Opposite but Equal (An email sent just before Thanksgiving.)

As we celebrate Thanksgiving on Thursday and move into the Christmas holidays, we begin to hear those bells and see those red buckets into which we deposit a dollar or so every time we leave the drug store, book store, grocery store, or simply pass a street corner. I am speaking, of course, of the Salvation Army. I used to be one of those people who gave a dollar or two every time I passed them, even after learning that they discriminate against homosexuals and homosexual families. My argument was that the families and individuals who do receive help should not be hobbled by the organization's treatment of others.

My wife, good woman that she is, pointed out to me that there are many other organizations who happily help people, regardless of their sexual orientation. I could donate all that money to them, and then no one loses. So, for the past few years, I have done so. My charity of choice is the Chicago Food Depository.

It should be pointed out that the Salvation Army does not refuse to help homosexuals. Their official stance is that they do not discriminate against those they help (as a group that receives federal dollars, they are not allowed to do so) but they do attempt to preach their beliefs to those they help, which amounts to "heterosexuality or celibacy." They do, however, find a way to fire any person who comes out while working there and they refuse to hire homosexuals who are open during the interview process. They also have actively fought any attempt to make the LGBT community a federally protected group.

There seems to be a deeper problem here, though, for people who are members of the Christian faith. There is a streak running through both the Protestant and Catholic branches of the Christian faith of "hate the sin but love the sinner." It is rarely possible for people to separate behavior from the individual in the humanist community (who still maintain a mind/body dualist philosophy), much less from a community which believes the "person" and his or her behavior are deeply connected, so much so that the person's behavior can carry over with him or her to the afterlife and affect admission into Heaven or Hell. So to hate the sin eventually morphs into hating the sinner. At the very least, marginalizing the sinner. The latter may be worse, as the opposite of love is not hate but indifference.

I am sure that even those who are not part of the Christian faith are familiar with the story of the woman at the well. For those unfamiliar, here is a summary. Jesus approached a woman who was drawing water from a well. She was considered "untouchable," yet Jesus asked her for some water. Even acknowledging her in this manner was considered taboo. Yet Jesus did so. There are other examples: the adultress (oddly absent the adulterer) being stoned, sitting at table with tax collectors, attending the lepers. It can be accurately argued that Jesus did tell the adultress to "go and sin no more," but this was following a request for that information on her part. He did not force it upon her or make his help conditional upon her receiving that information. He gave the 5,000 their food first. They were welcome to leave or stay as they chose. He did not make the receiving of food conditional on listening to a sermon. As a result, the people were more receptive to the information than if they had been required to listen first. Had the latter been true, many would no doubt have sought food and philosophical discourse elsewhere.

The point to make is this: according to scripture, Jesus interacted with other humans as humans first. If the listener wanted to engage in deeply religious conversation, he allowed them to make the decision. His help, his love, were free for the taking. It is like asking for a modest donation for a service but not requiring it. No pushiness leads to more donations. Certainly there are those who will abuse the system but this is a relatively small part of the population and the onus is upon them. Those who have been charitable have done their duty.

As you go out this season to do your duty as an American and consume, remember the words of Rabbi Hillel, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole of the Torah; the rest is the commentary. Go and learn." It is hateful to us to be marginalized, to have our freedom and happiness diminshed, to be treated as less than human. Do not drop those dollars in the red buckets. Instead, save them and give them to an organization who helps people indiscriminately. Better yet, volunteer and "be the change."

Happy Thanksgiving and a Merry Christmas!

The First

I sent out an email recently which addressed my issues with the "separate but equal" approach to the LGBT community in the United States. It will be the first post on this blog which is "about something". And that is the goal of this blog.

Most of the problems we experience in our everyday lives can be boiled down to a problem of language. What we label thoughts, feelings, objects, and people colors the way in which we experience or interact with them. Every person spends his or her time attempting to escape or avoid aversive situations, feelings, or people. If they do not do so full-time, then at least part-time. The purpose of this blog is to examine the thought processes that we employ when we analyze our world.

Often, we fail to see the world from other viewpoints. You may select whichever cliché fits for you: blinders, blindfolds, etc. We wear them. There is a tendency on the part of all of us to blame the person who suffers from the myopia for his or her condition. We speak of the person wearing blinders made of his own creation or blinding herself to the problem. We do what we learn.

In my field, I am a behaviorist. To students of philosophy, I am a physicalist. I do not believe the brain is a separate entity from the body. I hold no concept of soul. There are no "good people" or "bad people"; there are good behaviors and bad behaviors. Even determining which behaviors are good or bad is subjective relative to context and culture. Most important, I hold no concept of "free will".

That is not to say that I believe that humans are automatons. We respond and react to reinforcers (stimuli that increase the occurrence of behaviors) and punishers (stimuli that decrease the occurrence of behavior) in our everyday lives. There is no such thing as a closed system and that includes our brains, which are systems unto themselves. It is a kind of Gestalt that allows us to be more than just a robot reacting to stimuli in a preprogrammed kind of way. But that is a post for another day.

I told you all of that to tell you this. Many people are not taught to think critically about what they hear, read, or think. Since I cannot change the educational system in the United States or any other nation, I must do what I can. That means critically analyzing events and ideas in order to assist others in learning to do so or, at the very least, giving them another thought about the issue.

For now, I am giving myself the goal to write once a week about something. It may not be something in the news. I have a lot of ideas bouncing around my mind grapes. I will attempt to be interesting. I will be funny where I can. Mostly, I will attempt to add to the dialogue and not detract from it.