The Immorality of a Donald Trump Vote: When Voting "On The Issues" Must Not Be Enough

I just read an article posted by a family member whose basic thesis was that, because both major party presidential candidates are irreparably morally flawed, the only choice a principled Christian (politically) conservative voter can make is to hold their nose and vote for Trump, because he is the only major party candidate with a slight chance of enacting the type of policies important to such a voter.

Often times in American presidential cycles, the two candidates who rise to the top of the major party primaries are viewed in this same "lesser of two evils" light (though arguably this year is exponentially more stark).  And normally, I'd agree with the general thesis of this article.  You disagree on a fundamental level with personal attributes and histories of the candidate, so you choose to focus on their expressed policy statements.  It makes a lot of sense.  The policies are what is supposed to be important anyways, so just forget all the political noise and personal chaff and vote based upon record and policy-focused statements.

In any other election cycle, I would have zero qualm with that thesis.  I've done it myself in the past.  You almost never get a perfect candidate.  So you can either focus on the personality and personal history stuff, or you can focus on the professed policy platforms of the candidate and ignore the rest of the noise.  Many would argue that the latter is the better way to go as an informed, educated voter.  And normally, I wouldn't say anything to the contrary.

But there is something fundamentally different about this year, about this choice.

There is a very false equivalency being raised in both the article that spurred this post and in much of the media narrative around this race.

Donald Trump is an incredibly flawed candidate and so is Hillary Clinton.  You could even make a list of the personal flaws of these candidates and these lists may be in the same ballpark in length.  So why not just chalk up the whole thing as a draw and focus elsewhere, right?

But there are two major flaws that Donald Trump has that Hillary does not.  And these two major flaws cannot be compared in any logical way with any of the many perceived flaws of Hillary Clinton.

First, Donald Trump is not just clueless but dangerously, willfully ignorant on policy.

Take for instance, Trump on nuclear weapons policy.  During the NBC Presidential Forum hosted by Matt Lauer on NBC last month, Donald Trump had no clue what the "nuclear triad" (air, land, and sea nuclear weapons) was.  Now, neither did I, but I'm not running to be the person with exclusive control over America's nuclear weapons.  Donald Trump is.  And, okay, the dude might have just been caught off guard and hadn't been paying that much attention to the basic of America's nuclear weapon system.  That happens.  And if Trump's cluelessness on nuclear weapons policy was only evidenced by this forum, I would just chalk it up to a momentary lapse.  But at the first Presidential Debate, the basics of America's nuclear weapons policy came up again.  This time, Trump was asked if he would continue to support the American "first use" policy (meaning America is willing to use a nuclear weapon offensively, as we've done in the past).  In response, Trump initially said he would not use a nuclear weapon first, and then literally within the same sentence said that he would never take anything off the table.  That one sentence is fundamentally contradictory, telling me that Trump still has zero idea what the very basics of America's nuclear weapons system entails.  And Donald Trump has not shown himself to be the type of person who actually cares to do the homework and figure out those basics.

I was recently listening to the Vox podcst, "The Weeds," and they were talking about Trump's apparent unwillingness to even try to be prepared.  They were talking about how, throughout history, there have been plenty of presidential candidates who didn't come into the race with a complete understanding of the basic functions of all the different policy areas on which they may be asked to address as either a presidential candidate or, potentially, as President.  But, historically, candidates who have done well, who have gone on to be major party nominees and then Presidents have always shown a willingness to do the homework, to become educated about a subject that comes up.

Take, for instance, President Obama and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  When he took office, Barack Obama didn't know much of anything about deep water drilling or capping a leaking oil rig.  But when the 2010 oil rig explosion and subsequent spill happened off the coast of Louisiana, Obama gathered people together who were knowledgeable and figured out the basics of the issue.  He then was capable of making a policy decision about what to do.  But before Obama could make any decisions about what to do in the aftermath of an issue for which he had no preparation, he had to do the work and understand the basics of that issue.  You or I may not fully agree with what he chose to do in the aftermath of that spill.  But we can know with certainty that he was making an informed decision.  How can we know this?  Because when then-Senator Obama showed his lack of knowledge on issues during the 2008 primary, when the same issues were brought up later, he had a much more well informed answer.  To me, one of Trump's unforgivable flaws is that he either refuses to or does not know how to become better informed on issues fundamental to the role of President of the United States.

We don't know what issues will face America from 2017-2020.  We can pretty much guarantee that there will be some completely non-partisan crisis that will arise (e.g. terrorist attack or natural disaster) that will require the President to make some decisions and show leadership.  In these instances, partisan policies don't matter very much, if at all.  What matters is that the President is capable of educating his/herself on the basics of the issue presented before moving forward.  Donald Trump has shown himself over and over again to be the type of person who can bluster on for literally hours on end without a single accurate substantive statement about how the topic on which he is blustering fundamentally operates.

In politics at large, but especially at the Presidential level, we have become so used to the candidates already knowing the basics that we only ask the candidates about their positions at the contested policy level.  But there is a whole system of knowledge that goes into making those policy evaluations.  Think of it like a tree.  The policy differences are the leaves that you see.  But those tree leaves do not exist on their own.  For instance, different health care propositions (the leaves) grow out of a vast root system that is a basic understanding of how private insurance companies, Medicare, Medicaid, hospital billing practices, current regulations, and a whole host of other health care related things all work.

If a president doesn't have any current understanding of or willingness to understand those root systems, they cannot be trusted to pick the right contested policy choices.  While someone behind the scenes at the Trump campaign may have filled in Trump's policy platform with policy leaves that look to be in line with a traditional Republican bloc of voters, Trump himself has no knowledge about the basics of the policies themselves.  When asked by Chris Matthews during the primaries if he supported the punishment of women who have abortions, Trump said "yes," even though that has never been the stance of Pro-Life individuals, and he later back-tracked saying he didn't mean that at all.

So if you think that there's some chance Trump will actually enact policies in line with your beliefs, you need to also realize that whatever he enacts will almost certainly be bastardizations of the true policy ideas you hold.  It will be whatever Donald Trump can spin off the top of his head based upon what he thinks the policy's name means.  He can't be trusted to do the work and figure out the basics of some new domestic or international challenge that arises during his potential presidency.  He'll react on gut instinct and then bluster on as if he actually understands anything that he's talking about, even though, through his bluster, it becomes painfully obvious that he doesn't.

And that brings me to the second fundamental flaw in a Trump presidency: Donald Trump's narcissistic and retaliatory temperament is too big of a risk when it comes to foreign policy.

While Trump's egotistical belief that he can single-handedly transform entire industries and his tendency to retaliate at the smallest personal slights can be fairly easily tempered or even reversed on the domestic side by the checks and balances known as the legislative and judicial branches, there is no build in check on executive diplomatic power.  And a Trump presidency would very likely have disastrous international effect.

Theoretically, if Trump were to unilaterally take America into a pointless personal war, Congress could potentially refuse to fund the conflict.  But if Trump's actions or temperament lead another nation or non-state actor to attack the U.S., no Congress would deny funding for a defensive war.

Trump fawns over compliments from the former-KGB operative and current President of Russia.  His ego cannot stand the idea of attacking someone who complements him, and Vladimir Putin knows it.  You better believe that Putin would play President Trump like a fiddle, which would then give Russia a free pass to continue their acts of aggression and even annexation of sovereign former-Soviet bloc nations.

Foreign policy is the one area the President of the United States has nearly unchecked power.  And not only does Donald Trump not understand the players or the issues, but he would allow his foreign policy to be guided by his own ego.  If a country sucks up to him or complements him personally, Trump will change his stance towards that country.  Trump has openly said that he would not stop North Korea's dictator, Kim Jung Un, from visiting the United States (drawing an arbitrary line at hosting a state dinner for some reason).  Conceivably, Kim Jung Un could stroke Trump's ego just the right amount for Trump to lift sanctions on North Korea, enable their further nuclear development, or even just in any way legitimize the brutal dictatorship in the international arena.

Conversely, what if Trump plays with fire by engaging with a dictator who strokes his ego just right, only to become offended when the ego-stroking ends.  Or what if the head of government for a stalwart ally like Great Britain, France, or Germany refuses to play to Trump's ego, insults him, or criticizes him?  It's not too far fetched to imagine that normal diplomatic relations with our closest allies would become strained, if not irreparably damaged, under a Trump administration.  And there's nothing that Congress or the Courts could do about it.

So why are these two Trump flaws so much different from the character flaws and policy disagreements of Hillary Clinton?  Because these two areas are both fundamental to the role of President of the United States and cannot be mitigated through legislative or judicial checks and balances.  You disagree with Hillary's views on abortion issues?  Make sure the Senate is strongly Republican so she can't nominate anyone pro-choice to the bench.  Don't want her to enact immigration or tax reform? Again, elect a Republican legislature to check her ability to do anything.

There are so many ways to curb a President's effectiveness on the vast majority of contested, partisan issues in a Presidential race.  Especially on domestic issues, a President can almost never act apart from Congress.  So having a President who agrees with you more than disagrees with you on the big domestic policy issues is not nearly as important as we make it out to be.  Or at least it doesn't have to be if you split your ticket (i.e. vote for one party for the presidency and the other down ballot).

But when being a President really matters, when a President's power cannot be curbed or balanced or changed, is when the unexpected happens, the stuff a President can't plan for but on which they need to be able to get up to speed relatively quickly.  That's where a President has the opportunity to save lives, comfort a hurting nation, and curb mass anxiety.  Is Donald Trump capable of that type of empathy?  Can he be trusted to make thoughtful, rational choices in the aftermath of some disaster?  Can Donald Trump be trusted to delve into a briefing binder on some unexpected national crisis and come out an hour later having gleaned enough to even ask the right questions of his advisers?  If Trump himself won't do any of the reading, does he know enough to get the right people to explain things to him?  Donald Trump fired his campaign policy staff three campaign shake-ups ago and hasn't bothered to hire anyone else.  Would a President Trump react to a 9/11 or a Deepwater Horizon oil spill or a Hurricane Katrina based solely on his gut reactions?

If the Army Corps of Engineers had sat down with a President Trump in the days before or after Katrina, would Trump have even listened?  President Bush's response to Katrina was disastrous enough.  I can't even imagine what a President Trump's response would've looked like.  What about to 9/11?  Would a President Trump have had the grace and courage and integrity of George W. Bush to remind the nation that this wasn't a religion that attacked us?  That there is no reason for mass fear of all American Muslims?  Or would a President Trump falsely claim that he saw Muslims celebrating on the White House lawn?

The Presidency of the United States is about more than just checking off a list of issue agreements versus disagreements.  It matters in huge ways that cannot be measured through an evaluation of policy platforms.  And normally, the individuals who get close to that office, the people who win major party nominations, without a doubt have those qualities needed to maintain international relations and manage unexpected crises.  No matter our policy disagreements with them, Al Gore, John Kerry, George W. Bush, John McCain, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney all had these nonpartisan qualities essential to the role of President of the United States.

Do you honestly believe that Donald Trump does?  Would you trust him to comfort the nation and represent it abroad?

This is an argument about the realities of the Presidency, not about the "moral" questions regarding particular partisan political arguments.  But this is also a moral argument.  I cannot help but feel that it would be not just civically irresponsible but morally bankrupt to allow someone totally unequipped for the real and important role of President of the United States to win this election simply because that person has recently claimed that they agree with you on more partisan political issues than their opponent.  That's saying that you care more about the outward signs of compliance with your own belief system, no matter how obviously contrived those outward signs are, than you do about the welfare and future of the nation as a whole.

Blessing versus Privilege

I grew up in very religious family.  Even today when I have dinner at home,  my family regularly prays and thanks God for the "blessings that He has provided us."  I'm not writing this to dispute the idea of being grateful and praising God for things that we have every right to be thankful for, and especially those things for which we do nothing to deserve.  But as I've grown up and become immersed in the world of feminist philosophy, I have, in my own life, begun to recognize my "privilege" much more often than I recognize God's "blessings."  And it's not that I think that the two concepts are in direct contrast or competition with each other, but I do believe that talking only about blessings can lead to a form of apathy and even smug indifference to the plight of those around us that is exceedingly dangerous.

Talking about and acknowledging privilege, in the feminist and progressive movements, is an active process.  It's about recognizing those things that we have simply by nature of our economic, social, political, racial, or gendered place in life that those who are oppressed in those same areas do not have.  It's also (and this is, in my opinion,  a far more difficult and important process) recognizing and combatting those systems that allow the privilege to remain.

Talking about blessings, specifically in a religious or spiritual context, doesn't ever call the acknowledger to action.  I can acknowledge the great blessing that I have because I was born in and now live in two countries which both, respectively, allow me to practice my religion without condemnation or any real constraint.  This is a frequent refrain in both Canadian and American church prayers.  But this acknowledgement is passive. I can acknowledge this religious freedom, thank my God for it, and then move on with my life.  But if, instead, I acknowledge that this religious freedom is a privilege that originates in my socio-economic, national, and racial status, I must then also realize that there are oppressive systems (whether political, social, or cultural) at play in countries across the world that deny other people this same privilege. When I acknowledge this hard truth, I must also commit myself to changing these oppressive systems in any way that I can.

This same thought process is true for countless other hard truths.  And I think this difference between passively acknowledging and being grateful for undeserved blessings and actively recognizing, checking, and committing to changing systems of privilege and oppression is one of the major reasons why churches in the Western world are plagued by apathy.

I think we Christians do ourselves and our God a disservice when we acknowledge these same truths using the language of blessing and gratitude.

How can I thank God for my whiteness?  Or my wealth?  Not only did I not do anything for these attributes, but God didn't give them to me as a positive thing to be grateful for.  To think that way is to place the different races and socio-economic statuses on a scale of good to bad, blessing to curse.  If I were to thank God for my whiteness, then doesn't that mean that being black would somehow be a negative?  A non-blessing?  A burden? A curse?

How could I think this way?  How could anyone (or at least anyone who doesn't openly and joyfully embrace racist ideology)?  But if I call my place in this country, my freedom from the tensions embroiling Ferguson a "God-given blessing," isn't that exactly what I'm doing?

I think churches and religious people across the Western world need to move beyond this passive gratitude. There's nothing wrong with thanking God, but I think we need to critically analyzing the thing which we thank God for.  We need to ask ourselves, is this really something to be grateful for? Is it a blessing? Or is it just me enjoying the benefits of being on the winning side of an injustice?  And if that's what it is, then I will not be grateful.  And neither should you.  We should all commit ourselves to analyzing and acknowledging when we are on the winning side of such an injustice, and instead of thanking our Deity for the win, we should commit ourselves to fighting to end the injustice that allows for someone else to be on the losing end of the equation.

I am not grateful for my whiteness.  Instead, I recognize it, acknowledge it, and commit myself to the lifelong process of checking my privilege at the door, seeking out the voices of those who are not white, so I can come to know the best, the most effective ways for me to engage in the struggle to end the racial injustice that allows the colour of my skin to be a privilege at all.

I know a lot of people who strive to view themselves and to be what they label "colour-blind."  I know my Dad will always answer the question of what race he is with the answer, "human."  And while for a long time I loved this response,  and even used it a few times myself, we can't whitewash the systems of racial injustice away simply by pretending that we don't see them.  We can't pretend that I would've faced the same treatment walking down the street in my Naperville, IL next to a cop car that Michael Brown faced in Ferguson, MO.  Calling yourself colour-blind or labeling yourself human instead of white doesn't change the vastly different treatment that Michael Brown and young black men across this country face every time they encounter a member of law enforcement.

If I went to any number of local churches this coming Sunday, I could no doubt hear many a pastor include in a prayer a message of gratitude for the supposedly God-given blessing of living in an area that is not plagued by the racial violence and unrest that is facing Ferguson, Missouri right now.  But what good does such an acknowledgment of supposed blessing actually do?  It allows for and even enables our own innate inclinations towards apathy.  I can easily sit idly by and simply acknowledge that I am blessed to live in a majority upper middle class, white area of the county.  But if, instead, I recognize and proclaim the hard truth that I am not faced with the violence and unrest here in DuPage County precisely because of the privilege I have because of the systems of privilege I enjoy due to my skin colour and my socio-economic status, I must then also recognize that other people, through just the same non-existent effort as my own, do not have this same privilege.  Instead these people are oppressed by these same systems because they live in poorer areas and/or were born with brown or black skin.

And this isn't just about race.  There are so many other hard truths in the world, so many injustices that can just as easily  be viewed as "God-given blessings."  We have got to stop being passive.  Stop being grateful.  We have got to "ready our heart's teeth.  Chew through the etiquette leash," to begin fighting injustice everywhere we see it, every time we contribute to it or benefit from it.

Advancing the Dream

Note: This post is long overdue.  I wrote it a few weeks ago, but just kept forgetting to finishing editing it and then post it.

As I watched a re-airing of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech in commemoration of its 50th anniversary, I wrote the following Facebook status update: "Watching the indescribably breathtaking 'I Have A Dream' speech being re-aired in its entirety on MSNBC right now with tears in my eyes and so many emotions in my heart.  How far we've come.  How far we must still go."

Over the past couple months, the reality of the latter statement became explicitly clear to me.  Watching the George Zimmerman acquittal, I came to realize that the biggest problem with the verdict wasn't the fact that Zimmerman "got away with it" (because, truthfully, the prosecution's case wasn't that strong, so I really don't fault the jury for reaching that verdict).  Instead, I struggled so strongly accepting the reality of the legal precedent that it sets: if someone with racial animus in their heart sees someone in their neighbourhood that (in their opinion) doesn't "belong there," s/he can follow that individual, say or do something to instigate a fight (even if it's just making the person feel intimidated by being followed), and then pull out a gun and shoot that person.

I was particularly struck in the aftermath of the acquittal by one viral tweet: "How cool would it be to live in a world where George Zimmerman offered Trayvon Martin a ride home to get him out of the rain that night" (Tom Crabtree @itscrab).

A few weeks ago, I watched Fruitvale Station, the movie chronicling the final day in Oscar Grant's life.  This was a young African American man (my same age, 22 years old, at the time of his death) who wasn't perfect, but he was a good man.  And yet, after getting in an altercation with someone on an Oakland train, was pulled off the train, had his head smashed into the ground repeatedly, and then shot in the back by an Oakland cop (who claimed to have mistaken his gun for his tazer).

And then you have the spotlight being put, in recent weeks, upon the "Stop & Frisk" program in New York City which, even the law's proponents admit, highly unequally targets young African American males than any other demographic group.  And I hear stories of young men, my own age, who, since they were as young as ten years old, have been frisked by the police up to a dozen times.  And how, after so many times, you just stop trusting the police.  You stop looking to them for help, because you assume that they'll immediately look on you with suspicion simply by virtue of your skin colour.  One young man said that he didn't even call the police when he was robbed for this very reason.  And I highly doubt that his story is an anamoly.

Sure, you can make arguments and justifications and excuses for all of these things.

But is that really the type of country that we want?

Why are we still settling for excuses and justifications behind unequal treatment based upon race?

Yes, things have absolutely gotten better since Dr. King shared his dream with us 50 years ago.  You'd be hard-pressed to find a single person who would disagree with that.  There are no more weekly lynchings or images in the media of elementary school kids being sprayed with fire houses.

Yes, the world has changed.

We have an African-American president, dozens of African-American members of Congress, and an African-American attorney general.  And those are just the most high-profile figures nationally.  There are hundreds of African-Americans in positions of power in dozens of fields across America, without such a stark contrast anymore between the northern and southern states.

But we still have a long ways to go.  Changes still have to be made before we can say that we have finally fulfilled the dream which Dr. King prophecied over America 50 years ago.

Dr. King's dream is about more than just having most people be "judged by the content of their character" instead of their skin colour.  It's about economic equality.  It's not just about universal voting rights, but about having something worthwhile to vote for.

I'm not going to pretend to understand every length to which this nation must still go before we reach Dr. King's dream.  Because I think there's more to it than the specific examples that Dr. King proclaimed.  It's about living in a world where no one goes hungry, no one is denied rights due to some demographic category, no one is without the highest quality education, no one is left behind.

And Dr. King's dream doesn't stop at the edges of this nation.  It extends far and wide to every nation on earth.  It's ambitious, and will likely never be fully reached.  But that's not to say we should stop trying, stop reaching, stop changing, stop advancing the dream.

It's been 50 years, but so much of King's speech is just as relevant today as it was 50 years ago.  And his dream will never become irrelevant.

Walking the Tight Rope

I’m plagued by these thoughts.  I always have been, for as long as I can remember. And for as long as I can remember, I’ve repressed every last one of them.  These thoughts will invade my dreams, both waking and sleeping, and I’ll push them aside, telling myself over and over that that person cannot be me.  That I can’t feel that way.

I justify in my mind that it’s ok for other people to feel and act on these feelings, but I judge and repress and flog and punish when it comes to me.  I complain about being forced to live up to those lofty expectations set by the organized church or by my family or even by my friends, all the while forcing myself to live out my own double standard.

I walk this fine line, tight-roping my way through questions of politics and morality, telling myself, and making some damn convincing arguments, that the two can somehow be separated.  That I can believe in the freedom of others to say and do one thing while condemning those very thoughts inside myself.

I cling to the comfort of the religious explanations and condemnations that I’ve always known, despite condemning their tone and even their proclamation.  I want one thing in my private life and another in the public sphere.  This is my desire, because such a separation makes my own twisted thoughts and longings so much easier to rationalize, to push aside, and to wipe away.

I long for a clean slate, a simpler state of being, where I don’t have to search out my own answers.  I shouldn’t have to spend longsuffering hours searching for some form of balm for the truth that I’ve always known in my heart.  I read through exposition after exposition, knowing that they more fully explain these oft quoted words of hate and pain than anything else I’ve ever heard or read, and still I tell myself that they’re not enough.  That I need something more.  Some grand gesture, some neon-light-in-the-sky revelation.

But that revelation has been and always will be a simple, small, quiet voice in my heart, telling me over and over again that love, and not condemnation is the answer.  Telling me that the one true and perfect Yahweh made me, and, at my core, who I am is a reflection of His very truth and perfection.  That nothing can taint my Imago Dei.  I have been wiped clean by the blood of the Lamb, so who I am, what I’ve always known, that is truth.  That is my revelation.  I don’t need these expositions, these arguments, this constant need for justification and validation.

But how do I finally learn to trust this truth that I’ve always known in my heart?  And, better yet, how do I actually admit to the world that I’m embracing this truth inside of me, their so-called “truths” cloaked in condemnation, hate, and lies be damned?

I’ve already ripped the veil off once before, declaring once and forevermore that I am not perfect, that I don’t have it all together.  But I still clung to those basic beliefs, no matter what my heart or even my logic and exposition said.  I wanted that comfort.  I wanted to belong.  So I claimed to agree with every tenant of the faith, even those that grated against my very soul.

I’m not ready to throw off that cloak just yet.  It’s not as much a need for that comfort anymore as it is a fear of being rejected.  I now know, and rest perfectly at ease in the knowledge and truth of the love of my family and friends.  But what of their acceptance?  They claim to give it on a synonymous basis with their love, but love and acceptance are far from equals.

So for now I remain hidden, choosing to bide my time in hopes of building my courage.  But this grating against my soul can only be suffered for so long before it must be pushed out.  And then where will I stand?

"No man, for any considerable period, can wear one face to himself, and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be true." ~ Nathaniel Hawthorne

The Third Commandment and Politics

Why would someone post a political belief (of any kind or nature) on FB and then explicitly outlaw commenting or questions regarding the belief?  If you're going to post any opinion, political or otherwise, in a public forum, you should always be able and willing to back up your opinion.  Now this is especially true if you're going to be invoking the "will of God" as some form of justification for your personal opinion.

Now, I obviously am not one who tends to shy away from broadcasting my personal political beliefs in public forums (hence half of this blog's content).  But I don't believe that I've ever tried to silence dissension or discussion, and I've never backed away from defending my own beliefs.

Any time a person states an opinion, really of any kind, and then outlaws any further discussion of the matter, they come across as one of two things: an ignorant jerk decrying discussion because they literally have no response, or an arrogant asshole who believes that they can just broadcast their opinions as some form of gospel truth too lofty for debate.

Now beyond all of this, it really frustrates me when individuals of either political party use the name or will of God to prove their own personal political opinions.  It's all well and good to base your political opinions on your own religious or moral beliefs.  But to try and proclaim that the interpretations and conclusions you have  come to should be imposed upon the rest of the nation because you are somehow assured that it is the "will of God" is positively ludicrous.

It's just like any other interpretation of Scriptures or religion: there can be dozens or even hundreds of equally valid interpretations.  To claim that having one or the other interpretation of some mundane (and I use that word purposefully glibly) passage of the Bible is going against God's will is truthfully quite prideful.  We can all make our best, most well-educated guesses and conjectures regarding what the truth is and what God's true path is, but we just can't know for sure.  While, as Christians, we can be certain of some things (i.e. the essentials: God's holiness; man's sin; Jesus' birth, death and resurrection, etc.), there are many other things left up to human interpretation.  And on these things we may never know what God's will truly is until we meet Him face-to-face in the afterlife.

So I really can't understand how this basic concept of certain Scriptures being open for interpretation doesn't seem to be able to translate over into the American political arena.  Individual people or entire political parties seem to perpetually be claiming the right to "God's will."  And as I saw a commentor on MaddowBlog remark the other day, the Third Commandment says not to take the Lord's name in vain, so how dare we try and use God's name as a stamp of approval on every political opinion that we spew at the mouth?

So stop trying to bolster your own opinions and make yourselves feel more justified by strapping God's name to something.  God is far bigger, far wiser, and far more complex than our American political system could ever grasp.  Furthermore, as I've said before, God stopped trying to establish a true theocracy when the Biblical kingdom of Israel asked for its first king, so why on earth would we be so presumptuous as to believe that He suddenly wants us to set up one now?  Because only under a true theocracy can an agent of the government claim that they are acting out the will of God (especially if it comes to foreign policy matters).

Well, after all of that rambling, I guess I'll get off my soapbox with one final plea, bearing the risk of being obnoxiously repetitive: stop breaking the Third Commandment by invoking God's name to justify your own political beliefs.  Have your opinions.  Explain them freely and fully.  But don't claim moral and religious superiority over someone regarding a national political issue.  It's obnoxious, uncalled-for, and frankly, disrespectful of God's true name and will.

I might actually be good at this...

I know I said a couple weeks ago that I'd write a post updating you all on what has happened with my medical situation, and I really have been trying to...for the past two weeks...  And it's just become this long, rambling, and fairly incoherent post with no actual point.  I'd be happy to give actual details to anyone who really wants to know, just Facebook me or email me or whatever.  But suffice it to say that I went back to my old doctor at the University of Chicago and he had a solution...a solution that scared the shit out of me (due to a horrendous past experience), but by the power of Jehovah alone, I was able to get through it.  And for the past two weeks, I've been relatively pain free...for the first time in about three months (except for the fact that I'm going through major narcotic withdrawal, which is never fun).

But that's not the reason I'm writing this.  I'm writing this because, yesterday, I went on my second hospital advocacy call with the DC Rape Crisis Center.  And it was...intense, to say the least, but it also served as an amazing reminder of where I'm going and what I need to be doing with my life.  And it re-confirmed that I might actually be good at this...

Since school ended I've been focusing pretty much all my attention (with the exception of studying for and taking the LSAT) on my political interests.  I've been interning at EMILY's List, an organization that works at all levels, (national, state and local) to elect pro-choice democratic women.  Furthermore, working at this incredible (and remarkably influential) organization, I've begun to believe that my next step after graduation (this coming December) may be working on a campaign.  And this place can get me there  After asking some former interns if they had any specific advice regarding how to get onto a campaign, the thing which stuck out in my mind the most was one of the former interns saying, "Think about and write down the five names of the people on whose campaigns you would most like to work.  Then talk to people here [at EMILY's List].  They'll make it happen."

 My jaw is still kind of on the floor after that one.

See, when I applied for this internship, I knew that I loved EL and that it had a great mission and had done some cool things.  I had absolutely zero conception of their reach.  I didn't know that the President of EMILY's List, Stephanie Schriock, was the campaign manager for Al Franken.  Yeah, that campaign.  I had no clue that Denise Feriozzi, the director of the WOMEN VOTE! department (basically, EL's Get Out The Vote arm) was the Field Director for Hillary Clinton's Iowa Caucus race.

This place is incredible, and there are so many people here that I can learn from and so much to do that I agree with and love doing.  But...

There's that little thing in the back of my head that I know: This just isn't my passion.  Yeah, I love it, and in so many ways I'm obsessed with it, but it's not my calling.  It intrigues me, amuses me, and excites me, but I don't have that guttural need to do this.  Not like when I'm touching on anything to do with combating sexual violence.

That's where this past weekend comes in.  As many of you probably know, I'm a volunteer at the DC Rape Crisis Center, and I take both crisis hotline calls and hospital advocacy shifts.  Well, on Saturday I had an advocacy shift and, for only the second time since starting, I got called in.  Now, as usual, I can't actually talk about details, but needless to say it was a very intense call.  But beyond all that, for me, it was a remarkable affirmation of who I'm meant to be, of everything I'm meant to do.  Because this was my second time going on an advo call, I was confident enough about where I was going and what I was doing that I could actually just settle in and trust my instincts.  And as I've seen many times in the past, that's when I actually can do a good job.  After the major portion of the call was over, I had a moment alone with the SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner), and even though throughout the call I thought I had been getting very mixed signals from her, she actually told me that I had done a really good job, and she was shocked that it was only my second call.  Later, as I was spending a few final minutes with the survivor, she told me that I had made the whole process much easier for her and that she thought I would do a great job as a sex crimes prosecutor.

I'm not repeating all of this to try and toot my own horn or brag or whatever.  It's just that as I'm getting deeper and deeper into the political world, I love remembering what my true calling is.  And I need to remind myself that politics isn't it, as much as I may love this crazy world of American politics.

Oh, and by the way: I'm an American citizen now.  It's very weird...

This is my PSA

It amazes me how horrible so many Christians are at being aware of how they come across to the rest of the world.  It really shouldn't amaze me at this point, yet somehow it still does.

For instance, while I was home this past weekend, I spent some time in the heart of Bible-belt country near South Bend, Indiana.  It seemed like everywhere I looked, there were signs that oh-so-proudly proclaimed: "WE ARE PRO-LIFE!" and crosses which were dedicated to "all the dead babies."  Now, don't get me wrong, I really don't have any problem with people having a pro-life political position.  I really don't.  As much as I am not pro-life, I completely understand where they are coming from.  I get it, and it's ok.  But, really, what good could it possibly do to put up pro-life billboards everywhere you go?  Is proclaiming your moral superiority going to be the deciding factor in possibly one of the toughest decisions a woman can ever make?  Is offering your blanket condemnation going to help witness to someone who has previously had an abortion?  Do your billboards actually bring aborted fetuses back to life?

On a seemingly unrelated note: while I was home and therefore back in the land of the cable-having, I saw this new PSA which denounces people saying "that's so gay".  I can't really explain just how grateful this made me.  I know so many people (and I will freely admit that I used to be one of them) who say this phrase so nonchalantly.   I love that someone is finally stepping up and saying something about it.  For years, this phrase used to be a part of my every day vernacular.  I simply never thought anything of it.  Then came my freshman year at AU: I think I stopped saying "that's so gay" after about one week.  It's not even that I meant anything by it.  I just wasn't thinking about what it meant.  It was just a phrase.  Then someone pointed out to me that, at AU where a very large minority of people are, in fact, gay, this probably isn't the best thing to say.  It wasn't hard to change.  And I definitely don't miss saying it (because it didn't really mean anything, anyways).

So what is the point of all of this?

Well, besides my random desire to blog rant, I simply felt the need to say, to all my fellow Christians out there: think before you speak. It's not that hard.  It doesn't take that long.  And the phrases or words which you may have to cut out, you probably won't even miss them that much (if at all).

Think about how it sounds to the hurting and the oppressed and the searching when you spend so much energy denouncing the "murder" of all the "dead babies" and then nonchalantly joke about the "gayness" of this or that undesirable occurrence.

Now, even I find it ironic that I'm writing a blog asking people to watch what they say when I so rarely watch the type of language that comes out of my mouth (when it comes to swearing, that is).  But the fact of the matter is that me saying a four letter word every once and a while does little if anything to compromise the Message which I am striving to live out.  If I started to use language, however, which makes fun of how someone defines him/herself or which condemns an already hurting person, my Message would be not just compromised but utterly forsaken.

So if your greatest desire in life is to love the world around you and to reach out to the hurting and broken people, maybe you should focus less upon which four letter words not to say and more on how your overall message or your flippant jokes come across to the very people you're supposed to be reaching out to.

Oh, and one final note, in case that wasn't clear enough:

For the love of all things holy, if you go to AU, don't make fun of anything even remotely related to homosexuality!  Even if you hold the moral stance that homosexual acts are a sin, you still should not make fun of being gay.   You never know who standing around you, even if you're in a supposedly all-Christian environment, is struggling with this issue.  There may be a gay person standing next to you, or maybe just a straight person who is struggling with knowing what to believe about homosexuality in general.  So don't mock it.  Don't make jokes about it.  If you can't talk about it in a constructive manner, then just don't talk about it at all!

Ok, I'll get off my soapbox.

Pro-gay marriage, pro-choice. And still a Christian...

"I don't have a limited enough view of God to believe that a U.S. law has the power to de-sanctify His plan for marriage."

Thank you, Brittany Jo, for reminding me once again why I'm friends with you.  And why I still have the "audacity" to be a flaming, bleeding heart, crazy, bordering-on-Commie, liberal Democrat...and still a Christian.

No, my ethics, morals, and salvation are not compromised.  No, I have not disregarded God for the sake of appeasing my own partisan political desires.  But instead I am a Christian who happens to live in a country which is governed, not by the Bible (thank God), but by a very-well written (though still fallible) Constitution.  No, this Constitution was not somehow "ordained by God."  It is just a document written by a bunch of old white men a couple hundred years ago to govern this grand experiment called the United States of America.

Nowhere in the Bible or in this wonderful founding document does it say, "every good Christian should agree upon a couple of political issues."  And yet that is what I have been told over and over again throughout the years by my brothers and sisters in Christ.  They always use that phrase, too: "a couple issues."  As if no one could possibly decipher which two partisan issues are believed to be the essential "Christian" political issues...

Well my Religious Right brethren, I think I've cracked your ingenious code:

1. Abortion
2. Gay Marriage

Every time one of these two issues is brought up in a Christian setting, and I announce my vehement opposition to the opinions of those around me, my morals, my integrity, and my very salvation are scrutinized and even denounced.

Yes, I am pro-gay marriage.  Yes, I am pro-choice.

No, I'm not going to hell because of the preceding statements.

It's not the government's job to go into our bedrooms and tell us whether or not our sexual exploits or even who we choose to love falls in line with their interpretation of Scriptures.  Furthermore, Loving v. Virginia makes clear that marriage is a right of every American.  These simple facts and the line uttered by my oh-so-brilliant roommate at the beginning of this post make me an ardent supporter of the right of every individual to marry, regardless of sexual orientation.  

When it comes to abortion, I am a realist.  I recognize that, no matter the legal status of an abortion procedure, women will still have abortions.  The only difference will be in the safety and regulation of that procedure.  Furthermore, Congress and the states will never get enough support to pass a constitutional amendment which outlaws the procedure nor will the Supreme Court ever overturn its stance on abortion (even the most conservative members of the court respect precedent too much to overturn Roe).  So my primary focus will always be on promoting policies which reduce unwanted pregnancy.  No, this does not mean abstinence-only education.  Quite the opposite, in fact.

But I digress.  The Bible does not lay out a political roadmap for Christians to follow.  There is only one time which Christ talks about regarding Christians are supposed to interact with the government: "give to Caesar what is Caesar's."  He doesn't say, "overthrow Caesar and use his throne to promote my moral code."  He doesn't even advise anyone to try and influence Caesar in this direction.  He simply says, "give to Caesar what is Caesar's."

Jesus didn't come in as a rider on a white horse overthrowing the Roman empire (despite the desires of the people for a Messiah such as this).  He just came as a lowly carpenter-turned-Rabbi who traveled from town to town doing good works and miracles and spreading His message of love for all.  To me, that doesn't sound like the rallying cry for any specific American political party.

I can't say for sure that Jesus would have been a Democrat or a Republican.  I do believe that Jesus cared deeply for the poor, the needy, the prisoners, and the outcasts.  These are the things which lead me to believe that He may have leaned liberal on issues of welfare, crime-policy, and, yes, even gay rights.  But I don't know for sure.  And I would never claim to know.  Jesus never specifically told us what to believe politically or how to vote.  He also never said that how we vote must always be directly in-line with our moral/ethical code.  All He said was, "give to Caesar what is Caesar's."  Take that for what it is, but not for what it is not.

Capstone Conundrums

     So, because I'm planning on graduating a semester early, this coming semester, which I just registered for (YAY!) is technically the start of my senior year (weird).  What this means is that I need to seriously start figuring out what I want to do for my capstone.  It also means that I need to seriously get cracking on LSAT studying (eek!), but that's beside the point.

     I really want my capstone to be something important, something that I care deeply about, something that acts as a comprehensive accumulation of my time here at AU, and (perhaps most importantly) something that I won't get bored with. :P  I have so many different thoughts in my head, so many things that I care about.  I really am at a loss as to how to narrow them all down to something feasible.

     I'm a Justice and Political Science Major with a concentration in criminal justice and extensive course work in women's and gender studies.  (As a totally unrelated side note: I'm taking a religion class called "Feminist Theology" next semester.  Get excited!)  My life goal is to become a sex crimes prosecutor.  As such, I'm hoping to get into a prestigious law school.  What would be the appropriate cumulative project for this preparatory life called college?

     Or I could just explore one of the many policy areas which get my blood rolling: underage prostitutes and the fact that their "johns" aren't charged with, at the very least, statutory rape; the idea of life without parole being a de facto death penalty; issues of human rights (or lack thereof) within the prison system; the lack of rehabilitative policy within the American criminal justice system; the direct correlation between the crappy education system here in the United States and poverty/crime rates; and the patriarchal status quo in this nation serving as the basis for most, if not all, sex crimes.

     I also have to write a 20-30 page paper for my Justice Stories class.  Maybe I can treat that as a sort of mini-capstone to get some of my more minor ideas out of the way so that I can focus on one major idea in my capstone.  Or maybe I could actually challenge myself and force myself to do something creative for the project...  I doubt that'll happen, but I'll at least force myself to consider it.

Since when did school start involving important life decisions?  Didn't freshman year just start?  Can I just go back to taking classes for fun and not thinking about the implications of those actions?

My Justice major is showing...

For 150 years, the Louisiana plantation known as Angola has been worked, toiled over, and broken by the sweat of forced labour. The bloodiest and most dangerous war in American history was fought to stop the use of humans as cattle, people as slaves. Until recently, Angola plantation was known as the bloodiest and most dangerous prison system in America. So yes, circumstances have changed, but I would bet that if you took a picture of the fields of Angola in the mid-1800s, it wouldn't look too different from the fields today.

77% of Louisiana's maximum security state penitentiary is African American. I wonder if some of these boys can trace their lineage back to these very fields? Angola is their prison, their plantation, their ancestry, their heritage, their nation.

This brutal land is covered in the blood, sweat, and tears of African-American slaves. Burl Cain may claim the title of warden and may be bankrolled by the state, but just as in days gone by, he is a plantation owner looking down on his forced labour like cattle, like chattel, like children. Maybe one day the land can be put to rest, can stop bleeding, sweating and crying out the suffering of its slaves.

The preceding paragraphs came out of my Justice Stories class. We've been looking at the writings of American prisoners as well as watching films and learning about prison conditions. We've also looked a little bit at the solitary confinement policy of prisons.

Throwing inmates in "the hole" is not widely considered to be a violation of any rights. But if it truly isn't torture, why was solitary confinement the primary method of breaking the souls of inmates at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and other torture strongholds? Humans are meant to be social creatures. It is psychological torture to entirely cut them off from all communication with other humans.

Another policy which we have been examining in a couple of my classes is the death penalty and life without parole. Every time we look at these policies, the question always pops into my head, "Why do we deny the possibility of redemption?" When it comes to theories of punishment, the idea of rehabilitation has largely been discarded in favour of retribution and deterrence. Over the past couple decades, the United States has largely eliminated the education programs within her prisons, despite the fact that education in America is the one proven way of getting people out of poverty and a life of crime.

Furthermore, the people who have the largest stake in punitive policy are cut off from voicing their opinions on punitive policy! Why do we deny ex-convicts the right to vote? We cut these people off from society for years on end, and then deny them an ability to ever life a normal life again. They can't vote. They have little to no education. Very few legitimate employers will hire them. The only landlords which will house them are in very shady places. And then we act surprised at the high recidivism rate. There are so many people which claim that America is a "Christian nation," and yet they deny the very possibility of one of the most basic tenets of the Christian faith: redemption.

Why is it again that I'm pursuing a career in prosecution?