Most white people I know do not consider themselves to be racist.  That’s an ugly word that brings up images of people yelling the n-word at little black girls trying to desegregate Southern schools, or hooded Ku Klux Klan members burning crosses on lawns. 

But there is something else which divides people more subtly, someting of which most of us middle-class white people are not so aware–and that is privilege.  What do I mean by privilege?  I mean that we take for granted advantages that others do not have and in fact may be far removed from their experience.  We may even assume that we all start out on some kind of equal footing, and that we, in fact, have been successful because of our  splendid judgment and hard work. 

This reminds me of a New Yorker cartoon that I saw years ago.  Two men are talking in a fancy corp office, and the one says to the other, “And what do you owe your success to?”  And the other says, “I’d say being at the right place at the right time–and being born to the right parents and going to the right schools and having plenty of money.”

We assume certain things, don’t we, most of us?  And those assumptions have to do with class, mainly.  We assume that we will never go hungry.  We assume that we will wear shoes that fit–indeed, shoes that are fashionable.  We assume that if we get in a fix financially, someone will be there to help us out. We assume that we will go to college and get some kind of professional job or other at some point. We assume that if we are not served properly in a place of business, it is our right to speak with the manager and ask for redress.  And on and on.  What we may not be aware of is that huge numbers of people–at least 20-25 percent of the population–never make such assumptions.  Would not, could not.

One summer I went to breakfast with my son Madison in our home state of Kentucky–we went to “Cracker Barrel,” where he had waited tables during the summers of his college years.  The waitress asked me, “Would you like orange juice?” and I asked, “Is it fresh squeezed?” She answered, “No,” and I said I would pass.  When she left our table, Madison chided me: “You’re so elitist!” he said.  “Don’t you know what kind of restaurant this is?  This is the people’s restaurant–of course they don’t have fresh squeezed orange juice!  Look at the prices.  All kinds of people come here to eat, but a lot of the food is cheap enough for poor people.  Fresh squeezed orange juice–I’m so embarrassed!”  Well, leave it to your children to keep you humble.

It’s not that privileged people need to feel guilty that we’re privileged–guilt rarely is healthful or productive.  But we do need to be aware.  Everyone does not see the world through our eyes.  Everyone does not go through the world with the assumption that their needs will be met, and that they in fact deserve to have their needs met.  And what I think I need as a middle-class person may be very different from the needs of someone who wonders how she’s going to put food on the table for her children that very evening. 

With increased awareness, we become kinder, more generous, less judgmental: spiritual gifts which come as we open our eyes to the experience of others, and awaken to differences that divide.

The three national television networks have dedicated 181 minutes to weekday coverage of the Iraq war so far this year.  (Source: NY Times 6/23)  The total coverage for 2007 was 1,157 minutes.  What’s the problem? 

Terry McCarthy, a news correspondent from ABC, said that journalists are being frustrated about getting war stories onto newscasts.  The decrease in the relative level of violence “is taking the urgency out” of the coverage, he added.  Lara Logan, chief foreign correspondent for CBS, said on the Daily Show recently that the war seems to hold little interest for many Americans.  Paul Friedman, a senior vice president at CBS, said that coverage of Iraq is extremely expensive, chiefly because of security risks.  Journalists at all three networks expressed fear that their news organizations will withdraw from the Iraq capital after the November election.

The fact is that there is plenty of violence in Iraq, plenty of drama, plenty of interesting footage for cameras (a number of independent films on the war have shown us that)–and I might add, plenty of serious questions for American citizens to consider, including (1) why are we there? (2) when and how should we leave? (3) what’s happening to the billions of U.S.tax dollars flowing in Iraq, and who is being enriched by this wealth? (4) how are the Iraqi people faring, both the ones who are still in the country and the 2,000,000 refugees who have fled? (5) why are we building permanent military bases in Iraq, and how many? (6) how are our Iraq veterans faring, especially those with terrible wounds of body and spirit? (7) how are the bodies of our dead soldiers handled, and why have we not been able to see the caskets and their coming and going? (8) how is the U.S. viewed by the rest of the world, because of our unilateral and illegal attack on Iraq? (9) what infrastructure, both physical and social, in our country has been sadly neglected because of money spent in Iraq? (10) since we’re borrowing heavily in order to finance this war, who is ultimately going to pay for it?  This is not a definitive list, but it’ll do for starters. 

So let me say this to the networks: do you exist only to make money for your stockholders, or do you in fact, because you own the airwaves, have a responsibility to the citizens of this country?  Yes, it’s easy for people to look away.  Who is going to make us see this war and consider its implications, if not you?  Are you willing to do business as usual while our nation loses its integrity and any hope of leadership on the world stage?  Are you comfortable letting the working class families of this country pay the price of failed national policy?

One reason that the Vietnam war was finally brought to a close is that the ugliness of that war was dumped right into our living rooms.  We citizens needs to know the real costs of the Iraq war, because in a democracy, we are ultimately responsible the wars our country wages.  Your part, network companies, is to have the courage to tell it like it is–whether or not everyone likes the story–and that would include your stockholders.

I saw the film “Lord, Save Us From Your Followers” at the Hollywood Theater this past Monday evening and was surprised to see such a hefty crowd on a week-day night–and all paying the hefty price of $10 to get in.  Judging from conversations I overheard, I concluded that most of the viewers were Christians who were there to learn how to become more effective witnesses to their faith.  I think the film accomplished that goal fairly well.  The problem I have is with the faith itself–that is, the social and theological assumptions of the filmmakers and of the Christian subjects in the film.

Problem #1 is that nowhere do the Christians ever suggest that they do not have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  There is a lot of talk about gays and lesbians–even a confessional booth in which Merchant apologizes for being insensitive to homosexuals–but never does any Christian say that homosexual love is every bit as holy as heterosexual love.  No, what we are given is the old, tired, and santimonious position of “love the sin and hate the sinner.”  Near the end of the film, for example, revivalist Tony Campanelo says, “You don’t have to agree with someone’s lifestyle in order to love them.”

This kind of exclusionary thinking, which in fact does condemn homosexuals as “wrong” and “other,” creates the kind of social context which allowed Matthew Shepherd to be hung on a fence and left to die in Laramie, Wyoming.  Anytime you say to someone, “I love you, but you are a sinner, and I hope you change your ways,” you are placing yourself in judgment of another, and finding the other “less than” yourself.  This is manifestly not an act of love.

Problem #2 was illustrated most vividly by the ministry of Christians to the homeless people living under the bridge.  The Christians washed the feet of the homeless people, gave them food, learned their names, and related to them as human beings.  All well and good.  But consider that these same fundamentalist Christians most likely supported George Bush in the last two Presidential elections, and therefore are responsible for more people than ever before living under bridges and on the street and in shelters, all over this country.  I heard the Christians speak of charity, but no one spoke of justice.  Again, the Christians were”one up” on the people they were helping, reaching down to those in need–perhaps failing to see their own part in the ravaging of social services of all kinds in this country.

When will Christians understand that Jesus is a way, not the way?  When will they show some understanding of the other religious traditions of the world?  When will they “get it” that the Bible is not literally true, but a book of spiritual principles written a long, long time ago by people who were limited by time and place, as we all are, in every age?  When will they have the humility to understand that they do not have all the answers and that revelation is constantly unfolding?  When will they show genuine love by first showing genuine respect for others, though those others may believe differently or love differently?