This long abscence is a pain, but key for me in getting my final projects put together. But I thought I'd break my silence for a bit, to post on Bill O'Reilly. He recently wrote a column on "christmas haters". Apparently Bill is incensed that from communities to companies, there is a move to celebrate the "holidays". Now I think much fuss is made on all sides during this season, but side stepping legal arguments, Bill's piece seems to suggest that since we Christians are the majority, everyone else needs to suck it up. A sort of might, or in this case, majority, makes right. I suppose consideration for folks of other religions can't be bothered with during this joyous season.
But O'Reilly sees a conspiracy here. If we don't have creches on courtyards, if New York City has a holiday instead of a Christmas tree, then this will loosen the "Judeo-Christian" hold on the country, which is what is standing in the way of things like gay marriage. Not sure how the term "Judeo" snuck in on a Christmas column, but it's always a bit odd to see Judaism being brought into to defend some socially conservative views. Especially since Reform Judaism, the largest Jewish movement in the country, supports same sex unions. By the way, so does the United Church of Canada, the largest protestant body in that country.
If Christianity, was moved by it's highest ideals, then I have my doubts that stopping people who love each other because they're gay, would be the central goal of the religion. And certainly it wouldn't be making sure everyone says Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays. It would rather be seeking to address the brutality of torture which seems to be a feature of the US treatment of prisoners from Iraq to Guatanamo Bay. If half the energy being used to "defend" Christmas was used in outrage against the use of torture and the abrogration of the Geneva Convention, then maybe our government would have to pause and take note. And then maybe the religion's hold on our country would actually mean something worthwhile.