DEAR ALIZARIN: Lots and lots of questions

This morning my good friend in NYC sent me an email containing the following article from the St. Petersburg Times, written by Rodney Thrash: Real life, storybook ideals collide: One woman's display on gay authors led to Hillsborough County banning support of gay events Bascially a graduate student in library studies created a display at a public library highlighting young adult books around the themes of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues or characters, people complained, and an ordinance was proposed that county funds could not support gay events, such as this book display. I find it interesting how libraries and librarians are becoming central figures and locations in a battle that wants to erode our rights to privacy, knowledge, and freedom of speech (if the freedom to read what I want could be part of that). It is censorship, plain and simple, and played out by manipulating the emotional/moral sentiments of people against homosexuals. Hm. I saw this somewhere recently. Oh, yes, I remember: the last election! Am I being too judgemental?

I ask this because this morning the Daily OM (a daily email containing a meditation for the day) was about not judging others and allowing others to lead their own journeys, even when you know it is wrong or think it is not good for the person. It really struck a chord with me because during my discipleship group on Monday the discussion (perhaps appropriately for the 4th of July) became very political. Several people were of the stance of the importance of patriotism even when you do not agree with the leader's decisions. I think such blind patriotism is dangerous and patriotism should not be confused with loyalty to someone who is evil. However, what I said was that I thought Bush did not really intend to do good or promote democracy and that I basically think he is an evil man. (I think the context was the war and post 9/11 actions by the goverment). I admit that said outside the confines of my own head, this can be construed as inflammatory. One person went on to say that she is deeply offended when she hears others calling the President names (though, I think, technically, evil is not a name, just a descriptor) and, well, I was clearly in the far left minority at the table. That is fine. I just cannot have faith that Bush has good intentions. I conceded that, it is true, I cannot know his true intentions in his heart, neither can they. This did not really ease the tension, mostly directed at me (I felt). So, the question emerged, for me in reflecting upon this discussion, which is a more dangerous way of thinking? Is it better to give leaders, very powerful leaders, the benefit of the doubt even though after six years they have done nothing to promote good faith for the welfare of democracy and of the majority of citizens of the United States? Or is it our responsibility to call a spade a spade and point out that public policies which are gnawing through the protective coating around our rights to privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, freedom to pursue happiness and equality, and just general good things like world peace (where is Miss America when we need her?) are just bad? How can I be both non-judgmental yet still be vocal about injustice and try to inform others so they (and in that I include myself) may particpate more fully in shaping the world we desire from inside our homes and families to worldwide concerns?

Despite the fact that at the time I felt really defensive and cornered, I value this converstion as I learned much from it (as well as was confronted with all these new questions). For me, I found that despite the fact that I feel I have become a bit middle of the road, I am still quite left of even other liberals. Also, people who are well-informed and very caring people may still not be willing to create chaos (I include myself in this to some extent, at least not all alone), confirming my despair of real radical change (or at least outraged resistance to anymore regressive social policies) anytime soon. Finally, it reminds me that, in our busy world, we will often trust what we are told because it is hard to uncover the full story (not that I will claim I have, but I think I at least make a effort to find varied points of view as time allows); also, who wants to have to admit that things really could be that bad, that our freedoms really are in that much danger, and that a leader could really be that evil? Do you think evil is too harsh a word?

So, in short (ha!) this Daily Om made me wonder how do we deal with leaders we know are leading or pushing our country/society/community into a detrimental place. What if society is complicit with this leader? Do I have a responsibility to say something or am I supposed to not judge and just let them follow this journey until they learn the lesson this path is meant to show them, even if it means we once again outlaw abortion and access to birth control? We can change it later, right? But why should we fight a battle that has already been fought? We are still a long way from equality and peace, why do we have to go back and do what has been done? Why can't we build on these victories instead having to defend them over and over again?

Alizarin, I am anxious to hear your response. One last thing. Just because I think Bush is evil it does not mean I think he is unreedeemable. He has two years to prove me wrong and I hope he does.

Love,
Lychee