When you look in a mirror, what do you see?

No, you don’t see yourself. You inhabit a body—not a mirror. No, you see a projection of yourself. Similarly, we often project ourselves upon others.

Are you diligent and honest? Then you tend to trust others easily: You project on them the traits of diligence and honesty which come naturally to you. If you are a private person, you likely believe others also keep secrets. Or if you often tell small lies, you may readily conclude others are deceiving you.

Name the trait or motivation. We tend to project these on others. This is familiar and natural. The opposite attributes are foreign to us, so we find these more difficult to believe.

The consequences of these beliefs can be disastrous, for ourselves and others. As a landlord, for example, I lost several thousand dollars when I rented to a few tenants despite signs they were untrustworthy. We all need to widen our vision—to see reality—or our mistakes will multiply.

How can we apply this wisdom? How can we challenge our mistaken projections?

Shortly after graduating college in 1977, I discussed farm subsidies with Mark, a church friend. I had just completed a study of economist Milton Freedman, agreeing with his tenet that the free market alone should determine a person’s income. So I opposed farm subsidies.

Mark was shocked. Why would an otherwise caring Christian approve of farmers going bankrupt when farm prices crash? My friend thought I was heartless, having lost both compassion and common sense.

Mark was right.

Why did I fail to care? Despite my business degree, I was ignorant. I knew nothing about farming. Even more pertinent: I had adopted an ideology which shut out the experiences of others.

I also projected on to bankrupted farmers my history of obtaining work easily. I did not consider the hardship of bankruptcy, the trauma of families losing their homes, nor farmers’ ordeals when seeking another profession.

I needed to widen my world. I needed to listen to others’ experiences. I needed to be thoughtful.

Similarly, many leaders project their limited experiences upon others. One politician, “Edward,” laments that so many receive food stamps. Why not? His family never needed food stamps. Why should anyone else?

Instead of projecting his economic abilities upon others, however, Edward could consider their experiences. What about the millions who earn a living yet, due to low wages, experience the continuing agony of poverty? What about the many millions of seniors dependent upon social security and food stamps for survival? What about the many children who, due to food stamp cuts, have some days each month with little or no food?

Edward projects his economic strengths on others. He concludes the US needs to spend more on the military, so our nation should spend less on food stamps. This is a false choice. One does not exclude the other.

Those in need should not be denigrated or starved. Moreover, the US military currently spends as much as China and Russia—as well as the next ten countries combined.

“Supporting our troops” instead of supporting those needing food stamps is ironic: The pay of low-ranking service people requires $100 million in food stamps and $1 billion in subsidies at military grocery stores in 2014. Severe reduction of commissary subsidies brings hardship to many military families. For many, food stamps remain a necessity.

Edward is not alone in projecting his food prosperity on others: A plethora of political leaders hold a variety of heartless viewpoints.

Sometimes, due to our own projections, we too have uncaring positions. What is true for these heartless politicians is also true for you and me: We need to widen our world; we need to listen to others’ experiences; we need to be thoughtful.

After 400 years of terror, isn’t it time for all Christians to speak out against ‘Radical Christian Extremism?’

Slavery was terrorism: Plantations were concentration camps. The Native American genocide was terrorism: The Trail of Tears was a death march. Hangings by slave patrols and the Ku Klux Klan were terrorism: These murders—often perpetrated or approved by white ‘Christians’—were intended to grieve, horrify and intimidate blacks.

Virtually all who committed these acts of terrorism claimed they were Christians.

This radical Christian extremism persists. Militant Christians still verbally and physically attack gays and blacks, Muslims and immigrants. They justify their hate by appealing to Jesus and the Bible.

Actually, the word ‘Christian’ may not apply to any who perpetrate these horrors. Should terrorists be called radical ‘Christian’ extremists? Their claims of following the tenets of Christianity are wholly false. More than a billion Christians should not be smeared by those committing acts of terrorism. Their crimes are perversions of Christianity.

The same is true of radical ‘Muslim’ extremists. Their claims of following the tenets of Islam are wholly false. More than a billion Muslims should not be smeared by those committing such acts. Their crimes are perversions of Islam.

Many Republican leaders, especially Donald Trump, disagree—along with many voters in the base of the Republican party. Why? Must all Muslims bear responsibility for those claiming acts of terrorism are a legitimate expression of Islam?

This political blame is based on fear and hatred. These are not Christian motives. As stated in I John 4:18, “There is no fear in love. Perfect love drives out all fear.” Also, Jesus insisted Christians must love, not hate, their enemies. He modeled this love throughout his life and even during his crucifixion.

We must contend with our fears: our fears of blacks; our fears of gays; our fears of Muslims; our fears of immigrants. Unchallenged fears result in misplaced rage and scapegoating of ‘the other.’ This leads to verbal attacks and violence against hated groups.

Racism and homophobia are repulsive. Islamophobia and xenophobia are abhorrent.

Insisting all Americans oppose Muslim immigration or be castigated as purveyors of politically correctness is obscene. Yes, we must seek to be correct—politically and morally—but we can only do so, as the Apostle Paul states, by “speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15).

What is the truth? Muslims are our neighbors. Muslims are soldiers serving our country. Muslims are patriotic citizens. And Muslims are no more deserving of prejudice than Christians.

What does love require? We must treat the vast majority of Muslims as neighbors, not enemies. We must respond with compassion to the extraordinary hardships of refugees, including Muslims. We must see Muslims as human beings—people who have far more in common with us than differences.

Love also requires those of us judging others must first judge ourselves. Jesus was explicit: Before taking the speck out of our neighbor’s eye, we must remove the log from our own eye.

Those using a broad brush to paint all Muslims with the taint of terrorism imagine falsehoods. Let’s reject our biases and diligently seek truth.

Moreover, let’s ask to what degree our Christian community is responsible for historic acts of terrorism which executed and enslaved millions. Orlando, San Bernardino, Paris and even 9-11 are horrific singular acts of terror. Contrast these with the multitudes of ‘Christian’ atrocities spanning centuries.

Does evil and apathy prevail among American Christians? Could it be that we Christians really do need to account for the log in our eye?

We can choose to scapegoat those having nothing to do with perpetrating terror attacks. Or we can conscientiously oppose such evil massacres, come together, foster unity, and overcome our fears and hatred by speaking the truth in love.

This 2003 Quoflection is still pertinent for reflecting on our politics and values:

Can we set aside our national, cultural and intraspecies biases? Let us imagine we are Glipsloks from the planet Urduz (though a bit hairy, we consider ourselves beautiful). Using instantaneous googolplex processing, we quickly decipher all communications on Earth.

Our mission today is to educate our galactic neighbors. Please share your thoughts regarding the following proposed communication.

Residents of Earth,

To gain understanding, we Glipsloks are observing your planet. Your ways are puzzling to us. We notice you have 800 million people on your planet who suffer from malnutrition. You allow 100,000 children to die every week from starvation. You say you value justice. But we perceive much selfishness and apathy.

Our survey indicates more than 30 nations are currently waging war. This infliction of misery is confusing. You say you value human life. Yet you are oblivious to the suffering you impose upon multitudes of your fellow humans.

Your linguistic logic is bewildering. Many of your governments declare they are seeking peace—even while conducting a war. We Glipsloks do not understand. Until we heard such reasoning, we had no concept of duplicity.

You have video and audio capabilities that could inform you of misfortune throughout your world. Yet you focus your vision and care upon those like you. We Glipsloks value compassion for all. We see no benefit in choosing ignorance or prejudice.

We observe the leaders of one wealthy nation using advanced weapons to invade and occupy an ancient civilization. They say their purpose is to eliminate the other government’s advanced weapons. Yet they are unable to locate such weapons—while they maintain vastly superior stockpiles of such weapons of mass destruction. This double standard is perplexing.

Some leaders proclaim their love of liberty while advocating laws which severely restrict the freedoms of their citizens. They use these laws to arrest and detain many innocent people. The irony is these injustices are initiated by those managing the Department of Justice.

These leaders also appeal to patriotism, asserting that those who disagree with them do not love their country. Yet their country was founded on the principle that people are free to disagree. We Glipsloks do not understand such treachery.

We are also mystified by religious prejudice. Some leaders reject theocracy—if established by another country—but approve of a “Christian nation.” These leaders say they are motivated by faith while the basis for their actions is fear. How can this be?

They also speak of the evil of the other nation’s president. We see that he has indeed committed numerous atrocities. But don’t those who initiate war realize they cannot conquer evil with more evil? This produces a cycle of evil. We Glipsloks understand that only goodness overcomes evil.

Many leaders trust weapons whose power is puny. True, these weapons can take control of another nation. However, perpetrating violence for short-term advantage creates more problems than it solves. Your saying is true: “The pen is mightier than the sword.” We Glipsloks understand that genuine power is the result of speaking the truth in love.

We must ask you earthlings: Do you not value Peace? Love? Faith? Do you not regard Wisdom? Compassion? Goodness? Do you not cherish Humanity? Justice? Truth? You claim to honor these values. Yet your actions do not reflect them.

Nevertheless, we Glipsloks have hope for your planet. We see a leader among you who taught and embodied these values. He was willing to die, not kill, so you might find life. His risen spirit will guide you—if you follow him.

*     *     *     *     *

My fellow Glipsloks: How would you encourage our neighbors to reflect upon the disparity between their values and their actions?

Are you poor? Have you ever been poor?

In 1981, I faced significant financial troubles. My bride and I moved to Louisville so I could attend seminary. Our checking account, often near zero, required much attention. With low-wage jobs, my wife and I limited our entertainment to the local dollar theater.

One day, a clerical error led to a bounced check. The seminary charged $20. This was a fortune! With this money, we could have gone to the movies ten times.

We were not alone. So I asked the seminary to reduce its exorbitant fine. Administrators refused. I expected better understanding from an institution teaching God’s love for the poor.

Was I poor? I thought so. Now I consider it a ‘struggle.’ After all, time would improve our circumstances and, if needed, both our parents could help us.

Not so for many who really are impoverished. For them, a bounced check can take food off the family table. The USDA reports in 2014 that 6.9 million American households, many with children, had “very low food security.” At various times, their food intake was reduced and their eating patterns disrupted.

This is shocking. Political will has been absent to fully fund the SNAP (food stamp) program. Indeed, SNAP is subjected to repeated cuts by those who insist government is encouraging poor people to be “dependent” upon assistance. Even families with short-term hunger crises must not be given adequate food.

In such cases, government’s closed-fisted stinginess demeans the lives of those whose finances are already far too painful. It’s the same sin as my seminary—only the offense is far greater because our national cruelty is reflected by Americans’ anguish from hunger.

The U.S. has 4.4 percent of the world’s population—but 45 percent of the world’s ultra high net worth individuals (38,000 with wealth of at least $50 million). Yet we won’t feed our own—including our children: Despite our riches, U.S. childhood poverty is ranked 34th of 35 developed nations.

For my wife and me, financial difficulties were short-term. Soon, we would have enough income to save for a rainy day.

Not so for the 62 percent of Americans with savings unable to cover a $500 emergency. For millions of low-income Americans, a safety net is crucial.

Here are a few comments from those in poverty:

Sharon existed on $500 a month for seven years. She states, “I feel rich when I have food.”

Mary Lee had a good income. Her business tanked, so her home is now her car or a friend’s couch. She survives on Ramen noodles and has one pair of pants. Living in poverty, says Mary Lee, is “very humiliating” and she is worn down by “hellish stress.” She explains, “It feels like falling in the ocean and treading water for years…. [Poverty] devastates your ability to function and robs you of your health.”

KC and his wife earn minimum wage—when jobs are available. They avoid anything but necessities. KC states, “Income inequality is worse stress than any job.”

Tania, a single mother, somehow pays her rent while making less than $11,000 a year. Without food stamps, she says, “we couldn’t eat.” With recent government reductions, however, she runs out of milk, juices, bread and eggs before the end of each month. “It’s difficult when one child is only three.”

Despite hard work, many paid at or near minimum wage remain in poverty for years. Good opportunities in America should include a living wage for all.

Everyone must eat. Instead of slashing assistance, it’s time to restore food stamp cuts. Like Jesus, we ought to “bring good news to the poor,” be compassionate, and assist them in overcoming the oppression of poverty.

SOURCES

USDA: http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx#insecure

45% of uhwi/bottom chart shows U.S. has 38,000; print specifies world has 84,500: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-02/its-1-world-who-owns-what-223-trillion-global-wealth

U.S. is 34th in childhood poverty: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

62 percent with no emergency savings: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-are-one-paycheck-away-from-the-street-2015-01-07

Testimonies: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/15/stories-from-thewaronpoverty.html

The fix is in. The President is not elected by 105 million American voters. No, the President is selected by five Supreme Court justices.

Justice Antonin Scalia writes that recounting Florida votes will “cast a cloud” over the election. This is absurd.

On December 11, 2000, conservative justices rule in Bush v. Gore for George W. Bush on a technicality: The Florida Supreme Court is making “new law.” So Florida’s justices promptly submit a revised ruling.

Oh no! Isn’t there still some way to stop this recount? How?

The Supreme Court Five now invoke the opposite finding: Florida must put aside each county’s voting laws on recounts and establish ‘new law’—the same for every county.

This too is absurd. Differing legal standards for each county’s voting already exist. So, using the Court’s logic, shouldn’t Florida’s results be tossed out? No, Al Gore would win.

Moreover, applying one legal standard statewide requires judicial activism and violates states’ rights. Doesn’t Scalia detest such violations of his bedrock principles?

If the recount proceeds, however, Al Gore is almost certain to be President. The reason: Outdated punch-card machines in poor Democratic precincts negate more votes than modern machines in Republican precincts. A manual recount restores legitimate votes. And The Guardian reports that recounts commissioned by The Washington Post and Palm Beach Post document, “Florida ‘recounts’ make Gore winner.”

So the Court’s Republican caucus commits this dastardly deed of selecting their favored candidate. They declare the equal-protection clause of the 14th amendment—whose original intent is protecting the slaves—now protects Bush. This violates Scalia’s ‘originalist’ and ‘strict constructionist’ interpretation of the law—especially since he declares the equal-protection clause should not apply to women.

So much for Scalia’s ‘principled’ jurisprudence. Did he somehow forget Jesus’ bedrock principle, “The truth will set you free”?

The Court’s chicanery continues: The ruling is issued at 10 pm on December 12, requiring the Florida Supreme Court’s compliance by midnight!

The Court’s legitimate choice is to give Florida several days to conduct a fair recount. As they fear, however, Gore will win.

Make no mistake: Democracy dies on December 12, 2000. The Court’s miniature election is a coup d’etat.

This pernicious ousting of President Gore is compounded when Bush appoints two conservatives to the Court which crowned him.

Moreover, the Iraq invasion is highly unlikely with a Gore administration. Imagine: No Iraqi war deaths or refugees; no emergence of ISIS in Syria—and no fear of their terror attacks. The Supreme Court Five bear much responsibility for this widespread devastation.

But deceptions do not cease with Scalia’s death.

In the year 2000, five Republican-appointed justices overthrew a Democratic President. In the year 2016, Senate Republicans insist they will block any candidate the Democratic President nominates. Thus, Republican leaders only ethic is winning at all costs—the ethic of dictators.

A coup for Scalia’s successor is repugnant. Again, the excuses are absurd.

Excuse #1: Time’s too short. False. Since Clinton’s presidency, the longest confirmation takes 87 days. Obama still has more than 300 days in office.

Excuse #2: The voters should decide with the next President. Wrong. The voters already decided, electing President Obama for four years—not three.

Excuse #3: As no president has made a Supreme Court nomination in his last year in office for 80 years, doing so would violate our tradition. Sounds good—except no such ‘tradition’ of waiving nominations exists.

Excuse #4: Supreme Court nominee Abe Fortas was rejected in 1968 because it was the last year of LBJ’s presidency. Again, the deception meter buzzes. Abe Fortas was filibustered because Republicans were outraged with the Warren Court’s decisions.

In this instance, Ted Cruz is deceptive—obscuring Republican obstructionism to justify his own case for Republican obstructionism!

Oh, what a tangled web we weave…

Time for a pop quiz question. Ready? In what year did the U.S. end slavery?

Most agree it’s 1865. Some historians disagree. Their answer: 1942.

True, the Triangle Trade’s enrichment of slave shippers ended with the Civil War. Tragically, however, legally coerced work continued. Some southern states were sly. Police falsely imprisoned blacks, and judges ordered lengthy sentences at hard labor.

“Convict leasing” was legalized. Douglas Blackmon describes this practice as “a system in which armies of free men, guilty of no crimes and entitled by law to freedom, were compelled to labor without compensation, were repeatedly bought and sold, and were forced to do the bidding of white masters through the regular application of extraordinary physical coercion.”

The penal system became the new slavery.

Still, the answer to our black-history-month query may not be 1942. Ready for a shocker? Enslavement of blacks exists today.

The War on Drugs intensified in the 1980s. In just two decades, those jailed for drug offenses increased ninefold. The Director for National Drug Control Policy, retired General Barry McCaffrey, referred to this imprisonment system as a “drug gulag.”

Mass incarceration is aggressively focused on communities of color. Despite blacks and whites having similar drug usage rates, a 1999 Human Rights Watch report states, “Black men are admitted to state prison on drug charges at a rate that is 13.4 times greater than that of white men.” Indeed, black men imprisoned, on parole and probation now exceed all men enslaved in 1850.

Bondage for drug offenses is inflicted almost exclusively on black and brown men. Whites are usually ‘off the hook.’ Even when arrested, whites are more often given alternatives to jail. When jailed, whites’ average sentences are 16.3 percent shorter than blacks.

Enormous numbers of black bodies are placed in bondage, their prison labor extracted, for non-violent drug offenses. Isn’t this a new system of slavery? Isn’t this massive discrimination also subjecting prisoners’ families—parents, spouses and children—to excruciating emotional and financial bondage?

As a permanent undercaste, the black community also suffers wage slavery. Whites’ average household income is 68.5 percent higher than blacks—and the black unemployment rate is twice that of whites. This severely depressed income continually increases economic inequality: Average white families now have thirteen times the assets of average black families.

It gets worse: Black prisoners’ sentences continue after release.

Imagine leaving prison. Determined to lead a good life, you plan to go to college—but you’re barred from getting a federal loan. Or you need a job but, if a black man, only five percent of employers will even grant you an interview. You may be desperate for public housing assistance. You can’t get it. By law, you probably can’t receive any public benefits—including food stamps if your kids are hungry. With all these cruel barriers, what choices remain? Can we see why ex-cons often return to prison?

Again, this discrimination primarily decimates blacks.

So who should correct these many forms of racialized financial rape? Why not the white community which perpetrates and often benefits from black bondage?

The first step is education: More fact-packed articles detailing the destructive impacts of racism can be found at www.quoflections.org\race.

Second, share these injustices with friends and family.

Third, let’s seek legislation ending the War on Drugs (really, the War on Black Men). Let’s eradicate laws discriminating against ex-felons. Let’s legalize a living wage. Also, our nation has the wealthiest white community in history, primarily due to centuries of labor stolen or cheated from African Americans. In the name of justice, we who are white can advocate for long-overdue reparations to be invested in neglected black communities.

Oh, and our pop quiz answer: Even in 2016, slavery continues on a massive scale.

Like most U.S. adults, I have violated the nation’s drug laws.

The year was 1971. A freshman at the University of Michigan’s Dearborn campus, I began smoking marijuana with two of my three roommates. As police did not arrest drug offenders on campus, I never worried about being jailed.

Not so for Clifford Runoalds, an African American who was arrested for failure to cooperate with prosecutors. They wanted him to testify against a defendant in the infamous Hearne, Texas “drug bust” of 2000. A rogue police task force arrested 28 residents on the word of only one informant, on drugs, who lied about his African-American neighbors.

Runoalds was innocent. The drug deals never happened. Still, he was jailed for a month before prosecutors released him. As Michelle Alexander explains in her extraordinary book, The New Jim Crow, Runoalds was technically free—but his life was decimated. Jail time resulted in the loss of his job, his car, his apartment and his furniture.

Moreover, Runoalds was grieving the death of his eighteen-month-old daughter. Handcuffed at her funeral, which was about to begin, police rejected his pleas to say goodbye to his daughter.

Runoalds is not alone. Systemic discrimination begins with traffic stops. National data indicates blacks and Latinos are three times more likely to be searched than whites. Pedestrian stop-and-frisk is far worse. The New York Police Department frisked 545,000 people in 2008: 85 percent were black; eight percent were white.

Prosecutors and judges amplify this discrimination. According to Human Rights Watch, at least fifteen states sentenced black drug offenders at 20 to 57 times the rate of white drug offenders. In addition, the U.S. Sentencing Commission documented that, from 2007 to 2011, blacks received sentences 19.5 percent longer than whites.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics projected that one in three black males born in 2001 would be sent to prison during their lifetimes; for Latinos, one in six; for whites, one in seventeen.

The War on Drugs is an excuse for mass incarceration of black and brown people. SWAT teams do not descend on college campuses. Police do not target the homes of white suburbanites. No, they target poor minority neighborhoods. But as Alexander’s extensive documentation indicates, “The notion that most illegal drug use and sales happens in the ghetto is pure fiction.”

Poor minorities are swept up into the criminal justice system in numbers whites will never face. Those arrested are often unable to pay bail. So they languish in a cage. Faced with many months or perhaps years in jail awaiting trial, even innocent people accept unjust plea bargains. Many serve long sentences on probation—just one misstep from prison.

In addition to 2.3 million incarcerated, more than 7 million people are currently on probation or parole, many for drug or other nonviolent offenses. The fact that minorities are vastly overrepresented in this system means, as Alexander emphasizes, they constitute a new caste, a permanent underclass.

Under Jim Crow, separate but “equal” treatment was legal. This systemic racism supposedly ended in 1954 with the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision. A new Jim Crow has arisen, however, with discriminatory effects even more powerful than the blatant racism of an earlier era.

Challenges to the system’s racism is now barred by court decisions. Alexander concludes, “The legal rules adopted by the Supreme Court guarantee that those who find themselves locked up and permanently locked out due to the drug war are overwhelmingly black and brown.”

Like many young white men, I smoked marijuana. Unlike massive numbers of young black men, few of us with white skin lost our freedom and our families. We did not lose our jobs, our apartments, our cars. Nor should we—but neither should drug users of color.

  “An unfettered pursuit
of money rules. That is
the dung of the devil.”
Pope Francis

The Pope doesn’t care much for greed.

The wages of 30 million U.S. workers cause so much misery they leave within a year. The Economist states this chaos continues because, “The most obvious incentive—more money—is often the last to be considered.”

Often, the issue is greed.

Retail and fast-food businesses also stiff taxpayers. Walmart pays ‘low, low’ wages to impoverished employees: Forbes reports taxpayer assistance totals about $6.2 billion annually.

James Parrott, the Fiscal Policy Institute’s Chief Economist, states, “Wages are so low that 60% of fast-food workers qualify for public assistance.”

What to do? Purdue University’s study concluded that doubling Indiana’s fast-food workers’ wages to $15 an hour would raise prices only 4.3 percent. A $3.99 hamburger would increase 18 cents.

This increase is slight because employee turnover is significantly reduced: Recruiting and training costs decrease; worker morale and productivity improves. With current turnover greater than 100 percent, retail and fast-food industries, on average, lose all employees every year.

This can change. Seattle restaurant owner Jeremy Price says of paying $15 an hour, “It has been a positive change for our staff and our business.”

A living wage is a win/win/win: Employees receive a just wage; employers overcome high turnover and reduced productivity; and taxpayers avoid paying ‘corporate welfare’ for low-wage workers.

The primary problem is greed.

The wealthy counter with the myth: “The rich are makers, the poor are takers.” The reverse is true.

First, lobbyists write laws giving corporate welfare for ‘the takers.’ According to the conservative InvestmentWatch, their loopholes and looting are so brazen that, in 1950, corporations paid $3.00 for every dollar paid by workers; corporations now pay 22 cents.

Second, corporations have stashed $2.1 trillion overseas. This ‘takers’ tax scheme, according to the nonpartisan New America Foundation, eliminated 1.3 million to 2.5 million jobs through 2011.

Third, aristocrats’ paltry effective tax rate on inheritance is 17 percent. The wealthy pay only 20 percent on capital gains.

Fourth, it bears repeating: Taxpayers bankroll corporate profits. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is livid, “It costs this state $700 million a year to subsidize the profits at McDonald’s and Burger King—and that is wrong, and that must stop.” UC-Berkeley estimates public subsidies for corporations’ low wages totals $153 billion.

The greedy rich are takers. Justice requires they pay their fair share—in taxes and wages.

Fifth, this myth states government rewards poor people who avoid work. Actually, nearly 90 percent receiving benefits are working or disabled. The rest have job training or must find work to avoid losing their safety net. All laborers, ‘the makers,’ should be paid wages which escape poverty.

Sixth, poor workers pay significant taxes: Sales taxes; Social Security; other taxes on wages; and property taxes—directly, or indirectly through rent.

Seventh, by spending all their pay, the working poor create demand for more products and services. This demand ‘ripples’ from one business to the next, multiplying business spending. Thus, living wages spur economic growth—and poor workers’ increased spending creates jobs.

Eighth, the system cheats workers. Laborers’ wages kept pace with productivity from 1948 to 1975. Since then, productivity increased 100 percent—but wages for ‘the makers,’ adjusted for inflation, declined seven percent.

The working poor are makers. Justice requires they are paid their fair share.

Wage slavery requires abolition. The ‘Fight for $15’ movement is right: The minimum wage must become a living wage.

Barriers to wage justice include ignorance and fear, but the main obstacle is greed, “The dung of the devil.”

Absent government action, businesses can still win—achieving low turnover and high productivity—by paying substantial annual increases until $15 is achieved. In this season of wonderment and thankfulness, businesses must act with courage and caring to restore dignity and decency.

Rev. Harry Rix has 60 articles on spirituality and ethics, stunning photos and 1200 quotations for reflection available at www.quoflections.org. ©2015 Harry Rix. All rights reserved.

As ‘lone wolf’ terrorism will likely rise, how will we relate to Muslims? Should we escalate wars in Muslim countries?

Samaritans, who share religious roots with Muslims, utterly rejected Jesus and his disciples. So the disciples proposed Holy War. Jesus rebuked them.

Samaritans and Jews detested each other: As to religion, Jews cursed Samaritans in their synagogues; as to race, Jews called Samaritans half-breeds; as to foreigners, Jews walked 40 additional miles when traveling north just to avoid Samaria.

Americans mimic this hatred by reviling Muslims: 56 percent recently polled stated Islam is not consistent with American values. This ignores three million Muslim-Americans, most born here, who cherish this nation.

Enter Donald Trump. He hysterically whips up fears of Muslims and Mexicans. He even retweets that whites are killed by blacks 81 percent of the time—with a black man’s image pointing a gun. The truth: Whites killed by blacks total 14 percent.

Though many differ, some prominent Republicans denounce Trump’s exclusion of Muslims as fascism, or declare he violates American values. RI Republican Party Chair Brandon Bell calls Trump’s proposal “un-Republican, un-American and unconstitutional.”

Sadly, I must also conclude Trump is a white supremacist. The evidence: Trump hates and fears people for their religion (Muslims) and their race (blacks) as well as foreigners (Mexicans).

Trump dismisses Jesus’ teaching to love people whose religion, race or nation is different. Jesus’ parable of The Good Samaritan—not The Good Israelite—was scandalous. Today, instead of The Good American, Jesus would scandalize Trump’s followers with the parable of The Good Muslim.

Actually, Christian extremists have killed and maimed far more Americans in recent years than Muslim extremists. Anti-abortion bombers and “Christian” mass shooters are terrorists. Indeed, the Southern Poverty Law Center identifies 142 neo-Nazi and 72 Ku Klux Klan groups. Christian identity and sovereign citizen groups have also increased.

Still, can we imagine discriminating against Christians as Trump discriminates against 1.5 billion Muslims? Imagine a “total and complete shutdown” of Christians entering this country. Imagine registering our nation’s Christians. Imagine surveying and closing churches.

Hatred and fear of all Muslims is no more justified than for Christians.

The U.S. is not a theocracy. We are not a “Christian nation.” We cannot favor one religion, but must affirm America’s religious freedom for all.

Jesus taught we must take the log out of our own eye before removing the speck in our neighbor’s eye. So consider the 3,000 who died on 9/11 as well as the fourteen in San Bernardino. How horrendous these attacks were for our nation! Now consider the half million Iraqis who died. That’s 166 days of 9/11 attacks.

American deaths from 9/11 are one per 100,000; Iraqi deaths are one per 75. Four million Iraqis—one in ten—are refugees. Iraq is decimated.

We rightly condemn jihad, a Holy War. But our politicians’ moral justifications for Iraq’s invasion begat a vastly more destructive Holy War than 9/11.

Jesus rebuked his disciples’ Holy War “solution” for enemies. Do we agree regarding our wars?

It’s not just Iraq. Many want to escalate war in Syria. Have we learned nothing from our failures? How many more years will we kill and be killed in the Middle East? How many more lone wolf attacks must we endure? Does our unceasing warfare risk another massive attack? Are we really surprised that inflicting great suffering brings retaliation?

The military cannot defeat terrorism. Bombs and bombastic rhetoric continually recruit ISIS fighters.

We must overcome our country’s fears and purge our national prejudices. Recall the aspiration of the Star Spangled Banner’s concluding verse. The opposite occurs, our nation becoming ‘the land of the cruel, and the home of the fearful,’ if we adopt Trump’s dogma instead of Jesus’ teachings.

Rhode Island’s Democratic Speaker on race: “I don’t think anybody in society views any particular nationality as having any privilege over any other.”

This denies the experiences of many minorities. They know whites have greater privileges in education, employment, housing, banking and criminal justice.

Hardships perpetuate one another: Poor education leads to poor job prospects—and these impoverish housing opportunities. Payday lenders scam often poor minorities who also suffer increased arrests, bail, sentences and fines.

Rhode Island’s fourth-grade reading proficiency is 48 percent for whites; 18 percent for blacks; 17 percent for Latinos. Should we blame minority kids? No, students from low-income families score 19 percent, so poor minorities rank far lower than students from white families with better schools.

Financial health varies widely by race: The Census Bureau reports black median income for 2013 is $34,600; Latino, $41,000; white, $58,300. Lasting low income affects resources: Pew Research Center reports 2013 median household wealth for blacks is $11,000; Latinos, $13,700; whites, $141,900. The wealth of one white family equals ten Latino or thirteen black families.

White privilege is powerful. Minority disadvantages are painful—and keep accumulating.

Consider housing. Poor neighborhoods are often minority while upscale neighborhoods are overwhelmingly white. Public housing projects built in poor areas preserve segregation.

Also, mortgage discrimination continues long after redlining. For example, though whites had similar credit ratings, Wells Fargo steered 4,000 blacks and Latinos into subprime mortgages and charged 30,000 minorities increased fees averaging more than $2,500. Predatory mortgage brokers often targeted minorities and schemed foreclosing quickly on the first late payment.

The cycle of poverty is vicious: Poor housing reflects poor income, and these deficits lead to children’s destitute education. Mass incarceration often penalizes offenders’ families with costly travel expenses, bail, attorney’s fees, and phone surcharges. Payday lenders’ outrageous tactics intensify poverty. Thus, poor communities remain perpetually impoverished.

Mattiello affirms the adage, “high tide lifts all boats,” but this comparison fails: While the rich get richer, everyone else’s economic boat has not lifted for 30 years. Indeed, Financial Times reports income distribution so favors the wealthy that, if 1979 levels held, the bottom 80 percent of families would now earn another $11,000 a year.

Could your family use another $11,000 each year? Now consider the even greater loss to many minorities who, compared to whites, already have immense disparities in income and wealth.

Mattiello states, “To a certain extent we have to give particular attention to the minority community,” but also asserts some don’t “take advantage” of opportunities—“and that’s something that I quite frankly don’t understand.” But the disadvantage is understandable: Equal opportunity is a fiction.

It’s not that only some minorities take advantage of opportunities. Instead of implying victims of systemic discrimination are callous or lazy, we must accept that opportunities available to whites are often unavailable to minorities. Need more convincing?

A 2002 Harvard study found whites and blacks, controlled for similar qualifications, had vastly different employment prospects. The callback rate from job applications for whites was 34 percent; blacks, 14 percent. Moreover, whites with criminal records received callbacks 17 percent of the time; blacks, 5 percent.

This is shocking: Whites with criminal records received more callbacks than blacks who committed no crimes.

The Harvard study confirmed 1994 results by Sociologist Marc Bendick, Jr., et al.—but the disparity between blacks and whites without a record was 24 points, not 20.

Many arrested—but not convicted—are also treated as criminals. Harvard study authors indicate these unjust employment denials afflict millions of low-income Americans, especially people of color.

Blacks and Latinos need more than a high tide of nearly nonexistent opportunity: Mass incarceration must be remedied; banking scams need reform; and enormous gaps in income, wealth, education and housing require ‘affirmative action.’

Let’s hope Speaker Mattiello opens his eyes: The evidence for white privilege is overwhelming.

Rev. Harry Rix has 60 articles on spirituality and ethics, stunning photos, and 1200 quotations for reflection available at www.quoflections.org. ©2015 Harry Rix. All rights reserved.