Democracy the Elusive and Illusive: Part Two – Jim Crow Meets Horace Mann

"Father of the Common School Movement"

With regard to Paul Louis Metzger and Tom Krattenmaker and their joint post “The Voting Rights Act and Post-Racialized American: Can We Vote on That?” I felt that two additional perspectives may be helpful. Here’s the second of those:

Regarding the perception that representative democracy in a constitutional republic is merely elusive and not patently illusive:

        Outside the ongoing electoral college debacle, within the boundaries of an area of population affected by a given issue, or represented by a particular office-holder, we hold to an ideal of “one person, one vote.” Yet we also discuss regularly the need for community organizers to coalesce a block of voters who will pursue a particular agenda. Please don’t stop at the next phrase, which might immediately seem harsh and judgmental, but such cynical dichotomies rely on the unwillingness and/or inability of individual voters to determine for themselves what vote to cast.

        That many are unwilling to educate themselves personally, and instead rely on decisions made by those who lead whatever group or organization claims to represent them, is well documented. The rates of voter turnout are abysmal, even when the best efforts of registration and transportation have been implemented. But that unwillingness has, I believe, the same root cause as does the inability of too many to analyze and process the information available in order to cast a responsible vote.

Antioch Hall, Antioch College, Yellow Springs, Ohio

        The same inequities of education that prevent many from identifying their own preferences among the candidates and issues also withhold any motivation for participating through the simple mechanism of civic ignorance. While some schools require a civics class, most provide an example of something far different. Without belaboring the point, though, the portion germane to our discussion here is the reality that until we begin to raise up a generation educated in both the means and motivation for taking mutual responsibility through the ballot box, we consign ourselves to a handful of well-funded groups and organizations (not the least of which are the privileged-non-persons of multi-national corporations) who will continue to influence large blocks of voters, setting policy and enacting legislation almost entirely unrelated to the portrayals they offer in their election/marketing campaigns. That the results most often run counter to the well-being of the voters amply illustrates the need for a better approach.

But until it includes a more inclusive system of equitable education (the dream of Horace Mann, pictured above), the concept of representative democracy in a constitutional republic is not merely elusive, it is patently illusive.

Democracy the Elusive and Illusive: Part One – In Favor of Renewing the VRA, but…

…that leaves us still with very far to go in restoring functional democracy.

With regard to Paul Louis Metzger and Tom Krattenmaker and their joint post “The Voting Rights Act and Post-Racialized American: Can We Vote on That?” (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/uncommongodcommongood/2013/10/the-voting-rights-act-and-post-racialized-america-can-we-vote-on-that/), I felt that two additional perspectives may be helpful. Here’s the first of those:

Regarding the necessity of documentation/verification of our participation in a mutual society:

Among our decisions to participate together in democracy, several require significant inconvenience, among the least of which are standards for documenting our participation in a society of mutual responsibility. That some want to increase these standards so as to require prohibitively expensive documentation should be addressed economically at the county level (at least in our communities) where agencies that are self-funded through fees and fines continue to wield a virtual stranglehold over most areas of life.

In contrast to this mutual participation, though, some prefer to remain unnumbered and unencumbered by “the system.” Working among some who seek to live “off the grid,” the few Anglos I know who choose not to be documented (ironically including both peace-mongering hippies and gun-toting constitutionalists) have no desire to participate in the political process. Their version of society includes an aversion to mutuality of responsibility. They view themselves as being outside and beyond the petty concerns of those who provide the infrastructure of a broader community than they see necessary. Others who choose not to be documented are likewise disinterested in the political process, except where it (hypocritically) seeks to impose penalties upon them for providing the essential services for which businesses and individuals will not employ legal (i.e., expensively minimum-waged) residents. These view themselves as outside and beneath the petty concerns of this or that candidate or ballot issue.

But for those of us who still choose to participate in a mutually responsible society, there should be clear and accessible (i.e., free) means of authenticating our right to participate. But even my possession of a valid driver’s license, current U.S. passport, and documentation of my physical address recently proved to be insufficient to allowing my participation in an important recent election.

I was recently disallowed my “right to vote” on a local issue that directly affects my personal financial situation. I must confess that what prevented me from receiving a ballot was not the lack of a state- or federally-issued ID, but having failed to fill out a change-of-address from our previous residence outside the immediate area perceived to be affected by the ballot issue. It would have cost me only the price of a first-class stamp in order to do so, but it would also have required me to be better informed of the boundary restrictions on this particular measure.

My point is that it is often an information deficit, rather than an economic one, that prevents greater participation, even where the issues are clearly motivating us to make mutual decisions through the ballot box. And that leads to my second contribution to the discussion, which will appear tomorrow.

“But the Bible says…”

I have to say it.

If you claim to be a Bible scholar and refuse the practice of hermeneutics and exegesis, then please stop prescribing others’ beliefs and behaviors. Likewise, however, if you believe that others’ prejudicial proof-texting (eisegesis is the technical term) justifies abandoning scripture’s authority, please know: your current-drifting pseudo-theology isn’t helping either.

What got me so riled this morning? In the online “Join the Conversation” section of October 8, 2013’s Christianity Today—Alister McGrath’s new Lewis biography having been reviewed—C.S. Lewis’s relationship with Joy Davidman was labeled: Adulterous. In the booming business of speaking ill of the dead, there will, sadly, be no McGrath vs. Lewis debate on the subject. But my defensiveness on behalf of Davidman and Lewis is not what stirred my ire. Here’s my problem: as some asserted adultery while others contradicted, both sides denied the authority of scripture.

The paths are well-worn, but let me try to describe their arguments briefly.

First, there were (parts of some) scriptures quoted. Some regularly sew bits and pieces of unrelated passages into a banner of false doctrine. But here the misuse of even a single portion of scripture illuminates far-reaching consequences. This morning’s textus minimus was “…and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Matthew 5:32b). I’m used to this scrap of scripture (nine of the twenty-nine words of the New American Standard translation of this verse—which is itself just a part of one sentence, to which the prior verse adds another sixteen words) being used to bludgeon abandoned wives into shame, or even into enduring further abuse as “their godly duty.” The public display of bad theology is unfortunately routine. But today, the person offering their opinion (in nine words from scripture, isolated from the canon, the New Testament, the gospels, Jesus’ teachings, or even their own sentence) demanded my agreement, “if we take scripture seriously.” I’m sure that it’s exactly because I take scripture so seriously that my hackles were raised, especially when I saw the immediate effect of those claims.

The practice of proof-texting our personal opinions creates mistrust in not only self-proclaimed Bible scholars, but in the scriptures themselves. The alternative viewpoint correctly identifies the faulty theology resulting from using only parts of parts of sentences (which are themselves only parts of paragraphs, etc.). Yet, in doing so, it also abandons scriptural authority in favor of personal preferences for a god who not only “shows grace to those who fail” (as I understand God’s word to teach) but, through hazily phrased divine opinions that “need to be interpreted,” wants us to “find happiness” (even if that means jettisoning our obligations in marriage).

There is a third, and absolutely essential course. Neither prejudicial proof-texting nor vague invocation “take scripture seriously.” Deepening our relationship with the God who communicates through His word requires us to merge these divergent paths, doing Theology-in-Community, practicing exegesis on the basis of sound hermeneutics, toward determining a clear answer to “What would Jesus have us do?”

Time To Shop Elsewhere: A Few Simplistic Observations on the Recent Closing of The United States of America and Its Subsidiaries.

Let me acknowledge that my perspective is limited and simplistic. I am not well-versed in political science, except where that applies to being a subject of the Kingdom of God and the attendant attitudes and behaviors He requires of me as a citizen of a secular nation. And…let’s see, what other excuses can I make? I guess that’s about it. So, here’s my relatively ignorant observations of what is, certainly, a far more complex reality, especially for those who are employees of the currently shuttered storefront that is The United States of America.

If I were to arrive today at our local hardware store in order to purchase the materials for a particular repair that our home needed, and they were unexpectedly closed in the middle of a weekday when they have previously advertised they would be open for business, then I would hope that there would be some sign in the window that told me how long I would have to make do without the part, and I could plan accordingly. But no matter how long I might be able to delay the repair, if the sign in the window said “Closed Indefinitely,” then I would make my purchase elsewhere, and go on about my business.

As I have considered why this illustration does not apply to the suspension of operations at The United States of America, these are the potential reasons that I have identified.

• First, it is possible that The United States of America and its franchisees all assume that they offer products and services that cannot be provided through other vendors. Therefore, they can stay closed as long as they like, knowing that we will all wait patiently to make our purchases at whatever point they reopen.

• Another explanation could be that all of The United States of America’s branch offices have completely run out of inventory, and see no reason to spend their employees’ valuable time handing out rain-checks in hopes that someone will eventually manufacture enough product to fill all their back-orders.

• Finally, though, there is the strong suspicion that The United States of America chain believes that its customers will continue to renew their subscriptions, allow their electronic-funds transfers, and keep up their membership dues, whether the facilities, goods, and services are available or not. Stranger things have happened.

In their catalog, The United States of America lists only a handful of products. Whether or not one thinks they have effectively delivered them in the past, the question seems appropriate: “Isn’t there somewhere else we could shop for these?” For those who skipped a day or two in High School Civics class, those products are: “a more perfect union,” “justice,” “domestic tranquility,” “the common defense,” “the general welfare,” and “the blessings of liberty.”

I am aware of at least one other supplier offering a very similar inventory. And, having been turned away from my usual source for these goods, even temporarily, I hope that the staff and management of The United States of America will understand that when (or if) they eventually reopen, I probably won’t be a customer. (Unless, of course, they run a really good sale.)