Of Tax Cuts, Inequality and Questionable Faith

The GOP tax bill was written largely by lobbyists with no input from Democrats. There were no public hearings and no completed analyses to determine projected effects–how could there be? There was no time in the rush to pass anything. One embarrassment is the fact that the bill as passed by the House violated Senate budget rules, and had to be re-voted after the violations were removed. If the bill had actually been crafted with thoughtful deliberation by our representatives as the founding fathers conceived the process, this kind of sloppy mistake would not likely occur.

Senator Cornyn has already said that this tax reform bill will make the ACA unworkable, forcing a de facto repeal of the law that brought health care to millions. The party that cares about deficits and debt just voted to increase the debt by $2.6 TRILLION over 10 years, when interest payments are figured in on the loans we will have to take out from countries like China.

The premise on which this bill was designed is a fairy tale, that lowering corporate taxes would stimulate more domestic investment, and increased wages. Actual history shows otherwise, and current studies indicate that corporations are likely to buy back shares of their stock and increase dividends to share holders before they pay workers more.

Few if any lawmakers had read the entire bill. How do you vote on something without knowing what it contains? Who it will hurt? How it actually works?

And so many of the people that support this claim they have a religious faith, most of them some flavor of Christianity. While some may claim that the calls to care for the poor and the vulnerable are individual ones, we are more effective by caring for them collectively in a nation this size. By taking away food from children and health care from the poor and seniors, we violate the fundamental premise of Jesus so-called “New Commandment,” that we love each other, or the second greatest commandment, to love our neighbors as we do ourselves.

There is no love in giving more money to people who already have more than they can possibly spend or use in multiple lifetimes. There is no love is taking away health care from poor children by failing to pass funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program. There is no love in closing community health clinics. There is no love in failing to support the restoration of Puerto Rico after the hurricanes this year. There is no love is spending more and more and ever more on building bombs and guns and warships rather than educating our youth and building a society where crime is less profitable than contributing to society as an equal partner on a level playing field.

I wish they would disavow their lip-service loyalty and allegiance to the Prince of Peace. They are followers of greed and lovers of money. They are self-serving hypocrites to whom history will not be kind.

House Speaker Paul Ryan said yesterday that we are at a turning point in history. May it be so, but not as he might hope. May it be a turning point of an awakening to civility and cooperation over partisanship, of stewardship over exploitation, of concern for humanity over self-interest, of a burgeoning indulgence in generosity over greed.

America was once a shining example of hope and faith in human goodness and potential. Now, its corruption detracts from its gilded domes and stately columns and once-high ideals. The only way to make America truly great again is to turn from the blighted philosophy of greed and avarice that brought us to this moment in history, and return to the self-evident truths so forcefully proclaimed in the founding document of this nation:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Certainly a rich man’s happiness cannot be of greater worth than a poor man’s life. An immigrant’s pursuit of life and liberty must not be secondary to a rich man’s happiness. Perhaps that trio of endowments by God are in order, that life is supreme, and liberty cannot be experienced without life. Happiness can only truly be pursued by those who are free.

But as President Franklin Roosevelt pointed out,

“The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are:

Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.

Jobs for those who can work.

Security for those who need it.

The ending of special privilege for the few.

The preservation of civil liberties for all.

The enjoyment — The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.

These are the simple, the basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations.”

The tax bill violates the first of FDR’s points because it will lead to increasing inequality. Security is on the chopping block as a result of this drive to reward the wealthy. Special privilege is all that is ultimately served in this bill. And civil liberties are constantly threatened by a party philosophy that relies on gerrymandered districts to maintain control.

We have lost our way as a nation. When the President calls for payment for protection from nations around the world, we are no better than gangsters ruling the streets by enforcing protection rackets.

We have lost our nobility of purpose and purity of motivation. We are not led by a government by, for and of the people. We have sold our birthright for a handful of promises that have no chance of fruition.

We must be better than this. We must provide opportunity for all. We must care for the least of these, the poor, the disabled, the hungry. We must realize that the measure of a man’s worth is not his bank account or the stable of politicians he commands but his willingness to serve and lead toward greater equality, not exacerbate the disease of greed and inequality.

Advertisements

Determining the Greater Frontier: Exploration versus Restoration

So President Trump signed a directive to send humans back to the moon with an eye toward Mars. Unfortunately, his budget proposal actually cuts NASA funding, so the symbolism of the gesture is not backed by anything tangible.  Like nearly every American child of the mid 20th century, I have a fondness for the idea of space exploration. I remember the Apollo missions and Skylab and the Shuttle program.

But having taught seminars on the effects of space travel on biological systems, I also know that there are dangers there.

And I know there are problems right here on Earth that we are not adequately addressing: hunger, climate change, pollution, disease, habitat destruction, extinction….

While I will always be fascinated by the idea of colonizing another planet, Mars could not be made even marginally habitable in less than a few hundred years–at least 400 years by one study I saw, beginning with seeding the Martian polar ice caps with very hardy algae to begin the enrichment of the atmosphere. But perhaps more significantly, Mars has an almost non-existent magnetosphere, which means protection against harmful solar and cosmic radiation is far less effective than on Earth, where the core is molten and constantly circulating to maintain that protective field.  Terra-forming is a slow process as we might practice it today, and it is not the sexy, wild-west adventure that too many people envision.

Elton John and Bernie Taupin were right in their song, “Rocket Man”:

“Mars ain’t the kind of place to raise your kids,
In fact it’s cold as hell.
And there’s no one there to raise them if you did.”

So that leaves the question: what is the final frontier? Perhaps that is nothing more than a recursion to the first one–to seek answers for and solutions to repairing and restoring this damaged planet that is our only home.

I challenge the notion that we have only a few hundred years to make the leap to the stars. With a unified will to stop polluting and start restoring, we can make a difference in the habitability of this planet. But it will take strong will to accomplish that. While fortunes could be made in technologies to accomplish this, ultimately this initiative must go beyond profit: as E.O. Wilson has so passionately argued, saving biodiversity is a moral imperative. And I would extend that by mitigating our negative impacts on the environment and saving biodiversity, we save ourselves.

To those of a Judeo-Christian faith, it is finally addressing the primal mission of caring for this complex and fragile creation. “Dominion” as used in Genesis is better expressed as “stewardship”, serving as a caretaker and not an exploiter.

I have shared this passage from C.S. Lewis over and over, and I hope that it will indeed stick with some who read it. Lewis notes that only what he calls “supernaturalists” can truly understand nature. He writes,

“I spoke just now about the Latinity of Latin. It is more evident to us than it can have been to the Romans. The Englishness of English is audible only to those who know some other language as well. In the same way and for the same reason, only Supernaturalists really see Nature. You must go a little away from her, and then turn round, and look back. Then at last the true landscape will become visible. You must have tasted, however briefly, the pure water from beyond the world before you can be distinctly conscious of the hot, salty tang of Nature’s current. To treat her as God, or as Everything, is to lose the whole pith and pleasure of her. Come out, look back, and then you will see…this astonishing cataract of bears, babies, and bananas: this immoderate deluge of atoms, orchids, oranges, cancers, canaries, fleas, gases, tornadoes and toads. How could you ever have thought this was the ultimate reality? How could you ever have thought that it was merely a stage-set for the moral drama of men and women? She is herself. Offer her neither worship nor contempt. Meet her and know her. If we are immortal, and if she is doomed (as the scientists tell us) to run down and die, we shall miss this half-shy and half-flamboyant creature, this ogress, this hoyden, this incorrigible fairy, this dumb witch. But the theologians tell us that she, like ourselves, is to be redeemed. The ‘vanity’ to which she was subjected was her disease, not her essence. She will be cured in character: not tamed (Heaven forbid) nor sterilised. We shall still be able to recognise our old enemy, friend, playfellow and foster-mother, so perfected as to be not less, but more, herself. And that will be a merry meeting.”

If indeed in the theological realm the ultimate end is the redemption or restoration of a fallen creation, it is not incumbent that we seek to plumb new depths of destruction that the grace and glory of renewal should be all the more glorious.  Paul said as much in his discussion of grace in Romans where he posed the question, “Shall we go on sinning that grace may abound?” He concludes, “By no means!” By the same token, the misguided drive to escape our fouled nest only exacerbates the problem by fostering the false hope that the extraterrestrial grass will be greener than the dead stubble of our abused home.  The reality is that at present, there is no extraterrestrial grass.  Full stop.

The directive to take care of the creation was never rescinded in scripture: the job was paradoxically made harder by a nascent mankind’s tendency toward seeking the easy path. If indeed that bite from the forbidden fruit opened the eyes of that primitive pair, the tang of consequence has too long been ignored if not forgotten, and nature has paid a dear price for it.

We must be better toward the natural world. We must see it not as mere resources to exploit, but wonders to behold and treasures to be cherished. Life is a gift, but it is fragile. Running away to a dead moon or a dead Mars will only open new dangers and possibilities to snuff life out. The future is here. Embrace it by nursing this wounded planet back to greater health and vitality.

Liberty and Justice and the Hypocrisy of Conservatism

Last week, three men were stabbed by a white supremacist–two of them died–defending two Muslim girls in Portland. Now, a Portland Republican party official says the GOP should hire paramilitary militia fringe groups for security at their public events. Following a tense situation involving protesters in the Texas legislature, a GOP representative suggested putting a bullet in the head of a Democratic lawmaker.  About a week ago, a Republican nominee for Congress in Montana body slammed a reporter, and went on the win the special election for the open seat.  The Republican budget proposal was released last week, and the cuts for social programs to help the poor are staggering.  The Republican led health care bill will throw some 23 million people off of their health insurance over the coming decade, and some estimates say another 30 million children will lose insurance coverage because of draconian cuts to existing programs.

I watch these things unfold from my perch in a very red (yet deeply impoverished) county in a very red (yet fiscally insecure) state.  And I wonder how things came to be like this.  When did money and the accumulation of wealth become the only goal worth casting and achieving?  When did power for the sake of power alone become the American ideal?

Where is the party that spoke of “compassionate conservatism”? Where is the party of the Bushes and Reagan and Eisenhower? Where is the party that I used to belong to? George H.W. Bush’s famous “thousand points of light” have become nothing but the ashes of a once noble ideal. Reagan’s “morning in America” has slipped into a moonless midnight of isolationism and insecurity. George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” has taken a sharp turn to compassion for business and the wealthy only.

After the GOP approved “Citizens United” ruling in the Supreme Court, businesses are considered “people” that can use money as speech to propagate their pro-business agendas to the detriment of the poor, the sick, the disadvantaged and the environment.

Where Richard Nixon signed landmark environmental legislation into law, the current GOP dominated government is dismantling as much as they possibly can of the regulations that have helped clean and rehabilitate an ailing environment. In the name of saving money for some, they are turning their backs in education for all, health care for all, science and medical research….the list goes on. They have re-written the social contract to be little more than a manifesto for selfishness and greed.

We are in the middle of the process of losing allies who have been at our side since the days of our own inception as a nation (France), allies who have fought with us against fascism (England) and allies that stood beside us as we faced down the Soviet threat of the 20th century (Germany).

We have a (purported) Republican leader who praises authoritarian criminals like Duterte, Erdogan, and Putin, and who may have been compromised by alleged connections to Russian powers.

Where is the party of Eisenhower, the man who was the supreme commander of allied forces in Europe when the security of the entire world was threatened by violent fascism, who worked with forces of the free world and the armies in exile of occupied nations to throw back authoritarian rule in favor of democracy and freedom, at least for the West?  Where is the modern equal to Eisenhower who warned of the dangers of a growing threat from the military-industrial complex?

Where is the party of Reagan, the charismatic former actor turned politician who challenged Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall” that separated a city, but more than that, symbolized the separation of humanity between free people and oppressed? Now, we have a president who is bent on building a wall instead of tearing one down.

Now, instead of ideals of freedom and human dignity and equality and the pursuit of happiness, there is the pursuit of wealth for a few and grasping at the wind for so many more. Because we value money more than a vital global ecosystem, we turn our backs on multinational agreements to protect the atmosphere from further degradation. We listen to business leaders over scientists because profit is more precious than people, more precious than life.

History tells us over and over that oppressed people will not remain oppressed, that authoritarian tyranny will not be tolerated forever. And for people of a Christian faith, the call to aid the poor and those without voice is repeated over and over and over throughout the scripture. Many so-called conservatives claim a Christian faith, and even long for a so-called “Christian nation,” all the while turning their backs on their God-given tasks of caring for the environment and responsibilities to the less fortunate.

Maybe some day, we will see that money is no more than a means to an end, that it is pointless without a purpose. Maybe we will reach a point where politics takes its place to serve human needs, not only the human wants of a few.

There is excess and wrong-doing at all points of the political spectrum to be sure. But the greed and violent threats from the right are unnerving. We must be better than this if we are to survive as a people. Let there be liberty and justice for all, but in the sense of Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms like freedom from want and fear, and in the sense of true biblical justice, as the relief of the poor and needy.  These should be the American hallmark, maintaining the beacon of liberty, with amity toward our friends and allies and vigilance against oppression, yet tempered with a readiness, a willingness, even an eagerness to extend the olive branch of peace.

A Big Negative on the Negativism

I’ve noticed lately that there are activist pastors who seem to be making a cottage industry of bashing everything in the 21st century church. Now I’ve done plenty of complaining myself. I know it. But every now and then, it is a very good thing to stop, take stock, breathe a little, and praise those Christians who are indeed trying to live by the code of Jesus, i.e., other-centered, sacrificial love. I know they are out there. I’ve seen them. I have been moved by their words and their actions.

I know. They may be thinking this is tough love. We need to be whipped into shape and fast. But why would anyone want to be a part of any group where their leader never offers praise, never asks blessings on the “good-doers”? Didn’t Jesus open the Sermon on the Mount with a set of sayings called the beatitudes, each one beginning with “blessed” or as some might say, “happy”?

There is no doubt much to be ashamed of among the high-profile ministers and the celebrity “Christians of convenience.” But I heard something this past Sunday, Christmas Day, that made me stop and ask myself if I had ever before heard the same sentiment in any place I have ever traveled. A man prayed before the collection basket was passed at a small country church, and he was thankful for the blessing and privilege of earning a living to provide for his family, that the offering we give as contribution to the church treasury was in recognition of that blessing. It was a simple expression, nothing flowery, I don’t even remember any “thee’s” and “thou’s,” but it was real and heart-felt.

Why can’t some of the marquee ministers who are always up in arms take a few beats and praise those who are doing what they can with what they have?

I know there are problems in the vast array of groups that are expressions of a Christian heritage. But there is good, as well. There is quiet decency and dignity. Maybe a dose of good news–isn’t that the meaning of the word “gospel”?–would do more than the constant negativity against all things Christian from people who are supposed to be leading their fellow Christians. Read the short Letter to the Philippians to see how Paul treated these people who were so dear to his heart. He had instruction for them like being quick to settle disputes, but the letter is steeped in so much love that the correction is more like a gentle persuasion.

Like any group, Christians can most often benefit from being led by example. The office of overseer was instituted to be filled by those with a good reputation, men of age and experience, who could provide a good example to those in their charge. Ministers as the most visible of church posts are in a unique position to lead by example, as well. Again Paul urged his readers, his friends, to follow his example as he strove to emulate Jesus.

Christianity has enough detractors outside its ranks. It doesn’t need constant berating from inside. Instruction, yes; correction, yes, but with love, not vitriol.

Do we need to show greater love for the poor and the oppressed? In many cases, the answer is most likely “yes.”  But rather than berate us for a lack of caring, help us find our voice. Show us the way. Don’t condemn us all. The wise man said in Proverbs 15 that “a gentle answer turns away wrath, but harsh words stir up anger.” If we could ever stop being so angry all of the time, maybe we would see more opportunities to live as Jesus did.

Living in a Messed Up World: Creation, Fall, Character and Commitment

It’s a messed up world.

Not that that’s any big news. But it really is. And it’s only getting worse, according to many observers.

Why am I thinking about this?  Because almost everything we see today is some sort of alteration, revision or perversion of how things ought to be.  One group fights for their rights, while another group wrings its hands and brays on about how awful things are, and offers no real solution.

And it’s been this way for a long time.  If you accept the Judeo-Christian scriptures, since not long after humanity came on the scene.  The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, the pride of life…and the Fall.  Not just any fall but the Fall.

I am far from being a theologian.  I am fascinated by it from an academic perspective, and I have tremendous respect for those who can engage in it objectively, non-dogmatically, and from a doctrinally neutral perspective.

But the Fall was perhaps the single most devastating event in human experience.  From the idyllic setting of perfection, a paradise of fellowship between God and all his Creation, a single act, followed quickly by another effectively broke the Creation.  Not just a little piece of it, but all of it.  The perfect became imperfect.  The complete became incomplete.  And all of Creation groans for redemption from that brokenness.

I have thought long and hard about this story.  Obviously, if God had intended for this never to happen, he could have denied mankind its free will.  But he did not, which suggests that although he suspected it would happen, he was willing to give humanity a chance.

Over the succeeding few generations, things got progressively worse.  By Noah’s time, evil had reached a peak and even God was sorry he had created such as mankind.  But he wasn’t ready to give up.  The slate was wiped (almost completely) clean and Creation started over.

Only to repeat the process of failure and loss and descent into imperfection.

And then, after generations of failure and partial restoration and deeper failure, he presented humankind with a new way of being: while the concept had been there from the beginning, the way of Love was cast in no uncertain terms as an alternative to the depravity of a broken, fallen system.  The coming of Jesus into the world restored a sense of goodness and directed any and all who would accept it into a life beyond the self, into a life that would channel the perfection of the original perfect Creation into a corrupted world.  And it was then as it is now based on Love and Service and Sacrifice.

So many who claim to follow that Way do little to show it.  When we complain about everything and condemn all that we disagree with, we are not children of a loving God, but instruments of a vengeful one.

If God made the world as perfect, is it not logical to conclude that it would be his will that it be restored?  The beautiful and moving passage in the Revelation of John declares, “Behold, I am making all things new.”  I saw where someone once said that he didn’t say “I am making all new things,” but the emphasis was on the restoration of what had been from that elusive, singular point of origin, the Creation.  In fact, the same could be said of how he handled the restoration of the Creation after the flood:  the Earth had not been sterilized or cleansed of all evidence of a previous state.  It was restored using pre-existing materials—i.e., living things, species including humans.

I cannot help but agree that the world is indeed broken.  And I cannot help but think that so much of what we see today is more related to a disconnect from the perfection of Creation and the perfection of that Way that Jesus so eloquently lived.  Of Jesus, Peter said in Acts that “he went about doing good.”

Consider a few examples.  Because of generations of systematic oppression and suppression, when a young black man is killed at the hands of law enforcement, a movement arises that declares, “Black lives matter.”  I fully concur: black lives matter, and so do white ones, and brown ones…. We all matter.  But when white people, and people of faith at that, automatically take up the unconsidered position that the anger brought about by a questionable or at least questioned killing is completely unfounded and unjustified, they essentially telegraph the view that black lives don’t matter.  This is an unloving expression of racism, and it is not consistent with a drive toward the restoration of a perfected Creation.

When a furor erupts over who can use a restroom assigned to be used by people of a specific karyotype, we are not displaying any understanding of how a broken world has affected a small minority of people who are not comfortable in their own “birth-bodies,” for lack of a better term.  The transgender restroom debacle may one day be seen as a point where people who claim to follow the precepts of love failed, not because they were trying to maintain a perception of God’s intent in the distinction between males and females, but by failing to lovingly deal with those who have from a very early age experienced a manifestation of that imperfection that happened as a result of that fateful event so very long ago, that rippled and echoed throughout all of Creation, darkening what was once bathed in light to a shadow of its former perfect glory.  To pledge violence and violation in response to a supposed danger from transgendered individuals is not in any way consistent with a restoration of a perfected Creation.

When people of faith support systems and measures that not only promote but ensure inequality, that allow wealth and power to be centralized in the hands of a few while the poor are oppressed, repressed and suppressed, this is inconsistent with a view that purports to herald and welcome a restored Creation.  Those with wealth have responsibilities to help those who have less.  It’s a principle from scripture, from the Old to the New Testaments.  But the Neoliberal co-opting of the socially and politically conservative element of the population has been so insidious and so complete that its anti-Christian foundations have been recast as being Biblical, effectively reversing the moral polarity and calling evil “good.”  (And no, Neoliberalism has nothing to do with what is commonly called Liberalism today.  For an excellent and thoughtful primer on Neoliberalism, see the article from The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot?CMP=share_btn_fb .)  The hopelessness of an unending cycle of poverty, the broadening gap in life span between the rich and the poor, the worship of wealth and its celebration through conspicuous consumption are all contrary to living by principles of love and goodness.

So what is a solution?  Should we close down, wring our hands in dismay, mutter curses in between expressions of disbelief, dig our heels in and vow to fight no matter what?  Should we acquiesce to any and every trend, allow our principles to be compromised, accept all social changes?  Some see these diametrically opposed sides as the only possibilities.  But like it is with so many things in life, the solutions are not cut and dried.  And trust me, I don’t claim to have all the answers.

But I do know that for every action that is launched in spite and anger, the cause of love and peace is harmed.  For every threat made to inflict harm on a person or group with whom we disagree, nearly irreparable damage is done to that cause.  For every sin we angrily or arrogantly accuse another of, our own are hovering in the shadows, waiting to condemn us.

In the 20th Century, there were two great leaders of the non-violence movement whose thoughts fit well with this argument:  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “At the center of non-violence stands the principle of love.”  Mahatma Gandhi revealed, “Anger is the enemy of non-violence and pride is a monster that swallows it up.”  Love cannot be expressed in anger, nor can it be extended in pride and arrogance.  For a refresher on the characteristics of love, I Corinthians 13 is the place. Indignation precludes understanding.  Only by patient, rational consideration can we ever hope to understand that which opposes our values. If a quiet answer turns away wrath, shouting insults and threats will only engender it.

Here is the hardest part: we are conditioned to believe that since we are confident down to our very cores that we are in the right, we will always win when confronted with the social and moral dilemmas that accompany the moral entropy that is so evident around us. This is not always so.  Even though we want to believe it, there is a good chance on many issues that the opposition is insurmountable and we will lose.  How we respond to losing speaks volumes about not only our commitment but our character. If after losing on some point, we give up and refuse to face defeat again, we are not committed to our cause.  If we meet failure with anger and violence, we display a deeply and tragically flawed character.

Fretting over social changes, politics, and cultural drift will do little to maintain the central mission of doing good and giving hope by restoring even a small portion of a fallen Creation.  Contrary to what we may believe, today’s society has not sunk to the depths of 1st century Rome. We are not powerless in the face of change as long as we have faith and hope and love.  And continuing to do good in whatever way we can brings a little more of Heaven’s light to fight back the darkness.

So, yes, it’s a messed up world.  But we can make it better.  Like Jesus says in the parable of the talents, doing nothing, hiding the resources entrusted to us in the ground, is unacceptable.  The good we can do may be a little or it may be a lot.  But no matter what, we are expected to do something.

Memorial Day, 2016: On War and Peace

(The following began as a social media post, but I thought I might preserve it here on the blog, with a few additional thoughts.)

Today is a day of remembrance in America. There is the usual casting of aspersions toward those who fail to acknowledge the intent of the observance of this holiday. For some, there emerges if only for the day an almost palpable nationalism that some see as patriotism but others may come to fear.

I do not in any way wish to minimize the importance and significance of the sacrifice that so many have made across the various conflicts we have found ourselves collectively engaged in over the centuries of our history, whether in service to a political ideal or in support of basic human dignity and freedom. Most of those things have been worthy, necessary, or both.

In too many conflicts, civilians have paid an equal or greater price. In World War II, the total military death count may have been around 23.5 million. Civilian deaths as a result of military actions on all sides and including war-related disease outbreaks and famine may have added in excess of 50 million more deaths to the total count. When do we remember those people?

As long as there is the quest for power; as long as there is the rallying cry of extremist ideology; as long as human life is held in such low regard that death is dealt as a tool of subjugation that must be countered with more death to defeat it, we will have wars. Young men–and now young women–will be sent into harm’s way to defend against an ever-growing evil and disregard for the value and sanctity of life.

Like so many others, I dream of a world without hate, where wars are no longer necessary; where life and peace are valued above power and control; where security is measured not in guns and bombs but in freedom from want and in the full expression of basic human rights.

I believe that this is more in line with a life of faith than what I see in so many who claim to be children of God.  While I understand the position that many hold, that their affinity for guns and deep reverence for the military is rooted in the idea that they are willing to defend their constitutionally guaranteed rights and professed faith even to a violent end, I cannot help but wonder if that is truly in accordance with John’s three word declaration of the nature of God, that “God is love.”  (Yes, I know that Jesus said, “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.”  But Jesus laid down his life without raising a weapon–unless, of course, the love he demonstrated in that act could be construed as the ultimate “weapon” to overcome hate.)

Personally, I cannot “celebrate” Memorial Day, only observe it. I ache for the loss of too many bright young people who may have brought great things to the world had they not been cut down too soon. Their sacrifice, while so deeply appreciated and understood, should drive us toward building a world where no more good young people–civilian or military–must die. A peace secured through superior fire power or through mutually assured destruction is no peace at all, merely capitulation to the baser elements of a fallen, flawed humanity.

Let us remember the fallen, but let us always work toward a future where fewer must die, where our celebrations are more for achievements toward peace and equality and toward service to better life, not recounting the emptiness and sadness of loss.

It’s Not Easy Being Between: Confessions of a Radical Moderate

I am a middle child.  I wasn’t that when I was born, of course, but I was destined to become one some years later when my younger sibling came along.  At any rate, winding up as a middle child carries with it a host of issues.  On the plus side, you may not have the responsibilities (or expectations) of the oldest, and your parents may have made fewer parenting mistakes.  On the other hand, you don’t get the same treatment as the baby of the family.  In a lot of ways, being in the middle means you are the “other child.”  I’m not the only one to think that:  probably every middle child from time immemorial has felt at least a little of that sort of thing.  In fact, my third grade teacher, who was also a middle child, knew how things worked: she always found out who the middle children were in her class and picked them to do special things.  For those short months in third grade, I felt like a king.  But then fourth grade came and all bets were off.

A lot has been written about birth order.  Middle children have been characterized as lower achievers than first-borns, lacking competitive drive.  They have never been the complete focus of their parents, so they learn about sharing pretty fast.  They tend to be more flexible. They can see different points of view and tend to be peacemakers.

The youngest are frequently characterized as rebels, and often avoid responsibility, since they have been the object of more care in childhood.  They dislike competition and may choose different career paths, perhaps to avoid comparisons with older siblings.  However, that often backfires, especially if there is a measurable variance in comparative success.

At any rate, other middles will understand if I say that it’s hard being in the middle.  As I’ve moved through the ages and stages of life, I believe that more and more all the time.  Whether in religion or politics, the extremes are increasingly unappealing to me, and yet being in the middle seems to be a limbo disdained by the most vocal among us.  To seek the middle ground is to sit on the fence, to lack conviction.  From either extreme, the us/them mentality says there is a great gulf that divides the powerful ideologies, and no one of consequence can exist in that no man’s land of mediocrity.

But if we were to plot this on a graph, it might actually look more like a bell-shaped curve, where the middle is the pinnacle, where common ground becomes the high ground.  For years, that is where I have found myself.

Whether in religion or politics, I am neither liberal nor conservative.  Well, I’m as much both as neither, I suppose.  I have come to believe that in order to be true to anything, we must think for ourselves.  The most vocal ideologues in politics or religion have the least ability to see things from different perspectives.  They believe what they have received, and repeat that frequently and loudly, never giving the light, almost whispering voice of reason a moment let alone a full audience to be able to judge and balance what fits the evidence and supports a position.

I lived much of the first five decades of my life as staunchly conservative in politics.  Perhaps I should have known I was destined for something different when I found it so hard to accept any sort of religion for a very long time.  When I finally accepted faith, it was not based on the “fire insurance” peddled by so many who preach and teach in my faith tradition.  I would not, no, I could not stake a thing of such importance solely on fear.  It was not until I heard and saw love and selflessness as the true foundation of Jesus’ teachings that I wanted to be his follower and friend.   As I have said before, I have never looked back.

Politically, I was as right wing as any good Republican could have been without being Libertarian.  I had little use for liberals of any stripe.  Until I opened my eyes to what too many GOP leaders were touting as conservative values: in my estimation, these amounted to little more than strategies and plans to make the rich richer and keep the poor in a state of economic slavery.  The government can’t give handouts to the poor, and yet the government will not support raising the minimum wage to a livable level of income so that people don’t need handouts.  The action has come down to the states, where conservative lawmakers just pushed through a bill in Alabama to prohibit local governments from raising the minimum wage, all under the guise of sparking economic growth.  They seem to forget that workers are potential consumers of goods and services, and a better paid worker will have more to spend.  Conservatives must be pro-life, but after a baby is rescued from abortion, there appears to be no public responsibility to care for that child, feed it, provide health care and a good education: those must be the parents’ responsibility.

In so many ways, the conservative call has come down to money, more money, and don’t stand in the way of some people making as much money as they can.  The shameful Supreme Court decision referred to as “Citizens United” may well go down as one of the worst things ever in the history of jurisprudence.  The idea that corporations are in fact “people” with constitutionally secured and guaranteed rights of speech through an inexhaustible flow of money into the political arena was nothing more than the Court handing over the keys to the Capitol.  I stand among liberals when I express my disdain for this travesty of justice that left the door open for billionaires to legally buy elections.  Money may buy power, but wealth and power are not necessarily coexistent with morality and ethics—at least not in the positive sense.

I have seen people whom I respect and admire discuss a lost vision of prosperity by failing to elect a “good businessman” with government experience.  They seem to forget, however, that that very businessman had at one time espoused principles and practices that made him a successful governor that were contrary to what he would later tout as a presidential candidate.  They seem to discount the fact that much of his business success was based largely on vulture capitalism, buying struggling companies for pennies on the dollar and picking their bones, selling off viable bits and putting thousands of real people out of jobs.  That’s okay, I suppose because it was only business.  And, they failed to consider that his choice of running mate was a man who was a professed and devoted disciple of Ayn Rand, one of the most despicable characters in 20th century economic philosophy who was vehemently opposed to Christian principles, choosing rather to rewrite a code of morality to elevate selfishness as the crowning virtue.

The misplaced admiration they exhibit for these captains of industry who set their sights first on profit and then on politics to make more profit is far removed from the teachings of Jesus, who warned that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven, and who looked with love at a wealthy young man who was very good at law-keeping and told him to sell all of his possessions, effectively whatever would stand in his way to a life of service, and give it to the poor.  A man’s income does not reflect his virtue, but rather what he does with it.

Others enumerate what we must do in order to return to greatness, including things like eliminate all environmental regulations, eliminate social programs, and let the failed theory of trickle-down economics run its course.  The free market must be allowed to be completely free for there to be prosperity.  But by eliminating social programs, we will only punish those who truly need them: children born into a cycle of poverty, the disabled, the elderly, those displaced by corporate actions motivated solely by maximizing profit.  They may point to their interpretation of scripture and note that Christians should take care of other Christians in need.  But the need is so incredibly great that it cannot be carried by the few that try to shoulder the burden.  And many who are so vocal about such Christian responsibility do little or nothing to individually meet those needs.

According to many staunch conservatives, the God-given environment is full of resources to use, and anything that stands in the way of the money that can be made from the exploitation of those resources must be rejected.  Never mind that without regulation, we tend to exploit things into oblivion, resulting in unstable ecological communities.  And when we destabilize communities, we run the risk of ecological collapse.  We cannot escape Muir’s observation, that when we pull on any thread in nature, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.  Neither can we escape God’s instruction to Adam when he was placed in the Garden of Eden, that his responsibility was to take care of it.  It is interesting that such an instruction was never rescinded after the Fall.

At the same time, we cannot ignore the human side of an environmental equation.  We cannot deprive anyone of a livelihood without providing an alternative.  If we close a coal mine, we need to make sure that every former miner is trained to do something else and can make a comparable living.  I am sensitive to this, I suppose, because I remember how tobacco used to be a huge cash crop back where I am from.  But when tobacco was finally acknowledged to be the threat to public health that it is, government price supports and later subsidies for production went away, and people lost income.

I suppose I am on the moderate side of conservative when it comes to issues such as abortion.  I make no apologies for my unwavering opposition to abortion as merely elective birth control or a way to deal with an “inconvenience.”  If a woman claims to have a right to determine what she does with her body, she first has a responsibility—along with her partner, to be sure—to prevent unwanted pregnancies.  Contrary to what many may think, sex is not the defining feature of a genuine, loving relationship, and if it is, the relationship has little to commend it.  Birth control is inexpensive, effective, and available.

I cannot support, however, the complete legal prohibition of a medical procedure that may be necessary to save a life in those admittedly rare instances. Nor could I remove such a procedure from the options when dealing with a pregnancy violently initiated by rape or incest.  I could not imagine being an innocent victim and being sentenced to relive daily a life’s most traumatic event.  The “contragestive” drugs applied within hours of a rape would prevent implantation of an embryo of only a few cells if fertilization has taken place.  This would be far less costly, harmful and cruel than forcing a woman to carry a rapist’s offspring.  (And yes, I have seen the stories of those whose lives were owed to rape, and how wonderful the contributions they have made because they were not terminated.  We may never know how many lives of women and girls have been destroyed, however.  But that is not important, I suppose.)

There will be those who say that rape or incest are not valid reasons to allow the medical termination of a pregnancy, and such may only account for less than 1% of all abortions.  Well, if you were one of that 1% it’s likely that it’s enough to allow for those rare exceptions.  Consider that in one study, 33% of rape victims had seriously considered suicide vs. 8% who had not been crime victims; 13% of rape victims had attempted suicide vs. 1% of non-victims. Add to that a higher rate of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression and substance abuse and the effects of rape are far more than the physical assault and injury occurring at the moment the crime was committed: the issue of saving a life may indeed be a valid one.

Contrary to the conservative position that abhors big government, I believe in a government big enough to protect a nation’s people.  “Protection” to some is only equated with national defense, but I assert that it must be more.  The people must be protected from industries that would endanger them and put them at risk as those corporations pursue only economic prizes.  Some of the leading captains of 21st century industry seem to be nostalgic for the Gilded Age of the Robber Barons, when labor was populated by ignorant, compliant sheep, life was cheap, and money flowed freely into their banks, largely because environmental regulations did not exist and worker safety was little more than a passing benediction on the way to the shops and mines.  Consumer safety would be far less comprehensive if industries were charged with policing themselves as some of the most Libertarian leaning leaders would like to see.

I am firmly entrenched in the more liberal call for tighter gun control, but certainly not the surrender of all firearms…which puts me somewhere back in the middle.  I have no problem with sporting weapons.  I don’t even mind if trained, qualified, mentally stable people have a weapon for personal protection.  But I am firmly opposed to unfettered commerce in assault weapons, large capacity magazines and ammunition designed only to kill humans.  I have been vilified by my friends who like guns, and considered wishy-washy by those who would like to see complete disarmament.  Both groups have put words in my mouth that I have never said and motives in my mind that I have never proposed let alone allowed to direct my activities.

Sometimes I sit and think about the words of Jesus when he talked about entering in at the narrow gate.  The broad way, the easy path leads to destruction.  But what if that broad way simply involves going with the flow, any flow, whatever that flow may be?  What if Jesus wanted people to get things right, but do so by doing some of the hard work themselves?  If we never strive, if we never wrestle with questions of temporal or eternal importance but accept without questioning any particular view, have we not merely followed the broad way?

I have a desire, no, a need to know things.  I must examine and explore and understand.  If I fail to do that and accept without thought or reflection any view or idea, whether religious or political, I have taken the easy path.  That portrays not conviction, but the lack of it.  Blind acceptance is not faith.  It requires no effort to simply comply without testing.  Faith is hard to attain, at least for many of us, and it is harder to maintain in the constant flow of ideas and arguments that surround us.

But it is worth it.  There is fulfillment in knowing what you believe and why.  I cannot be like one of my staunchly Republican ancestors, who believed that a Democrat had as much of a chance of going to Heaven as a member of an unnamed denomination of which she was not a part.  She likely couldn’t say why she thought Democrats were damned: she just knew they were, perhaps because that’s what she had heard.  I cannot, nor would I ever condemn her for her view, since I recognize that she was a product of her environment as much as anything.  She worked with what she had, the light available to her.

And so, I wind up in the middle.  Pendulums swing and slowly move away from the extremes, and eventually they rest in between, at least without further disturbance.  But life is not without disturbance, and soon, the pendulum is pulled to one extreme, or pushed to the other, and the loud proponents of diametrically opposed ideologies again fan the flames of conflict.  And those who seek the sanity of the middle are again in the crosshairs of either side, or dismissed as collateral damage in the on-going war of extremes.  Perhaps we will always be there in that no man’s land, those of us who seek peace and reason and sanity.  Maybe it’s time to plant our flag and claim that ground for the radical moderates.  There’s plenty of room for company.