Why I'm Afraid

We were listening to a public radio program the other day that was reviewing where the 2016 election cycle is at this moment. One of the comments was that even the most hard-core and experienced political observers are at a loss to explain what is happening this year or to begin to sort it out. In short, they are even more confused than usual. All the conventional wisdom of the past seems to be irrelevant. This is especially true in the GOP race where Donald Trump, with no political experience, is leading.

At first they (the experts) said he was a flash in the pan, stands no chance, will start tanking once the lack of truth or the extreme bombast of his message is seen.

Now they (the experts, again) are saying he could very likely win the nomination.

Then there's Dr. Ben Carson, another inexperienced politician and Ted Cruz whose colleagues find little good to say about him.

A look across Facebook indicates a deep and indescribable divide in the nation. Sure, the extremes, left and right, get the press. They yell the loudest and make the most outrageous statements and therefore you notice them.

But this seems different this year. Deeper, more contentious. While I am not an expert, I am an old political science major who has lived through, watched, and participated in political campaigns in one way or another since 1956. That's 60 years of watching and I have to admit that for the first time in all these years, I am afraid of what is happening.

Before going into detail let me say that some of my friends will tell me that I am overreacting to the early ups and downs of this crazy political season. They will remind me that Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee have previously won the Iowa caucuses. We are a long way from the conventions, let alone the general election. A lot can- and most likely will- happen.

I hope that is true. I pray that is true.

I also hope and pray that the GOP doesn't do something even more stupid than nominating a Trump, Carson or Cruz. I hope they don't find a way to play with their own election rules to keep Trump from winning. The divide will only get worse.

Having said all that, back to the fears.

The only other time I remember being afraid in a presidential election was in 1964 when Barry Goldwater came across as an extremist, ready to go to war. "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!... [M]oderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" he famously said. We had been on the edge of our seats since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 when we knew we had been only a blink away from a nuclear exchange. Here was Goldwater seeming to be a saber rattling politician.

This seems different. The fear is coming from within our national psyche. It is division and hate that seems to be taking the upper hand. It is name-calling and prejudice and stereotyping people of all types from both sides of the political divide. I have previously talked about why some of these issues are so important. The depth of the anger and prejudging of others by the color of their skin or the way they worship or the type of clothes they wear is taking over the news and airwaves.

• We have Sikhs being attacked because some people can't tell the difference between them and Muslims.
• We have people claiming that "white lives matter" as a way of denying that African-Americans are often profiled and attacked simply because they stand out.
• We have presidential candidates wanting to deport all Mexicans, build a wall on our southern border and close all borders to Muslims.
• We have many who don't believe that Obama was born in the United States and that he is a Christian.
• We have seen a rise in what used to be called "nativism" the idea that native-born and established residents take precedence over immigrants.
• We ignore the fact that our police forces are made up of human beings, some of who can and do make mistakes and commit crimes, while most are just like you and me- trying to do a job the best they can. Yet both sides refuse to accept that. Police are either demonized or placed on pedestals.

None of this is new. These prejudices and policies grow out of our history. We have seen them before. The KKK wasn't just anti-Black. They were often more vehement in their hatred for Jews and Roman Catholics. Italians and Irish were persecuted, stereotyped and harassed. Some of our current presidential candidates are playing on these deeply-seated fears. They are fanning the flames with language that is as incendiary as they claim the "Black Lives Matter's" language is.

With this increasing polarization and ramping up of the rhetoric what might happen if, in the end the extremist views lose? Or win? In a loss they will claim persecution. In a win they will gloat and rattle their own sabers more forcefully.

Either way could spell danger to our very democratic ideals. In search for security- ultimate and complete security- we can easily be convinced to give up more and more of our liberties. Abraham Lincoln famously said:

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

Either the left or the right could accomplish this. Any extremism that seeks to reduce our freedom and liberty for whatever reason can accomplish this. And it will be done in the name of preserving our democracy. Remember we are the nation whose military leader once commented that they had to destroy the village to save it. The language and logic of extremist views of either side is neither safe or logical.

That is why I am scared for this next year. 2016 may very well be one of those watershed years of our history. It may be one where we make decision that will set a direction for the next 50 years. This nation- and our democracy- the "shining light to the nations" we have claimed to be- is being called to make some important decision this year. The level of anger and hate and horrific rhetoric may prove too toxic for us to survive the way we have.

I don't believe that the American people- US- the USA- will go that direction. We have a deep and enduring sense of what is right and wrong- and I believe we will maintain that. We were created as a nation with flaws and, yes, sins. But we have worked and grown and embraced change as it was needed. We have sought often to move away from the "bad" and more toward the "good."

• Democracy works on compromise, on discussion, on listening with open minds and ever open hearts to our fellow citizens. 
• Democracy works to protect the rights of the minority as much as the rights of the majority.
• Democracy works to preserve values and principles and is an ever-changing, ever-evolving process that seeks to discover what can be done next.

I for one will be watching closely and praying often for our sanity and future. I hope and pray I am overreacting and that my ultimate faith in our country will be be made real. I will keep writing about it.

That Which Cannot Be Named

I am thinking of the phrase used to describe Lord Voldemort in the Harry Potter series. Voldemort is, as most probably know, the evil one, the devil. He is the Dark Lord. Even to say his name is to invoke his power, hence the use of epithets. "He who cannot be named" kept a lot of people from invoking the awful name.

Over the past few days I have been feeling like we are doing the same thing in some ways in our nation- or at least parts of it. The mass killings in Charleston on Wednesday have again brought our national original sin to the forefront. Except when you don't want to admit its existence. All kinds of spin and "explanations" have been given.

• One presidential candidate called it "an accident" which the president politicized into gun control.
• Another presidential candidate said he didn't know what was going on in the shooter's head, in spite of the fact the shooter made it very clear what was going on in his head.
• Certain news outlets spun the whole thing into an attack on Christians and the church, a favorite right wing explanation. Again, the shooter was very clear about his reasons for shooting and even choosing this particular church because of its historic role in gaining civil rights.
• Others have gone so far as to "blame" one of the victims, a South Carolina State Senator, because he voted for gun control. If he hadn't, there would have been people there in the church carrying weapons and would have stopped the carnage.

And yet:

• Accident? You've got to be kidding me!! 
• When a black teen robs a store for cigarettes, he is a "thug" almost deserving of being killed. Nobody asked if he was on any psychotropic meds that could have caused him to lose his ability to make good decisions.
• When a black church was bombed in the south in the 1960s no one saw that as an attack on Christians. They would have been laughed out of the media.
• Many churches in open-carry states forbid guns in the building. It would have been the church's fault, then, if they had refused to allow open- or even hidden-carry.

That which cannot be named. Our national original sin, present since the creation of the country.

Racism. Through slavery. Through the subjugation of native people. Through Euro-centric superiority. Many groups have felt its sting. But only those who looked different- of different color most often- could never escape it. They could not blend into the white background. They could not change their names, "anglicize" them.

That which cannot be named.

And why the hell not? What are we afraid of? Are we afraid that if we admit that it still exists we might have to confront it in the sometimes subtle ways it shows up? Are we afraid that if we admit its ongoing existence we will have to look at ourselves and see where we might still be impacted by it in our own actions? Are we so concerned that we look and feel "perfect" as a nation that to admit to any shortcomings or national character defects will be "unpatriotic" and blow the cover on our denial?

As I ponder this I realize that I am talking about the need for recovery at the deepest places of our national soul. Here, watch this video:



To be American is to be Euro-centric? Wrong! Forever wrong!

Denial only allows the illness of prejudice and racism to grow, just as addiction. In the Twelve-Step fellowships, not to mention the fellowship of Jesus' followers, it is only when we can admit to the presence of the problem that we can deal with it. If it cannot be named, we can't change. If we don't get down to the nitty-gritty of our national character defects we can't confess them to our higher power and ask for them to be removed. We can't because we don't believe we have it. We are cured; we are healed; we are open to people of all colors and creeds. And when we are not, well, it's their fault.

I have been challenged many times by my own ability to fall into my character defects. I can't begin to count the times when this systemic racism has reared its ugly head in my own head.

Damn, I thought I was passed that. But no, I am human, and as imperfect as the next guy. Like with my addiction, I need to be always aware of the possibility of falling back into old habits, old behaviors, old ways of thinking that I didn't even know I had.

Let's talk about this. Let's listen to each other and the pain that is still being felt in our society. Let's be honest about ourselves and what is happening. To admit to it and work on doing something about it does not undermine our national identity. It shows our strengths and willingness to care for each other!

O God,
Your children of all colors
Have been hurt by racism.
Help us heal together.
Help us do the inner work
To be open to your grace
And to the "balm in Gilead"
So our hearts are converted,
And we can join hands
To do the constructive work
Of love and justice.

Amen.
--Education for Justice

What Will We Tell the Kids?

This is what's known as a "Kiss Cam" shot. It is a common entertainment at sporting events around the country.The camera picks out a couple, places them in the center of the heart and everyone expects them to kiss.

In public.

Before God and tens of thousands in the stadium.

No one thinks anything of it. It's cute. Kissing is good.



Unless you're Michael Sam and his boyfriend.

Then people go crazy over a public kiss between two people who love each other.

What in the world will we tell the kids? How can we explain this? What can we say?

Simple- tell them two people who love each other were overwhelmed by the honest emotions of the moment.

I hope Michael Sam makes it as a pro football player. Like many pioneers before him, breaking boundaries and prejudices can be tough.

Back in the mid-1970s when women were first being "allowed" to be clergy in the church they were often expected to be perfect, no blemishes, no problems that men were regularly excused from. One little misstep and they "boo-birds" were there to gloat in their obviously true and proper position that women can't do that- and shouldn't. Because "the Bible said so!"

Or go back to # 42 for the Dodgers in the mid-1940s. The crap that Jackie Robinson had to put up with is inexcusable. Yet it was often supported by "the Bible tells us so!"

Is Michael Sam as important as Robinson or the women clergy pioneers of the 70s?

In his own way, I would say "Yes!" I wish him the best. He has a long road ahead of him.

May he stay on track and not allow the craziness that is sure to swirl around him to de-focus him from what he wants to do.

A Sad Headline

Hearings on the radicalization of Muslim Americans

Sad.

Even completely antithetical to the American way of life and the very values we hold to be self-evident.

A headline based on fear of the different and the other.

A headline that takes one whole group of people and lumps them together.

What about the radicalization of poor whites in the last century- by the KKK?

What about the radicalization of Jews after WW II as many sought for a homeland in Palestine?

What about the radicalization of Irish-Americans by the IRA in the middle of the last century?

Try any of those headlines and you will have a political storm on your hands.

But we demonize Muslim-Americans because a few deranged people in the Middle East planned a horrific attack.

I had thought that after the end of WW II, when we were challenged by the internment camps for Japanese-Americans, we might have a little more sense.

I guess we are still a work in progress.

Pray for wisdom and insight that we can live out our values.

Before There Was Avatar...

there were the oceans of Planet Earth. At least that's one way of reading what Live Science posted recently:

Dolphins are among several animals that use tools. But studies have shown they can do much more. Dolphins name themselves and they can recognize themselves in mirrors. They think about the future, can learn a basic symbol-based language, and behave more socially than was known. One dolphin taught to tail-walk in captivity later spread the trick to wild dolphins. Dolphins may even think about thinking.

"The scientific research . . . suggests that dolphins are 'non-human persons' who qualify for moral standing as individuals," says Thomas White, professor of ethics at Loyola Marymount University.

Non-human persons. An interesting concept. Especially since we have often had trouble seeing some of our own species as persons. Usually if they are different from us.

Real Power

Found this video about words and their power as learned by high school students.

It reminds us that the old "rhyme" should be:

Sticks and stones may break my bones,
But words can really hurt me.

Shakespearean Controversy

[Screenwriter guru] Robert McKee says, “Curiosity is the intellectual need to answer questions and close open patterns. Story plays to this universal desire by doing the opposite, posing questions and opening situations.
--quoted in Made to Stick, p. 83.

We went to the Guthrie last evening for their first Shakespearean production in their new facility. It was arguably Shakespeare’s most controversial play, The Merchant of Venice. The quote on story above which I then read this morning hit like a brick. It may be one of the reasons why Shakespeare is still so popular and so widely produced all these years after he first wrote. The Merchant of Venice may be one of the best examples of the posing of questions and opening of situations.

Was old Wil an anti-Semite? Or is Shylock meant to challenge anti-Semitism and the whole English culture built around it? When one remembers that this is a comedy, does that mean we shouldn’t take Shylock as a serious character? Yet he has such great lines:

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not
revenge? (Act III, Scene 1)

Yet it is Portia as a doctor of law that speaks eloquently of mercy raining down, mercy overcoming the law through use of the law.

The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice. (Act IV, Scene 1)

Is it basically a Christian-Jewish morality play of its era?

Well, what else can we expect of Wil? He was a man of his time, yet he managed in so many ways to also transcend into all time. Did the audience at the Globe hiss and boo at Shylock? Probably. Did these great words that come from his mouth bring derision? Most likely. Yet, there is the amazing ability of Shakespeare to put together a great play that stops us in our tracks for its over-the-top portrayal and so clearly prejudiced a view and entrances us hundreds of years later. Maybe the only way he could conceive of challenging these views is through a comedy that pulls you from one extreme to another with a simple scene change.

Maybe Shakespeare was willing to put his own prejudices out there to be seen in the harsh light of day. In doing so he raises questions and open situations as very few playwrights have been able to do so eloquently and with such challenge.

Yes, mercy (grace) is greater and can use even the law for its own benefits of mercy. But then the legalist is also a human who can bleed. A seed is planted, situations left open, and more questions given than answered.