Let Freedom Ring

Dear Reader,

I apologize for missing my First Friday deadline – the first week of classes has me playing catch up, but here we go! Better late than never.

So, I have watched with interest as the controversy around Colin Kaepernick has unfolded.  For those who have not heard, the NFL quarterback has decided to sit during the playing of the national anthem, thereby exercising his right to peacefully protest.  He is doing this to continue to call attention to the reality that people of color are subjected to injustice on a daily basis.  Because of his protest, he has been called a traitor, his jersey has been burned, and people have called him a hypocrite because he happens to make money as a football player.

A couple of things come to mind here:

1. “The Star Spangled Banner” is the national anthem, and I come from a proud military family.  When I hear the anthem, I stop. I face the flag. I legitimately contemplate the sacrifice of our military – tears come to my eyes.  That’s just who I am. I feel respect and pride.  It is my first amendment right to feel that way. Okay.

2. But, I live near Baltimore.  I attend games at Camden Yards.  Fans yell “O” when we get to the part of the verse that goes, “Oh, say does that Star Spangled Banner yet wave….” – some fans yelled “O” during the Olympic medal ceremony when Michael Phelps was on the podium during the Rio Olympics last month.  He laughed.  Both shouting “O” and laughing during the anthem could be considered disrespectful, no? I missed the outrage on that, but I did see that Gabby Douglas got hammered for not putting her hand over her heart when she was on the podium. Hmm….

3. Did you know that Francis Scott Key’s song has multiple verses?  We only sing the first one.  In the third verse we find these troubling lines: “No refuge could save the hireling and slave / From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave”   Well.

I could go on, but I think the main point is emphasized by US Soccer star Megan Rapinoe, a gay woman, who has also decided to silently and peacefully protest by kneeling during the anthem. The point, and it is an important one, is this: as great as this country is, and as much as we embrace the belief that we are all created equal and deserve equal rights and equal protections, the reality is that this equality is not reality – it is an ideal.  For minorities, including immigrants, people of color, and LGBTQ citizens of this country, life is different.  If you have never experienced inequality, I am happy for you.  I know personally that my wife and I sometimes hesitate before holding hands or showing affection in public – even though Maryland is one of the more progressive states in America.  There is always the nagging fear that someone will take exception to our existence and act aggressively about it. We had to wait a few years after we were sure we wanted to be married to legally be allowed to get married in our home state while somewhere in Alabama, Arkansas, Alaska, Connecticut, and many other states, sixteen-year old heterosexuals were allowed to exchange vows with full support of the American government.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of expression. That is exactly what the patriots of the Boston Tea Party demonstrated when they dumped the tea in the harbor to show their displeasure over taxes.  It’s what empowered Martin Luther King Jr. to lead the marches against the unequal treatment of African-Americans in the mid-twentieth century.  Freedom of expression allowed Vietnam War protestors to speak out in the 60’s.  It’s the same freedom of expression that allows the Westboro Baptist Church to show up at military funerals and voice their opinions.  It’s the freedom to say that you disagree.  No matter your politics, it’s the freedom that we all have.

To quote Aaron Sorkin (via the film The American President), “America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship.  You’ve got to want it bad. ‘Cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say, ‘You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs for that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.  You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag [or an anthem for that matter], the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag [or sit during that anthem] in protest.’ Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.”

In my ethics class this week, we used this issue as an icebreaker.  What I am happy with is how thoughtfully my students considered this question.  They have, at a young age, embraced a nuanced view of the world and the reality that we can reasonably disagree without casting each other in the roles of patriot or traitor.  As someone who believes that the purpose of education is to produce compassionate, independent-minded, informed, and empathetic citizens, this gives me a lot of hope.

Free speech does not just mean that we only celebrate or protect those who agree with us.  Free speech is bigger than you or me or our opinions.  If you think Kaepernick and Rapinoe are wrong for exercising their right to peacefully demonstrate freedom of expression, you have totally missed the point. It does not disrespect the military.  It does not disrespect America. When I stand for the anthem, I celebrate the very freedom that allows them to sit or kneel in protest. That is what freedom really means. You can disagree, but your disagreement does not make them wrong. Let Freedom Ring.

© Ryna May 2016

Advertisements

Strange Bedfellows

caliban
Caliban from the 2013 Utah Shakespeare Festival production of The Tempest

In Shakespeare’s play The Tempest, the shipwrecked sailor Trinculo looks upon the mysterious island creature Caliban and says “Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows.”  From this, we also get the idiom “Politics makes for strange bedfellows.”  Both of these expressions flashed to the forefront of my mind when I read the headline “The Pope Just Handed Kim Davis a Huge Win.” The Obstinate Clerk and The Bishop of Rome.  Strange bedfellows indeed. So strange as not to be believed.

At the tail end of his much hyped visit, The Pontiff inadvertently waded directly into the cesspool of American culture wars.  Of course, it is implied that the Pope was talking about embattled Kentucky government employee Kim Davis – he never actually mentioned Davis directly – when he said that government officials have a “human right” to refuse to discharge a duty if they feel it violates their conscience. The story that was given out was that the Pope’s people arranged a clandestine meeting with Davis inside the Vatican embassy where Davis’s attorney alleges that the Pope told her to “stay strong” in her ongoing fight to deny other people their Constitutional rights.

In one of my classes, we just finished reading Seamus Heaney’s translation of the Antigone play called The Burial at Thebes.  For those of you who may not remember, Antigone is the tale of Oedipus’s daughter who is sentenced by her uncle, Creon, to death for burying the body of a traitor.  The traitor happened to be her brother, Polynices, who brought an army against Antigone’s home city of Thebes, igniting a civil war that led to the death of Polynices and his brother Eteocles as well.  As Greek plays often are, it is a hot mess for everyone involved.  And it doesn’t end well for anyone.

Antigone’s dilemma is that she feels compelled to bury her brother because it is what she believed the gods wanted.  She knew it was against the law of Thebes, but she just felt that it was the right thing for her to do.  On the other hand, Creon created a law for the city to restore the unity of Thebes.  He wanted to send a message that it was important for citizens to obey the law because law is a social contract that ensures the protection and safety of everyone.  Antigone is aware that citizens have a duty to the law – citizenship was extremely important to the Greeks.  But for Antigone it is a deep matter of faith to ignore this particular law. But here’s the rub: Antigone knew there were legal consequences to her actions even though she felt she had a moral duty that was higher than any mortal duty that might exist.  Her deontological worldview commanded her to obey that moral law even though the consequences would be bad for her.  In fact, she viewed the consequences as beyond her control and even as part of the bargain for standing up for her choice, and there is honor in that choice.  My students could not help but note the similarities between Antigone and Davis; however, these same students also believe it would be wrong to equate the two women.  As we discussed this play in this contemporary context, the students pointed out that Antigone’s actions impacted her whereas Kim Davis’s actions impact others.  In their opinion, that’s where things go over the line.  Kim Davis denies the rights of others in choosing to ignore the law. In ignoring the law, Davis is free to obey what she feels is a moral duty, but she must face the consequences.

Pope-Francis
Pope Francis – photo from GLAAD

But wait, there’s more to the story.  Contrary to how it was initially reported, it seems that the meeting didn’t go as Davis claims it did.  The Vatican is pumping the brakes and saying that, while Davis was in the room with Pope Francis, she was hardly alone and was part of a group of people arranged in a receiving line that the Pope spoke to briefly.  His Holiness had no desire to comment on how we ought to conduct our business, and that is a good thing, because religion and politics are a toxic mix.  It is a bedrock belief that in the United States of America, people may live free of the restrictions of religion – see the Pilgrims – but they may not live free of the requirements of the law. The law is part of our social contract.  In the First Amendment, it states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”  In simplest terms, this means that we may not impose a particular religious worldview on others.  We are free to believe what we want.  Others are free to believe what they want.  Both perspectives are protected under the law and law is independent of religion. This is in fact what the Pope was speaking of – freedom of religion as a human right.  

I sympathize with Davis – it’s a tough spot.  I don’t doubt her religious conviction, green as it is, but this is an outright lie to make more of this meeting with the Pope than there actually was.  It feels particularly wrong to manipulate him in this way, and sadly, this is not the first time her supporters have tried to pull something like this.  Still, my sympathy for her comes from the way she is being exploited by her deranged lawyer and presidential pretender Mike Huckabee.  She is the one who has to face actual repercussions for these choices while these politically religious opportunists scramble to take photos with her as “Eye of the Tiger” blares in the background.  There is really only one way to get through this with any honor now: she should embrace God’s love and God’s word as a reason to do her job. She should embrace some actual scriptures such as the ones where we turn the other cheek or Matthew 7:12 that exhorts us to treat others as we want to be treated – in other words, equality. 

This argument does not need to be won on religious grounds because ultimately it is not and must not be a religious argument.  But if you insist that it must be a religious argument, then fine.  James 2:8 & Galatians 5:14 both invoke Jesus’s words that we should “Love [our] neighbor as [our]self” which implies that we should extend love and courtesy and respect to one another. But the last word on this really comes from Romans 13:10 – “Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” Loving others is the fulfillment of the law.  The law is changing as we change culturally, and this is a good thing.  It means we are more tolerant, more inclusive, more like Jesus wishes us to be. Welcome to the brave new world.

© 2015 Ryna May

This I Believe – Part One

Dear Reader,

The title of this month’s blog is inspired by the NPR Podcast Series “This I Believe.”  If you have never listened to it, I highly recommend you check it out.

This I Believe: Civil Rights are Equal Rights

This month, the Supreme Court will rule on marriage equality. In the court of public opinion, the issue has already reached the tipping point. In 1996, the first time Gallup polled on the issue, only 27% of the public thought that same-sex couples deserved marriage equality, but in 2014, the poll showed that 55% of the public now believes that civil marriage is a civil right for all people.  (A separate poll by the Wall Street Journal has 58% in support of marriage equality.) That’s an amazing shift, and I can only really attribute it to one thing: people have realized that gay people are not trying to destroy them! That’s right: gay people are just people trying to live their lives.  They do not want to wreck your life or your marriage.  I am in a same-sex marriage (Thank you, Maryland!), and I can attest that there is nothing about my relationship that adversely impacts the heterosexuals around me.

marriage_equality

I believe the experience of actually knowing a gay person is what changes minds and hearts. I did not meet an openly gay person until I went to college, and since I went to college pretty late in life, that was when I was almost 30 years old.  It caused quite a bit of cognitive dissonance for me. On the one hand, I grew up in an environment that told me that homosexuals were abhorrent – that God hated them.  On the other hand, I knew this nice, funny, creative, and warm man who would become one of my lifelong friends.  How could he be abhorrent?  Worst of all, he knew I was “religious,” and the idea that he might think I hated him for who he was sickened me.  Most of all, knowing him got me to think about what I had always heard and been taught.  I always say, if you want your faith to mean anything, it has to be your own – not merely an uncritical repetition of what has come before.  I ought to know why I believe what I believe.

There are some who argue that the Bible defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman.  Actually, this is not consistently true.  In various places in the Bible, marriage is defined as the union between a man and “at least” one woman.  Men with multiple wives are described as “highly blessed” in their marriages.  Abram cheated on his wife, and the servant woman that he took as a second wife bore him a son. That’s not exactly what traditionalists think of as a traditional marriage.

In fact, there were a variety of marriages that were permissible in the disparate cultures that produced the Bible.  Titus 1:6 describes a monogamous relationship.  But Deuteronomy 22:28-29 has a less romantic view of marriage wherein rape victims are given by their fathers to marry the man who raped them – after, of course, the rapist pays the girl’s father 50 pieces of silver.  In another passage of Deuteronomy (25:5-10), a man is commanded to marry his brother’s widow – even if he himself is already married.  This is also mandated in Genesis and Ruth. These are just a few examples of how marriage was practiced in these distinct moments. But we might also argue that as members of a pluralistic society, it doesn’t matter what the authors of the Bible thought.  We are a society of many religions and many beliefs – the beliefs of one religious group should not define the rights for all people, especially for an institution that has long been more secular than religious.

I think the key to understanding this is acknowledging that the definition of marriage has always been produced by culture, and culture changes.  Now, our culture does not look favorably on polygamy.  We do not think a rapist should be able to buy his victim or that having sex before marriage makes a woman unworthy of marriage (and thus more inclined to marry the man who raped her).  We don’t think a man should be compelled to marry his brother’s widow.  We do believe in marital monogamy.  And as we have seen, we are now culturally ready to believe that loving same-sex couples deserve a chance at happiness.

It’s about more than just happiness though.  It’s about rights and dignity.  When opponents of same-sex marriage argue for civil unions instead of marriage, they perhaps don’t realize that what they are asking for is a version of the “Separate but Equal” fallacy that suppressed African-Americans for so long in this country.  They are right about this: our culture views marriage as a sacred right.  This is precisely why same-sex couples should share it.  We don’t get to pick and choose who gets rights and who doesn’t – in our society, we demand equal rights.

we the people
We the People, in order to form a more perfect union…

You might not know that much of our country’s philosophy was influenced by the English philosopher John Locke. Locke advocated for natural rights – the basic rights of all human beings to be treated with dignity and respect by virtue of their very humanity. Locke wrote that all human beings are equal in the sense that they are born with certain “inalienable” natural rights. That is, rights that are inherent to every individual and can never be taken away. Locke also argued that individuals should be free to make choices about how to conduct their own lives as long as they do not interfere with the liberty of others. Thomas Jefferson thought these were pretty good ideas – so much so that he put them into the Declaration of Independence.

Paul-Walker-Westboro-Baptist-Church-Funeral
Awful, Ugly Speech is Still Free Speech

Marriage is not the only right we are talking about.  For example, free speech is a civil right we are all entitled to.  What’s hard is that we have to honor free speech even when we don’t agree with what is being said.  The Westboro Baptist Church’s message is abhorrent, but we have to respect their right to be abhorrent. We have to respect them because we also respect the rights of union workers and Million Mom Marchers to picket, assemble, and protest.  Everyone gets the same rights or else they are not sacred.  And we believe that our rights ought to be sacred – that is the society we want to belong to.

In his book, A Theory Of Justice, philosopher John Rawls asks us to imagine that we belong to a group of people who are gathered to plan our own future society, a just and fair society that operates under a Social Contract.  Rawls calls this scenario the “Original Position.”  In the Original Position, we don’t know who we will be in society, what status we will have.  So, we must design our society behind what Rawls calls the Veil Of Ignorance:

“No one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like.”

The goal, then, is to create a society in which you are guaranteed to be treated fairly.  You might be gay, straight, black, white, rich, poor, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, male, female, transgendered, fit, or physically limited, but it will not matter.  If you have created a truly just and fair society, everyone will have the same opportunities, the same challenges, and the same freedoms.

You might be thinking: but the people who wrote the Bible never imagined that people of the same sex might want to get married.  For the most part, I think you’re right: they couldn’t imagine it.  Just like there was a time when we in America could not imagine people from different races getting married.  We could not imagine that African Americans could be more than slaves.  We could not imagine that women ought to be allowed to vote.  We could not imagine these things – until we did.  Culture evolves because people change.  In every instance, we lean into inclusion.  I believe we have crossed the Rubicon now with marriage equality and other gay rights, but there are still many important issues for us to consider on our way to a fair and just society.  For example, Bruce Jenner’s recent interview and transition to Caitlyn Jenner has pushed transgender issues, finally, into the national conversation.  It’s a dialogue that is long overdue and will be difficult.  But I have faith that as long as we consistently do the human thing, that as long as we consistently value the natural rights of individuals, we will find our way.  As Dr. King so wonderfully said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

Next month on Friday Nite Writes: This I Believe – Part Two

© 2015 Ryna May