Page Two

Belligerent intolerance is no testament to faith

'Tis the season to state that from now on I refuse to be defined by people who think that by constantly declaring their love of God and their unquestioning, deep belief in their religions, they are relieved of the more onerous responsibilities and behavior prescribed by such faiths. Those very faiths' carefully laid-out, moral and spiritual guides for personal behavior and action – the day-to-day way of respecting one's creator – are evidently waived. All they have to do is: 1) loudly proclaim, publicly and often, that they and their kind are leading truly godly lives, while also pointing out that most others aren't, and 2) maintain that any indiscretion committed is in the service of punishing, attacking, and demeaning those who are unbelievers of the one and only true way of your faith.

The first, of course, is a bit more important: Just talking about your faith, your belief, and your commitment to the principles of your religion relieves you of all specific responsibilities and expectations for personal actions, as well as familial, community, and neighborly interactions and responsibilities.

Not only that, but, by so vigorously stating your piousness, you are not only free to ignore the more mundane cautions, but have the right – no, make that the responsibility – to lecture others on their failings.

Thus, a healthy percentage of the letter-writers whose criticisms of my beliefs are offered from strongly religious points of view often include implied, or even overt, threats as well. Witness the excerpts from this letter:

"Mr. Black's incoherent leftist rant is eclipsed only by his naked and abject hypocrisy ["Page Two," Nov. 4]. ...

"Let us look in the mirror of truth. Mr. Black is a neoleftist utopian who clings to moral relativism as the key ingredient to understanding the meaning of life. This makes it convenient for him and his ilk to find sympathy, tolerance, and acceptance of deviant ideologies such as Marxism, suicidal pacifism, anarchic chic, equivocating multiculturalism, and whatever ideology the mavens of social fashion may deem as admirable. Conversely, moral relativism affords him the fig leaf to be outraged at any ideological opinions labeled as unfashionable. ...

"These truths are self-evident. All one need do to see it is to make a moral commitment to objective truth seeking. Unfortunately for Mr. Black, he is left wanting and advocating a mindset of moral hypocrisy that has shown historically to be the pavement on the road to hell. He and his fellow travelers must be resisted totally. Rest assured, they will be."

I don't know; I think this one is more explicit than implied. What about you? Come on: "These truths are self-evident. ... He and his fellow travelers must be resisted totally. Rest assured, they will be." Isn't that so Christian!?! Isn't that just turning the other cheek and loving your neighbor!?! Isn't that so being without sin, as well as true-blue American patriotism at its best?

Certainly, this is an extreme, not a representation of mass opinion. But it gets to the point. I'm sick to death of having other people describe the limits of my faith, as well as how diseased my beliefs are, based on their stereotypes of those who disagree with them.

I was raised to believe that one's religion is a matter of personal business and not community discussion or judgment. Proclaiming one's beliefs was considered rude, pathetic, and simpleminded. Living in a society where those who most often and loudly claim that they believe are rewarded, and those who keep their beliefs to themselves are stigmatized, is to live in a world where God is really being trivialized.

This holiday season, this time of Christmas, this changing of the years, this wonderful week of realignment and revival should be a time of joining together and not hysterically excluding, of understanding and not judging.

Editing and reworded to avoid specifics – because my religion is my business – at a special celebration for my son, I offered the following:

"The very core of who I am is defined and crafted by my religion. Everything I've ever done of any worth was informed by the principles of our religion and the moral and ethical guidelines of its thought, taught to me by my parents. I hope one day you will say the same, and that you are already long on that path."

This is by no means an uncommon view, but because it is privately held and rarely so stated, true believers will frequently express their sorrow that I don't know God. As though they do, and have special access to all others who are in on it.

I've been labeled a nonbeliever, an atheist, a pagan, a fellow traveler on the way to hell. In a sense, who cares? Calling someone those terms makes them only self-referential; you are what you speak.

The morally self-satisfied (thus inherently questionable, as those terms are mutually exclusive) are also gleefully and capriciously passing judgment on all others.

This is the season to reject bigotry and hypocrisy. This is a season of friends, family, and love.

Along these lines I offer you the following letter to the editor, and then my response. After that, I just wish all of you the best, and bow out.

"Dear Editor,

"Gosh, I thought liberals like Louis Black were supposed to be sensitive types, all concerned about what 'offends' people. Just not Christians; when they get offended, he writes stupid little 'Page Two' [Dec. 23] stories about Christian terrorists and murderers. Tell you what, Louis, why don't you substitute Christians pissed off about 'Happy Holidays' with blacks pissed off about the South Carolina flag? Love to see that column. Dude, you're so full of hatred and intolerance, it's sad to watch it unfold weekly. Glad you have a newspaper to hide behind, no telling what you'd do if you couldn't vent. Merry Christmas. – Carl Swanson

"[Louis Black responds: A lot of people are going to 'Happy Holidays' to be inclusive, which seems appropriate for the season. Still, if you travel through the American landscape at all, just open your eyes and your ears and shut your mouth. In every way, the entire culture is loudly singing 'Christmas.' This country is drenched in Christmas, make no mistake about it. The argument that there is a war against Christmas rests on hysterically exaggerated, anecdotal evidence – a relatively few scattered incidents, paranoid fantasies about a nefarious government campaign against Christianity, and just ridiculous misconceptions and lies about existing laws. To the contrary, this country has an overwhelmingly dominant Christian majority. Any claim of a widespread anti-Christian conspiracy denies obvious reality to such an extent as to appear beyond hallucinogenic. Personally, I have no problem with 'Merry Christmas,' but it is frustrating to watch talk-show hosts, political leaders, and preachers puff up another nonexistent threat as though it is the impending apocalypse in order to mobilize their faithful.

"At the bottom, the ploy is that Christians – not simply the overwhelming majority but the authority in our culture – are persecuted and endangered by those civil-liberties-loving Christian haters. It isn't true, but the idea is even more disgusting than a simple lie. The strategy is to get one group of Americans to hate another group of Americans as a way of promoting theology/ideology. Christmas is now very much an American moment and a commercial holiday; this assertion of spirituality is an attempt to nonspecifically blame what has happened to Christmas over the last century on a few. Isn't there some sense of outrage at the venal and manipulative exploitation of the celebration of the birth of the Child into a political/ideological/theological tool to promote divisiveness and anger? Isn't the real celebration of his birth not in draped public lighting and gaudy signage, but in your hearts, your souls, and your prayers? There are many areas of disagreement among all people. This isn't about disagreements.]"

Finally, last week's column was a satire portraying all Christians as though they shared the beliefs of the most extreme, disenfranchised, fanatical few, which is exactly the tactic the leaders against the "War on Christmas" are using to pretend there is any kind of issue at all.