| Home > Community Forum > Monthly Archive |
November 29, 2005
The President's "Mission from God"
Posted by Father Jake
Tomorrow we will hear the President’s latest vow that he will “stay the course” in Iraq. Why is Mr. Bush so determined, even in light of most Americans and the rest of the world suggesting it is time to end this bloodshed?
Seymour Hersh suggests a frightening reason for the President’s resolve regarding Iraq; he believes he is on a mission from God:
…Bush’s closest advisers have long been aware of the religious nature of his policy commitments. In recent interviews, one former senior official, who served in Bush’s first term, spoke extensively about the connection between the President’s religious faith and his view of the war in Iraq. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the former official said, he was told that Bush felt that “God put me here” to deal with the war on terror. The President’s belief was fortified by the Republican sweep in the 2002 congressional elections; Bush saw the victory as a purposeful message from God that “he’s the man,” the former official said. Publicly, Bush depicted his reëlection as a referendum on the war; privately, he spoke of it as another manifestation of divine purpose…
“The President is more determined than ever to stay the course,” the former defense official said. “He doesn’t feel any pain. Bush is a believer in the adage ‘People may suffer and die, but the Church advances.’ ” He said that the President had become more detached, leaving more issues to Karl Rove and Vice-President Cheney. “They keep him in the gray world of religious idealism, where he wants to be anyway,” the former defense official said.
This is not exactly new information. We have heard of our President’s Savior Complex before. What is new is that now, in light of pressure from all points, including his own advisors and members of his own party, to start pulling troops out, he seems unwilling to listen to anyone who challenges his “mission.”
May God have mercy on us all.
Posted by Father Jake at 08:42 PM | Comments (9)
November 26, 2005
Remembering the Least of These this Advent Season
Posted by Faithful Progressive
Bread for the World has a number of Advent Resources available to Christians who want to hold the poor close to them during the season of Advent.
As they write here:
Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given," Isaiah declares. As we prepare to receive the Christ child anew in this season of Advent, our faith compels us to hear the cry of all children, especially poor children. We must remember that every day millions of children are born suffering from hunger and poverty. Many of them will die of preventable disease.
If we are to receive the Christ child fully into our hearts, we must allow the Holy Spirit to work within us and shape our lives. We are called to take on God's passionate concern for the world's poor and oppressed people. This Advent and Christmas, let us remember with Isaiah that the Child who brings light to those "who walk in darkness" tells us that if we "offer food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted," our own "light shall rise in the darkness" and our "gloom shall be like the noonday." (Isaiah 58)
Amen, and have a blessed Advent season.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 03:28 PM | Comments (4)
November 25, 2005
Mindful of Him: Responding to the Vatican
Posted by ChristianAlliance
By Christian Alliance for Progress Guest Blogger Nathan Nelson
Each Sunday on my own weblog, "Sacramentum Minimum", I post a sermon related to the readings prescribed in the Roman Catholic lectionary. I call this weekly sermon "The Lisping Lector," and I've decided to share the content of my next sermon with the readers of the Christian Alliance for Progress blog this week. I thank the leadership and the bloggers of the Christian Alliance for Progress for the opportunity to share my thoughts and feelings in this forum.
"Would that you might meet us doing right, that we were mindful of you in our ways!" (Isaiah 64:4, New American Bible) When I started thinking about what I might write about this week, I had no plans to respond to the Congregation for Catholic Education's instruction on gay seminarians. I didn't plan on such a response because the Congregation's instruction was not due to be published until November 29, and I did not intend to respond to the instruction until I had the opportunity to read it. As it happens, though, the instruction has been leaked to the Italian media and authenticated by an anonymous Vatican official. I have had the chance to read it, to understand it, and I believe that my sermon for the First Sunday of Advent offers the perfect opportunity for me to respond to it.
As a faithful gay Catholic, I believe that I am qualified to respond to such a document, that a document which is essentially about me deserves some kind of response from me. I go to Mass every Sunday and on every holy day of obligation, I put what I can in the collection basket, I currently serve my parish community as a lector, I have served my parish community in the past as secretary of our pastoral council and as secretary of our ad hoc liturgy evaluation committee, and I have considered the possibility that I may have a vocation to the priesthood or religious life. Most importantly, I love Jesus and I love him in the Roman Catholic Church. I'm not a theologian, I'm not a priest or a bishop, but as a faithful gay Catholic I believe that my voice should be heard on matters that concern me -- matters like this document which will be officially published at the end of this month.
I find it providential that the document was leaked to the press during the Last Week in Ordinary Time, the end of our liturgical season, the week after the Feast of Christ the King. "I was hungry and you gave me no food" (Matthew 25:42), Jesus said to those on his left. Interpreted literally, it is a stern warning that the literally poor must be literally fed; but interpreted in another manner, it is a stern warning to the bishops, those who Jesus has charged with feeding his sheep (cf. John 21:17). It is a warning that they must feed his hungry sheep, that they must be loving pastors to Christ's lambs.
I also find it providential that the document will be officially published two days after the beginning of Advent, the beginning of the Church's new liturgical year. We have apparently decided to start this one with a bang.
The Church doesn't celebrate its new liturgical year the way our culture celebrates a new year on the secular calendar. We celebrate a new year on the secular calendar with fireworks, party favors, and champagne. We celebrate a new liturgical year in the Church by omitting the Gloria, by wearing violet liturgical vestments which symbolize penitence. We celebrate a new liturgical year in this way because we begin our liturgical year as we ended the last one: with a reminder that Christ will come again, and that we must make ourselves ready for his coming.
The readings from the lectionary today emphasize that theme. The Prophet Isaiah reminds us of our sinfulness. He reminds us that if God tore open the heavens and came down today, he would find an unclean people whose good deeds, not to mention our bad deeds, are like filthy rags. Meanwhile, the psalmist cries out to the Lord for redemption, for God to literally make us turn to him so that we can see his face and be saved. Finally, Christ himself exhorts us to be watchful for the Lord of the house, lest he come and find us sleeping, lest he come and find servants who are not doing the job he has charged them with.
In the midst of these constant warnings to be ready for the coming of the Lord, we have the Congregation for Catholic Education's instruction on gay seminarians. It reads, in part:
...this Dicastery, together with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, deems it necessary to clearly affirm that the Church, even while deeply respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to Seminary or Holy Orders those who are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.Such people, in fact, find themselves in a situation that seriously obstructs them from properly relating to men and women. The negative consequences that can result from the Ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies should not be obscured (Instruction Concerning the Criteria of Vocational Discernment Regarding Persons With Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to Seminaries and Holy Orders, #2, para. 3-4).
This instruction emphatically reveals to us that we, as a Church, are not ready for the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, because we have not loved as we should.
Let's be clear on what this instruction means, because there will be a lot of spin in the coming days. It means that men who have homosexual sex cannot be ordained to the priesthood, which is nothing new -- men who have sex with anyone cannot be ordained to the priesthood. But it also says that men who have "homosexual tendencies," meaning men who have a homosexual orientation, cannot be admitted to seminaries or ordained to the priesthood. It is saying very clearly that even gay men who commit themselves to priestly celibacy cannot be ordained to the priesthood because of their orientation, and not because of any actions they choose to take or not to take. Finally, the Congregation instructs that men who support gay culture cannot be admitted to seminaries or ordained to the priesthood, a troubling directive which has the potential to impact homosexual and heterosexual seminarians alike. Not only can we not be ordained, but now we are even being told that straight men who dare to become our friends or at the very least our allies cannot be ordained either.
Much will be made of a provision in this document (#2, para. 6), a provision which allows men who had or have homosexual tendencies manifested as "a transitory problem" to be ordained after that transitory problem has been completely overcome for at least three years. This does not mean that some homosexual men can be ordained. On the contrary, it means that anyone who has been "cured" of his homosexual tendencies for at least three years can be ordained. Rather than being a concession that would allow some homosexuals to be ordained, this is a disturbing blow to all gay and lesbian Catholics.
In the past, the Vatican has affirmed what science has declared, that homosexuality is not a transitory problem with a cure. This has distinguished the Vatican's position on homosexuality from the position held by other Christian conservatives, who believe that homosexuality is a psychological disorder which can be treated and cured. Now, with this new policy, the Vatican has opened the door to an understanding of homosexuality which renders it "a transitory problem" with a cure that can be sought, after which -- and only after which -- a Catholic can fully participate in the life of the Church. The Congregation for Catholic Education's instruction establishes that gay Catholics can only fully participate in the life of the Church after they have been cured of their homosexuality, "a transitory problem."
In summary, the Vatican's policy on homosexuality has changed completely. Previously, the Vatican only discriminated on the basis of sexual behavior, which was bad enough. Now, the Vatican will discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, even though science has reached a consensus that homosexuality is permanent rather than transitory and that it is predetermined rather than chosen. Previously, the Vatican accepted a scientific understanding of sexual orientation, accepting that homosexuality is predetermined and permanent. Now, the Vatican has accepted a fundamentalist Christian understanding of sexual orientation, opposed to all science,accepting the belief that homosexuality is not predetermined and that it is transitory. It was possible before to say that the Roman Catholic Church did not discriminate against gays and lesbians as grievously as other fundamentalists did. It is no longer possible to say that. The Roman Catholic Church has fully accepted a fundamentalist understanding of sexual orientation and fundamentalist discrimination against gays and lesbians.
What is even more disgusting is that these men who have accepted this fundamentalist discrimination are too intelligent to accept it in ignorance. All of the members of the curia, which includes the Congregation for Catholic Education, are highly qualified theologians and philosophers, many of whom are also well-versed in scientific research. Before being elected to the papacy by the College of Cardinals, Pope Benedict XVI was widely acknowledged as the most competent of Roman Catholic theologians and one of the most brilliant minds in the Roman Catholic Church. And yet this eminently qualified theologian, this brilliant mind, has signed off on simple and unadulterated bigotry, knowing as he must that it is simple and unadulterated bigotry. Pope Benedict XVI, his curia, and the world's Roman Catholic bishops have allowed their God-given intelligence to be consumed by bigotry and hatred.
And so this brings me back to my point: We are not ready for the coming of the Lord because we have not loved as we should, as he has commanded us.
I say "we" because this is very much up to us. Our pope and our bishops have a real spiritual authority which comes from the mandate of Christ, but they have no authority from Christ to impose bigotry and hatred upon the People of God. We and we alone are capable of either giving or depriving them of the power they need to impose unadulterated bigotry and hatred upon gay and lesbian Catholics. If we sit back, if we let them do it, then we are just as responsible for imposing bigotry and hatred upon the Church as they are, because we have given them the power to do it. If, however, we refuse to accept this, if we stand up and declare that it is unacceptable, if we resist with our hearts, with our minds, with our words, with our actions, with our pocketbooks, and -- if all else fails -- with our feet; if we show the Church that our spiritual authority, our "sense of the faithful," will not accept this; if we deprive them of the power to impose bigotry and hatred upon Christ's Church which is called to include and love -- if we do these things, then we will be ready, and they will have to account to Christ for themselves. They will have to account for falling asleep, for not feeding his sheep, for not loving as they should. They and they alone will have to account, because we can be ready for the coming of the Lord if we refuse to heed their commands to exclude and hate each other.
Besides calling us to be ready for the coming of the Lord, the readings for the First Sunday of Advent call us to do something else: resist. The Prophet Isaiah calls us to resist injustice and evil. The psalmist calls us to resist the urge to turn away from the Lord's face, to turn away from the salvation he offers us. Christ himself calls us to resist the temptation to fall asleep, to abandon the work he has given us. If we are to resist injustice and evil, if we are to resist turning away from God, if we are to resist falling asleep in our apathy and abandoning the work of love we are charged with, then we must resist the new instruction from the Congregation for Catholic Education. And we must resist it in a way that we have not resisted before, in a way that will make every bishop, every curial official, and the pope himself tremble, in a way that will shake repentance out of them. We must stand up and declare that our Church will be ready for the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, because we will make it ready. May the Spirit move us forward. Amen.
- - -
The unofficial translation of the Congregation for Catholic Education's instruction which was used in this article was prepared by Robert Mickens from The Tablet, translated from the Italian original published by href="http://www.adistaonline.it/">Adista.
- - -
Nathan Nelson is a 21-year-old writer from an extremely small town and a cozy little Roman Catholic parish in the Midwest. Nathan is a convert to the Roman Catholic faith, confirmed and reconciled with the Church on the Easter Vigil of 2003. Nathan currently serves his Church and his parish community as a lector. Nathan is a contributing editor for the Catholic social justice weblog Sollicitudo Rei Socialis and maintains his own personal weblog, called
href="http://exiledcatholic.blogspot.com/">Sacramentum Minimum.
Posted by ChristianAlliance at 03:11 PM | Comments (9)
November 24, 2005
God and Country
Posted by Jesus Politics
The current issue of Mother Jones magazine has several good articles exploring the always challenging connection between religion and politics. Some quotes from one of the articles:
When the Supreme Court, in one of its most important decisions of 2005, ordered two Kentucky counties to dismantle courthouse displays of the Ten Commandments, Justice Antonin Scalia declared that the Court majority was wrong because the nation's historical practices clearly indicate that the Constitution permits "disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists."
The Constitution permits no such thing: It has nothing to say about God, gods, or any form of belief or nonbelief—apart from its absolute prohibition, in Article 6, against any religious test for public office and the First Amendment's familiar declaration that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." From reading Scalia, a Martian (or polytheist) might infer that the establishment clause actually concludes with the phrase "free exercise thereof—as long as the faithful worship one God whose eye is on the sparrow." The justice's impassioned dissent in McCreary County v. the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky is a revealing portrait of the historical revisionism at the heart of the Christian conservative campaign to convince Americans that the separation of church and state is nothing more than a lie of the secularist left.
Religious reactionaries of the 18th century, by contrast, were honest in their attacks on the secularism of the new Constitution. One North Carolina minister observed with forthright disgust, during his state's ratification debate, that the abolition of religious tests for officeholders amounted to nothing less than "an invitation for Jews and pagans of every kind to come among us." The Reverend John M. Mason, a fire-breathing New York minister, declared the absence of God in the Constitution "an omission which no pretext whatever can palliate" and warned that Americans would "have every reason to tremble, lest the Governor of the universe, who will not be treated with indignity by a people more than by individuals, overturn from its foundation the fabric we have been rearing, and crush us to atoms in the wreck."
Thanks to the strong influence of Jefferson and Madison, Virginia stood alone among the states in guaranteeing complete civic equality and religious freedom to all citizens. In 1786, Virginians rejected a proposal by Patrick Henry to provide public financing for the teaching of Christianity in schools and instead passed an Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, which ruled out tax support for religious instruction and religious tests for public office. Significantly, the new law was supported by a coalition of evangelicals, who—as a minority in a state dominated by Episcopalians—feared government interference with religion, and freethinking Enlightenment rationalists, who feared religious interference with government.
Confronted with the Constitution's silence on divine authority, revisionists repeatedly fall back on the specious argument that since everyone took God's omnipotence for granted in the 18th century, there was no need for the framers to make a special point of mentioning the deity. If that were true, there would have been no bitter debates in the states about the nonreligious language of the Constitution. Moreover, this line of reasoning is self-contradictory, coming as it does from a political/religious lobby that backs the appointment of "originalist" judges—those who insist that the Constitution can only mean exactly what it said at the time it was written. It is ludicrous to suggest that men as precise in their use of words as Adams and Madison would, perhaps in their haste to get home to their wives, have simply forgotten to mention God.
But evangelical Christians and freethinkers, who had joined together to write and ratify the godless Constitution, wanted no part of government sanction for a religious Sabbath.
The religious right's attempt to rewrite the history of the nation's founding is not some abstract debate of concern only to constitutional scholars but an integral part of a larger assault on all secular public institutions. If the Constitution really were based on the Bible, for instance, how could there be a valid legal argument against teaching creationism in public school biology classes or adding Bible courses to public school curricula?
Posted by Jesus Politics at 12:08 PM | Comments (1)
Wrapped In The Flag
Posted by Fresh Politics
For those of you who listen to “Morning Sedition” on Air America Radio, you're probably familiar with their “Dog of the Week” segment. Last week's “dog” was Vice President Dick Cheney, a regular recipient. Too bad the honoree was announced before Ohio Representative Jean Schmidt took to the House floor last Friday, or else I think she would have been the natural choice (though I think she's in the running for the title this week anyway).
Schmidt's remarks last week have been well-publicized since she was drowned out in a sea of boos while addressing the body on the issue of a Republican-led resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. In her speech, Schmidt, who recently won a narrow victory over Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett in a special election, referenced Pennsylvania Representative John Murtha, a former Marine. She stated:
“A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body - that we will see this through.” http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051119/NEWS01/511190372/-1/CINCId
Since then, Schmidt has apologized for her comments that created an uproar and a Saturday Night Live skit. Still, it's the same old argument that has been levied against opponents of the war since the beginning. If you were against the war in Iraq because you weren't convinced with the administration's now largely discredited assertions that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, or if you just thought that the weapons inspectors should be given more time, then the implication was that you were too busy wringing your hands about the “what ifs” while there could be another terrorist attack at any minute. You were a coward – not strong enough to protect the country from imminent threats. Remember last year, during the presidential campaign, when Cheney implied before an audience in Iowa that a vote for John Kerry was like a vote for terrorists:
"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney said. "And then we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us." http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/07/cheney.terror/
Before, the remarks were a little more subtle and spoken by those who figuratively wrapped themselves in the flag. This time, Schmidt's words were far sharper, far more direct, and spoken while she was almost quite literally wearing the flag. But it's the same old story, and the same untruth.
What is courageous is speaking out against something that is quite popular. So many Democrats jumped ship, refused to have any real debate about going to war, and happily voted yes in support of the war. In the fall of 2003, when the primary season was just starting, I supported Howard Dean's candidacy for president. Not because he was the most progressive or the most charasmatic, but because he was the only one willing to stand up against the war. At a time when I felt like I had no voice in either of the mainstream parties, Howard Dean's candidacy allowed me to meet others who felt the same way I did. These days, it seems like displays of courage in Washington are about as frequent as unicorn sightings. Politicians can talk all they want, but unless they are willing to take a principled stand based on what's best for the country and not for their careers, then I don't care what pin is on their lapels.
Posted by Fresh Politics at 01:57 AM | Comments (0)
November 22, 2005
Falwell Fights the Grinch, Again
Posted by Father Jake
The Revealer alerts us that it is that time of year again; Jerry Falwell is gearing up for his annual “Save Christmas” fundraising campaign:
Evangelical Christian pastor Jerry Falwell has a message for Americans when it comes to celebrating Christmas this year: You're either with us, or you're against us.
Falwell has put the power of his 24,000-member congregation behind the "Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign," an effort led by the conservative legal organization Liberty Counsel. The group promises to file suit against anyone who spreads what it sees as misinformation about how Christmas can be celebrated in schools and public spaces…
Fanning the Yule log of discontent against what the Liberty Counsel calls "grinches" like the American Civil Liberties Union are evangelical-led organizations including the 150,000-member American Family Association. It has called for a boycott of Target stores next weekend. The chain's crime, according to the group, is a ban on the use of "Merry Christmas" in stores, an accusation the chain denies.
On his show last week, Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly offered a list of other retailers that he says refuse to use "Merry Christmas" in their store advertising…
Standing on the other side of that sand line are religious, liberal and secular organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, whose national director, Abe Foxman, recently bemoaned the religious right's efforts to "Christianize" America.
"This amped-up effort shows how these groups want to push into the classrooms more," said Tami Holzman, assistant director of the Anti-Defamation League's San Francisco office.
"There is no war against Christmas," said Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "There is no jihad against Christians. There is nothing going on around Christmas except these groups' incessant fundraising."
The main Grinch identified by Falwell and others on the right is the ACLU, an organization that has a history of supporting the right of religious expression. The objection, one must assume, from the right is that the ACLU advocates for religious freedom for all traditions, not just Christianity. The charge that the ACLU is “anti-Christian” ignores such cases as Rita Warren’s:
When Rita Warren was told she could not place a nativity scene in front of the Fairfax County Government Complex because she was not a county resident, we (the ACLU) took her case. We argued that all people, regardless of where they live, and all messages, whether religious or not, are equally welcome in a public forum. The court agreed with us.
Michelle Goldberg of Salon removes the façade of this annual fundraising drive masquerading as a noble cause:
Despite Johnson's lamentations, one can in fact offer Christmas greetings without legal counsel. Christmas trees are permitted in public schools. (They're considered secular symbols.) Nativity scenes are allowed on public property, although if the government erects one, it has to be part of a larger display that also includes other, secular signs of the holiday season, or displays referring to other religions. (The operative Supreme Court precedent is 1984's Lynch v. Donnelly, where the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a city-sponsored Christmas display including a crčche, reindeer, a Christmas tree, candy-striped poles and a banner that read "Seasons Greetings" was permissible. "The display is sponsored by the city to celebrate the Holiday and to depict the origins of that Holiday," the majority wrote. "These are legitimate secular purposes.") Students are allowed to distribute religious holiday cards and literature in school. If the administration tries to stop them, the ACLU will step in to defend the students' free-speech rights, as they did in 2003 when teenagers in Massachusetts were suspended for passing out candy canes with Christian messages.
In fact, there is no war on Christmas. What there is, rather, is a burgeoning myth of a war on Christmas, assembled out of old reactionary tropes, urban legends, exaggerated anecdotes and increasingly organized hostility to the American Civil Liberties Union. It's a myth that can be self-fulfilling, as school board members and local politicians believe the false conservative claim that they can't celebrate Christmas without getting sued by the ACLU and thus jettison beloved traditions, enraging citizens and perpetuating a potent culture-war meme. This in turn furthers the myth of an anti-Christmas conspiracy.
"You have a dynamic here, where you have the Christian right hysterically overrepresenting the problem, and then anecdotally you have some towns where lawyers restrict any kind of display or representation of religion, which is equally absurd," says Chip Berlet, a senior analyst at Political Research Associates and one of the foremost experts on the religious right. "It's a closed loop. In that dynamic, neither the secular humanists or the ACLU are playing a role."
As an Anglican, I'd prefer that people not wish each other “Merry Christmas” until the 24th of December. Until then, we are in the season of Advent, waiting with quiet anticipation for the coming of the Christ child. Maybe I should boycott every store that puts up decorations before then? That would be one way to avoid the commercialization of Christmas; just skip gift shopping altogether in protest of the loss of Advent.
Happy Holidays (as in “Holy Days”).
Posted by Father Jake at 07:54 PM | Comments (20)
November 18, 2005
House Budget Cuts Vital Services
Posted by Faithful Progressive
Update Friday AM: Now we have to be heard as the House and Senate versions are reconciled.
House Republicans Eke Out Budget Cut
WASHINGTON - House Republicans sweated out a victory on a major budget cut bill in the wee hours Friday, salvaging a major pillar of their agenda despite divisions within the party and nervousness among moderates that the vote could cost them in next year's elections. The bill, passed 217-215 after a 25-minute-long roll call, makes modest but politically painful cuts across an array of programs for the poor, students and farmers.
For the third time in recent weeks, the Congress had refused to go along with cuts to vital services serving the poor. The latest vote came Thursday afternoon. However, the outcome remained in doubt until the final votes were cast early Friday morning. As the AP c/o Yahoo News reported:
Regrouping with new concessions on food stamp cuts, Speaker Dennis Hastert ordered the House back into session shortly after 8 p.m. EST with idea of getting a vote sometime after midnight on the five-year deficit-reduction plan. The outcome remained in doubt, particularly after the defeat of the one-year spending bill for the Education, Labor and Health and Human Services departments.
Both bills are part of a campaign by Republican leaders to burnish their party's budget-cutting credentials as they try to reduce a deficit swelled by spending on the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina. In both cases, GOP moderates balked. The 224-209 vote against a $602 billion spending bill for health, education and labor programs disrupted plans by the Republican leaders to finish work on 11 spending bills that would pay for government operations and freeze many agency budgets through next September.
This was great news, and I'd hoped this latest victory would hold. How do we explain it? Maybe it was the thousands of calls and letters from ordinary citizens all over the country. Or maybe the Congress read this week's Gospel verse, from Matthew 25:31-46 - Either way, this has left me feeling encouraged. I'll try to update this post if anything changes or if you are needed to make more calls on behalf of the least of these.
Update: Your calls and e-mails will be urgently needed to try to make the best of this.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 03:16 AM | Comments (1)
November 17, 2005
Kinism
Posted by Jesus Politics
Kinism is a very small island in the vast ocean of the Christian Right. Although the Kinist movement is small, it does have potential to grow because of our current religious and political climate. Some quotes from their website:
What is Kinism and Why Does it Matter?
In the attempt to create a One World, Babylonian government, a relentless campaign is now underway throughout the world to eradicate racial and ethnic distinctions. White Christians are the foremost targets of this campaign.
Kinism is the belief that the ordained social order for man is tribal and ethnic rather than imperial and universal. Mankind was designed by God to live in extended family groups.
We at the Kinist Institute believe that our White people have a God-given right and duty to seek their own prosperity and existence as a distinct nation. This is primarily to be achieved by converting our people to the religion of our only Savior, Jesus Christ. Therefore, we denounce the sin of miscegenation as a violation of God’s created order which has permanent consequences for every heritable trait. We appeal to God’s creation mandate of kind after kind. It is the obligation of both church and state to forbid mixed unions according to biblical laws prohibiting unequal yoking.
The Institute gives parents tools for training children in a thoroughly Biblical and ethnically unapologetic worldview -giving moral sustenance to the fruitful family for dominion living. Our homeschool curriculum teaches children to teach themselves, by exposure to real facts, real literature, and real quantitative reasoning. We’re “old school” in our approach to learning, modeling our program on the best practices of an era of the great homeschooled statesmen of early America, not the Prussian model of conformism, regimentation, militarism, and socialist propaganda.
We help families unplug from degenerate humanist culture and plug into a vibrant reality through a return to our roots as a people in Christ Jesus. Just as the Bible instructs, we treat crime AS crime (not a social pathology), and sin AS sin -dealt with best in church and home, as outside civil jurisdiction. This results in a recapturing of the biblical liberty that was abandoned when humanist society began to use law to reform the inner man, which is the work of God.
Kinists call for the abolishment of all non-critical government agencies and bureaus. A short list would include the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, the Internal Revenue Service and so forth -all bureaus not required in the enforcement of biblical codes, the regulation of external trade, national defense, and government revenues by the previously stated means. We’ll work toward an end to the redistibutionist, socialist-fascist cryptocracy and an end to the pampering of the alien.
We will work to end all non-white immigration, We believe that all aliens (to include all Jews and Arabs) should be removed to their own areas and separated in due course from Kinist held territories, without respect to persons.
Kinists reject the false gospel of egalitarianism, which is a weapon of social leveling used by the corporate-civil oligarchy to prepare the nation for rule by international bureaucracies. We believe in difference. Difference that exhibits itself in inequality, sometimes even aristocracy. We believe in “groundedness” in time, history, and tradition, (5th Commandment), in all the rite and splendor of our God-given identity as a people, an extended family.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 10:05 PM | Comments (16)
Saving the Whales
Posted by Fresh Politics
On Tuesday, the federal government decided to list Puget Sound orcas as “endangered,” a decision that has surprised many. This listing gives the whales protections under the Endangered Species Act, including the creation of a recovery plan and the identification and protection of their critical habitat. Meanwhile, over the Cascades and into the Rockies, the Yellowstone grizzly bear is being delisted. The population of the species has grown from estimates of 220 – 320 bears since it was first listed as threatened to over 600 now. Some have hailed this as proof that the Endangered Species Act works while others argue that the Yellowstone grizzly has not overcome all of its obstacles.
It was an interesting day for the Endangered Species Act, particularly in light of recent grumblings that the law should be changed. The Act, started with good intentions, has been heavily criticized and lawmakers have recently discussed making significant changes to it. Even Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior, has stated that she supported changes to the law that would benefit property owners who have endangered species on their land.
Times have changed since the Endangered Species Act was first enacted. Maybe it is time to re-evaluate some of its provisions, although I would never trust this Administration and this Congress (as beholden to corporate interests as they are) with the critically important task of deciding what these changes should be. Changes diminishing the effectiveness of the protection of endangered species could lead to consequences that we are unable to reverse. As a society, we need to pay more attention to how humans impact plants and animals and what we can do to minimize negative impacts for all of us. Certainly human actions have impacted species, from intentional acts (such as overhunting buffalo) to the sometimes unintentional introduction of invasive species to ecosystems around the country (blackberries in the Pacific Northwest, zebra mussels in the Great Lakes, kudzu in the Southeast) which thrived in the new environment to the detriment of the native species.
We have made an impact, and we have an obligation to minimize the negative consequences flowing from our actions. But it doesn't have to be a war-like “us v. them,” “animal rights activists v. ranchers” kind of thing. Protecting endangered plant and animal species has benefits to us all – from the vegan environmentalist to the avid sport-hunter. The protection of species should be seen for its benefits and not as a bureaucratic nightmare stripping landowners of the right to use their property as they see fit. The listing of the Puget Sound orcas may give them a chance of survival so that, in twenty years, our children or grandchildren will be able to read that they have been delisted because their population has recovered. This can only happen if the Endangered Species Act continues to be a real force and not a watered-down version of its former self; a shell of a law that couldn't protect a hermit crab.
Posted by Fresh Politics at 06:08 AM | Comments (0)
November 15, 2005
Pat Robertson: "Dover is Damned"
Posted by Father Jake
Last Thursday, Pat Robertson, host of the 700 Club which claims 1 million viewers, gave us yet another reason to honor him with the title “Worst Televangelist in the World.” It seems the folks of Dover, Pennsylvania voted their school board out of office for supporting “Intelligent Design”. For this “sin” Robertson stated on the air that they had rejected God, and must face the consequences:
I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected him from your city…And don’t wonder why he hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for his help because he might not be there.
People for the American Way have provided a video clip of Robertson’s bizarre statement.
Personally, I’m not too interested in getting into the Intelligent Design argument, although you all may want to engage it in the comments. To touch on it just briefly, I believe in a Creator, and recognize elements of the teleological argument for the existence of God within Intelligent Design. What I have difficulty with is insisting that a philosophical theory be taught as science. Virtually no scientist agrees with Intelligent Design. There has not been one article accepted for publication by any peer reviewed scientific journal on the topic of Intelligent Design. It’s not science.
It seems to be Creationism in new packaging. If it is an attempt to force folks to believe God created everything in six days, then it is an absurd proposition. As an attempt to expand on Aristotle’s Prime Mover or Aquinas’ fifth proof of God’s existence, it may be a valid exploration. But, in light of the strong support ID has from the fundamentalists, I suspect that it is nothing more than a stealth attempt to sneak the bible back into the public schools.
As a non-scientist and a lightweight theologian, what is my opinion? I think that the creative act of God never ended. God continues to make all things new. One way this happens is through evolution. Consequently, since I believe in a Creator and evolution, I’ve really never understood what all the fuss was about.
But let me return to Pat Robertson, and leave the theological and scientific arguments to those who feel they are important. Keep in mind that this is not the first time Robertson has made such outrageous statements on the air. A few months ago, he called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. In 1998, he warned of hurricanes, earthquakes and terrorist bombs hitting Orlando, Florida for their support of sexual diversity. This man would be a joke, except for one thing; people believe him, and even follow him. When he ran for President in 1988, he came in second in the Iowa caucuses.
This man claims to be an ambassador of Christ. His show is aired around the world every day and is translated into over 70 languages. And we wonder why so many people think Christianity is simply not an option anymore.
Posted by Father Jake at 08:03 PM | Comments (6)
November 14, 2005
Impeach the President
Posted by Public Theologian
The Bush 43 administration is dead in the water, politically speaking, and is not going to be revived. Mortally wounded by self-inflicted scandals, record deficits, a costly and unpopular war, as well as a horrible response to the worst national disaster in American history have finished this presidency just over a year from when Bush claimed he had a mandate from voters. Oh, what a difference a year makes.
Unfortunately, we still have to live with his brain dead form for the next three years.
Some pundits have pointed out that Clinton came back after Lewinsky and so we should count Bush out of it just yet. But as Atrios noted on his blog this week, the lowest approval rating Clinton had post-Lewinsky was 57%. 57% is what you get when you give your people peace and prosperity. 36%, which is Bush’s current approval rating, is what you get when you give your people poverty and war.
The most important thing to be focused on right now is the 2006 elections. The current Congress is as corrupt as its head and needs a thorough cleansing from reform-minded individuals. The first order of business after the next election ought to be the preparation of articles of impeachment against the empty suit currently living in the White House for lying to the American people about the war on Iraq and for violating our nation’s laws by condoning the torture of detainees.
I am not the first to suggest this, of course. Last week, in the Nelson Report, a very strong case was made for impeachment on the latter score. Frank Rich pointed out in yesterday’s New York Times that the secret prisons in (eastern Europe which were exposed last week by the Washington Post) are more like the Soviet rule we were supposedly committed to wiping off the planet than they are to the democratic ideals of our society, to say nothing of their sheer illegality. Yet, incredibly, some on the left are resisting calls for such an impeachment of Bush. This weekend, for example, a diary on Daily Kos suggested that impeachment proceedings would be misguided, given what happened in the state of Connecticut, in which the sitting governor was ousted only to be replaced by a reformist lieutenant Governor who now had astronomically high approval ratings and would likely be re-elected. The diarist seems to think that this would be a bad thing. Now I have no interest in helping the right wing win elections, but the fact is that I am not so wedded to the Democratic Party that I want to see three more years of the kind of destruction wrought on this country that we have had in the previous five. Any serious Christian is going to want to end the killing of American soldiers in Iraq (averaging about 800 a year), the staggering deficits, (averaging more than $300 billion a year), and the torture chambers, at the very least as soon as possible. I don’t care for right wing politics, but the Bush administration is not simply distasteful, it is destructive. They have eroded the foundations of democracy by lying to the electorate, by damaging our standing with the rest of the world, by bankrupting our finances, by overextending our military and by co-opting the press. Any kind of change for the better in any of these areas, even if it was brought by a Republican that replaced Bush (Cheney or Hastert) should welcomed by all who care about the continuance of a thriving democracy in this country. These guys may not seem much better but light a fire under the American people via their representatives in Congress and I’ll wager that even these two guys will start working towards good government.
The drumbeat for impeachment should begin in earnest right now and should be directed in the form of pointed questions to any candidates for Congress in either party. They should find out from the people well in advance of the election that their chances of victory will be tethered to their responses regarding their willingness to fully investigate the President and his actions surrounding the war and the torture apparatus. Anyone who stands in the way of such an investigation and potential impeachment ought to be swept aside, irrespective of their views on other matters or their previous service to either party. This issue is too big to be swept aside or ignored any longer. The future of our society is at stake.
Posted by Public Theologian at 12:08 AM | Comments (8)
November 10, 2005
Faith and Politics and this Week's Election Results
Posted by Faithful Progressive
The election results this past week were very encouraging to some Christians but caused others to make veiled threats and advise people not to trust in God's mercy and forgiveness. Voters in Dover, PA, decisively rejected all 8 school board members who supported teaching so-called “Intelligent Design.” This caused Rev. Pat Robertson to actually counsel the good people of Dover “not to turn to God” if they should face troubles in their life. Video Here. Wow, I can't imagine any political development ever causing any of the tremendous clergy I have known to issue this kind of cynical, veiled threat to people--or still less to counsel them "not to turn to God." Isn't getting people to turn to God the whole point of being a Minister?
Whatever our feelings about Intelligent Design, they are our feelings and not those of God. It is the height of human arrogance to presume to speak for God. Personally, as a believer, I hope that some day something like Intelligent Design emerges as established science. It would be wonderful if our best science pointed us back to God the Creator. But we are nowhere near there yet. Intelligent Design is at present a very crude and un-scientific projection of these hopes for proof of God into the science classes of our children and those of people who do not share either these hopes or our beliefs. So I understand and applaud the people of Dover for taking junk-science out of their classrooms. Beyond this, even if Robertson is right and they are wrong, his advice for them not to turn to God is fundamentally flawed.
In the Christian Bible, we learn that God is loving and that people should be, too--perhaps even to the point of forgiving a person seventy times seven. (Matthew 18:21-22) That is the Bible that I love, not the twisted and mean version offered up by Rev. Robertson. Fortunately, another view of a person of faith also played a prominent part in this week's election results. In Robertson's own state of Virginia, progressive Catholic Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine proudly described his vision of Christian values. There is no question that voters were attracted to his sincere and open statement of his own values, and his unwillingness to impose his own values on others.
As EJ Dionne wrote in yesterday's Washington Post:
(I)t was Kaine who won with a notably innovative campaign. Democrats all over the country will study how this devout Catholic explained his opposition to the death penalty as a matter of deep religious concern. The strangest thing is that because the death penalty issue encouraged Kaine to talk about his faith, it may have helped him with conservative voters.
"This is a very good proving ground for the belief that Democrats can talk about values and their faith and it will make a difference," said Karl Struble, a top Kaine adviser.
David Eichenbaum, another Kaine adviser, noted how faith immunized Kaine from the dreaded L-word. Focus groups were shown "the worst attacks against Tim that they would use to make him into a big bad liberal." The groups were then shown footage of Kaine "talking about the importance to him of his religious values and convictions." The result? "Almost to a person, they would say that he must be a moderate or a conservative, and that he couldn't be a liberal."
...So, yes, Tuesday's elections will be seen as a rebuke to Bush. But they may be more important as the moment Democrats finally figured out how to talk without embarrassment about God and the practical uses of government.
Though Gov.-elect Kaine happens to be a Democrat, this should not be read as a matter of partisan politics. Personally, I don't care if a candidate is a Democrat or a Republican, or a Green or a Purple, so long as they support what I understand to be the Gospel vision of Christian values. But whether this vision succeeds or not in individual elections, I intend to continue turning to God, and trust that God will be there. Whatever our politics, let's hope that our faith is something that sustains us well past the latest election results or other events of the day.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 10:49 PM | Comments (18)
Quoting Jimmy Carter
Posted by Jesus Politics
Jimmy Carter is on a tour promoting his new book, "Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis". Some quotes from his various interviews:
On fundamentalism and the separation of church and state:
"Fundamentalism exists in religious circles and now very overwhelmingly in Washington," he says. "A fundamentalist believes, say, in religious circles, that I am close to God. Everything that I believe is absolutely right. Anyone who disagrees with me, in any case, is inherently wrong and therefore, inferior. And it violates my basic principles if I negotiate with anyone else or listen to their point of view or modify my own positions at all. So that is what has permeated this administration."
"I think it's very important for the American people to know that not only has this happened, but it has resulted in a breakdown of the separation of church and state that's been part of our nation's principles ever since Thomas Jefferson espoused this principle as one of our founding fathers."
On President Bush's faith and Carter's Christian commitment to peace and to the poor:
Asked how his views of Christianity differed from those of Mr. Bush, the former president said, "I wouldn't want to criticize President Bush's Christian faith.... I don't have any doubt he is very sincere about his Christian faith."
But what followed was pointed. "I have a commitment to worship the Prince of Peace, not the prince of preemptive war. I believe Christ taught us to give special attention to the plight of the poor. In my opinion this administration, I am not talking about President Bush personally, has committed itself to extol the advantages of the rich."
In fact, my own uncle, Tom Gordy (ph), was captured by the Japanese about two weeks after Pearl Harbor and he was a prisoner for four years. He was tortured severely, only weighed 85 pounds when he came out of prison. He was almost dead.
And after that the Geneva Accords were written, which was approved by and even negotiated by the United States and we agreed that in order to protect our own reputation and in order to prevent our own service people from being tortured if they were captured that we would not torture prisoners who were held by us.
That in a radical way is now being rejected by many people in our government and it's not a unanimous thing even within the Bush administration. There's a big debate going on whether the CIA should be permitted or the Defense Department should be permitted to torture people.
I think it's completely wrong. It's completely damaging to our country and it's never been done before. That's just another one of the principles that bothers me.
I'm a Christian and I never have been able to believe that Jesus Christ would approve abortions unless the mother's life or health was directly threatened or perhaps if the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest.
I think we ought to minimize abortions and I tried to do this when I was president. I was operating under Roe v. Wade ruling of the Supreme Court but I did everything possible to minimize the number of abortions when I was in the White House.
And I would say one of the key things is resulting from what women say when they have an abortion. Two-thirds of them maintain that they are having an abortion because they cannot afford to support another child.
So, we created the Women's and Infant Children Program, which is called the WIC Program, W-I-C Program and we expedited adoptions and we gave instruction to young people, health training and so forth, on what caused pregnancy so they could avoid unnecessary pregnancy if they decided to have extramarital affairs which I don't think they ought to have but they're going to have them.
I think Roe v. Wade, if interpreted very strictly, is OK in our country but for instance late term abortions I cannot at all accept that as a proper thing to do and under Roe v. Wade we could greatly minimize the number of abortions in this country if we took the actions that I just described.
I don't believe that Jesus Christ would approve a death penalty and when I was governor of Georgia and so forth, the Supreme Court had ruled that the death penalty was not permissible.
I believe there's a supreme being, God, who created the entire universe, yes. And I am a scientist, as a matter of fact, as you may know, I studied nuclear physics. I helped to develop nuclear submarines. So, I believe in science. I believe we ought to explore the far outreaches of space. We ought to make sure we understand everything we can about the particles that make up the atoms.
I think we ought to discover everything we can about science. It ought to be accepted as proved unless it's discounted. I believe still in a supreme being. But, I don't believe that we ought to teach religious matters in a science classroom, because I think that the two ought not to be related.
They ought to be completely separate. And I don't think anyone, Larry, interferes in full belief in the other. I believe completely in scientific proofs and values unless they're discounted. I believe in a supreme being. But, I don't believe you ought to teach creationism in the science classroom.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 10:21 PM | Comments (40)
One Year Later
Posted by Fresh Politics
What a difference a year makes. It was the first election night in a long time where I wasn't in tears by the time I went to bed. Democrats prevailed in two bitterly contested gubernatorial races. In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzennager's propositions – the reason he called the special election in the first place – were rejected by voters (as were other propositions on the ballot). The incumbent Democratic mayor of St. Paul, MN, who endorsed President Bush in the 2004 election, was defeated by fellow Democrat Chris Coleman. Maine voters rejected a ballot measure to repeal an anti-discrimination bill that would extend protection to gays.
There were some sour spots, of course. Texas voters approved a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. In New York City, Mayor Mike Bloomberg easily defeated Democratic opponent Fernando Ferrer, in a city that is overwhelmingly Democratic. Reform initiatives on the ballot in Ohio failed.
All in all, it was a great night for progressives because it showed that there is a viable alternative to the current leadership. It showed that the Democrats have the ability to win, a pleasant culmination to the last few weeks where they have started to show the beginnings of a spine.
Still, while state and local races count mightily, let's not rest on our laurels. Though last night was a much-deserved reprieve from depressing losses, there is tremendous work that we need to do. This is the perfect opportunity to get motivated for the 2006 elections. To take back either branch of Congress, an imperative if there is going to be any meaningful change in the direction of this country is headed, progressives must have a cohesive network. Further, it's not enough for Democrats to expect votes simply because they are the other party – they need to present a clear plan to show that they are more than Republican-lite. Republicans are looking at last night's results and thinking about 2006. What they do between now and then will be with an eye to 2006 and 2008.
Progressive candidates can win next year; Democrats can win big and take back a house. But they can't expect the wins to come to them. Now more than ever we need to be advocating for progressive values – health care for all Americans, a policy of environmental stewardship, and protection of civil liberties. As Republicans learned the hard way, a year can make a huge difference. Hopefully, progressives won't learn the same unfortunate lesson next year.
Posted by Fresh Politics at 03:20 AM | Comments (2)
November 08, 2005
Beware of the Wrath of Washington
Posted by Father Jake
From yesterday’s LA Times:
The Internal Revenue Service has warned one of Southern California's largest and most liberal churches that it is at risk of losing its tax-exempt status because of an antiwar sermon two days before the 2004 presidential election.
Rector J. Edwin Bacon of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena told many congregants during morning services Sunday that a guest sermon by the church's former rector, the Rev. George F. Regas, on Oct. 31, 2004, had prompted a letter from the IRS.
In his sermon, Regas, who from the pulpit opposed both the Vietnam War and 1991's Gulf War, imagined Jesus participating in a political debate with then-candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry. Regas said that "good people of profound faith" could vote for either man, and did not tell parishioners whom to support.
But he criticized the war in Iraq, saying that Jesus would have told Bush, "Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster."
Has the IRS ever sent such a letter to Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell? If so, I never heard about it. Is this selective scrutiny on the part of the IRS?
What is most ironic about this situation is that on the same day, the LA Times also ran a story entitled Abortion Proposition Finds Its Forum in the Churches:
…Republican officials' strategy includes bringing in a national consultant to help court religious conservatives: Gary Marx, former director of the Virginia Christian Coalition and a key player in wooing evangelicals during President Bush's reelection campaign.
In an interview, Marx said his organizers have focused on "mega-churches" in heavily Republican areas of inland California but also have been welcomed in urban African American and Latino churches. He said Crenshaw Christian Center had accepted 20,000 inserts to distribute with church bulletins.
If anyone, from either side of the aisle, should use the pulpit to campaign for a political candidate or measure is a separate debate; one in which I personally have mixed feelings. But using threats from the IRS to silence those who speak out against the war is the kind of tactic used by despots.
Posted by Father Jake at 04:36 AM | Comments (10)
November 07, 2005
To Sin by Silence
Posted by ChristianAlliance
By Guest Blogger R. Johnson
“You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong no matter who does it or who says it.” ~Malcolm X
You may recall that in early October, the senate voted to officially ban cruel and degrading treatment of detainees. It was the right thing to do. The move was designed to close any loopholes that might exist, making sure to specify that the prohibition on torture and cruel and degrading treatment applied to the CIA as well as any other group or individual working on behalf of the US government. The senate bill passed 90-9 and was then sent to the house of representatives. This past week, torture was making headlines yet again. News that the United States was operating a number of secret prisons made headlines. It is in these secret prisons, free from oversight from the International Red Cross, the UN, or any other monitoring facility that 'ghost prisoners' are detained and 'interrogated.' For a country founded on the rule of law, the practice is particularly appalling. Dick Cheney made some rather unusual personal appeals to republicans in the house of representatives to get them to oppose the senate measures and allow the CIA to torture detainees. On my own website, Sgt. Darin Broady, implicated in connection with the beating death of an Afghan prisoner by the name of Habibullah, commented that since I was not there, torture is not something that I should concern myself with.
Torture is something we should all concern ourselves with. The fact that Dick Cheney, or any one of our elected officials for that matter, is working so hard to preserve a legal loophole that allows for the CIA to torture individuals should give everyone cause for concern. Is this something that we approve of? When faced with the question of whether a given individual believes that it is acceptable to torture, many would probably say that torture is wrong. Rephrase the question to ask whether the individual wants the government to use 'all means necessary' to protect the public from terrorists, many would probably find themselves unwittingly supporting torture as an official policy. Re-label torture as an 'interrogation technique' used against a suspected 'militant bent on doing harm in the United States' and many, unfortunately, would not realize that they could be condoning torture.
By rephrasing the issue as one of 'security' the administration is able to mute the criticism that should be directed at these policies. Regardless of whether your opposition to torture is based upon moral or religious grounds, the evidence shows that torture is not an effective means for 'getting information.' Yet we continue to adhere to the notion that 'taking the gloves off' or roughing up 'a few bad people' will somehow make us safe. Why is it that we say that we are against torture, yet to little to speak out against it?
Abraham Lincoln once said: "To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of me." The time has come to protest. Public polls indicate that the US considers Supreme Court decisions about the rights of detainees in the 'war on terror' just as important as its rulings on abortion, yet judging by the lack of public attention the matter receives, you would never know it. If you are opposed to torture, call your representative in Congress and tell them how you feel. Call your senators and ask them to press the most recent nominee to the Supreme Court, Samuel Alito, on his views of whether the executive branch has the power and the authority to engage in torture. Now is the time to speak out.
Posted by ChristianAlliance at 12:34 PM | Comments (13)
November 04, 2005
Iran President Calls for Destruction of Israel
Posted by Faithful Progressive
Here's something that Christians on the left, on the right and in the middle may be able to agree on: the recent statements of the President of Iran saying that Israel should be "wiped off the map" are appalling. We may draw different conclusions as to the best way to deal with Iran's new tone, but surely all people of good will must comdemn these remarks. Iran president calls for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'
Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad openly called Wednesday for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and lashed out at Muslim nations which recognize the Jewish state, setting off a storm of protests..."The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran entitled "The World without Zionism."
Ahmadinejad said: "There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world. ... As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to a slogan which Iran's revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini used before his death in 1989.
Ahmadinejad's uncompromising tone represents a dramatic change from that of former president Mohammad Khatami, a mild-mannered cleric whose favored topic was "dialogue among civilizations" and who led an effort to improve Iran's relations with the West. Addressing some 4,000 students, Ahmadinejad also took a slap at some of Iran's Arab neighbors in the Gulf as they seek to break new ground in their relations with Israel. "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury; any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world," he said."
The Anglican Vicar who blogs as Salt spoke for many in a recent post entitled...
Hannah Arendt, where are you?!:
Iran's statements are deeply disturbing, and should cause us to reread some literature written after WWII about Anti-Semitism, especially the work written before the US built up a relationship with Israel. There is a link between anti-semitism, totalitarianism and communism that Arendt, especially, explores.
The president's tactics reveal, especially, the tenuous hold of the clerics in their own society. It is probably true that most Iranians consider Israel to be an outpost of the west. But this demonstration was staged for the purpose of organizing Iranian society against an outside enemy, giving license to destroy internal opposition to any future conflict. The anti-trinity of Israel, the US and Britain [formerly, South Africa], is used as a convenient way to organize and prepare Iranian society to follow the revolution uncritically. If there weren't conflict internally, his statements would be unnecessary. And Israel is an easy rhetorical target.
Iran has revealed, in these statements, to be no friend of the Palestinians. The PA rejected these statements by Iran, and rightfully so. Iranian Rhetoric seriously undermines the political movement that the Palestinians have agreed to promote - a two state solution. Clearly, the audience was not the Palestinians, even though some Palestinians will enjoy the fantasy. So who was the audience of these terrible claims, these claims that implicity declare war on Israel?
Iran has made an implicit moral claim in the Muslim world that the west should understand. In Muslim code, they've said that they are the only nation not beholden to the west. Every other nation is. They are drawing a line in the sand.
Where Christians may disagree is the role that American policy has played in both further radicalizing the regime in Tehran, and in enhancing Iran's role in the region. One of the foreseeable consequences of the Second Iraq War has been to improve the strategic lot of Iran, a regional superpower and the chief real exporter of terrorism in the area. Let's be honest, as Juan Cole has written, the only Winner of the Iraq War Is... Iran:
The Iranians hold a powerful hand in the Iraqi poker game. They have geopolitical advantages, are flush with petroleum profits because of the high price of oil, and have much to offer their new Shiite Iraqi partners. Their long alliance with Iraqi president Jalal Talabani gives them Kurdish support as well. Bush's invasion removed the most powerful and dangerous regional enemy of Iran, Saddam Hussein, from power. In its aftermath, the religious Shiites came to power at the ballot box in Iraq, bestowing on Tehran firm allies in Baghdad for the first time since the 1950s. And in a historic irony, Iran's most dangerous enemy of all, the United States, invaded Iran's neighbor with an eye to eventually toppling the Tehran regime -- but succeeded only in defeating itself.
The ongoing chaos in Iraq has made it impossible for Bush administration hawks to carry out their long-held dream of overthrowing the Iranian regime, or even of forcing it to end its nuclear ambitions. (The Iranian nuclear research program will almost certainly continue, since the Iranians are bright enough to see what happened to the one member of the "axis of evil" that did not have an active nuclear weapons program.) The United States lacks the troops, but perhaps even more critically, it is now dependent on Iran to help it deal with a vicious guerrilla war that it cannot win. In the Middle East, the twists and turns of history tend to make strange bedfellows -- something the neocons, whose breathtaking ignorance of the region helped bring us to this place, are now learning to their dismay.
More than two years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, it is difficult to see what real benefits have accrued to the United States from the Iraq war, though a handful of corporations have benefited marginally. In contrast, Iran is the big winner. The Shiites of Iraq increasingly realize they need Iranian backing to defeat the Sunni guerrillas and put the Iraqi economy right, a task the Americans have proved unable to accomplish. And Iran will still be Iraq's neighbor long after the fickle American political class has switched its focus to some other global hot spot.
It's a disturbing thought. There are no easy answers as to how to deal with an emboldened and newly radicalized Iran. But one thing seems clear: the war in Iraq has not helped matters. One of the reasons many of us opposed the Iraq war was that there were clear parallels with the experience of Israel in Lebanon. Sen. Bob Graham and others warned of this problem several months before the invasion. The invasion of Lebanon did not make Israel more secure, far from it. Israelis were at first greeted as liberators, but shortly after Barak withdrew Israeli troops from Lebanon, there were wide avenues named after suicide bombers in Beirut.
As we should have anticpated, the Iraq war has also destabilized and contributed to radicalization of the region. And any drum beat for war with Iran or Syria must first acknowledge the failure of war as a tool of foreign policy in the Middle East. What we need to do first, as Leigh Baldwin argues in this piece, Analysis: Time For A Clear Iran Policy, is to renew our own ties with Europe. The first task must be to establish a more coherent relationship with the European Union. Considering the recent trans-Atlantic tiffs over Iraq and arms sales to China, relations over Iran have been remarkably cordial. Policy co-ordination has also shown some success -- the practical freezing of the Iranian nuclear program between 2003 and the summer of 2005. The current arrangement has now reached the natural limit of its effectiveness, however.
"Previously, we have had a division of labor, where Europe provided the carrots and America the sticks," says Philip Gordon, a senior fellow at Brookings. "The United States must be willing to provide some carrots and Europe must be willing to provide some sticks."
The long relied-upon good cop-bad cop routine leaves the Europeans able to offer only limited security to Iran as long as America remains hostile. Likewise, European incentives are devalued by a lack of American support.
Secondly, the United States must arrive at a clear objective for its Iran policy. At the moment, there exists a strategic fudge, which aims simultaneously at Iranian co-operation over nuclear development and, in the long term, regime change. These aims are, more often than not, contradictory. A regime that fears invasion will be inclined to race to build a bomb, not to negotiate...A third element of United States policy must be to search for some degree of common ground with the Iranians. This might not be as hard as it seems. The author notes that we have a common interest in stabilizing Iraq. Let's hope that the pro-Iranian leaders in Iraq do not share the Iranian President's views toward Israel.
As Christians we are called to be peacemakers, but we clearly have our work cut out for us at the present moment.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 03:03 AM | Comments (1)
November 03, 2005
Is President Bush an Atheist?
Posted by Jesus Politics
Religion Clause has an important link to the recent work of Susan Pace Hamill. Her work explores the connection between our tax policy and our Christian values. Below are quotes from her forthcoming article in the Virginia Tax Review:
It took the unusual experience of spending my sabbatical at a conservative evangelical Christian seminary, and, while there, noticing for the first time that my home state of Alabama has the most
inadequate and inequitable state and local tax system in the entire nation, to open my eyes and show me that tax policy is as an extremely important issue of justice under the moral principles of Judeo-Christian ethics.
Despite Judeo-Christian teachings emphasizing the greater moral obligations of wealthier Americans while more heavily guarding the well-being of those with less wealth and power, President Bush has continued the federal tax policy trend of lessening the tax burden of the wealthiest Americans while shifting the cost to Americans in all other income groups that shows every sign of becoming more pronounced and moving closer to the conclusively immoral flat models.
Even more troublesome than the moral red flags raised by reducing the tax burden borne by the wealthiest Americans is the increasing threat of violating the Judeo-Christian standard of justice requiring reasonable opportunity. The gigantic federal deficit, which President Bush’s first term tax cuts greatly contributed to, has prompted spending cuts in almost all areas, many of which cover important programs aiding the poorest Americans and the strugglinglower middle and to some degree even the middle classes. The extent and degree of these spending cuts has been greatly aggravated by the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Raising Judeo-Christian moral issues of major proportions that carry potential long term devastating consequences, poor and lower income Americans are bearing the brunt of the substantial tax savings enjoyed by the wealthiest Americans in the form of having much less access to minimum subsistence, decent healthcare and housing as well education and job training.
Despite statements that his faith drives all policy decisions, President Bush never addressed how the moral principles of Judeo-Christian ethics evaluate his first term tax cuts.
Especially when viewed alongside the candor of Grover Norquist, it is clear that despite his profession of faith as a believer in Jesus Christ President Bush has failed to recognize that Judeo-Christian ethics requires adequate tax revenues to ensure reasonable opportunities for all Americans and imposes greater moral obligations on those enjoying greater levels of income and wealth. Instead, his manner of handling tax policy, which places supreme importance on preserving private property and assumes that wealth results solely from individual effort, reflects the moral values of ethical egoism, also known as objectivist ethics. Objectivist ethics views human beings as independent agents and deems each person acting in his or her own rational self-interest as the only avenue to reach moral correctness. Because individual autonomy and right of each person to be able to personally benefit from their efforts in the free market are valued above all other considerations, objectivist
ethics unequivocally epitomizes the “leave us alone” philosophy of Grover Norquist and his coalition, which includes the Bush Administration and therefore it is reasonable to assume also includes President Bush himself.
Objectivist ethics represents a form of atheism because the human person is substituted for a supreme deity. Within the framework of objectivist ethics individuals owe no moral obligations to endure greater sacrifices for anyone else’s benefit because only each individual’s own self-interest has any moral relevance.
In his handling of tax policy President Bush has grossly violated the moral obligations of his faith for at least three reasons. First in
pushing through his first term tax cuts, and, his refusal to recognize the need for additional revenues because of the Hurricane Katrina disaster, he has failed to morally evaluate the substantial favoring of the wealthy at the expense the poor and middle classes by the standards of Judeo-Christian ethics, and, instead implicitly gave in to the atheistic temptations of objectivist ethics. Second President Bush has allowed himself and his most important advisors in the White House to be unduly influenced by Grover Norquist, a person who without question has adopted objectivist ethics as his moral compass. Finally and perhaps of the greatest concern President Bush has surrounded himself with high-profile religious leaders whose discussion of tax policy also exudes the atheistic values of objectivist ethics.
However instead of treating tax policy as one of the most serious crises of faith in America today, these five religious leaders and undoubtedly many others are encouraging President Bush to follow the atheistic teachings of objectivist ethics and protect wealth with a “heavy grip” or even an “iron clad grip” rather than the “light grip” required by Judeo-Christian teachings. By allowing President Bush to give in to the temptation of objectivist ethics in his handling of tax policy these religious leaders are guilty of the
worst violations of the moral obligations of their Christian faith.
The scarcity of faith-based ethical reflection in justice concerns, which includes tax policy, is a symptom that religion as a viable and authentic conviction with a principled moral compass is in deep trouble–the practice of Christianity in particular has become a low-sacrifice operation. What passes for faith-based ethics, beyond matters of personal piety, has become centered on a few highly emotional and theologically divisive issues that for most people involve little or no direct personal sacrifice.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 08:06 PM | Comments (15)
Operation Distraction
Posted by Fresh Politics
I sometimes wonder why we even still claim the need to protect “freedom of the press” when the mainstream press we are so vigorously trying to protect is giving away its integrity. This week, we were treated to the latest display of the Mainstream Media – Bush Administration Alliance. After a harrowing week culminating in the indictment and resignation of Scooter Libby, the Bush Administration decided to start this week on a more positive note, with yet another installment of Operation Distract the American Public with a gleefully complicit press feeding it to the audience like my grandmother at Sunday family dinners.
It started with Monday's early morning announcement of President Bush's nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. With that announcement, there was a flurry of activity about Judge Alito – rightfully so – but it sure took the focus away from the indictments and the CIA leak scandal. On The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, they showed a montage of news hosts proudly proclaiming that they hadn't talked about the indictments or Scooter Libby since the announcement. Hey, I'm all for talking about Judge Alito. In fact, I think there's a lot to talk about as we head into the confirmation process. But it's disgusting to see the media lose sight so quickly of something of grave national concern. As if the viewing public isn't competent enough to think of two different topics at once.
The Bush Administration has consistently attempted to distract the American people from its problems. An announcement of a Supreme Court nominee and a speech on avian flu – important topics in their own right, to be sure – are used as carefully-timed ploys to steal the spotlight from other less flattering topics. Instead of the press acting responsibly, refusing to be ensnared in such a blatant trap, it plays along like a two year old distracted from an inappropriate toy. In doing so, the press has abdicated its responsibility to inform the people objectively.
The one bright spot this past week was the bold move by Senate Democrats to force the Senate into a closed session to discuss investigations into the intelligence used to support the reasons for going to war in Iraq. Such an unusual move made news and, importantly, brought up the important issues obscured by more recent events. Still, it would serve the media well to turn back to its role. The press, not the President, has the power to determine what is news. In allowing itself to be manipulated, it serves no one.
Posted by Fresh Politics at 05:10 AM | Comments (9)
November 02, 2005
Selling the War
Posted by Father Jake
From the Downing Street Memo site;
On October 28, 2005, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, has been indicted (for) false accusations, perjury, and obstruction of justice in the investigation to determine who outed CIA agent Valerie Plame. Her husband, Joe Wilson, drew the wrath of the administration for exposing the administration’s now infamous false claims about uranium from Africa. John Bolton—now our UN Ambassador—has been has been reported to have abused his authority while at the Department of State to threaten, spy on and generally discredit anyone who stood in the way of the Bush administration’s policy of invasion.
These incidents are the tip of a very big iceberg. From cherry-picked intelligence to a criminal lack of planning for the war’s aftermath; from no-bid contracts for reconstruction to character assassination for anyone who dares to question the premises of the war—the Bush administration has perpetrated what is now being called the most egregious foreign policy misstep in our history.
The American people deserve a full accounting of how we got where we are in Iraq. But we don’t expect anyone in the Bush administration to provide it unless they are forced to, either through Congressional inquiry or public outcry—or both.
It looks like we may finally get the completion of the Congressional inquiry:
Democratic senators took the highly unusual step yesterday of forcing the US Senate into closed secret session for more than two hours, accusing its Republican majority of colluding with the White House by failing to investigate whether intelligence had been manipulated to justify the Iraq war…
But Democrats were unapologetic, and last night claimed at least a partial victory after an agreement was thrashed out to form a bipartisan group of six senators to report on the intelligence committee's progress. The panel is due to report back by November 14, although it was not immediately clear last night what use would be made of the report.
Mr Reid's move refocused attention on the continuing controversy over intelligence that Mr Bush had cited in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Despite prewar claims, no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, and Democrats have accused the administration of manipulating the information.
"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions," Mr Reid said before invoking Senate rules that led to the closed session…
What will the intelligence committee find? Most likely the same conclusion found in the Knight Ridder report:
A Knight Ridder review of the administration's arguments, its own reporting at the time and the Senate Intelligence Committee's 2004 report shows that the White House followed a pattern of using questionable intelligence, even documents that turned out to be forgeries, to support its case - often leaking classified information to receptive journalists - and dismissing information that undermined the case for war.
The State of the Union speech was one of a number of instances in which Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and their aides ignored the qualms of intelligence professionals and instead relied on the claims of Iraqi defectors and other suspect sources or, in the case of Niger, the crudely forged documents.
Like the Niger allegation, almost all of the administration's claims that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had to be ousted before he could develop nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, use them against America or give them to al-Qaida terrorists have turned out to be false. No such weapons or programs have been found, and several official inquiries have concluded that there was no cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaida.
Just so it is clear what all of this is pointing to, let me summarize; the invasion of Iraq was sold to the American people by the use of manufactured and manipulated intelligence. The sales job was done so well that the White House won the support of most of Congress. But it was all smoke and mirrors.
The result? 2,028 American casualties and 26,797 to 30,163 Iraqi civilian deaths. There may be many more Iraqi casualties. We’ll probably never know exactly how many Iraqis we have killed, because, in the infamous words of General Tommy Franks, “We don’t do body counts.”
For God’s sake, and for the sake of us all, this killing, launched on a foundation of lies and half truths, must stop. As followers of the Prince of Peace, we cannot remain silent. Support our troops by insisting they be brought home, so we can finally end this senseless bloodshed.
A Prayer of Confession offered by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America:
God of Peace, over the ages you have called us to live as peacemakers. You have called us to be a shalom people. You have called us to be Children of God.
We confess that we have not always lived out this calling. We do not want to face the difficulties of being called your disciples. We take the easy way out. We avoid controversy. We don’t speak out when we know we should. For these things we ask your forgiveness.
We confess that we are too tolerant of war and violence. We depend on our own power and position to settle differences instead of asking for your wisdom.
Forgive us, Gracious God. We ask that your Spirit guide us to act with loving grace and peace. Be with us in our continuing efforts to be peacemakers. Amen.
Posted by Father Jake at 04:04 AM | Comments (1)
