More Humble Pie

I sent this letter to Ian Fennell at the Idaho State Journal on August 23, 2014. I have yet to receive any acknowledgment of said letter and am wondering if it will be published. Given that uncertainty, I figured this was the next best place to post it so it would gain some kind of publicity:

"I can admit when I’m wrong. It was careless of me to make such a broad, easily-misunderstood statement regarding people who move into our state. It was also unkind of me to use adjectives like “pouty” and “petulant,” and I should have refrained from doing so.

In a debate as highly charged with emotion as this has been, it is unwise to do anything but dispassionately stick to the facts. Emotion clouds judgment and obscures truth, making a muddy, unproductive mess. We fail in our efforts to make Pocatello a great place to live when that kind of environment is fostered. While I stand by my view that the ordinance protects all residents of Pocatello and was legally adopted, I apologize to Mr. Swenson and ask forgiveness from my community for contributing to the mud-slinging.

I would also like to specifically apologize to Glenda Bellanca and any other “transplant” to Pocatello who have gracefully come and strengthened us with their refreshing and respectfully-shared perspectives, as well as their revitalizing energy and industry. They have seen what Idaho has to offer and come to partake, replenishing the soil in which they have set down their roots. Immigration, whether between states in the union or our union and other countries, is vital to the health of any community of people, keeping it from growing complacent or stagnant.

As a human being, I do have limits to my tolerance. Ironically, it is injustice, intolerance, and unkindness with which I have the most trouble. The faults we find in others are frequently the faults in our own characters we find most distasteful. It seems Mr. Swenson and I see certain things differently, but for my part, I will in future do my best to keep the contributions I make to the discussion factual and respectful."

I'm sure this won't be the last time I will have to eat my words, but I hope this taste of humble pie will deter me from being careless for a while.

Fingers Pointing Back at Me

Now that I'm a couple of days removed from the anger that first inspired my recent letter to the editor, I am keenly aware of how I could have better handled the situation.

Instead of returning Mr. Swenson's unkind words and jibes, I should have focused purely on the facts. I should have outlined what was incorrect (that the ordinance only protects LGBT people) and presented the correct information (that the ordinance protects all people). In this way, I would have neutralized the name-calling and still spoken the truth.

I deeply regret giving in to my urge to be mean. I hope I can clean up the mess.

Speaking Up

It has often been said that if you tell a lie long enough, people will accept it as the truth. Yesterday, I sent a letter to the editor of the Idaho State Journal in response to an editorial in Sunday's paper where George Swenson wrote an inflammatory piece about Pocatello's non-discrimination ordinance. Most of his words were just sour grapes that the vote didn't go his way, but there was one assertion he made that I couldn't resist answering. I still believe that responding to argumentative words with other argumentative words is a less effective way of resolving the issue, but in the case of blatant lies, I think it's better to shine the light on them and show them as such.

For those of you who don't get the Journal, here is what I sent. It is not as compassionate as it should be.

"George Swenson’s recent Sunday editorial regarding Pocatello’s non-discrimination ordinance poked the hornet’s nest yet again, hoping to see if there were any hornets left to anger. Ostensibly dedicated to Christianity, he doesn’t seem to be interested in fostering any kind of peace. Instead, his diatribe questions the integrity of many people involved in the election and the intelligence of anyone who voted for the ordinance. Election officials and volunteers, Councilman Steve Brown, and Mike Simpson are all targeted, but this editorial can easily be seen for what it is: a pouty and carelessly accusatory cluster of sour grapes proffered by a petulant individual who didn’t get his way.

The one assertion he makes that merits any real response is that the ordinance creates a specially protected class of people in violation of the Constitution, specifically in regard to use of public accommodations. This tired argument has been made time and again ever since the ordinance was proposed and is just as erroneous now as it was then. All people, of whatever sexual orientation or gender, are protected by this ordinance. To address Mr. Swenson’s citation of PDA's (public displays of affection) as a specific example of the alleged inequality created by the ordinance, whether at a public park or a garage sale, all people are welcome as long as they conduct themselves within the legal code. PDA’s, straight or gay, tasteful or not, are currently legal as long as no genitalia is displayed. Perhaps, if Mr. Swenson is so worried about these PDA’s, he should spend more time trying to change the law to ban them all. Good luck with that.

How long are we going to have to endure the querulous ranting of those who didn’t get their way in what was a heavily-scrutinized, protracted, but ultimately legal process? And why is it that transplanted Californians are the ones crying the loudest?"

In all honesty, I probably shouldn't have sent it. I allowed my ire to get the better of my good sense leading me to ignore the nudgings I believe the universe was sending me to be my better self. Have I mentioned I don't like to be nudged?

 I'm not always up to following my ideals, but I still hold them. Exceptions to them are not always justified, but I'm committed to the truth as far as it is perceivable, and the truth needs to win.

The Wrath of God

Years ago when I read The Strain trilogy, its authors posited that God and DNA were synonymous, that God was found in the proteins that direct the development or perversion of living cells. That idea struck me with significant force and has worked its way into my understanding of God and how He functions. (Please forgive my use of the masculine pronoun. I am limited by the English language.)

God truly is in everything. He is the energy that makes stars burn and galaxies spin. He is mitochondria. He is chlorophyll. He is the volcanic eruption. He is the bond between two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom. He is our intuition. He is the wind.

I am contemplating what this means when it is said that God's wrath will destroy nations. If prophecies of the brutal subjugation and destruction of the great Native American nations are to be believed, then God was, indeed, with the Europeans, but it wasn't because of their virtue or their professed religion that they conquered. It was because they carried God with them in the form of microbes. Charles Mann asserts in Before Columbus: The Americas of 1491 that it was smallpox, anthrax, measles, and other diseases that decimated the Native American populations, allowing Pizarro, Cortes, and the other conquerors to overcome them. Does that mean God sometimes destroys basically innocent people? It certainly sounds like something you'd hear in the Old Testament, doesn't it? Perhaps that explains the dichotomy of the biblical God. Perhaps how we face this aspect of God is an important factor in the health of our souls, or whatever you choose to call that which enlivens our physical selves.