A Guide to Arguing the Second Amendment

There can be no inalienable right to a gun because the vast majority of earth's inhabitants predate the existence of firearms by thousands of years. The inalienable right is to defend one's life and property, and to this end, assault rifles and high capacity clips are not required.

The Second Amendment is not explicitly about defending oneself against a tyrannical government, as many gun advocates argue. This is an element of the Second Amendment, but an element that is no longer relevant. It has expired. It's not that our government is now incapable of becoming tyrannical, but because the capacities of the military so far exceed those of the citizenry, it's a moot point. If you plan to take on a drone, F-22, or Abrams tank with an AR-15, you will need "thoughts and prayers." The National Guard satisfies this demand of the Second Amendment.

When the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written we did not have a standing army. Enter the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." National security is the import of the Second Amendment. We needed a militia, or a military raised from our citizenry, in order to defend ourselves against foreign invaders. Now that we have a standing army, we no longer need a citizen militia, and therefore this facet of the Second Amendment is also outdated.

Implied in the Second Amendment's explicit meaning, the right to defend country and countrymen, is the right to defend oneself and one's property. This aspect of the Second Amendment is not outdated. The government has to guarantee an individual's access to weapons that fulfill this right. However, that guarantee is not contingent upon access to assault weapons.

Access to (most) shotguns and handguns is guaranteed by the second amendment because both are common and effective means of self-defense. The AR-15 is not. It is an assault weapon, which means it is inherently offensive.

The AR-15 was not designed for self-defense. Of course, it can be used to defend, but so can a shovel or an RPG, though neither are ideal. Likewise,  when defending oneself against a home invader or a carjacker, for example, the AR-15 is far less effective and therefore not commonly employed. For this reason, access to the AR-15 is not required for the government to guarantee its citizens Second Amendment rights. Handguns and shotguns monopolize self-defense because they are more effective instruments of self-defense.

Moreover, the government is well within their purview to regulate exceedingly dangerous weapons not commonly employed for lawful purposes, i.e. self-defense. The Ar-15's higher fire rate and shorter reload time (along with its machismo aura) make it a favorite of sociopaths who want to terrorize people, and therefore exceedingly dangerous with little-to-no redemptive self-defense value.

An assault weapons ban would, in my opinion, help to deter certain types of mass shootings, but would do little to curb gun violence in general. AR-15's are the weapon of choice in large-scale mass shooting that occur in highly populated areas like schools and movie theaters, but in run of the mill mass shootings (4+ victims) handguns out pace rifles two to one, and in standard gun deaths, it is not even close. And since handguns are a common and effective means of self-defense, they are protected by the Second Amendment (D.C. vs Heller) Therefore, the conversation regarding gun violence must include an assault weapons ban, but it cannot stop there.

Since handguns account for the vast majority of gun deaths, but are protected by the Second Amendment, measures other than bans must be considered. Congress should close private sell loopholes, expand background checks, include mental health components, impose waiting periods, and mandate gun safety classes for all prospective buyers.

I think the brightest glimmer of hope on the horizon is smart gun technology. If they are an effective means of self defense, but notably safer, the government may be able to ban all non-smart weapons and remain within the bounds of the Second Amendment. Smart weapons prevent accidental discharges and nullify unlawful transfers and theft, not to mention the conceivable advantages that are inevitable as the industry develops.

Additionally, taking steps to secure our schools would go a long way to preventing horrors like Sandy Hook and Parkland. Schools are soft targets that enable sociopaths to inflict the greatest amount of harm on society with the least amount of resistance. Make it more difficult for these people to get on campuses by installing card-key activated turnstiles, and designing single points of campus entry manned by guards, much like in gated communities and large factories. It is also hard to argue against the presence of armed police officers on campuses at all times, with their cars parked out front as a physical deterrent.

Finally, I'd suggest the media quit publishing the faces and names of shooters. Publish age, gender, race, and any other detail relevant, but not identifiers that grant them the infamy they crave. The First Amendment grants the press nearly illimitable freedom, so this is not a measure that can be legislated. The public must enforce this by choosing to read and share articles that abstain from publishing names and photos.

Nearly all of these measures enjoy historically high support, according to the latest Quinnipiac University National Poll: 66-31% are for stricter gun laws; 67-29% support a ban on the sale of assault weapons; 83 -14% want mandatory waiting periods for all gun purchases. At this moment, there it is possible to effect change. We shouldn't squander this opportunity running down rabbit holes the Supreme Court has already deemed unconstitutional.

We live in a country of laws and the Second Amendment is one of those laws. We cannot argue for repealing the Second Amendment. This is a straw man that plays right into the NRA's strategy. Banning assault weapons, high capacity magazines, and expanding background checks, as well as taking action to secure schools at state and local levels are all practical and effective steps to ending this epidemic.

Finding Our Political Voice: I or We?

Democracy is beholden to the will of the people, not truth.

It is up to the people to align their will with truth. But what standard of truth will be used? The Truth or a truth?

When we speak from the perspective of "I" we honor our truth. This subjective truth consists of our past experiences, and the thoughts and feelings authored by those experiences. The perspective of "I" is frequently at odds with that of "we," the objective, collective, aggregated, statistical, data driven domain of scientific truth. To which should we pledge our allegiance?

The grieving parent unwilling to accept nothing short of an assault weapons ban and the gun owner that believes more guns make us safer, both speak from the perspective of "I," and both find themselves at odds with scientific data. But that does that negate their thoughts and opinions?

An assault weapons ban would surely help curb the epidemic of mass shooting that plague our schools. But data shows that assault weapons account for less than half of all mass shootings and only a tiny fraction of overall gun deaths. Still, if you just lost your daughter to an AR-15, an assault weapons ban speaks wholly and completely to the one effect of mass shootings with which you are most concerned: the loss of your daughter. It eliminates the weapon that took her life, and in so doing, provides some assurance that it won't happen again, which lends purpose to the otherwise meaningless death of your daughter.

Similarly, data shows that homes with guns are significantly more prone to suicide, and to a lesser degree, homicide. But gun owners frequently claim having a gun makes you safer. After all, they own guns and have not been victimized by suicide or homicide. However, this confidence comes from the perspective of "I." The data does not show that owning a gun guarantees homicide or suicide; the statistical perspective of "we" only says it makes it more likely, thereby, on average, not safer. If these studies were controlled by variables like mental health, proper training, and safe storage, then I am sure the numbers would lean more toward safer, which is a solid justification for stricter gun laws. Naturally, we all want to think we belong to the responsible group, and we might; but few people buy guns thinking, "This will make me more prone to suicide and homicide." Gun owners purchased guns thinking it would make them safer, not increase their risk of homicide or suicide.

It seems to me that both "I" perspectives have merits and faults. I think we have a responsibility to voice our truth, but in the body politic, all these I's have to become a "We." There has to be compromise. When our perspective hardens, it prevents us from solving problems. The hardened perspective of gun advocates tends to obstruct common sense regulations that would keep certain weapons out of the hands of mentally ill people, and moreover help ensure proper handling and storage. The hardened perspective of gun control advocates tends to forestall physical security measures that would make our schools safer for our children and their teachers.

It seems to me that when our will is informed by subjective truth, but ultimately tempered by the objective standard, compromise is more likely, and compromise is indispensable in a democracy. The hardened "I" leads to obstructionism. It gets us nowhere. America has to return to the perspective of "we," or no progress will be made on issues like guns and healthcare.

Practicing Spirituality & Citizenship in the Era of Trump

Erected between the Church and the State is a "Wall of Separation."
But within the envelope of my skin, there is no line of demarcation segregating politics and spirituality. 

We do not live in a totalitarian state. As members of a democratic society, we have a civic duty. Our government is held in check by "we the people." In a democratic system of government, politics is just another aspect of daily living.

Spirituality is not an other-worldly affair. It is a principled worldview coupled with a system of practice that orients our whole being to the world in which we live.

Politics is not a distraction from spirituality, but one aspect of daily life with which spirituality is deeply concerned.

Saying that politics is a distraction from spirituality is like saying relationships or work are obstacles to spiritual practice. They aren't obstacles, they are opportunities for our spirituality to be born into the world. Segregating politics and spirituality is an attempt to closet your spirituality—to shield it from things that push your buttons, rather than turning into your struggles and learning to move beyond stress, fear, and anger.

We are not called to hide behind a vapid smile or to look the other way. Any spirituality that hides behind a distraction is not a spirituality but a defense mechanism. It is spiritual bypassing not spiritual practice. This is true regardless of whether our practice is rooted in Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, or lacks religious affiliation.

Gandhi once wrote, "Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is...Indeed, religion should pervade every one of our actions. Here religion does not mean sectarianism. It means a belief in ordered moral government of the universe. It is not less real because it is unseen. This religion transcends Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc. It does not supersede them. It harmonizes them and gives them reality."

A living spirituality is politically conscious and engaged but not obsessed. And this is the catch.

It is hard to be mindful and politically engaged at the same time. It is difficult to watch the news or read the papers without getting wrapped up in it, especially this day-and-age with a 24 hr news cycle and a controversial President that dominates every minute of that cycle.

Mindfulness and activism often feel mutually exclusive. But uniting the two is our path. We have to root our politics in mindfulness and silence. If we fail to do this, we will either neglect our civic responsibility or our politics will be tainted with fear and aggression.

You can be present and centered while protesting or voicing concern—Dorthy Day, Gandhi, King, Thich Nhat Hanh, and the Dalai Lama are perfect examples.

While the basic outline of spirituality remains unchanged, the terrain that path must traverse changes with each generation. And it is no accident that these great icons of mindful activism have come before us, showing us the way. They have outlined the path before us. Their activism is rooted in prayer and meditation.

Venturing into the realm of politics without tethering the mind to reality is the way of madness.

Meditation anchors the mind in the present moment. But it is not enough to sit every morning. Mindful activism is meditation in action. We have to bring the principles of meditation—letting go and returning to the simplicity of the present moment—into our daily life. In the presence of injustice, we often feel fear, anger, and aggression. But we must disown the fear, anger, and aggression, not the awareness of injustice, which is grounded in reality.

Our conscience must rise above our fear of confrontation. We have to speak truth to power. Our words must not be weighted down by anger and resentment. 

Politics devoid of compassion is just another way to vent resentment. And our body politic is already saturated with resentment. Prayer connects the mind and the heart, melting away resentment. William James wrote in Varieties of Religious Experience, "Religion is nothing if it be not the vital act by which the entire mind seeks to save itself by clinging to the principle from which it draws its life. This act is prayer." And the heart is the principle from which the mind draws life. But once again it is not enough to pray only in the morning. We have to see aggression as a reminder to pray throughout the day. When are afraid or angry, we have to pray for those that arouse our bitterness. We have to pray for those in need. Prayer gets us out of our head, out of our self-centered mind. It awakens the spirit of selflessness and sanity.

Spirituality reminds us that it is our responsibility to be a voice of sanity, a light unto the world. I say that not with a condescending tone, but with an awareness that I too must work harder to bring mindfulness, compassion, and sanity into my politics. Politics is a sticky subject. It is easy to get caught up in politics. But the spiritual path always cuts through our obstacles. It never goes around them. This is the path we in the era of Trump must trudge and we have to do it together.

Part of doing it together is holding each other accountable. When we see someone with good intentions lash-out or become disrespectful, it is important to point that out to them. We have to remind them that how they say it is every bit as important as what they say. Yes, we are obligated to speak the truth, but we are also obligated to do that in a skillful manner. If we oppose hate, then we have to oppose it even when it is attached to a message that we agree with because hate--in any form--only adds to the problems that we face as a nation. Hate is not the counter-measure for injustice. As Martin Luther King said, "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."

_________________________

Also available on iTunes: http://apple.co/2lK4hb4

Ten Thoughts on Monuments and Racism in America

1) As humans, our strength has always been in numbers, that is to say, tribes. We are, therefore, inclined towards tribalism.

2) When people incorporate, they can achieve bigger goals (Two minds are better than one). The bigger the tent the better. Diversity is therefore better (if you can make it work), because diversity is always going to be bigger.

3) Ideas grow the tent beyond rudimentary forms of tribalism like race or ethnicity. Religion is good at this. Muhammad, for example, brought fractured, warring tribes in the Middle East under the banner of Islam. Or look at the biggest group in the world, Christianity: "In Christ there is neither man nor woman, Jew nor Gentile," and as King later added, "Black nor white." Another big tent is nationality, which in America is more or less defined by the creed "All men are created equal." This is a banner that enables people of all races, ethnicities, religions, genders, and sexual orientations to identify with "America."

4) This is one reason why both religion and politics have been successful evolutionary vehicles. And I see no reason they can't continue to be as we move forward. I think "America" can do a lot to solve the problem of racism.

5) America is a baby on the world stage. Compared to England, France, China, and India, for example, we are cultural infants. This makes it more difficult to identify what it means exactly to be an American and effectively relate to it.

6) It seems to me that identifying with "America" is largely about accepting her history. America is so young this is difficult to a certain degree even for white men, but it would seem even more difficult for African-Americans and women. Their inclusion in the already young project of defining what it means to be an American is even more recent. Furthermore, much of their place in American history has been marked by oppression and marginalization. My guess is they sometimes struggle to identify with American history because it does not include them and because that history often venerates the people that explicitly denied them that right, not to mention that these forces (racism and misogyny) are still active today. These two points--a history that does not bear their mark and one that venerates their oppressors--make it even more difficult for them to identify with "America" than a white man.

7) I see no way around this problem other than a willingness to part ways with those venerated figures of our past that are exclusively identified with oppression. We cannot add voices to our history. We denied them and that chapter is closed. I see a couple of constructive ways to move forward (To be clear, I'm not talking about the greater problem of racism, just the stand-off over our history and its monuments--though I do think this will do something to help more people identify with being an "American" and therefore feel less divided by race).

8) First, search our past for voices that must be elevated. People like Abigail Adams, Fredrick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, to name a few, are not lost on us, but have far more to offer than has been extracted. They need to be taught as American history, not women's history or black history, because they are instrumental in shaping modern America. I am sure this list could be increased exponentially. And doing so is not a meaningless exercise in political correctness and or an appeasing celebration of diversity. It is a practical effort to grow the tent and make America a bigger and better idea. I would also spend money building memorials to Lynching victims and Slavery museums.

9) Certain figures we will have to part ways with. People like Jefferson Davis and John C. Calhoun, nicknamed "John C. Kill a Coon" have no place in the public sphere. History books, museums: yes. Public grounds, no. They are divisive; they literally divide us or shrink the American tent. Robert E. Lee is the most controversial, I suppose. This is largely owed to his character which was, in his day, venerated by both Northerners and Southerners alike. Still, he is divisive because he is the figurehead of the Confederacy, which fought on the side of slavery. If you privately admire the character of Robert E Lee, that is your business, but when we put a statue of him on public grounds that is us as a society endorsing him. This endorsement is not shared by all, and makes it difficult for a large chunk of people to identify with the endorsing body, a body they have equal claim to. We can move the Lee monuments to a Civil War memorial ground or find another creative solution.

10) People like Thomas Jefferson are also lumped into this category. I don't think the comparison is just. In the public mind, Lee is almost entirely identified with the Civil War. Jefferson's career is not monopolized by slavery, though he did own hundreds of slaves. Thomas Jefferson cannot be discarded without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Jefferson's name calls forth a great many accomplishments including religious freedom and the Declaration of Independence, which are so deeply ingrained in what it means to be American that no intelligible idea of "America" can be formed with referencing both. We cannot utter one word about America without mentioning his name, even if that name must be appendixed with facts about his ownership of slaves. Instead we must claim Jefferson's ideas as our own, and hold America and even Jefferson himself to account for them, just as Martin Luther King did in his famous "I Have A Dream" speech: "When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Obviously, I am not saying that Jefferson must be venerated by all. I am simply saying he can't be discarded. However, there are other figures central to our founding that I think are worthy of respect AND do not bring with them Jefferson's baggage: Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, for example. Lincoln too, in a sense, is a Founder of "The" United States (vs these United States) and is also worthy recipient of our respect.

These are just some thoughts that have been bouncing around in my head. What do you think? What would you add/take away?

Racism by Executive Order

Racism is an evil and corrosive thread with a deep and enduring legacy in America.

This statement to many white Americans is surprising and controversial. The shock and subsequent surge of indignance often sends skeptics hiding behind the familiar refrain of indulgent liberal sensitivities and charges of political correctness.

However, it should come as no surprise: America has a long and vicious history of racism. Under the cruel lash of the whip, millions of slaves were robbed of their humanity. They were taken as property, forced to labor under brutal conditions, often deprived of even the basic right to love and care for the children. This level of barbarism requires an anesthetizing rationalization, a program of indoctrination that subdues the humanity of all those culpable. This program is called white supremacy. It is a doctrine meant to inculcate not only the belief that white people are by virtue of race superior, but that other races are subhuman and therefore deserving of inhumane treatment.  This continued on through Jim Crow. To the conscientious dismay of many white people, the doctrine of white supremacy was not abolished by the Fourteenth Amendment or passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It is part of our cultural inheritance.      

Following this weekend's events in Charlottesville, it should come as no surprise that racism is alive and well. The overt hatred, bigotry, and ignorance chased a climax through a maze of civil unrest, conventional violence, and an act of domestic terrorism to finally arrive at a peak level of disgust with President Donald Trump's "Many Sides" speech.  He said, "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides. On many sides. It's been going on for a long time in our country."

And with those words America felt a public shame fall over her she has not felt in many years.

In November of 1991, then President George H.W. Bush offered a few choice words for a holocaust denying, white nationalist Klansman seeking the Governorship in my home state of Louisiana:

'When someone asserts the Holocaust never took place, then I don't believe that person ever deserves one iota of public trust. When someone has so recently endorsed Nazism, it is inconceivable that someone can reasonably aspire to a leadership role in a free society. When someone has a long record, an ugly record of racism and of bigotry, that record simply cannot be erased by the glib rhetoric of a political campaign."

Of course the subject of his disgust is David Duke, the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan Donald Trump struggled to disavow during the 2016 campaign. Although Trump did eventually, under public pressure, flippantly distance himself from the anti-Semitic loon, he never forcefully repudiated him as Bush did in '91. Instead, Trump played footsies with Duke and his sympathizers. And in Charlottesville, Duke, who attended the rally, repaid the favor: "This represents a turning point for the people of this country. We are determined to take our country back. We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That's what we believed in. That's why we voted for Donald Trump."

Trump's "Many Sides" speech brought forth a new low for modern America because it failed to clearly denounce the neo-Nazis, KKK, and white supremacists and therefore laid cover for them. The new face of the White Nationalist movement and one of the organizers of this event, Richard Spencer, tweeted Trump's statement as proof of the President's approval:

Did Trump just denounce antifa? (anti-fascists) 

— Richard ☝🏻Spencer (@RichardBSpencer) August 12, 2017

Donald Trump is usually hyperbolic and vicious when attacking someone. His condemnation of the alt-right, White Nationalists, neo-Nazis and Klansmen is so reserved and equivocal that it is impossible to discern which side he stands on, which is precisely the point. This is no accident. Trump has never to my knowledge beat around the bush when attacking someone. In fact, his attacks on his own Attorney General and most loyal surrogate, Jeff Sessions, were more pointed than his rebuke of the swastika-clad terrorists in Charlottesville. When juxtaposed to his sensational and absurd rhetoric regarding Islam and immigrants, it is hard to see either as anything but a dog-whistle to white nationalist xenophobes.  

The President's critics are quick to say he endorses the views of Duke, Spencer, and their fascist brigade of white nationalists. This may or may not be true. But it is beside the point. Donald Trump is not an ideologue. He doesn't appear to even possess ideals or values. He acts purely on the basis of self-interest. So even if he did subscribe to Spencer's worldview, he would still act in his own self-interest. If it was politically advantageous to him, he would have clearly denounced them and their actions. But he didn't. Nor did he praise or defend them. If he had, a chunk of his base would surely have defected. Instead he waxed obscure, enabling both sides to draw their own conclusions about his statement.

I suspect Trump's tepid response is in large part owed to the fact that all he has left is his base, and this group of people represent a significant portion of his base. Sure there were only a few hundred white nationalists marching in the streets, but there are many thousands more at home who identify with their cause. Few want to be labeled a racist in the community of their peers. People want to closet their demons, but they do not want to abolish them. No one wants to be so angry that they lose control and lash out in violence when someone says something they find disagreeable, but few are willing to part ways with the more moderate, socially-acceptable form of anger that manifests as barbed gossip. But in point of fact, both parties are driven by anger. Similarly, few are willing to march down the street bellowing chants of "White Pride," but millions are willing to cast a vote for someone they believe will advance their white nationalist agenda—though they'd likely call it something like, oh, I don't know....Make America Great Again?

Remember, in 2016 David Duke ran for a Senate seat in Louisiana and received 3% of the vote. With a half-dozen other Republicans in the field, 58,581 Louisianians voted for a former Klan leader in 2016. No where near that number would have showed up to a white nationalist rally organized by him, but in the privacy of a voting booth they pulled the lever for him. Trump is the beneficiary of a similar phenomenon, but on a national scale. In the 2016 election 3% of the vote would have equaled roughly 4 million votes, more than enough to tip it in favor of Clinton. Trump's politics prevent him from outright denouncing them, but by failing to do so he lends credibility to their movement. The next "Unite the Right" rally may be attended by thousands, instead of a few hundred.

For reasons of political expediency and self-interest, Donald Trump is using the weight of the Oval Office to legitimize white nationalism. There is an ever-darkening cloud of suspicion parked over his White House. With each day comes news of developments in the Russian investigation that bring Mueller and his team closer to Trump and his family. Don't forget, you can't bring criminal charges against the President of the United States. You move to impeach, which is a political process, not a criminal proceeding. Standing between him and possible impeachment is his base—and that is it!. Therefore, self-interest and political expediency are probably intertwined in the service of survival  for Donald Trump. He is leveraging decades of progress, the dignity and rights of millions, the conscience of all, as well as American prestige to salvage his  name.

By no means do I believe that all or even most white people are sympathetic to the ideas of white supremacy. I do, however, believe that a large swath of decent white people are willing to over look racism because it makes them unconformable, or ignore it in an election year because they want a tax cut and don't see racism as an immediate existential threat. The option to overlook or prioritize racism is a feature of white privilege.

Many well-intentioned white people see their intentions blunted by the unconformable reality of confronting racism in day-to-day life. The apathetic rallying cry of liberal by-standers is "What am I am going to do about it?" In "Dear Theodosia," a popular track from the Hamilton musical, Lin-Manuel Miranda conveys the deep longing of every parent to make the world a better place for their children with the following words: "We'll bleed and fight for you, we'll make it right for you."

Obviously, I am not suggesting we take up our muskets, rather that we have to organize, protest, hold our elected officials accountable, and, yes, our co-workers too. We have to be willing to have those uncomfortable conversations wherever they present themselves. Culture is the vehicle by which our ideas and customs are passed on from one generation to the next, making the water-cooler and the bus stop the front line in the war against racism and courage the weapon of choice.  We have to do whatever we can to draw attention to the horrible truth of racism's enduring presence in the hope that our children will not have to.

Google, Political Correctness, and Much Ado About Nothing.

A few thoughts on the Google controversy:

First, thank you Donald Trump for dialing it back long enough for me to turn my attention toward something else. It is nice to have a break.

An engineer at Google named James Damore circulated a controversial 3,300 word memorandum, decrying the hyper-liberal bias of Google and suggesting that women are less suited for advanced careers, particularly in software engineering, due to their biology. It sounds to me like he struck a few notes that are by definition "sexist." I want to put aside the details of his memo and look at the bigger picture for a moment. 

Had Damore published that memo on a personal blog prior to applying for a job with Google and been denied the job for no reason other than that publication, it would in principle be no different than relieving him of his duties solely for circulating the memo while employed by Google. Therefore, it is in principle no different than NFL teams refusing to hire Colin Kaepernick because they are afraid of the effects his presence will have on team morale and cohesion. It seems you may either agree that NFL teams and Google Executives are both within their rights or both are exceeding their rights, but not one without the other.

Google is being accused of "group think." This seems obvious. Yes, they are engaged in group think. They have invested millions of dollars in what their critics pejoratively call "group think," only they call it corporate culture. To be honest, I don't think they fired Damore because he thought these things. I think they fired him because he circulated those ideas in a memo, which threatened both the Google brand in the court of public opinion and the corporate culture they have cultivated over the years. Google's interests are first and foremost with their bottom line, not social issues. They are far more interested in protecting their brand and the culture of creativity and productivity that has made them one of the most successful companies on the planet. Perhaps, you don't believe their decision is in the interest of creativity and productivity--and you might be right--but the evidence rests with Google's success.

Furthermore, people talk about "group think" like it is a new phenomenon. I would remind them of religion, which issues the harsh punishments of heresy and excommunication for breaking from the mold of their group thought. In recent times you can look to the Southern Baptist Convention's handling of Russel Moore's criticism of Trump for an example of religious group think (as well as political), though it did not reach the severity of heresy and excommunication.

The world religions--for better or worse--are the most sophisticated examples of group think this planet has ever seen. Coming in a close second is political parties. Both overlap in another favorite target of group think accusations, universities. Harvard, Yale, Princeton all began as institutions with loyalties to one denomination or another. Group think at our places of higher learning is hardly a new thing. Ralph Waldo Emerson was practically excommunicated from Harvard for 30+ years after giving a speech the Divinity School administration found distasteful in 1838. Yes, many of our institutions of higher learning exhibit similar biases toward politics now. I think it often gets blown out of proportion by adherents--student bodies rioting in protest of a disagreeable speaker--and conservatives who bemoan it as some new form of political correctness.

In my estimation political correctness is sometimes confused with just being a decent person. But there certainly are instances where it is taken too far. People should have the right to respectfully offer thoughtful criticism without fear of being labeled a bigot. Often this is an attempt to hide a particular position behind a taboo, an attempt to make it improper, for example, to question Islam. However, this is not new either. Religions have long since tried to hide their beliefs behind taboos, claiming for them a special class of ideation that is off limits. Skillful right-wing politicians like Ted Cruz try to hide their politics behind religious beliefs because in casual conversation the ban on questioning someone's religious convictions gives his politics extra shelf life. Similarly, left-wing politicians try to hide their politics behind certain social sensitivities. It is our job to sift through this garbage and figure out when "political correctness" is really a call to respectful of others rights, and when it is a political devise being used by politicos to advance their agenda.

It is not that I agree with either side of this debate. I think both sides often blow it out of the water. I am simply saying it is not a new phenomenon. In fact, I think if we look at it through the lens of human history we will find "group think" is probably getting a lot better than worse.

What do you think?

Are We Entering an Age of Political Violence?

We Might Be Heading Down a Dangerous Path

The shooting in Alexandria, Virginia targeting the Republican Congressional Baseball Team is a horrific event on its face. Violence is always unwelcome. Being helplessly caught in the cross-hairs of an active shooter with no cover or defense has to be a terrifying situation. I empathize with every person present and their families, and hope for a full recovery of the victims, including staffers, police officers, and Rep. Steve Scalise, the majority whip from my home state, Louisiana.

This shooting is compounded by the fact that it appears to be an act of political violence. Just before opening fire the shooter, James Hodgkinsin, asked whether this was the Republican congressional team or the Democrats. We are fortunate to live in a country where violence seldom meets politics. Politics and violence come into contact so infrequently that many Americans take it for granted. Incidents like this remind us how fortunate we are to live in a country where the body politic is divorced from violence. There can be no freedom when politics are coerced by violence.

Obviously, the perpetrator, who has since deceased, was deranged. No one in their right mind would take to shooing at unarmed, defenseless people. But in an effort to both curb shooting violence and ensure that our politics remain devoid of violence we must ask ourselves what we can do to deter such acts in the future. Note I said "deter," not eliminate. I understand no measure is full-proof, but active measures can be taken to reduce the likelihood of mass shootings and acts of political violence.

The shooting this morning just outside the Capital is a perfect example of why Kathy Griffin's photo shoot holding the decapitated head of Donald Trump was unacceptable. I am not laying this shooting at her feet. I do not believe she intended any malice. I think she is a comedian who blurred the line between sensationalism and basic decency in an effort to garner attention and to make a buck and a political point.

Perhaps the line she crossed is somewhat elusive, and maybe even more so for a comedian. For example, the Der Spiegel cover depicting Trump holding the decapitated head of the Statue of Liberty is, in my opinion, perfectly acceptable political commentary because it insinuates "acts of violence" against the principles upon which our government rests—political malpractice, if you will. It is symbolic. The Kathy Griffin photo shoot lacks symbolism. It fails to point past its obvious meaning. Griffin's photo shoot, even if it was not her intent, suggests that violence is an appropriate form of recourse against Trump. It indicates that Trump is so bad, so unacceptable that his death is warranted, even welcomed—once again, even if was a tasteless attempt to be shockingly funny. Therefore, the universal and immediate disapproval with which her actions were met and the subsequent consequences were appropriate and absolutely necessary in order to maintain certain levels of decency in public discourse.

The threat of political violence can never be tolerated in a free society. Political violence uses fear to manipulate the civic process. This is the definition of terrorism. Freedom and political violence cannot occupy the same space. One cancels out the other. We must guard the body politic against the threat of violence. To do that we must guard our thoughts and words against violent innuendo.

American government is a two-party system. It has been since its inception. The two party system dates back to the vicious rivalry between Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Party and Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. In order for a two party system to work, each side has to view the other as the "loyal opposition."  The idea of loyal opposition means that each side recognizes the other as loyal to the democratic principles upon which our government is established, while dissenting to the policies advocated by the opposing side. When the notion of loyal opposition breaks down, political violence ensues, which if left unchecked, may lead to civil war (See 1861 to 1865).

I, for example, disagree with 95% of the policies advocated by the present day Republican Party. However, they represent a constituency that is also enfranchised by the United States Constitution. They are accountable to that constituency. We win these political disagreements at the ballot box. And in a democratic state we win at the ballot box by advancing our arguments in public debate, organizing, and protesting. We must win the war of ideas. As demonstrated by Martin Luther King, this is possible under the most dire of circumstances without prostituting decency or resorting to violent innuendo.

The opposing party is a political adversary and not a physical enemy. They are co-participants in the American experience. Even now, in the most politically charged times of my life, the opposing party is not an enemy of the State. There are accusations circulating through the press and floating around the public arena that the President of the United States or perhaps some of his campaign aides colluded with Russia to meddle with an American election. I am a vociferous Trump critic and remain open to the idea that he or members of his campaign may have colluded with Russia. I also believe public discussion and debate about this, as well as tax reform, healthcare, and foreign policy is a civic duty. Even still, threats of violence against him or his supporters is unacceptable. A Special Prosecutor has been named to answer those questions regarding Russia. We must allow that investigation to administer justice and resist temptations to allow our standards of decency to slip. And even though Trump has himself called for violence at rallies, we can not overcome such callousness by going tit-for-tat, but only by rising above it.

Casual quips on social media about assassination or political violence are not acceptable. It is true that the overwhelming majority of people can issue and receive such tasteless comments without any thought of acting. However, there are those perverse minds that are ratcheted up by violent rhetoric. They see it as an invitation to act or as the normalization of something they have been contemplating, thereby a tacit endorsement of violence. Obviously, no one means it as such. It is careless. Kathy Griffin did not intend for her photo shoot to be taken that way, but it is essential that we reject such images and language because their are those that will take it that way. And since only an unbalanced mind would resort to political violence, we have to consider how such minds interpret our words and actions .              

The other side of the Alexandria shooting is all too familiar. It is another mass shooting. It is another example of a deranged person with easy access to high powered weapons firing into a crowd of defenseless people. America knows all to well the drill that ensues following a mass shooting. Whether it be on a baseball field, in a movie theater, or at a school, prayers poor in. I am not opposed to prayer. But prayer is empty unless it is supplemented by action. Prayer without action divorces spirituality from the world of responsibility, and in the case of gun violence, for reasons of political expediency. 

We can pray to be free of stress or anger, for example. However, there will be no increase of peace, serenity, love, or compassion, unless we are willing to identify and address the causes and conditions that give rise to stress and anger in our daily life. Similarly, we can pray for those affected by the shooting today. And they may even find some consolation in the fact that millions of people are praying for them. But unless we are willing to identify the causes and conditions that gave rise to the events of this morning and arouse the political will to address them, there will continue to be an epidemic of gun violence, as our recent history demonstrates. It is a relapsing cycle of gun violence, prayers, and fatuous debate with no end in sight unless we are willing to make common sense reforms.

Climate Change and Trump's Decision to Leave the Paris Agreement

Climate change is an observable phenomena that can be measured and the data can be collected and analyzed to produce a conclusion. This is the job of scientists, not the host of "The Apprentice."

The overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change is that it is demonstrably real and man contributes to this dangerous warming trend. This view is endorsed by 97% of all scientists that publish in the field.

What's more, climate scientists are the only people on the planet taking measurements, collecting and analyzing data about climate change. And yet, the reality TV star we elected President, in his hubris, has decided to disregard their conclusion and go on a hunch. Making policy decisions to the contrary of informed and uniform scientific consensus is arrogant, short-sided, and reckless. It binds future generations to the political whims and personal preferences of an ignorant and sophomoric mind.

The Paris Agreement is not perfect, but it is a giant step in the right direction, and America backing out of the deal will make it nearly impossible to strike another international deal in the future. It deals a decisive blow to both the planet and America's credibility.

You cannot make America great by destroying the planet America is on. "America First" cannot mean America comes before the planet it is a part of—that is like sawing off the branch you are sitting on.

To know the Paris Accord is a necessary step in the right direction, I do not need to understand the intricacies of climate science. Nor do the conclusions of climate scientists need agree with my personal politics. I only need to understand and accept that the epistemology of science—the method of collecting and organizing data in the form of testable explanations about the physical world—is superior to pure speculation.

Trump and His Anonymous Nemeses

There has been a lot of talk about anonymous sourcing, as used by the New York Times, CNN, and the Washington Post in the Trump-Russia scandal.

The leaking of classified information is illegal and the leaking of confidential, administrative information is a fire-able offense. So sources have shared information with the press anonymously for years to avoid the consequences.

There are only two possible motives: un-virtuous and virtuous. So the question is, 'Are the leakers sharing this information with the press for nefarious or virtuous purposes?'

If the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to tilt an American election in their favor, regardless of a quid pro qua, and officials within the government are aware of that and suspect the administration of obstruction, then they are duty bound to see that justice is administered. The most effective means of fulfilling this obligation is to leak information to the press, thereby painting a public picture that cannot be swept under the rug. This is what it would require for me to believe the leakers and the press are acting virtuously. Essentially, they must have good reason to believe the integrity of our system of government is under attack and that they are the last resort.

The magnitude and severity of the information being reported has reached an impeachable level. If this information is falsified or intentionally deceitful, the leakers and the press would be co-conspirators in an unprecedented smear campaign against a duly elected President of the United States that could be fairly described as a coup d'état. If the information is pure fiction, or if the leakers and the press know it to be willfully misleading, their actions amount to a form of insurrection.

This begs the question, 'Is the information being leaked a fair representation of the facts before those doing the leaking?'

The public has no way, at this point, of answering that question with certainty. We can't directly observe the raw intelligence before investigators. Therefore, we cannot measure the accuracy of the information reported in the press. We can, however, infer the validity of the information reported in the press by observing the real world effects of those reports. If something is real, its effects will be observable. So what effects have these articles produced?

In an anonymously sourced article, Michael Flynn was accused of inappropriate and undisclosed communications with Russia, as well as working as a foreign agent for Russia and their newfound friend, Turkey. The result? He was fired. Jeff Sessions was accused of undisclosed communications with the Russian Ambassador and suspected spy, Sergei Kislyak, in another anonymously sourced article. The result? Days after being sworn in as Attorney General, he recused himself from the Russian investigation. The President himself was accused of obstruction of justice by anonymous sources. They claimed that FBI Director James Comey wrote in memos discovered after his firing that Trump tried to get Comey to shut down the Flynn investigation. The Result? The Republican Deputy Attorney General, appointed by Trump himself, named a special prosecutor--and it must be noted that naming a special prosecutor is not a decision to be made lightly and without facts to support the decision.

To my knowledge, none of these stories have been retracted. In fact, the only story that was widely criticized was the dossier published on Buzzfeed, which they acknowledged was unconfirmed information. But none of the anonymously sourced stories have been retracted or debunked.

These anonymously sourced articles are routinely criticized by Trump and his supporters, but the fact is, swirling around the cloud of uncertainty at the center, are observable effects. This does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are true, but neither does typing in all caps on Facebook, "ALL ANONYMOUS SOURCES ARE LIARS!!! PERIOD."

In fact, judging by the effects produced, it would seem they are credible sources.

The New Republican Party

In Donald Trump, the Republican Party elected a thrice married, serial philanderer who was caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women but claimed to be a God fearing born-again Christian, a ridiculous claim endorsed by the spineless likes of Franklin Graham. This same candidate mocked a disabled reporter and has repeatedly maligned "the fake news," itself an adaptation of the tried and true right wing scapegoat, "the liberal mainstream media."

Riding the coat tails of the right's shameful decline of conscience is Greg Gianforte, who last night was elected to serve the people of Montana in the House of Representatives, despite having been charged with assault for physically attacking a reporter the night before, which took place in front of three eyewitnesses and was caught on audio--and both accounts were widely disseminated and clearly incriminating. The truth is, most Republicans did not care. It was an acceptable lapse in judgement triggered, Republicans reason, by the fact that both liberals and the media are intolerable. As far as they are concerned, their is no loyal opposition--and given their fair-weather value system and growing affection for Russia, I'm inclined to agree with them, though I do recognize Senators Burr, McCain, and Graham, as well as a handful of other elected Republicans like John Kasich as a principled bunch of patriotic conservatives. But they are no longer a party. They are now just a moderate and sensible caucus within the party.

The Republican Party has reached a point where there is nothing more shameful and unacceptable, in their minds, than being a liberal. In the name of expediency, they are willing to muffle their conscience, discard morality, part ways with all manner of tradition and custom, and, apparently, elect violent criminals. They will align America and her prestige with authoritarian kleptocrats and despotic tyrants, if it means unseating Democrats.

The new Republican Party--and that is what this is, the dawning of a new right wing political faction--is guided by nothing but expediency. It is morally bankrupt. Any means is justified by the end goal of destroying liberalism for the likes of Trump, Sessions, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Franklin Graham. They are willing to partner with Russia, set aside the constitution, manufacture pure fiction, fear monger, race bait, and mortgage the very soul of their faith to prevent Democrats from winning an election. And that is dangerous. The Republican Party is heading down the road of tyranny.

The rhetoric of Trump and the election of Greg Gianforte in Montana shows us that Republicans have reached a breaking point where they believe it necessary to attack basic American freedoms, like the freedom of the press, in order to preserve their brand of freedom, which upon analysis is revealed to be no freedom at all. It is anarchy and rage.

Republicans are blinded by hate, not driven by principled conviction. They are a mob, not a political party. Republicans do not want compromise; they want a single party system or a white, despotic state characterized by Dixieland Christianity and the conspicuous absence of a welfare state.

This is the New Republican Party.

There is No Room for Admirers.

"Of all the children born to women, there has never been anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he." - Matthew 11:11

Conversion or the rebirth experience (metanoia) marks the resurrection of our True Self, which is of the Kingdom and not born of woman, so to speak. Metanoia is a renewal of one's mind and motivations. It is an experience that re-orients our entire being because it relocates the point or center from which we live our life, moving it from the head down into the heart.

In the Gospels, the Christ image is made manifest in Jesus of Nazareth. Through Jesus's life and actions the indwelling presence of God is born into the world. But the life of Christ does not end with the crucifixion of Jesus. Christ is resurrected. In fact, Christ is Resurrection. This unending Resurrection is the story of Christianity. It is the True Self or the Resurrected Christ that, in Galatians, Paul says has replaced his false-self.

Paul further elaborates on this point in Ephesians where he writes, "Put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life, and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, putting on the new self, created after the likeness of God." This false-self/ True Self, former life/ New Life dichotomy is common in spiritual literature. In Alcoholics Anonymous members celebrate "sobriety birthdays." The sobriety birthday is often more significant than their biological birthday because it marks the point at which they adopted a new manner of living. The sobriety birthday is in fact a re-birth day. It is a celebration of the True Self, which obviously was not born of a woman or brought about by reproductive means, but by a spiritual death and resurrection.

In the opening quotation, Jesus also says "the least in the Kingdom" which denotes a spectrum of realization (least to greatest). This spectrum recognizes both maturity and depth of insight into the Kingdom, ranging from the admission of powerlessness found in Alcoholics Anonymous to the realization of Oneness with God proclaimed by Jesus in the Gospel of John.

But either way, he who is of the Kingdom is greater than he who is of the world because Kingdom dwellers, so to speak, strive to live in accordance with their True Nature and not the law or the prescribed guidelines of religious and social institutions. In fact, the prescribed guidelines of churches and governments are legitimized only in so far as they relate back to the inclinations of human nature and aid individuals in their quest to realize or embody that nature for themselves.

Often, institutions fail to do this because they are more concerned with perpetuating their power, which is why people like Jesus, Gandhi, and King are seen as subversive by those institutions. They embody the principle freedom of the Kingdom, not the ways of the world.

Many Americans believe America is a Christian nation. The majority of Americans may self-describe as Christian, but it is becoming increasingly clear that the spiritual principles outlined in the Gospels—the principles Jesus embodied and Christians are called to follow—are repugnant to many American "Christians," especially those that frequently say America is a Christian nation. It is obvious from the Gospel account that Jesus offered a counterculture and because of this he was seen as a troublemaker. And he was. But he also still is. He causes trouble for anyone that claims to follow him because the path he outlines is not an easy path to walk.

Richard Rohr wrote in Jesus' Plan for a New World, "We keep worshiping the messenger, keeping Jesus up on statues and images, so we can avoid what he said. It's the best smokescreen in the world! We just keep saying, 'We love Jesus.' The more we talk about Jesus, the less we'll do what he said. That's the way the ego fools itself. And in this case, it's the way culture, nations and even churches have fooled themselves."

We worship the messenger but ignore the message. In the process, Jesus obtains admirers but not followers. We have confused our ego with the Christ image depicted in the Gospels, and tragically with the image of God that lives within us. This is spiritual materialism.

The Christ image is subversive. It undermines our ego and all of its attendant fears, prejudices, resentments, and defense mechanisms. This is a challenge. It requires that we empty ourselves. Letting go of the false-self and it's strategies takes the burden off of the True Self. It shifts the burden over to the false-self. This burden is the cross upon which the ego is crucified. And the resurrection of our True Life is proportionate to the death of our false-self. "He and I cannot dwell together in the same space." Without death there can be no rebirth. "We cannot welcome the presence," writes Rohr, "the Parousia, the full coming of Christ until we've let go of the old."

Beyond the noise, the chaos, the stress, fear, and anger we can feel our heart beating, calling out to us, pleading with us to let go of our false-self and to return to the life of the body. This is the call of Christ, which lives within us as the image of God, our True Self. Jesus shows the way. And only those that follow can be called Christian in any meaningful sense of the word, regardless of what beliefs they affirm. On the path Jesus outlined there is simply no room for admirers.

Order Finding God in the Body: A Spiritual Path for the Modern West by Benjamin Riggs today. Available in Paperback and Kindle on Amazon. 

How Trump Became the L. Ron Hubbard of the Republican Party

Politics Begins with the Maintenance of our Spiritual Condition

I find the above quote from Finding God in the Body particularly relevant, given the current political environment. 

I am not promoting political quietism. Politics is an aspect of daily life, one that those fortunate enough to live in a democratic society should be grateful for. We must be not only present and engaged but always informed, well-intentioned and open-minded. 

The above quote reminds us that however well-informed or articulate our argument might be, it will fall on deaf ears, if we fail to express ourselves in an honest and respectful manner. Our actions blot out our words. 

Our politics must begin with the maintenance of our spiritual condition, lest our politics become just another channel through which we vent fear and resentment. Political discourse must begin with prayer and meditation, personal reflection and self-examination.

Finding God in the Body offers in-depth instruction in the practice of body-based meditation, contemplative prayer, and self-examination. 

Finding God in the Body is available on Amazon in paperback and Kindle formats. 

Politics and Spirituality

Erected between the Church and the State is a "Wall of Separation."
But within the envelope of my skin, there is no line of demarcation segregating politics and spirituality. 

We do not live in a totalitarian state. As members of a democratic society, we have a civic duty. Our government is held in check by "we the people." In a democratic system of government, politics is just another aspect of daily living.

Spirituality is not an other-worldly affair. It is a principled worldview coupled with a system of practice that orients our whole being to the world in which we live.

Politics is not a distraction from spirituality, but one aspect of daily life with which spirituality is deeply concerned.

Saying that politics is a distraction from spirituality is like saying relationships or work are obstacles to spiritual practice. They aren't obstacles, they are opportunities for our spirituality to be born into the world. Segregating politics and spirituality is an attempt to closet your spirituality—to shield it from things that push your buttons, rather than turning into your struggles and learning to move beyond stress, fear, and anger.

We are not called to hide behind a vapid smile or to look the other way. Any spirituality that hides behind a distraction is not a spirituality but a defense mechanism. It is spiritual bypassing not spiritual practice. This is true regardless of whether our practice is rooted in Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, or lacks religious affiliation.

Gandhi once wrote, "Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is...Indeed, religion should pervade every one of our actions. Here religion does not mean sectarianism. It means a belief in ordered moral government of the universe. It is not less real because it is unseen. This religion transcends Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc. It does not supersede them. It harmonizes them and gives them reality."

A living spirituality is politically conscious and engaged but not obsessed. And this is the catch.

It is hard to be mindful and politically engaged at the same time. It is difficult to watch the news or read the papers without getting wrapped up in it, especially this day-and-age with a 24 hr news cycle and a controversial President that dominates every minute of that cycle.

Mindfulness and activism often feel mutually exclusive. But uniting the two is our path. We have to root our politics in mindfulness and silence. If we fail to do this, we will either neglect our civic responsibility or our politics will be tainted with fear and aggression.

You can be present and centered while protesting or voicing concern—Dorthy Day, Gandhi, King, Thich Nhat Hanh, and the Dalai Lama are perfect examples.

While the basic outline of spirituality remains unchanged, the terrain that path must traverse changes with each generation. And it is no accident that these great icons of mindful activism have come before us, showing us the way. They have outlined the path before us. Their activism is rooted in prayer and meditation.

Venturing into the realm of politics without tethering the mind to reality is the way of madness.

Meditation anchors the mind in the present moment. But it is not enough to sit every morning. Mindful activism is meditation in action. We have to bring the principles of meditation—letting go and returning to the simplicity of the present moment—into our daily life. In the presence of injustice, we often feel fear, anger, and aggression. But we must disown the fear, anger, and aggression, not the awareness of injustice, which is grounded in reality.

Our conscience must rise above our fear of confrontation. We have to speak truth to power. Our words must not be weighted down by anger and resentment. 

Politics devoid of compassion is just another way to vent resentment. And our body politic is already saturated with resentment. Prayer connects the mind and the heart, melting away resentment. William James wrote in Varieties of Religious Experience, "Religion is nothing if it be not the vital act by which the entire mind seeks to save itself by clinging to the principle from which it draws its life. This act is prayer." And the heart is the principle from which the mind draws life. But once again it is not enough to pray only in the morning. We have to see aggression as a reminder to pray throughout the day. When are afraid or angry, we have to pray for those that arouse our bitterness. We have to pray for those in need. Prayer gets us out of our head, out of our self-centered mind. It awakens the spirit of selflessness and sanity.

Spirituality reminds us that it is our responsibility to be a voice of sanity, a light unto the world. I say that not with a condescending tone, but with an awareness that I too must work harder to bring mindfulness, compassion, and sanity into my politics. Politics is a sticky subject. It is easy to get caught up in politics. But the spiritual path always cuts through our obstacles. It never goes around them. This is the path we in the era of Trump must trudge and we have to do it together.

Part of doing it together is holding each other accountable. When we see someone with good intentions lash-out or become disrespectful, it is important to point that out to them. We have to remind them that how they say it is every bit as important as what they say. Yes, we are obligated to speak the truth, but we are also obligated to do that in a skillful manner. If we oppose hate, then we have to oppose it even when it is attached to a message that we agree with because hate--in any form--only adds to the problems that we face as a nation. Hate is not the counter-measure for injustice. As Martin Luther King said, "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."

_________________________

Also available on iTunes: http://apple.co/2lK4hb4

Donald Trump's State Sponsored Islamaphobia

My favorite TV show is The Office.

In the “Gettysburg” episode, the CEO of Dunder Mifflin, Robert California, pays a surprise visit to the Scranton branch. He is looking to discuss new ideas with the regional manager, Andy Bernard. But Andy is out of the office on a company retreat to Gettysburg. So Robert California settles for a brain-storming session with a handful of employees who stayed behind.

Dunder Mifflin is a paper company, so as you might imagine, the employees struggle to produce ideas that might change a centuries old industry. But I find one employee’s efforts relevant to our present situation.

Stanley Hudson, the disgruntled but lovable middle-aged paper salesman, pitches the idea of “Papyr.” But Papyr is a needless product. So Stanley promotes “Papyr” by depreciating “paper.” He says, “If your woman is like mine, I bet you come home to hear the same thing all the time. ‘This paper is so hard. It scratches. Why can’t there be a paper just for me?’ Well now there is. Papyr: Paper for Women. It’s pink, scented and silky soft. Now, you can watch the game and she can write a letter to her sister.” The CEO immediately responds, “The situation you described, returning home to a wife complaining about her paper being too masculine, is not one I’m familiar with.”

Donald Trump’s pitch to the American people is similar.

Trump painted a dystopian picture of America, one where crime, violence, and terrorism are ubiquitous. And he did this by scapegoating Latinos, African-Americans, and Muslims. Then he inserted himself as the only solution to these problems. Trump said, time and time again, “I alone can fix it. I will restore law and order.”

This is propaganda 101. Don’t try to solve real problems. Rather, invent problems that only you can solve.

Have you ever seen someone wrestling their water hose in the front yard? I haven’t. But if you watch infomercials that show terrorized gardeners tangled up in their water hoses enough times, you will begin to believe that this is a real problem, and the product offered is the only solution to that problem.

Donald Trump is like an infomercial for White-Nationalism.

For example, Donald Trump took the gun violence in Chicago and blanketed it across the entire country, claiming “African Americans and Hispanics are living in hell.” He said that, “You walk down the street and you get shot.” He did this, not because he believed it to be true, but in order to insert himself as the solution. In the same breath he said, “We need law and order. If we don’t have it, we’re not going to have a country.” Then he called himself the “law and order candidate.”

Trump peddled the meme that America has descended into lawless chaos, day in and day out for months. It might not be true, but as Joseph Goebbels said, propaganda “must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” So Trump repeated the claim that America is a lawless country until people believed it—even though they saw no evidence to support the claim in their daily lives. And the media unwittingly helped him establish the meme by replaying it ad infinitum.

Once the first meme was established, he inserted the second, “I am the law and order candidate,” along with some tough rhetoric to demonstrate the claim. And he repeated this over and over again. This one-two punch left people believing two things: (a) America has descended into lawlessness and (b) Trump is the law and order candidate, which gives birth to the third meme: America needs Donald Trump.

Donald Trump did the same thing with Muslims. He scapegoated them, so he could insert himself as the authoritarian solution to the Muslim problem. America has no Muslim problem. Donald Trump invented it—well, to be fair, he capitalized on pre-existing xenophobic sentiments about Muslims, establishing them as facts in the minds of his supporters.

Trump described Muslims as violent, anti-American people that reject our values. He failed to flesh out the differences between terrorism and Islam, just as he failed to differentiate between those who had committed crimes and the overwhelming majority of Latino immigrants that are productive members of our society.

Donald Trump propagated lies—not alternative facts, untruths, or half-truths, but flat-out lies. He said thousands and thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheered on the 9/11 attacks. He also took isolated, lone-wolf attacks in America and connected them to coordinated terrorist attacks across Europe—failing to mention the geographical and historical differences between Europe and United States. And worst of all, Trump took refugees from Syria and Iraq—men, women, and children desperately fleeing the carnage in their homelands—and lumped them in with the very people they were fleeing. He said, “They could be ISIS—I don’t know… They’re all men, and they’re all strong-looking guys… There are so many men; there aren’t that many women. And I’m saying to myself: Why aren’t they fighting to save Syria? Why are they migrating all over Europe?”

Donald Trump repeatedly planted the meme that Muslims hate America, insinuating that every Muslim, even those Syrians fleeing Assad and ISIS want to do harm to America—even though no Syrian refugee has ever carried out a fatal attack on U.S. soil. Finally, he said I will ban Muslims from immigrating to the United States, which led those who had been infected by his propaganda to the unavoidable conclusion that Donald Trump will make America great (safe) again.

Donald Trump’s motivations are not security. He is not trying to keep America safe. Even if I bought into his logic—even if I believed that Muslims were inherently violent and anti-American—by that very logic his actions are still illogical. Saudi Arabia should top any immigration blacklist meant to prevent terrorism or radical ideology from infiltrating the country. Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia (none of them were from the seven countries banned). The Saudi royal family spends billions financing the ideology that often morphs into Salafi-jihadism (terrorism), yet Saudi Arabia was conspicuously absent from the list of countries Trump banned.

No one from any of the seven countries banned (Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Libya) has carried out a fatal attack on American soil in over 30 years. In fact, according to CNN, “No person accepted to the United States as a refugee, Syrian or otherwise, has been implicated in a major fatal terrorist attack since the Refugee Act of 1980 set up systematic procedures for accepting refugees into the United States.”

Our vetting procedures for refugees have successfully weeded out dangerous people. This simply is not a problem. And even if it was, Trump’s ban would not have prevented 9/11 (which included people from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Lebannon), San Bernadino (U.S. born Pakistani), or Orlando (U.S. born). Trump’s motivation is not safety and security, but personal power. He is not trying to solve an actual problem, but present himself as a solution.

There is a problem within the Muslim world.

But the situation Donald Trump has described, waking up every day and seeing Muslim immigrants carrying out acts of violence on American soil, is not one I’m familiar with.

Islam is not an inherently violent religion as Trump insinuates and the fact that verses with violent denotations can be cherry-picked from the Quran is not evidence to the contrary. There are violent verses in the Bible and yet Judaism and Christianity are not inherently violent either. If you can differentiate between peaceful Christians and those who attack abortion clinics, then you are capable of differentiating between Muslims and terrorists. The problem I see within Islam is a political problem.

Two weeks ago I was talking to a Sunni Imam. I asked him about the separation between Islam and politics. He said, “There is no separation between Islam and the state like you see in the American political system.” That is the fundamental problem facing Islam.

Islamic fundamentalists believe that the Quran is the inerrant word of God (much like Christian fundamentalists believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God). From their point of view, democracy is an attempt to put the laws of man before the laws of God. It is also worth mentioning that this position is held by these clerics for self-serving, rather than theological reasons. Arguing that sovereignty must rest with God is essentially arguing, as Reza Aslan points out, “that sovereignty should rest in the hands of the clergy.” And within this group of fundamentalists there is an even smaller group that is willing to use violence to seize political control.

Acknowledging this problem does not make you Islamaphobic any more than acknowledging dominionism or New-Earth creationism makes you Christaphobic. In fact, it is the way in which you differentiate between fundamentalists, extremists, and moderates within any given ideological system. And the lack of such nuance in American discourse about Islam is what enables demagogues like Donald Trump to successfully generalize and demonize all Muslims.

Many of these fundamentalist clerics have a great deal of political persuasion in the Middle East because they promote the ruthless ideologies that enable the ruling classes of these countries to maintain power. They are more often than not part of the ruling class. This is, for example, the symbiotic relationship between the Saudi Royal family and Wahhabism.

But it is important to note that the majority of people immigrating to America from that part of the world are fleeing those despotic, theocratic governments.

The majority of Muslims worldwide do not agree with these radical clerics. And in the Western world, even fewer Muslims support theocratic institutions. The fact that Western Muslims by and large reject theocracy tells me two very important things. First, Muslims who immigrate to Western countries are doing so because they want the freedoms a secular, egalitarian democracy affords. Second, egalitarianism, secularism, pluralism, and democracy are cultural memes on par with the spoked-wheel—they spread like wildfire when people are introduced to their benefits.

So I can think of no better way to stem the rise of Islamic fundamentalism than to allow Muslims to immigrate to Western countries where they have the freedom to become reformers within Islam. Of course it is important to vet immigrants. But as I have stated, we already have a successful system in place for vetting immigrants and refugees. Eighty percent of terrorist attacks in the United States are carried out by American citizens.

We also have an ethical responsibility to aid refugees in the search of asylum. My fear is that Donald Trump’s propaganda has, for his supporters, justified an authoritarianism that is thoroughly un-American. He has created a dystopian illusion of such grand proportions that, in their minds, tyranny is justified.

Consenting to Trump’s fear mongering will fundamentally change America’s character. So we have a responsibility to speak out against Donald Trump’s authoritarianism and xenophobic rhetoric.

To stand up, not only for those in need of refuge, but for the principles that make America a place of refuge. If we go down the path paved by Trump, I fear we will quickly become a country from which people seek refuge.