As one of the three women who work together to get the synchroblog going each month, it’s really pitiful that here I am … bringing up the rear in November. But something was stopping me from writing this month. Oh, I have plenty to say on the topic (Voices of the Marginalized) and there were/are many directions I felt I could take. Yet every time I wanted to write, I couldn’t. There was a time when I would have fretted and fussed. Sat down and made something up. But if I’ve learned anything over the last five or six years, I’ve learned how to wait. How to be patient. How to let things percolate and bubble to the surface. And last night as I was drifting off to sleep, I finally knew what to write about. So here I am this morning … a couple days late, and a couple dollars short. I hope you find it worthy.
Marginalization results in an individual’s exclusion from meaningful participation in society and it’s source is many. Economic circumstances, illness, disability, geographical location, gender, sexuality, race, religion are all dominant sources of individuals being marginalized. Sometimes it’s easy to see holidays or certain systems from a position of power or privilege. * As God’s people, what does it mean to see the world through the eyes of the marginalized? What is it like to be one of the marginalized? How can we be part of bridging some of these gaps?
Marginalization results in an individual’s exclusion from meaningful participation in society and it’s source is many. Economic circumstances, illness, disability, geographical location, gender, sexuality, race, religion are all dominant sources of individuals being marginalized. Sometimes it’s easy to see holidays or certain systems from a position of power or privilege. * As God’s people, what does it mean to see the world through the eyes of the marginalized?
Here in the LightHouse we’ve been discussing some particularly knotty extended family issues over the last week or so. This has been an ongoing conversation that has ebbed and flowed around work schedules, hockey schedules, and our emotional barometers. We have worked it around to a place where we realized we are not free to say, “No, this or that will not work for us.” within this relationship. Well, I suppose we are free to say that, but the emotional damage to the relationship will be very high. In order to maintain the relationship, we are required to affirm the other party’s desires, no matter what else is going on with us.
It struck me as I was drifting off to sleep last night, that this is the quintessential difference between those who are in and those who are marginalized. Those who are in have power, are equals and may say yes or no to whatever they please. They have the freedom to choose their lives and their horizons. Those who have been pushed to the edges do not have this freedom, they are required to say yes in order to maintain their relationship with those in power around them. Their choices/our choices are then limited by what they are given to say yes to. A relationship between equals will allow negotiation; it will allow for a yes OR a no. A relationship between a powerful and a powerless will only allow for a yes and negotiation will be minimal at best.
What this means is that those who are marginalized in our country are not free. They are bound by invisible bonds. The ties are tightly woven and they are kept in place (in some cases over generations) just as surely as those of a plantation owner in the Antebellum South. We tell ourselves that now we no longer capitalize on human suffering, but is that really true? Perhaps if we took a different perspective on the relationship of power and wealth vs. poverty, we might begin to see how much of our power grid really does still capitalize on human suffering; on some humans having less than others and on a zero-sum paradigm of the world.
And as I was thinking all of this through, I remembered the words of the Apostle Paul again, in the letter to the church at Galatia:
All of you are God’s children because of your faith in Christ Jesus. And when you were baptized, it was as though you had put on Christ in the same way you put on new clothes. Faith in Christ Jesus is what makes each of you equal with each other, whether you are a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free person, a man or a woman. (Gal. 3:26-28)
That is the gospel of freedom. That we would all be free to make our yes be yes and our no be no. To be equal with one another. That in the end, our relationships with one another will not be driven by who is powerful and who is powerless, but by love. And our mission during our brief stint here is bring the Kingdom to the dusty corners that we find. Help those in our path see new horizons and find ways to speak; to say no when they need to and yes only when they want to. To have healthy relationships based on love, rather than warped relationships based on fear or power.
************************************************************************************
As I wrote above, this is a synchroblog post, and no synchroblog would be complete without a list of juicy links for you to read at the end. Please take some time to read what others have written on this important subject. Thanks!
… in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence[sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Part Two of Three
Yesterday I posted about some research I did into a group of candidates who are running under the canopy of the Tea Party. Today I’ll tell you why I think some of them will win, why I don’t think they will change very much and why I think their policy directives are dead wrong, despite being winsome and appealing on a superficial level. They have a lot of emotion behind them. Voters of all stripes (including yours truly) are justifiably angry at the events (financial and military) of the last several years. We are rapidly coming to an uncomfortable junction in our country. We have choices to make about who we are and how we will continue. Will we mature into a reasonable adult nation-state, or do we want to continue in our rash, brash youth? Will we allow all voices to speak and be heard without pejoratives and bullying? Or will we continue to cat-call and rank people according to their “patriotism” (by which I mean do their thoughts most closely align with mine … or yours … or whoever is making the call at the moment)?
Tomorrow (in part three) I’m going to write about why I see the close alignment of churches with any political system as a very dangerous place for the church and her people to be. I see this happening more frequently and abundantly on the right, but the left has it’s share of (Jim Wallis and Sojourners) syncophants as well. But that story is for tomorrow.
Overall, and from the best that I can tell without engaging in the practice of divination or something equally magical, it appears to me that the candidates I looked at have conflated the Constitution with the original document our founders operated under, the Articles of Confederation:
While still at war with Great Britain, the Founding Fathers were divided between those seeking a powerful, centralized national government, and those seeking a loosely-structured one. Jealously guarding their new independence, members of the Continental Congress arrived at a compromise solution dividing sovereignty between the states and the Federal government, with a unicameral legislature that protected the liberty of the individual states. While calling on Congress to regulate military and monetary affairs, for example, the Articles of Confederation provided no mechanism with which to compel the States to comply with requests for either troops or revenue. At times, this left the military in a precarious position, as George Washington wrote in a letter in 1781 to the Governor of Massachusetts, John Hancock.
Many of the arguments and anger being currently expressed about the size and scope of the Federal Government, what it’s function is and the direction it should take may be traced back to the very roots of our foundation. When the Articles of Confederation proved to be ungainly and unworkable a very public debate commenced about what the nature of our fledgling government would be. It was engaged upon at many different levels, but most prominently in a series of published papers known as the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers (yeah, our Founders were not very creative). For an excellent commentary on the debate and the resulting compromises (eg. our Bill of Rights) see this. While today’s Tea Party harkens back to the folks who wrote the Anti-Federalist Papers (Sam Adams, George Clinton, Richard Henry Lee, etc.) that group would eventually evolve into today’s Democratic Party –
The Federalists were successful in their effort to get the Constitution ratified by all 13 states. The Federalists later established a party known as the Federalist Party. The party backed the views of Hamilton and was a strong force in the early United States. The party, however, was short-lived, dead by 1824. The Anti-Federalists generally gravitated toward the views of Thomas Jefferson, coalescing into the Republican Party, later known as the Democratic Republicans, the precursor to today’s Democratic Party. [emphasis added]
The Federalists were successful in their effort to get the Constitution ratified by all 13 states. The Federalists later established a party known as the Federalist Party. The party backed the views of Hamilton and was a strong force in the early United States. The party, however, was short-lived, dead by 1824.
The Anti-Federalists generally gravitated toward the views of Thomas Jefferson, coalescing into the Republican Party, later known as the Democratic Republicans, the precursor to today’s Democratic Party. [emphasis added]
Those original writers of the Anti-Federalist Papers would likely be considered libertarians (small “l”) by today’s standards and thus seem to have been adopted by the Tea Party faithful as icons of liberty in an age of increasing governmental interference. The goals they express are noble, however they often are conflicted when it comes to getting there. For 223 years “we the people” have chosen a less radical, more centralized form of government. Is that changing now? I don’t believe it is. I do believe that people are angry at the current turn of events and have focused their anger in the wrong place. This has been done for them by some very crafty people; the people who are responsible for the turn of events in the first place. The very, uber wealthy.
For today I’m going to go through each of the categories I used yesterday and get all dirty. Well … maybe not dirty. But I am going to use those categories and talk about the policies which are being promoted by these candidates are not necessarily the best choice for our country and/or our people. For this is the fundamental difference between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation posited the power and responsibility to the states. The Constitution posits the power and responsibility in the people. We the people of the United States …. Economy & Taxation
Of course, these are all conservative candidates so they believe in a very conservative paradigm for financial management. They all believe and pledged (to greater or lesser extents) to reduce the tax burden on all of us in order to get the economy working again. Several discussed the fault incumbent upon the current Congress for increasing the debt load; others discussed the current financial crisis as a problem that has been years in the making and were happy to spread the responsibility around to both the Bush and Obama administrations. All of the candidates were opposed to raising taxes. In fact, they were lock step in the notion that the tax burden must be decreased, especially on the very wealthy. It should also be decreased on all of us. This is a noble cause in light of the current debt burden we are now carrying from two wars and a lengthening financial crisis.
Of course, these are all conservative candidates so they believe in a very conservative paradigm for financial management. They all believe and pledged (to greater or lesser extents) to reduce the tax burden on all of us in order to get the economy working again. Several discussed the fault incumbent upon the current Congress for increasing the debt load; others discussed the current financial crisis as a problem that has been years in the making and were happy to spread the responsibility around to both the Bush and Obama administrations.
All of the candidates were opposed to raising taxes. In fact, they were lock step in the notion that the tax burden must be decreased, especially on the very wealthy. It should also be decreased on all of us. This is a noble cause in light of the current debt burden we are now carrying from two wars and a lengthening financial crisis.
The problem here is that the idea that lower taxes and less regulation will make the economy grow is simply and patently FALSE. There’s no way to sugarcoat this. It sounds lovely. To most of us it makes perfect sense. Give the people at the top more money and they will spend it and spread it around. What could be more sensical? Of course!! And the Daddy of all conservatives said this, Ronald Reagan, so it must be true. Heck, I even believed it for a long time. Problem is … there’s no data to bear this out. Every Republican Administration since Eisenhower stunk on every economic measure there is and every Democratic administration was golden. Yes, poodles … even and especially to include the Carter Administration. Carter’s great claim to fame, even in the midst of the horrible 70’s? Job creation. If I had a website to corroborate this, I’d send you to it, but I got this information from a book, Presimetrics, by Mike Kimel and Michael E Kanell.
While our goal is to avoid partisanship, we’re starting to see a pattern in the data. On most of the issues we’ve covered so far –and they’ve all been economic issues– Democrats have outperformed Republicans. This difference may be particularly galling here when it comes to income and wealth. After all, creating conditions needed to increase people’s income and make them wealthier is something Republicans pride themselves on, and the public perception is that they do it better than Democrats. How is it then that Republican administrations did so poorly relative to Democratic administrations? The answer can’t bederived from the data. But in part it looks to be because Democratic administration have presided over faster economic growth on average and do so without adding so much to the national debt as Republican administrations. It goes the other way as well, increasing people’s income and wealth can also lead to faster economic growth. And the policies Democrats have pursued have increased income and wealth more quickly than the policies Republicans have pursued. Democratic policies typically call for more inclusion, more focus on those at the bottom of the economic spectrum. By contrast, Republican policies have been more a “trickle-down” variety, the idea being that if the wealthy are made better off through lower tax burdens and less regulation, they will invest more in new ventures, expand existing businesses, and just generally toss more money into the economy, thereby helping to create jobs and improve the lives of everyone else. But perhaps the strategy of inclusion not only benefits those who would otherwse get a smaller piece of the pie but also increases the size of the whole pie for everyone. That is, a trickle-up economy seems to beat a trickle-down economy. So sayeth the data. (Kimel & Kanel, pps. 87-88)
While our goal is to avoid partisanship, we’re starting to see a pattern in the data. On most of the issues we’ve covered so far –and they’ve all been economic issues– Democrats have outperformed Republicans. This difference may be particularly galling here when it comes to income and wealth. After all, creating conditions needed to increase people’s income and make them wealthier is something Republicans pride themselves on, and the public perception is that they do it better than Democrats. How is it then that Republican administrations did so poorly relative to Democratic administrations?
The answer can’t bederived from the data. But in part it looks to be because Democratic administration have presided over faster economic growth on average and do so without adding so much to the national debt as Republican administrations. It goes the other way as well, increasing people’s income and wealth can also lead to faster economic growth. And the policies Democrats have pursued have increased income and wealth more quickly than the policies Republicans have pursued.
Democratic policies typically call for more inclusion, more focus on those at the bottom of the economic spectrum. By contrast, Republican policies have been more a “trickle-down” variety, the idea being that if the wealthy are made better off through lower tax burdens and less regulation, they will invest more in new ventures, expand existing businesses, and just generally toss more money into the economy, thereby helping to create jobs and improve the lives of everyone else. But perhaps the strategy of inclusion not only benefits those who would otherwse get a smaller piece of the pie but also increases the size of the whole pie for everyone. That is, a trickle-up economy seems to beat a trickle-down economy. So sayeth the data. (Kimel & Kanel, pps. 87-88)
What would happen if I were a talented and charismatic speaker? So talented and charismatic that I were to go out and begin convincing everyone that the sky is orange. I might be able to do this. I might even be able to convince a goodly proportion of the population that the sky is orange. It would be quite a feat. But let’s just suppose I’ve been able to do that. And they love me for it. Here’s the problem. The sky is still empirically blue. Just because everyone is walking around saying it’s orange now, does not actually change the fact of the matter. It’s still blue. And that’s what we have going on in our country right now. We have a lot of people who have been convinced by a few charismatic leaders (who have a dog in the race) that the sky is orange. Problem is, it’s still blue folks and you have a lot to loose by thinking it’s orange.
The people who are telling you it’s orange are the wealthiest people in the country. They are behind the curtains and want to reduce the tax rate. But they pay fewer taxes than any of us … Since 1992, the average tax rate on the richest 400 taxpayers in the US dropped from 26.8% to 16.62%. Source: US Internal Revenue Service. I’d love it if my tax rate was less than 20%, wouldn’t you? Yet they are still clamoring for lower taxes. And many of these folks are the same business leaders who come strolling around Congress looking for a handout when the specter of the Recession knocked on their door. Who is paying for their low tax rates AND their bailouts? We are. Now they also want us to pay the added costs of lower taxes and less regulation. Those costs will only be born by those of us who are poor and middle class … the voter. Don’t vote for the men behind curtain. Vote for we the people; the current plan is working but it will take time to get us out of this mess; month by slow month jobs are being created in the private sector. It is working, so vote to make the pie larger.
Energy Issues
This was the issue upon which there was probably the least consensus. Overall, most of the candidates stated that our reliance upon foreign oil resources was problematic for our economy and for industrial objectives. All of them were supportive of reducing our reliance upon foreign oil resources, but after that the consensus broke down. There were many different ideas about how the country should go about doing this, but all focused on a common thread that the free market would be the best place to determine the outcome.
Most of the candidates were very certain that it was an issue of national security that we decrease our dependence on foreign energy resources. Well, hooray for them. I “discovered” this fact back in 1978 while on my highschool debate team, so I’m really glad to know it’s filtered up to top echelons of government and at the glacial pace of 30 years. Unfortunately, most of them do not see the risks inherent in petroleum based fuel and insist that while relying on foreign energy resources is bad, we can ameliorate that problem with petroleum based and coal reserves here within our borders. Which is to say, most of them do not take the science behind climate change at all seriously. This is a mistake. It’s a mistake for many reasons … but the primary reason is that researching and developing alternative energy resources is an enormous job market. What a way to create jobs and employ people. It’s a huge win-win on all sides.
Family Values
All of the candidates made sure to define marriage on their issues page as a union between a man and a woman. Some took it no further than this. Others made certain that they clearly spelled out their opposition to same-sex marriage. They were also certain to declare their opposition to abortion in any form, except for cases of incest, rape or danger to the mother. There were exceptions to this, of the 11, 4 had participated in the Republican National Coalition PAC’s Life Questionnaire and declared their opposition to abortion in the case of rape, incest or danger to the mother. Every candidate very clearly announced their support for the 2nd amendment (unfettered gun ownership) without any further governmental interference. NRA membership and endorsements were proudly sported on many of their websites.
All of the candidates made sure to define marriage on their issues page as a union between a man and a woman. Some took it no further than this. Others made certain that they clearly spelled out their opposition to same-sex marriage.
They were also certain to declare their opposition to abortion in any form, except for cases of incest, rape or danger to the mother. There were exceptions to this, of the 11, 4 had participated in the Republican National Coalition PAC’s Life Questionnaire and declared their opposition to abortion in the case of rape, incest or danger to the mother.
Every candidate very clearly announced their support for the 2nd amendment (unfettered gun ownership) without any further governmental interference. NRA membership and endorsements were proudly sported on many of their websites.
I really struggle with the level of paradox that is involved with this section. There are so many, I scarcely know where to begin. This group of candidates expressed as their main concern that the rights of the individual are being trampled by state and federal government. Yet there seem to be certain individuals who must continue to be closely monitored by the government and their rights must be restricted. So the rights that the candidates were most concerned with would better be expressed as those of a Christian nature. They would very much like this country to become a Christian nation. Many express a desire to (re)turn to it’s Christian roots. This would be a misnomer, since there has always been, in Thomas Jefferson’s words, a wall of separation between the church and the state. A later Supreme Court justice (who’s name I am forgetting right now) would say that the wall metaphor was lacking and say that a fence was a better term because a fence allows some interaction between the two entities. But we (for very good reason) provide protection for our churches (and our synagogues, and our temples and our mosques and our nothing-at-alls) from the government. Because governments by nature are extremely capricious and mean.
Then there is the paradox involved with desiring to protect the lives of the “unborn” but not the lives of inner city children who are the most affected by the violence wrought by unfettered gun ownership (automatic and sub-automatic weapons). Listen, I’m no namby-pamby when it comes to guns and have eaten my fair share of venison. Most of the men in my family hunt, or would if they could. I support owning guns for the purpose of hunting and target shooting. BUT. The only reason that automatic/sub-automatic weapons and hand guns exist is to kill people. That is their only purpose. Ordinary people have no use for them. None. The 2nd Amendment was written for a different time and place; it can stand some tweaking. If mere potential human life in the womb is worth protecting, then so are the actual human beings (i.e. children) who live in the projects. ‘Nuff said.
Speaking of actual human beings who live in the projects … no … I’ll go into that in greater detail below.
But finally, I’m putting this here because I don’t know where else to put it. I’m tired of the battle lines over human life in politics. You can’t be pro-choice, or you’re a murder of helpless babies. If you’re pro-life, you hate women. It’s ridiculous. Here’s the thing. According to science (and that really is the best thing we have to go on right now) up until about 20 t0 24 weeks, the fetus is only the potential for human life. After that, the baby has a chance for survival outside of the mother, but the costs to society and the family are (potentially) enormous. Everyone has stories on both sides of miracles. My very own cousin was director of Planned Parenthood for years in the 70’s. She had an unplanned pregnancy. What do you think she did?
Here’s the thing, every single story of an unplanned pregnancy is different. Every. Single. One. And every pregnancy involves AT LEAST two people, plus the potential baby. Sometimes it involves more people. We must get past the idea that it’s just about the baby. Or just about the mother. There is always the mother, the father, grandparents. Potentially siblings. Maybe aunts and uncles. The potential baby could be arriving into a whole community. Or it could just be the mother and the baby. But to hear one side or the other tell the story it’s all about one, or all about the other. But it’s both. It’s both.
People who support choice for women are not baby-killers and people who want to limit abortions do not hate women, there has to be some middle ground.
Federal Government (size and function)/Entitlements
Every one of the candidates expressed their dismay at the large (bloated) size of the Federal Government. They all (to a greater or lesser degree) supported and/or would initiate legislation to decrease the size of the Federal Government … on anything not related to defense or national security. Or education. Or law enforcement/prisons. The candidates also were in general agreement that entitlement spending must be decreased with the goal of eventually removing it from the budget (privatizing Social Security) and getting rid of the other entitlement programs all together.
This was an area where I had some (limited) agreement with the candidates. Our litigious society has created a bloated and overweaning Federal Government anxious to protect us on all sides. We have created our own rubber room for ourselves and we find we do not like it. Every time we turn around it seems there is another form to fill out to prove we are not doing or about to do something wrong. What is up with that? And the tax forms!!! Ay yi yi … completely ridiculous. The forms alone are a solid argument for a flat tax … except well, a flat tax is a regressive tax, etc. etc. But I won’t go down that tangent.
Paradox alert – the only initiatives any seemed to have for reducing the size of the Federal Government was to simply cut non-Defense related spending. Just cut it and it will disappear. They also committed to current spending levels on Social Security and to increasing spending for care of our Veterans (which I agree with, in theory). However, Social Security and Dept of Defense spending are the TWO largest chunks of the pie at $677B and $666B, respectively. All of the candidates committed themselves to NOT privatizing or changing Social Security in any substantive manner in the near future. So that spending is just going to increase in the next 10 to 20 years. It must, as the bulk of the Baby Boom generation retires. Defense spending is always bloated and typically increases under Republican controlled Congresses. As tighter immigration restrictions are put in place and create higher costs, Homeland Security is going to require an increased budget. One of the proposals called for by Mike Lee (E-Verify) will cost $400 Million to implement (and I have that from an unnamed horse’s mouth). E-Verify is one short step away from a national ID and unless I was sleeping in logic class, a national ID would require more federal interference, not less. I’ll stick with my state driver’s license and be bothered with how much info the feds are getting from that already, thank you, kindly.
Health Care Reform
Most, if not all, are staunchly opposed to the healthcare reforms passed by this Congress and signed into law by President Obama (referred to disparagingly as Obamacare). They express the most concern about the provision which requires that all Americans purchase health insurance (and if they cannot afford it, it will be provided for them). There is also concern expressed about the so-called abortion clause; that is the candidates are firmly opposed to the notion that any taxpayer dollars might be used in support of abortion.
The main problem here is that the Tea Party in particular and Republicans in general are using a flawed premise when they argue that a majority of Americans do not support President Obama’s health care law. Technically speaking, the latest poll, taken in late September, proves they are correct. Approximately 73% of Americans expressed disapproval of the law. However, what that doesn’t tell you is that that disapproval rating is almost exactly split 50-50 … “Among likely voters, 36 percent said they want to revise the law so it does more to change the health care system. A nearly identical share — 37 percent — said they want to repeal it completely.” Getting the health care reform act substantively changed or repealed is going to be much more difficult than most of these candidates have been lead to anticipate.
What I found as I did my research is that most of the candidates were promoting many policy ideas that were very similar to the changes which were already put in place by the bill known pejoratively as Obamacare, with the exception of the part which requires people to have insurance. Many people seem to see this as socialism, which they mistake for communism. Communism and socialism are not equivalent, but that’s another story.
The way I see it is kind of like this … we are afforded many rights in this country and sometimes the state steps in to make sure we take advantage of those rights. For instance, the 6th Amendment to the Constitution states: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. For approximately 190 years we had a free market system in operation for criminal defense. If you could afford a defense attorney you got one, if you couldn’t … well. Sometimes you got one, sometimes you didn’t. It depended on how well you knew your Bill of Rights and who you knew. This lead to the police using some fairly coercive interrogation techniques which in turn leads to questionable convictions. In 1966, the Supreme Court held that all defendants must be apprised of their Miranda rights, which include the right to defense counsel, with the classic addendum, “If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.” It behooves all of us to ensure that we all have appropriate defense counsel should the need arise. It would make a mockery of the land of the free and the home of the brave to have it filled with kangaroo courts throwing innocent and guilty alike into prison. By the same token, it behooves us all to ensure that all of us have adequate health insurance. This provides a number of benefits to all of us. First and foremost, it helps to keep all medical and insurance costs down because it keeps the playing field level. It keeps people from going to the emergency room with ordinary viruses and other ordinary medical needs because no doctor will treat them without insurance. So the emergency room staff is left to treat … emergencies and those costs will begin to stabilize as well. It will keep long term medical care costs down as well, because more illnesses will be discovered in the early (and thus more treatable) stages.
Immigration Issues
Immigration issues tended to be a hot button for many of the candidates, with good reason given the current atmosphere in our country. They were all opposed to any form of amnesty at all for any current undocumented alien (often referred to illegal immigrant). They were all opposed to undocumented aliens receiving any entitlements or health care. Several were in favor of very strong measures to secure the southern border to include, opening military bases, building a wall, an increased military presence, some form of electronic citizenship verification, etc. Others hinted at rescinding one or more constitutional amendments concerning states rights and how our citizenship is determined in order to remove the incentive for people to come here.
Wow. The very idea of repealing the 14th amendment shook me to my roots. Then I wanted to know more. It was presented to me by people who were just as unhinged on the left about immigration as those on the right. So I did some digging. It turns out that the 14th amendment is about a lot more than just citizenship (and so-called “anchor babies”). It’s also the due process clause … that is, the amendment which holds the government liable for it’s behavior towards it’s citizens. Now, why on earth would a group of people who are so concerned about limiting the power of government want to strip the due process amendment from the Constitution?
I have no idea. But I think it’s the scariest thing to come out of the Tea Party … bar none.
There is no question that immigration issues are weighing on the minds of politicians and voters this year. And there is no question that there is good reason for this. We have a problem with people coming to our country without permission and staying for years under the radar. This creates enormous problems with our infrastructure (e.g. schools, healthcare, roads, local government, utilities, etc.). I’m not even going to suggest that the problem is anything but Gordian. However, solutions that include returning to their home country before a visa will be granted are untenable on their face. Such solutions make excellent sound bytes, but I have to wonder how they will be implemented and enforced in an era of tight budget restrictions and a smaller government?
National Defense/Terrorism
As one would anticipate all of the candidates made strong statements concerning our national defense. They are committed to finishing the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war with strength. They are committed to our troops and to our veterans. The candidates all made statements that veteran care must improve once our soldiers return home and are no longer serving. At least one or two remain firmly committed to Israel as our ally in the Middle East.
I am so conflicted about the unnecessary wars we fought and are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq that I do not feel I can be nearly as objective as I would like to be on this subject. Unfortunately, our heads of Defense and Chiefs of Staff learned absolutely nothing from the Soviet experience in Afghanistan in the 70’s and 80’s and 90’s. There was a rich source of experience from which they could have drawn much, but instead we are learning the same lessons … over and over and over again to our detriment. And to the detriment of our men and women in arms. I said as much at the time, but no one listens to a suburban housewife.
When President Bush began rattling the drums about Iraq, I said, “Mark my words, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” I said it here and I said in comments on several other blogs, namely discussions at Jesus Creed, only to get shot down and ignored. I was told I was a traitor for not believing the president. I was told that the ends justify the means and we should employ any means possible to take out that evil Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein, who spent the first third of his presidency enjoying our friendship and camaraderie. BECAUSE WE INSTALLED HIM AS PRESIDENT OF IRAQ. You see, if you do not study the history of a region, you do not know these details. But I have friends who lived it. Who lived through the Iranian Revolution of 1978-79. Who lived in Iraq under Hussein. So … yes, Hussein is gone. What dictator now reigns in his place? We have accomplished exactly nothing, it was based upon lies, Al Qaeda has gained a new recruiting ground, and a cost of ~70,000 Iraqi lives and ~4,750 American/UK lives lost and $900 Billion spent (through Sept. 2010) and their quality of life is at a shocking low.
I don’t know what else to say … spending more and more money on defense is not the answer to our national security problems. Shooting more and more “insurgents” (human beings with just as much “right to life” as you and I) in the Middle East is not going to make us any safer here in our beds. In fact, in a stunning case of counter-intuition, it tends to make us less safe when we play shoot ’em up with people who are willing to die for their cause (by strapping bombs to their chests and walking into a mall). It feels good to be aggressive and war-like. But the response you get from that behavior is not less war, but more. And in an age when war is fought by guerillas and terrorists, I’d like to suggest that perhaps we should be looking for a less war response. I’d like to suggest that saber rattling and gun-toting should be our response of last resort, not first. Trying to lock everyone up, means that we lock ourselves up too and I do not want to live like caged bird. My freedom is not worth much under those circumstances.
In the end, I found while I found myself intrigued by the premises of these Tea Party candidates what I eventually decided was that they were really more emotional and more conservative versions of Republican candidates. It was the same stuff with only a slightly different spin on it. And as I said before, yes they are angry and so are a lot of their supporters. A lot of what they say sounds really good and it’s really angry and really emotional. But the reality they are probably going to accomplish very little if any of the goals they have laid out. The primary reason for this is … their anger. Anger is a great emotion. It generates a lot of energy. But the problem is it doesn’t solve problems. And right now we’ve got an enormous number of problems to solve. These people are trying to get elected on their ability to draw lines in the sand and become immoveable. But that’s not going to solve our problems. In order to do that, they are going to have to negotiate and give up some of those positions they hold dear.
The second reason I don’t see them doing so well once they get to Washington also has to do with anger. Anger is a secondary emotion. It is often provoked by a more primary (or primal) emotion. Usually that primal emotion which provokes anger is fear. We’ve had 9 years of the media (on the right and left) and the government pushing fear at us … telling us to be afraid of everything, of our neighbors, of the cars on the road next to us, of the people on the airplanes we fly with, of the food we eat, of our government … you name it, there is someone telling you to be afraid of it. Finally, a reaction has been provoked and that is anger. But that anger is mis-placed. It’s not Obama’s fault that you’re angry. Or this Congress. Turn off your television. I don’t care what channel news you’re watching, turn it off. Don’t watch any news for at least a week. Don’t listen to any either. If you must get some news somewhere, limit yourself to 3 articles a day from the BBC and get some different perspective on our country. Once you stop listening/watching the news you will be amazed at how the fear and anger disappears. And you will be ready to make a decision about who to vote for based upon your own internal principles again. Not someone yelling at you to be afraid. Or to be angry.
Next. Do your own research. Go to the candidate’s websites. Both of them. Read what they have to say. Be on guard for paradoxes and hyperbole. Think about how will they actually do the things they want to do? How does what they say line up with your internal principles? Will they be able to carry it out with negotiation? Or are they grandstanding? Who is behind their curtain? They all have someone … is their someone an entity you can tolerate?
Finally. If you’ve stuck with me this long, you have my deepest thanks and apologies. This goes on record for the longest and most researched post I’ve ever done here at Calacirian. My thanks for sticking with it and apologies for being so wordy. And my apologies for any lack of objectivity … I tried really hard, but I know I failed at certain junctures. Tomorrow – why I feel that the intersection of Christians and politics has gotten entirely too muddy and ugly.
(Part One of Three)
This all began sometime in the last ten days … or maybe two weeks. I have a dear friend of about 20 years who once lived near me, but now lives in Utah. We have reconnected on Facebook and mostly we enjoy talking about our children and our lives. But there’s this place that we struggle with because we really do love each other and it’s gotten a little bit messy. She has become an avid campaigner for two Tea Party candidates. I spend a lot of time ignoring the places that we disagree on, and enjoying her passion. And she spends a lot of time loving me back. So far it’s all worked out really well. But I’ve always been very curious, because I hold my friend in pretty high regard. She’s smart and funny and educated. What is it that has drawn her to these candidates and caused her to be so passionate about them? Indeed, why have so many people been drawn to these candidates? I know popular wisdom holds that many Tea Partiers are ignorant and stupid; easily lead. But for the most part that has not been my individual experience with people who are likely to vote for their candidates in a little over a week. So, I decided to do away with all the yelling and name-calling and do a little research project of my own.
I’d been thinking about this research project for a while. Then several events came together in my life which prompted me to get off the block and do it. First, my aforementioned friend posted a bunch of stuff about her candidates and I got more curious. Then someone else posted a link to a Rachel Maddow video about why the Tea Party candidates are doing so well this year. Her analysis was intriguing, but I don’t necessarily agree with Rachel and wanted to see for myself. Finally, the DSCC (Democratic Senate Campaign Committee) posted an ad on my Facebook page and asked me to tell them which Tea Party candidate I think is the most extreme. So I went to that page and found a great list of Tea Party candidates which I had never had in one place before. (P.S. I have not answered the DSCC question because I think it’s ridiculous and a bunch of hype). It would be great if the Democrats would get together and tell us what they stand FOR, because it is good and right. They are not slightly liberal Republicans, but Democrats and that is a good thing. But I digress 😉
So I used that list as a starting point to find Tea Party candidates for Senate office (mostly) and a couple who are running for House of Representatives. I went to their campaign websites and read their biographies and then their issues page(s). What I found there was sometimes surprising and sometimes not. I ended up looking at 10 candidates overall. There were a couple that I did some additional research into for no reason other than they were intriguing to me, or the race they were running was intriguing. I did not look at any of their opponents. I suppose I could have, but I didn’t. The reason is this … there are those within the Tea Party who claim that it is something new and different; that these candidates are going to change the way things are done for the better. So I wanted to see if the candidates running under their banner have what it takes to live up to that.
I looked at 8 candidates for US Senate and 3 candidates for US House of Representatives. They were as follows (listed alphabetically by last name):
US Senate Candidates
Sharron Angle – Nevada Ken Buck – Colorado Ron Johnson – Wisconsin Mike Lee – Utah Joe Miller – Alaska Christine O’Donnell – Delaware Rand Paul – Kentucky Marco Rubio – Florida
US House of Representatives
Keith Fimian – Virginia 11th District Tim Griffin – Arkansas 2nd District Morgan Philpot – Utah 2nd District
What I found was that overall, Tea Party candidates will more than likely change very little if they are elected to office this fall. Yes, they are dissatisfied. Yes, they are angry. Yes, they have a vituperative critique of the way the Federal Government (and especially Congress) is run. But their critique is mostly about which toys are being played with, not the game overall. With one exception, the candidates I looked at do not want to actually change the game, they just want to change the playing pieces. While they are long on flash, they seem to be short on pan, making their particular flash in the pan even less impressive than most. But I also found that they had a lot more in common than I anticipated. So please allow me to tell what I found out about the common concerns and commonalities of this group of Tea Party candidates.
The first thing I began to notice when I looked them up was the inordinate number of sponsored links that arose linking this group of candidates with the Club For Growth. I searched for websites by putting their names into Google. Approximately 7 or 8 times out of 11, the top sponsored link was one connecting the candidate to the Club For Growth. This group was started in 1999 and it ostensibly assists conservative candidates with their campaigns. As I discovered, 8 of the 11 candidates are CFG endorsed candidates. Apparently, one of the requirements for endorsement is pledging favor for privatization of Social Security accounts (more on that in part 2).
The second thing I noticed was that an inordinate number of them, approximately 7 or 8 are lawyers by education and profession. The exceptions were both women, Keith Fimian (an accountant) and Rand Paul (an opthamologist). None of the candidates were strangers to the electoral system and almost all had either won some form of political office before or run other campaigns before. They are not newcomers to our political process by any stretch of the imagination. And many have spent significant portions of their working lives in and around government offices; usually attorney generals offices of one sort or another.
Broadly speaking, the candidates had something to say about the following issues (listed in alphabetical order, because the candidates all listed them in different order):
Economy & Taxation Of course, these are all conservative candidates so they believe in a very conservative paradigm for financial management. They all believe and pledged (to greater or lesser extents) to reduce the tax burden on all of us in order to get the economy working again. Several discussed the fault incumbent upon the current Congress for increasing the debt load; others discussed the current financial crisis as a problem that has been years in the making and were happy to spread the responsibility around to both the Bush and Obama administrations.
Energy Issues This was the issue upon which there was probably the least consensus. Overall, most of the candidates stated that our reliance upon foreign oil resources was problematic for our economy and for industrial objectives. All of them were supportive of reducing our reliance upon foreign oil resources, but after that the consensus broke down. There were many different ideas about how the country should go about doing this, but all focused on a common thread that the free market would be the best place to determine the outcome.
Family Values All of the candidates made sure to define marriage on their issues page as a union between a man and a woman. Some took it no further than this. Others made certain that they clearly spelled out their opposition to same-sex marriage.
Federal Government (size and function)/Entitlements Every one of the candidates expressed their dismay at the large (bloated) size of the Federal Government. They all (to a greater or lesser degree) supported and/or would initiate legislation to decrease the size of the Federal Government … on anything not related to defense or national security. Or education. Or law enforcement/prisons. The candidates also were in general agreement that entitlement spending must be decreased with the goal of eventually removing it from the budget (privatizing Social Security) and getting rid of the other entitlement programs all together.
Health Care Reform Most, if not all, are staunchly opposed to the healthcare reforms passed by this Congress and signed into law by President Obama (referred to disparagingly as Obamacare). They express the most concern about the provision which requires that all Americans purchase health insurance (and if they cannot afford it, it will be provided for them). There is also concern expressed about the so-called abortion clause; that is the candidates are firmly opposed to the notion that any taxpayer dollars might be used in support of abortion.
Immigration Issues Immigration issues tended to be a hot button for many of the candidates, with good reason given the current atmosphere in our country. They were all opposed to any form of amnesty at all for any current undocumented alien (often referred to illegal immigrant). They were all opposed to undocumented aliens receiving any entitlements or health care. Several were in favor of very strong measures to secure the southern border to include, opening military bases, building a wall, an increased military presence, some form of electronic citizenship verification, etc. Others hinted at rescinding one or more constitutional amendments concerning states rights and how our citizenship is determined in order to remove the incentive for people to come here.
National Defense/Terrorism As one would anticipate all of the candidates made strong statements concerning our national defense. They are committed to finishing the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war with strength. They are committed to our troops and to our veterans. The candidates all made statements that veteran care must improve once our soldiers return home and are no longer serving. At least one or two remain firmly committed to Israel as our ally in the Middle East.
I have painted with an overly broad brush here to give you a quick read on the candidates who’s websites I visited. I’d really suggest that you go visit their websites to get a better notion of who they are yourselves. I have to admit that I found some of their solutions and ideas fairly intriguing and worth investigating. Tomorrow, I’ll explain why I think that if elected (and some of them will indeed be elected) they really won’t change much.
Here in the LightHouse, marriage has been a popular discussion topic for the last several months. We — and when I say “we,” I mean, “I” supported by “we” — spent a large portion of our summer working with the LightUncles to throw a celebration of 50 years of marriage for the LightGrandparents in August. It was a weekend of laughter, fun, joy, and most of all, love. Enormous vats of love. I know that I steeped in it as much as possible. I know that my parents did too.
My parents are still walking more lightly on this earth because of the celebration we all shared together. So am I. So, I would dare to imagine are many of the folks who shared in the festivities together. We gathered together that fine August weekend to remember 50 years of loving well. I had another goal; it was that I wanted my parents to know how their lives had influenced and helped the lives of those around them in their community and family. We are all better for the team of LightMom and LightDad looking out into the world together.
As I reflect on that wonderful (and hectic) weekend I think about the institution of marriage and how it makes families possible. The gender of the parents is not the issue and we should not be creating Sneetches with stars on their bellies, and some without in this case as Dr. Seuss might have so lyrically put it.
THE SNEETCHES , by Dr. Seuss
Now the Star-bellied Sneetches had bellies with stars. The Plain-bellied Sneetches had none upon thars. The stars weren’t so big; they were really quite small. You would think such a thing wouldn’t matter at all. But because they had stars, all the Star-bellied Sneetches would brag, “We’re the best kind of Sneetch on the beaches.”
With their snoots in the air, they would sniff and they’d snort, ” We’ll have nothing to do with the plain-bellied sort.” And whenever they met some, when they were out walking, they’d hike right on past them without even talking.
When the Star-bellied children went out to play ball, could the Plain-bellies join in their game? Not at all! You could only play ball if your bellies had stars, and the Plain-bellied children had none upon thars.
When we separate marriages into different sex marriage and same sex marriage and tell our children that some families are “right” but others “wrong” and therefore sort of distasteful, we are creating a new form of racism. Or, perhaps it is a very old form or racism and intolerance. Families are families, they are created by parents and children who love and care for one another.
There are many problems with this from a governmental perspective and from a Christian perspective.
We have a government which claims to value freedom of religion and specifies that there will be no state interference in religion; nor will there be any religious interference in state matters. When our governing documents were written, the assumptions they were based on were that the religion that would interfere would be Christian. That is no longer necessarily the case. While an overwhelming percentage of our population continues to identify with the Christian church, the numbers are in decline and we have rising numbers of other religions who must be accommodated within out borders this includes people who have no faith at all. In addition, if religion is going to be free of the state and vice versa, then it is possible for marriages to be performed by the state, and churches to be free to say “yes” or “no” to whether or not they will perform marriages within their walls. Churches are separate from the state. We need to remember that.
Those of us who claim to follow Jesus Christ have no problem calling ourselves children a Godhead who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit; overwhelmingly male with only female overtones. Yet many Christians cannot conceive of a human family with two fathers. Or two mothers.
It seems to me that the best way to defend marriage is just that. Defend marriage … of all kinds. Make it unassailable. Stop the pretenses and silliness. Build people up. Make them whole. But until the divorce rate in the church is significantly less than that of the rest of our culture, we need to keep our mouths shut and our arms open.
This is part of the October Synchroblog on Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage. Please read these other fine writers below for more perspective on this issue –
Kathy Baldock at Canyonwalker Connections – Marriage “I Do” For Who
Dan Brennan at Faith Dance – Sexual Difference, Marriage and Friendship
Steve Hayes at Khanya – Same Sex Marriage Synchroblog
Sonja Andrews at Calacirian – In Defense Of Marriage
John C O’Keefe – Exactly What Is Gay Marriage
Liz Dyer at Grace Rules – Nobody knows why or how same-sex marriage is harmful
Herman Groenewald at Along The Way – Same Sex Debate
Margaret Boelman at Minnowspeaks – What Have We Done
David Henson at unorthodoxology – ban marriage
Erin Word at Mapless – Synchroblog: Legalizing Same Sex Marriage
Joshua Jinno at Antechurch – The Church Is Impotent
Kathy Escobar at The Carnival In My Head – It’s Easy To Be Against Equal Rights When We Have Them
Peter Walker at Emerging Christian – Synchroblog – Same Sex Marriage
K. W. Leslie at The Evening of Kent – Mountains, molehills, and same-sex marriage
Tia Lynn Lecorchick at Abandon Image – Conservative Christians and Same-Sex Marriage
The other day I wrote about a Barna survey that will be coming out with full documentation in about a year. The posted statistics are quite provocative as I (and several other women) noted. The data have raised a lot of criticism and left many women scratching their heads, thinking, “That’s not my experience, so how can those numbers be so high?” It will be interesting to see the full report when Jim Henderson publishes his book next year.
FTR, I am still aghast that a man, without any co-authorship from a woman, is writing this book. Upon reading Pam Hogeweide’s testimony about her involvement with it, I am further dismayed. I don’t know Jim Henderson at all so I cannot comment on this. I will speak my own mind and say that to me it feels as though he is stealing our voices for himself. He has said that he is writing this because no woman has stepped forward to write it. That may be. It may also be that the time is not right for a woman to write it and therefore as a man he is taking away our right to speak for ourselves in our way, in our own time and with our own unique voice. Que sera, sera …
I stopped writing about this issue for some time. In fact, I stopped writing at all for a long time because I was and am undone by a lot of this. I am struggling to find my place in the world; struggling to understand my faith without the trappings of church. I don’t always know what is real and what is a reflection in a funhouse mirror. But then I saw this data and began to remember …
I remembered a time when I might also have answered all those questions affirmatively. Or in such a way that I might be part of the large percentage of women who were following the tail in front of them. I grew up in an egalitarian home; a home in which my mother finally decided that she would NOT learn how to use a chainsaw because then she would have to use it more frequently than she wanted to because the boundaries between women’s work and men’s work were blurred (except dishes and laundry). Everyone did everything. I took shop classes in highschool. My brothers took Home-Ec and I was jealous that my brother can still bake a better loaf of bread than I can.
Then LightHusband and I joined an EFree Church. As a new believer I remember that I wanted to be like the other women in my church. I think I wanted it mostly because that was the way to fit in and be part of the group. But it was also the key … the key to being “Godly.” In an evangelical or Bible-believing church, this is the defining characteristic of any adult … are they Godly? I have no idea what that means. What I can tell you is that people stand around looking very serious and hand out that superlative like it’s a crown. It is placed on the head of this person or that person … it was never put on my head, I’ll tell you that up front. Usually the character qualities that seem to be in common with a “Godly” person are those found in the fruits of the Spirit verses in Galatians: self-control, patience, peace, etc. They also have to be really good with their money (aka … rich). Women should be submissive to their husbands. Men should be the head of the family and make all the decisions.
I struggled to fit my round-peg into this square hole for 14 years. I now battle an most likely lifelong case of depression because I so depleted myself from this. I cannot even begin to catalogue the fallout from all of this in my life. I’ve been gone for 7 years now. I’m finally beginning to get my life and my mind back. I have held on to my faith by the barest edge; the evidence of grace and love.
I did some poking around because of a throw-away comment in my earlier post. I said that the Church is like an anorexic who looks in the mirror and sees someone who is fat and needs to lose weight, but the reality is she is wasting away and starving herself. I thought about that some more and did a little research into eating disorders. I found a little known cousin to anorexia called, orthorexia. Orthorexia is like anorexia because people (mostly women) who become trapped in its snare waste away and starve. However, the motivation for orthorexics is different. It is an eating disorder characterized by a focus on eating healthy or natural foods. The person who has become orthorexic feels better and better as they are able to purify their diet. As it becomes an obsession, the person begins to focus more and more time and attention on what they eat. I first discovered this through an on-line journal of a young woman who ultimately died as a result of her obsession with natural/healthy food. As I discovered more about this, I found this helpful Ten Signs Of Orthorexia:
Dr. Bratman suggests that you may be orthorexic, or on your way there, if you: Spend more than three hours a day thinking about healthy food. Plan your day’s menu more than 24 hour ahead of time. Take more pleasure from the “virtuous” aspect of your food than from actually eating it. Find your quality of life decreasing as the “quality” of your food increases. Are increasingly rigid and self-critical about your eating. Base your self-esteem on eating “healthy” foods, and have a lower opinion of people who do not. Eat “correct” foods to the avoidance of all those that you’ve always enjoyed. So limit what you can eat that you can dine “correctly” only at home, spending less and less time with friends and family. Feel guilt or self-loathing when you eat “incorrect” foods. Derive a sense of self-control from eating “properly.” Bratman suggests that if more than four of these descriptions applies to you, it may be time to take a step back and reassess your attitude toward what you eat. If they all apply, you’re in the grip of an obsession.
Dr. Bratman suggests that you may be orthorexic, or on your way there, if you:
Bratman suggests that if more than four of these descriptions applies to you, it may be time to take a step back and reassess your attitude toward what you eat. If they all apply, you’re in the grip of an obsession.
Now you’re probably wondering why I’ve included this here. As I was reading about orthorexics and their quest for a pure diet, the parallels between seeking a pure and undefiled diet and seeking after a pure and undefiled faith became very clear to me. They may not be to you. But I began to look at the Church in terms of this obsession with pure food. I think we all exist on a spectrum here. Some believers have no issue with pure/right faith, others are obsessed with it to the point of starving themselves of any other sort of food than that which they deem pure. Think about those 10 markers in terms of the faith of believers you know or about yourself –
So what does this have to do with women in church and/or church leadership? I’m not sure yet. But I do know that in many churches today there is an unhealthy focus on being “Godly,” on having correct doctrine, and on having a pure faith. For many of those churches, this includes attitudes about women and men that are not reflective of a healthy body. Some of these attitudes run to the extreme (such as a growing trend known as Christian Domestic Discipline, or another growing trend known sometimes as Quiverfull others as “radical family planning”). Some of them are more middle of the road and merely separate men and women into different classes during Sunday School, women are not allowed to teach men either from the pulpit or in a class, etc.
No one can fault these churches or these believers because they really truly are seeking after God and seeking to find Him in the purest way they know how. They get a lot of satisfaction from being a “Bible-believing” church, or having that crown of “Godliness” bestowed upon them. And truth be told, we all get that sense of satisfaction when we’re told that we’re doing something good and pure and right. It makes us want to be part of it and work harder for that cause … whatever that cause may be … so that we’ll get some more of that praise and that sense of satisfaction that comes from a job well done. When we’re part of a group, that’s what happens in our socially-inclined brains.
But what do you do if your group is killing you? I mean that both literally (sometimes women die from trying to have their babies unassisted at home in the so-called “Quiverfull” movement) and figuratively. What if seeking after a pure faith (even walking in the middle of that road) isn’t an obsession, but just a concern … and the “food” you’ve decided is healthy, really isn’t? How would anyone know? How do you know when you’re being slowly inexhorably being poisoned and it’s gone on all your life?
Every year I wrestle with Independence Day. I don’t know why I can’t just enjoy it … the sights, sounds, camaraderie, bon hommie, brownies and, of course, fireworks. No. I must wrestle with ideas. What is this day that we celebrate each year. Are we free? What does that mean? How does our freedom here effect and affect others around the world? What have we done and what are we doing?
Of course, there is a song out there that expresses my ennui. But I’d forgotten it. Then I heard it anew this morning.
Gone by U2, from their Pop album
Listen to that. Or, just read the lyrics here …
Gotta feel so guilty Got so much for so little …
The opening lines. And I look around at my own life; at how much I have for how little I’ve done. The good fortune I’ve had to be born into empire unaware. And I wonder at what the course we’ve taken here in this country. This nation become empire.
So what is freedom? What is this idea that we celebrate each Independence Day with such nationalistic fervor and patriotic delight?
According to princeton.edu it is “… the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints” However, can any of us ever be truly free? Well, yes. If the definition as posed here is used. If we are to use “externally imposed restraints” as our measure. It has been said that my freedom ends at your nose. This implies that I am free to act as I will as long as it does not impinge upon your freedom. Then we have a problem. So if restraints are to be applied, they must be internal. That is, I must apply them.
What if I do not? What if I choose to bumble on my merry way getting my stuff because I am free … what I thought was freedom is just greed. What happens to the people around me when I do not apply internal restraints? Or if there is no one big enough to apply external restraints? Or there is too much greed to go around?
What’s your superpower?
Tilting at Windmills
My superpower is tilting at windmills. From Wikipedia –
Tilting at windmills is an English idiom which means attacking imaginary enemies, or fighting unwinnable or futile battles. The word “tilt”, in this context, comes from jousting. (emphasis mine … for … well … emphasis).
I can’t decide if I should pick my battles better, or carry on knowing that I am simply planting the seeds for future winnable battles. I’m still pondering that …
The three people who are still reading this blog after my long hiatus, know that I have started writing again using a series of blog prompts put on by National Blog Posting Month found by clicking on that link back there. I found it through one of the writers in my feed reader. The day (last Monday) she posted, the prompt was this:
Do you owe an apology to anyone? Why?
That’s been rattling around in my head since then. I did not post anything that day. I’ve toyed with the idea of back posting ever since because … well … because.
Ready for the Ball
Friday night LightGirl went on her first date. She and her date went to a dance; the Blumen Ball the dance committee called it. It was a semi-formal dance put on for homeschoolers. KidCourageous (as he shall be known here) asked her to go about 10 days before the event. She accepted and they both were very excited (on a scale of 1 to Christmas morning they agreed it was like going back to Hogwarts). They had a wonderful time and danced the whole evening. Their chauffeur for the evening was KidCourageous’ older brother. LightGirl was presented with a wrist corsage and KidCourageous was a perfect gentleman all evening. She is still (Sunday morning) walking on air. If you are friends with me on FaceBook you can see photos there.
There was only one small snag. Several of the young men in LightGirl & KidCourageous’ group of friends thought it would be fun and funny to play games with them during the dance. These young men would surround them and separate the two of them regularly throughout the evening. It might have been funny had it only happened once or twice, but as young men are wont to do, they carried it on for too long and too far. LightGirl and KidCourageous became frustrated with the situation. But they handled it graciously and kindly without creating any fuss.
The next night, the ringleader of the young men was chatting with LightGirl on FaceBook (which they do regularly). She was still pretty upset with him for the antics of the previous evening. I encouraged her to let him know that she was unhappy, but to be kind about it. I guess she must have because he attempted to apologize. It was a rusty attempt because I’m not certain he does this very often. But all the ingredients were there … he acknowledged that he had behaved badly, he empathized that it was hurtful, and he agreed that he shouldn’t have done it. The only thing lacking were the specific words, “I’m sorry.” But those are the least important words in an apology; he included the more important ones. I haven’t been able to convince LightGirl that this is in fact an apology yet. She (at the time) was still too upset and hurt by past interactions with this young man to be objective. But I was really proud of him for taking that risk. She will come around and be able to see it in a day or so. My hope is that he will not be feeling rejected by then and their friendship will be restored. I think it will … they seem to practice this sort of thing on each other regularly and are getting better and better at it every time.
The whole incident pointed out some things about apologies to me that I’ve been reflecting on for some time now.
The first thing is this … an apology is a risky business. The person apologizing puts themselves in a vulnerable position vis a vis the person (or group) they are apologizing to. They are giving power and/or control over to that person/group. Forgiveness is a form of acceptance and redemption gives one re-entry to the relationship. When one apologizes one acknowledges both wrongdoing and that the other person may or may not offer grace in return. The restoration of the relationship is entirely in the hands of the person to whom one has apologized in that moment.
A proper apology consists of several necessary ingredients – an acknowledgment of wrong/bad/hurtful behavior, empathy with the person/group who was harmed by the behaviour, and agreement both that it should not have happened and that one will endeavor to prevent it from happening again.
Apologies cannot be demanded or manipulated. They can only be offered free and clear by the person who is apologizing. If they are not offered, but instead are made in response to a demand or as a result of manipulation they will be useless or empty. One cannot acknowledge wrong/bad/hurtful behaviour when one doesn’t know what one has done. This happens when an apology is demanded or manipulated as a condition to restore one’s relationship. One can only be mournfully sorry about general malfunctions if an apology is demanded or manipulated.
Most often, though, between adults (and near adults), apologies run in both directions. It is extraordinarily rare among two parties to a dispute to have only one which needs to apologize. When wrongs have been done they often have been committed by both parties.
If you’ve been around here for any length of time, you may recall an ugly leave-taking with my CLB back in early-ish 2007. It was hard. It was hurtful. It was/is permanent. It was a long drawn out process, during which an apology was demanded of me in order that my relationships in the church might be restored. I had no idea what apologize for so it was empty and meaningless. But I was trying to do anything I could to restore balance and harmony to relationships that had strayed badly off course.
I’m now apologizing to the people in question here. I still have no idea what the instigating issues were (though I have been told many times that I do). However, I can apologize for my very poor behavior during that months long process. I was defensive, angry and embattled. I was also very depressed. In the words of Paul the apostle, what I wanted to do, I could not do and I knew that I was doing what I did not want to do. Call it arrogance (certainly), call it tunnel vision, call it depression, or some of all of that and some other things that I have yet to identify, but I could not see any other path at the time than the one I/we traveled. I know that did damage to the people I was close to. I know our abrupt departure was frightening, upsetting, and painful. I apologize for that. I wish it could have been different. I wish I were different; stronger, better, wiser. But I’m not. I’m zealous, over-protective, and type A-high maintenance. In an attempt to preserve feelings and group unity, I kept secrets I should not have kept. Revealing them here, or now would not be profitable. But keeping them at the time proved ultimately harmful to everyone, including me. They seemed harmless. But secrets never are. All things kept in the dark ultimately prove to be harmful.
I know that I am in a much healthier frame of mind now. I have more tools at my disposal for communicating my difference of opinion with others without being as confrontational as I’ve been in the past. Do I think that any of this will or would change anything? I don’t know. All I know is that I need to do this for my own peace of mind. How it is received and what is done with it is out of my hands. If I had been healthier at the time there is a chance I might have been able to exit with less damage. Maybe. But … I’d hate to speculate now. What happens now … who knows?
The week before this past Christmas it became very apparent that I needed to visit the dentist … NOW. I could not even think because one of my molars hurt so bad. It was very terrible. It had been hurting for a few days, but this particular morning nothing would help. So I called the dentist who I had not visited in [cough] several years [cough] and began a saga which did not end until yesterday; five visits, two root canals, two crowns, one huge abscess and three rounds of antibiotic later. Oh, plus a new mouth guard to wear at night because I clench. I have clenched so much and for so long that I cracked those two molars and worn most of my teeth down to nubs. This two month journey with the dentist has revealed quite a bit about my high maintenance self to me.
I’ve learned quite a bit about my dentist too. The practice has undergone some changes in the years since I last visited. And this dentist is new. He is very gentle and calm and patient. A real gem of a dentist. When he asks questions, he really listens to my answers. As a plus, he likes hockey, so we talk pucks sometimes. So it was at this last visit that we ended up talking about the Olympics and hockey and who was playing for which team. And curling. And how English speakers mis-pronounce foreign names. When he told me a bit of the story of his family’s immigration from Korea. That his father had been in 7th grade during the Korean War. His grandfather and great-grandfather had been politicians during the war and had been “taken.” They were never heard from again; the family hopes they had an uneventful death. His grandmother was left with six children to shepherd as far from the border/war zone as she could get. The youngest died on her back during the journey. His father and his uncle were separated from the main group at some point, but reunited later. It all sounded very harrowing. As war always is.
I asked him if his grandmother and great-uncle were still alive, but they have passed on. But his father and uncle remember. I told him that we here in the States need to hear these stories. It’s important for us to know that the Korean War didn’t look like M*A*S*H and it wasn’t about our involvement. The United States has been involving ourselves in the wars of other nations for the past 60 years. Sometimes we have had the sanction of the United Nations (Korea) other times we have not. But the thing we’ve never done is seek out the stories of those who are directly affected. Did it help? What is needful? What is needed now?
My dentist went on to say that his father has returned to China where it borders with North Korea on a mission with his church. His report of poverty among the people was tragic. In order to eat, they strip bark from trees and there are unsubstantiated reports of cannibalism. Now … in the 21st century in a country pursuing nuclear weapons. Which borders on a country that has nuclear weapons.
It is, I think, entirely possible that we could disarm the entire world if we just fed people good food and gave them fresh water to drink.
Four years ago I re-discovered an old acquaintance. I’m having fun now watching again.
Four years ago I was in the middle of the darkest caves and curling was the only time of day I could breath freely. Something about the commentary, the rhythm, the pace all combined to give me peace and comfort.
It’s been a long and winding road. But I can finally say that the fall is over. I might even be out of the caves and in the sunshine on most days.
Life is good.
