I enjoyed the post. I find the lit Christian cross on the top of the police station (Skinner's Butte, anyone?) and the creche scene on the courthouse lawn in my current city of residence significantly less funny. Did not Christ himself advocate the separation of church and state? Why are conservative Christians so quick to forget this? Why doesn't being a "strict constructionalist" mean that conservative judges should be ordering religious displays removed from public buildings left and right? Shouldn't I be allowed to put a large Star of David in the middle of the street in front of my house, if the city's going to put a cross on the police station?

Yes, it seems as though without quite a lot of restraint, many christians would be inclined to impose their religious viewpoints upon citizens of this country on about the same level as their radical muslim counterpoints in Iraq. Separation of church and state can be tough to manage.

Sustaining the spiritual integrity of christianity seems as though it can be equally challenging, and as the OP humorously illustrates, it may be a losing battle. Just as the christmas tree is far removed from nature, christianity becomes ever far removed from jesus. For those who need and rely on it for whatever reasons they may be, you have my condolences.

Wow, though I consider myself "progressive" I am also Christian, and somewhat offended by this post. First, neither of the first two comments have anything to do with the author's rambling prose. A "Christian store" sale has nothing to do with the separation of church and state.

Second, Kari, is there anything remotely progressive or political or gratifying about this post? Many Christians are just as offended by the retail sector's commercialization of their faith as Ms. Jasheway-Bryant -I for one find it crazy that Wal Mart and Target end up deciding how the community is going to experience Christmas each year. However, I think it is mean-spirited to look at the activities of one retail business (there with the sole mission of making money) and imply broad judgments to Christians as a group. Further, to take a couple anecdotes from passers-by and categorize further judgments upon Christians and Christianity as a whole. Your humor is ill-placed and mean spirited.

I have many progressive Christian friends, not to mention a few -- hold your horses -- non-progressive Christian friends. The thing we all share is our ability to see the lighter side of things and not always jump to the worst possible conclusions about people. My piece was intended to inspire laughter at the concept of religion being coopted by retail -- thus my reference to the golden idols on sale at Target.

Without laughter the world is a sad and gloomy place. Not to mention angry and dangerous. I will continue to try to inspire laughter. Some people will always choose to find offense, no matter their religious, political, or other persuasion. That is their way. And I'm sorry for them. Not being able to laugh at yourself is a terrible disability.

Kari, For one the tone is pejorative. I think that is in an attempt to be humorous, but the sentiment, at least insofar as my take is accurate, is that Christians consist of gold-cross-wearing, baby-Jesus-decorating, bustier-buying mall folk who don’t care about the commercialization of their faith. And why does the author get that idea? Well because she "scientifically" stood outside of one retail store for about 10 minutes and observed two groups of people.

As for specifics, which I know you appreciate, here's a few:

I can’t help but think that this 1/2 price Lord and Savior sale has got to be offensive to Christians. But, as usual, I’m apparently wrong.

Her apparent “wrongness” is again based upon an observation of a grand total of five people over roughly a 10 minute period in the mall. If she is going to imply that Christians have no issue with disgusting commercialization then she should probably have something a bit stronger to base her assertion on. Or do columns that purport to be “humorous” have more license to make broadly sweeping, and at least mildly offensive generalizations without any tangible evidence?

I imagined a mob would soon form demanding something – removal of the sign, closure of the store, reduction of the Christ child from 50 to 75% off. Something. Anything. I was sorely disappointed. I was there almost four minutes before anyone even seemed to notice.

I have a similar problem with this statement. The apparent lack of an organized mass-protest of this weird isolated sale within the first four minutes of the author seeing the sign leads us to believe that Christian’s give this kind of commercialization their broad blanketed endorsement?

I waited a few more minutes, but no crowd formed. No stones were thrown. No reporters showed up with cameras to expose the blasphemous act. So I left. I was getting bored at the point and I heard that down at the other end of the mall Target had golden idols buy-one-get-one-free.

Here again the author is feigning outrage at the lack of a mobilized, coordinated response within ten minutes of discovering the sale. Further, she seems to suggests that stone throwers are somehow inherent to Christianity, in what I can only think is a veiled reference to Christ suggesting that only those without sin should throw stones (meaning nobody should pass judgment).

Kari, you also didn’t answer my initial question, which was this:

Kari, is there anything remotely progressive or political or gratifying about this post?

Here’s the thing. Though it may not seem so, I am just as reluctant or more reluctant to wage this stupid culture war as the next guy. I just think that sometimes progressives can be insensitive to Christians that share many of their values. Marginalizing them and making even humorously-intended broad sweeping generalizations only pushes them away. We wouldn’t think it appropriate to make humorous broad sweeping generalizations about minority groups or the impoverished or the foreign, but for some reason those who practice Christianity are wide open. My faith perspective says that being Christian means trying to show the world as much capacity for love and forgiveness possible. It doesn’t mean that I am inclined to barter the porcelain likeness of the baby Jesus down to 75% off from 50% off.

Puzzled,

Don't ml wilde's and my comment have anything to do with the original post? Well, I think they do, even if the connection isn't so direct that even the most naieve person could see it. Though humorous, to me, the OP's post highlighted one contemporary example of how christianity is being progressively reduced from an uplifting spiritual aid into a powerful implement by which to gain ends inappropriately beyond that religious disciplines primary mission.

I've always been under the impression that the idea behind becoming a christian was to save your soul and become a better person by exercising compassion towards others. Well, that's a simple explanation, but I hope you get the idea. In the parlance of the religion: Serve god. Except today, many people seem to think it's quite alright to use christianity to move end of the season leftover goods, or even build a political constituency to support a race for government office. I find the humor in that to be a little more grim than the OP was able to manage, but she deserves credit for keeping the subject light.

Puzzled, I'm heartened that you take offense regarding slights made to your religion, but I think the offense you take might be more aptly directed towards some of those people responsible for conspicuously diminishing christianity today to the point to where it has become a legitimate target of criticism and concern for the potential threat it represents to fair government.

Any number of culprits abound. Start with George Bush, or some of the highly controversial huckster bible thumpers, or the obsessive and even homicidal abortion protesters.

Puzzled, Tonight when I say my prayers before I go to bed, I am going to pray that you get a sense of humor so in 2007 you can have fewer opportunities to get offended.

Leigh Ann, I thought this was hilarious and dead on in terms of showing our society's focus on materialism but the column you did on getting a mammogram is still my favorite ever.

Kari, Im not so new, but not a frequent commenter. As for getting a sense of humor, I think I've got one, but generally reserve it for that which is actually funny. -That's not to criticize the author... I actually checked out her webpage. I'm just suggesting, as I did with my example-by-example breakdown, that this particular post marginalizes and pokes fun at those who share my faith. I think WS is correct in his/her take of Christianity, insofar as becoming a better person through compassion to others is concerned. I just dont think it is compassionate to use this retail example to make fun of Christians for not burning down the mall. I think Blue Oregon can do better.

This is an interesting discussion thread to me primarily because it shows how touchy people commonly get about actual discussion of religious/spiritual topics. Personally, I decided some time ago that I would no longer respect the taboo that so many people have about discussing religious themes in a serious, critical way--the way we'd discuss economics, or politics, or the war in Iraq. Good gawd, religion is a hugely significant sociological phenomenon in the US, how can we possibly afford to let it be sheltered from rational discussion? I don't mean nitpicking about theology, I mean actually critically discussing religion in a holistic way.

As for the commercialization that the original poster was lampooning, two comments: the most obvious is that this is not a new phenomenon. Anyone recall that the Reformation was driven in part by Martin Luther's outrage about the Church selling indulgences (get-your-loved-ones-out-of-purgatory passes)? And second, the commercialization of religion does not have only Christianity as a "target". As only one obvious example, surely readers have noticed the proliferation of silly stuff being marketed as "Zen" this or that. I happen to be a Zen Buddhist and I assure you that "Zen" cereal, "Zen" dog treats (actually saw those recently), "Zen" beauty products, yadda yadda yadda are not part of the spiritual practice I'm familiar with.

"I just dont think it is compassionate to use this retail example to make fun of Christians for not burning down the mall." puzzled

For crying out loud "puzzled", I don't want to hurt your feelings, but you certainly do seem delicate with regards to critique of your religion. Bad things are being done to christianity by christians, and not enough christians who should care about the situation are saying anything about it or are even receptive to criticism of the things being done, even when its expressed in a playful, joking manner.

Puzzled, I really do hope you can see the comments made here as not malicious. They're intended as constructive, and as a means to urge people like yourself to not be delicate with regards to criticim about their religion, but rather to speak out against ambivalence on the part of fellow christians to the self-inflicted wounds being made to it.

The shopkeeper is just a little blip on the radar, but the real concern should be the pirate christians that threaten to desecrate that religion even so far as to allow it to violate this country's fundamentally important principle that sustains the separation of church and state.

I have absolutely no problem with a constructive, critical look at my faith, and in fact encourage it. The "sinners" Christ was most committed to rebuking were actually those within the church (read: Pharisees and lawgivers). In fact, Christ actually overturned vendor tabled at the temple -an example especially pertinent to this column, because they were commercializing their faith.

My issue was not that we shouldn’t be having a constructive dialogue about how people are abusing Christianity, but was that THIS column was not a constructive dialogue, but rather a semi mean-spirited attack.

In my previous comments I didn’t say that I was offended because the author was critical of Christianity, but rather was offended by her implication that Christians categorically don’t care about this commercialization issue, which is not true. Instead of rewriting the specific areas in which this was implied, see my earlier comment.

To be clear: I support critical evaluation (big fan of Mr. Luther's treatise posted to the castle door at Wittenberg), think Christ opposed commercialization of faith, and am often internally critical of our "stewardship" of the faith tradition I practice.

"semi-meanspirited"? That seems to be drawing at straws. I don't believe anybody commenting here meant to insult your or your faith. What's the point in that? We, or at least speaking for myself, are in a certain shock over the limits that christians have been going to get their thing done. That's what I think was being expressed here, not petty malice.

Christians care that their faith is being sold out to commercialization? I'd say it's generous to say that. I get very frustrated seeing meek and timid christians wither in the fire of their abusive christian brethren, particularly as it comes to negatively affect everybody else.

As a committed Christian, I found the article neither offensive, nor mean-spirited. Rather, I think it shined an uncomfortable light on Christian materialism, reminding us that we have indeed become complacent in our allowance for marketing our religion. We are reminded early, in the ten commandments to "make no graven images" of things in heaven. I have spent many spirited hours of discussion with other christians trying to figure out what that means (most of us agree that it is a reference to idol worship, rather than a prohibition against artistic interpretation).

<h2>This tongue-in-cheek observation of a chance encounter at the mall was both funny and thought provoking. I suggest that any christian offended by it re-examine the essence of their faith and its place in the modern world. The article didn't mock our faith; it revealed a tangible evidence of the nature if its worldly irrelevance. I, for one, welcome this kind of criticism.</h2>