The First Amendment Defended: The Freedom Of Religion

An excerpt from a debate from our very own Chris Dumford and a co-worker. Here is the position as presented to Chris:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Chris,

It's perfectly reasonable to interpret those words as an intent for the separation of church and state. There's no getting around that subsequent interpretation by the supreme court carries the weight of the highest law in the land, and congress may ratify an amendment to overturn the court's interpretation. The supreme court is very very powerful as we know and is made more powerful by the current partisan political climate of the era within which we've live. As much as we are a nation of laws and not men, we all suffer from decisions made by people with whom we don't agree.

...no ammendment to the Constitution is without some historical precident. The background to the 1st ammendment is not separation FROM religion, it is in regard to the Federal Government establishing a state church and licensing pastors. This argument was originally taken up be the Virginia Legislature in 1773 as a result of Virginia prosecuting Baptist pastors for preaching without a license. At that time, only Presbyterian and Episcopal pastors were permitted to preach due to the requirement that that they be licenced by the colony of Virginia (and other colonies). James madison took up the fight to allow New Light Preachers (I.e. Baptists) to be permitted to preach without a license, which by the way, they lost their argument. At the time, the great awakening was occurring and preachers such as George Whitefield were preaching especially in New England without a licence. Rhode Island had opened up the colony to non licensed ministers such as John Clarke and Roger Williams, both of which received charters to establish churches from the King of England and to preach without a license (I have personally seen John Clarke's charter). The argument was in regard to anarchy reigning among the people if preachers were permitted to preach without state control. During the Constitutional convention, the anti-Federalists were arguing that a state religion controlled by the Federal Government was not in keeping with a free people (a position held by Jefferson and Madison). The Federalists saw that religion should be controlled by Government. In the end, an agreement was reached following ratification of the Constitution in order to bring the anti-federalists on board, the first ten ammendments would be introduced and ratified to control the power of the Federal Government. Notice that the concept of the divine right of Kings was the established thought at the time. This belief was based on the premise that God had divinely ordained Kings and as such, they stood in the stead of the people in regard to their relationship to God. In other words, it was the belief that Kings could determine how people would be saved and that Kings could indeed determine doctrine and faith. The argument of Jefferson and Madison to the Virginia Legislature prior to the American Revolution was that of the Doctrine of Preisthood of the believer, that is that every man answered to God on his own behalf, and that no man could intervene on anothers behalf. You will see this in jefferson's resonse to the Danbury Baptist Conference. He clearly states that the relationship between God and man was personal (implied, could not be legislated by the Government). The histoical context of the first ammendment clearly did not advocate a secularized government.

On October 7, 1801, a letter was delivered by the Danbury Baptist Church to Jefferson as a result of rumors that Jefferson's administration intended on establishing Presbyterianism as the official state religion (similar to England and Episcopalianism). Here is the Letter which clearly indicates that their understanding at the time was that religion could indeed coexist and partner with government, including the state governments. Notice that they refer to the ancient charter (Magna Carta) and that they recocognize that the understanding is currently that religion can and in at least some cases still was the object of legislation. The reference to destroying the laws of the state was in regard to the different states laws establishing churches and licensing of pastors. here is the letter:

Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyd in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Majestracy in the United States; And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.

Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty — That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals — That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degradingacknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men — should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States, is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial affect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have cald you to sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Association.

Nehh Dodge

Ephram Robbins The Committee

Stephen S. Nelson

The response by Jefferson which included the phrase separation of church and state was directly in context to the establishment of a state church, not in separting Federal Government from religion. Here is his response (remember it is in context to the matter at hand, no more or no less):

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson

Jan. 1. 1802.

Historically, the Supreme Court has upheld the Federal Government's advocating religion as a whole. State motto's refer to God (i.e. state of Ohio), state monumnets have references to God, The motto of the United States is "In God we Trust". Historically, the idea of purging God out of the public forum would have been reprehensible to our fore fathers. It was not until 1963 when the Supreme Court removed public prayer from schools that they reversed almost 200 years of precedent.

It is my opinion, that the reason we are in this debate today is that those who are attempting to redefine the intent of our forefathers in establishing the first ammendment, is because there is no teaching today on theology and the influence of theology on our forefather's thinking. Instead, we see secular writers, legislators and judges trying to rule on precedents that they do not understand because they are bowing to the current culture of the populace at large. Thus, we now have judical anarchy. Judges have divorced themselves from the law, especially the intent of the law and nor rule however they want. As a result, the Supreme court no longer interprets law, they make law!

Lastly, when Laws are made or interpreted that either openly violate the Constitution or redefine the intent of the Constitution, we no longer have a body of laws. This is where we are today!

...

Notice the language of the 1st Ammendment.

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

According to your argument, this can be interpreted as separation of church and state. Thus the "State" is duty bound to remove all expression of religous nature from the public forum and any state sponsored organization or property is not permitted to have any religious expression. Here is why your understanding does not hold water (nor in my opinion does that of the Supreme Court):

The 1st ammendment goes on to say: "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

2. Notice that the rest of the praseology of the 1st ammendment is a continuation of the initial phrase which you have undelined. If the underlined phrase is intended to separate the State from religion, then it applies to the entire 1st ammendment, not just the portion which you are inclined to underline. Thus, if the intent of the writers of the Constitution is to be interpreted as separation from religion, then also it frees Congress to spearate themselves from freedom of the press, freedom of speech and allows them to react adversely to free assembly. In essence, Conrgress should purge all such actions from the public forum since we cannot apply one set of standards to one portion of a sentence, and not to all of it. Thus, the current Supreme Court ruling of 1963, should have been argued as an inrepretation against the entire 1st Ammendment, not just a portion of it!

I think that sums it up folks. Unless we understand the Constitution and the historical precedents behind it, how do we ever determine how and why we need to change it or interpret it differently? As Chris points out, pop-culture has infected our view of the Constitution. But, pop-culture is ever changing - would you want your laws and your government based on a culture that changes over and over? If the answer is "yes", then honestly what's the point of law? The Constitution is rock-solid and actually works...if you dare to follow it that is.

Let's Get Colonial!

In 1774, after much oppression from the British Government, Parliament decided to tighten the vice even further by passing a series of Acts known as the Intolerable Acts. These Acts paved the way for colonial outrage and eventually the Revolution that happened just a year later. What exactly led to the implementation of these Acts and how did the Americans respond?

The concepts of exploration and colonization were surely wrapped in a struggle for power and control. But, we also know these actions happened because of the desire to obtain certain goods. Gold, spices, fabrics, etc. were a strong secondary focus of these exploration efforts. One of these goods was tea. By 1698, the British Parliament had given the East India Company a complete monopoly on tea importation. Fearing open-market competition, Great Britain required the colonists to only purchase their tea from Great Britain. This legislation was passed in 1721. As time went on, taxes were raised on tea and tea importation. This in turn caused a recession of the tea market (go figure). Therefore, to help raise revenue for Parliament, they passed tax laws on tea sold in the colonies. This tax was known as the Townshend Act of 1767. The colonists fought over the idea that Britain could tax them without giving them any representation in Parliament. This was voiced the loudest by the Whigs so said that Parliament had no right to do anything outside of what the Constitution mandated. (Hmmm...sound familiar). Parliament, however, served up a hefty "screw you" and said that they have this ability in "all cases whatsoever." (Hmmm...also sounds familiar).

The Whigs met these acts with oppositions and boycotts. Many merchants organized agreements that they would not import tea from Britain. By 1770, the Townshend Act was repealed in all manner except for its taxation of tea. The British Prime Minister, Lord North, asserted that this is still showing that the British have the right and the power to tax the Americans. The colonists celebrated the reduction in taxes and British tea was once again common place in the market. (imagine that - reduce taxes and business picks back up). However, with the ascendancy of King George the III, the tax on tea under the Townshend Act was reinstituted. Lord North was warned that this might cause colonial resistance again, but he stubbornly pressed for this legislation. This, along with other methods of oppression imposed on the colonies, led to the iconic revolt in Boston's harbor.

When the Dartmouth arrived in Boston Harbor, a Whig, Samuel Adams, called a meeting in which thousands attended. They resolved to have the Dartmouth sent back to England without collecting any of the tea tax; as well as assigning 25 men to stand guard by the ship to make sure it wasn't unloaded. Governor Hutchinson declared that the Dartmouth would not leave until the tax was paid. Then, on December 16th, 1773, about 7,000 men gathered outside the Old South Meeting House demanding that Governor Hutchinson release the ships without paying the tax. He again refused and Samuel Adams declared that these meetings could do nothing further to "save the country." Some believe this was a pre-established slogan to initiate the tea party. Adams could not keep control over the meeting and many headed out to Boston Harbor. That evening, many boarded the ship and began to dump the tea into Boston Harbor. Britain was outraged and decided to punish the colonies with the Intolerable Acts.

The Intolerable Acts consisted of these facets:

1. The Boston Port Act - The port of Boston was closed until the East India Company was reimbursed for all the tea lost at sea

2. The Massachusetts Government Act - The Massachusetts government was brought under complete control of the British Government. Any positions in the government were to be appointed by the King.

3. The Administration of Justice Act - This allows the Massachusetts Governor to move the trials of royal officials to other colonies or even to England. This was thought to allow British soldiers the opportunity to harass Americans and then escape justice.

4. The Quartering Act - This Act gave the British soldiers the legal right to be quartered in the homes of the colonists without their consent. (Note the 3rd Amendment to the US Constitution.)

5. The Quebec Act - This Act took away colonial settled land and gave it to Quebec.

These Acts were the spark that lit the fuse on the American Revolution. The colonists had had enough. They knew they wanted freedom and remaining under the rule of the King wasn't going to supply such freedom. The colonists understood that as Government expands, liberty contracts. They knew that their freedom was being strangled by massive Government regulations on their lives. Ultimately, they knew that you cannot be diplomatic with a tyrant. They rose up and fought off the greatest military power of the day.

Right now, we have tyrants running our Government. They are imposing massive Government regulation by means of health care, the environment and global warming, taxes, etc. Our freedoms are voted away each day by those we voted into office. As long as we have the right to vote, we have the ability to produce revolution again. However, if the day comes that we cannot change Government with the ballot box, rest assured we will change it then with the cartridge box.

Catch the fire of freedom!

See How They Voted

Here is a great resource documenting the voting record of the House on Health Care. I wonder just how many of those that voted "yes" are truly representing their constituents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-rv/special/politics/votes/house/healthcare/index.html

Another Backhand to America

Another nail in the coffin of freedom and liberty was fastened tight as the Senate approved their version of the health bill. CNN.com reports that Congress will be enjoying their holiday break after this "exhausting" work. Yeah, it can take a lot out of you to strip the American people of freedom and to increase their taxes. You guys do deserve a break -- a break from office altogether. I'm telling you, folks--Americans will only take so much until they begin to fight back. Congress isn't representing America right now. They are representing their own self-desires and political careers. Typical Democrat ploy - offer a handout to get more votes. This handout is supposed to be a measure of compassion...but, those that take these handouts are still there to take the next one. These handouts just keep people poor. And, the sad part is, many impoverished people can't resist. Thus the representation we have in Congress. If you teach people that they are to rely on the Government and then they hear the Government promising handouts, what do you think the outcome is going to be?

Come on 2010! Let's take back Congress and let's impeach Obama for blatantly ignoring his Presidential Oath to "...preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States..." You certainly aren't preserving it by bypassing it to get health care passed. You certainly aren't protecting it by pretending it doesn't exist. And, you certainly aren't defending it because that would require you to vote against your own plans. Don't be fooled by this impostor. He will talk to you as if he is the smartest guys in the world because he thinks you are too stupid to catch on that he's a phony.

Let's hope the Supreme Court will bat this one down as unconstitutional...and that's a big hope...

The Revolution Has Begun

Democrat switches to Republican because of health care and other legislative acts...

Click sentence above to watch short news conference with Rep. Parker Griffiths, now R-AL. Hopefully, the American people will back him. This could be a political suicide, depending on who makes up his constituents. However, when it comes to doing what's right, one's political agenda must be put aside.

Paul Revere is mounting his horse!

Smoking or Non? A Revisit

I recently had a client tell me how happy they were about smoking being banned in restaurants in their state. Not being paid to engage in political discussions at work, I refrained from the opportunity. However, it has been on my mind since. In 2006, the state of Ohio had a smoking ban issue on the ballot. When I was at UC, this is what I wrote (portions may be modified for current accuracies). The content still rings true.

Could someone answer my question? Why is the crowd that is pro-choice and so tolerant of alternate lifestyles so adamantly intolerant of a person’s choice to use tobacco? It has become vogue to smoke in public places. Let me say firstly, I do not smoke and will never smoke. However, being one that enjoys personal freedoms, I think it is my duty to fight for the smokers on this cause—because the issue is not grounded in smoking, but in freedom. This issue carries two major themes: personal health and personal comfort.

Concerning personal health, I think it is important that we understand what cigarette smoke is capable of. Smoke of any kind, if inhaled, is putting a substance into the body that the body isn’t designed to handle, at least in large quantities. Cigarette smoke from tobacco contains tar that can clog the lungs, thus rendering the smoker breathless. Ok, great. We all learned this in D.A.R.E. But, what the Life-style Police are trying to push on us is the idea that 1^st and 2^nd hand smoke is causing a death epidemic. Firstly, can someone site me the statistics of how many people died last year of 2^nd hand smoke? Secondly, let’s be medically correct. People die of cancer, etc. not smoking, unless you smoke enough at once to asphyxiate yourself. I’m not trying to split hairs here. Yes, smoking may give rise to greater risk of health issues or even death, but so does red meat, alcohol, sun bathing, and so on. Just ban them all! The lack of logical consistency with this position proves a political agenda is being advanced.

Turning our attention to personal comfort let me set up a scenario. I walk into a restaurant that is privately owned. The restaurant caters to smokers and non-smokers. Not being a smoker, I opt for non-smoking. The experience is going great until I have to use a miner’s helmet with a lamp to see through the smoke just to see what I’m eating. Naturally, I become very annoyed and my attitude rapidly gravitates southward. Now, those that want smoking bans would expect me to sign petitions and vote for issues providing such a ban. However, I understand that the restaurant is privately owned, and I voluntarily entered. The owners should continue to have the freedom to cater to smokers and/or non-smokers. I may not like to eat pancakes with a dusting of cigarette ash, so the solution is simple, find a new pancake shop (Capitalism, it works every time it’s tried). This may be a shock to you, but there is no right to eat at a restaurant, nor is it written down that I must eat out. If I don’t like smoke, then I find some non-smoking diner or I stay home and eat. Even if I think smoking is wrong, I have no Constitutional authority to tell someone else it is wrong, nor to pass legislation regarding the same. It’s that simple. People have this idea that if they, as an individual, are offended then your choice should not be tolerated. Essentially, a smoking-ban is an attack on the freedom of private property. If a private establishment wishes to operate in a non-smoking environment, then fine! I'm happy with that as a non-smoker. However, the establishment has set that rule -- not forced into it by the government. What's the government going to force businesses into next? Furthermore, what will be the point of private property if the government is controlling all of it? --to which our Liberal friends would say, "Amen, brother!" "That's what we are trying to achieve. No private property; no freedom; no liberty-just the big daddy of government ruling over all." Well, if they were honest, that's what they'd say.

But, to show I am a reasonable person, I am willing to strike a happy medium. If the smoking police will abandon their push for legislation to ban choice, I’ll abandon my push for legislation that everyone must attend church with me 3-times a week.

The Battle of the Bulge

By Chris Dumford

On this day, December 16, 1944, Three German armies, freshly reinforced and brought up to full strength, comprising the last of Hitler's reserves, burst out of the Ardennes through the US 1st Army with the view toward splitting the allied forces in two. Their strategic goal was the city of Antwerp. The Germans believed that they could divide the British and Canadian armies in the north, from the American forces in the south and force the western allies to sue for peace. The Germans were aware that the Ardennes was a weak point in the Allied lines and their plans were designed to fully exploit those weaknesses. The Ardennes were held by three American infantry divisions and 2 armored divisions. Of the three infantry divisions, the 99th and 106th infantry divisions were brand new divisions who had never seen combat and were still working up and training, and the 28th division was sent to the so-called quiet sector to rest and rebuild after being mauled in a long series of engagements from Normandy through France. The 7th Armored and 9th Armored divisions were also in the process of being rebuilt. As a result, the Ardennes was considered to be a weak point in the Allies lines, as the divisional frontages were too long for the divisions to adequately hold, and there were too few reserves. This was necessary because the major Allied doctrine was to concentrate forces in the north and south, and utilize the Ardennes as a rest and recuperation area.

The Battle of the Bulge was the largest battle ever fought by the US army. Over a million men would ultimately be committed to the battle. The brand new 106th infantry division (the golden lions) was attacked by the 6th SS Panzer Army and cut off in a small mountain range called the Snee Eiffel and two out of three regiments surrendered without putting up much of a fight. This resulted in a huge hole in the American lines. As the Americans retreated, they made a stand at several towns including Clerveaux in the north. The 110th Regimental combat team of the 28th division took a stand in Clerveaux against 2 German Armored divisions. The Germans broke into the American lines after surrounding the town and German tanks ranged up and down the American lines firing right into individual fox holes. The 7th armored division sacrificed intself to hold the town of St. Vith (the famous battle of the goose egg), while several battalions of US engineers (326th and 327th Engineers) from the 28th division fought sacrificial rear guard actions to hold the center of the American line near Bastogne and slow down the German advance.

The 101st Airborne division was trucked into the town of Bastogne which was a major road junction. They were ordered to hold at all costs. They were surrounded and attacked by the by the German 5th Panzer army and only the support of the remnants of the 9th armored division prevented them from being overrun.

In the north, 84 American prisoners were massacred by German SS General Joachim Pieper at Malmedy. Pieper ultimately ran out of fuel near Stoumont and had to abandon his vehicles and march back to the German lines on foot (after the war he was executed following the Nuremburg trials for this act). The German 2nd Panzer Division made it as far as Celles, just short of the Meuse River before running out of fuel. The American 2nd Armored division (under famous General Harmar), counter attacked the German 2nd Panzer division and largely destroyed the division, ending the German's hopes of splitting the Allied lines.

Eisenhower took measures to insure that the Germans would not cross the Meuse. British General Montgomery moved a British army corps to cover the Meuse river crossings, the US 2nd armored division was thrown forward against the German advanced units at Celles, and Patton's 3rd army was moved out of its lines in the Huertgen Forest and redirected from the south and ordered to advance north, through the German 7th army covering the southern flank of the German advance. On the day after Christmas, the US 4th armored division from Patton's 3rd army broke through to Bastogne and relieved the 101st airborne division. By January 23rd, the Germans were pushed back to their original start lines, thus ending the greatest battle in American History. 19,246 Americans would be killed and over 47,000 would be wounded. German casualties would number close to 100,000.

NEVER FORGET!

There's Got To Be More Taxes To Raise Around Here Somewhere. Oh, Here's One!

From Rushlimbaugh.com via http://www.cnsnews.com/

news/article/58099, Nancy Pelosi finds much merit in a transaction tax. This tax would be issued on all stock transactions on a global basis. And for it to work, according to Pelosi, it has to be on a global basis. Like Pelosi said, there will be many that will just move their transactions overseas -- like companies did with their employment because they can't afford to pay our own workers because they are too busy paying legal fees to make sure they are in compliance and altering their facilities to be more "green." So, to fix this problem, Pelosi says we'll just make it a global tax. According to the article, she estimates that this will bring in 150 billion in additional revenue. No it won't! You'll drive down the incentive to even buy or sell stocks. This is just another success punishment that will rape and pillage the exchange markets; much like the Capital Gains tax is doing right now. Furthermore, she says that this additional revenue will increase stimulus spending. Ok, here we go:

In concept, this is completely asinine. Let's tax the market to drive up stimulus spending. What's the point?! Why drive up stimulus spending if you are going to drive down those who are financially supporting it?! But, more so, "stimulus spending" is a pseudo concept made up by the federal government into making you think that the government is going to get us out of this mess. They got us into it but now can get us out?! When the government spends money, there is no stimulus. That money comes from somewhere, or really, someone and is finite. In other words, they'll just raise taxes more, which takes more money out of our pockets, which takes more money out of the economy.

But, let's not get too carried away and actually think Pelosi wants our economy to thrive. You see, a thriving economy is politically dangerous for the Left. The Left preys on the economic downturns and turns them into government opportunities. Come on! Don't patronize us! If you want to get the economy moving again, how about some stimulus giving?! Give back the taxes we've paid in! Economies do not work from the Government down. They work from the people up. If the people have more to spend, demand increases. Increased demand requires increased supply; which requires increased jobs to meet that supply; which brings unemployment down; which actually puts more people on payrolls from which more taxes are being paid anyway.

The sad part is, these people keep getting reelected each year.

Repost of Last Year's PC Christmas, But Some Updates

Before the Christmas shopping season begins on December 24, I need to make sure that my seasonal festivities are complete with decorations that are politically correct. After all, in this day in age when being offended is an abridgement of Constitutional rights, I want to be positive my decorations are not categorized as Right-wing-Evangelical-Republican dogma. To that end, I’ve made some slight modifications which should keep the loud minority happy.

The first thing people see is the outside of my house. Since I don’t want to offend anybody, I can’t put up colored Christmas lights. And be it far from me to put up all white lights. Next I need up put up a light-up Santa and maybe a reindeer display. Santa is too Christmasy, so I have to think of someone else that just gives away stuff for free and only cares about you once a year. Therefore, I’ve chosen a light-up Democrat Congressperson; but I’ll have to rig up some sort of backbone to keep it erect—former Arkansas Governors need not apply. Now the reindeer are going to be trouble. PETA wouldn’t be too pleased by seeing reindeer whipped and pulling a sleigh, so I think I’ll just have our Santa stand-in read excerpts from Al Gore's new Global Warming book. The only normal decoration that I wouldn’t have to change would be the icicle lights since the sickle was apart of the Soviet flag (pun intended). Finally, the last thing I needed was a nativity scene. I didn’t want to portray normalcy as a man and woman being married, so I had to find two guy statues to play Jesus’ parents. All the animals of course had to be donkeys. And, I couldn't allow a baby Jesus to portray His birth, so I left the manger empty to show that pro-choice was acceptable. I've also included a viewing tax to help pay the legal fees for the civil union. Hey, it doesn't matter if you agree with it!--you're paying anyway!

Let’s move inside the house. The first thing I need is a Christmas tree. To keep the environmentalists at bay, I couldn't just go cut a tree down. By doing so, I might cause the Alaskan Snow Owl to have to take up residency in a K-Mart sign—which might prove there is still a necessity for K-Mart. I thought about getting a plastic tree, but plastic is made from oil, and if I buy a plastic tree, I’ll just be supporting the evil capitalistic gains of Big Oil. So, I figured I needed to find a seasonal plant. The only thing I could find that would be acceptable to the PC crowd was their highly-prized marijuana plant--brownies and doritos sold separately. Since hanging ornaments would offend the anti-capital punishment crowd, I just turned them loose on the floor around the plant - free again to go knock off other neighboring ornaments. The real difficulty was choosing an acceptable plant topper. Stars are pointed and therefore not OSHA approved. And, angels are associated with a higher power (formerly God) by which we talk to Him by a moment of silence (formerly prayer). Since nothing would do, I had to leave the plant topless—a top qualification on the Clinton intern application form. Next, I had to hang the stockings but I considered stockings might be offensive to people with large feet, so this Christmas will remain stockingless—another qualification on the Clinton intern application form.

Lest you take me seriously, I just wanted to portray the kind of Christmas we’d be enjoying if the PC crowd had its way. But thanks be to God that the gift He gave is not just for those who were good all year, but is given for the whole world, regardless of how good or bad you think you are. Merry Christmas.