Byam Elementary School apparently has a gift shop they arrange every year during the holiday season. But in the interest of political correctness, religion must of course be promptly removed — we wouldn’t want to anger the atheists, after all — and Christmas is the holiday that’s most in the crosshairs.

After meeting with members of the Byam Elementary School PTO, two mothers asking to put the holidays back into the school’s annual holiday gift shop say Byam isn’t budging.

Kathryn McMillan and Kathleen Cullen, who both have children at Byam, asked school officials to allow all holiday items at the gift shop following a ban on Santa, candy canes, stockings, and all Christmas, Hanukkah and other “religious items.”

But a meeting with some PTO parents on Thursday night grew heated as emotions got in the way.

Red and green tissue paper to wrap presents was also crossed off the list because it looked too “Christmasy,” McMillan said.

“One of the parents said, ‘If we allow Santa, what do we say if a child brings in a swastika? Do we allow that too?’ ” McMillan said. “All I could think of was, are you kidding? You’re comparing a Christmas ornament to a swastika? It seems as if reason is lost somewhere and I just hope we can find it again.”

Superintendent Donald Yeoman told The Sun on Tuesday that the rules for the gift shop are under the authority of Byam Principal Jane Gilmore. Ultimately, said Yeoman, the policy for the gift shop was set so no child would feel left out.

“It’s operated under those same rules for a number of years with success and without complaint,” Yeoman said.

Until now.

Gilmore did not return a reporter’s phone call yesterday.

McMillan and Cullen have asked that if the children can’t celebrate their traditions – whatever they may be – at the holiday gift shop, then maybe the school should move the gift shop to another time of year.

Not all Chelmsford schools have adopted the same policy as Byam. The South Row Elementary School, and the former Westlands Elementary that closed last year, had no restrictions on gift-giving.

“It makes sense that the school probably makes the most money by holding the gift shop over the holidays,” McMillan added. “So all we’re asking is that if you’re letting kids buy gifts for the holidays, let them donate stuff that celebrates those traditions and use it as a teachable moment so these kids can learn.”

McMillan and Cullen will appear before the School Committee on Tuesday, Nov. 24.

It seems like these parents are the only ones who possess any reason whatsoever. But, as always, there is the one parent who gets OFFENDED!! for their children’s sake, and must ban Christmas, Santa, Christianity, and anything that might even resemble it. But going so far as to link Santa Claus to Nazi swastikas is taking it further than I think I’ve seen before. I mean, really, let’s see… we have Santa Claus, a saint who has grown into a myth, a man who believes in kindness and giving. And then there’s Nazis, who were responsible for the torture, starvation, slavery, and murders of over six million people. How does one’s mind link Santa Claus and Nazis? When someone mentions Christmas or Santa, how screwed up do you have to be to automatically think that letting a kid celebrate that in school means that you’re opening the door to celebrating Nazis? I mean, that’s one hell of a leap there. On top of that, the rules seem more than a little outrageous. You can’t even have red or green wrapping paper because it just might remind someone of Christmas? Good Lord, this takes worshipping at the altar of political correctness to a whole new level.

And for what it’s worth, I think the suggestion of McMillan and Cullen seem perfectly sound to me. If they won’t let children celebrate their respective holidays at the gift shop — Christmas, Hanukkah — then why not just move the gift shop to a different time of year and avoid the whole issue? Instead, the school has seemingly gone out of their way to deliberately snub religion. It’s simple, though. The school wants to capitalize on the holiday season without having to actually deal with those pesky holidays, and they know that having the gift shop in the middle of, say, September just wouldn’t be as profitable. I don’t begrudge them wanting to make money, but it seems hypocritical to want to make money off of the holiday season — and also by taking advantage of the festive, giving holiday spirit of parents — while being completely unwilling to include the holidays they’re capitalizing on.

And while surely if enough parents complain enough, the school will change the rules, it’s disturbing enough that this would even happen. This was a country built on faith-based principles, after all — and now, we have more and more schools trying to keep faith out of the public eye in any way, shape, or form.

Jane Gilmore, the religion hating principal of Byam Elementary School.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn’t change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

“If the city requires this, we can’t do it,” Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. “The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that’s really a problem.”

Several D.C. Council members said the Catholic Church is trying to erode the city’s long-standing laws protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination.

The clash escalates the dispute over the same-sex marriage proposal between the council and the archdiocese, which has generally stayed out of city politics.

Catholic Charities, the church’s social services arm, is one of dozens of nonprofit organizations that partner with the District. It serves 68,000 people in the city, including the one-third of Washington’s homeless people who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church. City leaders said the church is not the dominant provider of any particular social service, but the church pointed out that it supplements funding for city programs with $10 million from its own coffers.

“All of those services will be adversely impacted if the exemption language remains so narrow,” Jane G. Belford, chancellor of the Washington Archdiocese, wrote to the council this week.

The church’s influence seems limited. In separate interviews Wednesday, council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) referred to the church as “somewhat childish.” Another council member, David A. Catania (I-At Large), said he would rather end the city’s relationship with the church than give in to its demands.

“They don’t represent, in my mind, an indispensable component of our social services infrastructure,” said Catania, the sponsor of the same-sex marriage bill and the chairman of the Health Committee.

The standoff appears to be among the harshest between a government and a faith-based group over the rights of same-sex couples. Advocates for same-sex couples said they could not immediately think of other places where a same-sex marriage law had set off a break with a major faith-based provider of social services.

The council is expected to pass the same-sex marriage bill next month, but the measure continues to face strong opposition from a number of groups that are pushing for a referendum on the issue.

The archdiocese’s statement follows a vote Tuesday by the council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary to reject an amendment that would have allowed individuals, based on their religious beliefs, to decline to provide services for same-sex weddings.

How pathetic. D.C.’s stance is basically that the Catholic Church should abandon its principles if it wants to keep working with the city, because this is going to pass whether they like it or not, and they have to make this awful choice — but they, of course, are the bad guys. This is, of course, the liberal meme, because anyone who is against gay marriage is prejudiced and backward and wrong and might as well be the KKK. Check out this explanation from Feministing:

The closing of a major homeless shelter and budget cuts have worsened the situation in a city already struggling to serve its poor and homeless residents. As someone who organizes for access to abortion I have obvious problems with gaps in the services provided by Catholic Charities. But that does not discount the vital work they do for the 68,000 D.C. residents who rely on Catholic Charities for shelters, health care, and food programs.

The Archdiosese is making a clear statement: it considers keeping rights from same sex couples more important than the needs of this city’s most vulnerable. Their willingness to use the lives and health of 68,000 people in need as pawns in their fight for the right to discriminate is unconscionable. D.C. needs more social services, not less. I hope the Archdiosese can put aside the politics of hate for a moment to recognize what I would think they would consider a moral obligation to do vital life saving work.

With all due respect, this isn’t a choice the church can fairly make. They didn’t ask for this bill, and their input was completely ignored when it came to amendments in the bill. The passage of this bill puts Catholic Charities in the worst kind of situation. For the Catholic Church, this isn’t a political situation, which is what liberals want to make it into. For the Catholic Church, this is a religious issue, it’s a moral one. The church cannot just abandon its principles, and that’s what liberals are forcing the church to do. And if the church caves on this, it won’t stop here. Liberals will start putting the pressure on about abortion, and performing gay marriages, and who knows what else. Where will it stop? It’s disgusting that liberals are putting the blame on the church here, when they are the ones being forced between a rock and a hard place. The church is not the one using homeless people as pawns; the city is. And it is wrong for the government to be legislating religious beliefs, which is basically what has happened here. This is, at its core, a subtle attack on our rights to religious freedom. And apparently, there is no one who is going to stand up for religion in this case.

If this is the change you voted for, then I hope you’re happy.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

This is part two of my three part report on the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s one day conference on The Roots of American Order. So here is part two of mine titled Lift a Glass to the Past: America Rooted in Tradition or a New Covenant? (Part one can be seen here)

The second speaker of the day was Brad Birzer who regaled us on America’s Judeo-Christian History.

Bizer began his session by noting that historian Donald Lutz discovered that the founders used Christian references in their pre-war writing far more than any other source. St. Paul was the most referenced New Testament figure with Micah 4:4 being the most referenced Old Testament verse.

But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it.

On this Lutz quotation, though, I want to clarify something. Many have bandied about the claim that Donald Lutz said that 34 percent of the founder’s writing contain direct Biblical citations. This claim is not altogether true. On the other hand, it is not something to quickly dismiss as fans of the Enlightenment influence want to do, either.

The problem is that Lutz’ research didn’t reveal that this 34 percent came “directly” from Biblical citations. What Lutz found was that the Bible and quotes from sermons of the period added up to his finding of 34 percent. Lutz wasn’t saying the 34 percent was made up solely of Biblical quotations. It is a bit misleading to say that this large number of citations “came from the Bible” when a portion came from the sermons of famous preachers of the era — and political sermons at that. Granted sermons are generally of religious content, but a quote for a sermon isn’t the same thing as a direct citation from the Bible.

Add to this the fact that Lutz also found that the Federalist Papers and the debates about the Constitution contain very few Biblical citations and we get another shade of this debate that is necessary to consider. Many Atheists and Enlightenment influence fans claim that the lack of Biblical citations during this second period of the American founding proves that religion was meaningless. But I warn these deniers that Lutz was also not saying that the Bible was meaningless. In his study, after he notes that the Biblical influence seemed to disappear from the founder’s writing during the Constitutional phase, Lutz says it isn’t “surprising since the debate centered upon specific institutions about which the Bible has little to say.”

The fact is that this 34 percent of Protestant Religious citations isn’t meaningless. It still shows that a great preponderance of the founder’s citations were religiously based, and of the Protestant religion at that. It also shows that religious appeals formed a large part of the thinking of the founding era as they geared up both for war with Britain and the formation of the United States of America.

I sort of wish that Birzer had gone into this further, but I understand why he didn’t. He had a finite amount of time and this diversion would have moved away from his main point. In any case, both sides make at the same time too much and too little of Lutz’ study.

Birzer next noted that America was, indeed, a land of religious freedom even if its particular parts were “islands of intolerance.” He notes that the religious freedom that our early years are famous for did exist, but not in the laissez faire style we’d like to wish it were. Sure it was illegal to be a Catholic in Maryland after 1689, for instance, or one had to be an Anglican to hold office in Virginia but those particular restrictions were less extent in other parts of the country. Each segment had its particular religious sect as the officially recognized religion, but there wasn’t a single religion for all of the colonies leaving people free to choose where they might like to live in accordance with their individual principles.

The summation is that religion played a supremely important part in the early days from the first colonists to the founding era.

As an example Birzer notes that as laid out in his “On Conciliation With America,” Edmund Burke’s characterization of the American Colonies was that the colonies were born of English liberty and religion.

In this character of the Americans, a love of freedom is the predominating feature which marks and distinguishes the whole… This fierce spirit of liberty is stronger in the English Colonies probably than in any other people of the earth, and this from a great variety of powerful causes…

If anything were wanting to this necessary operation of the form of government, religion would have given it a complete effect. Religion, always a principle of energy, in this new people is no way worn out or impaired; and their mode of professing it is also one main cause of this free spirit. The people are Protestants; and of that kind which is the most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion. This is a persuasion not only favorable to liberty, but built upon it.

Birzer, though, also pointed out that a chief motivating factor in rallying Americans to the revolutionary cause was an anti-Catholicism that was inflamed by the Crown’s 1774 Quebec Act that gave an official Crown-recognized status to French Catholics in Canada. This fear of “Papism” led many Americans to fear for their liberties expecting a creeping Catholic tyranny to invade their colonies through the Crown’s apostasy.

Birzer notes, though, that in many ways the establishment of local rule in the colonies was a bloodless coup of sorts. He gives the example of Charles Carroll of Carrollton a Roman Catholic who led Marylanders to form an extra legal government that eventually simply took over the colony as the official government in the minds of the people. At some point, the poor Royal Governor had to just go home because he was simply ignored by the whole colony as they favored their fellows instead.

Of course, Carroll’s efforts led him to become a celebrated citizen despite his Catholic religion and this, in turn, broke down some of those religious barriers for Catholics, at least in Maryland.

Birzer really pressed the point, though, that the main reason that colonists feared Papism was because of the top-down leadership of the Church, a style that necessarily negated, as far as they were concerned, the liberties that the colonists valued above all else.

He summed up his talk by asking of us all a question. In some parts of the colonies, men were required by law to bring two things to church with them on a Sunday morning: Their Bible and their rifle. These men were ready to give their all to protect their liberties. But are we today still ready to reclaim what is ours? With all the world flexing its muscles, from North Korea, to China to Iran, are we as Americans ready to fight to reclaim our legacy of freedom or are we to roll over and allow an out-of-control, socialist government to usurp our liberties as enemies gather at our gates?

Next: More British Than the British!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

A Phoenix ordinance banning charity dining halls in residential neighborhoods withstood a challenge by a north-central Phoenix church.

Retired Arizona Supreme Court Justice Robert Corcoran, serving as a hearing officer, ruled Monday that feeding the homeless at a place of worship can be banned by city ordinance. The decision affects all Phoenix churches with underlying residential zoning.

Over the summer, city officials maintained that CrossRoads United Methodist Church, 7901 N. Central Ave., violated Phoenix zoning code by feeding the poor and homeless on its property, a use that can only occur in commercial or industrial zones. City officials said the decision is effective immediately.

Amazing, eh? Rather then say “thank you for helping these people out,” and perhaps changing the ordinance, Phoenix decided the best thing to do was be typical government weenies. There was a time when most charity and help came from churches and individuals. People with compassion. Now said charity can only come from certain legal restrictions. Bet it makes the homeless feel great. Where is the ACLU when you need them to stand up for the rights of citizens and the downtrodden?

Oh, there they are. They’re suing government leaders, including Charlie Crist, in Florida due to the pathetic state of the government run schools. Visibly absent from the suit are the teacher’s unions.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

With increasing threats, lawsuits and exposure over what constitutes a ‘legal Christmas season’ in this country, it is astounding albeit wonderful, that the current White House administration, President and Congress have not decided to remove the word Christmas or Christ from the upcoming tree lighting ceremony in Washington D.C.

Current reports on the NPS.gov webpage have the traditional ceremony of the National Christmas Tree Lighting happening on December 3rd this year at the Elipse, south of the White House grounds in Washington D.C. Each year the National Park Service and National Park Foundation sponsor the tree lighting ceremony that helps kick off a four week Christmas celebration in the U.S. Capital.

Kudos to Barry for keeping it as such, but, you know there would be apoplexy were he to rename it the National Holiday Tree.

In early October, school children in Arizona were asked to make decorations for the National Christmas Tree. Those who made ornaments referring to Christ or Christmas were told they had to redo their artwork in order to leave out Christ. After the Alliance Defense Fund became involved, sending a letter to the NPS stating that banning such ornaments was unconstitutional, the NPS agreed and changed their mind on the religious ornament ban. Children have constructed thousands of ornaments this year, thankfully now without fear of rejection due to their religious depictions on them. The ornaments will be placed on the nearly 65 foot tree that will grace the grounds near the White House starting December 3rd.

As many conservative and tradition-loving Christians look forward to various tree lighting ceremonies during the upcoming Christmas season, some still hold their breath waiting to see which extremist anti-Christian organization will throw a fit over someone else celebrating their own religion and sharing those celebrations with the rest of the majority in the United States.

It has almost become a game, waiting to see who will do what. The writer, Karen McCracken (cool name!), then offers up even more examples, then offers some advice

While it is absolutely important to stand up for our rights to worship and celebrate as we see fit – no matter our religion – the meaning of Christmas is not removed when the word Christmas is removed from the name of an event. (Such as what has been done to the Hollywood Christmas Parade this year; recently renamed The Hollywood Santa Parade.) The God who is my Heavenly Father is not taken away when a Christmas Parade is taken away from the community nor will Christ disappear merely because His name is removed from a worldly event.

She is correct that the season is not about those things, and shouldn’t be about those things. Jesus is in our heart. The season is about His message. Unfortunately, there are those that attempt to turn the entire thing into something secular that should only be practiced in the privacy of our own homes, rather than acknowledging the reason for the season.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The ruling by the court in Strasbourg, which Italy said it would appeal, said crucifixes on school walls — a common sight that is part of every Italian’s life — could disturb children who were not Christians.

That is, Muslim colonists might not like that Italy has been a Christian country since Constantine converted to Christianity in the 4th century.

Even some commies are aghast:

Paola Binetti, a Catholic in the opposition Democratic Party, the successor of what was once the West’s largest communist party, said: “In Italy, the crucifix is a specific sign of our tradition.”

Education Minister Mariastella Gelmini concurs:

The history of Italy is marked by symbols and if we erase symbols we erase part of ourselves.

This of course is exactly why progressive Eurocrats want crucifixes banned. The objective is not just to suppress Christianity, which is hardly even defended anymore; it is to eradicate Western civilization. That’s why no effective measures are taken to save Europe from the ongoing Muslim demographic conquest — and why amnesty will soon open the door to massive Third World colonization of the USA.

On a tip from mega. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

During Sunday’s episode, David, who created, wrote and produced “Seinfeld,” visits a bathroom in his assistant’s home and splatters urine on a picture of Jesus. Instead of wiping it off, David leaves the restroom. Minutes later, David’s assistant enters the bathroom and concludes that Jesus is crying. She then summons her mother to the bathroom, where both women kneel in prayer.

If a crucifix submerged in urine can be high art, why can’t urinating on portraits of Jesus be high comedy?

In lieu of an apology, HBO sneered:

Anyone who follows Curb Your Enthusiasm knows that the show is full of parody and satire. Larry David makes fun of everyone, most especially himself. The humor is always playful and certainly never malicious.

Now who would think this was malicious? Vicious, blasphemous, wicked, obviously — but malicious?

Contrast this with the obsequious treatment our liberal rulers have demanded we give Islam ever since 9/11. Despite the claim that David “makes fun of everyone,” you won’t see him peeing on a Koran.

On a tip from Wiggins. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

In a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, an Arizona court found today that Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio can no longer require inmates seeking abortion care to prepay their transportation and security costs before they can obtain an abortion.

Earlier this year, as part of a partial settlement in an ACLU lawsuit involving the right of women prisoners to obtain timely, safe and legal abortions, Arpaio agreed to follow a 2005 court order prohibiting Maricopa County correctional facilities from requiring inmates to obtain a court order before an abortion. However, in the course of settlement negotiations, Arpaio decided inmates must prepay transportation and security costs associated with obtaining the procedure. In his ruling today, Judge Robert H. Oberbilling of the Superior Court of Arizona indicated that requiring inmates to prepay security and transportation costs could be more onerous than the court order Sheriff Arpaio previously required.

“We are so pleased that Sheriff Arpaio can no longer pull a bait and switch by requiring women prisoners to pay transportation and security costs before obtaining an abortion,” said Brigitte Amiri, a senior staff attorney for the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project who argued the case today before the court. “Arpaio’s new prepayment requirement was yet another way for him to do an end run around the law and to interfere with a woman’s private decision about whether to end a pregnancy.”

In May 2004, on behalf of a woman inmate seeking an abortion, the ACLU challenged an unwritten Maricopa County Jail policy that required inmates to obtain a court order before officials would transport for abortion care. The Maricopa County Superior Court struck down the unwritten policy in August 2005, holding that it violated women’s reproductive rights and served “no legitimate penological purpose.” The Arizona Court of Appeals upheld that decision; both the Arizona and the United States Supreme Courts refused to hear the case.

Sheriff Arpaio defied these rulings and continued to require women to obtain a court order before an abortion. As a result, in August 2008, the ACLU asked the court to hold Arpaio in contempt. In the course of settlement negotiations in that case, Arpaio shifted tactics and began insisting that inmates who seek abortions must pay upfront for transportation and security costs. Inmates requiring transportation for other medical care are not charged for transport either before or after receiving services.

“Sheriff Arpaio has reached the end of the line here. The courts have already confirmed that Arizona prison officials can not put up roadblocks to abortion care simply because they do not agree with the decision to end a pregnancy,” said Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona. “It is time for Sheriff Arpaio to stop wasting taxpayer dollars to impose his own morality on women in his jails and to start upholding the law. Game over.”

SOURCE

Posted by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

I believe that Christianity is the single best influence on mankind. It is responsible for Western civilization’s flourishing, it is responsible for the heights of freedom and liberty that untold billions of humans have enjoyed and will enjoy in the future. Certainly the bedrock of that success is the Christian Bible.

So, don’t go calling me a religion hater or a Christian basher. There. That is said.

Now, the story is that a “pastor” in North Carolina is having a book burning event for his fool followers and one of the books he is burning is any copy of the Bible that isn’t the King James version. Why burn any version of the Bible that isn’t a King James version? Why, donthca know it’s because the King James version is the only real Bible, the only one that God ordained… at least according to this ill-educated hick it is, anyway.

All the other editions of the Bible are heretical as far as Marc Grizzard is concerned. All the other editions are “satanic” and are “perversions” of God’s word, says this towering ignoramus.

I believe the King James version is God’s preserved, inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God… for English-speaking people.

Does this nitwit have any clue when the King James version was created? It was begun in 1604 in post-Elizabethian England as the reign of James the First began.

Let’s review… Jesus died somewhere around 33 AD. He was crucified by a Roman official named Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of Judea. Yes, that death occurred in the Middle East. And yes the Roman Empire was still around.

The King James Bible was created in 1604 (hundreds and hundreds of years later, by the way) in a country called England which hadn’t even been dreamed of when Christ died. The Roman Empire was basically long gone by that time.

So, HOW in God’s name can the King James Bible be the sole word of God if it was written by a people that didn’t speak Jesus’ language, were separated by hundreds and hundreds of years, and in a country that didn’t even exist during Jesus’ time?

Now, there is no possible way that one can say that the King James Bible could possibly be the direct word of God. No way at all. I certainly have nothing against this version of the Bible, it was the version I grew up with, of course. But it is just plain stupid to say this Bible and only this Bible is the “word of God” when the original writers of the various parts of the Bible didn’t speak an English language that didn’t exist in their day. It is an idiotic premise to imagine that the KJ Bible is the direct word of God.

Any half trained scholar of the Bible era can see numerous errors in translation in the King James version. The technical problems with the KJ Bible aren’t monstrous, nor entirely discounting, but they are there nonetheless. There are errors. And errors means it isn’t the “inerrant” word of God.

In fact, the Bible has been rewritten so many times that there is no “official” version anymore — if there ever was one. There is no existing version of the Bible that is the original word of God. Christians cannot hold the Bible as the actual word of God and can only assume it to be the inspired works containing “inerrant” sentiment, prescient parables, and God’s guiding philosophy. But it is not the actual word of God.

Read the King James exclusively if you like. But only a halfwit would say that the King James is the actual word of God when the words Jesus spoke were so far removed in time, place, history and language that the King James Bible was conceived in.

Are all versions of the Bible equal, are they all the same? Clearly not. I am not arguing that the KJ version is no good, nor am I arguing that any others are superior. I am merely saying that the KJ Bible simply cannot be the actual works of God. Related, yes. Inspired, certainly. Important, surely. Historically significant, undeniably. But the actual word of God? No way.

This North Carolina “pastor” is an uneducated charlatan. I feel sorry for the people he is misleading.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Excitable Chucky gets all excitable and says Tim is cherry picking

Tim Blair updates his post with a triple play of then’s and now’s.

Excitable Chucky’s response, not mentioned in his post? He denies Tim access to Little Green Footballs

Forbidden

You don’t have permission to access this server

At least Sullivan can take it like a big boy. Charles Johnson is more thin skinned then Obama.

For a double shot of Johnson stupidity, he is still denying the danger to Rifqa Bary, and throws in a little Christianity hatred, to boot: “And when asked to pray, she began raving incoherently about “Jesus.” Warning: this is pretty disturbing and creepy stuff,” followed by a video.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post