politics

Exit 165. Torn loyalties.

The current controversy over the removal of monuments of historical figures associated with the Confederate States (for my non-American readers, that would be the rebels of the American Civil War of 1861-65, who lost), as well as a recent trip to visit relatives north of here, got me thinking.  During my travels in 2005, I visited a number of Civil War museums and battle sites, and saw firsthand the perspective that many outside the South tend to forget, that the history of that era was much more nuanced than a simple concept of evil white supremacist racists vs. heroic progressive good guys.  In addition to the issues over slavery, the war was also a battle over the rights of states versus the federal government, and of two different lifestyles and economies competing for a place in the growing nation.

A number of my friends were sharing articles last week about Robert E. Lee and his complex history.  He served for many years in the Union Army before leaving to join the Rebels.  He was initially opposed to a war between the states.  In the months leading up to the war, seven states had formally voted to secede from the United States of America, despite the fact that there was no legal means for doing so.  Shortly after the war broke out, four more states voted to secede, including Lee’s home state of Virginia.  Lee, with torn loyalties, eventually resigned his position with the Union Army on the grounds that he was loyal to his home state and could not fight against it.

I understand completely how one would have torn loyalties.  Since the election of President Donald Trump, there has been much talk here in California about wanting to leave the Union, on the grounds that the current administration does not reflect California values.  Where would my loyalties lie in that case?  I’m not a big fan of this current administration, but I’m even less of a fan of many of these so-called California values.  Would I stay loyal to my beautiful home state, and continue to hope that it might somehow change from within?  Or would I stay loyal to the nation and its Constitution, even if it meant leaving my home behind?

And what if the State of Jefferson were to happen?  In the early 1940s, the counties along the border of California and Oregon began talking about leaving the two states and forming a new state.  A few minor protests happened, but the attack on Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entry into World War II stopped the momentum.  In recent decades, talk of this movement has revived, particularly in the northern and eastern rural areas of California.  It is doubtful that this would ever happen in the current environment.  In order for a state to split, the pre-split government of the state would have to approve (as well as the U.S Congress), and California’s liberal legislature would not approve the creation of a conservative state that would add Senators and electoral votes for things that go against these so-called California values.  But if California were to leave the Union, especially if there were an armed rebellion involved, the federal government may be more likely to accept a new state that broke off of California and stayed loyal to the Union, much as how West Virginia formed during the Civil War.

But if somehow Jefferson were to become a state while California remained in the Union (or was readmitted after a failed rebellion), would I stay in my home and hope for change from within, or would I move north to a state that more reflected my values and did not spend my tax dollars on things that I am morally opposed to?

I don’t know.

Would I still want to move to Jefferson if it attracted the most toxic kind of activists who vote for conservative politicians, like the ones carrying torches and Nazi flags in Charlottesville?  Would it be worth it to find a new home if I had more of those people around?  I don’t know.

Every state and every community has a different history and culture.  Every monument means something different.  So instead of forming a mob to tear these monuments down, what we should be doing is studying history, and learning how people in the community feel about the situation, especially people different from us.  Then, an informed decision should be made, calmly, by the people in the community, not outsiders with an agenda.

 

 

Advertisements

Exit 164. Prayers.

God, our Father in Heaven,

I pray for our world.  I pray for my country.  I pray that all of us will pay attention and engage with those who are different from us for whatever reason.  I pray that we will seek to understand why they feel, believe, and vote the way they do, rather than ignore them or belittle them as wrong for whatever reason in whatever way.

I pray for all of those who feel oppressed, marginalized, ignored, and patronized.  I pray that we will understand why they feel this way, that we will understand their lives and their history and their reactions that may differ from ours.  I pray that we might see each other as fellow human beings, not antagonists.

Forgive us, Lord.  Forgive our sins as a people.  Heal our broken nation.  I pray that we may remember our Constitution and the ideals of freedom and liberty that led to the founding of this nation.  I pray that we may heal from the sins of our history and move forward.

I pray that you will be at work in the hearts and minds of those who are angry, and those who feel hate toward others who are different.  I pray that they will be softened and broken, and that they will see the people that they hate as human beings, as beloved children of God.  I pray that bridges will be built.

I pray for my good friends who live in and around Charlottesville.  I pray that you will keep them safe as protesters and the news media descend on their region.  I pray that they will be good examples to the world at large, so that the rest of the country will know that central Virginia is a beautiful place full of friendly people who are not white supremacists.

And I pray for my own heart.  God, I pray that you will expose the biases I have, and help me practice what I preach and heal the anger I sometimes feel toward certain groups.

In the name of Jesus, who died to forgive our sins, and bring us to everlasting life with him,

Amen.

Exit 116. People stood by apathetically and did nothing.

It’s that time again here in the USA… the time when everyone is talking about the upcoming Presidential election.  And, as is the case pretty much every year, there are those people out there talking about how they don’t like any of the candidates, but the system is flawed because you have to vote for one of them, and voting for a third party candidate is throwing your vote away and/or helping the candidate you don’t like to win.  This year, this conversation is coming up more often than ever, because of the staggering unpopularity of both major party candidates.

Some disclaimers first: What I’m writing here assumes that elections are not rigged.  I’m sure that some are, but I want to believe that this is a vast minority of cases.  Also, I recognize that at the time that the USA was founded, the definition of “people,” in the sense of who was eligible to vote and make decisions about government, was much less inclusive than it is today.  That is not particularly relevant to the discussion about what is happening now, though.  Finally, I apologize to my readers outside of the USA, because this discussion may not apply to your systems of government.

There are valid complaints in this line of discussion.  But there is something else that many of us seem to have forgotten (as I have written about before): Our government exists only by the consent of the governed.  If the system is flawed, that is because people put that flawed system in place, or, more likely, people stood by apathetically and did nothing while those who stood to benefit from the flawed system put it in place.

Every single elected official in this country was put in power by voters.  And every single elected official is held accountable for their actions when they come up for reelection.  The main reason that so many of those incompetent NTACs keep getting reelected is because their constituents find the status quo less detestable than the alternative.

I think what bothers me the most about this kind of discussion is the line of thinking that a third party candidate cannot win.  It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  No one votes for third-party candidates because they believe that they cannot win, and they cannot win because no one votes for them.  Third-party candidates have won states in the past, often when they hold a particularly strong following in one region of the country, which usually occurs because of one specific issue.  (This happened most recently in 1968; sadly, the issue in question was racial segregation.)  The third-party candidate came in second in 1912, and some consider Abraham Lincoln a third-party candidate when he won in 1860, because the Republican Party had not yet been established as the second national party after the breakup of the Whigs.  Some say that third-party candidates never get votes because the mainstream media never pays attention to them.  But this is a time period when the mainstream media is less relevant than it has been in years.  If some no-name lady in a Chewbacca mask, hundreds of foul-mouthed douchebags and douchebaguettes, and dozens of funny-looking cats can all get millions of followers on the Internet, then surely political candidates out of the mainstream can do the same.  The reason it doesn’t happen all comes down to what I said earlier: too many people don’t care.

If a third-party candidate does win states in an election where the two major party candidates are running close (which has the potential to happen this year), this opens the possibility that no candidate will win a majority of the electoral vote, invoking the Twelfth Amendment and sending the election to the House of Representatives, where each state’s representatives will get one collective vote per state, from among the top three candidates.  This is not an archaic vestige of the past; it was designed on purpose, so that compromises and negotiations could happen among the elected representatives.  Each state is different, geographically and culturally, and each state should be different.  The Electoral College and the Twelfth Amendment were designed purposefully as part of this feature of our nation.  This kind of compromise, integral to our nation’s history, is sorely lacking in today’s political climate; once again, the reason for that is that the politicians who refuse to compromise keep getting reelected by people who don’t care, who see ability to compromise as a weakness.

I may be sounding like an idealist here.  But I still believe in the ideals of our nation’s government, and I hope that more people will learn about these ideals so that they will too.

Exit 107. Not alone.

Eight months ago, I left my church of almost 10 years, as I have mentioned several times on this blog.  There were a variety of reasons for this, but the last straw was a major change that they seemed intent on implementing, looking only for approval from the congregation as required by the church constitution, rather than debating publicly whether or not it was a good idea.  At least, I always felt like no one was listening to me when I told them that this was a bad idea.  (Ask me privately if you want to know exactly what that change was.  That isn’t the point I’m making today.)

I haven’t cut all ties.  There are still a few people from that church who I see semi-regularly.  I am still in Facebook contact with many people from that church, and I still follow the church’s Facebook page itself.  Recently, the church Facebook page posted two pictures showing a big step that has been taken in regards to the changes I mentioned in the last paragraph.  I replied with a snarky comment.  I also liked every post made by others who seemed to prefer things before the change, and replied to a few of them.  In one of them, someone replied to my comment, asking if I was done yet or if I was looking for points for every comment I made.  I tried to stay calm and civil, because, well, everyone knows what arguing online is like.  But I explained that, when the church was presenting their new vision to the congregation, I would have appreciated knowing that there were others out there who felt the same way as me about what they proposed, and I was commenting to make sure that those who do not agree with what has happened to that church know that they are not alone.

After reading his comment, though, I decided I probably was being a little mean-spirited in my comments, and I said nothing further on those posts.  He replied something about how he had gone to that church for most of his life, and he would pray that I find a church.  His response, incidentally, highlighted another questionable aspect of this church, in that he acted like he had no idea who I was, and he was interacting with me for the first time.  This is not true.  I don’t know this guy well, but I can remember meeting him on at least three distinct occasions, and if I were to see him out and about in public, I would recognize him well enough to put a name to the face.  But he didn’t remember me, which tends to be typical at a very large church, particularly when I have been feeling more and more disconnected over the years.

Shortly after this exchange occurred, someone else I know, not connected to any of this, reposted by coincidence something that said, “I don’t share my opinions on the Internet because I want to change people’s minds.  I do it to let like-minded people know that they are not alone.”  (That’s a paraphrase, not necessarily word for word.)  I thought this was interesting, because I had never thought of this in this way before, and here it came up twice within a few days.

I often feel alone in this way.  My views, my beliefs, and my lifestyle are different from those of many people around me.  I know that this need not be a barrier preventing me from having friendships, but sometimes it matters.  Someone recently asked me if I would still believe in Jesus even if I were the only one on Earth who did.  I replied that I ask myself the same question fairly often.  But I know that I’m not as alone as I tend to think.  I have more in common with people than I tend to believe.  And I can still encourage other like-minded individuals in their beliefs.  I just need to do so without hostility toward others.

Exit 96. I’m scared.

I’m scared.

I’m scared of what the world is coming to.  The Presidential election here in the USA is just eight months away, and all of the leading candidates scare me.  In one party, a crooked and dishonest career lawyer and politician is sparring with another career politician who, although he seems to be a decent man, has extremely radical views that go against much of what I believe this country stands for.  On the other side, a demagogue with a long history of baggage is telling angry people what they want to hear, even though it goes against his previous actions and positions, and his conduct is completely unbecoming of someone fit to lead a nation.  A few of the other candidates running I find somewhat tolerable, but splitting the vote among these minor candidates just seems to be helping said demagogue pull away in the race.  I fear for the future of this country if this many people really support candidates like this.

I’m scared of what passes for entertainment these days.  I’m scared at how desensitized some of us have become to depictions of adult situations and violence.  I’m scared at how shows that were considered horribly trashy just a quarter-century ago are so tame by today’s standards.  I’m scared that kids grow up thinking that the way violence and sex are portrayed on TV is normal.  I’m scared that my values seem laughably quaint to the rest of the world.

I’m scared of the way we treat each other.  I’m scared of how so few people are honest and straightforward anymore.  I’m scared of the way that so many of my friends seem to keep me out of the loop on purpose.  (To my friend who saw fit to keep me in the loop, recently, thank you.  You know who you are, and you know what this is about.  I appreciate it.)   And I’m scared that some people would throw away years of friendship and stab their loved ones in the back for totally selfish reasons.

Perhaps the scariest thing is that none of this should surprise me.  It’s all in the Bible.  Jesus said over and over again that difficult times were coming.  We will be persecuted for our beliefs.  There will be wars, and brother will rise up against brother (Matthew 24).  Paul writes that a man of lawlessness will come and make people believe the lies of Satan (2 Thessalonians 2).  (Note: I’m not saying I honestly think that Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, or Hillary Clinton is the Antichrist.  But the concept of deceitful demagoguery is in the Bible.)

I don’t know who or what I can trust anymore.  All I have left to hold on to is Jesus.  Maybe that’s where I need to be right now, so I can tear down everything holding me back and build something new.

Exit 62. Happy 239th birthday, United States of America.

Yesterday, July 4, was Independence Day here in the United States of America.  The British began settling the Atlantic coast of what is now the USA in the 1600s and 1700s.  By the 1760s and 1770s, the relationship between the Crown and the colonies had deteriorated as the government raised taxes and exerted greater control in the colonies.  After full-blown war broke out, a group of representatives met in Philadelphia and signed the Declaration of Independence (full text).  The Declaration, dated July 4, 1776 and primarily written by Thomas Jefferson, began by asserting that all are created equally with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that government is derived by the consent of the governed; and that when a government becomes abusive, the people have the right to abolish it and replace it with another government.  The Declaration then continues with a list of reasons that the British government under King George III had abused its power in the American colonies.  Fighting between the colonists and the British would continue for several years, and in 1783, after the British had suffered a number of defeats, they formally ended fighting and recognized the new nation.  Thomas Jefferson would later become the third President of the new United States of America, serving from 1801 to 1809, and as one of the nation’s Founding Fathers, his image can be seen on both the five-cent coin and the two-dollar bill.

I have friends in other countries now, and I occasionally get views on this blog from outside the USA, so one reason I included this brief history lesson is because I don’t know how much of this is taught in other countries.  The sad thing, however, is that many people right here in this country don’t seem to know what we are celebrating on July 4.  All of this is still taught in schools, but so many these days have the attitude that what they learn in school is not worth remembering once they have taken a test on it.

This is certainly not the only reason for our changing sense of national identity, of course.  I grew up in the context of the waning years of the Cold War and the brash consumerism of the 1980s, with a clear sense that we were the “good guys” and the Russians were the “bad guys” long before I understood the causes of the Cold War or the political and economic differences between the two nations.  Today’s youth spent their childhoods in the era of the United States being the world’s only superpower, and being widely criticized for that role  They live in the era of increasing globalization and exposure to other cultures, and the era of increased public concern over environmental destruction and its consequences.  This is just my opinion and observation, not intended to be a scientifically drawn conclusion, but it seems like this has created a generation that does not value representative government or free market economics as much as previous generations.  An increasing segment of the population associates representative government with injustice and free market economics with the destruction of the environment, and their views are entirely justifiable in light of recent history.

To me, this context can make the celebration of independence a little awkward.  Does this country still stand for the ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?  There is no doubt that the world has changed a great deal since Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues wrote the Declaration 239 years ago, and that our nation and the world are facing a very uncertain and potentially unsettling future.

I want to have hope and optimism that our nation will survive.  Those who wrote the Constitution knew that the world would change in ways that they could not foresee, so they included a provision by which the Constitution could be amended.  It is difficult to amend the Constitution; an amendment must be proposed by a 2/3 vote of Congress, and then the state governments of 3/4 of the states must pass a bill in favor of the amendment.*  But it is important that Constitutional amendments be difficult to pass, so that the foundations of our national government do not change based on whims and fads, and this is why only twenty-seven Constitutional amendments have been approved.  (*Yes, I know there are a few other options involved, but I’m trying to keep it simple.)

One key phrase from the Declaration of Independence that tends to get forgotten these days is “consent of the governed.”  Government exists because the people allow it to exist, and in a representative government like ours, the government only has power because the people allow it to.  Some complain, justifiably, that our government is under the control of big money and big corporations, but the only reason for this is that enough voters have become complacent and cynical enough to continue voting for people who are beholden to big money and big corporations.  This could easily change if enough voters could agree on something better.  Also–and I know that this next part is not true of all countries–the United States federal government exists because the states allow it to exist.  The United States is not one country that was formed first and then divided into states; it is a group of states that created a centralized authority to strengthen their union.  We tend to forget that each state has its own culture and its own way of life, and that, for the most part, the states should not all be the same in the first place.

So, Americans, learn about the issues facing your community, your state, and the nation.  After learning about the issues, vote in the next election.  Remember, you will probably have to make some compromise votes, because no one’s views will follow yours exactly, but some candidates are definitely better equipped to be leaders than others.  I hope we as a nation can continue to do the best we can, and that we will find a solution to the divisiveness and ignorance that seem to have dominated recent elections, on both sides.  Happy 239th birthday, United States of America.

Exit 61. You can’t legislate a viewpoint.

I have a lot of friends on both extremes of the political spectrum, and thus it has been no surprise to me that a lot of them have had a lot to say in the last couple weeks, given the controversies that have been brewing here in the USA.  I’m not here to share my views on the subject; given the specific subjects at hand, my views don’t line up neatly on the liberal or conservative side, and both sides would probably disagree with me.  I don’t like writing specific political views, because those kinds of arguments tend to be based on premises not accepted by those who don’t agree, and thus no minds are changed.  But I do have some interesting thoughts on the matters at hand, particularly regarding people’s responses to them.

Several years ago, the topic of abortion came up in church, and at one point, the pastor said, “You can’t legislate morality.”  His point was that if abortion were to be outlawed all of a sudden, people’s views on the topic would not change.  Those who want to end abortion should start by teaching people about God’s love, and the sanctity of life, and God’s purpose for sexual intercourse, and by practicing what they preach.  I found this interesting, because this is probably one of the most conservative pastors I’ve ever had, and yet this is an argument typically made by liberals, in the context that making abortion illegal won’t stop people from having abortions.  But he’s right.  A law, or a binding court decision, will not change the beliefs or behavior of a deeply divided populace.  In the context of recent events, the US Supreme Court’s decision that states cannot prohibit homosexual marriage does not suddenly make religious beliefs about homosexuality wrong, because those who hold those beliefs see their God as a higher authority than the US Supreme Court.  Conversely, if the United States were to amend the Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, that would not stop homosexuals from being attracted to the same sex and acting on those attractions.  Banning the Confederate battle flag will not change the views of racists, and removing the stigma that comes with the Confederate battle flag is unlikely to make anyone a racist if they don’t already hold those views to some extent.  You can’t legislate a viewpoint.

So if you can’t force your views down people’s throats through the law or the courts, what can you do?  You can start by understanding the people who disagree with you; find out why they think the way they do.  Be respectful.  Spend time around people with different views from yours.  The people I know (both liberals and conservatives) who say disrespectful things about those they disagree with are most often not people who have spent a lot of time out of their cultural bubble.  You might find your own views changing in a positive way, or you might find a compromise.

I know, it isn’t easy to do this.  It’s easier to hide behind the anonymity of the Internet and call names.  As my group of friends has diversified, there have been many times I’ve longed to go back to my right wing conservative roots.  I’ve considered leaving the liberal progressive partner dance communities that I have become so involved with in the last several years, and spending more time around people who aren’t going to make fun of Christians and share profanity-laced blog posts attacking and belittling those who don’t share their radical views.  (I should add the disclaimer that not all of the links that my liberal friends share are this negative, of course.)  But the problem with this is that my views don’t fit in neatly among right wing conservatives either, at least not anymore.  Their rants have much less profanity than the rants of some liberals, but conservatives can be at times just as disrespectful toward me regarding, for example, my refusal to accept young earth creationism, or my view that conservatives are severely misguided in their belief that the Common Core State Standards Initiative is a conspiracy by the federal government to indoctrinate schoolchildren into Godless liberalism.

I had plans in San Francisco tonight before the court ruling regarding same-sex marriage.  Given San Francisco’s extreme liberal reputation, as well as recent events in the city, I considered canceling my plans, just to stay away from any situations that might get controversial.  But I didn’t, I’m still going, because I realized that backing out would be doing exactly the opposite of everything I just said (not to mention, as I said above, I don’t currently claim allegiance to either side in the debate over same-sex marriage).  Jesus spent time around people outside of the mainstream of the culture he was raised in, and he loved them for who they were, and he told his followers to do the same.  And that is my job, to be like Jesus before those who don’t know him.  It’s up to God to change their heart, or to change my heart.  Or both.

Exit 49. Learning is the first step to understanding.

Last night I was at a friend’s housewarming party.  I got into a long and intense conversation about religion and politics with one of her college friends whom I hadn’t met before.  At first, going by some comments I had overheard her make earlier in a different conversation, I had a feeling this would be someone I disagreed with, but she turned out to be really cool.  (Note: Before you get any ideas, she’s married.  That isn’t where this story is going.)  While there were things we did not agree about, she said that it is a good thing to hear other people’s perspectives on issues.  I completely agree with this.  But that’s not where I’m going here.

At one point, she was asking about my faith background.  She is Episcopal.  For me, though, that is not an easy question to answer.  I consider myself a Christian, but I don’t consider myself tied to any one denomination.  I attended Catholic Mass until I was 20, but have mostly attended evangelical churches since then.  I am currently a member of a Baptist church.  She went on to talk about some things she likes about the Episcopal Church, and some of the differences with Catholicism.  She said that anyone can take communion in an Episcopal church, but only Catholics can take communion in a Catholic church.  I said that I still attend Catholic Mass once a year, on Christmas Day at the church of my childhood because I’m always back home visiting my parents and brother and grandmother for Christmas.  I don’t take communion at Christmas Mass, though, or any other time I have occasion to be at my parents’ house on a Sunday and go to church with Mom, out of respect for the Catholic beliefs about communion which I don’t agree with.  I took a class in college on Christian theology, from the late Dr. Lincoln Hurst, and I wrote my term paper on transubstantiation vs. memorialism and took the memorialist view.

At this point, she gave me a look and asked a question which suggested that she wasn’t following what I was talking about.  So I explained.  I explained transubstantiation, how Catholics interpret the Last Supper passages in the Bible, where Jesus breaks the bread and pours the wine and says “This is my body” and “This is my blood,” to mean that when the priest consecrates the bread and wine during mass, they miraculously become the actual body and blood of Christ somehow.  Most Baptists and Pentecostals, on the other hand, believe that communion is a memorial act, strictly symbolic of what happened on Jesus’ last night on Earth with no actual change in the nature of the bread and wine.  In researching that term paper, I rejected transubstantiation because of the wording in Mark’s version of the story.  Mark clearly writes (14:23-24) that Jesus did not say “This is my blood” until after the disciples had drank the wine.  If one is to accept that the Bible is divinely inspired, then God would have not have allowed this wording in a divinely inspired manuscript, and those who compiled the Bible would not have considered this wording to be canonical, unless transubstantiation was never intended to be an essential doctrine.  Again, this is merely the opinion I put forth in a term paper I wrote at age 21, so if you disagree, I’m not going to try to change your mind.  These differences, I explained, were one of the first points of dissension between Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutherans in the early days of the Protestant Reformation.

Anyway, the girl I was talking to last night, she said, “I never knew that.  I always just thought Catholics were being mean.”

I’ve found over the years that many things that confuse and frustrate people, causing them to complain, have rational explanations behind them.  While not all of the explanations are good excuses for why things are the way they are, it helps to understand the history behind something before you complain about it or try to change it.  You think that the President of the United States should be chosen by a direct popular vote instead of the Electoral College?  Learn about the history of the Electoral College and the Connecticut Compromise, and about the difference between a democracy and a republic, a federation and a confederation, and which ones apply to the United States.  You find the US system of measurement confusing and wonder why it takes 12 inches to make a foot, instead of 10 like the metric system, since calculating with 10s is so much easier (in base 10)?  Learn about the Romans and their system of numbers, beyond I and V and X, and how they wrote all fractions in twelfths, because twelfths can be grouped evenly into halves, thirds, or fourths, whereas tenths cannot.  You live in Sacramento and wonder why there are two Highway 80s?  Learn about the Interstate Highway system, and what a business route is, and why the route numbers of these two routes were changed in 1983.  Now learning about these things doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll change your mind; I could probably tell you more about the reason there are two Highway 80s in Sacramento than 99% of Sacramento County residents, yet I still think that the numbers should be changed.  But, no matter what the issue, learning is the first step to understanding, which is crucial if any meaningful changes are to be made.