V.
Chiarello/
Continued...
In short, there appears to be no major guiding principle save one: to vilify the believing Christian under any and all circumstance. Eberstradt gives the example of "diversity" as one such example. Among the politically correct beliefs widely held by these anti-Christians is that "diversity" is inherently absent in Christians.
Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship/USA, a Protestant Evangelical organization, with nearly 1000 chapters on over 600 campuses, had minority chapters that included Black, Latino, and Asian participants. "Diverse" enough? Not quite, for the new politically correct Puritans objected to the group because of its fidelity to teaching about morality. In 2014, with their administrations’ approval, 23 of the colleges of the Californian State educational system expelled the chapters from their campuses. That was not, however, the end to this sad saga.
A similar scenario took place at the Hastings College of Law in San Francisco, but in this case, members of the Christian Legal Society filed suit in federal court, claiming that the college had violated their First Amendment rights. You can intuit the rest: in the case of
Christian Legal Society v.
Martinez,
(2010), the Supreme Court ruled (5-4) against the Christian group, claiming that the group had basically forfeited "its right to discriminate against non-believers if they take financial support from public universities." In his dissent, Justice Alito called the decision, "...a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country." One could also add, a serious blow to religious liberty as well.
There is also a bit of historical irony included in this book: when the President of Gordon College, another Protestant Evangelical school in Salem, Massachusetts, wrote as an individual, not as the head of the college, along with 14 other similarly minded people, and asked for "a religious exemption" from the Obama administration’s Executive Order banning "sexual orientation discrimination by federal contractors," the blowback stunned the college: the city of Salem suspended its long-term contract with the school to use its city hall; the 11 year relationship which allowed the college’s students to serve as student-teachers in the city’s school system was suspended, and the college’s hitherto impeccable credentials for accreditation were reconsidered.
Ebertstadt: "In other words, 312 years after the Salem witch trials, a new hunt for imagined demons was on in Salem and in its environs." One cannot help but recall H. L. Mencken’s definition of a Puritan, in this case the older variety, but applicable to the new as well: "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."
Eberstadt also expands her horizons and points to the decline of religious liberty not only in the U.S., but in England and Canada, where anti-Christian sentiments now seem to be accepted in principle and without legal recourse. I was pleased to find that she spent some time describing the current disaster facing Orthodox and Catholic believers in Iraq and Syria, too. Despite the acknowledgement in March, 2016, that Syrian Christians were targeted for extermination, the U.S. under the Obama administration chose to bury (no pun intended) the matter, and when it acted, it did so by taking in "refugees," who were were 99% Muslim. I cannot help but add to this indifference to the plight of Middle East Christians, some of whom speak the language of Christ Aramaic - the lengthy silence of the Vatican in failing to use its public and private resources to speak to the desperate state of these people. Was the pope worried that openly criticizing Muslim barbarism would jeopardize the Church’s quest of ecumenism?
If Eberstadt had given a talk, rather than writing a book on this subject, the speech’s peroration would come under her chapter, "What is to Be Done" or, "How To End a Witch Hunt."
By way of openers, she is realistic enough to recognize that, "...extrapolated from current realities, escape is no longer an option, and recognition of this situation has led some believers to debate "the Benedict option." Here she is referring to the founder of the Order, not the "pope-ex-officio." That "option" is based on the belief popularized by the British moral philosopher, Alasdair MacIntyre, that a "retreat from society itself is the only way parents will save their churches, children and souls." Then there is also her recognition of "a new sequel to the culture war, which requires realistic assessments, rather than pie-in-the-sky solutions." Here her words ring true: "What’s unfolding today is not a drama in which secularist progressivism is slowly but surely eclipsing antiquated religious faith at last, but a contest of competing creeds and principles."
And what are those "first principles?"
Among the first is the recognition that words create an atmosphere, especially in the political arena, that can cut off debate. One is the loosely used, "theocrat," which is used by opponents against believers to prevent open discussion about religious beliefs, which, up to now, allowed non-Christians and even anti-Christians to recognize and/or accept their neighbor’s set of beliefs without ostracizing them for it. This, she claims, is particularly true in discussing the "sexual revolution," which has become an untouchable part of the progressive agenda, where no quarter is allowed by its adherents, despite causing the ruination of lives as well as increasing income inequality.
Eberstad seeks a middle ground in dealing with these issues, seeking to "dialogue" with those who are implacable in their hatred. I would suggest, as she does not, a more realistic approach: if the federal court system is where the legal license to deny Christians their rightful place begins, then it is important - nay, vital- that we elect presidents whose campaigns promise to appoint qualified, non-Progressive, judges and justices. It should be noted that President Trump’s selection of Justice Gorsuch is a step in the right direction; so is the president’s list of ten new appointees to the Federal Circuit Courts. That is not a guarantee that legal challenges will be eliminated, but it will allow Christians "a level playing field," something that does not exist today in our jurisprudence.
To continue down this path of doing nothing will surely bring on the apocalyptic vision forseen by the late Cardinal George of Chicago, who a decade ago wrote: "I expect to die in my bed, my successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr in the public square." That choice is ours. ■