To the Editor:
Re “How to Replace Christian Nationalism,” by David Brooks (column, Nov. 15):
Mr. Brooks’s essay is heartfelt and hopeful, yet there is a subtle irony in it. He eschews putting people into “categorical boxes,” but does just this by characterizing Christian nationalism as dark, pharisaical and bent on will-to-power politics.
Today’s form of Christian nationalism does feature these marks. But there are other brighter, more humble forms of American Christian nationalism that were practiced in our nation’s history, including that of some of our country’s early leaders, like the Boston minister Jonathan Mayhew and certain Social Gospelers of a century or so ago, like Walter Rauschenbusch, as well as more contemporary figures like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and John Lewis.
These previous iterations of Christian nationalism rejected the idolatry that sanctifies the nation and turns Christian belief into an us-versus-them proposition. Instead, they saw the possibility of what Dr. King called a “beloved community” achieved through a liberal political society envisioned in our nation’s founding documents — if only America would live up to that vision.
David H. Morrison McLean, Va. The writer is a recent graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary and a visiting scholar at Davis and Elkins College, West Virginia.
To the Editor:
David Brooks’s statement that “the exhausted remains of secular humanism” have given rise to “societies in which people feel alienated, naked and alone” left me stunned.
I am a secular humanist. I live a full life. I have wonderful friends. My family is great. My life purpose and my commitment to humility and core virtues are intentional and important. I interact with secular humanists; we have wonderful relationships. I interact with people of faith; we find connection and joy.
I believe that the cause of the psychological and spiritual malaise Mr. Brooks describes is radical individualism and competition for wealth, fame and success above all else. It is the absence of a community without shared goals for improving the lives of its members. It is greed over fairness. It is winning over sharing.
I do not believe in a higher power; I believe in the higher power of compassionate and humble people creating an ethical world. Secular humanism is alive and well.
J. Bruce Hillenberg Farmington Hills, Mich.
To the Editor:
David Brooks claims that secular humanism is an exhausted paradigm that leaves people “alienated, naked and alone.” I believe the opposite can be true.
As a social worker for 30 years, I have seen many whose secular ethical framework guides them to help those in need. They volunteer on crisis hotlines to talk to those who are estranged and depressed; they volunteer at homeless shelters to feed the hungry; they become foster parents, providing love and guidance to children who have suffered abuse and neglect.
Those who give of their time and their hearts are the antidote to alienation and aloneness. Their compassionate care pulls others into connection and community.
My mother was an example of this. She may have rejected the Catholic dogma of her youth, but her “way of being human” was to embrace suffering souls. In her younger years, she volunteered to work in an impoverished community in Gum Springs, Va. In retirement, into her 80s, she volunteered helping incarcerated women.
My mother may have not called herself a Christian, but her loving care was sacred, and she lifted the lives of many.
Bruce Kirby Rockville, Md.
Don’t Give Up Hope
To the Editor:
Re “Flexing Full Executive Power Against Foes” (news analysis, front page, Nov. 26):
I may just be one old-fashioned and idealistic American, but we should not give up hope that someday soon we shall have an American president who will be wise enough and compassionate enough to use the awesome power of that office to help and heal our citizens as much as possible and do as little harm as humanly possible.
Calvin Shapses Los Osos, Calif.
Meta Is Not a Monopoly
To the Editor:
In “How Can Anyone Seriously Doubt Meta Is a Monopoly?” (Opinion guest essay, Nov. 25), Tim Wu claims that Meta holds a social networking monopoly. Market realities and consumer behavior prove otherwise.
The data presented at trial showed how consumers would actually behave in a world without Meta. Evidence demonstrated not only that TikTok can substitute for Meta’s products, but also that the company faces significant competition from other social media services. Meta lacks an outsize share of the market, a textbook requirement of monopoly power.
The problem was not that the court ignored evidence, but that the evidence did not support the case that the Federal Trade Commission gerrymandered around Meta.
Matt Schruers Washington The writer is president and C.E.O. of the Computer & Communications Industry Association.
The post The Uneasy Mix of God and Country appeared first on New York Times.
