Gays Are Ruining Christmas

Just ask Bill!

Bill O’Reilly Blames Gays For The ‘War On Christmas’
By Zack Ford on Dec 7, 2012 at 12:15 pm




Fox News really doesn’t seem to have anything better to do in December than continue to manufacture the silly “War on Christmas” and then take real umbrage to the fake campaign. Despite Jon Stewart’s epic dismantling earlier this week, Bill O’Reilly continues his reverse-crusade, and now he’s implicating women and LGBT people in the process. Last night, he and Bernard McGuirk, executive producer of Imus in the Morning, revealed that they actually believe there’s a war against Christianity that’s being led by champions of the right to choose and LGBT equality:

MCGUIRK: "The war on Christmas is very, very real, and if you ask me, in addition to some grouchy misanthropic heathen atheists it has to do — at the root of it — with two things — abortion and the gay rights agenda, because Christianity is against those things. It’s subtle but that’s why it’s so pronounced in recent years."

O’REILLY: "Hundred percent agree. I absolutely agree 100 percent that the diminishment of Christianity is the target and Christmas is the vehicle because the secularists know the opposition to their agenda (legalized drugs is in that as well) comes primarily from the Judeo-Christian traditionalist people."

Fox News

/thread

Since when was there a war on Christmas?

Originally Posted by mkodama

Since when was there a war on Christmas?

Ever since there's been a war on Christianity




The thing is, some people believe this shite.

Originally Posted by evolved

Ever since there's been a war on Christianity




The thing is, some people believe this shite.

If there is a war on women, there is a war on Christianity. Either both sides acknowledge their "war" or everyone s+FU about crap like this.

Oddly enough, our society is in a weird place where it is almost encouraged to berate and mock Christianity and Mormonism...yet we still bend over backwards to not offend Jews and Muslims. Quite strange, and illogical.

Pssst. . .women are real.

Originally Posted by Act of God

If there is a war on women, there is a war on Christianity. Either both sides acknowledge their "war" or everyone s+FU about crap like this.

I don't think there is a "war on women" as it's just a shitty buzz term that some over educated diptard in a press room came up with because it sounds alarming....kinda like the Terror Threat Level colors that Fox News had a while back.

Originally Posted by Act of God

Oddly enough, our society is in a weird place where it is almost encouraged to berate and mock Christianity and Mormonism...yet we still bend over backwards to not offend Jews and Muslims. Quite strange, and illogical.

I don't think this applies to society as a whole....maybe here in this forum, or among your circle of contacts, but definitely not as a major trend. If that were the case we wouldn't see Christmas commercials starting in August, for example.

Originally Posted by evolved

I don't think this applies to society as a whole....maybe here in this forum, or among your circle of contacts, but definitely not as a major trend. If that were the case we wouldn't see Christmas commercials starting in August, for example.

Movies, TV, art, music, politics - all accepted means of disparaging Christians. This is a national trend, not some yankee NY thing. You can't run around calling catholics pedophiles and making magic underwear jokes then freak out when someone makes a turban or yarmulke joke.

Xmas commercials in August are because Xmas is an American consumer holiday now with no religious connotation for most people.

Originally Posted by Act of God

Movies, TV, art, music, politics - all accepted means of disparaging Christians. This is a national trend, not some yankee NY thing. You can't run around calling catholics pedophiles and making magic underwear jokes then freak out when someone makes a turban or yarmulke joke.

Xmas commercials in August are because Xmas is an American consumer holiday now with no religious connotation for most people.

If calling priests pedophiles constitutes a "war on christianity/christmas" then calling all brown people terrorists is the same thing.

Although, it is something to consider when the fricken POPE is involved in the covering up of pederast priests.

Religious beliefs of any type are outdated.

Ok fair enough, but why do people then have a problem with a Christmas tree being called a Christmas tree or a nativity scene at a public building. From what I understand we have freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. I have seen menorahs in government buildings so they are not playing favorites. I watched oreilly where he had that atheist dude on who is crying in rhode island. Now they want all these nativity scenes removed from public areas. This goes back to freedom from. Based in my understanding, any and all religions are free to demonstrate in a public building. If the atheists wanted to put a giant "A" or even a festivus pole and were denied, I would completely understand their beef. That would mean the government is playing favorites with religion allowing one and not another. However, just wanting the removal or someone else's seems wrong to me. I'm Jewish and like Christmas. It's a pleasant time of year. I like what it stands for. I like the pretty lights. I like the decorations and nativity scenes. I like being told merry Christmas by strangers. It's nice. I don't understand why so many have a problem with it. As commercialized as the US is, I find it hard to believe that people think Christmas in a religious sense.

/\

yeah I don't get that either. Don't see what the big deal is of calling a xmas tree a xmas tree.

Christmas, to me, is no different than Halloween...it's a seasonal celebration

Thomas Jefferson was proud of their public buildings being used as churches while they weren't being used for govt business.

Originally Posted by 330iPilot

Thomas Jefferson was proud of their public buildings being used as churches while they weren't being used for govt business.

When did he tell you that?

Originally Posted by tock172

Religious beliefs of any type are outdated.

Holy crap!

Common ground.

Originally Posted by Act of God

Movies, TV, art, music, politics - all accepted means of disparaging Christians. This is a national trend, not some yankee NY thing. You can't run around calling catholics pedophiles and making magic underwear jokes then freak out when someone makes a turban or yarmulke joke.

That blade cuts both ways.

Movies, TV, art, music, politics - all accepted means of promoting Christians.

Movies, TV, art, music, politics - all accepted means of evangelizing to non-Christians.

You can't run around telling everyone that your god is the one true god and if you dont accept that you'll be tortured for all eternity and then freak out when people who disagee do so publically and adamantly.

I agree that there shouldn't be different standards for criticism of any religion, but such is the modern state of things between the majority and various minorities. Maybe it's payback for the centuries when the opposite was true.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Ok fair enough, but why do people then have a problem with a Christmas tree being called a Christmas tree or a nativity scene at a public building. From what I understand we have freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. I have seen menorahs in government buildings so they are not playing favorites. I watched oreilly where he had that atheist dude on who is crying in rhode island. Now they want all these nativity scenes removed from public areas. This goes back to freedom from. Based in my understanding, any and all religions are free to demonstrate in a public building. If the atheists wanted to put a giant "A" or even a festivus pole and were denied, I would completely understand their beef. That would mean the government is playing favorites with religion allowing one and not another. However, just wanting the removal or someone else's seems wrong to me. I'm Jewish and like Christmas. It's a pleasant time of year. I like what it stands for. I like the pretty lights. I like the decorations and nativity scenes. I like being told merry Christmas by strangers. It's nice. I don't understand why so many have a problem with it. As commercialized as the US is, I find it hard to believe that people think Christmas in a religious sense.

The govt should not be endorsing any religion.

1 - There is no need to use public spaces/resources to display religious materials. Those materials should be displayed at religious sites or private spaces.

2 - It's not practical to allow equal access to all religious views. Public spaces would be constantly used for the stuff, and some views would inevitably be marginalized because of the small number of their believers.

3 - The govt will inevitably be put in the position of judging the appropriateness of a religious view. Call it the Satan test. When Devil worshippers want to put up a display promoting sin, decadence and evil, will it be embraced and given the same treatment as everyone else? Or will they be treated differently based on the content of their message?

Minimizing govt involvement with religion is in everyone's best interest, especially the religions themselves.

Indoctrination is a helluva drug.

Originally Posted by Lair

When did he tell you that?

You are one ignorant lib.

It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.
Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

Originally Posted by tock172

Religious beliefs of any type are outdated.

This