Christian to Christian: Mr. Ryan, We Have a Problem

In a teleconference last night, Paul Ryan, Republican candidate for Vice-President, said, “the path the president has put us on . . . [is] a dangerous path, it's a path that . . . compromises those values, those Judeo-Christian, western-civilization values that made us such a great and exceptional nation in the first place."

I have a problem, Congressman Ryan, with your characterization of President Obama as a destroyer of “Judeo-Christian western civilization values”.  And it’s not a political problem.  It’s a religious one.  You and I are family – brother and sister, to be precise.  So are you and President Obama.  Why?  Because we’re all Christians.

And here’s the thing:

1. Disagreeing with you does not make one a non-Judeo-Christian - shoot, the Nuns on the Bus (professional Christians, you might say), disagree with you on economic policies.  And they disagree out of their faith, not in spite of it.

2. Destroyer of Judeo-Christian values, in the context of the long-standing vitriol, is either (a) most unfortunate or (b) intentional pandering to incipient racism played out in the form of  'he's not [really] a Christian' (translate, he's not 'one of us' - he's a 'Muslim' - which in the US, just as often means 'he has brown skin' as it does anything about one's religious persuasion - and that, not as a compliment.  I would almost prefer to believe it was intentional on your part:  at least then I would know you understand what's at stake with this kind of exploitation of the language of hate, fear and division.  But giving you the benefit of the doubt, I choose to believe that the connection was not obvious to you and was thus unintentional.  One of the challenges of being a public speaker, however, is to try to hear our words as others hear them.

3. As another 'professional' Christian,  I have to say that you and I disagree on many things, particularly about economics and the role of government when it comes to the least fortunate among us.  I am a bit startled to hear you as a fellow Christian characterize my own view as destructive of the very faith I have dedicated my life to trying to follow.

4. Finally, there are MANY things about which I disagree with the President (and Gov. Romney, for that matter).  That disagreement does not make either of them bad men, morally flawed, dangerous, or bent on my personal destruction.  Whether they are any of those things or not is not for me to say.  And what we often forget when we demonize our enemies is the notion of reaping, perhaps best learned as a parent: whatever bad habits  we teach our children, they will use against us.  So too with public discourse: pandering or indifference in public discourse by the few lowers the bar for the many.  Thus unjustified or untrue attacks against you become justified because “well, he said worse”.

People of good faith of all and no political and religious stripes will go to the polls tomorrow.  All of us will, I hope, pray and trust, try to exercise our own best judgement in discharging our duty as citizens.

And next Friday, Saturday and Sunday, many of us will resume our places, side by side, in our respective places of worship, in common cause together to worship our God and take what we receive there out into the world.

I guess I'm just trying to remind you that there is no hierarchy among Christians - as St. Paul so eloquently pointed out, all fall [far] short of the glory of God.

To put it more bluntly and to borrow freely from a wise Baptist minister, responding to a man I once knew who was thinking of leaving that particular congregation because he was unhappy with some things, "Well, Bob, whenever you find that perfect church, do me a favor:  don't join and spoil it for everybody else."

A little humor and a little humility when making truth claims on behalf of God isn't a bad thing, my brother.

BethRant4: E-N-O-U-G-H

Enough.

I will say it again.

Enough!

Enough!  Enough!  Enough!

Stop it!

Right now!

I mean it!

Go to your room if you can’t speak nicely to others!

Enough!

For all you Twitterheads who hide behind made-up not-so-clever handles and all you blog responders doing the same – enough already with the ugliness.

I’ve had it with each and every one of you.

Your insults are not even creative.

They’re not only mean; they’re demeaning.

You’re demeaning me as well as you because we are fellow human beings.

And I, for one, have had it with each and every one of you.

People on the Left call for the death, murder or suicide of Ann Romney.  Red Alert

Really?

Shame on you!

In what universe is that kind of talk acceptable?

I really want to know.

What world do you inhabit where it is acceptable to speak such vitriol and violence?

And to those on the Right, before you get too smug, here is but a small sampling of insults your kind hurled at  Michele Obama after her speech last night:  Enslavers (does the racial context escape you?) . . . ugliest First Lady . . . Godless . . . “the first cow” . . . not even minimally attractive . . . patron of Wal-Mart at 3 a.m. . . . The Blaze

And there have been death threats against Mrs. Obama as well.

This is not acceptable.  And I do not care one whit about your free speech rights.  Reality and facts matter.  Your diatribes, unfortunately, matter too.  They matter not because our opinions are important; rather, they matter because you are lobbing mini-WMD and like all WMD, they land where they will and do great and unforeseen damage.

Our president is not a Nazi.  And you are not living under occupation.  Trust me on this – you would know if you were – well, your family would – because you would be dead.

Mr. Romney is not a people-hating robot.  He, like you, is a human being.  He, like you, has wonderful and not-so-wonderful traits.  Unlike you, however, he had the guts to enter the political arena and actually apply for the job of president instead of calling out from the cheap seats.*

The women who loved and married and have made a life with these men are not antichrists, demonic, nor do they suck the air out of your lungs simply because they draw breath on the same planet with you.  They are people.

Disagree with their ideas, their political stances?  Sure.  Even passionately.

But please trust me on this: you reveal far more about yourselves than you ever will about them with the things you say.  Comments about a female public figure’s appearance, body type, clothing, and so forth, reveal a deep-rooted sexism.  (Think not?  When was the last time you wondered how much Paul Ryan’s tie cost?)  And when it comes to some of the things said about Mrs. Obama, the racism is overt.  As a woman, I can assure you fellows that there is not one single woman on the planet who cares even a little bit about your preference for certain types of butts.  Not one.  So do us all a favor and keep it to yourselves, won’t you?

And maybe your family and friends agree with you.  Maybe.  Or maybe at least some of them are just too polite or too frightened to tell you what they really think.  Here’s the thing: racism isn’t just wrong; it’s foolish.  It prevents you from seeing the good and worth and contributions of people who can actually make your life better.  It causes you to be afraid when there is no cause to be.  It blinds you to reality.  And it turns you into a bully.  And nobody wants to hang out with a bully.  Nobody – not even other bullies.

Finally, if you dump out so much outrage over nonsense (and yes, what Mrs. Obama or Mrs. Romney wear and how they look in it, disagreeing with the fact that they both love their husbands and have the job of giving them public tribute, or that their story is not your story, is nonsense), what will you have left for the things that really and truly matter?  And we have serious issues facing us that really matter – things like whether our foreign policy should be driven by an us-first worldview or not; whether drone strikes that kill civilians can continue while we claim to be a just and good society; whether using more than our fair share of the world’s resources is something we can change (we already know we should); whether Mr. Obama’s vision of government or Mr. Romney’s makes the most sense for economic survival; whether we can come together as a nation over anything other than devastating crisis?

So here’s a thought: before you put fingers to keyboard, pause for just a moment and pretend that everything you write will appear in your own local newspaper with your picture beside it and that your children and family and co-workers and fellow church members (not to mention God, who already knows what you’re up to anyway) will all see it and know it was you doing the talking.  Will you be proud of what you said?  Will you stand by it?  Or will you have to explain it away, “Daddy was jut blowing off steam, honey.  He didn’t really want Mrs. Romney to die.  He doesn’t really hate black people.”

As a fellow human being, your hatred shames me and your anonymity disgusts me.

RantEnd



________________
*Just so we’re clear: yes, that was an insult.  I am not saying that we cannot or should not engage in fierce and even strident debate.  Demonization of our opposition, however, is (1) ridiculous (that is, it makes the one doing it look like an idiot); (2) a waste of time and energy; (3) demeaning to our public discourse; and (4) destructive of our civilization.  Yes – it’s destructive.  Every word we speak has consequence.  Do you really think that Michelle Obama and Ann Romney aren’t human beings with feelings?  Ann Romney has MS.  Do you think the stress of the campaign, let alone the stress of your hurtful and frightening remarks has no impact on her and those who love her?  And Michelle Obama still has two young children at home.  Do you think they don’t hear what you say?  Or wonder why people hate the mother they love so much?  Do you think your children would be proud of you for what you’re saying?  Or would they be frightened that Mommy or Daddy could be so violent against a stranger?  And perhaps even worry about what you might do to them if you get mad?  Words matter.

Politics Not as Usual

We the People decry the negativity in this political season.

But it’s time to step up and take on our own share of the responsibility for the hate-spewing coursing through our airwaves and into our homes.

If it didn’t work, they wouldn’t do it.

Pretty simple.

If we really want to stop being subjected to the negativity, all we have to do is turn off the channels that air it . . . refuse to repeat it . . . stop believing the worst of people simply because they are our political opponents – really, please trust me (after all, I am a pastor) – none of them are the anti-Christ. . . really.

After all, the Golden Rule applies whether we’ve met these folks in person or not.

And I’m pretty clear on how I would like to be treated:

1. I don’t want anyone questioning whether or not I am a Christian.
2. I don’t want anyone to say that I hate my country.
3. I don’t want anyone to accuse me of being a traitor.
4. I don’t want anyone to presume that because we disagree, I am bad.
5. I don’t want anyone to spread lies about me just because the lies coincide with their bad opinion of me.  I actually want folks to check the facts before they speak.  And I want them to correct the record when they are wrong.

So here’s the vow I’m making.  Help me live up to it.

1. I will not question the faith of anyone.  I may challenge others to live into the faith they claim, but I will not doubt what they say about their own belief.
2. I will not say or believe that politicians, any politicians, hate their country.
3. I will not accuse anyone of being a traitor simply because their views differ from mine.
4. I will not presume that the people I disagree with are bad people.  I will assume that we disagree.  And I may well try to persuade them to my point of view.  But disagreeing with Beth does not make someone bad.
5. I will not spread lies.  I will fact check claims, especially on the internet and especially those about people with whom I disagree, because I will recognize that I am predisposed to believe the worst about them and I will understand that this is my problem, not theirs.
6. And I will stop listening to the negative ads from all sides.  I will change the channel, leave the room, read a book.  But I will not listen because it affects my opinion to hear these things and I do not wish my opinion or my vote to be affected by the attack ads.

Am I a Safe Space?

The phrase ‘safe space’ in our time often refers to literal safety, comparable to the older aphorism, A man’s home is his castle, the belief that where we live should be free from all unwanted intrusion.  It can refer to domestic violence shelters for battered women, protective orders for the victims of stalking, and child protective actions to keep predators of the young at bay.

But ‘safe space’ has also come to signify whether a group of people offer psychological and spiritual safety to each other . . . or not, as in whether it is ‘safe’ to offer another point of view within a particular context.

Like any good idea, the notion of safe space can become meaningless when it over reaches, as in the felt need to have no disagreement expressed with one’s own views, as disagreement is too often equated with threat or danger.

From Flickr Commons

We are allowed to disagree with each other.  But in the United States, my own belief is that we don’t know how to disagree or how to be disagreed with very well.

Disagreement can be healthy and can lead to new learnings, new ways of being, for all of us.  If I listen, truly listen, to you, I can learn about a point of view I knew nothing of before.  My point of view can bring the same eye-opening opportunity to you.

As someone with definite opinions (which means nothing more than that I know my own mind really well), I have often been accused, directly and indirectly, of threatening the safe space of others.

Usually, I am left puzzled after such conversations.  What did I do or say that made the other person feel threatened?  Is all disagreement threatening?  Or is there something about the way I express myself, the certainty with which I speak, that leaves the other person feeling excluded or attacked?

Surely there is middle ground between the extremes of social and political discourse in our time of either (a) not discussing areas of disagreement at all (as in mother’s admonition to never discuss sex, religion or politics with others) or (b) name-calling, shouting vilification.

Which brings me right back to the question: how can I be a better safe space for those with whom I disagree the most?

I can speak more quietly.  I can speak less and listen more.  I can take off my ear muffs when it comes to the things I don't want to hear.  I can try to do better.

But here’s what I’d like from you in return: please do not assume because we disagree, that I am bad or mean or not listening.  I may hear you very well, but simply see things differently.

And let’s agree to this: when we post stuff on FB or in our blogs or anywhere into the technological ether, let’s pay attention, special attention, to truth.  When I get it wrong, tell me.  Insist that I retract the lies.  And allow me to do the same with you.

Let’s be more gracious, especially to those with whom we disagree.  They aren’t monsters.

Cut It Out!

Just because you disagree with me does not make you stupid or heard-hearted or uninformed, or even wrong.

Just because I disagree with you does not make me stupid or heard-hearted or uninformed or wrong either.

Because you are across the aisle from me doesn't make you bad.

Please remember the same is true for me when you see my face on the 'other side'.

I don't know if, in the United States, we have ever known how to disagree.  But if we did, we have forgotten what we knew. 

We in these United States could stand to learn some things from other cultures:

(1)  If we're going to be insulting, we could be more creative, like the British.  Or maybe we just need better accents (we Americans are quite smitten with all the speech patterns of the UK - I know - the Irish aren't British and the Scots don't want to be, but you take my light-hearted point, I hope).

(2)  Eastern cultures could teach us to have greater respect for the other simply because they are the other.

(3)  Iraqi culture could teach us that the freedom of speech is not the same as the freedom to insult, denigrate, and dismiss.

(4)  And we could learn from many cultures about the importance of social compact.  And how to argue.  And that arguing is not the end of anything, it's simply part of the on-going conversation; the world will not end simply because we disagree.  And how to listen to others, especially others whose views are different than our own, on the off chance that we might actually learn something.

In the Christian tradition, Paul writes in Galatians that followers of Christ are no longer Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female.  He is, of course, not speaking literally.  He is making the point that previous differences that divided no longer apply, as we are all one within the body of Christ.  

Yet within that one-ness, there is a great range of humanity and possibility.  And so an American gal like me can learn from a Taiwanese friend that negotiation can look like friendship and does not have to be a competitive sport; from Iraqi friends that even violently heated political arguments can end in laughter and the sharing of a meal; from Scots friends that teetotallers and those who enjoy a wee dram can dance together, each without judging the other.  

These are but a few of my own lessons; I wonder, what lessons have you learned from those so different than you that you can scarce understand them?

If only we would stop talking at each other, we might be able to actually listen to each other.  

What a wonderful thing that would be.