Should Washington, D.C., Be a State?

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 51, the bill which would make a new state out of most of Washington, D.C. Even prior to that vote, there were people proposing the following design for a new flag with 51 stars:  

Finally Projected

“Taxation and Representation” was the title of a blog article I posted back in June 2016. It was partly about Washington, D.C., where, I wrote, “there is taxation but no representation on the federal level.” I also said, “Statehood for the District is one possible solution to the problem.”

At that time, I really didn’t think there was much chance of that coming about, even though most of the D.C. license plates since 2000 have complained, “Taxation without Representation.”

Here is an image of the D.C. license plates issued since August 2017: 

The issue is even more than that of taxation, of course. The citizens of D.C. are denied most of their (small “d”) democratic rights and privileges. They have no Senators and no voting member of the House of Representatives.

But, finally, on April 22 the Washington, D.C. Admission Act (H.R. 51) was passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 216-208. Every voting Democrat voted Yea; every voting Republican voted Nay.

The House vote was in harmony with the results of the November 2016 D.C. referendum on statehood for the District of Columbia. Nearly 86% of those who voted approved the appeal for statehood.

Flimsily Rejected

Republicans almost unanimously have rejected the idea of statehood for the District of Columbia. (Are there any prominent Republicans who favor statehood for D.C.? I couldn’t come up with any.)

One objection is that D.C. is too small to be a state. Even George Will began his anti-statehood 4/21 opinion article by pointing out that the land area of the proposed state of Washington, D.C., would be only 1/18 the size of Rhode Island.

But why in the world should land area have anything to do with statehood? It is population that is important, and currently, D.C. has around 715,000 residents, considerably more than Wyoming (at around 570,000) and Vermont (approximately 625,000).

Will does suggest that D.C. be made a part of the state of Maryland, which would create the 18^th largest state with a population of more than 6,780,000. But would that be fair to the citizens of D.C.—or of Maryland?

The size of D.C. measured by population (or area) is obviously not the reason for the Republican opposition. The main issue is that fewer than 38% of D.C. residents are non-Hispanic Whites and the 62% of the population who are PoC vote primarily for the Party that is for greater racial equality.

Firmly Supported

Last week, my FB Friend Rob Marus posted this on Facebook: “I have been, for nearly 20 years now, a citizen of the District of Columbia. . . . However, nearly 250 years after the Revolutionary War, I am still denied voting representation in Congress.”

Ben Jealous, who was the president and CEO of the NAACP from 2008 to 2013, wrote an April 28 article titled “D.C. Statehood is a Voting Rights Issue—and Racial Justice Issue.” That is probably a correct assessment of the situation. 

That same day, the Montgomery County Council (in the Maryland county adjacent to D.C.) again passed a resolution in support of D.C. statehood. The Council president said, “The indefensible disenfranchisement of 700,000 residents is one of the remaining civil rights injustices of our time.”

These reasons, and many more, are clearly delineated on the  statehood (dc.gov) website, and I encourage you to click on and read the content on this webpage: “Why Statehood for D.C.”

If you are in favor of democracy and the civil rights of all U.S. citizens, as I definitely am, then you have good reason to be a firm supporter of statehood for D.C.

The Beautiful Concept of Ubuntu

For decades I have greatly admired the life and work of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, but the only blog post I have made primarily about him was seven years ago on April 30, 2014 (see here). It was from him that I first learned about ubuntu, a beautiful word/concept. 

Image with this online article about ubuntu

The Meaning of Ubuntu

Two American men published a book in 2010 with a one-word title: Ubuntu! On the second page, they explain the meaning of ubuntu as the

ancient African philosophy that draws on the fact that we are one human family. We are brothers and sisters, traveling this earth together. When one man [or woman] is poorly fed, all are malnourished. When one is abused, we all feel the pain. When a child suffers, the tears wash over us all. By recognizing the humanity of one another, we recognize our unbreakable bond—our unbreakable link to the whole of humanity.

“I am because we are” is a popular brief definition of ubuntu. As Wikipedia correctly says, in a more philosophical sense ubuntu means “the belief in a universal bond of sharing that connects all humanity.”

(Interestingly, Ubuntu is now the name of a PC operating system, which is said to bring the spirit of ubuntu to the world of computers. A while back I created a Google alert for ubuntu, and there were far, far more links to the Ubuntu OS than to the African philosophy of ubuntu.)

Tutu’s Emphasis on Ubuntu

Ubuntu is a basic principle that has been long practiced by Desmond Tutu, born in 1931 in the Union of South Africa. Before he was 30, he was ordained as an Anglican priest. In 1984 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

After Tutu had served 12 years as the Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, in 1994 Nelson Mandela, the newly elected South African president, appointed him as the head of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Here was his great opportunity to put ubuntu into practice—and he did.**

A TED talk back in 2013 pointed out that ubuntu “became known in the West largely through the writings of Desmond Tutu.” That marvelous concept has also become more widely known in the West because of his children and grandchildren.

Here is the link to a 95-second explanation of ubuntu by Mpho Tutu, the daughter of Desmond Tutu, who is also an Episcopal priest.

And Mungi Ngomane, Archbishop Tutu’s granddaughter and Mpho’s niece, is the author of a delightful 2020 book entitled Everyday Ubuntu: Living Better Together, the African Way. 

From https://mungingomane.co/

The Healing Power of Ubuntu

It is significant that President Mandela sought to create a peaceful society in South Africa by appointing a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

There could have been great bloodshed and ongoing animosities. But, based on the concept of ubuntu, he (and Archbishop Tutu) emphasized both truth and reconciliation. Reconciliation between the minority Whites and the majority who were Black, could not be achieved without attention to truth.

In his new (2021) book Desmond Tutu: A Spiritual Biography of South Africa's Confessor, Michael J. Battle refers to “Tutu’s beautiful concept of ubuntu theology” (p. 9).

The first book by Battle, an Episcopal theologian born in 1963, is titled Reconciliation: The Ubuntu Theology of Desmond Tutu (1997, 2009). In the racially and politically divided nation of South Africa, Tutu strove valiantly for reconciliation. But he also emphasized the importance of truth.

“Truth-telling is the path to healing, Tutu tells U.S. audience” is the title of an online article posted in April 2002. That is even more important to recognize now in this racially and politically divided nation of ours.

There cannot be political reconciliation as long as the Big Lie about the 2020 election continues to be spouted and supported.

There cannot be racial reconciliation as long as the Whites in the U.S. cannot understand and affirm that Black Lives Matter.

Implementing the beautiful concept of ubuntu could help mightily in creating a just and peaceful society.

On the back cover of Mungi Ngoname’s book, which I highly recommend, are these memorable words:

By embracing ubuntu, we live in hope of overcoming divisions and becoming stronger together in a world where the wise build bridges.

_____

** Click here to see/read “Ubuntu—The African Concept The World Really Needs Right Now,” a 7/7/20 article about ubuntu as practiced by both Mandela and Tutu.

Jane, Good for All the Earth

Earlier this month, Dr. Jane Goodall celebrated her 87^th birthday. Born in London in 1934, the famous anthropologist spent much of her life in Tanzania studying chimpanzees. She has also become one of the leading spokespersons advocating care for all the earth.  

Photo from The Jane Goodall Institute

Jane Goodall and the Media

Like most of you, I have heard of Jane Goodall for decades. But maybe unlike many of you, I was never particularly interested in her or in her work. I guess I thought there are more important things to do than to spend years and years studying chimpanzees.

My recent interest in Goodall, though, was spurred by a perceptive article about her in the December 30 issue of The Christian Century. After reading that article, “Why Jane Goodall reminds me of Dorothy Day,” I wanted to learn more about her and her work.

So, about six weeks ago June and I watched Jane, the 2017 documentary, which followed her life and career from 1960 when she left her home country of England to live for decades in the Gombe forest of Tanzania.

Jane Goodall: The Hope is the new 2020 National Geographic film about Goodall. We just subscribed to Disney+, the only place where it seems to be available, in order to watch it last week at our usual “Friday night at the movies.” It is mostly about Jane’s work from 1986 to 2019.

Both of these documentaries helped us understand how Jane Goodall and her work studying and advocating for chimpanzees is, truly, good for all the earth.

Jane Goodall and Earth Day

As you probably know, April 22 is Earth Day; this year’s theme is Restore Our Earth. EarthDay.org has helpful information about various activities, which begin today.

National Geographic is kicking off Earth Day with a free virtual concert special on April 21. (Read more about that here.) Jane Goodall is scheduled to make an appearance at that concert. 

Goodall is certainly a worthy spokesperson for Earth Day. In April 2002, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed her a United Nations Messenger of Peace, honoring her for a remarkable career as an environmentalist and her “dedication to what is best in mankind.”

She has done so much for the earth over the last 30 years that a National Geographic photographer who has traveled extensively with her calls Goodall the “Mother Teresa of the environment.”

And the subtitle of the Christian Century article about Goodall refers to her as “a secular saint.”

Jane Goodall and Chimpanzees

Eight years ago today (on 4/20/13) I began my first blog post about Earth Day by citing Psalm 24:1. In the NIV translation, that familiar verse says, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it.”

We usually think of “all” in this verse as referring to human beings, but perhaps we should think of all as also including chimpanzees and other living beings. Jane Goodall certainly did, and does.

And maybe Jane Goodall’s meritorious lifework is an example of how “Understanding One Thing is to Understand Everything,” as I wrote about in my February 27 blog post.

As shown in the 2020 documentary, since 1986 Jane has been working tirelessly to save the environment for her beloved chimpanzees—and for the people in their shared environment—and, then, to save the whole earth from environmental destruction.

Indeed, Dr. Jane’s work over the past 60 years has been good for all the earth. May God help each of us to follow her example in our own small ways.

_____

** Here is the link to The Jane Goodall Institute's website, with links to her impressive “Roots and Shoots” organization as well as to her “Good for All News” website.

An Apology for Apologetics

Communication is hard—for many reasons, one being that the same word sometimes has quite different meanings. Apology is one such word, and I invite you to think with me a bit about the meaning, and value, of apology and apologetics.

My Lifelong Interest in Apologetics

An apology often means an expression of regret or remorse for something a person has said or done. But there is another, technical meaning of that same word. Apology can also be legitimately used to mean the verbal or written defense of one’s basic beliefs.

There is a long history of apology being used in the latter sense with regards to the Christian faith, beginning with these New Testament words: “Always be ready to make your defense [ἀπολογίαν, apologian] to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15).

One of the important Christian books of the second century CE is First Apology of Justin Martyr (c.156), and his Second Apology was written shortly after the first one.

As a third-year college student, I became deeply interested in Christian apologetics, the religious discipline of defending Christian beliefs through rational discourse.

Philosophers/theologians such as Pascal and Kierkegaard were the Christian “apologists” I was most interested in at first and through graduate school, although I also read and wrote papers by lesser-known thinkers such as German theologian Karl Heim and Hungarian philosopher Michael Polanyi.**

A Good Book on Apologetics

This article was prompted by my recent reading of Randal Rauser’s 2020 book, Conversations with My Inner Atheist: A Christian Apologist Explores Questions that Keep People Up at Night.

Rather than writing more about that book in this article, I invite you to see here for a brief review of that intriguing work by Rauser (b. 1973), a Canadian Baptist seminary professor. 

A Different Type of Apologetics

Even though I maintained my initial interest in apologetics, long ago I began to shift my emphasis from apologetics by rational argument to what I sometimes refer to as “apology by life.”^##

That shift was prompted by my growing awareness that the main reason so many Japanese students in my classes at Seinan Gakuin University rejected Christianity was not because of intellectual issues but because of ethical problems.

The bulk of the students in my Christian Studies classes did not have as much problem, I gradually began to see, with Christian doctrines as with Christian actions.

Rejection of Christianity was based far more on what they had learned in high school world history classes about the Crusades, for example, or what they had seen on television about racism in the United States, which they generally thought was a “Christian nation.”

With that awareness, I began to read and think less about traditional apologetics and more and more about Christian social ethics. Thus, I began thinking more about apology by life rather than apology by rational discourse.

Rauser hardly deals with this matter in his book, although the 20^th chapter begins with Mia saying, “It’s often been said that the biggest objection to Christianity is the life of Christians.” That is probably true.

Although I was unable to find the source, I have often heard these or similar words that Nietzsche reportedly said to Christians: “Show me that you are redeemed, and I will believe in your Redeemer.”

For a long time now, Christians have needed to say less about their beliefs and to act much more deliberately and lovingly for peace and justice, that is, for the basic well-being of all people.

_____

** My last essay published by The Seinan Theological Review in Japan was in March 2004, and it was largely on the thought of Karl Heim. It is available for viewing/reading here.

^## In footnote 16 of the above article, I wrote, “I have long wanted to write an essay on ‘Apology by Life.’ Apologetics has long been one of my strongest interests, but long ago I realized that the best apologetics may well be done by loving action rather than by words.”

Disclosure: The review I wrote of Rauser’s book and my mentioning of Rauser and his book in this blog article is partly because of receiving the book for review from Mike Morrell and his Speakeasy book review network.

The Tragedy of a Promising Young Woman

It was quite rare for me, but the other night after a movie June and I watched that evening, I not only dreamed about the film but also lay awake thinking for a while about the problems portrayed in it. The movie was Promising Young Woman.  

Carey Mulligan in Promising Young Woman

A Noteworthy Film

Wikipedia’s article about Promising Young Woman says it is “a 2020 American black comedy thriller film . . . .Carey Mulligan stars as a woman who seeks to avenge her best friend, who was a victim of rape.”

I don’t want to be a spoiler for those who haven’t seen the movie yet, so suffice it to say that when Cassie, the Carey Mulligan character, was a medical student, her fellow student Nina was raped at a party. That led to the death of Nina and to Cassie’s withdrawal from med school.

At the age of 30, Cassie is still a troubled soul and in devious ways seeks revenge for her wronged friend. How she gets her revenge makes for an intriguing movie, which seemed to us much more of a tragic thriller than a comedy of any sort.

Promising Young Woman picked up five nominations for this year’s Oscars, including best film and best actress.

A Noteworthy Actress

This is the third movie I have seen this year starring Carey Mulligan. After reading noted Japanese-British author Kazuo Ishiguro’s 2005 dystopian science fiction novel Never Let Me Go, I watched the 2010 movie by the same name, which stars Mulligan.

Then June and I watched An Education, the 2009 coming-of-age drama film in which Mulligan was the leading actress—and I was impressed with her again. So even before the Academy Award nominations were announced, we placed Promising Young Woman on our Netflix DVD queue.

As I feared would be the case, Mulligan was not nearly as “wholesome” in the new movie as she was in the two made ten years earlier. But she certainly played a powerful part, and I was impressed with her acting ability in the somewhat sordid role of a troubled woman seeking revenge.

Noteworthy Problems

The central problem that lay beneath Promising Young Woman was that of excessive drinking and men taking advantage, or at least trying to take advantage, of inebriated women.

A writer on the March 26 BBC News website (see here) called Mulligan’s film “deeply troubling.”

The writer, director, and producer of Promising Young Woman is Emerald Fennell, who like Mulligan was born in London in 1985. The BBC article says that she drew on her own experiences seeing drunk girls being taken advantage of. “It’s a huge part of hook-up culture,” she stated.

Fennell goes on to say that “there still isn't that much opprobrium [= harsh criticism] on people who sleep with very drunk girls. It was absolutely commonplace when I was growing up, I think probably in most places it still is.”

Of course, the main problem is that of men taking advantage of intoxicated girls. Without question, no one should be taken advantage of for any reason at any time.

But excessive drinking is also a grave problem. Nina was in a position to be taken advantage of because of being drunk, but her male classmate(s) who raped her had, no doubt, been drinking heavily also. If they had been sober, surely they would not have raped her (and videoed it) at the party.

There still tends to be the inclination to blame victims. Last month the Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a defendant could not be found guilty of rape because the woman got drunk voluntarily beforehand (see here). That was a highly questionable ruling.

No woman deserves to be raped for any reason, ever.

As in my dream, I still feel troubled that so many women are taken advantage of—and that (intemperate) drinking is so often a major factor in the tragic lives of many promising young women (and men).

_____

** Those who have seen the movie may be interested in this insightful review article posted April 7 on the website of Baptist News Global.

Tyranny of the Majority or Tyranny of the Minority?

Do you believe in majority rule? That is, should a 51% (or even 50.1%) affirmative vote decide who wins an election or what decisions pass a legislative body? That’s how we usually expect democracy to work. But 41 Senators can keep Senate bills from passing. Is that right?  

Protection from the Tyranny of the Majority?

As the “filibuster rule” now stands, 41 Senators can keep most Senate bills from coming to a vote. That is, it takes 60 Senators to vote cloture of a filibuster, and without that “super-majority” vote, the bill under question is not voted on.

The main argument in favor of the present system is that it protects the minority from the “tyranny” of the majority, which now, by the slimmest of margins, are Democrats.

Ross K. Baker, a distinguished professor of political science at Rutgers University, wrote an opinion piece published last week in USA Today. His point was that “it is not a good idea to get rid of the filibuster and thus enfeeble minorities and empower very slim majorities.”

Even when the bellicose language of “tyranny” is not used, the filibuster rule is seen by some, such as Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), as a way to encourage bipartisanship and cooperation in passing bills for the greater good of the country.

That may well have been largely true when Manchin (b. 1947) was a young man. But most probably it is, sadly, not effective now at this time of toxic polarity.

The views of the minority should, certainly, be listened to carefully and taken seriously. But should the minority have the power to determine what bills are voted on?

Protection from the Tyranny of the Minority?

As most of you readers know, I lived in Japan for 38 years and was a regular participant in university faculty meetings and in church business meetings.

Japanese culture places great emphasis on wa (group harmony). Thus, decisions were, ideally, made by consensus rather than by a vote—or by a vote after consensus had largely been reached.

Even in meetings of more than 100 faculty members, strong opposition from just a few vocal opponents of some motion on the floor could lead to postponing a decision or even withdrawing the motion.

One of my closest faculty colleagues complained more than once about such situations. That, perhaps, is when I first heard the term, “the tyranny of the minority.”

With the recalcitrance of the current 50 Republican U.S. Senators, it seems as though the U.S. Senate can often be aptly charged with being “guilty” of the tyranny of the minority.

What Can/Should Be Done?

The U.S. House this year passed, by the narrowest of margins but by a majority vote, the For the People Act (H.R. 1), which “addresses voter access, election integrity and security, campaign finance, and ethics for the three branches of government.”

Currently, unless the filibuster rule is changed, that bill is likely not to come to a Senate vote. The minority Party will kill the bill.

As it stands now, the same is true for the Equality Act (H.R. 5), the bill that “prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity . . . .”

Both of those bills not only procured the majority vote in the House, but public opinion polls also indicate that a majority of the adults in the U.S. agree with the provisions of those bills.

Those who advocate doing away with the filibuster have a strong case. But those who think the filibuster should be preserved, have arguments that must not be taken lightly. Something between all or nothing is called for.

In considering the matter of equality for all and protecting voting rights, though, surely the tyranny of the minority should not be seen as an acceptable course of action.

For the good of the country, the Senate must soon find a suitable position between the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of the minority.

_____

In addition to Baker’s article linked to above, here are some of the opinion pieces I found to be instructive. (Some of these may be behind a paywall for non-subscribers.)

** Ruth Marcus, “Kill the filibuster — and reap what you sow” (The Washington Post, March 19)

** Zack Beauchamp, “The filibuster’s racist history, explained” (Vox, March 25)

** Jennifer Rubin, “Republicans’ big lie about the filibuster” (The Washington Post, March 25)

** John Fea, “The longest filibusters in U.S. history were launched to stop the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964” (Current, March 28)