Tea Baggers are Winning the War on the War on Christmas

Jesus wept.

The 2010 War on the War on Christmas is looking to be a shattering success for the American Family Association. On the heels of its addition to the list of hate groups published annually by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Christianist group is spreading its message of holiday — whoops– Christmas joy through an intimidation campaign against prominent retailers.

The AFA has no problem with using Christ’s birthday to sell G-strings and MP3 players and no problem with manipulating their tea bagger base to conflate Jesus with retailing.

Here are the rules, according to the AFA.

Criteria – AFA reviewed up to four areas to determine if a company was “Christmas-friendly” in their advertising: print media (newspaper inserts), broadcast media (radio/television), website and/or personal visits to the store. If a company’s ad has references to items associated with Christmas (trees, wreaths, lights, etc.), it was considered as an attempt to reach “Christmas” shoppers. If a company has items associated with Christmas, but did not use the word “Christmas,” then the company is considered as censoring “Christmas.”

Color Code:

GREEN: Company uses the term “Christmas” on a regular basis, we consider that company Christmas-friendly.
YELLOW: Company refers to Christmas infrequently, or in a single advertising medium, but not in others.
RED: Company may use “Christmas” sparingly in a single or unique product description, but as a company, does not recognize it.

The unfortunately named Dick’s Sporting Goods recently caved to AFA pressure, leading to awkwardly structured pitches. Where before online shoppers could find a selection of “The season’s top scoring gifts,” we wonder if they will now wade through apostrophically-challenged “Christmas’s top gifts?”

We have always found it ironic that the same folks who insist that everyone use the word “Christmas,” in every situation, including on second reference, are the ones who forced such abominations as “Happy Harvest” and “Trunk or Treat” upon us.

But what we find most paradoxical is the AFA’s targeting of Victoria’s Secret. The lingerie retailer predictably made the AFA’s “Naughty” list (we’re not kidding) but not for its depiction of barely dressed, surgically enhanced models such as this: