In the wake of Gay Pride events this past weekend and the supreme court decision last week striking down laws which defined marriage as between one man an one woman, I should not have been surprised by the some of the strong adverse feelings and beliefs expressed by many individuals.  I also should not have been surprised by the seeming self-righteousness of many.    I expected some so called conservative Christian church leaders to predict the ire of God.  I expected some of the traditional argument such as, “God created Adam and Eve.  He did not create Adam and Steve.”  Apparently a significant number of people continue to believe that the God of the New Testament as well as the God of the Old Testament is an angry, punishing God of rules with a limited view of who he/she/it created.     I do wonder that if God did not create Adam and Steve, where they come from.  Surely there is very little dispute these days about the fact that sexual preference or orientation seems to be something with which one is born although as a greater percentage of the population gets more comfortable with sexuality in general, we are finding more and more people who claim to be “fluid” in their sexual attractions and desires.   This does not negate the fact that, as Masters and Johnson found out some years ago, most people have a preference for opposite or same sex behavior.  On the other hand, the younger generation might be the first to be more comfortable with allowing themselves to be open to being “fluid” as it is being called. 

Some people this past weekend purported to be concerned about the spread of sexually transmitted disease. Certainly, that should be a concern for everyone who is having sexual relationships outside of a long term, absolutely monogamous relationship.  Thankfully we know how to prevent most sexually transmitted illness.  Most, with the exception of HIV, are easy and inexpensive to treat. Still, no doubt it is better to practice safe sex.   

In heterosexual relationships there is also concern about unplanned pregnancies.  We also know how to prevent those although nothing is fail-safe.

Certainly, in many religions, it is maintained that sexual relationships are only for the purpose of conceiving or attempting to conceive a child in a legally and spiritually committed relationship.   Sadly many of the leaders of the religious institutions who have been most adamant about these rules for sexual behavior, have often been the ones who were found to be violating theses rules.    In the Roman Catholic Church the priests and the nuns are considered themselves to be married to Christ.  While there are those who manage to honor those marital vows without “straying” a significant number of very spiritual men and women find themselves unable to refrain from sexual relationships. In fact, in my experience as a counselor and as a member of the gay community, it is common to find priests who are seeking out sexual relationships and/or in committed sexual relationships. I also know of a number of nuns who are sexually active although they tend, in my experience, to keep those relationships more private than men do.   We all also know of the history of sexual abuse of children by priests and other religious leaders. All people I know work to protect children from any abuse.  It is difficult to believe that church officials do not know something of the extent to which individuals and couples (members and clergy) in the church are sexually active.   Despite the Roman Catholic prohibition of its members using birth control other than abstinence or the “rhythm” method, there are many surveys indicating that most Roman Catholics use other methods of birth control.

The bottom line is that we humans, with few exceptions, seem to be created with a very strong desires to have physically, intimate relationships which sometimes involve our genitals.    No matter how much we change our cultures to delay the financial and emotional beginning of adulthood, children continue to be sexually mature enough to conceive and bear a child at very young ages.   Their strong sexual feelings seems mostly unrelated to an urge to conceive and bear children.  They sexual feelings lead them to self-pleasure and pleasuring each other no matter how many prohibitions we adults recommend and try to enforce.  

Most of the world is not concerned about a paucity of new births. In fact most of the world is struggling to feed, house and care for the children, which are born.

We now know that the reason that the Old Testament focused on God’s creation of Adam and Eve was that it was important to conceive as many children as possible so that a few lived and were able to help in food production or gathering as well as other chores. Given the absence of microscopes, it was impossible for a long time to dispel the belief that there was a limited number of sperm.  Had they only known that there was million of them ready to swim upstream, we might have had a different understanding and acceptance of both self-pleasuring and same sex unions.

Still, in this and many cultures we remain very uncomfortable with overt reminders that we are sexual beings while, at the same time, using sexually provocative clothes, pictures and suggestions to sell a variety of products from underwear to cars.   Is it any wonder that we confuse even ourselves?   We desire to look sexual and want or allow our children to dress in a way which I obviously sexually provocative while, at the same, time refusing to give clear guidance about how to have safe, fun, sexual contact.   We somehow think if we ignore it nothing will happen. Perhaps we mental health professional just want to insure that we insure our job by promoting sexual guilt which people come to us to talk about!  Really!

I am sure that the popularity of the recent trilogy of “50 Shades of Grey” had to do with the fact that the author was leading the characters through an understanding of what appeared to be a sexual addiction as a reaction to childhood trauma.   The fact that there were numerous descriptions of consensual Sadism and Masochism did not, I am sure, have anything to do with the popularity of the book.  Also, it is clear that the porn industry, the sex toy industry and the number of Adult Book Stores are supported by a very few individuals who must be worth billions since these industries are making a lot of money. Could it be possible that there are a significant number of people who are secretly (more or less) enjoying a more varied and active sex life than we want to admit or even know about?

It is not surprising that events such as Gay pride parades are upsetting to many people.  If the primary rule is to hide one’s overt sexuality and all the costumes, which we privately and secretly use in our sexual play, then many of the individuals who participate in Gay Pride events violate every rule of the larger dysfunctional family.   During gay pride events, individuals who have often grown up with shaming messages come together and using the safety of numbers proudly let it “all hang out”.   These events are advertised and generally well enough publicized that anyone who does not want to observe them and/or are offended by their honesty does not have to look at them.   Obviously no one is forced to participate in these events.  

At the same time no one participating in gay pride event is going to be offended by anyone who chooses to refrain from participating or from limiting their sexual activity to opposite sex, missionary style, vanilla/joyless sex for the sole purpose of procreating or attempting to co-create.

Gay Pride events or the organizers of them are not promoting any sexual activity. They are not condoning abuse of any sort. In fact, many gay pride events organizers are active supporters of organizations, which work with victims of all sort of domestic violence and exploitation.   Between such Pride events often-local bars or other gathering places for the LGBT community host fundraisers for CASA and similar organizations, which work with victims of abuse.

So, be offended in one wants.  Hold on to one’s personal choices of sexual behavior. Work for the protection of any who are in any sort of abusive relationship.  At the same time, how about we quit acting as if we know what God personally likes or does not like sexually.  Personally, I have no idea of what the God of my understanding likes or does not enjoy sexually.  At least with the Greek Gods we had a better idea. I do know what the God of my understanding is loving and accepting of all of us.  I know that He/She/It is concerned about how well we treat ourselves and each other; how accepting we are, and how honest with we with ourselves.   I also think that He/She/It is going to love those who enjoy vanilla and all the more colorful flavors of sexual play which are possible as long as they are safe, mutually respectful and fun!

The God of my understanding is very concerned about all forms of discrimination, oppression, war and  all forms of family, community, national and  international violence.

It was another Sunday and another invitation to learn (from a guest on the NPR show, On Being. Today the topic was  “Opening up the Race Narrative”.  The guest speaker was John A. Powell.  Mr. Powell “was born on May 27, 1947[4] in Detroit, Michigan. Previously powell was the Executive Director of the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at The Ohio State University.[5] He also taught civil rights law, property law and jurisprudence and held the Earl R. Larson Chair of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law at the University of Minnesota Law School.

He is founder and former Executive Director of the Institute on Race & Poverty (IRP), which is located at the University of Minnesota Law School.[6] He has taught at Columbia University School of Law, Harvard Law School, University of Miami School of Law, American University and the University of San Francisco School of Law.” (Wikipedia)

Mercy!  That tells us something about this mean and his “professional” achievement. It does not tell us  he that he is identified as an African Amarican (identifying label has changed over the years) and as the son of  amazing parents.  Both of his parents seemed to have taken the message of that man Jesus about love very seriously.  His father was, in addition to working another job, a minster in a Christian church. Although Mr. Powell can and does use very erudite academic language, two if the words which he seems to use most frequently are ‘love” and ‘we”.  In my mind this says a lot about  who he is as a person.  This reminded of my history ties to various change movements and institutions including my own role as a minister of a Christian church. Often these change movements or organizations were perceived as dangerous by those who opposed the changes.

In the sixties and the early seventies, many in the civil right movement, the non-violence /anti-war movement, the women’s movement and the gay rights movement were eager to convince themselves and the general populace that the changes that they were proposing were not dangerous. That seemed to me to be a lie.  I came to this movement with a background in the study of systems (engineering, psychology, theology, physics and psychology).  I maintained that “Yes, we were and are dangerous. The changes we were proposing threatened the very structure of our culture.  We were advocating that  we explore how we identify ourselves, how we live or avoid living in community, how we use laws and how we use and are used by the basic institutions of this country.  We were proposing changes, which were going to change all of these. I knew this was going to feel frightening to many.  I thought that we needed  to quit lying about this fact. We needed to remember how frightening change can be for all of us.  These were  profound changes we  were proposing.”

Indeed these many years later some of the basic beliefs of the fundamental institutions of this country are being challenged.  Painfully for many we are in the second term of our first African American President.  An action of the Supreme Court has legalized same sex marriage.  The Episcopal Church in the United States outgoing presiding Bishop is a woman and the incoming presiding Bishop is a black man.  In 2003 that same church body appointed the first openly gay person as a Bishop, Gene Robinson.  Although we have yet to elect a Female President we have had more than one woman as a serious contender for that job.  There have been powerful back women such as Shirley Chisholm as the first female African American Congress Woman. 

At the very same time we are today still arguing about the role of the Confederate Flag as a public statement of who we are. Just this past weekend a woman was arrested for taking down the Confederate flag from the South Carolina statehouse.  This morning, while looking out the window of the gym from the vantage point of a treadmill, I saw a pickup truth which proudly displayed two large flags from flagpoles attached to the back of his pickup truck – a Confederate Flag and a U.S. Flag.  The next to me who assured me that she did not agree with the display of the Confederate Flag. I suggested that we need to love and pray for/with that young man.  My best guess is that young man was responding to the renewed effort to stop the official display of the Confederate Flag from such place as the statehouse in South Carolina.  My further guess is that this young man feels that the flag is a part of his identify.

As always the challenge is to see the action of the young man as a mirror for that part of me who holds on to various parts of my identify, some of which is racist.   Early on in my involvement in the various social justice movements it was suggested that all of us involved in the struggle needed to examine our own racism, sexism, ageism and homophobia and other internalized biases. This is what some such as Mr. Powell calls implicit bias.  Implicit bias is:

1  Also known as implicit social cognition, implicit bias refers to the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner. 
N

Understanding Implicit Bias
kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/.../understanding-implicit-bias/

Part of the core of our identity is all the biases we have learned since birth.   Anytime I have served with others on committees such as the racial justice committee at the YWCA of Wheeling the first challenge was to write about and then present to the full committee my own history of learning to be racist. All of us on the committee had to do this several times because it was assumed that all of us who had grown up in this country– black, brown, white, yellow – had learned racism since we were young.  As we continued to grow our “memory” would change. Even prior to this I had been told that I had a plethora of biases including sexism, ageism and homophobia.   This was not said with anger or rancor. It was just assumed that one could not live in this culture without learning these biases. We might not have had some of the obvious, overt behaviors but others were there. Today I still have to dig for another level of honesty regarding these implicit biases.  

Mr. Power talked about Nelson Mandela in his memoir Long Walk to Freedom talking about the following example of implicit bias.   This is the one to which he was referring,

In his memoir, Long Walk To Freedom, Nelson Mandela recounts an incident that occurred early in the anti-apartheid movement on one of his trips to garner support from other African leaders. The incident caused him to experience what he called “a strange sensation” as he was boarding an Ethiopian Airways flight to Addis. He noted that the pilot was black, and because he had never seen a black pilot before, in the instant he saw this pilot, he writes that he had to suppress the panic that arose within him. “How could a black man fly an airplane?” he asked himself.

Mr. Powell further reminds us that being human is about being in relationships.  Perhaps the most powerful implicit biased we have to identify and unlearn in this culture is that of individuality – “the notion that we can control everything when we cannot control ourselves”  Over and over again Mr. Powell uses the pronoun we.  This is very powerful.  From my informal study of speakers and authors for many years, it is unusual for a male speaker or author to use the term we very often.   It is much more common for women to use the term.  I suspect that I would find in a more careful study what we white males are less likely than males who official identify as non-white to use the pronoun “we”. I believe that the “we” is social and moral imperative if we want to make changes.

The other word Mr. Powell uses so frequently is that four-letter word love.   All great thinkers have suggested that if we want to have a relationship with others and mother earth we must first have an honest, loving relationship with ourselves.   This is going to be uncomfortable because as Mr. Power says, “if you suffer it does not imply love, but if you love it does imply suffering.”  He would go on to remind us that without love we do not have joy.  I would go so far as to suggest that the most profound suffering has to do with a sense of aloneness  - being disconnected from ourselves, each other, and mother earth.  When I am not lovingly honest with myself I am not lovingly present with myself and thus really alone. When I cannot be lovingly present I cannot be present with others, my higher power or mother earth.  Without love I am alone – there is no we.

I think we all long to be a part of.  To be a part of may mean facing that uncomfortable feeling of not having the anchors of racism or other learned “truths” to hide behind. That may feel dangerous, but together we can do this.  If the only way one knows how to be a part of is to be a part of a group of racists or terrorists or some other right wing groups that is what one will do. When one uses anger to respond to the person whose need to be a part of has led him/her to connect with a racist or terrorist group, it will only reinforce his/her anger and sense of separateness.  When I am not in touch with my implicit biases I am likely to respond with anger to those I perceive as biased.  When I am in touch with my own implicit biases I can respond with love to those who mirror my own history. At that moment I becomes a we.

Since the mid-seventies some of my professional duties and commitments involve working with domestic violence. I was particularly involved with the violence between couples living together. Often, if heterosexual, the couples were legally married. If not heterosexual, they of course were not, until recently, legally married.  My commitment led to my working with domestic violence programs, which often provided shelters, advocates, and legal and related social services.  It seemed as if legally married individuals frequently stayed in the marriage because they understood from their ministers, priests, rabbis, elders or other religious leaders that God/Allah required them to stay in the marriage and make it work.   At that time, it was not unusual for a religious leader to voice the opinion (presented as a fact) that if the male was being violent with this wife it was because she was not being a good wife.  It was her responsibility to stay in the marriage and make it work.   I found this a very strange opinion coming, as it did, from religious leaders.  They were talking as if a relationship, which included violence, was still a marriage.  I understood then, and now, marriage to be a relationship of love, trust, mutual respect, and partnership.   This was certainly the definition I had learned in seminary.  Domestic violence – hitting, slapping, kicking, biting, punching or deliberate use of hurtful words designed to belittle or steal the self worth of the individual – made the marriage contract null and void.  One could not both have a sacred union and a non-sacred union.  Yet, religious leaders often insisted that the wife stay in the marriage and make it work even if she had suffered broken bones and was in danger of being killed.   Nothing in my religious training or in my religious beliefs said to me that a violent relationship was a marriage in any spiritual or emotional sense.  Certainly, in the legal sense, it was still a marriage. There was still communal property to be divided and often the care of children to be decided. 

If the relationship was between two people of the same sex the religious leaders did not, with few exceptions, recognize it anyway.  The state then did not grant any protection in terms of property or children.

Over the past few years some states in this country and a few other countries have come to recognize that marriage is indeed a sacred union between two people.  Not only it is a spiritual and emotional union, but it also deserves and needs the protection of the state in terms of property, benefits and care of the children.  On June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court of the United Stated rendered a decision in a case challenging the right of states to limit a marriage between a male and a female. The court, in effect, made it illegal to discriminate against a couple on the basis of gender.  Justice Kennedy in writing the opinion said:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.   In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.  As some of

The petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death.  It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage.  Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply  that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves.  Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions.  They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law.  The Constitution grants them that right.

It is so ordered.

Lawrence v Texas 6/26/2003
Windsor v New York, 6/26/2013
Obergefell v Hodges 6/26/2015

Needless to say, as soon as the decision was announced there were many who continued to maintain, often with the claim of the authority of God/Allah that marriage can only be between one man and one woman for life. This is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church and many other religious institutions.  Some churches have changed their definition of marriage to a more inclusive one.   

In Louisiana, the Attorney General, James “Buddy” Caldwell condemned the ruling as “federal government intrusion into what should be a state issue.”   I find it particularly interesting that he and some others would use this argument in the very same week that we have been brutally reminded that the civil war was not about states rights but about human rights. 

In Florida, the state where I am now living and where the attitudes of some of our elected officials mirror those of the “Buddy” Caldwell, large gay pride events are taking place this weekend.    In our nation’s capital, the White House is lit with rainbow lights to celebrate the decision of the Supreme Court.

We remain a nation divided although great strides have been made in redefining marriage since I was a young professional.   It has been a long time since I have had a religious leader tell me directly that domestic violence of a male against a female is always the woman’s fault.   In the church in which I was ordained and served as a teaching elder the church can consecrate same sex unions although it is still at the discretion of the teaching elder/minister. 

Despite the objection of many a few years ago an openly gay Episcopal Priest was elected bishop by that church despite the dire predictions of many in that church body. In fact the priest of the mainline Episcopal Church in the city I, whom I was living, maintained that God only allowed for sex between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation.   Yet, this very same priest had often performed marriage ceremonies for heterosexual couples that had been living together and presumably having sex for many years.    Were they really waiting to get married until they were sure the woman could be a good Christian and conceive a child?

Now, to be honest, I have often wondered about the paucity of sexual contact between those couples who believe that sex is only allowed if one if trying to duplicate the Duggar family record of 19 children and counting. 

I have also often wondered about the sexual contact chart, which God must maintain to insure that, in fact, in their heart of hearts all heterosexual couples having sex are sincerely attempting to add to their family and are committed to not enjoying the contact.    

Not too worry.  If the sales of Viagra and other similar drugs are any indication there is scarcely a man left, at least in the United States, who is able to get and maintain an erection without assistance.

In fact, even with drug assistance how many married couples no longer have a sexual relationship at all or, of they, do it is not very frequent. If married and parents one soon finds that there is little time or privacy for any playful sex even if they are convinced that God have better things with which to be concerned.

It is noteworthy that Justice Kennedy does not, in his opinion, say thing about marriage being about sexual contact.   What he says in the above quoted paragraph is the essence of his entire opinion Let’s read it again?

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.   In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.  As some of

The petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death.  It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage.  Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply  that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves.  Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions.  They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law.  The Constitution grants them that right.

It is so ordered.
Lawrence v Texas 6/26/2003
Windsor v New York, 6/26/2013
Obergefell v Hodges 6/26/2015

On my!  Marriage is about love and love is about taking care of each other and about respecting each other. It is about fidelity, devotion, love, sacrifice and family.  He says nothing about marriage being about sex although I personally hope that many couples enjoy that level of intimacy. On the other hand, am I worried about the fact that same sex couples cannot themselves conceive and bear a child although many same sex children do conceive, bear and raise a child either because of past unions, the use of a surrogate or artificial insemination?

My understanding is that the world population is continuing to grow, albeit at a slower rate than previously. On the other hand, we also know that in many parts of the world more people are living longer. Additionally it is true that more people are living in urban areas and do not need large families to work the farm, ranch or other family business.

In times past, within the context of what was then known scientifically, it was important to conceive as many children as possible.  This was because:

·     Many children died prior to being born or during childbirth.

·     Many women died during childbirth.

·     Many children did not live to be very old. We had few medical treatments available.

·     The “unscientific” belief was that there were a limited number of sperm.  There were no microscopes to make that count.

Given these beliefs it was very important to try to prevent the wasting of sperm by masturbation and same sex unions.    The best way to try to control the very powerful sexual feelings was fear.  The most effective fear seemed to be to posit the displeasure of God.  I am not sure how effective the fear was although I suspect it sometimes did help reduce activity. I strongly suspect that often it resulted in a lot of guilt without much reduction of activity! (I do not feel a need for full disclosure in this instance).  For some this is still the case.  It not only caused guilt. In many countries and including, until recently the United States, the threat was not just eternal punishment but jail or death here on earth. In some places that is still the case.

No wonder some suggested that religion was sometimes the opium of the masses.

What Justice Kennedy and his colleagues who joined him in this majority decision are suggesting is that the focus needs to be on the support of families – all types of families.  We already know that healthy families are good for individual health and the health of children.   Let’s do all we can to lend support to all families.   For all our concern about the gender of couples we have not created a family friendly society.  We have not made child care or care of our partners easy.  There are those companies, which are very family friendly – who insist that individuals do all they can to be present in taking care of children and partners. Sadly these companies are few and far between.  As a country we are not in the forefront of creating and enforcing policies, which give paid maternity and paternity leave, sick leave when children are sick, provide childcare and time off when a partner is ill.   Instead of worrying about antiquated rules regarding the gender of married couples let’s focus on creating a community, which is really and truly family friendly.

Footnote:   It is true I have not addressed the issue of the possible transmission of sexual disease.  Obviously such diseases are not gender conscious although there are sexual behavior practices which are more  risky for some.   All individuals need to practice safer and responsible sexual behavior.

Friday morning, as I was reading the  St. Petersburg Tribune I was reminded of the fairy tale known in this country as Chicken Little.  There are many versions of the Henny Penny story.

“The story was part of the oral folk tradition and only began to appear in print after the Brothers Grimm had set a European example with their collection of German tales in the early years of the 19th century. One of the earliest to collect tales from Scandinavian sources was Just Mathias Thiele, who in 1823 published an early version of the Henny Penny story in the Danish language.[3] The names of the characters there are Kylling Kluk,[4] Høne Pøne,[5] Hane Pane,[6] And Svand,[7] Gaase Paase,[8] and Ræv Skræv.[9] In Thiele's untitled account, a nut falls on Kylling Kluk's back and knocks him over. He then goes to each of the other characters, proclaiming that “I think all the world is falling” and setting them all running. The fox Ræv Skræv joins in the flight and, when they reach the wood, counts them over from behind and eats them one by one. Eventually the tale was translated into English by Benjamin Thorpe after several other versions had appeared.” ((Wikipedia.com)

In other versions of the story the chicken escapes and is able to warn the king. 

One of the headlines in a June 26th  story by Washington Post writer Karen Tumulty was “For Republicans, noisy outrage, quiet relief”.  She was referring to the decision of the U. S. Supreme Court to uphold a portion of the Affordable Care Act which provides financial assistant for millions of people in the United State to purchase health insurance.  Republicans (and some Democrats)  have, as a whole, waged war again this health care plan since it became law. The sigh of relief is because had the Supreme Court decided that the financial assistance was illegal it would have put pressure on those opposed to the current Act  to come up with a viable alternative. 

That, of course, is not the only decision the Supreme Court is making this session.   Daily there are many reports from local, stage, federal and legislative bodies as well as courts at every level and elected officials making decisions which some herald as the dawning of a new era in creating a just and loving society and other decry as the equivalent of “the sky is falling”.

This is a tale often repeated throughout history.   I recall, as a child, listening to my grandparents and their peers talking about political issues and election results.  Often no matter which side won or lost there was a group of people on both sides who were convinced that if their opinion did not prevail, the sky was going to fall – the end of civilization as one then knew it.  To be fair, there have been times in history when, indeed, the sky (little ‘s’) did fall. Nations or empires ceased to exist.   Entire communities have been wiped out by a person-made device such as atomic weapons or by “natural’  events such as illness, floods, volcano eruptions, storms, and events such as oil spills.  Often many people have died. Such “natural” disasters have included:

Number died                   

300,000      1737 Calcutta cyclone

280,000      2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami

273,400      1920 Haiyuan earthquake

7005250000000000000♠250,000–300,000       526 Antioch earthquake

Wikipedia

Historians have estimated between 21.5 million and 50 million people died as a result of the 1918-1919 flue pandemic.  Even the low number, 21.5 million is a lot of people.

Are the political events, the death and destruction caused by wars, the suffering from oppression, and the destruction caused by natural disasters the equivalent of the sky is falling.  Yes, in many respects. Such events and the prevention, when possible, of such future events is essential if we humans are to continue to populate this planet.  We may indeed have another great flood requiring the equivalent of Noah’s ark.  In fact, the more we learn that we are a small part of the total number of possible universes,  we have to accept that any one the universes, including ours, may not exist in the future.

Now we are no longer dependent on a Paul Revere to warn of impending disasters.  We creative humans have now invented many ways of instantly spreading the word of every disaster which has occurred or may be about to occur.  We are surrounded by constant cries of “The sky is falling.”  We shout and scream, numb ourselves with our “diversion de jour”, wring our hands and shop for the right costume to wear to the universe going out of business observance! The party planners are busy being their most creative in designing the perfect event complete with the biggest fire works ever known and a setting to rival the best of the extravagant by gone move sets.  It will be a party to end all parties.

The opposite approach is the Buddhist approach of “Oh, isn’t that interesting.”  Another possible approach is the yin yang level of reality – an approach which appreciates that the ending is always the beginning.

My undergraduate degree was in the study of philosophy.  At some point in my studies I was introduced to the very opposite of what I had often learned in school or in the framework of  the religion in which I was raised. I learned to question  the validity of what has been known as the law of contradiction which basically states that something cannot be both x and non-x.    I will not delve into this area of study at this time. Suffice it to say that this is another way of experiencing the world. Certainly it is the way the Republicans in this country are viewing the decision of the supreme court.   The decision is good. The decision is terrible.

Whether we are exploring the possible truth of the biblical statement “all things work together for good”, basic system theory or the string theory of physical, it  cannot be contested that everything in my present reality is completely dependent of all that has happened in my past. If I had the power to change any past event and exercised that power my current life would be much different. Whether it would be better or worse is open to question but it would be different.

What if we then take this yin yang, seemingly contradictory truths to the news of chicken little.   Either the sky will fall or it will not.  If it does  and I die, that is just a moment prior to when I would have died anyway.  At 75 I know that life only lasts a few seconds at most.  If the sky does not fall then I am going to keep putting one foot in front of the other and reminding myself to breathe – left food, right foot, breathe.

From my perspective both of the following are absolutely true:

·      Quality health care for all people is very important and, in fact, the only moral choice.

·      With or without health care life is two second long. All that matters is that I do my best to be as healthy as possible so that I can show up to love as best as humanly possible in this moment.

When I am willing to allow for these two possible truths about every issues – the outcome matters absolutely and it does not matter – I am able to stay focused on what is and do my best to honor the sacredness of the moment.

Perhaps I could offer chicken little a vacation in the far away land of a vegetarian resort built especially for chicken littles!

                              

I was recently having dinner with friends and their young child was busy exploring everything around him.   If one looked away for a second he would be in the next booth, finding the fork one thought one had put safely out of his reach, or researching the concept of gravity with the liquid in dad’s glass.  Understandably,  his parents, who had another child only a few weeks old, were exhausted and wanting the young child to “behave” for one minute.  Uncle Jim said, “Wow. You are a wonderful little scientist.”  As parents, the goal of my friends was to encourage the desire to explore the world and how it works while, at the same time, insuring that the child did not get hurt or hurt someone else. Of course, if honest, another goal at that time of day was to just have a moment’s peace – to be able to take an uninterrupted breath.

One of the luxuries of one’s child being 44 is that one no longer has to be so concerned about the behavior of one’s child which leaves one plenty of time to encourage the children of one’s friends and relatives to explore the world, make all the noise one wants, and to generally insure that the parents are driven over the edge!  This is what the good aunt, uncle; grandparent or close friend has the privilege of doing.  Depending on the energy level of the parents, one is either balancing out the rule based parenting or one is teaching the child to misbehave and, thus, one deserves to be sent to one’s room along with the child.

As we know, there are many instances when the same behavior can be labeled as something positive or negative.  For example, as a counselor, I have often worked with/for individuals who seems unable or unwilling to experiment with a new behavior, which has less negative consequences.  One might refer to such refusal or inability as stubborn.  I might stay to that client, “The determination you are showing is a wonderful. I wonder what might happen if you used that same behavior in practicing a new behavior, which might give you the outcome, the healthy part of you wants.  If they were able to allow themselves to do that I might describe the new behavior as tenacious.  Tenacious is generally considered a positive term, but essentially means the same thing as stubborn.  Both stubborn and tenacious are characterized by perseverance or persistence (Heritage Dictionary of the English language).  Still, if I suggested to the client that he/she be stubborn about new behavior it would not have the same connotation and might make it more difficult for the person to change their behavior.

Another favorite concept of mine is “failure”.    Often the important question is whether I see something as a failure or a success.  If I am a research scientist looking for a cure or even treatment for some disease I am going to spend most of my time finding out what does not work (proving the null hypothesis). Is each experiment, which does not yield a cure or effective treatment a failure or a success?   I would call it a success because I have found out what does not work which then allows me to narrow or broaden my research.   I often tell clients, particularly those under the age of 18, that, in my office, failing is wonderful.  I tell them that the only people who do not frequently fail are the ones who never try to learn anything new. They never fail, but they also never succeed.  To succeed one has to be willing to fail.

I was reading another examples of word use this morning.  The word was terrorist.  What is a terrorist?  What differentiates a terrorist from a patriot?  One can go to the FBI webpage and find the U. S. Code definition of terrorism (18 U.S.C. #2331 , chapter 113 B) – international terrorism and domestic terrorism.  The definition contained in that code is an accurate description of those who flew their planes into the twin towers and the Pentagon as well as the ones, which who hijacked the plane, which crashed in Pennsylvania. It might be used to describe the behavior of the man who was just convicted of the Boston marathon bombing or the shooting of the 9 individuals in the Charleston Church.  Would the use of that word accurate connote or denote the  motive of the person(s).

We do not  normally use the word terrorist to describe the behavior of the United States in foreign countries whether the operation was overt or covert – military or CIA initiated and executed. Other countries would not always describe the behavior of those fighting the United States as terrorists. We do not generally use the term terrorist to describe the behavior of our allies such as Israel.   Depending on the country, group or religion associated with those initiating attacks the label may be different.  If we have previously labeled a particular group or country as an enemy we might be quick to link a violent event with the term terrorist. We may then link the word terrorist to a particular religion or group.  In recent years we have often made this mistake with those practicing the Muslim religion.

A good reminders of the use or misuse of the term terrorist is contained in recent events including the Charleston Bombing, the sentencing of the person responsible for the Boston Bombing, and the trial and sentencing of the man responsible for the attack at the Colorado theater.    We might have been “trained” to think of most terrorism attacks in the United States as related to Islamists, but, as Anhvinh Doanvo, a research assistant for the Global Initiative on Civil Society and Conflict, points out in a letter to the editor in the St Petersburg Tribute of June 25, 2015:

         “According to the FBI’s timeline of terrorist attacks, more terrorist attacks from 1980-2005 have been associated with Jewish extremist on U. S. soil than Islamists – 7 percent and 6 percent were associated with the groups, respectively.  Newer data sets have told a similar story. Duke University found that on average nine American Muslims were involved in attempted terrorist attacks every year since 9/11, resulting in 50 fatalities.  In start contrast, West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center recorded 337 right-wing extremist attacks per year, resulting in 254 fatalities since 9/11.  Similarity, the Global Terrorism Database of the University of Maryland has recorded 24 Islamic extremist attacks since 9/11; 65 right-wing terrorist attacks were recorded over the same time period.”

The author also points out that “And although the difference in the courts between hate crimes and terrorism is almost comically arbitrary, it is likely that the share of terrorist attacks by right-wing extremists is even more lopsided than what these statistics suggest.”

These distinctions become important because, as the author of the letter also points out,  the misconceptions and inaccurate data can be used to “support costly interventions in the Middle East”.  These distinctions also help determine what issues we are going to identify and address as individuals and as a nation.

Let us look at another word - Rendition.  It generally means what we learned in grade school. It is another version of a piece of piece of music or some other work.   Yet, it came to have a new meaning after 9/11 as opensocietyfoundation.org reminds us:

After the 9-11 attacks against the United States, the Central Intelligence Agency conspired with dozens of governments to build a secret extraordinary rendition and detention program that spanned the globe. Extraordinary rendition is the transfer—without legal process—of a detainee to the custody of a foreign government for purposes of detention and interrogation.

One could go on to list numerous examples of words and what they both connote and denote as well as what new meanings have been assigned to them.  If the reader wants to have some fun they are directed to the web site Shakespearwords.com which there is a very long list of words used by Shakespeare which often have a multitude of meanings then and now.

It is also true that that the connotation of a particular word for me might be very different for the person who is hearing or reading the word.  For example I once referred to the fact that a woman whose self esteem was a minus 50 as making herself small. She heard this a sarcastic reference to her weight, which was significant.  She never did forgive me no matter how hard I tried to correct what I intended for her to hear.

The word hard is another word that is often misunderstood or used in such a vague way that it is not useful.  One might say that it is hard to change meaning it is scary to change or it feels scary to change.  On might also say that my shovel is made out of hard steel.

It is easy for this human to have a word pop into my mind to then open mouth letting it emerge and, as they say, insert foot. (Sometimes the whole leg).  I often have not been as thoughtful as I might about my choice of words. I know it serves me and others well if I am more intentional and considerate about what words I use and my motive for doing so. This is not going to eliminate all communication issues,  but it would be a start.

Finally I want to suggest that we have some fun with language.

From the website ukstudentlife.com:

Sounds and Letters

A poem for English students

When in English class we speak,

Why is break nor rhymed with freak?

Will you tell me why it's true

That we say sew, but also few?

When a poet writes a verse

Why is horse not rhymed with worse?

Beard sounds not the same as heard

Lord sounds not the same as word

Cow is cow, but low is low

Shoe is never rhymed with toe.

Think of nose and dose and lose

Think of goose, but then of choose.

Confuse not comb with tomb or bomb,

Doll with roll, or home with some.

We have blood and food and good.

Mould is not pronounced like could.

There's pay and say, but paid and said.

"I will read", but "I have read".

Why say done, but gone and lone -

Is there any reason known?

To summarise, it seems to me

Sounds and letters disagree.

Vengeance or Forgiveness

The day began as do many others.  I did some email and then headed to the gym. Before listening to the energizing sounds of Etta James (father’s day gift of my son) I climbed on the treadmill and watched the morning news on the television.   The stark contract of two stories caught my attention.  Later I read in the St. Petersburg Tribune (June 24, 2015) more about the same news stories.  The first was about the death penalty for “Dark Knight “killer” James Homes “being applauded by victims and friends of victims who say they want to watch him die.”  (dailyMail.co.UK, June 24, 2015) Among the quotes was one which is attributed to Bryan Beard who said, “He took one of my friends from this Earth. Death equals death.”  Other so-called victims (family members of those who died) are reputed to have applauded the decision and say they want to watch him die.

This young man, James Eagan Holmes, is 27 year old, has a BS in neuroscience, had played soccer and attended the Lutheran Church when growing up with his family.  Sadly, he first attempted suicide at age 11.

The second story is about the reaction of the family and friends of those killed at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in South Carolina.

Facing the alleged killer Dylann Roof, family members who lost close family members were unanimous in their very public declaration of forgiveness of 21-year-old Dylann Roof.

We all know, of course, that the teaching of the Christian church’s leader, Jesus Christ, is to “forgive your enemies’, but seldom has a church family who have suffered such tragic losses been so clear about following the teachings of a leader.   We all know how easy it is for we humans, no matter what our religious framework, to find exceptions to every teaching. We have used the very same Christian bible to justify slavery, use of the death penalty, and almost every form of cruelty imaginable.  Christians are not alone in this use of religion to justify the killing of others.  Frequently Chaplains pray for the successful mission – often a mission designed to kill. Those alleging embracing the Muslim faith, the Jewish faith and many other faiths have killed in the name of their higher power – in the name of their god.

Yet, as Michael Gearson of the Washington Post points out in an article printed in The St. Petersburg Tribune on June 24, 2015 (page 13) “When many relatives of those cruelly murdered in Charleston-by a man who talked and prayed with his victims for an hour before systematically gunning them down-publicly offered their forgiveness, it was stunning and admirable in many ways.”  He goes on to quote the daughter of one of the victims, “Forgiveness is also a form of freedom- a refusal to be ruled by anger or resentment. It is like laying a burden down.”  Mr. Gearson goes on to discuss the dual problems, as he sees it – the problems of racism and domestic terrorism. I urge the reader to read his article by going to Internet site of the Washington Post or just googling Michael Gearson, the Power of Forgiveness.

Many readers of this blog will not be surprised that I began to think of how I was going to explain these divergent views to my six-year-old friend, Sam.  I can well imagine this very curious child being aware of these events and wanting to understand how both groups of people think that their position is the logical or acceptable one.   Both groups of people are composed of good people who are attempting to process the events, which led up to their grief. Both are attempting to respond in a way, which they think will help them deal with these tragedies and perhaps prevent or reduce the number of such future events.  I strongly suspect that the same individuals and families who are quick to forgive Dylann Roof would be the first to show compassion to those who are applauding the death penalty for Mr. James Home.

Let’s spend a few moments with Sam.

Sam:  I am really confused about why the people in South Carolina are forgiving the killer while in Colorado they are going to kill the killer.  Is it because one was in a theater and one was in a church? Do we only have to forgive if something happens in a church? Is this because God is hanging out in the church?

Me: Those are really good questions Sam. No, I think that God is just as present in the theater as he is in the church.

Sam:  Do the people in the theater have a different God or a different church, which says it, is okay to kill.

Me: Not necessarily Sam.  Many of the family members and friends of those killed in the theater in Colorado also attend a similar church as the people in South Carolina.

Sam: Then which is right! Both Mr. Holmes and Mr. Roof are bad people, right?

Me:  Well, Sam, some of us think that neither man is bad.  Their minds were really confused.

Sam: Does not mean that everyone one who kills has a confused mind?  What about Uncle Tony who fought in Iraq? When I asked him he said he had to kill people

Me.  No that is different. Our president and congress decided that we had to kill people in Iraq to protect other people.

Sam:  But Uncle Tony says that some people now think we were wrong to kill people in Iraq.

Me:  Yes, I am aware of that, but we thought that they were getting ready to harm us.

Sam: So if I think that someone is going to harm me or someone in our family it is okay to hurt them first.  I could even kill them?

Me; No.  It would be really nice that you wanted to protect the family, but in our family we are going to try to find other ways of taking care of each other,  You know that when you and your brother are fighting what we do.

Sam:  Yes, I know.  You make sit down and talk to you and mom.  He is a bully.  How come you do not just punish him?

Me:  Well, Sam, sometimes you also do some things, which your brother finds really aggravating.

Sam:  I know…. (sigh)

Me.  We seemed to have strayed from our discussion about forgiveness.

Sam:  oh yeah!

Me: Well, in our family we think that all of us hurt each other’s feelings or do something which seems wrong to others in the family.   We know that everyone in our family deserves to be forgiven. No matter what anyone in this family does, everyone is still a member of the family.

Sam:  I know. Is that why Santa even brings gifts to my brother?

Me:  Yes.  He brings gifts to Uncle Tom also.  You know that Uncle Tom has that funny sounding disease.  It is called Alzheimer’s. Sometimes Uncle Tom gets really scared and hits others.   The disease makes his brain sick.

Perhaps both Mr. Holmes and Mr. Roof have sick brains.

Sam:  Isn’t it still wrong to kill others.

Me:  Yes, God does not like us to kill others but God knows that our human brain sometimes gets sick and then we do bad things.  We are lucky that our brains are not sick. At least ,not today.

Sam:  Can I say that my sick brain made me destroy my mean brother’s x-box.  That would serve him right

Obviously, this discussion is go on for a very long time.    I love the fact that the folks at Emanuel have challenged the people in this country to have these sorts of discussion.  Whether we are Christian, Muslim, and Jewish, Atheists or claim some other faith we need to be able to explore the possibility that forgiveness frees us all.   Perhaps if we could come to this conclusion we cold focus more on what we as a culture, are doing or not doing to promote mental health and communal respect.  Communal respect would not allow for racism or any of the other “reasons’ we use to hurt each other or to dissociate ourselves from “the we” of our existence.

Recently, I was completing my drive from Wheeling, WV to Dunedin, Florida.  I seldom make such a long drive, but when I do I treasure being able to listen to programs, which I normally do not have or make the time to listen to.  Most people who know me are aware that I listen mostly to National Public Radio.   There are a number of programs of which I am particularly fond, including such programs as Car Talk, Weekend Edition, On Being and interviews by or with Terry Gross.  Yesterday, driving from Savannah, Georgia to Dunedin I had the good fortune to hear an interview she recorded on June 19, 2015 with Mark Maron (comedian, writer, director, producer, actor, person) following his interview with President Barack Obama in his garage office in Los Angeles.   One can listen to both his interview with President Obama and the interview with Terry Gross, which follows his interview with the President.  It is not my intent to repeat the substance of that interview or to comment on it.  Suffice it to say that it was noteworthy for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the name of Mr. Maron’s program is WTF (Yes!  What the Fuck.  One does not expect the President of the United States to appear on a program with such a title.  But then, most people know to expect the unexpected from President Obama.  Regardless of where one is politically, one will find him a person and a President about whom nearly everyone has something to say – positive, negative, and neutral.   I am sure, in years to come, when individuals are working on a doctoral dissertation on some aspect of his presidency, his history or his personality from the safe environment of the Presidential Library which will eventually be located in his home town of Chicago, one will find a wealth of possible topics upon which to wax for far more that the required length of the dissertation.   Even now, as is true for any sitting president, there is no shortage of conjectures, opinions and emotional reactions to the man and the politician.

Mr. Maron seems to be one of those unusually bright, talented, erudite, individuals who are not short on opinions or courage.  From my standpoint one of the qualities I most admire about this man is that he talks about the process of maturing in confidence, which, not surprisingly, had led to his ability to have empathy for others.

Empathy is, in my opinion, one of those behavioral attributes, which only seems to come with the courage to look at and accept one own humanness. It seems as if most of we humans struggle with getting nakedly honest with ourselves and, if we do not kill ourselves or poke our own eyes out first,  we eventually come to the point where we recognize that we are basically no different than any other human. Oh my!  That can be a disappointment. Whether it is an Eleanor Roosevelt, that Jesus fellow, the man we now call the Buddha, King Lear, Dylann Roof or Charles Manson, we come to realize that what separates us from each of these people other than possibly as single chromosome is a spit second of action.   Daily, I am confronted with a symphony of voices (Okay, so it is not a symphony.  It is the chorus of noise on the first day of practice and the first day of picking up a musical instrument by a grade school band.) All expressing different emotions and opinion about what I should do to or in or …  Often it is not pretty.  Just recently I wrote a blog about the confessions of a pacifist.  Second by second I think or act out on thoughts and feelings, which are far, removed from the man I person I would like to envision myself as being.  Sometimes I am that kind, patient, loving, listening, empathic man I aspire to being.   Other times one of the other voices makes a cameo appearance; an appearance which one hopes is brief.   When I am this honest about the myriad of opinion, thoughts, and emotions this person, which is me, has it is very difficult to judge others. 

Just this morning I was talking to a good friend who is also a neighbor. He was mentioning that the other day, while I was out of town, an emergency vehicle had come for one of our neighbors who struggles with finding the courage, the strength or perhaps the love for self which would allow him to take better care of himself.  My friend was remarking that it is difficult to have empathy for this man since he seems to refuse to take care of himself and then calls the emergency team when he is medically in trouble. At least someone call the E-squad.  I was remarking to my friend that it seemed to me that the behavior of this man is no different than that of the addict who “knows” his behavior is not healthy and is having an adverse affect on others, but who is unable, for whatever reason(s) to take that next step towards getting help with addiction recovery.  Daily, I say or do something, which I know better than to do.  Whether it is eating a snack, skipping the gym, speaking before I think (frequent), I can identify with the anyone who says or does something, which from my current perspective seems dumb or stupid.  I was saying to my friend, “it seems to me that we humans are, as Pema Chodron, stupid no matter who intellectually bright we are.”

One of the statements Mr. Maron made was in reference to his reaction following the interview with President Obama and after al secret service people, wires and other Presidential paraphilia had been cleared.  When he was left just with his producer he cried.    Just about the time he said that I found myself crying also.   I had no idea why I was crying except that there was something about the situation and how this African American, mixed race, kid who grew up in Hawaii and this often caustic, sarcastic, host of “What the Fuck” connected as two human being having a conversation in a garage which resonated with the sense of wonder, gratitude, awe and magic which allows this often inept, simple, country boy who has spent his entire life waiting to be revealed to be the fraud that he is have the audacity to write, work  as a counselor and pretend to be  a person who is inhabiting the costume “de jour”.

I often find myself crying. The tears might be triggered by some situation or event, which touches my heart.   They might be triggered by the news of the killing in the church in South Carolina. I could be the shooter – a few synapses firing to the left or right and then I am – or one of those shot.  Fortunately, I have never physically hurt anyone but I have certainly hurt others with words or even with inaction.  The tears might, at times, be a simple reaction to some irritant in my eye.  They could be a response to a feeling of exhaustion, grief, helplessness, loneliness or some other feeling or emotion. 

This range of tears seems to be a uniquely humans characteristic.

Sometimes, especially with a child, but also at time with we adults, tears signal distress.

I would be remiss if I did not fess up to the fact that tears can also be a way of attempting to elicit sympathy, empathy, or support. This might be especially true is I am tempted to divert the attention of someone, i. e. a partner, from transgression or mistake of mine!

As a male – you know one of those Y chromosome animals – my tear ducts might be slightly different/smaller than that of the XX person, but, in general, we males and females seems to have a wide range of emotions.  We males may attempt to shed tears internally or in private, but thank God we have the ability to cry with/for/along side of others. Thank God we can learn to cry for ourselves.

It is interesting that often we males are uncomfortable with the tears of females and even more so with the tears of ourselves or another male.  Yet, why would I want to trust anyone who does not cry? I need to know that others are as human as I am.

Hats of to Mr. Maron for not making a big deal out of his tears or the fact that he is, as is true for others, a work in progress and me.  This short witted, bright, passionate, flannel shirt wearing, garage office Y chromosome person will continue with humor, acting roles, interviews and in other ways to tickle my mind and my heart.

What the Fuck!

I was talking with a person about spiritual growth today.  We happened on the topic of humor and its role in spiritual growth.  This man is well aware that I have a propensity to laugh at myself, to laugh with others and to envision a diety or God which has does not take himself/herself/itself too seriously.     That prompted me to attempt to reflect on my understanding of the relationship between humor and spirituality.   I started my reflection with a rereading of the following poem by Saint Thomas More.

Prayer for Good Humor

Grant me, O Lord, good digestion,

and also something to digest.

Grant me a healthy body, and

the necessary good humor to maintain it.

Grant me a simple soul that knows to

treasure all that is good and that

doesn’t frighten easily at the sight of evil,

but rather finds the means to put things

back in their place.

Give me a soul that knows not boredom,

grumblings, sighs and laments,

nor excess of stress, because of that

obstructing thing called “I.”

Grant me, O Lord, a sense of good humor.

Allow me the grace to be able to take a joke

to discover in life a bit of joy,

and to be able to share it with others.

-St. Thomas More, Chancellor ot King Henry VIII

quoted on:  http://eldetail.blogspot.com/2012/02/prayer-for-good-humor.html

For those unfamiliar with Saint Thomas More, one can go to  catholic. Org or read one of the many books written about this man.   For now,  for those who are unfamiliar him I offer the following, very brief introduction.

Saint Thomas More

He attracted the attention of Henry VIII who appointed him to a succession of high posts and missions, and finally made him Lord Chancellor in 1529. However, he resigned in 1532, at the height of his career and reputation, when Henry persisted in holding his own opinions regarding marriage and the supremacy of the Pope. The rest of his life was spent in writing mostly in defense of the Church. In 1534, with his close friend, St. John Fisher, he refused to render allegiance to the King as the Head of the Church of England and was confined to the Tower. Fifteen months later, and nine days after St. John Fisher's execution, he was tried and convicted of treason. He told the court that he could not go against his conscience and wished his judges that "we may yet hereafter in heaven merrily all meet together to everlasting salvation." And on the scaffold, he told the crowd of spectators that he was dying as "the King's good servant-but God's first." He was beheaded on July 6, 1535. His feast day is June 22nd.

Quoted on Catholic.org


“the grace to be able to take a joke”.  I find this a wise and poignant part of the prayer.    For this this implies that I am secure enough in the love of God and in who I am as a human being to accept the fact that I can be silly, stupid, wise, affectionate, off putting, pompous, humble, and a host of other persons. Sometimes I can be all of these people in the space of a few moments. I am also a person whose mouth opens and utters words and thoughts with seemingly no adult realization that one might want to filter them first.  In other words my humanness is quite intact.   Yet, sometimes, we humans seem to be fearful that “the God of our understanding”  and other humans can only love us if we are perfect. In other words we can only be loved and respected if we are non-human.  This results in taking our behavior and the behavior of others very seriously. When we have difficultly laughing at ourselves we tend to take the behavior of other very seriously.   They in turn then tend to take our behavior very seriously. Soon, if not careful, we are all busy reacting to each other. 

In my experience many of us tend to do the same thing with “the God of our understanding”.  We posit that He/She/It is a very serious and resents us for being what he/she/it designs us to be!   Not only that but “the God of our understanding” has no sense of humor and/or deserts us when we evidence our humanness.

I just  spent time with a dear man who is struggling with un-leanring the belief that when it comes to emotions he is a fragile human being. He has a drama queen episode every time an uncomfortable emotion makes even a cameo appearance. This is a man who has always prided himself on being physically “tough” but who cowers like a tiny ant when fear or some other emotional discomfort visits.   Suddenly this kick ass coal miner is a high pitched, wimpy, little boy. We laugh about this. It is only by lovingly facing these parts of ourselves that we can begin to make the changes we need to make.  We are not little ants (No disrespect meant to the ants of the world. They too are creatures of the divine.)  We can be strong, loving, kick ass people who can lovingly laugh with each other as we help to mirror our ridiculous behavior to/with each other.

Last night I was talking with this very spiritual colleague who is a recovering addict  about his anger at those “addicts” who do not want to get clean and work a recovery program.  He was saying that “their attitude and behavior burns me out.”  Suddenly this man who had just talked about the gift of his recovery despite his long time struggle with relapse,  is  surprised that addicts have a difficult time believing that it is possible to have a post addiction healthy and joyful life. Really!   How silly that we humans get caught in this self righteous, pompous, blaming place.  We puff up like big fish and blow bubbles of anger.  We could beat ourselves up for being so human or we could simply laugh at the fact that  although on the intelligence quotient scale which we humans are very bright, in fact we are, as Pema Chodron says, very stupid.

Last night I had some dear friends.  During the course of dinner we lovingly made fun of each other (none of the 5 of us got off the hook) and of that Jesus fellow.  The God of our understanding has a joyful sense of humor at himself/herself/itself.   There was a time when  everyone in this group was very serious about GOD and religion and would have slugged the person who make a joke about Jesus. Today, everyone in this group is more loving and spiritually healthy than they used to be and have fun with the God of their understanding.  We can laugh with that God about his/her/its stupidity in allowing we humans to take on such important tasks as parenting with no other training that to have fumbling sex one time. Really! That is it!  I mean what was he/she/it thinking?  Obviously when he/she/it should have been paying attention they were envying the Roman Gods for their cavorting with each other.  But what can on do?  One can hardy say, “Okay. That is it!  You, GOD, are staying after class until you learn to pay  attention and come up with some more realistic alternatives.

No more.   Pant, sex, child! Come to think of it God might have to stay after class the at least the entire week.

Mark Twain in his “Letters from the Earth” makes fun of the fact that we humans envision a “heaven” in which we leave out everything we enjoy! This makes no sense at all. Why would we conceive of someplace as paradise which is a drag! Oh yet, he states.  We will all sit around playing the harp and being the sexless, dour virgin aunts and uncles!  Oh boy. Cannot wait for that one!

Growing up in a so called Christian Southern Baptist Church I would have been severely reprimanded and shamed for saying, much less writing the above.  Yet, the very same serious, righteous Christians were sometimes the most unhappy, judgmental people I knew.  They were so busy trying to be good with their serious God that they were often miserable and making everyone else miserable.

All the research supports the theory that laughter is indeed good medicine. I am going to posit that it is good medicine not only for we humans but also for the God of our understanding.

Dylann Roof

Most of us never heard of Dylann Roof prior to the shooting on June 17, 2015 at the AME church in Charleston, South Carolina.  There was no reason why we would have been made aware of this young man.  He apparently attended a local high school from the 8th through the 10th grade.  His history included a couple of arrests, one of which might have been for a minor drug related offense.   One of his classmates says of him:

From demorcraticunderground.com

The classmate, John Mullins, tells the website Roof was “kind of wild” but not an outcast at the school.

“He used drugs heavily a lot,” Mullins said. “It obviously harder than marijuana. He was like a pill popper, from what I understood. Like Xanax, and stuff like that.”

Mr. Roof was also alleged to have said at the church, “You rape our women and are taking over our country.” The victims were six women and three men, ages 25 to 87.  Three of theses were ministers.

President Obama expressed sympathy for the families of those killed.  He also used the occasion to decry the fact that it is so easy to obtain a gun in this country.  The president stated that these sorts of incidences do not happen in other “advanced” countries with the same frequency. 

It is interesting to me that Mr. Roof, in his mind, perceived the people he shot as enemies of “our” country.  Was he simply doing what we as a nation do all the times to those we label as enemies?   We go after our designated enemies  with economic sanctions, but also very frequently with weapons with are intended to kill. We not only engage in that activity as a nation but we sell billions of dollars worth of arms so that others can also use violence to deal with those they label as enemies.  

What is the difference between the alleged actions of Mr. Roof and the intended action of the U.S. when we bomb from planes, or use drones with bombs which possibly kill more civilians than so called enemies or kill others with ground forces?  We also know that today we might decide someone is a friend and tomorrow an enemy.  We could and sometimes do decide the opposite.

Of course, we would like to think that we can stop the behavior of such individuals as Mr. Roof, the young man who opened fire in a theater in Colorado, of the young man who shot the kids in the Sandy Hook school or any of the other individuals who have opened fire on  “innocent” people in a public setting in the United States.    We certainly want to believe that as long as we act like intelligent human beings we can tell the difference between the 52 listed on Bush’s card list (The cards were officially named the "personality identification playing cards". Wikipedia) of Iraq enemies and the naming of an enemy by an individual?) and the so-called innocent victims such as were killed in the church in Charleston.

Do we, in this country, really think that there is a qualitative difference between an individual in power such as a president, a CIA agent, or someone else who represents our government labeling someone an enemy and an individual doing so?  Even if we truly believe that there is a huge difference in a nation and an individual declaring someone is an enemy and worthy of death by violent means what about the number of individuals in this country that we labels as criminals, incarcerate for long periods of time, and treat as bad people – as enemies of the state?  We even execute or sentence many “criminals” to die by execution in this country.  I am well aware that in 2010 only 46 were executed while just over 3000 were on death row (bjs.gov)

The president has some support for making it more difficult for individual in this country to buy guns.  Yet, at the very same time, the manufacture and sales of guns in this country and to others countries are big business.

Statisticbrain.com verifies the following figures regarding sales of guns in the United States (Research date February 15, 2015): 

Guns and ammunition manufacturing annual revenue, $11,000,000,000 ... Annual Federal tax dollars collected on firearm sales, $123,000,000.   Of the guns produced annually a little over 889,000 are handguns.  645,000 guns are used for protection.  49% Percent felt laws limiting gun ownership infringe on the public’s right to bear arms

If we look at the sales of weapons to those exported by the United States the figures reported by the New York ‘times on August 27, 2012 were:

The American weapons sales total was an “extraordinary increase” over the $21.4 billion in deals for 2010, the study found, and was the largest single-year sales total in the history of United States arms exports. The previous high was in fiscal year 2009, when American weapons sales overseas totaled nearly $31 billion.

I am not sure that this counts the number of military weapons that the United States government gives to other countries or the U. S. Military takes and leaves in other countries.

We are a nation in which nearly 50% of people admit to thinking that it is important to be able to manufacture and own guns. We also seem to give our tacit approval to joining others such as the Russia in arming the rest of the world.

The language of profit speak loudly.  The possibly that we will see a decrease in gun sales or new limitations on the “right” to bear arms is very slim no matter what I or such leaders as our President advocate.  After all, as a nation, we have a very strong and persistent belief that we have a right to determine someone is an enemy who present a near or distant danger.  This then gives us the right to kills or attempt to kill those individuals even if the attempt to do so involves “collateral damage” meaning “innocent civilian deaths.  We also seem to have a very strong belief in the right to make a profit even if that profit is from the manufacture  and sale of weapons.

Just as interesting, it seems we humans in this and other countries are very skilled at finding ways to dehumanize the enemy so that killing or hurting them is acceptable.   We label them by such terms as:

·      Enemy

·      Insurgents

·      Gooks

·      Japs

·      Kooks

·      Japs

·      Terrorists

·      Evil

·      Deranged

·      Infidels

If one reads news stories over the years or has been a member of the military when the United States has been involved in a war, one knows that there are many more terms to help one train to think of other humans beings as essentially different than us and, thus, fair game for killing.   In basic training, while marching or being marched to the chow hall, one can often hear troops chanting slogans such as, “I want to kill …….” By the time one goes into combat it is much easier to dissociate and kill the non-human, evil ones.

The individual killer who does not have the benefit of the support of a nation puts himself or herself through a similar process of training themselves to think of certain others as non-human. Whether the term is the N word, the C word, the M word or some other word, if one tells oneself the same story over and over again one begins to believe it at a very deep level and, thus, will find it easy to hit, shoot, or otherwise harm the individual(s).

I was sadly not surprised by the comment of one of the classmates of  Mr. Roof, Mr. Mullens (quoted on democrativeunderground.com)

 “I never heard him say anything, but just he had that kind of Southern pride, I guess some would say. Strong conservative beliefs,” he said. “He made a lot of racist jokes, but you don’t really take them seriously like that. You don’t really think of it like that.”

The governor of South Carolina is quoted in the Boston Globe as saying:

In the interview on Friday, Haley, a strong proponent of gun rights, deflected a question about whether the shooting would change her position on the issue.

“Anytime there is traumatic situation, people want something to blame. They always want something to go after,” she said. “There is one person to blame here. We are going to focus on that one person,” she added, referring to Roof.”

Certainly it is true that most people who owns a gun or who make racist statements or otherwise is convinced that some person or persons are enemies do not pick up a gun and kill individuals.  I would like to believe that most of us have the ability to make a less violent decision even if we do think of someone or some group as an enemy.  Yet, I believe that we systematically and consistently set the stage for individuals and groups in this country to justify the hatred of others and the killing of others. No matter how we “dress it up” and no matter how much evidence we can produce that the other person(s) is an justified target of our violence, every person or group which kills is convinced that their cause is right and just.

Nothing happens in a vacuum.  If we truly want to decreases the number of such violent actions as was alleged to have been committed by Mr. Root we are going to have to do some soul searching regarding our relationship with such issues as:

·      The right and need to own guns.

·      The economics of the weapons industry.

·      The process of dehumanizing others.

·      The use of euphemisms such as “strong conservative beliefs” to describe racism.

·      The need to believe that violence happens in a vacuum.

·      The belief that we, in the United States, by convicting, locking up and more often than other countries, utilizing the death penalty are creating the conditions for a safe environment for our all of our citizens.

·      Our attitude and treatment of the mentally ill.

The purpose of this blog is solely to attempt to continue to challenge myself and others to have serious, non-judgmental, non-emotional discussions  about the role of the above issues in creating a more just and safe community and world.