Thoughts and Musings on Faith, Music, Family, Life

I'm bummed.....but I'm encouraged.

I'm bummed that Amendment One passed…..but I'm encouraged that close to 40% of voting North Carolinians tried to keep it from passing.
 
I'm bummed that discrimination has been enshrined into our state constitution…..but I'm encouraged that our calling to love all people as Jesus loves us isn't something that has to be voted on and approved by a majority.
 
I'm bummed that some well-meaning Christians supported this amendment…..but I'm encouraged that other well-meaning Christians, and people of other faiths, voted against it - and did so not in spite of their faith but because of it.
 
I'm bummed that the lives of lots of people who have nothing to do with gay marriage will be affected by this change to our state constitution…..but I'm encouraged that far more people than just a month ago are now aware of this and are prepared to stand in their defense.

I'm bummed that some people think I am in error for the way I voted…..but I'm encouraged that many like me are absolutely willing to err on the side of love.
 
I'm bummed that a particular segment of society has once again been vilified…..but I'm encouraged that more and more people are becoming aware - and vocal - about how wrong this really is.
 
I'm bummed that some Christians felt they had no choice but to vote for the amendment…..but I'm encouraged that some Christians realized they did have a choice, and used that choice to vote against.

I'm bummed that some people were confused about what a "FOR" and "AGAINST" vote actually meant…..but I'm encouraged that lots of folks took time to find out all the facts.
 
I'm bummed that some felt it important to enshrine their own interpretation of certain Biblical passages into a government constitution…..but I'm encouraged (and hopeful) that those same people will rally behind forthcoming Amendments Two, Three and Four, which will ban collecting interest for profit (Leviticus 25:36; Deuteronomy 23:19), eating shrimp (Leviticus 11:12), and football (Leviticus 11:7-8).
 
(okay, so that last one was totally a joke, albeit one to prove a point. Besides, we need a good laugh, right?)
 
I'm bummed that Amendment One passed.  There are many of us who are bummed. But even so, I'm encouraged.  Very encouraged.  Because no constitutional amendment will ever keep us from doing our best to follow Jesus' example - to love all people, stand beside all of God's children, equally and completely.

We're bummed, but we're encouraged. So this isn't over. We're just getting started.

Why I am against Amendment One

I imagine it's been obvious, for anyone who's followed me on Facebook or Twitter the past few weeks, that I am opposed to Amendment One - the proposed change to the North Carolina state constitution that would read as follows:

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be validated or recognized in this State. 

This amendment, a staple in pretty much every other Southern state, was put on the ballot by our state legislature and has garnered tremendous attention over the past few months leading up to the May 8 vote.

Yet I realized the other day that, while I've done a pretty good job of expressing my opinion on the matter, I haven't really explained why.  And while there are many reasons why I oppose it and voted against it in early voting last week (see picture above), there really is only one true reason why I oppose Amendment One.

Amendment One is poorly worded and, in its attempt to prohibit gay marriage, would create all kinds of legal messiness for those who don't fit the narrowly-defined  "only domestic legal union" equation - namely, unmarried couples, domestic partners, children of those partnerships and even domestic violence victims.  It's bad that these folks have been unwittingly dragged into the fray, but it is not THE reason I oppose Amendment One.
 
Amendment One is 100% unnecessary, as there is already a law in North Carolina prohibiting gay marriage.  Proponents of the amendment say it will prevent "activist judges" from overturning the law at some point in the future.  This kind of flawed logic suggests that we need to create constitutional amendments to back up all "important" state laws, much the same way my Time Capsule backs up my Macbook every hour.  The latter is completely necessary (as evidenced by the demise of my computer harddrive last week); Amendment One is not.  But that is not THE reason I oppose Amendment One.
 
Amendment One is discriminatory.  Again, defenders balk at the use of this word because, in their mind, they are simply defending "traditional marriage."  And yet, the word "discriminate" means: "to make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, sex, or age."  This is precisely what Amendment One does for gay and lesbian persons - it deprives them of something everyone else has.  Besides, constitutions are about guaranteeing people's rights, not restricting them.  And yet this is still not THE reason I oppose Amendment One.
 
I have a cousin who is gay and currently in a loving and committed relationship (that in no way, I might add, adversely affects my marriage or endangers my two children, as some insist).  They've surrounded themselves with friends and family who love and support them, including mine.  Still, I know they are subjected to ridicule and scorn by those who can't see the person beyond the orientation.  Amendment One has the feel of kicking someone when they're down, heaping more burden on a population that has suffered enough already; almost to the point of cruelty.  But that is not THE reason I oppose Amendment One. 
 
No, the primary reason I oppose Amendment One is because of my Christian faith. 

I know, that sounds strange, doesn't it?  We're used to Christianity being used as a reason (if not the only reason) for supporting the amendment.  We are told, for instance, that the Bible says gay people shouldn't get married and marriage is between one man and one woman.  Which is some selective reading, I might add, since it never actually says that (as I've pointed out to the Genesis 2 crowd, Adam and Eve weren't married); and since the predominant model of marriage in the Bible is one man and multiple women (try King Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines on for size).

So while I can't change the fact that pro-Amendment folks try to claim exclusive rights to the Christian mantle, what I can do is claim some of that mantle back and draw attention to the increasing Christian voice against Amendment One, including myself squarely among its ranks.  And make no mistake - it is a strong and legitimate voice, and it is growing.

In a Letter to the Editor I submitted last week to the Winston-Salem Journal, I pointed out that, while there are at best six to eight verses in the entire Bible that are commonly used to denounce homosexuality (with, I might add, questionable interpretation), there are literally thousands of verses calling the faithful to love their neighbor, care for the “least of these,” tend to orphans and widows and most vulnerable, seek justice for all, use governmental power wisely and compassionately, and not mistreat the foreigner in their midst.  It's like an NBA All-Star team stacking up against the woeful Charlotte Bobcats' second string - it's not even close.  When it comes to the sheer weight of scripture, the message of love triumps in a landslide.

And when we look specifically at Jesus as he's presented in the gospels, what we see is a man who didn't just tolerate the oppressed and outcasts, but actually sought them out.  He made a point of hanging out with them, dining with them, immersing himself into their lives no matter who they were or what others thought of them.  It drove the religious authorities nuts.  And for all his talk about loving neighbor and self, Jesus never said a word about homosexuality or gay marriage.  Not one.

So when I look at the scriptures and Jesus' life, I see an overwhelming portrait of Christian tolerance, acceptance, non-judgmentalism, and unconditional love - none of which square with Amendment One.  Because make no mistake: there is nothing loving about Amendment One.   There is nothing loving about legislation that would have all the negative consequences mentioned above.  You could possibly argue that it's "principled" or consistent (in relation to the state law already on the books), but you can't say that it's loving and compassionate in the spirit of Jesus.

I realize there are folks who disagree with me, and I'm okay with that.  I will respect their right to believe something different and hope they will return the courtesy.  It's the wonderful and sometimes frustrating thing about being adherents of the same faith - we can see things differently and still be brothers and sisters in Christ.  I will say this: if I am in error, if I've totally got my signals crossed, then I am fully content with erring on the side of love, rather than on the side of legislation that I feel pretty certain Jesus himself wouldn't be in favor of. 

And that is ultimately why I voted against Amendment One - because I believe, with all my heart, that Jesus would have voted against it too.

We'll see what Tuesday brings.  If it's defeated, I'll give thanks to God and be proud of the state I've lived in all my life.  And if it passes?  I'll be disappointed, but I'll move on with even deeper convictions and a better sense of my voice in the matter.  I'll be enthused by the wide spectrum of folks - people from different generations, different backgrounds, and even different political parties - who have come together on this issue in the spirit of Christ's love and in defense of all of God's children.

And most of all, I'll keep on loving like Jesus, the best that I can.  Thank God that is something that needs no legislation.

Speaking out for curbside recycling

This evening my family and I attended a public hearing held by our city commissioners.  The topic: curbside recycling.  Our wonderful little town of "Mayberry" doesn't have it, and after years of egging our community leaders on, they finally scheduled this forum.  Strange as it is to say, this has been a contentious issue in our community, as there are some who are vehemently opposed to the idea for a number of reasons.  Cost is one of them (and a reasonable one, I confess); but a significant group who view such an initiative as "government intrusion" and even those who see curbside recycling as a not-so-veiled form of socialism (as I highlighted in this previous blog post).

The forum lasted just under two hours.  Those who spoke were overwhelmingly in favor of curbside recycling.  I didn't keep track, but I would guess that for every one person opposed, four or five were in favor.  A lot of the vitriol that had surfaced over the past few weeks in the social media world over this topic was nonexistent.

Both my wife and 8-year old son spoke, as did I.  In my comments I approached things from both a pastoral/spiritual angle, as well as a city resident and taxpayer.  Below is what I said. 

**************

My friends – tonight I come in two capacities to express my support for curbside recycling – as a pastor and a resident of this wonderful town.  As pastor, I come not representing the church I serve, but representing many people of many faiths who understand that the call to take care of God’s earth comes first and foremost from this – the scriptures.  In the book of Genesis, which serves as the foundation for some 2.2 billion Christians and Jews worldwide, the scripture says this:

Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth, and over the earth itself.

Sadly, over the years that word “dominion” has been misconstrued to mean “do with the world as you wish.”  When in fact, the Hebrew here actually describes a scenario where a servant is entrusted with the care of their master’s possessions.  So the world does not belong to us – it belongs to God.  Like the Psalmist says in Psalm 24:1: The earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it.

People of faith all over the world understand God’s mandate to care for creation – including many here in our community, represented in these signed petitions, stating that curbside recycling is not only a civic calling but a spiritual one as well.  I submit these to you for public record on their behalf.

The second capacity in which I come tonight is as a citizen of this town – a citizen who recognizes that waste disposal comes at a cost to the taxpayer, no matter how we go about doing it.  We can either continue purchasing additional land for the landfill – land which will eventually fill up and cause us to purchase more land – or we can enact a curbside recycling program that, in the long run, will cost the taxpayer less.  If we are going to talk about cost in this discussion, as some people are so eager to do, then let us be open and honest about all costs involved.

It’s become apparent that, if curbside recycling is going to happen in Mount Airy, it’s going to require some "forward-thinking" on behalf of you, our city commissioners.  Which is why I’m grateful that this is something you all have demonstrated in the past.  Five or six years ago, you will recall, Reeves Community Center was in danger of shutting its doors.  It would've been easy for you, our elected officials, to have said, "We can't afford to get involved." Instead, you wisely recognized that you couldn't afford NOT to.  So you chose to take over Reeves and keep that vital community resource intact.

And, you know, it strikes me that the city didn’t have to hold a public forum back then to discuss this, even though it came at an additional cost to the taxpayer.  So why is this issue so much more contentious?  The real reason, I would submit, is not about money.  The real reason is about doing something new and different; something we’ve never had before.  It’s about change.  And as creatures of habit, we humans are not very fond of change.  But sometimes doing the right thing, doing the smart and sensible thing, doing the economically viable thing, requires that we do something we’ve never done before.

On a personal note: I’ve had the honor of getting to know each of you on a number of levels.  I’ve served with you in Rotary and in ministry.  I’ve shared the stage with you for shows you were running sound for.  I’ve coached your children in swimming, taught them at the college, officiated your daughter’s weddings.  I know you love this town and want very much to do the right thing.  My friends, this is the right thing!  And, contrary to our local newspaper’s editorial yesterday, this is also very much the right time.  I implore you, as a fellow citizen and colleague and friend, to once again engage in “forward-thinking” and bring curbside recycling to Mount Airy.   Thank you!

**************

I welcome all comments and thoughts, both those who agree with me and those who don't.  Here's the deal - this is my blog, so I reserve the right to delete comments that do one of two things: 1) engage in namecalling, belittling, excessive vitriol or other such nonsense, and/or 2) do not contribute to the dialogue in a meaningful way. If you don't feel you can abide by either of these stipulations, you probably don't need to comment (or just don't get all bent out of shape when I delete it).  If you can abide by it, please, comment away.

The cost of looking like a loser

It's Friday night at the Lindsleys and all has been pretty calm.  We had pizza and watched The Karate Kid on Netflix.  The new one.  I missed Mr. Miyagi.  Elsewhere, though, things are not so normal.  As I type this, our federal government is teetering precariously on the brink of a shutdown because the two sides can't agree on a budget.  To hear the experts talk (and it's tough these days to know who the experts are) the differences are pretty miniscule as far as dollars and cents.  But that appears to be the problem - it's not about dollars and cents anymore. I'm not even sure it's about the 800,000+ American citizens who will go unpaid and the services may depend on that won't be rendered.  You'd think we would be their focus (and I'm holding both sides accountable here), but apparently we're not.  No, apparently in our day and time, when you and the other guy don't agree on how to best solve a problem, it's not what's in everyone's best interest that should motivate you. 

It's doing everything you possibly can to keep yourself from looking like a loser.

Have you noticed this?  It's not anything new, really.  It's as old as the schoolyard playground.  It's what my grade-school sons have been known to engage in from time to time.  There's a stuffed animal, say, and they both claim it as their own.  So they hold on to it and try to wrestle it away from the other.  Eventually, though, the item of contention itself becomes insigificant - almost completely forgotten.   Harold the stuffed monkey is no longer what they're really concerned about.  All that matters is that they hold on to whatever it is with all their life so they wind up winning.

Good gosh. Maybe Charlie Sheen was right after all.

It's kind of cute when eight and six-year olds engage in this sort of thing (okay, maybe not so cute), but it definetly isn't very endearing when grown adults go at it.  Case in point: a few months ago the NFL owners and players duked it out in trying to strike a collective bargaining agreement to prevent a work stoppage.  The stakes there too were high - the National Football League is easily the most popular and lucrative of all the professional sports leagues in the country.  It was in the best interests of both sides to strike a deal and keep playing.  And the differences separating the sides were not insurmountable.  In the end, though neither side wanted to look like the one who caved in.  No one wanted to be perceived as the loser.  So unless something dramatic changes in the near future, my Panthers won't get a chance to repeat their horrendous 2-14 season.

And frankly, the media doesn't help matters much.  With the 24-7 news cycle and ever-constant Twitter updates, the die is perpetually being cast and the stakes ever raised in the public eye.  The shutdown hasn't even happened, and yet for days all the pundits have been talking about who stands to suffer more politically if a deal isn't reached.  This kind of stuff isn't very helpful.  Earlier this evening former Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleischer showcased this tidbit of wisdom in the Twitterverse:

I usually don't see eye-to-eye with the man, but in this case he's right.

What I'm wondering in all of this is whether this is fast-becoming not just the way differences are solved in the high-stakes political process or ridiculously-lucrative world of professional sports, but in everyday interactions of the common folk.  It's a fact: people won't always agree on everything.  There are going to be instances where we have to work to solve our differences.  And my concern is that things like compromise and give-and-take will take a back-seat to worrying about what our reputation looks like after the dust is settled.

I know it's easy to take sides when you're talking about hot-button issues like national politics and football (man, I really wanted the Steelers to win the Super Bowl), and that's not really the point of this blog post.  Because when things play out the way they have so far, the truth of the matter is that both sides are at fault.  And then it becomes nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy: when both sides worry only about not being perceived as the loser, both sides wind up becoming the loser.

Let's hope productive dialogue and compromise win out over positioning and self-preservation.  Because even though I don't agree with everything my government says or does, I still want it to function.  And I really won't know what to do with myself if there's no football on Sunday afternoons this fall.

****************

UPDATE:  Mere seconds after I hit the "Publish" button for this post, the news came that the government reached a deal to hopefully avoid a shutdown.

 

 

The Counterweight Movement

This is gonna be one of those "what-it's-like-being-a-preacher" posts, so if that's not your cup of tea I understand, and you are free to skip this entry and return at a later date.

But then again, maybe you shouldn't.  Maybe the very fact that you aren't inclined to read a "pastoral post" is precisely the reason you should read on.

See, today has been one of those days when I realize I'm not like a lot of other pastors.  Perhaps the whole playing in a rock band thing and wearing Crocs out in public should've clued me in already.  But more and more I have those moments, particularly in conversations with folks or scanning the Facebook news feed of my friends, when I realize I'm either tremendously out of step with mainline Christianity or on the cutting edge of it.  And I think my location has something to do with it - small-town rural south - although I get the sense that it's not just here.

More and more I've come to understand that my ideas about faith, and how that faith informs the way I live, can be quite different from the way others' ideas of faith inform the way they live.  And it's less about beliefs and more about how we feel about the things we believe in.  It often puts me in an odd position of being "the other voice;" the "contrary-to" representative.  I get the Greg Brady treatment: Gee, I never thought about it that way before.  

Does this make any sense?

And it hit me today: sometimes I feel like a counterweight. Or, more accurately, part of a counterweight movement in the Christian faith, balancing out some of the "cultural Christianity" so prevalent in our society with a more nuanced perspective.  I find myself apologizing for the actions of other Christians: I'm sorry for that church in Kentucky who is protesting at that funeral - that's not how all of us act. I'm sorry for that Alabama governor who said he can't work with anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior - that's not how all of us think.  And it's not that I asked to be part of this; it just kind of happened.  This movement has been around for a while but tends to rise to the surface when the pendulum swings too far the other way; a sort of natural reaction to steady the scales a bit.

I feel like I'm part of this movement when I'm having conversations with folks and realize how starkly different we perceive the same elements of Christian faith:

There are those, for instance, who believe that God is to be feared and they should live fearfully.  I believe God is to be loved and that we should live in hope.

There are those who think that God is outside their grief and loss and wants us to steer clear of it and "be strong."  I believe God is smack-dab in the middle of it and wants us to go right into the messiness with him.

There are those who believe the world is coming to an end. I believe God is in the process of renewing and restoring the world.

There are those who believe God is on America's side.  I believe God is on every side, and we're the ones who've made such a big deal about the whole side thing.

There are those who believe the ultimate goal in our faith journey is to reach that glorious moment when we finally choose God.  I believe the more important "choosing" is when God chooses us - and, in fact, that God already has.

There are those who believe God is out to get us. I believe.....well, I believe that's absolute crap, to be blunt. And it pains me to know there are actually people out there who go through each day with this weighing them down.

There are those who believe we're meant to identify with the prodigal son in the parable by the same name - that we're the ones who've screw up, that God forgives us and throws a party and everything's great.  I believe when Jesus told the parable he meant for us to identify with the older brother - stewing out in the fields because the party is not for us but for those we feel aren't worthy of the honor, and we have to decide if we're going or not.

There are those who believe God's primary role is to be judgmental. I believe God's primary role is to love unconditionally.

There are those who believe the church is God's little "country club" and in the business of determining who is "in" and who is "out."  I believe the church's doors should be open to everyone. Period.

There are those who believe that Christianity is only about heaven and hell.  I believe it's about this life as much as the next one.

There are those who believe that "real Christians" are of one political party and not another.  I believe Jesus' message was political, but that it supercedes our political categories.

There are those who believe that being a "believer" is enough.  I believe that being a "follower" is the other side of the coin.

There are those who believe that the Bible is literal. I believe it's inspired (read Song of Solomon 4:1-5 and tell me that's supposed to be taken literally).

There are those who believe we are held accountable for our actions.  I believe that too.  But I also believe in grace.

Sometimes - many times - I feel like a counterweight.  The good news is that, as I look around, I realize I'm not alone.  Perhaps you're part of the movement too.  And if you're not - especially if you're one who initially thought of skipping this post - at least know there's a different way of looking at the faith than what you've heard from some people or seen on TV.  At least know that we're here.

Jon Stewart on the Arizona shootings

The little skit with John Oliver in his panda Pjs is cute, but hands-down the most meaningful part is when Jon Stewart looks straight into the camera and does what he does best - speak from the heart.

I think my favorite line among many is: It would be really nice if the ramblings of crazy people didn’t in any way resemble how we actually talk to each other on TV.  How true.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Arizona Shootings Reaction
www.thedailyshow.com

(CLICK HERE IF YOU CAN'T SEE THE VIDEO CLIP)

A comedian grateful for pain

I've been an admirer of Comedy Central's Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert for years now, and I find myself drawn to their shows in the same way a thirsty barnyard animal finds its way to the water well.  Their quick and witty politicial and cultural commentary not only makes me laugh, it makes me feel better.  "A joyful heart is good medicine," the Proverb says.  And along with others, I sometimes wonder if comedians might just be the prophets of the 21st century, or at least its prophetic voice.

With midterm elections fast approaching, both Stewart and Colbert are at the top of their game; making fun of the candidates and the people who take them way too seriously. That would be us, by the way.  And they're carrying their message outside their own television shows to other venues - faux rallies (or are they fake??), as well as various television appearances.  While Stewart was on FOX News' Bill O'Reily Show last week, Colbert - in typical self-mocking fashion - wound up yesterday on ABC's The View.

Just to clarify, I don't typically watch The View.  But, as so many of us in this social media-crazed world, I did catch a web clip.  It's pretty funny stuff; Colbert exercising his typical schtick (including pretending to walk off the set, as two of the more liberal-minded hosts did a few days before when - no surprise - Bill O'Reily was their guest). 

But things take an unexpected and amazing turn at about the 2:08 mark.  Watch:

(if the video doesn't load, you can watch it here).

I had heard previously that Colbert is a devout Catholic and apparently still teaches Sunday school.  I was not aware, though, that his father and two siblings had died in a plane crash.  And when Barbara Walters asked Colbert how his mother raised the remaining nine kids, by herself, in light of such a horrible tragedy, this is what he said:  She had a very strong faith.  She taught us to still love life and not be bitter, and to realize that everbody suffers.  If you can accept your suffering, you'll just understand other people better.  And strangely enough, you have to be grateful for your pain.

Wow.  Thoughts worthy of a seminary-level class on theodicy, and it's coming out of a comedian's mouth on The View.

Stumbling upon this clip couldn't have been more timely.  Part of my job as pastor is to walk with people at painful times in their lives.  And over the past few weeks it seems like I've been doing a lot of walking.  I've walked with a young woman seeking companionship who once again finds herself in a relationship going nowhere.  The man dealing with his father's recent death and the fact that he never quite felt like he lived up to his standards.  The older gentlemen whose eyes still well with tears as he speaks of the death of his 11-year old son over 40 years ago.  The homeless kids in our school system I recently learned about who literally have no home to go to once the final school bell rings.  And - just yesterday - the four families who found their way to our church over the course of the day because their power had been turned off, or their car was out of gas and they had to get across the state to an ailing grandmother, or they and their two young children were one day away from being evicted and cast out on the streets. 

This very well could be the understatement of the decade, but there is a lot of pain out there.  Pain that, in many instances, I simply can't fathom.  I feel inadequate in the midst of it.  And maybe that's why Colbert's words resonate so strongly in me.  I can almost hear his 90-year old mother, teaching and living out and showing him and his brothers and sisters how not to be bitter, how to love life and recognize that everyone faces hardship, how accepting your suffering helps you to understand the suffering of others.  And then that powerful line: you have to be grateful for your pain.

Colbert was right: that is strange.  That's not in our DNA.  Our culture is one that runs for the hills when pain comes along.  We'll do anything we can to numb it, deaden it, minimize it, or remove it entirely.  Sometimes that's a good thing, of course - my wife is very glad she chose an epidural over natural childbirth when she brought our two boys into the world (so am I).  When the stove is hot, it's not like we should sit there holding our hand on it.

But when it comes to the kind of pain that gets stuck in our heart, avoiding it is the worst thing to do.  Despite every instinct in our being, we've got to head straight in to it.  Embrace it, name it, call it out.  And we do this not only so we can understand other people better, but most importantly so we can understand ourselves. 

You know the story of Jesus coming to the disciples in the boat during the storm?  I've always been struck by the image of where Jesus came from. He didn't come to them from the safety of the shore.  He didn't rise up out of the waters or descend from the heavens above.  He came to them from the storm - the darkest, most chaotic part.  He was already there.  When we encounter the most painful, suffering, stormy parts of our lives, we don't find God by running away from the storm.  We find God by going further into it.  Perhaps that's what Colbert's mother meant about being grateful for the pain.

It's not like this clip is going to make me start watching The View or anything.  But I am planning on paying better attention to where I hear the prophetic voice coming from.  Often there's a fine line between comedic satire and the truth.  I kind of dig it when that line gets crossed.

 

So long, Rolling Stone

I did it. I hated to, but I did it.

This morning I called Rolling Stone magazine and canceled my subscription, effective immediately.

And it's not because I didn't like some article, because the truth is their writing is some of the best music journalism out there, consistently.  I didn't cancel it because it cost too much - $20 for two issues a month is an absolute steal.

I canceled my subscription to Rolling Stone because of their covers.

Have you seen them recently?  They're something else. And it's not what's on them as much as what's not on them.  Namely, clothes.  Or any shred of decency.  Check out the most recent issue and you'll find the crew of television's True Blood in the buff, splattered in some blood-like substance, positioning limbs and such to hide the bare essentials.  A few issues before it was Lady Gaga in some outfit made out of nothing but bubbles.  Shaun White squirting a water bottle in very close proximity to his crotch.  Some gals on a 2009 issue licking an ice cream cone as if it were something else.

And it's not like I'm a prude - I'm not.  It's not really about me at all, actually.  It's 100 % about my two young boys who share the same house with me, who see what I see, who are at that all-important impressionable age.  They recite funny lines of their favorite cartoon characters without thinking about it and without knowing what they mean.  They pick up bad habits from other kids in their summer day camp and adopt them as their own. The last thing they need to witness is Britney Spears' boobs. Or anything Britney Spears, really.

So for the past few years my wife and I have engaged in a little ritual.  She gets the mail during the day when I'm at work. If it's a Rolling Stone issue with a questionable cover (usually one in four, I've found), she puts it on top of our refrigerator, out of sight of little eyes.  And, consequently, out of mine.  I don't know they're up there and she forgets to tell me. Or maybe she doesn't forget.  Anyway, at some point I randomly check up there and find one or two issues, like the one with the Glee girl's underwear showing, or the aforementioned Lady Gaga in a very skimpy outfit holding some kind of rifle guns where her breasts should be.  I take the magazine down, tear off the cover and throw it in the trash, and go on to my reading.

For the longest time I was okay with this, until it hit me: why?  Why should we have to engage in this silly activity?  I subscribe to Sports Illustrated (more excellent journalism, it's true) and they let you opt out of the swimsuit issue (which I do).  Can't RS follow suit?  The better question, though is why in the world a publication of such high journalistic quality feels compelled to do this. I'm telling you, you won't find better, more honest album reviews anywhere else.  Their interviews are cutting-edge and extremely relevant to our time (I'm thinking of the General McChrystal interview that eventually cost him his job).  Their political commentary is biting and extremely informed.  And their photography - of well-known people wearing clothes - is excellent.  It's great stuff, and for the life of me I don't understand why RS feels they have to go all "shock-and-awe" on the cover.  Because the bottom line is that they don't need to do that to sell magazines. 

The lady on the other end of the phone this morning was about as engaged in my request to cancel as my cat is in calculus.  She took my information and said my cancellation was official and I would be getting a credit back.  Surprisingly, she did not ask me why I was canceling, which I thought was standard procedure.  So I volunteered the information for her - I told her about the kids, the total lack of need for them to do this.  I even tried to be funny: If I wanted soft porn I'd subscribe to Maxim, I said.  She didn't laugh.  She told me she would pass it on to some department whose name I can't remember.  She probably made it up on the spot.

I appreciate the refund.  What I'd really like, though, is a magazine that comments intelligently on the pulse of our culture, not caves in to its basest elements.  Perhaps that's asking too much of a publication in these economic times.  But I'd like to think we can expect more.  In the meantime, our refrigerator will be periodical-free.

Sliding down the slippery slope

Okay, some 30% of America, I get it: you don't approve of our president.  You don't like his policies, his stances, his philosophies, his politics.  Presumably you did not cast your vote for him last November, you weren't one of the tens of millions who watched his inauguration worldwide.  And since that cold January afternoon you probably have not been a fan of his administration's actions, from the future closing of Guantanamo to the most recent maelstrom over health care reform.  You've been upset and frustrated and it's only been nine short months.

I get it - really, I do.  For two reasons.  One, because I truly value your place in our country at this moment and time.  I'm serious.  While I'm personally more upbeat about the current administration, I know that one side of the story does not have all the answers.  Our country's government was built on the importance of balance and the presence of a "counter-voice" to even things out.  So I truly appreciate your presence and your voice.  Thank you.

I also know how you feel because I have walked in your shoes; a walk that took eight years out of my life.  See, I used to be part of that "counter-voice" myself.  I cringed when the ones who used to be in charge encouraged torture as an acceptable practice in dealing with prisoners of war; I lamented when they lowered the tax rate for the wealthy, in affect asking those with less to pay more.  I sat on edge when they tried to privatize social security, and I mourned when a pre-emptive war was launched against a nation that did not possess the threat we were told they had.  Believe me - I know what it feels like to be in the minority; to have little faith in the folks calling the shots, to wait with much longing for the next election cycle to come around.

But - and you knew there was a "but" coming, didn't you - there's a very fine line between respectful dissent in the voice of government and poisonous malice that sabotages the process.  And just nine months into this particular season I feel we have crossed it.  For it is one thing to vocally disagree with our administration; to call into question its practices and policies and work for a better way - which I believe to be not only a good thing but a necessary thing.  But it's another thing entirely to cast that aside for the perils of mudslinging and, at its worst, outright demonization.  I admit - at my weakest moments I was known to refer to our former president as an "idiot" when my righteous indignation got the best of me.  But it was outside my realm of thinking to do something as hateful as drawing a Hitler mustache on his face or referring to him as the "antichrist."  

Let me reiterate again - I know how you feel.  I really do!  But there are much more productive ways to express dissent.  The beauty of our democracy is the existence of a 2/3/4-party system where each brings their side's agenda to the table.  I am not one who believes that our current administration - or any administration - has all the right answers.  I am convinced that the best solution to our country's ills is to find the compromise that lies somewhere in between; something that incorporates the good all sides have to offer.  The problem we're experiencing at the moment, though, is that we're allowing fear-mongering and outright malice to get a grip on us, thereby killing the process before it even begins.  And once we start down that slippery slope it is incredibly hard to get back up.

I think we're seeing this with some of the hubbub surrounding our president's "school speech" airing tomorrow.  Forget for the moment that both previous presidents in our country's history who did this came from the other side of the aisle.  Forget that common sense would dictate that a commander-in-chief would never use such a platform to push any particular agenda (the political repercussions of which would be devastating).  What, pray tell, is wrong with any president - Republican or Democrat - speaking directly to our young people, encouraging them to be the best students they can be and make a contribution to this world?

The speech, of course, is now online; so anyone can see that it is nowhere near what some have made it out to be.  And absolutely, any parent should be allowed to make a request that their child not be allowed to view it.  But that hasn't stopped the silliness from going beyond silly.   All last week, the talk was that the speech was going to push a "socialist agenda" - a huge assumption; as the text for the speech had not yet been released.  That's the kind of stuff that happens when we're sliding down the slope.

Dissent is the foundation of our great country, it is the essence of who we are as Americans, it is the reason we enjoy the freedoms we have.  We need it to thrive; we need the checks and balances that our multi-faceted government provides to keep the ship on track.  We need people to disagree with our current president and call into question some of his actions, just as we needed it the eight years prior.

But we must use every fiber of our being to resist going down that slippery slope of malice, hate, anger, and ill will; which does absolutely no good.  Fear has no place in our politics or (as I've said in a previous blog) in our religion.  Honest, respectful, sincere dialogue must prevail.

Because if it doesn't, we do crazy things like bashing the leader of the free world for urging our young people to be the best they can be.  And that is something I don't get.

Comic relief in the madness

It's hard to imagine anything more polarizing these days than the topic of health care reform.  But there is some humor to be found amidst the acrimony.  So let these pictures taken at recent town hall/protest events cause us to actually laugh a little:

 

It was a pretty funny show.  Or maybe he's talking about the band?

And the sign that I think takes the cake of them all.......

 

(it's the one in the middle, by the way).

There, doesn't that feel better?  Aaaahhhhh.

Now let's come together and work this thing out.

(pics, by the way, come from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/17/the-funniest-signs-from-t_n_260838.html)