Hypocrites and moneygrubbers at the UN, as usual.

U.N. official slams U.S. as 'stingy' over aid

The US makes the single largest contribution to aid the Asian countries that were hit with the flood...15 million, compared to 4 million from ALL of Europe. Mr. Egeland ought to examine how much his own country (Norway) gave before he starts calling other countries "stingy".

What an ass [burro].

This is going to be a short post as no words I could come up with could do this topic justice.

It speaks for itself:

http://www.starnewspapers.com/star/spedit/col/19-co1.htm

Hello All,

With the onset of Christmas and its resultant lawsuits filed by the ACLU, I am reflecting a bit more on atheism, religion, and the public sector.

Two things I will mention somewhat randomly, neither of which I can claim credit for...

* Jeff Adams mentioned this, how liberal PC types insist that we use the allegedly inoffensive "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". Somehow that is supposed to be less offensive to minority religions and those who are atheists. The word "holiday" is derived from "holy day". How ironic! Happy Holy Days to you too!

* Jonah Goldberg made a quaint observation in a recent column, which I will post here:

By my rough calculation, 99.87 percent of Christians who say “Merry Christmas” to people who aren’t Christian do so because they’re trying to be nice. And, by my equally rough calculation, 97.93 percent of people who take real offense when they’re on the receiving end of such Yuletide wishes are trying to be a pain in the — uh, well, they’re trying to be a pain. Let’s put it this way. If you were in Morocco (and a non-Muslim) and someone said to you, “Have a nice Ramadan,” you’d probably say thanks respectfully and leave it at that. But some people are aghast that, here at home, someone might say “Merry Christmas” to them without first making sure they’re Christians.

Well put, my Jewish compadre.

Anyway, I was thinking about atheism vs theism, and the absolute disdain with which most atheists view "faith". The existence of God, most people will agree, is not something that has been proven or disproven definitively, in a scientific and observable sense. The very fact that there is so much disagreement on this in civilized, educated societies further illustrates that. Therefore, any views held on the existence or unexistence of God are based on...you guessed it...faith. It requires faith to be an atheist. An atheist hasn't proven God's existence or unexistence...his belief that God does not exist is an article of faith.

Weird example because my brain has not yet defrosted (its 14 degrees outside, and no, not Celsius). How about the existence of a being named Sidney Borkenheimer that lives on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy? Dead serious. The non-nutjobs among us are saying, not likely. You may be right, it isn't likely, but as none of us have ever been in the Andromeda galaxy and can hardly observe it even, none of us have the ability to say whether or not ol' Sid exists. We can look at statistics and make a reasonable guess, but any acceptance of a conclusion is based on faith.

OK, this is for all the theophobes out there. Time and time again we are told that public mentions of or references to God/religion are strictly verboten and "unconstitutional", thus all these lawsuits about Nativity scenes and Christmas carols and such. It went so far that a principal in California (where else) forbade a teacher from distributing copies of the Declaration of Independence to his students because of its reference to God. So the Declaration of Independence has been ruled unconstitutional, essentially (so maybe we are back to being colonies of the Empire???). No, let's go a step further shall we, and examine Article VII of the US Constitution:

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.

Doesn't that just frazzle your wig? Not only a reference to God, but an acknowledgement that He is "our Lord"? If that isn't unconstitutional I don't know what is!

Yes, the Constitution is unconstitutional.

What ludicrous banter. The nation was founded on religious freedom...the idea that people could freely and openly express their religious views without fear of oppression or suppression from the government. The ACLU and its ilk is doing its part to undo that freedom...the idea that religious freedom is something that can only be whispered of in homes and churches with the doors well-bolted. OK, thats a bit of an exaggeration, but they certainly aren't fighting for freedom of expression at all. You've got to realize, its not about freedom from religion, as the secularists want. The Founding Fathers never promised you the right to not have to witness or come in contact with the views of others. In fact, its just the opposite...you should be free to openly express your faiths/views/etc. It is very much tied to freedom of speech...its essentially a smaller subsection of that. The Left likes to make a big deal about freedom of speech but it is all too quick to seek government censorship of religious expression.

The best column I have read in a good long time. I very much wanted to post the whole text here, and nearly did, but legal better judgement prevented me:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulgreenberg/printpg20041216.shtml

Read it, I implore you. Put things in perspective.