ShareThis Page

Knocking Christmas

| Tuesday, Dec. 24, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

What's been called the “War on Christmas” is often a case of secular liberals wanting to engage in Christmas denial. In the name of not wanting to offend people of minority faiths (or no faith), they remove the C-word from department store catalogs and Christmas songs from public school concerts, leaving us with lame messages about snow.

But there's another kind of Christmas denial: the kind that simply stomps on Christianity as ridiculous and kicks over the Nativity set. Take the atheist punk band Bad Religion and its new record of Christmas songs.

Co-founder Brett Gurewitz told LA Weekly, “Clearly, it's a satire. We were rolling on the floor a lot of the time.”

Greg Graffin, the other co-founder, is author of the book “Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God.” This is Graffin in a nutshell: “Our faith should be expressed in working toward a better planet for our children and not the selfish, juvenile hope for a better afterlife for ourselves.”

Bad Religion's “Christmas Songs” album is concluded by a song called “American Jesus,” which rips on America and Christianity. When the lyrics turn to God, the band lets it fly: “He's the farmer's barren fields, the force the army wields, the expression on the faces of the starving millions/The power of the man, he's the fuel that drives the Klan, he's the motive and conscience of the murderer/The nuclear bombs, the kids with no moms and I'm fearful that he's inside me.”

Phil Robertson of “Duck Dynasty” was suspended from A&E for expressing his Christian beliefs to GQ Magazine. How do these elites react to an entertainer that slams Christianity?

Does it surprise you this album drew an eight-minute promotion on taxpayer-funded National Public Radio? On a “news” program? NPR anchor Rachel Hunter played a clip of the takedown of “Hark the Herald Angels Sing” and wisecracked that by listening to it, “you find yourself engaged in a spontaneous episode of fist pumping.” The segment had everything a salesman would love except the question “So where can we all buy it?”

What it did not have was a challenging question. There was no time in eight minutes to discuss the assertion that “American Jesus” drives the Ku Klux Klan, and no time to examine the “selfish, juvenile hope for a better afterlife.”

“This is something that you're doing a little tongue-in-cheek,” Hunter lamely suggested. Graffin agreed: “We have a long history of questioning religion and social norms and being skeptics and so forth. So we thought that that would make it a really fun thing to do.” Would gays have accepted Robertson's statement had he defended it as “a really fun thing to do”?

Hunter added that the songs selected are not secular songs but “religious Christmas hymns.” Graffin argued back: “Virtually everyone who celebrates Christmas has heard these songs. And so, it's not Bad Religion that has made them ironic. It's kind of a secular society that's made Christmas ironic.”

Why can't leftists ever take responsibility for anything?

Epitaph Records promotes the album with these words: “In a world still brimming with rampant anti-intellectualism, inequality and oppression, Bad Religion's signature brand of sonically charged humanist dissent is as relevant as ever.” That's what secular liberals love most about the Christmas season: promoting a garbage pail full of “sonically charged humanist dissent” from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.