unworthyservant

You can tell a lot about a person by the books they read is a paraphrase of a quote from Joseph Patrick Pascale. (He said "the books they carry"). So, I want to look at the books our leaders are or have been known to read or promote. Let's start at the top, with President Donald Trump. First, I don't have any knowledge whether he actually read the book itself or not but his early church upbringing was with his father at the Collegiate Marble Church in NYC. For those unfamiliar with the Collegiate Marble Church, it is one of the oldest continuous Protestant congregations in the country, having been established in 1628. It is affiliated with two distinct "Reformed" denominations, the United Church of Christ and the Reformed Church in America. At the time Mr. Trump was attending there it was led by Norman Vincent Peale, author of the book, "The Power of Positive Thinking". The book teaches techniques of affirmation and visualizations i.e. positive thinking to make one successful. These techniques include repeating "If God be for us, who can be against us" and “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me” ten times every day. It also says one must believe that "you receive power from God" to accomplish anything, even if that endeavor is a secular in nature. He also admonishes readers to "always believe in success and not to believe in defeat because most obstacles are mental in character”. He teaches to never admit you are wrong as that is negative thinking. He touts a version of "Fake it til you make it" philosophy. He teaches that we must always claim that everything we do is successful, even if there is evidence to the contrary. He says that if we repeat that we are the best or the greatest often enough, even when we are not, it will come to pass. He teaches never to admit defeat. In 1955, Psychiatrist R. C. Murphy compared Dr. Peale's message to hypnosis techniques. Murphy explains that such repeated hypnosis defeats an individual's sense of reality and ability to think critically. He called Dr. Peale's theories a dangerous form of self-hypnosis, which since it is based on repeating things that aren't true at the time, can do more harm than good. R. C. Murphy writes that Peale's teachings “endorse the cruelties which men commit against each other” which encourages readers to “give up their moral strivings and feel free to hate as much as they like”. Psychologist Martin Seligman, also condemned Peale's methods in his book, "Authentic Happiness". There he wrote; " Dr. Peale's positive thinking often involves trying to make people believe upbeat statements in the absence of evidence, or even in the face of contrary evidence." Any of this sound familiar? Next let's turn to the book that Ivana Trump told her lawyer, Michael Kennedy that Trump "kept in a cabinet by his bed and read at night." That is a book of Hitler’s collected speeches, My New Order. The subject came up again when Trump began repeating certain Nazi or fascist rhetoric during his campaign. One of these Hitler speeches spoke of Jews "polluting the blood" of Germans, a reference Trump made of immigrants to the US. Trump's deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security, Steven Miller said, "America is for Americans only". (I don't think he was referring to "First Nations Americans, either). This is a variation of a quote from a 1939 Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden, where the speaker promised that the Nazis would "restore America to the true Americans." Both Hitler and Mussolini said in many speeches that Nazi's were going to "make Germany and Italy great again". They also coined the term "drain the swamp" and it was used in many of Hitler's speeches. Hitler spoke of eliminating the "vermin" Jews. Trump said he would eliminate "the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country,". When the media made note of these comparisons Trump's campaign spokesman, Steven Cheung, said of those making the comparisons, "their entire existence will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White House.” When called out by the media for his remarks, Cheung doubled down and said, "I should have said their sad miserable existence". It seems that Mr. Trump has embodied much of the things found in these two books. I don't want to speculate how much of this is a conscience decision on his part or not. I can only say that he continually uses phrases and techniques of both Fascists and Dr. Peale, both books he has been exposed to. Now let's take a brief look at the Vice President, J.D. Vance. He has endorsed a book called "Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions (and How to Crush Them). It is by Jack Posobiec, a well known right wing media personality along with ghost writer, Joshua Lisec. It says in part “For as long as there have been beauty and truth, love and life, there have also been the ugly liars who hate and kill. these “people of anti-civilization” have always gone by different names: communists, socialists, leftists, and progressives. They should be called unhumans. With power, unhumans undo civilization itself. They undo order. They undo the basic bonds of society that make communities and nations possible. They destroy the human rights of life, liberty, and property—and undo their own humanity in the process by fully embracing nihilism, cynicism, and envy. They rob and kill. They don’t believe what they say. They don’t care about winning debates. They don’t even want equality. They just want an excuse to destroy everything. They want an excuse to destroy you. On a base level, unhumans seek the death of the successful and the desecration of the beautiful.They simply hate those who are good-looking and successful.” He also says "“Our study of history has brought us to this conclusion: Democracy has never worked to protect innocents from the unhumans. It is time to stop playing by rules! They won’t!” So, is this the kind of rhetoric or attitude about those who happen to disagree with your political opinions that we want from our leaders? That question is still up for debate!

As I thought. You have no answers, just more talking around the point. I'm tiring of all this talking in circles and I don't really care what your credentials are. Since you quote no credible sources for your assertions, I simply figured that maybe you were an expert on the subject. Looks like that was a foolish assumption. At any rate, since you refuse (or are unable to) give a straight answer, I'm bored with all the other nonsense and will no longer be playing your game of cat and mouse. I'm reminded of a couple of old sayings. First, the Jonathan Swift quote, "There are none so blind as those who will not see.". Then there's the old adage that says "them that knows, knows and them that don't know most often don't know they don't know". At any rate, I'll no longer be discussing your expert opinions (as I have only your word that you are learned enough to be an expert) unless you wish to provide credible evidence from unimpeachable sources for them.

As I've already said, I've read and researched the EO quite extensively and I don't see the Constitutional violations to which you refer. Since you obviously see something that I (and many constitutional scholars) don't, please enlighten me. Exactly what are the Constitutional violations to which you refer, that are so clearly outlined in the EO? And I don't see my biases as I attempt to always look at every issue individually and research to find the truth regardless of which political ideology the parties involved espouse. So, please elaborate, as to what biases you refer. I am biased only to the truth in any matter. And BTW, you forgot your credentials.

So, now you are drawing a distinction between reviewing and evaluating and investigating. What is an investigation if not a review and evaluation of criminal activity? And what exactly are the Constitutional violations into which they are looking? You could simply post them here for everyone to see.

I'm familiar with Mark and Mollie Hemingway and their views. Are you suggesting that she has uncovered and/or published unimpeachable evidence that more "mentally-deficient patients in Wisconsin nursing homes" who "were incapable of speaking or writing," cast ballots in the 2020 election? (That is the subject of my post) Or are you just throwing up a smoke screen to avoid the actual facts? I've looked and can find nowhere that she has even mentioned the subject. I have no doubt that you consider any news outlet that doesn't support the "Big Steal" conspiracy to be leftist and thus incapable of truthful journalism. So, instead of a summary of Mrs Hemingway's book, can you provide empirical evidence that supports the notion that "thousands of mentally deficient patients in Wisconsin nursing homes voted illegally in the 2020 election? All the investigations I have seen say otherwise. If you have no evidence, what is the point of your post?

You asked where the Executive Order compels a criminal investigation. First, an Executive Order is, as it's name implies, an order and not a simple suggestion. You or I can make a suggestion to any government agency but it carries little if any weight. Only the President can issue an Executive Order because only the President can order a Federal Agency to do anything. In the quote above, this order "directs" both the Attorney General and the Secretary to start an investigation into Mr. Krebs activities. It is an order! It compels the Departments to comply. Show me where one reputable Constitutional scholar says otherwise. And if you are a Constitutional Scholar, please provide your credentials. Any more questions?

You quote from the NIV, NLV or perhaps the NASB? In the KJV it reads "14Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel." It's kinda ironic but the Berean Standard Bible translates "In the same way, the Lord has prescribed that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel." while the Berean Literal Bible says "So also, the Lord has prescribed to those proclaiming the gospel to live from the gospel." The actual Greek word that transliterates to "zen" is the word that is translated "live by" or "get their living by" or "make their living by". According to Strong's and about every Greek Lexicon the word actually is a primary verb meaning "to live". Also, the word here translated "commanded" in the Greek was transliterated "dietaxen". It really doesn't mean commanded but rather it's more like prescribed or instituted. It's from the roots, "dia" (to arrange) and "tasso" (completly). So, a literal translation would be something like, "The Lord has prescribed that they who preach (or proclaim) the Gospel should live by the Gospel". Thus the dilemma. What is meant by "live by the Gospel". As you have noted, given the context of Paul's remarks (even though he noted that he refused pay) some translations and commentaries have defined it as a Paul's endorsement of preachers receiving pay. In matters such as this I prefer to err on the side of a more literal translation and compare that with what Christ said instead of the commentaries of men. So, what did Christ actually say? In Matthew 10:7-10 we read "7And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. 8Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. 9Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, 10Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat." The basic same admonition is found in both Mark's and Luke's versions of the sending out of the 12 disciples. A couple of things of note. First, Christ prefaces the admonition about gold and silver with the command "Freely ye have received, freely give." That lends credence to the idea that when Christ said "Provide neither gold nor silver nor brass for your purses", He literally meant what He said. It is also of note that He added "Neither two coats, neither shoes nor yet staves". What's up with that? I've read in commentaries that the practice of the day was to carry two coats as in those days most travel was done on foot on dusty roads and footpaths so, it was customary to carry two coats so that when arriving at one's destination all dirty and dusty, one could simply put on the clean coat they were carrying so as to look presentable. So, it seems Christ was admonishing His disciples to go around dirty and dusty, perhaps to show humility. Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers puts it this way; "They were to have none of the reserved comforts of common travellers, no second staff in case the first should break, no second pair of shoes in which to rest the worn and weary feet." So, then there's the oft quoted "The workman is worthy of his meat". What exactly is meant by that. Barnes' Notes on the Bible says; "The workman is worthy of his meat - This implies that they were to expect a proper supply for their needs from the faithful". Christ never expected His disciples to starve or have no "place to lay their head" as he indicated was the case with Himself. He did seem to indicate it was acceptable if true believers fed and/or housed preachers. It was the idea of charging a fee or salary beyond what's needed to live the austere life that Christ Himself led and that He constantly taught. I put this question into the category of something I heard an old Baptist preacher say one time. It goes "If I'm wrong, so what? If you're (those who make money from the Gospel) are wrong, then what?" So, since Christ never told us TO take money for preaching the Gospel, I feel like that's the best route. But, if He really meant what He said, then what of those who ignored it and made money from the Gospel?

And to add to that, the only thing that ever drove Christ to an act of violence was when He drove the money changers and sellers from the Temple. What were these people doing that was so wrong? They were profiting from the worship of God. Just as the multitudes of modern "capitalistic" Christians who find ways to profit by selling everything from expensive Bibles to books, to pictures of some Renaissance era long haired, blond, blue eyed model that they call "Jesus", to crosses or crucifixes made of gold and every conceivable product they can market. Christ also admonished every single person whom He "ordained" to preach not to take any "silver or gold for they purse". Based on that I believe it's against the teachings of Christ for preachers or pastors to profit monetarily from preaching the Gospel.

This is true with the name of Jesus, who actually had an earthly name. Not so much for naming God. That is a whole other thing altogether.

I didn't state that anything was mandated as Christ never even referred to himself in the third person much less mandated what name he be known by. In the Aramaic he was Yeshua and was called Yeshua, the son of Mary, in one instance. This was an offhand reference to the fact that He was considered a bastard since He had no earthly father. At any rate, I'm OK with either name for Yeshua (Jesus), it's the naming of God that I find more problematic.

Again, an Executive Order is not simply a referral. It is considered a mandate by the courts. As I mentioned, I have read it several times. Please enlighten me to the wording that either lists an actual crime other than testifying truthfully about his expert research and the expert opinion he derived from it or that lists any other individuals. You keep saying read the EO but provide no facts. And that is a good thing unless all the above mentioned folks are "yes men" who for whatever reason will rubber stamp anything the President says or does. Again, you fail to answer the question. What crime other than disagreeing with the President is Mr. Krebs "reasonably" suspected of and if there is no other then what is the legitimate reason for ordering an investigation? Personally, this is just one of many reasons why Christ refused to involve Himself in politics of His day and why Christians should stay away from partisan political stands and simply seek the truth in all matters. What I did was mention an issue and solicit opinions and it's turned into a right vs. left debate instead of a right vs wrong one. Radical political views such as claiming an election was "stolen" or somehow compromised without any credible evidence are what is dividing everyone to the delight of Satan.

I've used this same argument for how men had to come up with a human pronounceable name for God and the transliterated Hebrew "YHVH" suddenly became "Jehovah". Without going into some protracted dissertation, this is another instance of complete misunderstanding of the Hebrew language and it's nuances as well as centuries of tradition. For what it's worth, I have always heard "Mashiach" literally translated as "Messiah". Six one way, half a dozen the other, I guess.

This has led many to a misunderstanding of the concept of the "ekklesia". Remember King James had a vested interest in keeping the crown in charge of church affairs and even continued Queen Elizabeth I royal decree that every citizen attend a minimum amount of "Anglican" services. During his rule, Catholic services were banned and Catholics were persecuted, leading to the "Gunpowder Plot" which was basically a plot by some radical Catholics to blow up the Parliament and kill the King James. They intended on replacing them with a Catholic government. With that backdrop, he was careful to make every possible reference to the "church", in his mind that being the only church. The Anglican church of which he was the de-facto head.

The prosperity Gospel!

First, reasonable suspicion is not a reason to launch a full scale investigation. Courts have ruled that reasonable suspicion is "a legal standard that allows law enforcement to briefly detain and question individuals if they have specific, articulatable facts that lead them to believe criminal activity is being conducted". So, again, what are the specific articulatable facts in this case that lead to the conclusion that criminal activity is being committed and exactly what is that "criminal activity"? Probable cause goes way beyond the ability to secure a warrant. Straight from the FBI.gov webpage, "Federal law enforcement agencies will investigate a crime only if there is probable cause to believe that a crime was committed that violated federal law." So, for what crime is Krebs being investigated? And BTW, the plain view or "exigent circumstance" doctrine in law is "a legal principle allowing law enforcement to conduct warrantless searches or seizures when immediate action is necessary to prevent harm, destruction of evidence, or other irreparable damage." So, first there were no warrantless searches or seizures in this case. And for that matter there was no further harm indicated, no allegation of intent to destroy and evidence (it's all public record anyway) and there is no specific reference to any other irreparable damage in the order. What others are mentioned in the executive order? I didn't see any. And what "reasonable suspicion" did it articulate? And what crimes did this reasonable suspicion indicate? You make off the cuff remarks with no documentation to back them. Please provide documentation for what you are saying. An EO is not simply a request or suggestion! It is, as the name implies, an "order". An order from the highest executive in the country. "Executive orders are issued by the President to direct federal agencies on how to implement policies, enforce laws, or reorganize the government. Agencies are expected to treat them as lawful and act accordingly, even if they disagree with the order." From the Princeton University Press, you can purchase "By Executive Order; Bureaucratic Management and the Limits of Presidential Power" by Andrew Rudalevige. I highly recommend it. In it Mr. Rudalevige examines over 500 executive orders spanning from the 1930s until modern times, He goes into great detail about the legal definition and the ramifications of executive orders. Very good! But the question still remains, where is the crime? What is the crime that's being investigated? You say it's articulated in the Executive Order. Please show me where it articulates anything other than that Mr. Krebs stated his expert opinion as a government employee in the case of election fraud. Yes, and thus the warrant requirements. The 4th amendment has also been defined in many court cases to limit investigation of a person without "probable cause". You keep playing with legal terminology without answering the question. Leave the legal wrangling to lawyers and judges. The question is simple. Unless you can show "probable cause" of some other crime which was committed, then the DOJ is under orders to investigate Mr. Krebs simply because he articulated his expert opinion on the election fraud claims. So, then back to the question you keep spinning around, should the President have the authority to have someone investigated just because their professional expert opinion did not agree with his unsupported narrative?

I didn't have any particular doctrine in mind when I wrote the post and there are way too many to list here. I believe that any doctrine of any church that is not consistent with the commandments of God and/or the teachings of Christ is "false doctrine". False doctrine is the teachings of men and men have had over 2000 years to compile them. They are way too numerous to list here. If you have a particular doctrine or list of doctrines that you are curious about, I'll gladly comment on them individually based on the above mentioned criteria.

It is not my opinion. I asked a question. I have read the Executive Order and even quoted a part of it in this thread. The only thing that it mentions is Kreb's statement that "there was no credible evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election and stated his expert opinion that it did not exist". Thus the question, should someone be investigated by the DOJ for a crime when all they did was state the evidence and his professional expert opinion on that evidence? And BTW, you are badly mistaken that the Constitution does not apply to the DOJ or the Executive Branch in general and thus they do not need probable cause to start an investigation. Hate to burst your bubble but the same Constitution that applies to us applies to them as well. Might I suggest that you reread the 4th Amendment and all the Supreme Court rulings that have followed reiterating that the Government is subject to the Constitution in matters such as this.

I believe that most of the preachers and teachers today are teaching false doctrine. There's way too many to list here. What I always do is research what they say to find out 1 thing and 1 thing only to determine if they are teaching God's word. First I compare what they say to the commandments of God and the teachings of Christ. If their teaching is not found there, then I research and find out where the teaching originated. Any teaching that is not found in the commandments of God or the teachings of Christ comes from a single source, man. Man may be motivated by a number of factors to teach something that is not of God but in the end it is undoubtedly Satan who puts these things in peoples minds in order to lead as many astray as possible. When the false teachings come from someone who can sound Biblical it is easier to fool someone who doesn't know the commandments of God and the teachings of Christ and takes the Biblical sounding person at their word. It's a shame, but even in the "church" you can't trust in what you are being told as the "Gospel Truth". That's why Paul admonished us, in 2 Timopthy 2:15-16 (KJV) "15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness." Hope that helps.

I've researched many sources on the subject. I will investigate any source you have that is backed by actual provable facts. Have you any in mind? You didn't answer the question. Allow me to repeat it. Should the DOJ be allowed to investigate someone just because they stated their opinion as a government appointed expert on the subject and that opinion didn't comport with the narrative pushed by the administration with no proof?

Boy, that's quite an analysis. I didn't argue anything. I simply asked the question. That said, how can you possibly argue that if the order is upheld it is a victory for Trump AND the Constitution, whereas if Krebs is vindicated it will be a victory for Krebs but not the Constitution. How is it that the constitution is validated or vindicated only if it agrees with Trump? Last time I checked even the President is subject to the Constitution and not the other way around.

Thanks for the lesson from the first chapter of the textbook from "Introduction to American Government". In Chapter 2 it will introduce the idea that we are really a Constitutional Democratic Republic. It is a mixed system, neither pure republic nor pure democracy. The term "constitutional republic' is the simpler condensed version. You'll also find that we are a "federation of States". I'm no constitutional scholar but I am familiar with the 1st Amendment and thus the question that you still haven't answered. That is, is there any legitimate constitutional argument for having someone investigated with no evidence of wrongdoing except that he gave his opinion as a government expert in his field, which includes election security, just because it doesn't fit the narrative of the administration?

That's all good and fine but the question wasn't about whataboutism! That's a game that leads one in a circle with no answers forthcoming. I could point to numerous instances on both sides where things were done that are questionable to say the least. And to what end? I guess that anyone who doesn't know that there is malfeasance on both sides will probably never learn. The old saying is "Them that knows, knows and them that don't know most often don't know that they don't know." The question isn't are there other instances where political leaders made questionable decisions. Once again, the question is; Is there a constitutional basis in the US to investigate a career federal employee who simply stated his expert opinion on a matter just because that opinion differed from the administration? Do you have an opinion on the question or do you want to play whataboutism? As for making allegations that he is somehow compromised when there has never been any question regarding his integrity is nothing but a low blow and certainly not a Christlike response or attitude.

I've heard all these allegations ad nauseam from the right. I can find no credible reporting to support them. Could you please provide such evidence? When you make claims with no credible evidence to back them, I can only assume they are political propaganda or disinformation. In the case of election fraud, I always say follow the money. A week after the 2020 election, Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick offered up to $1 million (paid from his campaign account) "“to incentivize, encourage and reward people to come forward and report voter fraud.” To this day, he has only had to pay out a total of $25,000 of that money as there was no proof of any voter fraud except one instance. That was Eric Frank, a poll worker, who received the money for his reporting Ralph Holloway Thurman, a Republican who after voting once for Trump, attempted to vote a second time as his son. That's it! If all this fraud existed, why hasn't anyone else reported it and received their portion of the $1 million? The Michael Gabelman claims about thousands of what you call "mentally-deficient patients in Wisconsin nursing homes" who "were incapable of speaking or writing," (claims even he never made) casting ballots have been dis-proven by fact checkers everywhere from Politifact to the AP. Even Mr. Gableman could only provide 7 people whom he interviewed and claimed were incompetent. Of these 5 were proven competent and the other 2 were deemed to have dementia a full year after the election. I know the Washington Times made a big deal of the original claims and Trump touted them as gospel truth but where's the evidence?

Could you provide properly documented evidence to support your assertions? For that matter, what is the "truthfulness of the laptop once being owned by Hunter Biden"? The Trump campaign touted that it contained evidence of wrongdoing or corruption on the part of his father as it concerned Ukraine and Hunter's involvement with Burisma. A joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees released in September 2020 and a Republican House Oversight Committee investigation released in April 2024 did not find wrongdoing by Joe Biden with regard to Ukraine and his son's business dealings there. Politifact wrote in June 2021 that the laptop did belong to Hunter Biden, but did not demonstrate wrongdoing by Joe Biden. If there was "election interference taken by Zuckerberg and Facebook", why haven't they been indicted? At any rate, the point which you seem to have missed is that the Post wasn't banned by Facebook while the Epoch Times was.

The Christian celebration of the day of Christ’s resurrection or “Easter” has been a staple of the Christian church since at least the second century. It was originally called “Pascha”, a transliteration of the Aramaic word for Passover, "Paskha”, reflecting the connection between the Jewish Passover and the Christian celebration of the Resurrection, which occurred during the Passover week. The first recorded use of the name “Easter” was in the 8th Century , when the noted scholar, the Venerable Bede, noted the change with the following explanation; “the Anglo-Saxon month corresponding to April was called "Eosturmonath", which was named after the goddess Eostre”. He wrote that “a pagan festival of spring in the name of the goddess has become assimilated into the Christian celebration of the resurrection of Christ”. Recent archaeological research appears to confirm the worship of Eostre in parts of England and Germany, with the hare as her main symbol. Thus Christians began calling the celebration of Christ’s resurrection “Easter” after her. It is of note that Anglo-Saxon pagans didn’t start converting to Christianity until sometime in the late 6th century. The conversion of King Æthelbert of Kent in 597, was one of the first major shifts in their beliefs as many of his constituents followed his lead and converted themselves. As they adopted Christianity, pagans brought with them remnants of their old beliefs. Some of these beliefs made it into mainstream Christianity with such things as the naming of “Easter”. Christians celebrate Easter with many church services. A recent study by “Lifeway Research” shows that over half of U.S. Protestant pastors identify Easter as the day their church has its highest attendance. That said, what is with all the other traditions and practices that surround the celebration? For instance the “Easter Bunny” is probably the most recognized of all the “Easter” traditions, but what does an egg laying bunny have to do with Christ’s resurrection? Every year Christians everywhere hide eggs or reasonable facsimiles thereof and tell their children that the Easter Bunny has left hidden eggs for them to find. I’ve checked and the Bible makes no mention of a long-eared furry creature with a little ball of fur for a tail that hides decorated eggs for children to hunt on Easter. So, how did this critter and his eggs become a part of the Christian celebration of “Easter”? As noted above, the hare was the main symbol associated with the goddess Eostre, after which “Easter” is named. The exact origins of the mythical furry egg laying mammal are unclear, but rabbits, known to be prolific procreators, are an ancient pagan symbol of fertility and new life. In 51 B.C.E., Julius Caesar noted that people in Britain did not eat hares due to their religious significance. Hares were given ritual burials alongside humans during the Neolithic age in Europe. Archaeologists have interpreted this as a religious ritual, with hares representing rebirth. In the classical Greek tradition, hares were sacred to Aphrodite, the goddess of love. Meanwhile, Aphrodite’s son Eros was often depicted carrying a hare as a symbol of unquenchable desire. During the Renaissance, hares often appear as symbols of sexuality in literature and art. For example, the Virgin Mary is often shown with a white hare or rabbit, symbolizing that she overcame sexual temptation. Early accounts of the “Easter” association with a hare or rabbit from the 1600s include the eating of hare meat on Christmas. The practice is most likely associated with the belief in scaring away witches at “Easter”, as this was a common practice at the time. Throughout northern Europe, folk traditions record a strong belief that witches would often take the form of a hare, usually for causing mischief such as stealing milk from neighbors’ cows.The spring equinox, with its promise of new life, was held symbolically in opposition to the life-draining activities of witches and winter. One tradition, known as the “Hare Pie Scramble,” was held at Hallaton, a village in Leicestershire, England. It involved eating a pie made with hare meat and people “scrambling” for a slice. In 1790, the local parson tried to stop the custom due to its pagan associations, but he was unsuccessful, and the custom continues in that village until this day. Most scholars agree that the modern version of the tradition began in the 1700s when German immigrants settled in Pennsylvania and transported their tradition of an egg-laying hare called “Osterhase” or “Oschter Haws.” Their children made nests in which this creature could lay its colored eggs. Soon, the fabled rabbit’s Easter morning deliveries expanded to include chocolate and other types of candy and gifts, while decorated baskets replaced nests. Now, let’s look at the egg itself and the historic symbolism. The egg was an ancient pagan symbol of new life and has been associated with pagan festivals celebrating the regeneration of spring for many centuries. This is believed to be the basis of the “Osterhase”, as the ritual was practiced around the spring equinox. The “Osterhase” and the practice of coloring the eggs dates to around the 13th Century according to many sources. And what about all that candy? Easter is the second best-selling candy holiday in America after Halloween. Among the most popular sweet treats associated with this day are chocolate eggs, which date back to early 19th-century Europe. Another egg-shaped candy, the jelly bean, became associated with Easter in the 1930s. And we can’t forget the chocolate bunnies. All totaled Americans spend around $3B on candy alone at Easter. This is another example of what happens when commercialism and consumerism become intertwined with religious holidays. It was the candy industry that convinced us that we needed their candy to celebrate the resurrection of Christ. They started with chocolate eggs, this led to egg shaped jelly beans, followed by chocolate rabbits and marshmallow bunnies called Peeps. Rodda Candy, the company that introduced Peeps in the 1940s also originally made marshmallow crosses, which of course are associated with Easter. They blatantly marketed their sweets to fit what were already symbols of Easter. So, now we celebrate the resurrection of Christ with all these trappings that have absolutely nothing to do with Christ or His resurrection, but are instead vestiges of ancient pagan beliefs that have been used to commercialize what should be the remembrance of a solemn and joyous occasion. Would Christ be happy to see His resurrection celebrated in this way? Would God approve? Or would God rather that we spent that $3B (that’s spent on candy alone and doesn’t include all the plastic eggs and baskets or the spring fashions purchased for the occasion) to help the poor? Since there are around 800,000 homeless people in America today that would come out to $3750 per homeless person. Just saying.