Op-Ed: Who's in My Bathroom?!

Hello friends. It's me again.

Today I'd like to discuss the uproar that began with the passage of legislation in North Carolina requiring people to use only the bathroom that corresponds to their anatomy and removing the protections afforded to transgender individuals who use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender. The uproar was twofold - civil rights groups protested the 'barbaric' legislation that denied members of the transgender community the right to use the bathroom they felt most comfortable in; i.e. the bathroom that matches their gender, if not their anatomy. Then, proponents of the legislation made the claim that by allowing transgender people to choose their bathroom, that would open the door for anyone to choose their bathroom. Further, this would allow child molesters and rapists to use women's bathrooms because "they could just claim that they, too, are women and we would be powerless to stop them from assaulting us and molesting our daughters."

I would now like to explain a few things and set a few myths straight.

Repealing this legislation would NOT allow men to use women's bathrooms, or women to use men's bathrooms. That separation is still sacred. Repealing the law would reinstate the protections given to transgender people who may be reported for being in the 'wrong' bathroom. In fact, at least twelve states currently have laws prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations (bathrooms, locker rooms, etc.). None of those twelve states has had an increase in rates of sexual assault in bathrooms and locker rooms due to the passage of the non-discrimination laws. Put another way - your bathroom is still as safe as it ever was, and allowing transgender people to use their preferred bathroom has not created spikes in rates of rape or molestation in public bathrooms. (source)

May I suggest that the fear is partially misplaced? Fox News (and other right-wing media sources) are working overtime to create fear of transgender people and sex offenders masquerading as transgender. They want you to believe that a criminal lurks around every stall door and that non-discrimination laws will give them free reign over your safe bathroom. What they never report, however, is the reality: transgender individuals are one of the groups most likely to be sexually assaulted. The most recent statistics report that about 50% experience at least one sexual assault or one instance of sexual abuse in his or her lifetime. This rate is even higher for transgender people of color, transgender people with disabilities, and transgender youth (in other words, populations that are double minorities)  (source). And what is one location in which these assaults occur?

Bathrooms.

Why are we not equally concerned with the safety of transgender people in the bathroom? I understand the protective instinct toward one's children and loved ones. However, surveys consistently show that LGBTQ people experience sexual assault at much higher rates than children and straight women. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. I am saying that we should be just as concerned for the safety of populations who are at increased risk for violence. "Bathroom legislation" forces transgender individuals to use a facility where they are not necessarily welcomed by other users. In fact, this sort of legislation may even cause increased panic, as people who appear outwardly to be men are forced to use the women's bathroom because they have a vagina. It's even more dangerous in reverse: a person who looks like a woman outwardly is, by the sole criterion of having a penis, forced to use the men's bathroom. Historically, men have not reacted well to other men dressed as women and/or acting like women. Many perpetrators use that premise as an excuse for assaulting a transgender woman - "He was dressed like a woman, he was asking for it," "He's confused and I set him straight," etc.

Now, some groups have advocated for the creation of single-stall "trans-friendly" bathrooms for transgender people to use in public places like schools, offices, sporting arenas, etc. On its face, this seems reasonable. Special bathrooms would give transgender people a bathroom to use where they can feel safe and where cisgender people (those whose anatomy matches their gender) can be assured of the continued sanctity of their men's and women's bathrooms.

Think about it a little more, though. White lawmakers in the pre-Civil Rights Era made the same argument for 'colored bathrooms' and segregated, 'separate but equal' schools. Their attitude was the same: Blacks now have their own set of facilities where they can be with people like them, and Whites will not have to fear for their own safety.

Single-stall bathrooms rob transgender individuals of their gender identity. Single-stall bathrooms say, "You don't know what your gender is, so you have to use this gender-irrelevant bathroom." Let me be clear - transgender people have a gender. They are not somewhere in between male and female while being fully neither. You're thinking of gender-fluid. A common experience for a transgender person is to feel betrayed by his or own body. A boy 'on the inside' will feel betrayed by a body that develops breasts and hips. A girl 'on the inside' will feel betrayed by a body that won't stop growing hair and a voice that sounds so different from her inner voice. For these people, the physical sex organ does not define their gender. And really, cisgender people don't form their gender identity solely by their physical parts either - factors like feelings, interests, and perceptions contribute to gender identity too. Why, then, do we force transgender people to determine their gender identity solely on the basis of their physical parts?

Let's talk about perpetrators of sexual crimes. The biggest fear in this hysteria around bathroom laws is that child molesters will be allowed access to our children. However, 86% of child sexual abuse victims know their abuser (source). In addition, 80% child sexual assaults occurs at the home of the victim, the abuser, or another familiar home setting (source). A child is far more likely to be abused by a family member, a teacher, coach, religious leader, or even another kid, than by a stranger. Again, I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. The unfortunate truth, though, is that abuse and assault happens overwhelmingly in familiar settings at the hands of someone known to the victim. It would stand to reason, then, that we should be just as concerned (or more so) with teaching our kids about boundaries, appropriate vs. inappropriate ways to show affection, and how to ask for help.

And what about our young sons who use the men's room alongside adult men? These are theoretically some of the same men who would try to access the women's bathroom by claiming to be transgender. Pedophiles target boys, too, and boys are significantly less likely to report the abuse. But why are we not just as outraged that it is legal for men who could be pedophiles to use the same bathrooms as young boys? Given that only 20% of abuse occurs in locations other than residences, with schools and religious centers being the most common in that 20%, what reason do we have to be terrified that non-discrimination policies for public bathrooms would cause child molesters to come out en masse to target little girls in the women's bathroom?

Here's a revolutionary idea - sexual abuse and assault is not the problem. It is a problem, without a doubt, but it's also a symptom of a much larger problem: a culture in which violence against women is widespread yet unacknowledged, and where victims (not the abusers) are held responsible for the assaults due to their actions, inactions, clothing choices, or lifestyles. Society puts so much emphasis on telling victims, "don't get raped," when we should be telling perpetrators "don't rape." But it never goes that way, does it? The recent bathroom hysteria is a prime example - conservative lawmakers restrict the rights of transgender people under the pretense of protecting women and girls from being assaulted. I don't hear them nearly as upset about the people who are doing the assaulting. It reminds me a bit of their argument against gun control - violence is going to happen anyway, might as well make it easier for people to protect themselves. That's fine, but why can't we also make an effort to curtail (or even stop) the violence itself, especially when the efforts at 'protection' of one group come at the expense of the protection of another group?

If you take away only one thing from this piece, let it be this - bathroom laws do far more harm than good. Everyone has the right to not be assaulted in the bathroom. Everyone also has the right to feel safe in the bathroom, including transgender individuals. Forcing everyone to use the bathroom that corresponds to their anatomy forces transgender people to use facilities with members of the opposite gender. Ironically, this is the same occurrence that many conservatives claim would happen in the absence of bathroom laws.

It simply goes to show that some people still seem to deserve more rights than others in this country.

Op-Ed: For all of the Obamacare Haters

You know what boils my blood?

Hearing all of the GOP presidential candidate frontrunners vowing to repeal Obamacare once they are in office.

To me, this is purely an "us vs. them" move. Conservatives vs. Liberals. Is it just a matter of jealousy? Is the GOP jealous that a Democrat president beat them to the implementation of a wildly successful nationwide healthcare access program? Is this why Congressional Republicans have voted over SIXTY TIMES to repeal the Affordable Care Act? Quite honestly, the jealousy angle is the only thing that makes sense to me. However, I have yet to hear a candidate propose a replacement plan for Obamacare.

I would hate to think that the alternative is true: that GOP candidates want to take health insurance away from the people who most need it, people who HAVE it now under the Affordable Care Act. They claim that they want to repeal Obamacare as an act of "liberty," a return to American "freedom," a fight against government control in our lives. But here's the thing - most of the people complaining about the infringement on their rights DON'T EVEN HAVE TO RELY ON OBAMACARE. Sure, they can paint it as 'sticking up for the little guy,' but I'm pretty sure the 'little guys' here are enjoying their access to affordable healthcare.

Perhaps a look at some common GOP-propagated myths will help us understand this insanity.

Myth #1: Obamacare is socialized medicine.
Not quite - it is a product of socialism, in the sense that everyone has access to it, but it is not funded solely by the government, the way socialized medicine is. Families and individuals with incomes in a certain range may qualify for a yearly tax credit to offset the cost of the health insurance plans available in the Marketplace. The tax credit comes from government funds, but it's the same idea as income tax refunds - and last I heard, the GOP is not against tax refunds.

Myth #2: Obamacare is a significant violation of your rights. 
The right to go uninsured and pay out of pocket for all health-related costs? Yes. The right to die from a treatable condition because you couldn't afford the treatment? Sure. Other than that, your rights are fine. You can even retain your right to not participate in universal healthcare for a small fee. But honestly, why would you want to NOT have health insurance? I don't understand how this argument is working for the GOP candidates.

Myth #3: Obamacare is Big Government's way of controlling your healthcare decisions.
Only insofar as the decision of whether to have health insurance. And again, you can pay the yearly fine to be uninsured. The pundits make it sound like Obamacare is a dictator's dream: control who can access what, control what healthcare everyone gets, control everything related to your health.
Here's how the Marketplace actually works: you create an account with basic information about yourself, your income, your pre-existing health conditions, and your household living situation. And if this sounds like Big Brother, just remember that the NSA can collect more information on you through your phone and internet usage in ten minutes than is contained in your Marketplace application. Plus, HIPAA protections are still a thing. Relax. Based on your answers, particularly the ones about your income and the number of people in your household, either your application will go to your State Department of Health to determine Medicaid/Medicare eligibility, or you will be sent on to the actual Marketplace, where you can peruse health plans available in your state. You can see who the providers are, what the plan's yearly deductible and monthly premiums cost, what the plan covers, what the plan doesn't cover, and links to more information from the provider's website. Let me say this clearly: YOU GET TO PICK THE PLAN YOU WANT HERE. You are not assigned to a plan; you get to see all the options, not just the ones the site thinks you can afford; and none of the plans is provided by the federal government. In fact, since the providers are private companies, the Marketplace is a great example of the free market at work - several companies competing to be your health insurance provider, meaning that they are each trying to offer their services at a price that is just a little bit lower than the other companies' prices! How does the GOP not want this shining beacon of capitalism preserved?
Now, if you're bounced to the Medicaid route, then yes - in a sense, your healthcare decision has been controlled by the government. But even within Medicaid, there is a choice of providers (in Michigan, at least, which is the state I live in). In fact, I think I had a choice of 5 different providers when it came to my application. If you don't choose a plan, the state will choose one for you, but that doesn't mean you have to use it. Plus, you can appeal the decision that bounced you to Medicaid, and then you pay that yearly fine to go without insurance.
For most people, their employer has more control over their health insurance than the government does. the Marketplace is designed for people who are unemployed, who don't get health benefits through their job, or who opt out of employee health benefits. It's likely that your employer offers fewer options than the Marketplace does.

Myth #4: Obamacare is destroying the economy.
The economy is a complicated monster, but here's a basic rebuttal to this "economy destruction" claim. If people have affordable healthcare, they don't have to spend as much of their income on doctor visits, prescriptions, treatments, counseling, etc. If they are saving money in this area, they can spend it in other areas, like food, housing, clothing, family life, transportation, or, best of all, entertainment and material possessions. This will cause an increase in demand, which will encourage an increase in supply, and through some voodoo magic, a revitalized economy.
Here's another approach: if people can afford to meet their healthcare needs, they will be more healthy (imagine that). If they are healthy, they can go to work regularly and enjoy a high rate of productivity. From what I've heard, a strong economy needs consistent productivity, not flash-in-the-pan ventures. If people can generally rely on a steady job, steady economy, and steady access to basic need fulfillment, their stress levels go down. When stress goes down, mental and physical health goes up. And healthy people go to work.

Myth #5: Obamacare is just another program that we don't need and can't afford.
And a corollary - Obamacare is going to cost way more than Obama says. Here's what's happened instead: almost 30 million people have obtained insurance since 2013 thanks to the Affordable Care Act. That's people who weren't insured before, not people who have switched to Obamacare offers. Put another way, 18% of adults in this country didn't have insurance in 2013. Now, that rate is down to 12.3%. Repealing the ACA will put 30 million people back where we started, possibly even more people than that, based on GOP promises to make drastic cuts. Can you honestly get behind a candidate that wants to ruin people's lives like that?
As for the overall cost of Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that federal subsidies (those tax credits I talked about earlier) will cost $208 billion less than projected initially. That's billion with a B. That surplus will go to cover deficits in other areas of the national budget. But, then again, Republican presidents seem to be more comfortable with budget deficits.

Myth #6: "Illegal immigrants are going to pour into this country now that they can get free healthcare."
Where to begin on this one...first of all, UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS is the appropriate term. Second, undocumented persons cannot apply for Medicaid or Marketplace plans because a social security number is required. The ACA doesn't provide free healthCARE to anyone, only free health insurance coverage. And only in very specific circumstances. Most people still have some premium costs or pay-sharing programs to contribute to. Emergency rooms are still required to provide emergency care to everyone, including undocumented immigrants, but that law was in place way before the ACA was passed.

I'm now tired of debunking myths. Let's switch to some facts, peppered with personal anecdotes and impassioned pleas for sanity.

1. The ACA made it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions. This meant that if a company found out that you had, say, depression, they could deny your application because it would cost them more to insure you than it would cost to insure someone without depression. This sort of discrimination is what caused so many people to be uninsured. It could have caused me to be uninsured. Now, people don't have to worry about that when applying.
2. The ACA allows parents to keep their kids on their insurance plan until they turn 26. Personal anecdote time: I turned 26 last October and I was not looking forward to it because I knew it would mean that I'd lose my dad's primo health insurance. That policy covered almost everything; most notably, unlimited counseling, physical therapy for vertigo, and incredibly dental services. The previous age was 22, I think, and I am so thankful that the age was raised to 26. I used more health services between ages 22 and 26 than I used in the previous twenty-two years combined. I wear glasses ($250 per pair), I take two prescriptions every day (almost $100/month for both in addition to the 15-minute psychiatrist visits 4 times per year to get the prescription) plus a number of over-the-counter supplements, I see my therapist once a week ($140/session), and I've had two episodes of disabling vertigo in the last year (I don't know what the physical therapy treatments cost). With five of us contributing to the yearly deductible, I didn't even have to make co-payments after, like, February every year. I miss that insurance so much.
3. The ACA is improving people's lives, if not completely saving them. One example - my mom is a physical therapist's assistant and her company has seen its number of clients soar because of the Medicaid expansion. And this is not just clients who want a massage, or are rehabbing a sports injury. These are people who are chronically unemployed because of chronic pain from a decades-old injury. These are people who have been injured on the job and worker's comp didn't cover their needs. These are people whose every last dime goes toward food, clothing, housing, and childcare, and who never dared dream that PT was within their reach. Can you really tell me that it is in our nation's best interest to keep "the least of these" trampled under our feet? Where is the Christian family value in that?
4. The ACA indirectly lightens the burden on community agencies that provide healthcare. This year, I'm working at a school that serves a high percentage of low-income families. We're talking Free and Reduced Lunch Program participation at 85% of students. Cherry Street Health Services provides free vision and dental check-ups every year to students who qualify for them. The dentists were at our school right before Christmas break and I made small talk with one of the dentists while I waited for a student I was working with. She told me that the number of students they've seen in schools has been declining in the last few years. I asked if this was a good thing or a bad thing, and she said that the decline was the result of increased access to Medicaid and Obamacare. This meant fewer free check-ups to provide, lowered stress levels for clinicians who were serving a population that just kept growing, and less strain on the budget for providing services to uninsured clients. So yeah...fewer student participants was a great thing.
5. The ACA represents a move forward for the United States. All this GOP talk about "restoring America's glory" and "making America great again" generally makes me roll my eyes because the ACA is a piece of legislation that caught the US up to other developed nations. Access to universal healthcare overwhelmingly raises the standard of living, longevity, emotional health, and prosperity of a nation's people. Why would the GOP not want this?! How does the GOP propose to "make America great again" if they're champing at the bit to cut off access to health insurance for 30 million of their own citizens? Does this party really represent the interests of our people?

By way of conclusion, a personal plea - please don't vote for any GOP candidate who promises to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The ACA has saved my life - from the extra four years on my dad's insurance to the expanded Medicaid access that I use now until I land a career job. The ACA has allowed me to attend over 150 therapy sessions for free in the last 3 years. The ACA provided me with physical therapy for vertigo, enabling me to return quickly to work and school. The ACA allowed me to put my money toward graduate school and training for a career that I absolutely love, instead of having to spend it on healthcare. Most of all, the care I've received under the ACA has kept me from giving in to depression, a condition which has tried to knock me out every day.

Please don't put anyone in office whose platform is to ruin my life and the lives of 29,999,999 other Americans. 

Op-Ed: Why I Can't Completely Get Behind the #PrayforParis Movement

As you probably know by now, a series of explosions, shootings, hostage situations, and general mayhem occurred in Paris last Friday. Authorities have identified 129 deaths, and some 500 more with injuries. ISIS took responsibility for this coordinated effort amidst the chaos and confusion of rescue and President Hollande's declaration of a state of emergency. On social media, #prayforparis began to trend, Facebook users put a red/white/blue tint in the style of the French flag on their profile pictures to reflect their support, and hundreds of thousands of statements of prayer and solidarity erupted across many social media platforms.

You can probably guess that in the wake of ISIS's proud claim of responsibility, people got really upset and began to decry Islam as a religion of violence and terrorism. I even saw some Facebook posts pleading with God to guide the bombs dropped by France over ISIS training compounds, praying that they would hit their targets and wipe out all the Muslims.

Really?!

Are we really asking God to destroy an entire population (a population which numbers about 1.6 billion, by the way) based on the actions of one political extremist group? Are we really asking God to wipe out 1.6 billion human beings who He created in His image and has plans for? How is our blatant hatred of Muslims any better than ISIS's blatant hatred for the Western world?

Here are a few reasons that I can't fully support this #prayforparis movement.

1. Paris was not the only city devastated on November 13, 2015.

The western coast of Japan was rocked by a 7.0 earthquake.
Mexico had also been suffering earthquakes, registering about 4.3 and continuing for several days.
A suicide bomber in Baghdad targeted a funeral, killing 21 people and injuring 46 more.
Two suicide bombers in Lebanon killed 43 people and injured about 200 more. Exact numbers are not yet known because of the chaos in that area.
A suicide bomber belonging to ISIS killed 43 people in Beirut, Lebanon, and the number of injured is still unknown.

Some people caught on to this parade of devastation, sparking the hashtags #prayformexico, #prayforbeirut, etc., but the warcry against Islam was much louder. National landmarks across the world were lit with red, white, and blue lights to show support for France. Did anyone light up with colors for Japan, Mexico, Lebanon, or Iraq? If they have, it hasn't been publicized, which is a shame in itself.

I simply can't get on board with a campaign that supports so publicly one set of victims and remains silent on victims around the world. ISIS carries out acts of terror daily in the Middle East. Thousands have been killed by ISIS since the group first rose to power. Thousands. Why are we not outraged by that? Why are we not sending money and aid to their families? Why are we not coordinating efforts through social media to spread the word about safe places to stay and be taken care of? Why are we accepting only refugees who are skilled and educated (and, it needs to be said, wealthy) to our country?

Don't get me wrong. I am disgusted by ISIS's actions in Paris. I think we need to be more disgusted by what they're doing elsewhere on a much more regular basis.

2. There is implicit hatred for Muslims that hides behind innocent hashtags.

Let me reiterate: not everyone who uses #prayforparis also spouts islamophobic vitriol. I would argue that most don't outright hate Muslims, either. We have here a classic example of a few people ruining the whole batch, so to speak. We become lumped with the haters. The problem is that not enough of us are combating the anti-Islam rhetoric. Many of us stay silent, which is not the same thing as setting the record straight. I want to set the record straight:

The religion of Islam as a whole is not responsible for this past weekend's attacks in Paris, Beirut, Lebanon, and Baghdad. 

In another example of "some ruining it for everyone," 1.6 billion Muslims are being painted as terrorists by the media, social media, and, I hate to say it, some Christians, all because of the actions of a political group styling itself as Islamic. Many people refuse to see the difference between Muslims and ISIS. Is it any wonder, when you consider the United States' history with the Middle East? Back in 2001, President Bush blamed the 9/11 acts of terrorism on Muslims, when, once again, preliminary evidence pointed to religious and political extremists. The terms "Arab" and "Middle-Eastern" became synonymous with "Muslim." The term "Muslim" became synonymous with "terrorist." Men and women who looked even remotely Middle-Eastern were rounded up en masse under suspicion of terrorist affiliation. The President says it was for national security, but let's be honest - detaining people based on their appearance and/or religion, holding them without criminal charges, denying their rights to legal representation, and playing fast and loose with their human rights? What does that sound like to you?

I saw a post on Facebook this morning that stated it really well - "If we can distinguish between Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, and the average American Christian, we should have no trouble distinguishing between ISIS and the average Muslim." It's the same concept, folks.

3. We only seem to care when it affects people who are like us. 

That's a rather simplistic way of stating it, but it goes back to the point I made about us not being outraged about ISIS targeting Muslims. ISIS activity only seems to become international news when it involves people who are white, or share a similar culture to ours, or practice a similar religion to ours, or share the same values as ours. Case in point - Paris attacks become international news shortly after they happen, but the bombings in Beirut that began two days earlier go unpublicized. Two people from the United States were killed in the Paris bombings, and the story goes viral. No United Statesians killed in Beirut; therefore, no outrage.

Why is this? I think the media is partly to blame, since they are of course going to cover the stories that will cause the biggest splash and make the most money for them. They know that lots of people have visited Paris (or at least really want to visit), and that most people don't know where Beirut is. Confession: I had to Google it. Learned Beirut is a city in Lebanon. I'd heard of Beirut before, but couldn't have told you where it was. The media plays on that. Paris is far more relatable to the average United Statesian, so Paris gets the coverage.

We can't blame it all on the media, though. We must shoulder this blame too. We have to figure out how to advocate for people who don't share our beliefs, culture, or value. We have to learn to recognize stereotypes and actively combat them. We have to learn to differentiate; to not take the actions and beliefs of an individual and apply them to the entire group. We have to stop promoting violence against our enemies in one breath and in the next breath condemning those who take violence against us. Violence is violence is violence, regardless of in whose name the violence is committed.

If we want the world to follow our example, we have to set a better example. 

Op-Ed: A Dollar Sign on Every Forehead

Can we talk about Count Day for a few minutes? Until this year, I had never experienced fall Count Day because Christian schools don’t have to do it and my student teaching at Grandville was during the spring. Count Day is the first Wednesday in October and the number of students that attend school on Count Day translates directly into funding from the state. In fact, Count Day numbers are responsible for 90% of the school’s annual funding. NINETY PERCENT.

On Count Day, every single student has an imaginary dollar sign on his or her forehead. Or, more accurately, 7,500 of them.

That’s right - students in many Michigan school districts are worth about seventy-five hundred bucks on Count Day. If a student doesn’t come to school on Count Day, he or she doesn’t count toward the school’s enrollment for the year, and since funding is based on enrollment, the school loses money for that student, even though the student probably comes to school most of the time. You can probably imagine what a problem this causes for school districts.

Count Day becomes a game - incentives for attendance on this day are offered in elementary schools, like getting to wear your PJs to school, or having your teacher do something fun and crazy if everyone comes to school, or ice cream sundaes at the end of the day for everyone who was at school all day. Middle- and high school teachers remind students for several days leading up to Count Day about how important it is for them to come to school so that the government will give the school money to spend on their education. Administrators get pretty peeved when a student enrolls the day after Count because they won’t get any state funding for the student because he or she wasn’t at the school the day before, even though they will likely be enrolled for the next eight months.

But incentives and promise of rewards don’t always get teenagers to come to school. At their age, most students could care less about helping their school get the money it needs to teach them. Schools that could really use the extra funding pull out all the stops on Count Day: they arrange robocalls on Tuesday night to students who have a tendency toward absence and tardiness, secretaries put together the master list of students who are absent for Count and organize them by the neighborhood they live in, administrators and teachers who have first or second hour prep periods divide the list up and go to students’ houses to pick them up and bring them to school. I’m not even kidding. The stakes are that high - if each student is worth about seven grand, aren’t you going to do everything you can to put them in school on Count Day?

Some school districts are so desperate for funding that they put suspensions on hold - students who are suspended in-house get to go to class, and students who are out of school for suspension get to come back to school for just that one day. Teachers are strongly discouraged from sending kids to the principal or to in-school holding because their presence in class translates to thousands of dollars, even if the student in question is derailing the whole class. Some teachers even have to assume that the day is going to be a wash - if they make some progress on a lesson plan, great, but if they don’t, it’s because the money is more important and they just have to deal with the troublemakers being back in class.

What message does this send to our students? Students even as young as middle schoolers know what’s going on - they know that on Count Day, we don’t promote attendance simply for the sake of attendance and doing well in school. They know that as much as we don’t want to, we see them with dollar signs on their foreheads on the first Wednesday of every October. We can dress it up with incentives and school spirit and enthusiasm for learning, but underneath, we know that the system is so messed up and we just have to deal with it for what it is.

On the surface, it makes sense that the state government would base funding of schools on how many students it serves. The more students a school has, the more money it will need to pay for educational materials, teachers, parapros, support staff, food, building upkeep, etc. This system breaks down, though, when it comes to the actual implementation: to base funding on the attendance numbers of one single school day raises the stakes so high that some schools have to shift their focus from education and achievement and making a better life, which is what we’re at school for in the first place, to what is really pulling all of our strings: cold, hard cash.

This system uniquely punishes schools with high enrollment in low- or low-middle income areas. The more students there are, the more money the school will need to do educate them effectively. On the flip side, where there are more students, there are higher numbers of absences and truancy. Unfortunately, where there are more students, there are not always more educators. Large schools are already stretched for personnel, which makes the annual funding that much more important. Schools can’t (and shouldn’t have to) dispatch employees to go and pick up missing students, even for Count, just to get the money they need to educate these students the rest of the year. School should be about education, not about jumping through hoops and having to play a sinister zero-sum game.

Public schools are not in the business of making money, yet the State treats education as a business. Its policies reward the districts that are already doing well and punishes the districts that want to do well and could do well with the extra funding. Punishing the school by cutting its funding is not a simple “Well, you didn’t get your students’ tests scores up with the money we gave you, so we’re not going to give you as much as last year. It’s just not a smart investment for us.” Yet this is the mentality in the State legislatures. Cutting funding doesn’t just punish the educators by forcing them to do the same amount of work and achieve the same standard with less funding than before. It punishes the students who need education as their ticket out of the lives their parents are living. We say that to our kids all the time - education is your ticket out of here. But how can that be true if the State puts up all kinds of hoops and obstacles and contingencies?

Schools are not businesses from which to cut one’s losses. Funding should not be contingent on the attendance numbers of a single, isolated school day. What if we did Count Week instead? Students get sick. Students make appointments to see doctors. Parents can’t always be relied on to bring their students to school every day and on time. But does that make them less deserving of a well-funded and well-managed education? While it’s true that some administrators and educators don’t care enough about their job or their students to crusade so diligently for funding, most are not like this. The educators and administrators at my school, for example, fall into this latter category. You can tell by the way they conceptualize education - they educate the whole person, not just the content area they are responsible for. They are united in their commitment to lifelong literacy and learning. They communicate with colleagues and advocate for the needs of their students.

And then, when even their best efforts can’t get kids into school on Count Day, they are punished by being forced to do more with less.

Op-Ed: What's Missing From the Josh Duggar Molestation Discussion

I will do my best to avoid passing judgment or denigrating the Duggar's values/home culture/choices. But as I read more and more articles about this scandal (some of dubious origin and veracity), I find one thing missing. It's one very important thing: a discussion about what sexual abuse does to the survivor.

In case you're out of the loop, Josh Duggar, the oldest of Jim Bob and Michelle's 19 kids featured on TLC's series 19 Kids and Counting, admitted yesterday to molesting girls when he was a teenager. The allegations of abuse were brought to the media and when asked for comment, both Josh and his parents confirmed the story. Since then, PDFs of the redacted police report have circulated, rumors have swirled, and a witch-hunt has begun.

I've always enjoyed watching 19 Kids and I've read the books that the family has written about parenting, relationships, and their faith. I think their commitment to their convictions and their diligence in raising 19 children (and doing it well ) is very admirable. But when I read that four of Josh's five victims were his sisters, I had to see this police report for myself. I was skeptical, not because I believed a Duggar could never do such a thing, but because I figured the police would have done a better job of shielding the identities of victims when releasing official documents.

Alas.

The portion I have circled in red says: "The alleged victims are [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], and [redacted], who live with their parents Michelle and Jim Bob [redacted]." The report was made in 2006, but the abuse occurred over the course of a year, from 2002 to 2003. It doesn't take a psychic to figure out who these four redacted kids are. Even though the names are blacked out, their parents' names aren't, which strikes me as a quite poor job on the part of the person who was responsible for redactions before the report was released to the media. Personal pronouns and adjectives have been largely obscured, but if you read the rest of the report, you can find the occasional 'her' or 'she' that was missed. This would indicate that the victims were girls. The Duggars had 5 daughters as of 2003, so we know that four of them are named as the victims. (You can read the whole report here.)

Now that I've had my fun as an investigative journalist, let me talk about some of the glaring issues I see with the way that this whole thing has been handled by the family, the media, the critics, etc.

1. Redactions - come on, Springdale PD. What was the point of redacting the names of the victims if you're going to leave in other identifying information? It took me very little effort to figure out who these victims are because you left in the fact that their parents' names are Jim Bob and Michelle. If you truly want to preserve confidentiality and protect victims' identities, you've got to do a better job than that.

2. Immediate aftermath - Yes, Josh's actions were 'a mistake,' 'reprehensible,' 'inexcusable,' etc. What I have a problem with, though, is that Josh's parents did not take the appropriate action within a few days of Josh's admission to them of what he had done. The report of a police interview with Jim Bob and Michelle describes several disparate instances of Josh's behavior, spread out over the course of at least 9 months. Only after the last of these admissions did Jim Bob report any of Josh's behavior. However, no report was made to law enforcement initially. Jim Bob sought the counsel of his church elders, who recommended Josh be put into a treatment program. After Josh returned from that program, Jim Bob finally spoke with a law enforcement officer. The officer, an Arkansas state trooper, was a family friend and responded by giving Josh a "stern talk" and a warning about what would happen to him if he continued this sort of behavior. The state trooper concluded the meeting without filing a report.  Big problems with this:

• As a state trooper, the officer was a mandated reporter. As in, once an instance of child abuse like this was brought to his attention, he was obligated under law to file a report and pursue police action. The fact that he didn't do so indicates that he broke the law to keep this secret. (The state trooper in question is currently serving a lengthy prison sentence for child pornography convictions, which surely isn't a coincidence.)
• As a friend of the Duggar Family, this state trooper would have been ethically bound to remove himself from handling this case because of the blatant conflict of interest. 
• Not filing a report resulted in Josh continuing to live with his parents and his victims. It doesn't matter that Josh seemed to have learned his lesson from the treatment program, or that his victims and parents had forgiven him, or that he had apologized to everyone. There was absolutely no way for anyone to be sure that he wouldn't re-offend, and not removing him from contact with his victims is a clear child safety issue. Had a report been filed, Child Protective Services would have gotten involved and separated perpetrator from victims. Yes, it likely would have involved removing one or more kids from the home, but which is worse: breaking up a family while the matter is settled by law enforcement, or risking continued sexual abuse? Neither option is even remotely desirable, but one is clearly safer for the victims. 
• This series of events only came to the attention of law enforcement because of an anonymous tip from someone who had read a letter written by a Duggar family friend, which was hidden in a loaned book. The tip came in 2006, three years after the abuse first came to the attention of Jim Bob and Michelle. At that time, Arkansas's Statute of Limitations regarding sex crimes was three years. This means that even though there was a police report filed and confessions made by Josh and his parents, no legal action could be taken because the Statute of Limitations had lapsed. I can't imagine that any parents would be chomping at the bit to turn in their kid, especially when the kid was clearly remorseful and repentant, and they got very lucky that they lived in a state with such a short Statute. I don't fault Jim Bob and Michelle for handling things the way they deemed best. I do take issue with lawmakers who refuse to significantly revise the laws surrounding Statutes of Limitations. It not only rewards offenders who can keep their crimes under wraps until the clock runs out, but worse, it robs the victims of justice. Sex crimes are hard enough to prove and prosecute without the pressure of a countdown clock. 

3. Focus on past actions - It is understandable that the media are feeding on this story despite the fact that the abuse occurred over a decade ago. Some media outlets are reporting as if it's an ongoing, developing story, which it is not. Other media outlets are freaking out because they perceive yet a third group of media outlets to be persecuting Josh and the Duggar family for 'mistakes' and 'actions taken by a curious young teenager.' I have yet to find an article (or, better yet, a statement from any of the Duggars) that talks about the impact that sexual abuse has on a survivor. The media are getting bogged down by the initial scandal, the police report, Josh's decision to resign from his director position at the Family Research Council, how Anna knew about his past and married him anyway, and so on. Why is no one talking about the impact this media circus (and possibly, re-victimization) has had on Josh's sisters and the other as-yet-unidentified survivor? It is possible to talk about this without revealing their identities (even though the botched police report has already done so, to some extent) and it would go a long way in contributing to our national dialogue on sexual assault and domestic violence. 

4. Lack of adequate and appropriate aftercare for all parties involved - According to the police report, Josh spent a few months at a location described, in different places, as "a training center," "some sort of rehab place," "treatment," and a "training camp." Other references have been made to the family arranging for counseling for the victims. It was later revealed that Josh was, in fact, sent to live for a few months with a family friend, where he helped with construction projects. This family friend was not a certified counselor of any kind, but more of a 'mentor,' according to Michelle. There is no proof that the parents did not arrange for counseling for the victims, but it does lead one to wonder what kind of counseling the victims may or may not have received. If a few months of physical labor with a non-counselor family friend is their idea of counseling for Josh, what did the victims receive? 

From the report, it sounds like Jim Bob took charge of forming perception for the whole family through a pair of family meetings. Many of the interviewees say that Jim Bob told them what had happened, what Josh had done, how he was sorry, etc. It also suggests that Jim Bob considered the matter settled after Josh returned, as evidenced by his reluctance to bring Josh in for an interview and his assertion that "if [he] thought the incident was a problem, [he] would have taken care of it when it happened." (I inferred that it was Jim Bob making the decisions based on the Duggars' commitment to patriarchal views on family values. And there are other instances of responses like "[redacted] said she would discuss it with her husband," which suggests that Michelle does not make statements or decisions without Jim Bob.)  All of this is to say that the Duggar girls were not given the opportunity (that we know of) to speak with non-family members or impartial professionals about what had happened. And as a counselor, that bothers me. 

5. Lack of adequate sex education - The Duggars have become famous for their views on modesty and sexual purity, their courtship and physical contact rules, and their modest clothing and swimwear. On more than on occasion, Michelle has talked about how they have raised their daughters to stay away from clothing that bares their shoulders, thighs, and midsections because they do not want to cause any boys to have impure thoughts and, therefore, sin. While I can understand and appreciate this attitude and set of principles, it is somewhat sexist. It implies that men are incapable of curtailing their thoughts and actions and that it is the woman's responsibility to dress and act in a way that helps the man to keep from sinning. It is disrespectful to both men and women - it diminishes the man's capacity for integrity and self-control, and it tells the woman that men think she is good only for her body and her looks, so she should cover herself up. In fact, by focusing so much on their daughters' outward appearance, they are doing exactly what they find so repugnant in secular culture - namely, reducing a woman to an object to be presented. 

The Duggars' approach to sexuality is extremely conservative, as one would expect from watching their program. They are famous for their courtship approach to marriage, in which the man and woman do not engage in physical contact beyond "side hugs" and hand-holding until after they are married. They teach that sexual activity (even something that most would consider fairly innocuous, like kissing) outside of marriage is something to be avoided because it fills the person with impure thoughts and desires that cannot be fulfilled without engaging in sex. While I can understand and appreciate this attitude too, it promotes a flawed understanding of human sexuality. It seems to imply that sexual thoughts and urges are sinful if you aren't married, and it is just best to avoid anything (clothing, bathing suits, books, television, movies, pop culture in general) that might even come close to bringing sexuality to mind. In a way, they are setting their kids up to fail - regardless of marital status, their kids will experience sexual thoughts and feelings, especially as they grow older, and it's not always something they will be able to control. That's just how thoughts are. Telling them that they are sinning when sexuality occurs to them will just make them feel ashamed. 

I can understand the Duggars' reluctance to expose their kids to comprehensive sex education, particularly because it will force them to think about, in their opinion, sinful things. I don't think that's a good enough excuse, though. I firmly believe that it is possible to teach someone about sex while maintaining the importance of one's values. They don't have to hand out boxes of condoms to their courting children  or bring them to strip clubs, but as we've seen, how you handle your kids' curiosity affects quite a lot. The "he was just a curious teenager who made a mistake" defense speaks to this. At 14, Josh knew that touching his sisters was not okay, as evidenced by his guilt and remorse and confessions to his parents. The fact that he did it more than once to more than one person is what is indefensible to me. Once is a mistake, twice is cause for concern, three is a pattern, and beyond that is unconscionable. I'm not trying to say that this could have all been avoided by a good sex talk, because we can't know that for sure, but their attitude toward sexuality has created a culture of fear, guilt, shame, and ignorance about a natural part of life. 

6.  "Now everyone can see what hypocrites the Duggars are!" journalism - I don't like to see the Duggars raked over the coals for the way they handled the situation twelve years ago, and I'll be really sad if they cancel 19 Kids for good. The war cries about hypocrisy and trashed credibility mostly just show a flawed understanding of the Duggars' faith. I've watched at least a hundred episodes, and I like to think I'm a good judge of character (at least, the character they have put out on the show), and never have I heard them assert that they are in any way perfect or above reproach. I don't think this story coming to light should cancel all the good they have done with their program and influence in the media. It is hypocritical on their part to oppose transgender protections legislation, claiming that it will allow transgender individuals to molest children in bathrooms, when they've known for years that their son molested their daughters. In that arena, their credibility is shot. However, it shouldn't forever negate their portrayal of positive family values or irreparably scar their witness to the world. We all sin. 

7. "He did what he did, we need to forgive him and move on" journalism - The problem I have with this is that it tells the victims that they need to move on too because what they experienced is not a big deal. It's another variation on "Boys will be boys," which implies that men can't be held responsible for what they do in the heat of sexual haze. Yes, it sounds like his family and his victims have forgiven Josh, but that's not the same as moving on. Survivors of sexual abuse need to know that not only is the abuse not their fault in any way, but also that the healing process can take years and lots of hard, painful work. I highly doubt that a family meeting and a pardon for Josh was enough to make the girls get over it. Even it did work that way for them, they are in a very small minority. Treating the Duggar scandal this way in the media teaches other survivors that it is more important to forgive their abuser and move on than to take the time they need to come to terms with and make sense of their experience. There is considerable clinical evidence to show that avoiding and repressing traumatic experiences can often lead to that pain surfacing in other ways. Telling survivors to forget about what happened to them not only invalidates what they are feeling, but also tells them that their experience is not important enough to remember. 

Those are my thoughts on the matter. Feel free to comment. 

Op-Ed: The Cherry-Picked Gospel

With this latest round of discrimination disguised as religious freedom taking place in my hometown of Grandville, Michigan (search "dieseltec grandville michigan" if you haven't seen it yet), I feel the need to write about this issue. I just cannot handle it anymore. I am so sick of a small group of ultra-conservative Christians vocalizing a minority view of Christianity that gives the rest of us Christians a bad name. You may ask, how could one group of Christians be giving a bad name to another group of Christians? Aren't they all supposed to be loving toward others, avoiding passing judgment on people they don't like, and shining a light for Christ in a world of darkness?

Huh, that's what I learned in church school too. 

However, there is a minority of Christians that is beginning to speak up quite loudly and "claim" their religious freedoms by denying service to members of the LGBTQQIAA community because the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. They have taken it into their own hands to be the judges and juries of their fellow human beings. They spout off about their religious freedoms being trampled because of Obama and our country's departure from its strictly Christian roots. 

Really? Your rights as a Christian have been trampled? When was the last time you...

• Didn't get Christmas Day and Easter off from work? (obviously, some careers require employees to work on Christian holidays, but many places of employment are automatically closed on those days.
• Couldn't access movies, TV shows, or music related to your Christian faith?
• Couldn't find a store that sold items you need to practice your Christian faith?
• Were pressured to celebrate another religion's holidays, particularly a religion whose values conflict with your own? For example, when was the last time you were expected to observe the month of Ramadan by fasting during daylight hours? 
• Were wished a Happy Eid al-Fitr or a Merry Purim? When was the last time you wished a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter to a stranger without wondering whether they even observe Christmas or Easter? (I'm not saying that you are a bad person if you do this, I know I have done this without thinking, but at the same time, it's an example of a microagression)
• Found out that your church or place of worship had been bombed, shot up, or burned to the ground?
• Returned to your car to find that it had been vandalized because of a Christian bumper sticker?
• Were threatened, harmed, or detained for praying in public?
• Swore an oath with your hand on a Qur’ān, a Tanakh, or a copy of the Book of Shadows? 
• Saw a politician or community leader harassed or criticized for openly declaring their Christian faith?
• Heard of a politician being labeled a heretic, extremist, or terrorist for making decisions based on their Christian faith?
• Encountered a person who had never heard of Christianity?
• Were criticized or socially penalized for not knowing the customs of other world religions?
• Were treated unfairly at work or fired from your job because people knew you were a Christian?
• Encountered a city that did not have a church or place for you to worship?
• Had your identity reduced to your religion? 
• Held a fundraiser for your church or faith-based group and then had it investigated on suspicion of terrorism?
• Couldn't find friends who were Christians? 
• Couldn't send yourself or your kids to a Christian school because there was none where you lived?
• Heard of anyone being denied for adopting a child because they identified as Christian?
• Heard of anyone being denied custody of their kids because they identified as Christian
• Were accused of attacking another religion because you complained about your Christian faith being under attack?

(List derives from http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/05/list-of-examples-of-christian-privileg/)

But its not just the blacks, Mexicans, and gays that are trampling our rights! We as conservative Christian (white) Americans are being discriminated against because of the degeneration of our country!

Let's talk about that. What was the last time you...

• Were the only white person in the room/building/school/company/church?
• Had to move to a neighborhood where you were the only white person?
• Were threatened, avoided, glared at, or profiled because you were white?
• A store clerk kept an eye on you to make sure you wouldn't steal something?
• Saw or read a news report in which absolutely no white people were mentioned?
• Had your ideas or opinions discredited or criticized because you were white?
• Couldn't find American food, American music, or American books in a store?
• Heard someone tell you that they don't know how to cut your hair?
• Heard someone say, "You have a lot of money/property/education/articulateness/whatever for a white person"?
• Couldn't protect yourself or your children from people who don't like you because you're white?
• Had to give your kids The Talk? Not the sex talk, mind you, but the "society is unequal, be wary of law enforcement, keep your head down, don't put your hands in your pockets" talk?
• Experienced systemic racism? (and if you try to tell me that systemic racism no longer exists in America, I'll tell you that you need to look a little closer.)
• Were called "a credit to your race"?
• Were called a thug, bum, low-life, illegal, alien, nigger, or terrorist?
• Couldn't find posters, cards, picture books, dolls, toys, or magazines that featured white people?
• Felt isolated, out of place, outnumbered, isolated, or feared because of being white?
• Were told that you got a job or promotion because the company needed to fill a quota or was acting on affirmative action?
• Worried about whether your whiteness would get in the way of any of your social, political, or professional goals?
• Couldn't find band-aids, makeup, or flesh-toned clothing that did not match the color of your skin?
• Had your kid come home from school saying that he or she learned in school that it's wrong or bad to be part of a family that is white and made up of a married mommy and daddy and their biological children?

(List derived from Peggy McIntosh's Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack)

But the homos! They're taking over and I'm starting to be discriminated against for being straight!

Uh, seriously? When was the last time you...

• Couldn't see your loved one in the hospital or find out what happened in the case of an emergency?
• Heard that an engagement or a wedding was anything but a positive thing?
• Were afraid to touch, hug, or kiss your loved one in public?
• Were criticized for living with and starting a family with your loved one?
• Were not comforted or supported after the end of a relationship?
• Couldn't find any examples of heterosexual romance or relationships on TV, in movies, or in books?
• Couldn't find a heterosexual role model?
• Saw consistently negative portrayals in the media of straight people?
• Were the only straight person in a group/class/school/workplace?
• Were asked to stop talking about your relationship or family activities because someone told you they don't agree with your lifestyle?
• Were accused of being a child molester or trying to turn people straight?
• Were denied paid leave from your job when grieving the death of your loved one because your boss thought your relationship wasn't legitimate? 
• Were asked, “how does sex work for you?” or other way-too-personal questions?
• Couldn't get a reduced rate for health, auto, and homeowners’ insurance policies because you were in a committed heterosexual relationship?
• Heard someone use "that's so straight" as an insult?
• Were accused of forcing a "heterosexual agenda" on someone?
• Had to petition a court for joint custody (instead of having it granted automatically) when you and your loved one welcomed a new child into your family?
• Were the victim of straight-bashing or other acts of violence because you were openly straight?
• Couldn't marry the person you loved because it was illegal?
• Had your basic civil rights taken away by people who disapprove of your straightness?
• Heard someone say that being straight is unnatural, perverted, disgusting, or an abomination?
• Heard a religious leader or members of your faith community say that being straight is a sin?
• Were fired because you were straight?
• Had someone ask you when you came out or when you realized you were straight?
• Had someone patronize you by saying that you brought all the hate on yourself by choosing to be straight?
• Had to wonder if your marriage was legal once you crossed a state line or border?
• Had to comfort your kid because another kid's parents wouldn't let your kid come over and play simply because you were straight?
• Heard that God hated you and you were going to hell because you're straight?

(List derived from http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/01/29-examples-of-heterosexual-privilege/#sthash.MYZExlL1.dpuf)

And here's a burning question I've had since this whole freedom of religion thing blew up - would these people tolerate being denied service by a gay atheist in the name of religious freedom? Or would they take to the news media, wailing about the dissolution of Christian values and the discrimination they are facing at the hands of gays and atheists? It's hard to claim discrimination when you're part of the majority. Minorities (racial, ethnic, religious, political, cultural, and orientation-al) face discrimination and microaggressions every single day, but we don't allow them to complain about it because we try so hard to pretend it's not a problem and that they have no right to complain. Then, when even a hint of aggression happens to a person from the majority, it's all over the news and portrayed as a heinous crime. Will we see any stories about a Christian being denied service by a non-Christian? Will anyone even dare to do that, given how protected the Christian faith is the U.S.? 

I don't want to argue theology or Christian morality with you here, mostly because then I would be doing exactly what I'm telling other people not to do (i.e. foist one's opinions on someone else as absolute truths), but I do want to say that, no matter what your views are, those views do not give you the right to discriminate against or mistreat your fellow human beings. When did we forget what our mothers always taught us - "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all"? When did it become noble to abide by the First Amendment instead of the Golden Rule?  Even if a law give you permission to discriminate (or at least a legal shield if you did so), acting a certain way in the name of religious freedom is the opposite of what Jesus would have done. The Bible was not meant to be cherry-picked.

"Love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39)," even if your neighbor isn't white, straight, and Christian. 

"Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position (Romans 12:16)," which includes the poor, the hungry, the sick, the immigrants, the LGBT, the Muslims, the people in the middle east, and the people who you believe are tearing apart the fabric of America.

"Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone (Romans 12:17)," not just what is right for white, Christian, conservative, upper-middle class American citizens.

"If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites (or Americans) in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them (Deuteronomy 15:7)," and maybe don't take away their health insurance, Medicare/Medicaid, early childhood education, or veteran benefits.

"Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God." (Proverbs 14:31)

"One who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and one who gives gifts to the rich—both come to poverty (Proverbs 22:16)." Does this not sound like our political system?

"From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." (Luke 12:48b)  It is not okay that the top 0.1% of America (318,000 people) has more money than the bottom 90% (286,200,000 people) COMBINED. If the top 1% paid the same tax rate as everyone else, the Republican politicians would not be justified in cutting necessary social programs because of "budget constraints."

Ask yourself this - are the politicians who campaign on a conservative courageous Christian platform REALLY representing your understanding of Christianity? Their platform is aimed at restoring our liberties and steering American back to the Christian nation it was mean to be, but what would a country look like when it's guided by the passages above? Are these politicians promising to enact policies that help everyone when the policies are actually discriminatory toward minority groups (defunding ACA, slashing Medicare/Medicaid, blocking immigration reform, etc.)? Do these politicians fight for the good of everyone, American and non-American alike, or do they pursue action like indefinite war, genocide, and the destruction of economy and resources in other countries? Do they stand up for the rights of people who aren't courageous conservative Christians, or do they use their courageous Christian conservatism to highlight the moral divide between "us" and "them"? 

As far as I can tell, none of the current presidential candidates is going to get my vote. I just can't get behind someone who takes from the poor to give to the ultra-rich, prioritizes war and military over necessary social services, holds the government and legislative progress hostage in the name of Christian conviction, or condones (or worse, commits) hateful action  disguised as Christian freedom.

Op-Ed: For Those Who Say that Christians Shouldn't Be Depressed / Para Ellos que Dicen que los Cristianos no Deben Estar Deprimidos

Pastor Cordova's piece is written in Spanish and I have translated it into Spanish; my piece is written in English and translated to Spanish as a courtesy to Spanish-speaking readers. 

Por cuanto la DEPRESION no tiene causa orgánica; es muy poco lo que la medicina (anti-depresivos; y otros medios) pueden hacer. Atacan los síntomas; pero no van a la raíz; que en última instancia es el pecado. Una persona, sea creyente o no; que no asume sus responsabilidades; peca contra Dios. Un patrón no va a excusar a su empleado que le diga:" Hoy no voy a trabajar porque me siento deprimido".

         Culpar a otros por nuestras conductas pecaminosas no es nada nuevo: "La serpiente me engañó, la mujer que me diste…nuestros primeros padres querían evadir su responsabilidad. Dios les dijo: ¿QUE HICISTES? No bebamos las inútiles teorías de muchos "profesionales" en relación a este asunto. El deprimido puede ser ayudado por los recursos del consejo divino. El semblante de Caín decayó (Gen.4:5) cuando mató a Abel. Estaba deprimido por su pecado. Dios no le excusó; en esencia le digo que era lo que tenía que hacer para salir de ese siclo: "Si bien hicieres, ¿no serás enaltecido? v.7. "Asume tu responsabilidad, Cain arrepiéntete y serás restaurado. No pequemos contra Dios pensando que un psicólogo inconverso tiene más recursos que nosotros para ayudar al deprimido. Tenemos el Espíritu de Dios y los recursos de Su Palabra.

                Because depression has no organic cause, there is very little that medicine (antidepressants, y other methods) can do. They attack the symptoms, but they don’t go to the root, which ultimately is sin. A person who, whether a believer or not, doesn't assume his/her responsibilities, sins against God. A boss is not going to excuse his/her employee that says “Today I’m not going to work because I feel depressed.”

Blaming others for our own sinful conduct is nothing new: “The serpent deceived me, the woman gave me…” Our original parents wanted to shirk their responsibility. God told them, “What did you do?” Let’s not drink in the useless theories of many “professionals” in relation to this matter. The depressed person can be helped by the resources of divine counsel. Cain’s demeanor got worse when he killed Abel. He was depressed because of his sin. God did not excuse him; in essence, He told him what he had to do in order to escape that cycle: “If you do what is right, will you not be lifted up?” Assume your responsibility, Cain, repent and you will be restored. Let’s not sin against God thinking that an unbelieving psychologist has more resources than us in order to help the depressed person. We have the Spirit of God and the resources of His word.

Here’s where I’d like to start: how can you say that depression has no organic cause? There is a mountain of research that indicates that depression can be caused by neurotransmitter imbalance in the brain. Sure, some people experience depression because they did something that they feel guilty about, but that’s certainly not true of everyone. Or what about someone who begins to suffer from depression after someone close to them dies? How did that person sin? Surely the loss of a meaningful loving relationship isn’t a sin.

I will agree with Pastor Cordova that pharmaceuticals alleviate the symptoms of depression without fixing the root of it, but that’s not true for everyone. I have met people whose depression has been managed so well with antidepressants to the point that they no longer experience symptoms of depression. I’m sure one could make the argument that those people are simply using drugs to deceive themselves, but that’s not proof that medications can’t eradicate depression.

Now we come to the point with which I have the most contention: Depression is caused by sin? I can see how you would think that, especially if your experience is that depression pulls people away from God, but I wholeheartedly disagree with the assertion that depression is caused by sin. As many of you know, I have suffered from chronic depression since 2008. I take antidepressants each morning, and I go to counseling with a wonderful psychologist (who is also a Christian) three to four times a month. I have a problem with people that say that I am depressed because of my sin. I admit that I am a sinner and that there’s nothing I can do to save myself from that. But what am I supposed to have done that has caused me to feel this way for so long?

The example of an employee who calls in depressed to work shows that Pastor Cordova has little to no understanding of the true nature of depression. As I have written before, depression is not simply feeling sad. It’s a condition that can decimate a person’s will to live. It can put a person flat on his or her back just as effectively as pneumonia can. It may be the common cold of mental illness, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not an intense, painful, and dangerous disease.

I find it somewhat unfortunate that Pastor Cordova needs to refer to doctors and psychologists as “professionals” with the quotation marks. Have those people not gone to school for many years, worked many internships, and earned the right to be considered professionals, no quotation marks? Pastors go to school, obtain graduate degrees, work internships, and must be ordained in order to be pastors. Just because you think their science is faulty does not mean that they do not deserve respect for what they have accomplished.

The example of Abel’s murder at the hands of his brother is particularly revealing of Pastor Cordova’s attitude toward the relationships between what mental health professionals call the ABC: affect, behavior, and cognition (feelings, actions, and thoughts). According to Pastor Cordova’s interpretation of the account in Genesis, Cain experienced depression after killing his brother. This is an example of behavior influencing feelings. But that’s not always the way it goes. Some people experience the feelings first with no sinful behavior. That’s how it was with me. I had graduated from high school, started college three months later, worked after the summer at a job I absolutely loved, and had plans to pursue a career in teaching. I was not mean-spirited, I did not step on other people to get what I want, I worked hard in school and at work, I did my best to help other people, and I certainly did not murder my brother. During that period of my life, when I first realized that I suffered from depression, I spent a lot of time searching my head and heart, trying to determine what I had done to deserve this. It took a long time for me to come to terms with the fact that Christians can be depressed just the same as non-Christians. It was almost as if I had to forgive myself for a condition that I couldn’t control.

I don’t believe that depression has to pull Christians away from God. It certainly can; it is a serious condition that should not be underestimated. At the same time, it has the power to bring people closer to God as well. I don’t always feel close to God, but I trust Him to always be close to me. I don’t believe that God is punishing me for my sin with depression any more than God punishing someone with cancer or a miscarriage or fatal car accident at the hands of a drunk driver. And while I know that it was not God’s original intention for me to be depressed, I have faith that He will use it to bring me and other closer to Him. I already see that in my life in my training to be a counselor and my ability to relate to and empathize with other people.

So, Pastor Cordova, what would you say to me about my experience with depression? Is my experience valid, or am I simply deluding myself?

Quiero empezar aquí: ¿cómo puede usted decir que la depresión no tiene una causa orgánica? Hay un montón de hallazgos de investigación que indican que la depresión puede resultar a causa de un desequilibrio de neurotransmisores en el cerebro. Cierto, algunas personas experimentan la depresión a causa de algo que hicieron por el que se sienten culpables, pero eso no es verdad de todos. O pensemos en la persona que empieza a padecer la depresión después de que un querido se muere. ¿Cómo pecó esa persona? Por seguro, la pérdida de una relación significante y cariñosa no es un pecado.

Estaré de acuerdo con Pastor Cordova que los farmacéuticos alivian los síntomas de depresión sin arreglar la raíz del problema, pero, otra vez, no es verdad para todos. He conocido a personas cuya depresión ha sido suficientemente manejada hasta el punto que ya no experimentan sus síntomas de depresión. Estoy segura que se puede formar el argumento que esas personas simplemente usan las drogas para engañarse, pero eso no es una prueba que los medicamentos no pueden erradicar la depresión.

Ahora venimos al punto con el que tengo la más disputa: ¿La depresión es causada por el pecado? Puedo ver cómo usted puede pensar así, especialmente si tu experiencia es que la depresión le fuerza a la gente alejarse de Dios. Pero disiento con todo corazón con la aserción que la depresión viene del pecado. Como muchos de ustedes ya saben, he padecido depresión desde 2008. Tomo un antidepresivo cada mañana, y asisto a terapia con mi psicóloga maravillosa (quién también es cristiana) tres o cuatro veces al mes. Tengo un problema con la gente que dice que estoy deprimida a causa de mi pecado. Admito que soy pecadora y que no hay nada que puedo hacer para salvarme de mi pecado. Pero ¿qué es lo que se supone que he hecho que me causa sentir estas emociones?

El ejemplo de un empleado que llama a su jefe y dice que se siente deprimida muestra que Pastor Cordova tiene poco entendimiento de la esencia verdadera de la depresión. Como he escrito antes, la depresión no es simplemente sentir triste. Es una condición que puede diezmar la voluntad para vivir de una persona. Puede confinar a una persona a la cama tan eficazmente como la neumonía. Se dice que la depresión es el resfriado del mundo de enfermedad mental, pero eso no quiere decir que no es una enfermedad intensa, dolorosa, y sumamente peligrosa.

Lo encuentro un poco desafortunado que Pastor Cordova necesita referirles a los doctores y psicólogos como “profesionales” con las comillas. ¿No han asistido esas personas a las escuelas graduadas, trabajado muchos prácticas y residencias, y ganarse el derecho de ser considerados profesionales, sin comillas? Los pastores asisten a la escuela, obtienen especializaciones graduadas, hacen las prácticas, y necesitan ser ordenados para ser pastores. Puede que su ciencia sea incorrecta, pero no significa que no merecen la respeta por lo que han logrado.

El ejemplo del asesinato de Abel por su hermano Cain es particularmente relevador de la actitud de Pastor Cardova hacia lo que los profesionales de la salud mental llaman el ABC: affect, behavior, y cognition (sentimientos, acciones, y pensamientos). Según la interpretación de Pastor Cordova del cuento en Genesis, Cain experimentó la depresión después de matar a su hermano. Éste es un ejemplo de lo del comportamiento influyendo los sentimientos. Pero no es siempre lo que pasa. Algunas personas experimentan los sentimientos primero sin las acciones pecadores. Eso es lo que me pasó a mí. Había graduado del colegio, iba a empezar la universidad tres meses después, había trabajado en un trabajo que realmente me encantó, trabajé duro en la escuela y en el trabajo, me esforcé ayudar a otros lo más posible, y ciertamente no maté a mi hermano. Durante ese período de mi vida, cuando primero me di cuenta que padecí depresión, pasé mucho tiempo buscando en mi mente y corazón, intentando determinar lo qué había cometido para merecer esto. Me costó mucho antes de que yo aceptara que los cristianos pueden estar deprimidos tanto como los no cristianos. Era como si tuviera que perdonarme por una condición que no podía controlar.

No creo que la depresión tenga que estirar a la gente y despedazarle de Dios. Se puede hacerlo, seguramente; es una condición muy grave que no debe ser subestimada. Pero al mismo tiempo, tiene el poder de hacerle a la gente acercarse a Dios también. No siempre me siento cerca de Dios, pero confío que Dios siempre estaré cerca de mí. No creo que Dios me castiga por mi pecado con la depresión; después de todo, Dios no castiga con el cáncer o el aborto espontaneo y un accidente fatal a causa de un conductor emborrachado. Y mientras que sé que no era la intención original de Dios que esté deprimida, confío que Él lo usará para traernos a mí y a otros más cercanos a Su mismo. Ya veo esto en mi vida y en mi entrenamiento  de ser consejera y mi habilidad de verme reflejada en otras personas y mostrar empatía.

Así que, Pastor Cordova, ¿qué me puede decir usted sobre mi experiencia con la depresión? ¿Es válida mi experiencia, o simplemente me engaño?

Op-Ed: Tragedy in Our Time

It's easy to think, "What if it had been my kids in that school today?" I would be willing to bet that parents across the country, perhaps even across the world, are asking themselves that question. Many friends and acquaintances of mine are parents to elementary school-age children and I know that they are hugging their kids just a little bit tighter before putting them to bed tonight. Even those of us without kids can feel the pain that radiates from Newtown, Connecticut.

Here's a question that I bet none of you are asking: "What if it had been my kid who killed 30 people?" What if it had been your son, your grandson, your brother who gunned down 20 children, his mother, and then finally himself?

For as stunningly common as mass shootings have become, it never gets any easier to digest the news. Everyone feels helpless in the wake of such tragedies and it seems like the only thing to do is rally around the families of the victims and the community. The angry crowds demonize the murderers, clamoring for blood, especially when there are children involved. But before you join that throng, ask yourself this question: "What if it had been my kid?" Would your hate still burn? Would you still love him?

I am not saying that we should condone what Adam Lanza did. He made a series of decisions with devastating consequences. There is no excuse. But ask yourself this: what kind of suffering had Adam endured to this point that brought him to that school armed to the teeth and ready for vengeance? I have to imagine that Adam had been carrying around a lot of torment for a long time; so long that it distorted his entire perception of himself and his world. Was there no one he could trust? Was there no one with whom he felt safe?

It can be easy to blame parents, siblings, bullies, mental illness, medication, loose gun laws, and so many other things that contribute to the creation of the Adam Lanzas. Instead of doing that, though, we need to open our eyes. Adam Lanza the School Shooter was not made overnight. Many months, maybe even years, of going through life unnoticed and unloved brought him to Sandy Hook ES this morning. No one reached out to him when he was at his lowest. And now no one ever will have the opportunity to do so.

But YOU do have the opportunity to reach out to the people in your life who are suffering. You know who they are. If you don't, ask God to reveal to you who they are, He'll be glad to do it. People are crying out for help, each in their own way, and you have more power than you realize to minister to them. Just showing them that you care and that you won't leave can mean the difference between life and death. If you are that hurting person, don't keep it all inside. Reach out. Someone will be there to reach back.

Hug the children in your life tonight. Pray for the parents whose children were killed. And don't forget to pray for the parents whose children have done the unfathomable.

Op-Ed: Let's Talk About Sex

....is the title of the documentary I watched the afternoon.

But seriously, let's talk about sex.

I'd always been a little chicken to cover this topic on the blog, but, like almost anyone my age, I think about sex a lot. It's not like an obsession, or anything, but whenever I see someone get married, I start wondering when it will be my turn. Not just to get married, but also to have someone to be physically close to. I want that so badly. I want to feel that deepest of all human connections. I'll say it: I want to have sex.

Not now, obviously. Not with some rando. But with my husband, whoever that turns out to be.

The documentary spent a lot of time drawing comparisons and contrasts between the approach to and concept of sex in different societies. In the United States, sex is pretty taboo. The media tries to make us think that it isn't, but how many parents are comfortable talking about sex with their kids? Most teenagers are educated about sex by a combination of primetime television, the music industry, and Google Images. I'll admit openly that a lot of my knowledge of how sex actually works and what certain body parts look like came from a series of covert internet searches. I didn't feel comfortable talking sex with my parents, and I figured they wouldn't either.

Europe is a different story. Sex education begins as early as third grade in some countries and it's treated like any other topic of conversation. Sex is not controversial there. Sex is not embarrassing there. I remember experiencing this little phenomenon while I was in Spain. My host sister absolutely loves the show Sex and the City. It came on during primetime, which I thought was a little odd, since every episode has at least one sex scene. My host-nephew would watch the show with us, and Carol had no problem with that. Once, when he was at his dad's for the week, I mentioned to Carol that I found it interesting that Sex and the City was on so early and how easy it would be for kids to find it. She didn't really get where I was going, so I told her about how shows like that are on way late at night because they're considered raunchy and highly inappropriate for kids. She said, "Why? It's just sex. It's normal. Everybody does it. It would be like censoring a show that shows people eating or going to the bathroom."

Interesting take on it, huh? But she was right. Sex is stigmatized in American culture, probably because of abstinence-only sex education and the vocal conservative religious community. Teenagers grow up with the notion that sex is something secretive, something controversial, something wrong. And what do teenagers do when they are told they're not supposed to do something? They immediately want to explore it. And why not? Why take someone's else word when you could find out for yourself? If I saw how much pleasure the people on TV get from having sex but am told by my parents and teachers that sex is bad, who am I more likely to believe? I'd want to figure out for myself who's right about sex and who's wrong. The discrepancy between how the media portrays sex and how parents and teachers portray sex is astounding. Mixed signals fly and kids remain unprepared when they start exploring.

My sex education at a Christian school went like this:
4th grade: The classes were split into girls and boys and the girls watched a video about periods and growing up. I have no idea what the boys did.
5th grade: Another video about periods and growing up, but with a bonus of how babies are made. AKA exactly what sexual intercourse is.
6th grade: Yet another video about periods, plus a side of reproduction, and a Q&A session about sexual processes. I distinctly remember one of the girls in my class asking what a condom was, and the teacher got pretty embarrassed and described it as being similar to a raincoat. I didn't figure out what a condom actually was until I saw the movie Never Been Kissed, which features the quintessential sex ed scene in which the students have to put a condom on a banana.
8th grade: A set of six classes, one per week, about teen pregnancy and STIs conducted by a counselor from Pregnancy Resource Center. For the first time ever, we were in with the boys to talk about such things as chlamydia and semen. This was my first real taste of abstinence-only sex education.

After 8th grade, all formal sex education stopped. We were left to our own devices (our friends and Google) to learn about sex. Oh, the revelations we reached. If we're not supposed to have sex under any circumstances until we get married, then what the heck is a condom for? What would a woman need with a diaphragm? Hmmm, there must be other options than just saying no.

I don't think that abstinence-only sex education works. Adolescents the world over start exploring their sexuality at roughly the same age, regardless of the society they live in. The difference is that some adolescents know how to explore responsibly, and others wind up pregnant. I'll give you one guess where the U.S. falls on that spectrum. The rate of teen pregnancy in the U.S. is more than three times higher than the next leading country because our students are told to simply say no when faced with a sexual situation. Then, when they give in to their hormones and have sex and experience consequences like a baby or an infection, we shake our heads and lament the direction in which our youth are headed.

It's like giving an eight-year-old a box of matches but not a bucket of water. Most eight-year-olds know what matches do and, if given the opportunity, will jump at the chance to play with fire. It's dangerous, it's exciting, and it's just a little bit wrong. If they aren't given a way to put out the fires they start, things can spin out of control pretty quickly.

I think it's the same way with sex. We feed our kids just enough information to intrigue them, and then we shut down discussion by saying that sex is wrong and that they shouldn't do it. Of course they're going to want to give it a try now that you told them they couldn't do it. Sexuality is something that every human being was born with and exploring it is only natural. Unfortunately, they're not equipped to explore it responsibly. We don't teach them what condoms are for, we don't teach them about getting tested and treated for STIs, we don't even admit that sex is as much fun as everyone says it is. If we would just take all the mystery out of sex, kids wouldn't be nearly as interested in it.

Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that sex should happen between two people who are married. But I'm also a firm believer in the fact that you can't actually control what other people do (or want to do). I know everyone says that, but if everyone actually believed it, we wouldn't have legislation about making abortion illegal or that abstinence is the only right option when faced with sex. If two teenagers really want to have sex, a parent or teacher telling them they can't is not going to stop them. It will probably make them want to do it that much more. Instead, why not approach the topic with them from all sides, put forth all opinions, and show them how to exercise responsibility? In Europe, teenagers can get condoms for free from the nurses's office at school or from their doctor's office. Consequently, their teenage pregnancy rates are 1 in 10, as opposed to 7 in 10 here in the U.S. Some people would be horrified by the availability of  condoms, but I think it's pretty smart. They're not going to abstain just because you tell them to. You'd be better off saving your breath and giving them a condom so that they can dispel the mystery of sex for themselves.

If you're trying to discuss sex from a Christian worldview, it's important to not only discuss exactly what sex is and how to do it responsibly, but also just exactly why you want them to wait until they're married. In all my years of school, I only ever heard that the Bible says to wait and that sex outside of marriage is a sin. All that does is make a person feel really guilty about engaging in sex when they're told they shouldn't. I plan to tell my kids exactly why I think they should wait:

To me, sex is more than just a cliche gift that you "give" to your spouse on your wedding night. It's a deep physical and emotional connection that is designed to be shared with just one person. I take that very seriously. I crave that connection exactly because I know how special and important and awesome it is and I don't want to tarnish it by wasting it. It's a sign of the highest respect to save my first experience of sex for my husband. God designed it to be great. The human race probably would have died out if sex wasn't so much fun. Knowing that I waited to experience it with my husband, and that my husband waited to experience it with me, that we respect each other that much without even knowing each other yet...it's hard to describe the feeling that that thought gives me. I say that I can't wait to have sex, but really I can - because someone else loves me and respects me enough to wait too.

I think that if I can convey this feeling to my children, maybe I won't have to resort to pregnancy statistics and nasty images of STIs. Instead of guilting them into waiting with warnings of God's wrath for those who participate in premarital sex, I want to teach them to actually want to wait.