The Congressmen Who Hate Christmas

LifeSiteNews.com reports on a group of nineteen U.S. Congressmen who voted on a resolution recognizing Islam and the holiday of Ramadan -- then either voted "against" or "present" (meaning they refused to support) a resolution similarly recognizing Christianity and Christmas.


The language of the resolutions is nearly identical. The Congressmen who refused to support Christmas while supporting Ramadan are all Democrats. (Full list on the site.)


Whenever you start to think that maybe Conservatives are getting too "vicious" or too "partisan," remember that there are people like these elected representatives, who hold power over all our lives, who support the beliefs of our enemies more than they support American beliefs and traditions.


Although I disagree with those who are anti-religion, I at least respect their right to believe the way they do. Don't get me wrong, I go to great lengths to defeat such people in arguments -- I don't think a single contemporary person's arguments trump 2000 years of believers in Christianity, for example -- but this is America, etc. etc.


Those who I want to remove from public life completely are those who choose to officially sanction other cultures' beliefs over our own.


When you're debating a Liberal, remember these nineteen Democrats who refused to recognize the worth of Christianity and Christmas, but supported the religion of our enemies. It will put a fire in your belly.

The Church, The State and Common Sense

Sometimes you have to go back a few years to get the right perspective on what's happening in America today.

" The First Amendment does not say that, in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other.

"That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -- hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly.

"Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution.

"Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; "so help me God" in our courtroom oaths -- these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment.

"A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: 'God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'

"We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion."
-- Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, expressing the majority opinion in Zorach v. Clauson (1952)

The modern court's hostility to Christianity is a very recent (and un-Constitutional) invention.