I realized that there was a song which had become rather imbedded in my head the other day. I found this interesting because I really wasn’t all that fond of this song in the mid-60s when it was written, but it has been pretty popular for a long time. I don’t know exactly what brought it to mind, although it probably had something to do with this past week’s controversy over “Religious Freedom Restoration” laws, at least some of which were rather obviously intended to provide safe cover for discrimination against the LGBT community.
Now, in spite of what some folks might think, I have no problem with religious freedom. I think that people should be free to worship in any way they see fit, provided that their worship doesn’t interfere with the rights of others or violate laws. (Ritual human sacrifice seems like it’s probably not acceptable.) I do have some serious questions as to whether religious institutions should be able to claim a “religious exemption” from the obligation of paying taxes and performing the other responsibilities of citizenship, which are required by the rest of us and other sorts of institutions. I find it hard to understand how a business, or real estate, which is owned by a religious institution, should not be subject to taxation, when they have the right to the same protections (police, fire, etc.) as the rest of us. I can accept the idea that a “house of worship” might be eligible for such an exemption, but that raises a variety of questions as to what defines a “real” “house of worship?” Must such a place be used exclusively for something called “worship? How in the world can you define “worship” to be fairly inclusive to all spiritual traditions? The list of complicated questions can go on at some length.
Anyway, the lyrics which have been stuck in my head are from “For What It’s Worth” by Stephen Stills. Those lyrics read:
There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, now, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Source: http://www.metrolyrics.com/for-what-its-worth-lyrics-buffalo-springfield.html
I think this lyric has come to mind recently for many of the same sorts of reasons that it was popular in the late 1960s during the “Vietnam time” which was an important part of my growing up. To me, in any case, it also brings to mind some of the issues of the so-called Civil Rights Movement, which was focused on the rights of African Americans, although it did (I think) contribute to the Women’s Movement and, a bit later, to the “Gay Pride” movement which became the current LGBT one. Of course, as an old “folkie,” I hasten to point out that all of these movements seem to owe a lot to the Labor (union) movements of the first half of the 20th Century and, in fact, many of the songs of the union movement were repurposed for use in these later ones. And many of those songs were “borrowed” from various religious movements. However, I digress.
Each verse of the song to which I’ve been referring seems to me to resonate with the current times. In verse one: “There's something happening here / What it is ain't exactly clear.” It seems to me that the contemporary political scene is almost anything BUT “transparent” and the recent actions to “protect and restore religious freedom” rank high in this area. In their strongest form they seem to be saying that it should be impossible (because this law says so) to sue anyone for discriminatory action if they claim that their religion disapproves of the person being discriminated against, their “lifestyle.” Beliefs, actions, etc. That would appear to reverse all civil rights decisions and regulations as far back as one could go. I can remember (back in the day) some folks arguing that; “since the Bible speaks of slavery, then, obviously, God approves of it.” The blatant racial discrimination of having separate restrooms and water fountains for “Colored” was often justified on the grounds that God didn’t want different races to intermix. Is THAT what we mean by “religious freedom?” I hope not.
The second verse begins: “There's battle lines being drawn / Nobody's right if everybody's wrong.” Certainly there are battle lines being drawn. We seem to be moving in a direction of greater and greater insistence on the part of many that compromise is a “dirty” word and it’s always a case of “my way or the highway.” That’s doesn’t seem to be in the tradition of the United States’ founding, in spite of those revisionist historians who want to make our history “…clean, neat and supportive of what THEY want to define as the only acceptable ‘American values’.” The fact is that American history really isn’t as neat as one might wish. That’s really true of all history, but I won’t get into that. I guess my question is “Why must we insist on drawing “battle lines” when our entire history is based on the idea of compromise and tolerance?” It doesn’t seem that we should feel any need to try to make everything overly simplistic (right vs. wrong, black vs. white). That’s especially true since that would force a major recreation of facts.
I am reminded of the central issue of the musical 1776. Jefferson (so the plot goes) wanted to use the Declaration of Independence to make a statement against slavery. The Southern colonies (who required slavery for economic survival) were opposed. In order to pass the Declaration, those opposed to slavery had to give up including it. The decision was that independence and a new nation were more important than this issue, which would make those goals impossible. One can argue that the seeds of the Civil War were planted in this action, but it was the best possible compromise to achieve the most important end. That’s the point! In most cases NO side is ever likely to get exactly what it wants all the time. Reasonable people CAN accept this and work to accomplish something. All that’s required is that ALL parties are willing to work together.
Verse three suggests that “A thousand people in the street / Singing songs and carrying signs /
Mostly say, hooray for our side.” The American tradition does allow for people to express their ideas (read the First Amendment – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”) That grants us the right to PEACEFULLY petition for a redress of grievances, but not to insist that those grievances MUST satisfy us in all details. The job of the government is to LISTEN to legitimate grievances and act according to serving the general good of the republic. Just because Christianity is the largest single category of religion in the US doesn’t mean that it has the right to suppress the religious beliefs of other groups (which do form a significant minority). It should also be noted that not even all “Christians” have monolithically identical beliefs, there’s a considerable diversity of thought on many issues (especially social ones) even among self-identified “Christians.” That still doesn’t mean, however, that even a majority opinion is the only acceptable one.
The last verse says (in part): “Paranoia strikes deep / Into your life it will creep / It starts when you're always afraid.” I think that this may be one of the most telling lines in the entire song and one of the hardest to understand. If we’re “…always afraid,” something’s very wrong. Why are we “always afraid?” Are we so fearful that we can only react to those with whom we disagree with anger and violence? Have we become so competitive that we find it possible to insist that our beliefs are the only acceptable ones? Is there no room for compromise when the issues relate to civil law (and behavior)? That seems to suggest that we (as a people) are so insecure as to be unwilling to allow others to have any beliefs which disagree with ours. It would seem to me that this is a dangerous road for the US to go down, and one which is contrary to our history, despite what some folks would like us to believe.
Fortunately, at least in my opinion, there IS hope buried in the second verse: “Young people speaking their minds / Getting so much resistance from behind.” Polling would suggest that younger people have somewhat fewer difficulties accepting the notion of such things as same sex marriage than older folks (although most of the so-called “religious right” and those who cater to that group politically) seem unwilling to accept that fact. It seems that, overall, younger people are less anxious about forcing some sort of narrow religious conformity on civil laws than many older folks. Does that mean that younger folks are more tolerant than their elders? It would seem that way. The Governor of Arkansas required that that state’s Legislature revise its “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” before he would sign it because (he said) his son wanted him to veto it in its original form. That sort of thing (if true) suggests there is hope in the young. I’d like to believe that that is true.
Of course, given the backlash from the business community over the Indiana version and the pressure brought to bear on Arkansas by Wal-Mart and others, one does wonder if the Governor’s son’s displeasure was really the deciding factor. Still, I’d like to think that as younger people start to have a greater influence on our political system that it’s possible that we might move to a more “middle of the road” position on a lot of the “social agenda” which has become a major part of the American political scene. The difficulty in believing in this is the historically low turnout of young voters in most states and the fact that much of the pressure against such discriminatory moves has really come from the business community.
Still, I’m not sure that I care where the pressure comes from as long as we are moving in the direction of tolerance and acceptance of all under the American umbrella. There does seem to be some hope that younger voters will start to take action and stand up for their beliefs. Of course, that could explain why there have been so many efforts (some [few] overturned) to make it harder for younger people to exercise this right. Could it be that “old” thinking (or non-thinking) politicians are feeling the threat from our more reasonable youth? I hope so….
LLAP
Now, in spite of what some folks might think, I have no problem with religious freedom. I think that people should be free to worship in any way they see fit, provided that their worship doesn’t interfere with the rights of others or violate laws. (Ritual human sacrifice seems like it’s probably not acceptable.) I do have some serious questions as to whether religious institutions should be able to claim a “religious exemption” from the obligation of paying taxes and performing the other responsibilities of citizenship, which are required by the rest of us and other sorts of institutions. I find it hard to understand how a business, or real estate, which is owned by a religious institution, should not be subject to taxation, when they have the right to the same protections (police, fire, etc.) as the rest of us. I can accept the idea that a “house of worship” might be eligible for such an exemption, but that raises a variety of questions as to what defines a “real” “house of worship?” Must such a place be used exclusively for something called “worship? How in the world can you define “worship” to be fairly inclusive to all spiritual traditions? The list of complicated questions can go on at some length.
Anyway, the lyrics which have been stuck in my head are from “For What It’s Worth” by Stephen Stills. Those lyrics read:
There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, now, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Source: http://www.metrolyrics.com/for-what-its-worth-lyrics-buffalo-springfield.html
I think this lyric has come to mind recently for many of the same sorts of reasons that it was popular in the late 1960s during the “Vietnam time” which was an important part of my growing up. To me, in any case, it also brings to mind some of the issues of the so-called Civil Rights Movement, which was focused on the rights of African Americans, although it did (I think) contribute to the Women’s Movement and, a bit later, to the “Gay Pride” movement which became the current LGBT one. Of course, as an old “folkie,” I hasten to point out that all of these movements seem to owe a lot to the Labor (union) movements of the first half of the 20th Century and, in fact, many of the songs of the union movement were repurposed for use in these later ones. And many of those songs were “borrowed” from various religious movements. However, I digress.
Each verse of the song to which I’ve been referring seems to me to resonate with the current times. In verse one: “There's something happening here / What it is ain't exactly clear.” It seems to me that the contemporary political scene is almost anything BUT “transparent” and the recent actions to “protect and restore religious freedom” rank high in this area. In their strongest form they seem to be saying that it should be impossible (because this law says so) to sue anyone for discriminatory action if they claim that their religion disapproves of the person being discriminated against, their “lifestyle.” Beliefs, actions, etc. That would appear to reverse all civil rights decisions and regulations as far back as one could go. I can remember (back in the day) some folks arguing that; “since the Bible speaks of slavery, then, obviously, God approves of it.” The blatant racial discrimination of having separate restrooms and water fountains for “Colored” was often justified on the grounds that God didn’t want different races to intermix. Is THAT what we mean by “religious freedom?” I hope not.
The second verse begins: “There's battle lines being drawn / Nobody's right if everybody's wrong.” Certainly there are battle lines being drawn. We seem to be moving in a direction of greater and greater insistence on the part of many that compromise is a “dirty” word and it’s always a case of “my way or the highway.” That’s doesn’t seem to be in the tradition of the United States’ founding, in spite of those revisionist historians who want to make our history “…clean, neat and supportive of what THEY want to define as the only acceptable ‘American values’.” The fact is that American history really isn’t as neat as one might wish. That’s really true of all history, but I won’t get into that. I guess my question is “Why must we insist on drawing “battle lines” when our entire history is based on the idea of compromise and tolerance?” It doesn’t seem that we should feel any need to try to make everything overly simplistic (right vs. wrong, black vs. white). That’s especially true since that would force a major recreation of facts.
I am reminded of the central issue of the musical 1776. Jefferson (so the plot goes) wanted to use the Declaration of Independence to make a statement against slavery. The Southern colonies (who required slavery for economic survival) were opposed. In order to pass the Declaration, those opposed to slavery had to give up including it. The decision was that independence and a new nation were more important than this issue, which would make those goals impossible. One can argue that the seeds of the Civil War were planted in this action, but it was the best possible compromise to achieve the most important end. That’s the point! In most cases NO side is ever likely to get exactly what it wants all the time. Reasonable people CAN accept this and work to accomplish something. All that’s required is that ALL parties are willing to work together.
Verse three suggests that “A thousand people in the street / Singing songs and carrying signs /
Mostly say, hooray for our side.” The American tradition does allow for people to express their ideas (read the First Amendment – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”) That grants us the right to PEACEFULLY petition for a redress of grievances, but not to insist that those grievances MUST satisfy us in all details. The job of the government is to LISTEN to legitimate grievances and act according to serving the general good of the republic. Just because Christianity is the largest single category of religion in the US doesn’t mean that it has the right to suppress the religious beliefs of other groups (which do form a significant minority). It should also be noted that not even all “Christians” have monolithically identical beliefs, there’s a considerable diversity of thought on many issues (especially social ones) even among self-identified “Christians.” That still doesn’t mean, however, that even a majority opinion is the only acceptable one.
The last verse says (in part): “Paranoia strikes deep / Into your life it will creep / It starts when you're always afraid.” I think that this may be one of the most telling lines in the entire song and one of the hardest to understand. If we’re “…always afraid,” something’s very wrong. Why are we “always afraid?” Are we so fearful that we can only react to those with whom we disagree with anger and violence? Have we become so competitive that we find it possible to insist that our beliefs are the only acceptable ones? Is there no room for compromise when the issues relate to civil law (and behavior)? That seems to suggest that we (as a people) are so insecure as to be unwilling to allow others to have any beliefs which disagree with ours. It would seem to me that this is a dangerous road for the US to go down, and one which is contrary to our history, despite what some folks would like us to believe.
Fortunately, at least in my opinion, there IS hope buried in the second verse: “Young people speaking their minds / Getting so much resistance from behind.” Polling would suggest that younger people have somewhat fewer difficulties accepting the notion of such things as same sex marriage than older folks (although most of the so-called “religious right” and those who cater to that group politically) seem unwilling to accept that fact. It seems that, overall, younger people are less anxious about forcing some sort of narrow religious conformity on civil laws than many older folks. Does that mean that younger folks are more tolerant than their elders? It would seem that way. The Governor of Arkansas required that that state’s Legislature revise its “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” before he would sign it because (he said) his son wanted him to veto it in its original form. That sort of thing (if true) suggests there is hope in the young. I’d like to believe that that is true.
Of course, given the backlash from the business community over the Indiana version and the pressure brought to bear on Arkansas by Wal-Mart and others, one does wonder if the Governor’s son’s displeasure was really the deciding factor. Still, I’d like to think that as younger people start to have a greater influence on our political system that it’s possible that we might move to a more “middle of the road” position on a lot of the “social agenda” which has become a major part of the American political scene. The difficulty in believing in this is the historically low turnout of young voters in most states and the fact that much of the pressure against such discriminatory moves has really come from the business community.
Still, I’m not sure that I care where the pressure comes from as long as we are moving in the direction of tolerance and acceptance of all under the American umbrella. There does seem to be some hope that younger voters will start to take action and stand up for their beliefs. Of course, that could explain why there have been so many efforts (some [few] overturned) to make it harder for younger people to exercise this right. Could it be that “old” thinking (or non-thinking) politicians are feeling the threat from our more reasonable youth? I hope so….
LLAP
RSS Feed