Categories
Uncategorized

Presumed Innocent

A very high-profile American citizen has recently been arraigned four times, in four different jurisdictions, on 91 felony charges. Since many of us do not hold this defendant in high regard, we are frequently reminded that we should not rush to conclusions about the depth of his depravity, because according to the U. S. legal code, every citizen is guaranteed the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Since presumption of innocence, like separation of church and state, is indeed one of the most sacred pillars of the American system of law and justice, it seems important to understand exactly what it means to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. That probably sounds like a concept which does not need explanation, but there appears to be significant misunderstanding among certain groups of people, who seem to confuse presumed with assumed.

Being presumed innocent is very different from being assumed innocent. It is also not the same as actually being innocent, and it is not the same as being found not guilty. Those presumed innocent may very well be guilty of high crimes, but they are still guaranteed the right to a fair trial, to have a “day in court,” and to have an attorney present facts to refute the evidence against them. “Guilty” and “not guilty” are verdicts, which can be rendered only after careful and thorough examination of all available evidence. It is the evidence which must either convict or exonerate—not friendship, loyalty, political affiliation, or “gut feeling.” Presumption of innocence is not a verdict; it is an attitude which is expected to be held until a verdict has been reached.   

I’m embarrassed to admit that when accusations against Bill Cosby were first made public, I was reluctant to believe them. He had always presented himself as the ultimate wholesome, nice guy, loving family man, who was surely incapable of the heinous acts of which he was accused. I was wrong, not only in my judgment of his character but in my assumption of his innocence. Presumption of innocence means suspending judgment, coming to no conclusion until the facts have been sorted out. Assumption of innocence means prematurely acquitting an accused person before hearing evidence and testimony. Assumption of innocence is just as wrongheaded as assumption of guilt, because both shortcut the legal process and ignore the decisive factor: the facts, which can’t be fully known until both sides have had the chance to present them in court.

Presumption of innocence strikes me as similar to another phrase, used in the study of literary fiction: “suspension of disbelief.” The willing suspension of disbelief means that, when reading or watching a work of fiction, the reader  or viewer temporarily avoids critical thinking and logic for the sake of enjoying the narrative. Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote, “That willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith” (Biographia Literaria, 1817).

Thus, while watching L. Frank Baum’s The Wizard of Oz, I do not say to myself, “This is ridiculous! How dumb does this Baum guy think I am? I know monkeys don’t fly! And besides that, if there were some advanced civilization somewhere over the rainbow, astronomers would have found it by now.” I and every other reasonable adult in the world know these things are not possible, but we willingly put aside what we know about the world in which we live and allow ourselves to be immersed in the world of the work.

Presumption of innocence does not mean closing my eyes to facts which already exist and are widely known and documented. It doesn’t even mean I have to believe there’s an ice cube’s chance in hell that not a single one of the charges against the defendant will prove true. It simply means I will willingly suspend my disbelief in the person’s innocence and put aside what I already know to be true; and I will allow myself to enter the world of the courtroom and hear the narrative with an open mind.

Presumption of innocence, like the principle of separation of church and state, is not explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Both are legal precedents which have risen to the level of equality with the Constitution in terms of their sacrosanctity. The presumption of innocence is based on three Constitutional amendments—the fifth, sixth, and fourteenth—and the case of Coffin vs. United States (1895). Although best known for its protection against forced self-incrimination, the fifth amendment also guarantees the right to indictment by a grand jury before felony charges may be made, prohibition of double jeopardy, guarantee that every criminal defendant must be given a fair trial, and protection against government seizure of property without due compensation. The sixth amendment lists the rights to which every criminal defendant is entitled: to be given a public trial without unnecessary delay, to be represented by a lawyer, to be tried by an impartial jury, to know who his/her accusers are, and to know the evidence of the charges and evidence which will be used against her/him. The fourteenth amendment guarantees, among other things, the right of all citizens to equal protection under the laws.

In the 1895 appellate case before the United States Supreme Court, F. B. Coffin and Percival B. Coffin were accused of aiding and abetting the former president of the Indianapolis National Bank in misdemeanor bank fraud. Court commentary on the case includes this statement: “The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.”

It bears repeating, however, that even though presumption of innocence admittedly acts in favor of the defendant, presumption is not the same as assumption. If every defendant were required to be assumed innocent, there would never be a trial. What jurors and the public are required to do is to reserve judgment, to maintain an attitude of neutrality until due process has been completed.

The jury selection process operates on the same principle. Jurors are selected or rejected based on their ability to render an objective verdict at the end of the trial. Anyone who has already made an irreversible decision that the defendant is either guilty or innocent is rejected, because in either case the evidence will be moot and the trial meaningless. A list of typical questions asked of prospective jurors during the voir dire (literally, “to speak the truth”) process emphasize whether the individual is approaching the case with no predetermined conclusions.

I recall being questioned for the jury on which I served years ago, for the sentencing phase of a criminal trial. The judge asked questions such as whether I had already formed an opinion about how the defendant should be punished, whether I or a close family member had ever been the victim of a crime, whether I or any family member had ever been convicted of a felony, whether I had prior knowledge of the case or the defendant about to be tried, whether I had any bias against members of law enforcement, and whether I would have a problem rendering any one of the possible verdicts in the case. Each of these factors held the potential to affect my ability to hear the evidence impartially and to reach an unbiased decision.

The opposite of being presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law is being tried by a kangaroo court, impromptu court, or mock court. “Kangaroo court” is the informal pejorative term for any quasi-legal procedure which ignores established standards; and such a court makes a mockery of justice, because the accused is tried, convicted, and punished without the right to fair representation.

To our national shame, the Salem Witchcraft Trials of 1692-1693 in colonial Massachusetts were carried out in a “special court,” the Court of Oyer and Terminer, which was an ad hoc court quickly established specifically to hear cases against those accused of witchcraft. Defendants were denied representation by counsel, and worst of all, spectral evidence was admitted. The Salem Witch Museum offers this definition of “spectral evidence”: “Spectral evidence refers to a witness testimony that the accused person’s spirit or spectral shape appeared to the witness in a dream at the time the accused person’s physical body was at another location.” The statement goes on: “It was accepted in the courts during the Salem Witch Trials.” More than 200 people were accused, and 20 were executed, on the basis of evidence impossible to refute, even if they had been allowed representation. How does one prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person did not see what he/she swears to have seen, however farfetched and absurd the claim may be?

We can all be grateful that the Court of Oyer and Terminer was disbanded and that such courts have been rare in this country. A government “for the people” demands an impartial court trial for every citizen accused of a crime, even one accused of 91 crimes. Maintaining a presumption of innocence does not mean I can’t assess the evidence already made public and say “Wow, that looks pretty damning” or “That doesn’t prove anything.” What it does mean is that I’m willing to be surprised; if evidence which contradicts what I’ve already seen is presented during trial, I’m willing to change my mind. It means I want to see justice done more than I want to be “right.” I’m not blind or deaf; I have seen what I’ve seen and heard what I’ve heard, but I have to assume there is more to be seen and heard, and I have to allow new information to change my opinion. So do you.

Categories
Uncategorized

Pure Religion and Undefiled

by Barb Woolard

Among the most disturbing images from the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol building is that of a man holding about an eight-foot-tall wooden cross, leaning his head against it as if praying, surrounded by other people in various postures of prayer. The strange marriage of American religion and politics over the past several decades has led to such paradoxical ideas as “God and guns” and God as accomplice to evil deeds. I’ve heard coaches and players pray for God’s aid in winning a game, a misguided but innocuous request; however, there is nothing Christian or godly about asking God to assist in destroying public property, attempting to kill elected representatives, and brutally assaulting police officers. It’s enough to make atheists out of everyone.

The large cross was far from the only Christian symbol on display in the Capitol that day. At least one Christian flag, along with many signs carrying such captions as “Jesus saves” and “In God we trust” were accompanied by chants “Jesus is my Savior, Trump is my president” and “Shout if you love Jesus!” followed by “Shout if you love Trump!” Conflating the images of Jesus and Donald Trump is the outcome of a decades-long belief among evangelical Christians that the United States was founded as a Christian nation but has departed from the faith of its founders and therefore must be restored to its original Christian ideals. Thus, as Gina Ciliberto and Stephanie Russell-Kraft write in a January 15, 2021 article in “The Conversation,” “The notion of restoring American greatness, such as Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again’ mantra, was prevalent in evangelical circles long before Trump arrived on the scene, [Kristin Kobes] Du Mez told Sojourners.”

The resulting religion is Christian Nationalism, with beliefs as remote from anything intended by our founders as it is from the biblical description of Christianity. Yet Christian Nationalists comprise the largest contingent of Trump supporters and therefore of the modern Republican Party. The twisted theology of this religion includes white supremacy, denial of LGBTQ rights, making abortion for any reason illegal, and using guns and violence when necessary to accomplish their ends. Bedfellows have included such deplorables as the KKK and the NRA. The moral authority that comes with the façade of faith lends legitimacy to otherwise repugnant ideas and justifies otherwise abominable deeds.

Much of the confusion in our current public conversation is caused by word definitions. Juliet said “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” Freud said “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar,” and Bill Clinton said “It depends upon what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” In today’s dialogue, the definition of a term depends on which group is saying it. Words like “conservative,” “Christianity,” “patriotism,” “nationalism,” “freedom,” and “rights” can have diametrically opposite meanings in different groups’ vocabularies.

Such simple words as “freedom” and “rights” have escalated a public health crisis to a life-and-death political battle. People who insist they have the freedom to choose how they will respond to attempts at controlling a deadly virus and that it is their right to reject mandates which they find inconvenient or nonsensical ignore the fact that with rights come responsibilities and the fact that rights have always had limits. Among those groups, all sense of acting in the common good has been erased; responsibility to the whole has completely given way to freedom of the individual, consequences be damned.

The capitol rioters of January 6 marched to the beat of patriotic duty: saving their country from the grip of “evil” forces which have brought about an apostasy from the founders’ intent, and which must be defeated in order to return the USA to its original state of righteousness and integrity. Never mind that the country to which they want to return never existed, that much of our national image is built on a myth. When others among us speak of patriotism, we’re talking about our desire to see this country live up to the hype, to reconcile with the sins of our past and forge a better future for all citizens–not just white heterosexuals–because we love our country and want to help correct error and injustice wherever we can.

The next question we might ask is whether patriotism is the same as nationalism. Good question! Patriotism is generally agreed to be love of one’s country, but nationalism is somewhat different. Nationalism is more about how to define one’s country, determining how and what a country ought to be, and that is a much bigger debate.

“Christianity” is a word not found in the Bible. “Christian” does appear two or three times, depending on the translation, to designate followers of Jesus. Therefore, any basis for what it means to be Christian will necessarily be found outside religious texts. Much good has been done in the name of Christianity but also much evil, because apparently humans have very different concepts of the Jesus they claim to emulate.

The term “Christian nationalism,” according to Paul D. Miller, in a February 3, 2021, article for Christianity Today, “is relatively new, and its advocates generally do not use it of themselves, but it accurately describes American nationalists who believe American identity is inextricable from Christianity.” Miller defines Christian nationalism as “the belief that the American nation is defined by Christianity, and that the government should take active steps to keep it that way.” Miller cites Samuel Huntington who argues that “America is defined by its ‘Anglo-Protestant’ past and that we will lose our identity and our freedom if we do not preserve our cultural inheritance.”

Christian nationalism, with all of the havoc it has wreaked, has no connection to real Christianity, which I believe can be defined by three short biblical passages.

We might as well start with Jesus, since he’s the one Christianity is named after. In the book of Matthew is a conversation between some Pharisees and Jesus: “’Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?’ 37 He said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (22:36-40)

I think the key is verse 40: “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” In other words, it’s that simple: love God and love each other. Period. Christian nationalists claim to love God; it was all over their signs and their chants as they invaded the Capitol. But they showed no love for their fellow humans when they shouted “Hang Mike Pence,” called Nancy Pelosi a bitch, and pummeled capitol police officers, leading to the deaths of five officers. Obviously they also never thought to ask themselves the critical question, “What would Jesus do?”

Then there’s one of my favorite verses, Micah 6:8: “He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” This verse follows a list of questions from humans about how best to please God. To paraphrase the response, “Dude, why do you keep asking these questions? He’s already told you all you need to know.” Christian nationalists also appear unfamiliar with this concept of Christianity. Loving justice would mean advocating for the rights of immigrants, people of color, the LGBTQ community, the downtrodden, and every other human being. Loving kindness is incompatible with performing acts of violence and circling the wagons around perpetrators of violence. And walking humbly with God would preclude attempts to seize power for oneself while depriving others of their basic human dignity.

Then there’s James 1:27: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Widows are mentioned often in the Bible, because in the culture of that time and place, women could not be wage earners nor did they have social standing except by connection with a man. That made widows the poorest and most socially powerless group, and their children were at the mercy of their mothers’ destitute condition. Therefore, a great deal is said in Christian texts about the social responsibility to look out for and take care of these people. In 21st-century America, widows have far greater opportunities to care for themselves; but as Jesus said, “The poor you will always have with you.” Pure, undefiled religion is looking out for and taking care of “the least of these”–being God’s hands and feet in the world.

Christian nationalism has defiled the beauty of simply being responsible citizens of the planet, loving and respecting our fellow humans, and living in harmony with all of creation. Christian nationalism is not Christianity, and the nation which Christian nationalists want to create is not one I wish to live in.

Categories
Coronavirus, COVID-19 Politics Religion

God Will Take Care of You

There’s an old morality tale which has recently made the rounds as a meme on social media. You’ve probably read or heard some version of it, but to refresh your memory, it goes like this:

A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help.

Soon a man in a rowboat came by and shouted to the man on the roof, “Jump in, I can save you.”

The stranded man shouted back, “No, it’s OK, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me.”

So the rowboat went on.

Then a motorboat came by. “The man in the motorboat shouted, “Jump in, I can save you.”

To this the man on the roof said, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.”

So the motorboat went on.

Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, “Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety.”

To this the stranded man again replied, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.”

So the helicopter pilot reluctantly flew away.

Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, “I had faith in you but you didn’t save me, you let me drown. I don’t understand why!”

To this God replied, “I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter! What more did you expect?”

(Copied from Truthbook.com)

The man in this little story seems deluded by a concept of God which is quite common: the image of a remote deity who intervenes in human affairs during emergencies but who seems somewhat remote from everyday happenings.

I’m not arguing for or against the existence of God; I’m arguing for a coherent view of God among those who do choose theism over atheism. I don’t really like the god I read about every day on social media.

My first thought when I hear “God will take care of me” is “I wonder why God didn’t take care of the 630,000 people who have already died from COVID in this country alone.” I wonder why God didn’t love those people, too. That’s not a god I can believe in. At least two families among my personal friends and acquaintances have lost members to COVID. What an insult to suggest that God will take care of me, even if I refuse to follow any of the directives for keeping myself and others healthy, but God must not have protected those people who died! What an arrogant, self-centered world view and what a repugnant image of God!

Like the man stranded on the roof, waiting for God to physically appear, take him by the hand, and guide him to safety, many Americans suffer from a view of God that limits God to search-and-rescue missions. The all-powerful God they claim to believe in seems otherwise disconnected.

One perplexing question is why God has been separated from science and why science has been made the enemy. I found this definition of “science” in an online dictionary: “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.” If one believes God created the “physical and natural world,” one should see scientists as explorers of God’s work, discoverers of God’s marvels, solvers of God’s mysteries. If scientists are human beings created by God, and if all of the materials available for them to work with were created by God, and if God can direct human affairs–all of which many theists claim to believe–why could that same God not inspire scientists to put together certain materials in ways that might protect or rescue humans from a deadly disease? Science and God could be seen as partners, not enemies.

Another problem with the unfortunate image of God in the opening parable is that the man’s safety and well-being are totally dependent on God’s action. My mother always said “God helps those who help themselves.” If the man on the roof had believed he needed to take responsibility for his own rescue, he’d have been praying for strength, endurance, and guidance while actively seeking materials from which to build a raft and being on the lookout for rescue opportunities. Standing still and praying for a miraculous act of God–instead of using the God-given instincts, knowledge, and materials at his disposal–was lazy and irresponsible and certainly not indicative of faith. Those who trust God to protect them from a disease to which they willingly expose themselves every day by ignoring their personal responsibility is as shortsighted and deadly as drowning on a roof after refusing three offers of assistance. I wonder if their God might ask, “I gave you doctors, scientists, and government leaders. Why did you not listen to them?”

A little back story might be helpful here. The writer of this small piece of fiction doesn’t reveal how the man happened to find himself on the rooftop as the flood waters rose to precarious levels, but with a little imagination we can think of several possible storylines.

One possibility is that the man was on the rooftop because he was desperate, desolate, and without means of escape. Sadly, millions of people in this powerful, wealthy country of ours find themselves in such circumstances. NPR’s Laura Sullivan reports, “After Hurricane Katrina, around 100,000 people were trapped inside New Orleans, unable to escape for days. The evacuation plans for the city fell apart even before the storm hit.” These were people who had nowhere to go and no means of transportation to go anywhere. They were people whom the system failed in the lead-up to the storm and had previously failed many times during their lives. Heart-wrenching stories emerged of people living on rooftops and in attics praying and hoping to be rescued in time. Although they were sometimes criticized for their “choice” to remain when they had been urged to evacuate, their choices were not the cause of their plight.

Many Americans have been failed by our health care system and are understandably distrustful of public health advice and mandates. Their skepticism and disdain for the medical profession is the result of a lifetime of having to choose between going to the doctor and buying food, between having necessary surgery and paying the rent. They’ve been denied access to first-rate facilities and limited to public clinics and VA centers. Why should those people believe anything they hear from the CDC, the WHO, or the highly credentialed doctor on their TV screens?

Like the New Orleans residents trapped without hope, some anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers deserve our understanding and compassion. Unlike the man on the rooftop, they may have ceased praying for rescue because their circumstances seem too hopeless even for God to remedy. Criticizing them would be akin to criticizing New Orleans residents who “chose” to ride out a deadly storm. Critics who appeal to God to make those “stubborn” folks do the right thing could do far more good by asking God where they might be of service in alleviating fears, dispensing information, gaining trust, offering transportation, and giving financial assistance.

A woman named Dorothy Oliver has made the news this week and become a national hero for persuading nearly everyone in her tiny town of Panola, Alabama, to be vaccinated. As of August 24, 2021, 94% of the 400 citizens of Panola had been vaccinated, including 100% of the citizens over the age of 65. Elizabeth Broadbent reports,

“Panola didn’t have a vaccination clinic. The nearest shot available was 39 miles away . . . and many residents of Panola don’t have cars. So she and Russ-Jackson [Drucilla Russ-Jackson, county commissioner] teamed up to bring a pop-up clinic to Panola. But they only agreed to come if Oliver had forty people willing to get the shot.” So Ms. Oliver started making phone calls, and she talked to everyone who came into her general store. Ms. Rush-Jackson explains her own involvement: “I just felt like I had to do it because the government, nobody does enough in this area. This area here is majority Black. Kind of puts you on the back burner. That’s just it. I mean, you don’t have to put nothing else with that. That’s just it. I don’t have to elaborate on that one.”

Although desperate, neglected populations might feel asking God for help is as futile as expecting help from a country that has ignored their existence, the best kind of prayer others can offer on those people’s behalf is “praying with the feet.” When my mother was teaching me “God helps those who help themselves,” she was showing me by her life that she believed God also helps those who help others. That’s a view of God I can believe in.

Not everyone can do what Dorothy Oliver did. The greater Seattle area is just a smidge larger than Panola, Alabama; but I can talk to people in my realm of acquaintance, and so can you. The herd can be won over, one person at a time.

Here’s a second possible storyline that brings our protagonist to the rooftop in desperation. As a long-time Floridian (now Washingtonian), I’ve lived through many hurricanes. The torturous lead-up to every named storm includes–among other things–full tracking information, reports of its strength, and predictions on where and when it may make landfall. Predicated on all of that information, various authorities issue warnings, advisories, and mandates. When advisories include evacuation orders, those orders always come with the caveat that people who choose to ignore the order and remain in their homes should not expect immediate assistance, because conditions may be too dangerous to send out rescue teams and active teams may have difficulty reaching people in time.

Perhaps our friend on the rooftop had warnings, could have avoided ending up where our story finds him, but decided to take his chances because he knew more than the experts; and besides, God would take care of him if things didn’t go as he hoped. One must wonder why he didn’t think of turning to God before the situation became dire. Why didn’t he ask God for guidance on how best to keep himself safe? Why didn’t he ask God to help him find a place to go and a means to get there? Why didn’t he ask God for wisdom in deciding which authorities and information he should trust? Why did he limit God to rescuing him in a crisis but not helping him avoid the crisis?

Every day during the current global disaster, this concept of God is on full display, especially among “freedom”-loving Americans. Wearing masks is unnecessary, because God will take care of me. Being vaccinated is dangerous; I’d rather trust God than medicine. Leaders who attempt to guide us through the crisis are the enemies because they’re frauds, perpetrators of a grand hoax, cannibalistic pedophiles, power-hungry dictators, and so on. I’d rather trust God than human leaders. Scientists are suspect because, because, because. Well, I’m not sure, but I’m going to trust God instead of scientists; God’s way is best. I hear it every day!

Another possible reason our rooftop friend is in danger is that he got his information from all the wrong sources and based his decisions on flawed data and opinions. His social media friends said the storm was no big deal and was being overhyped; he watched a few YouTube videos showing sunny skies and dry ground and accusing meteorologists of spreading fear. He scoffed at the idea of checking the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association) because it’s a government agency, and you can’t trust the government. And those people on CNN and MSNBC never tell the truth! All that stuff is based on science, and science is phony baloney. You can’t trust the media. Or science.

Surreal as it sounds, many of our fellow citizens have more confidence in treatments such as Ivermectin (a horse de-worming pill), hydroxychloroquine (an immunosuppressive drug used to treat malaria, lupus, and some forms of arthritis), bleach injections (never a good idea), and shining lights into one’s body cavities (also of no value except as an odd visual) than they have in vaccinations, monoclonal antibody treatment, and proven methods of prevention such as mask wearing. Their misplaced confidence is the direct result of watching Fox News, accepting disinformation found on social media, and trusting the half-baked opinions and conspiracy theories spouted by their anti-government and anti-science friends.

Apparently the god whom these people are trusting to keep them from harm when they are exposed to COVID doesn’t care about the stupid, careless, and irresponsible actions that place their lives in danger; this god will protect them from everything, including their own recklessness, and will perform magical healing when their ill-informed choices lead to the logical results. Never mind that the same God did not step in and intervene for the 630,000 folks who have already died. Their explanation for those deaths is that it was “just their time.” God didn’t fail them; God had simply decided eons ago that this is how their lives would end.

“Deus ex machina” is a phrase from the ancient Greek theater, where Euripedes and other playwrights delivered a god to the stage with the help of a crane–hence the Latin “deus ex machina,” or in English “god from the machine.” The god was delivered as the miraculous solution to a seemingly hopeless situation: a last-minute redemption by the divine, just when it seemed all hope had been lost. I prefer the God my mother taught me, the one who helps me help myself. Expecting God to rescue me from the results of my own carelessness and irresponsibility is careless and irresponsible.

As Thomas Paine wrote, and I have often quoted, “These are the times that try men’s [and women’s] souls.” Standing on a rooftop praying for help while ignoring all of the resources we already possess is not going to get us out of this crisis. Claiming our “right” to make our own decisions while ignoring the fact that every person’s freedom affects every other person’s freedom is not going to end the suffering. If you want to pray, pray with your feet and hands! You can start by putting on a damn mask and getting vaccinated.

Categories
Coronavirus, COVID-19 Politics

No Peeing in the Pool

Sorry to be so crass, but this is a crisis. COVID numbers are once again on the rise, just as we thought we were heading back toward some version of normal life. July has been a bad month for the virus, leaving Dr. Fauci saying “We’re going in the wrong direction.” Even Donald Trump’s surgeon general, Vice Admiral Dr. Jerome Adams, has sounded the alarm: The pandemic is “spiraling out of control again.” Adams attributes the surge to the fact that too few people have been vaccinated.

A few years back, when my now teenage grandsons were cute little preschoolers, one afternoon I took them to the local kiddie pool, where we had gone many times before. This day, we walked up to the gate only to find it locked, with a sign expressing regrets that the pool had to be closed for the rest of the day. We couldn’t imagine why the pool would be closed during normal operating hours on a beautiful summer afternoon. But then, returning to our car, we met a father and son who filled us in. There had been a birthday party just a little earlier during which one of the guests had not only done a little #1 in the pool but had done the dreaded #2 as well. Emergency! Pool closed!

There’s a metaphor developing here. One might ask why the pool staff couldn’t have simply scooped out the offending material and gone on with business. It was, after all, just one small heap in a large body of water. What could possibly go wrong? Or one could ask why they didn’t simply rope off the small area where the accident occurred and allow swimmers to enjoy the rest of the pool. One might just as well ask why pool managers post “Don’t pee in the pool” signs in the first place. Couldn’t they rope off a designated peeing section where swimmers could relieve themselves without contaminating the whole pool? The answers to these questions are too obvious to merit discussion. What happens in Vegas may (or may not) stay in Vegas, but what happens in one part of the pool does not stay in that part of the pool. It contaminates the entire body.

And that brings us to several groups whose reluctance to protect themselves and the “herd” are causing this latest crisis. As of this date, fewer than half of all Americans have been fully vaccinated; even allowing for the millions of children who are not yet eligible, we are still far short of the number needed to achieve the long-hoped-for herd immunity.

According to CNN’s Travis Caldwell, Holly Yan, and Dakin Andone–on Sunday, July 25–in 48 states, the rate of new cases in the past week jumped by at least 10% compared to the previous week; in 34 of those states, the increase was more than 50%. Southern California–including San Diego and Los Angeles–is experiencing the highest numbers they’ve seen since February, and hospitalizations in LA County more than doubled in a two-week period in July, topping 700 for the first time since March.

It’s been well established that this latest surge is caused by the Delta variant of the virus, which is the most transmissible version we’ve seen yet. This phase has been given the label “Pandemic of the Unvaccinated, because at least 83% of new cases and 97% of hospitalizations are unvaccinated people (University of Massachusetts Medical School). There have been a small number of “breakthrough infections” among the fully vaccinated; but the cases have been mild, have not required hospitalization, and have not caused death. Conclusion: The vaccines are working.

Americans are known around the world for our rugged individualism; unlike citizens of other countries, notably Asian cultures, our first concern is rarely for the collective body. We pride ourselves on being hardy, independent, and self-sufficient; and many Americans are far more focused on their “rights” than on the responsibilities associated with those rights.

Then there are the libertarians who, as the name suggests, value liberty above all else and who believe people allowed to choose for themselves can be trusted to do right things and act in the best interest of themselves and their fellow citizens. That deeply misguided notion could be debunked by a quick study of human psychology and world history.

The Cato Institute denies that libertarians, despite their fierce insistence on personal choice, have no concern for the effects of their individual actions on others. Their website offers this description:

“To protect rights, individuals form governments. But government is a dangerous institution. Libertarians have a great antipathy to concentrated power, for as Lord Acton said, ‘Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ Thus they want to divide and limit power, and that means especially to limit government. . . . Limited government is the basic political implication of libertarianism.”

Although not everyone who advocates limited government and expresses antipathy toward government calls themselves “libertarian,” suspicion and distrust of government has grown exponentially in my lifetime. The dominant argument of the gun slingers who resist even small, common-sense changes in gun legislation is that if the government takes away any portion of the freedom to own firearms, the populace will be left defenseless in the case of attack by the government.

Next in line is the God-will-take-care-of-me group. I’m not disparaging anyone’s faith or religious practice, just saying certain people may need to examine their beliefs a bit more deeply. Those who believe all they need is God to protect them against a deadly virus should ask themselves whether God loves them more than God loved the 650,000 people who have already died. My high school classmate John was a good man and a beloved husband, father, grandfather, and great grandfather. Does John’s death from COVID mean God didn’t care about him or that John was not worthy of God’s protection? No.

Since diseases don’t recognize social status or personal virtue, even the best and most powerful are as much at risk as the most evil or powerless. President Abraham Lincoln, widely regarded as our best president and a fine example of morality and honor, lost three of his four sons to disease during their childhood and teen years. One son, Willie, died at age 11, during Lincoln’s presidency, of typhoid fever believed to have been contracted from contaminated water that because of the Civil War then supplied the White House. If Honest Abe didn’t earn divine intervention or immunity from suffering, that doesn’t bode well for my chances.

And these days we can never forget the conspiracy theorists. Many who are refusing vaccination are convinced the government is using a public health crisis as a venue for carrying out such nefarious operations as injecting us all with tracking chips, stealing our DNA, and making people magnetic. If that sounds more like the plot for a science fiction movie, welcome to the 21st century!

Evangelicals were a relatively quiet, low-profile group until President Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) “put liberal aspects of his Baptist tradition front and center, whether appealing for racial equality, lamenting economic disparity or making human rights concerns integral to American foreign policy” (Clyde Haberman, New York Times, 28 Oct 2018). Mr. Haberman attributes Carter’s replacement by Ronald Reagan in 1980 to Carter’s fellow evangelicals’ displeasure with his liberal agenda. Their disillusionment with President Carter led evangelicals to put their considerable clout behind Ronald Reagan, also a professed Christian, even though Reagan’s lifestyle–“twice-married, alienated from his children, almost never attended church”–“flew counter to much of what they considered elements of an upright life.”

The contemporaneous birth of Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, with its anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality agenda, according to Mr. Haberman made the late 1970s a pivot point for the evangelical voice in American politics. Since then, they have become the most powerful voting bloc in the Republican Party. Also known for their anti-science point of view, their opposition to vaccines should surprise no one.

The last group is less distinct but among the most powerful: those in whom the tribal mentality is most deeply ingrained. Dr. Zeke Emanuel, speaking to MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell on July 26, sadly informed viewers that only 9% of U.S. hospitals have fully vaccinated staffs, because according to Dr. Emanuel, health care workers are subject to the same disinformation being promulgated among society at large. The divide between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, according to the doctor, has created an in-group/out-group environment in which either having or not having received one’s inoculation to COVID constitutes a “badge of honor” which identifies people with their respective tribes. Absurd as that sounds, it’s a powerful force not easily overcome by facts and logic.

Here’s the problem with all of those who believe vaccination should be a personal choice: They’re peeing in the pool. Remember the old seating arrangement in restaurants: smoking and non-smoking sections? I do. No matter where one was seated in a large room with no solid dividers, some smoke was bound to reach one’s nostrils, and being seated in the last row of the non-smoking section–directly beside the first row of the smoking section–was the same as sitting in the smoking section. There’s a reason restaurant managers no longer use that system. Everyone within an enclosed space breathes the same air, and everyone in the pool is swimming in the same water, because neither air nor water can create its own barrier.

My fully vaccinated status took effect on April 12. I received my two injections of the Moderna vaccine on March 1 and March 29, so April 12 was the end of the two-week post-injection period. According to the CDC and Washington State guidelines, I can now be with other fully vaccinated people, I can travel, and I can shop or eat at restaurants without wearing a mask. And for several weeks, I enjoyed those freedoms; but now, I’m becoming more wary, am more likely to don the mask even when I’m not required. During a shopping trip on Sunday, July 25, I saw more of my fellow Washingtonians masked up than I had seen in several weeks.

Thanks to the half of Americans who foolishly believe their choice to decline the vaccine affects only themselves, it’s highly likely that I will soon have no choice about whether I go out without a mask, travel, or maybe even go all the way back to quarantine. Although the small number of breakthrough infections for vaccinated people have been mild and have not resulted in hospitalization or death, a vaccinated person infected with COVID is capable of transmitting the virus to others. Breaking news: A headline in today’s New York Times says the CDC is likely to announce later (July 27) today a reversal in its mask guidelines, requiring fully vaccinated people to mask up again. Thanks a lot, vaccine rebels!

I want to be clear that I have no objection to mask mandates; I have willingly worn a mask for the last almost year and a half, and I’ll willingly do it again. I simply resent the fact that uninformed, misinformed, and obstinate people are stopping the progress that would be a benefit to us all.

I respect those who are hesitant to receive a vaccine because they fear medical issues may result, but I encourage those people to pro-actively seek answers to their questions instead of simply holding onto their fears while they impede progress. A family member who was recently diagnosed with fibrosis asked her doctor whether that diagnosis should prohibit her from being vaccinated; the doctor firmly replied: “Well, do you want to have fibrosis AND COVID or just fibrosis?” That family member has now received her first dose and will soon receive the second. She’s smart. She sought professional advice and then followed that advice.

The simple fact is vaccines work. I bear on my left arm the faint remains of the scar left by the smallpox vaccination I received at age 6. At the time, no one was permitted to enter first grade without that scar; it was the “vaccine passport” of the day. U.S. doctors stopped routinely giving smallpox vaccines in 1980 because smallpox had been eradicated from the world. Smallpox went from being “one of history’s deadliest diseases . . . estimated to have killed more than 300 million people since 1900 alone” (American Museum of Natural History) to fully eradicated within a few decades.

The Immunization Action Coalition says, “Eradicating smallpox prevented millions of deaths and—by removing the need to treat and prevent the disease—saves many countries billions of dollars. Perhaps just as important: it showed the world that disease eradication was possible.”

Polio, another dreaded disease responsible for killing and permanently disabling millions of Americans–including one U.S. President–began its decline in 1955 with the introduction of an effective vaccine, and the U.S. has been polio-free since 1979, according to the CDC. Polio cannot be cured, only prevented; so millions of people are able to walk today and millions more lived to become adults because a vaccine prevented them from getting polio.

Parents no longer live in fear of losing their young children to measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (whooping cough) because vaccinations for those child-killing diseases have been a routine part of infant care for decades. Yellow fever, HPV, Hepatitis, influenza, and Ebola have also been controlled by vaccination.

French president Emmanuel Macron announced on July 12 that he is “putting in restrictions on the non-vaccinated rather than on everyone.” Those restrictions include being denied access to eateries, cinemas, museums, and public transportation without proof of vaccination. The alternative is to show a negative test result, but that test will no longer be free; it will cost 49 euros. Additional mandates include required vaccination for health care workers and others who have close contact with clients.

Talk of vaccine passports has raised eyebrows and tempers, but vaccine mandates are not new. The smallpox vaccine was required for my fellow first graders and me to start school. I had to show vaccination records for my children as part of their kindergarten entrance requirements. To be admitted to Florida Gulf Coast University, my daughter was required to have a vaccination which had not been among the routine shots given when she was a baby and toddler. Yet I can’t recall any examples of those vaccination requirements becoming political issues.

Bottom line is we’re all swimming in the same pool, so those who choose to exercise their freedom by making careless or irresponsible choices contaminate the water for all of us. John Donne may have put it a bit more eloquently when he wrote “No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main[land],” but the simple, clear message from vaccinated Americans to vaccination resisters is “Stop peeing in the pool.”



		


	


	

		
		


			

		


		
	


	






	



	


		
			

				
					Categories				
				

					Uncategorized				

			


			
The Bigger the Lie

		


			

		


		
	





	


		


			

Nothing will turn this typically calm, mild-mannered grandma into a raging lunatic faster than knowing I’ve been lied to. I told my children often, when they were still in my home, that their lives would be far more pleasant if they always told me the truth, because–contrary to Colonel Jessup’s statement (by Jack Nicholson’s character in A Few Good Men)–I can handle the truth. What I can’t handle is knowing I’ve been deceived, or at least knowing someone has attempted to deceive me; and a lie that insults my intelligence by assuming I might believe a transparent falsehood is kerosene on the fire.





Years ago, I was stood up for a blind date (I know, I can’t believe it either). When I contacted the man whom I was supposed to have met for coffee at a Starbuck’s to see if perhaps he might be delayed by traffic, he told me he was actually there but that we must have missed each other. In Starbuck’s. We’re not talking about a Barnes and Noble that included a coffee shop, where it might be possible for someone to be obscured behind a large stack of books; this was just a coffee shop, the whole of which could have been photographed in a single frame. Starbuck’s. I can’t describe to you the rage I felt, NOT because he didn’t show up (I didn’t even know him) but because he assumed I was stupid enough to believe such a lame explanation. He asked if I’d like to reschedule. Bet you can guess my answer to that question.





But enough about me. I have learned in recent years that not everyone shares my fanatical aversion to lies; in fact, many have an equally vehement aversion to the truth. I can’t deny that truth can be painful, embarrassing, disillusioning, and frightening. Revealing a long-kept secret brings fear of exposure and possibly retribution. A comfortable lie makes a much softer bed than an unbearable truth, and the liar who provides the “alternative facts” with which to make that comfy bed is a hero, not a villain. Why are so many people so willing to believe lies? Because they’re easier to live with than the truth. It’s that simple.





Colonel Jessup’s now cliched line “You can’t handle the truth” is delivered as the introduction to a full-blown tirade in response to insistence by Lieutenant Junior Grade Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) that Jessup tell the truth about whether he ordered a Code Red which resulted in the death of PFC William Santiago. Jessup, commander of a “forward area” (at the border between two enemy countries), angrily spews the words:





“Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know — that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall — you need me on that wall.
We use words like “honor,” “code,” “loyalty.” We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.
I would rather that you just said “thank you” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post. Either way, I don’t give a DAMN what you think you’re entitled to!”





Colonel Jessup bares the painful truth that civilian values–“honor,” “code,” “loyalty”–don’t always hold up in circumstances which most of us never have to face, that dirty jobs may require dirty tactics. I say this not to justify those tactics but to make a couple of points about truth: It’s not always black and white; and when it threatens the worldview by which we’ve lived our lives, we’d often prefer to live in the shade of a lie than to face the blinding light of truth. As long as we can relegate the dirty jobs to special forces who keep their dirty secrets to themselves and whom we can self-righteously “thank for their service” when we pass them in airports, we can accept that “blanket of freedom” they provide while closing our eyes to the truth of how they provide it.





Could that be what Fleetwood Mac had in mind when they sang “Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies”? What other “sweet little lies” mask the bitter truth of existence? I think we’ve all accepted a few, and possibly most of us have told one or two.





I was raised in an evangelical religious tradition. I long ago left that tradition; yet even when change is so obviously the right choice, it’s never easy. In this case, it meant having to acknowledge the fact that much of what I’d been taught and had believed up to that time was a lie. It meant separating myself philosophically from loved ones, people who had been the bedrock of my life, and facing their judgment for having “fallen,” for straying from the straight and narrow path. Yes, the truth has set me free, but at a price.





When was the last time you turned on the news or looked at a news website without seeing or hearing the term Critical Race Theory? May I just inject here that liberals excel at giving dumb names which obscure the problem and cause so much confusion, it’s hard to know what to believe (defunding the police, critical race theory); but that’s a subject for another essay. Dumb names aside, though, why is it so difficult for so many to accept the basic truth that our founders and our ancestors created a system of government with baked-in inequities which have led to centuries of systemic injustice? Why are those who prefer to believe the lie so contentious and defensive in their opposition? What does anyone have to lose by accepting the truth?





Actually, they have a few things to lose. As in my leaving the evangelical tradition of my youth, acknowledging systemic injustice requires accepting the idea that much of what our teachers taught us about our country–the basis for our patriotism–was either a lie or a very enhanced or twisted version of the facts. Letting go of the beliefs of a lifetime is hard; for some, the disillusionment is simply too big an obstacle. That disillusionment applies not only to the stories themselves but to the story tellers: the parents and teachers we revere were the purveyors of those lies, another bitter fact to swallow. Then there’s the reality that accepting truth means having to act on it. Denying the existence of systemic injustice allows the deniers to remain in their comfortable, lazy indifference. It’s so much easier to scoff at uncomfortable truths and accept the comfortable lie than to do the hard work of accepting responsibility for helping to rectify the problem once one has admitted it. Added together, these things represent an overwhelming loss.





On January 6, 2021, our nation experienced one of the most devastating attacks in our history: the desecration of our Capitol building and the beating, maiming, and murder of capitol police officers. If action had not finally been taken to stop the vicious mob, we may have witnessed the hanging death of our vice president and murder of the House Speaker. Every member of Congress found their life in grave danger that day. Yet, even after spending the day hiding in terror, 147 representatives and senators voted to give the rioters exactly what they demanded: overturning the results of a lawful election. Most of that same cowardly lot have since voted against forming a commission to investigate the events of that day and bring justice to those who tried to kill them and attempted to overthrow our government.





How on earth could anyone believe the lie that these were just “typical tourists,” “great people,” “people having a love fest with the police”? Even more incredible, how could the mob’s targets, who themselves might have been murdered, support and spread the lie? How could the truth possibly be harder to swallow than such an egregious lie? How could leaders such as Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy initially speak the truth about the event, then retreat into their web of lies?





No one can know the full answers to those questions, but it seems pretty clear to most intelligent people that Mr. McConnell and Mr. McCarthy long ago sold whatever souls they may have had to gain political power and they’re willing to continually dig the moral crater deeper and wider to hold onto their positions–their constituents’ wishes and welfare be damned! A twice-impeached “president” who told more than 30,000 documented lies in a mere four years is such a beacon of truth for a large percentage of the U.S. population that anyone who needs the votes of that “base” to secure their own reelection must become complicit in the lie.





Then there’s the question of what the hell that big segment of the population is thinking that makes them continue to support a serial liar who uses them only for his personal gain. But the speculation on that would already fill volumes, and it’s a question on which historians will opine for the next century at least.





When Pontius Pilate posed the famous question “What is truth?” he couldn’t have foreseen how convoluted that subject could become. Today, I think “truth” is whatever one chooses to believe; and that choice is predicated on personal comfort and gain. I know that oversimplifies, but it’s a place to start.





Joe Biden didn’t really win the 2020 election. The world is run by a cabal of Democratic pedophiles (QAnon). The mob that attacked the Capitol were peace-loving tourists. Placing reasonable restrictions on the sale of guns won’t stop mass shootings. Obama’s coming to get your guns. You can’t trust what your own senses tell you. These lies are about as transparent and insulting as “I guess we just missed each other in that little Starbuck’s,” yet millions of people believe each one with the same fervor they accord their faith. “God, guns, and country” seem a mismatched combination to most of us; but to some, they are foundational life principles.





Why? Lies are easy, lies are powerful, and lies often create communities. Cult members and QAnon followers find friendship and security in the group of likeminded believers. Truth can form that same sense of community, but people eager to believe lies have an entirely different set of needs.





According to Tim Bessett, in a 1993 article published in the Baltimore Sun, the answer to the persistent question of why people join cults is this: “The answer is simple enough. People join cults because they’re looking for love and acceptance and because they want answers to the personal problems in their lives.” Mr. Bessett goes on to explain that most cult joiners carry deep emotional scars which they have searched in vain to find more socially acceptable ways to soothe and heal. Their desperation to find inner peace is so great that they will go to unthinkable lengths to secure the sense of normalcy and of a supportive family atmosphere which they so deeply crave. As long as they are in the presence of likeminded sufferers, they are normal and sane. It’s only contact with outsiders that disturbs the equilibrium created by the group. It should be obvious, then, why attempts by those “outsiders” to convince the cultist of the pathology in their thinking is never effective.





The old saying “A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on” is an apt metaphor for the power of lies to control the masses. Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels is typically credited for this statement, though its actual origin is in doubt:





“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”





The bigger the lie the more convincing it is, the more convincing it is the greater the number of people who will be deceived by it, and the greater the number of people deceived the smaller the chance for disproving the lie and restoring truth and sanity. The higher the position of authority held by the liar the more persuasive and powerful the lie and the rewards for believing it. Truth fights a lonely battle, and at critical points in human history, truth has suffered devastating defeats. May this not be one of those times.


		


	


	

		
	


	






	



	


		
			

				
					Categories				
				

					Politics				

			


			
There’s More People Now!

		


			

		


		
	





	


		


			

Arthur Miller’s iconic character Willy Loman, in the play Death of a Salesman, lives out before the audience the last 24 hours of his unraveling life–a life that has been filled with disappointment and unfulfilled dreams. In a conversation with Linda, his long-suffering and enabling wife, Willy complains:





“The way they boxed us in here. Bricks and windows, windows and bricks. The street is lined with cars. There’s not a breath of fresh air in the neighborhood. The grass don’t grow any more, you can’t raise a carrot in the back yard. They should’ve had a law against apartment houses.”





Linda protests, “Well, after all, people had to move somewhere,” to which Willy–increasingly agitated–responds, “No, there’s more people now.” When Linda contradicts with “I don’t think there’s more people,” Willy erupts:





“There’s more people! That’s what’s ruining this country! Population is getting out of control. The competition is maddening!”





I recently read Irving Stone’s historical novel Those Who Love, about the lives of John and Abigail Adams, which led my thoughts back to the question of how our country’s–and our world’s–vastly expanded population changes how we live and the privileges and responsibilities we have as citizens.





For perspective, here are some numbers. In 1787, our Constitution was ratified; and three years later, in 1790, the first U.S. Census was conducted. The official population count at that time was 3,929,214; in 1949, the number was just over 149 million; and in 2021, the United States is home to over 331 million people. That means, in the 230+ years since our country’s founding, the population has grown to just over 84 times larger than it was in the beginning.





In 1790, the five largest U. S. cities were New York (33,131), Philadelphia (28,522), Boston (18,320), Charleston (16,359), and Baltimore (13,503). According to my handy calculator, the combined populations of those five cities is 109, 835. In 2021, New York City is home to a walloping 8,550,405; Philadelphia, 5,734,000; Boston, 4,315,000; Charleston, 421,774; and Baltimore, 2,333,000. Grabbing the calculator again, that’s a total of 21,354,179–or an increase of almost 195 times. Charleston, no longer even ranked among the country’s largest cities, is now home to nearly four times as many people as all five of 1790’s largest cities were. In fact, my tiny hometown Troy, Ohio–with its 2020 population of 26,739–is larger than four of the five largest cities in the country in 1790.





So at this stage you must be wondering, “Okay, but what’s your point?” Well, for one, a Constitution that was written for thirteen states, with a total head count of 3,929,214, now has to be applied to fifty states bursting with 331,000,000 people. Laws and customs meant to insure order and tranquility among a small number of humans spread out over a large continent must now be stretched to govern densely populated cities where as Willy Loman laments “There’s not a breath of fresh air.”





Imagine yourself at a buffet loaded with an abundance of delicious-looking foods. You take a quick glance around and discover you are one of only six people who will share this bounty. You each could eat your fill, and beyond, and have leftovers enough to do it again tomorrow and maybe the next day. Now picture the same amount of food to be shared by twenty people, now fifty. As the number grows but the resources remain the same, different considerations apply. Although six people might just stuff themselves into a food coma, twenty or fifty would have to calculate their fair share. Restraint, respect, and possibly a little sacrifice would have to be exercised.





Now go back to the comparison between the 2021 and 1790 census counts: 331,000,000 vs 3,929,214, and remember that’s a ratio of over 84:1. For every one person fighting for social and professional recognition in 1790, there are now 84 people; for every person using Earth’s resources then, we have 84 now; for every right granted to one person, we’re now granting that same right to 84 people. Cities are larger, there’s far less open territory, and the year of COVID has demonstrated what can happen to supply chains when an unexpected disaster occurs.





I recently made a trip to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and was awestruck by the magnificence of Nature’s creations and by the immense power just beneath the surface that has the potential to change the whole face of that area in one moment. Yellowstone sits on top of a volcano, which has the whole place simmering like a pot of soup all the time. Old Faithful is the most well known of the many geysers in the park but only one of many, not to mention “mud pots,” steam holes, and other geothermic features. Watching Old Faithful erupt is breathtaking but also a reminder of how little control humans have over Nature.





Many scoff at the concept that humans must respect their use of the planet and be conscious of individual carbon footprints, and perhaps in 1790, people didn’t need to know much about such things; but because this is not 1790, and because there are now 84 times as many carbon footprints wreaking havoc on Earth’s fragile ecosystem, we absolutely must be conscious and careful consumers of Earth’s resources. Anyone who’s ever moved into a home or apartment after a previous resident has trashed the place knows what it takes to make the home livable again; if we trash the whole planet by our selfishness and greed, no amount of “remodeling” will put it back together. If our carelessness and selfishness change the climate and therefore the entire infrastructure, the results can’t even be fully predicted. Each of us is a tenant of this small planet for only a brief moment in time, and not one of us has the right to leave the place in a diminished condition.





Poet Ezra Pound wrote a haiku titled “In a Station of the Metro,” which for me has always evoked an image of life in the 20th and now 21st centuries:





“The apparition of these faces in the crowd:
Petals on a wet, black bough.”





In the days when the largest U.S. cities were smaller than our current small towns, individual citizens had opportunities to know a larger percentage of their neighbors; and there were fewer strangers to fear, a narrower range of opinions on civic matters, less competition for jobs and positions, more opportunities to stand out of the crowd and to distinguish themselves. In other words, meeting what Abraham Maslow called their “belonging” needs (level 3 in his hierarchy) and “esteem” needs (level 4) was a whole lot easier in 1790. It was not easy, of course, and not everyone found satisfaction for those needs, but there was far less stress and less competition then than now.





By 1913 when Ezra Pound wrote “In a Station of the Metro,” his image of “apparitions” (ghosts or ghostlike images) must have resonated with a generation in which the world was about to explode into its first worldwide war and in which finding a place to belong and to stand out had just gotten much more difficult. Now, 108 years later, Pound’s images are even more compelling. How many citizens today feel faceless and meaningless, like beautiful petals–their individual colors, shapes, and fragrances so fragile and fleeting–made transparent against the dark branch from which they grew.





What might people do to find the significance and meaningful existence they crave? Might they align themselves with a reality-TV star bent on destroying our democracy to feel they are part of something greater than themselves, to know what it means to be part of a powerful inner circle? Might they latch onto the most outlandish conspiracy theories if doing so made them feel they were the ones “in the know,” superior to those pathetic sheeple who believe what scientists and other suspicious sources tell them to believe? Might they join a mob that would attack our nation’s capitol intent on overturning the results of a fair election just to know the heady feeling of power and control that would result from literally shitting on the seat of the government which they feel has left them out?





Americans’ concern for their personal rights could “rightly” be called an obsession, and guarding one’s personal freedoms is a good thing so long as every person remains aware that each one of the 331,000,000 who currently call this country home is entitled to the same freedoms and rights. As a young person, I often heard the saying “Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.” The 33,131 citizens of 1790 New York City might swing their arms all day long without coming near another person’s nose. On today’s crowded NYC streets, however, the 8,550,405 New Yorkers can barely reach for the crossing button at a street corner without touching another human.





With greater numbers comes greater diversity and the necessity for a paradigm shift in our attitudes toward equality and individual rights. Purging outdated ideas of “normal” is a starting point. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of our population classified as “White only” (not Hispanic or Latino) was about 60% in 2020. Also from the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of Whites in the 1790 population was 80.7%, and that percentage increased steadily until it reached its peak in 1940 (89.8%) but has been declining every decade since 1940.





Racial and ethnic origin is, of course, not the only way in which the U.S. has become a more diverse nation. Ideas and practices have changed on everything from gender identity to marriage norms to women’s roles to religious affiliation and much more. In Irving Stone’s historical novel about John and Abigail Adams, the narrator often mentions the custom of the “holy walk,” practiced in the 1700s in cities both large and small. People would join their neighbors in Sunday morning community strolls toward their places of worship. Today, there is no such unity of thought about religious beliefs or church attendance. Growing up in a small town, I knew two women who we thought “might be” Lesbians. Today, I have many gay and Lesbian friends and have had numerous gay and Lesbian students. Applications and information forms used to offer two choices for gender: male and female; today’s forms have extended that list to four, five, or six choices, including “prefer not to say.”





One approach to living in a larger, more diverse population is to panic over one’s diminishing racial supremacy, loss of status, and lack of control. Such an approach might include creating a political party which recognizes only straight, white men; acknowledges only what the party regards as a “traditional” identity and lifestyle; advocates outlawing further watering down of the white majority; and restricts the rights of those who don’t fit their narrow definition of normal and acceptable. That party might also tie their rigid ideals to religious precepts to gain the benefit of appearing to be in alliance with God and claim to have the powers of the universe behind their corrupt purposes.





Dehumanizing “the other” is a strategy as old as humanity itself. Any time one person or people group has wanted to dominate or eliminate another group, they’ve simply declared the unwanted group a lesser species. Hitler did it, American slave owners did it, colonizers who found Native Americans a deterrent to accomplishing their goals did it. Certain Americans of the 21st century are doing it to immigrants, women, people of color, LGBTQ people. If their lives can be deemed of lesser value, taking away their rights can be justified–to some minds.





How does all of this change our responsibility as citizens? I’m not part of that political party which supports white supremacy; I respect my fellow citizens of all races and ethnicities, national origins, sexual and gender identities, and religious beliefs; I do my best to help others, to show kindness and compassion to all. But I can’t stop there.





The luxury of being a good person but uninvolved citizen is one no longer available to responsible people. Casting our votes, then trusting elected officials to do their jobs while we go on about our daily lives is not an option.





Darnella Frazier, the teen who filmed George Floyd’s murder with her cell phone camera when all she had intended to do at that moment was walk down the street to Cup Foods–something she had done “hundreds, maybe thousands of times”–took action when she saw an injustice being committed. If not for her cell phone video, the world might never have known exactly how George Floyd died and his murderer might have been released to harm others. Ms. Frazier made the statement:





“Even though this was a traumatic life-changing experience for me, I’m proud of myself. If it weren’t for my video, the world wouldn’t have known the truth. I own that. My video didn’t save George Floyd, but it put his murderer away and off the streets.”





At 18 years old, Ms. Frazier is now the recipient of a Special Pulitzer Award for her courage and responsibility.





Before February 2018, few people outside Parkland, Florida, had ever heard of Emma Gonzalez or David Hogg; now everyone knows who they are. Google them and you’ll find “American Activist” just below their names. These two young people survived the horrific mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, then turned their grief and anger into action, becoming highly vocal advocates for gun reform. They have led high-profile marches and protests, given numerous media interviews, and were (along with three of their fellow students) included on Time Magazine’s 2018 list “Time 100: The Most Influential People.”





Congressman and civil rights activist John Lewis put it this way:





“When you see something that is not right, not fair, not just, you have to speak up. You have to say something; you have to do something.”





These young people, along with many others, saw something that wasn’t right, they said something, and they did something. No one of any generation has a right to do otherwise. “There’s more people now,” and that means more problems, a broader range of ideas, and the need for more understanding and the responsibility to take action. And it also means there is a place for everyone–all 331,000,000 of us! Elected officials are appointed to lead us, not to do all of our thinking and our work for us. Their job is to represent us; our job is to hold them accountable.





“There’s more people now.” It’s easy to fall into a feeling of meaninglessness, worthlessness, like those “apparitions in the crowd” Ezra Pound wrote about. It’s understandable to fear the loss of rights and freedom, but guarding those rights and freedoms means doing more than just complaining or trying to compensate by taking away the rights and freedoms of others. John Lewis perfectly described our duties as citizens in a global, diverse culture:





“Freedom is not a state; it is an act. It is not some enchanted garden perched high on a distant plateau where we can finally sit down and rest. Freedom is the continuous action we all must take, and each generation must do its part to create an even more fair, more just society.”


		


	


	

		
	


	






	



	


		
			

				
					Categories				
				

					Uncategorized				

			


			
United We Fall

		


			

		


		
	





	


		


			

“United we stand, divided we fall” is a saying which dates back to Aesop’s fables and which is often reiterated in times when national security seems most fragile. Patrick Henry used it in one of his last public speeches, given in March 1799: 





“Let us trust God, and our better judgment to set us right hereafter. United we stand, divided we fall. Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs.” 





Abraham Lincoln, in a speech he gave on June 16, 1858, after accepting the Republican Party’s nomination to be U.S. senator representing Illinois, famously said:





 “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided.”





Unity among people groups–families, nations, world alliances–is a state greatly to be desired, but when the price of unity is accepting or ignoring injustice or when uniting around flawed principles endangers the integrity of the group, more courage is required to stand against evil–even if it means standing alone–than to simply align oneself with wrong ideas just for the sake of eliminating division.





The current state of our union is that we are clearly a house divided against itself, perhaps more so than at any other time in our history, except the period leading to the Civil War. Differences which may in other times have been resolved by compromise or reason are now deeply ingrained and neither side is willing to yield ground or listen to reason. Where there used to be areas of life and governance that were apolitical, now everything from mask wearing to being vaccinated against a deadly virus to the FBI and Department of Justice is politicized and weaponized by warring sides to support and further their political agendas.





Current calls for unity and bipartisanship are naïve and futile. Our two major political parties, and the people who belong to them, have no common ground on which to meet–even if the sides could produce reasonable arguments and show a desire to reach consensus.





President Biden, in his inaugural address, said:





“Many centuries ago, Saint Augustine, a saint of my church, wrote that a people was a multitude defined by the common objects of their love.”





He went on to ask, “What are the common objects we love that define us as Americans?”





Answering his own question, he listed “Opportunity, security, liberty, dignity, respect, honor, and truth.” With much respect to the President, I would dispute that last item on the list: “truth.” Far from being a shared value, the willingness of many to believe the most outrageous lies and ally themselves with the liars has done more to imperil our unity and our democracy than almost anything else in our history. As for “liberty, dignity, respect, honor,” we do share those values but unfortunately don’t share the desire to see them equally applied to all citizens.





Joe Manchin, Democratic Senator from West Virginia, has dominated the daily news cycle of late for his refusal to support his own party’s legislative agenda because the Republican Party doesn’t support it and he says he feels compelled to hold out for bipartisan agreement. Dismissing for the moment his fatally flawed logic, anyone waiting for agreement in Washington D.C. had better be prepared for a long intermission.





The divides in national thought have widened from gaps to vast chasms. One may as well try to build a physical bridge across the Pacific Ocean as to build a bridge of consensus between our two political parties. Democrats have, I think, the right thinking on many issues; but their calls for unity fall flat because they can’t stop saying dumb things: “defunding the police” (which never meant doing away with police departments), “wokeness,” “cancel culture,” and “identity politics” only provide fodder for their conservative opponents and do nothing to bring the sides closer together. Then Democrats whine because people misunderstand what they’re saying, and my advice to them is “Then say what you mean! Be in charge of your own message.” Oh, and I’d add “DUH.”





Conservatives today are proudly anti-intellectual; Democrats’ ignoring that fact and continuing to make arguments bound to be scoffed at is, well, dumb. I know I already used that word once, but it needs repeating. Having noble ideas and goals is worthless when half one’s fellow legislators and constituents don’t respect those ideas and consider the goals more nefarious than noble. Unity requires finding common ground, not standing one’s own ground and blaming the other side for not “getting it.”





The Republican position in the current divide is far more complex. Today’s GOP is rife with  conspiracy theories, white supremacy, attempts at voter suppression, refusal to protect citizens by passing reasonable gun legislation, gerrymandering, casting doubt on the legitimacy of elections whose outcomes don’t suit them, tying their beliefs and positions to religion in a way which precludes rebuttal, and supporting a twice-impeached mob boss who incited the most  deadly domestic attack on our nation’s capitol in its history.





What would unity or bipartisanship look like with that group? It might look a great deal like “peace at any cost” or selling out one’s own principles for the sake of trying to build a bridge. Battles are seldom won by simply putting aside differences, joining hands, and singing a round of “kum ba yah.” Often, history’s heroes are those who have the courage to stand apart until the conditions for unity have been met.





Among other reasons for the width and depth of the current divides is that political passion has been infused with religious fervor. Republicans are more overt in their conflating political platforms with religious convictions, but Democrats’ unwillingness to accept any deviation from their stance also smacks of devotion to religious beliefs. While Republicans carry crosses and gather for prayer when executing a murderous terrorist attack on our capitol, Democrats are prone to “cancel” those who question accepted positions or who wish to consider any deviations.





In a guest essay from today’s New York Times, Dr. Molly Worthen cites the fact that American church attendance and the tendency of Americans to find “answers about the meaning of life” in church has steadily declined. Yet she says those “old spiritual cravings” still exist and that people still “hunger for a sense of control over their destinies and reassurance that they’re on the side of good against evil.” She quotes Catholic philosopher Charles Taylor in his “Sources of the Self”: “The aspiration to fullness can be met . . . by connecting one’s life up with some greater reality or story.”





Each side, though not at all equal in the effects of their politico-religious zeal, find a sense of righteousness and fulfillment in adopting the beliefs and lifestyle of the party or movement they have chosen to join. That fact alone prohibits many from being willing to respect opposing views and acknowledge that there may be some truth outside their own narrow perspective. Religious or pseudo-religious beliefs are the hardest to refute and the hardest to compromise for a number of reasons. Obviously, letting go of any point of view with a God element feels like a falling from faith; and since such beliefs are accepted without hard evidence in the first place, all the hard evidence in the world is not going to change them.





In 2021, as in 1861, we’re too far apart to simply shake hands and “let bygones be bygones.” We are at war; but the battlefields are Congress, the Internet, election campaigns, media outlets, neighborhoods, and families.





The time for unity is not yet; right now is a time for courage, for standing strong against injustice. At this juncture in our history as a people, we may need to say “Divided we can find a place to stand, united we fall.” To be clear, unity should be our long-term goal, but we have a lot of work to do to find a place to stand where everyone is equal and receives equal justice under the law.





Look again at President Lincoln’s words:





 “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided.”





Lincoln seems to recognize that the division which was threatening our nation was not going to end instantly and that there would not be a quick and painless solution. Facing controversies, finding root causes, having hard conversations, crafting legislation, convincing others to unite around right ideas and to create common ground take time. For the people of the 1860s, beginning to bring justice to the enslaved people among us happened only after a deadly war. May that not be the case in the 2020s.





Few people have been more often quoted than Martin Luther King Jr., and few people have worked more diligently and tirelessly for unity than he did during his relatively short lifetime. Yet Dr. King never advocated unity or peace at any cost. He knew there was work to be done to discover the common ground on which we could all stand together as equals. “Let nobody give you the impression that the problem of racial injustice will work itself out. Let nobody give you the impression that only time will solve the problem.” What will solve the problem, he said, is “the tireless efforts and the persistent work of dedicated individuals.”





Dr. Worthen, in her New York Times essay, says healing begins with caring about others and listening to their stories. She quotes Alexis Lewis in reference to a program Ms. Lewis had directed:





“It wasn’t about trying to change someone’s views but realizing that the truth you have might not be the whole truth.”





I agree, the starting point has to be ceasing to demonize those who hold different points of view, committing ourselves to recognize the humanity of every other person with whom we share this planet, asking them questions about why they believe what they believe, and then listening with respect to their answers. It does not mean always agreeing with them, and disagreeing does not mean hating or “canceling” the other person. But why would we want to be unified with people with whom we can’t have a respectful conversation?





We desperately need unity, but we can’t get there from here. The only way to the goal is through doing a lot of soul work. It won’t be easy, but our existence as a free people and our nation’s existence as a democracy depend on it.


		


	


	

		
	


	






	



	


		
			

				
					Categories				
				

					Coronavirus, COVID-19 Politics Religion				

			


			
Politics, Propaganda,     and Paranoia

		


			

		


		
	





	


		


			

Among the more unsettling images now the icons of January 6 are those in which the Capitol attackers display symbols representing the Christian faith: signs and flags with such slogans as “Make America Godly Again,” “Hold the line, patriots. God wins,” “Jesus 2020,” “An Appeal to Heaven”; Christian flags; flags bearing the icthys (sign of the fish). Perhaps most troubling of all is a photo of a man standing behind a wooden cross with his head bowed against it and surrounded by others in postures of prayer, as if invoking the Almighty to align with them in their evil deeds.





A question I have often grappled with over the last decade or so is, When did the government become the enemy? Along with the related question, How did Christian Nationalism become the most prominent and influential religious ideology in America? The image of government as Evil Empire, promoted primarily by Christian Nationalists, has been used to justify everything from unregulated gun ownership to defiance of public health mandates meant to reduce the devastation of a pandemic.





Government as Evil Empire is not supported by our Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the writings of any of our leaders and great thinkers, and–sorry!–not even by the Bible. On the contrary, each of those sources depicts government as (1) necessary to maintaining order among communities of human beings and (2) needing to be closely monitored by the governed to prevent its overreach. James Madison said it most effectively in Federalist 52: “You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.”





The Old Testament Book of Judges reiterates several times the statement of chapter 17, verse 6: “In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes.” With no central government, only tribal leaders, even the high crime of murder was left to families who usually assigned an avenger of blood to administer justice. It’s pretty easy to imagine how such a system would play out in a nation with a current population of 331,000,000 people of wildly varying backgrounds and moral codes.





The simplest social contract in our country’s history was the Mayflower Compact, composed in 1620 by English colonists who sailed across the ocean on the Mayflower ship. The written compact was a preemptive measure by leaders who foresaw rebellion and chaos if the 102 passengers were turned loose on dry land with no guide for self-governance. The group had originally planned to join the Virginia Company, an established community, but–as a result of storms which blew them far off their charted course–found themselves in Massachusetts, near Cape Cod, instead. As the History.com editors put it, “Knowing life without laws could prove catastrophic, colonist leaders created the Mayflower Compact to ensure a functioning social structure would prevail.”





Essentially, those who signed and agreed to live under the Mayflower Compact consented to do three things: form a civil union, enact whatever laws were deemed necessary to maintain order within that union, and individually obey the laws enacted. That rudimentary compact is at the heart of the more sophisticated documents that have since formed the framework for our civil society: first, The Articles of Confederation and then our Constitution. Since allowing everyone to do what is right in their own eyes would lead to anarchy and chaos, the only way to live together in harmony is to be members of a society, elect leaders who will enact laws necessary for the common good, and then all play by the rules.





That sounds pretty ideal, right? But what happens when government does go awry, when officials do overstep the bounds of their power? And they do. Henry David Thoreau, in his well-known 1849 essay “Civil Disobedience,” begins by asserting that the best government is no government and that “when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.” One can’t miss the implication that humans were not in 1849 prepared for complete self-governance and I would argue are even less so in 2021.   





Further on in the essay, Thoreau poses some questions:





“Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?- in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislation? Why has every man a conscience, then?”





He concludes, 





“I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.”





That last statement sounds almost like no government, but I think in context he’s saying the only appropriate time to exercise civil disobedience–that is, knowingly and thoughtfully disregarding the law–is when the law requires something which the conscience forbids.





Thomas Jefferson’s well-known words, in the introduction to the Declaration of Independence, establish the purpose of government:





“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”





Humans are given certain rights by their Creator, and governments are instituted to secure–preserve, protect–those rights; and governments’ “just powers” are the ones assigned to them by the governed.





Thomas Paine, in his powerful book “The Rights of Man,” elaborates a bit more on Jefferson’s idea by dividing human rights into two categories: natural rights and civil rights. According to Paine,





“Natural rights are those which always appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the rights of others.”





He then defines civil rights:





“Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection.”





To sum up Paine, we all are born with rights which we should be allowed to exercise throughout our lives without interference, so long as our actions harm no one else. However, since John Donne nailed it when he said “No man is an island” and the book of Judges was onto something in reiterating the pitfalls of allowing everyone to do what is right in their own eyes and the writers of the Mayflower Compact were wise in their forethought that turning loose 102 people who’d been cooped up on a little ship together for a few months would not end well, Paine recognizes that problems may arise within communities and that individuals will lack the power to adequately defend their own rights to security and protection. Therefore, we consent to yield certain individual liberties in exchange for mutual safety and well-being.  





The Preamble to our Constitution codifies the themes of human rights, human nature, and the need for a central authority to keep order and peace:





“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”





According to the writers, governments have certain specific purposes. First, to “form a more perfect union.” A tribal unit is a union but a far from perfect one; a constitution tightens and defines that union and the responsibilities of each member. Second, a central government will “establish justice”; ideally, that means justice will be uniformly administered, as opposed to allowing blood avengers to deal with matters in their own ways. Third, a centralized authority will “insure domestic tranquility.” Walk into a roomful of third graders when the adult in charge has stepped out for a moment and you’ll get a pretty clear picture of how tranquil our society would be if there were no one in charge. Fourth, the framers wanted to “provide for the common defence,” which we Americans now spell “defense.” External threats will always exist; someone has to organize the response to those threats, since none of us is capable of defending ourselves against a foreign or domestic power intent on doing harm. Fifth, our Constitution is intended to provide a framework by which we can “promote the general welfare,” or make sure everyone is equally protected and the greater good is always our common goal. Finally, our Constitution contains guidelines to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”–ideally, to be sure our generation can live in freedom (within the limits of the common good) and can pass on a free country to our children and grandchildren.





Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 23, wrote:





“The principle purposes to be answered by Union are these — The common defense of the members — the preservation of the public peace as well as against internal convulsions as external attacks — the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States — the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.”





The Bible also says a good deal about government, one of the central passages appearing in the New Testament book of Romans:





“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. . . . Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.” (Rom. 13: 1-2, 7)





Jesus said it even more succinctly in Mark 12: 17: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”





So far, I see no discrepancies among these documents on the ideals of human government. Has any government on earth ever perfectly lived up to those ideals? Well, no. But these are worthy goals which every generation should continue to strive for. And until we have achieved the ideal of a “more perfect union,” it’s important to consider when laws should be disregarded and thoughtfully broken.





For Thoreau, the breaking point comes when the law requires something the conscience forbids. The Bible consistently emphasizes the difference between human law and God’s law and instructs us to obey both when possible, but when they are in conflict, obey God’s law. Martin Luther King, in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” addresses the subject of civil disobedience by drawing a distinction between types of laws:





“One may well ask: ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. . . . Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.”





In this time of deeply divided, tribalized, paranoid national crisis, many have simply concluded that government is the enemy and citizens must protect themselves against it. Attempts to place reasonable restrictions on gun ownership are vehemently rejected as nefarious plots to leave citizens helpless and vulnerable to government attacks. Government actions which contradict individual opinions, however unfounded they may be, are clear evidence in many minds that our government is run by evil people who will bring about the end of civilization as we know it. “Conspiracy theory” is another term for paranoia, which has reached epidemic levels. What has to happen to the mind of a reasonable person to make that person believe there are government officials and celebrities who worship Satan while they kill and eat babies? That’s a serious level of mental illness, yet it is present all around us and even in our Congress. During my lifetime, lots of people have been displeased with the results of every election, but until now there was no widespread distrust of the officials announcing the results. We accepted the results, though sometimes grudgingly.





Dr. Anthony Fauci, leading epidemiologist and new household name, said recently:





“We had such divisiveness in our country that even simple common-sense public health measures took on a political connotation. If you wanted to wear a mask, you were on this side. If you wanted to stay in and avoid group settings, you were on this side. It wasn’t [a] pure public health approach. It was very much influenced by the divisiveness that we had in this country.”





In October of 2020, Dr. Fauci said, 





“The wearing of masks became more of a political issue where there were, you know, those in favor and those against. It became almost an ideological thing as opposed to what it really is. It’s a public health issue. It doesn’t know politics. The common enemy is the virus.”





In addition to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, our government is also accorded certain emergency powers: the right to impose temporary restrictions for what our Constitution calls promoting the general welfare. During wartime, the government can restrict distribution of certain commodities to ensure that those fighting the battles are adequately equipped. When roads and bridges become unsafe, it is the responsibility of the government to restore them to a usable condition and in the meantime to keep citizens off them. Following natural disasters, the government assumes additional power to restore order to devastated areas.





As summarized by ASTHO (Association of State and Territorial Health Officials),





“The Public Health Service Act (PHSA) provides the legal authority for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), among other things, to respond to public health emergencies. The act authorizes the HHS secretary to lead federal public health and medical response to public health emergencies, determine that a public health emergency exists, and assist states in their response activities.”





Since health is a part of our overall welfare, I’d say the Constitutional purpose of promoting the general welfare must include keeping as many people as possible from contracting a deadly virus and insuring the health-care system is adequate to meet the needs of those who do get sick either from the virus or from other health issues. Therefore, the government is well within its limits–both constitutionally and according to its emergency powers–when it requires people to wear masks, avoid close contact, and stay out of large gatherings. Based on scientific evidence, these things keep more people alive and healthy; and since allowing everyone to do what’s right in their own eyes never has worked out well, someone has to coordinate the effort to “promote the general welfare.”





James Madison, in Federalist 52, wrote:





“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.”





I haven’t seen any angels around lately, so I guess we’re stuck with government by our fellow humans. It’s unclear who deserves credit for saying it, but somebody once said, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” You and I must never for a moment let our guard down, for it is our job to oversee the last part of Madison’s caveat: making sure the government controls itself. That doesn’t mean, however, that we have the right to demonize the whole for the actions of some. It is our legal and moral–and yes, Biblical, for those interested–responsibility to subject ourselves to the governing authorities unless doing so violates our personal moral code. Then it’s our legal and moral responsibility to resist and to speak out for change.





March 2020 to March 2021 has felt like a decade instead of a year, but the most intolerable part of all has been the whining about “rights.” Objections to government actions, resistance to government, and civil disobedience are rightly based on conscience and morals, not “rights”; on conflicting loyalties–law vs individual conscience or obedience to God–not “rights.” Thoreau, Gandhi, King, and the Bible–not one of them advocates anarchy or allowing “everyone to do what is right in their own eyes.” Not one of them says government is illegitimate or “has no right to tell me what to do”; they all say it does have that right and responsibility.





And then there’s the eternal vigilance thing. If my government requires me to treat any of my fellow citizens as less valuable or less important or less human than I am, I will break that law, because my conscience and my faith tell me everyone is equal and should be treated as such. If my government forbids me to gather at my chosen house of worship, I will break that law, because it conflicts with my conscience, my faith, and the U.S. Constitution. But if my government tells me to temporarily refrain from gathering in a congregation in order to promote the general welfare by containing the spread of a deadly virus, I will willingly obey, because nothing in my moral code says I can’t cooperate to protect the common good. 





If my fellow citizens elect a con man to the high office of the presidency, I will protest (and have). If my government attempts to restrict the voting rights of any of my fellow citizens, I will protest. If my government imprisons children in inhumane conditions, I will protest (and have). If another government oppresses an entire sector of their population and imposes apartheid laws, I will travel there as often as I can to plant olive trees and help pick the harvest of ripe olives to enable them to retain ownership of their ancestral lands. 





If my government tells me I must wear a mask for the rest of my life to demonstrate my patriotism, I will break that law. But if my government tells me I have to wear a mask in public for a short time to help prevent the spread of a deadly virus, I will wear the damn mask, and I won’t whine about it, because nothing in my moral code or religious beliefs forbids me to wear a mask. Therefore, it’s not a political or civil disobedience issue.





Government is not the enemy; it’s not the Evil Empire. It is an imperfect human institution which is necessary to our life and well-being. It’s our job to know the difference between just and unjust powers, to oppose the unjust, to cooperate with the just, and not to get the two confused. It’s not an easy job, but we have to do it if we’re to continue being a government of, by, and for the people.  


		


	


	

		
		


			

		


		
	


	






	



	


		
			

				
					Categories				
				

					Politics				

			


			
Both Sides: the Dangers of Neutrality

		


			

		


		
	





	


		


			

Pontius Pilate famously asked the question “What is truth?” in response to Jesus’ statement, “For this I came into the world, to testify to the truth.” Jack Nicholson, in the character of Colonel Jessup in the movie “A Few Good Men,” angrily spews the classic line “You can’t handle the truth” to the judge who is demanding answers to difficult questions. Thomas Jefferson, in his finely-crafted introduction to the Declaration of Independence, writes “We hold these truths to be self-evident” before he enumerates certain human rights which in his view need not be explained or defended. Jesus, foretelling his own death, tells his followers that if they continue to practice his teachings, “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” Martin Luther King once said, “I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality.” 





In what is often being called a post-fact world, where talking points guide thinking and determine policy and facts are just impotent rebuttals, there is no greater barrier to knowing and standing for truth than the “both sides” rationalization: “Both sides do it,” “There’s fault on both sides,” “There are good people on both sides.” Judgments of right and wrong have to be based on some standard of truth, and if truth is the standard, two diametrically opposed sides can’t come off as equally right or equally wrong.





Two children are fighting. Both are swinging arms and throwing punches, so they’re equally guilty, right? Send them both to their rooms and give them no dessert. That’s the lazy way out. Somewhere behind the visible scene, however, is the truth. Who started it? Why did he/she start it? Did the other attempt ways of solving the problem before resorting to physical engagement? Was anything about the optics perhaps deceiving?





The only way to make a fair decision in this situation is to search for the truth, but that carries risks. Maybe the parent, teacher, or coach doesn’t want to know the truth, because with greater knowledge comes greater responsibility. Maybe the truth would force the adult to deal differently with the two children, and that’s always awkward; chances are the one judged to have the greater responsibility will be angry at the arbitrator. So the arbitrator takes the easy way out and treats them as equally at fault. We’ve all done it.





In grown-up politics, the “both sides” argument is the lazy way out. Citizens and officials who can’t face the responsibility of being the arbiters of truth and right take the Pontius Pilate escape and simply wash their hands, declare both sides flawed, and crawl back into their cocoons. But why would anyone not want to know and stand for the truth? Lots of reasons come to mind. The truth is not always as “self-evident” as those named by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, so finding it is going to take a lot of work. Knowing the truth  may demand action; it may affect relationships; it may shift one’s entire worldview. Acknowledging the truth may also cause a loss at the polls. Rather than setting one free, the truth may be too uncomfortable to bear, so many understandably choose retreating to their comfort zones or clinging to a deeply flawed leader because his coattails are necessary for achieving success in the next election. Another Martin Luther King quotation is, “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” 





I doubt there’s anyone in the world who’s never turned a blind eye to an uncomfortable truth: the spousal affair, the errant child, the injustice under which many people in the world are forced to live. But here’s the problem: Without truth, there can be no standards of conduct, no morals, no ethics. If nothing is true, everything is acceptable. If your truth is different from my truth, the only principle either of us can violate is our own, so there’s no common standard to which we both can be held. One of my favorite news commentators has recently made frequent use of the word “nihilism,” “the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.” Where there is no truth, life has no meaning. What to do? Some create their own truths.





Cult members’ truth is whatever their leader tells them it is. The Peoples Temple members who followed Jim Jones all the way to the Kool-Aid table believed his paranoid apocalyptic vision of imminent nuclear war, and he persuaded them only he could insure their safety. Cyrus Teed convinced his followers that the earth is hollow and we actually live on the inside, not the outside, of the globe. They followed him because he promised to turn Estero, Florida, into the New Jerusalem. As a bonus, those who could maintain celibacy would achieve immortality; but then Teed died and failed to resurrect himself after the three days his followers kept him propped up. Marshall Applewhite and Bonnie Nettles, founders of Heaven’s Gate, kept their followers faithful by promising there was a spacecraft out there which was going to transport their members to the next level of existence.





All attractive promises, to be sure. Believing them, however, means denying formerly held standards and sources of truth, science being the first to go. I recently helped my seven-year-old grandson find some answers to a question he’d been meditating on. We did a quick Internet search, since that was the resource most readily available to us. We read one source, and then I told him we had to look up more because you never take just one person’s answer to a question. You get multiple (in this case, only two) perspectives and then compare. When all other perspectives have been invalidated, however, as in the case of a cult, there’s only one thing left to believe: the leader’s word. And that’s always going to lead to trouble.





Conspiracy theories give people a system of truth that is, for whatever the reason, more comfortable than reality. They create communities in which people who have felt spurned by powerful elites can turn their perceived oppressors into cannibalistic pedophiles or turn catastrophic natural events into intentional acts performed by a people group whom they see as threatening their supremacy.





Following a national leader who tells the lies, which those who perceive themselves as oppressed want to hear, creates a community in which they are the elites and the ones holding the reins of power. Who flies flags for a president? Who wears clothing and decorates their vehicles or their homes with paraphernalia advertising their hero worship? I don’t know about you, but the most I’ve ever done is put out an occasional yard sign, no matter how much I like a candidate. I’m glad Joe Biden is president, but it’s going to be a cold day down there when I put a cut-out of him in my rear car seat (Yep, I’ve seen it, for you-know-who). Yet I guess I can understand the appeal for someone who is desperate for a sense of belonging.





For that cult who flies the flags and wears the clothes and adorns the trucks, their leader’s 30,573 lies documented by the Washington Post during his four years in office are their fervently held truths. Everything else is “fake news” and evil liberals’ attempts to discredit their dear leader.





In high school general science class, I learned that an acid plus a base equals water (and a salt). Something in the acid neutralizes something in the base and vice versa (You expected scientific names? Ninth grade was a long time ago). Pitting two groups against one another and declaring them equal neutralizes important differences between them, and what’s lost in the process is truth. Making them equally right requires disregarding the truth. Making them equally wrong leaves no one with the moral authority to expose the truth and adjudicate the problem.





If there are “good people on both sides,” neither side has the right to be outraged or to take the lead toward resolution. Americans are where we are today because too many of us can’t handle the truth. It’s not stating the profound to say that our country’s two major political parties are both flawed, that both of them have some wrongheaded ideas, some wacky candidates and elected officials, and some extremist factions. However, the “both sides” narrative would have us believe the flaws are of equal consequence, but believing that narrative requires disregarding some essential truths.





Truth: Good people do not turn over their consciences to a maniacal leader. Truth: Good people do not try to overturn the results of an election. Truth: Good people do not attempt to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power in a democracy. Truth: Good people do not attack the United States Capitol. Truth: Good people do not mercilessly bludgeon police officers, leaving one dead and 140 severely injured, with mental scars so deep that two have since taken their own lives. Truth: Good people do not threaten to harm or kill those responsible for carrying out elections just because they don’t like the person who won. Truth: Good people do not defecate in the Capitol building (or in any other public place) and do not smear their feces on the walls. Truth: Good people do not steal, loot, and terrorize. Truth: Good people do not pray for God’s blessing and assistance to commit felonies. Truth: A good person, who holds command over the most powerful fighting forces in the world, does not sit in his living room watching the assault unfold on his TV set and do NOTHING to stop it. Truth: Good people do not buy into nutso (my academic word) conspiracy theories. Truth: One party is rife with conspiracy theorists and elects some of them to Congress. Truth: The other party is not known for harboring crazy conspiracy theorists or for electing them to Congress. Truth: All of the above has been  done by members of one political party. Truth: None of it, or perhaps a small amount of it, has been done by the other party.





So please remind me again how “both sides” are equally flawed.





Another truth: Good people do not justify their, or their tribe’s, transgressions with a “what about” question.





Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel has said,





“We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant.”





Political party affiliations and other labels should also become irrelevant. Both sides can’t be right when their ideas and actions are at opposite poles. The “both sides” defense helps the wrongdoers, never those who would bring justice to bear. It provides all who wish to be uninvolved, who can’t handle the truth, who are more comfortable in their cocoons or ivory towers, who would prefer to wash their hands of the responsibility of searching for and standing for truth a pious-sounding defense. This is no time to be silent or neutral.





I end with the words of Thomas Paine, from “The American Crisis,” which I have quoted often:





“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.”





Freedom is not cheap, but it’s well worth the price.


		


	


	

		
		


			

		


		
	


	






	



	


		
			

				
					Categories				
				

					Politics				

			


			
Words to the Wise

		


			

		


		
	





	


		


			

Words matter. Take the word “burger,” for instance. That word generally means a patty of ground beef, served in a bun, with some variety of toppings and/or condiments. The burger I order at McDonald’s will look and taste different from the burger I order at Red Robin, and that one will look and taste different from the burger I’d be served at a five-star restaurant. The size, the quality and preparation of the ingredients, and the endless possibilities for toppings and sauces and garnishes will yield different culinary experiences–not to mention wildly different price tags–but the three basic components will be there. In other words, if I order a burger, I know I’m not going to get egg salad.





Yet in 21st-century political lingo, I can’t be so sure. Depending on whom I’m speaking with, a burger might very well be egg salad, and egg salad could be quiche. The biggest barrier to that elusive goal of unity we keep talking about is that we don’t agree on what “unity” means. To some, perhaps those in the cancel culture, it means something close to agreeing on every point. To others, you can think or believe whatever you want so long as you swear unwavering fealty to the cult leader that keeps your party in the headlines and assures more election wins. Cross him, and your fate might look somewhat like that of Liz Cheney whose position in the party had to be reconsidered after she cast her vote to impeach the cult leader. Fortunately, she escaped censure, but her future decisions will have to take into account what she now knows is a potential result if she again runs amok of party leaders.





If unity is even feasible in our country, we’re going to have to find some middle ground between the idealistic notion that we can agree on everything and the dangerous prospect of turning over control to a narcissistic authoritarian who would rather burn down the building than hand over the keys.





But finding that middle ground is going to require defining some other important words, such as “truth,” “fact,” “opinion,” “patriotism,” “treason,” and “high crimes and misdemeanors.” When two members of congress are placed on trial by their colleagues and their names used in the same sentence–one for having committed the offense of voting her conscience against the party leader and one for being a crazed, violent, conspiracy-theorist nutjob–we’re in deep waters. In the end, the right decision was made to allow Liz Cheney to keep her leadership position; but only 11 of Marjorie Taylor Greene’s GOP colleagues were willing to vote with the majority that stripped her of her committee assignments. Even more disturbing is the fact that she was given a standing ovation by some of her GOP colleagues in response to her behind-closed-doors, tell-them-what-they-want-to-hear “apology.” 





What do the words “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” mean? They seem relatively straightforward but get a bit muddled when a lawmaker who swore that oath can harass a school shooting victim, disrespect a whole nation of people (Jews), and advocate assassinating her colleagues and her party even has to debate whether to allow her to serve on the education committee that oversees the schools in which shootings have happened and where students and parents of those schools have to be deeply wounded by her labeling their personal tragedies as “false flag operations” that didn’t really kill anyone. Her actions make it seem more that she is the enemy than that she is the defender against enemies. God help us all!





Let’s talk about the word “incite.” Merriam-Websters says “incite” means “to move to action, stir up, spur on, urge on.” Simple, right? None of the dictionary definitions include participating in the actions oneself. The world has held Hitler accountable for the deaths of over 6,000,000 Jewish people, along with some others whom he considered undesirable and inconvenient to his purposes, yet there is no record of Adolph Hitler personally rounding up Jews, taking them to camps, herding them into gas chambers, and releasing the noxious fumes that would end their lives. Charles Manson never murdered anyone, but he was convicted and sentenced on seven counts of first-degree murder, because it was judged that he ordered his followers to commit the murders. According to the Washington Post, “Manson was also convicted of two murders that he did physically participate in,” but he was not the one who dealt the fatal blows.





Both Hitler and Manson are considered mass murderers, yet their hands never killed anyone. On January 6, 2021, the sitting “president” spoke to a violent mob in Washington, D.C., encouraging them to “take a walk” to the Capitol. Using such incendiary statements as “We will never give up,” “We will never concede,” “You don’t concede when there’s theft involved,” “We will not take it anymore,” and “We will not let them silence your voices,” he aroused the crowd to such a pitch of fury that they marched to the Capitol and desecrated that national monument in unspeakable ways. Five people died as a result of the violence, two more Capitol police officers have since committed suicide, and more than fifty other officers were injured, some of them severely. One risks losing an eye, and another has lost three fingers. Yet our GOP lawmakers want to parse words and can’t be sure whether the “president’s” words actually caused the insurrection. Fortunately, the House impeachment managers have no such vocabulary limitations; they have cited the speech maker as “singularly responsible” for inciting the riot.





The article of impeachment against the person who made that inflammatory speech charges him with “inciting violence against the government of the United States.” The problem is it seems few lawmakers in the GOP knows the meaning of “incite.” Within hours after order had been restored to the Capitol building, 147 of the people who had narrowly escaped death that day voted to overturn the election results and retain in office the person who had incited the riot that might have cost them their lives. Some people have a lot of trouble connecting dots.





Apologists for the inciter of the January 6 insurrection argue that this is a free speech issue.  Jacob Sullum sums up that argument in a column published in Reason:





“Even advocacy of illegal behavior, the Supreme Court ruled in the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, is protected by the First Amendment unless it is both ‘directed’ at inciting ‘imminent lawless action’ and ‘likely’ to do so. It is hard to see how [that] speech, which urged his supporters to ‘fight like hell’ against an ‘egregious assault on our democracy’ as a joint session of Congress was convening to affirm Biden’s victory, meets that test.”





I’ve heard it argued that he said what he said and they did what they did. One cannot be held accountable for the other. No connection. Then let’s just take the word “incite” out of the dictionary.





And that brings us to the words “freedom of speech.” Does the first amendment guarantee every citizen the right to say whatever the hell we please, wherever and whenever we want to say it, with impunity? Not according to my understanding. I believe our founders and our Constitution’s framers wanted to insure citizens the right to speak their minds on the actions of their government without fear of punishment. Slander and libel have always been illegal, as is the much-cited incident of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded building unless one has actually seen flames or smelled smoke. No right is absolute; every one has moral and logical limitations. Although our founders could never have envisioned a Reality-TV star “president” or a QAnon, anti-Semitic, purveyor of dangerous theories member of Congress, I find it impossible to believe they would have written into our Constitution an amendment protecting their destructive speech.





Our two deeply polarized political parties defend their own actions and condemn their opponents’ actions using the same words. The January 6 rioters call themselves “patriots,” while those of us shocked and devastated by what we saw and have since learned consider their actions among the least patriotic we have ever witnessed.





New York Times columnist Stuart A. Thompson recently published an article documenting his three weeks inside a QAnon chat room. Among many other disturbing comments Mr. Thompson heard, he reports that Q followers consider themselves “fact-checkers” of mainstream media. Most of us look to such nonpartisan resources as Snopes, Politifact, and ProPublica, but whatever. The article begins with a series of several audio clips in which group members can be heard saying such things as “Behead ‘em all” and “Bring in the firing squad.” Mr. Thompson quotes another member: “If the Biden inauguration wants to come in and take your weapons and force vaccination, you have due process to blow them the [expletive] away. Do it.” These speakers are the people who want to be the arbiters of truth and fact.





The word “opinion” gets tossed around a great deal these days, as in everyone is entitled to have ‘em. Although in both general usage and the dictionaries, “opinion” means any held belief, regardless of its relation to fact, I would argue that in public discourse–particularly that which determines government policy–an opinion should be more than a whim or what one pulls out of a particular body cavity. In public discourse, “two opinions” or “two sides” implies two equally valid positions on a subject, both positions backed by fact and evidence. However, when one side’s positions are based on science, logic, and investigative journalism and the other side’s position is based on theories about baby-killing, blood-drinking Satan worshipers, space-laser-launching Jews who ignite forest fires, and the Clintons killing everyone from Vince Foster to JFK Junior, the two sides seem a bit unbalanced. And the possibility of finding common ground for dialogue is slim to none.





Decades ago, I read a book called “None Dare Call It Treason,” by John Stormer. In the 2020s, everyone dares call treason any act which violates their side’s belief system. Many of us believe our former “president” was guilty of treason–or at the very least high crimes and misdemeanors–for attempting to enlist foreign help in getting elected, attempting to overturn an election, and inciting a riot to stop legally cast ballots from being certified. Those who are okay with all of those actions, however, accuse the accusers of treason for their disloyalty to “dear leader.” How does one adjudicate the leader’s actions when words have become meaningless?





Other common controversies involve the word “socialism,” used mostly by people who don’t know what it means but think it sounds scary and menacing. “Right to bear arms” has been debated for decades and will continue to be, given the current climate, for years to come.





Words matter, but they become impotent when separated from the ideas or realities they represent. The philosopher Aristotle had a great deal to say about words. He believed “We use words as tokens in the place of things” because “it is impossible to converse by bringing in the actual things under discussion.” I have to believe Aristotle would agree that discussion itself becomes impossible when the disconnect between things and their words makes the words mere inane gibberish. He goes on to say, “Those who are inexperienced with the power of words are victims of false reasoning, both when they themselves converse and when they are listening to others.





    In the famous speech which William Shakespeare penned for his iconic character, Juliet laments having just learned her newfound love’s name, since she (a Capulet) was forbidden any contact with him (a Montague).  But they had been getting along swimmingly before the name issue came up. Her lament begins with the famous words “O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore [why] are you Romeo?” She continues “’Tis but thy name that is my enemy” and then asks: “What’s Montague? It is nor hand nor foot/Nor arm nor face nor any other part/Belonging to a man. O be some other name./What’s in a name? That which we call a rose/By any other name would smell as sweet.” It’s all just words.





But words matter. For Romeo and Juliet, our fictional lovers, words led to their deaths. For the people who were killed and injured in the January 6 Capitol attack, the words spoken directly preceding the riot had the power to determine their fates. The words they had spoken and listened to for months before they rose to action formed their world view and justified their insurrection in the names of God and country. Yet many of our lawmakers deem those words so trivial as to be dismissed without consequence.





I wish I had a nice fairy-tale ending where we all come together for a group hug, join hands, sing a couple of rounds of Kumbaya, and promise to be loving and kind to one another from now on. But until we can agree that “up” means “up” and “down” means “down,” I don’t know how we get out of this. I just pray we’ll figure it out.