Listen here.
Oh, no! Liberals are attacking Christmas! Please, Judge Alito! Save Christmas!
It does Alito a disservice to try to alarm people about liberal attacks on "religious expression," when the constitutional law in question is about government's expression of religion, something you can't tell from the ad. And the tinkly Christmas music playing in the background? What that says to me is that they think you have no brain, only a heart. Doesn't the pretty music make it grow three sizes and feel like carving up some nice roast liberal?
December 4, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
23 comments:
Really amateur feeling,when even I am uncomfortable with their appeal, you know they're bad and transparent.
Brylin: I think I know the case law. I teach Religion and the Constitution. I'm opposed to distortions and exaggerations from both sides.
What happened to your comment policy, Ann? Now you allowing one visitor to call another visitor a moron?
I don't think there's anyone serious out there saying flag burning is good. Rather, they're saying that banning it is unconstitutional. So I guess your "few cranks" would include Justice Scalia? Last time I checked, "In God We Trust" is still on the currency, the boy scout's are allowed to discriminate against gays and Act-Up hasn't been heard of for many a year.
Also, "no single issue"? Please. I'm pretty sure that abortion and the war on terror might be at least a tensy-bit more important to people.
Evidentially, Act-Up is still around. I guess I should've said I hadn't heard of them for many a year.
Judging by the direct mail I get, I think topcat is right in his reading of the American mood. I'm not very political myself, but have purchased enough Christian merchandise and/or magazines to get on a lot of mailing lists. Assuming that the direct mail I get is written by people who know what they are doing, there is a lot of anger at organizations like the ACLU and the federal judiciary, which demand that the government must subsidize urinating on crucifixes, and may not subsidize Nativity scenes.
By the way, I don't know that this anger is leading to anything other than direct mail. American history is replete with passionate, dedicated people who failed in their objectives.
You cynical athiests just go ahead and continue your mocking and derision of the valid concerns of your Christian countrymen. See what kind of country it gets you!
You're going to end up with a much more overtly religious and in your face polity than you would if you guys didn't go out of your way to piss on Christians.
Religious conservatives have a cause this holiday season: the commercialization of Christmas. They're for it.
Tom Lehrer reference? :)
O'Reily may be many things, but he's not a Nazi. Nor is he using anti-Semetic codewords though phrases like "secular" or "cosmopolitian" have been used in that fashion for Jews (and come to think of it, "Neocon" as well).
As a Jew, the commercialization of Hanukah doesn't really bother me (though I do find it quite ironic, given the anti-assimilationist message of the holiday). The way I see it, Jewish children are going to want to celebrate the holiday season in some way or other. Why not make it through a Jewish holiday as opposed to a Christian one?
Great, so pointing out that Americans are getting fed up with the intentional stripping of all vestiges of the Christian faith and expression from the public square leads a couple of self-satisfied lefties to reach into their bag of tricks for anti-Semitism as the motivation.
At the same time, they proceed to give George Soros a tongue-bath as an unimpeachable philanthropist.
There's no doubt anti-Semitism finds its true home these days on the left. Even your vaunted Soros came in for a tongue lashing from Abe Foxman of the ADL for arguing that the root of anti-Semitism lies with the actions of Jewish people and not with the delusions of anti-Semites.
http://www.adl.org/ADL_Opinions/Israel/blame_op_12052003.htm
Mark and GeoDuck, do you even realize what parodies of left-wing depressives you two are?
The self-professed "depressed" GeoDuck writes:
"I don't have the transcript, and I wouldn't want to firmly accuse him of something [based on something] that I [may have] misheard."
In an effort to avoid firmly accusing someone of anti-Semitism, he just throws out a limp implication of anti-Semitism. That's almost adult of you, Geo.
Mark, taking a break from bucking up the Duck responds:
"Well, if it's true [the Duck's limp charge of anti-Semitism] then it just confirms my view that when you think the far right can't sink even lower, it proves you wrong."
Does anyone want to wager that even "if it's not true" Mark's opinion of the "far right" wouldn't change one iota?
I don't want to presume to speak for Professor Althouse but I thought her point was that this advert is weak on substantitive argument and long on hysterical emoting - you know, the kind of nonsense conservatives mock loony left lobby groups for trotting out?
Strange as this may sound, I became a conservative because I was convinced by ideas presented with wit, intellectual rigour and moral gravity. If public advocacy is going to conducted on the same level as that of moveon.org (and with a soundtrack like 70's softcore Euro-porn) conservatism has lost something much more important than a tacky Nativity scene.
DJ Ninja -- "Channukah is literally the ONLY Jewish holiday not mentioned in any books of the Hebrew bible"
Oddly, however, it does happen to be mentioned twice in the Catholic/Orthodox Bible. 1 Maccabees 4:59 and 2 Maccabees 10:8 both cover the establishement of an annual eight-day festival starting the 25th of Chislev in honor of the rededication of the Temple.
OK, in one sense I can't quite believe I'm going to do this:
(Has anyone actually posted a link to a bible verse on Althouse? I could check ... but, no, I won't.)
I think, as I've said, or at least meant to imply, elsewhere , that people seeking to ban every element of religion, including creche scenes, in--now that I think about it, almost a"Messianic" way-- are going too far, and often, if I may say so, in some cases gratuitously and just for effect.
On the other hand, I think that O'Reilly and his (and at least one of his guest's) hyperbole is ridiculous, as I commented here.
As this whole debate--fight?--is playing itself out, I feel compelled to point out the following verse, as a "religious" person myself, and one who thinks that any and all observations of Christian holidays are merely a larger version of prayer, about which the Bible itself has to say:
"1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Prayer
5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen."
To those who are so worried about the suppression of "commercial validation" of Christmas, I feel compelled to ask, what, and of what, are your actual motives?
Ann, I know I've taken A LOT of liberties in this comment. I hope you will understand why and for what purpose I've done so
That'd be: Matthew 6:1-6.
as a "religious" person myself, and one who thinks that any and all observations of Christian holidays are merely a larger version of prayer,
This is missing the absolutely critical phrase after "holidays":
"--for the truly mindful Christian, on an individual basis as it relates to their accountability for such--"
But isn't Purim basically just the Book of Esther?
(Fun fact: The Book of Esther is the only Book in the Bible not to mention God)
Ah, but consider the historical context for Jesus's cautioning his followers not to pray in the public square: this was when they might be persecuted for doing so. As with most other religions, once Christianity became the majority faith somewhere, its practitioners figured that respect for their faith required everyone to acknowledge it as the majority religion. No more drawing secret symbols of fish to find out if the other person was a Christian or someone who would feed you to the lions -- instead, demand that Wal-Mart fire someone who points out the pagan roots of the American observance of Christmas.
PG:
As with most other religions, once Christianity became the majority faith somewhere, its practitioners figured that respect for their faith required everyone to acknowledge it as the majority religion.
This is precisely what I'm cautioning against, most particularly with regard to (but absolutely, and pointedly, not limited to) shallow commercial expressions thereof, not to mention "coerced" so-called "respect." Do we need to visit the theological topic of "God's grace and gifts" with regard "free will to choose"? There's no free will when the bat is headed to your skull.
I suppose that's the more generic point I was trying to make--though my appeal was narrowly offered to a specific subset of sincere believers who I sincerely believe, and with some insight, may have lost track of the forest for the trees, so to speak.
And--darn it!--I did not hijack this thread, but merely responded to the hijacking of it. And I'm done with so doing--at least, that's the plan.
That ad is completely cynical. Ann, in actuality, its effect is to encourage the heart to shrink three sizes, at least, the better to feel quite justified in carving up roast liberal, or any other "cut" that strikes us as less than "choice," according to our personal taste.
You can see that, at least for this week, I've just about lost my patience.
Which, of course (sincerely), I'm enjoined not to do ... one of the things I am called to struggle with.
So it goes.
While I agree that there are some examples of political correctness run amok with respect to Christmas, I truly believe that in one area, Christians ought to be celebrating the scaling back of Christmas as a retail holiday. From a recent postof mine:
To get Christ back into Christmas, first you have to get commercialism out of Christmas. Believe me, the stores aren’t advertising “holiday sales” because they object to Christmas—far from objecting to Christmas, they depend on it. They’ve erased the word Christmas from their ads because Christmas no longer has anything to do with what makes them money. For those of us who are already in the swing of it, we’re going to eat, drink, be merry and spend, spend, spend—no matter what you call the holiday. But to get new customers in this all-important retail season, the stores need to reach out and encourage non-Christians to spend, spend, spend. What better way to do so than to expand the holiday—be more inclusive if you will.
But contrary to Gibson’s argument that this is a bad thing, I think it’s the best thing that could have happened to Christmas. Go back to the commandment: “Thou shall not take the Lord’s name in vain.” What could be more “in vain” than to put “Christ’s Mass” on the sale flyer in the Sunday newspaper?
Craig Ranapia: “I thought her point was that this advert is weak on substantitive argument and long on hysterical emoting - you know, the kind of nonsense conservatives mock loony left lobby groups for trotting out?”
Correct.
reader_iam: “Has anyone actually posted a link to a bible verse on Althouse?”
I have. Many times. Unless you click on links, you might not notice. And I think the verse you cite is important and apt.
reader_iam: “Ann, in actuality, its effect is to encourage the heart to shrink three sizes, at least, the better to feel quite justified in carving up roast liberal, or any other "cut" that strikes us as less than "choice," according to our personal taste.”
It’s a literary allusion. And meant sarcastically.
I know--the Grinch. I was just putting a finer point on it and goosing the "bloody red meat" imagery--which is what I think this issue is for the more extreme on both sides.
Post a Comment