Integrity Can Be Exhausting

The textbook actually uses gay marriage as the sample issue for discussion in the \”Definition\” chapter.  So every time I teach English 1020, this topic comes up.  One of the decisions I have to make is when to tell my class that I\’m gay.  Some of them are astute enough to have already figured it out, but those students are surprisingly rare.  Some of them are unlucky enough to have already made a homophobic remark before I tell them.  Most of them take it with a certain amount of equanimity.  But all of them look at me.    Without fail.  I get every pair of eyes in the room drilling right into me as if they\’ve never seen me before.

Except for Sylvia.

Sylvia was one of those who opened her mouth before I got a chance to.  She made a few terse comments through tight, angry lips about \”those people\” and how they were going to hell, how marriage ought to be defined by the bible \”the way it\’s always been.\”

I was quite taken aback for a few minutes.  Not because of what Sylvia said, but because she was the one who had said it.  Until that moment, I would have pegged Sylvia as the other gay person in the room.  Of course, this phenomenon doesn\’t come as a surprise to most gay people.  If falls into the catagory of \”methinks the lady doth protest too much.\”  But that still doesn\’t make it any easier to watch someone engage in what seems on a deeply intuitive level to be self-loathing.

I thought she might soften her position, as students often do, once she found out I was gay.  But, she didn\’t.  Not one bit.  In fact, I think she became even more entrenched in it.   The second I said I was gay, however, she looked away from me.  And I never caught her eye again the entire evening.

I did my song and dance for the next 45 minutes.  I usually keep this discussion as far away from the bible as I can since marriage is and always has been a civil issue in this nation.   But, I admit, Sylvia sucked me in just a little.  I tried to address some of her biblically-based statements with some gentle correction.  I tried to point out that if we went back to a definition of marriage as found in the bible, then men would have several wives and hundreds of concubines.    Of course, that was probably a waste of breath.  I carry no delusion that I can persuade someone like Sylvia into doing a 180 on an issue like this.

I ended with the final argument I could make.  I told the class that I had no intention of changing their minds and certainly not their belief systems.  But, I did ask them to remember one thing — these were people we were talking about.   These were sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, and, yes, mothers and fathers.  This was not some amorphous \”them.\”  This was the human experience, every bit as much as theirs was.

I dismissed the class.  Sylvia walked out without a comment and still not looking at me.

Some classes are easy and some are . . . less so.  This one made me feel like I\’d been hit by a truck.   I will not pretend to be something I\’m not.  I haven\’t done that since my freshman year at a religious college.   But, I have to admit, there are times when it is tempting.

Every time I teach this class, I think that maybe there is one person who really needs to hear this.  Maybe something I say will give validity to someone who feels very alone or help someone heal a relationship or at least make someone think.   On nights like this, I come home feeling like there might be a chance I\’ve done some really important work.

And, I admit, I come home exhausted.

Which One Is The Elephant?

Lately there has been a debate going on in the media over who is the “de facto” leader of the Republican party.  The two people in the running are Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele, the newly elected chairman of the Republican National Committee.   Talking heads and various other people in the know are spinning this back and forth and up and down, but I have yet to hear any of them ask the really pertinent question.

If Rush Limbaugh is even in the running, if this is enough of a contest to demand debate, if there is even the slightest possibility that he could be the guy . . . then doesn’t that tell us all we need to know about today’s Republican Party? 

In the same way that John McCain tried to walk a tightrope during his campaign by kowtowing to the ignorance that often found its way to a microphone at his town hall meetings, the Republican power brokers have to allow Limbaugh to run amok because shedding the light of truth on his ridiculous ranting would cost them a huge chunk of their base.    Michael Steele attempted it a few days ago, and today I saw the announcement that he is apologizing.   The head of the Republican Party apologized to Rush Limbaugh for calling him an “entertainer” and his talk show “incendiary.”   What’s next?  Are the Republicans going to hold a press conference to announce that the earth is flat?  The election made it clear that the Republicans are out of touch with reality.  This latest Limbaugh flap screams it from the rooftops.

Politics makes strange bedfellows, and the Republicans have chosen intercourse with Rush Limbaugh (which is a picture that should make ANYONE a Democrat).  I’m just afraid the baby they make out of that liaison will be a teeny-tiny, itsy-bitsy Republican Party.

Four Score and Seven Years . . . From Now

The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual.… Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man?

                                               — Henry David Thoreau

You can blame my college history professor for this post.  During a lecture years ago he let slip an aside that I’m not sure anyone else in the class caught.  He said, “In America, in 50 years — assuming of course that there IS an America in 50 years — we will . . . ” and the rest of it doesn’t matter.  I stopped listening at that point, shocked into a mental paralysis by the previously unconsidered possibility that landthatilove might someday cease to exist.   Over the years, I have come to see the statement as not  just a possibility, but a probability.

I have a core belief in evolution.  Not just the Darwinian variety, though I give it all the proper credit due a proven scientific theory.   I believe in a more blanket kind of evolution, as in — Everything Evolves.  Species and systems.  Plants and people.  Conch shells and countries.  Gorillas and governments.   If it exists on this planet (or on any other planet, for that matter) than it is subject to evolution.  Quite simply, the first of the 10 Commandments in the Church of Deb is “Change or Die.”

I have tried to explore this idea with my students, with not much success, I’m afraid.  They seem absolutely convinced that Democracy, Capitolism, Nationalism, Patriotism, and every other ideology associated with being a good Amurican have existed since before the dinosaurs and will outlive even the planet we seem hellbent on destroying.  When I try to suggest that perhaps extreme forms of patriotism run the risk of becoming “borderism,” a specific brand of prejudice based solely on geographic boundaries, they slit their eyes and look at me suspiciously.  It would not shock me at all if one of them shot back with, “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?”

When I went so far as to ask them for a short paper answering the question Thoreau poses in the above quote, I received some of the poorest essays of my teaching career.  They simply couldn’t wrap their minds around a post-Democratic world.   And that saddened me.  We will not evolve until a generation is capable of envisioning the next level.

To be honest, I don’t have the answer either, but I do have a few ideas.  I believe a future stage of group evolution will have to include a de-emphasizing of national differences, a form of free-market capitolism that puts money into its proper place (pretty low) on the priority list, and an understanding that win-lose simply doesn’t exist.   True evolution will involve an understanding that all boats rise or fall together and that military defense is immensely less important than developing a sort of world consciousness, a kind of extrasensory understanding of what most efficaciously serves everyone.

Our experiment with this democratic republic has been a glorious and admirable endeavor.  I value living in a nation that has been the leader in so many ways in evolving our governmental consciousness worldwide.   But as much as I appreciate our brilliant founders, not attempting to improve on their work would be akin to driving Model T Fords for the last 100 years.

Perhaps the next time I ask a class Thoreau’s question, I should have them meditate on the words of another great American before beginning to write:

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
— John Lennon

The Paper Washed in the Blood of My Handy Red Pen

We would rather be ruined than changed,

We would rather die in our dread

Than climb the cross of the moment

And let our illusions die.

                        — W.H. Auden

I graded a paper tonight written by a self-proclaimed Christian student whose essay declared her fear about Barack Obama’s presidency.  Apparently, the main reason he frightens her is because he wants to bring peace to Palestine and Israel.   I had to wonder — do Christians no longer believe in peace?  Has peace become something that we should be afraid of?

This student’s paper went on to berate and belittle “those people” (Muslims) and explains how “we Americans” are right not to trust them.  She also perpetuated the lie, which I thought was long ago put to rest, that Barack Obama is a Muslim.  President Obama has declared his Christian faith about 200 times more than he should have needed to.  Is it now Christian to call someone a liar?  More importantly, have we crossed a de facto line into having a religious litmus test for holding public office?

I had to fight the urge to write in huge red letters on the last page “This paper is racist drivel and right-wing propaganda!”   But, my professorial authority stops just shy of ad hominem attacks.   Instead I simply pointed out the flawed premises upon which she had based her argument and then used all kinds of big words to explain her small grade.

My response to her paper, however,  did not remain completely limited to a critique of her style, tone, and mechanics.  I pointed out that I had been an American long before she was, and she certainly did not speak for me when she used such generalizations as “we Americans.”  Nor did I believe she was accurately representing the approximate 7,000,000 Muslim Americans who had an equal claim to the title of Citizen.

I recount this here especially for those of you who do not live in the general vicinity of Red Jesusland from whence I hail.  You might find it alarming and even mildly shocking to discover that this way of thinking is not only present, but bountiful here in the South.

When did ignorance become a tenet of faith?  When did “us versus them” become the standard for those who supposedly follow the dude who ate and talked with “them” every chance he got?  When did a religion of love become so dependent on having a group to demonize?  (And I know this is true, because I’m a member of one of those groups.)

I was raised in Christianity, but left it years ago.   Now I realize that’s not altogether true.  It did quite a bit of leaving too.