Liberals at The Washington Post didn’t appear to have a Merry Christmas this yr. They had been critically sad that anybody would utter the “lie” that President Trump made it protected to say “Merry Christmas” after eight years of the Obamas sending out White House “Happy Holidays” playing cards.
Post media critic Erik Wemple unleashed an sad rant that Fox & Friends would reward Trump in a Christmas morning section which “sat on the crux of an obsession — and a lie — that both Fox News and President Trump hold dear: The idea that under President Barack Obama, Christmas was somehow under siege. And thus, that it somehow needed to be revived.”
To ensure it isn’t simply Obama. It contains his acolytes on the left, and that features Erik Wemple and The Washington Post.
Ask any man of the material if there is a struggle on Christmas. Ask the Salvation Army. Ask the Family Research Council. But if these sources are too controversial for him, Wemple must spend a couple of moments clicking by way of the Washington Post web site.
The struggle begins with taking the infant Jesus out of the equation.
On December 18, the Post revealed an editorial titled “Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.” The writer, Raphael Lataster, is a lecturer in “religious studies” on the University of Sydney and the writer of There Was No Jesus, There Is No God.
And due to this fact no Christmas. It is fantasy.
Lataster thinks Christians shouldn’t be allowed wherever close to an instructional debate about whether or not Christ is actual or a fictional character: “Believers, who uphold the implausible and more easily-dismissed ‘Christ of Faith’ (the divine Jesus who walked on water), ought not to get involved.”
Now ask your self this. Can you search the final 5 years of The Washington Post and discover dismissive criticism of the “Historical Muhammad”? In 2012, Robert Spencer, a outstanding “Islamophobe,” wrote the guide Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam’s Obscure Origins. Did the Post discover that tome? The Post needed nothing to do with it.
Peter Hannaford reviewed it for The Washington Times. He argued Spencer “has engaged in concerted detective work of a scholarly nature. His book is no polemic. It is a serious quest for facts. The ones wrapped up in the Muslim canon are, alas, elusive.”
The Post wouldn’t be caught lifeless publishing an op-ed on Spencer’s idea on the finish of Ramadan, simply to convey some journalistic “balance” to the celebrations. But the Post insists that Christians needs to be mocked as gullible believers in myths at Christmas time.
On Christmas Day, Post blogger Eugene Scott reported the continued (media-inspired) development that observes Christmas as extra of a crass business occasion than a non secular celebration. A Pew Research Center ballot discovered solely 46 p.c of Americans rejoice Christmas “primarily” as a non secular vacation, down 5 factors from 2013. Scott emphasised what the Post considers a hopeful harbinger: “Millennials are even less likely than older adults to include a religious component.”
Scott underlined the Post place in opposition to Trump voters who suppose “America won’t truly be great again until Christianity regains its central position in this increasingly multifaith and secular society.” For “most Americans, what would make the nation great is acknowledging the diversity of its citizens’ values.”
That’s bunk. The Post doesn’t acknowledge any “diversity” of values. It pushes “diversity” to deconstruct faith. In 2016, they revealed a narrative selling transgender college students in divinity colleges, and the way Wake Forest would “embody hospitality” with an effort to “seek balance when using pronouns to refer to God, for example, alternating between gendered pronouns.”
But it’s a “lie” that Obama-loving liberals provide a pushback to Christ and Christmas. Perish the thought.