I was at a nonprofit business meeting last week, and as we prepared to leave I asked the others about their holiday plans. Holiday, not Christmas. One of the other people there is a practicing Jew. I wasn't concerned about offending her, she would have smiled and answered politely, it just seemed to be the considerate thing for me to do, not to single her out in some way and not to act as if I didn't know or care that she held a faith tradition that was unique in the room. I happened to know someone in that group would not celebrate a traditional Christmas, but for those same reasons (basic kindness and consideration of others) I act similarly if I'm talking with someone, or a group of people, that I don't know their traditions.
So it really baffles me when Focus on the Family wastes resources evaluating whether WalMart and Banana Republic "openly recognize Christmas." The comments posted about the retailers are quite, well, un-christmas. This counterattack on a perceived "War on Christmas" is somewhat of a mini-movement. I could understand the concern if someone was trying to celebrate Christmas and was hushed, or somehow singled out for their Christmas beliefs. No, this is an anger directed at retailers who dare to be "inclusive." In addition to being the opposite of the spirit of Christmas, it gets downright strange when the anger is directed at retailers - because nothing says "Christ" like consumerism? I'll let someone else tackle that one: "Christians get all bent out of shape over the fact that someone didn't say 'Merry Christmas' when I walked into the store. But why are we expecting the store to tell our story? That's just ridiculous." That's from a guy who helped start Advent Conspiracy, a pretty courageous group, if you ask me.
By the way, is it really fair to complain about someone possibly "taking Christ out of Christmas" when a 4th Century Catholic Pope started Christmas by injecting his Christ into someone else's holiday? Maybe Pagans are somewhere organizing boycotts of stores that say Merry Christmas...
Happy Holidays!
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Unholy Clouds Reflect in a Minaret
As of now, it is illegal to construct a minaret in Switzerland.
I'm not sure what's more shocking: that the symbol of a major religion has been banned in Europe, that it was Switzerland that did it, or that other major religions do not seem to realize the danger this represents to them.
In November, Swiss voters overwhelmingly approved the ban on new construction of the towers. I've read that of Switzerland's 7.7 million people, there are about 400,000 Muslims with 150 mosques but only 4 minarets. It's no shock that the ban was promoted with fear:
It's such an interesting poster, though, because it does tap a fear. But when I take a minute and think, I have to say, I can't remember a missile from a predominantly Muslim country hitting a non-Muslim country. I can think of Western missiles hitting predominantly Muslim countries. Is the fear being stoked that the extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam will copy those who have distorted and defiled Christianity?
Non-Muslim Germans are also concerned about the impact of Muslim immigrants on Germany's culture. A former finance minister said recently about the Turkish and Arab immigrants in Berlin, "I don't need to respect anyone who lives off the state, denies the state, doesn't do anything to educate their kids, and just produces more headscarf girls." Though elected officials there denounce the statement, Germany's Immigration Minister said that she is working to implement an "integration contract" for immigrants to Germany. It will reportedly include requirements ranging from respecting equal rights for women to learning the German language. Like the minaret ban in Switzerland, this German proposal sounds like more fear. Fear of those not like us.
While I don't agree with the minaret ban or what seems to be the intent and content of the integration contract, I do believe everyone, regardless of religion, should be subject to the laws of the land where they live. If someone is doing something illegal, like Christians purporting to marry underage girls in Utah or Muslims maiming young girls in Germany, by all means use law enforcement to stop them. I believe this should include equal treatment for women, of course, and would gladly support applying all discrimination laws to religions (hard to believe those institutions whose missions should embody love are exempt from some discrimination laws). I don't believe the dominant practice of Islam treats women equally, and I don't believe the dominant practice of Christianity does either.
What I'm seeing in these examples from Europe are reactions to fears, sometimes hypocritical reactions, and reactions aimed at appearances that will do nothing about legitimate concerns for safety and equality. I believe a better choice is enforce the laws we have and welcome our brothers and sisters with open arms even if it means less for us (and who cares what language they choose to speak!).
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Intransigence is all Around, Military Still in Town
Last night a somber President Obama explained to a room full of young US military officers why he was sending them to Afghanistan. To begin, Obama effectively re-tied Afghanistan to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The President reminded us that nearly everyone agreed, at the time, invading that country was necessary to prevent further attacks on the US. Building on that, Obama argued that there is a resurgence of long-range terrorist strike capability in the region along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. His conclusion is increased military involvement in the short term is necessary to reduce the capability of harm and to stabilize the Afghan government so it can protect and provide for its people.
Put in other terms, it's a continuation of the belief that it is better to inflict violence and death THERE so we don't have those things HERE. Regardless of whether I judge that as just or as a necessary evil or as simply evil, I believe it's important to state it honestly. Even the stabilization of Afghanistan requires the calculation that it is okay to kill some innocent people as long as it saves other innocent people.
Securing our safety and their safety are virtuous objectives, the highest calling of the human race. But it seems to me that a misbelief continues, firmly entrenched, in our attempts to reach these objectives: the misbelief that violence will ever end violence.
I hope for the safety of that beautiful country and my beautiful Afghan brothers and sisters. I ache for the violence and fear brought to them by those with evil intentions, and those with virtuous intentions.
As I mentioned, the President gave his speech to West Point cadets. I noticed that the name of the hall was Eisenhower Hall. It seems appropriate, then, to quote President Eisenhower, to quote beliefs he formed after witnessing the horrors of war.
Put in other terms, it's a continuation of the belief that it is better to inflict violence and death THERE so we don't have those things HERE. Regardless of whether I judge that as just or as a necessary evil or as simply evil, I believe it's important to state it honestly. Even the stabilization of Afghanistan requires the calculation that it is okay to kill some innocent people as long as it saves other innocent people.
Securing our safety and their safety are virtuous objectives, the highest calling of the human race. But it seems to me that a misbelief continues, firmly entrenched, in our attempts to reach these objectives: the misbelief that violence will ever end violence.
I hope for the safety of that beautiful country and my beautiful Afghan brothers and sisters. I ache for the violence and fear brought to them by those with evil intentions, and those with virtuous intentions.
As I mentioned, the President gave his speech to West Point cadets. I noticed that the name of the hall was Eisenhower Hall. It seems appropriate, then, to quote President Eisenhower, to quote beliefs he formed after witnessing the horrors of war.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.
It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Movember - Finally Over
The entire experience may have been worth this one photo. That, and the money we raised. Thanks mostly to the efforts of myself and E.C., our team, ShowMeMos, is #991 nationally in raising money. So thanks to those that gave, and for those that were going to, we still have a chance to climb the rankings through December 5th. You can still give.
Some important team members are missing, but here is most of the team and the spectacle that was Movember.
Some important team members are missing, but here is most of the team and the spectacle that was Movember.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)