Winning hearts and minds in Fallujah -- Police State Style

[xpanda]

Jesus, JD. I found this without even looking:

Bill O'Reilly, Mister Centrist:

O'Reilly to Jewish caller: "f you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel"

FOX News Channel host Bill O'Reilly responded to a Jewish caller to his radio show who objected to "Christmas going into schools" and explained that he "grew up with a resentment because I felt that people were trying to convert me to Christianity." O'Reilly told the caller that America is "a predominantly Christian nation" and that "if you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel." O'Reilly labeled the caller's concerns "an affront to the majority" and insisted that "the majority can be insulted, too." During his exchange with the caller, O'Reilly also mistakenly referred to "the seven candles" of Hanukkah.

From the December 3 broadcast of the nationally syndicated The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

CALLER: I agree with what you've been saying recently -- you're concerned about the secularization of Christmas and -- I'm concerned about the secularization of Jews and about the -- and Christmas going into schools.

When I was growing up -- I'm Jewish, but I was not in a very Jewish area. There were some Jews there but, I was kind of -- grew up with a resentment because I felt that people were trying to convert me to Christianity --

O'REILLY: Were they?

CALLER: Yeah, when I got to college I found out -- that's true. A lot of people were. I found that millions of dollars were spent trying to convert --

O'REILLY: I mean that you really believe that people were trying to convert -- you personally -- were trying to make you change from being Jewish to Christian?

CALLER: Absolutely.

O'REILLY: How do they do that?

CALLER: Well, for example, there are various organizations in the colleges that go to people -- try to invite you to Bible study groups --

O'REILLY: Yeah, I know, but -- I mean, you don't have to go. I mean they do that to me. They come -- the Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door and invite me places. I mean, I don't care -- I just say no, get outta here.

CALLER: The thing is, is when you have -- for example, Christmas carols or gift exchanges being done in school, that kind of sets the kids up to being converted.

O'REILLY: Yeah, but you give gifts on Hanukkah, don't you?

CALLER: No, there's not really a Jewish tradition of giving gifts on --

O'REILLY: Well, the seven candles [sic], you get a gift for every night, don't you?

CALLER: Actually, the Jews give gifts on --

O'REILLY: All right. Well, what I'm tellin' you, [caller], is I think you're takin' it too seriously. You have a predominantly Christian nation. You have a federal holiday based on the philosopher Jesus. And you don't wanna hear about it? Come on, [caller] -- if you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel then. I mean because we live in a country founded on Judeo -- and that's your guys' -- Christian, that's my guys' philosophy. But overwhelmingly, America is Christian. And the holiday is a federal holiday honoring the philosopher Jesus. So, you don't wanna hear about it? Impossible.

And that is an affront to the majority. You know, the majority can be insulted, too. And that's what this anti-Christmas thing is all about.​

(transcripts are the best I can do, sorry. No get the Fox in Canuckistan.)

If O'Reilly were speaking from a Liberal position, rather than a defender of the Religious Right, he would have understood that the caller is simply seeking inclusion and the same right to feel free to express his religion as Christians, even if they are the majority. If the public schools are not going to have decorations and lessons pertaining to all other major religious holidays, then they ought not have them at all.

Right-wing bias.

​

 

[Cujo]

xpanda,

I don't think that such a nation exists. It's impossible to please 100% of the people.

Hitler may have had to go out of his way to be top dog but no one should have been surprised by his actions after reading "Mein kampf" and the basics of lebensraum.

By Italy, I meant the Renaissance democracies throughout that region. I apologize for the confusion.

 

[eek.]

no two democracies have ever fought each other

Thats an interesting statement.
Have to think about that one.

The US attacked Saddam unilaterally, other democracies were against the Iraq invasion. The US ignored all.

But the US may have a culture where the nation-state is bigger than the individual.

Guantanamo for starters, would be unthinkable here in the UK.
Guantanamo is outrageous.
The lack of oganised protest, one protest was 150 miles away from where Bush was.

various other stuff.

You're right, the US looks like a country where the nation-state is bigger than the individual.

Lets just hope that they are not on a roundabout path to the far right of the spectrum.

 

[xpanda]

Thats an interesting statement.
Have to think about that one.

... in a war, against one another. Liberal democracies, that is, not the úber-parliamentary whip variety Italy employed thru WWI, which is probably the closest thing to an exception there is.

Lets just hope that they are not on a roundabout path to the far right of the spectrum.

Neoconservatism, and the Religious Right. Lots and lots of hypernationalist self-righteousness to go around. Remember where that got bits of Europe in the 30s?

 

[PatPatriot]

Neoconservatism, and the Religious Right. Lots and lots of hypernationalist self-righteousness to go around. Remember where that got bits of Europe in the 30s?<!-- / message -->

There you go again...:nono5: what am I going to do with you?

 

[bblight]

xpanda - I've been following the posts between JDeuce and you with interest - both of you are enlightning in your own way.

X, One point that you regularly bring up is that media such as CNN and the NY Times are not weighting their news pro or con. I disagree.

The tone of a voice, a gesture, the use of a word, can all add positive or negative conotations to a news story.

Whether you use the label "non-native combatants" or "terrorists" can make the foreign participants in a distant war come across as freedom fighters or terrorist fanatics.

If you reserve one set of words for right wing news and another set of words for left wing news, words that have varying degrees of positive or negative nuance, and you apply those words so that your story lends weight to or discredits the subject....well, you get the idea - consider the words that CNN or the Times, or Fox News are using, and you'll get an idea of whther there's a bias at work.

As JDeuce mentioned - don't look at the editorials - we already know that they're slanted, and we expect it. Look at the regular news and how it's presented.

 

[PatPatriot]

bb, very true have you ever seen the times call a democrat a "liberal democrat"?....no, but you always see them call so and so a "right wing republican".

28 days in a row on abu grabass above the fold and front page,while beheadings of westerners were buried inside somewhere.

And at least fox news invites libs to make their case in a one on one setting.

And they have never been caught forgeing documents like cbs.

 

[bblight]

Patriot, right on!
I love the way they used the word "torture" at Abu Graib, rather than "abuse", or some other word - so they could paint the troops with the ugliest brush they could use.

 

[PatPatriot]

Headline in the Boston Herald:

WORLD ENDS TOMORROW!

Headline in the NY Times

WORLD ENDS TOMORROW!
Woman and Children to be hit hardest;
Bush said to have no plan.

 

[xpanda]

xpanda - I've been following the posts between JDeuce and you with interest - both of you are enlightning in your own way.

X, One point that you regularly bring up is that media such as CNN and the NY Times are not weighting their news pro or con. I disagree.

No, you misunderstand.

I DO agree that the NYT and CNN both favour the Democrats. CNN, indirectly via their parent AOL/Time Warner, actually donated tons of money to both Dean's and Kerry's campaigns, then donated to the Dem party directly.

What I am saying is that they do not have a Liberal bias.

I do not agree with the common sentiment around here that the Dems are leftist (as a group, certainly some individual members and voters are) nor that the Times and CNN support leftist ambitions. If either of them did, they would have questioned tons and tons and tons of stuff in the lead-up to the war (this is only an example) as the media around the world did.

Please don't be offended by this -- but I don't think the vast majority of Americans understand what liberalism is. The term has been grossly misapplied in your politics.

 

[JDeuce]

Two things before I head out the door for a date, XP...

1. That segment took place on Bill O'Reilly's "Radio Factor"...not on Fox News TV. I'll give you a pass since you're from the cold north, but why haven't any of my fellow Yankee friends been able to extricate one specific instance where Fox News has been right wing biased? Come on, Ba'athist Doc...you of all people should have plenty.

2. This is probably a debate for another thread, but what exactly did O'Reilly say that was either hard right or anti-semitic? Anti-semitism by definition is the deliberate practice of discrimination or hatred towards people of Jewish faith....and he doesn't advocate that anywhere. Secondly, he's right...this country was founded on Judeo-Christian morals and values. A lot of them are still prevalant today, which is why our culture is a lot more 'subdued' than European, for example.

But I'd say trying to suppress Christmas themes is certainly discriminating against a religion; why is it okay to discriminate against Catholics? Why should everyone in our society have to conform to the whims of a minority? I absolutely guarantee you that if any movement to outlaw public Christmas carols or themes around December were somehow placed onto a ballot, they'd get shot down in every single city, district, or state.

 

[xpanda]

But I'd say trying to suppress Christmas themes is certainly discriminating against a religion;

Not if themes of Hanukkah, Ramadan, yada yada aren't celebrated in public schools. By specifically celebrating Christian themes, while not giving the same consideration for other religions, you are discriminating against all other religions.

Why is that okay?

...why is it okay to discriminate against Catholics?

It's not okay to discriminate against Catholics. The caller was asking for the elimination of Christian expression in publicly funded arenas since taxpayer dollars are not also going to pump up the expressions of other religions.

Our societies favour Christians in public expression. That is discriminatory.

Why should everyone in our society have to conform to the whims of a minority?

So 'Jewishness' is a 'whim', is it?

Further, democracies as they are set up in our respective societies are specifically formulated to protect "minorities from the tyranny of the majority." That is a quote from Canada's founding father. It is the nature of liberal democracy.

I absolutely guarantee you that if any movement to outlaw public Christmas carols or themes around December were somehow placed onto a ballot, they'd get shot down in every single city, district, or state.

What if that ballot said the following:

"Christmas decorations, as paid for from taxpayers' coffers, will be allowed to continue so long as taxpayers are willing to fund equal expression of all major religious holidays, from all religions represented in the US."

Do you think you might see the issue differently then?

(Note that the caller, and myself, are only arguing against promoting Christianity in publicly paid for service arenas such as schools. If JC Penny or Bank of America want Christmas trees and Santas running around, fine, that's their business. The caller objects to state-sanctioned selective religious expression.)

(Oh, and not once did I imply that O'Reilly was anti-semitic. If I think someone is being racist, I will explicitly state that. Okay?)

We are waaaaay off topic.

 

[JDeuce]

By specifically celebrating Christian themes, while not giving the same consideration for other religions, you are discriminating against all other religions.

No, you're not. I don't remember any Christmas carolers singing tunes which praised Christianity and mocked on other religions....do you? The point a lot of people are missing is the practice of one religion doesn't mean you're disrespecting another (well, unless you're calling on people of similar faith to kill those of other faiths, I suppose).

But Cujo nailed it...the kind of country you're envisioning simply doesn't exist.

Also...best read up on the US Constitution, XP. Check this out:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Translation: It guarantees our citizens the freedom to partake in whatever religion they choose, but does NOT guarantee any equal religious promotion.

So therefore, no laws are really being broken by schools choosing to decorate for Christmas, are they? But by telling schools they can't decorate for Christmas, you are 'prohibiting free exercise thereof.'


The caller was asking for the elimination of Christian expression in publicly funded arenas since taxpayer dollars are not also going to pump up the expressions of other religions.


Actually, schools (or any other government institution) do not get any 'Christmas funding.' They probably have a store room full of boxes where they store Christmas decorations for 11 months out of the year....purchased years ago by God knows whom. Or (as is the case with my dad, who works at NASA) people in that department all agreed to bring in their own decorations this year. Sounds like a majority decison to me, which brings me to...


So 'Jewishness' is a 'whim', is it?

When they're the minority, yes. So is Zen Buddhism, Muslim, or what have you when it isn't the majority. These people are a small minority who feel offended by something the majority supports.

Sorry, but Catholics are the majority in this country. If I moved to Pakistan, I really wouldn't expect to see many public Christmas decorations during December. And they claim to have a democracy there...would I have just as much of a right to ***** when I saw public Ramadan displays?

If JC Penny or Bank of America want Christmas trees and Santas running around, fine, that's their business.

Funny...the ACLU doesn't seem to agree with you. Are you familiar with the story of the ACLU strong-arming the executive management idiots at Target corporation into prohibiting Salvation Army workers from standing in front of Target stores? What are your thoughts on that?

Oh btw...since we're so off topic in this thread anyways, I might as well throw another one in here. Any of you going to the RX get together next year in Vegas (in the spring, IIRC)? I'd love to have a beer with some of you...

 

[xpanda]

You are still completely missing the point.

We are talking about state supported (repeat: STATE supported), taxpayer-funded, promotion of ONLY ONE religion's major holidays.

Hannukah is not a federal holiday.
Ramadan (it's a month long, but I think there are specific individual days that could be yanked out) is not a federal holiday.

Etc.

And, before you knee-jerk, Christmas was not a federal holiday in the US until 1870.

NOBODY is saying certain religions cannot be PRACTICED.

We are simply talking about which ones the GOVERNMENT acknowledges via holidays and funding.

Please tell me you now see the difference.

 

[xpanda]

Oh btw...since we're so off topic in this thread anyways, I might as well throw another one in here. Any of you going to the RX get together next year in Vegas (in the spring, IIRC)? I'd love to have a beer with some of you...

Specifically when?

(Oh, and I think Evangelicals are the majority religion. I saw a documentary a month or so ago that said there were 100 million of 'em in the US. That's got to be a majority, no?)

(Though, sidebar, how many atheist/agnostics do you suppose you have??? Nobody ever seems to talk about them.)

 

[JDeuce]

We are talking about state supported (repeat: STATE supported), taxpayer-funded, promotion of ONLY ONE religion's major holidays.

First, like I said before...this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. With that in mind, why is it so hard to understand that Christmas is a federal holiday? And I don't know what's offered in Canada, but most companies in the States offer their employees floating holidays...usually three per year. There is no nation in the world who is more tolerant than the USA when it comes to respecting people practicing religion. So you can still go to work, or work from home if you want to on Christmas Day. Nobody forces you to stay away...

Secondly, show me some proof which backs up your claim. Show me any link which lists yearly US government (ie taxpayer) funded and sponsored Christmas promotions.

And I'm still waiting for your thoughts on the Target Store situation, Macy's Department store not saying 'Merry Christmas' to their customers, etc. Is that or is it not prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

 

[xpanda]

First, like I said before...this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

The operative word being 'principles.' FYI, those principles can also be found in the writings of Enlightenment thinkers (such as Voltaire), Locke, Plato, and, yes, Jesus. The US was never founded on Judeo-Christianity, however. You were never designed to be a theocracy, or to even resemble one. In fact, Jefferson routinely made comments stressing the need for church and state to be separate. Oh, and so did Jesus.

With that in mind, why is it so hard to understand that Christmas is a federal holiday?

Personally, I don't care if Christmas is a holiday or not. I simply think that more religions should have their major holidays recognised by the state. Official holidays (days off) would be a start. Or, we could abolish all federal religious holidays in their entirety and leave days off to employers, not the state.

There is no nation in the world who is more tolerant than the USA when it comes to respecting people practicing religion.

That's pure crap. Prove it.

Secondly, show me some proof which backs up your claim. Show me any link which lists yearly US government (ie taxpayer) funded and sponsored Christmas promotions.

Simply by making it a stat holiday, the government is funding Christmas. Then there's all the decorations each city puts up, the lights on the lampposts, the Christmas trees in front of city hall, yada yada. Hannukah and Ramadan don't get that kind of consideration.

And I'm still waiting for your thoughts on the Target Store situation, Macy's Department store not saying 'Merry Christmas' to their customers, etc. Is that or is it not prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

If Target and Macy's aren't using the word 'Christmas' that is their business. I am assuming it's not a law, just a company policy? They risk alienating Christian customers, but also may impress non-Christian customers.

The caller in the OP was talking about Christmas being taught/celebrated/promoted in schools, not bloody Macy's.

Would you have a problem with Ramadan being celebrated in public schools??

 

[JDeuce]

Jesus, XP...you're now bordering on ridiculous.

I simply think that more religions should have their major holidays recognised by the state.

Great...I'm really glad you feel that way. But most of us don't...reason being, no nation on earth operates that way. Find me a nation which celebrates every single holiday of every religion, and I'll listen. Until you can, you're being unrealistic. Christ...a country's economy would come to a crashing halt because people would have about one day off per week. At work now, we get plenty of e-mails from our Asian offices saying "We will be closed next Thursday for celebration of the third moon of the new season" or God knows what...should we in the USA stop and take days off for those as well?

Btw, you do realize that publicly celebrating Christmas is not a US-exclusive phenomenon...don't you? My family is mostly European, and I've been there during the holiday season. In Germany, almost every city has something called "Christkindlmarkt" (ie 'Christmas market') where there are Christmas shops set up throughout the streets. Are you outraged about that too...because they don't happen to have prayer mats available in the street for people who may want to celebrate Ramadan?



Anyways, why are so you hell bent on making it an all-or-nothing proposition?

Official holidays (days off) would be a start. Or, we could abolish all federal religious holidays in their entirety and leave days off to employers, not the state.

Two words (which you ignored when I wrote them in my last post): Floating Holidays. Lots of companies here offer them. Do you even know what those are? If you don't, ask and I'll explain. If you do, then why are those not good enough?

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">There is no nation in the world who is more tolerant than the USA when it comes to respecting people practicing religion. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
That's pure crap. Prove it.

No, you do the heavy lifting and disprove my claim. I'm already at a hypothesis, and don't need to expound any more. I'm saying there is no one who is more tolerant than the USA when it comes to religious freedom. Find me a country which is.


Then there's all the decorations each city puts up, the lights on the lampposts, the Christmas trees in front of city hall, yada yada.

Do you really believe Christmas is entirely about promoting religion? When I walk around the malls and see Christmas decorations galore, that to me is more like promoting holiday cheer, happiness, and (most importantly) consumer shopping. I still have yet to see one reference to religion in the malls or streets though...


If Target and Macy's aren't using the word 'Christmas' that is their business. I am assuming it's not a law, just a company policy? They risk alienating Christian customers, but also may impress non-Christian customers.

It wasn't quite that simple...they did this (foolishly) because they somehow assumed that a Salvation Army worker collecting money for charity in front of a Target store was promoting religion. The source of the pressure on the companies was, of course, the ACLU. I find that absurd and preposterous...and am surprised more lefties aren't outraged since its a charity who is getting screwed in the end.

Would you have a problem with Ramadan being celebrated in public schools??

If I'm a kid? Hell no...when I was that are, we were all about blowing school days off. We'd look for any excuse to miss classes. Ramadan? Chinese Holidays? Cinco de Mayo? If it meant missing classes, bring it all on...

Or if I wasn't really that interested in the subject of celebration, I'd probably have just propped my head onto a stack of books and napped until it was time to leave (ie ignored it). Why can't others do that?

 

[xpanda]

The best part of this argument is that I don't happen to side with the PC crowd. I like Christmas, now that I have nieces. I like presents, I like shopping, I like chocolates. THe shortbread and fruitcake I can do without. I think the anti-Christmas people are being stupid.

That in mind, I do think that public schools should make a point of teaching about Christmas but also about other major religious holidays (not all of them, silly.) In my Catholic high school, we took a course on world religions. The more we know about each other, the less fearful we are.

But, still, O'Reilly was being an insensitive and dismissive boob when he told the caller to 'go back to Israel' if Christmas offended him. It was unbecoming of a radio personality. Oh, wait ... I forgot who I was talking about.

____________________

Did you know that Fox News gave almost four times as much money to the Democrats as the Republicans since 1998??

How's that for ironic?

 

[xpanda]

That's pure crap. Prove it.

No, you do the heavy lifting and disprove my claim. I'm already at a hypothesis, and don't need to expound any more. I'm saying there is no one who is more tolerant than the USA when it comes to religious freedom. Find me a country which is.

Oh, and don't do this anymore. If you make a claim, you back it up. Don't ask me to prove something that I never claimed in the first place. It's just disingenuous and unbecoming of someone who seems to have a reasonable head on his shoulders and an ability to fight back.