On Defending Max Lucado

I promise you, I really wasn’t going to write a blog post related to the election. I figure at this point, generally, most of us have a good idea who we’re going to vote for or not vote for, and why. And technically speaking, this blog update isn’t really about the election. I’m trying extra hard not to get into pointless arguments via social media. If it matters to you, I do not care at all for Donald Trump as a presidential candidate, and I will be voting for Hillary Clinton because I think I ultimately agree with her more than any other candidate, including Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.


However, if you’re voting for Donald Trump, I don’t want to unfriend you on social media or (worse yet) stop hanging out in real life. This isn’t a blog post about who I am voting for. No, what finally made my blood boil over and sucked me in to saying something is this little ditty, attacking and labeling my former pastor, Max Lucado, as a Pharisee, and elevating Trump’s Christianity above Max’s. If you’re not aware, Max wrote this about Trump back in February, and you can read a little more about his thought process here in an interview with NPR.


I encourage you, nay, I beseech you, to read all 3. Don’t worry, I’ll wait. *waits patiently, sips beverage, eats snack, checks email* Have you read them yet? No? Okay, fine, let me quickly summarize for you. Max has the audacity to point out that one cannot objectively describe Trump’s behavior as “decent,” that if Trump had shown up at Max’s house acting like he acts now and wanted to date Max’s daughter, Max would have said “no.” Max says he has done this, not simply because Trump is a candidate for president, as Max typically stays away from endorsing candidates or telling people in his congregation how to vote, but particularly because Trump also was touting his Christian faith and bona fides one day, and engaging in hateful, harmful name-calling and rhetoric the next (and the next, and the next, and…). And what is the response of Mr. Riley? To call Max a Pharisee who misses the point.


Perhaps a good place to start would be to be honest and clear about where I’m coming from here. I believe in a God who is neither a Republican, nor a Democrat, nor a liberal, nor a libertarian, nor a conservative. I don’t believe any candidate is God’s candidate, and similarly, I believe all candidates are real people, children of God whom God loves, as their creator. I hold it as Truth that God loved the WORLD (not a person, people, nation, group, religion, but the entire WORLD because God created the whole world and everything in it) so much He sent His only Son to die for our sins. This means that Jesus died the same for Hillary as for Donald, the same for Max as for James, and the same as for me as for everyone else. As much as I may see something else when I look at someone, particularly candidates for public office who I am exposed to on a daily basis, I believe God sees them as His children, just as worthy of love and salvation as I am, and with access to grace and mercy through Jesus equal to mine. If I am following God, I should be following Him in striving to see others, especially others who are different than me and with whom I disagree, as He sees them.


Furthermore, I believe people of good conscience, including those who share the labels “Christian” or “Follower of Christ” with me, can and do occupy all ends of the political spectrum. In following Jesus, I believe there is almost always more than one way to vote in any election, more than one political party to identify with, and more than one position to take on issues of public policy, both foreign and domestic. I don’t say this because I’m some sort of moral relativist who believes all positions and views are equally valid. I don’t. However, I think good people of faith can disagree about how best to go about accomplishing what they feel are parts of their faith they are called to live out through participation in a public society and through government. Additionally, although I believe God is perfect and His Word is divine and true, I also don’t think it is some cut-and-dry instruction manual that couldn’t possibly be misunderstood or read through human bias. We should struggle for the Truth, and to sincerely and earnestly seek to live this out, but I also think a dash of humility and allowance that our imperfect human understanding could always be improved could go a long way.


So, this is where I’m coming from: God is above our human politics, and children of God may disagree and vote and govern differently, and I’m okay with that. This doesn’t mean I don’t have a mind or opinions of my own, that I don’t disagree with others. Of course I do, and I expect others will disagree with me. And I welcome that dialogue, especially when done in a loving and Christian tone.


What then, is my beef with this post by James Patrick Riley? Not only can he not find a way to disagree with Max respectfully, without going for the low blow of calling him a Pharisee, his argumentation is weak and flawed; he doesn’t even bother to suggest anything Max has claimed about Trump is untrue. He is certainly welcome to his opinion, but I hold that his opinion is wrong. That alone probably wouldn’t be enough to provoke me to write this, but he drags through the mud the reputation of a man who, though only my pastor for 2 years, played a significant role in developing my faith, and continues to do so with his writing. Max Lucado doesn’t need little ol’ me to defend him, but I want to come to his defense. And, plus, someone on the Internet is wrong! *shocked face*


Where do I start? First, James labels Max as a Pharisee because he ignores “weightier matters of the law.” In response, I would ask what is the weightiest matter of the law? If you read Mr. Riley’s article as I do, you’d think it is being staunchly pro-life, hating Muslims, and glorifying the rich. I’m going to respectfully point instead to Matthew 22: 36-40 – when Jesus was asked about the most important commandment in the law, he answered with loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself. I would think that love would include decency – I have a difficult time imagining how I might love someone without being decent towards them. I can speak hard truth or tell people what they don’t want to hear, but still always balance it with love and decency. But instead, as the weightiest matter of the law, Mr. Riley offers abortion (hardly a cut-and-dry issue across the Christian faith – for example, you can read here how the Methodist church supports the legal option of abortion in at least some cases, and recognizes the church’s view on abortion is not church law), hating Muslims (technically, he uses the phrase “Islamo-pandering” but his disdain for an entire religion and people seems right on point with the essence of hate; ironic that he begins his blog post with the story of the Good Samaritan), and glorifying the rich (again, Mr. Riley’s exact words are “class warfare,” but somehow I feel like it’s safe to assume he isn’t concerned here with the marginalized poor, despite the numerous references to the poor and social justice throughout the Bible and Jesus’ assertion of the barrier earthly wealth can present to entering the kingdom of heaven in Mark 10:25 or his suggestion to pay your taxes in Matthew 22:15-22).


Second, Mr. Riley accuses Max of traditionally being private with his politics as a way to not offend the Democrats in his congregation. You have already read how I feel about suggesting one political party is somehow the party of God. To that, I would add, I don’t think Max’s reticence to tell people who he’ll be voting for is about some soft-hearted attempt to not offend anyone, or even some cynical attempt to boost or maintain church membership. Rather, I believe it has much more to do with keeping his focus on the cross and recognizing Jesus’ death and resurrection transcend all. I also believe Max is living out Romans 14:21 and avoiding doing anything else that might cause another believer to stumble. If he says he is voting for one candidate and everyone else in his congregation should too or else, and someone leaves the church and turns away from following Christ, even if that is an individual choice, I doubt Max would want that on his conscience.


Next, Mr. Riley criticizes Max for choosing to criticize Donald Trump, but not President Obama, again citing the issue of abortion as if it was the end-all, be-all issue of Christianity. I would point out here that Mr. Riley appears to have missed an important point – Max chose to criticize Trump because Trump was promoting himself as a Christian and courting the evangelical vote, not simply because he is a public figure running for office. He then goes on detail Trump’s very recent change on the issue of abortion and gives him the benefit of the doubt as being sincere. Riley then hits the point where he pushed me mentally over the edge, suggesting that Trump is the “real” Christian because he “acts like it,” not Max “who puts on a polite show of neutrality.”


Really? Have we really hit the point where people are questioning and criticizing Max Lucado’s Christianity and suggesting Trump is somehow more Christian. Mr. Riley tries to defend Trump from the variety of criticisms he has faced from some Christians for various things like casinos and gambling, being foul mouthed, arrogance, and strip clubs and philandering. He then goes on to remind us about all the people in the Bible who were imperfect that God managed to use, and that Trump is really a good guy if you’d just give him a chance, and if you won’t, it’s because obviously you’re a Pharisee who values style over substance.


Again, I ask, really? I don’t know if I can adequately respond to all the excuses Riley makes for Trump. But more importantly, I don’t have to. Riley is completely missing the point. Max mentions nothing of casinos and gambling, specific language, arrogance alone, strips clubs, or philandering. Rather, the issue is quite simply one of how Trump treats people: indecently. It’s not just about using the word bimbo, it’s about using that word publicly and repeatedly to describe a daughter of God. It’s about mocking a former POW. It’s about making demeaning references to someone’s menstrual cycle. It’s about using language to incite violence, or at least condone it. To put it as clearly as possible – This. Is. Not. How. Jesus. Acted. Not even close. This isn’t some issue of valuing manners and politeness and never offending people over doing the right thing – treating people well, treating others lovingly, IS the right thing. It’s the second greatest commandment after loving God.


Christianity isn’t a competition. Max, I’m sure, would be the first to tell you that he was just as dead in his sin before Christ as Trump. But if we’re going to look at who is following more closely in the shoes of Jesus, making disciples, loving the world, it’s not even close. To pretend Trump is more Christian in his action is complete and utter nonsense that clearly and disgustingly places politics above of faith, completely ignoring the foundations of Christianity.


And yes, the Bible is full of people who had shady pasts, were outcasts from the religious crowds. But one thing they shared in common, when God did use them for His will, was that they humbled themselves, submitted themselves fully to Him, and repented and turned from their sins. I can’t say on this matter of decency I see much humility, submission to God, or repentance from Donald. Instead, it seems like each week he seeks to outdo himself saying more and more outrageous and indecent things.


So, if you choose to vote for Donald Trump this fall, that is totally your right, and I don’t think you’re a horrible person for it. If you legitimately believe as a Christian that a vote for him is the best expression of your faith and that he will do the best job representing your values and morals, please, by all means, vote for him. I can accept people of good intentions will come down differently on politics, and I refuse to give in to the push to demonize people who vote differently than I do. But, don’t get so caught up in defending Donald Trump that you call Max Lucado a Pharisee and suggest Trump is more of a Christian than Lucado, simply because Max points out that being decent matters and that Trump is not decent. And don’t hypocritically criticize someone for being typically tight-lipped about politics while simultaneously criticizing someone for pointing out the truth about the horse you decided to back in the race. And if you do, you might want to actually point out how their critique was false or incorrect, instead of attacking their character while missing the major point of the Christian faith and instead reducing Christianity to hating Muslims and being pro-life. That’s not the Christianity Max “the Pharisee” Lucado taught me about, at least 😉

On Defending Max Lucado

On Too Many Daves

Today, I reflect on one of my favorite things to do with my children: read stories. In particular, reading bedtime stories to my 2.5 year old daughter. My son, being 9 months, prefers the taste of board books. While I respect his willingness to expand his palate, it’s not really as engaging of a read for me when the page with the picture of the cat is covered in slobber. Wait, does that mean he’s ready to eat Chinese food? Is that why he also tries to put the cat’s tale in his mouth? Suddenly his fascination with the cat seems a lot more menacing. Looks like it will be a while before I leave them unattended together.

But, played out jokes about feline-flavored Asian cuisine aside, I love reading bedtime stories with my daughter. I gotta admit, though, I’m having a problem with one of her current favorites: The Sneetches and Other Stories by Dr. Seuss. Now don’t get me wrong, I love Dr. Seuss in general, despite his history of racism (yeah, that’s a thing). As a bleeding heart liberal social justice warrior, it’s important to me to subtly indoctrinate my daughter with such propaganda as the Sneetches, a well-written story about discrimination and classism/racism/bellystarism. It’s also a cautionary tale, I believe, about traveling monkey salesmen. As a general rule, you should never trust a monkey who builds a machine and claims he can fix all your problems for $3. Also, how brave/desperate was the first Sneetch to go through the machine and trust that he wouldn’t come out as sausage on the other side? Makes me feel like a huge wimp for wincing every time I go through a car wash. Anyways, the Sneetches teach us about finding the commonalities that unite us. Like everyone (or at least all the Sneetches on the beaches) being broke – although, where did the Sneetches keep all their money? Pouches? Are Sneetches marsupials? And what is the exchange rate on the Sneetch currency? How many frankfurters for frankfurter roasts can one buy with a Sneetch dollar? Also, I love the Sneetches because every time we are on the page with the frankfurter roasts, my daughter asks what is happening. And I am way, way too excited to tell her they’re roasting weenies while giggle snorting.

So, my beef is not with the story of the Sneetches. It is with one of the other stories, Too Many Daves. While I can see the lesson for my daughter to learn from The Sneetches (Sneetches are Sneetches and none are the best upon beaches), The Zax (don’t be maladaptively stubborn), and What Was I Scared Of (the things we fear often fear us just as much and really aren’t so scary), I have a hard time understanding the lesson I am supposed to absorb from Too Many Daves. For those of you unfamiliar with the “plot,” Mrs. McCave had 23 sons, all named Dave, and this causes problems when she calls for Dave to come into the house.

Let me start with the obvious: although I feel strongly about not judging others for how many children they have, even I admit I have to question Mrs. McCave’s proclivity to treat her lady parts as a clown car. I mean, if we do some quick math, with pregnancy being approximately 9 months, at 23 kids, Mrs. McCave might have been pregnant for *pauses to get calculator on iPhone and secretly laughs at all those teachers who said I needed to memorize multiplication because I wouldn’t always have a calculator in my pocket* 207 months, or more than 17 years of her life. My spouse graciously consented to be pregnant with our children for ~18 months, and my belief is she deserves to have a statue erected. We haven’t done that because the kids would just knock it over, but she deserves one for 9% of Mrs. McCave’s work. So, I’m kind of concerned about the beliefs and expectations my daughter is developing about pregnancy and children.

Next, let’s not sleep on the math of having 23 kids and them all being boys. I’m sure that all my friends who know better about genetics will correct me here (and you can just shut it – no one cares, I’m making a funny point and doing match on my iPhone), but if the odds of having a boy is 50/50 with each birth, then the odds of having 23 sons is 0.00001%. Mr. McCave’s sperm containing Y chromosomes are clearly the Michael Phelps of his swimmers.

But anyways, once we get past the numbers, another thing the astute parent who has read the book approximately 23,436 times cannot help but notice is that all of the Daves appear incredibly close in age. How many of these births were multiples? And how much does this throw off my math about how many months Mrs. McCave spent pregnant? I repeat my concern about Mrs. McCave’s tendency to carry 10 lbs of baby in a 5 lb uterus, so-to-speak. I mean, some of the oldest McCave kids should be graduated from college and launching into careers by the time the younger ones are school-aged and running around as depicted by Seuss. But instead, they all look to be in elementary school. Was Mrs. McCave using in vitro fertilization? It’s none of my business, I know, but one has to wonder.

And the size of the house they’re living in – I think it may be time to call child protective services, because there is no way they all fit under that one roof. I mean, CPS is probably busy investigating the older lady living in a shoe with too many kids, but when they get done in Mother Goose land, they should take a peak to see if the McCave’s are violating some sort of fire code for maximum occupancy, at the very least. I don’t want to tell people how to live, but at some point, you have to tell someone it is a cottage, not a sardine can.

And then we get to the stated problem – Mrs. McCave named all her sons Dave. ALL. OF. THEM. Why? We’re never told why, or why Mr. McCave, who is conspicuously absent from the story, never intervened once to say, “Sweetheart, I know you loved the name Dave the first five times, but don’t you think it’s coming to be just the teensiest bit played out, like jokes about cats in Chinese food?” (see what I did there? *gives self a running joke high five*) No explanation is given. We’re just left to assume it is a totally reasonable and adult decision to name all 23 of your children the same name. I really feel like we’re being deprived of some important back-story.

But even after just accepting that a grown woman could name all her kids Dave, we’re supposed to just indiscriminately swallow the listing of all the different possible names she wishes she could have named her kids? Have you seen the list? It includes such gems as Marvin O’Gravel Balloon Face and Paris Garters. How is Harris Tweed better than the current situation? Why can’t Mrs. McCave fantasize about having kids named things like Robert, William, and Peter? And, after all these years, she hasn’t worked out some sort of system of nicknames, or something? That is a hardcore degree of learned helplessness to simply acquiesce and say, “Well, all my kids are named Dave, nothing else I can do.”

One final point as well, and that is that Mrs. McCave is always Mrs. McCave. No first name, no individual identity. She’s just a wife and mother. What life of quiet desperation is she living? What career did she leave to stay home with the children? None of these questions is addressed by Seuss. It’s almost as if he simply wanted an excuse to rhyme a bunch of silly names… Nah, that couldn’t be it. There has to be deeper meaning here if we just keep looking. You’ll have to do it without my assistance, however; I just heard a deviant giggle from Finn and a “meow” followed by suspicious silence from the cat in the other room. I must investigate.

On Too Many Daves

On disagreement with HB2

If you know me, you probably are not at all surprised that the point of this blog post is my opposition to North Carolina’s HB2. So, my intention in writing this is not to surprise anyone, but rather to hopefully express some of what I see as being the biggest criticisms of the law. If you support the law, I invite you to consider some of the points that follow; I understand I may not change your mind, but I would appreciate you hearing me out (and by the way, kudos to you for reading this and being open to learning about views different than yours). If you, like me, oppose the law and want to see it repealed, I hope I might offer information and perspective useful to you in your own dialogues about why you disagree with the law.


First, I challenge you to read the law. You can find it online here. There are lots of complexities to the law, and you can see that it is more than just a bathroom bill. There is plenty contained here that I believe is worthy of criticism that has nothing to do with the LGBT community and that adversely affects most everyone, such as the state significantly limiting the power of local governments. But I digress; a blog post about all my beef with all aspects of HB2 would be meatier than all than a Chicago steakhouse. I’m going to focus my criticism on Part I (Single-sex multiple occupancy bathroom and changing facilities) and Part III (Protection of rights in employment and public accommodations). Specifically, I’m going to suggest transgender people should be able to use the restroom that matches their gender identity, and that it is important to allow for protection of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) people (among others). Even in limiting myself in this way, I recognize that this blog post is still gargantuan, and I apologize in advance if you read all the way through and then want those minutes of your life back – if you really think I’ve wasted your time, I’ll gladly buy you a drink. But, I’m not going to let my fear that I’ve gotten long-winded here stop me from posting this. It’s too important to me not to.



First, the bathrooms. What does the law say? It says in all state buildings (which would include all buildings of state and local government, as well as state-run universities & colleges, and K-12 schools too), in all bathrooms and locker rooms/changing facilities that are not single occupancy, people must use the room that matches the sex on their birth certificate. Defenders of this law suggest it is common sense because males are males and females are females, and we need to protect women and children from being forced to share these intimate spaces with men and/or sexual predators. They also suggest doing otherwise and making it legal (or even just not explicitly illegal) for transgender people to use the restroom matching their gender identity prioritizes the feelings of transgender people and bullies everyone else with no respect for their feelings.


There is a lot to unpack here, and I’ve already warned you I’m not famous for my brevity, so let me own who I am and at least try to be thorough here. First, common sense… How does the saying go? It isn’t so common. I’m not exactly sure what common sense is supposed to mean or why it is something we should be appealing to in our laws. You can go look up the Webster’s definition of common sense, but I’m more interested in how the term functions. And functionally, the term usually means that what is common sense is what makes sense to the person saying it and/or is a view shared by many other people, especially within the person’s social circles. My main problem with this is that common sense is held out as some sort of almost immutable, tautological source of evidence – most people believe this, so it’s common sense, and it’s common sense because most people believe this. However, I think this starts to break down when we take a larger perspective. It used to be common sense that the Earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the Earth, that slavery was an acceptable practice, or that women had no right to vote. What is common sense, i.e., what is believed by a majority of people, is subject to change based on changes in evidence and culture across time. Using this logic, same-sex marriage is now common sense according to national polls like Pew and Gallup, but I’m guessing that this may not be convincing evidence to people who once appealed to common sense as a reason against same-sex marriage. Perhaps appeals to common sense are an empty appeal to some meaningless authority when one lacks more credible reasoning and evidence for one’s position.


“Now, hold the phone just one second, Baron Liberal Von Ivory Tower,” you may be saying (and if you are, may I just say, nice zinger). “Sure, sure, I see your point about common sense, but c’mon, we’re talking about basic biology here – males and females.” This is where I think a few definitions may be important, so please bear with me (Professor Pointyhead McBleedingheart beseeches you on behalf of the Baron). Sex refers to a person’s biological, genotypical, phenotypical classification as male or female, based on things like having testes and a penis or ovaries and a vagina, having XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes. Gender is the socially constructed set of roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes a given culture or society assigns to a sex. The important thing to note here is that gender is not some static thing that is the same across cultures and times – an easy example is that while men generally do not greet each other with a kiss on the cheek in 2016 USA, this is/has been a common behavior in other places and times. Gender identity is an individual’s perception of their own gender. The term gender is used here instead of sex because whether someone has certain genitalia or chromosomes is not the question, but their experience of being male or female is. Also, unlike sex, gender identity is not present from birth; rather, developmental scientists would suggest it develops often in early childhood. When an individual’s gender identity matches their sex, that is called cisgender, and when an individual’s gender identity does not match their sex, that can be called transgender. Note that transgender is not the same thing as other behaviors that often get lumped in or confused with it (such as cross-dressing or transvestic fetishism, in which a person enjoys dressing as the opposite gender but still identifies as their gender assigned at birth, or drag, in which a person presents as the opposite gender for entertainment purposes without any reference to what gender they identify with). Additionally, also notice how this makes no reference to sexual orientation, or a person’s attraction (emotional, sexual, relational) to others.


“That’s all well and good,” you may say, “but you can’t define your way out of reality with all this propaganda, Bro-seph Goebbels.” To which I’d say, first, nice Nazi reference. Second, though, is this issue so cut and dry? Clearly, being transgender IS NOT the same thing as having a variation of sexual development, but discussing the topic quickly would help elucidate that this is not as simple as we might like to think. For example, what if someone has the chromosomes XXY, a condition known as Klinefelter’s Syndrome? Which bathroom should this individual use – the one corresponding to their two X chromosomes or their external physical characteristics, which are often more masculine in appearance? How about 5-alpha reductase deficiency, in which genetic males (XY) only are affected; they have male gonads but also often a female appearance? I could keep going (Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, etc.), but I think you can get the point – the issue is far from simple. And before you play the transgender people were not born that way like people with a variation of sexual development card (often found in the deck next to the 7 of diamonds), let me point you to several recent scholarly articles that you can find here, here, here, and here suggesting that the brains of transgender people may differ from the brains of cisgender people, and that their brains may work more like the brain of the gender with which they identify, not the brain of their sex at birth. I am in no way of favor of biological reductionism; the science isn’t there (yet), and even if it was, I think it misses the mark and could be used as fuel for eugenics-esque positions (e.g., if we know what is “wrong” with the brains of transgender people, maybe we can “fix” the “problem”). I also am in no way making some blanket denial of differences between males and females; clearly, there are differences. I am merely suggesting that the issue is not as simple as presented by some people, and that to treat this as some black-and-white, cut-and-dry topic grossly misrepresents the science of the matter. Additionally, conflating or equivocating among terms like transgender and cross-dressing completely misrepresents the matter and demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the subject – that is, people who are transgender are not confused, nor do they just wake up randomly some day and decide they want to be the opposite gender, or at least dress that way. This cuts to the very core of how they view themselves and generally persists over time. Sure, there can be fluctuations, but I’ll also be the first to admit that my own views of what it means to be a man have changed over the course of my life, not because I am confused, but because people (hopefully) learn and grow.


Now, regarding safety of women and children… These are some of the arguments that get under my skin the most. First, to the best of my knowledge, there are NO documented cases of transgender people committing sexual crimes against anyone in restrooms and changing facilities. Absence of evidence, of course, is not the same thing as evidence, but it’s also unfair to be asked to prove a negative. Second, there are oft-cited examples of cisgender males pretending to be females to gain access to female restrooms/spaces to commit sexual crimes. If you’ve taken the time to read through to this point (and if you have, kudos to you, as I’m realizing how ridiculously long this is; you must really be interested in the topic or my mother, or both – Hi Mom, I love you!), you hopefully understand why this IS NOT the same thing, at all, as someone who is transgender using a restroom. There is no assumption in someone who is transgender using a restroom being sexually attracted to anyone else in the restroom: again, if you’ve been keeping score at home, gender identity does not equal sexual orientation. Third, allowing people who are transgender to use the restroom of the gender they identify with in no way makes committing a sexual crime legal, and clearly having no law allowing transgender people to use the bathroom they identify with has not stopped cisgender males from committing sexual crimes. In other words, the women and children are as safe with transgender people in the restroom as they are without them, and penalizing transgender people for the crimes of cisgender males doesn’t seem to make sense.


What about the comfort level of everyone, and feelings, then? I’m not sure of the best response here, honestly, as I don’t doubt some people would feel uncomfortable if they knew someone transgender was using the same restroom as them. However, what would be the source of that discomfort? The reasons listed above that I hope I’ve done a reasonable job of discrediting, particularly the safety concerns? Everyone has every right to their feelings; I don’t deny that. However, if we’re going to give less priority to any feelings, I think we can agree that it should be the feelings that, although felt no less intensely than other feelings, have the least basis in the facts. If people are uncomfortable because of ignorance, that’s not a reason to deny someone else the right to use the restroom. For example, if someone said they refused to share bathrooms with Mexicans because they are likely to get a disease from a Mexican, we would not really honor or respect that because, factually, it isn’t true. Alternatively, if people are not comfortable because of their religious beliefs, no matter how sincerely held those beliefs are, again, that’s not a reason to prioritize those beliefs. If someone’s religious beliefs were that Caucasians are racially superior and should not share restrooms with people of color, that also is their right to believe that, but we’re not going to go around creating separate restrooms because of it.


So, when people who support HB2 accuse those who oppose it of wanting to be more respectful of the feelings of transgender people than others, I suppose they’re technically correct. However, I’m okay giving less priority to feelings that are derived from ignorance about what it means to be transgender and use the restroom.


Another word here, and that is for the people who would accuse individuals who are transgender of being confused and/or having a mental disorder, gender dysphoria (formerly gender identity disorder). The argument is that, typically, the person loves and respects these people, but their mental disorder should be treated, not celebrated or embraced. However, a closer look at the diagnosis of gender dysphoria would suggest that the diagnosis is typically made upon the distress or impairment that accompanies feeling trapped in a body that does not match one’s perceived gender, and having to endure things reminding you of this (such as being forced to use restrooms and changing facilities that do not match your identity). This also means that it is possible for someone to be transgender, and if this is not distressing or impairing to them, to not meet criteria for gender dysphoria. Also, if you are familiar with the treatment for gender dysphoria recommended by all the major, reputable healthcare organizations, the recommended treatment is to help the person make their body match what their brain tells them. That is, the treatment for gender dysphoria is to embrace the gender identity the person perceives and help them live their life as that gender.


Which leads into my last point here (Last point? You’re saying, “Holy cow, Le-bro Tolstoy, you’re finally concluding this War and Peace length section? Praise the Lord” To which I say, you are very well read, or at least up on your literary references; you must have attended a great school): some people have also pointed out the language of the bill more specifically says people only need to use the facilities matching the sex on their birth certificate. “So, if someone really is transgender, then all they need to do is have their operation, change their birth certificate, and voila!” Au contraire, mon fraire (I don’t speak or spell French, so forgive moi). First, not all transgender people have surgery to affirm their gender. The reasons are numerous, but include, importantly, that the procedure is expensive and may not be covered by the person’s insurance, if they even have insurance, and that is assuming the person desires to have surgery. And even if they do have the surgery, if you’ve ever tried to get a government form/identification changed, you know the logistical nightmare that can present. And even if they do manage to get their birth certificate changed, that may not be the best decision in other domains of their life. For example, in healthcare, even if someone born a male has surgery to affirm her as a woman, that person will still have a prostate. That prostate should be screened for prostate cancer, and treated if cancer is detected. However, you can imagine that if your insurance company has ever questioned the medical necessity of a procedure you’ve had, you can imagine they may balk at covering prostate care for someone who is listed officially in their system as female. And if you’ve ever tried to work through the red tape with your insurance coverage, you’ll believe me when I say that getting the care covered is not as simple as being willing to sit on hold for a few minutes before having a brief and helpful conversation with an insurance representative. So, no, changing the birth certificate of every transgender person is not a win-win workaround to this issue.


Let’s now turn to the other portion of the bill that I question.



Section III of the law establishes a statewide non-discrimination policy that everyone in the State must adhere to, which cannot be superseded by any local government or organization. Sexual orientation and gender identity (as well as veteran status, for those who care about veterans and are aware of discrimination they may face) are not included in this non-discrimination policy. That means that although different universities or city governments, as well as private business in the state, can create non-discrimination policies for their own LGBT employees, they are under no obligation to do so. In effect, this means that it is perfectly legal in North Carolina for fire someone for being gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc., or being transgender; these individuals have no recourse through legal means the same way someone fired for age or racial reasons does.


Defenders of the law are quick to point out that the law does not discriminate, and any and all businesses, as well as local governments and state universities and colleges, are more than welcome to have their own policies that protect LGBT individuals. This is, of course, technically true, but entirely misses the point. What, at least in part, is the purpose of a state having a non-discrimination policy in the first place? Can’t we just trust everyone to treat everyone else as equal, and/or can’t we trust the free market will correct itself and that employers who discriminate will eventually be forced out of business when people speak with their money and don’t invest in the company or purchase its goods/services? If your answer is anything but “no,” either you are really philosophically committed to your position on free markets, or you’re being a bit dishonest. We agree that some groups of people, like racial and ethnic minorities, are likely to face discrimination solely on the basis of their membership in this group, and we agree that this is not okay. Instead, we agree as a society we need to take steps to insure equitable treatment of those, at least historically, at higher risk of facing discrimination.


What then, does it mean, to deliberately exclude a group from the list of those protected? To me, it is tantamount to saying either this group is not at risk for discrimination, or this group is less worthy of protection and discrimination against them is right, or at least acceptable. To the first point, the evidence supports that LGBT people have a history of facing prejudice and discrimination – people have negative attitudes towards them, and they treat them differently in a way that adversely affects them; they are not treated equitably. To run through all available evidence here would be well-beyond the scope of this already rather unwieldy blog post. As my area of expertise is healthcare, particularly mental health, let me quickly direct you to at least a couple resources from the IOM and the APA that make this point better than I can make it.


To the latter point, regarding worthiness of protection, I suppose a couple of arguments against protection can arise about special rights, choice, and religious freedom. People say that LGBT individuals are demanding special rights. As if simply asking to not be fired or denied access to public accommodations is special – it’s not special when we offer this protection to other classes of people, so what makes LGBT people different? People say no one chooses their age or race, but people choose to be LGBT. In addition to the research I mentioned above, let me assure you that the science suggests that, although we may not (and may never) fully understand all the reasons behind why someone loves who they love and perceives themselves to be a man or woman (or some non-binary categorization), the science community, along with all major reputable health care organizations who based their evidence-based practice on science, realized some time ago that sexual orientation and gender identity are enough NOT a choice and that the ethical way to treat these individuals is NEVER to try to change their sexual orientation or gender identity. People also say their religious freedom is being trampled because it is their sincerely held religious belief that LGBT people are sinful in some way. To this, I say that such an argument misunderstands the concept of religious freedom – religious freedom is freedom to practice your religion as you choose without infringing upon others or forcing your religion upon others. It is completely someone’s right to believe being gay or transgender is a sin, but it is not within their right to codify this in the civic law. Although the ethics upon which we base our law may be colored by or informed by our religious beliefs (or lack thereof), unless we’re looking to establish a theocracy, it cannot be the sole basis for our laws. We need to be able to turn to other sources of information, including science and facts, and I’m hoping I’ve presented enough of that here to suggest that they don’t support the idea that someone being gay or transgender is inherently harmful to themselves or others. Or, put another way, if someone said their sincerely held religious beliefs were that people of color are inferior human beings, we’d say they have a right to that very mistaken belief, but that doesn’t give them the right to discriminate against people of color in employment or access to public facilities. And while I cannot speak to other faith traditions, I can say as a Christian (my own faith, which is a central component of my identity – my relationship with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is the most important relationship in my life) I’m confused as to where we are taught we should deny employment to LGBT individuals, and why we should consider this “sin” (clearly, I don’t view it as sinful) but not other sin in employment (should we encourage legislators to make it legal to fire people because they’re divorced, or love money more than God, etc.?).


So the problem with the law is one of omission, rather than commission. It is an omission that loudly and clearly communicates, one more time in a long history of discrimination that includes an embarrassingly underwhelming response to the HIV/AIDS crisis of the 1980s, that LGBT people matter less, that their lives, their liberties, their pursuit of happiness are less than those of others. HB2 says, when you read between the lines, “LGBT people – we do not care enough about you to protect you in the same way we are willing to protect others.”



If you have made it this far, congratulations! And thank you! Although, I warn you, your indulging me like this only encourages such behavior in the future.


Since you’ve been so kind, and I’ve already prattled on for almost 4000 words (thanks, word count function in MS Word, for judgingly showing me my word total at the bottom of the screen; you’re more of a buzzkill than non-alcoholic beer), I’ll wrap this up quickly. There are a lot of reasons I think HB2 was not a good idea, and I’ve only scratched the surface here. I understand that, even if someone has read through everything I’ve written, they may still disagree with me and think HB2 is a good idea, or at least not a bad one. I don’t like that, but I also want you to know I don’t think it makes you a bad person – I may think your beliefs are bad, but that does not make you a bad person, and you’re entitled to your beliefs. That’s what I love about America – you’re free to be wrong 😉 However, clearly I feel strongly that much of the support for HB2 may be rooted in ignorance of or misunderstanding information relevant to the situation, and if I can move the needle at all to change any of that, I want to. Even more so, though, even if no one changes their beliefs because of what I’ve written, I’m still glad I wrote this. I believe and feel strongly about this, and felt very pulled to write about it. This is exactly the kind of thing I started this blog for, and I’m so grateful to you for sharing with me in this.


On disagreement with HB2

On Why I’m Glad the Confederate Flag Has Come Down

So, here we are, my first legitimate blog post, now that an introductory post is out of the way. I wasn’t sure I would post, but here I am, just going to discuss race and Confederate flag. What could possibly go wrong here? Maybe this will end up being my only legitimate post. Time will tell.

Caveats first. I am a White male, born and raised in a northern State. If you’re fond of argumentum ad hominem and willing to dismiss my views solely on this basis, then you may not want to bother reading any further. If you’re willing to keep reading, though, I promise I will try to discuss this topic kindly, especially as it relates to race. I recognize, though, that my own background and prejudices cannot help but color my views, no matter how objective I aim to be. I believe, ultimately, I would be doing more of a disservice to avoid hard or controversial topics. Also, maybe using my privilege to speak out is a good use of that privilege.

The highlights of what I’m about to get into: 1) Racism still exists in the U. S. in multiple forms and at multiple levels, impacting the lives of everyone. 2) The Confederate flag is legitimately a symbol of this racism. 3) The government has no business allowing this symbol to be flown on their behalf on government property. 4) If you think this is a matter of being overly sensitive or political correctness, your privilege may be showing, and you may even be violating a spiritual principle suggested by Paul in Romans.


First, regarding racism, I am going to have to ask you to allow that racism exists in the United States in the 21st century. Most people are willing to admit that overt, obvious racism exists. By that, I mean the kind of racism where someone openly says, “I hate ___ people” and/or actively works to hurt or disadvantage ___ people.

However, I’m asking you to allow that other forms of racism exist as well. By that, I mean implicit, covert racism, as well as structural, institution racism. If you’re familiar with much of the psychological research on stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination, then you’ll know that, even when we overtly want to believe we don’t see color and that we treat all people the same, we usually do not. For example, healthcare providers prescribe differently, and people assign criminal sentences differently, based on race. For more information on implicit bias, here is a nice resource from Ohio State University.

I’m also asking that you allow that systemic factors work in favor of or against people based on the color of their skin. For example, research by the Prison Policy Initiative, based in large part on information from the DOJ, would suggest Blacks are incarcerated at staggeringly higher rates than Whites. Similarly, according to data from Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U. S. Census presented by Think Progress, a White male with a high school diploma has just as much chance of employment as a Black male with an associate’s degree.

These findings personally make me very uncomfortable and suggest to me that something is very wrong here. Now, I know that the vague boogeyman of statistics (as in “lies, damned lies, and statistics”) can be warped to serve most any worldview. That is why I deliberately cited ones derived from more neutral, federal sources of data. I believe, if one chooses to respond to statistics such as these, one ultimately must decide either: a) there is something inherent in the character and/or genetic make-up of Black people that makes them deserving of such things (e.g., “Black people just aren’t as smart and well-qualified for employment as White people” or “Black people are naturally more prone to be criminals than White people”), or b) there is still something going on system wide in our culture in the 21st century that continues to make life more difficult and less equitable for people of color, solely because of the color of their skin. I assume that most people will select option “b,” as most people recognize option “a” as overtly racist. Even if you say something like, “Really, though, this is just a reflection of SES differences,” or “This is just a reflection of the Black culture that eschews education and embraces thug/rap/prison culture,” (which, by the way, I vehemently disagree with you on, but is well beyond the scope and time of this post), I’d still think you have to confront why being Black would be associated with SES differences or a particular culture, and the why is likely to end up tracing its roots back to systemic factors, such as differences in public housing policies, segregation laws, slavery, etc.


So, allowing that racism of all shapes and sizes still exists and plagues our country, why should we continue to let one of the most recognizable, notorious symbols of racism fly on government property? Wait, wait, I jumped the gun here. Perhaps you’re saying, “The Confederate flag is about heritage, not hate. The Civil War was primarily about States’ rights, economics, or any other number of reasons besides slavery. This is about honoring those who fought for a way of life…” and so on and so forth the arguments go. Most all of these arguments are premised on the fact that the Civil War was not about slavery.

However, I will assert that this is not true. Unfortunately, most history classes and textbooks have rewritten history, painting slavery as a secondary cause of the war. When one takes the time to go straight to the source (i.e., primary historical documents), such as South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession or The Texas Ordinance of Secession, one quickly sees the central role slavery played in the Confederate States seceding and the Civil War. Of course, there were well-intentioned individuals who fought for the Confederacy for a variety of other reasons. But the war wasn’t fought for those other reasons. It was started over and ultimately about slavery. (And as far as States’ rights, my reading of the South Carolina Declaration makes it seem as if they were actually against the States’ rights of northern States, that they were angry about anti-slavery laws passed there).

So, here we have in the Confederate flag, a flag representing the cause of slavery, the cause of Blacks being inferior to Whites, the cause of racism – it’s hard to imagine something more racist than saying a group of people is so inferior they are worthy of being treated as less than human slaves (approximately three-fifths of a human according to the Constitution). Perhaps that is why is has been so popular with admittedly racist groups and organizations over the years.

Just like soldiers fighting in the Civil War, people may fly the flag for a variety of reasons that they claim have nothing to do with racial views. And, sometimes, I believe that they mean this sincerely, even if they are misinformed. When it comes to an individual’s freedom of speech, he or she has the right to fly the Confederate flag on his or her private property. Admittedly, I find it distasteful, often ignorant, and always an eye sore on pick-up truck (I don’t mean to stereotype, but it does seem to always be a pick-up truck, never a Prius). But, that’s the point of the 1st Amendment, isn’t it: to protect speech, especially speech someone else does not like.


However, when flown on State government property in South Carolina, the flag takes on a much different meaning. It is hard to see it as anything but a symbol of racism, of the years and years of injustices endured by Blacks (really, by people of all non-White races). And if you’re Black, it is especially hard to see it as anything but racist. Add to that the continued racism described above, and the Confederate flag being flown on government property can truly be insulting, to put it mildly. To put it less kindly, it can easily be seen as the government being complicit in or even supportive of racism. And, in a nation founded on and supposedly supportive of the ideal of equality, that is not okay. It is miles and miles from okay. The light from okay will take several years to reach here.

Does the flag coming down magically erase racism or mean racism is over? Of course not. But it is one small step towards healing, and given the immensity of the hurt caused in our country to minorities by racism of all levels and forms over the years, it is a small gesture well worth it.


I can easily imagine someone agreeing with the gist of what I wrote above. “Sure, I can agree racism exists, is hurtful, and is still a problem. I will agree that someone could see the flag as a symbol of racism, even though it isn’t meant that way. But, the people offended by it just need to get over it. People are too easily offended these days. Besides, if we take that flag down, what next? Will we just take down any flag people find offensive? Slavery, racism, and a whole other host of atrocities have occurred beneath the U. S. flag, for example.”

I will agree with you that people are too easily offended in our day and age, and the term “politically correct” has become a derogatory phrase for sure, so not hard to appeal to that logic. However, this is not about curbing an individual’s free speech (see above; I agree with an individual’s right to deck out their home and/or vehicle in the flag), this is about the government’s speech. And regardless of your view of government, I would hope that, at least in principle, we would hold them to a different, higher standard than an individual. The government has no place flying a flag that is, when understood correctly in its historical context, synonymous with the causes of slavery and racism.

That historical context also makes it different than the U.S. flag. Slavery and racism have occurred under the U. S. flag, but the stated ideals of the U. S. were not about slavery and racism, as opposed to the Confederacy.

And if even after all that, you still think people, Black people in particular, just need to get over it, you may be speaking from a position of privilege, and may want to check yourself, because lecturing at Black people from a position of privilege never sounds good. Some people don’t have the option of just getting over it, no more than they have the option of controlling being more likely to be stopped by law enforcement because they look “suspicious,” more likely to receive a harsher sentence in court (including the death penalty), more likely to be incarcerated, or more likely to be the victim of some racist act or comment.

Finally, allow me to conclude with an appeal to the Christians who may be reading this. In Romans 14:9 (NIV), Paul tells us “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.” Now, granted, here specifically, Paul is more focused on things related to Jewish law and custom (e.g., foods eaten), but I believe the principle applies: even if you don’t find something wrong or offensive, if your brother or sister in Christ finds something so offensive as for it to be a stumbling block, don’t do it. Work towards peace and mutual moral uplift.

So, yes, if anyone asks, I’m glad the flag came down. May it be a step towards our nation’s journey of trying to live up to the ideal of equality on which we were founded.

On Why I’m Glad the Confederate Flag Has Come Down

My first post and why I started a blog

I decided to start a blog.

I’m not exactly sure why I did. And I’m not exactly sure what I will do with this blog. I have no clue who I intend to read it.

Sounds like a really convincing start to a blog, no? “Here is my blog. I don’t know anything beyond that.” I’m a little embarrassed by my lack of forethought. Usually, I do plan things a little bit better than this. I joke that I quit the boy scouts because I didn’t think they were prepared enough for my taste.

And yet, here I am, continuing to type away. Maybe I should switch gears to what I do know, before anyone reading clicks on to another webpage or nods off in a skeptic slumber.

I feel an urge to create something. To write something. To build something. Not something physical or tangible, as working with my hands is not my forte. To make something by expressing myself through ideas.

I’m an academic, a lifelong learner, a lover of knowledge. Hence why I chose to include the word scholar in my blog’s title. I hope my blog, when appropriate, may cite relevant research or other scholarly work. I’d like to engage with topics from an intelligent, thoughtful, informed perspective. I value facts, logic, reason, and truth. I would really love for that to shine through in this.

I also view myself as someone who appreciates kindness. I would like to believe we, as humans, are capable of being decent to each other. Capable of being civil. Capable of aspiring to ideals that elevate. I can be as smug and as snarky as the next person. However, I’d like to challenge myself here to write from a perspective that builds things up, rather than tears things down, with a healthy dose of humility to boot. Maybe all that goes beyond the word “gentleman,” but hey, it goes well with scholar, so cut me a little slack, okay?

I think a large part of this is also reactionary. I see so much misinformation floating around. So many distorted ideas masquerading as truth. Although we all have our biases and hangups, myself included, the absolute certainty with which these things are presented hurts me, somehow. Intelligent, well-meaning, and sometimes even well-informed people can and do disagree. But so often, it seems people start with an ideology, and then shoehorn any and everything into that worldview, with no apologies or recognition that a different perspective exists. I suppose it is likely I will be just as guilty of that here, from time to time. My hope, though, is to give voice to my perspective, attempt to build that perspective on a foundation of well-reasoned ideas and (when applicable) evidence. And when I am possibly wrong, I hope that those who disagree will be encouraged that at least I am wrong agreeably.

Finally, I decided approximately a year ago to avoid getting too ideological on Facebook. I have done well to mostly keep my own timeline a collection of personal anecdotes, witty (well, I think they’re witty) musings, and photos. I haven’t done quite as good of a job resisting with my comments, but hey, I’m aiming to be a gentleman, not a saint. Although I like how this has generally helped me avoid getting sucked into pointless arguments and debates that end with no visible benefit or purpose, I feel like I have died a little. As if I have hidden and stuffed down things I think and feel, until they want to start clawing their way out by commenting on others’ posts. I have noticed I am doing more of that lately, and I am not sure that I like it. It feels like it violates the spirit of the guideline I set for my own Facebook page. The compromise I think I have made is that I can write what I want on my blog. If people choose to read it, great. If people choose not to read it, great. I can keep my page friendly AND have an outlet for expression. Not to mention, I can get a little bit long-winded, and a Facebook post definitely is not the place for that, as I’ve already been informed that my posts are on the long end (to put it generously).

So, what ideas will I discuss here? Any and everything, though I’m sure it will mostly be topical. The news is rife with things that stir emotions and ideas. Perhaps from time to time, I’ll be motivated to write about something spurred more by my personal life. It will be fun to wait and see. Maybe I’ll write a lot. Maybe I’ll write a little. Maybe I’ll abandon this in short order and talk some day of how I was a blogger for a day. It is wide open.

There is still a lot of uncertainty, but maybe that is part of the fun. I only intend to do this as long as it is fun, fulfilling that deeply felt need to create. I hope others enjoy reading it as much as I do creating it.

My first post and why I started a blog