America - a Christian nation

As a follow-up to Dennis Prager's take on the commercialism of Christmas, here's a piece by another Jew, Rabbi Mitchell Wohlberg (via Cassandra). Wohlberg follows a slightly broader theme, but he remakes my point about the secularism that has become Christmas (and Chanukah).

Similarly, Christmas deserves to be celebrated by Christians for what it is: A religious holiday, not a secular one. And it deserves to be observed as a religious holiday, not a secular one. I know many Jews psychologically bar their doors when someone goes on TV and says this is a Christian country. A statement like that bothers me as well. But sometimes we go overboard.

[…]

The fact of the matter is, America is not a Christian country, but an overwhelming majority of Americans are Christian! Why shouldn't Christmas be celebrated across our country? But I say it shouldn't be celebrated because it's a secular holiday. To me, that robs Christians of one of their most sacred days. It should be celebrated in America because 75% of Americans are Christians. And the other 25% aren't being forced to observe it. You want to get up early on Dec. 25th and go to work? Nobody's stopping you! But at the same time, nobody is forcing you to bring a Christmas tree into your home!

To me, the public celebrations of Christmas and Chanukah represent American diversity at its best. Far better that, than the banning of religious symbols as being practiced by the French. Why should children be taught to hide their religious identity rather than take pride in it?

[…]

So let's put the "Ch" back into Chanukah! And, yes, let Christians put Christ back into Christmas. Let us not attempt to secularize our religions, or to blur our religious differences. Let us learn to respect each other's religion. Then there will truly be "peace on earth and goodwill toward all men" … and women as well!

It always catches my attention when I hear someone say that America is not a Christian country, as Wohlberg does here. It's not that I disagree exactly. The term "Christian country" is so semantically vague that there's not much point in debating the issue.

Still, as a non-Christian, I have no problem with the notion of America being a Christian nation. I find it a positive and meaningful characterization, and I think our country is diminished as we grow to deny our Christian heritage.

So I'll use this as an excuse to trot out some quotes I've collected over the years from our Founding Fathers and other great leaders of the past. As I say, I am not a Christian, but I find great comfort in these words and in the faith of a people who are guided by them.

John Jay, First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (1816):

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty ... of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Supreme Court Justice David Brewer (1892):

"This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation ... We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth ... These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren (1954):

"I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing that the Good Book and the spirit of the Savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses ... Whether we look to the first Charter of Virginia ... or to the Charter of New England ... or to the Charter of Massachusetts Bay ... or to the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut ... the same objective is present ... a Christian land governed by Christian principles. I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under law, and the reservation of powers to the people ... I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country."

James Madison:

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not on the power of government...[but] upon the capacity of each and every one of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

John Quincy Adams:

"The greatest glory of the American Revolution was this: It connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity … Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?"

Woodrow Wilson:

"America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of the Holy Scripture."

Calvin Coolidge:

"[The Founding Fathers] were intent upon establishing a Christian commonwealth in accordance with the principle of self-government. They were an inspired body of men. It has been said that God sifted the nations that He might send choice grain into the wilderness ... Who can fail to see it in the hand of Destiny? Who can doubt that it has been guided by a Divine Providence?"

House Judiciary Committee (1854):

"[I]n this age, there is no substitute for Christianity...That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants."

Putting the X in Xmas

I don't often disagree with Dennis Prager, but I think his column on the commercialization of Christmas misses the point. Dennis argues that the marketing pressure put on us to buy presents is "overwhelmingly good and wholesome," and he takes to task those who decry the stripping of Christmas of its meaningfulness.

Dennis states the governing rule of criticism thusly: Before you criticize something, imagine its alternative.

This is a powerful formulation, and one I've seen Dennis use many times. The problem, in this case, is that he imagines only one alternative, and that he assumes that alternative is one where no stores put up Christmas decorations and no one buys gifts. He concludes that "[not] having a special time of year such as Christmas time, a major part of which is gift buying, would be an incalculable loss to society."

If that were the only alternative, if that were what critics were advocating, then I'd agree. But it's not. Those who complain of the commercialization of Christmas don't want to do away with it entirely. They simply want it toned down. They don't have a problem with the exchange of presents. They simply want that aspect of it put into perspective, so that the real significance of the holiday doesn't get smothered.

I agree with Dennis that "[s]pending one's money on presents for people is one of the nicest traditions in society." At the same time, the observance and reverence of our ancient, holy traditions are important to our spiritual wellness. Neither of these sentiments need overshadow the other. There is room for both and, in balance, both practices are enriched.

Kids need parents, not "pals"

Betsy links to an article in the Star Tribune (free registration required) about how our current crop of kids gets along better with their parents than previous generations. She takes this as good news, but I strongly suspect this is a negative trend.

A parent's primary job isn't to be a pal or to be "cool." It is to raise good kids who become responsible members of society. It's not hard to get kids to like and "relate" to you as a "pal." Simply abdicate authority. Let them have their way. Treat them as an "equal."

It's much harder to be liked while actually being a parent. Start demanding that your kid get good grades, observe a curfew, earn his privileges, respect authority, be responsible, and adhere to behavioral standards, and you'll see how much tougher it is. You're more apt to be considered The Enforcer than a "pal" or an "equal."

I respect Betsy, and from what I can tell she's done a great job with her kids. I have no doubt that she's raised them responsibly and has a wonderful relationship with them. But she's greatly misled in thinking this is the norm in these "parent as best friend" households. As the article itself observes:

[T]he notion that a teenager could consider a parent "cool" raises the eyebrows of many parents and experts in adolescent development. Being a "buddy parent" can render an adult insecure in his or her leadership, they caution, leaving parents afraid to crack down when their kid messes up. And children of buddy parents can become directionless young adults, experts say.

"What happens is, they lose a sense of authority with the kids, [and] the kids feel like they're equals in the family. What has happened with these kids is they become very overindulged," said Edina family psychologist Andrea Johnson.

"I've had clients that have gotten $200 a week allowance and they don't do anything for that. So these kids are growing up with no sense of responsibility, no sense of respect for authority, and no sense for how the outside world really works. They have this sense of entitlement."

…

These young people don't make good employees, Johnson said, because they have little respect for bosses, chafe at authority in the workplace and resent that they have to work at all. "They've been able to manipulate parents in a way that they can't manipulate outside," Johnson said.

As someone who lives with a teacher, and as a former teacher myself, I'm confident that this is exactly so. The number of kids who have no respect for authority—be it parents, teachers, or administrators--is astounding. I recall a recent survey that indicated that the number one complaint of teachers is not salary or class size or any of the "usual" complaints. It is the inability to actually teach, because so much time has to be spent on discipline and classroom management. This problem is severely compounded by a lack of support in these areas from administrators, many of which are incompetent, fearful of lawsuits, or who buy into the "buddy approach" themselves.

We've locked ourselves into a society that has replaced standards with feelings, and studies indicating a shift to kids viewing parents as "pals" and "equals" are not something to celebrate. Ask the parents you know if they would rather their kids like them or be good people and I suspect you'll find it's become more desirable to be a "pal" than a parent.

One of the big problems in our society is that we treat children as adults, which produces adults who act like children.

Seeing red and feeling blue

I saw an ad on Betsy's Page for "Bush Country" paraphernalia. I followed the link over to NewsMaxStore.com, where I found mouse pads and T-shirts for sale featuring the now famous "county by county" electoral map.

You've probably seen the map. When you break the country down into "red counties" (i.e. Bush-voting) and "blue counties" (Kerry-voting), you end up with a mostly red mass with smatterings of blue, primarily corresponding to extremely high population centers. It's an interesting look at America, and one which gives rise to many questions about who we are and why.

But what I wondered, as I looked at this merchandise, is why anyone would care to buy it. One ad states: "Let everyone—your friends, family and even liberals—know you're proud to be living in Bush Country!" and "You can win every argument with your liberal friends—just wear Bush Country and point to the map!"

I'm having trouble imagining what arguments this map might win, unless it's the question of whose supporters are scattered out over the largest area. That would be Bush, and I haven't heard anyone arguing otherwise.

Underneath the map are the words "My America!" I guess the intent is to boast or gloat over the impression that the country overwhelmingly supported Bush, to stick a thumb in the eye of liberals and show them how out of step they are with "real America." And if we elected the president based on land mass coverage, there might be something to this, but we don't.

So what's the point? As I say, the map itself is interesting and worth contemplating. But the message here is petty and divisive. This is the type of symbol losers typically cling to, applying an irrelevant measure when a relevant one doesn't serve the purpose. Gore supporters were scoffed at in 2000 for incessantly pointing out that he won the popular vote, but at least that claim had some basis in relevance.

We need to avoid nurturing an us versus them mentality. For conservatives to claim this is "my America" is as arrogant and condescending as the liberal elite are accused of being. This isn't a football game. It's not about who won and who lost, but about what's good for the country—all of the country—red and blue. We are not rivals; we are neighbors. We are Americans.

The ethics of education

Thomas Sowell discusses something very serious that is going on--or rather not going on--in our classrooms. As usual, he cuts to the heart of the issue and makes a lot of sense.

Are your kids web wise?

Please read this important column by Rebecca Hagelin.

The Improbable Visionary

Charles Krauthammer reminds us of the miracle that is Afghanistan, which he calls "the first graduate of the Bush Doctrine." For a decade, we ignored this mounting danger.

Then comes our Pearl Harbor and the sleeping giant awakes. Within 100 days, al Qaeda is routed and the Taliban overthrown. Then the first election in Afghanistan's history. Now the inauguration of a deeply respected democrat who, upon being sworn in as legitimate president of his country, thanks America for its liberation.

This, in Afghanistan, just three years ago not just hostile but untouchable. What do liberals have to say about this singular achievement by the Bush administration? That Afghanistan is growing poppies.

Good grief. This is news? "Afghanistan grows poppies" is the sun rising in the east. "Afghanistan inaugurates democratically elected president" is the sun rising in the west. Afghanistan has always grown poppies. What is Bush supposed to do? Send 100,000 GIs to eradicate the crop and incite a popular rebellion?

With the help of the media and the Left, George Bush has managed to overshadow his most colossal achievement by extending the effort into Iraq. It is a testament to this president that he was not content to sit upon his political laurels but rather was willing to risk his very presidency in a highly ambitious move toward a greater vision.

Let's not forget that those predicting doom in Iraq are the same who were certain of failure in Afghanistan. Bobby Kennedy spoke of dreaming of things that never were and asking why not. Ronald Reagan made the challenge: "If not us, who? And if not now, when?" In that same spirit, George Bush dreams of freedom and asks, if Afghanistan, why not Iraq?

History will look back approvingly upon this president. It will deem him an improbable visionary, who, like all visionaries, succeeded because he feared failing to reach much more than he feared overreaching.

George Bush has proclaimed this Liberty's Century, and I hope this phrase long outlives his presidency, for it too is a reminder, and a challenge, to the America of the future to reach high and to accomplish great things.

Students who use computers perform worse

Betsy links to a UK Register article about the use of computers in schools. According to the study cited:

• Students who use computers frequently at school perform worse than their peers at math and reading
• Those using computers several times a week at school perform "sizably and statistically significantly worse" than those who use them less often
• The more computers in student's home, the better the student's literacy performance
• The more computers student's home, the worse the student's math performance
• Computer ability is not related to student performance

Betsy, a public school teacher, concludes:

[T]he kids are spending more time on the bells and whistles and less time just learning the basic rules of math and practicing until they know their times tables instantaneously or simply just reading books. Kids managed to learn all this before the invention of the computers. The problems today will not be solved with more computers in schools.

Yep, exactly.

My local school district has repeatedly received national recognition for being one of the most technologically advanced districts in the country, yet student achievement remains poor. We've got to stop wasting so much time and money seeking new ways to reach kids and simply go back to the basics.

Offensive tolerance

Dennis Prager says one of the distinguishing characteristics of liberals is that they are so easily offended.

With the acknowledgment that there are many individual exceptions, a major defining characteristic of modern-day liberalism is the ease with which liberals take offense personally and/or on behalf of others.

Liberals regularly portray as offended women, African Americans, Jews, American Indians, gays and every other group liberals declare a minority, i.e., any group that votes Democrat -- no group that votes Republican, such as Mormons, Cuban Americans and Vietnamese Americans, is considered a "minority." All other groups are constantly warned that almost anything they say that is not patronizing of those groups is offensive (and therefore subject to litigation).

[C]onservatives are so used to being labeled as stupid, bigoted, ignorant, racist, homophobic, sexist, insensitive and intolerant that it is almost impossible to offend them. Moreover, the culture does not allow them to feel offended, since they are not an officially designated minority.

Yep, exactly.

Perhaps the key virtue espoused by the Left today is tolerance. A few weeks ago, while lazily flipping television channels, I came across a liberal speaker on CSPAN who found it incredible that Bill Bennett managed to assemble his entire “Book of Virtues” without including a chapter on tolerance. To liberals, she said, this was simply unthinkable.

The problem is that what the Left practices isn’t tolerance at all; it is intolerance in the name of tolerance. The Boy Scouts’ use of a public park that they spent millions of dollars improving is not to be tolerated on the grounds that the Scouts are so “intolerant” as to expect their members to actually embrace the principles upon which the Scouts were founded.

Christmastime must be referred to as “the holidays,” to show “tolerance” to those with minority beliefs. But it’s somehow unacceptable to ask those minorities to show a little tolerance in allowing the vast majority who celebrate the holiday to actually call it by its name. Speaking as a non-Christian, I find the Left’s rendering of “tolerance” highly intolerant and—well--offensive.

Tolerance is a two-way street. It is the duty of the majority to protect the rights of minorities to differ. But minorities have a duty also--a duty to recognize that they live in the majority culture. By definition, their right to swim against the current requires them to accept that their swim will be more difficult. And so their need to exercise tolerance of the customs of the majority is greater still.

More: John Leo has a column on the subject [via Betsy]

Villainous Company

Congratulations to Cassandra, who, after guest blogging in various places, has launched her very own blog called Villainous Company. Cassie has long been one of my favorite bloggers and was one of my inspirations in starting Mental Hiccups. She's prolific, she's smart, she's wise, and she's funny. Please go check her out.

Steroids in baseball

I haven’t paid very close attention to the recent steroid controversy in professional baseball, but I find the general philosophical issues somewhat interesting.

I wasn't at all surprised or disillusioned to learn that some of the players use steroids. It’s a competitive business, and millions of dollars are at stake. Under that kind of pressure, players will do whatever they can to gain an advantage.

I don't have strong feelings about steroid use in professional sports. Both the benefits and the dangers are well known, and my libertarian streak says that it's up to a player to balance the risks and rewards regarding his health and livelihood and make his own decision.

Many sports demand that we purchase success or enjoyment with portion of our physical health. Ever see a ballet dancer's feet? A mountain climber's hands? Look at the damage gymnasts do to their bodies.

And it's not limited to sports. Ever see a coal miner's lungs? (Or a cigarette smoker's for that matter.) I personally have several musician friends who have traded a fair amount of their hearing for their life's passion. Life is about trade-offs, and we each have to decide what is important and what we are willing to exchange for it.

That said, baseball players belong to a league. That league should have the right to set it's own rules and to act in it's own best interest. My guess is that it's in the league's best interest to be steroid free. Despite the reality, baseball fans cling to the image of pure competition, family fun, and fair play. Steroids taint all that. And of course if some players use steroids, others will have to start (whether they want to or not) if they wish to stay competitive. This trickles down into college and high school sports and before you know it, we've fouled up the whole wretched mess.

So you'd think the owners would strongly police the use of steroids and other drugs, but in fact they don't. From what I understand, in their last contract, Major League Baseball agreed to drug test each player only once a year, and at a time of the player's choosing. This is tantamount to not testing at all, of course.

Apparently the owners have decided that drug use isn't a big deal. Or perhaps they believe that that a few more homeruns will fill the seats better than a proud tradition. The idealist in me hopes they are wrong. The libertarian in me grants that it is their decision to make.

Which brings me to my final point. I saw John McCain on television a couple of nights ago declaring that if Major League Baseball doesn't fix this problem, Congress will. I suppose he's going to "fix" baseball just like he "fixed" freedom of speech under campaign finance reform. How did this man get it into his head that government is the answer to everything? Why doesn't he just declare himself a Democrat and start championing national health care as well?

McCain needs to go back and read his Constitution. The government has no business dictating how a non-government sports league should operate. Even if the league is doing something illegal, it's the job of the President, not the Congress, to enforce the laws.

Who is Ken Jennings?

Ken Jennings finally lost on Jeopardy tonight. I'm a big fan of the show, and Jennings' 70-something game winning streak was fun to watch. He's an amazing guy, with a good sense of humor. He also seems quite down to earth. I hope a lot of kids were watching him win and taking note of how he handled himself. It's hard to feel sorry for a guy who won over $2.5 million, but I'll miss him.

Jennings said something on one of the shows last week that I thought was interesting. Alex asked him how he felt winning all that money, and Jennings said it scared him a bit. He said that everyone has a dream of what they would do with their lives if they only had the money. Now he's got that money and has to face the fact that, if he fails to realize his dream, he's got no one to blame but himself.

I'm intrigued whenever I hear anyone speak of responsibility, and I find it interesting that he feels a self-imposed responsibility to do more with the money than simply "spend it." More power to him.