Rosie and Jimmy

We have all been following the news coverage regarding the controversial comments made by former President Jimmy Carter and talk show host Rosie O'Donnell. While President Carter has tried to smooth over his comment that the Bush administration is "the worst in history," Rosie has been unapologetic for her insinuation that Americans are themselves terrorists for the deaths of innocent Iraqi citizens. I have been wondering, however, if Jimmy and Rosie represent most of us these days who are taking the lid off political correctness and saying what everyone else is feeling but reluctant to say publicly.

I remember asking our daughter while she was a student at the University of Southern California in the early '90's, "What is political correctness?" It was a term she was using in her phone conversations with me but one which had not yet made it to Arkansas. To someone who had been reared in Mississippi during the days of segregation, the concept made perfect sense to me. Why hurt someone by stereotyping or labeling a whole group of people?

Today I see that we are in a reactionary period against political correctness. The conservatives especially seem to hate the term and are intent on going back to the past in their political discourse. Even the liberals are joining them. No longer do we seek to be diplomatic with one another; we simply blurt out what we think regardless of facts, or even logical reason, to support our positions. I cannot see that this form of discourse can help solve the world's problems. We owe it to ourselves and others to be reasonable.

Goliath and David - Show of Force

If we have been watching television at all lately, we have noticed the show of force of the American naval ships in the waters near Iran. The war talk accelerates on both sides. Does this show of force work? If some instances, I would say "yes," most notably during World War II before the battle for the island of Iwo Jima. Clint Eastwood's film, Letters from Iwo Jima, a few months back features a compelling scene in which a young Japanese soldier emerges from a cave to empty latrine pots only to discover a massive fleet of American ships waiting in the water. The "shock and awe" power must have been overwhelming to the psyches of those men. They knew before the battle began that they had lost.

Today we are realizing that America's show of force is perhaps not so intimidating to our enemies as in the past. We remember the biblical story of Goliath and David. Goliath's show of force with his size and braggadocio must have also been intimidating to young David. Yet David simply filled his slingshot with small pebbles and aimed squarely for Goliath's forehead. We all know the end of that story.

I have said from the beginning of the war talk about Iraq (2002) we are in a war we cannot win by the show of force. It is a force that does not intimidate the enemy. The terrorists simply find new ways to kill and maim and undermine our confidence. As long as men and women are willing to blow themselves up for the sake of being martyrs, the war will continue. A show of force against an enemy who does not wear a uniform or play by the rules is destined to fail.

Unfaltering Faith

This past week I was surfing television channels when I encountered a special on PBS from Independent Lens. I was ready to continue my journey upward to the other seventy channels or so when I became intrigued by two parallel stories about Jehovah's Witnesses. In my theological training of the past, I had always been taught that this group was a cult and, therefore, to be avoided at all costs. Now that I have seen this special, however, I have developed a new respect for their unwavering faith.

One of the stories featured a European Jew and Holocaust survivor from the concentration camps. He, and many of his fellow prisoners, lost all faith in God due to their circumstances--being imprisoned and killed without cause. He was located next to a group of Jehovah's Witnesses who were offered an opportunity by Hitler's soldiers to be freed if they would but renounce their stand on war. Being pacifists, they refused to do so. As a result of this unfaltering faith in the goodness of God, in spite of horrific circumstances, this European Jew converted to Jehovah's Witnesses.

The second story featured a Jehovah's Witness who was 24 and in need of a liver transplant. Of course, a Jehovah's Witness cannot accept blood transfusions, as part of his or her faith. The dilemma was unmistakable. Where could he find a hospital that would do a liver transplant and promise not to use additional blood? The answer came from the USC hospital in southern California. They agreed to do the surgery as part of an experimental procedure. The hospital, of course, could gain greatly if the procedure worked because of the threat of AIDS-infected blood that all hospitals struggle with. The procedure was a success for both donor father and recipient son. This family also had unfaltering faith.

Most of us who fall somewhat on the liberal side of religious and political thought tend to view uncompromising attitudes of the religious right in a negative light. This program, however, challenged me to see otherwise. Perhaps, just perhaps, unfaltering faith such as this can actually result in peace and love, not war and hatred. As fundamentalists, it seems the choice is theirs to make.

The Dental Dilemma

I have to admit that I have been blessed throughout my life by the ability to go to a dentist on a regular basis. Some are not so fortunate. Over the past two days, the city of Little Rock has allowed one of his most public of buildings, the Robinson Center (normally a place for concerts and recitals), to be the site of a makeshift dental clinic for those in need of dental services. The outpouring of people to the Center, many waiting in line for hours and 1,000 turned away at the end of the day, highlights the need for dental care for the poor as well as quality health care.

I remember my days as a young girl growing up in Greenville, Mississippi, daughter of an absentee father and a waitress (a hard-working young mother striving to make ends meet). Money was so tight that a .05 Coke was a treat to be bought across the alley at the small neighborhood grocery store. When my sister Judy and I needed to go to the dentist, however, a kind-hearted one named Dr. Reese took care of us, knowing that our mother would need to pay on credit for a number of months. He often said to her, "Mrs. Sims, I know that you will pay me when you can."

Those days of the 1950's ended quite some time ago. Now all dental offices (as well as physicians' offices) have the perfunctory sign up front as one enters the building, "Full payment is required for services today." Having experienced a toothache once in a while during childhood, I cannot begin to understand the pain that many who are unable to afford to go to a dentist experience on an everyday basis.

I applaud the many dental professionals and volunteers who went together to provide two free days of dental work to the hundreds they were able to serve. We must, however, continue to seek solutions to the high costs of dental and medical care for those who can least afford to pay.

No. 17 and the Server

On Mother's Day, our eight-year-old granddaughter began a discussion at Red Lobster about the nature of waiting tables. She said, "Mom B, we're asking for a lot of extra things today. Do you think the server gets mad at us?" Her question reminded me of being at an IHOP three mornings before. Garlan had finished an overnight sleep study at the nearby medical center, and I had picked him up at 6:30. We decided to eat what we thought would be a quick breakfast and head home.

Since we are retired and have a very leisure schedule to keep, we did not mind it when our server (a tall anorexic-looking young woman) dawdled before she sat us at a nearby booth and then proceeded to make us a new pot of Decaf. We did notice, however, a disgruntled middle-aged man sitting in a booth a few yards away from us. As time went on, he continued to be ignored by the waitstaff until finally his patience gave way to a loud shout, "What does a person have to do to get a cup of coffee around here?" One of the other servers responded immediately to the other wait staff announcing, "No. 17 is yelling." A few minutes after receiving his coffee, No. 17 began screaming for cream. I thought it easier to get up and take him my remaining two packages of creamer rather than wait again for service. He thanked me profusely and later got up to get some silverware at another table which was wrapped in a napkin.

I think of the situation now because many of us have been on both ends of the spectrum: we have been servers who were new and confused by the requirements of a noisy clientele, and we have been customers who were annoyed by slow, almost impossible service. It seems to me, however, that as a society we can be governed by civility. Is it necessary to demand and shout, or can we quietly and simply put forth our requests?

I believe the latter is preferable. We can choose not to return to the establishment; we can write a letter to the management even if we choose. I am not sure yelling, however, ever accomplishes the purpose we intend. The answer I gave Caitlyn to her question on Sunday is to behave in a polite way, making your needs known, and saying "please" and "thank you." As we still say in the South, we catch more flies with honey than any other way. I only hope No. 17 and the server were able to go on with their day on a more positive note after the encounter.

Revealed Religion

Recently the news has featured several debates on television between those who are atheists and those who are Christian. Two of these have been notable to me: one between former television star Kirk Cameron and evangelist Ray Comfort versus two atheists and another between Al Sharpton and author Christopher Hitchens. Both essentially argued for the existence of a Creator. Cameron and Comfort before the debate claimed to have proof of God's existence without the necessity of faith. Their argument quickly fell apart, however, as Comfort held up pictures to the audience and asked them to imagine the creator of the pictures who could not been seen but, nevertheless, still existed. The opponents quickly seized upon that argument by asking the question, "Who then created God?" Afterward, according to the debate moderator, both Cameron and Comfort looked exhausted from the debate and admitted that they underestimated the height of emotion that would be present in the audience against Christianity.

The debate between Sharpton and Hitchens was likely a bit calmer until Sharpton stated that real believers would not vote for a man like Mitt Romney, a Mormon. Later, Sharpton waffled on the statement and tried to explain he was really referring to Hitchings as the unbeliever, not Romney.

It seems to me that debates like this can never be truly won. As a Christian, I believe that my theology comes primarily from revealed religion. The heart of the definition of revealed religion is that "revelation" as a word means "unveiling." A deity unveils to the believer certain ideas, and the body of these ideas then becomes a sacred text--in the case of Christianity, the Bible. I also believe revealed religion consists of being able to look upon creation in order to know that a higher power exists. In addition, I believe in the idea of "prevenient" grace, which is defined as grace that comes before human decision. Infant baptism might be seen in this light; God gives His grace to this child, yet the decision to accept Him or reject Him personally will come at a later date.

As our book club completed its discussion last week of Gilead, the concept is also mentioned near the end of the text. For the minister, John Ames, God has given him closure on several troublesome events in his life (the fact that he cannot leave his wife and son any material goods, only sermons; the reconciliation to the idea of his upcoming death of heart disease; and the forgiveness and acceptance of an old friend's son). It is at this point that John Ames wills himself to sleep, knowing that God will keep him in perfect peace.

In short, we Christians, in my opinion, will never be able intellectually to make the argument for the existence of God. If God has not revealed Himself to an individual through nature, the Holy Spirit, and prevenient grace, He can never be rationally explained to an unbeliever.

The All-True and Incredibly Real Reason for Global Warming

Our media have bombarded us with their theories recently on the cause of global warming. It seems that they attribute the most plausible reason for it to humans. I could not agree more. I would further refine the discussion, however, to say the cause is the menopausal women of America who tossed their estrogen into the trashcans in the fall of 2002.

We all remember the alarm caused to us and our families when the research studies revealed a statistically significant correlation between estrogen and breast cancer. While the doctors were divided as to whether women should keep taking their daily regimens of the drug to prevent hot flashes and mood swings (along with a host of other symptoms), many women did not wait around. Almost in unison to the symphony of Beethoven's Fifth, we declared our independence from estrogen. "How hard could it be," we reasoned among ourselves, to live each day without it?

My own story is that I had taken Premarin for fourteen years. During that time I was sure I had no symptoms of aging into an old woman. My skin and body seemed to remain as young as when I was a teenager (or at least I convinced myself it was true). For the past five years, however, I have experienced enough hot flashes myself to heat the Arctic Ocean. Therefore, it has just become apparent to me that the all-true and incredibly real reason for global warming must be the millions of other woman like me. I am sure the ozone layer in the atmosphere could not possibly be strong enough to resist the warmth from earth that rises from most of us at least twenty or more times a day. I often ask myself if the hot flashes will continue after death as our souls rise into the heavens for the last time. If so, I am afraid there is no hope for a solution.

Justice Denied and Justice Delayed

The insidious topic of rape has been brought to my attention again. There have been several examples recently on television and in real life. The issues of power and helplessness again ask to be examined.

The first occurred on an episode of The Sopranos when Dr. Jennifer Melfi, Tony's psychiatrist, is leaving her office at night and is accosted by a young man on the stairwell. She is hit several times in the face and brutally assaulted. Afterward, as she recovers at home, she begins to realize the possible power she has through her association with a mob boss. This thought recurs, especially when she hears from the police that the rapist has been freed due to a legal technicality. On the one hand, she is struggling mightily to come to terms with this horrific event, but on the other hand, she longs for justice. She instinctively believes, however, that humans do not need to resort to violence (as Tony does in all situations); otherwise, they are hardly more than animals. She knows Tony will have the rapist "wacked" if she simply gives the word. In other words, the power would then be transferred into her hands. After much reflection, she chooses silence. We have justice denied.

Another example is that of real life Donna Palumbo who was raped with her children in the next room and while her husband was away. In this instance, because there was a rumor of an alleged affair she was having, the police do not believe her story. They even threaten evidently to have her arrested. It was only after ten years, and several rapes later, that DNA evidence reveals the serial rapist and Donna's rapist were the same man. It was justice delayed.

Yes, we do have occasionally a woman like the Duke alleged victim who lied to police about the three lacrosse players. I wonder though how many women still are not choosing to come forward after a rape because they believe justice will be denied or delayed.
Labels: rape

No Respecter of Persons

It has been a little over two weeks since the random killings (or an act of terrorism) took place on the Virginia Tech campus. We have all been made aware of Cho's mental illness and the fact that he was able to purchase his weapons legally. These were bought apparently without any questions in spite of the many prior concerns expressed by his family and acquaintances in regard to his mental health. Obviously, this momentous event will again raise the national debate level on gun control.

I guess my focus for the past two weeks, however, has not been on that issue but another: the effect of the sudden death of a loved one through random violence. The Cho incident just served once more as a reminder of our own personal tragedy. It brought back an gargantuan sense of sadness to me.

It was in 1976 that my sister Judy received the call from the Greenville, Mississippi, police department that our father had been also killed through random violence. He had been sitting in a bar evidently when someone came in and started randomly shooting up the place. Our father was shot three times and died beside Highway 61 on his way hitchhiking, he said, "to see my girls." The shock of such an event is instant and overwhelming. I can only imagine, however, as in this event, hearing about the death of a college-aged son or daughter.

Cho was no respecter of persons. He killed male and female, teacher and student, national and international. Somehow in the fog of his illness, he lost sight of humanity; he could see only those he considered his enemies. Experts tell us random violence, or terrorism, is on the increase in the world. Knowing that all are subject to its effects only increases our sense of vulnerability and our inability to ensure safety for ourselves and others.