Life Of Jason

Missouri State has endorsed religious intolerance by demanding the removal of a Christmas tree that was in the atrium of Strong Hall on campus. According to the Springfield News-Leader, the tree was taken down by Lorene Stone, the dean of the College of Humanities and Public Affairs after someone claiming to be Jewish complained to the “President’s Diversity Commission” and the co-chair that the tree was “showing insensitivity to other religions.” The tree did not contain any Christian symbols like crosses or a manger with Jesus in it but just ribbons, bows and fake icicles. There was NOTHING religious on the tree.

The Jewish faculty told Lorene Stone that they were declining an opportunity to put up a menorah because they were “afraid it would be stolen.”

The US Supreme Court has ruled that a Christmas tree is NOT a Christian religious symbol and that it can be displayed on public and government property. (Here’s a case where if the tree doesn’t go back up that we should see the ACLU come in with guns blazing to have the tree restored to it’s previous position. Will they?)

This “Diversity Commission” co-chair, Chris Craig, said “this is not about legal issues. It’s about being more inclusive.” So if Chris wants to willingly ignore the ruling of the US Supreme Court…which he is saying he is doing by ignoring the legal issue here…then he is openly endorsing the discrimination against Christians expressing their religious rights. I know that some will try to spin it and claim that’s not what he is doing here but rather just trying to “include everyone.” Look again at his quote. The issue was settled by the Supreme Court. He knows that this issue was settled by the court and that it’s not a religious symbol. Instead of saying “the courts have decided this issue and while someone may be offended it’s legally entitled to be there” he is putting a Christian religious attachment on the tree and endorsing the discrimination against Christians endorsing the removal of that tree and thereby in his mind squelching the free speech rights of a Christian. This is Chris Craig endorsing an attack on Christian speech.

Daniel Kaufman, allegedly the faculty member who complained about the tree, is now claiming that did not complain about the tree but rather that the university would schedule events during Jewish holidays like Passover and Yom Kippur. Over the last 20 years of my life working various jobs I can think of maybe one or two Good Fridays that I did not have to work for my job. I’ve had to work on Christmas. I’ve had to work on Easter. Sometimes if you have a job you’re going to have to work on those days or your employer is going to schedule something for your job on that day and if you choose to stand on your faith and not be there then that is the choice you make. Mr. Kaufman, I understand your frustration but there are more religions than just yours who have been inconvenienced by events on religious holidays.

And let’s not forget here…if it’s not Kaufman who made the statement then we need to find out which member of the staff is showing this religious intolerance and have them explain themselves OR someone was lying to Ms. Stone about a complaint about the tree being made by a faculty member of the Jewish faith.

Why does this faculty member need to be exposed and made to explain for their actions? They need to have their religious intolerance displayed the same that would happen if a professor prohibited a Muslim student from wearing a head covering in their class. They need to have it displayed in the same way a professor who refuses to let a Jewish student miss a class for Passover without penalty. We know full well if this deliberate endorsement of religious discrimination was happening against a religion other than Christianity we would see all kinds of outrage from left wing activists and the professor or staff member in question would find their job in serious jeopardy.

Discrimination is discrimination regardless of the religion upon whom it is happening and it’s disingenuous to claim one religion celebrating a holiday (like Ramadan or Yom Kippur) is infringing and insulting another religion. I have spoken with many on the far-left who claim that anything that happens against Christianity is not discrimination because “the majority of Americans are Christians.” Is that not the most absurd thing you’ve ever heard? Just because something or someone is in the majority (like basing on skin color, for example) it doesn’t mean that you have the right to take away their rights to free expression when it does not infringe in any way upon other people. I know that many on the left are going to look at this and even if they despise Christianity will at least say “the court ruled on this and the tree is legal.”

If you want to get down to it, diversity is about inclusion of everyone INCLUDING Christians. If Missouri State wants to say they’re inclusive and promote diversity then they need to not only allow this tree to go up but allow Christian members of the faculty to put a manger scene around the base of this tree. Christian students at Missouri State University need to go this meeting that is being held at MSU and demand that not only is the tree returned because it’s legally permitted but if the University is truly endorsing diversity then overtly Christian symbols like a manger scene need to be allowed as well. If Chris Craig is really interested in inclusiveness then let’s see him actually stand up for it.

Earle Doman, Dean of Students, called Morningline with Chuck Booms this morning (and I was happy to get off the phone with Chuck to let him on.) Chuck asked about the quote in the newspaper attributed to Mr. Doman was accurate. He said the quote, “It’s not a big issue. Some people raised the question about the tree and the best way to approach it was to take it down to discuss it,” was not entirely accurate. Booms really put Doman under the microscope and I give Doman a ton of credit for calling and squaring off against Mr. Booms.

Mr. Doman continued to insist that it wasn’t a big deal. If Mr. Doman had stepped in and said that the tree was legal and allowed to stand then I agree that it would not have been a big deal. Instead, by allowing Mr. Craig’s campaign against Christianity, it becomes a much larger deal where Missouri State’s stance on religious intolerance has to be called into question. The administration did not step in when legally permitted speech was squelched by someone with an anti-religious agenda. Why was it allowed to happen? That, Mr. Doman, is a big deal.

(On a side note, it was very nice to hear a local political talk show host who was allowing the opposition to have a chance to express their position and is open to opposing views. Chuck Booms may have grilled Earle Doman hard on this situation but he did allow him to express his view and Chuck didn’t warp what Mr. Doman said to fit what Chuck was trying to accomplish but rather just challenged Mr. Doman on what he actually said on the air. That’s refreshing and something much needed on the air in Springfield.)

Regardless of what happens in tomorrow’s meeting, this incident shows the hostility toward Christians at Missouri State University that was also brought to the surface in the Emily Brooker situation (that the University legally settled with her.) It’s time that a hard look was given to Missouri State to see if religious freedom is truly being allowed for all students on the campus or only selected groups.