Memorial Day

Today in the US we memorialize those who have been claimed by war. It's usually celebrated as a great patriotic event, with martial songs and chest-thumping nationalism, all about the glory of dying for your country. What egregious nonsense! As any battle-scarred veteran can tell you, war isn't glorious; it's a gory, bloody, loud hell of a meat-grinder, and the meat being ground is the young of the nation, fed into it by old men who hold grudges or who see a profit to be made, win or lose. I've always said that if the fat old men who declared wars actually had to fight in them, we'd have world peace overnight.

Here are some potent quotes about the reality of war:

"And I can't help but wonder, now Willie McBride,
Do all those who lie here know why they died?
Did you really believe them when they told you 'The Cause'?
Did you really believe that this war would end wars?
Well the suffering, the sorrow, the glory, the shame,
The killing, the dying, it was all done in vain.
For Willie McBride, it all happened again,
And again, and again, and again, and again."
– Eric Bogle, "No Man's Land" 

"Either war is finished, or we are."
– Herman Wouk, War and Remembrance 

"War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children."
– Jimmy Carter, Nobel Lecture, December 10, 2002 

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity."
– Dwight D. Eisenhower, speech, January 10, 1946 

"If civilization has an opposite, it is war. Of these two things, you have either one, or the other. Not both."
– Ursula K. LeGuin, The Left Hand of Darkness

Probably the greatest antiwar poem ever written is "Dulce et Decorum Est" by Wilfred Owen, an Oxford scholar and poet who enlisted at the beginning of WWI, and who was killed just one week before the armistice which ended it. During the war he wrote his poems in the letters he sent home, and as the conflict continued he used these poems to vent his anger and cynicism at the futility, the barbarity, and the stupidity of it all. "Dulce et Decorum Est" could just as well have been titled "The Lie", the lie in question being the quote from the Roman poet Horace that is fed to soldiers in time of war: "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"; the English translation is "It is sweet and proper to die for one's country". Obviously Owen disagreed, and I'm with him.

Dulce et Decorum Est - Wilfred Owen 

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And toward our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind. 

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime...
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning. 

In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning. 

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obsceneas cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, –
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est / Pro patria mori.

Today we lament the deaths of young people killed by adherence to an anachronism, and pledge to end the scourge that killed them. Here are two songs that lament the deaths of soldiers - Eric Bogle's "No Man's Land" and Mark Knopfler's "Brothers In Arms".

Photo © 2009 by A. Roy Hilbinger 

Earth Day 2020

Do you want to improve the world?
I don't think it can be done. The world is sacred.
It can't be improved.
If you tamper with it, you'll ruin it.
If you treat it like an object, you'll lose it.

— Tao te Ching # 29, Stephen Mitchell translation 

Photos © 2008 - 2020 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Memorial Day 2019

[Note: I wrote this piece last year for Memorial Day, and I like it so much I decided to reprint it this year.]

Today in the US we memorialize those who have been claimed by war. It's usually celebrated as a great patriotic event, with martial songs and chest-thumping nationalism, all about the glory of dying for your country. What egregious nonsense! As any battle-scarred veteran can tell you, war isn't glorious; it's a gory, bloody, loud hell of a meat-grinder, and the meat being ground is the young of the nation, fed into it by old men who hold grudges or who see a profit to be made, win or lose. I've always said that if the fat old men who declared wars actually had to fight in them, we'd have world peace overnight.

Here are some potent quotes about the reality of war:

"And I can't help but wonder, now Willie McBride,
Do all those who lie here know why they died?
Did you really believe them when they told you 'The Cause'?
Did you really believe that this war would end wars?
Well the suffering, the sorrow, the glory, the shame,
The killing, the dying, it was all done in vain.
For Willie McBride, it all happened again,
And again, and again, and again, and again."
– Eric Bogle, "No Man's Land" 

"Either war is finished, or we are."
– Herman Wouk, War and Remembrance 

"War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children."
– Jimmy Carter, Nobel Lecture, December 10, 2002 

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity."
– Dwight D. Eisenhower, speech, January 10, 1946 

"If civilization has an opposite, it is war. Of these two things, you have either one, or the other. Not both."
– Ursula K. LeGuin, The Left Hand of Darkness

Probably the greatest antiwar poem ever written is "Dulce et Decorum Est" by Wilfred Owen, an Oxford scholar and poet who enlisted at the beginning of WWI, and who was killed just one week before the armistice which ended it. During the war he wrote his poems in the letters he sent home, and as the conflict continued he used these poems to vent his anger and cynicism at the futility, the barbarity, and the stupidity of it all. "Dulce et Decorum Est" could just as well have been titled "The Lie", the lie in question being the quote from the Roman poet Horace that is fed to soldiers in time of war: "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"; the English translation is "It is sweet and proper to die for one's country". Obviously Owen disagreed, and I'm with him.

Dulce et Decorum Est - Wilfred Owen 

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And toward our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind. 

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime...
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning. 

In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning. 

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obsceneas cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, –
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est / Pro patria mori.

Today we lament the deaths of young people killed by adherence to an anachronism, and pledge to end the scourge that killed them. Here are two songs that lament the deaths of soldiers - Eric Bogle's "No Man's Land" and Mark Knopfler's "Brothers In Arms".

Photo © 2009 by A. Roy Hilbinger 

Memorial Day 2018

Today in the US we memorialize those who have been claimed by war. It's usually celebrated as a great patriotic event, with martial songs and chest-thumping nationalism, all about the glory of dying for your country. What egregious nonsense! As any battle-scarred veteran can tell you, war isn't glorious; it's a gory, bloody, loud hell of a meat-grinder, and the meat being ground is the young of the nation, fed into it by old men who hold grudges or who see a profit to be made, win or lose. I've always said that if the fat old men who declared wars actually had to fight in them, we'd have world peace overnight.

Here are some potent quotes about the reality of war:

"And I can't help but wonder, now Willie McBride,
Do all those who lie here know why they died?
Did you really believe them when they told you 'The Cause'?
Did you really believe that this war would end wars?
Well the suffering, the sorrow, the glory, the shame,
The killing, the dying, it was all done in vain.
For Willie McBride, it all happened again,
And again, and again, and again, and again."
– Eric Bogle, "No Man's Land" 

"Either war is finished, or we are."
– Herman Wouk, War and Remembrance 

"War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children."
– Jimmy Carter, Nobel Lecture, December 10, 2002 

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity."
– Dwight D. Eisenhower, speech, January 10, 1946 

"If civilization has an opposite, it is war. Of these two things, you have either one, or the other. Not both."
– Ursula K. LeGuin, The Left Hand of Darkness

Probably the greatest antiwar poem ever written is "Dulce et Decorum Est" by Wilfred Owen, an Oxford scholar and poet who enlisted at the beginning of WWI, and who was killed just one week before the armistice which ended it. During the war he wrote his poems in the letters he sent home, and as the conflict continued he used these poems to vent his anger and cynicism at the futility, the barbarity, and the stupidity of it all. "Dulce et Decorum Est" could just as well have been titled "The Lie", the lie in question being the quote from the Roman poet Horace that is fed to soldiers in time of war: "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"; the English translation is "It is sweet and proper to die for one's country". Obviously Owen disagreed, and I'm with him.

Dulce et Decorum Est - Wilfred Owen 

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And toward our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind. 

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime...
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning. 

In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning. 

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obsceneas cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, –
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum estPro patria mori.

Today we lament the deaths of young people killed by adherence to an anachronism, and pledge to end the scourge that killed them. Here are two songs that lament the deaths of soldiers - Eric Bogle's "No Man's Land" and Mark Knopfler's "Brothers In Arms".

Memorial Day 2018 - "Let there be peace on Earth, and let it begin with me!"

Photo © 2009 by A. Roy Hilbinger 

A Lively Experiment (Re-post)

[Note: On this day in 1663 the British King Charles II granted a royal charter to the colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. A unique issue presented in this charter was the granting of full freedom of religion in the colony, a principle that paved the way for Rhode Island's insistence on the implementation of additional amendments specifying the basic rights of citizens, especially the first amendment, to the US Constitution before it would ratify that document in 1789.   

This article was first published in 2008 and published again in December of 2009. I no longer live in Rhode Island, but to me it represents the true spirit of freedom of religion and should be relevant wherever we live in the US. The article got much positive response on this blog, but when originally published on the old Gather.com it stirred up a bit of controversy. It seems that many in the fundamentalist and evangelical camp see religious toleration as spiritual slackness and sin, and consider it a slap in their faces for some reason. In the face of such opposition to such a basic principle, I find it apropos to post this again on the anniversary of the granting of the original charter.]

Rhode Island has a history of religious tolerance and freedom of conscience. It was originally a sanctuary for those fleeing the despotism of the Puritans in the Massachusetts Bay Colony; Roger Williams, founding father of the American Baptist movement, settled on the mainland at the head of Narragansett Bay, while Anne Hutchinson and her followers settled on Aquidneck Island (officially known as Rhode Island). In 1663 the two entities united as a single colony and were granted a charter by Charles II, the charter itself being written by Dr. John Clarke of Newport.

The key phrase in that charter declared: "... that it is much on their hearts (if they may be permitted), to hold forth a lively experiment, that a most flourishing civil state may stand and best be maintained... with a full liberty in religious concerns." The charter further declared: "... that our royal will and pleasure is, that no person within the said colony, at any time hereafter, shall be in any wise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any differences of opinion in matters of religion, and do not actually disturb the civil peace of our said colony; but that all and every person and persons may, from time to time and at all times hereafter, freely and fully have and enjoy his and their own judgments and consciences in matters of religious concerns..."

The freedom of conscience guaranteed in the charter created in Rhode Island, and especially in Newport, a truly amazing religious diversity that added to the cultural wealth of its society. The Society of Friends (Quakers) became a major presence in Newport (which was the capital city of the colony, and later the state, until well into the 19th Century), and their Great Meeting House (built in 1699) eventually became the host of the New England Yearly Meeting of the Society (the New England Yearly Meeting was one of the sources of the Abolition movement).

In 1658 fifteen Jewish families moved to Newport after hearing of the colony's "lively experiment" and founded the Congregation Jeshuat Israel. In 1759 the congregation purchased land and hired famed colonial architect Peter Harrison to design Touro Synagogue (named after Isaac Touro, the congregation's first spiritual leader). The synagogue was finished and dedicated in 1763, and is still standing today. Touro Synagogue also played a major role in establishing religious freedom in the newly established United States when a member of the congregation wrote to George Washington, who replied with his famous "To the Hebrew Congregation in Newport" , which stated that the government of the United States "gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance..."

The Quaker and Jewish presences in Newport aren't the only result of that colonial charter, just the most famous. Newport is dotted with old buildings that, at the start of their history, served as houses of worship for small gatherings of believers: the Union Congregational Church on Division St., the first free African-American church in America; the Sabbatarian Meeting House on Touro St., now the home of the Newport Historical Society; The John Clarke Memorial Church on Spring St., one of the first churches of the American Baptist movement (and now pastored by a good friend of mine, Paul Hanson, a very genial, easy-going guy with a dry, wicked sense of humor); St. Paul's Methodist on Marlborough St., the first Methodist church to sport a steeple; and a score of other former churches which, like the Union Congregational church, have since been converted to residences.

Because of the vision of the founders of the colony, and because of the guarantee of freedom of conscience written into their colonial charter at their request, Newport has a rich spiritual heritage and holds a major place in the development of the concept of religious freedom in the history of the United States. It's something we take pride in here, and something we celebrate.

But look back at that original charter, that guarantee that within the colony no one would be pressured, harassed, punished, or otherwise disturbed because they enjoyed freedom of religious belief. How refreshing that is! And how far from the current state of affairs in the contemporary US, where we have a major effort being launched by religious despots, direct descendants of the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, to impose their beliefs and their methods of governance on the people and the government of the United States. People who consider freedom of conscience to be "slack", "lax", "lazy", and most important of all, a sin. People who think that those who believe differently than they must either be converted or punished and removed from "their" society. People who would re-write our history to accommodate their own vision of what that history should have been. People who view any kind of diversity as evil.

The colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations gained great benefit from their practice of freedom of conscience. Given the present situation, I think it's time that our entire country revived that "lively experiment." What say you?

Photos & text © 2008 & 2009 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Memorial Day 2017

My subject is War, and the pity of War.
The Poetry is in the pity ...
All a poet can do today is warn.
– Wilfred Owen

British composer Benjamin Britten's War Requiem, first performed on 30 May 1962, was commissioned to mark the consecration of the new Coventry Cathedral, which was built after the original fourteenth-century structure was destroyed in a World War II bombing raid. The reconsecration was an occasion for an arts festival, for which Michael Tippett also wrote his opera King Priam.

Britten, a pacifist, was inspired by the commission, which gave him complete freedom in deciding what to compose. He chose to set the traditional Latin Mass for the Dead interwoven with nine poems about war by the English poet Wilfred Owen. Owen, who was born in 1893, was serving as the commander of a rifle company when he was killed in action on 4 November 1918 during the crossing of the Sambre-Oise Canal in France, just one week before the Armistice. Although he was virtually unknown at the time of his death, he has subsequently come to be revered as one of the great war poets.

In time this piece has become the world's most powerful anti-war statement, played by orchestras all over the US for Memorial Day, and on Armistice Day, also known as Remembrance Day, in other countries in the British Commonwealth and Europe.

Wilfred Owen's poetry is an integral part of Britten's piece; it is poetry written by a front line soldier during the action of war, and accurately reflects the feelings, thoughts, and reactions of people directly involved in the fighting. As such it is a powerful, and personal, argument against the waging of war, and especially the deceptive attitude of "we must fight this war in order to end all war." History has shown that war only begets more war, a point emphatically made in Eric Bogle's song "No Man's Land":

Did they really believe that this war would end wars

Well the sorrow, the suffering, the glory, the pain

The killing and dying was all done in vain

For young Willie McBride it all happened again

And again, and again, and again, and again.

Before I post the video of a performance of the War Requiem, conducted by Britten himself, I'd like to post this Wilfred Owen poem called "Strange Meeting" one of the last poems he wrote before his death and the final poem used by Britten in the requiem.

It seemed that out of battle I escaped

Down some profound dull tunnel, long since scooped

Through granites which titanic wars had groined.

Yet also there encumbered sleepers groaned,

Too fast in thought or death to be bestirred.

Then, as I probed them, one sprang up, and stared

With piteous recognition in fixed eyes,

Lifting distressful hands, as if to bless.

And by his smile, I knew that sullen hall,—

By his dead smile I knew we stood in Hell.

With a thousand fears that vision's face was grained;

Yet no blood reached there from the upper ground,

And no guns thumped, or down the flues made moan.

“Strange friend,” I said, “here is no cause to mourn.”

“None,” said that other, “save the undone years,

The hopelessness. Whatever hope is yours,

Was my life also; I went hunting wild

After the wildest beauty in the world,

Which lies not calm in eyes, or braided hair,

But mocks the steady running of the hour,

And if it grieves, grieves richlier than here.

For by my glee might many men have laughed,

And of my weeping something had been left,

Which must die now. I mean the truth untold,

The pity of war, the pity war distilled.

Now men will go content with what we spoiled.

Or, discontent, boil bloody, and be spilled.

They will be swift with swiftness of the tigress.

None will break ranks, though nations trek from progress.

Courage was mine, and I had mystery;

Wisdom was mine, and I had mastery:

To miss the march of this retreating world

Into vain citadels that are not walled.

Then, when much blood had clogged their chariot-wheels,

I would go up and wash them from sweet wells,

Even with truths that lie too deep for taint.

I would have poured my spirit without stint

But not through wounds; not on the cess of war.

Foreheads of men have bled where no wounds were.

"I am the enemy you killed, my friend.

I knew you in this dark: for so you frowned

Yesterday through me as you jabbed and killed.

I parried; but my hands were loath and cold.

Let us sleep now. . . ."

And now, Benjamin Britten's War Requiem. May all those killed in war rest in peace, and may we end this madness so that no more need to die!

Photo © 2009 by A. Roy Hilbinger 

A Christian Nation? The Founding Fathers Didn't Think So! (Re-post)

[This is part 2 of my reposts on the issue of religion in the US. This is from 2011 and answers the argument by a large religious bloc on the right that we were founded as a Christian nation on Christian principles, and that the Bible is the real foundation of our government. As this article will show, the facts prove otherwise.]

There's a claim by the Christian Right and some members of the Tea Party movement that the United States was consciously and deliberately created as a Christian nation to spread the Gospel to the new world and create a beacon of light and salvation to the rest of the world. They haven't much evidence to back up this claim; just some scattered quotes from people like George Washington, made in their private capacity and not as spokespersons for the government or the nation.

Granted, we had plenty of people settle here in the early days in a quest to believe and practice those beliefs away from the oppression of the established churches of Europe, but they weren't the only people to leave Europe and settle here. There were plenty of people who were only nominal members of any church, or followers of the Enlightenment philosophers such as Voltaire who emphasized reason as the primary source of authority and knowledge. Or they were just farmers and trappers and whatnot who had no real use for religion in their life and were happy to go about their daily lives and work without need for religion. There was a lot of philosophical diversity in the early colonies which became the United States.

And in fact the the lawyers and merchants who formed the intellectual class from whom the founding fathers of this nation emerged were mostly followers of the Enlightenment, men such as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Hancock, the Adamses of Boston, and Benjamin Franklin, self-declared Deists who believed in a higher power but denied the legitimacy of any formal religion. Even that ultimate gentleman farmer cum soldier, George Washington, considered himself a Deist. And it was these people who wrote our founding documents and created a purely secular, not religious, government.

The U.S. Constitution is the rock-solid foundation of the government of the United States; it establishes and guides our whole form of governance, from the legislative to the judicial to the administrative. It is, to use a Judeo-Christian reference, the Ten Commandments of the nation. It was written by men dedicated to reason and the Age of Enlightenment (principally James Madison, who himself was a protegé of Thomas Jefferson, probably the prime advocate of Enlightenment thinking, along with Benjamin Franklin, among the founding fathers), and it never mentions God, Jesus Christ, the Church, or the Bible. Never. Not even once. It only actually mentions matters pertaining to religion once, in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The key phrase in that amendment is known in U.S. jurisprudence as the Establishment Clause - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." - which at the very beginning of our national existence says that the government cannot sponsor or enforce a religious belief and practice on the American people. There are people who argue that it does no such thing, that the amendment only says that the government can't favor one religion over the other. But the evidence, from the very records of the Constitutional Convention itself, along with the writings of the men who wrote the document, says otherwise.

The Library of Congress's Congressional Research Service (CRS) has released an annotated Constitution, and the Columbia University Law School has put a hyperlinked version online, which you can find here. The annotations quote the debates and discussions entered into at the convention, as well as the documents which express the ideas of those attending. The annotation page for the First Amendment can be found here, but I want to include passages from the "overview" section along with the footnotes for that section (included in brackets after the passage) that speak directly to the matter.

Madison’s original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed." [1 Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).]

The language was altered in the House to read: “Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." [The committee appointed to consider Madison’s proposals, and on which Madison served, with Vining as chairman, had rewritten the religion section to read: “No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.” After some debate during which Madison suggested that the word “national” might be inserted before the word “religion” as “point[ing] the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent,” the House adopted a substitute reading: “Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.” 1 Annals of Congress 729–31 (August 15, 1789). On August 20, on motion of Fisher Ames, the language of the clause as quoted in the text was adopted. Id. at 766. According to Madison’s biographer, “[t]here can be little doubt that this was written by Madison.” I. Brant, James Madison—Father of the Constitution 1787–1800 at 271 (1950).]

In the Senate, the section adopted read: “Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . ." [This text, taken from the Senate Journal of September 9, 1789, appears in 2 B. Schwartz (ed.), The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 1153 (1971). It was at this point that the religion clauses were joined with the freedom of expression clauses.]

It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its some[p.970]what more indefinite “respecting” phraseology. [1 Annals of Congress 913 (September 24, 1789). The Senate concurred the same day. See I. Brant, James Madison—Father of the Constitution 1787–1800, 271–72 (1950).]

Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion clauses; Madison’s position, as well as that of Jefferson who influenced him, is fairly clear... [During House debate, Madison told his fellow Members that “he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience.” 1 Annals of Congress 730 (August 15, 1789). That his conception of “establishment” was quite broad is revealed in his veto as President in 1811 of a bill which in granting land reserved a parcel for a Baptist Church in Salem, Mississippi; the action, explained President Madison, “comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.”’ 8 The Writings of James Madison (G. Hunt. ed.) 132–33 (1904). Madison’s views were no doubt influenced by the fight in the Virginia legislature in 1784–1785 in which he successfully led the opposition to a tax to support teachers of religion in Virginia and in the course of which he drafted his “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments” setting forth his thoughts. Id. at 183–91; I. Brant, James Madison—The Nationalist 1780–1787, 343–55 (1948). Acting on the momentum of this effort, Madison secured passage of Jefferson’s “Bill for Religious Liberty”. Id. at 354; D. Malone, Jefferson the Virginian 274–280 (1948). The theme of the writings of both was that it was wrong to offer public support of any religion in particular or of religion in general.]

Obviously Madison and the others were intent on keeping the U.S. government out of the business of religion. Note especially this quote from Madison in the Annals of Congress:

During House debate, Madison told his fellow Members that “he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience.” 1 Annals of Congress 730 (August 15, 1789).

This is a clear declaration of a hands-off policy toward religion by the government, expressed by the architects of the document which is the foundation of that government.

There have been many acts by the government which have highlighted the thinking of these founding fathers, a philosophy that has come to be known as the "separation of Church and State", but perhaps one of the clearest actions on that philosophy came early in the history of the U.S. government with the 1797 treaty with Tripoli in the Barbary States of north Africa.

Joel Barlow was the consul-general to the Barbary states of Algiers, Tripoli, and Tunis; he was assigned by Commissioner Plenipotentiary of the U.S. David Humphries to broker a treaty with Tripoli in 1796. Most of the treaty concerns trade agreements, tariffs, rights-of-way for shipping, etc.; mundane stuff. But Article 11 of the treaty makes a bold statement regarding the attitude of the U.S. toward the religion of Tripoli and the other Barbary States:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

There it is, right out in the open in black and white on an official document of the U.S. government: "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." In 1796, only seven years after the ratification of the Constitution. You can't get any clearer than that.

There's been an argument advanced that Article 11 says no such thing in the original Arabic document, and that it was a late insertion by the Dey of Algiers to allay the fears of the Pasha of Tripoli. But that's irrelevant, a straw man put up by opponents of church-state separation. No matter what the Arabic document says, Joel Barlow's English translation - including that eleventh article - is what was presented to President John Adams, who then presented it to the Senate, in printed copy and read aloud on the floor of the Senate. These were men who were in at the beginning of the nation, many of them former members of the Continental Congress, signers of the Declaration of Independence, and members of the Congress which wrote the Constitution. They ratified the treaty by unanimous vote on June 7, 1797, and President Adams signed it. They had all heard and read that phrase - "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." - and no one objected; in fact no one said anything at all about it. Why? Because this is what they believed.

So those who would want to rewrite our history to conform to their particular, sectarian ideology, led most notably by David Barton (who interestingly has no degree in history but rather a bachelor's degree in religious education from Oral Roberts University) and his Wallbuilders organization, haven't a leg to stand on. By their own private writings and in the national documents they inspired and helped create, the "Founding Fathers" of the United States were not intent on creating a "Christian nation", but rather a fully secular government with a clear hands-off policy toward religion. There's really no question of that at all.

© 2011 by A. Roy Hilbinger. Images owned by the United States and are public domain.

A Lively Experiment (Re-post)

[Note: Lately I've been thinking about the recent moves by the religious right to try to assert dominance over the national scene, so I've decided to re-post two previous blog posts dealing with the issue of religion in American history. The first is a response to the move by the Indiana legislature and others to redefine "religious freedom" as the freedom to discriminate against those who aren't of their own particular belief. This was first published in 2008 and published again in December of 2009. I no longer live in Rhode Island, but to me this article represents the true spirit of freedom of religion and should be relevant wherever we live in the US. In a couple of days I'll re-publish another article on the uninformed idea that the US was created as a "Christian nation". Both of these articles got much positive response on this blog, but when published on the old Gather.com they stirred up a bit of controversy.]

Rhode Island has a history of religious tolerance and freedom of conscience. It was originally a sanctuary for those fleeing the despotism of the Puritans in the Massachusetts Bay Colony; Roger Williams, founding father of the American Baptist movement, settled on the mainland at the head of Narragansett Bay, while Anne Hutchinson and her followers settled on Aquidneck Island (officially known as Rhode Island). In 1663 the two entities united as a single colony and were granted a charter by Charles II, the charter itself being written by Dr. John Clarke of Newport.

The key phrase in that charter declared: "... that it is much on their hearts (if they may be permitted), to hold forth a lively experiment, that a most flourishing civil state may stand and best be maintained... with a full liberty in religious concerns." The charter further declared: "... that our royal will and pleasure is, that no person within the said colony, at any time hereafter, shall be in any wise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any differences of opinion in matters of religion, and do not actually disturb the civil peace of our said colony; but that all and every person and persons may, from time to time and at all times hereafter, freely and fully have and enjoy his and their own judgments and consciences in matters of religious concerns..."

The freedom of conscience guaranteed in the charter created in Rhode Island, and especially in Newport, a truly amazing religious diversity that added to the cultural wealth of its society. The Society of Friends (Quakers) became a major presence in Newport (which was the capital city of the colony, and later the state, until well into the 19th Century), and their Great Meeting House (built in 1699) eventually became the host of the New England Yearly Meeting of the Society (the New England Yearly Meeting was one of the sources of the Abolition movement).

In 1658 fifteen Jewish families moved to Newport after hearing of the colony's "lively experiment" and founded the Congregation Jeshuat Israel. In 1759 the congregation purchased land and hired famed colonial architect Peter Harrison to design Touro Synagogue (named after Isaac Touro, the congregation's first spiritual leader). The synagogue was finished and dedicated in 1763, and is still standing today. Touro Synagogue also played a major role in establishing religious freedom in the newly established United States when a member of the congregation wrote to George Washington, who replied with his famous "To the Hebrew Congregation in Newport" , which stated that the government of the United States "gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance..."

The Quaker and Jewish presences in Newport aren't the only result of that colonial charter, just the most famous. Newport is dotted with old buildings that, at the start of their history, served as houses of worship for small gatherings of believers: the Union Congregational Church on Division St., the first free African-American church in America; the Sabbatarian Meeting House on Touro St., now the home of the Newport Historical Society; The John Clarke Memorial Church on Spring St., one of the first churches of the American Baptist movement (and now pastored by a good friend of mine, Paul Hanson, a very genial, easy-going guy with a dry, wicked sense of humor); St. Paul's Methodist on Marlborough St., the first Methodist church to sport a steeple; and a score of other former churches which, like the Union Congregational church, have since been converted to residences.

Because of the vision of the founders of the colony, and because of the guarantee of freedom of conscience written into their colonial charter at their request, Newport has a rich spiritual heritage and holds a major place in the development of the concept of religious freedom in the history of the United States. It's something we take pride in here, and something we celebrate.

But look back at that original charter, that guarantee that within the colony no one would be pressured, harassed, punished, or otherwise disturbed because they enjoyed freedom of religious belief. How refreshing that is! And how far from the current state of affairs in the contemporary US, where we have a major effort being launched by religious despots, direct descendants of the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, to impose their beliefs and their methods of governance on the people and the government of the United States. People who consider freedom of conscience to be "slack", "lax", "lazy", and most important of all, a sin. People who think that those who believe differently than they must either be converted or punished and removed from "their" society. People who would re-write our history to accommodate their own vision of what that history should have been. People who view any kind of diversity as evil.

The colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations gained great benefit from their practice of freedom of conscience. Given the present situation, I think it's time that our entire country revived that "lively experiment." What say you?

Photos & text © 2008 & 2009 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Memorial Day 2014

THE NEXT WAR by WILFRED OWEN  
War's a joke for me and you, 
While we know such dreams are true. 
– SIEGFRIED SASSOON

Out there, we walked, quite friendly up to Death,---
 Sat down and ate beside him, cool and bland,---
 Pardoned his spilling mess-tins in our hand.
We've sniffed the green thick odour of his breath,---
Our eyes wept, but our courage didn't writhe.
 He's spat at us with bullets, and he's coughed
Shrapnel. We chorused if he sang aloft,
We whistled while he shaved us with his scythe.

Oh, Death was never enemy of ours!
 We laughed at him, we leagued with him, old chum.
No soldier's paid to kick against His powers.
We laughed,---knowing that better men would come,
And greater wars: when every fighter brags
He fights on Death, for lives; not men, for flags.

This year's Memorial Day post is all about the damage done to young men (and these days women as well) by war. So many young lives are damaged or lost to settle old, fat men's disagreements. It's time we wrote laws that make the people who disagree be the ones who have to fight it out. If that were the case, we'd have world peace overnight! As Herman Wouk had one of his characters say in his epic War and Remembrance: "Either war is finished, or we are." How true that is!

Memorial Day 2013

Music appropriate for the day - the great Eric Bogle's "No Man's Land", reaction to the death of a WWI soldier and a rumination on the nature of war and the governments that declare it.

War is sometimes necessary, but there's nothing glorious about it whatsoever. As General William Tecumseh Sherman is famous for telling some new recruits in 1879: "There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is all Hell." However, most wars aren't necessary at all, but rather the result of greed, aggression, or failed foreign policy - avoidable, except that those who declared them had a vested interest in waging war. Someone somewhere (I forget who now) said that if the old men who declare war had to fight in them we'd have world peace tomorrow. Another quote about war, this time about the causes, come from Baha'i leader 'Abdu'l-Baha on a visit to Paris in 1912: "Land belongs not to one people, but to all people. This earth is not man's home, but his tomb. It is for their tombs these men are fighting."

And those who suffer are the ones sent to fight for somebody else's cause. As Eric Bogle says in "No Man's Land":

And I can't help but wonder, now Willie McBride,
Do all those who lie here know why they died?
Did you really believe them when they told you 'The Cause?'
Did you really believe that this war would end wars?
Well the suffering, the sorrow, the glory, the shame
The killing, the dying, it was all done in vain,
For Willie McBride, it all happened again,
And again, and again, and again, and again.

And again, as John McCutcheon writes in his own song "Christmas in the Trenches":

The ones who call the shots won't be among the dead and lame,
And on each end of the rifle we're the same.

So today we pay respects to the young men and women who were sent to do somebody else's dirty work. We pray long and hard that humanity will come to its senses and start to see war as a last resort and not as a standard foreign policy tool. And we pray that those now in harm's way in another part of the world come home safe and sound.

Photo © 2009 and text © 2010 by A. Roy Hilbinger; lyrics to "No Man's Land" © 1976 by Eric Bogle; lyrics to "Christmas in the Trenches" © 1984 by John McCutcheon.

'Tis the Season... again

Yes indeed, friends and faithful readers, it's that time of year again. The "Christian" right, people like Bill O'Reilly on Fox News and the Wildmons and their American Family Association (AFA), are revving up their annual banshee wail about some kind of "War on Christmas". And yet everywhere you look there are trees with lights, wreaths, holly, people wandering neighborhood streets caroling... You get the idea. Somehow there doesn't seem to be any kind of "war" going on. So what's the beef?

One of the complaints is that the "Christ" has been taken out of Christmas. But if you really, carefully look at the situation, there's not much Christ in Christmas in the first place, at least concerning when and how Christmas has been celebrated down through the ages. Take the date: tradition has assigned December 25 as the date of Jesus' birth. But on what evidence? Certainly not on the Bible's testimony; there's no way to figure out when Jesus was born from the Gospels. Neither Mark nor John even include a birth narrative. Matthew's narrative is minimal at best, no mention of shepherds and their flocks, but we get the visit by the Magi (Matthew 1:18 - 2:12). Luke's is the narrative we're all familiar with - the shepherds and the multitude of angels (but no Magi) - but there's no way to tell when Jesus was born, even to the season of the year (Luke 2:1-20). [Note: Feel free to look up those verses and read for yourself. I'll wait...]

So if there's no clue in the Gospels as to when Jesus was born, where did December 25 come from? Well, there just happened to be a lot of Winter Solstice celebrations around at the same time in the world Christianity developed in - the Roman Saturnalia from the 17th to the 23rd, the later Roman feast of Sol Invictus on the 25th, and the Germanic (Yule, Jul) and the Gaulish Celtic (Deuorius Riuri) solstice observances. Early Christianity was in direct "competition" with all of these contemporary religious cultures, and apparently it was seen as a best bet to make the birthday of the founder of their religion to be at the same time to establish legitimacy and eventually superiority. So the date of Jesus' birth was set on a date that had nothing to do with him and his teachings, but was a matter of convenience and "public relations".

Interestingly, very early Christianity seems not to have celebrated Christmas at all. I found this interesting little tidbit in the Wikipedia article on Saturnalia:

There is no evidence scripturally or secularly that early Christians in the first century commemorated the birth of Jesus Christ. In fact, in keeping with early Jewish law and tradition, it is likely that birthdays were not commemorated at all. According to The World Book Encyclopedia: "early Christians considered the celebration of anyone's birth to be a pagan custom." (Vol. 3, page 416) Rather than commemorate his birth, the only command Jesus gave concerning a commemoration of his life of any sort actually had to do only with his death (Luke 22:19). It was not until several hundred years after the death of Jesus Christ that the first instances of the celebration of Christmas begin to appear in the historical record.

Which, of course, coincides with the cult of Sol Invictus gaining supremacy in the Roman Empire, thus becoming Christianity's chief rival. And the birth of the god Sol Invictus was celebrated on December 25. Not too hard to connect the dots, is it?

As to how the holiday is celebrated... Most of the traditions and symbols of Christmas come from the earlier religions Christianity set out to supplant. An evergreen tree hung with decorations and lights? Taken from the German Yule tradition. Garlands and wreaths of evergreens and Holly? Taken from just about all the European Winter Solstice celebrations (including the Roman), as evergreens symbolized the continuation of life through the dark, dead months of Winter. Mistletoe? Taken from Celtic and Germanic solstice traditions. The giving of gifts? Taken from both Saturnalia and Sol Invictus, both of which included the giving of gifts in their celebrations. Santa Claus? The legend of the child-friendly Christian St. Nicholas superimposed on the pre-Christian Celtic and Germanic figures of the Winter King/Holly King, who ruled over Winter. And of course the whole thing with candles comes from the bonfires and lights which burned in the dark forests of Europe to symbolize the return of the sun on the year's longest nights.

So, to recapitulate: The birth of Christ is celebrated on a date that has nothing to do with him but rather with older traditions of celebrating the Winter Solstice, and using customs which have nothing to do with him and more to do with said older solstice celebrations. So how can you take Christ out of Christmas when he's not really in there in the first place? Christ may have been grafted onto the old ways with interesting results. but still, when all is said and done, Christmas is really Christian in name only.

Oh, and the whole "Xmas" thing? That's not all about x-ing Christ out of Christmas. In fact, it's an old Christian tradition - X in the Greek alphabet is Chi, which is the first letter of Christos (Χριστός), meaning the "annointed one", a direct Greek translation of the Hebrew Mashiakh (מָשִׁיחַ) - messiah. So much for crossing Christ out of Christmas, eh?

So, how else is war supposedly being waged on Christmas? Well, apparently it's persecuting Christians to say "Happy Holidays" to people instead of "Merry Christmas". Ditto companies who say "holiday" instead of "Christmas" in their seasonal advertising. The AFA puts out a list of companies to be boycotted because of this "persecution" of Christmas, which includes The Gap, The Home Depot, Best Buy, Target, etc. None of those companies seem to have suffered from the boycott.

So why say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas"? Well, first off, "Happy Holidays" has been an accepted greeting for the season since the 1920s and '30s, mainly because the whole country celebrates Christmas and New Years a week apart and it's just easier to refer to both with "Happy Holidays". Not to mention that the Jewish celebration of Hanukkah falls in the same general time and is fairly big in this county as well. In general America has just become much more diverse. We have increasing populations of non-Christian religions in the US, and many of them celebrate solstice or other holidays at this time of year: the afore-mentioned Hanukkah in Judaism, a growing trend of celebrating Kwanzaa in the African-American community, Soyal among the Hopi and the Zuni peoples, and the celebrating of the Winter Solstice, often referred to as Yule, by the steadily growing neo-Pagan community. And don't forget surveys showing the rapid growth of a segment of the population who regard themselves as unaffiliated with any religion; these people tend to celebrate the season as a generic, cultural Winter Holiday rather than a religious one. Retailers don't want to offend prospective customers, so the polite thing to do is to refer to "The Holidays" rather than pick a specific holiday out of the crowd.

Besides, how can you tell what religion a person is just by looking at them? A blonde, blue eyed friend of mine who just happens to be Jewish is often wished a Merry Christmas this time of year, and she usually responds with "Thank you! And a Happy Hanukkah to you!" Nine times out of ten this is an occasion for laughter and further good-natured conversation. But there's always that tenth who feels that he/she has been insulted and "persecuted" by that response.

This thinking also applies to Christmas displays on public, government-owned properties, and to Christmas celebrations in the public schools. The First Amendment to the US Constitution forbids the government to adopt a particular religion. In the beginning this was meant to keep any particular religious dogma from imposing itself on the public in general. It still has this function, but it also functions as a means of keeping the peace in the culturally diverse society we've become. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a Nativity scene set up on the Town Hall lawn, as long as there are provisions that anyone else can  set up a holiday display as well, such as a menorah for Hanukkah and such. But whenever such a compromise has been suggested, people start arguing even louder. So really, it's best that government stay right out of the whole religion business.

Of course, the retort to that solution is usually "Christians are in the majority, and the majority rules in any vote." And in fact that's wrong; the Constitution was written to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Everywhere you look in the Constitution and in Constitutional law, the law is always written to preserve the rights of the minority. Besides, Christianity is losing its edge as the majority in the religious make-up of the US; it's becoming just another face in a rather large crowd.

The worst part about all this is that most Christians have no problem with this. And many of us who are in the "minority" crowd have no problems, either. I've gone caroling in the streets of Newport with a diverse group of people that included several flavors of Christians, some Pagans, some Jews, and even a stray Buddhist (albeit American-born) from time to time. We enjoyed being together and sharing our customs for this time of year. And isn't gathering together and sharing of our own, adding warmth and light to the long, cold, dark nights of Winter what Winter Solstice celebrations are all about, anyhow?

Unfortunately there's a small but very vocal (and very media-savvy) group of hard-line "Christians" who insist that recognition of any belief or culture outside of their own is anti-Christian persecution. It's very passive-agressive behavior, this rolling up into the fetal position and screaming "VICTIM" whenever any belief outside their own is recognized and acknowledged; if you don't love only them then you must hate them, therefor they're victims of persecution. They remind me of not-very-well-behaved 3-year-olds - they haven't learned to share. In fact, they refuse to share and throw a temper tantrum whenever they're asked to; this is "their" country and it needs to be run according to "their" religion and anybody who isn't of "their" religion needs either to convert or go somewhere else. Anybody who has dealt with small children recognizes this reaction! "It's MINE! and I WON'T share it!"

So is there really a war being waged on Christmas? Actually, I think there is; it's being waged by the Dobsons and the Wildmons and the O'Reillys of this world, ruining everybody's happy, warm Winter holiday with their scowls and their scolding and their selfishness. If they want to see the real Scrooge in all this, all they have to do is look in the mirror.

© 2012 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Memorial Day - A Peace Garden

I went up to the Shippensburg Memorial Park - a park and sports complex dotted with memorials to Shippensburg's dead in the nation's wars - to get photos for this, my annual Memorial Day post (a day early because I'm working tomorrow). And in the process of searching out the various memorial plaques I stumbled across this Peace Garden, which turns out to be the centerpiece of the memorial park. And really, isn't that the real purpose of this holiday, to pray that this madness we call war never happen again? I tip my hat to whoever planned this park for making the idea of peace the center around which the memorials to the dead revolve!

 Dona nobis pacem!


© 2012 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Just a Reminder

For Tim Tebow, and his followers who practice "tebowing", for Harrisburg, PA mayor Linda Thompson, for all those people who insist on starting government meetings with prayer, and for anyone else who insists on acts of public piety in order to push an agenda...

Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.

Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Matthew 6:1 - 6)

Just sayin'...

Photo © 2012 by A. Roy Hilbinger

An Open Letter to Lowe's

[Note: I work for Lowe's. And I'm not a Muslim. And no, I don't plan to quit my job. But I am very, very disappointed in the people who run the company I work for, and felt I should register my objections.]

I work for Lowe's, in the garden center at the Shippensburg, PA store. I enjoy my job, and I'm grateful to Lowe's for hiring me. I was unemployed for over three years, my applications turned down time after time; I can't prove it but it was obvious that my age was a major factor in those rejections.

I had to leave my home of 36 years in Newport, RI to go live with my family here in Central PA, and after about 5 months here I was hired by Lowe's. Apparently they respect the the knowledge and life experience of a 58-year-old; there are a lot of us over-50 types at the store. I like my job with Lowe's; I enjoy working in the garden center, I like the people I work with, and the managerial staff is way less dysfunctional than many I've worked under. In many ways it's felt like home.

Until now. I'm distressed and disappointed by Lowe's decision to withdraw its ads on TLC's All-American Muslim show. There really is no logical, rational reason to do this, especially in light of the fact that Lowe's advertises its social responsibility programs, including its workplace diversity and inclusion policies (all of this is documented on their website, here and here). As it says on the website:

Lowe's dedication to diversity and inclusion grows from the steadfast values of our employees and extends to every corner of our company. We draw upon the strength of collaboration, bringing together many unique individuals in the workplace and the community to better meet the needs of our employees and our customers. Recruiting, developing and retaining a diverse work force ensures a welcoming customer experience, enhances partnerships and strengthens community involvement.

In light of this, the decision to withdraw ads from a show about American Muslims makes no sense; it's directly counter to its stated diversity and inclusion policy.

Equally disappointing, it seems the decision to withdraw was made after an avalanche of emails launched by the Florida Family Association, a fringe far right evangelical Christian group who objects to the show's depiction of Muslims as average Americans and not fanatical bomb-throwers, and who threatened boycott if Lowe's continued to advertise on the show.

If the suits in Mooresville, NC (Lowe's corporate headquarters) are worried about that boycott, I can reassure them on that count. If the membership of the FFA exceeds 1,000 I'll be surprised. As an influence on the American body politic they're a microdot. That wouldn't amount to much of a boycott. In fact, I'll bet there are more American Muslims who shop at Lowe's (or at least did before this) than members of the FFA.

The FFA sources its arguments against All-American Muslim to anti-Islam activists Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, evangelicals who see Islam as a threat and/or rejection of their own narrow Christian evangelism. It is, in fact, sectarian fear and jealousy, something that should have no place in the business world. Their arguments are made up of misrepresentation, outright lies, and gross (and deliberate) exaggerations. It's a tissue of falsehood from start to finish.

How do I know this? Because I've been involved in interfaith activities and organizations for well over 30 years. I've spent my entire adult life in dialog with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, et al. I've known many Muslims, both American-born and immigrants, for decades. I have a copy of the Qur'an in my library and an electronic copy of the hadith (traditions attributed to Muhammad) on my hard drive. These people are just people, just like you or me, and their spiritual beliefs are really no different or more intense than any other believers.

None of the propaganda spread by the FFA, Spencer and Geller and their ilk, matches the Muslims I've known or their religious scriptures. In fact, their propaganda is the 21st Century American equivalent of Nazi propaganda against the Jews in the '20s, '30s, and '40s. It's bigotry, plain and simple.

So I'm disappointed in Lowe's. I find it distressing that a company that prides itself on diversity and inclusion has allowed itself to be influenced by a group steeped in bigotry and hate. Lowe's values and mine no longer seem to be in sync.

There's a phrase posted throughout the store and on our computers: "I am Lowe's!" I'm not so sure that's true any more.

© 2011 by A. Roy Hilbinger