Nom de Plume

Thought this looked like decent chick lit from the bright cover (yes, Virginia, one CAN judge a book by its cover), so I checked it out … only to discover that it is not only chick lit, it’s Christian chick lit. Which is fine — I’m up for doing new things and looking at the other side. And I kept reading because it was light and frothy, and engagingly-written. So kudos to Hildreth for that. But ultimately, I have to say this pissed me off. Not, you understand, because comes from a religious viewpoint, but because of its lack of logic.

Savannah, an unlikely Southern belle, has a beauty pageant mother who has chained herself to a monument proclaiming the 10 Commandments that a judge has dumped on the lawn. It is a statement. Savannah is embarrassed more than anything, but of course, has to form an opinion one way or the other. Especially as she writes a human interest column for the local paper. Early on, I was truly hoping that Savannah, who seems a logical, intelligent young woman, would choose the side of separating church and state. But as the novel progressed, my heart sank. No matter, I thought to myself, let me see her reasons why she sides with foisting one religion on the public.

And this is what irritated me: there WAS no real reason. She learns not to be embarrassed by her mother who states she is doing this for her children and their children, that this generation is raised without a real definition of truth. (No argument there, though I would term it morality, rather than truth.) Pretty soon, Savannah backs her mother’s actions wholeheartedly, for no other reasons than because she loves her mother and because she believes in God. And ultimately, one person’s belief is not a good argument for blurring the boundaries between church and state.

One other thing that irritated me was the ACLU character who appears arguing the other side. At first, Savannah is in awe: she is beautiful, glamorous, has a great job. But Hildreth can’t stop there. Oh, no. ACLU lady is vicious in private, spewing vitriol at Savannah’s mother when she thinks no one else is listening. Then we find out that she’s bitter because her husband dumped her for another woman at their church. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised; after all, without a real argument for blurring the separation of church and state, the only way to defeat the ACLU lady’s argument is to discredit the individual herself.

Let me say this: I know that the separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, that Jefferson mentioned it in his letters. I know that governmental references to God exist. However, the fact remains that Christianity is only one religion in this country, and Hildreth writes an entire novel defending an action without once giving a logical reason for that defense. However, the fact remains that this was a novel with a purpose, and to argue against that purpose is pointless because it’s considered “persecution.” Ultimately, I don’t want to denigrate someone else’s beliefs. It would be nice if those who believe so fervently showed others the same consideration.