The Hard Work: Embracing Political Differences

Some of my Christian siblings revealed themselves to be vitriolic Republican partisan political conservatives on social media. Liberal thought is mock-worthy; Democrats are evil demons.

Because of what and how they post, I feel unsafe around them. They seem to exemplify a prejudicial preference that precludes acknowledging or listening to a different point of view. I have the impression they think those with dissimilar political views are of little value.

Because of what and how they post, I pause. Am I guilty of doing what they do? Do I present myself on social media as blind to the humanity of those who do not share my political leanings? Am I prejudicially preferential to the exclusion of others?

That is not who I want to be. I don't want to be a person who is automatically contemptuous towards someone with different political views. I don't want to be a person who sees labels as ideological monoliths. Political conservatives come in many stripes, as do political liberals. I want to welcome civil discourse, not contribute to rancorous polemics. I want to invite reasonable discussion, not participate in meaningless argument.

This is part of the hard work.

Christian siblings, remember that in the family, we have different ideas about which means are best for achieving an end. Let us not be divided by our politics, but rather, let us listen to our siblings with different ideas, acknowledge their value as people and seekers of God's will, and work towards finding practical and meaningful solutions to the problems our communities face.

If all you have to offer are sound bites, platitudes and criticism, sit down. Hush. Stop making it difficult for those of us who are willing to do the hard work. 

Regarding a Certain Posture

When I think of the lyrics, …the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, I think of the men and women, known and unknown, who survived and fought for the right to be treated as equal citizens in the eyes of the law and in the hearts of their fellow Americans. Rev. Dr. King, of course, and Ida B. Wells and Cesar Chavez and so many others. The slaves who survived, the Chinese railroad workers who endured, the Jews who preserved, the Filipinos and Hmong and name a country, name an ethnicity, name a people who were once treated as less than and/or taken for granted and whose condition has now, (no matter how slightly), improved.

When I see the Stars & Stripes, I have no problem standing for these people. I have no problem standing to acknowledge where we are and how far we have come as a nation.

********************************

Many of us still kneel to pray, to humble ourselves before our God.

It is still, as far as I'm aware, the posture folks assume when proposing marriage to their beloved.

Reminiscent of what we imagine of medieval knights of old, the posture is not the issue.

There is nothing disrespectful about kneeling.

********************************

In the presence of my country's flag, it is also right to honor and remember of those who may not have survived the cruelties of the United States. For the Trail of Tears and other massacres. For those unknowingly subjected to government sterilization. For nationwide Jim Crow laws. For the soldiers who fought abroad for the freedom of others and came home to either derision, second class citizenship, or both. For law enforcement officers shot in the line of duty, or murdered because of their uniform. For civilians killed by law enforcement, civilians who were not instructed to drop a weapon or given enough time to comply, who were shot in the back, who died for not opening the car door quickly enough.

To honor these people, it would not bother me to kneel.

********************************

At this point, if you're still upset, you may have an issue with the audacity to use so public a forum to silently proclaim America's continuing imperfections. There's a proper way to protest, you may insist, forgetting that the nature of protest is never proper, that it is a disruption of the status quo. Or you may feel it's unpatriotic, forgetting that love of country is not simply embracing where it is but also but pushing it to be better.

At this point, if you're still upset, it's not about the posture. It's not about the kneeling. It would be disingenuous to claim so.

Help Me Understand: LGBT Discrimination

My fellow Christian Americans,

I understand there is biblical mandate against homosexuality.

What I don't understand is forcing people into desperate circumstances. What is the purpose of

--Reducing or removing a person's ability to earn a livelihood? or

--Denying health care to a child being raised by same-sex parents?¹ or

--Denying financial security to a long term couple when one of them dies? or

--Denying a member of such a long term couple from making medical decisions for the other person?

Is it an attempt to kill people through legislated marginalization? To force a hopelessness so deep some would consider suicide?

If so, do you believe you are greater than God, who has given life to all, including the people you loathe?

Is it an attempt to force people to live according The Law, despite many not being of the Faith? Let's not ignore the fact we don't even try to live according to The Law ourselves.² Are you holding others to a higher standard than you hold yourself?

Is it an attempt to try to change people? To use fear and misery to force others to behave as you want them to?

Help me understand.

Because here, in the United States, we don't live in a theocracy³. Our constitution expressly states that the government shall not establish a national religion. And while we may write or support laws which are biblically based, we cannot use government to force the Gospel or a "Christian lifestyle"⁴ on others. Mainly because

a) It ceases to become the Good News, instead morphing into Follow My Interpretation (Pharisee, anyone?), and most importantly,

b) That's not how the Gospel works. The Good News has never had to be forced upon or enforced among those who sincerely believe.

So why do some of you support, advocate for, and/or enforce of such discrimination?

Please. Help me understand.

1. Seriously. How many of you remember when you chose your parents? Then why punish the child for something over which they had no control?

2. Bacon, people. And ham. Some of us eat shrimp. Many of us would eat a bacon-wrapped shrimp appetizer in a heartbeat. All of which is contrary to The Law.

3. Nor do I want to live in a theocracy. Imagine all of the petty church arguments writ large. Imagine the group in power mandating how one praises, what one wears, what type of music is allowed. No thank you. It's hard for me to see man-made theocracy as anything other than authoritarianism attempting to disguise itself as religious purity.

4. That's right, I used quotes. Because when we say and think "Christian Lifestyle", we often go straight to one's behavior and ignore the heart. We sometimes get caught up in the appearance of propriety and spirituality, and condemn those who actually exhibit the heart of Christ. We forget that a Christian Lifestyle, a heart guided by Christ, is not always packaged as the smiling face you see in the church vestibule.

Help Me Understand: Transgender Bathroom Issues

So, in Charlotte, North Carolina, the city council passed an ordinance that, among other things, allows a transgender person to use the public restroom of the gender they identify with.

Aghast, the state legislature overrode this portion of the ordinance with a law forbidding municipalities to enact anti-LGBT discrimination laws. Some state legislators claimed Charlotte's ordinance would allow sexual predators to use the law as a means to assault their victims.

Never mind that men who've assaulted women in public restrooms never needed a guise before. If there is to be a ruse, the color of authority is much more effective, as a recent case has shown.

Just to be clear,

The North Carolina state legislature wants all biological males to use the men's restroom, and all biological females to use the women's restroom (that is, restrooms maintained by a municipality or government entity).

Even if some of those biological males dress and look like women, and some of those biological females dress and look like men.

The legislature wants a biological male who dresses and looks like a woman to go to the bathroom with men. A woman-looking person in the men's restroom. Making the men in the restroom uncomfortable.¹

The legislature also wants a biological female who dresses and looks like a man to go to the bathroom with women. A man-looking person in the women's restroom. Making the women in the restroom uncomfortable.²

Again, just to be clear,

Basically, the North Carolina Legislature wants everyone to be uncomfortable in a public restroom.

Why?

1. Not to mention possibly putting said woman in danger. You know how some men will aggressively try to hit on any woman within a 5 inch radius of where they are standing? Could you imagine? A publicly owned sport facility or concert arena? A lot of alcohol? A woman in the men's bathroom? It would be a wonder if said woman (biologically female or not) didn't get assaulted.