Religious Freedom – the Movie

Is religious freedom now under threat in America?

A flurry of interest surrounded a draft executive order leaked at the beginning of February. This trial balloon featured greater “religious freedom” for organizations that don’t want to serve all Americans and yet want to be eligible for federal aid.  Basically, if you are working for or representing an organization that doesn’t agree with someone else’s beliefs, lifestyle, or choices, you and your organization would be allowed to refuse them services.

We’re encountering “doublethink” here, turning language inside out from its usual meaning. Religious people are claiming that their freedom to act in accordance with their beliefs is being restricted. But, as one legal commentator noted to the contrary, “Being denied the ability to discriminate against others is not discrimination against you.”

I thought religious freedom was freedom to worship (or not) in the religion of your choice.  I thought it was connected with freedom of speech and the press: you can speak up or publish your beliefs without fear of reprisal.  Exceptions would kick in only, as in general law, if you were advocating violence, or endangering others.

Religious free speech and action is restricted somewhat, in exchange for an organization’s privilege of being exempt from federal taxes. With that exemption, you have to obey federal law and, when engaged in public service, treat everyone equally (that doesn’t apply to religious worship or membership).  Also, your organization cannot publicly campaign for, endorse, or support political candidates and parties.

The idea is that religions are spiritual and charitable, and by common understanding, a benefit for society as a whole if they are kept non-partisan. Religion thus was defined as private to the person, with a social benefit of ethical and spiritual inspiration, from being “above the fray.”

If political candidates had a strong religious tradition, they assured voters that their religion was a private matter and would not interfere with their commitment to serve all the people.  In this delicate way, American democracy created a religiously pluralistic society without becoming anti-religious.

The latest proposals on “religious freedom” disturb me because they cast doubt on that subtle relationship. I am no longer sure that all religious Americans feel the obligation to respect their fellow Americans’ beliefs and practices, that they are willing to serve all without discrimination, and in their workplace and other places of service put the public welfare first.  The questions I have are mostly about conservative Christians, some of whom are Protestant evangelicals and some conservative Roman Catholics.  (Ironically, if I were in a diverse country with a majority Muslim population, I would likely be worried in the same way about some Muslims. It’s not about a specific religion but an inherent tension between a pluralistic society and particularistic beliefs and practices.)

Shadows appeared on my horizon when I realized how many evangelicals were being brought into the new administration. They include Mike Pence (VicePresident), Rick Perry (Energy), Betsy DeVos (Education), Scott Pruitt (EPA), Ben Carson (HUD), Sonny Perdue (Agriculture) and Jeffrey Sessions (Justice).  Reince Preibus (Chief of Staff) maintains an affiliation with the Greek Orthodox church that was his birth heritage, but for nearly two decades has been most active in an evangelical church. Similarly, Nikki Haley (UN Ambassador), grew up a Sikh but is now a committed Christian.  Two politically conservative Roman Catholics, Steve Bannon and Michael Flynn, are high-level advisors.

As for Congress, the Pew Research Center finds not much changed over recent years, and reports a numerical Protestant decline in the 115th Congress. But Pew also observes that the number of “unspecified” and non-denominational Protestants has risen by 10 individuals. Without a detailed breakout we can’t say for sure, but those categories usually indicate membership in a community evangelical church or megachurch and could signal a growing influence from that wing of Christianity.

Even without that issue, Congress remains heavily Christian – almost 99% of Republicans and nearly 80% of Democrats. Overall, 90% of Congress are Christian compared to 71% of the American public. Only 2% of Congress is unaffiliated or not stating a religion, yet 23% of the American public is religiously unaffiliated.  Religion is overrepresented in general, as well as Christianity in particular.  Non-Christian faiths as a proportion of Congress are nearly the same as in the general population, about 8%, though Jews outnumber the others in that category which includes Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and Unitarians.

Then there was the presidential inauguration, where we saw a display of religion like we have not seen in our lifetimes: six invocations or benedictions by clergy.  From Truman through Nixon, it was common to have 3 or 4 clergy, including usually a Protestant, a Catholic, maybe a Greek Orthodox and a Jew. That stopped with Jimmy Carter in 1977, and – except for Reagan’s second inaugural – the norm became two people only; Protestants dominated, led by Billy Graham. In George W. Bush’s inaugurals, one was African-American. Obama had the first woman and non-clergy, and the first megachurch pastor.

But this time we were presented with three clergy before and three after the inaugural address; a Protestant, a Catholic, a Jew, an African-American minister, a minister representing the Hispanic community and a non-denominational pastor who is a woman.

On the surface, what diversity!  But not really.  We are accustomed to diversity meaning skin color, ethnicity, and gender.  What about diversity of belief and practice?  Let’s look:

  • Protestant clergy #1, Franklin Graham, is head of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Organization and Samaritan’s Purse, an international Christian relief organization.
  • Protestant clergy #2, Wayne T. Jackson, is the ordained bishop of a large evangelical Pentecostal church, Great Faith Ministries International, in Detroit.
  • Protestant clergy #3, Samuel Rodriguez, is the head of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference (Evangelical) and an ordained minister of the Assemblies of God.
  • Protestant clergy #4, Paula White, is senior pastor of New Destiny Christian Center, a Pentecostal megachurch in Florida, and is a televangelist. She will head the new administration’s Evangelical Advisory Board. (Did you know there is such a board?)

All evangelicals; plus a Roman Catholic, Cardinal Dolan, and a Jew, Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Los Angeles Simon Wiesenthal Center.

The speakers performed the expected duties of praying for the president, vice-president, and government, for the unity of the nation, and for peace. Two of the evangelicals expressed a sense of the diversity of the nation – one mentioning the poor and outcast, and another the many groups that live here as one, even reminding us of “We Shall Overcome” — though he mentioned Mahalia Jackson as the singer rather than the Civil Rights movement the song came to represent.

The New Destiny representative – identified in publicity as the president’s “spiritual advisor” – gave a nationalistic invocation, asserting the blessedness of the United States in God’s eyes. The United States was a country that “You have decreed to Your people.” “In every generation You have provided the strength and power to become that blessed nation.” “‘Thy kingdom come Thy will be done,’ the psalmist declared.”

That wasn’t the psalmist. But this isn’t so much New Destiny as a reworked version of the 19th century’s Manifest Destiny.  Not to be outdone, the Reverend Franklin Graham declared that “in the Bible, rain is a sign of God’s blessing, and it started to rain, Mr. President, when you came to the platform.”

I was startled too by some dramatic invocations of Jesus. As I participate in many interfaith events, I am accustomed to prayers “in Jesus’s name.” I appreciated Rev. Samuel Rodriguez saying “respectfully, in Jesus’s name,” as though he recognized that some in the audience might pray in another idiom. I was interested that Bishop Jackson invoked Solomon and Joseph as well as Jesus as models for the president, and he used the Jewish priestly blessing, even though “in the mighty name of Jesus.”  (Members of his congregation wear tallisim, Jewish prayer shawls, and he gave a gift of a tallit to Donald Trump during the campaign.)

But I was taken aback by Pastor Paula White’s initial “We come to You… in the name of Jesus,” and ending with “Glory to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, we pray this in the name of Jesus Christ.” I was shocked by the Reverend Graham choosing to recite a passage from 1 Timothy that included, “And it pleases God our Savior, Who wants all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus who gave himself as a ransom for all people.”

I’m not sure what scenario is being written here. What does religious freedom look like to committed Christians, evangelistic in religious approach, conservative in politics?    We can easily guess on some issues, like abortion, but what else will fall under the purview of the Evangelical Advisors?  A member of this board reportedly rejoiced on election night that, for the first time in his life, he’ll now be able to share messages from God directly with the president of the United States.

That could make an interesting scene – another dramatic episode in the new reality film.

That Cunning Serpent

This post is the third of a series that began December 12th.

In my previous post, I explored some of issues around “greatness” which, as we saw, came up in the slogans of our recent elections.

Let’s be clear:  greatness isn’t evil.  Indeed, seeking greatness is natural.  In the Bible, it is embedded in the original instruction to Adam and Eve (and the fish) to be fruitful and multiply.  The word for “multiply” comes from the same Hebrew root that we often translate as “great.”  In ancient times when humans were few, becoming many, becoming “great” in number, was a key to survival.

Yet, the Bible tells us that corruption began to fill the world “when humanity began multiplying on the face of the earth” (Gen 6.1).  “Sons of gods,” probably meaning kings and nobles, began impregnating “daughters of men.”  This sounds like harems or exercising the ancient “right of the first night.” “Strong men,” “men of renown,” took over and imposed their will on others.  The “imagination of man’s heart” became “evil continually” (6:4-5).  What had happened?

The old story of the serpent gives us a clue.  Recall that the cunning serpent enticed Chava (Eve) to eat of the forbidden tree of the knowledge of good and evil by saying, “You won’t die… You will be like God, knowing good and evil.”  Then the text reports Chava’s experience. She saw “that the tree was good to eat, and that it was desirable to the eyes, and the tree was pleasant for gaining insight, and she took from its fruit and ate” (Gen 3: 4-6).

She couldn’t see anything except goodness, beauty, and clarity in that tree.  What had tempted her was the idea of greatness, of being more than she already was, “like God,” and specifically by the possibility of knowing something that, until then, was beyond her – namely evil.

The serpent was indeed cunning, because he was manipulating her ignorance. She had no idea what evil was.  To her it might as well have been called “the tree of the knowledge of good and zlwgoeinv.”  Evil, of course, was what the serpent had done – confused her by contradicting what she had been told, and claiming that God had actually hidden the truth from her.

(Today we would call it fake news.)

Adam followed her down that path, and they found themselves hiding from God, lying, and blaming others.  They discovered not greatness but shame.  God postponed the death penalty; but instead of the goodness, delight, and clarity that Chava had glimpsed in the tree, she and Adam faced lives of struggle and pain.

­­­­

In these texts, thousands of years ago, human beings already understood that lies and manipulations, the cunning of the serpent, were the source of humanity’s problems. The serpent said, “You will be like God.” Soon men would claim to be sons of gods.  Later, when Moses warned the people about claiming their wealth as “the work of my own hands,” or of kings “multiplying horses and wives for themselves,” he was referring to the same problem.

I would add one inner dimension, which we also saw in the last post:  The lies promote the idea that “I did it myself,” and pride arises instead of gratitude for all the help we have received. That is the place where we have to do the work. The awareness of our own limits, the feeling of gratitude, the knowledge that the source of success is beyond ourselves – those enable us to feel humility.  And humility is what humanizes greatness.

Greatness and Goodness

This post is the second of a series that began on December 12th

In my last post, I talked about getting beyond the trauma and distress of an unexpected and unpleasant surprise – a major disappointment – such as the election results. Specifically, rushing into action immediately may not be the best course.  After all, the fact that we were taken by surprise means that our assessment of reality wasn’t at its best; so we need to get a different perspective (see “The Forest and the Trees”).

The question that arises is not simply a strategic one (how to win the next election), but what kind of society do we want?  A lot of people weren’t happy with any candidate’s ideas for the future. There were 19 candidates altogether in the two major parties! Forty-one per cent of eligible voters didn’t vote for a president at all.  We can blame media and misinformation for some of this, but still…. What is going on?

I titled this site “Inner Dimensions” because I think one can’t solve an outward problem without also attending to its inner dimensions.  Outer action matters, but it has to be connected to the inner, invisible qualities of whatever is happening. You can throw money at a problem, but if that’s all you do, you will only get a temporary solution. You can pave the crack in the road, but if you haven’t checked what’s happening underneath, the crack may come right back again.

In a society, the inner dimensions are the values of the people, the motives that habitually spur them to action, the characteristic attitudes that shape our interactions with one another.

In an election campaign, the managers try to capture the inner will of the people with their campaign slogans.  Interestingly, both major party candidates this year had similar slogans.  One was greatness, as in “Make America great again,” and the other was strength, as in “We’re stronger together.”  Think what message is implied here: If we need to be stronger, are we weak?  If we need to be great again, does that mean we are small? Hmm…

Of course, it’s also true that Hillary Clinton’s slogan emphasized another word:  together. Donald Trump’s campaign was clearly built around a “strongman” approach (including the gender).  But the slogans captured – or amplified – a concern about American strength.  I couldn’t find a previous presidential campaign that was built on such an idea except for one that used “proud” in the slogan. Sample themes have been freedom, prosperity, peace, normalcy, compassion, as well as ideas of change, progress or improvement – but not strength or greatness as such.

Greatness or strength certainly is an American value. In the past hundred and fifty years we moved from being a curiosity for European visitors to a major military power, an exemplar of democracy, freedom, and pluralism with stability, a home to innovation and expansion in industry, science, and technology.  We are rightly proud of many features of our society and, if we are losing status in the world, we definitely would value restoring the nation to greatness.

But we also know that greatness by itself does not guarantee a good life.  Greatness and goodness do not always go together.  In fact, great power or great wealth can lead to arrogance, and that’s dangerous.

The founders of the United States of America knew the Hebrew Bible well – what they called the Old Testament. They would have been familiar with this passage, from an address by Moses to his people shortly before his death:

When your herds and flocks become great, and great amounts of silver and gold are yours, and all that you have becomes great, then your heart feels elevated…. and you say in your heart, “My power and the might of my hand made for me this wealth.”… But you must remember the Lord Your God, for it is He that gives you strength to make wealth… (Deuteronomy 8:13-18).

Actually, the word translated “wealth” here, which makes sense in the context, usually means something more like valor, courage, or audacity.  (The same word is used in the famous passage from the end of Proverbs, “Woman of Valor,” which is recited in Jewish households on Friday night in honor of the woman of the house.)  In understanding this passage, we should remember that larger meaning:  When you have achieved outer “greatness” in wealth and possessions, you may feel inwardly strong – but if you have forgotten the Source of your wealth, the passage goes on to say, “you will certainly perish.”

The Sages say that even with God, “Wherever you find greatness, you find humility.” Though God has the power to create and destroy, nevertheless God consults with others – for example with the angels in creating man, with Abraham before destroying Sodom, with Moses when He is angry with the Israelites.

If this is true with God, how much more so among human beings.  So too with nations.  Our founders understood that greatness can lead to tyranny, and that goodness requires humility, respect for others, prudence, and in matters of state, due process and the consent of the governed.

We all know some of the key phrases of our famed revolutionary document, but it’s worth reading the entire Declaration, which you can do at this link.  How have we lived their vision till today?

We want a good society, not only a great one.  To be continued.

The Forest and the Trees

We don’t often face a stunning surprise in our collective political life.  The biggest surprises in our society are usually the latest whiz-bang gadgets. Occasionally there are unpleasant surprises, like a Katrina or an epidemic – but we accept that nature has its own dynamics, usually favorable to human life but not always.  Every once in a while there’s a terrifying shock from outside like a 9-11 or 12-7 (last week was the 75th anniversary of Pearl Harbor) or, sadly, a murderer on the loose.

We don’t like bad surprises, so we have a highly developed alert system. We prophesy doom much more quickly than we process goodness, because being ready for doom can be life-saving.  We communicate intensely and profusely when we suspect something dangerous might be lurking around the corner.  But sometimes we are still caught off guard.  That’s what happened this election season.

So what do we do with unhappy surprises?  Let’s not go to life-threatening.  Just think of times in your life when you were extremely disappointed.  The trip that got canceled because your little brother got sick at the last minute.  The promised birthday gift that didn’t arrive – never arrived, because your dad had lost his job. Your fiancé suddenly broke off the engagement.  We all have our own versions, some that don’t seem important later, and others that still hurt.  Some were even life-changing.

Emotionally, we go through the manifestations of grief – denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance (not necessarily in that order). With the election, it’s like this:

Denial:  There’s something wrong with the vote count. Let’s get recounts in key states.
Anger:  Spout off about the latest outrage to your friends and on Facebook.
Bargaining:  Can we convince electors in the Electoral College to change their vote?
Depression:  Sink into apathy, and shut down talking about it.
Acceptance:  This doesn’t mean “it’s all okay,” or “we’re normalizing”; it just means that you are ready to re-set, like a car alarm that has been buzzing incessantly, till you’re finally able to turn it off and address the problem.

Now the brain kicks in, from a calmer state.  We can’t change what happened, but perhaps we can deal with some the negative effects of the unpleasant surprise. We can call this strategizing.  How can we keep this from getting worse or happening again?  We begin banding together:  Creating campaigns to write to Senators concerning Cabinet appointments, channeling donations to your party or to other organizations that can help, maybe even volunteering your own time.

But here’s where the title of this essay comes in:  the problem of the Forest and the Trees.  Strategizing is necessary but sometimes kicks in too early. Your brain will work on any problem you give it to solve.  If you aren’t clear about the goal, it will do its habitual thing, which is rework the problem that seems most up front.  You missed this vacation? Plan the next one.  Didn’t get that promotion?  Figure out how to spruce up your resume.

Politically, the equivalent is figuring out how to win the next election.  (And our brain loves it when we give it a win-lose situation to solve).

But this is where we get lost in the Trees.  Winning an election is not the goal.  Elections are a means to a goal.  The goal is a good, healthy society.  Elections are the way we choose people we want to be our representatives in deciding on policies and laws that will give us the framework for a good society. Elections are the way to plant the next bunch of Trees.

Our society – that’s the Forest.  Seeing the Forest means stepping back, looking up and around, maybe getting into a helicopter so we can see the entire area before we decide what to do next.

That’s what we mean when we say we need people with vision. 

The frustration with “Washington” is that millions of our citizens think no one has been up in that helicopter for a long time. They’re following somebody’s old map. They’re just paid to circle around. Or, they just hop in and take it on a pleasure trip. There could be fires smoldering in the forest and no one paying attention.

We the People are being called by this election to take our own look at the forest that we call American society.  It’s not okay anymore to just drive down the old lumber roads or trek the familiar paths.

Once we see the big picture, we will be able to set goals and accomplish them.  But first, we have a little trip to take.  Pack a lunch, hop in, and fasten your seat belt. More to come soon.

 

To my followers:  Sorry, I’ve been away from Inner Dimensions for two weeks as I had a conference to attend and preparation for that… thanks for asking!

The Dynamics of Hate

Recently, a friend wrote, “We can’t fight hate with hate. We can only dissolve hate with inclusiveness.” Another friend replied:  “Wishful thinking?”

Hmm. . . a good question.  Is inclusiveness enough?  Do we understand enough about hatred to respond appropriately?

When questions like this arise, my mind turns to spiritual teachings and my own Jewish tradition.  I first think of prohibitions against hate in the Hebrew Bible: “Do not hate your brother in your heart… Do not bear a grudge against the children of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19: 17-18).

Those commandments are interesting for two reasons.  First, unlike most biblical commands, they aren’t legislation against bad behavior (as we have for “hate crimes” today); they were directions about spiritual development: “in your heart.

Second, the commandments are directed at problems with people you know – “your brother,” “the children of your people,” “your neighbor.” In our current social conflicts, we tend to think of hatred by one group toward another group – antisemitism, racism, and the like.  We are told that people “learn to fear” and are “taught to hate others,” because their group is different, “other,” and therefore dangerous. So it’s interesting that, while the Bible also has many references to enemies and many universal commands, its prime directives about hatred point inside – within the family or in-group itself.

Do we have examples?  Definitely. One is Jacob’s wife Leah who was “hated” by her husband because he had been deceived by Leah’s father, Leah herself, and probably her sister Rachel (Genesis 29: 20-31).  Another is Joseph being “hated” by his brothers because he reveled in his father’s favoritism, arrogantly telling them his dreams of ruling over them (Genesis 37:4ff).  An example generalized into a law was:  if a man had two wives and “hated” one of them, but she was the first to bear him a son, he still had to give the required double inheritance to that child (Deuteronomy 21:15). That might be the first law to prevent a hate crime.

Hatred, in other words, is seeded deeply within our most intimate relationships. It generates a fierce anger that often must be repressed because it threatens the whole group.  (Joseph’s brothers stopped just short of murder.)

“Ordinary” anger is situational, and can be addressed through correcting the situation, apologizing, and better behavior. On the social plane, inclusiveness is an important part of the solution. Legislation is another.

Hatred derives from a deeper core of intimate pain. The repressed emotions it generates become a fertile field for fantasy, and at the same time need an outlet so as not to destroy the primary group (family, workplace).  The outlet is often another group to blame.  This is how hatred becomes a political tool and, because of its emotional roots, people motivated by hate are willing to believe almost anything about the groups they have identified as the culprits.

We’ve been on the cusp of an inflamed situation like this due to the rabid rhetoric of the election, particularly on the part of one candidate. This gave an opening to movements that have long been using hatred as a tool.

In this situation, inclusiveness can seem almost patronizing.  By saying, “Sorry we left you out, we’re going to be more inclusive now,” liberals unintentionally reassert their claim to power – the power to define who “we” are.  And the response might have been predictable:  “You don’t have the power anymore.” Revenge is in the air.

Political action can’t resolve the emotional roots of hatred, but can prevent terrible outcomes. I’m looking to our strong democratic institutions to tame this wave of hatred as they have before. For those institutions to work, we have to step up as democratic citizens in the best sense – aware of events, educated in the issues, and deeply committed to liberty and justice for all.

Lowest Denominator or Highest Ideals?

I listened today to a podcast conversation that took place about a month ago between two eminent journalists and commentators, David Brooks and E. J. Dionne, representing different faiths, on the relation between religion and politics.  I want to talk about one point they made.

Both sides in the recent presidential campaign were caught up in a depiction of Americans as primarily concerned about the material sides of their lives:  The economy, the cost of health care, the recession and technology that took their jobs, and also the wealth of donors, the paid lobbyists, not to mention the wealth of candidates themselves.

Brooks and Dionne posed the question, do we think so little of our citizens that we imagine all they think about is money?

What about ideals and greater goals?  What about the future we want for our children?  What about values like love and compassion, giving and receiving?  Dionne wished for a campaign to “make America empathetic again.”

Is part of our pain, anger, fear, shame, or defensiveness – pick one or more depending on where you are in the post-election spectrum – that we don’t want to show we care about higher ideals or we’ll be laughed at?  We don’t want to say we care about the folks on the other side (who sometimes are our own families, right?) lest we be rejected?

What if we could forget the statistics and the groupings just for a little while – take a break from all that?  The United States of America was built on ideals, not calculations;  if candidates are trying to target the lowest common “denominator,” they are turning us all into “numbers.”

This nation was driven by dreams, not dynasties – despite names like Adams, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Bush, Clinton, and Trump.  The dreams live in each person’s heart, not in programs and policies.

This country was built on the new (in the 18th century) idea of the individual.  Based on the biblical view of human beings as each created “in the image of God,” it promised equality to all.   Admittedly, it took a long time to extend equal rights to everyone, not just of free speech, assembly, and religion, but of owning property, owning their own labor, being allowed to vote, rights to marry and to privacy.  “Details to be worked out later” — but we still live by that bold vision.

Inherent in that notion of individuality is that each person has a soul, if you accept the spiritual terminology, or perhaps a “unique constitution,” if you’re a humanist.  When you begin to open to the inner reality of another person, says Brooks, “you see what each soul longs for.”

Jewish homiletic tradition (midrash) tells it this way:  When a person walks down the street, he is accompanied by a band of angels proclaiming, “Baruch ha-ba!  Blessed is this one coming down the street, made in the image of the Holy One!”

Everyone, without exception.

Can we translate that into our public life, our common life, after the enormous turmoil and trauma of this season?  Actually, yes, through what Dionne calls our “capacious imagination.” Expand your view.  Next time you see someone on the street, imagine him or her being accompanied by a couple of angels announcing this person’s beautiful soul.  Next time you watch someone on a video a news show, imagine a chorus of angels around them.  And watch your own reaction.  You may laugh or shudder, but also think about it.

When, on occasion, you can feel that amplified presence of the other, you may recognize something else that David Brooks identified:  “The message is the person.”  More important than speeches or arguments, good qualities are trying to find expression through that holy presence.

When we can feel those good qualities together, communities start to form. First around support, then around common needs, shared gifts, common purposes.

Dionne said something else, quoting political philosopher Michael Sandell:  “When politics goes well, we can know a good in common that we cannot know alone.”  I suspect we have more work to do before politics can go well again.  Still, we can set ourselves on a path to discover dimensions of goodness that we could not have discovered on our own.

Thanks to my friend and spiritual colleague, Dr. Connie Kaplan, for recommending this podcast to me.

When They Go Low, We Go High

A vote of thanks to First Lady Michelle Obama for her example of grace and strength, including the memorable phrase she taught her children and her country: “When they go low, we go high!”

We know what that means in social interaction and communication:  When we hear a degrading comment, we don’t respond by trying to degrade the speaker.  When people engage in name-calling, we zip our mouths or simply say, “No. That’s not appropriate.”  When we read messages and even “news” that seem to be lies, we don’t reply with alternate lies, but we investigate the truth and correct untruths when we can.

I’ve been thinking about other ways to “go high” when they go low. Continue reading When They Go Low, We Go High

%d bloggers like this: