Christ-ianity Under Attack at Christ-mas

By Bob Ellis on October 8th, 2009

ScreenHunter_01 Oct. 07 19.28In the updated God-hating, anti-Christian secularist Amerika, can you see yourself in a couple of months gathering around to sing, “Oh unspecified holiday tree, oh unspecified holiday tree…” or do you plan to live dangerously and sing, “Oh Christmas tree, oh Christmas tree…”?

Every Christmas season for the past several years, America–the country where more than 80% of the people say they are Christians–sees fresh fronts in the ongoing War on Christmas…and the overall War on America’s Christian Heritage.

Given the current president’s hostility toward Christianity along with the hostility of those calling the shots in Congress, it’s a virtual certainty the War on Christmas will step up a few notches in 2009.

Stuart Shepard’s Stoplight video below talks about a case in Arizona where students were invited to make ornaments for Arizona’s Capitol Christmas Tree…only they were instructed to stick to nonreligious ornaments for this tree commemorating the birth of the Son of God and Savior who also founded the Christian religion.

Fortunately the laywers at the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) was on the job and provided these historically and factually challenged officials with some edumakation on our First Amendment freedom of religious expression in America. Then officials got with the program.

Half the battle in being able to exercise your freedom of religious expression in this nation founded by Christians on Christian principles is just knowing what your rights are (and some knowledge of history helps, too).

That’s not easy in a culture where those entrusted with the education of our youth are too often abysmally ignorant or are hostile themselves.

So be sure to educate yourself about America’s Christian heritage and your constitutional rights. Don’t let anyone take away your God-given freedoms. They’re far too precious.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: Commentary, Video
Tags: , , , ,

  • Brian Rutledge
    I think that Christianity is under attack for many reasons and that those who want Christmas erased from the public square are failng to see American heritage. But the strict literalists who claim that the findings of a fossil of a creature like Ardi is just another ape and not at least willing to research and learn about it, are seen as narrow minded.

    Ardi had a small brain, hands similiar to an ape except for human like thumbs, opposable big toe but with ankle bones like a human and a pelvis that reveals it was bipedal, unlike any ape known today.That means that from the literalist viewpoint that this creature walked into the Ark, fully upright, like people, with long arms like an ape, but human like bones as well. How can Christians claim to know that God didn't create a half ape and half man creature that went extinct like 99%
    of all other creatures God created.
  • Christians can claim to know that because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of it, either in the Bible or found in science. Conjecture doesn't count as evidence, either, and that is all that is available regarding fossils such as Ardi.

    God did make it clear that humans are unique among all the creatures on the earth, the only ones created sentient, the only ones created in his image. In order to be considered "man" it has to be intelligent, self-aware, with a conscience and an eternal soul. In all the Bible only one creature on earth fits this bill: humans.
  • Brian Rutledge
    I understand what you are saying, but Ardi has definite bony features of both man and ape.My question would simply be is that how can we be certain that there wasnt an half man half ape that did have self awareness etc, but due to the fallen world went extinct
  • Ardi has some features like humans; anything beyond that is assumption.

    And from a Christian perspective, we can be certain this creature was not "half man" because there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the Bible to lead us to believe such a creature might exist, and everything to indicate that no such creature ever did exist. Pure conjecture, zero evidence.
  • Brian Rutledge
    The Bible didn't mention a lot of animals that we know exist. I don't see why an living life that had features of both man and ape could not have existed as well from a Christian viewpoint.We do have skeletons of such things
  • As I said before, humans are unique in all of creation. Apes may be human-like, but they aren't human at all.
  • Brian Rutledge
    I agree that modern apes are human like, but are not human at all. But the fossil of Ardi does have both definite features of man and ape, which the modern ape doesn't have at all. So, sometimes in the past there was a living being that had features more common to man and ape than todays apes are to man. God did indeed create man separate from the other animals, but why couldn't He have created a living being halfway in between man and ape as well
  • God could have done any number of things. But based on what we know through the Bible, there are certain things which have no support whatsoever, and still others that are highly unlikely due to the implications.

    It's possible that there was indeed at one time (prior to the global Flood, or even for a time after the global Flood) an ape creature that was even more similar to man in physical appearance than any currently existing primate.

    But when you get into the territory of saying something is "half man," you enter an area of implications that are not likely to be supported by the Bible at all. As I've said before, God made it clear that humans are unique among all living organisms--unique in our intelligence, self-awareness, our conscience, and our eternal soul. We alone are created in God's image, created to be like Him in these qualities. Any organism which might be said to be "half man" in more than the sense of general physical appearance (i.e. something possessing man's intelligence, self-awareness, conscience, etc.) simply has no support whatsoever in Scripture, and would be contrary what God tells us about history, man's uniqueness and man's place in creation.

    "Could have" can be and often is a long way from anything to support moving beyond pure conjecture.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Scripture doesn't talk about bacteria either, which are alive but have no brain, nor does does it talk about the highly developed brain of a great ape. Why could there not have been been a creature with SOME of man's intelligence, self-awareness and consciousness that wasn't totally man.

    You call it conjecture, but it could have existed because scripture didn't mention all of God's creations.Does the fact that scripture doesn't mention a " half-conscience, partly self-aware" being mean it didn't exist ? Scripture didn't mention many beasts, with varying capacities, and we know they existed
  • Apparently I haven't made myself clear yet. If another organism on this planet had even some of man's intelligence and self-awareness, and a conscience (which is a kind of "moral hotline" to God and his moral standard), that is of such importance and impact to all that we know of God's plans for humanity that He would have told us at least something about it.

    But there is nothing, not even a hint of such a thing.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Understand, but many animals show behavior today that has the appearance of morality. Sharing and caring for the other members of the group are but just a few examples.

    Could not God give them a degree of moral conscience to know some basic rights and wrongs without telling man about it or without these animals being aware that God bestoyed this ablitiy on them..Sort of like a one year old child who learns right from wrong, before it can understand the concept of God. We certainly don't know all of God's thoughts or motives.

    The idea that some animals have a basic, God given ability to choose right from wrong, doesn't negate Christianity to me
  • It's not a matter of "negating" Christianity; simply that the idea is totally unsupported from the perspective of what we're told about both animals and humans.

    I suppose you could argue that a mother animal's care for its young is a type of morality, and similar examples.

    However, I think that is more attributable to instinct rather than a clear moral choice.

    For instance, we as humans know through our consciences that murdering another human being is wrong. Animals, on the other hand, don't think (or weigh morally) twice about killing a human being they see as lunch. And they don't agonize over it in the slightest even after the last burp.

    Humans, on the other hand, have a moral awareness that tells them this wrong. That conscience can be ignored, beaten down, and subdued to the point that it provides minimal interference with a choice to murder and perhaps even murder repeatedly (serial killers are an illustration), but deep down they still realize it's wrong. They also pay a mental and emotional price for beating down their conscience and for committing the moral wrong. Animals, on the other hand, aren't bothered in the slightest by killing a human being they see as tasty.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Every year, the White House essentially shuts down for five days while the Christmas decorations and the great tree are put in place.Four permanent staff members oversee the project while about 25 public volunteers actually do the work. It is a rich tradition that my wife and I were able to be a part of for 6 of the 8 years of President Bush's tenure.My wife is best friends with Laura Bush's interiror decorator, so we were chosen as two of the volunteers.

    It was a great honor, but every year I noticed the decorations became more and more secular, at Mrs. Bush's discretion. Now that the Supreme Court is hearing arguments on the Mojave National Preserve 'Cross Case', I have given it more thought.The cross was put up in 1934,on government land, by the Veterans of Foreign Wars' Death Valley Camp, with a plaque that read 'In Memory of the Dead of All Wars'.

    The cross is THE symbol of the entire message of Christianity. It will not be found in one Jewish Cemetary. I thought about the young Jewish soldier in the putrid trenches of WWI, fighting for our country, who raised his head a little too high and got a bullet in his brain. How does this cross honor him when he rejects everything it stands for ? He, and his beliefs, is the one who died, so how could he feel honored by a symbol that he has no belief in whatsoever and rejects as falsehood. Maybe we should let him weigh in on the matter.

    After all, he is the one who died for us.
  • Must we erase the tribute to the soldiers who were Christians (who, even by today's ratio, made up more than 80% of the total) to honor the soldiers who were Jewish? Is it an attitude of "If I can't...then nobody..."? As absurd and childish such an attitude would be, I doubt very seriously that anyone would object to Jewish people erecting a Star of David to honor Jewish soldiers.

    But even Jewish Americans should be able to find encouragement and honor in this object of memorial. There is no country in the world (outside of Israel) that has been a more welcoming home to the Jewish people, and no nation on earth that has been a greater friend to the Jewish people and the reborn nation of Israel than the United States--a nation founded by Christians on Christian principles...principles that include a tolerance for another person's right to worship as their conscience dictates, even if the majority doesn't share that belief.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Of course, it doesn't matter in the least if 1% or 99% of the soldiers were of a particlur faith.It's not a percentage that makes something right or wrong.Suppose the shoe were on the other foot and Jews gained the majority in America and there were many public displays, on government land, of The star of David and not once the cross was publicly displayed. I have to wonder if the Christians would still be as magnanimous and say
    they welcome as many Star of Davids on public land that the Jewish people want to put up.

    My feeling is that Christians don't mind 'a few' Star of Davids or whatever erected, as long as it is not 'overdone'. I think the Christian then might start thinking that since all these 'Star of Davids' are displayed all over on government land, could the government possibly be showing a preference ? The government may not be and it's true that the Christians could erect some of their own, but the appearance of government preference still exists unless all are represented equally or none at all are.
  • You act like it's so incredibly strange that in a nation where more than 80% of the people are Christian that they might want to sometimes display their faith publicly.

    Which, incidentally, is their First Amendment Constitutionally-protected right.

    Nowhere in, around, or near this monument is there the slightest hint of "congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion"...but the courts--acting illegally as legislators--are most definitely "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
  • Brian Rutledge
    Just find it strange that Christians would just assume that a Jewish soldier, who got mutilated or killed in a war, would feel honored by a symbol that represents a religion that they have absolutely no belief in.

    How can the Christian claim to even understand what a Jewish solder might or might not consider an honor, especially if it is presented in a religious setting. It is that 'assumptionof knowing' what another person of a different religion,might or should feel that is bothersome. I wouldn't call it arrogance, but more of a blindness or unawareness of others deeply held beliefs
  • Without diminishing in the slightest any of the other reasons I gave why there is absolutely nothing wrong with this memorial, I think it's safe to consider that many Jews could take comfort even in this Christian symbol for the reason(s) I gave.

    And I didn't just make them up. I have read and heard the testimony of several Jews who recognize the very things I said--that this Christian nation has been the kindest home to the Jewish people in all the world, and has been the best friend to Israel in all the world. And they are thankful and appreciative of that manifestation of the Christian philosophy, even if they don't share our believe that Yeshua was the Messiah.

    What's more, the reverse is often also true. I look at the Star of David and other Jewish icons with great appreciation and fondness, for my faith came out of the legacy of that faith. I owe my salvation, all that I am and all that I understand, to the legacy of the Jewish people and the Jewish faith.

    In America, we all have the freedom--first by God and guaranteed by the Constitution--to express our religious faith both privately and publicly. And though our nation was founded almost entirely by Christians and on Christian principles, monuments from other faiths that share in our history and heritage are also welcome where the people of those faiths want to participate in such commemorations: the Holocaust Museum in D.C., the Jewish museum in Berkley, the monument to the first Jewish services in San Francisco in 1849, or the Haym Solomon monument with the Star of David in Queens, and so on.

    Because one group has something and another does not doesn't mean no one should. Perhaps it means the one who does not have a meaningful expression of their faith in the public square needs to step forward to see that one does get placed.
  • Brian Rutledge
    I guess it all depends on who you get your information from. My Jewish friends remind me that the government of the United States opened its arms to people of all beliefs and faiths. I do not believe the Jewish immigrants felt beholden to Christians for opening their arms to them. They felt that way about the government , but not the Christian religion.You may feel that Judaism is part of Christianity's legacy, which is true, but the Jewish people don't feel that Christianity is in any way a legacy to their beliefs. They reject Christian beliefs

    As a matter of fact, anti-Semitism by the Christian community was severe and rampant until fairly recently.You rightly feel that you owe your salvation and all that you are to Judaism, but the Jewish faith itself feels it owes nothing to Christianiy. They respect your right to believe as you do.

    This idea by Christians that they are so benevalent as to have let Jewish people come here and worship, but then they should also feel honored that a cross is erected in commemoration of the Jews who died for America, is simply seeing things from a one way mirror. The Jewish man who died in the trenches did so fighting for America and not Christians.

    They have earned their keep so to speak and it is up to them to decide who they should feel honored by. It's not up to Christians to assume the Jewish men who died in war should feel honored by a cross.
  • I don't know where you've obtained this idea that the Jewish people are so stand-offish toward Christians and Christianity, but after all I've said I'm reasonably sure I won't manage to dissuade you. I know for a fact that some Jews (usually the liberal ones who aren't exactly keen on the teachings of their own Torah) are pretty cool to Christians. But I also know and know of many Jews who are very friendly and agreeable to Christians, Christianity and the friendship of Christianity. Of the more notable ones, I would count Michael Medved, Dennis Prager and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in that number.

    Still, I'm sure there are some Jews who would rather dwell on the ignorance of a few idiot anti semites, and that's there prerogative I guess, but it's a shame.
  • Brian Rutledge
    I personally do not feel that the permanent religious displays on government land should be removed, but also feel that no more should be added. It is not that the Jewish people in the U.S.are not appreciative of the freedoms and support in this country and their acceptance by its' people( no matter what their religion is).

    But my Jewish friends, who are definitely on the conservative side of their faith, truthfully point out that the cross symbolizes a belief that says if you don't accept Jesus as the son of God,that you, your family and your Jewish friends, and your relatives who died in our wars, will burn eternally in hell.

    How could they feel honored or how could those who put up such a memorial think the Jewish people should feel honored by a symbol that in its core belief, condemns them to hell.

    Bob, would you not think I was way out of touch if I told you that I was putting up a symbol on government land for all to see,in honor of your relatives who have died in war, but by the way, I also believe they are all now in hell.
  • That "burning in hell" part goes for Gentiles as well as Jews; anyone who rejects God will be eternally separated from him in Hell, just as anyone who embraces God--Jew or Gentile--will be with Him forever.

    Frankly I believe you're "out of touch" for seeing the cross and the good news of Christ as a hostile message of condemnation instead of the message of hope and God's love that it is. Your statement simply sounds like a distortion of a message you find distasteful.
  • Brian Rutledge
    You may be right on the last sentence. Will do some reflection
  • Brian Rutledge
    Bob If you haven't already, YouTube " Dragnet-The Obama Lecture" Think you'll enjoy. I did
  • Thanks, I already saw it a couple of days ago and meant to put it up, but have been too busy. It's a hoot...as well as being full of important truths.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »