December is the month people celebrate Christmas.

That is true. However, it is hardly the only holiday of the month. 


So, how many other holidays occur in December? It is quite the busy month. Which is why many people use the term Season's Greeting. They are being courteous by not assuming a person is a Christian. 


Day - Event

5 - Ashura (Islamic, Muslim)

6 - St. Nicholas Day (International)

8 - Bodhi Day - Buddha's Enlightenment (Buddhist)

8-16 - Hanukkah* (Jewish)

12 - Virgin of Guadalupe (Mexico)

13 - Santa Lucia Day (Sweden)

16-25 - Las Posadas (Mexico)

25 - Christmas (Christian, Roman Catholic, International)

26 - Boxing Day (Canada, United Kingdom)

26 - Kwanzaa (African-American)

As well the Winter Solstice. 


A QUESTION for those who insist that Christmas is something that all true Christians should observe:



WHERE in your Bible do you find authority for establishing this alleged religious observance? This question is for those conservative, evangelical Christians who claim to rely solely upon the Bible for guidance and authority in spiritual matters.


In posing this question, This question is NOT to be interpreted as objecting to "Christmas" as having been derived from some alleged pagan observance. I am simply asking, "WHERE is your SCRIPTURAL authority for recognizing a specific day as a day of annual observance in regard to the birth of Jesus Christ? Book, chapter, and verse, please.

Teacher suspended after apocalyptic lesson on good and evil

A religious studies teacher suspended after her lesson on 'good and evil' left a classroom of children in tears has won the backing of Pope Benedict XVI.


Cristina Vai, 55, a teacher for 30 years, was disciplined after several parents complained that children had come home sobbing and frightened.

They said they were scared of her graphic description of battles between good angels and the Devil from the Book of the Apocalypse.

Vai was then left shocked after the headmaster of the school told her of the complaints and said that, after consulting governors, he was suspending her from her position.


She taught five and six-year-olds at the Bombicci primary school in Bologna.

She immediately informed her local MP of the decision and also wrote a letter to Pope Benedict describing the incident.

She explained how she had been a religious studies teacher all her life and was stunned when to receive a reply within days of posting it.


In the letter Monsignor Peter Wells, an assistant with the Pope's Secretary of State, said: 'The Holy Father thanks you with all his heart for your faithful gesture and for the sentiments that have inspired you.

'His Holiness also sends you from his heart an Apostolic Blessing which he also extends in particular to the young children in the class.'

Today Mrs Vai said: 'This is such a wonderful letter and it really puts my heart at ease - now I am convinced that nothing bad will happen to me.


'I was accused of upsetting the children by explaining to them good versus evil and how evil is always punished but that is what is in the Bible there is good and bad in every story and this was not a fairytale.

'The children needed to hear about good and evil so they know the right choice to make.'

Her fight for reinstatement has also won the backing of her local MP, Fabio Garagnani.

He said: 'I hope that with this letter from the Pope matters will be cleared up and it will become obvious that her lesson was in perfect accordance with Catholic teaching.'

School principal Stefano Mari said: 'This was not an easy decision to make. We had parents complain that their children were scared by the way she explained the lesson and so after discussions she was suspended.

'I am aware of the letter from the Vatican but I don't see what difference it makes. My decision was based solely for the benefit of the children but the teacher has decided to make it an issue.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073104/Teacher-suspended-apocalyptic-lesson-good-evil-left-children-tears-wins-backing-Pope.html



My feelings on this article can be best expressed by a quote from Thomas Paine. "Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be true."

Arizona Illegal-Immigration Legislation Given U.S. Supreme Court Review

The U.S. Supreme Court said it will consider reviving the trailblazing Arizona law that would use local police and prosecutors to crack down on illegal immigration.

Already set to rule on President Barack Obama’s health-care law by the middle of next year, the justices today added another high-profile case that has implications for similar laws around the country and for the 2012 elections.

The court will hear Arizona’s appeal of a ruling that said the state was interfering with the federal government’s authority over immigration policy. Arizona, which says its 370- mile border with Mexico is the crossing point for half the nation’s illegal immigrants, contends it has the right to tackle a problem that the national government has failed to address.

Why are the republicans called right wing and democrats left wing?

In 1789, the French National Assembly was created as a parliamentary body to move control of issues, such as taxation, from the king to the citizenry. 

Inside the chamber where the National Assembly met, members of the Third Estate sat on the left side and members of the First Estate sat on the right. The Third Estate consisted of revolutionaries, while the First Estate were nobles. Thus, the left wing of the room was more liberal, and the right wing was more conservative.

The terms left and right came to be applied to British politics during the 1906 general election, which saw the Labour Party emerge as a third force.

The sociologist Robert M. MacIver noted in The Web of Government (1947):

The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the center that of the middle classes. Historically this criterion seems acceptable. The conservative right has defended entrenched prerogatives, privileges and powers; the left has attacked them. The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to the hierarchy of birth or of wealth; the left has fought for the equalization of advantage or of opportunity, for the claims of the less advantaged. Defense and attack have met, under democratic conditions, not in the name of class but in the name of principle; but the opposing principles have broadly corresponded to the interests of the different classes.

Which brings us to the current two main political parties in the US. What is interesting is that neither has been around in its current form for the entire existence of the US, although both try to claim a legacy that dates back to the formation.

The political conflicts in the US, dating back to the first Federalist Papers and earlier, boil down to a few issues, which encapsulate all others:

• Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist: what is the allocation of power between the states and the federal government?
• Industrial vs. Agricultural: the heart of the Civil War, and still one of the biggest issues as to how the federal government should allocate money; can also be framed as Urban vs. Rural, since industry generally needs a densely populated workforce whereas agriculture needs lots and lots of land
• Individual Rights: what can the government say you can and can't do?

One of the common two-axis systems to to map personal and economic freedoms separately; this has the advantage of no longer lumping libertarians and authoritarians together on the right (which makes no sense), and Marxists and anarchists on the left (which also makes no sense).

The funny thing is that the current two major parties have different answers to these questions, depending on the context. For example, Republicans tend to favor low taxes and small federal government... except when it comes to defense and energy spending. Democrats tend to favor individual freedoms, but often want to regulate almost everything. Both sides are in favor of subsidies that help their district, whether that's subsidies for "small farmers" (read: huge agribusiness conglomerates) or "American workers" (read: failing American businesses that are being outcompeted on the global market), so depending on where a Republican or Democrat is from, we'll see different behavior on the Urban vs. Rural edge.

Finally, there's the relatively recent alliance between Republicans and social conservatives, which lets them have the nifty hypocrisy of saying the government has no right to say what you can do with a gun, but every right to say what you can do in the bedroom (see also: pro-death penalty but anti-abortion). Democrats are in a similar boat when it comes to supporting unions but wanting to do a lot of international aid (protectionist trade policies help our unions but hurt workers in developing nations), and with demanding money for education but refusing to consider options like school vouchers.

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are names for political philosophies that go back to the 18th century or so.  People who hold conservative philosophies aggregate in the Republican party, and people with liberal philosophies flock with Democrats.

Or at least, that's the rough gist of it.  But there are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, and what we mean by "liberal" and "conservative" are very different from the original meanings, and from the way people in other countries use the same words.


The idea of conservatism being identical to Evangelistic Christianity is a very recent invention, beginning in the 1970s as a way to help the Republican party recover from the Nixon debacle.  

Actually, it's reflecting an even deeper shift, a realignment of both parties in the 1950s as Democrats tried to attract more minorities during the era of Civil Rights legislation, and the southern conservative Democrats left to join the Republican party.  Originally that brought a libertarian bent to the Republicans, but the influx of evangelical Christians formed a new base, which helped lead to our notion of "conservative" = "Republican" = "religious right".  

Liberal and moderate Republican are uneasy about that, preferring a more fiscally responsible libertarian attitude, what they call "fiscal conservatism" even though that's called "liberal" in Europe, much closer to the original meaning of the term!

Meantime, the Democrats were undergoing another shift, from "classic" liberal (free-market) to "modern" liberal (interested in individual rights).  In some ways those are opposites: modern liberals believe in using the power of government to help ensure rights for individuals, which "classic" liberals see as a restriction of the right to choose freely and operate without government interference.  

Burger King’s new French fries

Burger King said it plans to roll out new-and-improved French fries, raising the ante in an ongoing battle of upgraded menu items within the quick-service industry.

In what marks the first reformulation of its fries since 1998, Burger King said the new version is fluffier, with better potato flavor on the inside and “crispy, golden-brown deliciousness” on the outside.

The new fries will be in about 7,000 Burger King restaurants across North America by Dec. 5, the company said. To help promote the debut, the chain is planning to offer a free small value portion of fries to customers on Dec. 16, with no purchase necessary.


Read more: http://nrn.com/article/burger-king-debut-new-fries#ixzz1fspLQmcw

I have long thought that Burger King needed to change their french fry recipe. In fact, I rarely go to BK because I dislike their fries so much. So, I was intrigued when I heard they were offering a new style of french fry and tried them this week.

IMOSHO, I would say they still suck. Do not waste your money on them.

What is the penalty for raping a woman according to the bible?

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (Deuteronomy 22:28)


"But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26"But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27"When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her,"  (Deuteronomy 22:25-27)

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)



So, according to the bible. if a man rapes a virgin who is not pledged to be married, he pays a fee to the father and marries the girl. I am sure the girl would be thrilled with this arrangement. She can look forward to a lifetime of continuous rape.

But if she is engaged to be married, then he will be killed. Why? He has violated the property of another male. That is a no no. What happened to the girl is of little importance. The issue here is property rights.

And if he happens to rape this engaged girl within the city, they are both to be killed. She should have cried out for help. Of course, he may have gagged her to prevent this from occurring or knocked her unconscious, but that is irrelevant. The girl should have found some way to still call out.

Pearl Harbor Attack Remembered at 70th Anniversary

The Dec. 7, 1941, bombing of Pearl Harbor and those who lost their lives that day are being remembered  on the 70th anniversary of the Japanese attack that brought the U.S. into World War II.

About 120 survivors will join Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, military leaders and civilians to observe a moment of silence in Pearl Harbor at 7:55 a.m. Hawaii time — the moment the attack began seven decades ago.

About 3,000 people are expected to attend the event held each year at a site overlooking the sunken USS Arizona and the white memorial that straddles the battleship

On this day 70 years ago, President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed a joint session of Congress and requested a declaration of war against Japan following the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor the day before. Roosevelt's words carried forth across the nation via radio, and the consequences of the actions America would take would be felt around the world--and across history. The lessons America learned in those fateful days should be remembered even today.


Roosevelt noted that the day of Japan's attack would be "a date which will live in infamy," and he also pledged the following:

"I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces -- with the unbounding determination of our people -- we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God."

Just as Roosevelt proclaimed that "hostilities exist" 70 years ago, those words are true today. The United States faces threats at home and abroad--as we were reminded on September 11 and with every man and woman in military who makes the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our freedoms. The hostilities we face today are different from those we may face tomorrow, and there is no telling what challenges may lie around the corner. For that reason, our military must stand ready, prepared, and adequately equipped and funded to meet all threats, foreign and domestic.