Speaking one's truth, free speech, and "that of God in All"

I have been out of the loop for the past few weeks, but I was asked recently my thoughts about the comments of the Chick-Fil-A CEO about gay marriage.  After doing a little more reading about it, I have to be honest, I think the reaction from the left on this (the mayors of Boston, Chicago and DC in particular) was way over the top and ultimately counter-productive, fueling the divide unnecessarily. 

Here’s what I know:  Chick-Fil-A is a fast-food corporation that is not open on Sundays.  This is not a fiscal decision, but a faith-based decision with fiscal implications.  Now think about it: in general, if a corporation like this is closed on Sunday, while most of the competitors are open, would you think this is a socially-liberal organization?  I certainly didn’t.  So now the CEO is ASKED his opinion on gay marriage, and he speaks his truth.  Given that Chick-Fil-A keeps its doors closed on Sundays as part of keeping the day sacred, why on earth did this surprise anyone?  The reaction of the left on this shows both ignorance (where have you been all these years, only now learning about this CEO?) and picks a fight where, honestly, I don’t think one was needed. 

There is a part of me that feels for the CEO.  He spoke his truth, and not only he but all his employees take a hit.  Other than closing on Sundays, I don’t see any other place in the corporation where faith influences practice.   This seems to me clearly a free-speech issue, and an example of where the activist world perhaps has too much time on its hands to generate reactivity – not thinking.  Because my aunt “likes” Chick-Fil-A on facebook, am I supposed to take offense?  Hardly.  As I said, there is something I admire about this company in its “closed on Sundays” practice.  To be honest, I think more companies should consider taking a day to put family, friends and faith above profit.  I also think it is a sad day when people are afraid to speak their truth – especially when asked.  Change is not going to happen solely through protest; conversation reaches those who often are pushed away by protest.  In this way, I think the activist reaction to the CEO’s statement has done more harm than good.  As my own protest, I am more likely to eat at Chick-Fil-A to show a support of free speech and good-faith effort at reconciliation. 

"Anti-Bullying" vs. "Kindness"

I was pleased and proud earlier this week to see my old school, Rutgers, embarking on a two-year effort to cultivate small acts of courtesy and compassion. So it was with tragic irony to read the story of the RU freshman who apparently took his own life after his roommate and her girlfriend got video footage of him with another male student having sex and spread it on the internet.

Predictably, it is easy to quickly line up and talk about how awful the two students are who did this, and that this is another example of how the attacks on the glbt youth have to stop. Human Rights Campaign sent an e-mail asking people to sign a petition to send to Education Secretary Arne Duncan demanding that sexual identity and gender orientation should be included in anti-bullying curriculum.

I am not a big fan of this approach. First, I have never thought that "anti-" campaigns are effective. They tend to doubly reinforce negative imagery, without promoting a vision of what we should move to (I've felt the same about the "War is not the Answer" campaign - war is the only image this sentence evokes). Second, if anti-bullying were really going to be successful, shouldn't the object be irrelevant. If we give a list of who should not be bullied, does that mean anyone not on the list is fair game?

Consider, instead, what Dan Savage is starting. In an NYTimes interview, he talked about a new web-program that shows gay teens images and stories of happy gay adults - not celebrities, but real people. I like this approach for two reasons: first, he acknowledges that there is little we can do to reach inside the school buildings with these messages for a number of reasons, and second, we don't have to wait until then. New technology allows us to connect with kids here and now. He also puts his effort into positive imagery.

To me, the main problem is not bullying, it's that we are not a very civil society, and this is both the tragedy and the opportunity that is playing out at Rutgers. The two horribly misguided teens who spread the video, to me, are part of the tragic narrative, not just two rotten eggs. They will no doubt be justly prosecuted and held accountable, but if it ends there, we all lose. We live in a voyeuristic society, and we raise kids in an education system that does little to nurture compassion. Even our service learning projects take our kids out of their community to nurture caring of outsiders, but not bringing them in. And then, of course, there is the whole media technology of violence and cruelty in news, talk shows, and video games. An "anti-bullying" curriculum doesn't stand a chance. But, a concerted effort at civility, I think, does. It must be sustained, and viewed as a rigorous exercise regimen that will start small and then build. Given our current climate, I look at it like this: we have to do an iron-man triathlon in three years, but for the last 10 we have been sitting on a couch, watching tv, eating potato chips and drinking soda. We need a good plan, but we can't magically expect to get up and run ten miles. Let's start with turning the tv off, and switching to juice and rice cakes. It's a long journey, but worth the effort.

We as a society have our work cut out for us. I don't believe in coincidences, so I think what happened at Rutgers shows that we have to make serious changes, and here's a reminder of why we need to do this. But it's not just at Rutgers. It's everywhere, including those who want to hang the two students who invaded the privacy of a fellow-student. What an opportunity to really shake the community to the need for change. Here's to hoping they can do it, and perhaps Quakers can commit to a similar path.

"With a Special Welcome to Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgendered"

At the local Friends Meeting, there is a smaller Meeting for Worship that meets at the same time as the big Meeting. I prefer the smaller meeting - the room seems more comfortable, and the spoken messages are fewer and, as a consequence, tend to be more centered. I say this cautiously, not wanting to pooh-pooh messages, but I have heard enough messages about Quaker righteousness to be happy for quite a while. There was also once a spoken message that was more of a plug for the Nominating Committee.

But, while I prefer the small Meeting, there is one thing that gnaws at me: most Sundays, the post-Meeting message is that this gathering has a "special welcome to people who are glbt". I understand that, prior to the last decade (or two), this was perhaps a necessary statement. I also know that this is very much the origins of this smaller meeting. But in 2010, in a city that now has legal gay marriage, I think that this welcoming message in the present tense is patronizing and out of touch. I also know that there are many in the Meeting who carry the scars and wounds from the time when this message was necessary. The repetition of the message in the present tense doesn't mesh with modern DC, but is really an homage to the past. To keep repeating the message also suggests that glbt folks are more welcome at this small Meeting than at the big Meeting, and that's not at all true.

Here's what I would suggest: drop "With a special welcome...". Perhaps replace this with something like "Welcome to this smaller Meeting, with its origins in being as a special welcoming place for glbt folks. We celebrate that this special welcome is no longer needed, but there are still many of us who appreciate the comforts of this smaller, often more quiet space."

Uganda and anti-homosexuality

Dave Zarembka is a member of the Bethesda Friends Monthly Meeting, and is the head of the Africa Great Lakes Initiative. Like me, he has been pretty passionate that we maintain open relations with Friends United Meeting despite its hiring policy that does not allow for the hiring of anyone in a relationship that is not recognized by law (meaning any gay couple, or a hetero couple not legally married). It is with this in mind that I think serious consideration needs to be given to this letter sent out by Dave:

Dear Friends,

The Uganda legislature is considering one of the most repressive laws
that I have ever heard of. This law is geared against homosexuals, their
parents, teachers, counselors, landlord/lady, medical practioners, etc.
Punishment for homosexuality includes life imprisonment or the death
penalty. In addition everyone in the society will be an informant. Here
are some of the provisions:

- any parent who does not denounce their lesbian daughter or gay son to
the authorities will be fined Ush 5,000,000/= (about $250 in a country
where many live on $1 per day) or put away for three years.
- any teacher who does not report a lesbian or gay pupil to the
authorities within 24 hours will be fined Ush 5,000,000/= ($250) or put
away for three years in prison.
- any landlord or landlady who happens to give housing to a suspected
homosexual risks seven years of imprisonment.
The Ugandan Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional
Law concludes, "In short, this bill targets everybody, and involves
everybody: it cannot be implemented without making every citizen spy on
his or her neighbours."
It is time for folks to organize like the anti-aparteid movement in South
Africa. Boycott visitng Uganda, no investment, withdraw current
investment, ban on visas for politicans and atheletes, etc. Pressure the
US Government to confront President Museveni of Uganda who is reported to
be supporting the bill. Uganda is one of the US's stongest allies in
Africa so the US Government can put a lot of good pressure on Uganda.
(Uganda supports the US against those "bad guys" in Sudan, has AU troops
in Somalia). There is lots of potential for action and should include
both North America and Europe. Campaign to get them kicked out of the
Commonwealth.

I suggest that these actions begin immediately before the bill is enacted
into law.

Peace,
David Zarembka
Lumakanda, Kenya

I will get in touch with some folks about what actions we might be able to put
together on this.  I am pretty sure that Bishop Akinola's Anglican church, which
has strong moral and financial support here in the US, is a part of this, so action
may not only be about Uganda, but some of the congregations here that have
left the Episcopal church to join Akinola's church.