The progressive war on Christmas/Christianity

[HUGGY]

The progressive war on Christmas/Christianity

Why do Christian Fascists support a tradition that has added the obscene and perverse symbol and exercise of having a fat complete stranger on an alter, dressed for the most part like the devil, where decent folks are supposed to submit thier young children to sit in this perverts lap and ask the letcher for gifts?

Sorry you morons...this practice is perverted.

Actually it's the world who rather look to an alternative to the manger scene, by looking to that which includes reindeer, elves, and your precious forementioned fat man in a red suit. I do believe you have your traditional elements confused.

I wasn't confused in my post. I made it pretty clear that offering one's own little children to sit on the lap of a questionable stranger as the pathway to recieving gifts is perverse.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The progressive war on Christmas/Christianity

Why do Christian Fascists support a tradition that has added the obscene and perverse symbol and exercise of having a fat complete stranger on an alter, dressed for the most part like the devil, where decent folks are supposed to submit thier young children to sit in this perverts lap and ask the letcher for gifts?

Sorry you morons...this practice is perverted.

Actually it's the world who rather look to an alternative to the manger scene, by looking to that which includes reindeer, elves, and your precious forementioned fat man in a red suit. I do believe you have your traditional elements confused.

I wasn't confused in my post. I made it pretty clear that offering one's own little children to sit on the lap of a questionable stranger as the pathway to recieving gifts is perverse.

On the contrary, devote Christians don't support such "worldly" alternatives of Christmas. That particular element is where you confused, or have been very misinformed.

 

[HUGGY]

Actually it's the world who rather look to an alternative to the manger scene, by looking to that which includes reindeer, elves, and your precious forementioned fat man in a red suit. I do believe you have your traditional elements confused.

I wasn't confused in my post. I made it pretty clear that offering one's own little children to sit on the lap of a questionable stranger as the pathway to recieving gifts is perverse.

On the contrary, devote Christians don't support such "worldly" alternatives of Christmas. That particular element is where you confused, or have been very misinformed.

Parsing what supposedly constitutes a "devout" Christian is a bit of a dodge don't you think?

Would it be fair to say that MOST Americans that claim to be Christians have no problem with the "Santa Claus" model?

You may well have a point but it is not yours to say mine means something other than what I stated it to be.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Personal commentator is what you'll usually find over researched facts

Which is exactly what you and AJ are doing.

When you have real evidence, do share it with us.

Snarkey, I always do [links] but you fucking clowns on da left are too stupid to realize it. I think it's the fear that has you guys all fucked up...

No thread about Christianity is complete without the F-bombs and inevitable name-calling...

Nice!

 

[ABikerSailor]

I'm still wondering why those who claim to have a lot are very much against those who have little or nothing.

I mean.........................weren't we shown (as said by Jesus) that so as you treat the least of those, so do you treat Me?

Those who tend to have a lot, tend very much to not share. Those who have a little tend to share a bit more.

Want an example? Compare that idiot known as Ted Cruz, or the other moron known as Rubio.

Got news for you evangelicals, they don't follow the teachings of Jesus, rather they follow the teachings of the monelenders.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

I'm still wondering why those who claim to have a lot are very much against those who have little or nothing.

I mean.........................weren't we shown (as said by Jesus) that so as you treat the least of those, so do you treat Me?

Those who tend to have a lot, tend very much to not share. Those who have a little tend to share a bit more.

Want an example? Compare that idiot known as Ted Cruz, or the other moron known as Rubio.

Got news for you evangelicals, they don't follow the teachings of Jesus, rather they follow the teachings of the monelenders.

... And Jesus spoke to the multitude, saying "Get a job you bunch of lazy commies!"

Republicans 9:14

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I'm still wondering why those who claim to have a lot are very much against those who have little or nothing.

I mean.........................weren't we shown (as said by Jesus) that so as you treat the least of those, so do you treat Me?

Those who tend to have a lot, tend very much to not share. Those who have a little tend to share a bit more.

Want an example? Compare that idiot known as Ted Cruz, or the other moron known as Rubio.

Got news for you evangelicals, they don't follow the teachings of Jesus, rather they follow the teachings of the monelenders.

The teachings of Jesus never instructed GOVERNMENT to take on the role of giving to those who are without, that was strictly the role of the "individual". Of course you are always welcome to cite for me biblical scripture that says otherwise (book, chapter, verse).

Now the multitudes of those who believed [Important "KEY" word here, as only believers were among the multitudes here] were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was their own, but they had all things in common.

Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, an brought the proceeds of the thing that were sold, and laid them at the apostles feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had a need.

ACTS 4:32 - 35

Interesting how those who "claim" we should have a separation of church and state, STILL look to Christians while perverting and twisting bible scripture to support their belief in redistribution of wealth.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm still wondering why those who claim to have a lot are very much against those who have little or nothing.

I mean.........................weren't we shown (as said by Jesus) that so as you treat the least of those, so do you treat Me?

Those who tend to have a lot, tend very much to not share. Those who have a little tend to share a bit more.

Want an example? Compare that idiot known as Ted Cruz, or the other moron known as Rubio.

Got news for you evangelicals, they don't follow the teachings of Jesus, rather they follow the teachings of the monelenders.

The teachings of Jesus never instructed GOVERNMENT to take on the role of giving to those who are without, that was strictly the role of the "individual". Of course you are always welcome to cite for me biblical scripture that says otherwise (book, chapter, verse).

Now the multitudes of those who believed [Important "KEY" word here, as only believers were among the multitudes here] were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was their own, but they had all things in common.

Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, an brought the proceeds of the thing that were sold, and laid them at the apostles feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had a need.

ACTS 4:32 - 35

Interesting how those who "claim" we should have a separation of church and state, STILL look to Christians while perverting and twisting bible scripture to support their belief in redistribution of wealth.

The Constitution affords Congress and the courts the authority to determine the role of government concerning public assistance, not a religious figure – whether such a figure ‘said’ anything about the subject or not is legally and thankfully irrelevant.

There is no ‘claim’ as to the Framers mandate with regard to separation of church and state, as it is indeed a fact of Constitutional case law. And as with a religious figure, so too is bible scripture legally and thankfully irrelevant concerning the role of government and those disadvantaged.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I'm still wondering why those who claim to have a lot are very much against those who have little or nothing.

I mean.........................weren't we shown (as said by Jesus) that so as you treat the least of those, so do you treat Me?

Those who tend to have a lot, tend very much to not share. Those who have a little tend to share a bit more.

Want an example? Compare that idiot known as Ted Cruz, or the other moron known as Rubio.

Got news for you evangelicals, they don't follow the teachings of Jesus, rather they follow the teachings of the monelenders.

The teachings of Jesus never instructed GOVERNMENT to take on the role of giving to those who are without, that was strictly the role of the "individual". Of course you are always welcome to cite for me biblical scripture that says otherwise (book, chapter, verse).

Now the multitudes of those who believed [Important "KEY" word here, as only believers were among the multitudes here] were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was their own, but they had all things in common.

Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, an brought the proceeds of the thing that were sold, and laid them at the apostles feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had a need.

ACTS 4:32 - 35

Interesting how those who "claim" we should have a separation of church and state, STILL look to Christians while perverting and twisting bible scripture to support their belief in redistribution of wealth.

The Constitution affords Congress and the courts the authority to determine the role of government concerning public assistance, not a religious figure – whether such a figure ‘said’ anything about the subject or not is legally and thankfully irrelevant.

There is no ‘claim’ as to the Framers mandate with regard to separation of church and state, as it is indeed a fact of Constitutional case law. And as with a religious figure, so too is bible scripture legally and thankfully irrelevant concerning the role of government and those disadvantaged.

Separation of Church and State was never a belief of the Founders as they believed in the encouraging support of religion NOT a freedom FROM religion. There is no historical fact to support this "claim" by the left, after all the First Amendment also says "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof". There is not list of exceptions cited under the First Amendment, and those who "claim" this Separation of Church and State are ignorant of our Founders position in American history with respect to religion.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The teachings of Jesus never instructed GOVERNMENT to take on the role of giving to those who are without, that was strictly the role of the "individual". Of course you are always welcome to cite for me biblical scripture that says otherwise (book, chapter, verse).



Interesting how those who "claim" we should have a separation of church and state, STILL look to Christians while perverting and twisting bible scripture to support their belief in redistribution of wealth.

The Constitution affords Congress and the courts the authority to determine the role of government concerning public assistance, not a religious figure – whether such a figure ‘said’ anything about the subject or not is legally and thankfully irrelevant.

There is no ‘claim’ as to the Framers mandate with regard to separation of church and state, as it is indeed a fact of Constitutional case law. And as with a religious figure, so too is bible scripture legally and thankfully irrelevant concerning the role of government and those disadvantaged.

Separation of Church and State was never a belief of the Founders as they believed in the encouraging support of religion NOT a freedom FROM religion. There is no historical fact to support this "claim" by the left, after all the First Amendment also says "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof". There is not list of exceptions cited under the First Amendment, and those who "claim" this Separation of Church and State are ignorant of our Founders position in American history with respect to religion.

Thomas Jefferson was quite clear in his views of separation of church and State.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The Constitution affords Congress and the courts the authority to determine the role of government concerning public assistance, not a religious figure – whether such a figure ‘said’ anything about the subject or not is legally and thankfully irrelevant.

There is no ‘claim’ as to the Framers mandate with regard to separation of church and state, as it is indeed a fact of Constitutional case law. And as with a religious figure, so too is bible scripture legally and thankfully irrelevant concerning the role of government and those disadvasntaged.

Separation of Church and State was never a belief of the Founders as they believed in the encouraging support of religion NOT a freedom FROM religion. There is no historical fact to support this "claim" by the left, after all the First Amendment also says "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof". There is not list of exceptions cited under the First Amendment, and those who "claim" this Separation of Church and State are ignorant of our Founders position in American history with respect to religion.

Thomas Jefferson was quite clear in his views of separation of church and State.

Those familiar with his quote in its "proper context", know of the concerns of a minister having the freedom to follow his faith. You have to know about the history of this country surrounding the founders and their concerns of government dictating and strangling freedoms of other religious denominations, with their ability to follow their beliefs.

 

[Political Junky]

Separation of Church and State was never a belief of the Founders as they believed in the encouraging support of religion NOT a freedom FROM religion. There is no historical fact to support this "claim" by the left, after all the First Amendment also says "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof". There is not list of exceptions cited under the First Amendment, and those who "claim" this Separation of Church and State are ignorant of our Founders position in American history with respect to religion.

Thomas Jefferson was quite clear in his views of separation of church and State.

Those familiar with his quote in its "proper context", know of the concerns of a minister having the freedom to follow his faith. You have to know about the history of this country surrounding the founders and their concerns of government dictating and strangling freedoms of other religious denominations, with their ability to follow their beliefs.

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
<
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God."
Thomas Jefferson

 

[American_Jihad]

Which is exactly what you and AJ are doing.

When you have real evidence, do share it with us.

Snarkey, I always do [links] but you fucking clowns on da left are too stupid to realize it. I think it's the fear that has you guys all fucked up...

No thread about Christianity is complete without the F-bombs and inevitable name-calling...

Nice!

Salunsky rule # 5 and I enjoy #6...

 

[American_Jihad]

If You Like Your God, You Can Keep Him

Wednesday, November 6, 2013


On Nov. 1, the Gilardi brothers, devout Roman Catholics who operate their own fresh produce business in Ohio, won round two in a battle against the White House. The Obama administration tried to claim that freedom of religion means freedom to pray, not necessarily to practice your beliefs. Once you leave church, you have to obey government regulations, even when they conflict with your faith.

...


However, the Obama administration requires all health plans to provide them. On Jan. 2, 2013, the Gilardi brothers sued in federal court, asking for temporary protection from the $14 million annual penalty they would face for not complying. A lower federal court turned down the Gilardi brothers, but last Friday, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia granted their request.


Post Continues on Human Events - Conservative News, Views & Books

Read more at If You Like Your God, You Can Keep Him - Patriot UpdatePatriot Update

 

[American_Jihad]

Bill O'Reilly: The war on Christmas centralizes

Published December 02, 2013
O'Reilly Factor | Bill O'Reilly

Well, over the years we've taken on the role of protecting the federal holiday of Christmas. As you know, there are some Americans who are offended by any reference to Jesus Christ and that's what the USA celebrates on December 25th, the birth of the baby Jesus. President Grant signed the holiday into law after Congress passed legislation in 1870 acknowledging the country's Judeo-Christian tradition.

And so Americans officially got the day off from work. Everything was swell up until about ten years ago when creeping secularism and pressure groups like the ACLU began attacking the Christmas holiday. They demanded, demanded the word "Christmas" be removed from advertising and public displays and many people caved in to that. So now we have the happy holiday syndrome.

What is interesting this year is that Hanukkah will be over on Thursday. So there are no more holidays between then and Christmas Day it's just Christmas if you want to invoke happy. Bad news for the secular progressives.

...

So once again this year, I will keep an eye on the situation. Helping me is the Alliance Defending Freedom Organization based in Scottsdale, Arizona. They have been very successful in defending traditional rights in the courts. Therefore I say to them God bless you, each and every one, with apologies to Dickens.

And that's "The Memo."

Bill O'Reilly: The war on Christmas centralizes | Talking Points | The O'Reilly Factor | Fox News

 

[JakeStarkey]

Happy Holidays, A_J, and a Merry Christmas.

 

[candycorn]

 

[Vandalshandle]

Happy Holidays to all my Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, and athiest friends! Any may the Christians maintain the materialistic Chrismas tradition that drives the retailing industry of this country to a tidy profit each year, which is, of course, the true spirit of the season!

 

[Iceman]

More like a Jewish war on Christmas. Almost all these Atheists are Jewish.

 

[Pogo]

Bill O'Reilly: The war on Christmas centralizes

Published December 02, 2013
O'Reilly Factor | Bill O'Reilly

Well, over the years we've taken on the role of protecting the federal holiday of Christmas. As you know, there are some Americans who are offended by any reference to Jesus Christ and that's what the USA celebrates on December 25th, the birth of the baby Jesus. President Grant signed the holiday into law after Congress passed legislation in 1870 acknowledging the country's Judeo-Christian tradition.

And so Americans officially got the day off from work. Everything was swell up until about ten years ago when creeping secularism and pressure groups like the ACLU began attacking the Christmas holiday. They demanded, demanded the word "Christmas" be removed from advertising and public displays and many people caved in to that. So now we have the happy holiday syndrome.

What is interesting this year is that Hanukkah will be over on Thursday. So there are no more holidays between then and Christmas Day it's just Christmas if you want to invoke happy. Bad news for the secular progressives.

...

So once again this year, I will keep an eye on the situation. Helping me is the Alliance Defending Freedom Organization based in Scottsdale, Arizona. They have been very successful in defending traditional rights in the courts. Therefore I say to them God bless you, each and every one, with apologies to Dickens.

And that's "The Memo."

Bill O'Reilly: The war on Christmas centralizes | Talking Points | The O'Reilly Factor | Fox News

Good job on the war on Thanksgiving there, BillO. Coulda heard a pin drop.

Damn hypocrite.