Never Walked In High Heels

Not long ago I sent out an email asking for help regarding a dilemma I was facing. Most people emailed me back offering suggestions or saying that they were stumped, except for one woman who was in my masters program last year. She wrote me the following:

“I can appreciate what you are going to do, but it’s only going to result in costing you more money. You’re better off quitting while you are ahead. After all, you can’t change the world, so why do damage to yourself while trying?”

I realize, of course, that no single person can change the world. Indeed it is arrogant to think otherwise. The economic philosopher F.A Hayek once wrote “Nothing has brought as much hell on earth as people trying to make it a paradise.” And indeed, my generation is particularly culpable of running around attempting to justify the action(s) of that behavior by persuading ourselves that if only this one thing was different the world would be exactly as it ought to be.

But I can save someone’s world, even if it is my own. By nature, I am not particularly a small-scale thinker. When most people in college were volunteering to teach a single school child how to read, I quickly found myself working in three different ESL classrooms. The truth is I was never very effective in any of them because I was spread out so thin

.

This, I suppose, is the deity of human interaction, because to change the world simply means to change the world of one individual. Simply teaching a child how to do long division radically changes his world. And when that individual’s world has changed, he is able to press on and teach someone else the same skills which you have taught him. Thus you have greatly altered not the child’s world, but those he taught as well.

Metaphysics talks about a problem which is briefly titled “Possible Worlds”. The idea, though somewhat strange, is rather simple. In this world, my nail polish is bright red, but there are a million possible worlds out there which we may or may not be aware of in which my polish is bright green, purple, orange, or even black. Simply because we are not aware of these possible worlds in our own world does not mean that a world where I have chosen to paint my nails black, does not exist. It just means that in this world, we are not aware of it. When we take the time to touch each other’s lives, and to improve the world that we are aware of, we give each other glimpses of what better worlds, that is what possible worlds, are out there.

The family of a girlfriend of mine decided over the course of about ten years to adopt eight Russian children, all of them related in various forms. When I tell this story, particularly to people in the UK, I often get a comment that my friend’s family “over-adopted” and thus most likely spread themselves so thin that they will never be able to take care of all of those children adequately. It’s true, those children will not have as much individualized attention from their parents as an only child living under the same conditions. I was appalled when someone said “What are they trying to do, adopt all of Russia? Change the entire problem? The entire orphan problem?” No family in their right mind is ever that arrogant.

What they did try to do was change the world for eight Russian children who would otherwise be facing a bleak existence separated from their siblings in orphanages spread out across a massive country. And the parents themselves say that as much they managed to changed the world for their children. But their children have enhanced their world. That’s the way that great ideas work. Someone who improves the world of someone else in need will surely become the recipient of a changed world. And, unlike my friend who insists otherwise, perhaps will so much easier say that worlds, when looked at on an individual level, are much easier to say than we might think.

My cousin is trying to help me walk through his sunken living room. I am tiny and still trying to get my legs under my hips. Most days that fight is a losing battle. He is a foot taller than me and attempts to wrap his arms around me so that I won’t fall. Of course this constriction is too much for my body to bear, and I end up on the floor. My aunt comes to the rescue.

“Don’t help her too much, there is such a thing as helping someone to such an extreme degree that you wind up smothering them and doing more harm than good. Just hold her hand if she needs help walking sweetie, that’s enough.”

Fast forward twenty years and I am watching the very same words come out of a friend’s mouth. She is on TV speaking about the adoption of orphans worldwide. Programs set up by the government are failing these children right and left (it doesn’t matter which government: state government, federal government; Russian; Chinese; they all seem to not be providing for children in desperate need of homes). Individual action needs to be taken, she says this over and over. If half the churches in America would have one family that would adopt one child, we could give a home to each child in America this year. I am shocked. Just one family in half the churches in America? That’s all it would take? Really? I stare blankly at my computer screen doing the math, wondering what would happen if some churches would find three or four families that would want to adopt and fully support them. The calculations in my head are rolling and then I immediately make the leap: What if we started a government program that would take in all the orphans? There are so few of them, surely someone in Washington could come up with…

And now we’re back to the original problem that programs, it turns out, just don’t work and that children don’t need anymore programs, they need individuals willing to step up to the plate and be a family.

When there is a problem of any kind, why is it that our instinct moves immediately towards a programmatic solution, instead of individuals taking initiative? I don’t believe that most people are lazy. After all, many problems we face are so inconvenient to everybody that perceived laziness is sheer naivety. It’s that the lazy solution turns into a much more complicated problem.

Living here in the U.K, I am often struck by how many individuals consider money as a form of charity. Is that it? Is it simply that we feel we are doing something by throwing money at a problem? Government money, our money? But do we really think a simple check can solve all of our problems? In this way of course, writing a check or forming a large program which we support financially but take little direct action in sometimes doesn’t do a whole lot but line the pockets of bureaucrats.

It’s easy to talk about improving the world in comfortable leather armchairs when we have our noses behind thick books and talking about items such as programs in theory. But money, although it has a great deal of power, is also hugely impotent. If you literally were to just throw money at a problem nothing would happen except that there would be a pile of money on top of the problem. A problem with a large amount of financial pools never gets to the core of an issue, changing the hearts and minds of people. It always takes individuals doing something directly, whether it comes from using money appropriately or taking some sort of physical response in order to find a solution. And what are the chances that members of a government who meet behind closed doors and drive Mercedes actually know how to solve a problem when they have never faced it themselves? Not very likely. The fact is my aunt was right. Mothering a problem is not the same as solving it; it just suffocates those who have fallen underneath and are already suffering to begin with.

Recently it was my birthday and I started to think about what it was I wanted out of life during my tenth birthday. I don’t know why, but being a ten year old always seemed to be a special time for me, like it was the prime of childhood. All the books I read and movies I watched growing up, with characters I admired always seemed to be ten year old girls finding secret places that were especially their own. I looked back to a diary I kept during those days to see what exactly I wanted. See, I believe that each of us are built with desires and dreams imprinted on our hearts. These are the goals we are meant to reach for. These are the goals made for no one else but us. When we are young and unaware of the challenges set before us. This is when we are most aware of what it is we were meant to accomplish. As we get older, and things change, then racing for our dreams becomes less simple and we substitute what we were meant to do for what the world expects us to do.

A while back I lost a friend who informed under no uncertain terms that my aims in life were “unrealistic” and “It’s time for you to grow up anyway.” And it’s true, any dream you have as a young woman with a disability today is still highly unrealistic. There is no job field I can enter at this point with no typing skills and manual labor being next to impossible, where my lifetime career would be simple, straightforward, and predictable. Add to the fact that I work in the arts and the entertainment industry, which, according to him, is one of the most shallow industries in existence and you have a road map for someone trying to reach the moon without a rocket ship. He didn’t know it at the time I don’t think, but what my friend was asking me to do was to deny my dreams simply because the world wasn’t ready for them. Is unpreparedness ever a good reason to move on, particularly when it’s unpreparedness not on your behalf but on the behalf of the rest of the world? Would it be appropriate for an African-American fifty years ago to say that wanting to get a graduate school education at an institution like Vanderbilt was not a worthwhile dream simply because the school was located in an area that was still full of racial tension? Are we morally obligated to change our ambitions just because they might be difficult to reach or impossible given the current state of our society?

I can appreciate if someone has a child that is dependent on them or other obligations the strategy changes. Certain sacrifices must be made, particularly when it comes to earning a supporting those who are reliant on you.. But those of us who are able to get by and still repeatedly try to break down the walls we choose to leave standing might not necessarily have the sociological standard course of action. After all, if no one breaks down the walls that are obstacles in our own culture, they will never come down on their own accord. Rather, they will stay as imposing obstacles waiting for someone in the next generation to tear them down. And so, walls are made until someone is determined to make a ruckus and carry through with the demolition process fully.

Dreams are by nature just out of reach, and if they were easy to grasp and lasso down to the floor, would they be worthwhile dreams or just perpetuating the status quo. It is never acceptable to pass on your dreams simply because they are too difficult to accomplish. Difficulty is never a strong enough reason to quit anything.

There was a time when I was very very small, and I did not realize the limitations plastered on the wall. What I did realize was what my dreams were. At about the same age, I would go to sleep and not understand that the things I did after I went to bed and the images that came across my mind were not reality. The next morning I would ask my mom if she remembered flying over the moon with me or dancing with flowers on fairy dust patches. She would look at me and say “That didn’t happen, you dreamed it. It was a dream.” But it all felt so real to me, even after I woke up safely in my bed.

It’s the most vivid dreams, which no one else can see, that inevitably forces you to reach further than anyone without that dream would ever recommend.

“Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” –James Madison

The 188 pulls up to my stop and lowers its ramp. The nervousness in my stomach disappears for the time being and I am momentarily at ease. In my experience there is about a fifteen percent failure rate of bus ramps not opening up. Now I just have to worry about the bus ramp opening up when I want to get off.

“It sure was nice of them to put those ramps on buses so you can use them wasn’t it,” a little old Irish lady says to me. Nice? No, actually, it isn’t nice. It is the law. When people with disabilities chained themselves to buses as a form of protest, it took years for the lawmakers to take action. It wasn’t until five years ago that all buses were required to have ramp access before leaving the depot. And even with that rule in effect, I still can’t get on a bus a large percent of the time. Call the accessible transit situation in London frustrating, hellish, difficult, or even unfair if you’d like. But you cannot call it “nice.”

I’m always a bit bewildered by people on either side of the Atlantic who insist that disability legislation is something nice for lawmakers to come up with. I’m with Madison on this one, it is not the role of the government to be charitable or nice. Establishing justice and securing the blessings of liberty and well as promoting the fact that all men are created equal is not merely something “nice” to do. One is baffled why the subject of disability rights is seen as an as issues hand-outs rather than justice.

President Eisenhower ordered the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army to Little Rock High School to escort nine African American children into having the same education as their white peers. We do not look back on that event and say that Eisenhower was being “nice.” We do not give women the right to vote because it is a matter of social grace. Nor should we promote equal access to public transportation because it can act as a form of alms. Perhaps it is a statement about our society’s views of individuals with physical limitations that we choose to see such issues of inaccessibility as a form of inconvenience rather than social injustice.

The bus stops in Russell Square when myself and the woman alight. I again feel a sense of relief once I reach the pavement and turn to get to my appointment, smiling at the woman out of trained politeness. Looking behind me I see her walking away slowly, dependent on her wooden cane. I can’t help but wonder, as her body becomes increasingly uncooperative with age, if notices that her world is shrinking as well. Perhaps she doesn’t even realize that growing older and loosing stamina shouldn’t result in a smaller world.

Recently, my friends in the UK have been inundating me with horror stories about health care workers taking anything but a patient’s best interest in mind. Yes, I realize that malpractice occurs in America too, and no, this isn’t another health care reform article. My conversations relating the experiences of my mainly able-bodied friends began to make me think about how we, as a society, treat not simply ”the disabled,” but simply the sick, the injured, and the aged as well. Its something even the “experts” can’t seem to get right.

If the mark of how advanced a civilization is how much we have evolved away from barbarism, then surely one definitive measurement of this progress is how we treat the most vulnerable in our society. This, of course includes not only the smallest and the most impoverished but also those whose bodies have turned against them due to either time or condition. And yet, even in our modern age, this level of civility is a standard that has yet to be reached in all but the most exceptional of cases.

This breach of advancement becomes even more despicable when one considers that a breakdown of the human body, in one form or another, is inevitable in all of us. By ignoring or disgracing those whom this breakdown has already occurred in,

what exactly are we trying to accomplish? Perhaps it is that we are afraid to acknowledge that human frailty is everyone’s fate, and the feebleness, the pain, which we see in the eyes of the man lying in front of us from his bed will someday be our own. When we are all faced with our own vulnerabilities, it is within our prideful nature to behave in the worst way possible, particularly when it is embodied not within ourselves but someone else. And so, we go on creating a world which will surly be unprepared for even our weakest days.

For decades, we have made health and caring for those in need of physical help an issue of politics rather than an issue of humanity. Even if we did have universal healthcare throughout the solar system, it does little to care for people in imperfect health outside of an institution. In this way, would the world outside of hospitals and urgent care center be fairer, or would it simply be cheaper to institutionalize the frail who inconvenience us to be dogmatically watched after? If we mean to fix all our health related issues with improving our respect for the frailty of the human condition, both the politicians and the doctors have fooled us into we our much more evolved simply by keeping our weaknesses out of sight.

Of course the words ‘integration’ and ‘rehabilitation’ are words that we hear those dressed up as reformers on the news shows spout out as well, but there are little visible effects of an attempt to improve the quality of life for individuals who don’t have the most cooperative body. Even the most compassionate health care which costs nothing cannot alter the fact that even today, even in the richest and arguably the most advanced and compassionate nations in the world, some schools still refuse to open their doors to disabled children and architects choose to put steps rather than ramps outside of new buildings because the former “looks more traditional.” This says nothing about the countless small issues of discrimination and even hatefulness that occur at the checkout lines or railway platforms.

If we consider ourselves an advanced society we are grossly mistaken. If we think any sort of government act will force us into being more progressive or charitable, we are lying to each other. Those are the changes to a culture which cannot take place by asking doctors to see more people or even handing complicated issues over to experts so we can keep our hands clean. We do a terrible job taking care of people who we find inconvenient in life specifically because we have built a world where their life is inconvenient. But all to often, by the time we realize how inconvenient the human condition actually is, is the time we’ve succumbed to it ourselves.

I’ve been told there was recently a horrific earthquake in Haiti. My pastor tells me the president’s approval ratings are at fifty percent. Evidently there’s been a change over in congress. Supposedly Google and China are at odds. Oh and Johnny Depp is dead (I read that one on Twitter… it wound up being a hoax).

Other than that I have no idea what’s going on in the world. I haven’t turned on the news, listened to my favorite talk radio station, or opened a paper since New Year’s Eve. This was the resolution I made for myself. And so, what I know of the world I get in snippets: the boldface overly dramatic Evening Standard sign, conversations with friends, a headline I happen to see from the paper the man opposite me on the tube is holding or a dubious Twitter feed. There are no images of mass graves coming into my home while I’m eating dinner. I haven’t seen a lying politician for months. And my blood pressure has probably dropped.

This year long experiment has already changed my worldview in so many ways. I can no longer assume myself to be the most jaded one at a cocktail party as every piece of news hits me fresh. I listen to other people and their opinions more, because I cannot offer my own. And once I hear of an incident, it is the principles rather than the particulars which I am left to think about.

But my favorite effect of not watching the news is I see the things in front of me much more clearly. With the extra time I now have, I’ve made an effort to spend it with the people who surround me in daily life. The truth is, everyone’s life is so dramatic that each person could be their own news show. If broadcasts are supposed to inform us about the events that shape our world, why do we not respond with the same amount of passion when our friend finds out that her husband is having an affair as we do when we hear about a politician doing the same to his wife. How can I honestly say I feel pain for people who lost their homes in a natural disaster, when I don’t even bother to understand why a man outside Waterloo Station has lost his?

I’m not even saying ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’ and everything will be fine. The truth is I don’t like the idea of being nice for niceness sake, it becomes another excuse for legalism. I think western society’s obsession with the news can be another form of this devotion to the standards of society. We appear to care about the world around us while not actually looking at the issues close to home. It’s like driving in the desert; everyone is looking at the mountains, which are miles away, wondering how the people there can live in such harsh conditions. We almost marvel at the drama of it. What we miss are the folks who we drive past that desperately need a cup of water. Perhaps we are even on our way to help the folks on the mountainside ourselves. But while this is admirable, we aren’t anywhere close to our destination. The fact is, when can’t even get where we think help needs to be without looking around and seeing first where we are.

How do you introduce yourself to someone who thinks that you ought to be dead?

It’s a situation that probably happens more than I know. I’m very aware that there are people out there who think that disabilities and ailments found in the fetuses of unborn babies should mean that the child is to be aborted. This is becoming more common on a worldwide scale, and there’s other fools like Peter Singer who claim to be philosophers of the modern age, but yet insist that animals have more rights than disabled babies. I am sure I have shaken hands with people who believe this either consciously or subconsciously, or think that having a disability would be among the worst things in the world. I usually do not know that they believe this, and it’s probably a good thing that I don’t. But in this occasion I did know.

My mother was taking a graduate level course last spring when she befriended a young woman named Linda. Linda is from China and there she is a gynecologist. She has come to America to know that she can practice medicine here and yet needs a different degree to do so. A statistical wizard and brilliant at mathematics, my mom immediately spotted her as a potential friend and aid in her biostatistics course. The two became fast friends, Linda being eager for company as she was so far from home. One day my mother showed Linda my picture. It’s from my senior year in high school and I am in a black gown with my hair down long, seated in my wheelchair. On my lap are three books, three hardback old-fashioned books. I forget what they are now, but they are classics. When Mom pulled out the picture, Linda did a double take and immediately asked what was wrong with me. My mother told her and Linda looked at her in disbelief. She said, “you don’t really mean…?” explaining my condition in the precise medical terms that she was taught. “Yes,” Mom said. I do.

Perhaps at this point I should explain that children with disabilities don’t often have the best fate in foreign countries, particularly that of China. If they have the misfortune to be born disabled it is not unheard of for a partial birth abortion to take place, or the child is left in one of the dying rooms that has recently been exposed in China. It’s worst than being born a girl. In a collectivist society, a disabled child most likely means a huge amount of tax dollars devoted to the health of somebody who probably won’t give much of anything back to the collective at large. The fact that Linda was an OBGYN meant that she too had made decisions concerning what children should live and die even while in the womb after amniocentesis. Linda explained this to my mother directly.

When I woke up, my early morning dreams the day I was supposed to meet my mother’s new friend, consisted of debates on partial birth abortions and were filled with images of doctor’s offices and waiting rooms.

One of my main faults is that when people seem confident and put together, I tend to believe them. As a result I afford grace and kindness to the people who seem to need it rather than those who are unaware, or putting on a show that everything is ok. As a result, in sort of a twisted humility, I think of myself as superior because I have no clue what I’m doing. Before meeting her, I saw Linda as one of the confident ones. I envisioned her always wearing a suit unless in her office performing surgeries and exams. She must be put together to strike out on such a limb and so bold a moral stance. I couldn’t think of any of my friends who would agree with her that doctors should have the right to decide who lives and dies before they are even born. I saw her as arrogant, proud, someone who had all her debates and facts in a line and could convince anyone to take her side.

But this was not the case. When I first laid eyes on her, Linda looked like a child, wearing a soft purple skirt for spring. She looked younger than me and still had teenage acne (although I found out later that she was five years older than myself). Everything about her demeanor said shy and humble. When she saw my mom she thrust a green paper bag of gifts into her hands, explaining that it was for both myself and my mother. She was not at all the moral extremist whom I had imagined. Looking at her I suddenly realized that people are more than what actions they take. We’re often taught that actions speak louder than words, and of course this on some level is true. But, was she choosing whether babies lived or died in her office, or did it come from higher up? Our actions are often more complicated than just our beliefs and what we want to accomplish. In a society that lived as hers did, if everyone shared everything, wouldn’t that extend to everyone sharing moral decisions as well? Even what I would consider to be the amoral ones.

So I looked at her again and smiled and said the one thing that I could think to say in such a strange situation. I stuck out my hand and said, “Hi. How are you? I’m Athena.”

There’s a homeless man outside of Waterloo Station. There’s always a homeless man outside of Waterloo Station, and I didn’t think today would be any exception. The biting cold whips around the coats and scarves of myself and my companion. She is older, considers herself a hippie and only wears natural fibers that are organically grown. Her hair turns silver a little more each day adding to the image of wisdom and magic she already exudes. By the time she was my age she was already taking place in college protests demanding peace and equal treatment around the world. I respect her for her passionate views on humanity and her liberal amounts of love.

The homeless guy spots us and smiles, reaching out his Costa cup that has been torn in half and begins asking us for money. My friend holds on to my arm tighter and urges us to keep walking even though I hesitate and slow down to look him in the eye. I smile, shake my head and walk on. “Keep walking. We have a government that can take care of him better than we can. We’re not experts in his condition and problems.”

I’m confused by her statement. Why do we assume, all over the world, that the government will take care of people in need? That the government can make all of the problems disappear? That someday there will be no poverty and no homeless if only we had the right set of social institutions and collective practices? We all have some idea that if just our party, our guy, our religion, our class, our race got into office somehow, that everything would better. And we lie to ourselves about this every election year.

Most people think that my political views don’t include things like charity or giving the little guy a chance. They assume that I’m highly liberal or highly conservative, fitting into one of the extreme poles of the situation. More often than not people say that I don’t care or I’m selfish because I don’t fit with their ideologies about what human rights are or what charity is. That’s simply not true. I believe that human rights are better described as human responsibilities and we as individuals have responsibilities to everyone else, to make sure they can and will achieve the highest standards they can possibly reach. This does mean taking action at an individual level rather than waiting for someone in Washington D.C. or Parliament to agree with us and letting them take it from there. I’m afraid that it is our nature to assume that just because a government has a program somewhere, everything is ok and it is reaching the people that it needs to. I see this all the time in America. People assuming that just because there is a law against disability discrimination that it never happens, this simply isn’t the case. Governments cannot pinpoint specific problems the way we can as individuals, and so saying it should be everyone’s responsibility is essentially saying it never will be anyone’s responsibility. Like everything else, responsibility and the enforcement of justice gets diffused so that nobody feels that they can toe the line alone.

I know I probably pass by too many people in need on the street, not just the ones crouching in the shadowed doorways trying to keep warm, but the ones who need help in my own neighborhood, who have a home and food on the table, but are desperate for so many other things. I assume when I see them living their lives independently and unobstructed by a set of stairs, I assume everything is ok and everything is provided for simply because they have two hands and two legs that work. And to some extent I need to do this in order to get anything done in my life and in order to fight for justice and expand the borderlands of creativity (my two objectives while I’m on this planet). I can’t spend every single night taking people to churches and shelters ensuring that they get help, when I need help myself so much of the time, but I also know that things put in my path, regardless of if they’re directed towards me or just in the obscure corners of my field of vision, they are there, in whatever form it may be, whether it be a physical obstacle or the fellow human in need, to be aware of and to face. And while I might not be able to do anything for him in that moment, knowing he exists, knowing that the situation, the condition of life exists, means that someday, when I am in a position to do so, I may be able to advocate for him, having never seen him again. In this way, it is my duty to acknowledge the injustices, if anything, to stay grounded in reality.

In one of my favorite books, the hero tells his love interest, “nobody gets anywhere by denying reality.” I think of this often, the second I try to avoid uncomfortable conversation or pretend that everything is fine. I’m in the car with my mother and we are discussing this book. The conversation soon turns to the difference between lying to oneself rather than lying to others. Two different categories of sins, in my opinion. The latter we all know is wrong. But the former?  How does one begin to lie to oneself, if he knows reality to begin with?

But we do exactly that. We all hate certain aspects of our lives, our relationships, much preferring to push those into a corner and soothe ourselves, rather than face what are seemingly minor problems full on. I never really understood what lying to yourself meant, until last semester when I was faced with conditions in my home that I really didn’t want to see. However, in my small two-bedroom flat, there was very few options to get away from person problems. What insisting on not lying to yourself actually means is that you have to see what is directly in front of you.

In acting, we call it living in the moment, which sounds easy, but is extremely difficult if not next to impossible to accomplish, both onstage and in reality. It’s better to understand what it means in life by first understanding what it means in acting. Briefly, it means that while an actor is onstage, he cannot be thinking about how he delivered the last line or how he will deliver the next. He can’t be thinking about what he left inside his dressing room or the technical difficulties that arise in the next scene. He has to be listening, in only the matter of the moment. He has no idea what will come next, no idea how the play will end, and at this point in time it doesn’t matter. He only needs to accomplish what has to be done now.

This is not to say that the actor denies planning ahead. Indeed every option that is offered to him by other characters, he must consider the possible outcomes of. But it does mean that nothing exists beyond what is on the stage.

In life, problems resemble a cancer. The more you ignore them or fear them, the bigger they grow. Oddly enough, if you obsess over a problem, the same thing happens. It’s a sort of ontological joke. That is, if you don’t imagine a successful outcome to begin with, if you don’t envision your cancer actually getting smaller, chances are greatly lessened that you will ever make a full recovery. So you must first get diagnosed and then take action accordingly. But denying that there is a problem and denying that there is a solution is ultimately practicing a form of escapism in your own life.

Emily, in the play “Our Town,” says it best when she questions whether anyone ever appreciates a single moment that they live in. According to the stage manager no one but poets and saints are able to even begin to do that. What’s in front of us on a daily basis is without a doubt highly overwhelming. Even looking at a chair and thinking about all the actions and reactions that are going on within the world of that chair on the subatomic level is enough to make your head spin. But, to then try to plot and plan what may or may not happen a month, year, or even a week down the road is biting off more than anyone can chew. All that we have control of is here, now, and barely that. No amount of lying in order to make oneself feel better, safer, and more at ease, will change what actually may and will happen.

Having a disability helps master this task to some degree. You have good days, and you have bad days. Days when you literally can climb a mountain, and days when you fall out of bed. On the good days, you know that there are bad days coming, you’re not suddenly going to be healed and have that be that, but you also know that you have to enjoy a good day when it comes. Going outside for a walk that lasts a little longer. And on the bad days, it means that you can’t go any further before you figure out how to, quite literally, unlock the door in front of you when your hand is shaking from spasms. And then, after you unlock the front door, you figure out what the next step is. And then the next. And then the next…

I was out for breakfast with some friends of mine when I was introduced to an older woman who I knew by association. She was wrapped in a blue-green scarf and she looked really quite fascinating. We began talking and someone brought up the political subject of X. Now for the purpose of this entry, I am not going to tell you what X is. X is a certain national figure, but I will not give you any other details or political associations. If I did, the purpose of the piece would be lost. I like X but X is not particularly popular in the mainstream right now, and I know if I would tell you who X was, I would immediately lose you, I think your reaction would be focused on X rather than on the point of this entry. This is evidenced by the woman’s reaction when I gave my opinion on X.

“I can’t believe you like X! What is there to like? There is nothing to like about X.”

Her response was so visceral that it was shocking! Here I was, a perfect stranger giving my opinion and she immediately shot me down like a schoolgirl wanted to shut up anyone who didn’t believe in her popularity. However, in this response she made it clear that not only had she no respect for X, she had no respect for my opinion of X, and through her ungracious response made it clear that she had no respect for anyone who wasn’t as starkly opposed to X as she was.

Now, had I known her for years, and years, I could understand her reaction, but on first acquaintance it was shocking. It made me feel repulsed by her, and as I was just trying to gather up information about this woman to determine whether or not she could be a potential friend, this graceless display came out, making it doubtful that I would ever want to be her friend in the first place. It also made me question what she valued. Clearly, it wasn’t me. I had commented that I disagreed with her within the first hour of us meeting. That couldn’t have been a particularly good introduction, but later in the conversation she claimed that she was a great “embracer of freedom.” Now, given her reaction to our differing opinions, I immediately had doubts as to whether or not this was really true. Freedom, more often than not, means that people are free to agree with us, but in the case of this woman, she wasn’t interested in anyone feeling free to disagree with her. And for that matter, did she really even respect her own opinions? If she did, surely she thought that they could stand up to my own disagreement and would be able to at least hold her tongue rather than immediately jump all over someone who disagreed with her on a relatively small issue.

Disagreement in my mind is one of the most important and fascinating elements about human relationships. It’s through disagreements that we all become better people, not clones of each other. Our ideas are challenged and refined until they become impermeable and at the same time flexible enough to take on a great many people and relationships despite the contradictory beliefs. If there is disagreement among seemingly educated people, shouldn’t the first question be, why do you believe that, not how could you ever believe that?

I had known her for less than an hour and in that time had seen a single reaction that immediately turned me off from seeking a further long-term relationship. Because of one reaction, one potential friendship was gone.

Everybody knows about the American church in the UK. The second I mention a concept like the separation between church and state, my entire class rolls their eyes. They don’t believe there is such a thing. The irony is of course that the Founding Fathers left the Old World in hopes that there could be a place in the new world where government and religion never mixed. Clearly, that place is not America.

The American Church prefers to throw up its hands and say we’re not responsible for where modern government takes us. How could we ever hope to accomplish our goals with this sort of distrust? The truth is, I think that the American Church, despite its own opinion(s) of itself will prove to be under as much judgment as any other institution, should we ever be fortunate enough to meet the face of God someday. The following is a list of three simple shortcomings, or to use more dramatic language “sins” that the American church will have to answer for someday.

Number 1: A lack of access- The story about Jesus healing the paralytic after he was lowered down through a hole in the roof has particular significance to any church. Despite commercials saying that in churches, sitting congregations have their door “open to all,” a shocking number of churches have no physical access for those of us with disabilities. Many of them hide behind the idea that their building has “historical significance” and therefore is so old that they cannot be made accessible; this of course, given my physical disability, angers me to no end. It’s not even that the building itself is inaccessible, which does irritate me, but the fact that God’s house is suddenly not open to all. Many buildings all over the world are inaccessible to those of us with physical limitations. But if the church is reflective of God’s love and is supposed to be a model of morality, how can they ever justify their existence when they refuse to build a simple ramp to get into their sanctuary?

Number 2: Lack of Compassion- There is a genuine sentiment that suggests that all sinners who have not come to God are somehow inhuman and thus unworthy of value. The way that the American Church has handled the issue of homosexuality is appalling. Forgetting that Christ died for us while we were yet sinners, they then expect non-believers to uphold the morality, which we are only given when we willingly accept and follow Christ. To expect anyone to act like a Christian before he knows the face of God is like expecting a slave to behave as a free man while his ankles are still in shackles. There is an unreasonable expectation that people—all sinners—should be able to clean themselves up for the sake of not being repulsive when they first set foot in church. Thus, whenever people of certain lifestyles first try to come to God, God’s own people shun them.

Number 3: A Lack of Initiative- Here is the church’s biggest fault. Routinely we expect the government to behave like the Church and solve issues that should be of heart and mind with the law. The aforementioned debate on homosexuality is a prime example as are other issues such as the legality of marriage and abortion. The American Church has somehow fooled itself into believing that it is Washington’s role to make laws according to what is moral or immoral, rather than the church attempting to impact lives on a personal level. The influence of day-to-day morality through a higher government surely will never sit well with God. As Christ said, “Pay to Caesar what is Caesar’s” So too did he understand the difference between church and state. The two would never be a substitute for each other. Why then have we fooled ourselves into thinking otherwise?

I don’t know where this idea of the Founding Fathers ever being “Christian” came from, but their Christianity was certainly not of the same ilk as ours is today. If you look at the Constitution it is not a moral document, it is not the Ten Commandments, and it leaves individuals the freedom to behave (both socially and privately) as they wish. The American Church seems to have forgotten that we are a nation made from people who believed that there is a God, a God who gives us the freedom to behave as we wish, in conjunction with those Constitutional liberties. In assuming that America is a Christian nation, the Church has given up its own powers to understand morality, and act compassionately towards others with the hope that the government will take care of it all for them, and in this way the church has aimed for government dependency as much as the America population has.