It appears that everybody has a reaction to the Zimmerman verdict. There is great anger on the part of many and there is rejoicing in the minds of some. I am conflicted and confused.
I am disappointed in the verdict. I was convinced that the verdict would be a manslaughter decision. The "Stand Your Ground" law is a mistake and a major step back to an old west mentality where everybody carries a weapon and we see who is the fastest draw. When the event first happened and there was the possibility that Zimmerman would not even be charged with any crime because of that law, there was a great outcry of injustice. The demand was that he be arrested and charged with a crime. Eventually that happened. He was arrested and has been tried.
So we have had the trial and the jury that was accepted by both sides of the legal proceedings found him not guilty. That surprised me. That disappointed me, but I have been disappointed by the decisions of lots of legal trials. Hedge Fund managers get off from fraudulent activities. A major scammer in the Health Care in Alabama was found not guilty. Mafia bosses walk away from lots of crimes. Cases are dropped because they do not have enough evidence to convict an obviously guilty person. We live and die by that "reasonable doubt" clause. North Carolina was very progressive for a few years with a Racial Justice act that allowed those condemned to death to reexamine their cases if race was a major factor in their sentence. The Republicans have since rescinded that law. But the legal system has disappointed lots of us lots of times.
One of the times I was very surprised and disappointed by the legal system was the O.J. Simpson trial which had lots of the same dynamics involved as this trial, and it was a decision that was celebrated by the same people who are upset by this decision. It is not a perfect system. We are not perfect people. We are still a society that has deeply flawed elements in it when it comes to race relations. We are all racists. Those attitudes will continue to be reflected in our behavior. We have to continue to look at them and talk about them. We will have a lot more of these kinds of events: Hispanics against whites. Asians against black, Arabs versus Jews as our society continues to become multicultural. To claim we have made no progress in out ability to talk about them is to ignore the obvious. To think that we have solved the problems is just silly. All parents have to tell their children, be careful who you hang out with, be home before mid-night, consider what you wear and what people will think about you when they see you, say "yes sir and no sir" to adults and do be smart, see trouble, walk away, call 911. Those are not unique to any racial group.
I am old and frustrated that so many of the fights that have been fought still have to be fought again. Our civil liberties are like a little clearing in a jungle and we have to keep fighting all the vines and weeds that try to grow up in the clearing.
The Zimmerman-Martin case almost did not have a trial. There was a demand for a trial and that was held. The jury has spoken. The decision is not the one we wanted, but many of the people who "wanted a fair trial" were really just wanting to have a legal confirmation of their immediate opinion that Zimmerman was guilty. The trial was held. The verdict was given. I will put this in the O.J. Simpson file of cases I was shocked by the decision and move on.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Monday, July 8, 2013
Moral Monday - Women's Health
This Monday was focused on the suddenly passed legislation in the N.C. Senate that was a very restrictive bill on Women's health options. The crowd was much bigger than the first Moral Monday on Clergy Day, and it was made up of a lot diverse groups. This one had a lot more older women and their husbands than the first one I attended, and I think there were less African Americans in attendance. If it is any indication of the size, at the first one I went too, I easily found people I knew. At this one I did not run into anyone I knew.
As I was walking back to the car after the rally, I was carrying the sign I had held up all evening. "United for Women's Health." I passed a young woman who was walking to her car in a parking lot. She saw my sign, and as we walked passed each other, she said loudly, "Abortion is not women's health." It took me by surprise and all I could say on the spur of the moment was "Well, that is a large debate."
That debate is at the heart of much of what we are talking about. Abortion is not a good thing. Abortion is an act of violence that is not wanted by anyone I know. But the question is who gets to decide that question. There were good posters which read, "If you want to make health care decisions for women, go to med school." The question is who is going to decided whether or not an abortion is the final solution to a horrible situation.
It is a large debate because those who want to make that decision for women, who want to say when and how and if a woman can have an abortion, also want to make the decisions about whether or not a teenage girl can get the morning after pill. Those who want to make the decision about abortions also refuse to allow the teaching of birth control, the pill, and condoms. Those who want to make the decision about abortions also do not want to provide help to single moms who carry the child to full term and have the child. The people who make these rules about abortion have these funny ideas about sex and how it works so that they believe rape cannot cause a pregnancy. The people who want to make the decisions about when, who and how a woman can have an abortion have been primarily men, like bishops, popes and priests, like Senators and Representatives who are old males. As somebody in Ohio in their state legislature suggested, Men ought to be required to have psychological counseling before getting Viagra.
It is a large debate because there are just so many factors, so many issues to be considered. All the things that the anti abortion people say about abortions are probably true. All the horrors of an unwanted, unloved, unhappy, child are also true and very obvious for long term cost to family and society. So how are we as a society going to balance all these issues. I am united for women's health care because I believe that in these kinds of complicated situations the person closest to the situation, the woman, ought to have the power to make that decision. For a political party which wants to get government out of our lives, they have had a pretty aggressive agenda of getting themselves right in the middle of telling lots of people what they can and cannot do.
As I was walking back to the car after the rally, I was carrying the sign I had held up all evening. "United for Women's Health." I passed a young woman who was walking to her car in a parking lot. She saw my sign, and as we walked passed each other, she said loudly, "Abortion is not women's health." It took me by surprise and all I could say on the spur of the moment was "Well, that is a large debate."
That debate is at the heart of much of what we are talking about. Abortion is not a good thing. Abortion is an act of violence that is not wanted by anyone I know. But the question is who gets to decide that question. There were good posters which read, "If you want to make health care decisions for women, go to med school." The question is who is going to decided whether or not an abortion is the final solution to a horrible situation.
It is a large debate because those who want to make that decision for women, who want to say when and how and if a woman can have an abortion, also want to make the decisions about whether or not a teenage girl can get the morning after pill. Those who want to make the decision about abortions also refuse to allow the teaching of birth control, the pill, and condoms. Those who want to make the decision about abortions also do not want to provide help to single moms who carry the child to full term and have the child. The people who make these rules about abortion have these funny ideas about sex and how it works so that they believe rape cannot cause a pregnancy. The people who want to make the decisions about when, who and how a woman can have an abortion have been primarily men, like bishops, popes and priests, like Senators and Representatives who are old males. As somebody in Ohio in their state legislature suggested, Men ought to be required to have psychological counseling before getting Viagra.
It is a large debate because there are just so many factors, so many issues to be considered. All the things that the anti abortion people say about abortions are probably true. All the horrors of an unwanted, unloved, unhappy, child are also true and very obvious for long term cost to family and society. So how are we as a society going to balance all these issues. I am united for women's health care because I believe that in these kinds of complicated situations the person closest to the situation, the woman, ought to have the power to make that decision. For a political party which wants to get government out of our lives, they have had a pretty aggressive agenda of getting themselves right in the middle of telling lots of people what they can and cannot do.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Paula Deen - so am I!
So Paula Deen has used the N word in previous conversations. Well, lets face it. You could not grow up in the South as she did and not use it. It was not and is not a term of equality. It is not a term of respect, but if you walked, talked, went to school, had a group of friends, played ball, went to dances with your white friends, you heard it and it came out of your mouth.
I have already confessed to being a racists and using the N word at a Martin Luther King breakfast. I told them nobody taught me that word. My parents wanted me to be a Christian and love everybody, but it just seeped into the language and became part of the words we used. It was used to choose sides in teams. " Eny-meny-miny- mow, catch a ........ by the toe" There were lots of those kind of things that as a young child you just absorbed. If you were working very hard and the sweat was pouring off of you someone might say, "Boy, you are sweating like a N." So the fact that Paula Deen confessed that she had once used that term is not a surprise at all.
I think it would be much more important to discover whether or not she still uses that term in her relationships with other people. Does she still tell those stories that some people try to call jokes? Does she still slip and use those "cliques" which have the N word in them. Or has she attempted to grow and change and recognizes that those are hurtful and inappropriate words.
It has just been a few weeks since the great southern Prophet Will Campbell died. Will knew the south and our deep seated divide. Fleming Rutledge, a friend, tells that she talked with him once and mentioned her Virginia birth. She was talking about her past and how she had worked to become more accepting. Fleming wrote," I was confiding in him about my conversion. "My father," I said sadly (I adored my father) but smugly, "was a racist." "Fleming," said Will. Pause. "We're all racists."
And I don't think Will was just limiting it to white and blacks. There are those who look down on the American Indians. The black community has historically had problems dealing with Hispanics and Latin Americans. I remember the Kingston Trio once had a song about problems around the world, and it ended with the line, "And I don't like anybody very much." Why is Iraq still in chaos except for a great divide between two religious groups. Arabs and Jews look down on each other. Maybe in the technical term some of these are not racial divides, but it is still true that all of us feel superior to some people and dehumanize some group of people because of their skin, the accent, their hair, their economic condition or some other way.
Paula Deen is a racist? So we all are racists. The more important questions are do we recognize it and ask for help and try to mitigate the damage that we do by so being.
I have already confessed to being a racists and using the N word at a Martin Luther King breakfast. I told them nobody taught me that word. My parents wanted me to be a Christian and love everybody, but it just seeped into the language and became part of the words we used. It was used to choose sides in teams. " Eny-meny-miny- mow, catch a ........ by the toe" There were lots of those kind of things that as a young child you just absorbed. If you were working very hard and the sweat was pouring off of you someone might say, "Boy, you are sweating like a N." So the fact that Paula Deen confessed that she had once used that term is not a surprise at all.
I think it would be much more important to discover whether or not she still uses that term in her relationships with other people. Does she still tell those stories that some people try to call jokes? Does she still slip and use those "cliques" which have the N word in them. Or has she attempted to grow and change and recognizes that those are hurtful and inappropriate words.
It has just been a few weeks since the great southern Prophet Will Campbell died. Will knew the south and our deep seated divide. Fleming Rutledge, a friend, tells that she talked with him once and mentioned her Virginia birth. She was talking about her past and how she had worked to become more accepting. Fleming wrote," I was confiding in him about my conversion. "My father," I said sadly (I adored my father) but smugly, "was a racist." "Fleming," said Will. Pause. "We're all racists."
And I don't think Will was just limiting it to white and blacks. There are those who look down on the American Indians. The black community has historically had problems dealing with Hispanics and Latin Americans. I remember the Kingston Trio once had a song about problems around the world, and it ended with the line, "And I don't like anybody very much." Why is Iraq still in chaos except for a great divide between two religious groups. Arabs and Jews look down on each other. Maybe in the technical term some of these are not racial divides, but it is still true that all of us feel superior to some people and dehumanize some group of people because of their skin, the accent, their hair, their economic condition or some other way.
Paula Deen is a racist? So we all are racists. The more important questions are do we recognize it and ask for help and try to mitigate the damage that we do by so being.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Interfaith?
The meeting had been billed as an interfaith gathering of clergies. This was one of the Moral Monday gatherings in Raleigh. There were Jews present. I did not see anyone who was identifiable as Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist. But the reality was "We don't do interfaith very well."
The speakers approached the presentations as if they were sermons in Christian Churches. Jesus and his words and work on earth were a major focus of most of the talks. A few speakers attempted to reference Old Testament passages, but the major impression as one of the first speakers said, "We are in Church"
We are a society which is learning how to be multi-cultural. We are a people who need to learn how to be interfaith in our public meetings. It is a learning process. Emory University in a graduation ceremony had a benediction pronounced by every major religion. That is certainly one of the ways the Clergy Day could have been interfaith. There could have been speakers of the major religions invited to speak. The Rabbis in Raleigh did sign a document support the work of the Moral Monday gatherings. A rabbi speaker would have added a good dimension. An inman from a mosque would have been a nice addition.
The other way of making a gathering interfaith is to edit the talks so that we are only talking about the blessing of the Holy upon our work. That the work we are doing is seeking to be faithful to the guidance of the One who made creation. We want to reflect in our laws and our customs the values of the great religions. There are many ways of talking about faith, about social justice, about ethics that grow out of one's faith without limiting that talk to Jesus. Buddha, Mohammad, Moses, and others can all be named.
As I left the meeting a woman walking next to me in the rain said, "You know, for an interfaith service you think they could have had a little more sensitivity to multi-faiths." As we go forward we need to balance the speakers, so that each faith has a chance to push its faith posture, or we need to restrict our language to the more inclusive descriptions of faith. I once heard a prayer concluded, "for we pray in the name of the Grace that saves us." That got an Amen from an atheist at the table.
The speakers approached the presentations as if they were sermons in Christian Churches. Jesus and his words and work on earth were a major focus of most of the talks. A few speakers attempted to reference Old Testament passages, but the major impression as one of the first speakers said, "We are in Church"
We are a society which is learning how to be multi-cultural. We are a people who need to learn how to be interfaith in our public meetings. It is a learning process. Emory University in a graduation ceremony had a benediction pronounced by every major religion. That is certainly one of the ways the Clergy Day could have been interfaith. There could have been speakers of the major religions invited to speak. The Rabbis in Raleigh did sign a document support the work of the Moral Monday gatherings. A rabbi speaker would have added a good dimension. An inman from a mosque would have been a nice addition.
The other way of making a gathering interfaith is to edit the talks so that we are only talking about the blessing of the Holy upon our work. That the work we are doing is seeking to be faithful to the guidance of the One who made creation. We want to reflect in our laws and our customs the values of the great religions. There are many ways of talking about faith, about social justice, about ethics that grow out of one's faith without limiting that talk to Jesus. Buddha, Mohammad, Moses, and others can all be named.
As I left the meeting a woman walking next to me in the rain said, "You know, for an interfaith service you think they could have had a little more sensitivity to multi-faiths." As we go forward we need to balance the speakers, so that each faith has a chance to push its faith posture, or we need to restrict our language to the more inclusive descriptions of faith. I once heard a prayer concluded, "for we pray in the name of the Grace that saves us." That got an Amen from an atheist at the table.
Clergy Day - Moral Monday - a reason for going
I was there among the hundreds, maybe a thousand, in Raleigh for Clergy Day-Moral Monday. It was billed as an interfaith gathering and there were Jewish people and potentially Muslim people. But from what I could tell most of the speakers where Christian.
I was there because I believe that this kind of action may have the power to awaken the average citizen to the issues and changes that are happening. I believe that is necessary because I believe what Winston Churchill said, "The best and most effective argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." The average person is general unaware of what is happening in those areas of life that do not affect her immediately. If you can get a jury to try O.J. Simpson for murder, a jury who had not heard of the case and did not have an opinion on it, then you know that there are lots of people who do not pay attention to daily events. A friend of mine said he even hated to listen to NPR because it was so depressing and things never got resolved. The political news is such a "downer" that one can understand why most people do not listen to it.
Such demonstrations as Moral Monday, in my view, may make enough noise to get the average voter to notice what is happening in the political scene. Because there are so many things that the Republican legislature in N.C. is doing to the public that negatively impact the quality of life for so many that the average voter needs to stop and pay attention.
I was there because I believe that this kind of action may have the power to awaken the average citizen to the issues and changes that are happening. I believe that is necessary because I believe what Winston Churchill said, "The best and most effective argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." The average person is general unaware of what is happening in those areas of life that do not affect her immediately. If you can get a jury to try O.J. Simpson for murder, a jury who had not heard of the case and did not have an opinion on it, then you know that there are lots of people who do not pay attention to daily events. A friend of mine said he even hated to listen to NPR because it was so depressing and things never got resolved. The political news is such a "downer" that one can understand why most people do not listen to it.
Such demonstrations as Moral Monday, in my view, may make enough noise to get the average voter to notice what is happening in the political scene. Because there are so many things that the Republican legislature in N.C. is doing to the public that negatively impact the quality of life for so many that the average voter needs to stop and pay attention.
Monday, June 3, 2013
A Great Church Story
I was reminded today of one of the great stories that came out of a church covered dish supper in Texas. It is a wonderful story of a citizen in the Kingdom of God teaching a power player in the world a lesson.
There was a huge covered dish supper in this large church. The Speaker was to be the Governor of Texas who was campaigning for re-election. The crowd was very large and it looked like they might run out of chicken. The decision was made that a woman would serve the chicken giving one piece to each person.
The line was thinning out but so was the supply of chicken when in rushed the Governor and his staff. The Governor came to the table and presented his plate and the lady put one piece of chicken on the plate. The Governor said, "Listen, I have been rushed all day. I did not get lunch. I am very hungry, could you give me a second piece of chicken." The lady said there is only enough chicken for one piece per person.
The Governor was a little annoyed and got a little huffy. Starting talking loud about how he needed a second piece of chicken, he was hungry. Then he said, Do you know who I am?" The woman giving out the chicken said, "Yes, your the Governor, Do you know who I am?" The Governor was surprised. He said, No, who are you? The woman said, " I am the woman in charge of giving out the chicken. You get one piece like all the other people. Move along."
In the scriptures James tells us not to treat those with power and wealth any different from the rest, and she set a marvelous example of how the church should be. One piece per person. Move along.
There was a huge covered dish supper in this large church. The Speaker was to be the Governor of Texas who was campaigning for re-election. The crowd was very large and it looked like they might run out of chicken. The decision was made that a woman would serve the chicken giving one piece to each person.
The line was thinning out but so was the supply of chicken when in rushed the Governor and his staff. The Governor came to the table and presented his plate and the lady put one piece of chicken on the plate. The Governor said, "Listen, I have been rushed all day. I did not get lunch. I am very hungry, could you give me a second piece of chicken." The lady said there is only enough chicken for one piece per person.
The Governor was a little annoyed and got a little huffy. Starting talking loud about how he needed a second piece of chicken, he was hungry. Then he said, Do you know who I am?" The woman giving out the chicken said, "Yes, your the Governor, Do you know who I am?" The Governor was surprised. He said, No, who are you? The woman said, " I am the woman in charge of giving out the chicken. You get one piece like all the other people. Move along."
In the scriptures James tells us not to treat those with power and wealth any different from the rest, and she set a marvelous example of how the church should be. One piece per person. Move along.
The Challenge of Fear
The essay was a clear and well documented piece. The author's thesis was that the United States was under attack. There were groups, countries, and individuals who were out to destroy the country. It was not hard for the author to find a number of events to substantiate his claim. We are under attack. Perhaps there is no real argument on that point.
The greater question is how are we to respond to that challenge. How are we to combat those groups. How do we respond at a nation to these individuals, this cells, this countries who have different values and different agendas? It is a question that will have to be discussed in a lot of places. It may be the question that shapes our entire future.
The essay was of the opinion that we needed to hunker down. We needed to close our borders to outsiders. We needed to put restrictions on free speech and free assembly. We could no longer enjoy the kind of openness and hospitality that we have offered because the enemy has been taking advantage of those conditions. We needed to increase our police and increase the number of activities that were illegal. There would need to be some surrender of our privacy in order to allow the government to check on the activities of subversive groups. People who were part of anti-government groups, citizens who were members of strange cults and special interest groups, neo-nazis, groups that promoted the dominance of one race, all these groups would have to be restricted and controlled. He was afraid that we would have to change the way we lived in order to preserve our country from all these groups.
Of course, what the essayist was suggesting was that we would have to help the enemy destroy our country by becoming like the enemy in order to fight the enemy. We would have to sacrifice the very things that makes the country special and unique in history in order, supposedly, to preserve it. It is not the way that most of the people in the country seem to want to fight the terrorists, the anarchist, the enemy. When an act of terror is supposed to try to make us shut down or pull back, most people claim that they will not let the "act of war" stop them from living their lives. Airplane travel is still planned. Marathons will still be run. All religions will still be protected by the law. All citizens will be given their rights of assembly and speech.
The fear of the conflict we are engaged in with many different levels can cause us to change the way we live and to become like the enemy to fight the enemy or we can continue to promote, defend and enjoy the rights and liberties we have and trust that those values and principles will overcome the efforts of the ones who seek something else from life.
The greater question is how are we to respond to that challenge. How are we to combat those groups. How do we respond at a nation to these individuals, this cells, this countries who have different values and different agendas? It is a question that will have to be discussed in a lot of places. It may be the question that shapes our entire future.
The essay was of the opinion that we needed to hunker down. We needed to close our borders to outsiders. We needed to put restrictions on free speech and free assembly. We could no longer enjoy the kind of openness and hospitality that we have offered because the enemy has been taking advantage of those conditions. We needed to increase our police and increase the number of activities that were illegal. There would need to be some surrender of our privacy in order to allow the government to check on the activities of subversive groups. People who were part of anti-government groups, citizens who were members of strange cults and special interest groups, neo-nazis, groups that promoted the dominance of one race, all these groups would have to be restricted and controlled. He was afraid that we would have to change the way we lived in order to preserve our country from all these groups.
Of course, what the essayist was suggesting was that we would have to help the enemy destroy our country by becoming like the enemy in order to fight the enemy. We would have to sacrifice the very things that makes the country special and unique in history in order, supposedly, to preserve it. It is not the way that most of the people in the country seem to want to fight the terrorists, the anarchist, the enemy. When an act of terror is supposed to try to make us shut down or pull back, most people claim that they will not let the "act of war" stop them from living their lives. Airplane travel is still planned. Marathons will still be run. All religions will still be protected by the law. All citizens will be given their rights of assembly and speech.
The fear of the conflict we are engaged in with many different levels can cause us to change the way we live and to become like the enemy to fight the enemy or we can continue to promote, defend and enjoy the rights and liberties we have and trust that those values and principles will overcome the efforts of the ones who seek something else from life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)