Friday, December 09, 2005

Bill O'Grinchly

posted by Will
You're right, Erich, I can't really approach Jon Stewart's transcendent commentary. But I have to try. What I love about this fracas more than anything is this: The "argument" is supposed to be about preserving the true "religious" character of the holiday. You remember: love, kindness, charity, forgiveness, tolerance, peace, etc. etc. "Traditional Americans" versus "secular progressives", O'Reilly says. So, the big conflict of values is over how we shop for gifts?

The gifts part is pagan, people. So is the tree, and Santa, and flying reindeer, etc. No flying reindeer in the Bible. Definitely no elves. Lists of who's been naughty and nice? ...probably. But I'm also pretty sure that the Bible doesn't say anything about being sure to explicitly refer to Jesus Christ in every store in America.

Where does it say "Thou Shalt Contribute to the Yearly economy-rescuing consumption Frenzy"? And why is Christmas about "traditional Americans"? Did Christ die for Americans getting 0% financing on HD flat panels? Is that is the "true spirit of Christmas"?

Can't we keep the shopping at least a little separate from the traditional element of Christmas? Can't Christmas be about our values, or inclusion (Ruth Marcus in the Wa Po), or spirituality, or charity, or family, or Santa Claus, or even HD flat panels? Why make it about partisan nonsense or jingoism? That would ruin Christmas.

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't it obvious that any religion in need of forcing itself on others is running a little low on faith? How can any believer take credit for faith if it was force that brought him into the fold? And is O'Reilly really unable to see that the only thing that protects each person's faith in America is the equal protection of all faiths -- including atheism?
. . .oh, and BTW why are there so many dumb guys on TV? Is there some compatibility between the tiny idea and the sound byte?

December 11, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home