Sunday, September 5, 2010

What if the Senate Represented People by Race, Income, and/or Gender?

This is a great article by Annie Lowry, in which she speculates about a new way to organize the Senate.  She points out that having senators represent states creates strange incentives for senators to shape laws that are clearly discordant with national interests.  In contrast, she considers a Senate in which people are represented by race, income, and/or gender.  The legislative benefits are obvious.

Speaking for myself, the Senate alone is enough to call into question our national commitment to democracy.  The Senate has no democratic purpose.  It represents lines on a map, not people.  Democracies are about representing people, not square miles.  Consider that 50% of the U.S. population lives in 10 states who have 20 senators.  The other half of the population lives in 40 states with 80 senators.  The fact that the Senate completely violates basic tenets of democracy--e.g. one person, one vote--is obvious.  That the Senate has historically slowed legislation to produce a more equitable society (e.g. civil rights acts in the 1930s), further supports my assertion that it is more than a non-democratic body; it is anti-democratic.  (See also Kevin Drum's post, demonstrating that the more money people have, the more Senators support their legislative interests.  Not only so, but the more poor people want something, the more likely the Senate is to act against their interests.)

Friday, September 3, 2010

Blessed Circle (cont....Finally)

Hi, everyone.  Two posts (and two months!) ago, I wrote about the blessed circle I was fortunate enough to be a part of with some wonderful activist friends here in Texas.   At that time I promised reflections on my own experience.  I had planned a longer, blow-by-blow narrative, but as is so often the case, responsibilities and indecision force me to boil it down to the bare (and more readable) core.  So here goes...

For some unknown reason--force of personality, ignorance, biography, delirium, gifting--I generally find myself in the more spiritually knowledgable and aware portion of a social group.  Considering the circle began with a brief (if rambling) discussion of some of my academic work which led to one person reflecting on his own spiritual history, I felt pretty sure of myself as a knowledgable participant.  The traditional patriarchal man in me still feels a sort of confidence, leadership opportunity and responsibility even, arising from the sort of social space in which I am well grounded.  It's a tacit thing, but it informs my sense of self and interactions in those kinds of settings.  I believe masculinity produces this kind of confidence, which generates blinded domination, in nearly every western man in nearly every social setting.

Returning to the point, it didn't take long for the group to disabuse me of my masculine confusion.  Early in the conversation, one of the Afro Caribbean women asked what happens to people when they die (this is an oversimplification of her question).  The question catapulted us into the conversation which was the backdrop for our connection and experience.  What got me was that the range of answers people had corresponded to a range of experiences and knowledge bases far greater than any I have ever experienced.  Most circles with southern people of color will be dominated by traditional protestant Christian frameworks, maybe a little agnostic skepticism thrown in.  In this group, traditions ranged from protestant Christianity to indigenous traditions and creole religious traditions across centuries and continents.  I am not knowledgable enough to trace each tradition and idea back to its roots, but the presence and power of strong and well-developed spiritual roots undergirding every statement was palpable to me.  No statement could be dismissed as mere speculation or musing.  Everyone's comments were born of old knowledges whose legitimacy and worth are well beyond question.

Not only did everyone's comments come out of long traditions, acknowledged or not, but each contribution was generally linked to a person's experiential story.  The stories mixed clear spiritual perception with empirical evidence, grounding seemingly unique events in our universal experiences.  In a few stories, multiple members of the group had experienced the same events, sometimes in different locations.  Normally, the triangulation of "sources" would add credibility, but every story was so powerful and connected so clearly to universal experience that veracity was a given.

For me, the entire experience was wonderful, in large part because I--and my particular knowledge/experience base--became so small.  I felt like a child, a spiritual child, in the presence of these great spiritual teachers and practitioners.  I was learning, though there was no atmosphere of conversion or compulsion, as my Christian training usually generates.  We were simply sharing and tapping into truths that govern and organize our lives, but usually remain beyond view and discussion.  The women of the group were the clear leaders.  The depth of experiences and power of the circle owe much to the fact that women collectively drove the experience.  We men were happy and frequent participants, but the character and development of the circle were womanist.  I have never had a womanist experience like that before.  It's something I will seek like the holy grail from this point forward.

Being a spiritual child felt so natural and comfortable.  At the time, I accurately said it felt like I was a boy who had been forced to be "the man of the house" for a long time, and finally got to just be a boy again.  The release was beyond words.  It was Atlas putting down Earth.  Even more, taking up my actual role as novice was so enjoyable because it finally felt like I was living in truth.  That's not to say that I am lying when I work out of the strengths of my own place in my own Christian tradition--I know what I'm talking about, technically and experientially.  But being the ultimate Christian, in terms of knowledge, behavior, and Christian maturation, only takes a person so far.  To use Christian parlance, Paul said that in this life, we see partially as through a dark glass.  John tells us that the great majority of the things Jesus said and did are excluded from the gospels.  There is no way to know it all, even if we master our tradition.  Orthodoxy says we'll get a complete picture in the next life.  I believe we can gain a fuller, if still partial, picture in this life by listening to and benefiting from other traditions in addition to mastering our own.  Non-Christians are competent people, too.  Their spiritual lives, beliefs, and experiences reflect God's interaction in their lives and tell us something about God, God's self.  Those outside our religious tradition are not delirious; they are seers, like us.  If we respect that, we will grow.  I enjoyed the Blessed Circle because it exposed this truth to me and put me in my accurate place.