Weapons of Christmas Destruction

by Edgar J. Steele

December 15, 2004

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
  --- Amendment I, Constitution of the United States of America

"I must stop Christmas from coming."
  --- Boris Karloff as The Grinch, How the Grinch Stole Christmas (1966)

Though my wife and I now home school our children, still they attend public school to participate in band, choir and physical activities.  Yes, I know - don't start with me.  It was a compromise we struck in order to get them out of the propaganda-laden, under performing classrooms in the first place.

My son came home the other day and mentioned that a Jewish classmate objected to the use of the word "Christmas" in signs posted in the hallways, saying they "offended" her and made her feel "excluded."  She told him that the signs violated the Constitutional mandate that Church and State be separated.

I pointed out to my son that the "Church/State Separation" thing simply is a myth, albeit one adopted by virtually all of American society.  In fact, the Constitutional mandate about religion is found in the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment, quoted above.  America's founders were particularly concerned that there be no dominant religious power in America, akin to that wielded by the Church of England.  No Church of America telling everybody what to do, in other words.

Today, the Founders' intent has been distorted beyond recognition and carried to ludicrous extremes:

An Oregon kindergarten child was barred from giving his Christmas card to fellow students last Christmas merely because it mentioned Jesus Christ.  (Christmas Card with 'Jesus' Banned, WorldNet Daily, 2/10/04.

In Seattle just recently, a King County administrative directive instructed county employees not to say "Merry Christmas."  (Santa is Appalled, Bill O'Reilly, 12/22/04)  It is unclear to me whether that ban extends to their personal lives and homes.

A New Jersey high school band was precluded from playing Christmas carols, even instrumentals, at its annual concert this year.

In Chicago recently, one school substituted "swinging holiday" for "Merry Christmas" in its annual rendition of "We Wish You a Merry Christmas."

School districts in Florida and New Jersey have banned Christmas carols altogether.  However, in both Florida and Chicago, Hanukkah and Kwanzaa songs are included in the approved concert programs.

A Maine school district has banned Christmas trees, following in the steps of many others throughout the country, including the Indiana University School of Law, which clearly knows better.

In Denver, a church float was excluded from this year's "Parade of Lights" parade because it carried carolers and was emblazoned with a "Merry Christmas" banner.  Approved, however, was a float from a Native American homosexual group.

In Washington, a school principal banned Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" because of Tiny Tim's prayer:  "God bless us all, every one."

And, it's not just public venues.  Private organizations and corporations are every bit as politically correct.  Target Stores has told Salvation Army to take a hike and clutter the sidewalks in front of its stores no more.  Macy's has outlawed the use of "Merry Christmas" by employees, mandating the saccharin "Happy Holidays," instead.

How you get from the Founders' desire to prevent a Church of America to banning the word Christmas is beyond me.  

Nor is the madness confined to America.  

In Milan, Italy, a school substituted "virtue" for "Jesus" in a Christmas hymn.  In northern Italy, the Treviso public elementary school substituted Little Red Riding Hood for its formerly-traditional Nativity play.  

In France, chocolates were recalled from school distribution simply because they bore the imprint of crosses.

In Scotland last year, Edinburgh's Royal Hospital for Sick Children banned distribution of a free charity Christmas CD because it mentioned "the baby Jesus."  At the same time, Scotland's Parliament banned "Merry Christmas" from greeting cards sent by MSPs or their staff.

For the moment, let us assume that things simply are as they are claimed to be by those issuing the orders - that they are endeavoring to comply with Constitutional requirements.  It is a red herring, by the way, but more on that once we dispose of the Constitutional argument, which itself is wrong.

In reality, the "separation of church and state" shibboleth has evolved from a succession of US Supreme Court decisions dealing with the First Amendment.  As we have seen in particular just lately, the Supreme Court bends to prevailing political winds and merely claims to be enforcing the Constitution.

It was only 20 years ago, in Aguilar v. Felton (1985), that the Supremes first enunciated their "excessive entanglement" theme when they struck down governmental partial funding of a church school's strictly-secular academic program because it would "result in the excessive entanglement of church and state" (in overseeing the use of funds to ensure that a state religion was not thereby established, I suppose, was the unspoken rationale).  Nearly forty years earlier, Justice Hugo Black first laid the groundwork for modern separationist thinking, in Everson v. Board of Education (1947):  "No tax in any amount large or small can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion."

Go here for a particularly good, albeit leftist, overview of the development of the prevailing law concerning separation of Church and State.

Even the Supremes have yet to mandate the removal of Christ from Christmas or, even, prayer from schools (yes, it is still legal to say grace over your lunch - in fact, it is still legal for students to get their own prayer groups together on school property).  But, it's coming, I suppose.  They are political creatures, after all.

Fact is, there has yet to be mandated true Church/State separation.  It is public funding and/or official support for parochial activity that is frowned upon.  There still is a somewhat tenuous connection to the Founders' desire to prevent the establishment of a state religion, or a Church of America, but the connection has become so attenuated as to be near nonexistent.

What really gets lost in all the hooha is the "free exercise" part of the First Amendment.  For example, does forcing schoolchildren to eat their lunches without saying grace, if that is their preference, inhibit their "free exercise" of religion?  You bet.  Does taking Christ out of Christmas interfere with "free exercise?"  Does taking down crosses from public venues prevent the "free exercise?"  Is the Pope Catholic?

There is an inbred tension between the two aspects of the establishment clause.  In fact, as now "interpreted" by most American authorities (and not far behind them are the Supremes), the two aspects are mutually exclusive, with free exercise coming out the loser.  Yet, America's Founders intended only that there be no Theocracy established to run America.  No "establishment of a state religion," in other words.  They didn't intend that little girls be prevented from praying.  On the contrary.  Let's use a little common sense here, folks.

During the original Constitutional Convention, America's Founding Fathers took frequent breaks to pray for divine guidance in their drafting of a charter for their new country.  Does that sound like they intended complete separation of Church from State?  And, get this, once and for all:  America was founded as a Christian nation.  Not Judeo-Christian.  Not Muslim.  Not strictly secular.  Christian.  Get over it.  It is a part of our heritage, regardless of our current religious persuasion.

The Founders saw rights emanating from the Creator, not government:  "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...."  Sound familiar?  It should.  Declaration of Independence, donchaknow.

As with so many things today, there has been a subversion of original intent.  Why?  It has been no accident, I assure you.  

I understand the reasoning behind full separation.  I appreciate the underlying logic.  Let me analogize for a moment.  In my twenties, as an employee at a succession of firms, I noticed that birthday celebrations almost always were stilted and forced affairs...except in those few, rare cases involving people who were widely admired.  I always thought it unfair to the socially inept or physically unattractive that they be forced to endure "celebrations" of their own birthdays on company time that were pale imitations of those given their more popular counterparts.  Or, worse, that only the more popular got the cake and the glad tidings.  

When I started my own firm, I resolved never to allow any employee to feel that particular shame.  I solved the problem by discouraging birthday celebrations altogether and, instead, insisting that each employee take their birthday off, as a sort of personal holiday.  I never had any gripes.  Take it into your personal life, which is none of my business, was the unstated policy.

There is no way to apply my solution directly to American society, of course.  All this already is our personal lives.  Christmas already is a holiday, for one thing.  Getting away would require leaving the country; indeed, leaving Western civilization altogether for the duration of the holiday season.  Instead, the only practical solution is for those who find Christmas so offensive to leave the country for the season and go elsewhere.  Perhaps Israel...or Africa.  I invite them to consider that as an option.

Many are quick to say that public officials simply are overreacting in an attempt to keep from being sued; that they "defensively ban every vestige of 'religious expression' out of fear of an expensive ACLU lawsuit."  (700 Lawyers Ready to Fight ACLU Lawsuits, WorldNet Daily, 11/24/04.)   These people are guilty of selective perception.  There is more to it than they think...much more.  There is an active campaign to destroy Christianity altogether, along with all its paraphernalia, the most obvious of which is...Christmas, of course.  And the campaign is organized, financed and run by...Jews, of course.

We all know about the lawsuit to remove "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.  Filed by a Jew.

Remember the lawsuit to remove the Ten Commandments from the courthouse foyer, then to remove the judge who put it there?  Filed by Jews.

Remember the lawsuit last year to force New York public schools to take down colored lights?  Filed by Jews.

Remember the huge Jewish uproar about Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of the Christ?  That backfired badly for Abe Foxman and company, but was of a piece with the overall strategy to deChristianize America.  It's a Jewish strategy, of course.  That's why the lawsuits are all brought by Jews.

That's why it was a Jewish girl complaining to my son about the word Christmas in the signs at the local high school.

Jews.

Again.

You want proof?  Did you see the recent publicity pictures of George Bush lighting a Menorah at the White House?  You won't see him erecting any crosses there, despite his claim of being such a hidebound Christian.  

In New York City, Jewish Menorahs are a part of city displays during Hanukkah, as are the Islamic star and crescent during Ramadan.  Nativity scenes during Christmas are banned, however.  Same thing in Palm Beach, Florida (yes, that Palm Beach...the one of hanging chad fame).  Both are hotbeds of Jewish activism.  Precursors of what is in store for the rest of America.

The Talmud fairly bulges with expressions of animosity for the goyim (that's you and me) and, especially, Christianity, which itself simply turns the other cheek, of course.  Normally, I would give just a couple of examples, but I am going to let this list to go on at some length, just so you get a flavor of the depth of hostility for us that exists in Jewish teachings - the hostility that has led to so many things that now are wrong with America, including the destruction of Christmas, of course:

    "A Jew must not associate himself with gentiles." - Hilkoth Maakhaloth, Ch. IX.

    "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts." - Saba Mecia, 114, 6.

    "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts.  The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night." - Midrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L.

    "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere.  It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces." -Schuichan Qruch, Choszen Hajpiszpat jog 

    "Thou shalt not do injury to thy neighbor (Bible), but it is not said, 'Thou shalt not do injury to a Goy.' " - Mishna Sanhedryn 57. 

    "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples.  An orthodox Jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards people of other tribes.  He may act contrary to morality, if profitable to himself or to Jews in general." - Schalchan arach. Choszen Hasisxpat 348. 

    "The Jew is not permitted to consider the goyim as human beings." - Schulchan Oruch, Orach Chaiw 14, 20, 32, 33, 39. TaIDud Jebamoth 61. 

    "To communicate anything to a goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the goyim knew what we teach about them they would kill us openly." - Libbre David 37. 

    "Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human." - Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b 

    "If you eat with a Gentile, it is the same as eating with a dog." - Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b 

    "It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah.  The Christians belong to the denying ones of the Torah." - Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425. 5 

    (Jesus Christ was) illegitimate and conceived during menstruation.  Mother a Prostitute. - Kallah 1b. (18b)

    Christian birth rate must be diminished materially. - Zohar (II 64b): 

    Jews must always try to deceive Christians. - Zohar (1 160a) 

    Jews are not to prevent the death of a Christian. - Choschen Ham (425 5): 

    Do not save Christians in danger of death, instructed to let die. - Hilkkoth Akum (x,1): 

    Even the best of the Goim [Christians] should be killed. - Abhodah Zarah (25b)T 

    If Jew kills a Christian he commits no sin. - Sepher Or Israel 177b

    Extermination of Christians necessary. - Zohar (11 43a): 

    Make no agreements and show no mercy to Christians. - Hilkhoth Akum (x,1): 

    Christians are idolaters. - Hilkhoth Maakhaloth 

    Christians have intercourse with animals. - Abhodah Zarah (22a): 

    Female Jews contaminated when meeting Christians. - Iore Dea (198, 48): 

    Innocent of murder if intent was to kill a Christian. - Makkoth (7b) 

    Christians likened to cows and asses. - Zohar II (64b): 

    Psalmist compares Christians to beasts. - Kethuboth (110b): 

    Sexual intercourse with Christian same as intercourse with beast. - Sanhedrin (74b)

    The seed [children] of Christians valued same as the seed of a beast. - Kethuboth (3b): 

    Those Jews who do good to Christians never rise when dead. - Zohar (1, 25b) 

    Jews are to hide their hatred for Christians. - Iore Dea (148, 12H): 

    Christian property belongs to the first Jew claiming it. - Babha Bathra (54b): 

    Keep any overpayment Christians make in error. - Choschen Ham (193, 7): 

    It is permitted for a Jew to deceive Christians. - Babha Kama (113b): 

    Jew may deceive Christians. - Iore Dea (157, 2) H: 

    Jew may lie and perjure himself to condemn a Christian. - Babha Kama (113a): 

    The name of God is not profaned when a Jew lies to Christians. - Babha Kama (113b):

    Jew may perjure himself when lying about Christians. - Kallah (1b, p. 18): 

    Jews may swear falsely by the use of subterfuge wording. - Schabbouth Hag (6d): 

    Jews must always try to deceive Christians. - Zohar (1, 160a): 

    Christians who are not Jews' enemies must also die. - Iore Dea (158, 1):

And that's just some of them!  Incredible, isn't it?  Like the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, they would claim all the foregoing are merely goy forgeries, made in crass expressions of undeserved antiSemitism, but for the fact that they all come straight from their undisputed "religious" teachings.

What is particularly ironic is that, the more Jewish America becomes in law and deed, the more the official state religion of secular humanism, mirror image to Judaism, becomes established.  In other words, in the name of not establishing a state religion, we are establishing a state religion - a truly Orwellian concept.

So much of what is happening in America today, indeed, throughout the world, is a direct expression of Jewish antipathy, even hatred, for things Christian.  As America becomes increasingly a Jewish country (by virtue of those who call the shots, of course), its tolerance of Christianity wanes ever more.  What you see happening today could be characterized as theocide, to coin a word - the systematic eradication of a religion.  When you consider that most Jews are atheists and that Judaism really is secular humanism - the worship of self and self determination - then it also can be seen as deicide, as well - the systematic eradication of God.

You just have to wonder how the way things are going in America will set with Him when the time comes to settle accounts.

New America.  An idea whose time has come.

Copyright ©2004, Edgar J. Steele

Forward as you wish.  Permission is granted to circulate

among private individuals and groups, post on all Internet

sites and publish in full in all not-for-profit publications.

Contact author for all other rights, which are reserved.

On-Line link to this article in HTML format:  http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/xmas.htm