Reality Check 101

If there is one thing that can be said about liberals, it is that they are persistent, even if persistently misguided. But wrong-headed tenacity may have its up side.

This was demonstrated in June when, in response to incessant needling by the Holland Peacemakers for installation of another peace pole on public government-controlled land, the city council adopted criteria for privately donated monuments.

The first newly adopted standard calls for an evaluation of where the pole would be placed. People of color should be outraged that council plans were floated to place it in the new Rosa Parks Green. Not only would such a move insult Parks’ memory by furthering the Peacemakers’ leftist ideals, but it would also minimize her civil rights legacy and associate her space with anti-war pacifism. Parks was a peaceful activist, not a peace activist. The two are completely unrelated.

Another criterion requires historical relevance based on “manifest” Holland history and traditions. Rosa Parks’ struggle for equality through righteousness and justice has nothing in common with Masahisa Goi’s utopian worship of peace through prayer poles. The peace pole stands in antithesis to Holland’s proud traditions of wartime service and sacrifice. Trying to give the pole historicity through a Hope College alumnus does not change that heritage. It is arguable that Hope no longer represents Holland values and traditions.

A third requirement is that there is no violation of the U.S. Constitution’s establishment clause; in other words, no government endorsement of religion. Even though the Peacemakers mask the significance, the pole’s message began as a prayer (is still referred to as such) with all the attendant theology and was accepted by the U.N. as a “venerable object.”Unlike culturally engrained seasonal displays, the pole would be a permanent non-cultural sermon. As government speech, the pole would thus represent Holland and her citizens as endorsing that prayer and its religion.

There are other concerns as well. Holland Peacemakers seems adept at repackaging their cause. Members have stated that the peace pole is not anti-war. Is it pro-war? They claim to be non-political. But war is political and therefore an anti-war stand is political. Holland Peacemakers’ meeting place, where the pole is now displayed, is a patently political environment. One has to wonder if the Holland Peacemakers supports Democrats and Republicans equally. During a recent public meeting, besides trying to violate one committee member’s right to vote, Peacemakers attempted to attach their pacifism to Holland settlers, Veterans Memorial Park, diversity, social justice, solving gang violence, improving families, global community, and even the attraction people feel at seeing their own language in writing.

Both municipal government and monuments are representative. HPM’s volume and persistence does not create popular representation. If six people show for a meeting, four from the same organization, one reporter and one other, popular representation is not achieved. If it was, government would function by the tyranny of the minority and democracy would collapse. Monuments represent their makers, promoters and caretakers. By adopting the pole, Holland would be speaking the message of the Holland Peacemakers and their doctrine. Does the city want to represent its population and Rosa Parks as anti-war pacifists? Such a stand flies in the face of Holland’s proud tradition of patriotic service and sacrifice by which true peace is achieved.

Peace poles already exist at three churches, various private homes and one Holland park, yet the Holland Peacemakers wants more. They want to speak for Hollanders through a venue that will have the appearance of popular consent. Before that is allowed, Holland Peacemakers need to publicly answer some questions. Who did Holland Peacemakers’ founders receive training with or through what organization? Are they in agreement with the October 1995 U.N. 50th Peace Pole Project and its declaration’s contents? How does the peace pole work? What does it accomplish in real results and how does it do it?

Peace is expensive and has never been achieved through pacifism — it never will be. It has a bloody history that God has participated in. He has revealed His hand in conquests, national judgments, the Crucifixion and the judgments of Revelation. In both theology and politics, peace is the goal, not the journey; the end, not the means; the fruit, not the vine.