Many years ago, I learned a lesson concerning the power of control that authorities possess. It was during my final year of college when I was doing my student teaching at a high school in Denver. We were studying about the rise of fascism in Germany prior to WW2. One of the students asked why people didn’t object to what was happening. Why didn’t people say anything? As we talked, one brave young man declared: “I would have said something. I’m not afraid.” I asked him if he was sure? If I was the one in charge and something wrong was happening, would he object? He insisted he would speak. Then a couple of others said that they would also speak up.
So I promptly kicked the ringleader out of class. I told him to go wait in the principal’s office. After he left the classroom, I berated him in front of the other students for a few moments. Then I asked if there were any of the rest of them who wanted to disagree with me. Not a peep. They were thoroughly cowed. I then had the office send the young man back to our classroom and we discussed how people in positions of authority can intimidate and control others. Granted, I was an inexperienced student teacher trying to make a point on the spur of the moment, but I’ll never forget how easy it was for an authority figure to silence the opposition. At this moment in history, we have a responsibility to speak up. When those in positions of leadership mislead us, take inappropriate actions, or participate in illegal activities, we dare not remain silent. When authorities attempt to muzzle the press and limit the free speech of citizens, we dare not deign to do nothing. In many regards, we are at a crossroads of democracy for our republic. The concentration of wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands has increased, and many people feel disenfranchised and powerless. But we are still able to take action. We can still speak up, even though we may pay a price for making our voices heard. Those in authority may try to silence those who object and bully them into submission. Those who don’t know better may encourage us to be quiet and respect those in leadership. When those in leadership demonstrate virtues such as wisdom and compassion we can respect them. But if they show the attributes of oppression, greed, and tyranny, then we can show them the same kind of attitude our forebears had for the tyranny of the colonial empire that controlled them. We can resist. If we fail to do so, we fail in our civic responsibility. We will fail as a nation. We will not fail as a nation, if our leaders fail. We will fail as a nation, if we fail to speak out. (Explanation of the Symbol) The Resistor is a historical symbol for solidarity and peaceful dissent. You might also remember using the squiggly line in the RESIST Symbol when drawing Resistors in physics class; it's a universal standard symbol seen in electrical circuit diagrams. We hope that the RESIST symbol will serve as a daily reminder to be vigilant and to RESIST any attacks on democracy or the progress we have made as a society.
0 Comments
I write this essay with my former students in mind. Your generation is being given much to deal with by my generation. I hope you remember some of the conversations and lessons we had in our history classes together. Today, I ask you to recall some of the discussions we had about nationalism.
The last few years have seen a surge of nationalism in our country. It is this rise in nationalism that you must deal with. I believe that in the days and years to come, your actions will be instrumental in the survival of our society. You must help your fellow citizens understand the difference between patriotism and nationalism. Having studied and learned with you, I know that you are patriots. You have a love and devotion to our country. I also know that you learned how patriotism can turn into a destructive form of nationalism. Nationalism is a feeling of being proud of your country, often with the belief that it is superior and more important than other countries. These feelings of nationalism can lead to fear, hatred, and hurtful actions toward those who are different --- from other nations, and from within our own nation. You were fortunate, in our small school, to have several classmates each year from other nations come and live in our community and study in our school. In them, you experienced their patriotism (the love and devotion they had for their cultures and countries), and you experienced their appreciation and respect for our people and nation. The experiences you had with these people from other lands has given you the opportunity to learn that people of other lands, religions, and backgrounds represent a world filled with diversity and positivity. As our nation struggles with an outbreak of extreme nationalism, I ask you to be a patriot. Certainly take pride in the values and principles that our nation ascribes to, but don’t allow that loyalty turn into fear, hatred, and oppression of others. I have no doubt that you are encountering people who are giving voice to prejudice and suspicion of people of other lands, as well as segments of our own population. Now is the time for the true patriot to reject the falsehoods of racial supremacy, bigotry toward others, and politics of power and exclusion. The choice is one for you and your generation. Will you be patriots, or nationalists? The future of our nation will rise or fall depending upon your choice. “The chickens come home to roost” is a phrase I remember from my childhood years growing up in rural Minnesota. It was used to warn youngsters that they would suffer the consequences for their mistakes or bad behavior.
I take no satisfaction in the current protests around our country following this presidential election - that “Trump is not my President” - but it certainly seems to be a case of the chickens coming home to roost. When President Obama was elected, the extreme right of our nation’s political spectrum publicly proclaimed in strident terms that “Obama is not OUR President” and some elected Republican members of Congress vowed to not cooperate with him, to make every effort to make the President fail, and even attempted to de-legitimize his Presidency. An unintended consequence of that action is that, now that their candidate has been elected as President, there are members of the opposition who are protesting and proclaiming that “Trump is not my President”. Public protests of the election results do not reflect in a positive way upon our democracy, but my common sense tells me that if you didn’t object to it happening for the last eight years, then you have no claim to object to it now. I objected then, and I object now. As citizens we can and should protest against, and work to change laws, policies, and government actions that are against the principles of our democracy and the common good. Where the system needs changing, we should be open to changing it. One of those changes is the Electoral College which makes a mockery of the “one person, one vote” principle, and which has twice allowed in the course of the last five presidential elections for the person who did not get the most popular votes to win the election. We have a lot of work to do to protect the progress we have made as a nation, and to continue to move forward. There are many causes in which for us to expend our efforts. Even though it is tempting to savor the chickens coming home to roost, I hope we will put our energies to work in positive and progressive ways. Whenever the Star-Spangled Banner has been played, I have always faced the flag and stood at attention. I did it out of respect for the ideals of our nation that our flag symbolizes. Even though I taught American history for many years, I have to admit I never considered the fact that this anthem has several verses. Because of the recent controversy of some people refusing to stand when it is played, I took some time to examine the poem, the history of the writing of the poem, and the decision that was made more than a hundred years later to use it as our national anthem.
Sadly, I note that the third stanza in this anthem, written in 1814, is about the murder of slaves who desire their freedom. The writing of the poem takes us back to a time when there was slavery in our nation. Rather than words calling for the abolition of this evil, the poem calls for a perpetuation of it. Unfortunately, this third stanza is included as a part of our national anthem due to action of Congress in 1931. I can understand those who object to the singing of this anthem as our national anthem. Even though the words of the third stanza are infrequently sung, they are officially a part of it. Two solutions suggest themselves to me: One, Congress could take action officially removing that third stanza from our national anthem. That does not change the history and bigotry of the time when it was written, or the man who wrote it, but it does send a message that these words defending slavery do not represent the ideals of our nation. Two, a different worthy anthem could take its place as our national anthem. I would suggest: America the Beautiful. Our history as a diverse people is filled with many great achievements. We have dealt with, and overcome many obstacles in our nation’s history. To me, the flag symbolizes the way we have struggled with injustices and failures in our past as we strive to work toward the ideals embodied in the preamble of our Constitution: “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The anthem sung during the time we generally give respect to the flag that symbolizes these ideals should communicate these ideals. Our work is not done. We are still still trying to make progress toward that more perfect union. Trying to understand why people may object to certain symbolic actions is one part of making that progress. As a person who has spent considerable time in the classroom teaching civics to young people, I often find myself discouraged by the public discourse on the role of government in our American system. So many citizens and politicians spout the rhetoric that the role of government is only to “protect the rights of the individual”. At times I want to ask them: Did you fail to learn about the Constitution of our country when you were in school?
The Preamble of our nation’s Constitution clearly elaborates several purposes of government: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” We make a mistake when we demonize our government. We, the people, have established and support our government that is charged with doing the things that are listed in that Preamble. We contribute to that with our personal contributions such as taxes and civic participation. We may, individually, have differing values and opinions that we personally live according to, but these are the guiding principles for our union. The next time you hear someone say (or think to yourself) that our government is only there to protect a person’s individual rights, I ask you to reflect on the principles embodied in the Preamble and to consider that not only are the rights of all protected when the rights of an individual are protected, but that the reverse is also true: the rights of the individual are protected when we work together to provide the benefits of the Preamble for all of our people. That takes a government that can make rules and regulations, that is not beholden to any special interests, and that is striving to make our union better as we move forward. I sometimes hesitate to say certain things because I don’t want to alienate or offend people, but sometimes things need to be said. This is one of those times. I do feel I have some special qualifications to speak to this issue since I have had long careers of serving as a Christian pastor, and of teaching history and civics in a public high school. Simply put: Many of the anti-refugee sentiments being expressed in America today are both un-Christian and un-American. Often those sentiments are hidden behind the guise of protecting our safety and security, or of having a priority to respond to other needs. People certainly have a right to believe what they might, but make no mistake about this: closing our hearts to refugees fleeing terrorism is not Christian; and closing our borders to refugees in need runs contrary to our principles of being the land of the free and the home of the brave, and is a betrayal of our heritage of being a nation of immigrants.
One of my favorite poems is "The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus, 1883.
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" In all humility, I admit that my ancestors came as immigrants to this land. I wish I could say that they were warmly welcomed and accepted, but their private stories have not been passed on to me. However, I do know that while there were men and women of compassion who welcomed them, there were also men and women with closed minds and closed hearts who rejected them. America has, as a part of its history, a long tradition of "Nativism". A dictionary definition of Nativism would probably say that it is an attitude, or policy, of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants. An irony of history is that those who are Nativists refuse to accept the historical label and refer to themselves as "Patriots." The poem by Lazarus expresses the openness and compassion that America embodies. An irony of this present moment in time is that there are Americans who are adamant about sending our warriors overseas to fight for American values and principles, but who then fail to see that we are called to live by those values and prinicples here. 1- I post and share writings, photos, articles, and links that I think are worthwhile for my friends to consider.
2 - I do appreciate it if you “like”, or give some positive feedback. 3 - I will not argue with a person publicly on Facebook. I consider it a sign of disrespect. 4 - If you choose to make a negative comment on my Facebook page, do not be surprised if it is deleted. After all, it is “my” Facebook page. 5- If you are open-minded about an issue, and truly want to discuss it (and not just to try to prove you are right) then you can send me a private message and we can have a private discussion. It is time to apply some common sense to our national discussion about gun control. I am well aware that this is a touchy subject for some people. Some people have fears that their hunting guns will be taken from them, others fear for themselves and others who might be on the receiving end of gun violence. So let us start with the dual premise that people should have the freedom to own guns and that people should have the freedom to be protected from gun violence directed toward them. Is it possible for our society to respect both of these freedoms? I believe we can.
As far as the issue of gun ownership goes, the real issue for our society is accountability. To what degree are we, as individual citizens and as a society, willing to be accountable for the weapons in our midst. Consider this comparison. If I choose to own a car and drive it, I must get a license to do so by taking a written test and a performance test behind the wheel. I must license my car with the state, and I must purchase insurance to operate it. If I commit a crime with it, or break the laws regarding its use, society can hold me accountable for it and I may lose the privilege to operate it. Many rules and laws have been enacted to prevent me from hurting others as I exercise my freedom. As individuals and as a society we have chosen to be accountable in this arena. If I choose to own and use a gun, should I be expected get a license by taking a written and operating test? Should I be expected to register my gun? Should I be required to have insurance to cover its use? Should laws be enacted to help protect myself and others in society from being hurt from its misuse? Is gun ownership less lethal than car ownership? Both cars and guns are powerful instruments, and can be weapons that kill others. Why is it so acceptable to regulate one, and it so unacceptable to regulate the other? There are well meaning people who will say, “It doesn’t matter if there are laws on the books or not, if a criminal or a crazy person wants to hurt others they will.” That is true, but there is a difference in degree. It is also true that if a criminal wants to commit a crime of violence, that crime of violence will be much more destructive if done with a semi-automatic weapon than done with a revolver, or a knife. It is common sense to agree to place limits and protections on this industry just as we have done on other industries. Now is the time to ignore the political influence of the big organizations and businesses who have motivations to protect their own self interests (which are not necessarily our society’s best interests). Now is the time to use our common sense and work together to protect the rights and freedoms of all - those who want the freedom to have guns to hunt, and those who want the freedom to be protected from gun violence. When I was growing up, there was a general understanding that at family gatherings there were three things that shouldn’t be discussed - religion, politics, and sex. I imagine the reasoning was that disagreements concerning those topics could lead to some serious rifts within the family. However, despite my family upbringing which avoids these issues of conflict, I am going to take this opportunity to discuss at least two of these topics (religion and politics) and hope that by using some common sense we can clarify the relationship between the two. This appears to be an important task since many people in our time are making connections between the two.
My thoughts center around words from the First Amendment of our Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” While this sentence does not use the term “separation of church and state” it clearly draws a line between the two. There is a distinction and separation between them. Article 6 of the Constitution reinforces that with this phrase “but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” I respect the intention of the first clause of that First Amendment that we will establish no state religion (church) that will run our government or be run by our government, as much as I respect the intention of the second half of that clause that our government will not prevent its citizens from practicing whatever faith they have. Apparently some of the founders of our nation had enough knowledge of history that they recalled the experiences with theocracies in some of the earliest British colonies in America, and were determined to avoid the problems and abuses that arise in a society when one faction of people forces its beliefs upon others. I am troubled by the confusion in our contemporary American culture (from some of our citizens and some of our elected officials) as to the relationship of church and state. I observe people asking for (and demanding) “religious tests” and for religious direction of our government policies, and I observe people asking (and demanding) that our government push certain religious values. I also observe those same people getting upset when other people, who hold religious values and practices different from their own, are advocating that the government should promote those differing values. How are we to solve this problem of competing religious viewpoints each striving to be the official point of view of our government? The common sense solution is to base the solution on the principle of separation of church and state that is in embedded in our nation's founding documents. Politicians and citizens, while still respecting their own personal religious beliefs should promote government policies which work to accomplish the purposes of our nation's social contract, which are to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” These are the basic objectives of government in our American society. They certainly involve human rights and responsibilities, but they are not the exclusive domain of any one particular religion or belief system. In this pluralistic nation, all citizens and politicians have a responsibility to work together for the common good, and not for the advancement of a particular religious point of view at the expense of the welfare of their fellow citizens. It is a common sense approach. |
Time for Common Sense AgainCommon sense commmentary by Joel Kreger (unless noted and credited to a guest writer) Archives
November 2018
Categories |