A Facebook comment I made following this op-ed by David Brooks:
If you read this op-ed piece without looking at the name of the author, you would demand to know more. You would demand to know how we can build a new national narrative, revive family life, restore community bonds and our shared moral culture. You would want some names of potential national and local leaders who are able to think "about our shared social and moral formative institutions and how such institutions could be reconstituted". These cults of ego worship on the left and the right have been ripping us apart since at least the Vietnam years (and I'm old enough to have witnessed this close-up). Perhaps the language of "recovery" will help: We (that's the "we" implied by 'E Pluribus Unum') have not yet reached the bottom and are unable to admit that "we" have a problem. Judging from the year we all have experienced, I think we may be getting really close. I'm going to save this op-ed piece to use as a measure for any "leadership" that emerges in the near future.
Friday, November 17, 2017
Thursday, November 9, 2017
Educating Congressman Gallagher on the Nature of Weapons
A Facebook comment to Mike Gallagher:
Too many people are eager to play with words while children die. Forget the crap about "assault weapon", "automatic", "semiautomatic", etcetera ad nauseum. To the survivors of the dead and to the wounded, it wasn't a word that spilled their blood. It was a weapon, a firearm, a tool intended for the single purpose of killing. The real issue is CAPACITY FOR CARNAGE. How many casualties can a particular weapon inflict in one minute? It looks like the one used in Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs can create around 60 casualties per minute. Can we get some agreement that this level of carnage is completely uncalled for in civilian life? There are many baby steps that we can take to lessen the death toll. Some are obvious while some require a public health approach. However, limiting the capacity for casualties should be one of the earliest efforts.
Too many people are eager to play with words while children die. Forget the crap about "assault weapon", "automatic", "semiautomatic", etcetera ad nauseum. To the survivors of the dead and to the wounded, it wasn't a word that spilled their blood. It was a weapon, a firearm, a tool intended for the single purpose of killing. The real issue is CAPACITY FOR CARNAGE. How many casualties can a particular weapon inflict in one minute? It looks like the one used in Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs can create around 60 casualties per minute. Can we get some agreement that this level of carnage is completely uncalled for in civilian life? There are many baby steps that we can take to lessen the death toll. Some are obvious while some require a public health approach. However, limiting the capacity for casualties should be one of the earliest efforts.
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Exploring Matthew 22:39
I developed an "itch" over something in last Sunday's Gospel reading, and I need to scratch it. Matthew 22:37-40 may be the most familiar of all Gospel texts, and may be (rightly or wrongly) seen as central to Christian morality.
The one word in the text that lit a spark for me was "like": as in "... and the second is LIKE it." I've been learning the value of going deep on the ideas in Scripture that stand out. The more obvious in this whole passage would be the word "love". The Greek word that Matthew uses is 'agapao', which we, of course, recognize as unconditional love, moral love, or Godly love.
So I went deep on "like". The Greek word there is 'homoios', meaning similar in appearance or character. I'm wondering if the similarity that Jesus is pointing out in these two pieces of the Law is more than we give Him credit for. What might it mean to us if this similarity were thought of as "nearly identical" instead of "seems sort of alike"?
If we see our love of God and our love of our neighbor/self as nearly identical loves, and if we form our lives around that, we may be experiencing the creation in the way God intended, as described in Genesis 1:31 - "... it was very good".
The one word in the text that lit a spark for me was "like": as in "... and the second is LIKE it." I've been learning the value of going deep on the ideas in Scripture that stand out. The more obvious in this whole passage would be the word "love". The Greek word that Matthew uses is 'agapao', which we, of course, recognize as unconditional love, moral love, or Godly love.
So I went deep on "like". The Greek word there is 'homoios', meaning similar in appearance or character. I'm wondering if the similarity that Jesus is pointing out in these two pieces of the Law is more than we give Him credit for. What might it mean to us if this similarity were thought of as "nearly identical" instead of "seems sort of alike"?
If we see our love of God and our love of our neighbor/self as nearly identical loves, and if we form our lives around that, we may be experiencing the creation in the way God intended, as described in Genesis 1:31 - "... it was very good".
Saturday, August 26, 2017
Rights Have Reasons
Most of the ideas that we think of as "Rights" are political. That means that they have been established by a consensus of the society we live in. When we* designed those "Rights", we had specific purposes in mind.
One simple example is the "Freedom of Religion". Our recent ancestors had endured a series of religious wars from 1518 through 1651. The experience of lethal intrusions of politics into religion and religion into politics was enough to convince reasonable men to insulate each from the other.
The recent experience in the health care arena, where we began an approach to universal health financing (the ACA), followed by the concerted efforts to prevent universal coverage, has led many to insist that there is or should be a "Right" to healthcare. This will only come about if it can be shown that there is a good REASON for the RIGHT.
Another compelling argument for the view of "Rights" as a political decision is the recent uproar over the "Freedom of Speech" as applied to Nazis, to the KKK, and to white supremacists in general. We* have determined through many years of experience that government and government-affiliated bodies must not restrict the voicing of points of view, regardless of how repugnant they may be. It is only when "voicing" crosses the line into "incitement" or malice (falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater), that the authority of our society needs to step in.
Now, how does this apply to individual citizens or crowds? It doesn't. Anne Coulter complaining that her "freedom of speech" is violated when a notoriously left-wing group of students won't listen politely to her extreme right-wing provocations is silly. She has a nation-wide bullhorn through her books and through right-wing media to spread her point of view much further than any crowd of college students could ever hope for. The Nazis who canceled their march in Boston because their views weren't going to be shown the proper courtesy? Instead of condemning the people there for failure to show reverence toward "freedom of speech", let's applaud the good people of Boston for showing their decency and resisting actual evil.
Our democratic republic has been formed through two centuries of elections, legislation, court rulings, and the constantly reported history of them. Neither liberalism nor conservatism formed us. We have melded the two over the centuries to develop both the rights and responsibilities that are needed for a functioning society. We* are not finished; we may never be finished. As long as we keep the needs and desires of ALL Americans as the center of our ideals, we will be a better nation tomorrow than we were yesterday. Whether you are a liberal or a conservative, that should be your aim as a citizen.
Like every other aspect of our society's authority structures (AKA "Government"), our "Rights" need to be molded over time with a liberal view to the future and a conservative respect for the past.
___________________________________________
* "We": Throughout this article, the plural pronoun refers to the same collective as it does in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America. (i.e. "We, the people of the United States".)
One simple example is the "Freedom of Religion". Our recent ancestors had endured a series of religious wars from 1518 through 1651. The experience of lethal intrusions of politics into religion and religion into politics was enough to convince reasonable men to insulate each from the other.
The recent experience in the health care arena, where we began an approach to universal health financing (the ACA), followed by the concerted efforts to prevent universal coverage, has led many to insist that there is or should be a "Right" to healthcare. This will only come about if it can be shown that there is a good REASON for the RIGHT.
Another compelling argument for the view of "Rights" as a political decision is the recent uproar over the "Freedom of Speech" as applied to Nazis, to the KKK, and to white supremacists in general. We* have determined through many years of experience that government and government-affiliated bodies must not restrict the voicing of points of view, regardless of how repugnant they may be. It is only when "voicing" crosses the line into "incitement" or malice (falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater), that the authority of our society needs to step in.
Now, how does this apply to individual citizens or crowds? It doesn't. Anne Coulter complaining that her "freedom of speech" is violated when a notoriously left-wing group of students won't listen politely to her extreme right-wing provocations is silly. She has a nation-wide bullhorn through her books and through right-wing media to spread her point of view much further than any crowd of college students could ever hope for. The Nazis who canceled their march in Boston because their views weren't going to be shown the proper courtesy? Instead of condemning the people there for failure to show reverence toward "freedom of speech", let's applaud the good people of Boston for showing their decency and resisting actual evil.
Our democratic republic has been formed through two centuries of elections, legislation, court rulings, and the constantly reported history of them. Neither liberalism nor conservatism formed us. We have melded the two over the centuries to develop both the rights and responsibilities that are needed for a functioning society. We* are not finished; we may never be finished. As long as we keep the needs and desires of ALL Americans as the center of our ideals, we will be a better nation tomorrow than we were yesterday. Whether you are a liberal or a conservative, that should be your aim as a citizen.
Like every other aspect of our society's authority structures (AKA "Government"), our "Rights" need to be molded over time with a liberal view to the future and a conservative respect for the past.
___________________________________________
* "We": Throughout this article, the plural pronoun refers to the same collective as it does in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America. (i.e. "We, the people of the United States".)
Friday, August 11, 2017
"Christian Nation" is a Contradiction in Terms.
The claims that the United States is a Christian nation (or that it should be), come from people with many shades of opinion about the definition of the word "Christian". There is also no consistency in the practical characteristics of this "Christian Nation". A deeper understanding of all of these words and ideas can teach us that a "Christian Nation" is an impossibility, either in America or anywhere else, either today or at any other time in history.
Christianity is the religion that formed over the first 300 years following the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. It did not form in a vacuum. Jesus was an observant Jew with deep knowledge of the scriptures and history of his people. His understanding of the relationship between God and creation (including humanity) began with the stories of creation (Adam and Eve, Noah, Babel, etc) and reached a major turning point with Abraham. God's call of Abraham was specifically intended to make his descendants into a nation that would bless all nations of the world. Before Abraham, the primary purpose of any tribe was the survival of the tribe itself. This often required the killing of those who were from other tribes. The "Abraham" idea of a tribe that would be a blessing to other tribes was a revolutionary fork in the road for the history of humanity. The history of the people of Israel (the descendants of Abraham) through the slavery in Egypt, the rise and fall of kingdoms, the exile in Babylon, and the restoration of Judea, led to the next major turning point in the human understanding of God: the mission of Jesus.
Over the centuries between Abraham and Jesus, God's plan for "blessing all the nations" had become lost. The chosenness of the "Chosen People" had become a jealously held possession of the Jews. Although much of Jesus' ministry happened within this closed culture, there were many times and places where he broke out of it. In the stories of the Samaritan woman at the well, the Syro-Phoenician woman, and the ten lepers, the culture of isolation did not prevent Jesus from teaching and healing. Even his most famous parable, "The Good Samaritan", has a despised foreigner as its central character. (A more accurate modern translation of the parable would call this "The Good Illegal Alien").
As Jewish disciples of Jesus spread out into the world in order to escape persecution by Jewish religious leaders, they quickly came upon a major cultural contradiction. This "Jesus Movement" that they were preaching was dramatically attractive to non-Jews. The leaders of the disciples (now, "Apostles") came to recognize just how universal the Gospel is. Led by the most deeply Jewish of the early members of their fellowship (Saul of Tarsus, a.k.a Paul), the "Good News of the Kingdom of Heaven" was opened up to "all nations".
Now we are getting to the point of this. The Christian religion as it was intended from the first centuries does not recognize the boundaries of nations.It does not allow the division of people by any human standard, whether cultural, racial, economic, or political. As the current debates in the United States over immigration policy have shown, a nation must define itself through citizenship and boundaries. Unless it can control its borders, it cannot truly be a "nation". From the other direction, no assembly that calls itself "Christian" can ever allow borders. Not only are all those who "call on the name of Jesus" members of the fellowship, but those who are NOT members are the ones Christians are called to minister to.
Being a citizen of the United States and being a follower of the Jesus Movement (Christianity) are two very separate and distinct memberships.
Christianity is the religion that formed over the first 300 years following the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. It did not form in a vacuum. Jesus was an observant Jew with deep knowledge of the scriptures and history of his people. His understanding of the relationship between God and creation (including humanity) began with the stories of creation (Adam and Eve, Noah, Babel, etc) and reached a major turning point with Abraham. God's call of Abraham was specifically intended to make his descendants into a nation that would bless all nations of the world. Before Abraham, the primary purpose of any tribe was the survival of the tribe itself. This often required the killing of those who were from other tribes. The "Abraham" idea of a tribe that would be a blessing to other tribes was a revolutionary fork in the road for the history of humanity. The history of the people of Israel (the descendants of Abraham) through the slavery in Egypt, the rise and fall of kingdoms, the exile in Babylon, and the restoration of Judea, led to the next major turning point in the human understanding of God: the mission of Jesus.
Over the centuries between Abraham and Jesus, God's plan for "blessing all the nations" had become lost. The chosenness of the "Chosen People" had become a jealously held possession of the Jews. Although much of Jesus' ministry happened within this closed culture, there were many times and places where he broke out of it. In the stories of the Samaritan woman at the well, the Syro-Phoenician woman, and the ten lepers, the culture of isolation did not prevent Jesus from teaching and healing. Even his most famous parable, "The Good Samaritan", has a despised foreigner as its central character. (A more accurate modern translation of the parable would call this "The Good Illegal Alien").
As Jewish disciples of Jesus spread out into the world in order to escape persecution by Jewish religious leaders, they quickly came upon a major cultural contradiction. This "Jesus Movement" that they were preaching was dramatically attractive to non-Jews. The leaders of the disciples (now, "Apostles") came to recognize just how universal the Gospel is. Led by the most deeply Jewish of the early members of their fellowship (Saul of Tarsus, a.k.a Paul), the "Good News of the Kingdom of Heaven" was opened up to "all nations".
Now we are getting to the point of this. The Christian religion as it was intended from the first centuries does not recognize the boundaries of nations.It does not allow the division of people by any human standard, whether cultural, racial, economic, or political. As the current debates in the United States over immigration policy have shown, a nation must define itself through citizenship and boundaries. Unless it can control its borders, it cannot truly be a "nation". From the other direction, no assembly that calls itself "Christian" can ever allow borders. Not only are all those who "call on the name of Jesus" members of the fellowship, but those who are NOT members are the ones Christians are called to minister to.
Being a citizen of the United States and being a follower of the Jesus Movement (Christianity) are two very separate and distinct memberships.
Wednesday, May 31, 2017
Dorothy Day and the Gospel to the Poor
“The Gospel takes away our right forever, to discriminate between the deserving and the undeserving poor.”
― Dorothy Day
There are many who disagree with this. We see it most recently in Wisconsin's attempts to brand the poor as lazy drug addicts. We see it in Ben Carson's view of poverty as on "a state of mind". We see it prominently in the raging comments of the alt-right on Twitter and Facebook. The contempt toward the poor even appears to have been a contributing factor among working-class white Christian voters in the 2016 Presidential election.
Those who disagree with Dorothy Day seem to believe that, not only is it likely that some of the poor are "undeserving", but that these observers of poverty are uniquely gifted. They have supreme confidence in their ability to judge the true level of poverty of others as well as the worthiness of those in poverty. These observers (call them "Judges") have decided that the error in giving assistance to an undeserving person is equivalent to the crime of theft against the honest, hardworking taxpayer.
The Gospel provides one clear warning against this rationalization of Scrooge-like miserliness: Matthew 25: 31-46.
Suppose that "Judges" of undeserving poverty are faced with a line of 1,000 people who appear to be in need of mercy (or government assistance - call it whatever you want). As the "Judge" proceeds through life granting mercy to some and denying it to others, the odds are that there will be at least one mistaken judgment along the way. And what does the Gospel tell us about the consequences of a mistake? First, a mistaken grant of mercy to an undeserving poor person will be seen by the Gospel as an act of sacrificial love, indicating a heart that is prepared for the Kingdome of Heaven.
On the other hand, even a single denial of mercy to a deserving poor person will be seen by the Gospel as the sign of a heart that is not prepared for the Kingdom of Heaven (See verse 45).
If the person attempting to judge between the deserving and the undeserving poor is absolutely confident in the infallibility of his judgment, then he can take his seat next to God on the Throne and carry on. Anyone else needs to pay attention to Dorothy Day's warning.
Tuesday, May 23, 2017
Real Presence, Really?
An Episcopal bishop once told me that any discussion of "The Real Presence" that lasted longer than three minutes was probably heretical. I tend to agree with him. A recent chain of commenting on Facebook seemed to bear this out when it stretched out to 80 comments and replies over the course of 10 hours.
One serious defect among the 80 remarks was the subtle hint that one denomination had a "better" opinion on this than another denomination. That is an unfortunate use of a low priority theological issue to fortify the walls between us.
In considering our Gospel priorities, I would rank this "Theology of The Real Presence" far below the theologies of Creation/Incarnation, Atonement, and the care of the poor.
It might help to look at this from another direction. Since the Holy Spirit is not constrained by time or space, and since we are all caught up by the Holy Spirit in our celebration of Eucharist, WE are REALLY PRESENT in the upper room as Jesus really breaks the bread and shares the cup with us.
I have shared this idea with a couple of bishops and several priests, and none of them have found a logical or theological problem in it.
Monday, May 8, 2017
Response to Congressman Gallagher on the AHCA vote.
In his press release defending the Republican actions in the repeal of the ACA Health Care Law, Congressman Gallagher uses the “justification” that the federal government is not competent to run a health care financing system. He needs then to explain the success of Medicare. This system provides for care for over 55 million Americans. Those who depend on it are extremely satisfied with the service they receive. Medicare's approval rate is 77% (compared to 69% for employer-provided plans). When Mr. Gallagher claims that the ACA is failing, he is asking us to look only at some of the states. A broader view shows that some states are doing quite well. The states in trouble seem to be those where Republican lawmakers have actively sabotaged the state’s use of ACA. The only dark cloud on the horizon for Medicare is its long-term financing. That danger comes only from the unwillingness of Congress to fund the future. Mr. Gallagher: I’m sure you have heard the saying, “Lead, follow, or get out of the way”. Your AHCA rationalization is a sample of your “following” your party and leaving many of your people in Wisconsin behind.
Saturday, April 15, 2017
Pollution Increases Profits
There are three ways that a business can increase profits.
Preparing for catastrophes is very speculative. In many cases, it resembles the buying of insurance. There is no guarantee that a catastrophe will happen, or that the insurance will be sufficient for it. That makes this a difficult management decision, which again demands leadership and foresight.
That brings us to the "Reduce costs" option. The only skill involved in cutting costs is accounting. Any spending that does not directly affect the delivery of product to the customer is a candidate for elimination. An enterprise that is lacking in strong and capable leadership will see cost reduction as the first path out of balance sheet stress.
That brings us to the environmental impact of business. From the point of view of a manufacturer, the clean-up of its waste byproducts is a pure cost. It adds nothing to the product or service that the enterprise is selling, so it directly subtracts from the business's revenue and profit.
The short form of the story: Pollution Increases Profits.
Why is this important? A recent book, “The Golden Passport,” by business journalist Duff McDonald, is an indictment of the Harvard Business School's current philosophy and its impact on the future managers of businesses nationwide (and worldwide). His key point is “when students enter business school, they believe that the purpose of a corporation is to produce goods and services for the benefit of society.” “When they graduate,” he continues, “they believe that it is to maximize shareholder value.”
There is the connection. Maximizing shareholder value is fancy code words for "more profit". This aim for corporations erases any ethical basis for their existence. When the "benefit of society" is removed from the corporate mission statement, pollution, financial corruption, and political manipulation become tools to "maximize shareholder value".
As long as our political system operates for the benefit of the worshippers of the god "Mammon", who see corporate profits (and their share of them) as the only measure of greatness, most working Americans will suffer. They will face economic inequality, environmental degradation, and all the dysfunctions that go along with them.
- Increase sales
- Reduce costs
- Mitigate or prevent catastrophic damages
Preparing for catastrophes is very speculative. In many cases, it resembles the buying of insurance. There is no guarantee that a catastrophe will happen, or that the insurance will be sufficient for it. That makes this a difficult management decision, which again demands leadership and foresight.
That brings us to the "Reduce costs" option. The only skill involved in cutting costs is accounting. Any spending that does not directly affect the delivery of product to the customer is a candidate for elimination. An enterprise that is lacking in strong and capable leadership will see cost reduction as the first path out of balance sheet stress.
That brings us to the environmental impact of business. From the point of view of a manufacturer, the clean-up of its waste byproducts is a pure cost. It adds nothing to the product or service that the enterprise is selling, so it directly subtracts from the business's revenue and profit.
The short form of the story: Pollution Increases Profits.
Why is this important? A recent book, “The Golden Passport,” by business journalist Duff McDonald, is an indictment of the Harvard Business School's current philosophy and its impact on the future managers of businesses nationwide (and worldwide). His key point is “when students enter business school, they believe that the purpose of a corporation is to produce goods and services for the benefit of society.” “When they graduate,” he continues, “they believe that it is to maximize shareholder value.”
There is the connection. Maximizing shareholder value is fancy code words for "more profit". This aim for corporations erases any ethical basis for their existence. When the "benefit of society" is removed from the corporate mission statement, pollution, financial corruption, and political manipulation become tools to "maximize shareholder value".
As long as our political system operates for the benefit of the worshippers of the god "Mammon", who see corporate profits (and their share of them) as the only measure of greatness, most working Americans will suffer. They will face economic inequality, environmental degradation, and all the dysfunctions that go along with them.
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
The Uselessness of "Political Correctness"
Political Correctness (PC) is a gentle effort at social engineering that discourages the use of language that is derived from racism or other forms of intolerance. The belief was that if people no longer could verbally express their contempt of members of minority subcultures, then the physical expressions of contempt would eventually disappear.
In the early 1970's, comedian George Carlin fired an early warning shot against PC with his routine on "Seven Words You Can Never Say On Television". The psychological foundation of this routine is that words themselves are neutral. The power of words comes from the attitudes and actions that they describe.
The fact that decent, polite (white) people no longer use the word "Nigger" is meaningless when white dominated society remains actively hostile to people of color. The hostility is not revealed in our language. It is not reflected in our entertainment (TV, movies, music). It is exposed in our statistics. Unemployment. Incarceration. Poverty. High School Graduation. Civilians killed by police.
The altering of our language use over the last 60 years has served only to drive the attitudes and actions of racism "out of sight, out of mind". Over that time, the Civil Rights Movement resulted in the suppression of physical expressions of racism through legislation and enforcement. The Civil Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act. The US Army leading black children through the screaming and spitting (white) mobs in Little Rock. Court ordered busing in Milwaukee. Affirmative Action.
It might have been a perverse result of the success of Political Correctness in altering our public language that the legal and enforcement actions lessened. Did the Supreme Court decide that the Voting Rights Act no longer needs to be thoroughly enforced in Texas because (white) people talk nicer about their black neighbors? Is our new Attorney General pulling back on the investigations of police cultures in Ferguson and Baltimore and Cleveland because the civilian killings were done by police who aren't (publicly) speaking of their targets in racial epithets?
Racial bigotry, along with all the other forms of intolerance, is a cancer on our nation. Separating out, isolating, and diminishing the abilities of any American minority culture weakens us. We have been seeing obvious lessons in this from World War II through today. Whether it was the black squadron of fighter pilots from Tuskegee or the black baseball and football players of the 50's or the black Math geniuses of NASA or the black business leaders of today, we see spectacular achievements from those talented (black) people who have overcome the obstacles that surround white culture. What we don't see is the cost of the wasted opportunity of those who were not exceptional enough.
The joke about women in the workplace may hold true across all cultural divides:
A woman has to work twice as hard and be twice as smart as a man in order to get half the credit. Luckily, this isn't difficult.
Is our defense of "white privilege" only a reflection of our insecurity over our own abilities? Do we (whites) really believe that allowing opportunity to be shared with blacks (and Jews and Muslims and LGBT and immigrants) will leave less for us? History has proven that false in practically every generation since our founding. Every time that we have expanded our vision of America to include more of us, we have become greater. Every time we have locked the doors, we have become less.
"We shall overcome someday". But we won't do it by insisting that people not use "Bad Words" (Carlin's description). We will only overcome by a united effort toward national wholeness.
In the early 1970's, comedian George Carlin fired an early warning shot against PC with his routine on "Seven Words You Can Never Say On Television". The psychological foundation of this routine is that words themselves are neutral. The power of words comes from the attitudes and actions that they describe.
The fact that decent, polite (white) people no longer use the word "Nigger" is meaningless when white dominated society remains actively hostile to people of color. The hostility is not revealed in our language. It is not reflected in our entertainment (TV, movies, music). It is exposed in our statistics. Unemployment. Incarceration. Poverty. High School Graduation. Civilians killed by police.
The altering of our language use over the last 60 years has served only to drive the attitudes and actions of racism "out of sight, out of mind". Over that time, the Civil Rights Movement resulted in the suppression of physical expressions of racism through legislation and enforcement. The Civil Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act. The US Army leading black children through the screaming and spitting (white) mobs in Little Rock. Court ordered busing in Milwaukee. Affirmative Action.
It might have been a perverse result of the success of Political Correctness in altering our public language that the legal and enforcement actions lessened. Did the Supreme Court decide that the Voting Rights Act no longer needs to be thoroughly enforced in Texas because (white) people talk nicer about their black neighbors? Is our new Attorney General pulling back on the investigations of police cultures in Ferguson and Baltimore and Cleveland because the civilian killings were done by police who aren't (publicly) speaking of their targets in racial epithets?
Racial bigotry, along with all the other forms of intolerance, is a cancer on our nation. Separating out, isolating, and diminishing the abilities of any American minority culture weakens us. We have been seeing obvious lessons in this from World War II through today. Whether it was the black squadron of fighter pilots from Tuskegee or the black baseball and football players of the 50's or the black Math geniuses of NASA or the black business leaders of today, we see spectacular achievements from those talented (black) people who have overcome the obstacles that surround white culture. What we don't see is the cost of the wasted opportunity of those who were not exceptional enough.
The joke about women in the workplace may hold true across all cultural divides:
A woman has to work twice as hard and be twice as smart as a man in order to get half the credit. Luckily, this isn't difficult.
Is our defense of "white privilege" only a reflection of our insecurity over our own abilities? Do we (whites) really believe that allowing opportunity to be shared with blacks (and Jews and Muslims and LGBT and immigrants) will leave less for us? History has proven that false in practically every generation since our founding. Every time that we have expanded our vision of America to include more of us, we have become greater. Every time we have locked the doors, we have become less.
"We shall overcome someday". But we won't do it by insisting that people not use "Bad Words" (Carlin's description). We will only overcome by a united effort toward national wholeness.
Monday, March 27, 2017
Hineni - Here Am I
I just learned a new Hebrew word: "Hineni" (hee-ney-nee). Translation: Here Am I. The New York Times Magazine this weekend had reviews of 25 very different pieces of new music. One of those was "You Want It Darker" by Leonard Cohen, from his last (final) album. Give it a listen on YouTube. You can follow the lyrics below. The poetry is too rich to absorb in one listen. The word "Hineni" is in the chorus of the song.
I used to be puzzled that we (of the Abrahamic faiths) end our prayers with "Amen", which seems to mean, "I agree with what I just said". Wouldn't "Hineni" be a more appropriate conclusion to prayer? For instance, when I pray for peace in this world or for comfort for the afflicted, finishing with "Hineni" would be saying "Here am I, willing to do my part in that peace and healing".
I used to be puzzled that we (of the Abrahamic faiths) end our prayers with "Amen", which seems to mean, "I agree with what I just said". Wouldn't "Hineni" be a more appropriate conclusion to prayer? For instance, when I pray for peace in this world or for comfort for the afflicted, finishing with "Hineni" would be saying "Here am I, willing to do my part in that peace and healing".
If you are the dealer, I'm out of the game
If you are the healer, it means I'm broken and lame
If thine is the glory then mine must be the shame
You want it darker
We kill the flame
If you are the healer, it means I'm broken and lame
If thine is the glory then mine must be the shame
You want it darker
We kill the flame
Magnified, sanctified, be thy holy name
Vilified, crucified, in the human frame
A million candles burning for the help that never came
You want it darker
Vilified, crucified, in the human frame
A million candles burning for the help that never came
You want it darker
Hineni, hineni
I'm ready, my lord
I'm ready, my lord
There's a lover in the story
But the story's still the same
There's a lullaby for suffering
And a paradox to blame
But it's written in the scriptures
And it's not some idle claim
You want it darker
We kill the flame
But the story's still the same
There's a lullaby for suffering
And a paradox to blame
But it's written in the scriptures
And it's not some idle claim
You want it darker
We kill the flame
They're lining up the prisoners
And the guards are taking aim
I struggled with some demons
They were middle class and tame
I didn't know I had permission to murder and to maim
You want it darker
And the guards are taking aim
I struggled with some demons
They were middle class and tame
I didn't know I had permission to murder and to maim
You want it darker
Monday, March 20, 2017
Why do we penalize "hate" crimes?
A recent incident of a racially motivated shooting brought out an online comment questioning the logic of "hate crime" laws.
My response:
My response:
I think you are missing the point. "Hate" crimes are not defined by somw quality of the victim. They are defined by the motives of the perpetrator. We have always taken motive into account in determining the consequences of criminal acts. The wide range of penalties for killing a person are an obvious example.
When you say "All live should have the same importance ...", you are expressing a lovely ideal. I only wish that it were true, both in the law and in people's actual behavior. Sadly, it isn't. And we can only move society toward that lovely ideal by educating people. Teaching people that hatred directed toward those who are different from us (in race, religion, economic class, etc) is socially and legally unacceptable.
Friday, February 24, 2017
Turn EPA Functions Over To States? An Idea That Should Be Still-born
At the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Governor Walker pointed at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a federal function that should be handled at the state level. Here's why he is wrong:
Imagine two paper mills that produce toilet paper, one in Marinette, WI and the other in Menominee MI. Wisconsin, with its long tradition of care for the outdoors, has strong restrictions on discharges of pollution into rivers. Michigan, with its long history of automobile manufacturing, is much more lenient. Because the cost of cleaning the waste output is higher on the Wisconsin side of the river, a 20-roll pack of toilet paper from the Wisconsin plant costs $12.98, while the same pack from the Michigan plant costs $9.98.
The cleaner Wisconsin plant will go out of business, while the polluting Michigan plant will double its output (and pollution).
Environmental protection cannot be left to the states because each state shares its water and air with its neighbors.
(Submitted to GB Press Gazette 24 Feb 2017)
Imagine two paper mills that produce toilet paper, one in Marinette, WI and the other in Menominee MI. Wisconsin, with its long tradition of care for the outdoors, has strong restrictions on discharges of pollution into rivers. Michigan, with its long history of automobile manufacturing, is much more lenient. Because the cost of cleaning the waste output is higher on the Wisconsin side of the river, a 20-roll pack of toilet paper from the Wisconsin plant costs $12.98, while the same pack from the Michigan plant costs $9.98.
The cleaner Wisconsin plant will go out of business, while the polluting Michigan plant will double its output (and pollution).
Environmental protection cannot be left to the states because each state shares its water and air with its neighbors.
(Submitted to GB Press Gazette 24 Feb 2017)
Saturday, January 14, 2017
Safety, Wealth, Status, Power: The Pillars of Our American State Religion
Worship comes natural to people, whether they are specifically religious, only "Spiritual", or even completely non-theist. The object of their veneration varies greatly between and among these groups, but the veneration is still there. To find a personal object of veneration, a useful approach for a person might be to make a list of those things that are "valued" ("things" being defined as physical objects, intellectual concepts, emotional states, or anything the person desires in any way). Then, arrange the list in priority order. Of course, the key choice made here would be the "thing" that is first on the list. Every lesson in prioritization I have ever had insists that there can only be ONE item that is "first". When several items are "first", then nothing really is. (This is a key management concept that many managers refuse to accept. I digress).
I'm sure that the religious and the spiritual among us wish that our "first" priority, the primary object of our veneration were to be God, with family coming in a close second. Even the atheists will wish that "the greatest good for the greatest number of people" or something noble like that were to land at the top of their list. From the way that many issues at the local, state, and national level are playing out, it looks to me that our desire for nobility of purpose have widely missed the mark.
The "Land of the free, home of the brave" seems to be devolving into the land where safety, wealth, status, and power are the ultimate values.
Safety.
Gated communities are springing up everywhere. Even without physical gates, we find physical and emotional barriers springing up around neighborhoods that continue to become more homogeneous. The "white flight" to the suburbs was only the beginning. Today, we see more separation by income levels and political ideologies along with the racial separation. We also see more military-style hardware in the hands of our police forces, although not so much in the whiter, richer neighborhoods.
Wealth.
The runaway, explosive growth in income and wealth inequality has been well documented. It's been in all the papers. What is less well known is that the remedies that we have at hand are neither drastic nor unusual. They will even benefit the wealthy by growing the economy from the ground up. Since the top-down approach to growth is failing (except for those at the top), this may one day be forced. In any case, part of the problem of wealth is something that has been well documented in scripture. Excessive wealth has always led to the devaluation of those outside the circle of that wealth. We see this today in the disdain that our politicians express regarding "welfare" and "government dependency". (This directed only at people, not at corporations).
Status.
Status is a value that has two directions: Downward and Upward. Maybe we can think of downward status as "self-esteem on steroids". That would be the view from above, looking down toward the little people. In its most extreme form, it shades over into narcissism. The upward form of "status" looks very much like "hero worship". Of course, there are actual heroes in this world who deserve admiration for the contributions they make to the lives of others. That isn't what we mean here. The worship of status by those who don't have it is a seeking after undeserved reflected glory.
Power.
This is the most significant pillar of our American secular religion. Power has bedeviled humanity from our earliest communal days, after we gave up roaming the savannas of East Africa and began settling in groups larger than the clan. We (humanity) learned a long time ago that power is fun. It is intoxicating. It is addictive. Power is at the center of every human social dysfunction throughout history. As John Dalberg-Acton once said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." This is true in both the individual and the group, as evidenced by such examples as the European "Doctrine of Discovery", the American "Manifest Destiny", the Hitler-led madness of Nazi Germany, or the prevalence of child and spouse abuse nationally and worldwide.
So?
I doubt that anyone would willingly admit to participating in this secular state religion. That might be a key to understanding its pull. A person does not need to sign up anywhere to belong to the SWSP (Safety, Wealth, Status, Power) Church. This church is built on both the active participants and eager beneficiaries of its riches and on the passive, silent assent of the apathetic majority. This is an acting out on a larger stage of the schoolyard bully scene. In a crowd of a dozen kids, there will be the bully, his two wing men, the victim, and the eight spectators who are quietly rejoicing that they are NOT the victim.
Yes, every great world religion and ethical system teaches clearly against this secular religion at all levels (personal, community, and global). The examples of the benefits peace and justice and commonwealth are everywhere, but the pull of SWSP is strong and persistent. Those of us who resist that pull must not rest in teaching and exemplifying the paths of peace and justice that our moral leaders have shown us.
I'm sure that the religious and the spiritual among us wish that our "first" priority, the primary object of our veneration were to be God, with family coming in a close second. Even the atheists will wish that "the greatest good for the greatest number of people" or something noble like that were to land at the top of their list. From the way that many issues at the local, state, and national level are playing out, it looks to me that our desire for nobility of purpose have widely missed the mark.
The "Land of the free, home of the brave" seems to be devolving into the land where safety, wealth, status, and power are the ultimate values.
Safety.
Gated communities are springing up everywhere. Even without physical gates, we find physical and emotional barriers springing up around neighborhoods that continue to become more homogeneous. The "white flight" to the suburbs was only the beginning. Today, we see more separation by income levels and political ideologies along with the racial separation. We also see more military-style hardware in the hands of our police forces, although not so much in the whiter, richer neighborhoods.
Wealth.
The runaway, explosive growth in income and wealth inequality has been well documented. It's been in all the papers. What is less well known is that the remedies that we have at hand are neither drastic nor unusual. They will even benefit the wealthy by growing the economy from the ground up. Since the top-down approach to growth is failing (except for those at the top), this may one day be forced. In any case, part of the problem of wealth is something that has been well documented in scripture. Excessive wealth has always led to the devaluation of those outside the circle of that wealth. We see this today in the disdain that our politicians express regarding "welfare" and "government dependency". (This directed only at people, not at corporations).
Status.
Status is a value that has two directions: Downward and Upward. Maybe we can think of downward status as "self-esteem on steroids". That would be the view from above, looking down toward the little people. In its most extreme form, it shades over into narcissism. The upward form of "status" looks very much like "hero worship". Of course, there are actual heroes in this world who deserve admiration for the contributions they make to the lives of others. That isn't what we mean here. The worship of status by those who don't have it is a seeking after undeserved reflected glory.
Power.
This is the most significant pillar of our American secular religion. Power has bedeviled humanity from our earliest communal days, after we gave up roaming the savannas of East Africa and began settling in groups larger than the clan. We (humanity) learned a long time ago that power is fun. It is intoxicating. It is addictive. Power is at the center of every human social dysfunction throughout history. As John Dalberg-Acton once said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." This is true in both the individual and the group, as evidenced by such examples as the European "Doctrine of Discovery", the American "Manifest Destiny", the Hitler-led madness of Nazi Germany, or the prevalence of child and spouse abuse nationally and worldwide.
So?
I doubt that anyone would willingly admit to participating in this secular state religion. That might be a key to understanding its pull. A person does not need to sign up anywhere to belong to the SWSP (Safety, Wealth, Status, Power) Church. This church is built on both the active participants and eager beneficiaries of its riches and on the passive, silent assent of the apathetic majority. This is an acting out on a larger stage of the schoolyard bully scene. In a crowd of a dozen kids, there will be the bully, his two wing men, the victim, and the eight spectators who are quietly rejoicing that they are NOT the victim.
Yes, every great world religion and ethical system teaches clearly against this secular religion at all levels (personal, community, and global). The examples of the benefits peace and justice and commonwealth are everywhere, but the pull of SWSP is strong and persistent. Those of us who resist that pull must not rest in teaching and exemplifying the paths of peace and justice that our moral leaders have shown us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)