This post was born of a comment I made on Orlando's post about what being a progressive means to her, and Jason's post about the culture wars.
Personally, I don't know what I am anymore. This place and this election have me
questioning everything I ever thought I knew, re-evaluating every
position I ever thought I held, and wondering how, at the ripe old age
of 56, my basic understanding of who I am can be so much in the air and
so contradictory.
I personally used to like labels. I liked knowing I was
a conservative. I liked knowing I was an
Evangelical. Now I'm not sure I'm either, and I don't know what I am instead. But I find myself needing to redefine who I am, and I no longer
seem to fit into any of the clearly defined boxes into which I used to
place myself.
I came of age at a time when women had few choices. I had no
interest in any of the traditional female careers, so opted to get
married and be a stay at home mom until my youngest was in 2nd grade.
Then I let the "women's movement" convince me I was less than a whole
person if I stayed home and was a wife and mother, so I opened my own
business which I adored, and ran it for nearly 20 years, but it was pretty much at the expense of my
marriage (which suffered greatly and took YEARS to repair.) Once my 1st grandchild arrived, I
realized that family was where my happiness was to be found, sold the
business and became a full time wife, mother and grandmother...thus
coming full circle.
Both my daughter and daughter-in-law have careers they loved prior
to having children, and now that they have lifestyles built around 2
incomes (you just about can't own your own home w/o 2 incomes, at least
in CA.) wish they could stay home with their children. Neither are in fields where they can work from home.
This is progress/change, but is it good?
As far as the culture wars go, I do not believe they are over. There are still very strong feelings on both extremes, and getting to the middle is going to be difficult. I consider myself to be a tolerant person. I used to be sure of my positions, but more and more I can quite easily see both sides of most issues. I'm not sure how to bridge them all, but recognizing the validity of opposing positions is a necessary start.
I'm not fond of abortion, but don't want the government making the
choice for my family. I feel like this is an issue best left to women, their doctors and their God. Not all people are Christians, and it seems ridiculous to have laws that demand non-Christians abide by their beliefs. As a Christian, I'm still a little confused as to when life actually begins. Try as I might, I cannot find anyplace in the Bible that says it is at conception. And if it is, why do we not have Christian burials for the product of miscarriages in the 1st trimester?
I don't believe we "chose" who we love, but I am
still resistant to the idea of gay couples adopting. I think that I think
"marriage" is a religious institution, and all other unions are
"civil," so maybe it's time for redefining our relationships. Perhaps all non-Christian unions should be called "unions," save "marriage" for Christians and make sure that all "unions" have the same standing under the law. I'm not sure where that leaves the adoption issue, but at least its a start.
I believe
in God and His Son Jesus Christ, but the Christian community really
turned me off w/ its performance in this election, and although I love
God, have huge issues with my church family to the point where I
haven't been to church in months. As Christians, we believe all sin is equal, so the lies that came from the right and the deaths that came about in the unnecessary war in Iraq should be as repugnant to them as the so-called "murder" of unborn children, but where was the outrage?
I believe we are our brother's keepers, but somewhere in the deal
there has to be some accountability for one's personal choices. I can't
turn my back on starving children or watch sick people lose everything as they struggle to pay medical bills, but I know that
welfare is a form of slavery. I know that hard work and saving should
be rewarded, yet I think those who makes tons of money have an
obligation to the have nots of the world...where do you draw the line?
Is it necessary to own 10 houses all over the world and fly around in
private jets and have $100 dollar a minute massages, and caviar and
$3500 jackets? Can you legislate against that? I don't believe in
"forced" socialism, but shouldn't we, as individuals be a little more
socialistic? Shouldn't we "self" socialize?
I think government should stay out of our lives as much as possible,
and do only those things that we can't do for ourselves, i.e. defense,
infra-structure, education, health care, environment, regulations that
keep us honest (financial markets -duh, utilities, food/product safety)
So in other words, so much for small government :-) !!!
So what am I? Or do labels even work anymore? Should we just stop trying to label ourselves and start realizing that unless we come together in the middle and learn to respect each other's differences, we are doomed? Seems to me like the time for either extreme has passed.
All I know for sure is that being a polarized country is getting us nowhere. There is no way in HELL we are going to end up on either extreme, so we'd best figure out how each side can get as much of what it needs as it can, and learn to live in harmony somewhere in the middle.
The alternative is that we WILL someday end up in another shooting civil war, instead of just the cultural one we're in now.
Preface: This post was started as a comment made on another blog. At Orlando's suggestion (with a cosign from Miguel and TheraP) I am making it into it's own post. For those of you are unaware of my journey of enlightenment here at TPM, please read an earlier post of mine that may help in your determination of how much credence to give my thoughts.
I absolutely do not understand the brouhaha over Rick Warren giving the invocation at the inauguration.
This is not a slap in the face to anyone, and those who think it is would be well served to adjust their attitudes.
We are all Americans. Obama has said over and over that he wanted to be the President for all of the people of the United States, not the President of the Democratic Party. The Christians in this country are not going to go away, nor is the gay and Lesbian population, but attitudes on both sides can be changed. If this is not true, then we might as well give up now, we're screwed.
What is the point of going to all the trouble to elect a man who gives us such hope that this can be a different country, if all you really wanted was someone who was going to keep the polarization going, just from the left this time?
Somehow, some way, we have to come to a place where we start building some trust between the factions. If Obama can't do it, it can't be done. But we have to give him time to do it, in HIS way. We elected him to be him, not someone else. If people thought he was pretending to be someone he isn't to get elected, they are going to be disappointed.
Attitudes don't change overnight. As people get to know one another, fear dissipates. We've made a lot of progress in race relations. Obama is trying to introduce people to each other. He is attempting to show that people from different persuasions, different walks of life, different attitudes, can come together, work together, begin to have empathy for each other. They may never completely embrace each other, but they can come to a place where they can peacefully co-exist.
Some Christians say they will NEVER accept the normalization of gay practices. Well, not too long ago the Mormon Church did not allow blacks to hold the Priesthood. They do now. As more thinking Christians accept the idea that people don't CHOSE to be gay, hearts will soften.
I can see it already. My niece, a very conservative Christian, saw Obama speak at the Aids Forum at Saddleback Church, Rick Warren's church. She was so impressed with him that she not only voted for him, but changed affiliation, became a precinct captain and did everything she could to get him elected. She got past her feelings about gays and abortion to do it. I'm sure there are many others who did the same thing.
Orlando said (in a post at dagblog):
I agree whole-heartedly.
As far as Christian leaders go, Rick Warren is not such a bad guy. I would submit that he is doing a lot of soul searching during this process. I believe he is basically a man of honor who is doing the best he can to reconcile his religion and his understanding of the world, as I am.
He has made a gazillion dollars with his 40 days of Purpose/Purpose Driven Life books and accompanying materials. He promptly used some of that money to pay back the church he founded every penny of the money they ever paid him in salary and donates 90% of the proceeds in charitable works.It would not surprise me a bit if Obama is attempting to get him to soften his stance a bit in hopes that a new dialog will emerge between the people who listen to what he says and the gay community.
But every single time people from either side refuse to budge, refuse to try to see the other side's point of view, refuse to try to find some common ground on which to begin to repair the damage, we get further from the time when we can put all this ugliness behind us.
Give him a chance to make this work. Trust him. I believe he has a plan, a big picture. Let him unfold it. Quit 2nd guessing every move he makes. Quit keeping score. Be patient. We can do this.