Speedkill pointed out a letter in a local (for him) paper today, and I just can’t help but comment.
Merry Christmas, everyone. If you haven’t decorated your Christmas tree, you’d better hurry before it turns into a “holiday tree,” and the traditional greeting used for centuries becomes the politically correct “Happy holidays.” The Grinch now wants to remove manger scenes and take Christ out of Christmas entirely.
Do I think that it’s silly to rename Christmas trees to “holiday trees”? Yes. Only people who celebrate Christmas have in any recent times used a decorated tree to celebrate. I would no more suggest this than suggest that we call Menorahs “holiday candelabras.” I do, however, take issue with the idea that anyone is looking to “take Christ out of Christmas entirely.” For starters, all you Christians have done it already by capitulating to market forces and offering up Santa Claus and unchecked commercialism. If anyone is taking Christ out of Christmas, its big business: you know, the people your Republican elected officials gave massive tax breaks and deregulation to.
Also, since when has “Merry Christmas” been used for centuries? Something tells me this dingbat hasn’t ever bothered to find out where the December tradition came from (I’ll give you a hint: the church co-opted the date in order to pacify what was traditionally a day for carousing).
The extended Grinch family is now busy as termites trying to rob our country of every evidence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage, the very thing that made our country great.
“Judeo-Christian heritage”? Do I need to remind her that Jews are one of the reasons stores are saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”? Oh, but then she seems to forget entirely about Christmas (which, if you remember, is her original topic) and begins to bitch about the litany of woes that the secret cabal of pointy-tailed liberals have visited upon our decent, god-fearing society.
These Grinches have succeeded in removing voluntary prayer and the teaching of moral principles from our schools1. They fired the chief justice of Alabama’s Supreme Court because he refused to remove a Ten Commandments monument2 (the basis of law and justice not only in our country but in many other countries3). They are gnawing away at our national motto: “In God we trust4,” and are trying to erase “one nation under God” from our Pledge of Allegiance5. They wish to undermine the sacredness of marriage and family by forcing Americans to accept same-sex marriage6. They even attack and defame one of our noblest organizations, the Boy Scouts, because they refuse to accept gay scoutmasters7.
- I think the entire point is that it isn’t voluntary, insofar as when prayer is led by teachers or administrators, it gives the practice an undue sense of authority or mandate. Remember, no one is taking away the right of kids to pray in school (except maybe France, because they’re stupid), only the ability of teachers and administrators to lead said prayer within the context of the school day. As to “moral principles” not being taught anymore: is she perhaps referring to the removal of Ten Commandments displays from schools? Or is this more of a vague gesture towards the general moral cowardice of the Left?
- Moore was petulant, period, and was making a deliberately biased statement about the place of religion in law. It was a fairly open and shut case because there was no attempt to be anything but a Bible-thumper.
- Actually, I believe the basis for law in this country is “Natural Law,” not the Ten Commandments. We don’t need stone tablets to tell us not to murder, thanks. Additionally, I don’t know offhand how many countries use the book of Exodus for their legal system, but I know of several that use religious texts as a basis for law: they’re our friends the Taliban, and the Iranians!
- To the best of my knowledge, that’s maybe one guy. “In God We Trust” may be a violation of Church & State separation, but no liberal I know cares enough about it to raise a fuss.
- You mean the “one nation under God” that we added in 1953 to make us look better against the ostensibly godless Communists? If we can put it in arbitrarily, we can take it out arbitrarily as well.
- The key word here is “accept.” Yes, we want people to “accept” gay marriage insofar as gays are allowed equal protections under the law (which, you know, is another American tradition). We don’t say “like” or “attend” or “write into your Bible.” Besides, what sacredness is she referring to? The sacredness that is divorced 38% of the time? Maybe the gays will do a better job than we straights have.
- Sure, because they have no good reason to. Pædophilia isn’t any more prevalent among homosexuals than among heterosexuals. This argument has been done to death
These Grinches have even blocked a ban on partial-birth abortion passed by Congress and signed by our President. It’s time to draw a line in the sand. May God bless America.
Maybe she hasn’t noticed, but the conservatives control all three branches of Congress. Maybe she also hasn’t noticed, but supporting partial birth abortions makes you look bad (which is why Congress passed it). I’m not sure what bill she’s referring to in particular, but I’m guessing it’s because the law made no exceptions for a woman’s health, and there’s a legal precedent stating that all laws pertaining to abortion must do so (which only makes sense).
Louise Keightley seems to suffer from the same paranoia that the rest of the shrill conservatives do: namely, that there is a top-secret organization of liberals that controls all facets of our lives; they are rich east-coasters, and they drink non-fat lattés while they plot ways to kill as many babies as possible and take food money from the poor. She also labours under the delusion that she and the other 80% of Christians in this country are a persecuted minority: uh, not likely, hon. If you harbour any delusions about the power of faith in this country, then name me one atheist that’s been elected to a major political office in the past, oh, century.
I don’t remember when generational complaining started being couched in religious rhetoric, but it sure makes for some dumb letters.