Reason for Being

Red states, blue states. Right, wrong. Stupid, smart. And so the polarizing goes. It’s the inevitable result of political frenzy, of power-building with no attempt at understanding. Both camps in the 2004 elections screamed it, the media has fed upon it, and we have believed it. No wonder – it’s the line of least resistance. It has always been easier to judge than to try and understand. In fact, it can be downright satisfying to crow in agreement with like-minded friends, decrying the shallowness and shortsightedness of the others. We have all done it.

But the most amazing process happens when we decide not to distance ourselves from those with whom we disagree, and instead move towards them. If we really listen and try to understand their point of view, we see deeper and deeper into them, and if we are open and honest enough, eventually a door opens onto an incredible discovery: they are just the same as us. They know some things about life, but they know they don’t have all the answers. They have some strong beliefs, but there are questions too. They too are horrified at the state of the world and are passionate about their best ideas for saving it. They crave peace. They want to protect what they love. They have longings, and hurts, and hopes.

This weblog grew out of a small group of people who came together after the 2004 presidential election. We were committed to the idea of finding agreement across the so-called “great divide” that now is said to separate Americans. Religiously, so far we are:

• a born-again Christian
• a Christian who is planning to convert to his wife's faith, Judaism
• an “inclusive Christian” (coined by Marcus Borg to affirm the wisdom of other faiths)
• a minister in the Church of MSIA (The Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness), a non-demonimational church whose members study the inner teachings of Christ, practice meditation and recognize and learn from spiritual masters throughout the ages,
• two self-described “pagans,”
• and a "wondering" Christian who attends a Unitarian church.
  

We are muddling through together—through the mire of prejudice and pure belief—to try and find something closer to the truth. At our first meeting, the liberals amongst us discovered that a “family values” stance is not simply a moral judgment, as some of us had thought. It is most importantly, at least in the context of electoral politics, an opinion on how to create a healthy society. If you believe that families are the basic unit of society, you believe that strong families make for a strong society. As we discovered and considered these ideas, we found ourselves less polarized than we had been before. It seemed almost miraculous.

And so we decided to keep talking and to start this weblog to widen the conversation. If you are inclined, please join us. We ask only that you ground your comments in a fundamental respect for others’ right to their opinions, and that you look not for differences or contradictions, but common ground. May we find it together.

We are all South Africans

Today is a proud day for members of the Amherst College community. This morning, in a ceremony at St. Bartholomew's Church in New York City, Amherst President Tony Marx presented honorary doctorates to Nelson Mandela, former South African president, and to Graça Machel, the former minister of education in Mozambique. President Marx also announced that the college will be the first to receive "Mandela scholars" chosen by the Nelson Mandela Foundation.

The remarks by Tony Marx and President Mandela were profound and uplifting. Mr. Mandela said that as we face the overwhelming problems of environment, disease, and poverty, we can take inspiration from the peaceful revolution and reconciliation in South Africa. "South Africa reminds the world that we can overcome problems that seem insurmountable," he said. "Colleges and universities remain our best hope," for finding an effective response. "The pursuit of truth must lead the way" against "the cruel efficiency of corporatism."

"We salute you," he said to the Amherst community, for the college's "vigilant spirit," grounded in its dedication to its original charter to provide education for those least able to afford it, and in its commitment to diversity. In his closing sentence, President Mandela cut to the heart of the relatedness of all humanity by saying simply, "We are all South Africans."

The 1,300 congregants responded with a standing ovation that went on and on...

Two gems

Two pieces came by e-mail this week that go well together, so here they are... the first from Leanna, the second from Bill:

Today's poem is by Jack Gilbert, from his long-awaited new collection, REFUSING HEAVEN.
A Brief for the Defense Sorrow everywhere. Slaughter everywhere. If babies are not starving someplace, they are starving somewhere else. With flies in their nostrils. But we enjoy our lives because that's what God wants. Otherwise the mornings before summer dawn would not be made so fine. The Bengal tiger would not be fashioned so miraculously well. The poor women at the fountain are laughing together between the suffering they have known and the awfulness in their future, smiling and laughing while somebody in the village is very sick. There is laughter every day in the terrible streets of Calcutta, and the women laugh in the cages of Bombay. If we deny our happiness, resist our satisfaction, we lessen the importance of their deprivation. We must risk delight. We can do without pleasure, but not delight. Not enjoyment. We must have the stubbornness to accept our gladness in the ruthless furnace of this world. To make injustice the only measure of our attention is to praise the Devil. If the locomotive of the Lord runs us down, we should give thanks that the end had magnitude. We must admit there will be music despite everything. We stand at the prow again of a small ship anchored late at night in the tiny port looking over to the sleeping island: the waterfront is three shuttered cafés and one naked light burning. To hear the faint sound of oars in the silence as a rowboat comes slowly out and then goes back is truly worth all the years of sorrow that are to come.
From REFUSING HEAVEN by Jack Gilbert. Copyright © 2005 by Jack Gilbert.

And, from Bill:
We have no reason to harbor any mistrust against our world, for it is not against us. If it has its terrors, they are our terrors; if it has abysses, these abysses belong to us; if there are dangers, we must try to love them. And, if we arrange our life in accordance with the principle which tells us that we must always trust in the difficult, then what now appears to us as the most alien will become our most intimate and trusted experience. How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love.

~ Ranier Maria Rilke, "Letters to a Young Poet" (Letter #8)

The student teaches

The day following the joint ecumenical statement by religious leaders cited in the previous post, an op-ed piece in The Amherst Student weekly newspaper coincidentally agreed. The writer, Jacob Maguire '07, concludes,

"Ultimately, the world of Christian politics will never reflect Christ himself until it takes up his mantle of justice and provides for the 'least of these.' In the meantime, Christ’s words to the Pharisees echo eerily in the distance. 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me' (Matthew 7:6)."

More, Jacob, more.

Mainline Protestant statement on Bush's 2006 budget

Leaders of five mainline Protestant denominations representing more than 20 million followers in the United States Tuesday called President Bush's 2006 federal budget "unjust." In a joint statement, representing the Episcopal Church, USA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the General Assembly, Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Church of Christ, and the United Methodist Church, says in part,

"this budget would move 300,000 people off food stamps in the next five years. It would cut the funds that allow 300,000 children to receive day care. It would reduce funding for Medicaid by $45 billion over the next ten years, and this at a time when 45 million Americans-the highest level on record-are already without health insurance.

"These cuts would be alarming in any circumstances, but in the context of the 2006 budget, they are especially troubling. For even as it reduces aid to those in poverty, this budget showers presents on the rich. If passed in its current form, it would make permanent tax cuts that have bestowed nearly three-quarters of the "relief" on one-fifth of the county. If passed in its current form, it would include whopping new cuts that would benefit, almost exclusively, those with household incomes of more than $200,000 per year. If passed in its current form, it would take Jesus' teaching on economic justice and stands it on its head.

After asserting that "neither we, nor our Evangelical brothers and sisters, nor our friends of other faiths have anywhere near the resources to turn back the rising tide of poverty in this country," the five urge all of us to join in opposing the budget:

"We must remember the admonition of the prophet Micah. 'And what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God?' Micah's choice of verbs is instructive. We are not to love justice or preach justice, we are to do justice-to act, and, when necessary, to struggle.

"We urge the members of our churches, of other churches and other faiths, and all whose conscience compels them to do justice to join us in opposing this budget. Write to your representatives. Write to your local newspaper. Join the organizations working to obtain justice for the 36 million Americans living below the poverty line, the 45 million without health insurance and the unknown millions struggling to keep their families from slipping into these ever increasing ranks."

May it be so.

Changing Minds, One at a Time

Howard Zinn has it right, I think, in this essay from the March 2005 issue of The Progressive.

Godspeed, Hunter Thompson

An exotic bird was lost last night when Hunter Thompson shot and killed himself. Our environment is poorer for the loss. Thompson was among a very small group of people who told the truth in ways that the royal consciousness would consider utterly distasteful, even depraved, and who attained prominence despite their eccentricity. Who else can we think of? Jack Kerouac. Lenny Bruce. John Lennon. All dead before their time.

One of Thompson's unique values, I think, was that his gonzo-eccentric form was the perfect extension of his content. His voice was powerful because it told the truth in a way that embodied R.D. Laing's aphorism that (pardon the paraphrase), "in an insane society, only those considered insane can possibly be sane."

In the end, his exoticism was too fragile to be sustained in the pressures of our times. He took too much on his own shoulders. I'm sorry he didn't receive the help he so clearly needed, and I will pray for him.

According to The National Ledger, Thompson "was particularly dejected with the results of the 2004 presidential election and wrote this in his Page 2 column for ESPN on November 9th:

"The Summer is over
the harvest is in,
and we are not saved."
-- Jeremiah 8:20

Well, the election is over now, and I was pitifully wrong on my public prediction about the outcome. George W. Bush won handily; and my friend, John Kerry, lost by three percentage points -- which was every bit as big in a vicious presidential election as it was on the football field last night when the low-riding Indianapolis Colts kicked a last-second field goal to beat Minnesota 31-28.

I am no stranger to the anguish of losing a presidential campaign, and this very narrow loss with John Kerry is no exception. It hurt, as always, but it didn't hurt as much as that horrible beating we took with George McGovern in 1972. That was by 22 points, the worst defeat in any presidential campaign since George Washington ran for a second term in 1787.
And the winner that year was a conquering hero named Richard Nixon, who got whacked out of office two years later because he was a crook. We had a very angry Democratic majority in the Senate that year, which is not the case now.

No. Today, the Panzer-like Bush machine controls all three branches of our federal government, the first time that has happened since Calvin Coolidge was in the White House. And that makes it just about impossible to mount any kind of Congressional investigation of a firmly-entrenched president like George Bush.

There's a decent obituary in the Washington Post. Michelle Malkin's blog has a memorial roundup.

Your Heart Is My Heart

Here's a Jungian analysis I admire from Paul Levy entitled,
"The Madness of George W. Bush: A Reflection of Our Collective Psychosis." I submit also an exchange of two e-mails regarding it; the first from me to Paul Levy, thanking him, in which I raise questions raised specifically in "Come to the Table," and -- the real reason for posting the e-mails -- a wonderful response from my friend Bill Coleman and his teacher, J. L. Moreno, 1889 - 1974, father of Sociometry and Psychodrama.

My e-mail
Paul -- Thank you. My friend Bill Coleman introduced me to your article, and I agree with him it is brilliant.

I also agree we must do whatever we can to bring the disease into the light of consciousness so it "can't vaporize back into the unconscious." One way I have tried to do this is to advocate against the notion blue/red "divide." The polarization that is happening, it seems to me, ignores that people on both sides actually have much more in common than not. Regardless of our political beliefs, our substance as human beings is the same... even our experience is more alike than different -- we share hopes, hurts, joys, etc. -- and we are beset by common forces of negativity such as alienation, greed, the ever-increasing difficulty of survival.

So I am left with a paradox that I am trying to plumb, partly via a weekly lunch group at work and a blog (http://onetable.blogspot.com/) . If we are to redeem our culture (including ourselves) from succumbing to the ME disease, the "others" will have to see themselves in us, and vice-versa. we have yet to resove how to do this without copping out into "everyone's entitled to their own opinion."

Bill's Response
J. L. Moreno, 1889 - 1974, father of Sociometry and Psychodrama, articulated the answer to:

"...'the others' will have to see themselves in us, and vice-versa. I haven't yet figured out how to do this without copping out into 'everyone's entitled to their own opinion'."

It is called ROLE REVERSAL and all things human depend on it.

"A meeting of two, eye to eye, face to face.
And when you are near I will tear your eyes out
and place them instead of mine,
and you will tear my eyes out
and will place them instead of yours,
then I will look at you with your eyes
and you will look at me with mine."

J.L.Moreno, 1914

Unfortunately, role reversal does depend on one important thing. First, each person must be secure enough in themselves to leave their own egos and enter the other's world of roles without fear of not being able to return back to their own. If either one lives in a fear based paradigm, where existence is threatened, such a reversal will be extremely unlikely.

In the case of Paul Levy's analysis, humanity's instinctive capactiy for fear, constellated in the Shadow (or as we now understand in the limbic and reptilian systems of the brain), has been activated with an attack on our home. We responded appropriately by going after the attackers in Afghanistan. But then, our leaders, phenomenally insecure in themselves and out of touch with the dynamics of their own Shadows, discovered a way to make themselves more powerful by expanding the projection of fear onto another field of likely candidates, Iraq. Their skill at projection and their genius at propaganda convinced enough people that their existence was still threatened.

OK. So all that's not news. We are still faced with the distressing problem of what to do. Millions of people are clinging to some vague hope that if we talk more about this it will all somehow change. Maybe. But as Alfred North Whitehead said, "The major advances in civilizations are processes that all but wreck the cultures in which they occur." Is that what we are waiting for?

Levy indicates at the beginning of his essay that we are faced with a "psycho-spiritual disease of the soul". Insofar as we all despair over a solution to the global problem, if you buy into the notion that this disease is "in the soul of all humanity" there is no other course but to heal ourselves first, at the local level. Everybody wants to simply have the madness end, the war to end, the Administration to behave itself, and Kansas goes back to being democratic. Then we can get on with our lives, while the disease lays dormant.

Not good enough.

We are being presented, again, a heavenly opportunity to heal ourselves and put the organism of life back in the balance that only the creator understands. Yes, we have to heal the entire organism...but all politics is local. To look for the pancea from above is folly. So far as I can see, that which comes from above tends to be rather destructive, sweeping away the litter of humanities delusions.

Start local. Do your role reversals at home, at work, in the local community. Explore your own Shadow in the company of those who love you. And let others explore theirs. The release of creative energy will be amazing and we might just come up with some new ideas of how to get along. We are not doing it with our current thinking.

Faculty Clubs and Church Pews

William J. Stuntz argues in his piece"Faculty Clubs and Church Pews" that professors and conservative Christians have more in common than popular stereotypes allow. The article was included by Times' columnist David Brooks in his Hookie Awards: "These prizes, determined by a rigorously subjective scientific formula, go to some of the important political essays of 2004."

Don't Discount Moral Views

Apropos of our conversation 10 days ago considering the reasonableness of moral views as political stances, regardless of whether we agree with them or not, right on cue comes the following column by John Leo in the 11/29/2004 issue of US News & World Report:

"I am struggling to understand the 'don't impose your values' argument. According to this popular belief, it is wrong, and perhaps dangerous, to vote your moral convictions unless everybody else already shares them. Of course if everybody already shared them, no imposition would be necessary. Nobody ever explains exactly what constitutes an offense in voting one's values, but the complaints appear to be aimed almost solely at conservative Christians, who are viewed as divisive when they try to 'force their religious opinions on us.' But as UCLA law Prof. Eugene Volokh writes, 'That's what most lawmaking is--trying to turn one's opinions on moral or pragmatic subjects into law.'

"Those who think Christians should keep their moral views to themselves, it seems to me, are logically bound to deplore many praiseworthy causes, including the abolition movement, which was mostly the work of the evangelical churches courageously applying Christian ideas of equality to the entrenched institution of slavery. The slave owners, by the way, frequently used 'don't impose your values' arguments, contending that whether they owned blacks or not was a personal and private decision and therefore nobody else's business. The civil rights movement, though an alliance of Christians, Jews, and nonbelievers, was primarily the work of the black churches arguing from explicitly Christian principles.

"The "don't impose" people make little effort to be consistent, deploring, for example, Roman Catholics who act on their church's beliefs on abortion and stem cells but not those who follow the pope's insistence that the rich nations share their wealth with poor nations or his opposition to the death penalty and the invasion of Iraq. If the 'don't impose' people wish to mount a serious argument, they will have to attack 'imposers' on both sides of the issues they discuss--not just their opponents. They will also have to explain why arguments that come from religious beliefs are less worthy than similar arguments that come from secular principles or simply from hunches or personal feelings. Nat Hentoff, a passionate opponent of abortion, isn't accused of imposing his opinions, because he is an atheist. The same arguments and activity by a Christian activist would most likely be seen as a violation of some sort.

"Consistency would also require the 'don't impose' supporters to speak up about coercive schemes intended to force believers to violate their own principles: antiabortion doctors and nurses who are required in some jurisdictions to study abortion techniques; Catholic agencies forced to carry contraceptive coverage in health plans; evangelical college groups who believe homosexuality is a sin defunded or disbanded for not allowing gays to become officers in their groups; the pressure from the ACLU and others to force the Boy Scouts to admit gays, despite a Supreme Court ruling that the Scouts are entitled to go their own way.

"Then there is the current case of Rocco Buttiglione, an Italian Christian Democrat who was named to be justice and home affairs commissioner of the European Union, then rejected for having an opinion that secular liberals find repugnant: He believes homosexuality is a sin. The Times of London attacked the hounding of Buttiglione 'for holding personal beliefs that are at odds with the prevailing social orthodoxy . . . despite a categorical statement that he would not let those beliefs intrude upon policy decisions.' The Times said this is a clear attempt by Buttiglione's opponents to impose their views. No word of protest yet from 'don't impose' proponents.
Sometimes the "don't impose" argument pops up in an odd form, as when John Kerry tried to define the stem-cells argument as science versus ideology. But the stem-cell debate in fact featured ideology versus ideology--the belief that the chance to eliminate many diseases outweighs the killing of infinitesimal embryos versus the belief that killing embryos for research is a moral violation and a dangerous precedent. Both arguments are serious moral ones. Those who resent religiously based arguments often present themselves as rational and scientific, whereas people of faith are dogmatic and emotional. This won't do. As Professor Volokh argues, 'All of our opinions are ultimately based on unproven and unprovable moral premises.' No arguments are privileged because they come from secular people, and none are somehow out of bounds because they come from people of faith. Religious arguments have no special authority in the public arena, but the attempt to label those arguments as illegitimate because of their origin is simply a fashionable form of prejudice. Dropping the 'don't impose' argument would be a step toward improving the political climate.

A Credo in Draft

Here's my credo-in-the-works from my personal blog.
See the post "Truth Is One."