Defending Christianity

As an active Reform Jew, I may seem like an unlikely person to write a defense of Christianity.

Nonetheless, I must disagree with Alex Koppelman's piece that appeared last Thursday ("Stealing Christmas"), in which he claimed that Evangelical Christians were violating Americans' rightful freedoms. Although I admittedly don't agree with all of Christian doctrine, I feel the views Koppelman expressed ultimately reflect anti-Christian prejudice and support Christians' assertions of discrimination.

In his column, Koppelman first notes that the media recently reported on Christian complaints of "Christmas suppression," in which Christian symbols and ideas were censored. After ridiculing Christian complaints, he identifies their concerns as evidence that they are "a minority [that] is working overtime in the interest of robbing the rest of us of our freedoms."

I believe that these concerns are really caused by general discomfort with Christianity. The discomfort arises from multiple sources. Sometimes, people associate Christianity with historical atrocities, such as the Crusades and the Inquisition. Alternately, people feel disturbed by an emphasis on proselytism, since it inherently suggests that other beliefs are inferior. Disagreements also arise from Christians' views on particular topics, such as abortion and homosexuality.

Although I sympathize with these perspectives, I ultimately find them invalid. First, it is unfair to blame modern Christians for crimes committed by their ancestors. Second, when examining proselytism, it is important to realize that evangelists truly believe they have found the path to fulfillment, God and everlasting life. In their view, it would be morally abhorrent to keep this information from you. Third, it is hypocritical to object to Christians as a group merely because one disagrees with some members' views or actions. This sort of discrimination is no different than, say, some Christians' discrimination against gays because of disagreements over their actions.

Regardless of the cause, the discomfort has resulted in legitimate discrimination against Christians. In his column, Koppelman tries to invalidate Christian concerns by conveniently citing only accusations that were later proven false. However, according to The Washington Post, schools in Florida and New Jersey have banned the playing of Christmas carols. The Wall Street Journal reported that the mayor of Somerville, Mass., apologized for referring to "Christmas trees" instead of "holiday trees."

Does this anti-Christian discrimination represent an increase over past years? Honestly, it's hard to say. However, as liberal-minded people, we must not tolerate even low-level discrimination, regardless of the target. Furthermore, even if one dismisses the existence of so-called anti-Christmas discrimination, the complaints of secularists often provide ample evidence of anti-Christian attitudes.

For example, Koppelman states, "Increasingly, a vocal minority's evangelical Christian views are being shoved down the majority of Americans' throats at the expense of our freedom to see, hear and say what we want." Now, although I agree that saying what you want is important, since when do we have the freedom to see and hear only what we want? Our experience is enlarged by the presence of many perspectives, including those with which we disagree.

In examples provided by other commentators, people have claimed that the presence of Christian symbols, such as Christmas trees in public areas, violates the First Amendment, which defines the separation of church and state. However, in fact, the amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." And that's all it says with respect to religion.

Clearly, the amendment does not guarantee anyone the "freedom" not to see a Christmas tree at their local library. People concerned about Christianity's influence seem to be re-interpreting their "rights" through the distorted lens of their own preferences.

More importantly, suppression of Evangelical or conservative Christianity ultimately exacerbates the problems that people like Koppelman are trying to solve. It's true that radical Christianity can sometimes be oppressive, as can any radical group. However, suppressing Christian symbols merely fosters a sense that Christianity is "under siege," making radical Christians even more vociferous.

Meanwhile, moderate Christians, aware of how their faith is perceived by the secular majority, feel uncomfortable voicing their views. Since I believe that moderate Christianity is the best defense against oppressive Christianity, it seems a shame to silence these helpful, productive voices.

Ultimately, views such as Koppelman's seem to spring from latent discomfort and discrimination, not from legitimate concerns about our freedoms. Ironically, secularists and radical Christians seem to have the same goal: to make a better America. The only difference is that he feels society is improved by the suppression of public Christianity, whereas Christians feel it is improved by changing social mores.

Since there is disagreement over what makes a better America, let's aim for a freer America. And because a freer world permits the greatest diversity of views, it gives us our best shot at a better one.

Jennifer Weiss is a senior Linguistics and Theatre Arts major from Los Angeles. War On Error appears on Wednesdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.