I teach at a relatively conservative evangelical Christian university. While the campus environment causes me frustration at times, I stick around because I like the students and the schedule allows me time to do things like write, play music, and be fully present as a father and husband. Despite the aggravations of denominational power plays and the latent hostility toward progressive ideologies, I enjoy the fact that, as a communication professor, I get to regularly challenge common assumptions and provoke my students to new awareness. Some of the students respond well to the challenge, and the administration has been (so far) supportive of my academic autonomy. On the whole, it's not a bad life.
But something happened yesterday that has shaken my commitment. Did the university endorse James Dobson’s latest proclamation that houses painted in SpongeBob SquarePants color schemes are dens of homosexuality? No. Did the Big Denomination declare that church-sponsored schools much teach that Arabs evolved from mongrel bacteria, separate from God's creation story in Genesis, and thus undeserving of human rights? No.
I was violated. My property was stolen and vandalized. Someone ripped a bumper sticker off my car.
Since September of last year, I had been sporting this sticker produced by the good folks at Sojourners.
(For more on the story behind the sticker, go to Sojourners, or The Ready Room.)
It was my small way of speaking out against the swelling red tide as my state shifted from light blue, to ever-deepening shades of pink. In particular, it was my challenge to those around me who have come to believe that there are three important issues in public life and that the Republicans, the church, and God are all in one accord.
Shortly after the election, when so many public figures were doing victory dances and declaring that The Truth had triumphed and that the election was a referendum on God’s will in public life, I altered the sticker to look like this:
After all, the Democrats weren’t claiming to own God like some of their counterparts. The first version of the sticker seemed appropriate as a pre-election cautionary remark, but the post-election arrogance and talk of “mandates” changed my sticker rhetoric into an act of public dissent.
Well, apparently someone decided yesterday that, in fact, God IS a Republican. Furthermore, they decided that I should be denied the right to declare otherwise. It angered and saddened me. Why did it bother me so much? I mean, during the election season we had about 10 campaign signs stolen from our yard. Sure those thefts bothered me, but not like this. My house isn’t on a university campus where free inquiry and speech are supposed to be celebrated. And the sign thieves weren’t necessarily part of a faith community that professes to have a high regard for morality.
I thought about what had provoked such a vile act. I mean, the sticker had traveled on and off campus, unmolested for months. Why now? Then I discovered something that made it clearer.
Scholars at the University of Connecticut recently completed an incredibly comprehensive study in which they evaluated the attitudes and knowledge of the First Amendment among 110,000 high school students, faculty, and administrators. The results are disturbing…shocking even.
Since the attacks of September 11th a sizeable portion of our students and leaders view the First Amendment with apathy, even a certain degree of disdain.
73% of the students have no opinion about the First Amendment, or they take it for granted.
21% do not know enough to express an opinion, even after the Amendment is read to them.
44% with an opinion think that the Amendment goes too far, granting too many freedoms.
Nearly 30% of faculty members feel like the Amendment goes too far.
75% of students think flag burning is illegal.
Nearly 50% assume the government has the right to censor material on the Internet.
17% believe people should not be allowed to voice unpopular opinions.
49% think the news media should receive governmental approval before publishing stories.
20% of faculty agree that media should seek governmental approval.
And at least one member of my university community believes it is justified to liberate the rear-end of cars bearing unpopular opinions. Why is all this happening?
The experts agree that our educational system is failing to promote knowledge and interest in basic democratic freedoms. “Schools don't do enough to teach the First Amendment. Students often don't know the rights it protects,” says Linda Puntney, Director of the Journalism Education Association.
Marilyn Weaver, journalism professor at Ball State University, finds that “students are really not very informed.” She goes on to state that “Schools don’t encourage and nurture free thinking and free expression.”
According to journalist Sandy Woodcock, “The First Amendment is…like the granite monument in the park that we never visit.”
There is no question that our schools (and universities) have failed in their responsibilities. But I think it runs deeper than that. Our government, media, and churches share in the shame.
Here are just a few of the examples:
We have a president who aggressively quashed dissent during his campaign, by excluding political outsiders and establishing “protest zones” to safely quarantine disagreement.
We have a Justice Department that regularly elevates security over freedom, even condoning torture of our enemies.
We have an Executive Cabinet where those of different opinions are removed and those who remain operate as little more than an echo chamber for puppet masters.
Journalists accept money from the administration to promote policies under the guise of objectivity.
Our mainstream and conservative media inflict subtle (and not so subtle) shades of violence on those who report anything deemed “unpatriotic.”
Many churches and faith-based organizations make it very clear that there is one God (theirs), one Truth (again, theirs), and one ideology (you guessed it). Disagreement could endanger your mortal soul.
(Sure, I am mindful of the misrepresentations and fear-mongering among the Left. It’s there and it’s reprehensible. The difference is few of them do so in the name of the Lord.)
When young people see the culture around them placing an ever-increasing set of limitations on freedom, they begin to believe that what they think is true should have no competition. After all, they are right, and what is wrong is evil. Their culture has told them that evil should be destroyed.
To the person who stole my sticker I say, “Read more. Pray more. Think more.” Oh, and buy me a new sticker, dammit.
To all who regularly passed by my sticker, hating what it stood for, even talking bad about me, but leaving it alone, I say, “Good for you. Thanks for having an opinion and freely sharing it. And thanks for allowing me to do the same.”
Now, I have to go buy some paint. What were those SpongeBob colors again?
25 comments:
"The surest way for a man to make of himself a target for almost universal scorn, obloquy, slander, and insult is to stop twaddling about these priceless independencies, and attempt to excercise one of them."
Mark Twain in a paper delivered in Hartford, late 1884
Guh. I was disappointed yesterday to discover that the "nuetral" campus that partners with Missouri baptist churches, not the Missouri Baptist Convention is now providing Pathway subscriptions to the student body.
Those poll results make me absolutely sick. The censorship and media resuts particularly. Almost half of the population really want to turn the media into a pawn of the government? Are we not teaching "1984" in high schools anymore? But then if the Big Three is already referring to such things as liberal rhetoric, it really doesn't matter what is taught. . .
If you need another sticker, I have an extra.
oh, the above response was me - Jennifer
Bob-yellow, pants-brown, and patrick-pink, I'd imagine, more or less the colors of the principal bodily effusions, come to think of it, which may be one of the reasons the Pharisees don't like Spongebob, now you mention it. (For a more thorough discussion, Google on "kundera kitsch shit")
In other news, acting on a tip, I downloaded open-source Mozilla Firefox today, and will browse with it ever after.
Go Mozilla! Down with The Man.
Brandon--You and Twain are right. Oh, but I do like twaddling. Elvis on Twain: "A little less conversation, a little more action, please."
Jennifer--I'll take that extra sticker, and I'll stick it...
Sister--If it's really you, where have you been? Why did you leave me in Piggly Wiggly shopping cart with nothing but a bag of candy corn and a fistful of Green Stamps? mmmmm. Candy corn.
Jody--ahhh, Jody. My favorite polyphonist.
And John Prine sings, about bumper stickers, "Jesus don't like killing no matter what the reasons' for and your flag decal won't get you into Heaven anymore."
Who knows why I think the way I do but your writing always makes me think. Keep it up.
I have a random querry...you state that the GOP claims a moral mandate in the "name of God". While I'll grant you that they may be a bit more outspoken in invoking the name of their god,I don't believe the Dems are somehow innocent of taking the Lord's name in vain. Most notably, I have many well-intending and kind friend of the Dem flavor who say they are such because the Dems "look out for the little guy, etc." Well isn't that a Judeo-Christian ethic just like personal sexual purity, working as unto the Lord, et al. ? What if I'm a good decent Buddhist who believes that the poor and indegent are merely working their way through a state of reincarnation towards a more "Zen-like" state? Aren't the Dems forcing their god-values on me and taking my money in taxes for the welfare state in the process? Jus' wonderin'
Leave Focus on the Family alone. I saw Dobson discussing the subject on a television program and every comment he made about the "We are Family" video was reasonable. You're just making fun of the Sponge Bob deal because it is the current hip cheapshot to take at the right wing. Maybe I'm wrong, but there is no evidence in your post that you looked at anything that the man actually said.
It boggles my mind why anyone would even want a grade schooler to take an oath supporting tolerance toward those with an alternative "sexual identity." Unless they have been taught differently by someone, most grade school kids are the most tolerant people around.
One of the reasons that the value of free speech is lightly held by our society is because many people don't know how to create informed, thoughtful opinons. People have party lines that they tote and issues that they get emotional about, but they refuse to go any deeper and investigate things for themselves. Rush Limbaugh and Jon Stewart do most of this country's thinking. The process of forming speech and opinions has been cheapened by society, so the right to make speech is seen as cheap.
It is easy to fall into that trap. I have formed many opinions in that trap. The "reacher" has just about fallen into it himself by his unfair treatment of Dr. Dobson..
Don't be seduced into that liberal, anti-intellectual abyss supporting the gay life of "Bikini Bottom!" You might never come out.
cneil dude, now there's some free speech fer 'ya. Watch yerself, unless you can throw in an obscure Dillon lyric, you won't be taken seriously as an enlightened sort in these parts.
You cannot be serious? You, the progressives, implemented all the "hate crime" legislation which now disallows an individual the right to free speech (albeit, often divisive and intollerant) when he/she speaks out against certain groups. You all love free speech so long as it agrees w/your ideology. What an itellectual farse.
"And an even greater undersound
of a vast confusion in the universe
a rumbling and a roaring
as of some enormous creature turning
under sea and earth
a billion sotto voices murmuring
a vast muttering
a swelling stuttering
in ocean's speakers
world's voice-box heard with ear to sand
a shocked echoing
a shocking shouting
of all life's voices lost in night
And the tape of it
someow running backwards now
through the Moog Synthesizer of time
Chaos unscrambled
back to the first
harmonies
And the first light"
From "A Vast Confusion" by Lawrence Ferlinghetti
It's interesting, c_neil, how you key in on the one Dobson reference. Was that really what this was all about? Oh well. I did not see the TV appearance you saw. (I assume it was Hannity & Colmes, since that's the only one of the hundreds of media invitations he said he accepted. And, boy, isn't THAT a forum for completely unbiased free speech!) I have read Dobson's words on the matter (www.family.org/docstudy/newsletters/a0035339.cfm), and I think he may be the most dangerous man in America. He's disingenuous, manipulative, fear-mongering, and consumed with the need for social cleansing and control. After most other religious conservatives abandoned politics as their main focus, Dobson declared war on liberal politicos and gays. He represents nearly everything people hate about Christianity, and he displays a great deal more interest in winning culture wars and spreading anger than he does in loving like Christ loves. That may not be his intent, but it sure as hell is his outcome.
Dobson himself says of the video starring SpongeBob et al, "The video itself is innocent enough and does not mention anything overtly sexual...But while the video is harmless on its own, I believe the agenda behind it is sinister." Sinister? Based on what? The rest of his tirade is based on assumptions and extensions of assumptions that are neither logical nor biblical. Most of the material he cites from the We Are Family campaign sounds just great to me. I've also looked at their site (www.wearefamilyfoundation.org/), and I would say it sounds more like Jesus than Dobson.
The groups that claim tolerance campaigns are all about pushing the homosexual lifestyle on innocent children are the same people who won't accept that someone can support the troops in Iraq and oppose the war. Tolerance for people is not recruitment for ideals any more than support for people is blind endorsement of policies. Tolerance is a entry-level form of grace. The problem is that some feel like people can't be trusted, so their souls need to be engineered by the faithful. Here's an idea: How about we teach our children to love everyone, like Jesus said, then trust that grace will guide them?
Sound a little pointed and extreme? Well, this is a blog. I'll tone it down when I write a book on the topic.
What happened Beloved? I received your comment via email, but then I saw you removed it from the blog. You made thoughtful and intelligent observations. Don't deprive us your perspective.
For the record, I will never remove a comment on this site unless it is spam, obscene, or designed for no other purpose than injury.
Yeah, I guess I did latch on to a passing reference about the cartoon, but I had read a comment you left on another blog about the issue and it was still on my mind. I agree that Dobson does use the language of fear too often. Dobson would be more Christlike if he spent less time scaring peope and more time educating.
Of course, you are going to get all kinds of interpretations when you start using terms that have been politicized. "Tolerance," "support our troops, and even "free speech" mean different things to different people. I don't think you can expect to have a constructive dialogue about anything until you can get people to agree on the definition of their terms.
I know some will wince, but I do agree with most of the Focus on the Family agenda. They do a wide variety of things- some immensely important and some trivial. It is easy to see how you could disagree with them, but it is difficult for me to see why anyone would hate them. I'm glad that there is an organization that gives Christian child rearing advice, lets people know what stocks they shouldn't buy because a company's subsidiaries own porn companies, and tells people how to vote if they don't want to see gays getting married and liberal abortion laws.
However, going too deep into that stuff makes people forget the core of the gospel. Christians should instead use their time to help the poor, comfort widows, and take care of orphans.
Reacher (and anyone else who got a chance to read my blog before i removed it),
I removed the blog after some later consideration that i had not put enough thought, research or prayer into my assumptions to be stirring things up about them. I saved the blog in a text document in case i want to refine it so it holds a little more water. I guess that's the perfectionist in me. Yes, i'm one of those kind. Sorry, it's just me.
To put it short, i don't believe democratic capitalism is the ultimate form of government and society and is certainly not God's master plan for peace and justice in the world. Secondly, i think politics in general is extremely divisive to the Church and we would be better off to just love and care for each other and for the brokenhearted and disadvantaged. Jesus didn't involve himself in politics, just people. I dunno. Just a couple thoughts worth considering.
I agree with c_neil that F on F does some good stuff. I don't believe any organization or person is ALL bad. I guess the difference in us lies in your praise of F of F. I am not interested in stock analysis that tells me who owns porn companies, unless it's combined with analysis that tells me which companies move off shore to avoid taxation, and which companies contribute to human rights abuses and deny basic healthcare, wages, etc (I bet their stock analysts like Wal-Mart). I also am uninterested in gay marriage voter guides if they don't also include evaluations of candidates in terms of their views on race, poverty, violence, social justice issues...things that are generally mentioned more in scripture than homosexuality.
Beloved, I agree with your analysis that Jesus was apolitical. Unfortunately, "the church" today has made him political, using his name to justify public agendas that have nothing to do with grace. The church needs to reclaim the role of prophet and speak truth to power. Sometimes that means supporting policies that help the poor and brokenhearted. When you do that, you will be considered political, even if that is not your goal.
Good conversation.
Reacher...,
I don't understand the premise of your argument. Why are you lambasting Dr. Dobson. Even if all of your assumptions about his being "the most dangerous man in America.." are true, isn't that the essense of free speech, the ability to say even the most disagreeable things? Is your beef w/the evangelical message of F on F, or w/the misunderstanding of the 1st Ammendment? There is a lapse in the cohesiveness of your points. (By the way, We are Family dramaticly altered their web site after the Dobson attack, removing links to strongly pro-gay websites. A fact you either were unaware of or decided didn't contribute to your argument)Anyway, Dr. Dobson believes that the "agenda" of the gay movement is harmful to the structure of the family, which he deems the foundation of society. So, agree w/him or not, how are his views in any way anti free speech?
I apologize, everyone, for the Dobson red herring. I don't believe I ever claimed anything about Dobson in reference to free speech. Somehow he has become the center of attention. Focus on the James.
I have been reminded lately that people make your argument into what they want it to be, not what you intended it to be. But now that words have been put in my mouth, I'll go ahead and use them. I'm flexible. I can improvise.
Certainly I believe in Dobson's right to say what he wants, no matter how he deceives or manipulates to make his point. My criticisms of him are primarily moral: He purports to believe in and support the Christian gospels, while promoting an agenda that appears to contradict the life and teachings of Jesus in many key ways.
Perhaps more to the point, Dobson clearly supports values that would restrict speech. He seems to believe that exposure to more ideas is harmful (unless, of course they are ideas that come from a prescribed list). He uses the instrument of free speech to advance the restriction of it. Sure he's going to defend free speech; it's the very freedom that grants him the right to agitate for the restrictions of others' free speech. His rhetoric of exclusivity, coupled with enormous marketing power and political presence works against the free exercise of speech in our culture. If he is morally right, that might be a justifiable move. If not, it's just mean.
Question...from a different Anonymous...Don't all of us believers promote an agenda that appears to contradict the life and teachings of Jesus in many key ways?
All basketball players foul; it's part of the game. But those who regularly inflame the players and fans with their demonstrations of aggression (Rodman, Artest, etc.) cause much more harm that a brief interruption in play. They make the game angry. They introduce a culture of violence that affects everyone from the NBA free throw line to the elementary playground.
Reacher,
I cannot take any responses to your post seriously as long as they are referring to "Dillon lyrics."
Call me a superficial nitpicker.
Nate
You always said, "People don't do what they believe in. They just do what's most convenient, and then they repent."
I always said, "Just hold on to me, baby, and hope the roof stays on."
(obscure DYLAN lyric)
"I didn't know whether to duck or run, so I ran." --Dyllon
I think its interesting to explore the fundamental motivations of the left, and the fundamental motivations of the right. Of course, I don't claim to have any insight to those collective motivations; I just know what I perceive. It seems to me that the right has begun waving the church flag out of some kind of fear. Meanwhile, the left is currently on the defensive. I'm sure the pendulum will swing in time, and the roles will be reversed.
Reacher, thanks for some stimulating conversation. As Mike the Dragon might say, "No, I'm Serious."
Post a Comment