Social Gospel Today

A Lesson from "Walk the Line"

2005-11-20T21:38:00.000-06:00

My wife and I saw the new movie Walk the Line the other night.  The movie is a “biopic” retelling much of Johnny Cash’s early life.  We both really enjoyed the movie.

Johnny Cash’s story is a tragic one.  Religion/Faith is just as prevalent a theme in the film as addiction and domestic violence.

However, one of the most interesting scenes in the film depicted Johnny Cash meeting with recording executives.  Cash was trying to convince them to record a concert he was planning at Folsom State Prison in California.  The scene goes something like this:

Recording Exec: “Listen Johnny, your fan base is made up of good, church-going Christian folk.  They don’t wanna hear you singin’ to a bunch of murderers and rapists just to cheer them up!”

Johnny Cash: “Then they aren’t really Christians.”

Good stuff…

Republicans Vote to Cut Child Support Enforcement

2005-10-26T21:05:00.000-05:00

Man, this doesn't seem in accord with family values.

Federal Death Penalty Could Be Expanded

2005-10-26T20:57:00.000-05:00

United Press International Washington, Oct 26, 2005 (UPI via COMTEX) (via Beliefnet)
An amendment to the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act would make it easier for federal prosecutors to get defendants sentenced to death.Currently, all jurors in a case must agree the death penalty is warranted before a convict is condemned. If even one juror disagrees, the defendant's sentence is set at life in prison.
A Patriot Act amendment submitted by U.S. Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, and supported by the Justice Department would change that, The New York Times reported. Carter's amendment is in the House version of the Patriot Act reauthorization, but not in the Senate's. Lawmakers are to meet soon to settle differences in the two measures.
Several states allow for a second sentencing jury to be empanelled to reconsider a death sentence and even death penalty opponents say such a federal measure would likely be constitutional.
"It's one of the many situations where the Supreme Court leaves us to our folly," Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel Project lawyer David Bruck told the Times.

....

Call your Representatives and tell them we have enough capital punishment in this country. Tell them social vengeance is not one of your values.

Others... Second?

2005-10-26T20:50:00.000-05:00

I was listening to Christian talk radio the other night. One caller said that the principal she lives by is "Jesus first, others second, self last." Admirable sentiments, no doubt. But I wonder, might not the mantra be more succinctly (and accurately) stated, "Others first, self last"? Put another way, don't you effectively put Jesus first when you put others first?

A comment on commercialism

2005-10-23T10:55:00.000-05:00

Today the Social Gospel Today goes international. ¡I am posting this live from El Calafate, Argentina!

My stay at the estancia has come to and end (there will be many stories and much philosophizing to share), and I leave this afternoon for Buenos Aires. I wanted to quickly comment, however, on my initial reactions upon entering the tourist town of El Calafate (gateway to Argentine Patagonia) after having lived on an estancia literally in the middle of nowhere for almost 3 months. Forgive me for my bad English... I haven't been using it.

Riding along with a stranger who had offered me a ride back to Calafate (people are very neighborly here in Patagonia), I felt eager to be in town and to do the tourist thing. Upon returning, however, I found myself disgusted by the rampant commericalism of everything - the whole town seems to be geared towards pitching Argentine souveniers to wealthy American and European tourists. Having lived without much luxury and commerical exposure for three months, I had feared that I would be especially susceptible to its charms. My reaction, however, was quite the contrary. Not only did I not want to buy anything, but I was perplexed by why people would spend guady amounts of money (to an Argentine, but relatively cheap to a middle class American) on dressed up versions of things that gauchos (Argentine cowboys) use to get by each and every day.

Thank God that I can now appreciate that. My only fear, however, is that it might take 3 months away from civilization to come to this realization. ¿Any way we can get 100 million Americans to spend a couple months on an estancia?

The Federal Budget is a Moral Document, Revisited

2005-10-18T18:14:00.000-05:00

Congressional Republicans are considering $50 billion in spending reductions that would cut funding for health care, education, food, housing and nutrition. Among other things, they are pushing for $10 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, programs which provided medical care for the poor and elderly. Coincidentally, the proposed spending cuts "are to be followed by a proposal for up to $70 billion in tax cuts." How convenient.

Our continuing ability to "afford" massive tax cuts belies Republicans' claims that spending cuts are required due to this year's hurricane relief. As President Clinton recently remarked, one-time catastrophic spending like the relief for Katrina should never be the basis for permanent changes in the federal budget. The Republicans attempt to exploit Katrina to free up more money for tax cuts is nothing short of disgusting.

As the 2006 elections approach, Christians would do well to remember that our social institutions, no less than our individual actions, are to reflect Godly values. Preeminent among those values must be a concern for the least of our brothers and sisters. Providing tax cuts to the wealthy--or even to the middle class--at the expense of social programs like Medicare and Medicaid does not reflect Christian values.

Cobra Commander & American Foreign Policy

2005-10-13T22:03:00.000-05:00

Wizard Magazine recently released a Top 10 list of the best bad guys in cartoon history.
Included in that list were Starscream (#2) from Transformers and Cobra Commander (#7) from G.I. Joe.  These, along with Voltron, were my favorite TV shows while I was growing up in the 1980’s.

These shows depicted a clear-cut struggle between the forces of good and evil.  You had the evil, “bad guys” that always depicted attributes deemed undesirable – such as, selfishness, cowardice, dishonesty, etc.

Then you had the “good guys”; always brave, always heroic, willing to lay down their life for a comrade (or even a stranger).  The good guys always won, but only when defeat seemed closest.

The good guys were often colored in such a manner as to reflect the American flag: red, white and blue.  Some were a little less obvious – Optimus Prime from Transformers was primarily red, blue and a silvery white.  Some were more up front; G.I. Joe flew the American flag.

In the case of G.I. Joe, the enemy was distant, invasive and alien in a way.  The two leaders (for much of the series) were faceless, wearing masks at all times.  These were Cobra Commander and his 2nd in command, Destro.
***
While in Taizé, France, (summer, 2001) I spoke with my small group Bible study – I was the only American – about our respective countries’ (Spain, Germany, Holland, Bulgaria, Australia, Poland) foreign policies.  We came to an easy consensus that the United States is certainly the most outwardly focused of the countries.

The United States is often interested in being a big brother to (the nice way to say it) or bullying (the not-so-nice way to say it) less powerful nations around the world.  However, among the countries represented, the United States has/had more serious internal issues than the others – things like lack of access to healthcare, problems with public education, a wider gap between the wealthy and the poor.

The conclusion was that the United States is much like the man in Matthew 7.3-5 who sees a speck of sawdust in his neighbor’s eye and offers to remove it, but cannot because of the plank in his own eye.  The other countries represented, for the most part, understand that there are internal problems that must be fixed before they can venture out saving the world that doesn’t know, want, or need to be saved.
***
I began reflecting on the influence of the cartoons I watched when I was little and started to realize that I am much the same way as my nation.  I am concerned and interested in helping other people with their problems, but like to shy away from addressing my own.  If someone else is being called names, I’ll step in to assist, but take the abuse when directed at myself.  Every other person in my group reflected in their personal lives the understanding that they have/had their own internal issues that needed to be dealt with before they could go around offering/forcing assistance to their neighbors.

The people running this country and the generation about to take it over grew up during the Cold War and all the fear and bravado that came with it.  We group up knowing that there was a faceless enemy on the other side of the world.  It was us against them.  Even our Reagan-era cartoons reinforced that notion.

In the coming years and decades, we must all be aware of that “social-location,” as the sociologists like to call it, from which we come.  We must critically reflect on the world that shaped us even as we shape the world.  Does the world and culture of our upbringing still have effects on us today?

Next time you hit the voting booth, remember it’s not “us against them” anymore.  This is a global community and we’re electing the ambassadors to that community.  There is no Cobra Commander across the sea.

The Agape Press on Poverty

2005-10-04T14:36:00.000-05:00

A columnist for the conservative Christian news outlet, the Agape Press, has this dubious take on the following billboards cropping up across South Dakota:

"Jesus cares for the poor -- So do we."

He admits that "Republicans have probably not taken the topic as seriously as Scripture does" but viciously attacks Democrats for just throwing money at the problem.

I think he doth protest too much.

If conservative Christians start talking about poverty, I think they've already lost the theological battle.

Alabama State Senator: Hurricanes Were 'Judgment of God' on Sin

2005-10-04T14:07:00.000-05:00

Beliefnet has this fascinating story.

Alabama Republican state Senator Hank Erwin from Montevallo, wasn't surprised by Katrina:

"New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast have always been known for gambling, sin and wickedness," Erwin wrote this week in a column he distributed to news outlets. "It is the kind of behavior that ultimately brings the judgment of God . . . . Warnings year after year by godly evangelists and preachers went unheeded. So why were we surprised when finally the hand of judgment fell?"

"If you are a believer and read the Bible, you know sin has judgment," Erwin said. "New Orleans has always been know for sin. . . . The wages of sin is death."

United Methodist Bishop, William Willimon, disagreed:
"I have no idea what sort of senator or politician Mr. Erwin is, but he's sure no theologian. . . . I'm certainly against gambling and its hold on state government in Mississippi, but I expect there is as much sin, of possibly a different order, in Montevallo as on the Gulf Coast. If God punished all of us for our sin, who could stand?"

Instinctively, I find Erwins comments disgusting. My God does not act so vengefully.

But on a logical level, if one believes that God intervenes in the physical world, then how else do you explain Katrina? Surely free will can't explain a severe hurricane striking a major metropolitan area. And there would have been devastation and death no matter how prepared we were. If you accept that God intervenes in the physical universe, then don't you have to also conclude that God either intended Katrina, or just didn't care?

This type of theological trap besets many who face personal tragedy. Personally, I take John Shelby Spong's position--that God is a Transcedent Absolute, a Truth. I take our conception of God as a personal "being" as metaphor--if a generally very helpful metaphor. If God's nature is Absolute rather than Personal, then we can say that the question of why God didn't stop Katrina simply misunderstands the nature of God.

It may be painful to question the metaphor of God as Personal Being, but doesn't adhering to it in cases like this contort our image of God anyway?

Thoughts on Harriet Miers

2005-10-04T08:46:00.000-05:00

As the entire country likely knows by now, President Bush has nominated Texas lawyer and administration insider Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court. Much bandwidth has already been "spilled" by bloggers over the nominee, and I doubt anything I have to say will be terribly original, but I nevertheless feel compelled to add my two cents. It seems to me that the Miers nomination is a transparent attempt by the Bush administration to hide the ball. Miers has never served as a judge, and therefore she has no record of opinions which could illuminate her judicial philosophy. Does she reject the Constitution's "right to privacy" as untextual? Does she believe that the New Deal and the 60s Civil Rights revolution are unconstitutional because the federal government's power under the "Commerce Clause" is limited to an 18th century definition of the term "commerce?" We just don't know. We don't know anything about Harriet Miers.

But apparently Bush does. Balkinization has recently written about Bush's "information advantage" on Miers, objecting that Bush obviously knows a lot more about her than any of the rest of us do. Bush and Miers have been bosom buddies since his days as Governor of Texas and she's served as one of his closest advisors since 2000. She's even spent time clearing brush with him in Crawford. Bush knows her thoughts on Roe v. Wade. Bush knows her thoughts on federalism. But we can be assured that neither Bush nor Miers will tell any of us. Not in the "discovery period" leading up to her Senate hearing and not at the hearing itself.

Nominating someone without "litmus testing" their thoughts on Constitutional issues seems reasonable to me when their credentials justify it. But Miers is simply a Bush insider. She doesn't have near the resume of John Roberts or of myriad conservative Courts of Appeals judges Bush could have selected. The President must at least give a good reason for appointing someone to the Supreme Court. And "I know her well and like what she thinks about the Constitution" isn't good enough.

Increasing Social Distance

2005-09-29T11:30:00.000-05:00

My rush at work seems to have abated.... At least somewhat.... For now....

Who would have thought that actually working for a living was so hard? Anyway, I have recently had (for the first time in a while) some time to think.

What has me spinning lately is a conversation I had on the bus.

My new job requires me to wear a suit every day. I often get quizzical looks from my fellow riders, since I'm always the only one in such attire. But recently I got confronted directly. "Are you a lawyer?" asked another passenger, apparently deducing this fact soley from my coat and tie. When I told him that I was, he seemed utterly perplexed. "What are you doing riding the bus to work, then?" he asked. Apparently all lawyers, admittedly members of the American aristocracy, are too rich and too important to take mass transportation with "ordinary folks."

I continued to talk with the man (a regular-Joe bartender), but he seemed nervous. In a way I can't exactly explain, I was uncomfortable too. At most times in my life, I've felt perfectly natural conversing with anyone. But the suit was apparently infecting my brain....

I have long thought that the purpose behind "professional dress" was to distance and differentiate we "professionals" from "those people," and it always bothered me. Why do we need to try to mark ourselves so explicitly as "better" than them? And why should anyone be nervous to talk to me of all people? These things have always bothered me.... But I never thought that my suit would affect me--my own attitude. I never thought that I would feel distance on my end.

But perhaps it isn't just the suit. Perhaps it is also that I spend my days in an office filled with highly-educated professionals, reading the writing of still other highly-educated professionals. I just haven't spent any time lately talking with my neighbors outside my socioeconomic class. And I've discovered that any amount of time spent in such isolation really does turn everyone else into "those people."

If I am to follow Jesus' example, a highly abstract, generalized love for neighbors isn't enough. Christian love, I believe, must also be specific, concrete, grounded in the actual neighbors that I meet every day. So I'm resolved: to resist the suit; to get to know my working-class fellow passengers; to strive to mitigate the social distance that makes me somehow vaguely uncomfortable with anyone outside my class.

Life is Happening...

2005-09-13T08:47:00.000-05:00

Apologies for not posting. We have been slammed at work. This rush should be over on Friday, and I'll try to get something out shortly after that. Hopefully I won't mutilate second-grade spelling words in my next offering. (See discussion of "busses" [sic] below.)

Where were the busses on August 28th?

2005-09-04T07:59:00.000-05:00

Katrina recrimination is becoming something pf a national past time.

I thought it was inappropriate for the media to begin the political assessment of Katrina in the middle of last week - when conditions for tens of thousands in New Orleans were still life or death. But now that those victims in the New Orleans convention center and Superdome have been (or are being evacuated) to safer, livable shelter, I do think it is time we start assessing how we let what happened happen.

Especially after the 9/11 "My-Pet-Goat" fiasco, it is infuriating to see that the President was yucking it up with a Country music singer and an acoustic guitar as Katrina hit. Also, it is disturbing that the National Guard and FEMA took so long to respond, even after the levees broke.

But the most disturbing thing is the Government's failure to send busses on August 28th. As one blogger writes, our failure to "get busses to evacuate the 'least among us'" meant that, "for all practical purposes," they "were left to die."

Reading archived news from August 28-29 is, for me, chilling.

On Sunday, August 28th, the mayor New Orleans ordered a mandatory evacuation order.
He warned further about the expected Category 5 storm: "This is a threat that we've never faced before." Louisiana's Governor predicted that the city would lose power and water service and would likely see "intense flooding." Weather forecasters predicted a storm surge of 28 feet and reported that "the highest levees around New Orleans are 18 feet high."

Most disturbing: as early as Sunday, the national press was reporting that "between 20,000 and 25,000 [people]" who were unable to comply with the evacuation order were "lin[ing] up to take shelter in the Louisiana Superdome . . . ."

The bottom line is that our government knew or certainly should have known that this was going to be a terrible disaster. It also knew or should have known that thousands upon thousands of the poor would be left behind - with no car with which to comply with the mandatory evacuation order.

But it didn't send busses on the 28th. Why?

With the evidence above, I don't think "we didn't know" is a reasonable answer. I don't think there is an acceptable answer.

Give, give cash, give cash ONLINE

2005-09-03T11:20:00.000-05:00

"We have very little, but they have nothing."

I am pleased, but not that surprised, by the outpouring of private charity for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The Christian Science Monitor estimates that the total amount of gifts will reach $1 billion. It's not nearly enough, of course. But it's a lot. Considering the charitable response to the tsunami disaster earlier this year, though, I expected nothing less.

We here at the Social Gospel Today are encouraging people to make online donations in cash to the American Red Cross. Online donations of cash have, as we say in the biz, very low "transaction costs." As the embattled director of FEMA has correctly noted:

“Cash donations are especially helpful to victims. They allow volunteer agencies to issue cash vouchers to victims so they can meet their needs. Cash donations also allow agencies to avoid the labor-intensive need to store, sort, pack and distribute donated goods. Donated money prevents, too, the prohibitive cost of air or sea transportation that donated goods require.”

Online donations are even better than in-person or telephone cash donations. More of your gift can go directly to those who need it most because it costs less to process it. (No need for telephone operators, etc.)

It's important that we send our thoughts and prayers out to those who are suffering. But we've got to send more than just that.

Atlanta Piles On

2005-08-22T07:39:00.000-05:00

Atlanta has become the latest city to get into the anti-panhandling act. My thoughts on panhandling last summer are here.

I still vehemently oppose anti-panhanding measures, but I personally try to give food rather than cash.

Living in New York last year taught me, sadly, that the conservatives aren't wrong in their claims that many take cash hand outs for drugs or alchohol. Still, the fact that these folks have a substance abuse problem in addition to being homeless shouldn't harden our hearts. Give food and give to treatment centers....

Sunday Comment: No Compulsion

2005-08-21T10:15:00.000-05:00

I think we can all agree that this Indiana trial judge erred in the most fundamental sense of the term when he ordered two parents to "shield" their ten-year-old son from their "non-mainstream faith."

The belief that there must be no compulsion in matters of religion is one of those happy moments when our theological and libertarian convictions agree:

"God calls men to serve Him in spirit and in truth, hence they are bound in conscience but they stand under no compulsion. God has regard for the dignity of the human person whom He Himself created and man is to be guided by his own judgment and he is to enjoy freedom." Declaration on Religious Freedom, Pope Paul VI (1965).

"Let there be no compulsion in religion." Qur'an, Al-Baqarah 2:256

"If a man desires to become a proselyte . . . he is to be addressed as follows: 'What reason have you for desiring to become a proselyte . . .' and he is made acquainted with some of the minor, and with some of the major commandments. What is the reason? In order that if he desired to withdraw let him do so." Talmud, Yevamot 48b.

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government . . . can force [or] influence a person to go or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." United States Supreme Court, Everson v. Board of Education (1947).

"[T]he interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court." United States Supreme Court, Troxey v. Granville (2000).

Someone who shows such absolute disrespect for fundamental liberties should be impeached, not just reversed.

Finally Some Good News

2005-08-21T10:10:00.000-05:00

Charitable giving across the board -- even to non-tsunami related charities -- soared last quarter according to this report.

Brother Roger of Taizé

2005-08-17T18:10:00.000-05:00

I know this is long for my first post, but please bear with me. I want to thank 42 and Infission for the opportunity to guest post.

He wanted to help refugees of the war, just like his grandmother had done some 25 years earlier. So he moved from Switzerland to France to a little village known as Taizé in the south of Burgandy. Along with his sister, he offered a place of food, shelter, safety and compassion for those who managed to escape the reach of Nazi Germany. This conviction to help the needy grew out of his strong faith.

Understanding that many who sought refuge in Taizé were Jews or agnostics, he never prayed or worshipped in front of his guests. Instead he opted to go into the woods alone to pray and sing.

In the autumn of 1942, his little refugee community was discovered and all involved were advised to flee. However, he was able to return to his community in 1944 – this time with companions.

After the war, a local man created an association to care for young boys orphaned by the war. The long-term mission of Taizé had begun to take shape. The community was committed to serving the “least of these” in whatever way possible.

On Easter Sunday, 1949, the first brothers took the vows of celibacy, material and spiritual sharing and to a great simplicity of life. The monastic community of Taizé was born. And Brother Roger led them.

Since then, the Taizé monastic community – along with the Sisters of Saint Andrew – has welcomed and served all who traveled to the countryside of France to connect with God and with other pilgrims from all over the world. Thousands of people between the ages of 17-30 travel to Taizé each year.

As an ecumenical community, Taizé (with Catholic brothers, some Protestant brothers and actively seeking Orthodox brothers) has sought to assist the Church Universal in reconnecting with itself. This is evidenced not only in the mission work done all over the world (specifically Africa, Asia and South America), but even in its church building – the Church of Reconciliation.

I visited Taizé in July of 2001 with a group of youth and young adults from the north Texas area. My time there changed me forever. Not only have I learned the importance of contemplative study and solitary prayer – I have a better view of global Christianity.

During each evening prayer, Brother Roger would pray over those sitting around him (he would move around the large sanctuary throughout the week). I could feel the love of Christ emanating from his face as he prayed over me. I never knew him, but I know he was a great man.

Brother Roger was a close friend of Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa, the latter of which he co-authored a handful of books. Brother Roger was a man of peace fighting for peace.

Brother Roger died last night in a place he loved dearly – the sanctuary of the Church of Reconciliation. He died surrounded by the Community of Brothers and many pilgrims to Taizé. Despite his recent illnesses, he did not die peacefully.

Brother Roger was stabbed to death by a woman described as “probably mentally disturbed” during evening prayer on August 16, 2005.

This prayer was offered at morning prayer on August 17th:

“Christ of compassion, you enable us to be in communion with those who have gone before us, and who can remain so close to us. We confide into your hands our Brother Roger. He already contemplates the invisible. In his footsteps, you are preparing us to welcome a radiance of your brightness.”

The global Church has lost a great hero of the Faith. The global poor have lost an important advocate. The community of Taizé lost its founding leader. Heaven has gained a favorite son.

We should be in prayer of thanks for the life that Brother Roger led. We should be in prayer for strength and understanding for the Brothers and Sisters of Taizé. We should be in prayer for healing for those who witnessed such a tragedy. We should be in prayer for the woman who allegedly murdered Brother Roger for healing, forgiveness and salvation.

I leave you with a prayer by Frère Roger:

“God of peace, through the Gospel we understand that it is merciful love that counts above all. Give us therefore hearts that are filled with goodness.”

Brother Roger will be missed...

Sunday Comment: Get Evolution out of the Spotlight

2005-08-14T20:11:00.000-05:00

Many Christians have Evolution on the brain.

Bush's support of "Intelligent Design" and Kansas's recent adoption of pro-Intelligent Design curricula standards, among other things, have thrown it into the spotlight. I heard a fanatical sermon this morning blaming Evolution for Nazism, Freudianism, Behaviorism, Communism and Atheism. So I've got it on the brain too.

According to a recent Harris poll, only 38% of Americans believe that "human beings developed from earlier species." This is down from 44% in 1994. The proponents of Intelligent Design have certainly created the public perception of an intellectual dispute. Although I would answer the Harris poll question "yes" if put to it, I have not personally investigated the evidence for or against Evolution. The reason is that its validity or invalidity is just not that important to me.

I think the fact that Evolution is such a controversy within our churches illustrates a broader problem within mainstream Christianity today. It is a prime example of concerns about orthodoxy prevailing over concerns about orthopraxy. Where is the thundering from the pulpit about the lack of charitable giving?

As Christians, we must start concerning ourselves more with what we do and less about what we believe. We must start recognizing concrete human suffering as more critical than the Origin of the Species, the origin of the universe, or any other abstract controversy.

Thoughts from Buenos Aires

2005-08-13T18:44:00.000-05:00

I don't claim to be an exotic world traveler, but I can definitely tell when a city has some passion, and Buenos Aires, Argentina certainly qualifies. The people here are great - friendly, helpful, and charming; their city is a wonderful blend of Europe and Latin America, all rolled into one.

On Monday, I will be venturing into Patagonia and, essentially, into a different time. I will have little to no communication with the outside world from the estancia, and it is unlikely that I will make it into town to use a locutorio (communication center) very frequently. Needless to say, this is going to be an experience.

Almost time for an asado (famous Argentine barbecue) --- it's almost 9:00 PM here.

I know this has nothing to do with the Social Gospel Today, but bear with me - I'm trying to soak up all the contact with the outside world that I can muster...

Out of town, out of touch

2005-08-10T14:58:00.000-05:00

Blogosphere friends,

One of the benefits of two people posting on a blog is that at any given time one can pick up the slack for the other. It's a good thing I know Infission so well, 'cause I am about to become a major blog slacker. On Friday, I am leaving the country until the end of October. A law school friend and his father have arranged for me to "get back to nature" as a ranch hand on an estancia in the Patagonia region of Argentina. Crazy, huh?

Needless to say, I am very excited about the opportunity, if not a little intimidated. Not only will this be a great chance to see one of the most beautiful regions of the world, but I also look forward to developing my Spanish skills and getting to know another way of life. While I don't anticipate seeing any burning bushes in the Andes, I also hope to have plenty of free time to just stop and think about things - a definite luxury these days. I know I didn't get around to my resonse to the mega-church issue - my bad - but I assure you that 12 weeks in the middle of nowhere will only help me come up with a more articulate response.

As I really don't know what to expect (other than cold weather), I definitely value your thoughts and prayers. On that note, I leave you in the very capable hands of Infission (with some potential posts from ats54, too).

Hasta pronto, mis amigos.

Re: Reverse Psychology

2005-08-08T06:22:00.000-05:00

In a recent Sunday Comment, I called for the left to covertly "attack" nominee Roberts from the right by embracing him. After revelations last week about Roberts' assistance to gay rights litigants, the strategy seems even more plausible. Consider this article from the Denver Post, which begins:

When the details were revealed last week about John Roberts' energetic involvement in overturning Colorado's anti-gay-rights amendment, it created some real cognitive dissonance in the evangelical community. This is a group, after all, that likes its issues - and its judges - uncomplicated.

I don't see embracing Roberts as sneaky at all. It just isn't right that Bush can appoint a rock solid economic conservative with shaky social conservative "credentials" without peeving off the Christian Right. This was their issue in 2004. If they can't get a socially conservative Supreme Court nominee, then why did they vote for Bush again?

Sunday Comment: the Presbyterians Play Hardball

2005-08-06T09:27:00.000-05:00

The Presbyterian Church U.S.A. is borrowing a page from the Jesuit Order's playbook - attempting to effect the policy of powerful corporations through socially-conscious investing. Over the past few years, the Church has pressured companies accused of abetting human rights abuses in countries like China, the Sudan, Myanmar, Nigeria and Guatemala. This Friday, in a more controversial move, the Church threatened to dump the roughly $60 million that its pension fund and various foundations have invested in four corporations unless they cease providing military equipment and technology to Israel for use in the occupation of the Palestinian territories. The Church accused Caterpillar, Motorola, ITT Industries and United Technologies of selling helicopters, cellphones, night vision equipment and other items Israel uses to enforce its occupation.

Some Jewish leaders accused the Church of singling out Israel, even of being "functionally anti-semitic." The Church responded that it is "fully committed to the state of Israel" but that it cannot, in good conscience, invest in companies "that are doing damage and creating injustice and violence, whether that's the building of the separation barrier, construction related to the occupation, or weapons and materials that lead to suicide bombings."

I believe that Churches should do all they can to end both the Israeli occupation and Palestinian terrorism. Unfortunately, it is much more difficult to track support to the latter. American companies don't deal openly or directly with suicide bombers. But they do deal openly with the Israeli military. The fact that the Church can't do much with its portfolio to prevent suicide bombings shouldn't stop it from doing what it can do to slow violence in the Middle East.

That being said, there is still an easy, principled way that the Church can insulate itself from all criticism that it is singling out Israel. Why not refuse to invest in all companies that supply any military? Should Church assets really be used to support making weapons of war, no matter who is going to use them?

Wednesday Meditation: the "Everyday" Social Gospel

2005-08-03T07:55:00.000-05:00

Today's thoughts are a response to something I heard in the NPR "prosperity gospel" story discussed below. One mega church congregant, explaining his attraction to the "prosperity gospel" to the NPR reporter, said something that took me aback. The pastor of his new church, in contrast to the pastor of his old social-justice-oriented church, preaches a message that he can really apply to his life. He preaches, not abstract theology, but a down-to-earth lesson that you can really take to work with you on Monday morning.

I've wondered, over the past few days, what this congregant meant in this indirect critique of the social gospel. It seems to me, he could have meant any of three things: (1) the social gospel is innately too highfalutin for ordinary people to apply to their own lives or (2) proponents of the social gospel don't do a good enough job of explaining how it applies to ordinary people's lives or (3) the social gospel does apply to ordinary people's lives, but not in a way that is necessarily easy or desirable.

I certainly do not believe that #1 is true. I do believe, however, that those of us who promote the social gospel perhaps talk too much about the distribution of Gross Domestic Product and not enough about individual philanthropy, too much about "rights" and not enough about personal kindness. So today I want to talk about one of Jesus' social justice teachings that can perhaps only be applied by everday people in their everyday lives:

"Give to the one who begs from you; and don't turn away the one who tries to borrow from you." Matt 5: 42.

"Give to everyone who begs from you...." Luke 6: 30.

I see beggars on the street, holding signs, every time I go out. I'm sure that I am alone neither in this, nor in the fact that I do not find it in my heart to give to "everyone" who I see. We are too often too rushed with our own cares to stop, too worried about our own financial situation to care, or too concerned with what the beggar may do with the money to sympathize.

We should all keep non-perishable food in our cars, bookbags or briefcases. We should make a point to leave an extra five minutes in getting to our destination so as to make time for our less fortunate brothers and sisters. These are simple steps that we can take to implement Jesus' simple, yet somehow difficult, teaching on giving to beggars.

But I wonder whether a lesson like this would satisfy our convert to the prosperity gospel. I wonder whether by "apply to my everyday life," the congregant really meant, "make my personal situation better." If this is the objection (ie, #3), then I'm not sure the social gospel can ever really answer it. As Paul said, "Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others." Phillipians 2:4. The point of the social gospel is not to make our personal situation better, but to make others' better. This is the heart of Jesus' ethics. This is what makes Christianity, true Christianity, different from self-help philosophies.

Abandoned Souls, by John W. Fountain

2005-08-02T09:24:00.000-05:00

I haven't posted an entire article in a long time, but given some of the recent discussions on this blog, this is too appropriate. Part II will be my response...

Abandoned Souls, by John W. Fountain (a former pastor)

Sunday morning arrived, like so many before, with a mix of sunlight and chirping birds and a warm greeting from my tiny son, lying beside my wife and me. My wife rose quickly, announcing her plan to get ready for Sunday school at the Baptist church, not far from our house in suburban Chicago, that she and our two children attend.

As for me, in what has become my ritual, I turned over and pulled the covers up around my head. I overheard my 9-year-old daughter's familiar question: "Mommy, is Daddy going to church with us?"

"No-o-o-o," my wife replied. After months of my failure to accompany them, she has abandoned the excuse that "Daddy has a lot of work to do."

Sunday mornings used to mean something special to me. But I now face them with dread, with a headache-inducing tension that makes me reach for the Advil. I am torn between my desire to play hooky and my Pentecostal indoctrination that Sunday is a day of worship when real men lead their families into the house of God.

Once, that's what I did. I am the grandson of a pastor and am myself a licensed minister. I love God and I love the church. I feel as comfortable shouting hallelujahs and lifting my hands in the sanctuary as I do putting on my socks. I once arrived faithfully at the door of every prayer meeting.

Yet I now feel disconnected. I am disconnected. Not necessarily from God, but from the church.

What happened? Probably the same thing that has happened to thousands of African-American men who now file into coffee shops or baseball stadiums on Sundays instead of heading to church, or who lose themselves in the haze of mowing the lawn or waxing their cars. Somewhere along the way, for us, the church – the collective of black churches of the Christian faith, regardless of denomination – lost its relevance. It seems to have no discernible message for what ails the 21st-century black male soul.

While there are still many black men who do go to church, any pastor will admit that there are far more who don't. Jawanza Kunjufu, a Chicago educator and author of Adam! Where Are You?: Why Most Black Men Don't Go to Church, contends that 75 percent of the black church is female. The church's finger seems furthest from the pulse of those black men who seem to be drifting in a destructive sea of fatalism and pathology. Without the church, most of those men are doomed. But it seems clear to me that the church will not seek us black men out, or perhaps even mourn our disappearance from the pews.

Instead, it seems to have turned inward. It seems to exist for the perpetuation of itself – for the erecting of grandiose temples of brick and mortar and for the care of pastors and the salaried administrative staff. Not long ago, a preacher friend confided: "The black church is in a struggle for its collective soul – to find itself in an age when it is consumed by the God of materialism."

I am incensed by Mercedes-buying preachers who live in suburban meadows far from the inner-city ghettos they pastor, where they bid parishioners to sacrifice in the name of God. I am angered by a preacher I know, and his wife and co-pastor, who exacted a per diem and drove luxury vehicles, their modest salaries boosted by tithes and offerings from poor folks.

I wonder why, despite billions of dollars taken from collection plates, I see few homes for the elderly, few recreation centers, little to no church-financed housing development and few viable church-operated businesses that might employ members. I scratch my head at the multimillion-dollar edifice a local church erected and wonder whether that is the most responsible stewardship for a church in a community filled with poor families.

I have come to see the countless meetings and church assemblies, camouflaged as worship services, as little more than fundraisers and quasi-fashion shows with a dose of spirituality. I am disheartened by the territorialism of churches, vying for control and membership, as a deacon at a Baptist church said to me recently, in much the same way as gangs.

But even in an age of preacher as celebrity, it is not the evolution of a bling-bling Gospel that most disheartens me. It is the loss of the church's heart and soul: the mission to seek and save lost souls through the power of the Gospel and a risen savior. As the homicide toll in black neighborhoods has swelled, I've wondered why churches or pastors have seldom taken a stand or ventured beyond the doors of their sanctuaries to bring healing and hope to the community – whether to stem the tide of violence and drugs, or to help cure poverty and homelessness or any number of issues that envelop ailing black communities.

Once, after a service at my grandfather's church in a Chicago suburb, I mentioned to a visiting pastor that there was a drug and gang war going on in his community. "I don't know nothing 'bout that," he responded. How could he not know about something that affected a community in which he was a "shepherd"?

Given the state of black men in America, given the number in prison or jail or headed that way, given the thousands of us who find our way to early graves, given the number of us who seek solace in a bottle of liquor or in illegal drugs, it seems that we would make for a plentiful harvest for a church really seeking souls.

I suspect, however, that as long as our wives, our children and our money flow through the church's doors, few are likely to ever come looking for us.

I could be wrong. My criticism might be too harsh.

But it is no harsher than my pain.

John Fountain, a journalism professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, is the author of "True Vine: A Young Black Man's Journey of Faith, Hope and Clarity." His e-mail address is author@Johnwfountain.com.

Re: Reading the Economy

2005-08-02T08:56:00.000-05:00

The Christian measure of our economy's performance must not only account for how the least are faring in this country; it must consider economic distribution worldwide. According to a report in the Christian Science Monitor yesterday, hunger and poverty are worsening across Africa. An estimated 35% of Africa's population - 200 million people - are malnourished. We cannot, in good conscience, say we are in "good times" economically.

Mega Churches in the African-American Community

2005-08-01T15:25:00.000-05:00

NPR reports on the rise of Mega Churches in the African-American community. They are drawing an unprecedented number of worshippers. But, according to leaders of more traditional African-American churches, they preach a "prosperity gospel" of individual wealth that lacks substance and betrays the legacy of Martin Luther King.

"Sunday" Comment: Reading the Economy through the Social Gospel

2005-08-01T08:00:00.000-05:00

Last week the Commerce Department released the economic growth numbers for the second quarter. The U.S. economy grew at a "strong" 3.4% annual rate last quarter. A Saturday New York Times article cited this statistic and others regarding increasing corporate spending on equipment and inventory for the broad conclusion that the U.S. economy is in the midst of "good times."

But, as I've indicated before, those who care about the Social Gospel must read economic indicators with a more critical eye. The Christian measure of an economy's performance is how "the least" are faring. Economic growth, in other words, is not good in and of itself. Growth is good only insofar as it improves the conditions of the poor. So we have to interrogate the Commerce Department's figures on last quarter's economic growth: what does it mean for the least of these?

The Annie E. Casey Foundation reported on Tuesday that child poverty is on the rise. These findings mirror the federal government's conclusions of two weeks ago. 18% of children in the United States, 13 million, currently live in poverty. This is up from 16% in 2001. This means that almost 1 in 5 children are living on less than a family-of-four equivalent of "$18,810 in annual income."

"For years, poverty rates were dropping sharply. No we're moving steadily in the other direction," said W. Steven Barnett, director of the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University. (emphasis added).

It does not appear that all boats are rising in the Bush Economy. Indeed, as the Commerce Department was reporting "healthy" economic growth, it was also reporting that, in spite of this fact, "workers' pay and benefits rose more slowly than inflation in the second quarter...." In non-jargon terms, this means that, even though the economy grew, workers are poorer now than they were three months ago.

So as Christians we have to ask: where is all of this growth going? Since it's not going to workers, since it's not improving child poverty, it's basically irrelevant. No matter how much Gross Domestic Product booms, if the least aren't faring well, economic conditions are terrible.

Confession

2005-07-31T15:44:00.000-05:00

I realized a little something this morning in church. While studying furiously over the past 2+ months for the bar exam, I hardly realized that my faith and God-seeking were put on the back burner. No, I wasn't out causing trouble around town nor did I take leave from trying to stick up for the "least of these" -- my moral convictions didn't flinch. I realized this morning, however, that while drowning myself in secured transactions, real property and criminal law for the past 2 months (along with moving back to Texas beforehand), I wasn't actively seeking God --- I was too caught up with myself.

Therein, I think, lies the danger of living life solely by a moral code. It's easy to establish patterns of behavior and beliefs - a moral compass if you will - to guide you through life's trials and tribulations after you've fought the intellectual battles and decided what it is that you are going to believe. After the dust settles, however, and especially at times when we have so much going on in our lives that we can't seemingly take a breather, it is easy for us to neglect just where it is that the guiding compass comes from in the first place. When this happens - and it does to all of us - we stop actively seeking God and instead fall back on the laurels of where we think God is. In other words, we start living by what is in effect OUR own morality, not God's morality.

I think this problems manifests itself in the bodies of many churches today. How many people out there do you know that are following their pastor's morality, not actively seeking God's own?

Life, post bar exam

2005-07-30T21:09:00.000-05:00

I had always wondered whether or not lawyers hyped the bar exam as being so hard in part to make non-lawyers feel like they were smarter, more talented, more distinguished people. Having taken the bar exam now, I think only one generalization about lawyers is fair: anyone willing to take a three day test is crazy, per se.

Then again, maybe I'm just another new lawyer already telling stories to make us look better...

A full response to my off the cuff criticism of some modern churches coming soon...

Here we go...

2005-07-25T12:57:00.000-05:00

Infission and I sit for the Texas Bar Exam starting tomorrow (through Thursday). Three days of testing is an intimidating task, to be sure. While we don't ask much out of y'all besides a little patience now and then, my current stress level allows me to be a little more selfish.... your thoughts and prayers are definitely appreciated, for us and for all of those taking the exam in Texas and across the country.

See you on the other side.

Sunday Comment: Reverse Psychology

2005-07-24T13:16:00.000-05:00

Dear Mr. Dean, Sen. Reid, and Rep. Pelosi:

I am a concerned citizen who ordinarily votes Democrat, writing to you - the leaders of the party - about my concerns regarding the President's nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. As a result of my current work schedule, I have not been able to take in as much of the media feeding frenzy as I would like, but it does not take a political expert to see that the nomination spells trouble for your party. But not in the way you probably think.

Upon President Bush's announcement that Roberts was the nominee, Mr. Dean immediately declared his "disappoint[ment]" and implied that Roberts was an "ideological judicial activist." My concern with this type of reaction is not so much that it's untrue - and it does appear to be false - but that it is playing right into Mr. Bush's hands.

It is surely true that Roberts is a conservative. It is also true that he spent most of his career representing business interests. But it is also true that Roberts is intelligent, well-qualified, and highly respected. Moreover, his previous confirmation testimony for and service on the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit indicates that he takes the judicial role seriously and distinguishes his own positions from the law.

Let's get real here. Roberts is not an unqualified extremist. He will undoubtedly be confirmed. So the question has to be, given that, where do you go from here strategically?

My suggestion: covertly attack Roberts from the right. That's right, a little reverse psychology might make the social conservatives realize that they're getting screwed by this nomination.

Roberts has not taken a personal, public position on any of the day's hot-button issues. As far as I know, he hasn't come out against Roe v. Wade, hasn't come out against gay marriage, hasn't come out in favor of school prayer. So how in the world can Bush nominate him without risking the wrath of Christian conservatives. Answer: he can count on you guys to paint Roberts as an extremist, thereby satisfying the Christian right.

Yep, I can already see it now. Roberts will be grilled on those two briefs he signed while working in the Solicitor General's office - one urging the Court to overrule Roe and a second urging the Court to uphold prayer in schools. He'll be attacked on this issues even though your Senators will know good and well that Roberts was just a lawyer doing his job. Roberts, working in SG's office, was simply representing a client. He didn't get to decide what position to take. He was told what the President wanted and exercised his professional skill in making the best argument on behalf of that position.

There's a perfect analogy to be made here with military personnel. Do you blame the military - the generals and soldiers - for invading Iraq? No. They were just doing their jobs carrying out the orders of the President. The same goes for attorneys in the SG's office. There's nothing there - no real hay to be made - over the two briefs Roberts signed.

And here's where we get back to playing into Bush's hands. Most ordinary voters won't clearly understand the distinction I've made above. So if you treat Roberts as if he is someone that wants to overturn Roe and institute mandatory school prayer, the Christian right will believe you. And they'll love Roberts and Bush because of it.

What if instead, you said "We're pleased that Mr. Bush has selected such a well-qualified and moderate candidate to succeed Justice O'Connor. We understand that, in Mr. Robert's previous confirmation hearing, he recognized Roe v. Wade as good law and binding precedent. We believe that Mr. Roberts will support a woman's right to choose and preserve the separation between Church and State."

This would undoubtedly drive the Christian right nuts. They'd realize that Bush hasn't given them what they demanded: someone "solid" on the hot-button issues.

Bottom line: Roberts is going to be confirmed no matter how much you kick and scream, and the more kicking and screaming you do, the more you endear Bush to his base.

Sincerely,

Infission

Wednesday Meditation: Specks, Beams and Creeping Moral Relativism

2005-07-20T11:00:00.000-05:00

Today's thoughts are inspired by the thoughtful criticism of 42's last post (below) regarding Lakewood's new Megachurch.
Shane Raynor over at Wesley Blog offers the following response to 42's admittedly (and intentionally) provocative criticism of Lakewood:

Tony Campolo preaches a sermon called, "Would a Christian Drive a BMW?" The answer, of course, is supposed to be no, but I'm afraid that if we expect BMW drivers to be content with Hondas, then that same reasoning will require Honda people to switch to Fords, and so on, until we're all condemned unless we're riding bikes. Then the pedestrians will blast the bike riders for not taking such an "obvious opportunity" to sell those bikes and help the poor. When we head down the road of condemning specific churches (or individuals) for how they spend their money, we open ourselves up to judgment. I'm not saying it should never be done, but we need to know what we're getting ourselves into before we do it. Sure, Jesus preached strong words to the wealthy, but he was also essentially homeless with few, if any, material possessions. Condemning the wealthy is, quite honestly, hypocrisy for most Americans, because we live in a country where even many of the poor among us are obsessed with materialism.

Raynor's argument against "calling out" Lakewood's extravagance has substantial appeal at first glance. It powerfully combines a biblical injunction against judgment - which I firmly believe dates back to Jesus - with a straight up reductio ad absurdem proof. Since none of us will (or should be reasonably expected to?), sell all we have and give it to the poor, we had all better tread lightly in our criticism of wealth.

First off, let's look the reductio ad absurdem aspect of Raynor's argument -- assuming I'm not imagining it. We SHOULD all sell our Hondas, our Fords and, yep, even our bikes and give the proceeds to the poor - as Luke's gospel unambiguously requires. Jesus is the Great Example, and Raynor is right: He was legitimately destitute. So, to be clear, this stereo that I'm listening to right now (and probably this computer that I'm typing on) should be immediately sold with the proceeds given to the poor. So, the argument against Lakewood's extravagance doesn't lead to an absurdity - at least I don't think it's absurd. Tough, yes. Absurd? Not unless Jesus was absurd to ask us to do it.

Second, what about the hypocricy and injunctions against judging others? Can we carry Raynor's concept of avoiding judgment out to its logical conclusion while retaining any moral foundation whatsoever? Let's say that my next door neighbor commits rape. Can I come out and say, "what that guy did was wrong"? What if I've had pre-marital sex (assuming rape is a sexual-type sin) or gotten into a fight (assuming rape is a crime of assault)? Wouldn't I be, under Raynor's logic "estopped," as we lawyers say, from pointing out that the rape was wrong?

If so, this looks a lot less like trying to be non-judgmental and a lot more like de facto moral relativism.

So how do we uphold the sanctity of Jesus' moral commands -- such as "not storing up our treasures on earth" -- along with the injunctions against judging others. Well, first with an unambiguous admission that Paul's observation that "all have sinned" is fully applicable to us. I'm a sinner and a hypocrite. We all are. We also might do well to heed the admittedly trite traditional advice to "hate the sin but love the sinner." As applied to Lakewood, this would mean I could assert that the church's extravagance is, in my opinion, unambiguously wrong. But that doesn't mean that I think Lakewood's administration or membership are bad people. It doesn't mean I bear them any ill will. How could I? "We all have sinned"!!!

This is my attempt to reconcile both upholding moral absolutes and refraining from judgment. I'd love to hear others' thoughts.

Lets see now...

2005-07-17T15:28:00.000-05:00

I have millions of dollars - say $75 million - and I hold myself out to be a model of Christianity. What should I do with my money?

(A): Be a good steward of my money and make sure that all my needs are taken care of.
(B): Store up my treasures in heaven, not on Earth.
(C): Build the country's biggest church out of a former basketball arena
(D): Help feed, clothe, and medicate starving children across the globe or, if feeling really generous, give them some education too.

Well, if you're one Texas church, (C) is the correct answer. How lewd.

Does no one else see the hyprocrisy in building massive temples for the comfort of those who attend? Isn't Christianity about alleviating other's suffering, not making one's own life more convenient or comfortable? Guess what Christendom, building such massive churches in your own backyard is prima facie selfish in my book.

Now I've heard all the "we do it to minister" rhetoric, but lets be honest - that's crap. If you're so interested in ministering, why don't you invest in areas NOT in your backyard, a place where you can best minister to people by living up to the standards you champion at no additional cost?

Ask yourself: do we really need racqetball courts, gyms, basketball ARENAS, etc. to minister to people when all it would take half a world away is a loaf of bread, some medication, and a hug from someone that cares?

Sunday Comment: Is it Unconstitutional to Execute an Innocent Person?

2005-07-17T08:45:00.000-05:00

You might think that this is a silly question - that the answer must be "yes." You might think that, if your rights to due process and equal protection and against cruel and unusual punishment mean anything, surely they must mean that the government can't kill you unless you've committed a crime. But in fact, you'd be wrong. In 1993, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision (Herrera), flatly rejected the proposition that "the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution prohibit the execution of a person who is innocent of the crime for which he was convicted." Specifically, the Court held that the Constitution did not require the state of Texas to afford a convicted murderer a forum in which to assert his claim to actual innocence based on newly-discovered evidence.

The Court essentially reasoned that the defendant got a trial and was found guilty: evidence of innocence discovered after this point, if not accompanied by some procedural error such as the state's failure to disclose it, is basically irrelevant.

The Court didn't rule that he was guilty; it ruled that whether the defendant was guilty or not made no difference.

Justice Blackmun, writing for the dissent, expressed what must be the intuitive feeling of many on the issue:

"We... are being asked to decide whether the Constitution forbids the execution of a person who has been validly convicted and sentenced, but who, nonetheless, can prove his innocence with newly discovered evidence. Despite the State of Texas' astonishing protestation to the contrary, I do not see how the answer can be anything but 'yes.'"

Earlier this summer, the Supreme Court agreed to review a case, House v. Bell, that provides it with a forum to reconsider the issue. Defendant House claims that newly discovered DNA evidence - that semen found on the victim was not his, but the victim's husband - demonstrates his innocence. The question is not whether House is innocent, but whether House should even be given an opportunity to prove that he's innocent.

The Court should overrule Herrera and adopt the position of Blackmun's dissent: "nothing could be more contrary to contemporary standards of decency or more shocking to the conscience than to execute a person who is actually innocent."

Juries make mistakes. Some Justices apparently believe that willful blindness to this fact is necessary to preserve confidence in and respect for our criminal justice system. If a convicted killer can prove that, more likely than not, he did not commit the crime, he must be set free. This Court should worry less about confidence in criminal justice than about justice in criminal justice.

The "Reverse Litmus Test"

2005-07-15T20:25:00.000-05:00

This post from Yale Law professor Jack Balkin, convincingly articulates what both of us have been feeling for a long time re: Roe v. Wade. Abortion will definitely influence the president's choice to succeed Justice O'Connor, but not in the way you might think.

Wednesday Meditation: Sacrifice, Strict Equality and "Necessity"

2005-07-13T10:50:00.000-05:00

My topic today is Anglo-American Criminal Law. Now, this may seem more like an op-ed, commentary-type topic at first glance -- that is, until one realizes that the Criminal Law principles I will be discussing have been around for about 500 years. In reviewing my Criminal Law materials for the bar this week, I was particularly interested in the doctrine of "necessity." This doctrine provides a defense to what would otherwise be the crime where committing a crime is the only real alternative to preventing a much greater harm. Consider committing the crime of trespass to prevent someone from drowning. Necessity is not merely an "excuse" defense (as are insanity and duress). It's considered a full "justification."

What's most interesting to me about the doctrine of necessity is one of its express limitations: you can't use it as a defense to killing another to save your own life. But, one might ask, why is this limitation necessary? If an element of the general rule is that the harm prevented must be much greater than the harm of committing the crime, then wouldn't killing another to save yourself always fail the general rule? Well, from a utilitarian standpoint, the answer is definitely not.

Consider the famous 19th century case of Dudley and Stephens. Dudley, Stephens, and a seventeen-year-old cabin boy were shipwrecked a thousand miles from land. On the eleventh day, they ran out of food. On the thirteenth day, they ran out of water. They drifted five more days with neither food nor water. By this point, all three were on the brink of death and there was "no reasonable prospect" that they would be rescued any time soon. Then, under the influence of this severe deprivation, Dudley and Stephens decided to kill and eat the cabin boy. While quite disgusting, cannibalism is not unheard of in such situations.

From a utilitarian standpoint, their necessity defense was flawless. If one of the three was not killed, all three would die within the day. The murder would prevent a much greater harm -- three deaths being a greater harm than one. As the court found, "there was no appreciable chance of saving life except by killing some one for the others to eat." Furthermore, the cabin boy was in the weakest condition of the three (likely to die first) and had no family to speak of - while Dudely and Stephens each had a wife and kids.

These facts undeniably established necessity under the general rule. But the court found Dudley and Stephens guilty of murder nonetheless. It found them guilty even though it found that they were subjected to "loathsome" and "harrowing" "sufferings which might break down the bodily power of even the strongest man." Necessity never, under any circumstances, justifies taking the life of another to save your own.

In finding no justification for the murder, the court appealed to the great principles of equality and sacrifice. First, the court created an "irrebuttable presumption" (a rule of law that applies no matter what the facts are), that all people's lives, no matter how short or insigificant, are strictly equal. Second, the court articulated a principle of sacrifice. It construed the fact that the cabin boy was the weakest and youngest of the three against rather than in favor of the defendants. In doing so, the court (before constitutional principles separating Church and State were well-established) appealed to "the Great Example whom we profess to follow."

I applaud the limitations imposed on the justification of necessity by equality and sacrifice. When our legal system employs these ideals, it more closely approximates the Kingdom of God.

But I can't support the ultimate outcome of Dudley and Stephens. Saying that killing the cabin boy was not "justifiable" is one thing. But holding that Dudley and Stephens had no "excuse" that might at least mitigate their crime to manslaughter is quite another. Ultimately, Dudley and Stephens were hanged. In ordering their deaths, the court upheld two great principles - equality and sacrifice - while forgetting a third that is equally important: compassion. I do believe that sacrifice and equality require that we follow the Great Example and give our lives for others if the circumstances call for us to do so. I don't think, however, that someone's failure to live up to such a superhuman standard should result in capital punishment.

Thoughts and Prayers from Across the Pond

2005-07-07T13:17:00.000-05:00

As two former residents of New York City that frequently took advantage of the city's wonderful mass transportation system, we here at the Social Gospel Today are left in shock at today's terrorists attacks in London. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the people of London, especially those who have been hurt or have lost loved ones.

Terrorism has no place in a world committed to social justice and the brotherhood of man.

Wednesday Meditation: Why Parables?

2005-07-06T13:35:00.000-05:00

I'm stealing an idea from my friend over at Progressive Christian, who has given himself a detailed and ambitious "editorial schedule." I think this is a good idea for three reasons -- it provides motivation, keeps me on topic, and lets readers know up-front when the next installment will be. So, starting today, I will post a meditation every Wednesday: a discussion of scripture, theology, ethics, etc. Basically, something that transcends current events. Also, starting July 17, I will post a comment every Sunday: commentary on a weekly news item from a Social Gospel perspective. Note that this new schedule does not mean that I won't be posting blurbs at other times.

Now a short meditation to kick off the schedule. This Five Gospels that I've been reading has got me thinking not only about what Jesus taught, but how he taught. Why did Jesus teach in parables? Wouldn't things have been much easier if Jesus more often laid down clear rules of ethical doctrine? Consider the preface to Donald Morgan's (famous?/infamous?) list of "Biblical Inconsistencies." While acknowledging that many of the difficulties listed could be resolvable on certain interpretations, Morgan asserts that "a perfect and omnipotent God could, should, and likely would see to it that such problems did not exist." In other words, God has the answers, so why doesn't God just come out and tell us already?!

My tentative answer to Morgan, and to the question of why Jesus taught in parables, is twofold. First, Jesus taught in parables because He wants us to think for ourselves. God did not intend us as automatons. God created human beings, with free will and curious (and at least sometimes rational) minds. It should not be surprising therefore, that Jesus' teachings are more than simply a laundry list of commands that we are supposed to "download" and follow like robots. They invite creative thinking and critical discussion.

Second, parables are more powerful than abstract doctrine. It's great artists like William Shakespeare and not academic Psychologists and Sociologists who provide us with the greatest, most memorable insights into the human condition. Similarly, Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan provides us with more powerful moral insight than could any abstract discussion of ethics.

The next Justice

2005-07-03T21:39:00.000-05:00

Remember me? Yeah, I post here too. I've got a lot that I need to blog (personal health issues, family employment issues, etc), and I promise to get to them sooner rather than later.

On a seperate note, I wanted to speculate on who President Bush will nominate to be the Supreme Court now that there is a vacancy...

My guess is that Alberto Gonzales will be nominated to the Court. Why? From what I have heard, Gonzales is a MODERATE on social issues like abortion, and WOULD NOT likely overturn Roe. Doesn't sound like a Bush appointee, you say? In the words of my favorite college football analyst, "Not so fast my friend..."

Ask yourself what single issue has been uniting the Republican base for years, and you'll soon realize that overturning Roe could be devasting to the Republican Party. As soon as conservative "Christians" get what they want (i.e. a pro-life justce to overturn Roe), abortion will no longer be their litmus test in voting. Republicans would no longer be able to count on their votes merely by claiming to be "pro-life."

The Republican Party has no intention of overturning Roe, just making people think they do. Don't get me wrong, I know and respect that many - if not most - social conservatives in office want to see Roe done away with. In fact, I wish they would succeed. My contention, however, is that the highest members of their party are unwilling to make that happen, knowing just what is at stake for their base.

Appointing Gonzales, someone Republicans could justify as the first Hispanic on the Court (to replace the first woman), could be just want Karl Rove is looking for. Perhaps it is no coincidence that Attorney General Gonzales in Iraq encouraging our troops as we speak.

Happy Birthday to SGT

2005-07-02T12:10:00.000-05:00

This blog celebrates its one-year anniversary this weekend. Thanks to everyone who reads and comments! Expect even better content in the year to come.

Swearing on the Bible...

2005-06-29T13:38:00.000-05:00

Problem: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/169/story_16911_1.html

Answer: In some states, witnesses simply raise their right hand and "solemnly swear or sincerely affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth." I would take an in-between measure. If witnesses want to swear on the Bible, the Q'uran or any other text or item that they revere in good faith, let them do so. If they don't want to, they can take the secular oath above.

Rediscovering the Parable of the Sower

2005-06-29T08:13:00.000-05:00

I've been recently reading The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say?, the controversial annotated translation of the four canonical gospels and Thomas. I understand the objections many have to the book, but methodological issues aside, it is thought-provoking. Consider its "spin" on the Parable of the Sower:

A sower went out to sow his seed; and while he was sowing some seed fell along the path, and was trampled under foot, and the birds of the sky ate it up. Other seed fell on rock; when it grew it whithered because it lacked moisture. Still other seed fell among thorns; the thorns grew with it and choked it. Other seed fell on fertile earth; and when it matured, it produced fruit a hundredfold.

Luke 8:5-8

In the canonical gospels, Jesus interprets the parable for His disciples after leaving behind the "huge crowd," explaining:

The 'seed' is God's message. Those 'along the path' are those who have listened to it, but then the devil comes and steals the message from their hearts, so they won't trust and be saved. Those 'on the rock' are those who, when they listen to the message, receive it happily. But they 'have no root': they trust for the moment but fall away when they are tested. What 'fell into the thorns' represents those who listen, but as they continue on, they are 'choked' by the worries and wealth and pleasures of life, and they do not come to maturity. But the seed 'in good earth' stands for those who listen to the message and hold on to it with a good and fertile heart, and 'produce fruit' through perserverance.

Luke 8:11-15.

In the judgment of the Jesus Seminar, only the underlying parable - and not the appended interpretation - is authentic. The Fellows so conclude for several reasons:

The parable, but not the interpretation, is indepdently attested in Thomas 9.
The concern with perserverance and avoiding distractions reflects the situations and concerns of the second and third generations of Christians, when the community experienced varying responses to its evangelistic efforts.
The distinction between 'us' (disciple insiders who are given the real message) and 'them' (non-disciple outsiders who who are denied full access to Jesus' teaching) "contravenes much of Jesus' fundamental teaching" -- which "blurs the division between the privileged and the unprivileged."

Now, whether or not you find these explanations persuasive, consider what follows if they are right. We can't rely on the "given" interpretation - which would merely be a Markan invention. We would have to assess the parable on its own terms. Are there possible interpretations other than the given one?

I think the Sower could easily be read as a parable about social justice. The sower, in this version, is God. The seeds, people. The different growing environments are, well, just that: different growing environments.

The first set of seeds are eaten up by birds. Now, if the seeds are people, then the birds must represent something larger than people. In other words, they would represent what Walter Rauschenbusch would call "supra-personal forces." These seeds represent people that are "swallowed up" by forces like capitalism, war and the criminal justice system. (In Jesus' day, the Roman government.)

The second set of seeds fall on rock and whither for lack of moisture. These seeds could represent people that are not actively "swallowed up" by supra-personal forces but suffer from malign neglect: the victims of underdevelopment, lack of education, etc.

The third set of seeds fall "among thorns" and are choked. These are destroyed, not by forces larger than themselves or by neglect, but by fellow plants, which could obviously represent fellow human beings. These seeds could represent people that are damaged by child abuse or violent crime.

The fourth set of seeds fall on fertile soil and produce. These could represent people who are lucky enough to "fall" into a social situation that is not hampered by supra-personal forces of evil, that possesses sufficient resources for thriving, and that is not upset by domestic violence or crime.

Noteworthy under this interpretation is that the seeds fall into their "social situation." While I certainly do believe that people do have the ability to lift themselves up from a terrible environment, this particular parable reminds those of us who might "blame the victim" just how difficult that is. The verb "fall" is important for another reason too - because it emphasizes the passivity of the Sower in this situation. God does not "place" us into the situation that we are in. It is not because we "deserve it." God has given us, as seeds, all the innate tools we need to be fruitful. And God wishes that all of God's seeds would fall on fertile soil. But God will not intervene apocalyptically and bring about social justice. Jesus taught us how to turn the entire earth into fertile soil, and it is by listening to Him and acting on His teachings that we can bring this about. Only then can all of God's "seeds" reach their full potential.

Observations upon returning to Texas, part I

2005-06-13T17:31:00.000-05:00

Maybe it's that I am spending a lot of time in East Texas these days (a region notoriously more connected to the Old South than the more metropolitan areas of the state), but I've noticed something disturbing: the increased display of Confederate flags and symbols.

Growing up in suburban Dallas, it was rare to see a Confederate flag; such displays were generally seen as "redneck" or backwards. See this post, for example. Texans, for what it was worth, seemed to value icons of Texas heritage - Sam Houston, Stephen F. Austin, cowboys, etc - over those traditionally associated with the Confederacy. Lately, however, I've noticed more and more cars - okay, usually they are trucks - proudly displaying rebel flags. While I don't think Texans are identifying with their state any less - if anything signs of Texas pride have only become more commonplace - I'm left wondering if some of the values traditionally associated with the Confederate flag (i.e. racism) are enjoying a comeback in our post 9-11 environment.

Then again, I could be just another city slicker. Buying groceries last week with Infission at a grocery store in Marshall, Texas, we came across a young lady in the dog food aisle. I asked Infission (outloud, hoping to gain the young woman's opinion on the subject) which dog food would work best to stink up the waters off of our dock, hopefully attracting catfish (a trick of the trade). It was at this point that I noticed the young lady wearing a hat displaying a small Confederate flag.

The young woman, obviously perplexed, looked at me and said, "You're not from around here, are you?"

"Nah," I said, "I'm from Dallas."

"Oh, that explains it," she replied, giggling at my expense.

Quick to our aid, "local" boy Infission was quick to add, "But I'm from Texarkana."

"Well that's better," she said. "Try Catfish Charlie. It ain't dog food, but it works everytime."

Law School Reflection from a Bar Study Perspective

2005-06-13T09:13:00.000-05:00

I thought that I would share a couple of quick thoughts on law school generally now that I am on the other side and studying for the bar exam.

(1): Law school is too long. It really doesn't take 3 years to get the jist of law school. After an intense first year (1L) and a chance to some of the courses you really want to (2L), law students should be eligible to take the bar exam and move on with their lives. While there is certainly enough material on the bar exam to fill three years of law school, there's nothing saying anyone that wanted to be a licensed attorney couldn't learn it for themselves. Abraham Lincoln learned the law that way, and that's pretty much what Infission and I are doing right now in re numerous topics (commerical paper?).

(2): Why can't there be a bar review course offered in law school? Given that graduation from an "accredited" law school is often mandatory in order to sit for a state's bar exam, doesn't it make sense that those same law schools should prep you for the exam?

In high school I took an SAT prep class as one of my electives. Why can't law school offer something similar for the bar exam?

(3): They weren't lying when they said that there was a lot of material on the bar exam. Speaking of, I'd better get back to studying!!

Still here, Still busy

2005-06-11T17:50:00.000-05:00

Well, we've got even less access to the internet (and time) than I thought. I just wanted to let everyone know that we're still here and promise to be back up to full strength as soon as we can. Maybe 42 will have time for a thought this weekend?

As far as the bar goes, things are going well.

We're studying in a little cabin on Caddo Lake, which is indescribably beautiful. I must confess that being out on the dark lake at night - and listening to the wonderfully bizarre symphony of crickets, frogs and owls - is somehow even more humbling than being in New York City. Also, our remote and untamed locale forms an odd contrast with the aphoristic lectures on Texas Criminal Procedure that we listen to during the day. Definitely a unique experience.

In any event, perhaps there will be time for theological reflection next week!

26 Reasons Why This Blog Will be Different Until August 1

2005-06-05T15:06:00.000-05:00

Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Contracts, Evidence, Civil Procedure, Real Property, Torts, Agency, Partnerships, Corporations, Family Law, Community Property, Wills, Estate, Guardianship, Commercial Paper, Secured Transactions, Bankruptcy, Consumer Rights, Oil & Gas, Trusts, Federal Estate & Gift Tax, and Federal Income Tax.

Yes indeed. The subjects on the Texas Bar Exam.

What's that? You want to know what "Commercial Paper" is? So do I. So do I.

In any event, 42 and I are studying together in a remote area and we won't have access to the internet on week days. In fact, we'll hardly have access to any media but the bar materials and a trusty NRSV. But I expect we'll write (by hand) in the evenings and on post on Saturdays. Expect a much more reflective, less current events-based blog in the weeks to come. Also, since we're studying together, expect some posts from our joint psuedonym, jj.

By August 1, I'm sure we'll be back up to full steam....

Reflections on Law in the Ivory Tower

2005-06-04T10:02:00.000-05:00

Howdy from Benbrook, Texas -- my temporary residence until I get my new digs in Austin. Before 42 and I head off to study for the Texas Bar Exam, I think the time's right for me to offer some reflections on law in the Ivory Tower.

Almost all law schools require that their applicants submit a short "personal statement" along with their GPAs, LSAT scores and letters of recommendation. It's supposed to be reflective - to take the admissions committees beyond the numbers and to help them see the flesh and blood person behind them. Almost four years ago, in the summer of 2001, I drafted a personal statement that reflected on my undergraduate experience.

The interplay between the "intensely traditionalist, Bible-centered culture" of my upbringing and "culturally-critical, radical instruction I received in my Liberal Arts courses" stimulated, panicked and devastated me. It shredded my unexamined cultural assumptions and forced me to ask the "big questions." For the first time, I questioned such givens as Capitalism, Democracy and Christianity, and I formulated answers that were truly my own....

My undergraduate experience at a massive state school changed me forever. My graduate experience at an intimate ivy league law school has not had the same effect. Although a J.D. is often viewed as a professional degree, law schools like those 42 and I attended groom their students more for life in academia than for life in the courtroom. Our law professors styled themselves practical philosophers and our classes addressed the "big questions": How legitimate is the market economy and the existing distribution of resources? (Federal Income Tax, Property) What are the purposes of punishment and boundaries of personal responsibility? (Criminal Law) What is the definition of Democracy and how should majority rule be limited? (Federal Jurisdiction) What is Equality? (Constitutional Law)

But, in truth, my law school's practical philosophers - Socratic as they may have been - never seriously threatened my moral foundation. Law and Economics, the overwhelmingly dominant scholarly paradigm, struck me as morally absurd on its face. L&E not only takes the quite problematic position that all persons will strive only to maximize their own self-interests, it also has the audacity to normatively declare such selfishness as the only "rational" course. L&E fundamentally assumes that anything that marginally increases the Gross Domestic Product is good, while anything that hinders our lockstep towards this goal is bad. "Efficiency" is the only value. L&E is utilitarianism at its worst. I was shocked when one of my first-year professors dismissed a student's objection that a certain law hurt the poor as "merely distributional effects." But I have heard Jesus' call to serve others and to concern myself most with those least privileged echoing deeply within my soul. I could not be misled by the mechanical application of neo-classical Economics to Law.

More alluring were those modern descendants of Critical Legal Studies such as Critical Race Theory, Feminist Theory, and Antisubordinationism. I was engaged by professors who taught that the Constitution could be read as a document mandating distributive justice and intrigued by judges who argued that the Equal Protection Clause required equal marital rights for same-sex couples. In the end, however, I decided that Critical Legal Studies was merely a pale, hopelessly pretentious reflection of what Jesus said long ago:

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free...."

"I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me' ... "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.'"

When I entered law school, these were the foundations of my moral/policital philosophy. Neither the seductive empiricism of L&E nor the superficial intellectual refinement of CLS have shaken them.

My legal education has bolstered my researching, writing and reasoning abilities. It has provided me with doctrinal and theoretical frameworks. It will provide me with a license to practice law. These are indeed powerful tools in our society. But they are no more than tools.

Texas Here we Come!

2005-05-25T21:00:00.000-05:00

42 and Infission have graduated from law school. (Scary, indeed.) We are both in the process of moving from NYC to our home state of Texas. We'll be offline for a few days in the process, and the next time we speak to you it will be from that wonderful, terrible Lone Star State.

In the meantime, God Bless!

The Costs of War

2005-05-22T00:59:00.000-05:00

The U.S. casualties in the Iraqi war are widely reported. After the recent attacks, the number of U.S. military dead has reached 1631. The number of U.S. military wounded is over 6000. Less widely reported are the Iraqi casualties: 2105 guardsmen and police killed and untold thousands of civlians (icasualties.org).

Even less media attention is given to another critical matter, however: the costs of war in terms of government spending and the opportunity costs that entails. 42 pointed us to this National Priorities Project "clock" almost a year ago. If it was enlightening then, it is even more so now. What could we have done if we didn't invade Iraq? Here's a few examples current through 2:00 a.m. Sunday morning (and counting):

Provided 103,000,000 children with health insurance for one year,
Funded over 8 million four-year college scholarships to public universities and
Ensured that each child in the world got basic immunizations for 57 years!

Even the most hardened leftists will admit that it is a good thing that Saddam Hussein is gone.

But when we hear this argument, we must consider all the other evils that we could have eradicated with much lower human costs, through non-violent means and without adding a cent to the federal budget. Yes, it is good for the world that Saddam Hussein is gone. But is it better than ensuring every child in the world gets immunizations for 57 years? I think not. And we could have achieved that without the thousands of deaths and world alienation....

Lest we Forget

2005-05-20T10:50:00.000-05:00

Amidst all the talk of economic recovery, prices for consumer goods are rising and wages are stagnating. The stock market may like this economy, but I'm not convinced it has done anything for "the least."

Death Row Inmate Seeks Delay to Donate Liver

2005-05-18T08:53:00.000-05:00

I'm continually amazed by the compassion shown by those who have received none.

Gregory Johnson is scheduled to be killed by the state of Indiana on May 25, but on Monday he begged the parole board for enough time to donate his liver.

"My sister is sick, she needs a liver," Johnson said.

"At this point, everything else, including my own life, is secondary to trying to help her if I can."

Quite a Christian sentiment from someone the state has found utterly irredeemable....

New Shots Fired in the Culture Wars

2005-05-12T18:39:00.000-05:00

Federal Judge Rules Nebraska's Same-Sex Unions Ban Unconstitutional

I fear that gay marriage is the new abortion.... Will this keep the Christian conservatives aligned with the radical laissez-faire capitalists for the next twenty years? I hope not, but it sure looks that way.

Homeless Drug Addict Killed Saving the Life of Another

2005-05-12T15:57:00.000-05:00

Kelcy Ruiz, a homeless man described by family members as a crack addict, was stabbed to death today as he defended a restaurant owner, Melinda Murillo, from a knife-wielding intruder. (AP)

"Even though he was a forgotten member of society, he acted better than most people who are not homeless," said Detective Delrish Moss, spokesman for the Miami Police Department.

"This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends." John 15:12-13.

SBC deteriorating?

2005-05-12T13:04:00.000-05:00

Thom Rainer, dean of the Southern Baptist Convention's Billy Graham School of Missions, Evangelism and Church Growth in Louisville, Ky., says the denomination is "on the path of slow but discernible deterioration."

In a study to be released later this month by The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Rainer says the SBC faces a "evangelistic crisis" - citing consistently falling "baptism rates":

"[O]ne person was baptized for every 19 members of SBC churches in 1950. In 1978, that ratio increased to 36 to 1 and by 2003 -- the number reached 43 to 1...."

Rainer suggests that pastors " repent for their lack of evangelistic zeal."

I grew up in a town dominated by Southern Baptists. So did my wife. In our experiences, which occurred right in the middle of 1978 and 2003, Southern Baptists pastors have extraordinary "evangelistic zeal."

I was not raised a Southern Baptist, but I was indoctrinated merely through attending a couple of church camps. Southern Baptist pastors got about two or three cracks at me, and by the time I was 14, their hellfire and brimstone "evangelistic zeal" had convinced me that I would burn eternally if I did not come down to the altar and "publicly accept Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior." In fact, I was saved twice in junior high. My wife more than twice.

No, if the SBC is indeed declining it is not for lack of evangelistic zeal. It is declining because it has the wrong message. Jesus Christ is about more than saying a magic spell, getting baptised and refraining from pre-marital sex. As more and more Christians realize this, the SBC will continue to decline.

Fixed!

2005-05-10T21:07:00.000-05:00

No one ever accused Infission of being tech saavy, that's for sure.

But all is well is SGT land... we have fixed our graphics problem, and the links on the right should now be visible to all users, whether they use the internet explorer (the dark side) or Mozilla Firefox (the good guys).

A Letter from the IRS

2005-05-10T16:07:00.000-05:00

Today I got a letter from the IRS. I was terrified. I filed my tax returns on time! Was I being audited? Who would audit a student with $652 of adjusted gross income!?

I opened the letter and discovered that the IRS is doing a new and wonderful thing to help low-income people.

People who work but don't make much money sometimes qualify for an "Earned Income Credit." In actuality, this is more a subsidy than a credit or refund because people who qualify generally don't make enough money to pay any taxes. One of the biggest problems with this great program is that people often don't know when they qualify.

My letter from the IRS was titled: "You May Be Eligible for a Refund If You Qualify for the Earned Income Credit." The letter clearly stated: "This is not a bill." It explained that I could have some money coming to me and asked me four simply-phrased questions that would tell me whether I qualify.

I don't qualify because I'm not working. I'm a student. But I think the policy of sending people letters to let them know that they might qualify is a GREAT ONE. This means that more low-income people will actually get what they are entitled to.

Cheers to the IRS, which is all too often vilified.

Immediate Action Required

2005-05-09T13:04:00.000-05:00

I received this email (from someone that spent a year
of her life working with those seaking asylum) and thought
it was blogworthy.

Hello everyone.

I am writing to urge you to write your senators and
express your opposition to the inclusion of the REAL
ID act with the Supplemental Appropriations bill.  The
REAL ID act contains provisions that are extremely
harmful to people applying for asylum.  A number of my
clients who were granted asylum last year would not
have had this legislation been in effect.  This is not
because their claim was any less meritorious (their
persecution was still real), it is simply because of
the narrowed definition of who qualifies and the
increased burden of proof needed to demonstrate that
you do qualify.  If you want more details or specifics
please feel free to write me.  Otherwise, please write
your senators.  You can find their e-mail addresses
at:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/


Just pick your state from the "choose a state" box and
your senators' contact information, will appear (and
all you need is an address in the state in order to
claim them as your senator).

I have included a sample letter below to help make it
that much easier/faster for you, though feel free to
change it as you see fit.  Writing your Senators
really does make a difference. Thanks.

SAMPLE LETTER (feel free to cut and paste):

I am writing to express my opposition to the inclusion
of the REAL ID act in the 2005 Supplemental
Appropriations bill.  I am opposed to its inclusion
for two reasons: 1.) the act has not been subjected to
a full debate in the US Senate.  The democratic
process depends on a full hearing of all views prior
to the passing of legislation.  By including this act
in a completely unrelated bill you are circumventing
debate and discussion of the act on its own merits.
2.) I am opposed to the REAL ID act on its own terms.
While the act purports to protect our boarders from
terrorists, in reality the individuals who will be
most affected are those who are truly seeking
protection from persecution. Any terrorist who
attempting to enter the U.S. through the asylum
process will not be stopped by this act.  Presumably
they are entering under fraudulent claims (because
otherwise they would never qualify) and they will
continue to do so if this legislation is passed.
Raising the standard of proof will not present a
barrier to individuals with the resources to develop a
good fraudulent claim (i.e., terrorists).
Unfortunately, the people who truly deserve asylum
will be the very people least able to meet the new
burden of proof.  This bill hurts the very people the
U.S. should be trying to protect while doing nothing
to further protect the U.S.

Email your Senators today! DO IT!

The Bush Agenda

2005-05-09T01:28:00.000-05:00

Paul Krugman, a professor of economics at Princeton, has this to say on Monday's NY Times op-ed page (discussing Bush's social security plan):

Let's consider the Bush tax cuts and the Bush benefit cuts [to Social Security] as a package. Who gains? Who loses?
Suppose you're a full-time Wal-Mart employee, earning $17,000 a year. You probably didn't get any tax cut. But Mr. Bush says, generously, that he won't cut your Social Security benefits.

Suppose you're earning $60,000 a year. On average, Mr. Bush cut taxes for workers like you by about $1,000 per year. But by 2045 the Bush Social Security plan would cut benefits for workers like you by about $6,500 per year. Not a very good deal.

Suppose, finally, that you're making $1 million a year. You received a tax cut worth about $50,000 per year. By 2045 the Bush plan would reduce benefits for people like you by about $9,400 per year. We have a winner!

I'm not being unfair. In fact, I've weighted the scales heavily in Mr. Bush's favor, because the tax cuts will cost much more than the benefit cuts would save. Repealing Mr. Bush's tax cuts would yield enough revenue to call off his proposed benefit cuts, and still leave $8 trillion in change.

The point is that the privatizers consider four years of policies that relentlessly favored the wealthy a fait accompli, not subject to reconsideration. Now that tax cuts have busted the budget, they want us to accept large cuts in Social Security benefits as inevitable. But they demand that we praise Mr. Bush's sense of social justice, because he proposes bigger benefit cuts for the middle class than for the poor.

Sorry, but no. Mr. Bush likes to play dress-up, but his Robin Hood costume just doesn't fit.

Don't be fooled America! The Bush administration's agenda (as orchestrated by anti-government ideologues) isn't to help sustain the poor nor our beloved system of Social Security. If they wanted to do that, all they would have to go is roll back their tax cuts to the non-economy stiflying levels of the Clinton administration (with $8 trillion in change). By suggesting that S.S. benefit cuts are inevitable, Bush takes an Orwellian (think Ministry of Truth from 1984) approach to curtailing all government benefit programs, telling the public that we have no other options and that if we fail to act we are hurting the poor.

Wake up America. George Bush isn't about defending marriage, the unborn or the poor.

Call me Wiston Smith, and point me towards the fight.

George Bush is not Jesus

2005-05-08T09:12:00.000-05:00

Well if we haven't convinced you already of just how reactionary and thoughtless the religious right is being...

Pastor Kicks Parishioners out of Small Baptist Church for not Supporting President Bush (CNN)

WAYNESVILLE, North Carolina (AP) -- A pastor who led a charge to kick out nine church members who refused to support President Bush was the talk of the town Saturday in this mountain hamlet, withousted congregants considering hiring a lawyer...

Members of the congregation said Chandler told them during last year's presidential campaign that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry needed to leave the church.

At least the unspoken mentality pervasive in 'conservative' congregations across the country is finally being drawn out into the public discourse; hopefully its hypocrisy will soon be brought to light.

Thanks to ats54 for the heads up on the article.

Justice Department Under Gonzalez Still Brutal

2005-05-06T21:22:00.000-05:00

Vermont, in a wondrous expression of its values and consistent with federalism, abolished the death penalty decades ago. The last execution in Vermont was in 1954. That's the age of Jim Crow, before Vietnam, for those who are counting. Vermonters take life seriously....

But the Bush Administration doesn't care. If the Vermont authorities won't bring a capital case, then it will. It is making a federal case out of a standard state murder case just because the Justice Department believes the defendant deserves death. (AP)

"It's clear that the state doesn't want it," said Allen Gilbert, executive director of the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. "Yet the federal government is coming in and imposing it on us. They are imposing a system of justice we rejected."

Re: Technical Difficulties

2005-05-06T14:25:00.000-05:00

We're still trying to get our links to load correctly.

I got this form email from blogger support today:

"We want to let you know that we've been busy lately. Very busy. In fact, we've been so busy that we don't currently have the bandwidth to answer each email individually. We assure you that this is a temporary situation."

I'm not sure a month can be described as "temporary" in the internet age. In any event, we may begin looking for a new home depending on just how "untemporary" blogger's "temporary" problem is.

Any suggestions? (Note that we're not computer experts over here.)

Re: Whoops, Wrong Country

2005-05-06T13:56:00.000-05:00

North Korea May be Testing Nuclear Weapons

Reuters

U.S. government officials are monitoring recent satellite photographs of North Korea that appear to show extensive preparations for a nuclear weapons test, according to a report in the New York Times, citing officials who have been briefed on the matter.

Darn, its too bad the U.S. has lost all international credibility. That might have been helpful in dealing with this problem don't ya' think?

But hey, how about that runaway bride? I'm sure that's what they're talking about on cable news right now.

"Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words."

2005-05-05T07:22:00.000-05:00

I just wanted to encourage our readers to visit Matthew 25:40, which is usually available by link just to the right the blog is working right. (Hopefully, it will be again soon.)

The blog recounts the very personal religious journey of a free-thinking Methodist. Matt's motto is one of my favorite Christian quotes ever: "Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words." St. Francis of Assisi.

Currently, Matt is discussing Marcus Borg's new book, The Heart of Christianity, which he is quite passionate about and wants to "shout from the rooftops." The book, according to Matt, powerfully shows that "Christianity is about more than believing the right things so that we can get to Heaven after we die. Christians ought to be about the business of compassion and concern for others in THIS life."

"I've got Jesus in my heart. I'm sorry for any pain I've caused."

2005-05-05T07:03:00.000-05:00

Lonnie Pursley was convicted of robbing and brutally murdering Robert Earl Cook in 1997. The crime appears to have been related to Lonnie's severe drug addiction, as he pawned the rings that he stole to buy drugs. On Monday, Lonnie received a letter from Robert Cook's family: they forgive him! Lonnie was grateful, and his response was, "I've got Jesus in my heart. I'm sorry for any pain I've caused." Lonnie also thanked fellow inmates who have been supportive over the years. And then, the State of Texas killed him.

His last words to his friends on death row: "I'm going home, OK? Y'all stay strong."

(AP)

Jesuits for Justice!

2005-05-04T19:52:00.000-05:00

This is one Catholic order that definitely has the right idea:

Religion News Service:

Jesuit educators, known for their dual emphasis on academics and social justice, are gearing up to set a new standard for the way colleges wield clout on Wall Street.Under a proposal rolled out for chief financial officers last week (April 28) in Cincinnati, the nation's 28 Jesuit colleges and universities would use their billions of dollars in investments to push a collective, Roman Catholic social agenda.

Under a proposal rolled out for chief financial officers last week (April 28) in Cincinnati, the nation's 28 Jesuit colleges and universities would use their billions of dollars in investments to push a collective, Roman Catholic social agenda.

Participating colleges would build endowment wealth and advocate for the poor simultaneously by demanding corporate policies that defend human rights, reduce predatory lending practices and prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa.

(Full Story at Beliefnet)

We're still at War; and Now They're at War

2005-05-04T16:41:00.000-05:00

The AP reports today that the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq has reached 1,590. Over 91% of these (1452 soldiers) have been killed since President Bush declared major hostilities over. It has been too long since we have lamented this tragedy; this outrage.

More disturbing still: Sunni militants killed 60 and injured 150 other Iraqis today in the bombing of a police center at Irbil. It increasingly looks as if a civil war between Sunni and Shi'i Iraqis is breaking out - despite the best of U.S. efforts.

Saddam Hussein's tyrannical regime was indeed terrible, but if the U.S. thought that Sunni and Shi'i Muslims in Iraq were just going to quietly come together under some sort of completely secular, Westernized government, it was gravely mistaken. And if it expects Sunni Muslims to accept Shi'i dominance, it is terrifically naive. What is to be done now is hard to say. But a good start would be to get someone into a high policy position that knows something about Islam. I'm pleased that the President recognizes that Islam is a peaceful religion. But it would be nice if our leaders knew a bit more than that....

Update: more violence on Thursday.

The Woodpecker's gift to Theology

2005-05-03T09:35:00.000-05:00

This excerpt is from a NY Times op-ed piece by Jonathan Rosen entitled, "The Woodpecker in All of Us." It references this exciting news.

I think there is a deep spiritual meaning behind what Rosen says and, after final exams, I will attempt to draw that out. For starters, here are a few of Rosen's own words:

Among its gifts to us, the ivory bill can help us see ourselves as we really are, torn between our own desire to be free - to shoot and develop and cut down and expand - and the desire to live among free things that can survive only if we are less free. With the double vision of birders, we still can recognize ourselves as the wild children of American fantasy, but also as the far less romantic, but equally biblical, stewards of the earth. The challenge now is to give the ivory-billed woodpecker a home - not merely in legend but on actual, American ground, where it can be both the metaphorical Lord God bird [one of its names] and also the literal eater of grubs. If we can pull this off, we will not merely be saving this bird, we will be saving ourselves.

Pat Robertson Disapproves of Muslim Judges and Cabinet Members

2005-05-02T20:24:00.000-05:00

Beliefnet story

Who is against people of faith again?

(What happened to your links?)

The Real Threat to Religious Expression, The Garden of Eden

2005-05-02T06:49:00.000-05:00

Last week, I posted a short poem that those outside (and perhaps even inside) the legal profession probably found cryptic. So now to be clear to lawyers: all Christians should find the Supreme Court's "innovative" commercial speech doctrine at least as disturbing as the Court's establishment clause jurisprudence (if not more so). And then to laypeople: the Court's commercial speech doctrine increasingly places an equal sign between religious expression and public democratic discourse on the one hand, and corporate ads proposing market transactions on the other.

How did we get here?

Let's compare Valentine v. Christensen and Murdock v. Pennsylvania - two United States Supreme Court cases decided in 1942 and 1943 respectively.

In Valentine, the Supreme Court upheld a law that prohbited "distribution in the streets of commercial and business advertising material." The Court noted that the streets are "unequivocally" proper places to exercise "the freedom of communicating information and disseminating opinion." It found protecting these freedoms perfectly consistent with its bold (and, in my view, correct) holding that the First Amendment "imposes no...restraint on government as respects purely commercial advertising." The extent to which commercial advertising is permitted is not a fundamental constitutional right but a proper "matter[] for legislative judgement."

In Murdock, the Court made good on its distinction between First Amendment speech and mere business talk. The Court held that a small licensing tax on door-to-door soliciting could not be applied to Jehovah's Witnesses.

The Court's exalting of religious expression in Murdock marked a sharp contrast with Valentine's view of "mere commercial advertising":

Petitioners spread their interpretations of the Bible and their religious beliefs largely through the hand distribution of literature by full or part time workers. They claim to follow the example of Paul, teaching 'publickly, and from house to house.' Acts 20:20. They take literally the mandate of the Scriptures, 'Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.' Mark 16:15. In doing so they believe that they are obeying a commandment of God.

The hand distribution of religious tracts is an age-old form of missionary evangelism--as old as the history of printing presses. It has been a potent force in various religious movements down through the years. This form of evangelism is utilized today on a large scale by various religious sects whose colporteurs carry the Gospel to thousands upon thousands of homes and seek through personal visitations to win adherents to their faith. It is more than preaching; it is more than distribution of religious literature. It is a combination of both. Its purpose is as evangelical as the revival meeting. This form of religious activity occupies the same high estate under the First Amendment as do worship in the churches and preaching from the pulpits. It has the same claim to protection as the more orthodox and conventional exercises of religion. It also has the same claim as the others to the guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

This blissful state of affairs lasted more than three decades....

Experiencing Technical Difficulties

2005-05-01T15:00:00.000-05:00

Update: the problem is only with IE. If you use mozilla, things load fine. Still working on it....

The Bible in Public Schools - A follow up

2005-05-01T13:44:00.000-05:00

A follow up on a previous post.

Two follow up articles. This very interesting read on the national phenomenon from the Dallas Morning News...

Roughly 80 percent of the schools using the national council's Bible course are small or rural districts, according to Ms. Ridenour, the group's president.
"It's not just gone into the Bible Belt states. It's gone into Alaska, Pennsylvania, California," Ms. Ridenour said. "We've already had over 170,000 students take the course nationwide. It's never been legally challenged."
Ms. Ridenour stressed that the curriculum is designed to help students understand the Bible in the context of its influence on culture and the arts. She emphasized it is not a course in Bible devotion.
"You wouldn't learn this in Sunday school class," she said. "How in the world could you understand what's going on in the Middle East today without introducing the Bible and understanding the background? How can they understand Michelangelo's Moses or Leonardo Da Vinci's Last Supper without knowing about the figures that inspired those works of art?"

Also, this from beliefnet.com:

"Americans have a long and bitter history of fighting over the role of the Bible in the classroom," said Charles C. Haynes, a scholar at The Freedom Forumn's First Amendment Center, a foundation with offices in Nashville and Arlington, Va. He added that public schools "should not inculcate or inhibit religion."

Haynes said it is a common misconception that the Supreme Court prohibited religious study from public institutions in a 1962 decision. Instead, it banned state-sponsored religious practices, he said.

According to Haynes, who has worked in partnership with the Bible Literacy Project, teaching academic Bible courses is not in violation of the First Amendment as long they are taught "objectively as part of a secular program of education."

Haynes said he hopes the latest report and anticipated textbook will dispel misconceptions.

"After fighting about this for over 150 years I think it's about time for public schools to move past the controversy and include study of the Bible," Haynes said.

"If we care about education we must."

This will certainly be an interesting issue to see develop. And as Burleez says, a valuable opportunity to see if progressives have had their ears to the ground...

What Happened to Democracy?

2005-05-01T09:45:00.000-05:00

President Bush holding hands with Saudi Arabia's Prince Abdullah at the Bush ranch this week.

The President welcomes dictators who deny their citizens basic human rights? The Saudi "monarchy" presides over a country where freedom of expression is "nonexistent," where political parties are not permitted, where there is no free press, where peaceful anti-government protest is "unthinkable," and where "infringements on privacy [abound], gender discrimination [is institutionalized], harsh restrictions on the exercise of religious freedom [are enforced], and the use of capital and corporal punishment" is common for trivial crimes. (Human Rights Watch.) The Saudi regime also supports terrorists.

Saddam Hussein got an invasion; Prince Abdullah gets an invitation to the ranch. What's the difference between the two again?

Gay Rights Movement Increasingly Conceptualized as Struggle for Equality

2005-04-30T11:17:00.000-05:00

In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court held anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional. It rested its conclusion (at least formally) on privacy rights. In pedestrian terms, the Court held that the government has no business in your bedroom. This view of Gay Rights sees the struggle as being about the liberty of people to have sex with whoever they want, however they want.

It seems to me that this view of Gay Rights is both easier for the Right to oppose and less persuasive on the merits than the alternative vision of Gay Rights. A second vision of Gay rights sees the struggle - not as an heir to the privacy rights of Griswold and Roe - but as an heir to the equality rights of Brown and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Anecdotal evidence suggests to me:

(1) that the Gay Rights struggle is increasingly being conceptualized in terms of equality,
(2) that the articulation of the equality argument is becoming increasingly powerful, and
(3) that the Right will soon find itself facing stunning defeats on the issue because of 1 and 2.

Two recent events prompt these observations.

First, as many are no doubt aware, Connecticut passed a Civil Unions law last week. It became the first state to do so without any judicial prompting. Most interesting to me, was Republican Governor Jodi Rell's justification for signing the law. At the signing ceremony, Rell explained, "I have said all along that I believe in no discrimination of any kind and I think that this bill accomplishes that...."

Rell might have said that people should have the liberty to partner with whoever they want. Instead, however, she indicated that the bill was necessary to avoid "discrimination" -- to "accomplish" equality. In emphasing her opposition to discrimination "of any kind," Rell implicitly linked the Gay Rights struggle to the struggles for racial and gender equality. Admittedly, this was not a complete victory, and Rell also applauded, paradoxically, that the law "preserv[ed] the traditional language" of marriage. Nevertheless, to hear the language of equality coming from a Republican - even a moderate Republican - was indeed extraordinary.

I believe that Rell's statement demonstrates that homosexuals' claims to be heirs of the Civil Rights movement are becoming increasingly difficult to deny. This fact really "hit" me this week when I received the passionate public statement of Eric Berndt.

Mr. Berndt, an NYU law student, gained the applause of some and the condemnation of many two weeks ago when he asked conservative Justice Antonin Scalia an inflammatory question after a speech he gave at the law school. During a discussion about Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, Berndt asked the Justice, "Do you sodomize your wife?" Scalia, whose wife was in attendance, responded that "the question was unworthy of an answer."

Recently, Mr. Berndt wrote the following in response to his critics:

As the student who asked Justice Scalia about his sexual conduct, I am [writing] to explain why I believe I had a right to confront Justice Scalia in the manner I did Tuesday, why any gay or sympathetic person has that same right. It should be clear that I intended to be offensive, obnoxious, and inflammatory. There is a time to discuss and there are times when acts and opposition are necessary. Debate is useless when one participant denies the full dignity of the other. How am I to docilely engage a man who sarcastically rants about the "beauty of homosexual relationships" (at the Q&A) and believes that gay school teachers will try to convert children to a homosexual lifestyle (at oral argument for Lawrence)?

Although my question was legally relevant, as I explain below, an independent motivation for my speech-act was to simply subject a homophobic government official to the same indignity to which he would subject millions of gay Americans. It was partially a naked act of resistance and a refusal to be silenced. I wanted to make him and everyone in the room aware of the dehumanizing effect of trivializing such an important relationship. Justice Scalia has no pity for the millions of gay Americans on whom sodomy laws and official homophobia have such an effect, so it is difficult to sympathize with his brief moment of "humiliation," as some have called it. The fact that I am a law student and Scalia is a Supreme Court Justice does not require me to circumscribe my justified opposition and outrage within the bounds of jurisprudential discourse.

Law school and the law profession do not negate my identity as a member of an oppressed minority confronting injustice. Even so, I did have a legal point: Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Lawrence asked whether criminalizing homosexual conduct advanced a state interest "which could justify the intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual." Scalia did not answer this question in his dissent because he believed the state need only assert a legitimate interest to defeat non-fundamental liberties. I basically asked him this question again - it is now the law of the land. He said he did not know whether the interest was significant enough. I then asked him if he sodomizes his wife to subject his intimate relations to the scrutiny he cavalierly would allow others - by force, if necessary. Everyone knew at that moment how significant the interest is. Beyond exerting official power against homosexuals, Scalia is an outspoken and high-profile homophobe. After the aforementioned sarcastic remarks about gay people's relationships, can anyone doubt how little respect he has for LGBT Americans? Even if no case touching gay rights ever came before him, his comments from the bench (that employment non-discrimination is some kind of "homosexual agenda," etc.) and within our very walls are unacceptable to any self-respecting gay person or principled opponent of discrimination. The idea that I should have treated a man with such repugnant views with deference because he is a high government official evinces either a dangerously un-American acceptance of authority or insensitivity to the gay community's grievances. Friends have forwarded me emails complaining of the "liberal" student who asked "the question." That some of my classmates are shallow and insensitive enough to conceptualize my complaint as mere partisan politics is disheartening. Though I should not have to, I will share with everyone that I am neither a Democrat nor Republican and do not consider myself a "liberal" except in the classical sense. I hope that we can separate a simple demand for equality under the law and outrage over being denied it from so much dogmatic ideological baggage. LGBT Americans are still a persecuted minority and our struggle for equal rights is still vital. 4 out of 5 LGBT kids are harassed in school - tell them to debate their harassers. Suicide rates for them are much higher than for others. We still cannot serve in the military, have little protection from employment and other forms of discrimination, and are denied the 1000+ benefits that accrue from official recognition of marriage. I know some who support gay rights oppose my question and our protest. Do not presume to tell me when and with how much urgency to stand up for our rights.

I am 17 months out of a lifelong closet and have lost too much time to heterosexist hegemony to tolerate those who say, as Dr. King put it, "just wait." If you cannot stomach a breach of decorum when justified outrage erupts then your support is nearly worthless anyway. At least do not allow yourselves to become complicit in discrimination by demanding obedience from its victims. Many of our classmates chose NYU over higher-ranked schools because of our reputation as a "private university in the public service" and our commitment to certain values. We were the first law school to require that employers pledge not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Of Scalia's law schools that have "signed on to the homosexual agenda," our signature stands out like John Hancock's. We won a federal injunction in the FAIR litigation as an "expressive association" that counts acceptance of sexual orientation as a core value. Those who worry about our school's prestige should remember how we got here and consider whether flattering those who mock what we believe and are otherwise willing to fight for appears prestigious or pathetic. We protestors did not embarrass NYU, Scalia embarrassed NYU. We stood up to a bigot for the values that make NYU more than a great place to learn the law. I repeat my willingess to discuss this issue calmly with anyone who respects my identity as a gay man. I have had many productive talks with classmates since [the incident,] and I hope that will continue.

Respectfully,
Eric Berndt

......................................................................................................

(No, I haven't forgotten that I've a promised a discussion of the Supreme Court's Commercial Speech doctrine, there are just too many other important things that keep coming up!)

Hooray for Methodists!

2005-04-29T16:13:00.000-05:00

The United Methodist Church reversed itself Friday, deciding to reinstate a lesbian minister who was defrocked after revealing her relationship with another woman.

A church panel voted 8 to 1 to set aside an earlier decision to defrock Irene "Beth" Stroud for violating the church's ban on openly gay clergy.
...
"The church is not free to disregard the standards of justice and inclusiveness that are preached by Jesus Christ ... and are a part of church law," Stroud said after church authorities read their decision at a hotel.

"The ruling gives us hope that the United Methodist Church has the resources to do justice," she said.

Defending Defenders

2005-04-29T13:08:00.000-05:00

This observation from Tigerknight over at Donzelion Dissents:

Who better reflects a Christian model than a criminal defense attorney, sacrificing heart, soul, time, reputation - even for the unlovable, guilty human beings?

I would say that the public defender reflects a Christian model even better than the private criminal defense attorney. She does all of the above things and additionally sacrifices salary (and more reputation) in order to defend the poor.

Meanwhile in Texas...

2005-04-29T11:20:00.000-05:00

While the Texas Legislature spends its time worrying about gay foster parents and online lotto sales, a new report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has found that Texas leads the nation in the number of uninsured adult workers - 27% of Texas workers have no health insurance.

Let me be clear: more than 1 in 4 of those people actively working to make their lives better have no health insurance. As someone that has recently become acutely aware of how important health insurance is, I am flabbergasted. How can our elected representatives continue to waste time on marginal issues while so many of us are just one major illness away from destitution?

The time to act is now. How many more must suffer before we force our representatives to take notice?

An Immoral Document

2005-04-29T09:28:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, the Republican Congress approved a budget that cuts spending on Medicaid for the poor by billions of dollars, freezes educational spending, and makes the Bush tax cuts for wealthy permanent. Democrats unanimously opposed the radical measures -"[t]he vote was 214-211 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate." President Bush firmly endorsed the wholly partisan measure. In considering your vote in the 2006 election, consider whether this budget reflects your moral priorities.

Thursday's Texas Trio

2005-04-28T17:00:00.000-05:00

In the spirit of today's look at Texas...

ODESSA, Texas (AP) -- The school board in the West Texas town of Odessa voted unanimously to add a Bible class to its high school curriculum.
Check out the article on CNN.

For starters, lets assume away all constitutional objections to this happening. (To pass constitutional muster, other courses - near Eastern religions, Hinduism, etc - would likely also have to be offered as electives, as they are in state universities across the country.)

From my own personal experience, "Bible" courses are great. In college, it was my "Hebrew Scriptures" and "New Testament" courses that first made me question whether or not the Bible fell from heaven - i.e. was the infallible word of God - or was in fact written by men and accumulated over time. This was definitely a turning point in my religious life - in no other setting had I ever been exposed to the idea that the Bible could be anything other than divinely inspired truth.

Coming from this background, I am not so quick to dismiss this course as bible-beaters trying to sneak "Christianity" into the public school system. Granted, that could be exactly what is going on here...

That aside, I believe that a historical look at the Bible can do students a lot of good, especially if it is offering them a perspective unlikely to be heard via their local pulpits. While offering a Bible-only course smacks of religious favoritism and risks being nothing more than Bible-study on campus, I do think there is a need for a discussion of religious philosophies and texts within the public school system. I challenege Odessa I.S.D. to put their money where their mouths are: give us religious discourse in the public schools in an even-handed (and constitutional) way. You might just be surprised at what you find.

Besides, aren't true Christians ones that choose the faith as their own, not ones that have it shoved down their throats their whole lives?

Houston, we Have a Problem

2005-04-28T11:34:00.000-05:00

Houston Bans Offensive Odors in Libraries

Those who want to browse books at Houston's public libraries should get enough sleep, eat and bathe before they begin to peruse the shelves.

On Wednesday, the City Council passed a series of library regulations that some say are an attempt to discourage homeless people from visiting the public buildings.

What Would Jesus Do? Would the man who embraced lepers, called the poor blessed, and ate with prostitutes support a regulation that has the effect of banning "the least" from a public place? Oh how we compartmentalize the man we call Lord....

Texas to Ban Gay Foster Parents?

2005-04-28T08:30:00.000-05:00

Texas is poised to become the only state in the nation to ban gay foster parents. The bill would require potential foster parents to declare their sexuality on official forms and would remove children from homes of parents later found to be homosexual.

The most disturbing aspect of this bill is that its proponents are pursuing their anti-gay agenda at the expense of children's best interest: a stable home -- any stable home. According to Texas social worker Eva Thibaudeau, Texas is already "facing an ongoing crisis of not having enough resources to take care of foster children."

I am pro-family. Texas Republicans are pro-heterosexuality. There is a difference.

The Real Threat to Religious Expression, Prologue

2005-04-26T14:41:00.000-05:00

The tale I tell is one of woe --
of a truth once exhalted, but now laid low,
of an activist Court that lost its way,
and far from the founders its doctrine did stray.
And in its zealous, hasty crusade,
Religious expression it did degrade....

What's that you say?
You know this tale well?
Of crèches?
Commandments?
Of school prayers expelled?
No, dear friend, it is not these things
that my tragedy, to your attention, brings.

My tale of woe is so much richer --
of ambulance chasers and venders of liquor.
How generations of judges -- five, seven and nine --
built a Tower of Babel that scoundrels could climb:
a doctrine that held the commercial sublime,
a doctrine that conflated profane and Divine.

Note: subsequent posts in this series will not be in verse =)

Time to Chart a New Criminal Justice Course

2005-04-24T20:26:00.000-05:00

According to a report released by the U.S. government today, the nation's prisons and jails now hold 2.1 million people: 1 in every 138 people in this country. The government also reported that the prison population is growing by over 900 persons every week. The AP reports that the United States already imprisons more people per capita than any country on earth. And, of course, the United States is the only developed country other than Japan with capital punishment. (And it executes six times as many people per capita as Japan.)

These statistics may come as a shock to many. It is indeed shocking to learn that our nation has one of the most severe criminal justice systems in the world. Shouldn't this be morally arresting to those of us who count ourselves as Christian?

The essence of the Social Gospel is the belief that Jesus' ethic of agape -- of unconditional, active, self-effacing love -- applies not just to our private lives, but to our social structures as well. Adherants to the Social Gospel acknowledge that agape is important in our day-to-day lives but believe that mainline Protestants have wrongly deemphasized agape's role in Christian politics.

It seems clear to me that the United States' criminal justice system does not reflect agape. A system that destroys so many lives and that directly takes so many others reflects retribution (or, less euphemistically, vengeance). The problem with our criminal justice system is not that capital punishment is unjustifiably expensive (which it is) or that three-strikes and determinate sentencing laws are inefficient deterrence mechanisms (which they are). The problem is that our entire penalogical paradigm is simply and profoundly immoral.

The President talks of overhauling the tax system, of overhauling social security. If this new interest in Christian politics is indeed more than skin deep, then we must overhaul our criminal justice system. We must chart an entirely new course. It is time to critically consider what a criminal justice system -- niether based on "efficient deterrence" nor on retribution -- but on agape would look like.

First, how might agape frame our social response to criminals? A criminal system based upon agape-love would not require that anyone feel affection, passion or any other such emotion for those who commit acts of violence or otherwise contravene our society's most fundamental rules. Agape is more active than emotive. We may be justifiably outraged at criminal conduct. But if we are to agape criminals (and Jesus tells us that we are to agape everyone, including our enemies and the least), then we must not act out in vengeance. Vengeance is, in truth, the polar opposite of agape. And if our criminal system is to agape criminals, then it too must not act out of vengeance. In other words, retribution is out.

But this does not mean that all coercion is out. It just means that the coercion is for a different purpose. If our criminal justice system were to agape criminals, then it would begin with different questions. It would ask, "what is wrong with this person?" and "how can we help?" In other words, if we are to socially give of ourselves in the criminal justice context, then we must not only forsake social vengeance, we must also commit our tax dollars to rehabilitation: to long-term substance abuse treatment programs, intensive psychological counseling, and serious vocational training.

Second, how might agape frame our social response to victims? Agape, in all of its beautiful difficulty, requires that we deny victims' seemingly righteous demands for social vengeance, retribution, or -- as the same thing is often called in popular culture -- "justice." If vengeance is justice, then agape requires that we redefine justice in the criminal context. We should give victims true justice by helping them heal. We acknowledge that they have been wronged and, again, we must give of ourselves in terms of tax dollars to support medical, psychological and financial welfare programs that try -- however modestly -- to make victims and their families whole again.

It is easy to object that many victims and families can never really be made whole again. This is too true, but it proves too much. As many victims have discovered, seeing their violators punished not only fails to make them whole, it fails to help at all. Social programs specifically designed to help victims heal -- while they cannot reverse an assault, rape or murder -- can have a true, deep, positive impact.

In short, an agape-centered criminal justice system would seek to heal both criminal and victim. Our current criminal justice system fails to do either.

Setting the Record Straight on "Justice Sunday"

2005-04-21T17:16:00.000-05:00

This Sunday evening the Senate Majority Leader, Republican Bill Frist, will participate in a telecast designed to reach millions of people through their churches. The telecast, prepared by the Family Research Council, is designed to show that Democrats are blocking religious judicial nominees because they are "against people of faith."

I agree with 42 that this tactic is simply disgusting on its face. With analysis of the facts, though, the charge that Democrats have blocked "people of faith" can be shown - not only disgusting - but also a flat out lie.

If the Democrats have been blocking "people of faith," then one would expect few, if any, of the judges approved by the Senate under the Bush administration to be religious people. So let's test this hypothesis. For the purposes of brevity, I'll confine my analysis to the most singificant appointments: Court of Appeals judges (who sit just below the United States Supreme Court on the judicial hierarchy). There have been 34 of these powerful jurists confirmed by the Senate - i.e., not blocked by the Democrats - under Bush's tenure. Are any of them "people of faith"?

In fact, MOST OF THEM ARE.

Through two websites -- the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary and Courting Influence -- I have been able to obtain the Senate Biographical Questionnaires filed by 32 of these 34 judges pending their confirmation. 18 of the confirmed 32 judges disclosed public ties to religious groups. For many, faith has clearly played a critical role in their lives. They are listed in alphabetical order:

(1) Judge Carlos Bea, Ninth Circuit COA. Judge Bea is a Catholic who served on the Parish and Advisory Councils of his Church, St. Vincent de Paul in San Francisco from 1990 to 1996.

(2) Judge William Benton, Eighth Circuit COA: Judge Benton has been a Deacon and trustee of the First Baptist Church of Jefferson City, MO since 1990. He is also a member of the Missouri Baptist Convention’s Committee on Continuing Review (1993-96 and 2003 – present).

(3) Judge Jay Scott, Ninth Circuit COA: Judge Scott is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

(4) Judge Richard Clifton, Ninth Circuit COA: Judge Clifton described himself as “personally active” in his local United Church of Christ – the Central Union Church.

(5) Judge Steven Colloton, Eighth Circuit COA: Judge Colloton is not only a member of the St. Augustine Catholic Church in Des Moines Iowa -- he also sings in the choir and is a “Perpetual Adoration worshipper.”

(6) Judge Julia Gibbons, Sixth Circuit COA: Judge Gibbons is an Elder in the Idlewild Presbyterian Church.

(7) Judge Roger Gregory, Fourth Circuit COA: Judge Gregory has served on the Board of Directors of the Christian Children’s fund since 1997 and has been Vice Chair of the organization since 1999.

(8) Judge Raymond Gruender, Eighth Circuit COA: Judge Greunder is a member of St. Joseph’s Catholic Church.

(9) Judge Peter Hall, Second Circuit COA: Judge Hall was employed by the Trinity Episcopal Church from 1986-1989 as “Member of Vestry and Senior Warden," and he is a current member of same church.

(10) Judge Harris Hartz, Tenth Circuit COA : Judge Hartz is a member of “Congregation Albert,” New Mexico’s “oldest continuing Reform Jewish Institution.”

(11) Judge Michael McConnell, Tenth Circuit COA: Judge McConnel is a member of the Evangelical Free Church of Salt Lake City. He is also a member of the Christian Legal Society and serves on the National Council of Church’s Committee on Religious Liberty and on the Board of Advisors for the Religious Freedom Reporter. Judge McConnell has published frequently on Religion and the Law and written articles titled: “Believers as Equal Citizens,” “The Problem of Singling out Religion,” “Five Reasons to Reject the Claim that Religious Arguments Should be Excluded from Democratic Deliberation,” “Equal Treatment and Religious Discrimination,” “God is Dead and We Have Killed Him!,” “Taking Religious Freedoms Seriously,” “For the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” and “Christ, Culture, and Courts.”

(12) Judge Michael Mellow, Eighth Circuit COA: Judge Mellow spent most of his law practice representing religious organizations. In describing his “typical former clients,” Mellow listed four “typical former clients in the non-profit sector,” and all four were religious organizations: (i) Sisters of the Presentation Religious Order, (ii) Archdiocese of Dubuque, (iii) Wahlert High School (a private Christian high School), and (iv) the Church of the Resurrection. Mellow listed only two clients in the profit sector.

(13) Judge Reena Raggi, Second Circuit COA: Judge Raggi stated in her Senate Questionnaire: “Since graduation from college, I have belonged to the parishes of a number of neighborhood Catholic churches. My present parish is Church of the Assumption, Brooklyn, NY."

(14) Judge Brooks Smith, Third Circuit COA: Judge Brooks is a member of the Saint Thomas More Society – “an association of Catholic lawyers organized to strengthen the religious…commitment of its members [and to] encourage[] attorneys and their families, friends and associates to learn about, and from, Saint Thomas More--husband and father, lawyer, statesman, scholar, author, martyr for the Faith, and Patron Saint of government officials and politicians.” Judge Smith was awarded the “Prince Gallitrin Cross" in 2000 by the Bishop of his Church “in recognition of service to the Church of Altoona-Johnstown Diocese.” Smith has served on the Board of Directors of Saint Francis University since 1990 and is a member of a social group called the “Amen Corner.”

(15) Judge Lavenski Smith, Eighth Circuit COA: Judge Smith is a member of the Mission Blvd Baptist Church in Fayetteville, AR. He worked for three years as an Assistant Professor at John Brown University – a private Christian college who’s motto is “Christ Over All.” Finally, Smith served as a mediator through an alternative dispute resolution service called the Northwest Arkansas Christian Justice Center.

(16) Judge Jeffrey Sutton, Sixth Circuit COA: Judge Sutton is a member of Broad Street Presbyterian Church.

(17) Judge Diane Sykes, Seventh Circuit COA: Judge Sykes is a member of St. James Catholic Church. She is also active in the “Dismas Ministry” which she defined as “an archdiocesan ministry that distributes Bibles and serves the spiritual needs of prison inmates.”

(18) Judge Timothy Tymkovich, Tenth Circuit COA: Judge Tymkovich is a member of the Lutheran Church of Hope.

There are several things to remember about these examples of avowedly religious judges confirmed by the Senate. First, since faith is often a private thing, the 18 out of 32 figure is likely to substantially understate the number of "people of faith" who have been approved as Court of Appeals judges. Second, these examples have been drawn only from Court of Appeals judges. There is surely just as significant an amount of religious devotion among the hundreds of District Court judges the Senate has confirmed. Yet, even this small sample shows that the Senate has confirmed (without filabuster) Jews, Catholics and Protestants of all stripes. It shows that the Senate has confirmed Deacons, Elders, choir members, religious apologists, Christian activists and administrators of Christian charities.

It is true that the Democrats have blocked 10 of Bush's judicial nominees. Whether or not this is right, wrong, good strategy or bad strategy, unprecedented or otherwise is not the issue here. My only point is that, whatever the reason these nominees have been blocked, it is not due to their religious convictions. Indeed, even Leftist propaganda sites (PFAW for example) - designed to convince the die-hard Left to oppose nominees - never mention religious connection as a reason. PFAW cites things like inexperience (one nominee has never tried a case) and, of course, conservative "judicial activism" -- hostility to things like employment discrimination laws and the environment. Undoubtedly, some of the blocked judges are "people of faith," but they have been blocked for their politics, not for their religion.

And I think the GOP knows this. The Republic Party is certainly aware of the myriad confirmed religious judges I've discussed above. But they think they can score political points with Christians by scaring them -- by telling them, once again, that they are under attack.

Senator Frist, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Ratzinger is a Missed Opportunity

2005-04-19T12:41:00.000-05:00

With due respect to all Catholics (and others) excited by the election of a new pontiff, I am tremendously disappointed at the choice of Ratzinger. I am disappointed on at least two fronts.

First, Ratzinger is an extreme conservative with the wrong priorities:

On Monday, Ratzinger, who was the powerful dean of the College of Cardinals, used his homily at the Mass dedicated to electing the next pope to warn the faithful about tendencies that he considered dangers to the faith: sects, ideologies like Marxism, liberalism, atheism, agnosticism and relativism....

AP

I was hoping for a Pope that would be at least as concerned with defending "the least" as he is with defending the faith. Ratzinger obviously sees threats to orthodoxy as the great modern challenge. The tremendous social injustices and inequities which plague the modern world must be seen as at least as great a threat to Christianity as heterodoxy.

Second, I believe the Catholic Church missed an opportunity to position itself as truly "catholic," in the original meaning of that word: "universal." With the election of a pope from the Third World, the Catholic hierarchy could have clearly positioned itself as truly global - as representing the entire world, including "the least" - and not just white Europeans.

All of this being said - and for the only time - let us now pray earnestly for Pope Benedict XVI. Let us pray that he is guided by the Holy Spirit to concern himself as much with the tragic poverty of the Third World as with sexual practices and orthodoxy.

New Pope elected!

2005-04-19T11:40:00.000-05:00

I gotta say, this is exciting. Imagine the power that it would have on the world if an African or Latin American Pope came to the window...

Well, maybe next time. This one - Pope Benedict XVI - is 78 years old after all.

Quote of the Day

2005-04-18T11:26:00.000-05:00

Can you imagine an American President saying this:

The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Justice Sunday.

2005-04-15T11:02:00.000-05:00

It appears that the Republican's shameless tactics of exploiting their religious right base have hit a new low: Justice Sunday. This from the NY Times:

As the Senate heads toward a showdown over the rules governing judicial confirmations, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, has agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a telecast portraying Democrats as "against people of faith" for blocking President Bush's nominees.

Fliers for the telecast, organized by the Family Research Council and scheduled to originate at a Kentucky megachurch the evening of April 24, call the day "Justice Sunday" and depict a young man holding a Bible in one hand and a gavel in the other. The flier does not name participants, but under the heading "the filibuster against people of faith," it reads: "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith."
Organizers say they hope to reach more than a million people by distributing the telecast to churches around the country, over the Internet and over Christian television and radio networks and stations.

Check out their advertisement and pitch. This is absolutely disgusting. The politics of division, hate, and misrepresentation have gone too far. Do we really think that this is something Jesus would stand for? It's time for all people of faith to stand together and recognize that there are more ways to worship God that those exploited for political gain by the Republican Party.

A lesson on "spin"

2005-04-14T23:57:00.000-05:00

I haven't read this article yet, but by the headline on Yahoo.com I get the feeling that I already know what it has to say: Americans Spend 6.6 Billion Hours Doing Taxes.

That's a bold headline. It makes one think, "dang, we sure do waste a lot of time figuring out our taxes. You know, we really ought to make it easier..."

But the secret to spin is what the reader does not hear. How many hours a year do Americans spend going to baseball games? Checking email? Sitting on their butts and watching mindless television? I bet those numbers are MUCH greater than 6.6 billion annually, but where is any mention of them in the article?

So what's the big deal? Well, if the average reader is anything like me, they probably don't get around to reading too many full articles, opting instead for the quick headlines. And if people don't realize that headlines are more than just mere summaries - they are in fact one individual's opinion - there's going to be a lot of shallow thinking going on out there. So wake up America: don't be fooled into reading just the headlines, give the whole article a once over. Don't just trust someone else's judgment - think for yourself.

A Culture of Life!

2005-04-12T21:46:00.000-05:00

Heartening signs today that the "culture of life" slogan may be taking politics to places that the Right never intended.

New York's legislature refused to reinstate its death penalty after the state's highest court held this June that procedural aspects of New York's decade-old death penalty statute made it unconstitutional. The New York Times reports:

Democrats in the State Assembly closed the door today on reviving the death penalty in New York State this year, handing a significant victory to groups that are trying to build national momentum against capital punishment.

Jim Wallis writes that truly Christian politicians will promote "a consistent ethic of life" that includes abolishing the death penalty: "I am against the death penalty in principle. We simply should not kill to show we are against killing."

The death penalty, says Wallis, "just satisfies revenge," which is certainly not a Christian value. New York's vote gives me hope that this renewed interest in Christian politics is more than just skin deep....

Cool Under Fire or Just Out of Touch?

2005-04-09T07:19:00.000-05:00

AP: Bush Indifferent Over Falling Poll Numbers

The public's dissatisfaction with President Bush and the Republican-led Congress is growing, with ratings dropping amid record high gas prices, war in Iraq, the Social Security debate and the emotional Terri Schiavo case. The Republican president's job approval is at 44 percent, with 54 percent disapproving. Only 37 percent have a favorable opinion of the work being done by Congress, according to an AP-Ipsos poll.
...
The president was asked Friday about his falling ratings in some polls, and he claimed indifference. "Some of them were going up the other day," he responded as he flew back from Rome on Air Force One. "You can find them going up and you can find them going down. You can pretty much find out what you want in polls is my point."

The Bible and Jury Deliberations

2005-04-08T13:22:00.000-05:00

My buddy 42 sent me this article about two weeks ago. On March 28, the Colorado Supreme Court overturned the death sentence of an accused rapist and murderer because the jury consulted the Bible during its deliberations.

Although this story is two weeks old, I think that it is still relevant for comment. It represents one of the many events that have become part of popular Christian consciousness and contribute to many Christians' feelings that the dominant culture is aggressively secular: hostile to religion and morality in general and to Christianity in particular.

Focus on the Family's response to the ruling is typical:

"Today's ruling further confirms that the judicial branch of our government is nearly bereft of any moral foundation," said Tom Minnery, the group's vice president for government and public policy.

But such a response to the ruling represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened, an ignorance of the law which (for a big and well-funded group like Focus on the Family) is at least negligent.

The jury's sentence was not set aside because the jurors consulted the Bible, but because they consulted anything beyond the evidence presented at trial and the judge's instructions. Almost fifty years ago, the United States Supreme Court held that a criminal jury's verdict must be based on evidence received in open court and not on any outside sources. Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310 (1959). Indeed, the Colorado Supreme Court's opinion made clear that its holding had nothing to do with the religious nature of the text and instead was merely one application of the broad principle that prevents the jury from considering any "extraneous prejudicial texts." State v. Harlan at 16. The result would have been the same if the jury had consulted a book of philosophy, a scientific textbook or a newspaper article. The jury isn't even allowed to use a dictionary! See United States v. Gillespie, 61 F.3d 457 (6th Cir. 1995).

So, the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling has everything to do with the structure of our legal system and nothing to do with the Bible. The role of the jury is to find the facts based on the evidence and apply the law as it is given to them by the judge. This reflects the judgment, not that the Bible is irrelevant to lawmaking, but the judgment that lawmaking is properly done at the legislative level and not by the jury. The decision has nothing to do with Church and State and everything to do with the rule of law. To illustrate: there is no rule, of course, against judges or senators consulting the Bible.

Conclusion: this is one of several non-events that the Right has misrepresented and used to persuade Christians that they are under attack. Christians are thereby distracted from parts of the Right's program - e.g., its favoring of the rich over the poor - that are clearly unChristian.

A Latin-American Pope?

2005-04-07T13:52:00.000-05:00

I hope the college of cardinals selects a Latino as the next pope.

Why? I think that Jazmin Gomez, store worker in Santiago, Chile says it best: "our Lord was from the poor and the poor are here."

See this Reuters article, Latin Americans Hope Next Pope Is One of Their Own.

Last Theology Post for a While

2005-04-06T07:50:00.000-05:00

Marcus, of a Green Conservatism, made some thought-provoking comments to my constitutional interpretation and biblical authority series that I think worthy of disccusion here, in my last "theology" post for a while. I may be breaking this down wrong, but I thought that he raised at least three really interesting questions.

1. Shouldn't we just admit that most biblical interpretation is disingenuous and stop trying to find the "right" answer? Marcus writes:

Would it be hopelessly graceless to agree that biblical interpretation is like consititutional interpretation in two respects: first, that it is almost all of it dishonest; and, second, that almost nobody wants it to be otherwise?

Hint: I think the Paleocons are right on the Constitution and am quite delighted there is slight chance any court will ever see it, or say it, their way.

Our interpretation of Christianity, of Jesus' Message, of God's Will - or however you want to put it - can never be justifiably dishonest. The interpretation of the Constitution may be justifiably dishonest because a judge may reasonably conclude that there are more important values that effectuating the intent of imperfect men who lived centuries ago. E.g., maybe the founders thought segregation was o.k., but we don't, and who cares if we violate some sort of social contract in order to further this matter of fundamental justice. On the other hand, Jesus' Message is a divine Message. By definition, there is no other value that could possibly trump honestly understanding His divine message and carrying out His divine Will.

2. Marcus argues that it "is apt to be unhandy" to confine ourselves to Jesus' Message alone because it is "hopelessly cryptic" and that it is quite convenient for a liberal to "cut[] the rug out from under Paul" given the conservative political positions many have derived from his writings.

The more I study Paul - and this is an ongoing study and revision of my own thinking - the more I start to realize that I don't so much object to his politics. Paul was quite the progressive for his time. My objection to Paul goes more to his theology and philosophy than anything else. Furthermore, my objection is not so much to Paul personally but to what he represents. I believe that things got terrifically confused as Jesus' Message moved from Palestine to the larger Greco-Roman world and as it moved from Aramaic to Greek. The Hellenistic Early Church mixed Jesus' simple but divine Message with Greek theosophy: with platonic categories and with pagan mystery cult myths.

Thus, my contention is that it is the Hellenistic mutations of Jesus' Message which are confusing and not the original Message. (This rant is continued underneath question 3.)

3. Marcus asks, "What kind of Christology can accommodate your relative de-sacralization (not really the right word, but what the heck?) of the OT? Much of the NT, after all, including the gospels, is quite emphatic on Jesus as fulfilling OT prophecy. Can you make much of that while making so little of the authority of the OT text?"

Perhaps I have been too "hard" on the OT. I do believe that Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy. Jesus did turn the world upside down as Isaiah predicted, and he did so by bringing the quite unexpected divine Truth to the tense, contested terrain of 1st century Judaism.

Jesus preached a simple yet profound Truth. Our right relationship with God was not to be obtained through animal sacrifice and Temple rituals, as the Sadducees would have it. Nor was it to be obtained through fulfilling dietary laws and holiness codes to the nth degree, as the Pharisees would have it. Nor was it to be obtained through ascetic separatism and withdrawal from the world as the Essenes would have it. Nor was it to be obtained through violent revolution as the Zealots would have it. No, our salvation lay in none of these things. Instead, it lay in two fundamental relationships: our relationship with God and our relationship with others. In order to "get right" with God we must adopt a stance of active, self-giving love (agape) towards God and to others. In this -- and not in sacrifice, puritanism, separation or revolution -- lay our salvation. Jesus is, in other words, the ultimate fulfillment of the OT and OT law. Jesus' Message was a "back to basics" Gospel that even "the least" could understand. As I have said many times before, it is not understanding Jesus' Message, but living it, which is the real challenge.

Barbecue solves everything?

2005-04-05T09:41:00.000-05:00

I'm not one to post full articles here, but I couldn't pass this one up. Its subject is family barbecues, but I think it could equally apply to communion at church, with friends or even - dare I say it - complete strangers.

Eat Together, Talk Together, and End the Violence
By: Dawn McMullan (freelance writer)
From: The Dallas Morning News, April 5th, 2005

Want to know why kids are killing each other at school? It's not because there are too many guns (although I'd certainly like to see them off the streets). It's not because kids are watching movies about school shootings. It's not because they're playing Grand Theft Auto.

It's because there aren't enough family barbecues.

Why aren't we as outraged about the recent shootings in Minnesota as we were with Columbine? Why are we becoming more like Israel in our acceptance of violence and less like, say, Sweden?

Same reason. It's all about the barbecue.

The fact that a teenage kid can get to the point where he brings a gun to school, shoots another person and another and another, then shoots himself, means that kid wasn't going to any family barbecues. That boy's family – be it over a smoker in small-town Texas or a reservation in Minnesota – should know what's going on inside his head. A child bringing a gun to school is not the first symptom that something is going wrong in that child's life. It certainly often is the last, however.

My father-in-law was part of the family barbecue tradition here in Texas. Several times a year, he'd fire up the barrel smoker, invite his family and friends over whenever they wanted to arrive and spend the evening eating a bunch of meat, drinking a fair amount of beer, laughing and talking with those closest to him. At the end of the evening, everyone smelled a little smokey and had told just about all they had to tell about their life and what was going on in the world.

My father-in-law died eight years ago. But my husband's brother, who still lives in our hometown of Waxahachie, carries on the barbecue tradition every now and then.

About a month ago – with sick kids, deadlines I didn't think I could meet and our school's largest annual fund-raiser to plan – I had a craving for one of those barbecues. And not a carnivorous craving. A social craving. Lucky for me, some cousins came into town, and we spent a recent Friday night inhaling that smoke and catching up.

Maybe this is a simplistic view of how to turn around our increasingly violent and apathetic society. But I don't see bad parents at these barbecues. I see parents I don't always agree with. Parents who raise their children differently than I do. Parents with whom I differ on politics, religion, even whether we should be eating that meat on the smoker.

But I see parents. With their children. I see grandparents. With their children. I see aunts and uncles. With their children. I see friends. With their children. I see a yard full of people who would know a child well enough to see – and do something about – that first sign of trouble. Because that's when we, as a society, can do something about it. It's too late when it hits the news. Kids are dead.

We are headed down a road of more school shootings that we will be less shocked by. The road we should be headed down is one that includes more family barbecues.

You name any one of our infamous list of school shooters. If you had dropped them into my father-in-law's family – or another family where parents knew their children and extended family knew those children, and where family was the most important part of the day – these kids would not be dead.

It's all about the barbecue.

Love for the Poor

2005-04-04T08:00:00.000-05:00

"The poor constitute the modern challenge, especially for the well-off of our planet, where millions of people live in inhuman conditions and many are literally dying of hunger. It is not possible to announce God the Father to these brothers and sisters without taking on the responsibility of building a more just society in the name of Christ."

Preferential Love for the Poor, John Paul II, 1999

John Paul II

2005-04-02T20:43:00.000-06:00

We at the Social Gospel Today mourn the passing of Pope John Paul II.

This statement by the United Church of Christ sums up my feelings on the matter. He was a man of peace, who loved so much and who was so much beloved.

I agree with Chuck Currie that Beliefnet's coverage of the Pope's life, his death, and what is to come next for the Catholic Church is the best.

On Lazy Welfare Queens and Bankruptcy Cheaters

2005-03-29T06:17:00.000-06:00

On my blog plate this week (I promise), is an answer to Marcus's objection to my Christology. But my topic this morning is political rhetoric. I am inspired, for once, by my readings for class. One of the assigned books for my legal writing course is C. Edward Good's Mightier Than the Sword. In a section that advocates "favoring concrete words over abstract words," Good writes:

Good writers won't decry hunger in America. They'll speak instead of those eating dog food from a can. Good speech writers won't extol opportunity in America. They'll speak instead of the successful chocolate-chip cookie tycoon starting an empire from scratch.

Effective writers and speakers, says Good (exemplifying his own rule), use "concrete words" to "staple [their] thoughts to [their] reader's minds."

I think that the Right has done a much better job of using concrete images to this end than has the Left. The inner-city African-American woman with four children dominated the Right's rhetoric surrounding welfare reform and was "stapled to the public's mind" despite statistics showing that welfare recipients were predominantly white and lived in rural areas. The "bankruptcy cheater" who buys a big house and then defaults to exploit "loopholes" in the bankruptcy laws dominates the debate over bankruptcy despite statistics showing that job loss and catastrophic medical expenses are by far the most common causes of bankruptcy.

The Left too often speaks in abstractions and statistics. This lack of concrete images may be seen as a symptom of the Left's failure to forcefully articulate VALUES. I say that it MAY be seen in this way because I think my posts here (Infission's as opposed to jj's more generally) suffer from the abstraction malady but not the lack of values. We (the Left) must not only articulate values but also create concrete images to staple our ideas to the public's mind.

Surely I am not the first to point this out. But perhaps it is unique to posit that such a move would be to follow Jesus' rhetorical pattern. Jesus did speak in abstractions - in broad principles. But he also (much more frequently) spoke in parables, in concrete stories and images that would stick in his hearers' minds. Think the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, etc. The Left, then, should follow Jesus both ethically and rhetorically.

"Gunner Palace"

2005-03-28T10:12:00.000-06:00

Continuing my unitended tradition of seeing movies on major Christian holidays (happy late Easter), I saw "Gunner Palace" last night. I highly recommed it.

The story of an American unit living in the former palace of one of Saddam Hussein's sons, "Gunner Palace" is a trip behind the scenes of war, into the lives of the people that are living it. Through their music (there are some talent rappers) and recreation (the Palace has a massive swimming pool), we are forced to see these soliders not as distant and detached army men, but instead as brothers and sisters to a common upbringing, a common way of life. We learn to value their personal sacrifice, even if rejecting the decision to put them in harm's way.

The community that the troops share and their commitment to one another is truly inspiring and, perhaps, truly Christian. "I'm not fighting for the freedom of Iraq," one solider says. "I'm fighting for my buddies and to stay alive." Following the death of one of their own, we later see a GI carrying around a coin - his buddy's image on one side and John 15:13 on the other:

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Still not convinced that soliders can be models of Christian behavior? Consider this: when asked if he regrets killing a man, one GI - deep in contemplation - responds that it bothered him at first. After realizing that it was either "him or me," however, the GI concludes: "I'm not the bad guy, I know that much. I'm just following orders. That's my job."

Reverend, explained

2005-03-25T11:11:00.000-06:00

So with help from ats54 and Infission, I'm realizing now that my chosen callname might have come across the wrong way. In choosing "reverend," my intent was self-deprication --- I often come across preachy and as a "know-it-all" in theological and religious discussions. You in the blogosphere, however, have no way of knowing that, and I'm concerned that "reverend" doesn't send the right message.

While I won't commit to a permanent name change, this will be my first post under the monicker "42." For our long time readers, my love for the game and spirit of baseball should come as no surprise. I choose "42" as a shout out to one of the most remarkable players of all time, not specifically for what he did between the foul lines (he was great there, too), but because of the struggle (through non-violent protest in the face of pure hatred) that he endured to get and remain there. Here's to you, Jackie Robinson.