| Home > Community Forum > Monthly Archive |
February 27, 2007
My Debate with Tony Jones of God's Politics
Posted by Faithful Progressive
I have been having a very interesting debate with Tony Jones at the God's Politics blog. Writing at God's Politics, Emergent Villager Tony Jones provided a thoughtful reply to a post of mine about what I perceived as his insensitive remarks about LDS Mormon faith practices, including their choice of religiously significant clothing.
Essentially, in his post, Three Choices in Pluralism Jones argues that there are only three responses possible to religious and cultural pluralism. The three he describes are: fundamentalism; secularization,which he accuses FP (and Sen. Obama!) of representing; and his own brand of Emergent Post Modernisim. I certainly disagree with him that these are the only available choices, and such a strict limitation of choices doesn't strike us as very post-modern at all.
For myself, I would add at least a fourth choice: a pragmatic theological approach that respects individual choices, is attentive to both history and power relationships, and which consciously seeks out the Other not as an object of skepticism or ridicule, but in the hopes of a dialogue that deepens one's understanding of one's own choices. But before I describe my own approach, let me respond more generally to Mr. Jones.
I disagree especially with the notion that "questioning" superficial customs of another religious tradition is either: a) post-modernist in any meaningful sense; or b.) a way foward in overcoming religious intolerance. Very significantly, his reply misses what for me is the most salient point: his post gave offense to Mormons! One would think that this would give him some pause, but no, it does not.
For example Mormon blogger nofolete wrote: "No fair making fun of the magic underwear. Would you object to a Zoroastrian or Mandaean president on the same grounds? And the "not Christians" argument is pretty old. The church has included Christ in it's name since the 1830s...As for creeds, I for one am glad we don't have to rely on Orthodox misreadings of ancient Greek philosophy in order to consider ourselves true followers of Christ."
Giving offense to members of another tradition is neither an inherent good, nor evidence of post-modern thinking. Any "post-modernism" worthy of its name must take account of power relationships. Michel Foucault, taught us to question the Power Relationships that color and inform a particular discourse. In this case, the power in the US is with non-LDS Christians. When a member of a Majority religion questions the faith practices of a minority religious group, such as the LDS in this instance--it does not represent a path toward religious tolerance, but rather the dominant power group expressing that power over the less powerful, "the least of these" in Biblical terms. It was precisely this that offended me in Jones' post and made me want to speak up for the Mormon community. And, for me, it does represent a type of theological immaturity when we are hung up the superficial--undergarments, veils, etc-- in defining our own relationship to the Other and/or the Other's good faith effort to love God.
Second, neither my way, nor Sen. Obama's, can be fairly characterized as "secularization" in any fair way. Although I believe public discourse should be based upons secular principles of reason and value and not based upon appeals to religious sources, this is not to say that I believe in "secularizing" religious belief or giving up one's religious identity when one enters the public arena.
Rather, as regular readers of this blog are aware, my own way forward is a combination of the pragmatisim of William James and the "depth ecumenicalism" of Hans Kung. And for what it's worth, I totally disagree with his take on Sen. Obama. We noted echoes of Kierkegaard and William James in Obama's speech here.)
Kierkegaard argued that every individual has an individual existential relationship with the absolute. The absolute is ultimately unknowable but still worth the effort of the human attempt to understand. Credo ut intelligam, in the famous prayer of St. Anselm, I believe that I may understand. The struggle at the heart of this relationship involves doubt and an acceptance that humans will never fully comprehend this absolute. This is a very different perspective on religion than the self-righteous certainties of the religious right.
But, as Dionne notes, this is Obama's somehwat surprising personal admission: Here's what stands out. First, Obama offers the first faith testimony I have heard from any politician that speaks honestly about the uncertainties of belief. "Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts," Obama declared. "You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it."
By acknowledging the doubt factor, Obama strikes a profound note for tolerance. Each individual will resolve the existential issue of faith in their own fashion. Some people will not undertake the exhausting wrestling match with the absolute at all. That is their right and an existential choice worthy of respect. In matters of the spirit, one size emphatically does not fit all. We should expect to come to different judgments, even within ourselves at different times of our own lives. We should expect to have these discussions, because they are discussions of nothing less than what it means to be human. But Obama doesn't stop there, he offers us the benefit of his own experience--rich with the depths of the vibrant African American tradition of a prophetic and personal faith that has known struggle.
I certainly can't speak for Sen. Obama, but for myself, I would ask Tony Jones to consider a fourth response to pluralism: a pragmatic theology that accepts without question and with respect our own inability to ever comprehend God, and an absolute acceptance of the freedom of every individual to choose to believe or not believe. The choice to believe or not is profoundly personal...The way forward is not with ideological and strident voices such as Mr. Dawkins, but rather with the tolerant pragamtists such as the great William James--who respected and studied the human Will to Believe, or to choose not to believe.
As I wrote here, Overcoming Religious Polarization: A Pragmatic Theological Approach A very interesting recent effort to reconcile Christian tradition and religious diversity was found in the book, “The Wide, Wide Circle of Divine Love: A Biblical Case for Religious Diversity” by W. Eugene March. March acknowledges the claim of a Christocentric theology, but does not find it to be in contradiction to a loving regard for those outside the faith. “Jesus is, for Christians, undoubtedly the most profound moment in God’s story with the human family. What Jesus teaches over and over again is to recognize the depth of God’s grace and the ever so wide circle of God’s love.” March argues that the Bible itself contradicts “the narrow, supersessionist interpretation that God is concerned only with the chosen people, whether Jews or Christians”
March notes that from Genesis 12-- the story of Abraham and Sarah-- that the Bible supports the idea that “all the families of the earth will be blessed.” March explores this and other texts from throughout the Biblical canon to argue that God’s love is not intended for only a select portion of the human community, but all the families of the earth, whether Gentile or Jew, Christian or non-Christian. He argues that all faiths have aspects of their canon that can enhance dialogue and others that are conversation stoppers (to use Rorty’s term). He advocates using the former, what he calls the “generous texts” as a basis for discussion and renewed understanding both within Christianity and in our conversations with people of other and no faith traditions.
Another well-known way out of the box of an overwhelming and limiting orthodoxy was expressed by Abraham Joshua Heschel. One of his most important ideas was his conviction that it is God who is searching out humankind, rather than the other way around. This paradigm shift presents us with the essential question answered by the Bible: What Does God Demand of Us? The liberal and ecumenist Catholic theologian Hans Kung has identified three broad approaches to God in the work of Heschel. First “is the way of sensing the presence of God in the world, in things. The second is the way of sensing His presence in the Bible. The third is the way of sensing his presence in sacred deeds” that is to say in the Commandments.” Obviously, such a theological approach would allow us to look beyond our objections to the religion of the other—whether within or outside our own tradition—to undertake an effort at understanding how God is present or absent in each of these three approaches.
Hans Kung’s own work recognizes the importance of an awareness of other faith traditions to arrive at a better understanding of one’s own path through a thoughtful effort to understand the way of others. In his masterpiece On Being a Christian, Kung wrote passionately of the need for a dialogue and dialectic between the faith traditions. This does not have to lead to some watered down New Age World Religion, but rather, an understanding of the “unique but not exclusive” value of each faith.
As we wrote here: Hans Kung has gone from being a great Catholic Theologian to being perhaps the preeminent World Theologian. He has spent some of his most productive years devoting himself to understanding and writing about other traditions. The index to his book On Being a Christian has half a page devoted to Islam and more than that for Buddhism. He suggests what Christians might learn from these faiths to enrich their own experience of being a Christian. As in this passage: "Christianity could correct its all-too anthropomorphic ideas of God the Father in the light of the reverent more or less transpersonal understanding of God on the part of the Asian religions: an understanding which made a lasting impression on Goethe, German Idealism, Schopenhauer, Jung, Huxley and Hesse-and rightly so." OBC, p.113
The next major work he undertook was his book on Judaism: Between Yesterday and Tomorrow. His ecumenical vision and study is informed by his conviction that the world's religious traditions need to be involved in a dialogue and even a transformational dialectic with each other as well as with human history. All of this while remaining a deeply committed Christian.
So that's my view in a nutshell:
1.) I believe with William James that religious preference and practice or (lack thereof) is a profoundly personal choice and entitled to respect (a priori).
2.) I believe (with Michel Foucualt?) that members of a dominant religious culture should not engage in demeaning comments questioning or ridiculing the members of a less dominant religious culture, and that to do so is inherently a form of cultural bullying.
3.) Most importantly, I believe with Rabbi Heschel that God is much larger than the human understanding of God, and that it is God who is seeking us out rather than our seeking God through a particular pathway to God.
(Aside: this is also what bugged me about the name of the Jim Wallis book and blog, God's Politics. (Faithful Progressive doesn't think that anyone can speak directly for God. We think the real title of the Wallis book is really more like The Evangelical Christian Bible's Politics. We believe that God is ultimately mysterious--"where certainty ends religion begins," William James, I think, once said.)
4.) I believe with Hans Kung that much good can come from interfaith dialogue and that far from watering down things to a universalist strain, that such discussion (when focused not on superficial differences) can deepen our understanding of our choices and possibilities.
5.) I believe with W. Eugene March in using our "generous texts" (rather than our harsh or judgmental ones) to find the best in ourselves and in each other.
6.) I believe Ryan Beiler of Sojourners fairly summed up this whole discussion: "While I still think it's inaccurate to call Tony's comments "mockery," insensitivity may be the fairest criticism. I get the sense that between the two of us, he'd rather err on the side of candid inquiry, and I'd rather err on the side of sensitivity. He's volunteered to grow a thicker skin for these conversations - I'm just not sure it's always fair to ask that of the minority in any given situation. But above all, I believe we both want to strike a balance between honesty and sensitivity while walking the tightrope of true dialogue."
7.) I believe I've said enough and I thank Tony Jones for his reply.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 07:48 PM | Comments (2)
On Budgets and War on the Poor
Posted by de sententia
Sadly, it is no surprise to read what we already know: the gulf between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' is growing ever wider. The signs have been there for all to see, if we would only look. Three years ago, we should have seen the reports that corporate profits were at all time highs, while labor compensation was at a 38 year low. Corporate profits continued to surge while labor compensation continued to fall. But in the United States, where a great many people measure their success by the
returns on their portfolios, we see corporate profits as a good thing. We do not see the impact on the poor.
Plato once said "An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics." Still, we see the surging profits generated by corporations as a benefit to us. Its the capitalistic view, and we tend to ignore those less fortunate. But it is not just the corporations and our never ending pursuit of profit that contribute to poverty. Traditionally, government programs have helped alleviate the hardships. Those programs are now treated as afterthoughts in federal budgets devoted to war making and driven by fear. As Faithful Progressive notes, the cost of the war in Iraq has only made things worse. It is an issue that we have been warned of for some time.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." Dwight D. EisenhowerEnding the war in Iraq will not put an end to poverty, but it would be a good first step in righting this imbalance between rich and poor. Ben Cohen, founder of Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream, came up with this video with TrueMajority.org to demonstrate the issues. I will make my voice heard to my senators and representatives, letting them know that the money we spend on war making and fear could be better spent addressing the poverty, the extreme poverty, we are seeing here at home. I hope you join me.
Posted by de sententia at 04:18 PM | Comments (2)
February 26, 2007
Poverty at 32-Year High
Posted by Public Theologian
The GOP gravy-train has been great for the fat cats, but the poor have been brought to ruin on their watch. Even as we have created record number f millionaires, the most recent data shows that millions of our fellow Americans are living in poverty, and the rate at which they are falling into it is staggering.
From the McClatchy Newspapers:
WASHINGTON - The percentage of poor Americans living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, with millions of working Americans falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the "haves" and "have-nots" continuing to widen.
A McClatchy Newspapers analysis of the 2005 census figures, the latest available, found that nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty. A family of four with two children and an annual income of less than $9,903 -- half the federal poverty line -- was considered severely poor in 2005. So were individuals who made less than $5,080 a year.
The McClatchy analysis found that severely poor Americans increased by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005. That's 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period. McClatchy's review also found statistically significant increases in the percentage of the population in severe poverty in 65 of 215 large U.S. counties, and similar increases in 28 states.
The war on Iraq has rightfully been the priority target for the efforts of liberal Christians for some time now, and rightfully so. In the meantime, however, the poor have kind of slipped off of our radar. The public need s to be reminded not just that the war is costly--they know this--but that the money we are spending creating our empire overseas is money that is not going to meet the needs of our citizens right here at home. Furthermore, the public needs to be reminded that, for all its wartime rhetoric, this administration has presided over unprecedented tax cuts which have made the rich even richer (an average of $146,000 tax cut in the top bracket), while further marginalizing those in need. It turns out that the only people sacrificing for the sake of this war are the good people in poor communities who are offering up their sons and daughters as sacrifices on the altar of American imperialism, and the poor whose misery this conflict has compounded. The millions of people who have slid into poverty while George Bush was taking down Saddam Hussein had and continue to have a lot more to fear than the alleged terrorism in which the Iraqi dictator was trafficking. They can't afford their rent or medicine or sometimes even adequate food. If we were as concerned about their plight as we are about remaking the world in our image, there would be no American poor. And at least that would be something at which we could be successful.
Posted by Public Theologian at 12:33 AM | Comments (17)
February 23, 2007
Soulforce's Equality Ride
Posted by Jesus Politics
Soulforce, a Christian gay rights organization, is sponsoring an Equality Ride beginning in early March. This looks like very important work and worthy of our support.
From Soulforce:
On March 8, 2007, fifty young adults will board 2 buses for the trip of a lifetime. The 8-week Soulforce Equality Ride will bring them to 32 Christian colleges with policies that silence or exclude lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students.
Their mission: to open a dialogue about the painful consequences of discrimination and the religion-based prejudice that sustains it.
"We come in pursuit of greater understanding," says Haven Herrin, Co-director of Soulforce Q, a youth-led movement within the national LGBT social justice group Soulforce. "Our goal is to foster a conversation about LGBT people and faith. While such conversations are often marked by politics and divisiveness, we bring open minds and hearts to academic settings, where we hope for a genuine exchange of ideas."
More than 200 U.S. colleges and universities have explicit policies that discriminate against LGBT students.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 06:30 AM | Comments (22)
February 16, 2007
Virgil Goode is A Disgrace
Posted by Public Theologian
Virginia Congressman Virgil Goods has not yet learned anything about Islam. Yet his ridiculous statements keep coming.
Last year it was his assault on incoming Rep. Keith llison, the first Muslim ever elected to the Congress, whom Goode criticized for using the Quran. The Christian Alliance for Progress, along with the National Council of Churches and other organizations led a petition drive to get Goode to go to a mosque in his district and thus clear up some of the misconceptions he has about the religion, petitions which were delivered to him last month.
But Goode is still as ignorant as ever.
Yesterday, in a speech on the House floor, no less, Goode said he feared that Muslims would one day take over the US and change the slogan on the money from "In God We Trust" to "In Muhammad We Trust."
Now I am totally down with Goode on the issue of not wanting extremists of any sort taking over the country, although I could care less what's on the money. What is really telling, however, is the basic ignorance that the man has of the religion he mocks. There isn't a Muslim alive, extremist or otherwise, who, if they were changing the money, would replace "God" with "Muhammad" because Muslims don't worship Muhammed. If they did replace "God" it would be with the Arabic word "Allah" as anybody with even the faintest acquaintance with the religion would know.
Which makes the comment all the more egregious. It is already offensive that Goode A) is obsessive to the point of pathology with Islam and B) that he continually tries to connect this issue with illegal immigration, as if all the aliens were Muslims swimming over from Arabia rather than Christians swimming the Rio Grande. But his comments yesterday are even more pathetic in that he is not even able to get an insulting caricature of the religion right.
If he doesn't know enough about the religion that he screws up this basic fact, on what basis should anyone listen to him as if he were some authority on the subject? And what is such a person doing in the House of Representatives? Goode is an embarrassment to the nation, the Congress and the good people of Virginia, who deserve to be represented by someone who, even if a bigot like Goode, is at least an informed one.
Posted by Public Theologian at 07:40 PM | Comments (3)
February 15, 2007
A Pink Reformation
Posted by Jesus Politics
Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, responds to an article by Theo Hobson published in The Guardian. Mohler recognizes Hobson's fresh perspective, but is unwilling to fully go down the road Hobson is suggesting at the end of his article.
From Hobson's article:
[ ] it seems to me that the debate about homosexuality poses such a serious threat to organised religion in this country that it is not absurd to compare it to the reformation of the 16th century. [ ]
The public change in attitudes towards homosexuality is not just the waning of a taboo. It is not just a case of a practice losing its aura of immorality (as with premarital sex or illegitimacy). Instead, the case for homosexual equality takes the form of a moral crusade. Those who want to uphold the old attitude are not just dated moralists (as is the case with those who want to uphold the old attitude to premarital sex or illegitimacy). They are accused of moral deficiency. The old taboo surrounding this practice does not disappear but "bounces back" at those who seek to uphold it. Such a sharp turn-around is, I think, without parallel in moral history.
These factors have combined to make the gay issue the church's perfect storm, perhaps even its nemesis. Because previous shifts in public morality have been slower, and more amenable to compromise, thecChurch has been able to move its clunky stone feet, and keep standing. This shift has floored it. By resisting the new moral orthodoxy on homosexuality, and hardening against it, the church is fast losing the aura of moral authority it has more or less retained all this time. When a bishop defends discrimination against homosexuals he is, in the eyes of most of the population, displaying a lamentable moral deficiency.
So the issue of homosexuality has the strange power to turn the moral tables. The traditional moralist is subject to accusations of immorality. And this inversion is doing terrible damage to the Christian churches.
But it might not be so bad for Christianity. For it revives the huge question of whether Christianity is meant to uphold a moral law at all. The original answer was no: Jesus and Paul wanted to sever the link between religion and the idea of a divine moral law. (It is therefore amazingly ironic that Paul is used as a "legal" authority for Christian homophobia.) But in practice Christianity became an organised religion, and therefore laid down the moral law - at first this law applied to a subculture, and later it merged with official public law. This was semi-challenged by the reformers of the 16th century, who wanted to revive the notion of "freedom from the law". But actually most forms of Protestantism returned to, and even intensified, the association of God and the moral law.
The crisis over homosexuality is reawakening us to the question that inspired Paul and Luther. The real question is not whether homosexuality is against "Christian morality" but whether moralism is against the Christian gospel. It seems to be - but how can a church adapt to this insight? All religious groups seem to unite around a holy moral code. Can Christianity jettison the whole idea of the moral law - and remain an organised religion? The debate about homosexuality is ushering us into strange new religious territory; making us contemporary with Paul. God works in truly mysterious ways.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 04:42 PM | Comments (4)
February 11, 2007
Will Liberal Blogs Get the Real Point of the Edwards Blogger Flap?
Posted by Faithful Progressive
I don't think many liberal bloggers have really understood the full and final implications of the Edwards Blogger Flap. Most have celebrated it as a great victory--Edwards did not give in to the (admittedly awful) right, but stood firm with the Netsroots!! What a victory!! Not.
Little has been written (at least as far as I have seen), about the need for blogs on the left to demonstrate more respect for the majority of Americans who are religious. We have made that point at least five times in widely linked posts. These two posts in particular generated a lot of debate:1.)An Open Letter to Liberal Bloggers; 2.)I'm Not Sick of Atrios or Digby: Building a Team Means Religious and Secular Liberals Hearing Each Other Out. But most of the responses were hostile and the debate generated more heat than light.
And I have no reason to think anyone listened to this perspective. Sadly, there is little about the current flap that suggests that the point has been heard now--despite Sen. Edwards' express statement that such language is offensive. The articles below make it clear that many others on the religious left agree with my perspective.
I'd like to see blogs move away from offensive Howard Stern like comments about religion. Maybe some of the big blogs will now pledge to at least limit such profane nonsense from both their posts and comments? Is that really too much to ask for a constituency that is, in all likelihood, bigger than the Netroots? If that happens, this whole tawdry episode will have been worthwhile. I am satisfied but not thrilled with the response of Sen. Edwards to this episode, but only time will tell how the Netroots responds.
The PoliticoEdwards Blogger Flap Discomforts Religious Left:
By: Ben Smith
February 9, 2007 09:09 AM EST
As the flap over alleged anti-Catholic writings by two John Edwards campaign bloggers devolves into a shouting match between conservative religious voices and liberal bloggers, some members of the "religious left" say they feel – again – shoved to the margins of the Democratic Party.
"We're completely invisible to this debate," said Eduardo Penalver, a Cornell University law professor who writes for the liberal Catholic journal Commonweal. He said he was dissatisfied with the Edwards campaign's response. "As a constituency, the Christian left isn't taken all that seriously," Penalver said.
Democrats -- and Edwards in particular -- have embraced the language of faith and the imperative of competing with Republicans for the support of religious voters. His wife, Elizabeth Edwards, even sits on the board of the leading organization of the religious left, Call to Renewal. But in private conversations and careful public statements today, religious Democrats said they felt sidelined by Edwards' decision to stand by his aides.
"We have gone so far to rebuild that coalition [between Democrats and religious Christians] and something like this sets it back," said Brian O'Dwyer, a New York lawyer and Irish-American leader who chairs the National Democratic Ethnic Leadership Council, a Democratic Party group. O'Dwyer said Edwards should have fired the bloggers. "It's not only wrong morally – it's stupid politically."
NY TimesEdwards Learns Blogs Can Cut 2 Ways:
Deliberations over the fate of the two bloggers, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, created a crisis in Mr. Edwards’s nascent campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 and illuminated the treacherous road ahead as candidates of both parties try to harness the growing power of the online world. The case of the two women had left Mr. Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, with difficult choices.
Mr. Edwards could keep the women on his staff and have to answer for the sometimes vulgar and intemperate writings posted on their personal blogs before he hired them late last month. He could dismiss them and face a revolt in the liberal blogosphere, which is playing an increasingly influential role in Democratic politics and could be especially important to his populist campaign. Some bloggers saw the controversy as manufactured by conservative groups.
Or, as Mr. Edwards did Thursday, he could keep the two bloggers on staff, but distance himself from their views.
In deciding to retain Ms. Marcotte and Ms. McEwan, he extracted public apologies from them for some of their work and a promise from them to maintain a civil tone while in his employ. Mr. Edwards stumbled into this minefield ahead of his rivals for the presidency, but many of the other candidates could face similar problems as they try to integrate the passionate, provocative and freewheeling political discourse that flourishes on the Internet into more tightly controlled means of traditional campaigning.
Update:
There were some very encouraging responses to the concerns we expressed about the Edwards Blogger Flap.
Liberal Oasis, Jesus Politics, and Faith in Public Life all linked our post and set forth the concerns of other religious liberals.
The always excellent Republic of T, in a post entitled What Can You Say? fairly set out the arguments and our concerns and left it to his readers to decide. He heard our concerns--what more can you ask for than that?
Of course there was also a willful attempt to change the subject, such as this silly post on MYDD Step Up, Religious Left:
So it's cool to Jesse Lava and Faithful Democrats to debate on the terrain set by anti-semites and homophobe? Ok then. Now I know that Faithful Democrats put a caveat in there about how Donahue isn't a nice guy, but that's really irrelevant. This is very simple. Donahue is using religion as cover for a political attack. The only ethical response from anyone who actually opposes bigotry is 'Donahue should be ignored because of his record' or some variation thereof. So until the self-described religious left decides to stop letting bigoted and extreme right-wingers talk for them, they are no different than the religious right they pretend to oppose.
The author of this post is so badly informed that it is hard to even take it seriously enough to reply. Say what? The religious left doesn't take on the religious right? Guess not, and cats and dogs always get along just great, too. Faithful Democrats has done exactly that over and over. Any reader of this blog or any of those listed on our side panel knows how much time we devote to addressing the religious right. If anything, in my view, we spend too much time taking on and exposing the right and too little time putting forth an alternative and tolerant spiritual world view.
Mr. Stoller's conviction that there can be only "one" moral response to a situation is the absolute height of intolerance and arrogance. Such cocksure moral certainty is exactly the way the religious right expresses itself. No religious liberal would ever compose such a sentence--because their world view recognizes the limits of our own ability to peceive "the truth."
But what I find most disturbing is the absolute unwillingness of people like Mr. Stoller to admit that people on the left can engage in hate speech and can needlessly offend both allies and potential ones just as easily as extremists on the right. Edwards said the quotes offended him, and the bloggers in question have apologized. They have accepted responsibility for their posts. But people like Matt Stoller can only see that the source of the quotes was a bigot himself, so whatever he says should be dismissed--even when there is no dispute that his claims this time were true. There will always be right wingers who will make charges against those on the left--if it's not Bill Donahue, it will be Karl Rove or Michelle Malkin, or Ann Althouse, or--do I need to go on? The press will report their charges and will ignore their bias and past track record. It is naive to think otherwise. What matters is whether or not there is any substance when the mud has been thrown by the designated attack dogs. In this case, there was substance to the charges made.
To deny that is a staggering and disturbing level of moral blindness that, fortunately, appears to be very much a minority and marginal point of view even among the most strident liberal blogs.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 01:41 PM | Comments (17)
February 08, 2007
A God who is not pleased with America’s economic mal-distribution
Posted by Jesus Politics
Sen. Barack Obama's church in Chicago, Trinity United Church of Christ, has an interesting mission statement published on their website.
From the mission statement:
Trinity United Church of Christ has been called by God to be a congregation that is not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ and that does not apologize for its African roots! As a congregation of baptized believers, we are called to be agents of liberation not only for the oppressed, but for all of God’s family. We, as a church family, acknowledge, that we will, building on this affirmation of "who we are" and "whose we are," call men, women, boys and girls to the liberating love of Jesus Christ, inviting them to become a part of the church universal, responding to Jesus’ command that we go into all the world and make disciples!
We are called out to be "a chosen people" that pays no attention to socio-economic or educational backgrounds. We are made up of the highly educated and the uneducated. Our congregation is a combination of the haves and the have-nots; the economically disadvantaged, the under-class, the unemployed and the employable.
The fortunate who are among us combine forces with the less fortunate to become agents of change for God who is not pleased with America’s economic mal-distribution!
W.E.B. DuBois indicated that the problem in the 20th century was going to be the problem of the color line. He was absolutely correct. Our job as servants of God is to address that problem and eradicate it in the name of Him who came for the whole world by calling all men, women, boys and girls to Christ.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 07:08 PM | Comments (3)
February 01, 2007
We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, "Stop it, now!"
Posted by Jesus Politics
In honor of Molly Ivins, I wanted to quote a few passages from her columns:
From "The Unification of Church and State:"
I have said for years about people in public life, "I don't write about sex, drugs or rock 'n' roll." If I had my druthers, I wouldn't write about the religion of those in public life, either, as I consider it a most private matter. Separation of church and state is in the Constitution because this country was founded by people who had experienced both religious persecution and state-supported religions. I think John F. Kennedy's 1960 statement to the Baptist ministers should stand as a model of how public servants should handle the relation between religious belief and public service.
Nevertheless, we are now beset by people who insist on dragging religion into governance -- and who themselves believe they are beset by people determined to "drive God from the public square."
This division has been in part created by and certainly aggravated by those seeking political advantage. It is a recipe for an incredibly damaging and serious split in this country, and I believe we all need to think long and carefully before doing anything to make it worse.
As an 1803 quote attributed to James Madison goes: "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."
I was interested to find that the Rev. Louis Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition is so in favor of torture he told McCain that the senator either supports the torture bill or he can forget about the evangelical Christian vote. I'd like to see an evangelical vote on that one. I don't know how Sheldon defines traditional values, but deliberately inflicting terrible physical pain or stress on someone who is completely helpless strikes me as ... well, torture. And, um, wrong.
And I've smoked dope! Boy, everything those conservatives tell us about the terrible moral values of us liberals must be true after all. Now, in addition to the slightly surreal awakening to find we live in a country that's having a serious debate on a torture bill, can we do anything about it? The answer is: We better.
We better do something about it. Now, right away. What do we do? The answer is: anything ... phone, fax, e-mail, mail, demonstrate -- go stand outside their offices or the nearest federal building in the cold and sing hymns or shout rude slogans, chant or make a speech, or start attacking federal property, like a postal box, so they have to arrest you. Gather peacefully and make a lot of noise. Get publicity, too.
How will you feel if you didn't do something? "Well, honey, when the United States decided to adopt torture as an official policy, I was dipping the dog for ticks."
As Ann Richards used to say, "I don't want my tombstone to read: 'She kept a clean house.'"
From "Stand Up Against the Surge:"
We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous. Make our troops know we're for them and trying to get them out of there. Hit the streets to protest Bush's proposed surge. If you can, go to the peace march in Washington on Jan. 27. We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, "Stop it, now!"
Posted by Jesus Politics at 05:48 AM | Comments (2)
