Reply to the Spectator’s Christianity-hater Stephen Pollard

Below is a follow-up comment I’ve sent to Stephen Pollard’s blog at the Spectator. The comment has been posted, but unfortunately with all the paragraph breaks missing. There are many other comments posted in that discussion, and I’m glad to see that I am not the only person who is deeply offended by Pollard, though there is also the usual liberal contingent ranging from the virulently anti-Christian to the clueless.

I earlier missed Stephen Pollard’s reply to my comment. He wrote:

“UPDATE: So much for the Xmas spirit. There were some very tetchy and, frankly, weird comments sent on this post. I couldn’t allow a couple to be posted, so vile were their antisemitic words.

“Lawrence Auster accuses me of expressing my contempt for the majority religion of Britain and describes the post as obnoxious. I’d be grateful, Lawrence, if you could point to one mention of Christianity above, let alone an expression of contempt for it. As I say: weird. I simply wrote that I am happy to join in a big national secular festival, which Xmas has now become. How is that construed as my expressing contempt for Christianity?”

But of course Mr. Pollard had started out his original post by saying:

“Apparently today is some sort of holiday. In which case, Happy Xmas.”

And now he denies having expressed any contempt for Christianity, because, he says, he never “mentioned” Christianity. I confess to being stunned by Mr. Pollard’s audacity. I can’t think offhand of another occasion when a by-lined writer has said such a low and brazenly dishonest thing. He expressed his total contempt for Christmas and Christianity, and now, like a little boy in a school yard, denies having done what he has so obviously done.

Astonishingly, he even complains of the lack of “Xmas spirit” in some of the replies to his blog entry. But what is this “Xmas spirit” he’s referring to? He is, as we all understand, talking about the Christmas spirit, and thus about Christianity. But so low is Pollard that he denies having even referred to Christianity, even as he expresses his contempt for it.

Then he continues:

“But my wife’s family has, like many other Jews, always done a big secular Xmas. So, at the age of 43, I am about to have my first proper Xmas lunch.

“Given that Xmas—I use that spelling deliberately—is now an entirely secular festival, I’m pleased to be able to join in.)”

In every sentence, Mr. Pollard is referring to Christianity, but, having changed its name to “Xmas” (which in his ignorance he thinks is a secularized version of the name), he now says he can join in the festivities. Meaning he’s happy that Christmas and Christianity have been stripped of their meaning and changed into something other than what they are. In the manner of a totalitarian, he strips the thing he wants to destroy of its identity prior to destroying it, so that when he proceeds to destroy it, he can deny that he’s destroyed anything at all.

If a community or ethnic/religious group does not condemn its own members who are engaging in hateful behavior toward another religion, then that bad person’s behavior can reasonably be seen as the behavior of that community. I urge Jewish readers of this blog to join me in condemning Stephen Pollard’s hateful anti-Christian behavior.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 27, 2007 03:56 AM | Send