Current Events

Old Faithful

Apparently, although not visibly, Americans are moving away from religion. The new, new silent majority (well, growing minority) are the irreligious millennials. This seems contrary to everything one can possibly consume through media channels. The common experience of America is that America is driven by religiosity, and that religious freedom is the most important Constitutional Right, next to the Second Amendment—the one about a well regulated militia . In fact, for many religious Americans, the first two amendments to the Constitution are the Constitution, and therefore, America.

But back to religiosity. Religion, as defined as “a particular system of faith and worship”, is on the decline among millennials. The Pew Research Center’s survey focused on Americans’ religious beliefs and practices. Essentially, the numbers suggest polarization along religious lines may be increasing in the United States. Although the percentage of Americans who responded that they are unaffiliated with any religious tradition is growing, those who identify with a religion are becoming more devout. The political implications are apparent.

The disaffection with formal religious institutions among millennials is not the same as lack of spirituality or morality. The survey explored traditional religious practices in association with traditional religious institutions.

I suspect that for those for whom faith in a deity and in an organized religion, the religious institution is a source of community and structure, rules and regulations, charity and ideals. For those for whom faith is not found in religious structures or descriptions, they may still seek a spiritual life (or not), and still seek community and morality, humanitarian causes and social justice, rules and regulations, charity and ideals. But it’s hard to have faith in institutions these days.

That’s what unites these two seemingly disparate (and desperate) states of America: The lack of faith in institutions seems to be pervasive. For some, there is faith in religious institutions and not in government; for others, there is faith (although perhaps dissatisfaction) in governmental and social institutions, and not in religious ones.
Faith is elusive when seeing evidence of the contrary. It’s hard to have faith in a person or institution when one’s belief is seemingly contradicted. Cops killing unarmed suspects, makes it hard to have faith in police. Daily shootings, often seemingly random, makes it hard to have faith in our gun laws. Schools dictated by tests, and colleges bankrupting young adults and families make it hard to have faith in education. People who are so anti-government they are willing to do anything to gain power to obstruct the government, make it hard to have faith in our institutions or in people. Knowing how much it takes to live a middle class life, much less leave a legacy, makes it very difficult to have faith in our economic system, or in our future.

Faith is future oriented, based on our feelings in the present. Ironically, it is history that can provide us the comfort necessary for faith. It is an accurate understanding of the unfolding of history, not as an ideological story, but more of a scientific and evolutionary approach to understanding circumstances and their impacts. It is not a predictor, and differences between historical moments are important to acknowledge. But we have seen religious eras, and progressive eras; chaotic times when violence was rampant and government was flailing. We’ve seen threatening times, and war too many times. And what seems unique now, has parallels.

I have faith in evolution. Sometimes I forget that we can evolve personally, because the evidence is often so contrary to my belief. Likewise, it’s easy to lose faith in our institutions, because we seem so stuck, and we confuse images and stories with knowledge,and we are often unwise. It’s difficult to see evolution, especially when we are overwhelmed by replays of old conflicts  with current unenlightened players. I don’t know the significance of the study on Americans and religion. It’s always evolving. We will continue to evolve. On that, I guess you can count me among the faithful.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers

Kevin McCarthy will forever be known as the competent, upstanding guy who realized that the population in his community was being taken over one by one.

Kevin McCarthy was the actor best known for the 1956 sci-fi horror flick (and political allegory) “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”. Representative Kevin McCarthy, House Majority leader in 2015, and presumptive Speaker of the House following Speaker John Boehner’s recent announcement of his retirement, abruptly dropped out of the race (practically uncontested) for the Speakership. One minute he’s practically Speaker; the next– he’s out, throwing the GOP into chaos.

The dissatisfactions with our culture get played out in our Body Politic; in this case, the political body that everyone detests, Congress. Regardless of political party affiliation, there is utter distrust and fear of the other, and the sense that the other is snatching away our culture and our future.

Those who are elected to set national policies emerge from local cultures that have geographical and demographical distinctions that no longer serve to broaden our thinking and experience, but in fact, narrow them. The 21st Century sense that compromise is weakness, has taken hold and has rendered governing a lost art. John Boehner saw this, and had had enough. Kevin McCarthy the Congressman saw this before he even started.

Kevin McCarthy the not-actor and not-Speaker may have realized that his “gaffe” last week regarding the Benghazi Select Committee, (and therefore Hillary Clinton), may have been rather damaging. He suggested that the Benghazi Select Committee is really only concerned with partisan politics. The truth hurts. Or it can set you free.

It’s hard not to think of the original Kevin McCarthy and the “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”. He was that competent, upstanding guy who realized that the population in his community was being taken over one by one. Is this life imitating art? The film seemed artier as more time passed and the “McCarthy Era”, i.e. McCarthyism (Senator Joseph McCarthy), seemed like a historical relic. Alas, we see these same tactics of making accusations without proper regard for evidence in today’s Body Politic, from the Retropublicans. We’ve also seen the definition of McCarthyism “the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism.”
Representative Jason Chaffetz, exemplified these (Joseph) McCarthy techniques with his so-called hearing on the (doctored) Planned Parent videos. He is still running for Speaker of the House. I’m getting very queasy watching this version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Pope and Change

No, that’s not a typo. And yes, it does sound familiar.

I have been thinking about this Pope’s compassion. His willingness to pastor to those whom others have sought to ignore or even vilify, has been a welcome change. The institution of the papacy has not changed, although there is a growing movement to break down old,seemingly sacred barriers to include people who have been previously excluded, and to actually reform what has given cover to corruption and abuse. The change that the world is witnessing with Pope Francis, is one of greater compassion, caring, and reverence for actual life, not merely theoretical life, including sustaining our environment and taking action to mitigate climate change.

Many mock “Hope and Change” as a bumper sticker for the presidential race of ’08, and site everything that has challenged their beliefs or seemed wrong, or was difficult and incomplete, and even worse in some respects, as evidence that hope and change was a hoax. We must remember the reality of hope: Hope is not a solution. It is a spark.

Hope may evoke an ideal, and even ideas of change, but the words and deeds produced out of that hope are indeed seeds of change. Fear may also evoke an ideal, albeit a negative one— a hazard. The energy of fear often produces extreme speech and rigid responses. It limits possibilities in order to confirm a conviction of threat.

It is easy to feel despair and point to all that is wrong to confirm the hopeless conviction. It is difficult to create change in the space of despair. Resignation eliminates possibility. Moreover, it is easy for fear to take over, and fear has an energy that can overwhelm us, limiting possibility, or unleashing repressive or aggressive speech and/or actions.

For  many, this week is holy. For others, it may be a highly ritualized few days. Regardless of religious interpretations, this Pope’s visit is at once specific to a tradition and inclusive of those beyond that specific tradition. For those who observe the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year in Jewish tradition, forgiveness of oneself and others is the primary concern. Atonement is practiced both privately and among the community. There is hope for change (for the better) after acknowledging wrongdoings—intentional or unintentional—and seeking to repair that which was broken.

Of course, at -one- ment, that experience of unity, is fleeting. After the blessings and the rituals and the speeches and the excitement have passed, whether it’s the Pope or the President, or the candidate, or the pundit, or the teacher, or the tweeter, or any other revered or merely popular figure, it’s our own words and deeds that require regular attention, and a willingness to not say and /or do what we’ve always done.

I am curious to hear the Pope as he visits the U.S. for his first time. Although I am not Catholic, I welcome wisdom and compassion and the cultivation of peace through peace. So many Americans of so many different religious traditions find him to be a welcome change and an inspiration. We do not have to have been raised in the same institutions or culture or religious faith to be inspired and educated and glean wisdom. We can welcome the Pope, and change.

Comparative Imperative: Remembering Versus Never Forgetting

For the last 14 years, so many people mark this date with their stories of where they were. Of course I remember where I was, but that is not what I think about or what matters. So much has happened in these 14 years that has changed us and changed me. The groundlessness that we all seemed to feel that day and for weeks following, was daunting. The trauma, even for those who just watched, was disconcerting, and fear and anxiety quickly filled those spaces where safety and security once grounded us. The shared trauma was briefly unifying, but we were blown apart that day.

In 14 years, there have been several crises and horrors and unstable conditions that have made the new normal feel anything but normal. We have been crippled by terrorism, by extreme storms, incompetent responses, economic disaster, and those fixated on hate and violence, as well as righteousness at the expense of others. We have neglected our first responders, our veterans, our indigent, our children, their schools, those who look different, act different, or sound different. We became fixated on images—even images of ourselves, more than the possibility of ourselves.

The #NeverForget is everywhere. I noticed that I have a bit of a resistance to this imperative. It’s a negative imperative. It’s not that it’s incorrect, or that the postings of the photos of the fireball that was the impact at the World Trade center are not appropriate. It’s the fixation on the horror that feeds our negative emotions and responses that I want to shift.

I want to remember. I want everyone to remember. The conjuring of the past is not really different. It’s the focus that needs to shift. I don’t want to whitewash the horror that was 9/11. I just don’t want to cling to a moment that was impossible to comprehend or digest, and suggest that that’s all we should consider. When those planes crashed in NY, DC and in Pennsylvania, we were horrified and also saddened. We lost so many, and we could feel for those whom we never met. We had a connection, albeit in terror.

When I see images of a recent rainbow over Manhattan, I feel the anguish of this day, and recall the horror, but my heart doesn’t constrict with fear, anxiety, or hate. I actually feel love. Love for NY; love for the promise and potential of this country despite so much that seems contrary at present, and for much that I get to enjoy each day here. When I see the images of the 9/11 Tribute lights at Ground Zero that have been illuminating the night sky on this tragic anniversary since 2002, I recall the horror, but am moved by the beauty in it’s place.

The #NeverForget seems to me to have us return to terror and the natural feelings of fear, anxiety and revenge that well up. I certainly can’t forget that horrifying day and the weeks that ensued, and even the months and years of threats and security precautions that elevated my own sense of foreboding. But that negative imperative bothers me. I prefer to remember—to consider the events that occurred, and the (positive) possibilities that can occur. I can’t live clinging to the negative. I must include the negative, as that is so much of life and certainly of the memory of this day. But clinging to the negative doesn’t move us forward.

The memory of this day may be painful, but the imperative can’t be negative. When we cling to our fears and operate from a place of fear, rather than include fear, we become more limited—the opposite of free. We remember not just where we were, or how we were, but we remember other people and lives and possibilities. We honor their memory with life and light. Our imperative is life affirming .

Oliver!

You’ve probably read and heard umpteen remembrances of Dr. Oliver Sacks by now, and it’s only a day after his passing. The groundswell of mourning, even among those of us who never saw him in person, is a testament to his gifts. He was not only a scientist and physician of neurology, but passionate and compassionate, eager and humble, healer and patient, patient and restless, a seeker of knowledge and a friend to humanity. He embodied what so many of us wish we could.

Toward the end of his fascinating life, he shared many of his own personal experiences. He expressed his scientific explorations as well as human sensations, and as we got to know his work (about his patients), he began to express his own unusualness. Despite his expertise and stature, his later writings made him all the more human, and relatable. He reminded us that we may not even know that people may experience the world differently in some capacities than we do.

His fascination with so many facets of the natural world, particularly of the brain, was expressed with such enthusiasm and joy that it was contagious. We mourn the loss of such joy and knowledge. The world needs more knowledge and joy, not less.

It was with his sense of joy and pursuit of knowledge that he came to explore neurological conditions, and with his magnificent gift for prose, to express his clinical experiences (and later, his personal experiences) to a lay audience, while educating our hearts and minds. It was not that the extraordinary would seem ordinary, but that we could be introduced to experiences and conditions seemingly far from our own, and feel the humanity and compassion for an other. The bizarre was no longer hidden, but “awakened” for us.

We may be blessed enough to not have such neurological disorders in our lives, or we may recognize that disorders may arise in some other fashion in our lives. We may be caregivers or incapacitated ourselves at some other time. The introduction to that which is so different from our experience thus far, has far reaching implications.

We have seen social changes that were unthinkable two generations ago. What is considered bizarre, changes. How we include and care for those who struggle to function says much about us. Many struggle much more than we may realize. The “bizarre” may be hidden—at least temporarily. Or, the bizarre may burst forth and we must learn to pursue knowledge over fear.

Easier said than done, of course, but Dr. Sacks, gently and brilliantly had us become acquainted with not only neurological disorders and personal distresses, but took us into the world beyond our own. Ultimately, it’s all our world. Nature has so many facets to explore and from which to learn that may, in turn, increase our ability to impact other conditions. The more knowledge we can acquire about the natural world and make connections, the more we can affect positive change.

Dr Oliver Sacks seemed as unique as his case studies, but for many different reasons. Ultimately though, even his case studies and his personal seemingly unconventional experiences, were oh-so- human. Oliver! Consider yourself one of us!

And that’s the precious part. He was a gifted doctor and writer and educator, who relentlessly pursued knowledge and shared his joy and knowledge. He was generous of spirit and through his sharing, connected not just ideas, but souls. I may only wish I had his prodigious gifts of heart and mind—those that seem to separate the extraordinary from the ordinary, but despite those differences, like the differences he wrote about, we’re all facets of nature. Truly extraordinary.

Born to Run

Moment of Zen: Bruce performing Born to Run, as Jon Stewart’s send off. A masterful choice especially on the night of the first (2) Republican Debate(s).

Jon Stewart had a terrific run. Serious and silly; satirical and authentic; funny and forceful; generous and humble. Hard working, self-deprecating, patriotic, principled, and very smart. A mensch. A very funny mensch.

Then there were those who thought they were born to run— running FOR President of the United States. It has become a horrible marathon, one that for the first time, I am running from. The qualities I would want in the President, are not evident to me. It’s more like The Running of the Bulls, over and over and over for over a year.

We somehow agreed that running a race was a litmus test for governance. We’ve seen that governance is more art than sport, and the race….well, that’s just bad sport. Meanwhile, politics has become sport—blood sport— and the champion must then govern, which may mean veering off track. Politics has become about disabling governing, creating hurdles and throwing those dense shot puts (putting shots?), adding velocity with spin. It makes running the country almost impossible.

Even when I feel despair and can’t see the track, or when I so easily feel overwhelmed and I feel stuck—even paralyzed—or when I run from that which I find objectionable, I know I have to get back on track. Whether it’s the state of politics or my own state of mind —even from nonsense, I sometimes feel like I’m running on empty.

It’s so easy to feel that time is running out. Environmental concerns and climate change can feel overwhelming. And,on this 70th anniversary of the US dropping two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we are reminded of the very dangerous world we’re in. Those who oppose the Iran Deal on nuclear weapons, fear the worst. It is terrifying. Others believe that negotiations and deals are preferable ways to managing the dangers. It’s so difficult to trust and let things (much less people) run their course.

We were born to run. We were born to go forward. We were born to have a good run—to make it a good run. We can see the running to and the running from, much less the running for and the running against. At this point, I want to make it a good run. Some remind us of the ways to keep things up and running—with integrity, love, work, joy, art, music, dance, humor. I needed that Moment of Zen last night: the celebration of a great run, and the way to stay up and running and to go forward.

Cowardly Lyin’

RIP Cecil. By now you know about the beloved lion, Cecil, who was lured away from a national park in Zimbabwe so that a dentist from Minnesota, Walter James Palmer, could have an opportunity to hunt Cecil outside the confines of the national park for $50,000.00. I won’t recount the gory details here. Suffice it to say, that while nothing will bring back Cecil the Lion, the public condemnation of Palmer’s big game hunt is forcing consequences that he obviously never imagined. In the face of serious threats, Palmer admitted to killing Cecil, but claimed that he was led to believe that the transaction and the hunt were legal. Whether or not they were legal, they were cowardly. And, at the very least, he’s lying to himself to convince himself that his hunting was justifiable.

Humans lie. Sometimes the lie is small and the consequences are insignificant beyond the immediate saving face. Other times, the lies are great to cover serious acts—perhaps criminal or to save lives. Lying to oneself is more insidious. Humans have tremendous capacities for convincing, and as Stephen Colbert taught us, “truthiness”. We contrive information and situations to suit our beliefs and our stories—even our morals.

We lie when we are afraid. And we tend to feel superior—even brave—when we think we are speaking truth to power. Sometimes, though, people confuse speaking truth to power, with speaking power to truthiness. People may disagree and still speak truthfully. Sadly, we are bombarded with cowardice and lying, in the guise of bully tactics and outrageous attempts to discredit perceived threats to one’s beliefs and/or power.

The current controversy over a “secret” (and edited) video created by abortion foes to discredit (and defund) Planned Parenthood is infuriating and tragic to me. The incredible, intentional distortion used to suggest that Planned Parenthood is a nefarious operation engaged in trafficking fetal body parts for profit, is disturbing not because if it were true it would be horrifying, but because there are those who feel compelled to lie and distort to suit their so-called morals. I have no objection to those who oppose abortion on moral grounds. I may respectfully disagree. I have objections to those who seek to ruin people by suggesting horror through distortion. It is cowardly to lie to make a point. It is also tragic.

Remember when Representative Joe Wilson yelled, “You lie!!” at the President during Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress? It was startling and cringe-worthy, not because there was another important side or other information to consider (there usually is), but because disagreement is not an excuse for distortion, obnoxious behavior, outrageous statements, or lying (much less lying about lying). The assumption that someone who represents other ideas must be lying is small minded. However, when someone speaks and/or acts in a way that includes taking down another to make a point, one wonders about why one might need to distort and/or lie.

Are we so threatened and frightened by everyone else that lying or yelling “You lie!”, (or worse), or intentionally distorting the truth (lying) is all we have? Certainly, demanding the truth is necessary, and the ways in which that can be accomplished can be done with more critical thought and analysis. Our communications revolution has facilitated the ways in which people can be seen and heard, and allows for seemingly endless opportunities for distortion. The instantaneousness that technology provides encourages immediate reactions and responses, and a myriad of platforms to put forth one’s views.

Humans have always lied. Now, though, they can distort images and audio, or even just distort the truth for all to consume constantly. They can spew hate on global platforms heard and/or seen instantly and repeatedly. Even worse, it seems like so many will buy into lies, or at least into “truthiness”.

People often lie when they feel threatened or have a distorted sense of power and value. When they seek to bring down another, they are cowards. Cowardly lyin’, no matter how creative the lies or distortions, sustains negativity and can’t create positive change.
There will always be threatening people and ideas. Some will seek veracity, truth and compassion through truth. Others will seek power without compassion and distort the truth. They are cowardly lyin’.

Breaking the Sound Barrier

Is this the Second Summer of Love? Almost two weeks ago, a few days before the summer solstice, we were once again startled by a sickening massacre of innocents—this time in a church. Even more startling, perhaps, was the forgiveness bestowed upon the gunman a day later by the families of the slain victims. Many of us didn’t realize we had barriers to forgiveness until hearing of their incredible mercy. It was extraordinary!

That same day, Marc Maron interviewed President Obama on Maron’s WTF podcast. This was a first for any President. Those who listened to it on Monday June 22nd when it was released, were treated to an historic conversation not only because it was unprecedented (unintended pun), but because it was amazing!

The President and Maron had an easy conversation about difficult things, especially the excruciating massacre in Charleston, and the seemingly unbreakable hold that racism has on our culture. Obama spoke thoughtfully without seeming to have to think. We could hear what sounded like a natural conversation—unscripted, although the ideas seem to have been developed.

News outlets and the rest of media, social and anti-social, took a sound bite from the conversation and attempted to create an issue over the scariest sound heard in America—the N-word. Of course when I listened to the podcast, I listened in its entirety, and the barrier that I heard broken was not that the N-word was uttered, or that it was said in a complete sentence without emphasis, or that it was vocalized by the President. The barrier that was broken, was that the President said what needed to be said in a way that could be heard (if one were actually listening). Being polite about not using the N-word is not the same as the end of racism in America. BOOM!

That same day, Nikki Haley, Conservative Republican Governor of South Carolina, made a moving speech calling for the removal of the Confederate Flag from government property. She was emotional and compassionate and her voice has led others to follow in removing the Confederate Flag from government properties. She acknowledged that the flag has been regarded as a symbol of hate and oppression. Music to our ears!

Later in the week, enormous barriers were broken as The Supreme Court ruled to uphold Obamacare, allowing millions more access to health insurance. More work needs to be done to ensure and insure affordable health care, but the Affordable Care Act was solidified as a start. And just as the sighs of relief were exhaled, the Supreme Court legalized Same Sex Marriage in all 50 states. Love is winning!

While these Supreme Court decisions are historic, something else happened on Friday, the same day Same-Sex Marriage became the law of the land, and it was momentous. President Obama gave the eulogy for the reverend Clementa Pinckney who was gunned down the previous week at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston. After what was arguably one of Obama’s greatest speeches (which is saying quite a lot), he startled the mourners there as well as the rest of us. He broke into song. He did not perform as a troubadour or soloist, but he did start solo. Some were audibly startled and one could hear some nervous laughter at first . His voice broke a barrier. The President sang Amazing Grace.

There is something about singing that breaks barriers. We are unguarded when we sing; we just use what we have. I think that’s what was initially startling when the President began to sing. It was outside of the categories that we are used to. But he was quickly joined in song.

The rapid succession of historic moments that seemed to break barriers over the last couple of weeks felt remarkable. Undoubtedly, many will continue to feel threatened by such changes and will continue to sound off. But calling discrimination, freedom won’t work. Attempting to disguise the sounds and symbols of hate won’t work. They have been barriers to living fully in America. We have always become better when we have broken barriers to participation. In what has felt like an unheard of couple of weeks, we are in an historic moment, that sounds pretty great.

Daddy Issues

 

El Papa issues an encyclical on the environment and our shared responsibility. He acknowledges human contribution to global warming in recent decades, and advocates ways in which we can tend to that (and those) which we have neglected. With poetry and prose, and scientific backing, he sternly urges all people to pay attention to “unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for us all.” His assessment continues with connecting the environmental crisis to human and social degradation, as the poorest suffer the most. Beyond vanishing coral reefs and other plant and animal species, we are creating unhealthy and unsustainable conditions for our own species. El Papa urges conscientious actions and transforming our lifestyles toward environmental stewardship and being responsible to our entire world of humans and other animal and plant species.

 

Jeb! issues a statement in response to the (leaked) encyclical, “I hope I’m not going to get castigated for saying this by my priest back home, but I don’t get economic policy from my bishops or my cardinals or my pope.” Bush, a devout Catholic, says that religion “ought to be about making us better as people, less about things that end up getting into the political realm.”

 

REALLY???? Isn’t the Pope encouraging all people to be better, through attention and care of the earth and each other? El Papa’s message is a moral message for everyone. And yes, it has profound economic implications that have been ignored for too long, and we are beginning to reap the consequences.

 

Jeb!’s response seems rather rich from the guy who, as governor, intervened in the Terri Schiavo case, deciding that Schiavo’s feeding tube should be reinstated, appeasing so-called pro-life supporters. Just 2 days ago, on the heels of issuing his response to The Pope’s encyclical, Jeb! proudly reminded an audience at the Faith and Freedom conference of his role in the Terri Schiavo case saying that he “stood on the side of Terri Schiavo.” (Except, of course, he stood on the side of her parents and others—not on the side of Terri Schiavo or her desperate husband.)

 

While Jeb! issues statements on issues that, at best, don’t inspire, he seems to have an issue with his name. He has replaced Bush with ! Although seeming to distinguish himself more from his brother than from his father, he is struggling to find a way to be the one to move us forward.

 

Of course, the two issues that blindside us each time they occur (and they occur with frequency) are murdering innocents and racism. This time they converge. The massacre is in a church—The Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C. Dylan Roof, 21, sits among members of a Bible study group in the historic black church, and after about an hour, opens fire, killing 9 members, including the pastor, the Rev. Clementa Pichney. It is soon revealed that Roof espouses racist views of so-called white supremacy. He is arrested for this hate crime and charged in the killings.

 

We have been struggling with these issues of seemingly out of control violence, especially gun violence against innocents—sometimes singular, sometimes massacres, and we have been seeing racism especially as it pertains to law enforcement. These issues of extreme violence, especially with guns, and racism—perhaps more insidious than in previous generations—continue to cause profound disturbances and grief, yet little action beyond social media attention.
We may celebrate the work and wisdom of our fathers today, and acknowledge how much they have given us, but each generation must also forge ahead, and see what isn’t working and face it and change it. The Pope has shown us that we can use our knowledge and wisdom and character (as well as spiritual life) to better our world and restore ecosystems. We can affect our environment. We can change the climate. Literally and figuratively.

 

We won’t be able to prevent every disaster—natural or human, but we can do more. We can change gun laws, and how we deal with psychological and social ills. We can be conscientious. We can take down flags that are remnants of racist history, that have no place in the 21st century.

 

We can celebrate our dads by practicing what the great dads teach—that actions (and inactions) have consequences—intended and unintended. We have issues to address. This Father’s Day, embrace your father, and El Papa’s message to us to take conscientious actions to better our world.

Happy Father’s Day!

American Express

The recent story of Rachel Dolezal, the (now former) President of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP, being outed as white is fascinating and sad to me. She has been accused of posing as a black woman which, given her heretofore leadership position at the NAACP, makes her quite controversial.Dolezal’s choice to identify as a black woman had journalists investigating her family for some revelations. Her racial heritage was exposed, which called into question cultural experiences and expressions, and what constitutes valid expression of identity.

As this story exploded over the weekend and continues to unfold, many are more disturbed by her being a fraud, than by her choice of identity. Still, many find her identity choice rather curious, and further evidence of white privilege.

I find the issue fascinating as it brings to the forefront the cultural constructs we have for race, while pretending that it’s merely biological and physical. Moreover, it relates to how we have been stuck in tribalism. Even the word tribe conjures up traditional societies, often with biological origins and/or ethnic ties that have been distinguished from other political/socio-economic entities. Modern nation states consider themselves beyond the tribal wars of earlier eras or distant locales, but the tribal instinct seems to be universal and eternal.

If we are to truly evolve, we have to look at our own tribalism. Even when we identify with a particular ethnic group, or regional culture, we may inadvertently clutch in such a way that reinforces our identity by clinging inwardly and asserting that belonging is not a choice. It’s ethnic and historic, and one’s actions are not as significant as one’s biological and historical roots. Membership has it’s privileges: Others are excluded, and possibly ridiculed or disparaged (or worse). Sometimes, the identification with the particular ethnic group or tribe is more important than anything.

Except it isn’t. We’ve seen Balkan wars in Europe; tribal wars in Africa; Sunni and Shia in the Middle East; genocide, ethnic cleansing, segregation, and separate subcultures across modern democratic societies that have become increasingly insular, despite social diversity and acceptance of differences in an ever more diverse and globalized world.

There is still a lot of insider-ness by those who descended from those of outsider status. The MOT (Member of the Tribe) conversations among Jewish people is often nothing more than acknowledging someone’s Jewish heritage, but the very existence of the acronym MOT is troubling to me. I understand the reflex toward tribalism and identifying with a group or sub-culture. Ultimately, though, the inherent exclusion that comes with that identification is what triggers negative reactions regardless of tribe or social or ethnic group.

Americans pride themselves on self-expression. We profess individual freedom and the right to express oneself, but we rarely face our own tribalism, and the ways in which that gets expressed.

Different histories of repression and privilege seem intrinsic to our identifications.Physical features certainly provide the most obvious characteristics to link to a lineage and history and culture. We profess not to judge individuals based on their physical features, but we quickly identify individuals with a group.

Our politics is so tribal. Our institutions claim to be at least legally beyond tribal, but usually exist with sub-cultures and divisions. We may self segregate (or be forced to segregate due to historical policies that ensured certain divisions even if they are no longer legally mandated). Americans are not comfortable looking at the realities of our own tribalism and the ways in which we exclude and degrade—regardless of status. We understand our history of racism, but we are still clinging to group identities that we claim supports our own expression.

So the story of Rachel Dolezal is fascinating and sad to me. Her story raises so many questions about American expression of tribalism and individual choice and circumstance, as well as the convoluted situation of race that we are currently struggling with so profoundly. Perhaps her story, which is unique as it pertains to her specific life and family, is also one that highlights our American tribalism. Our American expression of freedom is always diminished when we retreat to our tribal instincts.