I’m currently reading Candida Moss’ The Myth of Persecution, which will be available March 5th. I’ll be posting a review of the book on March 6th. This book has, not surprisingly, got me thinking once more about the idea that Christians are persecuted in America.
I invite the readers of this blog to present their answers to the following questions:
- What is persecution (in this context)?
- Are Christians persecuted in America?
- What evidence is there for your view?
Naturally, I’ll present my views on this matter.
Persecution, in this context, would involve the widespread, active, systematic and persistent mistreat of Christians merely because they are Christians. Persecution, by its very nature, seems to require that the persecuted be victims of a more powerful group or groups.
Given this general definition, it would seem clear that Christians are not persecuted in the United States. While Christian groups might not always get what they want (such as a ban on same-sex marriages), this hardly counts as persecution.
In terms of the alleged evidence for persecution, proponents of this view claim that Christians are denied the right to pray, that states forbid the display of Christian symbols on state property (like the nativity scene), that there is a war on Christmas and so on. However, these claims are often unfounded (such as is the case with the alleged war on Christmas) or exaggerated. In any case, this is a factual matter and can be settled by empirical research.
In terms of the evidence against persecution, the majority of Americans claim to be Christians and the nation that is awash in churches. If Christians were persecuted it would seem odd that so many people would profess to a persecuted faith. Even more strange would be the claim that a minority of non-Christians would be able to persecute all the Christians. Of course, it is not impossible. After all, South Africa’s majority black population was cruelly oppressed by the minority white population. However, we do not see a powerless Christian majority in America that is being subdued by a powerful minority of non-Christians. Powerful and influential leaders, from the President on down, claim to be Christians. Churches with great wealth and influence abound. Christian business people, academics, scientists, lawyers, police, soldiers and other professionals abound. It is especially odd to see powerful Republican politicians and pundits speak of being persecuted for being Christians, given the fact that they are powerful and influential and thus exactly the sort of people who are not being persecuted. If all these Christians are being persecuted, they do not seem to show signs of this persecution and to allow it to happen in the face of their power, influence and wealth would show an amazing ineptitude on their part. There is also the obvious question of the identity of the persecutors. That is, who has the power to persecute the Christian majority of the United States? No one, it surely seems.
As such, there seems to be no evidence of widespread, active, systematic and persistent mistreatment of Christians in the United States. The fact is that Christianity is the dominant faith. There is also no war on Christmas.
This is not to say that some Christians do not feel persecuted. However, this often seems to be caused by a distorted perception of reality (like the war on Christmas) or by the belief that a failure to get what they want (such as prayer in schools) is a form of persecution. That is, they are mistaking frustration for persecution.
There are, of course, places in the world were Christians really are persecuted. However these places do not include the United States.
Like most people, I accumulate stuff that I no longer want or need and I like to get rid of it. I also like Christmas gift giving. As an experienced game master, I also really enjoy tormenting others (in the context of the game, of course). Back in 2010 I combined all of these into the much dreaded King Bob’s Game-an event my gaming group has learned to fear and loath.
The theological basis for the game was inspired by the Three King’s Day celebration in Puerto Rico. This is a very pleasant, but very hot, place to visit and I certainly recommend going there. The Spanish fortifications in San Juan alone are worth the trip.
As the story goes, three wise men or kings (not the same thing at all, of course) brought the baby Jesus some gifts. While this served as the theological foundation for the massive commercialization of Christmas, it also gave rise to Three Kings Day, which is celebrated in Puerto Rico. The gist of the holiday is that children put out grass and water for the Kings’ camels and they get small gifts in return. This holiday is on January 6th.
Fortunately, a little research revealed that there was a 4th king, King Bob. Unlike the Three Kings, Bob was not great with directions and ended up arriving at the wrong city, albeit a few days before the other kings arrived in the proper destination.
Since King Bob could not find the baby Jesus, he decided to give away the gifts via a game, which is now known as King Bob’s game. Alternatively, it can be called The Game of the Fourth King.
Here is how the game is played.
What You Will Need
Gifts: At least 1 wrapped gift per player, preferably more. Cheap gifts are best.
Dice: Ideally you should have a D20 and some D6s, but for non gamers six sided dice will do.
There are two roles in the game: King Bob’s stand in and player. King Bob supervises the game but does not play. He also does not get any gifts. Optionally, King Bob can also play and get gifts, but that is bad theology.
Everyone other than King Bob’s stand in is a player.
Setting Up the Game
King Bob sets up the game by creating a pile of the wrapped gifts and defending them from the greasy hands of the players until the game starts. Each player should have a die (or dice) and a board or piece of paper is needed to keep track of the order of play.
Gamers will be familiar with this, but non-gamers will not. For the non-gamers, this is how you determine the order in which the players take their turns. To determine this, each player rolls a die (preferably the standard D20). The player with the highest roll goes first, the player with the second highest goes second and so on. In the case of a tie, reroll until it is settled.
Starting the Game
The game starts with the player who has the highest initiative. S/he selects one gift from the pile and DOES NOTopen it. Shaking and such is allowed. The second player then has his/her turn and so on for each player until it is back to the first player. After the first player has selected his gift, the other players will have more options and the first player will also have these options on his/her second turn.
Playing the Game
After the first player has a gift, the second player has his turn and so on until everyone has had a turn. The first player then has his second turn and so on. During play, a player has options. Only ONE option may be taken each turn. A player can take a different option each turn, but is not required to do so.
- Pick a Gift: the player selects a gift from the pile but DOES NOT open it. The next player then takes his/her turn.
- Open a Gift: the player opens one gift that s/he has in his/her possession and opens it. The next player then takes his/her turn.
- Steal a Gift: the player attempts to take a gift from another player. The player who is trying to steal the gift is the thief and the player who has the gift is the defender. The defender has the option of allowing the theft or resisting. If the defender allows the theft, the thief gets the gift and adds it to his/her collection. If the defender decides to resist, then the thief and the defender each roll a six sided die. If the defender matches or exceeds the thief’s roll, then s/he keeps the gift. If not, the thief adds the gift to his/her collection. The next player then takes his/her turn. Defender does not count as the defending player’s turn and s/he can defend as often as needed.
- Inflict a Gift: the player attempts to give a gift to another player. The player who is trying to give the gift is the giver and the player who has the gift is the defender. The defender has the option of allowing the giving or resisting. If the defender allows the giving, the defender gets the gift and adds it to his/her collection. If the defender decides to resist, then the giver and the defender each roll a six sided die. If the defender matches or exceeds the giver’s roll, then the gift remains with the giver. If not, the defender adds the gift to his/her collection. The next player then takes his/her turn. Defender does not count as the defending player’s turn and s/he can defend as often as needed.
Ending the Game
The game ends as soon as no more gifts remain in the gift pile (that is, the players possess all the gifts). Players must take their gifts with them when the game ends, mainly because the game is often played with the intention of getting rid of bad gifts or items that King Bob no longer wants.
Some people enjoy adding a drinking element to all games. In this case, a player who loses a roll has to take a drink.
The United States has numerous Christmas traditions, ranging from elaborate decorations to re-gifting lame gifts like fruitcakes. While these are broad traditions, embraced by millions of Americans, there are also narrower traditions. One such tradition is the Fox & friends holiday ritual of claiming that there is a war on Christmas.
Gretchen Carlson and State Representative Doreen Carlson lit the ritual hyperbole log (not to be confused with the Yule log) near the end of November 2012. After discussing what she took as the latest evidence in the existence of the war, Carlson closed with “a lot of people, for whatever reason, will look at this interview today and say, Gretchen Carlson and Doreen Costa are nuts. They’re so nuts because they think there’s this made up war on Christmas. We’re not nuts, are we? There is a war on Christmas!”
While it is very tempting to dismiss Carlson and her fellows on the grounds of some sort of insanity, I will not do this. I do not think that she is insane. However, I do think that the war on Christmas is made up, in the same way that Santa is made up—only with a rather less pleasant intention behind the fiction.
While the term “war” gets thrown around so excessively by Americans (we have wars on everything, including actual wars on actual people) that is has become worn and shoddy, I will endeavor to present a rough account of what would be required for there to be a war on Christmas.
Roughly put, a war would seem to indicate a conflict with breadth and intensity. In terms of breadth, a true war typically would require a reasonable broad front, either literally or metaphorically. After all, a few sporadic episodes of violence that take place far from each other would hardly count as a war. In the case of the alleged war on Christmas, there would need to be battles occurring across adequately broad areas of the country as opposed to extremely limited numbers of isolated incidents. Not surprisingly fine folks at Fox traditionally make use of the hasty generalization (a fallacy in which a person draws a general conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not adequate in size) to create the impression that the few examples of what they claim are incidents in the war are actually general occurrences. Naturally, one should not take my word for this. If it really matters, a person can create a war map and plot out the locations of the alleged incidents to determine if they constitute a large enough number to count as a war. This can be done my imaging each incident as a fight proportional to the incident.
In terms of intensity, a true war (as opposed to a cold or false war) would seem to require a level of conflict that would intuitively match what is expected in war. If, for example, soldiers on opposing sides exchange taunts and occasionally throw rocks at each other, that would hardly seem to be a war. In the case of an actual war on Christmas, what would be needed would be attacks on Christmas of sufficient intensity to be considered warlike aggression against the holiday.
In general, Fox tends to point to incidents of the “intensity” discussed by Carlson and Costa. In Rhode Island, where Costa is a representative, the governor held a holiday tree lighting, rather than a Christmas tree lighting. Fox also points to cases in which Nativity scenes are not allowed to be displayed on state property, such as in front of or in government buildings. Incidents in which people say “happy holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas” are also taken as evidence of the war. On the face of it, these incidents do not seem intense enough to count as warfare.
There is also the fact that is blindingly obvious that Christmas itself is not under attack (other than the usual commercialism that corrupts the very heart of the holiday). After all, Christmas is not only completely legal, the overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate it and almost all Americans participate in some way (my atheist and non-Christian friends have never turned down a Christmas gift nor a Christmas dinner). Christmas trees, Christmas cards, Christmas goose, Christmas lights, Christmas carols, Christmas services and so on are also completely legal and unhindered. It would take a strange epistemology indeed to believe that there is a war on this beloved and almost universally practiced (in America) holiday.
But, one might say, what about the fact that state officials, like the governor of Rhode Island, have “holiday tree” lightings. What about public schools having “winter breaks” rather than “Christmas breaks”? What about Nativity scenes not being set up in federal court houses? Are these not evidence of a most vile war on Christmas?
The obvious answer is “not at all.” One should be careful to note that what is occurring is that the state is simply not giving special treatment to the holiday of a specific faith (although Christmas seems to have extended way beyond Christianity) with the main focus being on the religious trappings. So, for example, trees, snowmen, Santa Claus and so on seem to be fine on state grounds. Baby Jesus, not so much. However, this is no more a war on Christmas than changing “chairman” to “chairperson” is a war on men. It just means that one specific faith is not getting special treatment denied to other faiths. Not always getting what one wants and not having one’s faith enshrined by the state is hardly the same thing as a war on Christmas.
What would an actual war on Christmas look like in America? That is easy enough to answer. From 1659-1681 the celebration of Christmas was outlawed in Boston. This was not the work of anti-Christians, but due to the Puritan opposition to Christmas on religious grounds. While New England is now famous as a Christmas place, the celebration of the holiday did not come into vogue until around the mid-19th century, at least around Boston. So, Fox, until people start banning Christmas across regions of the country again (or worse), talk of the war on Christmas is just annoying and divisive hyperbole. Worse, it gets people who have weak critical thinking skills upset, worried and angry and that is not the sort of holiday spirit that is right for the season. So, for the sake of the Christmas spirit, stop engaging in this foolishness.
My books make excellent gifts, especially for the fine folks at Fox.
Ricky Perry recently claimed that Obama is attacking religion. Fox News is already revving up its yearly war on Christmas fantasy. However, there do seem to be actual attacks on religion. One obvious example is the attempt to convince voters that Mormonism is a cult. Another example is FFA’s movement to get advertisers to pull advertisements from All American Muslim.
America is based on a principle of religious tolerance and, as such, these sorts of things should be condemned as going against one of our core principles. Naturally, the right to free speech allows people to say such things and for companies to remove their advertisements. But there is much to be said for being civil with faiths that differ from one’s own and also in not yielding to religious bigotry when making business decisions.
While these matters are well worth considering, the United States is still a very tolerant country in regards to religion. While there have been attempts to equate Islam with terrorism and thus infringe on religious freedoms in the name of security, we have largely resisted this urge. Other countries have not been so restrained in their treatment of non-dominant faiths and this, of course, includes the very real mistreatment of Christians in certain parts of the world. This should not, of course, be taken to justify abandoning our hard earned tolerance. Rather, it should show us exactly why the Christian majority in America should treat the religious minorities as they would wish to be treated if they were the minority.
One of our Christmas gifts was a heightening of the terror alert level in anticipation of attacks during the busy travel season. While no Christmas attacks materialized (perhaps because of the crippling storms), we did have a new episode in the War on Food. 89 people in 15 states (and the District of Columbia) were victims of food borne salmonella. Fortunately, swift action was taken to deal with this problem.
While a food safety bill was recently passed, this most recent incident serves to underscore the need for even more reform in food safety. Now, if Al Qaeda had dropped the salmonella into the food supply, I suspect that the reaction from pundits and politicians would be rather interesting. However, it is an interesting fact that a failed attempt by an underwear bomber resulted in a multi-million dollar makeover of airport security while these sort of incidents generate relatively little change. Now, if government contractors stood to make millions protecting us from food based dangers and politicians could ride a wave pf food paranoia into office, then I would suspect much more would be done.
Listening to certain pundits, one would think that Christmas was a besieged holiday and that its practitioners were forced to hide in caverns under the shopping malls lest they be cast into the arena to be devoured by liberal, ambiguously gendered lions.
Fox, as always, seems to be making a case for there being such a war. They rush to present evidence of this war and do not even let facts get in the way of their spirited defense. If evidence happens to be wanting, they seem to be willing to accept almost anyone’s word that, for example, a school has banned the use of green and red as part of an assault on Christmas. As I have argued before, professional journalists have an obligation to use at least some minimal effort to verify key facts in a story-even when the story nicely matches a specific ideological narrative.
Naturally, I do understand that journalists are busy folks and that mistakes are always possible. Heck, people point out my mistakes each time I make one (and even when I don’t). I also get that when someone feels really strongly about a matter, they tend to accept claims that fit their feelings even when the claims are not properly supported. I fall into this myself from time to time, even though I know better. However, none of this changes the fact that a professional journalist should always exert at least a minimal amount of effort to at least attempt to verify key facts. Especially when doing so is as easy as making a quick phone call.
But, some might say, while Fox does something overdo things in is zealous defense of all that is holy, there is a clear war on Christmas. After all, there is the push for people to say “happy holidays”, manger scenes are often banned from government buildings, and students get winter breaks now rather than Christmas breaks.
It is true that people say such things. It is true that manger scenes are generally not allowed in government buildings. It is also true that I am now on winter break rather than Christmas break. However, it is not clear that these things are assaults in part of a war on Christmas.
In regards to “happy holidays”, this is actually a holiday season. My Jewish friends do not cry that there is a war on Hanukkah when people say “happy holidays” or “merry Christmas.” And, of course, there is also Three King’s Day and New Year’s Day in this season of holidays. As such, the use of “holidays” does not seem to be anti-Christmas but rather an inclusive term that encompasses the various holidays. This seems consistent with the Christmas ideal of peace on earth and goodwill towards all. Using this term hardly seems to be a war like act.
As far as the manger ban goes, this does bother me. When I was a kid, we had a manger scene as part of our Christmas decorations. To this day, manger scenes bring back warm feelings of childhood Christmases. When I see one, however tacky it might be (one had flamingos) I will pause and look at it, remembering days gone by. So, it should be obvious that I have nothing against them. That said, I do agree that government buildings should not have such scenes-or any religious displays at all. This is because doing so would seem to be state support of a specific religion.
But is this not a war on Christmas? Well, no. Not having the state actively endorse a specific faith is not an attack on that faith. If the state burned manger scenes as part of a public display, then that would be rather war like. Having a general ban on religious displays is not a war on religion but rather a refusal to exalt one faith above any others. That is an important part of allowing freedom of (and from) religion.
It is also important to note that manger scenes are not banned from anywhere else. If you want to turn your entire lawn into a scene, then you are free to do so. If your church wants to put up a massive manger extravaganza, they are free to do just that.
I do admit that it still sounds odd to be on winter break. I still use the term Christmas break because old habits die hard and, for me, I am on Christmas break. However, not everyone who attends state universities is a Christian and state universities are not supposed to endorse any specific faith (private religious schools are another matter). This is, however, not an attack on Christmas anymore than not calling it Kwanzaa break is an assault on Kwanzaa.
As another point when people bemoan that the Christ has been taken out of Christmas because of this war on Christmas, there is the obvious question of just how much Christ has been a part of Christmas. After all, much of the Christmas mythology and trappings are pagan in origin. Also, when you throw in the gross commercialization of the holiday, that would seem to have done a great deal to take the Christ out of Christmas.
As a final point, if there is a war on Christmas, Christmas seems to be winning handily. Christmas trees are displayed openly. People boldly wish others a merry Christmas and are not arrested. Christmas stockings are still hung from the chimney with care, rather than being hidden away in some secret corner. You can test this yourself-boldly go to a store that sells cards and ask for Christmas cards. Approach a police officer and ask her if you can report people for celebrating Christmas. And so on. I suspect you will find no evidence of any war on Christmas.
The debate over the Bush tax cuts has created some interesting rhetorical approaches. For example, the folks who are for keeping the cuts in place are generally careful to speak in terms of a tax increase. This is, of course, to make it sound like allowing them to lapse will be an increase in taxes.
Of course, one might say, this is an increase in taxes. After all, if the cuts are not extended, then taxes will go up. Hence, it is a tax increase.
However, this does seem to something of a semantic ploy. Consider, if you will, the following:
Sally: “That damn store is going to raise its prices on December 26th!”
Sally: “Look at this flyer-they are having a 10% off sale until December 24th, then closing for Christmas, then opening on the 26th with a price increase!”
Anne: “Well, I suppose that is one way to look at it…”
Sally: “I don’t like your tone…”
Anne: “As I see it, ending a sale is not really the same thing as increasing prices, it is just returning them to normal.”
Sally: “Same thing.”
Anne: “Not really. ‘Increasing prices’ has a negative connotation while ‘ending a sale’ is not so negative. Being critical because a store is increasing prices is one thing. Being mad that a sale is over is quite another!”
Sally: “Well, I think prices should be low!”
Anne: “Ah, that is another issue entirely.”
Sally: “Stop confusing me with reason!”
I am a bit divided on the tax cuts. On the one hand, I like having more money. On the other hand, the deficit is a serious problem and serious national problems would seem to be worthy of some sacrifice. After all, if we can expect people to go to Iraq and Afghanistan for us, surely we can let the cuts expire.
Then again, if we just keep spending like mad, even the extra income is not going to help.
Tell you what, Congress, if you start spending more responsibly I’ll chip in some more money to help us out. Deal?
In light of the Christmas bombing attempt, there have been two main proposals to enhance security. The first is to enhance technological and physical security measures such as patting people down, using full body scanning devices and so on. The second is to provide more screening for people from fourteen countries that are considered high risk.
While improving security is a good idea, improvements are only worth the cost and effort when they actually are improvements.
The technological enhancements will, of course, be very expensive and raise the question of whether the security provided will be worth the cost. There is also the obvious question of whether the security systems will be in places where they are needed. After all, a clever terrorist would certainly learn where the high tech systems are located and then find airports that lack them and use those as his access point. Also, the high tech systems can be bypassed in other ways, such as taking advantage of human frailties (such as corruption). A final question is whether these systems will work as advertised without slowing air travel to a crawl. My main worry is that a lot of taxpayer money will be spent on high-tech security theater and we will not be not be significantly safer.
Of course, there is an easy way to be much safer: require everyone to wear shorts and t-shirts on the plane. What was once carry-on baggage will be put into locked containers in the plane, that cannot be accessed until after the plane has landed and reached the gate. This is, of course, completely unrealistic-for now.
In regards to putting people from specific countries under greater scrutiny seems like a good idea, it does have some serious limitations. First, there are obviously more than 14 high risk countries. Second, any clever terrorist can easily bypass this by either traveling from another country or using forged document.