“ We oppose genocide and other grievous violations of human rights such as torture, religious and racial oppression, forced conscription, forced labor, and war crimes.” and we… “denounce beliefs and actions that ordain the inherent right of one people, race, or civilization to rule over others.”

“Earthly peace is built on the recognition of the unity and goodness of created existence, the oneness of humanity, and the dignity of every person.”

That's why people of many faiths have felt called to do what they can to raise awareness on this issue. I joined a group of fellow bloggers, The Coalition for Darfur that tries to keep this issue in public view through the clutter of other catastrophes that seem to be the order of the day. The group called the Genocide Intervention Network links 10 things you can do right now. The ELCA has a brief but excellent summary of the crisis here. Oh, and one more thing, please pray for the people of Darfur and for lasting peace in the Sudan.

Posted by Faithful Progressive at 04:20 AM | Comments (5)

March 23, 2006

Kevin Phillip's American Theocracy

Posted by Jesus Politics

Kevin Phillip's new Book, "American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century" is stimulating a good deal of conversation. A great place to participate in this conversation is at TPMCafe Book Club. One excellent contribution there is from Michelle Golberg. There is a tendency in this conversation to either overstate the danger of a theocratic overthrow of the US government or to understate this threat. Golberg avoids these extremes and gives a nuanced view of what she calls the "Christian Nationalists". Some excerpts:

Perhaps most problematic is the conflation of all American evangelicals -- somewhere between 25 and 40 percent of the population, depending on the survey -- with the theocratic wing of the GOP. The number of what Phillips calls theocrats -- I call them Christian nationalists -- is much smaller, probably around 10 to 15 percent of the population. That's the group that self-identifies as members of the religious right and that shows fairly strong support for, for example, amending the Constitution to make Christianity the official religion of the United States. Even among this sub-group, Christian Reconstructionism – an unabashedly theocratic sect that calls for the execution of gays, apostates and women who are unchaste before marriage, among others -- is a fringe movement. [ ]

I'll just say here that although Christian Reconstructionism remains small and peripheral, a lot of ideas that you once only saw in Reconstructionist publications now circulate more broadly among the religious right. Further, as I've written in Salon and elsewhere, Christian Reconstructionists used to be considered radioactive even by other religious conservatives -- Ralph Reed excoriated the movement -- but now you see them sharing conference stages and dinner tables with some right-wing members of Congress. This does not equal theocracy or anything like it, but it is a change, a tiny step in that direction. [ ]

First, there's the massive transfer of social service funding -- over 6 billion dollars -- to religious groups via the faith-based initiative. [ ] Another important change is the way Bush has filled the federal bureaucracy with Christian nationalists -- people who fundamentally reject a secular epistemology and who privilege faith above reason. A lot of these figures are obscure, but they have profound influence over the creation and enactment of government policy. I'm talking about everything from pressuring NASA to refer to the big bang as merely one theory among others to redirecting our global AIDS prevention funding to abstinence-promoting missionary outfits.

A dedicated and organized movement of politicized fundamentalists is reshaping American life. They are a minority, even among American evangelicals. But they are the minority that controls the grassroots of the political party that in turn controls the country.

Posted by Jesus Politics at 04:09 AM | Comments (2)

The Democracy Has No Clothes

Posted by Fresh Politics

Am I still in America? These days, I find myself wondering if I've taken a trip to some alternate universe. What is the state of our nation's democracy, and how does it compare to what we say we stand for?

Consider the obvious. To have a healthy democracy, people need to be informed and engaged. To be fair, our founding fathers weren't perfect and the voting population was initially quite subscribed so the riff raff wouldn't screw things up. Nevertheless, the ideal is that everyone has the opportunity to participate. And it follows that effective participation demands an informed population.

Yet the Bush Administration has been incredibly secretive, and has been enabled by a Republican-controlled Congress and spineless Democrats afraid to rock the boat. From the ever-changing reasons for why we went to war in Iraq to the lies and stonewalling when Valerie Plame was outed; from the burying of data on the real financial impact of the prescription drug plan for seniors to the outright lies that the government was obtaining a warrant before wiretapping American citizens when, in fact, there was a secret program outside of any oversight, the American public has been repeatedly told that up is down and left is right. We have a press that screams sensational headlines of questionable fact ("THE EMPEROR IS WEARING A FABULOUS SUIT OF THE MOST LUXURIOUS AND BEAUTIFUL SPUN GOLD!") only to whisper the reality a few days later ("Some of the Emperor's opponents say the Emperor's suit may really be denim, and fringe bloggers have made the outrageous claim that he was actually wearing nothing at all.")

How can anyone claim to have a real democracy when the people are lied to by the government, and a captured press feeds without question any lines thrown to them? Information is classified or obfuscated, so when it's time for the electorate to vote, who knows what the real story is anyway? Without real information, we can't make real choices. And further down the spiral we go.

We have the occasional glimmers of hope. A Democrat like Russ Feingold who challenges the established thinking; David Gregory making a Scott McClellan press conference more than a long political advertisement; the rare moments when Democrats actually come together and have a coherent message that has more substance than "We're not Republicans." But these are too few and far between. With blogs that do incredible research and put out information that can never be found in the mainstream media, the opportunity to spread important stories increases. Yet that doesn't mean that these stories will show up on the network news.

A government that presents smoke and mirrors to the public is not a democracy. It is not what we stand for! It is a shame, when we have been a model for what a government can be, that we have fallen to this low. We deserve better, to be sure. But what we have is comfortable to those who have gotten fat and lazy on our complacency. So to get better, we have to demand better.

Posted by Fresh Politics at 03:48 AM | Comments (13)

March 21, 2006

Splinter vs. Beam

Posted by Nate Nelson

"Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?" (Matthew 7:3)

I've had this question in mind lately as I've heard it said that President Bush will shake up his Cabinet, that Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) will seek to censure the President, and that some in the House of Representatives are talking about the possibility of impeachment. While I think it's important to seek justice for the crimes that the Bush administration may have committed, I can't help but wonder if this is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. Aren't we missing the bigger picture by focusing so much on the Bush administration?

The truth is that our whole governmental system has serious problems, and that these problems have existed for a very long time. Because the election of President Bush in 2000 and his instigation of the Iraq War have made many previously lethargic progressives more socially conscious and active, the progressive movement as a whole seems to be under the impression that all of our problems began with President Bush and that all of our problems will be solved by the election of a progressive candidate in 2008 -- more often than not, a Democrat, and often any Democrat at all. While this may be a comforting notion, and while it may be true that "regime change" may be a good solution for the short term, I'm afraid that it doesn't even begin to address our long term problems here in America. Neither do the other solutions being proposed recently address our long term problems, whether we're talking about administrative change, censure, or impeachment.

I've been reading the writing of Dorothy Day lately. For those who are unfamiliar with Dorothy Day, she was a great Catholic social activist who embraced voluntary poverty in order to live in solidarity with the poor and oppressed and to give hospitality to Christ, who she recognized in each poor, vulnerable, and marginalized person. Although she fought for women's right to vote and was imprisoned for her activism, she never exercised that right, believing as she did that the whole governmental system was corrupt and not to be cooperated with. Reading her voluminous writings, one can't help but see what she was saying; she lived from 1897 until 1980, and she witnessed and wrote about all manner of sins and outright crimes committed by both Republican and Democratic presidencies and congresses. She watched as Republican and Democratic presidents waged war after war: World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, and everything in between. Her writing reveals that the systemic problems at the heart of our democracy are nothing new, that they did not begin with the Bush administration in 2000.

Am I saying that there shouldn't be a Cabinet shake up, that President Bush should not be censured or impeached? No. In fact, I am personally in favor of censuring the President and impeaching both President Bush and Vice President Cheney. What I'm saying, though, is that the Bush administration is the splinter that so many of us are choosing to focus on instead of focusing on the great big beam piercing our governmental system. As progressive Christians, our work cannot just begin and end with holding the current presidential administration accountable. Jesus spoke out comprehensively against the evils of his day, and we are called to do the same.

Our goal cannot just be this or that election, or this or that governmental procedure. Rather, our goal must be: "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven." It will take some time and some dialogue to discern whether or not "regime change" is God's will -- but one thing we can all affirm is that God's will for us is so much more than that. Let us work one day at a time, "by little and by little" as Dorothy Day might have said, but let us not be short-sighted in our vision.

Posted by Nate Nelson at 01:14 AM | Comments (18)

March 20, 2006

Three Years of War in Iraq

Posted by Faithful Progressive

If you had just three hundred words to describe your reactions to three horrible years of war in Iraq--what would you say? Journalist Shaun Mullen asked FP to contribute to his Kiko's House collection Iraq Three Years On: Voices From the Homefront. The piece includes 12 brief but thoughtful responses to three years of war in Iraq.

I called my piece A Traumatized Patient:

Prior to the invasion, Madeline Albright called this an "elective war" akin to an elective surgery—one where the likely benefits clearly did not outweigh the potential risks. The Iraq war has set off a disastrous course of events that has led to tragedy on many levels. It has weakened our position strategically and advanced the cause of Iran , our most dangerous adversary. The war has stretched our military, put us deeply in debt, and left the region less secure.

But, first and foremost, one must remember the deep personal losses suffered by so many Iraqi, American and British families. Thousands of lives have been lost and many more seriously injured. I recently received an e-mail from a member of the Band of Sisters group. She wrote of her son's traumatic injuries when shrapnel went through his skull and brain. Now he has a "debilitating learning disability as a result of his brain injury." There are tens of thousands of similar stories, each one full of incalculable human pain and loss.

As Americans, we have lost our moral authority and standing in the world. The run-up to the war revealed us at our worst: we arrogantly went it alone without much support from the larger world community. Intelligence failures and outright distortions have made us a less trustworthy ally. We have resorted to the troubling use of mercenaries to do much of the fighting, and they and others have shown few qualms about war-profiteering. And then there is the deeper tragedy of torture and Abu Gahrib: will America ever be viewed the same again, anywhere in the world?

This in turn raises another question about Americans ourselves--are we still capable of being shocked into a new strategy? Is the patient so traumatized from his disastrous choice that he can no longer think clearly?

Posted by Faithful Progressive at 12:15 PM | Comments (5)

March 16, 2006

Playing Hardball on Holy Ground

Posted by Jesus Politics

The president of the United Church of Christ denomination, Rev. John Thomas, has recently given an extraordinary address that deserves careful reading and wide dissemination. Thomas reflects on the way churches and denominations are currently being manipulated politically. Thomas speaks with an unusual degree of clarity, directness, and courage. Some excerpts:

In the past, generally, it’s been the sphere of religion seeking to use the sphere of politics to further its causes. I believe that pattern has begun to shift in the last twenty years as politics - and politicians - have begun to find ways to use religion to serve their own partisan interests.

No longer is it merely religious groups seeking to use the political arena to press their reform agendas. And it’s not just politicians seeking to coopt religion for their election campaigns, either. Now we are seeing well organized, politically connected initiatives intervening in the interior life of American religious bodies to serve their interests. Here the scene shifts from the IRS to the IRD.

The IRD - the Institute on Religion and Democracy - is a sophisticated “inside the beltway” organization well funded by conservative foundations and closely aligned with a neo-conservative political agenda. The IRD supports and encourages campaigns of disruption and attack in Mainline churches through its Alliance of Church Renewal.

The IRD pursues its political agenda in the churches through three strategies: campaigns of disinformation that seek to discredit church leadership, advocacy efforts at church assemblies seeking to influence church policy, and grass roots organizing which, in some cases, encourages schismatic movements encouraging members and congregations either to redirect mission funding or even to leave their denominations. Indeed, the Mainline churches are facing hardball tactics.

Even more perversely, the IRD, through related organizations in its Association of Church Renewal, encourages grass roots dissenting movements within denominations using classic political organizing around “wedge issues,” issues such as gay marriage or ordination, or Middle East policy. These movements do far more than encourage vigorous theological and moral debate within denominations; in reality they seek to disrupt, ultimately to control, and failing that to dismantle mainline denominations.

What is important to note here is that IRD’s interests are not primarily fostering church renewal or encouraging lively theological and ethical debate in church councils and assemblies. The ultimate goal is to reshape the Protestant mainline into a powerful force advancing the neo-conservative political agenda with its goal of promoting its own version of “Western representative democracy” around the world. Just as politicians are now forging alliances with churches to promote their electoral agenda, and, in the process disregarding IRS laws and regulations, IRD is using church members, and even outside groups, to disrupt and ultimately control the mainline to promote its own political agenda,.

To challenge this potent alliance of conservative politics and religion, we published a photograph of Spongebob sitting across from me at my desk with the caption, “General Minister and President John Thomas tells Spongebob Squarepants that he would be welcome in the United Church of Christ.” Underneath the humor - which was received with great appreciation by the way - was the reminder that there are, in fact, competing or alternative visions of what the Gospel says to our culture, “blue state red state” if you will, and that we must not allow only one of those visions to be seen simply because of the power of its political patrons. Progressive churches are discovering that neo-conservative politics are playing hardball on their holy ground, and that some form of hardball may be necessary to prevent the church from being completely coopted or silenced.

Increasingly mainline church leaders and evangelical church leaders - leaders who differ radically in many ways, including their political loyalties - are allying themselves together around a common commitment to the care of the creation and on behalf of the needs of the poor.

In a society marked by deep political and ideological alienation, where the fabric of the commonwealth is frayed to the point of tearing, communities that find ways to tolerate difference and live creatively with diversity may be their own form of redemption not simply for themselves, but for all of us. But in order to be this redemptive community, we will need to resist the political interests who would use us for sectarian, partisan, and ultimately deeply dividing interests. Here the challenge is the same for progressive and conservative churches and their leaders. It is terribly seductive to have political leaders and interests approaching you for your blessing. But do pastors and church leaders really want to have politicians lining up at their door come election time? Do they really want to be welcomed into a world where support and influence are traded like futures on the commodity market? The Old Testament is clear in its distinction between the prophets of Yahweh and those court prophets who offered their blessing to the king in return for a comfortable place in the court. Right now, in our politically polarized landscape, the IRS may be the one institution challenging churches to ask the right questions about how best to engage the public square. How strange that even when churches and church leaders are tempted to succumb to such powerful political interests, it just may be the IRS that helps us keep our integrity and allow us to be the church we are called to be.

Posted by Jesus Politics at 06:58 AM | Comments (7)

A Democrat To Be Proud Of

Posted by Fresh Politics

Oh, Russ. I've never really been inclined to live in Wisconsin. After all, I don't eat cheese and really can't stand the snow and cold. But I could move to Wisconsin to have a senator like Russ Feingold.

Bush's wiretapping program is just plain wrong. It's illegal. And instead of doing anything meaningful, politicians got on TV, expressed outrage, and then "moderate" Republicans met behind closed doors and gave the President the legislative thumbs-up after the people got distracted by the Bush Administration's latest misstep of the week. What did Democrats do? Same as usual -- absolutely nothing.

It is with this as a backdrop that makes Senator Feingold's resolution to censure President Bush over the wiretapping program so impressive and so important. The President's actions -- and his complete and utter refusal to change in the face of the initial uproar -- are abominable. But weeks after the program's existence was made public, the Democrats essentially shrugged their shoulders once some moderate Republicans got behind a plan to allow the program to continue. Rather than pay lip service by speaking at the public via cheap TV soundbites, Senator Feingold actually did something. He put his name out there and took a risk. A risk that it vitally necessary -- that every Democratic politician ought to be out there supporting -- to protect the American public and our Constitutional rights. Senator Feingold is a lone voice saying that the President was wrong and should be held accountable:

“The President must be held accountable for authorizing a program that clearly violates the law and then misleading the country about its existence and its legality,” Feingold said. “The President’s actions, as well as his misleading statements to both Congress and the public about the program, demand a serious response. If Congress does not censure the President, we will be tacitly condoning his actions, and undermining both the separation of powers and the rule of law.”

Further, contrary to the latest Republican talking points, Senator Feingold is not trying to weaken the United States (their standby argument whenever anyone does something they don't like). The Senator's press release explains:

“This issue is not about whether the government should be wiretapping terrorists – of course it should, and it can under current law” Feingold said. “But this President and this Administration decided to break the law and they have yet to give a convincing explanation of why their actions were necessary, appropriate, or legal. Passing more laws will not change the fact that the President broke the ones already in place and for that, Congress must hold him accountable.”

I'm sick of voting for Democrats because they are not Republicans. I want to feel good about who I am voting for. I want to feel good about the party I am supporting. It's just about near impossible to feel this way when the Democratic party is too scared to actually stand up for something.

I've ranted about this a million times, but now more than ever -- when there really is a chance for the Democrats to win back some seats in 2006 -- the party needs to be something other than "not Republican." Give me a reason to feel proud when I color in the oval next to the Democratic candidate on Election Day. If I lived in Wisconsin, I'd feel that way for having voted for Russ Feingold. But since Democrats like him are scarce, I'll have to settle for the next best thing. If I lived in Wisconsin, I would have voted for Russ. And that's something to feel good about.

Posted by Fresh Politics at 03:56 AM | Comments (6)

March 14, 2006

Magnifying God

Posted by Nate Nelson

"My soul magnifies the Lord..." (Luke 1:46) This is a famous phrase among Christians and especially among Catholics like me. It's the beginning of the Canticle of Mary, traditionally referred to as the Magnificat, the song of praise that Mary offered to God proclaiming his fidelity to the promises of justice and mercy that he had made to Abraham and his descendants.

I couldn't help but think of Mary's Magnificat recently when I went to a free health clinic with a female relative who was trying to get help with buying her rather expensive medication. When we walked in, the first thing that struck me was how many women there were among the waiting patients. Since we were walk-ins and didn't have an appointment, we had to wait for quite some time, and I observed that an overwhelming majority of the patients who came and went were women. Many of these women were working women, some of them were disabled and couldn't work. A few of them were young women who had children with them, and a few of them were elderly women.

They join the 15% of American women who have no health insurance coverage, and many of them may be part of the 9.4% of American women who don't have a usual source of health care. Some of them may be among the 30% of women who have not recently had a mammogram or among the 21% of women who have not recently had a pap smear. I encourage readers to visit a free health clinic sometime soon; maybe you can volunteer some of your time, or find out if there's anything you can donate to help with the work they're doing. While you're there, be sure to look at the waiting patients and see those who give faces to the statistics I've presented here. These people are living human beings. They are our neighbors who we are not loving even as much as we love ourselves, and certainly not as much as God has loved us.

"My soul magnifies the Lord." To some, it would have been a scandalous thing for Mary to say. What is it about a Galilean peasant woman, the newly betrothed mother of a child who society will always look upon as having been conceived illegitimately, that could possibly magnify God? "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" (John 1:46) If Mary had been speaking to the wealthy elite in Sepphoris, in Jerusalem, or in Rome, they would have laughed her all the way out of town. But she speaks to them and to generation after generation. She speaks of a God magnified by the poor, the marginalized, the socially insignificant. She speaks of a God magnified by women sitting in our free health clinics every day struggling to meet their own most basic health care needs and those of their families.

It should come as no surprise to us that the Son of Mary who we worship as God in the flesh would later say that "when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him," he will separate those who cared for "these least ones" from those who did not because the latter did not care for him. Those who did not care for the least ones will ask him when they did not care for him, and he will answer: "Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me" (Matthew 25:31-46). We see echoes of the Magnificat in Jesus Christ's parable about the judgement of the nations; we see a God who is magnified by those who have no food, no drink, no shelter, no clothing, no friends, no health care, and no hope. We see a God who is magnified in the poor and vulnerable, in people who live in conditions just like the circumstances that Mary and her divine Son lived in. The Magnificat is the Gospel, and the Gospel is the Magnificat.

So what does it say about our so-called Christian nation that God in disguise is allowed to sit in free health clinics for hours, maybe to get a little bit of help or maybe to be turned away because she isn't quite destitute enough? You be the judge. In fact, we'd better all start being the judges -- because if we wait for God to judge our indifference and inaction, we might be hearing that unfortunate and surprising admonition: "Depart from me..."

Posted by Nate Nelson at 07:09 PM | Comments (1)

March 13, 2006

Catholic Charities Abandon the Children

Posted by Public Theologian

Showing that the level of animosity that they have towards gays and lesbians knows virtually no bounds, Catholic Charities of Boston decided last week that, after two decades of helping children find loving families, they would ditch the children rather than abide by a state law which forbids adoption providers from discriminating against gays and lesbians.

To its credit the organization’s board voted unanimously in December to continue considering gay and lesbian couples as potential adoptive parents, but the four Massachusetts bishops who actually call the shots said no go. Eight board members then resigned in protest of the bishops’ action.

I am a big fan of adoption myself, as both my father and my wife were taken in by families who did not give them birth, but who loved them and raised them as their own. Such situations are priceless for both the children involved as well as for society as a whole—orphanages and years of foster care are no environment in which to permanently raise a child. That the bishops would abandon the children who need these services in order to protest what a handful of gay parents might be doing in their back bedrooms for an hour or so on Saturday night manifests how deep the homophobia has now pervaded the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church—they are willing to throw the parentless children of Massachusetts under the bus, essentially consigning them to lives of poverty, crime and broken relationships—which is what the research says awaits children who grow up with no family-- rather than allow these children to be loved by gay parents who would welcome them with open, loving arms. If you looked up homophobia in the dictionary, you would see the pictures of these bishops. If there were illustrations in the Bible, right next to the passage in which Jesus rails against people who “righteously” strain on a gnat, while swallowing a camel, again you would see the bishops’ pictures.

There is a mountain of psychological evidence that demonstrates both that the health and safety of children raised by gay and lesbian parents is not harmed any more than if they were raised by straight parents, and furthermore, that the sexual orientation of children raised by gay parents is likewise unaffected by their parents’ orientation. There simply is no reason why the state of Massachusetts should not have laws on its books prohibiting discrimination against gay and lesbian adoptive parents any more than it should allow laws to prevent adoptions by mixed race or mixed religion marriages. The state, unlike the bishops, has not lost track of what is important, which is namely the welfare of the children and, is trying to do the best by them. The bishops, meanwhile, have their finger in the wind, which is currently blowing strong from the direction of the Vatican. The current pope, even more so than the last one, has a severe axe to grind on this issue, but it is our nation’s children who instead will be that which is ground up.

Posted by Public Theologian at 01:24 AM | Comments (17)

March 10, 2006

Guest Blogger Arden C. Hander : The Peaceable Kingdom, American Style

Posted by Faithful Progressive

Edward Hicks painted a series of visual sermons all titled “The Peaceable Kingdom.” If you see one at the Philadelphia Museum of Art & another at the Worcester Art Center in Massachusetts, each is an original, but so are others with the same title scattered around the world. One is a panorama, the other a close-up, but the painter’s hand is unmistakable as is also his Quaker and pacifist mooring. Peace leaps forth from these 19th Century paintings.

A very different vision --- but still, I believe, a visual sermon --- is to be found in the poignant documentary, WHY WE FIGHT, currently in selected art cinemas. Eugene Jarecki’s work is sure to reach a wider swath than did Fahrenheit 9/11 and in the process convince both the left & the right, not so much ‘what’ has gone wrong in Iraq but ‘why & how.’ The thread of deception is a phrase which must be credited to the January 1961 ‘farewell speech’ of Dwight D. Eisenhower, since it was he who first used “the military-industrial complex.” His concern, at the end of eight peaceful but lackluster years, was with what he had observed as a growing tendency in the procurement area & which he feared was governed only by itself. It supported our country having a ‘standing army’ & all that goes with it, something against which George Washington had warned and duly feared. Ike’s Secretary of Defense Charles Wilson uttered the infamous line, “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country,” and the Sherman Adams scandal had clouded our view of his Cabinet. Yet Eisenhower seemed to try to imagine his legacy and how history would recall him, and this speech was anything but pro forma.

The film begins with Eisenhower’s speech and the now famous words, then quickly travels from person to person and place to place to backlight the new phrase’s significance. Two stealth bomber pilots appear almost nonchalant & air-headed about dropping the first “smart bombs” on Baghdad. Bill Kristol of the ultraconservative Weekly Standard admits to talking about “preemption” within the Project for a New American Century group. So also Richard Perle, whose several interspersed comments representing the ‘right’ are self-righteous & pompous, sure that the Iraq war was the right way to go in this “New World” of the 21st Century.

John Eisenhower has an equal number of appearances with comments to offset Perle, not just a son’s support of his father but his own misgivings about Bushian foreign policy as well. Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked the Iraq Desk at the Pentagon before she retired an almost broken person, questions the flawed intelligence that toppled Saddam Hussein. Wilton Sekzer, a retired New York City cop who lost a son in the World Trade Center attacks, struggles on camera throughout in cameo contexts and is offset & juxtaposed by an unlikely high school graduate William Solomon who joins the Army because he cannot survive alone after the death of his mother. All have personal reasons for their plight and are therefore motivated differently in their “fight.” Each vignette both speaks for itself and is connected to an evolving meaning; yet, one does not feel manipulated at all.

Since the film was made, how Washington works has gotten much airtime. The military-industrial complex has been implicated in most of the “K Street” lobbying disclosures to the chagrin of Congress and Pentagon planners alike. “Duke” Cunningham has not only been prosecuted for accepting defense contractor bribes in the millions but has just been sentenced to eight years in prison for his illegalities. Tom DeLay has had to step down from his leadership post in the House while his Court date for his influence peddling looms. Disclosures in the “lobbying” crisis have touched many if not most elected officials, and this has challenged citizen apathy as nothing in too long a time has. But how long will it last or last at all is the question most often heard too since the American voter historically has a very short memory. To things like these that have happened since the film was made, the Producer’s choice of a George Santayana quote on which to end this documentary is pointed: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” That’s also the challenge of his throwing the gauntlet down this way! The “perils of empire” have come forth in the quest of an imperial presidency not seen since the days of Nixon, and it is not hard to imagine where hate has been fostered in the world with unilateral and misguided actions which reflect back on us. But what will we do about it? Will we remember at all? Will Ike’s tepid warning against militarism endure?

Christianity’s role in war & violence preceded even the early 4th Century with the conversion of Constantine, but from that point for sure the sword and the Cross were too closely identified, even made interchangeable. F.C. Grant’s great book, The Sword and The Cross, still stands to delineate that difficulty. Religious involvement in the Crusades and the Inquisition was not even the right thing for the wrong reason, just wrong-headed, but one would never think that God wasn’t on our side from the electronic church who cannot know that Islam is the third member of the triad that is the Judeo-Christian tradition. It’s likely that most Muslims are too sectarian to know it either. “Blessed be the peacemakers” is a hard saying in our country where ‘peacemaker’ was the western Sheriff with his weapon drawn but also the Colt 45 of the gunslinger or cowpoke who had shot or murdered a victim. Now, before our military is deployed to shoot in Iraq or elsewhere, shots echo in our own streets and alleys, our home kitchens and workplaces, to the count of more than 300,000 casualties annually. How can we lay claim to being a ‘Peaceable Kingdom’? And there’s a passive violence too in how our national & state budgets do not seek to include the lowliest or poor or an unacknowledged underclass or countless others. This may be the “Arms of Krupp,” American style.

I grew up with a certain nonconformity as begats the Protestant Tradition, but my first public act of civil disobedience was on May 25, 1956 when perhaps a dozen of my fellow graduates refused to stand for the graduation speaker, The President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower. He was certainly a World War II hero, not even close to evil as is easily posited against several of his followers in that office but just weak & ineffective, a kind of respite which people may have needed after “The Big One.” His speech was a formative one for him, entitled “The Baylor Proposal for Education.” It was my first degree of several to follow, and I was only the second member of my family line at that time to graduate from college and twenty years old. Security like is commonplace today was just not needed. My first presidential ballot would go to Adlai Stevenson, proudly, in a few months even if Ike would win a second term for another four years. I could not say “I like Ike” as the buttons suggested. By 1960 I would be at the beginning of civil rights demonstrations and thousands of hours invested, as would continue throughout the years in many matters of social justice involvement.

Since World War II left a dominating influence on me, I did a seven week pilgrimage to Normandy in July-August 1992 in which I visited most every church, cemetery, museum or marker that had to do with the War. The way the French were devastated, and twice – first in WWI and then in WWII – was dramatic and life-altering. The Summer of 1995 I added more of the same from Paris to Alsace. I saw more momentos to Churchill than Eisenhower, but since Ike’s last speech of his Presidency, I had looked at him more passively, even appreciatively.

The landscape that Hicks chose on which to place his juxtaposed animals in the panoramic version of “The Peaceable Kingdom” is the Delaware Water Gap, saved by citizen action from becoming the site for a one hundred mile lake & recreation area in the early 1970s when three states also objected. It can be hiked and is still in its original state, and I think it’s worth a pilgrimage of sorts to walk among the rocks and feel why & how Hicks chose to place his animals in the painting. It’s a bit odd that “peace-making” in our national military sense is now called ‘nation-building’ and is being tried in Iraq even if George W. dismissed it with scorn in the first Presidential Debate. Peace-making and peace-keeping is surely a more honorable way to occupy a country, if at all, than smart bombs that miss their mark badly and maim innocent civilians. A Pax Americana notion has been rejected dramatically and not just in Iraq.

In just a few weeks it’ll be the 50th anniversary of my college graduation, but now I will remember what Eisenhower was and try to forget what he wasn’t. His clarion call to the danger before us in the now even more dangerous Military-Industrial Complex was nothing less than prophetic. At long last and not grudgingly, I’m going to say, “I like Ike!” and maybe even like doing so.

WHY WE FIGHT may just be the most important cinematic achievement of the year, and I hope that its success, no matter the obstacles before it, will be around for next year’s Academy Awards for Best Documentary. That aside, its instructional and educational value for schools and churches can be immense, as we answer the call to be Peacemakers. Surely there is no higher calling.

About the Guest Blogger:

Arden C. Hander is a retired professor who spent 40 years in higher education and simultaneously serving United Church of Christ churches in extended Interim and Supply service. He has a long involvement in Civil Rights and Social Justice issues, to which he remains committed. He holds degrees from Baylor University, Southeastern (Wake Forest) and McGill University (Montreal) and also studied extensively at Temple University. He lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and dog, where he continues to be an avid reader, BBC watcher and traveler.

Posted by Faithful Progressive at 04:16 AM | Comments (4)

March 09, 2006

Are Evangelicals Leaving the Republican Party?

Posted by Jesus Politics

Amy Sullivan of Washington Monthly magazine has written an article about the growing trend of Evangelicals becoming disillusioned with the Republican party. What is of main interest here is not so much Sullivan's detailed political analysis, or her obvious bias towards the Democratic party, but the general observation that some conservative Christians are beginning to question their relationship with the Republican party. Some excerpts:

Democrats could similarly poach a decisive percentage of the GOP's evangelical base. In the last election, evangelicals made up 26 percent of the electorate, and 78 percent of them voted for Bush. That sounds like a fairly inviolate bloc. And, indeed, the conservative evangelicals for whom abortion and gay marriage are the deciding issues are unlikely to ever leave the Republican Party. But a substantial minority of evangelical voters—41 percent, according to a 2004 survey by political scientist John Green at the University of Akron—are more moderate on a host of issues ranging from the environment to public education to support for government spending on anti-poverty programs. Broadly speaking, these are the suburban, two-working-parents, kids-in-public-school, recycle-the-newspapers evangelicals. They may be pro-life, but it's in a Catholic, “seamless garment of life” kind of way. These moderates have largely remained in the Republican coalition because of its faith-friendly image. A targeted effort by the Democratic Party to appeal to them could produce victories in the short term:

That's why, insiders say, the word has gone forth from the Republican National Committee to defeat Democratic efforts to reclaim religion. Republicans who disregard the instructions and express support for Democratic efforts are swiftly disciplined.

The newly converted are the most zealous, sharing the good news with gusto to any and all comers. Every few days, Randy Brinson calls me with another revelation. Republicans? “The power structure in the Republican Party is too entrenched with big business. It's not with evangelicals—they're a means to an end.” The Christian Right? “They just want to keep the culture war going because it raises a lot of money for them.” Abramoff? “Evangelicals were being used as pawns to promote a big money agenda.” His fellow evangelicals? “Can't they see that Republicans are just pandering to them??” He once was blind, but now he sees.

But when I suggested to him that this was an example of the way that business seemed to win out most of the time when religious and business interests came into conflict in GOP politics, he stopped me. “Not most of the time,” he corrected. “Every time. Every single time.” And he's no longer sure that can change. “Maybe not with this administration.... We need to stop putting all of our eggs in one basket—that's just not good politics.”

Like an abusive boyfriend, Republicans keep moderate evangelicals in the coalition by alternating between painting their options as bleak and wooing them with sweet talk. You can't leave me—where are you going to go? To them? They think you're stupid, they hate religion. Besides, you know I love you—I'm a compassionate conservative. The tactic works as long as evangelicals don't call the GOP's bluff and as long as Democrats are viewed as hostile to religion.

Randy Brinson is proof that some evangelicals are willing to take their chances and cross over to see what Democrats have to offer. There is a growing recognition among mainstream Democrats and the once-quiescent Religious Left that they can reframe issues they care about in terms that appeal to religious voters.

Despite all of the punditry about a “God gap” at the voting booth, this is a better moment for Democrats to pick up support from religious moderates than any other time in the past few decades. That's because evangelicals themselves are the ones who are broadening the faith agenda, insisting that there are issues they care about beyond abortion and gay marriage, connecting Gospel messages about the golden rule and the Good Samaritan to the policies they want their government to support.

Posted by Jesus Politics at 06:38 AM | Comments (14)

In Celebration of Women

Posted by Fresh Politics

March 8th is International Women's Day. It's not much of a big deal in the U.S., but in other countries it is an important holiday. Much like Mother's Day, women are given gifts and flowers.

I had never heard of International Women's Day until about six years ago. At the time, I was working for a non-profit women's resource center, and my supervisor came up with the idea of doing something in our town to recognize it. She connected with another agency that provided services to the refugee community, and together the organizations sponsored the first International Women's Day celebration in our town.

Year one was an enormous success and was followed by an even more successful celebration the following year. One of the things that I found so amazing was how many diverse cultures participated in the event. Husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters from Mauritania joined their counterparts in Russia to celebrate a tradition their cultures shared. At the second event -- I don't know if this is still done -- we put up a map and had people stick a pin in their nation of origin. It was amazing to me how people from so many different places could be together in our U.S. town for the event.

It's a testament to the power women have in their families and their communities. I loved both my grandmother and grandfather, but it was my grandmother who told me the family history and shared the family recipes. As a child, my grandfather was my cherished playmate, but it was my grandmother who connected me to something far greater than myself. After my grandmother passed away, I went to Scotland and saw the places and people she often spoke of, and felt that her history was a part of me. My grandmother was a math whiz, and I often thought that if she had been born in a different generation, she would have been an investment banker or something like that. She sure was good with numbers. But as a product of a time that didn't encourage women to do much outside of family, she didn't have the same choices open to me decades later. She inspired me to aim high. And then there is my mother-in-law, who shares with me the Czech recipes of my husband's paternal grandmother, enabling me to give him a flashback to his childhood and a connection back to his heritage. Yet, she also had the strength to embark on a new path when the one she was on provided her with nothing but sadness. She had the courage to start fresh and to find herself, and I think that is amazing. In so many families, women are the glue that connects the branches of the family tree and nurture both family and community. But in many cases, they are also the inspiration for their daughters and granddaughters to find their own power.

In this political climate, where women are under attack from those on the religious right who seem to think they should be seen and not heard, we have more reason to recognize and honor the roles women have played. And as surely as people from two different continents can get together on a third one and have something to celebrate, we can do the same thing in our homes and with our families. And everyday we can remember that women in all cultures have something meaningful to contribute and advocate for them to have the opportunity to do it.

Posted by Fresh Politics at 03:02 AM | Comments (6)

March 08, 2006

Human Dignity is Not Expendable

Posted by ChristianAlliance

By Christian Alliance for Progress Blogger Nate Nelson

As the new kid on the blog, I'd like to say how honored I am to join such talented bloggers and to join the fight for the common good that the Christian Alliance for Progress has been engaged in. I would like to thank the administrators for inviting me to join in their efforts, and I hope that I can contribute in some small way to the great things that this organization and the broader Christian Left have been doing.

I have many reasons for identifying with the Christian Left. As a Catholic, I recognize that many of the values embraced by the Christian Alliance for Progress and the broader Christian Left are shared with Catholic social teaching. Compassion and care for the poor and vulnerable, responsibility and obligation, justice for all, equality and inclusiveness, faithful stewardship, right use of power, and a strong spiritual foundation in social justice efforts -- these all find echoes in my Church's social teaching before and especially after the Second Vatican Council. These shared values lead me to
fundamental agreement with the positions that the Christian Alliance for Progress and the Christian Left have taken on a number of issues.

There is at least one major issue over which the Christian Left and the Catholic Church's leadership disagree, and although I consider myself a dedicated Catholic, I have been glad for the prophetic leadership that the Christian Alliance for Progress has demonstrated in regard to equality for GLBT people. As a gay man challenged by a Church which so often treats me with hostility rather than pastoral compassion, I don't know what I would do without the kind of fraternal (and sororal!) charity that is unconditionally offered by so many on the Christian Left. It is more than encouraging to see so many outstanding Christian women and men standing up for our equality in the Church and our rights in society against the overwhelming opposition presented by the Christian Right.

But if GLBT Christians have come to understand that the Right will consistently set itself up as our collective enemy, we have also come to understand that we cannot consistently rely on support from the Left.

It is discouraging to look back on all of former President Bill Clinton's promises to the GLBT community and see that they were all brought to nothing when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which significantly limited the courts' capacity to protect GLBT Americans' rights. It is discouraging to look back on all the hard work that the GLBT community did for Senator John Kerry (D-MA) in his presidential bid, only to see that he betrayed us by supporting efforts to overturn gay marriage in Massachusetts when he should have been pointing out that granting us equality under the law has not hurt a single heterosexual marriage or the broader institution of marriage.

It is discouraging to see so many on the Episcopalian and Anglican Left willing to sacrifice their GLBT sisters and brothers on the altar to the false god of unity without charity. Too many liberal and moderate Episcopalians and Anglicans have turned their backs on Bishop Gene Robinson in particular and GLBT Christians in general by suggesting that the Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada should bend to the demands of a few egomaniacs in the Global South and even fewer extremist conservatives in North America. By suggesting that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada should turn away from the consecration of GLBT bishops and the blessing of same-gender unions in compliance with the recommendations of the Windsor Report, many on the Episcopalian and Anglican Left have suggested that GLBT Anglicans should bear the full burden of a worldwide communion's unity. The same is true of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, as many on the Lutheran Left betrayed GLBT Lutherans for the sake of maintaining unity with conservative Lutherans in America and other parts of the world.

It is discouraging for me as a Catholic to see so few on the Catholic Left standing up against the almost daily gay-bashing perpetrated by Pope Benedict XVI and the world's bishops. Recent examples include the Vatican instruction banning gays from the seminary, theopposition of the Massachusetts bishops to GLBT people adopting children, and the suggestion by American Cardinal-designate William Levada that the ministry of openly gay priests may be invalidated by declaration of their sexual orientation. All of these events have been greeted with what can only be called deafening silence by the Catholic Left when one considers how vociferously they have spoken out against issues like the prohibition of birth control, the refusal to ordain women to the priesthood, and mandatory celibacy for priests. Where are their outspoken condemnations of the Vatican's reprehensible treatment of GLBT Catholics? Do we stand alone? Are we expendable?

That's how many of us have been made to feel by the Left: expendable. If there is one message that I would like to send as I begin blogging for the Christian Alliance for Progress, it is that the dignity of human beings created in the image and likeness of God can never be considered expendable. We cannot be considered expendable. We cannot be abandoned for the sake of winning elections, and we cannot be made a human sacrifice for the sake of ecclesiastical unity. We cannot be the last to leave campaign headquarters and the first to be tossed out of campaign platforms. We cannot be the last to leave the church on Sunday mornings and the first to be excluded from the Church's life by the Congregation for Catholic Education, the Lambeth Conference, General Convention, or Churchwide Assembly. The image of God in us cannot be considered expendable; otherwise the elections we work so hard to win and the unity we work so hard to maintain are nothing but idols taking the place of God's Spirit.

The Christian Alliance for Progress has taken a difficult but necessary stand for GLBT equality. My hope, my prayer, and my conviction is that we will never find this fight for equality expendable. We must stand up as prophets and declare the unpopular message, proclaimed again and again in very different circumstances throughout history: Human dignity is not expendable.

Posted by ChristianAlliance at 12:36 PM | Comments (41)

March 07, 2006

Falwell Sends the Jews to Hell

Posted by Public Theologian

Last week, Jerry Falwell, in a press release entitled “A Gracious Correction of the Jerusalem Post” repudiated a story in the Post claiming that he believed that Jews had a covenant with God that paralleled that of Chrstians, allowing them to be saved: "While I am a strong supporter of the State of Israel and dearly love the Jewish people and believe them to be the chosen people of God, I continue to stand on the foundational biblical principle that all people — Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Jews, Muslims, etc. — must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to enter heaven."

I’m sure it did not make him happy to have to say thiis, because usually he and his fundamentalist friends like to show their philo-Semitic side as the most vigorous supporters of the State of Israel. But as anyone who knows that group’s theology very well is aware, that “love” of the Jews has a strictly utilitarian purpose. The State of Israel is useful to these people in that it helps flesh out their understanding of how the world is going to end. They believe that the Jerusalem Temple, destroyed in 70 CE by the Romans, will be rebuilt around the time of the return of the Messiah. Thus having a strong Israeli state which can menace the Muslims on the Temple Mount is an important feature in their worldview. They have every interst in egging on the Israelis as much as possible so as to spark the conflict that would take down the Al-Aksa mosque which currently sits on the the Temple Mount, in order to get things moving so that Jesus can come back.

But when the veneer of their professions of love for the Jews is pulled away, one sees what is really there. We saw this late last year when Pat Robertson, Falwell’s ideological twin, claimed that God had smitten Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with a stroke for having given Gaza back to the Palestinians, whose ancestors had lived there for more than a thousand years. Robertson, too, claims to “love” the Jews, but only so long as they keep to the master end-time plan. Such is the case with Falwell here. Yes, we love the Jews. But we all know they are going to hell.

I had a conversation like this last year when I was on the Michael Medved Show. Medved, a fomerly liberal Jew who in recent years has embraced the Christian Right, was trying to tell me that his “friend” televangelist D. James Kennedy was not interested in a theocracy. Medved said that he had spent much time with Kennedy and that their families had shared dinner several times. I replied that whatever interaction Kennedy had had with Medved for purposes of political expediency that Kennedy still believed that Medved, as a Jew, would split hell wide open when he died. Medved immediately went to a commercial break.

As I see it, the dabbling of the Jewish community with these right-wing “friends” of Israel is misguided, because these people aren’t friends at all. Friends don’t send friends to hell. Friends don’t misread the scripture in order to marginalize their friends’ religion. Here’s what Paul says in Romans 11 about the salvation of Israel:

So that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers and sisters, I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved; as it is written,
‘Out of Zion will come the Deliverer;
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob.’
‘And this is my covenant with them,
when I take away their sins.’
As regards the gospel they are enemies of God for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

Now on the one hand we have Falwell who claims that God has a one-size-fits-all approach to salvation. On the other hand we have Paul, who asserts that all Israel will be saved and that Israel has a covenant with God that has never been revoked. Which one should we take seriously?

Posted by Public Theologian at 01:44 PM | Comments (54)

March 03, 2006

Common Ground: 'We Share the Goal of Reducing the Incidence of Abortion' But See Other Issues for Good Catholics

Posted by Faithful Progressive

If you listen to some Christian voices on the right, you would think that the Bible is just one long (1300 page) diatribe against abortion and homosexuality...But to many of us, that seems like a gross distortion--one that is often manipulated for partisan purposes. The abortion issue in particular has been used as an absolute litmus test, even though recent history shows considerably more moral ambiguity, given that the number of abortions went down dramatically under pro-choice President Clinton and ticked up a bit or stayed the same under the current pro-life Administration. Catholic Democrats in the US House--both those who favor criminalizing abortion and those who urge prevention and compassion for women making that choice--have united to say that there is more to to being a good Catholic than that one difficult and divisive issue. Wednesday's Washington Post has the story, which the ever-alert Chuck Currie covered Tuesday.The House's Catholic Democrats Detail Role Religion Plays:

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer

Still reeling from the attacks on Sen. John F. Kerry's brand of Roman Catholicism during the 2004 presidential race, 55 House Democrats issued a joint statement yesterday on the central role that the Catholic faith plays in their public lives.

The signers said they were fed up with being labeled "good Catholics" or "bad Catholics" based on one issue -- abortion. They said their religion infuses their positions on many issues: poverty, war, health care and education.

"Some of us are pro-choice and some of us are pro-life," said Rep. William J. Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.). "But we respect each other and we're going to defend each other, because we're all operating in good conscience."

The statement stressed that all of the Catholic Democrats share the goal of reducing the incidence of abortion.

"We envision a world in which every child belongs to a loving family and agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion -- we do not celebrate its practice," the statement said. "Each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term."

The statement also said that though the Catholic Democrats "seek the Church's guidance and assistance," they "accept the tension that comes with being in disagreement with the Church in some areas."

Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn.) said the Catholic Democrats "have decided to stop letting others define us." But Tom McClusky, a Catholic who is acting vice president for government affairs at the Family Research Council, predicted they would fail.

"What is at the core of being Catholic is the life issue, and that's something the pope has never strayed from," he said. "While other issues are important -- such as helping the poor, the death penalty, views on war -- these are things that aren't tenets of the Catholic Church."

Chuck Currie has the full statement, and more here:

55 Pro-choice and pro-life Roman Catholic Democrats in the US House of Representatives banded together today and issued a remarkable joint statement on how their faith commonly influences their roles as elected officials:

As Catholic Democrats in Congress, we are proud to be part of the living Catholic tradition -- a tradition that promotes the common good, expresses a consistent moral framework for life and highlights the need to provide a collective safety net to those individuals in society who are most in need. As legislators, in the U.S. House of Representatives, we work every day to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being. We believe that government has moral purpose.

We are committed to making real the basic principles that are at the heart of Catholic social teaching: helping the poor and disadvantaged, protecting the most vulnerable among us, and ensuring that all Americans of every faith are given meaningful opportunities to share in the blessings of this great country. That commitment is fulfilled in different ways by legislators but includes: reducing the rising rates of poverty; increasing access to education for all; pressing for increased access to health care; and taking seriously the decision to go to war. Each of these issues challenges our obligations as Catholics to community and helping those in need.

We envision a world in which every child belongs to a loving family and agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion - we do not celebrate its practice. Each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term. We believe this includes promoting alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, and improving access to children's healthcare and child care, as well as policies that encourage paternal and maternal responsibility.

Posted by Faithful Progressive at 01:33 PM | Comments (16)

March 02, 2006

I chose to stand with my friends

Posted by Jesus Politics

Real Live Preacher is the internet blog name of Rev. Gordon Atkinson, pastor of Covenant Baptist Church in San Antonio. Rev. Atkinson's internet "ministry" has a wide following and gives a unique opportunity for non-Christians to understand Christians better. Given Rev. Atkinson's background in conservative Christianity, his writing is also an invitation for conservative Christians to understand better how some Christians change their views about the Bible. Real Live Preacher's approach to the Bible and homosexuality is a fresh and insightful perspective.

Some excerpts from three essays:

From I Have No Title For This:

Sit down Christian. You cannot wave your unread Bible and scare me because I know the larger story that runs through it beginning to end. I'm trying to resist the temptation to snatch it from your hands and beat you with it. I am your worst nightmare, a Texas preacher who knows the good book better than you do. Show me your scriptures. Show me how you justify condemning homosexual people.

Every church in America - mine not excepted - has a cellar like this. We must shovel 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, because every chapter and book we ignore must be burned to warm our comfy pews. Our souls are stained from this biblical holocaust, but somehow these two scraps of scripture mean all the world to you. You swallow whole camels, and now you're gagging on a gnat?

From A Look at the Bible and Homosexuality:

If we Christians were honest, we would admit that we do not abide by all the commandments of scripture ourselves. I don't mean that we try and fail. I mean we deliberately choose to ignore scriptures that are not convenient for our lifestyles. As I pointed out in my post yesterday, the amount of scripture that is ignored, scorned, and abused by modern Christians is incredible. This blatant disregard for scripture never seems to bother church people when the issues at hand have to do with their own sins. But suddenly, when the subject of homosexuality comes up, everyone becomes a biblical literalist. The hypocrisy of this is appalling. I think we should afford our homosexual brothers and sisters the same luxury we claim for ourselves. If we plan to ignore whatever scriptures threaten our lifestyles, perhaps we should offer them space at our bonfire to burn their little handful of scriptures as we burn the Bible chapter and verse.

From This Is How It Happened:

You want to know how it happened? I’ll tell you how it happened. I got tired. I couldn’t do it anymore. I fought an inward battle with orthodoxy for years and tried to figure out what the Bible has to say about this. I took six years of Greek, hoping the original language of the New Testament might shed some light. I got a Bachelor’s degree in religious studies and a Master of Divinity. I read everything I could find and talked to everyone I respected. But in the end, it all came down to this – I could not be orthodox in this matter. I could not. So I gave up and gave in. And the minute I did I felt a flood of cool relief, like water after forty days in the desert.

The moment of choice came, and I chose to stand with my friends. That’s the deal. That’s the way it happened. I wish I could tell you that my rigorous study finally unlocked the secrets of the New Testament’s scant witness on this matter, but it never did. For twenty years I asked this question of the Bible and never got a clear answer. Finally, I realized that I could wait on the Bible no longer.

I had to choose my place in the middle of uncertainty, ambiguity, and doubt. I had to make a choice. I had to stand on one side or the other. The bottom line is, I don’t give a damn what you think the Bible says. I’m not going to stand against my friends on this. I can’t. I cannot. I am unable to stand against them and not collapse from sorrow and despair.

Posted by Jesus Politics at 05:14 AM | Comments (51)

Not A Big Surprise

Posted by Fresh Politics

Today news came out of the pre-Katrina briefing President Bush and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff received about the potential impact of the storm. In case you've forgotten, a few days after Hurricane Katrina hit, the President told Americans via Good Morning America:

"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm. But these levees got breached. And as a result, much of New Orleans is flooded. And now we are having to deal with it and will."

Well, of course, Mark Fischetti wrote about such a scenario in Scientific American nearly four years before the real event:

If a big, slow-moving hurricane crossed the Gulf of Mexico on the right track, it would drive a sea surge that would drown New Orleans under twenty feet of water. "As the water recedes", says Walter Maestri, a local emergency management director, "we expect to find a lot of dead bodies".

Turns out, the President and Chertoff were warned about this possibility at the briefing the day before Katrina, when Max Mayfield of the National Hurricane Center told them "I don’t think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not but that is obviously a very, very grave concern."

It would almost be unbelievable if there weren't scores of other incidents when the Bush Administration insisted on presenting a happy face in spite of the mounting evidence that the situation was much worse than they appreciated. The pre-September 11th Presidential Daily Briefing, the war in Iraq, the Medicare prescription drug plan, to name but a few. So we shouldn't be surprised that there is new evidence that the higher-ups -- right up to the President himself -- were warned, and that this evidence contradicts their earlier assertions of ignorance. As usual, it is more about covering their backs than it is about the people who are suffering.

During the briefing, President Bush didn't ask a single question. He was being warned of a natural disaster of considerable magnitude, but he couldn't think of one thing to ask? Did he have any interest in the people who were there and whose lives were at stake? Was he able to appreciate the potential devastation (though it is certainly clear that the government did not appear to appreciate the catastrophe as it was actually happening)? All he did was assert that the federal government was fully prepared to respond, painting a picture far rosier than it actually turned out to be. And then what -- did he go clear some brush?

Half the time I can't figure out if it's garden-variety incompetence or malicious apathy. But whatever the reason, the Administration's refusal to listen to experts who don't just say what they want to hear costs us. The residents of the Gulf Coast paid the price this time, but they won't be the last.

Posted by Fresh Politics at 02:47 AM | Comments (2)