Musings of an Anxious Patriot

This weekend is the annual celebration of the day the American colonists' Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence—July 4, 1776.

We’ll fly our flag proudly at home. Actually, we’ll fly three flags: one will fly on a staff over our curbside mailbox, and two smaller ones will be on display in the flower beds. We’ll grill hot dogs and possibly watch the movie version of the Broadway show, “1776.” We missed the show last year, but it’s become something of a 4^th of July tradition at our house since we first watched it with part of our extended family when we were vacationing in Fairbanks, Alaska eight years ago.

I am a veteran. I’m no hero. I was in the Marine Band at Quantico, Virginia until August, 1967, when I left for Vietnam. Before the Tet Operation in early 1968 I was primarily a trombone player in the 3^rd Marine Division Band in Phu Bai (about 14 miles south of the ancient citadel of Hue). When the Tet Operation erupted, the division moved to Quang Tri (just south of the DMZ), where we put our instruments away and served in various combat operations until I rotated out and came home. We rarely engaged the enemy.

I stand for the National Anthem. I place my right hand over my heart and frequently get misty; although, I bear no disrespect or ill will toward those who exercise their first amendment rights to kneel in protest of injustices that scarcely can be denied.

Occasionally I go online and watch a video of some Marine band on parade, and I get teary-eyed and experience a thrill when they hit those opening notes of the Marine Hymn.

I vote in every election, and frequently contact the legislators who represent my area. And I have served in public office.

So, I consider myself a patriot, and will celebrate the birth of our nation on Saturday.

But on Sunday, I will be in church to worship God and to give thanks for God’s grace. And in God’s sanctuary my patriotism will not express itself in celebration, but in repentance and prayers for forgiveness and healing. As the hymn says, “America! America! God mend thine every flaw.” And flaws abound. Nothing positive or constructive ever has emerged in the history of humanity from any mixture of patriotism and religion.

On Sunday I will pray that God will forgive the divisive, intolerant hatred that has infected the country I am proud to have served, and I will pray that God will heal our land. And no matter how passionately it is denied, hatred—some directed at specific people and some just ambiguous and generalized—is the root sin of our nation. It manifests itself most destructively in what has been called religious nationalism.

So, I’ll fly the flag on Saturday, and celebrate the nation that was “…conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”[1] I’ll celebrate the great vision that propelled our forebears: the vision articulated on our Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

But on Sunday I’ll pray for forgiveness for what America instead has become and for the people destroyed in process of becoming what we are. And I will pray for reconciliation among the diverse peoples still at enmity within our borders, so that the vision in which America was conceived actually might be realized someday.

“If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, pray, seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” (2 Chronicles 7:14 NRSV)

That’s the way it looks through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] From Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.

One More Plea for Civility

My undergraduate degree is in sociology, and there was always an open debate between sociology and psychology regarding the relative impact of social vs. psychological influences. The debate continues among the laity, fueled to a significant degree by responses for and against the writings of Ayn Rand.

In today’s climate of extreme partisanism, it’s rare to see an argument for any consideration of relativity. Everything is cast in absolute terms; therefore, it’s really difficult to hold an intelligent—or civil—debate about anything (there’s that absolutist thing again!)

Hillary Clinton wrote a book entitled, It Takes a Village. Reaction against it predictably was based not nearly as much on the merits of her thesis as on her political and personal reputation.

An old friend (since high school days) is intelligent, educated (actually an educator) and articulate, so I take seriously his comments. His brother also is educated and articulate—a colleague in ministry—whose comments I also consider thoughtfully. They both are Libertarians; and since I am a very liberal Democrat, you can imagine some of the conversations that emerge when we make contact.

I also have a cousin—a sweet, compassionate young woman who has survived some of life’s hardest knocks. She is conservative; although, she may be the only true “independent” among all my acquaintances.[1]

I mention these three because each of them is able to carry on a conversation in which there is disagreement without becoming sarcastic, disrespectful, or insulting. They focus on issues instead of personalities, and in virtually every conversation with either of them I find my own awareness expanded and my understanding more empathetic.

By contrast, most of my remaining acquaintances, liberal or conservative, if they participate at all in politically or socially controversial conversations, resort to insulting put-downs directed at any who disagree with them. With increasing frequency, I find myself dropping out of those conversations or ignoring them altogether. They accomplish absolutely nothing; indeed, they are counterproductive to any hope of reconciliation and unity.

The vitriolic conversations I observe appear to emerge out of a mindset that says, “I’m right; and I have to convert these infidels!” I have friends who actually have said we are obligated to confront “their” stupidity! (And the overuse of the word, stupidity is another obsession of mine.)

Here’s the thing: if you refuse to accept me for who I am and for what I believe—if you have a need to change and correct me—if you require that I be like you—before you can treat me with respect and common courtesy, there’s not much hope of deepening our relationship. If I perceive that you are trying to change me—to coerce or intimidate or humiliate me into becoming something I am not—then my sense of distrust and defensiveness is activated.

On the other hand, if you treat me with respect and common courtesy first—if I perceive that you truly are listening to me and trying to understand me[2]; then I am much more likely to trust you and listen to you and to seek to understand you. I may not agree with you, nor do I have a need for you to agree with me; but, if we understand each other first, there’s at least some hope that we’ll move closer to agreement.

And see, here’s the other thing: since the earliest days of this wonderful American experiment, this inability (or unwillingness) to tolerate differences has existed. Remember reading about the infamous duels to the death (Aaron Burr actually killed sitting Vice President, Alexander Hamilton, in a duel that emerged out of the long and bitter partisan rivalry between the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists.)

And what was gained? One human death; the virtual end in dishonor of Aaron Burr's political career, and what some have argued was the final nail in the coffin of the Jeffersonian Federalist party.

And what has been gained by the bitterness and animosity that has continued until this moment because we humans cannot tolerate differences? Hmmm? I’ll wait.

On Tuesday evening President Trump echoed the same whine that has come from every president and politician since (at least) President Nixon: “Why can’t we set aside our partisan differences?” The reason is that the whiner, whether Democrat or Republican, liberal, conservative, independent or Libertarian, means: “Why can’t you who disagree with me stop disagreeing with me?”

So, how’s that working out for you? for our nation?

I don’t want Republicans and Libertarians to agree totally with me! Democracy flourishes on lively debate in which all parties listen to each other and try to find the best in each other’s position.

I truly believe that we all have something of value to offer, and that many of our harshest disagreements are matters of degree, if we only will listen to each other. I refuse to believe that any one party—or any one person—has all of the truth about anything. But actualizing that truism would require each of us to acknowledge and accept the possibility that “I” may not be absolutely, irrefutably, and eternally right about everything.

Oh, well. I can dream.

That’s the way I see it through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] Within my limited circle of acquaintances there are several who claim to be political “independents,” but whose conversation mirrors and supports virtually anything that opposes the Democratic party.

[2] And it always is my intention to be the same kind of listener; in fact, I have specific training in listening. I hope I am a good listener.

Is an Agreeable Disagreement Possible?

I’ve had enough of the uproar over NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem. If it were going somewhere—if there were a beneficial conclusion in sight—if anybody had anything new or different to say about it, I might have a different perspective. I’m just tired of the endless repetition of talking points devoid of any productive movement toward resolution.

September 25, on Monday Night Football, the Dallas Cowboys, their owner and their coaches, walked to the center of the field, arms linked, and knelt for a few seconds before the anthem was played, and they were soundly booed; which suggests the ballyhoo really may not be about disrespecting the anthem at all.

A man of color protested the ways some people of color are being unjustly treated. The preponderance of evidence—the tone of the bulk of social media reaction—suggests that had Mr. Kaepernick been white, and had he been protesting taxes, the public outcry likely would have been different.

In the first place, it’s a first amendment issue; and there’s a credible sense in which the primary outcry comes from the same populace that is passionate in its defense of the second amendment, as if one amendment is more important than another. Given our current political majority, and given that the President of the United States said that NFL players who kneel during the National Anthem should be fired[1], I think I can build a case that our first amendment rights are more likely to be abused than are our second amendment rights.

In the second place, taking a knee was never intended as an act of disrespect—of the anthem, or the flag or the sacrifice of our military personnel. Most of those who have chosen to take a knee have stated as much. As a veteran who has served under fire, I take no offense and sense no disrespect. In fact, I served (so I’m told) precisely to defend the rights of those who peacefully protest. More importantly, I served to defend the rights of those on whose behalf the NFL players are protesting.

In the third place, the magnitude of reaction against the act of taking a knee is effectively, if not intentionally, a gross distraction from the real issue. The motivation behind the kneeling protest is the documentable reality that people of color (and other minorities) are treated differently than whites are treated.

I repeat: the documentable reality. But the slightest mention of that reality on social media garners immediate and hostile response. Many people take even general comments about racism very personally, as if those comments amount to accusations directed specifically at them. I have to wonder why they think that!

I’ve seen a lot of statements that begin with, “I’m so tired of people playing the racism card!” Well, it’s not a card, and it’s not being “played.” It’s a reality that hurts many people! Yet, there may be no stronger denial in the USA than the denial of racism.

Finally, the comments I hear and read build a compelling case that the public outcry really is not about disrespect, but about disagreement. Intolerance of disagreement, or of difference, is one of the fastest growing and most dangerous cultural trends of our time. I guess that’s my primary point in this blog.

What we have lost in our culture is not simply the ability to disagree respectfully; what we have lost is any sense that disagreement can have a positive conclusion. We have lost all sense of unity, replacing it with a demand for uniformity—and not just any uniformity. The demand is that everyone agree and conform with “my/our” perspective.

In the past, I have written often about the growing obsession with “being right”—the arrogant[2] assumption that I/we, and only I/we, are absolutely right; the custodians of absolute truth.

Limited as we are by the clay of which we are made, none of us humans is capable of comprehending absolute truth. Without the humility to accept and acknowledge that my/our perspective is partial and incomplete, and that we need each other’s insights to build consensus (rather than inflicting one perspective) there will never be unity among humans.

Until we stop shouting, and start listening—really listening—to each other, there will always be a need to protest.

I have wished Mr. Kaepernick had chosen a more effective expression of protest—one less counterproductive to his own cause. But, I have to wonder, given the animosity that is infecting more and more of our population, whether it would have been possible for him to find any expression of protest that would have been greeted with a less hostile reaction. I fear that’s what we have become. 

Maybe on our knees is where we all need to be.

That’s the way I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] And the owner of the Dallas Cowboys, Jerry Jones, said he would do so, which leads me to wonder whether such firings would be grounds for a viable lawsuit on the basis of violation of first amendment rights.

[2] To assume absolute truth is to assume equal status with God, which not only is arrogant; it’s blasphemous! As I understand the doctrine of original sin, it is related to that assumption.