Where’s our freedom? This is ridiculous.”

JB Partners did not reply to media requests for comment on the matter. The company owns apartments in California, Oklahoma and Colorado.

“I’ve got grandkids and they come here and now they’ll ask, `Grandpa, where’s the Christmas tree?’ Then I’ll have to explain that someone said we couldn’t have one. What kind of message is that sending to the kids?” resident Max Greenis said of the demand.

The political correctness assault on the California group of seniors comes as ongoing controversy brews in Rhode Island, where Governor Lincoln Chafee refuses to utter the words “Christmas tree.”

“I did what the previous governor did, called it a Holiday Tree. So this goes back to the 90s,” said Chafee, to the dismay of Rhode Islanders who have pointed out that changing the name does not change the symbol.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Political Correctness Busybodies Attack Senior Citizens’ Christmas Tree”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • phideaux

    rediculous

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

      At the building where I live, I had given a prayer of thanksgiving every year to ask God to bless the food and the people at our Christmas Party, yes Christmas not Holiday. was told that wouldn’t happen anymore. I prayed and others spoke up and was informed I would be allowed. Strange what prayer can bring about.

  • Michael J.

    Dear Mr. Rolley,
    Thank you for shining a light on the scourge that is “Political Correctness”. But reffering to the propagandist pushers of Political Correctness as “Busybodies” makes light of the sinister intent of this Marxist inspired movement. Tell people instead of this one hundred year old focus on destroying western society. Inform people of it’s Frankfurt School, 1920′s origins.
    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Michael J., but they are busybodies. It is a nasty character trait in a person but one person having this trait is not so onerous as when hundreds, thousands or millions have it.

  • Michael J.

    Political Correctness is the base from which every assault on our freedoms springs from.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaBpVzOohs

  • Harold Olsen

    If I were a resident in that senior housing complex, I’d move out. Maybe if enough of them did that the SOB’s who run it might get the message. Hit them in their pocketbook.

    • Karolyn

      That was my first thought. Then my next thought was how can I contact this company to voice my opinion?

      • Right Brain Thinker

        You’ll get a lot more attention if you are part of a group. Start a petition and you can get thousands of others to join you. I have signed many dozens of them and nearly all have been successful at getting companies to “do the right thing” (or stop doing the wrong thing).

        Go to the change.org or credo action websites to see how to do it.

      • Vigilant

        Well, well, go on to Google and attempt to open the top three choices and you’ll find that http://www.jbproperty.net/contact.html will not open because the webserver says, “Service Temporarily Unavailable. The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.”

        Those cowards have received so much disparaging mail that they have closed down the site.

        Luckily, the Google summary says “Mailing Address: 18375 Ventura Blvd. #611. Tarzana, CA 91356. General contact email contact@jbproperty.net.”

        FLOOD ‘EM!

      • gunner689AI

        God Forbid !! What would your opinion be, a fag tree with PC decorations and BO stickers ?

  • Michael J.

    A definitive Political Correctness / Cultural Marxism expose.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M

    • Average Joe

      (PC) Politically Correct:

      An overzealous media, trying to convince an under-educated audience…that it entirely possible to pick up a turd…by the clean end.
      I remain, (UO) Unapologetically Opinionated,
      AJ

  • Karolyn

    The Christmas tree is a pagan symbol, so why are some opposed to it?

    • ? Chocopot

      They object using the excuse of religion, but it is any aspect of Western culture or tradition they are really seeking to destroy.

    • Average Joe
    • Nadzieja Batki

      You already know the answer to your rethorical question.

      • Jana

        Ezek 17:22-24

        22 Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: I will also take of the lofty top of the cedar, and will set it; I will crop off from the topmost of its young twigs a tender one, and I will plant it upon a high and lofty mountain:

        The highest branch of the high cedar is symbolic of Christ. Cropping off from the topmost of its young twigs, a tender one, refers to Christ sent here in the flesh for our Ssalvation

        23 in the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it; and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar: and under it shall dwell all birds of every wing; in the shade of the branches thereof shall they dwell.

        In the mountain at the height of Israel is where Jesus gave His life for our Salvation, and Christianity will be planted and bear fruit by us, the boughs, bringing us even to this very time and place here in the United States. All birds of every wing are all the nations no matter race or tongue and they will have a chance to accept this great gift of Salvation.
        God has given this country great blessings, we who know the Truth must stand now, as Christianity is under attack like never before. We must put on our armor as in Eph 6:10-20 and stand!

        24 And all the trees of the field shall know that I, Jehovah, have brought down the high tree, have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish; I, Jehovah, have spoken and have done it.

        The trees are symbolic of people. The Lord our God brought down the high tree (our Savior in the flesh, and exalted the low tree, which are those of us who received the Truth unto Salvation, dried up the green tree the older nations of heathen faiths, and have made the dry tree to flourish which are those who have eyes to see and ears to hear the gospel.
        He spoke it and it is so.

        We do not worship the tree, but we enjoy it as we honor the day set aside to celebrate Christ or Savior’s birth.

        In Hosea God refers to Himself as the Great Fir Tree.

      • Jana

        It is Satan’s job to imitate and rob anything that Christians would or could use as a part of a celebration in Christ’s honor. (Or for anything a Christian would do in the name of the Lord). It doesn’t matter if it was before or after Christ, Satan is smart and knows how to tear down anything that is good or of God.

    • Alan

      You are wrong Karolyn. The Christmas tree is precisely that, a religious symbol. It is nothing like the trees the pagans fashioned their gods of. Here’s a link you might consider…. http://pagansymbol.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/the-christmas-tree-its-pagan-origins-and-christian-adaptation/

      • TML

        Alan

        from your link – “why is it that we don’t fashion it to look like our gods? Christians have only one god almighty, along with God’s sun [sic] Jesus.”

        The Christian’s instead fashion it with symbols of their faith, such as the star of Bethlehem, a cross, or angel on top and decorate it with colorful stringers and lights.

        It’s not uncommon for Christian holidays to be filled with pagan symbols since doing so was a direct attempt to “phase out” those pagan religions. That’s also why those holidays coincide with the holidays of most pagans. For example, Easter is help about the same time as the celebrations of Ishtar, which used the egg as a symbol of fertility and held mass orgies to commemorate their goddess (ever heard quick-like a bunny?) They tried to cover all Hallows Eve with All Saints day, but didn’t quite stick.

      • TML

        Easter is held*,,,

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Tml: It’s not uncommon for Christian holidays to be filled with pagan symbols since doing so was a direct attempt to “phase out” those pagan religions.

        A direct attempt by whom?

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Constantine’s reign as Roman emperor (A.D. 306-337) dramatically changed the direction of Christianity. This grew out of his strategy for unifying his empire by creating a “catholic”—meaning universal —church that would blend elements from many religions
        into one. The “Christianity” Constantine endorsed was different from that practiced by Christ and the apostles. The emperor accelerated the change by his own hatred of Jews.

        Constantine himself said, “Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd.” -(Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3, 18-19, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1979, second series, Vol. 1, pp. 524-525).

        For example, at the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325), church authorities essentially replaced the biblical Passover with Easter, a popular holiday rooted in ancient springtime fertility celebrations. British historian Paul Johnson summarizes how Constantine’s approach of merging religious practices produced a corrupted Christianity that meshed paganism with biblical elements. When we consider the vast differences between the mainstream Christianity of today and the original Christianity of Jesus Christ and the apostles, we can trace much of that change to Constantine and the religious system he put into power.

        http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html

      • TML

        WTS/JAY says “A direct attempt by whom?”

        WTS/JAY says “Constantine’s reign as Roman emperor (A.D. 306-337) dramatically changed the direction of Christianity. This grew out of his strategy for unifying his empire by creating a “catholic”—meaning universal —church that would blend elements from many religions into one. The “Christianity” Constantine endorsed was different from that practiced by Christ and the apostles.”

        Kind of answered your own question, partly… didn’t you? You can still find evidence of pagan temples converted to cathedrals especially in Rome. And lets not forget the cleansing of North and South American “pagans” by the various Christian denominations – most notably Catholic and Protestant.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        TML: You can still find evidence of pagan temples converted to cathedrals especially in Rome.

        Of course you can, given the fact that Roman Catholicism is pagan through and through. Just because it absorbed elements of Christianity doesn’t make it any less so, pagan. Perhaps one could say it is a hybrid-pagan religion, but certainly not, Christianity. Anyone who would make the claim that Roman Catholicism is Christian, does not understand the first thing about Christianity.

        TML: And lets not forget the cleansing of North and South American “pagans” by the various Christian denominations – most notably Catholic and Protestant.

        Roman Catholicism is not a different denomination, its a different religion. I don’t think you understand the difference between a denomination and a religion.

        As to the cleansing; irrational to suggest a pagan religion(Roman Catholicism)would even conceive of eradicating its own religion. It wasn’t a cleansing. Rather, religious-political imperialism. It seems Rome never died, it simply morphed into “Roman Papacy”. And if you think it has no “teeth”, and considerable influence geo-politically, you would be wrong. You may wish to ponder its influence…most notably in our political system!

      • TML

        WTS/JAY says “Of course you can, given the fact that Roman Catholicism is pagan through and through. Just because it absorbed elements of Christianity doesn’t make it any less so, pagan. Perhaps one could say it is a hybrid-pagan religion, but certainly not, Christianity. Anyone who would make the claim that Roman Catholicism is Christian, does not understand the first thing about Christianity.”

        I’ve engaged arguments extensively about the pagan elements in Christianity, especially the doctrine of the trinity, but to say that Catholicism isn’t Christian is just the same old claim by one self-proclaimed Christian saying another is not, merely because they may have not acted favorably in the eyes of that one, or believe something a little bit different. Ultimately, I regard a Christian as anyone who accepts/admits Jesus Christ as their savior and/or adheres to the doctrines of Jesus as they interpret them. Catholics are not exempt from this.

        WTS/JAY says “Roman Catholicism is not a different denomination, its a different religion. I don’t think you understand the difference between a denomination and a religion.”

        I beg to differ… the typical definition of denomination regarding Christianity that I accept is, “A recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church.” but I suppose it depends on how broad or how narrow one wishes to define something. Catholic is a religion. Mormon is a religion. Baptist is a religion. But they are all denominations of Christianity because they adhere (or claim to adhere) to the doctrines of Jesus Christ and accept/claim him as their savior/messiah..

        WTS/JAY says “As to the cleansing; irrational to suggest a pagan religion(Roman Catholicism)would even conceive of eradicating its own religion. It wasn’t a cleansing. Rather, religious-political imperialism. It seems Rome never died, it simply morphed into “Roman Papacy”. And if you think it has no “teeth”, and considerable influence geo-politically, you would be wrong. You may wish to ponder its influence…most notably in our political system!”

        While there certainly was what could only be called a religious or ethnic cleansing in the America’s of those indigenous people, I accept that is was indeed religious-political imperialism. And I agree with the idea that Rome simply morphed… it wasn’t called the Holy Roman Empire for nothing.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        WTS/JAY says “Of course you can, given the fact that Roman Catholicism is pagan through and through. Just because it absorbed elements of Christianity doesn’t make it any less so, pagan. Perhaps one could say it is a hybrid-pagan religion, but certainly not, Christianity. Anyone who would make the claim that Roman Catholicism is Christian, does not understand the first thing about Christianity.”

        TML: I’ve engaged arguments extensively about the pagan elements in Christianity, especially the doctrine of the trinity,

        Were pagan-elements in Christianity observable prior or post-conversion of Constantine and his subsequent decreeing Christianity be the official religion of the Roman Empire? What is your education regarding the essence of Christianity prior to Constantine’s conversion; and could you kindly explain how blending elements of Christianity with Paganism, the end result be considered Christianity, or even Paganism? I think you would agree if i were to propose that when both were blended the end result was the corruption of both, and the recognition/establishment of neither one; but rather, the inception of a “Hybrid”, having only elements/genes of both, yet distinct and unique; entirely a new-breed! How then can you refer to this new-breed as Christianity, or Paganism, for that matter?

        TML: but to say that Catholicism isn’t Christian is just the same old claim by one self-proclaimed Christian saying another is not, merely because they may have not acted favorably in the eyes of that one, or believe something a little bit different.

        I take it you are not a Christian? Yet, you seem to consider yourself qualified to speak on our behalf, and to determine what is it that we believe, and how to recognize the authentic? Are you not over-stepping, just a tad?

        TML: Ultimately, I regard a Christian as anyone who accepts/admits Jesus Christ as their savior and/or adheres to the doctrines of Jesus as they interpret them. Catholics are not exempt from this.

        Ultimately based on what? The words of men? There will be many that will say; “Lord Lord, but i will say to them; “Depart from me, for i never knew you”! Who else but HE could make that assessment, having known his flock intimately; you? Clearly, you cannot distinguish sheep from goats…yet you insist you know who is and who isn’t…Christian.

        TML: I beg to differ… the typical definition of denomination regarding Christianity that I accept is, “A recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church.” but I suppose it depends on how broad or how narrow one wishes to define something.

        Before proceeding, “Christian Church”, requires proper assessment/recognition before concluding a definition. But who is fit for such a task; you? Labels? Secular definitions? Secular institutions? National Geographic; atheists, agnostics, pagans…general definition? This is not for someone outside the “faith-orbit” to decide, yet they insist and persist. There’s a reason that God in His infinite wisdom chose as His temple, the bodies of His redeemed; precisely to avoid foolish speculations such as you offer.

        TML: Catholic is a religion. Mormon is a religion. Baptist is a religion. But they are all denominations of Christianity because they adhere (or claim to adhere) to the doctrines of Jesus Christ and accept/claim him as their savior/messiah..

        I thought you said you understood the difference between religion and denomination? Clearly, you do not! Similarities in dogma/doctrine ie; Proclaim Jesus as saviour does not qualify, necessarily, as branch/denomination from/of, the original. Since, and as per your reasoning/logic, dissimilarities would equally disqualify as credible denominations. Example; Mormons believe Jesus is saviour and Messiah(similarity and in harmony with Christianity) but they also believe God evolved into his status and completeness; as well, they preach “polytheism” a direct contradiction and corruption of original; there fore they are disqualified; they have in essence become a different “Religion” and NOT, a different “Denomination. The same would apply to Roman Catholicism!

        TML: While there certainly was what could only be called a religious or ethnic cleansing in the America’s of those indigenous people, I accept that is was indeed religious-political imperialism. And I agree with the idea that Rome simply morphed… it wasn’t called the Holy Roman Empire for nothing.

        Further, i would propose that our political-engine here in US, is an extension/arm/branch of the present “Holy-Roman-Empire”.

      • TML

        WTS/JAY says “Were pagan-elements in Christianity observable prior or post-conversion of Constantine and his subsequent decreeing Christianity be the official religion of the Roman Empire?”

        Yes, the doctrine of the trinity has its roots from 90 A.D. (approximately 216 years before the birth of Constantine I) In fact, the very idea of Jesus being the Son of God (demigod) is a ‘pagan’ concept seen in various traditions from the Greek and Roman pantheons to Hinduism, such as Hercules and Krishna.

        WTS/JAY says “What is your education regarding the essence of Christianity prior to Constantine’s conversion; and could you kindly explain how blending elements of Christianity with Paganism, the end result be considered Christianity, or even Paganism? I think you would agree if i were to propose that when both were blended the end result was the corruption of both, and the recognition/establishment of neither one; but rather, the inception of a “Hybrid”, having only elements/genes of both, yet distinct and unique; entirely a new-breed! How then can you refer to this new-breed as Christianity, or Paganism, for that matter?”

        In light to the topic, various Christian traditions are in fact shared with pagan traditions, and vice versa, but that doesn’t necessarily change the respective belief system or doctrine. Paganism would actually have no problem accepting another demigod, so it wouldn’t affect them a bit. However, traditions of men were often actually rebuked by Jesus, so we could say that anyone, Catholic or otherwise, who observes those traditions (corruption) is not a Christian. This idea paints with such a large brush that it contradicts the universally Christian held doctrine that we are all sinners whose only salvation is through Jesus Christ.
        The concept of merging traditions, as a disqualification, doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. That is why I define Christian in the way I have described, and hold that Catholicism is indeed a denomination of Christianity.

        Btw, technically, “pagan” literally means “country dweller” but used as a term for indigenous people who have polytheistic views. Judaism is a monotheistic religion, meaning belief/worship of a single god. It serves as the polar opposite of (and mutually exclusive to) polytheism.
        With this in mind, the question could be… where do we classify Christianity at its inception – monotheistic or polytheistic? Considering my initial statements of this post, we could perhaps be disposed to classify Christianity as polytheistic, with no need to contemplate the influences of Constantine. But this is rejected by most, if not all, self-proclaimed Christians. Therefore, I accept the definition of Christian as anyone who accepts/admits/claims Jesus Christ as their savior and/or adheres (or claims to adhere) to the doctrines of Jesus as they interpret them. We can then only point out where they falter.

        WTS/JAY says “I take it you are not a Christian? Yet, you seem to consider yourself qualified to speak on our behalf, and to determine what is it that we believe, and how to recognize the authentic? Are you not over-stepping, just a tad?
        Ultimately based on what? The words of men? There will be many that will say; “Lord Lord, but i will say to them; “Depart from me, for i never knew you”! Who else but HE could make that assessment, having known his flock intimately; you? Clearly, you cannot distinguish sheep from goats…yet you insist you know who is and who isn’t…Christian.”

        But by that same logic, neither can you judge who is and who is not a Christian…. Eh? Who else but He, could make that assessment?

        WTS/JAY says “Before proceeding, “Christian Church”, requires proper assessment/recognition before concluding a definition. But who is fit for such a task; you? Labels? Secular definitions? Secular institutions? National Geographic; atheists, agnostics, pagans…general definition? This is not for someone outside the “faith-orbit” to decide, yet they insist and persist. There’s a reason that God in His infinite wisdom chose as His temple, the bodies of His redeemed; precisely to avoid foolish speculations such as you offer.”

        That is exactly why I allow them to label themselves by admission/claim, or directly through an understanding of the fundamental concepts of their doctrine text. Or quite simply, Catholicism reveres Christ as savior, and thus are “Christ”ian.

        WTS/JAY says “I thought you said you understood the difference between religion and denomination? Clearly, you do not! Similarities in dogma/doctrine ie; Proclaim Jesus as saviour does not qualify, necessarily, as branch/denomination from/of, the original. Since, and as per your reasoning/logic, dissimilarities would equally disqualify as credible denominations. Example; Mormons believe Jesus is saviour and Messiah(similarity and in harmony with Christianity) but they also believe God evolved into his status and completeness; as well, they preach “polytheism” a direct contradiction and corruption of original; there fore they are disqualified; they have in essence become a different “Religion” and NOT, a different “Denomination. The same would apply to Roman Catholicism!”

        As you admit, the common thread is acceptance of Christ as savior. And as I point out above, I disagree with your conclusion, and hold that Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity.

      • TML

        Chris·tian
        1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
        2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
        3. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        TML: Yes, the doctrine of the trinity has its roots from 90 A.D. (approximately 216 years before the birth of Constantine I) In fact, the very idea of Jesus being the Son of God (demigod) is a ‘pagan’ concept seen in various traditions from the Greek and Roman pantheons to Hinduism, such as Hercules and Krishna.

        Trinity: The Christian belief that there are Three Persons in One God. These Three Persons – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – are distinct from one another yet they share the same Divine Nature. Thus they are not three distinct gods, but one God.
        Before Christianity, no religion ever believed in a single Deity consisting of three persons.

        Detractors claim that the Osirus-Isis-Horus family of ancient Egyptian mythology was a “model” for the Christian Trinity. Yet this is clearly a triad of distinct pagan deities, not a trinity in the Christian sense. The Egyptians never considered them to be three persons in one God, but as two separate gods and a goddess – among numerous other divinities such as Hathor, Ptah, Neith, Set, Nut, Geb, and Basht, to name a few. The highest deity in their pantheon was the sun god Ra, so they didn’t even consider the Osirus-Isis-Horus triad to be supreme among the gods! Further, they point to “triple goddesses” worshipped by the pagan Celts as forerunners of the Christian Trinity. Yet these were either triads of mother goddesses or a single goddess with three “aspects” or “modes of being”. The Holy Trinity isn’t one Divine Person with three “aspects” or “modes”, for the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are personally distinct from one another. Thus the “triple goddess” is merely a threefold deity, not a true trinity, thus she could not be the original of the Holy Trinity. Finally, detractors claim that the Hindu “trimurti” – Brahma, Vishnu and Siva – was another model for the Christian Trinity. Yet scholars tell us that this “trimurti” only appears in Hinduism during the fourth century after Christ. Christians had been professing belief in One God in Three Persons for four centuries by then! If the Holy Trinity concept predates the Hindu trimurti, the former could not have been copied from the latter. In fact, given Hinduism’s tendancy to absorb concepts from other religions, and the fact that Christianity reached India in the first century, it is quite possible that the Hindu sages developed the trimurti along the lines of the Trinity-concept professed by Indian Christians!

        TML: In light to the topic, various Christian traditions are in fact shared with pagan traditions, and vice versa, but that doesn’t necessarily change the respective belief system or doctrine.

        Traditions, belief-system(s) and doctrines. You seem to use these terms interchangeably, bringing to question your understanding of each of these terms you use. Perhaps you should take a moment to explain what you mean or understand each to be?

        TML: Paganism would actually have no problem accepting another demigod, so it wouldn’t affect them a bit.

        Naturally, since paganism is a religion of place, or a native religion. All Pagan religions are characterised by a connection and reverence for nature, and are usually polytheistic i.e. have many Gods and/or Goddesses. However, this inclusiveness is not permitted in Christianity although found present in some so-called denominations(?); in fact, it is strictly forbidden. Why? Because, including another deity or alien-doctrine(s) corrupts the essence and purity of Christianity, a concern not shared by pagans, evidently, who mix and match to the point that what they practice and believe becomes impossible to discern, much less, define.

        TML: However, traditions of men were often actually rebuked by Jesus, so we could say that anyone, Catholic or otherwise, who observes those traditions (corruption) is not a Christian. This idea paints with such a large brush that it contradicts the universally Christian held doctrine that we are all sinners whose only salvation is through Jesus Christ. The concept of merging traditions, as a disqualification, doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. That is why I define Christian in the way I have described, and hold that Catholicism is indeed a denomination of Christianity.

        No, Roman Catholicism and Christianity are not the same thing. Christianity is properly defined by certain doctrines that are revealed in the Bible. It is not defined by simply saying that as long as you believe in Jesus, you’re a Christian. Mormons believe in Jesus, but their Jesus is a brother of the devil in the pre-existence. The Jesus of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is Michael the Archangel. So, just saying you believe in Jesus doesn’t make you a Christian. This is why the Bible reveals to us who Jesus really is, God in flesh, creator of the universe. Likewise, there are essential doctrines, and if any of those essential doctrines are violated, then a church would only appear to be Christian but not really be Christian. What are those doctrines?

        There is only one God and you are to serve no other gods (Exodus 20:3; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8).

        Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1,14; 8:24; Col. 2:9; 1 John 4:1-4).

        Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21; 1 Cor. 15:14).

        Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:1-2; 5:1-4).

        The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus according to the scriptures (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Gal. 1:8-9).

        God is a Trinity (Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 13:14).
        Jesus was born of the virgin Mary (Matt. 1:25).

        So, someone who is a true Christian will believe these things and not violate or alter them. Roman Catholicism violates two of them (#1 and #4). First of all, by its practice of promoting Mary (and the Saints) to the level of God-like capabilities, they break the commandment to have no other gods before the true and living God. In Roman Catholicism, they say that Mary is the mediatrix (Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 969); Mary made atonement for the sins of man (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, page 213); Mary is the subject of preaching and worship (Vatican Council II, p. 420); etc. Also, Catholicism violates the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone. Paul the apostle, for example, tells us in Romans 4:5, “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.” But Roman Catholicism denies that and says, “…so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments,” (CCC, par 2068).

        Also, consider this: “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, Canons on Justification, Canon 9). So, even though Roman Catholicism claims to be Christian and that it is the one true church, it violates the essentials of the Christian faith. It goes beyond what is written in God’s word (1 Cor. 4:6). It denies the sole and true sovereignty of the living God by promoting prayer to and the worship of Mary. Also, it denies justification by faith alone in Christ alone. It is not a Christian church.

        TML: Btw, technically, “pagan” literally means “country dweller” but used as a term for indigenous people who have polytheistic views. Judaism is a monotheistic religion, meaning belief/worship of a single god. It serves as the polar opposite of (and mutually exclusive to) polytheism. With this in mind, the question could be… where do we classify Christianity at its inception – monotheistic or polytheistic? Considering my initial statements of this post, we could perhaps be disposed to classify Christianity as polytheistic, with no need to contemplate the influences of Constantine. But this is rejected by most, if not all, self-proclaimed Christians.

        There are some fundamental propositions that one must understand in approaching the distinction between monotheism (belief in one God) and polytheism (belief in many gods). The original religion of ancient mankind was monotheism, i.e., the worship of the one, true Supreme Being. This is demonstrated both by the testimony of the Bible and by a study of anthropology. Genesis 1 begins with the affirmation that “God created the heavens and the earth.” The term “God” in the Hebrew Bible is Elohim. In his famous work, Synonyms of the Old Testament (1871), Robert Girdlestone noted that Elohim is found some 2,555 times in the Old Testament. In 2,310 of these cases the title refers to the true God, while in the remaining 245 instances the word is employed in a variety of “lower senses”.

        Elohim is a plural term. Various explanations have been offered for this plurality (e.g., the idea that the word is designed to reflect the plentitude of divine majesty, i.e., the vast array of sacred qualities incapable of being expressed by a term of singularity). Some scholars, however, suggest that the term subtly previews the concept of the Trinity, which, consistent with the well-recognized principle of progressive revelation, blossoms fully and gloriously into bloom in the New Testament.

        With reference to the plural form, Girdlestone emphatically stated: “It is clear that the fact of the word Elohim being plural in form does not at all sanction polytheism” (Ibid., 34) Significantly, the corresponding verb, “created” (bara), is singular in number, which indicates that the divine, creative activity was a unified action (cf. Genesis 1:1 with John 1:1). Thus, this noted Hebrew scholar, while refraining from a definitive statement, nonetheless declared: [T]here is certainly nothing unreasonable in the supposition that the name of the Deity Elohim was given to man in this form, so as to prepare him for the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons” (Ibid., 34-35).

        It is important to observe that the biblical writers do not hesitate to affirm that God is “one” (cf. Deuteronomy 6:4; James 2:19), while using plural pronouns to reflect divine activity (cf. Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8). Jesus himself said, “I and my father are one” (John 10:30). Note that “I” and “my father” reflect two personalities. The verb “are” is plural. And yet, “one” is a singular numeral. In the Greek Testament the numeral hen (one) is a neuter gender form, suggesting identity of nature. In this sentence, therefore, there is an affirmation of dual personalities sharing an identical nature. But how can God be both one and three without a contradiction being involved? The solution lies in the fact that the numerals are employed in different senses. God is one as to the divine essence or nature; Deity is three in terms of distinct personalities; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (cf. Matthew 28:19-20; cf. 2 Corinthians 13:14). https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/236-is-christianity-polytheistic

        TML: Therefore, I accept the definition of Christian as anyone who accepts/admits/claims Jesus Christ as their savior and/or adheres (or claims to adhere) to the doctrines of Jesus as they interpret them. We can then only point out where they falter.

        Yes, but in order to point where they falter, one would have to be intimately familiar with the doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

        TML: But by that same logic, neither can you judge who is and who is not a Christian…. Eh? Who else but He, could make that assessment?

        I think the word you are looking for is “discern”, not “judge”; and, if you were, familiar with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, you would know that we(Christians)are admonished to exercise both so as to determine who is and who isn’t a true follower. The New-Testament, btw, is replete with incidences where the two are exercised. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the New-Testament?

        TML: That is exactly why I allow them to label themselves by admission/claim, or directly through an understanding of the fundamental concepts of their doctrine text. Or quite simply, Catholicism reveres Christ as savior, and thus are “Christ”ian.

        Refer to my two previous comments.

        TML: As you admit, the common thread is acceptance of Christ as savior. And as I point out above, I disagree with your conclusion, and hold that Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity.

        On the contrary, i showed that a common thread(one fundamental-principle)does not qualify, necessarily, as pertaining to the original, if other fundamental principles are altered, corrupted or violated.

      • TML

        WTS/JAY says “Trinity: The Christian belief that there are Three Persons in One God. These Three Persons – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – are distinct from one another yet they share the same Divine Nature. Thus they are not three distinct gods, but one God.
        Before Christianity, no religion ever believed in a single Deity consisting of three persons….

        With all due respect, you’re only switching back and forth between one frame of reference and another – separate beings (polytheism) and one being (monotheism). They are mutually exclusive concepts. 1+1+1 does not equal 1. In order to say it is one God, you espouse the idea (such as the triple goddess) that it is one divinity that may reveal itself in three different persona’s, “personally distinct from one another”. But then you detract from this, saying “The Holy Trinity isn’t one Divine Person with three “aspects” or “modes”.”

        You then say “One God in Three [distinct] Persons” but this is likened unto a tribunal in which the 3 make one. As one might say the word “God” is both, one ‘Word’, and three distinct letters at the same time. It still requires a plural which is the essense of polytheism. However you spin it, it is polytheistic in nature since it claims three separate and distinct beings which make up the one god, or the one god that makes up the three distinct beings.

        This again is why I do not make too big of an issue of self-proclaimed Christian’s rejecting their faith as polytheism, because they can hold to the idea that it is one being with only separate persona’s… “God in the flesh” and so forth… thereby achieving monotheism. The concept of triple goddess itself did not make such “pagan” religion polytheistic; it was the inclusion of belief in and worship of also other gods and goddesses unconnected to the triple goddess. So no one could say – even if it were proven that Christianity was “modeled” after it [triple goddess] – that they could therefore conclude it [Christianity] polytheistic. Yet, as soon as you say they are separate and distinct person’s which make up one god, then it loses the monotheistic reference and can be identified as polytheistic even if the exact idea – that there are “three persons in one God” – had never before been asserted.

        WTS/JAY says “Traditions, belief-system(s) and doctrines. You seem to use these terms interchangeably, bringing to question your understanding of each of these terms you use. Perhaps you should take a moment to explain what you mean or understand each to be?”

        Actually I partly tried making the distinction in the two paragraphs of my last post which started… “various Christian traditions are in fact shared with pagan traditions, and vice versa, but that doesn’t necessarily change the respective belief system or doctrine.”… so I’m not sure how you say I’ve been using them interchangeably, but they are intimately connected. Let me explain:

        Typically, a “belief system” is the set of beliefs regarding morality and principle, but not necessarily connected to organized religion (yes, atheists have belief systems although atheism itself is not a belief).

        Generally, a “tradition” is most closely related to culture or customs which have been passed from one generation to the next. (A belief system ‘can’ be a tradition.)

        And finally, a “doctrine” is typically a written statement, or teaching, upon which a belief system may be based.

        WTS/JAY says “Christianity is properly defined by certain doctrines that are revealed in the Bible.”

        And that is to what I have been referring and basing the definition… to the best of my knowledge.

        WTS/JAY says “It is not defined by simply saying that as long as you believe in Jesus, you’re a Christian. Mormons believe in Jesus, but their Jesus is a brother of the devil in the pre-existence.” The Jesus of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is Michael the Archangel.”

        While I am willing to accept that anyone claiming their ‘Jesus’ is Michael the Archangel (or any other of the great Watchers) is certainly not Christian – because this is obviously not the Jesus spoken of in the Gospels nor taken from the doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus. (Anyone who has read the Book of Enoch would know this). I remain firm that mere interpretation of “Jesus being the brother of the devil” doesn’t disqualify them as Christian. It could easily been seen that the Devil is a son of God, and if Jesus is also, then for all practical purposes, they are brothers however different and standing at opposite ends of the spectrum. Reference Cain and Able. This comes from the idea that Jesus was elected and chosen… much like Moses, but unlike Moses was to harbor the very spirit of God. This is practical because even the word “Christ” literally means “anointed”, which coincides with references to the “Elect One” in the Book of Enoch.

        WTS/JAY says “This is why the Bible reveals to us who Jesus really is, God in flesh, creator of the universe.”

        As I said earlier in discussion of the trinity… viewing Jesus as God himself in the flesh is only one way of looking at it, and derived itself from interpretation.

        WTS/JAY says “Likewise, there are essential doctrines, and if any of those essential doctrines are violated, then a church would only appear to be Christian but not really be Christian. What are those doctrines?”

        These are all interpreted to mean what you are claiming.. and you have the freedom to do that, and it isn’t necessarily wrong. But these are not strict rules. What you are claiming to make your case is a belief system based on that doctrine, whereas different belief systems can be derived from the same. Thus, we have different denominations of one overall religion because they are all derived from the same doctrine.

        “Roman Catholicism violates two of them (#1 and #4). First of all, by its practice of promoting Mary (and the Saints) to the level of God-like capabilities, they break the commandment to have no other gods before the true and living God.”

        One could say the same of worshiping Jesus as the true living God.

        WTS/JAY says “There are some fundamental propositions that one must understand in approaching the distinction between monotheism (belief in one God) and polytheism (belief in many gods). The original religion of ancient mankind was monotheism, i.e., the worship of the one, true Supreme Being.”

        Got to stop you here…. You MUST read the Golden Bough. http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/frazer/

        Polytheism and monotheism ‘grew up’ together from an inherent belief in magic.

        Elohim is a plural term. Various explanations have been offered for this plurality (e.g., the idea that the word is designed to reflect the plentitude of divine majesty, i.e., the vast array of sacred qualities incapable of being expressed by a term of singularity). Some scholars, however, suggest that the term subtly previews the concept of the Trinity, which, consistent with the well-recognized principle of progressive revelation, blossoms fully and gloriously into bloom in the New Testament.

        WTS/JAY says “With reference to the plural form, Girdlestone emphatically stated: “It is clear that the fact of the word Elohim being plural in form does not at all sanction polytheism” (Ibid., 34) Significantly, the corresponding verb, “created” (bara), is singular in number, which indicates that the divine, creative activity was a unified action (cf. Genesis 1:1 with John 1:1). Thus, this noted Hebrew scholar, while refraining from a definitive statement, nonetheless declared: [T]here is certainly nothing unreasonable in the supposition that the name of the Deity Elohim was given to man in this form, so as to prepare him for the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons” (Ibid., 34-35).

        It is important to observe that the biblical writers do not hesitate to affirm that God is “one” (cf. Deuteronomy 6:4; James 2:19), while using plural pronouns to reflect divine activity (cf. Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8). Jesus himself said, “I and my father are one” (John 10:30). Note that “I” and “my father” reflect two personalities. The verb “are” is plural. And yet, “one” is a singular numeral. In the Greek Testament the numeral hen (one) is a neuter gender form, suggesting identity of nature. In this sentence, therefore, there is an affirmation of dual personalities sharing an identical nature. But how can God be both one and three without a contradiction being involved? The solution lies in the fact that the numerals are employed in different senses. God is one as to the divine essence or nature; Deity is three in terms of distinct personalities; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (cf. Matthew 28:19-20; cf. 2 Corinthians 13:14). https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/236-is-christianity-polytheistic”

        Great apologetic, but what of the layman? Should all people incapable of this cognition be declared non-Christian?

        WTS/JAY says “Yes, but in order to point where they falter, one would have to be intimately familiar with the doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

        And if they are so intimately connected, they would also remember that as one judges, they too will be judged, as with their measure it will be measured to them. You’re argument seems solely for the purpose of disconnecting yourself with those who do not believe exactly as you do regarding Christ. Even to the point that Sin is a disqualification… which completely dissolves the doctrine that we are all sinners. Are you then, willing to throw the first stone?

        WTS/JAY says “I think the word you are looking for is “discern”, not “judge”; and, if you were, familiar with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, you would know that we(Christians)are admonished to exercise both so as to determine who is and who isn’t a true follower. The New-Testament, btw, is replete with incidences where the two are exercised. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the New-Testament?”

        I’ve read it 5 times front to back… and it is ‘replete’ with instances of contradictions. Jefferson once wrote, “The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute inquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.”

        WTS/JAY says “On the contrary, i showed that a common thread(one fundamental-principle)does not qualify, necessarily, as pertaining to the original, if other fundamental principles are altered, corrupted or violated.”

        Thus the varous interpretations are considered denominations of a belief system based on the same doctines.

        Honestly, defending Catholicism isn’t really my stick, but you’re intelligent, and I’ve enjoyed the discourse.

      • TML

        “If then we consider, on the one hand, the essential similarity of man’s chief wants everywhere and at all times, and on the other hand, the wide difference between the means he has adopted to satisfy them in different ages, we shall perhaps be disposed to conclude that the movement of the higher thought, so far as we can trace it, has on the whole been from magic through religion to science. In magic man depends on his own strength to meet the difficulties and dangers that beset him on every side. He believes in a certain established order of nature on which he can surely count, and which he can manipulate for his own ends. When he discovers his mistake, when he recognises sadly that both the order of nature which he had assumed and the control which he had believed himself to exercise over it were purely imaginary, he ceases to rely on his own intelligence and his own unaided efforts, and throws himself humbly on the mercy of certain great invisible beings behind the veil of nature, to whom he now ascribes all those far-reaching powers which he once arrogated to himself. Thus in the acuter minds magic is gradually superseded by religion, which explains the succession of natural phenomena as regulated by the will, the passion, or the caprice of spiritual beings like man in kind, though vastly superior to him in power.

        But as time goes on this explanation in its turn proves to be unsatisfactory. For it assumes that the succession of natural events is not determined by immutable laws, but is to some extent variable and irregular, and this assumption is not borne out by closer observation. On the contrary, the more we scrutinise that succession the more we are struck by the rigid uniformity, the punctual precision with which, wherever we can follow them, the operations of nature are carried on. Every great advance in knowledge has extended the sphere of order and correspondingly restricted the sphere of apparent disorder in the world, till now we are ready to anticipate that even in regions where chance and confusion appear still to reign, a fuller knowledge would everywhere reduce the seeming chaos to cosmos. Thus the keener minds, still pressing forward to a deeper solution of the mysteries of the universe, come to reject the religious theory of nature as inadequate, and to revert in a measure to the older standpoint of magic by postulating explicitly, what in magic had only been implicitly assumed, to wit, an inflexible regularity in the order of natural events, which, if carefully observed, enables us to foresee their course with certainty and to act accordingly. In short, religion, regarded as an explanation of nature, is displaced by science.

        But while science has this much in common with magic that both rest on a faith in order as the underlying principle of all things, readers of this work will hardly need to be reminded that the order presupposed by magic differs widely from that which forms the basis of science. The difference flows naturally from the different modes in which the two orders have been reached. For whereas the order on which magic reckons is merely an extension, by false analogy, of the order in which ideas present themselves to our minds, the order laid down by science is derived from patient and exact observation of the phenomena themselves. The abundance, the solidity, and the splendour of the results already achieved by science are well fitted to inspire us with a cheerful confidence in the soundness of its method. Here at last, after groping about in the dark for countless ages, man has hit upon a clue to the labyrinth, a golden key that opens many locks in the treasury of nature. It is probably not too much to say that the hope of progress—moral and intellectual as well as material—in the future is bound up with the fortunes of science, and that every obstacle placed in the way of scientific discovery is a wrong to humanity.

        Yet the history of thought should warn us against concluding that because the scientific theory of the world is the best that has yet been formulated, it is necessarily complete and final. We must remember that at bottom the generalisations of science or, in common parlance, the laws of nature are merely hypotheses devised to explain that ever-shifting phantasmagoria of thought which we dignify with the high-sounding names of the world and the universe. In the last analysis magic, religion, and science are nothing but theories of thought; and as science has supplanted its predecessors, so it may hereafter be itself superseded by some more perfect hypothesis, perhaps by some totally different way of looking at the phenomena—of registering the shadows on the screen—of which we in this generation can form no idea. The advance of knowledge is an infinite progression towards a goal that for ever recedes. We need not murmur at the endless pursuit”- Sir James George Frazier, 1922 – The Golden Bough

  • By George

    “There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!”… Mario Savio, UC Berkley 1963.

    I can’t say it any better.

    • eddie47d

      Now there is a blast from the past Mario Savio. Haven’t heard that name in decades and one of Americas premier protest leaders. Unfortunately he died of heart failure at age 53.

      • Hedgehog

        Are you sure he died of a heart attack Eddie, really sure? Could he have been (whisper it) rubbed out?

      • eddie47d

        Trying to conjure up another conspiracy Hedgehog? Unless you can prove differently then he died of heart failure.

      • Hedgehog

        Eddie, everyone dies of heart failure! What caused the heart failure? However we’ll have to let it go for now. It’s a little late for an autopsy or necropsy, and I don’t think they’d let a retired gunsmith perform one anyway. Curse you O’dogma! There, are you happy now.

  • eddie47d

    JB Partners Group is a Corporation and Conservatives love allowing Corporations to do as they please so what’s the problem? Besides the Christmas tree is NOT a religious symbol so this Corporation doesn’t know its arse from a hole in the ground. I can’t wait until someone will make the claim that Obama made them do it! LOL!

    • http://yahoo bob peters

      Eddie you are clearly a Pendejo!

      • WIA Ben

        Bob Peters, a Pendejo is a Pubic Hair, as defined in Espanol. However in the case of Eddie69d , he knows where his arse is so he keeps his head up in it and still refuses to go to his proctologist, Dr.Obama his lord and savior.

        • Alan

          No, a pendejo is an idiot, jerk, a**hole or just about any other derogatory term used to define ones lack of intelligence….lol!

    • momo

      Eddie47d, Liberals don’t own any corporations in the USA? Go back to signing your petitions.

    • eddie47d

      Why do Conservatives say that Bill Gates is a Liberal then? Are you lying again? Besides I already signed 141 petitions today and about 80 yesterday. Some of us are involved on many issues and some of you like to resort to name calling (bob peters) or maybe jealousy. Hmmm!

    • TML

      “Besides the Christmas tree is NOT a religious symbol”

      I’ve always regarded it as one, and has descriptive roots in religious tradition. What’s the explanation that it isn’t?

  • Floridastorm

    I wonder if anyone remembers what today is? It’s Pearl Harbor day, the day the Japanese surprise attacked Pearl Harbor and killed and injured thousands of our military. Of course, they probably don’t teach this anymore in our Marxist/Socialist policially correct public schools. But, I bet they teach how bad America was for using the atomic bombs on Japan. Revisionist history at it’s finest.

    • ? Chocopot

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNCuXR5hhls

      Revisionist history is definitely being shoved down our kids’ throats. Check out this video about Columbus that my 13-year old was forced to watch. The teacher presented this in class as fact in an effort to demonize Columbus. I complained first to the principal, then to the head of the town’s school system. Unfortunately, I essentially got nowhere, but at least I made sure they know there is one parent out there who will not remain silent in the face of this garbage.

      • Karolyn

        Revisionist history is what we were taught. These days childre are learning the truth, which just might hurt! The video was 100% accurate. Why shouldn’t the kids know the truth? It might help to keep us from repeating history.

      • eddie47d

        Thank you Karolyn for there are two sides to Columbus and all we were told 50 years ago was coated in sugar.

      • ? Chocopot

        Karolyn -

        If you think that video was the truth, you are as deranged as the teachers who show it.

      • Lee Kresser

        I watched the video with an open mind. It has opinions that are NOT what I learned in school. But I am a Christian, and know that this portrays all the native peoples in all countries living in peace until the Spaniards, or the Portugese, or the English, or the French came. How dangerously naive. Man has been killing since Cain and Able. It is evil and it’s sin. But the senseless murders can be based on power, greed, control, or whatever. And this video clip also pushes the viewer into a guilt trip, framing the incorrect image that nothing good came from the savagery. When we look at history, specifically the murders of 6 million Jews, we see that the country of Israel came back into being from that event. And that’s good. The whole earthly existence is being moved to a climax that we are going to have front row seats for.

      • Karolyn

        So, Chocopot, you don’t believe that the white man nearly decimated the Native American population of America? Early explorers were greedy for their coountries to have as much of the riches as they could get and had no use for “savages.” Kids should know the truth and learn from what really happened.

      • Vigilant

        Visiting upon Columbus such villification has NOTHING to do with US history, and EVERYTHING to do with calculated attempt to denigrate anything American and Western European. If you can’t see that, but rather consider it as an objective piece of history, then you are warped indeed.

        One needn’t look further than the very title of this disingenuous work: “Condemnation of a Genocidal Legacy.” And further on, the absolute falsehood of “This holocaust was sparked by a genocidal madman known as Christopher Columbus.” Varying between musical themes of the histrionic to the maudlin, this totally unbalanced work dispenses with the truth in favor of creating shame and guilt.

        If the tortuous connection is to be believed, we must accept the absolutely ridiculous assertion that Columbus was responsible for the actions of Cortes, Pizzaro, Andrew Jackson, George Custer and Pedro de Alvarado. Yes, I’m sure George Custer checked his Columbus diaries and knelt before his altar before going into battle! Ludicrous!

        In addition to making connections where none exist, this is the same old “blame America first” excrement that depends wholly on overlaying modern enlightened morality on the actions of those in the distant past.

        Where here’s news for those who subscribe to this guilt trip mentality: I have absolutely no personal guilt or shame about what my ancestors did hundreds of years ago, nor should I. Nor should you. Nor should, especially, 13 year old children.

        This is the typical mentality which seeks to have you wringing your hands over the past instead of saying, “look how far we have come.” And here’s the news flash: America is about the overcoming of, and improvements made, over that brutal past. It’s about the wrongs that have been righted over time, through the dedication to the principles of individual sovereignty and our enlightened founding.

        Are we perfect? No. Have we created the most successful idealogical framework in history for redressing the moral wrongs of the past? Most decidedly. YES!

      • http://www.facebook.com/dan.mancuso.56 Dan Mancuso

        Revisionist history = shoving the LIE of ‘the nobel savage’ down our throats…among many other lies!
        White, Christian, Europeans civilized the savages that had populated North and South America after having moved or been chased out of Asian regions, however many thousand years ago!
        To ‘judge’ those actions then, in the light of todays temporary moral mindsets, shows a complete lack of intellectual integrity, and ignorance.
        I’m not defending the somewhat and sometimes drastic and over the top methods displayed by some back then, but neither am I ashamed of my heritage as a White, European Christian…on the contrary, I’m proud of it!!!
        The difference is, I see our history for what it was – then – and accept it, I don’t judge it by todays moral constructs.
        When are moral, correct thinking people going to start seeing through this socialist agenda of denigrating White, European, Christian, heterosexual manliness (and womanliness) and start having pride in themselve again. We changed the world…and for the better. No other race did this!
        If this makes me a White supremisist or a racist, then I wear that ‘label’ proudly! Of course I know better…

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Karolyn: It might help to keep us from repeating history.

        Some history is worth repeating!

    • larry ryan

      Karolyn. Where to start on your PC stupidity. First look up the word decimate. It doesn’t mean what you and a lot of media idiots think it means. I know, I know, popular usage. B.S. Popular usage is just another way of saying lazy and stupid. Columbus never made it to North America. I don’t know if you use the term or not, but many INDIANS consider the term “native American” insulting. And rightly so if you think about what it means. When Europeans came to America indians were broken up into tribes all over North and South America. They went to war constantly with each other. Sometimes for gain, sometimes for cultural reasons we can’t understand. Almost all lived by the philosophy that if you were not a member of their tribe, you were an enemy. Although, interestingly, it was possible, even for non-indians, for aliens to be adopted into some tribes. South American conquest has a slightly different history, but North American inidians were not defeated by war or weapons. They were defeated by trade. When Europeans came here, Indian tribes were self sufficient. As soon as they were introduced to and began wanting things they couldn’t make for themselves, they were doomed. BTW this isn’t, by itself, inherently good or evil as PC fanatics would have us believe. It is simply how things work. Also, indians weren’t here first. They were here before the Europeans. Ask some of the southwestern tribes about the”people who came before”.

      • http://www.facebook.com/dan.mancuso.56 Dan Mancuso

        Good comment! But the discussion has strayed a little from the old folks home bullies banning Christmas trees, and revisionism as a tool for destroying Christian beliefs.
        When you say “The people who came before”, are you refering to all the archeological findings of caucasoid skeletal remains found in the Americas and indicating they were pre-Asiatic? And how the government created NAGPRA (Native American Grave Repatriation Act), I think it’s called, and with the Department of the Interior, has allowed the Indians to destroy, wholesale, all this evidence of white people being here before the Indians? Are you refering to all the evidence that the Smithsonian Institute put on a barge and dumped into the ocean? I mean you wouldn’t want to throw a wrench into all the politically correct mumbo-jumbo that takes the place of science and fact now would you?

  • Dee

    This just makes me sick. Who are these people that demand they remove the Christmas tree? Do you possibly think that maybe the way this country is alienating God has something do to with the way we are having problems and natural disasters?

  • Jewelette

    What happen to our freedom of religion ,if you can’t have a Christmas tree that is telling you that you can’t have your religion .I am a Christian and I believe in Christ it is my right to be able to say that. I am offended when people say Happy Holiday to me & other Christians should be . What is Christmas without a tree ,we give gifts in remembrance that gifts were given to Christ. MERRY CHRISTMAS

    • Karolyn

      The tree has nothing to do with Christianity.

      • independent thinker

        Karolyn to say it has nothing to do with Christianity is naive at best. The concept of the Christmas tree was taken from a pagan custon but it was adopted by I think Martin Luther to be a Christian symbol so it is now a Christian symbol for those who choose to use it that way. Besides there are very few pagans who worship the evergreen tree in the old way.

  • Frank

    Its always about the rights and freedoms of a small group that may become offended. What about the rights and freedoms of the majority, nobody gives a damn about those. They can take political correctness and shove it up their @#*&$!

    • http://www.facebook.com/dan.mancuso.56 Dan Mancuso

      Side ways, with a baseball bat!!!

  • Jo Anne

    Tell your grandchildren that Christmas is not about a “Christmas” tree but about the One who was born in a manger and died on a cross then rose again for our sins.

    • eddie47d

      AMEN!

    • http://Aol.com CommonSense4America

      And then planted a “CHRISTMAS TREE”

  • http://Yahoo.com Bill

    Karolyn – I’ve been reading your posts. Aren’t you a piece of work!

    • Karolyn

      Thanks, Bill! :-)

      • WIA Ben

        Karolyn, oh Karolyn, aren’t you just a working POS.

  • Hedgehog

    Karolyn has nothing to do with truth, freedom or the American or Canadian way. As for the Christmas tree, it’s the symbolism that counts. Stack your long guns Barrel up with a “don’t tread on me” flag in one Barrel and a US flag in another. Wrap the stack with lights and hang balls from the trigger guards. Plug in the lights and sing the national anthem. If anyone asks what it is, tell them its the newly reborn Liberty Tree. The flags are the leaves, the balls are the heads of traitors and tyrants, the lights are the lights of freedom and the trunk is how that freedom will be reclaimed!

    • http://yahoo bob peters

      Right on Brother!

    • ranger09

      Hedge, Very Good. But sorry most People today dont really give a dam. An as for the People in the Home, They need to put up a FIGHT. Speak softly But carry your CANES and Protect that Tree, ITS your Right. Just wish i could be there.

  • JDH

    If I lived in this senior citizen complex, I would gladly remove my christmas tree if i could recycle it as a suppository for those who demanded its removal, ditto the menorah

  • ranger09

    WHAT IS THE REAL MEANING OF cHRISTMAS.

    • Hedgehog

      The real meaning of Christmas is that one human gave his life in atonement for the sins of all other humans. A clean slate, paid in advance. Christmas celebrates the birth of that human.

      Felice Navidad

      • Thomas the Doubter

        Except that the early christians didn’t believe or act in the celebration of anyone’s birth, saviour or not. That millions perished under the superstitious beliefs that the “holy” roman catholic church, in organizing a one world view of salvation, only to be replaced, modified and reformed throughout subsequent history, shows it has no superiority , moral or intellectual to any other pagan belief, then or now.

        The real meaning of christmas is that in spite of the good will of men and women everywhere in the world, people just can’t get on the same page about virtually anything. The real meaning of christmas is that while some are able to grasp simple concepts of joy, and pleasure and charity, ideas of contentment, sharing and caring, they are just not happy if someone else sees the world a different way and have a almost inbreed need to go out and “crash the party”.

        “Fact is, if there was a person Christ and he was alive today, he would denounce all of CHRISTIANITY, ALL OF CHRISTENDOM, and would definitely move out of the middle east, and wouldn’t even be recognized by the majority of those who profess to follow his teachings ! ”

        Before you get your knickers in a twist, you will notice i put that last statement in quotes. Its stated as an opinion, just as you stated your opinion “one human gave his life in atonement for the sins of all other humans” which ARE TOGETHER , so far removed from both the creed of what Jesus of Nazareth believed or taught, that you may as well believe in Santa, in which case i see no harm in decorating a tree and calling it whatever the hell you want to call it.

        The meaning of christmas is, believe what you want, do as you please, eat, drink and be merry and try not to kill anyone on the way home. ( or kill someone because they got more presents than you, or because they got in your way at the 2 for1 aisle, better still maybe try not to kill someone because they see the world differently than you and quite worrying about somebody coming to take everything you have because it the big scheme of things, you don’t own anything and you sure as hell won’t be taking any of it with you when you get on your last ferry ride across the river styx)

  • c t frank

    The issue should be who’s paying for the tree.
    I’m Jewish. The sight of a Christmas tree doesn’t offend me. If it’s on public land and paid for by my taxes, that’s what offends me. If the nursing home is private, or the tree is paid for by private funding, I see no objection to it. After all, it’s their home, and they have a right to decorate their home as they see fit. Ditto the menorah and any other religious symbol they want to display.

  • WILDFIRE

    What do you do when your house becomes infested with cockroaches?

    You exterminate to bring your home back to a safe and protected foundation. Complaining about the cockroaches does nothing in stopping them from slowly but surely eating away the entire foundation until your house collapses. Liberals and socialist have been eating away at the foundation of this nation for far to long and all we do is sit around complain about the pests. We must exterminate to rid our selves of these pests before our nation is condemned and deemed uninhabitable.

    For those who do not know about the 45 Communist Goals submitted into congressional records on Jan 10th, 1963 should review these records from 50 years ago and compare with what we have today in this society. Nearly every goal in the list has been accomplished.

    http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=116

  • Carole

    This is not about “polticial correctness” but a very few who don’t respect anothers religous freedom and their costums and have to spoil it for everyone. If everyone would,just respect the fact that religion costums are meant as good will towards all(no matter what belief) what a better world it would be.

  • http://Wildblue Jim

    Our muslim/athiest president can have 54 christmas trees in the white house and then bug out foe Hawaii for his familie’s 4 million $ holiday without even seeing them.That’s how he’ll protect them from obsene sight.

  • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

    I agree that this was a wrong move. It’s not as if this tree was put on Government land. This is a private nursing home. There is no reason to ban it whatsoever.

    • http://Yahoo JD

      Doesn’t Government land belong to All the People?? Then shouldn’t it be able to be used by the “Melting Pot”? The one nation united. And respected, not be offended by the Diversity, coustoms and beliefs of the people who came here to be free to choose, but love the idea of a United People in their loyalties of our nation.? I do believe that was the reason Our country, and HER CONSTITUTION came to be.

      • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

        “Doesn’t Government land belong to All the People??”

        Of course it does. Which means that either ALL beliefs have to be represented or NONE should be represented. But that is not what this article is talking about.

        It is talking about private property, which means that they can put up anything that they want.

        I agree with the description of the 1st Amendment being a separation of church and state. And so does the US Supreme Court.

  • http://Yahoo JD

    There is no rational reason for any of this crap. This is America, you are free to believe what you choose. Mind your own damn business.

    This crap about affending, is just that, CRAP. No one was affended about this, or the multitudes of other such clames until the progressives started (telling)the youth, and the ignorant how to feel and act. And this PC bull,the American people just swallowed and shut up about has become exactly what it obviously had to become, MORE enslaved people, Not gloyously a free nation for all. You damn fools.

  • Wesley Vickery

    The continued “assault” on Christians to not merely celebrate, but acknowledge Christmas, as the birth of OUR Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, is dispicable.

    So much for the Land Of The Free – seems same applies to Muslims and other minority religeuos groups.

    Like most, I’m sick of this political corectness crap, and at every opportunity will continue to wish all a “Merry Christmas”

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    Apparently the White House referred to Christmas Trees as “Holiday Trees” for the first time this year which prompted CBS presenter, Ben Stein, to write this letter:

    My confession:

    I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejewelled trees, Christmas trees. I don’t feel threatened. I don’t feel discriminated against. That’s what they are, Christmas trees.

    It doesn’t bother me a bit when people say, “Merry Christmas” to me. I don’t think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn’t bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a crib, it’s just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

    I don’t like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don’t think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can’t find it in the Constitution and I don’t like it being shoved down my throat.

    Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren’t allowed to worship God? I guess that’s a sign that I’m getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.

    In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it’s not funny, it’s intended to get you thinking.

    Billy Graham’s daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her: “How could God let something like this happen?” (regarding Hurricane Katrina). Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said: “I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we’ve been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?”

    In light of recent events… terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O’Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn’t want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbour as yourself. And we said OK.

    Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn’t spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock’s son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he’s talking about. And we said okay.

    Now we’re asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don’t know right from wrong, and why it doesn’t bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

    Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with ‘WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.’

    Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world’s going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send ‘jokes’ through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

    Are you laughing yet?

    Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you’re not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

    Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

    Pass it on if you think it has merit.

    If not, then just discard it…. no one will know you did. But if you discard this thought process, don’t sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

    My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,

    Ben Stein.

    • Jana

      There are so many people trying to take Christ out of Christmas. Gov. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island has declared that for his state instead of calling it a CHRISTMAS TREE, they will now call it a holiday tree.

      Evidently he thinks it is prudent to be PC (politically correct). It should be called PSC which stands for PATHETICALLY STUPID CHOICE. Since it is PC we will call it POOR CHOICE as he has made a very poor choice for his state.

      No other religion is asked to change their specific celebration’s names. No one has ever even suggested that the Jewish holiday of Chanukah (Hanukah) celebrate the lighting of Holiday Candles instead of the Menorah, or calling Passover by another name.

      What about the Islamic Celebrations of their holy days? They have the start of Ramadan that is celebrated all over the United States in the Islamic communities and has been recently celebrated in the White House with President Obama attending, even though he shuns any Christian activities and has refused to attend any of the activities associated with the National Day of Prayer, that has been observed by our country since 1952.

      According to Wikipedia:
      The National Day of Prayer is an annual day of observance held on the first Thursday of May, designated by the United States Congress, when people are asked “to turn to God in prayer and meditation”. Each year, the president signs a proclamation, encouraging all Americans to pray on this day. The modern law formalizing its annual observance was enacted in 1952, although it has historical origins to a mandate by George Washington, the first president of the United States
      On the National Day of Prayer, Americans from all religious backgrounds turn to God in prayer for the United States. Its constitutionality was unsuccessfully challenged in court by the Freedom From Religion Foundation after their first attempt was unanimously dismissed by a federal appellate court in April 2011.
      By the way, the White House CHRISTMAS TREE has not been allowed to have any religious ornaments on it since Obama has been in office.

      What about the Islamic Festival of Sacrifice called Eid-Ul-Adha? We don’t ask them to change it to the Festival of Holidays.

      Lets look at all of the Mexican Fiestas celebrated throughout our country, Cinco de Mayo or Dieciseis del Septiembre, the 16 of September, the Mexican Independence Day, hmm what could we rename that one? Or even the Chinese New Year, which is the most important celebration in China and in Chinese communities everywhere here in the United States.

      No, the only ones being TOLD to change the name of their special Holidays are Christians, so it’s the Christian’s and their Holidays that are under attack.

      You might ask, why a CHRISTMAS TREE in the first place?

      According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, “The use of evergreen trees, wreaths, and garlands to symbolize eternal life was a custom of the ancient Egyptians, Chinese, and Hebrews. Tree worship was common among the pagan Europeans and survived their conversion to Christianity in the Scandinavian customs of decorating the house and barn with evergreens at the New Year to scare away the devil and of setting up a tree for the birds during Christmastime.”
      Then, in the Bible:
      Ezek 17:22-24

      22 Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: I will also take of the lofty top of the cedar, and will set it; I will crop off from the topmost of its young twigs a tender one, and I will plant it upon a high and lofty mountain:

      The highest branch of the high cedar is symbolic of Christ. Cropping off from the topmost of its young twigs, a tender one, refers to Christ sent here in the flesh for our Ssalvation

      23 in the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it; and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar: and under it shall dwell all birds of every wing; in the shade of the branches thereof shall they dwell.

      In the mountain at the height of Israel is where Jesus gave His life for our Salvation, and Christianity will be planted and bear fruit by us, the boughs, bringing us even to this very time and place here in the United States. All birds of every wing are all the nations no matter race or tongue and they will have a chance to accept this great gift of Salvation.
      God has given this country great blessings, we who know the Truth must stand now, as Christianity is under attack like never before. We must put on our armor as in Eph 6:10-20 and stand!

      24 And all the trees of the field shall know that I, Jehovah, have brought down the high tree, have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish; I, Jehovah, have spoken and have done it.

      The trees are symbolic of people. The Lord our God brought down the high tree (our Savior in the flesh, and exalted the low tree, which are those of us who received the Truth unto Salvation, dried up the green tree the older nations of heathen faiths, and have made the dry tree to flourish which are those who have eyes to see and ears to hear the gospel.
      He spoke it and it is so.

      We do not worship the tree, but we enjoy it as we honor the day set aside to celebrate Christ or Savior’s birth.

    • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

      “Apparently the White House referred to Christmas Trees as “Holiday Trees” for the first time this year”

      This is yet another lie. The Christmas Tree in the White House is CALLED a Christmas Tree, and nothing else.

    • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

      You might want to consider researching something like this before posting it.

      http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/confessions.asp

      This “letter” from Ben Stein wasn’t. And it was done in 2005, not now. And Billy Graham’s daughter was not mentioned in

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.