Conservative> Brent Bozell> Another Twisted Christmas

	25 May 2012 Canada's 'Scientific' Museum of Smut In Ottawa, the nation's capital of Canada, the Museum of Science and Technology has decided to provide school … Read More.
	23 May 2012 Shameless Bias by Omission You'd think the largest legal action in American history in defense of religious liberty would be a major … Read More.
	18 May 2012 NBC Revives Howard Stern Howard Stern has not been missed since he took his smutty shtick off the airwaves and onto the unregulated … Read More.

Another Twisted Christmas

The Christmas season is upon us, which means it's that special time of year for the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State to make sure no wayward city council will allow a whiff of frankincense on government property. They must send out direct-mail fundraising letters asking "Help Us Crush a Creche at Christmas!"

The Christmas season is also that time of year when the business world implores us to consider the material as more important than the spiritual, all in the spirit of "the holidays." So we celebrate the arrival on Christmas Day of iPods and DVDs.

This year, there's a new twist. The nativity scene has become commercialized — but in a way you would never imagine.

Reuters reports that an angry Italian priest persuaded the makers of the energy drink Red Bull to withdraw an animated advertisement on Italian television that has a fourth Wise Man arriving at the scene of the nativity to add a case of Red Bull to the frankincense, gold and myrrh. Father Marco Damanti, from Sicily, denounced their cartoon as "a blasphemous act" and said he had received a prompt reply promising to discontinue it.

"The image of the sacred family has been represented in a sacrilegious way," Father Damanti told the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. "Whatever the ironic intentions of Red Bull, the advert pokes fun at the nativity and at Christian sensitivity." The priest also objected to the company's regular slogan, "Red Bull gives you wings," illustrated at the commercial's end by flying angels singing Hallelujah.

You can find the ad on YouTube, and while the Fourth Wise Man shtick is vulgar huckstering, the angels singing at the end is sort of sweet, if you overlook the fact that they're singing glory to God for the manufacturing of Red Bull. But then, it's hard to judge the ad in its entirety without an Italian translator. For all I know, it's possible that when the Virgin Mary speaks in the ad, she's saying, "I'm going to need an energy drink after those twice-a-night feedings."

It's interesting that Red Bull would run the ad in Italy and not in the United States, which suggests they can sense which markets are more amenable to the "ironic intentions" of advertising. It would not be wrong to state that many Europeans view Christianity like a faded old painting — it looks nice and induces nostalgia, but it doesn't have much modern relevance.

But it's not just commercials that are using the nativity story for non-religious purposes.

The London Telegraph reports that the BBC has provoked Christians by announcing plans for a "contemporary" nativity play "featuring Mary and Joseph as asylum seekers instructed to report to the nearest passport office." To add to the gimmickry, it will be performed on the streets of Liverpool, featuring pop tunes from the Beatles, like "Let It Be" and "Lady Madonna."

The play doesn't culminate in the birth of God made flesh but in triumphant Liverpool pop tunes. BBC's press release boasted: "This unmissable hour-long event will open with the iconic image of a star that shines high in the sky above Liverpool — and it will culminate with the nativity scene brought to life, as thousands of voices sing Liverpool's greatest pop songs together."

In other words, BBC still believes that arrogant John Lennon quote from the sixties that the Beatles are bigger than Jesus. But why a star shining high in the sky? Didn't Lennon's "Imagine" tell us there was no heaven?

Unsurprisingly, this "Liverpool Nativity" wouldn't be fully "contemporary" without an extra dose of political correctness. The character of Herod is changed to a female named Herodia, "a paranoid government minister in a fictional state desperately clinging to power who orders a crackdown on immigration. In the midst of the turmoil, Mary discovers she is pregnant and must fight to protect both Joseph and her unborn child."

It certainly doesn't matter to the BBC that Mary and Joseph were not illegal aliens in Bethlehem but were reporting for the Roman census. The point must be that anyone who opposes contemporary illegal immigration is metaphorically comparable to an ancient mass-baby-murdering tyrant.

Anglican traditionalist Tony Kilmister of the Prayer Book Society insisted, "This is not the sort of thing that Christmas needs. The story is loved and revered by Christians around the world. There is a dignity to it that will be lost. Adding political correctness of this sort is harmful and quite uncalled for."

Someone should be seeking asylum, all right — to put the BBC in a straitjacket and leave it there. Then again, maybe this is precisely the kind of seasonal silliness that causes the Christian faithful to shut out the noise and contemplate the real nativity scene and its eternal promise.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. To find out more about Brent Bozell III, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment

Mr. Bozell,
I know that I went to a public school, though isn't the separation of church and state a key part of American Democracy? Didn't many colonists come to the New World to avoid an official or state-affiliated religion in England? Are you implying that America should have your specific branch of Christianity as its official faith, at the 'expense' of all others including those that choose not to pursue a faith? Isn't there supposed to be an avoidance of an official religion, of the appearance of an endorsement of a religion, or of prefential treatment toward a religion?

Allowing a version of the Ten Commandments, a Nativity Scene, or a similar structure on public property via public funds at the very least implies recognition, acceptance, or an endorsement of the religion said symbols represent. Believe it or not, not all of your readers are of the same faith. Even if they were, many probably believe that governmental organizations can spend their scarce resources (that directly or indirectly come from tax dollars or my hard-earned money; the jury is still out on whether writing a column conotes 'hard earned' anything) on things other than religious symbols and the court cases to keep them on site.

Were you aware that when one holiday is mentioned, supported, or publicized (especially in the absence of other holidays occurring during the same season), some Americans become somewhat frustrated or feel like outsiders; i.e. inequal, less welcome (of course organizations, schools, and the like that RESTRICTED us from attending or joining their functions didn't help. But, most were 'good Christians' so they get a free pass for their discrimination, now don't they).
Your column suggests that plurality is over-rated, that prudent use of space and funds is for the birds, and that any attempt to maintain diversity and acceptance is equal to a so-called 'war on Christmas?' (Are you a soldier in the war on Christmas? Is your first theater of operations Hanukah or city government?) No one is out to wage war on Christmas or 'Crush a Creche.' Don't you think this verbage is excessive, melodramatic, and not demonstrative of a respectful, open-minded individual?
Somehow, striving for equality or acceptance is a 'cardinal sin' in your book, though a 'pre-emptive strike' that is not "Brief, urgently necessary, and self-sustaining," (as we were initially told it would be) is without need for critique. You can tell a lot about a person based on what they choose to speak out on and what they choose not to speak out on. "Tell me whom you associate with and I will tell you who you are." It won't be something to be pleased with, let me assure of that right no

Is your intent to slam or express disdain toward the people of the organizations you unfairly target or is it due to insensitivity, impulsivity, or the like that you are not aware of or concerned with the fact that Christianity is but one religion in the US. Further, like many faiths, some of the politicians, celebrities, etc. who proclaim to be devout Christians are busy emailing minor children (and its not about how the Bears did last week), stealing from their corporations or religious organizations, and demanding abstinence only education, making it somewhat difficult to prevent some unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. (Pro-life? or pro-quality of life?)

Directions for the intellectual and sensitive individual

1. Expose one's self to a variety of opinions.
2. Consider all available information and arrive at a column topic.
3. Consider how this will be received, the appropriate verbage, and who may not take kindly to it.
4. Write column and have others review it.
5. (If you must) repeat.

Comment: #1
Posted by: Marc Feldstein
Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:47 PM