Christmas around the World

Last week, I used this column to sketch out the decades-long campaign to take Christ out of Christmas. Today, I want to tell you a more upbeat side of the story. 

Christmas endures. It is simply too widespread and too rich to be emptied of meaning. Let us explore this theme by taking a quick romp through some random countries to be encouraged by their Christmas customs.

Starting in Berlin, even last week’s terrorism cannot overcome Christmas joy. Europe is breathing a sigh of relief since the Jihadist who mowed down 60 people with a stolen semi, leaving 12 of them dead, was caught. But what stands out to me about the story is the location of the attack.

Reports say that it happened at a ‘Christmas Market.’ This is an Old World tradition that endures even after decades of secularism. Don’t think of this as some kind of Black Friday at a big box store. It is more like a street fair. Vendors set up shops all around the square. Everything is bedecked in lights. Thousands of festive people fill the streets enjoying the atmosphere and one another.

In German, these are called Kristkindlmarkt. ‘Christmas Market’ is a passable translation, but ‘Christ-Child-Market’ is more exact. There is even a traditional hot beverage served in embossed, collectible mugs. The taste and smell of this Gluhwein recalls happy memories for anybody who has been to Germany, Austria or other Germanic countries at Christmas time.

Unlike America, Christmas trees are a strictly Christmas Eve tradition. You will not find them decorating homes or businesses until the night before Christmas. Instead, those who decorate during Advent (the weeks leading up to Christmas) typically put a lighted star in the window. This is the sign of a Christian home.

German Lutherans brought the Christmas tree, along with other traditions when they migrated eastward into Russia. This created an interesting mix of Eastern Orthodox Christmas traditions with Western European traditions. One of the bigger differences is the date itself. While America follows the European tradition of Dec. 25, Eastern Orthodox tradition celebrates on Jan. 6.

Since the Russian Orthodox tradition dominates, both Dec. 24 and 25 are regular work days. For those who want to celebrate in the Western European way, it means going to church after work and heading back to work the following morning.

At least they have the option to do this. During the Soviet years, many Christmas observances were outlawed. The atheistic communist regime, in their attempt to stamp out Christianity, made New Year’s Day the biggest celebration of the year, and it still is the biggest celebration in Russia.

One Russian tradition is that on Christmas Eve no one eats until they see the first star come out. Then there is a 12-course meal of traditional Christmas dishes. One of these dishes is sochen, and it is the source of the Russian name for Christmas Eve, Sochelnik.

Heading south from Russia, we visit Palestine, the actual place of Jesus’ birth. Here you will once again see Christmas trees. A favorite place to cut them is from Mount Carmel. You might remember Mount Carmel as the site of the biblical show-down between Elijah and the prophets of Baal (see 1 Kings 18).

In Palestine, there are no gifts under the tree. In fact, even the ornaments and manger scene are homemade, cut out of paper bags. The emphasis is on the family meal. After Christmas Eve church services, the extended family gathers around the table for a fancy meal that lasts into the wee hours of the morning.

The Door of Humility, entrance to the church.
Ian and Wendy Sewell, Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0

In Bethlehem itself stands the oldest surviving Church building in all of Christendom. Built in about 330 A.D. it has remained unmolested for almost 1,700 years. The most unique architectural feature of this church is that nobody can enter without bowing. The entry passage is only four feet tall. Whoever wants to be in that exalted place must first be humbled.

Worshipers from Latin, Coptic, Greek, and Ethiopian traditions each hold their customary services in different corners of the church. It is like the entire world comes together in answer to the angels’ song, “Peace on earth, good will toward men.”

The mention of Ethiopian and Egyptian Christians should also remind us that Christmas is celebrated on the African continent as well. In South Africa, Dec. 25 falls during the height of summer. Many people use the break to have a holiday at the beach.

Christmas dinner in South Africa is typically a cookout, but the Christmas tree remains a familiar sight. As in Germany, Christmas trees are not put up until Christmas Eve. Then the family will go to church and come home for a feast. Those following their German traditions will open presents on Christmas Eve, while the Dutch tradition opens presents on Christmas Day.

As we have hopscotched around the world, we have seen much that is different, but also much that is the same. An evergreen tree, lights, presents and a family meal — these basic elements unite people who celebrate Christmas throughout the world.

The evergreen tree points to life even in the midst of the coldest and darkest days of winter. The lights shine forth a similar note. The presents are an echo of the Greatest Gift the world has ever seen. And the family meal reminds us of the mother, the father and the child of Bethlehem.

It is a joy to see these same symbols in and around Evanston. The train full of presents at Depot Square, the Christmas trees in front of the Beeman-Cashin building and the lights all carry something of the story of Christmas. 

But perhaps the most heart-warming local touch are the camels on E-hill. They tell the story of foreign kings who were drawn to the scene of Jesus’ birth. For us they are a reminder that Christmas was not just for some, but for all. Merry Christmas, Evanston! 

Faith, Facts, and Federal Holidays

Evanston's Depot Square, Christmas trees and tractor complete with a flying pig. (Photo: Jonathan Lange)

Imagine a celebration of Independence Day without displaying Old Glory. Imagine if we disallowed any public reading of the Declaration of Independence because it offended someone. That would be crazy, utterly absurd!

But here in our town, and in towns all across the country, Christmas decorations on the square and courthouse lawn have zero depictions of Christ. And we all know how the ACLU would have a fit if somebody hauled out a bible in history class and actually read the account of Jesus' birth. Is that any less absurd?

Someone might object to the comparison by saying that Independence Day is a federal holiday, but Christmas Day is a religious holiday. False. Both days are officially recognized federal holidays. But of the eleven listed holidays, Christmas is the only one where there can be no public recognition of the actual event that it celebrates.

It is, of course, true that the birth of Jesus has religious significance for millions of Americans. But it is also true that it has cultural significance for all Americans. The achievements of Western civilization are, in very large part, traceable to the teachings of Jesus and the impact that his followers had on the world. Hospitals, public welfare, human rights, and a thousand other things that we hold dear were unheard of in the pre-Christian world.

On Columbus Day school children learn about Christopher Columbus and the impact that he had on our culture. On Martin Luther King Jr. Day we see pictures of the man, and children hear about his dream and his letters from a Birmingham jail. But on Christ's birthday, our public celebration can neither show his picture or talk about his life and impact.

How did we arrive at this absurd place? Who passed the laws against celebrating Christ's birthday on the national holiday that names him? Nobody. Did you ever stop to think about that? There is not one single piece of federal legislation which prohibits nativity scenes on public property or the public telling of the life of the man celebrated on Christmas.

As with most of the madness in the war against western civilization, the "laws" against Christmas are not laws at all. Rather, they are recent judicial precedents set in various circuit courts around the country. If you are more than thirty years old, you lived at a time when manger scenes were found on courthouse lawns all over the country.

The ACLU only began challenging them in the early 80s. The first case to rise to the level of the US Supreme Court was Lynch v. Donnelly in 1984. And this case did not make manger scenes on public property illegal. Quite the opposite, it upheld the right of Pawtucket, Rhode Island to have one as part of their public decorations.  

Five years later, the ACLU sued the County of Allegheny over two displays in Pittsburgh. In this case, the court ruled that religious celebrations on public property did not necessarily violate the establishment clause. They did, however, order the removal of one courthouse display because of the words, "Glory to God for the birth of Jesus Christ.” Let that sink in. As recently as 27 years ago a major city in America thought nothing of putting those words on public display.

Given these two victories at the Supreme Court, why have  we removed the manger scene from our own town? Why do we no longer celebrate this federal holiday by talking about the actual event that it celebrates?

The answer has mostly to do with money. Take, for example, the case of Knightstown, Indiana. This small town (pop. 2100) recently announced that it would remove the cross from the town Christmas tree -- a decoration that had been in place unopposed for years.

Knightstown Christmas tree, before the cross was removed,
Dec. 11, 2016. (Photo: Provided by Mike Fender)

What was the reason for removing the cross? After all, it's not like there is any controversy about whether Jesus was a real, historical person. Nor is there any question that he was killed by crucifixion on a Roman cross.

We have more historical proof of these two events than we do of any other event in ancient history. I admit that it would, in fact, violate the establishment clause if the government would make the strictly religious claim that this Jesus is the Creator of the Universe. But if somebody is offended by the historical fact that Jesus was born and was crucified, there's not much we can do about that.

No, the reason for the removal of the cross was not because it was against any law. Nor was it because it is a strictly religious symbol. Rather, the town of Knightstown simply did not have enough money to battle the gargantuan resources of the ACLU in court. It's just cheaper to back down than it is to fight.

It's a perfectly reasonable position. One which town councils, guided by the well-meaning advice of their attorneys, have made all over the land. In fact, I would bet that it's the same reason Evanston chose to decorate Depot Square with deer, and trains, and a Christmas tree. But I'm wondering if that is still the wisest choice.

As defenders of the Second Amendment regularly remind us: a right not exercised is a right soon lost. The same is true when it comes to the First Amendment. In a mere three decades, without any law, or Supreme Court decision, America's public consciousness of the history of Christmas has been scrubbed clean of any reference to Christ.

It has been scrubbed clean by the bullying litigation of the ACLU, and against the wishes of the vast majority of her citizens. We have simply silenced ourselves due to fear, intimidation, and misinformation. Perhaps it is time to reverse our self-imposed censorship. It would be a perfectly legal thing to do.

The Supreme Court has spoken loud and clear that there are two legitimate ways to display a manger scene on public property. One way is if the town simply designates the property as a location for private displays which can be used by any group that obtains a permit. A second way is for the manger scene to be placed as one decoration among others.

It seems to me that we already have plenty of other non-religious decorations. To place a manger scene next to the lighted reindeer, or by the train full of toys would be in perfect compliance with Supreme Court precedence.

Doing so would have more than a religious significance. It would be a public declaration that we are no longer going to be intimidated into rewriting world history. Facts are facts. Events are events. And nobody, Christian or non-Christian, should be hesitant to give credit where credit is due.

The birth of a man changed the world. Like it or not, that is the truth. The fact that large numbers of Americans also worship this man as God should have no bearing on whether Americans of all religions can name his name and remember how things were different before he came.

George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr., Christopher Columbus, and Jesus of Nazareth are all recognized with a federal holiday for the way they have contributed to our civilization. If we name the first three, surely we can name the fourth.

Further Reading:
Wyoming Tribune Eagle: Relating Faith, Facts, and Federal Holidays
NTV: Nativity at the Nebrask State Capitol
American Center for Law and Justice, Informational Letter
Public Discourse: Christmas and Western Civilization

Fake News and the Power of Truth

There’s a new term in town. Right before the election, on November 6, the New York Times reported, “Media’s Next Challenge: Overcoming Fake News.” As if on cue, the Washington Post declared: “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say” (Nov. 24). The narrative was even uncritically repeated last Tuesday night (Dec. 6) by some professors at UW-Casper. 

Though “fake news” may be new to us, it has actually been around for about a decade. UrbanDictionary.com defined way back in January of 2007 as: “Parody of network television newscasts that exploits the absurd in current events for humorous intent rather than being concerned with providing complete and well-balanced information.” “The Daily Show” with Jon Stewart, “The Colbert Report,” and “Real Time with Bill Maher” are given as examples.

That’s quite different from today’s meaning. Instead of pointing to political comedy, Mainstream media is now using it to refer to a couple of hundred web sites that use splashy headlines and vague sources to make click-bait for advertising profit, many of which are geared toward the politically-minded of all stripes. Fair enough.

But by making a second, more nefarious claim — that the Russian government is controlling some of these sites in order to sway the elections — they have veered into the same baseless sensationalism that “fake news” is all about. 

CNN admitted as much on Dec. 2, saying that this charge remains, “unsupported by even a shred of evidence.” And on Dec. 7, the Washington Post was forced to add an editor’s note to the above mentioned article admitting that it “could not vouch for the validity” of any of the hundreds of web sites alleged to be fake news, much less in control of the Russian government. 

In fact, this is how fake news has always worked. Mention something that is obvious to everyone, then attach to it — without evidence — the new thing you want them to believe. For example: “We have found actual dinosaur skeletons (true) which have been Carbon 14 dated as 50 million years old (demonstrably false).”

Judging from the sources pushing the Russian story, and their demonstrable political bias, it is at least equally plausible that the Russian narrative is just one more “fake news” story designed to sway the election the other way.

Be that as it may, Laura Hancock, political reporter for the Casper Star Tribune, begins her article about the professors at UW-Casper on Dec. 6, “Fake news, which is believed to have influenced the election, isn’t going away.” It is amazing how many questions can be begged in a single sentence. 

A careful reader might want to ask some of those questions. For instance, who is it, exactly, that believes fake news influenced the election? Does this person have any factual grounds for their belief, or is it blind faith? Grounds, or no grounds, is the charge actually true? And if it is, did the “fake news” influence the election in Clinton’s favor or Trump’s? 

If you asked these questions to a cross-section of Wyoming voters, you would likely get wildly different answers. In fact, on Dec. 6 the New York Times ran the headline, “In News, What’s Fake and What’s Real Can Depend on What You Want to Believe.” Knowing the New York Times, I suspect that the reporter probably had religious believers in mind, but never even recognized her own unwavering faith.

You see, the problem with “fake news,” whether it is generated from the right or from the left — whether it is intentional propaganda or blind faith guided by wishful thinking — is that without the tools to sort truth from falsehood, people have no other recourse than to retreat into their own echo chambers, AKA “safe zones,” and hear only what they already believe.

Not only is the truth lost by this terrible idea, so is community. A culture that cannot reason together in a free marketplace of ideas is a culture that is easily divided and used by identity politicians and the special interests that enable them. This is tragic and destructive. 

Sadly, we are already quite far down this path. The divisions and hostility, which seem to be growing among us every day, are not the result of racism or sexism, nationalism or any other “ism.” They are the result of our inability to communicate across the aisle. They arise from a despair that truth is either knowable or known.

Giving up on the idea of truth, we resort to power — governmental power, corporate power and media power.  Power is used to redefine terms. Power is used to declare winners and losers before the debate is begun. Power is used to punish those who do not agree with us. Power is used to shut down opposing points of view that we know “cannot be true” but we lack the ability to disprove them.

Like “fake news” itself, the temptation to settle matters of truth by power is nothing new. We have been doing it since we first threw temper-tantrum when mom told us we couldn’t have a piece of candy. But just as temper tantrums cannot alter the truth, shutting down the opposing view cannot help us form a closer community. Nor can it help us come any closer to understanding the truth or each other.

We have a lot of work to do. Identity politics and the politicians that use them have been slicing and dicing us into angry mobs for far too long. Instead of uniting in a shared truth, we have fragmented into one group that believes this truth, and another that believes that truth, and on and on and on.

To the extent that education has stopped teaching our children how to think, teaching them instead what to think, we have done ourselves no favors. The politicization of every science from astronomy to zoology, from sociology to biology, only continues the trend. Instead of seeking the truth itself, we see whatever “truth” advances our cause.

The first step on the road to recovery is the mere admission of this fact. Those who believe that truth actually exists can be serenely confident that they are not the only ones capable of finding it. Whether by an excellent teacher, or by the school of hard knocks, we all come to know the truth in one way or another. And sources that hide the truth in order to maintain their own agenda will make themselves irrelevant as their cover-ups become increasingly ridiculous and transparent. 

The second step to recovery is to rediscover the liberal arts — the arts which free us from the chains of deception and equip us to live as the human beings that we are. It would be fine start for all of us to relearn the basics of logic. Learn to identify a logical fallacy when you hear one; learn how to ask critical questions; learn the importance of checking sources and cross-examining witnesses.

The last thing we need is for some “high priests of news” to tell us which news is news and which news is not. That’s the arrogance that got us into this mess. So let the “fake news” have its day. It will fade away like every other fad. The truth itself is all that is needed for a healthy community. Truth produces its own light. Instead of driving people into cages, like a shining light, it draws people to its source.

Of Gods and Men

Before meeting Al, I had never thought much about Cuba. It just wasn’t on my radar. I guess I naively assumed that if the good people of Cuba wanted Mr. Castro as president, who was I to judge? I’ve grown up since then. Fair and free elections are a privilege that not all people have.

College forced me to rethink my assumptions. It’s not that I was a poli-sci major, or anything like that. It’s just that my teammate and roommate during the first two years of college was a guy named Alvaro Fernandez. He and his family spoke Spanish at home. And on special occasions Al’s mom would bring us homemade tamales.

His tastes in music (Bruce Springsteen and Rush) were annoying. I preferred Jerry Jeff Walker and Merle Haggard. He was a business major and I was studying for a teacher’s certificate. He played defense, while I played offense. But we got along well.

The more I came to know him, the more he opened up about his life and family. He had not always lived in America. He came with his father and mother from Cuba. I suppose they actually fled. But I never learned the circumstances. 

People who openly resisted Castro’s confiscation of their farms and businesses were typically hauled in front of a firing squad. But you didn’t have to be rich to stand against the wall. Black and white, young and old, men and women, rich and poor — all received the same treatment. Socialism doesn’t discriminate. 

The names of many, but by no means all, of the victims are inscribed on 14,000 white crosses at the Cuban Memorial in Miami. Under their names a single word marks their fate, fusilado. Those who were only suspected of opposing the regime were thrown in squalid prisons where many still rot, waiting for a trial that will never come. 

Records are hard to come by. Only grieving families are left to recount the disappearance of loved ones. Estimates place the dead at nearly 100,000, and those who passed through Castro’s prisons numbered about 500,000. Let that sink in. Out of a population of 6.5 million, 1 in 13 people went to prison.

Just to put that into local perspective, imagine a town the size of Evanston. Then imagine 200 of us being killed by firing squad, 1,000 more imprisoned without trial and 2,000 fleeing with only the clothes on their back. To make it a bit more realistic, imagine those fleeing having to cobble together their own boat and row a distance from Evanston all the way to Salt Lake City, with a good number of them drowning, starving or otherwise dying along the way.

The up side is that for the 9,000 of us that remain, going to the hospital is free. But remember to bring your own bedding. And if the doctor gives you a prescription for Aspirin or common antibiotics, good luck finding a pharmacy that can fill it. Oh, and don’t even think about going to the top floor of the hospital where the best care is given. That’s reserved for high government officials and Michael Moore’s visiting film crew. After all, some are more equal than others.

As for the Church in Cuba, the 1959 revolution did not restrict religious practice. It only prohibited religious people from joining the Party. Remember that the next time you hear someone argue that you can worship any way you like, you just can’t act like a Christian in your place of business or if you hold any government job. 

Oh, and there’s another catch. Only those churches registered by the regime are allowed. Non-registered churches are demolished while their pastors are imprisoned. I am sure that their registration process is every bit as fair and unbiased as the IRS’s treatment of organizations registering for 501c(3) status.

But, back on the island, the Fernandez family were one of those who emigrated. They were allowed to keep their lives in exchange for giving all of their possessions to the government. In fact, the regime was so generous that it even gave them $5 for travel expenses.

So, while I was running barefoot through pastures in rural Texas, Little Alvaro was starting over with only the clothes on his back. He didn’t talk much about his childhood in Cuba. But one thing he told me has stayed with me ever since. 

He was in the third grade when his teacher told everybody to put their heads down on the desk and to pray to God for a piece of candy. So Al, together with his classmates did so. Then they were told to hold open their hands. You can imagine the wonder and the eager expectation that filled their hearts. But nothing filled their hands. 

Minutes passed. Then the teacher gave another command. “Pray to Fidel Castro for a piece of candy.” Again, they complied. Again, they waited. But this time, each and every child felt a piece of candy being pressed into his or her hand as the teacher walked from desk to desk teaching the regime’s object lesson for the day.

What kind of a mind would dream up such a lesson? What did Fidel Castro’s regime want the children to learn from it? I know what I learned from it. Communism is not just a political theory. It is a religion. God is the government, the source of all good. And he’s a jealous god. By means of firing squad and prison, he teaches: you shall have no other gods before him.

The Communistic deity, wherever he has seized the reins of power, has left a trail of misery and bloodshed. From the former Soviet Union to the island prison called Cuba, the story always plays out the same. As a result, the last century has seen more bloodshed than any other century in the history of the world. It has also seen more persecution of Christians than the early Christians ever contemplated.

Castro acted like a god in life. But death brings all men down to earth. I do not rejoice in his death any more than in the thousands that he killed. I only hope that the people of Cuba may be spared from another rising in his place. Freedom is a privilege that none of us deserve, but it’s a privilege that I wish all men to have.

Third Parties, the Electoral College and the Constitution

FrtontLoading.blogspot.com

As sure as there is a sunrise, presidential elections stir up chatter in two predictable areas: the electoral college and a third party. This year is no different. Typically, liberals want to dump the electoral college, while libertarians want to have a third-party choice. 

Third-party talk is mostly heard before a presidential election. It is the natural consequence of a dissatisfaction with the uneasy coalitions that make up the two dominating parties. Who could disagree? The primary season is famous for weeding out the noblest and most principled candidates from each party and leaving us with an unsavory choice between two political animals.

Challenges to the electoral college, on the other hand, are heard mostly after an election. The margin of victory in electoral votes is usually wider than the margin of the popular vote, and five times it has even been reversed. Why not just go with the popular vote and scrap the electoral college? So the logic goes.

Governing is the art of building consensus around clearly defined choices. In order for it to work, you need both things: a clearly defined choice and a coalition that supports one side over the other. Remember the last time you and a dozen friends wanted to watch a movie? You probably had more than a dozen suggestions to choose from. How do you do that? 

Do you start by having a vote? Not usually, especially if nine friends suggested nine different movies from the Marvel Comics series, while the other three wanted to watch “Gone with the Wind.” Do you see the problem? To base your decision on which movie gets the most votes will probably mean that nine people who are in the mood for an action flick will have to endure three hours in the antebellum South. 

Take this problem and multiply it by 10 million and you can see the challenges of choosing anything on a national scale. If you have six candidates to choose from, and five of them think very much alike, chances are the first vote will always favor the one who is most different from the other five — even if most people agree with the five. The majority mindset will be split five ways while the minority will back one candidate.

There are two ways to solve this problem. Either you can have a whole series of votes to narrow it down to a choice between two, or you can have a way to decide which of the five best represents that point of view, and then take vote between two. 

In America, we use the second method. The narrowing down process is called the “Primaries.” It is designed to prepare the field for a single Red or Blue vote. It does not work as well when it narrows the field to three shades of red and two shades of blue. For that, the first method would be better.

But the first method works well only if you are all in the same room. It becomes impractical when you’re scattered across five time zones. In that case, the only way to make it practical is to select representatives who can all fit in the same room and complete the narrowing process. We call this the parliamentary system.

This is the way that many other countries rule themselves. Instead of the people having a direct say in the choosing of their leader, they choose representatives from numerous different parties who can all fit in the same place called, Parliament. These members of Parliament (MPs) then begin to parlay. They discuss and dicker and make deals until one candidate for Prime Minister has assembled a coalition of different parties large enough to be elected.

If America wanted to go with a third-party system, we could do it, but it would require changing the Constitution. While our two-party system is not written in the constitution, it is the natural result of it. America has not always had Democrats and Republicans. Parties have come and gone. But there have always been two dominant ones at any given moment. This is a direct result of our constitutional right to have a direct vote in presidential elections.

Well, almost a direct vote. Each state has a direct vote to elect electors. But it is actually the 538 electors who gather in a single place and elect a president. Here is where libertarian longings for a third party meet the liberal desires to scrap the electoral college. Both ideas would require amending the Constitution. 

We could certainly choose to do that. But it’s not going to be accomplished by complaining. Someone needs to introduce a bill to amend the constitution and seriously carry it through the states. Until this happens, politicians and talking heads who criticize the electoral college are only grandstanding.

We should also remember this: Were it not for the electoral college, the United States of America would not exist. We would still have states, like Europe has a patchwork of countries, but they would not be united under one constitution.

It was especially the less populated, rural states who understood from the start that if we elected the president by a straight popular vote, they would always be overpowered by the highly populated urban areas. So during the constitutional convention, Alexander Hamilton championed the electoral college as a way to give agriculture and natural resources its due. Without this provision in the constitution, they were prepared to walk away from the United States and make plans of their own.

Wyomingites especially ought to appreciate the electoral college. With it, your voice has three times more say in presidential elections than people in highly urbanized states. This still does not make Wyoming a hot stop on the presidential campaign trail, but at least it means that presidents must acknowledge the contributions we and other rural states make to the Union and take care that their regulatory agencies do not run roughshod over states’ rights.

Government is a series of compromises and delicate balancing acts. While tweaks and improvements are always possible, it is never a good idea to make rapid and major changes without first understanding the history and implications of what is being changed. Our Constitution is a masterpiece of fine-tuning and careful thought. On that we can all agree.

A Love Story: Barronelle and Robert Ingersoll

Today, as I write, Barronelle Stutzman is standing before the Washington State Supreme Court. Her crime? Loving a man. Don’t get me wrong. This is not an erotic or romantic story. The man she loves is not a suitor or a lover, he is a customer.

Barronelle owns a flower shop in Richland, Washington. She worked in, and later managed, her mother’s business. In 1996, she bought it and made it her own. She doesn’t just sell flowers or pre-packaged arrangements. Any cashier could do that. She creates art. Her arrangements don’t come out of a book; they come out of her soul.

Some people go to a flower shop because they lack imagination. Others, because they are filled with it. Robert Ingersoll was one of these. He saw the harmony and unity, the balance and proportion of her art. He could be surprised by a focal point or a line and be delighted by a texture or hue. He understood her and her art.

He would come at anniversaries, on Mother’s Days, for birthdays and for parties. He would thoughtfully select a vase, then hand it to her saying, “Do your thing.“

She then poured out her heart for him into those vases. “He was particularly fond of unusual and creative arrangements,” she said. “His requests for arrangements always challenged me to do my best work.”

For nearly 10 years, he was a regular customer spending thousands of dollars on dozens of arrangements. Rob appreciated her self-expression and the passion that went into her creations. Barronelle was inspired by his discriminating taste and rose to the challenge.

Their mutual love of flowers brought them together, but their love for each other grew out of their love of growing things. She talked about how her faith filled every aspect of her life and her art. He talked about his life and his relationship with Curt Freed. And they talked about flowers.

It was a beautiful friendship. An artist and a patron. They were unsullied by the angry agendas of our world. They were, of course, aware of their vast differences in worldview. She knew that he identified as a homosexual and that Curt Freed was his partner. He knew that she was a Christian from the Southern Baptist tradition who believed homosexuality to be sin. But they were able to connect over flowers.

Then the day came, as it comes in all friendships. A day when worldviews collide. Maybe your girlfriend asks you to go to a different church. Maybe your best friend wants you to help hide an affair. Maybe a close colleague asks you to attend an anti-Trump vigil, or participate in the annual Life Chain.

In the friendship of Barronelle and Rob, it was about a wedding. She learned a few hours ahead of time that he was going to ask her. And she agonized about it as any friend naturally would. As a business owner, you can guess how strongly she wanted the business. As a friend, you know how reluctant to deny a heartfelt wish. As a Christian she sincerely believed that endorsing his same-sex marriage would actually hurt her friend.

Through tears and hand-holding, gentle words and sorrowful regrets, she explained that she could not grant this request. “Could not,” is the language of a heart captive to something higher than yourself. It is the farthest thing from “will not.” Their conversation ended with a hug and hope. Tests of friendship can either end them or lift them to a higher level. Time would tell.

But unlike other challenges to friendship, the power of government has intruded into this one. You can’t be hauled to court for declining to condone an affair. But you can for this. Washington enacted a Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). Barronelle was told that she had violated it.

Whether she has or hasn’t the Washington State Supreme Court will decide. And whether the Washington law passes constitutional muster, the US Supreme Court could decide. But I am interested in their friendship.

The whole point of law is to help people live in harmony — not monotone. The whole point of discrimination law is to see to it that all people are treated with dignity. What about Rob and Barronelle? Has WLAD helped them? Is Rob being treated with more dignity as a result of it? Is Barronelle? The answers to these questions are obvious. Rob has not entered her shop since that day. The harmony is gone. Has his dignity been increased? Barronelle not only lost a friend, but feels her dignity and livelihood attacked in open court.

What saddens me the most is that their friendship is broken. It would be sad enough if Rob took such great offense to her words that he broke off the friendship without trying to talk it through and work it out. Heaven knows that happens all too often with each of us. But what saddens me even more is the thought that he was encouraged to break off the friendship by WLAD itself.

Did the ACLU convince him that it was worth losing a friend in order to help others? Did the Attorney General convince him that he needed to sue Barronelle in order to advance the dignity of others? Who knows. Whatever went on behind the scenes, Rob no longer talks to Barronelle, and the only thing that changed was the application of WLAD.

The state of Washington didn’t even contemplate that a denial of same-sex marriage was a violation of WLAD when it was debated and passed. After all, same-sex marriage remained illegal in Washington for three years after WLAD was on the books. Nor was it that Mr. Ingersoll finally learned the truth about his florist’s beliefs, or that Barronelle suddenly became a bigot after 10 years of friendship.

Consider also the millions of Americans watching this case unfold. Had Barronelle not treated her customer with care and love in the first place, he would never have asked her for this gift and she would be off the hook. What do we expect other shop-owners and artists to learn from this?

Hide your affection. Treat everyone monotonously the same. Leave your personal expression at home. Sell your goods without thought for your customers. And above all, hide your religion. This is not a recipe for love, dignity and unity. It is a recipe for impersonal relationships, distrust and loneliness. Not only has Washington’s Law Against Discrimination been at the center of destroying one friendship, it will also make friendships and love more difficult across the board.

In Shakespeare’s famous play, the feuding Montagues and Capulets destroyed both the love and the lives of Romeo and Juliet. Now that play has come to life. When the government weighs in on love and friendships, lovers and friends are crushed under it. We see it in the case of Barronelle and Rob, and we can predict the prevention of countless other friendships in its wake.

Unless the Washington Supreme Court overturns the lower court, a 72-year-old woman will not only lose her business of nearly 40 years; she will also lose her house and retirement savings. For in an unprecedented move, the ACLU and Attorney General have sued not only her business, but her person for attorney fees estimated at over a million dollars.

Some would be angry and embittered. One could hardly blame Barronelle if she were. But she’s not! Blogger Monica Bonewitz-Boyer privately talked to her. Here’s how she describes the conversation: “I then asked her how I could pray. Do you know what she said? She said, ‘Pray for Rob. He needs Jesus.’ She didn’t ask for me to pray for a win in court. She didn’t ask me to pray that she wouldn’t lose her home and business … She said, ‘Pray for Rob.’”

The love story continues, no thanks to WLAD. The love continues because one person guided by her worldview refuses to hate. More than that, she refuses to retreat into an impersonal and uncaring tolerance. Some label this as hate and bigotry. I appreciate it as the art of love.

Further Resources:
The Federalist: Why Refusing to Design Gay Wedding Flowers Was Barronelle Stutzman's Act of Love
Alliance Defending Freedom, State of Washington / Robert Ingersoll v. Arlene's Flowers

Thinking about advance directives

Twenty-one years ago my wife and I had been in a hospital rejoicing in the birth of my son. Recently, we were there with him again. But this time he had just been flown to a Salt Lake City emergency room in a medivac chopper. He had multiple fractures and bleeding on the brain. And on his 21st birthday — nearly to the very hour — we were staring at a form that asked: “Do you have a living will, or an advance directive?”

Since that summer day, I have a heightened awareness of this question. I see it everywhere. Twenty years ago I don’t remember hearing it. But now you can hardly have any encounter with the health care system without encountering this question. It is on every admission form for hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices — even some dentists!

What has happened to bring this about? And what should we think about it? 

While living wills are not a new thing (they were first proposed in 1969), they have become increasingly talked about. It was the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990 that first required health care institutions to promote and support them. They started appearing on admittance forms shortly afterwards. What better way to raise people’s awareness than by putting a question before them every time they went to the hospital?

More recently, the Affordable Care Act of 2008 began to pay physicians to counsel their patients in the intricacies of advance directives. This dangerous practice raised the specter that the very people who might financially benefit from your death would be in a position to encourage it.

Thankfully, that particular provision of the ACA was voided in July of 2015. But before you could blink, new rules were created that effectively did the same thing. All of these federal rules, coupled with sophisticated and well-funded public relations campaigns have succeeded in making living wills, advance directives, and DNRs household words.

With the passage of Colorado’s suicide law last Tuesday (Prop. 106), I thought it would be a good time to ask and answer a few questions.

• Are we required to have an advance directive?

No. You are not required to set up either a living will or an advance directive. But while the question is simple and the answer is definite, learning this fact took a good amount of time and persistence. 

There is such a public push to encourage advance directives, that the actual law is obscured and reduced to fine print. When I Googled the question: “Do I need an advance directive?” I was led to the website for Patients’ Rights Council. This seemed like a great source to find out my rights as a patient. But on the site, I could not find any reference to the law. Instead, at the top of the page I found this question asked and answered three separate times with the an unqualified “yes.” Further down the page, they even told me it was “absolutely essential.”

If I’m going to take their word for it, I had better execute an advance directive right away. No wonder people are confused. More than once I have had people come to me with an advance directive form they got at the doctor’s office. The questions on the form are worded in suggestive ways that leave them bewildered. They seem forced to make choices without all the necessary information. 

Since these forms are part of a dizzying stack of papers to read, sign and initial, many people are convinced that they have to fill it out and hand it in as a condition of their treatment.

But this is not the case. While any number of official-sounding organizations might say otherwise, the actual Federal Law says that a health care provider cannot “condition the provision of care or otherwise discriminate against an individual based on whether or not the individual has executed an advance directive” (42USC1395cc). It seems the Patients’ Rights Council is more interested in advocating their opinion than they are about informing you of your actual rights. But, are they right in their opinion?

• Is it a good idea to have an advance directive?

That depends on what you mean. Advance directives cover a wide variety of issues including Power of Attorney, treatment options, DNRs, and organ donation. Some of these issues you will want to settle in advance. Others you will want to settle only when all the facts are in. Let’s look at some of these.

Durable power of attorney

This is the first and the most straight-forward of advance directives. When you are incapacitated and unable to make medical choices for yourself, who would you want to make them? Every state already has laws in place that answer this question in a variety of situations. These laws are necessary so that doctors and emergency medical technicians have legal protections when time is of the essence and the situation is fluid and confusing.

While the state already has a way of determining who will speak for you, you should look at Wyoming law for yourself to see if it matches your wishes. There are a couple of reasons that you might want to override it. For one, the law may designate a person to speak for you against your own wishes. This is easily corrected by designating durable power of attorney. 

Other times the law might require agreement among multiple family members who see things differently. If they argue for too long, treatment options may be lost simply because of the delay. Specifying for yourself a single person to have durable power of attorney can give the doctors legal authority to get quicker decisions.

Treatment options

When people think about advance directives, they are usually thinking about these. People tend to have an irrational fear of being kept alive on machines for an infinite length of time. But it is never a good idea to make decisions out of fear — much less pre-emptive decisions. Besides, there is no medical treatment that can keep you alive indefinitely.

Questions about whether or not to receive a breathing tube, a feeding tube, an I.V. or a jillion other treatment options can never be adequately answered without knowing the whole picture. How many of us know people whose lives were saved by such medical wonders so that they lived for decades afterwards? Would our world be better if these people had died?

There will, of course, be situations when such treatments are no longer useful for restoring health. In such sad situations, a person with the durable power of attorney can affect their removal. But if you direct in advance that certain treatments cannot be used, you may tie the hands of your loved ones from ordering some care that is perfectly reasonable and hopeful for your full recovery.

Do not resuscitate

This advance directive is known by the initials DNR. We are often tempted to specify this ahead of time in order to prevent our family from incurring medical costs, or being forced to make difficult decisions for us. However, there are problems with this advance directive.

For one, it often cannot be followed. For instance, if you experience a medical problem at home and somebody calls an ambulance, the EMTs are bound by law to stabilize the patient and transport you to the hospital. In effect, any DNR that may be on the record is voided once you pick up the phone.

A second problem is like that above. How can you preemptively exclude resuscitation before you know the exact circumstances? Not only does our health go up and down rapidly, but the state of treatment options is constantly changing. What is a hopeless situation today, may not be tomorrow. Only a loved one consulting with the doctors and medical technicians can have enough of the picture to make an informed decision.

It is a good thing that we are all thinking more about advance directives. Careful consideration of these issues helps us be more clear on what is truly good and right and loving for all human beings. I only wish that the pressure was dialed back a bit.

One of the main reasons that advance directives are being promoted is that health care costs would be reduced. But you have no duty to die in order to save money. Nor do you have any legal obligation to hurry up and make an ill-advised decision.

Your life is precious. Don’t sell yourself short. While we have an infinite number of ways of taking life and shortening life, we have no way to create it. That is purely a gift, a gift to you and a gift to all of us around you. Knowing this is the best advance directive of all.

A worldview to help you face tomorrow

Whew! It’s over. The end of a long, stressful, cantankerous election season.

Today, while you are reading this, all America is going to the polls to decide our officers for the next two to six years. Even without knowing the outcome, we can be thankful that the campaign season is over.

Election cycles take a lot out of us. They are hard on our health — blood pressure, sleep patterns, stress levels, etc. They are hard on relationships with family, friends, coworkers and acquaintances. They are hard on our faith. They entice us to justify things that are obviously wrong. They turn our eyes from permanent matters to the temporary. They force us to choose between terribly flawed sinners (like ourselves), then tempt us to trust them as our saviors. They promise unbounded hope for the future only to dash it to pieces every. single. time.

I’m glad it’s over. But no matter what the outcome, tomorrow we will wake up to learn of winners and losers up and down the ballot. From the school board to the president, roughly half of us will be disappointed by the results, and half pleased. We will go mingle with our co-workers, check in on social media, make preparations to have Thanksgiving dinner with family and friends who voted for the other side.

What shall we say about these things? Is there anything true and solid that can make us feel better about the state of the world, less frantic about the disaster that we fear, more charitable toward the other side of the aisle? Yes, absolutely. In fact there are four things that encourage me. I would like to share them with you.

God is in control.

Whatever happens today is happening because God wants it to. He may want it as blessing, He may want it as chastisement. He may want it in consequence of our standing against Him, or He may want it in consequence of standing with Him. But the overriding truth is that He wants it. That is comforting.

We don’t have to understand the reasons for God’s wanting something in order to have peace. It is enough to know that He does. And even though I do not pretend to speak for other religions, I suspect that this comfort is found in most of them. I hear it expressed in the Latin, “Deo volente.” I hear it from Islam in the word, “Inshallah.” I, myself, pray it and believe it in the words, “Thy will be done.”

I honestly feel sorry for anyone who does not believe this certainty. I can only imagine how overwhelmed, frantic and hopeless they can feel when things don’t go their way. But for those who already believe in the King of kings, Lord of lords — and the President of presidents — tomorrow morning will be just as glorious and hopeful as today, no matter what we think should have happened.

Evil exists only as an attack on the good.

I know that sounds like a pretty depressing thought in what hopes to be an upbeat article. But, really, it’s not. It is a hugely important thought because it undergirds two basic truths about the condition of our world.

First, it means that the evil we see around us is not part of the natural state of the universe. It’s not here by design. It is an intrusion, an alien, an unnatural enemy. To strive against it tooth and claw is not wrong but necessary. And to hope for a world where it no longer exists is not some pie-in-the-sky fantasy, but a hearkening back to an earlier reality, and a realistic expectation of its return.

The second way that the acknowledgement of evil helps is this: it means that the people who are doing evil things are not in and of themselves evil. The devil is evil by nature, but the people and things that he uses to attack the good are themselves redeemable. They are being used, hijacked — perhaps even willingly for the moment. But nobody is hopeless, nobody is intrinsically evil, nobody is beyond rescue.

It is only with a solid and clear understanding of evil as an external and illegitimate attack on goodness that we can both fight against it, and at the same time love the person who is caught in its net. This is more than bland tolerance, this is actually love.

Politics brings this difference to the foreground. For those who cannot grasp the real existence of evil, politics means pretending some people to be angels and others to be demons. But for those who have a realistic understanding of evil, people around you remain lovable together with all their flaws, warts, and bad ideas.

Winning looks more like crucifixion.

Of all the points I am making here, this is the most explicitly Christian. But I hope the non-Christian reader will indulge me anyway. After all, this is also the stuff of every good fairytale, myth and story that was ever told. Our heroes are not strong men who do with brute force what everyone expects them to be able to do. No. The heroes that speak to our deepest humanity are weak in appearance, unlikely to win, are always thrashed nearly to death before unexpectedly snatching victory out of the jaws of defeat.

Whether we are talking Spiderman, Superman or Ironman, or Hercules, Thor or Horace, all heroes follow the same pattern. It is the pattern of Jesus who accomplished His most mighty victory by hanging bloody, weak and defeated on the cross. Take this to heart and you will never be depressed and downcast no matter what happens in this world. When you believe that God’s victories always take the appearance of defeat, defeat itself becomes your hope of victory! How strange, but how incredibly comforting.

The ultimate victory is won.

This fourth point brings them all together. That God is in control, that evil is an intruder that must be resisted, that victory in the resistance looks exactly like defeat, all comes together in this. For those who believe the ultimate victory is certain, they simply are not bothered by the temporary setbacks and looming threats of the near future.

We have our marching orders. We get to play our part. But if the victory is already and ultimately won, the pressure is off. The victory does not depend on our performance. Our performance only reflects which side of the battle we are on. So fight against evil as you must. Love and rescue your neighbor as you can. But do it all with a free and happy heart. Because what really matters rests firmly in hands far more capable and sure-handed than your own.