For as long as I can remember the words “Merry Christmas” have been pushed away from public life, in the both the political and business world. I get it. No one wants to offend people who aren’t Christian, or those few Christians, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who shun Christmas.
However, 83 percent of Americans are Christian, and for many of them Christmas is their favorite time of the year. And I know some secular progressives who set up Christmas trees in their home.
When President-elect Donald Trump on the later stops of his ‘thank you’ tour replaced his ‘USA’ lectern logo with a ‘Merry Christmas’ one, it got my attention.
And Trump’s Christmas spirit didn’t end there
“We’re gonna start saying ‘Merry Christmas’ again,” Trump said at a Michigan ‘thank you’ rally. “How about all those department stores, they have the bells and they have the red walls and they have the snow, but they don’t have ‘Merry Christmas. I think they’re gonna start putting up ‘Merry Christmas.'”
About ten years ago the ‘War on Christmas’ compelled Christians who wished to say ‘Merry Christmas’ at their workplace to bite their tongues, including those working extended Christmas shifts at retail stores to accommodate Christmas shoppers. Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, one of the defenders in the ‘War on Christmas,’ declares the conflict all but over, as increasingly more retail outlets use the word ‘Christmas” in their holiday advertisements. On Christmas Eve I was greeted with a hearty “Merry Christmas” when I walked into the local Walmart–and when I left.
I’ll be shocked if Donald Trump’s first presidential Christmas card isn’t much different, even though his oldest daughter is a convert to Judaism.
Howard Kurtz ended today’s always excellent Fox News’ Media Watch program with “Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah.” Yes, like a rare planetary alignment, Christmas Eve and the first day of Hanukkah share the came spot on the calendar.
And from me to you, have a Merry Christmas and a Happy Hanukkah.
♫ And I’m one step ahead of the shoe shine Two steps away from the county line Just trying to keep my customers satisfied, Satisfied. ♪
Keep the Customer Satisfied Simon & Garfunkel 1970
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Constitution of the United States Article 6 Paragraph 3
Yesterday MSNBC made clear where its customer base is as host Joy Reid discussed the Hobby Lobby case. (emphasis mine)
The court that will decide includes six Catholic justices, some of whom have not been shy about asserting their religion. And all of this is taking place as the country becomes more secular. Even as the fervently religious fight even harder than ever to push creationism in taxpayer funded schools, and on science TV shows. And where the question of corporate personhood has gone from whether the railroad has to pay its taxes to whether corporations can be religious people. The question is do you trust this court to make those decisions?
Now there is an obvious point to make concerning such a statement that Yid with Lid has already alluded to. If the host of the show had substituted: “Muslim”, Jewish”, “Black”, “Gay”, “Atheist”, “Hispanic”, in place of “Catholic” the outrage of the left would be incredible and the demand for both an apology and the firing of Ms. Reid would become a cause célèbre among all the right people but as her statement concerned Catholics, and more importantly believing catholics this shall not happen because as I’ve asserted before, the common thread of the left is the targeting of Christianity.
What I find more interesting is the video itself.
That is a long speech to make and Ms. Reid is clearly reading from a teleprompter as she delivers it. That means it that speech was written, edited and loaded into the prompter for her to deliver. Since it makes assertions concerning court cases and had video of quotes from said cases would have gone through editors and producers before it began to roll on that screen for her to read.
Yet not a one of them suggested this might be a problem, Nobody figured it would offend their Catholic audience in general or Latino’s who are highly Catholic in particular. Nobody thought the clear mandate of the Constitution concerning religious tests would make them look foolish, nor did they think there was any chance of a backlash might cause trouble for a relatively new host.
Or if they considered any of those things, they decided the need to defend the White House would be more important to their audience than any such attack on religion.
And it’s worse than that. The TV industry is constantly in flux, one day you have a job the next you don’t. Yet not a person on that set figured that their boss, or an official at NBC or someone from the corporate ownership at Comcast might decide that mainstreaming a modern version of “know nothingism” on a major cable network under their name would cause any problems for their brands.
I suspect they will get more critique for having Jazz Shaw of Hotair on Morning Joe today then they will for the acts of Joy Reid yesterday.
This says something both about the culture at MSNBC, the perception of its audience and their ownership and what it says is not good.
It’s worth noting that the six Catholic justices on the Supreme Court rarely reach any kind of consensus, unless it is a consensus shared by the whole court. Reid bases her argument of religious bias on literally nothing at all but her own prejudice. One suspects it’s because of the desperation the Left has over the Hobby Lobby case and the HHS mandate in general, but it may just be that Reid has a bias against Catholics in public life apart from this, too.
It’s Tuesday and with 7 days left to the month I start the day $856 shy of the mortgage.
That means DaTipJar has to generate 122 a day for seven days to pay the bills in full.
We can do it but only you help. If there was ever a time for you to kick in if you were thinking of it, it’s now.
So I’m asking you to hit DaTipJar below if you possibly can.
With 61 more $20 a month subscribers this site will be able to cover its bills for a full year.
I would ask that you do subscribe by hitting the button below. If your finances allow it, consider choosing Hat level or better. A subscription comes not only with exclusive commentary, but on a weekly basis you will have the opportunity to get direct access to me by phone to provide feedback or suggestions to make sure this site is worthy of your financial support and patronage.
One of the best comments on the subject of abortion came last year from Andrew Klavin on July 11th 2011:
I still believe it’s possible for a person of good will to make the argument that a fetus is not fully human for some small period of its development. Thomas Aquinas did — and the man was a saint. But more and more, that point of view is coming to seem to me pre-scientific. In any case, if that’s the argument pro-choicers want to have, let’s have that argument, and no other — because no other matters. And if we as a free people decide that unborn children are children indeed, there is no moral alternative: we must not only end abortion but put our full efforts into supporting humane and broadly available methods of welcoming the unwanted.
I thought it put the entire argument into the perspective needed. If we are killing innocent life then abortion is wrong, period!. If not then it’s no worse than a hangnail, the Salon piece took the opposite track, saying So What if abortion ends life.
Almost every writer critiquing the piece gave the author credit for courage, to wit:
I give Ms. Williams props for her unstinting honesty here. It is, to my way of thinking, a rather courageous thing to speak plainly, these days, and without euphemism. It is perhaps doubly so when one is willing to simply stand up and say, “yes, I believe this is a human being, and I’m totally okay with killing him or her. People should be able to decide who lives and who dies, for any variety of reasons.”
As I’ve said I think this is misreading of the situation. Consider the Music video I quoted at the top of this post:
The song is very good, the dancing is professional but what makes the video is the discomfort of the executives watching it, getting shocked and aroused by it and when questioned for a reaction saying it’s “nice”
In 1989 this was a hot and provocative video, that had a funny ending. In 2013 it’s just funny.
This is the basic truth of what has gone on. Until this point it has been the conclusion of those on the left that to openly say “So What” to the taking of innocent life was beyond the pale.
No more, time has taken its toll and the generation that was taught Judeo-Christian values as part of the normal course of life has been replaced. Now two parallel culture exists where morality is relative, right and wrong are relative and the value of life is relative.
The secular culture has concluded it’s strong enough, prevalent enough and supported enough by the popular media that it can slowly take off the mask that has been necessary for years.
How many years do you think it will take before “So What” extends to other people who the left concludes are less important and less worthy of life?
How long before it becomes a matter of faith that those who would stand up and object or obstruct such obvious truths that are held by the more enlightened must be suppressed? Of course you’d have to disarm them first.
I’ve been writing about a common thread of the left for a while. I’ve beaten about the bush on it, what IS the common thread to all of these things? Well that’s my lead post for tomorrow…