Archive for the ‘Religion’ Category

Remember, back in the day, when a foreign country said that they were going to track down and try to kill an American citizen on American soil, we’d all sort of band together regardless of what we thought of that particular individual, link arms, rack back the charging handle and say, with a firm, quiet conviction, “Just try it, asshole.  Go ahead.  Make my day.”

Yeah, good times.  Good times.

Nowadays, it seems, the preferred course of action is to give thoughtful, pensive consideration to the frothing, manical ravings of sword-waving camel humpers, apologize for offending their unwashed sensibilities, and subsequently reformulate and tune our foreign policy to ensure that the Champions of Sharia have more say about how we live our lives that our own laws and Constitution do.

Whodathunkit?

So, apparently, under the Obama Administration, it’s more important to placate xenophobic islamicist temper tantrums than the defend one of the foundational tenets of our political system and way of life known as “free speech.”

Can we impeach him NOW?!?!

…I want to see Nature’s Engineering Degree!

Yet another installment of, “How an Incredible Design TOTALLY Supports the Theory of Evolution!”  Courtesy of Wired Magazine.

High-Speed Video of Locusts Could Help Make Better Flying Robots

Oh how I long for the day when the evolutionist crowd can manage to kick out some puff piece without anthropomorphizing inanimate objects or non-sentient critters.  But that day is not today.

Even though researchers have been studying how insects and other creatures fly for a long time, “we still don’t completely understand the aerodynamics and architectures of wings,” comments Tom Daniel of the University of Washington in Seattle

Because, you know, the best minds in modern science and engineering still struggle to understand just HOW all these things work, given that they all came about through random chance.  Design? We understand. Blueprints?  No problem.  Complex computer algorithms and microchips? Got it handled.  How a hummingbird really works?  Not a clue.

What locusts lack in agility, they make up for in distance: the four-winged insects are built to fly hundreds of miles at a time.

D’oh!  We should make this into a drinking game.  Any time an article nominally in support of evolution uses the words, “built” or  “designed” you have to take a swig.

Most earlier models of insect flight relied on stiff, straight wings, overlooking the important effects of flexibility and shape, says Thomas. “Engineers like these things simple,” he says. But this new study shows that wings with a little flop can actually get more air-pushing lift from each flap.

Hmmm.  Engineers learning from nature.  Amazing what that random optimization thing can do for you, eh?

Figuring out the details of how locusts and other insects fly may help researchers design tiny robotic fliers. “There is a growing interest in the exploration of micro air vehicles,” says Daniel. “Nature’s designs may be useful in creating synthetic ones.”

DRINK!

It is amazing to me that engineers can’t seem to recognize the work of a fellow designer.  It’s like someone who want’s to design a better timepiece looking at a fine Swiss watch for ideas, without ever acknowledging or addressing the question of the origin of the original design.

Whatever lets you sleep at night, I guess.

Despite the title, according to this article, there is no “.vs” between evolution and design.

Prehistoric mammal swung tail like baseball bat

Or..at least, we’re pretty sure, kinda, but it sounds like a good script!

The findings about glyptodonts — which looked like a cross between an armadillo and a Volkswagen beetle car — apply to dinosaurs that also had spiked tails, the team of researchers believes.

Any time you see the words, “researchers believe,” please feel free to replace with, “we’re pretty much just making this shit up as we go along.”  Same diff.

Glyptodonts lived in both South and North America, first emerging around 2.5 million years ago and going extinct 8,000 years ago, possibly due to hunting by humans.

Wait.  I thought that the idea that dinosaurs and humans lived together during the same period was solely the purview of a bunch of wacky creationist types?  I’m confused.   I thought “faith” and “science” can’t mix, and yet here we have these scientists rambling on about their beliefs.  Hmm.

The study, published in the latest Proceedings of the Royal Society B, “reinforces the idea that in that (sweet spot) was something useful to cause more damage during an impact,” Blanco said, adding that glyptodonts might have evolved this defensive technique to help fight off “terror birds,” prehistoric South America’s dominant predator.

(Please apply the same grammatical rule to “might” as that proposed for “researchers believe.”)

And of course, my all-time favorite, the ubiquitous and seemingly unavoidable imputation of will and intent to the marginally sentient in deciding to “evolve”.  Can’t you just picture the conversation at one of their weekly staff meetings?

Uh, hey guys? GUYS?! Yeah, well, as I’m sure some of you have noticed, a lot of us have been getting knocked off lately by these freakingly hellish terror bird thingies.  And I, for one, am just flat stumped as to what to do about it.  Any ideas?

It is then that Walter, heretofor a fairly quiet and unassiming sort, rather tentatively raises a proto-metatarsal and tremulously suggests, “Well, uhm, I mean, you know, we COULD evolve a defense.  I’ve been thinking a lot lately about trying to grow some spikes in the middle of my tail, maybe add a little bone density down there.  I’m pretty sure it would work.”

The assembled glyptodonts sit for a moment in stunned silence, and then suddenly all are shouting at once.  What an idea!  Walter, you’ve done it!  Walter for President!  Woo-hoooo!

Utter freaking genius, that Walter.

Glyptodonts might have therefore evolved their body armor, not to mention their spiked tails, to withstand this bird’s potentially deadly kicks.

Another of Walter’s breakthrough ideas.  One thing though:  Walter sort of left out the “how” of reprogramming his DNA in response to the external stimuli provided by Raptor-lite.  The key element in the logical disconnect of it all is that one word “therefore.”  Therefore” implies a cause-and-effect relationship, a stimulus -response action.  “I experienced this, THERFORE, I took this action.”  “I analyzed these facts, and therefore, I came to this conclusion.”  One might attempt to chalk it up to a meaningless grammatical slip or colloquialism, but this kind of thing is so prevalent in these kinds of articles that I don’t think we can’t call it a typo.  It reveals a trend in thought, a propensity for ascribing motive, ability and aforethought to a series of responses to environmental conditions or changes.

In addition to defense against predators, Blanco and his colleagues believe glyptodonts used their tails in fights against each other over territory, food, mates and more.

Ah yes, more “beliefs.”  They have to use the word “believe” here because they have no evidence for these assertions, other than, “Well, sounds kinda plausible to me based on other things I’ve seen.”  These scientists have no ability to observe glyptodonts in the wild, to observe their actual behavior, and so must make deductions and inferences based on mostly anecdotal evidence, no matter how sketchy.  Which, I’m told, is a methodology summarily dismissed as “unscientific” when attributed to Creationists.

Potato, putahto.

Hutchinson said he was surprised by “how the positions of spikes and nubbins on the tail clubs in a variety of species seem to line up pretty well with the mechanically most reasonable positions.”

He concluded, “That’s what evolution should produce, of course, but it’s always satisfying finding different kinds of evidence for sufficiently good biological design.”

I am continually amazed at dissonance reduction that goes on with these people, whereby the better the “design” of a species or an apparent adaptation, the better the case for the amazing efficacy of evolution.

I, for one, have to heartily agree with Mr. Hutchinson on this one.  I am continually gratified to find evidence of biological design in nearly ever aspect of our creation.  God’s hand in the amazing workmanship and incredible complexity of the life around us simply cries out in support of design.

It’s heartening to see the academic community finally coming around to embrace the same ideas.

Let’s run through that quote one more time.  “Evolution should produce…evidence for sufficiently good biological design.”

That Walter.  What a freakin’ genius.  Here our most advance scientists struggle to map and understand DNA and the human genome, and yet, millions of years ago critters like Walter had already figured out how to redesign themselves to not only be more resistant to predators, but to optimize their design in a variety of insightful and provocative ways.

So, in review, evidence of design supports the theory of evolution.  No further discussion required, and certainly no alternate or competing theories need be entertained.  Moving on…

UPDATE:

Found this from one of the auto-links on this post:

However, Kenneth Miller does give some insight on where the attack is coming next. It is teaching the “controversy.” A controversy that is wholly politically manufactured and not scientific. It also comes from an attempt to discredit evolution by holding it to an impossible burden of proof. The reason is that it is impossible is that the people in the movement take it as an article of faith that evolution must be false because it contradicts their religious view of an inerrant religious text or their interpretation of it. That is not a rational standard, but rather an irrational one which is why Kenneth Miller’s remark that everything is at stake is not an understatement.

Replace creationism with evolution, and science with religion:

It also comes from an attempt to discredit creationism by holding it to an impossible burden of proof. The reason is that it is impossible is that the people in the movement take it as an article of faith that creationism must be false because it contradicts their scientific view of an inerrant scientific [theory] or their interpretation of it. That is not a rational standard, but rather an irrational one which is why [Kenneth Miller’s] remark that everything is at stake is not an understatement.

Evidence must only be examined within the context of evolution.  Evidence can never disprove evolution, only modify the theory.  Any other approach is apparently holding science to an impossible standard, the very approach they take with creationists.  They are blind to their own hypocrisy.

In betwixt and between all the impassioned outcrys both from within and without Iran regarding their most recent “election,” I find that all the intensity and furor suddenly begs the question:

Why all of a sudden do we see such a fervor from the voting public in Iran?

More importantly, why are we HEARING about it, from within what has traditionally been a country with a very tight hold on not only its media, but its people?

My personal opinion is that this is the result of the very kind of “domino theory” that Iran and the other countries of the Middle East feared would result from a successful Iraq.

There was more at stake than meets the eye for Iran, Syria, Jordan, and yes, even our “ally” Saudi Arabia.  There was a reason that a large (disproportionately so) number of the “insurgents’ we were capturing or killing in Iraq were from these countries.   They saw very clearly the threat posed in the Middle East by a stable, US-friendly democracy.  And it wasn’t because of the oil.

As Pres. Bush and his advisors correctly surmised, in the context of the “Long War” perhaps the best way to defeat the violence of militant Islamic extremists — despite the hardships we might face in the relative short term — was to establish a country where freedom, not fear, ruled the day.  To show that the “Great Experiment” could even work within the context of Islam. (more…)

Listening to the radio on the way to work this morning, I heard something that chilled me to my very core.  I literally got a chill down my spine.  I quite literally spoke out loud, “Oh, shit.”

It was a “top of the hour” news blurb about how the push for Hate Crimes legislation is gaining steam, being pushed through Congress to bring harsher penalties to those who commit crimes motivated by hate.  You know, rather than the much nobler greed, anger, disinterest, or predatory exploitation.  It’s HATE that we have to watch out for, right?  I mean, in addition to all those “love crimes” we’ve got on the books.  But I digress.

What really rocked me back on my heels was one sentence that came across towards the end of the sound bite.  Some mouthpiece promoting the legislation spoke of trying to keep better track of “bias motivated events.”

Bias. Motivated. Events.  Think about that fer just a sec.

In one swift and subtle movement, we knocked the edges off the definition of “hate crime” and squishy-coated it down into “bias motivated events.”

Can you see the inherent, insidious danger here?

If someone mugs a pedestrian, say, man dressed up in women’s clothes, does this constitute a hate crime?  What is the burden of proof to say that the alleged criminal  didn’t target this person because of their “lifestyle”.  What if the crook took the dude’s predilections for frills and lace to suggest he might be an easy target.  Not because the crook hated the tranny, but because he figured he/she might be an easy mark.  Too effeminate to fight back, who knows?

Instead of 6 months, suspended, for attempted robbery, our felon gets 5 years because it’s a “hate crime.”

But wait.  This goes back to prosecuting intent, rather than actions.  If I further dumb this down to say that any “bias-motivated event” can be prosecuted, ANYTHING I DO that is motivated by my personal bias or worldview, can now become prosecutable.

Anything.

Say a church decides that since Sally has decided to become Sam, that maybe we don’t want him/her teaching Sunday School anymore.  Is that my right as a private institution, or is it now a hate crime, because it was motivated by a religious bias against Transgendereds?  Not that we hate them, but just that we don’t want them teaching our sunday school class.  That’s not hate, it’s bias.  Instead of just being unfaaaaaaaair, is it now also a hate crime?

If I choose not to rent to a couple of guys because they look, act, and sound like belligerent gang bangers, can I be prosecuted for my “bias” against thugs who will likely wreck my rental?

If a pastor speaks out against men preying on boys for sexual exploitation, can I be prosecuted for a hate crime because of my BIAS?

This is an incredibly dangerous area, a slippery slope that, in the name of protecting rights, will end up destroying them.  I mean, short of a diary, a blog post, or a text message, etc., how can you prove INTENT behind an individual’s action?  Do gays, or blacks, or hispanics have special protections against crimes that others don’t?  Shouldn’t all be equal under the law?

Robbery, murder, rape, arson.  They are crimes.  They are illegal.  They shouldn’t be MORE illegal because of who the victim is.  WHY I committed the crime might make me an asshole, a reporbate, a truly descpicable human being.  Sadly, or thankfully, there’s no law (yet) against being an asshole.  It is only the CRIME I commit which makes me a criminal, regardless of my motivations for it.

Isn’t that what this trend in hate crimes suggests?  That eventually, what you THINK about a situation will have as much legal weight as what you actually DID about it?

Scary stuff.  Beyond even 1984.  Madness.

There’s a front-page report on the DHS report highlighting the dangers of “right-wing extremists” in today’s Stars & Stripes,  yet strangely I can find nothing about it on their web site.  I wonder if that was an editorial decision to bury the story?  You can’t unprint newspapers, but you can easily delete a link.

There was some speculation that this report was some sort of clever and complex hoax, but Michelle Malkin confirmed it, and the Stars & Stripes has it front page of their print edition, at least here in Germany.

I think this comes under the heading of “boiling the frog slowly.”  They don’t even mention any “credible threat” in the report.  Just a vague sort of “sense” that economic conditions and a black president “might” foment discord by disgruntled right-wingers and disaffected miliatary veterans.

In other words, there are dangerous points of view out there, against which we must be vigilant.   Viewpoints like, illegal immigration is bad, abortion is wrong, or that the President of the United States shouldn’t be running our civilian corporations or determining what content on the Internet is permissible.

What exactly is it that the Left is so afraid of?  So afraid that they have to villify, marginalize, even criminalize conservative viewpoints?  And more importantly, why are we letting them get away with it?

Throughout his ascendency to the presumptive nominee for President during the recent campaign, Obama, or perhaps more accurately, Obama’s crack media and PR machine, built a groundswell of enthusiasm which soon bordered on euphoria.  Through deft manipulation of images and soundbites, along with the willing collusion of the media, seasoned liberally with generous dashes of Bush-bashing, Barack Obama was propelled to almost rock-star status in a very short period of time.

He came from essentially nowhere…an ill-recognized first-term Senator with a mediocre voting record and no significant achievements to single him out from the crowd.  Suddenly, he was riding a wave of popularity and fervent adulation so broad, so deep, and so completely unexpected that it left many an observer stunned, bemused, and more than a little suspicious.  The meteoric rise to fame, especially one so completely at odds with anything in his background to justify such fervent devotion, lent more than one conservative commentator to draw parallels to the equally sudden and similarly inconceivable rise to national fame of an unkown corporal in 1930′s Germany.

The detractors on the political Left poo-poo’d such comparisons, invoked Godwin’s law, and surmised that after eight years of Pres. Bush’s “failed policies,” people were just refreshed by a fresh face and fresh ideas.   But’s it’s gone far beyond that now.  Has for quite a while in fact.

In a Jan. 21st CNN article entitled, “Black first family ‘changes everything’,” we see the Obamas painted as a sudden and convincing role model for black families, where before there were none.  Until now, it asserts, black families have been woefully misrepresented, or at best, suffered under their own, self-imposed mediocrity.

America has often viewed the black family through the prism of its pathologies: single-family homes, absentee fathers, out of wedlock children, they say. Or they’ve turned to the black family for comic relief in television shows such as “Good Times” in the ’70s or today’s “House of Payne.”

But a black first family changes that script, some say. A global audience will now be fed images of a highly educated, loving and photogenic black family living in the White House for the next four years — and it can’t go off the air like “The Cosby Show.”

The essence of this sentiment is apparently that, until now, black families have only risen to the level of that portrayed of them in the media. That they’ve suffered under a global stigma of poverty, broken homes, and eubonics.  Now, with this new, “positive” portrayal of a loving, solid, black nuclear family, black families are now free to strive for a greater standard.  Or something.

The relationship between Obama and his wife may help untangle some of that pathology, some black commentators say.

Because only now, now that the Obamas are, can decades of afro-american family dysfunction be truly addressed.

Several black women actually sighed as they talked about how much Obama seems to touch his wife and exchange soulful glances with her in public. They said Obama will show young black men how to treat women — and young black women how they should be treated.

Morgan Freeman couldn’t do it.  Bill Cosby couldn’t do it.  Scores of other black thinkers and philosophers who exhorted their culutral brethren to stay married, to turn away from drugs or gang violence, to build a strong self-identity that didn’t revolve around racial guilt or some nebulous “legacy” of slavery have now all been marginalized in favor of a new, true example for the black demographic to emulate.  Barack and Michelle Obama {{swoon}}.

Brea, the writer for EbonyJet.com, is the daughter of a white mother and a Haitian-American father. She says she felt pressure to claim one race growing up. She never quite felt like a full citizen.

Obama’s biracial background and his “exotic” upbringing relieves her of that pressure. Obama will help other blacks who come from multiracial backgrounds and immigrant communities to be comfortable in their own skin, she says.

Again, we see this strange sentiment at play such that only through the example and influence of Barack Obama can mixed-race Americans truly feel acccepted.  Nothing else has worked until now.  They struggled with their self-image and self-acceptance until BARACK came along.  Now it’s suddently “okay” to be black, or bi-racial, and you don’t have to feel like a second-class citizen anymore.

Again, in this fawning review of “Slumdog Millionaire” by the British Telegraph, every good and noble and refreshing element in the film is somehow tied to the new idealism which has sprung up around Barack Obama.

And in that single word {love} lie the key qualities of Slumdog Millionaire. It does not have an ironic moment. It is utterly devoid of cynicism. Instead, it is bright-eyed, optimistic – idealistic, even. To generations reared on a drip-feed of corrosive cynicism, the elevation of greed for greed’s sake and weary disillusion with our leaders and our institutions it feels almost shocking.

Yet maybe we’re ready for it. We saw these laudable qualities in the hundreds of thousands of people (most of them young) who toiled to elect Obama. Those whose work limits them to poring over the minutiae of life in Washington’s Beltway and the Westminster village have already been murmuring that this idealism looks like naïveté. Yet look where our defensive cynicism has landed us: maybe we do need to look at the world anew.

Next week, millions of Americans – and no doubt hundreds of thousands of Britons – will cluster around television sets to watch the inauguration of Barack Obama, whose election victory is rooted in the notion that while the world may be troubled, complex, and even ugly, our best instincts can help make it better. Slumdog Millionaire – a truly remarkable film – is rooted in that same idealism.

As Christians, we should be leery of such sentiments.  Putting all our faith in one man, depending on one man for our provision, our faith in the world, or emotional sustenance or our hope for the future is idolatry unless that man is Jesus Christ.  In Proverbs 3:5-6, we are told:

Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight.

The “He” in this passage is clearly God, not Barack Obama.  There is a very real and present danger in putting your faith and hope for your future and well-being in the hands of one man.  Not only does this give one man more power over your life than you should be willing to give up, but you will inevitably be disappointed when that man proves himself to be all too human.

The moment we give the man who is President the power to be our Savior, we elevate him beyong a mere elected official, and make him our spiritual stand-in.  We give him undo power to speak into and control our lives.  We credit his judgement to be superior to our own, his values worthy to supplant our own, his demands sufficient to supercede our desires.

The strange, almost reverent way in which many people seem to describe Barack Obama, the assumption of some implicit goodness and the idealistic fervor with which many seem to follow him suggests an almost cult-like obsession. 

A Cult can be defined as: “…any group of persons devoted to a charismatic leader(s) who changes their outlook and behavior by transmitting his/her values and views and perhaps a kind of “energy,” spiritual or otherwise. ” *  Hmmm.

Before you dismiss the “cult” label out of hand, first examine some of the “warning signs” of cult behavior:

  • Adherents who become increasingly dependent on the movement for their view on reality (!!!)
  • Important decisions in the lives of the adherents are made by others
  • Making sharp distinctions between us and them, divine and Satanic, good and evil, etc. that are not open for discussion (Bush evil, Obama gooood)*
  • The spiritual group uses a special set of rules that you must obey or be cast out (Oppose Obama?  RACIST!)*
  • The spiritual group demands that you give up as much of your assests and your yearly income to it as possible. (kinda funny, but not…”spreading the wealth around”)
  • The spiritual group demands that you accept its teachings without reservation, even when those teachings are in direct conflict with your understanding of basic scientific knowledge (global warming, stimulous package).
  • Provide an authority figure that everyone seems to acknowledge as having some special skill or awareness  (!!!)
  • Provide a philosophy that seems logical and appears to answer all or the most important questions in life
  • Promise instant or imminent solutions to deep or long-term problems (!!!)
  • The leader sets forth ethical guidelines members must follow but from which the leader is exempt (72 in the White House?  Sure….no prob.  I’ve got the carbon offsets to back it up)

Barack Obama is not the savior of this nation.  He is not the Moses who will lead us to a promised land, or a Savior who will redeem us from our collective national sins.  He is just a man.  One third of the triad making up our separation of powers.  To grant him any more power or authority – legal, spiritual, or otherwise – than that is to set ourselves on a very dangerous path towards the kind of oligarchical centralization of power so many accused George Bush of attempting, and against which our Founding Fathers spoke so stridently.

I’m sorry, but if you have a burning molotav cocktail in your hand, arm cocked back to throw, you have lost your status as “peaceful protestor” or even “activist” and moved right up into “combatant.”  And I will shoot you dead’r-n-shit.  Twice.

If you charge at me, bandana over your face, screaming unintelligible gibberish about allah akbar and his cousins fatwah and jihad, all the while swinging a club, baseball bat, or tire iron, I will assume that you intend me grievous bodily harm, and will respond accordingly.   In the form of shooting you dead’r-n-shit.

Perhaps someone ought to pass these ideas and concepts along to the many police forces currently getting their collective asses kicked, or at least, being complete marginalized and utterly mocked as rioters run rampant through the streets smashing, looting and burning.  You know, all those tradtionally “peaceful” ways to express your angst.

They are not protestors. They are terrorists and violent thugs, and should be dealt with accordingly.

In a related corollary:  Name me ONE time that Hamas has EVER honored a cease-fire for longer than a week?  Yeah.

Ya know, I was all set to pen some snarky post about how people just need to get over themselves, highlighting all the manner of mental flatulence surrounding peoples’ bizarre and over-compensating back-bending with regards to political correctness and not “offending” anyone with the grim specter of a baby in a manger.

But then I figured, screw it.  Screw them.  They aren’t worth the trouble.

If you are so insecure in your personal beliefs or religious convictions that the sight of someone else celebrating their faith traditions is just THAT unsettling, then you’ve got a lot bigger problems than just being “offended.”  I’m sure extensive counseling and perhaps an aggressive course of psychotropic medication could be helpful in dealing with your “issuses.”

See, me, I don’t understand how the sight of cross around a neck is something to be avoided as being potentially “offensive,” but the sight of a traditional head scarf or a penitent on a prayer rug facing Mecca is just something I’m supposed to embrace as diversity.  Why I can celebrate Earth day in honor of defending Mother Gaia, but a jolly man in a red suit and a bunch of reindeer is of such deep concern because of the clear religious “undertones.”  Heaven forbid we have “undertones.”

Ah heck.  Here I’ve gone and done it.  That snarky post I was trying to avoid.

I just have a hard time taking seriously some twittering, hand-wringing Prog busy-body with nothing better to do with her time than worry about who might be offended by the idea of a Savior sent to earth by a loving God. 

Perhaps it is the overall disregard with which this crowd holds babies in the first place.  I’m sorry, I meant to say “unwanted fetus” there.  Of course, we have to realize that these are people that bring their kids to a pro-abortion rally.  Wrap your head around that one.

Because, you see, I really do understand.  I understand that this is not about preserving anything, it’s not about protecting anyone’s china-glass sensitivies or tender wittle feelings.  It can’t be.  It’s simply too preposterous to lend any credence whatsoever to the idea that someone is “offended” by Christmas. 

I’m offended by human sacrifice, genital mutilation, gassing the Kurds, grown men having sex with pre-teen boys, mass graves, car bombings, biological weapons, concentration camps, dumbass rioters burning cars, human trafficking, child prostitution, drug dealers and gang bangers.

I am NOT, however, offended by Christmas.  I’m not offended by Kwanza; amused perhaps, but certainly not offended.  I am not “offended” by Hanukkah or Eid al-Adha or Ramadan. 

To me, this isn’t about preserving anyone’s views…it’s about quietly, inexorably silencing one.

Let’s keep this in perspective, shall we folks?  And to help you all keep it in perspective, I’m going to engage in a little civil disobedience.  I’m going to wish you a Merry Christmas, and if you get all frothed up and offended, well, I’m just going to let that be your problem, not mine.  I’m going to wear my cross over the top of my green and red Christmas sweater when I go shopping at the “Holiday” sales at the mall.  I’m going to send out Christmas cards with a manger scene and angels and all that other chest-clutchingly disturbing religious imagery, and if it bothers you that much, you can throw the card away.

Cuz you see, my problem is that I expect people to act like grown-ups.  I expect people to learn to get along, and not required that I be censored and discriminated against just so they don’t get a bad case of the vapors when their precious little world view isn’t all coddled and stroked and cooed over.

I’m just wierd that way.  So, please.  Have a Merry Christmas.  Or don’t.  It’s a free country.

UPDATE:

Here’s last years post.  Jeez, I’m predictable. 

Merry Christmas…except for YOU!

Get over yourself.  I don’t require you to celebrate Christmas.  I DO require you to let ME celebrate Christmas.  That’s not called intolerance.  It’s called f-r-e-e-d-o-m.