For those folks who wish to lord it over the unrighteous whose lives happened to be in the path of Hurricane Katrina I offer this reflection from a recent visit to Long Beach, MS. I hope it isn't yet a crime or a sin to be poor because if it is we are all one stout wind away from sinfully criminal behavior.
------------
Vignette – It’s Sunday night. A Sunday night like so many other Sunday nights headed North from the Gulf. The sun was at that inconvenient angle just below the sun visor because it was late afternoon. It was really annoying on this two lane section of Hwy. 45 because fatigue had set in. Lots of tired Sunday nights have been spent on this road coming back from a rushed three day adventure on our coast. Years worth of walks on the sand beach with the sounds of cars roaring just over there - leaving at the last minute possible to get up before dark. The road always got small and rough right about here. This night is different. Instead of memories of the seafood dinner overlooking the shore, tonight the faces fill the mind, hundreds of faces milling past with the same intense grim look. Hunting searching, looking for help, picking through our scraps the faces search for some little piece that will cover the need and bring some rest. Is it a shirt, a skirt, a can of tuna, food for the dog or a bear for the youngest daughter that will catch the eye? Or will someone else get there just ahead of them, head them off at the pass, and take the item that would quench their thirst, however temporary the quench. Katrina took their lives. Well not their lives exactly, though she may have taken their friend or their neighbor or their mom. She took everything, mercilessly and they have come here seeking mercy. They receive maybe enough, maybe too much of some things and not enough of others. Life is going on but it is so out of balance. The job, its gone and the house is there but trashed. The delicate arrangements that balanced life have been drowned in a rude, thoughtless wave that washed them over like the waves which dismembered the carefully sculpted castles of sand fashioned on those other better Sundays. Those Sundays seem now so long ago. Waves of faces, faces which are determined, scared, lost, dire and hopeful all at once now break on those shores. On to the next table, on to the next box, fill out the forms, trudge from center to center hoping to find…. But I can go home. I can go back up to my comfy clean water house way up North. The friends I went to visit so often each time over these last years, those folks must stay there – on to the next table, on to the next box, fill out the forms, trudge from center to center hoping to find….
Monday, September 19, 2005
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
A Lost City - No it's bigger than that.
I hear a word in the background (and some of the foreground) in the text below [Scroll down to Tommy McGlothlin's thoughts about New Orleans]. Requiem. Maybe we don't have to hold that mass just yet. I have heard folks actually say in a public place this week that we as a country have failed those on the lowest end of the economic scale, or in New Orleans reference, the lower end of the continental scale. I heard in those comments and in Tommy's the glimmer of what I used to recognize as America's conscience. In our lifetime America had developed a conscience perhaps for the first or second time in the last century. However, after the 60's and 70's it was just too much trouble to care any more. Reagan made people feel it was OK somehow to not care for those folks who were not either CEO's, movers or shakers.
New Orleans was a place where folks could be movers if they wanted to or they could just be themselves and not be judged poorly for it. Maybe the spotlight got shined on the lack of caring just enough this week that we can see who we really are as Americans. If we care, the decision to repair New Orleans is easy - a Big Easy. I have no doubt that we will rebuild and repopulate New Orleans. It will change like all things change as the result of calamity but I don't believe for a minute that anyone would seriously propose abandoning the ground. I mean this is the country that still thinks it was a good idea to invade Iraq. The idea of abandonment of untenable ground does not come easy to us. Is the city in a goofy and irresponsible location - sure - what's your point? It's there. It has been and as long as there is a river running by it and an ocean just over there, there will be a New Orleans.
It's time. It's time to care about those who have "less than us" (and us is a mighty hard thing to define). It's time to roll up our sleeves and not only help New Orleans but help those who cannot see or comprehend that the folks who stayed in the Hurricane zone are not defectives and degenerates who are so unrighteous who "deserve what they got." Rather, the folks who were there ain't got much and know that if they didn't protect it they wouldn't have that. It should be obvious now that what they knew was true was true - no one cared about the folks who could not load up the big ol' SUV and skedaddle. New Orleans experience shows us that as a country we don't give a rats toenails about poor folks and don't have a clue what motivates or de-motivates them. America does not care to see the rot in it's foundation. It just wants to blame someone else and complain when the house falls down. I have read allot about "waking up" to the threat from terrorists. Who terrorized Americans this week - our own government caused more suffering than those who would "intentionally" harm us. It showed who and what it cared about and who it did not. I hope that God blesses America - with the knowledge of its hardened heart and extols the virtue of compassion so that we might return to a time of conscience. Perhaps the lesson of New Orleans will spark our still small voice to be the voice of fairness and change.
Hey, it COULD happen.
-----------------
Though I am not a true native of the city of New Orleans, I consider myself an Orleanian to the very core. New Orleans defined me. New Orleans shaped me. New Orleans gave me my deep sense of history, pride of place, respect for diversity, love of human joy and celebration, and sense of community. I lived in New Orleans during my formative years, from shortly after my birth to shortly after my 18th birthday. I was educated in her schools and worshipped in her churches. Her citizens were my friends and neighbors, as they still are today. It is as much “home” to me, even now, than is the city in which I live today. I am a son of New Orleans and proudly so.
New Orleans was a place where folks could be movers if they wanted to or they could just be themselves and not be judged poorly for it. Maybe the spotlight got shined on the lack of caring just enough this week that we can see who we really are as Americans. If we care, the decision to repair New Orleans is easy - a Big Easy. I have no doubt that we will rebuild and repopulate New Orleans. It will change like all things change as the result of calamity but I don't believe for a minute that anyone would seriously propose abandoning the ground. I mean this is the country that still thinks it was a good idea to invade Iraq. The idea of abandonment of untenable ground does not come easy to us. Is the city in a goofy and irresponsible location - sure - what's your point? It's there. It has been and as long as there is a river running by it and an ocean just over there, there will be a New Orleans.
It's time. It's time to care about those who have "less than us" (and us is a mighty hard thing to define). It's time to roll up our sleeves and not only help New Orleans but help those who cannot see or comprehend that the folks who stayed in the Hurricane zone are not defectives and degenerates who are so unrighteous who "deserve what they got." Rather, the folks who were there ain't got much and know that if they didn't protect it they wouldn't have that. It should be obvious now that what they knew was true was true - no one cared about the folks who could not load up the big ol' SUV and skedaddle. New Orleans experience shows us that as a country we don't give a rats toenails about poor folks and don't have a clue what motivates or de-motivates them. America does not care to see the rot in it's foundation. It just wants to blame someone else and complain when the house falls down. I have read allot about "waking up" to the threat from terrorists. Who terrorized Americans this week - our own government caused more suffering than those who would "intentionally" harm us. It showed who and what it cared about and who it did not. I hope that God blesses America - with the knowledge of its hardened heart and extols the virtue of compassion so that we might return to a time of conscience. Perhaps the lesson of New Orleans will spark our still small voice to be the voice of fairness and change.
Hey, it COULD happen.
-----------------
A Lost City
Tommy McGlothlin
Tommy McGlothlin
Though I am not a true native of the city of New Orleans, I consider myself an Orleanian to the very core. New Orleans defined me. New Orleans shaped me. New Orleans gave me my deep sense of history, pride of place, respect for diversity, love of human joy and celebration, and sense of community. I lived in New Orleans during my formative years, from shortly after my birth to shortly after my 18th birthday. I was educated in her schools and worshipped in her churches. Her citizens were my friends and neighbors, as they still are today. It is as much “home” to me, even now, than is the city in which I live today. I am a son of New Orleans and proudly so.
There was no other city in the entire world like New Orleans. Her history permeated every corner of the city. When you walked the streets of the Vieux Carre, the French Quarter, you were aware of the spirits of people who had walked those same streets three centuries before. She was a city that did not fear those spirits. Rather, she embraced them as her own kin, loved ones never really lost, gently reminding her and her children of where they had been and where they should go.
New Orleans was not a stranger to death and disaster. In the 19th century, the stench of death had come over the city many times in the form of hurricanes, floods, disease, and war. During the 20th century, her population was reduced to poverty and despair during the Great Depression and many of her sons and daughters endured the policies of the segregated South. And yet in spite of these plagues, the people of New Orleans rejoiced at life, sang songs of hope, laughed in the face of adversity, and pressed on for a better life in an environment that did everything in its power to stop it. Orleanians dared you to give them a reason – any reason – to have a party. They were uniquely aware that reasons to celebrate life could be found anywhere. Orleanians knew how to celebrate in spite of adversity, rejoice in spite of dispair, laugh in spite of tears. In the French language of their forefathers, this ability is called Joie de vivre, the joy of life, and it gave them the only reason they needed to carry on.
And though she celebrated life so enthusiastically, New Orleans was silently suffering from a tumor growing deep within her. She was aware of this tumor, yes, but she tried to ignore it, hoping that it would go away if she could just love life enough. This tumor was human greed. it often caused secondary symptoms throughout the years, such as poverty, injustice, and indifference. Yet in her zeal for life and her desire to nurture her sons and daughters, she was able to shake off these secondary infections and endure. But when New Orleans’ surrounding environment brought her to her knees, the primary infection erupted. She had no other option but to send her children out of her house in hopes of saving them. And so Orleanians have spread out across the country, émigrés in their own nation, orphans seeking shelter in the homes of neighbors.
The city now lies mortally wounded, but she can be saved. Some have looked over her wounded body and given up on her, swearing that she is not worth saving. Some of her own citizens have given up on her too, bitter that she abandoned them in their time of need, disgusted that she ignored the tumor to the point that she could no longer sustain them when they needed her most. In spite of those who would be willing to let her die, the nation owes New Orleans life. The contributions of the city to the life, history, and culture of America are too great to mention in mere passing. Volumes of books can – and have – been written on this subject. But before America can pull New Orleans out of the waters in which she drowns, it too must deal with the same tumor that has brought down New Orleans. Few cities in America are free from the disease. What America must realize is that what brought down New Orleans can bring down every city in the country. With the same disease festering inside their own bodies, the cities of America are all vunerable if environmental forces knock them down. Eventually, one way or another, the American nation must recognize and treat the same disease from which New Orleans suffered. The consequences have already been seen in the crisis in New Orleans. You see, the same disease that brought down New Orleans has prevented America from coming to her aid in a timely and productive manner. Just as New Orleans forced her own children out, an ill America left an ill New Orleans to fend for herself. The disease is genetic.
New Orleans can be saved. But the extent to which America can save the city of New Orleans depends largely on how ill the nation is itself. In the meantime, I grieve with my brothers and sisters from New Orleans. I feel lost with them. Though I have a home, and neighors and friends to which to turn, in my heart I am wandering with them. After all, these are the same peope with whom I grew up and with whom I learned to love life in the way that ony New Olreans could teach them. I grieve for our city and I grieve for our nation. And I give thanks for the neighbors who have taken in the lost sons and daughters of la Nouvelle-Orléans
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
What are you afraid of?
A while back someone subscribed me to an email newsletter from an outfit called "tothesource.org". The views expressed tended to be outside of those I normally choose to be exposed to so I kept the subscription so that I would possibly understand something of what others were saying. I know it's an odd concept in America today to listen to others but I am becoming increasingly aware of the idea that it is THE central issue making this country at risk today. I have covered this in maybe too much detail in previous posts so I'll try not to be redundant and do it again today.
Today's "tothesource" email had to do with that old favorite "Darwinism" vs Creationism or it's current cover-name "Intelligent Design." Well he author was aflame with the idea that there is a conspiracy afoot to keep God away from our children. I contended the following in my reply to the email ...
- - - - - - - -
There is was again. The statement that "exclusion of religion from politics and the intellectual exclusion of intelligent design from biology are part of a larger, more comprehensive, well-planned secularizing project." Can we step back from the paranoia ledge just a bit. Let's do some simple math here. Evolution is NOT taught every single waking moment in schools. It it probably taught as part of a unit which might be taught for a period of a week or two as part of a plethora of other subjects in the school year. That means that, assuming a 50 minute class period, in an entire school year a student might be "subjected" to ten lessons or a total of 8 and one third hours of "indoctrination" - that's 8 and one third hours PER YEAR. This assumes also that the students are paying "focused attention" to the teacher. Check with any teacher and you will hear how unlikely that is. Let's say for instance "radical secularists" were totally successful at getting ONLY Darwin taught. Oh no - All is Lost?! Certainly not, not if parents do what they are responsible for doing - parenting. If they are concerned parents, parenting should include some form of religious training. In my church that means church and Sunday school. Let's say that you go to a fairly speedy church service, you may hear about God for an hour. Speedy Sunday school would add another hour. Chat about anything important with your child like God, your faith, your theology? Add another half hour minimum per week. Multiplied by 52 weeks that adds up to 130 hours. OK, now you as a parent have added 130 hours of balance to the 8 and one third hours of other opinions your child heard this year. Unless someone is knocking on your door or your church's door to ask you to stop educating your child I don't see the danger here. Are we afraid of the opinions of others? If what my faith teaches me is as real as I believe it to be, I can reconcile Darwin as another example of God's beautiful creation, accept him with Christ's love and move on. I think the debate is in no danger of being dominated by the secularists if we would all just pipe down and LIVE our faith.
- - - - - - - -
Today's "tothesource" email had to do with that old favorite "Darwinism" vs Creationism or it's current cover-name "Intelligent Design." Well he author was aflame with the idea that there is a conspiracy afoot to keep God away from our children. I contended the following in my reply to the email ...
- - - - - - - -
There is was again. The statement that "exclusion of religion from politics and the intellectual exclusion of intelligent design from biology are part of a larger, more comprehensive, well-planned secularizing project." Can we step back from the paranoia ledge just a bit. Let's do some simple math here. Evolution is NOT taught every single waking moment in schools. It it probably taught as part of a unit which might be taught for a period of a week or two as part of a plethora of other subjects in the school year. That means that, assuming a 50 minute class period, in an entire school year a student might be "subjected" to ten lessons or a total of 8 and one third hours of "indoctrination" - that's 8 and one third hours PER YEAR. This assumes also that the students are paying "focused attention" to the teacher. Check with any teacher and you will hear how unlikely that is. Let's say for instance "radical secularists" were totally successful at getting ONLY Darwin taught. Oh no - All is Lost?! Certainly not, not if parents do what they are responsible for doing - parenting. If they are concerned parents, parenting should include some form of religious training. In my church that means church and Sunday school. Let's say that you go to a fairly speedy church service, you may hear about God for an hour. Speedy Sunday school would add another hour. Chat about anything important with your child like God, your faith, your theology? Add another half hour minimum per week. Multiplied by 52 weeks that adds up to 130 hours. OK, now you as a parent have added 130 hours of balance to the 8 and one third hours of other opinions your child heard this year. Unless someone is knocking on your door or your church's door to ask you to stop educating your child I don't see the danger here. Are we afraid of the opinions of others? If what my faith teaches me is as real as I believe it to be, I can reconcile Darwin as another example of God's beautiful creation, accept him with Christ's love and move on. I think the debate is in no danger of being dominated by the secularists if we would all just pipe down and LIVE our faith.
- - - - - - - -
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
United on July 4th?
I awoke to the sounds of another 4th of July. Overnight I heard the sounds of young boys and some who thought they were getting a head start on the festivities, setting off their barely legal firecrackers. The boats out on the lake were already busy ferrying large numbers of vacationing fishermen and sun worshipers up and down the broad channel. They lunged in front of our cabin toward the freedom of the broad open water of the larger lake. Celebrations were planned for tonight’s fireworks in every town around the region and around the country for that matter. I awoke to the idea that everything was in place for another extravagant pageant of patriotic recognition of our special status as a nation at the forefront of the world.
Somehow it feels a little different this year. The fading signs from the post 9/11 rally seem to belie a different story. “United We Stand” would seem a bit off the mark as we get set to commemorate this most unique and personal of American holidays. It would seem that we do indeed stand united but that does not of mean we stand together, indivisible against all usurpers of our freedom. We seem to be standing in two distinctly separate camps, each nervously eying the other and ready to defend against “the other Americans who think differently than I.” We are either fascist conservatives who want to take our freedoms from us and hand them over to the corporate giants or nut-case, pro-abortion, liberals who are ready to help the terrorists kill us all with the help of all the homo-friendly courts that “legislate from the bench.” There seems room for no other interpretation of who else might be a citizen of the country.
If no other trend worries folks in this country this trend to define at least half of the country with an inflexible and inaccurate label ought to. As I have traveled this country over these last 50 years I have indeed met walking stereotypes but the usual the memorable thing about them is that they are such an oddity. Perhaps it’s the constraints of the media that is to blame for the current perceptions. The media (TV as an example – though not alone) routinely sees a story as two sided, those “for” and those “against”. A written page takes about two minutes to read. How long is the average text of a news story? It’s likely to be a whole lot less than a page for most unless the story is the headline of the night. Even if the story is longer than two minutes of air time there are likely to be a fair number of pictures which “speak for themselves.” These then cut the explanatory text down to a few helpful sound bites which will give the viewer “both sides.” The trouble with this approach is obvious, there are usually complexities and details which make the number of sides much greater than two. Often there are folks who would be for something if “this or that” was or was not a part of the proposal. There are folks who would be opposed if they knew more about the things already in the pipeline. In the 60 seconds of time they have to tell you the story those nuances get brushed aside. Who, as a news consumer, then has the time to find the nuance? This leaves us with the idea that the world is either for “us” or against “us”, depending on which of the partially presented ideas one found themselves closest to – as presented.
On this particular trip around the heart of America I have had the privilege to talk to both “liberals” and “conservatives”. Imagine my surprise when I heard a “conservative” who had voted for our current president say he was sorry for having done so as the man hasn’t heard the president say anything he agreed with since the election. This man had been seated in the back of a coffee shop listening to a discussion about the sad state of affairs the inarticulate “liberal side.” The worried liberal lamented the contention that by not being able to articulate what it stood for convincingly enough in the last election, voters feared that “liberals were nothing but nay-saying doubters with no real solutions”. As the liberal man left, the man said that he was indeed more afraid of the liberal candidate than he was the current president, so he voted on that basis. His vote for president of the United States was a vote based on the least amount of fear in the available candidates. As the text messaging youth say … OMG! (loosely translated, Oh My Goodness). I would love to think that a vote of that magnitude would be based on the best characteristics of the candidate, not who was less scary than the other!
We must recognize that the issues of the day are more complex than meet the immediate “sound bitten” ear and that the people we share this country are far more complex that a simple label will attest. My conservative friend and his liberal compatriot in the coffee shop share one thing in common. They are both afraid. They are afraid of each others extreme positions which would lead if they were true to disenfranchisement of the other. This puts everyone in the position where they can only say, if that’s what “he wants” I’m going to get mine in place before “he gets his” so that I “get what I need.” It also leaves us in the current irresolvable dilemma.
We are at war; people are dying and being maimed. It is real; it’s not just something sound bitten on the evening news. So in the bumper-sticker vernacular of the day we should either “support our troops” or “bring them home now”. The irony to me is that both of those statements have two things in common, they both want to support our troops and are both equally unlikely to accomplish their intention. The support our troop “side” for its part doesn’t want to see the same thing happen to our current troops that happened to soldiers returning from Viet Nam. They want to make sure that the service person’s courageous sacrifice is recognized and applauded and that they are supported here so that they will not be undercut as they perform their tasks in the field. The bring them home contingent doesn’t want to see the soldier exposed to harm needlessly fighting for a war whose initial premise is now somewhat suspect and whose continued prosecution is promising to be convoluted and perilous thus needlessly endangering our courageous forces for dubious purpose. It is fairly easy to see that in one form or fashion both want to make sure the soldier is placed in the best position imaginable. Of course if each “side” keeps advocating their position the soldiers will indeed be caught in the middle of the contest and will indeed suffer as a result. The “bring them home” contingent ends up giving the enemy ground support as the resisters know that all they have to do is keep up the pressure and the US troops will be forced to withdraw because their mission isn’t supported at home. Scenario, the soldiers loose. The “support our troops” contingent ends up giving the American administration a blank check to continue militarily with no variation which means that the guerrilla war continues to grind good young people into pulp day after grinding day with no solution in the offing. Scenario, the soldiers loose. We obviously need more than a bumper sticker solution to this situation. It will require NEW, COMPLEX, CREATIVE solutions or will indeed neither support our troops nor bring them home for the foreseeable future.
How did we get here? We got here by dividing, by stereotyping, and by creating scapegoats instead of citizens. On this July 4th we need to truly stand united but not behind some bumper sticker or sound bite. We need to get together with our countrymen and recognize “their” common humanity, common needs and common goals are indeed “ours”. If we can’t do that here how can we help the people of Iraq find their common future? If we can’t get above petty differences to find our commonality we stand little chance of showing others how to do so. We must find our democratic consensus and to do that we must forget the sound bite and demand more: more communication, more understanding, and more recognition that our unique history requires us to share our country with ALL our fellow citizens.
Somehow it feels a little different this year. The fading signs from the post 9/11 rally seem to belie a different story. “United We Stand” would seem a bit off the mark as we get set to commemorate this most unique and personal of American holidays. It would seem that we do indeed stand united but that does not of mean we stand together, indivisible against all usurpers of our freedom. We seem to be standing in two distinctly separate camps, each nervously eying the other and ready to defend against “the other Americans who think differently than I.” We are either fascist conservatives who want to take our freedoms from us and hand them over to the corporate giants or nut-case, pro-abortion, liberals who are ready to help the terrorists kill us all with the help of all the homo-friendly courts that “legislate from the bench.” There seems room for no other interpretation of who else might be a citizen of the country.
If no other trend worries folks in this country this trend to define at least half of the country with an inflexible and inaccurate label ought to. As I have traveled this country over these last 50 years I have indeed met walking stereotypes but the usual the memorable thing about them is that they are such an oddity. Perhaps it’s the constraints of the media that is to blame for the current perceptions. The media (TV as an example – though not alone) routinely sees a story as two sided, those “for” and those “against”. A written page takes about two minutes to read. How long is the average text of a news story? It’s likely to be a whole lot less than a page for most unless the story is the headline of the night. Even if the story is longer than two minutes of air time there are likely to be a fair number of pictures which “speak for themselves.” These then cut the explanatory text down to a few helpful sound bites which will give the viewer “both sides.” The trouble with this approach is obvious, there are usually complexities and details which make the number of sides much greater than two. Often there are folks who would be for something if “this or that” was or was not a part of the proposal. There are folks who would be opposed if they knew more about the things already in the pipeline. In the 60 seconds of time they have to tell you the story those nuances get brushed aside. Who, as a news consumer, then has the time to find the nuance? This leaves us with the idea that the world is either for “us” or against “us”, depending on which of the partially presented ideas one found themselves closest to – as presented.
On this particular trip around the heart of America I have had the privilege to talk to both “liberals” and “conservatives”. Imagine my surprise when I heard a “conservative” who had voted for our current president say he was sorry for having done so as the man hasn’t heard the president say anything he agreed with since the election. This man had been seated in the back of a coffee shop listening to a discussion about the sad state of affairs the inarticulate “liberal side.” The worried liberal lamented the contention that by not being able to articulate what it stood for convincingly enough in the last election, voters feared that “liberals were nothing but nay-saying doubters with no real solutions”. As the liberal man left, the man said that he was indeed more afraid of the liberal candidate than he was the current president, so he voted on that basis. His vote for president of the United States was a vote based on the least amount of fear in the available candidates. As the text messaging youth say … OMG! (loosely translated, Oh My Goodness). I would love to think that a vote of that magnitude would be based on the best characteristics of the candidate, not who was less scary than the other!
We must recognize that the issues of the day are more complex than meet the immediate “sound bitten” ear and that the people we share this country are far more complex that a simple label will attest. My conservative friend and his liberal compatriot in the coffee shop share one thing in common. They are both afraid. They are afraid of each others extreme positions which would lead if they were true to disenfranchisement of the other. This puts everyone in the position where they can only say, if that’s what “he wants” I’m going to get mine in place before “he gets his” so that I “get what I need.” It also leaves us in the current irresolvable dilemma.
We are at war; people are dying and being maimed. It is real; it’s not just something sound bitten on the evening news. So in the bumper-sticker vernacular of the day we should either “support our troops” or “bring them home now”. The irony to me is that both of those statements have two things in common, they both want to support our troops and are both equally unlikely to accomplish their intention. The support our troop “side” for its part doesn’t want to see the same thing happen to our current troops that happened to soldiers returning from Viet Nam. They want to make sure that the service person’s courageous sacrifice is recognized and applauded and that they are supported here so that they will not be undercut as they perform their tasks in the field. The bring them home contingent doesn’t want to see the soldier exposed to harm needlessly fighting for a war whose initial premise is now somewhat suspect and whose continued prosecution is promising to be convoluted and perilous thus needlessly endangering our courageous forces for dubious purpose. It is fairly easy to see that in one form or fashion both want to make sure the soldier is placed in the best position imaginable. Of course if each “side” keeps advocating their position the soldiers will indeed be caught in the middle of the contest and will indeed suffer as a result. The “bring them home” contingent ends up giving the enemy ground support as the resisters know that all they have to do is keep up the pressure and the US troops will be forced to withdraw because their mission isn’t supported at home. Scenario, the soldiers loose. The “support our troops” contingent ends up giving the American administration a blank check to continue militarily with no variation which means that the guerrilla war continues to grind good young people into pulp day after grinding day with no solution in the offing. Scenario, the soldiers loose. We obviously need more than a bumper sticker solution to this situation. It will require NEW, COMPLEX, CREATIVE solutions or will indeed neither support our troops nor bring them home for the foreseeable future.
How did we get here? We got here by dividing, by stereotyping, and by creating scapegoats instead of citizens. On this July 4th we need to truly stand united but not behind some bumper sticker or sound bite. We need to get together with our countrymen and recognize “their” common humanity, common needs and common goals are indeed “ours”. If we can’t do that here how can we help the people of Iraq find their common future? If we can’t get above petty differences to find our commonality we stand little chance of showing others how to do so. We must find our democratic consensus and to do that we must forget the sound bite and demand more: more communication, more understanding, and more recognition that our unique history requires us to share our country with ALL our fellow citizens.
Friday, April 29, 2005
An answer to the comment below on "Freedom From Religion"
Each of us brings our own moral code into the larger cultural and national debate. There are, in fact no shortages of "moral codes." If one looks carefully, the common thread, the "TRUTH" (in my way of looking at it God's Truth) is always operating in the background. If you examine the faiths around the world all have, for example, some version of the "Golden Rule". The various faiths / believers may state them in such a way as is most understandable to their audience but God is incredibly versatile. He can find a way to couch His truth so that the greatest or the least of us can understand it.
The problem for human beings is when we feel the need to "legislate truth" based on our "righteous understanding" of God's "intention". God's intention is to the best of my understanding to be reserved for God. When we suggest as some have, for example, in the recent judicial confirmation debates that to be against the filibuster is to be against people of faith I have to suggest they are overstepping the bounds. Moral code is essential to order, peace, and safety but moral code imposed by a majority, even a well meaning majority, on a helpless minority is nothing more than despotic behavior against the very basis of most faiths. Certainly, Christianity is based on the least and the greatest exchanging place and value, so if we are trampling the minority in the name of our great "morality" we had better be careful that we aren't in fact violating our own "rules."
Speaking of rules and who makes them. First I should disclose that as a Christian I am a bit leery of "Rules" to begin with. It seems to me that when we want to set up rules based on our faith we run the risk of planting the seeds of Pharisaical behavior where we wander around accusing others of blasphemy and sins against "The Law". It seems more likely that we should be more followers of the "summary of the Law" where we love our neighbors as we would love God. In that to me is the answer to the last question in the comment, "who gets to pick the rules?" The answer in my view is that we all do in the time-honored American tradition of compromise. Remember compromise? It was that thing where I give up something important to me and you give up something important to you so that we both leave the table a little dissatisfied but far more likely not to come to blows. If nothing else, good compromise ends with all the parties feeling that at least the others lost something too. More often than not these days, to engage in compromise is to be seen as being weak. To me, that misses the mark mightily. If I give you something which is important to me and you do the same we are in fact, absolutely living our faith. We are sacrificing for the benefit of others and for humanity as a whole because we are encouraging peace and understanding. Living your faith in actions FOR others is the real place where the rubber meets the road of faith.
Who then, gets to make the rules? Short answer, we ALL do and my rules won't make you all that happy and your rules won't make me all that happy. That is precisely why I think we are in dangerous ground when we feel we need "moral laws". Yes civil, orderly society is a good and proper goal but it will be far more likely achieved with the change in behavior of citizens than by codifying their transgressions. Until a few scant decades ago "right thinking" individuals in this state felt it was "morally right" and Biblically justified to keep people of different skin colors segregated and they used laws for this purpose. Moral laws made by the majority are quite obviously not always morally correct. When I advocate not imposing a moral code I see that the imposition of the majority's moral code can in fact have a chilling and discriminatory effect. That discrimination against the defenseless or underpowered minority is in my way of assessing, the most immoral thing a civil society could ever conceive of attempting. If we keep our moral rules to a minimum and act toward one another in accordance with the best tenets of our beliefs and faiths, we will in fact create an orderly, peaceful and certainly civil society – by default.
The problem for human beings is when we feel the need to "legislate truth" based on our "righteous understanding" of God's "intention". God's intention is to the best of my understanding to be reserved for God. When we suggest as some have, for example, in the recent judicial confirmation debates that to be against the filibuster is to be against people of faith I have to suggest they are overstepping the bounds. Moral code is essential to order, peace, and safety but moral code imposed by a majority, even a well meaning majority, on a helpless minority is nothing more than despotic behavior against the very basis of most faiths. Certainly, Christianity is based on the least and the greatest exchanging place and value, so if we are trampling the minority in the name of our great "morality" we had better be careful that we aren't in fact violating our own "rules."
Speaking of rules and who makes them. First I should disclose that as a Christian I am a bit leery of "Rules" to begin with. It seems to me that when we want to set up rules based on our faith we run the risk of planting the seeds of Pharisaical behavior where we wander around accusing others of blasphemy and sins against "The Law". It seems more likely that we should be more followers of the "summary of the Law" where we love our neighbors as we would love God. In that to me is the answer to the last question in the comment, "who gets to pick the rules?" The answer in my view is that we all do in the time-honored American tradition of compromise. Remember compromise? It was that thing where I give up something important to me and you give up something important to you so that we both leave the table a little dissatisfied but far more likely not to come to blows. If nothing else, good compromise ends with all the parties feeling that at least the others lost something too. More often than not these days, to engage in compromise is to be seen as being weak. To me, that misses the mark mightily. If I give you something which is important to me and you do the same we are in fact, absolutely living our faith. We are sacrificing for the benefit of others and for humanity as a whole because we are encouraging peace and understanding. Living your faith in actions FOR others is the real place where the rubber meets the road of faith.
Who then, gets to make the rules? Short answer, we ALL do and my rules won't make you all that happy and your rules won't make me all that happy. That is precisely why I think we are in dangerous ground when we feel we need "moral laws". Yes civil, orderly society is a good and proper goal but it will be far more likely achieved with the change in behavior of citizens than by codifying their transgressions. Until a few scant decades ago "right thinking" individuals in this state felt it was "morally right" and Biblically justified to keep people of different skin colors segregated and they used laws for this purpose. Moral laws made by the majority are quite obviously not always morally correct. When I advocate not imposing a moral code I see that the imposition of the majority's moral code can in fact have a chilling and discriminatory effect. That discrimination against the defenseless or underpowered minority is in my way of assessing, the most immoral thing a civil society could ever conceive of attempting. If we keep our moral rules to a minimum and act toward one another in accordance with the best tenets of our beliefs and faiths, we will in fact create an orderly, peaceful and certainly civil society – by default.
Friday, April 08, 2005
Black and White
Black and White.
We are in a time of black and white. We have been in this place before. Sadly, it is not new. In the recent past one could either “love it or leave it” or they were a “good boy or an ‘outside’ agitator.” Surely if you were “one of US” you would have ALL of our beliefs. If you don’t believe in SOME of the same things you must be against ALL of OUR beliefs and you are trying to tear US down. Welcome back to the 1960’s. Actually, we may have never actually left the 60’s. After all, one of the biggest issues in the last presidential campaign wasn’t what our country’s future will be but what each candidate did or did not do in the Viet Nam era. Were you a protester? Were you a “loyal patriot?” Where EXACTLY were you in the 60’s. That question implies that where one stood on those issues tells US all we need to know.
This debate has not matured with age. We are still either “Hippies” or “Hardhats”, Liberals or Conservatives, For US or Against US. Just who is US is always a matter of what hackneyed label you want to paste over the subtleties of the opinions of the “other side”. In the final analysis, the black and white labels have been wrong for five decades or more, and counting. Being in the majority opinion has justified coarse treatment for the minority. The reactions from the minority de jour to rough treatment caused the next shrill reactionary response, guaranteeing escalation and retaliation.
The minority at the moment seems to be anyone interested in having some shred of the Constitution left once the current terrorist threats fade from the headlines. Recently, on C-SPAN, there was a lawyer defending the need for due process for the detainees at Guantanamo. Instantly the lawyer was set upon by a series of callers, who brandishing their 60's era label makers, were clicking madly and pasting labels anywhere there was open flesh upon which to stick them. Caller after C-SPAN caller responded with vilification of the lawyer's intentions and with personal attacks upon his integrity and veracity. One caller asked that the lawyer “reveal who he really was – an ultra-liberal Democrat who was out to bash Bush and let terrorists kill more Americans.” In the end this is how the math added up for most of the callers; due process justice for folks in Guantanamo = you want to let terrorists kill more of us. If you want due process – YOU are the enemy. This lawyer wasn’t some long haired William Kunstler defending the bratty Chicago Seven defendants. He was reasoned, restrained, respectful individual who listened to the callers and tried to explain that his logic and intent was not to “topple Bush." He was trying to communicate that all he sought was “due process” for the defendants. In other words he was not saying "free my innocent brothers." His only message was that they should be, in apparently soon to be forgotten words, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. In today’s discussion he was just “aiding the enemy.”
We are in a very dangerous place indeed if we are all susceptible to guilt without evidence or civil justice. The message seems to be that these detainees were arrested so they MUST actually BE guilty of being enemies of the country. Why because the government said so. Did they say so in a court of law? Did they say so with evidence presented to a judge? Well no, why do you ask? The government said they were helping terrorists so therefore we need to lock them away. Well won’t that be convenient the next time anyone gets in the way of government policy. It doesn’t matter what they were actually doing, we won’t have to prove that any more. All we will have to do as government officials is SAY that they are doing something that threatens and we can just go round up the “bad guys”. So, chose up. Are you with US or against US? This begs the question, just when might YOU be considered a "bad guy" and how will YOU then defend yourself without the Constitution to protect you?
What's needed seems to be an immediate abandonment of the idea that there is ONLY black and white. The world is a kaleidoscope of color with myriad shades of gray including both black AND white. Our mutual rights are grounded in the concept of recognizing and respecting the guarantees in the process of justice. Without mutual respect we will US and THEM our way out of a civil society based on the rule of law to a Wild-West vigilante state. Tolerance, reason and the rule of law will turn many of our “enemies” into “fellow citizens” with a different point of view.
We are in a time of black and white. We have been in this place before. Sadly, it is not new. In the recent past one could either “love it or leave it” or they were a “good boy or an ‘outside’ agitator.” Surely if you were “one of US” you would have ALL of our beliefs. If you don’t believe in SOME of the same things you must be against ALL of OUR beliefs and you are trying to tear US down. Welcome back to the 1960’s. Actually, we may have never actually left the 60’s. After all, one of the biggest issues in the last presidential campaign wasn’t what our country’s future will be but what each candidate did or did not do in the Viet Nam era. Were you a protester? Were you a “loyal patriot?” Where EXACTLY were you in the 60’s. That question implies that where one stood on those issues tells US all we need to know.
This debate has not matured with age. We are still either “Hippies” or “Hardhats”, Liberals or Conservatives, For US or Against US. Just who is US is always a matter of what hackneyed label you want to paste over the subtleties of the opinions of the “other side”. In the final analysis, the black and white labels have been wrong for five decades or more, and counting. Being in the majority opinion has justified coarse treatment for the minority. The reactions from the minority de jour to rough treatment caused the next shrill reactionary response, guaranteeing escalation and retaliation.
The minority at the moment seems to be anyone interested in having some shred of the Constitution left once the current terrorist threats fade from the headlines. Recently, on C-SPAN, there was a lawyer defending the need for due process for the detainees at Guantanamo. Instantly the lawyer was set upon by a series of callers, who brandishing their 60's era label makers, were clicking madly and pasting labels anywhere there was open flesh upon which to stick them. Caller after C-SPAN caller responded with vilification of the lawyer's intentions and with personal attacks upon his integrity and veracity. One caller asked that the lawyer “reveal who he really was – an ultra-liberal Democrat who was out to bash Bush and let terrorists kill more Americans.” In the end this is how the math added up for most of the callers; due process justice for folks in Guantanamo = you want to let terrorists kill more of us. If you want due process – YOU are the enemy. This lawyer wasn’t some long haired William Kunstler defending the bratty Chicago Seven defendants. He was reasoned, restrained, respectful individual who listened to the callers and tried to explain that his logic and intent was not to “topple Bush." He was trying to communicate that all he sought was “due process” for the defendants. In other words he was not saying "free my innocent brothers." His only message was that they should be, in apparently soon to be forgotten words, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. In today’s discussion he was just “aiding the enemy.”
We are in a very dangerous place indeed if we are all susceptible to guilt without evidence or civil justice. The message seems to be that these detainees were arrested so they MUST actually BE guilty of being enemies of the country. Why because the government said so. Did they say so in a court of law? Did they say so with evidence presented to a judge? Well no, why do you ask? The government said they were helping terrorists so therefore we need to lock them away. Well won’t that be convenient the next time anyone gets in the way of government policy. It doesn’t matter what they were actually doing, we won’t have to prove that any more. All we will have to do as government officials is SAY that they are doing something that threatens and we can just go round up the “bad guys”. So, chose up. Are you with US or against US? This begs the question, just when might YOU be considered a "bad guy" and how will YOU then defend yourself without the Constitution to protect you?
What's needed seems to be an immediate abandonment of the idea that there is ONLY black and white. The world is a kaleidoscope of color with myriad shades of gray including both black AND white. Our mutual rights are grounded in the concept of recognizing and respecting the guarantees in the process of justice. Without mutual respect we will US and THEM our way out of a civil society based on the rule of law to a Wild-West vigilante state. Tolerance, reason and the rule of law will turn many of our “enemies” into “fellow citizens” with a different point of view.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Remember, It's also freedom FROM religion
I am a practicing Christian. I am also a person who respects the faiths and practices of others. When I hear people call me a secularist because I support the separation of church and state I get really steamed. Let us not forget that the founding fathers had come to this place to be free of being told how to practice their faith.In some cases they had been prevented by "the majority" from practicing their "minority" version of Christianity. When we allow state institutions (schools are a part of government) to establish prayer "formats" or to offer a particular form of worship as part of the daily routines we include the faith of some and exclude the faith of others. I suppose one would would be satisfied if your particular brand of worship is included in the officially sanctioned faith practice. What about those who are not in the "majority"? The true test of real democracies is how the rights of the minorities are protected. Americas founders had been at times forced to pay for the Church of England and put up with its status as the established religion in various colonies whether or not they were members of the church. To protect it citizens from the unfairness of imposed religious financial or political support of a church that was not their own, the framers of our constitution put in place the rights we still have today. The freedom FOR religion is also a freedom FROM the religions of others forced upon the unwilling or those of differing beliefs. I'm sure the 10 million or so Muslims in this country would not be particularly thrilled to be forced to "Pray in the Name of Jesus." Thanks to Jefferson and the authors of the constitution, they don't have to.
Just because I believe in the rights of others to be protected from imposed beliefs of a faith not their own does not additionally mean that I don't believe in or want a moral society. I resent the implication. Of course I want a society that cares about the rule of law and ethical practice. Conversely, I am proud to live in a land where the rights of minority peoples to practice their faith without majority pressure and intimidation are constitutionally protected. I am a Christian. Though the majority in this country shares my faith, a significant portion of our people do not. It is their right to not practice as I do. When any governmental agency or statute insists that they should it MUST be resisted. Interference in the faith of the minority is what freedom FROM religion (imposed by the government) is about. Freedom of religion is about about creating a place where differences can be accepted. Freedom FROM imposed religion allows that space to be created. Is that secularist? NO. It is in the tradition of accepting those who are different from us (tax collectors, Samaritans, etc.). Allowing people their own way to God is the most American and the most Christian thing we could and must all do.
Just because I believe in the rights of others to be protected from imposed beliefs of a faith not their own does not additionally mean that I don't believe in or want a moral society. I resent the implication. Of course I want a society that cares about the rule of law and ethical practice. Conversely, I am proud to live in a land where the rights of minority peoples to practice their faith without majority pressure and intimidation are constitutionally protected. I am a Christian. Though the majority in this country shares my faith, a significant portion of our people do not. It is their right to not practice as I do. When any governmental agency or statute insists that they should it MUST be resisted. Interference in the faith of the minority is what freedom FROM religion (imposed by the government) is about. Freedom of religion is about about creating a place where differences can be accepted. Freedom FROM imposed religion allows that space to be created. Is that secularist? NO. It is in the tradition of accepting those who are different from us (tax collectors, Samaritans, etc.). Allowing people their own way to God is the most American and the most Christian thing we could and must all do.
Saturday, January 01, 2005
Choose Life - How Simple
I was sitting at a traffic light the other day behind a nondescript white car. The car was a typical family-mobile with a popular license plate for these parts. I have seen it numerous times around town and around the state. The license plate was one of the "cause based" plates that the department of transportation offers. They offer plates, among others, to support wildlife or your favorite college or in this case to "Choose Life". Now who could be against that? It's such a simple idea so based in truth. When death stalks us in so many expected and unexpected ways from heart attacks to tsunamis, who in his right mind would choose death? I get it you know. I know why someone feels the way they do about abortion. I feel it too. Apologies to the United States Supreme Court but there is no scientific way anyone will ever convince me of the simple fact that if you did nothing, the unborn fetus would live on and become a human being. So that makes choosing life simple, right? Well not in the complex world I see around me, nothing is ever that simple.
First and foremost the question is begged, what happens if you change the status quo, the way things are now? If we re-criminalize abortion it will stop, right? No one will ever do it any more because they will face jail time. That will stop it, that will show them, right? I don't know but I hope that scenario doesn't play out. The return to "back-alley" amateur procedures is about as barbaric a thought as I could conjure. The simple fact is that people will practice abortion as long as there are people. They always have and always will. Statutory responses that criminalize are not likely to do any more than polarize our country more as people resist the enactment of the new laws. We need MORE polarization? Surely not. I see a few other paths out of this "all or nothing at all" wilderness. We have to admit that each of us isn't going to get just everything we want and in America that is going to be the most nearly impossible task. We want what we want. These days we want others to believe EXACTLY like we do. The idea that a plurality of opinion is somehow "flip-flopping" is the most dangerous force we have loose in the country today. When there is no room for variety and "it's my way or the highway" is the rule, there will be no evolution of thought but simply revolution as the oppressed opinion rebels. Why are conservatives winning the land now? Simple, when the liberals ruled the day they gave no quarter to conservatives and the cycle of resistance was built. It reached a point that when conservatives got a chance to return to power they now didn't just have a few needs to be met but they had an AGENDA to ENACT. Oh by the way, that's why the liberals were so nasty before as well. The conservative era before the liberal era gave liberals no place at the table and the current cycle was set into motion.
So where do we go then that will allow everyone a place at the table in this current debate. First, let's start by admitting that the language we have been using is flawed. It has never been about "a woman's right to choose' or "abortion on demand". Both of those catch phrases just hit everyone's hot buttons and the debate instantly becomes a shouting match. Let's admit one central truth, you don't even have to admit it out loud if you feel it will compromise your principles but accept it into your heart. Abortion will kill an otherwise viable fetus and that fetus would have been a human being. Sorry but whether one wants to admit it or not that is centrally, continually and undeniably true. Having said that, let's give the other side a point. If you bring an unwanted child into the world you aren't doing it too many favors. The chances for poverty and abuse rise exponentially in that scenario. So that means abortion should be allowed? Well, not on the basis of the phrase "a woman's right to choose". The opponents have it right when they say, but no one is asking the other life involved. If you buy the central fact of fetal/human viability the woman's choice seems pretty callous and selfish. So let's go back to that other chestnut "abortion on demand". This is just as flawed. It implies that women are wandering down to the abortion clinic with no more thought than ordering a burger at a fast food restaurant. I have known women struggling with the option of abortion and while I'll suggest that there may be some women indeed who do it lightly, the one's I've known have been painfully wrenched by the ramifications of the options.
So do we just sit here in this unhappy conundrum of shrill shouting and let one side or the other "win" the debate. The problem with that approach is that in this debate no one wins. When you must WIN you make your opponent resist you more because they quite rightly perceive that they have a great deal to loose by staying on the sidelines. If the pro-abortion side lets the anti-abortion side know that it in fact cares about the lives lost to abortion and wants to do the right thing then maybe the anti folks would not see the stakes being so dire. What's the "right thing" I'm talking about here? If indeed it is about woman's choices let's do all we can to both 1) make sure she knows what ALL her choices are and 2) let's give her more of them. The two of these things can only be accomplished if we take on a "put your money where your mouth is" approach to this dilemma.
First, the one place I agree with the "anti" folks completely is that waiting periods and counseling should be mandatory for this particular procedure. The emotions involved and the stakes involved are so high. Let's make sure that the mother knows ALL of her options other than disposal. If you want to make law this one makes sense and is not likely to lead to the possibility of jail time for a moral decision. Let's use the laws here like we do to restrict how people drive their cars. We don't question being told that if you want to drive 200MPH you better have number on your car and be going in a circle. Same could be true in this case. The behavior you want to pursue is dangerous to others, be sure that you do it only under controlled conditions.
That quickly brings one to the next problem. A person considering this option frequently has a limited number of options. It is the likely reason that the person even thought to explore abortion in the first place. Do you believe that the fetus should be allowed to live? Guess what, that is going to cost someone in real money, real time, lost opportunities or all three. One could say that the person should have been more responsible or some other judgmental comment. This doesn't wash. Truly without thinking too hard we can all think of a great number of "accidental births" where all the precautions were taken and motherhood resulted. So do we fall back on judgmental acrimony or do we try to help the mother make the "right" choice. Instead of paying lawyers to try to put the clinics out of business, put your money into a "support mothers who put there children up for adoption" fund. Instead of spending your time picketing and lobbying offer your financial assistance or our governmental assistance to mothers making the "right" choice. Instead of spending your dollars to support someone in jail for years on end, spend them to support the mother during and after the pregnancy. Both could be for a period of years but which approach is more humane or dare I say more Christian? For that matter which one would be more cost effective? If we supplemented a woman with $10,000 a year for child support wouldn't that be better than spending $30,000 per year for both her and her doctor to be holed up in prison.
What I offer here is a place. It is a place in the middle. That means that both "sides" will find some way to pick at these words. It won't make any of us happy. Maybe it will do something else though. Maybe it will make us all a little less angry. Maybe it will allow us to be a little more civil to one another as we discuss this intractable problem. Most importantly, take this course and LESS BABIES WILL BE KILLED. Is that worth a little personal pride about being RIGHT? I urge you to put down your opinions and REALLY "Choose Life". Don't just wear it on your car, live it in your life.
First and foremost the question is begged, what happens if you change the status quo, the way things are now? If we re-criminalize abortion it will stop, right? No one will ever do it any more because they will face jail time. That will stop it, that will show them, right? I don't know but I hope that scenario doesn't play out. The return to "back-alley" amateur procedures is about as barbaric a thought as I could conjure. The simple fact is that people will practice abortion as long as there are people. They always have and always will. Statutory responses that criminalize are not likely to do any more than polarize our country more as people resist the enactment of the new laws. We need MORE polarization? Surely not. I see a few other paths out of this "all or nothing at all" wilderness. We have to admit that each of us isn't going to get just everything we want and in America that is going to be the most nearly impossible task. We want what we want. These days we want others to believe EXACTLY like we do. The idea that a plurality of opinion is somehow "flip-flopping" is the most dangerous force we have loose in the country today. When there is no room for variety and "it's my way or the highway" is the rule, there will be no evolution of thought but simply revolution as the oppressed opinion rebels. Why are conservatives winning the land now? Simple, when the liberals ruled the day they gave no quarter to conservatives and the cycle of resistance was built. It reached a point that when conservatives got a chance to return to power they now didn't just have a few needs to be met but they had an AGENDA to ENACT. Oh by the way, that's why the liberals were so nasty before as well. The conservative era before the liberal era gave liberals no place at the table and the current cycle was set into motion.
So where do we go then that will allow everyone a place at the table in this current debate. First, let's start by admitting that the language we have been using is flawed. It has never been about "a woman's right to choose' or "abortion on demand". Both of those catch phrases just hit everyone's hot buttons and the debate instantly becomes a shouting match. Let's admit one central truth, you don't even have to admit it out loud if you feel it will compromise your principles but accept it into your heart. Abortion will kill an otherwise viable fetus and that fetus would have been a human being. Sorry but whether one wants to admit it or not that is centrally, continually and undeniably true. Having said that, let's give the other side a point. If you bring an unwanted child into the world you aren't doing it too many favors. The chances for poverty and abuse rise exponentially in that scenario. So that means abortion should be allowed? Well, not on the basis of the phrase "a woman's right to choose". The opponents have it right when they say, but no one is asking the other life involved. If you buy the central fact of fetal/human viability the woman's choice seems pretty callous and selfish. So let's go back to that other chestnut "abortion on demand". This is just as flawed. It implies that women are wandering down to the abortion clinic with no more thought than ordering a burger at a fast food restaurant. I have known women struggling with the option of abortion and while I'll suggest that there may be some women indeed who do it lightly, the one's I've known have been painfully wrenched by the ramifications of the options.
So do we just sit here in this unhappy conundrum of shrill shouting and let one side or the other "win" the debate. The problem with that approach is that in this debate no one wins. When you must WIN you make your opponent resist you more because they quite rightly perceive that they have a great deal to loose by staying on the sidelines. If the pro-abortion side lets the anti-abortion side know that it in fact cares about the lives lost to abortion and wants to do the right thing then maybe the anti folks would not see the stakes being so dire. What's the "right thing" I'm talking about here? If indeed it is about woman's choices let's do all we can to both 1) make sure she knows what ALL her choices are and 2) let's give her more of them. The two of these things can only be accomplished if we take on a "put your money where your mouth is" approach to this dilemma.
First, the one place I agree with the "anti" folks completely is that waiting periods and counseling should be mandatory for this particular procedure. The emotions involved and the stakes involved are so high. Let's make sure that the mother knows ALL of her options other than disposal. If you want to make law this one makes sense and is not likely to lead to the possibility of jail time for a moral decision. Let's use the laws here like we do to restrict how people drive their cars. We don't question being told that if you want to drive 200MPH you better have number on your car and be going in a circle. Same could be true in this case. The behavior you want to pursue is dangerous to others, be sure that you do it only under controlled conditions.
That quickly brings one to the next problem. A person considering this option frequently has a limited number of options. It is the likely reason that the person even thought to explore abortion in the first place. Do you believe that the fetus should be allowed to live? Guess what, that is going to cost someone in real money, real time, lost opportunities or all three. One could say that the person should have been more responsible or some other judgmental comment. This doesn't wash. Truly without thinking too hard we can all think of a great number of "accidental births" where all the precautions were taken and motherhood resulted. So do we fall back on judgmental acrimony or do we try to help the mother make the "right" choice. Instead of paying lawyers to try to put the clinics out of business, put your money into a "support mothers who put there children up for adoption" fund. Instead of spending your time picketing and lobbying offer your financial assistance or our governmental assistance to mothers making the "right" choice. Instead of spending your dollars to support someone in jail for years on end, spend them to support the mother during and after the pregnancy. Both could be for a period of years but which approach is more humane or dare I say more Christian? For that matter which one would be more cost effective? If we supplemented a woman with $10,000 a year for child support wouldn't that be better than spending $30,000 per year for both her and her doctor to be holed up in prison.
What I offer here is a place. It is a place in the middle. That means that both "sides" will find some way to pick at these words. It won't make any of us happy. Maybe it will do something else though. Maybe it will make us all a little less angry. Maybe it will allow us to be a little more civil to one another as we discuss this intractable problem. Most importantly, take this course and LESS BABIES WILL BE KILLED. Is that worth a little personal pride about being RIGHT? I urge you to put down your opinions and REALLY "Choose Life". Don't just wear it on your car, live it in your life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)