Got Glue?

 What do Joseph R. Biden, Jr. and 

Maria del Carmen Garcia Rivas have in common?

Biden steps into the presidency with a pandemic screaming almost as loud as those who deny its existence, the economy in viral meltdown and global trust in the US as an ally at its lowest. The Republican administration leaves in its wake a federal deficit historic for both the amount and the speed at which it grew over the past four years – even before Covid. Somehow Biden has to put together a coalition to address this multifaceted crisis with a congress, 90% of whom on Capitol Hill still don’t acknowledge him as the winner of the election held over a month ago. If the Biden – Harris team has any chance of restoring trust in our nation’s institutions and reputation it is going to need some kind of amazing glue. And that is the connection.

Maria del Carmen Garcia Rivas is part of a team that is literally attempting to piece back together a coral reef. We are several decades into the awareness of this tragic truth – climate change is destroying reefs that are seedbeds of life and provide nature’s frontline protection for many of earth’s coastlands. The experiment involves a kind of superglue divers use to literally adhere broken columns of coral back together. Garcia Rivas directs a national park that manages the reef off the coast of Cancún. The process is highly experimental. And if it has any chance of working timing is of the essence. Its success may well determine the fate of places on our planet many people call “home”.

One more name to drop into the mix: Jorge Ramos. Remember him? He was the Univison reporter escorted from a press conference in 2015 with then-candidate Donald Trump. Regardless of how you feel about that exchange, Mr. Ramos has written a kind of “mea culpa” piece laying blame for much of what is mentioned in the first paragraph of this blog at the feet of journalists. Calling Mr. Trump “a dangerous populist, an anti-immigrant bully, and a threat to democracy and the free press,” Ramos notes that journalists “sought constant access to Mr. Trump … and the media aired many of his most mind-boggling comments.” The absurdity of Donald Trump has been “great for ratings,” writes Ramos, “but not for civility or democracy.”

Mr. Trump lost the 2020 election – quite handily. There was dancing in the streets. “The bully had finally been forced out,” says Ramos. But for four long years the racism and xenophobia of Donald Trump dominated the twitter feed and front pages, ripped into the fabric of a nation and broke the hearts and souls of its people. The question hangs in the air: Do Biden and Harris have access to the “glue” that can put it all back together again? Does such a thing even exist? We have to hope so; for so many of us, home and hearth are depending on it.  

Can we have it all?

It was an early hit (2014) for Adele - the lament that was also a threat: "We could have had it all". (Rolling in the Deep.) That's what the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and the Orthodox Jewish Community wants. And that's what a lot of "conservative Christians" want as well - to have it all.

I was the pastor of a local church and a volunteer at the community library. I had been asked to serve on the Board of Trustees for the library which consisted of one room. My election to the board was held at the Town Meeting, during which one of my parishioners stood up and challenged the legality of the proceeding. "With all due respect to Rev. Demers," both a verbal and a physical nod in my direction, "I believe his serving on the library board would be in violation of the separation of church and state." I, in turn, stood and withdrew my name from the running. But really - Violation of the separation of church and state - my serving on this library board?

In a recent piece in the New York Times, Linda Greenhouse writes of the decision by the Supreme Court - Justice Amy Coney Barrett's first - ruling against the State of New York's restrictions on worship attendance. Greenhouse notes that the state had eased the restrictions prior to the case getting to the Court. In other words the diocese had already "won"; but is it enough to win?

"There’s no neutral ground," she writes. "The Supreme Court has become a prize in a war over how far the country will go to privilege religious rights over other rights, including the right not to be discriminated against." 

Putting the needs of others ahead of one's privilege is central to the Christian message. It demands a willingness to sacrifice. It is a profound cognitive dissonance that Christians would be willing to go to court for the right to gather knowing full well that exercising such a right at this moment in history is to put all who gather and anyone they come into contact with in danger. The lack of political leadership at the federal level during this pandemic has been nothing short of criminal. But equally disturbing are the times when the state has taken higher moral ground and exhibited greater concern for neighbor than the Church.

The argument that the cavernous nature of our sanctuaries facilitates safe gathering misses the point. With just under 200,000 new cases reported on Dec. 2 and just under 3,000 deaths (a new record for the US), one would think faith communities who take their inspiration from Jesus of Nazareth would be imploring people to adhere to the guidelines to stay home rather than looking for ways to work around them. "We could have had it all ..." Yes indeed; and when it was all over, would we have gotten what we truly wanted?