Playing Nicely

5 Times a Day

2011-06-10T16:06:00.000-07:00

Documentaries rock! I know that most Americans probably don’t agree with that statement, but I’ve always been one to fly my “nerd flag” proudly! Real life, with all its twists and turns, can be infinitely more exciting than fiction. For example, I recently watched the Muslim in America episode from Morgan Spurlock’s 30 Days series in which Christian, West Virginia resident Dave Stacy spends thirty days living the life of a Muslim American in Dearborn, Michigan and prefer Spurlock’s amazing examinations of the many facets of human behavior over American Idol any day of the week. The Muslim in America episode is both comically entertaining (as in the last scene when Dave bids farewell to his Muslim-American hosts and the husband says, “Did he just flip me off?” to which his wife, in traditional hijab head covering replies, “No, he was giving you the ‘Peace’ sign, dude!”) and tragically honest as it reveals the hostile and often ignorance driven prejudice which Muslim-Americans are forced to endure.

Dave Stacy grapples with a number of concepts throughout his 30 day journey. His emotional journey is palpable. But what I found most interesting was the stark contrast between the seemingly limited amount of influence that Stacy’s Christianity seemed to exert upon his life compared to how central to everyday life the Islamic faith was to Stacy’s Muslim-American hosts. For example, Stacy attends a “bachelor party” for one of his hosts friends who is about to be married. Rather than a night drunken debauchery, these young men are playing basketball together in a local gym; an innocent “outing with the guys” designed to wish their friend well on the eve of his marriage. It is also interesting to watch Stacy trying (rather unsuccessfully) to justify to his Arabic instructor why it is ok for him, as a Christian, to drink alcohol. Stacy also comments several times that the Muslim traditions seem overly “strict” and wonders how and when his host family relaxes and has “fun.”

The item that struck me most, however, was Stacy’s inner conflict about the daily calls to prayer. Worried because he does not understand the Arabic words, Stacy refuses to participate initially because he fears that to do so would somehow be disloyal to his Christian beliefs. It seems that Stacy is not alone in this concern. This 2007 CBS News Report discusses serious opposition to the Muslim calls to prayer from Hamtramck, Michigan residents. In a country that many assert was founded as a result of an oppressed group (the Pilgrims) seeking religious freedom the idea that its citizens would be opposed to daily calls to prayer is astounding.

For Christians who consider the Islamic call to prayer “offensive” I have a suggestion. Instead of protesting, treating Muslim-Americans unkindly, or in extreme cases, making threats against these worshippers why not use the call to prayer as an opportunity to practice your Christian faith by praying to God in the name of Jesus Christ? For atheists or agnostics, why not pause to during those times to relax, meditate, appreciate nature, or perform a kindness to a fellow member of the human family? If everyone the world over took the time to stop and pray, meditate, or reflect each according to his or her beliefs five times a day, every day, how amazing would our world be? If we all had to stop, five times a day and simply refrain from arguing, cutting people off in traffic, flipping people off, abusing our spouses, berating our kids, cheating our customers, ignoring the old, the disabled, or the homeless, how much better would life on this earth be for everyone? By what percentage would robberies, rapes, drug-related crimes and even battlefield deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan be reduced if we all made the commitment to take a “time out” at least five times a day to engage prayer or some other type of positive thought or action? Maybe Morgan Spurlock’s next project should be to find out what would happen if everyone in the world made a concentrated effort to pray, meditate, or perform a conscious act of kindness five times a day for thirty days straight. We might all be amazed.

Do Americans REALLY Believe a Clothing Ad is Fueling “Gender Confusion?”

2011-04-14T17:13:00.000-07:00

In the midst of various and sundry crises on the world stage (think radiation leakage from nuclear power plants in Japan, continued fighting and unrest in Libya, and an apparently distraught young mother, Lashaundra Armstrong killing herself and three young children by driving her minivan into the Hudson River), it is hard to imagine that pink toenail polish on a five year old boy could cause such a firestorm of controversy.

This adorable J Crew ad (http://www.jcrew.com/womens_feature/Jennaspicks.jsp) has critics raging over the fact that it features J Crew president and creative director Jenna Lyons laughing with her young son after having painted his toenails with pink neon nail polish. Phrases used to describe the ad, including “inappropriate”, “disturbing” and “transgender propaganda” seem unbelievable to me on several levels.

First, is homophobia in the United States still so rampant that we cannot even enjoy the sheer fun and silliness of a boy with pink toenails? As a kid I can recall laughing hysterically when my little sister got into our mother’s makeup and created eye brows and a mustache that looked suspiciously similar to those sported by Groucho Marx. The idea that this affinity for “pretend facial hair” in any way suggested future gender identity issues never even crossed our minds. It was silly; it was fun; it made us laugh. To the critics I would say, “Lighten up! The kid is five and he’s laughing! It isn’t as if his mom is forcing to dress like a girl.”

Second, even supposing that there is some sort of credence to the idea that five year old boys who like to have their toenails painted pink will grow up to be gay or transgendered I would say, “So what?” Our children are who they are and like what they like. I have a 20 year old son whom I dressed in Dockers and preppy polo shirts and cardigan sweaters when he was young because that was the style of clothing that I liked. However, once he started dressing himself he showed an intense preference for the “grunge” look. While I miss the buttoned-down prep school look, his ripped and baggy jeans, crazy T-shirts and funny wool caps don’t make me love or value him any less. It’s a preference; it doesn’t change who he is on the inside and if, at some point in his life he were to tell me that he prefers romantic relationships with men over those with women that wouldn’t change who he is on the inside either. I might not agree with his preference and I would definitely be afraid for him in terms of the discrimination he might face from society, but it wouldn’t change the importance or value of my relationship with him.

Additionally, the scientific community is still much divided on what factors determine sexual orientation and gender identity as evidenced by this 2006 CBS 60 Minutes report on 9 year old twin brothers, raised together but possessing very different perspectives on gender identity. While genetics and environment may play some role in sexual preference and gender identify, the fact that twin brothers raised in the same home by the same parents could identify so differently suggests that there is still some unknown factor that helps in determining this particular aspect of child’s personality and psychological make-up. However, evidence does seem to suggest that it is highly doubtful that the gender identity and future sexual preference of any child can be significantly altered by outside influences. Those critics who insist that the toenail painting is “damaging” to this little boy should be reminded that there is currently no evidence that anyone can “turn” a child (or anyone else, for that matter) who is predisposed to heterosexuality into a homosexual or vice versa.

Perhaps what is most disheartening about this story, however is the fact that while a photo of a smiling little boy with pink toenails can generate interest, controversy, concern for his well-being and, in some instances, even outrage against perceived exploitation and abuse the American public somehow cannot seem to generate the same levels of outrage against the real problems in our society like hunger, lack of education, homelessness, and children abandoned by drug addicted parents. If we, as a society are going to take the trouble to work up a healthy batch of “righteous indignation” let’s at least make sure that it is over something that truly matters.

The Great Halloween Debate

2010-10-27T10:37:00.000-07:00

I guess one way to know that you’re getting older is when you tend end your conversations with the phrase, “Things sure aren’t like they used to be?” I find myself saying that a lot lately, usually surrounding more of the mundane aspects of life. Take Halloween for instance. I remember when (another catch phrase for “fuddy duddys in training” I’m afraid), Halloween was a harmless little holiday that encouraged little kids to use their imaginations in deciding “what they were going to be” and to work diligently in creating their costumes, often with the odds and ends that their moms had lying around the house.

From my kindergarten year in 1968 through second grade in 1970 my school, in a small city in southwest Indiana actually allowed Halloween parties and costumes at school. In kindergarten I went as the television character, The Flying Nun. My mother still talks about the momentary panic that set in when she tried to figure out how she was going to fashion the “wing-like” hat for that outfit. But I have to give her “mad props”; using only a white cardboard box and a healthy dose of motherly ingenuity, “Moms” pulled it off. In first grade I went as a witch, ironically both the school Halloween party and the one sponsored by my Sunday School at our local Missionary Baptist Church (where I ironically won “Prettiest Costume” probably because my witchy ensemble was accessorized with a pair of my grandmother’s elbow length black silk gloves). Finally, in second grade I went as Frito-Lay’s animated corn chip spokesperson, “The Frito Bandito.” But by third grade in 1971, both the “Frito Bandito” and Halloween costumes at school had apparently both been deemed too politically incorrect to continue in polite society and were both unceremoniously banned for life.

Nearly 40 years later the “Great Halloween Debate” continues, with Evangelical Christians of the Pat Robertson variety, predicting dire consequences for Christians who allow their children to participate in Halloween activities. In a 2009 Huffington Post article, Robertson charged that even the candy was “evil” because it had been “dedicated and prayed over by witches.” Seriously, Pat? Really?

But to be fair, I think the folks on the “pro-Halloween” side of the controversy may be going a little overboard as well. “Back in the day” I can remember my sisters and me making our costumes out of clothes from our “dress up” box and handcrafted accessories. My mother could work absolute magic with a cardboard box. In addition to my “Flying Nun” headgear I recall her making a surprisingly realistic “cardboard sword” to complete my little sister’s swashbuckling pirate costume. But today, Halloween decorations appear in the stores just after the 4^th of July and seasonally operated “Halloween Stores” open for business. Despite the still flagging U.S. economy, iCharts.net indicates that American consumers have spent $1.8 billion dollars on Halloween candy, $1.6 billion on decorations and a whopping $2 billion on costumes (for adults, children, and pets combined). That’s nearly $5.5 billion for a minor, one day celebration. Are any of these Halloween “holiday shoppers” are among the same group that is complaining bitterly about President Obama’s pricey stimulus plan? Why throw money around on trifles like improving the highways, preventing the failure of the auto industry and financial institutions when we could be spending our money on all manner of inflatable lawn decorations and tons o’ fun-sized Three Musketeers bars?

Both sides need to take a step back and “get a grip”, quite frankly. To Evangelicals of the extreme variety I would ask them to consider perhaps doing a bit of research, from a variety of sources regarding the origins of Halloween. For example, ChurchYear.Net features an article indicating that All Hallows Eve first gained popularity as a prelude to a decidedly religious holiday known as All Saints Day where Christians feasted in order to pay homage to all of their Saints and Martyrs (sort of like the modern day consolidation of Washington’s Birthday and Lincoln’s Birthday into the more generic “President’s Day”). The website asserts that, “Many customs of Halloween reflect the Christian belief that on the feast’s vigil we mock evil, because as Christians, it holds no real power over us.” So, if there is any validity in that definition wouldn’t it make sense for Christians to embrace Halloween activities as a sort of “take that Satan!” kind of thing?

And to the big spending Halloween enthusiasts I would say, “Have fun, show a little restraint.” If you’ve been laid off since November of 2008, your 401K is in the tank and your house is about to be foreclosed upon you do not need a mechanical zombie on your front porch and a Halloween light display choreographed to spooky music playing outside your house (and running up your utility bills in the process) for the entire month of October.

Personally, I don’t think that Halloween represents either the downfall of human kind but neither should it be treated like a “high holy day” rivaling Christmas, Passover, Ramadan or any other religious celebration (unless perhaps you are a follower of Wicca but that’s a whole ‘nother topic! Halloween doesn’t have to represent yet another “great divide in our society” as long as people on all sides just use a little more common sense.

References

About the solemnity of All Saints

http://www.churchyear.net/allsaints.html

Leo, A. & McGlynn, K. (2009). Christian Broadcasting Network warns against “demonic” Halloween candy. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/29/christian-broadcasting-ne_n_338738.html

http://www.icharts.net/myicharts/app?service=external&sp=Y3vRzytD&page=TeamChartDetail

Why Are Some Christians So "Un-Christlike"?

2010-10-20T15:55:00.000-07:00

Remember the firestorm that Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie Maines caused about seven years back when she spoke out against the war in Iraq and ended by saying that she was “ashamed that the President of the United States was from Texas”? The remark generated so much controversy that it nearly ended the group’s career. While I was never a huge Dixie Chicks fan I couldn’t help but feel some empathy for Maines. Being a Texan is important to her; it is a proud part of her heritage. When former President George W. Bush called for the American invasion of Iraq on what turned out to be less than reliable intelligence information there were a lot of Americans who were doubtful about that course of action. It wouldn’t be surprising that one “proud and loyal Texan” would be embarrassed when another self-described “proud and loyal Texan” initiated an act that would ultimately draw the contempt of a large majority of the civilized world.

I find myself with similar feelings when I listen to members of the self-dubbed “religious right” opposing everything from abortion to gay marriage to the Islamic Center and mosque in New York City. Having been a committed Christian for more than 30 years my faith represents a huge facet of my life. But when other so-called Christians seem to use religion as a club which to beat up those with whom they disagree I tend to be ashamed to share the Christianity label with them as well.

When I was a kid in Sunday school I remember being taught that the definition of a Christian was “one who was committed to being like Christ.” The recurring theme was that Jesus came to Earth to lead a “model life”, to show human beings “how it was done” so that by accepting Him we could ultimately receive all the blessings that God had planned for mankind (before Adam and Eve screwed it up). But somehow, I think I missed the Bible stories about how Jesus thought it was ok to bomb abortion clinics or the parables about bashing gays and denying them their civil rights or the sermons about how everyone in America is entitled to freedom of religion unless that religion just happens to be anything besides Christianity. I must have been sick or sleeping in or on vacation on those Sundays because I just don’t remember any of those lessons at all.

My recollection of learning to be “Christlike” is more in line with some information I found on the All About Following Jesus website. The behavior of Jesus described here is marked by humility (Philippians 2: 5 -8), service (Matthew 20:28), a desire to glorify God (I Corinthians 10:31), a commitment to prayer (Mark 1:35) and a willingness to sacrifice (John 2:2). I just can’t seem to reconcile angry protestors who seek to shout down anyone who disagrees with them with the picture of humility. The “I’m right; you’re wrong so just sit down and shut up” mentality just doesn’t seem to mesh with Jesus’ assertion that “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5). And just how, exactly does hurling crude insults at homosexuals “glorify God”? And for the Tea Party members who want lower taxes and fewer government supports for the poor, where is the spirit of sacrifice?

Personally, I think that people who attempt to condemn others in the name of Christianity are missing the point. Aligning ourselves with Christ does not give us license to sit in harsh judgment of others. In Romans 3:22 – 23 (NIV) Paul writes, “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. The real charge in Christianity is to address the areas in our own lives where we have “sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” I would hazard a guess that if all Christians committed ourselves to that task we would all have far less time available for sneering at the perceived shortcomings of everyone else.

Playing Nicely

2010-10-15T17:39:00.000-07:00

Since making the switch from cable to satellite TV a few months ago I’ve discovered that watching the Documentary Channel is one of my new guilty pleasures. Last night I checked out: Al Franken: God Spoke, a somewhat rambling 2006 documentary highlighting Franken’s short-lived foray into the world of talk radio through the now defunct Air America Radio program and his support of the Kerry/Edwards campaign in 2004. While the film itself was unfortunately about as successful as both Air America Radio and the Kerry/Edwards campaign, Franken’s run-ins with conservative arch-rivals Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly proved to be some of the most entertaining, although inherently depressing parts of the film.

Back in 2004 I was a single working mom with a thirteen year old son and I must confess that I was far less cognizant of the political climate during that period than I am today. As a lifelong Democrat, I voted (rather unenthusiastically I’m afraid) for John Kerry but was not otherwise very politically involved or aware. Al Franken was familiar to me only as a figure from his Saturday Night Live days; Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity were completely unknown to me and Bill O’Reilly was a television personality with whom I was vaguely familiar but completely unimpressed. O’Reilly simply struck me as a slightly more refined Rush Limbaugh type character that just didn’t seem worth my time. So, the bitter feud and resulting lawsuit between O’Reilly and Franken revealed in the film was news to me.

But as I watched the confrontations between Franken, Coulter, Hannity and O’Reilly and thought about the polarization in our country that has only intensified during the past decade I was struck not so much by the merits of the arguments put forth by both the political left and right but rather by the shear mean spiritedness of the debates. Rather than simply being individuals with differing points of view the confrontations had the tone of attacks that were unnecessarily personal.

Sadly, this seems to be the norm in our society today and perhaps it is time for those of us who are bothered by the growing incivility around us to take a stand. When I was growing up my little sister and I went through a phase where we absolutely hated each other. We were total opposites who couldn’t agree on anything. But never, in a million years would our parents have ever put up with the sniping and name calling that plays out on political television talk shows and radio programs every day. Whenever our childhood disagreements became just a little too personal mom was always quick to rein us in with the firm admonishment to “play nicely.”

While the need to “bite my tongue” and refrain from calling my sister a “great, big stupid head” (the ultimate in insults among “tween” girls in the 1970s) at the dinner table was maddeningly frustrating at the time I am grateful now for my mother’s strict enforcement of the “play nicely” rule. Heaven knows I have sat through any number of corporate presentations where the “You’re a great big stupid head” comment would not have been unjustified. But had I not learned to contain those urges early on I can’t imagine that my career would have advanced very far.

Passionate beliefs are a wonderful thing. Lively debates can keep our intellects sharp and our senses keen. But isn’t there a way to disagree without being intentionally disagreeable? What will it take to get back to “playing nicely”?