The Charlie Brown ‘Meaning of Christmas’ Show Would Never be Allowed Today

If you are a netcitizen of a certain age, you’ll remember the Charlie Brown TV specials. We all waited for them each year on Halloween and Christmas. It was always a highlight of our childhood years in the 60s and 70s. But if they tried to make heartwarming shows like this today the left-wing, anti-Americans and Christmas haters out there would destroy any TV network that tried it.

This TV cartoon special is so filled with traditional Christmas and Christian religious symbolism that were it made today the left would firebomb any network that tried to do it.

Take the central monologue delivered by Peanuts character Linus who quoted from the Bible to explain what the true meaning of Christmas is for all of us.

In the cartoon, after being made fun of for not choosing a modern-styled Christmas tree, Charlie Brown yells, “Isn’t there someone who knows what Christmas is all about?” Then Linus tells Charlie Brown what Christmas is all about delivering these lines:

“Sure, Charlie Brown, I can tell you what Christmas is all about,” Linus says.

“And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them and the glory of the Lord shown round about them and they were sore afraid.”

“And the angel said unto them, ‘Fear not, for behold, I bring you tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the City of David, a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; you shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.’ And suddenly there was with the angel, a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God, and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest, and on Earth peace, good will toward men.’ That’s what Christmas is all about, Charlie brown.”

The show ends with the Peanuts gang decorating Charlie Brown’s scrawny tree and all singing Christmas carols.

Now imagine how the left would lose its tiny collective mind if a new cartoon came out with this sort of Christian theme was to come on the air!

Why do we still have “US” in US Air Force?
Is It Outrageous That Denver Newspaper Now has a Pot Reviewer? Bill O'Reilly Thinks it is
  • Commander_Chico

    Nonsense. In the television market, with scores of broadcast and cable channels, anything that would attract advertisers and money will get made. Nobody passes up sure cash on the table. The idea that there is this cabal of anti-Christian censors in Hollywood is ridiculous – it’s a business to make money. Obviously, if the leftist Hollywood cabal were against the message of Charlie Brown’s Christmas, it would not be shown again and again.

    The reasons why nothing like Charlie Brown’s Christmas is made nowadays are:

    1. Charlie Brown’s Christmas is already made, and it’s easier and cheaper to show it again, along with Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer with dead Burl Ives, The Grinch Who Stole Christmas and other holiday “classics.” Nestor the Long Eared Donkey was made in 1977, has an explicitly religious message, and is also repeated. The recycling is part of the creative exhaustion of the film/TV industry, which only seems to produce endless sequels and remakes rather than original work.

    2. Younger Americans are more secular, and have been bred and conditioned by advertising to see Christmas as a secular holiday celebrated by all, an orgy of consumption rather than a religious holiday. The mass market economy uses everything to excite the desire to buy, Christmas is part of this strategy. The market, with its imperative to excite earthly desires of all kinds, is in opposition to the spiritual.

    3. The networks themselves are much less important nowadays, the day is past when everyone watched something like Charlie Brown’s Christmas every year, so it’s just not that important or profitable to make something like it.

    It’s not just Charlie Brown or the like. There aren’t any new Christmas songs being recorded.

    Since many Christmas songs are wholly secular, this points to the creative exhaustion i mentioned, plus the tendency of the entertainment industry with extended copyrights, to continually recycle the same old stuff.

    • Brucehenry

      What? Are you saying that Warner is having a proactive hissy fit and feeling victimized again, without an actual, you know, victimization taking place?

      What a surprise.

    • jim_m

      In response to your points (such as they are):

      1) The articles asks the question, “Now imagine how the left would lose its tiny collective mind if a new cartoon came out with this sort of Christian theme…” Notice that the issue is the production of a NEW cartoon special, not the proposed rebroadcast of an old one. Where did you learn to read you dumbass? The point was to disparage the idea that anything of this nature could be produced and broadcast on one of the major networks.

      2) This point is essentially in agreement with Warner, that the marketplace is opposed to any religious message.

      3) Your concluding point is to argue that it doesn’t matter because TV networks are no longer important and have no influence. What a crock of shit.

      • Commander_Chico

        1. As I said, the reason why a new cartoon is not being made is because it’s cheaper to run the old one;

        2. Warner’s point was not that the market is opposed to a religious message, but that there is a political conspiracy to deny what he thinks is a demand in the market.

        3. When network viewership has been dropping, it’s absolutely a factor limiting the production of new specials.

        I’d like to compare the Nielsen share of network Christmas specials in 1970 to nowadays. With 500 channels, you can watch a lot of other things on Christmas Eve, including porn.

        • Retired military

          Yet we have Russell Crowe in a movie costing millions which totally goes against any biblical version of the flood.

          Speaking of Porn why don’t we have some Chico Porn.

          “As I said before, try answering what people say, and not try to put words in others’ mouths, debate goes better” – Chico, Famed Wizbangblog poster

          1 Oprah,the Lamestream media, Reid, Pelosi, and other major dems have called people racist simply because they oppose Obama’s
          policies. Yet when they oppose those same policies when espoused by Bill, Hillary. Reid, Pelos, Gore, Kerry, etc etc they weren’t considered racist then by Oprah, etc etc (I don’t know isn’t good enough)

          2. People were called racist anarchist terrorists when they tried to delay Obamacare yet Al Franken who did the same thing wasn’t called Racist. Do you feel that it is because he is a democrat and the people doing the call just playing the race card because that is all they have?

          3. People were called racist anarchist terrorist when they called for the delay of all or part of Obamacare and Obama who is unconstitutionally doing the same thing is not called a racist anarchist terrorist. Do you feel that it is because he is a democrat and the people doing the calling are just playing the race card because that is all they have?

          • Brucehenry

            Oh my God give it a rest.

          • Retired military

            Once Chickenshit Chico provides somewhat appropriate answers I will be glad to. After all Chico is the one who said
            “As I said before, try answering what people say, and not try to put words in others’ mouths, debate goes better” – Chico, Famed Wizbangblog poster
            Chico likes to dish it but he takes it and screams like the bitch that he is.

          • Brucehenry

            You made your point about 15 threads ago. Everybody’s seen it now. Everybody. Repeatedly.

          • jim_m

            Yes, we should all be tolerant of Chico’s bigotry.

          • NOT

          • Brucehenry

            You and RM know as well as I do that Oprah Freaking Winfrey never “called for the death of millions of white people.” What she said was that racism will only die when the last racist is dead. It’s ummm, dishonest to pretend that she said what RM keeps pretending she said, and dishonest to pretend Chico or anyone else endorsed such a sentiment.

            His other questions call for subjective judgement and the answers to them are neither here nor there.

            Still I can see why he played his gotcha thingie a few dozen times but, because I like him and want him not to embarrass himself, I advise him to knock it off. But if he wants to keep it up, that’s up to him. I won’t say anything further about it, just ignore it.

          • Ah, so you too are an apologist for racism… We all owe RM our thanks for drawing you out on the subject.

            RM, bane of racists.

          • Brucehenry

            I would ask how you could possibly reach that conclusion from what I’ve said but I don’t want you to throw your back out or lose your fedora contorting yourself. Just consider me chastened and pretend you’ve “won,” Mr “Moderator.”

          • Retired military


            Winfrey said that a whole generation of people will “just have to die” and those that have to die have to do so because she feels they don’t like her because she is black.

            Now you may not take that as calling for people’s death but I surely do.

            As I pointed out previously if Bush had said “a whole generation of African Americans “just have to die” because they don’t like me because I am white what do you think the reaction would have been (and justifiably so). Sorry you and I will have to disagree on the severity of Winfrey’s statement. Chico still has a question to answer since he wants to hold people to account.

            “As I said before, try answering what people say, and not try to put words in others’ mouths, debate goes better” – Chico, Famed Wizbangblog poster

            As for my other questions calling for a subjective judgement it would be simple to make them go away. Chico needs to write a subjective answer and attempt somewhat to justify it. Saying No that indisputeable facts don’t exist (as he has done) doesn’t cut it as it doesn’t lead to debate and that is what Chico claims that he wants when in reality he wants to fling poo and run like a scalded rat when the facts go against him.
            When you requested some type of proof this past week ref Lincoln being called a leftist and I provided it you manned up, admitted that you had lost the point and moved on. A grown up response. You have seen me do the exact same thing in the past. Chico flings out shineys.

            Your intentions are noble. I thank you for them. But sometimes to catch rats and teach them a lesson you have to drive home the point over and over and over again. I don’t mind really. please don’t weep for my lost dignity.

          • You owe no explanations to an apologist for racists.

          • Brucehenry

            Which you have done. But I’ll say no more about it.

          • Brucehenry

            Sorry, one more thing:

            Earlier this week, Wizbang’s own Michael Becker posted an article about the so-called Knockout Game. In it, he makes this statement:

            “Your so called “black community” is nothing but a breeding ground — quite literally — for gangsters, law-breakers, victim-class takers, lay bouts, and welfare queens.”

            Now, someone who wanted to be unfair to Michael could quite easily claim that that statement proved racism, now couldn’t they? But yet we know Michael is not the unrepentant racist that that one sentence, taken out of context and not allowing for unfortunate wording, makes him appear.

            I suggest you give Oprah Winfrey, who has done more good in this world than a hundred Michaels will ever do, the same slack you give Michael.,

          • jim_m

            On another thread I point out that chico’s slander of O’Reilly as being a drunk is just as prejudiced as saying that all blacks are criminals. I point this out trying to explain to Hooson that his defense stating that statistically, Irish people have a high rate of drinking problems, is the same as saying that blacks are criminals because statistics show us that the majority actually are.

            And Becker’s statement is wrong. It implies that the black community actually wants to a criminal underclass. While I think that there are many who want them to be such a thing (politicians mostly), I rather expect that blacks themselves would prefer a better existence.

            But with regard to Oprah, she deserves no slack. Se is deliberately going on TV and promoting a racialist viewpoint that is absolutely false. She promotes a racist world view that exempts blacks from any attempt at evaluation on their ability and merits. She promotes a racist viewpoint that declares that people must be judged based solely on their skin color and not by their actions.

            And Chico has avoided RM’s questions. Chico has repeatedly engaged in racist and anti-Semitic arguments here. He should be made to face the fact of his prejudice and either accept himself for what he is or to change it,

          • Retired military

            One could make that argument. One could also state that he was stereotyping. However, I didn’t see Michael stating that to eliminate the problem that “they all have to die”
            as Oprah did. I am sure that you will agree that people can change, even racists, yet Oprah is dismissing that possibility and simply stating that in order to solve the problem that they all (whomever she sees as racist) has to die. I am not so arrogant to think that if I see a problem the only solution to that problem is that a certain subset of the population has to die. Nor am I arrogant to state that they don’t like me because I am white so therefore they are part of the problem.
            Lets give Oprah godlike powers. If everyone whom she felt was racist died tomorrow there would be almost no republican party as she sees people who oppose Obama for whatever reason as racist. Now I may disagree with a lot of folks on the left Bruce, Chico among them. However, I do not claim that they only way to solve the problems that I perceive the folks on the left cause is that “they just have to die”
            See how that works. We have a dialogue. We may disagree on things but the world would be a boring place if we all agreed. You made a point, I made a point. We supported our points. We didn’t throw out shineys as some people do.

            Also Bruce, I find it somewhat strange that you have spent more time and words defending Chico than Chico has.

          • Brucehenry

            Fine, if that’s what you read Oprah’s statement as, then fine. You made it sound as though she was calling for mass murder.

            Even under this explanation you offer here for why you believe her statement is so bad, I think you’ve tortured the meaning of her sentence (made in an interview while she was thinking “on the fly” as it were, not in an essay) until it’s unrecognizable.

            But I guess we’ll not agree on this, and that’s fine. I’m a little concerned you might develop carpal tunnel syndrome, though, from all that repetitive typing of the same old questions, lol.

            I said I’d say no more and then I said more, so sue me. Sorry. I mean it this time.

          • Retired military

            No worries Bruce. It is all good. I enjoy having a conversation with you.
            As far as retyping stuff, that is what cutting and pasting is for. LOL
            As for people saying things thinking on the fly. I understand what you mean. However, to my knowledge that has been absolutely no walk back on her statement.
            Oprah made a billion dollars thinking on the fly on TV. Sorry if I give her a bit less slack than someone on the street.

            In addition, my premise stands that if Bush or another republican had made the statement about whites then it would be front page for months and would never go away., not to mention riots in the streets led by the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Oprah etc. And no walkbacks whatsoever would be good enough. If you want proof go ask Trent Lott.

            Hope you have good holidays.

          • Brucehenry

            Hey, we got time before the holidays! But you too man.

          • jim_m

            Bruce what if a white person had said that a whole generation of black people will have to die before the country will be free of people who grew up post civil rights act and affirmative action and claim some bullshit racial victimization that deserves reparations?

            While the statement may be true, you would also jump on that as racist and you would probably be defending fellow leftists that claimed that this was calling for a genocide against blacks.

          • You can always make the pain go away by absenting yourself…

  • Lawrence Westlake

    This really is a ludicrous blog post even by blog standards. FYI money talks and bravo sierra walks. Sure, of course, the entertainment industry at large and the major networks politically are to the left (and their respective news divisions are far to the left), and certain cable channels such as Bravo are left-wing to a point of self-parody, but the notion that nobody would make or air a show with a Christian message is laughable. If there’s a market or even a perceived market for it then it’ll get made. Hence for example, using the movie industry as a proxy, the recent big-budget “Narnia” movies, which obviously have core Christian themes and values. Plus on a separate but related topic even the news media (about as liberal a group out there) has shown no reluctance to cover Pope Francis. Of course that latter point is imbued with layers of irony in connection with the blogosphere and its cocooned WASP demographics.

    • jim_m

      I take it that you do a lot of walking these days.

      The point of the article was not that there might be some obscure cable network that would produce a special with an overtly religious message, the point was that the major networks would not do that. Hell, even Chico got that part and he’s a freaking idiot! What’s your excuse?

      And you really think that covering the Pope as a news story is equivalent to broadcasting a religious message? I seem to have noted that most of the coverage of the Pope has been about his pronouncements that have a political and economic comment in them and not a purely religious one. Coverage of the Pope is primarily to support a political narrative and not to advance Catholicism.

      Man, You have posted a lot of ignorant crap on this blog but this one is in running for the most ignorant.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Hmmmm, lotsa denial here today.

    • Commander_Chico

      Was this group going to pay for the ad, or did they want a freebie for their charity?

      • Retired military

        Only dems get freebies from Hollywood.

  • kaiboy

    The fact of the matter is that it is STILL SHOWN and “ALLOWED” on TV–so much for “never” huh? There are DVD’s and videos to watch if that isn’t good enough….

    They haven’t missed a year of broadcasting on TV since it was created. Just more conservative nonsense over a non-issue that no one needs to pay attention to. Move along folks, B.S. Mountain is about to erupt….