Okay, now for the other side. I see my views as having morphed over the last decade or so. I was never a hard-right conservative, just grew up with Republican voting parents. Politics was very attractive to me, thus I was a history/political science major in college, but people always took precedence over political debate and policy matters. I was raised to treat people right, no matter who they were , what they looked like, or where they were from. That was a matter determined by family and faith.
I remained fairly conservative throughout college and beyond, but bit by bit I began to change. I began to challenge the status quo assumptions that I had about government and how it relates to various groups in society. My circle of friends and associates grew more diverse - I was exposed to people from a greater variety of backgrounds and experiences - and I began to rethink issues in light of that. I realized the importance of our social responsibility to care for , as the Bible states, "the least of these". It was taking the mantra that I had learned as a child in interpersonal relationships and extending it to society at large and advocating for its application to the context of "We the People", in other words, government, which is all of us collectively.
So, here are the progressive/liberal answers as I see them, to the questions I have listed.
1. Worldview. See the world in terms of haves vs have-nots, or better yet, the fortunate and the less (or un-)fortunate. There is a sliding scale of need, and each one higher in fortune has a duty to help those less fortunate no matter where they are on the scale. As the Bible states we are "blessed to be a blessing"
2. Theology - Seeing the God of grace and forgiveness. The message of the Cross is all about grace. Law is not unimportant, but we must always remember that we are all human and flawed and that should temper our justice. This is a view that says you do good things because you are forgiven, not to be forgiven. There are a limited amount of things God has specified - some to do , some to avoid, but the majority of life is to be lived by principles, freely. God wants us to live freely, use our minds and hearts, and not be beggars fearing a lash if we step out of line. If we live this way we will treat others better, even when someone has made terrible choices -because , as the old saying goes "there, but for the grace of God , go I" .
3.Role of government . We are the government, not separate from it. Government is us acting as a whole to bring solutions to society. As the Preamble to the Constitution states, we the people established the Constitution to among other things , promote the general welfare, the common good.
4. Interpreting the Constitution: It is a living document , set up to be adaptable to changing times. Why do you think they included an amendment process, if it was to be set in stone? One of the key passages is the "necessary and proper" clause at the end of the list of Congressional powers. It was meant to be flexible.
5. Things government should be involved in. That is for we the people to decide. The size of government is not the key issue, effectiveness is. There are things which are better handled at a state or local level, and things that are better addressed nationally, so that there is a universal standard. We saw that dangers of states going their own way during the Civil Rights battles - individual liberties were protected only when we acted nationally.
6. The Branches of government: The courts should stick up the individual, to protect all rights (not just guns), and not just defer to established authority. The courts should act as a restraint against legislative or executive branch over-reach. Justice is about clearing the innocent, just as much as punishing the guilty. And criminal justice is about restraint , restitution, and rehabilitation, not just punishment. We have a system of checks and balances between our three branches of government and the Supreme Court (and lower federal courts) is not inferior -even though it is insulated (for good reason) from the popular will. Justice and civil liberties should never be up for a vote.
7 and 8 The relationship between the government and the people is a social compact. We agree together to work for the betterment of all. As Lincoln put it we have a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people"
As you can see there are real differences here. Maybe if we know more where we are coming from we can begin to see areas where we agree or we can compromise. We are one people, not split into opposing camps. Leave that to the shouters. Let us really debate and grow.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010
wag more, bark less, part two...the cons
In part one I talked about the divide I see politically on a national scale, and some questions that may shed light on why those differences exist. In this part two I will attempt to give what I think are the typical conservative answers to the questions.
1. World view - they view the world in terms of good people and bad people, with very little, if any, gray in between. They see that there are good people (themselves included), bad people, and then anyone that has not been firmly established in either camp. Those in-between are seen as suspect and presumed to be bad unless verified as good. They believe that people have to prove their innocence and they see life as a constant battle between good and evil, no rest for anyone.
2. Theologically they tend to be legalistic....believing that God is as strict as they are...ready to bang heads of those who step out of line...scripture is just a list of dos and don'ts and anything not clearly marked as either is off limits or must be individually checked out with God through prayer. This fear carries over into their political beliefs- hence the emphasis on law and order.
3. They view the government's role as protecting the good people from the bad people, and maintaining good social order, nothing more. They see it as the problem (to quote the conservative hero , Ronald Reagan), or the enemy , or as a necessary evil, separate from the people, not a part of it. In essence they see government as a hired gun, nothing more.
4. They are strict constructionists as far as constitutional interpretation. They share some version of the view of Supreme Court Justice Scalia, who has stated that the Constitution should be viewed through the original intent of the founders and that it is fixed in time. Their focus is on the enumerated powers and not allowing Congress to expand beyond what is expressly listed. They also put great weight on the 10th Amendment, that all powers not specifically designated to the federal government or prohibited to the states, are reserved for the states and to the people . They argue for a smaller and very much limited government.
5. Understandably they focus on:1.war and national security(protecting against those bad outside the country); 2. law enforcement (national, state, local) protecting against those bad within the country); and , 3. gun rights (making sure that when the other two entities break down that there is personal protection against the bad). Anything else is out of bounds. While they say they want government out of their lives they make exceptions and these are all in keeping with their worldview. Drug laws are okay, including policies against medical marijuana, because they see those who use drugs as bad. Laws that discriminated against gays, like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or DOMA (against gay marriage) are see as okay, because they view gays as bad people. Union restrictions are seen as okay because they basically want businesses left to do whatever they want because they see business as good and as the fountain of freedom and democracy.
6. They elevate the elected branches over anything or anyone appointed - courts are seen to function only as an arbiter for good people and a punisher of bad. Thus mandatory sentencing guidelines are popular, since they don't want judges to have leeway , that would let bad people get away. They see criminal justice as being "lock away the bad guys for as long as you can", "anyone accused of a crime is automatically guilty". They view the courts as inferior to the legislative and executive branches. They accuse justices of being activist if they attempt any sort of judicial review -elevating the "peoples' will" over the rights of minorities.
7. Their view the relationship between the people and the government as a contract. This is not just because of their general pro-business outlook (stating "government should be run like a business) . But also because they view government as a necessary evil , a hired gun brought in to confront and control the bad in society. And hired help need only a contract - one that can be abrogated at any time when the hirer decides the hired is not performing his or her duties correctly. Basically an an employer/employee or master/slave relationship. Hence the"Contract with America".
8. They use the term "we the people" to denote common folk, people like them, but then describe anybody different as "out of the mainstream"...in other words, abnormal. So it would seem to me that when they talk about we the people, they only mean the "good", not everybody.
I know this is in some respects a broad generalization. I have seen trends and common themes come up in conservative talk throughout my life, from Nixon/Agnew, through Reagan, and again under Bush I and II. Recently there has been a lot more fear talk, which I think re-enforces the good/bad conflict that they see in society - including references to the "culture wars" (a term I particularly hate). This is why I believe these are their answers to the questions I have raised. And it explains some of what may at first appear to be inconsistency in their statements -like in terms of personal freedom (it is freedom for the good only, it would seem)
Does this describe you? It's not me...more on that in part 3.
1. World view - they view the world in terms of good people and bad people, with very little, if any, gray in between. They see that there are good people (themselves included), bad people, and then anyone that has not been firmly established in either camp. Those in-between are seen as suspect and presumed to be bad unless verified as good. They believe that people have to prove their innocence and they see life as a constant battle between good and evil, no rest for anyone.
2. Theologically they tend to be legalistic....believing that God is as strict as they are...ready to bang heads of those who step out of line...scripture is just a list of dos and don'ts and anything not clearly marked as either is off limits or must be individually checked out with God through prayer. This fear carries over into their political beliefs- hence the emphasis on law and order.
3. They view the government's role as protecting the good people from the bad people, and maintaining good social order, nothing more. They see it as the problem (to quote the conservative hero , Ronald Reagan), or the enemy , or as a necessary evil, separate from the people, not a part of it. In essence they see government as a hired gun, nothing more.
4. They are strict constructionists as far as constitutional interpretation. They share some version of the view of Supreme Court Justice Scalia, who has stated that the Constitution should be viewed through the original intent of the founders and that it is fixed in time. Their focus is on the enumerated powers and not allowing Congress to expand beyond what is expressly listed. They also put great weight on the 10th Amendment, that all powers not specifically designated to the federal government or prohibited to the states, are reserved for the states and to the people . They argue for a smaller and very much limited government.
5. Understandably they focus on:1.war and national security(protecting against those bad outside the country); 2. law enforcement (national, state, local) protecting against those bad within the country); and , 3. gun rights (making sure that when the other two entities break down that there is personal protection against the bad). Anything else is out of bounds. While they say they want government out of their lives they make exceptions and these are all in keeping with their worldview. Drug laws are okay, including policies against medical marijuana, because they see those who use drugs as bad. Laws that discriminated against gays, like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or DOMA (against gay marriage) are see as okay, because they view gays as bad people. Union restrictions are seen as okay because they basically want businesses left to do whatever they want because they see business as good and as the fountain of freedom and democracy.
6. They elevate the elected branches over anything or anyone appointed - courts are seen to function only as an arbiter for good people and a punisher of bad. Thus mandatory sentencing guidelines are popular, since they don't want judges to have leeway , that would let bad people get away. They see criminal justice as being "lock away the bad guys for as long as you can", "anyone accused of a crime is automatically guilty". They view the courts as inferior to the legislative and executive branches. They accuse justices of being activist if they attempt any sort of judicial review -elevating the "peoples' will" over the rights of minorities.
7. Their view the relationship between the people and the government as a contract. This is not just because of their general pro-business outlook (stating "government should be run like a business) . But also because they view government as a necessary evil , a hired gun brought in to confront and control the bad in society. And hired help need only a contract - one that can be abrogated at any time when the hirer decides the hired is not performing his or her duties correctly. Basically an an employer/employee or master/slave relationship. Hence the"Contract with America".
8. They use the term "we the people" to denote common folk, people like them, but then describe anybody different as "out of the mainstream"...in other words, abnormal. So it would seem to me that when they talk about we the people, they only mean the "good", not everybody.
I know this is in some respects a broad generalization. I have seen trends and common themes come up in conservative talk throughout my life, from Nixon/Agnew, through Reagan, and again under Bush I and II. Recently there has been a lot more fear talk, which I think re-enforces the good/bad conflict that they see in society - including references to the "culture wars" (a term I particularly hate). This is why I believe these are their answers to the questions I have raised. And it explains some of what may at first appear to be inconsistency in their statements -like in terms of personal freedom (it is freedom for the good only, it would seem)
Does this describe you? It's not me...more on that in part 3.
Friday, October 15, 2010
wag more ,bark less..part one
We are a very polarized nation right now. Not just because there are differences between us but because many of those differences have been reduced to slogans, signs, and shouting. There is a wide chasm between those on the right and those on the left, with many feeling they have been dropped into the abyss between. And while some would attempt to build a bridge others (on each side) are trying to burn it down. Did we forget we are all Americans, members of one nation?
Part of the reason is that we see political differences as having moral components - a right and wrong answer, and no room for compromise or accommodation. We have let our emotions run wild and put our minds on hold. Not that passion is not important. But without a rational/reasonable mind to establish boundaries our political discourse runs amok.
It is time for all of us to go back to basics and figure out what we believe politically, why we believe it, and realize that in our pluralistic democracy it is okay if we disagree, as long as we do it peacefully. I will attempt, in this three part blog series, to outline what I see as the two major current lines of thought on politics, and the reasons why. This is not to say that these are the only ways, since I believe that there is a continuum of thought that stretches from one side to the other. But it is meant as a starting point for discussion. I will also let you know where I stand and why.
I believe that most people see government in one of two ways,conservative or liberal/progressive, generally. I believe this is based at least in part on their worldview - how they categorize people. This is formed partly from personal and family experience and partly from their spiritual views, whether individualistic or organized-religion based. Their worldview influences how they view the role of govt,interpretation of the Constitution,the functions and limits of govt,and their involvement in it.
I believe there are several questions that we need to ask ourselves to examine the foundations of our own political philosophy. Ask yourselves these questions and then in the next two parts I will discuss how and why I see the two sides answering these.
1. Worldview...how do you view the world,specifically how do you divide up or categorize the people in it? Is it good vs bad? Have's vs have-not's? Fortunate vs unfortunate? Or something else?
2. What is your concept of God/higher power? For those who believe in God,we see an ultimate authority and the way we view God influences how we view our relationship to any other authority. Legalism or grace, justice or forgiveness, what is the attribute that predominates in your mind?
3. Role of government -what is it , a separate entity, or part of or an extension of us(we the people)?
4. How do you interpret the constitution..is it fixed in time, or a living document that flexes to handle the changing times?
5. what areas do you see the government having a proper role in , what not, and why?
6. what role do you see for the different branches of government , especially the courts?
7. what is the relationship between the government and the people...is it a contract or a compact?
8. and, finally, just what do you think is meant by "we the people"?
Most of what we see in political debate today would have us believe that there is a fixed wall between left and right and no way to bridge it. I believe, however, that most people are somewhere in the middle and don't know what they believe or why. There is much passion without thought, which some use to their own ends. There is hope for dialogue and solutions if we first understand where we are coming from and try to work things out instead of always fighting inflexibly.
To quote a recent bumper sticker "Wag more, bark less"....it's not just for dogs:)
Part of the reason is that we see political differences as having moral components - a right and wrong answer, and no room for compromise or accommodation. We have let our emotions run wild and put our minds on hold. Not that passion is not important. But without a rational/reasonable mind to establish boundaries our political discourse runs amok.
It is time for all of us to go back to basics and figure out what we believe politically, why we believe it, and realize that in our pluralistic democracy it is okay if we disagree, as long as we do it peacefully. I will attempt, in this three part blog series, to outline what I see as the two major current lines of thought on politics, and the reasons why. This is not to say that these are the only ways, since I believe that there is a continuum of thought that stretches from one side to the other. But it is meant as a starting point for discussion. I will also let you know where I stand and why.
I believe that most people see government in one of two ways,conservative or liberal/progressive, generally. I believe this is based at least in part on their worldview - how they categorize people. This is formed partly from personal and family experience and partly from their spiritual views, whether individualistic or organized-religion based. Their worldview influences how they view the role of govt,interpretation of the Constitution,the functions and limits of govt,and their involvement in it.
I believe there are several questions that we need to ask ourselves to examine the foundations of our own political philosophy. Ask yourselves these questions and then in the next two parts I will discuss how and why I see the two sides answering these.
1. Worldview...how do you view the world,specifically how do you divide up or categorize the people in it? Is it good vs bad? Have's vs have-not's? Fortunate vs unfortunate? Or something else?
2. What is your concept of God/higher power? For those who believe in God,we see an ultimate authority and the way we view God influences how we view our relationship to any other authority. Legalism or grace, justice or forgiveness, what is the attribute that predominates in your mind?
3. Role of government -what is it , a separate entity, or part of or an extension of us(we the people)?
4. How do you interpret the constitution..is it fixed in time, or a living document that flexes to handle the changing times?
5. what areas do you see the government having a proper role in , what not, and why?
6. what role do you see for the different branches of government , especially the courts?
7. what is the relationship between the government and the people...is it a contract or a compact?
8. and, finally, just what do you think is meant by "we the people"?
Most of what we see in political debate today would have us believe that there is a fixed wall between left and right and no way to bridge it. I believe, however, that most people are somewhere in the middle and don't know what they believe or why. There is much passion without thought, which some use to their own ends. There is hope for dialogue and solutions if we first understand where we are coming from and try to work things out instead of always fighting inflexibly.
To quote a recent bumper sticker "Wag more, bark less"....it's not just for dogs:)
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Prejudice
We live in a dangerous world, as many campaigning today would tell us. Many appeal to our fears to fuel their own drive to power. But often times they resort to feeding our biggest enemy. They label groups as "suspicious", accuse candidates of being up to no good...all but accusing them of being "the enemy". It is a tactic that can separate us more than all our other differences - cultural, economic, religious, language, or politics. It comes in many forms with many names, most provoking automatic defensiveness. But to understand and defeat it we need to see it in it's most basic form.It is called prejudice.
Prejudice, to break it down linguistically, is just pre-judging. It is like a judge ruling a defendant in a trial guilty, before hearing any of the evidence. It is judging an individual based on what we know or think about the group he or she is a part of, rather than on his or her actions. We tend to form opinions about groups -like for instance, blonds - based on a small sample of interactions with some individuals- and make a broad group generalization by which we then use to evaluate any other members of that group. And usually the generalizations we make are not positive.:(
Think of it this way. If you were bitten by a dog as a young child you might be fearful of all dogs. If you avoided dogs because of this, your attitude toward them would be governed by your early experience. All dogs would be judged based on that one encounter you had,even though they may be the most gentle of dogs. If, on the other hand, you were like me, and had multitudes of positive dog experiences while young, you would approach dogs quite differently. Childhood experiences can be very powerful but as adults we need to rise above those or we will remained trapped in our own little world...and be used by those who prey upon prejudice.
The driving force behind prejudice is fear. Like the previous example we can develop fear from early experiences-or learn them from our family or friends. Our strongest, most basic need is self-preservation. Real or perceived threats to that will cause us to become defensive and look for shortcuts to build our defenses. Much like we label medicines and food for quick and safe action, we label people to enable our bodies and minds to react on short notice. But these are dangerous shortcuts. It puts us in a constant state of "fight or flight" and stunts our living. And it hurts others, as well.
We have seen throughout our history that in times of distress we lean towards prejudice. In times of economic downturn we discriminated against many categories of immigrants (Italians, Irish, Jews,Asians,etc). After Pearl Harbor we let fear drive us to lock up thousands of American citizens in internment camps, simply because they were of Japanese ancestry. And after 9-11 we looked with suspicion on anyone who was either Arabic, or Muslim, or whom we thought were. Lately there are those in our country who use the label "Muslim" as a smear and dagger with which to attack their opponents. And we invaded a country (Iraq) which had not attacked us,based on the fear that if we didn't there might be a "mushroom cloud".
How do we battle this? There are three things we need: knowledge, choice, and humility.Knowledge is needed to dispel the fog of the unknown. We have a fear of the unknown often because we think "what we don't know can hurt us"...we do not share the explorers' expectation of wonderful discovery, but rather fear the bad we imagine awaiting us. Get to know those who are different from you - economically, racially, culturally,even politically. Expand your "sample" of experiences so that you will see a truer picture of the "group". Don't judge all dogs by ill-tempered guard dogs, there are many scruffy unconditional lovers out there in dog form.
Choice... you must choose to avoid generalization and welcome the exploration of the unknown. It takes work, but you will be rewarded. Don't be like the American tourist who goes to Paris and dines on hamburgers. Life is too short to be stunted.
And last, humility...you must accept that you are not perfect. We all fall into the trap of generalizations and prejudice from time to time. You must resist it by being willing to examine yourself and work to correct the flaws you find. And you must be willing to extend the grace you give yourself to others...the freedom to be who they are, not some caricature of your fears. As you want to be treated you must treat others. Would you like to be judged based on the bad behavior of someone who looks or dresses or worships as you do? No? Then don't do it to others. It's as simple as that
Prejudice, to break it down linguistically, is just pre-judging. It is like a judge ruling a defendant in a trial guilty, before hearing any of the evidence. It is judging an individual based on what we know or think about the group he or she is a part of, rather than on his or her actions. We tend to form opinions about groups -like for instance, blonds - based on a small sample of interactions with some individuals- and make a broad group generalization by which we then use to evaluate any other members of that group. And usually the generalizations we make are not positive.:(
Think of it this way. If you were bitten by a dog as a young child you might be fearful of all dogs. If you avoided dogs because of this, your attitude toward them would be governed by your early experience. All dogs would be judged based on that one encounter you had,even though they may be the most gentle of dogs. If, on the other hand, you were like me, and had multitudes of positive dog experiences while young, you would approach dogs quite differently. Childhood experiences can be very powerful but as adults we need to rise above those or we will remained trapped in our own little world...and be used by those who prey upon prejudice.
The driving force behind prejudice is fear. Like the previous example we can develop fear from early experiences-or learn them from our family or friends. Our strongest, most basic need is self-preservation. Real or perceived threats to that will cause us to become defensive and look for shortcuts to build our defenses. Much like we label medicines and food for quick and safe action, we label people to enable our bodies and minds to react on short notice. But these are dangerous shortcuts. It puts us in a constant state of "fight or flight" and stunts our living. And it hurts others, as well.
We have seen throughout our history that in times of distress we lean towards prejudice. In times of economic downturn we discriminated against many categories of immigrants (Italians, Irish, Jews,Asians,etc). After Pearl Harbor we let fear drive us to lock up thousands of American citizens in internment camps, simply because they were of Japanese ancestry. And after 9-11 we looked with suspicion on anyone who was either Arabic, or Muslim, or whom we thought were. Lately there are those in our country who use the label "Muslim" as a smear and dagger with which to attack their opponents. And we invaded a country (Iraq) which had not attacked us,based on the fear that if we didn't there might be a "mushroom cloud".
How do we battle this? There are three things we need: knowledge, choice, and humility.Knowledge is needed to dispel the fog of the unknown. We have a fear of the unknown often because we think "what we don't know can hurt us"...we do not share the explorers' expectation of wonderful discovery, but rather fear the bad we imagine awaiting us. Get to know those who are different from you - economically, racially, culturally,even politically. Expand your "sample" of experiences so that you will see a truer picture of the "group". Don't judge all dogs by ill-tempered guard dogs, there are many scruffy unconditional lovers out there in dog form.
Choice... you must choose to avoid generalization and welcome the exploration of the unknown. It takes work, but you will be rewarded. Don't be like the American tourist who goes to Paris and dines on hamburgers. Life is too short to be stunted.
And last, humility...you must accept that you are not perfect. We all fall into the trap of generalizations and prejudice from time to time. You must resist it by being willing to examine yourself and work to correct the flaws you find. And you must be willing to extend the grace you give yourself to others...the freedom to be who they are, not some caricature of your fears. As you want to be treated you must treat others. Would you like to be judged based on the bad behavior of someone who looks or dresses or worships as you do? No? Then don't do it to others. It's as simple as that
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Remember
Yesterday was a day to remember. Sept 11th will always be day to remember. But what exactly are we remembering and what do we often forget to remember? And what do we do with what we remember? If we only remember the historical event-pictures,video,names and faces and actions/reactions -we are simply historians. If we remember only the pain and anger, the shock and sorrow, we are simply grieving. If we act in revenge and hatred, reacting against real and perceived enemies, we are in danger of simply continuing a cycle of violence that only breeds more violence, death and destruction.
We must remember more. Calling for justice is important, but calling for and contributing to healing is even better. And it extends around the world. We tend to think that war is the only real way to deal with problems we see in the world. We react to conflict instead of being proactive to diffuse situations that can lead to conflict. We pick sides instead of separating the sides and insisting that both sides sit down and talk. We look down on diplomacy as less manly,as giving in. I think sometimes we just like fighting too much.
Look at our dealings with Latin America. How many times over the past century-plus have we intervened in one country or other, always blaming outside forces - like the Soviets mostly - for the trouble? And we ignore the base issues - land distribution and discrimination both racially and economically - that are often fueling the conflict. We have supported many terrible leaders simply because they were "anti-communist" and enraged those they were oppressing.
Our actions in the Middle East have not been much better, fueled by a "stop the Soviets at any cost" mentality...and the effects have lingered far beyond the fall of the USSR. We have chosen sides instead of choosing the pursuit of peace and it has cost us nearly.
But the most important thing to remember is: Remember who we are. Remember what our values are, what makes us different from the extremists who value violence above all. Remember that we have a call to "seek peace and pursue it", a mandate to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and a simple mantra "what does the Lord require of thee, but to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly before thy God". Those are the high points of faith, not judgment and revenge.
As Americans we say we value freedom to speak, to worship, yet in these days many are denouncing and demonizing those who choose to worship differently. We take the crimes of a small deranged minority of one religion and use that to proclaim the whole religion and its followers guilty. And we proclaim that they must "prove" their innocence. This is unAmerican and hateful. This is contrary to all that we profess to believe.
Remember, yes I remember where I was and what I was doing when the towers got hit and when they fell, and I will never forget that. But more importantly I remember who I am , both as an American and as a believer in Christ, and I will never forget that either. This is a legacy of my parents that I strive to live out every day. This is who I am. Who are you? And what will you remember?
We must remember more. Calling for justice is important, but calling for and contributing to healing is even better. And it extends around the world. We tend to think that war is the only real way to deal with problems we see in the world. We react to conflict instead of being proactive to diffuse situations that can lead to conflict. We pick sides instead of separating the sides and insisting that both sides sit down and talk. We look down on diplomacy as less manly,as giving in. I think sometimes we just like fighting too much.
Look at our dealings with Latin America. How many times over the past century-plus have we intervened in one country or other, always blaming outside forces - like the Soviets mostly - for the trouble? And we ignore the base issues - land distribution and discrimination both racially and economically - that are often fueling the conflict. We have supported many terrible leaders simply because they were "anti-communist" and enraged those they were oppressing.
Our actions in the Middle East have not been much better, fueled by a "stop the Soviets at any cost" mentality...and the effects have lingered far beyond the fall of the USSR. We have chosen sides instead of choosing the pursuit of peace and it has cost us nearly.
But the most important thing to remember is: Remember who we are. Remember what our values are, what makes us different from the extremists who value violence above all. Remember that we have a call to "seek peace and pursue it", a mandate to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and a simple mantra "what does the Lord require of thee, but to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly before thy God". Those are the high points of faith, not judgment and revenge.
As Americans we say we value freedom to speak, to worship, yet in these days many are denouncing and demonizing those who choose to worship differently. We take the crimes of a small deranged minority of one religion and use that to proclaim the whole religion and its followers guilty. And we proclaim that they must "prove" their innocence. This is unAmerican and hateful. This is contrary to all that we profess to believe.
Remember, yes I remember where I was and what I was doing when the towers got hit and when they fell, and I will never forget that. But more importantly I remember who I am , both as an American and as a believer in Christ, and I will never forget that either. This is a legacy of my parents that I strive to live out every day. This is who I am. Who are you? And what will you remember?
Sunday, August 22, 2010
lighting your candle
Have you every gotten weary of debate? I enjoy the give and take of debate and discussion , but when it devolves into argument it isn't fun anymore. And when you present evidence and reasoning and receive only hostile rejection and name-calling, etc. it gets a bit old, to put it mildly.It leads me to ranting and pounding my head (figuratively) at the stubborness and blindness of people. I have to stop and wonder, what do I do about that?
I want to suggest three things to do when faced with those situations. Humility and self-examinations, seeking serenity, and lighting candles. Humility means that you examine yourself....your motives and your information ("have I missed something or gotten something wrong?"). We are all human and we all make mistakes. We need to be open to considering the feelings of others and give them the benefit of the doubt...not just friends, but opponents as well.
It is easy to get carried away and see things as black and white, instead of gray.
When you have carefully examined your motives and information, and fixed any flaws therein, then you can move to the next phase, which is serenity. You probably remember the serenity prayer "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference". In this case substitute the words people or minds for things.
There are people who are of the mindset "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up". Don't waste your time with them. There may be times to speak out and oppose them , but dialogue is impossible. The Bible calls those people fools and there is no point of talking to them.
Take courage and press on with those who show some sign of listening to opposing viewpoints.You may be able to persuade them with new information or arguments they have not thought of. It may take a bit of work, but don't despair. And make sure you know the difference...it will save you a lot of grief and frustration.
Lastly, there is an old phrase, not sure of the source, that is very true in today's trying times. "It is better to light a candle than merely curse the darkness." Sometimes it is easy to curse the darkness, considering all the ignorance, misinformation, and outright libel and slander that is spread through our communication venues today. Frustration leads to anger, but we need to be clearheaded and fight fire with water, not more fire. Take a deep breath and focus on doing good for those around you, lighting candles every day. Love is the antidote to hate, peace is the antidote to war, especially for those who are violently opposed to you. Faith is the antidote to doubt and suspicion. And lighting candles will light your own way to peace.
shalom and salaam, my friends.
I want to suggest three things to do when faced with those situations. Humility and self-examinations, seeking serenity, and lighting candles. Humility means that you examine yourself....your motives and your information ("have I missed something or gotten something wrong?"). We are all human and we all make mistakes. We need to be open to considering the feelings of others and give them the benefit of the doubt...not just friends, but opponents as well.
It is easy to get carried away and see things as black and white, instead of gray.
When you have carefully examined your motives and information, and fixed any flaws therein, then you can move to the next phase, which is serenity. You probably remember the serenity prayer "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference". In this case substitute the words people or minds for things.
There are people who are of the mindset "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up". Don't waste your time with them. There may be times to speak out and oppose them , but dialogue is impossible. The Bible calls those people fools and there is no point of talking to them.
Take courage and press on with those who show some sign of listening to opposing viewpoints.You may be able to persuade them with new information or arguments they have not thought of. It may take a bit of work, but don't despair. And make sure you know the difference...it will save you a lot of grief and frustration.
Lastly, there is an old phrase, not sure of the source, that is very true in today's trying times. "It is better to light a candle than merely curse the darkness." Sometimes it is easy to curse the darkness, considering all the ignorance, misinformation, and outright libel and slander that is spread through our communication venues today. Frustration leads to anger, but we need to be clearheaded and fight fire with water, not more fire. Take a deep breath and focus on doing good for those around you, lighting candles every day. Love is the antidote to hate, peace is the antidote to war, especially for those who are violently opposed to you. Faith is the antidote to doubt and suspicion. And lighting candles will light your own way to peace.
shalom and salaam, my friends.
Friday, August 6, 2010
fighting fear
Fear is a natural part of life and happens to all of us. It is part of our "fight or flight" response to percieved danger. But it needs to be handled carefully. If done well it is like a fireplace blaze or campfire that serves us well. Fire keeps us warm, safe and fed - using fear warns us of dangers to avoid - like walking too close to the edge of a cliff. But out of control it is like a forest fire or house fire that is very dangerous and destructive. There is a lot of that destructive fire going on these days and we have to know how to combat it, both in ourselves and in others.
We live in a dangerous, yet fascinating world. We all respond to change differently. Some of us welcome it, some are fearful of it. With change all around we need to be sensitive to the fear that often rises in ourselves and to the fear of others. Most of this is in response to unknowns - who are these people, what will happen next, what do I do next in response to this new thing?
We need first of all to think rationally about our own fear. We need to be aware of what we are afraid of and why. And we need to reason out the best response. We can be affected by others fears so we need to filter the information we receive to strain out any false or misleading - or just unsubstantiated -stuff that may be feeding our fear. Ask yourself - can I do anything about this situation? If so, then do it. If not ,realize that and endeavor to focus on things you can work on.
When we have our own fear fire under control only then can we focus on helping others who fear. There are three basic ways in which people respond to the fears of others. In order to make it clearer, let me continue the fire analogy. The first way is to say "don't be afraid", 'there's nothing to be afraid of", etc. We toss platitudes their way and think that to "just say no" to fear is enough. This is like the well meaning person who throws water on a grease fire. It only spreads the fire. Water is great on a normal fire, but not grease (or oil). In the same way, dismissing someone's fear without knowing the cause will not help.
The second way people handle people's fears today is to stoke them, feed them, pouring gas on the fire. These are the fear pushers. You see and hear them on cable and talk radio. If I mentioned names or showed pictures you would recognize them. They don't care what people are afraid of , they just want to spread the fear, spread the fire. They don't want people to think. They present situations in the simplistic worst light, and if there isn't something currently disturbing they will go looking for it. As one political candidate said about another - "all he knows is a noun,a verb, and 9-11). They need a bogeyman to scare people and for those fear pushers 9-11 was a gold mine.
I advise a third option. Listen and learn and then fight the fear fire intelligently. Take time to understand why the person is afraid. Ask them "what are you afraid of?", and "why are you afraid?"...and then listen to their responses. As people of faith we see the example of God in scripture asking people why they were afraid - not because he didn't know, but because they needed to articulate the reasons so they could deal with the fear and press on. It's like fighting a fire....if you know it's a simple source -like wood, paper,etc -you can douse it with water and kill it. If you know it's gas, oil, or toxic or otherwise hazardous material you know that other things , like dirt, foam,etc., must be used to kill it so that it doesn't spread.
Too often we are fixers, and not listeners. Sometimes we are afraid of others' fears. Sometimes we get weary of all the "be afraid. be very afraid" chant that arises from some quarters of our society. Sometimes we grow weary of trying to help people see past the fear and embrace the new opportunities that are out there in our world. But we must persevere. Fear fire fighting is up to all of us.
We live in a dangerous, yet fascinating world. We all respond to change differently. Some of us welcome it, some are fearful of it. With change all around we need to be sensitive to the fear that often rises in ourselves and to the fear of others. Most of this is in response to unknowns - who are these people, what will happen next, what do I do next in response to this new thing?
We need first of all to think rationally about our own fear. We need to be aware of what we are afraid of and why. And we need to reason out the best response. We can be affected by others fears so we need to filter the information we receive to strain out any false or misleading - or just unsubstantiated -stuff that may be feeding our fear. Ask yourself - can I do anything about this situation? If so, then do it. If not ,realize that and endeavor to focus on things you can work on.
When we have our own fear fire under control only then can we focus on helping others who fear. There are three basic ways in which people respond to the fears of others. In order to make it clearer, let me continue the fire analogy. The first way is to say "don't be afraid", 'there's nothing to be afraid of", etc. We toss platitudes their way and think that to "just say no" to fear is enough. This is like the well meaning person who throws water on a grease fire. It only spreads the fire. Water is great on a normal fire, but not grease (or oil). In the same way, dismissing someone's fear without knowing the cause will not help.
The second way people handle people's fears today is to stoke them, feed them, pouring gas on the fire. These are the fear pushers. You see and hear them on cable and talk radio. If I mentioned names or showed pictures you would recognize them. They don't care what people are afraid of , they just want to spread the fear, spread the fire. They don't want people to think. They present situations in the simplistic worst light, and if there isn't something currently disturbing they will go looking for it. As one political candidate said about another - "all he knows is a noun,a verb, and 9-11). They need a bogeyman to scare people and for those fear pushers 9-11 was a gold mine.
I advise a third option. Listen and learn and then fight the fear fire intelligently. Take time to understand why the person is afraid. Ask them "what are you afraid of?", and "why are you afraid?"...and then listen to their responses. As people of faith we see the example of God in scripture asking people why they were afraid - not because he didn't know, but because they needed to articulate the reasons so they could deal with the fear and press on. It's like fighting a fire....if you know it's a simple source -like wood, paper,etc -you can douse it with water and kill it. If you know it's gas, oil, or toxic or otherwise hazardous material you know that other things , like dirt, foam,etc., must be used to kill it so that it doesn't spread.
Too often we are fixers, and not listeners. Sometimes we are afraid of others' fears. Sometimes we get weary of all the "be afraid. be very afraid" chant that arises from some quarters of our society. Sometimes we grow weary of trying to help people see past the fear and embrace the new opportunities that are out there in our world. But we must persevere. Fear fire fighting is up to all of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)