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
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
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.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
political antibiotics
I saw a sign recently that had echoed the recurring theme of "throw the bums out" ,referring to Congress (and perhaps local and state officeholders as well) . There is a sentiment in our country that if we just "clean house" that somehow things will get better and our problems will disappear.It is usually accompanied by cries of "career/professional politician" directed at incumbents at election time, used to attack them as unworthy of the office.
Somehow people think that experience in a job is a bad thing, if the office is elective. And that inexperience or amateur status is to be preferred. Now, there is something to be said for a fresh perspective unfettered by habit and routine. And long tenure in any position does not guarantee competence. But to blindly toss out all incumbents without careful examination is like emptying a fridge into the garbage to eliminate bad odors. You end up with a clean appliance but go hungry...you have to check each item and only toss out the bad stuff.
Or, to use an analogy that popped into my head recently. It's like antibiotics. For quite a while doctors regularly prescribed antibiotics for sick patients exhibiting symptoms of infection. They worked quickly and seemed to solve the problem for both patient and doctor. More recently this has changed and doctors are more reluctant to prescribe them, though many patients do not seem to understand and still request them.
There are three reasons. One is that some bugs have begun to develop resistance to the usual drugs, including antibiotics. Another is that only bacterial infection can be treated by antibiotic, and some bugs are viral. And the third factor is that our bodies contain both good and bad bacteria but the antibiotics don't distinguish between the two. It kills both, and in the process weakens the immune system, making it vulnerable to other illnesses.
I believe this is true with Congress and other representative assemblies. There are, to be sure, bad apples that need to be removed. But we must distinguish between the good and the bad and not generalize to our own detriment. If we are not careful we may get worse "bugs",get no fix of problems because we trade (elect) one bad bug for another, or we weaken the whole system of government because we have elected a whole bunch of well-meaning but untested rookies who don't know how to use the system to best benefit us, while tossing out proven problem solvers due to guilt-by-association.
Please, think before you vote.
Somehow people think that experience in a job is a bad thing, if the office is elective. And that inexperience or amateur status is to be preferred. Now, there is something to be said for a fresh perspective unfettered by habit and routine. And long tenure in any position does not guarantee competence. But to blindly toss out all incumbents without careful examination is like emptying a fridge into the garbage to eliminate bad odors. You end up with a clean appliance but go hungry...you have to check each item and only toss out the bad stuff.
Or, to use an analogy that popped into my head recently. It's like antibiotics. For quite a while doctors regularly prescribed antibiotics for sick patients exhibiting symptoms of infection. They worked quickly and seemed to solve the problem for both patient and doctor. More recently this has changed and doctors are more reluctant to prescribe them, though many patients do not seem to understand and still request them.
There are three reasons. One is that some bugs have begun to develop resistance to the usual drugs, including antibiotics. Another is that only bacterial infection can be treated by antibiotic, and some bugs are viral. And the third factor is that our bodies contain both good and bad bacteria but the antibiotics don't distinguish between the two. It kills both, and in the process weakens the immune system, making it vulnerable to other illnesses.
I believe this is true with Congress and other representative assemblies. There are, to be sure, bad apples that need to be removed. But we must distinguish between the good and the bad and not generalize to our own detriment. If we are not careful we may get worse "bugs",get no fix of problems because we trade (elect) one bad bug for another, or we weaken the whole system of government because we have elected a whole bunch of well-meaning but untested rookies who don't know how to use the system to best benefit us, while tossing out proven problem solvers due to guilt-by-association.
Please, think before you vote.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
SCOTUS
SCOTUS is the acronym for Supreme Court of the United States, also known simply as "the Court". Periodically there are vacancies in its membership and the President is called on to nominate, and the Senate to consent to, a new justice. We are that point in our history again and I thought it was a good time to briefly comment on my views on the Court and why careful consideration is important to American freedom.
Many will rail against "judicial activism" and urge support for a "strict constructionist"...also railing against "unelected" deciders of law and those who argue for the view of the Constitution as a "living document". To them I say, activism is vital to our national health and ,yes, the Constitution is a living document that we need to continually re-evaluated through the years. The Founders were not psychics - they could not spell everything out because they did not know what would come up. So they built in flexibility in the document so that it ,and we, could adapt to changing times.
The three branches of government- legislative, executive, and judicial -have separate and distinct functions and areas of power, and also have ways to check the power of each other. This is to prevent over-reach by any and to keep government balanced. As far as the judiciary is concerned their area of power is the interpretation of the law. They are charged with the duty to uphold the Constitution by making sure that all the actions of the other two branches (plus the local and state versions of those branches) are in agreement with the rules of the Constitution , because it is the supreme law of the land.
In order to do this the Court may strike down laws or other governmental action as unconstitutional. It does so in response to cases appealed to it from lower courts. These are brought by ordinary citizens who have not found relief from any other source. We work under the mantra of "majority rules, minority rights". The will of the majority acts through the legislative branch and that is vital to a stable country. But when the rights of a minority are being trampled on it can easily become a "tyranny of the majority" - think of slavery and racial segregation/discrimination that went on for decades even after slavery was outlawed. This is where the Court steps in.
Long standing tradition is important and legal precedence is as well. These are vital to preserve, for the sake of a stable society, and thus conservatism has its place. But liberalism does as well, coming from the same root as liberty, and seeing that only in growing are we truly free. It is akin to matters of faith where some are mired in legalism...those who won't do anything unless they firmly believe God has spelled it out as okay. Versus those who believe that God has set us free to live , giving only simple guidelines, and that if it is not specifically denied as bad we can try it. Sticking to traditions in law makes as much sense as in matters of faith. The faith version of this is the proverbial 7 last words of the church "we've never done it that way before".
I believe that the Court stands as the defender of the powerless against the powerful. But you say, don't citizens have recourse through Congress? Yes, the ballot box and Congressional phones lines/emails are open for all and we can make our views known. But when the majority opinion is destructive of the rights of an individual where are they to go but to the Court?
Just after Pearl Harbor there were thousands of American citizens of Japanese ancestry who were interned in relocation camps because they were deemed, solely on the basis of their race/national origin to be suspect in their loyalty to the US. Not for anything they had done but of who they were. They had no recourse in Congress, popular opinion of the majority was against them, so the only way to seek relief against unfair treatment was to go to the Court.
Unfortunately, this is one of the times when the Court failed. In Korematsu v US (1944) the Court decided that the exclusionary zones on the West Coast, excluding those of Japanese ancestry, were constitutional. The Chief Justice even said that the defendant was not excluded because of his race! It took us almost 40 years to apologize and say that the decision was wrong. Similarly it took over 50 years to determine that "separate but equal" rationale for racial segregation in schools was wrong (Plessy v Ferguson 1896 to Brown v Board of Education 1954). And it took Constitutional amendments (13th,14 th) and the Civil War to fix the situation and finally outlaw slavery after the disastrous Dred Scott decision in 1857. So it is important for the Court to get it right.
Some in our country would like to restrict the jurisdiction of the Court, even some (Texas GOP platform) who would like to do that in cases involving the Bill of Rights! My friends, the Bill of Rights is toothless without the Court. The right of legal counsel when on trial (Gideon v Wainwright 1963) or advice of legal rights when arrested (Miranda v Arizona 1966) were both strengthened by the Court. When popular opinion in reaction to current events (think 9-11) looks for scapegoats among the powerless there is great need for an entity like the Court to stand up in defense.
Some have said that the Court must be impartial. One justice nominee, who is now the Chief Justice, said it was to be an umpire, calling balls and strikes . This envisions a level playing field between the parties to a case. This can hold when there are two individuals involved. But when the case involves the law-making or law-enforcement group (like Congress, President,etc) versus an ordinary citizen, there is no level playing field. So the Court must take steps to re-examine the law and the Constitution and find out if there is to be relief for that individual. Law-makers and Law-Enforcers need no defense - they have the power. It is the individual who needs protection for his/her liberties.
For those who would blanch at a "re-examination" of the Constitution let me give you a parallel situation. For those of you who are people of faith, relying on a scripture for divine guidance. Have you learned all you can from your first reading of it, or do you often have the experience that you see new things/new truths or understand more each time you re-read it? I know I do.
Is it because God changed? No, it is because we have grown and times have changed and we need a fresh understanding of divine will to apply to our new situations. It is much the same with the Constitution. It has not changed, but the times and we have , and there is always a need to further our application of its principles and laws to the times we live in.
The same judicial nominee/now justice said that benefit of the doubt should go to the lawmaker/law enforcer. No, that is not how our system of justice works and he should know better. The benefit of the doubt should always go to the one accused "innocent until/unless proven guilty". An activist Court is a hallmark and defense of individual liberty and we should demand and celebrate that -today of all days.
Happy Fourth of July everybody! :)
Many will rail against "judicial activism" and urge support for a "strict constructionist"...also railing against "unelected" deciders of law and those who argue for the view of the Constitution as a "living document". To them I say, activism is vital to our national health and ,yes, the Constitution is a living document that we need to continually re-evaluated through the years. The Founders were not psychics - they could not spell everything out because they did not know what would come up. So they built in flexibility in the document so that it ,and we, could adapt to changing times.
The three branches of government- legislative, executive, and judicial -have separate and distinct functions and areas of power, and also have ways to check the power of each other. This is to prevent over-reach by any and to keep government balanced. As far as the judiciary is concerned their area of power is the interpretation of the law. They are charged with the duty to uphold the Constitution by making sure that all the actions of the other two branches (plus the local and state versions of those branches) are in agreement with the rules of the Constitution , because it is the supreme law of the land.
In order to do this the Court may strike down laws or other governmental action as unconstitutional. It does so in response to cases appealed to it from lower courts. These are brought by ordinary citizens who have not found relief from any other source. We work under the mantra of "majority rules, minority rights". The will of the majority acts through the legislative branch and that is vital to a stable country. But when the rights of a minority are being trampled on it can easily become a "tyranny of the majority" - think of slavery and racial segregation/discrimination that went on for decades even after slavery was outlawed. This is where the Court steps in.
Long standing tradition is important and legal precedence is as well. These are vital to preserve, for the sake of a stable society, and thus conservatism has its place. But liberalism does as well, coming from the same root as liberty, and seeing that only in growing are we truly free. It is akin to matters of faith where some are mired in legalism...those who won't do anything unless they firmly believe God has spelled it out as okay. Versus those who believe that God has set us free to live , giving only simple guidelines, and that if it is not specifically denied as bad we can try it. Sticking to traditions in law makes as much sense as in matters of faith. The faith version of this is the proverbial 7 last words of the church "we've never done it that way before".
I believe that the Court stands as the defender of the powerless against the powerful. But you say, don't citizens have recourse through Congress? Yes, the ballot box and Congressional phones lines/emails are open for all and we can make our views known. But when the majority opinion is destructive of the rights of an individual where are they to go but to the Court?
Just after Pearl Harbor there were thousands of American citizens of Japanese ancestry who were interned in relocation camps because they were deemed, solely on the basis of their race/national origin to be suspect in their loyalty to the US. Not for anything they had done but of who they were. They had no recourse in Congress, popular opinion of the majority was against them, so the only way to seek relief against unfair treatment was to go to the Court.
Unfortunately, this is one of the times when the Court failed. In Korematsu v US (1944) the Court decided that the exclusionary zones on the West Coast, excluding those of Japanese ancestry, were constitutional. The Chief Justice even said that the defendant was not excluded because of his race! It took us almost 40 years to apologize and say that the decision was wrong. Similarly it took over 50 years to determine that "separate but equal" rationale for racial segregation in schools was wrong (Plessy v Ferguson 1896 to Brown v Board of Education 1954). And it took Constitutional amendments (13th,14 th) and the Civil War to fix the situation and finally outlaw slavery after the disastrous Dred Scott decision in 1857. So it is important for the Court to get it right.
Some in our country would like to restrict the jurisdiction of the Court, even some (Texas GOP platform) who would like to do that in cases involving the Bill of Rights! My friends, the Bill of Rights is toothless without the Court. The right of legal counsel when on trial (Gideon v Wainwright 1963) or advice of legal rights when arrested (Miranda v Arizona 1966) were both strengthened by the Court. When popular opinion in reaction to current events (think 9-11) looks for scapegoats among the powerless there is great need for an entity like the Court to stand up in defense.
Some have said that the Court must be impartial. One justice nominee, who is now the Chief Justice, said it was to be an umpire, calling balls and strikes . This envisions a level playing field between the parties to a case. This can hold when there are two individuals involved. But when the case involves the law-making or law-enforcement group (like Congress, President,etc) versus an ordinary citizen, there is no level playing field. So the Court must take steps to re-examine the law and the Constitution and find out if there is to be relief for that individual. Law-makers and Law-Enforcers need no defense - they have the power. It is the individual who needs protection for his/her liberties.
For those who would blanch at a "re-examination" of the Constitution let me give you a parallel situation. For those of you who are people of faith, relying on a scripture for divine guidance. Have you learned all you can from your first reading of it, or do you often have the experience that you see new things/new truths or understand more each time you re-read it? I know I do.
Is it because God changed? No, it is because we have grown and times have changed and we need a fresh understanding of divine will to apply to our new situations. It is much the same with the Constitution. It has not changed, but the times and we have , and there is always a need to further our application of its principles and laws to the times we live in.
The same judicial nominee/now justice said that benefit of the doubt should go to the lawmaker/law enforcer. No, that is not how our system of justice works and he should know better. The benefit of the doubt should always go to the one accused "innocent until/unless proven guilty". An activist Court is a hallmark and defense of individual liberty and we should demand and celebrate that -today of all days.
Happy Fourth of July everybody! :)
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Gettysburg
As we get set to celebrate Independence Day, another anniversary looms that should gives us pause for reflection. On this day,July 3rd, 147 years ago, the battle of Gettysburg ended. It was the bloodiest battle in the Civil War and one of the most deadly in all of American History (46,000 casualties, including almost 8,000 deaths). It was seen as a turning point in the war, the beginning of the end. And it was memorialized in Lincoln's Gettysburg address. The Union was saved , we began to be one people once again, but at a great cost.
Much has been written about the war, too often simplistic notions of what lead to it and what it was all about, but oftentimes it becomes an intellectual exercise , devoid of emotion or an understanding of the people involved. Michael Shaara wrote a book called The Killer Angels, about Gettysburg, later made into a miniseries. I watched it years ago and very much enjoyed it, now I want to read the book.
Especially after I just finished reading Gods and Generals, which was written by Jeff Shaara, Michael's son. This one is about the period leading up to Gettysburg, as seen through the eyes of four key generals: Robert E Lee, Thomas Johnathan (Stonewall) Jackson, for the Confederacy, and Winfield Scott Hancock , Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, for the Union. It shows where they came from (beginning in 1848 and the Mexican war) and what made them who they were, ultimately showing them in the early battles of the war.
The picture that emerges is of four deeply religious individuals (and their fellow soldiers) who all thought they were doing God's work, defending their homes, families, communities. Good people or faith can disagree and God is not bound to any of them. Pious words are easy, actions are not. They were often at the mercy of events that swept them along like a flood. And all saw situations where comrades were split by the war, friendships broken, in part due to the fact that we still did not see ourselves as one nation, but as a collection of states. None were really vocal or active in the debate over slavery, they simply were doing their duty as they saw it.
It also shows that just following orders can be disastrous. There were key parts in the battles when lower level commanders knew the top general was wrong, yet could not bring themselves to challenge the orders...too much military mindset training. And it brings home the reality of war, away from the cold strategy, to the human cost in blood, sweat and tears. Did you know that many of the soldiers (mainly the south) did not have shoes and marched barefoot?
One of the battles shown in the book is the town in which my wife went to college, Fredericksburg. I have been there with her and so I had some sense of what the terrain was like. I have also been to Gettysburg and seen the battlefield, though many,many years ago.
Two things that struck me as I read, apart from the observations above. One is that I shudder to think that people recently would even hint at the word secession (Texas Gov Rick Perry and others) and that states' rights would be the rallying cry for so many. How can we go back to the divisiveness of pre-Civil War days and have state governors think that they can just ignore federal law? That issue was settled, in much blood, and I believe it is only those with no true understanding of history that can spout careless words and concepts like these.
The other thing is that in all our conflicts we must channel our differences through peaceful means and ratchet down the rhetoric. It is healthy to have lengthy , and often contentious, debate over serious issues. But one thing must be certain. We debate as Americans, one nation united by history and purpose, and certain key principles. We must not seek to divide but to unite. As Lincoln had a forgiving attitude ("malice toward none ...charity towards all") towards the rebellious southern states, let us be gracious toward those we disagree with and focus on what we share in common, not those things that can so easily divide us.
As General Sherman once famously said "war is hell" and no one in their right minds (and hearts) would ever seek it willingly. These books (Gods and Generals, and Killer Angels) both show that and remind us that seeking peace is a much preferable goal.
Much has been written about the war, too often simplistic notions of what lead to it and what it was all about, but oftentimes it becomes an intellectual exercise , devoid of emotion or an understanding of the people involved. Michael Shaara wrote a book called The Killer Angels, about Gettysburg, later made into a miniseries. I watched it years ago and very much enjoyed it, now I want to read the book.
Especially after I just finished reading Gods and Generals, which was written by Jeff Shaara, Michael's son. This one is about the period leading up to Gettysburg, as seen through the eyes of four key generals: Robert E Lee, Thomas Johnathan (Stonewall) Jackson, for the Confederacy, and Winfield Scott Hancock , Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, for the Union. It shows where they came from (beginning in 1848 and the Mexican war) and what made them who they were, ultimately showing them in the early battles of the war.
The picture that emerges is of four deeply religious individuals (and their fellow soldiers) who all thought they were doing God's work, defending their homes, families, communities. Good people or faith can disagree and God is not bound to any of them. Pious words are easy, actions are not. They were often at the mercy of events that swept them along like a flood. And all saw situations where comrades were split by the war, friendships broken, in part due to the fact that we still did not see ourselves as one nation, but as a collection of states. None were really vocal or active in the debate over slavery, they simply were doing their duty as they saw it.
It also shows that just following orders can be disastrous. There were key parts in the battles when lower level commanders knew the top general was wrong, yet could not bring themselves to challenge the orders...too much military mindset training. And it brings home the reality of war, away from the cold strategy, to the human cost in blood, sweat and tears. Did you know that many of the soldiers (mainly the south) did not have shoes and marched barefoot?
One of the battles shown in the book is the town in which my wife went to college, Fredericksburg. I have been there with her and so I had some sense of what the terrain was like. I have also been to Gettysburg and seen the battlefield, though many,many years ago.
Two things that struck me as I read, apart from the observations above. One is that I shudder to think that people recently would even hint at the word secession (Texas Gov Rick Perry and others) and that states' rights would be the rallying cry for so many. How can we go back to the divisiveness of pre-Civil War days and have state governors think that they can just ignore federal law? That issue was settled, in much blood, and I believe it is only those with no true understanding of history that can spout careless words and concepts like these.
The other thing is that in all our conflicts we must channel our differences through peaceful means and ratchet down the rhetoric. It is healthy to have lengthy , and often contentious, debate over serious issues. But one thing must be certain. We debate as Americans, one nation united by history and purpose, and certain key principles. We must not seek to divide but to unite. As Lincoln had a forgiving attitude ("malice toward none ...charity towards all") towards the rebellious southern states, let us be gracious toward those we disagree with and focus on what we share in common, not those things that can so easily divide us.
As General Sherman once famously said "war is hell" and no one in their right minds (and hearts) would ever seek it willingly. These books (Gods and Generals, and Killer Angels) both show that and remind us that seeking peace is a much preferable goal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)