Understanding Why Folks Kill Each Other

 I’ve long believed that increasing the sentence for homicide can’t cut the murder rate because 90% of people who kill do so when they’re too damned angry, jealous, scared, drunk, or high to think straight. Acting under irresistible impulse, they ain’t stopping to think. Or can’t.

The book, Unforgiving Places, by Jens Ludwig, makes this point vividly. Our legislators and those who yammer at them about crime should read it, or at least Malcolm Gladwell’s New Yorker piece on it, as should law enforcement officials.

The book recounts as an example a 2023 murder. A woman, leaving her teen aged son in the car, goes into a cheap fast-food place and places her order. This big guy behinds her keeps telling her to hurry up. He warns that if she says another word he’ll punch her. She says something to her son, who’s now in the doorway behind the guy. The guy slugs her. Twice. Her shocked 14-year-old son shoots the man, then chases him outside and kills him.

The big guy knew (and assumed she knew) that, in order to move fast, that place didn’t take special orders. Hers was one. So he thought she was selfishly holding everyone up, and then disrespecting him for calling her on it. She thought he was just a jerk. Her son, seeing Mom get punched, wasn’t calculating the penalty for murder.

We each have two ways of thinking.

Criminologists distinguish between instrumental violence (shooting a bank guard to facilitate a robbery) and expressive violence (expressing my rage or jealousy with fists or pistol). Almost all murders are expressive, so laws designed to minimize instrumental murders won’t much change the overall murder rate.

Cops must know this; but criminal laws are written as if that guy in the fast-food joint is as rational as Warren Buffett analyzing all the facts and deciding rationally whether or not to buy a failing business. No. Mostly, people do things on impulses, out of anger or jealousy or because a sudden unexpected opportunity arises to steal some stuff or break things. Consider the recent fatal shootings in Young Park. No one was laying for anyone. No one gained anything. Just happened.

A Chicago program called Becoming a Man teaches teenagers how to handle potentially volatile encounters. In a large randomized trial, Ludwig found that at-risk students who had participated in BAM got arrested for violent crimes 50% less than their peers who hadn’t taken the course. San Francisco’s RSVP program similarly reduced recidivism in violence-prone prisoners, and Boston’s “Operation Ceasefire” (aka the Boston Miracle) achieved a 63% reduction in youth homicides within two years.

Our governor and legislators should contemplate that. It makes perfect sense, too. Sudden moments of anger or fear are tough. Some folks’ lives make those way tougher. If you can get their ears, and enhance both their ability and their motivation to forego violence, some of them will succeed in that when pushed.

Here’s another fact: in dangerous Philadelphia neighborhoods, a group beautifies vacant lots, clearing weeds, planting a lawn, removing trash. Where nothing else has changed, gun violence crime is down 29%.

Our city is actually doing some good things; but there likely are more good ideas in play out there. It’d help for lawmakers to recognize that most of the “criminals” aren’t our “enemies.” They’re us: fellow humans whose road to a calm adulthood was blocked or twisted more than ours was.

                                           – 30 –

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 8 June, 2025, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and on the newspaper’s webiste and the KRWG website (under Local Viewpoints). A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). That website also contains station archives.]

[ The most-recent New Yorker issue has Malcolm Gladwell’s discussion of these matters and Ludwig’s book. I’m a long-time admirer of Gladwell, since reading the New Yorker piece he later expanded to the really interesting book, Blink. I still recommend it. ]

[ One BAM exercise divides young men into pairs. In each, one holds a big ball. The other is told he has 30 seconds to get the ball from the other. Each man struggles to hit the ball or pry the other man’s fingers loose. Afterward, the host asks why no one tried just asking if he could have the ball. The general answer was, “well, he’d think I was a [wimp].” The guy holding the ball, asked what he’d do if asked for the ball, said, “I’d give it to him. It’s just a stupid ball.” ]

This Big, Ugly Bill Has Both Obvious and Hidden Dangers for the U.S.

I’m no financial guy.

But isn’t this insane?

Mr. Trump and his cult are determined to pass a bill that will cost us $3.8 trillion plus interest over the next decade, per the Joint Committee on Taxation.) Moody’s Ratings just downgraded our credit. That’ll likely increase the interest rates we pay. We already pay $1.13 trillion per year interest on that national debt – compared with $997 billion on military (plus $304 billion for veterans), $70 billion on highways, and $ 1.72 trillion on people’s health.

The bill will also cut into most every non-military thing our government does: imprison criminals; help folks get necessary medical treatments; help improve the quality of education; foster scientific research that could help treat cancer, improve our air and water, develop innovations that will help us financially in the foreseeable future, help local governments with disaster relief and law enforcement; inspect food and drugs for purity and safety; and enforce antitrust, consumer fairness, white-collar crime, and other laws.

You’d figure that weakening an already pathetic national financial condition AND endangering people’s health at the same time would be done for some high priority, such as responding to Pearl Harbor, fighting the Climate Crisis, or containining a pandemic. Nope.

We must do it to decrease taxes for our richest people – who, by the way, got incredibly richer during the past year. The biggest owners of the large companies that keep poisoning us and our air, causing a lot of those health problems. (The big, ugly bill will also cut our income from oil leases.)

I’d oppose that budget. Ten million U.S. humans will lose medical coverage.

I was a kid during some of our best financial times, the 1950s. Our tax structure was different, more like other nations have: the top brackets had tax rates of 91% and 88%. Not the 37.5% to which Trump lowered it from 39% in 2017. And we were thriving!

That earlier time reflected some different views. It reflected the fact that folks making exorbitant amounts of money do so using infrastructure we all pay for; and the quaint idea that we were all, including the very rich, part of a common nation.

The Bill is huge. Hidden in it, garnering no headlines as they rush it through, the bill also forbids courts from charging government officials with contempt of court for disobeying court orders. Along with the Supreme Court’s gift to Trump of a presidential immunity our founders would have fought duels to prevent, this paves the way for Mr. Trump to become our first dictator. Our first emperor, if he likes.

Of course, the “patriots” who support this don’t realize it would give equal power to B Sanders or A Occasion-Cortez, if one got elected. Or they are pretty confident that we’ll never again have an election real enough to put in a non-Republican?

Fortunately, the courts will likely point out that our Constitution forbids such chicanery. The Constitution’s words, court precedents, and logic say so. Has Jon Roberts figured out what we should do when Trump and cult say, “Sorry, but we’ll do as we please?”

We will keep having hard times to avoid inconveniencing the billionaires. What’s a few extra dead folks and a few extra hours for each worker, when those folks need better Bentleys and have islands to buy.

Still, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley swears he’ll block folks losing healthcare. I hope so.

                                                                    – 30 --

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 1 June, 2025, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and on the newspaper's website and the KRWG website (under Local Viewpoints). A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). That website also contains station archives.]

A Contentious City Council Meeting on "Realize Las Cruces!"

I watched the City Council discuss Realize Las Cruces and the conservative campaign to undo it.

I felt for the folks pushing for a city-wide referendum. That has a certain appeal, but costs money and time. In a representative democracy: we elect representatives we’re politically comfortable with and trust to do their homework, use their judgment, and apply judgment and core values to hundreds of specific issues.

The referendum proponents’ objections seemed to be: that signatures were disqualified if names weren’t identical to the names as registered; and that the City withheld critical information.

The law provides that proponents have a set period for signature collection after the petitions are finalized. After the city clerk examines the submitted signatures, rules some out, and tells the petitioners where they stand, the petitioners can opt for a second period to try to collect enough valid signatures. The proponents say they asked when they could collect signatures, and got no answer. The City Attorney says an attorney answered that question and specifically advised proponents how to cure defects.

A couple of citizens voiced my reaction: whenever I’ve signed a nominating petition, collectors told me to sign the way my name appeared on my registration. Objecting to that requirement sounds specious.

Councilor Bill Mattiace voted for a referendum, saying that obviously more than 4,000 citizens were unhappy with the ordinance. But that’s not clear. Yes, 4671 signatures were submitted, but some were duplicates. Further, how many of those 4671 had been misled or flat-out lied to?

One Saturday at the Farmers’ Market I listened to a gentleman seeking signatures. He said the City was “springing it on people,” without getting voters’ views. Not true. I could testify that I was approached many, many times over a four-year period to attend meetings, answer e-mails, or otherwise learn more about this idea and comment. I’m told there were upwards of 30 public meetings about this. People weren’t interested. Zoning? Ugghhh! Petitioners now argue that a lot of the publicity was on-line, and not everyone is on-line; but a lot was by traditional means, meeting minutes were kept, reports made to the council, and I doubt the newspapers and KRWG were hibernating all those years. Should the City have spent our tax money going house to house?

Telling someone a McDonald’s is going in across the street is false fear-mongering. If you live on a quiet street in a quiet neighborhood, what sane entrepreneur would suddenly try to put in a truck stop or a McDonald's One puts those things where they’re very, very visible and very, very easy to enter and leave. City officials also claim that the new zoning wouldn't permit that. Further, basic parking, setback, and other regulations would likely make it impossible. I gather some of the “horribles” mentioned to citizens aren’t okay under the new code.

So in my one actual encounter, I heard untruths told, very passionately and persuasively. I can’t say they were intentional lies, the kind of whoppers paid canvassers used years ago in trying to recall three city councilors for approving minimum wage increases mandated by referendum.

“Realize Las Cruces!” should make developers more creative in building new neighborhoods and help some folks add a mother-in-law or art studio out back of their existing homes, but make no difference at all to 99.44% of us. Perhaps it’ll be delayed by a likely-to-fail lawsuit over the above claims.

                             – 30 –

 

 [The above column appeared Sunday, 25 May, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and on on the newspaper's website and the KRWG website (under Local Viewpoints). A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). That website also contains station archives.]

[ I’m no zoning expert. I never studied Realize Las Cruces! as deeply as I probably should have.

I do know that the last time someone successfully petitioned for a referendum here was ten years ago when citizens, led by CAFe, petitioned for an ordinance that would raise the local minimum wage gradually over several years. When that happens, the mayor and council are required legally to enact the proposed ordinance unchanged. To my chagrin, they violated law to slow down the process so that the increase was more gradual. Right or wrong in theory, that was illegal.

The minimum-wage proponents opted to just live with that. However, conservatives, funded partly from elsewhere, sought to recall councilors for enacting a minimum wage. They told citizens some real whoppers, such that many citizens asked that their votes be removed. Litigation ensued, and I represented three then-councilors, and we successfully got the recall effort thrown out. ]

[ I lack such detailed knowledge of the current situation, but do know that if the anti-Realize people sued, they’d have a tough row to hoe in court. First of all, courts tend to give a lot of weight to the conclusion of the relevant public official (here, City Clerk Christina Rivera ). Secondly, if my experience was not anomalous, there might be showing of misconduct and misrepresentation in the procuring of signatures.

Obviously some of the disagreements are factual ones that may not be resolved without a court hearing; and if City Attorney Brad Douglas has the evidence he says he has, the petitioners would be well-advised to avoid a lawsuit. ]

[ I do respectfully disagree with my councilor friends who complain that any opposition to Realize! Must be racist. I’ve fought for equality and against racism all my life. I like my quiet garden. If someone is playing music insanely loud, just beyond my back fence, I don’t much care what kind of music it is. I live in a non-single-family-only area; but when a construction crew was storing equipment across the street and making noise early in the morning that shook our house, I wasn’t real pleased. ]

Talking Frankly about Issues

Wednesday I had a vigorous discussion with folks urging Las Cruces to jettison from school libraries books those folks don’t consider “age-appropriate.” Others angrily angrily said I shouldn’t have that discussion.

I disagree with the book-complainers. (They deny being book-banners, although they fought to ban one book a while back.)

I also disagree with the talk-complainers: friends and sometimes political allies trying to tell me whom I may chat with on radio.

In young manhood, I learned, to my surprise, that our society was racist, then that while we sang about freedom we were violently suppressing it in Latin America (to suit United Fruit Company), Iran, and Viet Nam, and that our capitalist system had truly negative aspects. People didn’t say such things. Local radio didn’t invite me. Rather, we got attacked, and the police sometimes joined in, or at least approved minor assaults, battery, or vandalism.

So I believe in free speech. If I can, I’ll invite public discussion with people I disagree with. (Two public official complained that we were “platforming,” these despicable people, my first inkling that “platform” is now a verb.) Yes, I recognize that right-wingers are mounting a campaign to take over the nation’s schools, locale by locale, and institute standards that I’d consider anti-educational; the local folks, whose leaders also lead a local conservative group that has sought candidates for previous years’ local elections, and who complain about “progressive” actions by local boards. I think the local furor about “inappropriate” books is related to the national campaign to put our school administrations back in some earlier century. (Some of the same folks disapprove of the Board of Education being more welcoming to ethnic minorities or kids of uncertain gender than schools were decades ago.)

But I’ll listen. I may disagree on the merits, but I’ll not ban points-of-view. To cite Pope Francis, who am I to judge? We can all be wrong, so why not listen to others? Particularly since my views were once unthinkable.

I don’t like censorship. I also fgure, in a world where kids can view any despicable act on cell-phones, computers, or even in films/videos, removing books seems a little pointless, especially when some of these books try to help kids make sense of the crazy drives, feelings, thoughts, questions, lusts, and impulses we’ve most all had, whether it’s coming to terms with sexual impulses and identifies. When our role-model-in-chief admits (and whom legal papers allege) he touches women without a proper invitation. One court jury agreed; and one wife said he raped her.

The school allows parents to “opt-out” by telling schools not to let their kids read certain books. The book-complainers think that’s not enough. I question whether it’s not too much, at least once kids are 12 or so. But I’m no expert.

This campaign seems political. A book they tried hard to ban from school libraries had been checked out by one kid, ever, with no complaint; but the book was on a national list of objectionable books. Key leaders don’t have kids in the schools at issue. They deny that it’s anti-gay; but one caller noted that they listed as an “explicit sexual passage” a plea to regard gay kids fairly, and they vote for candidates who will make being gay less welcome and would punish trans- folks.

But they’re fellow citizens who have every right to express their opinions on what our schools should do.

                                                  --  30  -- 

[I guess that in this column I offer a polite middle finger to most everyone.] 

[But I should also apologize. As plans for this show developed, I decided that rather than trying to play neutral “host,” I’d question the guests myself. However, I should either have invited someone else or done more research. I did not do an adequate job of defending the schools and freedom of thought. I apologize. Although I think one school-board member overreacted, he was reacting to an actual problem, in my view.]

[The book that Ms. Smith and Juan Garcia had tried to get removed from the shelves in 2023, Jack of Hearts and other Parts, was kept on the shelf because it had helped LGBTQ+ kids deal with the problem of their identities, natures, and experiences. Being teens is tough enough. The extra complication these kids face means they deserve help.

Fact is, the teachers who were assigned to review the challenged book generally had a very negative initial reaction; but after hearing expert testimony on how the book had helped kids, they voted (6-1, I think) to retain it. ]

[ The book had won numerous rewards and highly positive reviews. In a statement, the author, L.C. Rosen, said that the book is more than its mature language, characters, and incidents, and was written to help educate and support LGBTQ kids struggling with their identities.

“I trust teenagers. They’re the best at self-censoring,” Rosen said in the statement. “If a teenager picked it up and started reading it and felt uncomfortable, they easily could have put it down. What’s important is that they have that choice, so that the teens who need these books can find them.”   That sure accords with my thoughts – and my memory of youth. I recall reading a book (Baldwin’s Another Country) in which two major male characters slept together. I was startled, but reading it didn’t upset me, let alone tempt me to imitate them. Kids are harmed far more by the myths about sex and love that surround them, and by their ignorance of real facts, than by exposure to some book. In my day, there was much less awareness of such things; and my lack of knowledge likely caused me to hurt friends, or at least prevented me from understanding and assisting them.

Rosen wrote, “Jack of Hearts had been on shelves for years before someone tried to ban it - it had been reviewed and put on best of the year lists when it first came out, and no one cared then. I find it curious that only now do people want it gone.” ]

[ Why is this local controversy going on? Obviously it’s not because the main complainants, Smith and Garcia, of Coalition of Conservative in Action, have kids or grandkids who were hurt or offended by reading the books. Further, only one kid so far had checked the book out.

If the author is correct, it sat on the shelf years before complaints. Then there were a wave of them, including this one. Was the complaint, using a list other conservatives had made elsewhere, complaining about this book as part of a battle to wrest control of our schools from more mainstream folks? I’d guess so. Again, though, they have that right, although I personally do not think their activities in this regard are in the best interest of the community. However, my role hosting a community radio show is to foster frank but civil discussion of issues in this community. It is NOT to shush stuff so as to help public officials retain their positions, even though personally I may think they’re doing good jobs. Sorry, friends!]

Trump Administration Idiocies 2025 05 16

 Maybe it's not a waste of time to document a few pretty clear examples of administrative idiocy now and then.

 > Former FBI Director James Comey spots seashells on a beach arranged to say "8647," and realizes that means "throw out our 47th President."  It's cute, so he photographs and posts it.   Gotta say a sizeable minority of U.S. citizens would have done the same; and, a year or two ago a different sizeable minority would have done the same with "8646."   As most of us likely know, from experience or literature, to "eighty-six someone" is to throw him (or her) out, usually out of a tavern.  A convenient on-line dictionary gives as the 4th meaning of "eighty-six:" "Slang. a customer considered undesirable or unwelcome and refused service at a bar or restaurant."

Lacking in taste? Perhaps; but so what?

Desperate, Trump reads that as a call not merely to evict him from office, the obvious meaning, but as a criminal call for his assassination. Two other high officials have threatened or advocated prosecution, including the attorney-general.  Prosecution would be an extraordinary waste of time.  

[btw, although this would make little difference, i've seen no allegation that Comey actually arranged the seashells, and it apparently was just found art.]

> Is it worth pointing out that while far-right Republicans voted against Trump's budget bill, because they want to save more money at the expense of ill people, Mr. Trump is spending an unnecessary $45 million to celeb rate the anniversary of the founding of the U.S. Army, because that anniversary happens to fall on Mr. Trump's own birthday?

The Republicans are all happy with continuing all tax cuts, despite the deficit, but plan to save money by cutting Medicaid and food assistance.  Obviously I'm an idiot to wonder why it's so urgent to cut people's food and medical care without for a moment upping taxes on the obscenely rich.

> Speaking of the deficit, while Republicans work to maintain low taxes for rich folks and corporations, Moody's has lowered the nation's AAA credit rating -- for the first time ever.  Moody's is in good company: U.S. citizens just listed their confidence in our economy at the second-lowest percentage ever.  

I'm no economist, so I asked AI what the consequences of this lowering of our credit-rating are:

While immediate effects are limited, the downgrade underscores potential long-term challenges:  I was told that although immediate downturn in market prices was minimal [perhaps because Mr. Trump has already savaged that with tariff idiocy and rampant uncertainty], likely impact will be:

• Higher Borrowing Costs: A lower credit rating can lead to increased interest rates for government and consumer loans.

• Investor Confidence: Persistent fiscal issues may erode investor trust, affecting demand for U.S. debt.

• Policy Pressure: The downgrade may prompt policymakers to pursue more sustainable fiscal strategies.MarketWatch+6Reuters+6Investopedia+6

In summary, Moody’s downgrade serves as a warning about the U.S.'s fiscal health.

 

:

Will Trump's Startling Incompetence Save our Democracy from Him?

Will our democracy be saved by our president’s sheer incompetence?

No longer can anyone seriously doubt that democracy is under siege. Trump and his minions have eliminated from government offices and the military top officials more loyal to the Constitution than to Donald, appointing clowns like Pete Hegseth as our Secretary of Defense, Pam Bondi (Attorney-General), and Krish Patel (FBI Director). They illegally fired seventeen inspectors-general – a position Congress created as a watchdog in important agencies. They’ve attacked law firms, universities, and media for doing their jobs. Threatening Harvard University with losing its tax-deductible status and CBS with losing its license, to intimidate everyone into silence about what’s going on may seem absurd; but if you’ve put folks into the FCC, DOJ, and IRS who will do Trump’s bidding rather than the law’s, who knows? Meanwhile, if every entity that might do some charitable work Trump doesn’t like or report administration abuses knows that truth-telling could cost zillions of dollars in legal fees, citizens may not hear much that Trump-Musk don’t approve of.

Trump won the popular vote and took office with higher poll ratings than he’d previously had. Traditionally, newly-elected Presidents get a useful “honeymoon” period. Trump used his to sink his own poll ratings through an extraordinary run of especially stupid moves, notably his on-again, off-again tariffs. He lacks even a schoolboy’s understanding of tariffs. He’s tried a series of silly explanations. He’s aiding China’s effort to replace the U.S. in global importance. But what’s saddest is that, when the stock market tanked, apparently that surprised Mr. Trump. I could have told him tariffs would torpedo stocks, and I’m an idiot about economics; and who reading this does not know that what most frightens investors and businesses is uncertainty – such as not knowing which crazy tariffs will be implemented (or not) next week?

Trump’s popularity has declined rapidly, especially with independent voters and moderate (or sensible?) Republicans. Although Trump is idiotically proud of his tariffs, a Senate vote to undo them failed on a tie vote – with two Democrats and Republican Mitch McConnell unavailable to vote against the tariffs. (Three Republicans did.) Independents disapprove his performance 68-32%. (In 2024, independents, grown to one-third of the electorate, preferred Kamala Harris 49-46%.)

It’s an interesting race between a suddenly aroused populace, trying to awaken more of us, and Trump-Musk working to keep citizens from (a) getting reasonably accurate information and (b) voting based on it.

Indivisible is extremely popular here. The 50501 Movement, labor unions, and faith-based groups are organizing everywhere. Some number of Republican leaders with some respect for the rule of law are tiring of Trump, with a few even daring to say so. Even the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, both of which would likely consider me a communist, have seen enough of Trump to be scared – at least for our economy and maybe for our democracy.

But many get their news from X, and other sources that have historically been unusually friendly to Mr. Trump. (Doesn’t Fox mind that Trump wants its polling department fired or jailed for reporting that people see that he’s naked? ) Mr. Trump simply lies. It’s his way. Supporters don’t care if he’s truthful, while most others won’t belief him anyway. When his mistakes hurt Trump voters, they’ll blame Biden. And Congressional Democrats don’t do splendidly in polls, either.

Donald is our best hope for preserving democracy from him.

                                                              --30 – 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 4 May in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and on the newspaper's website and the KRWG website (under Local Viewpoints). A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and KTAL-LP (101.5M / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/.)]

[Little more to say except: (1) that moments after I sent in the above column to the newspaper, I received news of the federal judge’s decision in the Southern District of Texas throwing out the whole idea of mis-applying the ancient Alien Enemies Act to deport people to that El Salvador torture chamber. I immediately sent off an alternate column, which is also on the Sun-News’s website and which I’ll post herre tomorrow; and (2) Trump reached a new and special level of idiocy when asked by ABC News, on camera, what the declaration of independence meant to him.

Immigrants seeking citizenship must answer a very similar question. You be the judge of whether Mr. Trump would pass or fail on this question.

Trump’s response was:

“Well, it means exactly what it says, it’s a declaration,

it’s a declaration of unity and love and respect, and it

means a lot and it’s something very special to our country,”

Fact is, it’s a blunt warning to Great Britain that men should be free of kings and emperors and that we’re free and independent states that will fight if England wants to maintain its rule over the American colonies. Trump’s blather sure wouldn’t cut it if I were judging immigrant’s answers.

I’m not sure where this ranks among his statements that we could or should nuke hurricanes into submission, that global warming is a Chinese hoax, and that wind turbines cause cancer.]

A Positive Step on Separation of Church and State

Law and fairness mandated the Doña Ana County Commission’s refusal to celebrate “religious” speeches that insult some constituents.

Separation of church and state was extremely important to the nation’s founders, and our state’s. Madison listed non-establishment of religion first in our Bill of Rights. It’s stated even more explicitly in Article II, Section 11 of our state constitution, which proclaims freedom of worship and adds, “Nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship."

Whether or not sponsoring a day of prayer, without specifying the nature of the prayer, would withstand legal challenge isn’t clear-cut.

However, the context of the vote left a reasonable commissioner little choice.

I have no faith. I prize much of what Jesus and the Buddha are said to have said. I disliked religion when young, because I believed in equality and peace and saw churches hypocritically trampling all over those, although Jesus’s words seemed to suggest compassion. I learned in Tibet to respect the religious faith others guide their lives by, whether it’s Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, or the Mayan spiritual tradition, though I abhor how members of dominant faiths have sometimes treated minorities, or any violence over which god to follow how. Would Jesus want Catholics and Protestants fighting?

The non-establishment of religion our founders prized has remained important, in our modern world, where supposedly “Christian” voices abuse that faith to support exclusion, nationalism, contempt, and discrimination.

Again, Jesus’s words, and their spirit, are wonderful. Living by them is challenging but admirable. But the use of Jesus’s name to foment hatred and divisiveness, as speakers at past local “National Days of Prayer” have done, and as too many are doing across the nation, is un-Christian and un-American.

Our county commissioners represent all of us.

They represent Jews, whom the Catholic Church officially blamed for killing Jesus until about 1963. They represent Islamic immigrants, whose countries suffered “the Crusades,” European colonization, and U.S. imperialism, and who are ill-treated by our federal government. They represent Jews, atheists, and Muslims who have lost jobs or suffered discrimination for their beliefs. Probably Wiccans, too. And the tribes.

They represent women who’ve had abortions – something that was lawful and accepted in the U.S. colonies, but which rightwingers have (with no scriptural evidence of Jesus’s views) claimed Christianity abhors, and have used Christianity to criminalize – with draconian laws, in some states.

They represent gay, transgender, genderless, and just plain “queer” folks who get persecuted by some states in the name of Christianity and who’ve been the subject of hate speech at “Days of Prayer.” They represent men whose lives were destroyed as altar boys by the child molestation epidemic in the “celibate” Catholic Church. They represent Islamic or Hindu parents who wonder why their child was given Christmas-related projects and homework in public schools.

For Christians to worship, and to gather to worship, is wonderful. For Christians here to use “Christianity” (or Jews in the Middle East or Hindus in India with their faiths) as a weapon against others isn’t.

I believe all of us should be grateful each moment for life. But you may not, or may thank a god I never heard of. Great!

Given the “culture wars” and politicians’ use of them to divide and distract us, why not let everyone decide whether or not, and how, to worship. As the founders urged. And as the County heard.

                                                         – 30 --

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 27 April, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and

on the newspaper's website and the KRWG website (under Local Viewpoints). A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and KTAL-LP (101.5M / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/.)]