Christmas Day, 1914 is celebrated every year as a testimony to many things. You will see inspiring posts about it on social media, and you will be moved, as I am every year. Christians like to think that on this day, the Prince of Peace conquered, because on this day, at several points along the Western Front, British and French troops on one side and German troops on the other, stopped shooting at each other, came out of the trenches and shared food, soccer, cigarettes and the "Christmas spirit." And the war was over! No. They went back to killing each other. It almost makes me want to become a Puritan, because in banning the celebration of Christmas (and other holy-days, since no day was really more holy than any other, they reasoned), the Puritans might have avoided this particular hypocrisy. But maybe we should celebrate it. When one's home is the battlefield, a day of fellowship between enemy soldiers is really incredible. When your world is relatively stable and tranquil (like many Americans, as long as they avoid cable-news), an act of violence on Christmas seems the worst of atrocities. So, I'm posting this early; you might forget about it by the 25th...

Forget about it by the 25th so you can enjoy a nice Christmas with your family, but read on for now. Another Christmas event that Americans like to celebrate is Washington crossing the Delaware on Christmas Day 1776. David Hackett Fischer wrote a great big book about it that is quite acclaimed. Did you remember that it was a Christmas event? There's a great (if inaccurate) painting of it that you might have seen. Below is a partial view from pbs.org.
Why did Washington cross the Delaware on Christmas? It sounds like the beginning of a joke. It is not.

 In Joseph Buffington's 1936 biography, The Soul of Washington, Buffington praised Washington’s wisdom in making the “Christmas Day” (actually December 26, 1776) attack on Trenton, NJ.  Buffington wrote that Washington devised the attack because he was “filled with the Christmas spirit himself… [and] knowing the German and British love of Christmas and their joy of Christmas cheer… [they] would, of all nights in the year, be off guard (53f).” Perhaps Washington (the schismatic Anglican?) was strangely Puritan about holidays? Not likely. Buffington went to great lengths to establish Washington’s special love of Christmas. He might overplay Washington’s “Christmas spirit” but surely the General was capitalizing on the British and German celebrations. Reportedly, when Washington was informed by General Sullivan that the weather inhibited the army’s weapons from firing, Washington retorted “Tell General Sullivan to use the bayonet. I am resolved to take Trenton."[i] Apparently the British/German forces suffered 'only' 23-26 casualties to the Americans 4 or 5. Still, this is not what most Americans think of as “the Christmas spirit” in either the religious or secular sense. In 1779, publisher John Bell wrote that Washington was “a total stranger to religious prejudices, which have so often excited Christians of one denomination to cut the throats of those of another.”[ii] And yet, when caught up in a political conflict against other Christians it was, “use the bayonet.” I know some of my fellow American-Christians are equally inspired by this event and by the Christmas Day truce of 1914, but I that is too much cognitive dissonance for me. For me, December 25, 1776 remains the “Real” War on Christmas. With this kind of historical example, I can’t be too irate over “Happy Holidays.” Now, forget about this and enjoy the Holidays. I intend to have a joyous celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ (that’s basically what ‘Merry Christmas’ means right?).

References:
Howard Peckham, ed.  The Toll of Independence: Engagements and Battle Casualties of the American Revolution (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1974), 27.
[i] Wright, Kevin. “The Crossing and Battle at Trenton – 1776” An article for Bergen County Historical Society. http://www.bergencountyhistory.org/Pages/crossingatdtrenton.html
[ii] Boller, George Washington and Religion, 118.

I grew up with 14 guns in the house (including one like the semi-auto Colt .45 1911 model pictured here - I recall it kicked like a mule). These guns made me feel safer. I learned to shoot them moderately well, and it was fun.

In light of the many recent mass-shootings, I wanted to share some random thoughts as a long-time gun-lover, who is not currently a gun owner.

1. Articles like this, which suggest that public discourse between gun-rights advocates and gun-control advocates is basically impossible aren't helpful. If discourse is impossible, then coercion or submission become the only options.

2. I can only assume that calls to "repeal the 2nd Amendment" in social media are intended to:
- preach to some choir that already agrees with the preacher
- counterproductively enflame the opposition, in which case, WHY??
That being said, repealing the 2nd Amendment would move gun-ownership from "right" to "privilege." The government hasn't always done well with citizen rights. How do you expect they would do with privileges?

3. Calls to large groups of young Americans to arm themselves and obtain concealed-carry permits are irresponsible.
We currently have a problem with too many of our well-trained law enforcement officers making lethally bad judgement-calls. If 10s of thousands of 20-40 year old males (in particular) intend to start carrying, I project an explosion of lethally-bad judgement calls made by would-be hero-citizens.

4. I once did some research on cases of firearm self-defense. I came across a large NRA-affiliated database of cases. I selected the case that was geographically closest to my location. The database described a case of a woman at home, shooting at armed intruders from a local biker-gang. I dug up the case in a local news source. It turns out the woman worked from home... running a meth-lab, and had fallen afoul of the bikers. This was not a clear-cut case of a law-abiding citizen defending herself from anonymous bad-guys. But where innocence or righteousness are concerned, maybe few cases are clear-cut.

5. Most of the mass-shooting cases I can remember were not perpetrated by Muslims.

6. Gun-control advocates fail to recognize that for gun-rights advocates, the problem is not enough responsible people stepping up and owning guns. While other countries have less gun-violence, American gun-rights are what make us superior to those other nations. If a new Hitler arises there, he will run over those people. If a new Hitler arises here, he'll have to think twice.

The horrific events of this past weekend have more people looking for serious answers about ISIS. My point here is to offer a couple brief summary answers and mostly to direct people to some interesting resources for fuller answers.

First, at the most basic level, people need to know that ISIS arose in Iraq (or at least gained much of its momentum) in response to a paranoid crackdown on the majority Sunni population by the U.S.-backed Shia Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Long story short: he created his worst nightmare. ISIS involvement in Syria is partly the result of similar Shia-leadership v. Sunni majority faultlines. In this sense, the conflict has vague similarities to the history of Catholic-Protestant violence in Ireland, and is part of the reason some commentators say the current conflict is "more political than religious."    Photo of IRA militants below is from dailymail.uk

However, and second, the rhetoric of ISIS is pervasively religious, a point made quite strongly by Graeme Woods article at the Atlantic, "What ISIS Really Wants" where he describes ISIS as "very Islamic." Tangential story: I remember a young couple who came over for dinner a few years ago and brought with them a delicious baking pan full of something they described as a "Lutheran dessert." I don't know if it was "very Lutheran" or not (or even what that would mean), but they clearly associated it with their Lutheran heritage. The question is, how would I, as an outsider, be able to judge the validity of this? In the case of 95+% of non-Muslims who are trying to figure ISIS out, here's what we've got: we know they are Muslims; we know they like to quote Islamic literature. Therefore, they are very Islamic. However, we have no idea about the contexts of the quotes we hear (textually, or historically) or the traditions of interpretations that surround or bracket such quotes in an Islamic cultural context. Have we ever considered the number of radical revolutionary groups who liked to quote the Declaration of Independence and admired George Washington? It's a lot. Would we therefore say that those groups are "very American" or even "very Republican"? Probably not. I think it is important to concede that ISIS is very "religious" and it seems logical to suggest that since their religion is Islam, that they are "very Islamic." But, once again, if we looked at various violent "Christian" armies throughout history that have done horrible things while flinging around Bible verses, singing hymns and having daily "church services" would we concede that those groups were "very Christian"? Very religious? Maybe. Very Christ-like? No. So, is ISIS very religious? Maybe. Very submitted to God? In any mainstream Islamic sense? I don't think so.

I recommend Woods' Atlantic article. Read it. It's helpful. But if you're willing to make that commitment, go the extra mile and read two more. I can't recommend Woods' article without recommending a couple of others.
First, read John A. Azumah's article "Challenging Radical Islam" from the Christian journal First Things. Azumah does a great job of placing ISIS in (or outside of, as the case may be) the very particular traditions of Sunni Islamic law. He indirectly raises a question for Christians: Do we WANT Islam to be fundamentally and uncontrollably violent because that makes us feel religiously superior? I often find that atheists dialoguing with Christians insist on maintaining the most literalistic fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible and Christianity and I think Christians do something similar with Islam sometimes.
Second, read "What is Islamic?" by Haqiqatjou and Qadhi over at MuslimMatters.org. I don't agree with everything they have to say (they have 21 points of response to Woods), but they expand on the details of Islamic jurisprudence, offer some helpful insights (and links) and ask additional helpful questions.