Love that Muslim as yourself

There were the usual outpourings of hateful bile on social media soon after the start of the siege at the Lindt Chocolate Cafe in central Sydney, but just a little later, a movement based on love also deluged the social space. Through the hash tag #I’ll Ride with You, Australians offered to accompany Muslims who felt threatened as they traveled on public transport.  By late the same evening, that hash tag had been used more than a quarter of a million times. It made me proud to be Australian.

The events of 2001 also brought forth bigotry in Australia, but birthed a movement of love as well. Thousands of Australians, led by Christian groups, volunteered to support and assist the Muslims demonized in most mainstream media and by opportunistic politicians. Christians responded to need, not creed.

Many of the  Muslim refugees who had recently arrived in Australia filled job vacancies in areas that were too dirty, too far from cities, or too poorly-paid and so had been vacant, and so they met the rersidents. Rural Australians got to know Muslims face-to-face in their stores, their sports teams, and their workplaces, and neighbors were created. Rural Australians for Refugees was a large organization that grew from this.

The hate-filled attacks also birthed Welcome to Australia, a movement that helps mainstream Australians to get to know Muslims through shared teas, dinners, music, and other events.  Their annual event, Walk Together, now attracts thousands in cities across the country to walk to simply  say ‘welcome everyone’.  Welcome to Australia succeeds in overcoming hatred because it’s very hard to hate those we are close to.

Simply sharing food, music, conversation, and daily activities causes love to grow. Research shows that the mere exposure to a person increases our liking for them.

Australian Christians were led to meet Muslims through their obedience to Jesus’ command to love their neighbors. Meeting them grew understanding and fellowship.

Movements like Welcome to Australia, I’ll Ride With you, and Rural Australians for Refugees create neighbors and incubate love.

 

 

 

 

Americans give.

There is a parade of  ‘days’ in the US that starts on the last Thursday in November: Thanksgiving, Black Friday (which is also, ironically, Buy Nothing Day!), Cyber Monday, and of course, Christmas Day. A few years ago the US added another ‘day’ – Giving Tuesday, a national day designed to extend generosity beyond family and friends. In this spirit, the local paper published a six page spread promoting opportunities to give to local charities which provide toys and food to needy families – ‘Helping hands’, ‘Toys for Tots’, the ‘Maryland Food Bank’, ‘Tri-state Toys’, the YWCA, among others.

Americans are indeed a giving people – they donate more to charity than any other nation. It is those with the least who give the most, however. Americans at the base of the income pyramid—those in the bottom 20 percent—donate an average of 3.2 percent of their income, and low-income employed Americans donate 4.5 per cent.  The wealthiest Americans, however, who have earnings in the top 20 percent, contribute only 1.3 percent of their income to charity.

As well, groups serving the poor, like Food Banks, are unlikely to receive any gifts at all from the wealthy. In 2013, all of the top 50 individual donations went to support colleges and universities, arts organizations, and museums.  In other words, the wealthy give to institutions that most benefit the wealthy. Charities that benefit the 8 percent of seniors who experience food insecurity, the 15.8 million children who live in food-insecure households, and the adult poor, depend most on those on the lowest incomes.

In most other developed nations the government provides the main safety net for the poor, incapacitated, and elderly. Government aid to the poor is anathema to many here, including the poor themselves. Indeed, in the USA, only 60% of those eligible for food stamps or school meals take them.

America is a country that believes that individuals make better decisions for their welfare than government, and in many cases, I agree. But there are factors, including social support, that are not served well by reliance on individuals.

Individual philanthropy is admirable, and America is an example to rest of the world. But we can’t rely on  philanthropy to fill all the bellies.

 

I give thanks for American healthcare

Last Thursday was Thanksgiving – my first. There are many things to give thanks for here in my new neck of the woods. (Is that an American or Australian idiom, I wonder?) The rich history, beautiful architecture, and magnificent mountain scenery. The politeness and consideration that I meet everywhere in public – doors always held open, offers of help that come as soon as I crouch to fill my tires at the gas station, anonymous neighbors who clear my front path and sidewalk of snow – and, astonishingly, the cost of healthcare.

I just signed up for ‘Obamacare’ and found that coverage will be significantly cheaper than private insurance in Australia – I will pay less than a quarter of what it used to cost me. While there are co-payments involved – for example, $10 per doctor’s visit – these are close to the top-up amounts I needed to supplement Australian Medicare benefits, and in a lot of cases, for example medical imaging, my share will be much cheaper. So I give thanks for arriving after the Affordable Health Care Act that made this possible.

Last weekend the Cumberland Times News printed two stories that caused me to give thanks for the American can-do spirit. The first covered Ron and Linda Robertson whose son died in 2009 of an overdose. The Robertsons are evangelical Christians, and with their son they followed their church’s teachings that ‘reparative therapy’ would change Ryan’s sinful nature. After six years of ‘therapy’, Ryan gave up and became estranged from his parents and his faith, and became addicted to drugs. The good news from this tragedy is that the Robertsons did not give up their church. They have remained there, but are outspoken in protesting the demonization of homosexuality, and they are inspiring others to do the same. That takes courage.

The other good news story was out of the heartbreak of Ferguson. Police forces around the country are training more and more officers in ‘de-escalation’ – the art of using words and gestures to defuse tense situations. The more this happens, the less officers and civilians will suffer.

I am thankful that, as well as hearing the bad news – in most cases the only news that reaches outside the US to countries like Australia – I am here to take note of the other sides of the stories.

Want to end US poverty? Lets start by banning name-calling

Conservatives and liberals alike understand that handouts alone are not the complete answer to poverty, and that people in poverty must have the chance to use their own efforts to move off the bottom rung of the income ladder as well as immediate assistance with hunger and housing.

Each side has a different take on how to achieve it. The conservative point of view tends toward minimal intervention, on the premise that if poor people are supported in their current lifestyles, they will never move on. Conservatives are also concerned that taxpayers’ money may be used to assist people who are not deserving of help. (For the Christian view of ‘deserving’, please see my last post.)

Liberals tend to believe that in order to move on up, poor people need programs supported by taxes that will help them to do so.

(Notice that, in describing both sides I have used the words ‘tend to’.  Just as not all poor people are the same, neither are people who identify with one side of the political spectrum or the other.)

This is an important debate, but one that is very rarely discussed dispassionately. Instead of identifying and discussing the problem of how to most effectively help, the focus moves rapidly to people. People who hold the view that helping should be minimal are called ‘cold-hearted’ and ‘cruel’. People proposing liberal solutions are accused of being ‘bleeding hearts’ and of ‘throwing money’ at the problem.

What is worse is that, as the debate heat up, people in poverty become stereotypes. They poor are people who did something wrong, are irresponsible, lazy, and get on welfare and then start popping out babies. Not to forget, drug addicted, or just too stupid to learn from their mistakes and bad choices.

All of us are complicit in this violence towards each other. Doesn’t matter how we vote, what we believe in, it is a nasty characteristic of our natures.

I have a personal campaign to call myself out when I start speaking of any group of people as if they are all the same. I am committed to noticing my own tendency to vilification and to stopping it.

Want to join me?

Why I love Cumberland

Here is an example of one thing that I love about living in Cumberland:

This morning a woman was walking by with her dog when I went on to my front porch to pick up the newspaper. She called out ‘Hi’ and when I responded said ‘You’re new here, aren’t you? My name is Bert. It’s good to have you here. If you need anything I just live up there in that yellow house yonder’.

When I turned to go back inside a workman sawing wood on a saw horse on the next door sidewalk called out ‘Good morning, young lady!’

This happens all the time here. In Cumberland it feels like I am always surrounded by friends, whether I have met them before or not.

And if they call me ‘young lady’, well, that just proves that Cumberland is the best!