Wednesday, July 12, 2023

Hannah and Anna

Poignant article in the June Smithsonian concerning Anne Frank and her childhood friend Hannah Pick-Goslar. The article contains excerpts from Pick-Goslar's memoir, published last year after her death, which retells Anne Frank's early life, before the two years she spent hiding from the Nazis. It is a stark reminder of how Anne and Hannah were typical young girls before the dark days of the Holocaust. From stories about their schooling, birthday parties, and the instant friendship that was born on their first day of nursery school, Pick-Goslar depicts Anne before the evil which was perpetrated upon her and her family.

While I am sure I read Anne Frank sometime during my years in elementary or high school, I didn't remember that Anne and her family experienced the horror of the Holocaust while living in Amsterdam, Holland. They had fled Germany when it became clear that Jews were no longer welcome, only to find that as time passed, the disease of antisemitism knew no national boundaries.

I won't recount the details of the excerpt, suffice it to say that through the eyes of a young girl, we experience the slow change from carefree school days, birthday parties, and walks to the local ice cream store, to harassment, home invasions, and ultimately, children being removed from their parents. It seems as brutal and surreal as any fiction story might present, except it was all too real.

While Anne's story, as reflected through her famous diary, depicts the horrors of her situation, for me, Hannah's is even more horrific.  For her, there was no logic behind the prejudice. As she begins to realize her only crime was to have been born Jewish, (can you say birth lottery), we see the hate being made manifest against a young girl and her family, and it is heart wrenching. To say what was happening to her was unfathomable, is an understatement of the nth degree.

I mention this story, for two reasons.

One, in the current trend of erasing difficult history, and unflattering episodes in our own American story, I wonder if those same people would be lobbying German schools to remove Anne Frank's story from their libraries if they lived there. And perhaps closing down the places where Jewish people were slaughtered in the name of saving our children from being uncomfortable. It seems that rather than facing the evil, and I don't use that word loosely, that we exhibited in our treatment of the Native populations of America, and then the humans brought here as slaves to help build our economy, we have many people who prefer to pretend that those affronts to our creator didn't happen. 

As if erasing those events might allow us to live in the false reality that nothing bad ever happened in our country, and that God loves us more than those who reside elsewhere. 

The sad thing is, America is a great country, a place of hope, of opportunity, of freedom, not because those things didn't happen, but because, at least some of us, have learned the lessons of our mistakes. We can have two thoughts in our head at the same time, that we haven't always followed the golden rule of doing unto others as we would want done to ourselves, but that we still strive to achieve that lofty goal. And understanding and confronting our misdeeds is part and parcel to that process.

The danger, as it has been proven time and time again, is that by ignoring our past evils, by pretending they didn't happen, or that by not teaching them, our children will be "safe", we place those same children in danger of repeating those mistakes, not having learned the lessons that hate and prejudice can turn even good people into instruments of the kind of beliefs that create the environment for casting "others" as enemies. And even worse, caching that bias while using religion and "god" to justify the atrocities.

Which brings me to point number two, the current assault on LGBTQ and trans people's rights. Like Anne and Hannah, many of the victims of this assault are children who have gender identity issues. Rather than listening to these kids, and their parents, certain legislators and presidential aspirants, choose to demonize them. The kids are no more guilty than Anne and Hannah, yet are being treated by some within the institutions that are supposed to protect them, as anomalies, at best, unnatural and unworthy of God's love, at worst.

When I engage with young people I know through my children and those I work with, I have hope that this anti-human behavior will lose its luster and momentum as today's 20 and 30 somethings become tomorrow's parents and leaders, just as those preaching anti-gay rhetoric in the 80's and 90's were replaced with a generation that helped legalize gay marriage and improved equality in the workplace. 

But in the meantime, I wonder how many diaries are being created by trans kids who are suffering under the yoke of prejudice, and how many biographies will be published in the future which detail the everyday lives of these children juxtaposed with the overt hatred that they are experiencing.

The truly sad part is that some day there will be books which demonstrate how stupid we were in how we treated the LGBTQ and trans community in this time. The question is when your children and grandchildren ask you about your actions, will you be keeping silent in shame at how you participated, or wonder, just as we do now about how the Germans could have attempted the genocide of the Jews, how an alleged civilized society could treat other people, especially children, so grievously.   

Oh, and by the way, it light of the Saudi Arabian government's attempted takeover of the PGA and professional golf, I am waiting for those who are boycotting Bud Light to boycott professional golf, and any sponsor who advertises during its tournaments. Why, you ask? Well, I imagine most of you remember that little incident called 9/11 in which 19 terrorists high jacked jet liners and crashed them into the Twin Towers in New York, and the Pentagon in DC. Have you forgotten that 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudi nationals? 

Not to mention the killing of the Washington Post journalist in the Saudi consulate in Turkey in 2018, a murder sanctioned by the Crown Prince himself according to US intelligence.

Or how about the Saudi regime's notorious misogynist policies?

To me, selling a sport to the highest bidder, in this case the Saudis, a country with a history of human rights violations, and a regime with little compulsion in authorizing the assassination of a journalist critical of its policies, in addition to training and funding the 9/11 attack, should inspire far more outrage as compared to a private company sending a commemorative beer can to a trans woman celebrating her ability to live freely (which she couldn't do in Saudi Arabia). 

Just goes to show you that money, the driving force behind all of sports, it seems, not to mention our politics, is the only thing anyone seems to care about anymore, including the golfers who flocked to the LIV for bigger paydays, shame on them. And don't forget that Donald Trump is making money hand over fist from these very same people, and that Jared Kushner received $2 billion (that is billion, with a b) from the Saudis after leaving the White House.

Where is the outrage, Kid Rock? Fox and Friends? Governor DeSantis?

Kind of makes you wonder if the whole trans people controversy is less about American values, and more about homophobia and hatred. 

Perhaps if it was NASCAR being bought by the Saudis?

Thursday, July 6, 2023

That other SCOTUS decision from last week

Last week I discussed the major decisions handed down by the Supreme Court, student debt loan forgiveness, Sunday work rules for those seeking religious exemption, independent state legislative theory and affirmative action. See link below.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/06/todays-scots-decisions.html

There was one I did not touch upon, as it also came on Friday after I posted and it is the decision concerning the Colorado web designer  who refused to provide a wedding web site for a gay couple due to her religious values.

Now, not withstanding the news that the email which was sent to her requesting that web design, may have been faked, the Court seems to be hanging its judicial hat on the First Amendment's protection for religious liberty. In doing so, they are saying that, in this case, someone whose religion does not recognize gay marriage, has the religious freedom to deny their services from a gay couple. 

Since I do not have access to the justices, specifically the six who formed the majority opinion, I would like to ask these questions.

Is the web designer now required to state that gay people need not contact her for her services? Some kind of disclosure like, gay people need not apply?

And, more critically, does this religious freedom apply to other situations? Housing? Jobs? Education? Clearly, it is far less innocuous for someone to design a web site from their home and provide a link for a gay couple to access it, then get paid, all which could be done without direct interface, than for someone to work, live or go to school with a member of the LGBTQ community. 

I imagine that the Court would not go so far as to allow prejudice to be legal in the case of housing and labor, but why? One could posit that it is easy to find another web designer, but then again, there are other jobs, other places to live, other schools. What is the line here? 

Also, just like sending the abortion question back to the states, didn't "calm the waters" as Justice Alito expected, but instead emboldened the anti-abortion crowd to make abortion illegal for those in blue states also, I expect we will see other suits brought by "Christians" who want to eliminate all contacts with the LGBTQ community by removing or watering down the various discrimination laws that don't allow them to refuse work, housing or education to that community because it goes against their religion. Don't be surprised if some attorney general in a southern state decides to challenge gay marriage in their state, in hopes that this new Court will reverse the previous decision, just as they jettisoned precedent in the Dobbs decision.

When I was younger, I had long hair. During a job interview at a candy manufacturer, I was told I could have the job if I cut my hair. I didn't, there were other jobs. But what about people who don't have the luxury of a visit to the barber, people who can't change their skin color, gender identification, or attraction to same sex individuals. We have seen many SCOTUS decisions protecting the rights of this group, yet, in this case, they are saying too bad, you will just have to find another provider.

Also, isn't gay marriage legal in America? And, isn't there a separation of church and state clause in the Constitution? Why do those who practice a certain religion get to discriminate against an individual who does not share that religious belief, especially when those people are engaging in a legally defined right?

I have read many articles in the recent past about the decline in religious affiliation in America. Upwards of 40% of Americans under the age of 35 belong to no church compared with just 15% of older Americans. Perhaps the exodus has everything to do with hypocrisy, man made religious rules, and an inconsistent message, more than a lack of spirituality or belief in the message of Jesus, Muhammad, Budha, etc.

What is truly sad, is that many Christians celebrated this decision as an affirmation that they don't have to be forced to talk to, work with, or engage with those who don't share their beliefs. Wow. I imagine that had they been alive during the Jim Crow era of separate drinking fountains, schools, buses, etc, they would have celebrated those Supreme Court decisions that allowed such onerous laws, as it wasn't uncommon back then for the bigots of the day to use religion to defend their bias.

I am old enough to have seen this movie before. Social progress followed by a pendulum swing back to prejudice. While the makeup of the current Supreme Court does not provide much hope that future decisions may also endorse legal discrimination via religious beliefs, it is also true that two of the older justices were part of this decision.

Should Alito and Thomas decide to retire during the next presidential term, it is of paramount importance that we elect a democrat, and that we maintain a Democrat majority in the Senate so that any nominee gets a hearing and vote (unlike the dirty trick pulled by McConnell which resulted in Obama being denied his nominee), and that we might move away from the current 6-3 conservative majority, which is no where near a reflection of the electorate. 

Also, just a note here which reflects my bias, we must make sure any new justice is not Catholic, as it appears that the Catholics on this court are not capable of separating their religion from the law.

Speaking of which, my post from last June after the Dobbs decision seems appropriate to reread again. Here is a link.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/06/one-step-forward-for-american-theocracy.html

Finally, The Debate, written about eleven years ago. Funny how the topics change in detail but not in substance.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/04/debate.html