jimrigby.org

I personally think a Woman of Color is the perfect person to bring this country together. Let me explain:Why is a Woman of Color the perfect person to heal this wounded nation? Part of what is tearing this nation apart is that different groups sometimes use the same words to mean different things. We try to communicate, but it can feel like the other side is being disingenuous or evasive. Most people do not realize that human groups develop “codes” of meaning outsiders cannot necessarily hear. For example, when Ronald Reagan spoke of “welfare mothers” many white people would conjure mental images of a black woman taking advantage of the system although Reagan never really came out and said it.Without even mentioning skin color, Rush Limbaugh used phrases like “inner city” or “thug” to trigger negative images of People of Color in his white listeners. Countless people fell into the tar pits of Limbaugh’s circular arguments without even consciously realizing they were being ethically gutted.Minority populations have to navigate both the coded language of the dominant group and that of their own group. People of Color are very familiar with the coded language of white culture, but most white people are at a loss when it comes to understanding various racial and ethnic groups. Who better to build a bridge across the racial divide than someone who knows both sides?Women navigate the patriarchy on a regular basis. Many, if not most men, are at a loss when it comes to grasping what pregnancy means in someone’s else’s life. Asking a person who cannot get pregnant to understand the importance of reproductive choice is like asking a fish to fly. That is why no one without a womb should be making decisions about the reproductive lives of those who do.Not to nominate a Woman of Color because our image of an electable president has been an old white guy is a terrible mistake. A nation is held together by its universal principles, not its partisan majorities. It is a losing game to steer our course by the passing clouds of political expedience instead of the pole star of our highest values. I don’t know whether Kamala Harris will get the presidential nomination or if Democrats will move to an open process. I just want to go on record saying that a Woman of Color is the best candidate for bringing this nation together. If we are choosing someone to build a bridge across our racial and gender divides, why not choose someone who knows both sides of the abyss?

I was raised to be a Republican. My parents and most of my teachers were Republican. Somehow, through the fog of my political ignorance, I sensed that Goldwater and Nixon were both race baiting in their own way. Though I left that party, in my heart of hearts, I am not partisan. The two political issues that draw me to political action are universal human rights and environmental sustainability. To me these are the two issues that AREN’T partisan. I wondered this week what historical Republicans like Lincoln and Eisenhower would have thought about the Republican Convention. How has the party of Lincoln fallen to where the only test for truth or ethics is whether one agrees with Donald Trump?I was saddened, of course, at the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. I do not wish suffering on any human being (or animal for that matter). Still, I wondered what it meant when he said,, “In a certain way I felt very safe because I had God on my side.” I then heard a number of MAGA Republicans who claimed that God had intervened and steered the bullet away from Donald Trump. I wondered what kind of God would steer the bullet away from a messianic leader into an innocent crowd. I wonder how that claim of divine intervention felt to the parents of school children who experienced no such divine intervention. I thought how different the theology of Donald Trump is from that of Abraham Lincoln. I may be remembering the setting wrong but it seems that Lincoln was in church when the preacher asked everyone to stand who believed that God was on their side. Lincoln famously responded, “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.”Lincoln realized the humanity of his enemies. He lamented, “Both [sides] read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes (God’s) aid against the other.” (Lincoln’s Second Inaugural)Republican president Dwight Eisenhower received a letter from a dying veteran who asked him to speak with more certainty and clarity. Eisenhower responded that that kind of unity of thought was appropriate for the military but would be deadly for a free society.Eisenhower said, “I doubt that citizens like yourself could ever, under our democratic system, be provided with the universal degree of certainty, the confidence in their understanding of our problems, and the clear guidance from higher authority that you believe needed.” The former general then referred the dying veteran to Eric Hoffer’s assertion that strong authoritarian leaders and dogmatic certainty are an attempt to“Escape from Freedom.” Eisenhower continued, “…dictatorial systems make one contribution to their people which leads them to tend to support such systems freedom from the necessity of informing themselves and making up their own minds concerning these tremendous complex and difficult questions.”To be clear traditional Republicans are not villains and traditional Democrats are not heroes. But something has happened to the Republican Party when any who question Donald Trump are humiliated into conformity or driven out of power.I have always been haunted by the fact that Nazi soldiers had belt buckles with the words “God is with us.” To claim that God is on our side is the rhetoric of Crusaders and Inquisitors, not of any who would be public servants in a free society. There is a world of difference between those who believe God is on their side and those who seek to be on the side of justice, which ultimately means UNIVERSAL human rights.

It is understandable if you are beginning this day feeling powerless and adrift in a storm of cruelty and impending violence. The news of the day can leave us clutching fearfully for some kind of control over our lives and some kind of hope for our species.But, what if we refuse to live out that scenario? What if we refuse to be defined by the brutal externalities we see in news reports? What if this day we see ourselves as healing cells in the common body of humanity? We can resolve to live this day with our humanity intact no matter what others do. We can choose to empty ourselves into this day fearlessly as radiant manifestations of what it means to be fully human.It is possible to live this day as isolated individuals born into a time of meaningless cruelty and ignorance. It is also possible to live this day as lovers of humankind who offer ourselves as living reminders that cruelty is not courage, certainty is not wisdom and domination of others is never true peace.

I know we are living through a bleak time, but how we conduct ourselves in times like this can be a lantern in the window of a confused humankind. This possibility should give us hope and purpose.The greatest sages and prophets speak long before their cause has any chance of success. They give their lives preparing the soil for those who are yet to come. They do not have to wait for the dawn to arrive before they can live meaningfully and joyfully. They are living in the light of a beloved community yet to be.How much do we owe to those who shone their little light long before anyone else could see the dawn to which they referred? How many of humanity’s most important teachers lived through a life long series of defeats that illumined the possibility of a better way?It is no small thing to speak your truth in a time of propaganda and misinformation. It is no small thing to seek the common good when humanity has broken down into warring tribes. It is no small thing to live in joy, not because one has arrived at the beloved community, but because one realizes the incredible importance of walking a noble though lightless path into a new and better day.

How could the one who came to preach good news to the poor now measure our nation’s economy only by how much money it makes for the rich?

How could the one who was executed as a criminal now be in favor of mass incarceration?

How could the one who came to heal the sick now be against healthcare for all?

How could the passionate friend of sinners and prostitutes now be in favor of a cold moralism?

How could the one who praised the good Samaritan now be sectarian and nationalist?

How could the one who overturned the tables of the money changers now say we should leave matters of economic justice to the whims of the market?

“Power is tolerable only on condition that it mask a substantial part of itself. Its success is proportional to its ability to hide its own mechanisms. -Michel Foucault

”Nothing has been a better visual aid for Critical Race Theory than the hysterical knee jerk reaction of some white people at the prospect of having a light shined on the hidden structures of racism in U.S. law and history.

To my knowledge, the phrase “critical theory” was born in the Frankfurt School as a way of unmasking the power equations hidden in seemingly objective studies like law, history and literature.

The point, as I understand it, was to use humanity as the measure of institutions, not institutions as the measure of human beings. So the “critical” aspect of theory was to measure how social structures worked for the freedom of real human beings, or for their oppression.

I am just realizing that my life’s work has been an attempt to discover a Critical Religion Theory. Instead of using religion as the measure of human beings, religion is to be judged by whether it sets people free, or justifies their oppression. Instead of being an excuse for cultural privilege, religion is to be judged by its service to ALL humanity, or the lack thereof. Instead of being a safe haven for unexamined beliefs, religion should be judged by whether it calls people INTO a shared world or OUT of it.

“Nothing exists for itself alone, but only in relation to other forms of life.”

-Charles Darwin

It has been 60 years since anthropologist Louis Leaky provided funds for three brilliant and brave young women to go live with humanity’s closest remaining primate relatives. Diane Fossey lived with gorillas, Birutė Galdikas with orangutans, and Jane Goodall with chimpanzees. A fourth woman was to be sent to the bonobos, but Leaky died before funding could be raised.Perhaps

Leakey chose women to study these primates because he thought they would be more likely to understand the animals both objectively AND subjectively. Goodall, the granddaughter of an open minded and inclusive Congregationalist minister, was a blend of scientist and nature mystic. She wrote, “For those who have experienced the joy of being alone with nature there is really little need for me to say much more; for those who have not, no words of mine can ever describe the powerful, almost mystical knowledge of beauty and eternity that come, suddenly, and all unexpected.”

Science had already weighed, measured and dissected primates, Leakey wanted these women to reverently LISTEN to our nearest relatives that we might discover who WE are before it is too late. The work of these women was intended to be the best of science AND a very deep reverence for the web of life. In addition to the necessary scientific skills, these women brought intuition as well.

Goodall remembered of her education, “I was also told by these professors to be a good scientist you have to be objective. Therefore you cannot have empathy with what you’re studying. That is so wrong. It’s having empathy with what you’re studying that gives you those “aha” moments — “Yes, I think I know why he or she is doing that.” Then you can put on the scientific hat, which I learned at Cambridge, which I love, and say, “Let me prove that my intuition is right or not.”

When asked what advice she would you give to a 10-year-old wanting to become a scientist, she responded, “I would tell them you mustn’t be cold. You must have empathy. It’s the lack of empathy for subjects that’s led to so much cruelty to animals. Now, we’re even learning how these trees communicate. It’s such a fascinating world to live in. There’s always something new to learn.”

To find meaning within an imaginary world can be tragic. It also seems sad to renounce every feeling of reverence so one can remain scientifically objective. Our deep aspiration as human beings to find meaning requires BOTH a scientific mind and a reverent heart.

HOW DO WE WRITE LOVE LETTERS TO THOSE BEING HATEFUL?

I am working on a loving response to someone who has been coming to our church virtually. Almost every week this poor man has sent emails of complaint. He believes our justice stands are “virtue signaling” and our attempts to understand other cultures are examples of “wokeness.”

I have wasted WAY too much time and energy trying to communicate with someone who clearly isn’t even trying to hear another point of view. I know it’s foolish, but there’s something deep in my soul that cannot finally give up on any human being.
It is very hard to communicate with those who speak in cliches. When people spit out jargon words like “woke” for the forbidden world outside their own prejudices, and “virtue signaling” for any benevolence outside their own narrow frame of concern, it becomes clear these poor propagandized people are not actually trying to think at all. They are simply using hypnotic trigger words to protect themselves FROM new ideas that would break their trance.

I’m all for diverse opinions, but racism, sexism and classism are not just opinions, they are justifications for oppression. The problem is, in their entranced state, these poor frightened people imagine themselves brave for collectively bullying the populations targeted for oppression by this culture.

I don’t know how to be honest AND loving. When I’m angry what I WANT to say is:

Dear ___,

Here’s something you don’t seem to know about me- I’m not you.
I am an autonomous agent outside your every context. I’m not on earth to win your approval. I feel no motivation to justify myself to you. In fact, until you can learn to step outside your own context and test your ideas by some objective standard, I might as well be trying to communicate with a pre-recorded message.

I love you as a human being, but I also love the people toward which you are being hateful. If they attack you unfairly, count on me being on your side. Just know, if you attack them unfairly, you can damn well count on my being on theirs.

Love,
Jim

“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” -Voltaire

A religion based on mere belief withers before the harsh light of science like a toadstool, but a religion of compassion seeks out the harshest lights of truth that it might love better. Skepticism is a necessary part of compassion. Believers who do not know how to test their beliefs are fed constant propaganda that they might do bidding of demagogues. Carl Sagan’s last book, “Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark” can be a helpful for those of us seeking a scientific spirituality. Sagan’s Atheism is particularly illuminating to a spiritual person because his skepticism is not so much a hatred of religion, but a concern for humankind. Here is Sagan’s “Baloney Detection Kit” from that great book:

1. “Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the ‘facts.'”

2. “Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.”

3. “Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.”

4. “Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.”

5. “Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.”

6. “Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.”

7. “If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.”

8. “Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.”

9. “Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.”

The Trump years should be a wake up call to all of us, particularly to comfortable white churches. Trump did not create, but revealed cracks in the foundation of much of what makes the church comfortable. Most of us have been citizens of the empire than ambassadors of a new age of loving justice for all. Here are some things I believe American churches can do to be ambassadors for the weak instead of apologists for the strong.

1. Get rid of all images of a white Jesus anywhere on our property.

2. Stop calling God “He.” When we imagine the sacred as male, we unconsciously lift human biological masculinity into the Godhead. The church is a subtle accomplice to the abuse of women when it uses language that empowers men and disempowers women.

3. Stop saying Jesus is the only way. What Jesus was really saying is that radical and universal Love is the only way.

4. Take the flag out of the pulpit area. Patriotism is fine, but healthy faith is a call to serve ALL people equally. And we need to remember that a nation is not great because it is rich or powerful. The prophets taught that a nation is only great if it cares for its people (including its weakest members) and is a good neighbor to the world community.

5. Stop teaching that faith means holding on to untestable beliefs in spite of contradictory evidence. We need to teach instead that faith is radically honest trust in the power of love.

6. Stop teaching versions of atonement that turn God into a vindictive monster. The cross was invented by Rome to punish rebellion not by God to punish human sin. The cross is symbol of our sacred call to be on the side of the weak in dismantling every hierarchy of oppression.

7. Stop equating miracles with violations of nature. If we are going to help save our planet we must see nature as sacred not profane.

8. Stop saying that the church should not be political. The church should not be partisan, it is true, but when Moses went to Pharaoh saying to let the enslaved people go, he was being political. If Moses had obeyed the authorities there would have been no Exodus.

9. Stop pretending we understand God. God is a symbol of the creative mystery of things whatever that is. If we could put that intuition into a clearly stated dogma it wouldn’t be a mystery.

10. Stop making appeals to fear of whatever it is we do not understand. Faith is not belief in what the church has already taught, but trusting that love casts out fear if we follow it into the future.