I’ve struggled with saying “Merry Christmas.” Until the past week, I have deliberately refrained from saying “Merry Christmas” because all the Orthodox rabbis I consulted concurred with my analysis that to say “Merry Christmas” grants the appearance of giving legitimacy to the claims that Jesus of Nazareth, the historic person, was the Christ (Messiah). I don’t see how an informed and identifying Jew should do that.
On the other hand, I choose to live in the diaspora and it seems rude to me to not say “Merry Christmas” when it is the major holiday of my country.
From a Jewish perspective, Christianity is idolatry. We don’t rule that way in Jewish law because if we did, it would be very difficult to live around Christians. We couldn’t do business with them. We’d have to shun them. So the Ashkenazi consensus is that for purposes of Jewish law, we do not regard Christianity as idolatry, but we Jews know that this is purely tricky legal reasoning for public relations and to make our lives better, but of course — not to say it in front of the goyim — Christianity is idolatry (the consensus of Sephardim).
From the authentic Christian perspective, Jews crucify Jesus anew each day with their unbelief.
From an authentic Muslim perspective, Jews and Christians must be forced to submit to Islam (through during that process Muslims are free to dissemble about their intentions).
Every group wants to rule the world. Muslims are more willing to kill and die in the process than any other group so Islam is the most powerful religion in the world now.
Part of what makes Dennis Prager interesting is the way he balances conflicting values, such as between being Jewish and being an American. There’s nothing in Judaism that endorses “Merry Christmas” but it is — until recently — the American thing to do.
American religions have in general toned down their claims for divine truth in the spirit of tolerance. They’ve given up authenticity for getting along.
The nearly universal change from wishing fellow Americans “Merry Christmas” to wishing them “Happy Holidays” is a very significant development in American life.
Proponents of “Happy Holidays” argue that it’s no big deal at all, and that proponents of “Merry Christmas” are making a mountain out of a molehill, especially when proponents say that the substitution of “Happy Holidays” is part of a “war on Christianity.”
But the “Happy Holidays” advocates want it both ways.
They dismiss opponents as hysterical while, at the same time, relentlessly pushing to rid America of “Merry Christmas.”
So, then, which is it? Is the substitution of “Happy Holidays” for “Merry Christmas” important or not?
The answer is obvious.
It is very important. That’s why the anti “Merry Christmas” crowd has worked so hard to make this greeting a thing of the past.
And they have been extraordinarily successful.
I have been wished “Happy Holidays” by every waiter and waitress in every restaurant I have dined; by every one of the young people who welcome me when I go to the gym; by every flight attendant and pilot on every one of my flights; and by every individual I have dealt with on the phone.
When I respond “Thank you. Merry Christmas,” I sometimes sense that I have actually created some tension. While many of those to whom I wish “Merry Christmas” may actually be happy that someone felt free to utter the C-word, all the sensitivity training that they’ve had to undergo creates cognitive dissonance.
“Christmas” has also been eliminated by many — probably the majority — of our elementary schools, high schools and universities. Thus, for example, they no longer have a “Christmas vacation,” but a “winter vacation.”
The opponents of “Merry Christmas” and other uses of the word “Christmas” know exactly what they are doing. They are disingenuous when they dismiss defenders of “Merry Christmas” as fabricating some “war on Christianity.”
Of course it’s a war on Christianity, or more precisely, a war on the religious nature of America. The left in America, like the left in Europe, wants to create a thoroughly secular society. Unfortunately, most people do not realize that the left believes in secularism just as fervently as religious Christians believe in Christ.
That’s why “Merry Christmas” so bothers the anti-religious left. It is perhaps the single most blatant reminder of just how religious America is — and it must therefore be removed from public discourse. Here’s a safe prediction: The ACLU and other secular activists on the left will eventually move to have Christmas removed as a national holiday.
Dennis Prager goes after the secular left in his essay but he fails to identify the enemy, which is elite Jews. It is elite Jews of the media and academia who are driving the war on Christmas and the war on America’s white Christian core.
Ironically, in his previous column, Dennis Prager went after Republicans for not accurately naming the enemy:
American conservatives are rightfully annoyed with the Obama administration, and Democrats generally, for refusing to name radical Islam or Islamism as the major source of terror.
When Nidal Hasan murdered 13 fellow soldiers at Fort Hood ,the administration refused to label the mass murder — committed by a Muslim in the name of Islam — an act of Islamist terror, or even terror at all. Instead it was officially declared a “workplace shooting.”
And when President Obama convened an international conference on terror, he refused to include the word “terror” or any form of the word “Islamist” in the title. Instead the conference — which took place a month after the Islamists’ massacre of the Charlie Hebdo writers and editors and Jews at a Paris shop — was ridiculously named “The White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism.”
But conservatives and Republicans do the same thing. They, too, almost never identify what they are fighting — namely, leftism and the left. (Note to left-wing websites that monitor conservative writings: This is not a comparison of the left with Islamic terrorists; it is about not naming an ideological foe.)
Republicans — from the highest ranking politicians to rank and file members of the party — fight Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and all other Democrats. But they don’t fight the left and leftism.
The implication is that if only we could defeat this or that Democrat, we would be on our way to a much better America.
But it’s not true. If extraterrestrials came to our planet and absconded with every Democrat holding office from Barack Obama down to every Democratic city councilman in America, nothing would change. Other Democrats with the same left-wing views would take their place.
Leftism is ruining America. But almost no Republican ever — let alone repeatedly — says this.
The universities of this country have become a laughingstock. They have degenerated into anti-intellectual, anti-Western, anti-rational institutions with their ludicrous “safe spaces,” trigger warnings that infantilize students, and all the lies about the racism and a rape culture that allegedly pervade the campuses and American society.
What is responsible for that? Leftism.
Again, Dennis Prager uses euphemism. He really means Jewish elites. Neoconservatism is a Jewish intellectual movement but its campaign to impose democratic values around the world by force is like something from Trotsky and the left. All Jewish intellectual movements seek to build up the fringe against the white Christian core of the West. Prager’s description of universities is simply the logical extension of the tactics of the Anti-Defamation League to make all expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment and white identity pathological.
A Jewish friend told me recently: “I think it is worth observing with all the goings on about trigger warnings, micro-agressions, hate speech and the like, that the first persons to claim the right to shut down discussions they disagreed with were Jews who wanted any questioning of the Holocaust to be banned. In fact Holocaust denial remains a crime in some European countries. The ADL was the first group that decided that it would go on the offense when any ‘anti-semitism’ regardless of how slight comes to light.”
Jewish Activists Go All In To Crush Ann Coulter
They don’t bother making coherent arguments. They simply seek to destroy her.
Fox News had Ann Coulter on right after the second GOP debate:
I’ve been talking to various Jews about this controversy and this is a summary of what I’m hearing:
It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. It is the typical ADL playbook where the slightest innocuous comment is used to wholly discredit someone.
Does making the comment, even if it were “vile” which I don’t think it is, justify destroying a person’s career? How many books has she written? How many columns has she written? Who among pundits has been as influential in bringing an issue to the fore in American politics as she has with immigration? How many commentators are unwilling to debate persons with whom they disagree because somehow or other that would legitimize them? Ann Coulter will debate anybody on any topic anywhere.
It is interesting that she was dropped for the column she wrote for National Review in the aftermath of 9-11 (when she said invade their countries, kill their religious leaders and Christianize them.) She also survived the kerfuffle when in her interview with Donnie Deutsch she said that Christianity is in effect perfected Judaism. This is of course the correct theological view from the standpoint of Christians, regardless of denomination, but Jews are so used to politicians and columnnists buttering us up that they couldn’t handle this.
Anyway, we shall see how this plays out. The problem is that the people who are condemning her have so much invested in wresting either contrition from her or marginalization of her, that if they fail, it may weaken them and open the door to much more biting criticism that may in fact be anti-Semitic.
It is good that you are sticking up for her by highlighting all of the out of control condemnations of her.
It is important to really figure out what she was saying.
When she asked rhetorically how many fucking Jews are there in this country, that is open to two interpretations: (1) that despite their small number Jews wield too much influence, especially in the Republican party or (2) the Republicans are needlessly pandering to the Jews, Jewish interests, Israel and Evangelicals since there is no need to dwell on the confluence of views of Republican candidates.
Neither is anti-Semitic although the first interpretation does call in question Jewish power and influence, something that organized Jewry has consistently (1) downplayed and (2) pounced upon and punished those who espouse such views by labeling them anti semites and getting them ostracized.
You are a firm believer in free speech and in fearlessly pointing out where there is Jewish influence and power.
What bugs me about Coulter’s critics are:
In the case of “conservatives”, they criticize leftists, liberals and Democrats as being too politically correct and afraid of honest discussion, calling them “pearl clutchers, delicate little flowers” and people who go their “fainting couches” when confronted with micro-aggressions.
What Ann wrote is not especially offensive, especially in the context of her string of tweets during the debate, yet the “conservatives” feel the need to distance herself from them. This leads me to believe that many of the “right wing websites” PJ Media, Hot Air, Powerline, American Thinker, are in fact basically what pretend to be American conservative promoting sites, but in reality are simply pro Israel sites with the American political stuff serving simply as window dressing.
In the case of the Jewish Press and Jewish Rabbis condemning Coulter, I wonder how many of them publish her or read her with any regularity. I do realize she was a featured columnist for IJR) and if they do, if they share any views with her. Jews are traditionally liberal, consistently voting for Democrats and almost all elected national officials are Democrats (Sanders, Boxer, Feinstein, Franken, Blumenthal) and the Obama administration has many Jews in appointed positions, most significantly for financial decisions, Jack Lew and Janet Yellen. So I suspect that many if not most of the criticism of Coulter is coming from persons who don’t share her political views and are using this as an opportunity to either take her down a notch or sideline her permanently (a la Joe Sobran)
In the case of the liberal press, it is also seen as a means to marginalize Coulter and her views.
I realize you are a small voice against this, but you are an Orthodox Jew. She has been supported by others who are not widely read, such as Ilana Mercer, and by Mickey Kaus, but they are hard pressed to influence the conventional wisdom once the juggernaut is under way.