Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Article: War on Christianity

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: fossten

War on Christianity Disguised But Thriving
David Limbaugh

Friday, Dec. 1, 2006

In this self-congratulatory age of multiculturalism and hyper-tolerance, what religion other than Christianity is treated as inherently offensive? In fact, haven't our cultural high priests instructed that we dare not find other religions offensive, but must even enthusiastically embrace them for contributing to our diversity of ideas and values?

Of course they have, but that admonition - as all but the most inattentive recognize - doesn't apply to Christianity, as this year's annual war on Christmas demonstrates once again.

The city of Chicago asked organizers of the German Christkindlmarket, a downtown Christmas festival, to reject New Line Cinema as a sponsor because its advertisements for the movie "The Nativity Story" might offend non-Christians.

Isn't that line getting a little old, especially in a nation where some 90 percent of the people supposedly identify themselves as Christians? It's always easy to say people might be offended, because some people are always in a desperate hurry to be offended.

But what is more likely is that activist organizations like the ACLU, various atheist groups and other radical secularists want to create the impression that Christianity is offensive in order to diminish its influence and its presence in the public square.

But since we're talking about offensiveness, how about the sensibilities of Christians? Isn't it far more reasonable for Christians to be offended at the banishment of their displays from the public square than for non-Christians to be offended at their presence?

Yet this obsession with scrubbing away Christianity from public places suggests there is something offensive about Christianity. I wish just once some of these anti-Christian charlatans would be asked to specify precisely which of Christ's teachings they find offensive - other than perhaps his unequivocal pronouncement of absolute moral standards.

Secular leftists usually tell us that their primary interest in these matters is to ensure that our society and our laws guarantee religious freedom for all. But this nativity flap is one of many that reveal their true mindset, which is hardly as pluralistic and tolerant as they would have us believe.

If religious freedom were their driving motivation, they would be on the side of the German Christlkindmarket, and its unfettered right to choose its own sponsors. Shouldn't those who boast of their commitment to religious liberty fight for the right of entrepreneurs to promote Christian-based movies or themes?

But these secular objectors aren't committed to religious liberty across the aboard as they claim, because their tolerance and pluralism don't extend to Christianity, for which they have an obvious hostility.

I saw one propagandist disguised as an ACLU lawyer in an interview on "Fox News" defending Chicago's policy as a vindication of the Constitution's guarantee of church/state separation. Of course, this "constitutional lawyer" has to know better than that the Constitution contains any such guarantee.

Indeed, most of the opponents of the ad aren't seriously objecting on constitutional grounds because even the ridiculously distorted judicial precedent that has turned the First Amendment Establishment Clause into a sword against - instead of a shield for - religious freedom won't help them here. Instead - as mentioned - they are hanging their hats on the presumed "offensiveness" of Christianity.

People would be well served to understand the differences in these issues. While Christians don't set out to offend others, we must be clear that there is no right in the Constitution not to be offended. But there is a right to religious liberty, and it even applies to Christians.

The Framers deemed this right so important that they made it the subject of the very first two clauses of the very First Amendment: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, both of which were designed to safeguard religious liberty, not to separate church and state.

The Establishment Clause was intended to protect religious liberty by preventing the federal government from establishing a national church or religion. The Free Exercise Clause sought to do so by guaranteeing our right to worship as we please.

The zealous advocates of church/state separation and the opponents of Christian expression in the public square, in the name of promoting religious liberty go a long way toward selectively suppressing religious liberty: that of Christians.

So when you read about such controversies as the one involving the German Christkindlmarket, try to look behind the deceptive claims of the secular activists who are at best fair weather champions of tolerance, pluralism or constitutional religious liberty.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

War on Christianity Disguised But Thriving
David Limbaugh

Friday, Dec. 1, 2006

In this self-congratulatory age of multiculturalism and hyper-tolerance, what religion other than Christianity is treated as inherently offensive?

According to all the crybaby "christians", ISLAM!

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

According to all the crybaby "christians", ISLAM!

That would be incorrect. If you don't believe me, say something offensive about the religion of Islam in public, the PC police will attack you.

Do the same regarding Christianity, no one will say a word. Want an example:

Quote:

RICHARDS, GIBSON AND JILLETTE

Catholic League president Bill Donohue issued the following remarks today on the reaction to Michael Richards’ racial outburst:

“Michael Richards gets interrupted by hecklers, unleashes a racist tirade, gets blasted by the cultural elite and apologizes. Mel Gibson gets drunk, unleashes an anti-Semitic tirade, gets blasted by the cultural elite and apologizes. Penn Jillette, without any provocation, unleashes an anti-Catholic tirade, gets a free pass from the cultural elite and never apologizes.

“Because the cultural elite did not blast Jillette, it is worth remembering what he said on his CBS radio show on April 5, 2006. He said that Mother Teresa ‘had this weird kink that I think was sexual,’ compared her to Charles Manson, and commented that she ‘got her [sexual] kicks watching people suffer and die.’ This was not the first time he attacked the beloved nun: last year, on Jillette’s Showtime TV show, he branded her ‘Mother F---ing Teresa’ and called her fellow sisters ‘f---ing c----.’ When I complained to Sumner Redstone, chairman of Viacom (which owns Showtime, as well as CBS), he wrote a letter defending Jillette’s ‘artistic freedom.’

“In other words, racism and anti-Semitism are unacceptable, even when expressed in frustration or when inebriated, but anti-Catholicism is okay, even when expressed repeatedly and done intentionally. The problem here is not with Richards, Gibson or Jillette—the problem is with all the phonies who claim to be horrified by bigotry.”

Posted by: fossten

Johnny continues to prove my point. He is so predictable. He chimes in on the side opposite Christianity every time it comes up. Makes me wonder why he hates Christians so much.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

According to all the crybaby "christians", ISLAM!

Monday, Dec. 4, 2006 9:05 p.m. EST
Islamic Group Targets Columnist

An Islamic civil rights group wants a columnist removed from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council for criticizing Rep.-elect Keith Ellison's decision to use the Quran during his ceremonial swearing-in next month.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations said Monday that comments by Dennis Prager, a columnist and conservative talk radio host, displayed an intolerance toward Islam that makes him inappropriate to serve on the council, which oversees the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington.

President Bush appointed Prager in August to fill the remainder of a five-year term, which expires in January 2011.

In his column last week, Prager wrote: "Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."

Nihad Awad, CAIR's executive director, sent a letter to the council's chairman, Fred Zeidman, saying, "No one who holds such bigoted, intolerant and divisive views should be in a policymaking position at a taxpayer-funded institution that seeks to educate Americans about the destructive impact hatred has had, and continues to have, on every society."

Messages left Monday at the Holocaust Museum and at Zeidman's office were not returned.

Prager, in a telephone interview Monday, offered what he called "a solution to this that would satisfy me and the vast majority of Americans" — Ellison bringing a Bible with him along with his Quran.

"The issue has never been one of religious freedom or attitudes toward Islam," added Prager, who is Jewish. "The issue has been from the outset honoring the most important text of American history."

Ellison, D-Minn., is the first Muslim elected to Congress. He won an open seat race to replace longtime Democratic Rep. Martin Sabo, who is retiring.

Ellison did not return phone messages Monday, but a CAIR spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper, mocked Prager's offer.

"It's obviously up to Mr. Ellison to decide, but I don't think that forcing him to swear an oath on a book not of his faith is the answer," said Hooper.

By tradition, all members of the House are sworn in together on the House floor. It's in the photo-op ceremony that a Bible is used — or in Ellison's case, the Quran.

Meanwhile, the Anti-Defamation League, which fights anti-Semitism and racism, issued a statement calling Prager's comments "intolerant, misinformed and downright un-American."

Yep. Nobody criticizes Islam and gets away with it.

Posted by: segxr7

Isn't it far more reasonable for Muslims to be offended at the banishment of their displays from the public square than for non-Muslims to be offended at their presence?

Isn't it far more reasonable for Hindus to be offended at the banishment of their displays from the public square than for non-Hindus to be offended at their presence?

Isn't it far more reasonable for Satanists to be offended at the banishment of their displays from the public square than for non-Satanists to be offended at their presence?

The world would be so much better off if people would grow up. I cannot believe that we still get into wars because, essentially, one group of people thinks their invisible friend is better than another group's invisible friend.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by segxr7

Isn't it far more reasonable for Muslims to be offended at the banishment of their displays from the public square than for non-Muslims to be offended at their presence?

Isn't it far more reasonable for Hindus to be offended at the banishment of their displays from the public square than for non-Hindus to be offended at their presence?

Isn't it far more reasonable for Satanists to be offended at the banishment of their displays from the public square than for non-Satanists to be offended at their presence?

The world would be so much better off if people would grow up. I cannot believe that we still get into wars because, essentially, one group of people thinks their invisible friend is better than another group's invisible friend.

We get into wars because "people who think their invisible friend is better than another group's invisible friend" decide to attack the other group's people on that basis. The only way to prevent this from happening is by winning those wars and by realizing that making nice with such wackos doesn't stop them from wanting to kill us. That is being grown up.

Posted by: segxr7

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

I realize that. When I said "we", I was referring to humanity in general (including the Muslim extremists responsible for most religion-based strife these days), not just America.

Posted by: fossten

Roger.