​Last week I posted an article about what some people see in Trump that causes them to trust and admire him.  Their opinion seems to be based on a certain feeling that he has compassion and tells it like it is.  These people keep telling us not to judge, just wait. 
 
I still want to look at this deadly political divide between the people of this country, so this week I am looking at Trump from a perspective that demands data and full explanations. For people on this side of the divide, trust and respect must be earned through action. Obama had to earn trust and respect with these people and so will Trump. Among those who need measurable facts, Trump is not particularly favored. Let’s look at this contrast.
 
Many people say, “He tells it like it is.”  This statement is uttered as strong praise indicating that the man is honest. The data-desiring people want to know what the IT in the above sentence is.  We know many things can be measured.  Many things are like light switches.  They are either on or off. What does that IT mean? We’ve heard him talk about the murder rate.  He didn’t tell it like it is there. We’ve heard him talk about the number of people coming to see him.  Apparently that isn’t the IT others are talking about.  We’ve heard him class Mexican immigrants as thieves, rapists and drug dealing murderers–not even close. Trump may use words that people like to hear or that give them an adrenalin rush, but when we measure and look at the numbers, his words do not match measurable reality.
 
People look at those who absolutely cannot understand Trump and say, “He told you what he was going to do.”  Did he?  He said he would release his tax returns if elected.  Hasn’t done that.  He said he would bring in advisors from outside the power elite.  Did he? No.  His cabinet is full of Goldman Sachs employees, bankers, and Wall Street millionaires. He said he’d come up with a better plan for health coverage than the ACA.  We haven’t seen anything better.  There is no reason he couldn’t propose an excellent plan that allows people to buy health insurance directly from the government based on a sliding scale that takes into account the purchaser’s income just like Washington Basic Health did.
 
What do the data lovers see when they look at Trump’s policies to date? When Trump imposed his travel ban, his supporters smiled and talked about feeling safe.  Why on earth were the data loves screaming their heads off?  Yes, we know that other presidents have imposed travel bans, but not against people who are already in the air.  At an altitude of thirty thousand feet, it’s a little hard to change your mind about traveling this week. Detaining people when they have just gotten off a plane is horrific and violates our incarceration without due process rules along with the fourth amendment to the constitution. The action didn’t catch any terrorists.  At no time were we told of a specific threat that prompted this extreme action. The detentions of people deplaning are still happening, but we still haven’t been given a concrete specific reason why a famous children’s author on a domestic flight was detained at an airport, or why American citizens have been detained, or why respected citizens returning from vacation in South American have been detained and had their phones confiscated.  All of these actions blend into another issue for the data lovers.
 
We hear Trumps supporters insisting that we must get tough on enforcing our immigration laws.  Right.  We are going to enforce laws.  Good idea.  We have lots of laws, like the amendments to the constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights.  Data lovers can get a little picky and prickly about the law.  This is another issue we see as much like the light switch, either you abide by the law or you don’t.  When someone starts violating treaties, seizing property, incarcerating without due process, arresting the press, and suppressing the free flow of data by removing web pages, we have to ask if the light switch is on or off.  We use numbers to say this law is enforced. We count how many laws are violated.  If more laws are violated than are enforced we say the light switch is off.  The laws of our country are not being upheld.
 
Finally among Trump’s supporters we find the Christian Fundamentalist people who say, “I don’t like many of his policies, but abortion is killing, and he will make abortion illegal.”  If Christianity and the Bible are being used to set policy, data-loving people are absolutely going to look up what the Bible has to say about abortion.  Nothing?  What about killing? If we are going to say we are Christian rather than Jewish, we better look at what Jesus said about killing.  Matt 5:21-22 You have heard it was said to those who lived long ago, Don’t commit murder, and all who commit murder will be in danger of judgment. But I say to you, everyone who is angry with their brother or sister will be in danger of judgment.  If they say to their brother or sister,  ‘You idiot,’ they will be in danger of being condemned by the governing council. And if they say, ‘You fool,’ they will be in danger of fiery hell. (Common English Bible)
 
Perhaps the above scripture is why I call the divide between different factions in this country deadly.  Whatever you believe about Jesus, you can find wisdom in these words.  Anger is destructive. We do die a little bit inside when someone calls us a name. We’ve all felt it. Certainly, our country cannot sustain the level of name-calling and anger we now live with. 
 
Last week I talked about those who rely on intuitive skills in selecting a leader.  Other people rely on specific, concrete data. Relying on data is not wrong.  Relying on gut instincts is good, but both sides need each other to make sound moral judgments about who will lead us and what policies we shall pursue. I know it hurts when a cherished belief is questioned, but perhaps if we each take the position of being a student trying to learn how to relate to the oligarchy that rules us, we can find common ground with each other and learn effective means to protect ourselves and govern the whole country with justice.  The alternative to working together might well be that someone can file a proposed amendment to the constitution that expels Washington, Oregon, California and Hawaii from the union.  (Note Hawaii hasn’t really offended this administration, but it is warm, and we like it so we’ll take it with us.) Make no mistake, this hate-fueled political divide will sooner or later destroy the United States of America. 

The divide between people who support one political party over another has long disturbed me.  I have many dear friends on both sides of the aisle, and I don’t like to see them hurt or ridiculed.  As part of my conscious effort to love everyone, I’ve been trying to understand how different people think.  I’m thankful for my friends who have hung in there with my questions.  I know some people have been defensive about my questions. I know many people could not comprehend why I might be asking such foolish questions when the answers were obvious.  The answers to understanding the political divide in this country are not obvious.  On the other hand, our survival may well depend on understanding and accepting those who do not use the same process to understand our world.
 
I’d like to especially thank Jocie DeVries, a wise woman, who has hung in there and tried several ways to explain her thinking.  She is a woman whose judgment in the past has been good, but she is happily a Trump supporter.  (Keep reading.  We’ll get there.)  I know Jocie as a very intuitive person who has learned to navigate this world just fine relying on her intuitive skills.  She explained to me that when she listens to Trump she feels very loving vibes.  Huh?  Trusting Jocie, I’ve tried to listen more with my intuition.  Jocie is right.  Believe it or not, Trump does give off a vibe that feels very kind and compassionate.  There is something boyish and gentle in the feelings he gives off.  This is a real thing.  If one bases their decisions on finding those who give off kind, loving, compassionate vibes, they may focus on Trump’s ability to give off this sweet, innocent energy and see him as a benevolent father type.  Finding kind loving people and putting them in charge is a valid method for preserving our resources and our future.
 
Unlike Jocie, most of the time, I need to calm myself and deliberately shut down some processes in order to feel what is happening around me.  Now, sometimes the emotional drama around me is so high, I have trouble shutting it out, but for something like choosing a political candidate, I take in information through reading, only occasionally attending a speech or watching TV.  While I can access my intuitive side enough to recognize and understand the same things Jocie feels, I also rely heavily on my analytical reasoning skills to analyze the pros and cons of a candidate.
 
My analytical side looks at the meaning of the words and disregards how they are spoken.  My analytical side remembers the rule, “In an ambiguous situation what one person says another is doing, is what they themselves are doing.”  I want data, facts, procedure, who, what, why, where, when and how.  My analytical side is rabidly adamant about social justice.  This side analyses long chains of cause and effect.  I dredge up history.  I read philosophy and religious teachings.  I love science and pull from all I’ve learned, especially about social sciences.  My analytical side requires that trust and respect be earned through actions.  While I can sense the theme of compassion others hear coming from Trump, my analytical side tells me to reserve judgment until I see what this guy is going to do.
 
Working with Jocie and the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Family Resource Institute, I learned the value of her intuitive thinking.  She led us through a massive jungle of agencies and programs as she looked for the right people to give those with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome the services they needed.  She found the most powerful people she could to help us spread the word.  She did an amazing job of sorting through those who could move us forward and those who would stifle the message.  
 
Also, working with Jocie, I learned the value of having a balanced team of individuals with analytical skills.  There were times I wondered if I’d have to post bail for the rest of the team.  They managed to stay out of jail somehow. Maybe Jocie’s intuitive skills sounded the retreat before the cops arrived. Maybe Ann said, “Jocie, I don’t think we should be here.  See those guards watching us?” Working together, we made some good progress in spreading the word about the dangers of drinking when pregnant.  We realized that our balance of skill sets was essential to our educational efforts. 
 
My concern for our nation is that we are not operating with a balanced skill set.  We are divided between those who want data and those who pick up on a certain vibe and go with it.  When we need to be working together, one side calls the other condescending or stupid.  It doesn’t matter which side of the aisle you are on, you are going to get called condescending and stupid or worse.  When the analytic people ask for data and procedure, the intuitive people are insulted that we don’t just trust and they take our lack of trust as a personal insult.  When the intuitive people smile and say, “Just wait, this is going to work,” the analytical people have a melt down because they cannot see anything but disaster.  In this climate it is no wonder the name-calling gets started.
 
I recognize we have experience and history that also divide us.  We have other skill sets that divide us, but for me, the most baffling and understandable division is between two basically different innate approaches to facing our world. Differences in skill set are no more right or wrong than differences in eye or hair color. Recognizing people are different and seeking to validate different approaches to our environment, is the key to resolving all our conflicts.
 
The task of bringing both sides of the aisle together seems impossible.  The drive to reject those who are different and think differently is reinforced on both sides of the aisle.  Yet, really we are one people with different skills.  How can we take that first step toward accepting those who are somewhat different?  Can the intuitive people listen to the analytical people and find that vibe of compassion we carry?  Can the analytical people look at the intuitive people and find the good works that they do?
 
As long as we remain divided, we will fail to reach the level of social justice and economic security both sides of the aisle are searching for.  If we cannot get past these divisions then like in a failed marriage, we may need to go our separate ways.  I wonder how many people are willing to accept the skill sets of others as valid in order to preserve our nation? 

​​I often see a meme on Facebook or Twitter about how many homeless people there are in this country and how many churches.  The meme asks why homeless are sleeping on the street instead of in churches.  There are several answers to the question of why homeless people are not sleeping in churches.
 
The first answer to the question is that they are sleeping in churches.  My own church is serving as a shelter.  Why don’t other churches do the same thing we are? In a sense they are.  To serve as a shelter, a church must meet certain requirements.

1. The church must be accessible.  Many churches are in the countryside or in suburbs that are not served by busses.  Homeless people cannot get to them.
2. Insurance companies demand a different policy and higher premiums if your church is used for overnight occupation.  Somebody has to pay for that.
3. The building must meet certain safety codes. Some buildings that are one hundred to two hundred years, or even fifty years old are not up to code. Now assuming the health department approves the building and the congregation gets the proper insurance, what happens next?
4. Churches are still subject to government oversight. For the safety of the guests. The shelter must be staffed during operating hours.  The staff is usually volunteers.  Many of the volunteers will typically come from those churches that don’t meet the codes or location requirements.
5. The staff must be trained in what is needed at that specific facility.
6. The staff must be trained in handling conflict and high-tension situations.
7. The staff must be trained in the laws of interacting with a variety of people.  They must accept service animals into the building.  They cannot ask what someone’s disability is.  They cannot touch a guest’s belongings unless they are asked to assist.  The list of restrictions and instructions for the volunteers takes up pages in the official manual published by the county for shelter operations. Yes, there is a book of instructions and regulations for opening a shelter.
8. Now, assuming the shelter has met building requirements and trained the staff, they now need some supplies - cots, blankets, mattresses, disinfectant, warm clothing, rubber gloves, disposable pillows, and adult and child diapers.  The list is longer but someone has to pay for all these items, usually members of the congregations supporting the shelter.
9. Finally, the shelter has done all their paperwork.  They have their supplies. The trained volunteers arrive.  The doors are opened.  Nobody arrives. The homeless community needs time to learn to trust a new facility.  Even in nasty weather people are slow to trust a new shelter, but they eventually come two or three at a time then more.

 
In researching church based shelters, I learned that most communities have them.  The church shelters are for overnight stays.  They don’t normally have full services such as social workers, job training or meals.  Some counties allow meals to be delivered but not cooked on site.  Other counties allow meals to be prepared on site if the kitchen is certified as most newer church kitchens are.
 
Pets are often allowed as space permits and if the facility has crates to confine the pets.
 
It takes a huge effort and a fair amount of money for a church to serve as a shelter.  Many people are involved in the effort.  Some donate materials or money.  Some volunteer to take the training and staff the building. Don’t forget clean-up and wear and tear on the building. 
 
So this is what your community churches are doing.  I have several concerns about the justice of church shelters.  I am thankful that congregations do work together to serve our homeless population.  I’ve talked about the many people who work behind the scenes to make the shelter happen.  I’m talking about maybe a hundred people counting all those who donate a few dollars, this is a hundred people giving time, money and materials to shelter our homeless population out of a community of maybe twenty thousand people.  Churches tend to be made up of older people, little old ladies, a few middle-aged families.  Expecting these relatively few people to solve our homeless problems is a social injustice and insulting.  We can do better.
 
Homelessness is a situation that everybody needs to work toward solving.  It is going to take masses of free housing, low cost housing, support services and compassion to solve this problem.  We need to rethink community rather than pointing fingers at a small segment of the community and criticizing their efforts.
 
A few people are doing the best they can.  It isn’t enough.  We should not have homeless people.