| Home > Community Forum > Monthly Archive |
October 26, 2006
The Most Dangerous Man in America
Posted by Jesus Politics
It looks like the right wing attacks on Senator Obama have already begun. What does all this tell us about the state of political debate in this country? How should progressive Christians respond?
From the article, "Barack Obama: The Most Dangerous Man in America":
Abortion: Barack Obama is a radical, pro-abortion liberal. He believes that American women should have an unfettered right to destroy the babies in their wombs at any stage and for any reason.
Gun control: Again, Obama is among the more extreme members of the U.S. Senate. In the last year, he has voted against shielding firearms manufacturers from lawsuits due to gun violence and in favor of legislation that would ban the sale or transfer of any and all semi-automatic firearms.
Health care: Obama has said he believes that health care is a basic human right. (Funny, I must have missed that one in the Bill of Rights.)
Immigration: As an Illinois state senator in 1998, Obama voted to give welfare and Medicaid to immigrants.
Judges: Obama voted against the nominations of both John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, and participated in the filibuster of Alito.
National security: The junior senator from Illinois voted against reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act.
From the article, "Is Barack Obama the AntiChrist?":
Obama will be the bridge between the average Jo Schmo who just wants the world a better place to the Anti-Christ who will take these souls away. Scripture will be fulfilled. I promise you and if they ever trace me back to this URL I am doomed. Also because BArack comes from such a multi-cultural liberal background he may turn into a Muslim or something… [ ]
Did anyone read the TIME Magazine article on Obama? It really creeped me out. At one of Obama's speaking engagements he was introduced in the following way: "He's all of us! He's not black! He's not white! He's not …" The speaker then faltered and realized that she was about to say that He's not male or female. This kind of a description for anyone is worrysome. I believe that this is exactly how antichrist will be… Not to mention that everything seems to be falling into place for end-times events to occur. Just my humble opinion.
Yes, I believe he will win in 08 and we will be finished by 012. I feel in my soul that he is the AntiChrist. He's too good to believe. Where did he come from? Where did his name come from? What evil forces are behind him?
Posted by Jesus Politics at 05:22 AM | Comments (48)
October 19, 2006
Barack Obama's Spiritual Journey
Posted by Jesus Politics
Time magazine has published an excerpt from Senator Barack Obama's new book. In this excerpt he talks about his spiritual journey and what it could mean to our politics. Obama expresses a progressive vision of the Christian faith and it is quite impressive and refreshing.
An excerpt from the larger excerpt:
Discussions of faith are rarely heavy-handed within the confines of the Senate. No one is quizzed on his or her religious affiliation; I have rarely heard God's name invoked during debate on the floor. Beyond the Senate's genteel confines, though, any discussion of religion and its role in politics can turn a bit less civil. Take my Republican opponent in 2004, Alan Keyes, who deployed a novel argument for attracting voters in the waning days of the campaign. "Christ would not vote for Barack Obama," Mr. Keyes proclaimed, "because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved."
Already disadvantaged by a late start and a lack of funds, Mr. Keyes had, during the course of a mere three months, managed to offend just about everybody. In that sense, he was an ideal opponent; all I had to do was keep my mouth shut and start planning my swearing-in ceremony. And yet, as the campaign progressed, I found him getting under my skin. For he claimed to speak for my religion--and although I might not like what came out of his mouth, I had to admit that some of his views had many adherents within the Christian church.
His argument went something like this: America was founded on the twin principles of God-given liberty and Christian faith. Successive liberal administrations had hijacked the federal government to serve a godless materialism and had thereby steadily chipped away at individual liberty and traditional values. The answer to American renewal was simple: Restore religion generally--and Christianity in particular--to its rightful place at the center of our public and private lives and align the law with religious precepts. In other words, Alan Keyes presented the essential vision of the religious right in this country, shorn of all compromise. Within its own terms, it was entirely coherent, and provided Mr. Keyes with the certainty and fluency of an Old Testament prophet. And while I found it simple enough to dispose of his constitutional and policy arguments, his readings of Scripture put me on the defensive.
Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, Mr. Keyes would say, and yet he supports a lifestyle that the Bible calls an abomination.
Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, but he supports the destruction of innocent and sacred life.
What could I say? That a literal reading of the Bible was folly? Unwilling to go there, I answered with the usual liberal response in such debates--that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can't impose my religious views on another, that I was running to be a U.S. senator from Illinois and not the minister of Illinois. But even as I answered, I was mindful of Mr. Keyes's implicit accusation--that I remained steeped in doubt, that my faith was adulterated, that I was not a true Christian.
In a sense, my dilemma with Mr. Keyes mirrors the broader dilemma that liberalism has faced in answering the religious right. Liberalism teaches us to be tolerant of other people's religious beliefs, so long as those beliefs don't cause anyone harm or impinge on another's right to believe differently. To the extent that religious communities are content to keep to themselves and faith is neatly confined as a matter of individual conscience, such tolerance is not tested.
But religion is rarely practiced in isolation; organized religion, at least, is a very public affair. The faithful may feel compelled by their religion to actively evangelize wherever they can. They may feel that a secular state promotes values that directly offend their beliefs. They may want the larger society to validate and reinforce their views.
And when the religiously motivated assert themselves politically to achieve these aims, liberals get nervous. Those of us in public office may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that--regardless of our personal beliefs--constitutional principles tie our hands on issues like abortion or school prayer. Such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when the opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people, and so avoid joining a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 06:12 PM | Comments (9)
October 16, 2006
Political Gimmicks
Posted by de sententia
Before I started blogging, I used to send out a daily 'quote of the day' email to friends and family with a historical quote and a link to some story or news item that made the quote relevant. It generated some very interesting discussions, with many geared toward the then looming 2004 election. Election day, November 2, 2004, had the emails flying fast and furious. In the days that followed, my conservative friends and family were proclaiming that Bush had been given a mandate by the people, an assertion the winning party makes in just about every election, and I turned my attention to that claim.
"We are a deeply divided country, perhaps more polarized than we were four years ago. We seem to be fixated on the back and forth between the republican and democratic proposals, losing sight of the big picture on what those proposals mean for our entire nation. While Bush won the election, I hope that republicans do not lose sight of the fact that they represent both republicans and democrats within their districts, and that there may be honest and meaningful opposition to their proposed solutions to the problems we face today. I hope democrats dont lose sight of the fact that their 'job' is not to obstruct, simply because a proposal came from a republican. My sense tells me that that may be wishful thinking, for both parties."Quoting Lincoln, I noted that a house divided against itself cannot stand. It was my criticism of the claim that Bush won a mandate that brought about a lengthy discussion with my conservative friends and family.
"You are entitled to celebrate, but just because some of us see great divisions in this country does not mean that we are driven by anger or resentment. Some of us also look at it more pragmatically: if Bush received the mandate you are so quick to claim, along with gains in the house and senate, then there is no excuse for failure within his administration. If however, the support was based on Karl Rove's ability to manipulate the faith of Christian voters, this is little more than a political gimmick, and the mandate is not nearly as strong as you believe." r.johnson, November 5, 2004.I was reminded of the 'political gimmick' last week when news of the book "Tempting Faith" briefly made the headlines. The book, written by former second in command of George Bush's Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, portrays the Bush administration as mocking Christians in private, only to use them at election time to bolster republican election hopes. It is a familiar story, and as I wrote back in May, the strategy is to divide people of faith and maintain a grip on power. As this election day nears, we see the division being sown, maybe even resonating with some on the right, but it is largely overshadowed by bigger issues in this election cycle.
There is a sense that change is in the air, that the fall elections will bring about a new day in US politics. Granted, I live in a blue state, and the desire for change is all around me, but I am not so sure I agree that a new day will dawn in politics in November. We still are a divided nation, and the fact that some of this fall's political races are as close as they are (given any sort of objective criteria) is a testament to how strongly some people identify with a given political party. And as the election approaches, appeals to faith in God or political party will be invoked repeatedly. In contrast to the elections of 2000 and 2004, however, the 'religious left' has been gaining ground in demonstrating that people of faith can have strong religious beliefs yet still vote for a non republican candidate. We have come far in addressing the fractures in society that have been created for political gains. We have come far, but we still have far to go, both in reaching those on the religious right with our message, and in allaying the fears of those on our secular left. Many on the secular left are particularly concerned about replacing one form of 'theocracy' with another, yet are willing, for the time being, to embrace the religious left to win this election. Kuo's book, demonstrating how the republican party has used the religious right for political gain, should serve as a warning to us on the religious left. If the republican party can use the religious right for its own political gain, the religious left must be wary of the secular left using it as a tool for the secular left's political gain as well. That day may be a long way away, but by focusing on the policies that unite us, all of us and not just a narrow segment of the religious spectrum, we should be able to avoid the pitfalls of the religious right.
r.johnson
Posted by de sententia at 04:49 PM | Comments (10)
October 12, 2006
The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy
Posted by Jesus Politics
October 11th is National Coming Out day and a reminder of how far Christian communities still need to go to fully embrace sexual orientation equality. Also of sad concern is how some Christian communities in the US view the role of women. Read this statement on the tenets of biblical patriachy to see how far some Christian groups still need to go to embrace gender equality.
Some excerpts:
1. God reveals Himself as masculine, not feminine. God is the eternal Father and the eternal Son, the Holy Spirit is also addressed as “He,” and Jesus Christ is a male. [ ]
The man is also the image and glory of God in terms of authority, while the woman is the glory of man. [ ]
Adam’s headship over Eve was established at the beginning, before sin entered the world. [ ]
Male leadership in the home carries over into the church: only men are permitted to hold the ruling office in the church. A God-honoring society will likewise prefer male leadership in civil and other spheres as an application of and support for God’s order in the formative institutions of family and church. [ ]
While unmarried women may have more flexibility in applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling, it is not the ordinary and fitting role of women to work alongside men as their functional equals in public spheres of dominion (industry, commerce, civil government, the military, etc.). [ ]
Egalitarian feminism is an enemy of God and of biblical truth
Posted by Jesus Politics at 06:33 AM | Comments (68)
October 10, 2006
Learning From the Amish
Posted by Westmoreland-White
The Amish are not “progressive Christians.” They are patriarchal, having clearing subordinate roles for women. They hold to very traditional sexual mores. They have never heard of historical criticism, process metaphysics, liberation theologies, de-mythologization, quests for the “historical Jesus,” or debates over inclusive language for either humans or God. But I suggest that all Christians, progressive or otherwise, can learn much from the Amish, especially this week.
Who are the Amish? Contrary to media reports, they are not a cult, nor a “secretive sect.” Like the Mennonites to whom they are most closely related, the Amish are descendants of the 16th C. Anabaptist movement during the Radical Reformation. The Anabaptists (or most groups of Anabaptists) shared the orthodox Trinitarian faith of the “Great Tradition” of the early church, and the Reformation emphasis on salvation by faith alone and on the supremacy of biblical authority over earthly traditions, no matter how exalted. But, unlike the Magisterial Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.), the Anabaptists rejected all violence, returning to the pacifism of the New Testament and the pre-Constantinian Church. They rejected infant baptism and held to the baptism of believers only as a sign of a radical commitment to personal discipleship. They rejected the swearing of oaths and believed that Christians could hold no government office that would involve the taking of human life. They also believed in living simply (against worldly materialism and the accumulation of wealth) and sharing widely, although only the Hutterites (found mostly in Moravia and then in isolated communities in North and South America) practiced complete community of goods, patterned after the Jerusalem church in Acts 2. The Anabaptists, themselves nonviolent and quick to practice forgiveness, were the object of severe persecution in Europe by both Protestants (who regularly drowned them in mockery of their belief in adult baptism) and Catholics (who preferred burning them at the stake). The origins of the modern belief in religious liberty comes from the Anabaptist insistence that faith be transmitted only by evangelism and no form of coercion, especially no state coercion.
Jacob Amann (c. 1656-c.1730) became convinced that many Mennonites were being lax in church discipline, particularly the practice of “shunning” persons who had been placed under the “ban,” (i.e., excommunicated) until they had repented and been accepted back into the community. He thought the Mennonites were becoming too worldly. So, he started a reform movement among them that emphasized strict separation from the world. The Amish emphasize three verses justifying the separation of believers and unbelievers: 2 Cor. 6:14, “Be ye not yoked with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?;” 2 Cor. 6:17, “Come ye out from among them and be ye separate saith the LORD;” Rom. 12:2, “And be ye not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.” Thus, the Amish prefer minimal contact with non-Amish, although as farmland prices have increased, they have been forced by circumstances to deal more and more with outsiders. Jacob Amann insisted on a very strict interpretation of the ban, so that even family members could not share table with a banned member and even spouses could not have marital relations until repentance and the lifting of the ban. (By contrast, Mennonites and most other Anabaptist groups not only use the ban only for extreme violations, but also make the separation only in personal dealings and in church matters, not in economic transactions, and family members are not forced to “shun” the banned member.)
The Amish came to Canada and the U.S. beginning in the 18th C., but most came in the 19th C., attracted by religious liberty and by plenteous farmland. The majority of the Amish became farmers not because of religious reasons, but because self-sufficient farms were the best way to practice separation and simplicity. Different Amish communities have differing standards of strictness about how much modern technology or non-Amish practices to allow. But all Amish communities maintain the New Testament practices of nonviolence and love of enemies.
The shooting of the little girls in the Amish schoolhouse in Nickel Mines, Lancaster Co, PA is an incredible tragedy. It is as traumatic as any of the other many school shootings in the U.S.—200 since Columbine. But the Amish have not lashed out in anger. Even in the midst of their grief (heightened by the media frenzy for a people who generally avoid cameras), they have practiced enemy love and forgiveness. The Amish community have already gone to the family of the gunman who committed this multiple murder and suicide and offered their forgiveness and their solidarity in the grief of the murderer’s family. They did not respond with revenge, but love and forgiveness. When the non-Amish of Lancaster County set up a fund for the victims (the Amish do not have insurance), the Nickel Mines Amish, especially the families of the victims, insisted that they could accept such generosity only if another fund were set up for the family of the gunman. The people of Lancaster County have complied.
Our society is riddled with what New Testament theologian Walter Wink calls “the myth of redemptive violence.” It is in our cartoons, our TV programming, our movies. To defeat violent evil, we are told repeatedly, the righteous must use greater violence—the same means but aimed toward a different end. Forgiveness and love, we are told, is impractical. The only good response to an attack is revenge, creating a spiral of violence. We have seen this in spades with the U.S. response to 9/11.
The Amish point to a different way—the way of Jesus. Progressive or not, that’s the way for me.
Posted by Westmoreland-White at 10:04 AM | Comments (22)
October 09, 2006
Walking in the Shoes of Moltke and Jackson or Yoo and Gonzales?
Posted by de sententia
"In France, innumerable summary executions occur, even as I sit here writing. Each day certainly more than a thousand people are killed, and thousands of German men experience murder as a matter of routine. And yet all of that is child's play compared to what's going on in Poland and Russia. Can I learn about this and just sit at the table in my heated apartment and drink tea? Don't I establish my complicity simply by doing nothing? What will I say in the future, when someone asks me: and what did you do during this time?"- Helmuth von Moltke, in a letter to his wife, Oct. 19, 1941
You have probably never heard of Helmuth James Graf von Moltke. He was a lawyer for the German defense ministry during World War II, and ultimately executed for opposing Hitler. As Scott Horton, chairman of the International Law Committee for the New York City Bar Association recently noted, Moltke "represents the ethical pinnacle of [the legal] profession." Long before US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson laid the groundwork for the Nuremberg Trials, Moltke developed a plan for holding German leaders accountable for violations of the Geneva Convention and international law. What led him to plot the ultimate trial of his countrymen and its duly elected leader? Writing to his family, Moltke stated that he stood before the court "...not as a Protestant, not as a great landowner, not as an aristocrat, not as a Prussian, not as a German...but as a Christian and nothing else."
For some of you, this may sound like a broken record: another post on torture. Readers of my blog know that it is all that I have been writing about lately, but it is the 'still voice within' that tells me I need to speak out. Maybe that is why I identify with Moltke.
Horton's article focuses on lawyers as war criminals, and compares and contrasts those lawyers who facilitated Hitler's arguments that the Geneva Convention did not apply to the German government's actions, with those lawyers working on behalf of the Bush administration. The fundamental question Horton addresses is whether we lawyers will follow in the footsteps of Moltke and Jackson, or Yoo, Addington, and Gonzales.
As I lawyer, I find the question an appropriate one. No, I do not think that Yoo, Addington or Gonzales will be facing a court of law anytime soon. As an African proverb states, "until the lions have their historians, tales of the hunt will always glorify the hunter." There will come a time when we all will have to answer for our actions. Ironically, before the United States granted itself immunity for its actions in its treatment of civilians and prisoners, the likelihood of another country seeking to hold the United States accountable for its treatment of detainees in a criminal proceeding was very low. Now that the United States has granted itself immunity, however, the likelihood of prosecution will increase. As Horton notes, the United States has used the efforts of those who seek to grant themselves immunity for their actions as evidence of a broader conspiracy to commit war crimes, justifying intervention. It is a paradox that is most certainly lost on the Bush administration.
The United States owes much to Montesquieu for postulating the theories of government that we put into practice when this nation was founded. He is one of my favorite political philosophers, and his warnings on government color my thinking. He once said that "there is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.” Lawyers have a moral and legal obligation to refrain from word splitting and making distinctions without difference when it comes to fundamental questions of law relating to the protection of civilians and detainees. Tyranny in the name of justice is perpetrated when the president can lock up an individual, even an American citizen, without charge and without access to courts, simply by describing them as an "enemy combatant" in the so called global war on terror.
This is not the first time anyone has argued that the Geneva Convention does not apply, or that the actions of our leaders are immune from prosecution for violations. As citizens, lawyers, or parents, we can choose to follow the example of Moltke, or we can choose to follow the example of John Yoo, David Addington, and Alberto Gonzales. We can reaffirm law as one of the building blocks of civilization, or we can attempt to distinguish the law from covering our own actions. Moltke serves as an example for us all.
Posted by de sententia at 04:14 PM | Comments (6)
October 05, 2006
Christian Voters Values Guide 2006
Posted by Faithful Progressive
A team from the Christian Alliance for Progress has issued a non-partisan Christian Voters Values Guide 2006. It is my understanding that a PDF version will be on the site soon. Here's a link to this effort.
Christian Voters Values Guide 2006.
For the past twenty years, the Christian Right has distorted the meaning of “Christian values” in pursuit of a partisan political agenda. We at the Christian Alliance for Progress have a different vision, one that springs from our deeply held belief in the Gospels as a guide for moral and political behavior.
As faithful Christians, here are some questions to ask your elected officials as you vote in the 2006 elections.
Caring For "The Least of These" - Pursuing Economic JusticeThe Jesus of the Gospels calls us to good stewardship, justice, and care for "the least of these." We call on our nation's leaders to seek economic justice in the management of the world's wealth and to enhance efforts to reduce poverty.
Questions: Did your elected official support an increase in the Minimum Wage? Did they oppose estate tax cuts for the super-wealthy and cuts to human services programs?
Forsaking Brute Power - Seeking Peace, Not War
Jesus knew power and he knew it could be used for justice or for conquest. Over and over, Jesus blessed his followers with peace and urged them to peace. Following his example, we call for restraint - not aggression - in the exercise of our nation's power.
Questions: Does your representative want to develop a strategy to withdraw US troops from Iraq and to provide for a peaceful transition there? Has your representative spoken out against torture and in support of Middle East peace and international law?
Caring for the Earth - Responsible Environmental Stewardship for Today
Jesus urged his followers to be good stewards and to act for good in the world here and now. We respond by caring for God's created world today, holding our environment in trust for our children.
Questions: Does your elected official support the Kyoto Accord, and an increase in fuel efficiency standards? Did your representative support the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative?
Rejecting Bigotry, Embracing Dignity - Equality for All
Jesus taught equality, justice and responsibility. We accept Jesus' call to love one another and to welcome all God's children at the table.
Questions: Did your representative support the renewal of the Civil Rights Act? Did they oppose anti-gay civil union and anti-gay marriage efforts? Have they taken a stand against criminalizing immigration policy?
Honoring the Sanctity of Childbearing Decisions
Effective Prevention vs. Criminalizing AbortionJesus taught compassion, responsibility, and equality. Following his call, we support responsible, compassionate programs that are genuinely effective in helping prevent unintended pregnancy. We affirm that each woman's body belongs to herself. No woman should be forced either to bear a child or to terminate a pregnancy.
Questions: Does your representative support science-based sexual health education? Did your representative support immediate access to Emergency Contraception (EC) and requiring that EC be made available to rape victims? Does your representative oppose making abortion a criminal offense?
Extending Healing to All - Health Care for All Americans
Jesus' insisted on justice, equality, and care for "the least of these." Acting on his teachings, we claim every American must have access to quality health care.
Questions: Did your representative support health care for all Americans? Does your representative support healing embryonic stem cell research?
About the Christian Alliance for Progress
The Christian Alliance for Progress is a nonpartisan movement of patriotic, progressive, Christian Americans who care about our country and the values of the gospels. We are also joined by those who may not identify as Christian, but who support Christians and gospel values.
We are not affiliated with any particular political party and do not and can not endorse political candidates. We stand for the values that Jesus taught, such as compassion and justice. These are basic American values too. We will support public leaders of any party who stand for the real values taught by Jesus.
Our headquarters are in Jacksonville, Florida, but we have members in every state. You can contact the Christian Alliance for Progress at:
Christian Alliance for Progress
PO Box 40495
Jacksonville, Florida 32203-0495
Or Toll Free: 1-888-381-0108
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 06:37 PM | Comments (25)
The Gospel of Green
Posted by Jesus Politics
Did everybody see Bill McKibben's excellent article, "The Gospel of Green"? McKibben summarizes the recent history of evangelical and progressive Christian involvement with environmental issues and offers some hope for the future. Some excerpts:
But this was also the year the environmental movement turned biblical -- the year when people of faith began in large numbers to join the first rank of those trying to protect creation. The key symbolic moment came in February, when 86 of the country's leading evangelical scholars and pastors signed on to the Evangelical Climate Initiative, a document that may turn out to be as important in the fight against global warming as any stack of studies and computer models. It made clear, among other things, that even in the evangelical community, "right wing" and "Christian" are not synonyms, and in so doing it may have opened the door to a deeper and more interesting politics than we've experienced in the last decade of fierce ideological divide. [ ]
Something else happened too: the emergence of climate change as the key question for the environmental movement. On the one hand, confronting global warming made everything harder -- environmental groups suddenly found themselves contending with the main engine of our economy. But for many religious environmentalists, heightening the stakes may have made progress easier -- this was a cosmological question, one about the ultimate fate of our species, our planet, God's creation. Unlike, say, clean drinking water, where simple, practical wisdom was enough to offer you an answer, global warming almost demanded a theological response. In that sense, it was like the dawn of the nuclear age. "The magnitude, the comprehensiveness, the totality of the challenge it represents to God's creation on earth, the profoundly intergenerational nature of the damage that was being done-it became the central axis," says Paul Gorman. [ ]
"When John Houghton speaks, he speaks with both biblical authority and scientific authority," says DeWitt. "The critic, the detractor, the naysayer has to deal with a person who is both the scientist and the evangelical scholar in one and the same person. As an evangelical, Bible-believing, God-fearing Christian as well as a scientist, he'd made sure that the IPCC reports were absolutely the best and most truthfully stated documents ever produced in science." [ ]
By the conference's close, the participants had made a covenant to address the issue, and then spent months gathering signatures. When it was eventually released, some leaders of the Christian right, like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson, demanded that it be retracted. Climate science was unsettled, they said. Speaking anonymously, one conservative Christian lobbyist scoffed to a reporter, "Is God really going to let the earth burn up?" The National Association of Evangelicals, the umbrella group for the entire movement, feared a split and stayed officially neutral. But the bulk of the 86 signers (who included seminary presidents, charity directors, and prominent pastors like Rick Warren, author of The Purpose-Driven Life) held strong, some of them quietly relishing the chance to say that their movement was larger than high-profile televangelists and not necessarily a steady date of the GOP. "The grace of it!" says Gorman. "I think you could say this is one of the first significant events of the post-Bush era." [ ]
Other evangelicals are less political, but at least as subversive. A former emergency room doctor named Matthew Sleeth, for instance, quit his job to preach the green gospel and says the reaction has been far greater than he could have guessed. His book Serve God, Save the Planet was published last spring, and he has been traveling to churches ever since. Everywhere his message is the same: God asks us to surrender some of our earth-wrecking wealth. "Bible-believing Christians have confused the kingdom of heaven with capitalism and consumerism," Sleeth says. He's not attracted to electoral politics. Instead he's been downsizing his life -- putting up the clothesline, selling his stuff, buying a Prius. (He writes his books on a lifetime supply of old computer paper he rescued from a Dumpster.) The ecological battles ahead of us compare to the greatest battles in American history, he says, and his models include people like the abolitionist John Brown, who practiced exactly what he preached, sharing his farm with freed slaves. "There's a longing for a spiritual life in this country," he says, over and over. "A great hunger for something more than capitalism." [ ]
Much of the uncertainty about the future of such efforts stems from this: Christianity in America has grown very comfortable with the hyperindividualism of our consumer lives. In one recent poll, three-quarters of Christians said they thought the phrase "God helps those who help themselves" came from the Bible, when in fact it derives from Aesop via Ben Franklin and expresses almost the exact opposite of the Gospel injunction to "love your neighbor as yourself." Says DeWitt, "By accommodating to a new philosophy about how society works, we've flipped Matthew 6:33 on its head. Instead of 'Seek ye first the kingdom of God and all the rest shall be added unto you,' we're looking out for number one." Which makes it a lot harder for politicians to start talking about carbon taxes or other measures that might actually start to bring our emissions under control. [ ]
In the end, it's clear that this battle is not only for the preservation of creation. In certain ways, it offers the chance for American Christianity to rescue itself from the smothering embrace of a culture fixated on economic growth, on individual abundance. A new chance to emerge as the countercultural force that the Gospels clearly envisioned. And also a chance to heal at least a few of the splits in American Christianity. Fighting over creation versus evolution, for instance, seems a little less crucial in an era when de-creation has become the real challenge.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 04:37 PM | Comments (6)
October 02, 2006
Details, Details, Details
Posted by de sententia
Any day now, you can expect George Bush to sign the pro-torture legislation passed by the House and Senate last week, the so called Military Commissions Act. Expect a big PR blitz, as republicans (no doubt) hope that it will take the focus off of GOP Rep. Mark Foley, and the GOP leadership's cover up. In this day and age, George Bush has demonstrated, time and again, that with a little help from the press, the public will quickly turn its attention to other things. George Bush has patience, if nothing else. But before the details slip your mind, before you forget to send any more emails or make any more telephone calls to your representatives informing them of your position on the pro-torture bill, there are a few details you should consider.
First, if you are like me, you will have noticed the overly broad way in which the Bush administration has been selling us out this story. The pro-torture legislation is described repeatedly as applying to 'terrorists', 'foreign terror suspects', or 'those being held at Guantanamo like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.' Some of you may not see that as a problem, how use of language might have colored your views on whether this legislation is a good thing. Use of stereotypes to justify our actions is common. Jesus Christ used stereotypes to get his followers to act a certain way, just as George Bush and the promoters of this legislation do. Who can forget the lesson of the Good Samaritan, where the pious priest and Levite walked right by the beaten and wounded man lying by the side of the road. It was the Good Samaritan, the "unpure" and rivaled foe of the Jews for the claim to being descendants of Israel, who stopped to help. Christ told us to love our neighbors as ourselves. The good Samaritan was our neighbor. Those detained under this legislation are our neighbors.
And the fact that we label those being held as "terrorists' says a great deal about whether individuals being held in this parallel universe are innocent until proven guilty. If we love the notion that we, as citizens, are presumed innocent until proven guilty, should we not advocate for the same rights for those whom we hold prisoner?
Maybe its just sloppy journalism or America's apparent inability to think critically. We see this legislation as applying to an unfavorable group of people. The least among us. True, the vast majority of those impacted by the legislation will be foreigners, but it is not as simple as the press is describing it as. The legislation applies to those deemed "enemy combatants" by the president. With the stroke of a pen, George Bush or the next president can simply declare a US citizen an enemy combatant, or one who provides "support" to some undefined enemy, and whisk you off to Guantanamo. As a lawyer, I have seen the lengths the government will go in stretching "material support" and it is scary. But why speculate on whether or not it might happen in the future, when it is happening now and has happened in the recent past with American citizens Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi?
You don't have to be a lawyer to understand what this legislation is about. To make the impact of this legislation more understandable to the average person, it is important not to get mired in the details or get lost in the generic title or acronym. Plain and simple, its the "pro torture bill." "That's OK," we tell ourselves. "The Military Commissions Act is a 'necessary toll in the war on terror' and it only applies to Samaritans, Jews, Gypsies, Gays, terrorists", or whatever other group we do not identify with. It applies to our neighbors, not us. What do we have to worry about?
Posted by de sententia at 05:15 PM | Comments (7)
