The “liberal war on Christmas” bullshit starts again
October 25, 2005
The usually good Media Matters for America has a nice piece pointing out that Fux News is starting to ramp up its “Stop the War on Christmas” campaign again this year: Fox renews war to save Christmas from the “loony left” and ACLU. A couple of excerpts:
On the October 20 edition of The O’Reilly Factor, Fox News re-launched its campaign to end what several of its hosts have referred to as liberals’ “war” on Christmas…. O’Reilly discussed the “war” with John Gibson, a fellow Fox News host and author of The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought…. “It’s the loony left, the Kool-Aid secular progressive ACLU America-haters. That’s who’s doing this.”… Before Christmas last year, Fox News devoted extensive coverage to a number of small incidents involving public holiday displays that didn’t specifically reference Christmas. O’Reilly and fellow Fox News host Sean Hannity led the campaign, which included a recurring segment on The O’Reilly Factor called “Christmas Under Siege.”
Which just reminds me of a “favorite” quote from Ann “Nazi Barbie” Coulter, on being in New York for December: “Oh, it was so much fun this year, because saying ‘Merry Christmas’ is like saying ‘Fuck you!’ I’ve said it to everyone. You know, cab drivers, passing people on the street, whatever.” Hey, she’s a horrible lying Nazi bitch, but give her points for saying outright what the assholes at Fux News really mean.
If you care, I commented a bit on all this last year, in Merry f-ing Xmas to you too (as well as something over at GifS, “Merry f-ing Xmas, part I“).
UPDATE: More good stuff on this from Media Matters in O’Reilly: “War” on Christmas part of “secular progressive agenda” that includes “legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage”
27 Responses to “The “liberal war on Christmas” bullshit starts again”
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Unless you’re a conservative in which a rose by any other name isn’t a rose anymore. Hence the need to “save Christmas” from those who recommend saying “happy holidays” out of respect for all religions, or the need to “save marriage” from those who want to see consenting adults who are in love (and happen to be the same gender) be allowed have “marriages” as opposed to “civil unions”.
Apparently the answer to “what’s in a name?” for some, is “everything”.
I wouldn’t worry too much about it. Anyone with half a brain can see this vehement arm waving for what it is: a distraction from the things we SHOULD be paying attention to, like the situation in Iraq, the Patriot Act, the gutting of environmental protections, and so forth.
By Anonymous on Oct 26, 2005
““Oh, it was so much fun this year, because saying ‘Merry Christmas’ is like saying ‘Fuck you!’ I’ve said it to everyone.”
What a grinch.
By gr on Nov 7, 2005
Just when I thought liberal idiocy couldn’t get any more absurdly holier-than-thou, I somehow stumbled onto your website. Wow. You might just take the cake. Your link to your previous story about Christmas says you have a five-year-old son whom you force to be the butt of jokes and ostracism only to flatter your own vanity. Some parent. I suppose it would be impolite to point out that sometimes you ought to put others ahead of yourself. Believe it or not, some people even think that deliberately and mercilessly mocking others, as you do throughout your site, is, in addition to being another display of your overweening ego, not the way you should treat others. But I suppose for a parent who finds nothing wrong in forcing his children to bear the unpleasant consequences of his own juvenile idiosyncracies, there’s no telling what he might do to complete strangers.
By julia on Nov 7, 2005
Wow. That’s one of the stupidest and most offensive comments I’ve read in a really long time. So trying to raise a kid who doesn’t celebrate Christmas is “forcing him to be the butt of jokes and ostracism only to flatter one’s own vanity”? Damning a lot of atheists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and God knows [so to speak] who else with that.
By John on Nov 7, 2005
There’s something to Julia’s post that John’s missing–there’s absolutely nothing about bringing up a child in a family that doesn’t celebrate Christmas that mandates teaching that child to take exception to friendly social gestures. As the atheist child of atheist parents, this looks to me like a very poorly chosen battle on Ron’s part. Not only is he teaching his children to make certain (often unwarranted) assumptions about the intent and background beliefs of certain social utterances, he’s teaching them a rather poor lesson in civics generally. As an atheist, should I object to being blessed when sneezing? Should I inform the Mennonites at the local bakery that I surely won’t have a blessed day?
One must rather wonder whether Ron has urged his children to be similarly open and honest to such passing phrases as “How are you?” People say these things mostly as a sign of courtesy and occasionally even warmth–especially to children. I’ve yet to see a good reason to punish people for trying (ceteris paribus) to be nice.
By Blinn on Nov 7, 2005
Ah, a link from Brian L, and it’s like being slashdotted. Lots of extra traffic, and in that mass, a few hostile commenters.
Not that it matters, but: Oz is a quite friendly kid, and responds mostly quite nicely to friendly conversation. (He’s, e.g., on a first name basis with a good half of the workers at the local supermarket.) I have no idea why anybody would think teaching Oz to say “We don’t celebrate Xmas” in response to “Are you looking forward to Santa/Xmas/presents/etc” is an indicator that we teach Oz to be unfriendly in any way. What else COULD he say to that?
I, on the other hand, am a hostile Xian-bashing bastard. But you knew that.
By ron on Nov 7, 2005
Hey, this post was just picked up and used at the atheism/agnosticism about.com site: “Christmas Wars: When Christians Attack” (http://atheism.about.com/b/a/217184.htm#more).
By John on Nov 11, 2005
Ron, just curious, are you upset with Fox News because they are reporting on a movement amongst certain individuals and groups to remove references to Christmas from the public arena or do you object to their reporting on this issue because no such thing is happening?
By Joe on Nov 13, 2005
None of the above: I object to their taking an obnoxious and marginal right-wing view (that there is a “liberal war on Xmas”, when what there really is is some bit of movement toward being a little less dismissive and exclusive of the non-Xian minority) and “reporting” on it as if it’s a fact that good people should be alarmed by.
Which is pretty much what they tend to do in general: “Report” right-wing rhetoric and its typically false presuppositions as if they are facts and news.
By ron on Nov 13, 2005
Ron, firstly, Fox reports on this issue in editorial formats. Its not being passed off as “news”. I dont think we want to start condemning newspapers for example, because they provide editorial opinions. I’d hate to see Maureen Dowd out of a job. Secondly, after you acknowledge that there is “some bit of a movement” regarding the issue, which is essentially all Fox is commenting on, you condemn them for presenting it “as if they are facts…”. You acknowledge the movement on one the hand, then and then condemn Fox for presenting it as fact. But, I think the issue for many who have taken an interest in this subject is this; what is driving this “bit of a movement”? Is it, as those on the left claim, simply a concern for minorities and an attempt at achieving a more inclusive society or is it driven by a group that, deep down, wishes that Christianity was non-existent? After skimming through this site, I suspect it is closer to the latter. I do wonder how you would respond to a Christian in a predominantly Muslim nation who says to you “Ron , all this Ramadan stuff at this time of year is overwhelming. I’m feeling marginalized.” Would you speak out on his/her behalf as you have done for minorites in the West, or is inclusiveness and human rights only for minority members here? As an advocate of minority rights, I am surprised how little attention you give on this site to minorities in some of the harshest and most oppressive countries on the globe. You insist on focusing on countries that are, for the most part, the most tolerant. If somebody from another planet were looking down on us, surely he would think “Why does Ron focus so little on the strife of minority members where they are suffering the most? Surely, politics is involved”. It would seem to me then, that this “bit of a movement” is less about minority rights and more about politics and a general loathing of Christianity. For this reason, Fox news is correct. People have a right to be concerned.
By Joe on Nov 13, 2005
I knew I shouldn’t have answered, and that if I did, I’d get some crappy rhetorical point in return. Ack. OK, a last point, then I’ll leave it alone.
Look, enough of the silly rhetoric. It’s not exclusively in editorials; I obviously don’t oppose editorializing when clearly noted as such (Media Matters is full of examples of Fox violating that) although I think some editoral content is objectionable; and “wondering” about my support of other religiously oppressed minorities is just slinging mud while trying to avoid getting your hands dirty. I could say how I support the rights of religious minorities other than atheists (which I do), but that doesn’t matter here, and suggesting otherwise is just rhetorical deflection. And as for “it’s worse elsewhere”: I live here; I think Saudi Arabia is worse, but (a) I don’t live there, and (b) they don’t even pretend to have a tradition of religious freedom and state neutrality. And speaking of kind of ridiculous rhetorical points, how about that worry about a “general loathing of Christianity”; a good 80% of the country is explicitly Christian, and much of the rest is pretty close.
I’m not, of course. But then, see the “hostile Xian-bashing bastard” point above.
By ron on Nov 13, 2005
what the flyin fuck is the matter whith you pepole just beacuse it has crist in the word christmas or it is celabrating Jesuse’s birth-day dosn’t mean you have to go out and bitch to the public for which side they should stand on well this is what i have to say SHUT THE FUCK UP if it bothers you that much then dont celebrate it or dont even do anything on that day beacuse the constatution was writen by Christen’s and whith out a dout they didn’t whant the country they fought so hard for to end up like this tangeld up shit. and here is anouther thing what about your great grand fathers, the ones who fought WW2, what would they say about what we all have beacome. America the greates nation in the intire world has turned aginst it-self. if you recall Osama Binladin said “We will defeat you by turning you aginst your self” and indead we have turned aginst our-selfs. so really what war should we be fightin the war on christmas or the one that is about to set thousand apon millions of pepole free of tyrany
if you whant to e-mail me it would be http://www.tommy_bear@hotmail.com
P.S. i am 13 years old and i have more common sence than the creater of this site. and Ron Blog if you whant to do somethin good whith your mouth then wrap it around your boyfreind’s dick
By THOMAS AKERS on Dec 8, 2005
From the (potty) mouth(s) of babe(s), so to speak. And that’s the kind of Xian love a 13-year-old in Amerikkka is taught.
I swear, I didn’t just make him up.
Really.
By ron on Dec 8, 2005
Item 1:
Kudos to Ron he seems like the only sane person here.
Item 2:
As a member of the non-christian minority of America(TM), I symapthize with the demand for an end to the persecution here and abroad. But why stop there? What about ethnic, political and cultural minorities? Saudi Arabia may have much worse problems with religous tolerance than the US, but so does India (a western-friendly democracy). Every nation in the history of the world except perhaps Tibet (which is gone and never coming back) has had atleast three or four groups they systematically oppress.
Item 3:
Thomas Akers, who the fuck do you think you are? The atrocious spelling and diction aside, your post seems to have only have five points:
Point 1: I am REALLY christian and don’t like having other religons shoved in my face.
That’s nice. Neither do we.
Point 2: I’m going to make shit up about history.
Most of the founding Fathers were theists. Back then that was the polite way of publicly admiting you were an atheist or humanist. They were the ones who built the wall between church and state. Don’t believe me? Google for any of the following- First Amendment, Treaty of Tripoli, Thomas Jefferson Letters, Ben Franklin (You know the guy who designed the Virginia Compromise, the bill that formatted the modern congress? Yeah, he tried to prevent the expansion of the US onto Native American lands and said he doubted Jesus’ divinity), and just about every other person who was involved in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation (the first constitution us Americans like to forget because it utterly failed), and the Constitution (the one that was working until circa 1980).
Point 3: Let’s stop and fight the war against tyranny.
Yes. Let’s stop nations from invading each other and collapsing into theocracy and destroying the environment (and thus causing global climate change which in turn destabalizes every one). So let’s stop doing those things and work to change the governments we’ve put into power that are currently torturing their citizens. You didn’t know we did that? Well every president during the Cold War (except that brilliant Jimmy Carter) all really wanted to win the war so they installed and supported repressive regimes in Chile, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salavador, Brazil, Panama, South Africa (oh Apartheid! Silly Cheney voted to not take action to free Nelson Mandela seven times. Google it), Saudi Arabia, pre-revolution Iran (silly Shah mass murder is for Europeans), and the list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on……… What’s really ironic is the military dictatorships we support in just about every central American country killed just about every nun and priest they could find. Us moral Americans.
Point 4: I’m a profane 13 year old.
Uh? This is relevent because….? All this does is make you more vulnerable to an insult about your age and therefore inexperience.
Point 5: I want Ron to give his boyfriend a blowjob.
Ok. I thought the misinformed christian image you were channeling would probably conflict with being homoerotic. It’s ironic though that the most vocal anti-gay republicans often turn out to be homosexual themselves. If your trying to be sarcastic you failed, and you were very stupidly homophobic at the same time! Wow, I’m sure the stereotype of homophobic, naive, thirteen year old is really going to make you look intelligent.
Item 4:
Um, why is there a complete double standard in American politics? Christians can convert (even by violence), call for assassinations, demand their beliefs can never be questions by a supposedly objective media and government, call non-believers crazy, demand their dogma be taught and spread in PUBLIC schools and never be called unamerican. I’d like to see a non-christian try to get away with that. No one ever says that’s not fair.
Item 5:
Why do people insist that Christianity is (one of) the greatest forces for good? More people have died in the name of god than any other force in history. Now Islam and Hinduism have had their share of religous violence, but Christianity has taken a huge portion of the killings in the name of god. They have killed women, homosexuals, jews, muslims, and pagans. But that’s not enough the protestants and catholics have to kill each other en masse to prove a point. Christian churchs have among other atrocities promoted the holocaust (and general anti-semitism), slavery, wars, sexism, racism, and the aristocracy/plutocracy.
Item 5:
Christ’s initial message is nice and a great thing to live by, “Love thy neighboor.” That’s not what modern Christians practice. They hate people solely on the largely unimportant labels that “define” them. They are afraid of gays. So much for neighboorly love.
By anonymous pagan folk on Dec 10, 2005
well one i am a dude ya sick fuck and two i dont give a shit if you wipe your ass with christmas just don’t fuckin brag about and thirdly when i said for Rons boyfreind to suck his dick it was a metaphore ya dumb shit.
By THOMAS AKERS on Dec 10, 2005
well since i was all “in the moment” i relize what the fuck are thinkin i mean at least i have enofe ball’s to put my name on it. and no i hate fag’s and dont give a shit for them beacuse that’s not the topic this page is about. what i am doin hear is the same thing that we don’t need to be doin but we have a perdicament now don’t we? i am not willing to change to liberal and you are not willing to change to rebulican so in that case why are we arguing over christmas oh ya beacuse someone dosnt like it oh damn that must be torchure for you to go out side and some say merry christmas beacuse you dont bealive in god. wopde fucking doo pall it would be your own choice as is mine to go to this site and write to you liberal’s. so now your probly thinkin then why are you doing this well i’d say freedome of speech but then you would say it would also be freedome of speech for you to say what ever it is you say about christmas. so let’s ask ourselves how much dose freedome of speech cover. and that’s another thing theist wasnt athiest it was the beilife GOD gave you what you needed to servive and when you dide you when to heven dose that sound atheist to you? well it sure dosnt sound that way to me. and i don’t think i said “i am REALLY christian and dont like outher riligon’s shoved in my face” i dont care for islamic aribic judaic and so on and so forth. hu dose that sound like your puttin words in my mouth? it dose to me.
well about that whole profane 13 year old who care oh remember it’s freedome of speech.
By THOMAS AKERS on Dec 10, 2005
Thomas, don’t you realize that when Ron said “I didn’t make him up”, he was pointing out that you were making his points better than he could? The hating, gay-bashing, xenophobic foulness is about as far from Christian love as can be, and just shows what horrible ends a fundamentally decent, kind, and forgiving philosophy (as Jesus put it forward) has been twisted into by right-wing demagougues?
Just ask: Who’s the hater here? And is that the side Jesus would be on?
By Kim P on Dec 10, 2005
ya kim your right but like everybody els i am only human and could only wish to be like christ but and not sin but humanly emotions controll me and that would be my downfall in the end of judgment when i stand in the courts of heaven in jeasuses presence and i, like every one els, will be embaresed includin ron and the pagan dude but thank you for your concern i apreciate it
By THOMAS AKERS on Dec 12, 2005
ya know kim your right but i do forgive those who are fag’s but the united states is imoraly wrong and it kinda resembles babolon beacuse they had fags prostatutes killing pepole aginst god. and yes i do put myself in that position and i regret my actions every step of the way expecialy bein compared to ron and i know that ron pagan you me and everybody els will pay for their sins and which also scares me is that i am only 13. but ya gotta feal sorry for ron god knows how long he’s ben like that. and thanks for the concernin thought i apreciate it.
By THOMAS AKERS on Dec 12, 2005
Wouldn’t it be great if instead of living in fear of “paying for our sins”, we could live with joy, freedom, and the desire to treat others well for their own sake, rather than out of fear of punishment?
I think that would be great. No, wait, I think that IS great.
By ron on Dec 12, 2005
Hey, here’s what Congress is doing:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-h20051214-60&bill=hr109-579
And for fun, try this too:
http://fuckchristmas.org
By Kim P on Dec 18, 2005
Well said, anonymous pagan. I came across this page searching “christ+christmas+bullshit” on Google. For my own two cents, I’m a Buddhist who was raised Christian. As I have studied various religions and the life of Jesus, I personally have come to view him in a similar fashion to the Jews. He was a man, no more or less a son of that creative force some call God than the rest of us. As a Jewish preacher and ascetic, Jesus wandered about and taught, much in the same way the Siddartha Buddha or Gandhi did. He taught love, tolerance, understanding, and compassion. He threatened the regime of his day by preaching that ALL people were entitled to a good afterlife, rather than simply the elite as the Romans would have liked everyone to believe. He taught that all people.. young, old, rich, poor, accepted, outcast, etc. were of value and granted a place in heaven.. and for that he was tortured and crucified just like MANY Jewish people were.
For some reason, however, people that formed the Christian movement latched onto him and falsely labeled him the Messiah. See, the Jews believe a Messiah will come, but has not yet. Christians appear to have misinterpreted a lot of Jewish text around the history of Jesus’ life as indication that he was the Messiah. Whereas he was a historical figure to Jews, the history was taken as allegory by the Christians, and the allegories were then convoluted into “facts.”
And, of course, one has to wonder how much of modern Christianity’s BS is a result of the BS that was heavily pushed in the Middle Ages, when the church was expanding its sphere of influence and power. Is modern Christianity’s superiority complex merely a ripple effect from the Middle Ages?
So, now we have Christianity insisting that a man walking on water, turning H20 into alcoholic beverages, and returning from the dead be considered as undeniable fact, and further insisting that all other fantastic tales, such as an elephant-headed deity, or the idea that all things in nature have a spirit, or that there is something called the Dreamtime, are utter poppycock. In essence, Christianity is saying “our religion’s fairy tails are undeniable truth. Your religions fairy tails are undeniable horse hockey.”
The way I see it, ALL religions have inklings of truth in them. Religions are, after all, creations of Mankind. And Mankind cannot truly understand the nature of that which we consider divine.. be it a godlike energy or simply a continuum of consciousness among all living things or whatever you think the divine to be. As it is said in Taoism, “The Tao that can be explained is not the Tao.” Well, Christianity is not only attempting to explain the Tao, but also insisting that its explanation is the ONLY correct one, rather than one of many that all fail to truly hit the target, but at least come close here and there.
So, anyway, I figure a Jesus fellow did exist, but was simply an enlightened man with a good message and an ideal to live by, like Gandhi or Mother Theresa. Love and respect one another. Whether or not he was born of a virgin or performed magic or whatever is really irrelevant in the face of this overlying message of love and kindness. But modern Christianity seems to focus on making sure everyone believes in the magic, rather than the simple message.
And really…. no one gets into heaven unless they go through him? No Jews? No Druids? No Hindus? No Aborigines? No Confucians? No Buddhists? No Vorlons? No Bajorans? No Vulcans? (seriously, if you believe in extraterrestrial life, do you think they’re all Christians?) It’s like the mob, or some Beverly Hills dance club.
I don’t buy it. If that which Christians call God wanted to make sure everyone knew there was only One way to get into the club, and it was through his son, the bouncer, he’d have done a better job of **personally** making sure we knew about it, rather than leaving such an important message up to messengers as incompetent as human beings. When Jesus supposedly said, “I am the way,” I don’t think he meant he, as a person, was the way literally… but that the way he lived.. with love and compassion.. was the way in that it was the ideal by which we should all live. If he actually said that, he was not being literal.
Anyway, on to Christmas. As a Buddhist, I don’t have a problem with “Merry Christmas.” At this point, I think the concept of “peace on Earth and goodwill toward men” transcends any one particular way of expressing good holiday wishes. So, your ACLU types that think “Merry Christmas” is offensive need to chill. I think it’s more an expression of good will these days than wishing glad tidings in a specifically Christian context. It’s kind of like saying “bless you” in response to someone sneezing, even though you’re not literally blessing them or honestly think that saying that will stop their soul from jumping out of their mouth in an attempt to escape. When I hear “merry Christmas,” I think of it as a universal wish for peace and love, rather than an utterance focused solely on the intent of reminding me of Jesus’ birth.
Although, even if you think of Jesus as a mere mortal with just a really good message, is it so offensive to give pause to think of a man of ANY religious background who wanted us to treat each other with love and respect? When you hear “Merry Christmas,” perhaps the trick is to not look at it in terms of some Bible-beating agenda.. but merely a wish for peace on Earth and good will toward all beings. And perhaps think of the “Christ” in “Christmas”… not as the man is portrayed and deified by the Christians, but as the model of love and understanding this man hoped we would all learn to live buy… a model MANY men and women have hoped humans would live by. It just kind of happens this Christ fellow, out of many men, was the victim of celebrity status gone horribly wrong.
Likewise, Christians need to chill out about “Happy Holidays.” Intolerance of other religions is not what Jesus was about. (Besides, Jesus was Jewish. So Christians glomping onto him isn’t the same as running with his posse. It’s like being a member of Dennis Rodman’s inner circle. Jews would be more like Dennis’ home boys. Christians would be more like Dennis’ fan club. So, Christians aren’t really “down with Jesus.” They’re just some of his biggest fans… like some skinny white boy thinking he’s “all that” because he dresses in a Raider’s jacket and flashes gang signs.) In fact, I think if Jesus were alive today and seeing what kind of BS was being committed in his name, he’d probably tell everyone to just forget he ever existed.
And Ron hit the nail on the head. The “War on Christmas” and stuff???? It’s just a red herring meant to distract folks from the important issues, like the economy, the war, etc.
The war on Christmas may be about the failure to keep “Christ” in “Christmas,” but it’s doing an excellent job of REMOVING “Christ” (and his true message of love and tolerance) from “Christianity.”
By Onikaze on Dec 19, 2005
Hey, Kim P. Just read your links. Interesting stuff. It was interesting to see how folks reacted when the Jewish politicians started speaking up about would they be as adamant if it was a motion to protect symbols of Chanukah or Kwanzaa or such. I liked how one fellow seemed to indicate (at least as I took it) that it was ludicrous talk about protecting symbols of Christmas if they’re not going to talk about doing things in the ideals of Christmas, such as helping the poor and homeless.
By Onikaze on Dec 19, 2005
you know 1why the hell would ya write sometin that long, come on pal it’s not like your gonna tell god himself. so basicly i said it was a waste of time to do that bc half of us didn’t even read it all.
2.why the fuck would ya wanna take christ outa christianity if ya hate it stay the fuck outa it and we wont fuck whith u’r athiest way’s. another thing what the fuck have we done to deserve this from u or any outher athieast was it bc ya had a shity deal whith god bc you dont think he’s out there bc he cut you short of your bargin or even you were born athieast and have come to hate all includin christians. well if that’s the case grow some balls and stand up not talk on this fucked up shit hole site whith a hartless bastard some where i dont even know bc you could reply this but i’m not comin back to read it bc it is pointless to argue over somethin that all of us arnt gonna change our minds about. kim thanks for what ya said ta me i really apriecate it
[Editors note: I might have just hit "no" on the moderation queue for this, but I think it's kind of interesting to share the kind of bitter and hateful bile a 13-year-old learns about religious differences in our culture today.]
By THOMAS AKERS on Dec 21, 2005