Recommit…

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (IL)

Over the last three months I’ve made tremendous progress toward earning my PhD at the University of Virginia.  My dissertation project has been approved, and I am now officially writing.  My goal is to finish in May of 2027.  Apparently, the number “7” is my thing…Princeton ’87, Pacific School of Religion ’17, UVA ‘27…kind of cool.

Rep. Terri Sewell

As I approach this threshold, I recognize that my work is needed in the world.  While parish ministry gave me a great deal of practical on-the-ground experience and the opportunity to make one kind of contribution, the experience of immersing myself in the deep study of why people do what they do has been an even more natural fit.  I’m now positioning myself to be able to publicly write, speak and teach in a way that contributes to the capacity for people everywhere to live better with one another.  Specifically, my work responds to the weaponization of belief…belief based on religion or belief that is simply held as if it were religion…a.k.a. dogmatism.  Belief conflated with government defeats the basis of a pluralistic society and we are already mired in that morass.  Stark ideological entrenchment reinforced by technological echo chambers has proven to be the most toxic and potentially lethal invention of the 20th century.

In order to stay focused, I’ve had to remain largely offline over the last few years and particularly since January.  Today, my 61st birthday, however, I’m recommitting to being part of the conversation.  The balance between the day-to-day of academic life (researching and teaching) and the whiplash of modern politics is a lot to manage, but I’m feeling greater urgency as I get more fluent with this work and as more extreme positions of dogmatism emerge.  I believe that it is essential for scholars like me to focus on practical applications for what we study and not just obsess over our personal grain of sand at our computers.

I want to point you toward three moments from this past week that have kept me thinking about what it means to commit to being a public scholar in this time:

Senator Tammy Duckworth on Iran War Powers Resolution

powered by Advanced iFrame

Representative Terri Sewell confronting RFK, Jr. on his racial (racist) comments

powered by Advanced iFrame

“Charlie Kirk Laws” promoting religion and free speech

Each one of these moments is a lot to take in.  But a significant line of human logic connects them through what I named before:  weaponization of belief.  The literal weaponization of belief pulled us into the war with Iran; the willingness to weaponize an unfounded racialized belief about black children and families, makes RFK, Jr. a genuine threat in public service; and the weaponization of religious belief is attempting to turn the US Constitution into a legislative sword for Christianity.

My dissertation is about Rev. Ethelred Brown (1875 – 1956), Black Unitarian minister from Jamaica, and the sermons he delivered during the height of the Harlem Renaissance as part of the New Negro movement.  But inside that grain of sand, I’m asking questions about how Brown understood himself at the intersection of Caribbean, Harlem, Black and Unitarian identity and how that understanding translated into his public words as a minister.  I am asking about what Brown believed, why he believed it and how he expressed that belief in his sermons.  While I am humbled by his ministry a century ago, my dissertation goes beyond revealing an important history.*  For me, Ethelred Brown is primarily a foundational case study on whom I hope to base theories and practical tools that might be applied toward the challenges we face in the way belief is activated in the public discourse today.

This blog is a “note to self” to stay in this work.  I will invite you to also consider how you might stay committed to being an engaged participant.  It doesn’t need to have a big splash, but it does require conscious intention.  That is how we disrupt the bots and memes and careless disposable rhetoric.  All of our active and deliberate participation is required.  Not just for the American experiment, but for the wider grand human experiment to realize its full promise and potential.

ALD

*See the excellent historical work about Brown from Mark Morrison-Reed, and Juan Floyd-Thomas

Tag Along

Photo by Unseen Histories on Unsplash

I sent a friend a text message last night during Super Tuesday on March 5, 2024 that sums up what I think many black people and people of color voters might feel about the 2024 Presidential Election cycle:

“Watching white people decide the future of the country is not fun.”

Although this was arguably the norm in the pre-Obama era, it was less blatant and less existentially debilitating then.  Ignorance was a twisted bliss.  Particularly for those of us children of the Civil Rights Movement, there was at least the vague and performative indication that one’s vote as a black American (a long fought for right that was severely compromised in 2013) counted for something.  In 2024 however, it is simply a fact that whiteness, or really the various convulsions of whiteness are driving the politics and policies of the country.

White liberals are still congratulating themselves on Obama, whose policies by and large look like every other mid 20th century Democrat politician.  While physically so, politically Obama was not a black president.  Arguably, he shouldn’t have had to be.  Biden is a coda to Obama as well as a throwback to the Johnson/Nixon era touting an underlying message of universality and “gee can’t we all just get along”-ism that struggles against its tendency toward colorblindness and flattened playing fields.  In contrast, Trump actively courts Nazis, racist and homophobic radical Christians, and the KKK while making a place for blacks who really want to see themselves as white (I’m looking at you Sen. Tim Scott) and Latinos who already do when it is convenient (Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio).  They provide Emmy worthy theater, by playing along while not getting in the way…yet staying in camera shot.

But Emmys are given for fiction and our politics actually change people’s lives.  The phalanx of white men currently closing ranks around our national decision making is an odd mix of impotent liberals and rabid conservatives who have never had to consider gestation inside their bodies, or what it means to be the target for gun violence because from a distance you might look like someone, or being shut out of housing or jobs because you talk with sibilance. But they want to convince us that they really do have everyone’s best interest at heart, and we should all just tag along.

But tagging along with, that is “trusting”, someone who has no idea what a life lived outside of the safety of being a white penis holder has never served those of us without that embodied experience well.  Voting is more difficult now if you have brown skin, having a uterus is more difficult whether you identify as female, male or trans and I can already hear the key in the lock on that old closet door, ready to swing open to welcome the gays back in.  While the dominant white men in politics and academics see this as a natural ebb and flow of “society”, for the rest of us it is life and death.

Electing Barack Obama was the best and the worst thing possible for the United States.  It was the best thing because 220 years of white male rule seems like a lot in a country that is only 236 years old.  My goodness, not even Great Britain did that.  It was the worst thing because it exposed the reality of American ignorance about what representative government actually is.  Or maybe it just laid the true bias and bigotry bare?

Back in the day, one of the arguments against women achieving the vote as well as the argument against blacks having the vote after emancipation was that women and non-whites were not capable of holding the responsibility for civic duty.  This seems odd considering the rather central role women have in literally creating life and the fact that illiterate white men who led lynch mobs to wantonly kill blacks could vote.  The legacy of questioning the capabilities of non-white, non-male individuals is built into the system, codified in law and regularly reasserted in policy.

But in 2024, non-white is nearly dominant and non-male has been dominant for decades in this country.  If we look at the representative reality, neither Donald Trump nor Joe Biden should be president of the United States.  Not intending to be ageist, it is impossible to look at global demographics and international leadership without seeing them both as fossils. Neither of them will be capable of solving the crisis at the border because they have only literally flown in and flown out of that situation.  Neither of them can solve the problems of US involvement in international war because their experience of conflict is at existential arms length (more so for Trump).  Neither of them can understand the conflict in Gaza because their understanding of the region and the people involved will always be academic at best and trope based at worst.  These are not leaders for a modern world.

The United States is at a crossroads.  It is dragging its elderly politicians to places they are ill equipped to go.  It is silencing the voices of its diverse electorate through gerrymandered voting maps and restrictive voting policies, to keep the myth of a status quo happy.  Through what can only be called radical judicial decisions, it is enabling criminals and dismantling the one guardrail that we have.

There is a deep irony in that Trump is noted for regularly making the case to “take our country back.”  I would say he’s right.  But the people who need to act on this mandate aren’t at his rallies.  They aren’t white and they don’t stand to pee.  Women, brown people, immigrants, “minorities” of all kinds…that’s whose labor (both kinds) built this country, that’s who has kept it going, that’s who has always innovated and who has always made a way out of no way.  This is who needs to take it back.

It’s time for the white guys to tag along,…if they can keep up.

ALD