Imagine if a group of Christians wanted to build a church.
The church is going to built in backwoods Mississippi adjacent to a plantation slave cemetery. The church, largely attended by white folks, would worship God in the traditional way.
Would that be wrong?
How about if there was a plan to build a church in a black ghetto? Would that church, again populated by white folks, be out of place, or insensitive? Would it be a slap in the face to black people?
After all, Christianity was used to justify slavery. Slave owners and their apologists used the Bible to prove that God supported slavery, and wanted slaves to be meek, docile and obedient. Later, during Jim Crow, the white church defended segregation and discrimination as the will of God; the human manifestation of the genetic segregation God ordained when he gave some folks more melanin than others.
Was not slavery a grave and terrible injustice done in the name of religion? Was not Jim Crow the same? Were these injustices less terrible and deadly than the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center? How about the horrors suffered by Native Americans in the name of God and Manifest Destiny? Do they count?
Why do some religions have to respect their surroundings, while others get to act with impunity? Have Christians opened churches and missions and organizations in areas where they are not welcome, or where the church has failed to do its mission in the past? How is opening a mosque, which practices Islam as it was meant to be practiced, disrespectful? Isn't it only disrespectful if you assume that being a Muslim means you support terrorism practiced by other Muslims? If that's your mindset, do you apply the same logic to Christians as a whole?
Are you willing to have your rights restricted based on the actions of others who claim the mantle of Christianity, but do very little to practice its tenets? Do you deserve to be lumped in with the hate groups that wrap themselves in the Christian flag and quote extensively from the Bible? How about the prosperity preacher pimps who use God to fleece the flocks and enrich their lives? Is this who people should compare you to, and the examples they should be use when making decisions?
It's funny that people can't see this very obvious comparison. It's hilarious, in a very sad way, that people are so blind to the ways they would restrict the freedoms of others, all while clamoring for their own "rights." Hypocrisy is ugly in all its shapes and forms, and so is discrimination.
People are funny that way.
Share
Pay Attention
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
Showing posts with label Religion ish. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion ish. Show all posts
Monday, August 16, 2010
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Peep the Filaments
Sometimes black folks just don't see the web.
I'm not talking about this Internet thing. I'm talking about the web that connects us all. There is a human web, and within that web there is a "black" web.
Some of y'all are shaking your heads already.
"There you go with that separatist talk again Big Man. How are black folks ever going to move past this race thing if y'all insist that y'all are separate all the time?"
First of all, I'm not interested in "moving past" this race thing. I like being black, it's wonderful. I wouldn't change my skin color if offered the chance. Besides, "this race thing" is real life.
Finally, race was created by a certain group that shall remain nameless, so I would imagine that it's up to that group to correct the problems they have caused. Maybe once that happens we can "move past it."
Now, with that minor tangent out of the way, let me get to the meat of my treatise. First, as is my wont, I'll share a little anecdote.
I was sitting in bible study the other day and we were talking about putting on the "clothing" of Christ. Basically, that means making your life mirror Christ's life in how you treat folks and conduct your business.
But, as the preacher is talking about spiritual clothing, he takes a long and detailed detour into a conversation on the clothing of today's youth.
Uh oh.
Anybody who has spent some time in the black church knows that there is a serious disconnect between the young folks and the old folks on the issues of clothing and music. Honestly, I can see the old folks point as I grow older, but that doesn't mean they don't get off track on occasion.
In this instance, the preacher begins railing against clothing that identifies young black youth, particularly males, as criminals. Y'all know, that "thug clothing."
He tells the young men that they may not be thugs, that they may not be criminals, but when they dress a certain kind of way, everybody assumes they are thugs. And, what really got to me was that he seemed to be defending this state of affairs. I mean, the preacher said it "might" not be right, but he never actually condemned the practice and seemed to be pushing the meme that it was justified.
That kind of ruined my worship.
Look, I understand the Uniform Doctrine. That argument says that if you are not doing the job, don't wear the uniform. I get it, and to a certain extent, I agree with it.
The thing is, life is full of unforeseen consequences.
In Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series that mantra was known as the "Wizard's Second Rule." (Sorry for exposing my inner nerd, won't happen too often in the future.) When black folks use the uniform argument on young black men, they provide cover for those who racially under the Black Skin Doctrine. That doctrine says that the uniform of criminals is black skin. Period.
I have spoken to folks who have had their young sons beaten or abused by the police, and none of them are "okay" with the Black Skin Doctrine. They may have embraced the Uniform Doctrine before their children got humiliated and injured, but when that doctrine is taken a tad further, they have a real problem.
They didn't see the filaments.
The filaments. The connections that bind all of us in this human web. The little invisible bindings that we can't see and just won't acknowledge. The filaments that make your neighbor your brother, and make his welfare just as important as your own.
Those filaments.
Older black people need to realize how easily the Uniform Doctrine turns into the Black Skin Doctrine. They need to understand that their status as "Good Negroes" is not some blanket protection. They need to remember Christ's words about the "least" of his children.
When you rationalize the profiling of some, you're really rationalizing the profiling of all. You may think that folks will be able to tell that you don't deserve to be profiled, but you're wrong. Once you give people the green light, it's up to them whether they follow the speed limit.
How many of y'all are speeders?
I'm really debating whether I should bring this issue up with the pastor at my church. On one hand I feel like it needs to be said, but on the other hand, I wonder if it will be received in love and truly considered. Most folks feel like their views are perfectly logical and acceptable given the realities of the world we inhabit, and they aren't inclined to change them for some idealistic vision of how the world should be. I get that, I truly do.
But, I still see those damn filaments.
Share
I'm not talking about this Internet thing. I'm talking about the web that connects us all. There is a human web, and within that web there is a "black" web.
Some of y'all are shaking your heads already.
"There you go with that separatist talk again Big Man. How are black folks ever going to move past this race thing if y'all insist that y'all are separate all the time?"
First of all, I'm not interested in "moving past" this race thing. I like being black, it's wonderful. I wouldn't change my skin color if offered the chance. Besides, "this race thing" is real life.
Finally, race was created by a certain group that shall remain nameless, so I would imagine that it's up to that group to correct the problems they have caused. Maybe once that happens we can "move past it."
Now, with that minor tangent out of the way, let me get to the meat of my treatise. First, as is my wont, I'll share a little anecdote.
I was sitting in bible study the other day and we were talking about putting on the "clothing" of Christ. Basically, that means making your life mirror Christ's life in how you treat folks and conduct your business.
But, as the preacher is talking about spiritual clothing, he takes a long and detailed detour into a conversation on the clothing of today's youth.
Uh oh.
Anybody who has spent some time in the black church knows that there is a serious disconnect between the young folks and the old folks on the issues of clothing and music. Honestly, I can see the old folks point as I grow older, but that doesn't mean they don't get off track on occasion.
In this instance, the preacher begins railing against clothing that identifies young black youth, particularly males, as criminals. Y'all know, that "thug clothing."
He tells the young men that they may not be thugs, that they may not be criminals, but when they dress a certain kind of way, everybody assumes they are thugs. And, what really got to me was that he seemed to be defending this state of affairs. I mean, the preacher said it "might" not be right, but he never actually condemned the practice and seemed to be pushing the meme that it was justified.
That kind of ruined my worship.
Look, I understand the Uniform Doctrine. That argument says that if you are not doing the job, don't wear the uniform. I get it, and to a certain extent, I agree with it.
The thing is, life is full of unforeseen consequences.
In Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series that mantra was known as the "Wizard's Second Rule." (Sorry for exposing my inner nerd, won't happen too often in the future.) When black folks use the uniform argument on young black men, they provide cover for those who racially under the Black Skin Doctrine. That doctrine says that the uniform of criminals is black skin. Period.
I have spoken to folks who have had their young sons beaten or abused by the police, and none of them are "okay" with the Black Skin Doctrine. They may have embraced the Uniform Doctrine before their children got humiliated and injured, but when that doctrine is taken a tad further, they have a real problem.
They didn't see the filaments.
The filaments. The connections that bind all of us in this human web. The little invisible bindings that we can't see and just won't acknowledge. The filaments that make your neighbor your brother, and make his welfare just as important as your own.
Those filaments.
Older black people need to realize how easily the Uniform Doctrine turns into the Black Skin Doctrine. They need to understand that their status as "Good Negroes" is not some blanket protection. They need to remember Christ's words about the "least" of his children.
When you rationalize the profiling of some, you're really rationalizing the profiling of all. You may think that folks will be able to tell that you don't deserve to be profiled, but you're wrong. Once you give people the green light, it's up to them whether they follow the speed limit.
How many of y'all are speeders?
I'm really debating whether I should bring this issue up with the pastor at my church. On one hand I feel like it needs to be said, but on the other hand, I wonder if it will be received in love and truly considered. Most folks feel like their views are perfectly logical and acceptable given the realities of the world we inhabit, and they aren't inclined to change them for some idealistic vision of how the world should be. I get that, I truly do.
But, I still see those damn filaments.
Share
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Is It Worth It?
What's your first reaction when people identify themselves as Christians?
Do you assume the worst? Do you assume the best? Are you ambivalent, or are you antagonistic? Do you assume Christians are deluded fools, or vicious hypocrites intent on tormenting others?
I've experienced all of these reactions from people, and I'm often at a loss for how to deal with some of them. Many times I want to respond aggressively to those who challenge my faith or spread falsehoods about the values I hold dear. Yet, I also wonder if this is the best way to spread the message I'm trying to spread. Ultimately, I have to ask myself, is it worth it?
My brother said he's been asking himself the same question lately. He's decided he's out of the business of explaining or defending his faith to folks. In his opinion, it's a waste of time, and a source of stress.
He's right. When dealing with folks who have an adversarial relationship with Christianity, it pretty much is a waste of time to try to engage them thoughtfully. Yes, there is a rush that comes from matching minds with someone and attempting to best them, but it's a cheap and meaningless thrill. Often, getting involved in those discussions only leads us towards behaving in a matter that later shames us.
But, these folks don't exist in a vacuum. In fact, typically you find them hanging around folks who may be wavering in their own faith, or totally ignorant of religion in general. Sometimes if feels like everybody is out there recruiting people to their cause. So, your discussions might not just be pointless debates, but the way some folks get information about the pros and cons of Christianity. And, contrary to what you might have heard, there are pros and cons to the faith.
On a certain level, I almost feel an obligation to challenge folks on their comments because I feel like I'm providing a service to others. But, what I've begun to wonder lately is whether that makes sense. After all, when people really want to learn about something, they put forth an effort to learn about it. The most common reason people fall prey to charlatans is because they are too lazy to research or consider issues themselves, or because those charlatans appeal to a bias they already possess. And if people are lazy and biased, are my comments about Christianity really going to help them?
In fact, I've begun to feel this way about a lot of things, not just Christianity. You could apply this thought process to race, or sports, or media coverage. Ultimately, given the way the internet makes information accessible, people who are uninformed probably want to be that way. Some folks like to cling to ridiculous conspiracy theories despite competing evidence because it makes them happy to feel smarter than the masses. They don't want to change, and they might even be hostile to someone who is trying to create change.
This isn't to say I won't blog about my faith, or that I don't see a place for respectful discussion with folks with different beliefs. It's saying I've realized that the mental battles that I've relished so often in the past may need to be discarded as I move into the future. Sure, they help me hone my arguments, but is that really worth it?
Share
Do you assume the worst? Do you assume the best? Are you ambivalent, or are you antagonistic? Do you assume Christians are deluded fools, or vicious hypocrites intent on tormenting others?
I've experienced all of these reactions from people, and I'm often at a loss for how to deal with some of them. Many times I want to respond aggressively to those who challenge my faith or spread falsehoods about the values I hold dear. Yet, I also wonder if this is the best way to spread the message I'm trying to spread. Ultimately, I have to ask myself, is it worth it?
My brother said he's been asking himself the same question lately. He's decided he's out of the business of explaining or defending his faith to folks. In his opinion, it's a waste of time, and a source of stress.
He's right. When dealing with folks who have an adversarial relationship with Christianity, it pretty much is a waste of time to try to engage them thoughtfully. Yes, there is a rush that comes from matching minds with someone and attempting to best them, but it's a cheap and meaningless thrill. Often, getting involved in those discussions only leads us towards behaving in a matter that later shames us.
But, these folks don't exist in a vacuum. In fact, typically you find them hanging around folks who may be wavering in their own faith, or totally ignorant of religion in general. Sometimes if feels like everybody is out there recruiting people to their cause. So, your discussions might not just be pointless debates, but the way some folks get information about the pros and cons of Christianity. And, contrary to what you might have heard, there are pros and cons to the faith.
On a certain level, I almost feel an obligation to challenge folks on their comments because I feel like I'm providing a service to others. But, what I've begun to wonder lately is whether that makes sense. After all, when people really want to learn about something, they put forth an effort to learn about it. The most common reason people fall prey to charlatans is because they are too lazy to research or consider issues themselves, or because those charlatans appeal to a bias they already possess. And if people are lazy and biased, are my comments about Christianity really going to help them?
In fact, I've begun to feel this way about a lot of things, not just Christianity. You could apply this thought process to race, or sports, or media coverage. Ultimately, given the way the internet makes information accessible, people who are uninformed probably want to be that way. Some folks like to cling to ridiculous conspiracy theories despite competing evidence because it makes them happy to feel smarter than the masses. They don't want to change, and they might even be hostile to someone who is trying to create change.
This isn't to say I won't blog about my faith, or that I don't see a place for respectful discussion with folks with different beliefs. It's saying I've realized that the mental battles that I've relished so often in the past may need to be discarded as I move into the future. Sure, they help me hone my arguments, but is that really worth it?
Share
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Just Like Me
My little brother and I talk a lot.
We discuss a variety of subjects from sports, to marriage, to child rearing and, most often, our faith. Both of us are Christians, and both of us are trying to figure out the best way to live a life pleasing to God.
Often, we note that many people see Christianity as a remote religion practiced by a bunch of crazies far out of tune with reality. Basically these folks see nothing relevant to their lives in the New Testament, and particularly not the Old Testament (For heathens, those are the two sections of the Bible.) It's all a mishmash of ridiculous fantasy to them.
And this really makes me and my lil bro' laugh.
Have y'all read the Bible lately?
That joint is like a spy novel, romance novel, hymnal, book of philosophy and every other kind of tome known to man, wrapped up in one. Seriously, every other book in the world is somehow related to the Bible. There is no human thought or philosophy known to man that is not discussed in some way in the Bible. I dare you to read that joint and prove me wrong.
But, it's really funny when people can't seem to connect to the characters in the Old Testament, and find it kind of boring. That speaks to a lack of time spent reading. I mean, if there is a bigger collection of murderers, whoremongers and lame bastards outside of the Old Testament, I have yet to find it.
Just a few weeks back, I read the story of Elihu in the Bible. He's a minor character, but dude's story is insane. I mean, this cat went to the palace of a corrupt king terrorizing Israel, assassinated the dude with a hidden knife while being sequestered in the throne room, and then hid the murder while he escaped back to this country by locking the doors and fooling the servants. Hell, he might have even somewhat seduced the lecherous king to get into the throne room.
And that doesn't sound like something interesting, or something you can relate to?
I told my brother something the other day that both of us found profound. We were talking about how relevant the Bible is to life, and then I said something like "And the crazy thing is that these were all just regular people."
While we may view the patriarchs and matriarchs of the Bible as unassailable examples of certain good and bad character traits, they actually were just regular folks. When they were living their lives, they didn't realize that their actions would be used as examples of good and bad behavior for thousands of years. They didn't realize they would be held up as paragons of purity or the epitome of evil. They were just muddling along trying to make the best life they could for themselves and the people around them.
Isn't that an amazing thought? And it doesn't just apply to the Bible, it applies to everything. While many great people have had amazing focus and vision, they were all just human. They had the same human desires, the same human foibles, the same human strengths as all of us. They were us. They were human, and despite their humanity, or because of their humanity, they did things that have resonated throughout the course of time.
It's true for biblical figures, it's true for the titans of black history and it's true for your next-door neighbor. Every life has potential for greatness. Every life holds insights into the way humanity behaves. All of us provide good and bad examples to the people around us. Sure, some of us may have more reach than others, but all of life is connected and dependent.
For me, it's been both a stifling and freeing revelation. Stifling because it makes me even more conscious of how I live my life. Freeing because I realize that my mistakes do not have to doom my life. Who knows how my action or inaction will impact the future? Only God knows who my life will influence or not influence.
The potential is always there until we draw our final breaths.
Share
We discuss a variety of subjects from sports, to marriage, to child rearing and, most often, our faith. Both of us are Christians, and both of us are trying to figure out the best way to live a life pleasing to God.
Often, we note that many people see Christianity as a remote religion practiced by a bunch of crazies far out of tune with reality. Basically these folks see nothing relevant to their lives in the New Testament, and particularly not the Old Testament (For heathens, those are the two sections of the Bible.) It's all a mishmash of ridiculous fantasy to them.
And this really makes me and my lil bro' laugh.
Have y'all read the Bible lately?
That joint is like a spy novel, romance novel, hymnal, book of philosophy and every other kind of tome known to man, wrapped up in one. Seriously, every other book in the world is somehow related to the Bible. There is no human thought or philosophy known to man that is not discussed in some way in the Bible. I dare you to read that joint and prove me wrong.
But, it's really funny when people can't seem to connect to the characters in the Old Testament, and find it kind of boring. That speaks to a lack of time spent reading. I mean, if there is a bigger collection of murderers, whoremongers and lame bastards outside of the Old Testament, I have yet to find it.
Just a few weeks back, I read the story of Elihu in the Bible. He's a minor character, but dude's story is insane. I mean, this cat went to the palace of a corrupt king terrorizing Israel, assassinated the dude with a hidden knife while being sequestered in the throne room, and then hid the murder while he escaped back to this country by locking the doors and fooling the servants. Hell, he might have even somewhat seduced the lecherous king to get into the throne room.
And that doesn't sound like something interesting, or something you can relate to?
I told my brother something the other day that both of us found profound. We were talking about how relevant the Bible is to life, and then I said something like "And the crazy thing is that these were all just regular people."
While we may view the patriarchs and matriarchs of the Bible as unassailable examples of certain good and bad character traits, they actually were just regular folks. When they were living their lives, they didn't realize that their actions would be used as examples of good and bad behavior for thousands of years. They didn't realize they would be held up as paragons of purity or the epitome of evil. They were just muddling along trying to make the best life they could for themselves and the people around them.
Isn't that an amazing thought? And it doesn't just apply to the Bible, it applies to everything. While many great people have had amazing focus and vision, they were all just human. They had the same human desires, the same human foibles, the same human strengths as all of us. They were us. They were human, and despite their humanity, or because of their humanity, they did things that have resonated throughout the course of time.
It's true for biblical figures, it's true for the titans of black history and it's true for your next-door neighbor. Every life has potential for greatness. Every life holds insights into the way humanity behaves. All of us provide good and bad examples to the people around us. Sure, some of us may have more reach than others, but all of life is connected and dependent.
For me, it's been both a stifling and freeing revelation. Stifling because it makes me even more conscious of how I live my life. Freeing because I realize that my mistakes do not have to doom my life. Who knows how my action or inaction will impact the future? Only God knows who my life will influence or not influence.
The potential is always there until we draw our final breaths.
Share
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Messianic Tendencies
New Orleans is in the grip of Saints mania.
As the team's date with destiny in the Super Bowl draws closer, people down here get more and more crazy. Saints gear is ubiquitous, Super Bowl parties are the new black, and the Saints are single-handedly curing racism.
Wait, what was that last thing?
Yeah, as a media publication in the city recently pointed out, the Bless You Boys are bringing unity to a city long divided along its racial fault lines. Black, white, yellow and brown are all realizing that the only colors that truly matter are Black and Gold. President Obama couldn't save us from racism, but "Breessus" can. He has the power to heal the world and generate a perfect quarterback rating.
Yeah, my head almost exploded too.
The idea that the Saints are a uniting factor for the city isn't something dreamed up by just one media outlet. It's been a recurring theme throughout the team's Super Bowl season. Here and there I've heard about the fact that "Who Dat Nation" should be celebrated for both its fervor and its diversity. One of New Orleans' most famous dishes is a pot of gumbo, a tasty combination of a variety of ingredients, and in some quarters folks have been trying to apply that metaphor to the city's residents for decades.
The Saints are only the latest in a long line of racial Messiahs. That's right, I said Messiahs. After all, the word just means savior. And it seems like white people, and a few of their black friends, have been searching for a racial Messiah to drive away the scourge of racism for far too long.
Obama most recently carried the mantle before the Saints. Despite the fact that Louisiana is a blood-red state, here in New Orleans Democrats still hold sway. During Obama's presidential run, people were swooning at his ability to unite different races behind a common cause. They thought he finally represented the end of racial strife; they believed his election would heal all past wounds. And, of course, he failed.
I mean, I wasn't shocked, and I don't think many intelligent black people were shocked. We understand that the when it comes to matters of race, searching for a Messiah is a bogus proposition. But, our white brethren must have missed that memo. They continue to believe that a lone Negro will rise in the wilderness to free his people and heal our land. It's not exactly clear what this Negro will free black folks from, but I'm guessing it's the racism in our minds.
I guess if you were shortsighted, you could blame someone like Martin Luther King Jr. for this complex. Then again, when Dr. King was alive, he wasn't viewed as the Negro Messiah, juat a convenient spokesman for his race.
In fact, King regularly got criticized for making race relations worse, not better. But, over the years, his legacy has been warped to make him into this mythical figure that healed America through his preachings of non-violence and unity. Anybody who knows anything about Civil Rights history knows that is a complete farce, but it hasn't stopped white folks from lapping it up like ambrosia.
With that mindset, they've set out to find another person who can do what Dr. King supposedly did. They want a figure who unites without making people feel bad. Someone who can end racism in one fell swoop without all of that nasty hard work. It's no surprise that people are jumping on the idea that the Saints can be racial healers. It's a simple equation. If the Saints win, racism dies a little bit. What could be easier?
Then again, what happens when if the team loses? Does that mean racism wins? What about if the team has a crappy year next season? Does that mean that the racial divide in the city will get worse? The problem with creating racial Messiahs is that you simplify a complex issue, and imbue individuals or symbols with power they just don't possess. The Saints have no power to "fix" racial problem. Neither did Barack Obama. Maybe, just possibly, the Saints can make people feel relaxed enough to deal with some of their racial issues head-on, but I think that might even be too much to ask.
There is no racial Messiah. All we have are us and God. The sooner we realize that, the sooner we can start improving things.
Share
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The Anthills of the World
My dad started my brother and I cutting the grass at our house when I was probably eight or nine-years old.
I actually didn't hate the job, it was kind of cool when I was younger. I used to have little games with myself to see how fast I could cut the yard, or I would cut designs in the yard before cutting it for real. In fact, other then the heat, there was only one thing I really disliked about cutting grass: Ants.
Ant piles are the bane of anybody doing yard work. You know that if you disturb them in anyway, there will be hell to pay as the ants scurry about seeking retribution.
Yet, there is a certain perverse part of you that wants to see how the ants will react to having their habitat destroyed, how they will cope with an unforeseen disaster that uproots them and kills their peers. It sounds perverse, but you want to see them deal with adversity because it's entertaining.
Haiti is the world's ant pile right now.
Only, I'm not enjoying watching their suffering. In fact, I've avoided the news about the disaster. I find it hard to imagine the panic and sadness that anyone in Haiti feels, yet I don't think watching the news will help me understand. It feels wrong to watch Haitians pick through their broken lives searching for relatives and comfort. There is a voyeuristic element that just bothers me.
True, folks will point out that the attention of the media will help the Haitians receive the aid they need to recover. And it's also true that I would be pissed if this tragedy had been ignored, while other less consequential news is covered. Yet, I can't shake the feeling that there is something wrong with us spending so much time and attention focused on stories about people being trapped in buildings for days, and watching footage of folks walking among newly created ruins. It's almost feels like an attempt to drive home the point of just how good we have it here in America.
There is no doubt we have it good. There is no doubt that even the poor in America often live a life that folks in certain other countries would sacrifice a relative to attain. Yet, it feels wrong to affirm our gratitude through immersion Haitian's suffering. Yes, the pain of Haiti should make us thank God for his mercy, but it feels parasitic. It feels like we're using them. As the comments of some folks have proven, Americans feel like our continued well-being is an affirmation of our goodness and greatness. The reason we've been spared is because we deserve it.
I don't know, maybe I'm tripping. I probably should just go to a website and make a donation and say a prayer. After all, I don't have to watch the news, I don't have to read the stories. Nobody is forcing me to pay attention to what's happening, and most of the attention is helpful. I'm probably being overly sensitive, I might be looking for a reason to get upset and write a blog.
I don't know. Am I?
Share
I actually didn't hate the job, it was kind of cool when I was younger. I used to have little games with myself to see how fast I could cut the yard, or I would cut designs in the yard before cutting it for real. In fact, other then the heat, there was only one thing I really disliked about cutting grass: Ants.
Ant piles are the bane of anybody doing yard work. You know that if you disturb them in anyway, there will be hell to pay as the ants scurry about seeking retribution.
Yet, there is a certain perverse part of you that wants to see how the ants will react to having their habitat destroyed, how they will cope with an unforeseen disaster that uproots them and kills their peers. It sounds perverse, but you want to see them deal with adversity because it's entertaining.
Haiti is the world's ant pile right now.
Only, I'm not enjoying watching their suffering. In fact, I've avoided the news about the disaster. I find it hard to imagine the panic and sadness that anyone in Haiti feels, yet I don't think watching the news will help me understand. It feels wrong to watch Haitians pick through their broken lives searching for relatives and comfort. There is a voyeuristic element that just bothers me.
True, folks will point out that the attention of the media will help the Haitians receive the aid they need to recover. And it's also true that I would be pissed if this tragedy had been ignored, while other less consequential news is covered. Yet, I can't shake the feeling that there is something wrong with us spending so much time and attention focused on stories about people being trapped in buildings for days, and watching footage of folks walking among newly created ruins. It's almost feels like an attempt to drive home the point of just how good we have it here in America.
There is no doubt we have it good. There is no doubt that even the poor in America often live a life that folks in certain other countries would sacrifice a relative to attain. Yet, it feels wrong to affirm our gratitude through immersion Haitian's suffering. Yes, the pain of Haiti should make us thank God for his mercy, but it feels parasitic. It feels like we're using them. As the comments of some folks have proven, Americans feel like our continued well-being is an affirmation of our goodness and greatness. The reason we've been spared is because we deserve it.
I don't know, maybe I'm tripping. I probably should just go to a website and make a donation and say a prayer. After all, I don't have to watch the news, I don't have to read the stories. Nobody is forcing me to pay attention to what's happening, and most of the attention is helpful. I'm probably being overly sensitive, I might be looking for a reason to get upset and write a blog.
I don't know. Am I?
Share
Monday, December 14, 2009
You Should Know Better
Take some time and check out this story.
Bunch of interesting things to discuss there, so let's get cracking. I'll tell those of you who are link averse that the story is about a North Carolina city councilman who is having to fight for his job because he doesn't believe in God. Now, go read the article so you understand what I'm about to talk about.
1. If you read the article, you'll notice that Councilman Atheist is quoted as saying he's really not that interested in contemplating the existence or non-existence of God, and definitely doens't think that is relavent to his job as a politician. While I agree with the latter sentiment, I have some problems with the former.
Let's be clear. It's impossible to be an atheist and not contemplate the existence of God. If you're an atheist, which this guy is quoted as identifying as, then that means you've thought about whether God existed and decided you are on Team No God. That's fine, it's your life. But, don't insult my intelligence by telling me you don't even think it's worth considering. That means you think I can't think logically or read for comprehension.
I don't know if this was a mistake made by the reporter, or Councilman Atheist, but somebody plainly thought it would be cool to minimize the importance of God, while at the same time taking a stance that God doesn't even exist. Agnostics can claim they don't really think about whether God exists, atheists cannot. Atheists have made a choice. Man up and stand by your choice.
2. The article notes that many states have crazy laws on the books that conflict with the Constitution, and that people have to go to court to see them abolished. Am I the only one bothered by that?
I mean, isn't it possible that someone could decided to re-institute the institution of slavery based on some obscure state law, and force a lengthy court battle before they would be required to free their slaves? Sure, that's unlikely, but 30 years ago the Internet was unlikely.
Maybe I'm tripping, but I find it ridiculous that there are scores of stupid laws lingering on the books that permit people to do mischief. The article says state legislatures don't have time to work on removing those laws. That's bogus. If they have time to pass proclamations recognizing random rappers and sports teams, they have time get rid of laws outlawing fellatio. Seems like a much better use of time to me.
3. Final point here. What type of black person is pushing for people to be barred from public office over something like their belief in God? Seriously, wouldn't that seem like a red flag to a black person whose ancestors previously could't hold office because of their skin color?
I know, I know, skin color is not the same as atheism. That's true. But, at its core, this law basically punishes those folks who are minorities and prevents them from fully participating in society. And not because their actions have a real affect on people's lives because atheism ultimately is going to be a problem for you, not me. I mean, you could make the flawed argument that atheists make the world a worse place, but really, there are a LOT of people who make the world a worse place, and I don't see them being barred from public office.
This just seems like an attempt to punish folks who think differently. Matter of fact, I wonder how these Christians would feel if the tables were turned and there were laws barring Christians from holding public office. Actually, I don't have to wonder how most Christians would feel since these same people already complain that they can't pray in school. (Although, that must be a white thing because every public black school I have attended included prayers in every ceremony. Every, single, one.)
Seems like a black person would intuitively grasp the problem with taking a stance punishing a vulenerable minority, but I guess some folks are just oblivious like that. Strangley, the dude leading the charge was a former director for the NAACP, so you would think he would be more sensitive. Then again, I've heard people say that the NAACP is one of the most conservative black organizations in the country.
I guess folks just don't know better.
Share
Bunch of interesting things to discuss there, so let's get cracking. I'll tell those of you who are link averse that the story is about a North Carolina city councilman who is having to fight for his job because he doesn't believe in God. Now, go read the article so you understand what I'm about to talk about.
1. If you read the article, you'll notice that Councilman Atheist is quoted as saying he's really not that interested in contemplating the existence or non-existence of God, and definitely doens't think that is relavent to his job as a politician. While I agree with the latter sentiment, I have some problems with the former.
Let's be clear. It's impossible to be an atheist and not contemplate the existence of God. If you're an atheist, which this guy is quoted as identifying as, then that means you've thought about whether God existed and decided you are on Team No God. That's fine, it's your life. But, don't insult my intelligence by telling me you don't even think it's worth considering. That means you think I can't think logically or read for comprehension.
I don't know if this was a mistake made by the reporter, or Councilman Atheist, but somebody plainly thought it would be cool to minimize the importance of God, while at the same time taking a stance that God doesn't even exist. Agnostics can claim they don't really think about whether God exists, atheists cannot. Atheists have made a choice. Man up and stand by your choice.
2. The article notes that many states have crazy laws on the books that conflict with the Constitution, and that people have to go to court to see them abolished. Am I the only one bothered by that?
I mean, isn't it possible that someone could decided to re-institute the institution of slavery based on some obscure state law, and force a lengthy court battle before they would be required to free their slaves? Sure, that's unlikely, but 30 years ago the Internet was unlikely.
Maybe I'm tripping, but I find it ridiculous that there are scores of stupid laws lingering on the books that permit people to do mischief. The article says state legislatures don't have time to work on removing those laws. That's bogus. If they have time to pass proclamations recognizing random rappers and sports teams, they have time get rid of laws outlawing fellatio. Seems like a much better use of time to me.
3. Final point here. What type of black person is pushing for people to be barred from public office over something like their belief in God? Seriously, wouldn't that seem like a red flag to a black person whose ancestors previously could't hold office because of their skin color?
I know, I know, skin color is not the same as atheism. That's true. But, at its core, this law basically punishes those folks who are minorities and prevents them from fully participating in society. And not because their actions have a real affect on people's lives because atheism ultimately is going to be a problem for you, not me. I mean, you could make the flawed argument that atheists make the world a worse place, but really, there are a LOT of people who make the world a worse place, and I don't see them being barred from public office.
This just seems like an attempt to punish folks who think differently. Matter of fact, I wonder how these Christians would feel if the tables were turned and there were laws barring Christians from holding public office. Actually, I don't have to wonder how most Christians would feel since these same people already complain that they can't pray in school. (Although, that must be a white thing because every public black school I have attended included prayers in every ceremony. Every, single, one.)
Seems like a black person would intuitively grasp the problem with taking a stance punishing a vulenerable minority, but I guess some folks are just oblivious like that. Strangley, the dude leading the charge was a former director for the NAACP, so you would think he would be more sensitive. Then again, I've heard people say that the NAACP is one of the most conservative black organizations in the country.
I guess folks just don't know better.
Share
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Woodpeckers, Termites and Footstools
"It is difficult to say who do you the most mischief: enemies with the worst intentions or friends with the best."
Imagine yourself as a mighty oak tree, standing strong against the storms of life. Your roots reach deep into the earth. Your branches provide shade and sustenance. You are impervious to most danger, and your life is measured in centuries.
What scares you more, woodpeckers or termites?
We all have enemies. Sometimes they are people who don't like us, and who let us know they don't like us. Other times they are people who pretend to like us but, who we still know hate our guts. And too often, our enemies are disguised as our friends.
Woodpeckers are those enemies that attack you obviously and consistently. They hammer at your defenses, constantly challenging you to protect yourself. They do not try to hide their attacks because they are secure in your inability to defend yourself. Nor are their attacks malicious, they are simply looking to advance themselves and hurting you provides the best means for accomplishing their goals.
Woodpeckers can be other people, or they can be our own internal shortcomings. Some of our flaws are obvious, even to the most biased of observers. Namely, ourselves. We know where we fall short, we know who or what the enemy is, but yet we can only watch as holes are drilled in our lives.
Then there are termites. These enemies attack us from within. Often they, and the damage they do, are invisible to the naked eye. It's only when we try to take serious stock of our lives, when we truly examine the progress we're making, that we can get a full understanding of how rotten our support truly is.
Just like woodpeckers, termites can be external and internal, yet unlike woodpeckers they are easier to ignore. They are silent, small. They insidiously devour us, all while leaving behind a facade of well being and strength.
Termites scare me more than woodpeckers.
But, ultimately, at least according to the Bible, both of them will be my footstools.
Life is about perspective. As we walk along the road of life, often we stumble upon pitfalls and danger because we lack the perspective to chart a better path. Strangely enough, our enemies, the internal and external ones, can provide us with that perspective if we use them correctly.
We don't have to see our enemies as obstacles to avoid, but rather footstools to climb upon. Our enemies force us to hone our focus, they train us in how to behave. As we struggle against our enemies we gain strength, we gain courage and ultimately we gain perspective on them and ourselves.
Nobody likes enemies. Very few of us truly enjoy danger. But both things serve a purpose and the sooner we realize that purpose and conduct ourselves accordingly, the better off we will be.
Share
Imagine yourself as a mighty oak tree, standing strong against the storms of life. Your roots reach deep into the earth. Your branches provide shade and sustenance. You are impervious to most danger, and your life is measured in centuries.
What scares you more, woodpeckers or termites?
We all have enemies. Sometimes they are people who don't like us, and who let us know they don't like us. Other times they are people who pretend to like us but, who we still know hate our guts. And too often, our enemies are disguised as our friends.
Woodpeckers are those enemies that attack you obviously and consistently. They hammer at your defenses, constantly challenging you to protect yourself. They do not try to hide their attacks because they are secure in your inability to defend yourself. Nor are their attacks malicious, they are simply looking to advance themselves and hurting you provides the best means for accomplishing their goals.
Woodpeckers can be other people, or they can be our own internal shortcomings. Some of our flaws are obvious, even to the most biased of observers. Namely, ourselves. We know where we fall short, we know who or what the enemy is, but yet we can only watch as holes are drilled in our lives.
Then there are termites. These enemies attack us from within. Often they, and the damage they do, are invisible to the naked eye. It's only when we try to take serious stock of our lives, when we truly examine the progress we're making, that we can get a full understanding of how rotten our support truly is.
Just like woodpeckers, termites can be external and internal, yet unlike woodpeckers they are easier to ignore. They are silent, small. They insidiously devour us, all while leaving behind a facade of well being and strength.
Termites scare me more than woodpeckers.
But, ultimately, at least according to the Bible, both of them will be my footstools.
Life is about perspective. As we walk along the road of life, often we stumble upon pitfalls and danger because we lack the perspective to chart a better path. Strangely enough, our enemies, the internal and external ones, can provide us with that perspective if we use them correctly.
We don't have to see our enemies as obstacles to avoid, but rather footstools to climb upon. Our enemies force us to hone our focus, they train us in how to behave. As we struggle against our enemies we gain strength, we gain courage and ultimately we gain perspective on them and ourselves.
Nobody likes enemies. Very few of us truly enjoy danger. But both things serve a purpose and the sooner we realize that purpose and conduct ourselves accordingly, the better off we will be.
Share
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Fantastical Voyage
A while back, I finished reading Philip Jose Farmar's Riverworld saga.
For all the non-science fiction geeks, Farmar's series is considered one of the definitive works of the genre, kind of like Frank Herbert's "Dune" series, or Issac Asimov's Foundation series. Well, not on that level, but still pretty well known, I think.
Anyway, I had read a couple books in the past, but I always wanted to read the whole thing. The series describes a world where all of humanity, from the beginning of human life until 1983, is resurrected from the dead and placed on a new world alongside a massive river.
The inhabitants are largely left to their own devices in a world where, initially, there are no serious weapons and three meals a day are beamed down to everyone. They later discover that the world was created by either an advanced race of aliens, or super-developed humans.
The series explores a lot of philosophical ideas, but the author's favorite whipping boy is religion. All stripes and kinds get the treatment, but Christianity, Judaism and Islam are singled out for particular scorn.
The general feel is that the idea of the deity described in the Bible, Torah or Qu'ran being real is just too fantastical for anybody to take seriously, and those who do fall for that farce need to be branded with a massive scarlet "I" for idiot.
I thought of the Riverworld series recently while I was watching an interview between Richard Dawkins and Ben Stein. Dawkins is the self-proclaimed God-hater, while Stein likes to sell people stuff on television. Neither of them is one of my favorite people, but I was interested in the discussion.
During the interview, Dawkins explained that he's not against the idea of intelligent design, just against the idea of intelligent design by "God." He even posited that it's an "intriguing" and "plausible" theory that an advanced race of aliens began life here on Earth. But, he scoffed at the idea of a God.
See, that kind of bothered me.
As I explained to my agnostic friend, why would this guy who finds it so ridiculous to believe that there is an omnipotent and omnipresent God be willing to believe that some random aliens created Earth as a science experiment? Why is one idea deemed plausible and the other one evidence of mental instability?
Don't get me wrong, I am guilty of scoffing at other people's beliefs, particularly Scientologists. (I still can't understand how they believe in something created by a dude who said he thought religion was the best scam running. Hell the whole belief system could have been one of his novels.)
But, I've been working on that because I know it's hypocritical of me. After all, Christianity requires some pretty substantial leaps of faith. Rising from the dead? All-powerful deities who still get jealous? Virgin births? I can see why folks reject my religion as being kooky.
What I can't understand is how you can reject Christianity as being crazy, but believe that an alien might have jump-started creation. Hell, I think believing in the concept that inanimate life created animate life is wild as well. It seems like these beliefs require pretty substantial leaps of faith themselves, in my opinion.
I honestly, and truly, do not have care if people don't believe in God. It doesn't bother me. But, as my friend Deacon Blue has said on his blog, don't tell me my beliefs brand me as a retard, while refusing to admit that you've got some pretty outlandish beliefs yourself. This Dawkins guy sneers at folks who believe in something as primitive as religion, but has the audacity to advance the "alien intelligent design" theory. Come on now, man.
That's a fantastical voyage right there.
Share
For all the non-science fiction geeks, Farmar's series is considered one of the definitive works of the genre, kind of like Frank Herbert's "Dune" series, or Issac Asimov's Foundation series. Well, not on that level, but still pretty well known, I think.
Anyway, I had read a couple books in the past, but I always wanted to read the whole thing. The series describes a world where all of humanity, from the beginning of human life until 1983, is resurrected from the dead and placed on a new world alongside a massive river.
The inhabitants are largely left to their own devices in a world where, initially, there are no serious weapons and three meals a day are beamed down to everyone. They later discover that the world was created by either an advanced race of aliens, or super-developed humans.
The series explores a lot of philosophical ideas, but the author's favorite whipping boy is religion. All stripes and kinds get the treatment, but Christianity, Judaism and Islam are singled out for particular scorn.
The general feel is that the idea of the deity described in the Bible, Torah or Qu'ran being real is just too fantastical for anybody to take seriously, and those who do fall for that farce need to be branded with a massive scarlet "I" for idiot.
I thought of the Riverworld series recently while I was watching an interview between Richard Dawkins and Ben Stein. Dawkins is the self-proclaimed God-hater, while Stein likes to sell people stuff on television. Neither of them is one of my favorite people, but I was interested in the discussion.
During the interview, Dawkins explained that he's not against the idea of intelligent design, just against the idea of intelligent design by "God." He even posited that it's an "intriguing" and "plausible" theory that an advanced race of aliens began life here on Earth. But, he scoffed at the idea of a God.
See, that kind of bothered me.
As I explained to my agnostic friend, why would this guy who finds it so ridiculous to believe that there is an omnipotent and omnipresent God be willing to believe that some random aliens created Earth as a science experiment? Why is one idea deemed plausible and the other one evidence of mental instability?
Don't get me wrong, I am guilty of scoffing at other people's beliefs, particularly Scientologists. (I still can't understand how they believe in something created by a dude who said he thought religion was the best scam running. Hell the whole belief system could have been one of his novels.)
But, I've been working on that because I know it's hypocritical of me. After all, Christianity requires some pretty substantial leaps of faith. Rising from the dead? All-powerful deities who still get jealous? Virgin births? I can see why folks reject my religion as being kooky.
What I can't understand is how you can reject Christianity as being crazy, but believe that an alien might have jump-started creation. Hell, I think believing in the concept that inanimate life created animate life is wild as well. It seems like these beliefs require pretty substantial leaps of faith themselves, in my opinion.
I honestly, and truly, do not have care if people don't believe in God. It doesn't bother me. But, as my friend Deacon Blue has said on his blog, don't tell me my beliefs brand me as a retard, while refusing to admit that you've got some pretty outlandish beliefs yourself. This Dawkins guy sneers at folks who believe in something as primitive as religion, but has the audacity to advance the "alien intelligent design" theory. Come on now, man.
That's a fantastical voyage right there.
Share
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Judge Not... But Don't Bite Your Tongue, Either
I hadn't written anything about the recent death of former NFL player Steve McNair because I didn't feel like there was anything for me to say.
McNair, one of the most successful black quarterbacks in league history, was killed recently by his mistress, according to police reports. She apparently shot McNair and then shot herself after learning that he was not leaving his wife and was probably planning to leave her.
Not much more you can say about that really.
However, McNair's death, and the circumstances around it, have sparked a plethora of discussions about fidelity, vengance and, of course, Christianity. Some folks have taken this opportunity to condemn McNair as a philanderer who got his just desserts. Others have fired back that you can't be a true believer and go around judging folks for stuff. Scripture has been twisted by both sides to make a point.
Let me say my piece.
I'm a Christian. Consequently, I think adultery is wrong. My entire belief system is based on my interpretation of the Bible, and I think the good book is pretty clear on where God stands on infidelity. Moreover, I just think it's wrong on a human basis, even if you don't believe in God.
However, I do not believe that adultery justifies murder. Yet, I understand the logic that if McNair hadn't been cheating, he'd probably be alive. Unfortunately, that seems a lot like telling a young black man that if he hadn't had dreadlocks and baggy pants, he probably wouldn't have gotten stopped and beaten by the police. It's a pretty stupid argument to make given the circumstances.
I think those Christians who so easily spouted lines like "the wages of sin are death" when they heard about McNair were immature and insensitive. Yet, I think those people who replied, "Judge not..." are just as ill-informed.
It's not judging to tell somebody their behavior is wrong. True, we all have different standards of right and wrong, but there is nothing in the Bible that says that Christians should refuse to call out wrongdoing. A quick study of the Bible will show that Jesus had no problem whatsoever dealing with wrongdoing and regularly chastised groups like the Pharisees and Sadducees for their sins.
The scripture "Judge not lest you be judged..." is part of grouping of verses warning Christians that the same standard they use for other people is the standard God will use for them. It's a passage speaking against hypocrisy and arrogance, not a passage telling believers or anybody to shut up about what's right and wrong.
On a certain level, we all understand this. Nobody says "Judge not..." when folks condemn pedophiles. We all understand that there is a right and wrong when it comes to dealing with children.
The simple truth is that while each individual has his or her own set of standards for acceptable behavior, there is also a general standard that most people in society adhere to. This standard has always been malleable, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. To pretend that we as Americans have not agreed that there are some things that are right and wrong is just asinine. Yet, to pretend that as sin-filled wretches any of us have room to shrug off the murder of a man because he was an adulterer is also asinine.
There is a balance in everything in life. Finding that balance on difficult issues requires patience and dedication, but I believe it's much better than rushing towards two opposing viewpoints and then grumbling about the stupidity of the other side.
It doesn't require judging, it requires thinking.
Steve McNair was more than an adulterer. He was a father, a husband, a man who did good works in several communities. His death was tragic for those who knew him and were touched by his life. Yet, his death also was tied to his unwillingness to remain faithful to his wife.
We can discuss both things without resorting to attacks and erroneously quoting scripture. We can examine the entirety of this issue because all of us should be able to see how it relates to us. There is no need to make McNair into a martyr, or to make him into a cad. He was a man, a combination of good and bad like most men.
Think about it.
Share
McNair, one of the most successful black quarterbacks in league history, was killed recently by his mistress, according to police reports. She apparently shot McNair and then shot herself after learning that he was not leaving his wife and was probably planning to leave her.
Not much more you can say about that really.
However, McNair's death, and the circumstances around it, have sparked a plethora of discussions about fidelity, vengance and, of course, Christianity. Some folks have taken this opportunity to condemn McNair as a philanderer who got his just desserts. Others have fired back that you can't be a true believer and go around judging folks for stuff. Scripture has been twisted by both sides to make a point.
Let me say my piece.
I'm a Christian. Consequently, I think adultery is wrong. My entire belief system is based on my interpretation of the Bible, and I think the good book is pretty clear on where God stands on infidelity. Moreover, I just think it's wrong on a human basis, even if you don't believe in God.
However, I do not believe that adultery justifies murder. Yet, I understand the logic that if McNair hadn't been cheating, he'd probably be alive. Unfortunately, that seems a lot like telling a young black man that if he hadn't had dreadlocks and baggy pants, he probably wouldn't have gotten stopped and beaten by the police. It's a pretty stupid argument to make given the circumstances.
I think those Christians who so easily spouted lines like "the wages of sin are death" when they heard about McNair were immature and insensitive. Yet, I think those people who replied, "Judge not..." are just as ill-informed.
It's not judging to tell somebody their behavior is wrong. True, we all have different standards of right and wrong, but there is nothing in the Bible that says that Christians should refuse to call out wrongdoing. A quick study of the Bible will show that Jesus had no problem whatsoever dealing with wrongdoing and regularly chastised groups like the Pharisees and Sadducees for their sins.
The scripture "Judge not lest you be judged..." is part of grouping of verses warning Christians that the same standard they use for other people is the standard God will use for them. It's a passage speaking against hypocrisy and arrogance, not a passage telling believers or anybody to shut up about what's right and wrong.
On a certain level, we all understand this. Nobody says "Judge not..." when folks condemn pedophiles. We all understand that there is a right and wrong when it comes to dealing with children.
The simple truth is that while each individual has his or her own set of standards for acceptable behavior, there is also a general standard that most people in society adhere to. This standard has always been malleable, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. To pretend that we as Americans have not agreed that there are some things that are right and wrong is just asinine. Yet, to pretend that as sin-filled wretches any of us have room to shrug off the murder of a man because he was an adulterer is also asinine.
There is a balance in everything in life. Finding that balance on difficult issues requires patience and dedication, but I believe it's much better than rushing towards two opposing viewpoints and then grumbling about the stupidity of the other side.
It doesn't require judging, it requires thinking.
Steve McNair was more than an adulterer. He was a father, a husband, a man who did good works in several communities. His death was tragic for those who knew him and were touched by his life. Yet, his death also was tied to his unwillingness to remain faithful to his wife.
We can discuss both things without resorting to attacks and erroneously quoting scripture. We can examine the entirety of this issue because all of us should be able to see how it relates to us. There is no need to make McNair into a martyr, or to make him into a cad. He was a man, a combination of good and bad like most men.
Think about it.
Share
Friday, June 26, 2009
Mind Ya Business
My little boy doesn't wear dresses.
He can't play with his momma's jewelry, he won't play with her clothes and he definitely will not wear her makeup. I won't let him grow his hair out either. It's a straight Cesar for him until he's at least 10 years old.
Some folks might disagree with the choices I've made for my son. They might argue that he's a child and we should allow children their freedom of expression. A friend of mine once said that the role of a parent should be kind of like a an adult buddy, not a dictator (She has no children).
These folks can mind their business.
I raise my son how I think he needs to be raised. Unless I'm abusing him, depriving him or otherwise egregiously affecting his development, how I raise my child is none of the world's business. How I dress him, how I cut his hair, what books I allow him to read, what television shows he can watch should not be the concern of people who aren't responsible for caring for my son.
So, why is France considering a law that would force Muslim women within its borders to stop wearing burqas anywhere?
That might seem like an abrupt and illogical segue, but stay with me. France is considering banning the full-length veils that many Muslim women wear as part of their, or their families, religious beliefs. The country has already banned the veils in its schools, but now some officials want to extend that ban everywhere.
Supporters say that the veils are used to subjugate women. They also claim that the veils represent extremist Muslims and prevent Muslims from fully integrating into French society.
Excuse me, but I'm going to have to call deconner.
This is not about freeing women. It's about the French and their dislike for the way many Muslims have refused to sacrifice the tenets of their faith to get along better with everybody else. It's about many French conservatives viewing all Muslims as potential terrorists, and believing that head scarves are more proof of those terroristic interests. It's about controlling a minority.
It ain't about saving women.
In my mind, those scarves don't have anything to do with anybody but the women wearing them. Maybe some of them are forced to wear the coverings by their families, but wouldn't it make sense to determine who those people are and help them? Why must France institute a national ban, that limits the rights of all Muslim women, in order to help some women? Isn't that a sign of laziness or ulterior motives on the part of the French?
I hate when people pretend that an unfair solution is the only alternative. I hate when people justify their own laziness by pointing out that their actions will do some good. It's a cop out.
Many French people don't like Muslims in scarves, so they are thinking about outlawing them. That's the bottom line.
And it's crap.
Share
He can't play with his momma's jewelry, he won't play with her clothes and he definitely will not wear her makeup. I won't let him grow his hair out either. It's a straight Cesar for him until he's at least 10 years old.
Some folks might disagree with the choices I've made for my son. They might argue that he's a child and we should allow children their freedom of expression. A friend of mine once said that the role of a parent should be kind of like a an adult buddy, not a dictator (She has no children).
These folks can mind their business.
I raise my son how I think he needs to be raised. Unless I'm abusing him, depriving him or otherwise egregiously affecting his development, how I raise my child is none of the world's business. How I dress him, how I cut his hair, what books I allow him to read, what television shows he can watch should not be the concern of people who aren't responsible for caring for my son.
So, why is France considering a law that would force Muslim women within its borders to stop wearing burqas anywhere?
That might seem like an abrupt and illogical segue, but stay with me. France is considering banning the full-length veils that many Muslim women wear as part of their, or their families, religious beliefs. The country has already banned the veils in its schools, but now some officials want to extend that ban everywhere.
Supporters say that the veils are used to subjugate women. They also claim that the veils represent extremist Muslims and prevent Muslims from fully integrating into French society.
Excuse me, but I'm going to have to call deconner.
This is not about freeing women. It's about the French and their dislike for the way many Muslims have refused to sacrifice the tenets of their faith to get along better with everybody else. It's about many French conservatives viewing all Muslims as potential terrorists, and believing that head scarves are more proof of those terroristic interests. It's about controlling a minority.
It ain't about saving women.
In my mind, those scarves don't have anything to do with anybody but the women wearing them. Maybe some of them are forced to wear the coverings by their families, but wouldn't it make sense to determine who those people are and help them? Why must France institute a national ban, that limits the rights of all Muslim women, in order to help some women? Isn't that a sign of laziness or ulterior motives on the part of the French?
I hate when people pretend that an unfair solution is the only alternative. I hate when people justify their own laziness by pointing out that their actions will do some good. It's a cop out.
Many French people don't like Muslims in scarves, so they are thinking about outlawing them. That's the bottom line.
And it's crap.
Share
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Back Again For the First Time
The last time I did a series on something I heard at church, I thought it turned out pretty well.
For those of you who don't remember the series it dealt with Gandhi's seven social sins and how they relate to the world today. I enjoyed breaking down Gandhi's profound observations so much, I decided to check back in for round two.
What I'd like to discuss has its grounding in religion, but I think it can even be applied to lives of those who don't believe in God. In fact, I'm going to try to apply it specifically to the black community and the issues that seem to be present there.
During a recent message, my pastor discussed six ways that religion has been corrupted and twisted. I plan to discuss how those six things have corrupted and twisted the black community and the world in general. My viewpoints will of course be guided by my faith, but I think I can make compelling observations without depending too heavily on scripture.
For the record, the six corrupting agents are Secularism, Humanism, Relativism, Pragmatism, Materialism and Mindlessness.
Just looking at those six topics makes me want to write reams and reams of words. For years, I've struggled to understand why the world has the problems it has, why things seem to be spinning so far out of control. In particular, when I've looked at my community, the black community, I've seen such a plethora of problems that I've wondered if there is any real hope. I know I'm not alone in those thoughts.
I think that by dissecting and examining these corrupting agents we can re-discover our hope. When you can identify and define a problem, you can then turn your attention to the solution. I hope this series breaks down these corrupting agents and offers concrete solutions for dealing with the problems they create.
Stay tuned.
Share
For those of you who don't remember the series it dealt with Gandhi's seven social sins and how they relate to the world today. I enjoyed breaking down Gandhi's profound observations so much, I decided to check back in for round two.
What I'd like to discuss has its grounding in religion, but I think it can even be applied to lives of those who don't believe in God. In fact, I'm going to try to apply it specifically to the black community and the issues that seem to be present there.
During a recent message, my pastor discussed six ways that religion has been corrupted and twisted. I plan to discuss how those six things have corrupted and twisted the black community and the world in general. My viewpoints will of course be guided by my faith, but I think I can make compelling observations without depending too heavily on scripture.
For the record, the six corrupting agents are Secularism, Humanism, Relativism, Pragmatism, Materialism and Mindlessness.
Just looking at those six topics makes me want to write reams and reams of words. For years, I've struggled to understand why the world has the problems it has, why things seem to be spinning so far out of control. In particular, when I've looked at my community, the black community, I've seen such a plethora of problems that I've wondered if there is any real hope. I know I'm not alone in those thoughts.
I think that by dissecting and examining these corrupting agents we can re-discover our hope. When you can identify and define a problem, you can then turn your attention to the solution. I hope this series breaks down these corrupting agents and offers concrete solutions for dealing with the problems they create.
Stay tuned.
Share
Monday, February 2, 2009
Interesting, But Misleading
I just found out that Charles Darwin may have hoped to end slavery with his theory on the evolution of man.
Check out this article for a larger discussion of these facts.
For some reason, I found this extremely interesting. Black people have regularly been called monkeys and apes as a way to demean them. Yet, the person who first tried to connect all humans to primates believed establishing that link would help black people get out of bondage. It's a weird footnote in history.
What I found more interesting, was a comment about this article that I found on Racialicious. Here's the comment:
Hmmm, where to begin?
I'll admit that I'm no expert on intelligent design, but my basic understanding is that it's based on the idea that the world was created by an omnipotent being. Since most of y'all know I'm a Christian, with traditional Christian beliefs, y'all can probably guess that I don't have a problem with this concept. In fact, I think it's silly that so many people have decided that if you believe in evolution you can't believe in creationism or natural selection, since from what I understand about Darwin, he actually never tried to go to deep into the origins of life.
What got me, was the idea that belief in God and creationism was part of some sort of vast plot to maintain, white, Christian power.
I'm not naive. I understand how religion has been used to oppress people over the course of time. I know it's considered an opiate for the masses by many people. I get that.
What I also understand is that for most regular folks their belief in God, no matter what form it takes, is a deeply personal thing that provides some sort of succor to their lives. From what I've seen, an intense connection to God does not lead to a desire to subjugate folks. In fact, it's typically the exact opposite.
It's also somewhat insulting to be told that there is no deep philosophical meaning behind my belief in God and my belief that he created the world. It's demeaning to be told that I'm just a lemming who has been co-opted by the dominant structure. I think it's dangerous to make those kind of blanket assumptions about people.
The fact that many racists have used the Bible as a tool for control does not make the Bible inherently evil. In fact, what it does confirm is that humans have the ability to corrupt and misuse just about anything, a central tenet of the Bible.
There is no doubt that Christianity has been paired with a "white power" and "male power" ethos over the years, and its followers have often wreaked havoc on the lives of people of color, gays and women. Yet, I don't feel that's the fault of religion, but more the fault of people in power trying to exert control over the less powerful. Most people need a justification to commit wrong deeds, and if you search and twist the Bible you can find justification for almost anything.
Anyway, I thought the new information about Darwin was interesting, but I could not agree with the other point the connection between creationism and white Christian hegemony. I think the two things are connected by chance, not because of some deep flaw in the Biblical explanation of the word's origins.
It's an interesting theory, but I ain't buying it.
Share
Check out this article for a larger discussion of these facts.
For some reason, I found this extremely interesting. Black people have regularly been called monkeys and apes as a way to demean them. Yet, the person who first tried to connect all humans to primates believed establishing that link would help black people get out of bondage. It's a weird footnote in history.
What I found more interesting, was a comment about this article that I found on Racialicious. Here's the comment:
A big theory of mine is that the whole “intelligent design”/natural selection debate is deeply rooted in the struggle between those who would seek to extend the white Christian hegemony and those who would seek to dismantle it through science. Unfortunately, the media always portrays it as some dense philosophical debate, without any implications for social power structures.
Hmmm, where to begin?
I'll admit that I'm no expert on intelligent design, but my basic understanding is that it's based on the idea that the world was created by an omnipotent being. Since most of y'all know I'm a Christian, with traditional Christian beliefs, y'all can probably guess that I don't have a problem with this concept. In fact, I think it's silly that so many people have decided that if you believe in evolution you can't believe in creationism or natural selection, since from what I understand about Darwin, he actually never tried to go to deep into the origins of life.
What got me, was the idea that belief in God and creationism was part of some sort of vast plot to maintain, white, Christian power.
I'm not naive. I understand how religion has been used to oppress people over the course of time. I know it's considered an opiate for the masses by many people. I get that.
What I also understand is that for most regular folks their belief in God, no matter what form it takes, is a deeply personal thing that provides some sort of succor to their lives. From what I've seen, an intense connection to God does not lead to a desire to subjugate folks. In fact, it's typically the exact opposite.
It's also somewhat insulting to be told that there is no deep philosophical meaning behind my belief in God and my belief that he created the world. It's demeaning to be told that I'm just a lemming who has been co-opted by the dominant structure. I think it's dangerous to make those kind of blanket assumptions about people.
The fact that many racists have used the Bible as a tool for control does not make the Bible inherently evil. In fact, what it does confirm is that humans have the ability to corrupt and misuse just about anything, a central tenet of the Bible.
There is no doubt that Christianity has been paired with a "white power" and "male power" ethos over the years, and its followers have often wreaked havoc on the lives of people of color, gays and women. Yet, I don't feel that's the fault of religion, but more the fault of people in power trying to exert control over the less powerful. Most people need a justification to commit wrong deeds, and if you search and twist the Bible you can find justification for almost anything.
Anyway, I thought the new information about Darwin was interesting, but I could not agree with the other point the connection between creationism and white Christian hegemony. I think the two things are connected by chance, not because of some deep flaw in the Biblical explanation of the word's origins.
It's an interesting theory, but I ain't buying it.
Share
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Work it Out
Church.
Not like Bishop Magic Don Juan, but more like Bishop T.D. Jakes. That video I linked? That's church right there.
I remember my first real job. I had recently finished grad school and was living in a new city with no friends or relatives. Grad school had been a very difficult time in my life, but it had also drawn me closer to God. However, the final transition from life as a child to adulthood awaited me in my new city, and that carried it's on special set of difficulties.
As I struggled to stay afloat mentally, I asked my mother to send me some gospel music. Sadly, I didn't own much gospel myself, my music catalogue consisted of hardcore rap and some old school R&B. That music is great to groove to, but when you're crying your eyes out wondering if you can make it, it doesn't get the job done.
Anyway, my mom sent me a care package (Aren't mommies wonderful?) and along with the usual goodies, it had a few CDs. I listened to the CDs non-stop for weeks, and they helped me get through some tough times. I arrived at work one day and a certain song came on the CD. It was one that had spoken to me previously in some of my darkest hours. I was parked in a garage, but I sat there for the next five or six minutes and had my own personal praise service.
I bounced, I swayed, I clapped. I sang at the top of my voice, and right there in the front seat of my car, I worshipped God. People passed me by, some giving me strange looks, others hurrying on to their destination. I felt a twinge of embarassment once, but then the praise caught me up again.
Church.
A friend of mine who doesn't believe in God said that at the annual Jazz Fest hear in New Orleans she loves to stop at the gospel tent and stay for a while. She talked about how well the choirs sing and how amazing it is to see people dancing in the aisles. I understood her feeling completely.
Y'all know I'm a traditional Christian in most ways. But, I also understand that God can be understood and felt by all, even those who don't share my beliefs. Sometimes in life we may not truly grasp the importance of certain things, but just by watching people who do, we can catch a glimpse.
By bearing witness to other people's worship, we can comprehend faith a little better ourselves.
I don't know about y'all, but that's helped me at times. Even when I couldn't feel God, I could watch my mother feel him and feel comforted. I'm sure that feeling can be extended to those who have no wish to know God. Seeing other people step out on faith can be a source of comfort and confidence to anyone who needs it.
There is a beauty in most worship. A sense of wholly communion between man and something larger.
Church.
Share
Not like Bishop Magic Don Juan, but more like Bishop T.D. Jakes. That video I linked? That's church right there.
I remember my first real job. I had recently finished grad school and was living in a new city with no friends or relatives. Grad school had been a very difficult time in my life, but it had also drawn me closer to God. However, the final transition from life as a child to adulthood awaited me in my new city, and that carried it's on special set of difficulties.
As I struggled to stay afloat mentally, I asked my mother to send me some gospel music. Sadly, I didn't own much gospel myself, my music catalogue consisted of hardcore rap and some old school R&B. That music is great to groove to, but when you're crying your eyes out wondering if you can make it, it doesn't get the job done.
Anyway, my mom sent me a care package (Aren't mommies wonderful?) and along with the usual goodies, it had a few CDs. I listened to the CDs non-stop for weeks, and they helped me get through some tough times. I arrived at work one day and a certain song came on the CD. It was one that had spoken to me previously in some of my darkest hours. I was parked in a garage, but I sat there for the next five or six minutes and had my own personal praise service.
I bounced, I swayed, I clapped. I sang at the top of my voice, and right there in the front seat of my car, I worshipped God. People passed me by, some giving me strange looks, others hurrying on to their destination. I felt a twinge of embarassment once, but then the praise caught me up again.
Church.
A friend of mine who doesn't believe in God said that at the annual Jazz Fest hear in New Orleans she loves to stop at the gospel tent and stay for a while. She talked about how well the choirs sing and how amazing it is to see people dancing in the aisles. I understood her feeling completely.
Y'all know I'm a traditional Christian in most ways. But, I also understand that God can be understood and felt by all, even those who don't share my beliefs. Sometimes in life we may not truly grasp the importance of certain things, but just by watching people who do, we can catch a glimpse.
By bearing witness to other people's worship, we can comprehend faith a little better ourselves.
I don't know about y'all, but that's helped me at times. Even when I couldn't feel God, I could watch my mother feel him and feel comforted. I'm sure that feeling can be extended to those who have no wish to know God. Seeing other people step out on faith can be a source of comfort and confidence to anyone who needs it.
There is a beauty in most worship. A sense of wholly communion between man and something larger.
Church.
Share
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Short and Hopefully Sweet
I'm swamped so I can't write one of my ridiculously long posts for today.
But, I was thinking about something the other day that I thought I might share.
Y'all know I'm married, and, like most married people, I've found that staying married is a daily struggle of love and patience. Anyway, the other morning the wife and I have a disagreement and I leave for work in a huff.
Have y'all every noticed how easy it is to get sidetracked by anger? It almost seems like anger and frustration are delicious cookies just begging to be devoured when you pass them in the kitchen. They call to you, entice you and can even sate you. But, in the end, you'll end up feeling worse after having indulged.
I'm really working on controlling my anger and refusing to allow my self to succumb to certain temptations. It's a constant struggle, but I've learned, as many of you have learned, that most things worth having take work to attain. Anyway, I thought I'd steal an idea from my homeboy Deacon Blue and leave you with a scripture I have marked in my Bible to remind myself of how I need to behave.
"Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath"James 1:19
Now, wasn't that both short and sweet?
Share
But, I was thinking about something the other day that I thought I might share.
Y'all know I'm married, and, like most married people, I've found that staying married is a daily struggle of love and patience. Anyway, the other morning the wife and I have a disagreement and I leave for work in a huff.
Have y'all every noticed how easy it is to get sidetracked by anger? It almost seems like anger and frustration are delicious cookies just begging to be devoured when you pass them in the kitchen. They call to you, entice you and can even sate you. But, in the end, you'll end up feeling worse after having indulged.
I'm really working on controlling my anger and refusing to allow my self to succumb to certain temptations. It's a constant struggle, but I've learned, as many of you have learned, that most things worth having take work to attain. Anyway, I thought I'd steal an idea from my homeboy Deacon Blue and leave you with a scripture I have marked in my Bible to remind myself of how I need to behave.
"Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath"James 1:19
Now, wasn't that both short and sweet?
Share
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Bitterness Deferred
I posted a link yesterday that nearly ruined my day.
For those of y'all who missed it, the link was to a story by The Nation about some small scale ethnic cleansing that took place in New Orleans immediately following Hurricane Katrina. The story described the unsolved murders of several black men by a gang of roving white men in a mainly white neighborhood on New Orleans' West Bank. Apparently, these folks took to killing any black person walking through their neighborhood in an effort to prevent looting.
That's right, people were murdered to prevent them from even CONSIDERING stealing a television.
As I read that story, I felt a mixture of anger and dismay build inside my stomach that quickly soured the bootleg Apple Jacks I'd had for breakfast. The men featured in that article bragged of shooting black people in cold blood, one of them compared it to pheasant hunting in South Dakota. The word nigger was clearly something they were quite familiar with. The most galling thing was that none of them saw anything wrong with hunting human beings simply because of the color of their skin.
I was not feeling charitable towards white people when I finished reading.
Then, I went out on a story assignment to talk to someone whose child had been killed. It was an older white woman, and I prepared myself for comments about the "animals" in New Orleans and their lack of humanity. I was already practicing my poker face and reminding myself that going off on people I needed to interview was the best way to end up in the unemployment line.
And then God happened.
I attribute what happened next to God, but some of y'all might just think it was fate or luck. But, my faith makes me think it was God.
This old woman was so sweet. She was obviously torn up by the murder of her son, but she treated me with nothing but dignity and respect. She was kind, forthcoming and just nice. Like, the kind of nice that makes you take a step back and just marvel at people's composure. When I left her living room, she even asked me for a hug.
That was God speaking to me.
He was telling me that general, random bitterness is not something he condones. He was reminding me that when I allow hatred and anger to fester in the recesses of my heart, I only contribute to the evil in this world. That woman was sent to me to remind me that if I was going to fling my bitterness out at all white people, I was really no better than the bastards that killed black men for sport.
She reminded me that I claim to be a child of God.
As such, I have to remember exactly how important forgiveness is in God's eyes. That doesn't mean I excuse bad behavior, but it means that I must not cling to anger. It was a lesson I needed to learn this morning.
And I thank that old lady for teaching it to me.
Share
For those of y'all who missed it, the link was to a story by The Nation about some small scale ethnic cleansing that took place in New Orleans immediately following Hurricane Katrina. The story described the unsolved murders of several black men by a gang of roving white men in a mainly white neighborhood on New Orleans' West Bank. Apparently, these folks took to killing any black person walking through their neighborhood in an effort to prevent looting.
That's right, people were murdered to prevent them from even CONSIDERING stealing a television.
As I read that story, I felt a mixture of anger and dismay build inside my stomach that quickly soured the bootleg Apple Jacks I'd had for breakfast. The men featured in that article bragged of shooting black people in cold blood, one of them compared it to pheasant hunting in South Dakota. The word nigger was clearly something they were quite familiar with. The most galling thing was that none of them saw anything wrong with hunting human beings simply because of the color of their skin.
I was not feeling charitable towards white people when I finished reading.
Then, I went out on a story assignment to talk to someone whose child had been killed. It was an older white woman, and I prepared myself for comments about the "animals" in New Orleans and their lack of humanity. I was already practicing my poker face and reminding myself that going off on people I needed to interview was the best way to end up in the unemployment line.
And then God happened.
I attribute what happened next to God, but some of y'all might just think it was fate or luck. But, my faith makes me think it was God.
This old woman was so sweet. She was obviously torn up by the murder of her son, but she treated me with nothing but dignity and respect. She was kind, forthcoming and just nice. Like, the kind of nice that makes you take a step back and just marvel at people's composure. When I left her living room, she even asked me for a hug.
That was God speaking to me.
He was telling me that general, random bitterness is not something he condones. He was reminding me that when I allow hatred and anger to fester in the recesses of my heart, I only contribute to the evil in this world. That woman was sent to me to remind me that if I was going to fling my bitterness out at all white people, I was really no better than the bastards that killed black men for sport.
She reminded me that I claim to be a child of God.
As such, I have to remember exactly how important forgiveness is in God's eyes. That doesn't mean I excuse bad behavior, but it means that I must not cling to anger. It was a lesson I needed to learn this morning.
And I thank that old lady for teaching it to me.
Share
Friday, November 21, 2008
Babies and Bathwater
This might seem a little contradictory to some of y'all considering this piece I wrote a few days ago, but just follow me for a while.
Ever since the presidential election, there has been a lot of discussion among conservatives about the direction of the Republican party. More specifically, there has been a lot of discussion about how to marginalize the religious right while still keeping their votes.
Don't believe me, check out this article by a leading conservative discussing that very topic.
Now, in the past I've castigated many of my white Christian brethren for perverting God's message and blindly following leaders whose actions do not align with values taught in the Bible. I've complained that they spend far too much time discussing gay marriage and abortion, and too little time talking about poverty and violence. I still think that's true. But, this new movement is extremely short-sighted, it shows a shocking lack of understanding about minority believers and, ultimately, it reeks of elite secularism gone amok.
Let me explain those three points.
First, the idea that Republicans need to stop letting the Bible dictate their policy decisions has merit. Americans have a wide range of religious beliefs and attempting to force the entire country to live according to some strict interpretation of the Bible would be impossible. More importantly, it would be un-Godly. God does not force human beings to obey him. He lays out his commandments and then he lets us make choices. There are rewards and punishments for those choices, but the choice is up to us.
However, that doesn't mean that Christian values should not play a role in policy making. The problem in the past has been that we've seen a skewed form of Christianity that adheres to the philosophy that thinking about God's true intentions is a waste of time. Far too many Christians learn their values through the mouths of their preachers instead of through biblical study and prayer. That's not to say that preachers do not offer insight, after all that is their purpose, but the Bible instructs believers to "study to show themselves approved" and that means critical thinking, not just rote memorization.
I think that this country needs the Christian values of forgiveness, kindness, charity, patience, long-suffering, gentleness and self-control. If our foreign and domestic policy was guided by the two most important commandments, love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as you love yourself, I can't envision how the world would be in its current state. I think many secularists focus on the negative aspects of Christianity without giving credit for the good the religion's members do, and that has led to this short-sighted view of the role of the religious right.
My second point is that this push to encourage Republicans to abandon much of the religious underpinnings of their party would actually make them less attractive to minorities, not more attractive. Truthfully, the main reason conservatives have struggled to attract minorities is because they often make direct appeals to the racism of some of their members and because on issues that are key to the country's two largest minority groups, conservatives had taken the wrong stances.
From what I can tell, Latinos are attracted to the conservative message of hard work and self-reliance, at least when they initially arrive in this country. In addition, most Latin American countries are extremely religious with Catholicism enjoying huge membership in them as a carryover from colonization and ministry work. I'm not an expert, but it seems that if Latinos and Hispanics were asked to describe their value systems and outlooks on life, they would closely align with the conservative ethos. The success George W. Bush had among that group is proof of that.
The problem for conservatives is that they took a hardline, violent and racist stance on immigration, particularly illegal immigration, that in some ways contradicts their other values about free markets. That's one of the main flaws in modern conservatism; they discuss the value of the free market and personal liberty, but then take ridiculous stances that support government intrusion into the free market and into people's personal lives.
Latinos heavily supported Barack Obama because he refused to demonize illegal immigrants and promised to give them a path to citizenship after they paid for their infractions. That's much more reasonable than the most prominent stance of conservatives, which was basically "kick them all out." That stance, and the racism and xenophobia that flourished among those who held it, was what hurt conservatives among Latinos, not the Republican party's overwhelming whiteness or religious base.
Conservatives have the same sort of problem with black people. Most black people believe that there is still a need for affirmative action, we think that mandatory minimums unfairly target our community and we understand that our children are being warehoused in inferior schools that need improvement. On just those three issues we are diametrically opposed to the basic beliefs of most conservatives who see affirmative action as an unfair advantage, think long prison terms reduce crime and think the solution to the problems in the public school system is to eliminate the system.
Those are just three examples, but they are representative of the real problem for conservatives. Most of their policies attack government programs that provide assistance to poverty stricken individuals and African Americans have a higher incidence of poverty than any other group in the country. While some of us may see the social programs as fostering dependence and weakness among black people, most black people see those services as the basic help they need to eke out a living. Since Republicans constantly are trying to cut those services, most black people see them as constantly trying to harm us.
In addition, black people remember that conservatives had no qualms about aligning themselves with virulently racist organizations in the South and providing legitimacy for their activities. Not only is this history undeniable, but the practice continues today. Combine that with conservatives' economic policies and you have the perfect explanation for their lack of support among black people. It's not because there are so few black faces at conservative events, successful black people are used to operating in lily white environments. No, the problem is that black people have a sinking suspicion that if a lynching party broke out at these lily white events nobody would have a real problem.
However, it's not about religion. Blacks, like Latinos, are overwhelmingly religious. Both communities have a higher incidence of traditional Christianity than white people. In fact, many black people would like to vote for Republicans because of their religious stances, but can't get past the rampant racism and distaste for the poor. Religion is not a problem for minorities, and to think otherwise shows a shocking lack of understanding about how minorities view religion and view the Republican party.
Unfortunately, that lack of understanding isn't surprising. Most of the people attacking the religious wing of the Republican part have very little experience with dealing with "the masses." They espouse grand theories, but they haven't spent the time studying the way humans interact, which would give them true insight.
These people, if they were being honest, would admit that they don't really have much use for prominent displays of religion. They prefer a more sedate worship service and much more quiet faith, if they like any faith at all. And they are convinced this is the way things should be.
However, any traditional Christian would tell them that this runs counter to a huge number of biblical teachings. From childhood, traditional Christians are taught that it is a virtue to be demonstrative of their faith in public. While we are instructed that a true relationship with Christ is cemented in our "prayer closets," we are also taught to be "beacon lights" to non-believers and to never appear ashamed of our faith, or God will be ashamed of us.
Consequently, the idea that traditional Christians should practice a more "quiet" version of their religion is insulting to them. I would compare it to a straight person asking a homosexual to practice a less "flamboyant" brand of homosexuality. The person making the request is implying that there is some shame associated with certain activities, so the person practicing those activities should try not to call attention to themselves.
There is a difference between shouting down those individuals who disagree with me about God and boldly proclaiming my belief in Jesus. I've found that many secularists cannot see this difference the same way many white people don't understand the concept that race can be a factor in a person's decision making without that person being a virulent racist.
Honestly, some of the blame for this state of affairs can be attributed to my Christian brethren who seem to have forgotten how to share the gospel with non-believers and how to conduct themselves in general society. But, I've also discovered that those who do not have a belief in Christ or any god have a tendency to look down on those people who do, particularly those people who talk about their beliefs often. I think that secular branch of the conservative movement is marshaling its forces and trying to make a power play because they would be more comfortable if the party moved in a new direction. However, they haven't made many good arguments that this new direction would win the party more converts.
So, they are tossing out a relatively clean baby, just to rid themselves of some filthy bathwater.
Share
Monday, November 17, 2008
Breaking In a New Pair
Lately, I've been thinking a lot about shoes.
Rather, I've been thinking about walking in other people's shoes.
Empathy.
Sympathy.
The weird thing is that this has been on my mind to write about, and I'm sitting in church and my pastor mentions that many of us get empathy and sympathy confused. He pointed out that he grew up without a father and it greatly affected his life for years. He said one of his pet peeves was when people, trying to show empathy, would tell him, "Man, I know how that affected you. I know how you feel."
My pastor said he felt that these people didn't get it. Unless you have actually grown up as a boy without a father , then there is no way you can know what that feels like. You can be aware of the pain it causes, but unless you've felt that ache, you don't know its sting. So, you can have sympathy, but not empathy. And it can be a short trip from sympathy to pity.
That was a deep thought for me.
I've begun to pride myself on my ability to see the world through other people's eyes. Mainly, this is a product of me constantly debating ideas inside my head. I'm searching for a way to make my arguments better, my logic stronger and for a long time I think I've assumed this granted me a measure of empathy.
Now, I'm realizing how stupid that idea was.
Sure, I can see what people's arguments are going to be before they make them, but the next step is being able to understand and appreciate why they make the decisions they make. That step makes it harder to hate those you disagree with, and also makes it possible to like them.
Love thy enemies and neighbors, and all that.
See, I started thinking about this again as I've tried to grow as a Christian, and while reading President-elect Barack Obama's two books. Obama is big on empathy. He has a gift for being able to disagree with people vehmently, but still being able to appreciate what makes them great. Not only that, he can take it even further and really like people for who they are, even if who they are conflicts with how he sees the world.
I ain't there yet.
I don't hate people I disagree with and I pride myself on being able to stay emotionally calm during an argument, but I find it hard to be befriend people I disagree with strongly. Particularly on issues of race. It's very easy to demonize those people who seem to stand on the wrong side when it comes to race. It's exceedingly simple to just label people bigots and treat them as scum.
Eye for an eye, you know?
Ah, but there is a real benefit to loving you enemies. Even if you don't subscribe to Christianity, I think it can help your personal growth if you embrace the concept of true empathy.
Those of you who are married know how hard it can be to truly understand and appreciate another person's point of view. It's a constant struggle, and daily decision to recalibrate how you see the world. Frustration, anger and despair can be regular companions. Many days are spent questioning your decision. And that's a relationship with someone you chose to spend time with.
How much harder is it with people we would much rather avoid?
But, what I've seen is that it's much harder to justify cruelty when you get to know someone. It eats at you when you treat them in a manner that you know was unreasonable. It's more difficult to hold on to anger, tougher to avoid the reality of how you contributed to a bad situation. When you walk in someone else's shoes, you learn their road. You may not want to travel it yourself, but you no longer need directions to get to a common destination.
But, man, those corns are a killer along the way.
Share
Rather, I've been thinking about walking in other people's shoes.
Empathy.
Sympathy.
The weird thing is that this has been on my mind to write about, and I'm sitting in church and my pastor mentions that many of us get empathy and sympathy confused. He pointed out that he grew up without a father and it greatly affected his life for years. He said one of his pet peeves was when people, trying to show empathy, would tell him, "Man, I know how that affected you. I know how you feel."
My pastor said he felt that these people didn't get it. Unless you have actually grown up as a boy without a father , then there is no way you can know what that feels like. You can be aware of the pain it causes, but unless you've felt that ache, you don't know its sting. So, you can have sympathy, but not empathy. And it can be a short trip from sympathy to pity.
That was a deep thought for me.
I've begun to pride myself on my ability to see the world through other people's eyes. Mainly, this is a product of me constantly debating ideas inside my head. I'm searching for a way to make my arguments better, my logic stronger and for a long time I think I've assumed this granted me a measure of empathy.
Now, I'm realizing how stupid that idea was.
Sure, I can see what people's arguments are going to be before they make them, but the next step is being able to understand and appreciate why they make the decisions they make. That step makes it harder to hate those you disagree with, and also makes it possible to like them.
Love thy enemies and neighbors, and all that.
See, I started thinking about this again as I've tried to grow as a Christian, and while reading President-elect Barack Obama's two books. Obama is big on empathy. He has a gift for being able to disagree with people vehmently, but still being able to appreciate what makes them great. Not only that, he can take it even further and really like people for who they are, even if who they are conflicts with how he sees the world.
I ain't there yet.
I don't hate people I disagree with and I pride myself on being able to stay emotionally calm during an argument, but I find it hard to be befriend people I disagree with strongly. Particularly on issues of race. It's very easy to demonize those people who seem to stand on the wrong side when it comes to race. It's exceedingly simple to just label people bigots and treat them as scum.
Eye for an eye, you know?
Ah, but there is a real benefit to loving you enemies. Even if you don't subscribe to Christianity, I think it can help your personal growth if you embrace the concept of true empathy.
Those of you who are married know how hard it can be to truly understand and appreciate another person's point of view. It's a constant struggle, and daily decision to recalibrate how you see the world. Frustration, anger and despair can be regular companions. Many days are spent questioning your decision. And that's a relationship with someone you chose to spend time with.
How much harder is it with people we would much rather avoid?
But, what I've seen is that it's much harder to justify cruelty when you get to know someone. It eats at you when you treat them in a manner that you know was unreasonable. It's more difficult to hold on to anger, tougher to avoid the reality of how you contributed to a bad situation. When you walk in someone else's shoes, you learn their road. You may not want to travel it yourself, but you no longer need directions to get to a common destination.
But, man, those corns are a killer along the way.
Share
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Godless God-lovers
I'm getting so jaded about organized religion.
It's not that I don't like church, or think that it's not important. Corporal worship is still a great experience and gathering with other believers is key to any relationship with God.
It's just, man, God-lovers seem to be getting more stupid and close-minded by the day.
I wonder if it's always been this way.
I grew up in the church. Sunday school, bible study, Sunday worship, communion service, Women's Day, Usher's Day, I attended them all many times. Church and church people were a central part of my early development, and my faith has been a bedrock in my life for as long as I can remember. Sure, I resented attending worship when I was younger, but when the travails of life descended upon me, I appreciated the religious foundation my parents had established.
Now, I'm looking back over that time and wondering how much hateful stuff I was indoctrinated with while I was learning to serve the Lord.
Check out this story and this one. Now both of them involve the Catholic church, which has some crazy rules that are different from most other churches, but they are still indicative of a general attitude among church people.
That attitude can be summed up simply: get with the program or get the fuck out.
That makes me sad.
Like many traditional Christians I am troubled by what I see as a lack of morality and faith in the world today. Contrary to what some liberals fear, religious people are not staging a takeover, and the world is in fact moving further and further away from the traditional forms of most faiths. Truthfully, I do not see this as a good move because I believe the basic tenets of most religions promote goodwill and love towards your fellow man, and I shudder to think what the world would be like if we all lived by our own definitions of what is right and wrong.
Yet, I understand why these changes are occurring.
Many faiths, particularly my own Christianity, have become more and more dogmatic and political while also becoming less concerned with the primary concerns outlined for Christians in the Bible. This doesn't mean all church people aren't active in their communities, as a Katrina survivor I saw first hand the amount of good religious people can do, but it does mean that too often we don't do the right stuff when it comes to those that don't share our beliefs.
There is no excuse for the backlash among many white evangelicals towards other believers who supported Barack Obama. There is no biblical justification for the obscene amount of energy the church spends on discussing gay marriage and abortion, while topics like divorce and fornication are ignored. We are not loving our neighbors as we love ourselves and it shows. I'm tired of Christians hiding behind the trite explanation that we are a "peculiar people" and that the world "hated Jesus too."
Jesus was hated because he spoke against injustice and sought substantive moral change. Church people in America are hated because we seem to be patterning our lives after the Pharisees, a strict adherence to the letter of the law, but not to its Spirit.
I brought up my early childhood because when I look back these days I realize that often church people encouraged a casual disregard for those with different viewpoints and celebrated a stifling of intellectual curiosity.
I remember sitting in Sunday School one day and having an argument with my teacher about how God could give humans free will, but still know what we were going to do all the time. I had to be between 10 and 12 at the time, but I had already honed my logical debate skills to a fine edge. I argued that if God knew I was going steal some candy before I was born, how did I have free will when it came to stealing the candy? If my life was already laid out, wasn't I just following his plan?
You would have thought I had asked them to explain the mystery of the Trinity. Three or four teachers tried to deflate my argument, failed and then the Sunday School superintendent took an L. He basically brushed aside the question and said we shouldn't spend too much time pondering those types of things and we should just accept that God is all powerful and all-knowing while we have free will. And that was it.
(Later, I would think about this question some more. I decided that God may be aware of my future plans, but I am not. Consequently, when I make decisions, I make them in the moment and devoid of any control by God. Therefore, I can have free will even though my path in life is already set. It worked for me.)
That experience taught me something about church; it doesn't pay to be too different in the House of God. Don't ask too many questions, don't challenge too many accepted dogmas. Given my nature, I've always struggled with these guidelines, but that doesn't change the fact that they are real. And even more real is the truth that if a believer keeps on challenging the status quo, he or she might just be told their faith is fake and they are on their way to hell.
This mindset is crippling the church. I'm not in favor of the wholesale acceptance that characterizes many liberal churches, (I still believe fornication, adultery, lying and homosexuality are sins) but I do think the church has to encourage its members to really think about how the Bible works in the real world. We cannot continue to cling to banal biblical sayings, while we condemn everyone who disagrees with us.
We cannot win souls if we're concentrating all our efforts on stamping out any hint of non-conformity. We truly express God's will when we recognize the reality of free will, and encourage people to live according to God's will through a mixture of love and discipline. Our choice is not between liberalism gone wild and rigid conservatism. Our choice is between being beacons of pragmatic, realistic acceptance or being unthinking, hateful bastards.
Between being church people or Christians.
Share
It's not that I don't like church, or think that it's not important. Corporal worship is still a great experience and gathering with other believers is key to any relationship with God.
It's just, man, God-lovers seem to be getting more stupid and close-minded by the day.
I wonder if it's always been this way.
I grew up in the church. Sunday school, bible study, Sunday worship, communion service, Women's Day, Usher's Day, I attended them all many times. Church and church people were a central part of my early development, and my faith has been a bedrock in my life for as long as I can remember. Sure, I resented attending worship when I was younger, but when the travails of life descended upon me, I appreciated the religious foundation my parents had established.
Now, I'm looking back over that time and wondering how much hateful stuff I was indoctrinated with while I was learning to serve the Lord.
Check out this story and this one. Now both of them involve the Catholic church, which has some crazy rules that are different from most other churches, but they are still indicative of a general attitude among church people.
That attitude can be summed up simply: get with the program or get the fuck out.
That makes me sad.
Like many traditional Christians I am troubled by what I see as a lack of morality and faith in the world today. Contrary to what some liberals fear, religious people are not staging a takeover, and the world is in fact moving further and further away from the traditional forms of most faiths. Truthfully, I do not see this as a good move because I believe the basic tenets of most religions promote goodwill and love towards your fellow man, and I shudder to think what the world would be like if we all lived by our own definitions of what is right and wrong.
Yet, I understand why these changes are occurring.
Many faiths, particularly my own Christianity, have become more and more dogmatic and political while also becoming less concerned with the primary concerns outlined for Christians in the Bible. This doesn't mean all church people aren't active in their communities, as a Katrina survivor I saw first hand the amount of good religious people can do, but it does mean that too often we don't do the right stuff when it comes to those that don't share our beliefs.
There is no excuse for the backlash among many white evangelicals towards other believers who supported Barack Obama. There is no biblical justification for the obscene amount of energy the church spends on discussing gay marriage and abortion, while topics like divorce and fornication are ignored. We are not loving our neighbors as we love ourselves and it shows. I'm tired of Christians hiding behind the trite explanation that we are a "peculiar people" and that the world "hated Jesus too."
Jesus was hated because he spoke against injustice and sought substantive moral change. Church people in America are hated because we seem to be patterning our lives after the Pharisees, a strict adherence to the letter of the law, but not to its Spirit.
I brought up my early childhood because when I look back these days I realize that often church people encouraged a casual disregard for those with different viewpoints and celebrated a stifling of intellectual curiosity.
I remember sitting in Sunday School one day and having an argument with my teacher about how God could give humans free will, but still know what we were going to do all the time. I had to be between 10 and 12 at the time, but I had already honed my logical debate skills to a fine edge. I argued that if God knew I was going steal some candy before I was born, how did I have free will when it came to stealing the candy? If my life was already laid out, wasn't I just following his plan?
You would have thought I had asked them to explain the mystery of the Trinity. Three or four teachers tried to deflate my argument, failed and then the Sunday School superintendent took an L. He basically brushed aside the question and said we shouldn't spend too much time pondering those types of things and we should just accept that God is all powerful and all-knowing while we have free will. And that was it.
(Later, I would think about this question some more. I decided that God may be aware of my future plans, but I am not. Consequently, when I make decisions, I make them in the moment and devoid of any control by God. Therefore, I can have free will even though my path in life is already set. It worked for me.)
That experience taught me something about church; it doesn't pay to be too different in the House of God. Don't ask too many questions, don't challenge too many accepted dogmas. Given my nature, I've always struggled with these guidelines, but that doesn't change the fact that they are real. And even more real is the truth that if a believer keeps on challenging the status quo, he or she might just be told their faith is fake and they are on their way to hell.
This mindset is crippling the church. I'm not in favor of the wholesale acceptance that characterizes many liberal churches, (I still believe fornication, adultery, lying and homosexuality are sins) but I do think the church has to encourage its members to really think about how the Bible works in the real world. We cannot continue to cling to banal biblical sayings, while we condemn everyone who disagrees with us.
We cannot win souls if we're concentrating all our efforts on stamping out any hint of non-conformity. We truly express God's will when we recognize the reality of free will, and encourage people to live according to God's will through a mixture of love and discipline. Our choice is not between liberalism gone wild and rigid conservatism. Our choice is between being beacons of pragmatic, realistic acceptance or being unthinking, hateful bastards.
Between being church people or Christians.
Share
Friday, November 7, 2008
While We Were Celebrating
Black people have a strange relationship with homosexuality.
For those of you who may have missed it, residents of California recently approved a ban on gay marriage. African Americans voted overwhelmingly in favor of that ban. It was a huge blow to the civil rights of gay people, and there are plans to take the issue to the Supreme Court.
I've read several stories in recent days about how exactly this ban was passed (The Mormon Church played a huge role. Imagine that, blacks and Mormons working together!). What stood out to me was how supporters of the ban preyed on heterosexual people's fear that allowing gay marriage would somehow threaten marriage between straight folks.
I've been married for almost three years now, and if I've learned one thing, it's that the biggest threats to my marriage are me and my wife. I just find it laughable that people are really afraid that if they allow gay people to get married it will make it harder for them to stay married.
What's ironic is how easily this line of thinking gained traction in the black community. Honestly, we should be the last people attracted to the idea that granting a minority group rights will threaten the majority, but that wasn't the case.
Which brings me back to my original comment about the strange relationship between blacks and homosexuality.
Throughout my life, raised as a pretty traditional Christian, I've been taught two things about being gay: it's a sin and it's none of my business.
That seems to be the attitude for many black church folks. We readily acknowledge that homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible, but we typically consider what people do behind closed doors none of our concern.
How else do you explain the way black preachers can unabashedly lampoon "sissies" from the pulpit while at the same time employing obviously gay men as the musical directors of their choirs? How about the one lesbian sister who comes to church dressed exactly like a man and who is hugged and kissed by the same folks who refer to gay men as faggots?
Black people have mastered the art of ignoring homosexuality, while at the same time fearing it.
It's not a particularly hard situation to understand. The black family and black manhood have always been under attack in America. Combined with black people's overwhelming support of traditional Christianity, it's not surprise that many black people are uncomfortable with homosexuality. In fact, if you consider the fact that many black people also have experienced racism at the hands of white homosexuals, and that gay activists love to tie their movement to the civil rights movement, well it was damn near inevitable that the two groups clash.
Since so many black people are already worried about the decline in successful heterosexual marriages in the black community, they are much more willing to believe lies about the cause of this problem. It's the same reason so many white Americans are willing to believe the lies about black criminality. When people feel threatened, they look for targets to lash out at, and they are not circumspect when it comes to assigning blame.
However, despite black people's poor choices on this issue, I am bothered by the response from some prominent gay white people, like Dan Savage and Andrew Sullivan, and their supporters. They have decided to lay the blame for the Proposition 8's passage solely at the feet of black voters ignoring the fact that whites were pretty split on the measure and that the Mormon Church spent millions to get the proposition passed.
There has always been a weird tension between gay people and black people. Many gay people seem shocked that a group that has been oppressed as much as black people could participate in oppression. It's as if gay people have never actually taken the time to understand the complicated history of African Americans.
Black people oppress each other. During the civil rights and black power movements, black men oppressed women. We've oppressed Asian, Mexicans and any other group that we view as a threat. We've even oppressed white people when given the chance. Just because black people have been victims of oppressions does not bestow upon us any special sort of nobility or even empathy. We are still human beings that behave like most other human beings.
Personally, I believe that the solution to reducing tension between black people and gays is a cessation of comparisons between the two experiences in America and an honest dialogue between the two groups about their needs and concerns. Instead, we all seem determined to spend our time sniping at each other and playing the blame game.
That's not going to get things done.
Share
For those of you who may have missed it, residents of California recently approved a ban on gay marriage. African Americans voted overwhelmingly in favor of that ban. It was a huge blow to the civil rights of gay people, and there are plans to take the issue to the Supreme Court.
I've read several stories in recent days about how exactly this ban was passed (The Mormon Church played a huge role. Imagine that, blacks and Mormons working together!). What stood out to me was how supporters of the ban preyed on heterosexual people's fear that allowing gay marriage would somehow threaten marriage between straight folks.
I've been married for almost three years now, and if I've learned one thing, it's that the biggest threats to my marriage are me and my wife. I just find it laughable that people are really afraid that if they allow gay people to get married it will make it harder for them to stay married.
What's ironic is how easily this line of thinking gained traction in the black community. Honestly, we should be the last people attracted to the idea that granting a minority group rights will threaten the majority, but that wasn't the case.
Which brings me back to my original comment about the strange relationship between blacks and homosexuality.
Throughout my life, raised as a pretty traditional Christian, I've been taught two things about being gay: it's a sin and it's none of my business.
That seems to be the attitude for many black church folks. We readily acknowledge that homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible, but we typically consider what people do behind closed doors none of our concern.
How else do you explain the way black preachers can unabashedly lampoon "sissies" from the pulpit while at the same time employing obviously gay men as the musical directors of their choirs? How about the one lesbian sister who comes to church dressed exactly like a man and who is hugged and kissed by the same folks who refer to gay men as faggots?
Black people have mastered the art of ignoring homosexuality, while at the same time fearing it.
It's not a particularly hard situation to understand. The black family and black manhood have always been under attack in America. Combined with black people's overwhelming support of traditional Christianity, it's not surprise that many black people are uncomfortable with homosexuality. In fact, if you consider the fact that many black people also have experienced racism at the hands of white homosexuals, and that gay activists love to tie their movement to the civil rights movement, well it was damn near inevitable that the two groups clash.
Since so many black people are already worried about the decline in successful heterosexual marriages in the black community, they are much more willing to believe lies about the cause of this problem. It's the same reason so many white Americans are willing to believe the lies about black criminality. When people feel threatened, they look for targets to lash out at, and they are not circumspect when it comes to assigning blame.
However, despite black people's poor choices on this issue, I am bothered by the response from some prominent gay white people, like Dan Savage and Andrew Sullivan, and their supporters. They have decided to lay the blame for the Proposition 8's passage solely at the feet of black voters ignoring the fact that whites were pretty split on the measure and that the Mormon Church spent millions to get the proposition passed.
There has always been a weird tension between gay people and black people. Many gay people seem shocked that a group that has been oppressed as much as black people could participate in oppression. It's as if gay people have never actually taken the time to understand the complicated history of African Americans.
Black people oppress each other. During the civil rights and black power movements, black men oppressed women. We've oppressed Asian, Mexicans and any other group that we view as a threat. We've even oppressed white people when given the chance. Just because black people have been victims of oppressions does not bestow upon us any special sort of nobility or even empathy. We are still human beings that behave like most other human beings.
Personally, I believe that the solution to reducing tension between black people and gays is a cessation of comparisons between the two experiences in America and an honest dialogue between the two groups about their needs and concerns. Instead, we all seem determined to spend our time sniping at each other and playing the blame game.
That's not going to get things done.
Share
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Raving Black Lunatic
