Tyranny of the Majority

Why do I keep carping on Christmas in the public square? I guess it's because I think that America benefits tremendously by keeping religion separate from government. There are middle grounds, such as trying to honor and include people's religious culture and heritage. Where things get dicey is where the culture of the majority is allowed to dominate others, or even push them out of the public view entirely. People with these viewpoints are the kind that get up in arms at suggestions that America is not a Christian country. They're also the same folks that feel entitled to dictate to Americans everywhere that Christian symbols and holidays, should be given exalted status and treatment over any others. A lot of times they will misrepresent our own history to do so, often shamelessly.

In my view, this is where such attitudes lead:

The Moldovan Orthodox Church on Wednesday blamed the local Jewish community for the recent rally in which a public menorah was torn down and a cross was put in its place.

During the December 13th incident, dozens of people led by an Orthodox priest smashed a menorah in Moldova's capital Chisinau, using hammers and iron bars to remove the candelabra during Hanukkah.

...the church said in a statement, "We believe that this unpleasant incident in the center of the capital could have been avoided if the menorah had been placed near a memorial for victims of the Holocaust."
The church said it opposed the form of the protest, and that it respects "the feelings and belief of other cults that are legally registered on the territory of the Republic of Moldova, and expects a similar attitude from their side," according to the report.
"At the same time," the statement continued, "we think it inappropriate to put a symbol of the Jewish cult in a public place connected to the history and faith of our people, especially because Chanukah is classified by the cult books of Judaism as a 'holiday of blessing' that symbolizes the victory of Jews over non-Jews."

There you have it. Christians taking back the public square, fully justified, no doubt, in their view that Moldova is a Christian nation. They even have the nerve to blame it on the Jews being provocative by not keeping their symbol in "the right place." Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a slightly more aggressive version of what people on Fox News, World Net Daily and Stand For Christmas are calling for?

Let's be clear: I do not believe that most Christians in America are violent. But I do think that there is a danger in believing that numerical superiority translates to the right to exert/claim cultural dominance or control. The beauty of America is that it does not explicitly "belong" to any one group. I see and hear some Christians in the blogosphere and media who feel like America is uniquely "theirs" and who think that an aggressive form of cultural Christianity should be determining government policy and be trickling down to all sorts of everyday activities, be it advertising or education. I can see their perspective-- it's what they believe, after all-- but that doesn't mean I agree with it one bit.

Part of the dilemma is I think it is particularly hard for a majority group to understand how important issues of symbolism, protection and dignity are for minorities. Religious minorities in America benefit tremendously through maintaining the separation of church and state, and in ensuring that they are never made to be second-class citizens. Yes, it is possible for a state with an official religion to be benevolent towards minorities-- but that's not the same thing as a state with no official religion, with no religious preference, where ALL religious groups are on equal footing-- at least on paper. That is what is at stake.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For another perspective (and from a fellow Jew, no less), we can go to my old friend Idiot McGoo. Sorry, that's former-rabbi Idiot McGoo:

"If you can't stand the words Merry Christmas, you don't have a right to live on this earth, because that means that you're rejecting the whole idea of loving your fellow human being, of celebrating the most beautiful qualities of a person. The most beautiful qualities of a person are the qualities of Christmas."

Which qualities, exactly? Goodwill towards men?

What's Offensive? What's Inclusive?

When I was younger, I had an opportunity to visit Washington D.C. with some classmates from my high school. We were some of the only liberals in the hotel of 400 kids. We had some very interesting conversations with our peers. Some of them were informative-- the kids from Arkansas had never met a Jew, but to be fair I had never met a Baptist (of course, I knew a hell of a lot more about Protestantism, if not the Baptist movement specifically, than they did about Judaism, but hey). But at some point, we all hit a wall. For me, that wall came when we were discussing a monument. One of the Arkansas girls wanted to have it be a giant cross. I pointed out that the cross wasn't an inclusive symbol. She didn't know what I meant. I said that the cross was a specific symbol of Christianity. She said that for her, the cross just represented God. She and I were coming from radically different worldviews, and we were unable to reconcile them. It was a very frustrating encounter, like we were speaking different languages.

Many years later, enter the Mojave Cross.

The cross has been in the news for a while now, as have been the boneheaded comments of Justice Scalia, who can't understand why Jews or any other non-Christians would have a problem being buried under a giant cross. Background on the case is here. Personally I think transferring the land to another organization is a good compromise (similar to what San Francisco did with our giganto-cross atop Mt. Davidson in the 80s), though I also see the ACLU's point that it seems a bit like a cop-out to have a huge federal land preserve and then smack-dab in the middle have a tiny parcel of land conveniently given to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, as well as the concern that this is establishing a pattern of the government gerrymandering land ownership in controversial monument cases in order to keep them where they are.

But part of the real issue here does go back to the opinions of Scalia and folks like him:

JUSTICE SCALIA: The cross doesn't honor non-Christians who fought in the war? Is that -- is that --

MR. ELIASBERG: I believe that's actually correct.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Where does it say that?

MR. ELIASBERG: It doesn't say that, but a cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity and it signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins, and I believe that's why the Jewish war veterans --

JUSTICE SCALIA: It's erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead. It's the -- the cross is the -- is the most common symbol of -- of -- of the resting place of the dead, and it doesn't seem to me -- what would you have them erect? A cross -- some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Moslem half moon and star?

MR. ELIASBERG: Well, Justice Scalia, if I may go to your first point. The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians. I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew.

(Laughter.)

MR. ELIASBERG: So it is the most common symbol to honor Christians.

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead. I think that's an outrageous conclusion.

MR. ELIASBERG: Well, my -- the point of my -- point here is to say that there is a reason the Jewish war veterans came in and said we don't feel honored by this cross. This cross can't honor us because it is a religious symbol of another religion.

Another one who doesn't get the simple fact that crosses do not represent non-Christians is noted theologian and part-time crank, Pat Boone:

I've mentioned here before that each Veterans Day, Memorial Day and Independence Day, sometimes Thanksgiving Day as well, I make my way to the huge, beautiful Veterans' Cemetery in Westwood. I walk among the tens of thousands of markers and monuments, read the names and dates on many of them – out loud – and thank them for giving their very lives in the service of our country. I thank them for sacrificing their dreams, families and lives, so that we all might live ours.

The vast majority of those monuments are crosses.

Yes, there are quite a few with Jewish stars on them. I've seen a few Muslim symbols and even one Buddhist circular one, very pretty.

I've seen no atheist markers.

Have you seen or read "Jarhead" by Anthony Swofford? He talks about fighting with military bureaucracy to get his religious status on his dogtags changed to "No Preference." How much do you want to bet this problem is older than 1991?

Since our colonial days, and through all our wars, the great majority of our fighting men and women marched into battle beneath our American flag and, whether it was visibly displayed or not, under a cross. It was, and is, a symbol of faith in God, a prayer for His protection and blessing and a fervent hope that He will somehow work on their behalf, to bring them home to their loved ones again.

Most did come home, some wounded, some maimed for life, but still alive. Too many did not. But those who lost their lives fighting for our country, and for our cherished freedoms, died believing that the loving God symbolized by that cross would welcome them into eternal habitations. Their families were comforted in that same belief, and if the body was returned home, it was lovingly laid to rest – under a cross.

Once again, Pat Boone uses his psychic medium skills to project, I mean, connect, with the beliefs of all dead American soldiers in the past 200 years, who, in a shocking a coincidence, happened to believe in things the exact same way that he does (loyal readers will recall that this is an ongoing problem for Pat).

Is there more? Of course there's more. Take it away, Pat. (Far, far away.)

I suspect that the young Jewish men and women in our military have had similar experiences, encouraged and strengthened, and finally comforted by the Star of David. Perhaps Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus as well, by their symbols. I have no idea what atheists do in these circumstances. There is obviously no religious symbol to feed hope or comfort loss. There is no expectation of reunion, or afterlife, or anything. There is only death – and nothing.

Pat, I've got news for you, you don't know squat about what Jews, Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus go through, either. If you'd bother to go ask them as opposed to having conversations with imaginary Buddhists in your head, you'd at least have half a leg to stand on. A strawman peg-leg, perhaps, but a leg nonetheless.

Perhaps that's why a growing number of atheists and the atheist-driven ACLU are so militantly and vehemently trying to remove all crosses from public life, off public buildings, out of sight and out of mind.

They have no God; they have no faith in anything except poor, fallible mankind, no intimation of another life beyond this short one. Really, they have only themselves, some transient experiences and a yawning grave ahead. And it makes them furious. Why should all those poor duped, ignorant people be able to smile through their tears, believe through their sacrifice and loss, even somehow be proud that the sadness had a "greater purpose"? Why should people who believe in "fairy tales and fantasy," as Bill Maher describes faith, be happy, when atheists aren't?

Hey, Pat's sounding more like Bill O'Reilly all the time- yes, those bitter atheists are jealous of us wise and noble and happy December-celebrants. Oh, how brilliant we all are, thanks to the magic of wholesome gift-giving at arbitrary calendar dates! God bless us, every one.

Ironically, they're marching under the same cross – but their goal is not to honor the faith it represents, but to destroy it. It has become the symbol of their quest, their obsession. Whenever they see a cross, they are encouraged ... to tear it down. To defame it. To declare that they are offended and that their "rights" are being limited or deprived. That the cross in public view – on government property anywhere they can see it – is a violation of the First Amendment.

Wonderful. So now atheists and Christians (and non-Christians? I can't tell) are all marching under a snazzy invisible cross. Creepy and confusing. Mazel tov. Hey, I guess this means all atheists should be buried under crosses, too. Score one for Pat!

The rabid ACLU often acts unilaterally, not waiting for a citizen even to raise an objection. Currently, their lawyers are even trying – in the Supreme Court– to have a war memorial cross in the Mojave National Preserve, far removed from the highway, taken down. It couldn't possibly "offend" anybody but a passing motorist, and it was erected 74 years ago as a memorial to young Americans who had given their lives to defend the very freedom the ACLU wants to abolish.

Again with the retconning. World War One was not fought to ensure giant crosses everywhere. And the Constitutional issue isn't over whether the Cross is readily visible, it's the fact that it's on government land. Incidentally, if you want to talk about unilateral, you might talk to Judge Roy Moore and mention the various Ten Commandment plaques and monuments he carries around in his truck. You know, the same Roy Moore that WND has been hailing as the best thing since sliced bread carrying the image of Jesus in it.

Here's the kicker. Check out Pat's take on the ACLU lawyer's exchange with Scalia:

Very interestingly, Peter Eliasberg, arguing before the Supreme Court to remove the Mojave cross, actually said, "A cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity, and it signifies that Jesus is the Son of God and died to redeem mankind." And this is his argument against it! This is what offends him, though nobody makes him affirm or even recognize it. Just the fact that somebody else believes it, and wants to symbolize that faith, repels him. He wants the Supreme Court, sworn to uphold the Constitution, to disallow the very freedom of expression the Constitution mandates – because he is offended by that expression.

It escapes him, and almost every atheist, that his atheism is a faith system, based on a belief there is no God, which he cannot prove – versus a belief in a Creator God (mentioned in our Declaration of Independence), for which evidence is everywhere. And he is determined that his faith system shall be ratified by the courts as if established by Congress – in effect, that Congress shall make a law respecting an establishment of religion!

A- Who says Eliasberg is an atheist, or personally offended by the Mojave Cross? He's a lawyer arguing a case for an organization and a plaintiff. It's not about him.

B- The issue is not that atheists are mad that Christians believe things, or even that they represent them. Name me a case of atheists trying to ban churches from having crosses on their steeple, or legislating what Christians can do in their own homes. You can't; it doesn't happen and there's no legal precedent to support it. What's problematic, potentially unconstitutional and yeah, arguably offensive is to shove civic Christianity in everyone's face, act as if it is THE national faith when there is none, and to give government authority and sanction to it. It's additionally offensive when people like Scalia and Boone argue that Christianity or its symbols are more "big-tent" than they really are. A non-Christian may choose to bring a Christmas tree into their home. Chances are they won't choose to be buried under a cross. It doesn't represent them, and it never has, and only someone totally incapable of or uninterested in understanding the perspective of a religious minority would argue that they think the symbols of the majority are appropriate ways to remember them. Only someone that isn't used to looking beyond their own nose would claim, "Crosses are the most common symbols for the resting place of the dead." Really? To whom?

"What would you have them do," Justice Scalia? How about burying them under a damned wooden flag? Or an eagle? Or a freaking map of the U.S.? An obelisk? A wall? Some statues? Or the various symbols of the armed services that are buried there? There are any number of NATIONAL or military symbols that do unite fallen servicemen, as opposed to a cross.

A cross is not a "bad" symbol. But it is a specific one, advocating or representing a specific faith. Scalia and Boone refuse to understand this. And, like many majority groups throughout history, rather than consider the fact that they simply may not understand the opposing point of view, they instead deny that it has any right to exist. Forget the cross. That's what's offensive to me.

Doug Giles' Theological Schizophenia

I knew Doug was a nincompoop, particularly when it came to the Bible, but geez. I don't even know where to start here. How about the fact that, in an attempt to co-opt Judaism's Prophetic Tradition, he unwittingly makes one of the most simplistic, superficial and downright offensive comments we've endured in print since Henry Ford?

the prophets were wrecking cranes to wayward Israel’s facades. They were imperfect, difficult dudes who called a spade a shovel for a perfect God. They didn’t give a crap who you were, who your mommy was, if you were the King or Pastor Whoop-Dee-Frickin’-Do. They were fiercely devoted to God and His ways.

..Yep, if you were out of sorts with God because of practicing whacked stuff or preaching Oprah instead of Obadiah, you were about to be publically roasted via the prophets’ sizzling invectives.

Need a mental image? Imagine Rush, Beck, Coulter, Miller or O’Reilly on steroids.

Doug, the only thing the Prophets have in common with any of the jackasses on your list is the utter brashness to throw all caution (in L&O's case, I'd add taste and judgment) to the wind that can only come with the certainty of knowing that God is on your side. The Prophets talked about things like supporting the poor, championing honesty, and exposing corruption among society's elite. With the exception of Shepard Smith, please enlighten me as to the last time any of your would-be-Prophets on Fox dared to point out a single element of the conservative agenda they didn't agree with (aside from bashing centrist Republicans for being too moderate, of course).

Apparently Doug likes the idea of a self-selected group of truthtellers telling society how screwed up it is-- as long as he makes sure they're the ones that agree with him-- because it lets him feel good about how smart he is, and how his opponents aren't only wrong politically, they're also in for a God-smiting.

if Israel turned from their profane BS (belief systems) and back to God, Yahweh would chill and relent from the attention-grabbing calamities He was heatin’ up on heaven’s back burner. The prophet, unfortunately, was officially out of a job if the Hebrews went the repentant route. Yep, Amos had to go back to fig picking.

However, when Israel blew the prophets off by condemning the messenger, categorizing the message as hate speech, jailing the prophet(s) or, as in some cases, killing the prophetic salvo, God would in turn switch to plan B to get His insubordinate group’s good ear.

God, not the one to run out of advanced repentance techniques, would allow Israel’s economy to go to hell, plagues to ravage their land, nature to convulse, and enemies the ability to pulverize them.

Yep, unless I’m reading the Bible upside down, it seems that when the nation went astray from God’s law and wouldn’t listen to the prophets’ calls to repentance and instead vilified the saving voices, God allowed one (or more) of the four aforementioned hammers to pound them until Israel became all ears.

This is, at least to me, a plain prophetic pattern within the Scripture. The $64,000 question you gotta ask yourself is this: If there is a God, and if the Bible isn’t a bunch of fairy tales written by a stack of whack jobs, then does God still roll today like He did with Old Testament Israel as He interfaces with 21st century nations that spurn His values to His face?

Which values? Kashrut? Tzniut? Niddah? Please do tell me, Rav Doug, which of the many mitzvot are you ever so certain God is irked about this time? Especially since your thesis is that God "rolls" like he did in the OT, where he seems to be a stickler for these sorts of things.

Ok, let's get this straight, so the crappy economy is God's punishment for... what, exactly? All the people in the midwest and the South eating pork? Eight years of Bush? What about the flush years under Clinton? My impression is he wasn't the most angelic of our Presidents. Maybe God was just asleep at the switch? Or was he biding his time, to kick us right when we least expected it, like, eight years after Clinton was out of office! Oh God, you sneaky brilliant devious bastard, you.
What with Doug being so gung-ho about the books of the Prophets, you might think that he'd have some understanding about the role of different religions in American society. And, like Doug, you'd be an idiot:

America’s not a Christian nation? Well, it’s not a Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim (yet) or Tai Chi nation. I know Barack is auguring for the USA to become an Obamanation, but heretofore from what I’ve read regarding our founders’ beliefs and original intent for this experiment in self-government, this Republic has a massive intentional Judeo-Christian bent to it and not a religiously neutral one. Stevie Wonder can see that.
Yep, our founding fathers liberally mixed our nation’s political cement with the rock-solid truths of the Judeo-Christian worldview. Christianity wasn’t the state’s declared religion, but our framers clearly stated that Christ and Moses were where this bad boy came from.

Oh really? Please enlighten us, in which historical documents do the Founders chatter on about Moses (or Jesus, for that matter)?

Luckily, Doug brought quotes. Five whole ones, in fact, from John, John Q., and Sam Adams. Hmm, makes me kind of suspicious that he only bothered to look at a single family. I mean, would you use the Sharon clan to claim anything representative about Israel?

Kudos to Doug for bothering to supply some quotes (a sharp detour from his usual Prager-esque pattern of just rambling on for two pages about truths he holds to be self-evident), though it would have made it a lot easier if he'd also given the sources- it took five whole minutes of Googling to find where the info came from-- turns out the Adamses are the first three entries. Lazy AND plagarizing!

But I still feel the need to nit-pick. First, most of Doug's quotes only talk about Christianity in the most general of terms; for instance, one comment says "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity", in other words, that the values articulated in the Founding Documents (which have no explicit Christian content) are, in Adams Sr.'s eyes, essentially identical to Christianity's core. Also unfortunately for Doug, almost none of them are from any public documents, but rather are from things like diaries and private letters-- which can certainly show that the Adamses as individuals might have thought Christianity was awesome, but certainly didn't have any legal bearing. (Incidentally, both Presidents Adams were Unitarians, so I'm not sure how Doug squares that away with his vision of them being super-manly proto-evangelical Christ-warriors.)
With Sam Adams, Doug is on even flimsier ground. Wow, who would have thought that the governor of a state founded by Puritans as a quasi-theocracy would reference Christianity in public speeches? And even there, all Adams is doing is encouraging Massachusetts citizens to pray-- something that was regularly done, and is totally Constitutional. No problem, and not really even something all that controversial today, just look at Bush's Jesus Day.
The only quote that seems remotely close to what Doug's talking about (government support of Christianity) comes from John Hancock, a man that Doug would normally outright dismiss as a lace-covered pansy except that he happens to be conveniently agreeing with him:

And lastly, for now, we have John Hancock, signer of the Declaration of Independence, president of Congress, Revolutionary general (you remember him, don’t ‘cha?) and governor of Massachusetts said the following, much to the secularists’ and wussy RINOs’ chagrin:
“Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement."

I tried to find more on the quote. The closest I got via the list-compilers was from TrueNews.org, which added this tidbit:

John Hancock was the first signer of the Declaration of Independence and member of the Continental Congress. He stated: "Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend you to every measure for their support and encouragement…Manners, by which not only the freedom but the very existence of the republics are greatly affected, depend much upon the public institutions of religion."

Manners, huh? That's kind of an odd comment within the context of talking about what makes a state successful. Makes me curious...

After much Googling, I discovered that only a single website, archive.org, has the entire quote (taken from Hancock's Inaugural Speech as Mass. governor). And guess what? Not so simple.

Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement that shall not infringe the rights of conscience, which I rejoice to see established by the Constitution on so broad a basis ; and if anything can be further done on the same basis for the relief of the public teachers of religion and morality, and order of men greatly useful to their country, and who have particularly suffered in the defense of its rights by the depreciation of currency; as also for the relief of widows and orphans, many of whom have been distressed in the same way, and who are particularly committed by Heaven to the protection of civil rulers, I shall most readily concur with you in every such measure.

In other words: Hancock is saying that, in his opinion, Christian piety and virtue is important to keeping a state orderly and happy and therefore wants to support them, as well as support public religious education. It is interesting he makes a point of talking about various other interest groups he also feels deserve government funding.

He continues:

A due observation of the Lord's Day is not only important to internal religion, but greatly conducive to the order and benefit of civil society. It speaks to the senses of mankind, and, by a solemn cessation from their common affairs, reminds them of a Diety and their accountableness to the great Lord of all. Whatever may be necessary to the support of such an institution, in consistence with a reasonable personal liberty, deserves the attention of the civil government.

This one is pretty clear-cut. Hancock thinks it's cool for elected officials to impose their personal beliefs about taking a day off on their constituants. Plenty of states and countries still have Blue Laws and the like-- including Massachussetts, Israel and France. I don't disagree with Hancock's philosophy per se (actually it kind of reminds me of Heschel), it's just a basic disagreement about where you draw the line with government support of religion.

Then we get to that last, odd snippet:

Manners, by which not only the freedom, but the very existence of the republics, are greatly affected, depend much upon the public institutions of religion and the good education of youth; in both these instances our fathers laid wise foundations, for which their posterity have had reason to bless their memory.

This is actually kind of funny, particularly given Hancock's being adopted by "Christian-Nation-Ho!"bags like Doug. Even though Hancock thinks Christianity helps keep a state on the straight and narrow, wants the government to fund religious education and be a government Sabbath Patrolman, he still has the insight to realize that religion is not the be-all-and-end-all-- he also points to the importance of education.
From a modern political perspective, Hancock does seem to be articulating some fairly conservative viewpoints. On the other hand, given that the man had never been to a non-Christian country, nor perhaps ever even met a non-Christian in his life, it might not be so surprising that he thought that his faith was the only civilized one around.
I close with a parting shot from Doug, master of the word... well, some words, at least:

all you RINO wonks who want Christians and Christianity scrubbed from the GOP because you think we are ruining the party, you ought to read the following, as well. Christians are ruining the party? Puh-lease. Uh, we started the party, dillweeds. You’re the ones who’re whizzing on it.

Actually, the French Enlightenment "started the party", Doug, as evidenced by the fact that even at their most pro-religion fervor, the Founders believed in balancing Faith with things like Reason, Freedom, and Truth. If you want to carry on about how awesome Christianity is, go nuts. Yes, there were plenty of Christians among the Founding Fathers. There were also quite a few that either weren't Christian, or were not nearly as doctrinally Orthodox as you might like to pretend. Many combined some Christian affiliation with Deist ideals; Jefferson made his own Bible by slicing out parts he didn't like, and I've read speculation that John Adams may have dabbled in Satanism in his later (and non-public) years. Ben Franklin, though raised in the Puritan tradition, stopped attending church in his early years and stayed away for most of his life.
Were any of these men Christian? By whose standards? Does it really matter? Whatever the answer, I kind of doubt they'd appreciate the degree to which you simplify or skew their names and words just to shore up your own POV, Doug. Yes, we all have agendas, but at least mine doesn't require me to pretend every Founding Father was the 18th century equivalent of Pat Robertson. Good luck convincing people on that, though.