Black and Blue

I was 17 and I had a hot car. My Mustang Mach 1, with its 6 liter engine and dual pump Holley carburetor upgrade, would fly and it would really squeal the tires off the line. I raced my cousin's '70 Corvette once and was so proud that to come out ahead. I liked to show that off, at times, as you might guess. I was male, and I was 17, after all. Once, with my younger brother in the front seat, I did just that without noticing the policeman behind me at the light. Yes, I was pulled over and asked to get out of the car (yes, that's what the police did, back then). Everything was fine for a while. If I had been speeding, I could have said that my speedometer didn't show that fast, or that I didn't notice how fast I was going, but when you burn rubber in first and second, it's kind of hard to say that I didn't really do anything or that it was not on purpose. And, I had been taught to respect the police. But, this was my hometown's Chief Mc———— and he already had a reputation. He was angry. He kept telling me how delinquent I was but I let it go for a while. Oh, and I was 5' 8" and about 120 pounds if even that much. He was over 6 ft. and had a very hefty frame. But, he kept on and finally, when he started talking about my generation of kids, (hippies, draft dodgers, delinquents, who should all just be put in jail), something snapped. I thought I was pretty smart, but not at that moment. As he was writing my ticket and still talking about this younger generation who were good for nothing, suddenly my fist started moving of its own accord and before I knew it, the chief's nose was bleeding and I was in the back seat of a police car on my way to jail. What was I thinking! The size difference between him and me alone should have stopped me, and the fact that he had handcuffs and a gun hanging from his belt should have even more so. To skip over some of the details, the charges ended up getting dropped and it didn't go on my record because he didn't read my my rights and also because he drove off leaving a 12 year old (my brother) in the car alone (what was he thinking, also!?!) until a backup car came by. But, I haven't forgotten it. And, every time I hear news like that about Ferguson, Baton Rouge, Freddie Gray, etc. I can't help but think about it. If it happened today, and if I were black, I probably would be dead. Maybe my brother also. I was wrong. I know I was wrong. I knew it then. That's not how I had been taught. I was more afraid of what my father was going to do than the jail cell. I wasn't thinking. I just lost it. Whatever I may think of that police chief, he didn't shoot me. He didn't beat me up. I'm alive to tell you my tale. Not everyone is so lucky. Certainly, not every police shooting is unjustified. Certainly, not every video shows the whole story. We can't understand the threat police face unless we've faced it ourselves. But, we have to admit, there is something wrong. The police are getting a bad rap today and we need to fall in behind them and support them. But, we also have to admit that something is wrong. The way to improve the reputation of our brothers in blue is to deal with the few who go too far. I, at least, can't turn a blind eye. I am alive, and some who didn't do any more than what I did, are dead. I have a debt to pay. We can't just look away. The truth hurts, but truth also heals. We can't just come down with absolutes on either side. We have to deal with both problems. Black lives do matter, just as do white lives and any other color lives. So do those wearing blue, who do an incredibly hard job under incredible pressure every day. But, let's be open and follow truth wherever it takes us. Let's search for truth and let it set us free.

Landslide?

Dear Donald, The other day you talked about a landslide. You said that you had won all over the US by a landslide. That's interesting. When I think of winning by a landslide, I think of 70%, 60% at least 55%. As I look around, you've passed 50% of the vote in only 6 states. Your overall average is about 39%. What that means is actually the opposite kind of landslide--60% of the voters voted against you. I know that politicians often exaggerate, and even redefine things to their advantage, but this is not even close. That reminds me, you keep saying that the system is corrupt and delegates are getting stolen from you. You like to say that it should be the people's vote that counts. So, does that mean that you want to give back some of those delegates that were given to you which you didn't really earn. Like maybe South Carolina, where you only won 32.5% of the popular vote, but were given all of the 50 delegates. So, maybe you should keep 16 delegates and free up the other 34 from South Carolina. And, that's just one example. If the system is really corrupt and unfair, here's your chance to show you want to make things a lot fairer and let the people's votes really count. You have won more votes than any one particular candidate, but you're still not even close to winning a majority of the popular vote. This 'corrupt' system is working to your advantage, far more than for any other candidate. But, you still want more. You complain when you feel it works against you, but you brag about winning delegates when it works in your favor. I guess that's why you're a billionaire real estate tycoon. That's why you complain about illegal aliens, but hire them to work on your own properties. You're in it to win, but it's not really about justice and fair play for Americans. It's about the Donald. You have win, and when you don't, you blame the system. You're a businessman, and not public servant. But, Donald, the presidency is not all about you. It's not for you to buy. It's about America.

Pretty Is As Pretty Does

Dear Donald, Well, since you asked.... I saw you on the news criticizing John Kasich because you felt the way he ate pancakes was disgusting. You asked if we really wanted a president like that. Well, I saw the video of John eating his pancakes and didn't notice anything disgusting, but whatever, I guess that is in the eye of the beholder. But, then you asked, "Am I handsome?" Well, I know that was a rhetorical question, since you clearly knew the answer you expected, and you also criticized all the other candidates for not looking presidential, just like you did about Carly several months ago (whom I think is actually nice looking). Anyway, whether rhetorical or not, since you asked, I am going take that as an excuse to just answer anyway. You see, I have heard you called many things, but I can't remember ever hearing anyone call you handsome--well, except for you yourself. In fact, I've heard a lot of jokes about your hair, your facial expressions, your mannerisms, and your sprayed-on tan, that seemed to indicate that the person speaking thought the opposite of what you seem to think. In other words, they seemed to think that you were kind of strange looking if not actually ugly. Sorry to disappoint you, although I don't think you believe any opinion that differs from yours is valid anyway, so I guess you won't be disappointed to hear that. But, the thing is I hope that Americans don't decide who they vote for based on looks. Yes, many studies have shown that looks do influence us, but most of us at least try to make our primary judgment based on the candidate's ability to do what we expect of them and their views on the issues that are important to our country. The good news for you is that, even though I don't at all think you are good looking, I don't really care about that it won't affect whether I vote for you or not. Your views, your attitude, and your ability will, though. And yes, we do hear people talking about whether the candidates "look presidential" or not, but I think you have missed the point. The presidential "look" is not whether someone is handsome (or beautiful). The look is more of an attitude. Looking "presidential" means that one seems to know the issues and be well-versed on potential solutions, knows when to speak out and when to shut up, knows that the best way to get things done is not to run roughshod over everyone else but to work with people. It means one who doesn't act like a playground bully more focused on thinking up clever names for everyone else, and who doesn't think that the best way to get ahead is to hit everyone else harder than they hit you. Maybe the fact that you don't understand what "looking presidential" means explains a lot about you. You're working hard to be handsome and sound tough instead of working hard to learn the issues, take the job seriously, and learn that no one really builds themselves up by tearing others down. If you could learn that, you might look a lot better, despite your hair.

Prove it!

Dear Hillary (and news media), Bernie keeps talking about your ties to Wall Street and I can imagine that that can be a bit frustrating. Several times your response has been to challenge anyone to show that contributions from banks and wealthy contributors have affected your vote. Recently a reporter has repeated that challenge as a question to Bernie. However, I think you both have missed the point. Think about it. If I get stopped for speeding (just hypothetical, not saying that I actually would break the law, you know), and I hand him a 50 to give to the Fraternal Order of Police for me, both of us would be at risk of getting arrested if found out. We might say that there was no proof that my contribution affected his treatment of my alleged speeding, but as you know very well, that wouldn't work. You see, the whole point of the questions about influence is not just whether someone can prove that you actually did any favors for them. The point is that the current campaign fundraising system that requires you and other candidates raise such obscene amounts of money puts you (and us) all at risk. You see, it's not really even about some overt favor. When someone does something really generous for you, it's hard to not lean toward them in some way and even if you try not to, it just happens. You're not the only one with that problem, but it doesn't help to just paper it over and put out a challenge for proof of an offense. You can say that you have studiously avoided being influenced, but don't treat the issue so flippantly and with disdain. We know the saying, "you are what you eat," and maybe you are also what donations you take. It's certainly more than just a possibility that politicians are influenced by who is paying the bills for getting them elected, sometimes in such subtle ways that they don't even realize. It's a legitimate question and points out a serious problem in our current campaign finance system. You could even use it as a point to bring up the issue as something that we all need to deal with. But, please don't feign indignation. You went for those donations. Did you really think that no one would ask what they thought they were buying?

Compromise Is not a Dirty Word

In February, US Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia died. One of the things that came up in all the news stories afterwards was his close friendship with fellow justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The irony was that you had a close friendship between possibly the most conservative justice and one of the most liberal, and it was a friendship based on mutual respect, not just mutual interests, compatible personalities, or whatever. They fought on opposite sides for their views, but remained friends. Some people found that hard to fathom and though it was mentioned in news reports, the great controversy over his replacement completely overshadowed what may be a very important topic for today.

I'd say that one of the most dangerous tendencies in the current American political and cultural climate is a loss of mutual respect for those that we may disagree with. Watching the process for the party nominations for presidential candidates over the last few months has been eye-opening to say the least. There are many things that have happened that I would never have imagined for our nation. The fact that we have differences and that sometimes those differences may be over very important issues and may produce emotional responses has always been true. But, our nation was founded on what united us more than what divided us. Today, the tendency is to label opponents, not just as 'wrong' but as 'bad,' 'stupid,' 'failures,' etc.

Government is an institution and institutions, even very conservative and traditional ones, are living entities because, no matter how they are structured and organized they are, they are made up of living beings. People are always growing and changing and our culture is always changing. Every generation has been influenced not only by the generation before, but by the historical events that occur around them. As people change, as culture changes, so do the institutions. But, recently we may be undergoing some fundamental changes at a more rapid rate than ever before.

The United States was from the beginning a revolutionary experiment. There had been democracies before. There had been many revolutions before but most just changed from one bad situation to another one, from one despot to a different one. However, this one was set off in a different direction from the beginning.

Christians like to believe that our nation was founded on Christian principles, and that is true to some extent, but there was also a mixture of humanist and Enlightenment principles. The fact is that most of our founding fathers were not Christian as we Evangelicals would define them. The most popular belief at the time was Deism, the belief that there was a god who created the universe, but that this god was not personal and not involved in the universe. It was more like he created a machine and then stood back to watch it work. Many would have been atheists if they could have imagined a way that this universe could have existed without a god.

Certainly that was not true of all. Washington espoused Christianity, though he was not very active in the church. John Adams was a devout Christian and Alexander Hamilton was also a Christian. But, most of the famous names that we know of were not. We have all heard of Jefferson's 'Bible' in which he cut out what he didn't like and just kept some of the moralistic principles.

Our Constitution was written in the midst of this tension between different worldviews and the conflicts of the different personalities of those involved. But, it's important to note that our forefathers very pointedly didn't want "democracy" in the sense that many people think nowadays. The rebellion was against despotism and not for democracy. They most feared a distant power in control where they had no say nor recourse. But, even more, they feared any person or institution having too much power. The initial Articles of Confederation went too far in giving a national government too little power. The Constitution that replaced it is an ingenious document that made us a true nation, but still built in strong provisions that placed great limits on that power.

What we sometimes ignore is the fact that they didn't set up a pure democracy. They didn't set up a system where everyone could vote. In most states, only male property owners could vote. They feared the rule of the masses almost as much as the rule of a king. Jefferson famously wrote, "I have ever observed that a choice by the people themselves is not generally distinguished for its wisdom." As time has passed, we've become more and more "democratic" but that's not the principle that they started from. That's why we have a Senate and a House of Representatives, both with different rules and giving States different representation. That's why the President isn't directly elected, but is chosen by an Electoral College. That's why the judiciary is appointed and not elected, and why they serve for life.

They didn't just fear a government that was too powerful. They also feared letting any one person, or any one group or party have too much power. They purposely didn't set up an efficient government. They were afraid of too much efficiency because it put too much power into the hands of whoever was in charge at the time. I remember my high school Civics teacher talking about checks and balances and that I never fully grasped what she was talking about. They feared a strong man taking over and being able to do too much. They were liberals in their day, who were also conservatives in that they desired to set up a conservative system of government--not conservative in the sense of today's party politics, but conservative in the sense of making it hard to change the system and hard to get some things done. Making it too easy to make major changes brings with it the risk of losing our system of government by all of the people and going back to some form of despotism.

We often miss this point. Our founding fathers didn't believe in true majority rule. The majority never had full power. They wanted to force our leaders to compromise. Now, many politicians are complaining about this (and not just the conservatives), and many people are looking for someone who can "get things done" and who is not a "politician." Compromise has become a dirty word, a sign of weakness and even a lack of moral standards.

The lessons of our Constitution has been overlooked in so many nations that have set up democracies, only to see them degenerate into democratic facades of one-party-states or presidents-for-life. We've seen some examples of that even in the last few years when leaders felt that a majority vote meant that they could ignore the 49%. Democracy is fragile and stands only when there is a mass of trust in both people and the system, a willingness to compromise, and a commitment to the legal process. When any of those start to fall, we risk losing it all.

We've forgotten what really made America great. It's not capitalism. It's not our great research institutions. It's not our great manufacturing ability. It's not our culture of creativity and the lack of class barriers that close off some people because of their background so that anyone can make it. It's not even great leaders, at least not what some people think of as great leaders. In fact, some of these things that we believe are not as true as we might wish (for instance, we aren't as 'class-free' as we like to think). These are important in their own way, but they are results of something else.

I believe that what made America great is that we were given a system of government that forced compromise. No one could get anything done simply because they got elected to a position.  They needed to get others on board, and sometimes that even meant at least some of the 'opposition.'  We weren't a nation of a majority that rules, tolerating the rest who could live among us if they cooperated. It was a nation united, for the benefit of all. We have forgotten the motto--e pluribus unum ("out of many, one")--on our seal, adopted by an act of congress in 1782.    

Compromise is not bad, not weak, and not a lack of commitment or moral standards. It's a respect for the system, and commitment to inclusion, a recognition no one, no group, and no movement is always right. It's a recognition that even those who may be "wrong" in our eyes, are people who deserve respect and deserve space to live their lives according to those beliefs as long as they don't impinge on the rights of others. Certainly there are limits to what we can allow people to do, and laws define those limits, but there are also limits to what the law could limit. But freedom, inclusiveness, and mutual respect are the foundation of the Nation and the Constitution that we love and that so many have given their lives for.

The desire to look for a strong man to get things done, to overthrow the establishment, to look for purity, is a danger to our system. The desire for making our government more efficient (I'm not talking money, but in getting things done and making quick changes) is a fundamental change from the views of the founders. But, more than that, the demonization of opposition and the dividing line between parties, beliefs, those who aren't like us raises the possibility of us losing the freedoms that we all have taken as unassailable.

We need to remember what really made America great, and it's not what is being espoused by so many today. We have been made strong by being inclusive, by adapting to change, by accepting others and their beliefs even when we disagree. That's what has given us the greatness that we hold dear, the leadership that we've had in so many areas around the world. It's made us leaders in the world's economy, in science, in medicine, in business, in research, and in world influence. Certainly there are other great countries with greatness in all of those areas, but America has dominated that last century. Let's keep America great.

1776

Americans are celebrating Independence Day, the 4th of July, this weekend. Even for people who consider themselves to be anti-American, it was one of those turning points in history that had not just a local effect but a worldwide one. July 4, 1776 is the day Americans celebrate that turning point.

However, even turning points are not just one point in time and are not just one event but the confluence of many events, decisions, and 'accidents' over the course of years. Americans also would be wrong to think of independence as an event. That's the day when the declaration was officially considered to be made, but it was the confluence of a long period of debate and struggle and even for the declaration, the last signature was not placed on the parchment until August. Even more, it was only a declaration. It was only words on paper. Obviously the British government didn't agree, but actually, even a third of the American colonists didn't agree, or at least didn't support it. It took many years to make it a reality and though the independence is complete, the creation of the nation continued and, some might say, is still in process today.

But, back to the independence, it was only after years of war that this was achieved, but even then, the meaning of that was not at all clear. It's important to remember that before that, there had been just a collection of colonies in the Americas. These colonies were under the sovereign crown of Britain and governed ultimately by Britain, but they answered to Britain independently, each under separate governance. They had differing institutions and laws and had hugely different personalities. The colonies were started for vastly different reasons and had already existed for more than a century. There was no strong loyalty to each other. They had vastly different economies. Some were even relatively multicultural. Don't forget that New York was originally New Amsterdam. The main thing that brought them together was intense dissatisfaction with King George III and the British Parliament.

So when the independence was won 7 years later, that didn't mean that there was a "United States." It wasn't one nation. It was a collection of 13 nations (that's what the word 'state' normally means). The the first tendency was to go back to something familiar and similar to the old order. The 13 colonies were now independent from Britain and had become states, but there was a strong pull towards independence from each other as well. They feared a strong central government would just be moving Parliament from London to a place closer to home.

They did recognize the need for some cooperation to keep their independence, but they wanted that cooperation to be minimal. That's why they chose to be a confederation (and in some ways, the civil war was an attempt to return to that, though the drive behind that was the desire to preserve the system of slavery). And, there was also the issue of the other lands to the west and extending to the Mississippi River that they had won from Britain that were not a part of any colony. Beyond a few roving trappers and some tiny settlements, the residents of these lands were the Native Americans, but the peace agreement with Britain turned this area over to these new United States. Ironically, part of what kept the 13 states together was that they had inherited an empire.

But, there was an inherent distrust in strong government and even some who espoused anarchist principles, seeing government as a temporary measure that would potentially get weaker and weaker as mankind improved. That's much of the basis for the great prominence of individualism in the US. There has always been a tension between the government and the individual which has been a part of the American psyche from the beginning. By the end of the decade, there was finally a recognition of the need for more than a confederation and the current Constitution was drawn up.

With that constitution there was finally a United States that was now one nation, but it originally wasn't all 13 states. Two States didn't join util a year later. There had been a lot of fighting over what that constitution should be, but in the end, they recognized the need for a strong central government but held in check by strong individual rights, which was the focus of the first ten amendments (which we call the Bill of Rights) that were accepted in 1791.

What resulted was a republic, not a pure democracy. There was no concept of one person one vote, or  even one man one vote. And, even that was "rigged" to avoid a winner take all situation. There were two houses of Congress, one with proportional representation (the House of Representatives), but which was, in some ways, the lesser house. The other was meant to make sure that the interest of the smaller states would not be overrun, giving each state two votes, no matter the size of the state and that was the house that in essence had more power (the Senate) with a name that takes one back to the Roman Senate and the sense of a ruling elite.

The founding fathers were very afraid of anything that put too much power in one person or even in one institution. There was a complicated system of checks and balances that were designed to make sure that no person or institution would have too much power. That's what makes our government so inefficient and slow.  It also makes it much more conservative (not politically, but in the sense that makes change harder to accomplish).

But, they were also tremendously afraid of giving too much power to the masses. They saw the masses, especially the uneducated, as to easy to manipulate and unable to make good decisions. That's something that we've gradually, but fundamentally, moved away from.

There are two things that I believe have made this system work so well for so long and both are deeply rooted in Christianity, but I will be dealing with those later. For now, it's time to celebrate the nation that has had such a huge impact on the world in so many ways.

Happy 4th.

We Have No Room For Hate

As I was finishing my last post, I began to hear the news about the Charleston Church shooting. As more news came out, there was a great sense of sadness. It was the modern equivalent to murder at the altar. How could someone kill people in a church?

But, that has happened before. I can think of several reports of people walking into a church and starting shooting. And, though murder is the same whether in a church or a movie theater, there's something symbolic about killing people in church.

To find later that Dylann Roof had sat through an hour of the Bible study before standing up and opening fire. That makes the crime even more personal. He had, to some extent, gotten to know his victims. They were not just nameless faces. And, they got to know him. They welcomed him with trust and hospitality.

But, what was really moving was to hear from the victims' family members and even the ones who survived from the Bible study. One after another, there were expressions of grace and forgiveness. They spoke openly of their hurt and disappointment, "We welcomed you with open arms." But, one after another they repeated words of forgiveness and even spoke of praying for God's mercy. There was no screaming for vengeance or expressions of hatred. There was no finger-pointing for blame from the victims' families. It was so surreal, it was almost shocking.

And, people noticed. Even broadcasters who normally are cynical were speaking about the huge difference in the response of 'people of faith.' We talk about our faith as if it was just a religious choice or our heritage. For these people, that's not what it is at all. It is what they live by. One woman's words keep ringing: "We have no room for hate, so we have to forgive. I pray for God's mercy on you."

We have to forgive. Forgiveness is a choice, but for the believer is also required. Those who realize the depth of God's grace and what he has forgiven of us simply cannot but forgive, even when the offense is so grievous as that of the calculated murder of those whom you love, those who had welcomed their soon to be killer into their group and offered him the hospitality from their heart. .

What happened was a horrible picture of racism, and yet it was also a beautiful demonstration of how racism can be overcome. It won't come through fighting and condemnation, even though evil must be condemned. Ultimately it will come through expressions of love and forgiveness, hospitality and acceptance, such as we've seen here. What happened has brought both horror and hope as I look at what my country has become and what it can still be.

We have some new heroes of faith. May we learn from them and live our lives to glorify our God.