Where negligence deadens desire

You may recall that an asteroid whipped by earth last week at a heart-stoppingly close distance.

If it had hit earth, no one on the planet would ever have forgotten it.

That's the way it is with disasters that did not happen. Sadly, more than enough disasters DO happen that it's comforting to celebrate one or two that we know did not.

A letter in yesterday's mail included a quote by Marcel Proust that relates directly to last week's near collision. It was in a fund-raising letter by Crossing Choir Director Donald Nally:

Just think of how many projects, travels, love affairs, studies, it – our life – hides from us, made invisible by our laziness which, certain of a future, delays them incessantly. But let all this threaten to become impossible for ever, how beautiful it would become again! Ah! if only the cataclysm doesn't happen this time, we won't miss visiting the new galleries of the Louvre, throwing ourselves at the feet of Miss X, making a trip to India.

The cataclysm doesn't happen; we don't do any of it, because we find ourselves back in the heart of normal life, where negligence deadens desire. And yet we shouldn't have needed the cataclysm to love life today. It would have been enough to think that we are human and that death may come this evening.

What are you and I putting off doing today that we would regret not doing were an asteroid to crash into our heads tonight?

P.S. Yes, it was a fund-raising letter. Donald Nally writes the most interesting – and I trust, effective –  fund-raising letters!

Getting along together

I believe that the majority of Americans really want to get along better with one another than we are these days. I suspect only a minority of us feel good about our distrust of one another, about our constant finding fault with one another, about our isolating confinement with those whose behavior and thoughts closely correspond to our own. Unfortunately, much political strategy rests upon dividing us rather than uniting us.

We know that we are a diverse nation, made of as many different kinds of human beings as evolution has so far generated. And we know it is not good for us to be constantly at odds with ourselves. Most of us, I dare to believe, wince when words–words of others as well as words out of our own mouths–build new walls between ourselves and someone else, and silence fills the space between us. But often we accept those words, or at least permit them, because it’s too hard to sort them out. I’ve been there, done that, many times.

But if we never sort out what’s behind thoughts and words, we will never “get along with one another” on other than a superficial level. If we always “let it go” when someone says something about us or about someone else that we know is simply not true–or even just not true to our own experience–we close the door on genuine understanding.

Our common response to someone saying something we profoundly disagree with is to shoot back with our own version of truth. But it would be better to learn to ask follow-up questions. Why do you think that? Will you tell me more about it? We can learn to do that and to practice it, but it takes hard work.

It also takes a willingness of partisans on both (all?) sides of issues to be willing to give to the other what they want from the other: respect, openness, and a willingness to understand. If we are more committed to our “talking points” than to listening and responding to the substance of what the other has said, we will be at best difficult partners in any dialogue. For this reason, candidates’ debates are almost always dismal failures as debates.

Getting along with one another in a tense environment requires intentional and mutual effort. Each of us has a whole fistful of stuff we don’t like about the state of the world these days, and about some of our sibling Americans as well. I will continue to express my concerns and critiques and even anger when I feel I must. But I will also try to understand those who stand somewhere other than where I stand, even when I see little prospect that we will ever be able see eye-to-eye.

To understand and to agree are not the same thing. But we will never begin to agree without at least some understanding.

When mere law is inhumane

In the world in which we live, nations have the right to protect their borders and to exercise control over who crosses them. But nations also have at least as important a responsibility to treat those who come to their borders as humanely as possible. I’d even go so far as to suggest that the responsibility to be humane toward all is more important than is the right to control borders.

Separating children from their own parents except in cases where the child’s fundamental well-being is at risk is inhumane. It is the most extreme and harmful inhumanity of a number of inhumanities our government is reportedly visiting upon people being detained now, apparently with many more detainees to come. If we must round-up human beings, then we must have adequate and humane means prepared to house them. Unless, of course, as one Facebook commentator called them, you consider them to be “cockroaches.”

It’s the law, some claim. We are only enforcing the law.

But there are limits to the law. At least the Christians among us know that…don’t we?