Pondering Memorial Day 2011

 

The Memorial Day weekend has always brought conflicting thoughts to my mind.

 

“Memorial Day – endless sales and barbeques: the official beginning of summer.”  Actually, aren’t there a whole lot of dead people and their families that we’re supposed to be remembering?

 

“Memorial Day – parades, guns, and fanfare.”  Actually, aren’t there a whole lot of dead people and their families that we’re supposed to be remembering?

 

“Memorial Day – anti-war marches, speeches and fanfare.”  Actually, aren’t there a whole lot of dead people and their families that we’re supposed to be remembering?”

 

In the past, whenever I’ve led a Memorial Day service I’ve used Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address as a responsive reading.  And if it has been a while since you’ve read it, I would strongly urge you to take a gander. 

 

It’s all there.  The slaughterhouse that is war.  The horrific losses that can come on the battlefield.  The tremendous sacrifice that our men and women at arms make, hoping deeply that they have been ordered into battle for a just and important cause. 

 

But Lincoln also points out that we the living have responsibilities too. 

 

So what are our obligations to the men and women who have given “the last full measure of devotion”? 

 

In part, I think, it goes back to a personal belief: both that our men and women at arms have a right to the hope that they have been ordered into battle for a just and important cause; and that we the people have an obligation to be guardians of that hope.

 

America has been involved in one war or another most of my life.  It began before I was born.  I never met my Uncle Bill.  He was killed in action in World War II.  A part of Memorial Day, for me, is to take the time to remember that Uncle Bill never had a chance at life.  He gave his last full measure of devotion fighting Hitler.  I want to take the time on Memorial Day to remember all those who never came back.

 

But for me, another part of Memorial Day is remembering those who DID come back, but whose lives have been hugely damaged by what they’ve seen and done.  Too often, it seems to me, we try to sweep this “messy” aspect of war under some distant rug and into hoped-for oblivion.  PBS did a “Frontline” on the issue that I strongly recommend.  We now have a name, PTSD, and much too often, we just let it go at that.

 

The men and women who have suffered so greatly because our president, in our name, ordered them into battle, deserve not only to be remembered, but encouraged and given aid.  Those who might be interested in local efforts (and there are many ways to help, this is but one) might consult Soldier's Heart Seattle.

 

Yet there remains another component for me as well.  The men and women who serve have every right to expect that they will not be asked to risk their lives, or risk taking another human’s life, unless it is truly in a just and important cause.

 

As in so many of today’s zero sum politics of screaming, I find myself alienated by both “sides” as I see them. 

 

There is one “side” that seems happy to flex U.S. muscle and risk untold human lives at every opportunity.  There’s really no other way to explain why our country has been constantly at war all of my life.  When I enter into discussions with such people, as to why I grew to oppose the war in Vietnam and why I opposed the Iraq war from the outset, I am usually painted as a “peace at any price Lefty.”

 

And there is the other “side”, that seems to believe that there is never any reason for war.  When I enter into discussions with such people, as to why I think intervening in Bosnia, Libya and especially Afghanistan after the Taliban, in the wake of 9-11, openly harbored Al Qaeda, I am usually painted as a “tool of the imperial U.S. government.”

 

There’s a blog waiting to be written about “The Death of Gray” (as in everything is either black or white – I strongly believe, as example, that the Palestinian/Israeli “situation” suffers greatly from the death of gray).  But that is for another time.

 

For today, I believe there are times when force is the only answer.  But I also believe that those times should be rare, that force should always, always be the LAST resort – and that when we of necessity must use force we should give our troops every advantage, get the job done, and get the heck out.

 

In sum, I hope we will all take the time this “Memorial Day Weekend,” to remember why we have Memorial Day. 

 

And may we remember that we owe these honored dead, and those who returned deeply wounded, the free and open country that they fought for.  A country of the people, by the people and for the people.  Not just the rich.  Not just the men.  Not just the Christian.  And certainly not just the mega-corporations.  May we remember that we are a nation of wonderfully diverse people.  And our diversity is our strength, not a weakness.  This Memorial Day, let us keep faith with those who have sacrificed their lives for our “more perfect union.”  Their work is done, may they rest in peace.  Our work but begins: “That these dead shall not have died in vain.”

Why I Don’t Officiate at Marriages

 

This is a very personal blog.  From the beginning I want to be clear that I am speaking for myself, not Living Interfaith.  At some time in the future, as we grow, we will be adding ministers.  And, since I’m not indestructible, at some point I’ll be replaced as minister.  But I have been asked now by three different couples to officiate at their marriages and I have most respectfully (I hope!) declined.  I think it would be helpful to be clear as to why.

 

It may seem counter-intuitive.  I still recall the amazing joy, the beams of light emanating from a friend at seminary when she was talking about performing her first marriage.  How could I possibly decline such a joy, and the chance to be a part of such a wonderful event as a marriage?  Simply put, it comes down to separation of church and state.  I’m with Jefferson and Madison on this one.  I believe the wall between church and state should be high … very high … hugely high.

 

We are all acquainted, from movies if nowhere else, with the phrase, “With the power vested in me by the state of …. I now pronounce you man and wife.”  These days, many will say, “I now pronounce you husband and wife.”  And one might also simply say, “I pronounce you married.”  Or one might say something else.  But the bottom line is that the state has “vested” clergy with the power to marry.  I can’t buy into that. 

 

As beautiful, as wonderful, as joyful as marriage is, I can’t buy into the state vesting clergy with that kind of power.  Proof of that power comes after the marriage ceremony where the clergy person signs a document, a legal document, acting as an agent of the state!  For me that blows a galaxy-sized hole into the idea of separating church from state.

 

I heartily believe in wedding celebrations.  Weddings are wonderful, spectacularly happy times.  I would joyfully participate in an Interfaith celebration and reminder of the sanctity of marriage, and the spiritual aspects of marriage.  But not as an agent of the state.  For me, that crosses a line (interestingly, both Italy and France enforce that line).

 

Marriage is a contract, a binding, legal contract – an enforceable contract with specific legal rights and obligations.  It baffles me that members of the clergy are involved with that.  And it’s interesting that clergy are “vested” with the power to marry, but only a judge can grant a divorce.

 

I heard an argument the other day that gay marriage is wrong because a “marriage” must be between a man and a woman.  And why?  To ensure, we are told, the continuation of the human race!  Well, if that is the criteria, doesn’t it mean that no infertile man or woman should be allowed to marry?  Doesn’t it mean that no senior should be allowed to marry?  Recently I’ve seen a few friends join a movement saying that they will no longer perform any marriage ceremony until the state allows them to include gays.  But for me that too begs the point. 

 

Marriage involves specific rights and privileges.  It seems to me a legal matter, not a religious one.  Whether a particular member of the clergy, or a particular religion chooses to sanctify a marriage is perfectly within their rights … even if we (as outsiders) may disagree with what a particular clergy member or religious group chooses to sanctify or not.  But I strongly believe that signing a piece of paper that makes a marriage legal should be a state matter and only a state matter.

 

One person’s opinion.

A Lesson at the Door

 

I answered the doorbell the other day, and a very polite, very young man was at my door.  He wanted to know if I would be interested in Comcast.  I said absolutely not.  He asked  why, so I told him.  Comcast spends millions in lobbying every year.  It is not only attempting to buy government, but from everything I can see is succeeding. 

 

(I since looked it up, since I didn’t have all the facts at hand.  If you don’t know about the “Sunlight Foundation” you can find it at https://checking.influenceexplorer.com/.  The foundation doesn’t take sides.  It just tries to tell you where the money is going.  As example, in the California Governor’s race, Comcast gave $40,000 to Democrat Jerry Brown’s campaign and $32,000 to his opponent Republican Meg Whitman’s.  The United States of America … the best government money can buy!  But I digress).

 

I told him I felt Comcast needed to stay out of government.  I also told him that Comcast was too big.  I think we need lots of LITTLE media outlets, not one or two behemoths.

 

The young man countered with, “But what if I told you Comcast could save you money?”

 

I replied, “There are some things more important than money.”

 

His eyes grew wide.  He thought about it for a moment and then moved on.

 

I may or may not have had any influence on this young man.  But there was the possibility of a “teachable moment.”  And maybe some day, maybe even soon, he’ll come back to the concept that there are some things more important than money.

 

The idea here is NOT to toot my own horn.  The idea is that there are moments, if not every day then surely every week, that if we will but grasp them we can actually communicate with a fellow human being.

 

I have two friends, dear friends, who at this moment appear to be diving off the deep end.  They look at all the problems of the world and all the things that need fixing and they have become not only angry, but overwhelmed. And being overwhelmed, the temptation to give up and just be permanently frustrated and angry can take hold.  It has hold of them, and it deeply saddens me.

 

There are many hugely difficult problems facing us.  I do not mean for a moment to suggest that we should ignore them.

 

But neither should we ignore the teachable moment when it comes knocking at the door.

 

Under the same principle, I wrote Trader Joe’s this week, telling them how much I love the store, and how disappointed I am that while they carry a few fair traded chocolate bars, none of the added chocolate in their products is fair traded.  I told them the truth, that I will not buy a product that contains chocolate if the chocolate isn’t fair traded.  I got a nice note back.  I’m hoping that I’m not the only one writing to Trader Joe’s.

 

All this to say that there is a balance to keep in our lives.  Torture must be ended forever as an instrument of U.S. policy.  There are huge environmental concerns.  There are so many other huge problems about which we ALL need to stay aware as well.

 

But in the meantime there are those teachable moments.  With our kids.  With friends.  With the person at the door.  With the stores where we shop. 

 

Every encounter counts. 

Regarding Our Masculine and Feminine “Sides”

 

I received a link last week, from a dear and valued friend.  It was a link to a YouTube video made by several very earnest men.  It was an apology to women.  I certainly agreed with much of the sentiment.  I have been a feminist since I was a child.  Still, I noticed that the video pushed some buttons, and I’ve been pondering why ever since.

 

It wasn’t the idea of an apology.  Women certainly deserve a public recognition of the sometimes horrific, frequently degrading way that they have been treated throughout the centuries.  So do African Americans.  So do Native Americans.  So do so many of the oppressed of the world.  Our march towards a true realization of and respect for our common humanity has been a long and torturous one.  Sometimes apologies can be too much hand-wringing and too little real change, but for me that’s not a “button pusher.”

 

I realized that it was the expressed need to be in touch with our “feminine side” that the video spoke of that got to me.  I truly don’t believe in our “feminine side” or our “masculine side.”  Indeed, I think the very way we use these words serves to perpetuate some rather unhelpful ways of thinking.

 

Of course women have been “taught” by our culture to be compassionate, attentive and cooperative.  That’s how oppressed people throughout history have been taught to act by those who would dominate them.  Women, Blacks, Jews, whomever. 

 

I find it neither accurate nor helpful to refer to my “masculine” side as my power side, and my “feminine” side as my compassionate side.  I don’t see being an oppressor as being masculine.  I think I can be a whole and complete male without ever being an oppressor.  I don’t think I am any less “masculine” by being compassionate.  More to the point, it seems to me we encourage the continuation of the stereotype to imply that men are just being “manly” when they beat someone up or blow someone up.  And that they need to be in touch with their "feminine side" to stop. 

 

This is not to say that many men haven’t acted as oppressors.  They have.  And it is right and proper to name it.  But I do think it sends the wrong message to proclaim that this is in any way being “manly.”  Real men don’t beat their wives.  Real men don’t blow up innocent people.  And I find myself surprised when others are surprised by a female suicide bomber.  The truth of it is that our humanity knows no gender.  Neither does our inhumanity.  Women can be taught to be just as good or bad a soldier, or non-combatant, as men.

 

No little boy should be told to “act like a man” when what is meant is that he should stifle his emotions.  No little girl should be told to “act like a woman” when what is meant is that she should be kind and sharing.

 

For me, women like Catherine the Great or Queen Elizabeth I, to name but two, were NOT in touch with their “masculine” side.  They were in touch with their power side, and frequently their oppressor side.

 

A whole human being is in touch with his/her compassionate side, his/her listening side, his/her we’re in this together and we’ll sink or swim together side.  Our common humanity, or inhumanity, knows no gender boundaries.