God putting forth the standard S-P doctrine of no judgments on most human behavior. Since the Gospels have Jesus [God] in the judgment business (and Him aloneâremember the âcast the first stoneâ passage), the S-P movement must move away from the traditional view of Jesus. Thus, the less said, the better about anything to do with Him. So there you have the genesis (sorry) of the Christmas controversy.
Now, admittedly, this is heady stuff. I have thought long and hard about it. But it makes no sense to attack one of the most cherished traditions in America, Christmas, without a powerful ulterior motive. And Lakoff provides one. A God of judgment is not helpful to the secular-progressive cause; that is for certain.
Nothing if not pragmatic, the S-P brain trust knows a complicated explanation of liberal theology would be impossible for most Americans to even listen to, much less accept. So, using the diversity ruse, they have first attacked Christmas as being âdivisive.â How many times have you heard S-Ps say that the words âMerry Christmasâ are offensive to many people? Well, thatâs another falsehood. According to a 2005 Gallup poll, only 3 percent of Americans say they are offended by hearing or seeing the words âMerry Christmas.â And since we can assume that 3 percent of any population is certifiableâthere is absolutely no problem in the United States with respect to âMerry Christmas.â (By the way, pollsters always warn that the margin of error in a typical poll is also 3 percent or a similar number. Meaning, maybe everyone likes Christmas except the S-P leadership and a few media fanatics.)
It is hard to believe, but some CEOs of major retailers bought into the secular nonsense about Christmas and so they had to be educated. And they were. At the beginning of the 2005 Christmas season, outfits like Wal-Mart, Sears/Kmart, Costco, and Kohlâs were hesitant to use the words âMerry Christmasâ in their advertising. A few weeks later, however,
The Factor
âs reportage combined with a concentrated public outcry had convinced all of them that the greeting was appropriate and welcomingâand that, in fact, ignoring it was bad for business.
And so the great battle for Christmas 2005 was won by traditional forces, but not before there was a Battle of the Bulgeâlike offensive launched by the secular media. A charge that, as we will see, was ferocious in its intensity.
                 Â
                 Â
The No Spin truth is that I have never had a good relationship with the print press or even with many of my peers in the electronic media, as I noted in Chapter 2. I am cocky, outspoken, well paid, and critical of the mainstream American media in general. Over the years, only a few writers, like
TV Guide
âs Mark Lasswell and newspaper columnists Liz Smith, Cindy Adams, and Denis Hamill, have been complimentary of my work. The rest of the print press generally despises the overall âOâReilly Factorâ concept and, with a few exceptions, loathes me personally.
Iâ¦donâtâ¦care.
In fact, I loathe many of them right back, which, I admit, is immature. I sincerely feel that many of these newspaper people are jealous, mean-spirited, petty, and cowardly. For those reasons, I rarely speak to any of them. It took years, but I finally wised up: The print press is not looking out for me and never will be. Collectively speaking, theyâd be happy if I got run over by a train.
Which, figuratively speaking, did happen in the war-on-Christmas controversy; the media came after me with a vengeance that reached ludicrous proportions. More than thirty separate newspapers attacked me by name for defending Christmas traditions. Not one media person that Iâm aware of mentioned my name in a positive way. Not even Bill
Mark Blake
Terry Brooks
John C. Dalglish
Addison Fox
Laurie Mackenzie
Kelli Maine
E.J. Robinson
Joy Nash
James Rouch
Vicki Lockwood