While many wouldn't classify this GAP commercial as an "attack" upon Christmas, it certainly is an example of the demotion of it. It begins and ends with relativistic sentiments (using relativism is a more clever way of diminishing faith than overt attacks are) and lends credence to "Kwanzaa," that Festivus-like "holiday" originated by the brutal criminal-cum-college professor Ron Kerenga. Here are the lyrics:
Two, four, six, eight,
'Tis the time to liberate!
Go Christmas!
Go Hanukkah!
Go Kwanzaa!
Go Solstice!
Go classic tree, go plastic tree, go plant a tree, go without a tree!
You 86 the rules!
You do what just feels right!
Happy do whatever you wannakkah and to all . . . a cheery night!
Go Solstice? Give me a break. Hey, Sensitivity Police, I think you forgot a few people there. The are eight million religious/cultural/do-whatever-you wannakkah traditions in this naked world, and you wouldn't want to offend anybody, you know (except for the people whose culture you're destroying, but who is worried about them? They're not voting for the socialist, new-world-odor types).
This commercial is a good example of how moral relativism permeates every aspect of our society, something I've written much about. You "86 the rules" and "do what just feels right"? Yes, that's exactly what this society needs to hear. This should end well.
It's a funny thing, though, when I did what felt right to me and ignored the dictates of the politically correct puppeteers, the SPLC put me on their Hatewatch page. Well, I guess we can't expect relativistic leftists to adhere to their own principles — especially since they don't actually have any.
Anyway, I'm starting to think that "GAP" refers to something situated between two ears. And I guess they won't mind if what "feels right" to me is to avoid shopping at their stores.
© 2009 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved
yes. To hell with those bourgeois rules and traditions! I mean, they've only been working for a couple of thousand years.
P.S. Kwanzaa is a pathetic excuse for a holiday. All it was; was an attempt by some guy to say basically "To hell with white peoples Christmas and Jesus." And what about Ramadan? I would think that the GAP would have totally included that, I mean, they don't want piss off the Muslims and get some jihad in their stores, do they?
Posted by: Dan | November 22, 2009 at 07:13 PM
Oh, no….No, no, no, no, no!
Not the war on Christmas stuff again. Not another endless angry values tirade. I guess it’s that time of (Christians as victims) year again.
Well, Selwyn you’re not going to get any fight out of me.
I’m going to put up a tree, a Crèche and sign in my window that says “Jesus Is the Reason for the Season.” I think I’ll even celebrate the Posadas. (Even though that’s Mexican I’m sure you’ll allow it without too much fuss.)
Thanks for the reminder with your fabulous article though. But, that’s enough okay? Happy holidays!
Oh, sorry. I forgot already… MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Posted by: Larry Rivera | November 22, 2009 at 07:18 PM
I saw this commercial this morning and thought the same thing. The Gap has every right to put such a stupid commercial on but I have every right to skip that store... I will. This commercial will backfire as bad as the gay oven did on Quiznos.
Posted by: Walt | November 22, 2009 at 08:40 PM
Walt, you boys are quite amazing! Queer purple Teletubbies, Gay Quiznos ovens, the God Hates Fags guy in Kansas…Bruno even.
You can really pick your issues. The world must be a very bad, scary place for you, full of pedophilic gym teachers and priests with odd inclinations; Ted Haggard and the Log Cabin Republicans; The men’s room foot tapper.
I better stop. I’m getting scared now.
Posted by: Larry Rivera | November 22, 2009 at 10:25 PM
Larry,
The Gap has what your brain craves..."They have got electrolytes!"
Posted by: Walt | November 23, 2009 at 12:43 PM
They got electrolytes. Hahahahahahahaha. That’s great! You got that from the deep thinker himself; from the top main guru – King Selwyn “the Truth” Duke.
I know it’s tough for you to step out of line, Walter. But, sometimes a little originality is called for.
Try it. It won’t kill you.
Posted by: Larry Rivera | November 23, 2009 at 08:11 PM
All this talk about "moral relativism " is nothing but self-righteous whining on the part of religious conservatives.
Relativism is nothing but a straw man invented by conservatives to try to show how much more "religious " , "moral ", and
Godly they supposedly are.
There's no such thing as moral relativism.
Liberals don't think that anything kind of conduct is acceptable and there is no such thing as right or wrong; they just realize that not all matters of morality and ethics are black and white, and that there are many shades of gray .
Your latest piece is nothing but blather of the most asinine kind.
Posted by: Robert Berger | November 24, 2009 at 11:26 AM
So Robert, what is the foundation of your morality?
Posted by: Walt | November 24, 2009 at 05:56 PM
Based on what standards are certain activities acceptable or not acceptable. Based on what standard are thing right or wrong? In the Godless world.
Trick question. There is no standard. If we are nothing more than overdeveloped animals, then there is no standard then what that particular society says is acceptable which is.........*drum roll* MORAL RELATIVISM. Oh, unless you can point me to something in nature that has all these rules and standards that everyone should be following written down. Perhaps we should ask the lion who eats the cubs of a defeated male and then mates with his newly found consort. Or maybe the apes (who we are supposedly most closely related to) who fling their turds around or beat the hell out of other monkeys who don't pull their weight in their society.
And how ignorant you are. All things ARE black and white. Example. A man steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family. This is a black and white situation. Him stealing is wrong. It doesn't matter what his reasons are. The act of stealing is wrong. No ifs, ands or buts about it. There is no "gray" in this area. That is the correct way to look at all things. Then, and only then after do you establish that, do you take in the circumstances for either dispensing mercy or harsher action.
The notion of "gray" areas only comes into play after the intake of circumstances. But it doesn't change whether something is right or wrong. However, you moral relativists incorrectly think some situations are inherently gray. Oh hes not WRONG for stealing that bread, hes just doing it to feed his family, so actually doing something RIGHT. With such thinking it doesn't take a Plato or a Cicero to figure out why our society is now morally bankrupt. And how murderers, rapists and thieves can be found "NOT GUILTY" and get completely off the hook or only a slap on the wrist because of "gray" areas.
You see, i think the problem here is you don't even know what moral relativism means.
Posted by: Dan | November 24, 2009 at 06:02 PM
I find it amusing how the modern Christmas holiday season began with the Victorian era appeasement of children at Christmas dinner by giving them presents and gifts, wrapped up in paper and bows, thus sparking the birth of our annual consumerist maelstrom that boosts the economy at years' end, but the "Gap" seems to be just fine ignoring the fact that all of this comes not from freaking kwanzaa or Hanukkah or solstice but from the celebrating of CHRISTMAS, instead selling out by having its cake and eating it, too, flashing its advertising's imbecilic smile, and looking the other way sos not to catch the politically correct eye of the morally relativistic moochers who still want in on the revenue-rejoicing riot that is the "holidays"...... the CHRISTMAS holiday.
wow that was a long sentence haha
Posted by: W. Tieff | November 24, 2009 at 08:32 PM
I always think it is funny when christians try and argue that their relgious festivals are timeless when any student of history knows they have changes massively over the past centuries and are profoundly different between "christian" countries. Dutch christmas isn't even on the same day for g*ds sake! How many of you put ash on your foreheads anymore for example or is the lutheran revolution not remebered as a major change in christian faith. Many of the founding american churches didn't even believe in singing hence no hymns. As for the follish cannard that their is no basis for a humanist's morals please educate yourself on any of the millions of atheist sites it's the most easily demolished argument in the cannon (to steal a churchy word).
Posted by: yoyo | November 24, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Rivals the pledge of allegiance.
Posted by: Dan | November 24, 2009 at 11:31 PM
And yet we tag the end with hope for a good holiday. Holiday. Hmmmmmmmmm, now where does that word come from. . . . . . .oops. . . .
Posted by: Marie | November 25, 2009 at 12:58 PM
SHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, if the relativists find out what it means they will invent a new word or phrase to replace Holiday. Perhaps they could coin the phase "Happy nationally recognized, get paid for not working, with no relation to religion, race, creed, sexual orientation whatever Day." AKA "Whatever Day"
Posted by: Walt | November 25, 2009 at 03:18 PM
yes. And ill bet there is a total of 0 atheists who complain about having any of our holidays off or reasons to celebrate. I propose a new law, all atheists have to work on and cant celebrate religious based or affiliated holidays. So lets see, valentines, easter, thanksgiving, christmas. Those are the big ones. Any more that atheists have secularized but have religion in their roots?
Posted by: Dan | November 25, 2009 at 03:32 PM
Leftists like Larry Rivera, Robert Berger and yoyo are every bit a religious fundamentalist as the late Rev. Jerry Falwell.
Their religion is secularism. Their god is their ego. Their "moral center" is whatever they "feeeeeeel" and vacillates with whimsy. Their Bible is The Communist Manifesto. Their Old Testament is The Origin of Species and their New Testament is Rules for Radicals. Among their "saints" and/or "prophets" are the likes of Noam Chomsky, Gloria Steinum, Michael Moore-on and Barack Hussein Obama II.
While Judeo/Christians give thanks to their creator and hope for the coming/return of our Lord and eternal life; Secular humanists give thanks to the New York Times and MSNBC and their hope leads to misery, suffering and death. In this, their track record is unfailing.
Posted by: Philip France | November 25, 2009 at 05:35 PM
I'm not a leftist;I'm a liberal. They're not the same thing. And I'm not an atheist either.
Morality and ethics are a complex thing with no easy answers. While some things are obviously right or wrong, other things
are not at all clear cut, and people disagree about these issues.
I would never condone murder, cruelty, violence, rape, stealing, lying, cheating,
government oppression etc, but take an issue like abortion. Some think it is absolutely wrong,a criminal act,and should never be permitted, with the possible exception of saving a pregnant woman's life. They want to make it 100% illegal, and think that laws against it can be enforced, which is absolutely not the case.
Others. like me, think that while abortion is a terribly unfortunate thing to happen,
it is not a crime, and that it is a necessary evil, and that making it illegal
never prevents it, but only makes a bad situation far worse. Therefore, a woman's right to choose an abortion must be preserved at all costs, and the only way to prevent abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and to provide more help for poor pregnant women.
Things are NOT always black and white.
Posted by: Robert Berger | November 25, 2009 at 06:07 PM
Robert.
How can anyone take you seriously when your arguments and viewpoints are devoid of any substance. You believe that issues are how you want them to be. Your position on abortion fails to mention the origin of this malicious practice. As such, you are a useful idiot promoting a sinister cause.
Modern liberalism is indeed leftist. The subtle difference is that a true leftist knows that his intentions are nefarious, wicked and evil. What you describe as a "liberal" is in denial over this fact. Once again, you are a useful idiot to an evil ideology.
Posted by: Philip France | November 25, 2009 at 06:25 PM
Phil- and you don't believe that issues are how YOU want them to be?
Who's kidding whom? I'm not a leftist because I've never believed in Marxism and communism. And I'm not a "useful idiot" for any one or anything. I don't even agree with all liberals on every issue.
I have disagreements with both conservatives and liberals. Maybe I'm more of a libertarian.
It's YOUR arguments that have no substance.You think simplistically and mindlessly and automatically accuse any one who disagrees with your ultra right-wing (actually reactionary) views of being a "communist" and a "socialist" and think that only religious conservatives like yourself are Godly, moral, and patriotic.
Your smugness, arrogance, narrowmindedness, intolerance and self-righteous are truly pathetic. But you're hardly alone in being this way.
Posted by: Robert Berger | November 25, 2009 at 07:20 PM
“Phil- and you don't believe that issues are how YOU want them to be?”.
No Robert. I do not “believe”. I know. My opinions are based on fact and thoroughly researched. I understand Truth because I study it. I study it in four different languages.
“I'm not a leftist because I've never believed in Marxism and communism.”
Perhaps not directly, but your opinions that are expressed here and in other posts are out of the Marxist playbook. This makes you what Lenin described as a “useful idiot”. I do not mean this to be derogatory, nor do mean to insult you. The word “idiot” is derived from the Greek word “idios”. It means “one’s own”. We get the words idea and ideology from this same root. I am suggesting that you and other modern “liberals” accept your “own” version of reality. In most cases these opinions are in spite of the relevant facts and often in hostility to them.
“It's YOUR arguments that have no substance.”
My arguments expressed here are usually accompanied by the substance from which the arguments were framed. I frequently cite references, authors, books and embed links to articles and websites that reflect and support the substance from which my arguments are formed. When have you EVER done the same? That was a rhetorical question.
“You think simplistically and mindlessly”
Au contrair, Roh-BAIR. I am a voracious reader. I am an avid listener to talk-radio (and no, not the rah-rah Republican giants like Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin). Michael Savage is my intellectual mentor but I also listen to Armstrong and Getty, who are centrist libertarians and Tom Sullivan. In doing so, I hear a broad range of opinions from their callers as well as experts in individual disciplines who call in with inside information. I can hold my own with any intellectual and I have had the great privilege of befriending many of them recently, including two from this very website.
“(You) automatically accuse any one who disagrees with your ultra right-wing (actually reactionary) views”
My “views” are not my own. They are time-honored and based in Biblical Truth. I subscribe to these views because THEY (the views) are rooted in Truth. I have come to embrace these Truths through years and years of study. Do you know what an acrostic is? I didn’t think so.
“(You) think that only religious conservatives like yourself are Godly, moral, and patriotic.”
I am not religious at all. I am not a member of any denomination or ministry. I do not attend any church. I do not wear religious icons. I do not have religious ornaments decorating my home or car. On the contrary, I love God and I am avid and accomplished student of His Word. Earlier you accused me of being “ultra right-wing”. Wrong again. I am not a member of ANY political organization. Well, I am technically a “member” of the NRA, but not because I “joined”. I send them an annual donation because I believe in their righteous cause and then send a plastic card stating that I am a member. I am an independent who will vote for the better candidate or issue regardless of party affiliation.
“Your smugness, arrogance, narrowmindedness, intolerance and self-righteous are truly pathetic.”.
Do you care to take this one back? I have demonstrated in this very reply that I am far from any of the above. I am not a betting man, but it might be worth a wager to see a show of hands as to how many visitors to this site see YOU this way.
Robert, I would venture that you are probably a decent man with a caring heart. The problem with you is that you espouse ideas that are based on lies. You accept things how they seem rather than how they really are. You do not peel the skin from the onion. I can confidently deconstruct every “liberal” argument and, using facts and evidence and citing sources, prove that all of your fanciful ideas of utopianism are not only wrong, they are dangerous.
Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.
Posted by: Philip France | November 25, 2009 at 08:05 PM
Philip,
Let me help you out here a little. Clear up something that you don’t seem to get…Robert is a liberal. He told you that. He demonstrated that. He discusses things with you. He offers arguments. He wants to persuade you.
I, on the other hand, am a “leftist.” I won’t go into the particular kind of leftist. I’ll have you figure that one out for yourself.
I don’t want to discuss anything with you. From my point of view there is no point in trying to persuade you of anything. Can’t be done. And that’s a two way street. You are not going to convince me of anything either. We don’t respect each other’s position on probably everything.
But, I am going to try to clarify Robert’s position in your mind, even though I know it’s probably hopeless. Robert is a liberal…Got that? He told you. I told you. I even offered a contrast…me.
I’ll also offer you a happy Thanksgiving. Then I’ll go back to “satire and ridicule” part of the book I operate from.
Posted by: Larrry Rivera | November 25, 2009 at 10:16 PM
wow according to some on this site (and you know who you are) atheism = communism, sorry that's a fail.
Philip calls the basis of his ethics "I love god" but then says he's not religious? The idea that we can all negotiate a personal relationship with god without recource to priests pastors or other intersessionary beasties is one of the basic mid range heresies of the christian church however I have no truck with it, I just think it is funny when someone with that viewpoint argues that their morality is timeless unchanging and flawless and yet the church their saviour founded would not agree.
Yep Kwanza is a totally new and silly religious holiday, so is scientology but as my high court argues when deciding whether scientology deserved tax exemption as a religion, "if any of the faiths were asked to prove the verisilimatude of their core beliefs none would pass scrutiny".
Posted by: yoyo | November 25, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Dear Larry,
Happy Thanksgiving to you too. As an admitted leftist, is it possible for you to give thanks; and, if so, who do you give it to?
Do you understand the evil legacy that you proscribe to? Can you imagine the sea of corpses left behind by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Fidel, Che, Pol Pot and Mugabe?
How do you rationalize this?
Regardless, my wishes for you to enjoy a Happy Thanksgiving stands. May God have mercy on your soul.
Posted by: Philip France | November 26, 2009 at 12:42 AM
Dearest yoyo,
What did you just say? What was your point? Your post is hopelessly incoherent. Please try again after you have sobered up.
By your own admission, you are utterly unqualified to comment intelligently about God and the Bible. If you wish to be intellectually honest, you would be advised to contain your commentary to the Adventures of Pippi Longstocking, a subject of which you are likely most expert.
Posted by: Philip France | November 26, 2009 at 12:53 AM
Abortion is not a "necessary evil", its just an evil. And something not being a crime, doesn't make it not evil. And the same could be said of things that ARE crimes.
Cause in point. Its not a crime to produce cartoons of men raping little boys. However, it is a crime to J walk.
"They want to make it 100% illegal, and think that laws against it can be enforced, which is absolutely not the case."
I guess we shouldn't bother making murder illegal either. I mean, its pretty much been illegal in every society in existence and, a lot of good thats done.
"Therefore, a woman's right to choose an abortion must be preserved at all costs, and the only way to prevent abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and to provide more help for poor pregnant women."
Why must a woman's "right to choose" be preserved at all costs? Thats a very bold and very dangerous statement to be throwing around willy nilly. 99% of all abortions are unnecessary. 99% of the time the woman made her choice. She made the choice to have some sort of sexual contact.
And don't give us this tripe about the only way to prevent an abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancies and help poor pregnant women. Which, translating from BS to English is "Throw money at the problem" We have education about safe sex up the yin yang, we are teaching younger and younger kids about "safe sex" and all they are doing is getting sexually active and pregnant younger. But a leftist such as yourself would never admit such a correlation.
And in regards to "helping poor pregnant women" They don't need any help, they already get plenty of help. Infact a woman gets practically REWARDED for getting knocked up. A single woman making minimum wage 40 hours a week probably wouldn't qualify for jack in assistance. But get knocked up, and shes suddenly got medicaide, food stamps, WIC, baby your baby and more programs. So don't give us this song and dance that we need to do MORE, when we do plenty already.
No, what people NEED, is a heavy dose of reality and to actually suffer consequences for their actions. Maybe if people were actually afraid of doing bad things, they wouldn't do them. Which reminds me of a caller from the Dr Laura show. She wanted to know what she should do about her pregnant teen daughter. Should she make her give the baby up for adoption, or let her keep the baby and she(the mother) help out with taking care of the baby since the daughter and the unwed "father"(dr laura calls them "sperm doners") The caller was wanting to help take care of the baby. And dr laura said NO WAY. So the called said, what should I do? And dr laura said let it be the daughter/sperm doners choice. And their choices are.
A. Give the baby up for adoption and continue on as normal as possible.
B. The sperm doner drops out of school and gets a job to support mother and baby, and she drops out of school to take care of the baby. They made an adult choice to have sex, they have to behave like adults.
We get some more of that kind of thinking, and we'll be back on track as a society.
And this may shock people like you. But its true........in every single state, any woman, can give their baby up for adoption at birth. No questions asked. Its true. No need for an abortion. Cant afford to take care of it? Too young? Just don't want the friggin thing? Give it up for adoption! And the state will clothe, feed, and educate it. And a family that desperately wants a child, can adopt it. But of course the lefties will scream "Asking a mother to give up her child is cruel and traumatic!" Yes. It can be. You're right. Lets just kill the thing. Thats a whole lot less cruel, aint it?
Yes thing ARE always black and white. Things are either right, or wrong. Correct or incorrect. Justified or not justified. This can never not be the case, lest we run into hypocrisy and double standards.
And yes, liberal and leftist are the same things. Do you mean you are a CLASSIC liberal? In sincerely doubt you are, but those are now known as "libertarians". English is a living language, try to keep up.
Posted by: Dan | November 26, 2009 at 02:52 AM