Anatomy of a Keurig

Share

Timeline of events: Roy Moore--an Alabaman Republican candidate for a US Senate seat--is accused of sexual harassment and assault by several women. Roy Moore refuses to back out of the race. Roy Moore does an interview with Sean Hannity. Many people feel Hannity glossed over the allegations. Several advertisers, including Keurig, pull their advertising from Hannity's show in protest of his apparent lack of outrage. Some Hannity fans destroy their Keurig coffee makers.

Really?

Yes, really. And here's an example:

https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/929777702537543681

As the Keurigs shatter on the ground, it seems their pieces reveal a lot about the state of public discourse these days.

First, I'm struck by the language of "offend a liberal" in the above tweet. This is language that is hardly limited to this instance. Google "offend a liberal" and you can find countless memes and images with the same mentality (interestingly you get many of the same conservative memes even when you Google "offend a conservative"). Some progressives likely have the same approach as well, albeit with different language. Whether we label others as "libtards," "libiots," "Teabaggers," or "Re-thug-licans," the effect is the same. And of course, both sides love to throw around the "snowflake" label.

You can completely forget about higher ideals like listening to the other side. We've even moved past trying to persuade the other side. All that matters is winning and upsetting one's opponent. If we can annoy and "offend," that's all we need to do.

I'm also struck (but not surprised) by the oversimplified view of others demonstrated. Seriously, what "liberals" are you hanging out with who would be offended by you destroying your overpriced coffee machine?! I know the friends I have who hold to more progressive/liberal political views wouldn't be "offended." Most of them would just laugh at you. You probably made their day by showing how easily you get "offended" by an advertiser. But, we live in such isolated echochambers that we don't know what people on the other side of the fence are really like anymore. All we're left with are caricatures, stereotypes, and strawmen.

Lastly, it shows how ridiculous we sometimes can be in our "protests" when living in a materialistic culture. We burn jerseys of NFL players we disagree with. We destroy coffee makers of companies who upset us. We refuse to eat fast food chicken because of the owners' position on homosexuality. It's all ridiculous. Ghandi is probably rolling around in his grave wondering why he went on a hunger strike if all he could've done is threw some British furniture out a window. The reality is such "protests" don't actually cost anything. You know those individuals will just turn around a buy another jersey, coffee maker, or chicken sandwich (maybe even from the same place). Where there's no sacrifice, there's not really much substance to that protest.

The sad truth is our public dialogue is utterly empty. It's not even fair to call it a "dialogue" anymore. If you put several angry men together in a room to shout and throw things at each other, is that really a "conversation" just because words exist? Because that's a more apt description of what's happening.

We're not even really concerned with winning arguments any more. We just want to win, period. Dominate the opposition at all costs. But this is a dangerous position. If winning is the ultimate value, then we will be willing to sacrifice our ethics, morals, and our very souls to do so. But once we've sacrificed everything we care about upon the altar of the god of power and triumph, what will we have left? Nothing except a bunch of broken plastic bits, caffeine withdrawals, and a video testifying to how idiotic we look.

Share

What's in a Symbol (or a Flag)?

Share

A little over a year ago we had the same debate: Should NFL players stand or kneel during the national anthem. A little over a year ago I blogged about this. It seems like we're just on repeat now, or that America is simply a skipping record.

Honestly, I don't have much of anything new to say from last year,  but as we enter Round 2 of the NFL-National Anthem debate I have thought more about the symbol of the American flag. It seems that Americans have widely different perspectives on what the flag represents, and this lies at the core of our disagreements.

For most white Americans, we tend to see the American flag in terms of our country's ideals. For most white Americans, the flag represents the best of America. It represents freedom, sacrifice, justice for all, equality, and heroism. We speak in terms of the flag representing what we fight for. In light of this, it's only natural for white Americans to get offended when other Americans use the flag as a site of protest. For many of us, we realize our country is not perfect, but for white Americans the flag tends to represent what we hope to strive toward.

However, for many other Americans (and for others around the world), the flag has additional meanings as well. While the flag still does represent the ideals of America, for many minorities in this country, the flag also represents the institutions and governments that have often oppressed and discriminated against them. There is a realization among non-white Americans that the flag is not merely a symbol of our ideals, but also represents real people, real government, and real institutions.

For a Native American who ancestors were slaughtered by soldiers carrying this flag, the American flag can't help but be a reminder of genocide.

For an African American whose grandmother was denied the right to vote at a courthouse flying this flag, or whose father fought in a World War under this flag only to have the same nation's Housing Department deny him access to a home loan or GI benefits, this flag can't help but be a reminder of discrimination.

When an unarmed man with no violent history is shot dead in his car in front of a child by an officer with an American flag on his police car, the flag loses some of its luster.

And while many around the world do view the American flag as a symbol of hope, freedom, and leadership, there are also many around the world who have been harmed by our international policies and foreign wars and who see the flag as a symbol of American imperialism and meddling.

For people who have experienced oppression underneath the American flag, the flag does not just represent American values and ideals, but also "the republic for which it stands"--a republic they know too well to be harmful to their lives in its current and historic states.

In addition to these differences in perspective, the two go-rounds with the NFL have highlighted another difference. White Americans seem especially quick to connect the American flag to America's military, even when soldiers or military action are not even part of the discussion. For instance, none of the NFL players choosing to kneel during the national anthem have made any statements against war or America's troops. Rather, they hope to point out that the America the flag currently flies over is not the America we want it to be when it comes to race relations.

However, for many Americans (again, mostly white), any perceived slight against the flag it viewed as an attach on America's military and soldiers. The flag ceases to represent anything else and becomes a physical embodiment of our veterans' bravery and sacrifice.

This is very different from the perspective of those protesting. For those protesting, the flag can represent so much more than simply America's warriors. It can represent America's hopes and dreams, but also represents a government and a nation that currently do exist in reality, and that reality is far from perfect.

In summary, what we have is a clash of worldviews surrounding how to interpret the flag. For most (white) Americans, the flag represents America's ideals and war heroes. As such, it ought not be connected with our failings (which most white Americans prefer not to think about or like to pretend is only in the past anyways). Therefore, the flag deserves the utmost respect, even when our country does fail. Failing to show complete reverence for the flag is identical to disrespecting the values and ideals the flag represents (as well as the soldiers who fought for those values).

However, for other Americans, the flag cannot be disconnected from real places, real institutions, and real times. For them, the flag is not merely a symbol, but is an actual piece of fabric that waves over post offices, capitol buildings, armies, and yes, even over unjust actions. It's not that they hate America in its ideal form; they simply hate how America fails to measure up to the ideal. In this view, the flag is not infallible and is open to challenge the actual nation is flies over achieves the ideals so many have fought for. As Kaepernick stated last year, he will protest until "[the American flag] represents what it's supposed to represent."

However, until both sides can find a common ground on how to understand the symbolism of the American flag, we are cursed to continue talking past each other and repeating this conversation every football season.

Share

Racism: What I Have Seen

Share

Over the past few days, our nation's attention has once again been turned to the topic of race. This time, it was because of violence that began when a group of white nationalists gathered in Charlottesville, VA for a rally. Counter-protests soon formed, and over the weekend 3 people lost their lives, including one woman who was hit by a car that drove through one of the counter-protests.

White Supremacist rally in Charlottesville, VA (Aug 2017)

For many white Americans, this all may seem baffling. Some white Americans are still amazed that such hate still exists. Meanwhile, others still find a way to shift the focus and blame onto groups like "Black Lives Matter." Still others point to the decision made in Charlottesville to remove a Confederate statue a few months ago as the inciting incident.

But, events like Charlottesville are merely the tip of the iceberg. It's not as if racism hasn't been pulsing throughout our country this whole time. The reason so many whites have a difficult time dealing with situations like this, or only speaking up against racism when it reaches this level of obviousness is that we don't usually have to think about race because of white privilege. When you benefit from white privilege, it's also harder to see that same privilege. It becomes your culture and your worldview, and as such is difficult to notice until you have an encounter with other cultures and stories.

So, what I hope to do in this post is speak to my friends of European descent. I think one reason white people struggle to handle topics of race well is that we are not trained to see racism. And when we are smacked in the face with it, or when others ask us to give up some of our privilege to pursue an equal society, we tend to get uncomfortable or even defensive and hostile. So, in this post, I want to share a few of the ways in which I have seen racism rear its ugly head so my white friends can begin to get just a sliver of a taste of how racism remains present with us in every community.


So, here are a few of my stories. As a disclosure, most of my personal observations relate to racism as it pertains to the black community since those are the interactions my journey has taken me to. However, if you just ask around a bit, you can easily find others who can better speak about stories relating to Hispanic, Native American, Asian, or other cultures.

I also offer up that these are only what I have seen as a white male. Because of my own whiteness and status, I have personally experienced far less than my black and brown brothers and sisters, and even things that have happened in my presence I am less likely to notice because I am a white male. However, perhaps that underscores the point even more. If I have seen this much in a few short years as a white male, how much more is actually going on that others go through every day?! Anyways, here is what I have seen:

• Just recently, a local black church in our area was broken into and vandalized, including with graffiti of a swastika and the words "Trump" and "Satan." 
• I lived in small Texas town for about 6 1/2 years and served as a youth pastor for 5 years while there. Thankfully, our youth ministry was pretty diverse with near equal numbers of white, black, and Hispanic students.  Within my first two months there, we had 2 of our black students who were walking home after church on a Wednesday night and had a person from a neighboring church shout "niggers" at them.
• I've heard white members of a past church catch themselves using the N-word to refer to some of our black students.
• When we had a white student visit one Sunday, we had one lady tell my wife and I that she was happy to see that student and that we "need more white kids."
• I have gotten complaints from some church members that some of our (black) students would wear a backpack to church service, but never heard any complaints when white students would do the same.

There's also more subtle things I noticed:

• While many white members of past churches I've been to felt free to express their political opinions, including disparaging remarks about Obama, I can't say our black students (many of whom supported Obama) ever felt the same freedom to make political comments, likely because they felt in the minority and feared reprisal based on other comments they heard condemning their points of view.
• In Texas, "Juneteenth" is a holiday celebrating when slaves in Texas received word that they were free. While there are numerous events, parades, and celebrations for this holiday, and despite the fact that nearly all the black churches in town would get involved, I never heard any suggestions from our white churches should do something for Juneteenth. It either didn't matter to them or simply wasn't on their radar.
• When events like the Charlottesville protests or the Charleston church shooting occurred, many white churches do not even acknowledge such events during their worship, despite a willingness to bring up other non race-related tragedies in worship services. (Thankfully, my current church incorporated a time of mourning and prayer in today's service for the events in Charlottesville.) 

Then there's the history of towns I've lived in.

• Like most southern towns, the schools of a town I recently lived in were segregated in the past. The black school and the white school only merged in 1968, within my parents' lifetime.
• After desegregation in the late 60's and economic downturns in the following decades, my last town experienced the phenomenon of "white flight" as many (richer) white citizens chose to leave town in search of better (and whiter) pastures. This further hurt the city's economy and the many families of color who remained.
• As I would drive through the town in which I served as youth pastor, I quickly noticed a huge difference in the architecture of the churches in town. The largest, tallest, and nicest churches were historically white. Whereas most of the black churches in town were much smaller, less ornate, and looked more run down. Now of course, the measure of a church is not in its building, but in its people, but this noticeable difference speaks to the historic inequality that has existed in the incomes and opportunities between the white and black citizens of our town.
• Although segregation officially ended in the 60's, towns I have lied in are still segregated by geography. In my last city of residence, what is known as "the south side" is almost exclusively black (with a fair number of Hispanic families now as well). Incidentally, this also happens to be the poorest part of town with abysmal infrastructure. Roads are hardly paved, many lots are overgrown, and houses are older and smaller. Meanwhile, the students in my youth ministry referred to neighborhoods where I lived as "the white part of town." This did not necessarily mean that there were only white people in our neighborhoods (for instance, we had 3 black families on my street), but it was because it's where you found the white people. And in the past, these areas would have been exclusively white as African Americans would have been prohibited (by cost and by law) from buying or even renting these homes. Not surprisingly, these were the parts of town with nicer houses and better roads. I have seen this same phenomenon in countless cities I visit in central Texas as a part of my current job. Often, the phrase "wrong side of the tracks" has a very literal meaning, even in small towns of less than 10,000 people--and the side you are on is often partially determined by race.
• And an unofficial segregation still exists in the schools in that same county in which I used to live. Even though whites make up about 40% of the city's population, the city school district is probably 90-95% black and Hispanic students. So, where do all the white kids go? Well, they go to surrounding school districts that are supposedly "better" academically, even though test results don't always bear this out.
• But, the reputation of this school district as an academically poor school is also tied to its reputation as a "black" school. For instance, when one of my white friends who was a counselor at our school district went to watch her son (also white) play a basketball game at a neighboring school, the people doing admission automatically directed her to sit with the opposing team's section because they couldn't imagine a white person sitting on our side. There was an implicit assumption that our school (and basketball team) would be black and that a white player would not be playing on our team.

But before you just assume that this one town is some horribly racist town, realize that such instances of racism and privilege are common all over the place:

• One of the most eye opening experiences on race I've had came a number of years ago when I was in seminary. I was going on a school retreat (that doubled as a preaching class). During this retreat, one of my classmates, who is black, told us a story about an experience he had the morning he left to drive out to the conference site. We were reading several novels and books for the class, and my classmate still had to pick up one last book. So, he got up early the morning the retreat began and drove to a local bookstore. He arrived a few minutes before they opened, so he sat in his car and waited (since it was a cold January morning). Within a few minutes, he had a police officer come up and knock on his window. The officer began to interrogate him about why he was waiting around and what he was doing. Even though my classmate was also a youth pastor like me and had a legitimate reason for being there, he had an experience that I would likely not have, all because he was a black man wearing a hooded sweatshirt. Apparently a black man sitting outside a bookstore is planning on robbing the place because surely he's not there to actually buy books (sarcasm).
• As shocking as this is, it gets even worse. As we talked about this experience, another black student chimed in and asked, "Did the officer 'apologize' by saying that they had had a report of another black man in the area who matched your description?" My classmate who had been questioned by the officer replied by saying that that's exactly what the officer said. At this point, a third student (also a black male) nodded and affirmed that he's had the same experience (multiple times). Again, I have never had this experience, but all 3 of my classmates had (again, multiple times). And, it's not that these three were troublemakers or anything. All of them were pastors and had families and held good jobs before going to seminary. That evening, each of these three proceeded to share several of their stories of being pulled over or stopped by the police despite not doing anything wrong. For example, one was stopped and questioned intently by an officer when he was driving a van for a country music radio station he worked for (perhaps the officer thought the van was stolen since surely a black man couldn't work at a country music station--again sarcasm).
• This past fall, one of my interns at work (who was also a college student) told me a story about she witnessed a group of white males had shouted a bunch of racial slurs and insults at a female Muslim student on the college campus following the election of Donald Trump. This is in addition to an incident in which a black student was called a N***** on Baylor's campus.
• When I was searching for an apartment a few months ago, I did so with the knowledge that the options for minorities when it comes to buying and renting homes has historically been limited. There have been so many structural ways in which minorities (blacks in particular) have been prohibited from buying homes or renting homes in particular neighborhoods (read The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein for more on this). And since the past impacts the present, this means that the sins of the past continue to impact the housing options and geography of today.
• When I was in school, we learned about the "big moments" as it related to race--slavery, the Civil War, Martin Luther King Jr., Brown v Board of Education--but there were so many aspects of our racial history that were never even touched. For instance, we learned about the GI Bill, but not about how most of the benefits of GI Bill disproportionately helped white veterans and left black veterans out to dry. We did not learn about the many ways in which our housing markets and neighborhoods were intentionally segregated. We did not learn how the 13th Amendment (supposedly banning slavery) left a big loophole allowing slavery as a punishment for a crime and that southerners in the post-Civil War era made up ludicrous crimes in order to arrest African Americans and force them to do work they had just been freed from. For that matter, we did not learn that racism was just as prominent in businesses and society in the north as in the south. We did not learn about the contributions of black employees at NASA in getting to the moon (as depicted in the film Hidden Figures). And worst of all, we were taught to view racism as an historical issue, one that largely ended during the Civil Rights movement. These are matters in which I am only now beginning to educate myself about. But, I am also actively seeking out this information because I've personally seen how racism is still alive and well. This means that most white Americans are still blissfully unaware of these historical (and modern) realities.

So, there are a few of my stories. The list could be much longer if I included the countless Facebook and social media posts and comments I've seen that have been racially insensitive. It could be much longer if I included the many in-person comments I've heard (including within the church) that demonstrate a complete lack of awareness and knowledge on the part of whites of how much racism has marred our country's past. And again, it would be much, much longer if I were not a white male and was actually the recipient of racism and bias.

I don't post these stories to badmouth anyone or to say that individuals guilty of racist comments or actions are always bad (some are very kind people who simply don't realize what they are doing). I post these stories to simply point out that racism and bias and white privilege do in fact exist today and that we cannot choose to inaction. And it's not just in random white supremacist rallies that happen to pop up. It's everywhere. It's in the north and in the south. It's in big cities and in small towns. It's in the world, and it's in the Church. And it's not merely a "few bad apples." Racism built our society. It laid the bedrock on which we now stand, and as such it continues to affect the present. Bias continues to be built into the social systems that benefit those of us who are white. We cannot ignore this anymore.

If you have your own personal stories you have experienced, I encourage you to share them. It's time for those of us who are white to stop trying to be "colorblind" and to realize that our society is not truly equal yet.  "Colorblindness" might be a great ideal to strive for, but as long as racism and inequality continue to exist, those of us who are white cannot afford to ignore race because doing so simply gives us permission to continue benefiting from a system that is rigged against our neighbor.

Share

Where is the Starting Line?

Share

Before white Americans jump to say that Affirmative Action is "racist" or "unfair," here are a few things to consider: "Affirmative Action" means any policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who suffer or have suffered from discrimination within a culture. In other words, the critics are right in saying that it is a form of "discrimination," but it's a positive one. It is a kind of "leveling of the playing field" so a segment of the population doesn't fall behind (or farther behind).

But one fact that most white Americans don't consider is that many of them are direct beneficiaries of one of the largest (and most expensive) affirmative action efforts in our history: the GI Bill. After WWII, the US Government created the GI Bill to help level the playing field for returning veterans. Since most veterans had gone to war and suffered, they had lost several years worth of education, work, and experience at home. Without some program to help them out, they would likely fall behind in society. As President Eisenhower put it, returning veterans "are entitled to definite action to help take care of their special problems." The GI Bill funded veterans to continue their education, provided loan guarantees for veterans to purchase homes, and provided job training/placement. Now was this "unfair" to non-veterans. You could certainly make that argument. But the rationale was that we owed this to veterans to make sure they didn't fall behind. We wanted an equal playing field.

But here's the kicker--the GI Bill primarily benefited whites. Because of concessions made to Southern lawmakers, black veterans benefited almost none at all. African American veterans were denied housing and business loans, were excluded from job training programs, and faced active discrimination in enrolling in colleges. So in effect, the GI Bill was affirmative action for whites.

This in and of itself could be an argument for affirmative action in higher education for minorities today. While white families benefited educationally and financially from the GI Bill, creating a stepping stone up for their children and grandchildren, the children and grandchildren of black families would face an extra obstacle to overcome.

Protesters against the Brown v Board of Education decision.

But sadly, that is not the only obstacle minority families face today. Even if we claim that today's society is a perfectly equal society with no current racism or discrimination (which we are in reality far from), you really cannot argue that everyone has an equal starting point. Our nation was literally built upon the backs of slaves. Racism and discrimination existed in every state and city in our country for over 2 centuries. If a war that lasted less than a decade is enough to warrant affirmative action, shouldn't 2 centuries of discrimination and oppression also warrant it?

You see, here's where I think the challenge is in this debate. We (white Americans) don't really believe that the past has much impact on the present. We think, "I'm not racist and I don't see much discrimination today (especially compared to the past), so minorities have no excuse today not to succeed." We also tend to believe in the American mythos that you can become anything and achieve anything if you just work hard enough. If we buy into this mindset, then of course any "affirmative action" plan will be flawed because we have bought into the idea that the playing field is already equal.

However, the past does impact the present. You success is more than simply the sum of your actions. Who you are today is at least partially the result of your parents' decisions, education, wealth, and success. Much of your path was already determined for you by where you grew up, by the schools you had access to, and by who your neighbors were. And yes, if your skin is not white, then you inevitably (even today) will face unique challenges, if from nowhere else then at least from a few remaining "bad apples."

The point is this is not just about the present realities, whether we make equal opportunities available or not. This is also about starting lines. If certain segments of our population have a starting line 200 meters behind ours, then we have an obligation to take actions to fix that, especially if our own government took actions in the past that set the starting line for others so far back.

A St. Louis campaign flyer advocating for housing segregation in 1916.

And that has happened. In addition to the discrimination faced by blacks and others in the GI Bill, our very housing maps have been largely segregated by government action. Mortgage companies and the federal government refused to give loans to African American families for years. Whenever a black family would move into a white neighborhood, real estate agents would begin "blockbusting" and scaring white homeowners into moving because they believed their home values would begin dropping (even though black homeowners often paid double for the same homes because they could not get mortgages for homes in other neighborhoods).

Similarly, many white neighborhoods had "restrictive covenants" that made it illegal for black families to buy homes in that neighborhood. State and local courts (and not just in the South) upheld evictions of African American families who had legally purchased homes in white neighborhoods.

When it came to schools, our schools were intentionally segregated. Separate schools were built for African Americans, and these schools were usually underfunded. Even after integration took effect, many communities found ways to practically continue segregation. Sometimes district lines were deliberately drawn to irregularly dissect neighborhoods to ensure that black and white students would not attend the same schools. Other times, white families would start up expensive private schools to for their children knowing black families could not afford them (simultaneously draining money from public schools that looked increasingly brown and black). Or, many schools remained segregated as whites continued to move out to suburbs where there were jobs and opportunities and left minorities in an economic vacuum to also deal with an impoverished school district.

This is not even to consider the horrors of ways that the criminal justice system has often been prejudiced against minorities throughout the years, or other ways in which minorities have been harmed and disadvantaged throughout our past. Once you start to consider the extent to which African Americans and other minorities had been oppressed, then you also begin to realize that the starting line is not in fact equal.

Now, none of this is to say that minorities and oppressed populations cannot succeed or overcome these obstacles to become successful. They most certainly can and often do. But contrary to some critics who argue that affirmative action is "insulting" to minorities by assuming that they "can't make it" without a "handout," I don't think that's the intention or mindset of affirmative action programs. I think such programs simply recognize that, even if the current situation is devoid of racism or discrimination, the starting line is not in the same place for everyone. So, the point is to remove some of the obstacles that exist. And, if a non-white individual ends up experiencing more success because they're used to working twice as hard to achieve the same outcome, well, that's not really their fault and that's not really "unfair" to us whites.

So, before you jump to talking about how horrible affirmative action is, consider whether your family is also a recipient of affirmative action and consider the extent to which others who look different from you have experienced hardship and setbacks. Because I suspect that if you jump too quickly to thinking that affirmative action is "unfair" to you that you probably have never actually studied and pondered the full measure of discrimination and racism in our country's history.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Another critique of affirmative action is that it supposedly sets "quotas" and a completely unqualified person can get into a school because of the color of their skin while a very qualified person who is white will get denied because of it. Now, while it may be true that some white students may miss out on a particular school because of affirmative action policies, I can assure you that a minority student can't just get into any school they want. Having worked in a community with a poor and academically struggling minority school district for a number of years, I can guarantee you that those students did not just have "free rides" into colleges. It is still arguably much easier for a white, suburban student to get into the college of their choice than for some of those African American or Hispanic students to get into any college.

**If you'd like to read more about our nation's checkered past, a few good reads are America's Original Sin by Jim Wallis, The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein, and The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.

Share

Messier than We'd Like

Share

The battlelines have been drawn, arguments made, and today the drama reached its climax. Today, the parents of Charlie Gard, the infant with a fatal mitochondrial depletion syndrome, made the difficult decision to no longer pursue treatment options but to remove their son from child support.

For those not familiar with the case, over the past several months the parents of Charlie have been embroiled in a legal battle with the hospital over whether or not they could pursue an experimental treatment for their son in the U.S. (they live in the U.K.). Although parents typically have the right to consent to treatment and make medical decisions for their children, the hospital and the state can step in when they feel the parents' decisions place the child at more risk of harm than good. Such was the case here. The disease Charlie has is fatal. In fact, the only reason Charlie is alive is because he is being sustained by life support. There is currently no effective treatment. The treatment that Charlie's parents wanted to try is "experimental," meaning it has no guaranteed success, and the risks are still largely unknown. In fact, this particular treatment has never been used with Charlie's form of the disease.

Given these facts, the doctors at the hospital believed the most humane action to take was to remove Charlie from life support, rather than subject him to an experimental procedure that could risk causing more harm with little chance of success and rather than prolonging his pain and suffering due to the disease. Thus, the hospital declined to allow the parents to take Charlie to America for this treatment. The case then was taken up in the courts, ending with the European Court of Human Rights siding with the hospital at the end of June, concluding that "it was likely that Charlie would suffer significant harm if his present suffering was prolonged without any realistic prospect of improvement, and the experimental therapy would be of no effective benefit."

This whole situation has reignited the debates over euthanasia, life support, and death with dignity. This debate can get downright nasty at times. Numerous commentators have ripped into the hospital for being inhumane. Conservative political thinkers have held this scenario up as a perfect example of the evils of big government, single-payer health systems, socialism, etc. There have even been death threats made against doctors and nurses at the treating hospital.

Most of the criticism of the hospital and the courts tends to come from conservative individuals who also tend to identify as "pro-life." And, the logic makes sense. If one is "pro-life," then naturally it should make sense to advocate for life at all costs. One cannot put a price tag on life, and so we should fight to keep people alive as long as possible and to take any possible option we can to save lives.

Cases like Charlie's often also get tossed into the "death with dignity" and euthanasia debates. Most conservative Christians would denounce euthanasia as an unethical medical practice as it attempts to "play God" by taking another person's life.

However, when I approach Charlie's case, I have two main thoughts. First, I think it's best if we all take a breath and calm down before speaking. I say that because situations like this are amazingly complex and fraught with all kinds of questions lacking clear cut answers.

On the one hand, I do think that Charlie's parents probably should have been allowed to pursue a treatment they thought might work. On the other hand, I also understand why the hospital wanted to oppose this. With no guarantee of success and a high risk of harm, allowing such a decision could almost be seen as a kind of child abuse.

When we enter this debate, we need to do so with humility and generosity towards the other side. I've seen various commentators repeatedly things like "the doctors have murdered the baby" or "the State wants the power to kill patients." But, we must remember that these are false caricatures. No one wanted Charlie to die. No one took pleasure in that decision. It is inappropriate to label the heartbreaking decisions of doctors who seek to save lives as "murder," let alone to threaten those doctors with actual murder.

But secondly, I also can't help but think of a question that has kept running through my mind throughout this whole ordeal--"When does our desire to save a life actually become a denial of death?"

Opposition to removing Charlie's life support has often been tagged as a "pro-life" position, but is it really? For one, I see this matter as very different from that of euthanasia. Typically, when we talk about euthanasia, we are talking about ending a person's life early to prevent the pain and suffering that will accompany a certain death. As a pro-life individual, I cannot get behind the number of "death with dignity" bills that have been introduced in recent years allowing doctor assisted suicide. Such an approach seems like "playing God" and seems to lapse too quickly into escapism and hopelessness.

In contrast, cases like Charlie's are different in that Charlie is already dead. That might seem harsh, but it is true. If the only reason a person is "alive" is because they are hooked up to machines that breathe for you and feed you and keep your brain and heart going, is that really living? Removing one's life support to allow a person to die naturally is a far cry from actively taking a drug to end one's life before natural causes have their way.

Such a distinction causes me to ponder if some of our "pro-life" shouting "on behalf of" Charlie is actually a refusal to accept death. Are we actually just afraid to confront the reality of death? The truth is Charlie will die, whether now or in 60 years. We all die. And, even sadder, many babies are born with problems that mean they will die before their first birthday. That is the reality of our broken world.

Now certainly, we should utilize medicine to minimize suffering and to find cures to reduce these deaths, but we also need to ask the question, "How far is too far?" At what point do we choose to accept the inevitable and surrender to the cold reality of death? Sure, we can endlessly grasp at more and more futile options to desperately save a life, but this does not echo of the Christian hope either. In some ways, running after every last possible treatment can also seem like "playing God" by trying to extend life when it's not reasonable to do so or when life has already practically ended.

Think about this same issue at the other end of the lifespan. A few years ago, my wife's grandmother died of cancer. She had tried various treatments for years with limited success. Some treatments not only made her incredibly sick, but even almost killed her. Toward the end of her life, she was given some newer, more experimental options, and she had to face this same question: "Do I try these with no guarantee of success and a high risk of more suffering, or do I commit myself to God's hands and enjoy this last bit of time I have with my friends and family?"

Now, there are some differences between an elderly person facing this choice and people like Charlie's parents. One has enjoyed a full, long life while the other hasn't. But we should consider the similarities. Both must wrestle with the inevitability of death.

So, does the pro-life position simply try to extend biological life, or is it something more? Isn't it also concerned about quality of life and about trusting in the God of life?

Think about what the situation would had looked like if Charlie's parents had faced the tragic reality that their son was going to die. What would it have looked like if they had thanked God for the chance to see their son, grieved over the loss of their son, and entrusted their son into God's hands?

What would it look like for the people of God to surround a family like this with a resurrection hope--a hope that says one day this evil will be made right? Yes, we grieve today that Charlie will never have the chance to run and play, but we hold onto the hope that our God raises the dead and that one day this child will be healthy and will finally have the chance to run and play on his own two legs.

None of this is to blame Charlie's parents. They were doing what they felt best in that situation. And that's the point. These are incredibly messy situations with no easy answers. We may never fully know what the correct action should have been. After all, how can we possibly answer the question of when to say goodbye to a loved one? Is there ever a good time to make that decision? Whether it is knowing when to stop futile treatments and seek palliative care for yourself, or deciding when to pull life support from a loved one, this is no easy decision.

So perhaps we as Christians should use moments like these to be people of grace and forgiveness, of patience and understanding. Rather than using it to bolster a political platform, perhaps we should use the time to be reminded of our own frailty, to grieve the loss of precious life, and to confront our our fears of death.

Share

Presidential Tweets through History

Share

One of the great dangers of the Trump era is that statements, actions, and attitudes that previously would have seemed outrageous or offensive are now beginning to be accepted as the new normal. Like with tragedies and violence, we become desensitized and numb the more we come into contact with this kind of rhetoric.

So, to help us "snap back" to reality and see how outrageous many of the White House comments are, let's imagine what past Presidents would have sounded like if they took on the current tone:

George Washington: "If fake news--Poor Richard's Almanac, Connecticut Courant, New Hampshire Gazette, and others--won't shut up, we'll need to shut their printing presses for them. The American people are being misled and should just get news directly from me, the source." [compare to this real quote]

Thomas Jefferson: "Buying land west of the Mississippi River would be a sad waste of money." (2 weeks later) "I'm buying 828,000 square miles west of the Mississippi." (1 week later) "Fake news media says it was my idea to pay France for that land. LIES! It was the Federalists in Congress. They are colluding with France, not me."

Abraham Lincoln: "The Abe is working hard on this "situation" (NOT so called "crisis"). A few states tell me they are unhappy, but don't worry, Abe is making them some sweet deals. It's maybe not as difficult as people have thought, James Buchanan just totally "choked" and the South is just jealous I won. But, not too difficult. However, Robert E Loser has been TOTALLY UNFAIR!! I demand an apology!"

FDR: "Dec. 7, 1941, a day that was really, really bad. Radical Japanese bombed us. They are spies and also taking our jobs in California. We need to round them up in a big camp. It will be a beautiful camp, the best materials. No one will get out. We need to round them up and keep them there. They're BAD ninjas. #KeepAmericaSafeAgain"

Richard Nixon: "When the President does it, that means it's not illegal." (oh wait, Nixon actually said that)
"I have never heard or seen such outrageous, vicious, distorted reporting in my 27 years of public life. I'm not blaming anyone for that, and don't get the impression that you've aroused my anger [he did say that]...JK, my low ratings are all your fault. You're all evil scum and I'm coming for you!"

Bill Clinton: "I did not have relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinski. I mean, seriously, who would want her? She needs a nose job and is incredibly flat. If she were actually beautiful I may have started kissing her, but no I did not have relations with that ugly girl."

George W. Bush: "Psycho, no-brain Katie Couric keeps lying about the Iraq War. #FakeNewsCBS (or FBS) has failing ratings (no longer watch). Crazy Katie begged to come to my ranch last year and now she lies. The war is going amazing. It's going to be a great war, the best war."

Barack Obama:  (6 months into Presidency) "In case you forgot, I am the FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT. No one else has done this before, until me that is. I won, got more votes than anyone else. Herman Cain and Al Sharpton were losers. Black President = me."

Share

A Community of Unity

Share

Last week I wrote about how our political discourse has become so infected by violence. Then, as if to put an exclamation mark on those comments, this morning we learned of the horrible shooting targeted at Republican lawmakers.

However, while we could hope that such tragedies would bring our nation together, the opposite actually seems true. Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers saw an uptick in threats today, a reminder that this culture of violence plagues both the Right and Left as I observed last week.

And although Capitol Hill showed a few flourishes of bipartisanship and unity today, as the day draws to a close even that begins to break down. The finger pointing and blame-games have already begun. The LA Times observed that the shooting may actually have further aggravated the tensions and violent discourse. In their words, "brief harmony proved a mere pause as the country descended into an even deeper slough of animosity and political loathing."

In such a culture, where can we find hope?

"The faithful have been swept from the land;
 not one upright person remains.
Everyone lies in wait to shed blood;
 they hunt each other with nets." (Micah 7:2)

This is where the church comes in. In the midst of darkness and hopelessness, the church is called to be "salt and light," to be a "city on a hill."

The Mennonite ethicist and theologian, John Howard Yoder, repeatedly made the claim that the "meaning of history" lies not with government or the world, but within the Church. By this, he meant that the church does not need to follow the world, but that the church must live out its true, counter-cultural identity since the world will ultimately follow the church. The Church does not need to seek power or influence over the world, but simply needs to be the Church.

John Howard Yoder

In The Politics of Jesus, Yoder gives several examples of this. For instance, he argues it was the Church that first really pursued the concept of hospitals as a means to care for the poor. Indeed, many hospitals still retain a faith-based name or identity (both hospitals here in Waco have Christian roots--Baptist and Catholic). However, as the world saw this form of Christian witness, it eventually caught up and created its own versions of Christian care for the sick. Likewise, victim-offender mediation within the criminal justice system also began with Christians attempting to practice Gospel-informed reconciliation.

If we believe, like Yoder, that the purpose of God within history is the "Creation of the one new humanity" beginning with the community of the Church (Yoder, "A People in the World," 1969), then we must take seriously that how the Church acts does in fact matter.

Embedded within the Bible are beautiful pictures of a Church without borders and without divisions:

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal. 3:28-29)

"After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands." (Rev. 7:9)

"Make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves." (Phil. 2:2-3)

"Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ.  For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink." (1 Cor. 12:12-13)

The Church is to be that place where we are united. Now, unity does not mean uniformity. We will still have different politics, different skin colors, different theological opinions, and different places in society, but the true Church does not let these things turn into division or dissension.

Imagine the impact on our political discourse if Christians who were Republicans and Democrats sat down together on a regular basis and could talk civilly with each other. Imagine if our churches were less divided along lines of race and political party to begin with. What if Christians practiced humility in their speech and were actually willing to listen to those who have alternate opinions? Evangelicals often talk about the need to be "counter-cultural," but let's be honest, what could be more counter-cultural than this?

http://www.cookstownparish.com/category/news/diocesan-and-national-news/

However, this is certainly not an easy road. At the same time our nation was being torn apart by a horrific political shooting, the Southern Baptist Convention was stumbling toward its own attempt at racial reconciliation with both success and frustration. Such incidents remind us that this work is often difficult. It's easy to talk, but harder to practice.

Nonetheless, our culture needs the Church to stand up more than ever and be a voice of unity and humility. We need the Church to become the kind of community our country cannot. While the world continues along its path of polarization, the Church must resist that temptation and draw people from both extremes in together through the worship of a Triune God. When the Church models this kind of life--this kind of community--it is a witness to the Kingdom God wants to bring here to earth. However, if even the Church cannot model this community of unity, then we shouldn't hold out much hope to see such unity in the world around us.

Share

American Violence & Political Discourse

Share

This past week, comedian Kathy Griffin received much criticism and lost numerous business contracts due to a video she posted of her holding up a fake severed head made in the likeness of Donald Trump.  Many people on both the political Right and Left (rightfully) condemned Griffin's actions. Trump himself tweeted about how the images were disturbing to his children, especially his 11-year old son.

Kathy Griffin and Donald Trump

However, for anyone paying attention, much of this criticism seems a bit hypocritical because Griffin's video is merely the symptom of a larger problem in our society. Were the images Griffin posted offensive and disgusting? Definitely. But, it's also disgusting how often we tolerate such violence on behalf of our political party or our nation.

The truth is violence has always been embedded in American culture. Our nation was forged in the fires of violent revolution, and ever since then we have found ways to sacralize the myth of redemptive violence. We even have national holidays that strip away the ugliest parts of war and serve the public a cleaner version of "honor" and "valor." Looking at our history, we not only spend the most of any nation on our military (more than the next 8 nations combined or about 37% of the world's total military spending), but our country has also been at war for 224 of our 241 years of existence. We truly are a military-warrior nation.

But violence not only permeates the national stage, it also infects our homes. In American, 1 out of 4 women and 1 in 7 men will experience severe physical violence from an intimate partner or loved one at some point in their lives. Furthermore, this is not just a problem for any single demographic. Domestic violence cuts across all demographic markers--rich/poor, all ethnicities and races, urban/rural, educated/uneducated.

We even see violence infecting the world of sports. Much good work has been done recently on sports and the "warrior culture" within athletics that often fosters violence. Athletes, especially males, approach games as "battles," wear UnderArmour, and celebrate hyper-masculinity. Fans likewise get into the action wearing body paint like warriors, organizing themselves into tribes, and cheering on the events below. Some sports, such as football and hockey, have violence inherently built into the game. And who doesn't love to see a good hit or tackle in these sports? Sure, we might criticize the Romans for their gladiatorial games, but is the heart of our celebrations of violence in our arenas (and the insane amount of money we throw at them) really all that different simply because it's less bloody?

The point is, we cultivate a culture of violence everyday. We could go on to mention other examples. Violent video games, violent movies, violent language, gun culture, news that highlights murders and terrorism. This is the air we breathe and the water we drink.

So, it's no surprise that violence has infected our political rhetoric as well. Kathy Griffin was not the first, but simply the most recent example. Some of Griffin's most fervent critics were Trump's own supporters. However, there's a certain hypocrisy in this as these same individuals often tolerated (and sometimes endorsed) the violent discourse used by Trump during his candidacy. Trump frequently talked about assaulting protesters, argued we should kill even the wives and children of terrorists, and had to deal with a video where he bragged about sexual assault. Trump's violent rhetoric has spurred violence among some of his supporters as well, with one judge even stating Trump may be partially to blame for violence at his rallies.

And Trump isn't the only politician to talk about or use violence in recent months. During the campaign season, Joe Biden made remarks about wanting to "take [Trump] behind the gym," an allusion to physical violence not all that different from Trump's drooling over the "good 'ole days" when you could "just punch" someone you didn't like. Just late last month, a Republican congressional candidate was cited for assaulting a reporter just a day before the election. And yet, such violence did not seem to bother voters as he still managed to win his congressional seat. Likewise, following Trump's victory in November, a number of anti-Trump protesters started violent riots.

As we examine the use of violence in our political discourse, it's evident that violence is a problem for both sides of the aisle. This is because violence begets more violence. We see this phenomenon over and over. Police brutality and violence spurs violent riots. Wars against terrorism fuels more terroristic extremism. As Jesus said, "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword."

But, an interesting fact is that such violence in political discourse is not altogether new. Despite the fact that many feel like our country and our politics are going up in flames, the truth is we've always had violence in our politics. As mentioned earlier, our country's very inception was in violent revolution and rhetoric. And, throughout American history, our politics and political figures have always been marred by assaults and assassinations. We've even fought a war among ourselves over political differences.

In 1856, Senator Preston Brooks assaulted Sen. Charles Sumner in the U.S. Senate building.

Why is this? I suspect it is for the reasons given above--that we are a culture surrounded by violence and in love with violence. Such violence tends to become more extreme when we also throw in the forces of political polarization and hyper-masculinity/patriarchalism, but the seeds of violence are always there because it's embedded in our culture's DNA.

For Christians, this should be disconcerting as followers of a man who preached "blessed are the peacemakers" and who demonstrated that the way to overcome evil is not through utilizing violence, but through compassionate sacrifice.

To overcome this culture of a violent political discourse, Christians cannot wait on their politicians. We must start this work themselves. We must begin to replace the myth of redemptive violence with the truth of sacrificial love. We must listen more to the values of the Kingdom of God rather than to the values of the nation of America. We must heed the words of peace from our Lord and Savior, rather than the siren call of strength and power offered by our culture.

Calling out the violence of the "other side" is not good enough and often just feeds polarization. We must be willing to also name violence within our own tribe and party. And even harder, we must be willing to take a hard look at our own lives and confess the ways in which we participate, tolerate, and advocate violence in our day to day routines. Most of us don't assault others, but we do all fetishize violence in various forms, benefit from war, have misaligned concepts of "justice," use violence or aggressive language, and otherwise allow violence to sneak into our lives in countless other ways. Until God's people can learn to be a "people of peace" and teach others to do the same, we will continue to see (and support) a violence political discourse.

Share

Climate, Trump, and keeping perspective

Share

The big news this afternoon was that President Trump decided to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement on climate change. Here are a few thoughts:

1) This is an unfortunate abdication of American world leadership

Although exact percentages vary, one fact is certain--a majority of world scientists believe global warming and climate change are primarily the result of carbon emissions and human activity. And, contrary to many denial narratives about "global cooling" as the previous concern of scientists, climate change is not a new concern that simply arose in the 1990's. Rather, it has been a concern of scientists going all the way back to the 1960's, and warming was actually a bigger concern than "cooling" during this time period.

Even most oil and gas companies today publicly state their belief that climate change is real. BP, Shell, Exxon-Mobile, and Chevron have all expressed support for reducing greenhouse emissions. One survey of oil and gas business professionals found that 74% of these professionals were at least "somewhat sure" that global warming is happening (58% were at least "very sure" or "extremely sure.") Furthermore, 57% of those individuals believed this warming is being caused by human actions, and 75% stated that humans could take steps to reduce global warming. Keep in mind, this is from oil and gas professionals, those who have a financial interest in denying human-caused climate change.

The bottom line is that mainline science concurs that this is a problem and that there are steps humans can take to reduce the problem. This is evidenced by the willingness of 195 nations to sign the Paris Agreement. If climate change was actually scientifically debatable, you would not have seen this kind of overwhelming support. So while climate change deniers often charge that this whole push is merely a plot by socialists to increase government control, the scientific consensus begs to differ.

Now, is it possible that the current science on climate change could be wrong? Sure. That's why science always runs tests to try disproving prevailing theories. However, up to this point, the scientific evidence lines up with current theories. As such, our nation's policies should heed the best available science and not deny it.

That's why Trump's decision is a failure of global leadership. If the science is correct, climate change does pose a risk to humans, particularly to humans in poor countries. It's clear the rest of the world recognizes this (indeed the U.S. has the highest percent of climate change deniers of any country in the world). As long as the science holds, it's inevitable that other countries, like China, will step up and continue to lead in this area. If the U.S. backs down, other countries will rise up and become leaders in technology innovation and energy independence.

2. For Christians, our concern should go beyond the truth or falsehood of climate change

For sake of argument, let's say that in 20 years scientists learn that climate change is not actually a human-induced phenomenon. Even if that is the case, Christians should still advocate for cleaner energy for a variety of reasons. First, there is no debate that fuels like oil, gas, and coal are polluters. Even "cleaner" versions of these fossil fuels still produce pollution. And the bottom line is that pollution is harmful. From a public health standpoint, we should attempt to reduce pollution as much as possible. No one wants to be breathing smog or drinking dirty water.

Additionally, Christians have a biblical commitment to creation. In Genesis 2, God places humanity in the Garden and gives them the command to "work it and take care of it." Yes, creation is for our enjoyment and use, but we are also to be good stewards of the good gifts God has given us. Furthermore, throughout the Bible, creation repeatedly has a voice in God's story and continues to come up as something God cares for but gets harmed by sin:

"God said to Adam...“Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life." (Gen. 3:17)

"For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time." (Romans 8:19-22)

"Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice; Let the sea roar, and all it contains; Let the field exult, and all that is in it. Then all the trees of the forest will sing for joy before the Lord, for He is coming, For He is coming to judge the earth." (Ps. 96:11-13)

"But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea inform you. Which of all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this? In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind." (Job 12:7-10)

There are many other such verses. For instance, many places in the Bible reiterate the point that the earth is "the Lord's" and that it  does not simply belong to humanity. Passages like Exo. 19:5-6, Lev. 25:23, and Ps. 50:9-12 all caution humans about their use of natural resources because ultimately it is God who created and owns the land, the beasts, and the fields.

With such a biblical narrative, Christians should be among the first people to advocate and push for more renewable and sustainable forms of energy that not only improve our health, but also the health and well-being of God's good creation.

3. Market forces will trump Trump

While many environmentalists are lamenting Trump's decision, the truth is things aren't that bleak. The reality is the economy, public opinion, and market forces will continue to push us toward cleaner energy regardless of Trump's actions. Sure, Trump may slow things down a bit, but we are at the point where fossil fuels are not likely to make a strong comeback. Even with low oil prices, renewable energy has continued to boom. And it's not just because of tax subsidies.

Like any new technology, the cost of production and operation for renewable energy sources has dropped significantly in the past 5 years. Solar, in particular, has become much cheaper to produce, even to the point where India recently scrapped plans for new coal power plants in favor of solar power.

Here in the U.S., many large corporations are demanding renewable and sustainable power sources. For instance, in the traditional coal country of Kentucky, companies like Ford, Wal-Mart, and Toyota have all expressed plans to reduce their emissions and have demanded cleaner energy. Toyota has even gone so far as to build their own sources of clean energy when the Kentucky energy grid failed to offer enough clean energy. Likewise, most American consumers want cleaner, more sustainable energy if offered the choice. Even entire American cities have signaled they'll ignore Trump and continue to abide by the Paris Climate Accords.

Furthermore, for all the talk politicians have done over the years of needing  to be "energy independent," it's worth noting that one of the best ways to do this is to switch to renewable and sustainable forms of power. There is no shortage of sun or wind in our country, and unlike oil prices, wind and sun are actually more reliable over the long run.

This means that even if coal, oil, and gas industries get a bump from Trump, the long-term outlook is still not great. With the forces of the free-market moving towards cleaner power, Trump will not be able to save many of these jobs, which brings me to my final point.

4. Jobs are an important piece, but we must expand our thinking about jobs

Trump's main pitch in this area has been that environmental regulations and support for clean energy have strangled oil, gas, and coal industries and have put people out of work. This is certainly partly true (although as pointed out above, market forces have had as much, if not more, of an impact than environmental regulations). One of Trump's main reasons for pulling out of the Paris Agreement was that the concessions in the agreement were "bad for jobs" in America.

One of the mistakes environmental advocates make (and that Hillary Clinton made in her campaign) is not taking seriously enough the struggles of families who rely on work in fossil fuel industries. Living here in Texas, I've gotten to know a number of individuals who work or have worked in oil fields, offshore oil rigs, and coal plants. They are good people and don't hate the environment or anything. However, they also need the income that comes from these jobs. As such, the necessary move to renewable energy is a real threat to their livelihoods and their financial security.

So, yes jobs are an important issue. However, we must also look at the whole picture. For the reasons stated above, we need to be making the switch to cleaner energy. Just because there are costs to an action does not mean we avoid that action. For instance, the government's crackdown on tobacco companies over the years certainly hurt those businesses and cost people jobs, but this was a move that needed to be made to promote the public's health. Likewise, there are equally good reasons to pursue an agenda to combat climate change and pollution. The challenge is how to do this while minimizing the damage and pain to real life families caught in the crossfire.

No one can really dispute that renewable energy is what will be used in the future. The only question is when the switch will be complete. Just like automated elevators, "horseless carriages," and automation in factories, technology will continue moving forward and changing the job landscape. Our task is not to oppose these inevitable changes, but to embrace them and change with them.

So we do need to talk about protecting jobs, but we need to do so in a way that neither Republicans or Democrats have done. Republicans typically just try to protect "dirty energy" jobs, while Democrats inhumanely try to put an end to those industries in favor of cleaner industries while real workers get lost in the mess. What we should be doing is supporting efforts to offer education, job training, and job opportunities for those in oil and coal industries. As clean power takes off, this will inevitably create new job opportunities both in the energy sector and elsewhere. We need to take advantage of this and help people move into new jobs. Just as we talk about moving to "sustainable energy," we need to do more to move people into more "sustainable" jobs. This should be a bipartisan effort.

Until clean energy advocates find meaningful ways to help those currently working in coal and oil, there will continue to be opposition to climate change initiatives, and rightfully so.
----------------------------------------------------
In summary, yes it was unfortunate that Trump bailed on the Paris Agreement (particularly when the U.S. had the option to modify the conditions without jumping out completely), but it's not the end of the world. The world and the U.S. will continue moving in a direction that will reduce greenhouse gases, but as we do so we must all come together from both sides of the aisle and talk about how to make these transitions as smooth as possible for everyone involved.