I know you are expecting an answer to the Bambino and Billy Goat curses...But recent events demand a thoughtful response to an issue more important than politics or sports.
Recent court decisions seem to be opening the door for an unprecedented redefining of marriage and family.
Gay activists and civil libertarians hail these decisions as further progress in the struggle for equal justice for all.
Religious conservatives are outraged at what they see as the demolition of moral and social stability.
Is there any way forward that is more than a muddled middle that pleases no one? Once again, history may help us consider the future.
Sexual practices vary widely across cultures and time periods. Heterosexual and homosexual activity has often been a part of religious rituals as well as an outlet for human passions. The Judeo-Christian tradition is the most "radical" in history with its bold assertion that sexual intimacy is only for heterosexual couples in a lifelong covenant relationship.
Other cultures honor the bond of heterosexual marriage as the key to social stability, even while allowing "indulgences" outside the social contract of clan and community.
There has never been a significant world civilization that has promoted homosexual unions as equal in social status as the bond of a man and woman.
"Wait a minute!" the activists say. "Just because something is unprecedented does not mean it is wrong!"
I will concede this point, with one qualification. If all cultures at all times have seen the heterosexual bond as the most significant, isn't this at least a cause to pause and reflect before we elevate an exceptional situation to a normal and approved one?
We are treading on thin ice here. Slavery has existed in most cultures...It is now almost universally condemned (at least in theory, unless you go the Bangladesh or the Sudan). Oppressive oligarchies have ruled the world until the past two centuries (and still may, if the global corporations are involved)...and their control balanced by democracies.
Well, let's add psychological research to historical precedent. For three generations, therapists have been treating patients who suffer from the failure of one or more parents to love them and create a safe place for them. Recent books like "Fatherless America" and the popularity of various voices calling for parental responsibility all serve to remind us that "Johnny needs a Mommy and a Daddy". This does not mean that single-parent households are doomed to failure or that one can not recover from poor parenting.
Boys and girls need male and female role models in order to establish a secure sense of self and face a world awash in rejection and image-projection.
What do these thoughts mean for the future of "gay marriage" in the USA?
We should not rush to approve a change that ignores historical fact, multiple religious sensibilities and solid psychological insight.
This does not mean that any domestic partner arrangements are impossible or that the private acts of consenting adults should be persecuted. To redefine marriage is to take a step over a precipice for political purposes rather than morally sound reasons.
Those who oppose gay marriage are branded as fearful and intolerant, lacking in compassion and love. In fact, the opposite may be the case. Upholding enduring values for sound reasons is one of the most loving things we can do! Refusing to give in to political fads that ignore the faiths (yes, notice the plural here!) of millions of freedom-loving people is more courageous than promoting an agenda of the exception.
The real issue remains the same - what will we permit, prohibit or promote as a society?
Next week: Sexual Politics - Revisited
Sunday, November 23, 2003
Sunday, October 19, 2003
Immigration Secrets
The crisis of illegal immigration will not go away by denial or more airport inspections of my birkenstock sandals. There are some not-so-secret agendas at work that touch both sides of the political spectrum. Let's focus on the crisis in the Southwest. Thousands are crossing over from Mexico each year. Here are some of the "secrets":
Conservative agribusiness and manufacturing owners like the present situation - in ensures low-cost labor and happy consumers.
Liberal political groups see present and potential voters beholden to their socioeconomic policies.
Radical groups are pandered to in Mexico and on US college campuses, dreaming of a future "bronze nation" and conveniently forgetting the oppression, slavery and human sacrifice of the Pre-Columbus era.
Some overzealous "patriots" want to seal the borders and create a Fortress America where the "good old days" (that never were) can be restored.
The "secret list" could go on for pages. What should we do?
The following questions will make no extremist happy, but perhaps the thoughtful among our nation can begin a movement toward 21st century sanity.
First, can we agree that the words "legal' and "illegal" need to matter, or the rule of law is in jeopardy? Should driver's licenses and significant benefits and opportunities be offered to only to legal residents, and not proffered for cheap votes?
Second, will we muster the wisdom to create a real guest worker program that regulates and releases people to come and work without fear and without all the same privileges as citizens?
Third, will we honestly confront history? Will the conservatives among us admit that The USA grew into a continental power through warfare against the Native Americans and Mexicans? Will the liberal consider that the way forward is not destroying the present borders, but creating mutual understanding, trade and cultural exchanges that allow the US, Indian nations and Mexico to cooperate without the loss of sovereignty?
The way forward requires moral courage. If we want to rid our hearts and land of prejudice and xenophobia, we must find guiding principles that will continue to allow the USA to be a beacon of hope.
Next time: The Bambino and Billy Goat Curses - How the Red Sox and Cubs can finally win.
Conservative agribusiness and manufacturing owners like the present situation - in ensures low-cost labor and happy consumers.
Liberal political groups see present and potential voters beholden to their socioeconomic policies.
Radical groups are pandered to in Mexico and on US college campuses, dreaming of a future "bronze nation" and conveniently forgetting the oppression, slavery and human sacrifice of the Pre-Columbus era.
Some overzealous "patriots" want to seal the borders and create a Fortress America where the "good old days" (that never were) can be restored.
The "secret list" could go on for pages. What should we do?
The following questions will make no extremist happy, but perhaps the thoughtful among our nation can begin a movement toward 21st century sanity.
First, can we agree that the words "legal' and "illegal" need to matter, or the rule of law is in jeopardy? Should driver's licenses and significant benefits and opportunities be offered to only to legal residents, and not proffered for cheap votes?
Second, will we muster the wisdom to create a real guest worker program that regulates and releases people to come and work without fear and without all the same privileges as citizens?
Third, will we honestly confront history? Will the conservatives among us admit that The USA grew into a continental power through warfare against the Native Americans and Mexicans? Will the liberal consider that the way forward is not destroying the present borders, but creating mutual understanding, trade and cultural exchanges that allow the US, Indian nations and Mexico to cooperate without the loss of sovereignty?
The way forward requires moral courage. If we want to rid our hearts and land of prejudice and xenophobia, we must find guiding principles that will continue to allow the USA to be a beacon of hope.
Next time: The Bambino and Billy Goat Curses - How the Red Sox and Cubs can finally win.
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
Post-Recall Realities - After the Party
This is an unusual year. Both the Red Sox and the Cubs have a chance to play in the World Series. They will probably break our hearts, but you never know...the curses of the Bambino and Billy Goat may be lifted.
California offers the world another actor-turned-politician. Let's see...George Murphy, Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson (oops, he is from Tennessee!)...and now - Arnold Schwartzenegger.
What happened? Is it all a right-wing conspiracy funded by Enron? Maybe it is a deep-cover operation orchestrated by the Left to discredit Gray Davis' replacement. Or maybe, just maybe, the leaders of the recall tapped into a raw nerve of frustration. Recalling the entire state legistlature was not feasible. Davis, like a baseball manager of a losing team, takes the fall for a system subverted by short-sightedness and corruption.
What is next for Arnold and California? Gridlock? More cliches and posturing? Or is there an opportunity for the powers in Sacramento to make wise decisions for the future?
The post-recall realities are just as harsh as the pre-recall ones. Bloated budgets, infrastructure crises, immigration controversies and the climate for economic growth remain paramount issues obscured by politically-correct social legistlation (driver's licenses for illegal residents and domestic partner laws deserve real thought, not just impassioned polemics) and backroom deal making with casino owners on the Left and agribusiness on the Right.
There are two guiding thoughts that should inform the way forward for California. The first is the fact that individual Californians must bear most of the responsibility for the current crises. Voters elect politicians, feed off the pork passed into law and abuse benefit programs. Voters make bad economic decisions (dot-bomb) and then expect the government to rescue them. The solution? A call to personal integrity, sacrifice and community support.
The second thought is derived from the first - government administration must be made efficient and excellent, delivering necessary service is a cost-effective way. We CAN cut money from a variety of programs without cutting essential services, if we are willing to take on certain entrenched powers, like public employee unions and some educational establishments.
Do teachers deserve more money and smaller classes? Yes, if they teach well and we cut administrative overhead. Do we need improved parks, roads and sewers? Yes, if the process is streamlined and fewer "boards" are involved. Should all qualified students have a shot at college? Yes, if we focus on programs and schools that educate broadly and well. Even though I have a humanities background and am a champion of academic freedom, I do not think my tax dollars need to fund the political agenda of academic elites who are still living in the late 1960s.
Personal responsibility and administrative efficiency are not popular solutions, but they are essential to the future of our state.
Next week - The Immigration Crisis
California offers the world another actor-turned-politician. Let's see...George Murphy, Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson (oops, he is from Tennessee!)...and now - Arnold Schwartzenegger.
What happened? Is it all a right-wing conspiracy funded by Enron? Maybe it is a deep-cover operation orchestrated by the Left to discredit Gray Davis' replacement. Or maybe, just maybe, the leaders of the recall tapped into a raw nerve of frustration. Recalling the entire state legistlature was not feasible. Davis, like a baseball manager of a losing team, takes the fall for a system subverted by short-sightedness and corruption.
What is next for Arnold and California? Gridlock? More cliches and posturing? Or is there an opportunity for the powers in Sacramento to make wise decisions for the future?
The post-recall realities are just as harsh as the pre-recall ones. Bloated budgets, infrastructure crises, immigration controversies and the climate for economic growth remain paramount issues obscured by politically-correct social legistlation (driver's licenses for illegal residents and domestic partner laws deserve real thought, not just impassioned polemics) and backroom deal making with casino owners on the Left and agribusiness on the Right.
There are two guiding thoughts that should inform the way forward for California. The first is the fact that individual Californians must bear most of the responsibility for the current crises. Voters elect politicians, feed off the pork passed into law and abuse benefit programs. Voters make bad economic decisions (dot-bomb) and then expect the government to rescue them. The solution? A call to personal integrity, sacrifice and community support.
The second thought is derived from the first - government administration must be made efficient and excellent, delivering necessary service is a cost-effective way. We CAN cut money from a variety of programs without cutting essential services, if we are willing to take on certain entrenched powers, like public employee unions and some educational establishments.
Do teachers deserve more money and smaller classes? Yes, if they teach well and we cut administrative overhead. Do we need improved parks, roads and sewers? Yes, if the process is streamlined and fewer "boards" are involved. Should all qualified students have a shot at college? Yes, if we focus on programs and schools that educate broadly and well. Even though I have a humanities background and am a champion of academic freedom, I do not think my tax dollars need to fund the political agenda of academic elites who are still living in the late 1960s.
Personal responsibility and administrative efficiency are not popular solutions, but they are essential to the future of our state.
Next week - The Immigration Crisis
Thursday, October 09, 2003
Unholy War - Is There Hope for the Middle East?
The violence in the Holy Land seems unrelenting. A suicide bomb kills Jewish civilians. An Israeli military strike follows. Radical Islamic groups swear "Death to the Zionists" and Israel vows to fight for her survival.
Meanwhile, the American "Road Map" for a two-state Palestine is in tatters and European nations begrudgingly acknowledge that Hamas may be a terrorist organization. Waves of Anti-Semitic propaganda and violence grow in the West and the politically-correct in the academy and the media ask for balance, fairness and understanding concerning the plight of all parties.
History is helpful for stimulating hope...Or at least giving us a more objective view of the present and the possibilities for the future.
In the mid-19th century both religious and secular leaders began to dream and plan for a safe Jewish homeland in Palestine, which was under the oversight of the aging Ottoman Empire. Small Jewish groups began legally purchasing and painstakingly transforming the land, with at least the tacit approval of some Arab and Turkish leaders.
In 1917 the Balfour Declaration offered England's support for a Jewish homeland. This would be abrogated less than 20 years later in light of Arab pressure.
Competing claims for the land, Arab rivalries, British waffling and local outbursts of Arab and Jewish violence made the 1920s and 1930s challenging days indeed. Jewish groups continued lobbying, Arab nations vied for control and geopolitical events conspired to delay the homeland issue until after World War II.
The Holocaust created enormous pressure for a Jewish Homeland. The United Nations, led by the USA and the Soviet Union, created two states, Israel and Jordan, during the momentous days of 1947-1948.
Four wars (1948-49, 1956, 1967 and 1973) and one long "intifada" later, peace is still elusive.
Israel traded land for peace with Egypt in 1978, returning the Sinai and agreeing to Palestinian autonomy.
The Oslo Accords offered the Palestinians a pathway to statehood.
The American "Road Map" pleases no one completely, but it offers yet again another two-state solution.
It is 2003.
Is there any way forward?
Yes, but only if every side shows courage and perseverance.
A Palestinian leader must unequivocally affirm Israel's legitimacy.
New Jewish settlements on potential Palestinian land must be stopped from expanding.
A joint Israeli-Palestinian Task Force must be mobilized to quell the violence and arrest the leaders of any group that vows to subvert peace.
The good offices of the US, Russia and the EU should play a supportive role.
Arab nations who support peace must come forward and offer economic aid so that both states can resettle populations and create viable economies.
These are first steps. The real issues are moral courage for the Palestinians, patience for the Israelis and support from the West.
Next week - California Chaos - Post-Recall Realities
Meanwhile, the American "Road Map" for a two-state Palestine is in tatters and European nations begrudgingly acknowledge that Hamas may be a terrorist organization. Waves of Anti-Semitic propaganda and violence grow in the West and the politically-correct in the academy and the media ask for balance, fairness and understanding concerning the plight of all parties.
History is helpful for stimulating hope...Or at least giving us a more objective view of the present and the possibilities for the future.
In the mid-19th century both religious and secular leaders began to dream and plan for a safe Jewish homeland in Palestine, which was under the oversight of the aging Ottoman Empire. Small Jewish groups began legally purchasing and painstakingly transforming the land, with at least the tacit approval of some Arab and Turkish leaders.
In 1917 the Balfour Declaration offered England's support for a Jewish homeland. This would be abrogated less than 20 years later in light of Arab pressure.
Competing claims for the land, Arab rivalries, British waffling and local outbursts of Arab and Jewish violence made the 1920s and 1930s challenging days indeed. Jewish groups continued lobbying, Arab nations vied for control and geopolitical events conspired to delay the homeland issue until after World War II.
The Holocaust created enormous pressure for a Jewish Homeland. The United Nations, led by the USA and the Soviet Union, created two states, Israel and Jordan, during the momentous days of 1947-1948.
Four wars (1948-49, 1956, 1967 and 1973) and one long "intifada" later, peace is still elusive.
Israel traded land for peace with Egypt in 1978, returning the Sinai and agreeing to Palestinian autonomy.
The Oslo Accords offered the Palestinians a pathway to statehood.
The American "Road Map" pleases no one completely, but it offers yet again another two-state solution.
It is 2003.
Is there any way forward?
Yes, but only if every side shows courage and perseverance.
A Palestinian leader must unequivocally affirm Israel's legitimacy.
New Jewish settlements on potential Palestinian land must be stopped from expanding.
A joint Israeli-Palestinian Task Force must be mobilized to quell the violence and arrest the leaders of any group that vows to subvert peace.
The good offices of the US, Russia and the EU should play a supportive role.
Arab nations who support peace must come forward and offer economic aid so that both states can resettle populations and create viable economies.
These are first steps. The real issues are moral courage for the Palestinians, patience for the Israelis and support from the West.
Next week - California Chaos - Post-Recall Realities
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
Why "Family" Matters
Recently someone heard me express concerns about recent "domestic partner" legistlation in various states and asked me what "was I afraid of" concerning a loosening of our sociopolitical definition of family. I was indirectly accused of homophobia and intolerance. My "enlightened" friend told me to step out of the "Dark Ages" and accept "progress".
In my first article on Social Morality I argue that a society must have tacit agreement on what is prohibited, permitted and promoted in order to prosper. These same terms apply to the issue of what we will affirm regarding the family.
A little anthropology and history may enlighten us.
Most great civilizations have had some social order regarding family. Often these were economic and political agreements for the clan to survive and thrive. In many cultures, extramarital sexuality, polygamy and even homosexual behavior were tolerated or even promoted as religiously significant.
The Jewish belief in lifelong heterosexual monogamy was a revolutionary idea in a world awash with sexual experimentation. The Christian faith reaffirmed the Torah and intensified it with the sanctification of marriage and celibate singleness.
Speaking historically, it is the Judeo-Christian belief that is "non-traditional" or "radical"!
The discipline and fidelity required for such a moral standard redirected the energies of millions toward productive, transforming labor that has made the West the envy of the world.
Please pause with me and catch what I am NOT saying so far. Yes, I am arguing for heterosexual monogamy as the best choice for the foundation of family and society. I am NOT prohibiting private activity between adults or squelching public debate. My only request is that we be honest with the evidence.
So, where do we go from here with social policy? I suggest three thoughts to guide our search:
1) There is considerable research that promotes the importance of healthy female and male input for a child to be healthy. Let's look at the implications...
2) There is a difference between permitting certain relationships and promoting all domestic arrangements as the basic unit of our culture. What will we choose?
3) Any forward course involves a recommitment to personal responsibility. The decisions to marry and have children must be positioned as positive but sobering wake-up calls to integrity and life-long commitment. Domestic failures create new generations of broken lives.
Next week - Is there hope for the Middle East?
In my first article on Social Morality I argue that a society must have tacit agreement on what is prohibited, permitted and promoted in order to prosper. These same terms apply to the issue of what we will affirm regarding the family.
A little anthropology and history may enlighten us.
Most great civilizations have had some social order regarding family. Often these were economic and political agreements for the clan to survive and thrive. In many cultures, extramarital sexuality, polygamy and even homosexual behavior were tolerated or even promoted as religiously significant.
The Jewish belief in lifelong heterosexual monogamy was a revolutionary idea in a world awash with sexual experimentation. The Christian faith reaffirmed the Torah and intensified it with the sanctification of marriage and celibate singleness.
Speaking historically, it is the Judeo-Christian belief that is "non-traditional" or "radical"!
The discipline and fidelity required for such a moral standard redirected the energies of millions toward productive, transforming labor that has made the West the envy of the world.
Please pause with me and catch what I am NOT saying so far. Yes, I am arguing for heterosexual monogamy as the best choice for the foundation of family and society. I am NOT prohibiting private activity between adults or squelching public debate. My only request is that we be honest with the evidence.
So, where do we go from here with social policy? I suggest three thoughts to guide our search:
1) There is considerable research that promotes the importance of healthy female and male input for a child to be healthy. Let's look at the implications...
2) There is a difference between permitting certain relationships and promoting all domestic arrangements as the basic unit of our culture. What will we choose?
3) Any forward course involves a recommitment to personal responsibility. The decisions to marry and have children must be positioned as positive but sobering wake-up calls to integrity and life-long commitment. Domestic failures create new generations of broken lives.
Next week - Is there hope for the Middle East?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
