Differing Views

[I wrote this as a possible Sunday column, responding to a couple of recent columns by Neal Hooks, but then had an alternative column I wanted to run that Sunday, and see a long line of hot local issues for the next few Sunday columns, so it's a blog post:]

Mr. Hooks illustrates the problems one faces when one's commitment to a particular ideology or religion requires one to approach every new issue or thought by asking "How can I turn this into evidence to support my existing view" rather than "What is this and what can I learn from it?"

My own approach is more of the latter.  Every new thought or thing I try to see for itself, examine whether it's beautiful or true or dangerous or can teach me something.  (Or all four)  I have no bothersome need to make it fit the tenets of Communism, Christianity, Islam, or Capitalism.  Sure, its source may give it a slight advantage or disadvantage in convincing me of its truth, but that's not conclusive, not "Marx said that so it's wrong [or right]" or even "Romney said that, so it's wrong."  (In fact, Romney was said to have one of the top 1% among NCAA basketball bracket predictions this spring.)

Mr. Hooks is a Capitalist and pro-business, so he must prove to us that Jesus was a Capitalist, when the best evidence suggests no such thing.

Similarly, Mr. Hooks is a Christian who believes that being gay is unnatural and that acting on one's gayness is a sinful choice of lifestyle.

Therefore he must justify the notorious law passed recently in Indiana, allowing businesses to refuse services to folks whose nature or conduct transgresses against the business owner's religion.

He tries to do that with a false distinction: he says that a pizza business should of course serve you, even if you happen to be gay, but that the bakery next door can refuse to sell you a wedding cake if you happen to be gay and getting married.

He writes, _________

But in fact the bakery is discriminating against you precisely because of  your gayness, not your conduct.  Your conduct is procuring a valid marriage license and marrying your lover.  It's the same basic conduct my wife and I engaged in, as did Mr. and Mrs. Bush, Mr. and Mrs. Hooks, and more than a few others.

That conduct cannot be the true objection.  That conduct is socially-encouraged.  The difficulty is who is engaging in that conduct.  Black marrying a white? Sinful and illegal until the mid-1960's, in many states.  Man marrying a man?  Illegal until this decade, in many states, and sinful in the eyes of Mr. Hooks and others.

Mr. Hooks ought to be honest with himself on this.  That might enable him either to understand some things he doesn't yet understand -- or to come up with more convincing and less specious arguments for his point-of-view, if there are any.

Further, Mr. Hooks's religion is not the difficulty.  The difficulty is Mr. Hooks's taste, for lack of a better word, or his openness to new ideas.  His society abhors, or has traditionally abhorred, love between woman-and-woman or between man-and-man.  Therefore he interprets Christ as ardently anti-gay, although the limited evidence suggests otherwise.

As with Capitalism, because Mr. Hooks favors it he must find that Jesus would be an ardent capitalist.   Again, the evidence tends to suggest otherwise; and many others, including the Catholic liberation theologists and others, love Jesus and read him completely differently, as favoring the poor.

Jesus was a poor man who cared deeply about the poor.  He said something like  "Inasmuch as you have done this to the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me" and that the rich man's chance of reaching Heaven would be like the odds on getting a camel through the eye of a needle.  He was clearly very concerned that people not ignore poverty.  Mr. Hooks slips in another false distinction: he suggests that although Jesus would not appreciate a man who abused the poor or acted in ways to harm them or keep them in poverty, Jesus would have no objection to men doing so as a nation or a city.  I disagree.  As I read him, Jesus saw through forms to the true essence of men's (and women's) conduct.  That doing something bad -- exploiting the poor, torturing people you disagreed with, kicking dogs -- would be sinful if done by a human but permissible if done by a municipality is some sort of lawyer's argument, but not something a caring and passionate teacher like Jesus would have articulated.

Mr. Hooks also suggests that although Jesus wished to help the poor, he'd have been an ardent supporter of businessmen's freedom of choice to hurt the poor if that proved profitable.  I'm not so sure. 

At any rate, I'm sure Neal and I will have an opportunity to bore everyone to death on radio some time, each passionately articulating a point of view without much chance to persuade each other of much.
                                          

"Speak Up, Las Cruces!" - What We Hope to Do

“Speak Up, Las Cruces!”

For two weeks now I’ve been saying that a lot, mostly during the hours of 8-10 a.m., Monday through Friday.

Keith Whelpley and I co-host a daily two-hour radio show called “Speak Up, Las Cruces!” on KOBE 1450. We first aired on Labor Day.

We took it on in the perhaps foolish hope that it could become a useful tool in the community’s ongoing dialogue with itself.

We discovered that we share certain assumptions: first, that we live in a community.  That community members can and will disagree, sometimes vigorously, without necessarily leaving – or tossing someone else out of – the community.  That communities, both in elections and otherwise, make decisions that affect the lives of their members; that decisions are better made when a community has the fairest, and most complete information; and that this sort of information is often best found, or developed, in frank but reasonably courteous discussion and debate.

While there will be shows in which Keith and I tallk with each other and our listeners who call in, we frequently bring in guests.  With a controversial issue like the gross receipts tax hike, the funding freeze on mental health providers, and same-sex marriage, we bring in knowledgeable people who disagree.  Aside from specific issues, we’re inviting community members we disagree with to spend time with us, if they’re willing, and let the listeners figure out what it all means, if anything.  (Among those count Neal Hooks, Tea Party representatives, and Steve Pearce.)

Wednesday we discussed same-sex marriage with: the newly famous Lynn Ellins, our County Clerk; Republican State Sen. Bill Sharer, the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit against Ellins; Neal Hooks, a Sun-News Op-Ed Columnist who disagrees with Ellins as strongly as Sen. Sharer; and Carrie Hamblen, who’s the President of PFLAG Las Cruces and one-half of a newly-married couple.  Callers were free to question anyone, or comment.

Earlier that day, we had an hour-long, reflective conversation with the new Bishop, Oscar Cantú.  We wanted to introduce listeners to a prominent member of the community whom many, particularly non-Catholics, haven’t met.  (I’m far from being a Catholic, but thoroughly enjoyed the conversation and tend to think Bishop Cantú is a pretty good guy.)

Our vision, if I may over-dignify our hopes with that word, is that through honest and sometimes bold reportage, but with courtesy and respect toward guests, we can examine facts or situations – or bring together others who’ll do so – in a way that’s useful for all of us.

That’s a challenge.  We also want to have fun doing it and make it fun for our listeners.  We’ll do that through occasional flippancy and irreverence, a lot of goofy news items when we’re without guests, and an openness to all sorts of guests and all sorts of subjects.  We’ll have the mayor and senators on, but also a number of people who are lot less well known but just plain interesting.  The college basketball coach who went to Ireland to coach, so as to learn Irish fiddling, and ended up a writer, teaching at NMSU.  The guy who felt like making rainbows, and did, and now gets flown around to foreign countries to make rainbows.  A former Hollywood stunt man who as a youth gained a wealth of knowledge from the Mescaleros, is now developing an interesting breed of horse, and has also recently put out a book that isn’t really about any of those subjects.

Tuesday after a spirited discussion of the gross receipts tax with City Manager Robert Garza and City Councilor Miguel Silva, we talked with three members of Crossroads City Roller Derby.  Who would have supposed that a conversation about roller-blading would lead us into frank talk about how their sport had helped each of them in some profound way in their careers, including helping one of the three guests recover from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder after eight years in the military?

If you’ve tune in, you know that our two weeks on radio have featured a comical series of mistakes (by me) and misfortunes in the technical end of what we’re doing.  Like most things, hosting a radio show takes a little more than outsiders might imagine.  The variety of things that can go wrong (including forgetting to put on headphones and then construing the silence as being off the air – or forgetting to turn off everyone’s mikes the moment a commercial starts and everyone mistakenly thinks s/he’s off-air and might say anything.)

But it’s fun.  Keith and I are both curious.  We’re also experienced reporters. Sometimes we feel like a couple of curious kids just given free reio their town and ask folks all sorts of things, serious and silly.

And there are light moments. Wednesday when I invited Keith to read the list of our sponsors, I led into it by asking him to “remind us who brings us here” – and instantly realized that when you use a phrase like that around the bishop, it’s capable of meaning someone other than your sponsors.  He’d had the same thought, and we kidded about it with the bishop.

But then, what do I know about who brought us there?

What started in hopes we could contribute to our community also turns out to be enough fun that we’ll keep letting it turn out lives upside-down for awhile, and see where it leads.
                           -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News today, Sunday, September 15.

We really are interested in suggestions, criticisms, and what-not that could help us improve the show.  We have a Facebook page (if you're on Facebook, please search "Speak Up, Las Cruces" and "Friend" us or "like" us or post a comment) and even an email account at KOBE (send to peter and/or to keith  at  @bravomic.com).

The Sun-News headlined the column "More than a Radio Show."  That bothered me, although I had to admit maybe that was what I was saying.  But I wasn't, exactly.  What I hope I said was that we hope it'll be a damn good radio show -- and, yes, more than a radio show.  A community water well where folks from all walks of life stop to drink, and gab.  A chance for each of us to connect with a whole lot of interesting folks with whom we share this valley but whom he don't know at all.  

But I'm selfish, too.  I'm curious, one of those guys who's always watching everything, overhearing everything, wondering how folks got the way they are and where they dream of going from here, and how the world looks to 'em.  I'm a curious guy, and journalism has often served as a way to satisfy curiosity without being impolite.  It gives me a socially acceptable reason to ask all sorts of folks all sorts of things.

Just walking through the market yesterday talked to half a dozen potential guests.  A fellow named Jerry whose mission is helping veterans with PTSD fit back in to our community.  An artist whose work we thoroughly enjoy, who stressed when I asked him about being on radio that God was a big part of what he does, and that if he came on the show that's something he'd be wanting to talk about -- that helping spread the Word would be why he'd come on.  I urged him to think about it, and he gently corrected me:  "I'll pray about it, he said."

I don't happen to share his religious views, or those of our delightful guest last Wednesday, Bishop Cantú; but I've noticed, in working sporadically on a documentary about folks who produce healthy food and sell it at the market here, that God is a major part of what they're doing and why they're doing it.  I find that interesting.

Rush Limbaugh (aside from wanting to promote Rush Limbaugh) has a set of positions he wants to convince you to take.
Well, I have some views too; but I also find a whole lot in the world that fills me with wonder, or sparks my curiosity, and so I want to check things out -- and, by doing so on radio, invite you to check 'em out with me, and share your thoughts by calling in.  
It's tough not to sit at home mornings with the hummingbirds and the beautiful morning light, rather than in a studio so small Lynn Ellins announced he had bigger closets; it's tough to be somewhere by 8 a.m. with some semblance of brains turned on; it's tough to crash early night after night; but the show is fun.  And I'm learning a new trade.]

Opponents of Marriage Equality Seek Governmental Support for Intolerance

A local columnist recently promised “straight talk about gay marriage,” but instead wandered around in crooked circles.

He made the usual arguments against equality of marriage: he thinks his God doesn’t approve, it wasn’t done in the past, and it’s bad.

But our Constitution and traditions forbid basing governmental decisions on  religious belief.

Further, we don’t know how Jesus viewed gay love.  We do know He preached love and tolerance.   The four “official” gospels do not report Jesus discussing homosexuality. In certain gospels, though not those the Catholic Church chose to include in “the Bible,” Jesus not only approves of it but is said to lie with another man on at least one occasion.

The columnist, Neal Hooks, argues that gay marriage wasn’t traditionally permitted.

Mostly it wasn’t; but past conduct can be a treacherous guide to what’s right.  We enslaved people, sometimes honestly believing they were inferior.  We put married women’s property in their husbands hands.  We branded adulteresses with scarlet letters.

It’s also not quite accurate that marriage has always been between one man and one woman, with no dispute on that point in recorded history.  The 19th Century Mormons were pretty much at war with the United States over conflicting definitions of marriage.  In parts of Tibet where women were scarce, a woman could marry two brothers.   The Roman emperor Nero is said to have married men – twice.

Currently, thirteen countries have legalized same-sex marriage.

We learn as we develop, and develop as we learn, both as individuals and as a society.  We are learning that a non-negligible proportion of the population is naturally disposed toward homosexuality.  We are learning that gay unions can include love, and that a loving same-sex couple can nurture and raise wonderful children.  We are learning that what may seem “natural” to some need not define that word for science or society.

It’s true that during the 1960's we in the Movement did not speak up for gay rights.  Most of us were not even aware that some friends and comrades were gay, or of the angst our ignorance caused them.  I regret that, just as folks today who call same-sex relationships “unnatural” or “immoral” may someday regret hurting kids they know who are secretly gay.  A new book, Does Jesus Really Love Me? chronicles the author’s heartbreaking experience growing up gay in a fundamentalist family that viewed him as “lost.”

Why is gay marriage “immoral”?  Because opponents don’t like it?  Because their churches don’t?   No one faith defines morality for all of us; and laws change as our society grows.

There are numerous religions in the world.  In some countries it is illegal and immoral for a person to practice Judaism, or for a woman to walk with her face uncovered or speak to a man to whom she is not closely related.  Few of us would assume that because religion dictates those rules they are right.

At one point, after appearing to use evolution to prop up his argument, Mr. Hooks adds, “Not that I believe in evolution.”

That’s a curious view.  Your religion is something you believe in.  As others believe in theirs.  Even without objective evidence, you have faith.  That’s part of the beauty of religion.

Abundant evidence supports evolution.

Of course, the world’s best scientific minds could be wrong.  As retired NMSU professor Bud Wanzer once remarked, if our civilization died out and some future civilization’s archeologists studied it, they’d conclude that human beings got smaller between 1948 and 1978.   Otherwise why would our cars have gotten so much smaller?

Still, until someone presents a better explanation of the available facts –something more than “It must be wrong because it contradicts sacred texts” -- evolution looks like the smart bet.

As to the claim that studies show that among homosexuals there are more STDs, obesity, domestic violence, mental illness, depression, and suicide, some of that might be true.  Much of it seems highly dubious.  With regard to mental illness, depression, and suicide, mightn’t those trends be driven by precisely this attitude that being gay is abnormal, sinful, shameful, and dangerous?  As to obesity, let’s not look at people’s sex lives but at McDonald’s, Coke and Pepsi, and the strangle-hold Monsanto has on politicians in both parties.

The reassurance that “no one is taking away homosexuals’ rights to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes” falls a bit flat.   Quite recently, gays had no such rights.  A decision penned by Justice Kennedy, who’s still on the Court, told Texas it couldn’t jail folks for gay sex.  That was in 2003.   Folks argued against that decision in much the same words, that it was “immoral” and God didn’t approve.

  Hooks closes by claiming his opinions are based on practicalities and on “faithfulness to God . . . we are all sinners.  The only difference is I am not asking the government to justify mine.”  I’m not sure what his sins are, but if they include adultery or the consumption of alcohol, or even certain sexual practices with a consenting heterosexual spouse, they are sins our government, based in part on people’s religions, has considered criminal.

From the perspective of my religion, which preaches love and tolerance, the folks opposing marriage equality are doing just what Mr. Hooks denies doing: they are asking the government to justify their intolerance by continuing to forbid gay couples to marry.

-30-
[The column above appeared this morning, Sunday, April 28, in the Las Cruces Sun-New.  For those who did not see the op-ed column cited in mine, go to Sun-News blog and search Neal Hooks.  I believe it was published April 12th. ]