Plead the First

The alleged War on Christmas, touted by many conservatives, is a myth. There are no legions of Liberals frothing at the mouth when they hear the phrase “Merry Christmas”. Similarly, the “War on Christianity”, and the portrayal of the ACLU as the enemy of all that is good and decent are also two ideas with no solid basis in fact.

That being said, there are indeed isolated incidents in which the rights of Christians are violated. Take for instance the case in which a Massachusetts school disciplined a group of students for handing out candy canes with religious messages (the students, incidentally, were defended by the ACLU). This doesn’t represent a war, but rather an overzealous administrator who is unfamiliar with the law.

That brings me to my point: Many teachers, principals, store managers, and other average people in such positions probably aren’t familiar with the details of first amendment law. However, what they do know is that they hear right-wing pundits in print and on the airwaves decrying the War on Christmas and Christianity, warning them that if they allow the smallest hint of religious expression to occur that the ACLU is going to haul them into court and sue them.

Hearing these conservatives peddling the idea of a War on All Things Christian, isn’t it likely that the average principal or merchant is going to err on the side of caution, and guard against all religious expression in his schools or shops? Is it possible that the self-styled defenders of Christmas and Christianity are actually waging war on their own ideals by encouraging everyone to be fearful of litigation?

The Associated Press had an article this week about consumer boycotts of retailers for various causes. Some groups, such as the American Family Association, advocate boycotts on retailers who they feel haven’t sufficiently displayed the word “Christmas”:

This year’s high-profile targets include retailers Sears and Target. In the eyes of some conservative activists, the companies have made insufficient use of the word “Christmas” in ads and store signs.

“When you take away ‘Christmas’ and replace it with a generic term like ‘holiday’, you take away the very essence of what is being celebrated,” said the Mississippi-based American Family Association, which spearheads the Target boycott. [Emphasis added]

So let me make sure I understand: To appropriately celebrate the essence of Christmas, the word “Christmas” must be displayed prominently on ads and store signs? What exactly is the essence of Christmas again? I was under the impression that it had less to do with “10 Percent Off Merry Christmas Sale! Ho ho hurry! Let’s get giving!” and more to do with this:

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

I think the folks at the American Family Association could use a viewing or two of A Charlie Brown Christmas.

The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation has released a review of state science standards. The good news – or, not-so-bad-news, as the case may be: We get a ‘B’.

On the whole, North Carolina has mounted a good science standards effort that would be better were the process materials less intrusive and more ofthe indispensable chemistry content included. Grade: “B”

The bad news? According to the Executive Summary, our grade has declined since the previous review in 2000.

(Via Pharyngula)

David Boyd says that a terrorist is a terrorist. But what about an Iraqi who doesn’t want the U.S. in his country, and is targeting U.S. troops? Is he a terrorist as well?

According to a report by the Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS), between September 2003 and October 2004 there were an estimated 4303 insurgent attacks in Iraq. Of these, about 78% of them were against military targets, such as coalition forces or the Kurdish army. I’m fairly certain that attacks against military forces don’t count as terrorist attacks under many definitions of terrorism.

Furthermore, there’s another another report from the CSIS which says:

By all reports, the insurgency remains largely homegrown. US experts and top level Iraqi officials estimated in November 2005 that at least 90% of the fighters were Iraqi and the total might be closer to 94% to 96%.

These two facts lead me to question whether there is actually any significant battle against actual terrorists in Iraq. Are we primarily fighting against the same sort of people who want to come over here and kill us at all costs, or are we fighting with Iraqi citizens who don’t like how we’ve handled things in Iraq and just want to see us gone?

I’m certainly not saying that there are no terrorists at all in Iraq at this point, or that it’s not terrible when our troops are attacked. There are, and it is. But I do think it’s fair to question whether the battle currently raging there is really a significant engagement of our real enemies.

Over the past few days I’ve been involved in a couple of discussions over at the News and Record’s Letters to the Editor blog that relate to some topics recently discussed here at Plead the First.

The first takes place on the letter entitled “A Higher Standard?” The letter writer, questioning a previous letter writer who contended that Christians gave up the main tenets of their faith to get Bush elected, states that the Democratic alternatives don’t represent a higher standard for Christians. My contention in the comments is that the policies of today’s Republican party are out of line with the expressed priorities of the Bible. The conversation ranges from homosexuality to homelessness, and features an appearance by Michele from Chosen Fast with some informative stats on homelessness in Guilford County.

The second letter is entitled “Intelligent Design Belongs in Schools”, in which the writer argues that … uh … Intelligent Design belongs in schools. Guess the News and Record nailed the headline on that one. There seem to be some misconceptions about a few things, and I’m predicting that the conversation is about to quickly devolve into personal attacks and circular arguments. So if you don’t like that sort of thing, go read it now while it’s semi-civil. And if you do like personal attacks and circular arguments, then you probably already read the LTE blog anyway.

A Washington Monthly article takes a look at some of the lies told by the past four Presidents, and has a panel of judges rate their seriousness. George W. Bush leads the pack slightly, but the article was written in 2003, so he may have pulled even further ahead in the last two years. Of course, according to the authors, “We believe [the] validity [of the results] rests somewhere between the Periodic Table and the U.S. News & World Report college rankings,” but it’s still interesting to have an overview of the past 25 years of Presidential Deception.

David Boyd, thought-provoking as always, posts a quote from Tom Bethel on Intelligent Design. One of the claims Bethel makes is that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable, and therefore not scientific. Bethel is wrong. As I pointed out in the comments:

[T]he theory of evolution most certainly is falsifiable. If the fossil record was static, showing no change in organisms over time, that would falsify the theory. If a horse fossil was found embedded in pre-cambrian rock, or we found a fossilized human locked in mortal combat with a fossilized dinosaur, evolution would be falsified. If a rabbit gave birth to a monkey, that would do the trick as well.

Check out the entire discussion.

Cooler, quieter … horizontalier: Cordarounds.

Lately I’ve been thinking about conservative Christian support for President Bush and for Republicans in general, and I must admit that I find it a bit confusing. Why do conservative Christians like Bush so much? One reason may be that he’s a Christian too. That’s fine, however it should be noted that being a Christian does not automatically mean that a person will make for a good President.

Stemming from this, many conservative Christians may feel that he shares their values. I think in many cases this is probably true – Bush being a conservative Christian himself, this would make sense. However, I often wonder where these professed values are coming from. Are they in fact Christian values?

Jesus and the authors of the New Testament had a great love for the poor. They advocated giving freely to the poor, without reservation, without concern for whether they were in their situation through misfortune or through simple laziness. Yet Republican policies often seem to hurt the poor. From the Bankruptcy bill to the recent budget cuts for programs that many less fortunate people depend on, these policies certainly don’t seem generous to people who are down and out. Quite the opposite.

The party line is that the Constitution doesn’t specifically provide for government-run social programs, so these things shouldn’t be a concern of the federal government. However, that reasoning doesn’t seem to stop many conservative Christians from supporting government-established monuments to the Ten Commandments and other government-initiated religious displays. You’d be hard-pressed to point out where those things are called for in the Constitution. And I wonder, which would please Jesus more – using our government’s power to lift up the poor just a bit and ease their burden, or using our power to erect slabs of law-bearing stone?

There is the abortion issue of course. However, abortion isn’t explicitly mentioned in the New Testament and it definitely isn’t a recurring theme of any sort. I’m certainly not saying that Jesus would be pro-abortion, but if a conservative Christian is going to weigh the issues and vote accordingly, wouldn’t it make sense to give more weight to the issue on which the New Testament speaks more clearly and more vociferously – the issue of poverty?

I’ve added a new feature at the top of the sidebar: The “Recently Commented” section will list the three most recently commented upon posts, along with who made the most recent comment and the time that it was made. This should let readers quickly see if anything has changed on a post in which they were having a discussion.

One of my biggest beefs with blogs, as opposed to traditional message boards, is that topics quickly get pushed down on the page and it becomes difficult or annoying to keep track of discussions you’re involved in. This should address that problem, at least on this blog. Not that there are many lengthy discussions here at this point. But there could be. Someday.