Huh?

I learned two things about Bill O'Reilly in recent weeks that should not both be true. A time-space continuum must rupture into tiny, weeping pieces if both things exist in the same universe.

First: During a December 13 episode of the Factor, O'Reilly tackled the issue of gay parenting as part of the Right's hilarious implosion over Mary Cheney's pregnancy. He applied to the discussion all of his usual keen insight -- disregarding years of research contradicting his position that "nature dictates a dad and a mom is the optimum" as something he didn't want to "deal with," and utterly failing to grasp the distinction between the biological function of procreation and the purely cultural function of parenting (even after a guest explained it to him in simple words and short sentences). No surprises there. Pretty standard fare. But then he asked the show-stopping question (well, it stopped the show for me, because at that point I just had to turn it off):

Why, he wondered, if same-sex couples can be as good of parents as not-same-sex couples, "wouldn't nature then make it that anybody could get pregnant by eating a cupcake?"

I'll leave that for your contemplation, because there is truly nothing I can add to it.

Second: Bill O'Reilly -- the same Bill O'Reilly who saw some sort of analogy between same-sex parenting and conception by frosting -- has a Master's degree from the Kennedy School of Government. At Harvard.

Huh.

So Bill O'Reilly might not actually be an idiot. Maybe he just plays one on TV.

I Swear....

Unbelievable.

No, wait, I only wish it was unbelievable.

Keith Ellison is my newly elected Congressman. He's a Democrat. He also happens to be a Muslim.

That's not the unbelievable part. I couldn't really care less that he's Muslim. His religious beliefs are his own. I care about him voting the right way on things that actually affect the future of this country. Because I think he'll do that, I voted for him.

Apparently, however, many people do in fact care that he's a Muslim. Or at least that he refuses to hide the fact that he's Muslim and won't pretend to be a Christian when he swears his oath of office.

This all blew up the first time a month or so ago when Ellison let it be known that he would place his hand on the Koran when he took his oath, rather than on the Bible. I hardly took notice of the announcement because a) I don't care what book he puts his hand on as long as he upholds the Constitution; and b) Duh! He's Muslim. Why in any deity's name would he swear his oath on the Christian Bible?

Well, a right-wing blow-hard dumbass named Dennis Prager didn't see it that way. He wrote a piece published on right-wing websites decrying Ellison's decision as an act that "undermines American civilization."

Yes, he was serious. No, it was not published in the Onion.

Everyone must swear on the Bible, Prager wrote, because "America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress .... Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath."

Reading Prager's article inspired in me a strong desire to ask him three questions:

1. Have you ever actually read the Constitution? I know it's hard to read all those words, but did you at least make it to the First Amendment? The one about Congress not establishing a religion?

2. Do you have no sense of irony (much less decency)?

3. Would you kindly shut the hell up?

I didn't ask those questions at the time, or write anything else about Prager's idiotic article, because even though this is America, and Prager has a right to be wrong, I prefer not to add, even in a small way, to the dissemination of wrongness on this scale. My naive hope was that it would simply fade away into unread oblivion.

Much like this blog.

No such luck. Prager not only got air time from Sean Hannity, but he also got to appear on real news channels like CNN with real journalists. Still, I held my peace, hoping it would blow over.

Wrong again. This time the outrage came from the Commonwealth of Virginia, where citizens apparently actually took time to write their own congressman -- Republican Virgil Goode -- to share their dismay that a guy they didn't elect from a state they don't live in was swearing an oath on the Koran out of respect for a religion they don't practice. In a letter to those constituents (and you have no idea the self-restaint it's taking to keep me from making some entirely unfair, gross generalization about the intelligence and/or education of said Virginians) Goode made it known that he shared their pain. But he also has the solution:

The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration, there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America.

Ok, this thing has gotten long enough, and I have videogames to play, so just a few quick points in response to the distinguished jackass from Virginia.

First, "the Muslim Representative's" name is Keith. Where do you think he came from? (For the record, he was born in Detroit. Which, Representative Goode, is a city in Michigan. Which, I should also make sure you understand, is a state. In the United States. Of America).

Second, I'm pretty sure (though I haven't bothered to look it up) the largest block of immigrants coming to this nation is from Latin America. Latinos tend to be Christian, not Muslim. I know you think they all have brown skin Representative Goode, but even if that were true (it isn't) it would not mean they are all the same.

Third, READ THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION! Discriminating against people for their religious beliefs violates it, and your attempt to do so violates your oath of office.

What, Santa Ran Out of Coal?

Look, I understand that Christmas is originally a Christian religious holiday.

Well, not "original" exactly. More like confiscated from pagan religious traditions, much like many of Christianity's modern traditions. Jesus wasn't actually born on December 25 in the Year 0 (or would it be Year 1? That always confuses me), and there almost certainly wasn't a decorated tree in the manger. Though some pine boughs might have helped freshen up the place.

Still, even if Christmas is really a solstice celebration with Christian themes grafted onto it, that grafting happened a long time ago, so today's Christians have a pretty solid religious claim to the holiday. I suppose that explains why a Los Angeles company thought it would be a fabulous idea to give 4,000 talking Jesus dolls to Toys for Tots to distribute to poor children whose families can't afford to buy them presents.

Toys for Tots basically said thanks, really, but, um, no thanks. The organization's president explained its toys are distributed on the basis of financial need, and he did not want to run the risk of offending Jewish or Muslim children.

That, of course, set off the crazy Christian Right. Facing a public relations mess, a few days later Toys for Tots changed its mind, agreed to take the dolls and said it had found "appropriate places for these items."

And that, of course, set off the people on the silly Secular Left, who declared Toys for Tots (which is affiliated with the U.S. Marines) was breaching the separation of church and state by "clearly showing the government's preference over one religion."

Humbug.

In their rush to use these stupid dolls to score points in some culture battle only they and Bill O'Reilly care about, these adults are missing a much more important point:

A 12-inch talking Jesus doll is a lousy present.

Not just for Jewish or Muslim children. Or Buddhist, Hindu, or atheist children. Or children who pray to the great Spaghetti Monster. It is a horrible crappy present for pretty much any kid, including Christian kids.

Kids in families who get their Christmas toys from programs like Toys for Tots have enough problems without spending Christmas morning unwrapping a hippy-looking doll that tells them how blessed they are to be poor. That morning, kids -- rich kids, poor kids, middle-class kids, grown-up kids* -- want something fun, a toy, an action figure, building blocks, a dollhouse, games. If they end up with some proselytising doll, they're gonna wonder what they did to piss off Santa.

Christmas may be a Christian holiday, but it isn't just a Christian holiday. It hasn't been in a long time. It is also a secular holiday. And, yeah, a commercialized holiday. But it's also a hopeful holiday, and it should be a fun holiday. Most of all, it's a children's holiday, and they don't need it ruined by a bunch of self-righteous, self-involved pompous adults trying to advance their agendas.

So leave the preaching dolls in the warehouse. Jesus would understand. After all, he knows what it's like to get bad Christmas presents.

I mean, what was he supposed to do with frankincense and myrrh?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*Inner Child: WHERE'S MY WIIIIIIIII?