What's In A Name?

A few days ago a Facebook friend posted the following :

While he and I disagree on almost every element of political ideology, we still are able to maintain a healthy respect and love for one another—I suspect because neither of us takes ourself with ultimate seriousness. 

We’re also cousins, and we realize that our relationship is more important than any issue that may arise between us.

I understand his post. I don’t agree with it, and think it presents half-truths and inaccuracies; but I understand the feelings behind it because I have very similar feelings myself; therefore, I have undertaken to respond in kind:

      WHAT DID YOU CALL ME?

I’m UNAMERICAN for not being an “Obama Basher”.

I’m a TRAITOR because I favor accountability for gun ownership.

I’m a LEFTIST for supporting the whole Constitution, and not just that part that undergirds my political ideology.

I’m a NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT (plus, I’m unfriended by 14 Facebook “friends”, and blocked by 6 others) because I speak my mind.

I’m a TROUBLEMAKER for asking unanswered questions.

I’m NAÏVE AND GULLIBLE because I dare accept the documentation of the President.

I’m a COMMUNIST for exposing the corruption in the American corporate world.

I’m A CONSPIRATOR for presenting documented facts (which nobody will accept unless he or she already agrees with them).

I’m ANTI-AMERICAN for not toeing the party line. [Sorry. I’m also a Grammar Nazi, and “towing” means to pull.]

I’m UNAMERICAN because I support the troops but not necessarily the political corruption that puts them in harm’s way.

I’m a SOCIALIST because…

1.      …while I believe I’m entitled to what I earn (which, incidentally, includes Social Security, Medicare and Veterans’ Benefits), I don’t’ believe I have a right to intrude on others’ rights or wellbeing in the process of earning it.

2.     …I believe there are people who legitimately need the safety net of Food Stamps, unemployment and other public assistance programs.

3.     …I believe it’s unjust to remove a public assistance program because some people abuse it. Humans can always find a loophole, and nothing is so pure that it does not have its pornographers.

4.     …I believe in protecting the innocent at all costs, even if in the process some of the guilty “get away with something,” and I don’t believe in punishing all the guilty at all costs IF IN THE PROCESS some of the innocent are harmed.

5.     …I believe the abuse of public assistance programs should be eliminated as much as possible; but without depriving those with legitimate needs from their benefits.

6.     …I believe, related to public assistance programs, that fraud and abuse are relatively small, and that fraud is much heavier at the administrative level than at the receiving level.

7.    … I support labor (but not necessarily unions).

8.    …because I believe human need always trumps political or economic ideology.

Now, the original post ends with an antagonistic, “So what?” I’d like to pursue that “so what?”

1.     So, there are two sides to every issue, and every person deserves to have his or her side heard, understood and respected.  

2.    So, name-calling is a useless exercise that accomplishes nothing good, and accomplishes much harm.

3.    So, until we decide as a society that our ideological log-jam is the greatest immediate threat to our unity and security, we will continue to be a house divided.

4.    So, as long as a substantial population of Americans believes, “I’m totally right about everything and anyone who disagrees with me is totally wrong and is an idiot (or whatever name comes to mind),” we will continue to be a house divided.

And you know what is said by so many, including the Lord of Christianity, about a house divided: “It will not stand.” At this point in history I am much more afraid of our own obstinacy than I am afraid of any outside threat.

There are proven ways of negotiating and collaborating and finding common ground upon which to build. But all of them require that we let go of our absolutism and that we give valid effort to find something good in those with whom we disagree. 

The first step to unity is a question: “What if I’m wrong?”

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

Together in the Walk,

Jim

Thanks FROM a Veteran

Today I’d like to turn the tables and, as a Veteran, say, “Thanks” to a grateful nation.

When I returned from Vietnam in early August of 1968, there wasn’t much gratitude in the air. At least it wasn't evident.

Ten days after I was released from active duty at Camp Pendleton, I attended my first class at The Graduate Seminary of Phillips University in Enid, Oklahoma. Two weeks later I was preaching my first sermon in the small congregation in Waynoka, Oklahoma, where I served during the three years I worked on my Master of Divinity. So, the first few days after leaving a combat zone were more or less a whirlwind of activity.

It was a troubled time in our nation. Beatniks were morphing into Hippies, there were anti-war demonstrations, and the issue of amnesty was being debated in regard to some who had fled to Canada to avoid the draft. The Democratic National Convention that year was in Chicago, and it turned ugly, with demonstrations growing violent. Those events, along with video from the “war” in Vietnam, were on TV newscasts every night.

[NOTE: In my opinion (you decide whether the opinion is “humble” or and arrogant), although the trend toward media partisanism was beginning to emerge in the late 1960’s, for the most part the networks still struggled to maintain journalistic integrity. Media integrity seems rare today, with virtually no effort to conceal its partisanism; indeed, commentary and analysis have supplanted “reporting,” and at the polar extremes, pundits from Fox News and MSNBC seem almost to revel in their rabble rousing.]

Campus life at Phillips included student demonstrations (always peaceful and respectful) related to those same issues; so, I was aware of anti-war sentiments, but I did not experience animosity being directed at me, personally, or the troops in general. At that point I was virtually ignorant in regard to the political and moral questions surrounding the war.

Within a couple of years, though, the Kent State Massacre had jolted the nation and the Watergate scandal was stirring the pot. With all of it pouring into our living rooms via network media, Americans were becoming an angry, polarized people. Some of that anger and hostility was directed at troops returning from Vietnam.

I was distracted with studies and pastoral duties and building a family, so I was blissfully oblivious to the hostility that increasingly was directed at those returning troops. We didn't get ticker tape parades when we returned from Vietnam; but, for me personally, I was altogether content to slip in quietly and resume my life and pursue my goals. I was relatively insulated from the hostilities, and in the conservative backlash that followed those tumultuous 60’s, American sentiment changed.

While few would call me “conservative,” I am grateful for that change.

I am grateful when people discover that I served in the military and extend a hand and a word: “Thanks for your service.” Today, because I am a veteran, I got a discount at AQ Chicken House in Fayetteville, Arkansas. And I try to express my own gratitude when I see a person in uniform—whether it be military, police, fire fighter, EMT, or whatever.

Democracy thrives on vigorous debate, and I would not want to quiet the disparate voices—as long as the debate is respectful and seeks resolution rather than party dominance. But, as a veteran, I’m grateful for the atmosphere of non-partisanism that unites our people in gratitude for those who serve and protect. Thank you, America!

And that’s how I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim