Hear Their Heartbeat

On August 6, 1945, 65 years ago today, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. With heat up to 7,000 degrees and blast winds over 600 mph, the bomb obliterated a square mile of the city, killing between 100,000 and 140,000 people. Most of those killed were civilians as Hiroshima had a civilian population of 300,000 and an army base containing about 43,000 soldiers.

Three days later, on August 9, 1945, the United States dropped another atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan, a city of about 200,000 people. The blast that day killed between 40,000 and 70,000 people.

Thousands and thousands of women, children and other innocent people were incinerated, deformed or given slow painful deaths. This is a tragically sad day in history.

I take time today to reflect with humility and horror at the unimaginable pain and destruction. I reflect on the horror without judgment of the men who rained it down, themselves trapped in the human pattern of violence and of valuing our own life greater than someone else. The bombs' effect on the end of the war is debated, but that seems to me a distraction from the reality of charred and mutilated women, boys, girls and men. Maybe it ended the war more quickly, maybe it didn't. But it's hard to see any justification for annihilating a city's civilian population, people no different than those in Kansas in 1945, just trying to get through the war and praying their family did too.

Though saddened by America's choices, I am also encouraged by America's renewed interest in eliminating nuclear weapons. We can, and should, lead the way. By remembering the horror and anguish, maybe we can find the courage to take bold steps toward eliminating weapons designed to kill innocent people.

I Was a Stranger

"I love you, but stay in line, on THAT side of the wall. Yes, yes, I know your family is hungry and there are jobs and food here, but just wait your turn. Yes, I know the wait is years long... if at all..."

It's not the wall I oppose, it's the gates. I don't want people dying while trying to cross a desert, I don't want drugs and weapons trucked across the border, I don't want known criminals traveling about freely. So fine, build the wall, but administer the gates openly. Verify what we can, but let people come in.

"What's my concern about you, my brother, coming into 'my' country? Well, your hard work will lower my income. You see, I benefit from having you on that side of the wall. I pay less for my shirt because it's made in your country, by a company that pays your family much less than it would have to pay me. I pay less for my beer because the company makes its bottles in your back yard, and doesn't need to worry about your family's safety like it would mine. I love you, you are my equal, but I depend on cheap stuff."

I must admit my role in the poverty that drives my brothers and sisters from their homes. They don't want to leave their children, unsure if they'll ever hold them again. They don't lightly leave all familiar things behind for a place they don't know, can't speak the language, are not welcome. Maybe instead of worrying about how their arrival will affect my security, my health care, my income, I can actively support life-sustaining practices by those I give money and time.

"How did I get on this side of the wall? I was born here. Luck of the draw, brother, sad for you. How did my family get here? Several generations ago they stood in line, followed the rules, just like I'm asking you to do. Who made those rules? Someone before my family, I had nothing to do with it and neither did my family. Yes, yes, the rules were made by someone AFTER they had murdered, cheated and driven out the original people living here, but that was long ago..."

It's very convenient of me to demand strict immigration practices, now that I and my family are here. I don't need to feel the shame of immoral practices of past generations, but I have the power to make my own choices now. I must consider how present, arbitrary rules continue the immoral acts of the past. I didn't force the Choctaw on their fatal Trail of Tears, but what is my part in the Chavez brothers' fatal journey across the Mexican border into this land where I live?

"I've worked hard, these things are mine, I'm scared of what will happen.  Just stay on that side of the wall.  Please."

"Wait!  Come back!  You are hungry, let me feed you. You are thirsty, let me give you a drink. You are homeless, let me give you a room....  I have plenty."

I Got My Own Hands to Pray

The National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional, says a Federal judge in Wisconsin.


The National Day of Prayer statute says:

The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.

The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

I will let the judge explain her reasoning:

This case explores the line that separates government sponsored prayer practices that are constitutional from those that are not. The case raises the question whether the statute creating the "National Day of Prayer" violates the establishment clause of the United States Constitution. The challenge to the National Day of Prayer statute arises at the intersection of two different lines of Supreme Court jurisprudence. On one hand, the Court has held on many occasions that the government violates the establishment clause when it engages in conduct that a reasonable observer would view as an endorsement of a particular religious belief or practice, including prayer. On the other hand, the Court has held that some forms of "ceremonial deism," such as legislative prayer, do not violate the establishment clause. Although there is tension among these cases, I do not believe they are irreconcilable; they simply show that context is important when applying the establishment clause.

In my view of the case law, government involvement in prayer may be consistent with the establishment clause when the government’s conduct serves a significant secular purpose and is not a "call for religious action on the part of citizens." Unfortunately, the National Day of Prayer statute cannot meet that test. It goes beyond mere "acknowledgment" of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context. In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience.

It bears emphasizing that a conclusion that the establishment clause prohibits the government from endorsing a religious exercise is not a judgment on the value of prayer or the millions of Americans who believe in its power. No one can doubt the important role that prayer plays in the spiritual life of a believer. In the best of times, people may pray as a way of expressing joy and thanks; during times of grief, many find that prayer provides comfort. Others may pray to give praise, seek forgiveness, ask for guidance or find the truth. However, recognizing the importance of prayer to many people does not mean that the government may enact a statute in support of it, any more than the government may encourage citizens to fast during the month of Ramadan, attend a synagogue, purify themselves in a sweat lodge or practice rune magic. In fact, it is because the nature of prayer is so personal and can have such a powerful effect on a community that the government may not use its authority to try to influence an individual’s decision whether and when to pray.

I understand that many may disagree with that conclusion and some may even view it as a criticism of prayer or those who pray. That is unfortunate. A determination that the government may not endorse a religious message is not a determination that the message itself is harmful, unimportant or undeserving of dissemination. Rather, it is part of the effort to carry out the Founders' plan of preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possible in a pluralistic society. The same law that prohibits the government from declaring a National Day of Prayer also prohibits it from declaring a National Day of Blasphemy.

I trimmed legal citations and edited for flow, but believe I kept correct context. If this is something you are interested in, I highly recommend reading Judge Crabb's entire opinion. It's a thoughtful and encompassing review of the First Amendment as it's been applied to the establishment of religion. In its 66 pages, she discusses everything from the disagreement over legislative prayers in the Continental Congress to today's practice of Christmas as a Federal holiday.

For years I have believed that this statute is unconstitutional. The judge quoted above pretty much sums up what I believe the Consutitution requires in this area. But this is hardly the final word on the consitutionality of the National Day of Prayer. It will be appealed next to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (presided over by Frank Easterbrook, a legal rock star).

If this ruling stands, I believe it is legally correct and I also believe it is morally honorable. My personal beliefs about prayer shouldn't matter in whether I believe the Constitution protects us from a government declared day of recognizing prayer. I enjoy incredible religious freedom, and so does my neighbor...

Into the Arms of America

Presidents from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama have each taken steps to restrict nuclear weapons. Today, the United States and Russia sign a new START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty). The new treaty makes a few important advances like restricting the number of warheads on a missile and restricting the number of warhead delivery options that can exist and can be deployed, but mostly the new START continues the trend of drastic reduction in the number of nuclear weapons held by the US and Russia.

As important as the new START, this week President Obama issued his Nuclear Posture Review, "a legislatively-mandated review that establishes U.S. nuclear policy, strategy, capabilities and force posture for the next five to ten years." It's most important elements are declaring that the US will not conduct any nuclear weapons tests and will not develop any new warheads or weapons. The NPR also declares a further limitation on the actual use of nuclear weapons, stating that the US will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against a country if that country does not have nuclear weapons and is in compliance with the nonproliferation treaty.

This all sounds like good news, and I certainly celebrate the progress. We've gone from limiting ourselves to 6,000 (!) nuclear warheads in START I, to 1,550 warheads in this latest treaty. But we still have over 1,500 nuclear warheads and the willingness to use them. I'm glad we're stepping back, even a little, from the implicit threat of incinerating millions of innocent people. I agree with Reagan, however, that the only value in possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used, so it would be better to do away with them entirely. So YES, let's do away with them entirely! Must we wait or should we lead? As Obama said a year ago, "As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it."

I'm glad we're leading. A long way still to go. I look forward to the voluntary dismantling of our last nuclear weapon...

Doc Says You’re Fine, Or Dying

They say you can't put a price on good health, at least I know I couldn't put a price on my own. It's more difficult for me to say whether I can put a price on your good health.

I've heard endless loops about the things people disagree about on the new health care law, but there is actually consensus on a few big things: 30 million people that do not currently have health insurance will have health insurance, coverage under Medicare and private insurance improves, and the changes will cost at least $100 billion per year. So it seems to me that the effect of the new health care law is that the health of many people will be improved but it's going to cost a lot of money.

It's a complex issue and I realize that is a rudimentary simplification, but I believe it's true.

The similar simplifications I've heard against this new law are: the new health care law is a violation of American liberties and will bankrupt the United States.

Is the simplified decision, then, how much liberty and money am I willing to give up to improve the health of my brothers and sisters?

I'll admit I've lost my right to go uninsured, but every other liberty I've heard I'm losing has been settled in the US since the 1920's. Other cries of lost liberty I've heard ring hollow to me as accusations of what might happen later or are too wide-ranging and frenzied to take seriously. As for the cost, I agree this is costly. I take the cost seriously and I want accountability. But I also understand that we find the money for what we believe is important (few Americans blink at spending over $600 billion per year on the defense budget).

Wait a moment... See how quickly and easily this can turn into a discussion, a debate, or even a fight over liberty and money?! And as we turn on each other in this debate that has been more bitter than accurate, we leave the sick to the side... The sick. This group that Jesus favored, and that we all eventually join.

With my focus again on compassion, I push past these superficial distinctions I create of wealth and health and Americanism, and I find myself without support for clutching to control and to my wealth. Instead, I am impressed again that EVERY human being is Yahweh’s child and protecting the health of every human being is a profoundly important personal and communal responsibility. This new law is a mere drop in the bucket, an imperfect step toward human equality. We will really have to roll up our sleeves and soften our hearts if the goal is to value and care for every person, if the goal is equal opportunity for health and care for every child in Philadelphia, every senior citizen in Flagstaff, every mother in Los Angeles, every father in Des Moines... and then on to the rest of the world...

Born to Run

I was resting in the sand next to the Pacific Ocean as I watched Aaron, age 7, play a game with the surf. As the spent waves slid back to the ocean, he ran onto the newly exposed, smooth sand. As the water slowed its retreat, then rolled back toward the beach, he would sprint along the curve of the incoming surf, his churning legs keeping bare feet just out of the foaming edge. A look of unencumbered joy, excitement and pride on his face. Running back and forth, as tirelessly as the surf itself. There was no doubt, he is born to run.

I like to run, but I run carrying the weight of my expectations. I run expecting improvement in my fitness, expecting a certain speed or distance, pushing through the pain of shins or feet or knees or lungs, always wanting farther and faster but feeling limited by my body and energy. My days of running carefree in the sand are so long ago I can't remember them. In the book Born to Run, writer Christopher McDougall entices me with the notion that I can regain the unabated joy of running. Even more, McDougall builds a strong case that my health, emotional and physical, depends on it.

The book is part science book, part mystic text and part adventure novel. The writer spent many years running with expectations similar to mine, and with results similar to mine - persistent progress always ending in a new injury. With each injury he would engage a new therapy and find a new shoe designed to help the problem. As I have found, though, it seemed as though the "problem" just traveled around the body until he was hit with the Mother of all Running Injuries: plantar fasciitis. McDougall's journey to finding a better way took him all the way to the Copper Canyons in remote, Western Mexico, home of the Rarámuri, a people with a nearly super-human running tradition and stunningly strong health. The Rarámuri run at age 90 like Aaron does at age 7.

Though it may be intended to be life-changing, Born to Run reads like a story told over a few drinks, and sometimes just as outlandish. It's not a manifesto, it's a story. And along the way you may find yourself convinced of the basic Rarámuri principles: human feet and bodies are designed to run, and to run far, and a lot of the technology we design to help us run actually defeats our natural design; nutrition is essential, emphasizing whole foods with limited meats and processed food; we run easier when we run for fun, unencumbered by expectations and stress.

Born to Run is a ripping good read and likely to inspire you to shed your inhibitions (and your shoes) and take off running.

One Man He Resist

I celebrate the courage, passion and tenacious love of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I admire, even envy, his equal commitments to peace and change. Dr. King faced the hate from his white brothers and sisters, illegal acts of his government, and beatings and murders of his black brothers and sisters with a persistent love. Seeking to change, never to destroy, those persons responsible, believing that "Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend."

On this national day of remembrance and celebration, everyone from the President of the United States to the President of the Local Chamber of Commerce will talk admiringly of Dr. King's life and passion. No doubt, thousands of his words will be read (and will inspire yet again).

What if we took it seriously?

Thousands of us will hear the words, feel the tingle, then walk back into our mis-beliefs unchanged. We may feel energized about equality and peace, but will we ignore the demand for nonviolence? If we acknowledge it at all, will we believe that nonviolence only applies to changing voting laws?

An equally important part of Dr. King's message was "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones."

Persistently, Dr. King lived and preached, "Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal."

Even President Obama, surely a sincere admirer of Dr. King, in his Nobel speech could not commit to Dr. King's example "in the world as it is." On one hand saying there was "nothing weak - nothing passive - nothing naïve" about Dr. King's belief in nonviolence, but justifying abandoning the principles because "of threats to the American people." Threats like death? Isn't that EXACTLY the threat facing Dr. King when he stubbornly stuck to his belief that love was still the best answer?

On this day, do we truly admire and celebrate him, or call him weak and naïve by celebrating only half of his legacy? I want what he wanted, equality and peace, but am I willing to commit to love as my only weapon and defense? Even if it means my life...

Baby, Baby, Baby, Light My Way

"Arrogant, overfed and unconcerned." I heard the words spoken only once, but they have resonated for months. The one who said them believed it described American culture; I knew it described me.

I am arrogant in valuing myself more than others by protecting my own safety and possessions at others' expense, arrogant in my certainty of truth, and in many other ways. I am overfed on food, entertainment and stuff. I have extravagantly fed my basic human needs but my appetite only grows. I live unconcerned, at a safe distance from anything that disturbs my familiar patterns.

By some measures, I seem to do well in these areas. But I know my paradigm is so radically skewed that my "doing well" is still firmly arrogant, overfed and unconcerned. I'm an infant proud of my ability to raise my head off the ground.

I thought I could use the occasion of a New Year to gather some ideas and get some energy behind them and perhaps experience growth in these areas. My first thought is that I find it ineffective "not" to be something. I want to "be" not to "avoid." So what are the healthy alternatives to "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned"? It's not "ashamed, starving and obsessed." I believe the alternative to arrogant is humble; the alternative to overfed is content; the alternative to unconcerned is loving.

Humility, contentment and love - they are big ideas worthy of ambitious plans and they are also components of daily interactions. How can I move the trajectory of my life toward humility, contentment and love? Seems like it should start by living today humbly, contently and lovingly, with those that depend on me and those that are interdependent with me. It seems inevitable to me that it grows from there, and that actually loving others as my equal will impact how I care about their civil rights, human rights, starvation, illness, or imprisonment; how I understand or share their joy, sorrow or pride; how I count their lives and families as important to protect and nurture as mine.

If that's where, then how? I don't see a path, but I've got a sense of the direction. "If I want to live, I've got to die to myself someday." Sounds painful.