Joe's Response to Some Good Christmas Tolerance III

This is part of an ongoing discussion that I have been having. For the earlier parts see Some Good Christmas Tolerance, Joe’s Response I and Joe’s Response II.

You raise some good points. You are quite right in that we must be careful about our assumptions of other people's actions, it is not a bad thing to be reminded of that from time to time. The following is a bit long and delves into personal experiences I have witnessed, but it may help to understand how I came to have a different opinion of this matter than you. Not saying I'm right, I just have different experiences which have given me a different perspective, but it has been refreshing and thoughtful to consider my own views more deeply by reading your thoughts on the subject, so thanks for the discussion!

To address your point about failing to catch a person and the police's feelings: the particular incident that I was thinking of was a case in which two Wiccans opened a store in Russelville, AR for those that practiced "Pagan" beliefs. In that area, most Wiccans were very secretive about their faith because many in the town were vehemently opposed to them, having the misapprehension that Wiccans were Devil worshippers. Nevertheless, these two bold people refused to cowtail to local intolerance and opened a legally operated store. The police repeatedly tried to close them down due to trumped up drug charges (the claim was that they were selling drug paraphernalia, no illegal drugs were ever found). That failed in the courts. The police ignored several complaints by the store owners of people smashing their windows with bricks and making threats. The store was torched and the people who did it were amazingly quite open about the whole affair. Concerning the obvious criminal behavior, the police did nothing. The police were also quite open about their opinion that Pagans should not be allowed in their town. In this instance, it is difficult to ascribe the actions of the police as anything other than a willful disregard for the rights of the Wiccans based on the intolerant religious views of the police and surrounding population. Many Wiccans have seen similar acts of abuse and have reason to not trust the authorities. Thankfully, this attitude is not universal and there are many places Wiccans and others can live in the US without the constant fear of violent assaults.

Thus, I should say more correctly that while freedom of religion is a US legal right, it is not upheld in all parts of the country. It is also my opinion from reading numerous articles by others that there are many in the country who feel that we should only have freedom of religion for their beliefs, but not for those who disagree, which I think is a dangerous attitude.

I agree that the concept of freedom for all is certainly not the only way, nor even the historically most popular way to run a society. But I think we can agree that most people would accept the statement that they would rather be free than a slave. I would disagree with your definition of slavery. It is not just about having a legal power over someone else. Would not we all qualify as slaves under that definition? You are quite right in that objecting to slavery a moral judgment. I have no moral outrage to past societies. They were what they were and serves me no good to attempt to judge them for how they were set up. I agree it is unfair to judge past cultures for not having our modern views. But that is no reason to accept past behaviors as acceptable today. We cannot simply say that because slavery existed in the past that it is acceptable for slavery to exist today.

I think what makes the crucial difference between a hired worker and a slave is choice. A hired worker can always quit and find a new job elsewhere. A slave has no choice. They cannot simply leave if they want. It is my belief (mind you, only my opinion), that any society that tolerates slavery like this harms everyone because if they tolerate for one group of people, there is nothing that prevents the society from tolerating for any other group of people. All that needs happen to have a society expand its acceptance of slavery to other groups is for people to not complain about the injustices to others. People will continue to transgress against others until they are stopped.So, is the concept of freedom as good and slavery bad a moral judgment? Absolutely. But then, if given the choice, which would you prefer? As a free person, you have this choice, as a slave you do not.

So, how is the government hurting you by putting up a Christmas tree. Well, they are not, right now. But then, it doesn't sound like you have been the victim of religious discrimination. Would you have the same opinion if you had bricks thrown through your window for putting up a manora? I doubt it. Allowing the government to sponsor a specific religion gives an implicit acceptance for religious zealots to impose their beliefs on others. You should feel fortunate (which it seems apparent that you do) that you have not grown up in a place where people are forced to say a pledge to a god they did not belief or were punished for believing differently than the mainstream. I however, have known too many people in the US that were not so fortunate. I think they would disagree that they have not been hurt. Since we as a society are not of one faith, I think it is wrong for our government to favor one over the other.

I should say that, as a Christian, I have not been seriously harmed by religious intolerance. But I have had several friends that have. I have known people that took the fact that since God is mentioned on our money and is mentioned in our pledge of allegiance that the government openly supports Christianity as the "right" faith and so feel emboldened to commit acts against those of other faiths. I have actually had an acquaintance tell me that since the US is Christian and that all Muslims want to kill us, that we should exterminate all Muslims. She amazingly enough thought that was still in keeping with her Christian faith. I personally think that is an incredibly twisted anti-Christian belief, but that attitude is surprisingly more popular than I used to think, judging by the many times I have heard that recently. This is why I think that the government putting up a Christmas tree while not also doing similar acts for other religions is a dangerous thing.

What I would like to see is a government sponsored highly publicized event that welcomed people of all faiths to freely celebrate together. There are privately sponsored events, but thus far I have only seen Christian-dominated government events. I think we could get over some of these culture wars by having a government that openly said it was ok to belief whatever religion you like rather than a government that said you can technically believe whatever you want, but you should really be Christian, which is how our government seems to me. But then, I have often been told that I am an idealist. :)

I say better to have ideals to strive for than condone a broken reality. Accept what is, but don't let acceptance of reality stop efforts to change it.


My Response: At the end of the day we both agree that not all policemen follow the law. The police are taken from the general population and like the general population they are capable of committing crimes. I suspect we differ in that you assume that it happens more often than I would assume. The question becomes how does this relate to the issue of how far you want to go to keep the government out of religion? This is not a question of whether or not there should be a separation between church and state. This is about what that separation should be. To give you an example from Judaism. On Passover, I do not eat unleavened bread (chametz). My stepmom's family also does not eat unleavened bread on Passover. On Passover, I eat in the same dining room in which I have eaten unleavened bread during the year. My stepmom's family is so careful to avoid any unleavened bread that they do not eat in their regular dining room but instead eat in the basement. They would say that I lack due diligence in keeping Passover and I would say that they have left the practice of Judaism behind and have taken on insanity. (They happen to be really nice people though.)

Another thing you have to consider is where do you draw the line? Considering the nature of our political discourse, it is very tempting for groups to call wolf and say they are being persecuted anytime someone does something they do not like. I am a student of Medieval and Early Modern History. When I talk about the use of state power to promote religion what I have in mind are things like the Spanish Inquisition and the religion wars of the 16th and 17th centuries. I assume this is also what the founding fathers had in mind to avoid when they created the first amendment. Coming from this perspective it seems to me to bad joke to say that putting up a Christmas tree or a baby Jesus, on state property, is an act of persecution.

For an example of the government sponsoring a Jewish event see Micah Halpern’s recent column, Eating Latkes at the White House.

There actually was a recent incident in which the governor of Florida, who is a Christian, got in trouble with the ACLU for putting a mezuzah, a Jewish ritual object put on doorposts, given to him by a Jewish supporter on his office doorpost. The ACLU charged that he was in violation of the first amendment. (See here) Explain this one to me a Christian puts up a Jewish ritual object and is accused of trying to create an established religion.

Joe's Response to Some Good Christmas Tolerance II

I am glad to see someone else use the term albeit. I love that word and constantly get criticized for using such an "archaic" term. :) And if only I could write this much on my papers to be published for my dissertation, I'd get out on time. :)

I should say out the outset that much of the following could be dismissed as isolated incidents and not indicative of the culture at large. But there are numerous individuals at work that are attempting to change that. So I think it important to pay attention to the isolated incidents and see the patterns it represents.

To answer your question, no, I would not call them truly free because if slaves are permitted, there is always the possibility that a free person could lose their freedom and become a slave. This was the situation in Greece then as I recall (admittedly, it has been a number of years since I looked at that literature) and it was certainly the case in the south. There were many white slaves, although they generally weren't called that (and they certainly don't make it into the common school history texts). They were called indentured servants or sharecroppers, but a serious look into what was going on easily sees that many were in effect slaves with no real hope of earning their freedom. Thus, that does not count as real freedom because of that potentiality to become that which one kept. But more importantly, to claim freedom for oneself but to claim the right to hold slaves at the same time is hypocrisy. How can one argue that they have the right to be free when they are holding others as slaves?

Additionally, did you know that slaves are still being kept in the US today? They are not called slaves as that is illegal, but what else do you call it when people are forced to work without pay and not allowed to leave? This is the situation in many orange orchards in Florida. The owners "pay" the workers a minimal wage, but charge for all their necessities and require the workers to buy from them, but the amount they charge is over what they are paid, so then they are not allowed to leave until they have paid what they owe, which is impossible. This is highly illegal, but the police have thus far neglected to shut the places down even after being handed solid evidence of the criminal acts. Why? Because the police are paid off. Every once in a while a new police chief or other legal person comes in and cleans it up and makes arrests, but it never seems to stay that way for long. There are other examples, but they are equally or more illegal and generally do not have as much police blindness turned toward it, so can be dismissed as not counting as much since they are not government approved. But can we truly call ourselves a free society when we permit this sort of behavior to continue?

In the USA, it is not actually always permissible for everyone to believe what they want and practice what they want. I personally know people that have had their shops and homes destroyed because they did not follow the Christian faith of their neighbors. It is not unknown for people to be killed because they did not follow accepted religious practices or because they were gay. While technically the people that committed those offenses are criminals and did not have the legal authority to commit those acts, since the local police were sympathetic to the religious criminals, no charges were brought even when the perpetrators were openly known. I have even known police to be involved. Hard to believe? Maybe, but I have personally seen it happen (chalk it up to my bitter southern upbringing:) ). That is why I support actions taken by groups such as the ACLU to enforce the separation of church and state.

Whenever religion and government mix, I find it a bad situation. Perhaps you have heard of the "faith-based initiatives" the current US administration has funded? Did you know that all of that money has gone to Christian organizations (although I must say that my information is only valid for the first two years of the program, I do not know about the rest).

Finally, to paraphrase an anonymous line by someone in Hitler's Germany (at least I don't know where it came from): "I did not complain when they came for the Gypsies, for they were thieves, nor for the Jews because they were little better. I did not complain when they took the Catholics because they did not believe as I did. But when they came for me and I asked for help, there was no one left to complain." Not exactly a quote as I don't really remember it exactly, but I think it says the point eloquently. When a people allow an injustice to some, it risks injustice to all.

That last bit could be thought of as going a bit far afield and could be seen as offensive when speaking to a Jew. If so, I did not mean to cause offense.
But it does point out I think quite effectively what ends can be reached when a populace decides that the freedoms of some people are not as important as their own. I think it important we guard against this as I do not think human nature has changed to the point that it could not happen again.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Sure wish I knew who said that, at least before Picard on Star Trek. :)


My response: I am not familiar with the incidents you describe so I really cannot comment on them. I would point out that you have to be careful in your assumptions about people’s actions. Just because the police fail to catch someone it does not mean that the police are siding with the criminals. Also it is difficult to categorize something as a hate crime. For example, let us say someone were to come up to me, call me a dirty Jew, smack me with a baseball bat and steal my wallet. Do we assume that this is a hate crime and that I was attacked because I am a Jew or do we assume that the person wanted to steal my wallet and since he was already beating me up and stealing my wallet he decided to call me a dirty Jew for good measure. Alternatively, even if he did not take my wallet, we could say that the person who attacked me was angry and looking for a fight and so he latched on to the fact that I am a Jew, without really being anti-Semitic. This is one of the reasons why I do not support hate crime legislation.

As to the freedom issue, the fact they you may end up a slave does not change the fact that you are free know. Keep in mind this whole category of a free person came about within the context of slavery. A free person was someone who was not a slave. The democratic revolution, which has occurred over the past few hundred years, has declared that everyone is free, but that is not the only way to organize society.

Let me ask you a question. Why is slavery worse than being a hired worker? In theory slavery is simply taking the reality that one person has power over another and enshrining it into law. The ancients and many of the founding fathers would have told you that it is inevitable that some people have power over other people. Slavery simply makes it official which has the advantage of making the master responsible. Now, one could point to the abuses that happen in a slave system, but that is not an argument against slavery; that is simply a reason to reform the system and make laws to protect slaves. The only reason to object to the existence of slavery is if you are going to say that freedom has an innate moral value, but that is a very modernist view. We cannot criticize the ancients for not having our value system. Their value system makes as much internal sense, if not more so, than ours.

You still have not answered my initial question. How am I harmed by the government putting up a Christmas tree? Is such an action really more harmful to me than the government sponsoring gay marriage?