Category: Uncategorized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Barb Woolard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know — that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.

You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall — you need me on that wall.

We use words like “honor,” “code,” “loyalty.” We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.

I would rather that you just said “thank you” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post. Either way, I don’t give a DAMN what you think you’re entitled to!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Biden, in his inaugural address, said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look again at President Lincoln’s words:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s the second amendment to our Constitution in its entirety:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Here’s the NRA version, also adopted by the far right, alt-right, white supremacists and sundry other anti-American, anti-intellectual elements of our population:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Obviously, when you don’t understand what something means, the logical thing to do is just ignore it and move on to the easy part that you do get. Problem is, the easy part is based on the confusing part and can’t be accurately interpreted without figuring out the confusing part.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” seems like unfamiliar syntax to modern speakers and writers of the English language, but it’s really quite familiar.

Gramatically, “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” is called an absolute clause. Absolute clauses are adverbial in function, meaning they modify something else in the sentence. A clause is a group of words containing a subject and a verb; an absolute clause is a group of words containing a subject and a participle (form of a verb) but not an active verb.

Here are a few examples in more modern English:

“The dinner being prepared, I had time to take a nap.”

“My last paper having been graded, I was ready for a relaxing spring break.”

“That being said” . . .

“Having said all of that” . . .

In each of these examples, the meaning is perfectly clear to modern audiences: the second part of the sentence is true only in light of the first part having been established. In the first example, I’m free to take a nap only because my food prep is done. In the second, I’m ready to spend a relaxing spring break because my paper work is done. When someone says “That being said” or “Having said all of that,” it’s clearly understood that the statement which follows is to be interpreted in the context of what has preceded.

Therefore, these examples could be written this way:

“Because dinner was prepared, I had time to take a nap.”

“Because all of my papers are graded, my spring break will be relaxing.”

“Because of what I just said, the rest of my statement is true.”

Back to the second amendment,

“Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Why are we giving you this right? Because we want you to be able to serve in a militia. Oh, yes, a well-regulated militia! According to this text, the right to “keep and bear arms” cannot be interpreted except in the context of citizens being needed to secure our nation’s safety and welfare.

We no longer have state militia. We have a federal army, something our founders wanted to avoid. But now we have it, and it does not require recruits to supply their own weapons. So one could say, as I do, that this amendment has long been outdated and in need of revision to make it applicable to 20^th– and 21^st-century life.

Here’s what is NOT included in the second amendment:

The number of firearms each person is allowed to own. Many have said that, in the absence of a stated limit, people can own any number they choose. Anyone should be able to see that’s not working out well for the “security of [our] free state.”

Also not included is a limit on the amount of ammunition any one citizen can stockpile. Again, those who prefer to take the route requiring the smallest amount of critical thinking have decided it’s okay for private citizens to own any amount of ammunition they please. Well, that’s not working so well either.

The amendment further does not specify the types of weapons that may be privately owned. On December 15, 1791–the date the Bill of Rights was ratified–the types of weapons available might have been counted on one or two hands. In the last 227 years, however, much has changed in the field of weaponry; and if the types of available weapons have changed, so should the laws and Constitutional provisions which determine weapon ownership. The first amendment has had to be refined since its ratification. Mass communication didn’t exist in 1791, so the founders couldn’t have possibly written into the first amendment provisions regulating radio, TV, and the Internet; we’ve had to develop and refine those provisions ourselves. Why have we not done the same with the second amendment?

Chief Justice Warren Burger, in a 1991 PBS News Hour interview, made this statement:

“The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies–the militia–would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.”

Notice again the line, “The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument . . . ” The analysis of language is grammar, so Chief Justice Burger agrees with my premise on the grammar of this amendment.

Until 2008, the Supreme Court and our gun-ownership laws acknowledged that gun ownership is not untethered; it is clearly tied to citizens’ role in national defense. In 2008, however, a case called District of Columbia vs Heller resulted in a decision which includes the following:

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

“The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.” [BS–that’s my note.]

It’s time for our SCOTUS to get a grammar lesson!

But before I conclude, because I’ve heard it so many times before, I know the next question will be “Do you think all guns should be banned?” NO. I think citizens should be allowed to own certain types of guns if they can pass a thorough background check and prove themselves sane and responsible. No citizen needs a military assault weapon, so all of those should be banned, as should bump stocks and anything else that increases the killing ability of a weapon. I believe people should have the right or privilege of gun ownership within those parameters, but their right comes from something other than the second amendment. Let the rotten tomato throwing begin!

Our SCOTUS needs to revisit the Heller decision, and it’s past time for a rewrite on the second amendment which reflects life in 2018, not 1791. That’s the least we can do to save our children’s lives.