More on the Lowe's Muslim Issue

I have spent the morning answering several more letters regarding the Lowe's issue. I thought I'd post this reponse, to "John." He wrote, accusing me of ignoring all the violence and rape and murder of Muslims around the world and, strangely, of failing to express "concern at the cointnued assualts on the simple expression of 'Merry Chrstmas.'" (Where did that come from?) Here's my response...

Dear “John,”

I am sorry that I am just now responding to your letter of December 20. Christmas is a busy season for us, and I am just now digging out. Despite the condescending tone of your letter, it was a Merry Christmas, and I trust yours was as well. I wished many Merry Christmases this season, as I do every season.

I have read and re-read your letter, and I don’t honestly know how to respond, yet I appreciate you taking the time to write and wanted to respond in kind. Respectful discourse is a key to our society’s success, and I trust you will receive my letter in that spirit.

Many in the religious community were concerned about the decision by Lowes – because it was perceived as an act that discriminated against one religious community in this country, or because it was perceived that they were pressured to act by one religious group, speaking out against another. The officials at Lowes greeted our delegation respectfully, and we dialogued openly for more than an hour. It was the kind of civil discourse that is woefully missing from our public life – and when it was over both the religious leaders and the Lowe’s officials celebrated the discourse as a success. In that hour the officials at Lowe’s reiterated their support of American Muslims, and people of all faiths, and no faith. Their statement and defense of diversity is quite vigorous and a core value of their corporation. In fact, Lowe’s knew that the show, “All American Muslim,” was part of the advertising block they had purchased – and they saw no need to block it, because they support the Muslim community in this country. It was only after listening to the social media “chatter” which came to surround the show that they made an advertising decision (not a religious or ethical one) to pull their advertising. The officials admitted to us that their response to the rising controversy had been handled “clumsily” (this was their language). They admitted that they had allowed the small group in Florida to claim a religious victory in pressuring Lowe’s to pull their advertising. So, Lowe’s admitted that their handling of the issue allowed it to become a perceived act of religious intolerance. Over and over they defended their values statements, their belief in religious toleration, their support of American Muslims, and adherents of all other faiths.

You do not know me, John, so you have no right to accuse me as you have. I have not ignored the abuses of Islam around the world, as you suggest. I am quite aware of these issues. But neither have I ignored the countless atrocities committed in the name of Christ in the last 2,000 years. Unfortunately, no religion is free from the idolatry of violence. So I am acutely aware, and deeply concerned about religious violence in this world – regardless the perpetrator, and regardless the victim – and I am deeply concerned about the hostility between religions, which I believe only increases the tensions, and inevitably leads to more violence. It was for this reason, and because I am a Baptist, that I chose to speak with Lowes about our concerns.

Baptists were founded as a protest to the tyranny of State Religion. Roger Williams, the first Baptist in American, was exiled to Providence, Rhode Island, because of his unyielding insistence that “papists, Jews, and Turks” be allowed to worship as the saw fit. This dissenter’s voice was not popular in 1639, and the voices of religious tolerance are still not accepted. (As I have been reminded so keenly in the last few weeks!) Roger Williams did not agree with all of the tenets of the Turks (Muslims), nor of the Native Americans, who practice animism, nor of the atheists, who practiced not at all – but he was convinced in the urgency of “liberty of conscience” – that only religion affirmed, free of coercion, could be true. Out of that conviction he willingly defended even those whose religions were in degrees of opposition to his own. In that regard I am Baptist to the core, and will continue to defend the rights of Americans to practice the religion of their choosing , or no religion at all – and without coercion, and without violence, and without the discriminatory condescension that so many cast on the religion of another.

Finally, you say that the separation of church and state is nowhere to be found in the constitution, yet the very first amendment to the constitution ensconces this separation – in both the “establishment clause” and the “free exercise clause.” The Bill of Rights became law in 1791, the work of most of the same founding fathers who created our beloved Constitution, which had become law only four years earlier. Just as the second amendment is “gospel truth” for so many in this country (and I support second amendment rights), the first amendment, guaranteeing the freedom of religion for all in this great land (which sounds pretty Baptist to me!), is a core principle of this nation.

Believing that this nation was founded to be free from state tyranny over religion, and believing that the nation was founded on the value of pluralism – an openness to people of every creed and culture (“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…”), I will continue in my defense of religious liberty.

It is too late to wish you a Merry Christmas, but in a spirit of religious conviction and of liberty of conscience…

Grace and Peace,

Russ