New Voice Media | Associated Baptist Press
Thursday, September 09, 2010
| Opinion: The advent of Christmas craziness |
|
|
| By Brent Walker | ||
| Tuesday, December 15, 2009 | ||
(ABP) -- The United States’ habit of Christmas craziness began, just like reminders of the holiday season itself, early this year. You know what I mean -- the perennial cry that someone or some group (usually one’s ideological opponent, whose perfidy is a perfect foil for end-of-year fundraising) is conspiring, like the Grinch, to steal Christmas. How sad to pick a fight over a holiday (and a holy day) that commemorates the advent of the Prince of Peace and during a season in which about a dozen different religious groups observe significant holy days. I got one of those anonymous and widely distributed e-mails the other day telling us that the ACLU is “working so very hard to get rid of ... Christmas” and urging readers to “brighten up their dark, sad, little world.” How do they suggest it be done? By sending the ACLU Christmas cards -- millions of them -- that would “freeze their operations because they wouldn’t know if any were regular mail containing contributions.” The e-mail concluded that the ACLU is “suing the U.S. government to take God, Christmas or anything Christian away from us. They represent the atheists and others in this war.” Guerrilla warfare through the U.S. mail! There is an all-important distinction between government-sponsored and government-funded religious speech (including sectarian symbols and displays) and privately sponsored and funded expressions of religion in public places (or sometimes even public property). We are a religiously diverse nation. It’s not the job of our government to promote any one religion’s holiday symbols or even all of their symbols. But, in our country where we enjoy free speech and free exercise of religion, there is nothing to prevent followers of those religious traditions from doing so in public places. A good example of this occurred in late November, within two blocks of our offices here in Washington. There was a live Nativity scene on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court building. Sponsored by Faith and Action and the Christian Defense Coalition, Mary, Joseph, the wise men, shepherds and the baby Jesus plopped down for about an hour on a public sidewalk not 50 yards from the highest court in the land and across the street from the Capitol. Now, the so-called “Operation Nativity and Nativity Project” was not conducted to promote Christmas cheer as much as, in the sponsors’ words, “to confront the erosion and hostility toward public expressions of faith especially during the Christmas season.” That was an unfortunate motive. Still, and somewhat ironically, it was a perfect example of how to do it right! Private persons and groups communicating a religious message on public property! And, to their credit, the sponsors did not ask the federal government, states or even municipalities to follow suit. Rather, they called upon fellow citizens to display the Christmas message on “front lawns and in front of public buildings all across America.” One word of warning, however. Exhibiting a Nativity scene on public property will likely open the forum for competing messages. Recently the Borough Council of Chambersburg, Pa., voted not to allow a local garden club to place a Nativity scene on the town’s historic square, which has a war memorial. Why? Because the city did not want to give an atheist group permission to put a sign on the square showing a rising sun over the words “Celebrating Solstice. Honoring Atheist War Veterans.” After all, the public square is open to all or none, and those who enjoy a religious message may have to weather a non-religious one. This year, let’s not lie about the season or make the ACLU a whipping boy. Let’s not ask government and, even less, American capitalism to celebrate our holidays for us. Let’s do it ourselves. For all of our readers, Christian or not, I wish you the love, joy, peace and hope of the Advent season. Here are a few legal guidelines for holiday displays, taken from past Supreme Court decisions:
-30- J. Brent Walker is an attorney and Baptist minister who serves as executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. This commentary is adapted from a column he wrote for BJC publications. EDITORIAL DISCLAIMER: As part of our mission to provide credible and compelling information about matters of faith, Associated Baptist Press actively seeks a diversity of viewpoints in its columns, commentaries and other opinion-based content. Opinions expressed in these articles are not intended to represent ABP editorial policy and do not necessarily reflect the views of ABP’s staff, board of directors or supporters.
                Comments (15)
 A Christian Country?
written by Big Daddy Weave, December 15, 2009
"The United States has been a Christian country since its founding in every sense"
In EVERY sense? Really? Every implies multiple; care to define the multiple ways that the United States is a "Christian" country? What does "Christian" even mean in the context of the sentence above? Seems like a great diversity of belief and practice can fall under the "Christian" umbrella in America. On the Catholic side of the aisle, there is indeed much diversity. Journalists like to lump Catholics in at least four groups (Ex-Catholics, Cultural Catholics, Sunday-morning Catholics, The "Sweats and details" Catholic, etc.). On the Protestant side, we have conservative evangelicals, centrist evangelicals, liberal evangelicals, mainline traditionalists, mainline liberals, and the list goes on and on and on. So in what sense are we even a "Christian country"? That 90 % of Americans believe in a supreme being? That the overwhelming majority of Americans self-identify as "Christian" (whatever that actually means to them)? That we are a Christian country in some loose historical-cultural sense? Or that we are an authentically Christian nation in a way where "Christian" means something very specific? I definitely do not think we are a Christian country in the last sense. Why even describe the United States as a "Christian" nation if "Christian" is defined differently by different people from different contexts with different backgrounds and different experiences (both personal and professional). "People have a right to believe as they choose, but they do not have a right to have equal influence and recognition." The beauty of government neutrality is that Walker is not arguing for equal influence nor equal recognition. Religious groups can earn influence through the free market of ideas. In the health care debate, we've recently seen the Catholic Bishops assert that influence; an influence that they have indeed earned with legislators. You may believe that Christianity deserves special recognition by the government. That's your belief. But that's not the current law and that's not how the Constitution has been interpreted. You are certainly free to make that argument; but it's an argument that was lost long ago. The preferentialist position did not prevail and there is no sign that this position is making a comeback. Again, and this is a path that we have exhausted, but I feel that your own strong convictions and biases on this subject do not allow for a fair, charitable reading of Walker's words. Whatever Walker writes, you come away with the same conclusions which gives the reader the impression that you want Walker to say something that he has not said. reply to Bid Daddy
written by Xenophon, December 16, 2009
Thanks for your reply, Big Daddy. In response to your first query, the United States is Christian sociologically and historically. You seem to acknowledge this fact yourself in your comments above. As you touch on, around eighty percent of the U.S. currently self-identify as Christian. Similar proportions of Americans or greater have been at least nominally Christian throughout our history. The culture that our laws and political system are rooted in is Protestant Christianity. The very idea of tolerance is derived in practice and theory from Protestant Christianity. The political philosophy that the U.S. is founded upon is that of John Locke. The entire edifice of Locke's political philosophy presented in his *Second Treatise on Civil Government* rests on a belief in the God of the Bible. The Bible is heavily referenced throughout the Second Treatise. Locke's politics would be conceptually incoherent without a Christian foundation. Contemporary defenders of rights typically appeal to people's intuitions about rights but admit when pushed that they have no intellectual foundation other than they find the doctrine of individual rights personally irresistible. In fact, the emphasis on individual rights arises with the Protestant Reformation. Our economic system is based on the assumption of human depravity as is our political system with its separation of powers. Both James Madison and Adam Smith were heavily influenced by the dominant culture of their time as well as their personal upbringing. The harmony of interests and the Invisible Hand are based on Christian metaphysical assumptions. Historians throughout our history have recognized the influence of Calvinism in the founding of the United States (incidentally, I am not a Calvinist).
Does this history and philosophical foundation entail that all Americans or even most Americans are born again Christians? No. Do most Americans have a carefully worked out understanding of their religious predispositions? I doubt it. In these matters I am talking more about the metaphysical and cultural paradigm that governs America. I do think that most people do not have a pure spiritual experience apart from culture and family. Some do, but the vast majority do not. The culture shapes people's consciousness so that they are more open to addressing spiritual issues from the dominant cultural or familial influence when they do contemplate spiritual realities. Public recognitions of the dominant religious paradigm of a country is simply an outgrowth of what people are already doing. Such acknowledgments do not foist anything on people. Rather they simply reflect what is already present in a culture. It is only natural for public institutions to reflect their foundations (this would also include pagan influences at times such as our Greek and Roman heritage). Finally, with the present conservative majority on the Supreme Court, we shall see if the hope for a return to what was common practice just a few decades ago will return in whole or in large part. I am optimistic, but even if we do not, considerations of success in court decisions are distinct from discussing normative proposals. P.S. question
written by Xenophon, December 16, 2009
By the way, Big Daddy, if all Mr. Walker desires is free competition to see which religious/metaphysical perspective will dominate in the U.S. without governmental interference in the competitive fray, how do you explain the quote that I cited above concerning American capitalism celebrating our holidays for us?
A nation of Christians??
written by Arce, December 16, 2009
Historically, we have not been a Christian country, but a country with a majority of Christians at times. At our founding, Christians, defined as those who appeared in church, were a minority of the population, mot a majority. And there is no reference to Christ (as opposed to God -- which is not necessarily a reference to a Christian God) in any of our founding documents. So formally, historically, we cannot be called a Christian nation or country, but, at times in our history, a country whose people in the majority are identified as Christians.
Really?
written by AJC, December 16, 2009
It seems to me that we are all completely missing the point of the article. I believe we can all agree that there are two sides to every issue. I also think we can all agree that we'll probably never agree totally with each other on a lot of issues. However, as Christians (and by "Christians" I mean the saved by grace followers of Jesus Christ), can we at least attempt to agree to disagree and get on with what Jesus Himself commanded us to do? Here's a quote for you:
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." - Jesus Jesus also had this to say about how Christians are to treat each other: "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift." Notice it says if your brother has something against you, not the other way around. We are to take the responsibility of peacemaking. All this makes me think that the people who really truly do hate Christmas must love watching all of us Christians sit around and rip each other to shreds. It makes me sad. ...
written by KT2005, December 16, 2009
Mr. Walker has a lack of faith in democracy. We are to be a government of the people and by the people. If the majority in a town is Christian they should be able to decorate public places in Christmas symbols. If the majority is Mormon or Muslim they should be able to do the same. I find it sad that the public has lost control of the public domain. Let the people vote. . . no one is going to die by seeing a manger scene or a Koran.
What happened to our free country? Oh, that's right, Walker and his liberal friends got control of our courts and now pose as dictators of a so called democracy. We have a rule of law
written by Arce, December 16, 2009
The reason we do not let a majority trample on the rights of a minority in many spheres of life is that an unconstrained majority will do exactly that, trample on the rights of others. Rather we have a constitution that limits what a majority can do in order to protect all of us who may find ourselves in the minority on any particular issue.
Were it not as it is, there might not be any Baptists left in this country, for we would have been put out of business in all of the colonies except, perhaps, Rhode Island. And our tax dollars would be supporting the state church. I grew up in a majority Catholic town, 1/2 the Catholic kids went to the parochial schools, and 1/2 to the public schools, and the public schools were more than 60 percent Catholic. Prior to the Supreme Court prayer decision, we said prayer in my public school classroom to every saint you can imagine, including Mary, and never to Jesus, God, or the Holy Spirit. As a Baptist, I felt rather discriminated against. So I support being a nation of law so that some majority does not rape and pillage the rights of any minority. Tax dollars should not support religion, including religious displays on public property. When every church and the home of every Christian in town has decorations (substitute as you wish: a cross in front, a ten commandments display, John 3:16 on a sign) that are being proposed for the public space, there will be no need to put any in the public place for everyone will know where each property owner stands. replies to Arce
written by Xenophon, December 16, 2009
Arce, I guess that I just do not see how listening to a Catholic prayer in a public school situated in a predominately Catholic community violates the rights of a Protestant. I used to live in New Orleans, which is very Catholic in its culture even though Protestants are numerically in the majority. I just accepted that New Orleans was a Catholic city, de facto. If I wanted to live in a Protestant city, then I could simply move or attempt to change the culture in New Orleans. In fact, while I was living there I urged the Baptist pastors where I attended church to attempt to do just that. At that time though, the Baptist church where I attended was more of a community church and their leadership was not interested in trying to shake things up. Since the time that I lived there, they have had a change of heart, and as I understand it, they are trying to make more of an outreach to those who are not in the traditional circle of Baptists. In the process, they lost much of their long-time membership, unfortunately. In any case, I do not see that it is right for the state to interfere with this sort of process where people in the community sort these things out for themselves as long as no one is using violence to influence others and the social climate they live in.
As for the United States not being a Christian country in the past, how would you describe the U.S. in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries in regard to the religious/metaphysical framework that shaped our institutions and everyday practices? turn a deaf ear
written by Dr. J, December 16, 2009
We cannot sit quietly by and let the ACLU remove everything Christian from the public arena. The left-wing, liberal ACLU is a great threat to Christianity in the US.
...
written by KT2005, December 16, 2009
Acre,
You make my point for me. . . and make it very well. You were in a public school setting where Catholic prayers were said. You are not any less for it. The law is not about trying to make people "feel" better. Communities have rights too, and you support oppressing their rights to express their own values. Once again, you do not support freedom. Yes I support freedom
written by Arce, December 16, 2009
I support the freedom for my tax dollars to not support a religion that I do not believe in.
I support my freedom to go to a public school and not be proselytized during my school day by advocates of a religion that I do not believe in. I support their freedom to believe and practice as they wish, outside of the tax-supported public school day, and, as individuals, to practice their religion as long as they do not mandate that I must attend while they do so. I support their freedom of conscience as well as my own. Their freedom ends where the coersive power of the state is involved to make me attend to their practice. ...
written by KT2005, December 17, 2009
Yes, but you do not support government of the people and by the people. Your view forbids community values from being expressed and held dear. This view requires big government bureaucrats from Washington D.C. to invade your community and enforce so called neutrality, which mandates secularism for all.
Who could have imagined in 1776 a nation under God could be so Godless? This reality was not created by the people, but by unelected judges who have made law apart from the support of votes from the people. We now recognize so called "laws" that do not have the authority of the people. . . very undemocratic. At what point do we say law created by dictators on the Supreme Court is not valid? We are losing our democracy and don't even know it. The author above quotes Supreme Court rulings that we are to abide by. Does he understand how backwards this is??? The Supreme Court is to interpret laws made by the legislature. Laws passed by the people's legislature is to be authoritative in American democracy, not Supreme Court rulings! How far was have fallen from our own Constitution!!! reply to AJC
written by Xenophon, December 17, 2009
AJC, I agree with you that some on this website do become personally insulting and abusive when they disagree with other writers who take an opposing point of view. In this string of posts, however, I do not see any personal attacks or any evidence of hard feelings developing out of our disagreements. Perhaps, I am not reading between the lines carefully enough in others' comments, but, as for me, I do not personally dislike those with whom I disagree. If I met Arce or Big Daddy in person, I suspect that we would get along very well. My closest friends are on the left. When my left/liberal friends get to know me, they have commented that I am more liberal than they are in my basic attitudes (afterall I am a classical liberal, even if not a left liberal).
I do agree with you that we do need to be respectful and civil with each other and even form friendships with people with whom we disagree. I always try to keep to the discussion of issues using logic and evidence rather than ridicule and personal attacks. We also need to keep in mind that we each have different personal experiences and different temperaments that shape our views. As we do, we should come to respect the other person's point of view and attempt to see things as they do in order to maintain that respect and appreciation of their struggles through life. For example, Arce shared his own personal experience of feeling left out in his early schooling due to being in the religious minority. I can image that was painful for him as a boy. I can appreciate how that experience shapes his views as a mature adult. My experience was quite different from that. The prayers and religiously tinged celebrations in my schools were much more non-denominational. The brief prayers and devotionals seemed to contribute to a classroom climate of consideration and cooperation. After the Feds commanded that the daily devotions stop, there was a noticeable change in many of the students over time. They became coarser and much more aggressive. That trend continued on in the public schools that I attended until I finally left the public school system in high school. I doubt that removing prayer by itself caused the more impersonal, harder edge to develop in the schools that I attended in suburban Atlanta, but I do suspect that they contributed to the atmosphere in the school that did change over that time. People simply act and think differently if they are reminded that they live before the face of God. To sum up, I would hate for us to simply agree to disagree and leave these crucial issues at that. I do think what we should strive for is to learn to explain our differences with respect and listen to our intellectual opponents, weighing what they say, and then being able to come to the truth of the matter without our egos getting too much in the way. As we do all of this, we can form bonds with those with whom we disagree. I do understand that many people find this hard to do. As a girl I was dating just a few years ago said to me as she raised her hands above her head and yelled out at the top of her lungs, " I CAN'T DATE SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN EQUALITY." Well, she did for a couple of years after that. The reasons we did not marry were due to factors other than our political differences. I hope we can all get past the caricatures we have of people who seem to be on another side and accept them for who they are, even as we still disagree. In fact, my liberal friends and I actually enjoy the argument after they have gotten over the shock of finding that they have found a conservative they like. merry christmas written by robber, December 22, 2009
I don't mean to break up a conversation on this article, but I just wanted to wish a Merry Christmas to all ABP readers and commentators that regularly visit here. Our differences aside, I pray we all come together to share the true meaning of this precious season. Thank you God for the gift of your Son.
Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
|
||
Subscribe to this comment's feed
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Baptists
Nation
- Baptist leaders meet with Holder, denounce Baptists trashing Islam
- Conservative, moderate Baptist thinkers criticize Glenn Beck rally
- Baptist, other religious leaders challenge anti-Muslim rhetoric
- Religious leaders say questioning Obama's faith is out of bounds
- Growing number confuse Obama’s faith, oppose church politicking
World
- Baptist groups: Donations not keeping pace with Pakistan relief needs
- Christian group questions Iraq future as Obama announces end to war
- Baptists give money for flood relief in Pakistan
- Baylor student-athletes’ mission to Africa bears fruit
- Georgians learn German from Austrians thanks to Virginia Baptists
| |
Later in the column, Mr. Walker appears to include businesses operating on private property in what he counts as being off-limits to free expression when he says: "Let’s not ask government and, even less, American capitalism to celebrate our holidays for us."
A similar slide from one aspect of this issue to another occurs when Mr. Walker says "[w]e are a religiously diverse nation." Well, that is true in a sense. People have a right to believe whatever they so choose concerning religion and metaphysics. As a matter of fact, a very small percentage of Americans believe in religions other than Christianity or believe in atheism (there is no such a thing as holding no religious beliefs unless someone has lost their cognitive faculties and who is in a vegetative state has been called into grave doubt--that takes us on to other matters that I shall leave for another time).
The United State has been a Christian country since its founding in every sense of the word except as having a state church and official religion. People have a right to believe as they choose, but they do not have a right to have equal influence and recognition. Such claims as Mr. Walker makes on diversity are really calls for state action to equalize the influence and status of all religions. Thus, his plea for private businesses not to publicly celebrate Christmas. Thus, the issue is one of attempting to remove de facto Christian dominance from our culture as individuals' free action form social patterns that reflect the religious and metaphysical beliefs of the majority without violating the rights of minorities if we understand what a 'right' is ( a warrant to use force to protect a private sphere controlled by the individual). The arguments that Mr. Walker advances are not based on a libertarian commitment to religious liberty but rather equality of result. Once again, the ugly face of equality of result makes its appearance in these sorts of discussions under other guises.