Pandagon's comment about "them" finding a Jew to do "their" pissing on Jews is far more bigoted than you seem to notice. I also wonder how on earth you can think the article proves your point. When Bill Crosby was outspokenly critical of black culture last year did that mean (a) someone just HAD to have put him up to it, and/or (b) Mr. Crosby is a bigot and a racist? I think you're grasping to see what you want to see.


Richard, I disagree. Cosby was pointing from within and was not defending whites at all. In short, Cosby was blaming blacks for their own problems, but he never relieved the white majority of their responsibility for helping create a good deal of them.

Burt Prelutsky was writing from outside defending the Christian right all the while erecting an argument that it is the Jews who are trying to destroy Christmas.
What makes this all the more odious is Prelutsky is a member of the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank and theocon bank account, and is calling American Jews the sole perpetrators of an evil conspiracy to eliminate Christmas. Prelutsky is not speaking from amongst his own religious group; he is addressing them from the platform of "Townhall", the Heritage Foundation's blog.
One might have been skeptical about the underlying anti-semitic argument until Prelutsky came right out and said it. Townhall.com and Heritage Foundation are culpable as the publishers. The "them" and "their" you suggest is bigoted is referring to Townhall.com and The Heritage Foundation who are one step away from perptrating a hate crime.

The Happy Feminist

Right. Also, I also don't think anyone's saying that someone put Prelutsky up to it. There are all sorts of occasions when people buy into bigoted views of their own people. There are plenty of anti-Semitic Jews (I believe Karl Marx was one notable example) and misogynist women, for example. What is telling however is that Townhall/Heritage Foundation as an entity is expressing its bigotry through Prelutsky with the hope of being able to claim that gee, it's not anti-Semitic because a Jew said it.

But it is anti-Semitic. Purletsky is blaming Jews for a non-existent plot to push an "anti-Christian agenda." He singles out Jews from among all the other Americans who support the separation of church and state. He implies that there is some sort of powerful cabal of Jewish judges, journalists, and the ACLU behind the alleged persecution of Christians. And if that weren't bad enough in itself, it sure dovetails neatly with all the ancient prejudices against Jews-- powerful secret organizations of Jews who eat Christian babies, etc. etc.

What is amazing to me about this anti-Christian persecution theory is that people who espouse it don't seem to be able distinguish between private citizens celebrating their own beliefs (which the ACLU has no problem with) and the government imposing religion on people (which the ACLU does have a beef with). With regard to the retail store controversy, I doubt the ACLU is behind the decision of retail stores to use "happy holidays." The retail stores are private actors who made their decision with a view towards either their principles or customer satisfaction.

Christian groups have every right to mount a boycott and a protest -- but their goals sure tell us a lot about these groups. They want to force these retail stores to acknowledge THEIR holiday, gosh darn it, to the exclusion of others. And they claim PERSECUTION if THEIR holiday isn't acknowledged.

When my father was growing up in the '50s, the fact that his mother was a Jew was never mentioned in public. In the mainstream WASP-y circles his family ran in, it simply was not acceptable to be Jewish. Sometimes I wonder whether some Christians feel threatened simply because non-Christians are out of the closet and they have to cope with the fact that not everyone shares their views.


As a Christian, I don't feel threatened that non-Christians are out of the closet. I do get upset when people think that Christians (since they are the majority in this country) are never persecuted. Christmas is a holiday with Christian and secular philosophies and we have a right to express them in the public. If Jews want to have a Mannorah in the public square they should just as we should be allowed to have a nativity scene. There have been inconsistencies. In a town in FL they put up a Mannorah but said they were not to put up a nativity scene. In Wisconsin school system they changed the words of Silent Night to accomidate their secular agenda which is to keep any mention of Jesus out of the public school. However, they had their Kwanza celebration. There is a lot of discrimination against Christians and I think Christians are really getting tired of it. I think stores feel pressured by the secularists to be all inclusive and it is silly. If you don't celebrate Christmas that is your choice but the majority of Americans do and stores should not have a problem accomadating them. Just as if you are a JW and you don't want to say the Pledge of Allegiance than you shouldn't have to. If you do feel offended by this than you have some transparently thin skin and that is ashame.

For the record, I did not boycott any store this Christmas season. I went to Wal-Mart to buy the cheap toys for my toddler. Those toy stores are just too expensive. Cheap plastic crap is cheap plastic crap and I don't want to spend an extra 5-10 dollars for the same thing.

I have never heard of that anti-Jewish guy but he sounds like nuts.

The comments to this entry are closed.