Month: July 2016

Categories
In the News

Can We All Please Just Listen!

One of the weirder evenings of my life was September 26, 2008, when I joined some friends to watch the first presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain. That doesn’t sound very weird. Getting together with friends for snacks, camaraderie, and watching an important political event sounds downright normal. The weirdness in this case arose from two facts of which I was not entirely aware before arriving at my host’s home. The first, which I’d had an inkling of but didn’t know for sure, is that I would be the only Democrat in a roomful of “enthusiastic” Republicans. The second took me completely by surprise: I was the only person in the house who went there for the purpose of listening to both candidates and drawing conclusions based on what I heard; you know, making an effort to be open minded. Silly me! I thought that’s why we were there.

I was about to find out I was in a minority of one. As soon as Barack Obama’s lips began to part, before any sound had emerged from his mouth, these people were shouting at the TV: “Idiot!!! That’s the stupidest, most ridiculous thing that’s ever been said in the history of the world!” (Or something that meant the same thing) The room was filled with scorn and derision in high decibels. When John McCain began to speak, they shouted their agreement, approval, and undying support. What their responses had in common is that they were based, in both cases, not on the words the man had just spoken but on their predetermined assessment of who the man was, and in this case on which one was the Republican and which one was the Democrat. The one person who formed a barrier between me and the TV screen was the loudest and most vocal of all, so my efforts to hear what the candidates were saying were mostly futile. My lame attempts at interjecting reason into a couple of their comments were not well received, so I just watched and looked forward to viewing the second debate in the lovely quietness of my own home.

Many times during the evening, I wanted to scream, “Can we all please just LIS-TEN?!” I didn’t. But that evening comes to mind often these days since it so perfectly exemplifies what passes for public conversation in our time. With very few exceptions, people today respond to the speaker, not to what the speaker says. The essential information is the speaker’s political party, where they fall on the conservative-liberal spectrum, their opinions and beliefs on key issues, possibly their religious affiliation, and their basic demographics. For the average listener, this information—or any portion of it—is enough to judge anything the speaker could possibly say, so there’s no need to actually hear it. This makes conversation pretty simple: I will pause while you say your words, and then I will give you the response which I already decided on as soon as I met you.

Think about it. It’s well known that millions of people in our country hate our current president. And for most people, this is not the usual disagreement over policy or disappointment that the candidate they voted for didn’t win or disapproval of the president’s general conduct. Those are some of the normal reasons for disliking a president, even strongly disliking; but the vitriol that has been spewed daily about President Obama is unprecedented. And those who do the spewing are undeterred by anything good that the president could possibly say. He has given moving tributes to fallen police officers, he has inspired us through many national tragedies, he has sung “Amazing Grace” at a televised funeral and given clear statement of his Christian faith, and the guy is a great comedian on happy occasions.

Yet nothing he says even pierces the thick shell of hatred surrounding his critics because they don’t hear a word of it. In every one of the examples I’ve listed, his haters have responded by calling him names (including the N word), declaring him a Muslim, labeling him a dismal failure (against all factual evidence), calling him the worst president ever, saying he was born in Kenya and is therefore unqualified to be president, and other things so vile I’ve chosen to dismiss them from my mind. How many people have really listened to what he has said, and how many don’t care what he says because they’ve already judged him?

One of the most baffling connections I’ve seen this campaign season, and that’s saying a lot, is the evangelical support of Donald Trump. An article that’s making the rounds this week is called “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice.” The author is Wayne Grudem, an evangelical theologian, with a long list of credentials, including studies at Harvard University, Westminster Theological Seminary, and University of Cambridge; serving as a seminary professor of Christian ethics for 39 years; authoring a number of books, including a highly respected systematic theology; and acting as general editor of a study Bible. Impressive. But now he says this: “I do not think that voting for Donald Trump is a morally evil choice because there is nothing morally wrong with voting for a flawed candidate if you think he will do more good for the nation than his opponent. In fact, it is the morally right thing to do.” Hmmmm.

He continues:

He is egotistical, bombastic, and brash. He often lacks nuance in his statements. Sometimes he blurts out mistaken ideas (such as bombing the families of terrorists) that he later must abandon. He insults people. He can be vindictive when people attack him. He has been slow to disown and rebuke the wrongful words and actions of some angry fringe supporters. He has been married three times and claims to have been unfaithful in his marriages. These are certainly flaws, but I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws in this election.

Flaws? Not disqualifying flaws? So Professor Grudem, what on earth would you say IS a “disqualifying flaw”?

But wait, there’s more:

On the other hand, I think some of the accusations hurled against him are unjustified. His many years of business conduct show that he is not racist or anti-(legal) immigrant or anti-Semitic or misogynistic – I think these are unjust magnifications by a hostile press exaggerating some careless statements he has made.

Careless statements? Magnified? When he called women “fat pigs,” “dogs,” “slobs,” and “disgusting animals,” those were just careless statements? And they’d have been no big deal if those mean old reporters hadn’t gone and made a big fuss over them? A president, or someone running for the office, doesn’t have the luxury of making careless statements.

And to sum it all up, Grudem says:

Under President Obama, a liberal federal government has seized more and more control over our lives. But this can change. This year we have an unusual opportunity to defeat Hillary Clinton and the pro-abortion, pro-gender-confusion, anti-religious liberty, tax-and-spend, big government liberalism that she champions. I believe that defeating that kind of liberalism would be a morally right action. Therefore I feel the force of the words of James: “Whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” (James 4:17).

You can read more of Professor Grudem’s “analysis” here: http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/07/28/why-voting-for-donald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564

My point in this essay is that Barack Obama can sing “Amazing Grace” and get called a N*&&^^%, and Donald Trump can threaten to bomb the families of terrorists and insult numerous individuals and entire people groups and he just “lacks nuance” and is “flawed” but not fatally flawed. And those are the words of a leading evangelical whose life’s teaching has opposed everything Donald Trump stands for. Obviously Trump gets the pass here because he’s a Republican (the default party for evangelicals) and he’s not Hillary Clinton, not because his words are moral or make any sense. So Trump can go on saying whatever grinds his axes and proves his ignorance and still score the evangelical vote in November.

Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell cringe and go into damage control mode every time Trump opens his mouth yet refuse to withdraw their endorsements because he’s the Republican candidate and they’re Republicans, and that association counts more than what he says.

Even in personal conversations, the same truth applies. We paint whole categories with one brush stroke, and then we can’t hear what individuals say. Liberals are out to destroy the second amendment and confiscate everyone’s guns, they’re always playing the race card, they enable people to be lazy by handing out food stamps and welfare, they’re socialistic, they want to open our borders and jeopardize our national security, and they’re always wanting to enact policies God disapproves of. Conservatives are backward, racist, making war on women, God-flaunting, gun-toting, climate change-denying Neanderthals. And we too often respond to each other based solely on these stereotypes rather than on the actual words coming out of an individual’s mouth. I posted a joke awhile back on social media, and one of my conservative friends took it seriously. When I responded that it was meant to be humorous, my friend responded, “Lib humor.” Oh, so it might have been funny if a conservative said it, but today it’s not.

We can’t have rational, productive conversations about gun violence, abortion, public restrooms, LGBT concerns, or multiple other social issues because we’ve decided before the first word is spoken whether we agree or disagree with other speakers based on the category to which they belong. And even when we may agree with someone in another category, we find it difficult to cross lines because of group loyalty. Paul Ryan is a prime example in his love-hate relationship with the Republican presidential nominee. Voting against their own party’s nominee is hard for many people. People speak all the time about “both sides” of an issue. “All sides” would be more accurate because we all have individual opinions which don’t exactly match our category label, but the only way we’ll ever know that is to start listening to each other instead of assuming everyone in a particular category thinks exactly alike.

A counselor I once knew had a great exercise she used in couples counseling. The couple would take turns speaking and listening. The speaker would have to tell the listener something that person did which was offensive. Before the listener could respond to the charge, however, she or he had to first repeat what the speaker had said and continue repeating it whatever number of times it took for the speaker to say, “Yes, that’s exactly what I said.” The point was that you can’t respond to something if you didn’t hear it correctly; and hearing correctly requires active, attentive listening. If only we’d all start making that a habit in our daily conversations, we might find out a lot of people have important, interesting, intelligent things to say; and we might get somewhere in solving our country’s problems. It’s worth a try!

 

Categories
Politics

Why I Will Vote for Hillary Clinton, Part Two

If there had been any lingering doubt in my mind after looking at the two candidates’ credentials, experience, and character, their respective conventions and acceptance speeches alone would have been enough to clinch my decision.

The GOP convened in Cleveland amid much turmoil because of the deep divisions in the party, and the convention did little or nothing to heal the rifts. Trump kept on being Trump, with some small exceptions for his acceptance speech. Even that was long on bluster and short on specifics and plans. As President Obama so aptly put it, “The Donald is not really a plans guy. He’s not really a facts guy either.” The Donald has had over a year since he made his announcement that he was running for president to learn some facts and to make some plans, so the only logical conclusion we can come to is that he has no desire to know any more than he knows or to be any more specific than he has been about plans. I would also conclude that he is intellectually incapable of doing either of those two things.

The president went on to say, “[Trump] calls himself a business guy, which is true, but I have to say, I know plenty of businessmen and women who’ve achieved success without leaving a trail of lawsuits, and unpaid workers, and people feeling like they got cheated . . . Does anyone really believe that a guy who’s spent his 70 years on this Earth showing no regard for working people is suddenly going to be your champion?” Good question, Mr. President!

Vice President Joe Biden said, “No major party nominee in the history of this nation has ever known less or been less prepared to deal with our national security.” California Governor Jerry Brown added, “Even the Know Nothings, anti-immigrant party of the 1850s, did not stray this far into sheer ignorance and dark fantasy as have the Republicans and their leader Donald Trump.” And Michael Bloomberg aptly observed, “Trump says he wants to run the nation like he’s running his business? God help us. I am a New Yorker, and I know a con when I see one. . . . Truth be told, the richest thing about Donald Trump is his hypocrisy.” From Tim Kaine, we have this assessment: “To me, it seems like our nation is too great to put in the hands of a slick-talking, empty promising, self-promoting, one-man wrecking crew.” And Joe Biden summed it all up as only Joe can: “That [Trump’s speech] is a bunch of malarkey!”

What was Mr. Trump’s response to these scathing accusations? How did he respond to Khizr Khan, father of a slain Muslim U. S. soldier, when he held out his well-worn pocket edition of our country’s constitution and asked Donald Trump, “Have you even read the Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy. In this document, look for the words liberty and equal protection of law.” How did the Donald respond? Did he defend his knowledge of the constitution, saying he has read and cherishes it? Did he admit his knowledge is limited but he will devote his every waking moment to learning this sacred document? Did he apologize for any of his insults to women, veterans, Muslims, Mexicans, or any of the other numerous groups he has disrespected? Did he vow to help American workers and actually outline plans for doing so? Did he express sympathy for the Khan family’s loss and promise to honor their son’s life and memory? Did he promise to change his tactics to prove his critics wrong? Did he promise to release his tax returns??

NO. The answer to each of the above questions is NO. Here is how he responded to his chastening at the DNC: “You know what I wanted to. I wanted to hit a couple of those speakers so hard. I would have hit them. No, no. I was going to hit them, I was all set and then I got a call from a highly respected governor. I was gonna hit one guy in particular, a very little guy,” he said. “I was gonna hit this guy so hard his head would spin and he wouldn’t know what the hell happened.”

I guess this must be that pivot we’ve heard so much about. You know, the pivot he would make when he entered the general election season to more presidential behavior. It should be abundantly obvious by now to any thinking person that Trump is not going to pivot. He can’t. If I were asked to pivot and start acting like a genetic scientist, I couldn’t do that because I know very little about the science of genetics. It’s just not in me to act like that. And it’s not in Donald Trump to act like a president, because he knows nothing about what presidential behavior is. When did we parents begin teaching our children to find ways other than physical violence to resolve conflicts? When they were toddlers! The first time one of them hit a sibling in anger or retaliation, we started the conversation. Donald Trump is an emotional toddler. What we’ve seen so far is all he has. That’s it. Ain’t nothin’ else ever going to emerge because it’s not there.

Hillary Clinton also entered her party’s convention with deep and potentially disruptive divisions. Bernie Sanders had not completely yielded to her victory, and he had some strong Bernie or Bust supporters who did not want to let go. The first day started out pretty rocky, but by the end of the evening tempers had settled and there was the beginning of party unity. And by the end of the roll call on Tuesday, most of the dissension had been quelled and the convention was ready to go forward pretty smoothly. I credit both Bernie Sanders and the Clinton campaign for the quick restoration of party unity. Sanders acted as the adult and made the motion to elect Clinton as their candidate by acclamation, and the Clinton campaign and convention organizers gave Bernie Sanders his due respect and credit for the work he did during the campaign. Mutual respect, something completely missing at the RNC, saved the day. Oh, I didn’t see Bernie smiling or putting his hands together during Hillary’s acceptance speech. It was a crushing loss for him; he’s allowed to grieve his loss. But what’s important is he did the responsible adult thing, and his party is more unified because of his actions.

What the DNC did for Hillary Clinton is introduce America to a different person than the caricature which has so dominated public opinion for decades. As one commentator put it, “She is the most famous person in the world that no one knows.” On Wednesday evening, following Bill Clinton’s speech, the talking heads—many of them seasoned political pundits who’ve been covering presidential elections for decades—were genuinely surprised, wide-eyed and open-mouthed, over the things they had learned that evening about someone they thought they already knew. As Van Jones put it, Bill Clinton had “put together the dots” to make a surprising picture of a “workaholic do-gooder chick.” That sounds a lot like her personal motto, learned from her Methodist faith, which we heard more than once: “Do all the good you can, for all the people you can, in all the ways you can, as long as ever you can.”

Then how did it happen that a “workaholic do-gooder chick” who lived by the motto ““Do all the good you can, for all the people you can, in all the ways you can, as long as ever you can” ended up with the nickname “Crooked Hillary” and a reputation for being a liar and a criminal? According to President Obama, it was because “That’s what happens when we try.” He said you have to get into the arena to make a difference, and those who are in the arena, the people who are trying, will make mistakes; and “Hillary Clinton is that woman in the arena.” The president went on to say, “Democracy isn’t a spectator sport.” Hillary has never settled for being only a spectator. From her college days until today, she has been an advocate for children’s and women’s needs, she has served her country as governor’s wife, president’s wife, senator, Secretary of State, and numerous other jobs where she was less in the national spotlight. She has stood by hurting people and been their voice wherever she has served.

According to Politico Magazine, “On the whole, Clinton’s misstatements are those of a typical politician. She has changed her position on a number of issues, and some of these reversals—like her newfound opposition to the Pacific trade deal she championed as secretary of state—rise to the level of flip-flops or, perhaps, insincere electioneering designed to obscure what she really thinks. In defending her use of a private email server, Clinton has clearly stretched the truth, though whether she grasps the fallaciousness of her statements or believes herself to be giving straight answers is impossible to know.” This doesn’t exactly award her Sunday School teacher status, but it also does not justify William Safire’s 1996 accusation that she is a “congenital liar.” On the other hand, Politico Magazine says of Trump: “Three Politico reporters fact-checked Trump’s statements for a week, [and] found he had uttered ‘roughly one misstatement every five minutes.’ Collectively, his falsehoods won PolitiFact’s 2015 ‘Lie of the Year’ award. Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks has judged Trump ‘perhaps the most dishonest person to run for high office in our lifetimes.’”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/2016-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-us-history-presidents-liars-dishonest-fabulists-214024#ixzz4FoiFjIAI

Mrs. Clinton’s biggest enemy is just pure sexism, in the same way President Obama’s is racism. Yeah, I said it! Hillary Clinton has been put through “scandal” investigations for things which men in high position have done without a fraction of the consequences. Emails have been in the news before: George W. Bush, David Petraeus. Even her husband has not suffered the same long-lasting attacks she has over the Whitewater scandal. And for evidence of the different standards to which men and women are held, we need look no further than Mrs. Clinton’s opponent, Mr. Trump. Legal actions are pending against him for fraud and rape of a minor. He spews insults at every demographic; childishly and maliciously lashes out at everyone who disagrees with him; mocks people with disabilities and veterans who were captured; responds to normal political speeches by wanting to punch those who spoke about him; appears to be colluding with a foreign leader to tamper with our election. And where’s the outrage? Where are the investigations? Does anyone believe that if half these charges could be made against Hillary Clinton she would still have won her party’s nomination? Does anyone really believe there would not be a far greater outcry?

Society has strictly defined parameters for what is acceptable behavior. Whenever anyone steps beyond their designated boundaries, they are viewed as presumptuous, arrogant, uppity, ungodly, and generally suspect. They are also intimidating. And what do we humans do when we are intimidated? Why, we attack, of course. We attack the person who has violated our norms, who has raised doubt in our minds about the validity of those norms, who has shaken our world view, and who has made us feel less secure in our own worth and understanding. How dare those persons cross our lines? Who do they think they are? How dare they think they’re so smart or so powerful? A black man wants to be president? Who the hell does he think he is? We’ll show him; he might be president, but we won’t give him the respect due the office, and we’ll jeopardize our country just to be sure he doesn’t succeed. A woman wants to be president? Who the hell does she think she is? We’re just going to pick out every little mistake she’s ever made in her lifetime of service to her country and magnify it as if she were Satan personified. We’ll show her!

Shirley Chisholm, in 1968, became the first African-American congresswoman. In 1972, she became the first woman to run for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. She had this to say about her experience: “When I ran for the Congress, when I ran for president, I met more discrimination as a woman than for being black.” Well, that sounds like sexism to me.

In her acceptance speech, Mrs. Clinton humbly acknowledged voters’ distrust and dislike of her. She said in essence, “I’ve heard you. I know how you feel about me. Let’s have a conversation about that.” Instead of talking about punching people, she pledged to take people’s feelings seriously, to be more open, and to work on gaining voters’ trust. That won’t erase all that has caused people to have those feelings, nor should it; but a head-on, straightforward conversation is a lot more honest and trustworthy in my book than doubling down when confronted and threatening to punch someone hard enough to make his head spin. The things I’ve heard this week have made me willing to give her another chance, to view her through a different lens.

Trump’s acceptance speech was all about what HE will do, single-handedly: “I alone can fix it”; all of our problems will magically disappear as soon as I walk into the Oval Office. (This attitude, by the way, further demonstrates his ignorance of how government works.) His speech was the “I” speech. Clinton’s acceptance speech was the “we” speech: what we can all do together to address our country’s needs and problems. She said, “We’ll fix it together.” Hillary Clinton’s speech beautifully described what a democracy is and made me proud to be part of the greatest democracy on earth. Donald Trump’s speech was the ranting of a demagogue: this country is dark, scary, and doomed; and you need me to fix it and make it great again.

News flash, Donald! This country has always been great. It’s never stopped being great. We don’t need you and your childishness, your ego, your anger, your insults, your pettiness, your divisiveness, your misogyny, your xenophobia, your lies, or your threats. What we need is a president, not a demagogue.

So you can just take your big orange self back to Trump Tower, because we’re with her.

 

Categories
Politics

Why I Will Vote for Hillary Clinton, Part I

In this long, contentious year of campaigning for the presidency, there is only one thing just about everyone agrees on: we don’t like either of our choices. Oh, there are exceptions to that generalization: many Donald Trump supporters are so blindly loyal they would probably validate his boast that he could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot someone without losing support. I don’t even know what to say to those people, and obviously nothing will get through to them anyway, so I’m just going to focus on folks who think. We thinking folks see two flawed candidates, and some think that makes for a tough choice. For me, the choice is as clear as a blue, sunny Florida sky. Hillary Clinton must be our next president.

I say that not because I think Mrs. Clinton is an ideal candidate or because I’m blind to her flaws. I say it because she is the only person who can save our country for a Trump presidency, and a Trump presidency is unthinkable. Both candidates have high unfavorability ratings, both are intensely disliked by many, and both have questionable items in their past records. That may sound like a wash, but it’s not. The thing I think we must do right now is stop thinking of Donald Trump as just another presidential candidate and stop thinking of this election as the usual weighing of one knowledgeable candidate against another or Democratic platform vs Republican platform. That is NOT what this election is about. This election is a choice between a president and a demagogue, a team builder and a narcissistic strong man. This is the most frightening presidential election of my lifetime or in the history of our country.

I will vote for Hillary Clinton because—in spite of her negatives—she has the relevant knowledge and education for the office, she has the relevant experience for the office, and she has the temperament for the office. Donald Trump has none of those qualifications, and he has shown no interest whatsoever in learning or even admitting what he doesn’t know.

I spent my career teaching English. I loved the classroom so much I never wanted to move into administration, so I’ve never been the “boss” in charge of hiring. I did, however, serve on my share of search committees at the college where I spent my last 26 years; so I know a little bit about the process, and I’m sure some of you do as well. When a position opened at the college, it first of all had to be published so that people could know of the opening and apply for it. After applications were closed, the division dean would collect all of the applications and resumes, make copies, and distribute them to those who had been selected to act as the search committee. The committee members then had to review the stack of applications, make our individual selections, meet to put our choices together, narrow down the composite list to a short list of candidates who would be given phone interviews, then decide on two or three to be brought to campus for in-person interviews, and then make our final recommendation to the dean.

In reviewing the resumes, the first thing we looked for was the proper academic credentials. At the community/state college, a candidate had to hold a minimum of a master’s degree and a Ph.D. was a plus. Having a bachelor’s degree, or no degree, obviously would be a disqualifier. It was also essential that the degree be in the field in which the candidate was applying to teach (duh!). If we were hiring a philosophy professor, a candidate with a Ph.D. in math or psychology would not be considered. Then we looked at experience. Every young person knows the dilemma of having the education and training for a job but no experience because they’re applying for their first job or perhaps making a career change. All of us are grateful to those employers who gave us our first break and allowed us to gain experience, and it helps that sometimes relevant experience can be considered. Perhaps in our case a candidate had never taught before but had served as a TA in college or worked in a different position where the same skill set was required. And then we considered temperament, how compatibly the candidate would fit into our faculty, and whether he or she seemed to be a person of character and ethics.

I imagine the process at your work place is similar.

The United States has a job opening. As of January 20, 2017, the presidency will be vacant. WE are all the bosses responsible for hiring President Obama’s replacement. We’ve looked at the resumes—about 21 of them all together—conducted the interviews, in the form of televised debates and campaign speeches. And now we have our short list: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Next step.

Let’s look at these two candidates’ credentials. Hillary Clinton has a degree in law and is thoroughly familiar with the U. S. Constitution. Donald Trump has a bachelor’s degree in business. He has demonstrated his utter lack of knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, government, and history and his utter lack of motivation to learn about them. Credentials: Hillary.

Except for presidents seeking a second term, no one comes to the presidency with first-hand experience, so we have to look at relevant experience. Hillary Clinton was active during her husband’s presidency, served as a United States Senator, and served as Secretary of State. She is one of the most experienced candidates ever to apply for this job. Donald Trump has built buildings, run companies, organized beauty pageants, and worked as a reality TV star. Some argue that his business acumen is a transferable skill set, but I think making deals—the skill on which he most prides himself—is not really applicable to being a leader and diplomat. Moreover, four bankruptcies do not speak well of his business smarts or ethics. And if you don’t believe me, ask Michael Bloomberg. Therefore, I’m also going to award experience to Hillary.

So far, we have a clear winner; but we still have to look at the questions of character, temperament, ethics, and history. And this is where things get muddy; here’s where our front runner loses ground. Many voters question her character, don’t care for her temperament or personality, don’t believe she’s ethical, and have a long list of concerns about her past. Fair enough.

Hillary Clinton’s negative reputation began even before her husband became president. She was not the traditional First Lady. She didn’t, as she said, want to stay home, bake cookies, and have teas. She was a smart professional woman, and she chose to do First Lady her way.  According to the National First Ladies’ Library http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=43, her image problems began during the primaries. Among other things, according to this site, Bill Clinton announced from the get go that his wife would be an equal partner in his presidency, that they would be a “two for one deal.” The biography goes on to say, “Hillary Clinton was the only First Lady to keep an office in the West Wing among those of the president’s senior staff. [Because of] her familiarity with the intricate political issues and decisions faced by the President, she openly discussed his work with him, yet stated that ultimately she was but one of several individuals he consulted before making a decision. . . . When issues that she was working on were under discussion at the morning senior staff meetings, the First Lady often attended. Aides kept her informed of all pending legislation and oftentimes sought her reaction to issues as a way of gauging the President’s potential response.” This is starkly different from the usual role of First Lady and earned Mrs. Clinton many early critics and enemies.

Then there was a long investigation on Whitewater, involving both of the Clintons. Later, she scored her own ethics investigations with Benghazi and her infamous emails. The FBI declined to bring charges against her for the emails, although not without some pretty harsh words: “extreme carelessness.” Even so, emails have often been an issue for other people in government, yet without anything close to the level of media attention. Benghazi was a tragedy, but seven investigations—led mostly by congressional Republicans—failed to turn up enough evidence to convict Mrs. Clinton of wrongdoing. All of this attention would make one think the Benghazi incident was the first time a U. S. ambassador had been killed. Politifact, however, has a detailed analysis of embassy attacks and deaths under other presidents and other secretaries of state: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/12/john-garamendi/prior-benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/.

So far, our candidate who nailed credentials and experience may appear to be faring not so well on the character issues. These are the facts, and no one can argue with them, and no one should attempt to whitewash them. But we still have to compare these facts with facts about her opponent’s character. Donald Trump has regularly been labeled liar, misogynist, xenophobe, and inciter of violence, among other things. He has ridiculed people with disabilities; he has ridiculed prisoners of war; he has made irresponsible public statements about his opponents, an opponent’s wife, an opponent’s father, all women, all Mexicans, all Muslims. It’s well documented that he refuses to pay many of the people who do work for him or at least pays them less than he originally agreed to pay. His steadfast refusal to release his tax returns makes it quite clear that there’s something or some things he doesn’t want us to know. He has barred members of the press from his events and has whined about his treatment by them. He has five children by three different mothers, whom he admits were raised mostly by the mothers. He has described his older daughter as “hot,” has repeatedly said he’d date her if she were not his daughter, and patted her ass on national TV. Eeewwwwwww! He has made irresponsible charges that his opponent (HRC) was responsible for Vince Foster’s death as well as some others and has led his supporters in the chant “Lock her up!” He has lawsuits pending against him for fraud and rape of a minor. He says wages are too high and would even allow states to lower the minimum wage. He is delusional enough to think he can build a wall on a 1989-mile border and make the other country pay for it. He appears to be in collusion with a foreign government not friendly to our democracy. I’m sure I’m forgetting a few things, but these are enough for me.

To summarize, Clinton takes credentials and experience. Clinton and Trump both have some negatives on character, but I think his negatives are worse than hers. Hers have at least been investigated; and even though the court of public opinion is keeping the cases open, they’ve been closed in courts of law. She has actual plans and proposals, and she explains how she will accomplish them; he has a few vague ideas (mostly the stupid wall) and in a whole year has given no indication how he intends to accomplish anything he’s mentioned. So I’m going to say his negatives are far worse than hers. Final score: Clinton 3, Trump 0.

I’m with her.

 

Categories
Musings

To My Granddaughter with Love

Tonight we witnessed history being made. We were in the front row. Personalities and political preferences aside, this is as exciting as it gets for all of us who love this nation! One of our major political parties nominated a woman to be President of the United States and leader of the free world. Never mind that it took us 227 years of electing presidents to finally reach this milestone. We did it! I couldn’t help thinking of my mother all evening as I watched the convention. I’m not sure I ever appreciated during my mom’s lifetime that beneath her ultra-conservative surface lived the spirit of a progressive which never fully revealed itself. There were glimmers, however, such as her love for President Bill Clinton and her enthusiastic desire to see Hillary also become president. Hillary will never know what a fan she had in my mom, and I only wish Mom could have been here tonight to see her wish become a possibility.

In only five generations of women in my own family, life has just made a 180-degree change. My grandmother was born in 1887; she was 33 years old before she was even allowed to vote. My mother was born in 1922, just two years after women won voting rights, so she was among the first generations of women to exercise that privilege. I was born in 19–, and I grew up taking for granted the right to vote, but it wasn’t until 1984 when Walter Mondale picked Geraldine Ferraro as his vice presidential running mate that the possibility of actually voting for a female vice president or someday president became a reality.

By the time my daughter was born in 1982, the right to vote was a given, and she grew up knowing that girls could think about running for president but that it would probably be a while before she’d actually see that happen. As it turns out, she waited 34 years to witness this event. My granddaughter was born in 2011, and July 26, 2016, is one of the dates which will define her generation. Tonight the first woman nominated to be president of the United States spoke to my granddaughter and every other little girl when she said, “I may become the first woman president, but one of you will be next.”

When I was growing up, people proclaimed proudly and often, “This is the country where any little boy can grow up to be president.” Those people were bragging about our democracy and the fact that our country doesn’t have a king or a dictator, that our rulers are not chosen from an elite family or class. Any boy from any family can dream of becoming president and can aspire to achieve his dream if he’s willing to do the work. In 2008, we witnessed another historic moment when we elected the first African-American to be our president, because of course, implicit in “any little boy can be president” was the caveat “any white boy.”

Tonight we’ve told our daughters and our granddaughters, “Any little girl can grow up to be president.” And since the color barrier has already been broken, that means any little girl—regardless of skin color or ethnicity. I’m proud to pass on this dream to my daughter and my granddaughter, and especially to be able to assure Kayla as she grows that she truly can be anything her heart can dream of. She’s only four now, so she won’t know that things were ever different. When she reads in her high school history books that the first woman was nominated to be president on July 26, 2016, she’ll be surprised when she realizes how recently she earned the right to dream that dream. Maybe she won’t want to be president, but she can be if she wants. Tonight we enlarged the world for all of our little girls.

Kayla, you were born into a world with lots of problems. I’m sorry you will go through school having to practice what to do if a crazy person starts shooting in your classroom. I’m sorry you can’t have the freedom to roam and play as I did when I was a child. I’m sorry my generation has depleted the world’s resources and damaged its ecosystems because of our greed and irresponsibility. I’m sorry we’re not leaving you the world we hoped to leave you. But as of July 26, 2016, I’m proud to leave you a world in which you are empowered to be one of the leaders and problem solvers. You have the power and the opportunity. Dream big, darling girl, because you can!

Categories
Musings

My God’s Better than Your God!

In the beautiful poetry of the King James version of Genesis, verse 27 of the first chapter says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” And ever since then, humans have been returning the favor by creating God or gods in their own images. I recently heard a quotation from Anne Lamott: “You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” As you know, the fifty-nine-cent word for creating our own gods is “anthropomorphism”; and it’s been going on for centuries.

The ancient Greeks and Romans created a whole heaven full of gods and goddesses. It certainly could not have taken long for even our most ancient ancestors to discover that they were not quite alone in the world—that there were forces and powers which, though unseen, had very visible effects on their lives. The Greeks—marvelous for their sense of order—seem to have been the first people to take an intellectual approach to these phenomena. Perhaps to earlier humans, it was sufficient that they had developed “sense enough to come in out of the rain.” The Greeks, however, needed to know what caused the rain, why there was sometimes lightning, sometimes thunder, sometimes destruction. They began, as H. D. F. Kitto says, to see “. . . that there is unity in things, that events have their causes and their results, that certain moral laws exist. This is the framework into which the particular action is seen to fit. The divine background . . . means ultimately that particular actions are at the same time unique and universal.”

Of course, many other questions also needed answers. Why, for instance, when two people planted a field, did one reap bountiful crops and the other only weeds? What caused various human emotions? How did wars come about, with all of their suffering and injustice? This tendency to search for the meaning behind events, to get to the root or essence of life, led—in a rather backward theology—to the creation of a whole set of deities and, in turn, to a whole new attitude toward life.

They—these gods and goddesses—formed a sort of super-society, existing above human society, with interaction between the two being necessary to explain certain mysterious events. Some of the most notable characteristics of the ancient Greeks are their desire for order, their respect for human dignity, and their passion for extracting the very best out of life. Out of the conflict between these desires and the frequent inability to fully achieve them grew a sense of tragedy, which became the hallmark of their literature. The need to make sense of forces over which they had no power but which did have power over them left them no choice but to find a way to make peace with the entire world—both the visible and the invisible parts of it. So, in their completely earth-bound frame of reference, humans created personifications of supernatural elements as the only means whereby they could attempt to understand and make peace with them.

The Greek deities—as products of the human imagination—could never be more rational, logical, or consistent than were the human minds which created them. And since human philosophy changes frequently, so did the gods’ personalities; the gods did, however, seem to represent the very best of human thought at any given time. And they provided the necessary extra pieces for putting together a complete picture of human values. Since the gods’ words and deeds were supposed to be above question or reproach, those ideas and motives which humans wished to make sacred or inviolable, they simply attributed to the gods. And when humans did question the judgment of the gods, they were really only questioning their own values, morals, and institutions—asking themselves if perhaps it was time to re-evaluate certain portions of their philosophy and to make changes in their institutions. The gods’ role in human destiny was always clearly an integral part of the process of establishment and reaffirmation of values.

Centuries later, much of this description still sounds familiar. In the twenty-first century, we have science, history, philosophy, psychology, and well-developed systems of theology to explain natural phenomena and human behavior. And we have Google! The major world religions are monotheistic rather than polytheistic, and people of the Christian faith affirm their belief in “the one true God.” However, there seems to be a great deal of variation in what that “one true God” looks like and acts like. Can it be that we’re still attributing what we consider the highest ideals and values to our God? Can it be that we still attempt to make certain values sacred or inviolable by putting them into the mouth of God? Can it be that we’re still creating God in our own image? I think so.

I used to have a stalker. Oh, it wasn’t the usual jilted lover, and I never feared for my life, although I did fear whether my sanity would withstand the constant onslaught of this person who claimed to speak on behalf of God. She spoke with great certainty and authority about what God thinks on all sorts of topics: what God loves and especially what God hates. Most people don’t have stalkers who have to be taken to court and kept at bay by means of a restraining order, but I think lots of people probably have that person who purports to speak on behalf of God and who judges their actions and beliefs as if they had a direct phone line to the Almighty.

In every public conversation, someone claims to speak on God’s behalf, asserting with the utmost authority what God thinks on the subject and what God hates and what God may do to us as a culture if we fail to heed this person’s dire warnings of God’s wrath. God hates homosexuality; therefore, God smiles on the baker who refuses to supply a cake for a same-sex wedding, and that baker finds affirmation in God’s approval. Some seem to suggest that God decreed men and women should have separate bathrooms and therefore is greatly disturbed by any mention of humans changing that sacred tradition. And from some arguments, one could easily infer that God is a card-carrying member of the NRA and personally wrote the second amendment; therefore, God wants to protect our right to own any kind of weapon in any quantity we choose. And I guess that also means God doesn’t give a damn about all the people who are dying in mass shootings, because we rarely hear anyone say what God thinks about those. And that may explain the mystery of Donald Trump’s teary-eyed expression of gratitude in his acceptance “speech” for the support of the evangelical voters. I’ve struggled to understand what seems like a contradiction: evangelical Christians enthusiastically supporting a candidate whose values are so diametrically opposed to theirs; but since Trump has the support of the NRA and Vladimir Putin, and since his bigotry matches much of the bigotry which some evangelicals attribute to their God, perhaps it’s starting to make a little sense.

The world is a confusing place, and uncertainty is difficult to embrace. As twenty-first century humans, we’re not all that different from the ancient Greeks. We’re still struggling to understand things which defy all of our attempts to make sense of them and to put them into a neat, orderly system. No one has ever physically met God, and the social issues which some people try to drag God into today are issues about which we have no conclusive information on which to make definitive statements of God’s opinions. But we have a deep-seated need for order and certainty, so we often create our own order. Whatever we individually believe are the highest values and ideals, those are the characteristics we attribute to our God. We also have a strong need to be right; so when we need to justify our positions on issues and shut down disagreement and argument, we put our words into the mouth of God. As a result, that “one true God” has become a pretty confusing conglomerate of contradictory characteristics.

I’d like to end this article with some really profound solution or philosophy, but I’ve got nothin’. I can only go back to where I started: “You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” (Anne Lamott) Think about it!

 

Categories
Musings

I’m Entitled to My Opinion

I for one am weary of hearing the stale line “I’m entitled to my opinion” as justification for every random, irrational string of words spoken without thought, without logical foundation, and without reasonable supporting evidence. So let’s talk about what constitutes an opinion and then to what extent we’re all entitled to have one.

First, opinions fall into several categories. At the lowest level, there are personal preferences. Coke tastes better than Pepsi (although I used to think Pepsi tasted better than Coke). Chocolate is the food of the gods. Dark chocolate is much better than milk chocolate. Wine is better than beer. Red wine is better than white wine. Tattoos are ugly. All of them. Pants worn around the hips or knees look stupid. (There’s a reason that narrow piece of fabric sewn onto the top of a pair of trousers is called a waistband, not a hipband or a kneeband. There was your first clue!) Blue is not a pleasing color on the walls. Cats are better pets than dogs. Oldies rock is better than modern rock. Nordstrom is the awesomest department store. Florida’s gulf-coast beaches are better than our east-coast ocean beaches. Large, jet-black eyebrows on gray-haired women look scary. Bikinis on older, wrinkly women look a little scary. These are my opinions, and I would say I’m entitled to these opinions because they’re matters of personal taste—or you may say lack thereof. Whatever. We all have such opinions, and I’d argue that we’re all entitled to them.

There are caveats, however, on these opinions. I am entitled to have them, but I’m not entitled to speak them whenever the mood strikes. I am not entitled to judge others according to my personal tastes and preferences. Although I find tattoos unattractive, I have no right to lobby for closing tattoo parlors or to search for trumped-up “evidence” that tattoos are bad or ungodly; I have no right to harass people who have tattoos by making mean comments; and I certainly have no right to discriminate against people who have tattoos. Other people are as entitled to find tattoos attractive and meaningful as I am to find them unattractive. I also have no right to make snide comments to people wearing low-riding trousers, to deny them service if I were a business owner, or to categorize everyone who wears such trousers in a judgmental way. And I have no right to see my tastes as superior to anyone else’s or to think of myself as more sophisticated or intelligent because ob-viously people who prefer dark chocolate are far more savvy than those unrefined people who like milk chocolate. OB-viously!

Another category of opinion is our personal religious and philosophical beliefs. This is a delicate area, needless to say. Many of our beliefs can’t really be justified by logical, tangible evidence; yet we accept them at the very core of our being. We live and die by them. They are true in our minds and souls at a level which transcends logic and scientific data. And I would argue that we are entitled to these beliefs so long as they do not involve inflicting harm on another living being.

Now here’s what I think we are not entitled to when it comes to personal beliefs. I don’t believe I am entitled to ridicule another person’s belief system, even though I disagree with it. There’s a huge difference between disagreeing and judging or ridiculing. The fact that I am a Christian and a Presbyterian means I obviously don’t see things the same way a Muslim, Catholic, atheist, or agnostic does.  That’s okay. They don’t see things the same way I do. That does not, however, give any of us the right to ridicule or discriminate against the others. And in the debate regarding the existence of God, both sides are guilty of judgment and intolerance. I would argue that although both sides are entitled to their opinions, neither side is entitled to judgment or intolerance against the other.

Here are two definitions of “opinion” from online dictionaries:

“A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge”;

“A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.”

The second definition is also the one offered by my American Heritage College Dictionary.

According to these definitions, opinions do not have to be based on fact, knowledge, or proof. However, argument—the art of persuasion and the core of public discourse—does require fact, knowledge, and proof. So yes, you can make statements which you simply pulled out of your dark space—and probably all of us have from time to time—but if you want to argue those statements, you’re going to need something to back them up. Effective, responsible public discourse requires argument.

Conspiracy theories are not responsible or honest, should not be stated as fact, and have no place in public discourse. Claims that our president was born in Kenya (promoted, as everyone recalls, by the person who is now presenting himself as the American messiah), when he has a birth certificate issued in Hawaii, are irresponsible, dishonest, and dumb. Claims that our president is of the Muslim faith, when he has repeatedly given clear statement of his Christian beliefs, are hateful, dishonest, and irresponsible in the extreme. No one is entitled to judge another person’s faith. It may be fair to say you don’t think a certain person lives by what you’ve been taught are Christian values, but you have no right to state as fact that another person is not a Christian.

Claims that the Holocaust never occurred or that the moon landing was staged are equally ridiculous and indefensible. These are examples of “opinions” to which no one is entitled and which also have no place in public discourse. No one is entitled to an opinion which contradicts historical or scientific fact. I’m baffled by those who deny and scoff at the fact that climate change is occurring when they have no evidence or basis for their denial and when there is strong scientific evidence that it is occurring.  Although there may be room for opinion on some of the specifics, denying clear scientific evidence is not an intelligent or responsible position. Where there may be some room for argument is the question of what causes climate change: to what extent is it being caused by human activity and to what extent is it simply part of ongoing natural processes? There may also be room for argument about what needs to be done to slow down or reverse the process. But there’s no room for denial of scientific evidence unless the deniers can present other scientific evidence to support their position.

Claims that one of our presidential candidates has been responsible for a string of murders and should be imprisoned are reprehensible, and anyone repeating such claims is dishonest and irresponsible—especially when that person is her political opponent or one of his rabid supporters. No one is entitled to opinions which are outright lies, and it’s our individual responsibility to verify the accuracy of information before we repeat it as fact or opinion. Everyone who’s spent any time on the Internet, and that’s pretty much everyone these days, knows it’s possible to “prove” just about anything. No matter what you believe, you’ll find someone who agrees with you and who has published “evidence” to support your claim. But as Abraham Lincoln said, “The problem with quotes on the Internet is that you can’t always be sure of their authenticity.”

Freedom of speech is one of our most cherished rights, and rational public discourse is one of our most sacred responsibilities as citizens. We are entitled to like dark chocolate more than milk chocolate and to believe as we choose regarding questions of faith, but we are not entitled to make sensational claims which contradict fact or to undermine our political process with irresponsible rhetoric. A lie is not an opinion. It’s just a lie.

 

 

Categories
Kids and Grands

Why You Should Unfriend Your Children on Social Media

Chevron Undercut Design:

When I was growing up, we communicated by personal visits, phone calls, and letters. Those were pretty much the only means available. And for friends and family who lived in other states, letters were preferred to phone calls, because phone companies charged extra—a lot extra—for long distance phone conversations. Therefore, those were usually saved for special occasions when a little splurge could be justified. These days, hardly anyone writes paper letters; very few friends dare knock on the door unannounced; and phone calls, though no longer costing premiums for distance, have been somewhat supplanted by the plethora of other choices available in our age of electronic communication: email, text messages, face time, Skype, social media, and probably a few others I’ve forgotten or haven’t yet noticed.

Back when there was one phone line for the entire household, there were unwritten rules about phone courtesy: except in emergency, don’t call before 9 a.m. or after 9 p.m.; be polite when someone’s parent answers the phone; wait your turn patiently to use the family phone line or the neighborhood party line. School teachers taught us how to write “proper” letters and gave us practice assignments. It seems to me technology has developed so rapidly that our manners have not kept stride, and we find ourselves in a free-for-all period when no one quite knows what is and is not socially acceptable communication etiquette. My own recent experience has prompted me to begin this conversation by proposing a few elementary rules, just as a starting point. Others are invited to add to my list, as everyone’s peace of mind is at stake here.

Since electronic communication is by its very nature impersonal, there is certain information no one wants to receive by text message or by reading the news on social media. Imagine your significant other texting you that your two-year relationship which you thought would last forever is over or reading on Facebook that your aunt just died or your pastor has run off with the church organist. Or imagine on your leisurely scroll through Facebook seeing photos which your daughter has posted, no doubt discovered on Pinterest, of things she’s considering doing to her hair. That hair which you initially grew inside your own body! But more on that later.

Certain information must be transmitted gently, with great care for the emotional impact it will have on the receiver. Certain things should be said in person, with perhaps flowers and a nice bottle of wine—not just blurted out in a text message or a tweet. If in-person communication is impractical or impossible, a gentle email could work, with a message line warning the receiver to grab the smelling salts and be prepared. An email allows for “wading” room. Text messaging, because of its brevity, requires jumping straight into the deep end, whereas emails can be unlimited length; therefore, the writer can begin at the shallow end and wade gradually toward the big shock. You know: first comes the cordial greeting, then the “I have something to tell you,” then “It’s very sad news,” and so on until you finally reveal the main point. It’s all about preparation.

Consider these three guidelines as a starter list, and think of what might be added.

  1. Don’t break up or deliver really shocking news by text message.

The text message is a great tool for sending quick questions, arranging meeting places, updating friends on your progress toward arriving at a meeting place. It’s a great way to send grandparents almost real-time photos of their out-of-state grandkids. It’s not really the most sensitive way to end a relationship. Seriously! Put yourself on the receiving end of this:

“sry to say, i dont want to go out with u n e more.” OR

“its over between us. Sry. Have a nice day. Bye.” OR

“thot u shd no im seeing someone else. pls send back my cd’s.”

Any news which requires any level of sensitivity in the delivery should not be sent via text, especially if the receiver is one of your parents. Pregnancy, coming out, being fired, thinking of leaving your spouse. Trust me, these are things parents REALLY do not want to read when they’re expecting a cooking question or another cute photo of the grands.

“hey mom! just took a pregnancy test and ur gonna be a grandma!”

“dad i shd have told u this years ago. im gay.”

Do you see the problems here? This news requires a level of sensitivity simply not available in the text message format. And a string of emojis doesn’t really count as sensitivity.

2. Regardless of the medium, don’t express important information in a subordinate clause.

For example, “When the pastor and the organist left town, . . .” This is a subordinate clause, and it’s going to take your reader a while to even notice what comes after the comma because they’re too busy absorbing this casual announcement of some pretty shocking info. The fact that it’s in a subordinate clause suggests this is already common knowledge, and the real news is coming next. But to those who hadn’t heard this part of it, THIS IS the real news. Imagine the questions this raises: “What the . . . ???” “WHEN???” And the all-important question, “WHY am I ALWAYS the last to know???” Imagine reading these subordinate clauses unaware:

“When I first found out I was pregnant,”

“Right after I got fired,”

“Just before the accident,”

“When I started dating my significant other’s BFF,”

This information should first be presented in a declarative main clause and should also be included in the list of things not to say via text message.

  1. Alert all people with personal interest in your news BEFORE posting it on social media!

For most of us, our time on Facebook, Twitter, or whatever is a welcome respite from the busy-ness of the day. We like to sit with a cup of coffee or glass of wine (in the evening) and scroll through the posts of the day. We smile at the funny memes. We enjoy the vacation photos and the kid and grandkid photos. Even the ubiquitous selfies have become so commonplace that we accept them as part of the social media experience. We pause to reflect and perhaps comment on the rare thought-provoking post. We smile and nod in agreement with those who share our political leanings. We cringe at the political statements of some other friends but choose to scroll quickly by so as to avoid spoiling these brief moments of pleasure and to get past the unflattering comments we just muttered to ourselves about “those” friends. We take our turns at Words with Friends or other game of choice. This mostly peaceful experience is NOT the time or the place we want to learn disturbing information for which we’ve not been previously prepared. This is also where those subordinate clauses can be especially problematic.

Then one day IT happens! You’re having your afternoon Facebook scroll, and you see some photos of hairstyles and then notice that your daughter is the one who has posted these special photos. All of them, which as I said before she no doubt discovered on Pinterest (screw you, PINterest!!!), show various patterns which can be shaved into one’s hair. And your daughter is asking her FRIENDS what they think of the idea because she’s thinking of getting one of these patterns shaved into a section of HER hair! And she’s asking her FRIENDS what they think! Her FRIENDS, NOT her MO-THER! And you’re wondering, which one of those friends carried you in her body for nine long, uncomfortable months while those hair follicles were being formed and when little hairs began to grow? Which one of those friends gave up caffeine—her ONE and ONLY drug—just to be sure your hair follicles and the rest of your body had a peaceful, non-jittery development period? Which one of those friends was unable to eat some of her other favorite foods without puking, grew to the size of a small elephant, walked like a drunk duck for a couple of months, wore clothes created by the local tent maker, had ankles the size of China, had to use five pillows to create a moderately comfortable sleep position, and carries the lifelong stretch marks and flaccid ab skin? Hmmmm? Oh, and who suffered hours of pain to bring you and those precious hair follicles into this world? And you want to know what your FRIENDS think?!

After your very subtle response to the Facebook post–“WHAT???????”–then comes the phone call. In her sweetest voice she says, “Hey, Mama. You saw my Facebook post. What do you think?” Oh, sure, NOW you ask what I think! After being sweetly reassured that this is going to be relatively subtle and will involve no bald spots or weird colors, your blood pressure resumes its normal level, and you remember a few of the weird styles you tried when you were young and adventuresome. Not that any of that matters now, because THAT was different!

Then after the deed is done, you get the phone call where you find out it was the book you sent her that bolstered her courage. That damned book! You recently read a book about boundaries and thought it was soooooo awesome that your daughter must also have a copy, so you went back to Amazon and ordered a copy shipped to her house. That’s Mother of the Year stuff right there! And what is your trophy for this exceptional act of outstanding motherhood? Of course, you should have seen it coming; after all, every parent knows from the time your child begins speaking in full sentences that anything you say can and WILL come back to bite you in the butt. However, walking into a hair salon thinking, “My mom’s going to hate this, and that’s not my problem” is NOT what your daughter was supposed to get from the book about boundaries! In fact, maybe you need to call Amazon because they must have sent her a different edition than the one you read. You’d have remembered if that was in your edition. (Screw you, too, AMazon!)

And that brings me to the title of this little piece: Unfriend your children on social media. Then they’ll be forced to call and break these little bits of news gently and sensitively. OR you won’t find out at all until the current whim has passed. And sometimes ignorance actually is bliss.

 

 

 

Categories
Religion

It’s All about the Heart

“For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes (Matthew 5). But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course, that’s Moses, not Jesus. I haven’t heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere.
“Blessed are the merciful” in a courtroom? “Blessed are the peacemakers” in the Pentagon? Give me a break!”

― Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without a Country

Many, if not most, of the Christian teachings I’ve heard during my lifetime have focused on what we should do and what we should not do and not much on what we should be. In fact, in my youth, all the emphasis seemed to be on the “don’ts.” I’ve given a lot of thought lately to Jesus’ example and what it teaches us about the things that really count. And where better to look for Jesus’ attitudes than the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7?

Eight simple statements, which have come to be known as the Beatitudes, tell us the character traits which are truly valued but which often seem to be absent in those who are “most vocal” about their Christian faith.

“Blessed are the poor in spirit.”

“Blessed are those who mourn.”

“Blessed are the meek.”

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.”

“Blessed are the merciful.”

“Blessed are the pure in heart.”

“Blessed are the peacemakers.”

“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake.”

These eight simple statements say far more about what we should be than about what we should do or not do.

What does it mean to be “poor in spirit”? I think it’s the opposite of pride and arrogance. It’s humility that values all lives as equal with one’s own. One who is “poor in spirit,” i.e., humble, is not racist, does not see oneself as superior to people who are different. It means truly believing down deep that “all lives matter” and not saying those words just to change the subject or avoid looking at one’s own racist, supremacist attitudes. And not just racism. Valuing any majority group—heterosexuals, cisgender people, mentally typical people, physically typical people—above their minority opposites is arrogance of spirit and not evidence of a Christian attitude. Yet who seems to yell the loudest about God’s will when any of these subjects come up for discussion? I don’t have to tell you the answer to that.

What is it about “those who mourn” that earns them special commendation? Perhaps this speaks of having compassionate hearts, grieving over injustice and tragedy and weeping for those who suffer instead of blaming and shaming them. Instead of posting vile, judgmental memes on social media, expressing sympathy and understanding. Instead of characterizing all poor and homeless people as lazy, worthless ne’er-do-wells, listening to their stories and giving “a cup of cold water” in the name of the one you claim to worship. Instead of adding to the stress and grief of parents whose children have been dangerously close to a gorilla or been killed by an alligator, showing a little human compassion for people doing the hardest job in the world and sometimes being overstressed and sometimes making bad judgments. We’ve all been there! And maybe it means defending the rape victim and mourning her distress instead of declaring that “she asked for it.” It means grieving equally for murdered police officers and for the victims of police brutality and racism. It means understanding the plight of the persecuted Palestinians and seeing both sides of a tragically long, unresolved conflict. We’re all human. Why can’t we feel each other’s pain and give other human beings the same love, understanding, and support that we want for ourselves when we’re hurting?

“The meek” I have seen defined as those who overcome evil with good. Recently, I read an article from The Charlotte Observer about a couple who entered a Pennsylvania restaurant and declined to be seated beside a table of four police officers. They didn’t bother being subtle about it, so the officers knew exactly why the couple was escorted to a table on the opposite side of the restaurant. But instead of anger and sarcasm, the officers decided to respond with kindness. They paid the couple’s bill of $28.50, plus a $10 tip (well above the standard 20%) and added this note: “Sir, your check was paid for by the police officers that you didn’t want to sit next to. Thank you for your support.”

The spokesperson for the group, Officer Thomas, made this statement: “Essentially the whole goal of it was to let him know that we’re not here to hurt you, we’re not here for that. We’re here for you. We work for the public. And we just want to better the relationship between the community and the police.” Individuals make a difference! As Martin Luther King said, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only love can do that.”

How does one “hunger and thirst for righteousness”? I think this refers to people who seek truth and never allow themselves to become complacent in the feeling that they know all there is to know. When you’re hungry, you don’t meditate on the last meal you ate and expect that to fill you up. You want real food right now. No matter how much you’ve studied and searched and thought you had things all figured out, no matter how different the world is today than it was when you were young, when new questions arise, you need new answers. The answers may be based on old principles, but they have to fit the current question. This is my new mantra for lots of social issues: “It is what it is.” I know that’s not original, and it’s not even very clever; but it means certain things exist, and they don’t need my approval. There’s what we think and there’s how we act. My job is not to judge the rightness or wrongness of other people’s way of life but to love my neighbor as myself. Are transgender people my neighbors? Yes. End of discussion. Footnote: These people still have to pee, so for God’s sake, don’t make it so difficult!

Also blessed are “the merciful.” Everyone wants mercy. No one wants judgment and condemnation. Abraham Lincoln is quoted as saying, “I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice.” Human nature seems to seek justice for other people’s wrongs but to desire mercy for our own wrongs. When we insist on strict justice, we often overlook opportunities to reclaim a life. We say “all lives matter,” but we don’t act like we believe that when we apply rigid rules untempered by mercy. According to Gordon B. Hinckley (author of Standing for Something: 10 Neglected Virtues That Will Heal Our Hearts and Homes), “The willingness to forgive is a sign of spiritual and emotional maturity. It is one of the great virtues to which we all should aspire. Imagine a world filled with individuals willing both to apologize and to accept an apology. Is there any problem that could not be solved among people who possessed the humility and largeness of spirit and soul to do either — or both — when needed?” Indeed, let’s try to imagine a world in which politicians, leaders, and common people would sincerely apologize for their wrongdoing instead of denying and trying to cover it up or rationalize it. And then imagine a world in which all who hear that sincere apology would forgive and seek reconciliation and cooperation. I’d like to live in that world.

Blessed are “the pure in heart.” We can’t all be Mother Teresas or Mahatma Gandhis, but we can at least try to emulate their attitudes toward our fellow human beings. We can stop glorifying prosperity theology and “what’s in it for me?” theology. We can stop hating and judging. We can care more about loving and forgiving than about being “right.” We can take time to look beyond our preconceived beliefs and open our minds to new information and how old information applies to a new world. We can stop thinking of ourselves as superior to everyone who sees the world differently than we do. We can listen more and talk less. We can stop being arrogant jerks.

Blessed are “the peacemakers.” In my article “Guns vs Guts: Eight Images,” I mentioned several of my peacemaking heroes: those who have chosen to fight injustice without resorting to violence. Ieshia L. Evans (the woman in this summer’s iconic photo from Baton Rouge, Louisiana), Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mahatma Gandhi all faced the forces of evil and injustice without firing a shot. Most of the gun advocates I know today identify themselves as Christians; they seem to think God himself wrote the second amendment, and they’re not even willing to have a reasonable conversation about it. The people from the Westboro Baptist organization (I refuse to call it a church) show up to spread their hate and vitriol at funerals where people’s hearts need healing, not further persecution. How much more could be accomplished by making peace instead of war?

And finally, “those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake” are recognized. Those willing to bear injustice without seeking revenge have a special spot on this list; there’s even a follow-up verse that further elaborates on what constitutes persecution: “when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.” I’m just guessing here, but I think this might include whining on social media about how you’re being picked on. Of course it hurts to be slandered and ridiculed, but really, if that’s the worst that ever happens to any of us, we have nothing to whine about. Christians are having their heads chopped off by ISIS, and we’re whining because someone who doesn’t share our beliefs has said something mean.

Also, evangelicals like to complain that no one listens to them, but I’d say everybody is listening to them. Politicians jump through hoops to win their votes. James Dobson even publicly claimed recently that Donald Trump had been “saved” just because he knows that’s appealing to a large bloc of voters. I’d say that’s a lot of power. You’re being heard, so now start saying something worth listening to.

You may have noticed by now that I’m just a little annoyed by much of what’s going on these days under the guise of Christianity. I’d love to see more being and less doing. “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27). More of this and less shouting about what God hates or how our country is on a roller coaster ride to hell. Please. For the love of God.

 

 

 

Categories
In the News

Good Cop Bad Cop

Trevor Noah recently made this statement on The Daily Show: “If you’re pro-black lives matter, you’re assumed to be anti-police; and if you’re pro-police, then you surely hate black people. It seems that it’s either pro-cop and anti-black or pro-black and anti-cop when in reality, you can be pro-cop AND pro-black, which is what we should all be.”

It’s been a grueling couple of weeks. Innocent blood has been shed, tears have flowed, protests have abounded. And writers have diligently tried to make sense of it all. Some have defended the police actions which killed Alton Sterling and Philando Castile; some have defended the victims and decried excessive use of force and racism among officers of the law. Some have focused on the families of young black men and the agony they must endure over the unjust loss of their loved ones, while others have spoken just as eloquently of the families of the murdered police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge and the police departments reeling from tragedy. Black Lives Matter, Blue Lives Matter, All Lives Matter. Friends on social media have declared that they stand with black people and against racism as others stand with the police and support the sacrifice they make as they place themselves in harm’s way every day.

Trevor Noah’s statement is not really all that profound if you think about it. It’s one of those things we all should have known already, but obviously many of us either don’t know it or don’t act like we know it. Why do we always set up these adversarial either-or divisions? Us vs them, blacks vs whites, blacks vs cops, gay vs straight, Christians vs Muslims. Why do we think we must be for one and against the other? Why do we assume that all members of a particular group fit the same description?

As my pastor, the Rev. Dr. Jeffrey DeYoe, said in a recent sermon, we have to stop seeing categories and start seeing individuals. He pointed out that the characters in his text, the parable of the Good Samaritan, acted as individuals. Most people are familiar with the story: a man is robbed, stripped, beaten, and left half dead on the side of the road. A priest sees him and passes by on the other side of the road. Then a levite (also responsible for religious duties in the Jewish culture)  comes by and does the same thing. Finally, a Samaritan man sees him, takes pity on him, performs first aid on his wounds, transports him to an inn, and promises to pay his expenses for the duration of his recovery. As you may know, the Samaritan man’s actions are especially significant because the Samaritans and the Jews hated each other; yet this man sees the victim not as a Jew but as a human being in need, a human being whose life matters. Pastor Jeff pointed out that not every priest would have been so uncaring nor would every levite, and not just any Samaritan would have stopped to help. These people’s actions represent only themselves as individuals, not the categories to which they belong.

I’ve met some really good, caring, dedicated police officers. On July 13, 1997, my daughter (then 15 years old) was involved in a head-on collision in which she and two other young people were severely injured and the 16-year-old boy driving the car in which she was riding died. The first responder to the accident scene was a young officer who went straight to the boy who was pinned in the driver’s seat, since some passing motorists had already removed the three girls from the two vehicles. The young officer spoke soothingly to the boy while trying desperately to extricate him from the burning car. He was unable to do so, and within a few minutes, the boy died. Two weeks later, when my daughter was home from the hospital, the officer made the rounds visiting the three kids who survived the accident. This man showed me the heart and soul which the people who go into harm’s way every day put into their jobs. After visiting with Lisa for a few minutes in our home, he talked to me on the front porch about the agony he’d gone through as he relived that boy’s death over and over; he had even taken a whole week off work to deal with his grief. As we talked, he wept like a baby right there on my front porch. I’ll always remember that incident because it reminds me of all the competent and heroic officers of the law who genuinely want to serve their fellow citizens and make the world better and safer.

I’ve also met a few not-so-competent police officers. About fifteen or so years ago, while I was at work teaching my classes, someone attempted to break into my house. When I came home around noon (it was a summer semester), I reached for the key pad to disarm my security system and noticed the alarm had been activated. I immediately called the security company to find out what had occurred and was told they had attempted to contact me and had dispatched the police when I didn’t pick up the call (I was in class). They asked if I’d like for the officer to come out again and go over what had happened, and I said I would definitely like to know the details. While I waited for the officer to return, I started looking around. Among other things, I found the screen from the window by the front door sitting on the ground, and I found a full set of hand prints–two whole hands!!–on my kitchen window. When the officer arrived, he casually explained what he had seen and assured me nothing was amiss. When I asked about the screen, he said, “Oh, those things fall out.” Huh? Really? When I asked about the hand prints on the window, he was taken back since he obviously hadn’t seen them. He dusted them, and that evidence led to identifying the would-be burglar. Meanwhile, he made up some ridiculous story to try to cover his incompetence. Some time later, I received a bill from the sheriff’s department for a false alarm. Needless to say, I set them straight and didn’t have to pay; but I would not label this officer one of Fort Myers’ finest.

One good cop, one bad cop. Or maybe the bad cop was really a good cop having a bad day. Even good people make bad judgments and have bad days. Saying the officers who killed Alton Sterling and Philando Castile may have made bad judgments does not mean all police officers are bad or that we can’t respect and support them. Everyone’s had a bad day at work. Good surgeons sometimes make serious mistakes in the operating room. Good teachers sometimes make bad calls, unfairly discipline, and give unjust grades. Good hairstylists sometimes give bad haircuts. Good chefs sometimes serve lousy food. The problem is bad haircuts grow out and one lousy meal won’t ruin my whole life, but a mistake in the operating room or in a police confrontation can have permanent consequences. If I decided to change a grade, I could fill out a form and it was done; if a police officer uses unnecessary force and kills someone, that’s final. It’s a heavy weight of responsibility, and I respect those willing to carry that weight; but I don’t think that means we have to overlook tragic misjudgments.

There has to be accountability, and there has to be compassion. We all have a stake in everything that happens in our country. Therefore, we must hold each other to high standards, but we must also have compassion for each other when we fail, as we all do. The hatred, the vitriol, the blaming, the categorizing–these all have to stop if we want to survive.

We can no longer ignore the inequities which are deeply rooted in our culture. Some people have not been served as others have; so although it’s accurate to say “all lives matter,” those who are still waiting for equal status are the ones whose needs must be addressed right now.

I used to teach a Nathaniel Hawthorne short story titled “Young Goodman Brown.” Young Mr. Brown dreams one night of wandering into the heart of the forest where he sees everyone he knows from his village engaged in unseemly activities, and the scene shakes the young man to his core:

“Among them, quivering to and fro between gloom and splendor, appeared faces that would be seen next day at the council board of the province, and others which, Sabbath after Sabbath, looked devoutly heavenward, and benignantly over the crowded pews, from the holiest pulpits in the land. Some affirm that the lady of the governor was there. At least there were high dames well known to her, and wives of honored husbands, and widows, a great multitude, and ancient maidens, all of excellent repute, and fair young girls, who trembled lest their mothers should espy them. . . . he recognized a score of the church members of Salem village famous for their especial sanctity. Good old Deacon Gookin had arrived, and waited at the skirts of that venerable saint, his revered pastor. But, irreverently consorting with these grave, reputable, and pious people, these elders of the church, these chaste dames and dewy virgins, there were men of dissolute lives and women of spotted fame, wretches given over to all mean and filthy vice, and suspected even of horrid crimes. It was strange to see that the good shrank not from the wicked, nor were the sinners abashed by the saints.”

In the village, there were social and moral distinctions; in the heart of the forest, they were all the same. We’re all the same at heart. Why do we try so hard to elevate ourselves above our fellow human beings? We need to stop judging other people on their worst day. We need to stop thinking of people as categories and start seeing who they are as individuals. We need to stop hating and start loving each other, because if one falls we all fall. United we stand.

 

Categories
Politics

Be the Change

handshake

Donald Trump has pulled off the unthinkable: a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. The Dump Trump, Never Trump, Vote Your Conscience initiatives are dead. The final nail for the coffin has been forged, and the hammer is poised to drop this week in Cleveland. All that remains is for the RNC delegates to make the deal official. This whole debacle is disturbing on so many levels, but one question I have to ask myself is what this means for the future of presidential primaries and caucuses. We’ve already spent a whole year listening to speeches and debates and casting our votes; and the Party of Lincoln has fallen into the hands of a vulgar, crass, racist reality TV star. How much longer can voters driven by anger, distrust, and a hearty appetite for entertainment be trusted to select our own leaders?

Our Constitution does not specify a process for electing our president, so the political parties have over time developed their own procedures and policies. In the early days, candidates were selected by their fellow politicians; in the ensuing years, the process has gone through reform after reform, leading to the mess we’re in today. Now voters have so much power that even when they elect a candidate whom the party leaders can’t conscientiously support, those leaders have no recourse because the delegates are bound by the will of the voters. And that sounds great when the process goes well; but when it produces a national nightmare, reasonable people begin contemplating the next reform of the system.

In the opening lines of Henry David Thoreau’s famous essay “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau says:

“I heartily accept the motto, ‘That government is best which governs least’; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe- ‘That government is best which governs not at all’; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.”

“Civil Disobedience,” is about the individual citizen’s relationship and obligation to government. The words “That government is best which governs least” are enclosed in quotation marks in the essay because obviously Thoreau is quoting someone else. The line is widely attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but that attribution is unconfirmed. At any rate, this essay—written in 1849—begins as a response to someone else’s idea.

Today we refer to the scope of government’s power over our lives as big government and small government. Jefferson, or whoever is being quoted here, comes down on the side of small government. The less it governs the better it is. And Thoreau begins by agreeing with the assertion but then takes it a step further: “That government is best which governs not at all.” So far, he’s said small government is better than big government, but no government is the best of all possibilities. He makes it clear in the rest of the essay he’s not an anarchist; he’s not talking about turning people loose to do whatever they want without responsibility or accountability. The key is the last clause: “When men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government they will have.” There’s the catch! If we don’t want a lot of laws and government control, it’s up to us to be “prepared for it.” We have the power, at least in theory, to lessen the grip of government on our lives and to protect the rights and privileges we have.

What does that mean? I think it means the more we govern ourselves the less we have to be governed by anyone else. I, for example, don’t need a law to tell me not to help myself to what I see in my neighbors’ homes or yards or the many shiny, attractive things I see in retail establishments. I do see lots of things I admire and would like to have; and okay, I confess, I might sometimes feel a twinge of envy when someone else has something I like but don’t have or can’t afford. But nothing would ever induce me to take anything away from another person or to pocket an item in a store. So for me, all of the laws regarding stealing could be removed from the law books and my behavior wouldn’t change at all. My conscience is enough to control my actions; in other words, I can govern myself on the issue of stealing, thank you very much.

According to Thoreau, if our consciences were properly tuned, none of us would need the government because we’d do the right things by our own conviction. It’s when we don’t govern ourselves or when we abuse privileges that those privileges must be restricted. When I was a teenager, I didn’t temporarily lose my driving privilege for doing errands for my mom or for being safe and responsible when I was out with friends; I lost my privilege to drive the car when I’d done something stupid. When my three children were teenagers, they didn’t get grounded for bringing home good report cards, contributing to the work of the household, being safe drivers, and returning home by curfew (all of which they did most of the time). They got grounded on the occasions when they made bad choices, not the times when they made good ones. I used to tell them that if they were tired of hearing me “discuss” what constitutes a good choice, there was an easy solution: just start making the right choices on your own and I will be more than happy to shut up, because I’m as tired of saying these things as you are of hearing them.

Often on social media, I’ve made the statement that it seems to me people who really want to protect what they view as their second-amendment right to gun ownership ought to be the very first in line to support common-sense safeguards on gun sales and ownership. As you can imagine, that position has not been politely received by my gun-loving friends; but I’m sticking to it! We lose the privileges we abuse, not the ones we use responsibly. Our country is in a mess right now. Violence and lawlessness reign. Mass murders are the norm. I don’t see this ending well for gun owners. If you want to protect your privilege, you have to willingly accept limitations. You have to govern yourself, just as when you were a teenager, the best way to persuade your parents to give you a later curfew was to abide by the one you already had. Coming home late every night doesn’t put you in a good bargaining position when requesting an extension. So even if you do think the second amendment to our Constitution guarantees you the right to own every type and amount of weapon and ammunition your little heart desires, and even if you think you have the right to tote that gun with you everywhere you go, it seems to me the smart choice would be to accept reasonable limitations in the interest of saving the overall privilege. Sacrifice a couple of battles so that you may be able to win the war. The only reason so many are currently seeking new laws is that far too many gun owners are abusing their privilege.

All of our freedoms are at stake if we can’t figure out how to govern ourselves. A country that descends into lawlessness and violence is begging for an authoritarian figure to take over and restore order: order that comes at the price of our personal freedom. I know I’m oversimplifying the matter, because our country’s problems are complex and deeply rooted, and we all feel powerless to untangle the web. Some things we can’t do, but what we can do is take control of our own attitudes. We can model responsible behavior for our fellow citizens. We can stop caring more about the success of our own political party than we care about the success of our country. We can stop hating and ridiculing everyone who doesn’t see the world the same way we do. We can stop framing every situation as “us” and “them.” We can stop believing we have to choose between black lives and blue lives and realize we can love and value all of our fellow citizens and want to protect all of their lives. We can stop being so damned rude and mean to each other. We can learn to solve our individual problems in ways that don’t involve violence. We can stop acting as if “our side” has all the answers and “their side” is automatically wrong. We can stop shrugging our shoulders and saying “God is in control.” God told US how to live, and we can’t do stupid things and then think God’s going to take control and fix the mess we’ve made. That’s not how it works. I don’t think very many people are listening to God when they make Donald Trump a presidential candidate and go around killing each other every week.

These problems won’t be fixed in a month or a year or even ten years; I’ve resigned myself to the probability that they won’t be fixed in my lifetime. But we’re not powerless. We each have a voice and a sphere of influence, and if we don’t start using them more effectively, the consequences could be dire. Mahatma Gandhi said, “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” I think it’s our only hope.