Author: Doug Hicks

Guest columnist Douglas A. Hicks wrote about defenders of Christmas, retailers, secularists and others struggling with the symbols and realities of the Christian holiday. The posting from the Washington Post’s “On Faith” blog:

Welcome back to the “December dilemma” death match — the 2010 edition. In this corner are the self-proclaimed defenders of Christmas, ready and organized to denounce anyone who says “Happy Holidays.” In the other corner are a more motley crew of retailers, secularists and religiously diverse citizens who communicate an inclusive holiday message but still decorate in red and green.

Christmas is loaded — indeed, overloaded — with symbolic power. It is a religious holy day; a national holiday; a sentimental family day; and a commercial event. No other day in the calendar has as much cultural significance, and no day has as much potential to fuel the culture wars.

This year, reports Natalie Zmuda on MSNBC.com, “Christmas is winning.” The American Family Association and other conservative groups have pressured retailers to advertize their consumer products with “Merry Christmas” campaigns instead of the more generic “Happy Holidays.” They threatened to organize boycotts against companies that they determined to be anti-Christmas. And, it seems, many national retailers have feared such economic reprisals by would-be Christmas shoppers.

Never mind that saying “Happy Holidays” was meant as a moral stand, an effort to be inclusive of the non-Christians who prefer not to celebrate Christmas as a religious holy day. Retailers desperate to keep their Christmas customers have decided to follow majoritarian pressure to recognize Christmas. Continue reading How Christians should cope with the ‘Christmas wars’

Today's meeting of Barack Obama and the Dalai Lama will be framed by most commentators as a political event.  Indeed, the symbolic impact upon U.S.-China relations of the American president's outreach to the Tibetan spiritual leader is well documented.  Also fascinating and vital, however, is the moral dimension of this encounter of these two leaders.  After all, this is the meeting of two Nobel Peace Prize laureates. 

A tension remains between the views of peace-and-conflict espoused by the Dalai Lama (the 1989 recipient) and the complex perspective offered by Barack Obama in his December 2009 Nobel address.  Obama's view on the particular obligations of a political leader€”who may need to declare war to defend a just cause€”led Obama to distance himself, in the presidential role, from the strategies of a movement leader like Martin Luther King, Jr.  The Dalai Lama is neither a political leader nor a social movement leader, though he is in some ways both of these.  Will he make any public comments on Obama's leadership?  What will Obama say about the Dalai Lama's vision and values?  These are the key moral and even perhaps spiritual questions at stake in the meeting.

A historic commitment to religious freedom and recent initiatives give Richmond the opportunity to become a vibrant crossroads

BY DOUGLAS A. HICKS

During the presidential campaign, a political commentator referred to Richmond as the 105th largest city in the country, and he did not mean it as a compliment. Richmonders can laugh about that, even as we cite our history and significance far beyond the city's and region's population figures.

On one issue in particular, Richmond stands in elite company. We hold a central place in the history of religious liberty. We have the opportunity to become a national model, a crossroads where people of diverse religious and moral commitments call each other neighbors.

Let me make this abstraction concrete. I am not talking about fostering interreligious dialogues on obscure religious doctrines. (Interfaith dialogue has its place, too.) I am talking about whether someone should lead prayer before local government meetings, and if so, who should be asked to pray and what he or she should say. Chesterfield County, of course, recently made national headlines over this issue.

I am also talking about how easy it is for schoolchildren €” of majority and minority faiths €” to have the opportunity to follow their religious practices at school, like food regulations, religious attire and holy days. Teachers and principals have quietly confronted issues like these across the region.

And I mean zoning issues for religious buildings. Which houses of worship are welcome in which neighborhoods, who decides and what are their reasons? Witness the ongoing case in Henrico County over possible rezoning for a mosque and Islamic community center.

None of these issues is simple in the present moment, and they were not simple when the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was passed here in Richmond €” in the Old Capitol at the corner of 14th and Cary streets. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson, who drafted the statute, called the long struggle over its passage one of his hardest political fights €” and greatest accomplishments.

This law, passed by the General Assembly on Jan. 16, 1786, was one of the best leadership moments in Richmond's history. It is not hyperbole to call the Virginia Statute a major contribution to U.S. government and international human rights.

Enacting religious freedom today requires not another act by state (or federal) officials €” we still have Jefferson's law on the books and, thanks largely to James Madison, freedom of belief, conscience and expression stand at the heart of the First Amendment.

What we need today is everyday leadership by local leaders and residents to live up to these great Virginian and American principles. I suggest that we increasingly envision metropolitan Richmond as a crossroads. This is a familiar image, since our waterways and roads have served for over four centuries to make Richmond a transportation and cultural center.

A crossroads, of course, can be a place through which we merely pass as quickly as possible, doing our deals and moving on to other destinations. The crossroads can also be the place where we do our dirty work, making the interactions there dehumanizing. We need only recall the period when Richmond hosted the largest American slave market to hear that cautionary note. But a crossroads, when it is a welcoming and respectful place for all people, can become a thriving communal center. People meet there, share meals, relax in public areas, and even discuss and debate the issues of the day. Richmond is already, and has even more potential to become, one of the great cultural and religious crossroads in the country.

The political scientist Robert Putnam writes about "social capital" in America €” the norms and networks among people that create trust and a sense of community. Actually, he laments the decline of civic life in the United States even as he offers ways to revitalize it. Putnam describes two different kinds of social capital €” bonding and bridging €” and these have everything in the world to do with local leadership.

Bonding forms of social capital are those connections that draw together people who share some identity or interest in common. In religious terms, we are talking about the congregation or the denomination. I am a Presbyterian, and I enjoy the bonding of the Bon Air Presbyterian Church €” not to mention the church's softball team and a Presbyterian fellowship group. Many or most of you reading this essay are part of bonding communities €” whether they are religious, neighborhood-based, work related, arts- or sports-based, or some other kind.

But, as is attributed to Martin Luther King Jr., the 11 o'clock hour on Sunday may be the most segregated hour in America. Our faith communities, with some notable exceptions, are less diverse than our metro region. If we had only bonding forms of community, we would too easily remain in our enclaves with people like us.

That is why the second form of social capital €” bridging €” is so fundamental for our democratic life. This involves people reaching out beyond our comfort zones and familiar networks to connect with people who are, in at least some way, different from each other. And Richmond has a number of notable groups and networks doing this work of bridge building.

One such initiative in Richmond is called "A More Perfect Union," which brings together residents from local faith communities €” Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Jain, and others €” as well as the University of Richmond, VCU and a number of not-for-profits. Now housed within the Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy, this initiative has produced two creative media campaigns to promote respect across cultural and faith boundaries.

We should also appreciate other bridge-building organizations in Richmond, such as Richmonders Involved in Strengthening our Communities (RISC), the Virginia Center for Inclusive Communities, and Colaborando Juntos (a network of Latino/Hispanic organizations). Each of these groups works with communities of faith, but they are principally focused on civic-social issues like meeting human needs for vulnerable residents, crossing racial and regional divides, and building a healthy metro community.

Richmonders: We should invoke both our historic commitment to religious liberty and our current efforts to build civic bridges when we envision leadership for our region. We have good reason to see ourselves as a potential model for the nation, but this calls us to the hard work of engaging our neighbors at the religious and cultural crossroads that is Richmond.

Douglas A. Hicks is an associate professor in the Jepson School of Leadership Studies and executive director of the Bonner Center for Civic Engagement at the University of Richmond. His new book, With God on All Sides: Leadership in a Devout and Diverse America, is published by Oxford University Press.