DIVERSITY

I have a FaceBook account and I go there often. I keep some of my 87 friends there in the (Hidden) mode which means that if I want to see what they are posting, I have to click on their icon. They don’t just pop up without any warning. It’s just too much scrolling and scanning to get through a day’s news. After a while you can anticipate what certain folks ares going to share and when that becomes too much, you hide them. Still, I keep track of wonderful, special people whose views and bias fly in each other’s face. I don’t share much on FB, politics or religion in particular simply for that reason. I don’t want to fly in the face of a friend in such a public venue. I would prefer the privacy of a rational, agree to disagree conversation.

But my Blog is different. It belongs to me. I do all of the editing and there is no easy way for someone to comment or amend it other than through me. The only way to see what is there is to go there. Even at that, I tend to stay away from controversial material but I’m stepping over the line today. I checked in this morning to learn that my friends focused on the Supreme Court’s, marriage equality decision. By a predictable 5-4 majority, they found on the side of LGBT couples and the blow back has been as predictable as the narrow margin, 5-4 vote. Some of my FB amigos are adrift between disappointment and devastation while others are delighted. 

In regard to the Supreme Court and comments aimed there, I note that when they decided 5-4, that corporations are no different than individuals, that campaign contributions are expressions of free speech; the same people had nothing but high marks for the Supreme Court, even if they are unelected, life long appointments. I ask my FB friends to remember that Supreme Court Justices are appointed by political animals, with political motives. The judge has a rule book that is full of holes and muddy distinctions. Their job is to clarify the unclear. To do that they rely on their knowledge of the law but even more so, the bias of their experience and what it means to them. It is what it is and we should not be surprised; political animals. 

A true Democracy works well, at least for a while, in small populations. But a bad idea can run amok shortly when driven by whims of the moment and short sighted appetites. The Republic is about laws and representative leadership. You get to vote for the leaders but they make the rules. The founders had a republic in mind from the start. They were a bunch of affluent, white businessmen (Plantation owners) who are still spinning in their graves since we allowed poor commoners to vote, women to vote and people of color to not only vote but hold office. The idea of economic mobility for the lower class was never, ever, their intention, (are you listening Justice Scalia?). Even after the nation was founded, they identified by region or state more so than as Americans. They didn’t trust each other, didn't like each other and they didn’t get along. Slavery and the unfolding of capitalism pitted state against state. To suggest that the constitution is an iron clad expression of the founders intent is naive if not stupid. It is a carefully worded compromise that in effect, kicks the can down the road so it has to be revisited regularly. It is redefined and redirected whenever the collective chemistry of the court changes. 

First generation Americans were galvanized by need to be free from England. After that, our differences have been equal to our commonalities. We are as divided now as when we fought over slavery. In hindsight, we are only the 13th or 14th generation of Americans. Before that our ancestors were British citizens. We are still tweaking the great experiment. That we haven’t got the rules perfected should be no surprise. Part of the ‘Republic’ fail-safe is that change should come slowly, through much deliberation. Jefferson wrote into the document a safeguard for religious concerns who feared government establishment of a national religion. It is referred to as a ‘wall of separation between church and state.’ Today, on FB, I’m seeing 13th generation descendants who can't agree on what that means. I hear Christian zealots saying, "Government must not interfere with my religious freedom but of course, by all means, it should and must marginalize any other spiritual/religious belief or unbelief. The recent court ruling hurts no one. It upsets evangelical purists but it hurts no one. 

Yesterday I visited a coastal, wild life refuge; a huge tract of undeveloped shore on the Texas coast. In 1941 the planet's Whooping Crane population dropped to 21. With human intervention, there are now over 500 of these birds and many of them spend their winters here at Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, north of Corpus Christi, TX. The birds are all way up north now, raising their next generation. It is really hot here; by 9:00 a.m. the birds have roosted in the shade, won’t feed again until the sun gets low, except for a Great Blue Heron standing in the shallows, motionless, for half an hour it stood there waiting for a fish or a crab to come into range. Live Oaks here are small compared to New Orleans but they grow thick on high ground, only a few feet above sea level. As you move along, changing altitude foot by foot, dominant plants change. What thrives at 2’ gives way to something else that does better at 4’ of elevation. Diversity works. There is a tower with an overview of the shoreline, backwater and marsh system. It stands 70’ with a 360 degree view, above the trees. Bird poop covers the hand railing and deck. This is where the top predators bring their dinner, perch here to feed. There were plundered feathers and owl pellets on the deck as well. If you didn’t know, owls often swallow their prey whole, bones and all after they pick off what they can. After a few hours of digestion, what won't disolve is packaged into a pellet that is regurgitated. We walked fast enough to make mosquitoes work for their dinner and employed long sleeves in the heat as well as liberal application of insect repellant. Walking or driving, there is a thin veneer of calm. Everything alive, living there, is always working for it’s living. There is no rest in the wild. Perched birds are working at conserving energy. 

We on the other hand, we live in an artificial construct, one that is complicated and distorted by fear of mortality and fear of change. The fear of what could possibly be seems greater than the worst of what actually is. 'One-man, one-woman' is the stable mate of 'One slave = six tenths of a white man.' That's how they calculated the weight of a white, male land owner's vote. The more slaves you owned, the more weight your vote carried. So much for one-man one -ote. It's starting to sound like political action groups and campaign contributions. We argue about who should and should not be allowed to marry. Marriage doesn’t keep owls or people for that matter, from being together and following nature’s law. But people surely do construct rules and ritual that subordinate the natural. I prefer the god of the marsh and mosquitoes to the God of self absorbed religion. Fear of change is natural but you reason your way through it. The alternative is to be left behind. Change is the nature of nature and that nature will still be changing after all of our foot prints have weathered away or turned to stone. Leave people alone, let them marry who they think they love. If they make a mistake they can divorce and try again. A short hundred years ago interracial marriage was against the law. We grew a little and changed it. Diversity works without paranoid oversight. Even with people, whatever happens, someone will be best suited to answer the need and we, being social creatures, we depend on each other. I think Jesus was straight on the mark with the beatitudes. But the church of his name is more concerned with capitalism and a corporate mentality that can not get beyond punishment and reward. The mourners and the meek, even peace makers and the persecuted, everybody gets a place and a turn at table.