Brave Humans

In the car, on the way to a dentist appointment, I happened to catch some of Eliot Spitzer’s State of the State Address. He said some things that were interesting, some ideas, legislation proposed, etc. But what really got me to focus was this quote,

You can’t change the world by whispering.

This is one point on which I completely disagree with him. And I’ll hazard to guess that anyone who’s had to deal with a toddler’s tantrum would be on my side. There are many times when whispering brings about a faster and more positive change than shouting. To that end, I hereby claim my space on this blog as Whisperer.

Another disagreement I have with Mr. Spitzer’s address, to no surprise, is in his plans for education reform. He said:

We know that more time in the classroom - in the form of longer school days, a longer school year, and after-school programs - also makes a difference.

Actually, I would agree that those things DO make a difference, but I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily positive. But let me continue, in Spitzer’s own words:

We must focus on that period in a child’s life that is developmentally the most critical - from birth to five years old.

Okay. Good. I would actually extend that to seven, but perhaps that’s my Waldorf education training getting ahead of me.

Within four years, we should make pre-kindergarten available to every four-year-old in New York.

Ye Gads!!!! Did he just say that? PRE-kindergarten?!? So children will need to go to pre-kindergarten, to prepare them for kindergarten, which they in turn need to go to in order to prepare them for elementary school? Why don’t we just strap the children to desks from birth?

I was expecting him to say something to the effect that we need to support our children at this first stage of their lives by providing quality health care, safer environments, incentives for parents to spend more time at home with their children, and such.

Young children do not need to be force fed information in order to succeed in Spitzer’s “Innovation Economy.” They need to be loved, they need to be nourished, they need to be protected, they need to play, they need proper sleep. But most of all, children need time to be children. Gosh, what could our children do - to what levels could they succeed - if we prepare them for the real world by allowing them to grow up at their own pace and in their own time, instead of at the pace of the longer school day, extended school year, and after-school programs?

By the way, you can read the entire transcript of Governor Spitzer’s speech here.

Be Human,
Julia

I can’t say I’m surprised by your declaration of democrats and liberals as a sleeper cell, but I must say I am disappointed. You are clearly intelligent, and have a panache for radical punditry, but here’s the thing: your broad generalizations of “Conservatives good! Liberals evil!” is disingenuous at best and unpatriotic at worst. By asserting that liberals are a sleeper cell which “wants America to lose” you imply that you have little faith in representative government.

Splitting America into liberal and conservative camps is simplistic and unfounded, and it works against the American ideals of our democratic republic. Rather than going through a long list of what you see as Democratic mistakes, your talents would be better used to discuss your conservative ideals and how they might be implemented in this new congress.

To be completely blunt, put up or shut up. If you have real ideas on how to improve our country, then let’s discuss them openly and honestly instead of shouting into the echo chamber. Let’s discuss ideas and solutions rather than question the patriotism of the other side.

To this end, we at BraveHumans would like to like to invite you to join us in serious and open discussion. We would be happy to listen your “conservative” ideas and express our own opinions on them. Your adoring fans are welcome as well. Surely we would all be better served by debate than by mindless punditry.

Be Brave. Be Human.
Brian

Democrat John Edwards has officially declared his candidacy for the Presidency. The announcement came from New Orleans where Edwards was shown helping folks rebuild their homes after Katrina. The video I saw on CNN (go to the “Edwards explains why he’s running for president again” link on the page) was standard democratic “man of the people” fare and was obviously meant as a pointed jab at Republicans in general and the Bush administration specifically for their handling of flooding and resulting humanitarian crisis after the storm. It also was a perfect backdrop for Edwards’ continuing populist theme of the “Two Americas” (roughly rich and poor) that he has focused on in the past and will clearly continue to hit in this campaign.

OK. It’s relevant here to say that I am a Democrat. I have no great love for the Democratic Party, but their biases tend to more often line up with mine, and in my state only members of a given party can vote in that party’s primaries, and that’s important to me. I liked Edwards when he ran for VP. So far, however, his current announcement looked profoundly formulaic. It really was “insert name of candidate here”.

Then things got potentially interesting. The CNN interviewer pointed out that Edwards himself is clearly among the RICH in the Two Americas. He brought up the fact that Edwards is currently building a 3-million dollar home and provided pictures of the construction (these did not show up on the video I saw). The interviewer then asked Edwards how he could possibly hope to represent the poor in America when Edwards himself is clearly wealthy.

I watched the video and hoped for a real answer to this question. Instead, I got more standard political maneuvering. Edwards joked and said he was glad the interviewer liked the house and then went on to say that he was not born wealthy and that he was greatly blessed in his life. He then went right back on message and ignored the question. Sound familiar? How is this different from “Stay the course”?

I think this a relevant question for ANY candidate, but especially for a candidate who seems to be focusing on poverty as a core issue. I think using pictures of the guy’s house is a bit over the top, but welcome to the campaign trail. Here’s the part that bugs me. Answering this question honestly and potentially even powerfully does not seem that difficult. I would have liked to see something like the following.

A bit more hard-core:

“Yes, I’m wealthy. You can’t run for major public office in the U.S. unless you’re wealthy. Every candidate running from both parties will be wealthy. I won’t insult people who are struggling to make ends meet by claiming a kinship with them I don’t possess. But you’re implying that I need to be poor to understand that poverty is a serious problem in America. That’s like saying you need to be in a car wreck to understand that decent brakes are a good idea. It just doesn’t work that way. Poverty in America is dragging us all down. The fallout from Katrina isn’t just a problem for poor folks in New Orleans. It’s a problem for all of us. I’m a wealthy guy from North Carolina and I can see that.”

Or more political:

“Glad you like the house. I like it too. I’ve worked hard to get to the point in my life where I could build that house, and I’m personally proud of that. But I’ve also been profoundly lucky as well. There’s not a whole lot in America that can’t be done with the right combination of work and luck. The people here in New Orleans and all over the country haven’t had a great deal of luck for a long time now. What I want to do is make it just a bit easier for more hard-working Americans to get just a bit luckier. ”

My point here is not that my answers are profoundly better than the one Edwards gave. I actually don’t like the second one very much, but it does, at least, answer the question asked. Edwards is wealthy and is running on a populist message, and so he needs to answer this question. Period. The sort of dodge-and-get-back-on-message trick he used here simply should not work in a presidential campaign, and I hope it doesn’t. Edwards may well have great answers and ideas, but unless he is willing to be more than just a standard politician, I would ask him to stay home and work on his house. We need better.

Be Brave. Be Human.
-Grant

OK, some background: I go to Sunday school. I’ve never gone to an adult religious education class before, and this group focuses on thinking about and exploring religious issues; it’s not traditional Bible study. Anyway, this Sunday, Dec. 31, we’re all supposed to bring in a message or prayer for peace to usher in the new year. I found the following on a website called “Síocháin in Éirinn” (Peace in Ireland).

For me, the most powerful component of this prayer is not the appeal to my Christian God, but the first five lines of the second verse. I’m not even going to discuss them; I believe the words speak for themselves. Anything I’ve tried to write seems trite, obvious, or redundant in comparison. Instead, I’m going to ask you to think about those five lines in particular, and, if you agree, to put out vibes in whatever way works for you in hopes of making 2007 a safer year for everyone. Obviously, 2006 has been a mess for much of the world:

Loving Father,
Your will is that we should all be of one mind in this land;
God of Peace, bless Ireland and bless those countries
where there is civil strife,
Where neighbour rises up against neighbour,
Where familiar streets become battlefields
And familiar people the casualties.

Change the hearts of all
Who think that their cause
is more important than another person’s life;
Change the politics of those on either side which
create, condone or extend the conflict;
And by the power of the cross
Help all who have been sinned against to forgive
That peace may come
Through Jesus Christ, Our Lord.
Amen.

Be brave. Be human.
Susan

Be brave. Be human. Hmmmm.

Okay, so I’m honestly going to say that I can’t speak about being “brave,” but I do know how hard it can be sometimes simply to be “human.”

I’ve caught myself, driving home - son in the back seat and an audiobook playing - mentally going over the things I need to do once we’re home. Bring the groceries in from the trunk, put them away in pantry, fridge and freezer, take the dishes out of the dishwasher, turn on the dryer to whirl the clothes a bit to get out wrinkles from sitting there overnight, feed the cats, clean off the dining room table, put away the paints we used in the morning…you get the idea.

And then I think, I need to write in my blog. My blog as part of BraveHumans. So what do I have to say about any of that? Am I even feeling human? And just when I thought that, I knew the answer was YES. Before I asked the question, honestly, I’m not so sure.

Since you’ve read this far, let me introduce myself. I’m Julia, the least controversial of all the writers at BraveHumans. I’m a stay-at-home, homeschooling, codependent, teacher mom. At the end of the day, I don’t find extra time to peruse the newspaper, or the internet, to find topics of interesting discussion. Heck, I don’t even find time to read for pleasure anymore. My brain cells are spent in planning our son’s education, my class’ next main lesson, and our meals for the next couple of days. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t care about my local community, my county, my state, my country, and our world. If what I’m doing as “helper” to the next generation counts for anything, it is that I encourage questions, seek out truth and understanding, and teach understanding for those both different and alike.

My posts will no doubt have a decidedly different flavor, more relaxed, less filled with quotations and links. I’ll be writing about what I know, or what I think, or what I question. I hope I’ll have something to offer to you, even if it’s just a knowing nod to others who chose to live the insanity of my current incarnation.

It’s Saturday morning. 8-year-old is downstairs being entirely too quiet. Must dash. Feeling creative thoughts ebb. Entering automatic pilot….

Be human.
Julia

Dennis Prager and his ilk are still up in arms over Keith Ellison’s desire to take his Congressional oath of office while holding a Koran. According to Prager, this should be forbidden “not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.”

Apparently the Koran doesn’t undermine America, tolerance does. To allow Ellison to take his solemn oath on the Koran would simply embolden those who dream of an Islamofascist America. Prager goes on to argue that the way to fight back is to take a page from the same handbook:

Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress.

In other words, non-Christians shouldn’t serve in Congress, or at the very least they should act like Christians while they are in office.

Prager is free to state his opinion the same as anyone, but part of me got twitchy when congressman Goode said essentially the same thing. Goode is a little more savvy about it since he doesn’t deny Ellison’s right to use the Koran. Instead he tries to link Ellison to the “immigration problem” despite the fact that Ellison was born in Detroit. The part that makes me twitchy is the assumption that the United States is a “Christian nation.” We are not a Christian nation. We never have been.

A Christian nation would be a theocracy. England is a Christian theocracy, with the Queen as defender of the faith. Norway is a Christian theocracy, and requires at least half its Council of State (roughly equivalent to our President and cabinet) to be members of the state church. The United States–despite its strong religiosity–is and always has been a secular nation.

The argument Prager and others try to make is that the United States was founded by Christians, and was founded on Christian values and principles. One can debate this assertion, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume this to be the case. In crafting the constitution, these Christian forefathers saw fit to ensure their young country didn’t become a theocracy. They sanctioned the right for Americans to practice any religion, not just Christian ones, and they forbid religious tests as a measure of equality under the law. As per Article VI, clause 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Granted, the founding fathers hedged their bets a bit. Their constitution denied suffrage to women, and denied citizenship to people of color, both of which future generations saw as intolerable. But theocracy was clearly forbidden. The founders understood theocracy. They had declared independence from the English theocracy, and were not about to establish one of their own.

Which gets me back to the comments of Prager and Goode. Both fear our country could become an Islamic theocracy. And they have a point. If the people of the United States have a strong desire for an Islamic theocracy, they can simply get the legislatures of two thirds (34) of the states to call for an amendment convention, then simply use the convention to implement an Islamic constitution. Such a convention has happened once before, when the Articles of the Confederation were discarded and replaced by our current constitution.

That is the real danger of our “Christian Nation.” By creating a democratic republic the founders left the door open to its own demise. We have the right to enslave ourselves. Still, I believe it is a risk worth taking given the alternatives.

So for those who agree with Prager and Goode, who fear the dangers of tolerance and multiculturalism, and who believe a society cannot be both diverse and united, my question is this: Would you like America to become a theocracy, even a Christian one?

Be Brave. Be Human.

Brian

Update: In true Washington showmanship, Ellison will swear in holding not just any Koran, but the personal copy of none other than Thomas Jefferson.

Time for round 2. I thought perhaps when I wrote about Minnesota Representative-elect Keith Ellison’s desire to be sworn into office using the Quran, I was at the tail-end of the story…it was old news. Apparently not for everyone…

Representative Virgil Goode (R-Virginia) recently sent out a letter to his constituents which was, according to his spokesman, a response to concerns about Keith Ellison. Here are some quotes from that letter (my source for the quotes is CNN.com):

“When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Quran in any way.”

“The Muslim representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran.”

“We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country.”

“I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.”

There are SO many ways to address this story; I had a hard time focusing my thoughts. Finally, I identified what, to me, is the essence of the problem: I don’t think the issue here is about religion….I think it’s about being human.

There are people who think a belief in religion is inherently evil or even insane. Then there are people who think that anyone without a particular faith is doomed. (See Brian’s posting “Spare the Child“.) Then there are the tragedies that are blamed on religious fervor: the Crusades, the on-going Mid-East crisis, 9/11, Northern Ireland, to list a very few.

But I don’t believe these are really about religion…I believe they are about human weaknesses…fear, lust for power, stubbornness, closed-mindedness…all things that are inherent to our species. In many instances, they happen to manifest themselves in a religious context, perhaps because that provides a convenient excuse to do horrible things. (Did I mention the human trait to not accept responsibility for our actions?) It’s not for us, it’s for the “glory of God.” But I think it IS for “us.” If there were no religion, it’d be for the “glory of our nation, “ or “the common good,” or “because it’s a full moon.” Humans don’t need religion to attack others: Pearl Harbor, the forced migration of Native Americans in the U. S., genocide in African nations…again, this list can go on and on.

Now, I do believe in a Christian God, but I’ve never done anything wrong because of that faith. My mistakes have come because I’ve been afraid, or angry, or stubborn, or insensitive, or self-centered, or egotistical…characteristics my religion frowns upon, but I must continually strive against because I’m human. The evil in the world doesn’t need any god to champion it…it’s got humans. We’ll keep committing atrocities until we stop blaming others (either worldly or other-worldly), start recognizing our faults, and embark on self-improvement.

Do I think that’s going to happen? Well, not really. Not anytime soon. Not on a large-scale. Not until we’re brutally honest with ourselves. That’s tough for humans…we don’t like to admit we’ve made mistakes. But for survival, we need to start, from my house to the White House to….the entire planet.

Be brave. Be human.
Susan

Recently in Time magazine James Dobson wrote a piece in which he commented on Vice President Dick Cheney’s lesbian daughter and her partner having a baby together. Dobson is against homosexual parenting in general and used this particular article to explain why. His primary objections are clearly religious, and he is quite up front about them. It would be hard not to be, given his day job as head of the conservative Christian organization Focus On The Family. While making no attempt to hide his religious objections to gay parenting, he focuses here on presenting a broader and more child-focused set of objections. As I understand his argument, it is simple truth that children fare best in two-parent heterosexual families. Each parent brings skills, experiences and perspectives to the family that are uniquely gender-based and, therefore, simply unavailable to children being raised in gay or lesbian families. In addition to other researchers, Dobson cites the work of psychologist Carol Gilligan as supporting his point that children simply need heterosexual parents to develop and mature as socially and psychologically healthy humans.

As you might expect, Dobson’s piece prompted immediate responses from those supporting homosexual parenting and attacking Dobson’s position. I will focus here on the companion piece in Time clearly intended as an editorial bookend to Dobson’s. This response is from Jennifer Chrisler of the pro-gay and lesbian Family Pride Coalition. In her response, Ms. Chrisler argues that far from showing that children of gay and lesbian families are in some meaningful way damaged by that experience, substantial research indicates that they are essentially no different from children of heterosexual parents. Chrisler provides her own list of social science and service organizations as well specific researchers to back up her claims. In one telling point, Chrisler quotes Gilligan saying that Dobson completely misconstrued her work and she simply does not support his position in any way.

OK. Truth time. I am profoundly sympathetic to Chrisler’s argument. I’m biased, but I think she won this round. She’s got the better argument. Take a look at both pieces and see if you agree. That being said, I think Chrisler’s claims are simplistic in their own right. Regardless of the quality of gay and lesbian parenting, these kids have to go out into the broader world at some point and deal with explaining and defending their life and family. I understand that all kids have baggage to carry, but these particular kids didn’t sign up to be soldiers in this particular culture war-they were drafted. That complicates Chrisler’s position more than she would like to admit.

This, however, is not my main point in writing this posting. In my last post, I asked why people didn’t seem to care more about the clear mistakes made by the Bush administration in the lead-up to the Iraq war. My root question this round is why we should really care at all about gay and lesbian parents? I’m writing this because I think homosexual parenting is a fringe issue that most people in this country should care much less about than Dobson and Chrisler seem to think they do.

Here’s what I mean. I think the majority of Americans could readily agree on many issues and problems facing parents and children in this country. Things that come to mind are lack of basic food, shelter, and clothing for all U.S. kids. Beyond that, we could spend time on both the quality and availability of child heath care and education. As far as people who would be problematic parents, we could start with those who are routinely physically abusive. I know that even within these basic issues there will still be disagreements. For example, what level of physical punishment constitutes physical abuse? For me the answer to that question is ANY level, but I’m less interested in pushing my viewpoint than I am in finding the level of abuse that the vast majority of us can agree upon and working on stopping that. Off the top of my head, stopping/helping parents who beat their kids to the point of hospitalization seems to be a good place to look for common ground. I want to see if we can work on that.

Arguing about gay parenting sells magazines and puts people in voting booths. It does so by incensing and dividing the people who read and hear abut it. But given that estimates of homosexuality are generally less than 10% it simply seems like it should be farther down the list of national social concerns than it is. My guess is that if anyone actually reads this I’m going to get blasted from both sides. Great. Start blasting. I got into this to hear other points of view. I’ll talk to you as long as you’ll talk to me.

Be Brave.
-Grant

Congratulations on your new blog. I am glad to see a prominent politician such as yourself enter the blogosphere with an intent to “further the online discussion in the marketplace of ideas.” Too often politicians provide little more than liberal vs. conservative punditry with no real willingness to engage in serious civil discourse. We at BraveHumans share the same goal of cutting through the right-left divide to focus on meaningful discussions on topical issues.

To that end, I must say I was a little disappointed in your recent call to action. While I agree we should all play an active role in our political system, and I admire your desire to stir a grassroots movement to protect American ideals, I found your post lacking in details.

Specifically, you list the First Principles of conservatives: order, justice and freedom. These all sound great, however you don’t provide any details as to what you mean by these principles. You simply state them and move on to criticize liberals for standing in opposition to these ideas. You argue that liberals stand for chaos, injustice and oppression, but again you provide no details.

Such vague generalizations seem to play into the old left-right, Republican vs. Democrat partisanship which does little to advance American ideals. I do hope this was not your intent. Therefore in the interest of furthering discussion in the marketplace of ideas, I would ask that you outline in more detail your conservative first principles. What form do they take? How might they be applied to issues such as gay marriage, national defense, education, religious freedoms, habeas corpus, etc. I seek details so that we may openly discuss them.

I do hope to hear from you soon.

Be brave. Be human.

Brian

There’s this poster I’ve seen…it’s of an infant, wide-eyed and wondering as infants so often are. The caption states: “Question everything.” That’s what babies and youngsters do; everything is new, so they want to know about it all.

“Why do I have to do that?” “Why is a pizza round?” “Why is it cold in winter?” “Why do I have to wear a coat?” And on, and on, and on…

Sometimes it seems to me that there’s often less curiosity as we become adults. Perhaps lives are so busy that accepting what “experts” say is just more efficient. Perhaps schools have trained us to accept authority. Perhaps as we get older we get more firmly entrenched in our beliefs and resist change. Whatever the cause, I see more people accepting ideas they hear, without question. These ideas tend to support one’s ideology.

Where am I going with this? Recently, Congressman-elect Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) stated that he would take his oath of office on the Quran. I heard a lot of immediate reactions….both for and against. “He needs to take the oath of office on the Bible like everyone else.” “There’s freedom of religion in this country; he can use whatever book he wants.” “Would they allow him to choose Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf,’ the Nazis’ bible, for his oath?” “How can he take the oath of office on a religious text he does not believe in?” And on and on and on…

But instead of jumping on one bandwagon or another, maybe our first thought should have been: “Do representatives take the oath of office on a Bible? That seems strange in light of the First Amendment.” I looked it up. You know what? Congresspersons don’t use a Bible; they all raise their hands and swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. They can hold a religious text if they want, and, for the all-important photo shoot after the ceremony, a lot of representatives do hold Bibles. But it’s not part of the official process.

I don’t really care which side you favor in the religious text discussion; that’s not my point. Rather, I want to hear more people questioning: Fox News, CNN, President Bush, Al Gore, your local school district, your state department of education, the mayor’s office. Whenever an “authority” makes a statement, I want people to say, “Is that true? How can I find out?” And I’m NOT talking about questioning Rush Limbaugh if you’re a liberal or John Kerry if you’re conservative. I think anyone is capable of presenting an argument that favors his side….but is it grounded in truth?

I was teaching a graduate course once, and the question of corporal punishment in schools came up. Several students were quick to point out that it’s illegal in the US. The reality? Although it is illegal in our particular state, it is still legal in a few others. (Do you believe me? Look it up.) Many students made very clear and heart-felt arguments that were completely erroneous….they just knew corporal punishment had to be outlawed in this day and age….and they were wrong. So not only do we have to question was others say, we need to question what we “know.” In this way, let’s go back to being like children….and question everything.

Be brave. Be human.
Susan