...you'd be sorely mistaken. His intro last night really got my blood boiling, and has been something I've disagreed with him in general for a long time.

The bold text is my commentary.

=======================

Christmas Under Siege: The Big Picture

Tuesday, December 07, 2004
By Bill O'Reilly

All over the country, Christmas is taking flak. In Denver this past weekend, no religious floats were permitted in the holiday parade there. In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg unveiled the holiday tree and no Christian Christmas symbols are allowed in the public schools. Federated Department Stores, [that's] Macy's, have done away with the Christmas greeting, "Merry Christmas."

With the first two, it's a proper and common compromise to accept only secular symbols of Christmas. It was the case when I went to public school in Boise in the 80s and 90s. As for Macy's, they are a private company, and can do what they want. However, after a quick look at some other dept. store websites: Sears, JCPenney, Target, and Wal-Mart, the only real mention of Christmas are the sale of Christmas products. This isn't conclusive, of course, but it's a big sign.

Now, all of this anti-Christian stuff is absurd, and may even be a bias situation. But the real reason it's happening has little to do with Christmas and everything to do with organized religion.

Secular progressives realize that America as it is now will never approve of gay marriage, partial birth abortion, euthanasia, legalized drugs, income redistribution through taxation, and many other progressive visions because of religious opposition.

One of the things that REALLY annoys me about O'Reilly is his improper usage of the word "secular". With this connection, he makes it sound like being a secularist is a bad thing. However, I have no qualms with calling myself a secularist, especially when it comes to the public arena, where neutrality of religion has really saved us some heartaches.

The word that O'Reilly SHOULD use is "libertine", when talking about some of the things that people want that he is opposed to. Even then, however, how on earth can he include income restribution in this category?? I've never heard any religious opposition to this.

But if the secularists can destroy religion in the public arena, the brave new progressive world is a possibility. That's what happened in Canada.

The facts:

• In 1980, 79 percent of Canadians said that religion was important for the nation there. That number has now dropped to 61percent.

• In 1971, less than one percent of the Canadian population reported having no religion. That number has now risen to 16 percent.

The fall of religion in Canada has corresponded to the rise in progressive public policy. Most Canadians now favor gay marriage. The age of consent for sex is 14 years. That means if you're an adult and you have sex with a 15-year-old, that's fine.

Welfare's double what it is in the USA. And the Canadian military is almost non-existent.

Drug decriminalization is a reality, as is any kind of abortion. The Canadian model is what progressive Americans are shooting for. Thus, Christian displays like Christmas must be scaled back because the connection with Judeo-Christian beliefs is bad for the secular agenda.

From what I can search for on the Internet, I can nitpick a few of these Canadian comparisons:

Gay marriage: Looks like Ontario's courts declared it legal in June 2003, and Massachusetts's courts declared it legal in November 2003 Wow, looks like both Canada and the US are grappling with this at about the same time.

I'm failing to see what the military has to directly do with religion. Ditto welfare, I always thought a tenet of several Christians was to provide welfare.

On the front of drug decriminalization, all I can find was that Canada proposed a marijuana decriminalization act in 2003, but it hasn't gone anywhere. Alaska has also grappled with this same thing.

As for abortion, let's see what the CDC has to say about abortion rates in 2001:

Quote:

The abortion rate reported here for the United States was higher than recent rates reported for Canada and Western European countries and lower than rates reported for China, Cuba, most Eastern European countries, and several of the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union (19,20).

From what I see, there are differences between US and Canadian policy, but not as huge as O'Reilly makes it out to be. If any Canadians have anything to either add or correct, let me know. This was a rough search.

Now most people, of course, love Christmas and want to keep its traditions, but the secular movement has influence in the media, among some judges and politicians. Americans will lose their country if they don't begin to take action. Any assault on Judeo-Christian philosophy should be fought.

Organizations like Thomasmoore.org and the Alliance Defense Fund in Phoenix are fighting back, but need your help. Billoreilly.com has information on that.

"Talking Points" is convinced that the USA cannot defeat terrorism and any other evil without a strong, traditional foundation that clearly defines right from wrong. The struggle today is not about Christmas, but about the spirit of our country.

Wow. What else can I say? Except this:

One more thing--the magic of O'Reilly is that he can piss me off with something like this, and then 10 minutes later have a REAL good interview with Tommy Lasorda about the MLB steroids controversy.

Instead of watching O'Reily tonight, I suggest watching ESPN. Two great NCAA basketball games are on for the Jimmy V Classic.

Doesn't anyone just read the news anymore, without injecting their opinion into everything? Guess that's why I prefer my news in print form. I can't stand these talking heads like O'Reilly, those dickheads on Crossfire, etc. From either side. All they seem to do is emphasize what divides us.

The Lehrer report on PBS is a more classy show - they don't constantly interject their opinions, and their guests are usually more civil than those on other stations.

As to the Bill O'Reilly part at the beginning, where he's listing how things that have happened in Canada has made religion less important, etc., I just want to say 'so what's the problem' - why is it a problem to him what someone else believes? I need to watch him more often - its like when there's a hornet flying around in your room you want to keep an eye on it to know where it is.

Yeah, I saw that on O'Reily last night. I never watch it, but was flipping through and caught his "Talking Points" about how liberals and Canadians were ruining Christmas. I was laughing my ass off.

This argument, just like with the religion in public school one can all be boiled down to one key theme. "They want to win."

It's that simple. Christian groups feel that if they abdicate power in public arenas, other religious groups will gain power. That their traditions and beliefs will be marginalized by other ones that they are afraid of.

Like with school prayer. If you asked someone who supports school prayer who believes that a teacher can lead a class in prayer and that's ok what if an Islamic teacher wanted to lead the class in a Islamic prayer? Or what about a Jewish prayer? Somehow I think those that are so pro-school prayer wouldn't be so high on that idea.

What they are in fact saying is that school prayer is ok so long as it's CHRISTIAN prayer.

Now to the X-mas symbols in stores. Ask them what they thought if a store had tons of HAPPY KWANZA decos or tons of Hanukah decos instead of religious Christmas ones, well somehow, I think it's the same thing. They'd be bitching that that is unfair and Christians shouldn't be SUBJECTED to that.

So it brings me back to my original point. Instead of everyone accepting everyone and leaving personal things private, they want to win. They want to control the game and be the majority despite the fact that they are not. So this issue is not about freedom of expression of freedom to practice, it's about accepting the fact that EVERYONE has different religious ideas and why not just leave religion at home.

In fairness he said "progressives" are ruining X-mas. He specifically said you can’t say liberals are ruining X-mas b/c some liberals are as upset about this as he is.

such as.....?

This was not a convincing nor strong argument he made in this "Talking Points".

I agree with you on this Green.

I cant watch o'reilly anymore without thinking of phone sex and a luffa/loufa? I listen to all those guys and the dangerous thing about o'reilly is that he masks himself as a moderate? At least Sean Hannity says what he is, he is still an asshole, but he not hiding his political affiliations.

I make it a point to never pay attention to anyone who believes it's ok to make blanket statements like :


I'm sorry, what?

destroy religion in the public arena?

brave new progressive world?

why does this read more like someone's campaign slogan suggestions to scare the masses than anything even vaguely resembling reality?

Does it occur to Bill that perhaps these large companies go out of their way to not mention "Christmas" etc because they are constantly looking for new and improved ways to SELL THEIR FUCKING PRODUCTS? They are selling organizations, if they can bring in a couple of customers who practice Islamic beliefs to buy merchandise by removing the word Christmas, they're going to do just that. Everyone here makes the same kind of legal tender, it's all up for grabs from the retailer's point of view.

There's no conspiracy to remove religion from Christmas by these companies, they just want more cash.
As far as the rest of his accusations? WTF? I didn't realize that Canada had turned into the den of iniquity that he so clearly descibes to us. Except I think Canada has a lower crime rate than the US, has a better health care system, and my guess is a better educational system as well. And I fail to see how what Canada does and doesn't believe in is supposed to mar society in the USA to the point of Godlessness.
So If you don't celebrate Christmas the way Bill thinks you should, the terrorists win? Is that what that lunatic is saying?


I don't pay attention to idiot ideas.

Are you sure?

you wanna fight or just make out?

I'm just saying you have a funny way of not paying attention.

Im not a full out hardcore supporter of any party, in fact Id actually consider myself an independent.

But some of the things that the conservatives do and say are so fucking stupid.

O'Reilly's commentary was spot on, in my opinion.

We're living in a time when Christianity is pitted against Islam in a "good vs evil", "with us, against us" dialectic. It polarises religious points of view, and galvanises them to a large extent.

The "backlash" is as unsurprising is the movement to "secularise". It will blow over in time.

Better yet, the ridiculous notion of "religion" will blow over in time.



Change don't come at once it's a wave...

But yeah, I agree with Nick, what the hell does religion have to do with income redistribution?

And not sure the age of consent in Canada has to do with progressivism. I'm socially progressive and think the age of consent should be moved back to 18. But that's a whole different topic.