Why I Prefer the Williamsburg Capitol to Richmond's

A few days ago my family visited Colonial Williamsburg. Among the sites is a replica of the old Virginia capitol building, built on the foundation of the original building. (It burned down a couple times, most recently in 1832.)

There are several reasons why I prefer the old Williamsburg capitol to current one in Richmond. I'll confess that part of my interest comes as a Anglophile: the House of Burgesses chamber (below left) is an obvious copy of the House of Commons, with facing benches on each side, a table in between, the speaker's chair at one end, and even green seat cushions.

But that is a personal quirk, for me. More to the point, the Williamsburg capitol has a very different character from Richmond's. Though built in a colonial style - or, critics of the reconstruction would charge, Colonial Revival - Williamsburg's is not the strong neoclassicalism found in some other places. There is still a whiff of the medieval about the building. And I like that. This is not just an aesthetic perspective; this is a visual reminder that America, for all its newness, is heir to a long history of civilization, one that, yes, includes Greece and Rome, but also a thousand years of Christendom. That millennium was not inconsequential for us as Americans. It is to medieval England that we owe such norms as trial by jury, the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, and bicameral legislatures. The Richmond capitol (below right), in contrast, looks like it was copied from a pagan temple. (Which, in fact, it was.)

Which brings us to a second important distinction: the Richmond capitol is modeled on a house of worship. The kind of florid prose about the "altar of liberty" and suchlike is made rather literal here. Our legislators meet in a building whose design was once meant to honor a god. I find that association deeply troubling.  Liberty is precious, even sacred, but it is not, of itself, divine.  Government is not God. All governments are subordinate to the ultimate sovereignty of God and insofar as they are just they derive their justice from Him.

One final note, about the scale: the Richmond capitol feels big and daunting. There is clearly majesty about the place, and that is proper, in a way. People should have respect for their government, which embodies the community it represents. But perhaps the Richmond capitol is too big, too grand. The Williamsburg building, while still clearly an important place, feels a bit more approachable, even a little cozy. That, I would submit, is the right relationship of the citizen to his government, not least a republican government. There should be deference, but not awe. (Let us reserve that for the Almighty.)  In an age when bureaucracies are massive and many Americans feel alienated from their representatives, there is much to be said for approachable government.

Today's images come from Flikr here and here, and from Wikipedia.

Abortion Is Not Just a Christian Issue

I am not a Muslim, but I have been reading through the Quran. I recently came across this verse, "Do not kill your children for fear of poverty. We provide for them and for you. Indeed, their killing is ever a great sin" (17:31). I am not an expert in Quranic exegesis, but it seems to me that here, in a 7th century text, you have a recognition of one of the most oft-cited justifications for abortion (economic hardship); in spite of this recognition, the text is clear that the taking of a child's life is still gravely wrong.

Discovering this passage in the Muslim scriptures was a useful reminder that abortion is not a Christian issue. It is a human issue.  People of all faiths - or no faith at all - can recognize the scientific reality that life before birth is still human life.  If we take seriously the defense of human rights, if we care about the well-being of our fellow human beings, then we must be scandalized by the daily killing of our brothers and sisters, the weakest, most vulnerable members of our society.  And we must do something about it.

Today's image is from Leonardo Da Vinci's Studies of the Fetus in the Womb.

Where Is the Christian Call for Criminal Justice Reform?

Yesterday I happened upon a short biography of St. Maud (also known as Matilda), a 10th century queen whose charitable works included visiting prisoners and seeking clemency for the repentant.

On Sunday I learned that Virginia has over 30,000 people in its state prisons. (This study, from January 2018, puts the figure at 37,813, to be precise.) Housing all those prisoners is not cheap. In the last few years the cost has been in the rage of $21,299 to $25,000 per prisoner per year, depending on who did the counting and when. That comes out to something like $824,010,613 a year, though some estimates have put it above $1.5 billion. Many of these are non-violent offenders.

And the State of Virginia does not spend a dime on chaplains. Our states prison chaplains are all privately funded.

More important that the precise statistics is the Christian attitude toward those in prison. Jesus is clear about what that attitude ought to be: “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another. Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was... in prison and you visited me.’" (Mt 25: 31-36) Since its earliest days, the Christian community has held up the importance of this corporal work of mercy.

Too often contemporary American political discussions, even among Christians, characterize prisoners as pariahs who deserve what they everything they get. Or we ignore them all together.

The state has a duty to protect society, but within that broad mandate, it seems to me that Christians must work for several things:

- First, insistence that prisoners be treated with dignity, as human beings. True, many of these are troubled and troublesome individuals, but challenges should be met in ways that address real problems rather than demonizing our brothers and sisters. This includes caring for their basic needs, not only in terms of physical health, but also emotional and spiritual.

- Second, transferring some of the money currently spent on prisons to addiction recovery and other programs that can help offenders get back on their feet and reintegrate as members of society.

- Third, demanding that the criminal justice system - not least capital punishment - be fair and transparent. We must ensure that the poor, the uneducated, and other vulnerable populations are not being caught in a system they do not understand and cannot navigate.

It is high time that criminal justice reform was a major issue for Christians.

Threading the Needle on Same-Sex Marriage

Like this blog generally, I write today's post as an individual and not on behalf of ASP, its National Committee, or the ASP of Virginia.

I hate the debate about same-sex marriage.  It is especially problematic for at least three reasons.

First, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman for life.  Thus was it woven into human nature by the divine creator.  Thus was it affirmed by revelation and thus is it defined by the Church of God.  I call this the traditional view.  (I realize a lot of ideas may be considered "traditional"; here I am only concerned with heterosexuality and indissolubility.)

I also believe that all people have innate dignity and are deserving of respect.  There is, so far as I can see, no fundamental disagreement between these two statements (as I tried to articulate in a post on the Guild Review some years ago).  But statements which affirm the traditional view are often seen by supporters of same-sex marriage as hateful; conversely, statements affirming universal dignity, when made in the context of this debate, are often construed by supporters of traditional marriage as subversive, an attempt to undermine that institution without quite coming out and saying so.

This tension is made more acute by confusion of affirmation with agreement.  I can affirm the dignity of a person without agreeing with all their positions.  Mundane examples can easily demonstrate this: I think we should build a new neighborhood playground but my neighbor disagrees.  That doesn't rob him of his dignity or change the way I treat him, even if he's wrong.  But when the issue at hand is more contentious than building a playground, this distinction gets lost.  What, for example, may one rightly display in one's front yard?  What if my neighbor wants to fly a Confederate battle flag but I claim he does not have the right to do so?  Or what if I want to display a massive icon of the Virgin Mary but my neighbor, whose parents were killed by Catholic partisans in some nasty civil war, objects?  It can be difficult to hear someone say they deeply disagree with you, and even harder to hear that they believe you do not have the right to do something you very much want to do.  Believing that someone else truly affirms your dignity, while having such a fundamental disagreement, is trying.

Second, there is the quite different challenge of political coalitions.  On virtually all issues there is disagreement.  The more exacting your position on a given issue, the smaller your cohort of fellow believers will be.  Thus, any political grouping will, in some measure, be a coalition.  The American Solidarity Party - which recently released a statement on the dignity of all people, including LGBTQ persons - is just such a coalition.  Its members come from a wide variety of faith communities and include people of no faith at all.  Thus, while the party's position in favor of marriage and family is quite strong, it does not define with great precision what constitutes a marriage.  Proponents of traditional marriage could construe this as a sell-out.  I see it as pragmatism.  Sooner or later any party will involve compromises or end up becoming a party of one.  The toxic debates about same-sex marriage threaten to destroy this and other coalitions which might accomplish a great deal of good in defense of marriage and family.

Third, symbols surrounding the issue of same-sex marriage have become highly charged with a multiplicity of meanings.  The picture which accompanied the ASP statement included a rainbow-colored hand print, a dictionary entry for "discrimination," and a caption that reads, "Stop Discrimination!"  What does this mean?  One person could interpret this to mean that all people should be free of physical and verbal abuse.  Another person might construe it to imply something about hiring decisions.  Does it imply anything about the status of same-sex marriage?  Some people might presume that the use of rainbow colors - long associated with the push for same-sex marriage - implies a specific position.  Some people might presume that the graphic implies that preventing same-sex couples from marrying would be a form of discrimination.  Etc., etc.  The point of hyper-analyzing a simple graphic is to underscore the way in which people can jump to conclusions and react very strongly to words or symbols that may mean one thing to them but something very different to those who created them.

All of this makes the discussion of same-sex marriage difficult, painful, and prone to misunderstandings.  It's a discussion we - as Americans and as people of faith - need to have, but we should precede with great caution and charity.

Is Christian Democracy Just Big Government?

It is an oversimplification, but you could say that Democrats want to tell you what to do economically (via regulation and taxation), while leaving you free to do what you like socially (have an abortion, smoke weed, marry someone of the same sex); Republicans, on the other hand, will let you do what you like economically, but want to dictate your social behavior.  But what of Christian Democracy?  Some have characterized it as socially conservative and economically liberal.  Is it simply bossy government on both the social and economic fronts?

This is a misunderstanding, for three reasons:

(1) Christian Democracy endorses localism.  The term for this is generally "subsidiarity" - the notion that problems should be solved at the lowest possible level, since those closest to the problem have the greatest knowledge of it and greatest interest in seeing it resolved.  So although Christian Democracy is imbued with a concern for one's neighbors that is often expressed in some sort of government program or policy, that's ideally done by local governments, not distant bureaucrats.

The platform of the American Solidarity Party (ASP), a party in the tradition of Christian Democracy, reflects this in several ways.  It explicitly states, "We believe that family, local communities, and voluntary associations are the first guarantors of human dignity, and cultivate mutual care. National institutions and policies should support, not supplant them."

With regard to education, for example, ASP endorses the "right of families to choose the best methods for educating their children, be they public,charter, private, parochial or home-based education."  Concerning health care, ASP supports, "diverse efforts across this country to secure universal health care access, affordability and outcomes, including single-payer health initiatives, healthcare cooperatives, and hybrid systems at the state and national level."  It further supports "allowing states to experiment with alternative income support approaches."

(2) Christian Democracy calls for active citizenship.  We want informed, engaged citizens, people who take an interest in their community and desire to contribute to it.  Government should support such a citizenry, not replacement it.

ASP supports "the constitutionally guaranteed rights of free public assembly, speech, and a free and independent press" and aspires to "voter participation by all citizens."  It calls for an educational system that provides "rigorous formation of literate, well-rounded, virtuous citizens. In addition to providing a strong foundation in core subjects, such as reading, writing, mathematics and science, we call for classes to be offered in, among other things, civics, the arts, technical fields, vocational training, home economics and financial literacy."  These are not automatons in a big government scheme, but strong pillars in a vigorous society.

(3) Christian Democracy is about more than material concerns.  It's about values, foremost among them human dignity.  "We must build a culture and enact laws upholding the equal, innate and inviolable dignity and rights of every human person from conception to natural death."

A government program which meets someone's material needs but in the process turns him into a nameless cog in a machine is not a success.  Material needs must be met in a way that affirms the worth and dignity of all people.  This concern for values serves as a built-in check in the ideology of Christian Democracy; while we must think seriously about the needs of those around us, bigger government is not necessarily better.

Educating for Christian Democracy

Christian Democracy is a political movement, but it is also a way of viewing the world. Our minds are comprised of a great many parts. It is very difficult to focus one part of it in a given direction when so many others are pointed elsewhere. Many of us have come to believe that a certain set of values and policies are correct. Perhaps and encounter with the Gospel has convicted us. But the media around us, our sense of history, the voices we hear on TV - even our imaginations themselves - point in directions other than what our good sense tells us. If we are to make good on a paradigm shift toward a more sensible and humane society, we need to educate ourselves and others in good ideas. We need to fill our imaginations with images that point us to the truth.

To that end, I have assembled a list of twenty Americans whose lives, collectively, demonstrate some of the salient values of Christian Democracy: the dignity of human life, the importance of strong local communities, and call to serve others before ourselves. Not all of these individuals agreed on all matters of politics or religion. Some might even have disliked each other. But, taken together, I think they offer some fresh ways of thinking about America.

If you are someone entrusted with designing curricula, consider weaving some of these figures in. If you are looking for a new book to read, consider a biography of one of these individuals. Some are memorialized in film as well. If you belong to a book club, consider suggesting something by one of these individuals for your next discussion. You get the idea: the possibilities are practically endless.

Junipero Serra (1713-1784), missionary priest and a founding father of California.
Charles Carroll of Carrollton (1737-1832), signer of the Declaration of Independence, diplomat and Maryland and US senator (pictured above left).
Elizabeth Ann Seton (1774-1821), wife, mother, and teacher, who cared, in particular, for the poor.
George Henry Thomas (1816-1870), Virginia military officer who remained loyal to the Union during the Civil War.
Susan B. Anthony (1820-1906), abolitionist and women's rights activist.
Harriet Tubman (1822-1913), former slave who dedicated herself to freeing others.
Carl Schurz (1829-1906), German immigrant, journalist, diplomat, general, senator, and secretary of the interior.
Damien De Veuster (1840-1889), Belgian missionary who cared for lepers in Hawaii.
William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925), member of the House of Representatives and secretary of state, famous for his Christian faith and regard for the common man.
Black Elk (1863-1950), Oglala Lakota Sioux medicine man who described Lakota culture to a broader audience; subsequently converted to Christianity and became a catechist.
Calvin Coolidge (1872-1933) governor and president who championed racial equality and decentralized government.
T. S. Eliot (1888-1965) poet, playwright, and essayist who explored, among other topics, the meaning of being Christian in the modern world.
Dorothy Day (1897-1980) Catholic social activist who worked for economic justice, racial equality, and peace.
Thomas Merton (1915-1968), poet, social activist, monk, mystic, and student of comparative religion.
Madeleine L'Engle (1918-2007), author whose books for children and adults reflect her Christian faith (pictured right).
Isaac Asimov (1920-1999), prolific writer of science fiction, fantasy, mystery, physics, astronomy, history, religion, mathematics, and virtually every other topic.
John Glenn (1921-2016), Marine pilot, astronaut, and US senator.
Daniel Inouye (1924-2012), Japanese-American who served in the famed 442nd Infantry, received the Medal of Honor, and served in both chambers of Congress.

A Lesson in Civic Speech

Name calling doesn't work.

Or, to be more precise, name calling doesn't work if you plan to ever talk to someone again.

But it can be a very useful tool for convincing your friends that you and they hate the same enemies. Thus, in politics - and what isn't political these days, from sports to entertainment? - leaders often say to their supporters: "Our opponents are extremists." "Their policies are stupid." "His behavior has been positively criminal." "Does she have a clue what she's doing?" Ridiculing opponents in this way can be a great way to signal to others that you share their values. It gets plenty of applause at campaign rallies.

It also poisons our democracy.

Name calling turns differences into divisions. It makes disagreements personal. It burns bridges. And that's a problem if you need to work with someone.

We use such language inside our political parties, even though opposing wings need to work together for the good of the party. We use such language in the open political arena, even though the parties will have to work together - in one chamber or the other of Congress, between the branches of government, in the statehouses, and in the many transitions between administrations - for the common good. We use such language to describe international leaders, even though we depend upon their support to solve the thorniest problems and bring about diplomatic solutions (for even a strong power cannot always resort to war).

Social media has not improved our behavior. It is far easier to belittle someone you cannot see than someone you must look in the eye.

We've all been there, we've all slipped into a rant that temporarily made us feel good and gave us a sense of camaraderie with those who agree with us. But what has it really accomplished?

St. Paul reminds us that our focus should be on the good things that are praiseworthy, not on shortcomings to be criticized:

Whatever is true,
whatever is honorable
whatever is just,
whatever is pure,
whatever is lovely,
whatever is gracious,
if there is any excellence and
if there is anything worthy of praise,
think about these things. (Phil 4:8)

So next time you're tempted to affix some derogatory term to your opponent, tempted to make assumptions about other people's motives, tempted to bad-mouth someone on Facebook: don't.

Let's speak in a way that strengths America's democracy, rather than harms it.

Today's meme comes from the Young Christian Democrats of America.