Pissed At The Post

I don’t know if you have seen The Book of Mormon, but it has one of the best musical scores that Broadway has seen in years.  That doesn’t negate the fact that at the end of the day it just a foul rant on religious faith set to some really great tunes.  God bless those Mormons.  They took this attack on their beliefs and practices on the chin, pretending it didn’t hurt.  I think they took it too well.  In fact, I think we have all taken it too well because it is not just violence against the faith and intellect of the Latter Day Saints, but a vulgar slur on believers of any stripe.  Readers of this blog will certainly know that I am no religious wing-nut sounding the tocsin against those who are forcing America into godlessness, but “ya got trouble, my friend, right here, I say, trouble right here in River City.”  And seventy-six trombones ain’t goin’ to fix it.    
I mentioned the other day in posting that Tom Toles, the political cartoonist for the Washington Post, published a particularly malevolent “cartoon” scorning the canonization of John Paul II.   Now as I said in several previous posts, I think the recent canonization of popes 261 and 264 was ill advised and for a number of reasons.  Maybe I expect too much of an “heroic degree of sanctity,” so sue me, but while each of these popes was truly remarkable from a historical perspective and each was certainly extraordinarily pious, I just don’t see either of them as a Teresa of Avila or an Augustine or a Francis of Assisi.  And in my blog entries I have had some particular criticism of John Paul for his poor handling of the sex-abuse crisis in the Catholic Church—but I also had some particularly good things to say about him for what he had to say and—more important, what he did—for human rights and for his role in bringing down Totalitarianism. 
Now I know that the essence of cartooning is succinctness in caricaturing, but Tole’s cartoon wasn’t succinct, it was vilifying.  Removing a subject from his or her context is not succinctness, it turns the cartoon from a caricature to a lie.  The problem is not Toles, of course, it is The Washington Post.   It’s sad because the Post could be a first-rate paper like the Times.  It used to be.  It has good writers.  It’s “opinion page” most often presents some of the best and most thought-provoking columnists.  It certainly beats out The Dallas Morning News, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The Arizona Republic, The Saint Louis Post Dispatch, or the Newark Star Ledger.  But the Post has just gone on the rag about religion these last few years.  Like the South Park crew that wrote The Book of Mormon, the Post just has no respect for people, including its readers, who still have religious views. 
We have lived in a Christian culture for a long time—far longer than any of us can remember.  What I mean by “a Christian culture” is a culture whose myths and stories, whose art and music, whose philosophy and value systems, have been shaped by the Christian religion.  This is nothing new. It goes back to Constantine.  Our “Founding Fathers” who were—for the most part—agnostics, wove this Christian culture (though not the Christian religion) into our national identity.  (Our Founding Mothers, by the way—far wiser than our Founding Fathers—tended to be Unitarians north of the Mason Dixon and Episcopalians south.  And Unitarians in those days were non-Trinitarian Congregationalists, not the sort of “make it up as you go along” quasi religionists of today.  But that is for another time.)  We could afford to have a Christian culture for the last two centuries+ of our nationhood.  Just about all of us were Christians.  And we left enough wiggle room in just how Christian our culture is that Jews didn’t have to feel uncomfortable, at least if they had an open mind.  (An open mind was optional for us Christians since we held all the cards.) 
Much has changed over the last half-century and our culture has for the most part lost that distinctly Christian catch.  Christmas is now “the holidays.” Church bells, if they ring at all, only ring at noon.  Ten Commandments and Christmas crèches no longer stand in public places.  Bible reading is banned in the schools.  And the clergy all know how to offer some vague aspiration that passes for a “prayer” at Memorial Day observances.  The situation is that we are no longer a Christian populace with a relatively small Jewish minority.  It’s not just Jews and Christians in bed together any more. Today we are Buddhists and Sikhs and Muslims (lots of Muslims), and Wiccans, and Hindus, and a smattering of anything and everything else.  And we need to make room under our American cultural tent.  We have to become a secular culture.  It is painful, I know; it is like when once you were the rich family in town and then Daddy lost the factory in a poker game and you go to public school now and live in an apartment.  But put on your big-boy pants and get used to it—that is the way it is and the toothpaste doesn’t go back into the tube. 
The thing is that there are two kinds of secularism.  There is the secularism that wants to ban any and all religion from the public square.  That is the sort of secularism that fed the Marxist/Leninist regimes of Eastern Europe and Asia.  And there is the sort of secularism that insists on a level playing field for everyone—whatever their belief or non-belief.  That sort of secularism—the level playing field—is something we can live with. It is built not just on tolerance, but on mutual respect.  The former kind—the kind whose ideology provokes the sort of Cartoon Tom Toles published—poses a grave danger to us individually and collectively.
Religion speaks up for human rights in societies where individuals are seen as having less worth than some vague “collective good.” The eugenics of a Margaret Sanger or an Adolph Hitler were both threatened by religion because it stood in the way of their desires to create a world in which their ideals of human perfection could eliminate the flesh and blood realities of individuals with Downs Syndrome, same-sex attraction, or who had Roma or Jewish or African bloodlines.  It was religion that after chafing for four decades under communist totalitarianism brought down the Soviet client-state of Marxist Poland, the first domino to fall in the “evil empire.”  It was the combined efforts of the Churches that eventually cracked the apartheid in South Africa.  The Civil Rights movement in the United States and the anti-war movement of the ’60’s and ‘70’s were led by ministers and rabbis and nuns.  It was religious voices that cried out against the American-client military dictatorships in El Salvador and Nicaragua and Brazil and other countries of Latin America.  Tens of thousands of Protestant Ministers and Catholic priests were imprisoned at Dachau, and Auschwitz, and Sachsenhausen for their resistance to National Socialism.  Tens of thousands more would disappear into Siberia or be shot under Stalin.  Priests and ministers played key roles in the resistance movements of World War II and while not nearly enough was done to save the Jews of Europe, nearly all of those “righteous among the nations” who risked—and sometimes gave—their lives sheltering the hunted were religious believers.   Religious faith deserves more respect than either The Book of Mormon or Tom Toles and the Washington Post are willing to give those people who root their lives in a religious belief.  Shame on you Book of Mormon and Shame on you Tom Toles and the Washington Post. 

Of Courthouses, Christian Nations, and That Damn Drinking Water in Loudon County

Saint Mary's Chapel, Saint Mary City,

Maryland--the first Catholic Church in

English North America

I had an email from one of my regular readers who has been what we might call an active bystander to the Leesburg Courthouse Lawn Debacle that we spoke of the other day.  A spokesperson for the Knights sent the board of supervisors an email saying:
The many Loudoun County citizens who place their belief in God and try to live a faith based life are being continually subjected to policy statements placed on our County Courthouse grounds by a myriad of atheistic organizations. Citizens of faith are infuriated by these policy laden signs, such as the one below, that have been erected at very regular intervals on the Loudoun County Courthouse grounds. These signs, for the most part, refer to God's non-existence, and denigrate those, who believe in God.  So although, some would claim these signs profess our freedom of speech, the very regular and continued placement of them on the courthouse grounds are neither fair, nor civil to citizens of faith. We hope that our Loudoun County Supervisors takes this issue to heart, and more closely monitors its policy for permits to use the courthouse grounds for displays. 
     Now, remember the Knights started this situation when they organized a protest against a county policy that would have prohibited any displays on the Courthouse lawn.  The Board of Supervisors backed down and agreed to allow ten displays allotted on a first come first serve basis.  That was a huge mistake.  The Knights’ protest backfired because the policy that would permit Christians to put up their annual Christmas displays also permitted people of other faiths and no faith to erect displays as well.  Several Knights realized this fight was a mistake from the get-go and want to back-off from supporting displays on County property while others, like the gentleman who sent the above email, want religious displays to be allowed but not displays that advocate rationalism, agnosticism, or atheism.  They are probably right that some of the displays that have been put on the public lawn make light of—if not mock—believers.  That is not civil behavior but then civil behavior has never been part of Loudon culture where polemic has long outshouted reason, goin' back at least to the War Between the States.  What they do not seem to realize is that you cannot allow one opinion access to the public space and bar others.  And this is where I found a historical conundrum come to the fore.  In the string of emails my correspondent forwarded to me a Loudon maven of some journalistic renown got into the fray  insisting that the United States is a Judeo-Christian nation, and not only insisting but leaving no room for dissent. Barbara Curtis inserted herself into the conversation writing: There is also the fact that our nation is indeed a Judeo-Christian nation - there's no disputing that. 
      Are we a Judeo-Christian nation?  I think that can well be disputed.  There are various strands that go to make up our national identity.  The three main colonial pillars on which today’s United States is built are the English, the Spanish, and the French.  The English colonized the eastern seaboard from Georgia to what is now New Hampshire extending westward to the Appalachians; the Spanish colonized Florida and from what is now Texas north to Kansas and west to include California and everything in between.  The French colonized Maine, Vermont and the Mississippi Valley from what is now Wisconsin down to New Orleans and including the Ohio Valley up to the Great Lakes including western Pennsylvania and upstate New York.  The Spanish influence in Florida was neither pervasive nor long-lasting and the French influence faded except in Louisiana.  However, the Spanish influence in the Southwest is stronger today than what remains of English influence along the Eastern seaboard.  All three of these colonial powers were Christian nations though the Catholic Spaniards and French would not have accorded that honor to the Protestant English and the Protestant English would not have considered the papist French and Spaniards to be true Christians. 
     Other than in Louisiana where French influence is still strong on the law, our American legal system is borrowed and adapted from the English.   Our Constitutional heritage, while it has developed differently—and significantly so—from the British, is shaped by Enlightenment Rationalism that was all the rage in English Coffee houses and French salons of the eighteenth century.  It was also influenced, especially as regards the Bill of Rights, in Magna Carta and the consequent English understanding of the relationship of public government and private rights.   (While we all talk about rights, no one speaks of corresponding duties which is a tragic flaw of our republican tradition.)   So basically we need to focus on the English heritage more than the French and Spanish to determine the nature of our nation if we want to talk about “nation” in the political sense.  And in this whole dispute about access to public space on a Courthouse lawn, we are speaking in a political sense.  
      Are we a Judeo-Christian nation?  Well again, we need to look at the various strands of English tradition out of which the political structure of the United States was formed.  When one reads Jonathan Winthrop’s “City on a Hill” speech (actually a sermon entitled A Modell of Christian Charity (“Modell” being his spelling, not mine) we can see that the Puritans came to Massachusetts Bay explicitly to establish a Christian Commonwealth.  Of course, there would be no Courthouse crèche issue with them as they banned Christmas altogether.  It was a “papist” holiday. Initially the Governor, William Bradford, instructed non-Puritan members of the colony that any celebration had to be confined to the privacy of their homes.  In 1647, during the Puritan Government of Oliver Cromwell in England, New England Puritans passed a law criminalizing celebrating the day in the colony.  In 1669 a five shilling fine was imposed on anyone in Massachusetts celebrating the day. So the Massachusetts heritage would say: Christian yes; Christmas no.  Rhode Island was an escape colony for Massachusetts residents who found Puritanism not to their taste.  Roger Williams and the other founders of the Rhode Island colony rejected Puritanism to become Baptists.  In the Baptist tradition they favored individual conscience over law and thus declared freedom of religion for Rhode Island.  I am not sure whether this freedom of conscience extended to Catholics or not but America’s first synagogue is Touro Synagogue in Newport, built in 1763.  Now that date is fairly late for what we are talking about but it is a sign of authentic religious freedom that Jews as well as Christians were granted freedom of worship.  There is no record of Catholic Worship in Rhode Island until the time of the American Revolution.  Rhode Island Baptists were strict on the separation of Church and State as the Baptist tradition has been in general up until the last thirty years when increasingly, like Evangelicals and some Catholics, more and more Baptists, especially Southern Baptists, want Christian practices enshrined in civil law. 
       Pennsylvania was settled by Quakers who did practice religious tolerance for all, including Catholics. There was no “Established Church” in Pennsylvania which functioned with separation of Church and government. New York and Virginia were Anglican colonies where the Church of England was established by law and the clergy were salaried by the government.  Catholicism was illegal in both colonies, but Christmas was not.  In the Anglican tradition, Christmas was a big thing: Church in the morning and dead drunk in the afternoon. That, incidentally, explains why Puritans made Christmas illegal.  This was a time when Anglicanism was still a Protestant religion and while it maintained a recognizably Catholic Liturgy and certain holydays such as Christmas, it eschewed such popish foppery as crosses on the altar much less a crèche on the lawn.   Maryland was the sole Catholic colony and religious freedom was guaranteed by the Lord Proprietor to all Christians of whatever denomination. Catholicism was legal in Maryland—until the Cromwellian Interregnum in England when the Lord Proprietor was deprived of his authority—and then from the Restoration until the Glorious Revolution of 1688.  After that Catholicism was, in practice though not in law, tolerated if practiced discreetly.  During the Proprietorship of the Lords Baltimore, Catholicism was never an established Church.  As for Maryland Christmases,  Christmas was celebrated by the Anglicans and Catholics in their various houses of worship and together the rest of the day in manor houses and taverns as they both had a taste for the grog.  While the Lord Proprietor was Catholic himself, there was no established Church in Maryland and the Jesuit priests who labored there supported themselves as other wealthy Marylanders by their plantations.  The Carolinas and Georgia were nominally Anglican in their Royal Charters but religion didn’t catch on their much in colonial America.  John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, preached in Georgia as a young Anglican priest but it was only with the residue of the First Great Awakening that the colonists took to religion—mostly Methodist and Baptist preachers at the time of the American Revolution and subsequent decades.  Perhaps it is wrong to say “the residue of the First Great Awakening” but it was several decades after the great preaching of Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield and it was just before the Second Great Awakening took off with the Cane Ridge Revival in Bourbon County (isn’t that ironic) Kentucky in 1801.  Thus I think we can say that while each of the colonies had religious roots, only three: Massachusetts, Maryland, and Pennsylvania were founded for religious purposes and of these only one, Massachusetts, was founded to be a Christian society.   We will have to look at our Founding Fathers and their religious practices and views in a future entry.