We are putting a number of books on sale starting today in honor of Martin Luther King’s birthday. These will include books by African-American authors and also books on peace, celebrating our differences, and inclusion.
A few months ago, a friend of mine at a different company, knowing I was a manager, asked my advice on how to advance. I suggested they meet with their manager to discuss the issue, and so my friend met with their manager and the department head to discuss their future. My friend was pleased when about a month later the department head scheduled a second meeting.
But when I asked how the second meeting went, my friend immediately became fearful. The second meeting had not been to discuss opportunities for advancement. Instead, my friend was charged with harassment. The horrible crime: my friend had shared a cartoon from this year’s Dilbert Desk Calendar.
Like so many people, particularly those who work in IT, my friend enjoys, or at least used to enjoy, Dilbert and found the lampooning of IT culture often amusing. I, myself, have a Dilbert desk calendar, and I’m not the only one in my office who share these cartoons, either informally, or even formally in company power points. My friend was no different.
The problem is that my friend’s manager took offense to a cartoon and, instead of talking to my friend, reported that they were offended to the Department Head and that landed my friend in jeopardy. The expectation of discussing advancement evaporated and was replaced by an interrogation about underlying meanings and the deeper intentions of a cartoon, a cartoon my friend had not thought much about, other than it is was amusing and he had a desire to share that amusement. Hope for advancement became fear for his job.
Despite this being a first (and only) “offense,” much less any warning, my friend was charged with a level 3 (out of 5) harassment because the cartoon covered a “protected group” and like so many organizations, this other company has a “zero tolerance” policy to show their commitment to the cause.
This was followed up later by a meeting with HR, and further training on harassment. At no point was my friend given anything that amounted to an investigation or a chance for a defense. In fact, my friend felt that any attempt at a defense would be seen in a negative light. Resistance was not only futile but would be counterproductive. My friend was doomed the instant the boss felt offended and reported it.
Now every work day is spent walking on egg shells, fearing that some innocent remark might not only be taken as harassment, but it might be misconstrued as retaliation as well. Talk about a hostile work environment! As the saying goes, no good deed goes unpunished.
And there is the problem. We have little control over how others react to anything. Even our best intentions can be misunderstood. I once gave a person a complement, but they thought I was being sarcastic and it took quite a bit of effort to work though the misunderstanding and convince them that my complement had really been just that, a complement. Anything we say, at any time, can be misunderstood. As a teacher, I have learned that I need to repeat things often because despite how clear I try to be, in a large class there will be some who misunderstand the first time.
Normally this is fine. Most people work through such things, as they should. But into this normal human interaction, the Left has injected its agenda, backed by a strict code of Political Correctness. The very people who preach kindness and tolerance, teach people to take offense and demand zero tolerance.
Often this brings hand-to-face moments, to those who hear of the latest example of absurdity, such as the little boy expelled from school for nibbling at his Pop Tart until it was in the shape of a gun, or the little girl who was forbidden to tell a fellow classmate at school they were her best friend, because that excludes all the other children. Or like my friend charged with harassment for sharing a Dilbert cartoon.
It isn’t funny if you are the one involved, and this is something I really do not think the Left understands, because offense is largely defined in terms of the Left’s agenda. Whereas the Right tends to disagree, the Left tends to get offended, so the effects of such policies are to be lop-sided.
For all its talk about standing up to the powerful for the powerless, in the world of PC (Political Correctness), the Left is the power, and they will allow no challenge. Once charged, you are guilty. For all its talk of individuals, the Left is ultimately dehumanizing, seeing not individuals but member of groups, and it is the group, not the individual that really matters. In place of normal human interaction, the Left imposes its agenda which dictates what one is allowed to think.
To enforce PC, it replaces rational thought by zero-tolerance, a mindless following of the Left’s agenda. It does not seem to consider that this might just be two people with a misunderstanding which needs to be worked through. Instead it sees members of groups, pitted against each other. Which group the Left will support in any given situation has little to do with the actual situation or circumstances, as that would require an analysis and thought that is precluded by the zero-tolerance rules set by the agenda.
Ultimately what really matters is not the people, but the agenda. A few on the Left have learned this the hard way when they stood up for the principles they thought the Left supported, only to find that they were out of step with the agenda. As a result, and to their surprise, the forces of destruction normally focused on the Right suddenly turned on them.
It is tempting say that this is just an aberration, and the people at my friend’s company are just overzealous. But I have been through enough training to known that once my friend’s boss chose to report to the Department Head, hands were tied as the zero tolerance rules and other mechanisms of PC culture kicked in leaving little room for thought. It is very possible that the Department Head and the HR Representative also saw this as an absurd over-reaction. But they had to play their roles, less their career be crushed by PC machine the Left has created.
On my desk I still have a Dilbert calendar, which was given to me by my daughter. I still look at it daily when I can, but it’s no longer the innocent source of humor it once was. I no longer share them as I once did, fearing someone might take offence. Now I look at each one with the question, could this cost me my job?
Postscript: The Friday after the meeting with HR, my friend was looking though the latest department wide email with the normal information about refrigeration cleaning and upcoming events when they came to the end and found a Dilbert cartoon, in which the female administrative assistant is plotting to take over the world and speaks of “Subjugation, Humiliation and Misery! HA HA HA!” Yup, no deeper underlying meaning or intent possible there. Let’s hope nobody took offense.
by Dr. David Moffett-Moore, pastor and author of The Jesus Manifesto, The Spirit’s Fruit, Life as Pilgrimage, Creation in Contemporary Experience, and more! I sit here in the shadow of 9-11, that fateful day when the earth shook and the heavens cried. Fifteen years later and the memory lives on within us. 2977 were killed, but we are all victims. Our world was changed forever, and our nation has been at war ever since. Nearly 7,000 troops have died in this ongoing war and over half a million civilians, more innocents to go with those who have gone before. In losing a loved one, I often advise that we never get over the loss, we only get used to it. The place once filled in love remains ever empty afterward and only the loss remains. This seems to be true of 9-11 as well. Previous generations measured their history by where they were when President Kennedy was shot or when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Today’s generation’s history is measured by the long dark shadow of 9-11. The world I once knew no longer exists; the world that has replaced it is darker, colder, harsher. I don’t mean to question here the wisdom of the war in its original initiation or its ongoing direction. Others can do that elsewhere. I only mean to mourn the never ending struggle, the enduring violence, the graves whose hunger for life cannot be sated. We can mourn our inhumanity, our fear or judgment or hatred of those who are different, our seeking uniformity rather than understanding. We can question why so much evil is done in the supposed name of righteousness, why religion is such an easy pawn for extremism. Maybe someday we can try to find a way for us all to live together in peace and equality, but this is not that day. Martin Luther King Jr. advised of the injustices of his day, saying “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” A victim of the Palestinian – Israeli conflict confessed “There will be no peace until we realize we love our children more than we hate our neighbors.” We are all neighbors on this shrinking blue marble, and we’ve got to find a way for us all to live together. I’ve said a good place for us to begin is for people of faith to agree not to kill each other. So in this article I am not selling one of my books or hyping another publication. I am rather expressing our common despair at the ongoing “divine” devastation and saying a quiet little prayer, “Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me!” Amen.
by Tabitha Edwards-Walton, nurse, mother of a special needs child, poet and author of Poetic Life Experiencesand Poetic Diversities For the men and women who wear the uniform of the law.
You each have taken the oath to protect and serve.
Every day you put your own life on the line, to keep ours safe.
Sometimes you do not always get the best luck of the draw.
You drive hours in your cruisers, or walk your beats.
You have to be available in a moment’s notice.
You have to be out on the Holidays, in all kinds of weather.
You are the watchful eye on our city streets.
You are usually the first to respond to the scenes.
It does not matter if is a domestic dispute, a robbery, or an accident.
Most of you are proud to wear that shield upon your uniform.
You actually enjoy your responsibly, your routines.
Some may yell brutality, they do not want to think it was justice.
Some people do not realize how your job could be dangerous.
Some may even say it may have been racially motivated.
Sometimes there is not enough gratitude for your service.
Some people want to harm you instead of honoring you.
Some people disobey your commands,
They may even call you disrespecting names.
To Protect and Serve is what you do, so Thank You!
[EDITOR’S NOTE: This post is part of our series on controversial questions. A NO post will normally follow a YES post. Join in by posting your comments.]
by Elgin Hushbeck
Is there a war on Christmas? If “war” is understood in a metaphorical sense as a deliberate effort to diminish and/or change, and Christmas is understood as the religious meaning and Christian roots of this holiday, there clearly is. Nor is this anything new. The first drafts of the introduction to my book Christianity and Secularism were written back in the 1980s. There I wrote concerning the secularization of society,
“It is not simply a matter of society turning its back on religion, for a segment of society in general, and government in particular, is becoming increasingly hostile to religion. There is a conscious effort by many groups to oppose religion wherever and whenever they can. Christmas and Easter, for example, have become the seasons of lawsuits over nativity scenes and crosses. In most schools, Christmas and Easter vacations have been renamed winter and spring breaks. The traditional Christmas nativity plays have been replaced by those with non-religious themes. Christmas has become an almost completely secular holiday, with all reference to Christianity being removed. Christmas has become merely a day of celebration; a day of celebration without anything to celebrate.”
Since I wrote those words, things have only become more visible, so much so that a bit of a backlash has started. Sometimes this backlash is distorted into an objection to inclusive phrases such as “Happy Holidays.” But this misses the point, as those objecting to these changes did not get upset when people used “Happy Holidays” but only when people were told that they must use “Happy Holidays” and could not say Merry Christmas. They did object when non-religious Christmas songs were sung, but only when Christmas hymns are removed, or even rewritten to remove any religious references. It is not inclusiveness that they object to, but the exclusion of Christianity.
Some claim there is no war on Christmas by pointing to all the commercialization, often while lamenting the same commercialization. But to me the commercialization is a result. The “war” is not on Christmas per se, but on the Christian underpinnings of Christmas. School do not ban the celebration, they just change it to a secular celebration. They do not stop singing songs, they just remove or edit out references to Christ. Rather than Christ being the center of Christmas, Santa Claus has taken his place, at times even to the point of the being the one to whom we are supposed to pray, and the North Pole being where good people go when they die to become one of Santa’s helpers.
Ultimately, the war on Christmas is just a more focused form of the larger conflict resulting from the growing secularization of society in general. Many who reject that there is a war also support this growing secularization, some because they are themselves secular, others because their view of Christianity differs from traditional Christianity and its value, and still others because they desire a purer form of Christianity unhindered such cultural celebrations.
While one can certainly question how “Holy” Christmas was in the past, seen by the culture in general, there is no question that the sense of Holiness in the season has been greatly diminished. When you remove Christ from Christmas all you are left with is the crass and commercialization.
The attacks in Paris last night are horrifying in their death toll, the number of those injured and that fact that there was no conceivable offense which the victims had committed, apart, that is, from living in France. My prayers go with the families of those killed and injured, and with the people of Paris and of France who are coming to terms with the shock.
There are already a lot of idiot statements going around the web, and no doubt there will be many more in the future, but before I get to those, I find I am shocked not to have heard anything from the media about the bombings in Beirut and Baghdad before yesterday, and I suspect I might never have heard about them had it not been for the Paris attacks. Our media has failed us in this; lives do not matter less because they are in the Middle East than in Europe, or because they are those of people with a different religion or a different skin color. Nor do they matter less because Beirut and Baghdad are far less shocked than is Paris, as they are more used to such atrocities – indeed, we should perhaps consider that Beirut and (in particular) Baghdad deserve special sympathy because there, the violence is more frequent and therefore more damaging to morale.
Some of those idiot statements have come from the French President, François Hollande, in various statements. He talks about severe measures, and about a war on terror, and did that even before anyone had claimed responsibility for the attacks. I can understand that a politician will feel the need to capture the mood of his country, and that that mood is one of wishing to have vengeance for the damage. A statesman, however (and I would have hoped that the president of a major European nation might have managed to achieve that status) would seek to guide the people rather than ride the wave of their anger, and precipitate action is one of the things which terrorists most hope to cause. He would acknowledge the anger, state that he shares it and talk about prevention of a future atrocity and taking measured steps against those ultimately responsible.
Let me start with “war on terror”. This is a ridiculous concept, almost as much so as a war on drugs (do I go out and shoot a few aspirin?). Wars are between sovereign nations, and the vast majority of terrorist groups are not acting on behalf of a sovereign state (though the military of many nations may be guilty of terror attacks themselves). Curiously, these attacks are possibly an exception, in that credit has been claimed by IS, who are de-facto a sovereign state, holding a large swathe of territory in Iraq and Syria. I think he would have been justified in principle in declaring war on Islamic State – I am even inclined to think that this meets the criteria necessary for starting a just war under Augustine’s and Aquinas’ principles (jus ad bellum). Of course, no-one wants to recognize IS as a state….
This topic, in fact, came up in last night’s Global Christian Perspectives webcast, in which Allan Bevere went into some detail about just war, and rightly pointed out that it is not just the issue of whether you go to war which is subject to moral principles (originally specifically Christian, but now in theory accepted as good argument in international law), but also whether the war is waged justly (jus in bello). If you cannot wage war justly, even if it is just to start a war, you have no moral alternative but to sue for peace or surrender, according to Augustine and Aquinas. Major principles are that there must be a reasonable prospect of success, and that you must not kill innocents.
There, I think we have huge difficulties, firstly in safeguarding innocents. Certainly, efforts to date in the “war on terror” have resulted in very large numbers of innocent casualties – many more innocents than terrorists, in fact. Unless we change our way of dealing with this (and there is really no alternative to “boots on the ground” given the lamentable accuracy of targeting from the air – this piece of idiocy from Allen West is actually right on point; I might think that he was a liberal speaking satirically if I didn’t know better), we will not possess “jus in bello” and cannot reasonably wage war even against IS.
Secondly, what remote possibility is there of ever declaring success? In particular, what possibility is there of success when we are not prepared to occupy (for an indefinite but no doubt very long period) even the states which we have held accountable for past terrorism? It is, of course, very widely appreciated that where you kill innocents in significant numbers, you actually create new terrorists in greater numbers than the reduction you tend to achieve, and certainly create more sympathy for the terrorists’ cause; certainly the terrorists understand this, and the overreaction is one of the outcomes they most desire. What possibility is there of success when prosecuting the “war” actually makes more new terrorists than it kills, and where significant numbers of them are living in states which have no responsibility for their actions, sometimes our own nations?
I recently linked again from Facebook to my 2013 meditation on Remembrance Day, and the sentiments there are still entirely valid. If anything, though, the more I read the gospels, the less I think that Jesus would have approved any of the Just War concepts which Augustine came up with; he would not approve war at all. I am not quite at the point of being able to say that I would never support my country going to war in any circumstances (though I thoroughly approve Jeremy Corbyn’s undertaking that if he became Prime Minister, he would never order the use of nuclear weapons, and hope that the right wing and the media are wrong that this makes him unelectable), but at the least, can we try to adhere to Just War principles?
I now realize that I missed something in my 2013 account. Although I rightly, I think, determined that no war my country had fought in the last 100 years or more had been just with the exception of World War II, I missed the fact that the way Britain fought the war emphatically did not meet just war standards, as we deliberately targeted civilian populations (first with the excuse that the Germans had first bombed London, which it proves was in error when a raid overshot industrial targets). I think I can therefore now say that we have not fought a completely just war at any time in history which I can think of.
I realize that in saying that, I am going completely against a lot of public mood, particularly at present in France. I will also probably make myself unpopular in many circles if I point out that the fact that my country, France and Spain have been targeted by Islamic terrorists follows our own actions in bombing and invading Islamic countries, and killing large numbers of innocent Muslims. It is, no doubt, difficult for someone whose home is bombed and whose family members are killed or maimed to appreciate that we were not waging war on them and that the correct action is not to come and bomb us.
I do not think that I would be inclined to accept the excuse of someone who killed my wife that she was “collateral damage”, for instance, though I would hope that my Christian principles would win out over my natural urge to do them at least as much damage in return, and if not them personally, then their families, their friends or those associated with them, or in paroxysms of grief, those who looked a bit like them or shared their politics or religion – it is scary what the frustration of powerlessness in the face of loss can do to human morality, what depths otherwise civilized people are prepared to sink to. I could here point out Rene Girard’s work on the futility of redemptive violence and his identification of the Crucifixion as the “last scapegoat”, after which we need not look to violence to redeem anything.
War is hell. It crucifies people and nations. We should do everything in our power to avoid it. And, if we are a Christian nation, or a nation whose sense of morality was forged in Christianity even if we have moved on from that belief, we should consider very seriously the injunction to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
France, however, is not feeling much like that at the moment (and who can blame them?). Feelings, however, do not have to become actions, and a statesman might point that out. On the back of that, there are some other stupid statements. “It’s because of all the refugees” is one obvious one. Well, despite the fact that I now hear that a Syrian man who is known to have come via Lesbos may be implicated (and I’m afraid I find that all too convenient to those arguing against the refugees), in general the refugees are trying to get away from the people who do these things. Christianity inherited from Judaism an obligation of hospitality towards the stranger, which Europe is not doing a very good job of upholding so far, and it would be a tragedy if the borders now closed completely, which is certainly what not a few people are suggesting. You might argue that Europe is post-Christian, but it has emerged out of Christianity and in theory still holds to largely Christian principles. It could be that the basic European principle of free movement of people within Europe (to which my country does not wholly subscribe) may be ending here, and that would be a tragedy for Europe and a victory for the terrorists. If you’re in the States, contemplate what the imposition of full border controls between the individual states would do to, for instance, the commute from New Jersey to New York….
Equally damaging is the suggestion that the attacks must be because of security failures, and therefore we should massively increase security measures. One of the things which makes Europe a great place to live, work and holiday in is that it is relatively free. We are not a set of police states, a set of nations obsessed with looking over our shoulders. If we lose that as a reaction to these attacks, again the terrorists have won. We also value free speech, and that would vanish under such a regime – in point of fact that has already been horribly eroded due to previous attacks (such as those on Charlie Hebdo, in central London, and on trains in Madrid).
A statesman would say that there is a value in being European, a value created from our common beliefs in justice and mercy, tolerance, freedom of movement, freedom of speech and freedom of belief. He would suggest that if we react in such a way as to reduce those values, the terrorists have destroyed us. Eight men with guns and some explosives will have caused the destruction of the dream of a multi-national union of some 750 million people, and we will largely have done it to ourselves.
A Christian statesman might remind us that Jesus said “what you do to the least of these, you do to me”.
As a child I had a classmate who remained seated as the rest of us stood to say the “Pledge of Allegiance.” While we pledged our allegiance to the nation symbolized by the flag, thinking nothing of the religious implications of our act, my classmate, who happened to be a Jehovah’s Witness, had been taught that to stand and recite the pledge would break one of the Ten Commandments—the one about having no graven images. At the time I didn’t understand why he refused to stand and say this innocuous statement, but when I think about it now it does give me pause. While his religious community refuses to acknowledge any government besides God’s kingdom (they don’t vote or serve in the military either), most of us live with a Constantinian vision.
Most Christians don’t see anything wrong with pledging allegiance to the symbol of our national identity. In fact, many American Christians have equated their Christianity with their national loyalty. After all, isn’t the United States a “Christian Nation”? Yes, God and Country go together! The Scouts even have a badge you can earn that celebrates this. Of course, other nations have felt the same way. In fact, they have assumed that God was on their side during serious conflicts. The German Christian movement even reconfigured the Christian faith to fit its ideology. I wonder if we do the same? Do we discount the teachings of Jesus when they come into conflict with our national aspirations?
Symbols are important. So, if you go into many churches, including my own, you will find an American flag placed somewhere in the sanctuary. I must confess my own unease with the presence of the flag, but thus far I’ve not made an issue of it. Fortunately, our flag sits at the back of the sanctuary and not in the chancel. What I find more puzzling are the churches that choose to fly large American flags out in front of their buildings. More often than not the American flag stands above the “Christian” flag (I’ve always wondered who decided this flag, with its red cross on a blue field in the corner of an otherwise white flag, should represent Christians, or at least Protestants). It seems to me that when we make the flag such a prominent symbol, we give pride of place to nation over the realm of God. I know that my Jehovah’s Witness classmate all those years ago would find all of this befuddling.
When we say the pledge of allegiance we are expressing our loyalty to the nation in which we hold citizenship. I really don’t have a major problem with this. I’m quite happy with my American citizenship, at least to a point. I think we can have a variety of allegiances. I am, for instance, a life-long San Francisco Giants fan. When it comes to baseball, they have my allegiance. My family has my allegiance as well. I made a covenant with Cheryl some thirty plus years ago to be her husband. But, having said that, none of these allegiances is ultimate.
For those of us who continue to recite the Lord’s Prayer on a regular basis (my congregation continues to say this prayer each week), I believe this prayer which we believe Jesus gave us is our pledge of ultimate allegiance. With this prayer offered up to God whose name is hallowed, we ask that God’s kingdom would come and God’s will would be done “on earth as it is in heaven.” There is an expectation present in this prayer that God would be engaged in something transformative, and that we’re agreeing to be part of God’s work. Yes, when we offer this prayer, we are making a statement of loyalty to God’s vision and offering ourselves as agents of that vision. It isn’t that we will bring the realm of God into existence, but we make ourselves available to God’s realm.
I realize that some might find this affirmation of God’s realm a bit disconcerting. They might think that I’m recommending some kind of theocracy. In a way, I am, but not in the usual way of thinking. This isn’t a divine government imposed by an earthly realm. This is instead a recognition that our ultimate loyalty belongs to God, and when loyalties conflict, and they will, we must choose the realm of God. The church is called to be an expression of that realm on earth as a reflection of God’s realm in heaven. So, no I’m not advocating making the United States a Christian nation. I’m advocating that we recognize that God’s realm is present on earth as in heaven!
The day that Pope Francis addressed a joint session of Congress, and through them the American people, I’m sure that some felt this was an unwelcome mixture of church and state. It is true that the Pope is a head of state (Vatican City is a recognized nation), but he wasn’t speaking as head of state. He was speaking as a religious leader who has become for many a voice of conscience in a world being torn asunder by political and religious turmoil. Critics, many of them Catholics, faulted him for taking up an issue such as climate change. He should stick to religion they said, though many of those same critics would welcome his support for their own causes. Those who lauded him for his strong stand on climate change and immigration may fault him for not going all the way the other direction.
So, here’s my take on things. It is difficult to separate faith and public life. Faith is personal, but it is not private. That is, if faith has any bearing on our lives it will influence the way we live our lives public. It should cause us to stop and consider the way we vote, spend our money, engage in human conversation. Christianity and Judaism both affirm two great commands – love of God and love of neighbor. Jesus brings the two together, but both appear in the Hebrew Bible. The Golden Rule emerges out of this call to love one’s neighbor.
I believe that faith has a place in the public square. I have engaged in community organizing for quite a number of years. I’ve lobbied politicians and government officials, seeking to encourage them to pursue the common good, a good that I believe is rooted in my faith. The temptation, of course, is for me to so align my social justice work with political affiliation that little daylight exists between faith and politics. What that happens, I put myself in service to political ends that might not in the end serve the common good.
When I listened to the Pope speak and read his message to Congress, I found him to be appealing to our better angels. He spoke of his concern for the least of these – women, children, the poor, the immigrant, the refugee. He called on us as a nation to remember our own immigrant roots. He embraced his role as bridge builder and called on the nations to pursue policies that would bring peace and justice. The problem for many in America (and elsewhere) is that we want to label people. We want to impose a sense of order on them. Therefore, pundits try to cast the Pope in political terms, and therefore on a left/right axis. The problem is that he doesn’t fit. He may seem to stand with the left on many economic issues, but his support for family might resonate more with conservatives. His championing of attempts to ameliorate the challenges of climate change put him in line with the left, but he remains theologically conservative. Those who understand his demeanour will say that he places the emphasis on mercy rather than on toeing the line. That’s not liberalism; that’s simply being gracious.
As a good preacher, Pope Francis is able to bring into the conversation sources of wisdom that lie beyond religion. In his speech he simply attempted to bring to our attention what should be our national vocation, and that is to pursue the common good. Thus, he pushed Congress to do just that:
Each son or daughter of a given country has a mission, a personal and social responsibility. Your own responsibility as members of Congress is to enable this country, by your legislative activity, to grow as a nation. You are the face of its people, their representatives. You are called to defend and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common good, for this is the chief aim of all politics. A political society endures when it seeks, as a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those in situations of greater vulnerability or risk. Legislative activity is always based on care for the people. To this you have been invited, called and convened by those who elected you.
Most Americans want to see this nation being one of greatness. It may be aspirational or maybe it’s self-delusion. The question is, what is greatness? The Pope challenged us with these words:
A nation can be considered great when it defends liberty as Lincoln did, when it fosters a culture which enables people to “dream” of full rights for all their brothers and sisters, as Martin Luther King sought to do; when it strives for justice and the cause of the oppressed, as Dorothy Day did by her tireless work, the fruit of a faith which becomes dialogue and sows peace in the contemplative style of Thomas Merton.
There are some in our nation who believe that there should be no wall between church and state, and by that they usually mean that they want their version of “church” to define the “state.” In an increasingly pluralistic nation where the Protestant hegemony no longer exists and even Christianity lacks the dominance it once had, that is probably not going to happen (without imposing religion on an unwilling populace). Others would see religion completely banned from public life. Put it in the home and the religious building, but don’t bring it out in to the light. Others of us, believe that faith and public life not only can coexist, but the public square needs these voices (I put the emphasis here on voices, for there are many different faith voices). The question is, can these voices speak in a way that lifts up the common good without compromising one’s deepest values?
Perhaps the best sign that such is possible is seen in the decision of Pope Francis to skip lunch with the nation’s power brokers (leaders of Congress) so he could have lunch with the homeless. Some commented that he seemed a lot happier in the company of the latter than the former! That may be truly unsettling!
[EDITOR’S NOTE: This post is part of our series on controversial questions. A YES post ran yesterday. Join in by posting your comments.]
by Rev. Dr. Robert R. LaRochelle
When I think of WAR, declared or undeclared, the following actions and attitudes come to mind:
There is something or someone to attack, obliterate or defend against
In addition, peaceful means to resolve whatever conflicts that precipitated this ‘war’ have been exhausted.
As I see it, those claiming that within our culture there is a ‘war’ on Christmas have misappropriated the use of the word ‘war’. Yet, apart from any exercise in semantics here, it is important to understand why some make the claim that such a reality exists and to examine the evidence they might cite. With that in mind, I list some evidence I have heard stated from those who argue that we are currently in the midst of such a war:
Organized groups have contested the placement of Christmas displays such as nativity scenes on public property
Workers in many companies are told not to say ‘ Merry Christmas’ to customers. Instead, they are encouraged to say ‘Happy Holidays’.
Some companies, e.g., Starbucks, have gone so far as to remove any imagery from their products which might convey any notion of such a holiday as Christmas.
Children in public schools may not participate in school sponsored Christmas pageants or, in many cases, not sing particular Christmas music in their Holiday concerts.
As a practicing Christian and a Christian pastor, I look at it this way:
Christmas is important to me. My wife and I celebrate it within our home. When we were raising our three children, we did our very best to make each Christmas a Christ-centered occasion. Over the years, our home has been decorated with Christian symbols honoring both Christmas and Advent. At my place of worship, I pray, sing and preach about the importance and meaning of the birth of Jesus. Most importantly, I try to live my life in accordance with His life and His teachings. However, the simple fact is that MY faith in Jesus, who He is and what His teachings mean, IS MY FAITH. Without denying that His values may have influenced our founders ( though that is oftentimes an underdeveloped idea), we must also recognize that we, the United States, are a constitutional democracy in which we have both freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion.
Were the efforts of those who do not celebrate Christmas to infringe upon the practice of any Christian and her/his right to celebrate it, you could make a case that one’s religious freedom is being trampled upon. Depending on the extent and the range of this activity, you might even make a case for an organized ‘war like’ action.
However, NONE of the concerns expressed by those in our culture who seek to adhere to the principles of separation of church and state impede Christian individuals and their beloved from the free practice of their faith. In fact, these principles provide for the possibility of a peaceful coexistence between and among those of different religious perspectives.
My view is that those non-Christian AND Christian opponents of inappropriate public display of a PARTICULAR religion are NOT engaged in any ‘war against Christmas’. Instead, they are acting in accord with the unique constitutional principles of the United States of America. At a time when some political candidates are sowing seeds of religious intolerance and division, we need reminders from people within the Christian community that our faith in Jesus is not dependent upon its public approval. It need not be legislated nor elevated to the level of the nation’s ‘official’ or ‘preferred’ religion in order to touch the hearts and souls of its adherents.
So, then, I would contend that there really is no war going on here. Instead, there is a worthwhile dialogue about the proper exercise of religious freedom in a nation that has enshrined this notion and value in those cherished documents that inspire our legislation and our practice.
I sit here in the shadow of 9-11, that fateful day when the earth shook and the heavens cried. Fifteen years later and the memory lives on within us. 2977 were killed, but we are all victims. Our world was changed forever, and our nation has been at war ever since. Nearly 7,000 troops have died in this ongoing war and over half a million civilians, more innocents to go with those who have gone before. 
For the men and women who wear the uniform of the law.
