Politics Isn’t Worth the Effort

Image via Wikipedia

I must say that in all my 50 years, I’ve never been so disgusted with politics as I am now. I’ve always voted, but I’m not going to any longer. I’ve felt guilty for not voting, but no longer. I’ve kept abreast of events that have happened and read all sides of political arguments, but no longer.  The only thing that I can see clearly at this stage of my life is that politics breeds rancor and hatred. All of it is an age-old battle between those who think they are right vs. those who think they are right. There is no such thing as partisanship. There is no consensus and nothing moves forward. The less people knew the better. Now the internet has fueled a giant war of words and hatred ’round the world. The one interesting news story that caught my eye today was this one:

WESTCLIFFE, Colorado (AP) — A new road sign cautions drivers to watch for Amish horse-drawn carriages in the valley beneath Colorado’s Sangre de Cristo mountains. Highway pull-offs and dedicated horse-and-buggy paths are in the works.

Amid the serenity and isolation of southern Colorado, hamlets like Westcliffe, La Jara and Monte Vista are welcoming Amish families who are moving West to escape high land prices and community overcrowding back East in Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

“The reason we moved out West is the farm land is a little bit cheaper and it’s not as heavily populated, a little more open space and a little more opportunity for young people to get started with their own farms,” said Ben Coblentz, a 47-year-old alfalfa farmer from Indiana. “The general public seems to have a little slower pace of life than what it was back east. Everybody here respects us.”

And respect them I do. I respect anyone who stays above the factions of modern life and sticks to principles such as hard work, community building, and respect for one’s neighbor. They’ve been a consistent witness without ever saying a word in public for our consumption and I long for that kind of peace and silence. I started this blog to expose “the mystery of iniquity that doth now work…” and it seems to be working overtime. There’s something in society that’s rotting from the inside and I don’t want to be any part of it. I want to live life rather than observe it.

I see none of the peacefulness of the Amish while reading the news.  I see none of the ethics that religions espouse when I see vicious slander against public figures and groups purposely fomenting riots. I see no one with the wisdom to hold their tongues when it’s unwise to speak (me included!) I see people who cannot abide others who think differently. I see politically correct language police. And I see that none of it has made this country or this world better than it was 20 years ago. If anything it’s worse. Am I a curmudgeonly “old woman?” Perhaps, but the advantages of getting older is being able to speak one’s mind without fear of reprisal. There will always be haters. I don’t want to be one of them. I can no longer read that hateful mishmash called “news.” I can no longer go through an election cycle that drags hatefully on for years here in America. It wears on me and makes me mean, vindictive, and hateful. I can’t stand that about myself and about what makes me that way. One can never write honestly without being labeled. One can’t sympathize with those who are unjustly attacked without being equated with a particular “ism.” It’s like being in grade school again!.

Like other bloggers who I respect greatly, I’m going to stop participating in the political game. It was intriguing for a while. In fact, I thought it would do some good to show up the misleading mischievousness and hatred of both sides. But pointing these things out doesn’t do that. It entrenches the camps. It only makes sides dig in further and flames of hatred burn hotter. And I’m only adding small sticks to the fire. Do people pay attention to what I write? Of course not, but I have to write this somewhere, and a small seed has to be planted somewhere.  I’ve seen some good examples from religious folk who stay above the fray: Amish, Quakers, Episcopalians, nuns, monks, etc. They’ve shown me that a personal ethic is all that is required to live an ethical life. It’s not my place to speak about injustice.  Some people have that role. I’m sure I don’t. My seed will be to refuse to add those sticks to the bonfire already raging. There are too many voices already; so many that it’s impossible to be heard. I think the internet has been a good thing for getting information out there, but I see that because of it, we are more polarized politically than ever. Good information is out there. Unfortunately, there is more bad information than good.

Will anyone notice my lack of posts about politics. Hell no! But I will, and what a relief that will be. I’m not sure what will be the focus of this blog with it’s main mission when I started it. Perhaps a few more reviews of books, movies, television. Perhaps I’ll blog about my family and my new life in another country. Or perhaps it’s really time to shelve it and move on. Not sure. I’ll take it one day at a time, hopefully silent ones.

Related Articles

• Amish Grace (beliefnet.com)
• Amish Population Growth: Numbers Increasing, Heading West (huffingtonpost.com)
• Amish are moving westward to find farmland, study shows (pennlive.com)
• Amish heading westward (dispatch.com)
• How Political Correctness Led to Pastor Jones: News, Switzerland (themoderatevoice.com)
• Do you care about the issues? (dailykos.com)

Advertisement

No Consistent Ethic

Image by seiuhealthcare775nw via Flickr

I’m finding that there is no consistent ethic that defines the American people and still satisfies all of the various self interest groups shouting for recognition out there. I’m finding that I can’t be part of any special interest group for one reason or another. If I disagree about abortion stances of either side, I am not allowed to call myself a feminist or an evangelical. If I believe in evolution and also in a Deity that engineered it, I cannot be classed an atheist or a believer. If I am for Obama’s health care plan but I say he hasn’t pushed it far enough, I am not allowed to call myself conservative or the purveyor of a republic. If I don’t believe in wealth distribution I can’t be called a socialist. If I am in favor of women’s ordination, I cannot be Catholic or evangelical Protestant. If I believe in a Divine entity I cannot be an atheist, but if I believe in a Deity that is genderless, I cannot call myself a Christian, Muslim, or Jew. If I believe in a personal Deity that answers prayer I cannot be a pantheist or panentheist.  If I believe that motherhood is a valid choice for women or that men are a necessary part of society I cannot claim the radical feminist label.  If I feel that all women (ALL WOMEN) deserve respect, I cannot call myself a feminist.  If I think that America is the greatest country in the world, I cannot call myself a liberal or progressive. I could go on and on.

The only consistent idea would be a moderate idea between the radical politics of left and right. But where are the masses of those in the middle? Where are their political leaders? Why do they not say anything? Where are the moderate Christians, Muslims, and Jews? Where are the evolutionary agnostics or religious humanists? Are these ideas not sexy enough to be reported? No,  the ethic now is extreme identity politics. That’s what sells. That’s what makes news. That’s what makes for a faux event. One has to draw battle lines to be heard, but you can’t draw them with what’s already out there especially if you do not adhere to every political point the ideologues offer. So no wonder there is the ethic of rugged American individualism. It’s what made this country great, but I fear it will also be its downfall.

Related Articles

• On campus, feminism wavers (thefword.org.uk)
• Catholic College Keeps Pro-Abortion Links Up Despite 15,000 Complaints (deaconforlife.blogspot.com)
• A Philosophers’ Blog Carnival! (camelswithhammers.com)
• Anti-Trans Radical Feminists Agree (bilerico.com)

“We the People”

Image via Wikipedia

And right after writing about individualism in religion, I come across this assessment of the “Restoring Honor” rally at Religion Dispatch:

Individually, most Tea Partiers probably are nice people, trying to do what’s right, motivated by good intentions that extend from their faith in God and in their understanding of what this nation stands for. And individualism is exactly what the rhetoric of the rally was all about; from the website: “throughout history America has seen many great leaders and noteworthy citizens change her course. It is through their personal virtues and by their example that we are able to live as a free people. Our freedom is possible only if we remain virtuous.” Mirroring their Christology, salvation for themselves and for the country is an individual act.The convenience of individualism is that others cannot be held accountable for personal failures, nor can an individual be held responsible for the actions of another. The problem with individualism is that it fails to connect the dots between a movement or ideology and how one person might interpret that ideology, thereby taking a course of action perhaps incongruous with the party’s original intent.

Individualism is beneficial for leaders to peg success or failure of a movement on each person’s virtue rather than the power of the collective to effect change. Individualism is focused on personal attainment, personal happiness, and personal livelihood, and fails to see how each relies on a system that empowers, privileges, or dispossess either the individual or others in the process. As I discovered at the rally, to shift the conversation from “I” to “we” in speaking of a collective liberation was quickly flagged as anti-American and dismissed.

Since when did “we the people” become synonymous with Socialism? How can we convince people that “loving their neighbor” means more than just praying for them, that it means supporting a system that raises each of us up through access to education, health care, jobs, and a livable life? How can we encourage people to stop thinking of themselves as living in subdivisions and start living in neighborhoods? How can we shift from the Jesus of the comfortable to the “sell all your possessions” Jesus?

I don’t think we change the nature of the conversation by berating those with whom we disagree, further sowing the seeds of resentment and faction. We change the nature of the conversation by connecting our own work to the values or faith by which it is motivated. The Christianity I practice requires that I love my neighbor even when it isn’t easy, that I work for “the least of these” even when I want to quit, that I give my two coins even if they are the last two I have, and that Jesus died not only for my sins but also those of the tax collector, the Samaritan woman, and the Pharisee.

Alex McNeill is absolutely right about what makes the rugged individualists of America so opposed to anything they see as threatening by labeling it “socialist.” Forgetting that Jesus was a “socialist” in the purest sense, it’s easy for us to ignore the bigger picture and concentrate only on ourselves. I should take a lesson from my sister and mother, who are as viciously anti-socialist as anybody I know. It is convenient to be able to just pray for people rather than actual help them, and that’s the biggest critique I have of Christianity as a movement. I’m guilty of this individualism myself probably because I see the futility of engaging in debate with entrenched ideologues, my own family among them. But what do we do when those on opposing sides refuse to do anything but berate, deride, marginalize, and curse? When do you realize you can’t have a conversation with rabid ideologues and move along? That’s my question. No one seems to be able to answer it.

Related Articles

• Mary Ann West: Standing In Solidarity Against Islamophobia (huffingtonpost.com)
• Can religion be apolitical? | Mary Kenny (guardian.co.uk)
• The Gospel according to Glenn Beck (geneveith.com)

A Semester At Liberty University

Cover via Amazon

Would you take a semester off from an Ivy League college to attend Jerry Falwell‘s bastion of conservative education and politics? Kevin Roose did and he wrote about it in detail in his book Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner’s Semester at America’s Holiest University. I wish I could go into detail right now about all the things he gets right about being submerged in the Christian subculture, but I can only say right now is that is it very fair and not at all that different from belonging to an evangelical church. He describes people who are blindingly obtuse and those that are open and loving. As with anyone who subscribes to religious or political ideologies as the whole truth, there are good people and not so good people encamped therein.

Roose’s assessment never hits a false note and his complete openness to the experiment is a credit to his Quaker parents and Episcopalian grandparents. Although they “feared for his life” down there in the bowels of Jerry Falwell’s hell (to hear them tell it), Roose intelligently and compassionately tried his best to experience everything as a new student and newcomer to Christianity. And while he may not have been converted, he came away with a new respect for folks that, while demonized in the press, are not so different as those students he attended Brown with. All of them struggled. There were bigots as well, just as in his circle of friends who wished Falwell dead for his statements about 9/11.  No, liberals can also be as un-compassionate as their evangelical counterparts. Sometimes rabidly so. Neither side holds the final majority on compassion.

I’m glad I read this book. The people he describes can be found in any evangelical church in America. I recognized some of my friends in those students. It also gave me hope that those much younger than me are taking openness more seriously than my generation is; that he’s willing to open up a dialogue with those that others have assumed are strange and probably sprouting horns of some kind.  My generation has sadly become entrenched and committed to warfare. This book is a very easy and pleasant read and one I’d recommend to Christians and atheists alike who keep an open mind. I admire Roose’s effort to get more constructive dialogue going rather than just rehash all the demonizing and tired old arguments that get us nowhere. We need to start with people not dogma.

Related Articles

• Can a book about Jerry Falwell bring people together? (boingboing.net)

American Health “Care” Debacle

Image by citizenactionny via Flickr

As I sit and read blogs this morning and as I am contemplating what to write next, my mind is turned invariably toward the American insurance industry. There is no such thing as American Health Care. It’s a misnomer that means whoever can afford it is guaranteed the finest. If you cannot afford it, you are urged to buy insurance. Since insurance is tied to the workforce, you are also limited by the insurances your company can afford to provide you, which in everyday speak means ‘not much.’ You are also limited by your work hours. My daughter, who works in retail is given between 20 to 39 hours a week to work. She is not salaried, so insurance is contingent on her maintaining 40 hours a week. Clever no? Her employer saves money by not giving every employee the hours they need to bank to provide their own coverage.

On the other hand, I have a salaried position and am paying $600 a month for group insurance after a long, long fight for it. Previously, I was covered under my husband’s insurance through his union. There was no interruption in coverage, in fact there was an overlap of almost a month. Yet, recently my insurance company denied a claim for a bone density scan claiming a preexistent condition. huh? What might that be? I will call them tomorrow, but an issue comes to the fore here. Why is the first inclination of an insurance company, who you pay thousands of dollars to, to deny your claim? I know why… profit. You see the insurance companies are not about health care. They are in this for one reason only, to make money. There is no other reason for insurance companies to exist. Don’t tell me it’s to “regulate” doctors or hospitals or to keep costs down. That’s just bullshit. America’s system is capitalism and that includes health care going to the highest bidder, not because they want their citizens to be healthy, but so that companies can make profits.

I was called back to get a second mammogram due to something they spotted the first time last week. I will call them tomorrow and see if they are going to cover this. If they aren’t, I’m not going. I can’t afford to. The bone density scan costs $350. I now will owe this somehow out of all my other bills and expenses. It sounds measly to some people, but $350 is almost a month’s groceries. It’s almost a car payment for me, or at least the kind of car that I can afford. As I wander the shops and watch everyone buying, buying, buying, I can’t help but wonder, “where do all these people get all this money?” $350 is a drop in the bucket for them. And another mammogram will be upwards of $600 or so. So, I will have to take the risk that what they saw on the first mammogram was a false reading and not go to the second. And I will tell the insurance company this when I call them and if they tell me they will refuse to pay for it. There is no alternative for people like me and millions more who make less than I do a month. Obama’s plan will try to redress this somewhat, but this won’t go into effect until 2014 and even then it will get huge opposition from whoever happens to be in office at the time. The insurance companies will retaliate by raising rates and we will be back to square 0.

So please, please, please, don’t call what we live with now health care. It’s more like health capitalism.

“The Last Legs of Traditional…Patriarchy”

Image via Wikipedia

Figleaf offers us a good post about the recent decision in California; Prop 8. Judge Walker wrote a blisteringly good analysis of the decision and why he decided that confining marriage to a man and a woman is unconstitutional. Figleaf points to research on the subject which I had not thought of before; that marriage is a contract between families in traditional patriarchy. This is not what most modern people consider marriage to be, except of course, in highly patriarchal countries. Today, marriage is a free choice among equals, not bartered goods in a capitalist market. Gay couples should marry if they wish, not only for hereditary benefits, health insurance, or other material reasons, but because there is simply no credible argument against it. Procreation is not an issue in this scientific day and age. And really, I’ve done more to undermine “traditional patriarchal marriage” than any of the monogamous, loving, and child-rearing gay couples I know.