Jerry Falwell asks:
November 22, 2005News & Politics
I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way�all of them who have tried to secularize America�I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen." -- Jerry Falwell on 9/11
Ho hum. Jerry Falwell and his fellow charlatans (Bill O'Reilly anyone?) are peddling their Hummer-style Christianity again; a vain and selfish strain, intent on mowing down those who stand in their way. Must be fundraising time.
Meet the "Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign," led by the Liberty Counsel and supported by Falwell's followers which "promises to file suit against anyone who spreads what it sees as misinformation about how Christmas can be celebrated in schools and public spaces."
You know the drill. The point is actual to spread misinformation, not combat it. By framing it as a war on Christmas (helped quite nicely by the SF Chronicle's editors who sully Joe Garofoli's excellent article with the Falwell-friendly headline: "Falwell fighting for holy holiday... He threatens to sue, boycott groups that subvert Christmas." As if anybody's trying to "subvert" Christmas. Please.), all rational debate is off the table.
It is much more appropriately titled a "war on the constitution" whose framers thought enough of separation of church and state to state that there ought to be a separation of church and state.
No state religion shall be established, not that the state religion would be the one practiced by the largest number. How (and I'm sincerely asking this now) can the practice of Christian religion in public schools not be construed as the preference by that government funded body for that particular religion?
But they've been rather successful at seeding the idea that Christianity is under attack. A recent Anti-Defamation League poll revealed that 57 percent of adults feel that way.
O'Reilly's doing his part by making a list (though I doubt with his propensity to lie that he's doing anything so thorough as checking it twice...) of retailers who, he claims, refuse to use "Merry Christmas" in their store ads.
Umm, why is it even a refusal? Doesn't "refusal" imply obligation? Why should they use Merry Christmas? But fine, I have no problem with exerting economic pressure to change a store's policies.
Ironically, Target is not only the subject of this Christianist ire for attempting to be ecumenical in its approach, but it also happens to be on my shit list for allowing its pharmacists to refuse to fill women's prescriptions should they not agree with the medication prescribed by a medical professional. An abhorrent policy.
My question is this: is Jerry Falwell, the man whose mouth spat the words at the top of this post, the man Christians want out front representing them?
Ho hum. Jerry Falwell and his fellow charlatans (Bill O'Reilly anyone?) are peddling their Hummer-style Christianity again; a vain and selfish strain, intent on mowing down those who stand in their way. Must be fundraising time.
Meet the "Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign," led by the Liberty Counsel and supported by Falwell's followers which "promises to file suit against anyone who spreads what it sees as misinformation about how Christmas can be celebrated in schools and public spaces."
You know the drill. The point is actual to spread misinformation, not combat it. By framing it as a war on Christmas (helped quite nicely by the SF Chronicle's editors who sully Joe Garofoli's excellent article with the Falwell-friendly headline: "Falwell fighting for holy holiday... He threatens to sue, boycott groups that subvert Christmas." As if anybody's trying to "subvert" Christmas. Please.), all rational debate is off the table.
It is much more appropriately titled a "war on the constitution" whose framers thought enough of separation of church and state to state that there ought to be a separation of church and state.
No state religion shall be established, not that the state religion would be the one practiced by the largest number. How (and I'm sincerely asking this now) can the practice of Christian religion in public schools not be construed as the preference by that government funded body for that particular religion?
But they've been rather successful at seeding the idea that Christianity is under attack. A recent Anti-Defamation League poll revealed that 57 percent of adults feel that way.
O'Reilly's doing his part by making a list (though I doubt with his propensity to lie that he's doing anything so thorough as checking it twice...) of retailers who, he claims, refuse to use "Merry Christmas" in their store ads.
Umm, why is it even a refusal? Doesn't "refusal" imply obligation? Why should they use Merry Christmas? But fine, I have no problem with exerting economic pressure to change a store's policies.
Ironically, Target is not only the subject of this Christianist ire for attempting to be ecumenical in its approach, but it also happens to be on my shit list for allowing its pharmacists to refuse to fill women's prescriptions should they not agree with the medication prescribed by a medical professional. An abhorrent policy.
My question is this: is Jerry Falwell, the man whose mouth spat the words at the top of this post, the man Christians want out front representing them?
