Categories
Uncategorized

The Immokalee Story

Located on the edge of the Florida Everglades, Collier County is home to a diverse demographic, including Naples business people, Immokalee farm workers, and Seminole Native Americans who were forced to move south during North Florida’s Seminole Wars of the early 1800s. Collier County sits at the southern end of Florida’s Gulf Coast and includes Naples, Immokalee, and Marco Island. The county was formed from Lee County in 1923 and named after New York City advertising mogul and real estate developer Baron Collier, who relocated to Southwest Florida and built the Tamiami Trail (a section of State Route 41) to connect Naples to Fort Myers and Tampa in exchange for having the newly-formed county bear his name. Between Collier County and Broward County on Florida’s East Coast lies about 110 miles of Everglades, including the Big Cypress National Preserve. Travelers are well advised to fill their gas tanks and be sure they have plenty to eat before departing the eastern limits of Collier County.

The county covers a total of 2,305 square miles, making it the largest in Florida for land area and fourth-largest for total area (including water). The 2000 census shows a population of 251,377; but because of rapid growth in all of Southwest Florida, the 2019 population is estimated at 372,880.

Between Naples and Immokalee is Ave Maria, a planned community founded in 2005, built around Ave Maria University and the large Ave Maria Catholic Church. Established by the Ave Maria Development Company, led by Domino’s Pizza founder Tom Monaghan, it calls itself “the fastest-growing community in Southwest Florida.”

Immokalee is an unincorporated area, about 40 miles northwest of the Everglades, 50 miles southwest of Lake Okeechobee, and 45 miles northeast of Naples. Its name comes from the Seminole tongue, the Miccosukee word for “my home.”  Immokalee’s year-round population is about 25,000, with a harvest-season count of about 40,000. The influx of migrants who arrive to assist in planting, picking, processing, and pricing the tomatoes, cucumbers, squash, eggplant, cantaloupe, and watermelon are predominantly from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and Haiti. When picking slows down in Immokalee, these workers  follow the harvest, leading them into northern Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and as far north as Michigan, New Jersey, and New York.

Although Immokalee, Florida, might seem an unlikely tourist destination, the area has much to offer in recreation and natural wonders. The Seminole Casino is known as one of Florida’s most elegant casinos (there are five in other areas), comparable, in the estimation of some, to Las Vegas establishments. With its more than 1300 slot machines, 38 live game tables, gourmet grill where local produce is turned into tantalizing feasts, and hotel featuring 19 suites and 81 deluxe rooms, Immokalee’s casino attracts tourists and hosts group events from all parts of Florida as well as other states.

Other area attractions include the Immokalee Regional Raceway, Immokalee Pioneer Museum at Roberts Ranch, Lake Trafford Marina airboat tours, Lake Trafford fishing excursions (listed as a top bass fishing destination), the Pepper Ranch Preserve, and the not-to-be-missed Immokalee Produce Center where local farmers market their crops. No one should leave the Produce Center without trying an ear of roasted corn with a choice of butter, mayonnaise, or spicy taco seasoning–or for the adventurous, all three.

Just 13 miles west of Immokalee, tourists will find the Audubon Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, designated a national natural landmark and home to the largest old growth Bald Cypress forest in North America. A 2.5-mile boardwalk is “a journey into the heart of the Everglades ecosystem” (Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary website). The sanctuary is also famous for its “super” ghost orchids, a tourist attraction in themselves.

Immokalee, “my home,” is a quiet, sleepy little town where a passer-through will see a steady stream of pedestrians, including mothers pushing baby strollers which carry both babies and the day’s collection of household supplies, since few of the lower-income residents own cars. The aromas of authentic Mexican food, as well as a few other ethnic cuisines, fill the air. Chickens roam freely along the streets and in the yards of local businesses, foraging for food.

Entering Immokalee from the east, along State Route 29, which becomes Main Street and then Immokalee Road, to the left is New Market Road, which leads to the Produce Center. Continuing west, the driver will see a few large churches, some banks, businesses, restaurants, the usual assortment of fast-food joints, University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Florida State University College of Medicine’s Immokalee Health Education Site, and some of Immokalee’s more comfortable homes. Closer to town, SR 29 crosses Lake Trafford Road and Roberts Ranch Road before passing through the quaint “downtown” area. Here on Immokalee’s west side are located the offices for Coalition of Immokalee Workers and Misión Peniel, a Presbyterian mission operated by the Peace River Presbytery of the PC(USA).

The contrast between the east end of town and the west end is stark. The comfortable homes of the east are replaced by ramshackle trailers which most people would think uninhabitable but which are in fact inhabited by farm workers and their families who pay a large percentage of their meager earnings to live in deplorable conditions. In one of the more shocking contrasts, Juanita’s Restaurant–which serves authentic tacos, fajitas, and other Mexican favorites at incredibly low prices–and Misión Peniel–which ministers to the poorest of the farm workers–are located only minutes away from the glitzy Seminole Casino and a short distance from the upscale Ave Maria community.  

Within the Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island Statistical Area, Immokalee’s economy is at the low end of the scale. According to the site datausa.io, the median household income is $29,308; the median property value, $99,700; and the poverty rate, 43.4%. The same site lists the most common occupations of the employed year-round Immokalee residents as agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting (35%); construction trades (11%); and administrative and support and waste management services (8%).  The highest-paying industries are real estate; public administration; and professional, scientific, and technical services.

Immokalee’s school system includes eight elementary and middle schools, Immokalee High School, Immokalee Technical Center, the PACE Program, Immokalee Teen Parenting Program, The Phoenix Program-Immokalee, and Immokalee Technological Academy. Schools also have special programs for migrant children.

At the lowest end of Immokalee’s socio-economic structure are the migrant farm workers, who labor long days in the fields under Florida’s blazing sun to earn a bare subsistence. For these people who harvest and process the crops we all enjoy eating, the work day begins early with a long wait for buses which pick up the workers and transport them to the fields. Although waiting for the buses, riding to the fields, and then waiting again for the dew to dry consume a significant amount of workers’ time, they are paid only for the buckets of crops they pick. For each bucket a worker picks, he or she receives a token, which can later be redeemed for an average of fifty to sixty cents per token, depending on the farm. Buckets weigh approximately 32 pounds when filled; so to earn the $500 necessary to pay the weekly rent for a family of four, a working couple would have to pick 1,000 buckets–or 32,000 pounds, or 16 tons of tomatoes–in one week, in the blazing Florida sun with no shade and no time for breaks. And that pays only the rent, leaving nothing for food, clothing, and other necessities.

Despite the fact that Immokalee supplies the nation’s food retailers and dinner tables with almost all of the winter tomatoes grown in the United States, along with the other fruits and vegetables mentioned above, many of the people who pick those crops go hungry and live in unimaginable conditions. A family of two adults and two children pays $500 per week (yes, if you’re doing the math, that’s $2000 per month) for half of a trailer; trailers often have leaking roofs, large holes in the floor, widespread mold, malfunctioning appliances, and unsafe steps and entryways. The family may be forced to share the trailer with strangers and to live in fear within their own homes.

Housing, land, and almost everything else in Immokalee are in the hands of four or five families, who care more about their profits than about the safety and well-being of their tenants. Rent-gouging is the norm, and those who dare to complain can expect eviction. The same families control local businesses and set price points in local stores, placing those prices out of reach for farm-worker families.

Abuses amounting to slavery dominated the fields of Immokalee for many years, earning Immokalee the title “ground zero for modern-day slavery.” In addition to wage theft, beatings, and human trafficking, 80% of farm-worker women reported experiencing sexual assault and harassment in the fields. Farms which employ migrant workers are owned by giant companies; they are not family farms. Companies employ crew leaders to organize the field labor. The crew leaders, who supervise work in the fields, were responsible for the rampant abuse of farm workers who had no contact with the farm owners and nowhere to turn for help in escaping their cruel treatment.

In 1993, six farm workers, two of whom were Greg Asbed and Lucas Benitez, met weekly in a borrowed room of a local church to form the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW); Gerardo Reyes later joined the leadership of the organization. The CIW today is active not only in Florida but also in Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey. The CIW website describes the conditions they were formed to confront:

In 21st century America, slavery remains woven into the fabric of our daily lives.  On any given day, the fruit and vegetables we eat or drink may have been picked by workers in involuntary servitude.  Men and women are held against their will by their employers through the use of violence – including beatings, shootings, and pistol-whippings – threats of violence, and coercion. 

The CIW’s Anti-Slavery Program has uncovered, investigated, and assisted in the prosecution of numerous multi-state, multi-worker farm slavery operations across the Southeastern U.S., helping liberate over 1,200 workers held against their will.  The U.S. Department of State credits the CIW with ‘pioneering’ the worker-centered and multi-sectoral approach to prosecutions, and hails the CIW’s work on some of the earliest cases as the ‘spark’ that ignited today’s national anti-slavery movement.

From 1993 to 2001, the CIW’s focus was on cleaning up existing abuses and human-rights violations, forcing farm owners and field bosses to abide by a higher set of standards. Workers were connected with farm owners, farm owners were held liable for their field bosses’ abuses, and workers were provided hotlines for reporting abuse. In 2001, the group progressed to the prevention phase of their initiative by forming the Campaign for Fair Food, which asked the nation’s largest food retailers to pay one extra penny for each pound of tomatoes they purchase and to agree to the standards set forth by the Fair Food Program. Since their formation, the CIW has succeeded in winning Fair Food Agreements with Walmart, Ahold USA, Taco Bell, Chipotle, McDonald’s, Subway, Compass Group, Yum Brands, Burger King, Aramark, Sodexo, Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, and The Fresh Market. They continue to work toward securing agreements with Wendy’s and Publix.

The CIW website credits their efforts  with achieving

more humane farm labor standards and fairer wages for farm workers in their tomato suppliers’ operations. Alongside farm workers and 90% of tomato growers, participating buyers are a key part of the Fair Food Program (FFP). Through the Program, these buyers support a wage increase through paying an additional penny per pound and require a human-rights-based Code of Conduct to be implemented on the farms that grow their tomatoes. Not only does the FFP make a substantial difference for workers’ wages, but it transforms the labor environment in Florida’s fields into a workplace rooted in mutual respect and basic dignity for farm workers.

The CIW stands today as a model of worker-driven social responsibility (WSR) and is leading a 21st-century human rights revolution. Recently the Vermont Dairy Milk with Dignity program was formed, inspired by the CIW’s model and guided by the CIW leadership team.

For more information on the CIW, watch the documentary film Food Chains.

Thanks to the CIW, the participating businesses in the FFP, and many other groups who have responded to the calls to help erase human-rights violations in Immokalee, the farm workers live better lives today than they did several decades ago. Yet the shortage of decent, affordable housing and the inability to buy sufficient nutritious food for their families leave the farm workers even now living in extreme poverty. Organizations such as Misión Peniel, the Guadeloupe Church, and the Amigo Center offer needed assistance by providing food and other supplies; but these organizations lack the resources to address the housing problem. Habitat for Humanity works in Immokalee as in many other communities across the world, but the farm workers fall below the income threshold to qualify for a Habitat home and their migrant lifestyle does not lend itself to home ownership.

Since destruction done by Hurricane Irma in 2017 exacerbated the already-dire housing conditions, the need for action has become even more critical. Inspired by the efforts of many organizations which rushed to offer post-hurricane relief to those most severely affected and by our bonds with the farm workers through affiliations with the CIW and Misión Peniel, a group of concerned people formed the Immokalee Fair Housing Alliance to build new safe, decent, hurricane-resistant housing.

Immokalee has a rich history and is vital to this nation’s food supply. It is called “my home” by a remarkably diverse population, demonstrated graphically by a group that descended upon Roberts Ranch in the summer of 2016. The ranch that day was the venue for a speech by a nationally known politician, but what made a far greater impact than the speaker’s words was the audience, which resembled a scene from a Nathaniel Hawthorne story. There, gathered in a semicircle around the makeshift stage, were Naples elites, Immokalee farm workers, Seminole Native Americans, local politicians, old people, young people, black people, brown people, red people, and white people. All were joined in one congenial group, applauding and chanting in unison.

The IFHA and Misión Peniel dream of an Immokalee where that Roberts Ranch scene will be the daily norm, where every citizen–regardless of race, social status, or income level–will live in dignity and harmony and will have decent, secure, affordable housing and enough food for themselves and their children. Every human being deserves a secure home.

We ask anyone who likes to eat, who appreciates the hard work done by the good people who harvest our food, and who believes that every human being has dignity and worth to please consider making contributions to the IFHA, Misión Peniel, and the Coalition of Immokalee Workers.

By Barb Woolard Griffith

Categories
Uncategorized

Let’s Talk about Abortion!

In 2019, eight states have passed new restrictive abortion laws, most notoriously Georgia and Alabama. Alabama’s law would, if allowed to go into effect, ban nearly all abortions, with no exceptions for rape, incest, or mother’s health. Women are legitimately outraged, and I’m wondering how in the 46 years  since January 22, 1973, we’ve not just come full circle but gone to a point way beyond the way things were before 1973. Never do I recall women facing possible criminal charges for miscarriages or doctors being sentenced to life prison terms for performing abortions. Never did I hear of a case in which a 12-year-old girl was forced to bear her rapist’s child. How did we get here, and why, given 46 years to figure this out and come to some agreement as a nation, are we even more deeply divided now than we were a half-century ago? Possibly the most deeply divided our nation has ever been on any issue?

The answers to those questions are more complex than can be covered here, but I’d like to propose that one of the main problems is our inability to have any real conversation, especially on topics as fraught with emotion and tension as the subject of abortion is. I strongly dislike the false equivalence arguments–the “both-sides-are-equally-guilty”–because that’s rarely the case; and “Well, everybody does it” never moves any debate closer to resolution. On this subject, however–the subject of having an intelligent, unemotional conversation in which everyone listens with respect to the other side’s point of view and gives a thoughtful response–it’s been my experience that virtually no one has done that, especially not on abortion.

I’m going to begin with a confession: I have wrestled mightily with this subject. I do understand desperation, poverty, life passion, and goals to pursue which might have to be put on hold while raising a child. I understand feeling overwhelmed by life, and I really understand resistance to being forced into doing something I didn’t choose. Yet the thought of tampering with a human life at any stage makes me nauseous. There, I said it, but don’t slap a label on my forehead just yet.

It also makes me nauseous to think of a 12-year-old girl being forced to endure pregnancy and the pain and fear of childbirth, along with the bodily changes resulting from that experience. Those of us who welcomed having babies and raising those babies into our favorite adults have accepted that having a slightly less sleek body, in which the internal parts may have been somewhat rearranged, is one of the prices required of us. We’d pay that price a thousand times over for what we’ve gained in return: the lifelong love of some amazing humans who call us “Mama” and “Mimi.” However, to impose that bodily harm on a 12-year-old whose own body is not finished developing and whose pregnancy resulted from violence, not love, should in itself be criminal.

Any law which makes no exceptions for rape, incest, and threat to the mother’s life is unconscionable. While I believe life is precious and sacred at any stage in its development, common sense must be applied to every situation; nothing in the world is black and white. Humans are always called upon to choose among shades of gray; having the intellectual ability to reason and make fine distinctions is what separates us from other species. It’s what makes us human.

As one who has wrestled with my feelings about abortion on demand (always allowing for the exceptions mentioned above), a couple of things have troubled me. One is the lack of real conversation, which I mentioned above. The other is framing abortion as a religious issue, which I believe has been one of the main contributors to the shutting down of reasonable conversation. In fact, in my mind, the worst thing that has happened to this long-running debate is making it a religious issue. Religions are based on faith, on certain accepted precepts which do not require defense and which in most cases can’t be logically defended. Abortion is not one of those precepts. Abortion does demand logical explanations from all who have opinions about it.

I find nothing in the Bible about abortion, and as far as I know, none of the other major religious texts address the subject either. The closest thing I’ve found is a few passages in the Old Testament which discuss harming or killing a pregnant woman and which treat the resulting harm to her unborn child as a separate issue. But those passages are part of Jewish law, not divine proclamation (if there is such a thing), so I don’t think they count.

One does not have to ascribe to any religious belief to live according to a moral code; in fact, many non-religious people are deeply moral. Abortion is a moral question and a community-values question, not a religious one. Framing it as a religious issue has only perpetuated the division and shut down any attempt at reasonable conversation. Those who favor no restrictions on abortion can simply dismiss those who might feel squeamish about it as religious fanatics who are trying to turn our country into a theocracy. And those who question the morality of certain types of abortion can ignore those “baby killers” as too horrid to sit at the table with.

My own church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), has an official position on abortion, as do many other churches. That doesn’t make it a religious issue; it makes it a social and community-values issue on which moral agencies take positions, because they are part of the social order. Morality, ethics, values, and religion overlap but are distinct disciplines which should be recognized as such. The Bible speaks about and sets forth rules regarding theft, lying, and murder, and it seems the Quran prescribes even more strident penalties for those actions; but I believe our civil laws would forbid these things with or without the religious mandates. These are actions which are governed by generally agreed-upon community values. Adultery is also forbidden in religious texts and is technically illegal in most states (try enforcing that!), but I believe those civil laws rose from individual morals and community values, not from religious prohibitions. Is it possible that the religious prohibitions grew out of those community values, rather than vice versa?

Any relationship, as all adults have learned, requires patience, understanding, and respect to survive and to resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise from trying to live in tandem with another human: spouse, child, parent, co-worker, or whoever. And every adult has learned, either by experience or by observation, that shouting matches, throwing objects, slamming doors, eye rolling, ridiculing the other person, and disrespecting everything the other person says do not resolve anything; such tactics only exacerbate problems.

Yet little if any of that knowledge has been brought to bear on our relationship with our fellow citizens and the need for us to form some consensus on abortion. Instead, on the one side, you have a group that quotes irrelevant scriptures, waves their Bibles, accuses desperate people of murder, and advocates punishments which have now found their way into law–with no exceptions for those situations which seem obviously should be excepted. On the other side, you have a group whose whole case is based on slogans and whataboutery and who view the other side as religious fanatics unworthy of their respect or their time. We don’t listen; we shout. We don’t reason; we chant slogans. We don’t confront; we deflect with “but what about these people?”

Is it too late for us to start that conversation? Is it too late for us to start listening to each other and directly responding to the other side’s questions instead of shouting, hurling insults, and disregarding genuine concerns? I hope not.

Let’s all sit down at the table, shall we? Although the terms pro-life and pro-choice may not be the most accurate, they are the most widely recognized, so let’s use them. Pro-life people, you’re on one side of the table; and pro-choice people, you’re on the other side. Take a moment to really look at each other, to acknowledge that the people who sit across from you (who in real life are your family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers) are people just like you who are trying their best to make sense out of a chaotic world, who genuinely want to live good, decent lives and who want their world to be governed by laws rooted in morality and respect for the welfare of all. See if you can find just a little understanding in your heart for the conclusions they have come to, conclusions which are very different from your own but no less sincere or well-intentioned.

Pro-life people, you are accused of hating women, of wanting to control women’s bodies and to strip them of their autonomy. That’s a legitimate point. Can you just for a moment acknowledge its legitimacy? How do you respond? You are also accused of caring more about embryonic and fetal humans than you care about humans being shot in schools, humans locked in cages, humans who desperately seek refuge and asylum in our country, and humans in the foster-care system. All legit. How do you defend your positions?

Pro-choice people, you are accused of killing babies, of failing to recognize the sanctity of life. Those are legitimate concerns. Can you just try to understand why others feel that way, why they have qualms about tampering with a developing life? How do you respond? Can you acknowledge the fact that we’re talking about a human life, not a gall bladder, and then frame a coherent argument which explains why certain circumstances warrant terminating a life– an actual argument which doesn’t rely on slogans, catch phrases, and whataboutery?

Here are a few things you might want to consider as you prepare your counterarguments.

First, contrary to what many believe, Roe v. Wade did not give unrestricted right to abortion, except during the first trimester. During the second trimester, abortions were to be limited only to pregnancies which posed a risk to the mother’s health. And abortions were not allowed during the third trimester, because at that point, a fetus is viable. So apparently the high court did give consideration to the questions of life and personhood and included those concepts in their ruling, yet the loudest supporters of that decision rarely mention these three different levels of legality. What do you think, pro-choicers? Have you gone too far? Have you gotten too casual, too cavalier about letting women do whatever they want with their bodies, with no regard at all for the other body in temporary residence?

Here is the Primary Holding which begins the text of the Roe v Wade decision:

“A person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Viability means the ability to live outside the womb, which usually happens between 24 and 28 weeks after conception.”

Those who claim to champion Roe v Wade might want to read this, because all I’ve been reading lately is a lot of angry (often justifiably) women who reject any talk of restrictions, who make blanket statements about women’s right to autonomy and reproductive freedom and ignore any recognition of the point at which a fetus reaches personhood and is entitled to its own protection under the law. They talk as if it’s a gall bladder being removed, not an embryo or fetus with its own DNA, connected to the mother only by the umbilical life-support system. I hesitate to make this comparison, but since I’m already out here in the deep end, what the hell? This is a little bit like the people who read the end of the second amendment and skip over the first part, the part that places restrictions on the second part.

As for pro-life people showing greater concern for the unborn than for other suffering people and for giving the rights and welfare of the unborn a higher ranking in their legislative agendas than they give foster children, school children, immigrant children, and others, hey pro-lifers, why aren’t you responding? These claims are true. You’re guilty. You carry your placards demanding protection for the unborn, but any mention of legislation to curtail gun violence is met with a collective “Meh.” Why are you not even attempting to demonstrate that we as a nation can in fact walk and chew gum at the same time: we can address a whole spectrum of social issues, of which abortion is only one? If we really believe that all lives matter, why can’t we intelligently address the abortion problem at the same time we strive toward justice for other groups?

And pro-choice people, although you’re right to point out the inconsistency and hypocrisy of those seeking greater protection for the unborn while shrugging off protections for children and adults who are already living, that can’t be your entire argument, because it’s not an argument. We need to hear you explain your justification for terminating a life. I’m not saying you don’t have good reasons; I’m just saying I’d like to hear them more clearly stated and knock it off already with the whatabouts.

It seems the greatest source of controversy is abortion after the first trimester, for understandable reasons. My second grandchild was delivered by emergency C-section at between 35 and 36 weeks, a full month early. His lungs still needed a little time to develop, but he was healthy and whole; and I can tell you that at age 11, there’s nothing wrong with that boy’s lungs or any other part of him. He’s a smart, healthy, thriving, loving fifth grader. Everyone knows someone who was born prematurely who lived a long, healthy life, so why should it surprise anyone when some people are resistant to the idea of “late-term” abortion? Really! Pro-choice people, you don’t get that? That makes no sense to you?

When announcements are made, as has recently happened regarding New York and Virginia, that a state has legalized late-term abortions or lessened restrictions on those procedures, many are aghast. Come on, pro-choicers, you didn’t kind of see that response coming? Most such initial pronouncements include few details, so hearers are left to their own imaginations. Is it really surprising that some may fear this means a woman can change her mind a week before the due date? You didn’t say. You didn’t qualify the announcement with the details that such abortions are limited to pregnancies which would end in the severe deformity of the child or in the death of the mother, the child, or both. I have read accounts by mothers who made the painful, agonizing choice to terminate their pregnancies when they were told that the baby was in distress and would either not survive, would die soon after birth, or would be so severely deformed as to preclude any quality of life. My heart goes out to those women, and I support their decisions; yet I’ll admit I’d like to get more of this kind of information up front when people talk about late-term abortion.

Arguments which pit restrictions on women’s rights against the lack of restrictions on men’s rights, and which claim that only women are the subjects of laws which restrict what they are allowed to do with their bodies, ignore certain facts. There are many laws which restrict what all of us are allowed to do with our own bodies. There’s a whole list of controlled substances which neither I nor my male friends can legally take into our bodies–or even into our suitcases. In 49 states, prostitution is illegal, and I’m assuming those laws apply equally to men and women, restricting their right to make a living using their own bodies. In 21 states, adultery is illegal. Never mind the obvious futility of enforcing such codes, those states are telling men and women what they can’t do with their bodies. Necrophilia (sex with a dead person) is legal in eight states, making it illegal in 42 states. Putting aside the question of how widespread a problem must be to actually have to make laws about it, 42 states do tell both men and women that necrophilia is something they are not allowed to do with their own bodies. A handful of states do not make sex with animals illegal, but most states do, adding that to the list of things people can’t do with their own bodies. The expression “victimless crime” applies to all laws which attempt to restrict what individuals can or cannot do when the action affects only themselves or another person who participates consensually.

We don’t live in the Dark Ages. We have technology which has removed all mystery surrounding what goes on in the uterus. A pregnant woman can visit hundreds of websites which show her exactly what her little peanut looks like and is doing on any given day during the forty weeks of gestation. With knowledge comes responsibility. Biological life begins at conception. We can see that. I had an ultrasound in the eighth week of pregnancy with my daughter. If I hadn’t known what I was looking at on the screen, I’d have thought it was a tiny, fuzzy video of a newborn baby. This knowledge raises understandable concerns, and somebody needs to calmly sort it all out and bring to the table some reasonable arguments by which we can set guidelines. Shouting, slamming doors, name calling, eye rolling, and ridicule aren’t working.

So the next time someone makes a statement about abortion which conflicts with your opinions, before you roll your eyes, make disgusted sounds, and begin hurling insults at the speaker, try saying this instead: “Can you tell me more about why you feel that way?” Then after listening carefully and objectively to the response, try saying this: “Yes, I hear you and I understand why that would upset you. Do you mind if I give you a different perspective?”

We need to talk. Oh, I know there are some who will never have a reasonable conversation. Some are so stuck on this being a religious thing or a Republican thing that they’re incapable of logical thought. Some are so stuck in their perception of a War on Women that they’ll never listen to anything else. But I have to believe there are still enough people out there who, like me, truly seek to understand, to hear other points of view, and to find consensus that they will have a conversation if only someone will initiate it. Hey, Americans on all sides of the abortion debate, what we’ve been doing isn’t working. Let’s try something different.

Categories
Politics

Beyond #MeToo

A female member of my family, troubled that her boss had made an unwelcome pass at her, once confided the experience to one of our aunts. The aunt’s response was “Honey, in my day, we considered that a compliment!” Those days are over, and good riddance to them! Today’s women are smart enough to know that the attention of a powerful man is not always a sign he finds us attractive; and being seen as attractive by someone who’s under the influence of a few drinks or is drunk on his own power and authority was never really much of a compliment. We’ve also learned in the years between my aunt and my mother’s generation, my generation, and my daughter’s generation that sexual aggression has little to do with sex and a lot to do with power and control, with men’s desperation to retain their supremacy in a world where that supremacy is being challenged and undermined by women determined to change the old rules.

The #metoo movement has given women a voice to speak frankly about men’s misbehavior and a safe space in which their voices can be heard, believed, and respected. With every freedom and privilege, however, comes the caveat that the freedom must be exercised responsibly, and this safe space provided by the #metoo umbrella must not be violated by women who speak irresponsibly or who fail to understand the impact of their words.

I am keenly aware that I’m wading into a snake-infested swamp by addressing this topic, but these are things I think need to be said. I can already feel the hot breath and see the fangs of those poised to attack, but please at least hear me out. I’d like to begin by attempting to set aside what I anticipate to be some strong objections.

Anything less than full-throated endorsement of every claim made by a woman is most frequently seen as “blaming the victim,” so let’s start with that. Blaming the victim means accusing a woman who has suffered the trauma of sexual assault of “asking for it” by the way she was dressed or by something she said or did, and that’s deplorable. No woman deserves to be assaulted, and no one “asks for it.” If a woman is standing in the middle of the street naked, men should turn away and be responsible for their own actions rather than assuming the woman is inviting their advances. A man who does take advantage of the situation and commits an assault is 100% at fault and responsible for his crime.

That said, blaming the victim does not include excusing women for making irresponsible accusations or suggesting they could have resisted certain misconduct. This seems a good place to distinguish between use of force and other types of unwanted contact. Use of force is criminal and should be treated as such. The perpetrator bears full responsibility for his action, and the victim bears no responsibility; she is a victim who deserves justice, not blame. Many women are not equipped to resist forcible assault, but most of us can resist an unwanted kiss or touch; and if we fail to do so, we have to acknowledge our cooperation with the misconduct. If we say we want more power, we have to accept that power and use it. Not every inappropriate advance is an assault; sometimes it’s just an inappropriate advance, and we have always had the power to resist those advances.

Another issue I think needs clarifying is that one group of people does not gain power by destroying the group that has traditionally held the advantage. Women want respect, we want a level playing field. Our goal, in my mind, should be to make men understand, not to make them suffer, however tempting that latter goal may be. The world needs all of the good, intelligent leaders it can get; some will be female and some will continue to be male. That’s good; and it will require mutual respect, understanding, and cooperation. Anger, vengeance, and divisiveness will be counterproductive to our goals.

There’s one more attitude I’ve always found disturbing, and I’d be a wealthy woman if I were given a dollar for every time in my 40+ years of grading student essays that I read students’ descriptions of the bad old days. Young women like to talk about how things were “back in the day,” when women lived in chains and darkness, before their generation arrived on the scene to set women free and make everything okay. My first response to that is that I do not recall my grandmothers being miserable, oppressed women. Both of them were strong women who were not shy about speaking their minds and who could teach any younger woman alive today a thing or three. Yes, they lived under a different set of societal rules, but dissatisfaction with those norms was far from universal. Nonetheless, social change was already afoot, and my grandmothers acquired the right to vote when one was in her 30s, the other in her 40s. Women were beginning to seek higher levels of education, and World War II provided the impetus for many women to take their places in the work force. That generation’s activism is evidence of their strength and vision, not of their powerlessness. Women continue to struggle today and in some ways I believe are less well off than my grandmothers were. The work continues, but I think we would be better served by a more accurate picture of history.

That brings us to our current situation. The most recent man to find himself in the crosshairs of female accusation and scrutiny is Joe Biden. Upon announcing his possible candidacy for POTUS, he was greeted by the accusations of several women who claim Joe’s touchy-feely style has, on at least one occasion, made them feel uncomfortable. Well, this new protocol for greeting an announcement of political intention by hanging out all of the person’s dirty laundry is making me uncomfortable, and I think some group reflection is in order. There are some questions we’d do well to ask ourselves before making or acting on an accusation.

Here’s the account which I think bothers me most.

As reported in The Intelligencer,

When Amy Lappos was a congressional aide for U.S. representative Jim Himes in 2009, she claims that Biden touched and rubbed his nose against hers during a political fundraiser. “It wasn’t sexual, but he did grab me by the head,” she told Hartford Courant on April 1. “He put his hand around my neck and pulled me in to rub noses with me. When he was pulling me in, I thought he was going to kiss me on the mouth.”

Here’s what I find disturbing. Although this encounter was brief, it wasn’t just a quick grab or touch. There was a short process: he grabbed her by the head, put his hand around her neck, pulled her in, rubbed noses. At what point did she begin feeling uncomfortable, and why at that point did she not simply pull away? And if she thought he was about to kiss her on the mouth, why did she not move to be sure that didn’t happen? What I’m reading here is a woman allowing herself to be powerless against an unwanted touch when the perpetrator was not using force. She said she didn’t file a complaint because he was vice president and she was “a nobody,” and perhaps that also explains her reason for feeling she couldn’t resist. But it doesn’t explain her reason for believing that one incident from 2009 should influence our decision on whether Joe Biden should be elected president in 2020.

Joe Biden’s actions were wrong, and he bears full responsibility for what he did, but she bears responsibility for what she did not do but had the power to do. Like every woman I know, I have been the subject of unwanted advances, including attempts at kissing me on the lips. I have resisted those advances and in most cases been able to remain friends with the man without further incident. I can’t think of any incident in my life which, if the man announced his intention to run for political office, would compel me to speak up and share my account of his behavior with the world. If any of them had, however, involved the use of force or been indicative of a shady character, you bet I’d let the world know.

I’m not defending Joe Biden, and I think there are plenty of reasons he should not be president; I just don’t think these accusations should be the things that disqualify him. So how do we weigh accusations of misconduct? How do we decide when they’re deal breakers and when they’re not the most important information about the accused? Most obviously, we all have to be willing to set aside party affiliation and judge each case on the relevant information. No one of any party should be given a pass for sexual misconduct, and no one of any party should have his reputation or his career derailed by irresponsible accusations and sensationalist media treatment of those reports.

I think the most important question and one which is not always easily answered is whether the behavior is a personality problem or a character problem. Personality problems are still problems and should be addressed, but if the accused is willing to admit he has a flaw and do the work of changing, I don’t think that issue alone should be disqualifying.

The seven or so reports against Joe Biden so far seem to indicate that these actions are the result of a warm, affectionate, caring personality, paired with a certain amount of tone-deafness toward the changes which have been in effect long enough that he should have caught on by now. He’s not blameless, but are these actions alone enough to end his career? When Bill Clinton was forced to admit his marijuana use during college, he felt compelled to mitigate the impact by famously claiming he “did not inhale.” When Kamala Harris freely admitted some marijuana use, she added with a laugh, “And I did inhale.” Times have changed, and it’s not always easy to keep up, but those who seek positions of leadership have to keep working at it.

Here is Biden’s response to the allegations:

“I shake hands, I hug people, I grab men and women by the shoulders and say, ‘You can do this.’ Whether they are women, men, young, old, it’s the way I’ve always been. It’s the way I show I care about them, that I listen. Social norms have begun to change, they’ve shifted. And the boundaries of protecting personal space have been reset. And I get it. I get it. I hear what they’re saying, I understand it. And I’ll be much more mindful. That’s my responsibility and I’ll meet it.”

Right answer, Joe! Now shut-up and stop making dumb jokes about hugging people on public platforms.

I can’t see a character flaw in a guy who was a little slow catching on to the shifting norms regarding personal space and who promises he’ll do better. How clean does someone have to be to be eligible for public service? Are we eliminating good people by nitpicking every moment of their lives?

I do see an enormous character flaw in a guy who has bragged about grabbing women by the pussy because he can, because he’s a celebrity and they’ll allow him to do whatever he wants. I see huge character flaws in a guy who rapes an unconscious woman behind a dumpster and then leaves her to possibly die there and in priests and ministers who prey on vulnerable children and adults who look to them for spiritual support and guidance. And those character failings are exacerbated by failure to accept responsibility, to repent, and to discard attitudes of white male privilege. Everyone deserves a second chance to be a better human being and a better citizen; but I believe one such strike, revealing a corrupt character, should be an automatic out for serving as POTUS or other high official. And I would say the same thing if Joe Biden were a Republican and Donald Trump a Democrat. Corrupt character is corrupt character, regardless of the labels it wears.

I don’t enjoy being called terms of endearment by strangers, male or female. If I’m not your “hon” or your “honey” or your “sweetheart,” I’d prefer you not call me that. Although I’m human enough to be flattered by an appreciative or admiring look from a man, when that look turns to something more like a leer or threat, I’m outta here. I appreciate men who know how to read signals and who respect the need for consent before even the most innocent of physical contact. I’m also aware of my own tendency to touch and my sometimes negligence to read the signals correctly. As Joe Biden says, norms have changed, and they continue to evolve; so it’s everyone’s responsibility to keep up. But do we really need to pillory every person who has a lapse in judgment?

The #metoo movement is a great start, but we still have work to do if we want true equality and justice. We need to set realistic standards for our leaders, recognize our common humanity, and work toward understanding and cooperation among people of all genders and sexual orientations. Just how clean does a person have to be to qualify for leadership? Are we bypassing good people because of personality quirks? Are we electing people of corrupt character because they happen to belong to our party or promise to advance our own agendas? Are we allowing conduct in candidates and officials within our own political party that we condemn in those from an opposing party? What is the motive behind lodging a public accusation? Is it to humiliate, to avenge, to assert our own power? Or is the matter so serious that we truly believe it disqualifies the perpetrator from ever serving in public office? Are we, with encouragement from sensationalist media reports, focusing so much on accusations of improper personal conduct that we don’t bother looking at a candidate’s policies and stances on important issues?

Perhaps the most important question is, can we handle our own problems and uncomfortable moments without feeling the need to bring everything to the public square? That’s a difficult question in the age of the Internet and social media, where we can’t even eat dinner without feeling compelled to post a photo for our friends to see. But we have to try. #Metoo is an important step, but there’s much work left to be done.

Categories
Politics

America the Beautiful?

On Thursday morning, I awoke to the anniversary of the day I was born. It was not one of the much-discussed “zero birthdays,” but one nonetheless that gives one pause to reflect on one’s mortality and where approximately one is in the overall game. As I thought about that sobering number (I still can’t say it), I realized I’m in the fourth quarter. I’m heartened by the fact that some of the most outstanding touchdowns have been made in the final quarter, often with minutes or seconds left on the clock; so sitting out this quarter on the bench (or rocking chair) is not an option, and I’m excited about what treasures remain to be discovered.

On Saturday morning, I stood at attention in the bleachers–where I was about to watch my two grandsons’ baseball team win a decisive 13-5 victory–listening to a recorded voice belt out the words to our national anthem. The national anthem has always brought a lump to my throat. With all of our country’s problems and moral failings, I’ve been grateful for the privilege of being born here and enjoying the benefits of citizenship in a country which so many have risked their lives trying to reach and be granted the citizenship which I and my fellow Americans may often have taken for granted.

On that particular Saturday morning, however, the lump in my throat and the tears that stung my eyes were inspired not by my pride in the USA–though I am still proud of my country–but by the awful reality of things that are happening which I could never have dreamed possible in my earlier life. I have lived under 13 presidents, not including the impostor who currently lives in the White House. I have lived through four wars, the Cold War, the Jim Crow era, the battles for social change in the 1960s, the assassination of a president and the murders of a presidential candidate and a beloved civil rights leader, the riots of 1968, the Watergate scandal, the impeachment of a president and near-impeachment of another, more recently the mass murders of hundreds of innocent people by crazed gunmen, and plenty more. I’ve witnessed the signs marking whites-only territories, separating them from the spaces relegated to people of color, and I’ve seen those signs enforced. I know that I live in a country stolen from its native inhabitants.

I’m under no illusions, nor have I ever been under any illusion, that the country of which I’m proud to be a citizen is a model of moral rectitude. What has given me hope, however, is the values to which such a plurality of my fellow citizens ascribed that they became known as our defining American values. However dark the day, I believed that there were more good people than bad, that my government would eventually correct its course and move in the direction of greater justice and equality for all, that a champion or hero would always appear on the scene who could grab the confidence of enough people to start a movement which would make things better. Our president has for years been granted the title “leader of the free world,” because so many other countries look to the USA for leadership and support.

The first presidential election I can remember is the contest between Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson. I recall chanting on the school playground, “We like Ike! He’s our man! We threw Stevenson in the garbage can!” From that time on, I’ve liked some presidents and disliked others, agreed with some and disagreed with others, wished some could have remained in office longer, and counted the days until others would finally leave. I watched through tears, holding my 8-month-old firstborn baby on my lap, as Richard Nixon made his resignation speech. No president had ever resigned during his elected term, and I wondered what kind of country we were leaving our children when such a thing could happen.

With such deep scars on our history, what is it that makes today different from any other time? Why do I suddenly feel I won’t live long enough to see my country restored to its previous level of respect and leadership in the world? What is so much worse now than the way things have always been?

Those questions can be only partially answered at this time; historians will wrestle for years to come to put the events of this so-far young century into perspective and to trace the long-term effects of today’s morass of corruption and scandal. For starters, though, the presidents I can remember–the best of them and the worst of them–have been men of knowledge and principle. They have been bred to conduct themselves with a level of decorum that befits the leader of a great country and of the free world. With notable exceptions, they have acted in what they at least believed was the best interest of our country. More importantly, when leaders have failed, citizens have taken it upon themselves to speak out and take action against injustice and corruption–sometimes in mass demonstrations. Things have always seemed to get better; the good guys usually win. Until now.

The tears that welled up in my eyes during last Saturday’s playing of the national anthem were caused by the bitter reality that none of those things are currently true. We have an impostor living in the people’s house who is okay with ripping apart families, putting babies in cages, and then sexually assaulting those babies. He’s okay with the fact that the thousands of children are living in these obscene conditions may never be reunited with their families because no one thought it important to keep track of which child goes with which family and where all of the families are. He refuses to speak out against white supremacists who commit acts of horror, calling them instead “very fine people.” He threatens and encourages violence against his political opponents, most recently speaking these chilling words to a Breitbart News interviewer: “I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of Bikers for Trump — I have tough people, but they don’t play it tough until they go to a certain point and then it would be very, very bad.” Bikers for Trump? Really?

Never before have we had a thug or a mob boss in the White House who is profiting off the presidency. Never before have we had a president who lies every day and whose lies are obvious and easily disprovable. Never before have we had a president who daily attacks private citizens, members of his government, and other national leaders. Never before have we had a president who prefers receiving his information from Fox News instead of classified intelligence briefings. Never before have we had a president too illiterate and intellectually incurious to read daily briefings. Never before have we had a president under FBI investigation since the first day of his presidency. Never before have we had a president who it is credibly reported got elected with help from a foreign adversary.

President Obama is known as the first social media president, since those platforms were just coming into common use during his terms in office; but not until Donald Trump have we had a president who uses Twitter as a weapon to attack his opponents, send dog whistles to his “base,” and incite insurrection. Not until Donald Trump have we had a president with the temperament and vocabulary of a toddler, who expresses his disdain for opponents by calling them childish names. And not until Donald Trump have we had a president who surrounds himself with the most vulgar and criminal element of society. Never before Donald Trump have we had a president cited by a mass murderer as his hero and inspiration.

Yet as sobering and appalling as all of this is, these are not our country’s worst problems. Even worse than having a thoroughly corrupt “president” is the fact that this morally degraded con man has an enthusiastic following that just can’t wait to vote for him again! Trump’s approval ratings have pretty consistently remained somewhere in the 40-something-percent range. While those of us who stay awake at night wondering when and how this long national nightmare may end take comfort in the fact that he has less than a majority, it’s not much less. And given the number of people who don’t give a crap and the number who support third-party candidates and the nonsense of the electoral college, 40-something is enough to win an election. It already did. Those of us who might like to console ourselves with the thought that even if Mueller doesn’t come through, Congress doesn’t impeach, and the Southern District of New York’s actions don’t come to fruition before 2020, our fellow citizens are intelligent enough and morally upright enough to soundly vote him out of office are fooling ourselves.

We’re also fooling ourselves when we lamely recite such mantras as “This is not who we are” and “We’re better than this.” The ugly truth is that when forty percent or more of a country’s citizens look at a corrupt government and applaud it and enthusiastically await their opportunity to extend that government another four years, this IS who we are. We’re not better than this; we really are this bad.

Every day I ask myself the question, “How on earth can that many people see the same things I’m seeing and think they’re okay or good or a dream come true?” How on earth can the people who live in the same country I live in praise the same things I abhor? How can they be okay with a president who attacks dead national heroes and praises dictators and white supremacists? How can they excuse the ignoring of presidential duties such as speaking on behalf of our country to express sincere condolence when another country is reeling from the murder of 49 citizens?

The short answer to all of those questions is that Trump’s supporters share his degraded values; morally, he is one of them. The racism that’s written into our national DNA, that so many gave their last ounce of energy and devotion to overcome, never really went away; it just went underground. This 40-something percent of our fellow citizens seethed the whole time at the restraint of “political correctness” which prevented them from uttering racial epithets and denying citizens of color the rights they deserve. Then along came a candidate who spoke their frustration out loud: Damn political correctness! Every vile, vulgar word that comes out of their leader’s mouth perfectly articulates their own prejudices and frustrations and their fear of losing the only power most of them have: the superior position given them by the accidents of birth, white skin and male gender. They’re terrified of losing their majority, and this leader promises to help them retain it. What’s not to love?

We’ll never have a better president until we become better people. Donald Trump is the people’s choice (and Vladimir Putin’s); and for all of his ignorance, rage, tweet storms, threats, attacks, childish tantrums, and moral corruption, close to half of the people in this country support him. They support him because they are him. There’s no other reason. We’re not better than this; we are this. The tragedy of America is not Donald Trump, it’s the fact that people love Donald Trump, approve of his vileness, and want to extend the nightmare an extra four years. Now what do we do about that?

Trump is who he is; that won’t change. He doesn’t want to change, and nothing any of us can do will change him. The only thing we can change is ourselves. How do we correct the failure of our schools that have neglected to teach students critical thinking skills and left them vulnerable to the rantings of a madman? How do we address the corruption in our churches that have so perverted their theology as to make a Donald Trump not only acceptable but a gift straight from God: a tool of the Almighty to wield justice and usher in the long-sought theocracy? How do we finally once-and-for-all get to the roots of our racism and all of the other isms and cleanse ourselves from these darkest parts of our human nature?

Healing must begin by heeding the appeal of President Lincoln:

“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

John Winthrop, one of the leaders in the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and its governor for 12 of the first 20 years of its existence, said in 1630:

“For we must consider that we shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are upon us; so that if we shall deal falsely with our god in this work we have undertaken and so cause him to withdraw his present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword through the world . . .”

Now almost 400 years later, the eyes of the whole world are still upon us; and what they’re seeing is pretty embarrassing some days. Winthrop’s lofty metaphor of a city upon a hill comes with a stern and sobering warning: “We could become a story and a byword through the world.” In other words, don’t take this privilege and position for granted; if you do, you can squander the opportunity to demonstrate that the government our founders envision is capable of succeeding. Those founders saw our nation as a great experiment which was supposed to determine whether humans could live as equals and be trusted to govern themselves, to prove that we didn’t need a monarch. Governor Winthrop warned, however, that if we failed to live out the best  parts of our human nature, our name could become synonymous with the failure of a great human experiment and proof that evil will triumph over good in the end.

Evil hasn’t triumphed yet, but it’s gained way too strong a foothold for my comfort. Forget Donald Trump! He won’t be around forever (it will only seem that way), but our children and grandchildren will live in the world we’re creating right now. I don’t expect to see the full undoing of this corrupt period in my lifetime, but I want my grandchildren and your grandchildren to live in a country governed by men and women in touch with their better angels. What can you and I do right now to help create that kind of world for our grandchildren and their grandchildren? The eyes of the whole world are watching us.

Categories
Politics

What’s in a Name?

Shakespeare’s Juliet raises the question in the often-mislabeled “balcony scene” (there is actually no balcony, just a window). A little earlier, she is spotted by Romeo across a crowded room at her family’s big party to which he has obviously not been invited. He approaches her and makes a romantic speech replete with religious metaphors, they kiss twice, and both are in love. Only then do they learn that they are members of the two Verona families who have been enemies for as long as anyone can recall. Having returned to her room, Juliet laments to the moon, “O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore [that’s why, not where] are you Romeo?”

Unaware that Romeo has scaled the garden wall and is listening to her lament, she continues:

‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy.

Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.

What’s Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,

Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part

Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose

By any other word would smell as sweet.

So Romeo would, were he not Romeo called,

Retain that dear perfection which he owes

Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,

And for that name, which is no part of thee

Take all myself.

So in 21st-century parlance, the speech would go something like this:

Dammit, why do you have to be a Montague? ANY other family in the world would be fine, but YOU had to come from the one family that’s off limits! And why should that be a problem anyway? You are who you are, regardless of the name you’re called. If we called a rose a skunk, it wouldn’t change the sweetness of its fragrance. The essence of a person or an object is in itself, not in the word assigned to identify it. This romance isn’t going to end well because I’m a Capulet and you’re a Montague, but those are only words, not who we are.

Well, as usual, Shakespeare nailed it; yet 400 years later, we’re still put off by words. When my daughter was a child, she hated potatoes; she wouldn’t touch a baked potato, mashed potato, or au gratin potato. But she loved French fries, couldn’t get enough of them. I long debated whether I should let her in on the secret that French fries are potatoes cut into sticks and dunked in hot oil.

When reality is unpleasant, we resort to euphemism to ease the discomfort of talking about it. We often say someone has “passed away” because it’s less jarring than saying the person “died.” I had a hair stylist years ago who one day ended his own life. The person who informed me of his death said that he had “passed away.” I’m not criticizing her attempt to be sensitive, but somehow the language didn’t fit the reality. Dying peacefully in one’s own bed seems more consistent with “passing away”; hanging oneself in one’s place of business is a whole different feeling. In fact, death can be referred to euphemistically by many expressions: “bought the farm,” “bit the dust,” “kicked the bucket,” and a long list of others. The question is why we feel the need to use alternate words for the same reality.

Saying you were let go from a job is easier on the ego than admitting you were fired. Having a negative cash flow sounds so much less catastrophic than being broke. Calling someone frugal or economically prudent sounds more flattering than saying they’re cheap. Breaking wind sounds classier than farting. Over the hill is easier on the vanity than admitting to being old. Calling a jail a correctional facility puts a more positive spin on a negative reality. When parents decide to “have the talk” with their children, “the birds and the bees” induce less nervousness than “sex.” And our high school friends who had been intimate were more likely to confide that they had “gone all the way” than that they had “had sex.”

Language is powerful. Not only can it mask reality, it can sometimes shape reality. I heard a sermon this morning about attitudes 40-50 years ago toward countries like Viet Nam and Cuba. Many of us were taught that people from those countries were our enemies because they were communists. “Communism” is such a trigger word that the very mention of it creates animosity and enemies where they don’t otherwise exist. We now trade with both Viet Nam and Cuba, love our Vietnamese nail techs, and have opportunities to forge friendships and partnerships with people on the island of Cuba, just 90 miles from the southernmost American city.

Since taking office in January 2017, Donald Trump has had journalists searching their thesauruses for ways to describe the lies he tells every day. In these uncharted waters, journalists are struggling with a new reality and how best to label that reality in terms that both respect the office which all of us have been taught must be respected, yet also tell the truth about the current occupant of the office. It just doesn’t feel right to say “The president lied,” so we get the whole thesaurus list of alternatives: falsehoods, false statements, untruths, and many others. With the New York Times tally of provable lies now topping the 8000 mark, most journalists are opting for the raw truth: the president lies.

So call it a French fry and it’s yummy, call it a potato and “No, thanks!” Call it escargot and the connoisseurs will line up at your door, call it sautéed snails and ewww. An omelette du fromage sounds way more elegant than cheese and eggs. The same people who order mountain oysters might pass on a plate full of bull, pig, or sheep testicles; but surprise, surprise: they’re the same thing. Black pudding might sound divine when you’re picturing a rich, creamy dark chocolate confection, but you’d probably change your dessert order quickly when you learn it’s really made from pigs’ blood. Words matter!

The biggest lie most of us were told when we were children is “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me!” We’ve also told that lie. We said it to the bully who taunted us, but little did we know how those words would haunt us. A broken bone hurts, but it heals; flesh wounds are painful, but they grow together leaving barely a scar to show where they were. Unkind, hateful, or spiteful words can linger in our memories and cause pain years later. A hard punch might feel good by comparison to harsh, soul-crushing words. Words matter a lot!

As the 2020 primary race is heating up, the bugaboo word of the year is “socialism.” The very mention of it stirs fear and anger in the hearts of millions (mostly Republicans) and evokes visions of peace, prosperity, and equality in the minds of millions more. Some see bread lines while others see enough for all; some see free loaders living off the state while others see health care and peace of mind for every citizen; some see a welfare state while others dream of a place where no one has to worry about how they’re going to pay for basic necessities and human rights.

The problem is not so much with the facts and concepts as with the word. It doesn’t help either that many people these days have no capacity for analysis, critical thinking, or seeing a subject from more than one angle. The world runs on talking points, not logic. We talk but we don’t listen, or when we do listen, it’s really just a polite pause before launching our next talking point. Conversation has virtually ceased to exist, if by conversation we mean listening to what another person says, absorbing it, understanding it, giving it a moment of serious reflection, and then uttering a thoughtful response. Hence, calling one’s philosophy “democratic socialism” makes about as much impact on those for whom “socialism” is evil as announcing that you’re serving “Moroccan Fried Beef Liver and Onions” to a table full of confirmed liver haters. Dress it up, give it a fancy name, and it’s still liver–or socialism.

Many fear socialism because they equate it with communism. Socialism, simply defined, is “a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.” Ideally, of course, such a system would insure an equal slice of the pie for every individual citizen, but we all know that things don’t always play out according to the ideal. Communism, simply defined, is “a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.”

A website called Investopedia offers the following comparison among the systems of communism, socialism, and capitalism:

Communism and socialism are economic and political structures that promote equality and seek to eliminate social classes. The two are interchangeable in some ways, but different in others. In a communist society, the working class owns everything, and everyone works toward the same communal goal. There are no wealthy or poor people — all are equal, and the community distributes what it produces based only on need. Nothing is obtained by working more than what is required. Communism frequently results in low production, mass poverty and limited advancement. Poverty spread so widely in the Soviet Union in the 1980s that its citizens revolted. Like communism, socialism’s main focus is on equality. But workers earn wages they can spend as they choose, while the government, not citizens, owns and operates the means for production. Workers receive what they need to produce and survive, but there’s no incentive to achieve more, leaving little motivation. Some countries have adopted aspects of socialism. The United Kingdom provides basic needs like healthcare to everyone regardless of their time or effort at work. In the U.S., welfare and the public education system are a form of socialism. Both are the opposite of capitalism, where limitations don’t exist and reward comes to those who go beyond the minimum. In capitalist societies, owners are allowed to keep the excess production they earn. And competition occurs naturally, which fosters advancement. Capitalism tends to create a sharp divide between the wealthiest citizens and the poorest, however, with the wealthiest owning the majority of the nation’s resources.

As you can see, both communism and socialism have their downsides, but capitalism doesn’t come off looking so good either. The United States today is seeing the end result of centuries of free enterprise. The divide between the richest and the poorest is the widest it has ever been, and the middle class has virtually disappeared. The Willy Lomans who have spent their entire lives chasing the American Dream find themselves in old age without the ability to retire or to pay their bills, not for lack of hard work but as the result of a system that has rewarded the wealthiest and penalized the poorest.

Yet those most affected by the inequity are the loudest critics of any changes that might better their quality of life, because they are often the most easily duped by rich, powerful leaders who want to preserve their wealth and power at the expense of those on whose backs their wealth was amassed. Those who want to keep the 99% poor and vulnerable are evil but not stupid; they know what buttons to push to keep the masses voting against their own best interests. Just label an idea socialist and you’re guaranteed a majority vote against it.

A February 24, 2019, article in the HuffPost bears the headline “Republicans Have Been Smearing Democrats as Socialists Since Way Before You Were Born.” The latest round of accusations from Trump and others that this or that progressive idea is socialist may seem new to many; but according to the article, it is “the oldest trick in the book.”

Contemporary political conservatism has been focused on blocking social change that challenges existing hierarchies of class, race and sex since its founding in response to the French Revolution. Socialism emerged as the biggest threat to class hierarchies in due time and conservatives have called everything they don’t like socialism ever since.”

”Every single political actor since the late 19th century advocating for some form progressive social change ― whether it be economic reform, challenging America’s racial caste system or advocating for women’s rights or LGBT rights ― has been tarred as a socialist or a communist bent on destroying the American Free Enterprise System.

Examples begin with William Jennings Bryan in 1896 and center on the president most famously accused of socialism: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who by the way was elected to four terms and was the reason term limits were imposed on the presidency. So it would appear that not everyone was frightened by the accusations that the New Deal was a socialist agenda aimed at destroying America.

Never one to pass up an opportunity to further deceive and control his base, Donald Trump is tossing around the S-word a lot these days. Just this week, in his two-hour speech to CPAC (two hours of his rambling, whining, and childish, churlish attacks would send me to the psychiatric ward!), Trump made lavish use of the S-word to discredit congressional Democrats–certain ones in particular–and any proposal that threatens to upset the imbalance of power that keeps people like him in control. Among other things, he said:

“Socialism is not about the environment, it’s not about justice, it’s not about virtue. Socialism is about only one thing — it’s called power for the ruling class, that’s what it is. Look at what’s happening in Venezuela and so many other places.” (reported by CNN)

Power for the ruling class? Isn’t that what we have now and what he’s determined to protect?

So you want to kill an idea? Want to defeat a progressive candidate? Call them socialist, and millions of people will jump to your side. Yet how many citizens and voters know what they’re objecting to? A March 29, 2012, article in Daily Kos lists 75 organizations and programs that currently exist in America which, by definition, are socialist. The list includes our taxpayer-funded military; our public schools which guarantee equal access to education and are paid for by tax money; public libraries, also funded by tax payers; police, fire, and postal services; congressional health care, provided by your tax money for the people who spend their days and nights fighting to be sure you don’t have access to the same quality healthcare you buy for them; Social Security; Medicare and Medicaid; public parks; sewer systems, which I’ve never heard anyone complain about; public street lighting; and about 62 other things which most people would never think to label as socialist but in reality are just that.

So what is it about socialism that makes it so scary? Is it the individual benefits of it? Obviously not. It’s the word. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and socialism by any other name is still socialism and would still bring the benefits of equal access to necessities and human rights. What’s in a name? A lot of power but not much logic.

I’m not advocating for the United States to become a fully socialist country; I am advocating for my fellow citizens to start thinking and stop the knee-jerk reactions to words that scare them because they’ve been conditioned to fear rather than think. I’m advocating for my fellow citizens to reject either-or/black-white comparisons and consider reasonable shades of gray alternatives. Our democracy depends on it.

Categories
Politics

Blame, Shame, and Zero Tolerance

I live in Fort Myers, Florida. On May 23, 2001, our local newspaper reported that a senior at Estero High School had been found to have a steak knife on the passenger-side floor board of her car while the car was parked on school property. The 18-year-old was arrested and jailed and was also suspended from school for five days. Because May is graduation month, this young woman was denied the privilege of marching with her classmates in the high school graduation she had anticipated and worked toward for thirteen years.

A National Merit Scholar with no record of disciplinary issues was suspended and incarcerated on “a felony charge of possession of a weapon on school property” (Associated Press) because of the Fort Myers school system’s recently adopted zero-tolerance policy toward having weapons on campus. The young woman and her family said the knife was inadvertently left in the car after she had moved some possessions over the weekend, and she was not even aware that it was there until school officials spotted it and approached her. According to the May 23, 2001, Associated Press article, “Sheriff Lt. Bill Byrus said he sympathizes with Brown, but said the arrest is not up to the discretion of the officer or based on the student’s behavior record.”

I don’t know this young woman, but my heart went out to her when I read her sad news almost 18 years ago. I’ve been reminded of the incident recently because of the zero tolerance attitudes of government officials and the media toward any wrong-doing of those in public life, regardless of how isolated the incident or how long ago it occurred. President Clinton famously claimed not to have inhaled the marijuana he smoked in college to appease critics who thought any use of weed at any time in one’s life constituted a disqualification from ever serving in public office.

Examples such as these demonstrate clearly the down side of zero tolerance. Zero tolerance is right-hearted but wrong-headed. It focuses on the worst day of a person’s life, whether or not the actions of that day were done with malicious intent or were the result of accidental circumstances, carelessness, youthful indiscretion, or plain ol’ human stupidity. It gives no credit for the hundreds of other days on which the person may have done quite outstanding things such as earning the rank of National Merit Scholar or gaining the public trust necessary for election to high political office.

News flash! Human beings do stupid things. All of us. We do them when we’re young, and we do them when we’re old. Powerful people do them, and not-so-powerful people do them. The question is which stupid things warrant altering the course of another person’s life. Does any one of us want our epitaph to set in stone the worst thing we ever did? I certainly don’t. I’ve done some pretty stupid things, but I hope when I’m gone those won’t be the first things that come to mind when my name is mentioned. I hope I can do enough good things to make love, compassion, intelligence, activism for social justice, and caring for my family my enduring legacy. I want to be remembered for my best day, not my worst; and I feel certain every person reading this article will say the same.

Zero tolerance is right-hearted. Everyone, especially our leaders, should be held to high moral standards; and even the occasional racial slur or act of bigotry must not be allowed to be considered normal. Laws for carrying weapons should also be uniformly enforced.

Yet individual circumstances can’t be ignored, and grace must always be an option. My mother lost a small pair of scissors to the TSA in 2002 because of the new zero-tolerance policies for carrying any potential weapon onto an airplane. I was shown grace in 2011 when I stupidly tried to board a plane with eight steak knives in my carry-on. When I explained to the kind TSA agent that we had just buried my mother five days earlier and that these were some of her possessions and that my head was obviously not screwed on straight at that moment, she allowed me to exit the screening area and return to the ticket counter where I could check the bag. Same rules, same offense, different circumstances, and different results.

And that’s why zero tolerance is wrong-headed. Such policies ensnare officials in a web of their own rigid rules. They allow no room for judgment, for considering mitigating factors, for looking at individual circumstances, for showing grace. Should students ever be permitted to deliberately carry any kind of weapon onto a school campus? Absolutely not. I believe, however, that intent is the key. When a sheriff’s deputy has to say that he is left with no option other than incarcerating an 18-year-old and denying her the privilege of participating in the high school graduation ceremony for which she had worked and which is for most of us the highlight of our first two decades of life, something is clearly wrong. When a man or woman demonstrates his or her qualifications to serve as president, should minor drug use decades earlier carry more weight than the person’s more recent accomplishments and qualifications for the job? Zero tolerance policies cause officials to be hoist with their own petard (caught in their own trap, hanged on their own scaffold), to summon Shakespeare.

So I guess you’ve figured out by now where this is going. In recent years, photos and videos, along with personal accusations and testimonies, frequently emerge from closets to be spread across social media with the speed of a blazing wild fire. Many political aspirations have been dashed by such discoveries, and many more reputations have been tarnished by photographic evidence of past unacceptable behavior. In some cases, the judgment is warranted, but can the same rigid standard be applied to every situation? Does elapsed time mitigate the offense? Do cultural changes have a bearing? Does the accused person’s overall character and pattern of behavior temper the severity of the single action?

Most recently on the media hot seat, as you know unless you’ve spent this week in coma, is Governor Ralph Northam of Virginia. Governor Northam is a Democrat, but the calls for his resignation are bipartisan. Thirty years ago, he was photographed for his medical school yearbook wearing either blackface or a KKK hood. He initially admitted to being one of the two young men in the photo, then later denied that he was either of them. The changing story is grounds for concern and possible censure. But is the fact that he did this one stupid and racist thing thirty years ago enough to disqualify him for the rest of his life from serving in elected office? Do the things he has done since that photo was taken count for anything? According to reporting in The Washington Post, ” In public office, Northam worked to expand Medicaid, the health program that serves the poor, and he helped to restore voting rights for felons, a policy that helps many black men. Many in the black community saw him as an ally, and as one of the good guys.” One stupid moment vs years of being “one of the good guys.” Which should prevail?

Most disturbing of all is that most of the conversation surrounding this debate has little to do with Governor Northam, his compensating qualities, or his being a human deserving of a chance at redemption. It’s all about what these allegations mean for his party’s chances at dominating Virginia government. It’s politics, not a human life, that’s keeping people up at night.

Another incident you’re also aware of if you’ve remained conscious for the last eighteen months is Al Franken’s forced resignation from the Senate on January 2, 2018. Many still have not reconciled his offense with the severity of the punishment. Allegations of sexual misconduct before his 2008 election to the Senate led to bipartisan demands for his resignation, to which he acceded; yet many still feel conflicted about his being driven from an office in which he did so much good. The zero tolerance of the #metoo movement defined his life by a few mistakes, admittedly reprehensible, instead of allowing him to apologize and continue his leadership in reforming health care and other causes on which he brought his strong progressive values to bear. Did we as a nation lose more than we gained by forcing a flawed but decent and intelligent leader from the power chambers of our government?

Should Brett Kavanaugh have been denied a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court because of Christine Blasey-Ford’s allegations of sexual misconduct when they were in high school? Although I believe what she said, her claims were uncorroborated, so it’s difficult to say what their effect should have been. I’m far more disturbed by his entitled attitude and public temper tantrums during the Senate hearings. He lacks the temperament to sit on our highest court, and he fails to recognize that such an appointment is a high honor and privilege, not his birthright for being born into wealth and entitlement. I’m also disturbed by his failure to own past misconduct, such as his irresponsible drinking habits, and to show evidence of having evolved and matured. I don’t think it’s necessary to go back thirty years to disqualify him.

Here’s another question: What’s culture got to do with it? My sister once confided in one of our aunts, who was born in 1926, that a man my sister worked for had made an inappropriate pass at her. Our aunt’s response was, “Honey, in my day we considered that a compliment!” Does that justify the man’s action? Of course not. Wrong is wrong, but cultural norms alter our response and what we’re willing to accept and condone.

 Was wearing blackface, during a time when doing so seemed an innocent entertainment costume, a racist act? Was Al Jolson racist? Wrong is wrong, no matter when it is done, but I think the cultural norms of the time have to be considered. When I was growing up, the N-word was in common use. Was it morally right? Nope, not then or now. But by the cultural norms of the mid-twentieth century, it was accepted. Should everyone who used the N-word during that time be forever banned from public service? I would say that those who still use the word are demonstrating their racism and should be disqualified. Those whose use of the word was limited to a period in time and who have been willing to evolve to more enlightened standards of conduct, however, I would not consider racist. I believe we would deprive ourselves of many good leaders if we accepted only those whose conduct has been above reproach on every day of their lives. In fact, no one would qualify by those rules.

We must distinguish between people who have done a few stupid things and those for whom racism and corruption have been patterns of behavior. Did I mention that ALL human beings have done a few stupid things? Okay. Then which of us is qualified to throw that first stone? We also have to ask ourselves where we’re going to draw the line between flawed human stupidity and patterns of behavior that indicate moral deficiency. Look to some of our most esteemed leaders, and you’ll find in every one of them some record of moral failing.

Punishing folks for violating standards that were not part of the cultural norms at the time of their actions is retroactive enforcement of current rules. If the City of Fort Myers posts a No Left Turn sign at an intersection today, can they issue me a ticket for turning left there last week? If making a left turn at that intersection is considered dangerous, it was just as dangerous last week, last month, and last year; but no one had yet determined that the danger was great enough to warrant prohibiting left turns left at that place. If Costco starts charging for their samples (Relax! It’s not happening!), can they force me to pay for all of the samples I’ve eaten while they’ve been free? That would be both unfair and impractical. Retroactive rule enforcement doesn’t work.

In January 2011, the newspaper The Guardian announced the soon-to-be-published new, sanitized edition of Mark Twain’s masterpiece The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. In a move to counter the censorship that had landed Huck Finn on banned books lists and caused it to be dropped from many school curricula, a publisher decided to expurgate the more than 200 occurrences of the N-word from Twain’s work. I don’t even know where to start on this. I taught this novel many times, and before each reading of it, I talked with classes about whether the language would be a problem for them. Not a single student ever refused to read the book because of the language; they consistently responded that they understood the novel was set in a specific time and culture. We did not use the word in my classroom, but I felt college students should be mature enough to witness another culture and perhaps to grow from the experience.

Mark Twain was a master of dialect. In an introductory note, he explains:

“In this book a number of dialects are used, to wit the Missouri negro dialect, the extremest form of the backwoods Southwestern dialect, the ordinary Pike County dialect, and four variations of this last. The shadings have not been done in a haphazard fashion, or by guesswork; but painstakingly, and with the trustworthy guidance and support of personal familiarity with these forms of speech. I make this explanation for the reason that without it many readers would suppose that all these characters were trying to talk alike, and not succeeding.”

He signed it “The author.”

As a reader, I felt my experience was greatly enhanced by being able to “hear” the characters’ speech, instead of just reading standard-English words on a page. Oral reading of passages made the characters come to life even more vividly.

Written dialect records the common speech of a region, and that speech consists of both pronunciation and vocabulary. The N-word in Twain’s time and location was even more common by far than it was during my youth. Have we become so delicate that we can’t look honestly at other cultures’ ways of life and speech without judging them by our own standards and banning them from our education? If so, we are greatly impoverishing our education, and that’s a tragedy.

The Guardian article quotes Dr. Sarah Churchwell, “senior lecturer in US literature and culture at the University of East Anglia,” who said the changes in Twain’s work made her angry.

“The fault lies with the teaching, not the book. You can’t say ‘I’ll change Dickens so it is compatible with my teaching method’. Twain’s books are not just literary documents but historical documents, and that word is totemic because it encodes all of the violence of slavery. The point of the book is that Huckleberry Finn starts out racist in a racist society, and stops being racist and leaves that society. These changes mean the book ceases to show the moral development of his character. They have no merit and are misleading to readers. The whole point of literature is to expose us to different ideas and different eras, and they won’t always be nice and benign. It’s dumbing down.”

Have we reached the point that masterpieces of the past have to be dumbed down for us to tolerate them? If so, how pathetic we are.

And from the same Guardian article:

“Geff Barton, head of King Edward’s School in Bury St Edmunds, described the idea of changing Twain’s language as ‘slightly crackpot’. ‘It seems depressing that we are so squeamish that we can’t credit youngsters with seeing the context for texts.’”

It’s even more depressing that adults can’t be credited with seeing texts in their context. We can’t erase our national guilt for racism, sexual misconduct, and all the rest by denying their existence or attempting to expunge the record. Nor can we erase our collective guilt by singling out individuals to be offered up as scapegoats or sacrificial lambs so that we can feel better about ourselves.

Our country (and every other country in the world) has always been led by imperfect humans who have a few skeletons hanging in their closets. Would our country be richer or poorer if we had banished Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, or Martin Luther King Jr from national leadership?

Can we set a few reasonable criteria by which we judge the merits and demerits of our fellow humans? How long ago did they do the stupid thing for which they’re being called to give account? Was it a one- or two-time incident or part of a morally degenerate pattern of behavior? Have they honestly owned their moral failing? Have they made amends for it? Have they in the intervening years grown and behaved differently? Does the conduct reflect a moral deficiency or just a lapse in judgment? These are not black-and-white issues; and although I fully support holding people accountable for their behavior, I can’t condone writing the final judgment on someone’s life based on their worst day. As the saying goes, “Let him who is without sin . . .”

And now if you’ll excuse me, I have a few photos to burn.

Categories
Uncategorized

You Can’t Argue with God

Barry Goldwater said this in November 1994:

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.”

No matter what you think of Mr. Goldwater, you’ll have to admit he nailed this one!

Now, 25 years after this statement was made, “these preachers” (the evangelical leadership) have taken control of the Republican Party, and we’re witnessing every day that it’s “a terrible damn problem.” While 800,000 hard-working Americans have now gone a whole month without paychecks and charities are pitching in to feed our public servants, an unknown number of migrant families (thousands) have been separated and their children held in detention, the United States continues to lead the world in gun deaths every year, Russia chose our last “president” and the recipient of those favors may have been in cahoots with those granting the favors, our national security is being threatened on every level, the GOP cares about none of these things. Or at least they don’t care enough to take action and pass legislation that would change the laws and reverse at least some of the damage being done.

Others may continue to remind them of the dire state of emergency our country faces, but their Teflon shells shed those reminders like rain water, while they continue parroting their favorite talking points: stop abortion, denounce LGBTQ people, and build a wall (fence/barrier/whatever) on our southern border. Oh, and take the country back to the good ol’ days when white men were in charge and everyone else knew their places. I think that pretty much sums it up.

Since the Republican Party has become synonymous with the Far Right/Christian Right (and sadly, the Alt Right)/evangelical establishment, it’s necessary to examine that group to gain any understanding of the state of our union. Is the Christian Right a religious affiliation or a political movement? Good question. Let’s think about it.

For starters, we can eliminate the idea that this movement is in any way Christian. A Christian is one who vows to follow the teachings of Jesus, to the best of his/her ability. Jesus never mentions homosexuality, even though homosexual people existed in the ancient world, long before Jesus’ time. He just never says a word about it. Paul mentions it and the writer of Leviticus mentions it, but Jesus is silent on the subject. Another thing Jesus never mentions is abortion. On the other hand, Jesus does say a great deal about immigrants, but what he says is the opposite of what today’s Republicans are saying. It’s enough to make one wonder if these self-identified “Christians” have ever read the New Testament or know anything at all about their professed Leader.

Here are a few things Jesus said about how to treat “the stranger” among you (a common biblical term for non-native born residents of a country). First is a familiar, often-quoted passage from Matthew 25, although the context of the passage may be somewhat less familiar. Verses 31-46 of that chapter are labeled “The Judgment of the Nations” and talk about humans giving account to God for their actions on earth. I don’t claim to know much about that subject, but the context clearly says those who do the following things will find favor in God’s eyes and those who don’t will not find favor. In fact, the verses immediately preceding the ones I’m about to quote talk about separating sheep from goats, and the passage clearly states that the criteria for making that division are humans’ treatment of their fellow humans.

35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ 40 And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,[a] you did it to me.’ 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’

There’s plenty of room for discussion here about what’s literal and what’s not literal, but one thing is crystal clear: what separates human beings into sheep and goats, good and bad, righteous and unrighteous–in Jesus’ view–is how we treat those less fortunate than ourselves. Full stop.

And for those who prefer Leviticus, here’s another passage:

“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 19:33-34).

Now let’s look at how these so-called Jesus followers are measuring up to the standards set by the text they claim to believe and live by. They cheer a “president” who mocks a disabled reporter and dishonors a Gold Star Family. They condone imprisoning thousands of children (according to this week’s reporting, far more than we previously knew about), they condone holding 800,000 federal workers hostage to the demands of their ill-chosen “president,” they shrug their shoulders at the thousands of gun deaths reported every year, they turn a collective blind eye to those still suffering from natural disasters without adequate government assistance, they increasingly revert to racial attitudes of our country’s shameful past, and those are just the most egregious examples.

Isn’t that interesting? If these “Christians” didn’t get their attitudes from Jesus, and they clearly didn’t, from whom did they get them? Evangelicals have for decades been following authoritarian figures. Thinking for oneself is discouraged; accepting as gospel the words and interpretations of their esteemed leaders is the only way to avoid being shunned or ostracized. Such leaders as Charles “Chuck” Colson (Watergate criminal turned evangelical guru), Jerry Falwell Sr., Jerry Falwell Jr., Franklin Graham, Tony Perkins, James Dobson, et al. wield full mind control over their followers. These guys rely on cherry-picked Bible verses for their stances on issues and rebuff any attempt at disagreement, conversation, or placing the cherry-picked verses into proper historical context.

The people who willingly accept the edicts of these authoritarian leaders are the ones who have always accepted the words of their own authoritarian local pastors, many of whom are not accountable to boards of church ruling elders but who simply lead by edict in their small communities, taking their marching orders from their nationally recognized religious leaders. These are also the same people who were taught to accept the authority of the Bible as a literal book, penned by the hand of God and dropped from heaven fully edited. Never mind what inconsistencies they may become ensnared in as a result of this untenable position; these biblical literalists accept the authority of the Bible because God told them so in the Bible. No, that’s not a typo.

What happens when people so oriented hear from their authoritarian leaders that Donald J. Trump is God’s hand-picked choice for president, a prophet ordained for this time in history? I guess you already know the answer to that one. Never mind that the previous president gave a clear statement of his Christian faith and led a life much more in keeping with the standards evangelicals profess to adhere to. Nah, he’s not one of us! “He’s a Muslim, a danger to our country,” they repeat in unison as their leaders dictate. Then along comes this person whose verbal professions and lifestyle have nothing in common with their professed beliefs, but who their authoritarian leaders tell them will advance their pet causes which they believe are ordained of God even though God says little or nothing about them, and they’re cheering and chanting for the Messiah.

Fiction writers would be challenged to match today’s headlines!

Not only is this movement not Christian, it’s not conservative either, although that’s what the members like to call themselves. “Conservatism” is a term that defies concise definition, but historically it has been applied to those who value and strive to preserve (conserve) the best values of the past. Today’s “conservatives” are returning to the worst values and practices of the darkest parts of our country’s history.

Returning to Senator Goldwater’s assessment, the core problem here–and the reason our Republican-led government is stalled–is the refusal to compromise. Each of us as individuals has a few bedrock principles which are so deeply ingrained in our souls that we are not willing to consider compromise on those values. As a nation, we also should have a few of those defining values; but  they should not include treating certain people as less than human and refusing those people equal rights. And if they do, we don’t get to call ourselves a Christian nation. And the party most espousing the mistreatment of certain people groups does not get to call itself conservative or the family values party.

I enthusiastically agree with Senator Goldwater that “Politics and government demand compromise.” The compromise, however, can’t be accomplished by conceding core values; it has to be brought about through intelligent dialog on the methods by which we uphold and live out those values. For example, everyone I know–Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative–believes our borders need to be secured and that we must monitor what kinds of people are allowed to enter and take up residence in our country. Border security is an issue on which we should not compromise; but there is much room for conversation, research, and compromise on the best way to achieve secure borders. Authoritarians readily accept their leader’s edict that only a very large wall will do. More critical thinkers listen to research and facts which show that a wall will accomplish little or nothing and that the real problems are occurring at places other than the southern border and therefore require different solutions.

Two obstacles keep our government from moving forward on border security. One is the black-white fallacy so commonly a part of today’s dialog. I’m not talking here about race but about the logical fallacy which draws a sharp divide between two extremes and considers no other options. Those citizens who oppose building a stupid, expensive wall are accused of wanting open borders and caring nothing about national security. Um, no, we’re just willing to listen to the facts which support other methods of achieving the security we ALL want.

The other obstacle that has brought us into the quagmire in which we now live is the authoritarian thinking through which millions of minds are controlled by a few powerful voices, voices which now are submitting themselves and lending extreme and dangerous power to the one voice of Donald Trump. There are dire consequences for rejecting the group think and holding a divergent opinion: Exclusion from the tribe threatens our basic human need to belong to and be esteemed within a community. And when one has been convinced that God has chosen one’s tribe–however shaky the evidence on which that premise is based–any door to dialog and compromise is slammed shut and dead-bolted.

Anyone who has attempted to reason with a Trump supporter has learned the painful lesson that reason doesn’t work. Changing supporters’ minds would require citing a more persuasive authority, and no such being exists, because God will trump your authority, and they have God in their own little box from which there is no escape. You can’t argue with God.

Categories
Education Justice Politics Religion

Go Tell Your People Our Story

Sadeek, our first three days’ tour guide, said it. Tony, the spice shop owner, said it with pleading eyes as he carefully sealed our bags of fragrant lavender. Ali, our guide through Old Jerusalem, said it as we sat in a circle listening to tales of his time as a political prisoner. “Go home and tell your people our story” was the resounding plea. I promised I would; so here is the story of Sadeek, Tony, Ali, and the thousands of other people who live, labor, and love in the land of Palestine, where I was privileged to visit for two weeks in October.

Their story begins thousands of years ago when the land which is now home to both the Israelis and the Palestinians was inhabited by an ancient people called the Canaanites, from whom the Palestinians are descended. The Israelites (named for Abraham’s son Jacob who was later called Israel), according to modern archaeological account, branched out of the indigenous Canaanite peoples. The roots of both people groups and their cultures run deep in the dry, rocky soil; and for centuries they coexisted in peace.

Israel-Palestine has been conquered and controlled by many tribal groups and armies throughout history. Beginning with the first exile in the 8th century BCE, the ancient Israelites experienced a long period of diaspora (dispersion), which resulted in resettlement of various groups all over the globe. The following account, from the booklet “Life under Occupation” by the Joint Advocacy Initiative, sums up the movement of the Jewish people to return to their homeland.

In the late 1800s, European society was becoming increasingly anti-Semitic, and some Jewish thinkers concluded that physically escaping this discrimination was the only way to prevent it. As a result, the idea of Zionism emerged. Essentially, Zionism is the desire to return to Mount Zion, a hill in Jerusalem which is an embodiment of the Jewish faith. However, the Zionist idea to establish a Jewish state in historic Palestine was only supported by a small minority of European Jews. During World War I this dream became feasible for the first time, when Britain achieved control over Palestine and warranted the creation of a Jewish state.

That action by the British government during World War I is known as the Balfour Declaration, which reads:

His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

The British Mandate for Palestine, issued by the United Nations and made effective on 29 September 1923, established the “national home for the Jewish people” promised in the Balfour Declaration and made the U.K. the administering mandatory.

According to the Joint Advocacy Initiative, 167,000 Jewish settlers arrived in the homeland between 1882 and 1928 and another 250,000 between 1929 and 1939 (this time because of the Nazi Holocaust). In total, by the end of World War II, over half a million Jews had immigrated to the land, prompting “the uprising of the native Arab population which was being deprived of land and resources.”

In another summary from “Life under Occupation,” the Joint Advocacy Initiative explains the next few important dates and events:

Riots and violence had grown substantially by 1947, which caused the United Nations to propose a partition plan of the territories. More than half of this territory–56%–would go to the Jewish immigrants, who made up 30% of the population and owned less than 7% of the land. Despite this internationally accepted solution, the Zionists, who were superior in military power, began to forcibly remove hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their lands. To this day this even is referred to as the Nakba (Arabic for “catastrophe”). By May 1948 the State of Israel was proclaimed on 78% of historic Palestine.

During its “Six Day War” in June 1967, Israel eventually occupied the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem and thus all of historical Palestine. Since that time, more land has been confiscated for erecting illegal Israeli colonies (settlements), building the Apartheid Wall, and creating military zones in these lands. As a result, Palestinian communities are isolated from the outside world and from each other.

These are the historic facts, which Sadeek reduced to their essence in a single sentence: “They fucked us.”

The situation today in every way fits the definition under international law of apartheid, and it’s time for the world to begin calling it by its proper name. Many observers and scholars have said the situation is far worse than the apartheid that existed in South Africa. Palestinians are restricted to designated areas; must go through checkpoints to enter certain other areas (and depending on the mood of the guard on duty that day may or may not be granted entry); are not permitted to use Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv (the main airport for the region); must stay on their own side of the border wall, must keep large water tanks on their roofs because their electricity (hence pumps) is sporadically turned off by Israeli power companies; live under constant threat of having their lands and livelihoods confiscated and destroyed; and endure the indignity of having settlers rain down their garbage, dirt, stones, and sometimes raw sewage into their villages and market places.

These facts are not up for argument. I have seen and experienced them first hand. I went through some of those checkpoints. I saw the trash thrown by settlers into Palestinian areas. I walked along the dividing wall. I saw the armed Israeli soldiers everywhere we went. I heard instructions shouted over loud speakers. I saw the balloons holding surveillance cameras. I picked olives for Palestinian farmers because the Israeli soldiers would have prevented them from working their own land and then after a year have legal justification for confiscating that land because it had not been worked. I walked through a Palestinian refugee camp. I twice visited a Bedouin village under order of demolition and witnessed hundreds of advocates who slept on foam mats to support the villagers and stave off destruction. (And they’ve succeeded, for now.) Although as an American I am permitted to use Ben Gurion Airport, I dare not take anything into that airport which might suggest that I intend to visit Palestinian territory or leave with any mementos easily recognized as having come from Palestine. I received my shipment this week of items I mailed home because I’d have possibly been detained at Ben Gurion if they’d been found in my luggage.

The displacement of native Palestinians is the largest and longest-standing displacement of a population in the history of the world. Currently, 66% of Palestinian people live as displaced persons, divided into two categories: refugees and internally displaced persons (IDP). Refugees are those who escape or are driven to other countries; IDPs are those who remain in the land. The difference between the two groups is geographic only; there is no difference in human rights between the two. The one right Palestinians crave most deeply is the right to live in dignity; I heard those words from the lips of almost everyone I met.

Please allow me to introduce you to three of the people I met and share with you just a little bit of their stories.

Sadeek Khoury, as I mentioned before, was our guide for the first three days during our touring time. He took us, among other places, to the village of Iqrit, now only the rubble of what was once the home of 400 Palestinians who lived, loved, made babies, raised their young, cared for their old, and buried their dead high on a windy hilltop. That peaceful life ended in 1951 when  Israeli forces showed up and ordered everyone out of the  village; it was for only two weeks, they said, so that security measures could be implemented (“For security” is a phrase often used to justify actions by the Israeli government). As soon as the evacuation was complete, the village was bombed. Now all that remains are the church and the cemetery.

College students take shifts staying at the church round the clock so that former villagers and their descendants can continue to hold their life rituals in the ancestral sacred place. Down the long, rocky trail and over the barbed-wire fence is the ancient cemetery where new crypts have been added to the mausoleums as recently as 2017.

Sadeek is earnest as he lingers on the hilltop, choosing that place to spread the table for the lunch he and his wife had prepared, allowing his charges to soak up the essence of the place, making sure no one would leave without having established an indelible connection with the spirit of the past and the souls whose lives were represented there.

Ali Muhammad was our guide through the Old City of Jerusalem. His ancestors came from Chad, in Africa, and he lives in the Afro-Palestinian sector of Old Jerusalem. He walks slowly, using a cane for balance, and is a tough school master. Anyone caught in a private conversation or shopping the goods which surrounded us in the market would be brought back to class in a deep-voiced gentle reprimand.

Ali strolled us through the market, pointing out the various sites of historical interest, but for what he really wanted us to know, he took us to the privacy of his apartment. There, he told us of his 17 years as a political prisoner for participating in placing a bomb in 1968 when he was a young man. From his more mature perspective, he knows that “the work I’m doing now is more effective than placing bombs.” The work he’s doing now is informing and educating those of us who consistently hear only one side of the narrative regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; and I have to agree, knowledge is far more effective than violence.

Other snippets from Ali include his assessment that the only solution to their problem is not a two-state solution, which he says would never work, but “one secular democratic state” which would extend equal rights to residents of all ethnicities and faiths. He also said the media in our country is bullshit, because they continue to tell only the one-sided Zionist narrative. He also gave us the Arabic word for “bullshit,” but I’m not sure of the spelling, and you’d really have to hear him pronounce it for full appreciation. He challenged us to speak to our representatives, since the continued apartheid is made possible primarily by aid from the United States and Russia. He encouraged us to keep up BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) of companies that promote and fund the oppressive regime. He said, “Your holy mission is not here. Go back to your country and tell what you have seen here.” The majority of settlers (colonists) are American Jews. Palestinian desires are simple: no more occupation and the ability to live their lives in peace and dignity. All Palestinian protests currently are peaceful, but Israeli responses are not. The army and the settlers continue to inflict violence and death on unarmed Palestinians.

Ali ended his talk with a humorous assessment of several of our recent presidents. He said President Clinton had a serious problem in the lower part of his body, President Bush (W) had a serious problem in the upper part of his body, and Donald Trump has problems “both up and down.” You may have guessed, DT is not at all popular in Palestine.

Professor Mazin Qumsiyeh, perhaps the clearest and most compelling speaker I heard, said 100,000 Palestinians have been killed and another 800,000 injured since the conflict began. He has been arrested more than a dozen times for petty offenses. He advocates non-violent resistance but emphasizes that there must be resistance and that no one can be neutral on a situation involving the rights of hundreds of thousands of human beings.

Mazin echoed Ali’s assessment that the only viable solution to the problems is a single democratic, secular state with equal rights for all. He went on to explain that colonization can never end in a two-state solution because colonizers can never recognize the rights of the colonized. To recognize those rights would cause their system (existence, power) to collapse.

He outlined three possible stable outcomes:

One, the colonizers can be kicked out and sent to Europe, as happened in Algeria.

Two, there can be genocide of the colonized population, as has been done in Australia and the United States.

Three, and most common, colonizers and colonized can live together in peace, as has happened in over 140 countries.

At the end of our almost ill-fated walk along the highway in search of the Bedouin village which we had visited once and had been invited to revisit, we sat on foam mats and listened to a former PLO member, also a political prisoner for ten years (and three days), who told us more about the horror of living under apartheid and who said he will forgo having children so that he can devote his entire life to the mission of ending his people’s oppression.

One of our bus tour guides nearly sputtered with anger and indignation as we passed one of the large red signs marking the divisions of the West Bank into three zones: Palestinian, Israeli, and both. The sign for Zone A, the Palestinian zone, warns Israelis that they are forbidden to enter because their lives would be in danger. Our guide said it’s one thing to forbid Israelis to enter but another altogether to warn them of danger, “as if we’re animals.” The assault on his people’s dignity cuts deep.

A man I met on our first visit to Khan al-Ahmar was there with other activists trying to stay the demolition. He is an Israeli citizen who lives in Tel Aviv but is passionately committed to justice and equality for Palestinians. He said about 65% of Israeli citizens favor equality; it’s the government and a minority of private citizens who keep up the oppression. No one in our group, including the leadership and the leaders of the Palestinian activist organizations, hates Jewish people or wants to give Palestinians freedom and justice by taking it away from Israelis. Everyone I met wants the same rights to be held by all who live in the “Holy Land.”

I met Palestinian farmers and looked into their eyes, eyes that beamed back love and gratitude, because our efforts will assist them in holding onto their ancestral lands awhile longer.

Everywhere I went I met beautiful children, playful and happy and loved in spite of their oppression and poverty. Arriving at Khan al-Ahmar, the Bedouin village, at dusk, our group was greeted by children riding donkeys and bicycles and playing happily in our meeting area; doing normal “kid things,” they could have been in any country anywhere in the world.

I’m not telling you things I read in a textbook or in U.S. media reports. I saw firsthand what oppression and apartheid look like. It’s uglier than anyone can imagine without seeing it; and it’s enabled largely by aid from the U.S. and Russia. Let that sink in, and remember it every time you vote.

I affirmed with my own senses that Arabs and Muslims are, as a group, not violent terrorists. Two Muslim women will flag down seven American and British women lost on a busy highway and guide them to their destination. Muslims and Arabs are warm, loving, well-educated (among the most well educated in the world), well-spoken, industrious people whose only wish is to live their lives in dignity and peace. They open their arms, open their homes, and spread their tables and ask only one thing in return: please go and tell your people our story.

This is what I know to be true: I know that a promise from God will never come with license to oppress another group of human beings. If claiming a promise necessitates harassing, demeaning, imprisoning, killing, surveilling, restricting free movement, interfering with the pursuit of livelihood, stealing ancestral lands, and demolishing ancient habitats, one of two things is true. Either the promise did not really come from God, or some human beings are manipulating their religion as a weapon to gain power and control–actions which are the polar opposite of anything I know about God.

Now it’s up to you to keep the story going. Please share the story with everyone you know. Share this article in every forum you possibly can. This is not anti-Semitism (Arabs are also Semites); it’s pro-justice. Justice for ALL.

Categories
Uncategorized

What the Bible Really Says about Human Migration

Our pseudo-conservative government officials have become quite fond of quoting the Bible to endorse their latest inhumane policies, most notoriously Jeff Sessions’ cherry-picked verse cited to justify kidnapping and imprisoning children. Quick-witted Sarah Sanders, always ready to back up her boss and his evil cohorts, cited the same passage when asked by a reporter where in the Bible it says it’s moral to take children away from their mothers. This was Sarah’s response: “I’m not aware of the attorney general’s comments or what he would be referencing, [but] I can say that it is very biblical to enforce the law. That is repeated throughout the Bible.” Really, Sarah? Gee, I’d love to chat with you about that sometime, but for now, this article will have to do.

Let me be clear from the beginning: I am a Christian, and the Bible holds a special place in my heart and my faith. I do not, however, believe the Bible should be the document that forms the basis for government; that document is the Constitution, which should of course be in harmony with the moral code. Jesus’ classic statement suggesting separation of church and state, and allegiance to both, is found in Mark 12, where a group of Pharisees who wanted to see Jesus arrested attempted to trap him into making an incriminating statement. They asked whether they should pay taxes to the government, to which Jesus made this famous reply:

Knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, ‘Why are you putting me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me see it.’ And they brought one. Then he said to them, ‘Whose head is this, and whose title?’ They answered, ‘The emperor’s.’ Jesus said to them, ‘Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’ (Mk. 12: 15-17)

The passage selected by Jeff Sessions and echoed by Sarah Sanders to browbeat citizens into submitting to whatever evil the government perpetrates is Romans 13: 1-7:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; 4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority[a] does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is due them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

It would be inconsistent to interpret these words to mean that God has given governing officials carte blanche to do whatever they please and then commanded citizens to submit to every twisted, evil, or cruel dictate. A more reasonable interpretation is that God is in favor of humans creating governing bodies for the sake of harmony and security within the social order and is also in favor of citizens cooperating with those governing bodies to the extent that the emperor’s commands do not violate God’s laws of moral conduct. To argue that every individual government is ordained by God would be to say that God ordained Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, and all of the other brutal dictators of world history. Contrary to popular evangelical claims, winning an election is not proof of God’s hand at work; if it were, those same people would have shown a whole lot more respect to our current “president’s” predecessor.

Civil disobedience is the practice of intentionally breaking laws that violate the moral code. Famous practitioners include Henry David Thoreau, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. The Old Testament also includes a couple of examples. Daniel, the guy who survived the lions’ den, was awarded the position of third in command over the kingdom of Babylon because of his ability to interpret dreams and solve problems, both indications that, as the king says to him, “a spirit of the gods is in you.” Daniel, as one of three presidents,  acted in such complete obedience to the king that he was poised for a promotion to be president over the entire kingdom. It’s pretty easy to see where the story goes next: the other presidents get jealous and set up a trap, and Daniel ends up in the lions’ den, much to the grief of the king who was trapped into signing an ordinance punishing anyone who prayed to God during the next 30 days. Daniel, whose loyalty to the king had been fierce enough to win him a high position, when faced with a choice between loyalty to the law and loyalty to God, remained faithful to God and accepted the consequences of his choice.

Henry David Thoreau puts it this way in his essay “Civil Disobedience”:

Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislature? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.

I think it safe to conclude that, Jeff Sessions’ and Sarah Sanders’ wisdom notwithstanding, Romans 13 in no way justifies turning away asylum seekers, denying them due process, or kidnapping their children. But even if they were correct (and they are NOT), no citizen or law maker is absolved of moral responsibility simply because a law requires an immoral action. Each of us is accountable for doing what we know to be morally right, regardless of what the law may require. Slavery was legal, helping slaves to escape was illegal; murdering Jews in Nazi Germany was legal, rescuing those doomed to death was illegal.

What then does the Bible say about how to treat immigrants? Actually, quite a lot. Humans have always been migratory creatures. Our most primitive ancestors were driven by survival needs: food availability, suitable climate, and safety. Come to think of it, modern humans are driven by pretty much the same things.

The book of Genesis alone contains at least four immigrant tales: Noah, Abram (later Abraham), Lot, and Jacob. Noah’s escape to the ark was driven by seeking safety from imminent danger; Abram/Abraham moved from his homeland to another land because of severe famine in his homeland; Lot escaped Sodom to avoid the destruction about to befall the place; Jacob left Canaan and moved to Egypt to escape the famine in Canaan and to reunite with his lost son Joseph.

Exodus, the second book of the Bible, tells the story of a great migration from Egypt back to the land of Canaan, as the Israelites sought to escape Pharaoh’s oppression and find a place of peace and refuge. So far, none of this sounds any different from today’s immigrants’ stories.

Ruth is another famous immigrant of the Old Testament. Ruth’s mother-in-law Naomi, Naomi’s husband Elimelech, and their two sons Mahlon and Chilion moved to the Land of Moab because there was a famine in Israel. During the ten years they spent in Moab, Elimelech died; Mahlon and Chilion married Moabite women, Ruth and Orpah; then Mahlon and Chilion died. Having received news that the famine was over and there was once again food in her homeland, Naomi set out to go back home, and her daughters-in-law followed until Naomi urged them to think of themselves and their own security and go back to their mothers’ homes. Orpah conceded, but Ruth uttered the famous words you may have quoted during your wedding ceremony:

Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; Where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die–there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!

Jesus and his family were also migrants. When Joseph received word that Herod was about to search for his child to destroy the child, he took Mary and Jesus and fled to Egypt, where they remained until Herod’s death. When Joseph received word that it was safe to return to Israel, the family migrated once more to their native land, where they settled in Nazareth.

The Bible refers to immigrants as “aliens,” “foreigners,” and “strangers.” Again and again, Israelites are reminded that they too were strangers in the land of Egypt and that their own experience should cause them to identify with and feel empathy and compassion for those seeking refuge among them. They are admonished to treat the strangers among them as they wished to be treated when they themselves were strangers.

The citizens of Israel are commanded not to oppress the foreigners in their midst but to treat them with kindness, compassion, and love–just as they themselves would wish to be treated. They are told to assist the aliens and the poor in their land to find the necessities of survival, allowing them to glean in the Israelites’ fields. They are told not to deny justice to foreigners and to commit no violence against them. Those foreigners willing to be integrated into the culture and adopt cultural customs should be treated the same as citizens. When the inheritance was apportioned to citizens, the aliens in residence were to be allotted equal inheritances with the natives.

For perspective, throughout the Bible, there is the acknowledgment that some people will always be poor. Note throughout the following passages that the alien is consistently listed with the poor, the widow, and the orphan. In a patriarchal society, those whose male provider was deceased were doomed to live in poverty; likewise, one who left his homeland and the property which he had accumulated would likely experience at least an initial period of poverty and struggling to re-establish. There is no command to make the poor wealthy, but there are repeated commands to love the poor and the alien; to allow them the means of survival; and to extend  justice, compassion, and kindness to them.

Here are a few of the passages about how to treat strangers, aliens, foreigners–arranged in the order in which they appear in the Canon. Before you dismiss them as irrelevant because they’re from the Old Testament or from (gasp!) Leviticus, just remember that Leviticus is the same book used to “prove” that God hates gay people and forbids having tattoos. Just saying.

Exodus 12:47-49

47 The whole congregation of Israel shall celebrate it. 48 If an alien who resides with you wants to celebrate the passover to the Lord, all his males shall be circumcised; then he may draw near to celebrate it; he shall be regarded as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it; 49 there shall be one law for the native and for the alien who resides among you.

Exodus 22:21

21 You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.

Exodus 23:9

9 You shall not oppress a resident alien; you know the heart of an alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.

Leviticus 19:9-10

9 When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 You shall not strip your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien: I am the Lord your God.

Leviticus 19:33-34

33 When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. 34 The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Deuteronomy 10:17-19

17 For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who is not partial and takes no bribe, 18 who executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and who loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing. 19 You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Deuteronomy 24:14-15

14 You shall not withhold the wages of poor and needy laborers, whether other Israelites or aliens who reside in your land in one of your towns. 15 You shall pay them their wages daily before sunset, because they are poor and their livelihood depends on them; otherwise they might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt.

 Deuteronomy 24:17-22

17 You shall not deprive a resident alien or an orphan of justice; you shall not take a widow’s garment in pledge. 18 Remember that you were a slave in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore I command you to do this.

19 When you reap your harvest in your field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be left for the alien, the orphan, and the widow, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all your undertakings. 20 When you beat your olive trees, do not strip what is left; it shall be for the alien, the orphan, and the widow.

21 When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, do not glean what is left; it shall be for the alien, the orphan, and the widow. 22 Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt; therefore I am commanding you to do this.

Deuteronomy 26:12

12 When you have finished paying all the tithe of your produce in the third year (which is the year of the tithe), giving it to the Levites, the aliens, the orphans, and the widows, so that they may eat their fill within your towns . . .

Deuteronomy 27:19

19 Cursed be anyone who deprives the alien, the orphan, and the widow of justice.  All the people shall say, “Amen!”

Jeremiah 7:5-7

5 For if you truly amend your ways and your doings, if you truly act justly one with another, 6 if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, and the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own hurt, 7 then I will dwell with you in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your ancestors forever and ever.

Jeremiah 22:3

3 Thus says the Lord: Act with justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor anyone who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the alien, the orphan, and the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place.

Ezekiel 16:49

49 This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

Ezekiel 22:4, 7

4 You have become guilty by the blood that you have shed, and defiled by the idols that you have made; you have brought your day near, the appointed time of your years has come. Therefore I have made you a disgrace before the nations, and a mockery to all the countries.

7 Father and mother are treated with contempt in you; the alien residing within you suffers extortion; the orphan and the widow are wronged in you.

Ezekiel 47:22

22 You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the aliens who reside among you and have begotten children among you. They shall be to you as citizens of Israel; with you they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel.

Zechariah 7:9-10

9 Thus says the Lord of hosts: Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another; 10 do not oppress the widow, the orphan, the alien, or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another.

Malachi 3:5

5 Then I will draw near to you for judgment; I will be swift to bear witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired workers in their wages, the widow and the orphan, against those who thrust aside the alien, and do not fear me, says the Lord of hosts.

Matthew 25:35-40

35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ 40 And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,[a] you did it to me.’

Luke 10:25-37

25 Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus.[a] “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” 27 He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.”

29 But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii,[b] gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

Hebrews 13:2

2 Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it.

 

I’m not saying the Bible should replace the Constitution as our governing document. I’m not saying every citizen should begin referring to the Bible as their standard of conduct. I am saying that those who do claim to believe the Bible–both law makers and private citizens, especially those who fancy themselves fine Christians–should show their belief by their actions. And they should try reading the whole thing before quoting irrelevant parts of it to justify their selfishness and cruelty.

Categories
Politics

Connecting Dots

I’m seeing spots! Actually, it’s lots and lots of dots! I’ve been seeing them for several years, and their number is increasing, though the connections between them have seemed confusing or altogether missing. Then in the last two weeks’ dizzying rush of shock-and-awe headlines and breaking news, finally a name appeared which began to make sense out of the galaxy of random dots: Maria Butina. Ms. Butina is the woman you’ve all heard of by now: alleged Russian spy, worked with Aleksandr Torshin, began traveling between Russia and the U.S. in 2011, moved to the U.S. on a student visa in 2016 and became a graduate student at American University in D.C., allegedly used sex among other weapons to carry out her assignments, founded a Russian gun-rights organization called Right to Bear Arms, and along with Torshin established a “cooperative relationship” between Right to Bear Arms and the National Rifle Association (NRA). Aha! Those random dots suddenly seemed far less random and more a part of an intricate pattern woven of Russian involvement in our democracy, NRA control over our politicians, Russian and NRA control over our “president,” and our Congress’s inaction on pretty much everything.

In a Guardian article published on July 26, 2018, Jon Swaine names a Russian billionaire alleged to be Ms. Butina’s “funder”: Konstantin Nikolaev, whose wife Svetlana Nikolaeva is “the head of a gun company that supplies sniper rifles to the Russian military and intelligence services.” Swaine states the finding that Mr. Nikolaev allegedly invested money in his wife’s gun company “sheds further light on the links forged in recent years between America’s powerful gun lobby and well-connected Russians.” Add those allegations to the allegation by US prosecutors that “Butina’s activities were directed by Alexander Torshin, a senior Russian state banker and an NRA member,” and I think we’re starting to see some lines connecting a few of those dots.

While Ms. Butina rests in her jail cell, investigators are pursuing charges of “illegally operating as a foreign agent . . . working to infiltrate the NRA as part of an attempt to influence the Republican party and establish secret backchannels with American politicians” (also from the Swaine article). It should be completely unsurprising that she has denied all charges. Meanwhile, we should perhaps take a moment to review the history of the organization which she is accused of infiltrating and using as a backchannel to connect the Republican Party with the Kremlin.

According to the NRA’s official website, the National Rifle Association was founded in 1871 by Union Civil War veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate, who expressed dismay over “the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops.” Contrary to a revisionist claim that the NRA was formed to drive out the Ku Klux Klan and help freed slaves defend themselves against racist attacks (a claim debunked by Snopes and other fact checkers), the real purpose of the new organization was “promoting the safe and proper use of firearms” (Ron Elving, NPR). “The idea was to educate a new generation of marksmen, whether for war or hunting or recreational target shooting” (Elving).

In our country’s earlier years, there was little or no debate about the necessity of gun use in everyday life, since guns were essential for survival during the frontier era. According to Mr. Elving, debate over the necessity of gun ownership began in earnest after four of our presidents were assassinated. During those years between the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy, the NRA supported restrictions on gun availability, particularly for convicted felons and people with mental illness. Each time a new conversation arose, the NRA wanted to be involved but consistently worked with Congress and the White House toward implementing and enforcing prudent restrictions.

That was then. According to Ron Elving , change began in 1971 when an NRA member who had a large cache of illegal weapons was killed by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. The NRA’s first lobbying group, Institute for Legislative Action (ILA), was formed in 1975 under the leadership of “Texas lawyer . . . Harlon Carter, an immigration hawk who had headed the Border Patrol in the 1950s” (Elving). Carter, a “hard-liner, ” made the statement, “You don’t stop crime by attacking guns. You stop crime by stopping criminals.” Hmmm, why does that sound so familiar?

The ensuing power struggle culminated in a coup at the 1977 NRA convention, resulting in Carter’s rise to the position of executive vice president and his appointment of fellow hard-liner Neal Knox to replace him as head of the ILA. Elving says, “The new marching orders were to oppose all forms of gun control across the board and lobby aggressively for gun owners’ rights in Congress and the legislatures.” Elving adds, “Carter proclaimed his group would be ‘so strong and so dedicated that no politician in America, mindful of his political career, would want to challenge our legitimate goals.’”

The powerful gun-lobby organization we see today bears little resemblance to the NRA that aimed to train hunters and a great resemblance to the new NRA born in 1977. In the words of Snopes writers, today’s NRA has “a single overriding purpose: to promote and defend the Second Amendment right to bear arms.” I’ve written before about their concept of what the Second Amendment actually says, so I’ll let that point rest for now and just mention the fear tactics shamelessly employed to garner support for their political agenda, especially under the leadership of executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, who famously wrote an editorial dated February 13, 2013, where he said among other things:

The president [Obama] flagrantly defies the 2006 federal law ordering the construction of a secure border fence along the entire Mexican border. So the border today remains porous not only to people seeking jobs in the U.S., but to criminals whose jobs are murder, rape, robbery and kidnapping. Ominously, the border also remains open to agents of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Numerous intelligence sources have confirmed that foreign terrorists have identified the southern U.S. border as their path of entry into the country.

When the next terrorist attack comes, the Obama administration won’t accept responsibility. Instead, it will do what it does every time: blame a scapegoat and count on Obama’s “mainstream” media enablers to go along.

A heinous act of mass murder—either by terrorists or by some psychotic who should have been locked up long ago—will be the pretext to unleash a tsunami of gun control.

No wonder Americans are buying guns in record numbers right now, while they still can and before their choice about which firearm is right for their family is taken away forever.

Mr. LaPierre goes on to say,

Responsible Americans realize that the world as we know it has changed. We, the American people, clearly see the daunting forces we will undoubtedly face: terrorists, crime, drug gangs, the possibility of Euro-style debt riots, civil unrest or natural disaster.

Gun owners are not buying firearms because they anticipate a confrontation with the government. Rather, we anticipate confrontations where the government isn’t there—or simply doesn’t show up in time.

Well, let’s just start right here with the horse’s mouth, or perhaps some more southern body part. Why is it that, although no serious proposal has ever come before our congress to ban guns, the gun clutchers by default begin every conversation by defending themselves against the plot to “ban all the guns”? I think the answer to that question is right here: that’s the brainwashing they’re receiving from the horse’s mouth.

The executive vice president of the NRA decries the lack of a “secure border fence along the entire Mexican border,” and–voila!–his newly purchased Republican presidential candidate makes building a wall the centerpiece of his campaign. Mr. LaPierre makes terrifying claims about immigrants who cross that border, or who might cross it in the absence of sufficient security, and guess who launches his campaign with absurd and unfounded claims about Mexican immigrants and continues to attack immigrants in every inhumane way he can think of? That’s right! The NRA-purchased “president,” who assures the organization that its $30,000,000 donation has purchased them “a true friend and champion in the White House.” Even Donald Trump is smart enough to know that if he doesn’t give them their money’s worth, they might buy a replacement in 2020.

So how much money does the NRA spend on politicians, and where does all of that money come from? As usual, the answer depends on whom you ask. If you ask the NRA leadership (and why would you?), the answer as of October 2017 was $3.5 million, according to PolitiFact. Well, that can’t be right. PolitiFact, however, says it is actually an accurate number but accounts for only one small pot among many from which the NRA draws to wield their vast influence. That figure accounts for only direct contributions to currently serving members of congress, elected between 1998 and 2017. Never mind the members who served during only part of that time or the many collateral expenses that arise from buying congressional representatives and senators. Selling one’s soul is serious business, and the Devil’s prices ain’t cheap.

When you add lobbying, campaign ads, party and leadership PAC contributions, and independent campaign expenditures (whatever the heck those are!) to the contributions for individual candidates (only those currently serving as of 2017), you get a much larger number than the paltry $3.5 million claimed by the NRA. PolitiFact says the full tally for “political activities” is $203.2 million for the 1998-2017 period. So they were off by $200 million! Are we going to hold a little mathematical error against them? Geez! They’re paid to buy politicians, not do math.

Also worth noting in the PolitiFact numbers is the yuuuuge spike in spending during 2016. What was it that happened that year?

Brennan Weiss and Skye Gould report in a February 28, 2018, Business Insider article, that although the NRA is bipartisan in its contributions, it’s only barely so. Of the top 85 career recipients of NRA funds, 82 of them are Republicans (citing a database from the Center for Responsive Politics). John McCain and Richard Burr, of Arizona and North Carolina respectively, top the list for career donations, with $7,755, 701 going to McCain and $6,986,931 to Burr. Florida’s Marco Rubio–number 6 on the list–is indebted for $3,303,355. Adjusted for time of service, however, Marco Rubio, having logged only seven years so far, is just as dirty as those in the top 5. Rubio, in case anyone needs a reminder, is the sniveling coward who stood on a platform with Marjory Stoneman Douglas survivors, in the immediate aftermath of their trauma, and excused his NRA association by rationalizing “They come to me; they align themselves with my purposes”–or some such drivel.

The NRA is also noted for issuing its infamous report cards, ranking senators and representatives for their NRA-friendly stances. Here’s just a sampling. The A-list is comprised of 39 Republicans and ten Democrats; the F-list contains 35 Democrats, two Republicans, and one Independent. The B, C, and D lists are far shorter, demonstrating that the majority of law makers who have been rated fall into the extremes, with one extreme (the pro-NRA group) heavily Republican and the other (the anti-NRA group) almost exclusively Democrat. (from margieroswell.com)

The next logical question is where does the NRA get all that dirty money with which to purchase law makers’ souls? For starters, the organization currently claims more than 5 million members, each paying annual dues. The base price is $40 for one year, with incentives for longer commitments, the best value being five years for the low bargain price of just $140. Those little tidbits are straight from the NRA website, followed by these statements, in response to the question “How does the NRA use my membership dues?”:

Your support will help us defend your Second Amendment freedom whenever and wherever it comes under attack.

In addition, your membership dues will help the NRA cultivate the next generation of sportsmen and women through our youth firearms trainings…empower women with our self-defense programs…and support our police officers with our world-class law enforcement training programs.

I guess that’s pretty clear: politics first, sports and law enforcement second.

In addition to annual dues, the NRA rakes in a few more million each year from “program fees,” such as money paid to use their shooting ranges, open to both members and non-members, with slightly higher prices for non-members; admission to sporting events; and fees for education and training programs.

The organization also takes in vast revenues in contributions. According to an October 15, 2015, CNN report by Blake Ellis and Melanie Hicken,

Some political funding comes from big corporations, many within the gun industry, which donate millions to the NRA. But companies are barred from donating to the NRA’s political action committee, which the agency uses to fill campaign coffers, run ads and send out mailers for and against candidates. That’s where individual donations come in.

Private citizens, incited to paranoia by the gun lobby’s scare tactics, collectively donate millions of dollars toward keeping gun-friendly candidates in power. According to the same article,

Since 2005 [that’s a 10-year period, since the article was written in 2015], the NRA Political Victory Fund has received nearly $85 million in contributions from individual donors. After the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, donations to this political action committee surged as gun owners worried that their rights to buy and own guns were at risk.

While President Obama was calling for better regulation of gun sales in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, the gun clutchers responded by buying more guns and donating more money to the NRA.

Donations in the 2014 election cycle were up by more than 50% compared to the prior two years, and nearly doubled from a decade ago.

‘Americans look to the NRA to defend their constitutional right to self protection,’ NRA spokesperson Jennifer Baker told CNNMoney. ‘When gun control advocates ramp up their efforts to pass gun control, people voice their opposition by donating to the NRA.’

Then along came Maria Butina, and that dirty money just got a whole lot dirtier! Secret back channels; Russian billionaires; an organization long on receiving donations and short on basic decency, morality, and humanity add up to a much bigger coffer that now can afford to buy not just penny-ante MOCs but a moronic, narcissistic “president” who will allow his strings to be pulled by anyone who will feed his gargantuan ego and allow him to believe his election was legitimate.

Okay, we pretty much knew all of that, except maybe the spy/NRA connection, but that is the connection which explains why members of Congress continue to support a treasonous president, why their only response to mass murder is “thoughts and prayers,” why they are paralyzed to act against the treason and mental illness on display daily in the White House. It’s clear now that Donald Trump is not the only elected official beholden to Russia. Paralyzed MOCs are not just protecting a dysfunctional “president,” they’re protecting themselves.

Michelle Goldberg, in a July 20, 2018, opinion column for the New York Times, calls the National Rifle Association “the most important outside organization in the Republican firmament.” According to Ms. Goldberg, “Legal filings in the case [Maria Butina’s case] outline a plan to use the N.R.A. to push the Republican Party in a more pro-Russian direction.” She adds, “The young Russian woman clearly understood the political significance of the N.R.A. In one email, court papers say, she described the central ‘place and influence’ of the N.R.A. in the Republican Party.”

Goldberg quotes Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon:

I serve on both the Intelligence Committee and the Finance Committee, so I have a chance to really look at this through the periscope of both committees. And what I have wondered about for some time is this whole issue of whether the N.R.A. is getting subverted as a Russian asset.

Another dot is connected! Why were House Republicans so eager to wrap up their investigation into Russia’s election interference, declare no wrongdoing had occurred, and close their ears to any more uncomfortable information? Ms. Goldberg reports that Democrats on the committee were preparing to interview Ms. Butina and Paul Erickson, with whom she had developed an “insincere” romantic relationship. Apparently, the Repubs preferred not to know about all that back channel stuff, so they decided it was time to close up shop.

According to the Goldberg article,

McClatchy has reported that the F.B.I. is investigating whether Torshin [Aleksandr Torshin, Russian allegedly in cahoots with Butina] illegally funneled money to the N.R.A. to help Trump. Wyden [Oregon Senator] has also been trying to trace foreign money flowing into the N.R.A., but has found little cooperation from the organization, his Republican colleagues or the Treasury Department.

Funny how all those dots don’t seem nearly so random and unconnected any more! It’s all starting to make perfect sense. It’s terrifying, but it makes sense. I don’t know about you, but I’m keeping my eye on the Russian spy.