• Being Christian and Transsexual: Life on Planet Mercury
    • Key Bible Verses
    • Links

ts4jc

~ Being Christian and Transsexual

ts4jc

Tag Archives: Republican

The Next U.S. Civil War? – Part 1

05 Tuesday Jan 2021

Posted by ts4jc in About Me, General Christian issues, General Transsexual issues

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

2020 Election, abolition, Abraham Lincoln, Amy Coney Barrett, bloody Kansas, Bob Hope, Border States, Charlottesville, Christian, church division, Civil War, comedy, Compromise of 1850, Confederacy, Congress, Constitutional convention, coronavirus, corruption, COVID-19, Don RIckels, doxing, Dred Scott, fact checkers, facts, Fort Sumter, Franklin Pierce, free speech, Fugitive Slave Act, government, Harpers Ferry, Henry Clay, James Buchanan, John Brown, John Roberts, Kansas-Nebraska Act, Kenosha, Minneapolis, Missouri Compromise, mockery, news media, pandemic, Philadelphia, Portland, President, protests, religion, Republican, revival, rioting, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, satire, slavery, Social Justice, social media, spam filter, Tom Lehrer, Transgender, truth, U.S. Supreme Court, Union, United States, unity, vendetta principle, victims, violence, Will Rogers

About ten years ago, I told a small e-mail group of friends that I believed that there was a ~25% chance that the United States would be engaged in a new Civil War within 25 years. I based that on the way things have been breaking down in the country and comparing it to the mood of the country in the 1850’s.

With all that has happened in the past ten years, and especially with the response to COVID-19 combined with the Presidential election results, I now estimate that there is a ~50% chance of that Civil War in the next 15 years. That means that it still is preventable, but it also means it could happen sooner.

Historical Perspective – the 1850s

In the first half of the 19th century, a new nation called the United States of America attempted to balance its growing pains, competing ideologies and regional interests while also fine tuning this great experiment that formed a democratic republic. Certainly the government had to tackle issues such as tariffs, a national bank, growing populism, diplomatic relations with foreign governments at a time when Europe was often engaged in warfare, exploration, western expansion and dealing with the indigenous population. But no problem was proving to be more difficult to solve than the issue of slavery versus abolition.  It threatened to split the country on both philosophical and regional grounds with free soil states in the North, pro-slavery states in the South, and a handful of Border States that held a mixture of both sentiments.

Henry Clay

The country was held together by compromises during this time, the most prominent of which were the Missouri Compromise (1820-21) and the Compromise of 1850.  Henry Clay of Kentucky, one of those Border States, gained a reputation for his ability to forge these compromises, but in the end, especially after Clay’s death in 1852, the ability to reach any further effective compromise was lost.

In the end Abraham Lincoln, in his acceptance speech when nominated by the Illinois Republican Party as its candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1858, proved correct when he stated “I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.” Presidents Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan (Northerners with some Southern sympathies) did little to resolve the situation.  One provision of the Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act, created great resentment in the North by its requirement that people in Free States help with the return of runaway slaves or face penalties, and that free blacks accused of being runaway slaves could offer no defense on their own behalf. Those in favor of Congress’s passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 (signed into law by Pierce) and the Dred Scott decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, had hoped that they would resolve the slavery question once and for all. Instead, they outrage the North even more. The first led to the formation and rapid rise of the Republican Party as the vanguard of the abolitionist movement and both added to the divisions that brought about the secession of 11 slave states to form the Confederate States of America and the onset of the Civil War in 1861.

Where we are in 2020

The United States has had close and controversial Presidential elections before. We have had power in the three branches of government divided between the major parties before. We have faced crises before. With the exception of the 1850’s leading to the election of 1860 and the secession of the Confederacy in response, the Union has held together and even pulled closer together. What is similar now to the conditions 160 years ago? Why do I think that there is a serious danger of another Civil War in the lifetime of most of the people currently living in the United States?

History has had over 150 years to digest the events surrounding the Civil War and proclaim winners and losers, good guys and bad guys. We don’t have the benefit of historical perspective with our current situation. But I will note that a current reexamination of attitudes towards the Civil War, the honoring of those who were the military leaders of the Confederacy and attachment to certain symbols of that period have contributed to the current divisions in the country.

So I will attempt to be as nonpartisan as possible. The focus is to be on the prediction, not who is the guilty party, if there is only one, even if it could be determined. The difficulty in determining guilt is due in part to something I learned about many years ago in interpersonal dynamics. It is called the Vendetta Principle.

It works something like this: let’s take two hypothetical people and call them “Mister A” and “Mister B”. Over time, these two people become increasingly upset with each other until Mister B does something that Mister A sees as being over the top. In fact, he feels that he is justified in killing Mister B in response. So he kills Mister B. As far as he is concerned, that matter between them is now closed.

But Mister B’s friends are outraged. They know of nothing that justified their friend being killed. Therefore they feel justified in killing Mister A, and they do so. As far as they are concerned, the matter is now closed.

Now Mister A’s friends are outraged. So they kill some of Mister B’s friends in vengeance for what happened to Mister A. Unless cooler heads prevail or an outside force intervenes, the vendetta will continue until one side is either wiped out or too weak to retaliate.

The longer the vendetta lasts, the harder it is to trace back to the original cause. Some would claim that it was Mister A shooting Mister B. But others would point to whatever Mister B did that angered Mister A or some earlier event in their dispute.

Bombardment of Fort Sumter, April 12-13, 1861

Was the Civil War started when troops fired on Fort Sumter? When the first seven states seceded? When Lincoln was elected? Was it at earlier skirmishes? Was it at earlier actions (or lack thereof) by the Supreme Court, or Congress or the President? This is my point exactly.

Alliteration is often a useful tool. Building on “Vendetta Principle”, I will look at other current contentions with a series of “V” words and phrases.

Veracity (Truth): One side tends to believe in the existence of absolute truth (and also that they have a superior knowledge of it). The other side often believes that each person has and has the right to their own truth. Each side increasingly accuses the other of lying (about facts, if not the truth). Eventually this spread to the news media. Politicians don’t just accuse each other. They accuse the news media of taking sides and either reporting fake (i.e. false or uncorroborated) news or ignoring stories that do not fit their narrative. The division has not only spread to social media, in the days leading up to and continuing after the election, news stories by major media outlets were suppressed and fact checkers were accused of not being independent.

There is even a movement on the right to abandon the most utilized social media sites and search engines which are perceived to be increasingly left leaning (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google, Chrome, etc.) for equivalent sites catering to the right. On top of all this, we are treated to a steady supply of politicians on both sides reversing their positions depending upon who is in office, who won (or is perceived to have won) or which way the wind is blowing.

Because I identify as both transgender and Christian, I receive e-mails from both sides of the political spectrum. Some of my e-mail addresses are with a major tech giant. Only one side’s e-mails are being sent to my spam filter, sometimes even after I mark earlier e-mails from those sites as “not spam”.

John Brown

Violation and Violence: Its beginnings saw increasing accusations of freedom of speech being hindered, reporters being threatened or attacked, politicians and members of the news media being doxed and threatened at their homes or in public places. In the 1850’s, embers of violence were fanned at places like Harpers Ferry and in various locations in “bloody Kansas” (e.g. Lawrence and Pottawatomie). In the future, will historians look back in a similar manner at Charlottesville, Minneapolis, Portland, Kenosha and Philadelphia? Meanwhile the violence gives still another issue to debate: who’s responsible and how justified is it? But there is no debate that it is actually happening. The videos are out there of people being hit with blunt objects (either swung or thrown), punched, kicked while on the ground, stabbed or having harmful substances sprayed in their faces. The videos are out there of cars or businesses (often small businesses with minority owners) being looted, burned or otherwise destroyed. The videos are out there of the police or guards being attacked or standing by while the violence occurs because they lack the numbers to enforce the law.

Villainy: In addition to criminal activity by individuals or groups of citizens, there is increased accusation by each side that the other side is engaged in outright criminal activity. Some attribute this to increased corruption in the political sphere. Others attribute it to greater awareness of normal levels of corruption. Still others believe that it is an attempt by both sides to politicize the courts, throwing issues which should be decided by the political process into the court system.  Whichever theory is correct (and it may be a combination of all three), it adds to the rift already felt in the country.

Virtue (or lack thereof): The three items already discussed are evidence of a growing lack of moral virtue, or at least the perception that this is so. This is turn leads to a lack of trust in the system. Approval ratings of Congress and recent Presidential candidates have been low, sometimes abysmally so. Of the three branches of government, only the Supreme Court has seen approval ratings on the rise, with similar scores from members of both major parties and independents.  https://news.gallup.com/poll/316817/approval-supreme-court-highest-2009.aspx

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts

Note however that the latest Gallup Poll was taken prior to the death of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the confirmation of Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett. If the 2020 Presidential Election ends up in the hands of the Supreme Court, it is likely to affect the ratings as it is doubtful that any rulings issued could please both parties. Even with some sort of compromise stance, ruling in favor of one side on some suits and the other side on other suits, still only one candidate can be the victor. And refusal to hear cases will also not be seen as neutral. So my prediction is that the next poll will show a lower approval rating for the court with the higher approval from one side outweighed by lower approval ratings from the other side and independents.

Decreased trust in the political system, institutions and office holders leads to increased cynicism in the populace. It took significantly increased convenience in available methods for voting to boost the turnout for the recent election. Some on one side are increasing calls to move away from capitalism or abandon it entirely. Some on the other side are promoting holding a new Constitutional convention. Such a convention could prove to be a safety valve. But it could also become an additional battleground.

This issue includes a lack of trust by at least half the population in how the major issues of the day are being handled by the government. Even worse, many times government is blamed for causing major problems. Counterintuitively, for many the solution is more government, not less.

Will Rogers

Victimization & Vituperation: At one time, there was a place for healthy satire in the entertainment sphere of the U.S. Satirists and standup comedians in the age of mass entertainment, from Will Rogers to Bob Hope, from Tom Lehrer to Don Rickles. Today’s comedians and talk show hosts tend to lampoon only one side. So instead of helping the people laugh at themselves, comedy has become part of the battle. When someone on their own side is the target, it is for not being tough enough or letting the team down.

When comedy and satire becomes one-sided, it tends to develop a mocking tone. Mockery tends to be destructive, tearing down respect for institutions and individuals.

Related to this topic is the growing tendency for people to see themselves as victims: marginalized, oppressed by systemic forces. One side sees this phenomenon as current, active and pervasive. While apologizing for their own past (and sometimes present) contribution to these forces while calling for social justice remedies, they attack and mock those who disagree as guilty of a list of isms. The intelligence of those on the other side is also attacked, especially those who are outside the power structure of the nation.

The other side sees these issues as mostly a thing of the past. They attack and mock social justice warriors as weak, overly sensitive and easily offended (even to the point of going out of their way and inventing reasons to be offended). In turn, they resent being labeled with the isms. They see themselves as under attack from the mainstream media and the privileged elites.

Both sides blame the other for inciting violence. Both sides see themselves as being treated unfairly. Both sides are galvanized by the verbal attacks on them to support their side’s candidates. Both sides are growing increasingly unwilling to dialog, not only with members of the other side but also with moderates and independents in the middle of the political spectrum. Both sides are growing more and more intolerant of any signs of defection or compromise within their own ranks.

Veneration (spiritual climate): In the years leading up to the Civil War, the 19th century Christian Church was divided over the issue of slavery. There were exceptions but the divide was generally on a regional basis: Northern Christian leaders decrying slavery, some at the forefront of the abolitionist movement; Southern Christian leaders using religion to justify the enslavement of blacks.  Mainline denominations split over the issue into separate organizations.  The main body of the Presbyterian Church wasn’t able to reunite the north and south until 1983.

The Third Great Revival of Christianity began in the 1850’s and continued through the rest of the 19th century. But it was interrupted by the Civil War and failed to stop the war because of the division of Protestants over the issue of slavery. And this was at a time when church attendance was high and Protestantism was by far the predominant religion of the day.

divided church

Today, the ability of the Church to provide consistent moral leadership is even more diluted. While the split is less regional, the divide between conservative and liberal Christians is growing. Furthermore, while Protestantism still has the plurality of the population, it no longer enjoys a clear majority. And many who identify as Protestant are nominal at best by all measures: frequency of church attendance, Bible reading and prayer at the top of the list.

In addition, much of the population now either identifies as irreligious or spiritual but not religious.  Ultimately in terms of political and moral influence, religious groups are seeing theirs diminish. And for those who are religious, political alliances are cutting across denominational and religious lines. For example, a conservative Protestant is more likely to have commonality with a conservative Catholic or Jew than with a liberal Protestant.

Bottom line? The lack of religious unity takes away one of the possible breaks against a political firestorm leading to a new civil war.

(The discussion of a pending U.S. Civil War continues in Part 2.)

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. – John 17:20-23

God bless,

Lois

Dear Ms. Caitlyn Jenner

17 Thursday Mar 2016

Posted by ts4jc in About Me, General Transsexual issues, Living Female

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

1976 Olympics, advice, Bill of Rights, Bob Kane, Bruce Jenner, Caitlyn Jenner, celebrity, Christian, coming out, confidence, conservative, Cornell, counsel, decathlon, Declaration of Independence, Democrats, Dennis Daugaard, Diane Sawyer, female, full-time, gold medal, headlines, HERO legislation, Houston, Hudson River, Human Rights, I Am Cait, Kardashians, Kate Bornstein, Log Cabin Republicans, Lower Hudson Valley, Montreal, MTF, naive, North Tarrytown, Olympics, overconfident, Pastor Ed Young, politics, prayer, Reality television, Renee Richards, Republican, Robert Kane, Rockland, silent, Sleepy Hollow, South Dakota, sports, suggestions, supportive, Tappan Zee Bridge, team manager, Ted Cruz, track and field, trans-hostile, Transgender, transgender community, transgender issues, transgender rights, Transition, Westchester, Wheaties

English: The Tappan Zee Bridge as seen in Tarr...

English: The Tappan Zee Bridge as seen in Tarrytown, NY (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’ve never met Caitlyn.  But we have a lot in common.  We both identify as female, transgender, Christian and politically conservative on a number of issues.  We both spent a significant portion of our respective childhoods within a few miles of the Tappan Zee Bridge (I was on the opposite shore from her).  And since I am only three years younger than Caitlyn, some of that time was concurrent (from November 1960 to the summer of 1963, according to my calculations, based on when my family moved there and Caitlyn’s family moving to Connecticut after her freshman year of high school).

We share a love of sports.  I lettered in four sports in high school.  However, it was a very small prep school and the only way my career in sports would continue was because I became the manager for the track & field and cross country teams at a Division One university (Cornell) with an excellent program for over a century in those sports.  While I had some evidence of athletic ability, it came in a body that was considerably more compact.

In fact, there was most likely only one degree of separation between us before she came out in public.  That is because as team manager, I met one of Jenner’s teammates on the 1972 Olympic track team and also had a nodding acquaintance with a former U.S. Olympian (Bob Kane) who would become the president of the U.S. Olympic Committee shortly after Jenner’s gold medal in 1976 Olympics.  And there are likely others in track & field circles that both of us know.

It seems that a lot of people are telling Caitlyn Jenner what she should and shouldn’t do.  I should think I have as much right to do so, if not more.  However, I have reached an age where I try not to tell anyone what to do; I only make suggestions.  And I admit that the suggestions I make to my tax clients are quite authoritative.

But I have no intention of sending a letter to her home to get intermingled with hundreds of other letters from fans and foes.  So I am posting it publicly.  If one of my blog readers or LinkedIn connections knows her personally and finds it worthy of passing along, so be it.

Dear Caitlyn,

After some downtime, you are finding your way back into the news again.  Criticism of you by people who are hostile to transgender people is to be expected.  But much criticism also comes from others within the transgender community.  Is it warranted?

Let’s start with something that was unquestionably positive for the transgender community: your contact of South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard regarding recent legislation that would have discriminated against trans youth.  Did your voice play a part in paving the way for the Governor, who admitted never having knowingly met a transgender person, to remedy that omission?  Did that in turn help lead to his eventual veto?  I’m sure it did.

What about your meeting with Pastor Ed Young, a prime mover in the defeat of the HERO bill in Houston last November?  You prayed with him and while that is always a blessing in general, hopefully the pastor could see the Holy Spirit in you as you prayed together and in your conversation as well.  But it also gave you the opportunity to share how hateful the pastor’s trans hostile videos have been.  Someone well battle-tested on the front lines of our struggle, Kate Bornstein, gave you kudos for that.

Yes, it is important to meet with others in the transgender community (and our allies) to continue to get educated on who we are as individuals and as a group.  But what progress do we make if we only meet with each other.  Only Nixon could go to China.  Only Kirk could negotiate a peace treaty with the Klingons.  I’ve made a positive impact with many (not all) Christians in my little corner of the globe.  But so far, there are only so many I can reach.

1976 Summer Olympics

1976 Summer Olympics (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Caitlyn, please keep some things in mind.  First of all, there is only so much any one person can do.  I know that you were remarkably consistent in your decathlon scores, but you were able to train for those both physically and with technique.  Training to live as a woman in real life, undoing a lifetime of habits, is many times more difficult.  Plus the available coaching is far more rudimentary than anything you would have received in preparation for Montreal 1976.

Second, you are not alone in the work.  There are many others out here as well.  You don’t have to become exactly like them, but you also want to be careful about acting at cross purposes with them.

But most of all, Caitlyn, you don’t even have a year living full-time as you.  And with your lifestyle and opportunities, in some ways you have experienced less than most of us.  (Make note of Renee Richards’ hindsight about how unrealistic it was for her to spend her one year life experience by taking a cruise to Italy, living for a while in a real life Fellini movie and then tooling around western Europe in a sports car, before losing her nerve in Morocco on the steps of the hospital – twice.) Ten months ago, immediately after watching Diane Sawyer interview you, my biggest concern was that you still wouldn’t be you.  You know how to be a feted celebrity.  You’ve been there and done that forty years ago. But do you know how to be Caitlyn Jenner?  Make sure you treat yourself to the time you need to find out, away from the cameras, the banquets and even your entourage sometimes.

And this brings me to your remarks about Ted Cruz.  I am acknowledging up front that there are people who read the headlines and went nuclear without reading anything else that you said on the subject.  (Headline writers provoke more than inform.)  Indeed you acknowledge that Sen. Cruz has one of the worst records on trans issues when viewed by the transgender community.  What you don’t acknowledge is how unlikely it would be for Cruz or most Republicans today to be willing to even consider having a liaison with the transgender community.   When he met you prior to coming out, Cruz treated you as an Olympic gold medalist and sports hero.  As a little boy, he may have even idolized you on the front of the Wheaties box.  There is no reason to expect he will treat you so kindly now.

I truly understand the dilemma you face politically.  What do you do when the politicians and party whose values you tend to agree with on a broad range of issues: a) see people like us as moral deviants at best and part of the vanguard of end times wickedness at worst; b) refuse to believe our testimonies that this is who we are and have always known ourselves to be with respect to gender, and who continue to insist that we have made an immoral choice; c) don’t believe we have the right to enjoy the same rights and freedoms as the rest of society enjoys: protection from job discrimination; proper medical care consistent with the findings of the American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association; the ability to make life choices consistent with our innate gender identity; the right to safety; d) actively campaign to take away our recently-won rights (not special rights, just the “unalienable” right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness)?

Some have quoted you (or perhaps assumed) that you believe that Republicans are better on transgender issues than Democrats are.  Later articles appear to have corrected that misquote, and you admit that Democrats are more favorable on trans issues.  So I am going to take it that the latter is true for you.  But I will share that when I first read the former, my impulse was that you needed to name names.  Just who are these supportive Republicans?

Then I remembered that the Log Cabin Republicans claim to advocate on behalf of transgender individuals, not just lesbians, gays and bisexuals.  So I went to their website.  I looked at their recent initiatives.  I looked through their press releases.  They congratulated you for coming out during the Diane Sawyer interview.  Since then, keeping in mind all the transgender oriented legislation and votes that have been in play since then in places like Houston and South Dakota, they have been totally silent on transgender issues.  It has been disappointing to say the least.

On the one hand, it is good to have a positive attitude and a belief that you can make a difference in Christian and politically conservative circles.  But while there is no crime in being naïve, it is not helpful to overestimate the speed with which you will be able to change hearts.  You have strengths: a warm, likable personality, a record of achievement that few people can match and access to channels that most of us will never come close to having.  But on the negative side, your association with Kardashian reality television and continuing with that format to some extent on your own show makes it easy for some people to dismiss you as a publicity hound.

Caitlyn, I know you have heard much of this before from many sources.  But you may not have heard it from a source who is similar to you in as many ways as I am: transgender, MTF, Christian, conservative, background in track and field (and athletics in general), and raised in the Lower Hudson Valley.  You and I understand how much work there needs to be done on transgender in the Christian and politically conservative communities.  At the same time, we are not willing to write them off as hopeless.

I have more that I could say to you, but I’d prefer to convey it privately, if indeed you should grace me with a personal contact.  Contact can be initiated through my blog or contact information on my LinkedIn page.

Caitlyn, I am in the habit of closing out my blog posts with scripture.  This verse is on a monthly prayer calendar for a Christian ministry I am associated with.  It is a perfect admonition from the Lord to leave you with.

Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass. – Psalm 37:5

God bless,

Lois

Pages

  • Being Christian and Transsexual: Life on Planet Mercury
    • Key Bible Verses
    • Links

Recent Posts

  • The Next U.S. Civil War? – Part 2 January 5, 2021
  • The Next U.S. Civil War? – Part 1 January 5, 2021
  • Potential for an Individual Voter to Influence the Presidential Election November 3, 2020
  • Transgender and Pro-Life January 9, 2020
  • A Tale of Two Churches January 9, 2020
  • My Sermon on 10/20/2019 October 27, 2019
  • Salute to Misfile (and all my favorite comic strips) October 5, 2019
  • Death of a School – But Not Its Spirit – Part 3 September 13, 2019
  • Death of a School – But Not Its Spirit – Part 2 September 9, 2019
  • Death of a School – But Not Its Spirit (Part 1) September 7, 2019
  • Non-Christians, Baby Christians, Discipleship and Moderation July 27, 2019
  • Scapegoats May 28, 2018
  • And Now For Something Completely Different … – Part VIII February 17, 2018
  • And Now For Something Completely Different … – Part VII February 11, 2018
  • And Now For Something Completely Different … – Part VI January 3, 2018

Categories

  • About Me
  • General Christian issues
  • General Transsexual issues
  • Just for Fun
  • Living Female
  • The Bible on transsexualism
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • January 2020
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • July 2019
  • May 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • July 2017
  • February 2017
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Recent Comments

ts4jc on The Next U.S. Civil War?…
Kelly on The Next U.S. Civil War?…
joannamjourney on Lois Simmons: Evangelical Tran…
ts4jc on Lois Simmons: Evangelical Tran…
joannamjourney on Lois Simmons: Evangelical Tran…

Blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy