Christmas and the Foundation of Law

Merry (belated, I know...) Christmas everyone! Yes, you can actually still say that, believe it or not. I'm not here though, to harp on the needless "controversy" over the proper greeting to use pre-December 25th. In a nutshell, I think "Happy Holidays," "Season's Greetings," etc.---as a politically correct substitute, that is---are silly, since everyone knows what you're talking about anyway. If you're one of those ridiculous individuals who get offended, then grow a thicker skin! It's two well-meant words referencing an international holiday for crying out loud, so stop being a complete wacko or wimp (or both!).

Was that harping? Anyhow, the bigger issue, as many have recognized before this writer, is the basic freedoms involved in the censorship of Christmas---most importantly freedom of speech and religion. The whole Christmas-in-public issue is way bigger than just the phrase, and this single issue is in turn just one of a panoply of issues that are affected by these two of the most controversial elements of American freedom. I feel as if I would like to address both of these issues comprehensively, but I'll be honest and admit it's difficult to know where to begin. Since I personally dislike politicizing Christmas, though, I'll start from the broader side of the issue.

Freedom of religion and speech, perhaps more than some freedoms, seem to me to be two of the most closely connected of the fundamental American freedoms. This connection, is, admittedly, mostly one-sided, but still important. What is freedom of religion without a corresponding right to express it when and where you please? Given the many, and often twisted, definitions of these freedoms, I think it would be useful to define a few terms first. What is freedom of religion? Freedom of religion, as established in the United States Constitution, is the freedom of individuals to worship as they please without fear of government intervention, or discrimination from their fellow citizens. The government is also prohibited from establishing a state religion. What the Constitution does not provide for is any sort of "wall of separation" between religion and the government. The Constitution may say no to state-established and run religion, such as many of its authors were familiar with in the Anglican Church of England, but it does not prohibit the interaction of faith and public office. The whole "wall of separation" idea was invented by Thomas Jefferson (who was not an author of the Constitution) in a private letter to a group of Baptists he was trying to convince to support him. Contrary to this, many of the founders, and many of the most prominent statesmen in our nation's history, has been convinced of the importance of faith and of seeking the guidance of a Higher Power while they held office---and of doing so publicly. I can't speak for them, but from what I have read and studied of early American history, I can't help but think that many of the greatest men in our history would have been frightened, even horrified, by the modern idea than in order for government to be the government of all, it and its members must offend none by public religious professions, displays, or references. This is not what religious freedom is about! In fact, by insisting that government be religion-free (and I think it is fair to point out that most of these protests are directed against the Christian faith in government) the ACLU-types are actually restricting that very free exercise of religion that the Constitution is meant to protect.

The second freedom, the freedom of speech, is bound up in a brotherhood of controversy with the first. This freedom has been exploited to cover as wide, maybe a wider, range of controversial behaviors as any. I won't go into a case history here---that would be a bit long and more than a bit discouraging. But I do want to say this: the First Amendment to the Constitution was meant to ensure that the citizens of a new nation had the right to express their feelings, beliefs, and convictions publicly or privately without fear of being persecuted in any manner for their words. When considered against the backdrop of history, where words against a king were considered treason, the expressed ideas of freedom were likely to get you arrested, the straight-forward meaning of this protective clause is obvious.

So, this is the base of the issue, what now? Well, remember that the Christmas issue is just a part of the controversy surrounding the public expression of religion. It has become fashionable over the past few decades to hold forth the idea that government and religion must be separated. As I mentioned above, this concept has been pushed forward despite the original intent of the very laws that are cited in its defence. Whether it's Christmas, Easter, the Ten Commandments in a courtroom, an expression of faith by a public figure in a public function, or the application of religious principle to a question of policy, concerted efforts have been and continue to be made to drive religion from government. This is of great concern to me because, first of all, it undermines basic American freedoms---the freedom of religion and the freedom of individuals and groups to express that faith. In other words, government establishment of non-religion is just as bad as establishment of religion. Second, these attempts affect the very foundation of our government system. This system is founded upon a bedrock of law and order that is itself influenced strongly by religious faith and principle. But can't we be flexible, you ask, and adapt to the modern age, where we are less interested in religion and more diverse in religious beliefs besides? My answer is no. If you attempt to twist the foundation, or worse, remove the bedrock, you will threaten collapse to the whole. I don't wish to sound like an alarmist, predicting the end of society if we stray but a little, but I refuse to back away from the importance of recognizing, and most definitely not repressing, the foundations of our country.

I have been recently reminded of this important issue by a study of 19th century Russian history. Edward Crankshaw's excellent and highly readable work, The Shadow of the Winter Palace, is valuable for many reasons, not the least of which is that it brings light for the student of history to an often dark, yet extremely important period in Russian history which led up to the fall of the monarchy and the establishment of a system which haunted the world through the last century and continues its influence to this day. What I wish to point out, however, is the lack of understanding in Russian society of the need for law, and more importantly of the basis of law. Like many monarchical societies, the word of the Tsar was the only law of the land. There were regulations and orders, yes, but there was no foundational system of law like that which we all too easily take for granted in America. And corresponding to this absence, there were no religious principles that would allow the majority an understanding of the basis and need for law. There was Orthodoxy, yes, but as Crankshaw points out, the priesthood was often as corrupt and secular as their contemporaries in government. The religion itself was for far too many nothing more than a form, a means to an end. Crankshaw explains this void very clearly while speaking of the early revolutionary A. I. Herzen. He writes that "Like so many Russians he [Herzen] did not understand what law was about....In Russia the law itself, the very principle of law, is and always has been widely regarded with suspicion." He goes on to say that this distrust did not rise so much from the ways in which the law can be perverted, but "partly from the traditional understanding that the Tsar himself can be the only maker of laws and, at the same time, stands above all laws, [and] partly from an aspect of anarchic spirit to which the deliberate cult of autocracy was developed as an antidote..." This "anarchic spirit" was to manifest itself in violent fashion in the next century as the ugly specter of Communism. And this was what struck me most forcefully as I was reading---one of the many problems that manifested itself in Communism was its stringent official adherence to the code of atheism. I have always viewed this as a repression necessary for the survival of Communism; religion was a threat to be suppressed. But in reading The Shadow of the Winter Palace, I realized that religious repression was not primarily a symptom of Communism, but more importantly, that its absence was a root enabler of the conditions that led to the rise and acceptance of Communism. This is because it was the absence of foundational moral beliefs that created the general Russian suspicion of the rule of law. As Crankshaw points out, even the rejection by religious (Orthodox) Russians of any merit in Western (Roman/Protestant) faith was extremely harmful, because "they rejected, without comprehending, the concept of the rule of law which they equated with arid and hypocritical legalism." (emphasis mine) What Crankshaw does not delve into, but which I believe is vital, is why these concepts (law and the Western faith) are so intimately linked. The rule of law is founded on principles that draw their very being out of the principles of religion. The ideals that all men are equal, that there are absolutes of right and wrong, that there is original sin, and therefore a need for a government system, are all drawn directly from the pages of the Christian faith---from the Bible. Without these and other foundational principles, attempts to create the rule of law artificially fall into just the sort of hypocrisy and legalism that many Russians despised and feared. This is very nearly (at the most basic level) what happened in Russia. Once the Tsar was removed, the government fell into the hands of those who promised a form of law, and delivered---not the true rule of law---but the misuse of law and power to subject a people to an ideology.

Western law is not, of course, perfect. America and her Constitution are not perfect. But it's worth pointing out that in a world of "banana republics," America has for over two hundred years enjoyed by and large the rule of law, order, and peaceful transfers of power between governmental administrations of widely differing viewpoints. This is directly attributable to the foundation, not just of law, but of the principles which inform that law, upon which the country is founded. Through looking at the Russian example, I guess I've come around the long way to point I was making before---you cannot today hope to deny the religious heritage of our country or prohibit its free expression, even in government, without risking the structure of the country as a whole. The lesson that I wanted to draw from Russia is that you cannot expect a society to embrace the rule of law without a basis in the religious faith that serves to establish that law. To deny this is to doom a country to fall in one form or another into the same fate as Russia for much of the 20th century.

So in the end there is much more involved in the "Merry Christmas" controversy than just recognizing December 25th and the surrounding "holiday" season for the holiday that the whole celebration is really about---we all know it's Christmas. The lesson for the conservative politician, whether Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or any other faith is that our freedoms of religion and speech are far more than just peripheral matters that sit in the shadow of "bigger" battles of the likes of taxes and national defence. Recognizing the importance of religion in the public sphere, whether you follow it in some form yourself or not, is not an option. Our country was founded upon the precepts of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition, and to deny them is to deny our country the very essence of the foundation that it needs for future stability and growth.