The “Abomination” of Christmas

christmas-tree-with-new-year-ornamentsFrom Valerie Tarico’s excellent article,  Christianity’s Own War on Christmas:

Today’s Christian War on Christmas
Today most Christians have forgotten [their] history, but a conservative remnant still sees the celebration of Christmas as a concession to worldly influences. Retired Presbyterian minister G.I.Williamson complains that stores are open on Sunday but closed on Christmas. “There is no command to have a special day called Christmas. . . . If my church history books are correct there was only one day that was celebrated faithfully in the early Church. It was the Lord’s Day. And people used to greet one another by saying “Jesus is risen.”

Freelance fundamentalist Christopher J.E. Johnson of Creation Liberty Evangelism echoesthe old complaint that Christmas is fundamentally pagan: “God hates paganism and he hates idols and he hates the concept of false Gods, and that’s what Christmas actually represents.” He preaches that “one of the big problems in Christianity today is theDENIAL of the pagan origins of their traditions, or in other words, they lie to themselves (and to others) in order to keep from knowing the truth, and thereby preventing themselves from receiving conviction from the Holy Spirit that would force them to give up their fleshly lusts. To understand the abomination of Christmas being brought into the Church of Jesus Christ, we need to understand its origin.”

As with the bible, few believers know anything about the actual history of Christmas. Nevertheless, they get all up-in-arms because those nasty atheists and other non-believers don’t want to wish them “Merry Christmas.” After all, says them, the 25th day of December is the “Savior’s” birthday (which, technically, is not correct) and everyone (of all creeds and color) should honor that!

Yet, when the facts are known, it never occurred to the early believers to celebrate Yeshua’s birthday. It was just another day. They were much more focused on his resurrection.

Moreover, there is no Biblical directive to do so.

None of this even speaks to the pagan origins of many Christmas traditions, such as the so-called “Christmas tree.” And gift-giving? It was originally seen as a way to celebrate the New Year … not as a symbol of the gifts (supposedly) given to the Christ-child.

So go ahead, Christians. Throw your hissy-fits because someone doesn’t accept your holiday. It’s not going to change the facts.

Did You Catch That?

Watched the Republican Debate last night. Same old crap. But I did take note of a comment by Ben Carson … and wondered if anyone else who endured the event picked up on it.

The primary topic for this debate was terrorism and the safety of the U.S. At one point, the discussion turned to the nuclear danger from No. Korea. Carson said something to the effect that No. Korea was a poor country because all the money goes to the military while the people are starving.

Hmmm …

As a sidenote — does anyone besides me wonder why Clinton is the “front-runner” Democratic candidate? Perhaps because the media is giving little to no space to Bernie? Outside of social media, there has been minimal mention of him. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there are hundreds of voters who don’t even know who he is, let alone what he stands for. Hopefully this will change as we get closer to the primaries.

So You Want to Carry a Gun

I know I’ve written several posts lately on gun control, but it’s a subject that’s pretty close to home in that my “other half” is not only a gun owner, but also a supporter of the NRA (and thus, has a rather slanted perspective).

I am not totally against guns as I have owned and used them in my younger years. However, things have changed over time and gun ownership is not what it used to be.

If you’re tired of reading about this topic, you can just click away now.

Recently I did a bit of research into the state laws related to gun ownership and I noticed something that seemed to be missing in each of them.

The majority of states do NOT require a course in actual gun training and safety to purchase a gun.

Nearly all states require some sort of “background check” and will then issue a “license or permit to carry.” Some have a “waiting period” before the gun can be released, and a few require the potential owner to take a written “safety exam.” Some ask the potential owner to sign a waiver allowing access to mental health records.

Laws also vary depending on the type of gun (handgun or large gun) being purchased. Some large gun purchases have no restrictions.

There are even MORE variances among the states that I haven’t addressed here. In other words, it’s a conglomeration of “laws” and requirements that only the person who lives in that particular state would know.

What I want to point out in this posting is only the following states require any type of gun safety training:

  • Massachusetts requires safety training of all applicants. This includes instruction on: (1) the safe use, handling and storage of firearms; (2) methods for securing and childproofing firearms; (3) the applicable laws relating to the possession, transportation and storage of firearms; and (4) knowledge of operation, potential dangers and basic competency in the ownership and usage of firearms.
  • In the District of Columbia, an applicant must complete a firearms training and safety class and demonstrate knowledge about firearms laws, safe storage of firearms, and requirements for storage.
  • California requires anyone purchasing a handgun to obtain a Firearm Safety Certificate,  which means the applicant must pass a written safety test and, subject to limited exceptions, be required to perform a safe handling demonstration with the firearm in the presence of a certified instructor.
  • Connecticut requires safety training prior to issuance of any firearm permit.
  • Hawaii requires handgun permit applicants to complete an approved course that focuses on the safe use, handling and storage of firearms and firearms safety in the home.
  • Maryland applicants must complete an approved firearm safety training course that includes instruction on state firearms law, home firearm safety, handgun mechanisms and operation, and an orientation component that demonstrates the person’s safe operation and handling of a firearm.
  • Rhode Island applicants who wish to purchase a handgun and do not have a concealed handgun license and are not a member of law enforcement must complete a basic two-hour handgun safety course.

In my opinion, Massachusetts has the most comprehensive requirements (especially #4).

While the other states I listed require that a potential gun owner knows how to handle a gun and about its safe storage (especially if being purchased for personal safety), knowing something is far different than demonstrating your capability of actually firing the gun and hitting your intended target.

The thousands of people who are now purchasing and carrying guns in the wake of the mass shootings are, for the most part, totally ignorant of how to use a gun.

The NRA argument that the number of deaths at a mass shooting would be less if someone had a gun, carries little to no weight … UNLESS that person knows how to remove the gun from the holster, release the safety, point the gun, and shoot the perpetrator WITHOUT missing (because every stray bullet can kill).

And this can only be accomplished if the person has had actual training on using a firearm … and this knowledge has given him a clear head and accurate aim.

(Sidenote: The ignoramuses who “open carry” their “assault” rifles may know how to crawl through the brush to shoot a buck, but that’s a far cry from shooting a human being in a moment of stress.)

While I would prefer to live in a country without such easy access to guns, it’s simply not possible so I must endure the mentality of those who think guns are the answer to the dangers of society and who, in most cases, are incapable of actually knowing how to use one to protect themselves and those around them.

“Dear Donald … I Am Scared”


This letter, written by a sophomore at UC San Diego, may never reach the chosen recipient, but the message is powerful — and I so wish he would read it. While it’s extremely doubtful it would do any good, maybe, just maybe, it would strike a chord.

One of the core comments:

… no matter whether or not I choose to wear a hijab or to pray five times a day and to fast in the month of Ramadan, this country is built on allowing me to make those decisions without interference from the government or other citizens.
(emphasis mine)

One can’t help but wonder if, in all his scholarly learning, the Donald missed the study of the U.S. Constitution. Could it really be that he has no knowledge of the First Amendment? It would seem so … and, sad to say, many who listen to and support him are also in the dark.

I know my blog is just one of a plethora of others related to the issue of “The Donald.” But perhaps if we keep yammering away, someone, somewhere, will read it and recognize the “solutions” he offers to solve the problems of this U.S. of A. are not only creating divisions among people, but are extremely dangerous. There is already an existing “us vs. them” mentality in many parts of this country. To constantly reinforce it will do nothing but stir the pot and eventually cause the malcontent to attack the object of their prejudices and phobias.

Terrorists don’t originate only in mid-eastern countries.