I Know Several People Who Could Stand to Read This

C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity (1952):

Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and back-biting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.

A good many people of my acquaintance seem to think that sex is indeed the center of Christian morality, as well as everything else, and I hold them directly responsible for the abrupt elimination of my position with the local Lutheran synod.

Nor has it escaped my attention that most of these people--most, though not all, pastor--decry "society's" overemphasis on sexuality and yet themselves seem incapable of talking about anything else. Merely an observation.

Bet People Will Be as Stupid in the New Year!

This little gem appeared yesterday in the letters section of the local rag:

S.D. is a Christian state
Carole V. Ryden • Sioux Falls • December 30, 2008
I read that Gov. Mike Rounds lighted Menorah candles on the Capitol step during Hanukkah. The Menorah has been the symbol of the Jewish religion for 3,000 years. South Dakota is a Christian state - not a Jewish state. It is inappropriate for government officials to do this lighting ritual. To what purpose is Judaism being singled out? I suspect this ritual is designed to show that South Dakotans stand in support of the Jewish religion. Why? Don't South Dakotans stand for all those who choose to worship God in their own way? I do. However, I object to Gov. Rounds going along with a minority group which seeks to Judaize the rest of us, such as insisting that we now say "Happy Holidays" instead of Merry Christmas. This is especially repugnant to me in light of the fact that Jews reject the divinity of Christ. I don't. You won't find any symbols or rituals of Christianity on Jewish turf. Gov. Rounds has violated the separation of church and state and turned his back on the Christian traditions of South Dakota.

Ah, and here we go again...the majority of people who live in X are Christians, or profess to be (not, experience teaches, quite the same thing), therefore X is a "Christian" country/ state/county/neighborhood/fill in your favorite pointless geographic boundary.

Ms. Ryden is of course half-right: South Dakota is not a "Jewish state." I have the feeling that I could have every Jew in the state over for lunch and we would fit comfortably in my backyard. (Not at the moment, when the backyard is snow-covered and the temperature is a brisk 7 degrees, but you get my point.) But she is also half-wrong, for neither is South Dakota a "Christian state." It's a "state," that's all, and under the Constitution of the United States (remember that old thing? We haven't seen much of it these past eight years) that makes it a secular entity.

Side Point One: Don't tell me you've read the Constitution and don't find "separation of church and state" in there anywhere. The phrase is not there, but the concept is. Don't be disingenuous.

Side Point Two: Observe how Ms. Ryden on the one hand insists that South Dakota is a "Christian" state but then subsequently complains that the governor "has violated the separation of church and state" by his lighting of a menorah. Well, which is is? If this is a "Christian" state--and by extensions I suppose she must mean that every state that has a majority of self-proclaiming Christians as residents must perforce also be "Christian" states--then "separation of church and state" has no meaning, and it thus would be impossible for the governor, or anyone else, to violate it.

Although I am unsurprised that such bigoted ignorance exists (I live in South Dakota, mind, and encounter such staggering stupidity and shallowness nearly every day of the week) I am a little surprised that someone would be so colossally ignorant as to put such an opinion to paper. And then mail it, or e-mail it, to the local rag. But I suppose the Cloak of Righteousness means you can say any stupid, shallow, prejudiced thing you like and be confident that (A) Jesus agrees with you and (B) anyone who disagrees with you must by definition not be a "real Christian" since, after all (C), Jesus agrees with you.

Although it is folly to try to make sense out of such ignorant ranting, one can't help but wonder how the governor's lighting a menorah signifies an attempt to "Judaize the rest of us." Is it that my laying eyes on a menorah would somehow compel me to convert to Judaism? If so, our churches should fair be bursting at the seams, since you can't turn around without seeing a cross hanging from someone's neck, or an ichthys on the back end of a car. Why, if symbols are all it takes to "-ize" people, there should be no non-Christians anywhere, so ubiquitous is Christian, or "Christian," symbolism!

I especially love the second-to-last line (by which point I imagine Ms. Ryden figuratively foaming at the corners of her mouth, as her tirade makes less and less sense and sounds more and more strident): "You won't find any symbols or rituals of Christianity on Jewish turf." So, so true. Nor will you find much in the way of Jewish symbols or rituals on "Christian turf" (one does occasionally encounter a Star of David in the Christian context). But again, she seems to be confusing the steps of the South Dakota capitol building with "Christian turf," when it isn't. It is, by law, custom, and common sense, "secular turf." Indeed, one could--and some probably will--argue that, because it's secular, there should be no religious symbolism at all there, but I consider such arguments to be silly. Put up a Christmas tree in the rotunda, light a menorah on the steps, who cares?

Well, lots of people, obviously. Which causes me to wonder why?

I mean, is the faith of Ms. Ryden and her ilk (that whole "war on Christmas" bunch that O'Reilly keeps bleating about) really so fragile, so shallow, so meaningless that the idea of the existence of a different faith is threatening? Are their beliefs so shaky that hearing "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" undermines their Christmas convictions? Is their brand of "religion" really so second-rate that they can advance it only by burying someone else's? Are they and their God really that small?

Personally, I find it hard to imagine Jesus getting too worked up over the lighting of a menorah, on the steps of the South Dakota capitol or anywhere else. It seems pretty likely to me that he himself may have lighted one or two, back in the day. Likewise, I doubt that he thinks that someone slapping a fish symbol on the back of his or her car makes him or her a Christian.

I'm almost certain there's more to it than that.

Just Pay Your Damn Taxes!

This from Monday's Washington Post:

33 Pastors Flout Tax Law With Political Sermons
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 29, 2008; Page A02

CROWN POINT, Ind., Sept. 28 -- Defying a federal law that prohibits U.S. clergy from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit, an evangelical Christian minister told his congregation Sunday that voting for Sen. Barack Obama would be evidence of "severe moral schizophrenia."

The Rev. Ron Johnson Jr. told worshipers that the Democratic presidential nominee's positions on abortion and gay partnerships exist "in direct opposition to God's truth as He has revealed it in the Scriptures." Johnson showed slides contrasting the candidates' views but stopped short of endorsing Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain.

Johnson and 32 other pastors across the country set out Sunday to break the rules, hoping to generate a legal battle that will prompt federal courts to throw out a 54-year-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt houses of worship.

The ministers contend they have a constitutional right to advise their worshipers how to vote. As Johnson put it during a break between sermons, "The point that the IRS says you can't do it, I'm saying you're wrong."

Actually, it seems to me there's a painfully obvious way for these moral arbiters to say whatever they damn well please from their pulpits and still be totally law-abiding citizens: All their churches need do is give up their tax-free status! Just pay for your own ride like all the rest of us do, and say whatever you like about anybody, anywhere, anytime!The article continues:

The campaign, organized by the Alliance Defense Fund, a socially conservative legal consortium based in Arizona, has gotten the attention of the Internal Revenue Service. The agency, alerted by opponents, pledged to "monitor the situation and take action as appropriate."

Well, here's what's appropriate: Revoke their tax-free status, fine them, and jail them if so indicated. Whence comes this idea that someone is above the law merely because he says he knows what God is thinking?

Each campaign season brings allegations that a member of the clergy has crossed a line set out in a 1954 amendment to the tax code that says nonprofit, tax-exempt entities may not "participate in, or intervene in . . . any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office."

This time, the church action is concerted. Yet while the ministers say the rules stifle religious expression, their opponents contend that the tax laws are essential to protect the separation of church and state. They say political speech should not be supported by a tax break for the churches or the worshipers who are contributing to a political cause.

Sounds like conspiracy.

In an open letter Saturday, a United Church of Christ minister, the Rev. Eric Williams, warned that many members of the clergy are "exchanging their historic religious authority for a fleeting promise of political power," to the detriment of their churches.

"The role of the church -- of congregation, synagogue, temple and mosque -- and of its religious leaders is to stand apart from government, to prophetically speak truth to power," Williams wrote, "and to encourage a national dialogue that transcends the divisiveness of electoral politics and preserves for every citizen our 'first liberty.' "

In the modern red-brick Living Stones Church in Crown Point, a town of 28,000 residents 50 miles southeast of Chicago, Johnson explained why he thinks a minister should dispense political advice. He then laid out his view of the positions of Obama and McCain on abortion and same-sex marriage, which he called two issues "that transcend all others."

"We want people when you prick them, they bleed the word of God," Johnson said.

And speaking of pricks...

Johnson said ministers have a responsibility to guide their flocks in worldly matters, including politics, calling the dichotomy between the secular and the sacred a myth: "The issue is not 'Are we legislating morality?' This issue is 'Whose morality are we legislating?' "

Luckily, I know what God wants, so I'll just do your thinking for you, since it clears up so much confusion. Oh, and if you're really wondering what I think about the people I claim to serve, here's this:

Asked why he felt the need to discuss the candidates by name and to be explicit in rejecting Obama and his pro-choice views, Johnson said he must connect the dots because he is not sure that all members of his congregation can do so on their own.

That's right. My poor, dimwitted flock of as-yet-unshorn sheep can't figure anything out for themselves, so I must do it for them--tell them what to believe, what to think, whom to hate.

The congregation greeted Johnson's reasoning and his criticism of Obama with applause.

See above in re dimwits.

"When things of the world don't line up with Scripture," said Ed Kraus, 61, who executes reverse mortgages for a living, "he has a right to say they don't."

Ruth Stiener went a step further. "He has a duty," she said. "Heaven forbid that that is ever taken away from our pastors."

Robert Tuttle, law professor at George Washington University, is skeptical that the Alliance Defense Fund project will result in a new judicial interpretation of the 1954 law. "The only way this gets into a court is if the IRS, number one, decides to enforce and the enforcement mechanism they choose actually causes an injury to a church," said Tuttle, who studies the intersection of law and religion. "That's not something that happens often in campaign activity."

More than 180 members of the clergy have signed a pledge from the Interfaith Alliance, a Washington-based group that seeks to separate faith and politics, agreeing not to endorse a candidate on behalf of their house of worship.

"I have no objections to clergy taking off their robes and walking out the door of their church, synagogue or mosque and immersing themselves in political campaigns," said Rabbi Jack Moline of Agudas Achim Congregation in Alexandria, chairman of the Interfaith Alliance board. "But a sanctuary should not be a place of political agitation on behalf of a candidate. On behalf of issues, yes. Of candidates, no."

Indeed. One might go so far as to say a sanctuary should be a place for spirituality, even religion, and not political agitation... Nah!

Moline added: "Endorsing a candidate from the pulpit is saying, 'This is what our God says should be the government of the country.' I think that is a nightmare scenario for a country that introduced the Bill of Rights to humanity."

As for Johnson's criticism of Obama, the Illinois Democrat supports the right to choose abortion. He opposes same-sex marriage but supports civil unions for gay couples.

"Senator Obama is a committed Christian and a man of deep faith," said Joshua DuBois, Obama's national religious affairs director. "And the notion that there is only one way to address issues like abortion, or that people of faith cannot support full civil rights for all Americans, is absurd."

Staff writer Jacqueline L. Salmon in Washington contributed to this report.

An Un-American Litmus Test

This from Kathleen Parker in today's Washington Post:

Pastor Rick's Test
The Candidates Submit, and a Principle Suffers


By Kathleen Parker
Wednesday, August 20, 2008; A15


At the risk of heresy, let it be said that setting up the two presidential candidates for religious interrogation by an evangelical minister -- no matter how beloved -- is supremely wrong.

It is also un-American.

For the past several days, since mega-pastor Rick Warren interviewed Barack Obama and John McCain at his Saddleback Church, most political debate has focused on who won.

Was it the nuanced, thoughtful Obama, who may have convinced a few more skeptics that he isn't a Muslim? Or was it the direct, confident McCain, who breezes through town-hall-style meetings the way Obama sinks three-pointers from the back court?

The candidates' usual supporters felt validated in their choices. McCain convinced and comforted with characteristic certitude those who are most at ease with certitude; Obama convinced and comforted with his characteristic intellectual ambivalence those who are most at ease with ambivalence.

The winner, of course, was Warren, who has managed to position himself as political arbiter in a nation founded on the separation of church and state.

The loser was America.

Indeed. This is neither the first nor the last time that a candidate for elective office will feel required to unzip and prove he's the bigger "Christian." And to what end? If I can convince you that I'm as "good" a "Christian" as you are, then you'll vote for me? Is this any way to run an election...for water commissioner, let alone president?

She continues:

His format and questions were interesting and the answers more revealing than what the usual debate menu provides. But does it not seem just a little bit odd to have McCain and Obama chatting individually with a preacher in a public forum about their positions on evil and their relationship with Jesus Christ?

The past few decades of public confession and Oprah-style therapy have prepared us perfectly for a televangelist probing politicians about their moral failings. Warren's Q&A wasn't an inquisition exactly, but viewers would be justified in squirming.

Which is precisely why I decided early on to shine it by. What could any of them--Obama, McCain, Warren--possibly have to say that would be of any use to me at all? I do not vote for or against anybody on the basis of religion, and I concluded long ago that the whole "pro-life/pro-choice" dichotomy is a blind developed by people who are too lazy to examine nuances. (You would be just as well off to decide you will support only those candidates whose middle names begin with a letter in the second half of the alphabet...it has just as much relevancy.) I know I will vote for Obama, I will not vote for McCain, and I'm not going to join Warren's church.

Besides, I knew the whole thing was going to be endlessly discussed over the ensuing days and weeks, so even though I watched none of the silly affair, I really feel like I was there in the audience.

That's not a good thing, by the way. When I first heard of the Saddleback Civil Forum, I felt uneasy. I believe strongly in the separation of church and state, and I believe it's in the best interest of both church and state to rigorously maintain that division. And as someone who strives to be something like a Christian, I deeply resent evangelicals' usurping of the term to mean people who think/believe/speak like we do.

So this resonates:

What is the right answer, after all? What happens to the one who gets evil wrong? What's a proper relationship with Jesus? What's next? Interrogations by rabbis, priests and imams? What candidate would dare decline on the basis of mere principle?

Both Obama and McCain gave "good" answers, but that's not the point. They shouldn't have been asked. Is the American electorate now better prepared to cast votes knowing that Obama believes that "Jesus Christ died for my sins and I am redeemed through him," or that McCain feels that he is "saved and forgiven"?

What, indeed, does it mean? Well, it means that we are so narrow and so intellectually slothful that we seek only the right buzzwords--the shibboleth--on which to base our conclusions. "Candidate X failed to acknowledge Jesus as his 'personal savior,' so that means he's not a real Christian."

It's an odd thing about Christianity: I find that the people who go around thumping themselves on the chest and bragging about what fantabulous "Christians" they are are the people who need to be kept an eye on at all times.

And of course such "Christians" invariably confuse religion and spirituality, spirituality and faith, and faith and morality. They insist that "faith" is that which drives an individual's actions, when in fact it's morality that guides us, with or without "faith." Writes Parker,

Warren tried to defuse criticism about staging the interviews in his church by saying that though "we" believe in the separation of church and state, "we" don't believe in the separation of faith and politics. Faith, he said, "is just a worldview, and everybody has some kind of worldview. It's important to know what they are."

In short, it's important to know if they speak "our" code. To "prove" they're "Christian enough" for "us."

It's helpful, perhaps, to remember at this juncture that Article VI of the Constitution of the United States says "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." [Found at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article6]

Parker concludes:

For the moment, let's set aside our curiosity about what Jesus might do in a given circumstance and wonder what our Founding Fathers would have done at Saddleback Church. What would have happened to Thomas Jefferson if he had responded as he wrote in 1781:

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Would the crowd at Saddleback have applauded and nodded through that one? Doubtful.

By today's new standard of pulpits in the public square, Jefferson -- the great advocate for religious freedom in America -- would have lost.

As have we all, thanks to Pastor Rick and his followers.

Giving Christianity a Bad Name

As if God doesn’t already have enough on his plate, his so-called friends are busy burning up bandwidth with such twaddle as that reproduced below, which entered my inbox this morning. To make matters worse, it comes from a minister of my acquaintance…who, you would think, should know better. You would think so wrongly, as it happens.

I hereby spare you the torture of reading it in the original form, which necessitated endless scrolling and squinting against ill-advised color schemes. (Hint: Red type on a black background is to be avoided.) I haven’t corrected the punctuation and other oddities (“the ex-vocalist of the AC/DC”), either. Nor have I made the slightest attempt to verify whether “these facts” are indeed facts.

---

DID YOU KNOW THESE FACTS?

I SURE DIDNT TILL NOW

Death is certain but the Bible speaks about untimely death!

Make a personal reflection about this.....

Very interesting, read until the end.....

It is written in the Bible (Galatians 6:7):

'Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man sow, that shall he also reap.

Here are some men and women who mocked God:

John Lennon (Singer):
Some years before, during his interview with an American Magazine, he said:'Christianity will end, it will disappear. I do not have to argue about that. I am certain. Jesus was ok, but his subjects were too simple, today we are more famous than Him' (1966).

Lennon, after saying that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, was shot six times.


Tancredo Neves (President of Brazil ):
During the Presidential campaign, he said if he got 500,000 votes from his party, not even God would remove him from Presidency.

Sure he got the votes, but he got sick a day before being made President, then he died.


Cazuza (Bi-sexual Brazilian composer, singer and poet):
During A show in Canecio ( Rio de Janeiro ), while smoking his cigarette, he puffed out some smoke into the air and said: 'God, that's for you.'

He died at the age of 32 of LUNG CANCER in a horrible manner.


The man who built the Titanic
After the construction of Titanic, a reporter asked him how safe the Titanic would be.

With an ironic tone he said:

'Not even God can sink it'

The result: I think you all know what happened to the Titanic


Marilyn Monroe (Actress)
She was visited by Billy Graham during a presentation of a show.

He said the Spirit of God had sent him to preach to her.

After hearing what the Preacher had to say, she said:

'I don't need your Jesus'.

A week later, she was found dead in her apartment


Bon Scott (Singer)
The ex-vocalist of the AC/DC. On one of his 1979 songs he sang:

'Don't stop me; I'm going down all the way, down the highway to hell'.

On the 19th of February 1980, Bon Scott was found dead, he had been choked by his own vomit.


Campinas (IN 2005)
In Campinas , Brazil a group of friends, drunk, went to pick up a friend.....

The mother accompanied her to the car and was so worried about the drunkenness of her friends and she said to the daughter holding her hand, who was already seated in the car:

'My Daughter, Go With God And May He Protect You.'

She responded: 'Only If He (God) Travels In The Trunk, Cause Inside Here.....It's Already Full '

Hours later, news came by that they had been involved in a fatal accident, everyone had died, the car could not be recognized what type of car it had been, but surprisingly, the trunk was intact.

The police said there was no way the trunk could have remained intact. To their surprise, inside the trunk was a crate of eggs, none was broken


Christine Hewitt (Jamaican Journalist and entertainer)
said the Bible (Word of God) was the worst book ever written.

In June 2006 she was found burnt beyond recognition in her motor vehicle.


Many more important people have forgotten that there is no other name that was given so much authority as the name of Jesus.

Many have died, but only Jesus died and rose again, and he is still alive.

'Jesus'I have done my part, Jesus said

'If you are embarrassed about me,

I will also be embarrassed about you before my father.''

Lord, I love you and I need you, come into my heart, and bless me, my family, my home, and my friends, in Jesus' name. Amen.'

---

Oh my.

As usual, one wonders where to begin. First off, the whole thing is pretty damn insulting to God, for it all boils down to “If God gets mad at you he’s gonna kill you.” Worse, in the case of “the man who built the Titanic,” God kills dozens of people and terrifies hundreds because he’s mad at one guy.

I don’t know what you think of God, but as is so often the case it appears that I have a higher opinion of him than some of those who make a big deal about how Godly they are.

(It’s really quite astonishing to think that this was being promulgated by an ordained minister of a “real” denomination, and not prefaced with anything along the lines of “Can you believe the hokum some people send around?” One wonders what sort of things are being taught in their seminaries.)

It’s also difficult to see why God would be so upset with John Lennon. I don’t think Lennon was mocking God. I think Lennon decried what he perceived as the Beatles’ insane popularity, and the public’s insistence on hanging on everything the Beatles said or did.

Also, it’s playing a little fast-and-loose with the facts to say, “Lennon, after saying that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, was shot six times.” Lennon's murder came nearly 15 years later. As my old debate coach was wont to say, “Your causal link is a little casual.” But in my experience, “Christians” don’t mind jettisoning the truth in order to make their point. Assuming that God is really that thin-skinned, why would he wait so long to smite someone who “mocked” him?

I have no idea whether the Billy Graham-Marilyn Monroe anecdote is true, but let's say it is. How, exactly, is her statement "mocking" anything or anyone? She is made to say she doesn't need Jesus. Okay. You may believe she was wrong, but to be mistaken is not to be mocking. And, again, it seems to be a little insulting toward the Creator, for it pretty much casts him in the role of saying, "Well, okay, I sent this guy to preach to her one time and she wouldn't listen, so ba-zip! off with her head." Wow. I had the impression that Jesus instructed his disciples to have more perseverance than that, but apparently not.

And all of this begs one big, fat, bug-eyed question: What about people who don’t “mock” God (no matter how fast-and-loosely you define “mock”)? I mean, everybody dies, no? And some very good, very devout people die ghastly deaths. So what’s up with that? The anonymous author of this pretty un-Christian piece of drivel would have us believe that those who “mock” God will die a horrible death. I happen to think that God’s got a stronger ego than that, but for the sake of argument let’s go with it. You mock God, you get smote or smitten or whatever the past tense of smite is. But that would imply that those who don’t mock God don’t get smote—don’t get murdered, don’t get cancer, don’t die of drug overdoses—and, well, sorry, but that just ain’t true. And I’d be willing to bet that plenty of people who do “mock” God—again, whatever that may mean—live long healthy lives and die peacefully in their sleep at the ripe old age of 89.

In short, it doesn’t work that way. God—any god worthy of the proper-noun status—is bigger than that. He must be, or he wouldn’t be worth discussing. And I submit that any religion that holds--as this bit of balderdash certainly implies—that you have to be real careful not to tick God off lest he send a lightning bolt your way isn’t religion at all but mere superstition.

It’s what I call Great Pumpkin Theology. You remember that bit from “It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown,” where Linus, in the pumpkin patch awaiting the Great Pumpkin’s arrival, promises Charlie Brown or Sally or somebody to put in a good word for them if the Great Pumpkin arrives. And then he panics, for he said if. “I mean when! …I'm doomed! One little mistake like that can cause the Great Pumpkin to pass you by.”

Well, I am of the opinion that a good many “godly” people are in fact thinking of the Great Pumpkin.

And isn’t that a form of mockery?

Merry Season's Holidays!

It has been pointed out to me that Christmas has come and gone with nary a word from me. (Nary a Christmas letter, either, but that's another story. Anyhow, I'm given to understand by the previous post that the Armenian and Orthodox churches celebrate Christmas next month, so I'm still in the zone.) Well, what is there to say? The holiday has religious significance or not, depending on your point of view. I'm fully aware that Jesus was not born on December 25 (so too, it appears, are our Armenian and Orthodox cousins), but that makes me no never-mind: Since we know not the date Jesus was born, it hardly matters what date(s) we've settled on to celebrate same.

Religion aside, I am as always appreciative of the time to slow down and catch our collective breath a little, and to spend "quality time," whatever that is, with the family. It's a very busy time in our little household these days, and any opportunity to not have to be in two or more places simultaneously is welcome.

Of course, no Christmas season would be complete without this or that element of the lunatic fringe insisting there's a "war" on Christmas. (Is it just me, or is everything a "war" these days--war on poverty, war on drugs, war on terror. And does it not strike you that we are intent on declaring wars that can't be won? How, for instance, do you "win" a war on drugs? Who signs the surrender papers?) I was especially amused by this post, commenting on a typically hard-hitting article in the local rag ("Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays: Season's greetings spat rankles some, mystifies others"), which ran earlier this month:

As the old saying from "Oklahoma" goes: "We've gone about as far as we can go!" in letting the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other non-Christian groups literally push "Christ" out of "Christmas." And we're so caught up in our materialistic world, we no longer remember that our country was founded on Christian principles. For us, when shopping, if there's "No Christmas" ... there's "No Cash".

If people want to be really honest, most of today's major "holidays" started out as "holy days" such as Christmas, New Year's, Easter, and Halloween ("all hallows eve" - the feast of all saints).

Yet, when the chips are really down, like 9-11, everyone gets down on their knees once again. When we lose a beloved family member, we pray s/he will be received by the Lord. But how soon we forget!

If other groups don't want to partake in our observances and celebrations, let them observe their own, but don't scuttle ours! We were here first, and by God, we'll remain here under His care!
- Rod Simon

Every time I read some quarter-baked commentary such as the above, I renew my ACLU membership. And I'm sure Simon didn't realize what he was saying (I could stop there, but I forge ahead) when he wrote "...our country was founded on Christian principles...." Ooops--"Christian principles," not "Christianity." Big difference. Not gonna score too many right-wingnut points with that kind of a slip: The object of the game is to redraw history by claiming, loudly and frequently, that the USA is a "Christian nation," not a nation founded on "Christian principles." Tsk tsk. (One does wonder what those "principles" might be. I tend to think of things like "love thy neighbor" and "do unto others," but one has long detected a strong disdain for such namby-pamby "liberal" sentiments among those who brag the loudest about what swell Christians they are.)

As a love of irony, I must point out the further deliciousness of the longer passage in which "Christian principles" appears:

And we're so caught up in our materialistic world, we no longer remember that our country was founded on Christian principles. For us, when shopping, if there's "No Christmas" ... there's "No Cash".

I'm not quite sure how the "Christian principles" bit fits into the "materialistic world" bit, but no matter: I'm madly in love with the condemnation of the "materialistic world" followed immediately by the oh-so-subtle threat to retailers--no Christmas, no cash. "Man, I hate the commercialization of Christmas...do you take American Express?"

Then there's the amazingly stupid conclusion:

We were here first, and by God, we'll remain here under His care!

Actually, I'm pretty sure that "we" (white Europenas) were here second. And I'm pretty sure that it doesn't matter. (I feel much the same--cold--about all of these self-aggrandizing "first" churches: Who the heck cares?) Going back to one of those "Christian principles" that "Christians" seem to like to ignore, the exhortation is generally rendered something like "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you"--not, "Do to others whatever you damn well please, for you were here first"...

Frankly, I have to wonder about the faith of some of the "devout"--how strong, how deep is the faith of someone who seems to put so much stock in externals? I make no claim to being much of a Christian, and as I'm wont to say I'm certainly not the sort of Catholic that the boys in Rome dream of, but it seems that my belief system and spiritual foundation are strong enough to withstand being greeted with "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas"; with seeing "Christmas" rendered "Xmas" (note to the illiterati: that's not an X!); with seeing eight tiny reindeer instead of a manger; and with the knowledge that for some people Christmas is no more than a few days off from work. I don't mean to brag, but none of that has anything at all to do with my attitudes toward God, toward Jesus, toward Creation...toward Christmas! Those attitudes, an odd assortment of orthodoxy and heresy, seem pretty solid whether the local five-and-dime is piping in sacred or secular Christmas music.

So I ask you: If a lousy Christian like me isn't shaken by hearing "Season's Greetings" instead of "Merry Christmas," why are all the truly fabulous "Christians" driven to spiritual crisis by same?

Obviously, the peace and goodwill that I have always taken to be a hallmark of the Christmas season have not thoroughly descended upon those who would purport to be its great "defender." Maybe that's the real "war" on Christmas: hard-heartedness and intolerance. And that war would be worth fighting.

A Voice of Reason

An internet acquaintance of mine, the Rev. Charles Austin, wrote this last week for the op-ed page of The Record, Hackensack, New Jersey:


The spirit of the season
Friday, November 23, 2007

By CHARLES AUSTIN

I SHALL PROBABLY step into the pulpit some Sunday morning soon and thank God for the retailers, Hollywood movie-makers, the media and the inventor of this year's hot toy. I will thank them for the way they have secularized and commercialized Christmas.

Austin goes on to detail how the "commercialization" of Christmas in no way undermines the meaning of the holiday for those who believe:

Much hoopla and mania invades these weeks before Christmas. But rather than ruining the religious side of the holiday, they give us something, not to oppose, but to push against and to balance.

How refreshingly reasonable! But what a strange concept--that someone else's attitude or actions about something, in this case Christmas, somehow, mysteriously, exist apart from my own attitudes and actions! Wow! This is like a breakthrough...as if I don't have to bounce around like a cork on the sea based on others' pronouncements or prejudices about...well, golly, anything, when you come right down to it!

It's almost as if...almost as if I can think for myself. And simply ignore those who think or behave differently, and go on thinking for myself. It's almost as if...almost as if my validation comes from within, and not from society.

How perfectly strange.

He wraps up:

So have at it, you retailers, moviemakers and television producers. We'll still buy lots of your stuff, go to your movies and enjoy the pop-rock versions of "Angels We Have Heard on High."

But when your kind of holiday gets too loud and tiresome – and it will – we will remember that there is something else about this time of year.

Read the whole article here.

Of course, as my sarcastic comments above indicate, I think that my acquaintance, though dead right philosophically, is wasting his breath. (Not that there's anything wrong with that: Readers of these posts know that I do that sort of thing all the time.) I'm solidly convinced that there is a considerable element among Christians (as well as "Christians")--if not a majority then at least an appreciable, and vocal, minority--that must always have an enemy. I've opined on the subject before, in other contexts. It works to their advantage to portray Christianity as "under seige" or "under assault" or somehow getting the short end of the stick all the time. Why? It stirs the faithful into a lather and induces them to reach for their wallets to help "defend" Christianity against these attackers (mostly liberals and Democrats, you know). And it generates headlines, which further rouses the rabble, and opens more wallets. Onward, Christian soldiers, and don't forget to drop your pledge card in the plate as it comes by!

And so on.

So, Austin's voice of reason--and mine, too--to the contrary, it's now just a matter of hours before the red-faced hordes start to scream about the dubious need to "put Christ back into Christmas," and to lambaste retailers for starting their holiday sales "too soon" (one wonders how many of the red-faced hordes refuse to do their Christmas shopping till...well, till whenever it's not "too soon" to suit them), and to call for boycotts of merchants who have the temerity to wish shoppers "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," the heathens!

Which is just as well. If they didn't have someone to rail against, well, neither would I, I guess.

Season's Greetings!

I Have No Idea What This Means

Add to my puzzlement over what "Christian" electricians, contractors, lenders, and so on might be (would a "Christian" lender, for instance, not charge me interest?), here's this that appeared on my screen today:

---

---

Yes, Christian Health Quote. Again, I have no idea what to make of this. But I have some questions:

• Only the quote is "Christian"? What about the insurance itself?
• Every insurance company or agency on the planet seems to brag about its "100% Free Quote": are there any, anywhere, that charge for quotes? If so, do they run ads touting their "75% Free Quote" or something?
• Is it not interesting that following the link on the ad takes one to a company of a different name that says it's "dedicated to addressing the consumers growing need for information and education about life, health, auto and long-term care insurance"--but doesn't use the word "Christian" except in its banner and copyright line. But they "provide a "one-stop-shop" for consumer's to shop for all their insurance needs." Not their punctuation needs, however

Well, I know nothing about these people (they sell Aetna and AIG and Blue Cross-Blue Shield, so it all seems on the up-and-up and everything, as much as one can expect where insurance companies are involved), and I'm sure they're fine folks. But I have no idea how working with a "Christian" insurance agency would be any different than working with my current insurance agent (who is, after all, a Christian himself, even if he doesn't go around thumping his chest about it). And experience teaches, alas, that them what go around bragging about what fantabulous "Christians" they are need to be watched with hawklike vigilance.

Ditto for drivers who have those fish symbols (ichthys, if you like) on the backs of their minivans. It seems to be the universal symbol for bad drivers. I appreciate the warning, however; that seems a very Christian thing to do!