Under God, In Deed

Congress just can’t stop toying with the First Amendment for partisan political gain. Sometime this week they are expected take up the so-called “Pledge Protection Act”, HR 2389, for consideration. This bill prohibits federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, from hearing any cases regarding the Pledge of Allegiance. The only good thing about this tactic is that it isn’t being boxed up as yet another Constitutional amendment.

Some opponents are characterizing this as a Congressional power grab and a threat to the Constitutional separation of powers. But, if my memory serves me correctly, the power to define the jurisdiction of the federal courts is actually vested in Congress via the Constitution. Of course, just because one branch has the power to do something, doesn’t mean that it should exercise that power on a given topic at a given time in a given way. This is a topic that should not be addressed at this time in this manner.

The bill actually isn’t designed to protect the Pledge per se, but to protect the reference to “under God” in the Pledge. God, we’re told from religious and political pulpits across the land, is under assault in America and, even though S/He may be an awesome God, S/He appears to need our protection. Fortunately for me, my God is one plenty powerful potentate who doesn’t need my protection. But, I recognize that others may not be as fortunate.

I like the Pledge as written with its “one nation under God” phrase. I’m pleased that we declare ourselves to be under a power and wisdom greater than our own; that’s a good message for us to recall every day. I don’t want that to change.

However, I don’t think we should fence in the jurisdiction of the courts in order to prevent someone who doesn’t like the insertion of religion into a national oath of allegiance from challenging it. There are other people of faith who are taking no position either for or against the inclusion of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge who are saying the same thing. They’re advocating for the right of any person of faith, or of no faith at all, to receive a fair hearing by the federal courts if they feel their Constitutional rights are being violated. Those who hold this view regard this legislation as diminishing, not protecting, the religious liberty that almost all of us regard as a non-negotiable part of our American democracy. In other words, HR 2389 could be as bad for religion as it is for the First Amendment.

The Pledge has an interesting history. While many might think that it sprung up from the fertile soil of the American Revolution or in the midst of the tumultuous Civil War, it was actually written in 1892 by a socialist author as an advertising gimmick for a youth magazine that was trying to sell flags to schools. The Pledge wasn’t adopted by Congress as the official national pledge until December 1945. That newly adopted Pledge made no reference to “under God”.

In 1951, the Knights of Columbus became the first group to insert and then champion the addition of the phrase “under God”. It wasn’t until June 1954 that Congress adopted the phrase that makes the Pledge what it is today. When I started school as a first grader in September 1954, my teacher had to correct some of my fellow students who had learned the Pledge earlier without that phrase.

The adoption of the phrase “under God” didn’t necessary spring from religious faith; it may have been more a matter of political fervor intended to distinguish America from the godless Communists in the midst of the infamous investigations by the House Committee on Un-American Activities and the Senate Committee on Government Operations, led by the soon to be discredited Senator Joseph McCarthy. Those hearings reached their fanatical peak in late 1953 and early 1954. Similarly, the Congress adopted “In God We Trust” as the official motto of the United States, in 1956, superseding “E Pluribus Unum” (Out of Many, One). Almost any “patriotic” or “faithful” expression born in that period of time comes with a questionable genealogy. Interestingly, the House of Representatives did not begin reciting the Pledge on a daily basis until 1988. The recalcitrant Senate held out until 1999. The point of this history recital is that the Pledge of Allegiance with its “under God” reference hasn’t been part of the American fabric for all that long.

It doesn’t bother me if someone wants to challenge the use of “under God” in the Pledge as a violation of the First Amendment’s putative call for a separation of church and state. Like the inclusion of “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency, the use of those phrases has withstood and can withstand the test of that scrutiny. Just as the adoption of these phrases came about under questionable or at least mixed motives, the so-called “protection” of those phrases today is similarly tainted if not completely undermined by expedient partisan politics.

Without regard to whether those phrases stay or go as official expressions of allegiance and trust, there are countless ways for believers and persons of faith to express their faith and trust in God every day. For starters, we can do as God requests: love God with all our hearts and our neighbors as ourselves. Then we can move on to feed the poor and care for the needy, as God has asked us to do. Then we can turn our attention to obeying, not just posting, the Ten Commandments. Then we can capture and live the spirit of the Beatitudes in our personal, communal and national lives. Then we can become peacemakers.

When we’ve done all those things as we’ve been asked by God, then let’s set out to protect the Pledge and the Motto and any other such symbol of choice. Of course, at that point in time, the world will be a vastly different place and both sides of the current debate are likely to conclude, “No need; it doesn’t matter now.”

I Pledge Allegiance

This isn’t an easy post to write because the subject has emotional layers that I don’t want to tap in to. The subject is flag desecration, flag burning in particular.

I do not support the idea of amending the U.S. Constitution to outlaw flag burning. Such an amendment was defeated in the U.S. Senate yesterday by one vote. Absent a constitutional amendment, flag burning is a protected form of free speech under the First Amendment. For me, that’s the issue: do we decide for the first time in our national history to amend the Constitution for the purpose of diminishing the scope of rights granted and protected under the First Amendment. I say, no; that’s a bad precedent to set and it can lead us to a place that is antithetical to the freedom that America represents.

I have read, but haven’t confirmed with my own research, that there are only three other countries in the world who have a legal ban on the desecration of their nation’s flag – Iran, China and Cuba. North Korea isn’t on that list but I’m pretty sure they would execute such an offender without regard to having a law on the books, given the fact that they execute people for far less reason. These countries make up a club that I don’t want to join. There is a reason why these countries are on this short list – it’s because repression is their means of control; and there’s a reason that all other freedom-loving countries are not on this short list, because the repression or control of the free expression of their citizens is antithetical to their sense of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This amendment gets characterized as a patriotic litmus test: if you’re patriotic, you have to support it; if you don’t support it, then you’re not patriotic. That, of course, offends people like me, people who regard supporting the First Amendment as their patriotic duty. The Constitution and its Bill of Rights are what set us apart as a country; they are the bulwark of the governing model that we have offered to the world for over 200 years. We shouldn’t even consider altering them based on the actions of a very small number of people occasionally protesting something on Main Street, USA.

The emotional ante gets raised by tying this amendment to our armed forces, particularly our combat troops. We’re told that Americans have fought and died for the flag and that it is, therefore, a sacred symbol deserving of protection as a means to honor that sacrifice. First, that suggests that we have not honored that sacrifice over the last two centuries in the absence of such an amendment, which, of course, is not true and almost silly to suggest. More importantly, I believe that our men and women in combat have fought and died for something far more important than a symbol – they have fought and died for the bedrock foundation of freedom, for the actual substance of liberty and justice for all, including the freedom for their fellow citizens to protest their government through actions such as a flag burning. They have fought and died for everything that symbolizes their country, not just the flag. Shall we now set out to protect every such symbol by a constitutional amendment?

Flag burning has been an occasional part of American protest movements for a long time, so why only now has it become necessary to ban it? Because it has become yet another political Molotov cocktail, an incendiary device intended to provide explosive power in rallying the partisan “troops”, particularly in an election year. Once again, the leadership in Congress knew that this latest attempt would fail by one or two votes, so passage wasn’t the issue. Getting a recorded voice vote that could be used for political purposes between now and November is the issue. We will hear it referenced time and time again in the coming months.

I detest the use of the American flag in any disrespectful way, particularly burning it, ripping it, or throwing it in the dirt. When I see that I’d like to punch whoever is doing it right in the face. But, I will continue to defend their right to do it because that is what my country is all about – the freedom to speak our mind peacefully without being arrested, thrown in jail and convicted of a crime, as is all the rage in the flag-protecting governments of Iran, China and Cuba.

Flag desecration is an interesting subject to get into. I find myself just as upset when I see the flag turned into a tank top; or a pair of pants or a “patriotic” canvas lawn chair that someone sits on; or a handkerchief that someone blows their nose on; or a throw rug that someone puts on the floor; or any of the other hundreds of kitschy ways the flag gets used in “Americana” design, decoration or fashion. If we’re going to talk about honoring and respecting the flag, then we have a lot of things to talk about. Maybe the first step is to just get all Americans to stand up, take their hat off, stop talking, and put their hand over their heart when the flag passes or when the National Anthem is being played. Maybe the second step is to ensure that all flying and other use of the flag complies with the accepted protocol for such use. I wonder what the effect of those consistent practices would be on the use of the flag for other purposes. One of the problems is that far too many of the people who profess to hate flag burning don’t do much of anything else to honor and respect the flag on a day-to-day basis.

One of the senators who voted against the amendment is Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii. "Our country is unique because our dissidents have a voice. While I take offense at disrespect to the flag, I nonetheless believe it is my continued duty as a veteran, as an American citizen, and as a United States senator to defend the constitutional right of protesters to use the flag in nonviolent speech."

Senator Inouye knows a thing or two about fighting to defend the country and its flag. He is a World War II veteran who lost an arm in the war – the right arm that he used to salute the flag. He was decorated for heroism in combat with the Bronze Star, the Distinguished Service Cross, and the Medal of Honor. He went on to become the first person of Japanese descent to be a member of the House of Representatives and the Senate, having represented Hawaii since it came into the Union. His voice on this issue is unique and relevant. I suspect he is not the only Medal of Honor recipient who feels this way.

I love my country; I love my flag and what it symbolizes. I stand up for what it stands up for. I support the men and women in uniform and I appreciate those who supported me when I was in uniform. I honor the sacrifice of those who give life and limb in defense of my country, my family and the freedoms we enjoy. Nothing that any group of protestors can do in a city street or a town square can change or diminish that love, support and honor. I will continue to pledge allegiance to that flag no matter what any other persons does or does not do.

A Lion in the House

Isak Dinesen said, “You know you are truly alive when you are living among lions. “ That quote is the source of the title for a new two-part, four-hour documentary on the PBS series “Independent Lens”. Called “A Lion in the House”, this documentary covers the heart-wrenching stories of five children each of whom is waging war against cancer. Filmed over a period of six years, it also tells the compelling stories of the five families who are immersed in that battle at their child’s side.

My wife and I watched the film over the last two nights. It took us back to the sights, sounds and smells of the war that Danny and our family waged for over four years. I expected to be deeply touched by the children, and I was. It’s impossible not to be deeply impacted by them – their faces; their eyes; their smiles; their tears; their pain; their moments of laughter and joy. You feel their hopes and their fears. You see their strength, courage, and resilience, all mixed in the context of their childhood innocence and adolescent bravado. But you also see the dawning of reality in the eyes of the older children, a dawn that signals the departure of innocence and bravado.

What I had not expected was the extent to which I would be impacted by the stories of the family members. I realized as I watched them that when you’re in a battle like that, as we have been, you’re too close to it and too immersed in it to appreciate the scope of what you’re going through. I found myself saying, “I don’t know how they did it;” only to later realize that I also meant, “I don’t know how we did it.”

It was all too familiar. In scene after scene we knew the thoughts and feelings coursing through and often pounding in the minds and hearts of the parents. We could anticipate their reactions and we understood their dilemmas. We saw our anger, frustration, lack of understanding, painful awareness, patience and impatience on their faces.

Back to Dinesen’s quote – there are two ways to view her reference to lions. Lions are a symbol of strength and courage, so we can easily apply that symbol to the remarkable children who fight cancer. They are the poster children for strength and courage and those who live with them are, indeed, made truly alive in their presence. These kids make life precious and they alter how those in their presence view and value life. The families of kids who have cancer know this lion.

But, lions are also powerful hunters and killers and they instill fear in all who cross their path in the animal kingdom. Cancer is like a lion in this regard and the fear of it also makes one truly alive in its presence, but in a different way. We never feel more alive than when we stand in the dark shadow of a life-threatening situation. Picture how you would feel if you knew that a lion were roaming through the rooms and hallways of your house. You would feel every heart beat; every nerve would be on full alert. Every sight, sound and smell would be significant. The families of kids who have cancer know this lion.

There is a lion in the house. Which lion we encounter is determined by how we choose to experience its presence, by what we chose to focus on. If our experience is one of love and our focus is on love, it is the lion in the heart of the child that we encounter. If our experience is one of fear and our focus is on fear, it is the lion that hunts and kills that we encounter. In the last two nights, we experienced and focused on far more love than fear; we experienced and focused on the children and their families far more than on the cancer they fought. That choice made the film inspirational.

That choice made the lion lie down with the lamb.

He Is Not a Number

Last week the United States reached a milestone that no one wanted to see – the number of men and women killed in action in Iraq reached 2,500. That number is about the same as the student body at my high school. It’s hard to believe that we have buried that many marines, soldiers and sailors. 2,370 of them have been buried since we declared an end to major combat and hung the infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner in May 2003; 2,042 of them have been buried since Saddam was captured in December 2003; 1,641 have been buried since the “handover” of power in June 2004; and 1,071 have been buried since the election in January 2005.

When Tony Snow, the president’s new press secretary, was asked to comment on this death, his response shocked me. He said, “It’s a number.” I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Shock morphed to anger in a matter of seconds.

No, Mr. Snow, it is not a number! “It” is not an “it”. He was a man. He was a son; a grandson; a brother; a husband; a father; a nephew; an uncle; a cousin; a friend; a neighbor; a classmate; a co-worker; a buddy; a comrade in arms; a fellow Marine; an American. He was a Boy Scout; a pitcher; a quarterback; a wrestler; a guitar player; a gamer; a motorcycle rider; a dog lover; a baseball card collector; a hip hop fan; a Coors Light guy. He was many things to many people. But he was not a number.

And, for the record, the 2,499th man to die wasn’t a number, either. Neither was the 2,501st; the 2,502nd; the 2,503rd; the 2,504th; the 2,505th; the 2,506th; or the 2,507th. Neither will the 2,508th American who dies be a number. He, too, will be a man who was an infant, a child, an adolescent, and a young man. But, he will never be an old man.

And, for the record, the 214 Coalition troops who have died in Iraq and the 303 Americans who died in Afghanistan are not numbers, either. Oh, by the way, neither are the tens of thousands of non-combatant Iraqis and Afghanis who have died as “collateral damage”.

And, for the record, the 18,500 American men and women who have been wounded in Iraq are not numbers, either. I know one of the wounded very well; I’ve known him as an infant, a child, an adolescent, a young man and now as a mature man. I’ve known him as a son, a husband, a father, a fellow sailor. I’ve known him as an Eagle Scout, a football and baseball player, a wrestler, a Cowboys and Padres fan, and a barbeque master. He has always had a name and face and a voice. He has never been a number.

It seems clear that Tony Snow has never known any of the 2,507; or any of the 18,500; or any of the 214; or any of the 303; or any of the tens of thousands. He does not know my son. I suspect that his son has never been to Iraq or Afghanistan and never will go to war.

I never thought I’d miss Scott McClellan. Like Tony, he could count. Unlike Tony, he never suggested he was counting numbers.

On Becoming a Man

Upon returning home after spending four days in San Diego celebrating my grandson’s birthday and enjoying Father’s Day with three of my children, I wanted to post a Father’s Day tribute in honor of my Dad. But, as happens, I was overcome by events at home and at work and didn’t get it done. Perhaps that was a good thing because it gave me time to remember that in 1998 I sent my Dad a letter that I think was, and still is, a fitting tribute for Father’s Day. I’ve decided to post that letter as my enduring tribute.
___________________________________________________________

June 21, 1998

Dear Dad,

I want to take another opportunity to say, Happy Father’s Day 1998. Each year it’s difficult to find a Father’s Day card that says the right thing for you. I’ve never cared much for the standard Hallmark card, with their syrupy rhymes that are both bad poetry and poor sentiment. When I look back over nearly 50 years of a father-son relationship, it just can’t easily be put into a card. Relationships between men aren’t that simple.

I was very excited to find the heavy construction equipment book as a Father’s Day gift for you. It jumped off the shelf at me, not just because it obviously related to your long career in the construction industry, but because it was a symbol about you. Your accomplishments over the years are as large as the equipment shown in that book. You’ve built big things in many places, and they will stand a long time as a monument to your work.

I remember Dean Rex Lee telling us on the first day of law school that the monument to a lawyer’s career is a five-drawer, Steelcase filing cabinet, and that if any of us were troubled by that prospect we should reconsider our choice of professions. I’ve thought about that remark many times over the years, not just as a commentary on what an attorney leaves behind, but as a comparison to what my Dad has done.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve said to my children, “Granddad built this highway … that dam … this railroad.” I can’t count the number of times I’ve told a friend, “My Dad built the dam at Courtright Reservoir … the railroad across the Great Salt Lake … the highway through the Virgin River Gorge … the dam on the Ord River in Western Australia.” You’ve left your marks in the earth, Dad, and it will be many, many decades before time has worn away those marks, and some of them will last for generations.

I’m very proud of my father, and I hope that you’re proud of all you’ve accomplished. You are a true, American success story. A young man comes out of a less than modest country life in central Arizona, and without the benefit of formal education or family influence he builds a career that literally spans the globe. It’s a great story; it’s a wonderful life.

But, Dad, that professional legacy is certainly not the most important gift you’ve given me. You are a big man in my life for reasons other than your marks in the earth – you’ve left even more important marks in my life. Let me sum it up in one sentence. Above all else, Dad, you have taught me how to be a man. More than any other personal influence I’ve known, my sense of what it means to be fully and truly a man has come from your presence in my life.

What does that mean to me? It means you’ve taught me how to work, and how to work hard, and how to provide for a family. It means you’ve taught me how to be strong, enduring, independent and responsible for my life, and for the well being of those who are dependent on me. It means you’ve taught me honor, loyalty, courage, commitment, and dedication. It means you’ve taught me the equal value of education and experience, and have then provided the opportunities to gain both in abundance. But, above these, there is one other lasting legacy from you that will forever shape and direct my life.

You have taught me integrity. And by that I mean, you’ve taught me to fully integrate my actions with my values and beliefs. That is the only way to be a whole person, and it ranks as one of the most critical lessons I’ve learned in my life. It’s the basis of honor and courage. Heaven knows, there have been times when I didn’t share a value or agree with a belief of yours, but you’ve always held your values and beliefs honestly and sincerely and I’ve never seen you act contrary to them. In my mind, that is a monument greater than the Ord River Dam or the Great Salt Lake Causeway.

There is another gift you have given your family, and that is an honorable name. There has never been a moment in my life when I wasn’t proud to be known as the son of Guy Reid. I’ve been introduced that way, and I’ve introduced myself that way, each time knowing what it meant to the person hearing it. It has always meant I would receive a knowing smile, a warm greeting, a firm handshake, and an open door. Your name and your reputation have helped cut a path for me on many occasions.

Well, if I’m not careful this letter will begin to sound like a Hallmark card; which brings me to the card I’m sending with this letter. Barbara found it and liked it immediately. At first, I wasn’t too wild about it. But, as I’ve read it several times and as I’ve written this letter it now seems very appropriate, because of two lines in it –

He stands like a giant …
A towering presence

That’s not a bad summary, Dad. I wish you many Happy Father’s Days to come.
____________________________________________________________

My Dad only celebrated one more Father’s Day before he died in March 2000. I am grateful that he got to read this letter. I miss my Dad, because there are too few giants in the land; too few men who stand as a towering presence. I am honored to be the son of such a man.

Baghdad ER

This weekend my wife and I watched Baghdad ER, an hour-long HBO documentary about the work of the Army’s 86th Combat Support Hospital at the emergency room in the Green Zone in Baghdad. I’m not sure anyone could cram more human drama into one hour.

There was not one word of narration or outside commentary in this film. The camera crews simply filmed the scenes and recorded the sounds. No one spoke other than the wounded troops and the military medical staff who attended to them. That doesn’t mean the film was free of commentary. Several of the men and women in uniform offered their opinions on the war that brings an almost non-stop flow of wounded and dying Americans and Iraqis to this ER.

This film should be seen by everyone, no matter what opinion they have about the war in Iraq. It removes the veil between us and the horrendous reality of war; sometimes it rips the veil off and shreds it just like an IED rips off legs and shreds human flesh. There’s no question that it’s raw and graphic. Watching a man’s amputated leg or arm get tossed into a red bio-hazard bag, or seeing a man’s thumb and finger in a plastic specimen bottle, brings the viewer “up close and personal” with the most significant costs of war.

I soon realized that some of the men I saw in that ER are men whose names I’ve read in the daily newspaper list of those killed in action. A couple of the men treated in one scene were victims of an accident in which their vehicle rolled into a canal and several of them drowned. The two men shown in the ER did not survive. A woman I work with lost her son in Iraq when his Army vehicle rolled into a canal and he drowned. I don’t know if I watched her son in that clip, but the odds are….

In some ways I’m beating around the bush because I don’t really know what to say about what I saw. When it ended I was speechless; when I think about it now I’m still unable to explain what I feel. Let me try it in bullet form:

§ The courage of these wounded soldiers and marines is exemplary; they’re the definition of courage. We watched one after another look at their wounds and bear their pain with strength, dignity and an often remarkable acceptance.

§ Their devotion to duty and to each other is exemplary. They were not excited about or even enticed by the opportunity to return home because it meant leaving their buddies before their unit’s mission is complete. Their first, and perhaps their last, thoughts were about each other.

§ Their resilience is exemplary, both in those who returned to duty within a matter of a couple of days and in those who we learned returned after recovering from serious wounds that sent them home.

§ Their sense of humor was pure G.I; like the wounded soldier who said, “Alright!” when a nurse told him she was going to remove his pants.

§ Everything I noted above – exemplary courage, devotion to duty, resilience and humor – applies to the entire military medical staff we watched – the doctors, nurses, medics, chaplains, medevac pilots, technicians, aides, and the orderlies who mopped up the pools of blood and carried away the bio-hazard bags. At times their sense of futility and helplessness was palpable. At times all they could accomplish was to stabilize the soldier and send him or her on to the Army medical center in Landstuhl, Germany, ASAP. One doc pointed out that they never make an incision that isn’t absolutely necessary because they can’t get a sterile operating environment. At times their anger boiled over. One major mumbled “senseless” in the hallway. The chaplain prayed for peace time and time again.

This is a film about heroes, plain and simple. When you see it it’s hard to imagine being anything other than supportive of these men and women. They deserve our full commitment to them. But this is also a film about the horrors of war and the scope of its cost in human terms. Lives are lost; lives are shattered; lives are turned in completely different directions in a moment of time; and all lives involved are forever altered. I felt like every one of the men and women I saw in that ER would come home wounded one way or the other.

War is actual hell; one is not a metaphor for the other. War is brutal and gruesome and dehumanizing. With killing as its purpose, war exposes mankind’s most colossal weaknesses and abject failures. Watching one man hold another man’s perforated guts in his hands should send us a message – it takes guts to fight; but it also takes guts to heal. And it takes guts to know when to stop fighting; when to stop killing; when to stop putting limbs in red bags; when to stop mopping up blood; when to stop putting young men and women in body bags and cold storage; and when to stop putting their blown-up bodies into the ground.

That last paragraph is not a call to stop now, because I fear that stopping now will only increase the carnage and change the nationality of the dead. I don’t know when to stop; I don’t know where to stop; I don’t know how to stop. But, by God, I know why to stop. May those who think they know when, where and how have the guts to do so at the right time, the right place, and in the right way. We owe that to the men and women in the Baghdad ER. May God bless them, one and all.

A Threat to the American Family...?

In the midst of this last week’s “debate” on the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, we heard the oft-repeated warning that such unions pose a grave threat to the American family. Since I first heard this dire pronouncement I’ve yet to hear anyone explain to me how the American family is in fact threatened or undermined by gay marriage.

My family is not threatened by it. I’ve not heard anyone else I know say that their family is threatened by it. I’ve asked people who are devoted Christians if they believe their family is threatened by it and without exception they say “No”. Most of them assert a belief that their faith and the teachings to which they and their family adhere are a protection against any influence that gay marriage may have in their home. I would expect them to say that.

So, whose family is threatened? I mean actually threatened, not some theoretical threat. The theory seems to be that families who have children that are not protected by divinely-revealed “truth” on this matter are threatened because their children may be induced to experiment with the so-called “gay lifestyle” and that could lead them into gay relationships and that would result in the loss of a future hetero-based family. That is one far-fetched theory.

The influence of the “gay lifestyle” is already evident, if not prevalent, in our society. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, movies and TV shows have integrated gay characters and stories into the daily entertainment of America, and with the dramatically increased openness in our society regarding sexual orientation who doesn’t know one or more gay individuals or couples? How many kids, or adults for that matter, have been drawn into gay experimentation as a result of this fairly pervasive influence? None that I know or have heard about; none that anyone I know knows or has heard about. Are we back to theoretical possibilities again?

Is it possible that some kids might decide to experiment with an alternative lifestyle? Sure, that’s been known to happen ever since the first kids decided to push back against their parents' lifestyle. There was abundant parental concern when kids decided to experiment with “deviant” sexual mores in the ‘60s and ‘70s flower-child, commune-building, free-love “revolution”. But no one proposed passing federal laws or even considered adopting a constitutional amendment.

How about polygamy? That’s back in the news recently, with a Utah polygamist now being included on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted List. How many American young men might be drawn into that little fantasy? Why is there no proposed constitutional amendment dealing with that threat? The answer is because almost every state has already addressed that subject in its family law policies, which they can do and are doing on the subject of gay marriage without the help of Congress and without having to amend the U.S. Constitution.

How about men and women living together and having children out of wedlock? Doesn’t that violate at least as many Biblical passages as homosexuality? Why aren’t there loud demands in support of a ban on shacking up or a ban on babies whose mommy and daddy are “living in sin”? Why aren’t all so-called sexual sins being treated the same way in this attempt to save the American family from its tumble down the slippery slope to the path of ruin?

And, if we’re going to be guided by the Bible on matters of social policy, don’t we have to address other subjects such as the Bible’s injunction against women cutting their hair; women speaking in church; women leading men; women teaching men; or men associating with menstruating women? When are we going to stomp out those culture-warping deviations from inspired societal order?

Out of the universe of things that the Bible and other scriptures supposedly condemn, how in the world did gay marriage or other gay rights get selected for this oh-so-special attention? Isn’t it just because macho, chest-thumping, knuckle-dragging guys can’t stomach the idea of Adam and Steve getting it on in some apartment in San Francisco? Of course the reverse twist in that problem is that those same holy rollers are probably watching girl-on-girl porn in their basement at 3AM or at the Holiday Inn every time they leave town.

Are there threats to the American family that should be addressed by our society, our churches, or our government? Of course there are and some of them are big home busters. Let’s try on a short list, just for the sake of comparison.

Divorce; adultery; physical and emotional abuse of spouses or children; incest or other sexual abuse of children; alcoholism; drug use; street crime and gangs; poverty and the unsafe or inadequate housing, drinking water and food supply that come with poverty; crushing debt and other financial pressures; health crises and lack of medical care or insurance; war; etc. These things impact the well being of American families day after day. I’d rank all of them well above even the most hyperbolic theoretical impacts of gay marriage. I’d like our elected representatives and church leaders to keep their beady little eyes on these bouncing balls. When those threats are all well in hand, then they can look around for other threats to beat down, like that gnarly problem we have with women speaking in church, not to mention that dangerous hair cutting thing.

The family threat commentary that’s being bandied about in relation to gay marriage is nothing more than a pile of substance-free political rhetoric. It’s deliberately inflammatory and it’s fit for consumption only by small minded partisan zealots or the uninformed herd that blindly follows some pastoral command to run over a cliff. I don’t see how anyone who engages in a smidgen of critical thinking can come in to this decoy.

Said another way, when it comes to this threat, I just don’t get it.

Just Vote No

Earlier this week the U.S. Senate defeated the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, getting only one more vote than it got the last time it was voted on in 2004. The vote of 49 – 48 was 11 votes shy of closing debate and moving the proposal to a final up or down vote; and 18 votes shy of the two-thirds vote required in the Senate and the House in order to send any constitutional amendment to the states for ratification. In other words, this proposal is going nowhere. At this rate, the Senate will have the necessary votes nailed down in about 35 – 40 years. The House will vote on the matter next month, but there’s little chance it will pass there, either.

It goes without saying that the president and the Reb majority leadership in Congress knew full well how this vote would come out and never thought for a minute that there was any likelihood of passage. They didn’t bring it to a vote for purpose of passing it; they brought it to a vote in order to attempt to shore up the right wing of the GOP in an election year. Conservative Christians have been very disappointed in the president and his comrades on the Hill. It was time for the administration to toss them a sop in the form of a rash of speeches about protecting the American family from this threat of all threats. The hope is that this burst of moral indignation would help fan the flames under their dissatisfied, conservative constituency.

As a result, we witnessed a colossal waste of Senate time and we will witness a similar waste of time in the House next month. I know that there are a number of Americans who see this issue as important, but a recent Gallup Poll revealed that less than a half-percent of American voters include gay marriage on the list of important matters that they believe Congress should be addressing. Of course, in an election year Congress isn’t particularly interested in what Americans want them to work on; Congress is interested in getting votes in November.

If so many Americans think this issue needs to be addressed, then what’s the reason for the poll results? I think it’s because all but a few Americans apparently hold three important opinions: 1) this issue should be handled by each state, rather than the federal government; 2) the Congress has other more important matters to attend to at this point in time; and 3) the U.S. Constitution should not be amended for this purpose.

On the first point, last Tuesday Alabama became the 20th state to pass a ban on gay marriage. Other states have the matter under consideration at various points in their legislative process. While I disagree with the idea of such a ban, I believe each state can address the issue as it sees fit.

On the second point, I wholeheartedly agree. The list of more important matters is long and weighty: Iraq; Afghanistan; Iran; North Korea; energy costs and policy; healthcare and medical insurance; poverty; AIDS; Katrina recovery and hurricane preparation; budget deficits; global warming; tax reform; etc.; etc.

On the third point, I wholeheartedly agree. The United States Constitution has served us well because it has not been used as a political lever to divide and separate categories of Americans. There is no other operative provision in the Constitution that mandates discrimination against a distinct group of American citizens; there is no other provision that denies certain rights to one group of American adults that are enjoyed by other groups of American adults. The Constitution is not the place to work out American family law policies, particularly any policy that in the final analysis rests on arguments grounded in religious doctrine or dogma.

I will reserve for another day my views on the idea that American families are seriously threatened because two women in Vermont want to spend the rest of their life together in a “marriage”, civil union or domestic partnership – all of which would have been banned under the proposed amendment.

Four Agreements

When my oldest son and I recently answered one of the circulating surveys that included a question about our favorite books, we both listed The Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz. My wife seconds our nomination. She and I have read it several times and recommend it to anyone and everyone. I probably need to read it monthly.

The premise of the book is simple: our lives will be filled with much more peace and happiness if we keep four agreements with ourselves:

1. Be impeccable with our word.
2. Don’t take anything personally.
3. Don’t make assumptions.
4. Always do our best.

First, be impeccable with our word. That can be a significant challenge for most of us; I know it’s a challenge for me. I have a better than fair ability to use words, but that ability gets me into as much difficulty as it gets me through. I know many other people who find that their ability to express themselves is both a blessing and a curse – they say too much, too often, on too many subjects. Bloggers are a prime example. We’ve been taught by wise people from the dawn of time to be careful about our use of words because the flawed use of words is at the root of so many of our problems, especially relationship problems.

A friend of mine at work teaches an invaluable lesson – stop using adjectives and adverbs unless it’s necessary to avoid uncertainty. For example, he would be okay with “oldest” son; but he would not be okay with “invaluable” lesson. Similarly, in his book, Being Peace, Thich Nhat Hanh says “Reality, ultimate reality, is free from all adjectives.” He points out that since the 13th century Buddhists monks have been taught “to cleanse [themselves] of all these adjectives.” We would be well advised to heed this advice.

Second, don’t take anything personally. Oh, Brother Miguel, don’t kick me when I’m down. This one goes to the heart of an overwhelming percentage of my “problems” with other people. Observation tells me that it goes to the heart of an overwhelming percentage of the problems that I see other people have with other people. Our shared problem is not the other people.

The point to be learned is simple to state but hard to digest: we should not take anything personally because what is being said or done by someone else is not about us; it’s always about the person who is speaking or doing. At first, that may seem hard to understand, but upon closer inspection and a few moments of thought, its truth becomes apparent; and it’s a truth with liberating power.

Third, don’t make assumptions. Law students are taught this principle repeatedly. Assumptions undermine our success and our relationships. They can be so deeply embedded that we aren’t aware of their presence. Assumptions define so much of our worldview that it’s safe to say that most of us are viewing a dream world of our own creation.

The challenge is to separate what we know, which can be a molehill, from what we assume, which can be a mountain. We’re experts, indeed, in the art of turning molehills into mountains. The greater the number of assumptions we hold and the more certain we are about them, then the greater the impediment they are to our search for truth and our ability to live in reality.

Fourth, always do our best. Many, perhaps most, of us may think that we do okay with this agreement; but we should make sure that we’re not caught in a trap. The trap lies in ignoring the word “our” and focusing on the word “best”. Our best means what it says; it isn’t referring to anyone else’s best. But, more importantly, it doesn’t mean our absolute best or our potential best, it means doing the best we can do here and now under the circumstances of the present moment. That means our best on Monday might be different than our best on Friday; our best when we’re healthy will be different than when we’re sick.

This agreement is meant to relieve us from the pressure and self-judgment we impose on ourselves in the forest of yardsticks that so many of wander through day after day. We’re constantly measuring ourselves and all too frequently we conclude that we “come up short”. Short as compared to what? As compared to someone else’s expectations? We’re almost guaranteed to regularly come up short of someone’s expectations. As compared to our own expectations? We’re often going to fail to meet those because we don’t have the same capacity day in and day out. This invites a separate discussion of the need to manage expectations and the disappointments that flow from them.

My personal report card: I’m doing well with Agreements 3 and 4; still struggling with Agreements 1 and 2. I need to take some additional steps to keep all four agreements in mind more often in my daily life.

I encourage everyone to read the book and visit the Ruiz website at http://www.miguelruiz.com/teachings/fouragreements.html. I also recommend a second book by Don Miguel Ruiz, The Voice of Knowledge, which I’m in the process of reading for the third time. That book challenges us all to consider that we fell down the rabbit hole with Alice and need to climb back out into the clear light of day.

The Men and the Dominos of Haditha

When I think about Haditha I can’t help but think about the Marines directly involved. Thinking about them and their families, and the families of those who died there, is what causes much of the conflict I feel about this horrific event.

The troops who fight in our Armed Forces are taken from the homes and streets of America and they bring with them a wide array of character, maturity, socio-economic backgrounds, education, self-esteem, disciplinary tendencies, and personalities. New recruits are punched through two to three months of boot camp and, perhaps, a few weeks of “advanced” infantry training. Then, we put them on a ship or an airplane and we send them to Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, the Balkans, or some other high-pressure hot spot in the world. Most of the troops who patrol the streets of Iraqi cities are still called “kids” by most of us; they’re 18 – 20 years old in a setting where 25-year olds are the “old salts” and the “lifers”.

Nothing rivals Iraq as a human pressure cooker. The stress on the young men and women fighting there is tremendous, and unrelenting. Their lives are on the line almost every hour of almost every day. They see comrades, many of whom have become friends, get killed and sent home in body bags or blown up and sent home with missing limbs or other life-altering injuries. They experience tremendous frustration on mission after mission, on patrol after patrol, as they strive to accomplish ill-defined objectives and try to interpret signs and indications of eminent danger with every tick of the clock.

The enemy in Iraq isn’t in a uniform; the enemy could be anywhere at anytime. The enemy could be old; could be female; could be another “kid”. Our guys aren’t at or behind classic “front lines” over there; their front line is a three-foot circle around where they stand or walk. Their Humvees are one tire rotation away from disaster on any given road at any given time.

Then one day the tires rotate and an explosion ends the life of another friend. An almost perpetual anger becomes a flash of rage and the question becomes – will the rage be controlled or unleashed? Unbelievably, it’s controlled in almost all circumstances, which is a tribute to these amazing young men and women and those who are leading them. We should never forget the disciplined restraint that is exercised by the overwhelming majority of the men and women under fire in dire conditions. The rest of us can only wonder what we would do under similar conditions.

Occasionally, however, the rage is unleashed and a hole to hell opens up under those who fight.

Nothing said above is an excuse for what happened in Haditha; if what happened is murder, be it cold-blooded or hot-blooded, there is no justification for it. But, all killings and all murders happen in a context and at some point that context can become relevant, in determining punishment if not in determining guilt. There are few, if any, contexts more convoluted and troubling than war. An occurrence like the one in Haditha is one of the grotesque things that war produces; it represents one of the costs that are rarely taken into account until after those costs have been incurred. Unfortunately, the accounting for this cost is, in all likelihood, far from complete.

I fear that the deaths related to Haditha haven’t all been counted. A single domino fell on November 19, 2005, and the toppling of other dominos as a result has yet to stop. That single domino was not at the front of a long line; it was at a hub. The dominos that are falling now are falling in many directions, like spokes from the hub of a wheel. Haditha will be more hellish in the future than it was on November 18, 2005. The dead in Haditha will become martyrs and others will seek to follow or avenge them. Iraqi men who have resisted the call to insurgency will now respond to that call; those already in the insurgency will make “Remember Haditha” a battle cry.

Other Americans will die because of vengeful retribution; other Americans will die because they hesitate to respond in battle for fear that it’s not within the newly reemphasized rules of engagement. Fear will be compounded in many minds. Military leaders and trainers will respond but they will fight the tendency to either under respond or over respond.

More than likely, the politicians in Iraq and the U.S. will under react or overreact, as politicians are wont to do, thereby setting off other reactions and adding fuel to the fire. We will hear more references to My Lai in the coming year than we’ve heard in the last 30 years. Haditha will make Abu Ghraib look like a bunch of schoolyard pranks; it will make Guantanamo look like a juvenile detention center.

Another story for another day is the possible cover-up of what happened at Haditha, which is the subject of a second and separate investigation. As that story unfolds it will produce its own energy and its own domino effect, both in Iraq and in the U.S. The implications and impacts of the two investigations could be far-reaching, inside and outside the military.

It will be a long time before the explosive energy unleashed at Haditha will dissipate. The laws of physics remind us that energy is never destroyed – it's only converted to other forms of energy. We will now have to wait and see where this powerful wave of energy takes us. I don’t think this wave is going to take those who are in it to the beach; I think it’s headed to the deep, blue sea.

Hell in Haditha

I’ve known for several days what commentary I wanted to post next; but I’ve held back because there’s little chance that I will clearly and completely convey what I mean to convey. I’m conflicted on the topic and I haven’t worked through that conflict. This will be a two-part posting, so those who want to comment might want to wait until after tomorrow’s posting.

The topic is Haditha. Hell broke through under a group of Marines in Haditha on November 19, 2005, and the fires continue to burn, threatening to consume anyone they touch. War is hell, indeed; and on the morning of November 19 it appears that Haditha became the latest hellhole in the history of war. It’s not the first; it won’t be the last. War tears holes in the fabric of human decency and brings men and women to the brink of a fire that can destroy the values of the combatants and tear down the lofty ideals being pursued on the battlefield. Every war has its Haditha analogs.

It appears that a small group of Marines may have intentionally killed up to two dozen innocent Iraqi civilians in retaliation for the death of another Marine in an IED explosion. The dead include a 76-year old blind man in a wheelchair and his 66-year old wife; the dead include several other women; the dead include at least a half dozen children in two nearby homes; the dead include four university students in a nearby taxi.

The dead also include a 20-year old Lance Corporal from El Paso, Texas, who was just trying to do his duty and return home to his family and friends. Along the way, he had made new friends in his Marine unit; friends who saw him die a violent death in a flash from nowhere that was detonated by an unseen enemy.

I say “it appears” that this “incident” happened as alleged by a large number of Iraqi witnesses because at least one Republican and one Democrat in Congress who have been briefed by the Defense Department, along with a couple of leaks from the DOD, appear to confirm the allegations. Because of the severity of the allegations, essentially everyone involved is resisting a rush to judgment. That’s good because this is the kind of “incident” that can rain judgment down on many heads. (It’s odd that a word like “incident” gets used about something that has nothing “incidental” about it.)

If these killings happened as reported, then they're not just killings, they're murders under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and crimes under the laws of war. The hard and cold purpose of war is to kill the designated enemy consistent with the laws of war and the rules of engagement set by military leadership for each campaign or mission. The murder of noncombatants has no place in war and the laws of war and the rules of engagement are designed to draw the boundary between killing and murder. Crossing that line is unacceptable – not just to the critics at home, but to the military in the field, as well.

Murder on a battlefield is a failure of discipline and character in those who commit the murder. It can also be a failure of responsibility in those who “stand by” and watch and do nothing. It is also a failure of leadership and training. Everyone from the president on down has appropriately made it clear that if these deaths are determined to be unjustified, then those who are responsible for them will be held accountable and that the disciplinary action and penalties will match the crimes. That’s as it should be; anything less would be a disservice – to the families of those killed; to the Iraqi and American people who support our presence there; and to the hundreds of thousands of Marines, soldiers and sailors who have been there and have performed their duty with irreproachable honor consistent with the highest traditions of our Armed Forces.

But the accountability cannot stop with the five to ten Marines who pulled the triggers. An occurrence like this uncovers failures up and down the chain of command and in the training processes that prepare men and women for combat situations like this; therefore, the accountability must reach those levels as well. That may not include criminal accountability, but it certainly includes professional accountability. Accountability for acts like these can’t be laid solely at the feet of the ground-pounding enlisted grunts who carry the M-16s.

And, we cannot lose sight of the fact that accountability for a horror like the one that appears to have happened in Haditha must also extend to the enemy. The destructive energy that flows from their terrorism and their insurgency was made manifest in Haditha that morning. Our Marines weren’t there in a vacuum. They were there in response to others who are intent on killing and murdering; who are intent on destroying any semblance of peace or security in Iraq; who are intent on bringing down any government other than their own; and who are intent on perpetuating the conflicts that have torn up that land and its people for centuries if not millennia. Every man or woman who has contributed from either “side” must be held accountable for the whirlpool of hate, anger and rage that spun out of control that morning.

Tomorrow I will turn to the GIs who drove into hell that morning and to the dominos that are falling as I write.

________

HOTS Milestone

This is the 100th posting on this blog. It’s been up and running for 136 days, which equates to a posting rate of almost 74%. Not bad; certainly more than I anticipated at the outset. Without a question I never anticipated the postings would be as long as they have been. I envisioned something more in the “half a page” category, with the wordy ones being a full page, at most. But, postings twice that length have been the norm.

I’ve felt the posting energy wane a little in the last few weeks. I’m not sure why that is. It may be because I’m saying too much on too many topics; it may be because too many of the topics have been controversial or contentious or had some other form of negative spin that produces more wear and tear than uplifting topics or positive spin.

It will be interesting to see what comes from the next 100 postings.