Saturday, December 26, 2015 10:43:46 PM
It's Time for a War on the War on the "War on Christmas"
By Mitchell Bard
Posted: 12/22/2008 5:12 am EST Updated: 05/25/2011 12:55 pm EDT
After enduring eight years of a president who was determined to impose his religious beliefs on the country, I've just about had it with people trying to shove religion down my throat. Maybe that is why I have no patience for the (completely ludicrous) claim that there is a "War on Christmas," made by right-wingers like Bill O'Reilly [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/06/oreillys-war-on-christmas_n_141896.html ]. But what put me over the top is that now a deputy editor of the once reputable Wall Street Journal has weighed in on the issue, actually equating the current economic crisis with the fact that people say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."
Daniel Henninger wrote in the WSJ [ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122714101083742715.html ] yesterday:
"This year we celebrate the desacralized 'holidays' amid what is for many unprecedented economic ruin -- fortunes halved, jobs lost, homes foreclosed. People wonder, What happened? One man's theory: A nation whose people can't say 'Merry Christmas' is a nation capable of ruining its own economy."
Henninger's point is that the economic downturn was caused by "borrowers, lenders and securitizer shamans" who were "operating in a zero-gravity environment, aloft on moral hazard," which was due to a loss of "responsibility, restraint and remorse." He goes on to say that "responsibility and restraint are moral sentiments," and that "the steady secularizing and insistent effort at dereligioning America has been dangerous." He claims that the "disappearance of 'Merry Christmas'" is indicative of this "dereligioning." Thus, the link between not saying "Merry Christmas" and the failing economy.
Convinced? Me neither.
Somehow, people like Henninger and O'Reilly think it's important that people say "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays." But what Henninger and O'Reilly don't seem to want to understand is that the United States of America, as much as they would like it to be otherwise, is not a Christian nation. The majority of its citizens may currently be Christian, but, again, that does not make the country, as an institution, Christian.
(Full disclosure: I am a nonreligious Jew, so the "War on Christmas" crowd will, no doubt, dismiss all of my opinions.)
The last time I checked, the First Amendment was still in full force and effect. As a reminder, it says [ http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/ ]:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
You will notice in the very first words of the Bill of Rights that the founders made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that there was to be no one religion "established" for the country. The First Amendment makes clear that everyone should be allowed to practice his/her religious faiths ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), but that no one faith was to be elevated above the others by the government. Being Christian does not make one more American.
And yet that is exactly what the O'Reillys and Hennigers of the world seem to want. I'm sorry to report this fact to them, but not everyone in this country celebrates Christmas. According to a Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life study [ http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations ] from earlier this year, 1.7 percent of the population identified themselves as Jewish, 0.6 percent as Muslim, 0.7 percent as Buddhist, 0.4 percent as Hindu, 0.7 percent as Jehovah's Witness, and more than 0.2 percent as from "other world religions." On top of that, according to the Pew study, more than 16 percent of Americans do not consider themselves any religion.
All of that translates into millions of people who do not celebrate Christmas. Do O'Reilly and Henninger think that these people should be made to feel "other," outsiders in the American experience? I hope not. That is not what America is about. Many of the founders of the country moved here to flee religious persecution. They just wanted to be free to practice their own religion here. And that doesn't mean that only they get to do so.
This country has some tragic history when it comes to its treatment of minorities. We enslaved African Americans as recently as 145 years ago, and we had laws on the books repressing them until quite recently. It was only 65 years ago that we rounded up American citizens who just happened to be of Japanese descent and placed them into internment camps solely because of their country of origin. And it was only two weeks ago that three states voted to amend their constitutions to ensure that homosexuals cannot enjoy the same marriage rights as heterosexuals.
In light of that history, it seems to me that we, as a nation, should be looking at more ways to come together and make everyone feel a part of the American family, not stressing our differences and making those in the minority feel as though they are not true Americans. And through the simple act of saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," we, as a country, can show our tolerance for other faiths and make everyone feel a part of the holiday season.
If nothing else, doesn't it come down to simple manners? Why would you want to say "Merry Christmas" to someone that doesn't celebrate the holiday? Clearly, such a greeting is only going to make the recipient uncomfortable, pointing out that he/she does not practice the same religion that the majority of the country does. Meanwhile, the dreaded "Happy Holidays" invocation is actually inclusive and polite, saying, in effect, "There are a lot of holidays this time of year, so if any of them apply to you, we hope it's a nice time for you." Isn't such a tolerant attitude more in keeping with what the United States is supposed to represent?
Of course, nothing I've said would stop those who observe Christmas from going to church, decorating their houses (inside and out) and celebrating with their families and friends. And certainly, saying "Happy Holidays" in public venues doesn't stop two people from greeting each other with "Merry Christmas" when they both observe the holiday. My only point is that in public displays, when not all of the recipients will be Christian, there is nothing wrong with using the more inclusive "Happy Holidays." That idea hardly constitutes a "War on Christmas."
There is also a dangerous, insidious strain to the movement complaining of a "War on Christmas." Go back to Henninger's words in the WSJ. He says that "the steady secularizing and insistent effort at dereligioning America has been dangerous." I refuse to accept that the immorality of finance professionals is due to a lack of religious piety. The implication is that without religion, there can be no morals or ethics. I, and I'm sure many others out there, absolutely reject such an assumption. Moral behavior does not have to come from the teachings of a religion. An atheist is every bit as capable of drawing on his/her beliefs to lead an ethical life as a religious person.
And by turning to an argument about Christmas, Henninger is also implying that it's not enough to be religious, you have to be an adherent of his religion. That is certainly a dangerous idea, and it is also completely sanctimonious, given the myriad scandals that have enveloped U.S. churches in recent years. Being religious didn't stop, for example, priests from molesting boys (and the church covering it up), nor did it prevent Rev. Ted Haggard, the founder of the New Life Church, from getting caught buying crystal meth and patronizing a male prostitute (after crusading against homosexuals).
I would further argue that the injection of religion into politics has not produced the kind of moral and ethical behavior Henninger longs for. It seems to me that the emergence of an argument that if you oppose the Republican party and support the Democrats, you are somehow not righteous in the eyes of the church, is a pretty dangerous way of thinking. I don't think it's helpful that a South Carolina priest would tell his parishioners that they should not accept Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama [ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27705755/ ]. And I don't think the national interest is served by actions like the recently deposed Republican North Carolina U.S. House of Representatives member Robin Hayes saying during the campaign [ http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-now/2008/10/gop-rep-liberals-hate-real-americans-that-work-and-accomplish-and-achieve-and-believe-in-god-updated-with-audio-013323 ] that "liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God."
Clearly, I'm not making the argument that all religious people are bad. (Sorry, but I can't help but anticipate the potential "he is criticizing religion!" charge of those who believe there is a "War on Christmas.") What I am saying is that there is nothing in being religious that makes someone inherently more moral and ethical than someone who is not religious.
So you'll forgive me if I don't buy into the Henniger/O'Reilly view of America. I see this country as a place in which we respect the religious beliefs of all of our citizens, and, more importantly, we would not seek to impose our faiths on our neighbors. And yes, I would like to see a country where we don't seek to make non-Christian citizens feel like they are not part of the national fabric by pointing out to them, again and again, that they are different than a majority.
Or, put another way, I want to live in a tolerant, respectful country that says "Happy Holidays," rather than a divisive nation that seeks to make people uncomfortable by saying "Merry Christmas." Isn't that what "peace on earth, good will toward man" entails? There is no war on Christmas. We only ask that those who celebrate the holiday not insist that those who don't celebrate with them. Actually, that statement of my belief is my declaration of war on the war on the "War on Christmas."
Happy holidays everyone.
Copyright ©2008, 2011 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-bard/its-time-for-a-war-on-war_b_145588.html
--
Texas Official 'Just Might Slap' Next Person Who Says 'Happy Holidays'
"Either tell me Merry Christmas or just don't say anything."
By Ed Mazza
12/18/2015 02:36 am ET
An elected official in Texas is threatening to slap anyone who wishes him "happy holidays" this year.
Republican Sid Miller, the state's agriculture commissioner, said on Facebook that people must say "Merry Christmas" to him or nothing at all.
"If one more person says Happy Holidays to me I just might slap them [ https://www.facebook.com/MillerForTexas/photos/a.1430872243801609.1073741828.1427314137490753/1773274972894666 ]," Miller wrote. "Either tell me Merry Christmas or just don't say anything."
He included a picture of a cowboy and a pharmacy with a religious sign:
December 16 at 6:54am
If one more person says Happy Holidays to me I just might slap them. Either tell me Merry Christmas or just don't say anything.
This being the Internet, many immediately replied to Miller by wishing him "happy holidays," both in response to that post as well as others on his page [ https://www.facebook.com/MillerForTexas/photos/a.1430872243801609.1073741828.1427314137490753/1773440209544809 ].
Even the state's Democratic Party got in on the act, replying with a GIF that it says was deleted from Miller's Facebook page. The organization posted it again, this time on Twitter [ https://twitter.com/TXDemParty/status/677554452556066816 ].
Miller replied to several commenters, in some cases wishing people a Merry Christmas.
When someone asked if he had ever heard of First Amendment rights, Miller replied: "I am quite fond of it. I also like the 2nd [ https://www.facebook.com/MillerForTexas/photos/a.1430872243801609.1073741828.1427314137490753/1773841752837988/?type=3&comment_id=1773847446170752&reply_comment_id=1773863332835830&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D ]. How about you?"
Miller has a history of making controversial comments, with the Houston Chronicle pointing out that he has compared Syrians to rattlesnakes [ http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Texas-threatens-resettlement-agency-over-Syrian-6664949.php ] and suggested dropping an atomic bomb on "the Muslim world [ http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/Ag-Commissioner-warns-Muslims-of-U-S-s-atomic-6448594.php ]," although a spokesperson later said the A-bomb post was made by a staffer and without Miller's knowledge.
Despite these controversial views, Miller handily won election in 2014 with 58 percent of the vote [ https://ballotpedia.org/Sid_Miller ], according to Ballotpedia.
(h/t Raw Story [ http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/seasons-beatings-texas-gop-official-threatens-to-slap-next-person-who-wishes-him-happy-holidays/ ])
Copyright © 2015 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sid-miller-happy-holidays-slap_5673a865e4b06fa6887ce190 [with comments], http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28khv-BydeY [with comments]
--
The Real Attack on the Spirit of Christmas -- 2015
By Robert Creamer
Posted: 12/25/2015 7:58 am EST Updated: 12/25/2015 5:59 pm EST
Once again it's Christmas. Time for Fox News and the entire rightwing chorus to recite their patently absurd allegation that Progressives have launched a "War on Christmas".
Never mind that the White House is bursting at the seams with Christmas decorations and Christmas music surrounds us.
This year the big Right Wing data point was the startling discovery that Starbucks would toss aside that "deeply-held" Christmas tradition of putting snow flakes on their cups during the holiday season - and had opted instead for using the "Christmas colors" of red and green. Of course, last I looked, snowflakes were not a "sacred" symbol of the season - but to some Right Wing commentators, it represents an attack on Christmas nonetheless.
There is no "War on Christmas." But there is a war on the spirit of Christmas -- and it is coming squarely from the American Right. That has been true for many years -- but this year the Right Wing war on the spirit of Christmas has gone into overdrive.
The spirit of Christmas - and of Christianity - is summed up in the declaration of the Angels to the shepherds on the hills overlooking Bethlehem: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."
Bigotry, demonization of immigrants, xenophobia, militarism -- the hatred toward Muslims, the appeals to selfishness and the "survival of the fittest" ethics that spew from the mouths of GOP candidates for president -- none of that is remotely connected in any way to the sprit of Christmas. In fact, they are its opposite.
At this time of year, people who care about Christmas are asking, "What would a guy like Jesus do today?"
Would he demand that America turn its back on refugees from war and torture and death?
Would he tell us we should prevent all Muslims from entering our country?
Would he support action to allow the wealthiest sliver of our society to get richer and richer and siphon off every bit of new wealth that our economy creates for themselves? This, after all, was the guy who threw the money changers out of the temple.
Next time you listen to a Donald Trump diatribe, try and imagine if his remarks reflect the spirit you might hear from someone like Jesus.
Of course, the leaders of the real war on the spirit of Christmas not only include people like Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. They also include people like the new golden boy of Republican politics, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.
A few years ago Paul Ryan said that the favorite Right Wing author: "Ayn Rand, more than anyone else, did a fantastic job explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism... If Ayn Rand were here today, I think she would do a great job in showing us just how wrong what government is doing, is."
Who was Ayn Rand? In 1959, reporter Mike Wallace interviewed Rand.
Wallace: "Christ, and every other important moral leader in man's history, has taught us that we should love one another. Why then is this kind of love, in your mind, immoral?"
Rand responds, "It is immoral if it is placed above one's own self."
Wallace: "And then if a man is weak or a woman is weak then she or he is beyond love?"
Rand: "He certainly does not deserve -- he certainly is beyond."
Wallace: "There are very few of us that would, by your standards... that are worthy of love -- is that your view?"
Rand: "Unfortunately yes -- very few."
Wallace: "You are out to destroy almost every edifice in contemporary American life -- our Judeo-Christian religion, our modified government-regulated capitalism, rule by the majority will. Other reviewers say that you scorn churches and the concept of God -- are they accurate criticisms?"
Rand responds, "yes."
That is a fair description of the ethical system underlying the Right Wing philosophy in America today - and that is a direct attack on the Spirit of Christmas.
The New Testament relates the quintessential Christian understanding of ethics in the 10th chapter of the book of Luke in the parable of the Good Samaritan:
On one occasion, an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"What is written in the law?" He replied. "How do you read it?"
He answered: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and, love your neighbor as yourself."
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "and who is my neighbor?"
In reply, Jesus said:
"A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. "Look after him," he said, "and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have."
"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"
The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."
Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."
In the material, social world, the cornerstone of Christian ethics is "love thy neighbor as thyself." That simple statement, and the story of the Good Samaritan that followed, makes it clear that the central goal of ethical behavior should be assuring that all human beings flourish. In the Christian tradition, one should seek to satisfy the same basic self-interests and needs for all human beings that we would wish to see fulfilled for ourselves.
The universality implied by the parable of the Good Samaritan is central to the progressive ethical system. Samaritans and Levites were not close at the time. Yet the disliked Samaritan was the true neighbor. The story was intended to drive home the universality of the fundamental ethical premise -- "love thy neighbor as thyself."
"And who is my neighbor?" asked the expert on the law. "Everyone," Jesus replied.
The importance of the principle of universality has to be understood in the context of human development. For millions of years, "everyone" was not the answer that most humans would have given to this question. For bands of hunter-gatherers, or tribes of later human societies, the answer was "another member of our kinship group or band -- or another member of our tribe."
Jared Diamond's study of human development, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, points out that the first question for a typical member of one band of hunter-gatherers when he encountered a member of another band, was why he should not kill them on the spot.
The universality of the ethical demand to "love thy neighbor as thyself" is a very recent development in human evolution. It has emerged only over the last several thousand years of our approximately seven million years of evolutionary history. Previously, most behavior involving moral content pertained only to members of our own band, tribe or ethnic group.
The principle that one should "love they neighbor as thyself" is the direct opposite of the kind of right wing philosophy embodied by Ayn Rand and her disciple, Paul Ryan - and by people like Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.
But the "love yourself above all" philosophy of Rand and Ryan not only represents a direct attack, as Rand understood, on the core message of Christianity (and therefore Christmas). It is also dangerous to the potential survival of humanity.
A few years ago I read a book by a planetary scientist named David Grinspoon called Lonely Planets. It explores the question of extraterrestrial life.
Toward the end of his book, Grinspoon speculates on the chances of survival for intelligent life in the universe. He argues that every civilization of intelligent creatures must pass through a gauntlet that tests whether the values and political structures of the society are capable of keeping pace with the exponentially increasing power of the society's technology. If its values and political structures can keep pace with technological change, the society may pass into a phase of enormous freedom and possibility. If it does not, the power of its own technology will destroy it. Perhaps, he postulates, civilizations are like seahorses. Many are born, but only a few survive.
For the first time, a little more than half a century ago, human society entered that gauntlet. Our technological growth reached a point of takeoff that for the first time gave us the power to destroy ourselves and all life on our tiny, fragile planet. From that moment on, the race began.
The next several generations of humans will decide how that race turns out. We won't simply observe it, or describe it; we will decide it. Whatever the future holds will be a result of human decision for which we are all responsible.
We will decide if we pass through that gauntlet or -- like our cousins the Neanderthals -- become evolutionary dead ends. We will decide if humanity passes into a new era of possibility and freedom -- or the human story simply ends.
I believe that progressive values -- love your neighbor and empathy -- are our greatest evolutionary treasure.
Progressive values mean that we're all in this together, not all in this alone; unity not division; hope not fear; equality not subjugation; the premise that if each of us is better educated then all of us will be wiser; that it is not true that for me to be richer you have to be poorer, but rather that if each of us is more prosperous, all of us will have more opportunity; that our success comes from cooperation and mutual respect. These progressive values are the most precious assets that will give human beings the ability to make it through that gauntlet -- and to create a truly democratic society.
That is just one more reason why at this time of year, we should celebrate these values -- the true spirit of Christmas -- and defend them from those who want to take society back to a time of social Darwinism, to the law of the jungle, to "survival of the fittest." Because the fact of the matter is that in the future, if we govern our society by the precepts of selfishness and the survival of only the fittest, we may find that human society is not fit enough to survive at all.
Copyright ©2015 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/the-real-attack-on-the-sp_b_8876954.html [with comments]
--
21 Ayn Rand Christmas Cards
By akadjian
Monday Dec 22, 2014 9:10 AM CST
Did Ayn Rand send Christmas cards?
According to Scott McConnell's 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand she did indeed. Unfortunately, none are included in McConnell's 656 page book.
Fortunately, with a little help from the Ayn Rand Archives*, we're able to present to you this exclusive, never-before-seen collection of Ayn Rand favorites.
Have a very selfish Christmas everyone!
*The representative from the Ayn Rand Archives called me a looter and screamed something unintelligible so some Christmas cards may be fictionalized representations of actual Ayn Rand Christmas cards.
© Kos Media, LLC
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2014/12/22/1353470/-21-Ayn-Rand-Christmas-Cards [with comments]
--
in addition to (linked in) the post to which this is a reply and (other) following, see also (linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=24074072 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=34409710 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=34436252 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=44783435 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57008084 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57665325 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57819487 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=58122817 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69554416 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=70257831 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=81750440 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=81832674 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=82178007 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=82730310 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=82368351 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=95081519 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=95666631 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=97217659 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=103100000 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=106174522 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=111573058 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=116644169 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=108924126 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=109366415 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=100630976 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=116078541 and preceding and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69706623 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=118749421 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119398464 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119418290 and preceding and following
By Mitchell Bard
Posted: 12/22/2008 5:12 am EST Updated: 05/25/2011 12:55 pm EDT
After enduring eight years of a president who was determined to impose his religious beliefs on the country, I've just about had it with people trying to shove religion down my throat. Maybe that is why I have no patience for the (completely ludicrous) claim that there is a "War on Christmas," made by right-wingers like Bill O'Reilly [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/06/oreillys-war-on-christmas_n_141896.html ]. But what put me over the top is that now a deputy editor of the once reputable Wall Street Journal has weighed in on the issue, actually equating the current economic crisis with the fact that people say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."
Daniel Henninger wrote in the WSJ [ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122714101083742715.html ] yesterday:
"This year we celebrate the desacralized 'holidays' amid what is for many unprecedented economic ruin -- fortunes halved, jobs lost, homes foreclosed. People wonder, What happened? One man's theory: A nation whose people can't say 'Merry Christmas' is a nation capable of ruining its own economy."
Henninger's point is that the economic downturn was caused by "borrowers, lenders and securitizer shamans" who were "operating in a zero-gravity environment, aloft on moral hazard," which was due to a loss of "responsibility, restraint and remorse." He goes on to say that "responsibility and restraint are moral sentiments," and that "the steady secularizing and insistent effort at dereligioning America has been dangerous." He claims that the "disappearance of 'Merry Christmas'" is indicative of this "dereligioning." Thus, the link between not saying "Merry Christmas" and the failing economy.
Convinced? Me neither.
Somehow, people like Henninger and O'Reilly think it's important that people say "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays." But what Henninger and O'Reilly don't seem to want to understand is that the United States of America, as much as they would like it to be otherwise, is not a Christian nation. The majority of its citizens may currently be Christian, but, again, that does not make the country, as an institution, Christian.
(Full disclosure: I am a nonreligious Jew, so the "War on Christmas" crowd will, no doubt, dismiss all of my opinions.)
The last time I checked, the First Amendment was still in full force and effect. As a reminder, it says [ http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/ ]:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
You will notice in the very first words of the Bill of Rights that the founders made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that there was to be no one religion "established" for the country. The First Amendment makes clear that everyone should be allowed to practice his/her religious faiths ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), but that no one faith was to be elevated above the others by the government. Being Christian does not make one more American.
And yet that is exactly what the O'Reillys and Hennigers of the world seem to want. I'm sorry to report this fact to them, but not everyone in this country celebrates Christmas. According to a Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life study [ http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations ] from earlier this year, 1.7 percent of the population identified themselves as Jewish, 0.6 percent as Muslim, 0.7 percent as Buddhist, 0.4 percent as Hindu, 0.7 percent as Jehovah's Witness, and more than 0.2 percent as from "other world religions." On top of that, according to the Pew study, more than 16 percent of Americans do not consider themselves any religion.
All of that translates into millions of people who do not celebrate Christmas. Do O'Reilly and Henninger think that these people should be made to feel "other," outsiders in the American experience? I hope not. That is not what America is about. Many of the founders of the country moved here to flee religious persecution. They just wanted to be free to practice their own religion here. And that doesn't mean that only they get to do so.
This country has some tragic history when it comes to its treatment of minorities. We enslaved African Americans as recently as 145 years ago, and we had laws on the books repressing them until quite recently. It was only 65 years ago that we rounded up American citizens who just happened to be of Japanese descent and placed them into internment camps solely because of their country of origin. And it was only two weeks ago that three states voted to amend their constitutions to ensure that homosexuals cannot enjoy the same marriage rights as heterosexuals.
In light of that history, it seems to me that we, as a nation, should be looking at more ways to come together and make everyone feel a part of the American family, not stressing our differences and making those in the minority feel as though they are not true Americans. And through the simple act of saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," we, as a country, can show our tolerance for other faiths and make everyone feel a part of the holiday season.
If nothing else, doesn't it come down to simple manners? Why would you want to say "Merry Christmas" to someone that doesn't celebrate the holiday? Clearly, such a greeting is only going to make the recipient uncomfortable, pointing out that he/she does not practice the same religion that the majority of the country does. Meanwhile, the dreaded "Happy Holidays" invocation is actually inclusive and polite, saying, in effect, "There are a lot of holidays this time of year, so if any of them apply to you, we hope it's a nice time for you." Isn't such a tolerant attitude more in keeping with what the United States is supposed to represent?
Of course, nothing I've said would stop those who observe Christmas from going to church, decorating their houses (inside and out) and celebrating with their families and friends. And certainly, saying "Happy Holidays" in public venues doesn't stop two people from greeting each other with "Merry Christmas" when they both observe the holiday. My only point is that in public displays, when not all of the recipients will be Christian, there is nothing wrong with using the more inclusive "Happy Holidays." That idea hardly constitutes a "War on Christmas."
There is also a dangerous, insidious strain to the movement complaining of a "War on Christmas." Go back to Henninger's words in the WSJ. He says that "the steady secularizing and insistent effort at dereligioning America has been dangerous." I refuse to accept that the immorality of finance professionals is due to a lack of religious piety. The implication is that without religion, there can be no morals or ethics. I, and I'm sure many others out there, absolutely reject such an assumption. Moral behavior does not have to come from the teachings of a religion. An atheist is every bit as capable of drawing on his/her beliefs to lead an ethical life as a religious person.
And by turning to an argument about Christmas, Henninger is also implying that it's not enough to be religious, you have to be an adherent of his religion. That is certainly a dangerous idea, and it is also completely sanctimonious, given the myriad scandals that have enveloped U.S. churches in recent years. Being religious didn't stop, for example, priests from molesting boys (and the church covering it up), nor did it prevent Rev. Ted Haggard, the founder of the New Life Church, from getting caught buying crystal meth and patronizing a male prostitute (after crusading against homosexuals).
I would further argue that the injection of religion into politics has not produced the kind of moral and ethical behavior Henninger longs for. It seems to me that the emergence of an argument that if you oppose the Republican party and support the Democrats, you are somehow not righteous in the eyes of the church, is a pretty dangerous way of thinking. I don't think it's helpful that a South Carolina priest would tell his parishioners that they should not accept Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama [ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27705755/ ]. And I don't think the national interest is served by actions like the recently deposed Republican North Carolina U.S. House of Representatives member Robin Hayes saying during the campaign [ http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-now/2008/10/gop-rep-liberals-hate-real-americans-that-work-and-accomplish-and-achieve-and-believe-in-god-updated-with-audio-013323 ] that "liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God."
Clearly, I'm not making the argument that all religious people are bad. (Sorry, but I can't help but anticipate the potential "he is criticizing religion!" charge of those who believe there is a "War on Christmas.") What I am saying is that there is nothing in being religious that makes someone inherently more moral and ethical than someone who is not religious.
So you'll forgive me if I don't buy into the Henniger/O'Reilly view of America. I see this country as a place in which we respect the religious beliefs of all of our citizens, and, more importantly, we would not seek to impose our faiths on our neighbors. And yes, I would like to see a country where we don't seek to make non-Christian citizens feel like they are not part of the national fabric by pointing out to them, again and again, that they are different than a majority.
Or, put another way, I want to live in a tolerant, respectful country that says "Happy Holidays," rather than a divisive nation that seeks to make people uncomfortable by saying "Merry Christmas." Isn't that what "peace on earth, good will toward man" entails? There is no war on Christmas. We only ask that those who celebrate the holiday not insist that those who don't celebrate with them. Actually, that statement of my belief is my declaration of war on the war on the "War on Christmas."
Happy holidays everyone.
Copyright ©2008, 2011 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-bard/its-time-for-a-war-on-war_b_145588.html
--
Texas Official 'Just Might Slap' Next Person Who Says 'Happy Holidays'
"Either tell me Merry Christmas or just don't say anything."
By Ed Mazza
12/18/2015 02:36 am ET
An elected official in Texas is threatening to slap anyone who wishes him "happy holidays" this year.
Republican Sid Miller, the state's agriculture commissioner, said on Facebook that people must say "Merry Christmas" to him or nothing at all.
"If one more person says Happy Holidays to me I just might slap them [ https://www.facebook.com/MillerForTexas/photos/a.1430872243801609.1073741828.1427314137490753/1773274972894666 ]," Miller wrote. "Either tell me Merry Christmas or just don't say anything."
He included a picture of a cowboy and a pharmacy with a religious sign:
Sid Miller
December 16 at 6:54am
If one more person says Happy Holidays to me I just might slap them. Either tell me Merry Christmas or just don't say anything.
This being the Internet, many immediately replied to Miller by wishing him "happy holidays," both in response to that post as well as others on his page [ https://www.facebook.com/MillerForTexas/photos/a.1430872243801609.1073741828.1427314137490753/1773440209544809 ].
Even the state's Democratic Party got in on the act, replying with a GIF that it says was deleted from Miller's Facebook page. The organization posted it again, this time on Twitter [ https://twitter.com/TXDemParty/status/677554452556066816 ].
Miller replied to several commenters, in some cases wishing people a Merry Christmas.
When someone asked if he had ever heard of First Amendment rights, Miller replied: "I am quite fond of it. I also like the 2nd [ https://www.facebook.com/MillerForTexas/photos/a.1430872243801609.1073741828.1427314137490753/1773841752837988/?type=3&comment_id=1773847446170752&reply_comment_id=1773863332835830&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D ]. How about you?"
Miller has a history of making controversial comments, with the Houston Chronicle pointing out that he has compared Syrians to rattlesnakes [ http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Texas-threatens-resettlement-agency-over-Syrian-6664949.php ] and suggested dropping an atomic bomb on "the Muslim world [ http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/Ag-Commissioner-warns-Muslims-of-U-S-s-atomic-6448594.php ]," although a spokesperson later said the A-bomb post was made by a staffer and without Miller's knowledge.
Despite these controversial views, Miller handily won election in 2014 with 58 percent of the vote [ https://ballotpedia.org/Sid_Miller ], according to Ballotpedia.
(h/t Raw Story [ http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/seasons-beatings-texas-gop-official-threatens-to-slap-next-person-who-wishes-him-happy-holidays/ ])
Copyright © 2015 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sid-miller-happy-holidays-slap_5673a865e4b06fa6887ce190 [with comments], http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28khv-BydeY [with comments]
--
The Real Attack on the Spirit of Christmas -- 2015
By Robert Creamer
Posted: 12/25/2015 7:58 am EST Updated: 12/25/2015 5:59 pm EST
Once again it's Christmas. Time for Fox News and the entire rightwing chorus to recite their patently absurd allegation that Progressives have launched a "War on Christmas".
Never mind that the White House is bursting at the seams with Christmas decorations and Christmas music surrounds us.
This year the big Right Wing data point was the startling discovery that Starbucks would toss aside that "deeply-held" Christmas tradition of putting snow flakes on their cups during the holiday season - and had opted instead for using the "Christmas colors" of red and green. Of course, last I looked, snowflakes were not a "sacred" symbol of the season - but to some Right Wing commentators, it represents an attack on Christmas nonetheless.
There is no "War on Christmas." But there is a war on the spirit of Christmas -- and it is coming squarely from the American Right. That has been true for many years -- but this year the Right Wing war on the spirit of Christmas has gone into overdrive.
The spirit of Christmas - and of Christianity - is summed up in the declaration of the Angels to the shepherds on the hills overlooking Bethlehem: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."
Bigotry, demonization of immigrants, xenophobia, militarism -- the hatred toward Muslims, the appeals to selfishness and the "survival of the fittest" ethics that spew from the mouths of GOP candidates for president -- none of that is remotely connected in any way to the sprit of Christmas. In fact, they are its opposite.
At this time of year, people who care about Christmas are asking, "What would a guy like Jesus do today?"
Would he demand that America turn its back on refugees from war and torture and death?
Would he tell us we should prevent all Muslims from entering our country?
Would he support action to allow the wealthiest sliver of our society to get richer and richer and siphon off every bit of new wealth that our economy creates for themselves? This, after all, was the guy who threw the money changers out of the temple.
Next time you listen to a Donald Trump diatribe, try and imagine if his remarks reflect the spirit you might hear from someone like Jesus.
Of course, the leaders of the real war on the spirit of Christmas not only include people like Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. They also include people like the new golden boy of Republican politics, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.
A few years ago Paul Ryan said that the favorite Right Wing author: "Ayn Rand, more than anyone else, did a fantastic job explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism... If Ayn Rand were here today, I think she would do a great job in showing us just how wrong what government is doing, is."
Who was Ayn Rand? In 1959, reporter Mike Wallace interviewed Rand.
Wallace: "Christ, and every other important moral leader in man's history, has taught us that we should love one another. Why then is this kind of love, in your mind, immoral?"
Rand responds, "It is immoral if it is placed above one's own self."
Wallace: "And then if a man is weak or a woman is weak then she or he is beyond love?"
Rand: "He certainly does not deserve -- he certainly is beyond."
Wallace: "There are very few of us that would, by your standards... that are worthy of love -- is that your view?"
Rand: "Unfortunately yes -- very few."
Wallace: "You are out to destroy almost every edifice in contemporary American life -- our Judeo-Christian religion, our modified government-regulated capitalism, rule by the majority will. Other reviewers say that you scorn churches and the concept of God -- are they accurate criticisms?"
Rand responds, "yes."
That is a fair description of the ethical system underlying the Right Wing philosophy in America today - and that is a direct attack on the Spirit of Christmas.
The New Testament relates the quintessential Christian understanding of ethics in the 10th chapter of the book of Luke in the parable of the Good Samaritan:
On one occasion, an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"What is written in the law?" He replied. "How do you read it?"
He answered: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and, love your neighbor as yourself."
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "and who is my neighbor?"
In reply, Jesus said:
"A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. "Look after him," he said, "and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have."
"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"
The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."
Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."
In the material, social world, the cornerstone of Christian ethics is "love thy neighbor as thyself." That simple statement, and the story of the Good Samaritan that followed, makes it clear that the central goal of ethical behavior should be assuring that all human beings flourish. In the Christian tradition, one should seek to satisfy the same basic self-interests and needs for all human beings that we would wish to see fulfilled for ourselves.
The universality implied by the parable of the Good Samaritan is central to the progressive ethical system. Samaritans and Levites were not close at the time. Yet the disliked Samaritan was the true neighbor. The story was intended to drive home the universality of the fundamental ethical premise -- "love thy neighbor as thyself."
"And who is my neighbor?" asked the expert on the law. "Everyone," Jesus replied.
The importance of the principle of universality has to be understood in the context of human development. For millions of years, "everyone" was not the answer that most humans would have given to this question. For bands of hunter-gatherers, or tribes of later human societies, the answer was "another member of our kinship group or band -- or another member of our tribe."
Jared Diamond's study of human development, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, points out that the first question for a typical member of one band of hunter-gatherers when he encountered a member of another band, was why he should not kill them on the spot.
The universality of the ethical demand to "love thy neighbor as thyself" is a very recent development in human evolution. It has emerged only over the last several thousand years of our approximately seven million years of evolutionary history. Previously, most behavior involving moral content pertained only to members of our own band, tribe or ethnic group.
The principle that one should "love they neighbor as thyself" is the direct opposite of the kind of right wing philosophy embodied by Ayn Rand and her disciple, Paul Ryan - and by people like Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.
But the "love yourself above all" philosophy of Rand and Ryan not only represents a direct attack, as Rand understood, on the core message of Christianity (and therefore Christmas). It is also dangerous to the potential survival of humanity.
A few years ago I read a book by a planetary scientist named David Grinspoon called Lonely Planets. It explores the question of extraterrestrial life.
Toward the end of his book, Grinspoon speculates on the chances of survival for intelligent life in the universe. He argues that every civilization of intelligent creatures must pass through a gauntlet that tests whether the values and political structures of the society are capable of keeping pace with the exponentially increasing power of the society's technology. If its values and political structures can keep pace with technological change, the society may pass into a phase of enormous freedom and possibility. If it does not, the power of its own technology will destroy it. Perhaps, he postulates, civilizations are like seahorses. Many are born, but only a few survive.
For the first time, a little more than half a century ago, human society entered that gauntlet. Our technological growth reached a point of takeoff that for the first time gave us the power to destroy ourselves and all life on our tiny, fragile planet. From that moment on, the race began.
The next several generations of humans will decide how that race turns out. We won't simply observe it, or describe it; we will decide it. Whatever the future holds will be a result of human decision for which we are all responsible.
We will decide if we pass through that gauntlet or -- like our cousins the Neanderthals -- become evolutionary dead ends. We will decide if humanity passes into a new era of possibility and freedom -- or the human story simply ends.
I believe that progressive values -- love your neighbor and empathy -- are our greatest evolutionary treasure.
Progressive values mean that we're all in this together, not all in this alone; unity not division; hope not fear; equality not subjugation; the premise that if each of us is better educated then all of us will be wiser; that it is not true that for me to be richer you have to be poorer, but rather that if each of us is more prosperous, all of us will have more opportunity; that our success comes from cooperation and mutual respect. These progressive values are the most precious assets that will give human beings the ability to make it through that gauntlet -- and to create a truly democratic society.
That is just one more reason why at this time of year, we should celebrate these values -- the true spirit of Christmas -- and defend them from those who want to take society back to a time of social Darwinism, to the law of the jungle, to "survival of the fittest." Because the fact of the matter is that in the future, if we govern our society by the precepts of selfishness and the survival of only the fittest, we may find that human society is not fit enough to survive at all.
Copyright ©2015 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/the-real-attack-on-the-sp_b_8876954.html [with comments]
--
21 Ayn Rand Christmas Cards
By akadjian
Monday Dec 22, 2014 9:10 AM CST
Did Ayn Rand send Christmas cards?
According to Scott McConnell's 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand she did indeed. Unfortunately, none are included in McConnell's 656 page book.
Fortunately, with a little help from the Ayn Rand Archives*, we're able to present to you this exclusive, never-before-seen collection of Ayn Rand favorites.
Have a very selfish Christmas everyone!
*The representative from the Ayn Rand Archives called me a looter and screamed something unintelligible so some Christmas cards may be fictionalized representations of actual Ayn Rand Christmas cards.
© Kos Media, LLC
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2014/12/22/1353470/-21-Ayn-Rand-Christmas-Cards [with comments]
--
in addition to (linked in) the post to which this is a reply and (other) following, see also (linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=24074072 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=34409710 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=34436252 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=44783435 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57008084 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57665325 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57819487 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=58122817 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69554416 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=70257831 (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=81750440 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=81832674 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=82178007 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=82730310 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=82368351 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=95081519 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=95666631 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=97217659 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=103100000 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=106174522 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=111573058 and preceding and following,
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=116644169 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=108924126 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=109366415 and preceding (and any future following),
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=100630976 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=116078541 and preceding and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69706623 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=118749421 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119398464 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=119418290 and preceding and following
Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790
F6
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
