[No group is more outraged and offended by anything or everything than liberals. Here’s a non-offensive Christmas greeting that even a liberal might accept]
To Whom it May Concern….
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
In addition, please also accept our best wishes for a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2009, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make this country great (not to imply that this country is necessarily greater than any other country or area of choice), and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual orientation of the wishers.
This wish is limited to the customary and usual good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first. “Holiday” is not intended to, nor shall it be considered, limited to the usual Judeo-Christian celebrations or observances, or to such activities of any organized or ad hoc religious community, group, individual or belief (or lack thereof).
Note: By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher at any time, for any reason or for no reason at all. This greeting is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. This greeting implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for the wisher her/himself or others, or responsibility for the consequences which may arise from the implementation or non- implementation of it.
This greeting is void where prohibited by law.
[Original Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/05/school-bans-christmas-trees-
In an article by Todd Starnes (Todd’s American Dispatch Published December 05, 2013), he shares: “an “elementary school in Frisco, Texas is believed to be the first in the state to violate “The Merry Christmas Law” after they banned Christmas trees and the colors red & green from an upcoming “winter” party.colors-red-green/?intcmp=obnetwork]
Boys and girls who attend the Nichols Elementary School “Winter Party” will not be able to make any reference to Christmas or any other religious holiday. Christmas trees are also banned – along with the colors red and green.”
Once again, the left proves that liberalism is a mental disease. You may ask, “What is the compelling reason for this action? Here’s what the principal of the school had to say:
“…they didn’t want to offend any families and since each family donates money they feel this is the best policy.”
What about all the families who might be offended by not being able to call Christmas, Christmas?!!
Texas Rep. Pat Fallon, the author of a “Merry Christmas Law” that was signed into law in June that “codifies the fact that students and staff are permitted to discuss winter holidays as they please,” was shocked.
“Fallon fired off a letter to every school official in the district, reminding them of their yuletide rights under the law.
“Texas law clearly permits Christmas-themed celebrations, events and displays,” Fallon wrote. “The district may also display scenes or symbols with traditional winter holidays (e.g. nativity scenes, Christmas trees, menorahs, etc.)”
Clearly, this is another example of attacks against Christianity, and one more incremental step of stripping away our rights.
[Note: this article is a compilation from numerous sources. See Bibliography below]
Anytime I get into an discussion with people about the Second Amendment, they inevitably bring up the idea that the rights enshrined within the Bill of Rights have limits. And the one thing they constantly fall back on is the example that “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.”
This argument is one that attempts to tie two completely different aspects together as if they are forcing a square peg into a round hole.
Here it is:
1. Freedom of speech is a constitutional right.
2. It can be infringed by disallowing a person to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
3. Therefore all rights (including gun ownership) can be infringed.
“You can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre.”
To that I say, “Yes, I can…if there’s a fire.”
I will concede the point that rights do have restrictions in a free society is valid , but not often in the context used by those who put forth the notion.
Timothy Havener, in a article, makes a cogent point: “The criteria of limitation is set by the encroachment of one right upon another. Stating you cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre only remains valid if there is no fire because in doing so you are encroaching on the rights of others to enjoy their entertainment. Conversely, if there is a fire and you verbosely utter its presence you would be met with appreciation and thanks and would not have stepped across the line of encroachment.
Our natural rights within a civil society are compromised to some extent by default. We must accept some infringement on the natural state of our liberty where our rights may infringe on others. This is the basis for law and all reasonable restrictions on our rights. What we must never accept, however, are restrictions based on the faulty premise of safety and protection from what may occur. When we enter this territory we lay liberty upon a sacrificial altar and entomb justice in a grave of conceit.
The road to tyranny is often paved with the good intentions of well meaning people trying to protect us from ourselves when they should be more worried about protecting themselves from the rogue power of a government not bound by strict constitutional limitations.
No man’s freedom should be taken for the potential risk of what may happen or what might occur. If an act or a purported act in itself is not criminal by nature then there is no justification for a seizure upon the freedom of the individual.”
To put it another way, in regard to free speech, you enjoy your first amendment rights completely and totally unrestricted, and are presumed innocent until the moment you decide to open your mouth and form the words inciting mutiny or violence. Up to that point,
- There are no censors standing over your head making sure that you don’t write anything seditious.
- There is no waiting period while your background is checked before being allowed to speak.
- There is no requirement to register your newspaper or blog with the government.
- There is no government organization that keeps a list of approved publications and requires a $200 tax to move that instrument of speech between people.
- You are allowed the full exercise of their rights up until the exact moment when they decided to speak in a way that was imminently against the public interest.
[Less anyone reading this miss the point, the above is analogous to guns] There are restrictions on what you can say, but there is always the presumption of innocence. It’s only in reaction to an act or speech that those restrictions kick in.
We should have the same kinds of restrictions on the Second Amendment. Just as with the First, you should have the full and complete enjoyment of your rights without any reservations or restrictions until you do something that proves your motives are against the public interest.
Because “innocent until proven guilty” isn’t just a phrase — it’s supposed to actually mean something in this country.
Invariably, the next step after using the “Can’t yell fire in a theatre” fallacy is “Oh then I guess you think everyone should have nuclear weapons then, huh?”
This is using the ‘strawman logical fallacy.”
(For anyone reading this that is unfamiliar with that term, the Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.)
I’m surprised you didn’t toss into the mix, along with atom bombs, chemical and biological weapons.
Why not tanks? Why not nukes?
“Have you seen the going price for plutonium these days?” 🙂
Seriously though, how many Americans have the funds to develop a tank, or purchase one? And would someone with the tens of millions of dollars required to purchase a tank actually use it unwisely? And if they did, the national guard would destroy it quite quickly. As for the nuclear weapon, a citizen would have to mine uranium, develop the technology, and then assemble it into a weapon to pose any threat. If several entire nations have tried unsuccessfully to develop a nuke, then what would lead a person to believe that a private individual would succeed? And even if one did, would not a private citizen who spent billions developing a nuke probably be more rational than the reckless, tyrannical leader of North Korea?
Let’s be real. No one in the current argument in the right to bear arms is talking about the right to bear tanks and nuclear weapons.
Article: The Second Amendment, the First and Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theater
Written by Nick Leghorn on January 13, 2013 and appears on the website: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/foghorn/the-second-amendment-the-first-amendment-and-yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-auditorium/
Article: Yelling Fire In A Crowded Theatre
Written by Timothy Havener on April 20, 2011 and appears on the website: http://libertythinkers.com/creative-writing/yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theatre/
“Democrat Senator Tom Harkin’s statement should send a chill of reality down the spine of every American… He stated from his perch on the Senate Finance Committee Chair that we do not have a spending problem. We have a mis-allocation of wealth problem. There can be no further doubt that today’s Democrat party has fully embraced socialist ideals and principles of governance. The top 25% of wage earners in America contribute nearly 90% of tax revenues. Hey America, Benjamin Franklin appropriately mused, sometimes you get the government you want, other times you get the government you deserve. Hat tip to the uninformed, low information, and politically illiterate segments of the American electorate who voted on style, not substance in 2012.” -Allen West.
[This article has got to be in the “What in the h*ll is wrong with these people?!!” column. They’re pathetic! Liberals don’t mind killing babies in the womb, but if an animal is killed….]
Hundreds attend vigil for elk killed by police in Colorado
Published January 08, 2013
BOULDER, Colo. – The elk was honored with a makeshift memorial of candles, songs and stories.
Several hundred people attended a vigil Sunday in Boulder, Colo., for the elk that was killed by a police officer. It had wandered into a neighborhood, where it was fatally shot by an on-duty police officer.
The officer has said the elk appeared injured before he shot it. He has been placed on leave.
Police say an off-duty officer who had called in sick the night the elk was killed took the carcass home to be processed for meat. The Boulder Daily Camera reported Monday that officer has a website that offers taxidermy services.
The second officer also has been placed on leave. State wildlife officials are investigating.
An Ohio school district has agreed to keep a portrait of Jesus Christ off school property and pay a $95,000 fine in the face of legal pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union.
The Jackson City School District, located in Jackson, reached a deal on Friday after the ACLU, along with the Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation, sued the district in February, citing “unconstitutional” actions and charging that students and visitors to the school “will continue to suffer permanent, severe and irreparable harm and injury,” according to the lawsuit.
The picture had been hanging in Jackson’s high school since 1947 as part of a “Hall of Honor” display meant to highlight famous historical figures.
“The case could have ended before it began if the school had simply acknowledged that it is not the government’s place to endorse one specific religion in a public school that children are legally required to attend,” said James Hardiman, the legal director for Ohio’s ACLU chapter.
The case, in which the district was being represented by the Texas-based Liberty Institute, was brought before the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Ohio, though the school eventually agreed to the settlement rather than spend taxpayer dollars on fighting the lawsuit, said Phil Howard, the district’s superintendent.
The portrait was removed by April, and both parties announced in July that they had reached a tentative agreement pending a final settlement.
Under the terms of the settlement, the district will pay the money to the ACLU and Freedom From Religion Foundation for damages and legal fees.
1. If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
2. If you have to get your parents permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
3. If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book, but not to vote, … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
4. If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt, you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
5. If, in our largest city, you can buy “two” 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
6. If an 80-year-old woman and 3 yr old child can be stripped searched by the TSA, but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
7. If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
8. If a seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is cute, but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable, … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
9. If children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested homes…, you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
10. If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing, and free cell phones,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
11. If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big screen TV while your neighbor buys iPhones, TVs and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
12. If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more safe according to the government,… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
Sadly, though, for many the day has absolutely no meaning. It is as any other day. No different and certainly nothing worthy of attention. And to many, the mere mention of Easter brings contempt and loathing.
Throughout most of U.S. history, books such as the McGuffy reader, New England Primer (which taught spelling, reading and the Alphabet using Bible verses), and the Blue Book Speller (which also used Bible verses to teach reading and spelling) were used in everyday classrooms.
Most of our founding fathers were Christians. They believed that religious freedom was of primary importance and they didn’t want government interfering with the right to worship God. Their purpose in carefully constructing the laws governing the nation was motivated by their belief that “the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.” (Noah Webster)
The U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause “were adopted by the framers for the explicit purpose of promoting, not suppressing religious freedom.” George Washington firmly believed in the indispensability of Christian training for good government. “True religion,” he said, “affords government its surest support. The future of this nation depends on the Christian training of our youth. It is impossible to govern without the Bible.”
Today, we see an outright assault by atheists and progressive liberals to eradicate any form of “religion” in government or public life. In reality, progressives really don’t care about attacking any other ‘religion’ than Christianity, and Jews by extension.
The first crack in the moral school system occurred, in 1925 when the newly formed ACLU paid a teacher in Tennessee to teach Evolution. Biblical creation had been taught throughout the land, and teaching evolution was against the Tennessee state law. While the ACLU lost the case, it set in motion a re-evaluation of teaching science. Within four decades the laws were reversed so that now teaching Creation is outlawed and teaching Evolution is mandatory.
The ACLU then started using the courts to change school policy. In 1948 the Supreme court used the “Separation of Church and State” argument to outlaw a time for school prayer. In 1962 the Supreme Court again declared that prayer in school was unconstitutional. In 1963 the Warren Court stopped schools from allowing Bible reading in classes. In 1980 the Supreme Court declared that posting the Ten Commandments in a school classroom violated the Constitution of the United States.
1A recent national poll showed that 69% of Americans believe that the First Amendment says “Separation of Church and State.” This not only displays a profound sense of illiteracy, by willful ignorance. You may be surprised to learn that these words do not appear in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution! Here is what the First Amendment actually does say.
The First Amendment :
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So where did the words “Separation of Church and State.” come from? They can be traced back to a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote back in 1802. In October 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut wrote to President Jefferson, and in their letter they voiced some concerns about Religious Freedom. On January 1, 1802 Jefferson wrote a letter to them in which he added the phrase “Separation of Church and State.” When you read the full letter, you will understand that Jefferson was simply underscoring the First Amendment as a guardian of the peoples religious freedom from government interference. Here is an excerpt from Jefferson’s letter. . .
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” Read the full text of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association ..
Jefferson simply quotes the First Amendment then uses a metaphor, the “wall”, to separate the government from interfering with religious practice. Notice that the First Amendment puts Restrictions only on the Government, not the People! The Warren Court (liberal) re-interpreted the First Amendment, based on no precedent (in other words they decided on their own they didn’t like ‘religion,’ so through misuse of power, change the meaning), thus putting the restrictions on the People! Today the government can stop you from Praying in school, reading the Bible in school, showing the Ten Commandments in school, or have religious displays at Christmas. This is quite different from the wall Jefferson envisioned, protecting the people from government interference with Religious practice.
And yet, and it hasn’t stop the disdain from liberals who use this phrase as a club to limit, damage, or attempt to destroy, in particular, Christianity.
For example, the ACLU’s war against Christians praying in public schools while obliging Muslims the ability make their noon prayers in a school. Or Vanderbilt University’s discrimination against Christians—forbidding them from meeting on campus if they adhere to their religious principles.
Or how about comedian (I use the term comedian lightly) Kathy Griffen at an awards ceremony: “A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus. Suck it, Jesus, this award is my god now!”
2 How about Barack Obama’s mocking comments about conservative Christians who” bitterly cling to guns and religion.”
How about Obama’s violation of the “free exercise clause” in the First Amendment by demanding that Catholic hospitals provide free birth control and abortion- inducing drugs, even though that clearly violates their religious beliefs.
Literally every Catholic bishop in America has spoken out against the policy, but of course, the Democratic Party is unmoved. This should shock no one who has seen the Left enthusiastically support government sponsored anti-Christian art, sue Christians who want to mention Christ in schools or courthouses, and even just fight to remove the World Trade Center Cross from the National September 11th Memorial and Museum.
Who isn’t aware when schools renamed ‘Easter break’ and ‘Christmas break’ to spring and fall break, lest someone might be offended. How about the recent news just within the last week of the writing of this article, boys and girls at an Alabama elementary school will still get to hunt for eggs – but they can’t call them ‘Easter Eggs.’ The principal banished the word for the sake of religious diversity. In many places you can’t even utter the devilish words, “Merry Christmas,” for fear of offending someone.
It only takes one person to claim that they are offended by anything (heck, sometimes they don’t even need a person), that remotely has ‘religion’ attached to it, that gives liberals the ammo and justification to rid society of it. They could care less that by their actions they offend millions of Christian. For merely expressing a biblical view, you can be labeled intolerant, or even prosecuted for a “hate crime.”
This website will provide ample evidence to these claims, but you get the idea.
So, what is it about Christianity and specifically, Jesus Christ, that offends liberals so much?
Why is that, by and large, we have raised a generation that knows nothing of the bible (the best selling book of all time), let alone the great contribution Christianity has made toward the betterment of human society, i.e., science, healthcare, music, architecture, literature, and even human freedom itself?
What Christians are experiencing in the world today is not so much a “war on Christianity” as it is rebellion against God, and thus a hatred toward anything that points to God or His Son Jesus… and by extension a hatred of Christ’s followers.
This rebellion is nothing new. Men break God’s commandments, e.g., do not steal, do not lie, do not take God’s name in vain, do not look on another with lust, etc. Man’s sinful nature is to hate authority. Being told you are a sinner, could cause guilt, and god forbid, make you be held responsible for your actions.
In everyday life, our actions are constrained by laws. Laws have penalties. If you speed, you get a ticket and pay a fine. If you murder, you get locked up for a long time or you’re executed. Our laws change and sometimes what was previously thought as wrong is now ok. (relativism).
God’s laws, however, do not change. As creator, what he declares is wrong, is always wrong (absolutes). When you break one God’s laws, you rebel against God himself. And like our court system today, you will be held responsible for your actions. You will be judged not according to man’s relative laws, but by God’s absolute law.
You don’t walk into a courtroom after breaking the law, and have the judge say, “Oh, that’s ok. I’m sure you didn’t mean it.” No, if the judge is fair and right, he will give you what’s due you and what you deserve. The bible says that the just wage due a sinner (one who breaks God’s law) is death (spiritual death).
So is God out to get everyone? Is he the great “‘cosmic killjoy?” Is he the one that is trying to ruin everybody’s “fun?”
No. According to the bible, “All have sinned.” All means everybody, and unless you’re lying to yourself, ‘all’ means you are included in that group. And because you break his laws, God (being a right and fair judge) gives you what you deserve. If that is all He did, he would be fair. But, because he loves us, he provided a way that you don’t get what you deserve. He sent his son, Jesus (whom we celebrate during Easter). He placed your sin, and the penalty due that sin, on Jesus. Jesus paid the debt you owed. And because of that, you can stand right before God, just as though you never sinned or broke his law to begin with.
To prove that God accepted his sacrifice on your behalf, Jesus rose from the dead. God gives the gift of salvation and forgiveness to anyone who accepts that sacrifice and turns from evil (what many refer to as repentance). Of course, being human, we blow it every day and break another or many of God’s laws. But, God wants to restore his relationship with you, so extends love, mercy and grace. You pick yourself up, confess your sin, and move forward.
Many do not want to be held accountable to God, so they rebel, deny his existence, lie, do evil, are prideful, and call good that which God calls evil (such as abortion, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, etc.) , and evil that which God calls good. Thus, they desire to rid not only God in our culture, but people of faith whose morals and lives stand in stark contrast to their behavior and polluted mind.
To that end, liberals and progressives have been successful. They have co-opted our schools, our media, our culture, and sadly in many places, our churches.
As Christians who celebrate Easter, we should not be surprised. Jesus talked of this time. Keep this in mind: “Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you”. (1 John 3:13, NIV)
Or this: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.” (John 15:18-20, NIV).
Easter reminds us of Christ’s return. That is good and bad news: good for those who call upon His name and look forward to His return, but bad for those who, through their arrogance and pride, reject a God who has extended a gracious and merciful plan of salvation through His Son, Jesus.
It doesn’t matter whether or not you believe in God or how you reject Him. Someday, you will be held accountable, judged, and receive what you deserve.
New International Version (NIV)
11 It is written: “‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.’”
Make a choice to turn from disobedience now before you no longer have the opportunity.
Film Review of Avatar
by Wayne Dyrness
2009 movie by Director James Cameron and distributed by 20th Century Fox World Wide box office receipts exceed 2.7 billion dollars!!!
Avatar is visually stunning and technologically creative. However, it has major problems. It is a great evangelistic piece for animism, i.e. the belief that all creatures and objects — even ones science regards as “inanimate” — possess a soul or personality; the belief that all things are alive in some sense.
In a very real sense, it’s also a propaganda piece for eastern mysticism, that “God” (i.e. mother earth) dwells and is in all things, i.e. “so above, so below.” In other words, the “God within.” James Cameron states that “the Na’vi represent something that is our higher selves, or our aspirational selves, what we would like to think we are.”
Metaphorically, the film also presents mankind (along with its’ military complex) as “the” problem. Here is a planet “connected” in some way with all living entities, beautiful, living in harmony. Along comes “man” and destroys that which is good, that which is connected.
Does this theme sound familiar? Yes – it is the message of the ‘environmentalists.’ In other words, if only man weren’t here or didn’t come, there would be no problem.
The other major theme is a slam against the military and corporations, both presented as the bad guys. In regard to corporations, they are greedy and wicked, that could care less about the damage they will cause to the eco-system, let alone the needless deaths of the indigenous peoples. Only profit is important.
The military is presented as callous and cruel, mindless, only wishing to inflict as much damage and chaos possible, without care or consequence. James Cameron acknowledges that he is highly critical of how Bush handled the Iraq war and the impersonal nature of mechanized warfare in general. Note reference to phrase “shock and awe” that is used in the movie.
These two entities, corporations and military, are contrasted against the thoughtful, caring, sensitive, and “enlightened” and “educated” men and women of science; whose only goal and wish is to protect “mother earth.”
At its core, Avatar is a propaganda piece for the politically extreme left (which is really now the left in general), and its many factions. It paints an unrealistic and untrue picture of corporations and military. However, it mirrors exactly the message the political left is expounding today, i.e. corporations are the enemy; the military is evil and invades foreign lands without regard to the people who live there.
A person of faith (in particular, Christian) should be disturbed by the message this film presents, i.e. eastern mysticism (now known as New Age or Emergent) and animism is acceptable and true. This form of “soft subtle” persuasion (evangelism) is effective in that it is pushed as entertainment, and as such the normal mental filters one would use to process, evaluate, and reject this form of propaganda is bypassed. It is a direct attack against discernment and critical thinking, neither which seem very present in today’s society, or church. James Cameron states that “the Na’vi represent something that is our higher selves, or our aspirational selves, what we would like to think we are”
My son would be the first to say, “Dad, it’s just a movie! Why don’t you just sit there and enjoy the film rather than over-analyze it!” The discerning person knows that every film has an agenda. To ignore that truth demonstrates that you are exactly the person this film is meant to target, i.e. the ones who will “just sit there” and not “think” about the message it gives.
Most people like to think of themselves as intelligent enough that they would not fall in to the trap of buying into propaganda or subtle brainwashing. The reality is most people today have not been taught to be discerning or critical thinkers. As a result, they do fall into this trap. The message from the left or from left-leaning education is “don’t question,” “be a team player, a team builder” “be part of the village,” “your leaders are much better educated and more enlightened than you,” or “who are you to question our motives? Just sit there and be quiet.”
So what is the message or agenda of this film to you, the viewer? There’s a few I think that stand out. First, spiritual: the church at large needs to abandon their idea that their message is unique, or even necessary. The church at large needs to realize that we are all spiritually connected, one with another, and one with nature. Abandoning doctrine brings unity. Unity is all important. Those that stand against this “unity” (i.e. cling to their doctrine) will be demonized and charged/jailed by violating new equality laws.
Second, political: much like spiritual, we are all connected together as one world family, a large community, and dependent upon each other. We need to break down the walls, the artificial boundaries that divide us. Again, ‘unity’ is the message.
How then do we achieve this unity, this one-world government? We focus not on the individual’s achievements or abilities, but rather on the collective or corporate. This is taking the phrase, “it takes a village to raise a child” to the extreme. This is Socialism in action (which our current administration (Obama) and Congress is now trying to cram down your throats). Over 22 countries use the Euro as their currency, having abandoned their own.
There is movement in America to create a North American Union with Mexico and Canada and to begin using a new coin called the ‘Amero,’ in place of our respective countries currency due to the plummeting value of the U.S. dollar.
The Treasury continues to flood the world with more worthless dollars (with nothing of value to back it up) each day. Many countries want to dump the dollar in place of the Euro. The move toward accepting the “Amero” sets the stage to accepting a world currency.
Russia’s President Medvedev in a recent G8 conference presented a sample of what could be a new world currency. Written on one side of the coins is “Unity in Diversity.
How does one go about achieving control over the individual in favor of the corporate, or unity?
Our current administration/congress has taken over private banks, insurance companies, auto companies, etc. all in the name of “protecting the individual.” Yet, it was the administration/congress that created the problems to begin with in order to give justification of their acts of unconstitutional seizure. Who did they assess the blame on? Of course, the evil corporations. Who now has control over many of these formally private businesses? The government.
Just a few weeks ago on December 17th, 2009 President Obama issued an executive order that allows INTERPOL to have jurisdiction in the U.S.
What does this mean? It means that we have an international police force authorized to act within the United States that is no longer subject to 4th Amendment Search and Seizure. The “property and assets of [INTERPOL], wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation.”
INTERPOL, an international criminal police organization, is now poised to reside above the United States Constitution – in a place of sanctity beyond our FBI, CIA, DIA, and all other criminal investigative domestic organizations.
President Obama has just placed our Constitutional rights under international law. It won’t be long before our entire country is ceded under the control of an international government (i.e. One World Government).
By now, if you have read this far, you be asking, “Why include all of this peripheral information in your review of the movie Avatar?”
Whether you like it or not, whether you are aware of it or not, there is a concerted effort behind the scene to move us toward a world government. I’m sure many of you reading this were totally unaware of Obama’s Dec. 17th Executive Order. In order to accomplish this goal of one world government, your current beliefs, values, etc. need to be changed so as to embrace this move rather than reject it. Change takes time. That requires that all areas of your life (political beliefs, social perspective, religious values, educational training, etc.) needs to be “adjusted” (perhaps a better word is desensitized).
Movies, TV, newspaper, etc. only serve as one tool in the overall arsenal to adjust your thinking. If you know that a movie like Avatar, for example, has an agenda (as does any marketing tool), you are more likely to exercise discernment or critical thinking skills when exposed to them and see them for what they really are, i.e. subtle propaganda tools designed to change the way you think and feel about formally held beliefs/doctrines, to condition you, to conform to the world-wide community mindset, and to accept the changes that you will be asked to embrace in the future.
If you didn’t see Avatar for what it truly is, you need to wake up and know that you are being manipulated. Start exercising critical thinking skills. Stop being a lemming that someday wakes up and says, “how did we get to this state of affairs,” and then has no power, will, or freedom to change things.