Fetuses, Women, Guns, Corporations and the Constitution

I find it interesting that first fetuses, then corporations and now guns have more rights than a grown woman.

Constitutionally, fetuses have no rights because they are not born:
1:  All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (14th Amendment Section 1)

The same is true of corporations. They are not persons born or naturalized. Women, however, are clearly fully autonomous human beings and if they are born or naturalized they are citizens of the United States, with all the rights that brings.

Guns are another issue. The second amendment reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In order to rightly interpret this amendment one must look at the entire context of the word "militia" in the Constitution. Every where it appears, "militia" refers to an established, government regulated civilian force. The closest equivalent we have would be the National Guard, NOT the anti-government para-military variety found across the country.

Article 1  Section 8:  (The duties of Congress)
15:  To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;16:  To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Clearly, the militias referred to in the second amendment are these, the ones established and regulated by Congress. The right to bear arms, then, belongs to those who are members of the regular militias.

The framers of the Constitution clearly never intended for fetuses to have rights  that supersede their mothers, nor every one to run around with semi-automatic weapons or for corporations to be people. The Constitution was based on something rare these days: common sense. It is based on the premise that fully autonomous human beings born in the United States or naturalized are citizens with all the rights and privileges therein. It is also based upon the premise that militias are formed and regulated by Congress.  It would promote anarchy if it was set up any other way. Indeed, that is precisely where we are headed if rule of law is not applied to the ownership of guns and they are not fully regulated by Congress. To the NRA I would say, "Get over it! Guns are not God, guns do not supplant the right to the life and liberty of fully autonomous human beings " 

I

Ecumenism vs. Exclusivity

Following the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut there was an inter-faith worship service attended by members of Christian, Muslim and Jewish faiths. The closing benediction was  delivered by Pastor Rob Morris from Newtown's King Lutheran Church.

Recently, at the request of the the President of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, Pastor Morris apologized for his participation. Apparently, it is forbidden for clergy in the Missouri Synod to worship with members of other religions.

This kind of exclusivism deeply disturbs me. To think that one's own particular denomination, let alone Christianity, is the only path to heaven is arrogant to the extreme. It would be nice and convenient if that were the case. It makes proselytizing far easier if one has the exclusive claim to the Kingdom of Heaven. Without that claim what incentive is there for people to choose the Missouri Synod over say, the Lutheran Church of America or the United Methodist or Episcopalian Churches, to name just a few. 

Then there is the issue of different religions altogether.  If Christians were to worship with people of the Jewish and Muslim faiths it might be seen that God loves all regardless of faith traditions. To me, that is precisely the point of such worship but people who focus upon exclusivity are afraid that their tradition is somehow undercut by engaging in the ecumenical movement.

Personally, I think they undercut their own tradition by this exclusivity. They are, in essence saying, "We are so insecure in our beliefs that we cannot commune with you."  Jesus did not give us a Spirit of Fear but of Faith and Love and Hope. 

I deeply regret that Pastor Morris could not stand up for what was really in his heart and refuse to apologize for being strong enough in his faith that he could commune with brothers and sisters of all faiths. It could have provided an important moment for the Missouri Synod as well as for all of Christendom.  As it stands, we will have to wait for another moment in time. One of these days, Christians will get it right and say, with John Wesley (in his sermon "A Catholic Spirit"): "If thy heart is as my heart, take my hand." 

Stigma

Stigmastig·ma  (stgm)n. pl. stig·ma·ta (stg-mät, -mt, stgm-) or stig·mas 1. A mark or token of infamy, disgrace, or reproach:
Archaic A mark burned into the skin of a criminal or slave; a brand.
(Free Online Dictionary)

Very few people refute the fact that there is stigma attached to having  mental illness. In fact, almost nothing evokes such a visceral response as telling someone you have a mental illness. That almost no one will readily admit to it says a great deal about society and the lack of education about mental illness that results in fear and ostracizing of those who happen to have such a disorder. Even the way we speak says a great deal. Most often we say "He (or she) is mentally ill". We do not, however speak that way say, of cancer. No one ever  says, "She (or he) IS cancer." As we speak, so we think (and feel). The former way of speaking about those who have a mental illness indicates that we equate the person with their illness. He or she IS mentally ill, no more, no less. To speak in such a way is to put the person in a little box, neat and defined and where they are expected to stay.

The problem is, however, that life is never quite so neat as our definitions. People with a mental  illness are not only that illness. They are sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, coworkers and employers.  And so on. Often, the mental illness goes into remission, sometimes permanently. Why would we place a stigma on someone for a temporary condition and which affects only a part of their lives? We may as well tattoo "Mentally ill" on their foreheads. Essentially, that is what we do as a society. Those human beings are effectively pushed  away. Why? Because we are afraid of them. Why are we afraid? Because we do not understand and what we do not understand we fear. And what we fear we ostracize.

As a society we have been asked to (forced to, in many cases) get beyond that kind of fear several (many) times over. One only has to think about the civil rights movement. And even there, we have a long way to go. We have been so afraid at times that we have put people in camps (Japanese Americans during WW II) or on reservations (with Native Americans).  How often must we fight this same battle? Apparently we still have more work to do regarding inclusiveness and appreciating diversity. Those with a mental illness deserve to be respected and treated as full human beings and included in society as full participants. That can only happen, however, when we, as a society, make the decision not to be afraid of the differently abled. Let each of us make that decision sooner than later.

Rejection Reflection

Rejections reflection:

icy never will be,

fiery what always is,

ever in my mirror

the face of depression.

Dejections expression:

waterfall of sad,

volcano of angry

told in silence;

Darwin's selection.

- C.Boeneman  2013



                                   

Democratic Party Exclusion.

In August I was elected precinct delegate for the Democratic Party. However, I never have been included in ANY Party function before or after the general election. Though I remain a precinct delegate, I am never told about meetings. It is true that I had a breakdown in July but I have been addressing the issues that caused it and resulted from it. I am, however, classified as "disabled".  

That classification raises an interesting question: By excluding me from Party functions am I being discriminated against because of my disability?  I think the answer is quite clearly, "Yes."  If it weren't for the breakdown I would still be included. There is no other reason for the exclusion.

The MI 9th Congressional District is where the problems lie. Because the staff of the congressman are uncomfortable around me as a disabled person (I was even told as much in August by a staff member), I am excluded from district Party functions and am not told about county functions either. (That total exclusion seemingly broke down recently when I received invitations to events within the county).  Obviously the will of the congressman is paramount. The fact that discrimination against the disabled is against Democratic Party policy does not, apparently, matter. Protests regarding my present lack of status go unheard, even at the upper echelons of the Democratic Party. 

My breakdown occurred because of the stress of being unemployed for over three years and being unable to find another job.  Ironically , during the first two years of my unemployment this very same congressman had me tell my story, both of unemployment and also of my lack of health insurance. He took my story as well as many others back to Washington D.C. in order to press for the extension of unemployment benefits and the Affordable Care Act. I was more than happy to help because of my respect for him and the exceptional way he has represented the district over the years. Now, I feel betrayed. I was used when convenient and dumped like garbage on the side of the road when I was vulnerable and sick. This in spite of all the years of volunteering for his campaigns,  as far back as his second run for governor in 1973-74. Apparently dedication and loyalty mean nothing but I really shouldn't be surprised - it IS politics after all. 

Yes, there is another side to this story. Part of the reason for the breakdown was the added stress of the campaign. And when I became ill during a 4th of July parade I was walking on his behalf, he made sure I was looked after.  But it was the staff's behavior towards me after that which caused me to fall apart. I was dedicated and loyal but what THEY saw was something else.  By then I was under great stress. I was trying to use the volunteer work on the campaign as a way to busy myself during my unemployment. I guess I needed it a little too much.  Nevertheless, I sought help when it became obvious that I was having problems.

I have spent months working through those events and my responses to them but in the end, the same issue remains: I was vulnerable and disabled and was turned away by the Party of Inclusiveness.  Discrimination.  

 "The Michigan Democratic Party... [is] seeking the Common Good –– the best life for each person of this state. We include everyone: the unemployed, the employed, the veteran, the student, the disabled, the sick, the healthy, the senior, the child, the wealthy, the poor, the citizen, the stranger, the first and the last. Seeking the Common Good is not difficult for Michigan’s citizens to understand.... The Common Good requires that we have common responsibility for the community and the people."

- MI Democratic Party Platform, 2012
Preamble


2/21/13  On Tuesday evening I experienced more of the 9th Districts version of "inclusiveness." While people who didn't know me readily talked to me, the staff and most members of the district barely spoke and moved away quickly. There is a stigma to mental illness and many people are afraid but the reality is that most people with mental illness are not a threat to anyone else. I happen to be diagnosed with Bi-Polar disorder and I recognize it can be difficult to communicate with me sometimes. Mostly that happened when I was I was still undiagnosed and not getting the help I needed. 

One person Tuesday night, who shall remain nameless, responded to my greeting and apology for the past months (I had definitely been a challenge) by asking if I had gotten help saying "Good" when I said "Yes" and he rolled his eyes and sped away. That pretty much describes how I was treated by the congressman's staff. Even the congressman himself rushed past me with a brief and curt handshake and greeting. Better than nothing and perhaps better than I deserved, but taken along with the glares I received from one party official, was still disconcerting and hurtful, especially  when THIS was apparently emailed to the rest of the 9th district: 

"We believe that the combination of challenges and opportunities that dramatically confront Michigan Democrats today have called on us as elected Democrats to urge a new and inclusive chapter in MDP leadership." - Sandy Levin (email)

I have not received that or any other email from the district since last August. Any email I sent on various issues have apparently been ignored or deleted. 

All in all, I am shunned, ignored, shut out, blocked and treated as less than almost any other constituent. I don't even have the ability to share my views as any other constituent can. In that respect I have taxation without representation. In the 9th congressional district inclusiveness does NOT apply to people, even precinct delegates, with mental disorders.

E Pluribus Unum: A Vision

 Think Progress reported yesterday that Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said on The Voice of Freedom that he hoped the legislature would reject gun regulations because we need guns to protect us from Sharia Law. As bad as that sounds, Think Progress says that he has " a long history of Islamaphobic remarks" and he has joined with Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) to  "investigate the alleged infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into various departments of the U.S. government" (Igor Volsky reporting). 

This the worst sort of prejudice and intolerance and it has been rampant on the right. It is one of the most disgusting examples of ignorance feeding fear. There are myriad just like it, however, and too numerous to either cite or count. It seems like it is the signature trademark of the Tea Party, which is an unfortunate departure from the Founder's vision for our country.

As Rene Dubos said, "Human diversity makes tolerance more than a virtue; it makes it a requirement for survival."

Nothing could be truer for the United States of America right now. We have always had some amount of division, from the early years of  Tories and Revolutionaries to Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists to North vs. South, Democrats v. Republicans. Many of these differences have overlapped with yet another source of pluralism: the thoroughly unique mixture of national origin, race, ethnicity and religious belief. America has always been among the most diverse on the planet earth. When I was a young it was celebrated and called, "The Great Melting Pot." It was a GOOD thing to be diverse as a country.

As long as America could be tolerant, diversity was embraced. Somewhere along the line, we have lost our tolerance for differences and the lack of tolerance means the lack of mutual respect. The result of this loss of respect for others is the deep division we see today in this United States of America. We see more North vs. South (though it is usually couched in Blue States vs. Red), progressives vs. right-wing and Democrats vs. Republicans. The bottom line for the government is a sort of political paralysis of will. Nothing can be accomplished as a country as long as we hold "the other" in contempt and view them with deep suspicion. We need to remember the concept of  E Pluribus Unum: Out of many, one.

What is more, we need to relearn mutual respect. Only then can we embrace toleration and cooperation while acknowledging our differences. It can be good to be able to see through the eyes of the other or to be able to walk a mile in their shoes. It is necessary to embrace this kind of empathy in order to be able to say,"We are different in some ways but we share a love for America. Let us agree on what we can and compromise about the rest."

How do we get to that ideal place? We get there through humility and hard work, through a willingness to bend like the willow in the wind. We can bend and not break. Flexibility is the close cousin of tolerance. We can see that there are differing points of view which may be as viable as our own and there may be room for both.

Tolerance is the great virtue of the true patriot. To love this country is to be able to reach out and extend an understanding hand to other, the one who differs in perspective and maybe in religious belief, political stance, ethnic background, race or sexual identity.  When we can do that, when we can respect others for who they are, this nation becomes stronger. Without it we are divided and divided we shall surely fall.

My vision for this country is that we seek this goal together: to walk through the wilderness of division to the promised land of tolerance and respect. There will always be differences but they can be allowed and tolerated and even celebrated. John F. Kennedy said this,"If we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity."

Exiled

 

 

 

Cast out

like so much refuse,

scattered around,

meant to be crushed

under foot.

 

Forced at last

to flee for her life,

exiled from all

that she loves

and holds dear.

 

With no hope

of return soon,

if at all,

she settles in

her cave of despair

 

The exile stares

into the hole

called oblivion

and sees no bottom

only the end.