Truth and Meaning: Christmas Spirit

When my father was a boy, he considered an orange a special Christmas present. And while he grew up in relative poverty, he never considered his family poor. My grandfather was always able to find work that paid a fair wage. My grandmother was a stay-at-home mother. And my father was able to work during the summer and save up enough for college.

But, times have changed. People like my grandfather - unskilled or skilled in outdated technologies - have few full-time job opportunities that pay enough to support a family. Fathers and mothers often work several jobs and then have to pay for child care. And young people today routinely graduate from college with massive student loan debt.

Like most of you that read David DeForest's letter to the editor in the December 12 issue of the Midland Daily News ("No Reason to Work"), I was deeply saddened that such attitudes still exist in our community. Especially now, as we celebrate the birth of a man who loved all people and cared about the well being of everyone, the public expression of such sentiments reminds us of the pain that many feel in this country. The pain of hunger and homelessness; the pain of hate and discrimination; the pain of hopelessness that nothing we do can improve our lives.

My grandfather came to this country penniless, skilled in a trade that no longer existed. And yet, his children grew up healthy and went on to successful lives. Such is no longer the case for many of today's immigrants. The path to citizenship is prohibitively expensive and takes as long as 10 years to complete. In the meantime, they perform the menial tasks beneath most Americans, living in constant fear that federal agents will burst into their homes and ship family members to undisclosed locations for uncertain deportation.

Especially painful was reading Mr. DeForest's depiction of Americans living in poverty today. Jesus never asked for any justification when helping the poor or the sick. He simply helped them. Jesus never asked a hungry person, "Why don't you just get a job?" He simply fed them. And Jesus did not tower over the poor in judgment, condemning them for their need. He simply gave them hope.

Mr. DeForest's misplaced anger should be directed at the true parasites in this country - privileged rich people who contribute little and consume much; corporate CEO's who are paid more in one day than a minimum wage employee can earn in a year; bankers who gamble with this nation's economy with impunity. These leeches cost America billions of dollars each year. Every social welfare program combined does not come close to any such amount.

So, to Mr. DeForest, and to anyone who shares his sentiments, now is the time to re-examine your attitudes. Now is the time to walk among the poor and show them the respect they deserve by learning about the ravages of racism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia, and institutionalized poverty. At Christmas time, let us all walk the path of Jesus - the path of sympathy, compassion, understanding and love.

Address Opposing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

At the request of students from Adrian College, I was asked to speak at a protest on the Capitol steps in Lansing in opposition to the proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Act (HB 5958) on December 16, 2014 during the waning days of the lame duck session of the Michigan legislature.  The following are my comments (you may also see a video here, or listen to an mp3 version here).
-------------------------

 

Everywhere we turn today, politicians seek to justify the unjustifiable. “Corporations are people,” they tell us. “We need more bombs and so we must cut school lunch programs.” “The best way to fix our faltering economy is to double down our investment into the banks that got us here in the first place.”

And now we hear a new claim. With House Bill 5958, our legislators tell us, “Government must not burden people and businesses when choosing to exercise their religious beliefs, regardless of the consequences of that action on others.” Convincing us of the sincerity of such statements, especially given their inherent contradictions and the tremendous potential for and mischief by those taking advantage of such claims as these, presents a daunting challenge.

And because the task raises such difficulties, they must call on the greatest authorities to lend credence to their arguments. So, you hear many politicians today referring to the founders of this great nation. They quote Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, and others as proof of the righteousness of their cause.

They carefully sift through mountains of books to find just the right quote – even if they must take that quote completely out of context. When the founders stood mute on a subject, they tell us what the founders were really thinking. When those tactics fall short, they shout words like “Freedom!” and “Liberty!” confident that they can rely on our patriotism and our trust in the democratic process that they act in our best interests.

And when all else fails, they wait until the dead of night. They skulk in the shadows of the halls of government until after the electorate has spoken. They wait until the time when everyone looks forward to family gatherings and singing joyous praises.

Then, they slink from behind their desks. They quietly announce a hearing – or bypass the process of a public hearing altogether – and pass whatever laws please them. They do this because they know, were it not for the distractions of the holidays and our everyday lives, we might hold up our hands and say, “Wait a minute…I don’t understand what purpose this proposed bill serves.” After months of hibernation, they race through the lame duck session because they are afraid that we might have the time to read proposed bills and share our opinions. They feverishly plunge through this window because it is too late for us to voice our discontent at the ballot box with politicians whose terms will end shortly.

Perhaps the legislatures populated by our founders operated with a similar lack of transparency. But, I doubt it. It was Thomas Paine, who wrote in his landmark work Common Sense that the faithfulness of those elected to serve in public office “will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves.” In other words, our elected officials should not rule over us like tyrants, but should engage with us in dialogue and informed debate.

Later, Paine specifically talks about the nature of America. “This new world,” he writes, “hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster…” So clearly, Paine would not have dreamed of a legislature using the tactics of a tyrant to pass laws abridging the rights of those who fear religious persecution.

Our ancestors came to this land because people used religious beliefs to hurt, to imprison, and even to kill them. I understand the corruption of religion by those who wield it as a rod to punish others. My grandmother Theresa fled her home in Europe for committing the sin of divorcing her abusive husband. For this act of self-preservation, the church deemed her unworthy and excommunicated her – a punishment that meant death; for she was now shunned by employers, shop owners, and landlords. Staying meant homelessness and starvation because she believed in her right to live free.

My grandmother met the man who became my grandfather here in America. He, too, had fled Europe because the Serbian army would routinely cross the river into his hometown and conscript young men to fight the never-ending religious conflict in the Balkans. No matter how many times the military dragged him to kill people who believed in God differently, he defected and returned home.

A century later, people still die in that region because of their religious beliefs. Governments that claim to fight for independence, for self-rule, for self-determination, use that fight as an excuse to rape and murder those who are different. A simple carpenter, my grandfather understood the corruption of freedom by those wielding it as a rod to kill others. So, he made the perilous journey here to America, where he could believe freely.

After years of struggle, my grandparents raised a family. My father honored his parents and cared for them in their later years. After my grandmother died, my grandfather’s life became simple again. He would sit at the kitchen table drinking coffee and playing solitaire all day. He believed he would soon rejoin his beloved Theresa in Heaven and was content to await his death patiently.

One night, my parents hosted a prayer meeting. The minister of our church spoke about the evils of card playing. Finally, my father asked our minister if he believed that my grandfather would spend eternity in Hell for the sin of playing solitaire. When our minister answered “yes,” my father threw him out of the house and we never returned to that church.

My father, an engineer, had designed our church building. He literally helped build that congregation. He raised his children in its Sunday School. I remember singing “Wonderful Grace of Jesus” during Sunday night services. But that same church used its religious belief to damn my grandfather.  So my father understood the corruption of restoration. He saw firsthand how a church could roll back the clock to a time when religion was routinely used as a rod to condemn others to perpetual flames and torment.

By the time I became a dad, I chose not to believe in the God of my father or my grandfather. My children went unbaptized. And I raised them in a Unitarian Universalist church, where they learned to respect all religious beliefs and to honor the spiritual path they would choose for themselves.

As a Sunday School teacher, I learned the history and heritage of famous Unitarians, like John Adams, who once wrote to his friend Thomas Jefferson:

We have...a National Bible Society, to propagate King James's Bible, through all Nations. Would it not be better to apply these pious Subscriptions, to purify Christendom from the Corruptions of Christianity...[Some say] I have renounced the Christian religion...Far from it. I see in every Page, Something to recommend Christianity in its Purity and Something to discredit its Corruptions…The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my Religion.

Don't kill. Don't cheat. Don't steal. Don't lie. Don't envy your neighbor. In fact, love your neighbor. Love your neighbor as you would have your neighbor love you. Nearly every religion preaches this basic golden rule. Love everyone. Do not love only those who believe as you do. Do not withhold love from those who do not meet your approval. Everyone. No exceptions.

So I understand the corruption of laws that claim to restore religious freedom. Laws like HB 5958 are not an act of religion, bringing us together in common purpose and principle, but an act of division. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is not an act of freedom, relieving us of governmental intrusion into our souls, but an act of invasion. This proposed travesty of a law is not an act of restoration, renewing hope for a people suffering daily oppression, but an act of destruction.  This so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a corruption of religious freedom; a corruption of our democratic principles; a corruption of the core tenets of our human community; and a corruption of the very soul of our state.

I have the great good fortune to be married to a wonderful woman. Jody serves as advocate for victims of sexual assault at the Underground Railroad, a women's shelter in Saginaw. She wanted to be here with me today. But her commitment to serving others, and my commitment to support her work, superseded our personal desires. John Adams, my Unitarian ancestor, spent many years apart from his love. To our great good fortune, they left behind a collection of correspondence exhibiting not only their devotion to each other, but also their shared commitment to justice, equality, and freedom.

Abigail and John wrote often of this new nation and of the true meaning of words like “freedom.” In one letter, Abigail wrote:

How difficult the task to quench the fire and the pride of private ambition, and to sacrifice ourselves and all our hopes and expectations to the public [welfare]! How few have souls capable of so noble an undertaking! How often are the laurels worn by those who have had no share in earning them! But there is a future... reward, to which the upright [person] looks, and which will most assuredly be obtained, provided [that person] perseveres unto the end.

You here today know about sacrifice. You have given up your time and energy to be here and to have your voices heard by your elected officials. You here today understand working toward the common good and the noble undertaking of guaranteeing freedom to all people. You here today see too clearly how those charged with guaranteeing our freedoms wear the shriveled laurels earned by catering to special interests, by pursuing power over others, and through the self-righteous delusion that they know the one truth.

Because Abigail Adams was right – there is a future reward. Moreover, we need not wait patiently until we die to receive that reward. We can unite as one people. White or black – whatever our skin color – we can unite. Woman or man – whatever our sexual orientation or gender identity – we can unite; Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox…Muslim, Jew, or Sikh…Buddhist, Hindu, or Jain…Agnostic or Atheist – whatever our religious beliefs – we can unite; Americans all, regardless of our documentation or ethnic heritage – we can unite.

We can unite to fight for equal justice under the law. We can unite to provide affordable access to health care for all. We can unite to protect our decisions on when to have children, when not to have children, and how to parent the children we have in safe and healthy communities. We can unite to ensure that every person has equal access to a quality education and a job paying a fair and living wage. We can unite to protect our planet from those who would plunder its resources and from practices that threaten our existence as a species through global climate change.

And by standing united against the corruption of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, we guard our right to believe or not to believe what we want in regards to religion. We oppose the sanctioning of discrimination against people on the basis of religious beliefs. We support the freedom of religious practice, so long as that practice does not harm others.

And we stand united to defend the wall of separation between Church and State described by Thomas Jefferson. For he acknowledged that the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience was that no legislature should pass laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Jefferson wrote that “our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions,” and that depriving people of their civil rights on the basis of religious beliefs will “corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage.”

A people united will never be divided.

Truth and Meaning: One Question

A crisis looms on our horizon. How we cope with that crisis will depend on your answer to a simple question.

Ignore the media hype. Disregard the irrelevant facts. Set aside unrelated events that may sway your judgment. Look at the evidence yourself and answer one simple question.

• Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old boy, is playing alone in a park with a toy gun. Someone calls 911 to report seeing Tamir and even says it is probably just a toy gun. Minutes later, a police car roars up to within just feet of Tamir and two seconds later he is dead. Did Tamir Rice deserve to die?
• Eric Gardner is selling single cigarettes for 50 cents — a petty crime. A few minutes later, he is surrounded by police. One puts Eric in an illegal choke hold. Eric gasps time and again that he cannot breathe. In just minutes, he lies on the sidewalk dead. Did Eric Gardner deserve to die?
• Michael Brown fits the description of a person reported to have stolen some cigarettes and scuffled with a clerk. Michael is walking down the street with a friend. An altercation ensues with a police officer, the exact facts of which are disputed. Even assuming the worst case scenario, Michael grabbed unsuccessfully for the officer's gun and then ran away. A minute later Michael is 30 feet away, hands visible with no weapon. The autopsy reports show bullet wounds in his arm, two to the chest that indicate he was falling forward, and the kill shot to the head at an angle indicating that he was nearly on the ground. Did Michael Brown deserve to die?

I have skewed no evidence. I have included nothing in these scenarios about the neighborhoods, the police officers themselves, community relations with the police, national media coverage or subsequent investigations. In the case of Tamir Rice and Eric Gardner, video records reveal the events in real time for anyone to watch. Disregarding all of the irrelevant noise surrounding these tragedies, did Tamir, Eric and Michael deserve to die?

 

Whether you are white or black does not matter. Whether you are Republican or Democrat does not matter. Whether you are young or old, straight or gay, man or woman, rich or poor — none of that matters. Did Tamir, Eric and Michael deserve to die?

 

If you ask yourself that question, and your answer is no, then you are ready to explore the coming crisis in our nation. You are ready to objectively examine the research and data. You are ready to set aside the punditry and editorializing and look at the reality in America for yourself. And when you do, you will see our deeply embedded systems of structured poverty, institutionalized racism and the impacts of privilege in our society.

 

This is painful work. If you are white, male, straight, middle class, you will be tempted to feel shamed — your initial reaction will be that you are being accused of something you did not do. That is a natural reaction, but I encourage you to move through it quickly. Privilege is not the problem. The problem is that too many people with privilege do not acknowledge its benefits and do too little to level the playing field for all.

 

Once you have answered the question and read the research, imagine how you would feel if you were a black man in America today, 50 years after the Civil Right Act supposedly launched us into a post-racial society. Imagine that you are the mother or father of Tamir or Michael, or the wife and children of Eric. If you can put on those shoes and walk in them for just a short time, then your feelings of shame and guilt will quickly evaporate. They will disappear because you will want to do something. You will want to change things so that the senseless ending of young lives stops.

 

Yes or no?

 

Guide to Holiday Conversations

You find yourself at a family gathering. On your right sits Uncle Harold, who voted twice for Nixon, Reagan and Bush (senior and junior). On your left sits your Cousin Gloria, the Prius-driving, recycling, public school teacher. You uncomfortably count the seconds before someone raises a contentious topic. In anticipation of that moment, here is your holiday guide to surviving inevitable conflicts, and to build bridges of love and understanding.

Immigration
Uncle Harold starts. “We need to ship those illegals back where they came from. Emperor Obama should wait for Congress to protect American jobs and keep our borders safe from terrorists, drug dealers and freeloaders.”
Cousin Gloria retorts. “Our ancestors were undocumented aliens who came here and slaughtered the indigenous peoples. No one made them go through years of red tape and expenses. No one broke up our families and deported people without due process.”
You: “We are a nation of immigrants, and people around the world have long viewed America as a land of freedom and opportunity. We can find a way to provide a more efficient path to citizenship while still providing reasonable security at our nation’s borders.

Abortion
Cousin Gloria: “This is my body and the government has no business invading my privacy and interfering with my health care. My body, my choice.”
Uncle Harold: “You are murdering tens of thousands of babies every year and I don’t want my tax dollars supporting godless groups like Planned Parenthood.”
You: “Everyone wants to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. But being pro-life also means educating our children about sex, and providing them with contraception. We should care about every child by supporting loving families that need help. Every child should receive an equal shot at the American Dream.”

Gay and transgender equality
Harold: “God condemns these abominations. I love the person, but homosexuality and the choices people make to tamper with God’s creation are sins.”
Gloria: “You hate LGBT people. You have no right legislating our bedrooms. Your bigotry just encourages bullying and violence against gays.”
You: “As Americans, we believe in freedom and equality. The research seems to show that sexual orientation is determined at birth. So while I respect people’s religious beliefs, I also support equal rights for all people on the basis of differences that we cannot control.”

Health care
Gloria: “Insurance companies are heartless and greedy. Because of them, thousands of people die from lack of adequate insurance. And now you want to take away the safety net of the Affordable Care Act.”
Harold: “Obamacare is fiscally irresponsible and forces people to pay more for their insurance, and to change doctors with which they have developed long relationships. We should let the free market do its job.”
You: “I know families who cannot afford medical insurance. If we can’t fix Obamacare, then we need to come up with a program that serves everyone, because all Americans deserve access to quality health care.”

Religious freedom
Harold: “America is a Christian nation and no one should be forced to do anything that violates their beliefs.”
Gloria: “Employers have no business discriminating against people who don’t share their religious beliefs. These so-called ‘religious freedom’ bills are nothing but legalized bigotry.”
You: “No one has the right to infringe on another’s religious beliefs. But government determines who needs protection from unlawful discrimination. Religious freedom should be a protective shield, not be a sword used to hurt others.”

Gun control
Gloria: “How many more children need to die to support your right to buy machine guns and to carry rifles into my grocery store?”
Harold: “The founders wrote the Second Amendment to protect us from tyranny and it is my duty to protect our nation, as well as to protect my family from harm, whatever the cost.”
You: "Everyone has a right to defend themselves from harm. Everyone also has the right to walk the streets free from the fear that some deranged gunman won’t open fire on them. We need to sit down and find common sense solutions to protect all Americans’ rights and to reduce the gun violence in our country."

Gloria: “Fascist!”
Harold: “Communist!”
You: “Both of you stop it! Name calling will get you nowhere. Jesus taught us to love our neighbors, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick and free the prisoners. Can’t we set aside our partisan differences and agree on these noble goals — not just as Christian goals, but goals that all Americans can agree upon?”

I hope this helps you survive the holidays, as well as what is sure to be another new year of social, economic and political turmoil that will not end until the great mass of centrist thinkers takes back the moral middle of America.

Truth and Meaning: Fear of Flying

Most us have experienced the lunacy that is airport security in the 21st century. Scans and X-rays, rubber glove pat downs, removing shoes and belts, tiny shampoo bottles. My blood pressure rises whenever I think of the enormous expenditure of time and energy from millions of travelers dealing with our fear of flying.

And yet, I can buy a gun at a garage sale without a background check. I can stalk and kill an unarmed child and claim I was standing my ground. Our police are beating and killing people without facing any substantial consequences.

All of this fear. And while we are so focused on perceived threats to our liberties, another far more insidious force chips away at the bedrock foundation of our nation's principles. Under the guise of so-called "religious freedom" bills, such as Michigan's H.B. 5958, legislators and advocacy groups are seeking to destroy the First Amendment protection of freedom of religion.

Bryan Fischer, spokesperson for the American Family Association, now claims that the Constitutional protection only applies to Christian religions and that states can discriminate against non-Christians at will. In a classic slippery slope diatribe, "If First Amendment Isn't Just About Christianity, We Have to Allow Satanism," Fischer writes that "most Americans, even educated ones, do not understand this basic fact about the First Amendment: that by the word “religion” in the First Amendment, the Founders meant only the various expressions of Christianity." And despite the fact that such attempts have often been rejected or overturned at the federal level, he argues that the "regulation of every other form of religious expression is reserved to the states, who then have complete latitude to restrain or permit religious expression as they see fit."

So, if Mr. Fischer has his way, existing state nondiscrimination clauses will disappear for Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, those who do not identify with any religion, and others. That group alone constitutes more than one-quarter of Americans — more than 85 million people. But why stop there? I doubt that Mr. Fischer has any intention of protecting faith traditions he doesn't consider "legitimately" Christian, such as the Church of Latter Day Saints and even Catholics — after all, only one signer of the Declaration of Independence was Catholic. Perhaps Mr. Fischer believes that our Constitutional guarantee to freedom of religion is reserved for the Protestant minority in this country.

The Founders of this great nation intended for every citizen to have the right to believe as they wished and to practice their religion in their own way. They intended religious freedom to be one of our country’s fundamental values. But that freedom does not give any of us the right to harm others. H.B. 5958 will allow people to take advantage and put their religious beliefs ahead on the common good. H.B. 5958 could allow individuals to decide that nondiscrimination laws, child abuse laws and domestic violence laws don’t apply to them. H.B. 5958 opens up local governments to expensive lawsuits from those who claim they have a religious right to ignore any municipal laws.

Other states with similar legislation have already seen individuals and groups use religious freedom as justification for all sorts of behavior, some of it criminal. For example, police officers have used religious freedom as an excuse to refuse orders they claimed offended their personal religious views. A police officer in Oklahoma asserted a religious objection to his community policing duties at a mosque, claiming a “moral dilemma.” Pharmacists in many states (including Arizona, Montana and Wisconsin) have used religious freedom as a defense for refusing to dispense daily birth control. A pastor helped kidnap a child in Virginia from her legal guardian and cited religious freedom as his legal defense. In New Mexico, a local religious leader cited the state religious freedom statute when he appealed a conviction for sexually abusing two teenagers. A federal judge just held that a state religious freedom law prevented the Department of Labor from fully investigating possible child labor law violations because the individual under investigation said that his religious beliefs forbade him from discussing those matters with the government.

One of our most important values is treating others the way we want to be treated. Legislation like H.B. 5958 will add another fear to our lives by putting individuals' religious beliefs ahead of the common good. Call your legislators and tell them to vote "no" on H.B. 5958. Tell them to keep the true flag of religious freedom flying as the Founders intended. And tell Bryan Fischer of the American Fear Association that he does not speak for Americans of faith.

Ferguson

I am overwhelmed with sadness as yet another young black man's life is snuffed out and the killer excused by a system determined to maintain a status quo of injustice. After the first few sentences of the press conference last night, I sat in front of the television saying, "oh no, here it comes again."

Absolutely nothing sounds right about this case. If Michael Brown was a suspect of a crime, how does he reach the car before the police officer emerges? Why would a man suspected of shoplifting wrestle for a gun, get shot, run away, and then come back towards the police officer? Why was deadly force ever on the table once there was separation between the two? After shots have been fired in the car, how can eyewitness accounts of the fatal shot be so conflicting as to be completely ignored? Why does a prosecutor spend months creating reasonable doubt (the job of the defense in a trial), and then do everything possible to prevent a grand jury from finding probable cause for even an indictment? If Michael Brown was standing accused of shooting a police officer, how long would it have taken for the grand jury to return an indictment for murder?

If this were an isolated incident, I could be tempted to dismiss it as inconclusive and to give a law enforcement officer the benefit of the doubt. But this is no isolated incident. Given the way this society systematically imprisons black men and given the quickly growing numbers of people of color shot dead by police under questionable circumstances, any reasonable person must start asking questions. How would this event have changed if Michael Brown had been white? Would events have been different if the officer were wearing a camera? Whatever other evidence exists, if two credible witnesses testified that the shooting was questionable, why is the officer not being charged at least with involuntary manslaughter?

Yesterday, after the killing of Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Police Chief Calvin Williams said, "Guns are not toys, and we need to teach our kids that. Our community needs to understand that." No, Chief Williams, our police need to be taught that using deadly force against a 12-year old playing in a park is never acceptable. Instead of constantly blaming victims - especially those of color - our society needs to make radical changes to its out-of-control gun culture.

Fifty years ago, I was a blissfully ignorant eight-year old boy who played "soldier" with toy guns. Andy Griffith was the town sheriff in Mayberry. I watched Dragnet and Highway Patrol and knew the police were my friends. But I didn't grow up in Selma. I paid little attention to Huntley and Brinkley reporting about dogs and fire hoses, burning churches, and murdered civil rights activists. Negroes lived in a different part of town - a part of town I never saw.

But now, my eyes see the world through the lens of centuries of oppression. I have tried to put my feet in the shoes of the people of Ferguson and of countless other towns and cities where police violence against people of color takes place. I have held hands - hands of all colors and ages - and tried to change our broken system. Last summer, I stood in solidarity with thousands of others in the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington.

The frightening specter of the 50th anniversary of the events in Selma, Alabama loom heavily on my mind. Fifty years later, African Americans are still dying at the hands of white authorities who aren't even indicted and brought to trial. Poor communities are in deep pain and feeling enormous frustration at the continuing legacy of racial injustice in this country. As Unitarian Universalists and other people of faith, we must condemn the racist practices displayed by law enforcement agencies that mainly targets young people of color in our society, which negates their inherent worth and dignity, and continues the mass practice of institutional racism in our society.

It is time again for us to stand on the side of love to actively demonstrate alongside others who are fighting to change the laws that allow police harassment, which results in violence against communities of color. Every American deserves equal treatment in the eyes of the law. Every American deserves an equal chance to succeed in the most prosperous nation in the history of humankind. Every American should feel confident that police are there to protect them and not to execute them.

Truth and Meaning: Frivolous Waste

During the last week of the recent campaign for District 98 State Representative, Midlanders received a barrage of lurid and sensationalist ads predicting all manner of doom and gloom that would befall Michigan should Democrat Joan Brausch be elected. Republican candidate Gary Glenn worked hard to separate himself from these disgusting tracts of fear funded from groups supporting his candidacy. But it must give one pause that if a candidate cannot control his backers before he is elected, what chance has he to be objective of lobbyists and special interest groups after he is elected.

Now, in his first public pronouncement since his underwhelming victory, our new representative has unveiled his first call to action. Nothing about roads or gas taxes. Nothing about job creation. Nothing about saving our retirees from unfair taxes. Nothing about school funding. And nothing about saving Michigan's traditional families from the scourge of homosexuality and the "gay agenda" he fears so strongly.

No, his first call to action is to request an investigation into the money paid to a consultant by the state. No investigation into the allegations of fraud and nepotism by Gov. Rick Snyder. No investigation into the blatant misconduct of many of the emergency managers given dictatorial power over their cities by this administration. No investigation into the outrageous gerrymandering occurring in recent years. Our new representative's first request is to investigate how the state spent .0002 percent of its revenues two years ago because he doesn't like the reason the government spent the money.

What possible purpose could this investigation serve? The state paid a consultant to do a job, which he did. This same consultant was hired by other states to do exactly the same job. Michigan paid him $481,000 while Vermont — a state with 94 percent fewer people than Michigan — paid him $400,000. The consultant did his job and the state chose not to use his recommendations — much to the detriment of the poor and uninsured. So now Glenn wants to throw more tax dollars away investigating an expenditure already made for a job the state legally contracted, and which was completed.

The only purpose of such a call is not to exhibit any concern for the Michigan taxpayer. The only purpose is to discredit a medical insurance program that Michigan conservatives rejected in spite of the fact that many of our citizens have no access to affordable health care. The only purpose is to attack a program that has provided many millions of Americans with medical insurance for the first time. The only purpose is to bring the Washington brand of Tea Party obstructionism full force to Lansing and grind our government to a standstill wasting time on pointing fingers at nonexistent scandals, while at the same time providing no solutions to the problems that serve the interests of the people of this state.

It doesn't matter that this same consultant also worked on a similar project many years ago. This same consultant was paid by then Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts to design that state's health insurance program — the exact program that served as the primary model for the Affordable Care Act. So it would seem that Glenn and his conservative backers had no objection to the consultant's fees charged to create a system for a Republican governor that has worked splendidly. But when a similar program was passed after a year-long debate and signed into law by a Democratic president, all of a sudden Glenn takes issue with that same consultant working for Michigan to implement a similar program.

And let us remember that the Affordable Care Act has been a spectacular success. Health care spending by consumers is at its lowest rate in 10 years. More than 10 million previously uninsured Americans now have affordable insurance, driving the number of uninsured citizens down 25 percent in just one year. The second year sign-up period has already seen one million people visit the healthcare.gov web page. And the overall price tag of implementation has come in at $100 billion less than predicted.

So, I offer a counter proposal to Mr. Glenn's call to examine the out-of-context statements of an advisor to the project. Let's take the money that this fruitless display of grandstanding will cost the taxpayers and buy a few tens of thousands of free school lunches; or replace some laid off public school teachers; or fill all of the potholes on I-75; or give a tax credit to a small business owner who will bring 100 new jobs to our region. Let us take the money the state will waste investigating this contract, and put it toward something that will help our citizens, like joining other states that have successfully implemented their own exchanges.

Truth and Meaning: Half-Baked Bigotry

Much ado has been made in the past year about the bakery in Colorado that refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple celebrating their marriage. The baker argued that he exercised his religious freedom in refusing to bake a cake celebrating an act he considered counter to his religious beliefs. This argument makes a mockery of our Constitutional rights by hiding bigotry behind the right to religious freedom.

Here are the salient points:

• The baker argued that he feels no hatred of homosexuals, and would willingly provide other types of baked goods to gay customers. He would refuse to provide a wedding cake to a heterosexual customer if it was for a same-sex wedding. But this argument is a distinction without a difference. The primary feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation.
• The baker candidly acknowledged that he would also refuse to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for a commitment ceremony or a civil union, neither of which is forbidden by state law. Because his objection goes beyond just the act of “marriage,” and extends to any union of a same-sex couple, it is apparent that his real objection is to the couple’s sexual orientation and not simply their marriage.
• The baker argued that preparing a wedding cake is an expression amounting to protected speech, and that compelling him to treat same-sex and heterosexual couples equally is the equivalent of forcing him to adhere to “an ideological point of view.” But the baker categorically refused to prepare the cake before there was any discussion about what the cake would look like. He was not asked to apply any message or symbol to the cake, or to construct the cake in any fashion that could be reasonably understood as advocating same-sex marriage. The mere act of preparing a cake is simply not speech warranting First Amendment protection.
• Regardless of what the cake itself might communicate or not, the act of selling cakes is also not a form of speech; thus, forcing a bakery to sell to a same-sex couple is not compelled speech. Compelling a bakery that sells wedding cakes to heterosexual couples to also sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples is incidental to the state’s right to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (which is the law in Colorado). To say otherwise trivializes the right to free speech.
• The baker's refusal is distinctly the type of discrimination that the Supreme Court has repeatedly found illegal. It adversely affects the rights of buyers to be free from discrimination in the marketplace; and the impact upon sellers is incidental to the state’s legitimate regulation of commercial activity. Conceptually, his refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage — an argument that was struck down long ago in Bob Jones Univ. v. United States.

As a minister, I wholeheartedly support the free practice of religion and I absolutely defend your freedom to believe the religion of your choice. What I find reprehensible, however, is when people use their religion as a shield for groundless hatred and bigotry. If you choose to discriminate against same-sex couples because you oppose homosexuality based on your interpretation of your religion's teachings, then you must apply those same standards to all customers. Are you going to give every customer a survey asking if they are guilty of any of a list of sins you find objectionable? If not, then you are a hypocrite abusing an important freedom that is seminal to the founding principles of this nation.

 

As the Michigan legislature considers adding "sexual orientation and gender identity and expression" to the Elliot-Larsen Act's list of protected classes of people, I call on everyone to make clear to our senators and representatives that we cannot allow people to pick and choose which religious beliefs they want to protect. Whatever your personal beliefs about homosexuality, the state has an overriding obligation to protect the basic civil rights of LGBT people.

Truth and Meaning: Brokenness

We live in a society intolerant of difference, of error, of being less than whole. And yet, our society is populated by human beings, who are by definition imperfect, frequently wrong, and broken.

Many organized religions attribute this circumstance to our separation from the sacred center of the universe or whatever name for the oversoul one prefers. A strictly scientific view simply recognizes the biological reality that organisms suffer from natural diseases, mutations, and variations within ecosystems filled with challenges to our survival. A third view is that our historic ancestors angered god who subsequently punished us with imperfection for our failures.

Sadly, humanity has killed itself by the millions arguing over whose story is correct, rather than focusing on fixing the brokenness. Whether we are broken because we lack enlightenment, good enough science, or strong enough faith, the fact is that these are not mutually exclusive concerns. A Buddhist can still agree that scientific research has great value reducing human suffering and that Abraham, Jesus, Mohammad were great bodhisattvas. An atheist, humanist scientist can still find worth in the calming practice of meditation and the soothing ritual of devotion and commitment to religious community. And a believer in Original Sin can find solace in the notion that we will eventually achieve the gnosis to attain salvation and that reason can ease our path along the way.

Our brokenness is not the problem. How we cope, or fail to cope, with our brokenness is the problem. Mental illness is not the problem. Stigmatizing the mentally ill and providing inadequate care for sufferers is. Addiction is not the problem. Failing to provide treatment and support for the addict is. Domestic violence is not the problem. Continuing to promote the objectification of women in our rape culture is. Poverty is not the problem. But failing to dismantle institutionalized systems of social, economic, and political oppression is.

There is a parable told in many ways about a village next to a river. One day a villager noticed someone drowning in the river. The villager quickly swims out to save the person from drowning. The next day, the villagers save two drowning people. The following day, four people are caught in the rushing current. The villagers organize themselves quickly, setting up watchtowers and training teams of swimmers who can resist the swift waters. Rescue squads are soon working 24 hours a day. But each day the number of drowning people increases, reaching the point where the villagers cannot save all of the drowning people. Finally, someone asks the question, "Where are all these people coming from? Let’s organize a team to head upstream to find out who’s throwing all of these people into the river in the first place!"

America is drowning. All the watchtowers, lifeguards, and band-aid solutions will never solve the problem. We must venture upriver to stop those who are throwing people into the river. We must stop those who love power and money more than people. We must stop the lunatics who believe that we can bomb enemies to freedom. And we must stop electing willfully ignorant politicians who cater to the wealthy to the detriment of the People.

Truth and Meaning: The Character of Candidates

Halfway through writing a posting on brokenness for this week, I walked out to get the mail. Living in a house previously owned by a Republican, I have been exposed first hand to the character of their candidate for State House. Joan Brausch has run a clean campaign based on nothing but her record of service and her stance on the issues. Organizations backing Gary Glenn, on the other hand, have produced some of the most vile and despicable pieces of political trash I have seen in my 58 years.

Many years ago, when I still lived in Pittsburgh, I was represented in Washington by a gentleman named Doug Walgren. He had served many terms quite successfully and was a popular Democrat. Then, Walgren ran against a political newcomer whose entire campaign was based on the fact that Walgren had moved his family to D.C. out of convenience. His opponent argued, therefore, that Walgren couldn't possibly represent the people of Western Pennsylvania adequately. Of course, it didn't matter than Walgren maintained two homes and paid taxes on both. This opponent was slick, avoided the issues and kept hammering this inconsequential point and managed to get elected. Literally one month after the election, he moved his family to Washington D.C. as well. That flagrant hypocrite was Rick Santorum.

So, folks, let me tell you that I have seen this act before. And believe me, it is an act. When he pulled that stunt about the American Legion with Karl Ieuter, I revisited the politics of the Big Lie again. I am a pacifist, and I have been a member of the American Legion because of my father's service, so I knew Glenn was making a political mountain out of a mole hill just to scare veterans. And now, according to Glenn's ads, electing Joan Brausch will turn Michigan's men gay, get our young women raped, and infest our population with Ebola. I wish I were kidding, but that has been the content of these ridiculous and sensationalist ads.

If you want to vote intelligently on Tuesday, you must look into the soul of a person. Someone who claims to be pro-life, but would continue slashing funding for public schools, cut access to birth control, and interfere with women's basic health care will say whatever it takes to scare conservative voters. Someone who claims he can revitalize our economy, but walks lock step with the Koch Brothers and the Mackinac Center will say whatever it takes to scare business owners and rich people. And someone who claims the moral high ground, but stoops to the low tactic of calling LGBT folk pedophiles worthy of being fired or evicted because of who they love certainly isn't moral.

If you can't bring yourself to vote for Joan Brausch, then at least reject Gary Glenn's Tea Party obstructionism and simply abstain. We have more than enough fear mongering in government. We need people with hope and vision, people willing to listen to all points of view and do what is best for the people. Reject the slick words and the insulting scare tactics and look into the souls of the candidates. Then vote for the person who respects the dignity of every person, speaks to the issues, and doesn't resort to cheap theatrics to garner your support.

Truth and Meaning: Jesus and Guns

My blog last week generated enthusiastic response from ardent supporters of the right to keep and bear arms without a mandatory background check. At one point, one of these strident advocates cited Luke 22:36 as a defense of the position of his "God-given" right to own firearms. The verse describes Jesus talking to his apostles and reads,  "He said to them, 'But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one.'"

Since this verse comes up frequently in discussions of gun control, let's destroy this argument once and for all. First, let us examine the full context of the verse by including the following two verses. "He said to them, 'But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, 'And he was reckoned with transgressors'; for what is written about me has its fulfillment.' And they said, 'Look, Lord, here are two swords.' And he said to them, 'It is enough.'"

The New Oxford Annotated Bible has this to say about the passage. "An example of Jesus' fondness for striking metaphors, but the disciples take it literally. The sword apparently meant to Jesus a preparation to live by one's own resources against hostility. The natural meaning of verse 38 is that the disciples supposed he spoke of an actual sword, only to learn that two swords were sufficient for the whole enterprise, that is, were not to be used at all."

Anyone who has read the Gospels knows that Jesus was fond of metaphors. Matthew 23:24 - "You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!" Or Mark 10:25 - "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Clearly, Jesus had no intention of inflicting either of these painful actions upon any camels. So, presuming that everything Jesus said was to be taken literally is groundless.

Jesus frequently used physical objects (seeds, lamps, vineyards, coins, lost sheep, etc.) to teach universal truths, and the same is true of the two swords. This interpretation is supported by Matthew 10:34: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword," (another verse often misquoted by gun advocates). In proper context, Jesus did not mean a physical sword that cuts up and bloodies the family, but a spiritual and moral one that may divide families nonphysically.

Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman labels a literal interpretation of Luke 22:36 as an absurd contradiction. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus teaches peace. Matthew 26:51-52 - "One of them...drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus...'Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.'" Luke 2:14 - "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." John 14:27 - "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you." John 16:33 - "These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace." Acts 10:36 - "The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ."

The New Jerome Biblical Commentary agrees. "A new time within the era of fulfillment is dawning. Hostility will be the church's bedfellow...The reference to this destructive weapon (sword) must be taken in the total context of Luke-Acts...Since Luke narrates in his Gospel that Jesus not only preached love of enemies (6:26-36) but also lived that teaching (9:51-55; 23:34), and since he narrates in Acts that Paul and other missionaries never use swords, he cannot mean by 'sword' here a lethal weapon...Rather 'sword' is a symbol for crisis. A paraphrase of the latter part of verse 36 is: Sell your mantle and buy trouble."

Therefore, the words of Jesus in Luke 22:36 are not to be understood literally, that he would have his disciples furnish themselves with swords. His meaning is that, wherever they went and a door was opened for the preaching of the Gospel, they would have many adversaries. They would be met with violence, followed by rage and persecution. The phrase expresses the danger they will be exposed to.

When gun advocates use this verse to justify the purchase of guns without background checks for self-defense, they not only pervert the meaning of the statement, but the purpose for the warning. The disciples are entering hostile religious territory to preach a message, not to protect themselves from criminals. And the message they are preaching is one of love and peace, not "stand your ground" violence.

There are rational and compelling arguments on both sides of the gun control debate. Arguing that the Prince of Peace would have supported the right to keep and bear arms is not one of them.

Truth and Meaning: The Root of the Problem

As more cases of police violence emerge in our media, we find ourselves repulsed by the violence, by the unprovoked viciousness exhibited by those chosen to protect and to serve. For many of us, our immediate reaction is to call for punishing those using excessive force. We want justice for Michael Brown and so many others brutally abused, beaten and murdered by police officers. We want to stand with the citizens of Ferguson demanding change.

But, the root of the problem is not the police. Our police are only a symptom of the underlying disease. This nation has engaged in one illegal military action after another, fighting one former ally after another that we armed to fight some other supposed enemy. And many brave and patriotic young men and women have felt duty bound to defend the principles of this nation by serving in the armed forces. But after their traumatic experiences, they return home physically wounded, emotionally bruised, and desperately in need of help. And we turn our backs on them.

The way we treat our combat veterans should be a matter of national disgrace. The rates of suicide and homelessness among our veteran population should be a top priority in Washington. The failure to provide these courageous men and women with the physical and mental health treatment they need is beyond appalling. I worked in the hospice unit of a VA hospital and saw the remnants of our fiasco in Vietnam and it grieves me beyond belief than we will be treating thousands more like them for the next 50 years.

Our police are no different. These brave men and women put their lives on the line every day to protect our manicured lawns and allow us to sleep soundly on our posturepedic mattresses. But, we raise our children in a world that still condones racism, sexism and homophobia. Our boys and girls grow up learning that violence is a solution and that a gun conveys power and authority. Our youth learn quickly that intimidation is the American way and that force trumps diplomacy.

So, is it any surprise that a handful of our police are bullies? Should we be shocked when an officer goes quickly to deadly force when facing a person who is the "other?" In a world of political extremists and religious fundamentalists, why should the violent reflexes of a police officer baffle us?

The root of the problem is not bad cops. The root of the problem is our tolerance of hate, our acceptance of prejudice and our parenting that teaches a child that other children are somehow less human because of their social status, skin color or identity.

So, for now, we should punish anyone who abuses their authority. But, we must start treating the disease underlying the symptoms. We must heal the sickness of bigotry; we must refute our gun culture and rape culture; we must start loving each other unconditionally until the death of one is felt equally by all.

Truth and Meaning: Priorities

What do Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman have in common? They are the largest defense contractors in 2014 with almost $50 billion in Defense Department awards. They are also the largest recipients among all government contractors for all purposes. Military spending in the United States constitutes our single largest discretionary spending category. It is a safe assumption, therefore, that the maintenance of our military at current levels or greater is the top priority of our government.

Why? There are no armies capable of invading the United States anymore. "Red Dawn" may be a classic cult film, but in our modern world, such a scenario is impossible. And yet, we continue to spend billions on new planes, tanks, ships, bombs and supporting infrastructure for "defense." In reality, we spend this money to allow our nation to engage in and promote more war. When the world looks at the United States, they do not see people — they see a war machine interested only in oiling its own mechanisms.

Imagine yourself in a future century, reading the history of the United States. Will we be seen as liberators, empowering other nations to determine their own destinies? Or will we be seen as simply one more iteration of Babylon, Rome, the Holy Roman Empire and England? Will we be seen as neighbors, or conquerors? Will we be seen as a force for good, or the servant of greed, power and self-righteous entitlement?

A colleague of mine recently posed the question, "Why has there been almost no reaction from traditional elements of the peace/anti-war movement to recent events surrounding Syria?" I responded. I believe the lack of response is from despair.

With few exceptions, there are no statesmen or stateswomen left in Washington. Many people put their faith in Barack Obama to stem the influence of the military-industrial complex, but he has proven little different than his predecessor when it comes to foreign policy. There is no viable solution in the Middle East because the U.S. contributed so much to creating this mess for the past 60 years that we cannot possibly be part of the solution.

Every bomb or drone we drop kills more innocent people and creates even more enemies. We can't even feed our own people, provide them medical care or maintain our crumbling infrastructure. And the prospects for the 2016 election provide no hope whatsoever. The only sliver of hope I have at all is if Bernie Sanders runs — but he has virtually no chance of winning and would likely be saddled with the same kind of Congress we have now — a bunch of stooges of defense contractors and special interest groups.

We got our hopes up with the Occupy movement, but it couldn't sustain itself. Now our police are rapidly becoming an occupation force in our own cities. Unless five million people show up in Washington and demand fundamental changes to campaign financing, corporate personhood and our warmongering, then our future is bleak. We need the passion, the activism and the leaders like we had in the 1960s to pave the way.

Does the passion still exist? Yes. Are activists ready to move? Yes. Are there leaders out there ready to take charge? I believe so. The upcoming elections will tell us much. If the American people don't vote for change, then we are eventually doomed to stagnation and decline, or revolution and collapse.

Truth and Meaning: Occupy 2.0?

 

Sept. 17 was the three-year anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Whatever you thought of the movement's strategies or success, its wondrous and flawed idealism, ask yourself this question: Has anything Occupiers protested improved in the past three years?

• The bankers, lawyers and other white collar criminals responsible for our economic collapse have not been charged, let alone convicted of crimes. 
• Income disparity continues to rise, with the average corporate head earning hundreds, even thousands times more than their average worker. 
• Racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and other oppressions continue unabated and largely unregulated. 
• Our diet has become more genetically modified and our environment more polluted. 
• Labor unions continue to be assaulted, no living wage is in sight and health insurance remains a target of the "haves." 
• Jobs remain scarce, and students continue to graduate from college with decreasing hope and increasing debt. 
• Corporations are being treated more like people, and people are being treated more like disposable commodities.
• Our reckless policies regarding campaign financing have created a government owned by the tiny elite they are supposed to be regulating. 
• Our blind pursuit of war abroad has now expanded onto our city streets as paramilitary police gun down unarmed, innocent civilians. 
• It has become increasingly easier to buy a gun than to vote in some states.

As the original statement of the Occupy Wall Street movement said, we as one people united must acknowledge that the future of humanity requires that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to us to protect our own rights; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We continue to live in a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments.

 

The embers of the Occupy movement still glow. Perhaps the time has come to reignite the flame. While we wordsmith and squabble over pennies to aid the poor, the wealth of this great nation is being drained by a new monarchy as trickle down economics has become flood upwards economics. A people united cannot be divided. North Carolina is showing us the way with its Moral Monday movement. Perhaps the time has come for every state and for all people to unite and exercise their rights and responsibilities as Americans to reclaim the moral center of our country.

 

Truth and Meaning: Normal

Normal. I am hard pressed to think of a word I dislike more in the English language. Whatever definition one uses, I believe the word creates confusion and prevents us from engaging in useful and productive dialogue.

For instance, one may say that a society is "normal," because it functions by the laws or norms that it has established. Should we consider normal the fact that nearly 50 million people in the richest country in the world live in poverty? Should we consider normal that there are as many guns as people in this country — and we have the gun death rates to back it up? Should it ever be normal that most of our elected officials could not pass the simplest tests on women's anatomy, the environment, or our national banking system?

One may also say that something is normal if it is the "usual" state or condition. But tens of millions of Americans have untreated physical and mental illnesses. For them, the "usual" state consists of pain and anxiety, disability and depression. Tens of millions of people of color in America are "usually" treated as inferior by so-called white people. Should that situation ever be accepted as normal? On the average, 430 young people injure themselves and 13 succeed in committing suicide every day. How could a society ever consider such a "usual" state to be normal?

We routinely say that someone is "normal" if they are free from illness or sickness. Well, if that is the case, then there are no normal people on the face of the earth. We learn more each day about the nature of physical and mental disease, about neuroscience and addiction, about the impact of stereotypes on our levels of stress, and about the long-term impacts of trauma and abuse. Normal health does not exist and we delude ourselves believing that it does.

The word "normal" always carries with it an inherent stigma. When a teacher calls Johnny a normal student, the implication is that he does not really excel at anything but fits some arbitrary average. He may be the next Rembrandt or Albert Einstein, but we might never know because he is dyslexic. When friends call Katrina a normal-looking girl, the implication is that she is not beautiful. She may be the next Amelia Earhart or Sally Ride, but we might never know because she suffers from bulimia. And when we say that the Smiths are a normal family, we imply that the Smiths are heterosexual, have children, and pursue goals that match those of their neighbors. We don't notice the bruises on Mrs. Smith's arms, or the way the children flinch from the slightest touch. And the "abnormal" Joneses next door may be an amazing gay couple who could revitalize the neighborhood, but they just got evicted from their apartment and fired from their jobs for being gay.

"Normal" should be an aspiration — not the average or worse yet, the least common denominator. Wouldn't it be nice if a normal day consisted of the United States not bombing some other country in the name of democracy and freedom? Wouldn't it be nice if a normal day consisted of not one gay teenager being beaten and bullied, and not one woman assaulted or raped? Wouldn't it be nice if a normal day consisted of not one single instance of wanton police brutality against unarmed and innocent civilians? Wouldn't it be nice if a normal day consisted of every person in the world being fed, clothed, sheltered, safe, and happy?

Unfortunately, we live in the real world, and our leaders insist that those aspirations are currently beyond our reach. So, in the meantime, I will revel in being abnormal. Because the only way we can make those aspiration real is if we all excel in whatever makes us not normal — that is what makes us who we are.

Truth and Meaning: Pain

When I was in college, I commuted every day by bus. One day, I stood on a narrow island on Liberty Avenue in Pittsburgh as the bus approached. I moved backwards slightly and accidentally stepped on the foot of the man behind me. I turned and said, "I'm sorry," boarded the bus and sat down. The man followed me, stood directly in front of me, and then shouted at me for the next 15 minutes. I said I was sorry again, but he was intent on venting his rage at me. I kept my head down reading my newspaper until he finally got off at his destination.

I got off a few stops later — grateful that he had gotten off first. The bus driver said to me, "Yeah, I know that guy. He's always angry." Needless to say, the incident shook me. I had no idea at any point during the trip whether he would lash out and grab me, punch me, or worse. For a long time, I relived that moment, trying to think of what I could have done to avoid the situation, but came up empty.

The reason I came up empty is that there was nothing I could have done to avoid the situation. I just happened to be the person at that time and that place when that man's pain erupted. Partly out of fear, and partly out of my desire to not escalate the event, I managed to escape with only 15 minutes of verbal abuse. At least I was left only emotionally shaken, and with the knowledge that the likelihood that I would ever encounter that man again was very small.

Now, over 35 years later, I was reminded of that incident with the release of the video of Ray Rice beating his wife. Like many men who would never dream of hitting a woman, I have long wondered why women in abusive situations stay with their abusers. There is much research on this topic and I now know many of the reasons why a woman would stay with an abusive husband or boyfriend. For those interested in learning more about this, search Twitter for #whyistayed and read the hundreds of stories of women caught in this nightmare of pain.

And that is largely the answer. Pain. Pain is, of course, a part of life. Pain is something we all must learn to deal with. Perhaps we all have different thresholds of pain. Perhaps some of us are better able to endure pain because we value more highly our children, our marriage, and the hope that someone will live up to their promises to stop abusing us. I thought of the man on the bus again and imagined what kind of pain could allow anyone to think that venting such extreme anger at a stranger was acceptable.
And while I was finally able to forgive him and forgive myself for my inability to defuse the situation, what about his wife and children? Were they enduring such outbursts regularly? Did he express his fury with only words, or did his abuse go further into physical violence? I will never know, but I do know that the answer lies in our need as a society for a paradigm shift regarding pain.

1.  We must stop tolerating racism, sexism, homophobia, and other hatreds and fears that victimize those unlike ourselves, and only increase our own pain.

2.  We must increase our awareness of the pain being felt by others and reach out when we think the pain is becoming unbearable. Our religious communities can play a huge role in this work.

3.  We must stop blaming the victims of abuse, rape, assault, and brutality for the anger of perpetrators. We must take responsibility for our anger and find constructive, or at least harmless, ways to release the frustration and hurt. This means building a much larger support system for victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence, and much more support for counseling and therapy.

4.  We must acknowledge the interconnection of oppression, mental illness, systemic poverty, addiction, unemployment, and abuse and build an adequate safety net for everyone victimized by pain.

5.  When someone, in spite of all of the safeguards put into place, insists on venting their pain on others, then the criminal justice system must punish abusers harshly. That means that police must start believing victims and act on their behalf.

And perhaps most important, women and male allies MUST make it clear to everyone that abuse — whether emotional, verbal, coercive, or violent — is always wrong. Every girl should grow up knowing that being abused by a partner must not be tolerated. And every boy should grow up learning that violence against women is never acceptable.

Truth and Meaning: What is Racist?

Regular readers of this blog know that I have several enthusiastic contributors to the comments section. One of them openly supports the Ku Klux Klan and some Midland residents may remember his 2008 demonstration in full Klan regalia at the corner of Eastman Avenue and Saginaw Road here in Midland Michigan. Sometimes, people advise me to ignore his postings because of their extremist slant. I believe, however, that people of faith must try to engage anyone, at anytime, and at any place where the opportunity for spiritual growth presents itself.

I was rewarded for my diligence when, in response to my blog posting last week, this individual asked me several important questions on the subject of race. He posted the questions as they were written in an article titled "The Answer to Crime Among Young Black Males" by Tim Wildmon. I will quote Mr. Wildmon's words exactly and then provide answers to each. Perhaps you will hear your own voice somewhere in the text.

He began by asking, "For example, without knowing skin color, when someone tells me they saw an awesome basketball player I immediately think he is Black. Why is that? Because most awesome basketball players in America are indeed Black. Does that make me a racist?"

Yes, it does! Most basketball players in high school are White and there are awesome White high school basketball players. At the college level, according to the latest NCAA Student-Athlete ethnicity report, there are still more White players than any other racial/ethnic group, and there are awesome White college basketball players. Only at the NBA level does one see a marked dominance of African-American players. And of the NBA’s 49 majority owners, only Michael Jordan of the Charlotte Bobcats is a person of color. And that is because of PRIVILEGE. Predominately White public schools generally get more funding than predominately Black schools. White families can usually afford college more easily than Black families. Blacks have far fewer opportunities than Whites to escape systemic poverty. And Blacks have far fewer opportunities open to them in other occupational sectors. So, yes, assuming that an awesome basketball player is Black is a racist observation.

He continued, "In the same way, when I hear of a convenience store robbery, without knowing the skin color, I immediately think it was a young Black male who committed the crime. Why is that? Because night after night I see the faces of young Black males on the news arrested for crimes. Does that make me a racist?"

Yes, it does! In 2010, the National Institutes of Health published a definitive article on the portrayal of lawbreakers and victims in crime news (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2904566/). In their conclusion they wrote, “Starting with the results for portrayals of offenders, we would expect Whites to have a higher likelihood of being reported on if reporting reflects offending incidents, because they are the most populous group. We did not find evidence of a significant difference in the number of portrayals of White perpetrators relative to Blacks in our base models. To us, this suggests a relative over-reporting of Blacks compared to Whites. We also found under-reporting of Hispanic perpetrators relative to Whites. We interpret the results for Blacks as consistent with power structure, racial threat and racial privileging arguments.” People are led to believe that Blacks commit more crimes because our media highlight the race of suspects far more frequently when he/she is a person of color. When that presentation is not challenged, we cooperate with the racist portrayals in our media. In 2011, White people committed nearly 250,000 violent crimes in this country, but just because the news shows more Black suspects than White does not make them more prone to violent crimes. So, yes, immediately assuming that a criminal is Black is racist.

He concluded with this question. "Which begs another question: does a stereotype only become racist when it is negative? Or can one have a positive stereotype based on race? What about the idea that “White men can’t jump”? Is that racist?"

Yes, it is! Saying that “all Asians are good at math” is a negative stereotype of what a racist would consider a positive observation. Research shows that perceived positive stereotypes, when brought into the forefront of an individual’s mind, can actually make them do worse at the thing they are supposed to be able to do better. One such study discovered that when Asian-American women were made explicitly aware of their ethnicity (and the expectations attached to it) right before testing their math skills, they were more likely to collapse under the pressure and do poorly in the test (http://pss.sagepub.com/content/11/5/399.short). ANY stereotype reduces the complex humanity of individuals, making it easier to dismiss each person’s inherent worth and dignity. And 'White men can't jump' derives from an evil and ignorant stereotype that somehow Blacks are more closely tied to jungle animals than Whites. So, yes, attempts to compliment a group of people through stereotyping of any kind is racist.

The comments and questions posted by this individual represent classic examples of privilege — of how White, or straight, or male, or American-born people are often oblivious to their privilege and in complete denial of their prejudice. Systemic racism oppresses people of color, just as systemic sexism oppresses women, systemic hated of LGBT folk oppresses gays and lesbians, and systemic anti-immigration laws and opinions oppress undocumented immigrants. And those with privilege benefit ONLY by accident of birth. Those who possess privilege did absolutely nothing on their own to earn that privilege. Therefore, those who choose to take advantage of their privilege and do nothing to level the playing field, ARE racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or xenophobic.

But, here is the most important point. HAVING privilege is nothing to be ashamed of. No one is trying to lay a guilt trip on you for being White, or straight, or male, or a native-born American citizen. But those who accept the advantages of privilege do so at a cost to those who do not have privilege. Thus, those who accept the benefits — and do not work toward eliminating privilege — do so from the suffering of others. I am a White, straight, male, American, too. But I fight to eliminate privilege. I defend the poor, the hopeless, the oppressed, the exiled. As long as privilege exists, there will be oppression. And so long as the oppressors do nothing to stop it, then they are complicit in the resulting discrimination and suffering.

 

Truth and Meaning: Another Senseless Death

By now, it is no secret — I loathe guns. I have shot rifles and pistols at ranges and tried skeet shooting once. But I have never owned a gun and never will. If I feel a strong enough need, I will take a self-defense course, or buy a taser. And when I sense that our government is going astray, I engage our Constitutional right to free assembly and protest — which I have done on many occasions.

I have no grudge against hunters, especially those who handle their weapons properly. If you find it sporting or necessary to kill wildlife for food, feel free. I will argue that you don’t need an automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine, however, to take down your prey.

But, hardly a day goes by that a child doesn’t mishandle a gun in their home, often with fatal results. The accidental death at the hands of a 9-year old girl in Arizona this week should make this nation weep. We should mourn the loss of this child’s innocence, torn away from her forever. This could have been your daughter. We should grieve with the family of the dead instructor, whose loss can never be replaced. This could have been your husband, father or brother. And we should be furious that another careless and preventable action involving our insane gun culture should have been prevented.

And then, less than TWO DAYS after this tragic accident, the NRA promoted information on how “Children Can Have Fun at the Shooting Range.” This callous act is just one of a long list of such affronts to the welfare of our children and our nation. Every American should be outraged by the NRA, which is literally looking you straight in the eyes and telling you, “You don’t matter — only guns matter.” The NRA is spitting in your face while it uses your membership fees to curry favor with politicians that will result in the death and loss of innocence of more children.

I say ENOUGH! I understand defending the right to bear arms. We may differ on how the Second Amendment is interpreted, but that is not the point. The NRA has overwhelmingly proven that it is not the body that should be influencing that discussion supposedly on the behalf of gun owners. Yes, training in the use of guns is absolutely essential. But that training need not be done by a ruthless, uncaring lobbying group only concerned with keeping every American in harm’s way. Do you honestly believe that the Founders imagined, or would have ever considered, supporting people strapped with loaded automatic rifles walking the aisles of your local grocery store?

If you support responsible gun ownership, then quit the NRA. Start a new group that really promotes that laudable goal. Demand mandatory background checks on all gun purchases, including those at gun shows and online. And at least be willing to discuss the possibility that certain weapons should never, ever be put into the hands of a 9-year old.

 

Truth and Meaning: Who's Next?

When my daughter was in her early teens, she went trick or treating with a couple of friends. Our town had a strict 6 to 8 p.m. curfew on Halloween, which was signaled by a siren from the Borough’s Fire Department. At 8:20, a police car pulled into my driveway and two police officers escorted my daughter to the door. They respectfully told me that my daughter was on the street after the curfew and had broken the rule.

I thanked them and, after they left, listened to my daughter’s indignant rant about her treatment. She said that she and her friends were just walking back home and that the police had no right to treat them like criminals. I told her that she knew the rule, had broken it, and been caught. End of discussion.

Today, however, I cannot help but think about Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin and countless other young black men being murdered on our streets by the police and their agents. What if my white daughter had been a black boy wearing a mask, maybe carrying a plastic sword? Would she have been treated with the same respect? Would she have been handcuffed, arrested, even shot? Would the police have arrived to drive me down to the morgue? Maybe not, but I am no longer as certain as I used to be.

Racism is alive, well and thriving in America today. Anyone who refutes that statement is ignoring the facts and rationalizing our history of racial violence and oppression, and the ongoing impact of poverty and privilege in this country. Racism must not be ignored. And racism cannot be conquered by the feeble efforts of politicians and officials looking to find excuses to justify these preventable and horrific tragedies.

Racism must be looked at straight in the eye. We must confront racism at every corner and label it for what it is — ignorant, unjust and unacceptable. As Americans, we have a duty as citizens to seek equal justice for all. And White Americans have a special duty to imagine their world if their skin was brown. Why should any American be treated differently by anyone, especially the police, simply because of their skin color?

Would Michael Brown have been killed if he was White? Would George Zimmerman have been acquitted if Trayvon Martin had been white? We will never know. But how many more times must this happen before we know the answer to those questions? Who has to die next until we are all convinced that racism must be exterminated if America has any hope of being the paragon of freedom and justice it purports to be?