Fairness - The Commentary

Our next difficult conversation with someone who might get angry and leave in a huff is on the horizon. Unless our bubble is thicker than likely, we’re going to meet someone outside it, maybe when we least expect it. Today’s political and social climate makes it more difficult to have civil conversations. Both the example of the current holder of the White House and the fact that Democrats are in the midst of a primary contest that reflects panic, have resulted in the triggering of so many. Disagreements turn unpleasant in the blink of an eye. Even calls for civility in conversation and politics today sound as if they’re the talk of someone who has the privilege to benefit from living unaffected above the fray while others are hurting because of the current environment. Like walking in a minefield, one can never be certain where one’s step will set off an explosion. It’s tempting to run from it all, to turn inward and come back out later – if there is a later – leaving...

The right-wing obsession with LGBTQ people continues in 2020. Notice that it’s far from abating and becoming more desperate. In fact, their present reactions remind one of the movies of the knight slaying the dragon – just when it looked as if the wounded beast was slain, the knight is tempted to turn his back. Then, as a last gasp, the final and most dangerous sweep of the dragon’s tail or bite of its fangs comes at the knight before its death. For individual right-wingers there still seems to be an obsession with what LGBTQ people do in their bedrooms. It’s both a fascination and a kind of yuck factor – very love/hate – that they believe can only be relieved through a suppression that will lead, as suppression always does, to further obsession. But on a larger level, the obsession takes the form of not being able to let go of the idea that LGBTQ people are able to live openly happy lives. They were almost okay with the existence of LGBTQ people as long as they were co...

When the conservative Evangelical magazine Christianity Today , founded in 1956 by the late right-wing evangelist Billy Graham called this December for the removal of Donald Trump from office - describing him as “a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused” - it confirmed that many evangelicals are as others thought they were. Since the magazine is by far not the most widely read by right-wingers – it has always appeared too scholarly for many of them - the opinion raised more hackles than it changed Evangelical opinion. The magazine historically has affirmed all those early twentieth-century “Fundamentals of the Faith” formulated as a reaction to progressive scholarship, and backed about everything else theologically that Evangelicals stand for and fight over. It stands solidly for the “inerrancy of the scriptures” just like other fundamentalists. Expecting camaraderie from its like-minded believers, it’s chief executive expressed hope for m...

http://whosoever.org/the-christmas-story-is-about-whos-in-and-whos-out/

This Thanksgiving invoking the Norman Rockwell holiday - a mythological feast about pilgrims and Indians sitting down like buddies giving thanks to a version of the Christian god for a successful harvest – has passed. Add the heart-warming scene of the harmonious American family, every member home for the holiday, sitting down happily together feeling blessed by their Maker for the over-eating opportunity their country has provided. Whatever its real, less fanciful history, and however dysfunctional family get-togethers really are, this holiday season beginning with the American Thanksgiving is the perfect time to remind us  as we count down to a major election in less than a year that nations promote many myths that sustain them. In the field of religious studies, identifying a myth is not a comment on the historical accuracy of the story in question. History happened back then. But a myth is any story that says something meaningful to someone today. It can ...

The religious right-wing will continue to seek government enforcement of their religious views as long as they can. Church/State separation means little or nothing to them because they’re convinced that the U.S. was always meant to be a "Christian" (by their definition) nation. Historical argument doesn’t get through to them. They have their own pseudo historians to do just plain bad history in their favor and sectarian publishers to publish that pseudo history. They ignore fact-based historians. When we respond that such attempts are unconstitutional, we fail to recognize that they’ve intentionally packed the Supreme Court and lower courts with those who agree with them, and that it’s these very human justices that define what’s constitutional, not some nice ideal we have in our heads. Only if a majority of voters stand up, take responsibility, and vote, will this trend change since there’s big money behind right-wing sectarianism. But it will also require p...

It’s hardly news now to say that the country is polarized, that arguments with those in the personality cult of this president and those left in his party rarely hinge on facts, and that when someone cites a news source that shows presidential misconduct or worse, the automatic defense is to call it “fake news.” Though we’d prefer to believe that facts matter to people and that a good-faith conversation with those with whom we disagree will produce something constructive, the odds of so many conversations with those who disagree with us producing agreement are slimmer than ever. Over the years, book after book have appeared advising how to navigate difficult conversations. The most recent was published in September entitled How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide . It’s well worth the read if you’re committed to take the time with those around you. One reality to face first is that such informed conversation attempts are unlikely to represent a two...

One of the stark revelations from the years of the Trump presidency is that he’s a member of an uber-rich class of psychopaths and sociopaths. Whether they’re his lawyers, his billionaire buddies, CEOs who benefit from his cruelty, or those whom he has appointed to his administration, they believe in a ruthless definition of success that is out of touch with the morality of everyday Americans. These are the people who’ve been admired by Capitalism for playing a rough and tumble game of high-stakes poker that takes no prisoners, leaves other players devastated, and cares nothing about any collateral damage (human or otherwise) that’s left in its wake. Progressives don’t play the game well because they’re not into amoral war games. They want authenticity, community, honesty, and shared wealth instead, and don’t even want to believe anyone would play so cold-bloodedly. But it is ruthless -- a “man’s” game. Those who won’t play it must be prepared to have their masculinity questio...