Columbus Day Reflection

 The official date for the observance of Columbus Day is October 12, in remembrance of the arrival of Christopher Columbus on that date in 1492 in the Americas. 

            The first Columbus Day celebration took place on October 12, 1792, when the Columbian Order of New York, better known as Tammany Hall, held an event to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the historic landing. Many Italian Americans observe Columbus Day as a celebration of their heritage and not of Columbus himself, and the day was celebrated in New York City on October 12, 1866. For the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's voyage in 1492, following a lynching in New Orleans, where a mob lynched 11 Italian immigrants on suspicions of killing the Irish politics chief in New Orleans in 1891, still one of the largest mass lynchings in America, President Benjamin Harrison declared Columbus Day as a one-time national celebration. The proclamation was part of a wider effort after the lynching incident to placate Italian Americans that added to the anti-Italian sentiment of the time, a group not seen as “white.” Harrison also wanted to ease diplomatic tensions with Italy. During the anniversary in 1892, teachers, preachers, poets, and politicians used rituals to teach ideals of patriotism. These rituals took themes such as citizenship boundaries, the importance of loyalty to the nation, and the celebration of social progress, included among them was the Pledge of Allegiance by Francis Bellamy. The day was first enshrined as a legal holiday in the United States through the lobbying of Angelo Noce, a first-generation American, in Denver. 

            Colorado governor Jesse F. McDonald proclaimed the first statewide holiday in 1905, and it was made a statutory holiday in 1907. In 1934, as a result of lobbying by the Knights of Columbus and New York City Italian leader Generoso Pope, Congress passed a statute stating: "The President is requested to issue each year a proclamation (1) designating October 12 as Columbus Day; (2) calling on United States government officials to display the flag of the United States on all government buildings on Columbus Day; and (3) inviting the people of the United States to observe Columbus Day, in schools and churches, or other suitable places, with appropriate ceremonies that express the public sentiment befitting the anniversary of the discovery of America." President Franklin Delano Roosevelt responded by making such a proclamation. This proclamation did not lead to the modern federal holiday; it was like language regarding Thomas Jefferson's birthday and Gold Star Mother’s Day. In 1941, Italian and Italian Americans were interned and lost rights as "enemy aliens" due to a belief they would be loyal to Italy and not America in World War II; in 1942, Franklin Roosevelt had the removal of the designation of Italian Americans as "enemy aliens" announced on Columbus Day along with a plan to offer citizenship to 200,000 elderly Italians living in the United States who had been unable to acquire citizenship due to a literacy requirement, but the implementation of the announcement was not completed until those interned in camps were released after Italy's surrender to the Allies on September 8, 1943.

            In 1966, Mariano A. Lucca, from Buffalo, New York, founded the National Columbus Day Committee, which lobbied to make Columbus Day a federal holiday. These efforts were successful and legislation to create Columbus Day as a federal holiday and signed by President Lyndon Johnson on June 28, 1968, to be effective beginning in 1971.

            Columbus Day honors an Italian explorer, becoming a positive symbol for the troubled history that Italians have had in immigrating to the United States. His achievement bolstered the morale of a people that had a difficult adjustment in making their way in America.

            Since the honoring of the day has come into question, we need to explore the history further. Many focus upon the colonialism and racial animosity that grew from the efforts of Columbus and accuse him of such.

            The journal of Columbus includes the sentence: “I know that [the Indians] are a people who can be made free and converted to our Holy Faith more by love than by force.” Columbus gave orders to his men to treat the natives they met with kindness. Columbus, in his reference to natives making “fine servants,” was observing why they were being targeted by another tribe from the mainland.

            We need to approach the historical context of the European discovery and colonizing of what for them was a new world. If we are not careful, we can idealize an image of what human life would be like if it were free of the boundaries established by the ideas and laws that represented Western civilization. We can think that free of the Greek and Roman philosophy, free of the Jewish and Christian Bible and the theological tradition, that human life would be simpler, freer, and natural, with the implication that it would be peaceful and just. I want to remove that illusion from our thinking. Some of what I share here is jarring, but it ought not surprise us. Every human culture has plenty of violence, and the Native American culture was no different.

            In the Bible, peoples of various cultures committed atrocities upon children, which for most of us is the worst that one can do. Elisha is saddened that Hazael of Syria will dash the heads of the little ones of Israel upon the rocks (II Kings 8:12). The defeat of Babylon will mean the heads of Jewish babies will be crushed (Isaiah 13:16). Mothers in Israel were dashed in pieces with their children (Hosea 10:14) and the little ones of Samaria will be dashed to pieces and pregnant women split open (Hosea 13:16) by the invading Assyrians. The soldiers of Persia who bring devastation to Babylon will be happy to dash the heads of its babies against the rocks (Psalm 137:9). King David slaughtered two-thirds of the men of defeated Moab (II Samuel 8:1-14).

            Therefore, when thinking of pre-Columbian America, we need to think realistically. It had “slavery, cannibalism and mass human sacrifice.” From the Aztecs to the Iroquois, that was life among the indigenous peoples before Columbus arrived. This has always been the fatal flaw of the politics of race guilt. Is there a race or nationality free of guilt?  To ask the question is to possess the answer. From a Christian perspective, sin and virtue cut the through the heart of every human being and therefore ever culture they create. Racism, violence, and conquest are part of the human condition. The story of the Americas before Columbus is an example.

            Pre-Columbian America was virtually one huge slave camp. According to “Slavery and Native Americans in British North America and the United States: 1600 to 1865,” by Tony Seybert, “Most Native American tribal groups practiced some form of slavery before the European introduction of African slavery into North America. Enslaved warriors sometimes endured mutilation or torture that could end in death as part of a grief ritual for relatives slain in battle. Some Indians cut off one foot of their captives to keep them from running away.” Things changed when the Europeans arrived, however: “Indians found that British settlers… eagerly purchased or captured Indians to use as forced labor. Increasingly, Indians began selling war captives to whites.” They became slave traders. 

            Further, ritual human sacrifice was widespread in the Americas. The Incas practiced ritual human sacrifice to appease their gods, either executing captive warriors or “their own specially raised, perfectly formed children,” according to Kim MacQuarrie, author of “The Last Days of the Incas.” The Aztecs, on the other hand, were more into the “volume” approach to ritual human slaughter. At the re-consecration of the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan in 1487, the Aztecs performed a mass human sacrifice of an estimated 80,000 enslaved captives in four days. According to an eyewitness account of the Iroquois in 1642, as observed by the Rev. Father Barthelemy Vimont’s “The Jesuit Relations”—captives had their fingers cut off, were forced to set each other on fire, had their skinned stripped off and, in one captured warrior’s case, “the torture continued throughout the night, building to a fervor, finally ending at sunrise by cutting his scalp open, forcing sand into the wound, and dragging his mutilated body around the camp. When they had finished, the Iroquois carved up and ate parts of his body.” 

            Cannibalism was also common in the New World before (and after) Columbus arrived. According to numerous sources, the name “Mohawk” comes from the Algonquin for “flesh eaters.” Anthropologist Marvin Harris, author of “Cannibals and Kings,” reports that the Aztecs viewed their prisoners as “marching meat.” The native peoples also were obsessed with heads. Scalping was a frequent practice among many tribes, while tribes feared Jivaro in the Andes for their head-hunting, shrinking their victims’ heads to the size of an orange. Even sports involved severed heads. If you were lucky enough to survive a game of the wildly popular Meso-American ball (losers were often dispatched to their death), your trophy could include an actual human head.

            The point is not to excuse colonialism or attitudes toward Native Americans. The point is that we must not idealize what their life was like before they met white people. There was plenty of sin and violence to go around, as well as much from which to learn. In fact, a separate day from Columbus Day to remember the Indigenous people of this land and their contribution to human culture may well be in order. We have reached a time for that observance to happen. I do not know enough of that history to suggest a date or its place on the national holiday calendar, but it needs to happen.

            To return to the observance of Columbus Day, by any reasonable estimation Columbus achieved success that was transformational for the entire world and specifically for the Americas. Whatever one makes of the ultimate moral repercussions of his exploration, it established the groundwork for the New World, of which our nation is now the central power. We can acknowledge that contribution and understand his flaws at the same time.

            A marginalized group of immigrants created the day trying to express patriotism and fidelity to the United States. When Italian Americans celebrated the day, or built statues to Columbus, it was primarily to pronounce themselves Americans, and that is certainly worth celebrating. In fact, during an effort to take down the statue at Columbus Circle in New York City, it was this argument from Italian Americans that saved the work of art.

            Edgar Guest (1881-1959) wrote “The Things That Haven’t Been Done Before.”  He challenges readers to alter their daily routine and do something that has not been done before. Through this poem, Guest has persuaded readers to enjoy their lives in unique ways; by not only trying new things but also implementing innovative ideas to their regular activities. The poem imagines the perspective of an adventurous life and encourages the readers to pursue their goals, follow their dreams and not to fear taking risks. The entire poem is persuasive and praises fearless individuals who “draw apart from the beaten track,” using Christopher Columbus as an example. Guest questions the readers whether they would venture to step out of their stable way of life and strike out for a new goal.

 

The things that haven't been done before,

Those are the things to try;

Columbus dreamed of an unknown shore

At the rim of the far-flung sky,

And his heart was bold and his faith was strong

As he ventured in dangers new,

And he paid no heed to the jeering throng

Or the fears of the doubting crew.

The many will follow the beaten track

With guideposts on the way.

They live and have lived for ages back

With a chart for every day.

Someone has told them it's safe to go

On the road he has traveled o'er,

And all that they ever strive to know

Are the things that were known before.

A few strike out, without map or chart,

Where never a man has been,

From the beaten paths they draw apart

To see what no man has seen.

There are deeds they hunger alone to do;

Though battered and bruised and sore,

They blaze the path for the many, who

Do nothing not done before.

The things that haven't been done before

Are the tasks worthwhile today;

Are you one of the flock that follows, or

Are you one that shall lead the way'

Are you one of the timid souls that quail

At the jeers of a doubting crew,

Or dare you, whether you win or fail,

Strike out for a goal that's new?

Thanksgiving Day Reflection

            

Even though we live in the freest country in the world – a land of unprecedented opportunities, liberties, and advantages – study after study reveals that the more American's have, the less fulfilled and content we feel. The Thanksgiving season, then, is a suitable time to reflect on what truly constitutes the good life, and to look back at the original Thanksgiving story to see what it can teach us about the origins of true happiness. 

    I love this season of the year. The thanksgiving celebrations I had growing up in the 1950's and 1960's were spent with the family at my grandmother's home.  It brings back so many good memories in Minnesota. Dad and mom would gather the five children together and begin the 3 ½ hour journey from Austin to Heron Lake. If you know the Minnesota terrain, by the time we reached Albert Lea, about 30 miles down the road, we asked, “Are we there yet.” The seven of us piled into the station wagon and drove three hours to get to grandmother's place. My family involved seven persons, and other relatives as well.  She usually invited a friend whom she knew might spend Thanksgiving alone, or a couple who had no one else to spend the holidays with. On occasion, someone would simply quickly visit. That was all right. There was always room for a few more. Why? Because there was plenty of food at the table on Thanksgiving Day. We did not pray before meals in general.  However, at thanksgiving time we did.  After the prayer of thanks to God, we ate a feast of turkey and ham with all the trimmings.  When the meal was over, the women picked up the dishes and cleaned up.  The men went into the living room and watched football.  About an hour after the meal, grandma came around with a tray full of deserts.  We complained about being too full, but we took the desert anyway.  Before the afternoon was over, she brought turkey and ham sandwiches for us.  This was one time of the year it was all right to stuff ourselves with food. In those moments, anxiety, worry, and fear seemed far away.

            In 2002, I made many trips to Minnesota. Dad died one year, and mom died the next. I had some wonderful conversations with Dad, conversations we needed to have. He had many difficult times in his life. He wanted affirmation from his father, an affirmation he never received. He thought he had to make it alone in life. He was a man who shared very little of what he felt. In fact, in my last visits he lamented that he had taken people that he cared about for granted. He did not say, “I love you,” enough. He wished he had spent more time with his children. I know part of it was his generation. The depression and World War II were serious business. One worked hard. Even though I assured him that he had made an important contribution to his five children and wife, I know what he means. We can take so many of the good things in life for granted. People in any generation can do that.

            Thanksgiving Day is a national celebration but observed in unique ways by the families of this nation.

            There was nothing about the Mayflower Compact or how the Pilgrim tradition was a key element in the formation of the United States as a self-governing society. 

            The criticism we now hear of the pilgrims is rising. For some, the Pilgrims’ only notable traits were that they “robbed graves” and “took land” of people who were living in what is today the United States. The origin of the Pilgrims, their ideas, and motivations, are entirely irrelevant in this view. Such persons brush aside any context for their actions. What matters is that they portray them as white European oppressors, who showed up and shattered a presumed utopia, where people did not seize land, spread disease, or brutalize their fellow humanity. Were the Pilgrims and Puritans sometimes brutish and unjust in how they dealt with the tribal people they met in the New World? Yes, some certainly were. Were the Pilgrims a uniquely rapacious people, devils in human form who came to terrorize and plunder the people they met in the New World? Hardly. 

            One could say the same thing about the Native American tribes of the New World, too. The simplistic story of unique European oppression leaves out how some tribes were eager to enlist European newcomers in their wars to eradicate other Native American tribes in continuation of conflicts that long predated Europeans’ arrival. The Wampanoags that partook in the first, famed Pilgrim Thanksgiving wanted a new ally to gain an edge against the powerful Iroquois Confederacy, a rival set of tribes in the Northeast region of what became the United States. In the 1640s, the Iroquois waged a war of annihilation against the Huron and other tribes in the Great Lakes region in the so-called Beaver Wars. Just as various tribes, kingdoms, and nations went to war with each other in Europe, so too did the various peoples of the New World wage war on, enslave, and obliterate their neighbors.

            The settled civilizations of South America, such as the Aztecs, used neighboring tribes as sacrificial cattle. Their downfall at the hands of Spanish conquistador Hernan Cortes came only with the help of those formerly oppressed tribes that hated the Aztecs more than the newcomers.

            The world the Pilgrims arrived in at the Plymouth Colony was both blood-soaked and had changed hands many times long before they arrived. If we really want to view history as some grand morality tale to find out who the angels and who the devils are, why should Native American Indian tribes get a pass as we condemn the Pilgrims?

            By 1616 about 1,600 colonists had been sent from England to the new world.  Only 350 were still alive just a few years later. The Pilgrims themselves, when they arrived from England in 1620, had 101 passengers and 48 crew, 56 adults, of which 14 were servants.  There were 31 children.  In the dangerous passage to the new world, only one died and two were born.  It took 65 days to arrive.  However, their good fortune ended there.  They went through their first winter in America and lost half of their company. (Sydney Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People, vol. I., 147-148, 185). 

            The Pilgrims attempted collective farming. The whole community decided when and how much to plant, when to harvest and who would do the work. Gov. William Bradford wrote in his diary that he thought that taking away property and bringing it into a commonwealth would make the Pilgrims “happy and flourishing.” It did not. Soon, there was not enough food. “No supply was heard of,” wrote Bradford, “neither knew they when they might expect any.” The problem, Bradford realized, was that no one wanted to work. Everyone relied on others to do the work. Some people pretended to be injured. Others stole food. The communal system, Bradford wrote, “was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment.” Young men complained they had to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.” Strong men thought it was an “injustice” they had to do more than weaker men, without more compensation. Older men thought that working as much as young men was “indignity and disrespect.” Women who cooked and cleaned “deemed it a kind of slavery.” The Pilgrims had run into the “tragedy of the commons.” No individual Pilgrim owned crops he grew, so no individual had much incentive to work.

            Bradford’s solution: private property. He assigned every family a parcel of land so they could grow their own corn. “It made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been,” he wrote. People who had claimed that “weakness and inability” made them unable to work now were eager to work. “Women now went willingly into the field and took their little ones with them to set corn,” wrote Bradford. The Pilgrims learned an important lesson about private property.

            The change to private property worked well enough that they had a good harvest. William Bradford, the governor of the Plymouth Colony, issued a decree in 1623 establishing Thursday, the third year of the Pilgrims being in America, as the time of Thanksgiving.

            His decree in 1623, stated:

 

Inasmuch as the great Father has given us this year an abundant harvest of Indian corn, wheat, beans, squashes, and garden vegetables, and has made the forests to abound with game and the sea with fish and clams, and inasmuch as He has protected us from the ravages of the savages, has spared us from pestilence and disease, has granted us freedom to worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience; now, I, your magistrate, do proclaim that all ye Pilgrims, with your wives and little ones, do gather at ye meeting house, on ye hill, between the hours of 9 and 12 in the day time, on Thursday, November ye 29th, of the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred and twenty-three, and the third year since ye Pilgrims landed on ye Pilgrim Rock, there to listen to ye pastor, and render thanksgiving to ye Almighty God for all His blessings.

 

            What struck me about all of this is that these people went through such pain and hardship yet were still able to give thanksgiving to God.  We are still carrying through on this tradition begun so long ago. Even though they were facing a hard winter in a strange place, the Pilgrims set aside time to give thanks to God for His provision in a strange new land. Their attitude was key to their happiness. In modern America, and across much of the modern developed world, we do not give thanks in the way the Pilgrims did, even on Thanksgiving. How many of us live in a spirit of gratitude, with humble appreciation for the many blessings God has given us, and how many of us dwell on the perceived shortcomings in our lives? How many of us, like Martha in the famous Bible story, stress ourselves to the max striving for the perfect home and the perfect meal to the point that we completely lose sight of the reason we have gathered to celebrate in the first place?

            Such frenzied spirits did not plague the pilgrims, and for that reason they were able to give thanks joyfully despite the many uncertainties in the road ahead. 

            George Washington proclaimed a National Day of Thanksgiving in 1789, although some opposed it. There was discord among the colonies, many feeling the hardships of a few Pilgrims did not warrant a national holiday. And later, President Thomas Jefferson scoffed at the idea of having a day of thanksgiving. 

            New England statesman Daniel Webster, whose Plymouth Oration of 1820—delivered on “Forefathers Day”—was one of the most important steps in turning the New England story into a national story. Webster’s speech was both deeply conservative and “progressive” at the same time. He explained how the Pilgrim forefathers laid down the foundation, the building blocks of what would become a country attached to both self-government and religious liberty. The Pilgrim experience of fleeing religious repression and inaugurating their newly founded community in the New World with a simple, 200-word Mayflower Compact affirming the rule of law set in motion the inertia for a people rooted in but diverging from their European origins. However, Webster’s speech was not merely a celebration of the past. He called on his generation and the generations to come to perpetuate and extend what we had been given: the great gift of free government. He mixed the speech with a general, genuine, and unquestionable love of country, with a specific demand for what the country need to change —specifying the abominable institution of slavery.

            It was Sarah Josepha Hale, a magazine editor, whose efforts eventually led to what we recognize as Thanksgiving. Hale wrote many editorials championing her cause in her Boston Ladies' Magazine, and later, in Godey's Lady's Book. Finally, after Hale's 40-year campaign of writing editorials and letters to governors and presidents, her obsession became a reality when, in 1863, President Lincoln proclaimed the last Thursday in November as a National Day of Thanksgiving. This thanks is not to be self-aggrandizing, a subtle pat on the back that we have done so well for ourselves. Aware of the perennial temptation to, like the Pharisee in Luke’s Gospel, disguise boasting as gratitude, Abraham Lincoln modeled the humility necessary to genuinely give thanks. In the middle of the Civil War, a time when blessings must have seemed hard to come by, Lincoln not only found many to count, but also reminded the American people how unearned they were:

 

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

 

He thus recommended penance in addition to prayer, urging citizens to “humble themselves in the dust.”

            Every president after Lincoln proclaimed Thanksgiving. It designates a time for all to “cease from their daily work” and give thanks for their “many and great blessings,” as Theodore Roosevelt remarked in his 1908 Thanksgiving Day proclamation. Presidents changed the date a couple of times, most recently by Franklin Roosevelt, who set it up one week to the next-to-last Thursday to create a longer Christmas shopping season. Public uproar against this decision caused the president to move Thanksgiving back to its original date two years later. And in 1941, Congress finally sanctioned Thanksgiving as a legal holiday, as the fourth Thursday in November.

            In a reference to the story of Jesus involving the healing of ten lepers, and the one who returns to give Jesus thanks (Luke 17:11-19), Desmond Tutu remarked that to be unthankful and unappreciative is to be diseased. We are to let our requests be known to God “in everything by prayer with thanksgiving” and then the peace of God that passes all understanding will guard our hearts and minds in Christ Jesus (Philippians 4:6-7). Contentment and security are not simply a material accomplishment but a spiritual perspective that trusts that the present and future are in the hands of God. Circumstances vary, but God remains constant.

            We so often lack gratitude because we cannot give. To thank is to give; to be gracious means to share. Egotistical people enjoy receiving and keep that enjoyment within. They forget that others might have had something to do with their pleasure. Such people are ungrateful because they do not like to acknowledge their debt to others. Gratitude is that acknowledgment. Gratitude gives away itself, like a joyful echo. Ingratitude is the inability to give back a little of the joy that one received or experienced. Gratitude is a gift, it is sharing, it is love, when the cause is another person’s generosity, courage, or love. Gratitude sees in the other the source of its joy. Therefore, ingratitude is dishonorable, and why gratitude touches deeper into our lives and character than we imagine. 

            Gratitude rejoices in what has taken place or in what is. People regret the life they hoped to live or the life they did not live. They miss the past as well as the future. Grateful people delight in having lived. Gratitude is this joy and love of what has taken place and in the gifts we enjoy now. Not even death can take from us what we have lived.

            When we deny our design and reject our purpose, however (as we moderns have done), all we are left with is the spirit of discontentment and envy that Madison Avenue profits from. When we fall prey to the myth that we find the good life in the abundance of our possessions, we are setting ourselves up for perpetual disappointment.

            That temptation to rush from one desire to the next is nothing new. It is rooted in the nature of humanity, for whom “change in all things is sweet,” as Aristotle, quoting Euripides, wrote in the “Nicomachean Ethics.” Aristotle attributed our attraction to novelty for the sake of novelty—what scholars Ben and Jenna Storey call our “restless love of change”—to “certain defective condition” of humanity. That is, humans are incomplete, or mortal. And though we are aware of our mortality, it is painful to think about. So, we distract ourselves and resist reflection, since doing so may require acknowledging our dependence on others’ endeavors, even as we recognize the vanity of some of our own. Hence, Aristotle also noted that most people are forgetful of the benefits we have received. We would prefer to focus on the good things we have done for ourselves and others, since this reassures us of our self-sufficiency. Aristotle even pointed out that benefactors love their beneficiaries more than their beneficiaries love them. Gratitude is appropriate, but pride gets in the way.

            In some cases, we go as far as to dwell on the harm that has been done to us rather than contemplate the good, since this, too, can give us a sense of pride in overcoming obstacles and beating the odds. But, as Aristotle recognized, though justice does involve remedying harms suffered, it also demands gratitude for the good, and, given our forgetfulness of the good things done for us, we need reminders. Aristotle’s example of such encouragement is illustrative: “Hence, people place a shrine to the Graces in the roadway,” he explained, to foster gratitude and reciprocal giving.  

            Psychotherapist John Sandel notes: "I think when we recognize that we are being given a gift, we feel joy, and gratitude is the experience that flows from this joy." We expect a life of ease and comfort. We have lost the sense that each day on this earth is a wonderful gift.

            As all turkey-loving Americans know, Thanksgiving entails not only “solemn praise and thanksgiving” but, just as importantly, joyful conviviality, as Amy and Leon Kass’ brief history of the holiday captures. From the Pilgrims’ famous feast with Native Americans to the 20th-century introduction of Thanksgiving Day parades, our tradition has been marked by both humble contemplation of unearned grace and festive celebration of all we have been given. Both elements remind us to cherish the time we have now, resisting the urge to look ahead in anticipation of future gifts. We should always strive to live in this way—present to the timebound world around us rather than missing it in the frantic and sometimes futile habits that characterize modern life. Nonetheless, there is wisdom in the American tradition of carving out a specific time for gratitude, halting us in our race to Christmas, and, hopefully, slowing our pace thereafter, so our hearts will be ready for the next season when it comes.

            As we conclude this year's Thanksgiving celebration, we should all take a step back from the frenzy and chaos of the holiday season to meditate on the blessings that will last for eternity.

Memorial or Decoration Day

 

Memorial Day, or Decoration Day, used to be May 30, but the date changed at the request of Federal employees in 1971. Now, we observe Memorial Day on the last Monday in May. Arlington National Cemetery is the place that receives the most attention on Memorial Day, though it is but one of 141 national cemeteries in the United States and 24 others located on foreign soil.

            Unfortunately, war is sometimes the answer. When it is, soldiers die.

            War is sometimes the answer because freedom is something we cherish. We care for our neighbors, of course. The greatest single gift we can offer our neighbors is freedom. With freedom comes responsibility, responsibility to ensure that we maintain our freedom.  Freedom is never free, but comes at a cost of lives, time, effort, and responsibility.

            War is sometimes the answer because tyrants want to take freedom away. We may disagree over whether we fought this war or that war for the right reasons. Yet, this nation keeps its armed services ready because someone, somewhere, is plotting to take away our freedom. The greatest gift we can give to each other is a free nation. The greatest gift this nation can offer to the world is to remain free.

The living have a responsibility to remember the conditions that led to the wars in which soldiers died. They are the victims of a peace process that failed. The most sure path to peace is to stay strong, for weakness is a temptation to those who have evil, criminal intent. Weakness tempts the warlike, belligerent, and antagonistic in the world. Strength is a declaration that no one can misunderstand. Violent actions will have consequences. Strength is a prudent warning that aggression will receive an answer. The peace process fails when we forget that for which we stand. The principles and ideas upon which America stands are firm and have meaning. The process fails when we lack the common sense that deals with how human beings are rather than how we would like them to be. Human beings have noble ideas wrapped in clay. A difference exists between right and wrong. We maintain peace with clear eyes and brave minds. Each new day carries within it the potential for breakthroughs, for progress. As Ronald Reagan put it in 1989, each new day bursts with possibilities. And so, hope is realistic and despair a pointless little sin. And peace fails when we forget to pray to the Source of all peace and life and happiness. 

            Today, we have a volunteer military. These persons put their lives on the line for this nation every day. We are grateful for their service. Yet, as we all know, on this weekend, which is more than just a race, a long weekend, or a time for cookouts, it is a time to remember those who have died serving their country through the military. 

            The practice is centuries old. Pericles, the Athenian leader, noted “Not only are they commemorated by column and inscriptions, but there dwells also an unwritten memorial of them, graven not on stone but in the hearts of men.”  He offered this tribute to the fallen heroes of the Peloponnesian War more than four centuries before Christ was born.

            The words of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Abraham Lincoln were enough to inspire their generations, and many after them. Yet, without General George Washington and his soldiers, they would have been words on a page. Without the leadership of many generals, but especially U. S. Grant, and the many soldiers who fought in the Civil War, the words of Lincoln would never have liberated slaves. The opposition to the horrors of Nazi Germany would have been nothing more than fine sentiments were it not for the generals and soldiers who fought in WWII. In this imperfect world, no matter how beautiful the words, words are not enough. 

            Some people raise the question of whether this nation is worthy of such sacrifice. The simple answer is, unequivocally, “Yes.” Yet, many people, including many in the Christian community, think that on the world stage, all nations are morally equal. Is this nation different from that of others? The Declaration of Independence holds the answer. 

 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”  

 

            I love my country. I am thankful for it. America has always been about an idea. It has fallen short of practicing the idea. However, let me ask you a couple questions. Do you love your spouse? I hope you do. Is he or she perfect? I seriously doubt it. Do you love your parents? I hope so. Are they perfect? They are far from it. We live in a nation today that is the result of decisions made by our “parents,” those who have gone on before us. Many of them saw the ways in which the nation fell short of the ideal of freedom and worked to expand such freedoms. We have even more work to do in this regard. 

            In my mind, this nation is a grand experiment worth sacrifice and effort. It practices freedom for more types of people than any nation on earth, and thereby encourages respect for the worth and dignity of all persons. This is already the most inclusive country in the world. It does not mean we all agree, but it does mean having enough respect for the other that they have their freedom to be who they are while you have the freedom to be who you are.

            On this day, I hope we cherish the immortal words of Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg address: 

 

"We can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow, this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

 

            Today, we cannot consecrate this land. The over one million soldiers who have died have already done so. 

            We are saddened that it took a Civil War to end slavery, but many were willing to fight it. We are saddened that it took such military strength, treasure, and loss of life to defend freedom in two world wars, and the cold war conflicts of Korea and Vietnam. We are all sadden that it took freedom marches in the 1950's and 1960's to pass the Civil Rights Act, but it finally passed. Why do all of this? Because we have inherited freedom from past generations, and we want to pass on an even more free society to the next generation. 

            Two years after the Civil War, women of Columbus, Miss., strewed flowers on the graves of both Confederate and Union dead. The news of this act reached the North and helped heal the wounds of war and restore national unity. In May 1868, N. P. Chipman suggested to General John A. Logan that a day be set aside for decorating the graves of soldiers who had fallen fighting in the Civil War. General Logan declared May 30 to be a time to decorate the graves of those who died in the Civil War. After WWI, it was designated as the time to decorate the graves of all those who died in battle. This is especially done at the tomb of the Unknown Soldier. The total who died in American military service, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs, is more than 1.1 million. Here are the numbers of those who have died in war.

American Revolution battle deaths.4,435 

War of 1812. 2,260 

Indian Wars.1,000 

Mexican War.1,733 

Civil War.140,414 

Spanish-American War.385 

World War I.53,402 

World War II.291,557 

Korean War.33,741 

Vietnam War.47,424 

Gulf War.147 

Global War on Terror.6,943 as of 2021. 

 

            All those who serve in the military are prepared to give their lives for our country.  They are the armor and the heart of our nation. We think of the soldiers, sailors, Marines, fliers, and nurses, mostly young, who should have had long lives to live and much to live for, who answered the call to the service of their country. Most of them were boys when they died, and they gave up two lives—the one they were living and the one they would have lived. When they died, they gave up their chance to be husbands and fathers and grandfathers. They gave up their chance to be revered old men. They gave up everything for our country, for us. The battlefield is a long way from Middle America. Millions of Americans, young and in their prime, traveled from family, school, ballpark, shop, office and all their favorite friends and haunts to face the unknown in ships, planes, submarines, tanks, and jeeps and on foot in far-away places with strange names. Legions of them stayed. With their lives, they paid for our freedom. Memorial weekend has become a day of family gatherings in which we sense and savor the wonder of life. We should honor them not only through memorials, flags at half-staff, parades, and ceremonies, but by remembering the purpose of their sacrifice — to protect and defend our freedom.  

            A nation that does not honor its war dead has no soul, even if the soldiers did not fight for honorable causes or lost a war. It is the right thing to do. Soldiers do not make state policy. They are the young people who carry it out. Behind each name we read of the local fallen in war is a story of life, hopes, dreams and loved ones cut short by a bayonet, bullet, or bomb. They were good citizens doing what they saw as their duty and willingly paying the highest price for doing so. They deserve to be remembered and honored, even if only for one day out of the year. And all we can do is remember. Some people remember every day, as they remember one who has died. It is not so hard to summon memory, but it is hard to recapture meaning.

            This is a day of powerful memories: battles from Bunker Hill to Afghanistan, from 1776 to this decade. We remember the noise and hell of war, the wildness and destruction, the loss of sons, fathers, husbands, daughters, and sweethearts who never came back home. Always, there are those who never come back. When peace arrives, it is a sadder for their absence. 

            While we are not all called to serve our country through serving in the armed forces or in the political arena, we all can better our country through the way we live our lives. 

            Here are headstones of those who served in the decade between Korea and Vietnam. More than 12 million young Americans donned military uniforms in what was called "the cold war." It was only cold for those who did not have to fight in it. They served on land, air and sea in lonely outposts, dusty camps, along barbed wire barriers in foreign lands, on guard against those who would have done us harm if they had the chance.

            Between 1964 and 1975, more than 7 million young Americans were committed to the bloody contest in Southeast Asia. The names of 58,267 who died from that fight are on the wall of the Vietnam War Memorial. Headstones in cemeteries across this land testify to more of their selfless sacrifice -- and serve as a reminder that the victory denied in that war should never happen again.

            In the three-and-a-half decades since Vietnam, not a single year has passed without Americans in uniform being committed to hostile action somewhere around the globe -- including Grenada, Beirut, Panama, the Balkans, and Kuwait. We are not a warlike people. But for more than two centuries, ours has been the only nation on earth willing to consistently send its sons and daughters into harm's way -- not for gold or oil or colonial conquest, but to offer others the hope of liberty.

            Since Sept. 11, that great legacy has been borne by volunteers serving in the shadows of the Hindu Kush, along the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates, in the Persian Gulf and on anti-piracy patrols in the Indian Ocean. These young Americans are engaged against a merciless enemy who has proven repeatedly that there is no atrocity beneath them -- and that they will do whatever it takes to kill as many of our countrymen as possible.     

            Why is our nation worthy of sacrifice?  How can we ensure that our nation remains worthy?  How can we, as American people, remain worthy of the ultimate sacrifice?  Men and women brave enough to serve in our armed services answer the first question. The citizens of this country answer the second question. The third question is for each of us to ask ourselves.  Are you living a life worth a soldier’s ultimate sacrifice? 

            I invite you on Memorial Day, spend a moment remembering the military men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our safety and freedom.  

            After Memorial Day is over and you go back to work, dedicate yourself to making their sacrifice worthwhile.  Take an interest and get involved in what it means to be an American.  Help others understand the importance being an American and living out the American dream.  We have life and liberty and must guard them both, but we are only provided the opportunity to pursue happiness, not happiness itself.  Whether or not you achieve happiness is up to you, and not the responsibility of our government. To quote President John F. Kennedy, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”  

            Once we are all gone, what will our legacy be?  A nation that is freer, and more prosperous because of our work and our effort? Or a nation that is faltering due to government efforts to make people happy rather than simply providing us with the liberty to pursue our happiness?

            While you might be tempted to leave politics to others, that would be a dangerous tactic.  As Pericles said, “just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you.”

            To conclude this brief reflection, I offer a reflection on memorials. 

            The past is never dead. It's not even past.  --William Faulkner.

            Human beings like to remember things ... special things. And they do so in remarkably creative ways. Americans are no different. Just think of the memorials in Washington, D.C. alone! Former presidents Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Washington are remembered by monuments, statues, and obelisks. Wars and the soldiers who died in them are remembered -- World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. Elsewhere in the country, tragic events are memorialized, like Pearl Harbor, the Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11. We have built these memorials so that we never forget. 

            Perhaps your city has a statue or monument that recalls people who died, the event in which they died or some catastrophe. 

            In addition to building things, we also set aside certain days to remember someone who meant a lot to our collective experience as Americans -- presidents Lincoln and Washington, for example, in February, and Martin Luther King Jr. in January. In July we set aside one day to celebrate our independence. In November, we remember our veterans.

            And so, we come to Memorial Day, a day to remember.

            The meaning of past events cannot be quite the same for us as for those who lived through them. So, our job is not to force our kids to bow at our memorials, but to do what we can to help them understand why they have meaning for us! We can help them see our piles of stones, both literal and figurative ones, as, if not memorials, at least milestones on the journey of humankind. In other words, every time we build a memorial, intentionally or otherwise, we can think of what it will mean both for the current generation and for the subsequent ones.

            They will be different things, but secondary meanings can be valid as well.

Here, for example, are some things that a memorial can do, first for the generation that was there and then for those that come later:

 

+ A memorial can celebrate heroic or happy events and can mourn tragic ones. In Joshua 4:1-7, Israel’s 12 stones testified to the current generation that God helped and guided them. As a milestone to the next generation, it witnesses that people earlier were helped, and gives those who were not there a basis for concluding that they, too, can be helped by God.

 

+ A memorial can remind those who lived through the event of the terrible cost of war. As a milestone, it can cause subsequent generations to do all that is possible to avoid bloodshed.

 

+ A memorial can promote healing for the people who were there or had loved ones there. Think, for example, about the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the Oklahoma City National Memorial. As milestones, they teach that people can deal with emotional pain and continue to live.

 

+ A memorial can help the immediate generation realize that something significant happened that called for courage and sacrifice. As a milestone, it can communicate that each age has significant things that call for courage and sacrifice.

 

            Monument builders do not have the power to force others to honor the monuments themselves, but they can do their best to help them understand the milestone implications. 

            On a personal level, we want our children to see and understand what is important and valuable to us. We hope some of those things, including faith in God, will become of even greater value to them. But we do not want them bound or limited by our understandings and conclusions. We want what we have valued to inform them so they can go further, climb higher, reach better. 

            So, if we are in the monument-building generations, we ought to be less concerned that our monuments speak to the younger generations than that they understand why they speak to us. In time, they will build their own monuments. But if we have been faithful in living up to the best our monuments represent, ours may serve as building blocks for theirs. 

            And if you are in the generations coming on, do not be too quick to dismiss what may seem to be stuck-in-the-mud ways of doing things in the generations ahead of you. There are some values behind those things that in time, you are going to want to know about.

Gender Identity

            

            I want to briefly discuss the matter of gender identity. The devotion of the political Left to diversity, equity, and inclusion – or DEI – borders on an ideological state religion. If the goal were to have treat all persons the same before the law, it would be consistent with American values. However, turning a gender identified apology into warring groups is against the value of individual rights and justice.

     

          In 2024, the Equality Act would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination because of sex, to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Presented as protecting fundamental rights, it would undermine some existing fundamental rights, like women’s rights to safety and privacy in women’s spaces (including women’s prisons) and their right to fair competition in sports. The bill could also undermine children’s right to grow up without having their growth stunted by experimental transgender medical interventions. Doctors and psychologists who support medical interventions euphemistically referred to as “gender-affirming care” acknowledge that the side effects of such drugs are not fully known. They also admitted that teenagers have contracted cancer due to cross-sex hormones and that those drugs could permanently stunt a child’s growth. Further, it provides for sexually explicit materials in school libraries, leading to opposition that the political Left refers to as book banning and which they defend as necessary for LGBTQ+ children to see themselves in literature. Such books are not banned, for they can still be published, parents can still buy them, and children can read them, but such actions do restrict their spread to minors in a school setting.

Here is a significant divide between the political Left and Right. 

            In Jewish and Christian thinking, God made humanity in the image of God as male and female (Gen 1:27, 5:1-2). The verses link the creation of both male and female directly to the image of God. Christian theology presupposes human destiny is toward fellowship with God based on this notion of human creation in the image of God. Jesus also refers to the creation of humanity as male and female (Mark 10:5=Matt 19:4). 

            We now know that biologically, some persons are born with a defect that blurs the distinction between male and female. Usually, a doctor and/or the parents decide and make surgical decision as to which gender the child will be. The point is that there is a biological reality involved. It still takes a combination of XY chromosomes to make one male or female. 

            Thus, I begin with biological fact that finds support in the theological affirmation of our creation in the image of God as male and female. 

            From a Christian perspective, here is something I need to stress. Anyone who is confused about their identity is my neighbor, and Jesus calls us to love them. Love and inclusion within the love of God does not depend upon the clarity or lack of it concerning gender identity. However, I also believe that what they do not need is a culture that encourages such gender confusion and supports it.

           Here is an example. One doctor who performs sex change surgeries said that nobody believed in traditional ideas about biological sex anymore; only “dinosaurs” would believe such antiquated notions. Such denial of the mere existence of a countervailing argument seems like a common feature of the progressive. It leads to the desire to cancel opinions such as I hold here. 

            Here is a second example. At a congressional hearing, when asked, “Can biological men become pregnant and give birth?” a doctor from Planned Parenthood said, “Men can have pregnancies. … Somebody with a uterus may have the capability of becoming pregnant, whether they are a woman or a man.” 

            Here is a third example. When Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson cannot define the word “woman,” it seems like we are entering the realm of the absurd. It seems like the progressive is abandoning rationality on purpose. 

            Has the world become too absurd to satirize it (G. K. Chesterton)? 

            I offer a few questions to ponder on the matter of gender identity.

            Are we really to replace the label “woman,” as Bette Midler put it, with “birthing people, “menstruating persons,” or “people with vaginas”? 

            Are biological men like Lia Thomas, who “won” the 2022 NCAA Division Women’s 500-meter Freestyle, but who are transgender women to compete against women in sports? 

            Is it true that just because you change your body parts you become woman? 

            Are you “transphobic” if you suggest that only women can get pregnant? 

         Seeking legal enshrining of this ideology presents a danger to liberty. Christians, Jews, Muslims, and anyone else who maintains that marriage is a lifelong conjugal union between one man and one woman will be branded a bigot and driven from the public square and marketplace. Anyone who owns a small business related to the wedding industry — photographers, bakers, website designers, venue owners, caterers, florists — will be sued into oblivion if they refuse services to same-sex couples. Religious colleges and universities will lose their tax-exempt status. Religious institutions of every kind, if they hold to their teachings and traditions about marriage, will face an onslaught from the Department of Justice and the federal bureaucracy. The goal is to intimidate opponents and parents from continuing to oppose harmful LGBT policies in education, medicine, and girls’ sports. By shifting the narrative to position all opposition to LGBT policies as “hate” and responsible for violence, they believe it can crush opponents. Such exercise of legal and political power to crush dissent ought to be of concern to anyone who values pluralism and rational discourse in the public square. For such persons, disagreement is violence waiting to be unleashed. Which is why censorship is the only way to achieve a more peaceful world.

            For many of us, all this falls into the realm of inventing ways of doing evil (Romans 1:30), opening the way to committing cultural suicide.

            Christians have a vocation to be children of their heavenly Father by the love they express to God and to their neighbor. They have a responsibility to abide by the teaching of their scripture and their tradition of 2000 years, regardless of the direction culture might travel for a season. They share this teaching through the love to which God called them. Where possible, engaging those who disagree in reasonable conversation would be an effective way to witness to the love of God for them. Such conversation shows the political other that disagreement means neither hate nor violence. Conversation, which always has its basis in mutual respect and the worth and value of the other, holds the possibility of transformation.

Parental rights, responsible medicine, and common-sense child safety policies regarding adult entertainment are necessary and important. Those who disagree with the LBGTQ agenda cannot allow themselves to succumb to their own darkness and hate the neighbor, but nor can they allow their political opponents to bully them into silence.

Equal Rights

          

               Since the political Left believes the government needs to do more to advance racial equality, some using the language of systemic racism to support this notion, I want to see if we can have a conversation about that. Since we have common ground in believing all persons are equal, this difference between the political Left and Right is unfortunate but instructive of the difference between them both in terms of their view of America and their view of the role of government.

I wish the sentiments expressed by Ellis Cose in Newsweek, January 1, 2000, had been prophetic: The new century will see the end of race—the dawning of an era when skin color is of no consequence—but it will see a further erosion of racial walls. Instead, it has become progressive to the point of obsession to keep picking at the wound of racism. The wounds of racism and slavery, the birth defect of America, provide fertile ground for such picking. I do not know of anyone who wants to have a dishonest look at American history. This is a dog whistle. To say there is nothing redemptive in the life and thought of our ancestors and founders is an attempt to alienate Americans from their history and each other.

            The national holiday Juneteenth could be a time to celebrate so much that black Americans have accomplished since the original Juneteenth liberated the last of some 4 million emancipated slaves. That joyous day arrived on June 19, 1865. Having vanquished the Confederacy that April, victorious Union Army soldiers reached Galveston, Texas. They encountered that final group of slaves who were unaware that the South had fallen. More important, the men in blue uniforms read General Order No. 3 to people who, until then, were private property: “All slaves are free.” Henceforth, these black men, women, and children belonged to themselves, not others (Derroy Murdoch).

            All people are created in the image of God, giving a theological and biblical basis for the political idea of equal rights in the law. Public policy should reflect that fact. No person’s worth or loyalties can be judged by the shape of physical features, the color of skin, or the results of a lab test. The history of racialist ideology and oppression and its ongoing consequences require us to emphasize this truth. Condemning the use of state and private institutions to discriminate and divide us against one another based on race is necessary. This becomes a sound basis for conciliation and unity among diverse communities. This means, incidentally, that no one should receive special treatment at the expense of black, white, Asian, or Hispanic Americans. 

            Given the success of removing legal barriers to discrimination, I do not think anyone in this country is systemically a victim of oppression. Such changes could not occur if the country were systemically racist. One can be in oppressive situations in family or at work, but the system does not lend itself well to oppression. The reason is the legal structure and the broad appreciation for the gifts, talents, and passions of people, regardless of who they are. Human life has its challenges, both in recognizing the gifts one has and using them properly, and in facing the various walls and hurdles of accomplishing the goals one has. To a degree larger than most people will acknowledge, success in life is within your control. 

I am concerned with living in a free and just society, I understand the need for change. We are creatures of time and therefore change is fundamental to who we are as individuals and as communities. To refuse change is to begin dying. I also understand that part of change is recognizing that society has not included persons who need to be included. Society has not respected the worth and dignity of groups of people whom it tended to push to the margins of society. The obvious examples in American history are slavery, racist laws represented by the Jim Cross laws, thereby denying to black Americans access to political and economic institutions and denying women political and economic access.

         There will never be enough social justice, never enough equity, and never enough change, since some people are in pursuit of a utopia for themselves that is impossible to achieve and that for others is not desirable. Such persons already live in a society that is more inclusive and has institutions more open to change than any society on the planet. Hence, their anger has blocked them from seeing the inclusiveness of the society in which they already live. 

         Our past does not determine the choices we make today. Our past does not determine our destiny. In a Christian view, forgiveness of sin is prerequisite for a relationship with God. Even in our personal lives, a relationship cannot move toward something good if the aggrieved party does not extend forgiveness. Further, if the one asking for forgiveness has no intention of repentance, has the person even asked for forgiveness? If the person has no intention of change, asking for forgiveness becomes a cover for living life with no consequences or worse to have an abusive relationship. It takes faith, hope, and love to extend forgiveness. Suppose a nation has at its founding a birth defect. Let us call it slavery and racism. The aggrieved party, in this case, those of African descent, cannot have a rewarding and fulfilling experience of the nation without extending forgiveness. In the same way, of course, the nation needs to repent of its sin and correct the birth defect. One cannot truly repent without faith, hope, and love. As America keeps mending its flaws in this regard, it can become a Promised Land, a bright and shining city on a hill, for all people. The combination of repentance by the wrongdoer and forgiveness from the aggrieved party is essential for the relationship to move forward.

            Imagined oppression, never-ending grievance, and perpetual anger is not a path toward a flourishing human life. Thus, I oppose BLM and other violent expressions. I find it strange that some schools have all-black dorms and all-black graduation ceremonies, such institutions claiming that such race-based activities are not racist while opposing such activities is racist. 

            When some says “everyone believes” that America is systemically racist; to do otherwise is to mark yourself as a bigot. I want us to think about that for a moment.

            First, I offer an example of how this aspect of the understanding of what “everyone believes” plays out in popular culture. Jon Stewart, in an episode called The Problem With White People, said that America is a racist country and always has been; that white people, whether they admit it or not, whether they even know it or not, are either racists or at absolute least are co-conspirators in that they have white privilege; and because of that they enable racism every single minute of every single day in this country. Such an idea is not controversial for man on the political Left, but especially not for the progressive. One of his guests, a woman named Lisa Bond, said that “I do not care if we say we are abolitionists. I do not care if we say we are progressive. I do not care if we are members of the KKK. Every single white person upholds these systems and structures of white supremacy, and we must talk about it.” 

I am sure she has not contemplated how absurd that sounds: there is no difference between an abolitionist fighting to free the slaves and a member of the Ku Klux Klan. They are all the same. They are equally bad. They are white and therefore they are racists. This view of white Americans as a single, undifferentiated blob of hate existing through the centuries as a force for the oppression of non-whites is simply the inverse of the old racism. It is replacing hatred of blacks with hatred of whites; it is replacing discrimination against blacks with discrimination against whites and Asians and others (Jonah Goldberg, referring to Andrew Sullivan).

            Here is why everyone does not believe America is systemically racist. Such a view neglects a reality. Such a view tries to get us not to see what is before our eyes. It keeps up dust, and then complains that one cannot see. America today is the most multiracial, multicultural, tolerant, diverse melting pot that has ever existed on planet Earth, and there is no other place on Earth even like it. Many on the political Left like to point to Europe for positive examples. Countries like Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland can lead the way in World Happiness Report and receive praises, but they are also among the least racially diverse among western nations. They are white and Protestant Christian (or from a Protestant Christian background), and their citizens speak the same language. America, on the other hand, is by far the most radical experiment in racial, religious, and ethnic diversity. That is why 86 percent of our immigrants are non-white. They do not come because America white supremacy dominates it. Millions of black people have immigrated to America from Africa and the Caribbean. And tens of millions more would like to. Are all these people fools—choosing to move to a systemically racist country? Are they ignorant—unaware that America is systemically racist? I will suggest the reverse. They know how lucky they are to move to America—because this country is so tolerant and so overwhelmingly non-racist. People do not move to countries that hate them. No Jews moved to Germany in the 1930s.

            We need to recover the goal of evaluating relationships upon the content of character rather than the color of skin. Color of skin, like color of hair or eyes, ought to be of no consequence as to how law or culture treats one.

 

Progressive Movement and Anger

 

Human life, whether in our individual experience or as we become aware of our history, gives us plenty of reasons to be angry. Some people have had to overcome animosity toward people who have a differing skin color and all of us Americans must deal honestly with its birth defect of racism and segregation. My focus in this article is the American experience. The presumption by the mostly north Europeans who settled on this continent that they were superior to the prior inhabitants, that they had the right to import as their individual property members of tribes in Africa sold to them by other tribes, and that the males had superiority over the females, was a profound self-centered and arrogant approach to their privileged status. It has taken much time to gain a moral and just insight in these matters. American institutional life has changed dramatically because of those insights. It has taken a Civil War, a Civil Rights movement, and a Women’s Suffrage movement, to help those changes take place. It took anger properly directed to turn insight into reality.

            Jesus was angry with those in the temple who were selling and buying, overturning tables, and declaring there were turning the Temple into a den of robbers (Mark 11:15-18). He was angry at the saying of long prayers by scribes for the sake of the appearance it gave of their piety, the honor sought by religious leaders like the scribes while in public settings, in synagogues, or at banquets. Not only that, but they will also receive condemnation for the way they devour the homes of widows (Mark 12:38-40=Luke 20:46-47). Paul (Ephesians 4:26-27) could urge his readers to be angry, never forgetting that there is a justifiable anger. One who is not angry when there is cause to be may well open the door to sin. Unreasonable patience nurtures many vices in that it fosters negligence in correcting what is wrong. Paul acknowledges the validity of anger born out of disagreement, but he cautions readers not to allow self-serving tendencies to extend the natural boundaries of our anger.  Paul does not ask us to be emotionless, but neither does he give us the latitude to create an environment for nurturing grudges and rivalry

            Anger is like a fire in that safely used we derive great benefit, but uncontrolled it can do great damage. We are not to let the sun go down on our anger, allowing resentment to simmer and endanger others. Do not hang on to anger obsessively. Those who live their lives driven by anger eventually pay a bitter personal price. Among the seven deadly sins, anger may be the most fun (Frederick Buechner Wishful Thinking, 1973). We get to lick our wounds, smack our lips over grievances long past, roll our tongues over the prospect of bitter confrontations still to come, savor to the last morsel the pain someone gave you and the pain you give back. We have a feast fit for a king. Of course, the chief drawback is that what you are wolfing down so joyfully is yourself. The skeleton at the feast is you.

            I have a particular concern for certain persons, mostly on the Left and who embrace the progressive ideology, that their anger toward American history and the institutions that have grown out of that history are so evil that the only just response to overhaul them and replace them with something else. The sense of alienation such an analysis brings tends to keep adherents perpetually angry over perceived injustice. The embrace of critical theory tends to locate evil in certain groups, such as oppressors, white people, white men, and heterosexuals, and virtue in certain groups, such as oppressed, black, women, homosexuals (and those who wrestle with gender identity). The obvious problem here is that evil and virtue cuts through the heart of us all. Everyone has an inward battle that tests their character. 

            Bitterness reflects a form of sustained anger that keeps calling to mind experiences of hurt or pain. It is possible to revel in victimhood. Critical theory represents such sustained anger in that it keeps picking at wounds within a society, separating people further rather than finding a way toward common ground and reconciliation. In Latin America, the wound at which they keep picking is between indigenous populations and the descendants of European settlers. The point of such sustained anger is to dismantle the society and institutions in which they find themselves and rebuild. We have all known injured people who just cannot let it go. Some people go to their graves feeling bitter for the way their parents or their spouses or their children failed them. Or they castigate themselves for some missed opportunity decades in the past. Bitter talk, when it continues for an exceedingly long time without let-up, causes terrible emotional harm to the speaker — not to mention misery for everyone who must listen to their complaints. Such sustained anger blocks thinking rationally and seeking reasonable courses of action.

Conservatives represent to them a respect for the Constitution, the history of the country, and the positive role America plays in the world that the progressive does not share. The alienation the progressive feels from the country and from Western civilization is real and deep. Here are some signs of your alienation from the country: you do not like Memorial Day, the 4th of July, Columbus Day, Thanksgiving Day or Veterans Day. Such national days are simple expressions of gratitude for this nation, its history, its liberties, and its role in the world. Such simple acts are not ways to deify the nation or have a “love it or leave it” attitude. Like every nation, certain days are special and honored not because the nation is perfect, but precisely because it aspires to build upon its past and become a better nation.

        I want to admit that I have anger as well. It can hook by dark side. If I were to launch on the progressive it would come from a place in which I wonder if their desire is to destroy the country. Thus, if I wanted to destroy country, I would do things to take away its energy independence it earned by letting the domestic market of oil production expand. I would do so my stopping an oil pipeline, make fracking and vertical drilling prohibitive, and increase taxes and regulation on vehicles with the internal combustion engine. I would keep the national debt as high as possible. I would obliterate the physical boundaries, destabilizing local communities as much as possible. I would destroy trust the electoral elections. I would be glad about the increase crime because it destabilizes local communities. I would agitate the differences that a diverse culture has by creating a victim/persecutor relation. I would make America deny its vital role in preserving freedom in the world by envisioning it as an oppressor like so many other nations. I would enlist Big Tech to stifle free speech, labeling anything not in line with progressive ideas as a threat democracy and as hate speech. I would continue using COVID-19 as a model for limiting freedom. The point of all these behaviors is the destabilization of a free society, putting pressure upon it so that it will be open to the imposition of further a progressive utopia that would be impossible without some form of totalitarianism. 

    I share my anger to admit that I have a dark side as well. I do not view myself as being on a morally higher ground than the progressive. The intent of this article, however, is to consider progressive ideas calmly and rationally.

From whence does the anger arise? An interesting way of looking upon Genesis 2-3 is to suggest that the temptation contained in eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that of putting ourselves in the position of a judge. We have the authority to judge our beliefs and actions and the authority to judge the beliefs and actions of others. When others to do not see things the way we do, it becomes a small step to be angry. Accepting that only God has the right to judge is an act of humility, but all of us take the path of Adam and Eve and arrogantly assume the right to judge right and wrong and be angry when others do not coincide with our judgment. In our setting, the tribe-like adherence to set of beliefs and actions assumes the right of judging one’s own group as right and labeling other groups as evil. In repeating in a boring fashion the decision of Adam/Eve claim the position of judge, humanity continues its self-destructive course of divisiveness that tends toward violence.

    I have discovered two interesting journeys of young people who began as progressives and eventually left that movement and embraced a conservative view of the world.

            I appreciated the article The Turn, a journey by one young person from the Left to the Right. Even if you are liberal/progressive, you can appreciate the well-written article.

            A young woman shares her experience moving from being a progressive in California to a conservative. When she had success, she was reminded that she had it because she was pretty white woman. When she had struggles, it was because males oppressed her. To state the obvious, there are things that happen in life that are beyond our control, which the virtue tradition descending from Aristotle thinks of as good and bad fortune. She eventually made the journey to a separate way of thinking about herself, accepting responsibility for her life, she found herself happier, enjoying her life, and healing relationships with her parents. She came to the important realization that much of the success and failure in her life is within her control, in that it derives from the way she thinks about her world and herself and from the choices she makes. 

            These two journeys out of progressive ideology are encouraging to me. Anger is usually something we experience as an outburst, learn what we can from it, and move on to a flourishing human life. Anger inhibits rational thought and action. It distorts our perception of history and the world. In my view, the sustained anger by the progressives had a profound influence on the 2022 midterm election.

            Since I am not a progressive ideologically, but I am concerned with living in a free and just society, I understand the need for change. We are creatures of time and therefore change is fundamental to who we are as individuals and as communities. To refuse change is to begin dying. I also understand that part of change is recognizing that society has not included persons who need to be included. Society has not respected the worth and dignity of groups of people whom it tended to push to the margins of society. The obvious examples in American history are slavery, racist laws represented by the Jim Cross laws, thereby denying to black Americans access to political and economic institutions, and denying women political and economic access.

At the same time, some people, most of whom are progressives, come across to me as those for whom there will never be enough social justice, never enough equity, and never enough change, since they are in pursuit of a utopia for themselves that is impossible to achieve and that for others is not desirable. My belief is that the progressive already lives in a society that is more inclusive and has institutions more open to change than any society on the planet. Hence, by concern is that the anger of the progressive has blocked the progressive from seeing the inclusiveness of the society in which they already live. The way progressives shape their views seem designed to deceive and psychologically manipulate others into questioning their perceptions of what they are seeing in the world. It suggests that they question the sanity of anyone who disagrees with them. In other words, the form of argument involves gaslighting opponents. 

The point here is that our past does not determine the choices we make today. Our past does not determine our destiny. Forgiveness of sin is prerequisite for a relationship with God. Even in our personal lives, a relationship cannot move toward something good if the aggrieved party does not extend forgiveness. Further, if the one asking for forgiveness has no intention of repentance, has the person even asked for forgiveness? If the person has no intention of change, asking for forgiveness becomes a cover for living life with no consequences or worse to have an abusive relationship. It takes faith, hope, and love to extend forgiveness. Suppose a nation has at its founding a birth defect. Let us call it slavery and racism. The aggrieved party, in this case, those of African descent, cannot have a rewarding and fulfilling experience of the nation without extending forgiveness. In the same way, of course, the nation needs to repent of its sin and correct the birth defect. One cannot truly repent without faith, hope, and love. As America keeps mending its flaws in this regard, it can become a Promised Land, a bright and shining city on a hill, for all people. The combination of repentance by the wrongdoer and forgiveness from the aggrieved party is essential for the relationship to move forward. 

            My approach to my opponent, the progressive, is different from the gaslighting approach of the progressive. I will refer to topics that the Pew Research Center says are typical of the progressive. I note that there is no place in this study for the shibboleths of either side of the political spectrum, the Nazi or the Communist. A simple truth needs some recovery: the way to tell the truth is to speak with kindness, for only the words of a loving person can be heard (Henry David Thoreau). In some cases, I provide links to further discussion in other articles I have written. 

            I do not think a bigger federal government will bring increased justice or equality and I do not think expanded federal government services will have the effect the progressive desires. From March 2020 through June 2022, the federal government added $7 trillion in debt. To put that in perspective, the federal debt reached a total of $7 trillion in 2004, covering a span from George Washington to the first term of George W. Bush. That means the federal government has racked up 215 years’ worth of debt in just 27 months. We need to start cutting spending, reducing taxes, getting rid of regulations, building out our energy supply, pipelines, and refineries. Given the expansion of national debt and yearly deficit, it makes me wonder what your goal is in weakening our financial stability.

            I want equal rights, a goal of the progressive with which I fully agree. One of the least important aspects of human beings is the color of their skin. It is no more important than the color of their eyes or hair. 

            I do not believe institutional life in America needs to be torn down and rebuilt for any reason.

            I do not think higher taxes on corporations or high-income individuals will improve justice or social health. Some have suggested a tax on wealth. One problem with this is who determines the value of what you own? If the value of your asset goes up, you are taxed, but if the value of that same asset goes down, does the government return the money. Of course, now it is only people with wealth over a certain amount, but the same was true of the income tax, which when passed in 1896 would apply only to the top 10%. If you do not have enough income to pay the wealth tax, will the government force you to seek assets to meet this new obligation – including the assets it just assessed? Does that represent a taking of your property? 

            I do not have positive views of democratic socialists.

            I think America has provided a model for human rights, for the expansion of liberty to all persons, can continue to provide to aspire to a free and justice society. I think there are good reasons to feel pride in this country. I also think there are good reasons for people to feel pride in any country in which they live. It is appropriate to love the country in which you live. One does so, aware of its imperfections and that it still aspires to be and do better. I am concerned with doxing and associated attacks on the first amendment. These actions oppose inclusion. Such human rights are part of the abortion debate.

            Although I disagree with the progressive, I have no antipathy toward the progressive, but I wonder if many progressives have antipathy toward conservatives, Republicans, and traditional/orthodox/evangelical Christians. I think many progressives would agree with the language of Dr. Jason Johnson of MSNBC when he labeled the GOP a terrorist organization. Thus, the development of the Russian Narrative that has now been shown to be the Russia Hoax, the accusation of Fascism, the accusation of insurrection on January 6, and the charge of Christian nationalism are matters of great concern to me. It makes me wonder what the progressive and others who make such accusations really want in labeling 40% of the country with such terms and using government authority in this way. That does not sound inclusive.

            I welcome immigrants to this land, for they expand American experiences, bringing a rich cultural heritage that benefits us all. I think people need to enter this country legally. It makes me wonder what your real goal might be by encouraging illegal immigration.

            I love my neighbor, regardless of how they choose to live. Especially in sexuality, I do not think we do people any benefit by encouraging confusion of sexual identity or sexual expression outside of love and commitment to each other. Most human beings fall short in the ideal here, for sexual desire is strong and comes with much curiosity regarding it. For many persons, sexual desire burns hot, but it will bring greater happiness if it is a controlled and directed burn toward one with whom you have love and commitment. However, attacks on the nuclear family and marriage are tearing at the soul of our country, and efforts to silence and punish those who hold different beliefs is the opposite of tolerance, respect, or individual liberty.

            Some of the discussion around gender identity seems absurd to me. A clarification of terms might be helpful. Cis-woman is a term used to denote biological women who identify as women, while trans-man is a woman who “identifies” as a man. Nonbinary people identify as neither men nor women. 

            I think all first responders, especially the police, deserve our respect and admiration, for they are the line between civilized society and the criminal elements of society.

            I respect your right to be religiously non-affiliated. I wonder about your goal in making those with religious convictions adopt your attitudes, especially regarding sexuality, if they are to do business in this society or express their opinions on social media. Such actions are not inclusive.

            The rhetorical statement that “everyone believes” that climate change is not merely a byproduct of human activity, but that it threatens life on earth and that to deny the latter proposition is tantamount to Holocaust denial, is one that leads to canceling views that look at the matter differently. This is not inclusive and is not conducive to healthy debate.

            I think this is a dangerous world, in which freedom has opponents in communism, authoritarianism, and Muslim militants. These dangers are far greater than imagined domestic opponents, usually labeled as enemies of democracy or fascist. I want the military strong enough to deal with such threats. I do not want the military engaged in foreign wars unless this country experiences direct threat. Thus, not only was Vietnam a mistake, but so were the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and so is the war in Ukraine. I do not want the military used as a social experiment by progressives.