Posts published in “Culture”

Should American Christians Pray for Putin or Ukraine?

Should American Christians Pray for Putin or Ukraine?

By John R Guardiano on February 20, 2022

Prominent Christian calls to “pray for Putin” are wrongheaded and discordant with the American political tradition and American religious history.

Remember reading about the American prayer vigils for Soviet dictators Joseph Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev during the Cold War? What about all the times Americans were beseeched to pray for Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini during World War II?

You don’t remember that? Neither do I, because it never happened.

You see, back in the day, Americans prayed not for despots and dictators, but for the people enslaved by these despots and dictators—and for our soldiers and diplomats who were working to stop these despots and dictators and free the enslaved.

“Pray for the peoples of the ‘Captive Nations‘ behind the Iron Curtain,” was, in fact, a common American religious refrain in the 20th Century.

It is, after all, more than a little twisted and perverse, not to mention heretical, to pray for objectively bad men as they perpetrate genocide and mass murder while enslaving innocent peoples worldwide.

The New Orthodoxy. But according to some Christian conservatives, that is so passé. Their new orthodoxy requires that we shower prayer and affection on despots and dictators, not their victims. Thus the prominent Christian evangelist and missionary Franklin Graham tweeted:Rod Dreher, a prominent Christian author and journalist, replied:Now, of course, praying for God to work a miracle in Putin’s heart is all well and good; but not, I’m afraid, “so that war can be avoided at all cost [emphasis added].”

If the price of peace is the Russian annexation of Ukraine and the Russian enslavement of the people of Ukraine, then no thanks. That cost is too high and too exorbitant—and too detrimental to American national security interests.

Christianity, after all, has never demanded that the faithful be pacifists. In fact, quite the opposite: As Catholic author and journalist Austen Ivereigh has observed, under certain conditions “to refuse to go to war may in fact be a great evil.”

Ivereigh quotes the great Christian apologist C.S. Lewis: “If war is ever moral, then sometimes peace can be sinful.”

Christians who urge that we pray for Putin insist that they are praying not for his success, but “for his conversion to peace with his neighbors“—or, as David French puts it: “I’m praying that God turns Vladimir Putin’s heart from war.”

But of course, that’s not what Graham said. Graham said he was praying for Putin “so that war could be avoided at all cost [emphasis added].” And Rod Dreher agreed, saying “I have been praying for exactly this.”

Damnable Prayers. French’s clarification about what he is praying for is helpful; however, it does not exonerate Graham and Dreher for their damnable prayer requests.

Nor does it negate the fact that urging the faithful to pray for despots and dictators is discordant with the American political tradition and American religious history.

Because in truth, as a practical matter, people pray for those whom they are rooting for and wish to help, aid and assist.

The fine distinction that French makes—that he is praying not or Putin, but for Putin’s Christian conversion—is lost on most people and lost in most prayer requests. It certainly appears to be lost on Graham and Dreher as evidenced by their damnable tweets.

For this reason, contra Graham and Dreher, let us pray not for Putin, but for the people of Ukraine. And let us pray that American and NATO leaders have the wisdom and resolve to stop Putin and save Ukraine.

Anything less than that would be, dare I say it, unAmerican and unchristian.

Feature photo credit: Christian evangelist and missionary Franklin Graham (L) and Christian author and journalist Rod Dreher (R). Graham’s pic is courtesy of BillyGraham.org. Dreher’s pic is a screen shot from a YouTube video posted by The American Conservative.

Why 14 GOP Congressmen Voted Against Juneteenth National Independence Day

Why 14 GOP Congressmen Voted Against Juneteenth National Independence Day

By John R Guardiano on June 20, 2021

The media suggest that it’s all about “racism” and “white supremacy.” In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

The 14 Republican congressmen who voted against making Juneteenth a national holiday ought to be recognized as profiles in political courage. They took a principled stand to make a legitimate and much-needed point that will be ignored and dismissed by progressive critics eager to demonize anyone who disagrees with them as a “racist” and a “white supremacist.”

The legitimate and much-needed point: that by calling Juneteenth “National Independence Day,” we detract from the longstanding July 4 Independence Day holiday and create, in effect, two independence days: one for caucasians and non-blacks (July 4) and one for blacks (June 19).

Thus we risk aggravating racial tensions and racial divisions when, instead, we should aspire to do the exact opposite: bring Americans together as one people and one nation.

Founding Principles. All Americans, after all, are heirs to the Declaration of Independence and the independent republic that the Declaration established or at least initiated.

That’s why, during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s, Martin Luther King Jr. famously appealed to the Declaration of Independence, as well as as the Constitution of the United States.

In his 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech, King declared:

When the architects of our great republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.

This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

True enough, as King noted:

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given its colored people a bad check, a check that has come back marked “insufficient funds.”

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation.

So we have come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and security of justice.

Similarly, as President Obama famously declared in his 2004 keynote address to the Democratic National Convention:

There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.

Political Courage. For this reason, thoughtful GOP congressmen, such as Chip Roy (Texas) and Thomas Massie (Kentucky) urged Democrats in Congress to change the name of Juneteenth from “National Independence Day” to something more fitting and appropriate, such as “National Emancipation Day,” “National Freedom Day,” or “National Liberation Day.”

“I fully support creating a holiday to celebrate the abolition of slavery, a dark portion of our nation’s history,” Massie explained. But “I think this day is misnamed.” Why “push Americans to pick one of these two days as their independence day based on their racial identity?” he asked.

“As a country,” Roy said, “we must stop dividing ourselves by race and unite in our common pursuit of the ideals set forth in our Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal.”

Democrats refused to change the name of Juneteenth; and so, 14 Republican congressmen cast a protest vote to make an important political point. This, obviously, doesn’t make them “racists” or “white supremacists.” Instead, it makes them principled and courageous.

As for Juneteenth, despite being inappropriately named, the holiday need not divide us. In fact, quite the opposite: all Americans, obviously, can celebrate the triumph of America’s founding principles brought about by the end of slavery and the emancipation of African Americans.

It’s just that, by misnaming the holiday, Congress has made the task of racial reconciliation and national unity more difficult. Fortunately for us and for posterity, 14 brave Republican congressmen have drawn attention to Congress’ error through a rare act of political courage.

Good on them.

Feature photo credit: GOP Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) is a profile in courage for voting against Juneteenth even though he supports a federal holiday commemorating the end of slavery in America, courtesy of Mediaite.

What’s Really Behind the ‘War on Christmas’?

What’s Really Behind the ‘War on Christmas’?

By John R Guardiano on January 3, 2021

Through an act of political jiu-jitsu, militant secularists have largely succeeded in eliminating Christmas from the public square.

Remember the war on Christmas? Because of COVID and the presidential election, it received little attention this past year, except for the sneers and snickering of left-wing elites who pretend that it’s all a big right-wing hoax or fantasy.

But the sad and lamentable truth is that Christmas is now the holiday which (in secular, public settings at least) no one dare say or mention by name.

Consequently, there are no workplace Christmas parties, only “holiday parties.” Schools have “holiday breaks” and government agencies issue “holiday messages.”

“Holiday trees” have replaced Christmas trees. Store clerks wish customers a “Happy Holiday,” while steering clear of saying “Merry Christmas.”

As Dennis Prager has observed, we don’t do this with any other holiday.

We say “Happy Thanksgiving!”; we say “Happy Halloween!”; we say “Happy New Year!” But with regard to Christmas, we say “Happy Holiday!”

Now, why is that? Because of the deliberate attempt to dereligionize the United States of America.

Militant Secularists. Indeed, several militantly secular, left-wing organizations—including, for instance, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Military Religious Freedom Association, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State—have made it their mission to extirpate from public life any mention of Christmas and any expressions of religious faith.

“The left in America,” Prager explains, “like the left in Europe, wants to create a thoroughly secular society, not only a secular government—which is a desirable goal and which, in any event, has been the case in America—but a secular society.”

Sadly, they have succeeded beyond their wildest expectations, as increasing numbers of Americans are afraid to publicly acknowledge Chrismas. This despite the fact most Americans celebrate Christmas and Christmas has been inscribed into law as a national holiday.

“I have watched in my lifetime,” says the 72-year-old Prager, “the demise of Christmas as an essential part of American life, and it began with the dropping of Christmas for the word holiday.

“You’re intellectually dishonest,” he adds, “if you do not acknowledge that that was a deliberate attack on the specialness of Christmas.”

‘Tolerance’ and ‘Inclusiveness’. The anti-religious zealots have cowed Americans into silence by arguing, ludicrously, that it is unfair, if not unconstitutional, to “privilege” Christmas over other religious holidays.

Moreover, they assert (ostensibly with a straight face) that non-Christians who do not celebrate Christmas may be hurt, offended, or “excluded” if Christmas is mentioned while neglecting other religious holidays.

Of course, this is complete nonsense. Saying “Merry Christmas” is obviously a gesture of goodwill; it is not meant to disparage other religious faiths; and there are only two religious holidays of note during what is now euphemistically called the “holiday season”: Christmas and Hanukah.

And please don’t say, “What about Kwanza?” Kwanza is not a religious holiday. It is a faux holiday made up by a left-wing radical in the 1960s to deprecate Christmas while fostering Marxism and black separatism.

In truth, the vast majority of African Americans, like the overwhelming majority of Americans, are Christians who celebrate Christmas. Which, again, is why Christmas is a national holiday.

Hanukah, meanwhile, is religiously much less significant to Jews than Christmas is to Christians; but Jews are just two percent of the U.S. population—and many celebrate Christmas as a secular, national holiday.

In fact, as Prager notes, Jews have written almost all the most popular Christmas songs—including, for instance, “White Christmas” by Irving Berlin.

“Apparently, all these American Jews felt quite included by Christmas,” Prager says.

Moreover, non-Christians who take other faith traditions seriously—Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, et al.—are not offended by the mention of Christmas. As religious believers themselves, they welcome and appreciate this expression of piety and goodwill by people of other faith traditions.

Politics. No, the war on Christmas is a secular creation with a discernible political objective: to extirpate religion generally, and Christianity specifically, from the public square—and thereby eliminate one of the most significant and serious-minded obstacles, religious faith, to the left-wing project of “fundamentally transforming America.”

In short, the war on Christmas is real. We don’t hear much about it anymore because, in truth, the war is just about over.

The militant secularists have won and the American people, both religious and non-religious, have lost. And it is only with the benefit of hindsight decades hence that we will realize just how much we have lost.

Feature photo credit: Author, columnist, and radio talk show host Dennis Prager (screenshot via PragerU).

Brouhaha Over ‘Dr. Biden’ Essay Shows Dangers of PC ‘Cancel Culture’

Brouhaha Over ‘Dr. Biden’ Essay Shows Dangers of PC ‘Cancel Culture’

By John R Guardiano on December 13, 2020

The ‘progressive’ or left-wing church that dominates elite and popular culture will not tolerate heretics and dissenters.

Eighty-three-year-old Joseph Epstein is one of America’s greatest living essayists. He is also fearless and politically incorrect.

This means that when he writes something that runs afoul of the PC police who now dominate our nation’s cultural institutions—the schools, the universities, the media, the large foundations, the big corporate PR departments, et al.—you can expect him to be disavowed and denounced for his heresy.

And, in fact, that is exactly what has happened now that Epstein has written a thoughtful and provocative op-ed for the Wall Street Journal advising the incoming First Lady, Jill Biden, to stop calling herself “Dr. Biden.”

Madame First Lady—Mrs. Biden—Jill—kiddo: a bit of advice on what may seem like a small but I think is a not unimportant matter. Any chance you might drop the “Dr.” before your name?

“Dr. Jill Biden” sounds and feels fraudulent, not to say a touch comic. Your degree is, I believe, an Ed.D., a doctor of education, earned at the University of Delaware through a dissertation with the unpromising title “Student Retention at the Community College Level: Meeting Students’ Needs.”

A wise man once said that no one should call himself “Dr.” unless he has delivered a child. Think about it, Dr. Jill, and forthwith drop the doc.

Politically Incorrect. Now, admittedly, this is politically incorrect and impolite; and, as the Journal’s editorial page editor, Paul Gigot, admits, “Mr. Epstein can be acerbic.”

His piece certainly can be fairly criticized as unduly harsh or insensitive. Jill Biden, after all, earned her doctorate late in life (she was, reportedly 55 years old), and that warrants respect and admiration.

Still, Epstein makes a compelling point: it is, indeed, pretentious to insist upon the honorific title “Dr.” when you are a Ph.D., Ed.D., or J.D., and not an M.D. That’s simply not something most Ph.D.’s, Ed.D.’s, and J.D.’s do—and for good reason.

“In contemporary universities, in the social sciences and humanities, calling oneself Dr. is thought bush league,” Epstein explains.

But here’s the thing: Epstein’s critics in the elite and popular culture have not simply criticized his op-ed, which would be fair and legit.

Instead, they’ve denounced him for committing mortal sins against politically correct orthodoxy. As such, his piece should never have been published, they insist.

Cancel Culture. Some 330 academic signatories, for instance, denounced the Journal for “lending a platform to this kind of ignorance, [which] is damaging not only to women but to everyone.”

Northwestern University, where Epstein was a lecturer for 30 years, formally denounced him for his “misogynistic views,” while purging his emeritus listing from its website.

The Phi Beta Kappa Society, meanwhile, disavowed itself of Epstein’s op-ed. (Epstein is a former editor of The American Scholar, which the Society publishes.)

“This is how cancel culture works,” notes Gigot. Epstein’s op-ed, he reports,

has triggered a flood of media and Twitter criticism, including demands that I retract the piece, apologize personally to Mrs. Biden, ban Mr. Epstein for all time, and resign and think upon my sins.

The complaints began as a trickle but became a torrent after the Biden media team elevated Mr. Epstein’s work in what was clearly a political strategy.

The political strategy of Team Biden specifically and the left more generally is obvious: “Don’t you dare criticize Jill Biden or we will tar and feather you as a sexist and a misogynist and you will be canceled, along with the rest of the bigots.”

As Gigot observes, “there’s nothing like playing the race or gender card to stifle criticism.”

But the charge of “sexism” and “misogyny” against Epstein’s thoughtful op-ed is ludicrous and nonsensical. The charge amounts to nothing more than baseless namecalling.

‘Sexism’ and ‘Misogyny. In truth, there is nothing remotely sexist or misogynist in Epstein’s piece. His criticism applies to both men and women.

In fact, in his op-ed, Epstein mocks two men—Stephen Colbert and Seth Meyers—for having received honorary doctorates.

The charge of “sexism” and “misogyny” is not leveled in good-faith as a serious or legitimate criticism, because it is obviously nothing of the sort.

Instead, the charge is used as an underhanded political weapon to stigmatize and demonize critics, such as Epstein, who sin against progressive or left-wing orthodoxy.

The intent is to silence and deplatform these sinners unless and until they repent.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page, thank goodness, is immune to such pressure; and, at 83 years old, with a long and distinguished career behind him, so, too, is Joseph Epstein.

But most mainstream or legacy publications in the United States are highly susceptible to PC bullying. And the PC bullies don’t really expect to silence or deplatform Epstein. Their real targets are younger, up-and-coming Joseph Epsteins—the next generation, if you will.

Their intent is to lay down a marker and a warning. Don’t you dare sin against the PC Gods, and don’t you dare run afoul of our orthodoxy: because if you do, you will be castigated as a heretic and drummed out of elite society.

It’s called the cancel culture, and we need to stop it before it stops us.

Feature photo credit: Joseph Epstein via the Boston Globe; Jill Biden via TMZ (Getty).

Balderdash! and Backlash! ‘Credentialed’ Is Not Synonymous with ‘Educated’ and ‘Wise’

Balderdash! and Backlash! ‘Credentialed’ Is Not Synonymous with ‘Educated’ and ‘Wise’

By John R Guardiano on October 29, 2020

Balderdash!

“More Americans are educated now than at any time in history.”

—Tom Nichols, Professor, Naval War College

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, “for the first time in history, 90 percent of Americans over 25 years of age have finished high school. In addition, more than one-third of Americans over the age of 25 have a college degree or higher.”

Backlash!

In truth, more Americans are credentialed than at any time in history. But don’t equate credentials with education and wisdom. Being credentialed is not the same thing as being educated and wise.

In fact, many people with impressive academic credentials are poorly educated, remarkably ignorant, and unwise.

“The American higher education system has fostered civic and historical illiteracy,” reports the Washington Times.

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni, the Times notes “has issued survey after survey, all of which confirm that we have an epidemic of civic and historical illiteracy.

In 2000, ACTA released the results of a survey of the historical knowledge of college seniors at the 55 top-ranked colleges and universities in the country.

More than 80 percent of those surveyed would have received a “D” or “F” if it had been an exam.

A 2012 survey found that less than 20 percent of American college graduates knew the effect of the Emancipation Proclamation, and only 42 percent knew that the Battle of the Bulge occurred during World War II.

And in 2014, a survey found that more than a quarter of college graduates didn’t know Franklin D. Roosevelt was president during World War II, and one-third didn’t know he was the president who spearheaded the New Deal.

And all of these questions were multiple choice.

It is not without reason that William F. Buckley, Jr. famously said: