How Others See Our Choices

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump at the annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial
Foundation Dinner in New York City. Spencer Platt / Getty Images

The whole world is watching us.

Over the last month, I have logged tens of thousands of miles, visiting three continents. From the steamy poverty of Sierra Leone to the pubs and castles of Ireland, there is one thing that tied all the people together. Nearly every conversation I had began by someone asking, “So, what do you think of Trump and Hillary?”

This question occurred with such regularity that it soon evoked spontaneous laughter. It was comical to me that people as diverse as a tipsy Irishman, Lady Dunsany (originally from Columbia) and an African preacher from the bush should all be fixated on American politics.

At first, it made me wonder if these people have nothing better to do with their time than watch a dog and pony show taking place a half a world away. Has the American presidency become something akin to the royalty of the British Empire? Do they watch us like we watched the soap opera of Charles and Lady Di?

Actually, no. In time, I learned that their interest is not idle entertainment. It was the Irishman who drove home the reality: we are talking about the leader of the free world.

I have heard this phrase for decades, but I had never heard it through the mouth of a non-American. The simple reality is that America is the world’s greatest super-power, and the only one with freedom at its very foundation. As America goes, so goes the rest of the world. And as America’s freedom goes, so goes that of the entire free world.

What has dawned on me over the last month is that the President of the United States of America is, for better or for worse, the world’s president. American hegemony is so powerful and so influential that American politics and culture have a direct impact upon the politics and culture of countries scattered around the globe. The people that I met on my travels know this well — even if you have never thought about it.

All this reminded me of a startling realization that I had back in graduate school. I can remember the very lecture when it happened. We were studying the politics of the Roman Empire at the time of the first Christians. It blew my mind when I learned that the average man on the street had absolutely no say about the people and the way he would be governed.

His leaders were chosen for him by politics and wars, treaties and betrayals far above his paygrade. A Roman citizen at the time of Christ could go his entire life without ever casting a vote. But no matter how far he might be from having any control over the politics of Rome, the politicians of Rome had a great deal of control over him. Other people and other factors chose his rulers, but he was not unaffected by it.

For a Christian in the first century, an emperor like Nero could dip you in tar and light you on fire, or an emperor like Nerva could stop the persecutions and roll back corruption. Either way, you had no say whatsoever about which it would be. It suddenly dawns on me that this is very similar to the way much of the world looks on American politics. They are affected by both the good and the bad of our choices.

They watch from afar as we select leaders who will affect them in ways we cannot fathom. They are more than curious. They are concerned.

If you have ever tossed up your hands in frustration and said, “My vote doesn’t matter anyway,” you might want to think about the billions of people around the world for whom that is really true. Your vote may be only one in a hundred million, but it is still that. Pastor Lansana, the preacher from the bush, and Lady Dunsany of Ireland don’t even have that.

Think about that as you go to the polls in November. People around the world are depending on the American voter. What we do here will most certainly affect billions of people beyond our shores. Not only does your vote truly matter for you, it matters for people you have never met, in places you have never visited.

While you are thinking about these things, think about something else as well. The relationship between American politics and people around the globe is not the only place where other people’s actions affect innocent lives profoundly. This is, in fact, the constant reality of the entire human condition.

None of us are islands. Our personal choices do not affect only us. They affect everybody around us in ways that we may never understand. We live in community. That means there are no such things as private sins or inconsequential choices. Every decision you make has a ripple effect upon the entire world.

What parents do in private affect their children. What families do behind closed doors, affect the whole community. What countries do within their own borders have an impact on those beyond the border. Life is made up of a thousand choices between good and evil, right and wrong. And those choices matter to people that you never even knew existed.

Perhaps there is a silver lining to this strange campaign season. Perhaps in the flawed charactors of Clinton and Trump we can be roused into remembering these basic truths. Character counts. Virtue matters.

Remembering these things, perhaps we will also stop obsessing with the flaws of others and start looking more honestly at ourselves. Anxiety comes with the feeling that nothing you do matters to the world around you. By that same thought, virtue fades.But confidence and humanity are restored when you know that even your most miniscule and private battle to do the right and shun the wrong has a greater impact on the world than you will ever know.

You matter. Your choices matter. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Hope After Rape Conception

HopeAfterRapeConception.org

“I was adopted nearly from birth. At 18, I learned that I was conceived out of a brutal rape at knife-point by a serial rapist. Like most people, I’d never considered that abortion applied to my life, but once I received this information, all of a sudden I realized that, not only does it apply to my life, but it has to do with my very existence. It was as if I could hear the echoes of all those people who, with the most sympathetic of tones, would say, ‘Well, except in cases of rape… ,’ or who would rather fervently exclaim in disgust: ‘Especially in cases of rape!’

“All these people are out there who don’t even know me, but are standing in judgment of my life, so quick to dismiss it just because of how I was conceived. I felt like I was now going to have to justify my own existence, that I would have to prove myself to the world that I shouldn’t have been aborted and that I was worthy of living. I also remember feeling like garbage because of people who would say that my life was like garbage — that I was disposable.”

These are the words of Mrs. Rebecca Kiessling, who recently spoke in Rock Springs to a crowd of over 300. She is a nationally-known speaker and a co-founder of HopeAfterRapeConception.org, an organization focused on supporting women who have conceived as a result of rape and advocating legislation to protect them.

It’s not hard to understand why. When your very existence hangs in the balance, a person tends to become focused and passionate. 

Rebecca’s story is not unique. Congress found that rape-related pregnancy occurs approximately once for every 20 rapes. That translates to over 32,000 people per year conceived as a result of rape. For these women and for the children they carry, how we support them speaks volumes about how we value them as human beings. 

If they take it personally, we all should. Once we consider these women and children as innocent victims, we cannot help but care about them as persons. It is only so long as they remain abstract statistics that society can turn a blind eye to their plight.

Many people assume that these 32,000 women would want only to abort the children conceived in rape. But, perhaps surprisingly, that is not the case. Congress found that nearly 75 percent of these women carry the children to term. Studies also suggest that an even higher number would like to do so if we would only support them better.

Rape is a terrible thing. It is violence against a woman’s person at the very core of her womanhood. Nobody with a heart would want any woman to suffer one iota more from rape than she has already suffered. On that we can all agree. 

Before she even considers the status of the child, she must also ask if she herself will suffer more by giving birth, or by undergoing an abortion? The woman faced with this terrible choice should not be denied the facts. Real data and real answers are critical. She needs good advice and she needs it now. But where are such answers to be found? 

To date, there is only one clinical study that has reached out to real women who faced a rape pregnancy and listened to their stories. The Elliot Institute in Illinois has conducted a follow-up survey of women who were impregnated by rape or incest. The results of their study help to explain why so many women choose to carry the child to term.

They found that no victim of rape who carried her child to term regretted her choice. But many of those women who underwent an abortion felt additional trauma. Especially in the instance of incest, these findings are important. Incest is a particularly evil form of rape. It is often ongoing, and enabled by secrecy and family power structures. Women who suffer from it are further victimized by the secrecy surrounding it.

When it results in pregnancy, she is afforded the opportunity of breaking the unbearable silence. For this reason, it is rarely the victim of incest who wants an abortion, but the perpetrator. By it he can deny the consequence of his actions and continue the power dynamics of silence. He can also use the specter of a prolonged custody battle intimidate her into aborting.

For the sake of our sisters who suffer in silence, we should not perpetuate the silence. Our laws can and should be structured to give her a real choice and to strip her tormentor of the tools of power he uses to perpetuate the abuse. 

This is not a political issue. No matter how you feel about Roe v. Wade, we should all want the victims of rape to have every available remedy for their situation. If Wyoming would enact laws which support the victims of rape and incest, we would be helping both the children so conceived, and the women who are victims of this powerless situation.

For this reason alone, it would be beneficial to change our laws. Current Wyoming law allows a rapist to sue for custody rights in order to avoid paying child support. For the victim of rape or incest this is a horrifying reality. Oftentimes against her own desires, she will opt for abortion in order to prevent the intolerable situation of dealing with her rapist for the rest of her life.

Many states have already passed laws to prevent this situation. It is high time that Wyoming joined them. The Rape Survivor Child Custody Act (H.R. 1257), was signed into federal law in June 2015. It offers just the kind of help that Wyoming women need. 

Introduced by a broad coalition of legislators, ranging from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, D-Fla., to Mimi Walters, R-Calif., this legislation encourages states to address this problem. It offers federal money for combatting violence against women to states that pass legislation to protect the victims of rape and incest from perpetrators who would later sue for custody of the child. 

Let’s build a coalition beginning in Evanston to change Wyoming law and give both women and children a chance. Join me in encouraging your representative and senator to sponsor Wyoming’s own version of the Rape Survivor Child Custody Act. Together we can make a real difference.

If you, or someone you love, have conceived as a result of rape, there is hope and help available. Contact Rebecca Kiessling at HopeAfterRapeConception.org. Not only will you receive sound support and help, you will also have the opportunity to help others. Nothing is more empowering than that.

An Uncivil Report on Civil Rights

The United States Commission on Civil Rights recently issued a report titled, “Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Nondiscrimination Principles with Civil Liberties.” This report was three and a half years in the making. It releases the findings from a briefing held on March 22, 2013. 

One wonders what they were actually doing during this time. One thing is certain. They were not reconciling nondiscrimination principles with civil liberties. 

I realize that is a very brash statement. I would not have said it except for the plain language of the Report itself. “The Commission endorses the briefing panelists’ statements as summarized at page 21 of the Report.” This bland sentence announces a wholesale and one-sided endorsement of those who oppose any religious exemptions to SOGI laws, and a complete rejection of the arguments for any religious accommodations. 

Lest the reader miss their point, they repeat the seven points that they endorse: “1) schools must be allowed to insist on inclusive values, 2) throughout history, religious doctrines accepted at one time later become viewed as discriminatory, with religions changing accordingly, 3) without exemptions, groups would not use the pretext of religious doctrines to discriminate, 4) a doctrine that distinguishes between beliefs (which should be protected) and conduct (which should conform to the law) is fairer and easier to apply, 5) third parties, such as employees, should not be forced to live under the religious doctrines of their employers, 6) a basic right as important as the freedom to marry should not be subject to religious beliefs, and 7) even a widely accepted doctrine such as the ministerial exemption should be subject to review as to whether church employees have religious duties” (26).

Fathom the chutzpah of telling a Roman Catholic, for whom marriage has been a sacrament for centuries before America was in diapers, that marriage can no longer “be subject to religious belief.” Notice the dismissive claim that religious doctrines are unstable and ever-changing. Catch the delicious irony that the Commission teaches a “doctrine” that denies religions the right to teach doctrine. According to this “doctrine,” only what is privately believed in the heart “should be protected,” every other conduct, including teaching and living out these beliefs, “should conform to [our] law.” Shiver at the menacing accusation behind the phrase, “pretext of religious doctrines.” It’s hard to imagine a paragraph dripping with more contempt for religion and the faithful.

With the stated goal of “reconciling” two positions, the Report started out on the right track. The first 22 pages lay out two respective positions, together with their legal and philosophical justifications. But then, instead of offering any discussion on how these two complex and divergent positions might be reconciled, the Commission jumps the tracks and immediately gives a full and unqualified endorsement to one position over the other. This does not bode well for those seriously seeking reconciliation. 

All this leaves the reader to wonder, is no reconciliation possible? Or was no reconciliation desired? There is plenty of documentation available to explore this question. For though the entire report is only 27 pages, the full document released by the Commission is nearly twelve times that. The additional pages include 120 pages of written statements from those who testified at the March, 2013 hearing. These can help you understand the technical, legal and philosophical arguments involved. But it is especially the 141 pages of comments from the commissioners themselves that give the greatest insight into their bias against compromise and middle ground. 

Take, for instance, the statement of Martin Castro, the Chairman of the Commission: “today…religion is being used as both a weapon and a shield by those seeking to deny others equality.” As Chairman Castro sees it, there is no middle ground to be sought. If you have religious reasons for objecting to the insertion of sexual orientation and gender identity language into existing civil rights laws, your religion is a mere pretext for illegal discrimination. You are an outlaw and no religious exemptions should be afforded you whatsoever. 

Castro is not alone in his attitude. Three other Commissioners join him in labelling Religious Freedom Restoration laws as, “thinly-veiled attempts to turn back the clock, …motivated by animus” (33). After a reference to “persons of faith, and of good will,” they feel compelled to add this ominous footnote: “Despite Obergefell’s nod to the existence of good faith religious opinion against same sex marriage, religious objections to same sex intimacy will ultimately retain no more respect than religious objections to racial integration and inter-racial intimacy” (40).

By now, you may be asking: what then becomes of the religious understanding that I and my co-religionists have held for our entire lives and for countless generations before? The Commission has a clear and uncompromising answer for you: “2) throughout history, religious doctrines accepted at one time later become viewed as discriminatory, with religions changing accordingly” (26). There you have it. Change accordingly, or else.

They specifically justify this stance by saying, “religious doctrines that were widely accepted at one time came to be deemed highly discriminatory, such as slavery, homosexuality bans, and unequal treatment of women, and that what is considered within the purview of religious autonomy at one time would likely change.” But is this true? Have entire religions changed their doctrines about male and female, homosexuality, or slavery? Hardly.

For starters, what the Commission derides as the “unequal treatment of women,” the vast majority of Christians throughout the world (both male and female) practice simply as an all-male clergy. Which churches, exactly, does the Commission think have changed on this point? Have the Roman Catholics, the Greek Orthodox, Lutherans, or Evangelicals? Obviously not. Neither do L.D.S. have female bishops, nor Jews, female rabbis, nor Muslims, female Imams. 

To be sure, there is internal dissension found in some parts of these communions. But is it the place of a government commission to judge which party represents the entire religion and which has departed from it? Isn’t this precisely the governmental establishment of one denomination over another which caused our forebears to seek religious freedom in the New World and to guarantee it in the First Amendment?

As for slavery, it borders on mendacity to suggest that Christianity, as such, ever enjoined it. True, some misguided Christians attempted to construct a case for slavery from the Bible, and due to secular entanglements, the church sometimes muted her objection to slavery. But throughout the shameful history of slavery, principled Christians invoked the ancient doctrines of Christianity against the slave trade. Chief among these anti-slavery doctrines was that mankind is directly created by God in His own image. Can anyone really imagine the end of slavery without the theology of the Declaration of Independence: “we hold that all men are created equal”? 

And that brings us to the most troubling aspect of this Report. If the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has its way, it will use the formidable power of U.S. law in a bid to force all churches to stop being churches and become agencies of the state. If successful, what institutions will remain to stand up for their fellow human beings as Wilberforce and the abolitionists did against the slave trade, as Bonhoeffer, Niemoeller and the Pope stood against Hitler’s holocaust, or as Russian Orthodoxy stood shoulder to shoulder with Lutherans against the communistic purges of Stalin and Lenin? 

In the cruelest irony of all, the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, is laying the groundwork to dismantle that one institution which has historically served as the last wall of defense for the civil rights of all men against the tyranny of government-sanctioned religions.

Of Mosquitos and Men

It is early morning in the outskirts of Freetown, Sierra Leone (Portugese for the Lion Mountains). Shortly after 5 a.m. I sit in the dark. Crickets are singing outside. A rooster crows far away. Dogs quietly scavenge the rubbish piles and loudly fight when they find a scrap. I have been here for almost a week. Things are settling into a kind-of normal.

A cool breeze carries the sweet smells of unknown plants and flowers through the window. On the same breeze wafts the distant sound of a mosque’s call to prayer together with the nearby smoke of a freshly lit cooking fire. 

But mosquitos are the one thing that must not come in on the air. Life here depends on it. The first order of business upon our arrival was to inspect and repair the screens in our quarters to make sure the mosquitos stayed out.

By Alvesgaspar - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0,
commons.wikimedia.org0

There are many health precautions to take here. Don’t drink the water. When you do drink a canned beverage, wipe it off first. Take your daily dose of anti-malaria pills. Update your vaccinations — particularly yellow fever and typhoid. But most of all, avoid mosquitos.

It is troubling that the most threatening health concern is also the most difficult to avoid. Once I have had my vaccinations — and as long as I properly clean things — I can forget about it. But mosquitos are different. They are tiny — tinier than ours. They can hide in nooks and crannies. You can never be quite sure that you are out of danger. 

Stateside, we have nothing that compares. We avoid mosquitos and spray for them because their bite may raise a welt and make you itch. But that is all. In a day or two, the itching stops and you are comfortable and safe. You were never in any danger. But in Africa, mosquitos mean malaria.

What troubles me the most is that I live in safety while my new friends — the men I came to teach — live with this hazard every single day of their lives. Long after I have returned to Evanston, James, Tamba, Bona and the rest will still be living with malaria-bearing mosquitoes. What is more, they have none of the protections I have. They live daily without malaria pills, without screens, without mosquito repellant and with a disease that America eradicated decades ago.

From the swamps of Washington DC to the bayous of the deep south, Americans, too, used to face the daily threat of malaria. Then, during the Italian campaign of World War II, the retreating Nazis began using mosquitos for germ warfare. They deliberately created a mosquito-rich environment so that Allied troops were threatened not only with bullets and bombs but with malaria as well.

Many sickened and many died. Along with the troops, innocent Italian civilians suffered as well. Finally, an effective pesticide was invented. It was safe for humans and the animal population but killed the deadly mosquito. Through this life-saving pesticide, many American and Italian lives were spared. DDT eradicated malaria on the Italian peninsula. 

When the war was over, DDT was used across Europe and America to remove the threat of malaria throughout the First World. It was so wildly successful that you probably never knew that Americans used to die from malaria. You probably thought that malaria was just an unsolvable African problem. But it is not unsolvable. We solved it. But now the solution is being withheld from those who need it.

In 1960, Rachel Carson wrote a book entitled “Silent Spring.” In it, she claimed that DDT was destroying our environment and must be banned. It was a popular book and accomplished its purpose. Production lines for DDT were shut down, and its import and export was restricted. 

However, Rachel Carson was not a scientist, and she was wrong. Science has long since debunked her book. Not only was there no scientific evidence that DDT would destroy the environment, common sense shows this as well. Anyone can see for themselves. We have the benefit of an environment made malaria-free by DDT, and we have a flourishing, healthy environment. Even after the full employment of DDT, our animal population has grown right along with the human population. 

But while the histrionic claims against DDT have been disproven, the effects of these false claims are still very, very real. Science or no science, America and Europe have turned their collective backs on the Third World. The cheap and effective pesticide that has made your world safe from malaria is not available for the people of Africa.

Hundreds of thousands of precious human beings die every year from a disease we know how to cure. Think about that. We spend billions of dollars to find a cure for diseases like cancer and AIDS and heart disease. But when it comes to malaria, once we cured ourselves, we refused to share the cure with our brothers and sisters in Africa.

Some diseases in Africa interest us greatly. In 2014, there was an outbreak of Ebola. All of America held its breath in great fear that it might spread to our shores. To protect Europe and America from Ebola, the World Health Organization imposed travel restrictions in West Africa that decimated their economy, which was only beginning to recover from years of a terrible war. 

But did you know that during the same period when 11,500 people were dying of Ebola, over 20,000 people were dying of malaria? Now that Ebola’s threat has ended, malaria continues unabated. Twenty thousand people die per month — every single month. But as long as there is no threat that it might come to us, nobody seems to care.

It is time to care. It is past time. We ourselves live in an environment made safe from malaria. How can we callously deny the means for others to make their own environment just as safe? Science long ago corrected the wildly false claims of Rachel Carson. It is time to educate ourselves and our children on the scientific truths. Maybe then public policy will catch up to the science. To live by science and not superstition is always an improvement. There is already plenty of superstition in Africa that detracts from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

Let us join hands to lift the single most deadly superstition that oppresses them, for this superstition came from America and can only be corrected by America. The Third World should be allowed to benefit by the same science that made us safe.

 

Life, Lies, and Love: 40 Days for Life

Tomorrow, September 28, is the kick-off for the semiannual “40 Days for Life” campaign. This nation-wide event happens twice each year. It is a time to focus on the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. This year for the first time, Wyoming has participating sites through the work of former state legislator, Bob Brechtel. 

There are several ways that people can participate in the 40 Days. You can take time to think about the myriad of life issues, educate yourself and others, or pray. You could even travel to Casper or Laramie and participate in person (for details see: 40daysforlife.com). My own preparations led me to think about a much broader picture—beyond abortion, beyond euthanasia, beyond embryo-destructive research. I have come to see being pro-life less and less as a burden on the living and a restriction on freedom. Quite the opposite, I increasingly see it as freedom, and permission to follow our human hearts. 

It is extremely unfortunate that the national debate over abortion has been cast in terms of “rights” and “choice.” How much better it would be if we could be talking about “gifts” and “freedom.” As long as we are talking about rights and choice, we are in the realm of power. One person tries to exercise power over another. Do my rights trump your rights, or do yours trump mine? Should your choice take away my choice? Or should mine negate yours? Cast like this, it is impossible to decide. 

Power is a zero-sum game. The more of it I have, the less of it you have. The same goes for choice. If choice is about doing absolutely whatever I want, then your choices cannot possibly be absolute. Wherever our desires come into conflict, one of us must lose.

No wonder the issue is so hopelessly contentious! With the battle lines drawn this way, even the slightest concession to principle or civility is a loss. In fact, this is a snapshot of our entire problem. Whether we are talking about LGBT rights, or ethnic rights, or the right to life, or the right to choose… you name it, the entire conversation starts out on the wrong foot. 

We pit one person against the other in a winner-take-all contest, then are surprised when people take from each other. We square off against each other in a fight to the death, and then are aghast that people actually kill each other! The problem is the paradigm.

But what if this paradigm were an illusion? What if there was a way to live in which we weren’t competing, like rats, for our share of the pie. What if our deepest human desires could never come into conflict? What if, instead, the more authentic you were to your own life, the more life everyone else had. What if true freedom never impinged on someone else’s freedom -- if exercising your full freedom meant everybody else was more free, not less? 

What if we were designed so that in seeking what is best and right for us, meant that everyone else also got what was best and right for them? More to the point, what if you could be certain that by seeking first and only the best for your neighbor, from least to greatest, it would always turn out best for you as well?

(Photo: Weheartit.com)

Too good to be true? Not at all. In fact, in the most foundational events of human life, we see it every day. Consider a mother and her newborn child. All the child wants is the sound of his mother’s heartbeat, to snuggle against her warm skin, to hear her soft voice, and to feed from her breast. Meanwhile, what does the new mother desire most? To snuggle with her newborn, to feel his soft skin, to gently coo in his ears, and for him to feed from her breast.

It’s a perfect, complimentary, fit. The needs of one are supplied by the desires of the other, and visa versa. They are not TAKING FROM each other, but GIVING TO each other. In a moment like this, we ordinary humans, get a glimpse into heaven. We see love. And in love, we see, even if only for a moment, the way things were meant to be. 

And it’s not just the love between mother and child. We see it in any type of love. The love of husband and wife, father and daughter, brother and sister, mother and son, and love between friends are all distinct and different from each other. But each in its own way shows us a little glimpse of the human ideal. In these glimpses of the divine, there is no question of rights or power, there is only the mutual recognition of each other as gift, and the desire to serve the other, purely for the other’s sake.

Of course, these are only glimpses. These tiny sparks of pure love are awash in a big black sky of selfishness, anger, frustration, fear, hatred and a million ugly emotions and desires. All of these fears and worries draw us away from love and turn us upon ourselves. They cause our survival instincts to go hay-wire and grasp for ourselves what can only be attained by giving.

But none of this blackness disproves my point. Even when we are grasping and selfish, we do not feel good about it. And no matter how forcefully we grasp, or successfully we acquire, we can find no satisfaction and no peace. In the end, the very fact that we recognize such behavior to be ugly proves that we all aspire to the same beauty, the same humanity.

So, if there truly is a life where desires are not in competition, where you can fulfill your own needs by taking care of everyone else’s needs, it is the life of love. It is a life of renouncing selfishness, perverseness, hatred, robbery and every other vice, and living as if others matter most and if I matter least. This kind of life renounces demanding rights and arbitrary choices, and thinks only of which choice is RIGHT for my neighbor and what I can give him freely.

Against this, is the fiendish lie that your freedom and mine are mutually exclusive. This is the most inhuman subversion of our true interests. It makes people think that by doing the exact opposite of their heart’s desire, and taking from their neighbor, they will benefit by it. But the lie cannot deliver. After throwing all decency to the wind and robbing someone of life, liberty or happiness for personal gain, we find that we still haven’t gained what we thought. We have only robbed to no avail, making more misery, but no beauty.

So, during these 40 Days for Life, it is time to recognize that the real struggle is not my desires against yours, but my evil desires against my noble desires, your high aspirations striving to overcome your base impulses. In this light, it is not a struggle against one another, but against the grand lie, against the inhuman forces of evil. The real loss of freedom comes when my noble desires are enslaved to my selfishness. Only when we see this can we look for the keys which set us free from these chains. 

Understanding this, can open our minds to consider how we can encourage one another in fulfilling their deepest noble desires. Let’s find ways to come together and take away the fears, worries, pressures and pain which drive us out of our true humanity and into the realm of unfulfilling, selfish grasping. 

And let the encouragement begin with you. Affirm and uphold the noble desires of people you meet. Help them win their personal struggle. Give of yourself to take away their fears. Confess your sins against them to take away their anger. Give them permission to be the loving human being they were created to be in full assurance that they will have what they need. Give them permission to receive the people-gifts that have been given to them. And as you give these things from yourself, watch how you are fulfilled in the giving.

SOGI Laws and a Free Society

 (Photo: Nick Oza, The Arizona Republic)

Recently, a federal judge in Fort Worth, Texas blocked enforcement of the letter of “guidance” sent by Obama’s Department of Justice and Department of Education. That is very good news.

This notorious letter, sent last May to schools across our nation and state, would have forced them to allow boys in the girl’s room and to share hotel rooms on trips or face federal punishment. Now we have a reprieve, at least for a while. 

By putting on hold the craziness which would have been unleashed in our own schools, this injunction will allow our children to be safe while attending school this year. It also shields them from being pawns in the culture wars. And it gives us all time to understand, reflect upon, and participate in the law making process as free citizens.

Let us use this time wisely. My hope is that we can be quit of the ever-present cat calls of “bigot” and “homophobe.” Such jamming does nothing to raise understanding or win hearts. It is fear-mongering at its worst. These issues deserve better. 

So, let’s begin by asking three basic questions. First, what laws are being proposed? Second, how are they being proposed? Third, what will happen if these laws are passed?

What is being proposed?

The central issue in the bathroom wars are so-called “SOGI” laws. “SOGI” stands for “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.” Two new legal categories – “sexual orientation, and gender identity” – are created and insert them into laws, ordinances, or policies about discrimination on the basis of “sex.” It changes current law in two major ways. 

First, it fundamentally alters the way that we understand the relationship of body and the person. Current law considers the physical realities of the human body (sexual organs, hormones, and DNA) as the focus of the law’s protection. To protect the body is to protect the person. But SOGI theory denies any real connection between body and person. It holds that only the mind (psyche) is the object of law. This explains why SOGI laws tend to sacrifice the bodily safety of girls and boys, affirming feelings instead.

As a direct result of this change, wherever SOGI laws take effect, First Amendment freedoms are rolled back. Laws have always restricted the way we use “sticks and stones” because they “may break my bones.” But we were careful not to restrict free speech. After all, “words will never hurt me.” But if my body is not really “me,” legal power must now restrict any words that might contradict my psyche. Religion, philosophy, psychology, biology, all must give way to the individual’s private ideas. 

How are they being pursued?

The Department of Justice and the Department of Education tried to reinterpret “sex” as “sexual orientation and gender identity” by merely issuing a memo, skipping the law-making process. By such executive fiat, or its twin sister, judicial fiat, much SOGI policy has already entered into public life.

But the constitution requires that laws be written by the legislative branch. Here, elected law-makers, in a process of give and take, carefully craft laws to balance all competing interests. In Wyoming, SOGI laws have been introduced into our legislature several times. Each time they have been voted down. Most recently was the contentious debate over SF 115 in February, 2015. This bill quietly passed the Senate by a large margin. But once the public weighed in, it was defeated in the House of Representatives. 

This year, Wyoming Equality, one of the main lobbyists for SOGI laws, turned from the state house to our towns and cities. They succeeded in getting Laramie to pass a SOGI ordinance. Since then, they have tried in Jackson, Cheyenne, and Casper but have stalled in the face of strong local opposition. Two sub-issues which contribute to local resistance are: 1) the lack of any religious exemptions – even for churches themselves; and 2) the criminalizing of free speech. 

Just as it is easier to pass a town ordinance than a state law, it is also easier to write SOGI language into the by-laws and rules of smaller agencies. The reason is simple. The fewer people involved in the process, the easier to slide it through.

This is exactly what Wyoming’s Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics has done. Even while SOGI legislation was being turned down by our state’s lawmakers, the Commission was introducing this language into its Rules of Conduct. By the way, it has also happened in a few county school boards (including Evanston). 

What will happen if SOGI laws are passed?

(Photo: Freedomworks.org)

People of good will can argue until the cows come home about what might or might not happen as a result of a certain law. But there can be no argument whatsoever as to what HAS happened wherever SOGI laws are in effect. Some may like the results, others may not. But we have enough evidence to know exactly what the results will be.

For over a decade now, we have watched other states, counties, and municipalities set up SOGI policies. Wherever this has happened, we have seen ordinary, law-abiding people have their lives turned upside down. Elane Photography in New Mexico, Arlene’s Flowers in Washington state, Masterpiece Cake Shop in Colorado, Hands On Originals in Kentucky, Aloha Bed and Breakfast in Hawaii, Sweet Cakes by Melissa, in Oregon, and the list could go on and on. 

All of these people were charged and fined. Most lost their businesses. Many were harassed mercilessly. Some lost houses or retirement savings. What holds all of these cases together is that they were each prosecuted under newly-minted SOGI laws. 

I am not, here, going to rehearse the details of each case. You should look them up for yourselves. I only point out that none of these would ever have happened unless their town, county, or state had first passed SOGI legislation. Whether you think their punishment was just or unjust, too much or not enough, is beside the point. The point is that SOGI laws provided the only possible conditions for the destruction of these businesses. 

While those cases happened elsewhere, Wyoming had not been bothered by anything similar – until now. Then, true to form, it was SOGI policy that brought it about. In 2009 the Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics revised their Code of Judicial Conduct. Unbeknownst to most Wyomingites, they added the phrase, “sexual orientation” at key places. Few people thought at the time, that these revisions would play out the way they have. 

Least of all, Judge Ruth Neely of Pinedale. After 14 years on the bench and even being on the committee that rewrote the rules, she did not anticipate how these SOGI revisions would be used to bring her to the Supreme Court. But they did. Neither Wyoming state law, nor Constitution provides any justification for prosecuting Judge Neely. The entire case rests upon the newly minted SOGI language in the Code of Judicial Conduct.

So there you have it. SOGI laws work wherever they are tried. They make it possible to punish anybody who still dares to speak and act as if bodies matter. They make law based on theories, not established by science. They set up an unnecessary competition between one person’s internal psychology and another person’s free speech.

So the next time you hear of someone being dragged before a state equality commission, don’t just cluck your tongue and sadly say, “well, they did break the law.” Ask yourself who, exactly, passed this law? Was it some judicial, or executive fiat? Was it some obscure commission flying under the radar? Is it based in scientific reality, or in new psychological theories? Do I, personally, support this law? If not, I should be working to fix it in order to build a better community.

Laws do not simply exist. We make them. In a free society there is no saying, “well, I personally wouldn’t have fined them $135,000, but that’s the law.” No, that wasn’t the law until people like you and me wrote it that way. If you, personally, are troubled by some draconian punishment, then you, personally, are obligated to speak against it. 

That is “government of the people, by the people and for the people.”


For Further Reading:
Petition, Preserve Freedom, Reject Coercion
Focus on the Family, When Sexuality Trumps Religious Freedom
Breakpoint, Religious Freedom and SOGI Laws
Public Discourse, SOGI Laws
Christianity Today, Fairness for All

Remembering 9-11

This coming Sunday will mark the 15^th anniversary of 9-11. I can still refer to it that way and most of you will know what I am talking about. It was that bright and crisp September morning when our world changed. I am referring, of course, to the attacks in Pennsylvania, Washington, and New York, and to the 2996 people who died that day.

Most of us know this, but not all. Those twenty and younger likely have only a vague recollection of adults gaping at TV screens. Maybe not even that. But, strange as it may seem, this year’s freshmen, the class of 2020, is generation for whom 9-11 is pure history. It happened before they were born. 

They can learn about it only from others.

This is a reminder that if 9-11 is not rehearsed, taught, and remembered, our children and grandchildren may never even have a clue about perhaps the deepest seated experience of your life. Memories aren’t passed down automatically. Unless they are kept alive, they will be distorted and lost. Already the internet is full of conspiracy theories and falsehoods that are just plausible enough to mislead the uninformed. Anniversaries give us an occasion to tell the truth.

So let me briefly rehearse the story. Four airplanes were hijacked and headed toward four different targets. Two were aimed at New York, two were aimed at Washington. Three hit their targets—the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center (WTC), and the Pentagon. The last plane was literally wrestled to the ground outside Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

At 8:46 am in New York, Flight 11 struck the north tower of the WTC instantly killing all aboard plus hundreds of people on the 93-99th floors of the tower. For seventeen minutes, America was trying to understand how such an horrible accident could happen. But at 8:03 am when Flight 175 struck the floors 75-85 of the south tower we instantly knew that this was no accident.

It took until 9:24 for the FAA to learn that there were two more hijacked planes still in the air. Interceptors were scrambled, but before they could reach Flight 77, it smashed into the western side of the Pentagon instantly killing all 59 aboard and 125 souls in the building.

Then, at 9:59 am, the unthinkable happened. Millions of Americans were glued to the screen and thousands of New Yorkers watched from below as the South Tower of the WTC collapsed upon itself in a surreal slow-motion. Nobody in the tower survived.

Meanwhile, a takeoff delay meant that Flight 93 has not yet reached its intended target. When her passengers learned the fate of the other hijacked flights, they took action. Todd Beamer and a group of determined passengers fought the hijackers in order to prevent themselves from becoming the fourth human missile of the day. But their heroism came at high cost, they were unable to avoid crashing in an empty field in Pennsylvania at 10:07.

Finally, at 10:28 am, the North Tower of the WTC cascaded to the ground. The first struck was the last to fall. In the course of 102 minutes, four passenger airlines, three major buildings, and almost 3000 lives were destroyed.

In the spring of 2014 I visited the memorial. It centers on two square waterfalls built in the exact place of the original towers. Each cascades into a bottomless hole and is surrounded by the hollowed out names of 2984 victims. The names include 2596 adults who perished in the two towers, 10 unborn children who died in their mother’s wombs, 246 passengers and crew of four airplanes, 125 killed in the Pentagon, along with 7 victims of the first attack on the twin towers in 1993.

As I contemplated these names, a man in uniform noticed me and asked where I was from and why I was there. Our conversation immediately revealed that he was more than a security guard. The emotion of his voice betrayed him. It led me to ask him directly, “Where were you on that day?”

He stopped talking.

Turning to his right, he lifted an arm and pointed. “Right there,” his voice quavered.

He was walking on the sidewalk below the towers when the first airplane struck. He heard the engines, looked up and saw the impact. And then he ran. Ran from the falling debris. Trying to get to safety.

But something drew him back. He came back to help. People wounded from falling glass, airplane parts, tiles. He gave first aid as he was able and helped others to get away from the scene. Then he heard the sound again. Another impact.

Still he continued working, continued helping. When the South Tower collapsed, he was shielded from the debris and dust by the still-standing North Tower. It was time to leave.

None of us can possibly fathom what he experienced that day. And yet, he was only one of thousands. He wasn’t the only one to flee the danger. He wasn’t the only one to come back and help. He was only human. Drawn by some unseen force that compelled him to think about more than his own survival.

It is the same force that made him come back ten years later. Even though he survived, he volunteered to be security guard at the Memorial. He has made it his mission to keep the memory alive. For him, for the people of New York, the 9-11 memorial is not just a park, not just a fountain, not just a sculpture.

The 9-11 memorial is a graveyard. Of the 2606 People who lost their lives fifteen years ago, more than 1000 were never recovered. They were pulverized and indistinguishable from the tons of concrete dust. For their family and friends who had no body to bury, Ground Zero is their final resting place, hallowed ground.

Behind the Beeman-Cashin building Evanston has its own 9-11 memorial. It would make a fine destination for you and your family to keep this history alive. Although the steel girders are not from the towers themselves, they have been carefully placed to resemble a portion of the rubble. While you are there, notice the two tall aspen trees which symbolize the WTC towers. See the apple trees that form that backdrop in memory of the Pentagon and the Pennsylvania field. Remind yourself and your children of the events of 9-11. Tell them why it’s important to you.

In this way, you can work to keep alive the memory of the power of evil, the resilience of the human spirit, and that curious force at work in each and every one of us that draws us to respect the bodies of the dead and set aside our own survival in order to help others.

After all, it’s only human.