This is a good time for people who call themselves Christians to question their faith. I don’t mean that in the sense of questioning the legitimacy of Christianity. I mean it in the sense of questioning the legitimacy of their own devotion to Christ.

Gay marriage has been the one issue grabbing all of the headlines over the past week or so. This may be something that Christians have wanted to ignore for a while in hopes that it goes away. It’s not. It has crashed on the church’s lawn and is banging on the front door wanting to come in and stay a while.

Bob Hyatt articulates a position of “the last chance” for both sides of the gay-marriage debate to get something they want…by giving up something they want:

On one side, the Church is going to have to realize that gay men and women, in wanting what everyone else has, are asking for something reasonable. Rights of inheritance and property, custody and visitation- all of the rights granted currently by the state in marriage are good things, things we can affirm, even in relationships that we wouldn’t necessarily endorse. After all, even if we hold a more conservative view on divorce, I don’t see many churches advocating for divorced couples to lose the right to have custody over their step-children should something happen to their spouse. We may not endorse the relationship, but we can certainly try to understand the desire of those in it to have the same legal rights as other couples. And more than understand it- I think we can advocate for it, and practically demonstrate that we do in fact “love everyone.”

Todd Littleton, while thinking of Hyatt, wonders why Christ followers partner with the state in marriage issues anyway:

We have long had a difficult time parsing Church and State issues. For instance we do not want the State inserting itself in religious matters but do not think twice about signing a marriage license issued by the State. We not only sign the license but we note where our credentials to do so are recorded “Book and Page.”

Trevin Wax’s How I Wish the Homosexuality Debate Would Go has now been “Liked” almost 11k times on Facebook:

Just once, I’d like to see a TV interview go more like this:

Host: You are a Christian pastor, and you say you believe the Bible, which means you are supposed to love all people.

Pastor: That’s right.

Host: But it appears to me that you and your church take a rather unloving position when it comes to gay people. Are homosexuals welcome to come to your church?

Pastor: Of course. We believe that the gospel is a message relevant for every person on the planet, and we want everyone to hear the gospel and find salvation in Jesus Christ. So at our church, our arms are outstretched to people from every background, every race, every ethnicity and culture. We’re a place for all kinds of sinners and people with all kinds of problems.

Use Facebook to Comment on this Post

This exchange is based on a Winston Churchill insult.

When I first started preaching I preached a sermon entitled, “Ten Surefire Ways to Raise Godly Kids.” Now I have kids that are getting older, I changed it to, “A Few Things You Might Want to Try With Your Kids. They Might Work and They Might Not.”

This humorous thought is the dilemma faced by young pastors. The need to preach with authority on things about which you have no experience can, at times, seem daunting even when being faithful to the text.

Sonya and I have now been married for more than 28 years, so I no longer feel as I did at the age of 25. Nearly three decades brings a rear-view mirror filled with mountains climbed, valleys trekked and streams forded. We are currently doing pre-marriage counseling together for the first time. We have been married longer than either of these two betrothed young adults have been alive. Yes, I feel old.

Below are a few thoughts about remaining married for multiple decades. These have been gleaned from our marriage and those around us who have made it to 40 years, 50 years and more. There is an old joke about the husband celebrating his 75th wedding anniversary, when asked how they managed to stay married so long, replied, “Well, whatever she said to do, I did it.” I hope your relationship is a little more partnership than either party being a doormat for the other.

I would love to hit 75 years together on February 4, 2059 (a date which my mind slows to apprehend), but will enjoy and relish as many as God gives us. In the meantime, this is how we plan to continue.

1. Recognition of marriage as a reflection of Christ and the church. I don’t know if it is possible to fully benefit from the marriage relationship without grasping the primary relationship that marriage models, i.e., that of Jesus Christ and His bride, the church. Issues are more easily resolved–or never become issues at all–when husband and wife relate according to that biblical example.

2. Being mutually submitted to each other. It’s really very simple: a husband and wife who truly love one another must and will on occasion submit their preference to that of his or her spouse. It is not a matter of who is boss; it is a matter of love. I think husbands are tasked with “leading the family,” but using this as a club is ignorant and unbiblical. Why some men claim to have a Proverbs 31 wife then not lean on her wisdom is beyond me.

Sonya and Marty look into the sun, March 2012

4. Constant forgiveness. If Sonya were not so forgiving she would have divorced me years ago. (If she let me live long enough to make it through the legal proceedings.) Whether reality or not I think I have received more forgiveness over the years than I have given. Forgiveness–the decision not to hold your spouse guilty for an infraction–is the oil that keeps marriage from grinding down in bitterness, anger and despair.

5. Keeping kids in their place. Children should never been the center of a marriage. The relationship between husband and wife should be the center at all times. Children gain comfort and direction from a stable marriage.

6. Focusing on the physical. There is a reason the Bible has so much to say about sex in marriage. It is essential! The pleasures of the physical relationship should not be forgotten after a few years. This opens the door to unnecessary temptation. A loving and passionate physical relationship is a protection against sexual sin.

7. Continue the pursuit. Ward Cleaver, from the 1950′s comedy Leave it to Beaver, once responded to his wife’s complaint about his lack of romance, “Well, dear, what’s the use in chasing the bus after you’ve already caught it?” Sadly, this is the attitude of many men, but pursuit should not stop with the “I do’s.” Instead that is when it should continue in earnest.

8. Talk. And guys, it is not, “What do you want to talk about?” It is, “Tell me about your day.” Early in our marriage this was a mystery to me. Now it is one of the things I value most. We talk in the mornings before I leave for work, usually talk at least once during the day, exchange text messages all the time, and usually talk for a while at night. Turn of the TV and turn on the conversation.

Of course this is not an exhaustive list. What are some things that continue to strengthen your marriage?

Use Facebook to Comment on this Post

A dangerous reality in Western civilization is the temptation of young girls to compare themselves to the sexualized airbrushed images of models, singers and actors. The “new normal” has a brutal effect on the average girl who does not have a troop of stylists focusing solely on her for hours each morning.

Even tempered viewing of commercials finds immodestly dressed women in dreams (KIA), in grocery stores (beer), in courtrooms (GoDaddy), as cars (Fiat), eating burgers (Hardee’s) and–GASP–as angels (Victoria’s Secret…is out).

Eileen Zurbriggen, former chair of the American Psychiatric Association, said in 2007:

The consequences of the sexualization of girls in media are likely to be a negative influence on girls’ healthy development. We have ample evidence to conclude that sexualization has negative effects in a variety of domains, including cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, and healthy sexual development.

I’m no psychiatrist, but I think her use of “likely” deserves an award for understatement.

Former Olympic gymnast, Shawn Johnson, recently endured tabloid abuse after a weight gain. Admitting she had long battled image issues, Johnson said:

I was at the Olympic Games winning medals and I still doubted my image. I doubted what I looked like. That’s sad. Girls should be taught different than that.

One Canadian mom, while assisting her son on a research project, noticed all the changes, touch-ups and “improvements” made on ads. She said:

In a typical retouched photo faces are slimmed, eyes and teeth whitened, all lines, freckles, blemishes, veins, and I might add character, are removed from the visible skin. It is then darkened or lightened and often given a more often glow or sheen. Bodies are reshaped, usually to be slimmer, sometimes to be curvier, and in the case of men, to add muscle definition. Hair can be made longer, thicker shinier and of course the colour can be changed, as with the colour of eyes and skin tone. Noses can be thinned, eyes spaced wider apart, necks elongated. We don’t see most celebrities portrayed as they really look.

As soon as photo editing software is used no longer are we looking at photography but manipulation. The finished products are not pictures; they are artists’ renderings. The “models” are no longer models. They are barely caricatures; more like cartoons.

The concerns have become so prevalent at least one group is pushing to have photos labelled if they have been Photoshopped or altered.

I remember as a young adult seeing a magazine article with a bunch of “without make-up” pictures. On one side would be a certain celeb as she appeared on a cd cover or in a movie or ad. On the other side would be the picture without make-up, or after a long day in the yard or their mugshot. Whichever, the point was to be unflattering…and thoroughly realistic. To say it was revealing would not begin to cover it. My initial reaction (toward a now unremembered super model) was, “Good grief! She’s ugly!” It was then I realized how much was done to make a normal–or even unattractive–person conform to the societal expectation of beauty.

We need here to avoid two problematic cliches (“Beauty is only skin deep.” and “She’s beautiful on the inside.”) as they provide no help to the issue. The first insinuates there is no inner beauty while the second insinuates some girls or women have no outer beauty. Both of these are shallow and wrong. There is outer beauty, and every girl possesses some strand of it. There is inner beauty, and some girls possess little if any of it. There are those, as a former co-worker once said, who are “Vogue on the outside and vague on the inside.”

While Paul’s words from 2 Corinthians 10:12 do not address the issue of “industrialized beauty,” a helpful principle can be gleaned from his words:

We do not dare to classify or compare ourselves with some who commend themselves. When they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are not wise. (NIV)

God makes it clear He personally has a hand in our development giving us a reason for gratitude and wonder.

I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them. (Ps. 139:14-16, ESV)

Those who are Christ followers have been redeemed from the need of comparison. Scripture teaches that we are “in Christ” and “accepted in the beloved” (Jesus). If God has accepted me because of Jesus Christ, why should I despair if someone else has straighter teeth, thicker hair or bigger biceps than me?

I would encourage any pre-teen or teen girl (or adult woman) to reject both the idealization and objectification of the female image. There is no perfect woman (either in looks or substance), nor is there an ideal woman toward which you all should strive. And, rather than falling for that trap, Christ following women should speak against the expectation that enough botox, foundation, mousse, helium or fake butt-cheeks can make one beautiful. Take care lest you end up a Frankenstein’s monster due to beauty blindness.

(The idea of the Proverbs 31 woman being “the ideal woman,” though popular, is not biblical. The Bible says she is virtuous rather than ideal, a word meaning strong, able, and efficient. I am not sure where ideal worked its way into usage, but I suspect a Bible translator who was thinking on his future wife. ;^)

What follows are two projects from Unilever acting on behalf of the Dove Self Esteem Fund. (Another term used is the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty which “celebrate[s] the natural physical variation embodied by all women and inspire them to have the confidence to be comfortable with themselves.”) Following its 2006 release, the first video garnered an award at the Cannes Film Festival.

Evolution is a 2006 ad featuring cartoonist and producer Stephanie Betts. (She is pictured at right from a news story at Youth Media Alliance.)

Stephanie Betts

Onslaught
Warning: Contains numerous sexualized, objectifying, degrading images commonly used in advertising. It is necessarily shocking. Parents be aware: the more your child watches TV, movies and accesses the internet, the more of these unfiltered images she (and he) will see.

Use Facebook to Comment on this Post

PRESS RELEASE: @BarackObama Announcement is Cold Comfort to #LGBT Americans logcabin.org/site/apps/nlne… #Amendment1 #gay #marriage #equality

— LogCabinRepublicans (@LogCabinGOP) May 9, 2012

Afternoon anchor on the arch-conservative FOX News, Shepard Smith, followed a video report of the President’s announcement by saying, “the president of the United States, now in the 21st century.”

I’ve written about homosexuality and the church before on a blog now defunct. After President Obama’s announcement I was asked by a friend to address the issue of gay marriage from a “Libertarian” perspective, but since I am a political Independent such an endeavor might not bear fruit. Discounting any political position I’ve had many thoughts on this issue over the course of the last few years and now seems a good time to toss mine into the conversation. Below are a few thoughts on the subject. Please read completely before commenting.

1) Christians have been on the wrong side of history so many times we have a hard time convincing people in the wider culture we can ever be on the right side. Slavery, Jim Crow, the Civil Rights Movement and inter-racial marriage are to name but a few. People in the media are already promoting the “wrong side of history” narrative, and as that drumbeat increases our best arguments will begin to sound like “Yeah, but this time we’re right!” A Boston Globe headline dated May 10, 2012, reads, “On gay marriage, Obama is on the right side of history”. The subsequent editorial asserts, “So while the issue remains a matter of contention, the die is cast. Gay marriage will, in time, be broadly accepted in this country.”

Barring a revival that would make the First and Second Great Awakenings look like a Backyard Bible Club, I think gay marriage will ultimately be widely accepted in the U.S. It may be a while before it is legalized across the country, but personal acceptance of the idea is already spreading rapidly. (In polls like this recent one from Gallup respondents affirm support. But in 32 states with a ballot initiative to affirm marriage between a man and woman each has passed with an average support of more than 60%.)

2) Too many Christians are much more adept at hating the sin than in loving the sinner. The old saw “love the sinner, but hate the sin” has just about run its course as a legitimate point of debate. Reality in contemporary American Christian conversation is “hate the sin, condemn the sinner, blame the sinner, accuse the sinner, castigate the sinner, Bible-whip the sinner and then tell the sinner you love them.”

A screen grab from President Obama's Facebook page, May 9, 2012.

Yes, I agree we should speak the truth in love. However, when those to whom truth is being spoken sense no love in our words it might be time to evaluate whether what we are doing matches what we think we are doing.

If a parent treated their kids the way Christians respond to some sinners we would call it emotional manipulation or even emotional abuse. If someone I did not know told me, “You are a homophobic, woman-hating, confused, lying, manipulative skunk. Your faith is damaging to society, and you probably are promiscuous. But, down deep I love you,” I am not sure I would be convinced. The more followers of Christ make anti-gay marriage rhetoric the center of our public discourse, the farther away we push those we are convinced need the gospel the most. Jesus is shared; judgment is blared. Loving our enemies, even perceived ones, is not reducible to merely not hating them, and 1 Corinthians 13 is not firstly for weddings.

3) Christians are years too late recognizing the root of this issue. Some still do not. The root of this issue is not marriage for gays. The root of this issue is equality under the law for all citizens of the United States of America of which “marriage” has become symbolic of that effort (gay marriage is sometimes called “marriage equality”). I believe it did not have to be this way. Indeed, if Christian leaders of the past had paid attention to the underlying constitutional issues instead of constantly haranguing people about the “slippery slope” or fear-mongering about “creeping incrementalism” the current (and looming) divide would not be as severe. If we had protected the rights of citizens rather than framing the debate as a moral Titanic we might not be where we are today.

One of the reasons this country was founded was for self-determination: that we might conduct our lives, our worship, and our business as we thought best. The Declaration of Independence gave voice to untold numbers of the king’s subjects who craved “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Bundled in that craving is the right (I believe) to choose who will make health decisions for me if I am incapacitated, who stands to inherit at the time of my death, who can visit me if “only family may visit.” Citizens–regardless of their sexual activity–should be able to arrange their affairs according to the liberties we all enjoy as citizens of the United States. I do not agree with marriage for people of the same gender, and do not know the best solution, but not to address this allows situation to continue that should be rectified. (Here is a graph of laws in all 50 states that affect such rights.)

4) We, by and large, have ceded the conversation to the LBGT community and pro-gay marriage proponents. Dr. Peter Kreeft addresses the language issue well in this 2004 post. He writes:

As a philosopher the thing that strikes me most is the brilliant strategy of the gay marriage movement. Like Orwell in 1984 it sees that the main battlefield is language. If they can redefine a key term like “marriage” they win. Control language and you control thought; control thought and you control action; control action and you control the world.

Controlling the conversation is key to creating societal change. It is rare if not impossible to disagree on the gay marriage/gay rights issue without being shouted down as homophobic, hate-mongering or worse (if it can be worse). In this debate disagreement = hate. To call homosexuality “sin” is hate. To oppose the rights of gays to marry is hate. It really does not matter how much we say “No really, we do not hate you” when the very defining of the terms has us backed into a corner. (And speaking of language, this CT article helps explain why Americans support gay marriage in polls but oppose it on ballot initiatives.)

Frankly, I think this one is gone and is not coming back. The average Christian cannot articulate a defense of marriage apart from “God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve” and does not seem to have an interest in doing so. “Marriage,” as an entry in the cultural dictionary, is now “a relationship between two people who love each other,” “a legal contract between two parties,” “an expression of love between consenting adults,” and the like. None of these express the biblical pattern, mind you, and yet each is a common way of arguing for gay “marriage.” If the gay marriage movement finds someone with the rhetorical power of an MLK or William F. Buckley, Jr., there will be no stopping it. That a movement directly affecting only 1.7% of the population has attracted so much attention is evidence of how effective gaining the conversation can be.

5) The timing of the president announcement is likely to create a cultural World War III between now and November. Even a casual observer can tell this is about re-election not about principle. I do not say that to disparage the President, but to acknowledge the political realities of the permanent campaign, much less an election year effort. The eventual Republican nominee would try and beat Obama to death with the economy, the debt and unemployment. This provides one of the few agenda items that might re-energize his base.

If the culture warrior vein of American Christianity takes the bait they may very well find themselves in a battle they cannot win: focusing on gay-marriage (which will galvanize Obama’s base) thereby removing the attention off the economy (where he is truly vulnerable). If drawn in these culture warriors have no one but themselves to blame. Time will tell whether this will happen.

6) Because we have winked at other sins, we have weakened moral authority to address this one. I believe the Bible is clear on sexuality, teaching that any sexual act not between a married man and woman is a sin. God has hallowed and sanctified the sex act within the bounds of the marriage relationship. For heterosexuals to have sex outside marriage is a sin. For heterosexuals to take multiple partners on test drives is sin. For people of the same sex to engage in sex acts is sin. (A recent survey found Americans are split as to whether homosexuality is a sin.)

Biblically speaking homosexuality is not the opposite of heterosexuality. Homosexuality is a sexual sin along the same line as adultery, sex outside of marriage and the rest. When the New Testament speaks of ungodly acts or works of the flesh it never mentions sex between a man and a woman inside of marriage (which God blesses). All other forms of sexual expression are categorized as “sexual immorality.”

However, belief that homosexual acts are sin should not be the biggest issue. The biggest issue is how we as Christians and our churches have shrugged their shoulders toward the other forms of sexual immorality. Churches in the south have “disfellowshipped” other churches for accepting gay members. At the same time many of those same churches across the South (and elsewhere) have allowed rampant adultery, pre-marital sex, clergy sexual abuse, and epidemic divorce as if the Bible were silent on those issues. We have been silent on so much of equal importance we have lost our voice on issues we consider of ultimate importance.

7) Christians have practiced, for want of a better phrase, “selective abominations.” Christians have been quick to cite Leviticus–and cite it loudly–”A man shall not lie with a man as with a woman, it is an abomination” (Lev 18:22). Sadly, other abominations as taught in God’s word, merit barely a whisper from those who shout about homosexuality. Not including the dietary laws of Moses, a survey of behavioral abominations include lying (Prov. 12:22), cheating (Prov. 11:1), proud people (Prov. 16:5), prayer offered from disobedience (Prov. 28:9), incense offered in disobedience (Isa. 1:13), and adultery (Ez. 22:11). I think many have chosen to rail against homosexuality because it is the one abomination of which we are least likely to commit. God knows we have most of the other ones down pat.

Even though I believe all sexual immorality–indeed all sin–to be abominations most Christians are not even able to articulate why they still call homosexual acts abominations but do not the same for eating shellfish, catfish or pork chops. Merely shouting “The Bible says so,” carries little weight when the nearby verses describe those other acts as abominations as well. Well articulated explanations are hard. Thus Christians find themselves responding feebly. This leaves us looking like bigots as we pick out only the one abomination to rail against.

8) Some Christians erect barriers because they make homosexuality, rather than redemption, the reason for their cultural engagement. It is as if we want gays to admit their sin is an affront to us, before they admit to God their sin is an affront to Him. I cannot figure why, if Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, so many think it their personal responsibility to do it on His behalf? It is not, He has not, we should not.

Church consultant Geoff Surratt addressed the gay-marriage issue recently on his blog, saying:

To me here are the top five enemies of God’s ideal marriage relationship:

Selfishness
Internet porn
Inappropriate relationship with another man or woman
Sex outside of marriage
Cohabiting before marriage

I think Surratt may be onto something. Marriage as an institution has far more insidious, persistent enemies.

What are your thoughts? Is gay marriage the end of the world, no big deal or something in between?

Use Facebook to Comment on this Post

The poem uses Christian imagery regarding the Apocalypse and second coming as allegory to describe the atmosphere in post-war Europe.

Two phrases that stand out to me have to do with the nature of our condition

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

and how the righteous and the unrighteous respond in that condition

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

This short poem remains important in my view since Christians today like to play end-times blackjack with cards of today’s headlines. The Bible does refer to “signs of the times,” but followers of Christ have been misinterpreting these signs for generations. The fact that a hated political opponent is in the White House does not mean Christ is returning tomorrow. Yeats’ poem of the apocalypse was written just after World War One nearly 100 years ago. My focus should be less on signs that could possibly portend Christ’s return, and more on obedience to the One who is returning.

Butler's 'The Second Coming' in artistic form

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Use Facebook to Comment on this Post

And remember, the only appropriate answer from a law-abiding citizen to the police query, “Do you mind if I take a look inside your briefcase/car/suitcase/backpack?” is, “Not unless you have a search warrant duly executed by a judge.” And have an attorney’s name and number in your phone at all times.

Use Facebook to Comment on this Post

Not sure Jesse Lee will be speaking here again.

Most of the videos in this series have barely a hundred views, but this one has more than 44,000 views as of this date. I’m sure most of them are out of morbid curiosity.

As a man who is a follower of Christ, a husband, and father of two daughters–and who has studied the Bible a time or two–there are problems here I cannot begin to fathom. Suffice it to say this is not reflective of the way Jesus treated women, and were any man of this mentality ever to approach my youngest daughter he would find himself in the street in short order.

I do notice that this video has some edits, but I do not think they affect the substance of the talk given the way he interacts with the audience.

Use Facebook to Comment on this Post

[Six-year old in Aurora, CO, suspended for three days for sexual harassment after singing, "I'm sexy and I know it" to classmate for the second time. Another
student suspended for hugging teacher. Other kids were suspended for for using their fingers as guns in a game of cops and robbers.]

From John W. Whitehead:

[P]ublic school reform is now justified in the dehumanizing language of national security, which increasingly legitimates the transformation of schools into adjuncts of the surveillance and police state… students are increasingly subjected to disciplinary apparatuses which limit their capacity for critical thinking, mold them into consumers, test them into submission, strip them of any sense of social responsibility and convince large numbers of poor minority students that they are better off under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system than by being valued members of the public schools.”—Professor Henry Giroux

For those hoping to better understand how and why we arrived at this dismal point in our nation’s history, where individual freedoms, privacy and human dignity have been sacrificed to the gods of security, expediency and corpocracy, look no farther than America’s public schools.

Once looked to as the starting place for imparting principles of freedom and democracy to future generations, America’s classrooms are becoming little more than breeding grounds for compliant citizens of the police state. In fact, as director Cevin Soling documents in his insightful, award-winning documentary The War on Kids, which recently aired on the Documentary Channel, the moment young people walk into school, they increasingly find themselves under constant surveillance: they are photographed, fingerprinted, scanned, x-rayed, sniffed and snooped on. Between metal detectors at the entrances, drug-sniffing dogs in the hallways and surveillance cameras in the classrooms and elsewhere, many of America’s schools look more like prisons than learning facilities.

Add to this the epidemic of arresting schoolchildren and treating them as if they are dangerous criminals, and you have the makings of a perfect citizenry for the Orwellian society—one that can be easily cowed, controlled, and directed. Indeed, what once was looked upon as classically childish behavior such as getting into food fights, playing tag, doodling, hugging, kicking and throwing temper tantrums is now being criminalized.

Colorado 1st grader, D'Vante Meadows

For example, in November 2011, a 14-year-old student in Brevard County, Florida, was suspended for hugging a female friend, an act which even the principal acknowledged as innocent. A 9-year-old in Charlotte, North Carolina, was suspended for sexual harassment after a substitute teacher overheard the child tell another student that the teacher was “cute.” A 6-year-old in Georgia was arrested, handcuffed and suspended for the remainder of the school year after throwing a temper tantrum in class. A 6-year-old boy in San Francisco was accused of sexual assault following a game of tag on the playground. A 6-year-old in Indiana was arrested, handcuffed and charged with battery after kicking a school principal.

Twelve-year-old Alexa Gonzalez was arrested and handcuffed for doodling on a desk. Another student was expelled for speaking on a cell phone with his mother, to whom he hadn’t spoken in a month because she was in Iraq on a military deployment. Four high school students in Detroit were arrested and handcuffed for participating in a food fight and charged with a misdemeanor with the potential for a 90-day jail sentence and a $500 fine. A high school student in Indiana was expelled after sending a profanity-laced tweet through his Twitter account after school hours. The school had been conducting their own surveillance by tracking the tweeting habits of all students.

These are not isolated incidents. In 2010, some 300,000 Texas schoolchildren received misdemeanor tickets from police officials. One 12-year-old Texas girl had the police called on her after she sprayed perfume on herself during class. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, over 90,000 kids were entered into the criminal justice system during the 2009-2010 school year, and over 500 of those were arrested at school.

It is hard to believe that such things—children being handcuffed and carted off to jail for minor incidents—could take place in a so-called “free” country. However, since the introduction of police, high-tech surveillance systems and zero tolerance policies into the schools, this is the reality with which nearly 50 million students in America’s elementary and secondary public schools must contend. Many of these “say no to drugs/say no to violence”–type policies gained favor after the Columbine school shootings in 1999 and have continued to be adopted by school districts across the country, even in the wake of research indicating that zero tolerance neither makes schools safer nor discourages violence. “Ironically, the [Columbine] tragedy occurred as rates of school violence in general and shootings in particular were declining,” writes author Annette Fuentes in Lockdown High.

Zero tolerance policies, the driving force behind the criminalization of schoolchildren, punish all offenses severely—no matter how minor. Disproportionately levied against minority students and students with emotional and behavioral disabilities, these one-size-fits-all disciplinary procedures mandate suspension or expulsion for students who violate the rules, regardless of the student’s intent or the nature of the violation. School systems began adopting these tough codes after Congress passed the 1994 Gun-Free Schools Act, which required a one-year expulsion for any child bringing a firearm or bomb to school.

Zero tolerance rules in many states also cover fighting, drug or alcohol use and gang activity, as well as relatively minor offenses such as possessing over-the-counter medications and disrespect of authority. Nearly all American public schools have zero tolerance policies for firearms or other “weapons,” and most have such policies for drugs and alcohol. In the wake of the Columbine school shootings, legislators and school boards further tightened their zero tolerance policies, creating what some critics call a national intolerance for childish behavior. As a result, these policies are now interpreted so broadly as to crack down on spit wads, Tweetie Bird key chains and Certs breath mints—all of which constitute contraband of one kind or another. In some jurisdictions, carrying cough drops, wearing black lipstick or dying your hair blue are expellable offenses.

Unfortunately, while expulsion and suspension used to be the worst punishment to be rendered against a child who had run afoul of the system, school officials upped the ante by bringing the police into the picture. As Judith Browne, co-director of the Advancement Project, notes, “Media hysteria really created this groundswell of support for zero tolerance and folks being scared that it could happen at their school. Now, we have police officers in every school. He’s not there to be law enforcement. He’s there to lock up kids.”

To return to what I was saying about schools being breeding grounds for compliant citizens, if Americans have come to view freedom as expedient and expendable, it is only because that’s what they’ve been taught in the schools, by government leaders and by the corporations who run the show. More and more Americans are finding themselves institutionalized from cradle to grave, from government-run daycares and public schools to nursing homes. In between, they are fed a constant, mind-numbing diet of pablum consisting of entertainment news, mediocre leadership, and technological gadgetry, which keeps them sated and distracted and unwilling to challenge the status quo. All the while, in the name of the greater good and in exchange for the phantom promise of security, the government strips away our rights one by one—monitoring our conversations, chilling our expression, searching our bodies and our possessions, doing away with our due process rights, reversing the burden of proof and rendering us suspects in a surveillance state, and on and on.

Whether or not the powers-that-be, by their actions, are consciously attempting to create a compliant citizenry, the result is the same nevertheless for young and old alike. As journalist Hunter S. Thompson observed in Kingdom of Fear: Loathsome Secrets of a Star-crossed Child in the Final Days of the American Century:

Coming of age in a fascist police state will not be a barrel of fun for anybody, much less for people like me, who are not inclined to suffer Nazis gladly and feel only contempt for the cowardly flag-suckers who would gladly give up their outdated freedom to live for the mess of pottage they have been conned into believing will be freedom from fear. Ho ho ho. Let’s not get carried away here. Freedom was yesterday in this country. Its value has been discounted. The only freedom we truly crave today is freedom from Dumbness. Nothing else matters.

Read Whitehead’s commentary at Rutherford.org.

Use Facebook to Comment on this Post

Level 5 leadership decisions are made by few leaders, but can result in a breakthrough leading his or her organization from good to great. In many cases the very act of getting the wrong people on the bus, the right people on the bus, and the right people in the right seats requires high-level decision-making.

Level 5 leaders recognize the most important decisions are almost always the most difficult. One reason most leaders do not lead organizations from good to great is those difficult decisions are delayed until it is too late to positively impact the organization. When you have delayed a difficult decision so long that everyone else in the organization sees the need, it is likely too late. What follows are some thoughts to help you make Level 5 decisions:

1. Identify the Level 5 decision to be made. Is it a re-allocation of budget money? Changing personnel? Selling a building? Building a building? Speaking to the media? Implementing a strategic plan? You cannot make the decision until you have removed all the weeds and identified it clearly.

2. Determine why this is the real decision to be made. If a staff change seems to be the real decision, why should you make it? Is it a talent issue, or do you just not like the individual? If it is a talent issue, the why might be appropriate. If it is a personality or jealousy issue, the issue might be with you. If you cannot explain the why to the board, your staff, or your management team, perhaps you do not possess sufficient reason to make the decision.

3. When should the decision be enacted? Many leaders dread making difficult decisions. As a result such decisions are delayed, delayed and delayed again. Budget issues go unaddressed leaving managers in a state of flux. Construction decisions are bandied about for endless revisions because the decision maker never says, “That’s it. We are moving forward.” The wrong people remain on the bus so it never reaches its destination.

When leaders delay difficult decisions, it creates multiple difficult future decisions all of which are unnecessary. When the decision has been identified, and the rationale is clear, supportable and explainable, make the decision. There will likely be fallout from making a Level 5 decision, but the fallout from not making the decision could be the death knell of your organization, or your leadership in it.

Use Facebook to Comment on this Post

Use Facebook to Comment on this Post