"The secularists want to get rid of all this religious stuff so it will make it easier to get their things through."
Let no one ever again identify this man as a real broadcaster. Could there be a less specific, more vague, oversimplified way of making an argument? Shall I fisk it a touch?
Let's start with "the secularists." What does Bill mean here? Who are these secularists? Groups that oppose organized religion, like the Center for Inquiry? Non-Christian groups, like B'nai B'rith? Groups that favor civil rights, like his public enemy #1 the ACLU? Why can't Bill address his comments to a more direct group, or a person even, with whom he disagrees, rather than use the meaningless term "the secularists"? And if this is again the fault of his favorite strawmen, the ACLU, why doesn't he address it as such? And isn't this placing too much importance on what is, in reality, just one of many partisan groups fighting on all sides of the civil rights debate?
You know my theory, if you've been an attentive reader...Bill sets up nonsensical arguments that he can then loudly and forcefully oppose on his show, making it seem like he's fighting the good fight to viewers with tunnel vision, when in reality he's yelling into a void. No one is out there trying to get rid of Christmas. Sure, you hear about the occasional town that doesn't want to put up a nativity scene, thereby angering local Christian fanatic nutbags, but it's not like there is some national conspiracy on behalf of anti-religious people, trying to destroy Christmas for all the merry happy Christians. The very idea, when spelled out this way, is ludicrous, of course, which is why Bill has to constantly disseminate, as in the above quote.
Let's get back to that quote..."want to get rid of all this religious stuff." What does Bill mean by religious stuff? What specific instances is he speaking about, when people tried to "get rid of religious stuff"? Of course, there aren't really any specific instances. He's talking right now about a case in the Bay Harbor Islands, where a woman wanted to put up a nativity scene in a public square, next to a Christmas tree and a menorah, and the town initially refused. So, she sued the town.
In this case, is it fair to say that secularists wanted to get rid of religious stuff? Isn't a Christmas tree religious? The answer is yes, because I don't believe in Christ or celebrate Christmas, and therefore I don't have a Christmas tree. So, the tree was there, and a menorah was there (also religious, when last I checked). The non-secularist city council didn't want a nativity scene because they felt it would violate the separation of church and state. Whether or not you agree, it certainly wouldn't be fair to classify this as a case of some large group of secularists opposing a display of Chrsitmas. It's a case of a local governing body making a decision about what sort of holiday display is appropriate for city property. It's not even remotely newsworthy, by the way, and has only made a primetime newscast because it (rather poorly) fits O'Reilly's bizarre thesis.
Okay, back to the quote. "...so it will make it easier to get their things through." This is where it gets really indecipherable. Let's take it piecemeal. What "things" are "secularists" attempting to get through? A Christmas ban? Unlikely, as it's already a federal holiday, as well as a religious holiday. Plus, everyone likes getting Christmas off from work and school, even anti-religious Jews like myself. Not to mention that you could never get a majority of people in any community in America to vote against Christmas. The freaking Fairfax District is probably going to be pro-Christmas, when you get right down to it. I like Gingerbread Lattes at Starbucks, if that counts.
Okay, so what other "things"? It seems to me that it's super-religious people that are often trying to change legislation in their favor. Like wanting displays put up of the Ten Commandments. There aren't already Ten Commandments hanging in classrooms that "secularists" want to take down. It's religious fanatics who want to put them up. Or wanting to make abortion illegal. Or wanting to prevent San Francisco and Boston from allowing gay marriage, even if the people living there are fine with it. Or wanting to ban "offensive" artwork and books from public galleries and libraries. Society is already pretty secular, because it's the law, so there isn't a lot of work to be done on behalf of secularists. The Founding Fathers kind of did our work for us.
And now let's take apart the other assumption here, that getting rid of Christmas would somehow "make it easier" to "get [our] things through." This is total balderdash. I don't know what Bill bases this on. He has no background in political science, journalism or law, and that's always been abundantly clear, but why on Earth anyone would just take his word on it that a Christmas ban is an essential first step in a gradual takeover of government by secularists is certainly a mystery to me.
Can you believe that's what he's saying on television every day? This is a best-selling author, a man watched by millions of Americans each day, a man who won an interview with our President when he refused to speak to almost any real journalists during his entire campaign...and he's telling his viewers every day that secularists are attempting to slowly eliminate all religion from American society, starting with a ban on public displays having to do with the Christmas holiday.
Does that make sense to you? Does it seem like something that is actively happening in your community? How does one man become so unbelievably full of shit?
No comments:
Post a Comment