Billy Graham's sad legacy

I watched yesterday as World Vision back-pedaled from their statement that they would no longer categorize marriage as just hetero.  As Fred Clark from slactivist noted, it isn't as if they haven't had gay people working for them.  And I don't even think they were one of the organizations that required people to say they weren't gay (lie).  But they made a move, and the response was overwhelming.



I kind of understand the hard core evangelical response to homosexuality.  At least at one level.  But what I don't get is that evangelicals lined up to stop supporting poor children through World Vision because of this statement.  A statement that had nothing to do with the mission of helping the poor, and nothing at all to do with why those supposed evangelical Christians were sponsoring those people.  But crossing that Rubicon is simply not acceptable in the evangelical tribe right now.  It will change, mind you, but for now, it is a step too far.



But what I can't forgive is that evangelicals would bully World Vision into backing down.  But they won't even speak about cuts in food stamps.  They refused to speak about torture. They cheered war.  They avoid and ignore the healthcare of poor women.  They stand by while Republicans actually cheer people not getting healthcare and openly encourage people not to sign up.  But by God they will stand up when someone says that gay people are ok.



Unacceptable.



And the best example of this is the bigoted and awful Franklin Graham.  I have never been that big of a fan of his father, but Billy at least learned from his political missteps.  To a degree, anyway.  He still consorted with the anti-semitic Nixon, but he kept those ideas private, and he apologized when they were made public.



His hateful son is completely different.  Fred says it best in this post: Franklin Graham’s hateful lies and opportunism winning Huzzahs from white evangelicals, but it is worth reading and worth watching a bigot in action.  And a bigot who claims to be attacked for his faith.  I have news for you, Mr. Graham.  You are under attack from the left and gay groups because you say things such as that gay couples don't adopt children because they want to love them and care for them--they "recruit children" into their "cause."



Hateful.  UnChristian.  Unloving.  And everytime he does this, he gets cheered by the evangelicals who observe.  And none of them know why they are losing.

Cartoon: The NRA interviews Surgeon General candidates

Cartoon: The NRA interviews Surgeon General candidates

Gun Culture. On steroids.

Georgia lawmakers pass controversial 'guns everywhere' bill | MSNBC

On developing new paths for history phds

This week has been frustrating for several reasons.  I am struggling to get traction with non-profits who don't seem to know what to do with my skills, and unfortunately, I still don't know enough to offer.  I have offered my services to several people locally, and I don't seem to get much in the way of feedback.  Part of that is they are overworked and underfunded, and part of that is my own lack of knowledge.

Second, my work on the arts board has been frustrating for reasons I think my father would appreciate.  After years of community organizing, he often talked about the difficulties of getting volunteers organized and moving.  I am working with a committee of really good people who are really busy and who often, actually usually, don't even respond to my emails.  Again, for most of them, I get that, but I had a pretty terse interaction with one other board member who pushed me into this particular role, but now can't find time to even email me back.  I think I figured out how to mollify him, but even that email went unacknowledged.

But the cherry on the top started with another recurring dream about my former profession.  That was followed by several people posting this story about the American Historical Association's grant to broaden career options for history Phds.  I suspect this is a good thing, mind you, as the numbers continue to show that my experience is far from unique and is closer to the norm.  But I found it incredibly frustrating to see this link coming from tenured or tenure track faculty friends.  I know they thought they were being helpful, but they weren't.  And they couldn't even see it.  I posted a friendly warning that I would be snarky to those with jobs posting something like this, and the only ones who "liked" the post were those who are outside tenure.  I suspect those inside were a bit taken back and didn't know how to take it.  As I said, this project is probably positive and even helpful.  But when someone inside posts it, it comes across as "let them eat cake."  "Oh good, there is help for those."

Personally, I can do without the condescending paternalism from people who are convinced they are simply better than those of us who didn't make it inside.  Spare me.

Florida Has Never Executed A White Person For Killing A Black Person | ThinkProgress

Florida Has Never Executed A White Person For Killing A Black Person | ThinkProgress

Reinvention update

It has been since last summer that I realized I had to reinvent myself.  The academic world spoke loud and clear in their decision that I was not one of them.  That was painful.  It still is at times.  I have recurring dreams where I confront the Community College people and remind them that I am actually a better teacher than they are--and that they betrayed me at a pretty deep level.  There are times when I want to send a letter, or email, or anonymous fax.

I don't do any of that, of course.  I know full well that will accomplish nothing.  Worse than nothing, it would fulfill a narrative that I was unfit for their job.

Those dreams are fewer now, which is nice.  I still have dreams where I struggle to explain being a failure.  I don't feel like that when I am awake, but think there are still vestiges of this sense of "not measuring up."  I felt that often when I was around tenure-track or tenured faculty friends.  It is that sense that my friend M labeled the "cult of academia."  Those inside often cannot even imagine qualified people being outside the cult, even as they know full well the arbitrary and capricious nature of the job market.  Perhaps that is necessary for their own mental health, I don't know.

I had two such interactions of late.  One was at a pilates class, where I am trying to work on my range of motion in my frozen left shoulder (no surgery planned for the immediate future, so that is great).  One of the ladies who attends regularly is a professor who teaches in Film and Video Studies.  I used to teach a film history class that was cross listed, and attended several of their meetings.  She and I didn't have a relationship, so I am more forgiving of what happened.  But the upshot was that she has no recognition that she has ever met me.  I am outside the cult, and so one of the ordinaries--the muggles.  Then yesterday, SOF and I took the dogs to a school yard for some frisbee exercise, and met a philosophy professor walking his dog.  He too didn't even recognize me, even though he and I have had several conversations.  Perhaps it is the facial scruff, or hat.  Or perhaps it is cult blindness.

Both of those stung, though not at the level of old hurts.  I am moving on.  I will continue to teach when I get the opportunities, but have pretty much lost my love of academia.  I now read colleagues complaining about students, or administrations, or about the pressure of for-profit colleges--and I have lost sympathy.

So what am I doing?  I am working on the board of a small non-profit organization.  We put on concerts, art exhibits, and poetry readings.  We manage a historic building.  I love the work, even though it costs me money.  I love meeting the artists, and don't even mind hauling chairs and setting up stages.

That got me thinking.  Last fall, I often told people that I was interested in volunteering for non-profit social justice, but I had "some physical issues and didn't see myself hauling food or stocking shelves."  Part of that was true.  My shoulder was painful.  But part of that was about pride and fear.  I have a Ph.d.  I am a doctor.  I am a published professor.  I didn't want to carry groceries or sweep floors.  I can admit that.

But the arts non-profit made me rethink that.  I started volunteering well before I joined the board, and I volunteered because I love the mission and I love the music.  I realized that could apply to the food bank, and the homeless shelter as well.  I had no problem hauling chairs or stages or picking up trash for the concerts.  No reason why I couldn't do the basics for another mission I value.  With that in mind, I did my first volunteer session with our state food bank last week. I spent about 3 hours sorting food with about 20 other strangers.  It was strangely intense and even fun.  I then toured Norman's only homeless shelter (the other one just closed) and found myself amazed at their work.  All with one hand tied behind their back (no state funding, and limited federal money).  They feed people on the street, in their kitchen.  They find temporary housing for single mothers and other homeless.

I had visions of doing consulting for non-profits.  But I realized I didn't know what to offer them, because I didn't know what they needed.  I am nopeful that volunteering will, as it did with the arts organization, help me understand where I can contribute.

Gun culture more important than poor people

From what I have seen, gun culture dominates everything.  No need to feed the poor, or help the sick, but we by god will put more guns in more hands.  What could possibly go wrong?



Campus gun bill sparks spirited discussion | News OK

Gun Culture

George Zimmerman Signs Autographs At A Florida Gun Show | ThinkProgress



Wayne LaPierre's poster child.  Famous for only one thing--killing a young black man.  Should make all the 2nd Amendment people just burst with pride.

Sigh. Crazy town.

LaPierre Warns Of Vast Media-Political Conspiracy Out To Get NRA



Of course, he is partly right.  Rational people all over the place think that LaPierre is nuts and irresponsible.  Just like his pal Ted Nugent.



This is gun culture.  For all the legitimate defenses of second amendment rights, the gun culture never looks at itself, only at critics.  It is never wrong.  It is never to blame for anything.  Only liberals who distrust guns can cause crime or accidental death or suicide by gun.  Never ever irresponsible sociopaths like LaPierre.

The moment the conservative Republicans jumped the shark

And even as I write that, I know that isn't true.  The conservative right saying something dumb is as common as Steve getting defensive when I dare criticize gun owners.



No, the right wing will continue to say dumb stuff--as long as the Party cares more about appeasing the base than proposing good policy.  From the guy who would have been VP, and the guy the right points to as their "budget-guru," comes this gem:



Paul Ryan: Free School Lunch Means Poor Parents Don't Care About Kids



Perhaps a little unfair (the headline, here), but the essentially meaning from Paul Ryan's quote appears to be a deep and horrifying misunderstanding about our social safety net.  I have heard this from others, but still.  The basis for this misunderstanding is the idea that our society never really needed a social safety net, and that the creation of one has created poverty and needy-ness.  Hence you have people saying stuff like, "before the New Deal, communities cared for poor people.  We didn't need no damn government program."



Of course the reality is that communities tried, just as they do today, to take care of the needy, but they failed miserably when the entire economy collapsed.  Turns out that private charities exist in the same economy that produces need, and when the economy goes down, so do donations and fundraisers.  This isn't rocket science, but seems to be something that needs to be said, so I will say it again.  When the economy struggles, so do those agencies that try to help the needy.  Not only are they likely to see a decline in their donations, but they will see a big increase in the demand for their assistance.  Because the economy is in bad shape.  See?  Of course you do, but evidently the GOP's "budget guru" does not.  He seems to think that school lunches either causes poverty, or reveals that liberals want kids to eat government cheese rather than a lovingly made pb&j.



It is a dumb thing to say.  But one that he will repeat, I am guessing, as it plays to what has become a very dumb audience at the annual CPAC conference.

The de-evangelization of American culture

For those uninterested in religion, or uninterested in my my grappling with my religion, feel free to just ignore.  It isn't exactly new territory.



We are planning to see one of our favorite singer-songwriters (Mark Erelli) tomorrow night.  We first saw him in the waning days of 2007, when my view on the world was pretty dark.  I think Zalm suggested Erelli's music, and it did help.  Yet, here we are almost 7 years later, and I feel even darker.  Here in Oklahoma, our Governor wants to further cut income taxes while she also advocates cutting funding for Medicaid, and other social safety net features.  She has the backing of the religiously conservative community.  In Arizona, religious conservatives pushed the Orwellian "religious freedom" bill that would allow them to discriminate against gay people.  As EJ Dionne put it, it is the process of de-evangelization. People from a faith that calls them to reach out to the leper and to feed the poor, and help the marginalized--are claiming as a part of their faith--the right to deny service to gay people because they don't like them.  There is no verse to support this.  Hell, there are verses supporting slavery, but there is no verse that supports turning your back on people simply because you don't like them.  As Dionne notes, this is turning an entire generation against people of faith as they identify religion with intolerance and homophobia.



I remember the emphasis on "witness" during my church years.  It took on a rather paranoid aspect where we had to be mindful of every little slight that might "lead someone astray," even if the offense was minor or not even completely wrong.  Dancing might be ok, but it could be wrong if it caused "someone else to stumble."  We were to be the "light unto the world."



Flash forward nearly 35 years, and the same denomination openly endorses torture, and openly denigrates working poor and those needing healthcare.  They vote every year for people who are openly racist or homophobic, or who despise sexual women, and they have no problem with cuts in food stamps, or Medicaid, or for the disabled, and they openly defend the people who have everything.  De-evangelization.



Evangelical Rachel Held Evans says it very well:

And yet despite enjoying majority status, significant privilege, and unchallenged religious freedom in this country, we evangelical Christians have become known as a group of people who cry “persecution!” upon being wished “Happy Holidays" by a store clerk.  

We have become known as a group of people who sees themselves perpetually under attack, perpetually victimized, and perpetually entitled, a group who, ironically, often responds to these imagined disadvantages by advancing legislation that restricts the civil liberties of other people. 

And even better here:

The truth is, evangelical Christians have already "lost" the culture wars.And it's not because the "other side" won or because evangelicals have failed to protect our own religious liberties.  Evangelicals lost the culture wars the moment they committed to fighting them, the moment they decided to stop washing feet and start waging war.   

And I fear that we've lost not only the culture wars, but also our Christian identity, when the  "right to refuse" service has become a more sincerely-held and widely-known Christian belief than the impulse to give it.  

 She could add opposition to the poor, or attacks on women, or believing that healthcare is a privilege to that "right to refuse."



Just when I find myself completely without hope for the faith in which I was raised, I read this amazingly powerful post from Ta-Nehisi Coates about his interview with the mother of slain teenager Jordan Davis.  Davis was shot by a white male who objected to the young black man playing loud rap music in his car.  Instead of moving, or ignoring it (this was at a convenience store, btw, not outside his hotel room), Michael Dunn pulled out his gun and shot into a car full of black kids--all of whom were unarmed.  As the car retreated with the bleeding Jordan Davis inside, Dunn continued to shoot at the vehicle.  The jury convicted him of "attempted murder," but could not decide if he intended to kill Jordan.  Unbelievable.  Unfathomable.  (This racist ass is part of gun culture too, but that is not the point of this post.)



But back to this post.  Like Coates, though for far fewer personal reasons, I found the verdict outrageous, and I find Dunn's actions reprehensible.  But read the discussion with the slain boy's mother.

She said, "It baffles our mind too. Don’t think that we aren’t angry. Don’t think that I am not angry. Forgiving Michael Dunn doesn't negate what I’m feeling and my anger. And I am allowed to feel that way. But more than that I have a responsibility to God to walk the path He's laid. In spite of my anger, and my fear that we won’t get the verdict that we want, I am still called by the God I serve to walk this out."

Wow.

 

Gun culture

Here is a good example.  I read recently that we are getting close to where gun deaths (including suicides, accidents, etc) will surpass traffic deaths as the leading source of fatalities.  Say what you will about the second amendment, but doesn't that make it a public health issue?  Isn't it reasonable to ask questions about the role that guns play in our society without being accused of not respecting the constitution?



Rand Paul adds hurdle for surgeon general confirmation - The Washington Post

This is how families go hungry

Starting to feel like a redundant blogger, but I really, honestly have no idea how to process the push to cut food stamps in a slow growing economy where the deficit is going down, and the upper class are doing more than fine.



This MSNBC piece does a nice job of detailing the story.  In the 70s, while we had certainly not conquered poverty, or racism, or sexism, we had put hunger on the back bench.  Food pantries existed only as a rare "get me to that next paycheck" or rainy day source of food.

In New York, says Berg, there was so little need for emergency food services that in 1978 the city had only 28 operating feeding agencies. By 2014, that number had ballooned to about 1,000 agencies.

That occurred across the country, of course, to the point that more people rely on food pantries for the bulk of their food.  Meanwhile, Republicans and some Democratic allies have cut into that safety net to strengthen requirements, reduce benefits, and overall reduce the food available.  What conservatives seem to miss is that when the economy goes down, a couple things happen.  Not only does need go up, and with it pressure on non-profit private charities, but the same economic factors that harm the economy harm the very nonprofits that conservatives think will take care of the "truly needy."



Nonprofits rely on a lot of sources for their funding.  Some of it is private donations, but I will bet you right now that there are very few successful ones that rely only on private donations.  Most supplement donations with grants from other nonprofits and government grants.  Of course, those other nonprofits have the exact same pressure as the food bank--more demand and fewer incoming funds.  And also of course, we are cutting those federal and state dollars that the granting nonprofits use to help the variety of smaller nonprofits who serve people.



I am working with a nonprofit right now, though not one that is devoted to anti poverty.  But it has given me a new insight into the pressures of that world.  The constant push toward privatization means that more and more organizations are competing with more and more other organizations for fundraising dollars.  Schools fundraise for equipment and books, competing with charities who feed the hungry, or house the abused.



I started to write "what bothers me more than the cruelty," but realized that was not true.  The Republican cruelty toward the most vulnerable in our society bothers me the most.  But second, I am stunned by the ignorance of most conservatives as to how government works.  I truly believe they have no idea that federal money goes to the alzheimers daycare center that provides needed respite care for the families.  Or that federal money combines with private money to assist the disabled.



Or just the simple fact that cutting food stamps means that people go hungry.

Cruelty

When I read back through  my blog, I am struck by how at each conservative jag to the right, I was stunned by their lack of compassion.  This all started in 2000 when during a good economic time, all conservatives could focus on was tax cuts.  Not helping people.  Not building things.  Not taking care of our parks or our research.  Tax cuts.  Gimme.

It got worse.  Compassionate conservative George Bush told people to go shopping to fight terrorism, but refused to ask Americans to pay more taxes for his wars.  Or his Medicare Part D.  Or anything.

Fast forward to 2009 when Republican priorities after the crash were to see that Obama was not reelected.  Not to fix the economy, or get people back to work.  Stop the black Democrat from being reelected.  2010, they decided that expanding healthcare was either fascism or communism, or that Obama was like Hitler.  They openly lied about death panels to the point that reasonable people I know believed they were in the bill.

Yesterday, I read about Arkansas Republicans gleefully planning to take back the Medicaid expansion, meaning that people who had coverage last year won't next year.  And the Republicans are happy about that.  Harvard study says that thousands will die because of the unwillingness to expand, but Republicans insist that if they allow it, Obama will get the credit.  And they cannot have that.  Cruz, Rubio and Mike Lee are all urging the court to not allow federal subsidies to people in states that haven't formed their own exchanges.  No cost to the state, just spite.  We won't set up an exchange and we don't want people to have healthcare.  About that simple.

I read about a man on food stamps.  He used to be a plumber, but then had a stroke.  He is just a few years older than me.  Now disabled and can't work, he relies on food stamps to eat.  His food stamps run out with 10 days left in the month, and he knows that the farm bill will reduce that by more.  I go to the grocery store every day to prep for dinner.  He can't buy food for 1/3 of the month.

Here in Oklahoma, our governor wants to cut taxes on the rich from 5.25% down to 5%.  We have a budget shortfall.  She still wants to cut taxes.  And pay for that tax cut by cutting public art, history, and of course, healthcare for the poor.  Who does that?  Who looks at the well-heeled and comfortable and says, let's give them more money, but those people who don't go to doctors at all because they can't afford care?  They need fewer services.

My Republican friends still stun me.  I get their opposition to abortion.  I get that they are fearful of gay marriage and cultural shifts.  I get that they fear the government getting too big.  I get that they fear the Mexicans are taking over.  I even get their fear of Muslim extremists.

But I do not get, nor will I ever get, their acquiescence in the face of cruelty to the poor and the sick, especially for those who speak often of Jesus.  This isn't rocket science.  If Christianity doesn't care about the sick and the poor then Christianity is no longer a religion or a belief system.  If their God cares more about teaching bad science and forcing kids to pray in school than he does about hungry children--then he is not God.

The Super Bowl and failure

I have been a Bronco fan since the 80s, and remember well the painful Super Bowl losses of the past. This last Sunday was one in that mode, though one I didn't suffer through long.  I know well enough that putting my mental health in the hands of a game I can't control is a losing bet.

But the aftermath has been a little unsettling, though rather predictable.  Today, SOF and I enjoyed a nice lunch at our favorite Mexican place while the muted TVs had panels discussing whether or not Peyton Manning was to blame for the game, or if his legacy was tainted by the game.

That game has little to do with the life.  Of course, I knew that, but was reminded of it when the Broncos won their first Super Bowl.  I had believed that was a big deal, but when it happened, the joy was fleeting at best.  We often forget that the joy is in the journey, not the end game.

But while this game has no bearing on how I live my life, I feel a personal connection to Peyton Manning.  I feel for someone who has been so good at his craft that he is often considered to be one of the best to ever play the game, yet constantly has to hear idiots on TV question whether or not he is really that good, all because of two or three games out of many.

I have never been that good at anything.  But I do understand a little of how it feels to be looked down for not measuring up to a certain standard.  I was a good teacher.  Some of my students would say even better than good.  Yet, for all the people who told me how good I was, no search committee thought me worthy of their faculty.  And I have watched people with (frankly) lesser minds go on to tenure and security.

I would never have been as good at history as Manning is at football.  No question.  I don't have the drive.  But anyone who doubts that man as an athlete and competitor reminds me of the people who sneer at phds who never make the big time.  There is something to be said for experience being a really bad teacher.  Those who find a profession easily can often mistake that ease for ability, and that translates very quickly into entitlement.  It is a simple step to then assume that those who haven't made it into the cult simply weren't good enough.  To complete the circle, those who watch football understand that Joe Montana didn't win those SBs because he was a superior athlete.  He was a very good QB with an excellent defense and offense.  The same could be said for Aikman or even Elway for his two victories.  Or, for that matter, Manning's own individual Super Bowl championship.  How odd that idiots on tv could compare him to Marino in this way and forget that season where the Colts ran the table.

But none of them did it on their own.  That is one of the redeeming parts of football.  It is team.  It means that those who win championships are fortunate to be in the right place at the right time.  Archie Manning, after all, never had that luxury.

So for those who have succeeded at life, be wary of assuming that success comes only because of your ability.  Or because God smiled on you.  Experience doesn't always teach us well.

The problem with evangelical tribalism is that it isn't religious at all

Fred Clark has had a lot of good posts of late.  In this one, he noted that Hobby Lobby may consider birth control a violation of their religious liberty, but they have no problem doing business with China where they force women to have abortions.  Or hell, the one where Franklin Graham chastised Christians for for not supporting racism enough.  

But this one seems to take the cake.  For years, I was told that Israel was God's chosen people, and that we as a nation had to stand behind them (even when they attack civilians).  Evangelicals have supported the current Israeli regime's bloodlust toward Iran and would cheer them to war any day.  But here is the funny thing, evidently Israel has a very pro-choice approach to abortion--far more than we have here, yet the evangelical response is to support Israel and badmouth Obama.

Leighton made the point years ago that the conservative response was tribal, and that has been an incredibly useful lens through which to view modern politics.  Yes, politics.  Evangelicals like to claim that they are Christians first and foremost, and conservatives only second.  They hate it when we point out that they seem to be a permanent committee for the RNC.  Yet, their response to almost every moral or political question is to side with the Republicans. They have opposed healthcare for the sick, and food for the hungry, after all.

But this abortion issue was supposed to be their line in the sand.  Republicans who dared cross that might not get their support.  But Israel has exposed that to be a lie.

Conservative Christians aren't Christian first.  First and foremost, they are part of a conservative political machinery focused on achieving political power, undermining social safety nets, cutting regulations on worker safety and protecting the environment, and making sure that the rich and powerful remain rich and powerful.  WWJD?

Why Duck Dynasty's racism and bigotry matters

I post this because far too many people have responded to me with the idea that the opinions of a reality show are unimportant.  Of course that is true, and I have never suggested otherwise.  Their significance lies in who defends them and how.

Fred Clark does it better than me--noting that people like Franklin Graham believe that racism and homophobia are Christian values: "The problem with American Christianity, according to Franklin Graham, is that it’s not sufficiently homophobic, misogynist and racist."

Or maybe Graham doesn't actually believe that.  Maybe he just identifies with the Duck Dynasty people because they are in his tribe, and their enemies are his enemies.

Either way, that isn't good for our democracy, and it certainly is not good for evangelical Christianity.

The unrelenting cost of poverty

And this continues to just amaze me.  Study after study shows that poor people struggle with more than just paying their bills.  The impact of poverty on children is documented and clear.  It slows their development and leaves them far behind their peers.

Unrelenting Poverty Leads To 'Desperation' In Philly Schools : NPR: Also, studies show that in some cases, kids living in poverty are more than two years behind their privileged counterparts. They're more likely to have fewer books in the home, have more health problems and miss more school days. Many kids come to school hungry, and then they can't focus and learn.
Closing The 'Word Gap' Between Rich And Poor : NPR

Yet, the conservative response--and even that from so many of my moderate friends--is to shrug and say, "what can we do, we have government programs that don't work."  For those more conservative, the response seems to be to blame the poor for their situation, and the overall approach has been to cut funding for those programs that help kids and the poor the most, and essentially tell them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps--even if that means doing so with both hands tied behind your back.  That small percentage of the poor who fight their way out become the exceptions that disprove the rule for conservatives.  All of that makes me think that most Americans simply don't like the poor.

But the very real conclusion of these studies is that poverty harms us all.  Every kid who falls behind in school is "at risk" for anti-social behavior, or for behavior that is costly to us--from early pregnancy to drug use or violence.  Those kids who never catch up to their peers equals last productivity and innovation, as well as likely more cost to our infrastructure and safety net.

Yet, the dominant narrative has become (since Reagan) that you can't solve poverty, and you sure as hell can't solve it by throwing money at it.  All that is left is to shrug and suggest that when the poor are better people, we will see it reduced.

I find that unacceptable.  And criminal.

Racism, evangelicals and Duck Dynasty

I read this evening that A&E has decided to take Phil Robertson back after his brief and meaningless suspension.  His homophobia is, as the network decided, part of his "journey," and the duck people are really good people after all:

Duck Dynasty is not a show about one man's views. It resonates with a large audience because it is a show about family… a family that America has come to love. As you might have seen in many episodes, they come together to reflect and pray for unity, tolerance and forgiveness. These are three values that we at A+E Networks also feel strongly about,"

Yeah, whatever.  I have no problem with the fact that people evolve and change on their journey.  I also acknowledge that these people are probably decent people who do not intend to be homophobic bigots.  Their statements about gays bothered me tremendously, but I have to say that his statements on race bothered me even more.  I think because there is a theological argument (with which I disagree) that says that homosexuality is a sin.  But there is no theological argument (legitimate, anyway) that posits that black people were happy under segregation--as Phil Robertson suggested in his interview.

That aside, because I don't watch the show and won't be likely to do so in the future, the part that bothers me more than anything is that the denomination of my youth had the opportunity here for an easy little win on race.  They could have come out and stated that while they agreed with many of the family's views on religion and family, they could not endorse such racist thoughts about segregation.  It wasn't that hard.  But they decided to tribally back the duck people--because since liberals were mad at them, they must be doing something right.

The evangelical church lost me a long time ago, but it is this response on racism that really leaves me cold.  As I told several people, it is one thing for a white person to suggest that he was convinced that black people were happy in 1950s Louisiana--even though we all know that whites knew that blacks faced lynching for any transgressions outside white supremacy.  Phil Robertson knew that blacks were lynched.  He had to know.

But even if we somehow give 1950s Phil a pass, we can't excuse a grown man of today still suggesting that as fact.  He is either in deep denial or one of the most monumentally stupid people in America.  (Perhaps he should run for President under the GOP?)

What bothers me most is that I know full well that this repeats a long repeated lie for white supremacy.  During Slavery, the South insisted that their "slaves were happy," and were, in fact, happier than those northern immigrants.  During segregation, they repeated the same lie--that "their blacks were happy and understood their place."  We all know that was a lie, and we saw Southern blacks put their lives on the line (literally) to oppose segregation.

I’m reminded of these words from James Baldwin’s essay “A Fly in Buttermilk”: 

“Segregation has worked brilliantly in the South, and in fact, in the nation to this extent: It has allowed white people with scarcely any pangs of conscience whatever, to create, in every generation only the Negro they wished to see.”

That conservative evangelicals cannot see this makes me sad.  This was easy.

Gun Culture

You will not find me to be a Scott Brown fan, but this is why I hate gun culture.

NH Lawmaker: Armed Uprising Possible If Scott Brown Elected