I have a confession: I'm a secret listener of Rush Limbaugh.
I know, it's hard to believe that someone who spouts such liberal thoughts actually tunes in her radio to the man who calls himself "...America's Anchorman... America's Truth Detector; the Doctor of Democracy; the Most Dangerous Man in America; the All-Knowing, All-Sensing, All-Everything Maha Rushie; defender of motherhood, protector of fatherhood and an all-around good guy." There's a simple reason for this: I truly believe it's important to know what the people I disagree with are saying. If we willfully blind ourselves to opposing points of view we run two obvious - and perhaps other, less-obvious - risks.
The first risk is that of being surprised by information that we may not glean from mass media (every outlet has some kind of bias these days). The second risk is that of indulging in surrounding ourselves only with like-minded people and news, thereby losing opportunities to learn to defend our own positions, or even to learn something that may change our minds.
So now that I have defended myself for indulging what appears to be aberrant behavior, I'd like to turn to the concept of sacrifice.
Today, Good Friday, is the most solemn day in the Christian year. It is the day that Christians observe the most stunning act of sacrifice known to mankind. The day that a teacher, a good man, the one many believe to have been God Incarnate, willingly gave up his life for the redemption of mankind. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13 KJV)
Jesus taught by example the concept of sacrifice and sacrifical love, even for those we do not know, even for those who may persecute us, condemn us, even kill us. And that message was so strong, so believable, that even today we have people whom we call martyrs, people who will give their livelihood and their lives for causes and people that provide no benefit to them, but who believe in the concept of the greater good.
So what connection does Rush Limbaugh have with sacrifice? Well, on a recent weekday Mr. Limbaugh railed against sacrifice while promoting self-interest. As I listened, I was struck by how many people on the Far Right, many who call themselves "Christians," subscribe to the concept of sacrifice as an undesirable action. To be fair, Limbaugh approves what he calls "sacrifice" when it's performed for the benefit of our children and families; but to sacrifice so that others not related to us may benefit is derided as "...cheating them out of their own self-interest."
Perhaps the following quote, lifted directly from Limbaugh's own transcript of his program, will better illustrate how he feels:
"Everybody wins when everybody's acting in self-interest. Selfishness is a different thing. Self-interest is excellence; self-interest is what's desired; self-interest is what makes people want raises; self-interest is what makes people want their families to be secure; self-interest is what makes parents want their kids to be properly educated; self-interest is what propels the United States military to victory. Not sacrifice. Not the concept of sacrifice. Sacrifice is giving something to somebody you don't know to make yourself feel altruistic. You're not sacrificing. It doesn't make you great. But giving something to your family because you provided it for them, that is good. But if you run around just giving people who do nothing for you, who are just worthless, don't have anything to do with you, you're cheating them out of their own self-interest."
And so, Rush Limbaugh dismisses the entire meaning of Holy Week and Easter, reducing not only Jesus' sacrifice, but the sacrifice of countless others - recognized martyrs, police officers, firefighters, and just plain people, who gave their lives so that others - often unknown to them - might live, or be safe, or share in the promise of this life.
On this Good Friday, 2009, and on all the days and years to follow, I hope I am never too self-important to subscribe to the belief that only me and mine are deserving of what I am able to give. And I am ever-thankful to those who have sacrificed on the battlefield, in the Civil Rights movement, for women's rights and older Americans' rights, in labor struggles, and in countless other ways, so that I - and you - might have a better life.
Showing posts with label Christians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christians. Show all posts
Friday, April 10, 2009
Monday, November 17, 2008
Reality check
I'm a member of an internet discussion group called "Episcopal/Anglican/Religion Community." Most of us are either Episcopalians or Anglicans, but not all. However, a lot of our posts/discussions revolve around what's currently happening in the Episcopal Church. You know - ordaining gays, same-sex marriages, defections of various parishes/dioceses - your normal, everyday discussions.
Occasionally we wander off into discussions of politics, other religions (both Christian and non), and current events. We make prayer requests, have a link for daily devotions, and even have a bit of irreverent humor. We Episcopalians are a versatile bunch, you see.
Today an article from The Guardian in the UK was posted entitled Blogging and the Meaning of Life: Does the internet make discussion of things too easy to be worthwhile? It's an interesting premise, and one I've struggled with on a low level from time to time. The author discusses, among other things, how many of us use the internet not only for legitimate research (guilty) but also for information to bolster our own point of view (also guilty). We write blogs or emails or comments to and about people we don't really know (guilty again), and find it easy to be abrasive or judgmental toward people who exist only in our cyber-world (okay, okay, I'm guilty of this, too).
I'm an opinionated person. You've probably already figured this out; especially if you're related to me. And I have a family full of opinionated people (you know who you are!). And often we hold opposing opinions. This doesn't mean we don't care for each other, and - thankfully! - it doesn't mean that we don't get along. What it does mean is that we accept each other's differences of ideas and philosophies without feeling threatened by them. It also means that we listen respectfully to each other, allowing each of us to have our opinions without tearing the fabric of our relationship. We're in this relationship thing for the long haul. I'm very blessed to have a family like this one I find myself in.
My cyber-friends, on the other hand, are people who read and comment on my blog because they are mostly like-minded. This doesn't mean that I don't value their readership or our tenuous connections with each other. One of my dear readers even called me her friend in a comment, and I floated for days on the strength of that remark. (Of course, she also said I was beautiful and that didn't hurt!) But I know that these followers of my blog, however happy I am to have them in my cyber-world, and even though I also follow their blogs, could disappear from my blogosphere as easily, as quickly, as mysteriously as they arrived. My world would be poorer for it, and I would miss them for a while, but someone or something would eventually fill the hole.
I'm writing this to put all of my thoughts into some perspective. In a post prior to our recent election, I made a comment about conservative Christians (actually, I made a couple of comments!) that one of my family members called me on. On re-reading my post, I understood why she felt that I had made a blanket statement, even though when I wrote it I didn't mean it exactly the way it sounded; it was not meant to be derogatory toward all conservative Christians. However, because it was made in a forum that doesn't allow the back-and-forth of a good face-to-face (or even voice-to-voice) conversation, I should have been more careful. No, she's not angry with me. No, we aren't feeling tense about each other. We have that good relationship that I mentioned in paragraph 4 above. But I felt bad that I had caused her to feel I was making a statement about her faith.
So. I am going to try harder to be more thoughtful about my posts. I expect I'll still do research to "prove" my point of view. And I expect I'll still get pissed off and write a diatribe from time to time. But I really am going to try to be more even handed and fair-minded. Because I value all of the people in my life: those of you I know and love as well as those of you who are only connected to me through this mysterious thing called the internet (or smoke-and-mirrors, as I often think of it!). I expect I'll screw up now and then, but I'm going to make the effort and I hope you - ALL of you - will help keep me honest!
Occasionally we wander off into discussions of politics, other religions (both Christian and non), and current events. We make prayer requests, have a link for daily devotions, and even have a bit of irreverent humor. We Episcopalians are a versatile bunch, you see.
Today an article from The Guardian in the UK was posted entitled Blogging and the Meaning of Life: Does the internet make discussion of things too easy to be worthwhile? It's an interesting premise, and one I've struggled with on a low level from time to time. The author discusses, among other things, how many of us use the internet not only for legitimate research (guilty) but also for information to bolster our own point of view (also guilty). We write blogs or emails or comments to and about people we don't really know (guilty again), and find it easy to be abrasive or judgmental toward people who exist only in our cyber-world (okay, okay, I'm guilty of this, too).
I'm an opinionated person. You've probably already figured this out; especially if you're related to me. And I have a family full of opinionated people (you know who you are!). And often we hold opposing opinions. This doesn't mean we don't care for each other, and - thankfully! - it doesn't mean that we don't get along. What it does mean is that we accept each other's differences of ideas and philosophies without feeling threatened by them. It also means that we listen respectfully to each other, allowing each of us to have our opinions without tearing the fabric of our relationship. We're in this relationship thing for the long haul. I'm very blessed to have a family like this one I find myself in.
My cyber-friends, on the other hand, are people who read and comment on my blog because they are mostly like-minded. This doesn't mean that I don't value their readership or our tenuous connections with each other. One of my dear readers even called me her friend in a comment, and I floated for days on the strength of that remark. (Of course, she also said I was beautiful and that didn't hurt!) But I know that these followers of my blog, however happy I am to have them in my cyber-world, and even though I also follow their blogs, could disappear from my blogosphere as easily, as quickly, as mysteriously as they arrived. My world would be poorer for it, and I would miss them for a while, but someone or something would eventually fill the hole.
I'm writing this to put all of my thoughts into some perspective. In a post prior to our recent election, I made a comment about conservative Christians (actually, I made a couple of comments!) that one of my family members called me on. On re-reading my post, I understood why she felt that I had made a blanket statement, even though when I wrote it I didn't mean it exactly the way it sounded; it was not meant to be derogatory toward all conservative Christians. However, because it was made in a forum that doesn't allow the back-and-forth of a good face-to-face (or even voice-to-voice) conversation, I should have been more careful. No, she's not angry with me. No, we aren't feeling tense about each other. We have that good relationship that I mentioned in paragraph 4 above. But I felt bad that I had caused her to feel I was making a statement about her faith.
So. I am going to try harder to be more thoughtful about my posts. I expect I'll still do research to "prove" my point of view. And I expect I'll still get pissed off and write a diatribe from time to time. But I really am going to try to be more even handed and fair-minded. Because I value all of the people in my life: those of you I know and love as well as those of you who are only connected to me through this mysterious thing called the internet (or smoke-and-mirrors, as I often think of it!). I expect I'll screw up now and then, but I'm going to make the effort and I hope you - ALL of you - will help keep me honest!
Thursday, October 30, 2008
The way we were/The way we are/The way we can be
Kissimmee (pronounced Kuh-SIM-me; if you pronounce it wrong, the ghosts of ancient Indians will rise up and smack you!), Florida is a smallish town in Central Florida, located near DisneyWorld. When I was a small child, the population was a few thousand and the area was mostly cattle ranches and poor folks. African-Americans of the time were often victims of violence, frequently for the "crime" of being "uppity" or talking back to white people.
I grew up in this Florida, mostly in Tampa, but for a few years in Lake Wales, a nearby town. This was in the 1950s, when the South was littered with signs saying "White Only" or "Colored Only," over water fountains, bathrooms, and other public places. This was a time when it sometimes seemed that simply having dark skin was a crime, and anyone with light skin could be your judge, jury, and sometimes, executioner. In towns like Kissimmee, if you were black, being on the street after dark in the white area of town could cost you your life, and your executioner would most often be found blameless.
Last night on television, I watched in awe as a reported crowd of 35,000 people stood in Kissimmee, Florida, in the midnight chill of 42 degrees (cold for the Sunshine State) and waited to see and hear Barack Obama speak. There were old, middle-aged and young; black, brown and white; men, women and children, all gathered to hear a mixed-race man speak to them about the future of their country. He was cheered and respected, and I was enthralled. Forty years ago, Barack Obama's parents could not have shared a hotel room in Florida without being arrested. Today, their son stands an excellent chance of being the next President of these United States.
Now, most people don't think of Florida as "the South." Today it is mostly thought of in terms of Miami, DisneyWorld, white-sand beaches, a repository for Cuban and Haitian refugees, and retirees from the North. But when I was growing up there, at least in Central and Northern Florida, the state was as southern in attitude, societal values, accents, and segregation policies as any other southern state. To have witnessed via television the gathering in Kissimmee last night was as miraculous to me as anything I've ever seen. My spirits soared on the wings of Sen. Obama's words and the cheers of the crowd.
I grew up in this Florida, mostly in Tampa, but for a few years in Lake Wales, a nearby town. This was in the 1950s, when the South was littered with signs saying "White Only" or "Colored Only," over water fountains, bathrooms, and other public places. This was a time when it sometimes seemed that simply having dark skin was a crime, and anyone with light skin could be your judge, jury, and sometimes, executioner. In towns like Kissimmee, if you were black, being on the street after dark in the white area of town could cost you your life, and your executioner would most often be found blameless.
Last night on television, I watched in awe as a reported crowd of 35,000 people stood in Kissimmee, Florida, in the midnight chill of 42 degrees (cold for the Sunshine State) and waited to see and hear Barack Obama speak. There were old, middle-aged and young; black, brown and white; men, women and children, all gathered to hear a mixed-race man speak to them about the future of their country. He was cheered and respected, and I was enthralled. Forty years ago, Barack Obama's parents could not have shared a hotel room in Florida without being arrested. Today, their son stands an excellent chance of being the next President of these United States.
Now, most people don't think of Florida as "the South." Today it is mostly thought of in terms of Miami, DisneyWorld, white-sand beaches, a repository for Cuban and Haitian refugees, and retirees from the North. But when I was growing up there, at least in Central and Northern Florida, the state was as southern in attitude, societal values, accents, and segregation policies as any other southern state. To have witnessed via television the gathering in Kissimmee last night was as miraculous to me as anything I've ever seen. My spirits soared on the wings of Sen. Obama's words and the cheers of the crowd.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This morning, as I was returning from my morning walk, the little girl across the street called out to me, "Obama rocks, doesn't he?" "Yes," I replied, "he does!" "Maybe," she said, "he'll be our first brown President!" "That would be great, Tiana!" I replied to her, my 9-year-old Mexican-American neighbor.
Upon reporting this conversation to Jim, I realized what an exciting idea that must be for this child and her family, and for so many others whose skins aren't white. Despite the conservative Christianity this family practices, they are able to visualize a world where hope and acceptance are more important than labels.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
I guess I'm just not that smart
THIS IS A POLITICAL ENTRY. YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!
I guess I'm not very smart. I've been trying to figure out why people are so hell-bent on believing John McCain's interpretation of Barack Obama's platform instead of believing the man whose platform it is.
I know people who make less than $200,000 a year - people who would clearly benefit from Obama's tax plan - who don't understand that they will pay less tax. I don't understand that.
I know people who think that we should continue to give tax breaks to big business because they believe big business will create jobs. Well, all the jobs that big business has created have been overseas, while we watch jobs that pay a living wage disappear in this nation. I don't understand that.
I know people who listen to McCain/Palin showcase "Joe the Plumber" - a man who lied to Obama not only about his ability to buy the company he works for, but also the amount that company is worth. Yet these folks believe that Joe is the face of America. Does that mean that most Americans lie about their financial position? Does that mean that wanting to buy a company equates with being able to buy it? Does that mean wanting a company to make a certain amount of money means that it actually makes it? Does saying you're a plumber actually make you one? Even if you don't have a license? I don't understand that.
I know people who think the Iraqi war was justified, even though it's been proved that the man who started it (George Bush, in case you've forgotten) lied to the entire nation. Yet they still support the ongoing killing of innocent men, women and children and sending our sons and daughters into harm's way. I don't understand that.
I know people who claim that this nation was founded as a Christian nation, yet they ignore the fact that most of our founding fathers were Deists and that this nation was not founded as a Christian nation, but as a nation with no national religion. I don't understand that.
I know people who claim they are followers of Jesus Christ, yet judge and condemn those who believe differently than they do. I don't understand that.
I know people who think John McCain is qualified to be President because he was in the military and was a POW during Vietnam. Why does that make him qualified? I don't understand that.
Perhaps if I were smarter I could understand these things. Perhaps then I would understand why it's okay that John McCain has his own connections to ACORN and why his involvement with the Keating Five is ignored(yes, I know he was cleared of charges, but he was criticized for "poor judgement" - and he was 58 years old at the time; old enough to know better, one would think!).
Perhaps if I were smarter I could figure out why it doesn't matter that Sarah Palin's husband, Todd, was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, an organization that promotes secession and "Alaska First." And why it's okay that Gov. Palin has shown her support for this organization.
I guess I'm just not that smart.
I guess I'm not very smart. I've been trying to figure out why people are so hell-bent on believing John McCain's interpretation of Barack Obama's platform instead of believing the man whose platform it is.
I know people who make less than $200,000 a year - people who would clearly benefit from Obama's tax plan - who don't understand that they will pay less tax. I don't understand that.
I know people who think that we should continue to give tax breaks to big business because they believe big business will create jobs. Well, all the jobs that big business has created have been overseas, while we watch jobs that pay a living wage disappear in this nation. I don't understand that.
I know people who listen to McCain/Palin showcase "Joe the Plumber" - a man who lied to Obama not only about his ability to buy the company he works for, but also the amount that company is worth. Yet these folks believe that Joe is the face of America. Does that mean that most Americans lie about their financial position? Does that mean that wanting to buy a company equates with being able to buy it? Does that mean wanting a company to make a certain amount of money means that it actually makes it? Does saying you're a plumber actually make you one? Even if you don't have a license? I don't understand that.
I know people who think the Iraqi war was justified, even though it's been proved that the man who started it (George Bush, in case you've forgotten) lied to the entire nation. Yet they still support the ongoing killing of innocent men, women and children and sending our sons and daughters into harm's way. I don't understand that.
I know people who claim that this nation was founded as a Christian nation, yet they ignore the fact that most of our founding fathers were Deists and that this nation was not founded as a Christian nation, but as a nation with no national religion. I don't understand that.
I know people who claim they are followers of Jesus Christ, yet judge and condemn those who believe differently than they do. I don't understand that.
I know people who think John McCain is qualified to be President because he was in the military and was a POW during Vietnam. Why does that make him qualified? I don't understand that.
Perhaps if I were smarter I could understand these things. Perhaps then I would understand why it's okay that John McCain has his own connections to ACORN and why his involvement with the Keating Five is ignored(yes, I know he was cleared of charges, but he was criticized for "poor judgement" - and he was 58 years old at the time; old enough to know better, one would think!).
Perhaps if I were smarter I could figure out why it doesn't matter that Sarah Palin's husband, Todd, was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, an organization that promotes secession and "Alaska First." And why it's okay that Gov. Palin has shown her support for this organization.
I guess I'm just not that smart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)