Debate Me

"...once a prejudice begins to be publicly debated, it is always revealed to be a dying prejudice. One does not debate a prejudice until the definition undergirding that prejudice has begun to be questioned." Bishop Shelby Spong
I'm on the e-newsletter list for Bishop Spong and this was part of his response to a question about how does he handle the setbacks in fighting for gay rights. And this was an "aha" moment for me. What a fabulous idea! The idea that once you have gotten the issue to the point where it is debated, you are already well on your way to winning. This could apply to gay rights, to anti-racism, to reproductive education - all manner of things.
It is so easy to get depressed and to think that we are never going to move forward. (And I realize some of you may have different ideas about what constitutes forward progress, and, well, I'm sorry to hear that.) So, this was inspiring. Now I have no idea how true this is - I have not verified the authenticity of the statement. Certainly I can think of examples in which public debate still led to another hundred or so years before the idea had any sort of mainstream acceptance.
But nonetheless, getting an idea or prejudice or concept to a point of debate should be - based on this - viewed as a huge positive step. It certainly doesn't mean sit back and relax. And certainly that doesn't mean yours is the idea that will turn out to be the accepted one certainly the idea of debate insists on at least two viewpoints, and you (or I) may turn out to be the ones holding onto the one that will die out or be pushed aside.
But a little something to keep in mind, when you are out there trying to expand minds. Whether about the rights of DC residents or about diversity in television.

To Gift or not to Gift

Well, we are rapidly approaching that time of year when many of us choose to exchange cards and/or gifts. Which leads to a dilemna. How do you determine who is card-worthy or gift-worthy or both? There are givens, like immediate family members (normally). But there are always those people who are on the bubble. There are those who are new in your life. They are a friend of a friend who you cross paths with frequently. There are those who you carded last year - have they moved up to gift status this year? There are those who you aren't sure you'll run into over the season - so are they postage-worthy? And there are those hangers-on who have been on your list in past years, but who you no longer really talk to or see outside of the holiday season. Should they be bumped down a notch? Dropped off the list. And there are people who you sent something last year - but got no response. What to do?

Well, I'm here to help! Okay - only in a philosophical type way. But nonetheless.

One handy-dandy measuring stick is - would you be embarrassed if they sent you something and you hadn't sent anything for them? Now if you are one of those people who would always be embarrassed, then this rule won't be much use to you. Because you can't get something for everyone. But, in order to allay some concerns I do recommend having a couple of generic cards (and a pen) on hand. You can pre-write a generic message ("Happy holidays! Love, Me") and have it sealed ready for the card to get a name on the front. Keep them handy (purse, car, desk).

Miss Manners says anyone who did not respond to your gift can be removed from your list. Now, if it is a family member, this may get sticky so you may want to weigh the sticky factor before striking this offender from the rolls - but at the very least they should be downgraded on your list. Now, I should clarify that a response does not mean they sent you an equivalent gift or card - it means they acknowledged your thoughtfulness without you having to call to make sure they received it.

Another possibility is making a donation to a charity in the name of your family and friends (you don't have to name them all). You can then notify people - by card or otherwise - that you have made a donation on their behalf. That should help you take care of/pare down a portion of your list.

I'm a fan of sending out lots of cards. I may not have gotten to talk to or correspond with every person that year, but sometime the card is what starts the cycle up again. But if this person's only reason for being on the list is that they have always been there and you don't even really care to hear from them - drop them.

The original traditions surrounded given presents to brighten up the days of those less fortunate, celebrating the change of the seasons, and gathering with friends and family. Those are the important parts. All this gift and card stuff should be fun. (I know - easy to say). So, try to keep that in mind when fighting through crowded malls and crazy traffic. Try.

Week 13 Picks

NFL WEEK 13
Sunday, Dec. 4
*** MIAMI - Buffalo - Oooh - a division game when both are desparately vying for a wildcard spot. Miami hasn't won a division game yet, but Buffalo has yet to win one the road. So I'm going with Miami to break their trend. A squeaker! 1-0
*** PITTSBURGH - Cincinnati - Yeah Pittsburgh just went down to the Colts - they are not losing this week. Whoops, not a good start (for me). 1-1
*** BALTIMORE - Houston - Okay so I keep picking home teams, but in this case B'more is the less loserish team. Just barely - 2-1
*** INDIANAPOLIS - Tennessee - This is not the week Tennesee will see improvement in their road game. Yeah - so not that hard to predict. 3-1
CLEVELAND - *** Jacksonville - Jax took down the Cards last week even without Byron, I think they can take the Browns too. Close game. 4-1
*** N.Y. GIANTS - Dallas - Big oooh - Winner takes the division and so far the Giants have been winning the big ones. Shocker, I know. 5-1
CHICAGO -Green Bay *** - Now that GB is guaranteed a losing season I think they will - conversely - win some. Well, apprently they didn't get that memo. 5-2
DETROIT *** - Minnesota - Two incosistent teams for anothe division battle - I think Detroit's a little madder after last week. Oops - well that's what happens when both are inconsistent. 5-3
*** CAROLINA - Atlanta - Oh look another division game. I predict Carolina will remain on top. Not quite as close as I expected. 6-3
NEW ORLEANS *** - Tampa Bay - The Saints are getting the hang of that winning thing and TB keeps going down when they shouldn't. Happy for the Bucs, sad for me. 6-4
SAN FRANCISCO - *** Arizona - AZ just had a very sad loss. Yay! 7-4
ST. LOUIS - *** Washington - Favored again! How cool. But seriously, I think we'll snap the losing streak now (Unless is goes to OT). Big yay! 8-4
*** NEW ENGLAND - N.Y. Jets - Yeah, the Pats have yet to lose a division game and the Jets have yet to win a road game. And again. 9-4
KANSAS CITY *** - Denver - KC's on a roll and ready to take this division rival down. Yipee! 10-4
*** SAN DIEGO - Oakland - Yeah. Like I said. 11-4
Monday, Dec. 5
*** Seattle - PHILADELPHIA - It's amazing there are enough Green people left for Philly to play. Hah! 12-4

Week 9 Picks

*** Detroit - MINNESOTA - The Vikings are riding high but Detroit just lost to another divsion rival so they are mad.
*** San Diego - NY JETS - Yeah.
Tennessee*** - CLEVELAND -Loser bowl. Both teams had crushing losses last week and both want to make up for that this week. But McNair is the guy who knows how to do it (much as I love Trent).
Oakland - *** KANSAS CITY - Hee. Moss is back but KC has home field and an average of 24 points a game.
Chicago - NEW ORLEANS*** - Crazy I know, but the Bears went into OT to hold on to the division lead last week, and I think they have underestimated the inconsistent Saints. And the Saints are going to want to please the home crowd (for real this time).
*** Cincinnati - BALTIMORE - It'll be a tough division game, but Cinci is doing really well right now.
Carolina - *** TAMPA BAY - This game will help break a three way tie for the NFC South, so I'll go with the home team but this will be a hard fought game.
Houston - *** JACKSONVILLE - I'm still a little bitter about those Florida teams all conspiring against me last week, but Houston got their first win last week. They aren't getting number two this week.
*** Atlanta - MIAMI - A big RB battle, but Atlanta's roll may be unstoppable (for now).
NY Giants*** - SAN FRANCISCO - Last week was a fluke.
*** Seattle - ARIZONA - The AZ coach said they have to learn to play better. This should help.
*** Pittsburgh - GREEN BAY - GB's got interception issues, injury issues, running issues, etc. This will not be their week.
Philadelphia - WASHINGTON *** - We got embarassed last week. Loser gets the bottom of the division - it'll be the green guys.
Monday, Nov. 7
*** Indianapolis - NEW ENGLAND - NE is banged up (you know it's bad when stroke boy coming back is the big thing) - they aren't in shape for Indy.

Playing the God Card

First - my disclaimer. I am registered as a Democrat - because I wanted to vote in presidential primaries (otherwise since I first was a voter in DC I might have registered with the DC Statehood Party). I do not think Democrats are a superior party, nor do I think Republicans are intrinsically evil. I tend to end up more on the liberal side (as you may have noticed) so I tend to hold a similar viewpoint on many issues to the Democratic party. I also recognize that our two-party-majority system holds within it a wide range of viewpoints.

I heard Jimmy Carter talking on NPR this morning about the differences between Republicans and Democrats and one of things the interviewer asked him about was the perception that the Republican party is the religious party. Carter said he didn't agree with that perception and moved straight into what he thought the major difference between the two parties (right now) is. However, this is an issue I have spent a lot of time thinking about and discussing, so here we go.

It seems fair to say that people who don't spend a lot of time thinking about politics are aware that the religious right represents (as the name suggests) a conservative viewpoint and that they are active within the Republican party. But very little attention (comparatively, at least) seems to go to the religious left. It is sort of a chicken/egg problem - I don't know if the media doesn't seek out the religious left or if the religious left doesn't seek out the media, but the result is the same. I attended a dinner sponsored by a Democratic women's group where one of the speakers - a reporter for a political magazine - said she was often asked how could she be Christian and a Democrat. Her response was that they are intertwined, she is a Democrat as a result of her religious beliefs.

I think this is more common than the public perception allows for. I think as the Republican party has become more strongly associated with a conservative Christian viewpoint, the Democratic party has tried to distance itself from that. Certainly that would be in part to allow for those who are "spiritual" but not "religious", those who are atheist or agnostic, and those who belong to other faith traditions.

But here comes the question - how do you balance that with recognition that there are many religious people who find themselves in the Democrat camp not out of a subversion or denial of their religious beliefs, but because this is where they as a religious person have found themselves? And how do you acknowledge that without alienating those who got here through different paths - religious or not.

Right now I think what happens is that people stay quiet. Which leads to the perception that they have subdivided themselves - sometime I am religious and other times I am a Democrat. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to start some sort of Democrat church or tent revival. But I think that people are keeping quiet about an important component of themselves. And I think there are others, who may feel they have more in common with the Democratic party, but feel that Democrats don't like religious people.

And part of this concern about mixing too much religion and politics comes from the separation of church and state. And I think Democrats in particular are worried about talking too much about how a spiritual or religiously based desire to change the world informs some of their decisions. And I think part of that is how do you counter the God card. If I am having a debate with someone, political or otherwise, and they say that the basis of their conviction comes from God - it stops the discussion. Because what do I say to that? Your God is wrong? You misunderstood God?

Which may lead us to another division. I think everyone turns to religion for answers. The questions may differ, but in the end we are looking for answers. But some people (and some religious traditions) start from a position that those answers are all - well answered. And some start with the idea that we journey towards a state of goodness (for lack of a real word). And there is plenty in between. So where I'm going with this is that some people think you can't argue because God has spoken and some people think you have to do your best to live what God (or whomever) wants and to figure that out for yourself. So when someone says to me, well that's what God wants or that's what [insert deity here] says, I'm shut down. Even though I personally believe in a higher power who wants me to better the world, I tend not to use the God card because I think there's a lot of gray in how I work towards that goal.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that everything has gray, but that's what God wants is not a complete argument to me. Because, I have to be able to explain why I feel this is the right choice. Which might lead people to think that my religion doesn't factor into my political decisions, because I don't use it to explain my choices.

So how do I get to a place where I can demonstrate both - at the same time? I don't know. At least not yet.