Poverty Isn't a Choice

Poverty Isn’t a Choice

by Ted Miller

(originally published April 2017 in Tumbleweird)

We like to pretend that bad things only happen to other people and that somehow it is their fault, as if something they did or did not do made them deserve it.  Bad karma.  Because we all know that if we work hard and stay out of trouble, we can achieve the American Dream, whatever that is. 

And so we blame the poor for being poor.  They just need to make better choices, get a better job, stop being such a leech on society.  They certainly don’t need a phone, a television or a car.  They are just lazy and don’t deserve our help.  Let’s test them for drugs to make sure they are worthy of our help.  Let’s control what they can buy with their food stamps because they don’t deserve anything better than the leftover scraps from our table.  Let’s make sure they are really living in poverty before we give them any assistance.

Maybe blaming the poor for their troubles makes us feel better about cutting social safety programs, but the reality is much different.  Seventy per cent of government benefits that help non-elderly low-income households (like food stamps and Medicaid) go to working families.  Yes, people who are working, sometimes two or three jobs, but who just can’t make a living wage.  Millions of children in the United States don’t know where their next meal will come from, and many go to bed hungry every night.  Many of those children are also homeless without a consistent place to sleep every day. 

I don’t know why, but for the past forty or fifty years these myths about poverty have crept in to our social conscience.  The so-called welfare queen who has everything taken care of by the government is a complete myth.  The idea that people somehow choose to be poor and can just live off of the government, that all poor people choose to stay that way, is insidiously evil.  And it leads to an implicit shaming of those who most need help.  When I was a teenager, I remember that my grandparents, who were hard working Missouri farmers, being too embarrassed to go to the welfare office for food stamps because their neighbors would see them.  I have a friend who walked a mile out of his way to school so his classmates would not know he was from the poor part of town.  Because somehow being poor is something to be ashamed of.

But the shame should not be on the poor.  It should be on the rest of us who look the other way and pretend that this isn’t a problem.  We should be ashamed that in this land of abundance, ANY child should go hungry.  That any working family would be considered homeless.  That those who work just as hard as the rest of us are one medical crisis away from bankruptcy.  Our public policy should help ensure that working families can take care of themselves.  There is no reason that we can’t make a living wage possible for American families.  It doesn’t require radical socialism, it just requires the political will to help those most in need; that food, housing and health care are considered a right, and that employers pay their employees a decent wage.

Today’s largest low-wage employers are in effect subsidized by the taxpayer.  In 2014, Walmart cost the taxpayers $6.2 billion in public assistance for their underpaid employees.  McDonald’s employees received $1.2 billion.  There is nothing wrong with corporations making a profit, but when record profits are in part due to suppressed wages that are subsidized by my tax dollars, the market forces are not putting the costs where they belong.

Following the great depression of the last century, we came together as a country to create social programs that would work towards eliminating poverty and its terrible effects on our society.  We need to protect those programs and continue the effort to take care of our neighbors.  Social safety nets are an important part of our society and we should be working to strengthen them, not eliminate them.

You may ask why the government should be in the charity business, but what other means of helping the poor can be as efficient and fair?  Churches and other non-profits are certainly a great help and I would not want to replace them, but they have not been able to eliminate poverty or help everyone in need.  With thousands of individual charities across the country, efforts cannot be realistically coordinated to ensure no one falls through the cracks.  And each charity has its own policies and requirements to decide who gets what assistance.  The government shouldn’t mandate who receives help from an independent charity.  Instead, the government has the ability to create policy and programs that will help all citizens.  I believe we have a moral obligation to help each other, especially those who are the most vulnerable and those who try but cannot climb out of the poverty cycle without help.

Unless you are part of a religious order that takes a vow of poverty, being poor isn’t a choice.  So let’s stop blaming the poor.  Instead of telling the poor to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, let’s offer them a helping hand.  And let’s tell our elected government that’s the kind of public policy that makes our country great.

Freedom of Religion is also Freedom from Religion

Freedom of Religion is also Freedom from Religion 

by Ted Miller

(originally published March 2017 in Tumbleweird)

When I was a kid I often heard phrases like “It’s a free country and I can do whatever I want.”  While it is true that our country was founded on principles of liberty and freedom, those freedoms must be balanced for the good of all.  The exercise of your constitutionally guaranteed freedom shouldn’t infringe on my equally protected freedom.  As supreme court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. is quoted as saying, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

And this is particularly important with the exercise of religion.  Freedom of religion is so important that the first amendment begins with these words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  This means that The United States specifically has no state religion.  Contrary to what some would have us believe, we are not a Christian nation nor are our laws based on any specific religion. Certainly, Christianity has strongly influenced American culture, and even though a strong majority of Americans identify as Christian, that doesn’t make us a Christian nation.

Ethics and morality are the concepts and principles that help define right and wrong in human behavior. We follow those principles to help make us better human beings. Laws tend to be written to ensure ethical behavior. Religious teachings often include a moral code of behavior. But, just as laws are not always moral, religion is not always ethical. We confuse morality, religion and ethics because they are such an integral part of our culture.  But ethical behavior does not require a religious belief, and when unethical behavior is done in the name of religion, our laws must protect those impacted by that behavior. 

Using religion to infringe on the rights of other citizens is not only unethical, it is illegal. The government has asserted the right to limit religious practices that violate individual liberties and freedoms. Although it hasn’t always been the case, if a particular religion professed that owning slaves was ordained by their god, the law in the United States would prohibit the exercise of that religious practice. Polygamy is practiced in a number of religions, but is not legal in the United States. The supreme court upheld the prohibition of polygamy in Reynolds v. United States (1879), stating that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."

The constitution is also clear that religion can’t be used as a test for employment or government office. There was a time when it was feared Catholics would be more loyal to the pope than to the constitution and were therefore unfit for government office. Today, Muslims are often discriminated against because their religion is misunderstood and has been denigrated in our current political discourse. Atheists are often discriminated against for their lack of religion and it is considered political suicide to acknowledge atheism as an elected official, yet an atheist’s lack of belief cannot be used against them to deny equal treatment under the law.

The distinction between the freedom to practice one’s religion and equal protection under the law sometimes comes into conflict. The recent case against Arlene’s Flowers has been a test case in balancing individual religious freedoms with the law that prevents discrimination based on a protected class. Owner Barronelle Stutzman claimed that her religious beliefs prevented her from providing flowers for a same-sex wedding because her religion believed such a marriage was sinful. But Arlene’s Flowers is a business open to the general public and as such must treat all customers equally.  Ms. Stutzman, in her public business practice, can no more refuse service to a gay couple than she could to a mixed-race couple, a Muslim couple, or even an atheist couple. Once you open a business in the State of Washington, you agree to follow the laws of the state, including those that bar discrimination.  The so-called “right to refuse service to anyone” doesn’t apply when you are using your religion as a basis to deny that service.

If Ms. Stutzman were a minister in a church that believed same-sex marriage was against the rules of her religion, the state could not compel her to perform a same-sex wedding in her church. But that is a religious distinction, not a legal one. The Mormon church isn’t compelled to allow anyone to marry in the temple who doesn’t meet the requirements of their faith for a temple wedding. That is freedom to practice their faith and doesn’t infringe on the rights of non-Mormons.

There are some who feel that limiting the ability to impose their religious beliefs on others limits their religious freedom. They believe so strongly in the righteousness of their religion that they are unable to distinguish between the law that protects those who don’t follow their religion and their own sense of moral superiority. They claim that they are the ones being discriminated against, but their perspective is skewed by their privilege and their majority position in our culture. And they want to turn back the progress that has been made towards equality and inclusiveness under the law.

There have been a number of bills introduced into state legislatures recently, including Washington State, that would allow business owners more latitude in refusing service based on “deeply held religious beliefs.” But such laws that allow discrimination against marginalized people are wrong and likely unconstitutional. Where would we draw the line to decide which “deeply held religious beliefs” can be used to discriminate? A law that allows one person or group to negatively impact another on the basis of their religion, to treat them unfairly as anything less than equal under the law, is immoral and unethical.

Make Art, Not War

Make Art, Not War

by Ted Miller

(originally published February 2017 in Tumbleweird)

The expression of our human experience through art has existed since early humans first painted their stories on cave walls and shared their traditions through storytelling, music, and dance.  Art reaches us through our hearts as well as our brains, connecting us on a deep emotional level.  In all its forms, art is fundamentally an expression of our humanity.  Art asks the questions without always giving the answers.  And questions are sometimes more important than answers because they allow us to see things from a different perspective, to share our humanity, and to change our world.

Literature is the art of using language to express ideas that can create social change.  Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe is considered one of the most influential books of the 19^th century, telling the story of slavery on a personal level in such a way that the reader empathizes with their fellow human and recognizes the immorality of slavery.  The novel is credited as a catalyst for the Civil War and the end of slavery.  The Diary of Anne Frank and Elie Wiesel’s Night make the horrors of the holocaust real and personal, not an abstract idea of something that happened to someone else.

Poetry has also influenced social change.  Langston Hughes wrote “Let America be America Again” in 1935.  Its searing characterization of the inequality in this country pointedly describes how the land of the free is only freedom for some, and its message reverberates to this day.  Walt Whitman’s “Leaves of Grass” was revolutionary in its progressive ideas of a more socially free and tolerant America, including tolerance for people who are gay.  And Emma Lazarus’ poem “The New Colossus,” etched into the Statue of Liberty, is being quoted even today as the country struggles with immigration and refugee policy.

Music, particularly protest songs, has a deep impact on the public psyche.  Pete Seeger’s “Where Have All the Flowers Gone,” John Lennon’s “Imagine,” and Billie Holiday’s “Strange Fruit” are just a few examples of songs that motivate us to be better people.  “We Shall Overcome” has become an anthem for social change.

Photography can bring awareness in a way that words alone cannot.  The 1972 photograph by AP photographer Nick Ut of the naked 9-year-old Vietnamese girl fleeing a U.S. napalm attack compelled us to confront the civilian tragedy of the Vietnam war.  Photographs of the civil rights movement remind us today of the struggles we should never forget or take for granted.

Film, television, and theatre are also powerful media for social change.  The portrayal of minorities and people who are gay as fully developed characters with the same lives, relationships, problems, and happiness that we all feel has helped to show that we are all more alike than we are different.  “Will and Grace” was a leading example of this change.  Live theatre has the ability to connect with an audience in an intimate and direct way, often causing us to think differently about an issue or to see a new perspective we hadn’t previously considered.  Community theatre in particular is a place of inclusiveness and acceptance that provides a means to reach us at a local level, uniting both audience and artist.

Art can also change the artist.  Creating art is a way of understanding our own feelings and then helping others to understand us.  Each of us has a unique perspective, a unique story, and a myriad of ways to express it.  Writing, composing, performing, drawing, painting—the list of art forms is long and varied.  Regardless of our self-doubts and hesitation to express ourselves, each of us has the capacity to create art.

Collaborative art-making can bring us together.  Singing in a choir, blending voices in harmony to create something beautiful connects the singers and brings them closer together.  I sing with the Mid-Columbia Mastersingers, a community choir with a diverse background and differing political and social views, but we share a common love for music and expression in this art form.  We leave those differences aside as we come together to create music, sharing that human experience not only with ourselves, but with our audience.  And with that comes understanding, tolerance and acceptance.

Art can help us deal with today’s daily barrage of divisiveness and polarizing rhetoric.  Literature, poetry, music, visual art, and theatre can help us understand our own feelings and the feelings of others.  Creating art, individually or with a group, can be therapeutic and enlightening.  Art inspires dialogue that leads to changes in attitude, better understanding, and more compassionate empathy.  There are many local organizations and places that would welcome you.  Find something that speaks to you, and share your art through patronage and participation.  Work to stay in touch with your own humanity to better help you see the humanity in others.  Through art you can be an agent for change.