>Whose country is it? IT IS THEIRS, BY RIGHT. (the amerinds)
I'm sorry Micheal but it is not their land by right, any more than
Britain belongs to the indigenous peoples who were there before the
Roman and Saxon invasions (assuming for the sake of argument they were
The amerinds were invaded, and fought bravely and often brutally to
resist that invasion, in which they were fought bravely and brutally
against. They lost. That's part of the story of human kind.
The difference that Buchanan is raising is that Christians in the US are
the vast majority of people and hold incredible power...and aren't even
fighting for what is theirs. That's the big difference. They're not even
fighting against their own dispossession.
And that is interesting. Or should be. Whatever you believe or whichever
side you take. From an evo-psych and social studies perspective it is
surely an historically fascinating phenomenon.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, michael haaheim
> Among many, the deep seated distrust and hatred between atheists and
theists alike continues to thrive, and this is a very sad thing.
> I would point out, however, that this article only continues to fuel
the hatred. Buchanen talks about the hatre of some atheists, while
unleashing his own against them. He wishes to take the country back...
but this is why the atheists distrust the theists in the first place...
because atheists never took it in the first place. It should be
remembered as well that it was the Christians who first STOLE the land
from the native amerindian communities. Whose country is it? IT IS
THEIRS, BY RIGHT.
> I am saddened that some atheists go too far. Buchanen represents
Christians who have gone too far, but wish to go further still.
> DeÂ : hibbsa hibbsa@...
> Ã€Â : email@example.com
> EnvoyÃ© le : Dimanche 1 Janvier 2012 16h20
> ObjetÂ : [evol-psych] Whose Country Is It, Anyway?
> Whose Country Is It, Anyway?
> By Patrick J. Buchanan
> Half a century ago, American children were schooled in Aesop's fables.
Among the more famous of these were "The Fox and the Grapes" and "The
Tortoise and the Hare."
> Particularly appropriate this Christmas season, and every Christmas
lately, is Aesop's fable of "The Dog in the Manger."
> The tale is about a dog who decides to take a nap in the manger. When
the ox, who has worked all day, comes back to eat some straw, the dog
barks loudly, threatens to bite him and drives him from his manger.
> The lesson the fable teaches is that it is malicious and wicked to
deny a fellow creature what you yourself do not want and cannot even
> What brings the fable to mind is this year's crop of Christmas-haters,
whose numbers have grown since the days when it was only the village
atheist or the ACLU pest who sought to kill Christmas.
> The problem with these folks is not simply that they detest Christmas
and what it represents, but that they must do their best, or worst, to
ensure Christians do not enjoy the season and holy day they love.
> As a Washington Times editorial relates, the number of anti-Christian
bigots is growing, and their malevolence is out of the closet:
> "In Leesburg, Va., a Santa-suit-clad skeleton was nailed to a cross.
â€¦ In Santa Monica, atheists were granted 18 of 21 plots in a
public park allotted for holiday displays and â€¦ erected signs
mocking religion. In the Wisconsin statehouse, a sign informs visitors,
`Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves
minds.' A video that has gone viral on YouTube shows denizens of Occupy
D.C. spewing gratuitous hatred of a couple who dared to appropriate a
small patch of McPherson Square to set up a living Nativity scene."
> People who indulge in such conduct invariably claim to be champions of
the First Amendment, exercising their right of free speech to maintain a
separation of church and state.
> They are partly right. The First Amendment does protect what they are
doing. But what they are doing is engaging in hate speech and
anti-Christian bigotry. For what is the purpose of what they are about,
if not to wound, offend, insult and mock fellow Americans celebrating
the happiest day of their calendar year?
> Consider what this day means to a believing Christian.
> It is a time and a day set aside to celebrate the nativity, the birth
of Christ, whom Christians believe to be the Son of God and their Savior
who gave his life on the cross to redeem mankind and open the gates of
> Even if a man disbelieves this, why would he interfere with or deny
his fellow countrymen, three in four of whom still profess to be
Christians, their right to celebrate in public this joyous occasion?
> This mockery and hatred of Christmas testifies not only to the
character of those who engage in it, it says something as well about who
is winning the culture war for the soul of America.
> Not long ago, the Supreme Court (1892) and three U.S. presidents
â€" Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter â€" all
declared America to be a "Christian nation."
> They did not mean that any particular denomination had been declared
America's national religion â€" indeed, that was ruled out in the
Constitution â€" but that we were predominantly a Christian people.
> And so we were born.
> Around 1790, America was 99 percent Protestant, 1 percent Catholic,
with a few thousands Jews. The Irish immigration from 1845 to 1850
brought hundreds of thousands more Catholics to America. The Great Wave
of immigration from 1890 to 1920 brought millions of Southern and
Eastern Europeans, mostly Catholic and Jews. As late as 1990, 85 percent
of all Americans described themselves as Christians.
> And here one must pose a question.
> How did America's Christians allow themselves to be dispossessed of a
country their fathers had built for them?
> How did America come to be a nation where not only have all Christian
prayers, pageants, holidays and holy days been purged from all
government schools and public institutions, but secularism has taken
over those schools, while Christians are mocked at Christmas in ways
that would be declared hate crimes were it done to other religious
faiths or ethnic minorities?
> Was it a manifestation of tolerance and maturity, or pusillanimity,
that Christians allowed themselves to be robbed of their inheritance to
a point where Barack Obama could assert without contradiction that we
Americans "do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation"?
> What are these Christmas-bashers, though still a nominal minority,
saying to Christians with their mockery and ridicule of the celebration
of the birth of Christ?
> "This isn't your country anymore. It is our country now."
> The question for Christians is a simple one: Do they have what it
takes to take America back?
> These might be related: