Next Tuesday is yet another Congressional election day. The high energy and drama of the 2008 election seem so long ago. This year just seems like loud noise and often incoherent yelling from a vocal minority, and a quiet muted frustration from a disillusioned majority. It is not an easy year to exercise our civic duty.
Personally, I cannot seem to find any Republican that I can put an “X” next to on the ballot (with the possible exception of the two senators from Maine; but I believe that neither of them is up for reelection, and I do not live in Maine anyway). I just cannot vote an endorsement for a political strategy that says 1) “say anything” without regard to accuracy or consistency from one day to the next, and 2) vote against everything, whether good for the country or were your own ideas now disregarded, in order to deprive the Democrats of any legislative success. At a critical time when this country needs leadership and solutions to our current morass, such thumbing your nose at the electorate for purely personal political gain is inexcusable and intolerable. My simple question is ... why in the world would I vote for or trust the people/party who drove us to this current ruin, and whose only proclaimed program now is to take us back to those very same policies?
The Democrats, on the other hand, had no lack of ideas and agenda, fueled by being out of power these past years. What they did lack was the ability to manage that agenda. They took on milestone legislation and major economic issues – and somehow managed to come out on the rhetorical defensive, looking totally incompetent in their ability to focus and achieve a core agenda. There were a half-dozen critical “to dos” for health care; instead, they expanded that to a 2000 page bill seemingly filled with every health care idea ever thought about. That overreach almost sunk the topic entirely. They passed an economic stimulus bill that was inadequate to the need, and then never adequately defined the successes it achieved (leaving the Republicans to successfully tag it as a failure). They never developed a credible argument for why borrowing our way out of our recession made sense (which it does), even though smart CEOs are doing exactly the same thing for their companies where in similar straits. You borrow money when you need it (not when you don’t), and you spend it on investments not operating expense, which is exactly why the business community is complaining now about the unavailability of loan money to finance their growth. (Borrowing for day-to-day operating expense is still a stupid idea, for government and businesses.)
Democrats passed a badly needed financial reform bill. It restored regulation and oversight that had stabilized us for 60 years – until dismantled under 25 years of Republican rule, thereby leading us to this current financial devastation. But then they failed to nail the Republicans who, as expected, opposed it even though this should have been THE connecting issue with the American public. And they have inexplicably continued the Bush strategy of trying to fix the financial industry through the banks and investment companies instead of going around them and working directly with the financially injured citizens. The unsurprising result is that the banks and financial companies have emerged virtually unscathed and richer than ever, while the average Joes and Josephines are still hurting and losing ground.
Politically , Republicans continue to demonstrate that they are far better at winning the sound bite battles, and keeping all their people on board the same political train. Conversely, Democrats squandered their both-houses-and-president monopoly and sent out a dizzying cacophony of messages. Republicans can reduce any problem issue, no matter how complex, to a simplified 1 sentence message easily understood by the public, but they have no program to offer up behind it except the time-worn and disproven “cut taxes” call without paying for it – while claiming to be against deficit spending. (Only Republicans could get away with proclaiming such a paradoxical position with a straight face!) Conversely, Democrats can expand any problem issue to an exhausting paragraph incomprehensible to virtually anyone except an obscure technical policy wonk, with more programmatic solutions than anybody could ever want – a classic “killing the ant with a sledgehammer” approach.
Further disrupting all this confusion is the emergence of the Tea Party movement. What started as a legitimate grass roots expression of justifiable exasperation at Washington’s incompetence and ineffectiveness morphed into a vehicle for bad and irrational behavior. Betraying its constituent-led origins, it has become a marching tool for Fox News, secret donors and backroom wheeler-dealers (a la Karl Rove). It was given voice by self-centered promoters like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, and Jim DeMint. It smartly magnified its perceived power by supporting fringe candidates in Republican primaries in small populated districts where their influence could overwhelm “establishment” Republican candidates. The result has been a slew of embarrassing and uninformed candidates exemplified by Sharon Engle (the Nevada kook) and Christine O’Donnell (the New Jersey witch-wanna-be) along with other such types. These are “against everything” candidates guided by colossal constitutional ignorance who personify how ridiculously low our standards for political qualifications have become. They have polarized the Republican Party even further to the extreme right (could any of us thought that possible?), and driven out some competent people into the “Independent” ranks as “ideologically impure.” If they win anything (questionable), they are likely to be as problematic to Republican party leadership as the “Blue Dog” Democrats are to their party leaders. Besides all the unwarranted news they generate for the media, until they win some significant and contested positions in the general election they still have no credibility. But every election year the media always look for “the underdog” story and give it excessive weight, and this year it’s the Tea Party as underdog.
Running in parallel to the candidates elections are an exhausting number of relevant peripheral currents, such as:
• The collapse of the U.S. Senate as an effective institution, drowning in its own rules of (non-) order, a 60 vote “super-majority” required to do anything in spite of our long-standing legislative principle of “majority rules,” action on any topic subject to the whim of any one senator to put the item “on hold,” and the mere threat of a filibuster sufficient to prevent a vote. Harry Reed needs to be reelected, if for no other reason to keep kooky Sharon Engle out of the Senate, but he is clearly not up to the job of Majority Leader.
• President Obama has a substantial list of successes to point to, but doesn’t seem able to point to them. The economy is no longer in doomsday; our receivership of the auto industry is paying visible dividends in economic stability and providing badly-needed new corporate direction; financial wildcatting has been somewhat reined in; health care made huge progress despite the bad distortion of it; foreign relations are significantly better than in a decade. Other worthwhile initiatives are at least in the pipeline. But however well-intended, Obama abdicated leadership by leaving legislation to be defined and thereby run amuck by Congress (“damn it, you’re the President, not a senator anymore!”), and his vaunted speaking voice escaped him. A clear, focused message on core directions that accurately reflects the mood of the people has been nowhere visible. Frankly, Obama’s first act on Wednesday, November 3rd, should be to fire his entire Communications Office – who seem to consistently live in a fog of surprise at the events around them they did not see coming – and get some competent help who can reconnect his voice with the people.
• Campaign dollars are out of control, projecting the most expensive election in history. This is thanks in no small part to the Supreme’s Court’s preposterous decision that “corporations are people, too” and thereby entitled to freedom of speech. Meg Whitman has already spent $140 million of her own money to win California’s governor race. We can only hope that she, like others, will find that not only can “money not buy you love,” but it can’t necessarily buy political office either.
• If you really want some amusement, look no further than the Democratic candidates to replace Republican senators in South Carolina and North Carolina. The former is a candidate-no-one-ever-heard-of that seems like a walking Tina Fey/Saturday Night Live comedy farce; the latter seems like she just woke up a couple of weeks ago and decided “Maybe I should actually campaign for this office!” Or look at the Alaska senate race where Sarah Palin’s very visible personal grudge campaign against Lisa Murkowski, the former-Republican-now-independent incumbent, is reducing Tea Party candidate Joe Miller to a back seat; it is a political form of a Desperate Housewives soap opera drama.
• Left-wing Democrats are complaining because results these past two years “did not go far enough?” Folks, get off the sidelines, and get real. A lot went your way; why do you think the right wing is now so vocal – because you failed? Do you not get that you won more than many thought possible to win? Even Ted Kennedy, an undisputed champion of universal health care, ultimately admitted he was wrong not to take up President Nixon on his health care proposals in the 1970s “just because they didn’t go far enough.”
So what is a concerned citizen supposed to do in this election? The litany of complaints against the current state of our national government could go on unendingly. The anger of our citizens is entirely justified, even if our specific complaints may differ. Let us trust no politician who promises to “cut spending / reduce the government / balance the budget” without telling us exactly where s/he would cut so we can determine if we really do agree with their easy rhetoric. And let us similarly trust no politician who promises that government can right all wrongs, and can protect us from all our fears and calamities.
Not voting is an abdication of civic responsibility, even if we are hesitant to give the appearance of endorsement to the winners. In the end, we need vote for pussycats even if for no other reason than to keep the mice at bay. General expectations are that 2011-2012 will be a non-event for Congressional accomplishments, as gridlock completely takes over and Republican presidential wanna-bes come out swinging for 2012. So we need to be ready, to find our own real voice, and to figure out the actions that we are called upon to take to restore honor, direction, integrity and promise to this great country. Enough is enough of this political gamesmanship at our expense. As has been said, in the end we ultimately get only the government that we work for and deserve. What shall that be?
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Pertinent News Stories
Did you happen to pick up on the following news stories?
1. The pastor of the Philadelphia Third Presbyterian Church gave a sermon calling for “Christian voters” to join forces to keep “pagans, Muslims, and other non-Christians” (including Deists and Unitarians) from political office. He went on to say “every ruler should be an avowed and sincere friend of Christianity.”
In response to this call, the President wrote that “among the greatest blessings secured to us under our Constitution is the liberty of worshipping God as our conscience dictates – or not.” Even a special Congressional subcommittee thereafter responded that “It is not the legitimate province [of Congress] to determine which religion is true, or what false. Our government is a civil, and not a religious institution.”
2. A quiet but highly respected Senator from a well-known political family in Louisiana spoke on the senate floor about the extreme level of partisan acrimony that we see in the political environment. Speaking about the public debate, he pertinently observed that “I think the discussion may be turned to useful purposes. It may, by the interchange of opinion, increase our own information on all of the important points which have been examined, while, not being called on for a vote, we may weigh them at leisure, and come to a conclusion, without being influenced by the warmth of the debate… However, the cost of partisanship for partisanship’s sake [is] too high for a free society to pay… The spirit [of zealotry] of which I speak creates imaginary and magnifies real causes of complaint; arrogates to itself every virtue – denies every virtue to its opponents; secretly entertains the worst designs … mounts the pulpit, and, in the name of a God of mercy and peace, preaches discord and vengeance; invokes the worst scourges of heaven, war, pestilence, and famine as preferable alternatives to party defeat; blind, vindictive, cruel, remorseless, unprincipled and at last frantic, it communicates its madness to friend as well as foes; respects nothing, fears nothing.
I am no censor of the conduct of others: it is sufficient for me to watch over my own. The wisdom of gentlemen must be their guide in the sentiments they entertain, and their discretion in the language in which they utter them. No doubt they think the occasion calls for the warmth they have shown, but of this people must judge … There are legitimate and effectual means to correct any palpable infraction of our Constitution. Let the cry of constitutional oppression be justly raised within these walls, and it will be heard abroad – it will be examined. The people are intelligent, they people are just, and in time these characteristics must have an effect on their representatives.”
3. A leading senator from Kentucky proposed that the President declare a national day of prayer and fasting to “seek divine relief” from a series of recent disasters. The President responded saying that, while he too believed in “the efficacy of prayer,” it was his determination to “decline the appointment of any mode of religious activity. I could not do otherwise without transcending those limits which are prescribed by the Constitution for the president, and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion now enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the Government … I deem it my duty to preserve this separation and to abstain from any act which may tend to an amalgamation perilous to both church and state.”
4. Accusations that the President was creating and enacting near-dictatorial powers prompted a number of strong speeches. The same senator from Kentucky claimed that “We are in the midst of a revolution, hitherto bloodless, but rapidly tending towards a total concentration of the pure republican character of the Government, and to the concentration of all power in the hands of one man. [In just a few years] the government will have been transformed into an elective monarchy – the worst of all forms of government.” A well-known senator from South Carolina proclaimed that, “We have arrived at a fearful crisis. Things cannot long remain as they are. It behooves all who love their country – who have affection for their offspring, or who have any stake in our institutions, to pause and reflect. Confidence is daily withdrawing from the General Government. Alienation is hourly going on. These will necessarily create a state of things inimical to the existence of our institutions, and, if not arrested, convulsions must follow, and then comes dissolution or despotism, when a thick cloud will be thrown over the cause of liberty and the future prospects of our country.” And finally, from a senator from Massachusetts: “There never before was a moment in which any President would have been tolerated in asserting such a claim to despotic power.” All pretty strong words against the sitting President.
Did you miss these news stories? Probably yes, because they happened 170 years ago in the early 1830s. The President was Andrew Jackson, the first president not a part of the generation of founding fathers, the first president from the then-West (Tennessee), and the first president to be an avowed proponent of “the common man.” The Philadelphia pastor was the Reverend Ezra Stiles Ely; the Louisiana senator was Edward Livingston; the Kentucky senator was Henry Clay; the South Carolina senator was John Calhoun; and the Massachusetts senator was Daniel Webster. All political icons from the 1st half of the 19th century.
The point of this looking back is that America has been down the road of intemperate political arguing many times before. As discouraging as the current economic, social and political environment is, it is not new. It is more of the continuing give-and-take that has always defined our on-going experiment in representative government. The arguments and ambiguity about religion in political life, the power of the central government versus state governments, and the liberties to which we are entitled, all started at our original Constitutional Convention. They have continually risen and fallen for two centuries. Though we have lurched right, then left, then back again, somehow we have always managed to ultimately settle back into our national center.
We have lost many opportunities over the years, and we have much to be ashamed of in our country’s conduct; these are frequent omissions in our schools’ history textbooks. But through it all we remain a beacon of hope, envy, accomplishment and aspiration for many, and – if we can forgo our flashes of arrogance – better than most alternative forms of government that have been tried before. So in spite of our faults and clumsiness, we have no choice but to ignore the self-serving demagogues so ever-present today, offer up our best ideas, stay involved, and keep on plugging to try to make it all work. In essence, it is simply about continually working to see if diverse human beings can in fact coexist and work successfully with each other. The jury is still out on this, but there is no choice but to keep trying. And to remain hopeful.
(Historical notes principally from “American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House” by Jon Meacham)
1. The pastor of the Philadelphia Third Presbyterian Church gave a sermon calling for “Christian voters” to join forces to keep “pagans, Muslims, and other non-Christians” (including Deists and Unitarians) from political office. He went on to say “every ruler should be an avowed and sincere friend of Christianity.”
In response to this call, the President wrote that “among the greatest blessings secured to us under our Constitution is the liberty of worshipping God as our conscience dictates – or not.” Even a special Congressional subcommittee thereafter responded that “It is not the legitimate province [of Congress] to determine which religion is true, or what false. Our government is a civil, and not a religious institution.”
2. A quiet but highly respected Senator from a well-known political family in Louisiana spoke on the senate floor about the extreme level of partisan acrimony that we see in the political environment. Speaking about the public debate, he pertinently observed that “I think the discussion may be turned to useful purposes. It may, by the interchange of opinion, increase our own information on all of the important points which have been examined, while, not being called on for a vote, we may weigh them at leisure, and come to a conclusion, without being influenced by the warmth of the debate… However, the cost of partisanship for partisanship’s sake [is] too high for a free society to pay… The spirit [of zealotry] of which I speak creates imaginary and magnifies real causes of complaint; arrogates to itself every virtue – denies every virtue to its opponents; secretly entertains the worst designs … mounts the pulpit, and, in the name of a God of mercy and peace, preaches discord and vengeance; invokes the worst scourges of heaven, war, pestilence, and famine as preferable alternatives to party defeat; blind, vindictive, cruel, remorseless, unprincipled and at last frantic, it communicates its madness to friend as well as foes; respects nothing, fears nothing.
I am no censor of the conduct of others: it is sufficient for me to watch over my own. The wisdom of gentlemen must be their guide in the sentiments they entertain, and their discretion in the language in which they utter them. No doubt they think the occasion calls for the warmth they have shown, but of this people must judge … There are legitimate and effectual means to correct any palpable infraction of our Constitution. Let the cry of constitutional oppression be justly raised within these walls, and it will be heard abroad – it will be examined. The people are intelligent, they people are just, and in time these characteristics must have an effect on their representatives.”
3. A leading senator from Kentucky proposed that the President declare a national day of prayer and fasting to “seek divine relief” from a series of recent disasters. The President responded saying that, while he too believed in “the efficacy of prayer,” it was his determination to “decline the appointment of any mode of religious activity. I could not do otherwise without transcending those limits which are prescribed by the Constitution for the president, and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion now enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the Government … I deem it my duty to preserve this separation and to abstain from any act which may tend to an amalgamation perilous to both church and state.”
4. Accusations that the President was creating and enacting near-dictatorial powers prompted a number of strong speeches. The same senator from Kentucky claimed that “We are in the midst of a revolution, hitherto bloodless, but rapidly tending towards a total concentration of the pure republican character of the Government, and to the concentration of all power in the hands of one man. [In just a few years] the government will have been transformed into an elective monarchy – the worst of all forms of government.” A well-known senator from South Carolina proclaimed that, “We have arrived at a fearful crisis. Things cannot long remain as they are. It behooves all who love their country – who have affection for their offspring, or who have any stake in our institutions, to pause and reflect. Confidence is daily withdrawing from the General Government. Alienation is hourly going on. These will necessarily create a state of things inimical to the existence of our institutions, and, if not arrested, convulsions must follow, and then comes dissolution or despotism, when a thick cloud will be thrown over the cause of liberty and the future prospects of our country.” And finally, from a senator from Massachusetts: “There never before was a moment in which any President would have been tolerated in asserting such a claim to despotic power.” All pretty strong words against the sitting President.
Did you miss these news stories? Probably yes, because they happened 170 years ago in the early 1830s. The President was Andrew Jackson, the first president not a part of the generation of founding fathers, the first president from the then-West (Tennessee), and the first president to be an avowed proponent of “the common man.” The Philadelphia pastor was the Reverend Ezra Stiles Ely; the Louisiana senator was Edward Livingston; the Kentucky senator was Henry Clay; the South Carolina senator was John Calhoun; and the Massachusetts senator was Daniel Webster. All political icons from the 1st half of the 19th century.
The point of this looking back is that America has been down the road of intemperate political arguing many times before. As discouraging as the current economic, social and political environment is, it is not new. It is more of the continuing give-and-take that has always defined our on-going experiment in representative government. The arguments and ambiguity about religion in political life, the power of the central government versus state governments, and the liberties to which we are entitled, all started at our original Constitutional Convention. They have continually risen and fallen for two centuries. Though we have lurched right, then left, then back again, somehow we have always managed to ultimately settle back into our national center.
We have lost many opportunities over the years, and we have much to be ashamed of in our country’s conduct; these are frequent omissions in our schools’ history textbooks. But through it all we remain a beacon of hope, envy, accomplishment and aspiration for many, and – if we can forgo our flashes of arrogance – better than most alternative forms of government that have been tried before. So in spite of our faults and clumsiness, we have no choice but to ignore the self-serving demagogues so ever-present today, offer up our best ideas, stay involved, and keep on plugging to try to make it all work. In essence, it is simply about continually working to see if diverse human beings can in fact coexist and work successfully with each other. The jury is still out on this, but there is no choice but to keep trying. And to remain hopeful.
(Historical notes principally from “American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House” by Jon Meacham)
Sunday, September 19, 2010
15 Minutes Too Much
In the late 1960s, the pop artist Andy Warhol famously predicted that, in the future, everyone would have their own 15 minutes of personal fame. It seemed like a ridiculous remark at the time. But the 1960s were a very different time than today. Now we have the then-unforeseen environment of the internet, where virtually anyone can publish virtually any statement regardless of veracity or discernment and then claim it as absolute truth; we now have 24-hour / 365-day news delivery with airtime and page space that must be continuously filled and resupplied. Taken together, these two forces conspire to fulfill Warhol’s prediction by offering up any space-filling “news” as items supposedly of pertinence to us. And thereby, they give these news sources their newly found 15 minutes of fame, even though they are likely of no real consequence to the pursuit of my life.
The latest example of this is the disturbing case of one Terry Jones. Mr. Jones was apparently the pastor of a small church in Germany until he was released due to “financial improprieties.” He subsequently made his way to Florida where he founded a small church in a vacant mall space, with a congregation of less than 50 people. In the weeks leading up to the next forthcoming anniversary of the 9-11 destruction in New York City, Mr. Jones came up with the reprehensible idea to burn copies of the Qur’an as a way to show his hatred of all things Islam, supposedly because of what 19 Muslims did on September 11, 2001.
We have experienced book burnings in America before, as well as its more subtle but just as sinister cousins of book censorship and book bannings. Any of these various forms of negative expression are bad enough, but when they are specifically targeted towards insulting or restricting whole groups of people, they become even more of an assault on our society of free expression and freedom to worship.
Yet in the spirit of our times, attention and media space goes not to the substantive but to the outrageous. Thereby a previously (and deservedly) unknown player with a base audience of less than 50 people is suddenly the lead news headline of the day. Ultimately, a person who should be of no consequence to me whatsoever is generating conversation and attention from religious, political and military leaders across the country and world. No matter that people across all philosophical persuasions were universally condemning this proposed book burning as an undeserved and improper religious affront to one specific religious group as well as a tangible threat to American soldiers operating in Muslim countries. Through all of this noise the only question I found myself able to ask was – WHY are we even talking about this obviously self-promoting individual, versus consigning him to the set of right-wing or left-wing fringe people who have always existed in America and who should at most be a mere footnote buried on page 20 of the daily news, quickly dismissed and permanently forgotten about.
In the desperate rush for constant sensational headlines, these are now the kind of people who show up on our TV screens. Two years ago we had to endure day after day of “Joe the Plumber” and his nonsensical views on the economy and our presidential choice. Joe was an out-of-work plumber who wanted to buy a plumbing business but couldn’t afford it, who turned out to not be a licensed plumber after all and had no economic credibility at all. Yet there he was at one McCain rally after another, TV microphones stuck in his face, basking in his sudden fame, a political know-nothing designated by the media to speak “for the people.” The press ate it up as a “man in the street” human interest story; yet my opinion of the value of modern news reporting went down every time Joe’s image or words appeared in front of me. It was classic “celebrity over substance” reporting. Good old Joe had far more than his 15 minutes of fame due, and thankfully he has now gone on and disappeared from view.
I expect that it will so continue. So much noise coming our way built upon so little thought. And some ill-deserving people are getting way more than the 15 minutes allotted to them because they are very good at moving from one outrageous headline to the next. “Media savvy” is seen as a greater skill than being “smart people.” I would frankly put Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, and Newt Gingrich all in that category of being way beyond their 15 minutes due. I say that not because I differ from most of their political views, but because there is absolutely no substance or real ideas coming from them. They just provide emotional clichés designed to get attention for its own sake without having to actually DO anything about their headlines of complaints. (Newt used to be a more reasonable big-picture thinker offering substantive ideas, but he has thrown that away in a willingness to now become another one of those who will say anything to get attention to his/her wanna-be presidential candidacy.) It is very easy to throw bricks through windows and thereby create self-focused publicity through destructive words and actions. Especially when you then disclaim any responsibility for unwanted actions that may subsequently ensue. It is a lot harder and slower to take those same bricks and build solid structures (of solutions) that will stand strong and have lasting benefits. It is to the bricklayers that we need to give our attention, not the brick throwers.
It is said that we ultimately get the government we deserve. I believe we also ultimately get the news and information that we deserve and demand. If we fill our days and our minds paying attention to those who deserve only passing interest (if any at all) from us, how will that leave us time and energy to listen to those who can truly inspire, inform and lead us to better and more positive outcomes?
The latest example of this is the disturbing case of one Terry Jones. Mr. Jones was apparently the pastor of a small church in Germany until he was released due to “financial improprieties.” He subsequently made his way to Florida where he founded a small church in a vacant mall space, with a congregation of less than 50 people. In the weeks leading up to the next forthcoming anniversary of the 9-11 destruction in New York City, Mr. Jones came up with the reprehensible idea to burn copies of the Qur’an as a way to show his hatred of all things Islam, supposedly because of what 19 Muslims did on September 11, 2001.
We have experienced book burnings in America before, as well as its more subtle but just as sinister cousins of book censorship and book bannings. Any of these various forms of negative expression are bad enough, but when they are specifically targeted towards insulting or restricting whole groups of people, they become even more of an assault on our society of free expression and freedom to worship.
Yet in the spirit of our times, attention and media space goes not to the substantive but to the outrageous. Thereby a previously (and deservedly) unknown player with a base audience of less than 50 people is suddenly the lead news headline of the day. Ultimately, a person who should be of no consequence to me whatsoever is generating conversation and attention from religious, political and military leaders across the country and world. No matter that people across all philosophical persuasions were universally condemning this proposed book burning as an undeserved and improper religious affront to one specific religious group as well as a tangible threat to American soldiers operating in Muslim countries. Through all of this noise the only question I found myself able to ask was – WHY are we even talking about this obviously self-promoting individual, versus consigning him to the set of right-wing or left-wing fringe people who have always existed in America and who should at most be a mere footnote buried on page 20 of the daily news, quickly dismissed and permanently forgotten about.
In the desperate rush for constant sensational headlines, these are now the kind of people who show up on our TV screens. Two years ago we had to endure day after day of “Joe the Plumber” and his nonsensical views on the economy and our presidential choice. Joe was an out-of-work plumber who wanted to buy a plumbing business but couldn’t afford it, who turned out to not be a licensed plumber after all and had no economic credibility at all. Yet there he was at one McCain rally after another, TV microphones stuck in his face, basking in his sudden fame, a political know-nothing designated by the media to speak “for the people.” The press ate it up as a “man in the street” human interest story; yet my opinion of the value of modern news reporting went down every time Joe’s image or words appeared in front of me. It was classic “celebrity over substance” reporting. Good old Joe had far more than his 15 minutes of fame due, and thankfully he has now gone on and disappeared from view.
I expect that it will so continue. So much noise coming our way built upon so little thought. And some ill-deserving people are getting way more than the 15 minutes allotted to them because they are very good at moving from one outrageous headline to the next. “Media savvy” is seen as a greater skill than being “smart people.” I would frankly put Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, and Newt Gingrich all in that category of being way beyond their 15 minutes due. I say that not because I differ from most of their political views, but because there is absolutely no substance or real ideas coming from them. They just provide emotional clichés designed to get attention for its own sake without having to actually DO anything about their headlines of complaints. (Newt used to be a more reasonable big-picture thinker offering substantive ideas, but he has thrown that away in a willingness to now become another one of those who will say anything to get attention to his/her wanna-be presidential candidacy.) It is very easy to throw bricks through windows and thereby create self-focused publicity through destructive words and actions. Especially when you then disclaim any responsibility for unwanted actions that may subsequently ensue. It is a lot harder and slower to take those same bricks and build solid structures (of solutions) that will stand strong and have lasting benefits. It is to the bricklayers that we need to give our attention, not the brick throwers.
It is said that we ultimately get the government we deserve. I believe we also ultimately get the news and information that we deserve and demand. If we fill our days and our minds paying attention to those who deserve only passing interest (if any at all) from us, how will that leave us time and energy to listen to those who can truly inspire, inform and lead us to better and more positive outcomes?
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Some Voices From America
.
Some quotes to note, all of which happened in one week:
“Barack Obama is the worst president in history.”
(Ben Quayle, son of the former vice president; another politician willing to say anything some people want to hear in order to get elected, and claiming history for validation while his words demonstrate he has no idea about history. President Warren Harding, anyone?)
+
“I want to be able to say what’s on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful.”
(Laura Schlessinger, radio commentator, electing to quit her show the end of this year after she used the word “nigger” 11 times during a recent call. It would appear that she was able to say exactly what she wanted, no matter how distasteful. So why is she complaining? Perhaps because free speech does not mean freedom from accountability to others for what we say?)
+
“Islam is a religion of hatred, it’s a religion of war.”
(Franklin Graham, evangelist; a preacher who has obviously never read the Qur’an and has selective memory about history’s Christian warriors and conquerors, and then – incomprehensibly to many of us – he complains because he was not invited to a Pentagon-sponsored military interfaith prayer service.)
+
“Nazis don’t have a right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington.”
(Newt Gingrich, a presidential-wanna-be who is also willing to say whatever his constituency wants to hear, regarding the proposed Muslim community center nearby the 9-11 Twin Towers site; no, Newt, the Nazi analogy works only if al-Qaeda was trying to put up a sign of some kind, not Muslims; for everyday Germans to build a memorial to Jewish holocaust victims could potentially be appropriate and healing indeed.)
*****
+
“Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here…”
(Michael Bloomburg, Mayor of New York City, on the proposal to build the Muslim center and the ensuing outcry that has arisen.)
+
“I prefer blueberry.”
(Senator Carl Levin, good-naturedly responding to a woman who hit him in the face with an apple pie over a disagreement on foreign policy; is this how some think we should now conduct our political disagreements?)
+
“These are very tough times for America with many of our people hurting, there is no doubt about it. But we will dig our way out of it once again, just as we always have – IF people would just stop yelling at each other for 30 minutes.”
(Garrison Keillor, Prairie Home Companion host, at a recent concert.)
*****
So much anger, so much hatred in our public conversation today. Yet still some voices of calm reason striving to be heard. Regardless of our philosophical differences, whose voices should we be listening to these days? The voices of anger, division and self-serving interests? Or the voices of inclusion, good will towards others, and the serving of the pubic interests?
In the election upcoming this fall, perhaps we should have less concerns about what a particular politician says, or claims to think, or his/her governmental / economic philosophies. Perhaps instead we might spend more time thinking about what we believe inside ourselves – about our own character and beliefs, about fairness towards all, about listening and speaking respectfully to our differences. Negative speech inevitably leads to negative outcomes. In the difficult times in which we now live, we need to speak and act towards positive outcomes, appealing not to the worst in us, but to the best in us. Positively.
Some quotes to note, all of which happened in one week:
“Barack Obama is the worst president in history.”
(Ben Quayle, son of the former vice president; another politician willing to say anything some people want to hear in order to get elected, and claiming history for validation while his words demonstrate he has no idea about history. President Warren Harding, anyone?)
+
“I want to be able to say what’s on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful.”
(Laura Schlessinger, radio commentator, electing to quit her show the end of this year after she used the word “nigger” 11 times during a recent call. It would appear that she was able to say exactly what she wanted, no matter how distasteful. So why is she complaining? Perhaps because free speech does not mean freedom from accountability to others for what we say?)
+
“Islam is a religion of hatred, it’s a religion of war.”
(Franklin Graham, evangelist; a preacher who has obviously never read the Qur’an and has selective memory about history’s Christian warriors and conquerors, and then – incomprehensibly to many of us – he complains because he was not invited to a Pentagon-sponsored military interfaith prayer service.)
+
“Nazis don’t have a right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington.”
(Newt Gingrich, a presidential-wanna-be who is also willing to say whatever his constituency wants to hear, regarding the proposed Muslim community center nearby the 9-11 Twin Towers site; no, Newt, the Nazi analogy works only if al-Qaeda was trying to put up a sign of some kind, not Muslims; for everyday Germans to build a memorial to Jewish holocaust victims could potentially be appropriate and healing indeed.)
*****
+
“Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here…”
(Michael Bloomburg, Mayor of New York City, on the proposal to build the Muslim center and the ensuing outcry that has arisen.)
+
“I prefer blueberry.”
(Senator Carl Levin, good-naturedly responding to a woman who hit him in the face with an apple pie over a disagreement on foreign policy; is this how some think we should now conduct our political disagreements?)
+
“These are very tough times for America with many of our people hurting, there is no doubt about it. But we will dig our way out of it once again, just as we always have – IF people would just stop yelling at each other for 30 minutes.”
(Garrison Keillor, Prairie Home Companion host, at a recent concert.)
*****
So much anger, so much hatred in our public conversation today. Yet still some voices of calm reason striving to be heard. Regardless of our philosophical differences, whose voices should we be listening to these days? The voices of anger, division and self-serving interests? Or the voices of inclusion, good will towards others, and the serving of the pubic interests?
In the election upcoming this fall, perhaps we should have less concerns about what a particular politician says, or claims to think, or his/her governmental / economic philosophies. Perhaps instead we might spend more time thinking about what we believe inside ourselves – about our own character and beliefs, about fairness towards all, about listening and speaking respectfully to our differences. Negative speech inevitably leads to negative outcomes. In the difficult times in which we now live, we need to speak and act towards positive outcomes, appealing not to the worst in us, but to the best in us. Positively.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
On Un-Hallowed Ground
Recently, housing and zoning officials in New York City approved a request by some local U.S. citizens to renovate and convert a former Burlington Coat Factory building into an Islamic Community Center. The purpose of this Center, as stated by the reportedly respected and middle-of-the-road Muslim cleric leading this effort, is to promote inter-faith dialog and sharing in the promotion of peace among all faiths. The Center, which will not be a mosque but will contain a Muslim prayer room, will be located two blocks from the destroyed Twin Tower site where 3000 people were killed on 9-11-2001. Both New York City Mayor Michael Bloomburg and President Barack Obama have both endorsed this project as the right thing to do and the right statement to make about America.
The negative reactions and noise-making that have ensued were entirely predictable. It appears that because all 19 of the 9-11 terrorists were Muslim, people of the Islamic faith are not entitled to locate places of worship in America. The protestors argue that the Twin Tower location is hallowed ground, intended to honor those killed there. But I hardly think that a Burlington Coat Factory building that has no connection to the events of 9-11 except adjacency qualifies as hallowed ground. And I hardly think that Murfreesboro, Tennessee – which is all up in protesting arms because a group of Muslims who have been quietly living and worshiping there in peace for years and who plan to build a large Islamic Center there – is hallowed land not available to Muslims.
This is not an argument about hallowed ground. This is the venting of people’s continuing anger over the act of 9-11, and their frustration at 9 years thereafter of continuing war, the killing of young American soldiers, and the draining of our economy. The ones who have been killing us are Muslims, which apparently means that all Muslims are bad, which also apparently means that Islam, the religion Muslims follow, must thereby be evil.
There are millions of Muslims living in America. They have been in this country for years, quietly going about their business of living and working, with the same aspirations for themselves and their families as the rest of us. Likely with a family immigrant heritage that came to America for the same reasons of economic opportunity and freedom of expression that brought all of our immigrant ancestors to America. They lived pretty much unnoticed and un-hassled by the rest of us until 9-11. Most were as horrified by the 9-11 actions as non-Muslims were. (“They were just thugs,” a Muslim told me once in Lebanon.) Yet out of our ignorance of their Islamic faith, a number of Americans lumped all Muslims together as equally guilty of the abhorrent sins of the few simply because of their faith.
“The Greatest Generation” took on Hitler’s killing machine and defeated it. German soldiers, and even many SS members, thought of themselves as good practicing Christians, predominately Lutheran. Shall we ascribe the gassing of 6 million Jews and others to an implied racism of Lutheranism? In 1942, we herded American citizens of Japanese ancestry into “relocation camps” and arbitrarily seized their property – an ugly blot on our history – just because the then Japanese government attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Should we ascribe the 9-11 event to a people, and effectively deprive them of their rights of citizenship simply because of their historical lineage? Shall we blame Jesus for all the broken promises made to, and the near annihilation of, Native-Americans, the killing of Mormon founder Joseph Smith by a mob, and the killing of all the people in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVeigh – all acts committed by self-proclaimed “good Christian people”? The net of “guilt by association” is a broad one, quickly ensnaring all kinds of innocent bystanders.
The First Amendment guarantees every citizen the freedom to practice his/her religion of choice without interference. It does not say, “except for -----.” There are no exceptions listed. The only test is citizenship, not the religion one chooses. I have become very tired of self-promoting politicians who yell about honoring and strictly adhering to the Constitution in one breath, and who then selectively pick what parts of the Constitution to observe for which group of people in the circumstances that they think will win votes for themselves. I have become equally very tired of those religious leaders who ask governments to endorse their brand of religion over others, who would deny that same right to others, while never acknowledging that freedom of religion for all is the very thing that guarantees them their own form of worship.
The Qur’an – Islam’s holiest scripture about which we Americans are woefully ignorant – rejects killing, and expressly endorses the teaching of Moses and Jesus, both of whom also reject violence. The Qur’an’s passages do include calls to defend the faith vigorously if attacked, reflecting Islam’s earliest struggles against persecution and the threat of annihilation, just as Christianity suffered in its beginnings. It is often these passages that terrorists point to in recruiting sycophants to do their killing work – kill the infidels who are attacking Islam and its Muslim adherents. As Ron Paul solely but correctly pointed out in his 2008 presidential campaign, unfortunately for us U.S. history over the last 60 years has given the Muslim world plenty of reasons to feel persecuted and under attack from us.
Islam has not declared war on America. Islam did not kill those 3000 people in the Twin Towers. 19 Muslim terrorists chose to do that with justification, but did so out of a perverted distortion of their faith. A distortion arising from their own selfish motivations, angers, and sense of persecution – frustrations they felt in their minds of their lack of ability to enjoy and fulfill their own life. They were as antithetical to Islam as all faiths have had to endure those who rationalize their acts in betrayal of their faith. Just as distorted as the man who chose to kill an abortion doctor because the killer claimed “to believe in the sanctity of life.” Our unwarranted attacks and discriminations against Muslims in this country reflect our own fears, not their threats. Each time we do so, we affirm the very mantra that Osama bin-Laden proclaims against us – that American are out to destroy Islam. These kinds of words and actions we take do not extinguish bin-Laden’s fire; instead, we just inflame and justify his fire.
That Center in lower Manhattan needs to be built precisely because we need to renounce by our actions the message of hate, and to expose the lies from those who are traitors of their faith. To show the strength and best face of America, not our worst. And then we all need to return to, and remind ourselves of, the real Truths of our own faiths.
The negative reactions and noise-making that have ensued were entirely predictable. It appears that because all 19 of the 9-11 terrorists were Muslim, people of the Islamic faith are not entitled to locate places of worship in America. The protestors argue that the Twin Tower location is hallowed ground, intended to honor those killed there. But I hardly think that a Burlington Coat Factory building that has no connection to the events of 9-11 except adjacency qualifies as hallowed ground. And I hardly think that Murfreesboro, Tennessee – which is all up in protesting arms because a group of Muslims who have been quietly living and worshiping there in peace for years and who plan to build a large Islamic Center there – is hallowed land not available to Muslims.
This is not an argument about hallowed ground. This is the venting of people’s continuing anger over the act of 9-11, and their frustration at 9 years thereafter of continuing war, the killing of young American soldiers, and the draining of our economy. The ones who have been killing us are Muslims, which apparently means that all Muslims are bad, which also apparently means that Islam, the religion Muslims follow, must thereby be evil.
There are millions of Muslims living in America. They have been in this country for years, quietly going about their business of living and working, with the same aspirations for themselves and their families as the rest of us. Likely with a family immigrant heritage that came to America for the same reasons of economic opportunity and freedom of expression that brought all of our immigrant ancestors to America. They lived pretty much unnoticed and un-hassled by the rest of us until 9-11. Most were as horrified by the 9-11 actions as non-Muslims were. (“They were just thugs,” a Muslim told me once in Lebanon.) Yet out of our ignorance of their Islamic faith, a number of Americans lumped all Muslims together as equally guilty of the abhorrent sins of the few simply because of their faith.
“The Greatest Generation” took on Hitler’s killing machine and defeated it. German soldiers, and even many SS members, thought of themselves as good practicing Christians, predominately Lutheran. Shall we ascribe the gassing of 6 million Jews and others to an implied racism of Lutheranism? In 1942, we herded American citizens of Japanese ancestry into “relocation camps” and arbitrarily seized their property – an ugly blot on our history – just because the then Japanese government attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Should we ascribe the 9-11 event to a people, and effectively deprive them of their rights of citizenship simply because of their historical lineage? Shall we blame Jesus for all the broken promises made to, and the near annihilation of, Native-Americans, the killing of Mormon founder Joseph Smith by a mob, and the killing of all the people in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVeigh – all acts committed by self-proclaimed “good Christian people”? The net of “guilt by association” is a broad one, quickly ensnaring all kinds of innocent bystanders.
The First Amendment guarantees every citizen the freedom to practice his/her religion of choice without interference. It does not say, “except for -----.” There are no exceptions listed. The only test is citizenship, not the religion one chooses. I have become very tired of self-promoting politicians who yell about honoring and strictly adhering to the Constitution in one breath, and who then selectively pick what parts of the Constitution to observe for which group of people in the circumstances that they think will win votes for themselves. I have become equally very tired of those religious leaders who ask governments to endorse their brand of religion over others, who would deny that same right to others, while never acknowledging that freedom of religion for all is the very thing that guarantees them their own form of worship.
The Qur’an – Islam’s holiest scripture about which we Americans are woefully ignorant – rejects killing, and expressly endorses the teaching of Moses and Jesus, both of whom also reject violence. The Qur’an’s passages do include calls to defend the faith vigorously if attacked, reflecting Islam’s earliest struggles against persecution and the threat of annihilation, just as Christianity suffered in its beginnings. It is often these passages that terrorists point to in recruiting sycophants to do their killing work – kill the infidels who are attacking Islam and its Muslim adherents. As Ron Paul solely but correctly pointed out in his 2008 presidential campaign, unfortunately for us U.S. history over the last 60 years has given the Muslim world plenty of reasons to feel persecuted and under attack from us.
Islam has not declared war on America. Islam did not kill those 3000 people in the Twin Towers. 19 Muslim terrorists chose to do that with justification, but did so out of a perverted distortion of their faith. A distortion arising from their own selfish motivations, angers, and sense of persecution – frustrations they felt in their minds of their lack of ability to enjoy and fulfill their own life. They were as antithetical to Islam as all faiths have had to endure those who rationalize their acts in betrayal of their faith. Just as distorted as the man who chose to kill an abortion doctor because the killer claimed “to believe in the sanctity of life.” Our unwarranted attacks and discriminations against Muslims in this country reflect our own fears, not their threats. Each time we do so, we affirm the very mantra that Osama bin-Laden proclaims against us – that American are out to destroy Islam. These kinds of words and actions we take do not extinguish bin-Laden’s fire; instead, we just inflame and justify his fire.
That Center in lower Manhattan needs to be built precisely because we need to renounce by our actions the message of hate, and to expose the lies from those who are traitors of their faith. To show the strength and best face of America, not our worst. And then we all need to return to, and remind ourselves of, the real Truths of our own faiths.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Working On Purpose
We have a hummingbird feeder hanging from the eave of our porch roof. It is located in the corner, above the outdoor dining table at which, weather permitting, breakfast, lunch and dinner are eaten. Sitting in the shade of that great southern porch, surrounded by views of woods and mountains, enveloped in the constant cooling breeze that offsets the summer’s heat, allows one to take moments to reflect on the sights, sounds and rhythms of the nature that surrounds. (And yes, this is often what passes for simple entertainment when you live an hour from “normal” civilization!)
Sitting at the dining table the other day, I studiously watched as 3-4 hummingbirds took advantage of the sugar-water in that feeder. They would dart down from their perch in a nearby tree, hover mid-air at the feeder, insert their long beaks into one of the feeder holes, drink quickly or sit and indulge awhile, and then zip off in an instant to rest from their work.
And so this pattern continues all day long. But with variations. Perhaps with an occasional side-trip to one of the many brightly colored flowers in the garden. Some hummingbirds would notice me sitting there and fly away, suspicions of my presence interrupting their work. Occasionally a dominant hummingbird would attack another feeding bird and chase it away – obviously claiming the feeder as its own selfishly-entitled property. (We have since installed a second feeder to try to prevent the kids from fighting with each other.) And then other wildlife got into the drama as a bee finds the feeder and decides to also claim it as its own, thereby chasing away all of the hummingbirds. (Stingers apparently trump comparative size.) The fact that the bee cannot get to any of the sugar-water seems to matter not a twit in this scheme of escalating dominance.
In the meantime, a small bug of some sort (my knowledge of bugs is quite limited in detailed recognition skills) lands on one of the cut flowers in a vase on the table. He also goes about his task – exploring and draining from the core of one flower, then jumping to the next, making the rounds of each available flower. All while the many butterflies of various sizes and colors flutter from one flower in the garden to another, seeking out the fruits of their searches.
It is actually fairly easy to sit and watch this broad scenario of life throughout the day, day after day, in its continual repetition. It will go on for months, until the approaching winter drives all of these creatures into their next phase of migration or hibernation. While I watch all of these “doings,” I am struck that:
• for each creature, this is “their work”;
• doing that work requires consistent daily attention;
• each creature has an absolute clarity about the work they are to do that day, that moment;
• there is a complete orderliness and framework within which that work is done – individually, collectively, and among the various species.
It causes me to wonder sometimes how few of us share that same sense of clarity of purpose in our lives, and the ability to simply go about fulfilling that purpose each day. I doubt that that hummingbird, bee, insect or butterfly spends too much time trying to figure out their career path, their next job to take on. It all seems pretty intuitive in the land of the hummingbirds. Even the birth → maturity → death cycle, and the evolving changes undergone through these cycles, have that same orderliness and predictability to them.
Why is this not so inhuman life? Some might argue that it is because we are of higher intelligence. Yet, as has been shown many times over in the daily news headlines, higher intelligence does not necessarily make us any smarter. Or maybe it is argued that, as human beings, we have so many more options to consider and explore than does the hummingbird. But if that is so, why do so many spend time in worry searching for THE ONE THING we should supposedly be doing with our lives to fulfill those things that appear to drive our needs. Yet we are usually never satisfied with the interim answers we come up with along our way. Leaving us with a sense of restlessness, anxiousness, and incompleteness to reflect on in the quiet of our evenings.
I suspect that, in truth, the hummingbird has it pretty right. There are a few basic truths of hummingbird life that need to be followed (feeding, pollinating, reproducing, safety, and seasonal mobility), and God-given tools provided to accomplish each of these truths. Whether food comes from our feeder, the flowers in our garden, or from nectar from miles away, is not really of great consequence. Whether shelter comes from a constructed nest or from sitting on a branch under a leaf, it is still shelter. Mission and need accomplished. Sitting in a pretty tree is just a bonus.
It is likely that human beings are way too smart for their own good. We do not lack for our own simple and clear purpose in our life. However, we typically layer so much unnecessary baggage on top of that purpose that clarity has been destroyed. We are so preoccupied with the laundry list of HOW we will live day-to-day that WHAT we set out to do has long been made invisible. Job, income, location, automobiles and houses have become the false purposes instead of the tools to achieve True Purpose. Perhaps we all need to find the hummingbird inside each of us, where True Purpose sits. All of the other considerations are just the mechanics, pliable details best left in God’s hands. We simply need to remain flexible and open to these details as they are brought to us, connecting them all to a renewed clarity of True Purpose.
Sitting at the dining table the other day, I studiously watched as 3-4 hummingbirds took advantage of the sugar-water in that feeder. They would dart down from their perch in a nearby tree, hover mid-air at the feeder, insert their long beaks into one of the feeder holes, drink quickly or sit and indulge awhile, and then zip off in an instant to rest from their work.
And so this pattern continues all day long. But with variations. Perhaps with an occasional side-trip to one of the many brightly colored flowers in the garden. Some hummingbirds would notice me sitting there and fly away, suspicions of my presence interrupting their work. Occasionally a dominant hummingbird would attack another feeding bird and chase it away – obviously claiming the feeder as its own selfishly-entitled property. (We have since installed a second feeder to try to prevent the kids from fighting with each other.) And then other wildlife got into the drama as a bee finds the feeder and decides to also claim it as its own, thereby chasing away all of the hummingbirds. (Stingers apparently trump comparative size.) The fact that the bee cannot get to any of the sugar-water seems to matter not a twit in this scheme of escalating dominance.
In the meantime, a small bug of some sort (my knowledge of bugs is quite limited in detailed recognition skills) lands on one of the cut flowers in a vase on the table. He also goes about his task – exploring and draining from the core of one flower, then jumping to the next, making the rounds of each available flower. All while the many butterflies of various sizes and colors flutter from one flower in the garden to another, seeking out the fruits of their searches.
It is actually fairly easy to sit and watch this broad scenario of life throughout the day, day after day, in its continual repetition. It will go on for months, until the approaching winter drives all of these creatures into their next phase of migration or hibernation. While I watch all of these “doings,” I am struck that:
• for each creature, this is “their work”;
• doing that work requires consistent daily attention;
• each creature has an absolute clarity about the work they are to do that day, that moment;
• there is a complete orderliness and framework within which that work is done – individually, collectively, and among the various species.
It causes me to wonder sometimes how few of us share that same sense of clarity of purpose in our lives, and the ability to simply go about fulfilling that purpose each day. I doubt that that hummingbird, bee, insect or butterfly spends too much time trying to figure out their career path, their next job to take on. It all seems pretty intuitive in the land of the hummingbirds. Even the birth → maturity → death cycle, and the evolving changes undergone through these cycles, have that same orderliness and predictability to them.
Why is this not so inhuman life? Some might argue that it is because we are of higher intelligence. Yet, as has been shown many times over in the daily news headlines, higher intelligence does not necessarily make us any smarter. Or maybe it is argued that, as human beings, we have so many more options to consider and explore than does the hummingbird. But if that is so, why do so many spend time in worry searching for THE ONE THING we should supposedly be doing with our lives to fulfill those things that appear to drive our needs. Yet we are usually never satisfied with the interim answers we come up with along our way. Leaving us with a sense of restlessness, anxiousness, and incompleteness to reflect on in the quiet of our evenings.
I suspect that, in truth, the hummingbird has it pretty right. There are a few basic truths of hummingbird life that need to be followed (feeding, pollinating, reproducing, safety, and seasonal mobility), and God-given tools provided to accomplish each of these truths. Whether food comes from our feeder, the flowers in our garden, or from nectar from miles away, is not really of great consequence. Whether shelter comes from a constructed nest or from sitting on a branch under a leaf, it is still shelter. Mission and need accomplished. Sitting in a pretty tree is just a bonus.
It is likely that human beings are way too smart for their own good. We do not lack for our own simple and clear purpose in our life. However, we typically layer so much unnecessary baggage on top of that purpose that clarity has been destroyed. We are so preoccupied with the laundry list of HOW we will live day-to-day that WHAT we set out to do has long been made invisible. Job, income, location, automobiles and houses have become the false purposes instead of the tools to achieve True Purpose. Perhaps we all need to find the hummingbird inside each of us, where True Purpose sits. All of the other considerations are just the mechanics, pliable details best left in God’s hands. We simply need to remain flexible and open to these details as they are brought to us, connecting them all to a renewed clarity of True Purpose.
Monday, July 12, 2010
A Christian Nation
“America is, and was founded as, a Christian nation.”
In the need of certain people/groups in America to continually sow divisiveness and bigotry, statements such as the above have emerged as one of the latest lines of attack. This maneuver seems to come from either a fear of losing one’s own religious freedom and belief simply because others practice different beliefs, and/or the need to justify the correctness of one’s religious affiliation by making it dominant over others. Peaceful religious coexistence – i.e. “you go your way and I’ll go mine, but we do not have to adversely affect each other” – does not seem to be an acceptable option to these individuals. In this environment, one religious doctrine/affiliation is seen as needing to dictate public religious practices; political leaders need to be of a particular religious affiliation and agenda; mosques are not to be built because “that religion is evil and doesn’t worship my God” (i.e. “they” have no right to be in America); and one form of prayer and belief should drive our legal rulings (e.g. gay marriage, “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, particular religious symbols on public tax-supported properties).
All of the above single-mindedness is set against the fact that 25-30% of Americans do not claim to be of the Christian faith; of those that do, this includes Christians of all denominations, with Roman Catholics holding at their traditional 25%, plus all of the various Protestant or independent Christian forms. Given the significant differences in dogma, ritual and practice among all of these Christian groups, and indeed even among groups within a particular parent denomination (along with their history of bigotry and violence towards each other), I am not even sure what version of Christianity an “all-Christian nation” would look like, or what Christianity’s unifying role could even be.
I have written about a number of these “religion in the public arena” issues in previous blogs. What disturbs me now is that the previous “America is a Christian nation” argument is now being advanced to a 2nd tier – “Our Founding Fathers created America as a Christian nation.”
No they did not. But to suggest that they did is pretty scary for America’s future as the Land of the Free for all who come here. If “Founding Father precedence” is allowed to become a justification for religious bigotry, then support for freedom of religion gets turned on its head. The promise of Freedom of Religion, one of our greatest gifts to human governance, has to then become a change of America’s constitutional intention, instead of fulfilling its original intention. So let us see if we can pull the rug out from under this subversive attack on religious freedom.
Recently, a longstanding friend forwarded to me a widely distributed email he received containing a copy of the Declaration of Independence, with a request for all readers to read it as part of the 4th of July observance. A very good idea. I replied to him that not only should people reread this marvelous document regularly, but they should also read the equally marvelous Constitution each September 17th, the anniversary of its signing. I also suggested that each should be read “not only for what they say, but also for what they do not say.” Because, for political advantage, both documents are continually misquoted and presumed to say many things that are nowhere to be found there.
In the case of the topic at hand – America’s purported founding as a Christian nation – the realities are these:
1. In BOTH the Declaration and the Constitution, (including the 27 Amendments), the words “Jesus,” “Christian,” or “Christianity” are nowhere to be found. Not once. Nothing. Nor the mention of any particular religion, church or other religious figure.
2. In the Declaration, the word “religion” is nowhere mentioned. There are four references to a generic deity greater than our human existence, a deity attached to no specific religion in particular: “Nature’s God”; “Creator”; “Supreme Judge”; “Divine Providence.” These general terms are applicable to, and can be found in, most all religions (Christian, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.).
3. In the Constitution, the word “religion” is used twice, in both cases prohibiting a specific religion as a criterion of citizenship: Article 6 – No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States; 1st Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Pretty clear and pretty firm. The closest the Constitution comes to referencing any religious person is in the closing ratification date: Article 7 - the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven – the conventional date format of the time.
How anyone can conclude that our two supreme founding documents established a specifically and exclusive Christian nation is beyond my understanding. Quite the opposite – in wording by both commission and omission, the attempt to remain unattached to any specific religious group seems much in evidence.
Some people also have a practice to lump the Founding Fathers into one homogeneous virtual person and mindset. Nothing could be further from the case. In almost all instances they did believe in some greater spiritual power, but they held different beliefs about how that power interacts with this world. Though they were all members of some Christian church, they held a range of religious views, affiliations and levels of engagement with their churches. From Congregationalist Samuel Adams’ religious fervor, to Jefferson’s more rationally-driven approach to religion, to Franklin’s evolving religious views, to Washington’s virtual silence on the subject. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution were products of intensive political negotiations and compromises among men of wide-ranging and strongly-held differing beliefs on questions of economics, politics, religion, and America’s destiny. But after their experience of the tyranny of kings and the negative consequences of a state church receiving political favoritism, they certainly shared a suspicion of unchecked government and politicized religion.
The Founding Fathers’ belief in a god and their affiliation with various religions did NOT translate into making their individual religious views into general law. Any more than Henry Ford created an Episcopal automobile, or Albert Einstein created a Jewish scientific theory, or Chief Justice John Roberts interprets American law from a Catholic directive. The Founding Fathers, in their collective wisdom, clearly understood that the only way to guarantee the right and security of any one faith was to allow equally for all faiths. To the preference of none, to the exclusion of none. Religion was to be left to home, church, synagogue, mosque, and monastery, not the workplace or the government office. Everyone to be free to adopt and practice his/her choice, in privacy or with their peers. They affirmed that quite clearly from the very beginning of this country. It seems that every now and then we must all speak up loudly to reaffirm it again.
In the need of certain people/groups in America to continually sow divisiveness and bigotry, statements such as the above have emerged as one of the latest lines of attack. This maneuver seems to come from either a fear of losing one’s own religious freedom and belief simply because others practice different beliefs, and/or the need to justify the correctness of one’s religious affiliation by making it dominant over others. Peaceful religious coexistence – i.e. “you go your way and I’ll go mine, but we do not have to adversely affect each other” – does not seem to be an acceptable option to these individuals. In this environment, one religious doctrine/affiliation is seen as needing to dictate public religious practices; political leaders need to be of a particular religious affiliation and agenda; mosques are not to be built because “that religion is evil and doesn’t worship my God” (i.e. “they” have no right to be in America); and one form of prayer and belief should drive our legal rulings (e.g. gay marriage, “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, particular religious symbols on public tax-supported properties).
All of the above single-mindedness is set against the fact that 25-30% of Americans do not claim to be of the Christian faith; of those that do, this includes Christians of all denominations, with Roman Catholics holding at their traditional 25%, plus all of the various Protestant or independent Christian forms. Given the significant differences in dogma, ritual and practice among all of these Christian groups, and indeed even among groups within a particular parent denomination (along with their history of bigotry and violence towards each other), I am not even sure what version of Christianity an “all-Christian nation” would look like, or what Christianity’s unifying role could even be.
I have written about a number of these “religion in the public arena” issues in previous blogs. What disturbs me now is that the previous “America is a Christian nation” argument is now being advanced to a 2nd tier – “Our Founding Fathers created America as a Christian nation.”
No they did not. But to suggest that they did is pretty scary for America’s future as the Land of the Free for all who come here. If “Founding Father precedence” is allowed to become a justification for religious bigotry, then support for freedom of religion gets turned on its head. The promise of Freedom of Religion, one of our greatest gifts to human governance, has to then become a change of America’s constitutional intention, instead of fulfilling its original intention. So let us see if we can pull the rug out from under this subversive attack on religious freedom.
Recently, a longstanding friend forwarded to me a widely distributed email he received containing a copy of the Declaration of Independence, with a request for all readers to read it as part of the 4th of July observance. A very good idea. I replied to him that not only should people reread this marvelous document regularly, but they should also read the equally marvelous Constitution each September 17th, the anniversary of its signing. I also suggested that each should be read “not only for what they say, but also for what they do not say.” Because, for political advantage, both documents are continually misquoted and presumed to say many things that are nowhere to be found there.
In the case of the topic at hand – America’s purported founding as a Christian nation – the realities are these:
1. In BOTH the Declaration and the Constitution, (including the 27 Amendments), the words “Jesus,” “Christian,” or “Christianity” are nowhere to be found. Not once. Nothing. Nor the mention of any particular religion, church or other religious figure.
2. In the Declaration, the word “religion” is nowhere mentioned. There are four references to a generic deity greater than our human existence, a deity attached to no specific religion in particular: “Nature’s God”; “Creator”; “Supreme Judge”; “Divine Providence.” These general terms are applicable to, and can be found in, most all religions (Christian, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.).
3. In the Constitution, the word “religion” is used twice, in both cases prohibiting a specific religion as a criterion of citizenship: Article 6 – No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States; 1st Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Pretty clear and pretty firm. The closest the Constitution comes to referencing any religious person is in the closing ratification date: Article 7 - the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven – the conventional date format of the time.
How anyone can conclude that our two supreme founding documents established a specifically and exclusive Christian nation is beyond my understanding. Quite the opposite – in wording by both commission and omission, the attempt to remain unattached to any specific religious group seems much in evidence.
Some people also have a practice to lump the Founding Fathers into one homogeneous virtual person and mindset. Nothing could be further from the case. In almost all instances they did believe in some greater spiritual power, but they held different beliefs about how that power interacts with this world. Though they were all members of some Christian church, they held a range of religious views, affiliations and levels of engagement with their churches. From Congregationalist Samuel Adams’ religious fervor, to Jefferson’s more rationally-driven approach to religion, to Franklin’s evolving religious views, to Washington’s virtual silence on the subject. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution were products of intensive political negotiations and compromises among men of wide-ranging and strongly-held differing beliefs on questions of economics, politics, religion, and America’s destiny. But after their experience of the tyranny of kings and the negative consequences of a state church receiving political favoritism, they certainly shared a suspicion of unchecked government and politicized religion.
The Founding Fathers’ belief in a god and their affiliation with various religions did NOT translate into making their individual religious views into general law. Any more than Henry Ford created an Episcopal automobile, or Albert Einstein created a Jewish scientific theory, or Chief Justice John Roberts interprets American law from a Catholic directive. The Founding Fathers, in their collective wisdom, clearly understood that the only way to guarantee the right and security of any one faith was to allow equally for all faiths. To the preference of none, to the exclusion of none. Religion was to be left to home, church, synagogue, mosque, and monastery, not the workplace or the government office. Everyone to be free to adopt and practice his/her choice, in privacy or with their peers. They affirmed that quite clearly from the very beginning of this country. It seems that every now and then we must all speak up loudly to reaffirm it again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)