The great thing about great art is that all readers bring something of themselves to it.  Hugo called himself a freethinker, he'd probably be amused by your idea that any depiction of redemption must be religious.

I find it amazing that ill-informed "journalists" and "commentators" ply their trade with such impunity. Ms Graham is flat out wrong: Bibles--and other scripture--are NOT banned from public schools. The Hebrew and Christian scriptures may be taught as literature, along side Hugo's work. Prayer is not forbidden, because the thought police do not and will not ever be able to enter and scrub a pupil or teacher’s private thoughts and petitions. What is forbidden--and rightly so--is the promotion of any particular set of faith tenets or practices within the walls of a publically funded school as PART OF THE CURRICULUM.

This is journalism at it lowest. Le Mis is about the human condition. She can project her fictitious diety upon it all she wants but she is flat out wrong. I hope the Globe realizes that this person should be kept out of public discourse. 

This is from an atheist:

"...We are still on our own here. Our lives are only made tolerable in the ravaged world we have around us because we rely on each other. Because we know that hands clasped in prayer do nothing when compared to hands reached out to help..."

as is this:

"...We are the masters of our own destiny and we are the makers of our own fate. There are no gods and kings, only humankind..."

That is what The story is about.

 

Good article, your tying the faith that arises from revealed religion to the misery of the hapless masses is accurate, and likely what Hugo intended in this classic work. In fact, one can say that putting one's faith wholely in the vizier of an anthropomorthic, personified god is the reason why we have such misery, both in Hugo's day as well as today, and for this reason the novel is relevant and rings true to us today. The tragedy of the human condition may make for heart-wrenching narratives in world literature, but we should also learn from its lessons: grounded faith based in reason will go far in preventing the ongoing global tragedy of Les Miserables.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

US President John Adams, signer of the Treaty of Tripoli and co-drafter of the Constitution of the United States. Not that the author of this venomous diatribe masquerading as a thoughtful piece cares about facts.

Ms. Graham's diatribe makes Christianity seem like a very small and mean religion.  I don't believe that the nasty vindictiveness displayed in this column is what Christianity is actually about.  She found something in Les Mis that spoke to her faith and instead of sharing her insight as something wonderful whe used it as a club to beat those she disagrees with.  Pathetic.  She hasn't even learned her own lesson.

Morality depends only on having empathy or "a heart". I know many atheists with big hearts and generous spirits (Bill Gates) and many religious with miserly, narrow, evil hearts (Pat Robertson). Don't confuse religion with goodness.and charity.

Perhaps Ms. Graham's school didn't include the Western Literary Canon. The Canon includes the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, and much Western literature uses themes from those stories, just as the scriptures themselves echo themes from more ancient tales. All may be found in the public high school English classroom. Les Misérables does contain elements of Christian allegory. Valjean is the suffering Christ figure as well as the "good thief" she noted. Javert is the legalistic Pharisee, Fantine the woman taken in adultery, and so on. To regard it simply as allegory, however, is to ignore most of the story. Hugo was a great writer and poet, but he was not the French C.S. Lewis. He was a freethinker, and might today be called an atheist. Readers always bring their own interpretation to the work, however, and Graham has brought hers. So let me ask this: Who redeemed Valjean? If it was the Bishop of Digne giving his cloak to the man who took his coat, then he is indeed a good and praiseworthy man. If it was God, he is an arbitrary and capricious monster, able but not willing to answer the desperate prayers of suffering humanity. "Look down, look down, sweet Jesus hear my prayer. Look down, look down, sweet Jesus doesn't care." It is great literature, a beautiful musical, and a thrilling movie. It isn't a tract.

No need to bring "professional atheists" or nonbelievers in general into this appreciation of "Les Miserables". If you want to celebrate Christianity, fine, but why set it up as a confrontation between Christianity and "atheists"? Are they in the book/musical/movie? Please think a little harder about "light and darkness". "Les Miserables" is a work of art, and that's where it gets its power. If it was a mediocre work of art, it wouldn't move anyone.

Faith may well be the greatest thing in life, but beware of religion. It is a thing twisted by men to serve their self interest and has caused lots of harm. Lennon was right, "no religion too."

Athiests are not the enemy. Like, man. Christians are a huge majority, are vastly privileged, and you're honestly worried about that made-up "war" on Christmas? For real? What is it going to take for you to realize that there are /other people/ besides Christians, who deserve just as much respect and consideration? Christmas isn't going away anytime soon, and neither is Christianity. We're only asking you to give people other than yourselves a little respect, which is apparently too much to ask.

p.s. Feel free to bring your own bible to school. The point is that you can't make others read it. Isn't that what churches are for?

Your observations on the religious message in Les Miserables was undermined by bashing non-believers and the separation of church and state. This is unfortunate. People are forced apart by any arguement that only one side is right and the other is evil. I have never read that message in the New Testament - have you?

This is the same Jennifer Graham who said that people who only have one child are the lowest society has to offer. Now she's trashing atheists. Well, this atheist with only one child refuses to take anything this "journalist" says seriously.

A female Jacoby.  Just what the Boston Globe does not need.  Jennifer could probably look at a McDonald's menu and write a similar, silly column.  It's obvious she has not read The First Amendment of The Constitution nor the history of its debate between and amongst our Founding Fathers, particularly between Samuell Adams and Thomas Jeferson.  First Amendment:

Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press and Petition.

After very lengthy debates, discussions and great input by Thomas Jefferson, this is the deliberate and decisive choice of both being the First Amendment and order of the rights within.  

Samuel Adams and Thomas Jefferson (correction - keyboard error)