Open hearts (February, 2006)
Jay reveals a health scare, reflects on his life, and ponders the Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays debate.
Through your writing, many of us, including myself, have. I hope you're with us for many years to come. But when you get to heaven, you'll get a grand reception.
Well put. Our hedonistic culture is hostile to our faith, and for good reason: the gospel threatens it. The New Testament church came to terms with this much better than we do.
Consider that the GOP's chair, Ken Mehlman, is Jewish. As a Christian, I'm not offended or threatened if someone wishes me a Happy Hannukah. Likewise, I don't expect others to be offended or threatened if I inadvertently wish them a Merry Christmas. But if I know I'm speaking to a larger group than Christians, "happy holidays" seems appropriate. Perhaps these "Christian conservatives," like the political left, see only Christians voting for Bush. Not so.
In fact, Mirecki dropped the class before the assault, not because of it. The Lawrence Journal-World reports on December 1, 2005:
His assault appears to have happened around 6:40am on December 5th.
That's a significantly different story than what the Tribune seems to have reported. In fact, there's good reason to believe that Professor Mirecki's assault is a hoax. (The developing story was blogged here.)
In spite of this, Jay's point is well taken: "Rather than reasoned arguments and respectful engagement you offer a fist in the mouth." Sadly, some Christians have acted this way (and some will).
I suggest, though, that this story is one of many falsehoods floating around, each of which influences our thinking, reinforces our stereotypes, and leaves us less enlightened, not more.
I cringe with Jay about these complaints, as they seem to hinder the gospel.
The "War on Christmas" debate caused a lot of friction this past Christmas season.
Both sides go immediately to stereotypes: intolerant, complaining Christians looking to ram their religion down everyone's throat; God-haters seeking to mute Christians and ram hedonistic secularism down everyone's throat. Each side has the case-studies that confirm their stereotype. But stereotypes confuse the issues. Let's set them aside.
Both sides lose proportion, too, and that muddies the waters. People aren't being murdered in the streets over this. (In contrast to the riots over the Danish Mohammed cartoons.)
As Jay says, "Rather than reasoned arguments and respectful engagement you offer a fist in the mouth." Each side offers the other a "fist in the mouth" by stereotyping, distorting their opponents' views and losing proportion.
Jay's right in calling the specifics he cites as "complaints." Let's set those aside as such.
Are there other specific instances that deserve their own consideration? Things that an objective observer would categorize as real civil rights abuses? Do they deserve attention, or is any such discussion simply complaining?
I think some civil liberties have been violated, and they do deserve attention.
The dictionary defines civil rights as the rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship ... including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination. And civil liberties are fundamental individual rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, protected by law against unwarranted governmental or other interference.
A just society protects the rights of each of its citizens: black, white, hispanic; Christian, Jew, Muslim, Athiest; rich, middle-class, poor. It's not a matter of special protection for minorities, but the same rights granted each citizen. Denying any legitimate rights to any individual means a less just society.
Now I suppose we'll debate all day about what constitutes freedom of speech or religion, or governmental interference. But I think we'd agree on a lot, too. I thank God for the freedom we have to debate it here in the US, and don't want to take that for granted.
*****
Jay writes:I wondered if through me anyone had experienced the love and generosity of God.
Through your writing, many of us, including myself, have. I hope you're with us for many years to come. But when you get to heaven, you'll get a grand reception.
*****
Jay writes:Are we so unsure of our message, so insecure in our identity that we need the culture and the government to prop them up? ... If we cannot demonstrate the loving generosity of God, if we cannot model the sacrificial love of Christ, we should just keep our whining insecurities to ourselves.
Well put. Our hedonistic culture is hostile to our faith, and for good reason: the gospel threatens it. The New Testament church came to terms with this much better than we do.
"Christian conservatives" ... were angry at President Bush for not using the word Christmas in his holiday greeting card. The president rather wished his friends and supporters a happy "holiday season."
Consider that the GOP's chair, Ken Mehlman, is Jewish. As a Christian, I'm not offended or threatened if someone wishes me a Happy Hannukah. Likewise, I don't expect others to be offended or threatened if I inadvertently wish them a Merry Christmas. But if I know I'm speaking to a larger group than Christians, "happy holidays" seems appropriate. Perhaps these "Christian conservatives," like the political left, see only Christians voting for Bush. Not so.
*****
Jay writes:The second story in the Tribune concerned a Profesor Paul Mirecki of the University of Kansas. He canceled a class called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism, and other Religious Mythologies" after he was beaten by two men who mentioned the class during the assault.
In fact, Mirecki dropped the class before the assault, not because of it. The Lawrence Journal-World reports on December 1, 2005:
Paul Mirecki, chair of KU's religious studies department, withdrew the class, "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design and Creationism," after controversy erupted over e-mails he had written disparaging Catholics and religious conservatives.
His assault appears to have happened around 6:40am on December 5th.
That's a significantly different story than what the Tribune seems to have reported. In fact, there's good reason to believe that Professor Mirecki's assault is a hoax. (The developing story was blogged here.)
In spite of this, Jay's point is well taken: "Rather than reasoned arguments and respectful engagement you offer a fist in the mouth." Sadly, some Christians have acted this way (and some will).
I suggest, though, that this story is one of many falsehoods floating around, each of which influences our thinking, reinforces our stereotypes, and leaves us less enlightened, not more.
*****
Jay writes:Others have complained about retailers who leave out the word "Christmas" in their advertising, even calling for boycotts. ... When we as Christians complain about such things we appear petty. We seem to be looking for special privileges, special recognition. ... And do we really think anyone sees in these complaints the love and generosity of God who gave us so much in Jesus?
I cringe with Jay about these complaints, as they seem to hinder the gospel.
The "War on Christmas" debate caused a lot of friction this past Christmas season.
Both sides go immediately to stereotypes: intolerant, complaining Christians looking to ram their religion down everyone's throat; God-haters seeking to mute Christians and ram hedonistic secularism down everyone's throat. Each side has the case-studies that confirm their stereotype. But stereotypes confuse the issues. Let's set them aside.
Both sides lose proportion, too, and that muddies the waters. People aren't being murdered in the streets over this. (In contrast to the riots over the Danish Mohammed cartoons.)
As Jay says, "Rather than reasoned arguments and respectful engagement you offer a fist in the mouth." Each side offers the other a "fist in the mouth" by stereotyping, distorting their opponents' views and losing proportion.
Jay's right in calling the specifics he cites as "complaints." Let's set those aside as such.
Are there other specific instances that deserve their own consideration? Things that an objective observer would categorize as real civil rights abuses? Do they deserve attention, or is any such discussion simply complaining?
I think some civil liberties have been violated, and they do deserve attention.
The dictionary defines civil rights as the rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship ... including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination. And civil liberties are fundamental individual rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, protected by law against unwarranted governmental or other interference.
A just society protects the rights of each of its citizens: black, white, hispanic; Christian, Jew, Muslim, Athiest; rich, middle-class, poor. It's not a matter of special protection for minorities, but the same rights granted each citizen. Denying any legitimate rights to any individual means a less just society.
Now I suppose we'll debate all day about what constitutes freedom of speech or religion, or governmental interference. But I think we'd agree on a lot, too. I thank God for the freedom we have to debate it here in the US, and don't want to take that for granted.
By The Scrutinator, 2/10/2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home