Things Worth Dying For by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, Post 2

This is the second post on Things Worth Dying by Archbishop Chaput. 

You can find post #1 here: https://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/2021/06/things-worth-dying-for-by-archbishop.html

  

Chapter three also divides into four parts. Hmm, that seems to be a pattern now.

(1) The New Nihilism—Small Town Kansas Upbringing—Catholic Upbringing—Parent’s Teaching—Favorite Movies—The Making of Casablanca—Irony.

(2) Irony as a Tool—Irony from God—Irony in Scripture—Scroton on Irony and the Humility it Brings—Happiness from Sacrifice—Justice for a Well-Ordered Society

(3) Liberal Society fails at Instilling Coherence—New Atheism has Instilled Contempt for Religious—The Sarcasm from the Popular Culture Has Instilled a Nihilism—Healthy Skepticism Has Evolved to Cynaicism—The Enlightment’s Creation Myth is at the Heart of the Problem—Reason Has Been Distorted—Moral Character Has Been Undermined.

(4) Irony of Dying of Thirst on the Ocean—Modern Economy Gives Us Choices But Does Not Satisfy Our Needs—The Good Life Addresses these Needs—How?—Theological Virtues, Friendship & Love, Human Capacities—Science Can’t Supply These—Only God Can Supply These.

So let me summarize each section.

(1) Life in his small, Midwest upbringing was different than the culture at large.

(2) Irony has had both a positive and negative impact on our society: “Irony captures the incongruities of being alive” (p. 53).

(3) Liberal society, though providing many good things, has failed us in “instilling moral coherence and a shared sense of things worth dying for” (p. 57).

(4) Science cannot supply or answer to the things that truly matter in life and provide happiness.

If I were to get to the heart of chapter three, I would articulate it as thus: Sarcasm and scientism, has led to a cultural nihilism that has deprived society of its moral coherence and deprived of what truly matters in life.

### 

I found the second section of the chapter three haphazardly written. It seemed to jump from all sorts of topics, and frankly I don't quite get his point about irony. Is it good or bad? And if irony is what has led us to sarcasm and then nihilism, then why does God use irony?

I do find sections 1, 3, and 4 well written and insightful. I completely agree with his understanding of the secular creation myth and why it needs to be refuted.

Also he brings up an very important point in section four of the chapter where he quotes the Dominican priest Herbert MaCabe. MaCabe refutes that society is built to protect individuals from each other but mostly built on friendship and love. MaCabe seems to be refuting the Thomas Hobbes theory of why society is set up. I've never read MaCabe, so I don't know if he says it elsewhere, and Archbishop Chaput doesn't mention it himself, but Thomas Hobbes is another culprit as to why the modern world is what it is.

Kerstin Replied to My Comment:

Manny wrote: "I don't quite get his point about irony. Is it good or bad?"

 

In the appendix an article of Roger Scruton's is mentioned, Forgiveness and Irony: What Makes theWest Strong, which may give more insight.

The Herbert McCabe book is The Good Life: Ethics and the Pursuit of Happiness. It looks like an interesting read :-)

My Reply to Kerstin:

That is a fascinating article. I've been meaning to read Roger Scruton, who passed away I think last year or the year before. From the interviews and articles of I've seen from him, I think we're philosophic kindred spirits.

 

I think this may have been the section in that essay:

 

"Forgiveness and irony lie at the heart of our civilization. They are what we have to be most proud of, and our principal means to disarm our enemies. They underlie our conception of citizenship as founded in consent. And they are expressed in our conception of law as a means to resolve conflicts by discovering the just solution to them."

 

I'm still not sure how Archbishop's passage on irony fits into his whole thought process, but I've gotten closer. I probably need to re-read chapter 3 again.

Madeleine Replied to Me:

I think irony is primarily a rhetorical device, intending to add a layer of understanding to something ambiguous or controversial. It is not the same as sarcasm, which is most often used to put down someone who says or does something one doesn't agree with. I think the archbishop is trying to posit irony as a fact of our human condition, a warning perhaps against taking a monolithic stand without considering other points of view or perspectives.

###

My breakdown of chapter four.  Again there are four sections within the chapter.

(1) Sincere faith compels us to give ourselves to God—Why should we Live and be willing to Die for God?—Need to Understand who God is—Breaking in of the Transcendent.

(2) God in Genesis—Intimacy of God—God in Exodus—Theophany of the Burning Bush—God Names Himself—God uses Moses—God’s Relationship with Moses—Seeking the Face of God—Jesus is the Face of God.

(3) Idolatry—The Paradox of Idolatry—All Humans Worship Something—We’re Made for Love—How Our Understanding of Human Nature Has Evolved—The Humanist Shift—Man as Master of the Universe—The Elimination of God—The Idols Which Has Replaced Him.

(4) The Sinai Theophanies Come to Completion in Jesus—Christ as the Face of God—God Calls Us to Divinization—God is the Good Itself.

So here is a summarizing point of each section.

(1) Who is this God and why should we live for Him and be willing to Die for Him?

(2) Through revelation, God has revealed Himself.

(3) Modern man has rejected that revelation.

(4) Jesus Christ is the way to find joy in this life and the next.

The main point of chapter four as I read it is that, though God has revealed Himself, modern man in rejecting God has replaced Him with idols.  Perhaps this is the summing quote: “If the burning bush is the fire of God's presence in the world and in the human heart, modern man is the fireman trying to put it out, always with new and better equipment, always with passionate intensity, and always with the same futile result” (p. 85).

###

My breakdown of Chapter 5, again it has four sections.

(1) His family ancestry—We are All Connected to History—Dulce Et Decorum Est—Willingness to Die for One’s Country—Roland—Lesson 1, Loyalty & Friendship—Lesson 2, Piety—Death Consecrates.

(2) Battle Elevates Us from Mediocrity—Survival as Goal of Civic Life—Liberation from Collective Action—Comradeship—Sacrifice from Communal Bond—Sacrifice Repudiates Death—Mystical Element of War.

(3) To Be Human is to Be Divided—Patriotism & Civic Mindedness—The United States of America is Artificial—The Artifice is The Declaration of Independence & Constitution—America as Model Modern Nation—Modern Nation as Bureaucratic State—No One Dies for the Telephone Co.—Patriotism is Vanishing.

(4) The Collapse of the Roman Republic—Our Nation is Our Home—The Duty of Patriotism—Patriotism Leads to Ordered Social Love—Multiculturalism & Individualism has Weakened Patriotism—We Need Patriotism.

So here are summaries of each section:

(1) Cultures unable to inspire the ultimate sacrifice from their people for a communal need have not future.

(2) Sacrifice, especially that of one’s life, tests and seals love.

(3) The modern nation state has withered the love of one’s country.

(4) The family and the nation cannot be replaced as a means to ordered social love.

So if I were to articulate the gist of this chapter I would say this:  The modern nation state, with its administrative bureaucracy, does not inspire the love and sacrifice for one’s nation as in previous generations.   

###

My Comment:

I was surprised the Archbishop used the phrase Dulce Et Decorum Est in the original context from Horace rather than how Wilfred Owen turned it on its head about a hundred years ago. The original meaning as Horace intended is scoffed at today. Almost no one today considers it sweet to die for one's country, and that I think is the Archbishop's point. That's a very daring rhetorical flourish by Chaput. 

My Reply to Madeleine:

Madeleine wrote: "I don't recall very many of the Vietnam veterans I knew who would describe their experience of war as "liberating.""

I don't think he means liberating in the way is commonly used Madeleine. Here's the exact quote:

""By Glenn's account, battle offers a kind of liberation, a release from the mediocrity of our little selves."

I haven't read Glenn's book but it sounds like the liberation is not an emotional or spiritual one, but an elevation from one's abilities, to become more than mediocre. I'm skeptical anyway. It does seem like a stretch, but I haven't read Glenn's book and I have never been in battle. I will say that soldiers are transformed after their war experience. You are "liberated" from your previous self. I don't know if that's what the Archbishop means, but there is an element of truth there.

My Comment:

There are a number of places in the chapter that resonated for me.

 

(1) The modern administrative state destroys patriotism. No one dies for the telephone company is so true.

 

(2) Sacrifice repudiates death. Sacrificial love consecrates and elevates. Sacrificial death is love, and if one's nation is one's extended family, then one can understand why the Archbishop maintains Dulce Et Decorum Est.

 

(3) "Catholic social doctrine holds that the family and the nation are both natural societies, not the products of mere convention. He quotes Pope John Paul II there. If that is so, then why does the church advocate such mass immigration? Mass immigration alters the foundation of the nation, especially when today we emphasize multiculturalism rather than insisting on a melting pot.

 

(4) I love this also from JPII: "Patriotism leads to properly ordered social love."

Peej Replied to My Comment on Immigration:

The Church has to support mass immigration, as our Jewish ancestors were migrants themselves, and were exhorted to "welcome the stranger." The Church supports reforming the immigration system, which, quite honestly, helps to grow both the American population and the economy.

 

Human dignity and the common good are columns of Catholic Social Teaching, which both demand openness to the stranger. However, Pope Francis also writes in "Evangelii Gaudium" that each nation should accept as many immigrants as it responsibly can to preserve the domestic good. Indeed, the Church advocates for the immigrant because of its preferential option for the poor, while realizing the need for prudent limits.

 

How does immigration fundamentally alter the foundation of our nation? The American Church has a history of such famed institutions as the Knights of Columbus supporting both Irish and Italian immigration in the late 1800s. How is the current immigration wave different from that one?

 

Finally, the health of any society is exemplified not only by its unified principles, but by its dynamic ability to assimilate other cultures and adapt them to improve while still retaining its fundamental identity. If the United States can't continue to welcome the immigrant, haven't we already lost one of the fundamental aspects of our national identity of abstract principles, as Archbishop Chaput writes?

Irene Replied to My Comment on Immigration:

Manny, I am not sure how immigration alters the foundation of the nation, particularly in the US which is a country made up entirely of immigrants (if you don't count Native Americans). I would think that immigration is the foundation of this country.

###

My Reply to Immigration:

I don’t know if I’m going to be able to answer all the points on immigration brought up, and I don’t know if I really should since this was brought up by me and not Abp Chaput.  But for context, read this article from last week’s Catholic World Report: “Why France is losing one religious building every two weeks."

The whole article is important, but let me just quote one particular paragraph:

“Although Catholic monuments are still ahead, one mosque is erected every 15 days in France, while one Christian building is destroyed at the same pace,” Lamaze said. “It creates a tipping point on the territory that should be taken into account.”

 

Mass immigration does change the nature of the host country.  That should be without question but we have romanticized immigration, especially here in the United States.  We look at the past and since immigration had some benefits at one time, there is a fallacious argument (fallacy of analogy) that therefore immigration is beneficial at all times.  When the economy was labor intensive, yes blue collar labor was a premium.  It helped the economy when you needed men to do muscular jobs that didn’t require education.  Today we have machinery and robots to do that sort of labor.  Today’s economy requires software engineers and white collar workers.  And back then they didn’t have a welfare state to provide support for immigrants who fell out of work.  You were basically on your own.  Today there is a cost to immigrants.  Language and education costs, and in a lot of cases, poverty and medical benefits.  Today people in their home countries can perform jobs through the internet and conference calls.  There is no need for immigration.

And the economic benefits are dubious at best.   Yes, more population gives you a higher GDP.  But that’s just a gross number.  The GDP per capita does not match the increasing taxes and inflation per person.  And even that can be deceptive because the wealth tends to be centralized in the owners and big stock holders of companies.  It does not get spread out evenly.  The mid-west of the United States that relied on industry has been collapsing for some thirty to forty years now. 

 

And why do you need a bigger population?  Why would you want to add to suburban sprawl?  Why would you add to the garbage and waste disposal issues?  Why would you want to add to pollution and energy needs?  It seems like we want to do one thing and endorse what would bring on the opposite.

 

And who says immigrants don’t change the nature of the host country?  That is just a lie.  I live in New York City, a place with all sorts of immigrants.  I don’t begrudge them their cultures, but of course as I walk through neighborhoods I see the changes. 

Yes, many of us come from immigrant families.  I do, but what does that have to do with what is sound policy going forward?  I don’t know what was the sound policy at the time back then.  But I can tell you the country changed.  Today there is around 25% of the US population that are Catholics.  150 years ago it was probably no more than a couple of percent.  To you today it may seem like the country didn’t change but I bet to those Protestants who came to the new world for their religion it did.  There was lots of Catholic bigotry as the new immigrants came, and of course that was wrong.  But that just shows what the host population was trying to absorb and deal with.  It shows you their stress.  Their lives got changed because of the immigrants.  You even see anti Catholic comments in writers such as Emerson and Henry David Thoreau.  Boston used to be a town of Puritans.  It became a city of Catholics.  No way anyone can argue it didn’t change.

 

Sure, welcome the stranger, but how many?  I find it completely disingenuous when people argue to let the stranger into the country when none of them welcome strangers into their own homes.  Do you welcome people off the street into your home?  Your nation is your home.  If there was a person in the street that needed help, depending on whether he looked dangerous or not, I might bring him in and provide help for the day.  Maybe I would let him stay overnight if he built trust.  But there are limits.  And certainly it’s limited to one or two. 

 

So how many immigrants into our home?  And for how long?  China has nearly two billion people.  India has one billion.  There are over one and a half billion Muslims in the world.  There are billion in Latin America.  Another billion in Africa.  At least half of all those people would love to immigrate to the US.  There are almost two million legal immigrants per year.  Two million in the face of four billion that would love to immigrate is nothing.  It’s essentially virtue signaling.  It really is meaningless in the face of inviting the stranger.  So you are not really inviting the stranger, you are virtue signaling.   And yet two million new people per year into our country is the size of a city.  Every year we are creating what amounts to a new city in the country.  Let that perspective settle in.

 

Europe has changed immensely from the Muslim immigration.  It is unrecognizable.  Just read that article I posted above.  I have nothing against those immigrant cultures, but they change the nature of the country.  They are going to see some real stress in the future.  I don’t think it’s prudent. 

 

I argue for limited immigration based on skills the immigrants bring and true refugees, people that are trying to escape persecution.  That is humane while trying to preserve one’s country as one envisions it, just as one envisions preserving the nature of one’s home.

Irene Replied to My Comment:

Manny, Maybe I missed it, but I did not see anyone arguing for limitless immigration. As I read the posts, I saw people saying that compassion for the stranger in need and prudent immigration policies for the host nation have to be balanced. The place where the arguement will always be is determining what that balance should look like. It has been the consistent struggle for at least the past 200 years. How many starving Irish or Italian immigrants can our already over crowded tennaments and strained charitable services absorb? How many Chinese railroad workers can we handle? How many Jewish refugees from Germany or France can flood over the border to Italy or should the US take in? How many starving Haitians should be allowed to find a home here? As you point out, those who are here usually are reluctant to see that balance in generous terms. It is not simply a matter of having the economic or natural resources to handle the migrants; it is just as much about a fear of the other. The Protestant natives feared the Catholic immigrants in the 19th century. The Anglo natives feared the Asian immigrants in the early 20th century. Now we tend to fear the Muslim and Spanish speaking migrants today. The Protestants feared that the Catholic immigrants would change American culture for the worse. But I would argue that they made the American culture richer. I would argue the same about the Asian immigrants and believe the same to be true about the immigrants from India or the Middle East or Central America. Were the Protestants correct in their fears that the Catholics would change us? Yes. And so will today's immigrants. But is that necessarily a bad thing?

 

I am also not sure that your analysis of the need for immigrants has changed because of changing economics. We certainly do need the brilliant computer engineers and scientists that are often recruited. But we also need manual laborers. Farmers are hurting for farm workers since the recent extreme reduction in immigrants from Central America. Nurse aids and skilled nurses are desperately sought from impoverished countries. The meat packing industry is dependent on unskilled immigrant labor. Our growth rate is reaching a critically low point right now with potentially devistating consequences. We are top heavy with older Americans who need retirement services and expensive medical care. There are not enough younger workers to balance off these elderly members of the population.

 

But I also think that the Gospel and Catholic Social Teaching ask us to see the stranger in more than economic terms. Even if we do not need their skill sets or they demand more from us than they seem to return, they are still our brother or sister who is in danger of persecution or starvation or gang violence or war. Is it not a prolife issue? In the ideal world, the global community provides the development, the disaster relief, the security to allow everyone to live in peace and dignity in their home land. Unfortunately, we don't live in the ideal world. Rather than support, multinational corporations often exploit poorer peoples creating greater instability and need. Immigration is a terribly complex moral issue. It is one that our faith tradition demands we address with the love of the Crucified Christ as well as the wisdom of the Holy Spirit.

My Reply to Irene:

Irene, I don't think I claimed limitless immigration. I think I threw out the quantity 2 million legal per year which is roughly what we had in the years before the last five or six. I think I argued that 2 million in the face of billions that want to come is really just virtue signaling and is not really "welcoming the stranger." You cannot satisfy that Biblical notion if you really wanted to, and 2 million is already beyond our ability happily integrate. This will always be a problem because there is no way to square all the wishes.

 

I did not say we should stop refugees. I think economic immigration should be zeroed out completely and then we could have more room for those who are truly facing life and death status in their countries. And even then we can't absorb all of them.

 

As to new skill sets, sure we can immigrate them but wouldn't it be better to teach that ghetto kid to do that job? Are you saying we don't have the people and desire from the native population for those skilled jobs? And frankly, those skill sets do not require the same mass immigration we had a hundred years ago. Depending on the type of job one needs one engineer to every 20 to 50 to maybe a 100 blue collar laborers. I happen to be an engineer.

 

Finally I object to your use of the word "fear" for those that oppose immigration. There is no fear. That's a political characterization by (1) people who romanticize immigration and (2) to negatively characterize opposing opinion. That's political rhetoric, not charitable based discussion on the issue. People who intellectually oppose immigration don't fear anything. They object to the nature of their lives being altered by things beyond their control. Do yourself a favor and read the dynamics of what is happening in France and other European countries over the life and culture changing enclaves of immigrants.

 

In my initial comment above, I forgot to mention that today societies are no longer melting pots when it comes to immigrants but multicultural enclaves. I think the term they use is "mosaics" as opposed to melting pots. That in itself tells you that we are dealing with a different situation than the past.

 

As to the economics, be skeptical of all the economic reports. Both sides present only what supports their argument. The anti immigration side points to how much immigrants cost and the pro point out what they contribute. From what I can tell it's probably a net wash with possibly costing more initially with potential benefits down the road.

 

But frankly who cares about economic benefits, we are dealing with the nature of one's country and home. If you took in a stranger and he objected to you having a crucifix up, would you care that he's eventually going to pay you some day? Would you find it acceptable that he would want to put up some sort of idol from his religion in your home while he was there? Looking at economic benefits from something like that is along the lines of taking thirty pieces of silver.

Peej Replied;

Thank you to Manny, Irene and Frances for discussing this issue. I’d like to leave my final comment by quoting “Fratelli Tutti”

“135. Here I would mention some examples that I have used in the past. Latino culture is “a ferment of values and possibilities that can greatly enrich the United States”, for “intense immigration always ends up influencing and transforming the culture of a place… In Argentina, intense immigration from Italy has left a mark on the culture of the society, and the presence of some 200,000 Jews has a great effect on the cultural ‘style’ of Buenos Aires. Immigrants, if they are helped to integrate, are a blessing, a source of enrichment and new gift that encourages a society to grow”.[118]”

My Reply to Peej:

Thank you Peej. I think we can all agree with this from Fratelli Tutti: “intense immigration always ends up influencing and transforming the culture of a place."

The thing is, most people don't want the culture of their place changed. I don't understand why that can't be respected.

Irene Replied:

Manny, I apologize if my use of the word "fear" sounded inflammatory. I was only trying to pick up on your comments about 18th century Protestant people resisting Catholic immigrants and the bigotry present at that time. I thought you were saying that the Protestants feared the changes that the Catholic immigrants would bring to their communities. Maybe that was not the emotion that you were implying motivated their bigotry. If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that there is a concern that immigrants will make a significant change on the host community and that that change will have serious negative components. For me, that concern feels like fear. So, I apologize for not being more clear. I was not trying to negatively characterize any position but was trying to acknowledge a tension that has always been present, not just in this country but in most places.

I also was not trying to suggest that you said limitless immigration. I was only trying to say that I don't think any post has indicated that a nation should not set prudent immigration levels. I think all the posts have acknowledged that there should be both a realistic national policy regarding immigration as well as a compassionate Christian response to those in need. The tricky place where the debate takes place is where that balance should be. And, as you point out, it is not a decision that can be made once and for all. War, persecution, famine, natural disasters will always need to be balanced against the changing economic stability and other resources of the host nation.

I think all of us are closer together and have more in agreement in our posts than we have differences. And I don't think any of our posts has wanted to negatively characterize anyone or any group who sees that balance at a different point.

My Reply:

Agree Irene. This comes down to a prudential judgement. The people who oppose immigration are always characterized as racists or bigots. But there are real issues here where judgement is required. Their judgement requires respect. It is after all their lives that will be altered.

Irene Replied:

Yes, respect, respect for those living in the potential host country, respect for the refugee/immigrant, respect for those who view the proper policy differently than I do, etc. My personal experience is that so many of these difficult social questions are rarely discussed in a spirit of respect.

My Comment:

One final comment on this as a summary of the issue. When it comes to the immigration argument there seem to be about five recurring themes. Admittedly I colored most of this from my point of view, but I think you can assess the facts. You can pick where you fall on each side of these and create your own prudential position on immigration.

Economic: Both sides exaggerate. A net wash is closer to reality with benefits coming later after spending money now.

Changing the Host Culture: On this we should all agree that this is what happens. I think we can all agree that sometimes it’s for a benefit. For example perhaps mass European immigration into the US at the turn of the 20th century (of which countless romanticizing of immigration has come about), and I’ll take Pope Frances’ point of Italian immigrants in Argentina. I don’t know one way or another but the person making the claim happens to be an Argentine of Italian immigrants, which should give you pause. Do the indigenous people agree? What’s overlooked are examples of negative impact of immigration to a host country. Germanic tribes entering the Roman Empire in the 5th century. Europeans coming to the Americas 16th century. Muslim establishment of culture across the lands they conquered in the 8th century. Coptic Christians once dominated Egypt. I bet they weren’t happy about the immigrants that their new rulers allowed in. Most immigration is probably neither positive nor negative, but a change. Do you want such a change? Are you happy that your life and culture is being changed in a way you probably didn’t ask for?

The moral argument of allowing a stranger. As far as I can tell the argument from the Old Testament speaks of in terms of a handful of people who are deemed strangers. If anything the Israelites out of Egypt killed and displaced the Canaanites as they settled Israel. No where do I see anything that could advocate a change to the nature of their home land. Most of the references are single strangers wandering through where one shouldn’t harm such people. As to the New Testament the one single reference that is always brought out is the fleeing of the holy family to Egypt. That is such a misrepresentation. They went from one part of the Roman Empire to another, akin to going from New York to New Jersey. There was free flow of people throughout the Roman Empire, as you can see Paul and the Apostles in Acts traveling across the empire unhindered. That argument would hold more water if they went to Persia or China, but they went to Egypt, within the borders of Caesar. The Catholic Church has not always supported such an immigration policy of mass scope. Believe it or not, Catholic Church fully supported Queen Isabella’s expulsion of Muslims and Jews in 1492. In fact they beatified Queen Isabella. She is a “blessed.” She’ll probably never be canonized under today’s values, but she was praised across the Church in her day and for a time after.

Let me make clear, I don’t advocate the expulsion of anyone unless they came under false pretenses. We gave our word when we consented to have them come. We cannot go back on that word, but that’s why it’s critical you make the judgement on immigration policy.

The argument from the benefits of population growth. I remember as a child the population of the US was 200 million. Then I watched it grow to 250, then to 300, and now over 330 million. Have we been better for it? All I know is I’ve seen loss of natural habitat, waste garbage dumps spread across the land, and energy issues, both in generating energy and the pollution that results from the energy. What are the benefits? Higher GDP? That isn’t beneficial to most. Increased military power? Perhaps but even modern warfare relies more on technology rather than manpower. I have no idea why people want a country of 400 or 500 million people. The loss of natural habitat was one of my main drivers that pushed me to this position on immigration. One thing people need to do is ask themselves what should the ideal population of the country be? I kind of liked it around 250 million but that was an impression and not based on any analysis of any sort.

Finally there is one other issue that is hardly ever brought up but probably fits into the points of tradition that Abp Chaput brings up. Large scale immigration disrupts and attenuates one’s link to the past and the host country’s traditions. People who are of different tradition don’t care about the host traditions and push for their own traditions into the mainstream culture. Take for instance the declining of teaching western literature in our schools, both college and below. Shakespeare is being displaced for the literature of third world countries. On the one hand, I guess it is an attempt to be fair to incorporate their literature since they are now part of the country. But don’t you see how incorporating their literature attenuates the host country traditions? If we immigrate a 100 million people—an extreme but I’m trying to make a point—who are not Christians, what happens to all the Christmas traditions? I hope you can see my point. This is happening all over with the coming down of statues and holidays and cultural lessons in schools. It’s happening in Europe with the coming down of Churches and building of Mosques. Under a melting pot theory of assimilation, this was sort of held in check, at least somewhat. This is accelerated with the multiculturalism that is insisted in today’s society.