The Irreverent Reverend

Denying Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar entrance to Israel is troubling. They have been critical of Israeli policies towards the Palestinians, and US relations with Israel since their election to the House of Representatives. In the United States this is often viewed as being anti-Semitic.

Let’s be clear about the definition of anti-Semitism: “…hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews. It is considered a form of racism.” (Anti-Defamation League)

According to the Anti-Defamation League, hostility toward Jews dates to ancient times, perhaps to the beginning of Jewish history. Jews were criticized and sometimes punished for their unwillingness to adopt the values and way of life in the non-Jewish societies in which it lived.

The rise of Christianity greatly increased hatred of Jews.  They were seen as Christ killers, even though it was the Roman Government that carried out the crucifixion. And let’s not forget that Jesus was a Jew. Fast forward ten centuries and once again Jews were persecuted and forced to live in all-Jewish ghettos. Misunderstanding and outright dis-information led to the torture and execution of Jews. Others were forced to convert to Christianity to avoid death and torture.

By the eighteenth century the Enlightenment lessened the religious hold on society and cultural hatred increased.  Jews were deprived of civil rights and subjected to great hostility. At that time, a movement emerged to try and prove Jews were of a different (and inferior) race.  This later became Germany’s justification for seeking to kill every Jewish person in lands occupied by Germany during WW II, whether they practiced their faith or not. One third of all Jews, over six million, were killed in the Holocaust, the zenith of anti-Semitism in human history.

In the years since WW II anti-Semitism has waxed and waned.  It is on the rise again worldwide in these chaotic, economic and political times.  In the United States, the rise of white nationalism and the inflammatory rhetoric of the occupant have politicized the legitimate questions about US relations with Israel and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Ilhan and Omar exercised their right of free speech. They are pro-Palestinian and that does not, by definition, make them anti-Semitic or anti-Israel. These two duly elected representatives, who happen to be Muslim, are questioning the US policy of unconditional support for Israel.

The Israeli government continues to enforce harsh discriminatory restrictions on Palestinian human rights, restrict the movement of people, goods and services in and out of Palestine. The Human Rights Watch has long accused Israel of severe human rights violations.  The United Nations repeatedly calls for the end of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land.

When other countries have severe human rights violations, the United Stated imposes sanctions.  The United States instead gives over four billion dollars a year to Israel.  That’s over ten million dollars a day. Tlaib and Ohan were simply exercising their right to free speech, to criticize US foreign policy regarding Israel. This is not anti-Semitism.

Tlaib and Ohan protest the 2011 Law for Prevention of Damage to the State of Israel through Boycott.  Amnesty USA explains:

“This law makes it a civil wrong to call for a boycott of any entity because of its affiliation to Israel or to a territory under its control, including entities operating in illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. A 2017 amendment to the Entry to Israel Law prohibits granting an entry visa to Israel to anyone who knowingly published a call for a boycott as defined under the 2011 law.  Both these laws contravene Israel’s obligations under international human rights laws.”

The occupant’s inflammatory rhetoric regarding their protest politicizes the issue and casts dispersions on the Democratic Party. It also furthers Islamophobia in the minds of those who do not understand the complex history of the US and Israel, the history of the occupation or the gross human rights violations.

We have a moral duty as human beings to stand up to unjust laws, to protest what offends our inner moral compass and act with equanimity regardless of politics.

Dissent is a time honored, constitutionally guaranteed legal form of protest in the United States. When dissent and disagreement are seen as disloyalty and duplicity, we are sliding further down the slippery slope of nationalism and totalitarianism.

From the Tea Party to the Civil War to Women’s Suffrage to Viet Nam, to Me Too, dissent is patriotic.  We can and must love our country enough to protest its policies and costly political alliances. If we don’t stand for something, we will fall for anything.  Stand for human rights, stand for the poor, stand for representatives who have the courage of their convictions.  Stand for those who refuse to drink the Kool-aid.  Join their number.  Our country is counting on you.

Two mass shootings in less than twenty four hours.  The response is predictable and we have heard it all before. We witness the stagnation and stalemate that prevents any action.  Politicians wring their hands and shift the focus from gun control to mental health. Mitch McConnell single handedly prevents any meaningful gun legislation from reaching the Senate floor. (He has also received more than four million dollars from the NRA through the years.)

We are a nation of the hunting and the hunted.  Islamic terrorists are a threat, but we are as much at risk from young (for the most part) white men with connections to white supremacist groups.  It is inappropriate to call them domestic terrorists.  Terrorists by definition seek to overturn the regime of the government.  These shooters are in concert with the regime, acting in ways that are modeled by the occupant.

What the shooters have in common is an online presence that is filled with right wing hate speech.  These sites are protected by the First Amendment.  We are free to say what we want, whenever we want, to whomever we want.  These sites appeal to those feeling fearful and disenfranchised by an eclectic society of diverse people.

Traditionally, the right to free speech has meant one doesn’t scream “fire” in a crowded movie theater out of basic human decency and a concern for the safety and well-being of a crowd.  It seems no such concern exists these days.  Inflammatory rhetoric abounds and the standards for human decency are being eroded at an alarming rate.

The occupant is a major contributor to such erosion.  It is not all his fault that these awful things are happening; however, his consistently inflammatory rhetoric lowers the standard for public discourse in the common experience of the American people.  The occupant uses derogatory language to speak of migrants at the border. He fails to stop the “send them back” chants that marginalize four congresswomen of color. He smirks when murdering immigrants is suggested as a solution to some of our social problems. It sends a powerful message about what is acceptable.

In previous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, the highest office in the land has modeled the standards of acceptable speech.  No such modeling happens with the current occupant.  He incites hate speech and hateful action with no checks and balances. Such behavior allows what has always existed in the underbelly of public life to come to the fore.

Hate speech increased 226% in areas where the occupant has held rallies.  This is not a partisan statement; it is a statement of fact.  His party affiliation is irrelevant.  This is behavior, pure and simple.  The tragedy is that the spineless members of his party fail to hold him accountable for fear of how it might affect their re-election campaigns. It becomes a partisan issue when it immobilizes an entire political party.

Supporters of the occupant are willing to wink at his behavior and this alone is mind boggling.  The occupant has successfully manipulated the fears of the American people to believe that immigrants are the problem, the poor are ciphers on public resources and the differently abled are objects of ridicule who are unworthy of public and social support.  Years of social progress and raising the bar on socially acceptable behavior are diminished by his behavior.

Politically correct has become something to make fun of, to eschew as a way of being in the world. The erosion of public commitment to being politically correct means it is okay to make fun of and marginalize the groups we were learning to speak of with compassion and acceptance.  Being politically correct was a standard of language that raised the bar for public discourse.   No such bar exists now.

Despite the occupant’s recent comments about needing to condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy, his rhetoric and behavior through time belie any commitment to doing that.

In ancient Israel it was believed that to speak a word was to invoke its power. Speaking the name of God invoked God’s power.  It’s why taking God’s name in vain is such a big deal.  Sometimes Jesus healed with just a word.  The Judeo-Christian tradition acknowledges that words have tremendous power. Talk is anything but cheap.

When inflammatory rhetoric is used by the occupant of the most powerful office in the land and the leader of the free world, it begins a downward spiral of public decency and socially acceptable behavior.  Our corporate commitment to acceptance and integration as desirable goals for a diverse society are diminished and our common decency as a nation is set back decades.  It is all related: hate rhetoric, hateful action, white supremacy, mass shootings, fearful responses to the “other” and respect for one another as human beings. 

Enough is enough. Use your words. Speak truth to power. Hold up the standard for decency and public discourse. Do not remain silent.  Silence is complicity. 

There is a widespread misconception that the United States was founded as a Christian nation.  It is a position touted by lots of people, usually with the assumption that making the United States Christian (again) is a priority.  It feeds anti-Semitic, anti-Islam and anti-anything-other-than-Christianity-sentiments.  It fuels the fires of intolerance and, more importantly, distorts our actual religious history.

Most of us learned a version of history that goes something like this. The Pilgrims came on the Mayflower in search of religious freedom in 1620.  The Puritans soon followed.  Other religious groups that came in the early centuries of the new British settlements found a wonderful welcome and freedom to establish their own houses of worship without interference.

The problem with this narrative is that it’s bullshit.

In 1564, fifty years before the Mayflower and the Puritans, a French Huguenot settlement was founded at Fort Caroline (Florida).  In 1565 the Spanish (Catholics) established a base at Saint Augustine and then wiped out the Huguenots.  The antipathy between Protestants and Catholics would continue for generations.

In 1620 a group of Puritans dissented from inside the Church of England, boarded the Mayflower to flee increasing persecution, and landed in Massachusetts.  This group became known as the Pilgrims.  Rather than establish religious freedom, they foisted the strictest forms of Puritanism onto people as they settled in Massachusetts.   

The religious persecution that drove settlers from Europe to British North America sprang from the conviction, held by Protestants and Catholics alike, that uniformity of religion must exist in any society. Which religion was a topic of hot debate. Both groups believed there was one true religion and that it was the duty of civil authorities to impose it.  This included the use of force when necessary. Those who refused to comply, like Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, were banished from the Colony.  Others were executed as heretics.

While this appears to have the veneer of being a “Christian nation” there were many religious expressions in the early settlements.  Quakers, Mennonites, Moravians, Lutherans, Catholics and Jews were among the early settlers in the British colonies.  It was not a happy melting pot of religious traditions. There was fear and hatred of religious traditions other than one’s own.  

There is a difference between trying to establish the United States as a Christian nation and simply looking for the freedom to pursue religious passions without interference from the state.  This was futile, since most colonies had established state churches funded with tax money.  Despite their best efforts to force conformity, there were always multiple expressions of religious life, both Christian and non-Christian.

Roger Williams settled the colony of Rhode Island as a refuge for those fleeing religious persecution in other colonies.  It is ironic that the religious freedom the Puritans sought for themselves in coming to the New World, they then denied to everyone else. 

 Other motivations were also at work.  The Mayflower trip was financed by Spain, in the hope of discovering new trade routes and bringing back goods to sell on the open market.  By 1640 New Amsterdam, later known as New York, became a focus for international trade.  Entrepreneurs flocked to the new world looking for opportunities to market new goods in Europe and bring European goods to settlers.

The entrepreneurial influence in the colonies cannot be overstated.  To think that the colonies were all about Christianity and making a Christian nation is a gross oversimplification of the complex and conflict filled history as well as the financial motivations of those early settlers.

 It would be years before this divisive past played itself out.  In 1790 President Washington addressed the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island: “All possess a like liberty of conscience and immunity of citizenship…For happily the Government of the United states, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens.”

Later in his speech he said, “May the children of the Stock of Abraham (Jews, Christians and Muslims) continue to merit and enjoy the good will of other inhabitants, while everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”  

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were in absolute agreement that freedom of religion was essential for a successful society.  In 1786 the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom became the law of the land. Jefferson wrote that the law “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection the Jew, the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”

Our forebears were clear, the United States was to have a secular government and there would be no religious litmus test for its leaders.  It was a hard won battle after the years of state run churches in most of the colonies.  The early settlers repeated the history they fled from in Europe with the same fractious consequences.

It is high time we learned from history. The United States never was, nor was it intended to be, a Christian nation. The first Amendment states clearly that the state is to have no role in establishing or maintaining any religious tradition. 

The rising tide of intolerance fueled by white evangelical religious traditions is taking this nation dangerously close to overlap in the spheres of church and state.  History bears ample witness to the damage done to both institutions when this happens.  We are a nation of many religions and no religion.  We are a nation where our forebears envisioned each individual having the freedom to worship in the manner of her/his choice. 

Let’s not lose sight of the long game for the sake of political gain in the moment.  There is too much at stake. 

Few would disagree that the very soul of our country is in peril under the current administration.  Elements of fascism, dictatorial leadership, intentional misinformation and vilification of a free press are among the greatest risks to our democratic republic. 

I am indebted to Parker Palmer and his paper on the five habits to sustain a democracy for this week’s blog idea.  You can find a link here

Parker Palmer suggests five habits needed to sustain a democratic way of life. They are habits, because like other behaviors they are learned and they require intentionality.  To develop a different way of being in the world requires a different intention, an exploration of our most deeply held values and a willingness to let those values be enriched by different voices.

Whether we like it or not, we are all in this together.  There is no “us” and “them.”  It is all “us.”  We are a local, national and international community. Dehumanizing another is the first step toward denying essential personhood.  From there it is easy to take away benefits and supports that undergird the lives of those whose needs are different from our own. It is part of what makes the occupant’s behavior so troubling.  He is a master at creating divisions among people and marginalizing those with whom he disagrees.

However, there is deep value in connecting with those who are different than we are. All prejudice and hatred have a root in fear, and much of our fear is about the unknown.  The way to dismantle fear is to see another as fully human, deserving respect and care, and sharing the same essential personhood as every other person on the planet.  We have so much to learn from those who are different from us. Our lives are enriched when we interact with those whose religion is different, whose skin color is different, and those whose mental and emotional capacities are different.  Our lives and our understandings are enriched when we take the time to be with those who are different than we are.

We are living in an either/or society.  In the current divisiveness of our time things are one way or the other. They are good or bad, right or wrong. In reality there are few things in life that are wholly one way or another.  Most of the important issues in life fall somewhere along a continuum and our ability to hold seemingly disparate issues and goals in creative tension are part of how we build understanding with others.  Modern life is filled with tensions and our relentless tendency to choose one side over another does not hold the tension. It increases it and creates a power struggle.  We see the evidence of those power struggles every day and we unwittingly participate in them when we choose one side to the exclusion of other points of view. Listening and seeking understanding may not change our position, but it does remove the division that so often attends disagreement.  Lovingly disagreeing and seeking some measure of common ground are necessary for a civil society. Unity does not mean uniformity.

Willingness to enter into loving dialogue with the ones with whom we disagree fosters a sense of personal voice and moral agency.  A consequence of our deeply divided culture is that we have stopped listening to each other. When we are busy thinking up our next argument or response to someone, we have stopped listening to what they are saying in the moment.  When we stop listening we diminish the moral agency of the other. When white people deny there is racism in our country they dismiss the agency of those who live with judgement based on the color of their skin.  When Representative Mike Kelly (R Pa) said that he was a “person of color” as a white man of Irish descent, he systematically dismissed the experience of people of color who are paid less, have fewer opportunities and live with much higher levels of violence and poverty.  It was a slap in the face to every person of color who lives with systemic racism every day.

Finally, we are in desperate need of intentional efforts to build community.  We live isolated lives and most of us have little interaction with those whose skin color, language, physical or mental capacity is different from our own.  As a result, our world view is shaped by homogeneous communities that speak largely with one voice.  To speak with one voice when a community is diverse creates harmony instead of one unison voice singing the same tune.

Building community, enabling voices other than those like our own, learning to hold tensions in life giving ways, deepening our appreciation of those who are different than we and realizing we are all in this together are the keys to undoing the damage done to our democracy by an administration hell bent on creating division.

Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote, “We may have come on different ships, but we are all in the same boat now.”

Living with chronic pain occasions the question, “How are you?”  People often respond, “I’m fine, thank you,” because others don’t always want to hear or talk about it. This is also an honest answer, for what is true in the moment.  However, behind this answer are a few things people who live with chronic pain have in common.

Chronic pain never goes away.  It waxes and wanes; some days it is unbearable and other days it is manageable. It is unpredictable and different for everyone.  It is hard to make and keep plans. Chronic illness and pain are very isolating. However, it means a lot to not be forgotten.

The same disease does not produce the same symptoms in everyone. People with the same disease have different symptoms and issues. Don’t assume that knowing someone with the same disease means you understand what it means for another person.    

Fifty million Americans live with chronic pain. Of that, twenty million have high impact pain which limits their work and social life.  This is just over twenty percent of the population.  You know someone who lives with chronic pain.

People living with chronic pain do not want your sympathy or pity.  What is needed is understanding and compassion.  Please don’t say, “Tomorrow will be a better day,” because there is just as good a chance that tomorrow will be a worse day.  Please don’t try to fix it or say just the “right thing.” Often people are uncomfortable with the changes that come in the life of a person with chronic illness. It is understandable. Know it is enough if you just express your care and compassion.

Fighting for needed health care is a part time job.  Keeping track of medical billing, paying co-pays and bird dogging our dysfunctional health care system is a task that takes time most weeks. 

Energy is a limited commodity.  There are no reserves to “suck it up” and do the next thing.  When energy is gone, it is gone and there is no more.  Pain saps energy.  Some days getting dressed and eating take all the energy there is.

Pain causes brain fog. Some days it is difficult to do just about anything except watch mindless reruns because following a story line in a book or having the energy to do something enjoyable is just not there. 

A sense of humor is crucial for living through most days. Smart ass remarks and sarcasm can be a helpful coping mechanism. It helps to get through the day.  It can also deflect unwanted pity and sympathy.

Most people who live with chronic illness and pain don’t look sick.  Saying so is not helpful. It feels minimizing. Much chronic illness and pain is invisible.  It is more helpful to say, “I’m glad you could be here today. Thanks for coming.” Or, “Thanks for making the effort; I know it isn’t always easy for you to get out.”

The accountability of close friends who inquire about self-care and well-being are helpful. Please don’t assume you are the person to challenge someone to live differently with their limitations. It’s a small circle and you know if you are in it.  If you have to ask, you probably aren’t.

It’s not helpful to say, “I am praying you will get better and I’m sure you will.” Please don’t say, “There are so many others who are worse off.” Yes, it is true and no, it is hot helpful. Please don’t minimize chronic illness with global statements about it not being terminal. No, it’s not life threatening cancer; however, such comments undermine the very real limitations that are part of every day.

So, when you ask a person with chronic illness or pain how they are, and they say they are “fine.” They are. They are managing and coping as best they can with a host of things that are not visible to most people.  They are enjoying life as best they can. Hopefully, they are also discovering a new richness to life that comes from being present to the moment even when the moment is not what they hoped for their life.  They are as fine as they can be in the moment.

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God,

Indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

The pledge has not always read this way.  The original text is:

“I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands-

One nation indivisible-with liberty and justice for all.”

It was written by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), and published in the Youth’s Companion in 1892.  In 1923 the words were changed to, “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America…”

In 1954, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words “under God” creating the pledge we say today.

Section 4 of the Flag Code (yes, there is such a thing) states the protocol to be used when saluting the flag, “…standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart…Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.”

The Bellamy salute began in 1892 with a military salute and ended with the arm outstretched, palm up toward the flag.  In World War II it was decided that the salute looked too much like a Nazi salute and was changed to the right hand over the heart.

When patriotic holidays roll around it is good to be reminded that our pledge of allegiance did not drop out of heaven like the stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments.  It was written by a socialist.  Let that sink in.

For all the hoopla that the people create around however they understand socialism, one of the statements we hold most dearly was written by a socialist.  His intent was that it would be used by citizens of any country as a way of showing their loyalty to their country.

I doubt he envisioned it would become the mantra of patriots and nationalists alike.

Patriotic holidays like the fourth of July are great opportunities to be reminded of the greatness and the shortcomings of our nation.

We celebrate unity, liberty and justice for all. But let’s not forget that:

• Women still make eighty cents on the dollar compared to men.
• Unemployment for people of color is many times the national average.
• Our country is running concentration camps at the border with inhumane conditions.
• Similar to slave times, children are ripped from their parents arms.
• The political system envisioned by our forbearers has degenerated into self-serving, wealth focused favoritism.
• The number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States is medical expense.
• We are the only developed nation without single payer health care.
• Environmental protections that have kept our great country beautiful are being rolled back at an alarming rate.
• Climate change is real; ignoring it will not make it go away.
• There is no place in the United States where a person can work full time at a minimum wage job and afford basic necessities.
• Areas ravaged by natural disaster, especially Puerto Rico, have still not recovered and federal dollars have dried up despite desperate need.

People panic when they hear the word “socialism”.  However, Social Security, federal disaster aid, infrastructure grants and state aid for education are all forms of socialism that we welcome because they benefit us.

Let’s be clear; the fit people pitch about socialism is a fear based response to someone getting something WE don’t think they deserve.  We blame the poor for being poor, and somewhere deep inside we believe they are lazy.  If they just worked harder…

We look with pity on the sick who can’t afford health care and think it has nothing to do with us. We pay our premiums and don’t have to choose between eating and buying medication.

We are big fans of “indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” as long as we are recipients of the liberty and justice.  Our absence of outrage is the most telling statement of what we think of our country and its citizens.

Before you pledge allegiance to the flag, think about who it includes and who it excludes.  When it comes to who is worthy and who is not, remember it is not ours to decide.  The ultimate strength of any society is how it treats its most vulnerable members.  Whether or not our country is great depends in large part on where one falls on the socio-economic continuum.

If you are going to pledge allegiance to the flag, pledge allegiance to all the people who are part of the republic.

Here are some quotes on patriotism as we celebrate the 4^th of July.  The thoughts of previous leaders and commentators is an invitation to reflect on what the US has become and encourage critical thinking at this moment in history. 

Patriotism at the expense of another nation is as wicked as racism at the expense of another race…Let us resolve to be patriots always, nationalists never.  Let us love our country, but pledge allegiance to the earth and to the flora and fauna and human life that it supports – one planet indivisible, with clean air,…soil and water; with liberty, justice and peace for all.

William Sloane Coffin

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

Howard Zinn

Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.

Mark Twain

The real patriots are those who…carry on a lover’s quarrel with their country.

William Sloane Coffin

We, the People, recognize that we have responsibilities as well as rights; that our destinies are bound together; that a freedom which only asks what’s in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism, is unworthy of our founding ideals, and those who died in their defense.

Barack Obama

Patriotism consists in not waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong.

James Bryce

Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.

Charles de Gaulle

The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.

Alexi de Tocqueville

You’re not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality.  Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it.

 Malcom X

Patriotism is love of country. But you can’t love your country without loving your countrymen and countrywomen.  We don’t always have to agree, but we must empower each other, we must find the common ground, we must build bridges across our differences to pursue the common good.

Cory Booker

I do this real moron thing, and it’s called thinking.  And apparently I’m not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions.

George Carlin

I love America more than any other country in the world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.

James Baldwin

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.

Edward Abbey

We are adrift with nationalism, misplaced pride and prejudice.  We have a petty, selfish, incompetent leader in the White House who brings out the worst in so many people.  Patriotism is not blind loyalty.  It is a loving critique of the moment, a willingness to speak truth to power, a willingness to stand out in a crowd as you call out leaders for their misguided notions.  This is not a time to be silent and complacent.  Truth patriots love their country and are not afraid to criticize their government. Happy 4th of July.  

 

In yet another blow to the narrowing line between church and state, the Supreme Court ruled that a twenty foot cross was essentially a secular symbol.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito outlined a position stating the twenty foot cross at a busy intersection in Bladensberg, MD, could remain on state property. Positing that the Latin cross was a strong symbol from the World War I era, it primarily honored the men who died in the war and did not conjure a particularly religious sentiment.

Other war memorials surround the huge cross on the small spate of state-owned land. The state has maintained it for some time at a cost of over $117,000 to taxpayers.  In 2014 the American Humanist Association filed a suit in District Court that alleged the cross on public land and the use of public money violated the First Amendment Establishment clause.

In summary judgement the court maintained there is a difference between erecting such a monument and maintaining a long standing memorial.  Since the cross was erected in the early 1900’s it was impossible to know the original intent of the founders.  The judgement also said the purpose multiplied with time, meaning that even if the original intent was religious, the purpose was obscured by time.

An additional point was that the message of the monument evolved with time. Finally, the judgement asserts that as time passes there is a strong presumption of constitutionality. 

This is legal bullshit at its best.  The main point of the judgement is that the cross originated as a Christian symbol and retains that meaning in many contexts. It does not change the fact that the symbol took on added secular meaning when used in the World War I monument.  It represents the symbolic resting place for those who never returned home.

Writing the dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg commented from the bench. This is a sign of profound disagreement in Supreme Court practice. “The majority vote undermined the Separation of Church and State.” Citing a decision from years ago, she noted that the Court “…recognized the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment demands neutrality among religious faiths and between religion and non-religion. Today the Court erodes that neutrality commitment, diminishing the precedent designed to preserve individual liberty and harmony in favor of a presumption of constitutionality for long standing monuments, symbols and priorities.”

Could it be that a feisty Jewish woman has a better grasp on the meaning of the cross than most of the bench? Justices Kagan (Jewish) and Sotomayor (Catholic) joined the dissent.

The cross has no place in the public sphere in a country that supports individuals’ right to religious practice or to no religious preference at all.  If this were a twenty foot Torah scroll or Koran it would have been history a long time ago.

None of this is good news for the Christian faith. By co-opting the central symbol of the faith, the Court has essentially emptied the cross of its power and promise. In the mind of the Court, the monument could be a hand flipping the bird to motorists.  While the primary meaning has been “screw you,” the meaning has evolved with time.  

The cross is NOT a secular symbol.

While the theology surrounding the cross is widely divergent among people of faith, the truth remains that it is a religious symbol associated exclusively with the Christian church in its many forms.

The cross was a symbol of torture and an agonizing death, the instrument of Roman oppression and the collusion of religious leaders. Jesus’ death on the cross was the embodiment of complete love and commitment to God’s realm that refused to be co-opted. Jesus was single minded in purpose; he came to establish the reign of God as the power and promise of justice, peace and wholeness for all people.

The empty cross is the central symbol for much of the church that focuses on Jesus’ ongoing life in the lives of his followers.  Those who choose to follow in his way are God’s instruments of peace, justice and wholeness for all people in the world. 

To make the cross a secular symbol shows the degree to which the Christian church is captive to the culture of our time. Abandoning the way and will of Jesus, the Church embodies lack of commitment to the truth for which Jesus lived and died. 

It’s a travesty of the first order.  The lack of outcry from the Church serves to further drive home the point.  It is time for the Church to be the Church, take back what is ours and speak truth to power in the name of the One whom we claim to be Christ. 

 

In a stunning and unconventional move the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (D.C.C.C.) moved to protect centrist incumbents. They did this by formally breaking business ties with political consultants and pollsters who go to work for primary challengers.

The D.C.C.C. policy bars poling agencies and other political consultation firms from conducting business with a primary opponent of a sitting Democrat.  If you aren’t nervous yet, you should be. 

In a recent New York Times article, the Democratic challengers to incumbent centrists were called “insurgents,” a highly inflammatory name usually reserved for military challengers to sitting regimes in battle torn areas.  While some could reasonably argue that politics is its own unique battleground, it isn’t a helpful image.

The strategy of the D.C.C.C. is to keep seated democrats in place in traditionally leaning blue states. The argument is that it decreases the potential loss of Democratic votes on unknown or more left-leaning candidates.  It also allows incumbent candidates to focus on re-election and not divide efforts with primaries. It is also a direct assault on our political process.  Choice among candidates in the primary process is a hallmark of our political process. And we can’t afford any more assaults on our democracy.

 The D.C.C.C. policy assures a lesser known candidate or more left-leaning candidate will have a far more difficult time mounting a legitimate challenge to an incumbent. It also, more importantly, insures that entrenched power brokers remain in place.  Such a move also keeps the democratic majority male and white.  It keeps the good old boys’ network firmly in place in the name of stability and certainty. 

While there are periodic calls for term limits for congress, the primary process is one form of term limits that is effective and amplifies the voice of the people.  Washington continues to be broken and breaking, especially under the lack of leadership and moral compass of the occupant and his cronies.  Many residents of Kentucky would jump at an opportunity to vote in someone with fresh ideas and finally replace that spineless puppet of the occupant, Mitch McConnell.

It’s not like some fresh new voices can break Washington any more than it is already broken.  They might actually be helpful.  But, that’s just too scary for the powers that be.

Perhaps the most stunning gain of the last election was the increased diversity in the Democratic Party.  Women, people of color and divergent religious traditions have brought new and refreshing perspectives to our stagnated political process.

Last year Representative Ayanna Pressley, (D Mass) defeated a ten term Democratic incumbent.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D New York) defeated veteran Joseph Crowley.  Both Ms. Pressley and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez are women of color.  They defeated the kind of white male power brokers who are the backbone of Washington.

According to the New York Times, the fifty longest-serving House Democrats are two-thirds white and male.  Challengers are often women of color.  The Democratic Party claims non-whites and women as part of their base strategy. They want to draw this demographic more fully into the Democratic fold. This appears to be true as long as the current white male power structure is not challenged.

Who knows, if we vote a few of these good old boys out, they might have to go out and get real jobs. In a real job one has to work more than 138 days a year and pay for health insurance. Rank and file workers can’t vote themselves a raise. I would love to see a few of these career politicians work for minimum wage and then try to grocery shop, pay rent and pay for health care.  I would buy a ticket for that show. 

Who knows, the NRA might lose its stranglehold on Washington by having new servants of the people who are unwilling to sell their soul to the strongest lobby in the United States.

Who knows, maybe politics might actually become the servant of the people again, rather than the self-perpetuating dysfunctional system of made millionaires who are beholden to all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons.

Political entrenchment that fails to serve the people has been the downfall of every great civilization from the beginning of time.  In Jesus’ time it was the Romans, an occupying force that taxed the already poor into oblivion while making profits for themselves and their political bosses.  Part of what got Jesus in so much trouble is that he regularly spoke to the poor and dispossessed and assured them of their value as human beings, not just financial pawns in a game they could never win.

We are a declining society.  Our political process is further and further removed from the people. Our society is weakened by diminished loyalty to a political system that no longer serves “We the People.”  Abraham Lincoln said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” In the aftermath of the Civil War, the United States was deeply divided. So is our country today. The further Washington gets from the people, the more divided we become.

Mark Twain wrote, “Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason.”  Support the primary process and let’s change some political diapers.

As the sex abuse crisis continues to unfold in the church we are learning it is the one interfaith thing we share.  There is no church or denomination that is exempt. While the Roman Catholic church has a higher percentage of pedophiles and child molesters than any other church, there are plenty of instances of child abuse in other denominations and traditions.

What is often overlooked is another population of victims: adult women.  These are women who go to their pastors for help and get sex.  These women go to their pastors for pastoral care and their pastors allow or initiate sexualizing the relationship.

This is often dismissed as an “affair.”  Nothing could be further from the truth.

First, the relationship between a clergy person and his/her congregants is professional in nature. This means that clergy have a responsibility to use the special knowledge, skills and gifts of their call for the benefit of those they serve, namely their congregants. It also means that clergy have a responsibility to establish healthy professional relationships. Because clergy carry moral and spiritual authority, as well as professional power it is ALWAYS their responsibility to maintain an appropriate professional boundary.

In practical terms this translates into clergy not pursuing or initiating sexual relationships with congregants (regardless of marital status of either party) and not responding to the sexual advances of congregants who may be interested in a relationship with their pastor. It also means that clergy will not engage in sexualized behavior with congregants. Sexualized behavior includes jokes, inappropriate touching, pornography, flirting, inappropriate gift giving, etc.

Since the ministerial relationship is professional in nature, it is inappropriate to call a sexual encounter an affair. “Affair” is a term used to describe a sexual liaison between peers, or equals. In addition, the term affair focuses attention on the sexual nature of the behavior rather than the professional violation. It also places equal responsibility for the behavior on the congregant. Since clergy have a responsibility to set and maintain appropriate boundaries, those who are violated by clergy’s inappropriate sexual behavior are not to be blamed even if they initiated the contact.

This is a difficult concept for many people to grasp. We want to blame the congregant (usually but not always a woman) for the sexually inappropriate behavior of the minister (usually but not always a man). As tempting as this may be, it is wrong because it is always the responsibility of the minister to maintain the integrity of the ministerial relationship. The temptation to blame the congregant is also a reflection of the difficulty people have believing that a person who carries moral and spiritual authority, who is respected and trusted, can also be guilty of misusing the power and authority of the office. This denial and confusion causes tremendous damage to victims who need understanding and support as well as to churches that need clear, ethical, theological and faith based intervention to understand their betrayal. Blaming the congregant also means a failure to call the abusing pastor to genuine accountability. The focus needs to remain on the violation of the ministerial relationship.

The term “consenting adults” also reflects a misunderstanding of sexual behavior between clergy and congregants. It is assumed that because two people are adults that there is consent. In reality, consent is far more complex. In order for two people to give authentic consent to sexual activity there must be equal power. Clergy have more power because of the moral and spiritual authority of the office of pastor. In addition, education, community respect and public image add to the imbalance of power between a clergy person and a congregant. Finally clergy may have the additional power of psychological resources, especially when a congregant seeks pastoral care in the midst of personal or spiritual crisis, life change, illness or death of a loved one. This precludes the possibility of meaningful consent between a congregant and their pastor.

During the years I worked with adult survivors of professional misconduct I often ask the question, “Would this have happened if he/she was your neighbor and not your pastor.” Overwhelmingly the answer is “no.” The witness of survivors underscores the truth that the clergy role carries with it a power and authority that make meaningful consent impossible.

When speaking of sexual contact between clergy and congregants, the term professional misconduct or sexual exploitation is more accurate. It keeps the emphasis on the professional relationship and the exploitative nature of sexual behavior rather than placing blame on the victim/survivor. “An affair between consenting adults” is never an appropriate term to use when describing sexual contact between a minister and congregant. Accurate naming of the behavior is an important step to reshaping our thinking about this troubling reality in the church, how we name it reveals our belief about it. Holding clergy accountable with compassion and purpose and providing healing resources to churches and survivors is dependent on an accurate starting point. Only when the behavior is named accurately can there be a healing outcome for all.