jump to navigation

Emulating the European Model: Prescription for Failure September 24, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, Chrisitanity, culture war, liberals, multiculturalism, politics, religion, secularism, statism.
add a comment

To say the Obama administration is enamored of the European model would be an understatement—it positively adores it. That’s why the “Change You Can Believe In” crowd is in full gear trying to mimic their economic system, the most visible example of which is its health care program. If only the European model were worth emulating. Sadly, the record is not encouraging.

Every time there is a worldwide economic downturn, the Europeans lag the Americans in recovery. Quite simply, the more market-oriented the economy, the quicker the recovery; European-style socialism trails the U.S. is rebounding precisely because government is anything but nimble. So why the attraction?

What drives the Obama administration to mimic the European model is not its record of achievements; rather, it is the belief that private institutions are not to be trusted. From its opposition to school vouchers to its embrace of a public plan for its health care program, the administration prefers the public sector to the private sector, hands down. It does so in large part because it lusts to take command, whether it be in the form of social, sexual or economic engineering.

Father Knows Best has given way to Government Knows Best. And by creating economic public policies that make men and women more and more dependent on government, the engineers control their destiny, as well as their vote. It does so, unfortunately, at the expense of self-reliance and self-government. As Dennis Prager wisely observes, “the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.” Regrettably, government now dwarfs the individual, the result of which is a diminution in our ability to hold the state at bay.

Statist policies naturally incline toward expansion. Make no mistake about it, the encroachment of the state on civil society is real, the result of which is the creation of a precarious situation for all private institutions. That would include, certainly, religious entities. European observers of all political leanings are quick to point out how genuinely secular those societies have become. The pace of this deracination has quickened, the effect of which has been a movement away from religious indifference toward genuine hostility. Atheism hasn’t been so fashionable since the Enlightenment.

Every statist regime in history has been anti-religious. The church, of course, is rightly seen as a bulwark to the reach of the state. This explains the animus: secularists of this hyper-politicized sort cannot settle for neutrality—they are out to sunder religious traditions and institutions. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that these secular saboteurs are busy flexing their muscles in the U.S., as well as in Europe.

I wrote Secular Sabotage: How Liberals Are Destroying Religion and Culture in America as a wake-up call. The open assault on our Judeo-Christian ethos has been operative for decades, but never before have we approached a tipping point: we have now reached that stage. The stakes are high as our cultural future hangs in the balance.

From the politically correct programs that mark multiculturalism—a love fest for every civilization save our own—to the sexual libertines who see in Christian sexual ethics a roadblock to genital liberation, we are up against it. Scatological art exhibits are bad enough, but when paired with expressions of Christian bashing, they cross the line many times over. It’s been a long time, of course, since Hollywood found itself capable of portraying Christianity in a positive light, and the fury unleashed against Mel Gibson for making “The Passion of the Christ” underscores the politics involved.

Secular saboteurs show a particular fondness for using the law as a club to stamp out Christianity, torturing out of all recognition the original intent of the Framers; the First Amendment provisions regarding religious liberty have been hit the hardest. Secular elements within the Democratic Party have become bolder and bolder in their disdain for people of faith, driving Catholics out of the party in droves. Perhaps most distressing, the radical secular agenda has penetrated Catholicism, as well as the mainline Protestant denominations, disfiguring them in ways not previously thought imaginable.

In short, Christian bashing is in vogue. That this is happening in a nation which is approximately 80 percent Christian shows the power of a loosely organized, but totally determined, secular minority, and a collapse of will on the part of a sizeable segment of the Christian population. Only a coalition of religious conservatives, across faith lines, can reverse course. Fortunately, as evidenced by the coalition that rallied around Proposition 8 in California, there is reason for optimism.

By Bill Donahue, President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

Advertisements

The Future of Christianity July 15, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in Chrisitanity, Christian nation, democracy, God, politics, polls, religion, research, secularism.
add a comment

Is Christianity in the U.S. Doomed? This is the question headlining the front cover the World Magazine. The inveterate optimist and editor-in-chief, Marvin Olasky, answers this question in the article titled “The Sixth Wind?” The content of his positive response to recent gloom and doom of hopeful secularists, atheists, and Muslims comes from interviews with several different authors.

One of his sources were the co-authors of the best seller God is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith is Changing the World, John Micklethwait and Adrain Woolridge of The Economist. As their title suggests, they fail to see Christianity as a dying religion. On the contrary, it is becoming more relevant as is other faiths.

Jon A. Shileds, who wrote The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right, also see a different picture of the politically involved religious right than the fearsome fascist described by the Left. Here again, his book title suggests what he discovered while hanging around the Right. He witnessed their leaders seeking to train there rank-and-file activist to practice respectful deliberation. He failed to infiltrate their terrorist plots against the left’s political agenda.

Olasky apparently drew on the works of other authors like Terry Eagleton’s Reason, Faith, and Revolution. His book answers the question why people are suddenly talking about God: Because “nothing else–not science, not reason, not liberalism, not economics–works.” Atheism has nothing to offer humans, only God offers hope. Even A.N. Wilson is said to have dropped his atheism.

Olasky finally directly addresses the question whether the trends represent a sixth wind of Christian revival in America. He says, “I don’t know. He says that past experience informs him that there is no reason to be depressed about our current problems. “Truth trumps everything, including liberal cleverclogs.

Olasky’s began his article with poll data that reported a 10 percent drop of Americans who identified themselves as Christian. Previously, 86 percent of Americans claimed to be Christians. Does this mean 24 percent are now atheists or agnostics? No. it just meant 8 percent more (16%) disassociated with any religion or denomination. Most still believe in God and regard religion as important to their lives.

Christianity is alive and mostly well in America.

The problem is the disassociation of the original Christian values from institutional and political affairs. The values of secular fundamentalism–atheistic humanism–pervade our key public institutions like education, big business, and government. If you do the research, you will find Darwinian evolution is underlying dogma justifying both secular fundamentalism and values of atheistic humanism. Our social problems are directly linked to the prevalence of those values in our public institutions. In education, this is called the hidden curriculum that is taught to every child and adult most of the lives most of the time. We all believe what we value and act according ly.

Source: World, June 20, 2009

A Jewish Understanding of America’s Declaration of Independence July 3, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in American Revolution, Chrisitanity, Declaration of Independence, God, Judaism, law.
1 comment so far

The American Declaration of Independence embodies a doctrine of revolution. The Declaration teaches us that the people of any country are not obliged to obey the laws of the State if these laws violate the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” But who is to judge whether the laws of the State violate the “Higher Law”? This question involves another: “Where is the supreme authority in a State that recognizes a ‘Higher Law’”? That crucial question was addressed by the Italian rabbi, theologian, and philosopher Eliyahu Benamozegh (1823-1900) in his magnum opus Israel and Humanity.

Rabbi Benamozegh asks: “Where is supreme authority to be found in Israel?” To answer this question, he ponders the Law-Giving at Sinai Revelation. He writes:

In order to grasp the central idea of Israelite doctrine on this crucial matter quickly and accurately, let us proceed by a process of elimination and determine first of all what that doctrine categorically rejects…. Does supreme authority reside in a man invested with supreme power? The very idea of a Revelation which embraces all of life, public as well as pri­vate, precludes any such possibility. A Revelation so total cannot speak through any single entity whatever, whether priest or monarch. … Neither the king nor the priest can possess unlimited authority, for each moves in a well-defined sphere and his function is circumscribed by impassable limits.

Nor is supreme authority vested in a privileged class, an oligarchy or an aristocracy. The provisions of the Law, the history and concep­tion of Revelation itself, prove, if proof be needed, that there can be no such class. Neither is it to be located in the totality of Israelites, at least not in the sense of an absolute power residing in the people as a whole, which would legitimize all that the people might decree. As for the authorized interpreters of the Revelation, however, the people convey their sovereignty in this matter to those whose place in the hierarchy renders them qualified, according to established rule. This role of the community is the only one which is logically possible in a state faithful to a Revelation.

“If then, according to Judaism, supreme authority adheres neither to the high priest, nor to the king, nor to an elite, nor even to the entire people as a collectivity, where is it to be found? In God alone; which is to say, using modern categories, in absolute reason and justice. God is the only legislator, and the people His only interpreter on earth. Such is the Jewish ideal.”

The same conclusion may be deduced from the American Declaration of Independence. Suffice to consider two of its principles. Its First Principle inheres in these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These rights are “unalienable” because man is created in the image of God, which means that man alone possesses free will and the capacity to distinguish good from evil. In other words: It is from God, and not from any Government or body of men, that we derive our rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Imago dei is what makes those rights “unalienable” and establishes them as basic ends of legitimate Government.

Therefore—and this is the Second Principle: “Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” The people, therefore, are sovereign under God, which means, in the final analysis, that the People are His interpreters!

However, since the phrase “any Form of Government” obviously includes Democracy, it follows that the People or their Representatives are theologically prohibited from establishing a Government or enacting laws that violate “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” or that violate “absolute reason and justice.” We see here that the Declaration of Independence is basically consistent with Jewish law and provides no justification for the establishment of a secular democratic state!

Having said this, let us put to rest certain errors. The “Creator” referred to in the First Principle must be construed as a theistic, not a deistic God, otherwise—and regardless of their personal convictions—it would have made no sense for the 56 signers of Declaration to appeal to “the Supreme Judge of the world,” or to express their “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.” Moreover, and of paramount significance in interpreting the meaning of the Declaration, its language should be construed in terms of the understanding of its audience, which was overwhelmingly Christian, consisting, therefore, of theists, not deists.

Now consider the phrase “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The term “Nature” is foreign to the Torah. Moreover, the notion of “Laws of Nature” suggests autonomous or self-sustaining and eternal laws, something impossible in a created universe. And since Greek philosophy never conceived of creation ex nihilo, let us put to rest the Stoic basis of the Declaration. The truth is that the Declaration is an eclectic but nonetheless magnificent document into which Jefferson injected Greco-Christian nuances, which Christian nuances, however, are rooted in the Torah, the source of monotheism. Evidence of this will be found in the law lectures of James Wilson of whom a brief statement is necessary.

Wilson, who taught law at the University of Pennsylvania, was widely deemed the most learned man of his generation. Wilson was not only a signer of the Declaration of Independence. His contribution to the deliberations of the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787 was second only to that of James Madison. Moreover, like Rabbi Benamozegh, he regarded God’s will, as interpreted by the people acting through their representatives, as the supreme authority.

This means that the concept of “popular sovereignty” must be understood within the context of a monotheistic culture, and it is only within such a culture that can one rightly understand the American Declaration of Independence.

One more thought. The Declaration, as Abraham Lincoln understood, embodies the political philosophy—more accurately the “political theology”—of the American Constitution. Here is what John Adams, another signatory of the Declaration, said of the Constitution: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” That religious morality is crystallized in the Declaration of Independence on which America stands and which is now being subverted.

By Prof. Paul Eidelberg, retired professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University and author of On the Silence of the Declaration of Independence.

Pres. Obama a representative of secular paganism? April 4, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, Chrisitanity, covenant, God, Jesus Christ, Jews, law, Middle East, moral law, New Testament, politics, secularism, Torah.
add a comment

In a recent commentary titled “Realism,” Prof. Paul Eidelberg commented on Pres. Obama’s alliance with the Islamic Middle East. As far as Prof. Eidelberg is concerned, Obama represent secular Christianity and its coalition against a Jewish Israeli state.

It’s plain that the Obama administration and the European Union do not take Islam seriously, which is why they are demanding a Palestinian state NOW. Unconditional acceptance of a Palestinian state was the objective of the Annapolis Conference, which Mr. Lieberman rejected in his maiden speech. In other words, he rejected unconditional surrender to Israel’s enemy, the Fatah-Hamas Palestinian Authority. Turn, however, to Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia.

That the President of the United States should genuflect from the waist down to Saudi King Faud signifies the (ignominious) unconditional surrender of the United States to Islam.

Mr. Obama’s father was a Muslim (which makes him a Muslim); his mother a secular Christian. Obama’s bowing to King Faud signifies an alliance of Islam and the secularized Christian West against Judaism and the Jewish State of Israel.

This alliance may be said to have begun in 1975 when the United Nations declared Zionism a form of racism and subsequently endowed the Arafat-led PLO with “observer status.” Thereafter, both the US and the EU rolled out the red carpet to Arafat. In violation of its agreement with Israel concerning the PLO, President Carter Jimmy allowed the PLO to establish an office in Washington, DC. PLO offices were also established in various European capitals. The two offspring of Judaism again bit the breasts that had suckled them.

Pres. Obama may represent a paganized secular form of Christianity but he does not represent Christianity. He is neither a Christian not an ambassador of it. My view is justified on several grounds:

  1. The first and foremost allegiance of any genuine Christian is to the Lordship of Jesus, the risen Jew from Nazareth. The Lordship of Jesus is not divorced from the law or purposes of God. Rather, his rule can only perpetuate God’s agenda and not contrarian politics or religion of mortal people. Jesus was and is anointed (Messiah) for the purpose of the fulfillment of God’s plans for His kingdom in heaven and on earth.

    Pres. Obama, his mentors, and most American political leader serve their own world socialist agendas not God’s.

  2. Such allegiance has been manifest in both holy writ and through the lives of the faithful. To be faithful means to live a life exemplary of the law and will of the Lord and of God.

    Pres. Obama actually represents the secular paganism of the Democratic Party as well as the agenda of World Socialism. So do most of his associates in the executive office. Obama’s furtherance of the sexual politics of immorality is sufficient evidence of this fact. Covenantal law explicated in Torah, Hebrew prophets, gospels, epistles, and Revelation make it absolutely clear that Pres. Obama and all secularists like him are enemies of the kingdom of God and Jesus.

    Pres. Obama is the exact opposite of the the founder who could easily promote and defend the word of God and legislate according to its legal principles as easily as party politicians like Obama oppose them.

  3. The unforgivable crime of these secular pagans is the rivers of innocent blood that cover their legislative hands and criminal souls. This is the crime that God fulfilled His promise to the ancient Jews to extricate them from the promised land. This was the crime that God refused to hear their half-hearted repentance. It was the moral crime God would not stay the judgment. This was the crime of the Babylonians, Caesar, Incas, and others whose civilizations passed out of existence. It is the same crime perpetrated by secular America that God will not long tolerate.

Secular Christianity does not exist because it cannot exist. The two terms create an oxymoron. Christianity represents the kingdom under the rule of a Jewish King. The redemptive justice extended by God to the world through this redeemer-king is one of tolerance but of the full satisfaction of eternal justice under absolute rule of law. This is the love of God through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Messiah. This is what modern secularists fully reject, which motivates all of their criminal act cloaked by lawless laws and the terrible consequences society now experiences.

Faced Obama Appears At Annual National Prayer Breakfast Speech February 11, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in adoption, Barak Obama, Chrisitanity, Islam, Judaism, politics, right to life, violence.
add a comment

President Barack Obama spoke at his first National Prayer Breakfast event as President this morning and displayed his two faces once again for all to see.

During the speech, Obama elevated Islam – the most violent religion in the world – to an equal place with Christianity and Judaism. He falsely claimed that “there is no religion whose central tenet is hate.” Clearly, he hasn’t read the Koran very carefully – even though he was raised by a Muslim father and Muslim stepfather and studied the Koran in an Indonesian school.

The history of Islam has always been one of conquest by the sword. Millions have been slaughtered by Muslims who were following the teachings of the Koran to slay their enemies. This is an historical fact – one that our Islamo-President conveniently ignores while pretending to be a man of abiding faith in God.

In the most disgusting display of his two-faced façade, he told the audience: “There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.”

If Obama claims to be a Christian, then why was one of his first acts as President to overturn the Mexico City policy – which had prohibited American tax dollars from being used to kill unborn children overseas? If his God is against the taking of innocent life, why does he support abortion on demand – and plans on signing the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) that will violate parental rights and condemn millions of unborn babies to death. He has been a rabid supporter of partial-birth abortion and his wife even bragged about it in a fundraising letter to pro-abortion donors.

Obama’s shameless display of hypocrisy is only the beginning of four years of two-faced policies and phony speeches of piety by a man who spent twenty years sitting in the pews of hatemonger Pastor Jeremiah Wright – who believed that the Islamic terrorist attack on our nation on September 11, 2001, was our pay back for being an evil nation.

By Traditional Values Coalition Executive Director Andrea Lafferty

God protect us from this two-faced man.

Politics of Change : Obama, Islam, and Declaration of Independence January 24, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, Chrisitanity, Declaration of Independence, Islam, Judaism, religion, socialism, truth, United States.
add a comment

In his Inaugural Address, President Barack Obama declared that America is “a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus—and non-believers.” According to Islam, however, all non-Muslims are “non-believers” or “infidels.” Among such non-believers are all the signers of the American Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution!

Obama’s faux pas, if it may called that, is of world-historical significance. It is a portent of America’s decline. The day before his inauguration, Obama said he would bring the American people a new Declaration of Independence, one that will be free of petty thinking, prejudice, and bigotry. In view of such monumental arrogance, I dare say America will not survive Obama’s presidency. I therefore urge Jews in the United States to leave as soon as possible for Israel and hasten the ultimate ascendancy of the only God-bearing nation.

It is no accident that Obama’s father was a Muslim. Since Islam prescribes patrilineal descent, hundreds of millions of the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims regard the President of the United States as one of their own, even though, by professing Christianity he is an apostate.

Influenced by the doctrine of progress or of historical evolution, Obama represents the antithesis of the American Declaration of Independence, which postulates immutable principles rooted in the ethical monotheism of the Bible and the natural rights doctrine of Greek political philosophy.

That tradition was undermined when Woodrow Wilson, influenced by Darwinism, substituted historical evolution for the immutable truths of the Declaration. Thereafter the Constitution became a “living (or evolving) constitution,” which subordinates the intentions of the Framers to the egalitarian or populist predilections of the Supreme Court. The will of men, of judicial activists, replaced the rule of law.

Enter Barack Obama and the slogan of CHANGE and “YES WE CAN.” “Change”? Yes, from a nation based in individual entrepreneurship to one based on government “entitlements,” a government that empowers the “WE,” not the “I.”

Descending from these abstract ideas to earthly facts: according to some estimates, about 20% of the world’s Muslim population supports jihad—a number equal to the population of the United States. Bernard Lewis, the doyen of Islamic scholars, states: “The overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists … understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense, and have examined and expounded it accordingly.” A word about Islam’s sacred.

The Quran represents, for Muslims, the “final revelation” of God, conveyed to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel. Every word of the Quran, every syllable, every letter manifests absolute truth. Those who reject Islam reject the truth. Hence there is no reason for Muslims, who possess the truth, to tolerate error or to respect its purveyors—the kafirs, the community of “non-believers.” This is why Islam, from its inception in the seventh century to the present day, have pillaged and destroyed countless Jewish, Christian, and Hindu communities.

The myth of a “Golden Age,” when Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived in harmony, has been refuted by Bat Ye’or’s Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide. Elsewhere, she refers to Islam as “The Culture of Hate.” Islam “has multiple heads from Algeria to Afghanistan, to Indonesia, via Gaza and the West Bank, Damascus, Cairo, Khartoum, Teheran, and Karachi. It scatters the seeds of terrorism from one end of the earth to the other.”

The principle of human equality, which Obama emphasized in his Inaugural Address, is foreign to Islam. So too are the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Quran therefore rejects the “self-evident” truths of the American Declaration of Independence. Properly understood, Islam rejects the Biblical conception of man’s creation in the image of God.

Conversely, the Declaration rejects the Islamic belief that the Quran is the repository of truth. Hardly any democratic intellectual dares question the basic beliefs, including the monotheism, of 1.5 billion people. To question the truth of Islam smacks of racism or “Islamophobia,” something abhorrent to democrats. Dominated by moral relativism, the West is in no position to refute Islam. One does not refute Islam by saying Muslims have slaughtered 270 million people since the time of Muhammad.

Nor does one refute Islam by recalling how the horrible death 3,000 human beings on 9/11 was gleefully celebrated throughout the Islamic world. But what about “Muslim moderates”? The issue of Muslim moderates is strategically irrelevant, since they do not control any Islamic state. More significant, as Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament, has pointed out, “There is no moderate Islam, there will never be a moderate Islam.” This is the only honest conclusion one can draw from the Quran, which Churchill the Mein Kampf of war.

So what is to be done vis-à-vis a creed whose adherents slaughter men, women, and children in the name of Allah and his prophet, and are applauded by countless believers? Dr. Wafa Sultan, a Syrian-born psychiatrist, said Islam cannot be reformed; it must be transformed. Long before that happens, Muslim despots will possess weapons of mass destruction; and since they do not regard human life as sacred, they will not hesitate to use those weapons.

President Obama, however, is so intoxicated with his oratorical skill that he thinks he can pacify the murderous hatred that animates Muslims like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who calls for a world without America.

A world without America means a world devoid of what made America the greatest nation on earth: the immutable truths of the Declaration of Independence. But what can be immutable when a desire for CHANGE, disconnected from PERMANENCE, made a person of Obama’s radically socialist and chameleon character President of the United States? Can one inspire reverence, can one inspire national solidarity, without emphasizing what is permanent and therefore transcends what is here today and gone tomorrow?

by Prof. Paul Eidelberg

To view other of Prof. Eidelberg’s writings, go to the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy

Chronicles on Christmas December 25, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Chrisitanity, Christmas, conservative, culture war, Jesus Christ, news, politics, religion, secularism.
add a comment

While Tom Flemings was musing about his Christmas nightmares, Tom Piatak was rehashing some of his earlier commentary on the culture war against Christmas. Both intellectuals were sharing their complaints and insights in the December edition of Chronicles : A Magazine of American culture, which is a publication of the Rockford Institute.

Uh, that is not an institute of Hollywood’s private detective series The Rockford Files starred by James Garner as Jim Rockford. No, the Rockford Institute is a conservative think-tank seeking to honor the founder’s view of American life and politics.

Fleming’s takes his readers on a dark journey from the blessings of Halloween to the paganization of Christmas. This trip began with childhood perceptions to the more matured and educated perspective of that critical period known as adulthood. The contrasts between the developments of Halloween and Christmas, especially between various movies like The Nightmare Before Christmas and A Christmas Carol are astounding. That is not as astounding as the general trend of among Christians who have adapted a pagan version of Christmas. After all Christmas is about baby Jesus being born not to escape infanticide or poverty but to die so that all humanity could have eternal life.

It cannot be said that Chronicles is not balanced. As mentioned earlier, the other Tom offers more than dark trends of modern culture that should give all conservatives nightmares about our materialistic Christmas season; he offers solutions under the banner of “How to Win the War Against Christmas.”

In addition to giving readers a brief history of the problem such as schools who forbid the Christmas classic Handel’s Messiah or the bigger war against Western culture, Piatak presents some ideas how collectively we can win the war against Christmas.

Before doing so, we should back up a little to explain the above. In Columbus Ohio, school officials refused to allow the school’s music departments to perform the Christmas classic Handel’s Messiah. The reason was to appease an anti-religious policy engendered by the ACLU, who resemble Russia’s KGB and the thought police in Orwell’s book 1984. They are among the warriors fighting against the traditions of Western culture that is largely the product of Christianity, which is to say of Jesus Christ and his followers’ biblical theological and political views. Multiculturalism, moral relativism, political correctness, and cultural Marxism are a few of arsenal employed by the ACLU, public education, and others in this war.

While quoting Thomas Cahill, he reveals something I never knew or at least didn’t remember. The familiar manger scene of Christ at his birth originated when Francis of Assisi created the first live crèche celebrating the lowly beginnings of the world’s only true savior. Another unknown historical fact is much the renowned artists and musical composers like Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael, and Caravaggio as well as Bach, Mozart, and the grand master Handel.
The great artistic traditions that have inspired generations of Americans are the result of Christianity and its Jewish Messiah.

If the secular gulag is allowed to sanitize Christmas, as Piatak says, we will also lose all of our historical heritage and the inspiration for much of the great art, music, and yes, even science– not to mention the legal, political, and economic principles that guided our ancestors to our Constituted federal and republican form of governments. The development of those principles go back to the Protestant Reformation and ultimately to the biblical Exodus.

What then is Piatak’s solution to the secularist war against western culture and its tradition of celebrating the birth of the Messiah? He says we could start saying to one another Merry Christmas. That’s should be pretty easy. We could also stop patronizing politically correct retailers. We could only buy cards that mention Christmas. We could use only USPS Christmas stamp in December. By telling why we are doing so, those retailers and our local postal service would get the message and change their views and practices.

The good news is that the numbers are on our side, according to Piatak. He reports that polls show 96 percent of Americans celebrate Christmas.

My personal opinionated conclusion to Tom and Tom’s opinionated Christmas musings is just this: Join the pursuit for a Merry Christmas every day of the year and forever.