Yeah, I guess Christmas really is under attack

So what do:

A)

and

B)

both have in common? Apparently, they're both under attack.

At least that's the story if you ask any conservative republican. Yes, when December rolls around it can only mean one thing: Conservative Christians complaining about not being able to put Baby Jesus in the town square. Ever since it was designated as a federal holiday in 1870 by Ulysses S. Grant, Christians have been claiming it has a deserved place at the forefront of American culture, especially since "the United States was founded by Christians" and based on "Christian" values. However, I think these people could use a history lesson on the origins of all the customs we've come to associate with Christmas.

Let's take the most recognizable symbol of Christmas: The Christmas Tree. This really has little to do with Christianity (although it's never stopped Christians from making up myths) and, like most Christmas customs, is taken from Pagan traditions revolving around the celebration of the Winter Solstice. We can credit the invention of this custom to the Brotherhood of the Blackheads, specifically the children of the Latvian town of Riga, who, in the early 15th century, decorated a fir tree that was originally planned to be burned (it was tradition to burn a giant log for the Winter Solstice. Why? I don't know, they're Pagans.), but in the end wasn't because of it's large size and safety concerns. Some historians though think this Christmas tree business dates back as far as the Egyptians, Romans, and Druids.

Well, how about the other, much more awesome part of Christmas: PRESENTS. Even if you're a lonely hermit with no friends or family to receive gifts from (Man, what a horrible life you must have), people can at least splurge on gifts and call it a Christmas gift for themselves. Plus, there's really nothing more American than spending hundreds of dollars and going into debt every year (Woo! Debt!). Except that's another thing taken from Pagan tradition. The Romans had this celebration called Saturnalia held in recognition of the god Saturn that lasted from December 17th to December 23rd. December 25th is believed to have come from the recognition of a few other gods like Mithra and Angerona. Anyway, a part of Saturnalia was the exchange of gifts. What's funny is that the Catholic church banned gift giving for awhile until they realized they could lure in Pagans to their religion by bringing back the gift giving, making up some justification (because when doesn't that work?) and pretty much stealing the Winter Solstice celebration and claiming it as their own.

Wait, so, if Christians don't get a Christmas tree, presents, or even the holiday itself, what do they have? Nothing. What does this mean? Christmas is pretty much a secular holiday that doesn't belong to any particular religion.

Except for those weird nativity scenes that show Baby Jesus on a camping trip. That's definitely religious and the government doesn't have the right to erect any religious symbol, with or without tax-payer money. Don't like it? Then repeal the First Amendment. That'll go over well.

My point with all this is, nobody is attacking Christians. Christians are just mad because people recognize that the government shouldn't be erecting any religious symbols that could be interpreted as an establishment of religion. My only problem would be if any government uses tax dollars to put up a nativity scene. That's clearly linked to a specific religion. A Christmas tree however, I really have no problem with. I actually think of Christmas as more of a secular holiday anyway. To me, Christmas has pretty much entered into the mainstream mostly through the heavy amount of advertising and classic Christmas movies (of which A Christmas Story is the best). The Supreme Court seems to agree with me as well (or is it I who agrees with them? Nope, they always agree with me.). So go ahead and put up those Christmas trees and holiday wreaths, just keep those nativity scenes on your own property and stop thinking anybody is attacking you.

What do you think? Is Christmas really under attack by godless heathens? Are people who say it is whiny bitches? Lemme know in the comments section!

Sources: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/26/atheist-billboard-christmas-is-a-myth/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/stewart-gretchen-christmas_n_792998.html

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4442813/war-on-christmas-comes-to-pennsylvania/

Yeah, I guess people who keep the U.S. honest should die

I really didn't plan on writing anything about the Wikileaks cable release, but then I read this story from the Huffington Post. Apparently, the State Department advised students at Columbia University not to discuss or post anything about the Wikileaks documents on the internet. (Columbia University has since retracted this statement and is in full support of freedom of speech. So, that's nice.) Right about then is when I decided now was a good time to talk about Wikileaks.

I'll go ahead and be upfront: I support what Wikileaks has done and is doing. I support their decision to leak the 250,000 cables and I also support pretty much everything else they've ever done. There needs to be an organization of people who can keep the government honest and accountable. Wikileaks is that organization. Unfortunately, a few prominent government officials and television hosts don't share this same point of view.

Take good ol' Bill O'Reilly. Surely he would support someone sticking it to the government and keeping them honest. Nope. Actually quite the opposite. In fact his exact words were: "Whoever leaked all those State Department documents to the WikiLeaks website is a traitor and should be executed or put in prison for life." Apparently he doesn't understand that a non-citizen of the United States (Julian Assange is from Australia) can't technically be a "traitor" to the United States. He never had any alleigance to the U.S. in the first place.

The U.S. government really isn't a fan of the Wikileaks community's work either. They're looking into prosecuting Julian Assange. I guess it bothers them that there's organization with the ability to expose the government provide the transparency that the U.S. government currently lacks. But I'd like to refer back to the argument that the U.S. Government often gives for any kind of privacy-violating law or measure that has ever been enacted: If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about.

I really think the U.S. Government shows just how naive it is when they think they can suppress the flow of information when the Internet exists. If anything is written down, it can and most likely will be on the Internet (there's probably even some kind of weird, kinky Wikileaks porn, per Rule 34). In fact, the only way to prevent this would be to create some kind of telepathic form of communication between secret agents (MOVIE IDEA!).

If the United States is staying absolutely clean and honest and not doing anything that contradicts any statements made or goes back on a promise, then everything should be just dandy. But it should be obvious then that this isn't the case with the United States. There really isn't any foundation-shaking information in these cables though. It's mostly just catty descriptions of other world leaders. But the fact that the U.S. Government is trying to suppress any secret or confidential information should be cause for concern.

If you need any other excuse to justify the work and existance of Wikileaks, here's an awesome website that works in the same way as "WTF Has Obama Done So Far?" called "So Why Is Wikileaks A Good Thing Again?"

What do you think of Wikileaks? Are you a tyrannical dictator who hates the very notion of a whistleblower organization existing to expose your flaws? Are you an intelligent person who understands the need for an unbiased organization to keep governments honest? Lemme know!

Sources: I really didn't state anything specific in this post. This story is actually a little dated so there's about 50 articles online about this thing. Here's a wikipedia link to Wikileaks. Is it insulting to your intelligence when I give you a link to wikipedia? Probably.