LITTWIN: Ending culture wars on holiday list
By Mike Littwin, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published November 18, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
In case you were worried that Barack Obama's election meant the end of the long-running culture wars in America, do not despair. All, apparently, is not yet lost.
Our friends down in Colorado Springs at never-say-die Focus on the Family are still out there fighting to the bitter end.
Once again, and with feeling, they're on the front lines in the annual war against the War on Christmas - or, more precisely, the annual war against the phony-baloney, nonexistent War on Christmas, a war that resides only in the minds of people like James Dobson and Bill O'Reilly and those who persist in listening to them.
That they're still fighting a war that doesn't actually exist is, well, a perfect metaphor for the entire movement.
I know what you're thinking. You thought voters had sent a strong message in November about ending the distractions and facing up to all the serious issues confronting us.
After all, Obama takes office in January looking at some real challenges. Let's see. There are a couple of real wars being fought, with real people dying. There's also the collapse of the financial markets, not to mention of your 401(k), and, while we're at it, the value of your house. There's GM on the verge of bankruptcy. There's the trillion-dollar budget deficit. And there's, of course, the whole Lindsay Lohan-Scarlett Johansson dust-up.
But if Obama's election seemed to be about, in part, dropping the big one on the culture wars, Focus on the Family apparently didn't get the memo.
Focus put out its own memo instead, calling for (without quite calling for) a boycott of so-called Christmas-unfriendly stores. These would be stores who use the anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Focus word holiday, as in Happy Holidays, like, you know, in the anti- American Bing Crosby song.
(Personally, I'm still steamed about Matt Holliday, which is whole different issue, but still a lump of coal the Rockies put in our collective holiday stocking.)
Focus put out a list of "Christmas- friendly" retailers, "Christmas-negligent" retailers and "Christmas-offensive" retailers. The offenders are the "happy holiday" users, who might believe that some holiday shoppers don't celebrate Christmas. It's a small thing. No, check that. It's an absurdly small thing.
And Focus says it's not calling for a boycott - after all, that's what the gays are using in California against companies that supported Prop. 8 - but just providing information to consumers who might unsuspectingly walk into Old Navy.
At first, I thought it was another joke from the wacky Focus folk, like the "mildly humorous" video Focus on the Family Action - the group's political arm; a right arm, I'm guessing - put out calling for "rain of biblical proportions" on the night Obama gave his acceptance speech at Mile High. It didn't rain. And when Obama held his victory rally in Chicago in November, it was 70 degrees. Hmmm.
Like many of you, I enjoy biblical humor, particularly if plagues are involved. But I'm thinking that, in this case, "humor" may be an all-purpose excuse for, as they say in the movie Spinal Tap, that very thin line between clever and stupid.
For example, there was the conservative policy analyst Michael Barone, who said in a speech, "The liberal media attacked Sarah Palin because she did not abort her Down syndrome baby. They wanted her to kill that child."
When called on it, Barone said he was just trying to be humorous. I wish you could see me holding my sides now. Let's just say it's no way to have to type.
In any case, it's tricky business speaking for God. Dobson said Sarah Palin was "God's answer" to his prayers. I wonder what God had in mind when Obama won.
In the election post-mortems, the big issue seems to be whether America is now a center-right nation or a center-left nation. In the nonpartisan Cook Report, Charlie Cook noted that Republicans lost support among many subgroups, but interestingly among well-educated, higher earners, who didn't necessarily agree with Republicans on social issues such as embryonic stem cell research.
Exit polls show a 7-point swing from Republican to Democrat since 2004. But in Dobson's world, we're not talking center-right or center-left or center-anything. It was Dobson who vowed he would not support center-right John McCain "under any circumstances." He said it was a "matter of conscience."
Of course, in the end, he did support McCain once Palin joined the ticket. Maybe it's just me, but when I say "under any circumstances," I tend to mean, like, under any circumstances, but I guess any is a relative term.
If you didn't notice, this election featured a pre-boomer candidate and a mostly post-boomer candidate, although Obama officially missed by a few years. I don't think that's a coincidence. You can put it on Bill Clinton, who underachieved on the job, or George Bush, who didn't achieve at all. In fact, Bill Dog's post-presidency entanglements are apparently the last obstacle in the way of Hillary Clinton being named secretary of state.
But I would put it less on Clinton and Bush themselves than on the culture wars that were born of the '60s and that were fought for the entire 16 years Clinton and Bush were on the job.
If you were wondering what change Obama was promising, that would seem to be change enough.
This week's cover of Time, getting at that question, has Obama pictured as a modern-day FDR. It was Roosevelt, of course, who famously said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
That is unless, of course, you work for Focus on the Family, which has announced it's laying off 149 employees - and, as it happens, just in time for the, uh, holidays. I just hope that on the severance checks, someone remembers to write "Merry Christmas."
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Boulder Wildfire
See photos from the Boulder County fire.
-
Legislature Blog
The Rocky's Lynn Bartels and Ed Sealover provide live updates from the Capitol.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Weekend plans?
Figure out things to do this weekend with the help of our entertainment calendar.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's rant on what's next for the Broncos.
-
Live updates
Sign up for mobile alerts and breaking news e-mails to keep up with the latest news.
November 18, 2008
5:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
noprem writes:
sergal, you've got right to the heart of ... something. I couldn't possibly improve on that.
Back to you, Mike. I wouldn't lose any sleep over FOF and its kind, but of course they're always good column-fodder. :-)
If there is a God, and its their God, then they have nothing to fear.
The God I believe in is "the judge of the whole earth", to quote his friend Abraham, in Genesis. There is no "God's Country" with him, so you can ignore the vote-frenzy "Christians" on that account. As someone once said, "Imagine ..."
Keep the ... ummm ... faith.
Regards, Doug
November 18, 2008
6:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
JonBen writes:
Thanks for that fascinating information, Sergal. (But please tell me where I can get my own Scarlett Johansson clone for the holidays. I mean, Christmas.)
When I read this column I assumed that Mike Littwin was joking. "Christmas-negligent"? Are you kidding me? Is THAT what FotF is spending its supporters' contributions on - while at the same time firing 202 of its staffers a few weeks before Christmas?
Now THAT's "Christmas-offensive," Dr. Dobson. I hope you and your well-heeled family have a very Merry Christmas!
November 18, 2008
6:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
LetsThink writes:
Mr. Littwin's extreme left character has come out clearly in this editorial (he usually tries to disguise/hide it).
Have you ever seen a more strident attack on any group??
And that is Mr. Littwin's skill: incessantly attacking Christianity/morality/conservatism.
Why are we conservatives helping to pay his salary???????
November 18, 2008
7:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ike writes:
The point Littwin makes, LetsThink, is that there are many more important issues in the World than whether or not a retailer instructs its staff to say Merry Christmas or not. If you agree with the Reverend Dobson, sit yourself down and write a big check to him.
Speaking of the Christmas Spirit here, LetsThink, what are your thoughts on the staffers being laid off? Is this how a good Christian business man would do it? Is this what Jesus would do for his followers? I think not. Focus on the Family gets mentioned so much because they are easy targets with their out of touch views, not because columnists are anti-Christians.
Now, and for the many more times in the future and the times in the past, let me remind that unless you are an advertiser you are not paying Littwin's or Stein's salary. Please try and remember that the online edtion is free and are all the places on the Denver newspapers that allow me and LetsThink to post our respective views. Capesh?
November 18, 2008
7:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
ILoveChipotle writes:
If the rest of the country's newspapers are any indication, the RMN & DP will be laying off staff and downsizing. Hopefully Mike will be the first to go. People around the country are tired of reading the radical left hate speech that these people push daily.
November 18, 2008
7:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
sassinspunki writes:
Sure there are other important issues, but it's not your our any other's decision as to what should be important to me. And it does not make this a non-important issue. Really, if people would just allow the over 85% of people who do celebrate Christmas and recognize that, not try to hide it or marginalize it.. then there wouldn't be an issue.. and it wouldn't be a war. If the people who are so bent on messing with it would *JUST LEAVE IT ALONE* and that includes Litwin! we would merrily celebrate *CHRISTMAS* in peace, enjoy our culture and then they could deal with those other issues.
November 18, 2008
8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
liza writes:
Where is the list of these businesses unlucky enough to have been given the stamp of approval by Focus on the Family? As if the retail outlook isn't bleak enough already..... Here's a thought...It's okay to say "Merry Christmas", "Happy Holidays", "Seasons Greetings", etc. Don't take these things too seriously. Celebrate as You see fit, shop wherever you choose, make up your OWN mind as to what you believe. Personally, I love the celebration of the birth of Jesus, in spite of the fact that evidence has now shown that this blessed event most likely occured sometime in the Spring. Merry Christmas to us all.....and may God bless us every one!
November 18, 2008
8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Mr. Littwin, if you don't like divisiveness, you might ask your employer to refrain from running stories such as Focus on the Familiy's holiday shopping boycott campaign on the front page. Or, if you don't like divisiveness, you could refrain from writing a counterattack column the very next day, criticizing Focus for their devisiveness.
But instead, you just keep dwelling on the very "distractions" which you claim to decry, and add a gentle little twist at the end about the irony of Focus laying off employees during the Christmas holiday season. Hah hah! Good one!
November 18, 2008
9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
One bit of irony to me is they say Merry Christmas (well, technically "メリークリスマス") in Japan. But they say it without any religious intent in the words whatsoever, they are simply mimicking us and have adopted it as a gift-giving holiday (one among several in Japan, they love exchanging gifts).
So I'd imagine stores there would get the seal of approval of Focus on the Family despite the fact that it would be said by non-Christians without any meaning simply because they are saying the correct words.
November 18, 2008
9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
UNV_ME writes:
Focus on the Family deserves all the criticism it gets. Most people see how backwards of an organization it is. Preach love but practice hate, intolerance and ignorance.
November 18, 2008
10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
I couldn't care less about FOTF Christmas neutral list. Hopefully, one of the Focus employees that is being laid off is the the guy who think up these non-issues to go after. There are REAL problems out there, both secular and Christian, that affect our society.
Christmas was Shang-Hai'd a long time ago. Christmas has become little more than a consumer holiday these days, so I have no problems with Happy Holidays or Seasons Greetings or what ever you want to call it. Knock yourself out! To a Christian, the REAL holiday is Easter - "He is Risen!"
I see Mike failed to mention the thousands of killed unborn babies a day in this country. The fact that the unborn don't rate any consideration in a column trying to address "culture wars" shows just how far down the tubes we already are.
November 18, 2008
10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
rjnova writes:
I do not take the time to read Littwin's sarcasm and denigration of Christians or their religion. He fashions himself as some kind of iconoclast but his real intent is to slander anyone who is not a current low life or 60s hippie retread in his case.
November 18, 2008
10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sundog writes:
If there are more important issues, Litton, then quit wasting our time discussing this one.
November 18, 2008
10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sundog writes:
I meant Littwin, my bad. Litton (not the cartoonist) was the guy who didn't have any observations about how to prevent the coming depression, so he attacked some conservatives...again. I suppose this would not apply to you, however.
November 18, 2008
10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
sassinspunki, you are free to celebrate Christmas in any way you please. Please inform us how a business who wishes to use the phrase "Happy Holidays" alters your celebration in any way?
If anyone out there has their Christmas ruined by stores saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", if anyone out there bases their Christmas holiday on how stores manage themselves, then you've already lost the entire secular or religious meaning of Christmas.
Happy Holidays, everyone!
November 18, 2008
11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrwiizrd writes:
"LetsThink writes:
And that is Mr. Littwin's skill: incessantly attacking Christianity/morality/conservatism.
Why are we conservatives helping to pay his salary???????"
Because he's not attacking conservatism, bud. He's attacking the moral majority, who deserve to be critized.
"On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
Senator Barry Goldwater - Senate Speech (16 September 1981)
November 18, 2008
11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
fntsymtn writes:
Senator Goldwater's speech could be paraphrased and have all references to religious icons and ideals replaced with nearly any activist platform. Barry was fed up with pressures from religious groups and voiced his pains. Equal pressure is applied to elected officials from many organizations all the time, it's not unique to religion.
Obama will be under pressure from environmentalists, equal rights advocates, anti-war protesters, religious groups and a litany of other groups to make changes, many of which he will be unable to make, and they all will threaten the same punishments ... loss of money and loss of votes.
It seems to me that Littwin is more interested in marginalizing the "culture wars" to people's living rooms, effectively removing the "culture wars" from the public arena, than he is in discussing the "real issues" facing the country.
Curious, if Obama is unable to realize his national health care plans (or other critical platform promises), for any reason ... will Littwin be threatening loss of money or votes to Obama in 2012?
As for the "culture wars", I fail to see why they are necessary. Are enough American citizens offended by the phrase "Merry Christmas" that retailers must institute strict policies against using the phrase? I doubt it.
I can understand why folks would be upset that policies (not legal) are being enforced that restrict the expression of religion in public (they are defending freedom of speech, aren't they), but why are those policies even needed? How many RMN readers are offended, honestly, by the phrase "Merry Christmas" or the display of a "Christmas Tree" or "Santa Clause" or Christmas music?
I definitely get tired of hearing the music by the end of the holiday season, and am surprised at how early in the year that Christmas decor is brought out, but I am never offended by any of it.
November 18, 2008
12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
I agree with those who say "who cares" about FOTF's list of businesses. As a Christian, I can cheerfully accept a cashier's 'Happy Holidays' wish anytime, and if I want, I can reply by wishing them a Merry Christmas.
But no, how much better to divide everyone into opposing sides over this ridiculous non-issue.
November 18, 2008
12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
mrwiizrd writes:
"fntsymtn writes
Senator Goldwater's speech could be paraphrased and have all references to religious icons and ideals replaced with nearly any activist platform. Barry was fed up with pressures from religious groups and voiced his pains"
What's your point? I'm sorry, but drawing parallels to other activist platforms in no way detracts from his message that "I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
I think Goldwater understood that the moral majority is in direct conflict with equality and individual liberty, and are not representative of fundamental conservative principles of a desire for less government interference, less centralized authority, and more individual freedom.
"Equal pressure is applied to elected officials from many organizations all the time, it's not unique to religion."
I never said it was.
"It seems to me that Littwin is more interested in marginalizing the "culture wars" to people's living rooms, effectively removing the "culture wars" from the public arena, than he is in discussing the "real issues" facing the country."
It's his column, he can write about whatever he wants, if you don't like what he's selling, don't buy it.
"Religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives." -Barry Goldwater
November 18, 2008
12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
fntsymtn writes:
mrwiizard:
My point was clearly stated ... political pressure from "activists" is not unique to religious groups ... Goldwater's complaints could be expanded to any activist group that attempts to forcibly impose it's "beliefs" on the public via government. The principle, as you've pointed out, applies to all activist groups, not just religious organizations.
Goldwater's complaints were solely focused on public policy (policy defined by the government), not policies defined by private companies. The "culture war", as presented in this article, is not about government policy.
Agreed that Littwin can write about whatever he wants, just like James Dobson and Bill O'Reilly can write or opine about whatever they want. Perhaps, you should heed your own advice when it comes to the culture war. If you don't like the "culture war", don't participate.
Outside of the Goldwater reference, my point was similar to others, "Who Cares?" Do businesses really need to eliminate Christmas references to be successful? To me, it doesn't matter either way, but why do Christmas references need to be removed in the first place?
November 18, 2008
1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
mrwiizrd writes:
fntsymtn
I'm not going to let your straw man argument apply here.
Perhaps you should go back and re-read my original post, as my reply was to someone trying to convey that the author was somehow attacking conservatism by criticizing Focus on the Family.
My point is that groups like FoF who's purpose is to legislate the 'morality' of US citizens should not be associated with conservatism, as they are anything but conservative by seeking to use governmental force to coerce and limit individual freedoms to further their agenda. (I think the spending of ~500k to oppose Prop 8 in California clearly illustrates this)
My reasoning for posting the original quote was to illustrate this fallacy, as Goldwater was frequently referred to as "Mr. Conservative" in numerous media articles, and thus the quote has relevance to the aforementioned post by Letsthink that criticizing FoF is criticizing conservatism.
I refuse to further the misnomer that the war-mongering, moral majority neo-conservatives are representative of classic conservative ideology, as nothing could be farther from the truth.
November 18, 2008
2:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Don_Lopez writes:
“After all, Obama takes office in January looking at some real challenges. Let's see. There are a couple of real wars being fought, with real people dying. There's also the collapse of the financial markets, not to mention of your 401(k), and, while we're at it, the value of your house. There's GM on the verge of bankruptcy.”
Sundog said it first—and much better than I can—so let me say it second: If there are more important issues facing America than whether or not you say “Merry Christmas” you’d never know it by reading Mr. Littwin.
Consider the irony: He chides Focus on the Family for avoiding real issues while doing the very same thing himself. Who said he doesn’t have anything in common with Focus on the Family?
Note to Mr. Littwin: Pick just one of those challenges you mentioned above and then fill this column with your brilliance about how an America led by (cue the trumpets) President-elect Obama can meet and overcome that challenge.
But if you can't you might consider going back to the sports section where at least you could explain the infield-fly rule without mentioning Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Or can you?
November 18, 2008
2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
fntsymtn writes:
I fully agree with you regarding neo-conservative view points of today, but I do not agree that arguing all activists groups apply similar pressures (if not equal) on a government is a strawman.
I do not see how the question (or issue) being raised is less relevant because it is being posed by a radical group. Specifically, why does Christmas need to be removed from the holiday shopping season?
My apologies, I did not see that your post was directed toward LetsThink, now that I re-read it, I see where you are coming from. I agree with your perspective. I disagree with Littwin's.
While I agree that FoF in no way embodies conservative viewpoints, activist groups (religious or otherwise) must be allowed to voice their positions, and if some choose to boycott or protest establishments because they do not support their beliefs, they are at liberty to do so.
November 18, 2008
2:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
mrwiizrd writes:
fntsymtn,
i was only referring to straw-man arguments in the context that my argument was about conservative ideology, not activist groups being allowed to voice their opinions.
My apologies as well if that's what you thought I was trying to condemn.
I agree with you 100% that these groups have every right to voice their opinions, I just don't want them running around claiming to be conservatives, when there are anything but.
November 18, 2008
2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
fntsymtn writes:
mrwiizrd,
I'm glad we got that cleared up because I thought I had wandered into the twilight zone. Historically, I've agreed with you on these forums, and today is no different.
Have a nice rest of this 80 degree November day :)
November 18, 2008
3:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
I'm not offended by people saying "Merry Christmas", but Focus on the Family, Bill "gasbag" O'Reilly, and their followers are offended if someone does "not" say "Merry Christmas".
And there's a big difference there: These people expect "Merry Christmas!" -- or else!
They don't give a damn about the business' goods or services, or how many tons of melamine Wal-Mart is inadvertently selling. They don't give a damn that businesses are trying to be polite to all their customers.
I'll throw the question right back: Why be offended by the greeting "Happy Holidays"?
November 18, 2008
4:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
fntsymtn writes:
From what I understand regarding O'Reilly's position, he's is not offended by the words "Happy Holidays" he's offended by policies put in place at employers requiring employees to say it, or policies prohibiting employees from saying "Merry Christmas". I have not paid much attention to O's position, and perhaps it has evolved, or I was mistaken, but I think it is reasonable for him to be offended by policies that he considers to be "anti-Christmas".
As for Focus, I have no idea what their position is, nor do I really care. Frankly, I can't imagine why Littwin cares either, but he does need to find something to write about, and Christmas is just around the corner.
It is their right to expect "Merry Christmas" -- or else -- that's the beauty of our Constitution. We all have the right to ask (even demand) to not be offended.
As someone who believes in liberty, I think that any policy prohibiting employees from saying the words "Merry Christmas" during the Christmas season, is unacceptable. Thankfully, if I care to express my discontent and boycott, people like Bill O'Reilly and James Dobson will gladly present me with a list companies who have established such policies.
The same can be said for lists of companies who pollute the environment, employ child labor, or a myriad of other issues that might offend me.
November 18, 2008
4:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
yaakovwatkins writes:
Mr. Littwin, if you wanted to end culture wars, why are you making incendiary comments?
As ILoveChipotle pointed out, newspapers were already in layoff mode. Then there was the recession. Newspaper columnists depend on disagreement to keep their circulation rates up. Littwin needed to start a fight to keep his readership up.
People have all sorts of reasons for choosing what and from whom they will buy. Some people spend extra to buy recycled paper towels. Others won't buy from people whose labor practices are in question. Others won't buy from companies which are in countries they disapprove of. Others avoid buying from non-local companies.
Does LIttwin have a bigger problem with people who won't buy from stores say "Happy Holidays" than he does buying products made by slave labor? No. He just wants to start a fight in time for Christmas.
November 18, 2008
4:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Oh but that is such a delicious idea, create naughty and nice business lists.
We need someone to start a tax free, non profit group called Feed The Focus on the Families Fired Families. FFFFF!
Good Christians could find out who they are and make sure they have food boxes for Christmas.
Goddess, this is industrial strength irony.
November 18, 2008
7:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
primafacie writes:
If Focus on the Family offends anyone's delicate sensibilities, feel free to ignore them.
When I grew up, Christmas was the Big Day of the holiday season -- the one that began with Thanksgiving and ended with New Year's Day. Frankly, anything else that fell in there didn't make a blip on the holiday radar.
But it apparently started to matter to retailers who recognized Christmas gifts weren't the only things being purchased in December, and it certainly mattered to municipal officials afraid of offending anyone. Oh, yes, it's happened and still does, which Mike Nittwit conveniently ignores while making his snarky rants. It may not be a "war on Christmas," but it certainly is a struggle for political cowardice, er, correctness -- you know, the same ideology that brought you "don't ask, don't tell" and participation ribbons in no-score kiddie soccer games (believe me, the kids keep score and know who wins).
So, "Happy Holidays" or "Merry Christmas," take your pick. Just don't lay a guilt trip on me if I can't build up a good sense of righteous indignation about an advocacy group such as Focus on the Family doing a little, uh, advocating.
November 18, 2008
7:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
They don't offend us, they entertain us. Say Happy Holidays every day till the 25th. Then you say Merry Christmas.
November 18, 2008
7:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
paperboy writes:
Very funny, me2.
These "conservative Christians" or whatever they are need to stop whining.
Littwin has a moral duty to ridicule the ridiculous. FoF's mission statement is to be ridiculous idiots. If Littwin didn't point this out it would be a sin. God would punish him.
Do you really want God to punish Littwin? Isn't it punishment enough that he is so liberal, misguided, narrow-minded and divisive, as jaakovwatkins says?
LEAVE MIKE LITTWIN ALONE!! sob sob snivel sniff.
November 18, 2008
11:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
yaakovwatkins writes:
me2, there are already naughty and nice business lists. This is better than it used to be. Back in the late 60's there were naughty and nice vegetables. Iceberg letter was picked by non-union workers so the morally and gastronomically superior among us didn't eat iceberg lettuce.
If you had the right contacts, you would have been on the email list that told us all which products were made by French companies, back when France was a bad guy.
If you care, here are people who will tell you about the bad corporations http://www.ethicalcorp.com . I wouldn't want you to be out of date.
November 19, 2008
10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
primafacie writes:
"Littwin has a moral duty to ridicule the ridiculous."
He has nothing of the sort. He has an obligation by virtue of his employment to write columns that generate readership. Nothing more. He can choose to generate readership in any number of ways, including ridiculing that which he finds ridiculous.
November 19, 2008
11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Equal pressure is applied to elected officials from many organizations all the time, it's not unique to religion."
actually the pressure isn't "equally" applied by organizations.
the religious fundamentalists in iran and the united states exert a tremendous amount of influence on gov't...much more so than most of the "organizations" out there.
think about how many presidential contenders met with dobson (or made news for refusing to do so).
focus on the fundamentalists is part of the problem...not part of the solution.
their kind of hate, ignorance and bigotry isn't what this country needs to unify behind the common goal of making this a great nation once again.