Unimaginable?

The day after the massacre in a gay nightclub in Orlando left 49 people dead and more than 50 more critically injured, my hometown newspaper ran a banner headline that read "UNIMAGINABLE." This sentiment was widely shared by many following the brutal assault by a single individual targeting the LGBTQ community.

But was this truly unimaginable? Certainly it was shocking and horrific, especially for those of us in the LGBTQ community. But certainly it was imaginable if you have been paying attention.

The last decade has truly been one of tremendous strides for gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgender individuals. Many states have passed laws granting full civil rights to the LGBTQ community. The Supreme Court has recognized same sex marriage and more importantly have found that gay people are afforded the equal protection of the law recognizing that the fundamental rights due all Americans under the Constitution also apply to gay Americans. Less than a decade ago, it was unimaginable for a major party candidate to campaign in support of gay rights. Now, candidates (some in both parties) fall all over themselves to garner the support of the LGBTQ community, and make their support of gay rights a central theme of their campaign.

But, as progress has been made at unexpected speed, the backlash against the LGBTQ community has been just as swift. The past couple of years have seen hateful laws passed in many states such as HB2 in my state of North Carolina, which enshrine in the laws of our states outright discrimination and second class status to LGBTQ individuals. In a majority of states it is still legal to discriminate on the basis of sexuality and gender identity in employment, housing, and public accommodations. And pure unadulterated hate speech has been directed at the gay community from judges, lawmakers, and most especially Christian religious leaders.

Here are just a few examples of the hateful statements made about the LGBTQ community from our nations leaders in the past several years, right up to the present.

The recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had a wealth of hateful things to say about the gay community. Scalia defended laws banning "homosexuals" from serving as teachers, or allowing discrimination against them in employment or housing saying "They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive." In other opinions, he compared homosexuality to murder, polygamy, and cruelty to animals.

Current U.S. Senator and recent Presidential candidate Ted Cruz has compared the LGBTQ community to terrorists, calling their opposition to discriminatory laws a "jihad." Not to be one-upped, Republican commentator, former governor and Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said Cruz wasn't "homophobic enough" to be President.

Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council, has likened gays to Nazis claiming LGBT activists are going to "start rolling out the boxcars" and carting away Christians, a reference to the Holocaust. Brian Fischer of the American Family Association has called the rainbow symbol the "mark of the beast" and has called for gays to be put to death. Fischer has also gone down the Nazi path calling LGBTQ activists "jack-booted homofascist thugs who want to use the tyrannical and totalitarian power of the state to send men of faith to jail, and that frankly sounds a lot more like Nazi Germany than the United States of America"

Nationally recognized Christian evangelical leader Franklin Graham, son of legendary evangelist Billy Graham, has said that Satan himself is behind the so-called "gay agenda." Among other inflammatory statements, Graham has stated "The architect behind this [gay rights] offensive is none other than Satan himself. The Scripture says that the devil, our archenemy, is bent on as much destruction as possible." 

And just recently evangelical pastor Pat Dobson encouraged followers to shoot trangender individuals in bathrooms stating “If this [transgender people in bathrooms] had happened 100 years ago, someone might have been shot.Where is today’s manhood? God help us!”

Of course the rhetoric coming out of the Republican leadership of the North Carolina General Assembly in defending its horrible House Bill 2 which undid several anti-discrimination statutes across North Carolina which had protections for LGBTQ individuals, and outlawed any protections for LGBTQ individuals in the state of North Carolina has been extremely troubling. House Speaker Tim Moore (who is the former business partner of the author of this blog post) has repeatedly stated that gay and transgender individuals are a public safety issue, claiming that Charlotte's ordinance allowing transgender people to use the bathroom corresponding to their gender identity was a threat to women and children in their bathrooms. Senator Phil Berger and Governor Pat McCrory have stated the same or similar comments repeatedly.

Of course this was nothing new for Speaker Moore. His entire political career has been based on passing bills and laws that attack the rights of the LGBTQ community. As a student at UNC- Chapel Hill while Speaker of the Student Assembly, Moore made a concerted effort to defund the campus gay rights organization, using his power of appointment, and gerrymandering of campus districts to accomplish this, something he has also done in the state's General Assembly as Speaker of the House.

So, why is it that Orlando is unimaginable? Rather than beyond belief, it shouldn't surprise us at all. In fact, the Orlando massacre can be seen as a truly American crime, where the intersection of anti-gay rhetoric, easy access to guns, and a steady diet of media fueled hate combined in an explosion of mass violence resulting in the massive loss of life of 49 mostly LGBTQ, mostly Latino Americans.

And the response has been uniquely American as well. The refusal of many media outlets and politicians to even acknowledge this as a direct targeting of the gay community, the quick linking of this to Islamic terrorism despite little evidence of that fact, the quick co-opting of the tragedy to push everything from anti-immigrant policy, to gun control, to military retaliation, and the inevitable spiking of gun manufacturers stock prices after a mass shooting, are products of this same homophobic American culture that spurred the shooting in the first place.

Now it is being reported that the shooter may himself have been a closeted gay man, having apparently been active on gay hook-up acts and even possibly previously frequenting the Pulse nightclub itself. This, too, is an inevitable outgrowth of everything set forth above. As our society, our politicians, and our religions make out the LGBTQ as the enemy, the "other" which is to be feared and hated, many LGBTQ individuals develop a self hatred that causes them to act out against that which they fear about themselves. 

We need not look overseas or to Islamic culture, or immigrants to find the enemy which caused the Orlando massacre. The enemy is right here among us. The hatred that is expressed on a daily basis from all corners of America is the cause of this violence. And those that perpetuate it, whether it be by hateful speech, discriminatory laws, or mere refusal to stand against anti-gay activity, the blood of Orlando is on your hands.

Blood Wars

Since the 1980s the FDA has maintained a policy which prevents any male who has ever had sex with another male from donating blood. It is a policy which was enacted at the height of the AIDS scare and was done to calm fears about the safety of the nation's blood supply. Over the last several years this policy has come in for major criticism as it does little to protect the blood supply while openly discriminating against gay men.

Within the last month, the FDA amended this policy. While at first this sounded like good news, in fact the amendment did little to change the existing policy. The new policy says that gay men can donate blood, but only if they have gone at least one year without having sexual contact with another male.

This has rightly been criticized both by gay rights activists and by medical professionals, and for good reason. First, discriminating now against sexually active gay men does nothing to keep the blood supply safe. When this policy was first enacted, we knew very little about AIDS (or what was originally called GRID -- Gay Related Immunodeficiency Disease) or HIV. Because the virus first spread through gay communities, it became synonymous with gay men. However, with more than 30 years of study, we much better understand the virus and disease caused by the virus. While AIDS first spread through the gay community, it is spread through unprotected sex, direct transmission of bodily fluids, or use of infected needles. It does not discriminate based on sexuality, gender, or race. Spikes in rates of HIV infection have occurred among straight populations as well as gay populations.

To continue a policy which discriminates only against gay men ignores all of the information we have learned about HIV/AIDS. A monogamous gay man in a committed relationship is much less likely to contract HIV than a sexually promiscuous straight man. A straight woman in a relationship with a non-monogamous man is also much more likely to contract HIV even though she may be completely unaware that her partner is being promiscuous. Of course, because of this the blood supply is tested for HIV and for other blood borne illnesses such as hepatitis. This would be no different for blood donated by sexually active gay men.

In an NPR story about the FDA's decision, a member of the FDA in defending the decision said that nobody has the right to donate blood. And he is correct. However, if the FDA's purpose in continuing the ban on sexually active gay men is to help insure the safety of the nation's blood supply, the decision may end up having exactly the opposite result. That is because the one thing that it does guarantee is that the stigma faced by gay men will continue because of this policy.

Despite the amazing and groundbreaking advances that LGBTQ individuals have made in the United States in recent years in terms of civil rights, status, and acceptance, being gay in the United States still carries a stigma. LGBTQ people still suffer discrimination, harassment, and violence in large numbers. Open displays of affection, even minor ones such as a kiss or holding hands, often result in violence against gays. Transgender women and men especially suffer serious violence, especially trans women of color, of whom as many as 30 were murdered this year. Even absent violence, societal discrimination against gays still exists and in many ways is accepted in much of the United States. A majority of states do not have protections for LGBTQ individuals in housing, employment, or public accommodations.

This policy by the FDA adds to this stigma. It grows out of the paranoia of the early days of AIDS, when hospital wards were treated like we treat Ebola today. There was a tremendous fear of especially gay men as people in their ignorance believed AIDS could be spread by casual contact. Gay men were essentially ostracized from society, leading to radical activism by groups such as ACT-UP who rightly saw this as a fight for their lives, as the federal government was doing nothing to address the spread of the disease as it ravaged the gay community.

By continuing to ban the donation of blood by sexually active gay men, the FDA essentially says to the nation that gay men are still something to be feared, that we are not acceptable or normal in society, that it is ok to despise us, ostracize us, and discriminate against us. It perpetuates fear of gay men which leads to and justifies hate against us. It is this very fear along with all of the other societal pressures from family, church, and peers which causes gay men to remain in the closet. It is this stigma which causes closeted men to seek anonymous encounters on the sly rather than pursue healthy dating relationships. This policy inadvertently leads to the increase of the very risky behaviors which most easily spread HIV.

So, how do we get the FDA to change its policy. It will take the same radical action that led to changes in other policies on discrimination, marriage, adoption, and other civil rights for LGBTQ individuals. I imagine there are many who will hesitate about the idea of a boycott of blood donations, myself included. However, it is just this type of action, and probably only this type of action which is going to force the changes which are necessary. Fighting AIDS has always been a life or death issue for the gay community, until it becomes just as compelling issue for everyone else, especially those in the FDA making these decisions, it is unlikely that the new revised policy will change.

It is for this reason that I believe a national, vocal, and committed boycott of blood donation may be necessary in order to force the issue. I don't think it will take very long, and I wish there was some other way to bring to the forefront this issue, but a blood boycott seems to be the quickest and most effective way for change to occur.

It is time to end the stigma, break the closet, be loud, be proud. Our lives still depend on it. Act Up, Fight Back, Fight AIDS.

Why Christian?

Recently I started a Bible Study/Discussion group that meets weekly at a Brewery here in town. I called it Beer and Bible and it has drawn an ever changing and eclectic group of individuals who have inspired some of the best and most insightful conversations I had ever had on the Bible, religion, and Christianity.

This week, I proposed a kind of different conversation for our group. I was inspired by the recent and overwhelmingly successful conference that was organized by Rachel Held Evans and Nadia Bolz-Webber called Why Christian? in which they had a series of speakers, all of whom were women, tell their story as to why they are active in the Christian faith. The speakers were from various denominations, backgrounds, races, ages, and experiences.

I thought this would be a great topic for our meeting as well. Why are we Christian? In a world in which Christianity has become embroiled in scandal, abuse, greed, and materialism, why are we surprised that so many young people are turning away from Christianity altogether? In the lead up to the meeting many of my online friends expressed interest in the topic, and many who had given up on Church long ago said that perhaps they could be inspired to return (although church and faith are definitely not the same thing).

In preparation for the meeting, I started thinking about what I might say about why I am a Christian and found that even for me, someone who's faith has been renewed to a level previously unimaginable, who has gained a new wondrous and mature understanding of God, spirituality, redemption, and belief, this was not an easy question.

So, first I looked at Why Not Christian? What are those things that have become associated with Christianity that are driving people away from the Christian faith in droves? The four main things I came up with were exclusivity, hatefulness, dying, and conservative. So, let's look at each of these a little more in depth so you know what I mean.

1. Exlusivity.

This, for me, was the one thing that drove me away from the church in which I was raised. I had found that the Catholic Church had become ridiculously exclusive. More and more, I found that I was feeling less and less welcome in the church in which I had been baptised, confirmed, and (at least the second time) married. I knew that the church had closed its doors completely to lesbians and gays (that is, unless they simply give up who they are and live celibate lives denying the very essence of their humanness), and had relegated women to official and permanent second class status. 

But it was becoming more than simply ostracizing certain groups based on the way they were born. The Church was becoming more and more strict about what beliefs you espoused on issues that had nothing to do with religion itself. Your political beliefs, or your social beliefs started becoming fodder for membership in the church. If you voted for pro-choice candidates, or if you supported the legalization of same-sex marriage, this now became reason for denying you communion, essentially in the Catholic faith condemning you to an eternity in hell if you believed in that.

After leaving the Catholic church, and finding my way as a newly minted Episcopalian, I started noticing that this exclusivity was a major part of many Christian faiths. Defining what was "real Christianity" versus "false Christianity" became a theme in the teachings of many Christian preachers and followers. These types of Christians see themselves as being the exclusive owners of the Truth and use this view to condemn all others who don't believe exactly the same as they do. Their view of God is so small that it fits neatly in easily digestible platitudes. They survive off of control and fear and grow based on the dependence that this instills in their followers.

It's not hard to see how this negative, belittling view of Christianity would tend to drive those who are growing up in a culture that is increasingly open and accepting would turn away from such beliefs.

2. Hate

It's amazing that a church that was founded on the teachings of a man whose central theme was love would use their beliefs to spread hate against others. But the modern day Christian church is chock full of hate for "others" whoever they may be.

The most obvious target for this hate within Christianity is against LGBTQ individuals. God Hates Fags may be associated with the insane members of the Westboro Baptists Church who picket funerals of soldiers killed in combat, but the belief is one that is the foundation of much of the teaching going on in many if not most modern day Christian churches. The harm that Christianity has done to LGBT youth is unfathomable, leading to gays and lesbians living a miserable closeted existence, being constantly dishonest about who they are, and often leading to suicide.

But Christianity's hate is not reserved exclusively for LGBTQ people, but also those of other beliefs. Muslims are often the target of such vile hatred. If you took out the word "Muslim" from the rants of preachers like Franklin Graham it would be virtually impossible to distinguish them from the most radical member of ISIS railing against infidels.

Often this hate against different beliefs is turned against other Christians. Those who don't believe exactly the same way as we do are considered not to be True Christians. If you don't follow the exact tenants, use the exact same Bible, or act exactly the way we act, you are "other", impure, inauthentic.

Such ideas are out of step both with our modern culture as much as they are with the teachings of Jesus Christ himself.

3. Dying

Christianity is a dying religion. Its leaders are old. Its followers are old. Its beliefs are old. Christianity has no bearing or significance in our daily lives.

This is the view of many in our culture today. And it isn't difficult when you look at many of the leaders of the modern Christian church why that is. So many of our leaders seem to be concerned more about their bank balance, than their work to carry out the message of their Lord and Savior. When you see televangelists scamming poor widows out of their life savings so they can buy a bigger jet, or live in a bigger mansion, that religion deserves to go the way of the dinosaurs.

Christianity because of its insistence on rules, dogmas, and fear is losing its influence on our society. The fact that fewer and fewer Americans are calling themselves Christians or religious at all shows that the church is indeed dying.

Billy Graham surrounded by a gaggle of rich, powerful power brokers from Rupert Murdoch, to Sarah Palin to Donald Trump.

4. Conservative

I don't mean this in a political sense, although it would fit that too. What I mean is that the church has ceased being bold, assertive, controversial. Christianity has become safe. So safe that it is boring.

A church that doesn't take chances, that doesn't challenge society's norms, that doesn't risk controversy is a church that is insignificant.

Now you will see all sorts of Christians claiming that they are radical. You will see them claiming that they are being persecuted by our secular laws. You will see them claiming that God has no place in our public life in the United States any longer. You will see them claiming that there are all sorts of plots against them to dismantle and attack Christianity.

This, of course, is all hog wash. I can't seem to escape religion in the public square however hard I may try. The only way that Christians are being persecuted or discriminated against is that they are not being allowed to force their beliefs on others (yet). Not being allowed to discriminate is not the same as being discriminated against. And nobody is forcing any church anywhere to do anything against their beliefs within their own church.

So, what it comes down to is that Christianity is very much in favor of the status quo. It is safe. It is insular. It is stayed.

And in all of that, it is insignificant.

So, with all of these very good reasons not to be Christian, why am I a Christian still?

It wasn't long ago that I really didn't consider myself to be much of a Christian, if one at all. I had the faith in which I was raised, and that still carried a significant cultural influence on me. But as I mentioned above, I no longer felt welcome at the church of my upbringing, nor did I feel the need to belong to a church at all. Religion played little role in my day to day life. Prayer was non-existent. If I had to choose a religion on a questionnaire I was just as likely to put None as I was to put Catholic or Christian.

So what is it that brought me back to the church? Really it was finding a church which reawakened my faith, re-introduced me to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and followed that teaching up with action, making these teachings relevant and significant to today's world. There are many people in what the newly installed Presiding Bishop in my Episcopal Church calls the Jesus Movement who follow this call to be a relevant active faith, taking on the challenges of modern society and making a significant impact on our world by following and living the Gospel and basing our lives on it.

So, what are the traits of the Christianity that I have found and adopted in my life? Not surprisingly, the Christianity that claimed me exhibits traits that are essentially the polar opposite of what the Christianity described above. We are open. We are inclusive and affirming. We are life giving and life affirming. And most importantly we are radical, like Jesus.

1. Open

One of the most significant things I found right away was that my faith and my church was one of openness. You don't have to be a particular type of person to be a Christian. You can be a Christian if you are rich, poor, white, black, Liberal, Conservative, Educated, Uneducated, gay, straight, male, female, transgender, or any number of descriptors you can come up with. God is not exclusive, so why should God's church be?

Jesus in his ministry did not turn people away. He went out to the people, meeting with tax collectors, thieves, lepers, Gentiles, prostitutes, demoniacs. He ministered to those who had been shut out of the accepted "in crowd" of the day. So why should we turn our backs on those who have been ostracized by our current society? Aren't these the very people that we are called to embrace if we are living like Jesus?

The Christianity I found is one of no limits. God is limitless, so the more barriers we God's followers put up, the less we are living out our faith; the less we are like God. When we love and welcome all people, whether they are like us in their beliefs, their appearance, their sexuality, and honor the divine in them, we are helping to create the Kingdom of God here on Earth, as Jesus himself taught us to pray for.

2. Inclusive and Affirming

This may seem similar to being open, but openness and inclusiveness are not the same. Affirming is a step further.

In order for Christianity to be inclusive, those barriers that have caused division within the church must be broken down. That means that exclusion based on sex, race, sexuality, etc. is not to be tolerated. Women must be equal with men. Gay equal with straight. Black equal with white. Transgender equal with Cis-gender. To exclude is to lessen both ourselves and God.

For many the inclusion of even women as equals in worship is unfathomable. But for me, the father of a daughter, the brother of sisters, and the son of a mother, anything less than true equality between the sexes was unacceptable. I wanted my daughter to know that she was truly the equal of anyone and there was no better way to see that than to see a person of her gender acting as God's representative in worship.

Even more unacceptable to many Christians than women having an equal role in the church is openly LGBTQ people playing an equal role. Of course, to get to this point you need to see LGBTQ people as people rather than behaviors. What I have experienced in belonging to an affirming church, one that says to its members we love and accept you for who you are and because of who you are, is the most amazing thing in the world. Those who have felt shunned, sometimes figuratively, sometimes literally, from the Christian church because of who they are, become filled with a joy and Grace that can only come from God. When one realizes that they are loved as a child of God wholly including their sexuality, you see a transformation that is truly beautiful.

Imagine going your whole life thinking that you are shameful. That whatever good you have in you, because of who you are and how you express sexual love, you can never be accepted fully by God and that you are condemned for it? That is what too many Christians are doing to the LGBTQ community.

But that is not what Christ would do. That is not what we as Christians are called to do. We are all children of God wholly, and completely, warts and all.

3. Life Giving and Life Affirming.

Seeing the life of Jesus Christ and especially his death and resurrection as a template for my life has been an incredible discovery. We constantly go through a process of life, death, and resurrection. We live our lives, constantly changing, constantly renewing, constantly being reborn. Every death is painful, bringing on sorrow and a period of mourning. But it is followed by a rebirth, a new beginning, and the renewal of life again.

A church (and by church I mean a group of believers, not a building or a particular denomination) that is life giving and life affirming will not sit back and watch the world go by. A church filled with life can't help but spread that life to others. That means feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, helping the poor, uplifting the weak, fighting for justice. Life breeds life.

A church that respects life -- all life -- will stand firm on issues that destroy life. A life giving and life affirming church will work to stop war, will work to stop executions, will work to stop violence. This is what I have found in Christianity.

4. Radical Like Jesus

Above I described a Christianity that had become conservative, boring, institutional. A Christianity that was safe, working for the status quo. This is Country Club Christianity, where you belong to be seen and to rub elbows with power brokers. Just look at the group of wealthy parasites that Franklin Graham dredged up for his father's birthday celebration a few years back and you start to see why there is an ever growing army of "Nones" in this country.

But the Christianity I have found and lived is true to the radical nature of Jesus himself. Jesus didn't get nailed to a Cross because he wanted things to stay the same. Jesus challenged every societal and religious norm that existed in his time and in his culture. Love your neighbor as yourself. Love your enemies. Do to others as you would have them do to you. His teachings on social justice present a picture of what the Kingdom of God will hold on Earth if we simply follow the teachings of Jesus and put our faith in God. Jesus turned the entire social structure of his day on its head.

We are called to follow Jesus's teachings and to do the same today. Christians are not called to be safe. We are not called to be timid. Christians are called to be like Christ -- bold, brave, radical. We are called to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. We are called to seek justice constantly, and not meekly, but loudly and forcefully. We are called to love, not when it is easy, but when it is hard, to love those who would hurt us the most, or who have hurt us the most.

It seems weird in a society where such a large percentage of our populace claims some form of Christianity or another as their religion that they mistakenly believe that we were founded as a Christian nation, that being a Christian could be counter-cultural. But that is what believing in the teachings of Jesus Christ and living our life according to these beliefs is. It is radical. It is against the grain. It is revolutionary.

To meet hate with love. To meet violence with pacifism. To meet fear with faith. These are radical ideas. They are what Jesus charged us to do if we were to follow Him. This is why I am Christian.

Call It What It Is

I try not to write when I'm angry. If I do, I tend to make statements that I don't really mean or that I later regret.

So, it has been the case that I have waited weeks and weeks before making this post. I first wanted to address the issue of the system of structural white supremacy when family members of an African-American student were arrested for cheering as their loved one graduated high school. Before I could write that post, there was the incident in McKinney, Texas where an out of control white police officer manhandled a young black girl wearing a bathing suit, and drew a gun on other young African-Americans, all because some white members of a gated community were upset that black kids were swimming in their pool.

My anger had subsided almost enough to write about the issues that I saw through all of these incidents as well as the all too regular killing of unarmed African-Americans by police usually without consequence when nine members of Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC were murdered by a 21 year-old admitted white supremacist claiming that "you rape our women and are taking over everything," before shooting them during a Bible study.

I can't wait anymore.

This is not about Dylann Roof. This is not about a few bad apples in law enforcement. This is not about any individual incident or official. This is about a system that is built upon and for the purpose of perpetuating white supremacy in our country.

I am speaking today to my fellow white people. We are the ones in the wrong. We are the ones with the problem. Whether as active participants or as silent bystanders we benefit from this system and our failure to abolish it allows it to continue.

The shootings in Charleston are an obvious display of white supremacy. Nobody, except the most outrageously overt racist, would not condemn this unspeakable act of violence and hate. However, due to its outrageous nature, we allow ourselves to separate from the incident itself. We tell ourselves, that's not me. I would never do that. We see it as the outlier rather than the ultimate outcome of the societal norm.

In all of the examples I have set forth above, each and every one of them results from systemic white supremacy. In arresting the family of the graduating teenager, the system was saying "We allowed you to get a diploma, why do you insist on loudly celebrating this? Let us remind you where you belong as we place these cuffs on you."

In the incident at the pool in McKinney, Texas, the kids swimming were invited by a resident of the gated community, their African-American classmate, and were being supervised by her mother. But even though they were invited there and were legally attending as a guest of a resident, several white residents objected and called police, who happily obliged, ignoring white attendees and detaining, assaulting, and subjugating the black attendees. In essence, what was being said was "Aren't you satisfied that we let you live in our community? You have to invite your friends, too?" The police officer in question, who later resigned and will no doubt go on to police elsewhere, after flipping the 14 year-old girl and dragging her by her hair, proceeded to kneel on her back while yelling "On your face!" repeatedly as he assaulted her. For swimming in a pool. In 2015. In the United States of America.

Following the murders of the members of Mother Emanuel, there are calls for changes to be made. There are real issues that are being discussed. But what worries me is that superficial symbolic changes are made without really making the systemic changes that are needed. It is fine and noble (and 150 years overdue) to call for the removal of the Confederate Flag from the state house grounds in Columbia, South Carolina. But this will have no meaning unless we destroy the system of white supremacy which considers a flag representing the fight to defend a system of selling human beings into servitude to be heritage.

We are a nation which passes laws today which intentionally disenfranchise African-Americans because those in power see their participation in the system to be a threat to the status quo. We are a nation which passes laws which we know will disproportionately impact the African-American community imprisoning them at rates unequaled anywhere in the industrialized world. We are a nation which decries the destruction of property in response to immense injustice while shrugging our shoulders at the injustice itself.

It needs to end. Now.

The first thing to do when addressing a problem is to admit it exists and to give it a name. The name is white supremacy. It is a problem that is pervasive throughout our society. It is a system which intentionally harasses, discriminates against, imprisons, assaults, and murders people of color and does so systematically, continuously, and with impunity. It is a system by which we, white people, especially white males, benefit.

After we have admitted and named the problem, we must educate ourselves and our white brothers and sisters about the its causes and pervasiveness. Read about it. Listen to your black brothers and sisters without comment. Recognize the existence in large and small occurrences in your everyday life. Call it out when you see it. Make others recognize it and fight against it.

When we are educated, then we must fight to eradicate the philosophy of white supremacy from our society. Papering over it by taking down a flag, or eliminating one or two organizations, will not accomplish a thing. We will have a nicer looking system of injustice and evil. We must dismantle the system which feeds the idea that the white race is by its nature superior and entitled to more than any other, and that unequal treatment in our society justified by this belief. This is not easy, and this will cause great discomfort. But we will truly perish as a society if we do not put every fiber of our beings into this cause.

The time is now. Do not delay.

Stop Celebrating Hate

I love my town.

Despite the common belief that Southern towns don't welcome strangers, especially Yankees, into their fold, I have been welcomed, accepted, and forged a successful career here since arriving here nearly two decades ago. I love how Shelby, North Carolina celebrates its diversity, has developed a quirky arts scene, and has established itself as a center of bluegrass and roots music becoming known nationally for its musical heritage.

But, as with many Southern towns, we are surrounded by constant reminders of a not so positive past. Throughout our beautiful Uptown area, its impossible not to notice the old buildings with a main entrance and a door to the side that today seems inexplicable, but not long ago served as the "Colored" entrance to the building. Sometimes we are reminded of this ugly past whether it be by a hateful comment, a racist display, or even an act of racist violence. Although, unlike days past, these rare instances are met with almost universal revulsion.

While the past is inescapable, there is no need for us to celebrate the worst parts of it. So, why is it, then, that we continue to have the main highway through our town be named after a perpetrator of some of the most vile, violent, racist philosophy ever espoused?

Thomas Dixon, Jr. is one of Shelby's most famous and infamous sons. He was without a doubt an incredibly accomplished individual. A scholar, author, preacher, and philosopher who was a friend to Presidents and influenced millions, Dixon was considered one of the leading minds of the late 19th and early 20th century.

However, what Dixon is best known for is a trilogy of novels which championed the activities of the Ku Klux Klan and perpetuated a philosophy of white supremacy which considered persons of African descent to be less than human. Dixon's philosophy considered Africans to be inferior in intelligence, morality, and every other way. He supported lynching as a legitimate act necessary to subjugate the black race and to maintain the social order of the South. Dixon's books were the basis of the film "Birth of a Nation" which continues to be considered one of the most racist films ever made.

Dixon's beliefs were very much a result of his birth and upbringing in Cleveland County. At a young age he witnessed a lynching by Klan members in the Shelby town square of a black man accused of raping a white woman. As the body hanged from a tree in the town square, Dixon's mother whispered to him that the Klan were their people. As I walk each day through this very square on my way to the courthouse, I can't help but wonder if any of the beautiful old oak trees I pass once bore the weight of a burned and bullet riddled body of a young black man whose only jury was an angry mob and whose only due process was found at the end of a knotted rope.

I do not propose that we wipe our city of the memory of Thomas Dixon. I don't propose digging up his grave in Sunset Cemetery or even taking down the plaque which commemorates his authorship of "The Clansman" or that the book inspired "Birth of a Nation." His history is our history, as much as many of us wish it weren't.

But why should a city which is working so hard to reinvent itself as a cultural center, drawing visitors from across the Southeast and the nation, present as its gateway, a highway named after someone who spouted such vile and hateful racism? Our vibrant Uptown is filled with streets named after Revolutionary War heroes, recounting our County's pivotal role in the founding of the United States. We have built a new tourism industry based on our musical native sons Don Gibson and Earl Scruggs. We even have a new brewery opening in a few months which takes its name from this musical heritage. Our streets are now filled year round with performers and artists bringing a new progressive vibrancy that has not been seen here before. Surely we can do better than to continue to celebrate hate as we welcome those visitors coming in to share in this cultural renaissance we are experiencing.

I propose that we rename the stretch of U.S. Highway 74 that runs through Shelby, NC to reflect the musical heritage of this area. Certainly names such as Bluegrass Boulevard or Earl Scruggs Highway, or even Scruggs-Gibson Boulevard would better represent the Shelby of today than Dixon Boulevard does.

We do not need to forget our past, whether it be good or bad. In fact, we must remember it lest we repeat it again. But we need not celebrate the worst parts of it, nor yoke ourselves with the burden of past hatred. We can do better. We must do better.

What I Learned From My Social Media Fast

Let's face it. I'm a social media junkie. I admit it. If you see me in a spare moment, you will most likely see me clicking on my Facebook timeline or on my phone checking my Twitter feed.

The problem is that it has become a problem. It has been a constant source of friction between my wife and I. I often find myself unable to pay attention to a movie or television show because I get bored and have to check my phone. My life was being affected negatively by my social media habit.

So, recently, I made a decision that during my vacation with my wife and daughter, I would forego all social media for the entire week. I left the computer at home, deleted the Facebook and Twitter apps from my phone, and hunkered down for what I thought would be a white knuckle experience.

What I found was quite surprising. The biggest thing was that I didn't really find it that difficult not to constantly be checking my phone for the latest update on my social media feeds. This was especially the case for Facebook. Did I miss some things with my friends? I'm sure I did. Did it detract from my experience overall on my vacation to miss these things? Absolutely not.

In fact, I found myself thoroughly enjoying my time with my family, not missing any experience because I was on my phone or distracted otherwise by something that mattered very little in the grand scheme of things. My wife and I watched three movies and I actually paid attention for the entire length of the film. I was fully engaged with my daughter and more fully enjoyed each minute with her. It was by far the best, most relaxing, most enjoyable weekend I've had in quite some time.

So, why am I back on social media, although less than previously, especially when I'm with my family?

There are a couple of reasons. Granted these might be justifications rather than reasons.

1. I do enjoy it and it is a source of entertainment. This is especially the case for Facebook. It's how I keep in touch with friends who are separated by great distance and time. I enjoy the conversations and witticisms in the comments of my posts. So, to the extent that it benefits and adds to the enjoyment of my life, it is a positive thing. However, I realize that it can very quickly become a distraction, and take away from what is really important in my life.

2. To some extent social media has become a necessity. This is especially the case for my business. Even while on vacation I had clients or colleagues contact me on business through Facebook or Messenger. Facebook has been a quite effective way to maintain a presence in the community with little effort or cost to me. This is actually quite troubling, since what is a completely false interaction has become one of the ways we rely on to communicate with each other, but the pressure to compete is such that Facebook has become at least a necessary evil in some ways.

3. I was left to the evils of mainstream media for my news. This one is particular to Twitter. My Twitter feed has become my number one go to source for news. This is especially the case when there is important breaking news going on. In the last couple of months, the conflict in Gaza and the protests in Ferguson have demonstrated the great usefulness of Twitter in disseminating information on a global scale instantaneously as events happen. Twitter is fast becoming an incredibly influential medium in forming the public opinion and driving information in the world. It is subversive. It is revolutionary. It is one of the most democratizing services in the world. I like to be informed. Filtering my information through the incredibly monotonous and increasingly irrelevant mainstream news media makes me feel almost completely uninformed in comparison.

So, where does that leave me?

One thing I have learned through my week long social media fast is that my priorities were screwed up. My family must be the number one focus of my time and attention. Failure to do this is depriving me of the best thing that has ever happened to me, and depriving my wife and daughter of my time and attention.

The only question that remains is whether or not I am able to actually strike a balance between my use of social media and the attention that I must place on my family. If I can, and my priorities remain in the right order, everything will be great. If I can't, then the only acceptable solution will be to completely cut out the social media permanently. Hopefully it won't come to that, but if it does, at least I've learned that I can survive without constantly checking for the latest tweet or who posted the latest stupid meme or film of ice being dropped on someone's head.

How Gays Brought Me to Christ

It was a sticky June evening in this small, sleepy, Southern town. People were gathering on the lawn in the garden behind a church carrying food, lawn chairs, picnic blankets, coolers, playing cornhole, and watching their children run on the playground. Everything seemed perfectly ordinary, except for the four loud protesters carrying signs and loudly shouting bible verses and hurling insults at those who came in.

You see, despite appearances, this was not an ordinary church picnic at all, this was Shelby, North Carolina's first ever gay pride event, organized and hosted by the Episcopal Church of the Redeemer. In the seventeen plus years I had lived and practiced law in this town that sometimes seems like it is stuck in 1950 both in appearance and attitude, I had never seen a more diverse group of individuals gather in one place. Gay, straight, all races, ages, economic backgrounds, Christian, atheist, pagan, all gathering and celebrating simply being able to be themselves. One thing that really struck me in that huge crowd of over 300 people gathering on a church lawn was that everyone was smiling, hugging, holding hands, and simply enjoying themselves. The feeling of joy and celebration was universal, the only bad feelings or negativity were coming from the four lonely protesters tying to disrupt the party to no avail.

This celebration came on the heels of decades of fear and discrimination, and more immediately after a week of intense debate on social media, in the comments section of the local paper, and in the pulpits of local churches. The comments ranged from the typical (and theologically suspect) "Love the sinner, hate the sin" kind of nonsense, to "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," to more troubling and offensive statements such as "God ain't run out of AIDS yet." The attacks went from attacking gays and lesbians to fanning out attacking women and calling the supporters of the event baby killers. The one theme that seemed to run through most of the attacks, however, was that it was wrong for a Christian church to be sponsoring a program like this because to celebrate and accept the LGBT community was to go against God.

One local pastor went so far as to publish a long, ranting screed criticizing our church and our Rector, along with the local paper for publishing a story about the event. He went through the usual who's who hit list of Bible verses, always taken alone, to demonstrate his belief that homosexuality was wrong in the eyes of God. He further went on to attack the Episcopal Church, our Rector, our parish, our finances, and the way we carry out our ministries. Seriously. He seemed somewhat unhinged as he ranted and raged about how 80% of the county voters had approved of the State constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage, so why were we having this event?

Although I know that not all of his church approves of his actions during the week, it is notable that two of the four protesters at the event were from his church. It is also notable that while all of this was happening, I received vaguely threatening letters along with religious tracts attacking same sex marriage at my office, two gay members of my church had their house vandalized with homophobic threats painted on their door, and the church was deluged with threatening e-mails and letters throughout the week. Take the protesting soldiers funerals out of the equation, and there is really little difference between the beliefs being put forth by this pastor, and those agreeing with him and acting on his behalf, and the Westboro Baptist Church.

When we first met for a planning session that was called by our Rector saying she wanted to organize a Gay Pride event for Shelby, North Carolina, I was expecting a demonstration, or a parade, or something in your face. Having been an activist in one issue or another all of my adult life, rallies or demonstrations are something that is in my blood, and confrontation is something I know moves issues forward. I have to admit that when she announced to the group of about 25 organizers that the plan was for a picnic, I was a little disappointed and thought it was a little hokey.

I could not have expected that something so innocent and so un-confrontational as a picnic, could create such controversy. It was only after experiencing the apoplectic reaction of the religious conservatives in town and seeing the pure love and joy shared by all of those in attendance, did I realize how perfect and ingenious the idea to have a picnic was. For the public at large, it created the incredibly absurd picture of a group that was so rabid in their opposition to the LGBT community that they would actually picket a church picnic. But more importantly, for those in attendance, whether they were gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or straight allies, it gave them a safe place where they could be themselves without fear of disapproval, without fear of retribution, without fear, period. The power and strength that came from that was truly something that I am glad I was able to be a part of.

But more importantly for us as a church, it was a way to experience and live our faith in a deeper and more direct way. This was not a safe thing for us to do as a church. We could have gone about attending our Sunday services, and doing our ministries, writing our checks, and felt pretty good about ourselves that we were inclusive and open. But, in this event, we put our beliefs of openness, inclusiveness, hospitality, and above all LOVE into practice. We stood up to the critics and the naysayers and said we will not be cowed by your insults and your threats and your criticisms. We are people of faith and we are going to make a stand for what we believe even if you look down on us for doing so.

I was raised in a Roman Catholic church that was unbelievably liberal in its message and its practices. My pastor growing up had marched with Dr. King in Selma, and never shied away from a fight because he was afraid to ruffle feathers. So, after he left our parish I was left with a church which had over the years moved away from his type of Liberation Theology to a much more conservative theology with little emphasis on social justice, and much more emphasis on morality, especially sexual morality. I became more and more dismayed as I searched for a church which shared my views and shared what I felt was the true message of Christianity -- that we are to love one another as Christ loved us and our neighbor as ourselves.

It wasn't until the issue of Amendment One came to the forefront that I found what I had been searching for my whole life. Seeing that there was one (and only one) church that was speaking out against the proposed amendment to our state constitution banning same sex marriage and civil unions, I decided to check out what they had to offer. What I found was the only church of which I had ever been a part, that was actually practicing the message that I had always found in the Bible, that radical love and revolutionary acceptance that for me was the whole point of Christ's message.

In the years since, I have become much more spiritual, much more religious, and I can say with confidence a generally better person. I attend services almost every week, I am involved in my parish's leadership, my family is involved in various ministries in the church, and my child is being raised to actively know and love God in an atmosphere that teaches her that she is an equal and equally valuable part of our church family as is everyone regardless of their gender, race, sexual orientation, economic standing, or age.

So, what say you who lobbed insults and vicious attacks on social media, or who stood outside our picnic and insulted people as they arrived and left the event (my wife on leaving asked my just turned five year-old daughter to close her eyes and plug her ears so she wouldn't have to hear the insults being shouted at her)? How is it that God could use the LGBT community to speak to me and bring me back into God's fold and God's house if he hates gays and lesbians and considers them unworthy of God's love and acceptance? How could God speak to me through their struggle if what you are saying is true? How could I be healed of my anger, disappointment and emptiness,by the welcoming call of lesbians and gays to come back to God's house, if God did not love each of God's creation equally? And how is it that God could act through us to organize an event where all of those in attendance were able to share God's house with joy, love, and laughter while those outside claiming to work in God's name were so angry and sad?

The Sunday following the picnic, our early service was marred by protesters who came onto church property yelling through bullhorns trying to disrupt our service. They were asked to leave and eventually did after the intervention of local law enforcement. They left graffiti on our sidewalk demanding that we repent of our beliefs or else we would burn in hell. After the conclusion of the later service, several of those attending the service cleaned the graffiti from the sidewalk. After clearing away all the hateful language, they left one word untouched. The only word that mattered.

"LOVE"

Death by Journalism

I'm going to tell you a story. You may have seen in mentioned in your circles, or maybe caught a stray mention of it while catching up on news on the net. But most likely, it has flown under your radar, as its subject is not one that would normally make the evening news or mainstream newspaper readership. It is the story of all things a journalist's investigation into the claims made of the makers of a putter. Yes, a putter. A golf club. But because of the complete ignorance and unrecognized privilege of the author and his editors, specifically, and the complete and utter lack of value that society places on one segment of our society, this seemingly innocuous subject led directly to the death of the club's designer.

The story was written by Caleb Hannan (@calebhannan) for the pseudo-news ESPN imprint Grantland. It was entitled "Dr. V's Magical Putter." The link to the story is here, and I encourage you to read the story, not to give Grantland any further undeserved clicks for this horrible excuse for journalism, but just so you can get a sense of how Hannan portrays himself as somehow the hero of this story and how little the revelations made about Essay Anne Vanderbilt, which led to her suicide, had to do with the actual story, and how completely unnecessary they were.

To cut to the chase, Essay Anne Vanderbilt was a transgender woman. She was biologically born with male reproductive organs, but was unquestionably a woman. She lived with her female partner, a retired securities analyst with Bank of America, and together they invented the putter that was initially the subject of the article.

There were several legitimate topics of the investigation (why any purported news organization would grant eight months to a reporter to investigate a putter is beyond my understanding, but it's their publication). It appeared that Dr. V as Vanderbilt was known, had allegedly falsified her academic and professional credentials, and that her claims as to the efficacy of the putter were questionable. Fair enough.

However, the bombshell of the piece was that Dr. V was transgender, or as Hannan puts it "was born a boy." This was portrayed by Hannan as just another "lie" that Vanderbilt told. Not only had she made up her degrees and experience, but get this -- she's not even a "real" woman, guys!

Not only did Hannan make it known to Vanderbilt, who had repeatedly insisted that she and her personal life not be the subject of the story, that the focus remain on the putter, but he told one of Vanderbilt's investors that she was transgender.

Hannan reports this fact in his story, and then claims, again making himself the main subject of the story, how difficult it is to "eulogize" the subject of your story.

There is no doubt that Hannan's overly aggressive tactics in reporting this story and revealing a very personal fact that Vanderbilt had chosen to keep private, as is her right, led directly to her suicide. Why Grantland would choose to run the story, revealing her private personal facts to the world posthumously and further smearing her name is a question that I still can't quite answer. Bill Simmons the creator of Grantland tries to offer an explanation here. But, this explanation, really more of a CYA from Disney's legal department than an article, really doesn't answer that.

As I read the story, then followed much of the outrage that was filling up my twitter feed over the weekend, I found myself having a palpable visceral reaction to the story. I became filled with anger and outrage and was on multiple occasions nearly brought to tears reading the reactions and stories from transgender men and women across the world.

I asked myself why this was happening. Why was something that had so little to do with me causing me such consternation. I know that I get outraged whenever I see an injustice (it's the '70s Catholic upbringing I guess -- Liberation Theology and all). But, what was it about this that was effecting me so deeply.

When I took time to analyze what was going on, what I feel really affected me and caused me to feel this great outrage was the fact that the author of the piece and his editors simply never took the time to think of Vanderbilt as a human being. And, in addition, this is the theme that was coming over and over as I read the stories of trans brothers and sisters across the internet. That we, as a society, somehow fail to recognize that they are human. That somehow by being born trans, they are somehow automatically thought of as less.

Why do we place such value on our gender? We all know the stories of boys on the playground belittling their classmates with taunts of "faggot" and "sissy" on the playground, and these terms have become less and less acceptable as the success of the gay and lesbian rights movement has grown. But, if you ask any boy or man what the worst insult that they could have, if they are honest, it isn't "fag," it's actually to be called a woman or a girl. We see coaches intimidate and antagonize their teams by calling them "ladies" or "girls." We see fraternity hazing rituals in which pledges are forced to dress in women's clothing. We all laugh and giggle at "Womenless Beauty Pageants" where high ranking men in the community demean themselves by dressing up in women's clothing and makeup in order to raise money for a charity.

Even in the gay community, there is often tremendous discrimination against transgender men and women. Much like the LGBT acronym, the T is often at most an afterthought, grudgingly accepted as part of the overall movement, but rarely, if ever, the focus. Even in gay rights publications and websites you will see transgender jokes and insults accepted as if they are the norm, and comments sections full of vitriol against transgender people, similar to the attacks you see on twitter and in mainstream publications against women who dare to speak out.

All of this, again, comes back to thinking of trans people as somehow less than whole, less than deserving of the same rights and acceptance that all of us have by mere fact of being born. The fact is that Dr. V and the rest of the transgender community were born how they are. Their struggles in dealing not only with the spectrum of sexuality (to whom they are attracted) but with their very gender (who they are) are monumental and deserve not the derision and dismissal that they often provoke, but instead deserve deep respect, acceptance, and understanding.

Dr. V and many other transgender men and women get nothing of this. Just like in Hannan's article, the fact that someone lives the gender that they are rather than the biological anatomy with which they were born is seen as a lie, or a fraud, or even treason against their sex. All of this is ludicrous. It is a disease, a mental illness from which our society suffers, much like any other hatred of others different from what society considers the "norm".

It is my hope that this horrific story will be a chance for many of us to stand up and start fighting back against the burdens that our society places on transgender men and women. Perhaps this will be the spark for many of us, who have remained silent on transgender issues to speak more forcefully about them, to educate, to learn, to show more respect. Because until we do, and until all of us start seeing transgender men and women as equal human beings worthy of the same respect and rights as any of us, we will see many, many more endings like Dr. V's.

And we can't afford that.

Business

Hey, there's a great new attorney opening an office in Shelby, NC. You should go check him out and hire him for all of your legal needs. I highly recommend him.

He also needed me to put this image on the web so he can add it to his email since he hasn't set up his own website yet.

Tom Friedman Lives In a Parallel Universe

I know, I know. It has become somewhat of a sport to mock the endless illogical musings of the New York Times's favorite intellectual bullshit artist, Tom Friedman. Matt Taibbi has perfected the art, actually. For example see his Ultimate Tom Friedman Porn Title contest , which had a surprise winner.

Friedman has become so bad, with each week's column being more illogical, vacuous, and non-sensical, that I actually at one point started to doubt that Tom Friedman actually existed. It appeared that he was simply an algorithm which spit out words and pithy phrases and arranged them into a column twice weekly. 

But today's article took the whole Friedman experience to an entirely new level. His column about Edward Snowden and Vladamir Putin's chance to make a second impression ("You only get one chance to make a second impression" starts the column in a typical Friedmanesque turn of phrase) is so full of factual errors and illogical conclusions that the only explanation I can come up with is that Tom Friedman lives in a parallel universe not accessible to the rest of us. You can read the article here if you must. However, I will dissect the second paragraph (just one paragraph) to show how different these parallel universes are. (I have to confess that after reading the second paragraph of the article my brain exploded rendering me incapable of taking in any more of the article).

First sentence. 

"Considering the breadth of reforms that President Obama is now proposing to prevent privacy abuses in intelligence gathering, in the wake of Snowden's disclosures, Snowden deserves a chance to make a second impression -- that he truly is a whistle-blower, not a traitor."

Whew! That first sentence is a whopper. I won't try to diagram it due to lack of space and out of respect to the English language, but I'm going to have to take the sentence apart just to analyse the myriad of untruths it contains.

First off, Friedman suggests that the reforms that Obama proposed are actually significant. I'm sure that there are many who share the Friedman Universe who would agree with him. For instance, fellow NYT columnist David Brooks would likely provide a sympathetic ear to this argument. However, outside of this Bizzarro Friedmanverse, or MSNBC, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who agrees that Obama's proposals are more than window dressing. For instance, perhaps Friedman could have read the editorial published immediately after the President's speech by his own newspaper which assailed the proposals as "tinkering around the edges of the nation's abusive surveillance programs."

This leads to another incredibly frustrating thing that I have noticed. It seems that for the rabid loyalist Obama followers (I didn't call them Obamabots) for the President to say something is the same as the President doing something. This, of course, to anyone who has been conscious for the last five years is the opposite of reality. In fact, it has gotten to the point where if President Obama says something, you can rest assured that he is going to do the complete opposite (perhaps this is why he is so admiring of Larry Summers, but I digress).

The very idea that the President has proposed reforms that will prevent privacy abuses in intelligence gathering ignores the fact that it was the President who ordered the abuses in the first place. It's not like this happened by accident. It's not that the President didn't know this was going on. His Justice Department developed this plan, the President included these proposals in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act. He is the one who came up with the damn program, and now you are lauding him for trying to prevent the abuses that he caused?

OK. Deep breath. Next phrase.

Friedman slips in the phrase "in the wake of Snowden's disclosures." So I guess somewhere in the ether of the Friedmanverse there is some acknowledgement that Snowden deserves some credit for bringing about these wide-ranging (look at their breadth) reforms being proposed. However, this is completely blown away by the fact that he then says he "deserves chance to make a second impression -- that he truly is a whistleblower, not a traitor."

I assume by all of this second impression theme that Snowden's first impession on Friedman was not a good one. Apparently his first impression on Friedman was that Snowden was a traitor. This, despite the fact that his disclosures have led to the wonderful reforms that will protect all of our privacy. Apparently in the Friedmanverse, informing Americans that their government is collecting data on every phone call you make, every e-mail you send, and everywhere you go on the internet, means that you are a traitor. But, Friedman's a good guy and he'll give you a second chance to show you live up to the dictates of the Friedmanverse.

Next sentence.

"The fact is, he dumped his data and fled to countries that are hostile to us and to the very principles he espoused."

I didn't think it was possible to outdo the first sentence. However Tom Friedman never ducks from a challenge and he met this one with gusto. Whereas the first sentence was merely intellectually, if not factually, dishonest, the second sentence simply wrings the neck of logic until logic is left lying on the floor, unconscious with its last death rattle slowly escaping its body.

Apparently in the Friedmanverse, a fact is a fact simply if Friedman states it is a fact. Glenn Greenwald took issue with this "fact" in a tweet this morning, stating:

"Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald

6h

Tom Friedman says of Snowden: "The fact is, he dumped his data" - when did this "fact" happen?"

Greenwald's mistake is thinking that "facts" as we define them have anything to do with "facts" in the Friedmanverse. To Friedman, apparently carefully selecting documents that prove the mass surveillance of millions upon millions of Americans by their own government without probable cause or due process to two carefully selected reporters and doing so in such a way that these files were protected from being received by anyone other than those two carefully selected reporters is the definition of "dumping data."

Now, here is where logic really takes leave in the Friedmanverse. Friedman then says that Snowden fled to countries that are hostile to us and to the very principles he espoused. Let's think about that a second. Snowden as is well known fled to Hong Kong, which is in the People's Republic of China, and then to Russia where he was forced to remain by the fact that the U.S. revoked his passport and threatened every country which was offering Snowden safe haven (it is probable that Snowden was on his way to Ecuador when he stopped in Russia, but was unable to continue his journey due to the U.S. government's actions).

Friedman states that these countries are hostile to the U.S. and to the very principles he espoused. Let's think about that for a minute. There's no doubt that Russia and China are two of the world's "bad guys." They treat their people badly, their policies both domestically and internationally are in opposition to ours, and they support some of the world's worst groups. So, ok. Russia and China are bad. But, there is also no irony in the Friedmanverse. Because if there was, it would become clear rather quickly that saying that these countries, which allowed Snowden to remain free from the United States government and granted him political asylum were not actually acting in a way that was hostile to the principles Snowden espoused. The country that was seeking to arrest and imprison Snowden was actually the one that was acting against these principles.

Next sentence.

"To make a second impression, Snowden would need to come home, make his case and face his accusers."

OK. A quick aside. Does anyone else get tickled in the fact that Tom Friedman actually has thought about how Snowden's action personally affected him? I mean really. It seems that Snowden's worst crime in the  Friedmanverse was that he made a bad first impression on Tom Friedman. In the Friedmanverse, this makes Tom Friedman the benevolent dictator around whom the thanks of his grateful devotees lavish their thanks and praise. However, in the real universe this makes him the single biggest narcissist who has ever lived.

But in this sentence, Friedman picks up a theme that has played out endlessly among Democratic political operatives, and almost every MSNBC host. That in order to qualify as a whistleblower, Snowden should have to come back to the United States, be arrested, if he is not rendered to another country to be tortured, kept in solitary confinement, put on trial eventually, and sentenced to life in prison. Or perhaps he should just be droned. Here is MSNBC weekend host Melissa Harris-Perry's over the top open letter to Edward Snowden making the same point.

The fact that this theme has been discounted by meta whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and civil rights hero extraordinaire John Lewis , doesn't seem to make this argument go away, even when those making the argument use Daniel Ellsberg and John Lewis to make their argument. But moreover, the argument engages in a logical fallacy -- that in order to be a true whistleblower, Snowden has to come back and serve a lengthy prison sentence to pay for his "crimes." This is the exact opposite of what a whistleblower should have to do. This is why we have whistleblower protections, to encourage people who are in Snowden's position who see crimes being committed by their employers to come forward and disclose these crimes without the fear of prosecution.

Next sentence.

"It would mean risking a lengthy jail term, but also trusting the fair-mindedness of the American people, who, I believe, will not allow an authentic whistle-blower to be unfairly punished."

This is where my head exploded. I mean seriously. I didn't know Friedman was a comedian. I don't know. Perhaps he's just trolling us. I mean, really?

There is no explanation for this sentence other than Friedman actually lives in a parallel universe where the sky is green and the grass is pink. Because if he lived in this universe, especially being as intelligent and aware of current issues as he's always reminding us that he is, he would know that we are currently conducting a trial of Private Bradley Manning, an Army enlisted soldier who leaked a huge amount of classified cables to the website Wiki Leaks who in turn subsequently published many of these diplomatic cables, and other documents including videos which exposed alleged war crimes being committed by American servicemen. Manning was kept naked in solitary confinement for months on end, was subjected to horrific treatment prior to his trial and still faces up to 90 years in prison for the crimes for which he has been convicted. He would know of Thomas Drake, another NSA employee who actually did go through "proper channels" in exposing the illegal warrantless wiretapping program that was being conducted, only to have every avenue shut down until he finally exposed the program to journalists only to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act, before the government's case literally fell apart during trial. He would know John Kiriakou, the only CIA employee to go to prison in connection to the torture program conducted by that agency, not because he conducted any torture himself, but because he confirmed the name of an agent who did conduct torture. He would know that the Obama administration has prosecuted four times the number of people under the Espionage Act that every administration before him combined.

But in the Friedmanverse, none of this matters. In this parallel universe known only to Tom Friedman and a few others, Americans would not sit back and allow a whistle-blower to be mistreated by their government. The fact is, that with pompous blowhards like Tom Friedman cheering them on, the American people have done this time, after time, after time, after time again.

The Friedmanverse is a scary place. Just catching a glimpse of it in this one paragraph of one column has been a horror show. I certainly wouldn't want to spend any time there myself. Unless, of course, I was Tom Friedman.

Legislature Seeks to Ban Arabic Numerals

In its ongoing fight against creeping Sharia law, and the influences of Islam, the state legislature today introduced a bill to ban Arabic numerals in the state's schools. Citing citizen complaints and the fear of the growing influence the imposition of such foreign teachings, bill sponsors said they will continue fighting to rid our schools of all Islamic teachings.

"I never would have thought that our teachers would have been taken in by such an insidious plot as the use of foreign, Islamic, Arabic numerals," bill sponsor Willie Bob Peckerwood said. "It's a slippery slope. First you introduce Arabic numerals, then you move on to Arabic language, before you know it our children are bowing five times a day to Mecca and reading from the Q'aran."

Peckerwood was surprised to find that all of the state's schools were already using Arabic numerals in their math classes, as well as several other classes. "I don't know how this got by us," he continued, "They already snuck in these God forsaken foreign influences trying to turn our children against us. We're behind in this fight, but we are catching up fast."

The bill is expected to receive bipartisan support in the legislature as members of both parties are lining up to get on the record as opposing anything that would be seen as supporting terror or being Anti-American.

Legislator Nancy Goodkind, usually seen as Peckerwood's political nemesis, joined in with praise for Peckerwood's bill. "When I first heard of this bill, I couldn't believe that our schools would be dumb enough to use Arabic numerals. But once I found out that Arabic numerals were already being found throughout our schools, I was quick to join on to support this bill and protect our children. Why can't we use the good old American numbers we all grew up with?" Goodkind added.

Early polls show that the measure is widely popular with the electorate with over 80% supporting the ban.

The bill is expected to sail through committee and could be up for a vote among the entire legislature within the week. There is no comment from the Governor's office as to whether the Governor will sign the measure or not. However, sources say that it would be hard to oppose such a popular measure.

What George Zimmerman Tells Us About Ourselves

"Which one of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?" He said, "The one who showed him mercy." Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise." - Luke 10: 36-37 (New Revised Standard  Bible)

Every once in a while events happen that can best be explained, to me anyway, as happening only by God's Providence. That is why, I believe, that across this nation on the morning after the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial that millions of Americans attending their church services had as their Gospel reading the parable of the Good Samaritan.

We are all familiar with the story of the man beset by robbers and left bloodied and for dead, who is passed by both a Priest and a Levite who offer him no help. It is only the lowly Samaritan who saves the man, treats his wounds and cares for him until well. Jesus offers this as an example to a inquisitive lawyer (imagine that!) as to living the law of God to love one's neighbor as one's self.

It struck me as particularly poignant that this would be the Gospel lesson on the day after the conclusion of such a bitterly divisive and inflammatory trial. Throughout the night and into the morning, our airwaves were full of pundits offering opinions about the not guilty verdict, social media was exploding with outrage from those who understandably felt Zimmerman should be punished for killing an unarmed black minor, and less understandable celebrations for those who were rooting him on (whatever you feel about the evidence, celebrating the death of a child will never make sense to me).

My first reaction following the verdict, which to me personally was a disappointment because of what the case said about the state of our society and our laws, was to turn to prayer. I immediately opened the electronic kindle version of the Book of Common Prayer that I keep on my iPhone. During what has become my spiritual reawakening in the just more than a year I have spent in the Episcopal Church, the Book of Common Prayer has been an indispensable guide for faith and living. I looked for a prayer which would encapsulate my feelings and address the fears I had of violence that could come from this. Here's what I found:

Grant, O God, that your holy and life-giving Spirit may so move every human heart and especially the hearts of the people of this land, that barriers which divide us may crumble, suspicions disappear, and hatreds cease; that our divisions being healed, we may live in justice and peace; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. - Book of Common Prayer, p. 823

I prayed this prayer silently to myself, and shared it with my friends on social media. I prayed then for the family of Trayvon Martin whose life was once again shattered, I prayed for the family of George Zimmerman and for George Zimmerman himself, that his heart, hardened for whatever reason, could know peace and love and that his life could turn to one of serving his fellow man.

The next morning what struck me the most as I listened to the words of the Gospel read by my Deacon at Holy Eucharist, was how we as a society treat our neighbor. We are falling far short of living the law, not of self-defense or stand your ground, but the law which Christ gave for us. The law that the lawyer could recite as the key to eternal life -- "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself."

Whatever your view of what transpired on the night Trayvon Martin was killed, love was certainly lacking. Love does not treat its neighbor with suspicion because of the color of his skin or the way that he is dressed. Love does not meet an encounter between strangers with violence and rage. Love does not refer to its neighbors with racial epithets and insults.  Love does not take a life.

There has been plenty said of the actions of both George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin on that fateful night, and there will be plenty more as our collective rage justifies more outrage, insult, and pain from all sides. But what there hasn't been talked about very much is what George Zimmerman tells us about ourselves.

From the little that is known about that night, what it appears that George Zimmerman did was to see a tall, young, black-skinned man, wearing a hooded sweatshirt, and based on his experience, prejudices, and beliefs, and the totality of the situation saw him as a threat. He felt so threatened that he called 9-1-1 and reported this suspicious person. He followed him, armed, and ready to use deadly force if it became necessary. And finally, for whatever reason, ended up in a physical confrontation during which he said he feared for his life, and shot and killed the young man.

At his trial on charges of Second Degree Murder, Zimmerman claimed self defense. The jury found him not guilty under this theory. And if we want to look at it objectively, the jury upheld the law in Florida as it is written.

But how many of us who condemn the actions of George Zimmerman excuse or even celebrate similar actions when they are taken on our behalf by our own government. Did George Zimmerman do anything different than our President, through his policy of drone warfare does every day? It is known that through "signature strikes" that American drone pilots target individuals based on circumstances that include their location, their sex, their clothing, etc. Isn't this exactly what George Zimmerman did that night in Florida? Our government brands these individuals based only on these external factors as "militants" even though, just like Zimmerman, they don't even know who the individual they are targeting is, or anything about their intentions. Just like Zimmerman, we Americans justify these actions through arguments of self defense and the prevention of harm to others.

I was struck by the words of an Arab American who tweeted Friday night, echoing or parodying the words of our President about Trayvon Martin, "If I had a son, he would look like Abdulrahman Awlaki" referring to the 16-year-old American citizen who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen two weeks after his father, also an American citizen, was killed similarly in a U.S. drone strike.

The fact of the matter is, that we as a nation, are failing to live up to the beliefs that a vast majority of us claim. We are failing to live up to the teachings of Jesus Christ. And despite the claims of the so-called Christians of our land, many of whom were all over social media this weekend fomenting the fires of hatred, it is not because of gays, or prayer in public schools, or the posting of the Ten Commandments in public squares, or whether we say "Merry Christmas" that our nation is failing to live up to our collective Faith. It is due to the lack of Love and the treatment of our neighbor.

As long as we accept policies and laws which result in the death of our fellow human beings without justification and without reason, we are failing to live up to the law that our Savior has given us. As long as we treat others with suspicion and disgust, we go against God's law. As long as we justify hatred, discrimination, and persecution based on race, religion, status, gender, sexual orientation, or difference, we fail as Christians.

In fact, as long as we do so, we can collectively say that we all are George Zimmerman.

Heroic Stands on Same Sex Marriage Could Hold Back Legalization

Stands like that of Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane are courageous symbols for elected officials to take as the nation struggles ever so slowly to reach complete marriage equality nationwide. However, such heroic stands may actually end up delaying the ultimate nationwide recognition of same sex marriage.

In the recent Supreme Court decisions on the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's voter initiative banning same sex marriage, Proposition 8, the issue of standing came up in both cases. In both the DOMA case and the Proposition 8 case, the normal appellants (the parties who were sued and lost the case at the trial level) refused to file appeals of their losses. In DOMA, this was the Attorney General Eric Holder, and in Proposition 8 it was the State of California represented by Attorney General Kamela Harris. Both of these decisions were historic and incredibly unusual in that it almost never happens that a representative of the sued party decides part way through the proceedings that the law they are charged with upholding is unconstitutional and therefore refuse to defend it.

In the two cases, different groups rose to the occasion to appeal the lower court decisions and thereby defend the laws as written. In DOMA, Congressional Republicans hired their own counsel and filed the appeal on behalf of the United States. In the Prop 8 case, it was citizens groups which had organized turnout and worked to get the amendment on the ballot in California. In each case, the outcome was different. In the DOMA case the Court found that the appellants had standing to appeal, while in the Prop 8 case the court found that the appellants did not.

Standing, or the right to bring an appeal, was a hard fought issue in both cases. If the court had reached a different consensus on the issue of standing in the DOMA case, and the lower court rulings were left in place, what would have happened was that we would have been left with a mish mash of lower court rulings, some upholding the constitutionality of DOMA and some not, leaving the issue unresolved.

But, what is more interesting is had the State of California decided to pursue the appeal in the Proposition 8 case, in which the court found that citizens groups had no standing to appeal challenges to the Constitutionality of a state statute, there would have been no issue of standing at all. California certainly had the right to defend its own laws against constitutional challenge. That would have forced the court to address the constitutionality of state bans on same sex marriage on the basis of violations of the guarantees of equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Looking at the court's holding on DOMA, finding that it did in fact violate the Fifth Amendment's guarantee to equal protection on a Federal level, it is more than likely that the Court would have found that California's Proposition 8 also violated the imposition of this guarantee on the states, making same sex marriage legal nationwide.

There could be, depending on your point of view, arguments made that this was a fortunate decision on the part of the State of California not to defend this law. Because it allowed the court to move incrementally, essentially punting the decision on the application of the Constitutional issues on state law to a later date when the Supreme Court decision would have time to catch up to public opinion, some would argue that it is overall a good thing for the proponents of marriage equality and the nation as a whole. Some could also argue that the standing issue may have also prevented the court from striking down the 9th circuit's opinion finding Prop 8 unconstitutional, which would have been a big loss for the proponents of marriage equality.

However, at some point, a state is going to have to defend such Constitutional challenge in order for there to be a definitive answer on the application of these rights nationwide. By not defending the lawsuit brought against the State of Pennsylvania, the state Attorney General risks having at best a similar outcome to that of Proposition 8 -- a District Court decision which cannot be appealed due to the lack of standing of anyone to appeal it. This is great for folks in Pennsylvania, but doesn't really push the issue forward.

This also brings up another issue as it relates to the function of the law as a whole. Very often attorneys are faced with the question, "How can you defend someone like that?" or "How can you defend someone you know is guilty?" Spending many years as a criminal defense attorney, I am very familiar with those questions and I understand completely the answers. The fact is that our system of justice only works in both sides in an adversarial system are represented zealously and to the full extent of the law. Any failure to do so, results in legal error and injustice. For instance, if a criminal defense attorney were to fail to put forth all of the defenses that his or her client is due because he or she has come to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty or should be put away, not only should that attorney lose their license, but the case will almost certainly be overturned on appeal (and should be), and the defendant who would have otherwise been convicted will likely walk free. The only way to ensure a conviction is to put forth every defense to which the defendant is entitled and make sure that the State proves their case against the Defendant. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but that is the way the law works in an adversarial system such as ours.

In the same way, the only way that the ultimate question in marriage equality -- the issue of whether the Court's holding that the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, also applies through the Fourteenth Amendment to the states -- will make it before the Supreme Court is for the states to defend their laws vigorously and to the full extent of the law. I would go so far to say that it is the duty of the state and federal Attorneys General to do so. By acting in the role that should be reserved for the appellate judges, rather than in the role for which they were elected or appointed (to defend and enforce the laws of their state or country) they are showing an amazing lack of confidence in the integrity of the judicial system, and actually holding back the cause in which they claim belief.