| Home > Community Forum > Monthly Archive |
January 30, 2006
Talk to Hamas
Posted by Public Theologian
The Bush Administration’s failed foreign policy yielded more bitter fruit last week in the election of Hamas to run the Palestinian Authority. The group, which has long advocated the destruction of the state of Israel and which is funded by the most extreme elements in Islam, won an astounding victory over Fatah, the party of deceased chairman Yasser Arafat and the party of current President Mahmoud Abbas.
In response to these events, which took the US government completely by surprise, the administration has been—what else?—talking tough, saying that it will not even speak to Hamas, much less provide it with any aid. But clearly this is a plan doomed to failure at the outset, as have been so many of their attempts at doing anything in the Middle East.
There is no question that Hamas is a bunch of dangerous people hell-bent on destroying Israel. That cannot go unaddressed. The problem is that since the US has been so one-sided in its favoritism of the Israelis and have looked the other way when the Israelis have erred in their dealings with the Palestinians (for example, letting Israel get away with building a wall right through Palestinian territory) and since we have shown an unusually high propensity for using force against Muslims to achieve our ends, the Hamas faction doesn’t much seem to care what the US thinks about its winning of the elections. The have become immune to the threat or even the use of force—they would not have gotten to the point that they are politically had force been the way to deal with them. They fear neither Israel nor the US and they have a theology of martyrdom which valorizes whatever suffering or death that occurs in the struggle against either nation.
The chief result of cutting off Hamas will be to send them further into the arms of the Iranians and other radical elements in Islam. Like a set of parents who don't like their daughter's boyfriend and attempt to bring the hammer down, our actions will only drive the two closer together in an alliance that no one wants to see develop further. This will simply exacerbate the problems for Israel in its attempt to keep itself out of Gaza, as well as increasing the likelihood of the spread of global terrorism as other Muslims become outraged at what will surely be a worsening situation for the Palestinians under this new leadership. If Bush despised Arafat, he is going to have his hands even fuller with these people. And if we saw a spike in terror after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq from previously non-radical elements like those who carried out the bombings in Madrid and London, we will surely see this increase again as Hamas turns the Palestinians into even bigger martyrs for Islam.
Somehow, we have got to come to a point where violence and threats of violence against people we don’t like in Islam de-escalates to be replaced by reason and negotiation. It sounds nice to say we aren’t going to talk to Hamas—the wingnuts in the rightwing blogosphere in this country will love it—but what works for good politics at home is not necessarlity what is going to make the world a safer place. We need Hamas deepening its embrace with Iran like we need another 911. The only way to break that relationship is to get ourselves between them, and that means making overtures to which they will listen, rather than to which they will react to.
If we can talk to the North Koreans, who are far more dangerous and erratic, why can’t we talk to Hamas?
Posted by Public Theologian at 04:13 PM | Comments (13)
January 26, 2006
Oprah, the Liberty Counsel and Bearing False Witness
Posted by Faithful Progressive
Oprah Winfrey did something hard this week: she apologized for condoning a false impression about a book. This week, a small town Wisconsin school district asked the powerful Liberty Counsel and its right-wing Christian backers to do the same.
Ms. Winfrey apologized for being indifferent to the truth about an author's false memoir about his life as a drug user. James Frey acknowledged that he had embellished parts of the book, and he told Winfrey Thursday that "the same demons that fueled his addictions caused him to mischaracterize himself." As ABC News reports Winfrey phoned in her support for him and for the book, calling the allegations against Frey "much ado about nothing."...But Winfrey, who has been widely criticized, even by e-mailers on her Web site, for her apparent indifference to the controversy, said Thursday that she regretted making that call.
"I left the impression that the truth is not important," she said.
For People of the Book, of course, bearing false witness is always a matter of considerable importance. The Dodgeville School District asked some purported Christians and their legal advocacy group, the Liberty Counsel, to apologize for its lies about the school district's efforts at producing a holiday play. "The group threatened lawsuits and ignored the truth even after the school posted on its Web site an explanation of its program, the district charged in a letter to Liberty Counsel..."
As the Wisconsin State Journal reported Thursday, "Your dissemination of false and misleading information and your threats of specious and frivolous litigation resulted in enormous cost to the district. You have yet to present the facts either through a press release, one of your 'alerts' or through any other means. You used this red herring to attempt to collect money through the form of donations," the district's lawyer, Eileen A. Brownlee, wrote in a letter to Mathew D. Staver, president of the Liberty Counsel...
Diane Messer, Dodgeville superintendent, said the group never asked for a reply or for an explanation in its first letter, never checked its facts and even got its final statement wrong, when it issued a press release incorrectly claiming the school "dumps" a song, "Cold in the Night," and "returns" to "Silent Night."
Contrary to Liberty Counsel's information in a string of press releases, "From the beginning," wrote Messer to the group Dec. 13, "the program has included the singing of religious songs with their original lyrics. Yes, 'Silent Night' will be sung. 'Cold in the Night' will not be sung." Instead, that song was narrated.
Messer, in an interview Wednesday, said Liberty Counsel exploited incorrect information for a publicity advantage, disregarding the truth.
In one press release, Staver said the school district "intentionally mocks Christian Christmas songs." Comments like this were "what in part incensed our district and our School Board," said Messer. "We answered his question, he chose to frame it differently, focusing on 'Silent Night.' As a result, that is where he made his errors. That and . . . not verifying the facts of the matter.
"I am surprised that he has chosen this approach, since he is representing a Christian organization that certainly would uphold the Ten Commandments. He is not honoring the commandment that thou shalt not bear false witness."
In this case, the lies about an honorable school district have hurt the hard-working people of Dodgeville. Will the Liberty Counsel, and its zealous supporters in the clergy and at Fox News, follow Oprah Winfrey's lead? As a believer, I know that miracles can happen.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 10:56 PM | Comments (4)
Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question
Posted by Jesus Politics
Brian McLaren, author of "A Generous Orthodoxy" and a leader of the emergent church movement, recently wrote an article about the "homosexual question". McLaren is an evangelical "centrist" but he also has an influential voice within conservative evangelical groups. It is encouraging to see him take a relatively progressive "position" and to see Christian conservatives respond to him. First some excerpts from McLaren's article and then some excerpts from Douglas Wilson's response.
The couple approached me immediately after the service. This was their first time visiting, and they really enjoyed the service, they said, but they had one question. You can guess what the question was about: not transubstantiation, not speaking in tongues, not inerrancy or eschatology, but where our church stood on homosexuality.
Usually when I'm asked about this subject, it's by conservative Christians wanting to be sure that we conform to what I call "radio-orthodoxy," i.e. the religio-political priorities mandated by many big-name religious broadcasters.
Most of the emerging leaders I know share my agony over this question. We fear that the whole issue has been manipulated far more than we realize by political parties seeking to shave percentage points off their opponent's constituency. We see whatever we say get sucked into a vortex of politicized culture-wars rhetoric--and we're pastors, evangelists, church-planters, and disciple-makers, not political culture warriors. Those who bring us honest questions are people we are trying to care for in Christ's name, not cultural enemies we're trying to vanquish.
Even if we are convinced that all homosexual behavior is always sinful, we still want to treat gay and lesbian people with more dignity, gentleness, and respect than our colleagues do. If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships, we know that the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered, and the pastoral ramifications are staggeringly complex.
... let me say a few things about his slanderous set-up of the situation. He contrasts the pastoral way (his way) with the shrill denunciations that you might expect from the practitioners of what he called "radio-orthodoxy" -- as though the Church's position on sodomy all those centuries before the invention of radio was inexplicable and mysterious.
The second point to make here is that it is obvious from McLaren's stance generally that he defines dignity, gentleness, and respect to "gay and lesbian people" in terms of catering to a public agenda that insists upon public acceptance. But in this instance, as with all sin, acceptance is not love, but rather the opposite.
If you don't know what to think about homosexuality, then get out of the ministry. If you can't read the big E on the eye chart, then why should the rest of us follow you into the ditch? Now homosexuality is not the most important issue in the Bible, not by a long shot. But it is, thank God, one of the clearest. And if it is not clear to McLaren, or by his account, to most of the leaders of the emerging movement, then the time has come to look for another calling, and I hear UPS is looking for reliable drivers.
If someone were to ask me whether the Bible teaches that Jesus went to Capernaum, I would say yes, it does. I would not be in agony over the question. It is not the most important question, but it is clear. If someone were to ask if the apostle Paul taught that homosexual behavior (both male and female forms) is the dead end result of idolatry, I would say yes again. No agony in the exegesis whatever. There is only agony if you are lusting after respect from the world, which they will not give to you unless you are busy making plenty of room for their lusts. And that is what the emergent movement is doing -- this is really all about sex. And, conveniently enough, this has the added benefit of making room for evangelical lusts. Son of a gun. All that agony paid off.
McLaren is a leading spokesman for the emergent movement, speaking for most of the leaders of the emergent movement, and doing so as a self-described "evangelical." And people believe him when he says he is evangelical. Other people get upset when I say I don't believe him. But this issue is so clear that something else must be going on here. There must be a pay-off down the road, some kind of reward for blinking stupidly when confronted with such glaringly obvious statements. And it is becoming increasingly clear to me that the pay-off is the prospect of getting laid outside the confines of God's holy laws of matrimony.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 10:00 AM | Comments (77)
Welcome Back to the Good Ole Days
Posted by Fresh Politics
So, President Bush would like Judge Alito to be Justice Alito by the State of the Union address next week. Barring a filibuster, it looks like we're on the fast track back to 1906. The good old days when he had a Supreme Court embracing "separate but equal" and invalidating labor laws because of the employers' and employees' freedom to contract. A time when women didn't have the right to vote, let alone the right to control their own bodies.
Make no mistake that Justice Alito will be all in favor of turning back the clocks to the era when the other Progressives were fighting the robberbarons and trying to improve the lives of the poor and disadvantaged who helped build their wealth. The battle against Alito has been a battle to defend all the gains we have made as a nation, and to minimize the impact of the losses we have suffered in the last twenty-five years.
Abortion is certainly important, but it is not the only thing we are fighting for. Alito's record, which the press has found far less interesting to cover than Mrs. Alito's rather impeccably timed tears, shows his true colors. He supports a strong Executive -- the wrong choice for a Justice in an era when an obsessively secretive Executive branch consistently obscures facts the American people should know about. He is a friend to corporations -- the wrong choice for the Supreme Court when corporate CEOs laugh all the way to the bank (in their top-of-the-line Jaguars) while the states pay the medical bills for the corporation's minimum wage, part-time workers. Alito is deeply suspicious of discrimination claims and privacy rights -- the wrong choice when we have witnessed serious instances of racial discrimination in voting and when the government can find out which library books we checked out.
He may seem mild-mannered, smart, and perhaps a bit boring. He may even be all of those things. But Judge Alito is a dangerous choice for the Supreme Court. Even at this late stage, his confirmation should be vigorously opposed. If you haven't called your senators now, this is the time. Before your telephone becomes a telegraph.
Posted by Fresh Politics at 03:22 AM | Comments (9)
January 20, 2006
Love is Patient, Love is Kind...
Posted by Faithful Progressive
Like most bloggers, I get 100's of e-mails every week. But I always look forward to the e-mails I get from Protestants for the Common Good. The Jan. 19th from Executive Director Alexander Sharp does an excellent job of bringing the proposed US budget cuts home: When reacting to budget issues -- even the severe cuts in programs for the poor now pending in Washington -- it is easy to get lost in large numbers that seem far removed from human lives. Consider, therefore, the opening paragraph in an article on Medicaid that appeared in the most recent issue of The Christian Century:
"Martha was blind until four years ago, when Medicaid paid for her to have a corneal transplant. For the first time in her life she could see. Now she has a job. But with recent cuts in funding, Martha has lost her Medicaid. She can no longer afford the anti-rejection medicine she must take daily because of her transplant. And without the medicine she will slowly go blind."
In her column on "The Real State of the Union," Melynda Wilcox points out that "Planned Medicaid cuts at the state level will take away coverage for more than half a million people."
For Martha, it is too late. Reductions affecting her have already come down. But on behalf of millions of others, we have one more chance to protest the cuts still pending before Congress.
Love is patient, love is kind. We have needed all of our patience and all of our compassion as we have worked together to fight the immoral budget cuts engineered by the US Congress. But we need to manifest God's love one more time to fufill our role in seeking justice.
The Budget Reconciliation bill is scheduled for a vote on February 1, 2006. Call your U.S. Representative toll-free at 800-426-8073 starting January 23. This number will connect you to the Capitol switchboard. The person at the switchboard can connect you to your Representative's office, and if you're not sure who your Representative is, they can figure it out for you.
Please take this last chance to tell your representative:
Don't Choose Special Interests Over Families!
Vote Against The Budget Cut Bill!
On December 19, the House of Representatives approved a budget bill in the middle of the night that slashes aid Americans depend on – after having only a few hours to read the nearly 800-page bill.
The bill protects powerful interests with high-paid lobbyists such as the health insurance industry, pharmacuetical companies, and banks -- while it hurts people who need Medicaid, student loans, child care, child support enforcement, and disability assistance.
Because the Senate made some small changes, the bill goes back to the House for another vote on February 1. Now they have plenty of time to learn how their constituents are hurt – and vote NO.
For a PDF flier with this information, click here:
After you’re connected with a staff person from your Representative’s office, tell them:
“My name is _______________ and I live in (your town/city). I would like Representative [name] to vote NO on the budget cuts bill (S.1932). This bill will cut billions in vital services, including Medicaid, SSI, foster care, child care, child support and student loans. I urge the Representative to vote against this bill because it chooses special interests over families.”
To inform yourself on how the budget bill impacts people in your state, click here.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 01:25 AM | Comments (4)
January 19, 2006
The Left Hand of God
Posted by Jesus Politics
Michael Lerner and the Tikkun magazine and communities are leading a movement to take on the Religious Right. Lerner makes some insightful comments in his recent article published in Tikkun. Some excerpts:
The growing power of the Religious Right requires more than the predictable array of “oy veys” and cries of despair. One reason that I’ve written my new book The Left Hand of God: Taking Our Country Back from the Religious Right (Harper San Francisco, February 7, 2006) and why the Tikkun Community is organizing a second gathering of the Network of Spiritual Progressives (at All Souls Church in Washington, D.C., May 17-20) is precisely because Americans need a coherent strategy to respond to the Right, not just analyses about how dangerous they are. This is a movement that is not just for people who believe in God or who are part of some religious community—it is equally inviting to those who are “spiritual but not religious” and who recognize that a progressive movement today needs a spiritual foundation if it is to take our country back from the Religious Right.
Nothing could be more mistaken than the fantasies now growing in liberal circles that the Bush Administration is about to lose power, the Republican Party is in a process of dissolution, and the Religious Right will soon be isolated and relegated to the junk pile of failed movements. It is amazing to see how liberals and progressives, desperate about their own inability to come up with a strategy to counter conservatives, have now begun to clutch at straws to prove to themselves that the Right is about to disappear because of its own contradictions.
But even if secular conservatives were driven from office the way that the Nixon Administration was, it is a fallacy to equate the power of the Religious Right with the power of any particular administration, even one as deeply enmeshed in fundamentalist religious assumptions as Bush and his allies have been. The reality is that the Religious Right has shaped public discourse to such a powerful extent that its major assumptions about foreign and domestic policy are now mainstream—not just in the conservative press, but also in the dominant corners of the Democratic Party.
As I explain in my new book, this vision of God as a punishing father has been present in many different religious traditions. I call it the vision of a “Right Hand of God,” based in part on various biblical passages that identify God’s right hand as the hand of power and domination. And I contrast this with a very different way of seeing God in the Bible, a way that emphasizes a more motherly, compassionate, caring, and love-oriented God that I call the “Left Hand of God.” Both ways of seeing God are there in the Bible, because both visions of reality have been part of human experience for thousands of years, so when people encounter the spiritual reality of the universe, they bring with them their own conceptual categories and interpret their experience through the language and worldviews that they already hold.
Liberals see this as the vanguard of a movement that wants to impose Christianity on the entire population, and that is true for at least some on the Religious Right. But this really misses what is so plausible in the Religious Right’s account and hence what gives it mass appeal: the actual experience people have of feeling surrounded by selfishness and materialism, and their sense that the only people addressing that problem and coming up with solutions (however inadequate) are social and political conservatives. The liberals to whom they are exposed may be willing to opportunistically throw in a biblical quote or use the word “God,” but they don’t seem to understand that there is an actual spiritual crisis afflicting American society, and that life feels very scary to many people, who then respond to pseudo-solutions like posting the Ten Commandments on public buildings or teaching religion in schools. It’s not hard to understand why this fearful worldview gets accepted. First of all, it corresponds in important ways to the reality of the world as currently constructed. The capitalist marketplace really does generate endless struggle between human beings and does in fact encourage people to seek dominance, control, and manipulation of each other. In daily life, then, the picture of reality painted by the Right gets confirmed in the experiences many people have in their own world of work. Second, there is no alternative worldview contending with this one. There is no spiritually grounded vision of the world being taught by liberals and progressives. The Left Hand of God is rarely articulated, has few institutions committed to promoting it, and has no political force ready to champion it.
You can’t answer such people by simply repeating the old liberal mantras about the need for separation of church and state. Although I totally support separation of the state from the imposition of any particular religious tradition or belief in God, I also know that liberals have not only separated church from state but also separated spiritual wisdom, caring, and love from state. This has been inappropriate and has backfired decisively.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 05:55 PM | Comments (22)
Cat Got Your Tongue?
Posted by Fresh Politics
Once upon a time, I thought elected officials were supposed to speak for us. I thought they acted in the best interests of their district/state, etc. and would vote on issues the way their constituents wanted them to.
For the most part, that's wrong. What is becoming clearer and clearer is that elected officials do what they need to do to get re-elected or otherwise preserve their careers. The most obvious symptom of this is a pathological fear to take a stand on anything. Oh sure, they can speak. Hillary has her plantation analogy and Joe-mentum can always be relied on for his Bush Administration apologizing. But is the chatter anything more than that -- is it ever worth listening to?
Not until they stop running for office, apparently. Take Al Gore. Since the Supreme Court ended the Florida recount -- and thus, his presidential campaign -- Gore has been increasingly more critical of the Bush Administration. Now that he no longer has political aspirations (he says, at least), he's not holding back any punches. His speech over the weekend has many talking:
The New York Times reported that the president decided to launch this massive eavesdropping program without search warrants or any new laws that would permit domestic intelligence collection.
During the period when this eavesdropping was still secret, the president seemed to go out of his way to reassure the American people on more than one occasion that, of course, judicial permission is required for any government spying on American citizens and that, of course, these constitutional safeguards were still in place.But, surprisingly, the president's soothing statements turned out to be false. Moreover, as soon as this massive domestic spying program was uncovered by the press, the president confirmed the story was true but in the next breath declared that he has no intention of stopping or bringing these wholesale invasions of privacy to an end.
At present, we still have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the president of the United States has been breaking the law, repeatedly and insistently.
A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government.
Wow. It gets better:
The fact that our normal American safeguards have thus far failed to contain this unprecedented expansion of executive power is itself deeply troubling. This failure is due in part to the fact that the executive branch has followed a determined strategy of obfuscating, delaying, withholding information, appearing to yield but then refusing to do so, and dissembling in order to frustrate the efforts of the legislative and judicial branches to restore a healthy constitutional balance.(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/16/AR2006011600779.html)
It makes me want to vote for him again. This time, with enthusiasm.
It was the Democrats who were too terrified to take a stand that drew me to Howard Dean, who was never afraid to speak his mind. His campaign ended with a, shall we say, screeching, halt, but he has kept up the attack even when his fellow Democrats have been tongue-tied. On the Jack Abramoff scandal, he was clear and unequivocal:
BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?(http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/08/le.01.html)DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.
BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.
DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...
BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?
DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.
Having watched Howard Dean's campaign come to end with the constant out of context replay of his Iowa Scream, I can see why Democrats are scared. Hillary's plantation remarks could similarly be taken out of context and portrayed to have a meaning that she never intended them to have. But Democrats in office need to be more assertive if they're going to rally their base in 2006.
Posted by Fresh Politics at 04:26 AM | Comments (2)
January 18, 2006
My Grandma and the Medicare Debacle
Posted by Public Theologian
Over the holidays I was not drinking eggnog or roasting chestnuts on an open fire. Instead, like many Americans, I spent a good part of the month of December trying to figure out the new prescription drug benefit for senior citizens. I have long written about the evils of this program, but let me say that until I was faced with actually trying to help a bunch of seniors actually negotiate it, I had yet to plumb the depths of its problems.
I got involved in this debacle because I knew my grandmother was eligible for the benefit but had no idea of how to proceed. Once word got around to people in her church that I was helping her, I was pressed into service as a de facto advisor to a clatch of seniors who faced the daunting task of choosing the right plan out of more than eighty, with the penalty for choosing the wrong one being that one is stuck for all of 2006 with the whatever one chooses.
The project on its face seems compassionate to seniors, in that it finally gives them some relief from runaway drug costs. But it was a great boon to the pharmaceutical industry, who got the amazing provision written into the bill that the US government could not negotiate price with them—they get to set the prices and the US government has to pay the price. So much for the free market which these turkeys are supposed to be in favor of, right? Well that exercise in market forces is going to cost tax payers a fortune, a fact which was hidden from the public as well as most members of Congress, when the Bush administration knowingly lied about the numbers (we found this out after the fact from a whistleblower who ran the numbers himself and who was threatened with being fired if he told).
The program enrollment is supposed to be simple. You collect your drugs, go the web site set up for the purpose and then enter the names of dosages of the drugs you take and then the computer will spit out a list of the plans for which you are eligible, which can be compared by cost. The problem is that not all of the data is correct on the website. I have heard reports of inaccuracies from the news and other blogs, so I thought that by waiting until mid-December that the glitches would be worked out of the system. But that was not the case. The seniors that I was helping wanted to keep their same pharmacies, but the pharmacies that they used were not listed as eligible providers under particular plans in some cases, while in others, the pharmacies were misleadingly listed, with their corporate names being given on the provider list, rather than the name of the pharmacy hanging over the door. So when I finally identified the best plan for a particular person, I had to call both the pharmacies in order to find whether or not they would accept the new Part D benefit and the insurance companies in order to make sure that the plan would pay for it.
Now I am a college graduate, am internet savvy, and have purchased every kind of insurance there is, but I have never been so frustrated with a process as I have with this one. If I had left my 85 year-old grandmother to do this by herself, she would have been utterly lost. And in fact, she called me this morning to tell me that more than three weeks after enrolling in the plan we chose for her, she still has not received her new card and is therefore considering paying the premium on her old policy, which is set to lapse one week from today. She is afraid that she is going to be unable to get care if she needs it or that if she has to have the care that it will not be given under any insurance at all and that she will thus be liable for the entire expense.
I heard Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt trying to explain “bumps in the road” yesterday but insisting that everything is going to be just fine. He told seniors not to leave the pharmacy until they got their meds, which is of course an absolute joke, as Walgreens and CVS aren’t going to give out drugs on a handshake. This is a serious problem that the Bush administration has created and it is some of the most vulnerable in our society that they are endangering.
Posted by Public Theologian at 05:36 PM | Comments (7)
January 17, 2006
Will Iran be the Next "Just War"?
Posted by Father Jake
With tensions between the US and Iran rising, there is talk of plans of a strike on Iran. Such talk might be accurate, especially in light of Israeli military forces being positioned in Northern Iraq, which will position them to be capable of air strikes into Iran.
Even those who claim that an imminent strike against Iran is "utter fabrication" go on to tell us of an even more sinister plan, entitled the "Global Strike Plan", which includes a nuclear option.
It would seem we have learned little from President Bush's adventures in Iraq. Even though the president now freely admits that the invasion of Iraq was based on faulty intelligence, he still claims that it was the right thing to do because the world is a safer place with Saddam Hussein out of power.
The editors of the Christian Century question the morality of the President's logic:
...The world is indeed better off without Saddam Hussein in power. And the rise of a stable, democratic Iraq, if it can emerge, would be a force for reform in the Middle East. But such benefits do not constitute a moral case for war. A preemptive attack on a nuclear-armed Iraq about to launch its weapons may have fit under the criteria for a just war. An invasion aimed at remaking the political culture of the Middle East clearly does not...
I discussed Iraq and the Just War theory last August, and came to the same conclusion as Christian Century and the Roman Catholic Church; the invasion of Iraq does not fit into the criteria of just war theory. According to this theory, war is justifiable only in self-defense and as a last resort. An invasion of Iran at this time would also not seem to fit within the parameters of the just war theory. Unless, of course, we get some intelligence that suggests Iran is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, and that such weapons are aimed at the US. Sound familiar?
Christian Century points out that there are quite a few parallels between the build-up before the invasion of Iraq and what is going on right now between the US and Iran:
The U.S. and European nations have been trying for years to get Iran to drop its nuclear ambitions. The negotiations have some of the elements of the run-up to the Iraq war: ambiguous statements from the suspect nation, halting negotiations, and disagreements between Western allies. We may hear calls for a preemptive strike on Iran as the best way to address the threat. At that point, it will be important for Americans to remember both the failed intelligence on Iraq and the question that Murtha poses: Is there an overriding and demonstrable threat to the safety of the American people?
Iraq, then Iran, then North Korea, then...
May God have mercy on us all.
Posted by Father Jake at 05:07 PM | Comments (20)
January 13, 2006
What Would Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Do Today?
Posted by Faithful Progressive
Martin Luther King Day has fairly quickly become a tradition in our home. Like millions of others, we each try to make it a "day on" (rather than just a day off) for social justice. My youngest daughter told me that she and a friend are planning to speak to their school's principal about an important issue of equality at their middle school. The girl's locker-room at their school has not had soap dispensers (or soap!) for some time--while the boys' locker-room does. The girls have finally had enough of this injustice and are planning to get a group organized to speak up. I think Dr. King would approve.
As for me--I'm planning to attend a state-bar speech and reception to meet civil rights attorney Fred Gray, who represented Rosa Parks and Dr. King during the Civil Rights Era, as well as PBS TV great Tony Brown. Many of you probably know his great TV program, but may not be aware that Mr. Brown was the coordinator of the historic "Walk To Freedom" with Martin Luther King. At noon at the State Capitol Rotunda in Madison, Mr. Brown is the keynote speaker at the 26th Annual State of Wisconsin Tribute & Ceremony honoring Dr. King. Mr. Gray will receive a National Lifetime Achievement Award. I started my own career doing civil rights cases, and so I am really looking forward to meeting these two giants of the movement.
Time Magazine has a very interesting article this week in which it asked What If He Were Alive Today? Here's one of the best answers, from John Lewis Democratic Congressman from Georgia.
From Time.
John Lewis
The very last time I saw Dr. King alive, he was getting ready to bring people to Washington to deal with not just civil rights but the whole question of economic justice. He was going to put on the American agenda the pain and the suffering and the hurting of that segment of America. I truly believe if he had lived and if Robert Kennedy had lived and been elected President, the two of them together would have been an unstoppable coalition that would have made the country a place with a greater sense of community. We wouldn't have so many people still left behind. There wouldn't be so much poverty and hunger. And we probably would have some type of comprehensive health-care campaign for all our citizens. All these years later, I think he would be much more committed to the struggle for peace throughout the world and to using the huge amount of resources that we have to help people build and not tear down, to be reconciled and not divided.
Sigh. The dream lives on. Enjoy your "day on" in honor of this great man.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 05:20 AM | Comments (31)
January 12, 2006
Edward Larson and Noah Feldman on Science and Religion
Posted by Jesus Politics
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has made available transcripts from two events that are relevant to our on-going conversation here. In the first event, Professor Edward Larson talks about the complicated relationship between religion and science. In the second event, Professor Noah Feldman talks about a wide range of topics from church-state issues to Intelligent Design. These transcripts are long, but well worth the time invested in them. Some excerpts:
The second phase begins with the publication in 1961 (that's how recent it is) of the book The Genesis Flood, by Virginia Tech engineering professor, Henry Morris. He gave believers scientific-sounding arguments supporting the biblical account of a six-day —literally six-day — creation within the past 10,000 years. This book spawned a movement within American fundamentalism with Morris as its Moses, leading the faithful into a promised land where science proved religion.
He called it "creation science" or "scientific creationism." Those two terms were used alternatively by its proponents; they mean the same thing. And this launched the second phase of the anti-evolution politics; the phase associated with seeking balanced treatment for creation science.
Creation science spread within the conservative Protestant church through the missionary work of Henry Morris' Institute for Creation Research. This is an institute formed for him in San Diego about 1970 by a young preacher there named Tim LaHaye, who is now famous for writing the literalistic books on revelation. He had brought Henry Morris and a whole team of people who supported Morris out to San Diego on his campus. I guess when you think about it, between the two of them — between Morris and LaHaye — they covered the Bible from Genesis to Revelation (laughter) — the whole package covered with a very literal interpretation. Morris is as good as LaHaye, and he is as popular within the church as LaHaye.
LaHaye has been able to reach out with the Left Behind series, really making those accounts in Genesis and Revelation sing and become literally believable. If you read Morris's work, the writings of Morris's son, John Morris, and his writing with Ken Ham, they often team up and now it's usually John Morris and Ham together. They just make these stories sing. They elaborate on them; they give life to what would just be a passage of the Bible.
First, it spread out within the conservative Protestant church. Then, with the emergence of the so-called religious right, it moved into politics during the 1970s. Within two decades after the publication of Genesis Flood, three states and dozens of local schools, in all parts of the country, mandated balanced treatment, as they called it, or equal time for creation science along with evolution in the public school science classroom.
Intelligent design as a sort of intellectual movement is a euphemism of a euphemism, right? It's a euphemism in the sense that it's a replacement for creation science, which itself was a replacement for creationism.
Now, the irony here is that nobody thinks that intelligent design is science. Scientists don't think so, but neither do most of the people out there propounding it. They think that it's religion, and they would like to be able to say openly that their view is a religious view, and they would like to be able to call for religion to be taught in a more explicit way or at least an acknowledgement of religion to be present in a more explicit way in the schools. But because the courts have consistently said first that creationism in the curriculum was unconstitutional, and then the same for creation science, which is a cover for creationism, the legal background has pushed in the direction of the creation of still more euphemisms to talk about these things.
Now, I think if you acknowledge that this is the case, it helps point the direction towards something like a better solution. Get the euphemism out of here; don't have this debate about whether to teach intelligent design in science class. Instead, have a debate about whether in classes other than science class creationism could be taught in some way that didn't offend basic constitutional principles.
I think if taught, if presented in a descriptive way as a view about the creation of the world held by many millions of Americans – and I don't mind being specific; you guys do wonderful studies on these things, and let's cite those studies in these contexts – not only is there nothing constitutionally problematic about it, but I don't think there's anything pedagogically troubling about acknowledging it to students in class or even by adding that this is a worldview that stands in opposition to the scientific worldview with respect to the question of evolution.
And I have no objection whatsoever to saying in the science class that what you're about to hear is a scientific worldview propounded by and held by the scientific community, which is a group of people who can be identified. It's not some abstraction out there. And this is the scientific community's view of the truth, and the creationists' view is in some part a contradiction of the religious community's view of the truth.
In that environment, I think we have one huge advantage over the euphemistic world, which is at least we know what the stakes are. At least we know what we're discussing. And that, I think, might lead to disagreements. I'm not claiming that it's going to lead to agreement. I don't think it's going to lead people who think that religion is bunk to think that it's not. It's not going to lead people who think that science is bunk to think that it's not, but at least the student would be getting an accurate depiction of the state of play in the world with respect to these questions.
And I think that both sides should be prepared to prefer a model like this. Scientists would no longer have to debate whether something was science, a debate which they're going to lose to the extent that when they have to stand on their epistemological ground and insist that "we get to say what science is," ultimately their only real answer – and this is a problem for the philosophy of science – their real answer is "because we're the scientists and we say it goes," and that's not a very satisfying answer. It's a sociological answer to an epistemological question. It's not very good.
And similarly, people on the religious side could be spared the embarrassment of having to attach themselves to a theory that relatively few of them particularly believe in, adopted on grounds that pretty much everybody understands are not the real grounds for adopting it. And this goes to my more general point about discourse about religion and politics, of which the Supreme Court discussion is a part, but just a part. And that is that I think we do better in these debates when we acknowledge the presence of deeply held different views on core questions and acknowledge that for a lot of people their fundamental beliefs and values do, in fact, come from religion. I don't think that the game is up for secularists when this is acknowledged, as a lot of legal secularists, I think, tend to believe. I don't think they lose under those circumstances, especially because it will push them to stand up and make more coherent arguments for their own positions.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 05:12 PM | Comments (0)
Ladies, Are You Scared Yet?
Posted by Fresh Politics
Day Three into the confirmation hearings of Judge Samuel Alito, and I'm feeling a wee pessimistic. Last night, I caught some reruns on C-SPAN hoping to see Senators Feingold and Schumer, but instead I got Senators Kennedy, Grassley, and Biden. Watching it yesterday, I was struck by two things about Judge Alito. First, he comes across as very smart; second, he doesn't seem as scary as those crazy liberals keep telling us he is.
Gals, I hope you're scared right about now.
I'm unapologetically addressing women because it's women who will be most impacted when Roe v. Wade is (pick one) chipped away at until it is useless or overturned outright. There are so many reasons to oppose Judge Alito's confirmation – his views on Executive power, affirmative action, warrantless searches, etc. -- but none so great as the likelihood that he will vote to eradicate Roe. He doesn't need to testify on whether he'll vote to uphold or overturn Roe; his record reflects his animosity to the landmark decision. Should we ignore what he has written and said simply because now, when he's on an extended job interview, he says he'll keep an open mind? I think not. Newspaper headlines screaming that Judge Alito has an open mind on abortion rights will not console women when Roe is no more, an outcome Judge Alito's writings strongly suggest he supports.
There is, of course, the argument that Justice Anthony Kennedy would provide the fifth vote preserving Roe. In other words, Judge Alito's views should not matter because his vote alone will not be enough to overturn the decision. That argument worked somewhat with newly-confirmed Chief Justice John Roberts because he was a conservative replacing a conservative. It kept the Court at par. Judge Alito is different because he will be replacing a more moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. I do not share the same confidence that Justice Kennedy can be counted on to preserve Roe. Justice O'Connor's beautifully written plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey has held things together precisely because it is so eloquent and reasonable. It is dangerous to rely on Justice Kennedy to champion Casey's re-affirmance of Roe.
Moreover, what kind of cushion are we comfortable with? Are we willing to give up precious votes on abortion simply because we think we can hold the line with a 5-4 decision? With that reasoning, we can let Roberts slide through and Alito slide through and hope that the next one to retire isn't on our side? The majority of Americans support legal abortion, yet we roll over so we don't have to battle to fight for it. Why is that? The right has been chipping away at Roe for years and has been aggressively trying to get it overturned. When public opinion is not on their side, why are we afraid to challenge them?
It's worth it to fight against Judge Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court. I have no doubt that he is a smart man, and a generally honest one despite some of the questions on his failure to recuse himself in the Vanguard case. But he is not the person I want on the Supreme Court. If we are not willing to fight now, when will we ever be?
Posted by Fresh Politics at 04:27 AM | Comments (18)
January 10, 2006
Loconte: "Muzzle the Christian Left"
Posted by Father Jake
A recent editorial by Joseph Loconte of the Heritage Foundation argues that the religious left needs to be muzzled:
…Democratic officials began holding conferences with religious progressives. All of this was with the intention of learning how to link faith with public policy. An event for liberal politicians and advocates at the University of California at Berkeley in July even offered a seminar titled "I Don't Believe in God, but I Know America Needs a Spiritual Left."
A look at the tactics and theology of the religious left, however, suggests that this is exactly what American politics does not need. If Democrats give religious progressives a stronger voice, they'll only replicate the misdeeds of the religious right…
Gary Vance of CrossLeft responds:
… I totally disagree with such a presumptuous and baseless statement. Loconte is attempting to discourage the very thing that must be done. He mischaracterizes the concept of progressive Christians gaining influence in the political arena by equating it to the dilemma we currently face with fundamentalism. Call me an alarmist, but I perceive our democracy to be threatened as we teeter on the brink of a corporate/fascist/theocratic takeover. American politics and especially the Democratic Party desperately need an infusion of liberal Christianity. There is no other voice or entity that can effectively speak to the threat of fundamentalism in politics and we possess the scripture, the moral high ground and heritage to do just that. A strong and Biblically centered voice from the left challenging the credibility of the neocons is the last thing the Heritage Institute and Republicans want to see happen because their hot air balloons can be so easily pricked by the truth.
Further into his editorial, Loconte takes a swipe at Stanley Hauerwas:
It's true that in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks, some Christian conservatives shamed themselves by blaming the horror on feminists and gays, who allegedly incited God's wrath. But such nonsense is echoed by liberals like the theologian Stanley Hauerwas of Duke University.
"The price that Americans are going to have to pay for the kind of arrogance that we are operating out of right now is going to be terrible indeed," he said of the United States' response to the Qaeda attacks. "People will exact some very strong judgments against America - and I think we will well deserve it." Professor Hauerwas joins a chorus of left-wing clerics and religious scholars who compare the United States to Imperial Rome and Nazi Germany.
The quote comes from an interview of Stanley Hauerwas by David Rutledge in December 2003. Here it is in context:
David Rutledge: Do you think that one of the key problems for a message like yours, in America or in the world right now, is that when you talk about watching innocent people suffer in the course of a war, the most outstanding recent example of that is the deaths of thousands of Americans at the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. And the most difficult thing in the world at the moment is for Americans to say “well, in the name of justice, we can’t allow those deaths to be the pretext for more deaths” – even though that’s right at the heart of Christian teaching?
Stanley Hauerwas: Well, I think that Americans simply cannot contemplate Americans getting to die as victims. And they want to turn their deaths into some good. And when they do that, you exactly betray – at least, as Christians – what we should have learned through the Cross: that the attempt to make life meaningful, even life that has died, through further violence, is absolutely futile. But we seem determined to want to do that, and I think we in the world will pay a great price for that. I mean, the price that Americans are going to have to pay for the kind of arrogance that we are operating out of right now, is going to be terrible indeed. And I think that when America isn’t able to rule the world, that people will exact some very strong judgements against America – and I think we will well deserve it.
Letters in response to Loconte’s piece are an interesting read. Here’s my fav:
Encouraging religious progressives to speak out is a matter of fighting fire with fire. So if the prophet Isaiah encourages certain Americans to remember the importance of responsible community and caring for the neediest, that's a nice counter to the right wing's personal-property agenda.
And it's superb tit-for-tat that the theologian Stanley Hauerwas reminds us that there will be dire moral consequences for this administration's arrogance.
After all, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Ralph Reed and Tom DeLay seem to have convinced some Americans that George W. Bush's incompetence and recklessness are just part of his mission from God.
So, what do you say? For the good of the nation, shall we heed Loconte's admonition that we not “replicate the misdeeds of the religious right”, and just shut up?
Posted by Father Jake at 10:09 PM | Comments (17)
January 09, 2006
New Courses Charted For Fundamentalists Conventions
Posted by ChristianAlliance
By Guest Blogger Don Wilkey, Jr.
After the splinter group departed from the Baptist General Convention of Texas, the organization began to sail in new directions in the vast sea of options. It became quickly evident they would navigate to uncharted waters the group they departed from had never traveled. What I have gleaned from their movement is limited to what I read from the paper they send out to Texas churches. Their editorial opinions and news emphasis tends to represent the group's leanings.
The first note of difference I see is evidenced by their ethical stances packaged and promoted by the group. Their luggage is not unlike most Religious Right ventures in the nation. For one note, they back Intelligent Design and its introduction into public education. Though most groups in the nation see this agenda as a backdoor pushing Creationism in public schools, the new Fundamentalist denomination, Southern Baptists of Texas, finds the idea inviting.1 Their predicable stance on the Terri Schiavo case is another footnote to the theorem. Articles announced "Terri was sitting up in her lounge chair, dressed and looking alert and well...Terry's eyes widened and she was obviously very pleased." The article claimed the writer joked with Terry and Terry tried to speak to the author. All the while, the article alleges, Terri's husband was going to kill her.2 Most other Baptist groups stayed away from such controversy which tended to end up with the autopsy refuting such claims contained in the story.
SBTC's newspaper editor stated that capital punishment is a Biblical mandate.3 Not only does the editor like capital punishment, he thinks the war with Iraq is a good idea. He even went so far as to claim that pacifism is a pagan idea. The peace people were equated with the Far Left in the editorial who were defined as a "thoughtless, wholly emotional effort based on bad theology."4 The SBC backed by endorsement the war with Iraq and one of the paper's issues devoted lots of print to justifying the now unpopular war. The paper assured readers the war is not wrongly motivated "no matter what spin the liberal media may put on it. It is a war to secure peace." The paper carried quotes from SBC officials backing President Bush's decision to go to war claiming the war met and exceeded requirements for a Just War.5
When Secretary of Education head Rod Paige offended parents in the nation suggesting he would send his children to private Christian schools, the paper gave a "thumbs up" to the national official. They then took a stab at the Baptist Joint Committee for being "radical separtionists."6 Another issue shared the spotlight with a SBC seminary president who claimed in affect white women needed to be having more children. The strange social agenda was promoted that birth rates have decreased among "cultures that birthed the modern world."7 Such statements drew charges of racism in the nation but there were no apologies forthcoming from a convention that openly courts Black and Hispanic churches.
Texas Fundamentalist Baptists are joined at the hip to the SBC's controversial Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. This organization, known as the ERLC, has a reputation among groups who monitor the Religious Right. The ERLC openly criticizes the Baptist General Convention of Texas and enjoys the warm embrace of the SBTC. SBTC writers believe the national convention was pro-choice until they rescued it and staffed the ERLC with their people.8 In the past, ethics leaders in Baptist life claimed to only speak "to" and not "for" Baptists in their organizations. In a radical departure in protocol, the new viewpoint is speaking "for" the majority.9 This brings up intriguing issues if your ethical leadership only reflects majority opinion.
Richard Land, the head of the ERLC blames Texan Foy Valentine as being a leader with offensive ethical positions. The BGCT once honored Foy for his leadership in Christian ethics. Foy was Land's predecessor. SBTC writers allege that Foy headed a liberal agency which was out of step with majority viewpoints held at the time.10 (Recall Foy's organization was the agency in power during the Civil Rights legislation.)
Land is linked to the Religious Right by the nation's media. There are also other relationships with individuals and movements that never in the past occupied Baptist life as it does with SBTC people. Historically, Baptists have supported public education. To SBTC viewpoints sending children to public schools is like sending them to be "educated by the Chaldeans." Rather than being light in the pubic school arena, the new convention sees schools as bringing down students as; "...enemies winds up infecting our kids." The answer for this phenomena is to start homeschooling children or ordering the new literature available at their publishing house for church schools.11
At annual SBTC meetings people who were arch enemies of the old BGCT are often honored. Two such cases are noted at the 2005 meeting at which judge Paul Pressler handed Religious Right activist Skeet Workman a reward for her activity.12 Skeet, a rancher who ran on the GOP ticket for Congress once was editor of the Fundamentalist paper. She is a homeschooler who was given a high rating by Gun Owners of America when she ran for office supporting the GOP redistricting plan in Texas. Skeet made the news a few years back when she attacked the BGCT linked Buckners Benevolences. Buckners shared a platform on teen pregnancy with Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is the total accumulation of all evil according to these mindsets. The paper highlighted the fact that the Baylor intern president was linked to Planned Parenthood.
The October 25, 2004 paper carried an honoring article and picture of Religious Right activist Ed McAteer.13 Ed had wanted President Bush to appoint him as Ambassador to Israel so that Israel could occupy ancient Biblical boundaries. Linked to the John Birch Society, McAteer put together the 1980 Religious Right gathering that drew ministers into supporting Ronald Reagan. The SBTC papers often portray Democratic national candidates in a negative light and honor Republican politicians.14 Which generates no surprise that President Bush sent them an official greeting at their 2003 annual meeting.
Perhaps the most radical course change is in the realm of church and state. Paper editor Gary Ledbetter wants the government to allow churches to engage in political electioneering and this not impact their tax exempt status.15 The editor supports HR 235 which not only allows churches to endorse candidates, but the congregation can use a good portion of its budgets for political campaigns. The tax exempt law dates back to a conflict between a Dallas First Baptist member and Senator LBJ. It was no irony that the paper carried an article from a deacon at First Dallas claiming Johnson's agenda was to limit free speech.16 Though most Baptists in Texas appear to be horrified at such a sight as ministers publicly endorsing candidates from the pulpit and church newsletters backing politicians, Land and Ledbetter find the idea inviting and accuse the government of suppressing religious freedom instead.
With their viewpoints on church and state it would be no surprise that the cover of the newspaper featured a picture of Jay Sekulow who makes over $700,000 a year defending their viewpoints on the First Amendment.17 Jay is the arch enemy of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an organization founded in a Baptist office and enjoys a long history of Baptist support. The annual meeting of their convention often features pastor Dwight McKissic who worked with the Texas Restoration Project. This Project encouraged churches to register voters through ushers during the morning worship services. Executive Secretary of the SBTC, Jim Richards, spoke at a Restoration gathering. Richards sees separation of church and state as only applying to the state's interference in the church and not vice versa. He then suggested the readers "vote Biblical principles."18 Which as his friend Jerry Falwell says, means people will vote for George Bush.
Ledbetter weighed in on the argument suggesting it is ok for tax money to flow to religious organizations. A viewpoint that causes Baptist forefathers to shutter in disbelief. He writes off his critics on this issue as just "liberal groups." Gary explains his position on the nation's leaders who don't want government support coming to religious organizations: "It is not religion being rejected by one side of our current debates; it is God himself."19
To sum up SBTC's viewpoint on church and state one need only go to Ronnie Yarber' s assessment in his editorial. He concluded that the Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth suffered its catastrophic tragedy, (a gunman slew several worshippers), because the government prevents teaching of Biblical values.20
Endnotes:
1. Jerry Pierce, "Q&A", SOUTHERN BAPTIST TEXAN, June, 13, 2005, pgs. 8-9.
2. Barbara Weller, "Culture Watch", SOUTHERN BAPTIST TEXAN, April 4, 2005, pg. 16.
3. Gary Ledbetter, "The Demand for Justice", SOUTHERN BAPTIST TEXAN, Feb. 3, 2003, pg. 4.
4. Gary Ledbetter, "Pacifism and Moral High Ground", SOUTHERN BAPTIST TEXAN, Feb. 17, pg. 13.
5. "Culture Watch", SOUTHERN BAPTIST TEXAN, Feb. 17, 2003, pgs. 12-13.
6. "Thumbs Up", SOUTHERN BAPTIST TEXAN, Mar. 1, 2003, pg. 4
7. "Short Takes", SOUTHERN BAPTIST TEXAN, Nov. 28, 2005, pg. 4.
8. Tom Strode, "2003 SBC Report", SOUTHERN BAPTIST TEXAN, July 7, 2003. pg. 21.
9. Tammi Ledbetter, "Land Tells SBTC, SOUTHERN BAPTIST TEXAN, pg. 11.
10. "Land Reflects on 15 Years...".SOUTHERN BAPTIST TEXAN, Oct. 13, 2003, pg. 1.
11. "Special Report", SOUTHERN BAPTIST TEXAN, Mar. 3, 2005. pg. 7.
12. Tammi Ledbetter, "Annual Meeting", SOUTHERN BAPTIST TEXAN, Sept. 14, 2005, pg. 5.
13. "Baptist News", SOUTHERN BAPTIST TEXAN, Oct. 25, 2004, pg. 13.
14. SOUTHERN BAPTIST TEXAN, cover, Nov. 17, 2003.
15. Gary Ledbetter "Time to Climb that Wall", SOUTHERN BAPTIST TEXAN, Mar. 22, 2004, PG. 4
16. Bonnie Pritchett, "Christian Citizen, SOUTHERN BAPTIST TEXAN, Mar. 22, 2004, PG. 6.
17. SOUTHERN BAPTIST TEXAN, cover, July/Aug. 2000.
18. Jim Richards, "Cross Roads", SOUTHERN BAPTIST TEXAN, July 2004, pg. 3.
19. Gary Ledbetter, "Common Sense...." SOUTHERN BAPTIST TEXAN, Mar. 2001, pg. 4.
20. Ronnie Yarber, "The Mission Message," SOUTHERN BAPTIST TEXAN, 2001, pg. 11.
Posted by ChristianAlliance at 03:03 PM | Comments (8)
January 06, 2006
Of Miners, Miracles, and the Human Condition
Posted by Faithful Progressive
Yet another tragedy seared our hearts this week, as many of us watched the families of miners have their hearts broken on national TV. One or two who had prayed in thanks and celebration minutes earlier openly questioned their belief in God after they had learned the true fate of the miners in the Sago mine. The events powerfully laid bare the frailties and frustrations of the human condition and the limits of our relationship with God. The hard truth is that not all of our prayers are answered in the way we hope they will be. The tragedy in Sago is the tragedy of the human condition. Many of us look to God for solace and the occasional miracle: we want God, but we want God’s peace on our terms. Watching the tragic events unfold, I watched one of the bravest acts of Christian witness I have ever seen—live on CNN.
It was a man active at the Sago Baptist church. He had been there as the heart-wrenching events unfolded this past week. He was one of the most impressive people I’ve ever seen on TV. He recalled the events with courage and loss but still accepted what he took to be God’s will in this matter.
But that raised another question in my mind: were these deaths an act of God or man-- given the terrible record of the mining company at issue and the even worse record of the Bush Administration in protecting the rights of workers? Right now, the evidence seems to point to a larger pattern of giving cronies too much authority and appointing anti-regulation regulators who simply do not take the needs of workers into sufficient account. Certainly, Miners Deserve Better than they are getting from President Bush, as this LA Times editorial piece argues.
We probably won’t know for sure what the immediate cause of the tragedy was until the investigation is complete. And my own reaction--call it knee jerk if you want—made we think as well. Some of us want to put a political spin on almost everything. While some conservative Christians seem too quick to blame God (witness Rev. Falwell's statements on Mr. Sharon), maybe some of us are too quick to look for political answers to fundamental human questions.
While a political response seems overdue and justified with respect to mining safety—it’s also important to be sure of the facts before reaching conclusions and to remember that even mine owners are people, too. They are subject to the same weaknesses as the rest of us. No doubt some of them are grieving now as well. We offer our prayers for them, as well as for the friends and families of the miners who were lost this week and for the full recovery of the single survivor. And let me also offer a personal prayer of thanks for the brave man on CNN who reminded me of why I strive to be a Christian.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 02:43 AM | Comments (2)
January 05, 2006
Throwing up a huge wall between science and faith
Posted by Jesus Politics
Long time Baptist seminary professor, E. Glenn Hinson, has written a very thoughtful article on our current cultural dilemma in relation to science and religion. Some excerpts:
Judge Jones dubbed intelligent design "creationism relabeled." Intelligent design is not science but the religious view of a particular group, he concluded, and the U.S. Constitution bars the teaching of religion in public schools.
I heartily applaud this carefully reasoned decision, but I would suggest to fellow applauders we should pay close attention to the concern which prompted the creationists and now motivates the advocates of intelligent design.
Unless we can find an alternative way to address that concern, I am fearful that our society will suffer increasing polarization, with immense cost to both sides in the culture war.
Unfortunately, many conservative Christians have chosen as their key line of defense a theory of biblical inspiration that throws up a huge wall between science and faith--the theory of biblical inerrancy. Scientists offer a "human" view; they prefer a "divine" one based on the Bible.
The sad reality is that their effort completely misrepresents the perspective of the Bible itself. The Hebrew and Christian scriptures, as E.Y. Mullins remarked nearly a century ago--in a phase of the evolution controversy which centered on the Scopes trial--"Do not tell us how the heavens go, but how to go to heaven."
The scriptures nowhere presume that human beings can demonstrate how God is at work in the world. God, and God's action, is visible only to the eyes of faith.
Any solution to this highly controverted issue would seem to require recognition of two relatively autonomous spheres--science and faith--which nevertheless respect one another enough to listen to the other. To paraphrase Jesus' advice to Jewish citizens under dominance of Rome (Mk 12:13-17), "Accept from scientists the descriptive insight which they have and accept from believers what comes from faith."
I know that many creationists and intelligent designists are but … but ... butting here: "But some who teach evolution make fun of religion. How do we counter that?"
Much of that would disappear if people of faith did not make rationally indefensible claims about the Bible and thus erect artificial barriers between faith and science.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 04:52 AM | Comments (99)
An Arrogant Executive
Posted by Fresh Politics
The case against torturing detainees is, in my mind, pretty cut and dry. Putting aside the argument that the United States should be above such tactics, the simple fact is that if we torture our enemy's fighters, why wouldn't our enemy do the same to us? To think otherwise is arrogant, and to put our soldiers into deeper danger than they already face is inexcusable.
Yet the Bush Administration seems to love the idea of torture, what with Alberto Gonzales's take on the "quaint" provisions of the Geneva Convention. Prominent Republicans, however, haven't had the same level of enthusiasm. Notably, Senator John McCain has been vocal in his opposition to torture. The McCain Detainee Amendment was added to the Defense Appropriations Bill and passed the Senate by a 90-9 vote. The Amendment establishes the US Army Field Manual on Interrogation as the standard for interrogating detainees held in Department of Defense custody; prohibits cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment; and follows the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. With such a strong majority supporting Senator McCain's amendment, President Bush finally acquiesced and signed the bill last week.
President Bush issued a "signing statement" providing his interpretation of the bill. Interestingly, this states that the Executive Branch will construe the law "consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," which "will assist" the President and Congress in their goal to protect "the American people from further terrorist attacks." This raises a serious concern as to the extent the President plans to actually follow the law. From an article in The Boston Globe today:
David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that the signing statement means that Bush believes he can still authorize harsh interrogation tactics when he sees fit."The signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it's important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me,' " he said. ''They don't want to come out and say it directly because it doesn't sound very nice, but it's unmistakable to anyone who has been following what's going on."
Golove and other legal specialists compared the signing statement to Bush's decision, revealed last month, to bypass a 1978 law forbidding domestic wiretapping without a warrant. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without a court order starting after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Really, I almost wonder if anyone actually parented these people. Bush gives in and signs the bill once it becomes clear that there are plenty of votes to override his threatened veto and most people don't think torture is such a great thing. Then, like a gang of four year olds, the Administration thumbs its nose at Congress, sticks out its tongue, and whines that it will do what it wants anyway. In light of the Bush Administration's actions in the last few years, the assertion behind the signing statement is extremely troubling. This Administration has made a habit of putting itself above the law, and I fear that this will continue unless Congress takes some action and/or the courts draw the line.
Speaking of courts -- what does Judge Samuel Alito think about the limits on the power of the Executive branch? This most certainly is an issue that should be addressed during his confirmation hearings beginning next week, as it is an issue that will likely continue to be alive and well for the next three years.
Posted by Fresh Politics at 02:19 AM | Comments (4)
January 03, 2006
Shhh...King George is Listening
Posted by Father Jake
By now you have probably heard about President Bush authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens even though such spying on citizens without a court order is prohibited by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The President signed the secret order authorizing these illegal wiretaps in 2002, which makes these comments, made in April, 2004, quite incriminating:
…Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
When confronted with his impeachable crime, how does our President respond?
...the 56-minute session became dominated by the four-year-old NSA surveillance program, which was revealed last week by the New York Times. While generally relaxed and sometimes joking, Bush grew testy when asked if he is presiding over the expansion of "unchecked power" by the executive branch. "To say 'unchecked power' basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the president, which I strongly reject," he responded sharply, waving his finger.
Asked what limits he sees on a president's power in a time of war, Bush said a few key congressional leaders had been briefed on the domestic spying program and his administration reviews its own actions periodically. "I just described limits on this particular program," he said…
In asserting the legality of the program, Bush cited his power under Article II of the Constitution as well as the resolution authorizing force passed by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks. The resolution never mentions such surveillance, but Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said it is implicit and cited last year's Supreme Court decision in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, which found that the force resolution effectively authorized Bush to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely as enemy combatants. The same ruling held that detainees are entitled to challenge their imprisonment in court.
And what does he have to say about the blatant lie, quoted above, that he told the American people?
…The president denied misleading the public during a 2004 appearance in support of the Patriot Act when he said, “Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, a wiretap requires a court order.”
Asked about that Sunday, Bush said: “I was talking about roving wire taps, I believe, involved in the Patriot Act. This is different from the NSA program. The NSA program is a necessary program.”
Has the President gone too far? Here are some of Richard Lacayo’s thoughts regarding that question:
…The NSA intercepts are just one instance of the Bush Administration's effort to pursue the war on terrorism unhindered by some long-established legal norms. Most Americans agree that the government has to go after terrorists aggressively and with all appropriate means. Where they part company is on the question of what means are appropriate, at least if the goal is not only to deter another attack but also to protect both the freedom of Americans and the reputation of their country as one that takes ideas like decency and justice seriously. In the White House version of how that struggle must be conducted, it's acceptable to hold captured suspects indefinitely without trial, hand them over for questioning to nations known to torture prisoners, define American citizens as enemy combatants who can be detained without charges, resist efforts by Congress to put limits on the rough interrogation of detainees and allow the CIA to establish secret prisons abroad. Any and all of those things may be necessary, but this is shaping up as the year when we take a long, hard look.
To support its aggressive conduct, the White House has been developing a very robust interpretation of presidential power. Vice President Dick Cheney in particular believes that presidential power has been unreasonably confined since the 1970s. Although he served as a Congressman from Wyoming from 1978 to 1989, it's the Executive Branch that holds Cheney's heart. As White House chief of staff for Gerald Ford from 1975 to 1977, he saw up close how Ford's powers were repeatedly reined in by a newly invigorated Congress determined to refuse Nixon's notions of Oval Office prerogative.
Because they required the President to plainly bypass an act of Congress, the no-warrant wiretaps may be the sharpest expression yet of the Administration's willingness to expand the scope of Executive power…
It is indeed time we took “a long hard look” at this “very robust interpretation of presidential power.”
We fought a revolution against the tyranny of one king named George. The general of our forces in that struggle was another George, who refused to wear a crown when elected as our nation’s leader. And now, over two centuries later, we are confronted by yet another George, who seems to have misplaced our national legacy in his rush to claim as his personal prize a potentate’s power. It may be time once again for true patriots to rise up against tyranny.
Posted by Father Jake at 10:18 PM | Comments (6)
January 02, 2006
The Weight of a Snowflake
Posted by ChristianAlliance
By Guest Blogger r. Johnson
"Tell me the weight of a snowflake," a coalmouse asked a wild dove."Nothing more than nothing," the dove answered.
"In that case I must tell you a marvelous story," the coalmouse
said. "I sat on a fir branch close to the trunk when it began to
snow. Not heavily, not in a raging blizzard. No, just like in a dream,
without any violence at all. Since I didn't have anything better to do,
I counted the snowflakes settling on the twigs and needles of my
branch. Their number was exactly 3,471,952. When the next snowflake
dropped onto the branch--nothing more than nothing--as you say--the
branch broke off."Having said that, the coalmouse ran away.
The dove, since Noah's time an authority on peace, thought about
the story for a while. Finally, she said to herself, "Perhaps there is
only one person's voice lacking for peace to come to the world."-Source unknown
As a new year unfolds, there will be plenty of opportunities for each of us to raise a voice for the poor, the homeless, and those most in need. There will be battles to wage over budgets on a state and national level. As the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the need to speak out only increases.
We can also raise a voice for peace and against war, torture, and the culture that condones it. As we devote more and more of our national resources toward building bigger bombs, bigger arsenals, and faster jets, we divert money that could be used to address our social needs as a nation. And we saddle our children, our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren with debts they will not be able to pay. Your voice could be the one that turns the tide, that breaks the branch.
We each have a voice. It is up to us to use it. May you have a happy new year, and may your voice be hoarse in the coming year.
Posted by ChristianAlliance at 04:32 PM | Comments (6)
