Re-Blog - This is Not a Day Care

This past week, I actually had a student come forward after a university chapel service and complain because he felt “victimized” by a sermon on the topic of 1 Corinthians 13. It appears that this young scholar felt offended because a homily on love made him feel bad for not showing love. In his mind, the speaker was wrong for making him, and his peers, feel uncomfortable.

I’m not making this up. Our culture has actually taught our kids to be this self-absorbed and narcissistic. Any time their feelings are hurt, they are the victims. Anyone who dares challenge them and, thus, makes them “feel bad” about themselves, is a “hater,” a “bigot,” an “oppressor,” and a “victimizer.”

I have a message for this young man and all others who care to listen. That feeling of discomfort you have after listening to a sermon is called a conscience. An altar call is supposed to make you feel bad. It is supposed to make you feel guilty. The goal of many a good sermon is to get you to confess your sins—not coddle you in your selfishness. The primary objective of the Church and the Christian faith is your confession, not your self-actualization.

So here’s my advice:

If you want the chaplain to tell you you’re a victim rather than tell you that you need virtue, this may not be the university you’re looking for. If you want to complain about a sermon that makes you feel less than loving for not showing love, this might be the wrong place.

If you’re more interested in playing the “hater” card than you are in confessing your own hate; if you want to arrogantly lecture, rather than humbly learn; if you don’t want to feel guilt in your soul when you are guilty of sin; if you want to be enabled rather than confronted, there are many universities across the land (in Missouri and elsewhere) that will give you exactly what you want, but Oklahoma Wesleyan isn’t one of them.

At OKWU, we teach you to be selfless rather than self-centered. We are more interested in you practicing personal forgiveness than political revenge. We want you to model interpersonal reconciliation rather than foment personal conflict. We believe the content of your character is more important than the color of your skin. We don’t believe that you have been victimized every time you feel guilty and we don’t issue “trigger warnings” before altar calls.

Oklahoma Wesleyan is not a “safe place”, but rather, a place to learn: to learn that life isn’t about you, but about others; that the bad feeling you have while listening to a sermon is called guilt; that the way to address it is to repent of everything that’s wrong with you rather than blame others for everything that’s wrong with them. This is a place where you will quickly learn that you need to grow up.

This is not a day care. This is a university!

Dr. Everett Piper, President

Oklahoma Wesleyan University

---

source:
http://www.okwu.edu/blog/2015/11/this-is-not-a-day-care-its-a-university/

how do you #selfie your soul?

STOP SKINNY SHAMING!
seriously, this nonsense has to stop... people keep writing articles about how it's "Fat-Shaming" whenever someone posts a picture of themselves looking skinny, fit, or just good... apparently, this makes fat people feel bad about themselves.

honestly, maybe they should feel bad... seriously... being fit is being healthy... "i can be fat and healthy," says the offended... sure you can... you can smoke cigarettes and not get cancer... you can sky-dive and always have your parachute open... Evel Knievel can jump over the Grand Canyon and not plummet to his doom.

but let's be real about statistics for a moment... if you have excess body weight, you (statistically) will have higher triglycerides, cholesterol, etc... you are (statistically) at a higher risk for heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc... your mortality rate (again, statistics) goes up.

for those who haven't made the connection:

• if you're fat, not fit, you're going to die sooner... if you're fit, you live longer.
• hell, if you're fit, you feel better.
• you can walk up stairs without having to sit down half-way up.
• sex is even better (and who doesn't want that?).
• on that note, excess body fat obstructs the base of the penis... that's right... the fit, skinny guy has a longer penis.
• skinny women receive greater penetration during sex... no thunder-thighs to get in the way.
• more sexual positions!... if you're fit, you can have sex in those damnable small bathtubs... (trust me, two whales mating in a puddle isn't pretty... don't Google that!)
• if you're fit, you can wear a greater variety of clothes... not because you look good in them, but because they make your size... the Big And Tall shop is a misnomer... tall has very little to do with it... it should be called, to paraphrase Gabriel Iglesias, "Big and Damn!"
• if you're fit, your children are more likely to be fit... that's right, if you live longer, so will they!

but, no... people have to get pissed of whenever someone else feels good about themselves.

like this turd... she gets all holier-than-thou about a lady who is internet-famous for her butt... she takes "selfies" of her own tush... along comes this lady who calls it "objectification of women"... so, a woman feels good about herself, takes a picture of her butt (which she obviously worked hard to get), posts it online because she's proud of it, and somehow she's objectifying herself.

let me get this straight... if i, as a guy, put on a tie, get a haircut, spruce myself up and decide "damn, I look good", the moment i share a photo of myself, i've objectified men?... because that's what you're saying women are doing... "damn, I look good"... *click*... *post*... objectification.

what... the... hell.

back to the "turd"... here's some of her bitching:

Someone needs to say it: Ladies, get a grip. Face selfies are one thing; butt selfies are another.

And yet, the problem with butt selfies and all manner of obsession with the female backside is old as time: It’s the objectification of women.

It’s great for Ms. Selter to promote #hardwork and #cleaneating, among other healthy lifestyle choices. It would be even better for someone to come along and remind us that we are cutting ourselves short when we focus purely on the physical.

if you can't take photos of yourself, what are you allowed to take pictures of?... you go to the gym, lose weight, feel great... take a photo of the car you drove to the gym?... won't that offend people with older model cars?... or, worse yet, no car?... that lady who had three kids, looks great, and challenges others to do the same; somehow she should take photos of something else?... what, her vagina for giving birth?... would that cause labia-envy?... the lady who showed off her six-pack abs just days after giving birth; should she take photos of her college degree?... or would that offend the illiterate?

i'd just like to know something... how in the hell do you take a selfie of your soul?

---

source:
The Case Against Butt Selfies, by Erin VargoErin Vargo | TUE. MARCH 25 | Acculturated
Mom Angers World After Showing Off 6-Pack 3 Days After Giving Birth by Ericka Sóuter December 2, 2013
'Hot Facebook Mom' Still Wants To Know: 'What's Your Excuse?' The Huffington Post | by Cavan Sieczkowski 03/07/2014

reminiscing on burying the hatchet

always remember, when burying the hatchet, you aren't the only one who knows its location... watch your back.

and when turning the other cheek, you can expect that one to get slapped, too.

on a personal note, i find it amusing that it does not matter how much i wish to extend the olive branch, i always seem to end up with olive-branch lash marks for my troubles... today i spent time with one step-son, supporting him in his college career and choices in life... it's always a pleasure to see him... in doing so, i tried to be friendly and cordial with my other step-son, whom is the diametrically opposite the first... no matter how hard i try, it is never a pleasure.

i'm not going to delude you (or myself) with the illusion that his an our issues are not mutual... we have both done things which should not have been done; said things which should not have been said... some things are water under the bridge; some flood over... but today, it was to be a détente‎, a mutual cease-fire for the sake of the family and to enjoy some family time; to bond over the mutual good fortune of our relative... it might as well have been the Tet Offensive.

we were talking about several movies; older movies, new movies, spoilers for movies... my wife brought up the upcoming movie of "God Isn't Dead"... i could feel my heart sink, as i knew that he wouldn't have let a religious reference go unchallenged; him being the faithful atheist zealot he is... his derisive comment was, "You know that's not based on a true story," as if we were thinking Kevin Sorbo and Dean Cain just happened to be part of some documentary.

i should have let it go... i knew it at the time... my brain knew it, at least... my mouth didn't get the memo.

"That's why it's called a movie," i said, too much sarcasm in my voice... "Who thinks this is based on fact?"... to which he replied, "The same people who think The Passion of the Christ is based on fact."

okay... what do i do?... do i go on the offensive and provide some comments about his own beliefs (or lack thereof) or do i sit back and allow him to insult me and my wife (his mother) some more?... as i have allowed him to spit his derision in my face for several years, i suppose it is partly my fault... but, as i have made it clear that i won't allow that; i face a dilemma... do i go back to being spat upon, or do i do something about it?

i chose to just leave... call it a day... throw in the towel... move on... forgive-and-, well, i'm short on forgiveness these days... i can only take being kicked so much... so leaving seemed the best route... not classy, but it removes me from the situation.

speaking of classy... i'm short on that these days, too... he had his shit-eating grin, looking forward to shaking my hand on leaving... kind of his own little, "Well, that point goes to me"... i don't plan on losing well.

"F-U"... and i walk away.

well, apparently that was not what he wanted to hear... it definitely wasn't what should have been said... but i'll admit i felt much better haven gotten that off my chest.

i hope he got the same relief from the following bits he had to say in return... these are my favorite bits:
"You can't talk to me like that in front of my family"... yet he has never had that same restriction.
"You don't deserve my mom and brother"... a common refrain from his teenage years when i was dating his mother... Oedipus much?
"You've never respected me"... now that's not true, but how long can you respect someone who (figuratively, of course) defecates on you time and time again?... what am i, in an abusive relationship?... yet i keep coming back... maybe i am.
"I'm the only one who stands up to you"... obviously, he has a delusional image of married life... and his brother has, but not in that in-your-face manner, but in a more passive-aggressive mode... sometimes, he'll even sit down and discuss his issues with me... he, i respect.

i should learn from this experience... i should still walk away, but i should also let him have his hollow victory... i should shake his hand and wish him well... i know that one day, he'll treat someone else with the same mocking derision... someone who doesn't have the family ties to restrain him... one day, that someone will break his jaw... and he'll learn a very hard lesson; one i have tried to spare him for some time... but you can lead a horse to water; you can't make him think.

the greatest lesson i learned from this incident is going to remain my secret... but i have learned that he has a tell (like in poker)... and when i saw it, i couldn't suppress a grin.

i feel bad about that grin.

a rush to judgement - Re-blog

Condemnation of conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh driven by the left-wing media was swift and feverish. Outrageous is how they described one of Mr. Limbaugh’s signature humorous observations about left-wing absurdity, for which he has since apologized.

Mr. Limbaugh’s remarks were prompted by the appearance of 30-year old Georgetown University law student and liberal political activist Sandra Fluke as a witness before an unofficial hearing convened by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Ms. Fluke complained that the student health program of Roman Catholic Georgetown University did not provide contraception for her, forcing her to pay $1,000 per year for contraception.

Considering that birth control pills cost as little as $9 per month ($108 per year) from pharmacies at Target stores, Mr. Limbaugh surmised that the only way Ms. Fluke could spend $1,000 per year was to buy condoms, which costs around 55 cents each, and purchase enough to use five condoms each day of the year (365 X 5 = 1,825). To illustrate the absurdity of Ms. Fluke’s claims, Mr. Limbaugh humorously observed that the only women who are having sex five times a day, 365 days per year typically were called either prostitutes or sluts.

Notably, poor people get birth control through Medicaid from the federal government. An additional $300 million is spent by the federal government to provide contraceptives to low-income and uninsured people who can’t qualify for Medicaid. This spending to help poor women was supported even when Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress.

The above facts about the ready availability of inexpensive contraceptives show clearly that Ms. Fluke’s testimony was based on falsehoods. Plus, her record as a reproductive rights activist demonstrates that, instead of being promiscuous, she is in reality waging a war against Roman Catholic Georgetown University in particular and religion in general.

An even more amazing observation is the fact that Ms. Fluke’s appeal for government help runs counter to the mantra that women want the government to stay out of private decisions about their bodies.

Lost in the media-generated brouhaha ginned up by Democrats and their media allies to paint Republicans as engaging in a “war on women” are the two real issues.

One concern is whether President Barack Obama can violate the First Amendment to our Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion and force religious organizations to pay for something that violates their moral conscience.

The other issue is whether Mr. Obama can force private insurance companies to cover certain procedures or medications. If the answer to either or both of these questions is yes, then we no longer live in a country governed for the people by our elected representatives. Instead, our nation has been changed into a socialist dictatorship and we are living under the tyranny of Mr. Obama who governing by executive fiat, not restrained by our Constitution, the law of our land.

In their rush (pun intended) to discredit Mr. Limbaugh, liberal journalists either fail to mention or downplay the above two important Constitutional issues, but are quick to display rank hypocrisy with their righteous indignation over name-calling.

There was the sound of silence from the left-wing press when a black Republican woman and congressional candidate, Charlotte Bergmann, was called a “token negro”, "stupid" and a "curly-haired nigga" to her face by Democrat liberal talk show host and DJ Thaddeus Matthews while Ms. Bergmann was a guest on his show. If ever there was a show of wanton vulgarity and cruelty, this was it. The article “Outrage subdued after DJ goes on racially charged rant on GOP congressional candidate” by Judson Berger can be found on the Internet.

A video of the actual trashing of Ms. Bergmann by Mr. Matthews can be seen on YouTube.

An article with further evidence of how Democrats conduct a “war on black Republicans”, using vile and reprehensible personal attacks because we do not toe the liberal agenda line, calling us “sellouts”, “Uncle Toms” and “House Negroes” is posted on the NBRA website.

One of those racist cartoons demeaning Dr. Condoleezza Rice was published in The Washington Post. Will the editorial board of the Washington Post ever apologize in the name of civility and for the good of our American political culture?

Will the liberal press demand that Democrats in Congress denounce Mr. Thaddeus and repudiate the racist attack on a citizen who is seeking to become an elected representative of the people? Will President Obama make a supportive call to Ms. Bergmann?

President Obama, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Senate Leader Harry Reid and others Democratic Party leaders need to say without equivocation that such gutter rhetoric uttered by Mr. Matthews and other Democrats against black Republicans has no place in their party or in our American political discourse.

Further, when will the Democratic Party issue the long overdue apology to black Americans for that party’s nearly 200 years of racism? Not one liberal journalist bothered to give press coverage to the historic occasion when Rev. Wayne Perryman sued the Democratic Party, requesting such an apology, but the Democratic Party hired an army of lawyers to defend their racist past; thereby, avoiding doing the right thing and issuing an apology. An article about the lawsuit can be found on the Internet.

As author Michael Scheuer wrote, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. In his book, “Dreams From My Father”, President Obama described what he and other Democrats do to poor blacks as “plantation politics”. Details are contained in our NBRA Civil Rights Newsletter that is posted on our website.

In spite of Mr. Limbaugh’s apology, seven of his sponsors have withdrawn their advertisements, playing into the blacklisting game of the far left, the same strategy that liberals used to get Mr. Ronald Reagan removed by CBS as the host of the “General Electric Theater” in 1962 because he criticized President John F. Kennedy. In his article ”Rally for Rush” Jeffrey Lord exposes how the seven companies who pulled their ads from Mr. Limbaugh’s program are connected to far left-wing groups funded by George Soros, including MoveOn.org, America Coming Together and Democracy for America.

Lord wrote: “They exploit race and gender to try and destroy First Amendment protections. People who support a philosophy long on record as supporting every racial gambit from slavery, segregation, lynching and the Ku Klux Klan right on through to the violation of voting rights by the Black Panthers, racial quotas and illegal immigration have no scruples.”

The supposed desire for civility expressed by the liberal media would be credible if journalists placed as much emphasis on holding Democrats accountable for their overt racism toward black Republicans. Also, our country would be saved from being turned into a failed socialist nation by President Obama if the liberal press devoted as much time trying to stop him from shredding our Constitution as they spend trying to silence a talk show host who has no power to deny Americans anything, Constitutional or otherwise.

Frances Rice is a lawyer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She may be contacted on the Internet at: http://www.nbra.info/

---

source:
Outrage For White Woman Fluke But Not For Black Republicans
(also: blackrepublican.blogspot.com)
by National Black Republican Association NBRA on Monday, March 5, 2012 at 12:12pm
By Frances Rice

not nice to point

clearly, it's not nice to point... right Brian Williams?

"Who have you ever seen talking to the President like this?" said NBC's Brian Williams

uh, well...

BRIAN WILLIAMS (pointing his finger at Bush)

YOU DID!

---

source:
NBC's Brian Williams Shocked at Jan Brewer's Finger Pointing, But... - By: Rich Noyes Monday, January 30, 2012 - MRC.org - Media Research Center

just wow... what do you say?

Colmes claimed Santorum took the baby home, after living for only two hours, and "played with it for a couple of hours"

oh. my. god.

"To some who don't recognize the dignity of all human life, who see it as a blob of tissue that should be discarded and disposed of, this is somehow weird. Recognizing the humanity of your son is somehow weird, somehow odd, and should be subject to ridicule," Santorum said.

---

and how does Colmes respond to his critics?

@AlanColmes
it's not a cheap shot; it's a matter of judgement: @IAmMindyJ: @AlanColmes you are a poor excuse for a human being! cheap shot...

@AlanColmes
don't like free speech? RT: @SOLTravels: You should be fired for the cheapest shot I have heard from any commentator in a long time!

@AlanColmes
what I said was factual RT: @lestay99 @AlanColmes I was on your side til you said that.People who spew hate don't have their facts straight

---

now... notice who the better man is.

@AlanColmes
just spoke to @ricksantorum. He and Karen graciously accepted my apology for a hurtful comment

yeah... "hurtful comment" about their dead son... you don't get much lower than that.

then again, this is a proud liberal we're talking about... they don't get much higher, either.

---

source:
TRENDING: Fox commentator apologizes for ‘hurtful’ remark on death of Santorum’s son – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

equal outrage

the Anti Defamation League (ADL) is clear that it is unacceptab­le to make comparison­s to Hitler in political statements­... therefore, Hank Williams, Jr. was wrong to do so.

but for clarity, i'd like to see some more outrage when the tables are turned... we had eight years of Bush-Hitle­r comparison­s... when radio hosts (Mike Malloy) or congressme­n (Durbin, Byrd, Ellison) make these analogies, we should be just as offended.

links for those who always need them:
Malloy
Durbin
Byrd
Ellison

---

source:
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

it's when you compare two things

Williams, perhaps best known for his "are you ready for some football?" lead-in to ESPN's Monday Night Football, Monday compared this summer's so-called golf summit between Obama and House Speaker John Boehner as "one of the biggest political mistakes ever."

As Williams put it on Fox News' Fox & Friends: "It would be like Hitler playing golf with (Israeli leader) Benjamin Netanyahu."

When asked on Fox to explain his analogy, Williams said Obama and Vice President Biden are "the enemy."

analogy (noun) - a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects

---

i think i see why the media doesn't like what Bocephus said...

1. it was a logical form of reasoning
2. it called Obama (pbuh) "the enemy"
3. it compared Obama to a fascist (one who wants a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc.)
4. it compared Boehner to a jew (a group which oppresses the Palestenian people by their mere existance)
5. the analogy was apt

---

source:
ESPN drops Hank Williams Jr. from 'Monday Night Football'

disappoint mints

Satirical mints poking fun at Obama pulled from UT bookstore » Knoxville News Sentinel

The store previously carried satirical mints aimed at former President George W. Bush when he was in office.

"Let me make very clear, there is no candy exception to the First Amendment," said Glenn Reynolds, who teaches constitutional law at UT. "Free speech is free speech. If you make fun of the president in a mint, it is just as much free speech as it is if you make fun of the president in a political cartoon."

it's okay to make fun of Bush or Palin, though... oh, and ridicule Jesus or other religions (except Islam) all you want... but don't you dare make fun of Obama!

for those of you who haven't lost your sense of humor, the Obama "Disappoint-mints" are sold online at the Unemployed Philosophers Guild... they also sell Empower-mints, Messiah-mints ("Save your breath"), Meshuga-mints, Sarah (Palin) Embarass-mints, and Retire-mints... as well as many other products which will offend someone, somewhere.

GET YOURS NOW! (before some liberal jerk gets offended)... Sarah Palin and George W. Bush products will never get pulled off the shelf, so no rush there.

anti-bullying promotes murder

keeping it classy... Dan Savage, of the well publicised "It Gets Better" campaign, has a problem with bullying... i mean, Dan is a bully... suprised?... me too.

but apparently, this is nothing new... he has a long-standing quarrel with Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)... so great is his hatred, he has resorted to cyber-bullying the man... there is an entire website devoted to defining the Senator's last name as, well, something disgusting... skip the quote if you prefer.

Santorum: (n) The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex

you were warned.

well, Dan Savage has decided to air some more grievances on the Bill Maher show (which is the usual repository for this kind of behavior)... but Savage took it to new lows; even for Maher... Dan Savage has decided that he wishes all Republicans were "f--kin' dead"... really?... this is the same guy who says:

Everyone deserves to be respected for who they are.

everyone, except Republicans, that is...

but, in typical Liberal fashion, Dan Savage seems to think if you apologize for something, it's okay:

It was a stupid, rude, thoughtless remark. I regret it and I retract it and I apologize to anyone watching.

well, it's not okay... that is not something which should be tolerated... and to come from someone who preaches tolerance, it is even more unacceptable... and to compound the problem, the mainstream media will give him a pass; one that they give no one else... and the apology is false, too... if he meant it, he'd take down that horrible, cyber-bullying website about Santorum... but he doesn't mean it... he is just saying it... non meus culpa... what a liar.

this jerk has started a movement to help the helpless, and for that he should be commended... but for his own hate-speech, he should be publicly condemned by those within the "It Gets Better" movement, as well as the LGBT community, as a whole.

Dan Savage wishes all Republicans were dead. - MRC

tower of babble -or- Rush to judgement

Huffington Post article advocating Rush Limbaugh boycott.

wow.
while Rush was insensitive in his continuing to badly portray the Chinese language, i find it mildly amusing (and somewhat offensive) that the "Young Turk" is politically correct enough to lambast Rush, but does so in an American accent of a Southern dialect.

Video by "The Young Turks" (whoever that is) on YouTube:


is he portraying Southerners as ignorant and uneducated?... what kind of hypocrit is this guy?... on one hand, he decries the use of mocking accents of Chinese people... but on the other, he mocks the accents of Americans... apparently, it's okay to stereotype caucasians, but not asians.

who's the bigot now?

and, to the heart of the matter, Rush may have taken the accent mocking too far... but he wasn't putting down the people who had the accent... he was making light of the Chinese translator not doing his job... those of us who don't speak Chinese listened to (what we hear as) gibberish... Rush even goes further to ponder what other cultures hear when we speak English... does it sound as mono-phonetic as other languages sometimes seem to us?... the "Young Turk" calls this childish, equating it to "when you see green, is it green or is it really red"... yet, philosophers consider this question regularly a-la Plato's Allegory of the Cave.

but let's boycott Rush for his insensitivity... too bad there's nothing to boycott of this ignoramous.

The Jewish Grinch Who Stole Christmas

The Jewish Grinch Who Stole Christmas

by Burt Prelutsky
—(12/22/04)

I never thought I'd live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. You think it hasn't? Then why is it that people are being prevented from saying it in polite society for fear that it will offend?

Schools are being forced to replace "Christmas vacation" with "winter break" in their printed schedules. At Macy's, the word is verboten even though they've made untold millions of dollars from their sympathetic portrayal in the Christmas classic, "Miracle on 34th Street." Carols, even instrumental versions, are banned in certain places. A major postal delivery service has not only made their drivers doff their Santa caps, but ordered them not to decorate their trucks with Christmas wreaths.

How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening? And in case you find that designation objectionable, would you deny that India is a Hindu country, that Pakistan is Muslim, that Poland is Catholic? That doesn't mean those nations are theocracies. But when the overwhelming majority of a country's population is of one religion, and roughly 90% of Americans happen to be one sort of Christian or another, only a damn fool would deny the obvious.

Although it seems a long time ago, it really wasn't, that people who came here from other places made every attempt to fit in. Assimilation wasn't a threat to anyone; it was what the Statue of Liberty represented. E pluribus unum, one out of many, was our motto. The world's melting pot was our nickname. It didn't mean that any group of people had to check their customs, culture or cuisine, at the door. It did mean that they, and especially their children, learned English, and that they learned to live and let live.

That has changed, you may have noticed. And I blame my fellow Jews. When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian, agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the ACLU, at the forefront.

Being Jewish, I should report, Christmas was never celebrated by my family. But what was there not to like about the holiday? To begin with, it provided a welcome two week break from school. The decorated trees were nice, the lights were beautiful, "It's a Wonderful Life" was a great movie, and some of the best Christmas songs were even written by Jews.

But the dirty little secret in America is that anti-Semitism is no longer a problem in society; it's been replaced by a rampant anti-Christianity. For example, the hatred spewed towards George W. Bush has far less to do with his policies than it does with his religion. The Jews voice no concern when a Bill Clinton or a John Kerry makes a big production out of showing up at black Baptist churches or posing with Rev. Jesse Jackson because they understand that's just politics. They only object to politicians attending church for religious reasons.

My fellow Jews, who often have the survival of Israel heading the list of their concerns when it comes to electing a president, only gave 26% of their vote to Bush, even though he is clearly the most pro-Israel president we've ever had in the Oval Office.

It is the ACLU, which is overwhelmingly Jewish in terms of membership and funding, that is leading the attack against Christianity in America. It is they who have conned far too many people into believing that the phrase "separation of church and state" actually exists somewhere in the Constitution.

You may have noticed, though, that the ACLU is highly selective when it comes to religious intolerance. The same group of self-righteous shysters who, at the drop of a "Merry Christmas" will slap you with an injunction, will fight for the right of an American Indian to ingest peyote and a devout Islamic woman to be veiled on her driver's license.

I happen to despise bullies and bigots. I hate them when they represent the majority, but no less when, like Jews in America, they represent an infinitesimal minority.

I am getting the idea that too many Jews won't be happy until they pull off their own version of the Spanish Inquisition, forcing Christians to either deny their faith and convert to agnosticism or suffer the consequences.

I should point out that many of these people abhor Judaism every bit as much as they do Christianity. They're the ones who behave as if atheism were a calling. They're the nutcakes who go berserk if anyone even says, "In God we trust" or mentions that the Declaration of Independence refers to a Creator with a capital "C." By this time, I'm only surprised that they haven't begun a campaign to do away with Sunday as a day of rest. After all, it's only for religious reasons - Christian reasons - that Sunday, and not Tuesday or Wednesday, is so designated.

This is a Christian nation, my friends. And all of us are fortunate it is one, and that so many Americans have seen fit to live up to the highest precepts of their religion. Speaking as a member of a minority group - and one of the smaller ones at that - I say it behooves those of us who don't accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours.

Merry Christmas.

i'm offended = make a law

Special Olympics: Rosa's Law

i'm sure i'll be thought less of for saying this, but do we really need a law passed rebranding mental retardation as "intellectual disability"?... really?... a LAW?

Merriam-Webster defines retardation as slowness of development or progress... disability is a restriction, disadvantage, or impairment... yet the offensive term is the most benign... if you have a retardation, you have a slowed progress... your progress hasn't stopped, just slowed... but if you have a disability, you are impaired and restricted... you're at a disadvantage... a disability often means you cannot succeed... retardation just means it may take longer to succeed...

but i'm not blind to the cause of this law... mean and hateful people have used the term "retard" as a pejorative... there are hundreds of examples of this... many of them, even i am hesitant to utter... or even write on the internet... normal, often technically correct, words are deemed offensive... mainly due to people, whom we would typically disdain anything they might say, using the words in an attempt to hurt other people...

now, so not to offend, the term "retarded" is off limits... to quote Charlie Brown, "Good grief!"... do we really need to make a law every time someone gets offended?... at what point do we make it official and deputize the Thought Police?...

i would say that practice is retarded, but that would imply progress... this law is intellectually disabled.