In my earlier post about thinking errors, I mentioned several logical fallacies and attempted to give examples of how they are used in modern political rhetoric. This is important. Learning these helps us to know how to ask the right questions to hold people accountable for their assertions. For example, I've been told, "The only reason Christians oppose government assistance to the poor is because they are racist." This is a classic Argumentum ad Hominem, or attack against the person. This statement, given as a response to my assertion that perhaps we should reduce federal spending in entitlement programs, and move to a state centered solution that supports private charities, did not respond to my argument, but in a round about way, attacked me. The response to an argumentum ad hominem is not to get defensive, "I'm not a racist." This shifts the focus of the debate away from the topic at hand. The response properly is, "Ok, assuming that what you say about me is true, it has nothing to do with whether or not reducing government spending on entitlemnet and shifting the responsibility to states and private charities is a better use of our resources when it comes to helping the poor. What do you have to say about that?"
Understanding logical fallacies helps us ask the right questions.
I've decided to name a new logical fallacy. Are you ready? Yes, I know, I 'm not some great philosopher of history who has made a careful study of these things. I have, however, noticed that people will often try to win an argument with what I've decided to call the "Fallacy of Opinion." People, when asked to defend an assertion that they make, will fall back on the statement, "Well, it's just my opinion." After making this pronouncement, the person then assumes an air of invincibility, as if they have solemnly declared from the Chair of Peter an incontrovertible truth.
And, after all, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Ok. That's fine. People are entitled to their opinion. What seems to have been forgotten, however, is that opinions can be wrong.
This takes me back to when Blessed Pope John Paul II was in St. Louis. There were people who were venomously anti-Catholic passing out pamphlets and brochures on the streets outside the dome where Blessed John Paul was going to be celebrating Mass. I collected a few of these pamphlets, which were filled with assertions about what Catholics believe that were not true. I approached one of the young men passing these pamphlets. He greeted me cordially, and asked me if I would like one of his brochures. I explained to him that I already had one, had read it, and that the information that was inside of it about what Catholics believe is wrong. I pointed to 3 specific examples of statements it made about what Catholics believe, things that we really don't believe. His response, "Well, this is just our opinion."
I said, "Yes, but it's not correct. We don't really believe these things."
"Well, it's just our opinion," he said again.
"I understand that," I said, "but you are passing out misinformation. Your brochure says things that are not true."
"It's just our opinion, man." He said...again.
"Your opinion is wrong." I said, and walked away recognizing that this individual was invincibly ignorant.
Having an opinion does not shield one from questioning. The reason is because an opinion is an interpretation of something. If I have an opinion about something, what that means is that I have looked at something and formed an individual interpretation of the matter. It is possible that I am looking at the thing wrongly. It is possible that I have misinterpreted something, or missed something, or been in a bad mood. Anything can affect my opinion of something. That's why stating that something is simply my opinion is not a logical defense of an assertion.
There is also a qualitative difference between the opinions, "vanilla is better than chocolate," and "Christians hate gays." One is a matter of personal preference. The other is a statement of sweeping generalization. Ok, you like vanilla better than chocolate. That's fine. But I'm not going to let you get away with characterizing an entire group of people with a sweeping generalization without proof that it's true. People used to make sweeping generalizations like this, we called it racism and prejudice.
The response to someone, when they have finally been backed into a corner and have to punt their indefensible position by saying, "Well, it's just my opinion," or, "Well, that's just what I think," is to ask them on what they are basing their opinion. I often assume a stance of ignorance: "I just want to know what facts, or polls or any other proof your basing your opinion on, because I have a different opinion based on what I've seen, and I want to know whether what I've seen is accurate or not."
It really is ok to point out to someone that their "opinion" probably is not based on any fact or logic at all. Just because it is their "opinion" doesn't make it immune from questioning.
But then, that's just my opinion.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Monday, March 25, 2013
Thinking Errors in Modern Political Rhetoric
I've been reviewing a lot of philosophy lately. A Facebook "conversation" in which I was engaged with a Facebook friend inspired me to review the basic rules of logic. There are some fundamental logical fallacies that I've found, one of which I wrote an extensive piece on not long ago.
As I listen to modern political discourse, I hear conservatives and liberals making the exact same logical errors. The difference is in the conclusions that are drawn from the logical errors. I've decided to list some here in this blog post, with examples, so that hopefully you can identify these logical fallacies when they are used.
This is important.
This is very important.
These logical fallacies are fundamental to critical thinking. Without understanding these, we become people who accept things at face value. Not knowing them, we become sheep who simply chant the slogans of political ideologues on the right or left. Without them, we make foolish choices in our government leaders, because we have not stopped to think for ourselves about whether the content of their campaign messages have merit.
So here are some basic thinking errors:
Argumentum ad hominem: I've written about this one already, as I noted in the first paragraph. Basically, this is when someone responds to an argument with a personal attack against the person who is making the argument. When talking to liberals, I've been called a racist, a mysogynist, a homophobe, an "angry, religious, white man," and any other number of names. The conservatives are as guilty of this as the liberals. Anne Coulter has written books that insinuate that liberals are akin to terrorists. People accuse liberalism of being a "mental illness," which is a very subtle attack against the person who espouses liberal ideals. These are all personal attacks that do not address the problem. I've decided from now on that if I get into a conversation with someone, and their response is that I'm racist or anything else, I will not become defensive. That is a distraction to the point of the argument. From now on, if the response is an argumentum ad hominem, my response is going to be, "Ok, assuming that what you say about me personally is true, what does that have to do with the point I just made?"
Fallacy of False Alternatives: This one is used A LOT in modern political rhetoric. Some of the liberal uses are: "If we defund Planned Parenthood, women will not have access to needed medical care and will die." That's not true, there are multiple, multiple resources out there for women of low income to access medical care. Forcing PP to survive off of private donations will not result in the death of women due to lack of medical care. Another liberal use we hear in the gun debate today: "Allowing assault weapons will result in the deaths of many innocent people." A quick look at crime statistics will tell you that this is not the case. I've written about this before, too. The number of so-called "assault weapons" used in crimes is actually quite low. You have more of a chance to be stabbed by a kitchen butcher knife in a crime than of being shot with an "assault weapon." Conservatives use this: "Any regulation results in a socialistic style government, and goes against the intentions of our founding fathers." This is not true. The fact is that the federal government is charged in the constitution with regulating interstate and international commerce. The founding fathers saw the need for this type of regulation from the federal government. So the question is not whether there should be regulations, but what should be the scope of the regulations.
Ambiguity Fallacy: This fallacy, and its close cousin, The Fallacy of Equivocation, occurs when a word that is used is not clearly defined. The best example of this that I've come across in modern political discourse is the liberal left's cry that, "The rich should pay their fair share." There are two sets of ambiguous terms in this sentence. First, the word "rich." Who are the rich? What income level or tax bracket should be considered rich? President Obama has said on occasion that the "rich" are those making more than $250,000 per year. Of course, on other occasions, he has said that the "rich" are those who make more than $200,000 per year. Then on other occasions, he has defined it as those making more than $150,000 per year. Even the President's varying definitions demonstrate that "rich" is a highly subjective term. For example, a child whose parents bring home a collective $35,000 per year may think that a family that brings home $75,000 per year are rich. This word is too ambiguous to mean anything. Even more hard to define are the words, "fair share." What is a "fair share"? Should that be defined as an amount of money that "the rich" are allowed to keep out of their own annual income? What percentage of their annual income should they be forced to pay in order to be considered "fair"? Or should "fair share" be defined as a percentage of the total of tax revenue the government receives? For how much of the total tax revenue that goes to the government should the "rich" be responsible before it is considered to be their "fair share"? Another example is in the gun control argument, when people toss around the term "assault weapon." What is an "assault weapon"? Under Senator Feinstein's proposed legislation, the adding of a plastic pistol grip to certain guns would make that gun an "assault weapon", and therefore illegal. The fact that this very same gun is legal without the pistol grip, which is a cosmentic feature that has no effect on the functionality or lethality of the weapon, is irrelevant. Ambiguous terms are tossed around all too often.
Straw Man Argument: This occurs when someone tells you what you believe, and then proceeds to tell you why what you believe is wrong. Usually, in my experience when this happens to me, the person has no concept at all of what I actually believe. They have constructed arguments against an opponent that they have also constructed. Liberals and conservatives do this regularly. The most famous recent example is Clint Eastwood's "empty chair" speech that he gave at the Republican convention. Straw man arguments are easy to recognize. They usually begin with the words, "Well, you believe that..." or "The only reason you think that is because..."
Poisoned Well Argument: This is closely related to both the Argumentum ad Hominem and Straw Man Argument. The poisoned well argument states that there is something wrong with the source of information one uses to back up the points of an argument. This is what happens when people discount entirely a news organization, like the mainstream media, MSNBC, or FOX NEWS. If it came from MSNBC, it must be just more liberal jargon. If it came from FOX NEWS, it must be just more conservative crap. This argument does not address the issue or information, but rather states that because of the source of the information or issue, the information or issue has no merit.
"No True Scotsman" Argument: This argument, again, is closely related to others. This argument comes from the old statement, "Angus eats quiche. No true Scotsman eats quiche. Therefore, Angus (despite the fact that he is born and raised in Scotland) cannot be a true Scotsman." You set up the argument in such a way that any exception to your statement is dismissed automatically. Certain Christian denominations use this logical fallacy when they discuss their concept of salvation. "Once you have accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you have gained salvation. A true believer cannot lose salvation. Person A professed his faith, but is no longer a Christian. Therefore, Person A was never a true believer." This argument is used by people trying to desparage the Christian Conservative movement. "One of Christianity's mandates is to help the poor. The Christian Conservative movement opposes government assistance to the poor. Therefore, those who oppose government assistance to the poor are not true Christians." This argument depends on the fallacy of false alternatives. The person has stated that the only alternatives are government assistance to the poor or no assistance to the poor. The person does not recognize that there are multiple private charities who provide assistance to the poor. The person making this argument also conveniently overlooks the fact that the majority of Christian Conservatives donate more time, talent and treasure to charitable organizations privately than any other sector, and significantly more than members of the liberal left who make this argument criticizing the Christian Conservative movement. There are multiple ways to help the poor without government mandating it through the tax funded entitlement programs. This means that someone could be a true Christian and still oppose the government entitlement programs, because the person uses personal time, talent and treasure to support private charities.
Appeal to Popularity: This logical fallacy is exactly what it sounds like. In an argument, it occurs when someone states, "Well, the majority now support (proposition A). Therefore, (proposition A) should be our course of action." Whether or not the majority support a proposition or stance is irrelevant to the merit of that proposition or stance. Remember, the majority of Americans once supported slavery. This was used when Bush invaded Iraq. Public support was garnered to help justify the war in Iraq. This is also being used in the gay marriage debate. It is irrelevant whether the majority either support or reject gay marriage. The merits or demerits of allowing homosexuals to marry stand independent of public sentiment.
Lastly, the Appeal to Authority Fallacy: The person whom I mentioned at the beginning of this post told me in one of our conversations that, "If Warren Buffet, one of the richest men in America, believes the rich should pay more in taxes, I listen, and you should too." That's an appeal to authority, plain and simple. "This authoritative or famous person said it, therefore it must be true." Conservatives do this just as often with their frequent appeals to Ronald Reagan. As a conservative, I'm about to commit heresy. It is possible that Ronald Reagan was wrong. The facts and soung logic of an argument have to hold the argument together, not the arguer or the authority who first advanced the argument.
And there's the crux. There is too much rhetoric these days that is based on emotion, not on fact and sound, philosophical reasoning. It's really irritating to me. I mean really irritating. It's so irritating that I've made a personal decision not to engage in political conversations with people who demonstrate basic thinking errors in their conversations. Conservative or liberal, doesn't matter to me. At the point I realize you are just spouting the mantras of your political side, I will not talk to you about politics anymore.
In my opinion, these basic, fundamental rules of logic should be taught in schools, starting at an early age. This type of knowledge helps people be prepared to vote. This is information that can help us hold our politicians accountable for their actions and words.
Don't be a sheep. Learn to think for yourself. Learn the basic rules of logic. Then we, as a people, might be able to think our way out of the mess our politicians, held unaccountable and unquestioned, have led us into for too long.
As I listen to modern political discourse, I hear conservatives and liberals making the exact same logical errors. The difference is in the conclusions that are drawn from the logical errors. I've decided to list some here in this blog post, with examples, so that hopefully you can identify these logical fallacies when they are used.
This is important.
This is very important.
These logical fallacies are fundamental to critical thinking. Without understanding these, we become people who accept things at face value. Not knowing them, we become sheep who simply chant the slogans of political ideologues on the right or left. Without them, we make foolish choices in our government leaders, because we have not stopped to think for ourselves about whether the content of their campaign messages have merit.
So here are some basic thinking errors:
Argumentum ad hominem: I've written about this one already, as I noted in the first paragraph. Basically, this is when someone responds to an argument with a personal attack against the person who is making the argument. When talking to liberals, I've been called a racist, a mysogynist, a homophobe, an "angry, religious, white man," and any other number of names. The conservatives are as guilty of this as the liberals. Anne Coulter has written books that insinuate that liberals are akin to terrorists. People accuse liberalism of being a "mental illness," which is a very subtle attack against the person who espouses liberal ideals. These are all personal attacks that do not address the problem. I've decided from now on that if I get into a conversation with someone, and their response is that I'm racist or anything else, I will not become defensive. That is a distraction to the point of the argument. From now on, if the response is an argumentum ad hominem, my response is going to be, "Ok, assuming that what you say about me personally is true, what does that have to do with the point I just made?"
Fallacy of False Alternatives: This one is used A LOT in modern political rhetoric. Some of the liberal uses are: "If we defund Planned Parenthood, women will not have access to needed medical care and will die." That's not true, there are multiple, multiple resources out there for women of low income to access medical care. Forcing PP to survive off of private donations will not result in the death of women due to lack of medical care. Another liberal use we hear in the gun debate today: "Allowing assault weapons will result in the deaths of many innocent people." A quick look at crime statistics will tell you that this is not the case. I've written about this before, too. The number of so-called "assault weapons" used in crimes is actually quite low. You have more of a chance to be stabbed by a kitchen butcher knife in a crime than of being shot with an "assault weapon." Conservatives use this: "Any regulation results in a socialistic style government, and goes against the intentions of our founding fathers." This is not true. The fact is that the federal government is charged in the constitution with regulating interstate and international commerce. The founding fathers saw the need for this type of regulation from the federal government. So the question is not whether there should be regulations, but what should be the scope of the regulations.
Ambiguity Fallacy: This fallacy, and its close cousin, The Fallacy of Equivocation, occurs when a word that is used is not clearly defined. The best example of this that I've come across in modern political discourse is the liberal left's cry that, "The rich should pay their fair share." There are two sets of ambiguous terms in this sentence. First, the word "rich." Who are the rich? What income level or tax bracket should be considered rich? President Obama has said on occasion that the "rich" are those making more than $250,000 per year. Of course, on other occasions, he has said that the "rich" are those who make more than $200,000 per year. Then on other occasions, he has defined it as those making more than $150,000 per year. Even the President's varying definitions demonstrate that "rich" is a highly subjective term. For example, a child whose parents bring home a collective $35,000 per year may think that a family that brings home $75,000 per year are rich. This word is too ambiguous to mean anything. Even more hard to define are the words, "fair share." What is a "fair share"? Should that be defined as an amount of money that "the rich" are allowed to keep out of their own annual income? What percentage of their annual income should they be forced to pay in order to be considered "fair"? Or should "fair share" be defined as a percentage of the total of tax revenue the government receives? For how much of the total tax revenue that goes to the government should the "rich" be responsible before it is considered to be their "fair share"? Another example is in the gun control argument, when people toss around the term "assault weapon." What is an "assault weapon"? Under Senator Feinstein's proposed legislation, the adding of a plastic pistol grip to certain guns would make that gun an "assault weapon", and therefore illegal. The fact that this very same gun is legal without the pistol grip, which is a cosmentic feature that has no effect on the functionality or lethality of the weapon, is irrelevant. Ambiguous terms are tossed around all too often.
Straw Man Argument: This occurs when someone tells you what you believe, and then proceeds to tell you why what you believe is wrong. Usually, in my experience when this happens to me, the person has no concept at all of what I actually believe. They have constructed arguments against an opponent that they have also constructed. Liberals and conservatives do this regularly. The most famous recent example is Clint Eastwood's "empty chair" speech that he gave at the Republican convention. Straw man arguments are easy to recognize. They usually begin with the words, "Well, you believe that..." or "The only reason you think that is because..."
Poisoned Well Argument: This is closely related to both the Argumentum ad Hominem and Straw Man Argument. The poisoned well argument states that there is something wrong with the source of information one uses to back up the points of an argument. This is what happens when people discount entirely a news organization, like the mainstream media, MSNBC, or FOX NEWS. If it came from MSNBC, it must be just more liberal jargon. If it came from FOX NEWS, it must be just more conservative crap. This argument does not address the issue or information, but rather states that because of the source of the information or issue, the information or issue has no merit.
"No True Scotsman" Argument: This argument, again, is closely related to others. This argument comes from the old statement, "Angus eats quiche. No true Scotsman eats quiche. Therefore, Angus (despite the fact that he is born and raised in Scotland) cannot be a true Scotsman." You set up the argument in such a way that any exception to your statement is dismissed automatically. Certain Christian denominations use this logical fallacy when they discuss their concept of salvation. "Once you have accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you have gained salvation. A true believer cannot lose salvation. Person A professed his faith, but is no longer a Christian. Therefore, Person A was never a true believer." This argument is used by people trying to desparage the Christian Conservative movement. "One of Christianity's mandates is to help the poor. The Christian Conservative movement opposes government assistance to the poor. Therefore, those who oppose government assistance to the poor are not true Christians." This argument depends on the fallacy of false alternatives. The person has stated that the only alternatives are government assistance to the poor or no assistance to the poor. The person does not recognize that there are multiple private charities who provide assistance to the poor. The person making this argument also conveniently overlooks the fact that the majority of Christian Conservatives donate more time, talent and treasure to charitable organizations privately than any other sector, and significantly more than members of the liberal left who make this argument criticizing the Christian Conservative movement. There are multiple ways to help the poor without government mandating it through the tax funded entitlement programs. This means that someone could be a true Christian and still oppose the government entitlement programs, because the person uses personal time, talent and treasure to support private charities.
Appeal to Popularity: This logical fallacy is exactly what it sounds like. In an argument, it occurs when someone states, "Well, the majority now support (proposition A). Therefore, (proposition A) should be our course of action." Whether or not the majority support a proposition or stance is irrelevant to the merit of that proposition or stance. Remember, the majority of Americans once supported slavery. This was used when Bush invaded Iraq. Public support was garnered to help justify the war in Iraq. This is also being used in the gay marriage debate. It is irrelevant whether the majority either support or reject gay marriage. The merits or demerits of allowing homosexuals to marry stand independent of public sentiment.
Lastly, the Appeal to Authority Fallacy: The person whom I mentioned at the beginning of this post told me in one of our conversations that, "If Warren Buffet, one of the richest men in America, believes the rich should pay more in taxes, I listen, and you should too." That's an appeal to authority, plain and simple. "This authoritative or famous person said it, therefore it must be true." Conservatives do this just as often with their frequent appeals to Ronald Reagan. As a conservative, I'm about to commit heresy. It is possible that Ronald Reagan was wrong. The facts and soung logic of an argument have to hold the argument together, not the arguer or the authority who first advanced the argument.
And there's the crux. There is too much rhetoric these days that is based on emotion, not on fact and sound, philosophical reasoning. It's really irritating to me. I mean really irritating. It's so irritating that I've made a personal decision not to engage in political conversations with people who demonstrate basic thinking errors in their conversations. Conservative or liberal, doesn't matter to me. At the point I realize you are just spouting the mantras of your political side, I will not talk to you about politics anymore.
In my opinion, these basic, fundamental rules of logic should be taught in schools, starting at an early age. This type of knowledge helps people be prepared to vote. This is information that can help us hold our politicians accountable for their actions and words.
Don't be a sheep. Learn to think for yourself. Learn the basic rules of logic. Then we, as a people, might be able to think our way out of the mess our politicians, held unaccountable and unquestioned, have led us into for too long.
Saturday, March 09, 2013
Thoughts on My Work in the Prison
I’ve been at the prison working for over a month now. As a
good friend put it when I said it was interesting work, “Interesting, a word that
condemns with subtle praise.”
It is interesting though. I have about 81 guys with varying degrees of mental illness on my caseload. The system has 5 classifications of what they call Mental Health scores. MH-1 are those guys with no history of needing any mental health intervention other than an occasional visit with a therapist due to circumstantial situations. MH-2 means that at some point in the person’s history, he has been on mental health medication or had more involved mental health interventions. MH-3 means that the person is currently involved in the mental health programs, taking psychotropic medications and/or seeing a therapist, but the person is probably pretty stable at this point. MH-4 means the person is actively psychotic, or perhaps in an active episode of depression or a bipolar manic phase, or otherwise engaged in a serious, debilitating mental health episode. MH-5 means the person has completely lost touch with reality to the point where he is a danger to himself or to others
We have only one MH-5 in our prison. Most MH-5 individuals will be found in the state hospital. The one gentleman who is an MH-5 level inmate is in a special “Secure Social Rehabilitation Unit,” or SSRU, which is a separate program than the normal mental health programs we run. The SSRU has a large number of MH-4 level offenders, and the purpose of the SSRU is to teach basic living skills like hygiene and communication techniques to the inmates there. The SSRU is trying to get the inmates functional enough to be able to live within the normal population of the prison. I’m not involved in the SSRU.
Also, within the prison system, there is a special unit called the Enhanced Care Unit (ECU). You can think of it as the nursing home for the prison. These are offenders who have gotten old, whose health is failing, and who need special assistance in activities of daily living, i.e. mobility (confined to wheelchair), or need specialized medical equipment like oxygen tanks. This unit is full of elderly men, most of whom are barely mobile. I’ve been asked to work within this unit with these men, in addition to the 81 guys on my normal caseload. The ECU raises interesting moral questions for me about the nature of our justice system. The men in this unit would probably be confined to a nursing home if they were not in prison, or perhaps be living with a family member because their medical needs would keep them from being active in society. I philosophically believe that the purpose of prison is to protect society against those who would violate the rights of others. The men in the ECU have committed heinous crimes. Some of them committed their crimes at a young age, and have been in prison 30, 40 or maybe even 50 years. Some of them committed their crimes at an older age. I’m currently working with a guy in the ECU who did not go to prison until he was 57 years old. These men pose no threat to society at this time. Why do we keep them incarcerated? There is a fine line between justice and revenge.
The majority of my normal caseload is MH-3 level inmates. There are those on my caseload who have legitimate mental health needs. There are also those on my caseload who have figured out that in prison, drugs are currency. These men claim to have mental health problems, and have spoken loud enough and long enough that they have gotten to see a doctor. They are now being prescribed medications, which they “cheek.” This means when they present to take their medications, they will put the pills in their mouth, but not swallow them. When they leave the medication area, they spit them out and store them to sell to other inmates. The problem is, a fairly intelligent individual with a little time on his hands could study mental illness enough to be able to say the right things to get a diagnosis. In prison, you have a community of some highly intelligent individuals with a lot of time on their hands. They figure out quickly how to work the system. But, as Mad Eye Moody said when discussing the Imperius Curse, “How do you sort out the liars?”
There is a gut feeling I get when I think someone is lying about their mental health condition. The litigious nature of medical care and the litigious nature of inmates in prison (a lot of time on their hands with nothing to do but sue people), however, conspire together to make us at times more interested in covering ourselves from liability than challenging criminal behavior. If someone isn’t lying, but my gut feeling says he is, I can set myself up for an awful lot of trouble.
The other piece of this is a lesson I actually learned from Nathaniel. Nathaniel has a distinct advantage over me when he and I go toe-to-toe on something. He’s not afraid that he’s going to get hurt. This is the same advantage that inmates in the prison have over us. They’re not afraid of hurting or even killing themselves to make a point. If someone claims he is suicidal for secondary gain (claiming to be suicidal, not because he actually is, but because he wants something else), and we know this, we will not call his bluff. The reason is because most inmates are not afraid of hurting themselves to prove us wrong. In other words, if someone claims to be suicidal for secondary gain, and I call his bluff and send him back to his cell, he will break his own arm or fall backwards off his sink causing a possible head injury or tie his sheet around his neck and secure the other end to cut off his oxygen, just to show me that he’s willing to go further to get his perceived need met than I am to address his criminal behavior.
Then you have the guys who legitimately are suicidal. They’ve lost hope. They’ve lost purpose. They don’t care anymore. So we treat all these criminals as if they are telling the truth, because some of them are.
In JCCC, there’s another classification according to housing unit. Houses 1-5 are what are known as the General Population houses (GP). These houses are divided sort of…more or less…according to the level of threat the inmates pose in terms of becoming violent. For example, the ECU that I discussed above is in Housing Unit (HU) 1. These guys aren’t young enough, spry enough, or healthy enough to become violent. It sort of goes up from there. HU 5 is the exception, which contains the Intensive Therapeutic Community (ITC) program. Wow. Different world from the rest of the prison. These guys are intense about challenging each other to become better people. I can tell the difference within the first 5 minutes of talking with an inmate whether he has been through the ITC program or not. I would trust an ITC graduate to babysit my kids. Well, some of them. The drug addicts and murderers I would, but probably not the child molesters.
HU 6, 7 and 8 are what are known as the “adseg” units. That’s Administrative Segregation. These guys are violent. They’ve gotten a bunch of minor conduct violations or have gotten a major violation and are now segregated. This is “the hole.” HU 6 are the guys who are getting ready to get back into GP. They’ve gotten most of their privileges back, and have gone a significant amount of time without further violations. HU 7 are the hard cases in adseg. They have no privileges. They are in their cells 23 and a half hours of the day, most with a cell mate, with no TV, no radio, nothing but a pen and a piece of paper a day to keep themselves occupied. They eat, sleep, exercise, and do everything else in their cell. HU 8 are those guys who are such a danger that they can’t even have a cell mate. They are completely isolated because they will hurt whoever they are around.
Two-thirds of my 81 guys on my caseload are in HU 6, 7 and 8. That’s where I spend the majority of my work week. Good times. Yeah.
What makes it worth it? I go back to what I wrote in a previous blog. The relationship is the key. Being present in the life of someone who has been so wounded that lying and manipulation is first nature to the person can be difficult at days. In that rare moment when someone realizes that there are other ways to go about life, I see the value of my work. I was reminded this week while working with 2 gentlemen who were sentenced to multiple life terms without possibility of parole of how important hope is. These 2 men know they will die within the gray concrete walls of the prison. They have both lost hope. They both asked me the question, “What was the purpose of my life?” Notice they said, “was”, not “is.” They referred to themselves in the past tense. They had lost sight of any bigger hand or greater plan beyond the gray walls of “the camp.” It was sad, sad, sad to be in the room with them. Helping them develop a sense of hope and a sense of purpose is an intimidating thought to me.
I believe, though, that’s the very purpose of this “therapeutic” relationship. That’s where the challenge and the reward come. I believe that’s the mud into which Jesus wants me to wade. I believe in hope. I believe in purpose, even within the gray walls of JCCC. I believe in these men.
It is interesting though. I have about 81 guys with varying degrees of mental illness on my caseload. The system has 5 classifications of what they call Mental Health scores. MH-1 are those guys with no history of needing any mental health intervention other than an occasional visit with a therapist due to circumstantial situations. MH-2 means that at some point in the person’s history, he has been on mental health medication or had more involved mental health interventions. MH-3 means that the person is currently involved in the mental health programs, taking psychotropic medications and/or seeing a therapist, but the person is probably pretty stable at this point. MH-4 means the person is actively psychotic, or perhaps in an active episode of depression or a bipolar manic phase, or otherwise engaged in a serious, debilitating mental health episode. MH-5 means the person has completely lost touch with reality to the point where he is a danger to himself or to others
We have only one MH-5 in our prison. Most MH-5 individuals will be found in the state hospital. The one gentleman who is an MH-5 level inmate is in a special “Secure Social Rehabilitation Unit,” or SSRU, which is a separate program than the normal mental health programs we run. The SSRU has a large number of MH-4 level offenders, and the purpose of the SSRU is to teach basic living skills like hygiene and communication techniques to the inmates there. The SSRU is trying to get the inmates functional enough to be able to live within the normal population of the prison. I’m not involved in the SSRU.
Also, within the prison system, there is a special unit called the Enhanced Care Unit (ECU). You can think of it as the nursing home for the prison. These are offenders who have gotten old, whose health is failing, and who need special assistance in activities of daily living, i.e. mobility (confined to wheelchair), or need specialized medical equipment like oxygen tanks. This unit is full of elderly men, most of whom are barely mobile. I’ve been asked to work within this unit with these men, in addition to the 81 guys on my normal caseload. The ECU raises interesting moral questions for me about the nature of our justice system. The men in this unit would probably be confined to a nursing home if they were not in prison, or perhaps be living with a family member because their medical needs would keep them from being active in society. I philosophically believe that the purpose of prison is to protect society against those who would violate the rights of others. The men in the ECU have committed heinous crimes. Some of them committed their crimes at a young age, and have been in prison 30, 40 or maybe even 50 years. Some of them committed their crimes at an older age. I’m currently working with a guy in the ECU who did not go to prison until he was 57 years old. These men pose no threat to society at this time. Why do we keep them incarcerated? There is a fine line between justice and revenge.
The majority of my normal caseload is MH-3 level inmates. There are those on my caseload who have legitimate mental health needs. There are also those on my caseload who have figured out that in prison, drugs are currency. These men claim to have mental health problems, and have spoken loud enough and long enough that they have gotten to see a doctor. They are now being prescribed medications, which they “cheek.” This means when they present to take their medications, they will put the pills in their mouth, but not swallow them. When they leave the medication area, they spit them out and store them to sell to other inmates. The problem is, a fairly intelligent individual with a little time on his hands could study mental illness enough to be able to say the right things to get a diagnosis. In prison, you have a community of some highly intelligent individuals with a lot of time on their hands. They figure out quickly how to work the system. But, as Mad Eye Moody said when discussing the Imperius Curse, “How do you sort out the liars?”
There is a gut feeling I get when I think someone is lying about their mental health condition. The litigious nature of medical care and the litigious nature of inmates in prison (a lot of time on their hands with nothing to do but sue people), however, conspire together to make us at times more interested in covering ourselves from liability than challenging criminal behavior. If someone isn’t lying, but my gut feeling says he is, I can set myself up for an awful lot of trouble.
The other piece of this is a lesson I actually learned from Nathaniel. Nathaniel has a distinct advantage over me when he and I go toe-to-toe on something. He’s not afraid that he’s going to get hurt. This is the same advantage that inmates in the prison have over us. They’re not afraid of hurting or even killing themselves to make a point. If someone claims he is suicidal for secondary gain (claiming to be suicidal, not because he actually is, but because he wants something else), and we know this, we will not call his bluff. The reason is because most inmates are not afraid of hurting themselves to prove us wrong. In other words, if someone claims to be suicidal for secondary gain, and I call his bluff and send him back to his cell, he will break his own arm or fall backwards off his sink causing a possible head injury or tie his sheet around his neck and secure the other end to cut off his oxygen, just to show me that he’s willing to go further to get his perceived need met than I am to address his criminal behavior.
Then you have the guys who legitimately are suicidal. They’ve lost hope. They’ve lost purpose. They don’t care anymore. So we treat all these criminals as if they are telling the truth, because some of them are.
In JCCC, there’s another classification according to housing unit. Houses 1-5 are what are known as the General Population houses (GP). These houses are divided sort of…more or less…according to the level of threat the inmates pose in terms of becoming violent. For example, the ECU that I discussed above is in Housing Unit (HU) 1. These guys aren’t young enough, spry enough, or healthy enough to become violent. It sort of goes up from there. HU 5 is the exception, which contains the Intensive Therapeutic Community (ITC) program. Wow. Different world from the rest of the prison. These guys are intense about challenging each other to become better people. I can tell the difference within the first 5 minutes of talking with an inmate whether he has been through the ITC program or not. I would trust an ITC graduate to babysit my kids. Well, some of them. The drug addicts and murderers I would, but probably not the child molesters.
HU 6, 7 and 8 are what are known as the “adseg” units. That’s Administrative Segregation. These guys are violent. They’ve gotten a bunch of minor conduct violations or have gotten a major violation and are now segregated. This is “the hole.” HU 6 are the guys who are getting ready to get back into GP. They’ve gotten most of their privileges back, and have gone a significant amount of time without further violations. HU 7 are the hard cases in adseg. They have no privileges. They are in their cells 23 and a half hours of the day, most with a cell mate, with no TV, no radio, nothing but a pen and a piece of paper a day to keep themselves occupied. They eat, sleep, exercise, and do everything else in their cell. HU 8 are those guys who are such a danger that they can’t even have a cell mate. They are completely isolated because they will hurt whoever they are around.
Two-thirds of my 81 guys on my caseload are in HU 6, 7 and 8. That’s where I spend the majority of my work week. Good times. Yeah.
What makes it worth it? I go back to what I wrote in a previous blog. The relationship is the key. Being present in the life of someone who has been so wounded that lying and manipulation is first nature to the person can be difficult at days. In that rare moment when someone realizes that there are other ways to go about life, I see the value of my work. I was reminded this week while working with 2 gentlemen who were sentenced to multiple life terms without possibility of parole of how important hope is. These 2 men know they will die within the gray concrete walls of the prison. They have both lost hope. They both asked me the question, “What was the purpose of my life?” Notice they said, “was”, not “is.” They referred to themselves in the past tense. They had lost sight of any bigger hand or greater plan beyond the gray walls of “the camp.” It was sad, sad, sad to be in the room with them. Helping them develop a sense of hope and a sense of purpose is an intimidating thought to me.
I believe, though, that’s the very purpose of this “therapeutic” relationship. That’s where the challenge and the reward come. I believe that’s the mud into which Jesus wants me to wade. I believe in hope. I believe in purpose, even within the gray walls of JCCC. I believe in these men.
Yes, I believe even these men, who have done horrible things,
have inherent dignity and purpose. These men have done horrible things, but I
believe that God’s image is within them. Faith is the conviction of the reality
of that for which we hope, and the belief in the reality of those things we
cannot see (Hebrews 11:1). I guess I
have faith in God’s image in these men.
I believe that even these men can become the beautiful
creatures God intended all humanity to be.
I believe in God.
So I believe in Man.
So I believe in these in these men.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
This Joyful Season: Part 1
I can't remember what prayer it is during the season of Lent, but one of the prayers at some point (might have been out of a daily mass collect) refers to "this joyful season of Lent." I remember hearing that "for the first time." I put that in quotes becaus the fact is, I'd probably heard it dozens of times throughout my life, but this was the first time I HEARD it.
It struck me as so weird.
I mean, I had always thought of Lent as a season of repentence, sorrow for our sins, a time when we should be experience discomfort in our practices of penance, fasting, extra prayer, and sacrificial almsgiving. I had never thought of Lent as a season of joy. But it makes sense, really.
As St. Augustine so eloquently put it, "Our hearts are restless until they rest in thee, oh Lord." God is our one true source of happiness, peace, joy. We cannot experience these things apart from Him. So it makes sense that the season of Lent should be a season of joy. What are these practices of fasting, prayer, and almsgiving, if not practices that are meant to rid ourselves of everything that separates us from the Lord?
I know that I have too often thought of these things as punishments. I deserve to be punished for the sins I have committed, and so I fast, spend extra time in prayer, and sacrificially give alms as a way "to make up for the sins I've committed."
The fundamental truth is this: we cannot make up for the sins we've committed. Sin separates us from God, from each other, and from creation. We do not have the power within ourselves to bridge that separation, to heal that wound. No matter how severe our fast, no matter how much time we spend in prayer or how calloused our knees become, no matter how much we give to another, we cannot make up for our own sins.
The fundamental truth is also this: "while we were still sinners Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). We do not have to make up for our sins because Jesus did. Jesus bridged that gap; Jesus healed our wounds. So the practices of Lent are not acts for me to perform so that I somehow make myself righteous through my own works. The practices of Lent are acts that rid me of those things that keep Jesus from acting in my life. When I rid myself of those things so that I can be more open to Jesus, I experience true joy.
The practices of Lent are not to rid my life of all the things that make me happy. The practices of Lent are to rid my life of things that keep me from being truly happy in Jesus.
Through Lent, I'm going to be posting some practical applications for fasting, prayer, and almsgiving. How can these practices improve our lives as followers of Jesus? How can these practices fill us with joy during this season of Lent? Before Lent begins this coming Wednesday, I want to focus on how prayer, fasting and alsmgiving can help us heal one of the primary wounds that causes us pain: forgiveness of others and letting go of resentments.
Forgiveness of one another is a foundation to the bridge that Jesus built over the gap that separates us from our God, and thus from our own happiness. It is so important, that it made its way into the prayer the Lord taught us, "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors" (Matthew 6:12). It is so important, as a matter of fact, that it is the only line in this prayer our Lord taught us that he thought bore commentary: "If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions" (Matthew 6:14, 15).
There is an ancient Buddhist saying that I love: "Holding on to anger is like holding on to a hot coal in order to throw it at someone else. You are the one who gets burned." Who in your life do you need to forgive? The anger and resentment that we hold makes us miserable, but ultimately has little if any effect on the person against whom you hold it.
So how does fasting come into play here? There is a story I like that comes out of the Native American traditions. A grandfather explained to his grandson that inside each of us are two wolves. One wolf carries happiness, peace, serenity, tranquility, joy, and love with him. The other wolf carries hatred, anger, bitterness, resentment, and sorrow. These two wolves, explains the grandfather, are constantly at war with each other, fighting to overcome us. The grandson asks his grandfather, "Which one wins?" The grandfather responds, "The one that you feed." Perhaps fasting this Lent doesn't mean giving up food or drink or TV or radio or music. Perhaps fasting means giving up gossip, slander, or maybe it means watching and giving up your own thoughts of anger and resentment. Perhaps, if you hold anger and bitterness toward someone, fasting means that you stop feeding that anger and bitterness with the things that keep it alive. This may mean giving up a person entirely. If everytime you come into even virtual contact with someone, you feel anger and resentment toward that person, maybe it is better for you to stay away from that person all-together. Fasting from those things that feed our anger and resentment will help us forgive over time.
Praying comes into play to move us toward forgiveness. The 12 Step recovery community has an interesting approach to this. Knowing that resentment and anger can lead to relapse, the recovery community also knows that forgiveness is important to maintain recovery. A person in recovery is encouraged to pray for those whom he or she needs to forgive. What if, though, you don't want to forgive the person? This question comes up in the 12 Step recovery literature. The answer is simple: don't pray that you will forgive the person, but pray that your Higher Power will help you develop the willingness to forgive the person. Perhaps if there is a resentment that you or I hold and nurture, and we are not willing to give it up, then we should pray for the willingness to let go of the wrong that person has done us.
Connecting this to our liturgical prayer, we should make a special effort to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation during Lent. Perhaps this year, in confession, we should confess any resentments which we have held against people. Acknowledge the difficulty we have had forgiving others, and ask for forgiveness for that in this sacred moment of confession. How often do we ask forgiveness for our own inability to forgive others? Yet, Jesus thought it so important to forgive others that he included it in the prayer he taught us and commented on it afterward.
Almsgiving plays a role in forgiveness, too. Perhaps this year, instead of increasing our donations to Church or to some charitable cause, almsgiving means giving someone the benefit of the doubt. Jesus spoke directly to this, "“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna. Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift" (Matthew 5:21-24).
Is conversion possible? Is it possible for a person to recognize that he or she has done wrong, agregious wrong in the past, and change? I hope so. Maybe this year, our almsgiving means giving someone the benefit of the doubt. Maybe this year, almsgiving means being generous enough to give someone the opportunity to show that he or she is different now than he or she used to be. This doesn't mean we have to be buddy-buddy with someone that has hurt us. This doesn't mean we ever have to be friends with someone who has broken our trust. Forgiveness ultimately is not about the other person at all, even if the other person hasn't changed. Forgiveness doesn't mean that I allow someone who has hurt me in the past to hurt me again. Forgiveness means that, while I may never speak to a person who has hurt me again, I don't have to carry around the anger or resentment over the hurt that person caused me. Forgiveness doesn't mean I set the other person free from the wrong he or she has done. It means I am free from the wrong that person has done. Can you be that generous to yourself? Can you give yourself the alms of letting go of hurts that others have caused you?
Perhaps our almsgiving will take the form of live and let live. Let us all seriously ask ourselves this question: Can I be generous enough to let those who have wronged me get on with their lives without my brooding over the wrong that they have committed against me? Can I give that alms this Lent to those that have hurt me, and more importantly, to myself?
Using prayer, fasting and almsgiving to bring us to forgiveness of those who have wronged us makes us free of the chains that bind us. Using these Lenten practices this way can free us from the anger and resentment that keeps us from experiencing the true joy that Jesus has in store for us.
This Lent, let us use prayer, fasting and almsgiving to free us toward JOY in union with the Lord.
It struck me as so weird.
I mean, I had always thought of Lent as a season of repentence, sorrow for our sins, a time when we should be experience discomfort in our practices of penance, fasting, extra prayer, and sacrificial almsgiving. I had never thought of Lent as a season of joy. But it makes sense, really.
As St. Augustine so eloquently put it, "Our hearts are restless until they rest in thee, oh Lord." God is our one true source of happiness, peace, joy. We cannot experience these things apart from Him. So it makes sense that the season of Lent should be a season of joy. What are these practices of fasting, prayer, and almsgiving, if not practices that are meant to rid ourselves of everything that separates us from the Lord?
I know that I have too often thought of these things as punishments. I deserve to be punished for the sins I have committed, and so I fast, spend extra time in prayer, and sacrificially give alms as a way "to make up for the sins I've committed."
The fundamental truth is this: we cannot make up for the sins we've committed. Sin separates us from God, from each other, and from creation. We do not have the power within ourselves to bridge that separation, to heal that wound. No matter how severe our fast, no matter how much time we spend in prayer or how calloused our knees become, no matter how much we give to another, we cannot make up for our own sins.
The fundamental truth is also this: "while we were still sinners Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). We do not have to make up for our sins because Jesus did. Jesus bridged that gap; Jesus healed our wounds. So the practices of Lent are not acts for me to perform so that I somehow make myself righteous through my own works. The practices of Lent are acts that rid me of those things that keep Jesus from acting in my life. When I rid myself of those things so that I can be more open to Jesus, I experience true joy.
The practices of Lent are not to rid my life of all the things that make me happy. The practices of Lent are to rid my life of things that keep me from being truly happy in Jesus.
Through Lent, I'm going to be posting some practical applications for fasting, prayer, and almsgiving. How can these practices improve our lives as followers of Jesus? How can these practices fill us with joy during this season of Lent? Before Lent begins this coming Wednesday, I want to focus on how prayer, fasting and alsmgiving can help us heal one of the primary wounds that causes us pain: forgiveness of others and letting go of resentments.
Forgiveness of one another is a foundation to the bridge that Jesus built over the gap that separates us from our God, and thus from our own happiness. It is so important, that it made its way into the prayer the Lord taught us, "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors" (Matthew 6:12). It is so important, as a matter of fact, that it is the only line in this prayer our Lord taught us that he thought bore commentary: "If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions" (Matthew 6:14, 15).
There is an ancient Buddhist saying that I love: "Holding on to anger is like holding on to a hot coal in order to throw it at someone else. You are the one who gets burned." Who in your life do you need to forgive? The anger and resentment that we hold makes us miserable, but ultimately has little if any effect on the person against whom you hold it.
So how does fasting come into play here? There is a story I like that comes out of the Native American traditions. A grandfather explained to his grandson that inside each of us are two wolves. One wolf carries happiness, peace, serenity, tranquility, joy, and love with him. The other wolf carries hatred, anger, bitterness, resentment, and sorrow. These two wolves, explains the grandfather, are constantly at war with each other, fighting to overcome us. The grandson asks his grandfather, "Which one wins?" The grandfather responds, "The one that you feed." Perhaps fasting this Lent doesn't mean giving up food or drink or TV or radio or music. Perhaps fasting means giving up gossip, slander, or maybe it means watching and giving up your own thoughts of anger and resentment. Perhaps, if you hold anger and bitterness toward someone, fasting means that you stop feeding that anger and bitterness with the things that keep it alive. This may mean giving up a person entirely. If everytime you come into even virtual contact with someone, you feel anger and resentment toward that person, maybe it is better for you to stay away from that person all-together. Fasting from those things that feed our anger and resentment will help us forgive over time.
Praying comes into play to move us toward forgiveness. The 12 Step recovery community has an interesting approach to this. Knowing that resentment and anger can lead to relapse, the recovery community also knows that forgiveness is important to maintain recovery. A person in recovery is encouraged to pray for those whom he or she needs to forgive. What if, though, you don't want to forgive the person? This question comes up in the 12 Step recovery literature. The answer is simple: don't pray that you will forgive the person, but pray that your Higher Power will help you develop the willingness to forgive the person. Perhaps if there is a resentment that you or I hold and nurture, and we are not willing to give it up, then we should pray for the willingness to let go of the wrong that person has done us.
Connecting this to our liturgical prayer, we should make a special effort to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation during Lent. Perhaps this year, in confession, we should confess any resentments which we have held against people. Acknowledge the difficulty we have had forgiving others, and ask for forgiveness for that in this sacred moment of confession. How often do we ask forgiveness for our own inability to forgive others? Yet, Jesus thought it so important to forgive others that he included it in the prayer he taught us and commented on it afterward.
Almsgiving plays a role in forgiveness, too. Perhaps this year, instead of increasing our donations to Church or to some charitable cause, almsgiving means giving someone the benefit of the doubt. Jesus spoke directly to this, "“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna. Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift" (Matthew 5:21-24).
Is conversion possible? Is it possible for a person to recognize that he or she has done wrong, agregious wrong in the past, and change? I hope so. Maybe this year, our almsgiving means giving someone the benefit of the doubt. Maybe this year, almsgiving means being generous enough to give someone the opportunity to show that he or she is different now than he or she used to be. This doesn't mean we have to be buddy-buddy with someone that has hurt us. This doesn't mean we ever have to be friends with someone who has broken our trust. Forgiveness ultimately is not about the other person at all, even if the other person hasn't changed. Forgiveness doesn't mean that I allow someone who has hurt me in the past to hurt me again. Forgiveness means that, while I may never speak to a person who has hurt me again, I don't have to carry around the anger or resentment over the hurt that person caused me. Forgiveness doesn't mean I set the other person free from the wrong he or she has done. It means I am free from the wrong that person has done. Can you be that generous to yourself? Can you give yourself the alms of letting go of hurts that others have caused you?
Perhaps our almsgiving will take the form of live and let live. Let us all seriously ask ourselves this question: Can I be generous enough to let those who have wronged me get on with their lives without my brooding over the wrong that they have committed against me? Can I give that alms this Lent to those that have hurt me, and more importantly, to myself?
Using prayer, fasting and almsgiving to bring us to forgiveness of those who have wronged us makes us free of the chains that bind us. Using these Lenten practices this way can free us from the anger and resentment that keeps us from experiencing the true joy that Jesus has in store for us.
This Lent, let us use prayer, fasting and almsgiving to free us toward JOY in union with the Lord.
Wednesday, February 06, 2013
It Is Not Good For Man To Be Alone
This isn't going to be some religious post, or reflection on the creation story in Genesis. This is more of a personal reflection on why I was so miserable while I was working from home on policies and procedures.
Let me start at the prison, though.
I recently started working at Jefferson City Correctional Center, the maximum security prison in Jefferson City, MO. It's really frustrating right now. I've spent two days there, and have not been able really to get started because I don't yet have access to the state computer system or documentation system to review records and create therapy notes. So right now I'm spending a lot of time sitting around, twittling my thumbs, and wondering when something interesting is going to happen.
Tonight is one of those sleepless nights that I have every couple of weeks. Just can't seem to sleep. I was laying in bed thinking about how frustrating it is, when I realized the reason I'm frustrated right now is the same reason I was so miserable when I was working from home on the policies and procedures. I crave the therapeutic relationship that exists when I engage with people who are hurting. In every altruistic offer, there is a hint of selfishness. It is part of our fallen nature. Would Blessed Theresa of Calcutta have been who she was if she didn't believe she could get to heaven? Maybe eventually we overcome that and do the work of God out of pure love, with no thought of reward. That's not where I am.
I have always wanted to help people. I have also felt compelled in my career, for some reason, to work with those with whom no one else wants to work. I find myself drawn to the jobs to which others go because they just need a job. Those are the ones I want to do. Even when I was young, I didn't mind cleaning the toilets in the seminary.
I began in the addiction/mental health profession working in an adolescent rehab unit in Columbia, MO. It was ok. But when I learned that there was an opening in the community psychiatric rehabilation program, working with those who had severe, chronic mental illness, like severe schizophrenia, severe bipolar or depression, severe anxiety disorders, that was for me. Working with those that others feel are hopeless causes. Then I learned of the opportunity to work with opioid addicts on methadone. That was for me, too. Working with those whose dependence on illicit substances had become so severe that their brains literally could no longer function without the presence of that substance, which is provided in controlled doses so that they do not get high but are able to live normal lives. The stigma against these people's physical dependency on opioids and the treatment with methadone makes these addicts in medication assisted treatment the black sheep of the recovery family. These were the ones with whom I wanted to work: the ones that were rejected even by other recovering addicts (not all those in recovery reject those who need medication assistance).
Now here I am working in the prison, working with people whose mental illness is so severe that they committed a crime that was so serious that they now have to be secured in the highest level of prison facility available and in the highest level of security within that prison. It seems altruistic, but it's really not. I'm drawn to this. I crave the relationship that can be built with these men. I do it because it is fulfilling to me. Sometimes it's entertaining, which I have had to curb these first two days on the job. For example, I sat in on an involuntary medication hearing with a patient with severe schizophrenia. He started the meeting by protesting that he should not be there because he is in fact a Supreme Court judge. He then asked if his Petitioner Hardin was going to be there, who was his other half. You see, Petitioner Hardin needs to have a say in whether or not this gentleman receives medications, because Petitioner Hardin is his other half, and Petitioner Hardin may have an allergic reaction to the medication this inmate is given. At one point during the hearing, this inmate mentioned that he is the nuclear holocaust. He also mentioned that he is the one responsible for escorting people to heaven.
The interview piece of this involuntary medication hearing concluded with this inmate asking the panel, "Is there something wrong with me?" It took every ounce of self restraint I could muster not to respond, "Yes, you're crazier than an outhouse rat." I didn't though, because I'm new.
Scientific study and research demonstrates over and over again that the number one factor in a person's mental health improvement is not technique or theoretical approach or the skill level of the counselor or even the readiness or ability of the person in treatment. The number one factor in a person's mental health improvement is the relationship that exists between the one receiving care and the one providing it.
Different theoretical approaches of counseling have stumbled across this, even if those developing that approach did not have the empirical evidence of this that we have today. Rogers's Person Centered Approach discusses the need for radical authenticity in the care provider and radical acceptance of the patient. Both of these ideas revolve around the idea of relationship, and have become foundational to every counseling theory that has developed since Carl Rogers developed this philosophy. Transactional Analysis goes even further by stating that a person's problem really isn't within the person, but exists in the interpersonal transactions that take place between people. In other words, if a problem exists, it exists in the relationship between people. Motivational Interviewing states emphatically that if a patient in counseling is resistant to change, the resistance is not centered in the individual patient or client, but occurs because of a complication in the relationship between the care provider and the patient.
My own personal theoretical foundation for working with people draws from Victor Frankl's Logotherapy. This has to do with meaning making. The words we use to define ourselves have meaning, whether that word is father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, friend, employee, employer, boss. Whatever word we use to describe ourselves has a meaning for us, and we live out in our actions that meaning. I am a father based on the way I define that word. I am husband based on how I define that word. The other piece of this, though, is that all of these words imply relationships. To say I am husband means that I am in a relationship with a wife. To say I am a father means that I am in some kind of relationship with my children. The same is true for son (relationship with parent), employee (relationship with employer), friend (relationship with other friends). I act out my definitions of those words. Conflicts arise when the way I define myself in a relationship or define another in a relationship does not match the other's definition of me or definition of the other's self. In other words, when Lesley and I argue, it is because I have a definition of what it means for me to be husband and for her to be wife and she has a definition of what it means for me to be husband and her to be wife, and our definitions are not matching up. The point is, the relationship is key to these definitions.
The relationship is key. That's why I got into this work, and that's why I've been so frustrated. Staying at home working on Policy and Procedure did not allow me to engage in that relationship with those who are hurting emotionally or psychologically. I wrote policies and procedures...alone...at my kitchen table. That sucked. I wasn't able to engage people in therapeutic relationships.
I've been at my new job in the prison for 2 days now, and haven't been able to start engaging these men, building relationships with them. I'm hungering for that, craving it really. It's really frustrating that I haven't been able really to get started doing my work yet.
I don't know why I have this innate desire to build relationships with these type of people (currently men in the prison) who are nuttier than squirrel poop. It's just there. Maybe it's because so many others have rejected them, even family and friends. Don't get me wrong, if these men have been rejected, it is for good reason. They have committed heinous crimes. But then, I've committed heinous sins. Maybe the reason I want to reach out to them is karma, pay back for those that reached out to me when I felt the most unlovable. Maybe I want to build relationships with them because they have no one else who even wants to understand them.
Maybe I need to feel that salvation is real. Maybe God is calling me to love the ones who are most unlovable. Blessed Theresa began by hugging a leper. I won't be hugging any bat-dung crazy killers, but I will spend time with them and treat them with respect and dignity and unconditional love. The severely mentally ill men in segregation in a level 5 prison are America's lepers. I'm no Mother Theresa, but maybe building relationships with them, relationships that hold the potential for their healing, will make me a better Jamie Smith.
Let me start at the prison, though.
I recently started working at Jefferson City Correctional Center, the maximum security prison in Jefferson City, MO. It's really frustrating right now. I've spent two days there, and have not been able really to get started because I don't yet have access to the state computer system or documentation system to review records and create therapy notes. So right now I'm spending a lot of time sitting around, twittling my thumbs, and wondering when something interesting is going to happen.
Tonight is one of those sleepless nights that I have every couple of weeks. Just can't seem to sleep. I was laying in bed thinking about how frustrating it is, when I realized the reason I'm frustrated right now is the same reason I was so miserable when I was working from home on the policies and procedures. I crave the therapeutic relationship that exists when I engage with people who are hurting. In every altruistic offer, there is a hint of selfishness. It is part of our fallen nature. Would Blessed Theresa of Calcutta have been who she was if she didn't believe she could get to heaven? Maybe eventually we overcome that and do the work of God out of pure love, with no thought of reward. That's not where I am.
I have always wanted to help people. I have also felt compelled in my career, for some reason, to work with those with whom no one else wants to work. I find myself drawn to the jobs to which others go because they just need a job. Those are the ones I want to do. Even when I was young, I didn't mind cleaning the toilets in the seminary.
I began in the addiction/mental health profession working in an adolescent rehab unit in Columbia, MO. It was ok. But when I learned that there was an opening in the community psychiatric rehabilation program, working with those who had severe, chronic mental illness, like severe schizophrenia, severe bipolar or depression, severe anxiety disorders, that was for me. Working with those that others feel are hopeless causes. Then I learned of the opportunity to work with opioid addicts on methadone. That was for me, too. Working with those whose dependence on illicit substances had become so severe that their brains literally could no longer function without the presence of that substance, which is provided in controlled doses so that they do not get high but are able to live normal lives. The stigma against these people's physical dependency on opioids and the treatment with methadone makes these addicts in medication assisted treatment the black sheep of the recovery family. These were the ones with whom I wanted to work: the ones that were rejected even by other recovering addicts (not all those in recovery reject those who need medication assistance).
Now here I am working in the prison, working with people whose mental illness is so severe that they committed a crime that was so serious that they now have to be secured in the highest level of prison facility available and in the highest level of security within that prison. It seems altruistic, but it's really not. I'm drawn to this. I crave the relationship that can be built with these men. I do it because it is fulfilling to me. Sometimes it's entertaining, which I have had to curb these first two days on the job. For example, I sat in on an involuntary medication hearing with a patient with severe schizophrenia. He started the meeting by protesting that he should not be there because he is in fact a Supreme Court judge. He then asked if his Petitioner Hardin was going to be there, who was his other half. You see, Petitioner Hardin needs to have a say in whether or not this gentleman receives medications, because Petitioner Hardin is his other half, and Petitioner Hardin may have an allergic reaction to the medication this inmate is given. At one point during the hearing, this inmate mentioned that he is the nuclear holocaust. He also mentioned that he is the one responsible for escorting people to heaven.
The interview piece of this involuntary medication hearing concluded with this inmate asking the panel, "Is there something wrong with me?" It took every ounce of self restraint I could muster not to respond, "Yes, you're crazier than an outhouse rat." I didn't though, because I'm new.
Scientific study and research demonstrates over and over again that the number one factor in a person's mental health improvement is not technique or theoretical approach or the skill level of the counselor or even the readiness or ability of the person in treatment. The number one factor in a person's mental health improvement is the relationship that exists between the one receiving care and the one providing it.
Different theoretical approaches of counseling have stumbled across this, even if those developing that approach did not have the empirical evidence of this that we have today. Rogers's Person Centered Approach discusses the need for radical authenticity in the care provider and radical acceptance of the patient. Both of these ideas revolve around the idea of relationship, and have become foundational to every counseling theory that has developed since Carl Rogers developed this philosophy. Transactional Analysis goes even further by stating that a person's problem really isn't within the person, but exists in the interpersonal transactions that take place between people. In other words, if a problem exists, it exists in the relationship between people. Motivational Interviewing states emphatically that if a patient in counseling is resistant to change, the resistance is not centered in the individual patient or client, but occurs because of a complication in the relationship between the care provider and the patient.
My own personal theoretical foundation for working with people draws from Victor Frankl's Logotherapy. This has to do with meaning making. The words we use to define ourselves have meaning, whether that word is father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, friend, employee, employer, boss. Whatever word we use to describe ourselves has a meaning for us, and we live out in our actions that meaning. I am a father based on the way I define that word. I am husband based on how I define that word. The other piece of this, though, is that all of these words imply relationships. To say I am husband means that I am in a relationship with a wife. To say I am a father means that I am in some kind of relationship with my children. The same is true for son (relationship with parent), employee (relationship with employer), friend (relationship with other friends). I act out my definitions of those words. Conflicts arise when the way I define myself in a relationship or define another in a relationship does not match the other's definition of me or definition of the other's self. In other words, when Lesley and I argue, it is because I have a definition of what it means for me to be husband and for her to be wife and she has a definition of what it means for me to be husband and her to be wife, and our definitions are not matching up. The point is, the relationship is key to these definitions.
The relationship is key. That's why I got into this work, and that's why I've been so frustrated. Staying at home working on Policy and Procedure did not allow me to engage in that relationship with those who are hurting emotionally or psychologically. I wrote policies and procedures...alone...at my kitchen table. That sucked. I wasn't able to engage people in therapeutic relationships.
I've been at my new job in the prison for 2 days now, and haven't been able to start engaging these men, building relationships with them. I'm hungering for that, craving it really. It's really frustrating that I haven't been able really to get started doing my work yet.
I don't know why I have this innate desire to build relationships with these type of people (currently men in the prison) who are nuttier than squirrel poop. It's just there. Maybe it's because so many others have rejected them, even family and friends. Don't get me wrong, if these men have been rejected, it is for good reason. They have committed heinous crimes. But then, I've committed heinous sins. Maybe the reason I want to reach out to them is karma, pay back for those that reached out to me when I felt the most unlovable. Maybe I want to build relationships with them because they have no one else who even wants to understand them.
Maybe I need to feel that salvation is real. Maybe God is calling me to love the ones who are most unlovable. Blessed Theresa began by hugging a leper. I won't be hugging any bat-dung crazy killers, but I will spend time with them and treat them with respect and dignity and unconditional love. The severely mentally ill men in segregation in a level 5 prison are America's lepers. I'm no Mother Theresa, but maybe building relationships with them, relationships that hold the potential for their healing, will make me a better Jamie Smith.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Argumentum Ad Hominem
Some time ago, I posted part of a "dialogue" I was
having with someone who does not share my fiscally conservative views. This
person and I continued our conversation through private messages. The
conversation ranged from the merits or lack thereof of government funding for
Planned Parenthood to gay marriage to whether education should be privatized.
This person, whom I considered to be
a lifelong friend, began to get more and more personal in the attacks made
against me. This person told me I was ignorant, angry, brought in the race
element by pointing out that I'm white, and therefore couldn't possibly
understand the plight of minorities, and said that I was intolerant because I
have strongly held religious beliefs (none of which I demanded this person to
accept). Our conversation finally concluded with this person saying I am a
hypocrite because I have committed sins in my past. This person told me I was
"absolutely ignorant" and that I simply would not understand the real
issues at stake, and that there was nothing this person could do to help me
because I refused to see the truth.
I pointed out that the personal
attacks this person made against me had nothing to do with the topics at hand.
I told the person that there was something this person could do, which was to
prove my positions wrong. I asked the person either to offer facts, statistics,
or logically sound arguments to prove my positions were wrong and to refrain
from the personal attacks against me, or to end the conversation. This person
ended not only the conversation, but our friendship, telling me that this
person could not be friends with someone as ignorant, angry, and intolerant as
I appeared to be to that person.
I bring this up, because I recently
had another experience of someone with whom I was having a conversation about a
political hot button. The person had posted a meme on facebook with the words,
"If you are pro-life, why are you against universal healthcare?" I
responded first by asking whether the person actually wanted an answer, or if
he was just expressing himself. He said he would indeed welcome my thoughts on
the matter. I responded (a summary) that I am both pro-life and against
universal healthcare because there are other ways to make sure that people, and
in particular pregnant women, receive healthcare other than universal
healthcare, and that I feel those ways may be better. I pointed out that the
debate about universal healthcare really isn't about whether people who are in
need should receive healthcare, but about the best way to pay for healthcare
for those who can't afford it themselves. I'm copying and pasting his response
to me here:
"Healthcare
should be paid for by middle class and wealthy and anyone who can afford it.
White people dont' want to pay for the insurance of anyone brown colored.
Ironically, since most Americans claimed to be Christians, we aren't very
Christian at all. It's all about discrimination, hate, and its passed on
through the generations of families, a lot of the Christian families. The white
person says, I'm not paying for a brown persons healthcare, but I sure will
make it to church on Sunday. Even though my life is much better than most brown
people. Even though my opportunities are far better than most brown people. My
education, my family, my upbringing.......and thank you lord for all your
blessings. But I'm not giving a damn dollar to that Mexican or that
African."
So basically, his response is that
any white Christian who opposes universal healthcare does so because the white
Christian is racist.
In philosophy in the study of logic,
this is called an ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM, or an ad hominem attack. An argumentum
ad hominem is a response in a debate in which a person does not respond to the
actual point of the opponent, but responds instead with a personal attack
against the opponent. It is recognized as a logical fallacy in the practice of
debate, because the personal attack is irrelevant to the argument at hand.
In logic, the person promoting a
point of view is irrelevant to whether the facts back up the point of view
being expounded. In other words, if you were debating a mass murderer about the
year that Christopher Columbus first sailed across the Atlantic Ocean, it is
irrelevant that the person is a mass murderer. That doesn't change the fact
that "in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue." If the mass murderer
stated that it was actually in 1495, and you responded, "Well, you’re a
mass murderer, so what do you know?" Your response doesn't make him more
wrong. If he correctly reports the year, pointing out that he is a mass
murderer wouldn't change the fact that he is right. The personal attack is
irrelevant to the argument.
This is important to remember in
today's political discourse. The reason is because these types of attacks have
become so commonplace that they are overlooked by nearly everyone. I remember
finally getting fed up with being called racist during the 2008 election cycle.
I have never supported Barack Obama. That's obvious to anyone who consistently
reads this blog. It is not because I am racist. It is because I believe that
the government is bound by the constitution, and therefore the powers of
government are strictly limited, and therefore the government has way
overreached its authority under both main political parties. It has nothing to
do with race. I believe George W. Bush and his Republican cronies in their 8
years of office were just as guilty of this as Barack Obama and his Democrat
cronies have been.
In 2008, I was a student at Lincoln
University in the counseling graduate program, and the professor of one of my
classes stated quite boldly, "If Barack Obama doesn't win the election,
it's because of all the racists out there opposing him." I couldn't help
myself. I pointed out that I oppose Obama, and I was fed up with being called a
racist because I have a different philosophy of government. I also pointed out that
those who oppose abortion based on the scientific fact that the embryo and
fetus are human beings from the moment of conception are called mysogynists;
those who oppose gay marriage due to deeply held religious beliefs about the
nature of the human person and the role of gender in relationships are called
homophobes; those who disagree with the "tolerant" are called
ignorant and unenlightened.
This logical fallacy, argumentum ad
hominem, has become so commonplace in our political discourse that we don't
even realize when we've bought into it. It's sad really.
It's coming out now in the gun
control debate. People in the liberal left media are making statements that
those of us who believe in less gun regulation are paranoid and unhinged. This
is an ad hominem attack. It is irrelevant that the FBI statistics and studies
conducted by the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security
demonstrate that increased gun regulation has no effect on gun violence. The
impression from the liberal left is that I'm just a paranoid, backwoods redneck
for wanting to own a gun for personal defense. I might be a paranoid, backwoods
redneck, but that is irrelevant to the facts of gun violence and its
relationship to gun control laws.
The conservative side of the aisle
is by no means innocent. You've got people like Anne Coulter out there writing
books that characterize the liberals as "Demonic" and akin to
terrorists. You've got people out there still casting stones at Obama by promoting
the idea that he is a Muslim. Anne Coulter's name calling nad Obama's religious beliefs are irrelevant to the problems that face our nation right now.
Getting past the rhetoric of the ad
hominem attacks is hard, because they are so many and so deeply ingrained into
the political discourse. It takes a high level of critical thinking to separate
the two. For example, in the facebook response I quoted above, that person truly
believes that the reason “white Christians” don't support universal healthcare
is because white Christians are racist. For him, these two are so intimately
intertwined as to be indistinguishable. It takes a high level of critical
thinking skill to see that the means by which healthcare should be funded is a
separate topic from racism. It also takes a high level of critical thinking
skill to see that even if a person is racist, the person’s own prejudices are
irrelevant to the facts of what universal healthcare does to a national
healthcare system, whether or not our government is financially able to sustain
a universal healthcare system, and what effect a universal healthcare system
would have on the quality of health service an individual would receive.
Until we all stop attacking each
other, and start focusing on the actual issues, there won't be any progress
made in the problems that face our nation today. We have been too busy slinging
mud to do anything really constructive.
How sad if this is all we have left.
Monday, January 14, 2013
My Thoughts on Gun Control
In August, 2010, a man holding a gun went into Sullivan
Central High School in Blountville, TN. He was confronted by the school
resource officer, Carolyn Gudger, who pulled her weapon and held him at bay.
Other Sullivan County Sheriff Deputies arrived. When the gunman was cornered,
he made an aggressive move with his weapon toward Officer Gudger, and was
promptly shot to death by the officers at hand. Other than the shooter, no one
was killed.
In December, 2012 (2 days after the shooting at Sandy Hook
Elementary), a man went into a restaurant in San Antonio, TX with a gun. He
began shooting. People fled into the movie theater adjacent to the restaurant,
followed by the shooter. The shooter ran into the bathroom. An off duty Buxar
County sheriff deputy was working security at the movie theater. She followed
the man into the bathroom, where she shot him. Two people were shot (including
the shooter), but no one was killed.
On January 4, 2013, a woman in Loganville, GA was at home
with her 9 year old twins when she noticed from an upstairs window a man trying
to get into her home. She took her children and hid in a crawl space. The man
broke into her home with a crow bar, and eventually found her and her children
in the crawl space. She shot him with the .38 caliber handgun she was holding.
She fired 5 rounds before escaping with her children. Her husband, with whom
she had been on the phone during the entire incident, called 9-1-1 from his
office, and heard his wife shoot the man. Police arrived, and took the man to
the hospital. No one was killed.
Gun control has been in the news a lot lately. It was
sparked by the Sandy Hook School shooting in Connecticut, in which a young man
went into Sandy Hook Elementary School and shot and killed 26 people, including
20 children. This story has a very strong emotional impact on us. I remember
the day it happened. I was working at home when I heard there had been another
school shooting. I was in my car later that afternoon listening to the news
when I learned the full scope. I was on my way to pick up my kindergartner from
his school, and I wept thinking of my own son.
Incidents like Sandy Hook, Columbine, the shootings at
Virginia Tech, the theatre shooting in Aurora, CO, and the attempt on
Representative Gabby Giffords’s life are highly emotionally charged. The
conversation about gun control, however, cannot be one that is based on
emotions. All of these incidents are anecdotal. They can neither be used to
provide support for stricter gun control nor as reasons why less gun control
would be advantageous, because not one of these single incidents tells the
whole story. If we’re going to have a legitimate conversation about gun
control, we need to be aware of the facts.
Factcheck.org did a great piece reporting statistics and taking
on the exaggerated claims made by both sides of the argument. According to Factcheck’s
valid research, the number of gun murders was down in 2010 (2011 statistics
were not yet available). As a matter fact the number of gun murders, 3.59
people per 100,000 people, was at its lowest since 1981. Likewise, gun
aggravated assault was at its lowest rate since 2004 at 50.8 people suffering a
gun aggravated assault out of every 100,000 people. Robberies that involved a
gun were also down at their lowest rate since 2004, at 45.8 per 100,000 people. At the same time, gun ownership and gun
manufacturing have both increased in recent history. That means there are more
people owning guns in the United States than ever before, but fewer guns being
used for murder, assault and robbery.
These statistics support those who say that low levels of
gun control is a more reasonable stance.
Nonfatal gun injuries during assault have increased in the
United States, being at their highest rate since 2008. 17.8 people per 100,000
were nonfatally wounded in an assault involving a gun in 2011. What this means
is that while it is less likely due to the decrease in gun aggravated assaults reported
above that you will be involved in an assault in which a gun is used, if you
are, it is more likely that you will be injured in the event. The total number
of events has decreased, but the incidents are becoming more violent. In 2010,
there was an increase in suicides involving the use of a gun, reaching its
highest rate since 1998. In 2010, 6.28 people per 100,000 killed themselves
using guns.
It’s definitely a mixed bag.
There’s two important points in Factcheck’s article that I
think bear repeating.
1.
The argument that concealed-carry laws reduce
crime is dubious. The fact is that in states and counties where concealed carry
is allowed, crime has gone down. The problem is that crime is down universally,
even in states and counties that do not allow concealed carry. There is insufficient
evidence to make the causal claim that concealed carry causes crime to
decrease. In other words, allowing concealed carry may have an effect, but it
is too difficult given the fact that crime is down universally to show that
concealed carry causes the decrease. Statistically, you can say that places
that have allowed concealed carry have seen a reduction in crime.
Statistically, you can also say that places that do not allow concealed carry
have seen a reduction in crime.
2.
The second point is that the claim that
increased access to guns would cause an increase in crime is simply wrong. In
places where gun access has been further deregulated (guns are more accessible),
there has still been the reduction in crime that we discuss in point number 1.
Allowing greater access to guns does not increase gun crime.
I think there is an important question to ask when considering a gun law that limits a person’s 2nd amendment right to own and bear arms: Will this law have the effect that is intended?
The shooter in Sandy Hook had a history of hospitalizations
and mental health problems. There is currently legislation that precludes those
who have a similar history from owning or using guns. He didn’t own the guns.
He stole them. The existing gun law preventing him from having guns did not
deter the crime.
Connecticut has some of the most strict gun laws in the
United States. The so called “assault weapon” that the shooter had in his
possession at the time of the shooting was actually illegal to buy, sell or own
in Connecticut. His mother possessed that gun illegally. Again, he stole it
from her. The existing gun law did not prevent his mother from buying and
owning the gun. The existing gun law did not deter him from using it. The
existing gun law had no effect on the crime.
The shooter in New York who set his house on fire to lure
authorities to his home and then shot two firemen was not allowed to own guns
due to his criminal history. He manipulated his neighbor’s daughter into buying
the guns for him. It was illegal for him to have the guns he used. The existing
gun laws did not deter him from obtaining and using the weapons.
In Columbine, it was illegal for those teenage boys to have
the guns they used in the shooting. The existing gun laws (again, Colorado has
some of the most strict gun laws in the U.S., and this event occurred while the
so-called “assault weapons” ban was in effect), did not deter this tragedy.
The shooter at Virginia Tech had a history of disruptive and
bizarre behavior. He had a history of mental illness, but under Virginia law at
the time, it was not reportable to the information bureau that would have
alerted those who performed background checks during the purchase of guns. The
sellers were not alerted to his possible mental health problems. Since then,
the laws have been tightened in Virginia concerning this.
Jared Lee Loughner, who shot Representative Gabby Gifford
and 18 others, killing 6, bought his firearm legally from a business, not an
independent, private dealer. That means he had to have submitted to a
background check that failed to recognize his prior legal problems, including
misdemeanor drug use charges. Loughner had never submitted to a mental health
evaluation, although anyone familiar with his history can easily recognize the
symptoms of the onset of schizophrenia in his history. He had no history of
violence, only bizarre and occasionally disruptive behavior. Arizona has some
of the most liberal gun laws in the U.S., but it was illegal for him to carry
the weapon into that mall. The existing gun laws, such as they were, did not
deter his actions.
James Holmes, the shooter in the Aurora, CO theater owned
his guns legally and handled them legally, until he took them into the theatre,
where he was not allowed to have them. He had no prior history of mental health
treatment and no prior history of violent crime. Do we discriminate on who can
own a weapon and who can’t based on the possibility that the person might do
something illegal with the guns? How do we make that determination?
Instead, we have 2 primary types of legislation that people
want to introduce. The first is legislation that will make it more difficult
for people to obtain guns, for example, by tightening the process of background
checks. That doesn’t work. It hasn’t worked. It didn’t work for the shooter in
Connecticut. It didn’t work for the shooter in New York. It didn’t work for the
teenagers at Columbine High School. The laws would also create greater
restrictions on the purchase of guns at gun shows from private vendors, a
method which does not require background checks. Notice that none of the guns
used in any of these crimes were purchased from private vendors. They were all
originally purchased through sellers who would have had to run a background check
on the buyer. Laws don’t matter to criminals, or those intent on doing evil. They
will get around those laws. Making it harder for people to get guns isn’t effective in deterring gun crime.
The second type of gun control legislation proposed is based
on the type of gun, making it illegal to own certain types of guns. For
example, some say we should ban “assault weapons.” I would like to know, from
someone who believes this, what their definition of an “assault weapon” is. It’s
obvious to me that many people who are proposing to ban certain types of
weapons don’t really know what they’re talking about when it comes to guns.
To get really, really, REALLY basic, you have 3 types of
guns: revolvers, semi-automatic weapons, and fully automatic weapons. I’m sorry
for all my gun expert friends out there, because I know that’s not all there is.
Owning a fully automatic weapon is illegal in the United
States. What that means is that if you legally purchase a gun in the U.S., it
is either going to be a revolver or a semi-automatic. You can have a
semi-automatic handgun, more commonly known as a pistol, or a semi-automatic
rifle. Functionally speaking, no matter what the gun looks like, there is no
difference in the mechanism of operation between a semi-automatic handgun and a
semi-automatic rifle. What does it mean that the gun, handgun or rifle, is a
semi-automatic? Basically that means that when you pull the trigger one time,
one bullet is fired, and the next bullet is fed into the chamber.
Semi-automatics do not fire several rounds with 1 trigger pull. You have to
pull the trigger each time you fire the weapon. 1 trigger pull, 1 bullet.
Banning so-called “assault weapons” is to ban a gun, not on
its functionality (it works through the same mechanism as every other gun), nor
on its lethality (I don’t think it would matter if you got shot in the head with
a handgun or a rifle), but on its looks. That’s it. This gun looks scary, so
let’s call it an assault weapon.
The argument that a person can fire with a high capacity
clip 30 rounds in less than a minute is ridiculous to anyone who owns a gun. I
own semi-automatic pistols. With normal capacity clips of 7 rounds, I can fire
a full clip, pop it, replace it, and be ready to fire in 15 seconds or less. My
normal clips hold 7 rounds, but with the first clip I usually hold 7 rounds and
1 in the chamber (for a total of 8 in the first clip). That means in 60
seconds, with normal capacity clips, I can fire at least 29 rounds, probably
more if I didn’t care about aim. High capacity clips do not make a gun more
dangerous. A gun is only as dangerous as the person who is holding it.
And that’s the crux of the matter. Gun control isn’t about
controlling guns; it’s about controlling people. Nobody, including gun owners,
wants guns in the hands of bad guys. The fact is that guns are going to be in
the hands of bad guys no matter what laws are passed. That’s what makes them
bad guys. They don’t follow the laws. So by making gun ownership harder, impinging
on the right of the people to bear arms, we take the guns out of the hands of
people who are responsible, law abiding citizens, like me, who keeps his guns
under lock and key when I’m not carrying or using them at the firing range.
One can see that the issue is not as simple as creating more
gun laws that will be disregarded by those intent on doing harm. It’s also not
as simple as creating more databases that people can get around, or that are
ineffective against those who would not meet the criteria for a red flag. A
better conversation to have is about mental illness.
How these shooters got their guns is not the common denominator.
What types of guns these shooters had is not the common
denominator.
That all of these shooters had mental illness in varying
types and degrees is the common denominator.
So why aren’t we talking more about mental illness, since
that’s what really linked all of these shooters?
When I was thinking about getting a gun for protection, I
talked to a retired police officer about it. He told me something I’ll never
forget. He said, “The question you need to ask yourself before you buy a gun is
whether or not you would be able to kill another human being. The time to
decide that you can’t do that is not when you are standing in front of a person
who has broken into your home and you have the gun pointed at him. If you
decide at that moment that you can’t pull the trigger, then you’ve just given
that guy your gun, and he’ll use it on you. Before you buy the gun, decide
whether or not you will be able to use it.”
I made that decision. If someone threatens the safety of
Lesley and my children, I’ll shoot him. I have no doubt in my mind. Not
everyone can say the same. Those who don’t make the same decision as me, that’s
fine. I have no problem with you deciding that you do not want to own a gun.
You take your chances on the situation. I will use my gun to defend my family.
I will keep my gun to defend my family no matter what laws
are passed. Bottom line. It’s used so often that it’s become cliché, but I can’t
get around it: “If you outlaw guns, you will make law-abiding gun owners
outlaws.” I don’t want to be an outlaw, but I will be. If I have to make the
choice between defending my family and letting them be victims of a crime, I
will always choose defending my family.
There is so much more that can be said, and I’m willing to
have the conversation with anyone who wants to have it, but this is my stance.
I have the right to defend myself with a gun. It’s guaranteed
by the 2nd Amendment. I will not give up that right. I hope and
literally pray that I will never have to use my gun. I will not hesitate to do
so if I have to protect my family.
Sunday, January 06, 2013
A Call to the Church: Reflecting on This Sunday's Readings
“Rise up in splendor, Jerusalem!”
This weekend’s readings are a wakeup call to the Church. The
Solemnity of the Epiphany is when we celebrate the revelation of Jesus Christ
to the world.
The 3 Magi in the readings of today represent the world. The
Magi weren’t Jewish; they were foreigners from the east. For the readers
millennia ago, the Magi would have been exotic, unknown, coming from the parts
of the world that were barely known.
They, though, were the ones who first recognized the full significance
of the coming of Jesus. They brought him gifts of gold, frankincense, and
myrrh. Only rulers were rich enough to own gold. The gift of gold is
recognition that Jesus would be king. The frankincense was used in the practice
of sacrifice of animals in the ancient religions, a very practical way to cover
up the smell of burning flesh in the altar fires. Giving Jesus frankincense was
a recognition that Jesus would be priest. Myrrh is a balm, a perfumed oil that
was often used in the preparation of bodies for burial. Just as the incense
reveals that Jesus would be the priest offering the sacrifice, the myrrh
reveals that Jesus would be the sacrificial victim that is offered. In his
life, he is King, Priest, and Sacrifice.
The Magi came from worlds away to this little nowhere town,
not really knowing that it was Jesus they were seeking, but knowing what it was
they were hoping to find: a king who would give them piece, a priest who would
advocate for them to the Almighty God, and a victim that would be sacrificed
for the forgiveness of their sins.
Why is this a wakeup call to the Church? The last command
that Jesus gave to this disciples was to go out into the all the world and make
disciples of all nations. How do we do that?
We “rise up in splendor!” Whenever we hear the Old Testament
readings, and we hear references to Israel or Jerusalem or God’s Holy People,
these are foreshadowings of the Church. The prophets are calling us to “rise up
in splendor.”
Here’s the Truth, Church: we have Jesus. Jesus is the Light
of the World. When we live in Him, He radiates from us, and draws people to
himself. By shining in the splendor of Jesus, we draw people to him, people who
will come, not really knowing that it is Jesus they are seeking. They come
looking for something that will bring peace to their lives. They come looking
for someone who they feel like is on their side. They come looking for
forgiveness, even if they don’t realize yet that it is forgiveness that they
seek.
So how are we to shine? First, and above all else, by being
the beautiful Christian that God has recreated in the new life we find in
Jesus. In Christ, you are a new creation. In Christ, you are beautiful. In
Christ, you have the strength to meet the challenges of life. In Christ, you
have the knowledge that the sufferings of this life are not the end of the
world. In Christ, you have the peace that surpasses understanding. In Christ, you
are beautiful. Be beautiful, and your beauty of heart and soul will draw
people, just as surely as the star drew the Magi. When they come to you, and
they will, drawn by your other-worldly beauty, you will show them Jesus.
We also shine by our sincerity of worship. I think sometimes
our Sunday celebrations do more to drive people away from the Church than lead
people to worship. What message is heard on Sundays? Not just the words that
are prayed or preached. There is message and there is meta-message. The message
is what is prayed and preached. The meta-message is what is actually
communicated. Do people come and experience a community centered on Christ, and
truly lifting their hearts up to him? Or do people come and experience a
community that is there because that’s just what we do on Sunday mornings? Do
visitors experience a people fully participating in worship and offering
sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving? Or do visitors experience a people who
are wondering why they go to Church because they just don’t get anything out of
it anymore? This extends to our priests and leaders in worship, too. Does the
congregation gathered experience a leader in worship who is sincere in his
prayers, or someone who is just mindlessly reading words or reciting the same
things over and over?
Our Sunday worship is a wonderful opportunity to be
beautiful together, to experience the Lord shining upon us, the Lord’s glory
appearing over us. It doesn’t have to be anything fancy. Jesus was a baby in Bethlehem
and Nazareth. These two towns were dumps. The Magi weren’t drawn to the palaces
of the king or to the wonder of the temple. They were drawn to Jesus.
This weekend’s readings are a call to the Church. We have
Jesus. Are we drawing the world, or our neighbors, to him?
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
We Went Over the Cliff A Long Time Ago
I haven't written anything highly political in a long time, but I feel compelled to write something about the so-called "fiscal cliff" our government just drove over last night, taking us with them like the proverbial Thelma and Louise.
The problem that I think most people don't understand is that we went over the fiscal cliff a long time ago, but we just didn't realize it. We didn't realize it for a couple of reasons. The first is that the amounts of money we are talking about simply are unimaginable to us. One Trillion dollars...what is that really? $1,000,000,000,000.00. Can you really imagine that? Multiply it by 16, nearly 17 now since that is our national debt. What does that number mean to you? It's too big to be concrete.
The second reason is that we haven't felt it the size of this national debt yet, really. I mean, as long as credit is available, then we can keep spending what we as a nation are currently spending, and no one feels the pinch. But this is unsustainable. The problem is, we really don't understand that it is unsustainable until we can no longer obtain the things for which we are paying.
The third is that the dollar has been divorced from its value. A long time ago, the dollar was separated from "the gold standard." The gold standard was when this amount of gold was worth this amount of dollars. The government only printed as much paper money as there was gold to back it up. This is no longer the case. Now the government prints paper money without reference to any other object of value. The dollar has itself become the object value against which we measure the dollar.
I think it is important to put these ideas into concrete, understandable terms.
Let's say that a married couple's income is approximately $5,000 per month. That would give this couple an annual income of $60,000.00. This would make them a middle class family. Let's say they are spending, on average, $7,500 per month. So they are spending what they take in plus another 50% of their earnings. In order to sustain this, they are borrowing $0.50 of every dollar they earn. They get this through multiple credit cards. They are making payments on the credit cards, but they are only paying the credit card payments, but only the expected minimum payment, so they continue to borrow from their credit cards more each month than they are paying.
The couple realize this is unsustainable, so they start discussing means to address the budgeting issue. They decide they need to increase their income, so they get extra jobs. This increases their income from $5,000 per month to $5,800 per month. But with the extra revenue, they decide they can increase their spending to $8,000 per month. They've increased their revenue by $800 per month, and their spending by only $500 per month, and so they decide to call this a spending cut.
You might say, "Well, that's just insane!" Yes, it is. But that's the way our government has been operating for decades. When you hear the phrase "spending cut" come out of politician's mouth, their not talking about spending less money. They're saying the increase in spending was not as much as the last increase in spending. In other words 2 years ago, they spent 100 billion dollars on something. Last year, they spent 150 billion dollars on the same thing. This year, they will spend 175 billion dollars on it, and that's a spending cut, because the price increased by only 25 billion, instead of 50 billion like the year before.
George Orwell, in his landmark and prescient novel 1984 called this double think and double speak. It's insane, but that's what's been happening, and people don't realize it.
Anyone with any sense whatsoever can see that this is absolutely insane and unsustainable. It doesn't make any difference to our married couple, though, because with the extra income they realize they are eligible for increased credit limits on those credit cards. It won't affect the couple until they can no longer afford everything they are buying. When the credit dries up, and the only money they have is the money they are earning, that's when they will realize that their scheme isn't working. But by then, they will have racked up so much debt that they will need to pay back. Out of their incomes of $5,800, they will have to make credit payments of $3,000 per month, leaving them with only $2,800.00 per month to spend on necessities.
For some reason, people don't see that this is exactly what the government of the United States is doing. Eventually, the credit will run dry. When will that happen? Who knows? When we are 20 trillion dollars in debt? 25 Trillion? Right now, the national debt is so high that if we taxed everyone in the United States for every penny that they earn, we could not pay off the national debt. Our debt has now reached a level that is higher than our national income.
This won't affect us, though, until the credit dries up. When that happens, all of those people who are dependent on government for income and health care will be the ones left out on the streets. The rich will take their money and flee the country, because they can. And the middle class will be caught paying the bill for the uncontrolled spending of the government. It could be my children. It could be my grandchildren, but eventually, someone will have to pay it back, or the country we live in withour freedoms and opportunities will no longer exist. That makes scared for my children. Terrified, actually. That's why this is so important to me.
The finances of our government is not a revenue problem. Our government, through taxes, is one of the highest ranking revenue generators on earth. President Obama's plan to increase taxes on those making more than $250,000 per year is a joke. That would raise enough money to fund our government for an extra 8 to 9 days. The problem is a spending a problem. Until we do real budget cuts, and stop spending more than we take in, the problem will not get better.
I'm desparate. I'll admit it. The direction of our nation's fiscal management has been wrong for decades. My children will not live in the America that I grew up in, and that fills me with a grief that can't be spoken.
Terrorists in far away lands are dangerous. No doubt. The greatest risk to the American way of life, though, is not from terrorists who want to kill us. The greatest risk to the American way of life is an uncontrolled government. What makes me more sad than anything, though, is that we have allowed this to happen. Our government derives its power from the consent of the governed.
That means, through the ballot box, we have given the politicians permission to destroy us from within.
It also means, through the ballot box, we can take that permission back.
I just hope that it's not too late.
The problem that I think most people don't understand is that we went over the fiscal cliff a long time ago, but we just didn't realize it. We didn't realize it for a couple of reasons. The first is that the amounts of money we are talking about simply are unimaginable to us. One Trillion dollars...what is that really? $1,000,000,000,000.00. Can you really imagine that? Multiply it by 16, nearly 17 now since that is our national debt. What does that number mean to you? It's too big to be concrete.
The second reason is that we haven't felt it the size of this national debt yet, really. I mean, as long as credit is available, then we can keep spending what we as a nation are currently spending, and no one feels the pinch. But this is unsustainable. The problem is, we really don't understand that it is unsustainable until we can no longer obtain the things for which we are paying.
The third is that the dollar has been divorced from its value. A long time ago, the dollar was separated from "the gold standard." The gold standard was when this amount of gold was worth this amount of dollars. The government only printed as much paper money as there was gold to back it up. This is no longer the case. Now the government prints paper money without reference to any other object of value. The dollar has itself become the object value against which we measure the dollar.
I think it is important to put these ideas into concrete, understandable terms.
Let's say that a married couple's income is approximately $5,000 per month. That would give this couple an annual income of $60,000.00. This would make them a middle class family. Let's say they are spending, on average, $7,500 per month. So they are spending what they take in plus another 50% of their earnings. In order to sustain this, they are borrowing $0.50 of every dollar they earn. They get this through multiple credit cards. They are making payments on the credit cards, but they are only paying the credit card payments, but only the expected minimum payment, so they continue to borrow from their credit cards more each month than they are paying.
The couple realize this is unsustainable, so they start discussing means to address the budgeting issue. They decide they need to increase their income, so they get extra jobs. This increases their income from $5,000 per month to $5,800 per month. But with the extra revenue, they decide they can increase their spending to $8,000 per month. They've increased their revenue by $800 per month, and their spending by only $500 per month, and so they decide to call this a spending cut.
You might say, "Well, that's just insane!" Yes, it is. But that's the way our government has been operating for decades. When you hear the phrase "spending cut" come out of politician's mouth, their not talking about spending less money. They're saying the increase in spending was not as much as the last increase in spending. In other words 2 years ago, they spent 100 billion dollars on something. Last year, they spent 150 billion dollars on the same thing. This year, they will spend 175 billion dollars on it, and that's a spending cut, because the price increased by only 25 billion, instead of 50 billion like the year before.
George Orwell, in his landmark and prescient novel 1984 called this double think and double speak. It's insane, but that's what's been happening, and people don't realize it.
Anyone with any sense whatsoever can see that this is absolutely insane and unsustainable. It doesn't make any difference to our married couple, though, because with the extra income they realize they are eligible for increased credit limits on those credit cards. It won't affect the couple until they can no longer afford everything they are buying. When the credit dries up, and the only money they have is the money they are earning, that's when they will realize that their scheme isn't working. But by then, they will have racked up so much debt that they will need to pay back. Out of their incomes of $5,800, they will have to make credit payments of $3,000 per month, leaving them with only $2,800.00 per month to spend on necessities.
For some reason, people don't see that this is exactly what the government of the United States is doing. Eventually, the credit will run dry. When will that happen? Who knows? When we are 20 trillion dollars in debt? 25 Trillion? Right now, the national debt is so high that if we taxed everyone in the United States for every penny that they earn, we could not pay off the national debt. Our debt has now reached a level that is higher than our national income.
This won't affect us, though, until the credit dries up. When that happens, all of those people who are dependent on government for income and health care will be the ones left out on the streets. The rich will take their money and flee the country, because they can. And the middle class will be caught paying the bill for the uncontrolled spending of the government. It could be my children. It could be my grandchildren, but eventually, someone will have to pay it back, or the country we live in withour freedoms and opportunities will no longer exist. That makes scared for my children. Terrified, actually. That's why this is so important to me.
The finances of our government is not a revenue problem. Our government, through taxes, is one of the highest ranking revenue generators on earth. President Obama's plan to increase taxes on those making more than $250,000 per year is a joke. That would raise enough money to fund our government for an extra 8 to 9 days. The problem is a spending a problem. Until we do real budget cuts, and stop spending more than we take in, the problem will not get better.
I'm desparate. I'll admit it. The direction of our nation's fiscal management has been wrong for decades. My children will not live in the America that I grew up in, and that fills me with a grief that can't be spoken.
Terrorists in far away lands are dangerous. No doubt. The greatest risk to the American way of life, though, is not from terrorists who want to kill us. The greatest risk to the American way of life is an uncontrolled government. What makes me more sad than anything, though, is that we have allowed this to happen. Our government derives its power from the consent of the governed.
That means, through the ballot box, we have given the politicians permission to destroy us from within.
It also means, through the ballot box, we can take that permission back.
I just hope that it's not too late.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
We Do It Backwards
I've been reading a lot of posts on Facebook lately about people taking their Christmas decorations down and feeling sad but relieved that "the holidays are over."
Ummm, the holidays aren't over.
The first such post I saw was the day after Christmas. I thought, "Holy cow! Christmas had just started, and this person is ready for it to be gone."
We do it backwards. I've noticed that most people put their Christmas decorations up on that magical day after Thanksgiving or even more wondrous December 1 (or the Sunday nearest it). This is usually before the season of Advent is even started. Stores start putting out their Christmas baubles for sale in August. No wonder by the time Christmas Day arrives, we are suffering severe "holiday fatigue" and are just ready for it to be over. On Christmas Day, though, the true purpose of Christmas and its celebration is only beginning.
As Catholics, and some of the non-Catholic churches, too, we lament the secularization of Christmas: "Make sure to keep the 'Christ' in 'Christmas," and "I'll say 'Merry Christmas', not 'Happy Holidays', thank you very much." As Christians, we bemoan the commercialization of Christmas: "Remember, Jesus is the reason for the season, not presents and Santa Claus." Yet, so many of us participate in this secularization of Christmas by aligning our celebration of the Birth of Jesus with the secular "Holiday Season," and not with our Church's calendar.
You see, for the four weeks prior to Christmas Eve, we are not in "Christmas" yet. As Catholics, and some of the major Christian denominations, we are in the season of Advent. This season is about Joyful Anticipation for the coming of Jesus. I used to get so mad at the monks of Conception Abbey when I was a student there, because they would not let us put up Christmas decorations on campus prior to the winter break. By the time break was over, so was the Christmas season, and we could not decorate for Christmas at all. Now I realize the spiritual maturity of that practice. What the monks were trying to teach us was to align our celebration of the holidays (these "HOLY DAYS") with the Church, instead of with the secular culture.
This is something we've had to compromise in our house. My preference would be that we do not put out any decorations for Christmas until Christmas Eve. Yeah. Right. You try to stop Lesley from putting out Christmas decorations. I've caught her listening to "The Carpenter's for Christmas" in July! She's unstoppable. The compromise that we made early in our relationship is that the Christmas decorations would remain out until the Somnity of the Epiphany. (For my non-Catholic readers, that is when the Catholic Church celebrates the coming of the Magi who reverenced the Christ Child as King [gold], Priest [incense], and Sacrificial Victim [myrrh].) Our Christmas decorations stay up until the Church's Christmas Season is over, usually 2 Sundays after Christmas. If I had my drothers, I would leave them up until the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, 3 Sundays after Christmas, but hey, marital comprimise.
I think this is something we need to start taking seriously, if we want to re-evangelize our culture, and make Christmas a Christian holiday again. We need to stop submitting to the secular calendar of the "Holiday Season," and begin aligning our prayer and our activities with the Christian "Christmas Season." There are some simple ways to do this.
1. And this one is good for the whole year round: Integrate the readings of Mass with our personal prayer. I know that many, many Catholics spend time each day with the scriptures. As Catholics (and truly all Christians), our private, personal prayer and communal, ecclesial prayer are supposed to flow from and feed in to each other. One of the simplest ways to do that is to read the scriptures for Mass each day. It takes only a few minutes, and the readings are published in so many different places, "I don't know what the readings are," really is no excuse. There is even an app for it on your smart phone, iMissal. I frame my personal prayer with the scriptures. I read the scriptures for the daily Mass to begin my daily personal prayer. Then I spend time in quiet meditation and then I say a rosary. Then I end my daily, private prayer by listening to God speak in the scriptures for the upcoming Sunday Mass. By the time Sunday comes, I've heard the scriptures for Mass 7 times (Monday through Sunday) already. The way I do this is just one way to do it. Find your own way in your own prayer to spend time each day with the scriptures of the Mass. You will find that your life begins to align naturally with the celebrations of the Church calendar throughout the year.
2. Slow down during Advent. Advent is a time of waiting, anticipation, patience and quiet. Maybe we should all start a practice of not having holiday gatherings until after Christmas Day. Feeling the darkness of Advent by withholding a lot of the lights is an interesting idea. The reason Christmas was assigned to December 25 was not because it is actually Jesus's birthday. By all indications in the scriptures, Jesus was most probably born in the springtime. The earliest Christians evangelized a pagan holiday which celebrated the triumph of light over darkness, when the days started becoming longer. Jesus is the Light of the World, who came into the world to banish darkness. The earliest Christians evangelized the Pagans by "Christianizing" this Roman festival, using it to teach people that Jesus is the Light who has overcome the darkness. Spending Advent in quiet darkness is a good way to give the season of waiting for the Light it's true meaning.
3. Have your holiday get togethers after Christmas. In some of the Orthodox Traditions, gifts aren't given on Christmas at all, but on the Solemnity of the Epiphany. This is to commemorate the gifts of the Magi given to Jesus. Instead of getting together with family and friends the weeks prior to Christmas day to celebrate "Christmas", let's wait until the weekend after Christmas. Let's celebrate gift giving in the Light of the gift of God the Father, Jesus. We might say, "Oh, but who has the time after Christmas?" Why are the days seemingly more condensed after Christmas? Probably because we've already been celebrating for weeks, and are just tired. Putting the celebrations of Christmas off until after Christmas might make the days seem less hectic.
The bottom line is, if we are truly to re-evangelize our culture in an attempt to restore the meaning of Christmas, then we need to think about how we celebrate it. Are we aligning ourselves with the secular calendar, or with the Christian calendar? What are we doing prior to the celebration of the Christian holy days? Is December 25 the beginning of the celebration of the Birth of Jesus that we continue for several weeks, or is it the end of a tiresome, busy, hectic December that we're actually glad to see gone?
In short, while we pay lip service to "the true meaning of Christmas," do we truly celebrate it as Christians?
Ummm, the holidays aren't over.
The first such post I saw was the day after Christmas. I thought, "Holy cow! Christmas had just started, and this person is ready for it to be gone."
We do it backwards. I've noticed that most people put their Christmas decorations up on that magical day after Thanksgiving or even more wondrous December 1 (or the Sunday nearest it). This is usually before the season of Advent is even started. Stores start putting out their Christmas baubles for sale in August. No wonder by the time Christmas Day arrives, we are suffering severe "holiday fatigue" and are just ready for it to be over. On Christmas Day, though, the true purpose of Christmas and its celebration is only beginning.
As Catholics, and some of the non-Catholic churches, too, we lament the secularization of Christmas: "Make sure to keep the 'Christ' in 'Christmas," and "I'll say 'Merry Christmas', not 'Happy Holidays', thank you very much." As Christians, we bemoan the commercialization of Christmas: "Remember, Jesus is the reason for the season, not presents and Santa Claus." Yet, so many of us participate in this secularization of Christmas by aligning our celebration of the Birth of Jesus with the secular "Holiday Season," and not with our Church's calendar.
You see, for the four weeks prior to Christmas Eve, we are not in "Christmas" yet. As Catholics, and some of the major Christian denominations, we are in the season of Advent. This season is about Joyful Anticipation for the coming of Jesus. I used to get so mad at the monks of Conception Abbey when I was a student there, because they would not let us put up Christmas decorations on campus prior to the winter break. By the time break was over, so was the Christmas season, and we could not decorate for Christmas at all. Now I realize the spiritual maturity of that practice. What the monks were trying to teach us was to align our celebration of the holidays (these "HOLY DAYS") with the Church, instead of with the secular culture.
This is something we've had to compromise in our house. My preference would be that we do not put out any decorations for Christmas until Christmas Eve. Yeah. Right. You try to stop Lesley from putting out Christmas decorations. I've caught her listening to "The Carpenter's for Christmas" in July! She's unstoppable. The compromise that we made early in our relationship is that the Christmas decorations would remain out until the Somnity of the Epiphany. (For my non-Catholic readers, that is when the Catholic Church celebrates the coming of the Magi who reverenced the Christ Child as King [gold], Priest [incense], and Sacrificial Victim [myrrh].) Our Christmas decorations stay up until the Church's Christmas Season is over, usually 2 Sundays after Christmas. If I had my drothers, I would leave them up until the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, 3 Sundays after Christmas, but hey, marital comprimise.
I think this is something we need to start taking seriously, if we want to re-evangelize our culture, and make Christmas a Christian holiday again. We need to stop submitting to the secular calendar of the "Holiday Season," and begin aligning our prayer and our activities with the Christian "Christmas Season." There are some simple ways to do this.
1. And this one is good for the whole year round: Integrate the readings of Mass with our personal prayer. I know that many, many Catholics spend time each day with the scriptures. As Catholics (and truly all Christians), our private, personal prayer and communal, ecclesial prayer are supposed to flow from and feed in to each other. One of the simplest ways to do that is to read the scriptures for Mass each day. It takes only a few minutes, and the readings are published in so many different places, "I don't know what the readings are," really is no excuse. There is even an app for it on your smart phone, iMissal. I frame my personal prayer with the scriptures. I read the scriptures for the daily Mass to begin my daily personal prayer. Then I spend time in quiet meditation and then I say a rosary. Then I end my daily, private prayer by listening to God speak in the scriptures for the upcoming Sunday Mass. By the time Sunday comes, I've heard the scriptures for Mass 7 times (Monday through Sunday) already. The way I do this is just one way to do it. Find your own way in your own prayer to spend time each day with the scriptures of the Mass. You will find that your life begins to align naturally with the celebrations of the Church calendar throughout the year.
2. Slow down during Advent. Advent is a time of waiting, anticipation, patience and quiet. Maybe we should all start a practice of not having holiday gatherings until after Christmas Day. Feeling the darkness of Advent by withholding a lot of the lights is an interesting idea. The reason Christmas was assigned to December 25 was not because it is actually Jesus's birthday. By all indications in the scriptures, Jesus was most probably born in the springtime. The earliest Christians evangelized a pagan holiday which celebrated the triumph of light over darkness, when the days started becoming longer. Jesus is the Light of the World, who came into the world to banish darkness. The earliest Christians evangelized the Pagans by "Christianizing" this Roman festival, using it to teach people that Jesus is the Light who has overcome the darkness. Spending Advent in quiet darkness is a good way to give the season of waiting for the Light it's true meaning.
3. Have your holiday get togethers after Christmas. In some of the Orthodox Traditions, gifts aren't given on Christmas at all, but on the Solemnity of the Epiphany. This is to commemorate the gifts of the Magi given to Jesus. Instead of getting together with family and friends the weeks prior to Christmas day to celebrate "Christmas", let's wait until the weekend after Christmas. Let's celebrate gift giving in the Light of the gift of God the Father, Jesus. We might say, "Oh, but who has the time after Christmas?" Why are the days seemingly more condensed after Christmas? Probably because we've already been celebrating for weeks, and are just tired. Putting the celebrations of Christmas off until after Christmas might make the days seem less hectic.
The bottom line is, if we are truly to re-evangelize our culture in an attempt to restore the meaning of Christmas, then we need to think about how we celebrate it. Are we aligning ourselves with the secular calendar, or with the Christian calendar? What are we doing prior to the celebration of the Christian holy days? Is December 25 the beginning of the celebration of the Birth of Jesus that we continue for several weeks, or is it the end of a tiresome, busy, hectic December that we're actually glad to see gone?
In short, while we pay lip service to "the true meaning of Christmas," do we truly celebrate it as Christians?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
