1943 conflict: Flag, First Amendment’s Establishment Clause

June 14, 2010

Historic irony: On Flag Day in 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of West Virginia vs. Barnette.

Billy Gobitis explained why he would not salute the U.S. flag, November 5, 1935 - Library of Congress collection

Image 1 - Billy Gobitas explained why he would not salute the U.S. flag, November 5, 1935 - Library of Congress collection

The case started earlier, in 1935, when a 10-year-old student in West Virginia, sticking to his Jehovah’s Witness principles, refused to salute the U.S. flag in a state-required pledge of allegiance. From the Library of Congress:

“I do not salute the flag because I have promised to do the will of God,” wrote ten-year-old Billy Gobitas (1925-1989) to the Minersville, Pennsylvania, school board in 1935. His refusal, and that of his sister Lillian (age twelve), touched off one of several constitutional legal cases delineating the tension between the state’s authority to require respect for national symbols and an individual’s right to freedom of speech and religion.

The Gobitas children attended a public school which, as did most public schools at that time, required all students to salute and pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States. The Gobitas children were members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a church that in 1935 believed that the ceremonial saluting of a national flag was a form of idolatry, a violation of the commandment in Exodus 20:4-6 that “thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, nor bow down to them. . . .” and forbidden as well by John 5:21 and Matthew 22:21. On 22 October 1935, Billy Gobitas acted on this belief and refused to participate in the daily flag and pledge ceremony. The next day Lillian Gobitas did the same. In this letter Billy Gobitas in his own hand explained his reasons to the school board, but on 6 November 1935, the directors of the Minersville School District voted to expel the two children for insubordination.

The Watch Tower Society of the Jehovah’s Witnesses sued on behalf of the children. The decisions of both the United States district court and court of appeals was in favor of the right of the children to refuse to salute. But in 1940 the United States Supreme Court by an eight-to-one vote reversed these lower court decisions and ruled that the government had the authority to compel respect for the flag as a key symbol of national unity. Minersville v. Gobitis [a printer’s error has enshrined a misspelling of the Gobitas name in legal records] was not, however, the last legal word on the subject. In 1943 the Supreme Court by a six-to-three vote in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, another case involving the Jehovah’s Witnesses, reconsidered its decision in Gobitis and held that the right of free speech guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution denies the government the authority to compel the saluting of the American flag or the recitation of the pledge of allegiance.

There had been strong public reaction against the Gobitis decision, which had been written by Justice Felix Frankfurter (1882-1965). In the court term immediately following the decision, Frankfurter noted in his scrapbook that Justice William O. Douglas (1898-1980) told him that Justice Hugo LaFayette Black (1886-1971) had changed his mind about the Gobitis case. Frankfurter asked, “Has Hugo been re-reading the Constitution during the summer?” Douglas replied, “No–he has been reading the papers.”1 The Library’s William Gobitas Papers showcase the perspective of a litigant, whereas the abstract legal considerations raised by Gobitis and other cases are represented in the papers of numerous Supreme Court justices held by the Manuscript Division.

1. Quoted in H. N. Hirsch, The Enigma of Felix Frankfurter (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 152.

John E. Haynes and David Wigdor, Manuscript Division

Second page, Billy Gobitiss explanation of why he will not salute the U.S. flag - Library of Congress

Second page, Billy Gobitas's explanation of why he will not salute the U.S. flag: "I do not salute the flag not because I do not love my country but I love my country and I love God more and I must obey His commandments." - Library of Congress

Supreme Court justices do not often get a chance to reconsider their decisions. For example, overturning Plessy vs. Ferguson from 1896 took until 1954 in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education. In the flag salute/pledge of allegiance cases Justice Hugo Black had a change of mind, and when a similar case from West Virginia fell on the Court’s doorstep in 1943, the earlier Gobitis decision was reversed.

Writing for the majority, Justice Robert H. Jackson said:

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

Jehovah’s Witnesses, and all other Americans, thereby have the right to refuse to say what they and their faith consider to be a vain oath.

And that, boys and girls, is what the First Amendment means.

Resources:


Cynthia Dunbar’s sham marriage of God and politics

June 7, 2010

Tony Whitson’s Curricublog has a rather lengthy, and very troubling, post about Texas State Board of Education member Cynthia Dunbar and her wilder gyrations on the issues of religion in education.  Go read it.  It’s got quotes, it’s got video, and if you don’t find it troubling you’re not paying attention.  There is an astounding smear of  Thomas Jefferson, the Constitution, and the principle of separation of state and church.

There’s a line usually attributed to Euripides, “Whom the gods destroy, they first make mad.”  That’s mad-crazy, not mad-angry.

What’s Dunbar done to upset the gods so?


Encore quote of the moment: George Washington on religious freedom

June 3, 2010

August 17, 1790, found U.S. President George Washington traveling the country, in Newport, Rhode Island.

Washington met with “the Hebrew Congregation” (Jewish group), and congregation leader (Rabbi?) Moses Seixas presented Washington with an address extolling Washington’s virtues, and the virtues of the new nation. Seixas noted past persecutions of Jews, and signalled a hopeful note:

Deprived as we heretofore have been of the invaluable rights of free citizens, we now (with a deep sense of gratitude to the Almighty disposer of all events) behold a government erected by the Majesty of the People–a Government which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance, but generously affording to All liberty of conscience and immunities of Citizenship, deeming every one, of whatever Nation, tongue, or language, equal parts of the great governmental machine.

George Washingtons reply to the Newport, RI, Hebrew congregation, August 17, 1790 - Library of Congress image

George Washington's reply to the Newport, RI, "Hebrew congregation," August 17, 1790 - Library of Congress image

President Washington responded with what may be regarded as his most powerful statement in support of religious freedom in the U.S. — and this was prior to the ratification of the First Amendment:

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it was the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily, the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

Below the fold, more history of the events and religious freedom, from the Library of Congress.

Read the rest of this entry »


Remembrance

May 31, 2010

I heard a sermon Sunday that made me stop to think.

Glenn Martin filled in at the pulpit of First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) of Duncanville while Dr. Mike Oden is “vacationing” (preparing to move).  Glenn grew up in this congregation.  He’s a year away from a masters degree from Brite Divinity School at Texas Christian University. I’ve sung with him in the choir for several years, and been privileged to play bells with him — he’s a good musician on the bells, and he can make saves in an  astounding number of ways.  So I was interested in what he had to say just because he’s a friend.

It was a good sermon, even were he not my friend.  He threw in some good historic references, which always gets my attention.

For the Memorial Day weekend, this is Glenn’s sermon:

May 5, 1868, General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic issued general order number 11 specifying May 30 to be designated for the purpose of placing flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery.  This was the first official recognition of Decoration Day or what we now know as Memorial Day.  Unofficially, the practice likely began years earlier in a number of places as communities recognized and honored those who had fallen in war.

Some even attribute such a memorial service to Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg.  Do you remember the reason the President was there?  There had been a battle at Gettysburg on [in July], and on November 19, 1863, and President Lincoln had come there to dedicate a portion of the field as a cemetery.  How long has it been since you thought of the some 260 words of Lincoln’s Gettysburg address which he would have delivered in about two minutes?

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.  Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.  But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow, this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us; that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

My topic for today is remembering.  That, in and of itself, deserves some attention.  What do I mean by remembering?  It is not so much the mental exercise of recalling factual details such as what you had for lunch yesterday or if you went to the grocery store on Monday or Tuesday.  The kind of remembering I’m getting at is much deeper than that.  It is the kind where you essentially choose to re-experience something or participate in a kind of reenactment.  Reminiscing after the death of a loved one is a good example of this kind of remembering.  We tell stories, stories that we have likely told many times before.  Stories that those who are reminiscing with us may be able to tell as well as we can.  Our intent is not to convey new information.  In some way, we are reliving or re-experiencing that story.

There is a formal word for this kind of remembering.  The word is anamnesis.  It derives from Greek, big surprise for those who know me.  The prefix means to go up or to come up; the root of the word is the word for mind; quite literally then we have the idea of coming up to the mind or as we say it, remembering.

Why do we remember?

First, it allows us to stay connected with our past.  This seems pretty obvious.  I wonder though if there might be something more to staying connected with our past than just the obvious.  Do you ever tell your children or grandchildren stories about your parents or grandparents?  Do they necessarily need to have known all the people in the story?

We occasionally talk of history and I know there are some people in this room that are history buffs.  I don’t personally put myself in this category.  There are elements of history that I find quite fascinating and a few topics that I have researched in much greater detail.  For me though, this has largely been a result of my interest in that other topic and researching some of its history was a natural part of exploring that topic.  The history buffs I’m talking about seem to exude history.  If you were to ask them about the Civil War for instance, they can tell you about military history, economic history of the time period, distinctions between the North and the South, things that were going on in the church, and even world events of the time.  Not only can they tell you details of these different kinds of histories, they can even suggest ways in which these details relate.

Every once in a while, someone will talk about “what really happened.”  I understand what they are getting at when they say that but is history what really happened or might it be more of what we remember of what happened?

Why do we remember?  The first reason is that it allows us to stay connected with our past.  The second reason is that it allows us to better understand our present.  Here again, this is fairly obvious though perhaps not quite as obvious as the first reason.

I think it is reasonably safe to say that most of us believe the idea of cause and effect.  We even have sayings about it.  For example, “What goes up must… come down” or how about “Look before you… leap” Exactly.

Have you ever thought of tracing cause and effect backwards? This thing over here was caused by such and such.  But that was the result of this other event.  And that event needed these other things to happen for it to occur.  Some of you are interested in genealogy.  This is a perfect example of cause and effect.  We wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for our parents.  Our grandparents had to be here for our parents to be here.  Our great-grandparents had to be here before our grandparents could be.  You get the idea.  What was the very first cause?  Science tends to point to the Big Bang.  I don’t think this is the first cause at all.  I am not advocating for or against this particular theory, I just don’t think the logic holds that this would be first.  If all the matter currently in our universe were contained in this alleged singularity, what caused it to go bang?  Even my question suggests a prior action of some sort.  It seems much more reasonable to me to locate the beginning point in God.  This is a separate thought however and we’ll have to leave it for another time.

Remembering gives us a way of understanding and interpreting our past so that we can then understand better why things are now the way they are.  Consider for a moment people who get amnesia.  The cause of the amnesia isn’t really important for the illustration.  Some of you have already recognized the Greek origins of this word too. There is same root for mind that I mentioned earlier plus the prefix “a” meaning without so we have without the mind.  People with amnesia have lost that connection with their past.  They have lost their sense of story and have the question of who am I.  Did you note the tense of the question?  It isn’t “who was I” as it would be for the past tense; it is “who am I.”  Very much the present tense, it suggests our self-identity is linked to remembering our past and where we have been.

The third reason we remember is that remembering allows us to look ahead to the future.

Today is the tomorrow we wondered about yesterday and tomorrow will then become the today we wonder about now.  In much the same way that we understand our present in light of our past, we similarly perceive the upcoming future as our past plus the actions we take.  Here is that cause and effect thing again.  I’m not going to dwell too long here.  I want to move to more of a practical example from our faith.

Let’s summarize quickly.  I’ve said that we remember for 3 reasons.
1. It allows us to stay connected with our past
2. It allows us to better understand our present
3. It allows us to look ahead to the future

More importantly, remembering allows us to see God.

The scripture I chose for today was in the context of the Passover.  The Israelites were to remember this day when God delivered them from bondage in Egypt.  Every year, they would celebrate the feast of unleavened bread and reenact the story.

For us, this story is part of the past.  It is also part of the past that we recognize that Jesus added to this narrative.  We remember it every Sunday.  Because we do remember it every Sunday, this story is part of our present.  Jesus was celebrating the Passover with his disciples.  While they were eating, Jesus took the bread, gave thanks, and gave it to them saying “This is my body.  Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way after supper, he took the cup saying “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.  Do this as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”  You remember the word anamnesis that I mentioned earlier.  The Greek word we translate as remembrance here is this same word.  It is as though Jesus was saying that we should experientially reenact, relive, and remember every time we come to communion.

The apostle Paul further states in 1 Cor 11 that when we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim the Lord’s death until he returns.  This addresses both the present and the future.  I know a number of you took Dr. Mike’s class on Revelation.  The marriage supper of the Lamb (Revelation 19) also addresses the future.

In remembering, we can recall God’s mighty deeds.  We can be assured of God’s continuing and abiding presence with us.  And we can anticipate a future with numerous possibilities.

I started off recalling some of the history around Memorial Day.  In 1971, federal observance of Memorial Day was changed from May 30 to the last Monday in May.  Hooray for 3 day weekends.

By 2000, a number of Americans had lost the sense of the true meaning of the day.  In an effort to reeducate and remind us, the National Moment of Remembrance resolution was passed.  It asks that at 3:00 p.m. local time, for all Americans “To voluntarily and informally observe in their own way a Moment of remembrance and respect, pausing from whatever they are doing for a moment of silence or listening to Taps.”  Since we are Christians, I will give you another alternative to consider.  Place commemoration of the day under the auspices of God and share a communion service with whomever is with you and remember.  Thanks be to God.

Nota bene: I said it made me think.  That’s why I’ve asked Glenn for permission to post it here, to keep me thinking, and maybe make you think, too.  For example, Glenn lists three reasons remembering is valuable.  They parallel the tactic business consultants use to get businesses to think ahead — look back at what happened in the past, consider the condition of the company today, then look ahead to see what is in store for the company, and think about how the company can face challenges identified.

What do you think about remembrance, and remembering, and Glenn’s advice?

1 SermonScript5/30/2010 1
1 1
M ay 5,1868,GeneralJohn Logan,nationalcom m anderofthe G rand Arm y ofthe Republic issued generalordernum ber11specifying M ay 30 to be designated for the purpose ofplacing flow ersorotherw ise decorating the gravesofUnion and Confederate soldiersatArlington NationalCem etery.Thisw asthe firstoficial recognition ofDecoration Day orw hatw e now know as M em orialDay. Unoficialy,the practice likely began yearsearlierin a num berofplacesas com m unities recognized and honored those w ho had falen in w ar. Som e even attribute such a m em orialservice to Abraham Lincoln atGettysburg. Do you rem em berthe reason the Presidentw asthere? There had been a battle at Gettysburg on Novem ber19,1863,and PresidentLincoln had com e there to dedicate a portion ofthe field asa cem etery. How long has itbeen since you thoughtofthe som e 260 w ordsofLincoln’sGettysburg addressw hich he w ould have delivered in abouttw o m inutes? Fourscore and seven yearsago ourfathers broughtforth on thiscontinenta new nation,conceived in liberty,and dedicated to the proposition thatalm en are created equal. Now w e are engaged in a greatcivilw ar,testing w hetherthat nation,orany nation so conceived and so dedicated,can long endure.W e are m et on a greatbattle-field ofthatw ar.W e have com e to dedicate a portion ofthat field asa finalresting-place forthose w ho gave theirlivesthatthatnation m ight live.Itisaltogetherfitting and properthatw e should do this. But,in a larger sense,w e cannotdedicate…w e cannotconsecrate…w e cannothalow …this ground.The brave m en,living and dead,w ho struggled here,have consecrated it farabove ourpoorpow erto add ordetract.The w orld w illittle note norlong rem em berw hatw e say here,butitcan neverforgetw hatthey did here.Itisfor us,the living,rather,to be dedicated here to the unfinished w orkw hich they w ho foughthere have thusfarso nobly advanced.Itis ratherforusto be here dedicated to the greattask rem aining before us…thatfrom these honored dead w e take increased devotion to thatcause forw hich they gave the lastfulm easure
2 SermonScript5/30/2010 2
2 2
ofdevotion;thatw e here highly resolve thatthese dead shalnothave died in vain;thatthis nation,underGod,shalhave a new birth offreedom ;and that governm entofthe people,by the people,forthe people,shalnotperish from the earth. M y topicfortoday is rem em bering.That,in and ofitself,deservessom e attention. W hatdo Im ean by rem em bering? Itis notso m uch the m entalexercise of recaling factualdetailssuch asw hatyou had forlunch yesterday orifyou w entto the grocery store on M onday orTuesday.The kind ofrem em bering I’m getting at is m uch deeperthan that. Itisthe kind w here you essentialy choose to re- experience som ething orparticipate in a kind ofreenactm ent. Rem iniscing after the death ofa loved one isa good exam ple ofthis kind ofrem em bering.W e tel stories,storiesthatw e have likely told m any tim es before.Storiesthatthose w ho are rem iniscing w ith us m ay be able to telasw elasw e can.O urintentis notto convey new inform ation. In som e w ay,w e are reliving orre-experiencing that story. There isa form alw ord forthis kind ofrem em bering.The w ord isanam nesis. It derivesfrom G reek,big surprise forthose w ho know m e.The prefix m eansto go up orto com e up;the rootofthe w ord isthe w ord form ind;quite literaly then w e have the idea ofcom ing up to the m ind orasw e say it,rem em bering. W hy do w e rem em ber? First,italow s usto stay connected w ith ourpast.Thisseem s pretty obvious. I w onderthough ifthere m ightbe som ething m ore to staying connected w ith our pastthanjustthe obvious. Do you evertelyourchildren orgrandchildren stories aboutyourparentsorgrandparents? Do they necessarily need to have know n al the people in the story? W e occasionaly talkofhistory and Iknow there are som e people in this room that are history bufs. Idon’tpersonaly putm yselfin thiscategory.There are
3 SermonScript5/30/2010 3
3 3
elem entsofhistory thatIfind quite fascinating and a few topicsthatIhave researched in m uch greaterdetail. Form e though,this has largely been a resultof m y interestin thatothertopicand researching som e ofits history w asa natural partofexploring thattopic.The history bufs I’m talking aboutseem to exude history. Ifyou w ere to askthem aboutthe CivilW arforinstance,they can telyou aboutm ilitary history,econom ic history ofthe tim e period,distinctions betw een the North and the South,thingsthatw ere going on in the church,and even w orld eventsofthe tim e. Notonly can they telyou detailsofthese diferentkindsof histories,they can even suggestw ays in w hich these details relate. Every once in a w hile,som eone w iltalkabout“w hatrealy happened.” I understand w hatthey are getting atw hen they say thatbutis history w hatrealy happened orm ightitbe m ore ofw hatw e rem em berofw hathappened? W hy do w e rem em ber? The firstreason isthatitalow s usto stay connected w ith ourpast.The second reason isthatitalow s usto betterunderstand ourpresent. Here again,this isfairly obviousthough perhaps notquite asobviousasthe first reason. Ithink itis reasonably safe to say thatm ostofus believe the idea ofcause and efect.W e even have sayingsaboutit. Forexam ple,“W hatgoes up m ust… com e dow n” orhow about“Look before you… leap” Exactly. Have you everthoughtoftracing cause and efectbackw ards?Thisthing overhere w ascaused by such and such. Butthatw asthe resultofthisotherevent.And that eventneeded these otherthingsto happen foritto occur.Som e ofyou are interested in genealogy.This isa perfectexam ple ofcause and efect.W e w ouldn’tbe here ifitw eren’tforourparents.O urgrandparents had to be here forourparentsto be here.O urgreat-grandparents had to be here before our grandparentscould be.You getthe idea.W hatw asthe very firstcause? Science tendsto pointto the Big Bang. Idon’tthinkthis isthe firstcause atal. Iam not
4 SermonScript5/30/2010 4
4 4
advocating fororagainstthis particulartheory,Ijustdon’tthinkthe logic holds thatthisw ould be first. Ifalthe m atercurrently in ouruniverse w ere contained in thisaleged singularity,w hatcaused itto go bang? Even m y question suggestsa prioraction ofsom e sort. Itseem s m uch m ore reasonable to m e to locate the beginning pointin God.This isa separate thoughthow everand w e’lhave to leave itforanothertim e. Rem em bering gives usa w ay ofunderstanding and interpreting ourpastso that w e can then understand betterw hy thingsare now the w ay they are.Considerfor a m om entpeople w ho getam nesia.The cause ofthe am nesia isn’trealy im portantforthe ilustration.Som e ofyou have already recognized the G reek originsofthisw ord too.There issam e rootform ind thatIm entioned earlierplus the prefix “a” m eaning w ithoutso w e have w ithoutthe m ind. People w ith am nesia have lostthatconnection w ith theirpast.They have losttheirsense of story and have the question ofw ho am I. Did you note the tense ofthe question? Itisn’t“w ho w as I” as itw ould be forthe pasttense;itis “w ho am I.” Very m uch the presenttense,itsuggestsourself-identity is linked to rem em bering ourpast and w here w e have been. The third reason w e rem em beristhatrem em bering alow s usto lookahead to the future. Today isthe tom orrow w e w ondered aboutyesterday and tom orrow w ilthen becom e the today w e w onderaboutnow . In m uch the sam e w ay thatw e understand ourpresentin lightofourpast,w e sim ilarly perceive the upcom ing future asourpastplusthe actionsw e take. Here isthatcause and efectthing again. I’m notgoing to dw eltoo long here. Iw antto m ove to m ore ofa practical exam ple from ourfaith. Let’ssum m arize quickly. I’ve said thatw e rem em berfor3 reasons. 1.Italow s usto stay connected w ith ourpast
5 SermonScript5/30/2010 5
5 5
2.Italow s usto betterunderstand ourpresent 3.Italow s usto lookahead to the future M ore im portantly,rem em bering alow s usto see God. The scripture Ichose fortoday w as in the contextofthe Passover.The Israelites w ere to rem em berthisday w hen God delivered them from bondage in Egypt. Every year,they w ould celebrate the feastofunleavened bread and reenactthe story. Forus,thisstory is partofthe past. Itisalso partofthe pastthatw e recognize thatJesusadded to this narrative.W e rem em beritevery Sunday. Because w e do rem em beritevery Sunday,thisstory is partofourpresent.Jesusw ascelebrating the Passoverw ith hisdisciples.W hile they w ere eating,Jesustookthe bread,gave thanks,and gave itto them saying “This is m y body. Do this in rem em brance of m e.” In the sam e w ay aftersupper,he tookthe cup saying “Thiscup isthe new covenantin m y blood. Do thisasoften asyou drink it,in rem em brance ofm e.” You rem em berthe w ord anam nesisthatIm entioned earlier.The G reekw ord w e translate as rem em brance here isthissam e w ord. ItisasthoughJesusw assaying thatw e should experientialy reenact,relive,and rem em berevery tim e w e com e to com m union. The apostle Paulfurtherstates in 1 Cor11thatw hen w e eatthis bread and drink thiscup w e proclaim the Lord’sdeath untilhe returns.Thisaddresses both the presentand the future. Iknow a num berofyou took Dr.M ike’sclasson Revelation.The m arriage supperofthe Lam b (Revelation 19)also addressesthe future. In rem em bering,w e can recalGod’s m ighty deeds.W e can be assured ofGod’s continuing and abiding presence w ith us.And w e can anticipate a future w ith num erous possibilities.
6 SermonScript5/30/2010 6
6 6
Istarted ofrecaling som e ofthe history around M em orialDay. vaoccIrBMlineooosynbsatadnmlse2ouyesn0nnmlr.irudee0tivntHasuef0aigfpoonrr,noie.ointlacoyrocetrPwntnaalT,toayuansoapcfemsdfaperoMrepsubvicrna.eseei”ocf3sdirmoenmsSudogerowicmamfdnfaryAicri.aettaoewehmlmIllmtywDweaeoaoeanewrrhsidybakckoahestaswmrraeinoenettardeshmenvCssvaveho.hiectenafirhradrnditastitshttunlh3oeihwsagese,epndytititdsmarthah,yohefrIyleerwouwooNcsdnnmuaiaedoltlwlaneiiMgtonsnariiegvndmayteayhfoaeroleefy3,MrMotmf0aaohuouoetersmomammaptnoteerlibolchumnneAeteettrhsem.olomeanoeffTrstfeIrtRnharoaGieceaMlfn1toammne9sidonnkeir7elsngsneam1mda”nbon,TtabcebdffioyeevrrtatsaedhioohnnneetacrGcoredraeoealdya..

Hired back, Mississippi teacher promises to continue leading prayers in classroom

May 29, 2010

Religious terrorists kidnapped the First Amendment while it was visiting Meadville, Mississippi, last week.

Local resident’s expressed support for the kidnappers.

The teacher whose job was on the block for leading prayers in violation of federal law protecting students from school-imposed religion, was hired back on a technicality:  There was no formal, written warning to her that leading prayers is against the law (though it’s in every teacher training program).

The teacher, Alice Hawley, promised to continue to lead prayers in class, in violation of the law.

The newspaper did not ask whether she will follow any laws in her classroom.

On the other hand, one might take some hope that a teacher who flagrantly flouts the law in this case makes the path clear for Texas teachers to flout the standards voted in by the Texas State Soviet of Education, who would nominally be colleagues-in-crucifying to Ms. Hawley.  If you can’t fire a teacher for violating the Constitution and rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, certainly you can’t fire a teacher for teaching history instead of Don McLeroy’s claim that the U.S. Constitution says the federal government can dictate religion to us.

Mississippi:  Fighting for its ranking among U.S. states, in educational achievement.  (Last place)


Faith like a cannonball

April 6, 2010

Oh, this will cause a lot of consternation in church offices across the world.


Quote of the moment: Martin Niemöller, “. . . I did not speak out . . .”

February 26, 2010

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

— Pastor Martin Niemöller

Martin Niemoller on a postage stamp, painted by Gerd Aretz in 1992 - Wikipedia

German theologian and Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemöller on a postage stamp, painted by Gerd Aretz in 1992 – Wikipedia

It’s spring, and school curricula turn to the Holocaust, in English, in world history, and in U.S. history.

Martin Niemöller’s poem registers powerfully for most people — often people do not remember exactly who said it.  I have seen it attributed to Deitrich Bonhoeffer (who worked with Niemöller in opposing some Nazi programs), Albert Einstein, Reinhold Niebuhr, Albert Schweitzer, Elie Wiesel, and an “anonymous inmate in a concentration camp.”

Niemöller and his actions generate controversy — did he ever act forcefully enough?  Did his actions atone for his earlier inactions?  Could anything ever atone for not having seen through Hitler and opposing Naziism from the start?  For those discussion reasons, I think it’s important to keep the poem attributed to Niemöller.  The facts of his life, his times, and his creation of this poem, go beyond anything anyone could make up.  The real story sheds light.

Resources:

Save

Save


Texas social studies standards: Beware the ides of January

January 15, 2010

News reports in Texas this morning said that several of the right-wing, gut-education-standards changes proposed to social studies standards had failed in voting on Thursday, January 14.  But, much more was to be done, and the SBOE adjourned early last night to continue voting today.

In a pattern familiar to education advocates in Texas, board member Don McLeroy (R-Pluto) today proposed a long series of amendments, apparently off-the-cuff, but probably written up in earlier strategy sessions.  These last-minute amendments tend to pass having missed any serious scrutiny.

Will he be able to ruin Texas education for the next decade?  I cannot follow the live webcasts; Steve Schafersman is working to stop the amendments, rather than merely blog about them.  We probably won’t know the extent of the damage for weeks.  McLeroy cherishes his role as a Port-au-Prince-style earthquake to Texas education. (Pure coincidence, I’m sure — Ed Brayton summarizes McLeroy’s politics today.)

Watch that space, and other news sources.  I may provide updates here, as I can get information.


Merry Christmas, to the “right” people (not you, Mr. President)

December 25, 2009

You can’t make this stuff up.

Here’s a generally mean-spirited post trying to make hay from the general disinformation about about Obama’s faith and otherwise trying to stir hatred.  (Here’s more of the flap on the ornaments on the White House’s Blue Room tree, and I’ve got a response in comments at this post.)

Followed by this “glowing” cross.

Merry Christmas.  “We dare you,” the Right Perspective says.

Make the right wing extremely angry today:  Have a good and merry Christmas.  Be tolerant.  Think.  Smile.  Act kindly.  It’ll make ’em crazy.

Also:


Christian pastor “wants his country back”

December 21, 2009

I get e-mail — sometimes because I belong to a list-serv.  Some of those provoke thought.

Bill Longman sent some thoughts from Jan Linn, a Disciples of Christ pastor and author of The Jesus Connection and What’s Wrong With the Christian Right.

Bill wrote, “I’m going to foward this seasonal meditation from pastor Jan Linn reflecting thoughts about our lack of concern for the common good as seen in the battle for health care legislation.”

A Christmas Wish

By Jan Linn

This past summer I heard a woman attending a town hall meeting tearfully say, “I want my country back.” So do I. That is my Christmas wish this year. I want my country back.

I want to experience the pride I used to feel at the sight of the American flag being raised as a sign of victory as a proud American athlete stood tall on the center platform at the Olympics.

I want to feel that catch in my throat I used to feel when the star spangled banner was played just before the start of a football game.

I want to experience again the excitement I felt when our college team had the chance to meet the governor of our state before the season started and to hear him speak about his pride in the kind of university we were representing.

I want to see the workers of our nation valued as they once were for all they do to make their companies a success.

I want to take my grandson fishing so he can enjoy the excitement and fun of  telling everyone about the fish he caught that gets bigger every time he tells it.

I want to go to church on Christmas Eve and give thanks to God for all people who come to the Communion Table, regardless of creed, nationality, or sexual orientation.

I want to be able to tell children of all different races, religion, sizes and shapes, that all of them have an equal chance to do whatever they can with the abilities they have

I want the rest of the world to know that we appreciate who they are just as we want them to appreciate who we are.

Yes, my Christmas wish this year is to have my country back, too, only I know based on what this woman said before she said she wanted her country back that her reasons and mine are very different.

You see, I want my country back so our nation’s top athletes will once again want to compete fairly and live up to the responsibilities of being the role models they are to our youth.

I want my country back so that the loyal opposition will once again be part of how we understand the meaning of patriotism.

This Christmas my wish is to have my country back so that politicians from opposing parties and ideologies will stop demonizing one another and respectfully disagree about what is best for our country.

I want my country back so that honest work is rewarded rather than exploited by those for whom enough is never enough.

I want my country back so the water I take my grandson to fish in will not be contaminated by toxic runoff, and that companies with chemical and nuclear waste will know they will be shown no mercy if they do not ensure it is stored safely.

I want my country back so all Christians can know that our faith has a place among the religions of the world without having to prove they are wrong and we are right.

I want my country back so every child in this nation will know he or she is loved and valued, secure and protected as every child should be.

My Christmas wish is to have my country back so that America can once again be a beacon of hope and light to other nations, not because we think we are better than they are, but because we understand the responsibilities that go with being the heirs of those who have sacrificed so much to give us the land we now have.

I want my country back so I can help make room for everyone who agrees with me and everyone who does not, knowing that it is only when we keep our differences from becoming divisions that we can be a strong and enduring democracy.

Most of all, my Christmas wish is to have my country back so we can be a people who don’t just talk about justice and peace, but work for both, and to do everything we can to preserve our nation, make it better, and pass on its enduring values to the next generation.

So, yes, my wish this Christmas is to have my country back, because for me what that means to me goes to the heart of how I understand what celebrating the birth of Jesus is truly means.

Amen.


Jesus knocks on Dobson’s door: No room at the Dobson Inn

December 15, 2009

Dr. James Dobson profits from his image as a great Christian leader.  His campus of enterprises in Colorado Springs is one of the largest businesses in the city.

But this does not compute:  Colorado Springs has several hundred people homeless in the city, with no place to sleep but public parks and other public places.  There are more homeless than there are facilities to help them.

Colorado Springs officials consider a law to make it illegal to “camp” in a public place inside the city.  One person died from the cold recently.  Whole families are camping in some places.  [Good news before I hit the “send” button:  Colorado Springs decided to shelve action on the ordinance now, and work to find solutions instead, until February.]

Colorado Springs Salvation Army officials have a shelter,  but it can’t handle the homeless population.

Robert Moran, an advocate for the homeless, said the city this year has been doing a “great job” showing compassion toward homeless people. Among the examples is the Police Department’s Homeless Outreach Team, he said. But the proposed no-camping law would take those efforts in a “completely opposite” direction, Moran said.

“It would be criminalizing homelessness,” he said. “People have the right to survive, and people that are homeless are part of our community as much as anybody else.”

The Salvation Army’s shelter only has 220 beds, he said.

“We have more people than that living in tents in the Springs,” he said.

James Dobson, you with that big campus of buildings:  What do you think Jesus would do in this situation?

Focus on the Family's visitor center in Colorado Springs - photo by David Shankbone - Wikimedia image

Focus on the Family's visitor center in Colorado Springs - photo by David Shankbone - Wikimedia image

Why are there hungry and homeless families freezing to death in the city where James Dobson has lots of space?  What about the other national religious organizations?

Other information:

Help in Colorado Springs

Other news

Somebody’s knockin’; let ’em in:

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl


Rick Warren trips over commandment against murder

December 11, 2009

Under Pressure, Rick Warren Condemns Uganda Anti-Gay Bill.”

Why so much trouble?  Isn’t there, like, a commandment against murder?

Still, I suppose it’s progress.  Now if we could just get the Congressional Christian Caucusthe ominously-named “Family” — to come out against murder, we’ll be making real progress.


Who invented Santa Claus? Who really wrote the “Night Before Christmas?”

December 7, 2009

An encore post from 2007

Thomas Nast invented Santa Claus? Clement C. Moore didn’t write the famous poem that starts out, “‘Twas the night before Christmas, and all through the house . . . ?”

The murky waters of history from Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub soak even our most cherished ideas and traditions.

But isn’t that part of the fun of history?

Santa Claus delivers to Union soldiers, "Santa Claus in Camp" - Thomas Nast, Harper's Weekly, Jan 3, 1863
Thomas Nast’s first published drawing featuring Santa Claus; for Harper’s Weekly, “A Journal of Civilization,” January 3, 1863 Nast portrayed the elf distributing packages to Union troops: “Santa Claus in camp.” Nast (1840-1904) was 23 when he drew this image.

Yes, Virginia (and California, too)! Thomas Nast created the image of Santa Claus most of us in the U.S. know today. Perhaps even more significant than his campaign against the graft of Boss Tweed, Nast’s popularization of a fat, jolly elf who delivers good things to people for Christmas makes one of the great stories in commercial illustration. Nast’s cartoons, mostly for the popular news publication Harper’s Weekly, created many of the conventions of modern political cartooning and modeled the way in which an illustrator could campaign for good, with his campaign against the graft of Tammany Hall and Tweed. But Nast’s popular vision of Santa Claus can be said to be the foundation for the modern mercantile flurry around Christmas.

Nast is probably ensconced in a cartoonists’ hall of fame. Perhaps he should be in a business or sales hall of fame, too.  [See also Bill Casselman’s page, “The Man Who Designed Santa Claus.]

Nast’s drawings probably drew some inspiration from the poem, “Account of a Visit from St. Nicholas,” traditionally attributed to Clement C. Moore, a New York City lawyer, published in 1822. The poem is among the earliest to describe the elf dressed in fur, and magically coming down a chimney to leave toys for children; the poem invented the reindeer-pulled sleigh.

Modern analysis suggests the poem was not the work of Moore, and many critics and historians now attribute it to Major Henry Livingston, Jr. (1748-1828) following sleuthing by Vassar College Prof. Don Foster in 2000. Fortunately for us, we do not need to be partisans in such a query to enjoy the poem (a complete copy of which is below the fold).

The Library of Congress still gives Moore the credit. When disputes arise over who wrote about the night before Christmas, is it any wonder more controversial topics produce bigger and louder disputes among historians?

Moore was not known for being a poet. The popular story is that he wrote it on the spur of the moment:

Moore is thought to have composed the tale, now popularly known as “The Night Before Christmas,” on December 24, 1822, while traveling home from Greenwich Village, where he had bought a turkey for his family’s Christmas dinner.

Inspired by the plump, bearded Dutchman who took him by sleigh on his errand through the snow-covered streets of New York City, Moore penned A Visit from St. Nicholas for the amusement of his six children, with whom he shared the poem that evening. His vision of St. Nicholas draws upon Dutch-American and Norwegian traditions of a magical, gift-giving figure who appears at Christmas time, as well as the German legend of a visitor who enters homes through chimneys.

Again from the Library of Congress, we get information that suggests that Moore was a minor celebrity from a well-known family with historical ties that would make a good “connections” exercise in a high school history class, perhaps (”the link from Aaron Burr’s treason to Santa Claus?”): (read more, below the fold)

Clement Moore was born in 1779 into a prominent New York family. His father, Benjamin Moore, president of Columbia University, in his role as Episcopal Bishop of New York participated in the inauguration of George Washington as the nation’s first president. The elder Moore also administered last rites to Alexander Hamilton after he was mortally wounded in a tragic duel with Aaron Burr.

A graduate of Columbia, Clement Moore was a scholar of Hebrew and a professor of Oriental and Greek literature at the General Theological Seminary in Manhattan. [See comment from Pam Bumsted below for more on Moore.] He is said to have been embarrassed by the light-hearted verse, which was made public without his knowledge in December 1823. Moore did not publish it under his name until 1844.

Tonight, American children will be tucked in under their blankets and quilts and read this beloved poem as a last “sugarplum” before slipping into dreamland. Before they drift off, treat them to a message from Santa, recorded by the Thomas Edison Company in 1922.

Santa Claus Hides in Your Phonograph
By Arthur A. Penn, Performed by Harry E. Humphrey.
Edison, 1922.
Coupling date: 6/20/1922. Cutout date: 10/31/1929.
Inventing Entertainment: The Motion Pictures and Sound Recordings of the Edison Companies

Listen to this recording (RealAudio Format)

Listen to this recording (wav Format, 8,471 Kb)

But Henry Livingston was no less noble or historic. He hailed from the Livingtons of the Hudson Valley (one of whose farms is now occupied by Camp Rising Sun of the Louis August Jonas Foundation, a place where I spent four amazing summers teaching swimming and lifesaving). Livingston’s biography at the University of Toronto site offers another path for a connections exercise (”What connects the Declaration of Independence, the American invasion of Canada, the famous poem about a visit from St. Nick, and George W. Bush?”):

Henry Livingston Jr. was born in Poughkeepsie, New York, on Oct. 13, 1748. The Livingston family was one of the important colonial and revolutionary families of New York. The Poughkeepsie branch, descended from Gilbert, the youngest son of Robert Livingston, 1st Lord of Livingston Manor, was not as well off as the more well-known branches, descended from sons Robert and Philip. Two other descendants of Gilbert Livingston, President George Walker Herbert Bush and his son, President-Elect George W. Bush, though, have done their share to bring attention to this line. Henry’s brother, Rev. John Henry Livingston, entered Yale at the age of 12, and was able to unite the Dutch and American branches of the Dutch Reformed Church. At the time of his death, Rev. Livingston was president of Rutgers University. Henry’s father and brother Gilbert were involved in New York politics, and Henry’s granduncle was New York’s first Lt. Governor. But the law was the natural home for many of Henry’s family. His brother-in-law, Judge Jonas Platt, was an unsuccessful candidate for governor, as was his daughter Elizabeth’s husband, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Smith Thompson. Henry’s grandson, Sidney Breese, was Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court.

Known for his encyclopedic knowledge and his love of literature, Henry Livingston was a farmer, surveyor and Justice of the Peace, a judicial position dealing with financially limited criminal and civil cases. One of the first New Yorkers to enlist in the Revolutionary Army in 1775, Major Henry Livingston accompanied his cousin’s husband, General Montgomery, in his campaign up the Hudson River to invade Canada, leaving behind his new wife, Sarah Welles, and their week-old baby, on his Poughkeepsie property, Locust Grove. Baby Catherine was the subject of the first poem currently known by Major Livingston. Following this campaign, Livingston was involved in the War as a Commissioner of Sequestration, appropriating lands owned by British loyalists and selling them for the revolutionary cause. It was in the period following Sarah’s early death in 1783, that Major Livingston published most of his poems and prose, anonymously or under the pseudonym of R. Ten years after the death of Sarah, Henry married Jane Patterson, the daughter of a Dutchess County politician and sister of his next-door neighbor. Between both wives, Henry fathered twelve children. He published his good-natured, often occasional verse from 1787 in many journals, including Political Barometer, Poughkeepsie Journal, and New-York Magazine. His most famous poem, “Account of a Visit from St. Nicholas,” was until 2000 thought to have been the work of Clement Clarke Moore (1779-1863), who published it with his collected poems in 1844. Livingston died Feb. 29, 1828.

More on Henry Livingston and his authorship of the Christmas poem here.

Thomas Nast, Merry Old Santa Claus, Harper's Weekly, Jan 1, 1881

Our views of Santa Claus owe a great deal also to the Coca-Cola advertising campaign. Coca-Cola first noted Santa’s use of the drink in a 1922 campaign to suggest Coke was a year-round drink (100 years after the publication of Livingston’s poem). The company’s on-line archives gives details:

In 1930, artist Fred Mizen painted a department store Santa in a crowd drinking a bottle of Coke. The ad featured the world’s largest soda fountain, which was located in the department store of Famous Barr Co. in St. Louis, Mo. Mizen’s painting was used in print ads that Christmas season, appearing in The Saturday Evening Post in December 1930.

1936 Coca-Cola Santa cardboard store display

  • 1936 Coca-Cola Santa cardboard store display

Archie Lee, the D’Arcy Advertising Agency executive working with The Coca-Cola Company, wanted the next campaign to show a wholesome Santa as both realistic and symbolic. In 1931, The Coca-Cola Company commissioned Michigan-born illustrator Haddon Sundblom to develop advertising images using Santa Claus — showing Santa himself, not a man dressed as Santa, as Mizen’s work had portrayed him.
1942 original oil painting - 'They Remembered Me'

  • 1942 original oil painting – ‘They Remembered Me’

For inspiration, Sundblom turned to Clement Clark Moore’s 1822 poem “A Visit From St. Nicholas” (commonly called “‘Twas the Night Before Christmas”). Moore’s description of St. Nick led to an image of Santa that was warm, friendly, pleasantly plump and human. For the next 33 years, Sundblom painted portraits of Santa that helped to create the modern image of Santa — an interpretation that today lives on in the minds of people of all ages, all over the world.

Santa Claus is a controversial figure. Debates still rage among parents about the wisdom of allowing the elf into the family’s home, and under what conditions. Theologians worry that the celebration of Christmas is diluted by the imagery. Other faiths worry that the secular, cultural impact of Santa Claus damages their own faiths (few other faiths have such a popular figure, and even atheists generally give gifts and participate in Christmas rituals such as putting up a decorated tree).

For over 100 years, Santa Claus has been a popular part of commercial, cultural and religious life in America. Has any other icon endured so long, or so well?

________________________
Below:
From the University of Toronto Library’s Representative Poetry Online

Major Henry Livingston, Jr. (1748-1828)

Account of a Visit from St. Nicholas

1 ‘Twas the night before Christmas, when all thro’ the house,
2 Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse;
3 The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,
4 In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there;
5 The children were nestled all snug in their beds,
6 While visions of sugar plums danc’d in their heads,
7 And Mama in her ‘kerchief, and I in my cap,
8 Had just settled our brains for a long winter’s nap –
9 When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,
10 I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter.
11 Away to the window I flew like a flash,
12 Tore open the shutters, and threw up the sash.
13 The moon on the breast of the new fallen snow,
14 Gave the lustre of mid-day to objects below;
15 When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,
16 But a miniature sleigh, and eight tiny rein-deer,
17 With a little old driver, so lively and quick,
18 I knew in a moment it must be St. Nick.
19 More rapid than eagles his coursers they came,
20 And he whistled, and shouted, and call’d them by name:
21 “Now! Dasher, now! Dancer, now! Prancer, and Vixen,
22 “On! Comet, on! Cupid, on! Dunder and Blixem;
23 “To the top of the porch! to the top of the wall!
24 “Now dash away! dash away! dash away all!”
25 As dry leaves before the wild hurricane fly,
26 When they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky;
27 So up to the house-top the coursers they flew,
28 With the sleigh full of Toys — and St. Nicholas too:
29 And then in a twinkling, I heard on the roof
30 The prancing and pawing of each little hoof.
31 As I drew in my head, and was turning around,
32 Down the chimney St. Nicholas came with a bound:
33 He was dress’d all in fur, from his head to his foot,
34 And his clothes were all tarnish’d with ashes and soot;
35 A bundle of toys was flung on his back,
36 And he look’d like a peddler just opening his pack:
37 His eyes — how they twinkled! his dimples how merry,
38 His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry;
39 His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow.
40 And the beard of his chin was as white as the snow;
41 The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth,
42 And the smoke it encircled his head like a wreath.
43 He had a broad face, and a little round belly
44 That shook when he laugh’d, like a bowl full of jelly:
45 He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf,
46 And I laugh’d when I saw him in spite of myself;
47 A wink of his eye and a twist of his head
48 Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread.
49 He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,
50 And fill’d all the stockings; then turn’d with a jerk,
51 And laying his finger aside of his nose
52 And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose.
53 He sprung to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle,
54 And away they all flew, like the down of a thistle:
55 But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight –
56 Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

Online text copyright © 2005, Ian Lancashire for the Department of English, University of Toronto. Published by the Web Development Group, Information Technology Services, University of Toronto Libraries. Be sure to visit this site for more information on this poem, on Maj. Livingston, and on poetry in general.


Creationist: Murdering Jews may be preferable to lying to prevent the murder

November 14, 2009

I’m cutting the monster a lot of slack with the headline.

P. Z. Myers publicized the e-mail exchange involving Bodie Hodge, a minor deity at the anti-science, creationist organization Answers in Genesis (AiG).  Myers was nice to the guy, contrary to the usual creationist cartoon of Myers as somehow immoral for being a non-worshipper of gods.  Well, he was nicer than I would have been.  But Myers expects Christians to exhibit no sense of shame, no common sense, and twisted morality.  I expect bettter of them.

A reader posed that age-old question to Hodge:  Is the Christian rule against lying so strong that a Christian should tell Nazi troops where Jewish families are hiding?  Hodge weasels later by saying he hopes he never has to make such a choice, and that he really doesn’t know how he’d act in that situation.  But this comes only after he says that telling  a lie to Nazis to save Jews will get one burned in hell.  And then he goes on to note it’s better to be in good with God than to act morally.

In other words, better to become an accomplice in the murder of Jews than to stand up against murderers.

I don’t get how these charlatans of religion, reason to such a point.

What would Jesus do?  We know.  When the crowd was threatening to stone to death a woman guilty of adultery and she sought refuge with Jesus, Jesus stood up to the mob and saved her life.  Just execution of Biblical law or shelter the accused, Jesus stood against the murder, even murder sanctioned by the religious rules of the community.

We also know that scripture endorses deception from time to time.  You know these AiG clowns are charlatans when they say stupid stuff like this.  Hodge tries to explain away another case of deception by inventing a scenario not found in scripture in which the lie doesn’t get told.

He’s forgotten the story of Jacob and Esau, and how Jacob and his mother conpsired to deceive Isaac in order to steal away Esau’s birthright (Esau and Jacob were twins, by the way).  Jacob got away with the deed, was then blessed by God.  He took a new name:  Israel.  He lived on to be the seed of Judaism, the religion Jesus followed and the foundation of Christianity.

To AiG, it appears that scripture is just a dusty old book, except when they can twist it to support their bigotry.  Here’s irony for you:  The story of Jacob is in Genesis.  You know, as in “Answers in Genesis.”  They don’t even know their own namesake book!

Here in America, as a nation we overcame that morality-or-religion problem with Huck Finn.  The ill-educated young teen, an absentee to grammar, faces the moral decision as he floats down the Mississippi with Jim, an escaped slave who has saved Huck’s life and is in other ways a very good friend.  Huck notes that the preachers are all agreed that Huck’s moral duty is to turn Jim in as an escaped slave, to condemn Jim to a continued life of slavery, should Jim survive the lashing.  Huck Finn puts the dilemma squarely:  Whether to obey God and turn in Jim to the authorities, or to burn in hell and let Jim live the life of a free man.  Huck agonizes, but decides:  He’ll burn in hell rather than give away his friend.

Myers wrote:

As a non-Bible believing amoral godless atheist, my first thought was that this is trivial: you lie your pants off. The ‘crime’ of telling a lie pales into insignificance against the crime of enabling the death of fellow human beings.

According to Bodie Hodge of AiG, though, I’m wrong. The good Christian should reject lies, Satan’s tools, in all circumstances, and should immediately ‘fess up the location of the Jews. He backs it up with Bible quotes, too.

If we love God, we should obey Him (John 14:15). To love God first means to obey Him first–before looking at our neighbor. So, is the greater good trusting God when He says not to lie or trusting in our fallible, sinful minds about the uncertain future?

Consider this carefully. In the situation of a Nazi beating on the door, we have assumed a lie would save a life, but really we don’t know. So, one would be opting to lie and disobey God without the certainty of saving a life–keeping in mind that all are ultimately condemned to die physically. Besides, whether one lied or not may not have stopped the Nazi solders from searching the house anyway.

As Christians, we need to keep in mind that Jesus Christ reigns. All authority has been given to Him (Matthew 28:18), and He sits on the throne of God at the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:33; Hebrews 8:1). Nothing can happen without His say. Even Satan could not touch Peter without Christ’s approval (Luke 22:31). Regardless, if one were to lie or not, Jesus Christ is in control of timing every person’s life and able to discern our motives. It is not for us to worry over what might become, but rather to place our faith and obedience in Christ and to let Him do the reigning. For we do not know the future, whereas God has been telling the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10).

Gosh. I never thought of it that way. So…all those Christians who sheltered Jews during WWII are actually burning in hell right now for their sinful wickedness? That is so counterintuitive, it must be true!

One more time we should side with morality, and against creationist distortions of Christianity and morality.

With all the learning they get at that reeking cesspool the creationism museum, you’d think they could demonstrate the moral fiber of a tobacco-chewing, food-stealing, school-cutting runaway teen, Huckleberry Finn.

Full AiG post below the fold (I expect them to strike it down when they rethink; let all Christians pray to God they do rethink).

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

Read the rest of this entry »


So, did you hear the one about burning Bibles on Halloween?

October 24, 2009

No kidding.  Some group in North Carolina plans to burn Bibles on Halloween.

Funny part, or ironic part:  It’s a church doing the burning.

And in case you’re hungry, “We will be serving Bar-b-Que chicken, fried chicken, and all the sides.”

Tip of the old scrub brush to Dispatches from the Culture Wars — great comments there, including this one, a favorite of mine:  “I’m going to have to address the menu, however: Chicken is not even mentioned in Leviticus.

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl