War on Christmas

[KittenKoder]

I wasn't making a generalization. I was talking about a piece of ambient media that gives a single line (Be good for goodness sake) being unlikely to generate much response. So he would be in the minority in this case.

Oh, well true. The ads that do generally have little debate over them and even though they generate a lot more hits, they don't generally get much discussion. Sorry I misread what you were saying.

 

[tigerbob]

Oh, well true. The ads that do generally have little debate over them and even though they generate a lot more hits, they don't generally get much discussion. Sorry I misread what you were saying.

Possibly because I didn't express it that clearly.

 

[YWN666]

Okay, folks. How about THIS story for a war on Christmas?

Through the month of December new “holiday” ads will appear on buses around Washington DC that read “Why believe in God? Just be good for goodness sake”.

The ads came from the American Humanist Association (AHA), “Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead,” says AHA quoting Kurt Vonnegut.

DC Metro spokesperson Candace Smith told The Examiner “As a public agency, Metro must observe the First Amendment with respect to the acceptance of commercial advertising”.

“Although we understand that feelings and perceptions will vary among individuals within the community, we cannot reject advertising because an individual, or group, finds it inappropriate or offensive,” said Smith.

Uh huh. I'll just BET that's their policy. Anyone think they'd accept a counter ad that said, "Why be an atheist? They're all going to Hell"?

As I asked my husband while reading this article, do you think when they hired that spokeswoman, they actually advertised for a "bullshit artist"?

How is an ad saying "why believe in a god?" a war on Xmas? It says nothing about Xmas.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Doubt it. If you did, you'd be in the minority.

I heard about this over a month ago and my gut reaction was 'I'd be more curious if they'd left out the god part'. I don't pay much attention to advertising in general . . . Perhaps I would be in the minority; works for me.

 

[WhiteLion]

Buddha is a dried bear turd.

Chris you crazy

 

[tigerbob]

I heard about this over a month ago and my gut reaction was 'I'd be more curious if they'd left out the god part'. I don't pay much attention to advertising in general . . . Perhaps I would be in the minority; works for me.

If you've remembered it for a month, then you are indeed the exception to the rule.

 

[catzmeow]

Went to my daughter's high school Christmas concert last night. Of 14 songs performed, 100% were related to Christmas, and 9 of the 14 were religious in nature (carols, traditional religious songs). Sounds like Christmas is alive and well in this part of America.

I was only offended that they didn't perform the Hallelujah Chorus, as that is one of my favorite songs to hear during this season.

 

[sky dancer]

The "war on Christmas" traces back, historically, to Calvinist bans on the celebration of Christmas which began in Geneva and then migrated, with the spread of Calvinist theological views, to Scotland, where Christmas was banned in 1583. As Amy McNeese writes, in an article first published in the Church of Scotland magazine, Life & Work that may be one of the best treatments of the War on Christmas, in an historical account of the Scottish ban on Christmas that only was lifted in the 1950's,

"For almost 400 years, Christmas was banned in Scotland. At the height of the Reformation, in 1583, when anything smacking of Catholicism and idolatrous excess was thrown out with contempt, Christmas and all its trappings was wiped off the official calendar...
...Reinforced by the hard arm of the law, this was a ban that had bite...

This was an age when religious belief could mean the difference between life and a very nasty death....

Scottish Presbyterians, when called on for support by the Puritans of the English Parliament in 1644, did so on the understanding that their allies would in exchange impose the ban on Christmas. For over a decade traditional English Christmas festivities were prohibited

From Scotland, the ban on Christmas spread briefly, as Oliver Cromwell's New Model Army brought the Cromwellian revolution to England. Cromwell's Puritans banned Christmas in England for about a decade but the measure was unpopular. Feelings among pro and anti Christmas advocates ran strong and, after a second enforcement act against Christmas was passed by the English Parliament in 1647,

By the America of the early 1960's, American Christian right groups such as Billy James Hargis' Christian Crusade, which was at least heavily Christian nationalist if not overtly theocratic, had appropriated the notion of a "war on Christmas" as a means of red-baiting the American left (see section, below). But the true, historical War on Christmas was a creation of the Protestant, theocratic right.

Talk To Action | Reclaiming Citizenship, History, and Faith

It is Christians themselves who started a war on Christmas.

 

[sky dancer]

How the War on Christmas plays in Britain:

"Well, it looks like the "war on Christmas" is a quite deliberate ploy by a loud minority of religious traditionalists trying to claim more cultural clout than today's largely secular society entitles them to.

"There's something very complicated going on here," says Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society. "It has to do with the contest between Christianity and Islam: Christians are becoming very alarmed about the progress they see Islam making in this country, and they fear their own festivals will be overwhelmed. I was doing a phone-in the other day, and everybody who rang in was saying, 'They're banning Christmas!' So I said: 'Who? Where? Who's standing outside a church saying you can't go in? Who's coming and knocking on your door at 6am and asking if there's a nativity set in your house?' It's quite dangerous, I think, to incite this kind of resentment against a perceived enemy."

This year, though, the defenders of Christmas aren't only invoking the fear that nebulous Muslim forces might be about to obliterate Britain's traditional religion. Simultaneously, they have also aligned themselves with Muslim groups, arguing that the real enemy is secularisation. It's a position well-crafted for the historical moment, and for the currently fashionable notion of Britain as comprised of groups defined above all by their faith (even though barely 10% of us regularly attend any kind of religious service).

Unsurprisingly, the War-On-Christmas panic is not indigenously British, but, like many forms of religious chest-beating, imported from the Colonies, in this case, America and its culture war:

Then, last year, the War on Christmas received a massive boost when it exploded on to the American political landscape, thanks primarily to two Fox News anchormen, John Gibson and Bill O'Reilly. Gibson had a vested interest, having just published a book entitled The War On Christmas: How The Liberal Plot To Ban The Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought. (A note in the interests of full disclosure: O'Reilly, as I enjoy telling people whenever possible, accused me of "spout[ing] incredible nonsense" earlier this year after I wrote a story about a speech in which he invited al-Qaida to attack the liberal stronghold of San Francisco; previously, he had speculated that the Guardian "might be edited by Osama bin Laden".)
The Null Device: items for tags theocrats

 

[sky dancer]

War on Christmas connected to a white nationalist:

"The Christmas kulturkampf is a growth industry in a shrinking economy, providing an effective boost for conservative fundraising and a ratings bonanza for right-wing media. So who was the genius that created it? To find the answer, a visit with the ghost of conservatism’s past is in order.

Back during the culture wars of the 1990s, Peter Brimelow, then a Fortune magazine editor, grew incensed with the increasing use of the phrase “Happy Holidays” by retailers like Amazon.com. “I just got real interested in the issue,” Brimelow told The Daily Beast, “because I noticed over the years there was this social shift taking place where people no longer said ‘Merry Christmas.’”

In his 1995 book, Alien Nation, Brimelow argued that the influx of “weird aliens with dubious habits” from developing nations was eroding America’s white Christian “ethnic core,” and in turn, sullying its cultural underpinnings. The War on Christmas was, in his view, a particularly pernicious iteration of the multicultural “struggle to abolish America.”

Brimelow founded what would become the internet’s leading anti-immigration web journal, VDare.com, named for the first British child born in the Americas. Brimelow’s new venture provided a forum to allies like Jared Taylor, a white supremacist publisher, and Kevin MacDonald, an evolutionary psychology professor who has argued that Jews are genetically equipped to out-compete Gentiles for resources and power. In 2003, four years after VDare’s founding, the Southern Poverty Law Center classified the journal as a “hate group.”
The White Nationalist Behind Bill O'Reilly's War on Christmas | | AlterNet

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, the war on Christmas is kind of a myth, invented by overblown egos of the various blowhard idiots that are running around trying to make a name for themselves. Kinda like Rosie O'Donnell does when she picks a fight. All she (and they) are doing is trying to use that as a way to garner fame.

As far as religious commercials asking why believe in God? Nothing wrong with that at all, especially since it is written in the Torah as well as various places in the Bible that God WANTS us to question the answers, as well as verify we're getting our information from the real Man Himself. Need an example? Look no farther than the story of Abraham, who was told to do some pretty outlandish things, as well as had to take heat for listening to the One True God. You know, I kinda think that EVERYONE should ask themselves that question. Because, if you ask that, then God will truly know if you believe in Him or not. And......for the record......belief is a VERY strong and powerful thing. Ask Asimov or Einstein about their thought experiments sometime.

My favorite religious commercials? The ones for the United Way Methodist Church. You know......the ones where people start following strings and trails up to the top of a mountain? And.....they accept anyone as well as any belief in who God is to you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, the ad reads 'Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake', not 'why believe in God'. To me, there is a difference in this but maybe not to others.

If they don't allow this, then they don't allow those God billboards either. Freedom of speech applies to everyone. I don't agree with what the KKK spews but I'd defend their right to say it.

As for the ad . . . my guess is it was worded like this to spark debate and get them noticed. Seems they hired themselves some smart marketing types because it worked. Personally, I'd have been more intriqued if they just said 'be good for goodness sake'. I'd want to know what was the idea or business or whatever behind it.

No one has to "allow" the God billboards. Those billboards are private property, where the buses are city property.

And the freedom of speech question here is, would the city feel the same "First Amendment" compulsion to rent out for the opposite message, or is it only messages offensive to religious people?

Your "guess" is that it's worded like that to spark debate? Gee, y'think? There might be a slim possibility they were trying to make waves and cause problems? I wish I'd considered that.

 

[Zoom-boing]

No one has to "allow" the God billboards. Those billboards are private property, where the buses are city property.

And the freedom of speech question here is, would the city feel the same "First Amendment" compulsion to rent out for the opposite message, or is it only messages offensive to religious people?

Your "guess" is that it's worded like that to spark debate? Gee, y'think? There might be a slim possibility they were trying to make waves and cause problems? I wish I'd considered that.

I wasn't aware those God billboards were on private property.

If a 'Believe in a god' type bus ad were proposed to the city, I'd think the city would have to rent out the space for this message as well. Are you upset over the message or because the message is on city property or both? Should either one of these types of messages even be on city property? Is there a rule for separation of non-church and state?

Yup, my guess is that they did it to spark controversy and draw attention. Their ad people are pretty clever because they've succeeded in doing just that.

 

[KittenKoder]

No one has to "allow" the God billboards. Those billboards are private property, where the buses are city property.

And the freedom of speech question here is, would the city feel the same "First Amendment" compulsion to rent out for the opposite message, or is it only messages offensive to religious people?

Your "guess" is that it's worded like that to spark debate? Gee, y'think? There might be a slim possibility they were trying to make waves and cause problems? I wish I'd considered that.

*rae* What cities are buses city property? Here they are owned by Seattle Metro, a private organization. The term 'public' transportation means it is offered to the public not that it is publicly owned and operated. They are still private property.

 

[Zoom-boing]

*rae* What cities are buses city property? Here they are owned by Seattle Metro, a private organization. The term 'public' transportation means it is offered to the public not that it is publicly owned and operated. They are still private property.

Good point. I wonder who owns those buses that have the advertising.

BTW, what does *rae* mean?

 

[KittenKoder]

Good point. I wonder who owns those buses that have the advertising.

BTW, what does *rae* mean?

Raise An Eyebrow (the cartoon 'huh?')

I don't think that any city actually owns the buses anywhere in the US. I know in Seattle they are all privately owned and maintained by Seattle Metro, a company we invited to come in and give us public transportation. Even our soon to be new lightrail is still going to be operated and owned by Metro, we are only paying for the tracks since those are going on actual public property, but the trains will be Metro and Sound Transit property.

 

[del]

*rae* What cities are buses city property? Here they are owned by Seattle Metro, a private organization. The term 'public' transportation means it is offered to the public not that it is publicly owned and operated. They are still private property.

seattle metro is not a private organization; it's publicly owned and operated by King County. most large urban transit systems are publicly owned as they traditionally lose money and require subsidies from the govt.

 

[KittenKoder]

seattle metro is not a private organization; it's publicly owned and operated by King County. most large urban transit systems are publicly owned as they traditionally lose money and require subsidies from the govt.

That would be news to the people here, even to Metro, which makes almost all its decisions on its own without even asking. The subsidies they get are for the 'ride free' zone in downtown, a deal worked out between the city and Metro many ... many ... many years ago. Seattle is even looking to have the zone extended but the gas crisis put that on hold. They are still a separate entity no matter how you look at it, and that is what makes them privately owned.

 

[del]

That would be news to the people here, even to Metro, which makes almost all its decisions on its own without even asking. The subsidies they get are for the 'ride free' zone in downtown, a deal worked out between the city and Metro many ... many ... many years ago. Seattle is even looking to have the zone extended but the gas crisis put that on hold. They are still a separate entity no matter how you look at it, and that is what makes them privately owned.

king county govt is a separate entity, and that makes it privately owned? okay. whatever you say.........

A Tradition of Performance - King County Department of Transportation

 

[KittenKoder]

king county govt is a separate entity, and that makes it privately owned? okay. whatever you say.........

A Tradition of Performance - King County Department of Transportation

No, the Metro busses are. Our city doesn't actually spend money to put them on the fleet, nor do we maintain them. Our taxes do not fund them except in the Ride Free Zone. That is what makes Metro a private business. The fares they collect are what pays for everything. The fleet is increased by companies that have invested money in it most of the time. They just announce such an increase recently because of the profits they made last year combined with the increased ridership. It was not a vote, it was not our city, it was their profits.