I wanted to use Raymond Carver's best-known short story collection title, Will You Please Be Quiet, Please? but didn't want to plagiarize, so I'll just shorten it. I am feeling beyond exasperated, tired of mean-spirited religionism wrapped wrongly in the flag. It is especially tedious living here in what the snobbish coasts--who are far more provincial than we--sniff at as the hinterlands. On the other hand, the hinterlands gripe constantly about the "overwhelming" liberal bias of the media. That conveniently ignores a fact as obvious as standing in the middle of the Minnesota North Woods and asking where the trees are. Our regional conservative media are more than adequate at combatting liberal bias, believe me.
In my 16 December blog, "I'm an Aries," I dealt with an Omaha World-Herald editorial against my last judge. The newspaper didn't stop but, after two responses published in its Public Pulse, attacked Judge R.'s supposedly preferential treatment again, which pushed me over the edge. This was my 19 December response:
Oh, stop already. Another Judge Randall editorial because you didn't get pinged and two lawyers write you letters. You're in your Weird-Horrid phase again, apparently cueing up with the Bush Leaguers' playing God, looking down your morally correct noses at the rest of us, bullying us by media manipulation. As I wrote last Thursday, the 16th, in my blog, as an ex-court reporter, editing out some other matters and my condensation of your first editorial: [Here I quoted the blog, beginning "A social climber if there ever was one" and ending with "Shucks, you're not surprised. I'm shocked."]
End of blog excerpt. Your executives are major movers-and-shakers of the heavyweights behind the Omaha scenes, so spare me any protestations of innocence. Want to bet, e.g., the Scotts don't get Rainwood Road shut off out by Standing Bear Lake? I spent almost 25 years in the court system that also led me elsewhere in my blog to explain why I have nothing but contempt for drunks, out of that courtroom experience.
And I cited my blog website. Now, the Public Pulse warns that it won't publish letters of any length or that have been published elsewhere. So I knew my chance of being published was slim, just as I knew that the newspaper did publish lengthy replies, when they felt the subject warranted, on the page opposite the editorial/Public Pulse page. Signing off as a "Retired District Court Reporter," I thought I had some reasonable expectation to appear there, nor did I view my blog as "publishing elsewhere" in the usual sense. But obviously my letter was unworthy--or maybe it was the last paragraph--for I disappeared into the wastebasket.
My allusion to the Scotts in the letter's last paragraph refers to the Walter Scott family, one of our billionaires, whose family compound sits on a hill overlooking Lake Cunningham north of the city. The hill is a kind of penisula, a campground on the east side and a small park corridor around the base. The north edge of the Scott compound, Rainwood Road enters the lake from the east, a popular site for wind-sailing, and, after submersion, picks up on the west side beyond a closed-off portion. A side road runs off north to an actual park area with swings, covered picnic shelters, outdoor toilets. I know it well because it's where I frequently ran and walked before my artificial knee, and the moldy alfalfa bales on that hilltop always plugged my sinuses. I also know the hill of the Scott compound well because it figured prominently in a much earlier divorce suit as undeveloped land owned by a testy little twerp, the man who created one of the earliest and largest housing development monsters. Judge M. was asked to value it in the property settlement, which he did at a million dollars.
Once the Scotts had bought the hill, built their elaborate family compound, installed high security, they have tried to close Rainwood Road past the campground entrance (I think they would like the campground closed too), which the long-time neighbors in the area have resisted, as have people who used the wind-sailing site and the park area. Walter Scott offered a million to build a path completely around the lake (much of that already done by the City) if the City Council would just let him shut down Rainwood Road. About a week after I had written my letter, the newspaper ran an article that Walter Scott had again been to the City Council with his request. My final paragraph referring to a billionaire's throwing his considerable weight and much money around fit right in with my blog theme.
About a week later, a regional paper I grew up with, the Norfolk Daily News, had an editorial which set me off. Ordinarily, I try to ignore it, for, like Ivory soap, its political cartoons are 99.9 anti-Democratic, often venomously so, like its highly conservative, equally venomous Republican columnists. I think journalism of any integrity is duty-bound to try to observe some kind of fair-mindedness, parity to each party, so to speak, much as The Week news magazine tries to do, but objectivity is hard to come by in Jesusland. I suppose such publications can claim to be speaking for their conservative rural publics, but I am aware that they are presenting such prejudice as meanly as and more influentially than any coastal liberal bias. More influentially, because cities enforce tolerance simply by their makeup, whom you ride the bus with, like it or not, whereas in rural areas you can wallow comfortably in your bigotries without having to deal with other races, other religions, other lifestyles.
Anyway, here is the NDN's 23 December editorial:
"Our View: A Traditional greeting at this year [sic] has its proper place in America, and regarding it as inappropriate reflects adversely on the critics. A small sample of season's true spirit." Merry Christmas! Here in the middle of America, among lots of people who do not forget to keep the Christ in Christmas, there is hardly any controversy about that greeting.
It is not so everywhere in America. Some large retailers have felt called upon to remind employees to be sure to say "Happy Holidays," or a similarly less specific greeting for the season. They do not wish to offend customers who are among an estimated 20 percent of the population who practice other faiths, or none at all.
With the publicity given to efforts to raise the barrier between church and state by eliminating official prayers, references to God on coinage, at swearing-in ceremonies or opening sessions of councils, legislatures and Congress, it is a wonder there has not been a legal assault on Christmas being a federal holiday.
It is the one such holiday that does have an unmistakable tie to one religion, though the nation's government nowhere demands that it be observed in any special way. It provided only that people can have the day off--those whose employers grant them that privilege.
We hope America's dedication to diversity does not eventually find it bestowing holiday status on other significant religious days, but rather keeps this evidence of the affiliation between Christianity and the nation's declarers of independence and authors of its Constitution. It is a firm tie that did not seem to bother the few agnostics of the late 1700s or offend the Jewish faithful within America who were then and are now full participants in the political and economic life of the nation.
As long as the nation is true to its principles of protecting the freedom of all to worship as they choose, or not to worship at all, it should not be regarded as offensive or, in the extreme, illegal to take special note of Christ's birthday.
The sectarian movement to eliminate religious symbols has gone far enough--the banning of creches in public places, for instance, or eliminating Christmas music from tax-supported schools.
America must remain as it has been, despite the undeniable influence of the Christianity which most of its founders practiced, a nation tolerant of all faiths. It has a right to expect some tolerance for a religious tradition which imposes no demands on participation by those who disagree.
Indeed, the spirit of the season seems most imbued in those of other faiths who are not infrequently heard at this season to respond in kind, "And Merry Christmas to you, too."
Oddly enough, the writer apparently was unfamiliar with the Post Office's various seasonal stamps, two kinds--sacred and secular--for Christians, plus Hanukkah, Kwaanza, and Eid; oddly enough, I will be registering a similar complaint about popular music. I even agree with a certain amount of the editorial, but the point here is the aggressively self-righteous Christianity masquerading behind historical distortion as being a kind of patriotic tradition from our forefathers. Which is why I replied this way:
Well, at least you recognize something of Emma Lazarus' Mother of Exile's open arms to "The wretched refuse of your teeming shore" and gay Walt Whitman's celebration of American diversity in your "nation tolerant of all faiths" in your December 23rd editorial.
But, of course, you're patently wrong about "a religious tradition which imposes no demands on participation by those who disagree" when a front-page Omaha World-Herald story quotes one of the several post-election gloaters, a pastor, saying, "There is a revival taking place in our nation that is causing Christian and right-minded people to say, 'Wait a minute. We've gone too far.' " Love that wedding of "Christian" and "right-minded," the either-or intent like "Love it or leave it" of brain-dead bigots accusing anyone not housed in their whited sepulchres as wickedly un-American. That's the "thinking" that must go along with the Christian charity of attacking a Moslem nation, razing its cities, killing somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 noncombatants, hard to tell how many with a secretive Administration who also tried to hide the lack of proper troop armor, the abuse of prisoners, initially the number of our war dead, the failure to find WMDs, and the Halliburton corruption, for a short list.
But then it goes along with your willful or woefully historically ignorant error in claiming "the affiliation between Christianity and the nation's declarers of independence and authors of its Constitution," for, of course, our Founding Fathers were largely Deists like Voltaire, most notably Jefferson, who shares D.C. Mall memorials with Washington and Lincoln, whom we celebrated for his remarkable foresightedness in the Lewis & Clark Bicentennial. The same Jefferson, a Deist, who wrote in a letter to John Adams, "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" [Works, IV, 365] and several other unchristian but godly thoughts. As the Catholic Encyclopedia, naturally critical of Deism, puts it, "[Deism] asserted its right to perfect tolerance on the part of all men . . . . So far, while critical and insisting on its rights to complete toleration, it need not be, though as a matter of fact it undoubtedly was, hostile to religion." Hence, the assurance of separation of Church and State written in.
And John Adams, undoubtedly the main force behind our famous documents as the musical 1776 portrays, wrote, "As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
On behalf of at least some of our Founding Fathers,
Of course, I wasn't published. No letters were for a day or two after they received mine, and then they published a frequent contributor's biblical rantings. So is it worth writing to such publications?
Let me veer wildly off the road now to bump through three significant court-reporting experiences. We had so many rape trials of all ages, including of infants, that my judge was sardonically termed the rape judge for a time. The worst of the elderly was of a lady in her 70s raped by three white punks, who had earlier set fire to a pet hampster in a church basement, among other misdeeds. The three not only raped her but used a broomstick to rape her, broke several of her fingers, cut off her hair, laughing all the while. The woman was so traumatized, counsel and court were especially kind and brief in questioning her.
A heavy young woman worked at a convenience store. I mention her weight only to suggest that she was not some skinny little thing easily intimidated. In a robbery by one of our most violent defendants (raging right into the courtroom), she told him the safe was timed and, not being the manager, she didn't have the combination, tearfully begging for her life. He blasted her with his sawed-off shotgun anyway, blowing away most of her face. Several plastic surgeries ensued to reconstruct her face, still severely scarred, one eye permanently blinded and scarred over. She cried throughout her testimony.
In chambers, trying very hard to be brave, a young boy, about 8 or 9, I think, broke and sobbed and sobbed, promising to be good, to be good, if the judge would just not send him to Boys Town (not just for orphans but also juvenile delinquents). He wanted to live with his dad: "Please, Judge M., can't I stay with my dad, please, please, please?" Neither parent could manage him out of their own dysfunctional relationships, and the father had to work long hours. The mother, who didn't want him, had had to take him temporarily because the father's new girlfriend couldn't stand the boy and abused him. The father loved his son, he said, but loved his new girlfriend more. The mother couldn't handle him, and the boy, who dearly loved his working father, got in fights constantly at school, had been transferred around for disciplinary reasons, and had run away at various times, nobody wanting him, nowhere to go. He finally went to his knees, begging, sobbing, and forever imprinting himself on my memory. The judge had no choice. Truly, nobody wanted him.
I shouldn't have been a court reporter. Gravitas, somewhere between gravity and the grave, overwhelmed me. Scalded babies and raped infants are a horrifying category unto themselves. In my lifelong pragmatism and passion, I have no use left for instutionalized dogmatic sectarian religions. The deadly daily headlines illustrate why. We are all in this precarious life together. Please, in our little time here on this globe of finite resources, let us all help each other however we can, whether we like each other or not, even if that means leaving each other alone. Do no harm. Please.
