Denial in this crazy era of ours

I never thought I’d live in an era where obvious truths would be attacked daily with obvious lies. You’re either in Kansas, Dorothy, or you’re not. There really is a deadly virus and its variants circulating around the world. Our country does have racism embedded in its social structures. Global warming/climate change is real. MAGA did mount a violent offensive at our Capitol to stop the certification of the presidential election. There are “tapes.” Lots of tapes. Yet, the lies continue.

The real tragedy of our era is psychological and played out physically. It’s called denial. Three aspects of denial trouble me well beyond the national news because the news doesn’t do a deep dive into the root causes of the behaviors we see. Let me explain.

One. Denial of reality robs us of the ability to respond to real threats. Denial is a mental defense mechanism that isn’t a real defense that could save us. No matter how dire reality mighty be, our ability to be honest about a threat will be rewarded. I can think of two dreadful times in my life when I was still rewarded by accepting reality. When the call came from the assisted living facility that, “your father is actively dying,” reality demanded a response. I didn’t let my father die alone. When I was informed that, “you have cancer,” I educated myself and took measures to maximize my health. The potential death of our bodies, democracy, and human habitation of the planet demand that we honestly acknowledge these threats and respond appropriately.

Two. Some of us have had the good fortune of experiencing wholeness, the integration of light and darkness within us. Denial of our darkness renders us only partially human. We walk around as fakes, hypocrites. We either maintain illusions of how wonderful we are, or we refuse to acknowledge our goodness. Neither condition invites wholeness. Wholeness requires that we embrace both darkness and light. If we do, we become comfortable in our own skin instead of always running from the truth of who we are. We become tolerant. We can empathize with others, from recognizing traits that we share. This goes for countries as well. Germany and South Africa have faced their darkness and emerged better for it. We have not convened truth and reconciliation processes to heal us from our treatment of Native Americans and people of color. We can no longer deny the darkness of our past that looms over our national psyche.

Three. Deeper yet, in this era of denial, is the ultimate concern we all share as humans—the denial of death. Talking about death, here, I’m talking about both physical and metaphoric death. The thought of physical death is so repulsive to many of us that our fear of death is buried well below consciousness. It is real, however, no matter how diligently we run from it. One of my responses to “you have cancer” was to think about death day after day. Eventually, the breakthrough came. After peeling that onion for months, I came out of denial and into the reality that, yes, I was really going to die. Reality rewards those that seek it. I am perpetually thankful for my life.

Then, there is metaphoric death. Things do end in life. Jobs, marriages, and dreams do end. I see that some of my fellow Americans sense the “death” of privilege, of being a white majority, of being in power. Part, if not most, of white supremacy is the mental trick used to feel powerful (even power over death, though such power is an illusion).

If only the greatest tragedy right now were the lies… But the attacks on truth only scratch the surface. Fear and the accompanying denial are the real problems. The challenge for those in denial is to courageously face reality and the challenges of becoming fully human.

For those of us seeing real threats for what they are, our challenge is resist hating someone who is consumed with fear while resisting their efforts to whitewash reality.

Salvation. Not what you think.

Last week I received, as a gift, Anne Lamott’s newest book Dusk Night Dawn because the giver and I have a mutual friend in Anne Lamott. She is always vulnerable, describing her former alcoholism and her current litany of faults. Readers end up loving both Lamott and themselves. Through her vulnerability she gives us permission to name and accept our faults. 

Her writings are always wise and sometimes funny, and they are often funny and sometimes wise. It took nine pages for me to find a gem worth writing about, actually, three gems in one paragraph!

“The hardest work we do is self-love and forgiveness.”
Those damn Puritans are still chastising us, even if it’s from the grave. I’m not good enough. I’m not as gorgeous as those on TV and the movies. I’m self-centered. I’m not grateful enough. I’m unlovable.

“I know to serve the poor, reach for beauty, and to rest.”
This is a pretty respectable summation of a life mission. Avoid naval gazing. Reach for higher angels. Take care of yourself so you can serve. Selfcare demonstrates that you value life.

The half-sentence that resonated the most: “…salvation will be local.”
That’s what this blog has been about. We are to save each other—in the here and now. Not as a ticket to heaven. Not to look good to the neighbors. Not to raise self-esteem. We are to save each other because we are supposed to save each other.

Salvation. Salve is applied to wounds. The first (and non-theological) definition of salvation is “the preservation or deliverance from harm, ruin, or loss.” Ask black Americans about police violence, the jobless and evicted about ruin and those who have lost someone to COVID-19. We are in constant need of salvation. But we are also in need to save. Grace meets need. Historical Jesus saved the people right in front of him. He freed people from what they were bound. His followers eventually came to see that he was encouraging a way of life characterized by love, humility and generosity to others. “All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.” (Acts 4:32, NIV) Followers called their lifestyle the Way.

While I have stressed in this blog that the poor deserve our attention, we are in an era whereby we observe people of power and wealth in need of salvation as well. Lamott, again, “Sometimes the poor are in pearls.” Grasping at power and wealth for the sake of power and wealth can look pretty ugly.

Since “salvation will be local,” we have to realize that intimate relationships are essential to the work of solidarity. It is probably best to jettison the word “salvation” altogether because only equals, at a fundamental level, can be intimate. When I think about how others have supported me, cured my blindness, helped me transform in some way, I think of those that allowed themselves to be vulnerable in my presence and those that truly listened to me. Those that have been vulnerable to me have, in essence, said, “I trust you. I trust you to not judge me, share or weaponize my vulnerability.” Those that have really listened to me have implied that I am valuable, worth their time to slow down and listen.

What we must not do is “fix” someone else. After listening to someone describe their pain, we must refrain from giving them advice. Our restraint sends a powerful message to them—you are capable of guiding your own life.

We may not come by these social skills naturally. We may need a mentor or a community. Jack Jezreel, in A New Way to be Church, describes the process Jesus used to develop his disciples. “In the act of gathering, he forms them, he trains them, he challenges them, and he enlightens them. And then he sends them.”

“Salvation will be local” is both empowering and hopeful. The scale is reasonable. Resources are close by. Have courage. Reach out to the poor, with pearls or without.

The Case Against Being “Not racist”

Without question, race and poverty are linked. Racism creates poverty. Racism makes and keeps people poor. Also, to be acknowledged, is the connection with an ongoing class struggle. There are more poor white people than poor people of color, but that is only because the white population is the majority race in America. By any standard used, people of color will fall short compared to whites. Compare income, wealth, health, unemployment, housing, student debt, COVID vaccination rate, gender and blacks will compare unfavorably with white folk.

The following two graphs show that, with lower incomes, people of color struggle to have reasonable lives and have little chance to build wealth. Imagine if, since 1619 or 1865, incomes had been similar between whites and blacks. As it is, whites have had generations to build and pass on wealth.

Many of us have read How to be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi. For too long our landscape has been shaped by POLICIES that favor whites. If we care about justice for all, we have an obligation to influence POLICIES that ensure equity.

Early in How to be an Antiracist, Kendi debunks the claim of anyone declaring that he or she is NOT racist. The first diagram below may reflect how we currently think about racism. If we are not members of the KKK or on the board of Black Lives Matter, we are somewhere in the middle of the racism spectrum. We stand in the middle, declaring, if challenged, that we are “not racist.”

But Kendi declares there is no middle ground. There is no such person as one who is “not racist.” There’s no fence to ride on. The bottom diagram reflects Kendi’s position. We are either racist or antiracist. We must choose.

The way we may think about racism.

Kendi’s way of thinking about racism.

Kendi defines a Racist: One who is supporting a racist policy through their actions or inaction or expressing a racist idea.

(Note that INACTION qualifies as racist!)

Kendi defines an Antiracist: One who is supporting an antiracist policy through their actions or expressing an antiracist idea.

The creation of equitable POLICIES and their enforcement are what create a landscape of equality. Through donations, calls to our representatives, voting, attending public hearings and holding officials accountable, we can move from the make-believe position of “not racist” to being antiracist.

The Denial of Death

Two major influences shaped our country: 1) Settlers forced indigenous people off their land and 2) Africans and other people of color were forced into slavery.

A subconscious mental trick is always necessary to justify the sins of conquerors. Those dispossessed have to be seen as worthless. Using labels such as apes, rats and cockroaches encourages people to see others as less than human and justification for “solutions” such as confinement, enslavement and extermination. Our nation was founded on white supremacy. Even a civil war and one hundred fifty years have not quelled the greed for dominance.

We are living in an era when systemic racism and inequality have become intolerable for the majority of Americans, while white supremacists see equality as a threat to their way of life. There are many irrational drivers of white supremacy, such as the belief in scarcity, but one driver never gets discussed. In various ways in our culture, we unknowingly express our fear of death. Existential concerns are part of white supremacy. The mental trick of which we are unaware goes something like this: If I win and you lose, I am powerful, too powerful to die.

Examples of existential fear are everywhere. (Sports) We experience huge emotional swings between our favorite team winning and losing. We can be miserable when a team loses. We can feel joy of being powerful when our team wins. (The risk taking, for which Americans are famous) If I take this risk and survive, I have escaped death. I’m invincible. (The militia) With my bullet-proof vest and a thousand rounds for my weapon, I’m safe. I will survive. (Refusal to wear a mask during COVID-19) The behavior is a symptom of the denial of death and/or risk taking. (Trumpism) “Men worship and fear power and so give their loyalty to those who dispense it.” Ernest Becker 1973. (Scapegoating.) We project our guilt, fear and self-hatred onto others. In doing so, we create evil.

The ballot box, and the sincere enforcement of new laws passed, will at least subdue the current level of white supremacy, but two tasks remain for us to do, both as individuals and a nation.

1. We must confront racism/white supremacy, even as individuals, when we see it. I love the incident told by Studs Terkel. It’s the 1960s, in the South, and black youth are sitting at a lunch counter as a peaceful civil rights protest (blacks were forbidden to sit at lunch counters). White hoodlums were burning the necks of the protesters with their cigarettes. An older white woman steps into the store to buy a spatula. She defends the young blacks by shaming the hoodlums. The violence stops. She creates a moment of equality.
2. We must practice dying. That’s Socrates talking, among countless others. We have to accept our impotence and vulnerability against death in order to throw off the “chains of uncritical, self-defeating dependency [on leaders] and discover new forms of courage and endurance.” Sam Keen 1973. There is much evidence that many Americans have not done the inner work necessary to reach maturity. We must address this deficit. 

White supremacy and inequality are evil. We have to make the connection between the denial of death and that evil. Nowhere can we find a rational reason for the dispossession of others.

Words Matter

Words are powerful. Words, some true, some false, have split our nation in half. Even one word can determine the fate of millions of people. The word “socialism” can keep millions of Americans from having life-saving health care that is a given in all other developed countries. A “hoax” has killed 360,000 in our country alone. A single word can kill.

I’ve been thinking about the words “the poor,” and wondering if those two words need replacements. I think so. A widely held opinion is that “the poor” are vulnerable because of their behaviors. Something they’ve done has made them poor. In general, that’s not true. I addressed this misconception months ago:

Author and journalist Maia Szalavitz asks, “Why do we think poor people are poor because of their own bad choices?” She describes a mental trick called “fundamental attribution error.” We tend to mistakenly blame the condition of poverty on the character of the poor while we attribute our own behaviors to circumstances. Because of our distance from the lives of the poor, we substitute blame for our ignorance about poverty in general and the circumstances of specific people.

I’ve also been thinking about the words “poverty is policy.” Wages have been static for over forty years and, recently, we’ve watched congress give huge tax breaks to billionaires while telling struggling Americans that $600 for nine months is enough to offset the crushing effects of the pandemic. Poverty is the result of policy. Policies make and keep low-wage people poor.

If “the poor” is not adequate communication, then what do we call people who are victims of crushing, systemic policies? A reference to the poor should point us toward a corrupt system wielded by out-of-touch, greedy, power-hungry people, not the poor themselves. The word exists:

dispossessed

The dispossessed are people who has been deprived of land, property, or other possessions. Synonyms for dispossessed include stripped of, cheated out of, and robbed. Frozen wages and tax policy have cheated the dispossessed. With evictions, bankruptcies and forfeiture of homes looming, other definitions apply as well: without property, status, etc., as wandering or displaced persons; rootless; disfranchised, having suffered the loss of expectations, prospects, relationships, etc.; disinherited; disaffiliated; alienated.

Only part of our job is done if we begin using “the dispossessed.” If we concentrate only on the dispossessed, we will not be looking at the people in business and government who make and keep others poor. We will not become critical of a system designed and maintained by the wealthy and powerful to help them become even more wealthy and powerful.

A Robber Baron is a person who has become rich through ruthless and unscrupulous business practices (originally with reference to prominent US businessmen in the late 19th century). Oxford’s example: “both political parties served the interests of the corporate robber barons.” In the era of the robber barons, inequality became unbearable (just like today). The Washington Post’s Michael Gerson (May 23, 2019) wrote an opinion piece titled These are the Golden Days of Sleaze. A sleaze, sleazeball, or sleazebag is a disreputable, disgusting, or despicable person in business or politics. Though available, I think the use of these terms won’t get us very far.

Going forward, I want to pepper my dialog with a robust list of reminders and solutions that we need to hear repeatedly: I am my brother’s keeper, there’s enough for everyone, all men are created equal, justice delayed is justice denied, taxation must be fair, all deserve living wages, black lives matter, love thy neighbor, etc. Of course, we have to supplement our words with action.

What can work is voting for candidates that run on a justice/equality platform that includes a refusal to take PAC money, candidates who have empathy, who have struggled, who have been shortchanged by the system. If “poverty is policy,” then we need politicians who will change policy, who will fight for every person, but especially the vulnerable, while not be beholden to SuperPACs.

This 1/3/21 tweet from brand new U.S. Representative Cori Bush: “I’ve survived sexual assault, police abuse, domestic violence, and being unhoused and uninsured. That’s not a unique pain I carry. It’s one that so many of us live with each day. Today, I take my seat in Congress to fight for a world where nobody has to endure that pain.”

Vote for “The Least of These”

Last time, I encouraged you to become a one-issue voter. You may recall that the list of single issues was not the usual hot buttons like gun control or judges. Expansive issues of truth, justice, the planet and democracy deserved our support. In keeping with the theme of poverty, I’m adding another issue worthy of our vote—“the least of these.”

Sometimes, our voting can be self-serving. A common example would be voting for the person we believe will keep our taxes low. Taxes have gotten such a bad reputation, it’s now difficult to imagine that tax dollars can do a great deal of good—fix roads, fund education, protect clean air and water, create jobs, provide health care, do research, etc. What is especially nice, however, is if our self-interest matches the welfare of everyone else. “Saving the planet” is good for us, but it’s also good for everyone. Of course, we can be selfless and vote for an issue that appears to be exclusively good for someone else.

I believe that government and its citizens should favor the vulnerable. Or, said another way, citizens should demand that their government provide a comprehensive safety net for the vulnerable as well as create viable opportunities for people to thrive.

Right now, the gap between rich and poor is huge. We’re being told that the wealth of three American billionaires equals the wealth of half the nation (164,000,000). Had the federal minimum wage kept pace with inflation, it would be $22 and not the current $7.25. Bernie Sanders has introduced $15 and hour into American consciousness, but the A.L.I.C.E. report suggests that that amount is half of what is needed for a family of four. On the positive side, two people working at $15 an hour can create a reasonable life for their family. Unfortunately, a single parent (36,000,000 homes) is severely limited in his/her ability to create a reasonable life while earning poverty wages. The wealth and wage gap are a source of motivation for us to transform America.

If you are religious, there is a moral imperative to be in solidarity with the poor and vulnerable. The Old Testament records the lamentations of prophets for the poor, sick, those in prison and the stranger. Their frustrations with the tone deaf rich and powerful are obvious. They understand God’s deep concern for the vulnerable but observe people around them having hearts of stone. Jesus affirms that same OT bias in his blueprint for a better society—”blessed are the poor…” While the separation of church and state was established by the founding fathers to block governmental control of religion, citizens practicing the world’s great religions can use their faith in politics. The test, however, is that the expression of their faith be less concerned about their own wealth and power and more about the common good, especially “the least of these.”

Christians (and practitioners of other faiths) can thoughtfully express their faith through politics. From a Christian perspective, Muriel Schmid, PhD, thinks so:

Was Jesus political? Can his life serve as an example for us today? If we understand politics as mere partisanship, we can probably assume that Jesus was not political. But the political system of first-century Palestine was of course very different from what we experience in our context, and it didn’t offer many opportunities for an active participation in the political life of the State at that time, certainly not for the people subjugated to the Roman military occupation.

Most of what we know about Jesus’ life would nonetheless indicate that he was deeply concerned by the politics of his time. He strongly critiqued tax collectors who were crushing the poor; he harangued the rich, asking them to share their wealth; he opposed all ruling classes, be it religious or military; he advocated for laws that protected the vulnerable; he called for a society who cared for the underprivileged and welcomed the stranger… How can we be a follower of Jesus without following his commitment for a just society? And he clearly tells us what it should look like! In light of Jesus’ message, faith is deeply political!

Excerpt from “I Believe in Politics!” by Muriel Schmid, PhD, justfaith.org

One Issue Voter

     I’ve never been a one-issue voter, but this year is different. In fact, there are four issues so broad and essential to democracy, any one of them will do. My short list:

     Truth – As of July 9, President Trump had told over 20,000 lies. In year one, he averaged four or five a day. As his tenure matured, he was telling well over a dozen a day. Presidents affect our lives and I’m interested to know the reasons why decisions are made. A lie suggests facts and a laudable rationale aren’t available. This year, I’ll vote for Truth.

     Justice – Justice happens when people receive what they deserve. Voter suppression is an injustice. Racial incarceration is unjust (1 in 3 black men will be incarcerated while 1 in 17 will of white men). Red lining housing is unjust. Racism is unjust. Healthcare that bankrupts families is unjust. Homelessness is unjust. Paying less than a living wage is unjust. Tax avoidance is unjust. Having ten percent of the population own ninety percent of the stock market is unjust. Our military expenditures dwarf the next five nations combined and rob people of economic dignity. This year, I’ll vote for Justice.

     The Planet – Global warming is an existential threat not being addressed by this administration. In fact, it continues to roll back one hundred guidelines on air and water quality, auto emissions, drilling, etc. An administration is supposed to protect us from existential threats. The window for action continues to shrink, making actions we take later more expensive and less impactful. As global citizens, we are in a race to save the planet that sustains us. This year, I’ll vote for Life.

     Democracy – The frequent use of “law and order” is a veiled dog whistle to domestic terrorists, racists and voters. It’s aimed at shutting down free speech and peaceful protest against racism through use of force. The “rule of law” is different. We live in a nation guided by laws. Laws are the organizing principle of our country. The opposite of that is being organized by violence encouraged or ordered by a dictator.

     Voter suppression, lies, Russian intervention in our elections and lawlessness are driving our nation toward a fascist, white supremacy state and away from democratic norms that give citizens a voice. The weaponizing of Twitter, Facebook and Fox News by Russia and the GOP has brought about a transition similar to that of early Nazi Germany. People who could have stopped Hitler from coming to power were too slow to act, never catching up mentally and emotionally to the stark reality right in front of them, never believing they would wake up to being under authoritarian rule. This year, I’ll vote for democracy.

     We’ve been fed a fake reality since 2015. The distortion of patriotism, religion and conservatism in politics has never been greater. They are unrecognizable to anyone awake. I’m deeply worried that people have been deceived and are unaware. We can’t be one issue voters unless we pick the overarching structures of truth, justice, the planet or democracy. Any of our traditional hot buttons won’t matter under fascism. Decisions will be made by one man who will justify them with lies or nothing at all.

Gandhi on Non-Violence

Last time, we talked about Gandhi’s transformation from misogyny to non-violence (love). Below are some of his thoughts on Ahimsa (non-violence).

Non-violence is the only true force in life.  …When the practice of non-violence becomes universal, God will reign on earth as He does in heaven.

Jesus lived and died in vain if He did not teach us to regulate the whole of life by the eternal law of love.  …I claim to be a passionate seeker after truth, which is but another name for God.

Man as animal is violent but as spirit is non-violent. The moment he awakes to the spirit within he cannot remain violent. (Gandhi calls spirit satyagraha, soul force) Even being physically weak or lame is not a handicap, and even a frail woman or a child can pit herself or himself on equal terms against a giant armed with the most powerful weapons.

The first principle of non-violent action is that of non-cooperation with everything humiliating.

Prayer is the first and the last lesson in learning the noble and brave art of sacrificing self in the various walks of life culminating in the defense of one’s nation’s liberty and honor.

Truth never damages a cause that is just.

Non-violence is not a cover for cowardice, but is the supreme virtue of the brave…Cowardice is wholly inconsistent with non-violence…There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent.

Strength comes from God…Never have I attributed any independent strength to myself. Inaction…is rank cowardice and unmanly. It must be shunned at all cost.

Sabotage is a form of violence.

We have to organize for action a vast people that have been crushed under the heel of unspeakable tyranny for centuries. They cannot be organized by other than open, truthful means.

Fear of the foreigner is what gives rise to hatred. Fear gone, there can be no hatred. 

If we cease to be inferiors, [others] cannot be our superior.

Self-respect and honor cannot be protected by others. They are for each individual himself or herself to guard.

It is the law of love that rules mankind. Had violence, i.e., hate ruled us, we should have become extinct long ago.

My notion of democracy is that under it the weakest should have the same opportunity as the strongest. This can never happen except through non-violence…Western democracy, as it functions today, is diluted Nazism or fascism.

You cannot build non-violence on a factory civilization.

Morality is contraband in war.

Human dignity is best preserved not by developing the capacity to deal destruction but by refusing to retaliate.

Just as one must learn the art of killing in the training for violence, so one must learn the art of dying in the training for non-violence…The positively necessary training for a non-violent army is an immovable faith in God.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Quotes are from Gandhi on Non-Violence by Thomas Merton, © 1965 New Directions Publishing Corporation, New York, NY.

Top photo – Nathan Howard, freelance photographer of Portland, July 4^th BLM protest, Willamette Week.
Bottom photo – BLM protest, Bangor Daily News

Non-Violence

The lineage of non-violent protest can be traced from John Lewis to Martin Luther King Jr., to Gandhi and Jesus. Though a Hindu, Gandhi developed, at least in part, his stance on non-violence by studying the life of Jesus and the New Testament. Gandhi on Non-Violence by Thomas Merton summarizes Gandhi’s two-volume work, Non-Violence in Peace and War.

Like Jesus and the poor of his era, Gandhi identified himself fully with the Indian people, the starving masses and especially the “untouchables.” For him the public realm was not secular, it was sacred. His interior life was not private. His spiritual life spilled into public life and, in the end, influenced the entire world. “A society whose politics are habitually violent, inarticulate, and unreasonable is a subpolitical and therefore subhuman society.” [Thomas Merton, 8] Recently, the troops sent to dominate protestors in Portland were violent and completely inarticulate. They held no signs or made speeches. They even hid their identity. They held no higher moral ground. They simply beat and gassed citizens. None of their actions helped to make a more perfect union.

If we spend some quiet time thinking about what we saw in Portland, we can conclude that protesters proved their point. Police brutality is widespread, especially against people of color. “The first job of an activist is to bring the real situation to light even if he has to suffer and die in order that injustice be unmasked and appear for what it really is.” [Merton, 10] The protesters were protesting police brutality only to be gassed and beaten as the targets of police/troop brutality. Point clearly made.

Recall the “Umbrella Man” with a hammer and skids of bricks dropped off on street corners. Non-violent protesters give no cause for police or troops to act violently, Umbrella Man had a hammer and smashed windows as he walked. Someone provided bricks to throw. These actors were against peaceful protest, their destruction providing an excuse for police violence. Were the protesters violent or was it “law enforcement?” The headlines summarized the truth—Troops withdraw. Peaceful protests resume.

Protesters must realize that to destroy an oppressor is merely to initiate a new cycle of violence and oppression. Violence isn’t transformational. “The only real liberation is that which liberates both the oppressor and the oppressed.” [Merton, 14] “The only true way to “overcome” an enemy is to help him become other than an enemy.” [Merton, 15]

A barrier to non-violence is the reality of nuclear and automatic weapons. We have come to accept this reality as irreversible (It is reversible!) and our stance implies that we are no longer sane. In order to become an activist, one must “…return to his or her ‘right mind’ in order that society itself may be sane.” [Merton, 16] Peace isn’t possible unless individuals return to their right minds from oppression, denial, hate, naiveté or violence.

Non-violence must be practiced from an orientation of love and humility. Without love, forgiveness and graciousness are impossible. Without humility, we will become hypocritical, ignoring our own sins and weaknesses while taking issue with the sins and weaknesses of the “enemy.” Loving and humble individuals can transform society. “(Non-violence) It is a way of transforming relationships so as to bring about a peaceful transfer of power, effected freely and without compulsion by all concerned, because all have come to recognize it as right.” [Merton, 23]

A biography of Gandhi (1869-1948) brought further understanding for me about his life journey. He embraced the patriarchal system in which men held the power almost exclusively. In his early adult life, he was opinionated, judgmental and cruel, especially toward his wife. He must have been really hard to live with. Reading between the lines, my best guess is that his wife always responded with her “right mind,” choosing peace, unity and love over marital spats. Her responses showed him an alternative way to be. His own transformation taught him what was possible with the human spirit and how the love displayed by Jesus and his wife could heal and free individuals and their society.

Next time we’ll talk about what Gandhi actually said.

The Veil of Ignorance

How NOT KNOWING is the solution to true equality…

Can you recall the iconic drawing of our forefathers drafting the Constitution? I recently saw one version with red dots covering the faces of slave owners. There were very few faces left uncovered. Twelve years after its founding, slaves arrived in Jamestown in 1619. Their arrival initiated two and a half centuries of slavery in what would become the United States. We mustn’t forget the subjugation of Native Americans, as well, who were cheated, driven from their land and died from diseases for which they had no immunity.

This from Jim Wallis’ book on racism titled America’s Original Sin: “The most controversial sentence I ever wrote was…. ‘The United States of America was established as a white society, founded upon the near genocide of another race and then the enslavement of yet another.’” [p. 33] Wallis knows that talking about oppression goes against our strongly held, but biased narrative about the founding of our country, but we may finally be waking up to the fact that black lives matter. All people of color matter.

We have been groomed to believe that all men are created equal, but reality says otherwise. Women, the LGBTQ community, people of color and those with disabilities experience humiliation, inconvenience, hatred, poor health, oppression and death because of “the system.” The white men gathered in Independence Hall looked at each other and agreed that they should have equal treatment under the law. The gathering was exclusive and fatally biased, and we are still living with the imbalance/injustice that wreak havoc on millions of American lives. Those drafting the Constitution agreed to a social contract, but the agreement didn’t ensure that it was fair for everyone. The founders were in a superior bargaining position and wrote the rules for themselves (women and slaves be damned). What about the present? What is the current health of our nation? “White supremacy is the pre-existing condition of our nation.” [Chuck Collins, inequality.org]

The most inspiring concept on equality that I’ve ever come across is the “veil of ignorance” offered by political philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002). Rawls offers that all members of society must be equal and present (not weak, not missing) when creating the blueprint for a more perfect union.

What is the “veil of ignorance?”

This from Michael J. Sandel’s book, Justice: “Suppose that when we gather to choose the principles [of society], we don’t know where we will wind up in society. Imagine that we choose behind a “veil of ignorance” that temporarily prevents us from knowing anything about who in particular we are. We don’t know our class or gender, our race or ethnicity, our political opinions or religious convictions. Nor do we know our advantages and disadvantages—whether we are healthy or frail, highly educated or a high-school dropout, born to a supportive family or a broken one.” [p. 141] The situation Rawls describes is the opposite of what took place in Independence Hall.

Rawls suggests that imagining you might walk from behind the veil of ignorance only to discover that you are homeless or have a disability, possibly both, would create a contract that supported the weakest in society. Such a bias would be more just compared to a bias that supports the rich and powerful. The homeless need financial support as do those with disabilities.

If there is going to be economic inequality, those inequalities are permitted that work to the benefit of the least advantaged members of society, not the wealthy. We can easily see if our society is relatively just by asking one question. Is there an economic imbalance weighted toward the least advantaged (color, gender, stable housing, medical and psychiatric care, etc.)? Hardly. The system is indeed rigged by the wealthy and powerful for themselves.

There are many tools government can use to encourage more social and economic equality but the “I’ll cut your taxes if you donate huge sums to my campaign” is not one of them.

If we want to build a more just society, we must use our imagination. Imagine you are black. Imagine you are homeless. Imagine you have serious mental and/or medical issues. If we come from a perspective of vulnerability, we have a chance of creating a just society.