Fairness - The Commentary

The Bible is just an old, old book sitting on a bookshelf. Well, really, it’s a collection of old books from different times and places that’s more an anthology of writings originally written in different languages. Sometimes people do read it, but most often they don’t look at more than snippets. They just repeat what someone else they consider an authority swears that it teaches. Because it’s been considered a “sacred” book by some down through history, they’ve used what they want in it to justify their beliefs, aspirations, and bigotry. But that can be done with any book that someone classifies as more authoritative than other everyday writings . If the Bible didn’t exist, bigotry wouldn’t notice. People who now use it to excuse their prejudices would find something else to blame, such as tradition , authoritative leaders, and respected institutions. You can hear them saying “it’s traditional,” or such and such a big shot says, or “the Church” teaches. Those hurt ...

One document is over 2,000 years old and the other over 200. That means it’s even more difficult for historians to determine the original intent of the Biblical authors than it is for that of the writers of the newer US Constitution. One was compiled over thousands of years in various cultures by numerous writers while the other was written by a much smaller group of men over less than a year. So though there were disagreements among the Constitution’s authors, unlike the Biblical authors there were opportunities in the Constitutional convention to sit down together and work out compromises for the differing positions of its composers. One is full of references to a god among gods, while the other has none at all - and merely two references to “religion” (counting the first amendment to it). That means they have differing intentions. One’s authority is claimed and enforced by religious institutions and their hoary traditions while the other is enforced by legal and polit...

It’s hard for someone who considers themselves liberal and even believes that people are born good, to admit that there are some people who are so far gone that they're unreachable. We might have even wondered for a long time how any country could have so many who idolized an Adolf Hitler enough to elect him for a second term as Chancellor. Today, as we look at the current President of the United States and the seemingly blind adoration he receives from his followers, we’re forced into a more existential understanding of what we would call the immovable right-wing on the extreme of a spectrum of human beings. Yet, it’s still difficult to face any other human being and decide that the best strategy for our own and our country’s well-being is to give up trying to change them. Are we willing to say that our current state of psychological and psychiatric science has not yet found the tools to help people who’ve been so traumatically damaged through their life experiences so ...

For those of us who are old enough and were somewhat “woke” back then, the COVID-19 pandemic invokes hidden emotions that remind one of the painful early years of the AIDS crisis. There are differences, certainly, because this pandemic is directly affecting a broader demographic, but the similarities in the feelings the COVID-19 pandemic revisits are striking and haunting. In both, American presidents who couldn’t think beyond their own egos reacted with sociopathic indifference to the disease and deaths of real human beings. Ronald Reagan will always be remembered as the president who refused to speak about, much less act to solve, HIV. Today, Donald Trump seems willing to let the rest of us go if he can just keep his approval rating up among his base, his profits flowing in, and the stock market paying its richest investors windfalls. In both, the leaders placed the blame on someone they wanted us to think of as a dangerous Other to deny the pandemic’s wider existence and,...

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...