Slashdot Mirror


North Korea Threatens South Korea Over Christmas Lights

K7DAN writes "North Korea warned South Korea on Sunday of 'unexpected consequences' if Seoul displays Christmas lights near the tense border, and vowed to retaliate for what it called 'psychological warfare.' From the article: 'The tree-shaped, 30 metre-high steel structure on Aegibong hill - some 3km (2 miles) from the border - was illuminated by thousands of small light bulbs last year. It could be seen from the North's major city of Kaesong across the border, according to media reports. Pyongyang has previously accused Seoul of using the tree to spread the Christian message to people inside the secular state.'"

441 comments

  1. Pot, kettle, black by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    what it called 'psychological warfare.'

    Big words for a country that built an entire town on their side of the border, just for propaganda.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Pot, kettle, black by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny

      what it called 'psychological warfare.'

      Big words for a country that built an entire town on their side of the border, just for propaganda.

      Yeah, well think about it. The government of North Korea is such an evil bunch of feckwits they can't even get coal for Christmas.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes just like the flagpole the South Koreans erected first? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daeseong-dong

      Please you can go back and forth on this mindless drivel for days.

    3. Re:Pot, kettle, black by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Funny

      Seoul-less heathens, the lot of them!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:Pot, kettle, black by TC+Wilcox · · Score: 1

      Yes just like the flagpole the South Koreans erected first? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daeseong-dong

      Please you can go back and forth on this mindless drivel for days.

      Are you really trying to compare North Korea threatening "unexpected consequences" with building a large flag pole? Disclaimer - I lived as a civilian for two years in South Korea and have a lot of love for that country.

    5. Re:Pot, kettle, black by hedronist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      +3: Laughing at the DPRK is really the only thing you can do. Unfortunately you stop laughing when you think about what life inside the DPRK must be like. Grim does not begin to describe it.

    6. Re:Pot, kettle, black by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, well think about it. The government of North Korea is such an evil bunch of feckwits they can't even get coal for Christmas.

      Coal is expensive, bub. In Europe, really naughty kids are getting Euro's in their stockings instead.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    7. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Jeff+Hornby · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't knock the Euro. It won't be long before those bills will be rare and valuable collector's items.

      --
      Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
    8. Re:Pot, kettle, black by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's a National Geographic documentary you can watch free on Netflix (the Lisa Ling) one that gives a glimpse. Brainwashed citizens, traffic cops directing no traffic, empty roads... etc

    9. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, everybody knows you give the really naughty kids American Dollars. We've got so many of those printed now that they should come free with any purchase of American products (oh... right, WHAT PRODUCTS? We outsourced them all.) Sadly the only thing said kids would be doing with them is giving them back in January as part of the ??AA settlement for whatever copyright infringement they did or didn't commit.

    10. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say instead we offer to build a giant glowing penis on that hill, with the caption 'Our dick is bigger than yours' written in Korean.

      Hey, it's non-denominational, right?d

    11. Re:Pot, kettle, black by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a National Geographic documentary you can watch free on Netflix (the Lisa Ling) one that gives a glimpse. Brainwashed citizens, traffic cops directing no traffic, empty roads... etc

      People in DPRK live to serve the government. They are effectively peasants and serfs, party members are vassals and the top generals are royalty, with the Kim Jong-il clan as the heriditary monarchy. This state is not communist, it's a throwback to the middle ages, when the King owned all the lands. Other than a little bit of planned economy, it's nothing like communism - because communisn is something people would strive for, not have forced upon them at barrel of gun or threat of dying in one dear monster's labor/re-education camps.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    12. Re:Pot, kettle, black by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      Don't knock the Euro. It won't be long before those bills will be rare and valuable collector's items.

      Whoa! Guess I should take them off the toilet roll.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    13. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...really naughty kids are getting Euro's in their stockings instead

      And the worst ones of all will be getting it greek...

      :p

    14. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      communisn is something people would strive for, not have forced upon them at barrel of gun or threat of dying in one dear monster's labor/re-education camps.

      Actually, Communism does a little of both. Some people strive for it, some have it forced upon them by way of force.

      These absolutes of "Communism is better, everyone wants it" and "Capitalism is better, everyone wants it" are stupid.

    15. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Cornwallis · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Kinda sounds like here...

    16. Re:Pot, kettle, black by CubicleView · · Score: 2

      We generally call them notes, a fifty euro note etc, and often we just say the number, a fifty, a twenty, a tenner, a fiver. I've never heard them referred to as bills.
      Hopefully the euro won't disappear any time soon, but if it does, I imagine most of the notes would be far too common to ever exceed their former face value. BTW, assuming you're from the USA, I wouldn't be bragging about the dollar either. You could argue that we're merely trying to catch up to the dollar...in a race to the bottom.
      (hit the max button)yahoo finance chart usd vs a few others
      random dollar decline chart I found online

    17. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      An economic collapse later?

    18. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      People in DPRK live to serve the government. They are effectively peasants and serfs, party members are vassals and the top generals are royalty, with the Kim Jong-il clan as the heriditary monarchy. This state is not communist, it's a throwback to the middle ages, when the King owned all the lands. Other than a little bit of planned economy, it's nothing like communism - because communisn is something people would strive for, not have forced upon them at barrel of gun or threat of dying in one dear monster's labor/re-education camps.

      Some are born communist, some achieve communism, and some have communism thrust upon them.

    19. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Jeff+Hornby · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm from Canada and that chart makes us look pretty good.

      --
      Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
    20. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DPRK is a prime example of why pretty much any real form of Socialism will not work. Ever. I wish the useful idiots within OWS would realize this...but, that's unlikely.

    21. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vice Guide to North Korea is on there too, both are on youtube as well.

    22. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do not attack the norwegian religion you vapid sod. Learn it you moron!

    23. Re:Pot, kettle, black by gameboyhippo · · Score: 2

      Religion is the root of all evil! If only the North Koreans were one of those super moral atheists. Uh... Nevermind! :)

    24. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Kharny · · Score: 1

      Ehm, there is nothing even remotely close to socialism in north korea, or china for that matter.

      Northern european countries are socialist, with capitalist incentives.

      Nkorea is just a dictatorship.

      --
      Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
    25. Re:Pot, kettle, black by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      The DPRK is a prime example of why pretty much any real form of Socialism will not work. Ever. I wish the useful idiots within OWS would realize this...but, that's unlikely.

      DPRK is not socialist - it's a tyrannical oligarchy. Sweden is more socialist than DPRK.

      The horrible state of things in DPRK reminds of what was once a joke, but now reflect sobering reality...

      Under Capitalism man exploits man, under Communism it's the other way around.

      The state collects everything from these people and gives very little back - effectively the biggest parasite in the country is the military, which consumes the lion's share of the GDP, with of course, the creme given to the top leaders. It's all about sustaining the Kim dynasty in the most brutal, depraved means possible.

      OWS are rightly concerned with the declining middle class and the accumulation of wealth and subsequent political power in the top 1% Where does the United States see itself if this trend continues? A nation of apartment blocks, where inhabitants exist solely to support the top 1% who own and control everything?

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    26. Re:Pot, kettle, black by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1, Insightful

      OWS does not advocate for bona fide socialism as it was practiced by the Soviets. They advocate for capitalism moderated with concern for social welfare, as practiced by half of Europe. For some mysterious reasons, Americans call the latter "socialism" as well, which only serves to muddy the issue. Of course, that's exactly what right-wingers like, because this permits catchy rebuttals such as "socialism is bad - Stalin / Mao / Pol Pot practiced it, and just look where it got them!" - which are completely devoid of logic in the context.

    27. Re:Pot, kettle, black by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. It makes one wonder how the country can continue to keep itself going.

      Re-reading that, my meaning wasn't clear, but not sure how to phrase it. A country so mismanaged, so corrupt, so relentlessly evil, would, one would think, collapse under its own weight. I find it strange that north korea continues to exist.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    28. Re:Pot, kettle, black by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      ...because people will be burning them for heat next month...

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    29. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...to those who are completely lacking in perspective.

    30. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing when you say "here," you mean the enclave you live in, in N.Korea.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    31. Re:Pot, kettle, black by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The population is starving, wouldn't surprise me if it's in the process of collapsing but with states that can take decades. NK is very concerned about blocking all information coming out of the country so we can't really tell whether the country is currently sustainable.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    32. Re:Pot, kettle, black by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Here in Germany the common portrayal of the "christmas man" is that he doesn't give naughty children coal, he brings a birch...

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    33. Re:Pot, kettle, black by bkmoore · · Score: 2

      ....communism is something people would strive for, not have forced upon them at barrel of gun or threat of dying in one dear monster's labor/re-education camps.

      Yes, true communism is always something "on the horizon." But the march towards the horizon never reaches its destination. Sorry, but the best argument against communism is communism.

    34. Re:Pot, kettle, black by CubicleView · · Score: 1

      Yup, you and Australia are doing pretty good. Just realised that the first link appears to be broken :( You can add currency symbols to compare fairly easily though they're all usdeur=x usdzwd=x (that's a good one) etc. Looking at these charts is almost enough to make me want to buy worthless gold before it all goes tits up...

    35. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never heard them referred to as bills.

      Maybe you should get out more often >.

    36. Re:Pot, kettle, black by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      and the best argument against democracy is it winds up two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner.

    37. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Pooua · · Score: 2

      People in DPRK live to serve the government. They are effectively peasants and serfs, party members are vassals and the top generals are royalty, with the Kim Jong-il clan as the heriditary monarchy. This state is not communist, it's a throwback to the middle ages, when the King owned all the lands. Other than a little bit of planned economy, it's nothing like communism - because communisn is something people would strive for, not have forced upon them at barrel of gun or threat of dying in one dear monster's labor/re-education camps.

      North Korea is implementing Communism on at least 2 counts:

      1) In Communism, the individual lives to serve the state. Communism is one form of Collectivism, and all forms of Collectivism consider the greatest good to be the benefit of the state, not the individual.

      2) Leninism, a form of Communism, states that bloody revolution is essential to converting society to Communism. Leninism advocates violent revolution as much as possible, to spread Communism.

      As for the ruling class of North Korea living better than the peasants, this is such a common feature of Communism that Orwell parodied it in "Animal Farm."

      North Korea is what happens when the state assumes the role of god. North Korea is what an officially atheistic state always looks like.

      --
      Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
    38. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Pooua · · Score: 2

      North Korea continues to exist because we keep giving it money, food and supplies. At least at importantly, China keeps North Korea alive, if only to keep North Koreans out of China. North Korea is China's ghetto. Kim Jong-il is the slumlord. Whenever the slumlord wants more money, food or supplies, he rattles his cage and makes faces and threatening noises, and the rest of the world tosses him a pacifier to quiet him.

      --
      Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
    39. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > free on Netflix
      Are you suggesting that the price of a Netflix subscription is approaching "free"? Last I checked it was quite the opposite.

    40. Re:Pot, kettle, black by denelson83 · · Score: 1

      Euro not worth a Continental, eh?

      Wait... It is a continental.

    41. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kiss my ass I was born in Seoul South Korea ! You must be a stupid ass Redneck that stay's drunk most of the day without a good education no job stay at home drunk . Or if you do work it's most likely just for beer money so you can stay drunk .

    42. Re:Pot, kettle, black by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      "forced upon them by way of force."

      yes, we all fear the tactics of the dreaded Redundancy Minister For Redundancy

    43. Re:Pot, kettle, black by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      sorta like the perfect free market.

    44. Re:Pot, kettle, black by mug+funky · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "North Korea is what an officially atheistic state always looks like."

      had to throw that bit in, didn't you?

      i agreed with you up to that point, now i'm afraid i might have to discard your whole post for fear of Godly Salmonella contamination from that last sentence.

    45. Re:Pot, kettle, black by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      talk about useful idiots... livestock could be eating that straw you're making little men out of.

    46. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, true communism is always something "on the horizon." But the march towards the horizon never reaches its destination. Sorry, but the best argument against communism is communism.

      Capitalism is always on the horizon as well, whenever we approach it (deregulation, unregulated markets), it instantly decays to feudalism.

      Communism has never been realised in reality, neither has capitalism. We will never realise either of these ideas as they both require humans to behave like automatons instead of humans.

    47. Re:Pot, kettle, black by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Hey, we still make some pretty decent zip ties.

    48. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OWS doesn't advocate for anything except OWS. Everything else is your imagination of what you want OWS to be. It's only appeal lies in the fact that you can call it whatever you like, and OWS calls for everything from that which you said to straight up soviet style communism depending on who you talk to within the movement.

    49. Re:Pot, kettle, black by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Sure, there are a lot of different opinions there, but some are more fringe (in terms of number of people voicing them) and some are more popular.

      Also, I'm pretty sure that, even in the wildest imagination, OWS wouldn't be libertarian or right-wing.

    50. Re:Pot, kettle, black by gdr · · Score: 1

      The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich von Hayek presents an argument why collectivism inevitably leads to this kind of feudal system.

    51. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      +3: Laughing at the DPRK is really the only thing you can do. Unfortunately you stop laughing when you think about what life inside the DPRK must be like.

      Or you could stop laughing when you think of their nuclear capabilities, starting WW III over Christmas lights would not be my idea of a laughing matter

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    52. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Vlado · · Score: 1

      In this context communism is an absolutely wrong term to use. Socialism might be what North Korea thinks they have but even that's not it.

      To my knowledge no country in the world had an actual, working, communism regime in operation at any time. At least not on a country-wide scale. I believe the closest to communism that society came was in the form of Jewish kibbutzes. But that's about it. And as far as I'm aware there are not a whole lot of those around anymore, either.

      Socialism is (was) a transitional state of many countries claiming to be on the way to communism. With the final goal of people working as much as required for the good of the whole (commune) and taking as much as they needed. Side effect of this would be for the need for monetary system to go away.
      Unfortunately, the system typically requires that everyone is equal to everyone else and doesn't quite manage to do away with the fact that there are always some who are a bit more equal as others.

      Actually the closest to communism as popular culture ever got was in Star Trek universe.

    53. Re:Pot, kettle, black by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is North Korea does have a mandated belief in God, and his name is Kim Jong Il. Absolute faith in anything is a bad idea and leads to extremism, where as doubt and rational questioning prevents it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    54. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People in USA live to serve the corporation. They are effectively peasants and serfs, politicians are vassals and the top CEOs are royalty, with no need for an heriditary monarchy. This state is not democratic, it's a throwback to the middle ages, when the King owned all the lands. Other than a little bit of regulated economy, it's nothing like democracy - because democracy is something people would strive for, not have forced upon them at barrel of gun or threat of dying for lack of food, shelter and medicine.

    55. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "North Korea is what an officially atheistic state always looks like."

      had to throw that bit in, didn't you?

      i agreed with you up to that point, now i'm afraid i might have to discard your whole post for fear of Godly Salmonella contamination from that last sentence.

      In all fairness, he most likely has an historical point. On the other hand, it would likely hold true for any state that strictly controls religious beliefs period. That is, single religion states would most likely fall into the same category. A state enforced "there can be no gods but some-very-very-specific god" is pretty much the same as a state enforced "there can be no gods but no god" :).

      Which isn't too surprising since nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.

    56. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I gotta side with North Korea on this one. No matter how fucked up their country is, it's still miles less evil than the mass brainwashing and murders carried out by Christians throughout history.

    57. Re:Pot, kettle, black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      | North Korea is what happens when the state assumes the role of god. North Korea is what an officially atheistic state always looks like.

      What has atheism got to do with what the state looks like?

  2. OMG by masternerdguy · · Score: 4, Funny

    King Jong Il is the grinch! What a twist!

    --
    To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    1. Re:OMG by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      He's so ronrey.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:OMG by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yep... if the grinch had nuclear weapons and was bat-shit insane.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    3. Re:OMG by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Please, be fair: The Grinch's nuclear program is purely deterrent in nature; and is both a necessary and perfectly proportionate response when facing the threat of Santa, an absolutist God-King known for his massive industrial bunker complexes, extensive use of slave labor, incredibly extensive worldwide espionage apparatus(notorious for spying on children and compiling enemies lists, as well as its facility for bribery and corruption), and the ability to deliver an arbitrary payload to every target on earth in under 24 hours...

    4. Re:OMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually thats pretty damn scary.

    5. Re:OMG by Megane · · Score: 0

      And if you switch two letters around, could it be... Saaaaaaaaatan?

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    6. Re:OMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "This is Red One, calling Gift Command, come in Gift Command."
      "We copy, Red One.
      "Faux icicle lights in visual range, Gift Command, request permission to engage...
      "Target confirmed naughty per holiday HUMINT, codename Jolly Elf, permission granted.

      "Gift Command, the package has entered the chimney, repeat: the package has entered the chimney. All Hail Santa!"

    7. Re:OMG by mcneely.mike · · Score: 2

      Yes, he needs a good puppet shagging! And... and to do it in a montage!

      --
      soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
    8. Re:OMG by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 0

      King Jong Il is the grinch! What a twist!

      I know, right? He sounds as bad as an ACLU Lawyer!

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    9. Re:OMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and also responsible for price dumping, allegedly.

    10. Re:OMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes because having to move them a few meters, so they are off government owned property, before you re-erect them is such a oppressive requirement!!

      In all seriousness in a country where elected officials have stated that atheists should not have citizenship, rights non Christians should not have any rights to feely express their religion because their religion is not the "real" religion (and is also therefore equivalent to atheism), and others have said that the wrong sort of Christians are not Christian at all and should be banned form calling themselves that, being a bit paranoid about religious endorsements by government is probably understandable.

    11. Re:OMG by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 0

      Yes because having to move them a few meters, so they are off government owned property, before you re-erect them is such a oppressive requirement!!

      It's a prohibition on the free exercise of religion. How come Christians are the only ones that are asked to suffer this unconstitutional prohibition on their free exercise? It's unconscionable that any religion has to constantly fight for their rights to be free from government prohibitions. What good is that protection in the bill of rights when it's so often ignored?

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    12. Re:OMG by Ster · · Score: 1

      How come Christians are the only ones that are asked to suffer this unconstitutional prohibition on their free exercise?

      Did you miss the part where the second item in the lawsuit was a Menorah?

      -Ster

    13. Re:OMG by coliverhb · · Score: 4, Informative

      You must be joking, right?

      As recently as 1990-1994 American Indians have had to fight for their ability to consume their religious sacrament.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Church#Federal_law

      Prior to 1930 the US had a policy to systematically destroy Native American religions and culture, and you're complaining about the Federal Government asking that ALL religious effigies be moved to private land?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanization_(of_Native_Americans)#Suppression_of_Religion

      Get over yourself! I bet you also believe there's a war on Christmas!

    14. Re:OMG by coliverhb · · Score: 1

      I should also point out that it was technically illegal for Indian religious leaders to practice ceremonies until 1978, although they had already stopped prosecuting for these 'offenses.'

    15. Re:OMG by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I think that'll be in the sequel.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    16. Re:OMG by PRMan · · Score: 1

      He only has nuclear weapons because his heart is 3 sizes too small.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    17. Re:OMG by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      This is all pretty thin stuff. The case in 1990 was about a state law restricting the ability to collect unemployment benefits, and Congress quickly passed a law defending the right of Native Americans to use it in their religious practices. And then going back to "prior to 1930" says nothing about the current state of political today. I mean, you're talking about a time in history when women had only been allowed to vote for 10 years, and most blacks in the South were still prevented from voting.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    18. Re:OMG by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Did you miss the part where the Menorah was considered ok, while the manger scene was not?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    19. Re:OMG by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Even more interesting is that the menorah was allowed, while the manger had to go...

      Along the same lines, my kids get off school for "winter holiday" but having a holiday on the calendar for two Jewish holidays is perfectly ok.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    20. Re:OMG by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      http://www.aacps.org/aacps/boe/schol/calendar.asp#sept

      In September is Rosh Hashanah, and I could have sworn there was another one as well. Though in all fairness, this year it does say Christmas and Easter breaks.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  3. Why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why does the world continue to pay any attention at all to north korea...

    That is giving them what the nutjob wants.

    1. Re:Why... by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why does the world continue to pay any attention at all to north korea...

      Because of Afghanistan and other places we ignored having a tendency toward biting us in the ass from time to time.

      I'm also pretty sure that Japan is quite interested in what North Korea does, given the proximity of the two countries and the cruise missiles that NK has developed...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Why... by vlm · · Score: 0, Troll

      cruise missiles that NK has developed...

      Technically ballistic. Also we are in range. I'm surprised no one has launched an empty one or a dud (thinking optimistically) at the continental USA just for the LULZ. Bonus points if you launch from a mobile launcher parked right outside one of our empire outposts... Its not like we're going to respond by nuking our own guys in the green zone...

      Probably we're busy writing patriot act II and once we're done, we'll launch it ourselves, at ourselves, and then propose the new act which suspiciously just had the ink dry on it before the "attack". I'd look to a couple months before elections, if it appears Obama would lose. Thats probably the most effective scheduling. Remind me not to visit CA in September of 2012.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:Why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because, technically, that batshit, ronrey wakko could actually obliterate a country that is meaningfully contributing to the world. Acknowledging his antics from time to time satisfies his ego while keeping him from doing something like paving South Korea with bombs.

    4. Re:Why... by Mojo66 · · Score: 1, Funny

      I didn't mod your comment up. For obvious reasons.

    5. Re:Why... by DeathToBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have modpoints, but I'm just at a loss to know what to call this. There is no 'bat-shit insane' mod response.

      --
      Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    6. Re:Why... by Miamicanes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It would also make us universally-despised by just about everyone on Earth, and the moral equivalent of Genghis Khan. In case you've forgotten, we're supposed to be the good guys. We make occasional mistakes, and occasionally a psychopath slips through the chain of command, but for the most part, we do try to be a force for good. It might be mostly out of enlightened self-interest rather than genuine altruism, but at the end of the day, most of us can go to sleep at night with a fairly clean national conscience.

      Team America: World Police is obviously satire, but it's a lot closer to the truth than most of us really like to admit.

    7. Re:Why... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Bin Laden wasn't trained by the CIA. (In fact, very little of the mujaheddin was trained by the CIA, as the CIA mostly provided intelligence, weapons, and funding.) It's been pretty well established that he brought his own funding and later relied on funding from places like Saudi Arabia. With very few exceptions, he neither trusted Western powers nor did he want their assistance, believing that to do so was to accept help from heathens. Interviews with him by those outside of Muslim circles were rare but telling in how they were approached and conducted.

      The mujaheddin was a complex network of resistance forces, and bin Laden was but one very small part of it.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    8. Re:Why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'd have to agree. We tried to fight a 'war' without killing anyone. But if you're not willing to WIPE THE ENEMY OUT. You're not really at war, sit down and shut the fuck up. Send in the diplomats not the army.

      If on 9-12 we had wiped out two middle eastern cities... and DEMANDED that everyone involved with 9-11 be turned over to us or else...

      Terrorisim would not be an issue today.

      Unfortunatly we no longer have the balls for a real war. And even if attacked on a large scale. I don't think we ever will again. We're whipped. An empire on the decline by all measures now.

    9. Re:Why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Implying that the response would target a mobile launcher? Idiot.

      More like turning a few large cities into red-hot glass as soon as we determine which country was behind the launch. By the time your dud hits and anybody figures out it was a practical joke, nobody in your government will be alive to apologize for starting WWIII.

    10. Re:Why... by TWX · · Score: 2, Funny

      Only because we wont do it right.

      If we did massive carpet bombing of areas Afganastan would have been a 100 day war.

      The problem is we choose to do a "friendly" war. The enemy has no problem killing civillians and children, and we tip toe carefully trying to not hurt anyone. This makes it very one sided.

      If we said, screw it... "WE will start bombing the hell out of every country that has Al- Quieda in it, let god sort out the innocent from the guilty." It would do two things.

      1 - solve the "terrorist" problem.
      2 - stop any country or group from screwing with us again. IF we act like a pitbull of the world, quiet until poked at, then we kill your children and families, a lot of the problems would go away.

      I didn't know that we sent an "Ask Slashdot" questionnaire to Michele Bachmann...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    11. Re:Why... by TWX · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'd have to agree. We tried to fight a 'war' without killing anyone. But if you're not willing to WIPE THE ENEMY OUT. You're not really at war, sit down and shut the fuck up. Send in the diplomats not the army.

      If on 9-12 we had wiped out two middle eastern cities... and DEMANDED that everyone involved with 9-11 be turned over to us or else...

      Terrorisim would not be an issue today.

      Unfortunatly we no longer have the balls for a real war. And even if attacked on a large scale. I don't think we ever will again. We're whipped. An empire on the decline by all measures now.

      Who invited Rick Perry? This isn't a Republican Debate!

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    12. Re:Why... by 0-until-pink · · Score: 1

      If you* had ignored Afghanistan in the first place they wouldn't have developed the Taliban and if you had ignored Korea there wouldn't be a North and a South. Just sayin!

      *Posited under the safe assumption that by "we" you mean the United States and not the Slashdot population.

    13. Re:Why... by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      If on 9-12 we had wiped out two middle eastern cities... and DEMANDED that everyone involved with 9-11 be turned over to us or else...

      Terrorisim would not be an issue today.

      It sure as hell would be, especially since our government be the ones performing the terrorist acts. Unless you think completely obliterating large swaths of a foreign populace with no association to the acts of 9/11, and following up the violent exhibition of power with demands isn't terrorism.

      Lets face it, we (the US) are not a popular country as it is because of our current wars. However, we are at least trying to minimize collateral damage and be somewhat helpful to foreign governments and citizens. If we took your route and started leveling cities because *someone* in their country was involved in a terrorist attack, I imagine our country would be standing alone in a war on our own soil.

      Also, does that also mean DC should level Chicago and New York if we discover the existence of a homegrown terrorist group, such as the Michigan Militia or any of the Christian terrorist organizations?

    14. Re:Why... by delinear · · Score: 1

      If on 9-12 we had wiped out two middle eastern cities... and DEMANDED that everyone involved with 9-11 be turned over to us or else...

      Terrorisim would not be an issue today.

      It wouldn't be an issue because you would have made yourself the terrorists, and we all know terrorists believe just about anything is justified in pursuit of their cause; once you feel it's justified to wipe out innocents to get what you want, you've already become them. If we're going to claim any kind of moral high ground this is exactly the kind of thing we can't engage in. Besides, I'm a little dubious about putting the people who went after Iraq for an atrocity perpetrated by an Afghani in charge of such an operation. They'd probably nuke Wales or something.

    15. Re:Why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you understand that it only takes a single determined, intelligent and educated individual to ruin the lives of thousands of people when an intelligent person's power is amplified by modern technology? Bombs and hijacking planes is small time. Put up a high power laser at New York's New Year's celebration to blind most people there permanently. Become hired by a nuclear plant and then intentionally make it blow it up (maybe take out the security and other staff first), preferably one close to a big city. Get hired by an infectious disease research lab and let out all the diseases. Cause your own Katrina by blowing up levies and damns. The only reason these things don't happen is that determined, intelligent and educated people tend not to be pissed off enough to do this kind of thing - they shy back from such things because they are insane. The point is that the US does not have the capability to stop such things from happening if enough of the right people decide to make it happen. I've thought about this for a few minutes, I'm sure there are much worse things even a single person could do. Do you really think you can deter suicide bomber-type people by killing people? No, that's how you encourage them - your policy would cause an increase in terror. Anyway, the US has Al-Quida in it, so go ahead and bomb the US in the way you suggested.

    16. Re:Why... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Mods aren't very happy today. Must've been a bad weekend.

      Although I like +2 Troll. Keep up the good work guys.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    17. Re:Why... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Bin Laden wasn't trained by the CIA. (In fact, very little of the mujaheddin was trained by the CIA, as the CIA mostly provided intelligence, weapons, and funding.)

      That is true. Mujahideen were trained by Pakistani ISI, which did it at the request of and with support from CIA.

    18. Re:Why... by kheldan · · Score: 1

      There are actually 3 things that would do for us: The two that fucktard AC stated, plus this:

      3) Rally every other country in the Free World to bomb the living shit out of the United States, out of fear that THEY would be next

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    19. Re:Why... by SiChemist · · Score: 2

      While what you say may be true, I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that a critical part of stopping the Soviets in Afghanistan was the anti-aircraft weapons provided by the USA. The mujaheddin were getting chewed up by helicopter gunships and negating that advantage was decisive.

    20. Re:Why... by russotto · · Score: 1

      If you* had ignored Afghanistan in the first place they wouldn't have developed the Taliban and if you had ignored Korea there wouldn't be a North and a South.

      About Afghanistan it's hard to say; perhaps they'd still be under Soviet domination, with the collapse of the Soviet state put off by the weaker opposition there. Or perhaps something like the Taliban would have appeared in the wake of the fall of the USSR.

      About Korea it's a little easier to say; it would be all the land of the Dear Leader. Some improvement.

    21. Re:Why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It would also make us universally-despised by just about everyone on Earth..."

      That ship has sailed.

    22. Re:Why... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Some of the mujaheddin were trained by the ISI. Many simply showed up to fight, bringing with them whatever skills they had. These skills included fighting, communications, intelligence, and even training, as many of them were former military from around the Muslim world. They were a very capable guerrilla force, though fragmented and at times warring with each other. Those occasional squabbles turned into much larger battles once the Soviets left, and it was not until the Taliban arrived that the various factions would only begin to reunify once more, for one side or the other (though some, such as Dostum, would try to play the two sides against each other to hedge their own bets for survival).

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    23. Re:Why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Afghanistan ignored? I don't think so!

    24. Re:Why... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Informative

      They were absolutely critical. Once the Hind started serious deployment, the mujaheddin were getting ripped apart because the Hind was much better at nap-of-the-earth flight and thus surprise attacks, and the Afghan rebels had to get something to knock them down. The US was eager to not only slow the Soviet advance but also to get parts from downed aircraft, and would reward those who came up with more salvage with more weapons. The missiles' effectiveness caused Hind pilots to learn to make their birds perform maneuvers that the designers never imagined, and in doing so earned the healthy respect (at least on the battlefield) of mujaheddin warriors. Engineers at Mil and other places started coming up with modifications to try to neutralize the advantages the Afghans now had, much like the US had to do with its various weapon systems in Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan.

      The difference was that while the recent wars have perhaps dented the US economy, the Soviet economy was already shaky and the tactics and strategy did not evolve fast enough from a military or political standpoint to slow the losses to a level where it could be sustained, let alone won. Soviet popular opinion was also very much against the war (and had been for years), and contrary to popular belief about the USSR at the time, they could not simply round up a bunch of people and force them to fight. They tried to find a way to save face and end the war at the same time, but ultimately, the losses were too daunting and they had to retreat.

      Looking back on some of the articles, the statements that the Soviets made sound a lot like those the US is making. The commanding officer, Lt. Gen. Gromov, made public pronouncements on how Soviet forces were turning over security to the government, slowly drawing down forces in anticipation of leaving the country capable of handling its own defenses. Over the course of a couple of years, the drawdown of 115,000 troops was completed, with Gromov the last to walk across the bridge leading out of the country. One can only hope that more stability comes out of it ca. 2014 than 1989.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    25. Re:Why... by soundguy · · Score: 1

      Seems like a modest proposal to me.

      --
      Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
    26. Re:Why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to be fair, the Welsh probably deserve to be nuked.

    27. Re:Why... by cjsm · · Score: 1

      There sure are a lot of right wing idiots on slashdot that swallow the propaganda of the government and the media. How many more millions of innocent Iraqis, Afghans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, El Salvadorians, Guatemalans, Native Americans, etc, etc, etc, will have to die before you morons realize your world view of the U.S. as some righteous well meaning power is the biggest bunch of bullshit since Stalin or Hitler?

      --
      This ad space for rent.
    28. Re:Why... by 0-until-pink · · Score: 1

      A Dear leader and a Taliban without an axe to grind with the US.

    29. Re:Why... by vlm · · Score: 1

      LOL yeah right. That's exactly what we did after 9-11, glass the cities of the worlds biggest oil exporter, saudi arabia. No wait, instead we invaded a couple of their neighbors instead. LOL. I agree, if NK launched even a dud or a test at the continental US, we'd probably attack, probably attack Iran, I mean.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    30. Re:Why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends, how many are left?

    31. Re:Why... by TWX · · Score: 1

      Back in the old days when one could see what moderation was applied to a comment I had a +5 Troll. I had been modded up and down a lot, but all of the up mods were scattered among the several positive categories, while all of the down mods were Troll, hence, +5 Troll...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    32. Re:Why... by TWX · · Score: 1

      A lot of Americans do realize this.

      If it's any consolation, I took one of those in-depth "determine your actual political alignment" tests in the late nineties and I actually fell just barely on the conservative side of centrist, with a score of something 58/100, with 100 being ultra-conservative-reactionary and 1 being ultra-radical-liberal. While I don't doubt that my political views have changed slightly in the intervening years, my views have not changed much. In the meantime, the political spectrum has shifted in front of me, and now I fall strongly into the ideas of the Democratic party even though I do not associate with any political parties. That extreme, the shift to the right has been in this country.

      The United States' political involvement in the world is really no more than an extension of The Great Game that Russia and Britain participated in, but with the US taking on the role that the UK formerly held, at least at the forefront.

      Sad thing is, I honestly don't know if isolationism as we used to practice would be better for us and the world or not, or if some other power would simply fill the vacuum. At least with our geographic position the US is not really in a position to take territory for itself like the European powers tried to do with each other, as we got that out of our systems after the end of the Mexican-American war in the 1840's, purchases of Alaska and Gadsten aside...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    33. Re:Why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      9-11 was not a cruise missile with a presumably-nuclear warhead on route to a major U.S. city. It was a few Boeing jets loaded with passengers and fuel, and they struck before they had even triggered any threat radars. A nuclear missile launch somewhere on the globe would be a completely different scenario. Good joke if it's a deliberate dud... it'll still start WWIII.

    34. Re:Why... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Do you have any citation on the ballistic and being able to reach the US? Last I had heard they had a launch which failed before even reaching Japan, and have not heard about any launches since.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    35. Re:Why... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      If we hadn't helped out in Korea, it would only be North Korea left. Though I agree with Afghanistan to a point. Iran is also the same situation as Afghanistan...I just wish we would ignore that guy too..

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  4. Someone call Bill O'Reilly by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 5, Funny

    For the first time ever, the term "war on Christmas" is actually accurate.

    --
    Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
    1. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Informative

      Be fair... there have been previous Wars on Christmas. Puritans banned it for a time in England, considering the holiday two full of Catholic and Pagan influences and having objections to celebrating the solumn occasion of Christ's birth with drunkenness and partying. Then Puritans banned it again in the New World later on, for exactly the same reasons. Some Islamic countries continue to ban it, fearing that celebrating even the secular elements of Christmas could open their culture up to Christian influences. There have been plenty of Wars on Christmas... usually by Christians.

    2. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Damn, puritans were no fun!

    3. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      Someone doesnt remember Santa's 1972 armed invasion of Greenland and the resulting worldwide backlash.

    4. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by operagost · · Score: 1

      Kim Jong-Il is threatening to bomb Whoville. You can't explain that.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    5. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by KiloByte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We tend to pay too much heed to the number of people killed, and too little to decreasing the quality of life, when doing charts of "who was the evilest". If you add up the joy of life destroyed by Christianity, it doesn't take a big weighting to put Stalin, Hitler and Mao together to shame. And Islam is a close runner-up.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    6. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by heathen_01 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Without Christ I would have no morals, have nothing to live for, and nothing to look forward to after I die!

      I'm not convinced that the world would be a better place if the sick people did not have religion.

    7. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      Cancelled out and then some by the Irish monks copying books which saved much of the knowledge and literature which is at the core of our civilization:

      _How the Irish Saved Civilization (Hinges of History)_ by Thomas Cahill

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    8. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      why'd you think we slapped them on a boat as soon as we could.

    9. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by KiloByte · · Score: 2

      You mean, the organization that did the most book burning in history should be absolved because a few of its adherents dared to preserve heretical writings?

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    10. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Without my admittedly superficial and limited knowledge of Christ and of Christianity, I would still have morals, but no power to live up to them, and nothing to empower or teach me to do better. I would still have friends and family to live for, but, again, no real power to become the kind of person who deserves to have them to begin with. Arguably, I'd have *more* to look forward to after I die. Given how much I've failed to love God with all my being, or to love my neighbor as myself, I expect to burn. Forever. I'd much rather just cease to exist. I don't have that option. But if I could choose between a universe in which I had everything I could want except no God, or on the other hand the one in which God Is, I would choose the latter without hesitation. I believe that most of my family and friends will go to be with Him one day, and that He will eventually put an end to sin and the suffering and death that inevitably follows. I believe His plan for creation is good, even if I am not. I am glad He is there, even if He must be my judge and not my Savior.

    11. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2

      Quality of life under Sharia law is better than that in the bible belt? I sure wouldn't want to live under either circumstance, but it's not as if muslims never forciblytried to convert people the way those nasty christians did/do.
      I'm not defending the religious zealots of christianity by any stretch, but islam, overall, is actually worse. We just don't hear that much about it's history and oppressions here in the west. And xtianity worse than Hitler, Mao, and Stalin put together? lol. I think hundreds of thousands of Russians, Chinese, and Germanic jews who lived under them might disagree on that point.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    12. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Really? Christianity has decreased quality of life? Compared to what?

      Do you even understand just how bad things were under Hitler and Stalin? Because if you did, you'd need a lot more than 2000 years of Christianity or Islam to make up for it.

      Let's be clear here, people have successfully used religion as their excuse for fighting many wars, but atheistic cults of personality are just as good at slaughtering people, perhaps better since they don't even bother with pretending to be moral. We have ample proof of that.

      Do we ever think we're going to stop wars when our answer is to only attack the excuses? Excuses are easy to create. If you can take a religion where a major commandment is "Thou shall not kill" and use it as a rallying force for a Crusade, I'm thinking that you can just as easily find something else.

    13. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nothing to look forward to after I die!

      That blasted eye rot! It always prevents one seeing anything in the frontal area.

    14. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, in all fairness, a great deal of the secular bits of Christmas was mostly lifted from various pagan influences--including the very date it's held on. Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, the birthday of Sol Invictus, a sun god that popped up in the later stages of the Roman Empire, was celebrated on the 25th of December; commemorating the 'death' of the old sun (i.e. solar cycle), and the beginning (or rebirth) of a new year... Invincible in the sense that he dies, but is always reborn...

      Sounds familiar, right?

      There is no coincidence that Christmas happens on the date Romans marked as the winter solstice. Jesus, as worshiped in the Catholic tradition, dating back to Roman times (the holy son, son of god, get it?) is as much a sun god as Apollo, Helios, Ra, Horus, etc. etc.

      Maybe the start of the 'christmas bans' were that the puritans had this understanding, and didn't agree with it?

    15. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Damn, puritans were no fun!

      You only think that because you don't enjoy the finer elements of corn shucking and singing "Here we go Round the Mulberry Bush." Those were the days, I tell you. There's nothing like having that cute little girl wink at you while you're dancing around the Maypole.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    16. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Islam is worse than modern Christianity, yes... but try comparing it to Medieval Christianity, and it's a much closer contest. Christianity had to go through many reforms, often violently, to become what it is today.

    17. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Give him Stalin, but not Hitler. Hitler was a Christian himself, or at least claimed to be quite frequently and in strong terms. Being a politician it's not clear how much was an act for the voters and how much genuine belief. The Nazi party manifesto even declared the party stood for Christian belief.

    18. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      That's nothing compared to what we did to Cromwell. After he died, we dug up the corpse and executed him anyway. Cromwell was not very popular by the time of his death.

    19. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without Christ I would have no morals, have nothing to live for, and nothing to look forward to after I die!

      There's this little thing called Ethics which people use to try and live good lives. Might be interesting to you. Personally I don't need to look forward to the day my conscience vanishes, or I meet an old man in the sky. I'm having plenty fun right now.

      I'm not convinced that the world would be a better place if the sick people did not have religion.

      crazies will be crazy, with or without religion.

    20. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by CannonballHead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given how much I've failed to love God with all my being, or to love my neighbor as myself, I expect to burn.

      Salvation is not based on how much you love God or your neighbor. It's given based on the realization that you *can't* love God and your neighbor perfectly and that you *do* need something else to afford salvation. That is why trusting that Christ has the power to, and will, save you is important ... and furthermore, that He will not only forgive but also give you a "new birth" - or, as Paul puts it, transform your mind, make you a new creation, etc. "Take out this heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh" idea.

      I reiterate. Being saved by God is not based on how much you can do, or no one would be saved. It's based on how much Christ has already done and the willingness of one to realize that what Christ has done is entirely sufficient and to trust in that alone for salvation... and to furthermore, continue to pursue after God, truth, and righteousness. (see the book of James, where he discusses the deadness of a faith that has no works to show that it is a real faith).

    21. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Without Christ I would have no morals," Doesn't that make you rather pathetic?

    22. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      Without Christ I would have no morals, have nothing to live for, and nothing to look forward to after I die!

      There's this little thing called Ethics which people use to try and live good lives. Might be interesting to you. Personally I don't need to look forward to the day my conscience vanishes, or I meet an old man in the sky. I'm having plenty fun right now.

      I'm not convinced that the world would be a better place if the sick people did not have religion.

      crazies will be crazy, with or without religion.

      Thats my point, how can you be sure the crazy people would not be worse if they didn't have religion? I'm not even sure there is an effective or ethical way to study this...
      And isn't ethics just religions cousin.

    23. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 2

      I very much appreciate your attempt at encouragement! My understanding of Scripture, which is influenced by Reformed teaching, is that there is a state in which a person can know about God intellectually, and even want to follow Him to some extent, but the soil of his or her soul just isn't quite right (see the parable of the sower) and that's where I think I am. The passage from James that I think you're referring to also illustrates one of the results of that state: a person in it can claim to "believe," but only in the same way that the devils also do, and with the exact same results. I do not believe that salvation is determined purely by choice, but mainly by the calling and purposes of God; but supposing that on that point I were mistaken: there certainly are times I would choose it, but there are also other times when I would not. A person with such wavering intentions cannot expect the blessing of God. That is one reason I think the Reformers' understanding and teaching about salvation makes more sense: it is God's calling and His election, not ours; it is pure grace, and works, even the work of believing, is evidence of salvation rather than its cause (Eph. 2:10).

    24. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2

      Ah, no argument there. There are no more inquisitions and witch burnings as there once was (though a lot of the latter was more political than religious). And what Charlemagne did at the Massacre of Verden is unforgivable. Islam started out fairly enlightened, embracing much of the Greco-Roman classical sciences and such, but it seems to be regressing these days, with Wahibism, the Taliban, and constant warring between Sunnis and Shiites, a mirror of the bloody catholic/protestant wars.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    25. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      "Without Christ I would have no morals," Doesn't that make you rather pathetic?

      Perhaps, but being able to sometimes perceive more that the surface meaning of a post makes me feel a little better.

    26. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't religion sad?

    27. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Without my admittedly superficial and limited knowledge of Christ and of Christianity, I would still have morals, but no power to live up to them"

      This is one of the things that's scary about religious people. Apparently acting morally because it's the right thing to do, or out of respect for other people isn't enough. They need an omnipotent being to tell them to do it. Quite a few seem to need the threat of eternal torture. And for many (most?) even that doesn't work. And of course, if you can be convinced that god actually wants you to do horrible things, you do them with truly alarming conviction.

    28. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > Be fair... there have been previous Wars on Christmas. Puritans banned it for a time in England, considering the holiday two full of Catholic and Pagan influences and having objections to celebrating the solumn occasion of Christ's birth with drunkenness and partying.

      ...and to a certain extent, they were right.

      Which is not to say I personally shall be eschewing drunkenness and partying...

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    29. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by russotto · · Score: 1

      That's nothing compared to what we did to Cromwell. After he died, we dug up the corpse and executed him anyway. Cromwell was not very popular by the time of his death.

      Then you put up a statue to him outside Parliament, within sight of the monarch's entrance, presumably to remind the Queen what happens if she's naughty. Hmm... Oliver Cromwell as Santa Claus...

    30. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by SiChemist · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why do so many Christians believe this? That there is no morality without enforcement by their sadistic deity? There are plenty of non-christian societies which function quite nicely without some threat of eternal punishment.

      The simple fact of the matter is that when humans form a society, they decide on rules (many of which are unwritten) that members of that society must adhere to in order to make it work. Those who ignore those rules become outcasts or criminals. Most of the rules boil down to "don't intentionally harm others". Then there are rules that (for good or ill) protect the social hierarchy. That's pretty much it.

    31. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by SiChemist · · Score: 1

      Why not just blame atrocities on men with funny mustaches. There is exactly the same amount of evidence linking that to atrocities as there is any particular belief system. A cult of personality is just that. No other reason is needed for the insanity. Just one person's quest for personal power at the expense of (in some cases) an entire country.

    32. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 0

      I'm convinced that God wants me to love my neighbor as myself, which includes (but is not necessarily limited to) respecting his or her rights. I was raised with the belief, based on a different understanding of Christianity, that sometimes it is OK to violate those rights, for the "greater good;" that war or theft or slavery could sometimes be justified. My current faith, which is rooted less in tradition and more in Scripture, tells me that they cannot, because each of these things fails to respect the inherent dignity and worth with which God created every living being. Do I live in perfect accordance with these beliefs? Not really. But when I realize I've failed, I ask God and whomever I may have wronged, if that's possible, for forgiveness; I try to make amends; and I strive to do better over time, with God's help. Would I do so as a completely non-Christian? I don't know for certain, but I'm guessing probably not. I know I didn't really even try before. I did try to behave honorably and decently, but according to what I now consider to be an insufficiently complete definition of decency and honor, and without even being aware that I could seek God's help just as simply as by asking for it.

    33. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 2

      Nuremberg Trials Documentation

      Open volume 1, and search for "Christ" without quotes. Here is the first quote, but read every occurance.

      (2) The Nazi conspirators, by promoting beliefs and practices
      incompatible with Christian teaching, sought to subvert
      the influence of the churches over the people and in particular over the youth of Germany. They avowed their
      aim to eliminate the Christian churches in Germany and
      sought to substitute therefor Nazi institutions and Nazi
      beliefs, and pursued a program of persecution of priests,
      clergy, and members of monastic orders whom they
      deemed opposed to their purposes, and confiscated church
      property.

      Do you know why this might surprising to you? It's because you believe that all religious claims are genuine beliefs. You can't really imagine somebody deceiving about his own personal beliefs. By that logic, all of Hitler's claims about his intentions for the good of Germany were genuine, and people who express good intentions for their countries are also genuine.

      I'd love to read your thoughts on all of this.

    34. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      Indeed. On the subject of politics and deception, the far-right in the US often make the ridiculous claim that the Nazis were left-wing, simply because they had the word "socialist" in their official name (translated as "National Socialist German Workers' Party"), but that was simply an act to get into power, after which the very first groups of people they persecuted included the socialists and communists.

      By their twisted logic, North Korea ("Democratic People's Republic of Korea") must therefore be democratic, for the people, and a republic.

    35. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Hitler's intentions were for the good of Germany... he just had an unconventional idea of what that good would be. Your own source isn't exactly unbiased. The Neremberg trials were still the trials held by the victors of a war to record for history how rightous they were and how evil their opponent. Unnessicarily, really - the Nazis did that themselves. Still, there are only two possibilities: Either Hitler and the other party leaders were genuine Christian believers, albeit unconventional ones, or else they sought to use fake Christianity to advance politically... which would imply that a substantial part of their supporters were Christian, otherwise such a ploy would have been obviously pointless. Let us not forget that one of the very first things Hitler did upon coming to power was to set up a new government office for fighting what he considered the two most serious crimes of the time: Abortion and homosexuality. Sound uncomfortably familiar? It wasn't until later that he added ethnic exceptions to the abortion policy.

      The Nazi state didn't oppose religion as such. It just silenced anyone who made trouble by speaking out against the state policies. Your own quote acknowledges this: "[They] pursued a program of persecution of priests, clergy, and members of monastic orders whom they deemed opposed to their purposes." It wasn't religion they oppressed, it was the churches as a potential rallying point of opposition.

    36. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by jensend · · Score: 2

      Though I respect what Reformed churches have accomplished, I think Calvinism has resulted in a very distorted picture of God. A God who arbitrarily chooses to save some and to damn others can hardly be called just or loving.

      Instead, God's will is to "have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:4)

      While it certainly is true that no one could be saved by their own merits and all are reliant on Christ, if it were only up to God's election, he'd save everyone. But instead He's given us free will to accept or reject the salvation from sin He offers, and many would rather- at least for the present- hold on to their sins than let go and be redeemed.

      If you "want to follow Him to some extent" but have "wavering intentions," I would say this is not a sign that your ground is irrevocably thorny or stony but rather a normal part of the struggle we face as we try to turn to the Savior. As you strive to act on and strengthen your resolve to follow Him and as you try to starve your contrary intentions, you open the door at which the Savior is knocking (Rev. 3:20). Christ's power will cleanse you, give you a new heart and a new spirit, and make of you a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17). It's not that we achieve this change on our own but that we have to choose to "make room for" Him to do so.

      All who strive to follow Christ are involved in this process of being purified and made holy through His grace. None of those on the earth, including those who could be called elect, have already achieved a state of perfection where they never have any desires or intentions to the contrary (cf Paul in Romans 7:14-25), though as Christ works in us those desires will weaken and we may have moments or even extended periods when we truly have no desire to do evil.

      As to Eph 2:8-10, it's true that as the process of sanctification advances we gain a strength in faith which we could not have achieved on our own and we must acknowledge that any power we have to continue in good works is given of God. But God did not (and, given his gift of free will, cannot) foist this faith and this power on us contrary to our wills. We had to choose to let Him change us.

    37. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      That depends on the specific denomination of Christianity that you follow. The rules of salvation differ between those (and even more if you look through history considering what sparked the protestant revolution) though the more mainstream ones have relaxed them a lot after it turned out that fire and brimstone wasn't too popular.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    38. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by KDR_11k · · Score: 2

      Real crazies are mostly harmless because they're either so nuts that they can't actually act on any desire to harm people or they still have a functioning moral compass (or in many cases they become completely oblivious to the outside world). The really dangerous people are sane but fanatic. Insanity is a term that has been misused to describe assholes but all that misuse does is ostracize the insane who are treated as dangerous killers instead of the helpless sick people that they are. To be dangerous a person has to know what he's doing. Hitler was sane, Stalin was sane, Mao was sane. They knew what they were doing and they thought it was the right thing. You don't organize a program to murder millions of people when you're busy talking to imaginary voices.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    39. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      More like he doesn't know himself. Humans have a natural sense of morality, studies with people from all kinds of cultures (including cargo cults and whatnot) showed that specific morality questions (about when to trade one life for another and such) get overwhelmingly answered the same way by humans everywhere. Of course it's not obvious to a person what's nature or nurture about them.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    40. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Now ask the Jews who lived under medieval Christian rule. They were always the punching bag of the powerful. The protestant-catholic schism has been the cause of centuries of war throughout Europe.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    41. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both murder homosexuals, I fail to see the difference.

    42. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All religions go through the same phases. Islam, being 1400 years old, is 600 years behind Christianity, which is 2000 years behind Judaism.

      Atheism started around 1800, and likes to think of itself as fairly enlightened now. However, by the year 3000, there will be an epic battle between followers of Dawkins and PZ Myers, but then they will all gang up on the Vatican, which will be defended by the United States of Arabia (rumored to be secretly controlled by the Catholic cabal). After the Atheists fly a spaceship into Mecca, the Muslims will declare war on Atheism, bomb the shit out of them but utterly fail to win "hearts and minds", resulting in the police groping anyone who leaves their house in case they could be a terrorist.

    43. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      Good grief. I get the impression that you just read the quote, and never actually went through the source.

      Just because they are the victors doesn't mean that they had a biased view of things. Yes, I know that we are all influenced by things, but that doesn't mean we are partial or inaccurate.

      The quotes within the source would have to be outright lies or quote of outright lies in order for them to be wrong.

      I get the impression that you are trying to portray a mainstream perspective of Hitler. I looked up "abortion" and sure enough abortion was approved and required if the offspring did not meet Aryan standards. Once again, he lied.

      I doubt that your snipped quote of my quote verifies your point. If you had searched through volume 1 and 2, then you would have read for yourself that he saved the Christians for after the war, because they were the most difficult. He had to turn up the heat 1 notch at a time. As for other religions, Hitler intended to destroy them early.

      You aren't trying hard enough to think up possibilities. Why can't he and his Nazis outright lie to the Christians, thus using real Christianity, as opposed to fake Christianity? Why would his only fear be a rallying point? Don't you think that the churches would question his Nazi teachings? Vol 2, or Vol 1, or both, indicate that they knew that the teachings of Christianity were incompatible with Nazi teachings. But you were there, so you know that the documents were wrong? If it's the rallying point that he feared, then why persecute the pacifists?

      I noticed that you never cited any sources. No, I did not notice what he did when he first came into power, and I won't take your word for it, either. :^)

      You're an atheist and you consider yourself skeptic, right? Be honest.

    44. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      I liked your argument when I first read it, and now I love it. The next time people talk about the fundamental value of democracy, I'll point to North Korea. Of course, I'll be challenged on it, but I'll challenge them back with validity of their definition.

      Just before I submitted this comment, I just realized an interesting parallel between the US and North Korea. A lot of people believe that the US is taking away freedoms. A lot of people believe that North Korea has taken away freedoms. Democracy, whether in name or truth, is weaker than we might think.

    45. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never thought that I would see a Calvinist or Arminian post on slash dot. :)
      Excellent post and discussion.

    46. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I'm convinced that God wants me to love my neighbor as myself

      Eww.

      More seriously, the thing about forgiveness is: you can use it to excuse all sorts of negative behaviors. Have fun!

      I "know" that there's no Christian God judging me (sure, I'm not 100%, because part of the beauty of that brainwashing is "you cannot believe if you have proof"). With this knowledge, I treat everyone as I would like to be treated were the tables turned. For you to state that you're unable to do this is, as others mentioned, a little bit concerning for the readers, regarding your mental state and ability to operate within society.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    47. Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by SiChemist · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes-- the "overrated" moderation. The one that says, "I just don't agree, but I can't come up with a better reason than 'I don't like it'."

      I fully expect this post to be modded "offtopic" for complaining about the moderation system, so have a blast.

  5. odd all around by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While the North's reaction sounds predictably paranoid, the article seems to hint that some sort of propaganda is the purpose of the tree, as evidenced by whether it's lit or not being correlated with thawing versus tension of relations. I'm not sure how effective it'd be at spreading a Christian message specifically, but maybe it's intended to spread a sort of generic, "look how awesome it is just across the border" message?

    1. Re:odd all around by somersault · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Indeed. It's not exactly a very Christian celebration anyway. Though it is nice to celebrate every once in a while.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:odd all around by DrXym · · Score: 2

      Of course it's propaganda. You don't light up 3 massive "trees" on the border of your sworn enemy without the intent to piss them off, demoralize their population, encourage defections, sow discord, promote religion etc. All the while pretending to be wishing the North a happy christmas. It's for the lulz basically.

    3. Re:odd all around by LordLimecat · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wikipedia, as well as a recent talk on this that I heard, disagree with the Linus's origin of the trees. The christmas tree apparently originated in Germany (or perhaps eastern Europe), and has either unknown or distinctly christian meaning-- for the Germans, it was apparently related to the story of Adam and Eve (paradise tree).

      Apparently, the Germans brought it over to the US in the latter half of the 19th century, where it took root (haha) and became an "american tradition".

      I assume what you are referring to would be "sacred oaks" or "asherah poles", which almost certainly would NOT have been fir, and I highly doubt that christians would have embraced THOSE for christmas given the clear biblical attacks on such concepts. It IS true, however, that Christmas was not really celebrated until the 4th century, and is more a Catholic tradition than it is a Biblical event: Christ's day of birth is neither recorded nor celebrated until then, and thus noone really knows what his day of birth was (Ive heard "probably mid-september").

      Mostly agree with Linus however, that the meaning of Christmas is already heavily obscured, and has for the most part become either a celebration of togetherness or of consumerism, depending the family. For many Christians, the 'original' meaning (to celebrate Christ's birth) is still celebrated in various ways-- hence Christmas services, carols, and other religious activities.

    4. Re:odd all around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Agree with the

      but maybe it's intended to spread a sort of generic, "look how awesome it is just across the border" message?

      I mean, if you can afford to build and light such massive (30 m) structures (steel) and light them (electricity) then doesn't that sound a whole lot better than living in a place where you have no heat or food? I think it's not christian propaganda, but politico-economic propaganda.

    5. Re:odd all around by Raenex · · Score: 2

      I assume what you are referring to would be "sacred oaks" or "asherah poles", which almost certainly would NOT have been fir, and I highly doubt that christians would have embraced THOSE for christmas given the clear biblical attacks on such concepts.

      Are you really making a distinction between the type of tree? Wherever the idea of a Christmas tree happened to come from, it idea still reeks of paganism, and the reference to Jeremiah 10:1-5 seems spot on.

    6. Re:odd all around by somersault · · Score: 1

      If everyone else is doing it, it must be okay! Clearly most people didn't learn anything from Noah's ark. 95% of my family is Christian (I used to be, but am no longer) - I'm wondering about showing them this cartoon and seeing how they squirm their minds around it just so that they can keep their shiny tree..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    7. Re:odd all around by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      I can't think of any greater sin in most pagan religions than murdering a perfectly healthy tree to make your home look pretty. It only sounds pagan because you have no actual concept of what paganism is.

    8. Re:odd all around by Artraze · · Score: 1

      While it's essentially true that Christmas was created to compete with existing pagan holidays and thus carried over some traditions, the idea that it _is_ a pagan holiday is foolish. The name "Christmas" literally means "Christ mass". It's an inherently Christian celebration, and thus a secular "Christmas" celebration actually is denying the holiday's Christian roots. Call it a holiday or solstice celebration, but Christmas is Christian and with its own meanings.

      Finally, anyone citing Jer. 10:1-5 as a 'warning' against Christmas trees clearly has a very poor understanding of religious history or simply hasn't actually bothered to read it. It is _explicitly_ waring against idolatry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idolatry) and even uses the word "idol" twice to make it easy for you. Idolatry worships physical things as gods, and the passage says that it's worthless because people create those things and thus they are no more divine or powerful than their makers. Christians don't worship their trees, nor do they even really view them as particularly religious symbols, just religious decorations. (A crucifix would be much closer to what the passage is discussing, but is viewed as a symbol of God, not worshiped as a god itself.)

    9. Re:odd all around by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      ....Which is why Im going with the Wikipedia explaination that it hearkens back to the idea of a paradise tree. Its a LOT more plausible than that some christians decided to ignore all the zillions of condemnations for idolatrous trees in the OT.

    10. Re:odd all around by somersault · · Score: 1

      Squirm, squirm, squirm.. I'm already aware of all of that. It's okay to adopt fertility eggs, bunnies and trees from pagan celebrations as long as you call them "decorations"..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    11. Re:odd all around by Lakitu · · Score: 5, Informative

      it absolutely is, and it's ridiculous for people to think otherwise or argue about, or that it's somehow not government sanctioned. Same goes for the gigantic flags that are on display on either side of the border. The North Koreans are obsessive about not being shown up by the "imperialists", and have even showfully walked out of meetings in the DMZ because there was a disparity in the size of flags, or their soldiers were not tall enough, or there was some other very arbitrary breach of protocol. Only to come back with taller soldiers, bigger flags, and more attitude.

      Of course, it takes two to tango, and the Americans and ROK Koreans are more than happy to play the game of flag waving, most notably in what ended up as Operation Paul Bunyan, when the simple desire to clear some trees from blocking a Southern outpost ended up with a group of North Koreans starting an axe-fight in the DMZ and killing an American. None of the Americans or ROK wanted to go to war over the death of one soldier, but goddamn were they were going to finish cutting down that goddamn tree, so the natural response was to launch what was at the time the largest military operation since D-Day. Aircraft carrier groups were brought in range and on standby, B-52s were in the air, helicopters were waiting in the air just beyond the hills all in support of a couple of trucks of Koreans and Americans and their chainsaw. There's a first-hand report linked to in the references section on wikipedia from this describing how weapons were smuggled in the back of the trucks and, in an attempt to provide cover while minimizing the potential for gunfire, some of the Koreans had strapped claymore land mines to their chests and stood on the bridge taunting and screaming like lunatics while the whole tree, and not just the offending branches, was cut down. All this for a damn tree branch!

      The trees in this article, while much less dramatic, are no different. It even says as much and doesn't just hint at it -- they are not actually trees but 30 meters-tall metal structures in the general conical shape of a tree, built on top of a hill just 3 km from the DMZ. It's tall enough, on top of a hill enough, and bright enough to be visible across the border from a city which cannot be supplied with electricity all the time, and in a lull of the posturing about a decade ago, it was barred from being lit. How could that be anything but psychological warfare or propaganda?

      That doesn't make it bad, either. It's part of a propaganda war which is continually exacerbated by the North. They don't have much to bring to the negotiating table, so they create it with these kinds of complaints, which are numerous and ridiculous, hoping to bargain it away for the crops they've stolen from their people and destroyed through terrible central management. Sometimes it's pretty meaningless, sometimes it involves the sinking of a ROK ship or shelling of a Southern island. Sometimes they have to complain about nothing just so that they don't lose face and look like they are too scared to complain. Often enough they can't even accept a good deal because they've painted themselves into a corner and always need to demand more or need to appear to be stronger or in better shape than they already appear.

    12. Re:odd all around by Raenex · · Score: 1

      It only sounds pagan because you have no actual concept of what paganism is.

      You're just inserting your definition of paganism. A dictionary reference:

      "1: heathen 1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome) 2: one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person 3: neo-pagan"

      What's being discussed are religious practices from thousands of years ago. Try reading the reference to Jeremiah 10:1-5 and then explaining how paganism doesn't apply.

    13. Re:odd all around by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Which is why Im going with the Wikipedia explaination that it hearkens back to the idea of a paradise tree.

      What's in a name? From the Wikipedia article: "went with a flock of maidens and women, first sang and danced there and then set the tree aflame"

      Its a LOT more plausible than that some christians decided to ignore all the zillions of condemnations for idolatrous trees in the OT.

      Uh huh, like all the other things that Christians have ignored throughout history.

    14. Re:odd all around by Artraze · · Score: 1

      If one is going to stick to the King James Version, I guess I can see how it would seem spot on. But that translation is surprisingly poor when it comes to this passage. Examine the New English Translation with the notes here:
      http://net.bible.org/?ref=nbt#!bible/Jeremiah+10:1

      The KJV suffers from a few flaws that coincidentally make the passage appear to reference Christmas trees. First as foremost, the use of "axe". The literal translation would be "chisel" and the point was that they carved the tree, not simply cut it down and used it whole. Another important mistake was with the word "customs" when the literal word was "statues". The _usage_ is such that it is referring to the idolatry based beliefs that were common at the time so it's usually translated as "religion" or even "customs", but especially with the latter those lose the context of idolatry.

      When put in the context of verse 5 (where discussing how a tree couldn't speak of more would otherwise be quite unnecessary), this passage is clearly talking about idolatry. The vaguest bit of description "tree .. decked in gold and silver" could apply to a Christmas tree, but the meaning is quite different: it's referring to carved figures worshiped as gods.

      (P.S. I suppose you could I suppose you could call this squirming or rationalizing, but really it's just actually bothering to understand the material.)

    15. Re:odd all around by the+linux+geek · · Score: 1

      What makes you think most pagan religions have a concept of sin? Asatruar certainly don't.

    16. Re:odd all around by Artraze · · Score: 1

      I was just admiring a friend's Shishi lion. It looks nice, but I'm pretty sure she doesn't believe it's actually protecting anything. Especially as there's only one, and it's not even by an entrance...

      Religious symbols are _often_ co-opted by other cultures as pieces of art (i.e. decorations). Just because you take the appearance doesn't mean you have to take the meaning and especially the belief as well. So what if Christianity took some pagan symbols or traditions. Many interior decorators will take pieces from various cultures to decorate a room/house. Does that make them or the person living there believe all those religions/customs? Of course not. Without belief, a religious symbol is just a piece of art.

    17. Re:odd all around by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      And just as the Christians preempted the pagan winter solstice and spring equinox festivals to create Christmas and Easter, other entities are preempting Christmas and Easter to create 'new' celebrations. What better way to convert people than to make the transition as painless as possible by making everything as similar as possible? Perhaps the new holidays will eventually get new names, but I doubt it will happen any time soon.

      Most of the Easter activities and traditions we celebrate have very little to with the actual Christian holy days being celebrated at the same time, but you don't really see people complaining about Easter. Santa, reindeer, and the North Pole have pretty much nothing to do with Christ's birth, yet they have become part of the Christmas traditions. The fact is, traditions morph over time. I suppose we have to ask ourselves how important is the name?

    18. Re:odd all around by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just a few little problems with translation.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    19. Re:odd all around by somersault · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with people liking things because they're pretty, but when I believe in something I stand up for it. I used to be a Christian, and while I believe it's a bunch of hokum now, I have no respect for those that don't really take seriously the things that they purport to believe..

      The point is that they are taking things that originated from other religions. The bible does warn against that kind of thing (yes, I've read it through, even all the obscure old testament books), as can be seen from the above passage. I just think it's hypocrisy. Of course they're not really dishonouring any god, but it's still kind of pathetic.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    20. Re:odd all around by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Another important mistake was with the word "customs" when the literal word was "statues"

      Correction: The notes say "statutes".

      The vaguest bit of description "tree .. decked in gold and silver" could apply to a Christmas tree, but the meaning is quite different: it's referring to carved figures worshiped as gods.

      You make a good case. I agree, that's the most likely interpretation, and isn't the same thing as a Christmas tree. However, using symbols such as Christmas trees does have a pagan feel to it. It's not as bad, but similar to how many Christians have made Christ on the Cross an object of worship.

    21. Re:odd all around by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Were it awesome (at least comparatively) just across the border, why wouldn't they say so?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    22. Re:odd all around by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      I think you are confusing the meaning of the false idols warned about in the Bible. It is stated that we should not worship idols, not that we should not make physical reminders of our faith. When praying over a cross or similar item, a person is not praying to the cross, but to God. They are simply using the item to help better focus them in their conversation with God. It is a subtle, but very important distinction.

      If you requite uniqueness in every religious symbol, you will find very few that qualify. The cross was originally a torture and execution device. Traditions and symbols change over time. To expect them not to is akin to expecting technology to stay stagnate.

    23. Re:odd all around by Huge_UID · · Score: 1

      "probably mid-september" Yes, it was mid-September. He was conceived while his parents celebrated Christmas.

    24. Re:odd all around by richlv · · Score: 1

      hmm ?
      rowan was used to scare off bad spirits. young birch trees were used to decorate houses in summer solstice. and spruce/fir was used to decorate houses in winter solstice...
      not sure where your concept of paganism might come from, doesn't seem to come from pagans ;)

      what you might think about is significant, monumental trees, stones and other things that were honoured and simbolysed the deities. but that was far from making everybody an over extreme version of super-vegans who wouldn't cut grass.

      --
      Rich
    25. Re:odd all around by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Yea, dont ever use the KJV in an argument or discussion unless it is about the style of writing from the 16 and 17th centuries. It introduces all the problems you get when you translate from one language to another (greek to old english) and from thence to a third language (modern english). Its even worse with the KJV because most people assume its "normal english", when the usages of many words are totally different.

      Theres absolutely no reason other than sentimentality, tradition, etc (which could be good reasons, as long as you understand what it is you are reading) not to use a modern translation like the ESV, RSV, NASB, NIV, etc-- they all use (mostly) the same sources and are 99.99% in agreement with each other, simply preferring different wording.

      The one area where KJV IS better is that in that version of english there are separate versions for the singular "you" (thee, thou) and the plural "you" (you), whereas modern english makes no such distinction. In most cases context is sufficient, but there are times where it is ambiguous and one is forced to refer either to the KJV or the original greek / hebrew to determine whether singular or plural was intended.

    26. Re:odd all around by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Even that article notes that that word indicates a "marriageable" girl. If you have read the OT (particularly the narrative of Amnon's rape of Tamar), you would know that in that culture a non-virgin would have been referred to as "unmarriageable" (hence the necessity of Absalom taking Tamar into his household, and her distress above and beyond the violation).

      If you prefer a NT example, you would also note Joseph's initial intention upon finding out about Mary's supposed infidelity.

    27. Re:odd all around by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      It's not as bad, but similar to how many Christians have made Christ on the Cross an object of worship.

      Basically anything can be made into an idol. As Calvin noted, "From this we may gather that man's nature, so to speak, is a perpetual factory of idols.”

    28. Re:odd all around by KarlIsNotMyName · · Score: 1

      No one knows that there even was a birth.

      --
      We are all God's parents.
    29. Re:odd all around by somersault · · Score: 1

      I don't give a crap about religious symbols other than wishing that the concept of religion didn't even exist. In context though, the Christian god is a supremely "jealous" one. If he were real, he wouldn't be happy with people making a big deal about decorating shiny fertility symbols in their home and all the surrounding materialism and prayers/letters to Santa when they're meant to be celebrating his son's birth :p Some Christians of course don't go in for all that, but most clearly do.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    30. Re:odd all around by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      In modern translations there are often footnotes for passages where the difference between singular and plural you matters. So that's not really an argument for the KJV.

    31. Re:odd all around by skapaft · · Score: 1

      While it's essentially true that Christmas was created to compete with existing pagan holidays and thus carried over some traditions, the idea that it _is_ a pagan holiday is foolish. The name "Christmas" literally means "Christ mass".

      Yes, in english. However, in many other countries, sharing most of the same christmas traditions, this just isn't true. Here in sweden it's called "Jul", and I'm pretty sure a lot of other languages have other names that make no reference to christ. Just saying it's a christian holiday because of the name doesn't stand up.

    32. Re:odd all around by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      I think your Christian god is different than mine. Mine is a loving, forgiving God. Did, perhaps, you miss the New Testament?

      Out of curiosity, what adult writes to Santa? Santa is something for the young children, not the adults. Why all the hostility towards putting up lights and tree and having a party? Yes, there is a large segment of the population that has consumerized Christmas, but just because Hallmark and Walmart are capitalizing on it, doesn't mean that the people putting gifts under the trees have any less understanding of the meaning of the holiday. When I celebrated my daughter's birth I threw a party and we had presents, decorations, and a cake. You think that Christ deserves less? My daughter deserves a better birthday party than my god's son?

    33. Re:odd all around by somersault · · Score: 1

      Nope, I didn't miss the New Testament, but are you saying that you should completely ignore the Old?

      It doesn't matter if the adults are doing it, how is it any different getting their kids to write letters to imaginary beings? Why do you think this is any different to pagan gods? I have no hostility towards people putting up a tree and having a party, I just think it's hypocritical of Christians to be using symbols from pagan celebrations in their own when their bible forbids it.

      The bible doesn't actually say that you should celebrate Christmas either. And the party isn't for your god, it's for the people.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    34. Re:odd all around by somersault · · Score: 1

      Its a LOT more plausible than that some christians decided to ignore all the zillions of condemnations for idolatrous trees in the OT.

      You do realise that most Christians back when this tradition was started couldn't even read, and wouldn't be able to see these passages? It was illegal for anyone but priests to read scriptures for a while too, wasn't it? And by now everyone is too used to the way they think Christmas "should" be to want to change the tree etc.

      I've never heard of this paradise tree thing in my life. It's only plausible to you because that's what you want it to be the case, not because you're thinking about things in a historically accurate fashion. My family always put up a Christmas tree despite being in a pretty serious protestant denomination btw. People just don't even notice this kind of thing until someone points it out. I didn't even think about it until I saw that cartoon.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    35. Re:odd all around by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      I never said to ignore the old. You will note though, that between the books God had a distinct personality change. The god described by the old testament is a vengeful, wrathful god who has a habit of creating floods, smiting cities, and sending his people out to slaughter infidels. The message portrayed in the New Testament is a tad different. It is tends to focus more on love and peace. Christ does not claim to undue the laws of the Old Testament, but he does state that he bringing a new covenant. Christ changed the relationship between god and man and brought a new message of forgiveness. If you are intent on standing by the relationship between man and god portrayed by the Old Testament, then you are ignoring the message of the New Testament. That would be similar to saying that prohibition is still in effect by only reading the 18th amendment and ignoring the 21st.

      I think you are still misinterpreting the comments regarding false idols. The Old Testament comments about false idols explicitly state that one should not *worship* false idols. It does not say thou shalt not decorate thy homes with pretty garlands because that's what the pagans do. No sane person is worshiping the Christmas tree. Co-opting another religion or group's symbols for your own use is not hypocritical, but rather a sign of flattery. The other group's symbols/traditions were good, so we adapted them to our own belief structure. It also a way to honor one's heritage. While you may be Christian, you still recognize where your people came from.

    36. Re:odd all around by somersault · · Score: 1

      I know there's a difference. The fact that you think of it as a personality change pretty much is admitting that it's all bunk, hecuase the bible refers to god as "unchanging"? Usually people put more efforting into trying to reconcile the personality change to not be a personality change at all.. interesting. Do you just accept stuff like that without even questioning it?

      There are more than just passages about idols, there are passages about the Isralites mingling with foreigners and adopting their customs/festivals etc. God didn't like that either. Adopting "Easter" bunnies and "Christmas" trees seems like a really good way to piss off the OT god, and to have the NT god or Jesus give you a right good telling off before forgiving you and saying shucks, you're forgiven, just don't be naughty again, mmkay?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    37. Re:odd all around by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      Even the old testament God changes his mind periodically. After the flood he promises to never again do that. There are several instances in the OT when God modifies the covenant with the Israelites. Would you prefer me to call it a strategy change? Instead of beating the bad children, we will now promise the good children cookies and milk.

      One of the major changes Christ made was inclusion of the gentiles. Prior to Christ, the Jews excluded and shunned the Gentiles. Christ made it clear that God was for everyone, both Jew and Gentile. This shows a distinct shift from the OT message of "don't mingle" to a NT message of "go forth and spread the word of God to everyone regardless of nationality." Judaism was not just a religion, but a national heritage. One did not really 'convert' to Judaism. The expansion to include the Gentiles also coincides with the relaxation of many of the OT laws such as 'don't eat pork' and 'stone the adulteress.' Since we are now supposed to mingle with the Gentiles and bring to them Christ's message of peace and love, it seems reasonable that we can also incorporate some of their traditions into our celebrations. Christ never asked the converts to give up their heritage and become Jewish, but rather to accept himself and God. You will notice that the Christianity and Judaism have no common major holy days despite Christianity's Jewish roots. In fact, most, if not all, of the old Jewish traditions have been replaced or abandoned by Christianity.

    38. Re:odd all around by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The North Koreans are obsessive about not being shown up by the "imperialists", and have even showfully walked out of meetings in the DMZ because there was a disparity in the size of flags, or their soldiers were not tall enough, or there was some other very arbitrary breach of protocol. Only to come back with taller soldiers, bigger flags, and more attitude.

      Sounds like a great opportunity for the other side to make them look like a bunch of fools by showing up with 3' tall midgets dressed in third-hand uniforms, and flags to match. Then kick back, light a cigar, and say "Kimmie, old boy, if you'd like those food shipments to keep coming in, we're gonna need to talk ..."

  6. Go christmas lights by onyxruby · · Score: 1

    I don't think I've ever seen such an uplifting tale about christmas lights before. From tacky to beautiful, whoever thought ruffling North Korea was in the cards?

    1. Re:Go christmas lights by TheCarp · · Score: 0

      And I found it to be the first uplifting story about North Korea. You mean.... there is no Christmas there? Shit, theres at least a couple of weeks every year where that makes cutting my hair in accordance with the socialist lifestyle sound appealing.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  7. This looksd like a job for by aglider · · Score: 0

    Super Santa!

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  8. Get with the times, man... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know that North Korea is fashionably behind the times, juche and all; but seriously, this is a bit much.

    The idea that Christmas trees are a symbol of Christianity, rather than some freaky pagan stuff, stolen for a while by Christians, and now firmly entrenched as a coniferous altar of Mammon for youth of all ages and faiths, is patently absurd.

    Now, it is unlikely that pro-consumerist psychological warfare will be any more popular with our fabulously haired friend; but he needn't worry about the spread of any but the worldliest of indulgences...

    1. Re:Get with the times, man... by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      freaky pagan stuff, stolen for a while by Christians, and now firmly entrenched as a coniferous altar of Mammon for youth of all ages and faiths

      I think you hit the nail square on the head. Being a communist county, the mammon-worship is probably what they're most upset about, far more than the Christianity when they're athiests. Why should an athiest fear a god? It makes no sense. It does make sense that a communist country would fear commerce.

    2. Re:Get with the times, man... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      and now firmly entrenched as a coniferous altar of Mammon for youth of all ages and faiths, is patently absurd.

      Not everyone celebrates it the same way, but thats not really the point. The tree itself IS a christian symbol, and regardless of whether you agree with THAT historical data it represents a custom in christian societies. North Korea wants nothing to do with foreign religions, cultures, or traditions, which is why they are reacting like this.

    3. Re:Get with the times, man... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Why should an athiest fear a god?

      Indeed. Ask any American atheist organization why they seem to fear God-- well, only the Judeo-Christian one, apparently-- so much.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:Get with the times, man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The American atheist's I've read (the loud ones who write stuff) don't fear gods. They do, however, have a problem with goddy people.

    5. Re:Get with the times, man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should an athiest fear a god?

      But North Korea is not your typical atheistic country. It has a leadership cult. Kim Jung Il/Sung/whichever is to be worshipped and they are the closest thing to a God North Koreans know about.

    6. Re:Get with the times, man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should an athiest fear a god?

      Because they're learning from the experience of other Communist countries? They may be learning the wrong lesson (given that in Poland, the prime example, Catholicism was far more entrenched than any form of Christianity is in NK), but you just need to look at /. comments whenever anything remotely connected to theism comes up to know that many atheists believe in the power of "organised religion".

    7. Re:Get with the times, man... by thrich81 · · Score: 2

      The AC got it right before me, but I'll repeat -- the American atheists don't fear God but sometimes have problems with the the other "God-fearing" people who can't seem to keep it to themselves. From personal experience, the American atheists have a problem with things like having to stand up in the THIRD GRADE in a PUBLIC SCHOOL and recite the Lord's Prayer every day. That sort of thing, and worse, are what the atheists have asked not to be included in the required experience of living in this society.

    8. Re:Get with the times, man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ask any American atheist organization why they seem to fear God-- well, only the Judeo-Christian one, apparently-- so much.

      You don't get it. Atheists don't fear the organizations per se, but they do dislike the fact that members of those organizations go out and vote on school boards (or much, much worse) and do policy-related things based entirely on superstitious, mystical fantasies that tend to manifest themselves in ugly anti-science sorts of ways.

      Rational people tend to prefer that their affaris aren't lorded over by irrational people. It's not particularly complicated.

    9. Re:Get with the times, man... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      I think it's more accurate to say that the tree is a symbol of Christmas, and Christmas is a Christian holiday. The tree isn't really used in any other context in Christianity.

      And yes, Christmas is basically the one holiday that pretty much universally represents Western culture, in both religious background and current capitalist practice. I can't think of a more clear message to send to the Communists in North Korea.

    10. Re:Get with the times, man... by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a Christian, I have to agree with the athiests there. There should be no such thing as forced prayer or a forced pledge. Forcing people to recite the Lord's Prayer or the Pledge of Aleigance is just plain wrong; this is the sort of thing you have in dictatorships. Don't bash Christians, bash idiots who want everyone to think and act like them. This includes all religions and all non-religions.

    11. Re:Get with the times, man... by gtall · · Score: 1

      Nah, things are so dull in N. Korea they simply don't like the pretty lights, make's the government look bad.

    12. Re:Get with the times, man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Force observance of religion (or government policy) isn't intended to convert the heathens... the intent is to make the religion seem accepted amongst all the peers of those who can be converted, or who would otherwise be in danger of losing the faith. Basically, it's beating the wolves to keep the sheep in line.

    13. Re:Get with the times, man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to stand up and pray that's your business, but good luck making me participate.

      In return, I won't make you meditate on the teachings of the Buddha, pray to Allah, or commune with the speghetti monster.

      Deal?

    14. Re:Get with the times, man... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Maybe for adults. When you hit children with indoctrination it's an attempt at conversion.

    15. Re:Get with the times, man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not about religion, at all. Of course, religion is the "excuse", but this is really about preventing the north korean populace from realize that there is a world outside the DPRK borders.

    16. Re:Get with the times, man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christianity and Christ came from the middle east. If the Christmas tree had anything to do with Christ, it would have been a palm tree.

      Up here in Scandinavia, we don't celebrate Christmas. We celebrate Yule (Jul), which includes among other things the Yule Tree (Juletræ). And guess what... The tree is the kind that stays green during the winter, underneath the snow. Fits perfectly with celebrating that the sun will return, along with green leaves and birds (btw, birds (made of e.g. glass, not real birds) are among the things used to decorate the tree.

      No way it's a Christian symbol. Though some of the things used to decorate the tree did come from Christianity.

    17. Re:Get with the times, man... by operagost · · Score: 1

      superstitious, mystical fantasies

      And this is why people respond so negatively to atheists.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  9. They're just jealous by scottbomb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'Cause they don't HAVE any light when the sun's not shining.

    N Korea at night:
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/dprk-dark.htm

    1. Re:They're just jealous by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      'Cause they don't HAVE any light when the sun's not shining.

      ... but some people sure tried...

    2. Re:They're just jealous by heathen_01 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      North Korea is the best Korea! If you must have a light on during the night at least don't shine it toward the sky.

    3. Re:They're just jealous by Issarlk · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      They're not jealous, they are green and not wasteful like the rest of the world. North Korea is single handedly fighting global warming and you still manage to criticize them?

    4. Re:They're just jealous by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      And not that much even at daytime. Look at how cloudy many photos of Pyongyang are. Some have theorized that it's the cool air from north and warmer one from south colliding and creating this chronic grey cover.

    5. Re:They're just jealous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are saving migratory birds and insects by avoiding light pollution!

    6. Re:They're just jealous by gsslay · · Score: 1

      So North Korea is literally streets ahead in the fight against light pollution and needless waste of energy.

      Long live the revolution!

    7. Re:They're just jealous by Spazztastic · · Score: 1

      Parent link is NSFW. No graphic images, but graphic text.

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
  10. attack of the trees! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wow, for all the money we spend in the "cold" against North Korea, we could have just put up a few dozen Christmas trees and watched the revolution that will follow!!!

  11. Wimpy by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Thats pretty wimpy psychological warfare, as decorating pine trees in the living room and shopping and fighting people on black friday and singing about red nosed reindeer is hard core capitalist worship, its not christian at all. I don't even know how you visually "do" christian christmas worship other than something like a 200 foot tall "nativity scene" which unfortunately makes no sense to someone not already versed in christian theology (my son, when he was very little, called it "the farmers", too little to know any better, yet +1 insightful as it was, after all, in a barn scene...)

    Now real christian psychological warfare would be a larger than life Easter scene of the last supper with the table unbiblically piled with tons and tons of yummy food... most of the NK either are currently starving or recently were starving so a big food display is going to rile them all up to no end. Maybe they do that? Waving a bunch of food in front of a starving man with a gun is probably unwise, maybe its going too far?

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:Wimpy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty good psychological warfare if you are freezing to death in the dark, subsisting on grass, and can now see your brothers across the border lighting up the sky with electric lights, partying and gorging themselves on turkey.

    2. Re:Wimpy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now real christian psychological warfare would be a larger than life Easter scene of the last supper with the table unbiblically piled with tons and tons of yummy food...

      Real Christian psychological warfare? That would be to use the cross for its intended purpose.

    3. Re:Wimpy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the most part only NK soldiers and a few relatively privileged villagers are going to see the tree. All of these people are probably eating though it isn't anything great.

    4. Re:Wimpy by vlm · · Score: 1

      Real Christian psychological warfare? That would be to use the cross for its intended purpose.

      Well now, that would be more like Roman psychological warfare. Roman psychological warfare includes rolling giant ballistas up to just outside arrow range of the enemy, even if they don't work they scare the heck out of them. But I'm guessing the NK would be unimpressed with giant ballistas. Oh another roman classic was ye olde decimation punishment of rebellious legions, which the NK probably already practice anyway.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    5. Re:Wimpy by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      True, but soldiers do have families. The government probably does a very good job keeping the masses from knowing about it, but there are more people than just the immediate viewers who know about it, to be sure.

      And of course, one does whatever they can to get a message into a nation as strictly closed as North Korea is.

  12. Easy way to protect it by Suomi-Poika · · Score: 1

    Just build a huge Kim Jong-Il statue behind that Christmas tree. :)

    1. Re:Easy way to protect it by gtall · · Score: 1

      Hell, put Christmas tree lights ON a statue of the Fearless Shrimp. Decorate him with tinsel and mistletoe, put fake presents around his feet and give him a big snowy beard. Then play Christmas for lil'Kim to the tune of Springtime for Hitler. If there's going to be propaganda, do it right.

  13. Whats going to happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When they shell the Christmas Tree to extinguish the lights?

    I hope the S. Koreans aren't going to bus loads of small children to the tree for cute christmas photos and get caught by a deluge of N. Korean irritability.

  14. Since when was Christmas a religious holiday? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1, Funny

    I thought it was about booze, presents, parties, shopping and kitchy pictures of snowmen and santa?

    1. Re:Since when was Christmas a religious holiday? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North Korea is also opposed to all of those things.

    2. Re:Since when was Christmas a religious holiday? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, just shopping.

    3. Re:Since when was Christmas a religious holiday? by mark-t · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Christmas has been a religious holiday since the 4th century. The precise date of the event it celebrates was (and is) unknown, and several theories about why December 25th was selected exist, including, but not limited to, attempting to offset the Roman solstice celebrations that were occurring at around the same time of year. Even so, however, Christmas is definitely a religious holiday, even if the date itself does not have any historical significance tied to the event it celebrates, and its celebration as a religious festival far predates any of what you've described above.

    4. Re:Since when was Christmas a religious holiday? by mark-t · · Score: 1
      Your first and last sentences are mutually contradictory. How could Christmas have turned from a religious myth into a shopping holiday, as you assert in your last sentence, if it never had anything to do with religion in the first place, which is what you asserted in your first?

      That the date was chosen independently of anything associated with the event that it celebrates does not diminish that the celebration itself has plenty to do with religion, even if the exact day of the year does not.

    5. Re:Since when was Christmas a religious holiday? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2

      and its celebration as a religious festival far predates any of what you've described above.

      No, as you stated, Christians assigned their birthday celebration near the solstice so they could co-opt the Roman Saturnalia festivities, which already involved booze, parties, presents and shopping.

      The Christian's strategy was generally successful, but they certainly shouldn't be surprised when it backfires because people continue their partying around the solstice for the same reasons they always have. If Christians really don't like it, they should move the birthday again to a more somber date.

    6. Re:Since when was Christmas a religious holiday? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      No, as you stated, Christians assigned their birthday celebration near the solstice so they could co-opt the Roman Saturnalia festivities...

      I stated that was one theory. It is not the only one. King Herod was allegedly visited by the wise men at approximately this time of year as well, and one of the appearances of a number of planetary conjunctions that were alleged to have signified to these astrologers that a king had been born would have occurred at around that time.

      There are easily half a dozen or more other theories... some of religious significance, some not.

      In spite of this, even if the actual date selected has never had anything to do with religion, the celebration itself had plenty to do with religious beliefs. If a person is born in December, for instance, but celebrates their birthday in June to separate the celebration of their birthday from Christmas, their annual party is *STILL* just as much a celebration of their birthday as it would be if it had been on the right day of the year.

    7. Re:Since when was Christmas a religious holiday? by Sique · · Score: 1

      But on the other hand, the Solstice celebrations in Rome were a new fashion to begin with, starting around 270 AD, when soldiers who had fought in the southeastern part of the Roman Empire, brought the Mithras-cult to Rome and with it the feast of Sol Invictus. Just about 70 years later, in 340 AD, the first christmas was celebrated in Rome.
      The Roman tradition didn't celebrate the Solstice at all, and the Saturnalia were extended from Dec 17 to Dec 23 (later till Dec 30) only after Iulius Caesar's calendar reform in 45 BC.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    8. Re:Since when was Christmas a religious holiday? by na1led · · Score: 0

      What I meant was, Christmas had nothing to do with the roots of christianity. The roots of religion mention nothing about christmas, no place in the Bible or Koran or what ever religous book you read. It was made up to celibrate a religion, that's all.

      --
      -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
    9. Re:Since when was Christmas a religious holiday? by toygeek · · Score: 1

      Its religious, always has been, its just got nothing to do with Christianity. It was brought in by Constantine to try to unify his empire. It worked. Christmas goes back to ancient Babylonian fertility rituals, of which the evergreen tree is a huge part. So if they want to complain about the religion, fine. Just don't call it Christianity.

    10. Re:Since when was Christmas a religious holiday? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      their annual party is *STILL* just as much a celebration of their birthday as it would be if it had been on the right day of the year.

      Fine. But such a person doesn't have the right to claim that their birthday is the *only* thing that people should celebrate on that date, or even the main thing, or that failure to specifically mention their anniversary is a "war on my birthday!". Especially if people already had other parties going on that have nothing to do with the birthday.

      If there are religious rites on that day, it's appropriate for the believers practice them among themselves in their homes and shrines. They don't need to attempt to monopolize the whole of society for a whole month.

    11. Re:Since when was Christmas a religious holiday? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      You missed the joke. The modern Christmas is so dominated by the listed elements, it would be quite possible for someone to celebrate Christmas for many years without even realising there is a religious element.

    12. Re:Since when was Christmas a religious holiday? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      King Herod at that point was a little bit *dead*. Died 4BCE. There is no doubt that the dates are horribly wrong when the nativity story features a character who died four years before the story is supposed to be set.

    13. Re:Since when was Christmas a religious holiday? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      That's the result of a mistake made in the 6th century, who did not accurately assess the year that Herod died with respect to when Jesus would had to have been born. It has been widely known for quite some time that Jesus was born sometime between 7 and 4BCE, and that the CE calendar is off by a few years with respect to that occurence. The conjunction incident I spoke of before happened in 7BCE.

    14. Re:Since when was Christmas a religious holiday? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      They don't... I don't know if you realized this, but Christmas is *incredibly* commercial today. if Christians are trying to monopolize Christmas as an exclusively religious holiday, that effort is failing miserably. Of course, this fact does not diminish the religious significance behind the origins of their celebration on that day.

      WWII didn't actually end on November 11th either, you know... but the date is still utilized to remember people who died in that war just at least as much as those who died in WWI.

    15. Re:Since when was Christmas a religious holiday? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      if Christians are trying to monopolize Christmas as an exclusively religious holiday, that effort is failing miserably.

      It may be failing, but that's not stopping the loud and persistent whining from the large numbers of people who still want to monopolize the season.

    16. Re:Since when was Christmas a religious holiday? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no more somber date then these shortest days of the year. Which is precisely why people feel the need to throw big parties on them.

    17. Re:Since when was Christmas a religious holiday? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      It has been widely known for quite some time that Jesus was born sometime between 7 and 4BCE, and that the CE calendar is off by a few years with respect to that occurence.

      I'm sorry, this just cracks me up! Paraphrased: "It has been widely known for quite some time that a part of mythology is, in fact, mythological and not true."

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  15. Not a good place to be by na1led · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was stationed near the DMZ when I was in the ARMY. It's a very dangerous and volatile place just waiting to explode! The North Koreans are crazy; you never know what they will do. If a war breaks out between North and South, it will be the bloodiest and worse catastrophe in human history!

    --
    -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
    1. Re:Not a good place to be by mcgrew · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If a war breaks out between North and South, it will be the bloodiest and worse catastrophe in human history!

      You haven't studied much history, have you? Ever hear of a little tussle called WWII, where millions of civilians were bombed, gassed, tortured, irradiated, and shot, where a a guy tried to exterminate an entire race of people?

      The Korean war was a snowball fight between two five year olds in comparison.

    2. Re:Not a good place to be by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      I suggest you reread the original post.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    3. Re:Not a good place to be by operagost · · Score: 1

      But China is NK's big, angry fourth-grade brother with a BB-gun.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:Not a good place to be by na1led · · Score: 0

      I'm not refering to drawn out world wars that last for years. A conflict in Korea would result in the death of millions overnight. If the artillary don't blow you away, nukes from either side will.

      --
      -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
    5. Re:Not a good place to be by Lakitu · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Korean war was certainly on a smaller scale than WW2, but it wasn't just a drop in the bucket. The North and its supplemental Chinese used all kinds of human wave tactics, literally just marching people off to their death and hoping that it would eventually overcome the other side. The UN and US forces were still in the WW2 era of technology -- there were almost 40,000 US deaths, compared to the almost 60,000 US deaths in Vietnam despite lasting for only three years. As an ideological, civil war, there were mass slaughters of the native Korean soldiers and civilians on both sides, with thousands being killed at a time. The bare minimum for civilian deaths is something like 2 million, and upwards of 3 million.

      This doesn't include the aftermath, when the country was severed in two and completely impoverished on both sides. South Korea has some glitz and glamour today, but it centers in a few cities, and there are still millions of people living in complete poverty. North Korea is like the post-Roman Dark Ages, except for the complete dictatorship that rules over the population armed with modern weapons. Today the population is much higher than in the 1950s, with one-third or one-fourth of the population of the USA living on a peninsula that's about half the size of California. Almost 1/3 the population of the South, about 20 million people, lives in the greater Seoul area, which is basically inside artillery range which could level huge sections of the city, and the people living there, in a very short amount of time.

      Nobody really knows what the North Koreans would do in a war, either. Many of them could fight to the bitter end regardless of what was actually going on. Some of them might believe the propaganda about the South and US being ruthless killers ready to slaughter them all and commit suicide like Japanese civilians and soldiers did even in the waning days of war in the Pacific in WW2. They might try to take as many people with them into death. Even in a quick war where the majority of North Korean soldiers surrendered, the leadership probably would not and would find all of the hardliners they could willing to fight.

      Even in the best case scenarios of a short, one-sided war, it would be a total bloodbath. North Koreans wishing to escape the fighting or just wishing to escape the area would pour over the borders both North and South, flooding into areas not able to support that many people so suddenly. There's even a potential of the Chinese invading along the north in order to capture territory, to prevent such a huge refugee crisis, and to guarantee the continued existence of a buffer zone not dominated by American interests so close to their territory. It would be an absolute humanitarian disaster no matter the outcome and would almost certainly be accompanied by millions of deaths even in the best-case scenarios.

  16. I am sorry, if this gets me banned, it's worth it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hans Brix? Oh, no. Oh, herro, great to see you again, Hans.

    Mr. II, I was supposed to be allowed to inspect your palace today, and your guards won't let me into certain areas.

    Hans, Hans, Hans. We've been through this a dozen times. I don't have any weapons of mass destruction, okay, Hans?

    Then let me look around so I can ease the U.N.'s collective mind.

    Hans, you're breaking my borrs here. Hans, you're breaking my borrs.

    I'm sorry, but the U.N. must be firm with you. Let me see your whole palace or else.

    Or else what?

    Or else we will be very, very angry with you and we will write you a letter telling you how angry we are.

    Okay, I'll show you, Hans. You ready? Stand a rittle to your reft. A rittle more. Good. (trap door opens, leading to shark tank) There you go, Hans Brix. How you rike that, you fucking cocksucker? Do you have any idea how fucking busy I am, Hans Brix? Well, fuck you. You want inspection? Well, inspect that, you buttfucking piece of shit.

  17. When the North Korean People by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Funny

    Finally shrug off that horrible regime and look back at history, they're going to be ultra, mega pissed off.

    Dear leaders, my arse.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:When the North Korean People by AdamJS · · Score: 2

      The only people with a (more or less) guaranteed meal a day are the military, and the ones in charge of that are the most well-off in that entire country in terms of necessities and power.

      There will be no real change until all foreign countries stop giving them any form of aid, and they run out of food for their military and can't stretch it further with propaganda (i.e. troops start dying en mass from starvation).

    2. Re:When the North Korean People by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      I actually hope that North Korea is stupid enough to attempt an invasion of South Korea.

      We can't really excuse going in there and "liberating" North Korea from what is one of the most oppressive dictatorships in the world. If they attack one of our major allies, however, they will get (at most) a couple of miles into South Korean territory before the US shows up and wrecks their shit. Then, of course, we'd go into the country and dismantle their entire military (one way or another). From there we'd probably set up elections (monitored by the UN) and actually help the people recover.

      It will take either this or a major disaster (like a malfunctioning bomb taking out the NK leadership) for North Korea to finally be free.

    3. Re:When the North Korean People by Dhalka226 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      With a highly unpredictable regime, I'm not sure "try to starve their army to death" is the right approach. Sad and selfish as it is to say, the North Korean people suffering may be the lesser of two evils in this circumstance.

      Likewise, one thing that the North Korean regime has been exceptionally good at is deflecting blame. A wholly disconcerting number of the North Korean people really do believe that their suffering is because of the United States and a puppet South Korea. Furthering that suffering may well generate the anger you would be hoping to generate, but there is no guarantee that it is directed at the people it should be directed to.

      Honestly, just waiting the North out is probably the best approach. I think Kim Jong-Il is regarded as pretty damn psychopathic, and I don't mean that short of its literal sense. There is simply no telling what he will do. He is also 70 years old. Short of him deciding to go out in a big bang, the amount of harm he can do, personally, is coming to a close. His children are western-educated. This is by no means a guarantee that they will be any better, but it is at least an indication that they understand the depth of the lie they are living in North Korea and has to offer at least some hope that, at bare minimum, they will be more reasonable people to deal with.

      If not, once more about them and their ruling style and personalities are known, other measures can be considered. Until then, the status quo is good enough I'm afraid.

    4. Re:When the North Korean People by jayspec462 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, God, no.

      Yes, I want the North Korean government to get its well-deserved comeuppance as much as the next guy, but take a look at Seoul on Google Earth. Now drag northwards until you come to the North Korean border. Not very far, is it? Forget fancy missiles, it's within artillery range. It won't matter that they get "(at most) a couple of miles into South Korean territory." By the time they've done so, one of Asia's financial and industrial capitals will lie in ruins. The fact that the already mostly empty shell of Pyongyang will be razed to the ground shortly thereafter is cold comfort.

      --
      $comment =~ s/($verb)\s+($noun)/IN SOVIET RUSSIA, $2 $1s YOU!/g;
    5. Re:When the North Korean People by isorox · · Score: 1

      I actually hope that North Korea is stupid enough to attempt an invasion of South Korea.

      We can't really excuse going in there and "liberating" North Korea from what is one of the most oppressive dictatorships in the world. If they attack one of our major allies, however, they will get (at most) a couple of miles into South Korean territory before the US shows up and wrecks their shit. Then, of course, we'd go into the country and dismantle their entire military (one way or another). From there we'd probably set up elections (monitored by the UN) and actually help the people recover.

      Third time lucky?

    6. Re:When the North Korean People by AdamJS · · Score: 1

      I think the son in line for succession has been personally groomed and had his brainwashing ensured by Kim's regime.

    7. Re:When the North Korean People by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      I think the son in line for succession has been personally groomed and had his brainwashing ensured by Kim's regime.

      If anything, he will try to define himself and his regime with some unspeakable act, which results in the deaths of dozens, if not hundreds, and then blame it all on the US and ROK.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    8. Re:When the North Korean People by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't say that if you lived within artillery range of an irrational enemy. If war ever broke out the thousands of artillery pieces aimed at Seoul would level the city within hours.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    9. Re:When the North Korean People by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Liberating NK would be like on an episode of Cops where the chick who got her ass beat changes her mind after Barney Fife shows up to arrest the boyfriend. No good ending for anyone.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    10. Re:When the North Korean People by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Saif Al Islam was Western Educated. Why don't you ask him how that worked out for him. What is the saying? Something like: Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

      Many (most?) people would do ANYTHING to be in a position of power. Sell their souls? How trite. They would sell their souls, your soul, and everyone else's soul without a moment of hesitation or thought. Hell, when it comes to getting what you want, lots of people would brutally murder every single person in the world... even though it would defeat the whole purpose. Can't be powerful all by yourself. Who would you boss around?

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    11. Re:When the North Korean People by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      If anything, he will try to define himself and his regime with some unspeakable act, which results in the deaths of dozens, if not hundreds, and then blame it all on the US and ROK.

      To me, that's weird; I would prefer my legacy to be known by some productive act. Or multiple.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  18. Finally some hope... by TheCarp · · Score: 1, Troll

    Well this is a first, we should mark it. This is the first glimmer of hope from that Regieme. The first time they have been worried about an enemy which really is insidious and they have every reason to keep out of their culture at all costs.... Christmas.

    That ruiner of December, that event so horrible, that it can only be seen by the shear number of songs that are made to declare it the best time of the year. Summer needs no accolades. Nobody has to tell you "Isn't spring wonderful". A tradition which begins with the "waiting in line" and annoying people, and coordinating secret lists.

    Of course, you can't be against it...for the children.

    I say...good call Kim Jong Il. Lets hope this is a start of your countries march towards sensibility. In this one way, we could learn from you.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  19. Easy Solution by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have an easy solution. Just put up a giant menorah instead. Then you won't be spreading a Christian message.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    1. Re:Easy Solution by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Im fairly certain Kim Jong Il would oppose that just as adamantly.

    2. Re:Easy Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a giant Festivus pole?

    3. Re:Easy Solution by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      How about a giant statue of him .... holding a giant menorah and standing next to a Christmas tree?

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    4. Re:Easy Solution by makubesu · · Score: 1

      North Korean's celebrate Kwanza you insensitive clod!

    5. Re:Easy Solution by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Let's be honest: nobody celebrates Kwanzaa.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  20. North Korea is not a "secular state". by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a country in the grip of a deified leader cult. They worship their tyrant and his father in a manner that would have made L. Ron Hubbard or Jim Jones jealous.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:North Korea is not a "secular state". by operagost · · Score: 1

      This is a point that deserves to be made. If Kim was a quasi-Christian leader like David Koresh, this dangerous cult of personality would be a part of every discussion regarding NK, and rightfully so.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:North Korea is not a "secular state". by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a country in the grip of a deified leader cult. They worship their tyrant and his father in a manner that would have made L. Ron Hubbard or Jim Jones jealous.

      -jcr

      Since I can't mod you up - This is why I take some offense at the term "secular state" in the summary. First, it's a very religious state where the deity happens to be the creepy "leader" of the country and his equally creepy father. Second, ignoring that reality for a minute and assuming "secular state" really means "doesn't officially acknowledge a creator", America is technically a "secular state". But in America, you can convert to the religion of your choice without worrying that you and your entire family will be thrown into a forced labor camp where you will die.

    3. Re:North Korea is not a "secular state". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But in America, you can convert to the religion of your choice without worrying that you and your entire family will be thrown into a forced labor camp where you will die.

      Except if you convert to Islam and then try to get on a plane. That buys you a trip to a camp somewhere in Cuba.

  21. Light it up by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    Seriously, put the tree back up there.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  22. What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does calling decorative lighting "psychological war" further their cause?
    I my book, that's called making yourself look ridiculous.

    Who actually thinks 'birth of the Christian deity' when they see a tree with lights on?
    The first thing I think is that It was nice of someone to make the landscape more interesting.

    1. Re:What's the point? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      How does calling decorative lighting "psychological war" further their cause?
      I my book, that's called making yourself look ridiculous.

      Who actually thinks 'birth of the Christian deity' when they see a tree with lights on?
      The first thing I think is that It was nice of someone to make the landscape more interesting.

      they don't care about looking ridiculous.
      it's not like they're publishing that stuff inside NK.

      what they care about is giving the impression that they might consider it as first offense, so that they might retaliate against that. in fact they would just use that to beg for more food aid, trying to imply that south was the last aggressor at this point in time(by letting people put up nice lights).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:What's the point? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      The first thing I think is that It was nice of someone to make the landscape more interesting.

      Which is a capital crime in North Korea. Especially if the lights are any color other than red or gray.

    3. Re:What's the point? by Uzuri · · Score: 1

      "Especially if the lights are any color other than red or gray."

      I thought we were talking about North Korea, not OSU fans.

      --
      I'm a she-slashdotter... but I make up for it by living with my folks.
  23. More detail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is not Seoul or the South Korean government that display those Christmas trees.

    They're 45% without religion and 23% Buddhist.

    Those Christmas trees belong to Roman Catholics (~10%), who are allowed to have them - by the government.

    I wish people would also distinguish more between a) Country, b) Population, c) Government (even though some still believe b) is responsible for c)

    1. Re:More detail by sgbett · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wish more people could distinguish more between christmas and christianity ;)

      --
      Invaders must die
    2. Re:More detail by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      Who is responsible for Government if not the population?

    3. Re:More detail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " who are allowed to have them - by the government."

      Boy, I am sure glad we have governments that are generous enough to allow people to exercise their NATURAL RIGHTS.

    4. Re:More detail by skywire · · Score: 1

      Uh, the people who constitute the Government? The ones with their boots on the throats of the people?

      --
      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    5. Re:More detail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ones with their boots on the throats of the people?

      You make it sound like North and South Korea are same in that regard. Sweeping statements like that just sound idiotic.

    6. Re:More detail by PhrstBrn · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure Christmas was a Christian holiday before it became the Hallmark holiday it is known as today. Although a good number of Christians do still celebrate the original in it's original intention.

    7. Re:More detail by zmooc · · Score: 0

      Catholics? Really? Damn. Not too long ago, those hypocrites said the pagan christmas tree should not be in a christian home. The vatican has not put up a christmas tree until 1982. And now they are using it as a "weapon" and half the world considers the christmas tree to be a christian symbol. It Is Not! :P

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    8. Re:More detail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Erecting a giant metal Christmas "tree" inside a military zone along the border of a country that you're still at war with is a NATURAL RIGHT?

    9. Re:More detail by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      Although a good number of Christians do still celebrate the original in it's original intention.

      And that good number is 100%. Seriously, have you ever walked up to a Christian and told them the story of Christmas, and had them completely surprised because it's the first time they'd heard it?

    10. Re:More detail by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Moreover, it is not about religion. No one thinks their neighboring country has the best religion just because of a Christmas tree.

      It's about light. Look at the North Korean night sky. The North Koreans don't have much light at night, so that Christmas tree just became the brightest object around, even if you're standing in the middle of a North Korean city.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:More detail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      South Korea aren't particularly noted for having their boots on the throat of the people. Besides, it would seem odd for the government to force a subset of 10% of its people to decorate a tower for a religious festival not observed by 90% of the country just to wind up a borderline psychotic militaristic neighbour. What's their end game, annihilation?

    12. Re:More detail by sgbett · · Score: 1

      Heheh good point that! I'm not so sure all of the agnosto-atheists out there are entirely sure on the details though... did Jospeh and Mary get Turkey for dinner then?

      A strange irony that christmas has since been co-opted by the non-christian... what goes around ...

      --
      Invaders must die
    13. Re:More detail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure Christmas was a Christian holiday before it became the Hallmark holiday it is known as today. Although a good number of Christians do still celebrate the original in it's original intention.

      ...and I"m pretty sure it was a Pagan holiday prior to that.

    14. Re:More detail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'm pretty sure it was a pagan one before that. What's your point?

    15. Re:More detail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Christmas is a heathen celebration of the winter solstice. The Christian priests didn't want people celebrating outside church, so they made up an excuse to co-opt the celebration already in place. There is nothing Christian about Christmas beyond the name (in English). The Hallmark holiday is more original than anything to do with Jesus, so if you want to go with the original intention, go worship Thor and buy some presents.

    16. Re:More detail by skywire · · Score: 1

      heathen_01 made a sweeping claim: Who is responsible for Government if not the population, and I critiqued it. Before you call a comment idiotic, you might want to read the context.

      --
      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    17. Re:More detail by slater.jay · · Score: 1

      I know some missionaries in Russia. Russian Orthodox who can tell you the significance of Christmas and Easter beyond, "It's a religious holiday," are the exception rather than the rule.

    18. Re:More detail by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      I hate to tell you this, but the "government" is made up of "the people".

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    19. Re:More detail by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      Yea, I'm someone who celebrates Christmas in a purely secular fashion. Even though I don't believe the tenets of their faith, goodwill towards each other, the spirit of giving, and other concepts that go along with Christmas are just good things that warrant celebrating the holiday. It also makes the family gatherings with some of the more evangelical family members easier.

      And no, the irony in the name "Secular Christmas" isn't lost on me... :)

    20. Re:More detail by Macrat · · Score: 1

      Actually, the symbol of the evergreen tree for winter solstice worship existed before Christians.

    21. Re:More detail by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      I don't understand the AC either...

      I would assert that the people that constitute the government and the people are one and the same, not separate entities. If a new government really was a proirity for the people of any given country then the existing government would be swept away, foot on the throat or not.

    22. Re:More detail by SadButTrue · · Score: 2

      Actually no, like many modern traditions the actual origins are much more convoluted. A list like this, or several, usually make the rounds about this time of year. Fist time I had seen this particular one but they are all pretty much the same:

      http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm

      --
      grape - the GNU free, open source rape
    23. Re:More detail by Belial6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Saying that 'the "government" is made up of "the people" ' is a little like going to a rape trial and saying "it takes two to tango."

    24. Re:More detail by kevinNCSU · · Score: 5, Interesting

      More accurately Christmas is a Christian holiday originally timed to coincide and compete with a Pagan holiday which it pushed out though many of the pagan traditions ended up being incorporated by converted followers. There are lots of things Christian about Christmas such as the story, celebrating the birth of Jesus (even tho they don't believe it happened that time of year) ect, but many of the traditions such as the trees and candles are co-opted from Saturnalia.

    25. Re:More detail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure Christmas was a Pagan holiday before becoming usurped by the Church in an effort to convert people to their religion.

      A good number of Christians like to perpetuate the harm done to innocent people by insisting on ownership of the holiday.

    26. Re:More detail by Yobgod+Ababua · · Score: 0

      Actually, Christmas has always been a celebration of the birth of Christ. Full Stop.

      You are correct that they moved the *time* of Christmas to coincide with certain non-Christian religious celebrations, and then incorporated some of the trappings of those celebrations into the overall theme and process (in order to smooth the assimilation process), but that doesn't change the original intent. To say that "Christmas is a heathen celebration of the winter solstice" is either ignorant or uninformed.

      Besides, any occasion encouraging us to help each other through the long darkness is a good one.

      Merry Christmas!

    27. Re:More detail by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Not Thor. Go worship the rebirth of the sun.

    28. Re:More detail by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that the majority of things the majority of people associate with "Christmas" have nothing to do with Christianity?

    29. Re:More detail by Stizark · · Score: 5, Informative

      Look up the Celebration to Mithras, and Saturnalia. Christmas Trees were brought into the house and set up with baubles and lights to attract the faery and other kin folk so they'd have a nice warm place to reside during the bitter winter months. Candles and fires were lit as a symbolic gesture to entice the sun to return back to the world. December 25th was used because it coinsided with so many pagan traditions around that time-- but it was not the equinox. Christianity could not kill enough pagans to force people to cease their pagan rites. So they did what almost every conquering society did since the beginning of time-- they took in some traditions and made them theirs, and called it theirs, and after a couple generations people didn't know that they weren't. Usurping traditions and beliefs was very much easier when people didn't know how to read or write.

    30. Re:More detail by TWX · · Score: 0

      I'd even wager that the semianonymous old man in the cheery costume coming to give presents was a way of having one "god" show up to cheer up the children in the cold of winter.

      For many years after I had my Athiesm realization I didn't celebrate christmas at all. Then I realized that this retail push for Christmas is the perfect way to secularize the holiday away from religion, especially when the Christian religious component is almost completely ignored by the biggest decorators: retailers...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    31. Re:More detail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the Christians stole the best parts of it from pre-Christian religions like they did most of the other cool things about their religion. Happy Yule!

    32. Re:More detail by hitmark · · Score: 2

      Being Norwegian i am tempted to think of it as a partial recapture, as we still call it jul.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yule

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    33. Re:More detail by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      So it's not because N. Korea is trying to pick a fight?

    34. Re:More detail by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 1

      Modern Christmas trees were once a pagan symbol, to be fair, that was co-opted by the Catholic church in the 3rd century to combat the influence of pagan ritualism in feudal Roman societies of northwestern Europe.

      About 90% of the holiday from gift-giving to lit trees, to fires, singing carols, santa clause, mistletoe, cranberries, reindeer and just about every other thing you can think of about the holiday (INCLUDING the date), were all pagan symbols of the solstice celebration LONG before they were Christian symbols.

      So, the "original intention" is not what you, or most Americans, seem to think it is.

      Jesus was most likely born in the Autumn (most likely in September) by any anthropological accounts I've seen.

      What is the original intention again?

    35. Re:More detail by SiChemist · · Score: 1

      Besides, any occasion encouraging us to help each other through the long darkness is a good one.

      Even if it's a pagan celebration of the winter solstice?

    36. Re:More detail by hitmark · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much "pressure" said government are under from US representatives to allow those trees...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    37. Re:More detail by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      That sounds suspicious to me, given that the Russian word for Christmas quite literally describes what the holiday is about. Even less believable for Easter, because the traditional Orthodox greeting on the day to any person you meet is "Christ has risen", with the customary response "Truly he has risen" - and this is practiced by vast majority of Russians, even secular ones.

    38. Re:More detail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the Christians jacked the whole idea from pagans practicing winter solstice celebrations. Sorry, but your tree and a lot of all your other Christmas traditions are pagan in nature, the name is practically the only Christian part of it.

    39. Re:More detail by PRMan · · Score: 1

      It's not that they have "nothing" to do with Christianity. It's just that Christians see Christ being ever so slightly more removed from the celebration of Christmas every year.

      "Merry Christmas" becomes "Happy Holidays", Jesus becomes Santa, Songs about Jesus' birth are replaced with songs about Grandma getting run over by a reindeer. These things have LESS to do with Jesus than the things they replaced.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    40. Re:More detail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "that was co-opted by the Catholic church in the 3rd century..."

      Yes, and after a vote, they promoted the prophet Jesus to son of god.
      No pay raise was going with it though.

    41. Re:More detail by Muros · · Score: 1

      Besides, any occasion encouraging us to help each other through the long darkness is a good one.

      Even if it's a pagan celebration of the winter solstice?

      Who cares really. All the celebrations are about the same thing, the fact that the bad times will go away. The pre-christian celebration was about the solstice, after which the days would start getting longer and the winter would eventually go away. Christians celebrate the birth of their messiah, which is all about the good times coming. Athiests like me celebrate merely being able to stay at home and eat nice food with my family for a few days, a break from the winter drudgery of both leaving for work and coming home from work in the dark.

    42. Re:More detail by dargaud · · Score: 1

      , have you ever walked up to a Christian and told them the story of Christmas, and had them completely surprised because it's the first time they'd heard it?

      Yes, often. Let's see:

      • It took the date from all the midwinter celebration when the day start getting longer. Personally I wish they'd put it back on its proper date: dec 21st, but I don't mind.
      • It took many of its celebrations from roman Saturnalia.
      • It took some of its traditions from up north (the tree), when I don't believe Jesus has visited.
      • It's named after a guy who nobody (not even christians) believe was actually born on that day.
      • Its human symbol 'Santa' is a guy different from Christ, although he worked for him.
      • The costume of Santa (red and white) was invented by Coca-Cola advertisers.
      • What it stands for should more appropriately be called 'Giftmas'.

      So what are we left with that's really Christian ? The name and that's about it. That's why as an active atheist I don't have a problem celebrating Christmas.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    43. Re:More detail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christmas was a (several) non-Christian holiday before it became a Christian holiday before the Christians came to dominate Europe by force before religious freedom came to pass before it became the Hallmark holiday it's known as today.

    44. Re:More detail by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      This is a pseudocommunist dictatorship we're talking about, to them there's no difference between companies, religions and governments.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    45. Re:More detail by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I don't think the idea of Saint Nickolaus bringing gifts is a very old one. As a child I was taught that it's baby Jesus ("Christkind") bringing those gifts, Saint Nickolaus comes on the 6th which is his saints day.

      Of course these days they're trying to push nonsense like Halloween on us just so the costume industry can sell goods twice per year instead of only once when carnival rolls around.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    46. Re:More detail by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      "Merry Christmas" was never turned into "Happy Holidays". "Happy Holidays" is a substitute for "Merry Christmas and a happy New Year"

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    47. Re:More detail by KDR_11k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So basically NK is worried that their people might see "hey, they got electricity on the other side of the border!"

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    48. Re:More detail by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      So basically NK is worried that their people might see "hey, they got electricity on the other side of the border!"

      When you're telling your starving citizens that they've got it much better than the rest of the world - yeah, I can see why a brightly lit tree, whose only purpose is for decoration, would upset them.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    49. Re:More detail by BitwiseX · · Score: 1

      I often have this exact conversation with people, about the origin of Christmas, with one added point of thought: Makes you wonder who converted who..

    50. Re:More detail by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I'm agnostic, since I believe taking a position on something non-disprovable is pointless at best. I do, however, think that people shouldn't be worried about how other people celebrate. We happen to live in a country where the majority of people are Christian, and so that culture should be accepted. (The fact that Christmas was co-opted from winter solstice festivals to begin with is sort of irrelevant at this point in time.) Complaining about Christmas dominating the figurative landscape of holidays in the US is like going to Japan and complaining about Buddhist parks dominating the physical landscape. It's just part of the culture. Live and let live.

    51. Re:More detail by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Have you seen a calendar of saints? Just about every single day belongs to some saint or the other. It would be a miracle if pagans hadn't managed to hit one.

      Christmas is not based on a pagan holiday as is so often claimed, rather it's at the end of the (solar) year, a jolly good time for a party. Just like harvest time is, coming of spring is, etc. etc. Farmers are people too, they want to have fun now and then, some days are just better suited than others (although as I said, there was hardly a day that would go by that they would not attach at least some significance to.)

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    52. Re:More detail by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      > many of the traditions such as the trees and candles are co-opted from Saturnalia.

      The tree tradition appeared in 16th century Germany. If you think the tradition lived under ground for 1000+ years, you've been listening too much to neopagans. Candles are in general sensible to use in the darkest time of the year - though sure, the Romans invented them (or the first thing that was more candle than torch), and they did also use them in temples.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    53. Re:More detail by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > I'm pretty sure Christmas was a Christian holiday before ...

      How The Fuck is Christmas _Christian_ when it is mentioned BEFORE Jesus in the Old Testament???

      Jeremiah 10:1-4

      This is what the LORD says: "Do not learn the ways of the nations or be terrified by signs in the sky, though the nations are terrified by them. 3 For the customs of the peoples are worthless; they cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel. 4 They adorn it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so it will not totter.

    54. Re:More detail by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Actually, half the people who speak in this thread haven't a clue, and are just mindlessly parroting stuff promoted by BBC Horizon's predictably dubious seasonal shows, new age bestsellers, etc.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    55. Re:More detail by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      rather it's at the end of the (solar) year

      The "end of the year" is an arbitrary date defined by the calendar you use. The Sun held far more significance to ancient people than it does to a modern urbanite, the solstice and equinox dates were observed and celebrated not only for religious reasons but also to give the general population a practical cue when to do things such as plant and harvest crops, look for bird's eggs, fish for salmon, etc.

      There were no clocks and calendars to hang on the wall, instead they built structures such a stone henge and people gathered at these observatories on these special days, similar to the way modern humans gather around large clocks to celebrate new year's. These rituals have been going on for at least 10,000yrs and have been practised in one form or another by most, if not all, agricultural civilisations.

      But yes, it's also a good excuse to party.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    56. Re:More detail by soundguy · · Score: 1

      More accurately Christmas is a Christian holiday originally timed to coincide and compete with a Pagan holiday which it pushed out though many of the pagan traditions ended up being incorporated by converted followers. There are lots of things Christian about Christmas such as the story, celebrating the birth of Jesus (even tho they don't believe it happened that time of year) ect, but many of the traditions such as the trees and candles are co-opted from Saturnalia.

      ...and eggnog and mistletoe and yule logs and neighborhood caroling and gifts and feasting and getting drunk. With the exception of tacking on a slightly updated version of a MUCH older fairytale, the early christians did nothing but slap a cheap coat of paint on the annual celebration of a natural event (winter solstice) that already dated back tens of thousands of years.

      I prefer to celebrate Festivus and I have a LOT of grievances to air this year!

      --
      Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
    57. Re:More detail by Pooua · · Score: 1

      Saturnalia lasted more than one day, though how long depended on the era.
      When Julius Caesar created the Julian calendar in 46 BCE, he set December 25 as the Winter Solstice. Over time, differences between the Julian calendar and Earth's actual movements in space caused the Solstice to drift to December 16. In the 16th Century, the Catholic Pope reset the calendar, except for 3 days, making the Winter Solstice fall around December 22.

      --
      Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
    58. Re:More detail by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      Very interesting, thank you for pointing this out. I'll admit I had not before read into the origins of the Christmas tree and simply believed what I had heard about it coupled with what I knew about the protestants in England outlawing it for a time because they believed it to be of pagan origin which cemented it in my mind as fact. While I think the evidence still points to the chosen timing for Christmas being to compete with the pagan festival I thank you for pointing out that I was wrong about the tree being adopted because of this.

    59. Re:More detail by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      Well he did like to do secret gift giving while he was alive, I'm not sure I'd wager that Saint Nicholas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas) if very anonymous anymore ;)

    60. Re:More detail by Lunzo · · Score: 2

      A quick Wikipedia check says you're wrong. Christmas trees are a German/Latvian Christian tradition which started in the 15th or 16th Century.

      The article on Saturnalia doesn't even contain the word tree. Mithras doesn't have anything about decorating trees in the story.

      About the only thing that seems to be factual is December 25 being used for Christmas because people were celebrating then anyway.

    61. Re:More detail by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Don't trust anyone to tell you what's going on in the mind of the elite North Koreans, including don't trust me, but that's my take on it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    62. Re:More detail by gothzilla · · Score: 1

      Actually, they need to distinguish between a lit tree being "bad" because of religion, and a lit tree being "bad" because it let's the N. Koreans see what life is like with electricity.

    63. Re:More detail by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      The name Christmas is obviously Christian. The rest of it isn't (apart from the church stuff but that means nothing to me). Some still call it Yule.

      The original Santa was called Odin or Woden or whatever it is depending on the branch of the language you want to take. He had a white beard and flew on an eight legged horse in the middle of winter and gave kids gifts. He wore all green before Coca Cola marketing got to him. The Christmas tree, feasting, giving gifts and all of that stuff are pre Christian. In fact I think if you were to follow Christian teaching strictly you would definitely not be doing any traditional Christmas stuff because that would be observing a Pagan tradition and surely that's against the rules....

      Of course it's just another one of those Pagan things that got absorbed into Christian culture - like eggs and rabbits for the Northern Hemisphere Spring fertility festival. Or saying Lucifer was a fallen angel because the bringer of light was just a little to awesome for Jesus to compete with...

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    64. Re:More detail by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      A strange irony that christmas has since been co-opted by the non-christian... what goes around ...

      Given that the only part of "Christmas" that is observed by non Christians is the name, I find that an odd comment. Yule has been around a lot longer than Christmas. The cult of the zombie Jew has nothing to do with it as far as I'm concerned.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    65. Re:More detail by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      They celebrate Saturnalia? news to me.

    66. Re:More detail by will_die · · Score: 1

      Go do a little research almost everything you wrote is totally wrong.
      Area where Christmas was celebrated did not have those pagan traditions, those pagan traditions did not exist and so on.
      the only thing with a tradition is people repeating these falsehoods.

    67. Re:More detail by sgbett · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Christmas tree, Christmas pudding, Christmas Cake. The office Christmas Party. Father Christmas. Christmas decorations, Christmas Lights and most importantly Christmas Shopping!

      Fairly sure non of those things have anything to do with 'ickle baby jesus, but I would say they are all fairly traditional for those non-christians.

      We also have yule log, but the marketing department for the church really did a number on everything else, kind of backfired for them a bit though.

      --
      Invaders must die
    68. Re:More detail by Alan+R+Light · · Score: 1

      I've heard that verse claimed as a description of a Christmas tree before, but it is also a reasonable description of the making of an idol.

      How exactly does a craftsman shape a Christmas tree with a chisel?

    69. Re:More detail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah.

      Christianity is an ancient cult where the followers pretend to drink the blood and eat the flesh, of the Jesus Zombie.

      Christmas is a remembrance of when the Romans tricked the Christians, who will apparently believe anything, into observing their Zombie leaders birthday, on the same day as their pagan Winter Solstice. They celebrate with displays of crass consumerism, and gluttony.

      See?

    70. Re:More detail by slater.jay · · Score: 1

      I wasn't quite clear: the stories I've heard are that the knowledge of the stories is there, but knowledge of the theological significance isn't.

    71. Re:More detail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      take the apostrophe out of that last "it's" - - you don't want the contraction for "it is" and possessive pronouns don't have apostrophes. Words like ours, his, hers, yours show possession and the same with its (without the apostrophe0 The store appreciates ITS customers. The bird built ITS nest.

    72. Re:More detail by Yobgod+Ababua · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't ever say "a majority of things", particularly if you're a practising Christian.
      And if you're not, why do you even care? ;) Enjoy the holiday!!

    73. Re:More detail by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Santa Claus, AKA Saint Nicholas of Myra was a real person that gave out gifts.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus#Saint_Nicholas

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    74. Re:More detail by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that rape victims vote for their rapists?

      I'm thinking there's something wrong with your analogy.

    75. Re:More detail by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Claiming that getting to vote means your not getting abused is like saying that wearing a short skirt means you asked for it. Hint. it doesn't.

    76. Re:More detail by tyrus568 · · Score: 1

      .... he wasn't the only influence; there's also Woden. He was also was called "Old Nick."

      "Woden is thought to be the precursor of the English Father Christmas, or Father Winter, and the American Santa Claus.[39][40][41][42][43][44][45]"

  24. Towns all over the US get the same complaint by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    Every year I read one or more stories about how some dumbwit in some town is offended by any and/or everything the town does at this time of year. Lights, decorations, a blowup Santa, Star Wars parade... someone gets offended. Though this year at least one town told the person to gently sod off.

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    1. Re:Towns all over the US get the same complaint by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      I could support a phalanx formation of stormtroopers wearing santa hats in the "holiday parade". But if you try to slip lord Vader in as Santa, I'm calling the ACLU.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  25. Wouldn't be the first time... by arcctgx · · Score: 2

    As someone else already pointed out, DMZ is an extremely volatile place. This is not the first time when a tree is a source of tension. See the "axe murder incident": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe_murder_incident

  26. How sad indeed by lsolano · · Score: 1

    That a country threatens another with "unexpected consequences" just because a Christmas Lights.

     

    1. Re:How sad indeed by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      I don't know, some Christmas lights displays are pretty damn annoying, and can be seen from space during the daylight. I do think, though, that NK should instead be calling their HOA to deal with this instead.

  27. Christian Message by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    To bad a Christmas Tree has absolutely nothing to do with any Christian message (beyond a vague "evergreen-eternal life" connection). The standard Christian message would be best represented (if you only get one image) of a dual image with an old-testament sheep sacrifice beside a crucifix. If you're going for a specifically Christmas message, then a nativity scene. A couple of my atheist friends have Christmas trees up. Trees and lights are fairly secular.

  28. This would be funnier if it weren't so sad by wisebabo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm afraid that S. Korea (and the rest of the world) is between a rock and a hard place on how to del with this despot. I mean forget about the small chance of war between the Koreas; a conflict that while producing a very large number of civilian casualties would be over in a week or two with the modern S. Korea army aided by the U.S. quickly recovering from the initial bombardment and then demolishing the N. Korean army.

    No I'm talking about the millions who for two generations have led short stunted lives due to starvation and extreme poverty. They have been deprived of any contact with the outside world and have been controlled to an extent that makes 1984 seem like a liberal's paradise. It's really chilling to watch a documentary such as the one made when western doctors went in to provide free critical surgeries to the populace only to see the ones who lives they've saved turn around and condemn their saviors.

    One of the main reasons why I do not invest in China is because of their unbending support of N. Korea. Better (they think) to let millions of Koreans die than to let the Americans have an ally abutting them on their northern border. The other reasons include Tibet, Myanmar, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iran and basically all the non-democratic regimes in Africa who they prop up. I fully realize that the West is fully capable of rank hypocrisy but China doesn't even make a pretense of advancing the human condition.

    I don't know what to do more than anyone else. Let this horrendous half-century holocaust continue or wage a war which would result on hundreds of thousands of casualties. I think the only way to decide on a firm course of action would be for S. Korea to have a national referendum as to whether or not to save the people who are literally their brothers. This makes planning surprise attack rather difficult though.

    (Is "funnier" a legitimate word or not? I'm afraid I'm not a decider).

    1. Re:This would be funnier if it weren't so sad by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      ... over in a week or two with the modern S. Korea army aided by the U.S. quickly recovering from the initial bombardment and then demolishing the N. Korean army.

      N.Korea is a nuclear power with a nutcase in control of The Button. The US won't go NEAR that one.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:This would be funnier if it weren't so sad by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      China has not liked NK ever since they followed the Soviets instead of Grandpa Mao 45 years ago, also most Chinese know that NK is run by silly men who let their people starve rather than cooperate with either of their neighbours. But China has had a lot of brave men who fought and died to defend NK, many who's family and friends hold onto their memories. China does not support NK government, but while the families of these men live, it can never tell the South that it can cross the 38th parallel and throw their sacrifices away.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    3. Re:This would be funnier if it weren't so sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have been deprived of any contact with the outside world and have been controlled to an extent that makes 1984 seem like a liberal's paradise.

      People always get this mixed up. 1984 is a liberal's paradise. The Nanny State on steroids. Nobody has to worry about offending their neighbor by working harder and getting more for doing so. Nobody has to worry about anyone using the wrong words to describe other people. Cultural ideas and economic matters are all managed by a core of professional we-know-better-than-you-ever-could-now-please-go-back-to-the-work-we've-assigned-you types. This is exactly what people who want more government involvment in the economy and personal lives, work, consumption, and production have in mind. Central authority. Not sure why people mistake the targets of Orwell's sharpened quill.

      You're absolutely right, though, about the deeply disturbing way it's played out (vis a vis things like the documentary you described - really almost unbelievable, as you say). But remember that the people who - having just been treated by a western doctor - curse the people helping them, are doing so in the presence of their truly brutal government minders.

       

      Better (they think) to let millions of Koreans die than to let the Americans have an ally abutting them on their northern border.

      I think it's less complicated than that. Sure, they'd rather not have what amounts to Japan or South Korean physically touching their border. But mostly they don't want to be seen admitting that a communist state is, once again, a miserable failure. They're busy reinventing their own going-nowhere economy as a stealth psuedo-capitalist form, so they know the truth of it. But cutting off NK would be coming right out and saying that a directed communist state isn't viable.

      What's going to fix it is an economic contraction in China. Which is inevitable, of course. They won't be able to afford to keep a surly pit bull of a pet like NK, and will have to set it free. And handful of people in that country who aren't starving might finally pull the trigger on their ghastly creep-in-chief.

    4. Re:This would be funnier if it weren't so sad by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      U.S. quickly recovering from the initial bombardment and then demolishing the N. Korean army.

      No, not quite. NK has the fourth largest military in the world with 1.2 million active and 5 million in reserve. They have 8 conventional corps, 1 armored corps, 4 mechanized corps, 2 artillery corps, 1 capital defense command, 30 infantry divisions and 4 infantry brigades, 15 armored brigades, and 20 motorized/mechanized infantry brigades in their ground forces alone. Poor as the country may be, defenseless they are not.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    5. Re:This would be funnier if it weren't so sad by gtall · · Score: 1

      That might be some of it, but mostly I think it is because China thinks of N. Korea as a diversion for the U.S. and Japan. While those nutcases are jumping around like a squirrel after his third cup of coffee, the Chinese gov. looks downright civil.

    6. Re:This would be funnier if it weren't so sad by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      U.S. quickly recovering from the initial bombardment and then demolishing the N. Korean army.

      No, not quite. NK has the fourth largest military in the world with 1.2 million active and 5 million in reserve. They have 8 conventional corps, 1 armored corps, 4 mechanized corps, 2 artillery corps, 1 capital defense command, 30 infantry divisions and 4 infantry brigades, 15 armored brigades, and 20 motorized/mechanized infantry brigades in their ground forces alone. Poor as the country may be, defenseless they are not.

      While size has a quality all of it's own, Iraq proved that sheer numbers mean very little against modern technology.

      While it would not be pretty, I'd bet on the ROK Army and Marines in a landslide. While they may be numerically 1/2 the size of the PRK, their equipment, training, ability and motivation is much better. Couple that with limited maneuver terrain from which to launch and assault, the ability to identify warnings that mean the PRK is preparing an assault, and modern remote guided weaponry and you have the makings of a slaughter after an initial breakthrough.

      My guess is they the PRK leaders are happy to talk big but enjoy the comforts of absolute rule to much to do anything that threatens it.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    7. Re:This would be funnier if it weren't so sad by cyfer2000 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... no wonder they got no food. Every one is in the military, no one is left to grow stuff.

      --
      There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    8. Re:This would be funnier if it weren't so sad by oodaloop · · Score: 1
      The big difference was the Iraqis gave up. If North Korea were invaded, North Koreans would fight for their leader to the death. They are fanatical, xenophobic, heavily armed, and intimately familiar with their terrain. The last time we fought there, we lost.

      Iraq proved that sheer numbers mean very little against modern technology.

      And yet, with all our technology, we are just now leaving after 8 years of horrific bloodshed. Don't count on technology.

      I work in the intelligence community, and every estimate says the same thing here. We would face an intense fight against a large dug-in motivated force that's been planning for 50 years. No one seriously thinks it would be a "landslide". If you have a source for this position other than your uniformed opinion, I'd be happy to hear it.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    9. Re:This would be funnier if it weren't so sad by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      The big difference was the Iraqis gave up. If North Korea were invaded, North Koreans would fight for their leader to the death. They are fanatical, xenophobic, heavily armed, and intimately familiar with their terrain. The last time we fought there, we lost.

      The original discussion was about a PRK innovation of the south, not an invasion of the PRK. In that case, they PRK Army would be moving against a well trained Army, fighting on their land, on terrain that would tend to negate size because of it's ruggedness. In addition, PRK would be fighting at the end of their supply lines and logistics train.

      Well, we lost once the Chinese came across the border, and it's a point of debate that had we stopped earlier they may not have entered. We failed on the geopolitical front on that one. We got caught by surprise with a largely unprepared Army, something that should not happen again.

      Iraq proved that sheer numbers mean very little against modern technology.

      And yet, with all our technology, we are just now leaving after 8 years of horrific bloodshed. Don't count on technology.

      True, but I'm not talking about hanging around for nation building, I'm wondering what the first six months of the war may look like.

      As for the iraqi's giving up - I'm not surprised after seeing some of the things our weaponry did - before we invaded.

      I work in the intelligence community, and every estimate says the same thing here. We would face an intense fight against a large dug-in motivated force that's been planning for 50 years. No one seriously thinks it would be a "landslide". If you have a source for this position other than your uniformed opinion, I'd be happy to hear it.

      Which is why invading is a non-starter - on that we agree. A defensive war is much easier than an offensive one, and that is what ROK would be fighting if the PRK invaded. Would we move north? Probably, but that would only make sense once you've pretty much taken out much of their command and control and offensive capability. Even then, invading them would not be easy.

      As for "landslide" in which we'd give initial ground but essentially destroy an invading force in a counter attack - which is what I think would happen if the PRK decided to invade like they seem to always threaten - that's based on work with the 8th Army; as well as others. It's no longer all that current; but, and this is opinion, our relative superiority in technology should still be there (or better) and just as capable if the PRK would decide to invade.

      To me, the real question is how well trained is the PRK soldier so he can fight once the command and control structure is gone - or can PRK maintain it through very low tech means, while fighting a war in unfamiliar terrain.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    10. Re:This would be funnier if it weren't so sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid that S. Korea (and the rest of the world) is between a rock and a hard place on how to del with this despot. I mean forget about the small chance of war between the Koreas; a conflict that while producing a very large number of civilian casualties would be over in a week or two with the modern S. Korea army aided by the U.S.

      "large number of civilian casualties" is an understatement.

      Seoul (S. Korea's capital), is whithin range of artillery fire of N.Korea. Seoul holds more than 1/3rd of S.Korea's population, and most of its industry/government/etc.

      The conflict would be over a week or so, surely, but the country we know as S.Korea would be devastated beyond repair for generations. The situation is more like a thug with a weapon pointed at a hostage's head.

    11. Re:This would be funnier if it weren't so sad by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      ... over in a week or two with the modern S. Korea army aided by the U.S. quickly recovering from the initial bombardment and then demolishing the N. Korean army.

      N.Korea is a nuclear power with a nutcase in control of The Button. The US won't go NEAR that one.

      It would be like trying to push the positive poles of two magnets together. Especially if Newt Gingrich gets to live at 1600 Pa. Ave.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  29. The power of the faith by Hentes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's amazing how even the most oppressive dictator is afraid of a simple Christmas tree.

    1. Re:The power of the faith by cyfer2000 · · Score: 1

      Grinch...

      --
      There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
  30. My neighbors by Sez+Zero · · Score: 4, Funny

    Christmas just barfed all over my neighbor's front yard. I run my house like a dictator. Too bad I don't have a proto-nuclear arsenal to threaten them with.

  31. Not just countries by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    NK has a lot of personal support from Japan, lots of people there admire the "self-reliance" of the NK doctrine and donate large sums of money to the regime.

    Revolution needs a seed and that seed can be bred out of a population. See former USSR countries where people embrace the free market by patiently waiting for the state to sort it out. Nobody who has not been in a concentration camp or decades in prison can possible truly comprehend what it must be like in that hell hole. Even reports from East Germany pale in comparison.

    But what can you do? People are starving. Withholding aid (without killing of all smugglers and sympathizers) will mean only the rich get enough. And if thousands starve before a revolution is sparked? Then the reduction in the surplus population (Dickens) will mean that starvation sorts itself out.

    Remember, that all the NK people who are in the middle, who watched people die fear what the revolution will do to them as much as the leadership.

    Any NK soldier who knows what revolution means, will fear his own neck. As will his family who have benefited from the bonuses his service bought.

    Divide and conquer at its worsted.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Not just countries by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      This is why the U.S. shouldn't've dumped all those Liberator pistols over into Pacific Ocean when Japan surrendered --- should've kept them around as a threat to despotic regimes --- if you don't behave, we'll airdrop these onto all of your population centers.

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    2. Re:Not just countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "NK has a lot of personal support from Japan" - from who? Are you crazy? I am sorry, but I am a Japanese in Japan, and nobody I know thinks of NK as anything other than crazy. It's true that we have a lot of 2nd Korean Japanese, here, and some of them were from what is now North Korea, so there may be contact that way, though.

    3. Re:Not just countries by martrootamm · · Score: 1

      See former USSR countries where people embrace the free market by patiently waiting for the state to sort it out.

      Putting this claim on North Koreans is off, because they have lots working against them.

      The thing is that we (I'm from Estonia) didn't have hunger (as opposed to North Korea's March of Tribulation in mid-1990's) and there were many factors set in our favour to restore independence, including consensus throughout the nation and knowledge (we could see Finnish tv :) that change was for the better. Twenty years ago we Estonians did not patiently wait for the state to sort it out for us and our efforts paid off.

      There are many things in North Korea that puts these people in a worse situation.

      Very many people there (if not most) still think that things outside the country really are like they are being told by their rulers. Those that think things are better in other countries might only think that "food distribution is a little better there," meaning that "food distribution" in the U.S. works under the same principles as it does in North Korea.

      People there are prohibited to do trade, neither are they allowed to leave their home areas without permission. Those caught are imprisoned and put into re-education camps with all their families, or shot. I can't tell which are the luckier ones in those cases. The common people don't have any widespread means of transport to move crowds. And even if they did, there would be problem with getting to fuel these vehicles. And I don't mean the military. Communications are really poor and electricity is off very often, if not most of the time. Lighting is off at night, except the lone beams shining at the gargantuan statue of the regime founder in the middle of some city. Television and radio sets are hardwired to only receive one channel. A 'Western' gadget, like an MP3 player or even a VCR costs the amount of six months' salary (if not more) on the black market.

      wrt the former USSR, OTOH, there are countries that formerly were parts of it and which are still post-Soviet, with many of them being dictatorial (Turkmenistan and Belarus) and authoritarian. Turkmenistan even has (or had) is own cult of personality, which seems to have been drawn down somewhat.

      Some of them do better (based on information off the top of my head). In terms of democracy in post-Soviet countries in Europe or closer to it, Georgia looks like the best of the bunch and can now be called formerly Soviet or even better for many years now, despite loss of territory. Maybe something that Estonia was like 20 or even 15 years ago, so they have lots of work cut out for them. Moldova is in transition (they have disputed territory), so is Georgia's landlocked neighbour Armenia, which has to tip-toe on a diplomatic and strategic tightrope between Georgia, Russia, Azerbaijan, Iran and Turkey. If Armenia really prospers in all counts (including democracy), then it could be like the Switzerland of the Caucasus (and Georgia, if its old territories reunite with it, like the Benelux). Ukraine somehow wobbles in these countries' direction, and is so a hit and miss, depending on who is at the top there, because half the country leans to the West and the other to the East (Russia), but it's not exactly like the Russia we have known for the last decade. Belarus is one of the worst; really the last dictatorship in Europe.

      But what can you do? People are starving.

      Which is why they are not in any position to protest. At least 10% of all people snitch, grass, and rat on one another and on the other 90% for a living. The population is also far too dispersed (which was the main reason for conclusions in a recent study about why is there not much chance for North Koreans to protest and gather in large amounts).

      The Libyan uprising began with protests about growing prices for food and water, and the Arab Spring began because a young man in Tunisia wasn't allowed to trade just to

  32. Hello by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you mean "Hello"? Provocative ******!

  33. Good luck with that. by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 2

    I tried that with my neighbors too, and it didn't work.
    If it helps North Korea, I can point you to a store that has pretty good curtains!

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
  34. They obviously celebrate Festivus... by Reformed+Lurker · · Score: 1

    ...and this is just the airing of grievances.

  35. Re:Here we go again by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

    If the people really wanted a new government then a few guns wouldn't stop them. The people with the guns are part of the people, not a separate entity.

  36. Actual precedent to xmas tree warfare by ddxexex · · Score: 1

    It was used against rebels in Colombia. And it worked (well somewhat). Suprisingly, North Korea is scared for a valid reason.

    And the trees were equipped with motion sensors so when rebels walked by it would... light up.

    link here

  37. It really is propaganda by scorp1us · · Score: 1

    Anyone who has seen the "earth at night" and the part of North Korea will immediately know this is South Korea boasting that they have electricity at all hours of the night.

    Clearly North Korea is trying to keep their people in the dark about this, and are succeeding extremely well.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  38. a tree? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does worshipping an evergreen tree in midwinter spread Christianity?

  39. I actually know somebody who thinks this way by istartedi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I actually know somebody who thinks this way. They're not stupid. I think they're just ideologicly bent by hard-right elements in the Republican party. Note, I'm not painting the whole party with this brush. It's just that this element finds its home in the party, and once you start associating with people who think a certain way...

    We geeks are not immune to this (Emacs, Ruby, etc... are the only true ways and all other ways should be suppressed).

    It seems bloody obvious to a lot of us that if the US persued this course of action we would become the horror of the world, and a large portion of the world would unite to end the horror as it did with nazi Germany.

    If you are immersed in hard-right culture, it's a lot less obvious. See also, the Milgram experiment.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  40. i can sympathize w/ Kim Chen Il by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    A house in front my residence increases the sheer lumen amount every year. I feel like Kramer and Seinfeld after Kramer got a neon sign right in front of his apartment.

    North Koreans are used to darkness at night and those lights irritate them like halogen head lights of the BMW behind you in traffic.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:i can sympathize w/ Kim Chen Il by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      I couldn't care less about the creep in the BMW behind me. BMW's generally only have the two lights.

      It's the truck-worshipers who have a rack of nine lights above his truck, and another along the front bumper - all on high - that I find irritating.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  41. ah, t'ell with Nut Korea, then by swschrad · · Score: 1

    world's worst cranky neighbor. put up two trees with friggin lasers playing Christmas rock, and keep them up all night for days. screw 'em

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  42. Walt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mom: Walt, hit the retaliate button!
    [Walt searches for the button]
    Mom: Press any button! They all retaliate!

  43. Calculated Statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a calculated statement, try to think of it in terms of a positive message by NK in which they think many people will make their nation state attractive. The message makes sense ONLY in this context ...

  44. Suck it up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are well fed, happy, and productive (I'm typing this watching the letters appear on a SAMSUNG monitor, and its right beside another SAMSUNG monitor). People are happy, fed, educated, clothed, housed, and free to worship in a manner they wish. If none of that is allowed in the hermit kingdom, then change. I am willing to put up with the hermit kingdom being a pariah on the world, a boil on the Korean Peninsula. I'm even willing to put up with the idiotic (and I think Altzheimeric) ramblings of Kim Jong Ill (although I reserve the right to poke fun at the idiocy of those ramblings from time to time). But what I won't put up with is the spoil sport whineing about someone celebrating and having a good time. This is someone complaining about their neighbor (who has a big high fence and a lot of space between them), having a good time. Sorry, North Korea, but you 'uninvited' yourself from the party. You made your bed, and now you must lie in it. Years and years of bad decisions, indoctrination, stupid people telling others who know better what to do. China is making trillions every year. South Korea is making hundreds of billions every year. Both are genuinely highly successful and prosperous, and not just prosperous in some propaganda campaign, but genuinely prosperous. And sandwiched between them, North Korea. Dysfunctional. Poor. Starving. Unclothed. Uneducated. Badly under-performing in every metric of society. I have no doubts that people there must be heavily indoctrinated because 'natural logic' tells them that they society is dysfunctional. Psychological warfare? No. Its called prosperity and freedom.

  45. In a land of darkness comes lights from a far .., by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Real ! Just over some lights . Oh that's right they want to keep their people in the dark .

  46. North Korea has fake blackouts by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    North Korea has routine blackouts as well as air raids (fake or drill doesn't matter) 'caused' by the USA.
    BTW, some USA planes that crashed during the "Victorious Fatherland Liberation War" which didn't contain bombs but instead contained diseases which still are causing North Koreans to get sick to this day!

    Sometimes I think Fox News is run by former North Korean newsmen.

  47. Oblig Futurama by Whiternoise · · Score: 1

    Your mistletoe is no match for my TOW-missile!

  48. Eat nuclear death, Wales! by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    They'd probably nuke Wales or something.

    They had it coming.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  49. Aggressive schedule. by forkfail · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering if the South Koreans could have a 400 foot tall, illuminated Jesus holding giant baskets of bread and fishes, complete with arena rock concert level sound systems blasting Handel's Messiah 24 hours a day, in place by Christmas day.

    --
    Check your premises.
  50. Dose Of Their Own Medicine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they hit us with their psychological warfare, than we should fire back with the very worst psychological warfare we have: Blast the Michael Bolton Christmas CD back at 'em!

  51. Hohohoho by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    I gotta say this is a first....they are thinking of retaliating against the sight of a christmas tree......by......having their own christmas tree....but the lights will be hanging upside down????
    They surely would not start a war over a tree....would they?

  52. yea! Re:Someone call Bill O'Reilly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This!
    I laugh when religion gets blamed for wars - - like cave man wasn't killing their neighbors in the beginning.

    Why do folks think people need "religion" for a reson to kill

  53. Annex! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FGS, can South Korea just hurry up and annex North Korea. The Chinese would bluster and carrry on but actually do nothing: Korea as an enemy would seriously set them back but as an ally would be extremely useful. We are all sick of putting up with the North's dinosaur idiot-run regime.

  54. yes, but... by Tom · · Score: 1

    Yes, they are paranoid tyrants. However, you should definitely read the whole story, preferably from several news sources.

    Those trees were put in place specifically a) right at the border and b) so that they could be seen from North Korea. The claim of it being intentional propaganda is certainly right on the mark. Whether or not it's "good" or "bad" is a question of perspective more than anything else.

    Also, South Korea already stopped these christmas displays as part of the peace talks, and only resumed them last year after the peace talks went cold. Does that sound like a bit of revenge and kindergarden behaviour to you or not?

    And while you probably don't see what's so bad about a couple christmas trees, ask yourself if you've had people in your country complain about a mosque or other religious building by some non-majority religion that people have prejudices against. I know I remember cases.

    So, really, those paranoid tyrannic north koreans aren't all that different from people living not far from you.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:yes, but... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      My neighbors can complain all they want about the buildings that I build which are legal and to code. Regardless of their religious convictions, if my buildings are legal and to code, the government will not ask me to remove them. I don't see this situation any differently. Even if it's related to aborted peace talks. Sure, people who think mythologically can and will kill you and your family and destroy your property, so it is worth considering doing what your neighbors ask even if you're well within your legal rights.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    2. Re:yes, but... by Tom · · Score: 1

      It is an entirely different situation. You and your neighbour are within the same country. The system regulating both of you is the legal system - the same laws apply to both of you. North and South Korea are two different countries with different laws. The system regulating both of them is diplomatic exchanges, not laws.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    3. Re:yes, but... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I remember when the US asked Toronto to tear down the CN tower. Apparently all the new-yorkers were feeling inadequate. Even threatened to start a war over it. Luckily the Canadian government was reasonable, and made the tower shorter to avert a war.

  55. Papacy vs Jeremiah 11 (Jeremany, Jeru, Jeries) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeremiah chapter 11 is a brief read that seams to align well with the entire book of Revelation as to how foreign culture has become mistrusted into the verry destruction of the planet.

    Also take a look at comparing King Herod's holiday of dipping the fertile chicken eggs into the blood of sacrificed virgin babies as being Easter whereas the Chryst's observance of The Passover angel occured a week before the pagan Easter.

    Likewise, Chryst is pagan, being before his time and after, found under a log or beneath a stone just as he said and writ to his disciplined kin.

    What more should be concerned of all the comparisons is that Judah is not a jewish tribe, as is how jews often claim Apostle Paul to be Jewish yet is written he is of the Tribe of Benjamin; and thereby is proof that Jews never had anything to do with Judah to begin with but just another religion of the Synagogue of Shatan astroturfing all over Jacob (Israel) and Isaac heritages that were likely bought from the liquidated assets of a widow or an estate sale a couple millenia ago. I distrinctly remember reading about Chryst being maliciously murdered by the Jews while still being the sacrificial Lamb and according to Hebrew Torah there were supposedly two other sacrifices in towe that none referenced proper as the Ewe and Ram. Where are the Ewe and Ram sacrifices?

  56. Kill them now or later? by Zxeses · · Score: 1

    Since its clear they want to create a state of War with just about everyone who disagrees with them, can we take a few measures to stop them before they Pearl-Harbor us?

  57. Bah!!! by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

    (Sarcasm on) Next thing you'll tell me is that the majority of things people associate with Easter, like eggs and bunnies, has nothing to do with Christianity too (Sarcasm off)

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
    1. Re:Bah!!! by Yobgod+Ababua · · Score: 1

      Lambs and bunnies.

      Agnus dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.
      Agnus dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.
      Agnus dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, done nobis pacem.

    2. Re:Bah!!! by miserere+nobis · · Score: 1

      Where are these bunnies you speak of?

  58. at last it scans! by randomac · · Score: 1

    shouldn't this be from the you're-a-mean-one-mr.-KIM dept, since Kim _is_ the surname....

  59. uhm.. what the hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have christmas trees and christmas lights in Japan too. Very far people consider them christian or even religious at all. Given that that stuff supposedly originated from Pagans before the Christians stole it, I think people are thinking too much.

    Everyone likes Christmas, Christian or not, because it's festive and they get presents. Christmas trees and lights look nice and festive, so people implement those too. I don't think South Korea is trying to act like a missionary here.

  60. I'm with North Korea on this one by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    I fucking hate Christmas.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  61. if it were me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd put as many as possible up there, but put a bit of C4 and det-cord around em, see what happens.

  62. ...lol... by iUseMyBrain · · Score: 1

    Seeing how Christmas lights have nothing to do with Christianity, this is hilarious.

  63. Communism & corrupt "Xmas" spread by Jews. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just remember that both the corruptions overshadowing the true meaning of Christmas and the nature of Communism is both spread by Jews. For Kim Jong to express any kind of hatered towards the Menorah is contrary to his training, yet for anyone to accept a Christmas tree and defend it from Communist slurs is only a strawman trap. Few actual Christians realize that the Christmas tree is a ploy created by atheistic Jews to defend something that isn't Christian. You can almost even consider that the Christmas tree is an implement of voodoo ritual to harm Christians. Just read Jeremiah 10 and that's not even religion talking.

    Communism was started by Jews durring the suppression of Russia where they groomed Mao Tse Dung in a Freemason lodge to enter China where he was noted of having killed over 100 million non-communist and non-political Chinese in order to establish the Communist-run Republic of China. You all must wonder how such a turn of event could arrive Chinese of all denominations and races alike to reach such a dispicable end to their dynasties and empire where was once begun by the noble Emperor Yan whom was known as a sacrifice himself in enriching the lives of Chinese health by being always the first volunteer to try medical and herbal remedies because of his pale skin exhibitted more detail on the effects to his body.

    Korea as a whole was founded by Emperor Yan as one of the most culturally rich and beautiful blooming country and peoples with a pristine language and cherished landscape. Truly sad, but memories can live again, but few realize that the United States is as much of a vile presence in the area as is the Communists.