| Home > Community Forum > Monthly Archive |
January 25, 2007
On Religion and the Pornography of Imperial Violence
Posted by Jesus Politics
Bruce Lincoln, author of "Holy Terrors: Thinking about Religion after September 11" and the article, "Bush’s God Talk", has another insightful piece on religion and politics published here. The title of the article is "From Artaxerxes to Abu Ghraib: On Religion and the Pornography of Imperial Violence."
Some excerpts:
Simple utilitarian calculations suggest that the amount of academic attention devoted to a given threat ought reflect its seriousness, based on calculations of the likelihood that threat will be realized and the destruction it can unleash. By these standards, al Qaeda, Hamas, the Aryan Nations, Aum Shinrikyo, the Tamil Tigers, Gush Emunim, and all other non-state groups are relative pikers, whose capacity for violence is dwarfed by that of the larger states, who also use their formidable discursive capacities to normalize their own aggression, while stigmatizing that of all adversaries. State violence is, of course, held in check by numerous factors, including law, tradition, international institutions, political and economic costs, calculations of self-interest, also—not least in importance—considerations of morality and religion. Should any of these militate in other directions, however, the likelihood of violence increases accordingly. Among the most dangerous of situations is that in which an extremely powerful state bent on conquest finds and deploys religious arguments that encourage its aggressive tendencies and imperial ambitions.
Without great difficulty, one can identify a contemporary case of this type, but its very proximity threatens to distort one’s perception.3 Believing that it may be useful to consider data sufficiently removed from the present to afford some critical distance, I have devoted much of my research in recent years to the role played by religion in Achaemenid Persia (550–330 BCE), the largest, wealthiest, most powerful empire of antiquity before the emergence of Rome.4 [ ]
Of infinitely greater importance than adjudicating any of the particulars is to observe what happens when a powerful state develops the capacity to persuade itself, its citizens or subjects, and perhaps also others, that the world is divided between the forces of good and evil; further, that its leaders have been divinely ordained to lead the good in battle. As an occasional fantasy, this is bad enough. As a core belief, sustained in and by a well-wrought body of discourse, broadcast widely through all available media and genres, it becomes infinitely more dangerous. This is so, whether it is done cynically or if the propagators are themselves fervent believers. An important part of this process is the state’s ability (and its proclivity) to stage impressive spectacles that confirm—to its own satisfaction and benefit—its own delusions of grandeur.
Achaemenian religion involved three constructs that I have come to understand as ideally conducive to the aggressive pursuit of imperial ambition. These are: (1) A starkly dualistic ethics, in which the opposition good/evil is aligned with self/other; (2) A royal theology that grounds the ruler’s legitimacy in divine right, charisma, and election; (3) A sense of soteriological mission that recodes aggression as salvation (or liberation) and one’s victims as one’s beneficiaries. Moreover, the Achaemenids were past masters in the art of staging spectacles that reproduced, and seemingly validated these convictions. [ ]
The Persians, of course, were not alone in this enterprise, and successful empires almost inevitably engage in something similar. One might mention any number of recently staged spectacles like the April 9, 2003 toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue in Baghdad’s Firdos Square (a name derived from Persian “paradise,” Figure 1) or President Bush’s “Top Gun” landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln just three weeks later to proclaim that he and the American military had accomplished their divinely ordained mission to liberate Iraq and to bring God’s gift of freedom to that nation’s benighted people (Figures 2 and 3).
Also relevant are the infamous photos taken by members of the 372nd Military Police Company shortly after they assumed control of Tier 1A at the Abu Ghraib prison on October 15, 2003. Over the next month, members of this unit staged and photographed various scenes that construed Iraqi captives as bestial and lowly (Figure 4), dark and demonic (Figure 5), sexually repressed, but secretly lascivious and perverse (Figure 6), filthy (Figure 7), weak and easily scared (Figure 8). In most instances, the Iraqis were naked and cowering; in all, they were—or were made to seem—humiliated, demoralized, craven, and thoroughly dominated by the superior power of America, as represented by its tall, strong, happy soldiers.46 [ ]
Only when Seymour Hersh, our modern Ctesias, secured publication of these photos were the signs of hero and villain inverted, so that a broad audience could read the story as one of moral depravity. While I share that reaction at a visceral level, for analytical purposes I find it important to combine the initial intent of the photos with their subsequent reinscription to make a more complex point, with which I will conclude this essay. What we see here is the way moral depravity and moral confidence (or the simulacrum thereof) are dialectically related: how they produce and reproduce each other through a variety of discourses (spectacular, obscene, aestheticizing, parodic, solemn, carnivalesque, official, improvised, etc.), all of which help relieve the leaders and foot soldiers of empire from those inconvenient reservations and qualms that might otherwise inhibit their effective, relatively guilt-free exercise of the brutish and brutalizing power necessary for the conquest and maintenance of empire.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 09:34 PM | Comments (2)
January 19, 2007
Why is the Christian Right So...Un-Biblical?
Posted by Faithful Progressive
Nearly two years ago, I wrote a series on the Christian Right that began with my effort at defining what the Christian Right meant as a historical phenomenon. What was most striking to me was that the movement on the Right seemed to utterly ignore the parts of the Bible that meant the most to me personally: the Gospels and the Jewish Prophets. I wrote in part: It is a fundamentalist movement that largely rejects any modern method of Biblical interpretation; it focuses a lot of energy on End Times prophecy, which accounts in part for its ease in ignoring the Gospels, the actual ministry of Jesus... It seemed to me that, for all their claims of being Bible-based, huge parts of the Bible were missing in their ministry.
The Christian Right asserts for itself the mantle of biblical literalism and fidelity to the text of the Bible. Many people, on all sides, uncritically accept this premise, or "frame" (to use the buzz mot du jour.) But University of Chicago Professor of New Testament and Early Christian Literature, Margaret M. Mitchell has found that there are gaping holes--chiefly the Gospels and the prophets of Israel--in the Bible cited by Christian Right organizations on their own websites. For me, these missing parts strip the Bible of its central meaning.
The article, part of University of Chicago Religion & Culture Web Forum series is entitled, How Biblical is the Christian Right? Her conclusion-- is the Christian Right really... Biblical? Yes and no. Biblical in the sense of seeking biblical support for an agenda? Yes. Biblical in the sense of reading the whole Bible? No. Biblical in the sense of reading the Bible literally? No, not consistently. Biblical in reading parts for the whole, and in using the Bible as a source of weapons to define themselves against their enemies? Yes. Wrestling with the possible plural meanings and complex legacies of Bible itself? Not in public, at any rate.
In other words, the Christian Right "cherry-picks" the Bible to serve its political agenda. This is exactly what the Christian Right accuses progressive Christians of doing--maybe with some justifcation. Many progressive Christians do in fact give more weight to the words of the Gospels, to the Sermon on on the Mount (Plain) or the Great Commandment, than to, say, the erotic poetry found in the Song of Solomon. There is a reason many Christians stand when the Gospel is read--this is the heart of the ministry of Jesus. It would appear that this tradition does not obtain for many groups associated with the Right--perhaps they stand instead when obscure portions of Judges and Leviticus are read. These groups appear to favor those texts and utterly ignore the Gospels on their own websites.
Dr. Mitchell writes:
Conventional wisdom—on the right and on the left—in a rare show of agreement, believes that the Christian Right is the political face of a movement that is quintessentially biblical. The Christian Right equals Christians who are biblical literalists or fundamentalists who wish to reshape American culture and political life in the biblical image. Whatever else the Christian Right is, surely it is steeped in the Bible, and in a particular, literalistic reading of the Bible...But is this actually true? (snip)
Mitchell explores the websites of all the best known Christian Right groups. For example, Southern Baptist Convention minister Richard Land...
His “For Faith and Family” web site presents the reader with a link to something called the “Ethics Scripture Index,” defined as “a listing of Scriptures that relate to various ethical issues,” from “Abortion, Adoption, Bioethics, Homemaking/Domestication, to War, Wives, Women.”14 For a student of biblical interpretation, this is a simply fascinating document, both in form and in effect. It is both like and unlike the ancient “testimonia” lists, such as we find at Qumran (4 QTestim), which contain a chain of excerpted quotes about the nature and identity of the true prophet, for instance. But, tellingly, this list is inconsistent in form. Let me explain. First off, there is no explanation of what topics or which passages are chosen or why, and in the vast majority of cases all one sees is a citation, not the text itself (that also has the nice effect of not confusing people who read their Bible in a different translation, and hence might find rather different wording which might call into question the aptness of its place there). And this method presumes that the whole column speaks with one voice about the issue, which means that there is already a pre-determined decision about the “biblical view” on the given issue. No hermeneutical rule of thumb or guidance is given on such issues as the relationship between the Old and New Testament in Christian law or regulation, nor about how different biblical genres relate to divine teaching and biblical truth (law, narrative, parable, and proverb are all treated the same). But one gets some glimpses of the interpretive work behind this list (and the rhetorical effect it is designed to have) because sometimes a paraphrase or explanation is appended to one or more items in each categorical list.
If we take these as indicative of some higher level of interest, investment or possible debate on the topic, it is quite interesting that under “Hunger,” for instance, only fifteen citations are given, but no comments (obviously not an important issue). Astoundingly, Luke’s second beatitude (“Blessed are those who hunger now” [Luke 6:21]) did not even make the list. By contrast, “Gambling” receives double the references “Hunger” has (thirty—Land does not have the same problem as the Dobson site in acknowledging that the Bible does not mention gambling), as well as some interpretive comments (my favorite: next to 1 Cor. 16:1-3, Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians on putting money aside each week for the saints in Jerusalem are glossed, “can’t give to a collection if your money is gambled away”!). The category that had by far the most listings was “Money”: 123 citations, but not a single interpretive comment.
The contemporary significance of these strategically-placed comments seems clear when one looks at the category “War” (there is none for “Peace”). Of sixty-six citations, fully fourteen were singled out for comment:
Gen. 14:13-16 Abram rescues Lot through warfare
Deut. 2:5, 9, 19, 32-35 God’s sovereignty in war
Josh. 6-12 aggressive in God’s plan for victory
1 Sam. 15:1-3 total annihilation of enemy
2 Sam. 5:17-25 preventative, consulted God beforehand
Luke 6:27-36 [sic; possibly 7:2-10] Jesus did not command the centurion to abandon his job now that he was a Christian
While it is easy to think of this as a literalistic proof-texting, it is not just that, but a highly creative rearrangement of selective pieces of the biblical record to justify a previously reached conclusion (in this case, apparently, the invasion of Iraq). Sometimes Land does include passages that might complicate the picture, but his own interpretive comments draw attention away from them. For example, we read “Rom. 12:2 our ways are separate from the world’s ways,” but would hardly realize that under the listing Rom. 12:17-21 lies a text that contains both the actual word peace (Rom. 12:2 does not) and a command related to it: “if it is possible by your agency, live in peace with all people” (Rom. 12:18). It bears noting, in relation to my larger thesis, that it is Christian peace-makers of various stripes—not the Christian Right—who are the literalists when it comes to the latter verse. (SNIP)
How is the Christian Right Biblical?
Thus far we have examined the modes of biblical interpretation found in the web-face of the Christian Right. My thesis is that what makes the Christian Right biblical is not a literalistic hermeneutic so much as a mode of argumentation by reference to a deliberately selective set of biblical passages, annexed to the predetermined cause through a variety of exegetical moves, which are usually unexplained because they depend upon prior agreement of the ends of interpretation. And I have shown examples where there is a lot less biblical study going on than one might expect. The Christian Right represents biblical interpretation in a conjunction of two selective circles: of what are the key issues in the political realm and what are the central passages in the biblical record. It represents an odd alignment of each. The canonical delineation is striking—a focus on the Old Testament, with special prominence given to Judges and 1 and 2 Chronicles, as well as to Genesis and Leviticus; and in the New Testament, to selected moralizing passages of the Pauline letters and Revelation. It is easy to see then what is missing: the prophets of Israel and the teachings of Jesus (the Gospels). Along with them go concern with social/political issues such as economic inequality, peace-making, love and forgiveness, and critique of religious hypocrisy (just to choose a few!).
The key to this selectivity is the wholesale adoption by the Christian Right of one strand of biblical thinking, apocalyptic. And apocalyptic is indisputably in the Bible, though it is not everywhere in the Bible, or necessarily quintessentially biblical.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 11:05 PM | Comments (12)
Why Civil Disobedience?
Posted by Public Theologian
A response to my former seminary classmate Marvin Lindsay
Dear Marvin,
I read with interest your blog comments on the civil disobedience actions planned for March 16th called the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq in Washington, DC.
Specifically I wanted to address your comments relating to the relevance of civil disobedience in the present instance relating to the Iraq war to which you compared similar actions in the Civil Rights Movement. I want to challenge your comparison on factual grounds, as I do not think you have fairly represented the historical evidence. According to you, civil disobedience in that era was directed at violating unjust laws--you don't say what but I assume that you are referring to examples such as Rosa Parks who sat where she wanted in contravention of the laws of her time and the lunch counter sit-ins in places like Greensboro where African-Americans began brazenly sitting wherever they wanted. You contrast this kind of CD, which you appear to approve of, with what the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq is planning, which you question. The comparison is inadequate, however, because it only accounts for a small part of the larger history of CD in the Civil Rights Movement. Most of the CD actions were very different than you describe. A few examples:
1. One of the most common tactics of the Civil Rights Movement were its mass meetings, out of which came frequent marches, many of which had little or no permitting. At times the movement sent literally thousands of people into the downtown streets blocking traffic and bringing commerce to a halt. Now these African-Americans, who would be variously charged with trespassing, unlawful assembly or disturbing the peace were not aiming at these laws in their actions, but rather much bigger items, such as voting rights. The laws they violated were perfectly legitimate and reasonable--people ought not be allowed to indiscriminately block traffic or impede commerce--but the marchers used these legal violations symbolically to attack the laws they could not get at to violate directly.
2. MLK and many others of the movement's leaders, once jailed, refused to post bond or pay fines that would have caused them to be released, sometimes staying in jail for weeks on end. Again, they were not protesting the fact that they were being fined for having broken the law--such fines are legitimate means for the public to seek redress from offenders and they would have generally supported the imposition of such fines. Rather they were still engaged in protesting the larger societal issues, but simply using the fine as the focal point for such.
3. Another strategy the movement used was the employment of children in mass meetings and demonstrations. The CD that the children undertook was to violate the truancy laws of states and municipalities. As with the case in the previous two examples I gave, the truancy laws were perfectly reasonable and widely accepted within the African-American community. But those were the laws they broke. Moreover. they were not going to be allowed to vote anyway, since they were underage, so in this case the symbolism of their actions was particularly acute, since there is not normally an explicit connection between truancy in children and voting rights. Yet who can deny the clear message their symbolic actions sent, or the effect they had on the national consciousness?
I am not presuming to wrap our projected CD in action in March against the war in the mantle of the Civil Rights Movement. That was a special moment in our nation;s history to which all other protest movements must aspire. I am, however, suggesting that, as in the case of the Civil Rights Movement, protests which use CD in a symbolic fashion have the capacity to capture the public imagination and bring about social transformation. It would be great if there was a way in which we could invite Christians to DC to violate publicly a law which directly related to the prosecution of the war, but the laws and presidential directives relating to the movement of troops and funds which are guiding the present conflict provide no avenue for anything like this.
We are convinced that Christians must do SOMETHING rather than simply sit at home on our sofas and grouse. As I read your column, I understand that you don't agree with CD, but even you, by your own admission don't have any other ready suggestions which would give public witness to Christian lament at the course our country has chosen to follow. Nonviolent CD is a way of accomplishing this, by demonstrating a willingness to risk arrest and thus potential punishment or public humiliation, and by showing that one can, without using force or hurting people with whom one disagrees. Particularly at the season of Lent (which it will be come March), when Christians have traditionally engaged in acts of self-renunciaton and denial, CD takes on an even greater symbolism, which we hope will spread throughout the larger American church. We have much for which to repent in terms of our silence and complicity in allowing this war to continue and a public expression of contrition and penance, which this worship and CD is designed to be, is precisely the kind of action to which our tradition has historically turned when in need of righting itself.
It is my sincere hope that, not only will you be persuaded of the reasonableness of this course of action, but that you will also join us for it on March 16th. Perhaps we can catch up while waitng to get processed through the DC jail!
Your friend,
Tim Simpson
aka Public Theologian
Posted by Public Theologian at 02:26 PM | Comments (6)
January 18, 2007
The Hollowness, Timidity and Hypocrisy of the Liberal Churches
Posted by Jesus Politics
Chris Hedges' new book, "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America" is certainly provocative for the Christian Right, but what impresses me even more is how it also provokes and challenges mainstream Christians.
From the excerpt available online:
Mainstream Christians can also cherry-pick the Bible to create a Jesus and God who are always loving and compassionate. Such Christians often fail to acknowledge that there are hateful passages in the Bible that give sacred authority to the rage, self-aggrandizement and intolerance of the Christian Right. Church leaders must denounce the biblical passages that champion apocalyptic violence and hateful political creeds. They must do so in the light of other biblical passages that teach a compassion and tolerance, often exemplified in the life of Christ, which stands opposed to bigotry and violence. Until this happens, until the Christian churches wade into the debate, these biblical passages will be used by bigots and despots to give sacred authority to their calls to subjugate or eradicate the enemies of God. This literature in the biblical canon keeps alive the virus of hatred, whether dormant or active, and the possibility of apocalyptic terror in the name of God. And the steady refusal by churches to challenge the canonical authority of these passages means these churches share some of the blame. "Unless the churches, Protestant and Catholic alike, come together on this, they will continue to make it legitimate to believe in the end as a time when there will be no non-Christians or infidels," theologian Richard Fenn wrote. "Silent complicity with apocalyptic rhetoric soon becomes collusion with plans for religiously inspired genocide." [ ]
If this mass movement succeeds, it will do so not simply because of its ruthlessness and mendacity, its callous manipulation of the people it lures into its arms, many of whom live on the margins of American society. It will succeed because of the moral failure of those, including Christians, who understand the intent of the radicals yet fail to confront them, those who treat this mass movement as if it were another legitimate player in an open society. The leading American institutions tasked with defending tolerance and liberty -- from the mainstream churches to the great research universities, to the Democratic Party and the media -- have failed the country. This is the awful paradox of tolerance. There arise moments when those who would destroy the tolerance that makes an open society possible should no longer be tolerated. They must be held accountable by institutions that maintain the free exchange of ideas and liberty. The radical Christian Right must be forced to include other points of view to counter their hate talk in their own broadcasts, watched by tens of millions of Americans. They must be denied the right to demonize whole segments of American society, saying they are manipulated by Satan and worthy only of conversion or eradication. They must be made to treat their opponents with respect and acknowledge the right of a fair hearing even as they exercise their own freedom to disagree with their opponents. Passivity in the face of the rise of the Christian Right threatens the democratic state. And the movement has targeted the last remaining obstacles to its systems of indoctrination, mounting a fierce campaign to defeat hate-crime legislation, fearing the courts could apply it to them as they spew hate talk over the radio, television and Internet. Despotic movements harness the power of modern communications to keep their followers locked in closed systems. If this long, steady poisoning of civil discourse within these closed information systems is not challenged, if this movement continues to teach neighbor to hate neighbor, if its followers remain convinced that cataclysmic violence offers a solution to their own ills and the ills of the world, civil society in America will collapse. [ ]
Anger, when directed against movements that would abuse the weak, preach bigotry and injustice, trample the poor, crush dissent and impose a religious tyranny, is a blessing. Read the biblical prophets in First and Second Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah and Amos. Liberal institutions, seeing tolerance as the highest virtue, tolerate the intolerant. They swallow the hate talk that calls for the destruction of nonbelievers. Mainstream believers have often come to the comfortable conclusion that any form of announced religiosity is acceptable, that heretics do not exist.
The mainstream churches stumble along, congregations often mumbling creeds they no longer believe, trying to peddle a fuzzy, feel-good theology that can distort and ignore the darker visions in the Bible as egregiously as the Christian Right does. The Christian Right understands the ills of American society even as it exploits these ills to plunge us into tyranny. Its leaders grasp the endemic hollowness, timidity and hypocrisy of the liberal churches.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 02:27 AM | Comments (5)
January 16, 2007
Of Snowflakes and Doves
Posted by de sententia
Dr. Martin Luther King once said, "our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." Those words struck a chord in me when I read them long ago. As I drove to work this moring, it was snowing, and as the snowflakes floated gently in the air, I pondered "The Weight of a Snowflake".
The Weight of a Snowflake
"Tell me the weight of a snowflake," a coalmouse asked a wild dove.
"Nothing more than nothing," the dove answered.
"In that case I must tell you a marvelous story," the coalmouse said. "I sat on a fir branch close to the trunk when it began to snow. Not heavily, not in a raging blizzard. No, just like in a dream, without any violence at all. Since I didn't have anything better to do, I counted the snowflakes settling on the twigs and needles of my branch. Their number was exactly 3,471,952. When the next snowflake dropped onto the branch--nothing more than nothing -- as you say -- the branch broke off."
Having said that, the coalmouse ran away.
The dove, since Noah's time an authority on peace, thought about the story for a while. Finally, she said to herself, "Perhaps there is only one person's voice lacking for peace to come to the world." - Source unknown
Posted by de sententia at 03:43 PM | Comments (1)
January 11, 2007
The Growth of Progressive Churches
Posted by Jesus Politics
The recent church growth study published by Hartford Seminary’s Institute for Religion Research has some interesting and hopeful information for progressive churches. Conservative Christians often say that liberal churches are dying because of their liberal theology. This is not exactly the case according to this study.
From the study:
The disparity in growth between mainline and evangelical
Protestant churches may seem to reinforce the widely
held view that theological differences are the key to
understanding why so many mainline churches are
declining and why so many evangelical churches are
growing. However, the situation is not so simple.
All congregations were asked about the theological
orientation of the majority of their members or participants.
Options ranged from predominantly conservative
to predominantly liberal. When all congregations are
combined, there is very little relationship between
growth and theological orientation. In fact, the
proportion growing is highest on the two end points:
predominantly conservative congregations and liberal
congregations (growth rates of 38% and 39%, respectively).
Growth is least likely among congregations that say
they are “right in the middle.” Only 27% of centrist
congregations are growing at the highest level.
But since the debate over conservative vs. liberal growth
is primarily focused on mainline and evangelical
Christian churches, it is instructive to look at the relationship
between theological orientation and growth
among churches representing these two denominational
families.
Within evangelical denominations, it is the less
conservative churches that are most likely to grow.
Evangelical denominations have very few self-defined
liberal churches (only 4% say they are liberal), so it was
necessary to combine these few churches with centrist,
“right in the middle” congregations. Together, 43% of
these less conservative churches are growing, as compared
to 37% of predominantly conservative evangelical
churches. Not surprisingly, over half (57%) of congregations
in evangelical denominations say their active
adult members are predominantly conservative.
The proportion of growing churches is low among mainline
congregations of all types, but it is higher for liberal
mainline churches. Overall, only 18% of mainline
churches claim to be liberal, 25% are right in the middle,
32% are somewhat conservative and 25% are predominantly
conservative. The fact that the most vital, growing
mainline churches are most likely to be found among
their most liberal and most conservative churches may
partially explain the conflict between traditionalist and
progressive elements in these denominations.
So are conservative churches growing? The answer is
yes, but primarily because they are part of growing
evangelical denominations where most churches are
theologically conservative. But the findings of the Faith
Communities Today survey suggest that it is not
theological conservatism per se that leads to growth,
but rather something intrinsic to the evangelical
Christian family and their constituency. Likewise, the
weakness of mainline churches probably has more to
do with pervasive problems among the mainline constituency
(such as lower levels of church involvement,
competing demands for time, and lower birth rates)
than it does with their more moderate theology.
More important than theological orientation is the
religious character of the congregation and clarity of
mission and purpose. Growing churches are clear about
why they exist and about what they are to be doing.
They do not grow because they have always been at the
corner of Prospect and 77th Street. They do not grow
because they are internally focused. They grow because
they understand their reason for being (whatever that
may be) and they make sure they “stick to their knitting”
—doing the things well that are essential to their life as
a religious organization.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 06:01 PM | Comments (0)
Pig Racing
Posted by de sententia
Faithful Progressive's post on Rep. Virgil Goode's offensive comments on Muslims, and the need for reconciliation, highlights one of the more widely covered episodes of bigotry currently on display in the United States. Unfortunately there are others. Take, for example, the town of Katy, Texas. Some in the community are objecting to plans for the local Muslim community to build a Mosque on private land, and to dissuade the community from building the mosque, those who object are holding pig races every Friday, the Muslim holy day.
CNN provides some of the details. (Then again, note how much time is devoted to interviewing those opposed to the mosque, versus the Muslim community leaders.) Watching the video, it sounds so trivial. 'Whats the big deal about pig races?' 'These are just good natured Texans wanting 'to preserve their community.' If only it was an innocent faux pas or something that could be chalked up to ignorance. Instead, it is pure bigotry. Organizers of the race know that pigs are considered unclean to Muslims (and many Jews), and are holding the races is a deliberate attempt to offend the Muslims and keep them from building a mosque.
Virgil Goode is not alone, but like many politicians, he may tap into deep seated hatred. Riding that wave, we have put Americans of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps, and are currently putting Hispanic families into concentration camps. Perhaps the Muslims are next.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
Posted by de sententia at 06:07 AM | Comments (4)
January 08, 2007
Sign Our "Call for Interfaith Reconciliation in US Congress"
Posted by Faithful Progressive
Let Rep. Virgill Goode know that his attacks on Muslims are not acceptable. Please add your name to this petition, which will be hand-delivered to Rep. Goode's office.
A Call for Interfaith Reconciliation
As religious people from diverse traditions, we call upon Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode to re-examine his opposition to newly-elected Representative Keith Ellison, a Muslim, taking his unofficial oath of office using the Qur'an, and to apologize for his statement that, without punitive immigration reform, "there will be many more Muslims elected to office demanding the use of the Quran."
Mr. Goode insinuates that having more Muslims in the United States would be a danger to our country. As people of faith, we reject such ill-considered words.
An attack against one religion is an attack against them all. Next week, it could be Jews. Next month, it could be Christian fundamentalists or evangelicals. Right now, it is Muslims. It is they who feel targeted by repression and abuse, and they who live among us in a growing climate of fear.
Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel once implored us: "No religion is an island! We are all involved with one another. Spiritual betrayal on the part of one of us affects the faith of all of us."
We hold it to be self-evident that all Americans have the right to practice their faith, whatever it may be, and that any Americans - regardless of race, color or creed - may be elected and sworn into office holding whatever book they consider sacred.
We would point out that there are some five million Muslims in the US. Many have been here for generations. They are every bit as American as Rep. Goode. Some Americans have also converted to Islam, including Rep. Ellison. We call for a renewed unity among people of conscience and of faith.
We would further point out that just as it was appropriate for the late President Ford to be honored by a profoundly Christian memorial service, so it is equally appropriate for Rep. Ellison to be sworn into office, in a private ceremony, holding the book representing his deepest religious convictions.
Above all, we urge all Americans to stand up for religious freedom and to deplore the hurtful words of any public figure who would disparage a particular religion.
In a spirit of reconciliation and peace, we invite Rep. Goode to join with us in an inter-religious delegation to visit a mosque in his district, in order that the healing may begin.
Signed:
George Hunsinger
Princeton Theological Seminary
David A. Robinson, Executive Director
Pax Christi USA: National Catholic Peace Movement
Rev. Robert Edgar
National Council of Churches
Stephen Rockwell, Director
Institute for Progressive Christianity
Jeffrey Boldt
Wisconsin Christian Alliance for Progress
Katie Barge, Director of Communications
Faith in Public Life
Rev. Debra Hafner
Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing
Rev. Peter Laarman, Executive Director
Progressive Christians Uniting
Rev. Dr. Rick Schlosser, Executive Director
California Council of Churches
Rabbi Steven B. Jacobs
The Rabbi Steven B. Jacobs Progressive Faith Foundation
Elizabeth Sholes, Director of Public Policy
California Council of Churches
Rev. Rita Nakashima Brock, Ph.D.
Co-Director, Faith Voices for the Common Good
Jesse Lava, Co-founder and Executive Director
FaithfulDemocrats.com
Rev. Dr. Larry L. Greenfield, Executive Minister
American Baptist Churches of Metro Chicago
Rev. Cedric A. Harmon
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Rev. Chuck Currie
Parkrose Community United Church of Christ, Portland, OR
Joseph C. Hough, Jr., President
Union Theological Seminary, New York
Mary E. Hunt, Ph.D., Co-director
Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual
Rev. Harry Knox, Director of Religion and Faith Program
Human Rights Campaign Foundation
Rabbi Rebecca Alpert, Chair
Department of Religion, Temple University
Vincent Isner, Executive Director
Faithful America
Rev. Timothy F. Simpson
Christian Alliance for Progress
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 02:50 AM | Comments (9)
January 04, 2007
The Atheist Challenge
Posted by Jesus Politics
The recent rise of the outspoken atheist is a challenge to not only the religious right, but to progressive Christians. The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting article exploring these issues.
Some excerpts:
In bestselling books, on websites, and with a national lobbying effort, atheists and other nontheists are challenging the growing religious influence in government and public life. Some are attacking the foundations of religion itself.
Two particularly provocative books, in fact, hit the top of Publishers Weekly's religion bestseller list in December. No. 1, "The God Delusion," by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, and No. 2, "Letter to a Christian Nation," by writer Sam Harris, are no-holds-barred, antireligion polemics that call for the eradication of all manifestations of faith.
"I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented," declares Dr. Dawkins, the famed Oxford professor who wrote "The Selfish Gene."
These offerings are so intolerant of religion of any kind - liberal, moderate, or fundamentalist - that some scientists and secularists have critiqued their peers for oversimplification and for a secular fundamentalism.
"They undermine their own case by writing in a language that suffers from many things they say are true of believers - intolerance, disrespect, extremism," says Alan Wolfe, a professor of religion at Boston College, who is a secularist and author of several books on American religious perspectives. [ ]
A mere 96 pages, "Letter" may be dismissed by many for its condescending tone or overheated rhetoric. Yet its bold arguments offer a useful window into nontheist perspectives and could also startle some complacent religionists into a rethinking and refining of perceptions.
Many nontheists don't share this militant perspective, but have decided that keeping silent in religious America no longer makes sense. They are astonished that a majority of Americans question evolution and support teaching intelligent design in the science classroom. They are distressed over polls that show that at least half of Americans are unwilling to vote for an atheist despite the Constitution's requirement that there be no religious test for public office. And they contend that in recent years, Congress has passed bills and the president has issued executive orders that have privileged religion in inappropriate and unconstitutional ways. [ ]
Internet-based groups are also seeking to spread the atheist message, particularly among young adults. The Rational Response Squad (RRS) has chosen a provocative mode using the popular website YouTube. Their "blasphemy challenge" calls on young nonbelievers to create videos in which they renounce belief in the "sky God of Christianity" and upload it on the site; in return they'll receive a free documentary DVD, "The God Who Wasn't There," which includes interviews with Dawkins, Harris, and others. RRS is publicizing its campaign on 25 popular teen websites. [ ]
Harris and Dawkins make it clear that they think faith has gotten off too easy for too long. Their books have spurred widespread commentary, much of it a strong critique of their arguments and lack of religious knowledge. But in a culture immersed in combativeness in politics and the media, the intemperate books are selling well.
Yet one critic, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, calls for a truce: "We've suffered enough from religious intolerance that the last thing the world needs is irreligious intolerance."
(Thanks to Melissa Rogers for the link)
Posted by Jesus Politics at 04:47 PM | Comments (38)
January 01, 2007
Happy New Year
Posted by de sententia
Not long ago, news that the number of US service members killed in Iraq had eclipsed the number killed on September 11, 2001 hit the news. Last week, news of Saddam's execution filled the news. And what should greet us in this new year? News that the US toll in Iraq hits 3,000.
A somber start to the new year, made all the more somber by the realization of the tens of thousands of others, Iraqis, killed in this war.
If you make New Year's Resolutions, resolve this year to end the war.
r.johnson
de sententia
Posted by de sententia at 04:21 PM | Comments (6)
