Lincoln, the Know Nothings, and Nativism Old and New

Earlier I wrote about my disgust with both Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich's demagoguery concerning Muslims in America.  Actually, Palin's rant wasn't as dangerous as Gingrich's.  But both are what some call "Christianists," and in their understanding of "real American" is quite narrow.  The Nativism that is driving the debate in Arizona and in New York is not new.  It has a fairly strong pedigree, that goes back to the early days of the Republic.  It fueled the dispossession of Native Americans from their lands, kept blacks in servitude, excluded Asians, and targeted Catholics, especially Irish Catholics.

Back in the 1850s a political movement emerged that came to be known as the "Know Nothing Party" -- a party that targeted Catholics.  It had some political success and even recruited a former President to run on its behalf in 1856 -- Millard Fillmore.  The response that Abraham Lincoln gave in a letter to friend Joshua Speed dated 1856 speaks clearly to what is happening today.  Although the majority of the letter speaks to the question of slavery and the impending admission of Kansas to the union, the letter also speaks volumes not only to the situation then regarding immigration and the other, but to that which exists today. 

I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor or degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic].

So, in response to Gingrich's demand that no mosque be built whilst churches can't be built in Saudi Arabia, perhaps we who love liberty should move not to Russia but to Saudi Arabia, for if the "Know Nothings" of today take over, then at least we'll not live with they hypocrisy of our pretensions of liberty for all.  

They're Going to take over! -- Anti-Muslim Political Rants

Who would have thought that the decision to build a mosque in Manhattan, a block or so from the World Trade Center site, would take on a national political spotlight.  But, as we know, none other than Sarah Palin has twittered her opposition, and created a word of her own in the midst of the tirade.  Now, I really don't care about Palin's use of the word "refudiate."  The accurate word would be "repudiate," but that's the least of our problems.  It's easy to ridicule Palin, but all that seems to do is endear her more to people across the country -- the ones Palin calls "real Americans."  "Real Americans" are, as you know, Christians.  More specifically conservative ones -- the ones that Richard Dawkins has determined are to be considered real Christians as well.  

Newt Gingrich chimes in by saying that there should be no mosques near ground zero as long as there aren't churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia.

There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.

My question is -- when did a theocratic/autocratic country set standards for the United States.  I thought that this was a free country, where we are free to practice our faith as we please.  Would Sarah and Newt think it okay for a church on that site?  If so, then how can you discriminate against Muslims who wish to have a place to worship in Manhattan?

Now, I'm not naive -- there are terrorists out there who are Muslim.  There are also Muslims who dream of a world empire.  But there are Christians with the same dreams and attitudes.  But, anti-Islamic rants and policies will do little to bring down the tensions or promote peace.  They do little to enhance the American reputation as a place of freedom and opportunity.

Of course, these are politicians and they are appealing to people who have been lead to believe that a Muslim horde is about to descend.  Demagoguery of right and left has always worked well, especially when it has played on religious fears.  Remember 1960 and the fear that Jack Kennedy would get his marching orders from the Pope?  Now, there is a play on the fears that seem to infect a near majority within the Republican Party that the current President is a secret Muslim.   Plant the fears now and you don't have to be overt with attacks later when you're a candidate.

But, according to Newt, the Islamists are bent on taking over, and thus destroying our society.  Consider this:

America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could.

It is unfortunate that we are at this place in time.  But, with the nation at war in two Muslim countries and provocative behavior coming out of several others, you can see how this is problematic politically.  But, I'm not a politician, I'm a pastor and a theologian.  My greatest concern is that we are failing in our call to love our neighbor.  So, can't we stop the rants?!  I say now is the time for Americans to recognize the genius of the nation and embrace the freedoms placed in the Constitution that protect religious expression.

Saying No to Fear

Since fear seems to stand at the heart of the issues confronting us as a people -- whether it's the recent health care debate or the issue of immigration bedeviling Arizona -- I decided to repost this piece originally written for the Lompoc Record in 2006.  I offer it for your meditation.

________________________________________

Faith in the Public Square
Lompoc Record
February 19, 2006

“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

Franklin Roosevelt understood fear's emotional potency and in the years since 9-11 we have experienced fear's temptations. It has become a significant political tool, where candidates promise to protect us to win our votes and many seem willing to relinquish their rights in the name of security. A majority of Americans accept warrantless wiretaps and there is surprisingly strong support for the use of torture to “protect” Americans. Despite the lack of any significant terrorist attacks on American soil since September 2001, many Americans believe that a terrorist attack in their community is imminent.

Demagogues smell fear and they use it to manipulate and control crowds, nations, political groups, and even religious communities. Fear-inducing events can pull people together for important things, or they can be the pretext for less honorable actions. The internment of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor and the pockets of violence committed against Muslims, Arabs, and anyone who looked like an Arab after 9-11 are a few examples.

Fear tempts us to do whatever it takes to protect ourselves, but Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote that “in politics, what begins in fear usually ends in folly.” Hitler, Stalin, bin Laden, and white supremacists of varying stripes appealed to humanity's baser instincts, and because fear is rooted in the unknown it is easily exploited. At an individual level it becomes paranoia, but at a societal level it becomes xenophobia (fear of the other), and xenophobia leads to discrimination, persecution, oppression and even violence.

We have a choice. We can indulge our fears by letting the harbingers of fear control us or we can stand up and say no to the fear mongers among us. Indulging our fears can determine national policies, voting practices, and even religious life. It can make us timid or belligerent, and we will either hide behind doors or behind weapons. We might try to rattle the saber to ward off potential threats and shelter our children from perceived danger and separate ourselves from those who are different. But, can we truly protect ourselves by giving into our fears, or do we just create more problems?

Phobias are many and they are destructive. If our guiding principle a clash of civilizations, then we will choose military solutions over diplomacy. Though I'm not a pacifist ( I have been, however, influenced by pacifist Christian traditions), I have long believed that military action should be a last resort.

Lactantius, an early Christian writer, wrote: “Where fear is present, wisdom cannot be.” Wisdom is thoughtful, deliberative, and requires a bit of skepticism. It is curious, asks questions, seeks answers, and listens before it speaks. Fear, on the other hand, acts before it deliberates and speaks before it listens. It shuns questions and refuses to consider answers. It is complacent and acquiescent to authority. Fear cannot abide wisdom, because wisdom challenges those who try to manipulate our emotions for political gain.

The Bible says, “Perfect love casts out fear” (1 John 4:18). Because fear is rooted in punishment and wrath, while love is about trust, love will be the antidote to fear. Love seeks to build relationships with the other, and therefore it breaks down walls and builds bridges. Because trust can be abused, love must be coupled with wisdom and discernment. It is naïve to suggest that all are worthy of trust. The charlatan and the demagogue can abuse and demean our trust, but wisdom and knowledge allow us to see through their deceit. Then, love will be the antidote to fear.

Love's opposite is hate, which spawns violence. A cross burning on a lawn, a black man dragged behind a truck to his death, a suicide bomber in a crowded market, a young student beaten to death because he is gay. True love must say no to such actions of hate. Love believes the best about the other, welcomes the other, seeks the best for the other, and it seeks to create a place of safety in the community.

We live in an age of fear, when politicians and religious leaders appeal to our base instincts for their own gain. We can give in to their demagoguery or we can stand up and say no! It is my choice to say no to fear and yes to wisdom and love.

Dr. Bob Cornwall [was] Pastor of First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) of Lompoc.  

February 19, 2006