Bozell Column: Who's Scared of Christmas?

Photo of Brent Bozell.

At the summit of national power, politicians and bureaucrats are terrified at the idea of endorsing the religious views of the majority of Americans. Our First Amendment forbids the establishment of a state religion, but many of our governing elites are taking it a step further, outlawing its very existence from the public conversation.

Congress can turn this into an unintentional comedy of manners. On December 11, the House considered a rather meaningless resolution "recognizing the importance of Christmas" – and nine members of the House voted "nay." The roll call of Grinches are, surprise, largely from blue states: Gary Ackerman and Yvette Clarke of New York were on the list, as were California’s Barbara Lee, Pete Stark, and Lynn Woolsey. The Politico newspaper applauded with "God bless them!"

This goofiness surprised Iowa Congressman Steve King, who merely thought it would be consistent with similar resolutions passed in the House this year for the holy days of minority religions. The resolution noting the Muslim holiday of Ramadan passed 376 to 0, and the resolution for the Hindi holiday of Diwali passed 358 to 0. (There were 42 House members who voted "present" on the Ramadan resolution, and eight who voted "present" for Diwali. In addition to the Grinchy Nine, another ten House members voted "present" on the Christmas resolution.)

I thought of this odd situation when presented with a beautiful holiday gift: a DVD of "The Birth of Christ," a contemporary Christmas cantata composed by the Seattle-area composer Andrew T. Miller. For his musical retelling of the Gospel of Luke’s Nativity story, he had an idea: he wanted Protestant choirs in Dublin, Ireland to sing his piece from the same churches that Georg Friedrich Handel used to unveil his "Messiah" in 1742. He added a Catholic choir to symbolize a unity between Irish Catholics and Protestants, still a difficult proposition in that country. Miller said "I was determined to premiere this work abroad to underscore the universality of the Christmas story, and the power of music to overcome strife and conflict."

It premiered on the Seattle PBS station KBTC and quickly raised thousands of pledge dollars and hundreds of new station members. Comments were overwhelmingly positive. Station executives recommended to other PBS stations that it "would make a wonderful last minute addition to a Member's Choice Night or best-of line up."

But guess what? Most major PBS stations echo the sentiments of the Grinchy Nine. They have been wary to put on a show titled "The Birth of Christ." Now, these same PBS stations aren’t scared to run "Frontline" documentaries spreading the Gospel-shredding theories of agnostic academics like John Dominic Crossan and Elaine Pagels who question the divinity of Jesus, but they’re wary of appearing to give aid and comfort to a simple concert that might present a warm glow toward Christianity.

This is where PBS station managers look like the House members voting "No" to recognizing the importance of Christmas. To date only 48 of the more than 300 PBS stations have picked up the show. Most of the stations that have signed up to air the concert during the Christmas season are in smaller markets and in red states, from Wyoming to West Virginia. The biggest PBS markets, stations in Boston, Dallas, Houston, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Washington, DC have resisted signing on at this writing.

Since their release on November 6, the CD soundtrack and DVD of this concert, narrated by Liam Neeson and performed by some of Ireland’s best vocalists, have been a sales sensation. There is an irony here, too. The producer of the "Birth of Christ" CD and DVD is the Sony Corporation. Sony is the single most arrogant, deliberate supporter of offensive junk on television. Remember, it was Sony Pictures that chose to be the sole and official sponsor of the fourth-season premiere of FX’s ultra-sleazy series "Nip/Tuck" last year.

But beggars can’t be choosers. Sometimes you should simply choose the good works as they appear, and hail each gem as they surprisingly bubble up. The same is true of New Line Pictures, which put out "The Nativity Story" last December and the atheistic "Golden Compass" movie this December.

As more people learn about this "Birth of Christ" effort, they will wonder why on Earth a PBS station manager would pander to pledge-drive viewers every year with every kind of music from doo-wop to disco, but won’t sign on to an inspirational concert that warms millions of those viewers’ hearts, making them cry about the Christmas story.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Islam, Hindu, Budha okay...

It seems the libs think that the First Amendment prohibits ONLY acknowledging Christianity because the founding fathers wrote it when only Christianity was "known." Because they didn't know of the Hindu or Budhist or Islam religions, they couldn't have "banned" them....(one of these day, I wish the libs would actually READ the Bill of Rights)

 

No RINOs in '08 

I am not sure that that the

I am not sure that that the relgions mentions above were unkown, but I agree heartily that the language, and intent, was to protect the US from the Roman Catholic Church happening on the side of the ocean.

Well, for once, the rich white man is in control. --Montgomery Burns

key word was "libs THINK"

I didn't say that the founding fathers didn't know of the other religions, only that the LIBS THINK they didn't know of them...

(of course, you know what happens when libs actually try to think, often their heads explode)

No RINOs in '08 

They're not liberals -- they're worse -- Progressive/Socialists!

These people all belong to the Congressional Progressive Caucus, established in the early 1990's. The members of the Progressive Caucus also belong to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a confederation of socialists formed in 1983 when a splinter group of the Socialist Party (Michael Harrington's Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, DSOC) merged with the Students for a Democratic Society's (SDS) splinter group, the New American Movement (NAM).

AND, there are 70 of 'em! Is your rep one of 'em?

http://www.freedomse...

No, the intent was to

No, the intent was to protect the US from the establishment of the Anglican Church of England - there was no fear of establishment of the Catholic Church. Even the Province of Maryland, supposedly sooooo Catholic, had the Church of England as the state religion.

More accurately, it was the

More accurately, it was the conclusion of a debate as to which denomination should be the established "church" of the new nation.  Various colonies had established state churches, whether they were the COE, Congregationalist, Presbyterian or whatever. 

Most people, in those days, had never experienced a governmental authority that did not have an established religion.  A large number of people took it as a matter of course that there would have to be some 'state' church.  The question was, which one should it be.

It was the mostly Baptist colony of Rhode Island that had the first ever constitution guaranteeing total religious freedom.  This is what the Jefferson letters were about re. "separation of church and state"...i.e. no official state religion plus free exercise of religion. 

I'm sorry, but I have to

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with your assertion that the Establishment Clause had anything to do with churches established in the states. The clause relates directly to the creation of the Anglican Church by King Henry VIII, and the use of government powers to compel members to join.

The actual situation was that King Henry VIII wanted a divorice from his first wife, which was prohibited under Catholic laws. Henry repeatedly appealed to the Pope to grant him an exception, and the Pope refused. This led to a long period of arguing, fighting, kidnapping, and other efforts to get the Pope to change his mind.

Once Henry determined that the only way he could get a divorice would be to give himself one, he created the Anglican Church and he called all the shots as to what the churches rules would be. Voila! He gets his divorice, but his subjects are still mostly Catholics, and their money is supporting the Pope. So he cracks down, and forces people to convert by requiring them to Anglicans in order to do business with the government, to receive royal commissions, to own or transfer property, etc. As a result, the Pilgrims packed up and moved to Holland and later to the US, and the Founders weren't far behind.

What the Founders wanted to prohibit was a repeat of the Anglican Church fiasco, where a sitting political leader could also make religious rules, hence the prohibition against the Church of the United States. They also wanted to make sure that the free practice of any religion could not be impaired by a government that wanted all people to be members of a Church of the United States. The Founders, in large part, took no issue with organized religion being involved with religion, but did not want to see government telling the religions how to conduct themselves... which is EXACTLY what will be happening if Gay marriage is legalized.

which is EXACTLY what will

which is EXACTLY what will be happening if Gay marriage is legalized.

Not agreeing or disagreeing, but if you would, expound on that,please.

Well, for once, the rich white man is in control. --Montgomery Burns

I believe what Bruzilla

I believe what Bruzilla means, at least how I agree with the statement, is that legalizing gay marriages forces Christians to accept a religious "sacrament" that is anathema to them. Marriage is a sacrament, or at least a rite to the protestants, of the Holy Church. The state can legalize contractual relationships all they want, but marriage is ordained by God between man and woman.

The whole issue of gay marriage is likely the most egregious issue in history of state subjugation of religion.

We're both right.

I think it did have at least something to do with the churches established in the various colonies. 

Religious persecution existed in the colonies just as it had existed in Europe for centuries.  The movement for religious freedom was driven largely by opposition to this kind of gross injustice.

(And it was greatly aided by the work of Baptists whose church constitutions ALL contain 'freedom' of religion and an 'anti-establishment' clauses)

I don't doubt what you're saying either...it is possible that both things, and more, such as the "enlightenment" viewpoint on freedom of conscience, contributed to the establishment clause as well.

Then I was misinformed. I

Then I was misinformed. I will do some homework.

Well, for once, the rich white man is in control. --Montgomery Burns

Who's afraid?

The God-hating, self-worshipping, enemies of truth, that's who. 

If they could simply take a deep breath and put their anti-Christian bigotry aside for a minute, they'd see how innocuous, at least, Christmas is.

But they can't afford to do anything that might humanize, or un-demonize, the people they see as the source of everything that's wrong with the world.

Peace on Earth to these people means subjugate all non-secularist, non-libs, under a totalitarian socialist system run by them.

matt, to those people

matt, to those people "freedom of religion" means freedom to insult and denigrate it, not freedom to practice it....at least not in public.

There's two kinds of people

There's two kinds of people in the world: those who uphold Christ and his message, and those who don't. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. The MSM panders to Muslims because they both oppose Christianity. Communism, atheism, agnosticism, liberalism, Marxism, Hinduism, Buddhism, tribalism, Islam, animism, ancestor worship, paganism, Satanism; heck, even voodoo, are all acceptable for the MSM and liberals because they all deny that Jesus Christ is God in flesh and the only way to salvation.

EVERYTHING is acceptable for them, except Christ.

Has anyone noticed...

...that Mr. Bozell is looking more and more like Jolly ole' St. Nick the closer we get to Christmas?

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

I'm an agnostic, so I don't

I'm an agnostic, so I don't believe in any diety or organized religion. That being said, I love the Christmas season. I love the lights, the decorations, the gifts, the spirit of giving, all of it. I enjoy it for it's secular appeal, and not because if celebrates the birth of Christ. No one forces me to enjoy, or compells me to participate, and I can choose to participate or not participate in religious events during the Christmas season. If I want to go to a candlelight ceremony, I can. If I want to stay at home and watch Penguins games I can. What bothers me is that there are lots of people who feel that if they don't want to participate in something, then nobody should.

Growing up in Pittsburgh, the city recognized Italians every year with Italian Day. I'm not Italian, but my family always went out on Italian Day to enjoy the foods, festivals, parades, etc. When the Canadians had their Maple Leaf days, we went to those too. All of us folks of German/English descent could go out and enjoy the day with the Italians or Canadians. We never said that since we don't have German/English Day, then all these other days should be banned.

So to me, the Italians have Italian/American Day, the Canadians have their Maple Leaf Festival, and the Christians have Christmas, and I can choose to enjoy or participate in all three even if I'm not a member of any of these groups. That's what America is all about, not trying to ban celebrations because we are not a member of a particular group.

I think a lot of people

I think a lot of people enjoy the season because it is tradition, its always been Christmas, dont matter if you believe or not. I personally celebrate the birth of Christ, but Im not gonna stop anyone from celebrating Santa Claus either.

That said, what irritates me is that certian sectors say that it isnt ok to celebrate Christmas, but its ok to celebrate Ramadan or Kwanzaa or whatever else.


What doesn’t kill you, only makes you pissed off. -Children of Bodom  

Who's scared of Christmas?

Who's scared of Christmas? Simple answer- isn't Jesus the only diety in organized religion who teaches there are CONSEQUENCES for sin? Those people want to justify their sinful nature by pretending the Lawmaker doesn't exist. It's the guilty who take the truth to be hard.

"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." -Matthew 7:20