I finally got to the theater with my wife last week to see The Blind Side, after wanting to for weeks. We caught a matinee and found the film just as good as I’d been told; The film, which had received mixed and generally unenthusiastic reviews but terrific box office was the kind of film that Hollywood rarely makes–aimed at the huge American flyover demographic (not just the usual targeted teens and young adults, but football-loving, church-going middle America of all ages) that rarely has films very knowing about their culture. The very smart production was directed by John Lee Hancock (The Rookie) who understands this audience, and starred perennial American sweetheart Sandra Bullock who again demonstrated her range as Leigh Anne Tuohy, an ubercompetent mom and interior decorator and a beardless, Stetson-less Tim McGraw as her businessman husband Sean. The lives of this Memphis power couple and their two children changed when, seeing a hulking black teen walking along the road one cold night, they take him home and make him one of their family. Michael Oher has huge educational deficits brought about by his non-existent family life, having been abandoned by his single mother as a child. Michael had previously slept on the sofa of another black couple and the husband had sought Michael’s welfare by placing him in the same all-white Christian school the Tuohy children attended, Leigh Anne, with Sean’s admiring support becomes Michael’s chief advocate. Michael is played by Quinton Aaron, who brings a moving understatement to the gentle giant’s gradual realization that this family loves him and that he has both academic and athletic potential ready to blossom.
Yes, this is another of the triumph-of-the-underdog sports genre that American audiences love, but the football scenes are relatively small compared to the human drama of this true story. The love and faith poured into Michael by the Tuohy’s and his teachers results in his being recruited by Ole Miss and then last year’s recruitment into the NFL’s Baltimore Ravens. As a film studies professor interested in all sorts of adaptations, I couldn’t help wondering which moments and incidents were real and what had necessarily been scripted to compress months of relationship development that Michael made with his adoptive family. That side of The Blind Side will be examined tonight, Jan. 29th on ABC’s 20/20 where the real-life family (pictured above) is interviewed. The show’s website features video and text apparently already available before tonight’s airing. I expect the show will confirm just how close the film was to this true-life tale of compassion and triumph.
December 29, 2009
The Blind Side–Reel and Real
April 19, 2009
Telling One Colbert From Another
I doubt I’m the only one who has gone back and forth on what I think of Stephen Colbert, the brilliant political satirist and well-known star of The Colbert Report on Comedy Central. I assumed that, like The Daily Show, from which it was spun off in fall of 2005, it leaned toward politically liberal ideology as it’s host, playing a right-wing cable news show host (think Bill O’Reilly), and thus I had little interest in seeing my conservative positions regularly attacked.
However, the Report’s huge success was hard to avoid. Colbert’s deeply witty schtick and sharp parody of politics and punditry created much buzz, and everyone could laugh at his coining of terms like “truthiness” to describe certain kinds of political rhetoric. Last year I decided to give in and give the show a try and was delighted when Colbert’s wide-ranging topics included gags drawing from pop culture and a deep sense of the ridiculous in politics and society generally. Yes, he used his faux-conservative persona to make ironic digs at Republicans and I was particularly appalled at his apparently vicious mocking of Pope Benedict and the Catholic church, since I’d heard he was himself Catholic. Assuming he was another bitter lapsed Catholic, I eventually had enough, despite the cleverness, and stopped watching.
But this week, a friend sent out a link to a Holy Week show segment where Colbert had interviewed the episode’s guest liberal theologian Bart Ehrman. I had seen an earlier exchange between the two where Colbert had completely demolished Ehrman’s doubt-filled arguments while displaying an apparently unironic committment to orthodox Christian beliefs. The new segment (pictured left) similarly displayed Colbert’s knowledge of scripture and classical church teachings and again he eviscerated the liberal professor’s fatuous arguments against the divinity of Christ.
I had a crisis of confusion, a brain sprain of cognitive dissonance and eventually came to realize that Colbert was a playing at spoofing right-wing ranters, while sticking up for what mattered most, defense of the ancient faith. He’s treated enough priests, preachers and conservative pundits respectfully enough to see he has no brief against Christianity and traditional values, but you’ve got to see through his extremely dry schtick to recognize the balancing act. In fact, he’s an active member of a Catholic church where he teaches Sunday school. Here’s a link where he quickly and humorously affirms the faith while looking askance at those with vaguely stated beliefs. And it helps to have a thick skin politically when he does jab at Republican positions he disagrees with.
So, now I’ve put “Dr. Colbert” back on my DVR programming rotation and think I’m better prepared to detect the truth from truthiness on the Report.
April 12, 2009
Lost and Found
It’s been said that media doesn’t tell us what to think but rather, what to think about. That is, it can be an agenda setter in the marketplace of ideas. I saw a good example of that today as we drove across Florida after attending the Easter service at our church. The Lakeland, FL, Ledger has a front page article, Searching for Answers, that starts with a description of (mandatory spoiler alert) a scene at the start of a March episode of Lost, where spiritual seeker John Locke, having been murdered and placed in a coffin, finds himself alive and back on the strange island (as illustrated by the before and after pictures above) at the center of mysterious forces. He is thought to have given his life to get six island escapees to return to face their true destinies and now, having died and returned to life, he is different–but what, the audience wonders, does it mean? The faith vs. science debate, perhaps the chief theme of the show, continues to play out and this article is but one example of how entertainment can raise the level of discourse in its audience. (Update: A Breakpoint article I wrote from a few years ago is related to this post.)
Happy Easter!
September 21, 2008
There’s a new mosque in town
Johnson City, Tenn., quietly crossed a threshold in July when the city’s first purpose-built Islamic center opened its doors, a 9,600-square-foot home for the small but growing Muslim Community of Northeast Tennessee.
A mosque – or to use the preferred Arabic term, a masjid (mahs-JEED’) – might have once seemed out of place in a medium-sized town in the old Bible Belt, but no more. With national trends and regional growth comes greater diversity, particularly with magnets such as the medical and health industries and East Tennessee State University. We’re all neighbors now.
The new building is located on Antioch Road, bordering Willow Springs Park on about three acres of land that the Muslim community bought 10 years ago. Construction started last year, after the members had saved enough money to pay for the half-million-dollar building outright. A loan was out of the question, since Islamic law forbids dealing with loan interest. (Strictly speaking, Jewish law and early Christian practice carried the same prohibition.)
A masjid is essentially a simple structure with simple purposes: It is a gathering place for worship, prayers and community events. Muslims do not “consecrate” or bless their buildings, although the members are considering a “grand opening” to invite the wider community.
“We believe all the world is a place for prayer,” explained MCNET leader Taneem Aziz.
The structure looks ordinary – the tan siding and deck could belong to any house or building – except for the large green dome on the roof.
The main prayer room, a carpeted rectangle about 30 feet by 75 feet (pictured here, before carpeting), is precisely aligned to face east, toward Mecca, as dictated by Muslim custom. The worship leader sits in a small alcove on the east wall, underneath a handcrafted panel with decorative Arabic script that calls people to prayer. No pews or chairs are here, since people normally stand, kneel and bow to the ground in Muslim services.
About 300 people can worship in that room – that is, about 300 men, since Muslim services are segregated by gender. The women’s area is separated by a wall with six large windows fitted with one-way glass, a clever feature that allows women to view the main room but, for the sake of modesty, prevents men from looking in.
The building also includes a kitchen and classrooms, and bathrooms truly meant for bathing, with areas for ritual washing of feet — short, tiled pillars as seats that face low shower heads over a draining area. The mirrors are bordered with intricate tile patterns.
The basement waits for the funds to be finished. Aziz said it will be used for gatherings, meals, recreation and other social events.
That would be called a fellowship hall in a lot of churches, I told him.
“A fellowship hall,” he repeated softly. “I like that. That’s a good term.”
It’s a long way from the first meetings of the Muslim Student Association at ETSU almost two decades ago, which gathered in the basement of a member’s home. The group grew large enough to buy and renovate a house on Division Street in 1994, which served as the community center until now. About 70 households are actively involved now, Aziz said.
Since the masjid opened, several people have become active members, including those who have come and gone in the past and local Muslims who never appeared until now. The modest growth is encouraging, and the members hope to call a full-time imam to lead worship and guide the community. No one knows when that might happen.
For now, they plan to steadily increase their activities – such as scheduling prayer gatherings five times a day, according to Muslim custom – confident that having the close proximity to the university and the medical center will permit many of their members to attend during the day.
Aziz said they also plan to organize public talks and other gatherings – both social and educational – and invite non-Muslims to visit.
“This is not only for our community, but also to let people know about Islam,” Aziz said. “The facility will give us the chance to invite other people for fellowship.”
First published in the Johnson City (Tenn.) Press, 20 Sept. 2008.
September 6, 2008
Thank God for evolution. Huh?
“Nothing matters more at this time in history than what people think about evolution.”
We might expect that kind of universal claim to come from a passionate evangelist, and in a way that’s correct. Except that this preacher, Michael Dowd, says evolution is the good news.
Dowd, ordained in the United Church of Christ, and his wife of seven years, science writer Connie Barlow, travel the country full-time, preaching and teaching a surprising message: Rather than threaten or undermine faith, evolution can sustain, inform and even motivate religious belief.
“Both of us have this passion of telling the story of evolution in an inspiring way,” Dowd explained in a phone conversation this week. “We share the same purpose of communicating a science-based vision of the universe in a religious way.” (Dowd is pictured below. That guy caricatured above is a cartoon version of Charles Darwin — just in case you were sleeping through high school and college biology and the last 155 years.)
They bring their message to Northeast Tennessee on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, speaking at Holston Valley Unitarian-Universalist Church and First Presbyterian Church in Elizabethton. (For details, contact the Rev. Jacqueline Luck at (423) 477-7661 or the Rev. John Shuck at (423) 543-7737.) Dowd published a 430-page book last fall with an eye-catching title: “Thank God for Evolution: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World” (Viking). He also runs a Web site.
His missionary zeal for “evolutionary theology” comes from a conviction that evolution itself provides meaning to existence by creating – yes, creating – a “holy trajectory” from simplicity to ever-greater complexity.
“Humans are part of that process,” Dowd said. “The universe became complex enough so that it could be aware of itself. We’re not separate from nature. It’s nature becoming aware of itself.”
He believes that as religious traditions accept this understanding, “they’ll see their truths are more real, more visceral.” This view of the cosmos stands in contrast with evolutionary thinking that leaves little room for purpose or meaning.
“When I talk to conservative audiences,” Dowd said, “I tell them they’re right to reject evolution mostly as a chance, purposeless process. I present evolution in a God-glorifying, Christ-edifying, Scripture-honoring way.”
In his view, humans represent a high-water mark in evolutionary development: we are conscious of ourselves and seek relationships not only with other humans but with the “ultimate reality” itself. In Dowd’s vocabulary, the proper name we give that ultimate reality is God.
Language is another bridge linking science and religion, according to Dowd. When we understand how language developed, he said, “All concepts of God and religion make complete sense.”
All societies grow up with what he calls “night language … the language of dreams and metaphors that humans have used through their history to explain the world.
“These stories speak deep subjective truth,” he said. “The story of the fall in the Garden of Eden – that’s profoundly true in night language. Then science comes along … and puts down night language, speaks only in ‘day language,’ which is literal and fact-based. Myths are pushed aside. Of course the religionists react against that.”
But the two “languages” not only exist together. They help interpret each other.
“Science and religion cannot be only reconciled – that’s lame,” Dowd said. “There’s mutual enhancing. The scientific enterprise can’t avoid the question of meaning, or it goes off into destruction. The Nazis showed us that. Religion is enriched by being grounded in the world of day language and concepts.”
At first glance, this sounds like the old argument that science and religion operate in different spheres and answer different questions. But not really: Dowd wants to “marry” science and religion, not divorce them. To him, scientific study is a spiritual discipline and religious belief must be informed by science. (“Facts are God’s native tongue,” he likes to say.)
Thinking of evolution as the great purpose of existence, directing us to a God as “the ultimate reality,” doesn’t fit easily with long-held beliefs. Dowd’s most persistent criticism comes from “those who take their metaphors literally.” (His book includes about 120 endorsements from religious leaders, philosophers and scientists, including five Nobel laureates. Theologically conservative Christian, Jewish and Islamic scholars are notable by their absence.)
But look at the world through this lens, says Dowd, and we can see a 21st-century road to salvation.
“Evolution understood in a sacred, meaningful way is really good news,” Dowd said. “It bridges all those old divides between head and heart, between science and religion.”
First published in the Johnson City (Tenn.) Press, 6 Sept. 2008.
September 3, 2008
Screenwriter sees the Light
I wanted to share this wonderful true story about one of Hollywood’s bad boys gone good. Joe Eszterhas, who wrote the notorious screenplays for Basic Instinct, Showgirls and other films, was at one time one of the world’s highest paid scribes. Temperamental and profane, he and his wife wanted to get away from the cynicism and sordid atmosphere of L.A. by returning to the Cleveland, Ohio area to raise their children. Within weeks, Joe learned he had throat cancer with a bad prognosis. That’s when he–well, this article tells the surprising story of what happened next. After reading it, you’ll probably wonder what kinds of stories, Mr. Eszterhas might be telling next.
July 28, 2008
When ‘Muslim’ is a political smear word
It’s safe to say there are good reasons not to vote for Barack Obama as president. (That much could be said about any candidate.) Fair enough.
His being a Muslim should not be one of those reasons because – well, because he’s not a Muslim. He never has been. But that’s just one of the rumors that keep circulating among inattentive citizens, zealous bloggers and cynical talk-show hosts.
A Newsweek survey of registered voters this month found that more than half of them, 52 percent, believed at least one of four falsehoods about Obama’s connections to Islam. So many false rumors are flying around that his campaign launched a Web site just to combat them: www.fightthesmears.com.
In theory, Obama’s religion – or Republican candidate John McCain’s or anybody else’s – shouldn’t matter. The U.S. Constitution forbids using religion as a test for public office. In practice, it does matter. Polls consistently find that most Americans want a believer in the Oval Office, preferably some kind of Christian.
People spread rumors for a reason, and the Obama-as-Muslim lie isn’t meant as a compliment. It’s a smear.
But what if your beliefs were being used as a political slur? Taneem Aziz, leader of the Muslim Community of Northeast Tennessee, takes the insult philosophically.
“Given the current conditions in the country and the world, we’re kind of resigned to the fact that’s the way it is,” he said. “The mood of the country is very much anti-Muslim right now. I think everyone wants a hands-off policy as far as Muslims are concerned.”
Muslims in this region have always been treated with respect, Aziz said, even after the 2001 terrorist attacks. But they have noticed changes in the last six months.
For example, Aziz’s teenage daughter, who wears a traditional head scarf, a hijab, was shopping at J.C. Penney recently when a woman she didn’t know approached her. “You need to take that thing off,” she told the girl. When Aziz’s daughter replied that this is a free country, the woman brusquely turned and walked away. It was a brief but telling moment.
“People shout from cars,” Aziz reported. “It happened to me as I was coming out of Lowe’s one day: ‘Go back to Iraq!’ or something to that effect. For me it’s not a big thing. I’m just a person of color. But for women who wear the hijab, it’s more than that.”
Aziz, who was born in Bangladesh but has lived in the U.S. most of his life, said he doesn’t know where “that hate” is coming from. Maybe people are just nervous about the Middle East, he said – but he suspects political rhetoric is partly to blame.
“Some people think (all Muslims) are somehow involved in terrorism,” he said. “I can’t seem to say often enough that we condemned the 9/11 attacks and that targeting civilians is against Islamic law.”
The atmosphere is strained enough that when the New Yorker magazine tried to lampoon the Obama rumors with a satirical cartoon on its cover two weeks ago, the attempt backfired. (It portrayed him in traditional Muslim dress, and his wife, Michelle, as a 1960s black-power radical.) Both major presidential candidates criticized the magazine. Aziz said he was “disgusted.”
The problem, he said, is that in a climate where people are eager to believe rumors, such images are easily misunderstood and exploited.
“You can get some people to vote based on fear,” Aziz said. “This makes me question where certain people in this country are heading. Their politics – these things you hear on the radio, spewing this hate, aimed toward a fear about Muslims – is troubling. I can’t put a finger on where that venom comes from or where it leads. Does it become hatred that permeates the whole society?”
Aziz tries to remain optimistic. He recalled how John F. Kennedy, running for president in 1960, faced bigotry about his Roman Catholicism.
“Kennedy overcame that, and I feel positive that we will, in time,” he said. “There are trying times now that we must go through.”
But a note of skepticism remains, understandably.
“We hear about bringing people together, about ‘the audacity of hope,’” Aziz said. “We kind of wonder if we’re included in that.”
First published in the Johnson City (Tenn.) Press, 26 July 2008.
Image from: tharwacommunity.typepad.com/…/index.html.
July 20, 2008
There’s no need to fear … Dave Ramsey is here!
With oil prices hitting record highs and food prices not far behind, a headline-grabbing credit crisis, a weak dollar, bank failures and cascading home mortgage defaults and foreclosures, here’s the word from Dave Ramsey: Don’t panic.
Ramsey is an East Tennessee native (born in Maryville) who’s gone national with his plain-spoken and self-described “biblically based” financial advice, dispensed through seminars, books, video series and radio shows. Many people and institutions are in serious trouble, Ramsey says, but the sky isn’t falling. If people keep their wits and their discipline, they should be OK.
“There are pockets of the country that are really, really bad,” said Beth Tallent, a spokesperson for the Lampo Group, Ramsey’s Nashville-based organization. “But the situation isn’t as dramatic as the media make it out to be. Not everybody’s bank is going to fail.”
Ramsey’s advice for coping with high fuel prices comes down to “just good money management,” Tallent said this week. “You’ve got to do your budget so you know where your money goes. You will need to cut back on things you want so you can cover the things you need.”
A lot of Americans will take his words to heart. Ramsey, 47, oversees a multi-faceted and fast-growing financial advice service he started in 1988. That includes “The Dave Ramsey Show,” a daily three-hour call-in radio program on more than 350 stations, drawing about 3.5 million listeners a week.
Books with titles like “Your Total Money Makeover” and “Financial Peace” have climbed best-seller lists, and he takes his financial advice on the road throughout the country.
One of his cornerstone programs is Financial Peace University, a 13-week video workshop that has walked 650,000 people through his “baby steps” to financial security.
The secrets of his success: Get out of debt. Cut up the credit cards. Save for a rainy day and for big purchases. Pay cash. Embrace budgeting.
He knows this advice isn’t new. He’s just figured out how to package old wisdom in an era of high expectations for stuff and low thresholds for credit.
“The advice I give is God’s and Grandma’s ways of handling money,” he wrote in an e-mail. “It’s what I learned when I hit bottom and started working my way back.”
The bottom he hit was personal bankruptcy in the 1980s: He made millions in real estate, but lost it when hundreds of thousands of dollars in consumer debt caught up with him and his family. Forced into strict financial discipline, he worked in real estate to pay off debts, and then decided to offer people the tools that worked for him.
“The number one mistake people make is that they wander through life like Gomer Pyle on Valium,” Ramsey said, “and they wake up at retirement and wonder where all their money is. You have to be proactive. Tell your money what to do instead of wondering where it went. That means doing the dreaded B word – a budget.”
This is a spiritual matter for Ramsey. He presents his material in a way that any atheist could use, but he’s not afraid to talk about his faith.
“There are more than 800 scriptures in the Bible that relate to money,” he wrote. “Obviously God thought it was an important topic to talk about.”
Even his critics applaud his emphasis on getting out of debt and living within a budget, but some say his advice is too simplistic or that he emphasizes wealth too much for someone who follows Jesus. Ramsey rejects that charge.
“Money is not the root of all evil,” he replied. “The love of money is. Having money and making money is not a sin.”
To be fair, Ramsey frequently talks about good stewardship and generosity. The goal, he preaches, is be wise and generous with the money “that belongs to God anyway.”
The recent financial turmoil hasn’t increased the number of calls coming to Ramsey’s organization, but the questions are changing, according to Tallent.
“We’re getting more questions about foreclosures and adjustable mortgages,” she said. “We’ve been asked a lot about banks, whether to invest in gold or other options.”
Tallent isn’t sure if callers ask more about spiritual issues in these difficult times.
“That’s something to ponder,” she said. “But the current economy is getting people to wake up, and that’s a good thing.”
First pubished in the Johnson City (Tenn.) Press, 19 July 2008.
July 14, 2008
When it comes to archeology, let the dust settle
The latest bombshell from the world of biblical archeology hit the headlines about two weeks ago: A stone – the size of a coffee table, with neat Hebrew writing from a few decades before Jesus’ birth – may refer to an anointed one, or messiah, who would rise from the dead after three days.
The find would rattle Christianity to the core, some scholars exclaimed, since it pre-dates Gospel accounts of Jesus’ resurrection.
But as quick as you can say “apocalyptic Jewish literature,” other scholars challenged that conclusion, including Christopher Rollston, professor of Old Testament and Semitics at Emmanuel School of Religion in Johnson City.
As Rollston points out, the writing (dubbed the “Gabriel vision text” because the message claims to be sent through the angel Gabriel) is very fragmentary: many letters, words and entire lines of text are missing. Also, the possible messianic references – and those are questionable – run parallel to other writings from the same era.
“There’s nothing significant” religiously in the finding, Rollston concludes. “It’s interesting and important, but doesn’t impact any modern faith, be it Judaism or Christianity. This interpretation will not stand the test of time.”
Rollston regards this sensational story as the latest example of how easy it is to misinterpret, exaggerate or, in some cases, even mislead about archeological findings and their importance.
Biblical archeology is a complex discipline, with scholars working on expeditions and painstaking analysis for years, even decades. Research can focus on minuscule details, such as subtle differences in tool marks or letter forms, and even microscopic traces of materials remaining after thousands of years.
But archeology is also shadowed by seedy antiquities markets, dubious artifacts and outright forgeries, not to mention occasional rogue scholars who publish breathtaking theories often based on slim evidence.
So while scholars can uncover and decipher astounding finds that can reshape our understanding of a culture, a historical era or a sacred text – the Dead Sea Scrolls come to mind – they also endure overblown claims, public feuds and even law suits. Rollston has seen it all.
In 2007 he was called to Israel to testify as an expert witness in the trial of five individuals accused by the Israeli Antiquities Authority of forgery of antiquities.
Now he is in the middle of another debate, this one over a small stone seal (pictured above) that a few scholars say belonged to Queen Jezebel, the notorious wife of King Ahab described in the Hebrew Bible’s Book of Kings. Rollston has challenged that conclusion on several grounds – that the theory is largely based on imaginatively “restoring” unknown missing letters, that the seal lacks any title or family reference, that it uses a style of writing that didn’t exist in Jezebel’s time, and more. This is a scholarly dispute, not a legal one, but it’s heated up the pages of academic journals for months.
Ironically, Rollston said he doesn’t care whether the seal belonged to the biblical Jezebel – a detachment he maintains when studying any artifact or ancient inscription.
“Whether there’s a possible relevance to a biblical text is a non-issue for me,” said Rollston, who earned his doctorate and taught at Johns Hopkins University before coming to Emmanuel in 2001. “I think that gives me an edge. Verifying a biblical text should never be the goal of a historian, because if it is, people can strain to find things they desperately want to be true, and that affects their judgment in a negative way.”
Forgers and publicity seekers are more than happy to exploit the desire to connect artifacts with the Bible. Most fakes contain references to famous biblical characters, according to Rollston.
He advises people to “let the dust settle” when some scholarly commotion makes headlines. Rather than accept sensational stories at face value, we should look at the credentials of people making the claims – as well as their critics – and find out what reputable, “methodical and cautious” scholars say before reaching any conclusions.
Rollston said his goal is “knowledge for the sake of knowledge,” which, he hopes, will increase understanding of a text or its setting. Good scholarship can inform faith, but it can’t substitute for it.
“Having good data is never a problem for people of faith. We’re created in the image of God, with intellectual capabilities, and he expects us to use that,” Rollston said. “People have nothing to fear from knowledge. It may transform their faith.”
First published in the Johnson City (Tenn.) Press, 12 July 2008.
July 6, 2008
Flags, crosses, travel mugs and SpongeBob’s cousin
If anyone wants to know about the power of symbols, ask Barack Obama about American flag lapel pins. As an Illinois state senator, he stopped pinning on the stars and stripes after the 2001 terrorist attacks – he wore flag pins before then – complaining that such displays could be little more than cheap imitations of true patriotism.
But a few months ago bloggers and pundits started pasting Obama, now a U.S. senator and the Democratic presidential nominee-to-be, for not wearing a pin, questioning his devotion. The Constitution doesn’t require jewelry for the presidency, but no matter: Obama’s choice took on a symbolic life of its own. The candidate soon relented and started sporting a flag pin again.
The flag isn’t just decoration. In the way people do with any symbol, Americans fill the flag with meaning – to represent the nation and its ideals, history and strengths. We say it even represents us. It’s more than a piece of fabric because we make it so.
We see it everywhere – flying on poles, pinned on suits, printed on shirts, emblazoned on cars, tattooed on bodies. If affection is measured by the square inch, then Americans really, really love their flag.
Sometimes, though, I can’t help wondering if with all our flag-waving fervor, we unintentionally miss the meaning. Don’t we risk cheapening anything, no matter how precious, if we get too loose with it?
For example: If the flag is so important, how did it get to be a marketing gimmick? There’s only one reason someone prints a flag on, say, a travel mug: to tap into some emotional vein that will get me to buy it.
For that matter, why do proud, patriotic Americans use the flag on everything from beer glasses to bikinis? I have trouble seeing how cutting up Old Glory and using it to cover some anatomy is a patriotic act.
Here’s another question. This weekend we’re celebrating the founding of a nation that first shook off the tyranny of a coercive government and then wrote freedom of thought, belief and speech into its foundational law. So why do we criticize people when they don’t use the flag the way we think they should? Doesn’t that contradict one of the values the flag represents – the freedom not to display it?
Of course, questions like these aren’t reserved for patriotic symbols. I’ve seen Christians and churches do some strange things with their central symbol, the cross. Some churches, for example, remove it altogether. Why is that?
And why do other churches trivialize it? Recently I visited a conservative church that featured a recurring cartoon character on its announcements page. This little guy sported bulging eyes, oversized hands, feet that looked like they were transplanted from a duck, and a big grin – all attached to a cross. Instead of the “old rugged cross,” I was staring at a second cousin of SpongeBob SquarePants. Why is that?
By contrast, a few years ago Muslims in Europe and the Middle East protested and even rioted when a Danish newspaper published cartoons that, they said, demeaned Muhammad. I’m for a free press and I’m against riots – and certainly against political opportunists who fuel violence – but who could doubt that Muslims took their beliefs seriously?
But how seriously do people take their faith if they can turn its central symbol into a cartoon?
Here’s another question: What happens when these two powerful symbols – the flag and the cross – are combined? We can spot them everywhere – Web sites, book covers, neck ties and, yes, travel mugs.
Symbols carry meaning – they aren’t just decoration. So what does it mean when a Christian cross and an American flag get so cozy? Are Americans implying that Christianity is the one acceptable religion? That would be news to the founding fathers, who knew people of different faiths (or no faith) were fellow citizens.
Are Christians saying their faith exists to support an earthly state? That would be news to Jesus and the apostles, who would probably call that arrangement “blasphemy.”
As people flourish flags (or lift crosses or display other symbols, for that matter) – it’s hard to imagine that we can devalue the ideas we think we’re honoring, but it can happen. Symbols are powerful and precious. Handle with care.
First published in the Johnson City (Tenn.) Press, 5 July 2008.
