Thoughts From The Mountain

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

The Flag Through A Prism

This is a blog I had not intended to write. But after several readers wrote asking for my thoughts about the controversy over flying the Confederate flag, obligation took over. Hopefully there is something worthwhile to be added to all the current extensive conversation that is occurring.

First, full disclosure. I was born and raised in the South in a medium-sized city in Arkansas. My upbringing was typical of the 1950s South. With a maternal family name of Lee, we were steeped in Civil War history and injected with Old South traditions and pride. The absolute segregation of African-Americans was simply the “unquestioned way it is,” rarely openly discussed but clearly in evidence in the Black side of town, the “White/Colored” door signs, and the separated facilities (e.g. schools, movie houses, swimming pools, parks). My extended family employed African-Americans for child-rearing, domestic help, and yard maintenance. Our extended time together made them almost “family,” but they most certainly were not. There was always a certain line of familiarity never to be crossed by either side. Black voting and politics were nonexistent. When I was a teenager, I was shocked to find out that some “special rules” also applied to white Catholics and Jews. The doors of doubt were thusly opened slightly; the questions slowly began.

Arkansas was the jumping off point for school desegregation and the ‘60s civil rights battlegrounds. The forced integration of Central High School in Little Rock hit my town like a bombshell. To their lasting credit, the town fathers saw the handwriting on the wall and, anger and panic aside, quietly went about desegregation: from the first grade, one subsequent grade added each year. We never made the headlines; violence was averted. Structural change came, even if begrudgingly, even if changes in attitudes and perspectives lagged behind.

I left Arkansas at 21, and spent the rest of my adult life in Massachusetts/New England until returning to the South (North Carolina) ten years ago. Trying to answer the many questions from “outsiders” during the turbulent ‘60s, questions I had never thought to ask, turned out to be the only way I was fully able to understand what “being Southern” really meant. That experience steadily changed my perspective dramatically, even if my affection remained intact. But one insight I also learned: a Southerner can never explain his/her culture to a non-Southerner. The starting points for such a discussion are simply too far apart.

A non-Southerner sees the South in 1-1 relationship to a specific topic of interest, typically slavery / segregation / civil rights. The Southerner sees the culture as one complete entity made up of many inseparable facets, as if looking at many rich colors through a prism. Each Southerner picks one’s own combination of facets that drives him/her, which makes the language of conversation into a near-incomprehensible verbal maze to try to decipher.

For some, “Southern Heritage” means a longing for the ante-bellum South lifestyle and social manners glorified in “Gone With The Wind,” even though such plantation excess was available only to the small minority of wealthy society. For some, it refers to the Southern Greek Revival appreciation for education, intellect, art, architecture, philosophy, politics and thought that produced four of our first six Presidents. For some, it refers to the agriculture-based economy, with slavery just a necessary dependency. (Only some Southerners could afford to own slaves themselves, but the others still depended upon the plantation economy for their income and so the economic base had to be defended.) For some, it refers to the Confederate nation and government, an in-your-face defiant statement personifying “states’ rights over federal” that reflects long suspicions going back to the Constitutional Convention itself. For many, it refers to the military campaigns of the Civil War, and homage to the tactics, valor, courage and sacrifices of real family ancestors fighting against overwhelmingly superior odds – regardless of the reasons for which they fought. For some, it is redressing the destruction of Southern society in the Reconstruction Period by a punitive North in spite of Lincoln’s plan for forgiveness and reunification. The epithet “damn Yankee” was taught to every schoolboy.

Yet the indefensible reality of slavery complicates the whole Heritage. There are very few today who claim that slavery was a good or needed thing. The post-reconstruction period proved that the agricultural economy did not really need it. The undeniable truth is that Southern slavery – the absolute control by one individual over another, enforced by extreme physical torture and mental abuse – is a major blot on Southern Heritage that is indefensible today. But in my childhood, slavery and Blacks were never talked about. And it substantially remains in the shadows today, a topic polite ladies and gentlemen do not explore in honest discussion. It needs conversation. It still needs further redressing.

The Southern Heritage and Civil War that we seek to respect and honor ended in April 1865. 150 years ago. Yet some Southerners today seem to still seek to reverse the finality of Appomattox and continue fighting that war. They fight not on battlefields but in the legislatures and on social fronts, all while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Stars and Stripes and the USA. It is a schizophrenia, a paradox, that lives comfortably in the heart of a Southerner that an outsider can never quite comprehend.

The flag that we are debating today is not the flag of the Confederate nation. It was the battlefield flag of Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia, designed to distinguish it clearly from the North’s Stars and Stripes in the chaos of the battlefield. But for over a century it has been appropriated for causes well beyond its original purpose. It was the flag flown when denying Blacks their new constitutional rights granted after the Civil War ended. It was the flag flown at KKK demonstrations, at cross burnings, and at lynchings. It was the flag that lined the streets in Birmingham and Selma, and when attacking the Freedom Ride buses. It was the flag that hung over too-many assassinations, bombings and killings of the 1960s, and silenced all-White juries into no justice rendered. Today the flag is used on apparel and license plates to apparently self-proclaim “I am a bad-boy rebel,” and it is even NASCAR’s unofficial sports flag! Are those the battles and causes and people that we are seeking to honor by flying that flag on public buildings across the South? Today, 20% of the population of the Old Confederacy states are African-Americans (as high as 37% in Mississippi). Are they not “Southerners” also, or are “Southerners” inherently White-only? Do we continue to ignore and deny African-Americans their existence and birthright just as the Founding Fathers did in their Constitution? If all of our great-great-grandparents were Black slaves, would we even be having this conversation now?

We need to remember our history, learn from our history, honor our history. But the sins of fathers should not be passed to their children, and the children should not take up the cause of their fathers. We have to acknowledge ALL of our history, not just the selected parts, and see our ancestors in the full light of their times. So we need to keep our statues and monuments. We need to preserve our flags in the archives and museums in which all history is ultimately destined to lie, restoring the flag from being an misappropriated symbol of hate to its rightful symbol of valor. We need to honor all of our citizens in our public places, not just some of them, remaining scrupulously neutral toward all. We need to keep the better parts of our heritage in our hearts, the lesser parts in our consciences. Respecting and honoring the past does not require us to live in the past.

In my senior year high school yearbook, there is a picture of me standing beneath a Confederate battle flag being waved to rally a cheering home crowd attending a Friday night football game. I get all the things that flag has meant to so many. But that was a fall night in 1962. 53 years ago. It is now 2015. The world has changed dramatically. For the better. It is time to catch up fully with those changes. It is time for all of us to move on. In so doing, I am fully confident that my great-great-grandfather, Samuel Carroll Lee, a Confederate soldier from Tennessee, would be very proud of us all.

Sunday, June 21, 2015

Humanity's Violent Inhumanity

God:

There is so much violence in this place you have created that we call Earth. It exists all through the life forms and food chain, from the simplest creatures through the complexity of human beings. Yet in no instance is the violence so wanton, so random, and so outright cruel as violence perpetrated by humans, mainly to each other. And we manage to do it in such myriad ways. We, who are supposedly the most rationally intelligent of all the species.

Wars are fought for seemingly unexplainable reasons. Mind-numbing genocide kills upwards of millions of people in an attempt to wipe out a whole section of humankind. Innocent young girls are bombed as they attended Sunday School simply because they were Black. Young children are shot in their seats, in the school classroom intended to nurture their future. Adults in a Bible study group are killed in a church that epitomizes the historical experience of African-Americans. We shoot innocent bystanders for no apparent reason as a blood sport. We kill or maim family members or loved ones out of our own inexplicable hurt. We mortally wound a person’s self-esteem by an angry word or expression of disappointment – mental and emotional violence as deadly as the physical. We bully impressionable children and vulnerable teenagers because they may be different, scarring them for life and perhaps pushing them into their own suicide.

How do we make sense out of all of this? In the midst of the beauty of human life, the splendor of Nature, and the miracle of the science of Creation, how does this continuing violence we expend against each other fit into the Universe’s scheme of things? What are we to take away from all of this?

“Violence is an inherent part of being human. It has been there from the beginning of humankind. Each of you is born with the capacity for it, though not necessarily for the execution of it. So any understanding starts with accepting that it exists, and it exists within each of you. How will you manage it?

Some people look to Me to stop it. For Me to somehow magically put an end to the desire and ability for one person to harm another. But it is not Me striking out at one another. It is not Me holding the knife, the gun, the weapons of death and destruction. It is not Me that says the words and does the acts that denigrate and marginalize others. It is you. It is your choice about whether you will do these things. And why you would choose to do so. Look inward, not outward.

Is this violence abhorrent? Yes. Not just because of the very real physical and mental pain it creates for the victim(s), for the families, for the community. But also because it marks the very public descent of a human being to the most base instincts of his or her Self. A decision to walk away from giving the gift of peace and happiness to others while feeling one’s own joy, and instead choosing to give harm and destruction to another while feeling one’s own pain and suffering. Human life is about choice, and using one’s tools and capabilities to make good choices for one’s self and the many. The reality is that human beings are capable of making some very bad choices. These days it seems that the choices being made are increasingly worse ones. And they are happening more frequently.

Your earthly world can be anything you choose to make of it. For better or for worse. As has been said, violence begets violence, because violence comes from fear and hopelessness. When the emotion of fear is thwarted by hopelessness, it leads to anger which creates hate, and hate generates the act of mental and/or physical violence. Violence, then, is seen as a tool to overcome that fear and hopelessness. For a fleeting moment, the violent have power over what s/he fears. Hope is rekindled – even if but for an instant. As long as you allow, if not endorse, these moments of power, of revenge, of triumph, the violence will continue.

So ask yourself, what makes a person feel fear and hopelessness? What makes a person susceptible to the force of hated? Where, and from whom, does one learn to hate? What makes a person then choose to perform the violence that flows from hatred?

The violence begins to stop when you choose to stop it. As an individual; as a collective society. When you take away the tools of violence from the fearful and hopeless. When you do everything possible to protect the vulnerable. When everyone who deplores violence actually does something to help prevent it. By making their words heard, and speaking and standing in opposition to hate and violence, in the home and public square. And truly means it and acts it.

Right now, you say that such violence is unacceptable. Yet you do in fact accept it by your actions. You talk about the equality of all persons, but continue to treat each other unequally. You talk about the Brotherhood of Man and the Sisterhood of Women, but you do not welcome all into your family. You talk about doors of opportunity, but then shut them to those seeking to enter. You talk about unity but foster separation, and shrug your shoulders at unfairness. Many of your ministers, politicians, leaders and their followers, preach anger and hatred toward each other on a daily basis. What else would you expect to result from this continual dissension and turmoil besides violence towards each other?

You can imprison the offender after the fact. Or you can remove the need to offend. Ending your violence will not come from some divine intervention. It will end when your ill-treatment towards each other ends. When you take a truly honest look at your thinking and actions instead of your words. It ends when the violence of negative thoughts and indifferent actions within your heart dies. When you collectively stand and say loudly, “ENOUGH” – and mean it. When you demand it of those who pretend to be your leaders – and demand it of yourself instead of hiding behind “it’s not me.” When you open the doors of your home and welcome all to come inside and be your guests. And when you leave the familiar comfort of your home to be their guests.

This is not wishy-washy, squishy-softy stuff. Accepting all others with equal fairness, and removing fear and hopelessness, is one of the hardest challenges you will face in your lifetime. As a person. As a society. As a community of human friends. Good luck in meeting that challenge – if you are truly willing and able. It is your Choice.”

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

What Means Christian Nation?

It seems that every day in the social media jungle, there is some comment claiming that “America is [supposed to be] a Christian Nation,” as was supposedly intended by our Founding Fathers (which they most certainly did not). Or that we need “a Christian in the White House” (we already have one). Or that we need to have prayer in the public schools (the last place to which religious ritual should be entrusted). Such thoughts are also echoed by some (thankfully not all) among the growing plethora of Republican candidates for president, reinforced daily by a series of Fox News opinionators. They are all storytellers in the fairy tale of a supposed “war on religion” in America.

When I read or hear such comments, I am always struck by two questions. 1) What would such a “Christian Nation” look like; what would change and how would our nation be different from what it already is? And 2) Which version of “Christian” would we put into such a special standing?

As a Christian Nation, does that mean we will reject the 30+% of Americans who do not call themselves Christians, and forcibly expel them out of the country? Would we take away their right to vote, to own property, to practice their alternative religion or build their houses of worship? Would we forbid them from political office or government service, even though that is expressly prohibited by our Constitution? Would we require tax dollars to be used to support Christian churches as some countries do with their “state religion”? Would we throw out 225 years of secular legal legislation and replace it with religious law interpreted from the Bible (Old and/or New Testaments?) – as they do in Iran from the Qur’an? Is our most American secular holiday – Thanksgiving – to be reserved only for Christian prayers and meals? Would we need to sign a loyalty oath to the “Christian Church” to be an American?

I personally find the idea of America as a Christian Nation to be dangerous on its face, and that opinion has nothing to do with Christianity itself. Such a concept is a total assault against the values and promise of America as a safe haven for all comers of any faith. Given that it is never explained what a Christian Nation would mean in specific, tangible terms suggests that this movement is coming from baseless, intangible fear. The current absence of any government endorsement or adoption of any particular religion, and that wonderful precedence of keeping religions and government separate, is exactly what keeps our individual religions safe and sound. We tamper with that neutrality at our own extreme risk.

Even so, the harder question remains: whose version of Christianity would we use (besides people’s assumed answer: “mine!”)? For all the good spiritual lessons to be found in the original teachings of Jesus, the history of the Christian Church that followed is replete with internal fights over domination for power, violent persecution of contrary opinions as “heretics,” and the ultimate fracturing of the One Church into the many parts. Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics split the original Christian Church a thousand years ago, while Protestants then broke away 500 years ago as a protest to Roman Catholic practices. And now Protestants themselves have split into innumerable mainstream, evangelical, and “other” denominations. The would-be Christian needs a detailed tour guide to navigate this religious maze.

Christians differ among themselves from church to church within the same denomination. They differ within a single congregation. All Southern churches within a denomination do not practice the same; their brethren churches in the North or West can be radically different in form and practice. Further, most Christian denominations are fighting significant internal battles over issues of religious dogma, ritual, policy, inclusion, the role of women (or lack thereof), moral code, and the diminishing numbers in the pews. Who then is the “true believer,” and where is s/he to be found? I once heard a Baptist preacher of a large southern church say in an interview that, “Whenever you put ten Baptists into a room, you immediately have 14 different opinions.” A Baptist minister friend filling in at two small Methodist churches in our rural county once remarked to her congregations on some of the similarities she found between Baptists and Methodists. She was quickly rebuked that “please don’t tell us we are all the same!” Then there is the question of whether some denominations are even Christian at all: e.g. Mormons, Quakers.

A primary tenet of Catholicism is the idea of the Pope as being infallible and having absolute authority. Yet in survey after survey, the vast majority of American Catholics admit to not believing or following one or more dictums of the Pope. In Ireland, one of the most Catholic of nations (and an ancestral home of many Americans), voters recently approved same-sex marriage by a resounding margin. Some hailed that historical vote as a great victory for marriage equality, which it certainly was. But the bigger significance of this vote was its overwhelming renunciation of Catholic authority, leadership and religious law – the same as is increasingly happening in America.

We often hope for religion to be the great unifier of humankind. But that is not the way it has worked out. While religions may seek to serve all of humankind, each typically wants to do so on its own terms. And therefore all religions are ultimately destined to break down structurally into smaller components. Religion is intended to nurture and be the expression of our spiritual being, and that being operates in our individual Self, a Self unique from all other Selves. So our religion can be informed by Greater Lessons, but it must reside in the smallness of Self.

In truth, few Americans have been prevented from worshiping their God and expressing their spirituality by constraint of law. Houses of worship have not been forcibly shuttered or prevented from being built by government force. Ministers have not been gagged in the content of their sermon from the pulpit (though perhaps censored by their own leadership!). No one has been denied a place on a ballot, or required to wear a religious identity patch on their arm, by governmental edict. Religious freedom is alive and well in the homes and worship houses in America, which is where it is intended to be guaranteed – even if it is not so alive in the hearts of many of our citizens.

And that is the true beauty of America’s posture toward religion. Take no side. Leave each individual to find his/her own road, without interference, without being forced into an inappropriate alternative. That was the real intent of our Founding Fathers. Any real attempt to establish one single national religion would tear this country apart over which denomination wins; all others lose. “Christian” is a beautiful inspiration containing many different meanings to which we can choose to aspire. But it is not a universal form applicable to a nation of 300 million independently-minded citizens rooted in individual American freedom. Let us leave the details of that inspiration to the individual Self and to his/her conscience in the privacy of each home and house of worship. Instead of expending our efforts in trying to achieve religious superiority, perhaps we should be focusing our energy on perfecting the practices of our own spirituality, and leave the souls of others to a power far greater than ourselves, The public arena is no place to look to find one single true religion.

Friday, May 29, 2015

The Challenge Of Our Complaints

Americans love to complain. And after so many years of polished experience, we do it so very well. Our forbearers complained about the Church of England – which was itself a response to complaints about the Roman Catholic Church – and came to America in diverse droves to practice their alternatives. English colonists complained about being taxed without a voice in the decision, and won a revolution enabling a new radically alternative government. American settlers in the southwest complained about Mexican rule, and similarly fought a revolution that created the independent Republic of Texas, only to subsequently subsume itself into the structure of the United States. Southern Americans complained about interference by the federal government in their affairs and decisions, and fought another revolution for a return to a “confederation” style of government; they lost that bid, and the nation survived shaky but intact. The list of or complaints and their results has continued steadily through our history. Americans complain, and action ultimately follows.

Our ability to complain comes partly from its enshrinement in our Constitutional guarantee of free speech. But it is also part of our cultural DNA from our ownership of our governments, to our stock ownership of our corporate economy, and the free choices of our purchasing dollar in the marketplace. When we feel our interests are not being served, or “people” (both human and now corporate) misbehave, or the world does not look and act like what we think it should, we collectively believe it is not just our right but our obligation to speak up. And then we expect action to follow.

And that is what is different about American complaining today: the lack of action steps. We complain as well as ever. But today, virtually nothing then follows. Our complaints go into a black hole of indifference and stagnation. Complaining for the sake of complaining, with no movement to show for it. We have become content with listening to the voice of our unhappiness, and then walking away into self-fulfilling hopelessness for meaningful change. Hence we are drowning in a sea of political and social inertia, thwarted by political and social “leaders” who have become highly adept at feigning interest in our concerns and then avoiding taking any steps to address those concerns. All the while blaming it on “the other guy” as the reason nothing gets done.

Certainly there is much worthy of complaining about today. The failure to hold any of the architects of the 2008 economic collapse accountable; bailing out the big corporations while middle American homeowners and small business owners were left dangling. The increasing denigrating and suspicion of any person getting a government check that is seen as a “handout” – while a corporation getting a “purchasing contract,” or a tax or special legislation advantage, is seen as generating an economic stimulation. Very rich people paying less of an income tax rate than average-to-low income people. The continual attempt to turn one group’s moral or religious opinions into national legislation encumbering everyone. The pursuit of political power for its own sake for the benefit of the very few at the expense of power used for the overall public good.

We do not help alleviate this paralysis of inaction when we stop listening to our fellow citizens with differing views. As long as we believe “we’re right and you’re wrong,” then we’re wrong. Because there is some grain of truth in every argument (paid charlatans of self-interest notwithstanding), even if no other reason than leaving each other alone to find our own pursuit of happiness in our own way. “Live and let live” used to carry us a long way. “Live how I live” stops us dead in our collective tracks.

One of the more distinguished components of the American Character has always been our “can-do-ness.” Our ability to convert Complaint into Challenge and then into Solution. The belief that, as John F. Kennedy once said, as individuals or a collective culture “we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship” to overcome the challenges we face. We have met many such challenges over the years, to the deserved admiration of the world. That is the real meaning of leadership: action and results, not just of words. The cliché “If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem” has always been an American social and entrepreneurial truism. That truism is now lost in a forest of special interest groups and an array of lobbyists with vested power and a financial interest in maintaining our division and lack of progress. Keeping us fighting against each other rather than helping us to work together.

The reality is that not all wealthy people are self-centered narcissists focused on their own well-being and accumulating more fortune. Not all poor people are immoral takers looking for a free ride at other people’s expense. Not all corporations are looking to increase profits by making shoddy dangerous products in an unsafe working environment. Not all employees are looking to do a poor job and take advantage of their employers. Not every government regulation is killing our economy. Not every intrusion into a wilderness area is destroying the planet. Not every difference in lifestyle is dooming us to hell.

When we stop complaining and start listening, then in that quiet we have a chance to find our ethical compass once again. To do the right thing for the many. Left unfettered, that compass always points to the middle. The big middle where there is room enough to embrace almost everyone. It is a little harder to make that climb to the middle of the peak that sits on the top of the mountain of aspiration. It is far easier to sit in place at the bottom in our many separate campsites, each invisible to one another. But when we make the climb together from our separate starting points, following our individual trails, we discover that all of us necessarily arrive together on the same sharp peak of our shared mountain. And from that peak, the view is exhilarating.

Monday, April 20, 2015

Personal Freedom, Public Responsibility

Personal freedom. Public responsibility. They are two opposing forces of conflict that have been with us since the founding of America. The freedom to live our lives unencumbered, as we see fit, going our own way. The responsibility to live in harmonious community sharing our efforts, cooperating to achieve a greater good. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” bumping up against “We, the people.” The search for that elusive balance continues, a search that all too often becomes a battlefield.

Indiana and Arkansas recently attempted to pass state laws defending a person’s right to refuse to deliver business services to a person or group if such action would violate their religious principles. Principles as self-determined by that individual. The legal basis justifying this was supposedly our First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion. Its motivating target, whether said explicitly or not, was a backlash scheme against the LGBT community and the rapid advancement of their drive for “marriage equality.” Yet the haunting echoes of “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” (automatically meaning African-Americans) from 50 years ago were unmistakable. As were the “Irish (Catholics) need not apply” notices from 100 years ago. African-American slavery and Reconstructionist discrimination were not solely an economic enslavement. They were also rationalized as part of a “Divine order” reflecting “God’s call” to “protect” a supposed inferior class of people while ensuring no intermingling of the races – “an abhorrence to God.” A fallacious idea fully debunked half a century ago, only to be resurrected for another round with another targeted group. Yet it still does not fly – especially on any false freedom of religion basis.

In the fantasy tales continually spread by the Fox News storytellers, the obligation to serve all citizens in spite of someone’s religious view is just another chapter in their ongoing “War on [whatever]” fictional anthology. But the truth is, if there is any war being fought at all, it is a counter-revolution against those who would hide behind a distortion of their professed religious faith. A defensive uprising against a minority group of predominately older, White, Protestant Christians – a shrinking demographic group – who make a literal interpretation of “cherry picked” selected Biblical verses. Such a belief system is fine if it brings peace and direction to those believers. What is not fine is when those believers, or any believers, try to push their views onto the population at large who may choose a different belief system. The supposedly aggrieved have been in fact the aggressor. The voices of those who now feel oppressed are an echo of those who have long been oppressed. It is easy to be self-righteous when we are in the majority. But in our changing world, it can be frightening when we are humbled because the tables have turned and we are now in the minority.

“Freedom of religion” is one of our most prized guarantees as an American citizen. But religious freedom is a personal guarantee. Each one of us is free to believe what we choose to spiritually believe. We are free to practice our rituals undisturbed in the privacy of our home and in a community gathering (church, synagogue, mosque) of like-minded individuals. We cannot be barred from public service because of the religion we choose (although such restrictions still remain an unfortunate de facto limitation for many). Freedom of religion is about preventing any structural limitations on our private lives as a citizen due to our religious affiliation.

Freedom of religion is not permission to treat our neighbors however we choose based upon our own religious beliefs. If I have religious freedom, my neighbor also has freedom from my religion. The unfortunate truism is that religion, which should be the great unifier of humankind, instead has created inherent conflict among different believers for thousands of years. And in a melting-pot nation such as America, those differences are endless and often bitter: between organized religious institutions, as well as within individual congregations. The only way to keep such a diversified country together is to leave free religion to individual private conduct, with universally shared conduct in the public place. And in that public place, “All men [and women] are created equal.” No hedging.

Inside an authentic Jewish delicatessen is some of the very best food to be found. It is not just the recipes, but also because of the quality of the ingredients and skillful preparation that goes into it. Jewish kosher food is not just a culinary treat, it is also deeply embedded within a sacred religious framework and ritual, and such deep care is reflected in the purity of its outcome. As such, that Jewish deli owner could easily make the case that his food is a religious expression, designed and reserved for practicing Jews only. Thereby rejecting “on religious grounds” the hordes of Gentiles seeking to frequent that establishment. What would be the hue and cry then?

Or what about the innkeeper who turns away from her motel the itinerant traveler who is not Muslim? Or the soul food restaurateur who chooses to “refuse service to anyone [white]” because “mingling the races” violates his religious convictions? Or the wanna-be practitioner turned away from the yoga studio for not being Hindu enough?

When we gather in our religious houses, we can rightfully expect the congregants to follow the collective rules and dogma of that house. But when we voluntarily choose to play in the public arena – whether in government service or in the marketplace of commerce – then we are bound to playing by the public rules. And in America, the accepted and codified public rule is: everyone is equal, and everyone is expected to be treated equally. If we choose, we can still mutter and complain quietly under our breath about “those people” (just as I observed often enough in the South and New England in the ‘60s). Whether to serve everyone is not up for discussion.

We cannot deny to our neighbors the rights and courtesies we expect for ourselves. If we cannot do so, then we need to withdraw ourselves from our extended neighborhood. Our individual religious freedom lives in the home and church. Our shared community responsibility lives in the public place. We must live well appropriately within both Freedom and Responsibility.

“I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another.” “I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to him, and not to the priests.” (Thomas Jefferson)

Monday, March 30, 2015

Headline Buffet

Some general observations on a few of the stories of the day …

Ted Cruz is the first Republican to formally declare his candidacy for President. His platform: repeal “every word” of Obamacare; eliminate the IRS; prevent same-sex marriage. Really? His first action after announcing was to go out and hustle for campaign money. His second action was to sign up for Obamacare, since he lost his family plan coverage when his wife quit her high-paying Wall Street executive job to join his campaign. Good thing he now has a coverage option that did not exist pre-Obamacare to help him out of his quandary. He is clearly a man for his time – if the time were 1916. Chance of becoming President: nil. Chance of getting the Republican nomination: quite plausible. He will certainly make the Republican primary season mind-numbingly crazy but highly entertaining to watch.

Donald Trump announced the formation of his “exploratory committee” to consider running. Trump is the best self-promoter around of The Donald, the P.T. Barnum fraud of our times. The only question is – why does the media, or the American public, care one twit about anything he has to say, given that his words are all a put-on of no real importance. He would have made Andy Kaufman, a comic master of the put-on, proud.

Speaking of Ted Cruz: he was born in Canada to a Cuban father escaping the Castro government and an American mother (of Irish descent). Sounds pretty much like Barack Obama’s birth story – except Obama was born in an American state. So now where are all “the birthers” who were supposedly so intent on protecting the presidency from “foreigners”? Was it really, as we long suspected, just about Obama himself? And why is Cruz, of all people, so stubbornly against immigration?

Benjamin Netanyahu was recently reelected prime minister of Israel. Say good-by to any peace progress in the Middle East for yet another six more years. We are now in our seventh decade of conflict in that area. Fear wins elections, and not just in America. Where are Anwar Sadat and Meacham Began when we really need them?

According to a recent Gallup poll, less than 40% of Americans approve of the Democratic Party. And less than 40% of Americans approve of the Republican Party. It is the first time in Gallup’s polling history that both parties have been less than 40% at the same time. Combined with a Congressional approval rating that is consistently less than 20%, does anyone think that there is anyone who knows how to run this country anymore?

If we really want to make Congress more effective, there is one simple step we could take that would help. Require all confirmation votes, and all sections of and amendments to any legislation, be germane to the core topic. Quit tacking on “extraneous issues” to pending matters, and just vote yea/nea on the issue’s merits. Case in point: holding up confirmation of the current nominee for Attorney General deemed “eminently qualified” by all concerned until the overwhelmingly bi-partisan-supported renewal of the Violence Against Women Act is passed, which is being held up over anti-abortion amendments that were quietly snuck into the bill. Congress insists on wasting time on political maneuvering and trickery instead of getting things done. For which the justifiably cynical American public has little patience left.

Ever notice that the loudest protests against the Affordable Care Act come from people who already have medical insurance coverage?

Indiana just passed a new law protecting its citizens from lawsuits if they refuse to provide commercial services due to their personal “religious convictions.” It was signed by Governor Mike Pence who inexplicably claimed that, “If this bill were about discrimination I would not have signed it.” The provocation for this bill was towards gays and lesbians, but the wording effectively allows people to pick and choose services towards ANY group and blame it on their religious beliefs. If Indiana needs some display signs to help enforce this new law, they can probably find plenty to reuse lying in basements and dust bins throughout the South saying “Whites Only” or “Colored Only.” Or the “Irish Need Not Apply” signs left over in Boston. Just some simple spray can editing would easily bring them up to date. And here I thought that all of those old “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” signs were actually eliminated 50 years ago. Back when African-American segregation was claimed to be justified as “God’s Will” because “God did not intend the intermingling of the races.” Religious exemptions belong in our churches, not in our public places and the marketplace.

Recently, Tom Cotton, a two-month freshman Senator from Arkansas, decided he also wanted to be the Secretary of State in the Executive Branch. He got 46 other Republican senators to sign an unprecedented and highly dangerous letter to Iran’s leadership about the current ongoing diplomatic negotiations to prevent Iran’s atomic bomb capability. (Combined with Speaker John Boehner’s unprecedented foreign affairs engagement, unprecedented is rapidly becoming the precedent.) I was tempted to chastise my home state friends in Arkansas for sending this arrogance to the U.S. Senate. But then I remembered that my adopted state of North Carolina also sent a similar freshman senator, Thom Tillis, who believes that requiring food and restaurant workers to wash their hands after every trip to the toilet, and posting signs to that effect, is an unnecessary regulatory burden on businesses. Instead, they should be required to post signs if that is NOT their policy, and leave it to the consumer to make a choice. Somehow, a requirement to post signs that do not require hand washing is supposedly not a regulatory burden. I guess questionable intelligence and conduct can come from anywhere. And I should not throw stones at my home state from within my current glass house.

In 1946, we started a cold war with Russia over its attempts to dominate other countries. In 1948, the Middle East erupted into military and diplomatic chaos over the United Nations’ establishment of the State of Israel. In 1953 America conducted a covert overthrow of the legitimate government of Iran, thereby justifiably earning their lasting distrust of us. In 1965 voter discrimination and barriers were made illegal. In 1965 and 1972 the Supreme Court affirmed women’s right to obtain “the pill.” In 1973 the Supreme Court protected, with some limitations, a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion. In 1973 our reliance on imported carbon fuels was shown to be a national security issues, long before their adverse affects on our health and climate were subsequently discovered. In the late 1970s wage deviations between genders doing the same job were statistically proven. It is now the year 2015. Why are we still bogged down and continuing to argue on and on about these old issues? Can we not finally move on to the new very real issues that need addressing?

Friday, March 6, 2015

Showing How To Govern

In the November 2014 elections, the Republican Party increased their majority in the House of Representatives by a substantial margin, and took control of the Senate for the first time since 2008. With this new domination of Congress, Republicans issued forth the word that this was their opportunity, their obligation, to “show the American people that we know how to govern.” For a citizenry worn tired of political opportunism and obfuscation, of threats to “shut the government down” or defaulting on our national debt, such a new governing ability would certainly be a welcome sight. Two months in, how is this new governing working out? We perhaps only need look at a recent chronology to help answer that question. The narrative speaks for itself.

November 2014: After years of non-action on illegal immigration going back to the George W. Bush administration, President Obama announced an Executive Order exempting from deportation those illegal aliens that are parents of children legally in this country. The Republican Right goes ballistic.

December 2014: The lame duck Republican House and Democratic Senate passed the still pending budget for FY 2014-2015 that had started the previous October 1. Republican-desired budget cuts were omitted, but talk about another forced government shutdown (a la the October 2013 shutdown blamed on Republicans) was put aside. EXCEPT that the budget for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was continued only to February 27, 2015. The strategy was to wait until the new Congress (and their majorities) would be sworn in come January, and then fight the immigration battle using the DHS budget as a negotiating hostage.

January 2015: House voted for the 57^th time to repeal Obamacare. No alternative health care initiative proposed. Died in the Senate (as usual) even with the new Republican majority in charge. Nothing appeared to be changed, still fighting old battles.

Early February 2015: House passed a DHS funding bill containing a provision to defund Obama’s executive order. Senate Democrats blocked consideration of that bill using the filibuster tactic Republicans had perfected over the past four years. Same maneuverings; switched players.

Late February 2015: Federal judge in Texas halted implementation of Obama’s executive order. That decision is now under appeal, with resolution expected to take many months.

February 27, 2015: (morning) No DHS funding legislation had moved forward in spite of the midnight deadline for funding to run out. Senate Majority Leader McConnell allows a vote on a “clean” funding bill stripped of any reference to the executive order. The face-saving rationale offered is “let it play out in the courts.” Passes 68-31. “Republicans should have never tried to include immigration measures in the DHS bill in the first place. Hopefully we are going to end attaching bulls**t to essential items of government.” (Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Il.)

(afternoon) Speaker John Boehner introduced an interim 3-week funding bill to allow more time for his Republican caucus to find a solution. To his surprise (and miscounting of potential voting), House Democrats and 52 conservative Republicans defeat his compromise – generally described as an “embarrassment and humiliating setback” for the Speaker.

(early evening) House pushes for a House/Senate “conference committee” to resolve the impasse in hopes such a committee could revise a “clean” bill by adding back in the immigration de-funding legislation. Senate Democrats block that bill. Instead, Senate passes an alternative 1-week continuation bill on a voice vote. Senate members go home for the night. “It is [the House’s] problem now.”

(late evening) Speaker Boehner brings up the Senate’s bill for a 1-week delay. Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi emails her caucus and encourages them to vote for the 1-week option, “having been assured that the House would take up the Senate’s clean, full-year funding bill next week.” 1-week bill passes 357-60. (60 Republicans opposed.)

(minutes before midnight) President Obama signs the 1-week extension. DHS funding continues for another week.

February 28-March 1 Weekend: Debate continues via weekend news shows and individual interviews. Boehner’s office denies making any promise to consider the Senate’s clean bill during the next week. He instead calls for Democrats and Obama to “negotiate.” House Republicans publicly fight among themselves over who are the “true” versus “phony” conservatives; whether to “stand on principle” or “not let this faction … impede what we’re trying to do.” Speaker Boehner: “Friday wasn’t all that fun … the House is a rambunctious place.”

March 3, 2015: In spite of his weekend denials, Speaker Boehner brought up the Senate’s bill, containing no reference to the Obama executive order, for a House vote. 257 votes for (182 Democrats, 75 Republicans); 167 against (all Republicans). (Once it was clear that the bill was going to pass, 125 additional Republicans apparently decided it was “safe” to join the core 52 conservatives in saying “no” for the voting record.) “Maybe I should be more angry, but I’m not. I’m just sort of resigned to the fact this is exactly where I knew we would be.” (Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-SC) “This is the signal of capitulation.” (Rep. Steve King, R-IA) “Sanity is prevailing. I do give John Boehner credit.” (Rep. Peter King, R-NY)

So finally DHS is funded through September so that it can go about its business of protecting the country in these inordinately dangerous times. The fight over illegal immigration will have to await another more appropriate time and place – likely a protracted battle in the courts.

And our assessment of “the new governance” we were promised? Seems to look a lot like the old governance. Using budget bills to push for other unrelated pet parochial goals. Holding legislation affecting core governmental functions hostage to these same unrelated goals. Using threats of a government shutdown to get one’s way – despite the bad precedence and public distaste for that tactic. Playing the political theater of cliff-hanger deadlines before anything finally gets done – the “decision-making by crisis” mentality. A Party that fights among itself as much as with its opposition. Pursuing political strategies that cannot win, with no “Plan B” to fall back on. Continuing to fight old battles that have been settled instead of moving on to deal with current issues. Strictly in opposition while offering no alternative solutions.

I cannot imagine that anyone, whether a liberal lefty or a conservative righty, or one of the dominant middle-roaders, thinks this is any way to run a government. Or could be happy with their Congress regardless of where one falls in the political spectrum. For all our talk about our greater mission to bring democracy to the world, we – the country that invented elected representative government – have become anything but a shining example of how democracy is supposed to work. We do the “elected” part; but we no longer govern. We confront, not collaborate. The only thing Congress can seem to accomplish together is to agree to adjourn early to beat the snow to be on time for their next vacation recess.