A large part of the recent elections and, indeed, the cover topic of a large number of recent issues of both Time and Newsweek has been the impact of Christian fundamentalism on our society. More than 10% of Americans belong to denominations which are generally thought of as fundamentalist. These groups and their often high profile ministers wield tremendous social, political, and even economic power. And unlike the more mainstream Christian sects, as well as the vast majority of American Jewish groups, the fundamentalists, being fundamentalists, seek to absolutely impose their absolute view of how America should operate. And in a democracy (which at its worst has been described as civilized mob rule), this is their right. What disturbs me, however, is the seeming hatred and vitriol these groups display towards those who disagree with them. What disturbs me is how fundamentally Christian they are not!
When you look at the four gospels, you find that certain stories are included in some and omitted in others. The important stories, and lessons, are repeated. One of the most basic of these stories involves Jesus being asked the question of the greatest of commandments. In Mark, the question was posed by a scribe. In Luke, it was a lawyer. In both cases, Jesus responds that the greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart and mind and strength. And in both accounts, Jesus adds that the second greatest commandment is like the first and is that you shall love your neighbor as yourself. In Mark, the scribe heartily agrees with Jesus, and no more questions were asked. In Luke, the lawyer (wouldn’t ya know it!) asked Jesus “who is my neighbor?” which prompted the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Of great significance in this parable is the fact that, in Jesus’ time, the term Good Samaritan was oxymoronic. Samaritans were despised by the Jews and the feeling was mutual. Jesus’ message was to love and respect all people as we are all each other's neighbors. Nowhere in the story did the Samaritan attempt to change the beliefs or viewpoint of the injured man. He merely helped him. The Samaritan acted in a way which was fundamentally Christian.
I suppose, in today’s world, you could substitute gay for Samaritan or liberal for Samaritan or anything other than ultra-conservative for Samaritan and you would elicit the same visceral response from the fundamentalists that Samaritan elicited in the Judea of Jesus’ time. But this response is exactly what Jesus rejected.
I have often wondered if fundamentalists have ever considered the significance of St. Stephen on bases of their fundamentalist positions. St. Stephen is generally considered to be the first martyr of the Christian church. He was stoned to death on the temple steps for preaching that the law of Moses was no longer the law God wished mankind to follow. Rather the law and teachings of Jesus were the true path to salvation. For this he died and for this Christianity declared him a saint.
When fundamentalists condemn those things with which they disagree, they almost always cite the Old Testament as the justification for their position. They cite the teachings and the law of Moses…the law rejected by the early Christian church. Jesus preached love and acceptance of all people. Of course, Jesus was fundamentally Christian.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
A Term and a Half
In 1988, George Herbert Walker Bush (Bush 41) was elected President of the United States. Bush 41 was a thoughtful and measured man, one who really listened to all his advisors and who chose to work toward consensus with those who held differing viewpoints.
In 1990, after Iraq attacked Kuwait, Bush 41 made every effort to resolve the conflict through diplomatic channels. When this failed, then, and only then, did he go to war with Iraq. And like the man, the war was measured. Once the stated objective, freeing Kuwait, was achieved and the no fly zones put in place, Bush 41 was true to his word and the war ended.
Neo-cons were furious. They wanted to continue to prosecute the war and drive Saddam Hussein from power. Bush 41 knew the perils that removing Saddam would bring. The vacuum created by his removal would be to re-visit Yugoslavia, only worse. Besides, Saddam was widely disregarded in the Arab world and provided an effective buffer against fundamentalist factions in the region. And so, Bush 41 said “no!” And two years later he was out of office…after only one term.
Anno Domini 2000, George W. Bush (Bush 43) enters the White House. He is the antithesis of Bush 41. He is neither thoughtful nor measured…and the neo-cons have his ear (and most other body parts). He leaps at the chance to effectively abandon the righteous pursuit of Osama Bin Laden (whom he can’t seem to catch) and go after Saddam Hussein (whom he thinks will be easy pickin's). He got it partly right. Saddam was pretty easy to dispatch but the beatific vision of America as the liberator (the pipe dream of every neo-con) was not to be. Today, if you were to look up the terms “chaos” and “disaster” in a picture dictionary, both would be illustrated with pictures of Iraq. Amazingly, in the midst of all this, Bush 43 got elected to a second term.
And now, with the mid-term elections behind us, it is finally dawning on the Bush 43 administration that what is needed is a thoughtful measured consensus in dealing with Iraq. And so the Iraq Study Group came to be. Headed by measured and thoughtful men from the Bush 41 administration, it now appears that a new direction will be taken in Iraq over the next two years… a Bush 41 direction.
Between the two of them, Bush 41 and 43 were elected for three terms. America is finally beginning to realize that two was probably too many for Bush 43 and one not enough for Bush 41…so maybe a term and a half each?
In 1990, after Iraq attacked Kuwait, Bush 41 made every effort to resolve the conflict through diplomatic channels. When this failed, then, and only then, did he go to war with Iraq. And like the man, the war was measured. Once the stated objective, freeing Kuwait, was achieved and the no fly zones put in place, Bush 41 was true to his word and the war ended.
Neo-cons were furious. They wanted to continue to prosecute the war and drive Saddam Hussein from power. Bush 41 knew the perils that removing Saddam would bring. The vacuum created by his removal would be to re-visit Yugoslavia, only worse. Besides, Saddam was widely disregarded in the Arab world and provided an effective buffer against fundamentalist factions in the region. And so, Bush 41 said “no!” And two years later he was out of office…after only one term.
Anno Domini 2000, George W. Bush (Bush 43) enters the White House. He is the antithesis of Bush 41. He is neither thoughtful nor measured…and the neo-cons have his ear (and most other body parts). He leaps at the chance to effectively abandon the righteous pursuit of Osama Bin Laden (whom he can’t seem to catch) and go after Saddam Hussein (whom he thinks will be easy pickin's). He got it partly right. Saddam was pretty easy to dispatch but the beatific vision of America as the liberator (the pipe dream of every neo-con) was not to be. Today, if you were to look up the terms “chaos” and “disaster” in a picture dictionary, both would be illustrated with pictures of Iraq. Amazingly, in the midst of all this, Bush 43 got elected to a second term.
And now, with the mid-term elections behind us, it is finally dawning on the Bush 43 administration that what is needed is a thoughtful measured consensus in dealing with Iraq. And so the Iraq Study Group came to be. Headed by measured and thoughtful men from the Bush 41 administration, it now appears that a new direction will be taken in Iraq over the next two years… a Bush 41 direction.
Between the two of them, Bush 41 and 43 were elected for three terms. America is finally beginning to realize that two was probably too many for Bush 43 and one not enough for Bush 41…so maybe a term and a half each?
Sunday, November 12, 2006
The Perils of the Pendulum
I am mostly pleased by the nationwide outcome of the midterm elections. What I now hope and pray for is that the new makeup of Congress will focus more on doing the job they are supposed to do and not succumb to the enticing perils of the pendulum.
The pendulum of a grandfather clock swings from right to left and back again, the mainspring providing just enough impetus to insure the length of the arc never varies. And so it is with the liberal and conservative ideologies. Each is a terminus of the political arc of the pendulum of national sentiment with the happenings of this world as the mainspring which pushes us to and fro.
And the current to (or fro, depending upon your viewpoint) is toward the left and away from the conservative (maybe neo?) viewpoint which has dominated the Congress in recent years. I believe this can be good, IF, and this is a really big IF, those now in control of Congress use their newfound power to provide a check and balance to an executive branch which has, in my opinion, operated unchecked ( and perhaps unbalanced) for years. If this happens, I believe a coherent plan for Iraq can be achieved as well as a reasonable resolution to other national hot topics like immigration reform… but there is always the peril of the pendulum.
When you sit on that pendulum, and its starts to swing your way, it is very easy to be seduced into believing that it will always swing your way and that your point of view is the ONLY point of view. And as the pendulum begins to pick up speed, as it always does, as it approaches the bottom of its arc, a sense of entitlement (divine right?) can lead leaders to want to secure their position by destroying the opposition.
Within my lifetime, every major shift in the composition of Congress has led to some level of witch hunt against the former dominant party. Democrats tried to impeach Nixon. Republicans tried to impeach Clinton. And while both men behaved badly, did either of these proceedings really advance the interests of our nation as a whole? Probably not.
Our nation has desperately needed a change…and change is coming. I pray that the new congressional leaders will resist the peril of the pendulum and will look to furthering the needs of our nation as a whole. It would be a refreshing change, indeed.
The pendulum of a grandfather clock swings from right to left and back again, the mainspring providing just enough impetus to insure the length of the arc never varies. And so it is with the liberal and conservative ideologies. Each is a terminus of the political arc of the pendulum of national sentiment with the happenings of this world as the mainspring which pushes us to and fro.
And the current to (or fro, depending upon your viewpoint) is toward the left and away from the conservative (maybe neo?) viewpoint which has dominated the Congress in recent years. I believe this can be good, IF, and this is a really big IF, those now in control of Congress use their newfound power to provide a check and balance to an executive branch which has, in my opinion, operated unchecked ( and perhaps unbalanced) for years. If this happens, I believe a coherent plan for Iraq can be achieved as well as a reasonable resolution to other national hot topics like immigration reform… but there is always the peril of the pendulum.
When you sit on that pendulum, and its starts to swing your way, it is very easy to be seduced into believing that it will always swing your way and that your point of view is the ONLY point of view. And as the pendulum begins to pick up speed, as it always does, as it approaches the bottom of its arc, a sense of entitlement (divine right?) can lead leaders to want to secure their position by destroying the opposition.
Within my lifetime, every major shift in the composition of Congress has led to some level of witch hunt against the former dominant party. Democrats tried to impeach Nixon. Republicans tried to impeach Clinton. And while both men behaved badly, did either of these proceedings really advance the interests of our nation as a whole? Probably not.
Our nation has desperately needed a change…and change is coming. I pray that the new congressional leaders will resist the peril of the pendulum and will look to furthering the needs of our nation as a whole. It would be a refreshing change, indeed.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
The Path of Least Resistance
On November 20, 1961 I turned 15 ½ and immediately dragged my parents to the DMV to get my learner’s permit. My parents were very conservative and, as a result, I had never been allowed to touch the controls of a car until that day. We dropped my mom off at home and then my dad drove us to a local department store parking lot.
The lot was huge and, unlike today, had no landscaping or parking bumpers, just white painted lines on asphalt. My dad reasoned, correctly, that before I hit the streets, I needed to learn the basics of controlling a car. Of course, the car jerked forward the first time I hit the gas and jerked even more when I tried to stop. After about an hour, I had learned to start, stop, turn, and drive in a reasonably straight line. Only then did we proceed out onto a veeery quiet local street with no parked cars in sight.
Over the next six months, I learned how to drive. I learned to follow the narrowest of roads. I learned that, to be safe and legal (and keep my license), I wanted to follow the correct path. For me, that became the path of least resistance. And like my vehicular education, I find that life in general follows paths…and they are always the paths of least resistance.
I know…I know, the path of least resistance has always been thought of as a bad thing, the easy way out. My response is no and yes. No, it is not always a bad thing, but yes, it is always the easy way out.
Now before you send for the men in white coats, let me offer you two examples to prove my point. First, a hypothetical example. An honest man is walking down the street and finds a wallet on the sidewalk. He opens it and finds $1,000 and a driver’s license which indicates the owner lives two houses down. What does he do? Because of the person he is, in his moral mind, he has no choice but to return the wallet to the rightful owner. He can’t even imagine keeping the wallet. Returning the wallet is his path of least resistance.
Need a real world example? Last week, my niece and nephew had the day after Halloween off from school. My wife and her sister took the kids to Disneyland for the day. My nephew, Ryan, LOVES Disneyland. For him, a proper trip starts when they open and ends when they close. But Ryan also wants to do well in school and so, in the early afternoon, he asked if they could go home because he wanted to finish his homework. This kid, who loves Disneyland, wanted to leave because, for him, his homework and doing well in school were more important than staying and playing. For him, leaving was the path of least resistance.
So the next time someone berates the path of least resistance, remember and be thankful, for the majority (I hope) of people in this world, that path is one of honesty and truth.
The lot was huge and, unlike today, had no landscaping or parking bumpers, just white painted lines on asphalt. My dad reasoned, correctly, that before I hit the streets, I needed to learn the basics of controlling a car. Of course, the car jerked forward the first time I hit the gas and jerked even more when I tried to stop. After about an hour, I had learned to start, stop, turn, and drive in a reasonably straight line. Only then did we proceed out onto a veeery quiet local street with no parked cars in sight.
Over the next six months, I learned how to drive. I learned to follow the narrowest of roads. I learned that, to be safe and legal (and keep my license), I wanted to follow the correct path. For me, that became the path of least resistance. And like my vehicular education, I find that life in general follows paths…and they are always the paths of least resistance.
I know…I know, the path of least resistance has always been thought of as a bad thing, the easy way out. My response is no and yes. No, it is not always a bad thing, but yes, it is always the easy way out.
Now before you send for the men in white coats, let me offer you two examples to prove my point. First, a hypothetical example. An honest man is walking down the street and finds a wallet on the sidewalk. He opens it and finds $1,000 and a driver’s license which indicates the owner lives two houses down. What does he do? Because of the person he is, in his moral mind, he has no choice but to return the wallet to the rightful owner. He can’t even imagine keeping the wallet. Returning the wallet is his path of least resistance.
Need a real world example? Last week, my niece and nephew had the day after Halloween off from school. My wife and her sister took the kids to Disneyland for the day. My nephew, Ryan, LOVES Disneyland. For him, a proper trip starts when they open and ends when they close. But Ryan also wants to do well in school and so, in the early afternoon, he asked if they could go home because he wanted to finish his homework. This kid, who loves Disneyland, wanted to leave because, for him, his homework and doing well in school were more important than staying and playing. For him, leaving was the path of least resistance.
So the next time someone berates the path of least resistance, remember and be thankful, for the majority (I hope) of people in this world, that path is one of honesty and truth.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Elephants and Reasonable and Prudent Blind Men
I just finished 9 days of jury duty and, as with the numerous other times I’ve sat in judgment, I was once again amazed at how differently 12 people can view the same set of facts and testimony.
We, the jury, walked into the jury room to deliberate and I was amazed at the diversity of opinion. The jury instructions, which were four pages of single spaced type written text, took 15 minutes for the judge to read in court. They continually stressed that the jury should use, as a standard of behavior, the actions of “reasonable and prudent” people when dealing with the issue of negligence.
The overall testimony indicated that the defendants had followed the letter of the law and had acted in accordance with the safety manual which applied to what they were doing…BUT…the plaintiff said “they could have done more” because people responding to the actions of the defendants not only acted “unreasonably and imprudently” but they flagrantly violated the law.
Despite the fact that the plaintiff’s expert witnesses never presented any viable “could have done more” options, five jurors felt that the defendants “could have done more” and wanted to find for the plaintiff. The mere statement that “they could have done more”, with no proof whatsoever that more could have been done, was enough for them.
It’s like the blind men experiencing the elephant. One touches the elephant’s side and declares the elephant is like a wall, while another feels the leg and declares the elephant is like a tree, and a third, touching the tail, declares the elephant is like a rope. People can look at the same evidence and arrive at conclusions that are poles apart.
After five hours, the vote went from 7 to 5 for the defendant to 8 to 4. Finally, on the third day of deliberation, fatigue and, in my opinion, common sense and reasonableness and prudence set in and the vote suddenly went to 11 to 1, crossing the 9 to 3 threshold necessary for a verdict. We found for the defendant. And I was freed from bitter bondage.
We, the jury, walked into the jury room to deliberate and I was amazed at the diversity of opinion. The jury instructions, which were four pages of single spaced type written text, took 15 minutes for the judge to read in court. They continually stressed that the jury should use, as a standard of behavior, the actions of “reasonable and prudent” people when dealing with the issue of negligence.
The overall testimony indicated that the defendants had followed the letter of the law and had acted in accordance with the safety manual which applied to what they were doing…BUT…the plaintiff said “they could have done more” because people responding to the actions of the defendants not only acted “unreasonably and imprudently” but they flagrantly violated the law.
Despite the fact that the plaintiff’s expert witnesses never presented any viable “could have done more” options, five jurors felt that the defendants “could have done more” and wanted to find for the plaintiff. The mere statement that “they could have done more”, with no proof whatsoever that more could have been done, was enough for them.
It’s like the blind men experiencing the elephant. One touches the elephant’s side and declares the elephant is like a wall, while another feels the leg and declares the elephant is like a tree, and a third, touching the tail, declares the elephant is like a rope. People can look at the same evidence and arrive at conclusions that are poles apart.
After five hours, the vote went from 7 to 5 for the defendant to 8 to 4. Finally, on the third day of deliberation, fatigue and, in my opinion, common sense and reasonableness and prudence set in and the vote suddenly went to 11 to 1, crossing the 9 to 3 threshold necessary for a verdict. We found for the defendant. And I was freed from bitter bondage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
