I wrote this last week, but I did some weird little HTML thing that kept it from publishing; so I am not yet sure what will be the word of the week for this week, but it may emerge tonight in the debates.
Egregious ripples off the tongue. It combines a bit of the gutteral with the potential of a rolled "r". I proclaim it my word of the week. And just in time! I found this on James Wiser's blog, and found the contents nothing but deserving of the word of the week. Next week maybe the Democrats will supply something--equal opportunity egregiousness.
from the New York Times
Republicans Admit Mailing Campaign Literature Saying Liberals Will Ban the Bible
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICKPublished: September 24, 2004
The Republican Party acknowledged yesterday sending mass mailings to residents of two states warning that "liberals" seek to ban the Bible. It said the mailings were part of its effort to mobilize religious voters for President Bush.
The mailings include images of the Bible labeled "banned" and of a gay marriage proposal labeled "allowed." A mailing to Arkansas residents warns: "This will be Arkansas if you don't vote." A similar mailing was sent to West Virginians.
A liberal religious group, the Interfaith Alliance, circulated a copy of the Arkansas mailing to reporters yesterday to publicize it. "What they are doing is despicable,'' said Don Parker, a spokesman for the alliance. "They are playing on people's fears and emotions."
In an e-mail message, Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, confirmed that the party had sent the mailings.
"When the Massachusetts Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriage and people in other states realized they could be compelled to recognize those laws, same-sex marriage became an issue,'' Ms. Iverson said. "These same activist judges also want to remove the words 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance."
The mailing is the latest evidence of the emphasis Republicans are putting on motivating conservative Christian voters to vote this fall. But as the appeals become public, they also risk alienating moderate and swing voters.
An editorial on Sept. 22 in The Charleston Gazette in West Virginia, for example, asked, "Holy Moley! Who concocts this gibberish?"
"Most Americans see morality more complexly," the editorial said. "Many think a higher morality is found in Christ's command to help the needy, prevent war and pursue other humanitarian goals. Churchgoers of this sort aren't likely to believe childish allegations that Democrats want to ban the Bible."
In statement, Senator John Edwards, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, said President Bush "should condemn the practice immediately and tell everyone associated with the campaign to never use tactics like this again."
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, called the mailings an ugly contrast to Mr. Bush's public statements. Although the president has called for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, he often emphasizes the need for tolerance as well.
"The president takes more or less the high road and his henchman and allies on the right have been let loose to conduct these ugly, divisive smear campaigns," Mr. Foreman said. "It is wedge politics at its worst."
In any event, the Bush campaign appears confident about its religious appeal.
The mailing seeks to appeal to conservative evangelical Protestant pastors and political leaders who say they worry that legal rights for same-sex couples could lead to hate-crimes laws that could be applied against sermons of Bible passages criticizing homosexuality.
Conservative Christian political commentators often cite the case of Ake Green, a minister in Sweden who was jailed in June for a month for a sermon denouncing gays as sinful.
Mr. Parker, of the Interfaith Alliance, said, "I think it is laughable to think that someone could be arrested for reading out loud from the Bible.''
But Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, argued, "We have the First Amendment in this country which should protect churches, but there is no question that this is where some people want to go, that reading from the Bible could be hate speech."
Still, Mr. Land questioned the assertion that Democrats might ban the whole Bible. "I wouldn't say it," he said. "I would think that is probably stretching it a bit far."
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
down, dowdy, and disaffected
Before I publish this post, I must add this preface:
Stop right now and pray for the family and friends of Jack Hensley, so brutally murdered today in Iraq.
Are you a staunch Republican? A new prosperity independent? How about staunch conservative—that must be more conservative than Republican. Are you a liberal Democrat? These are rhetorical. You don’t have to answer. Try this assessment from the Pew Research Center for People and the Press. My government students have been doing this all day today.
Ideology, partisanship, and elections have been the topic of my classes for the last several days. I attempt to create a climate of civil civic dialogue. My Dad emerged from five generations of Republicans—does the name Herbert give you a clue? And mom? A yellow-dog Roosevelt Democrat. I’ve warned you about her. She’s the one who said she loved Bill Clinton. At a church service no less!
I happen to believe people of good heart and good mind can disagree about policy.
Guess how I came out on the Pew assessment? Disaffected! Hmm. The vitriol of the partisanship this season drives my disaffection. Meanwhile, I feel a moral obligation to educate and not indoctrinate students about politics. So, as much as I work at non-partisanship and at critical thinking, I am feeling---disaffected.
Would you?
A Christian friend put a message in my mailbox which he urges me to share with my friends. So I am. The piece rages over the Communist Party’s deep desire to defeat Bush resulting in an endorsement of John Kerry. One of the alarms sounded is that Kerry’s theme “Let America be America Again” comes from the poet Langston Hughes, who in another poem exalts Marx.
Wonder what drove Langston Hughes to disaffection?
Another fellow Christian sent me an email asking for my reflections on an article that explains how the left bases their reasoning on law whereas the right bases their reasoning on morality, because the left has no moral compass--only secular relativity as a basis. He has asked for my response in a collegial and respectful tone. I want to reply in that manner. This is not a "line by line" response as we sometimes give in debate, but it is response to the tendency of those on the right to assume that all those who see things from a different perspective have no moral or spiritual basis for doing so.
Is there not a place for a thoughtful Christian to see a role for activist government in areas such as healthcare, the environment, and affirmative action? Is questioning the legitimacy of the war in Iraq only a matter of inane legal allegiance to UN? Are abortion and gay rights the only issues moral consequence? Hear another perspective.
Recovering a hijacked faith
By Jim Wallis
July 13, 2004
The Boston Globe
Stop right now and pray for the family and friends of Jack Hensley, so brutally murdered today in Iraq.
"The first thing I want you to do is pray.
Pray in every way you know how,
for everyone you know.
Especially pray for rulers
and their governments to rule well
so we can be quietly about our business of
living simply,
in humble contemplation.
This is the way Savior God wants us to live."
I Timothy 2 The Message
Are you a staunch Republican? A new prosperity independent? How about staunch conservative—that must be more conservative than Republican. Are you a liberal Democrat? These are rhetorical. You don’t have to answer. Try this assessment from the Pew Research Center for People and the Press. My government students have been doing this all day today.
Ideology, partisanship, and elections have been the topic of my classes for the last several days. I attempt to create a climate of civil civic dialogue. My Dad emerged from five generations of Republicans—does the name Herbert give you a clue? And mom? A yellow-dog Roosevelt Democrat. I’ve warned you about her. She’s the one who said she loved Bill Clinton. At a church service no less!
I happen to believe people of good heart and good mind can disagree about policy.
Guess how I came out on the Pew assessment? Disaffected! Hmm. The vitriol of the partisanship this season drives my disaffection. Meanwhile, I feel a moral obligation to educate and not indoctrinate students about politics. So, as much as I work at non-partisanship and at critical thinking, I am feeling---disaffected.
Would you?
A Christian friend put a message in my mailbox which he urges me to share with my friends. So I am. The piece rages over the Communist Party’s deep desire to defeat Bush resulting in an endorsement of John Kerry. One of the alarms sounded is that Kerry’s theme “Let America be America Again” comes from the poet Langston Hughes, who in another poem exalts Marx.
Wonder what drove Langston Hughes to disaffection?
Another fellow Christian sent me an email asking for my reflections on an article that explains how the left bases their reasoning on law whereas the right bases their reasoning on morality, because the left has no moral compass--only secular relativity as a basis. He has asked for my response in a collegial and respectful tone. I want to reply in that manner. This is not a "line by line" response as we sometimes give in debate, but it is response to the tendency of those on the right to assume that all those who see things from a different perspective have no moral or spiritual basis for doing so.
Is there not a place for a thoughtful Christian to see a role for activist government in areas such as healthcare, the environment, and affirmative action? Is questioning the legitimacy of the war in Iraq only a matter of inane legal allegiance to UN? Are abortion and gay rights the only issues moral consequence? Hear another perspective.
Recovering a hijacked faith
By Jim Wallis
July 13, 2004
The Boston Globe
MANY OF US feel that our faith has been stolen, and it's time to take it back. A misrepresentation of Christianity has taken place. Many people around the world now think Christian faith stands for political commitments that are almost the opposite of its true meaning. How did the faith of Jesus come to be known as pro-rich, pro-war, and pro-American? What has happened? How do we get back to a historic, biblical, and genuinely evangelical faith rescued from its contemporary distortions?
That rescue operation is crucial today in the face of a social crisis that cries out for prophetic religion. The problem is clear in the political arena, where strident voices claim to represent Christians when they clearly don't speak for most of us. We hear politicians who love to say how religious they are but fail to apply the values of faith to their leadership and policies.
When we take back our faith, we will discover that faith challenges the powers that be to do justice for the poor instead of preaching a "prosperity gospel" and supporting politicians who further enrich the wealthy. We will remember that faith hates violence and tries to reduce it and exerts a fundamental presumption against war instead of justifying it in God's name. We will see that faith creates community from racial, class, and gender divisions, prefers international community over nationalist religion and that "God bless America" is found nowhere in the Bible. And we will be reminded that faith regards matters such as the sacredness of life and family bonds as so important that they should never be used as ideological symbols or mere political pawns in partisan warfare.
The media like to say, "Oh, then you must be the religious left." No, and the very question is the problem. Just because a religious right has fashioned itself for political power in one predictable ideological guise does not mean those who question this political seduction must be their opposite political counterpart.
The best public contribution of religion is precisely not to be ideologically predictable or a loyal partisan. To always raise the moral issues of human rights, for example, will challenge both left- and right-wing governments who put power above principles. Religious action is rooted in a much deeper place than "rights"-- that being the image of God in every human being.
Similarly, when the poor are defended on moral or religious grounds, it is not "class warfare," as the rich will always charge, but rather a direct response to the overwhelming focus in the Scriptures, which claims they are regularly neglected, exploited, and oppressed by wealthy elites, political rulers, and indifferent affluent populations. Those Scriptures don't simply endorse the social programs of liberals or conservatives but make clear that poverty is indeed a religious issue, and the failure of political leaders to help uplift those in poverty will be judged a moral failing.
It is because religion takes the problem of evil so seriously that it must always be suspicious of too much concentrated power -- politically and economically -- either in totalitarian regimes or in huge multinational corporations that now have more wealth and power than many governments. It is indeed our theology of evil that makes us strong proponents of both political and economic democracy -- not because people are so good but because they often are not and need clear safeguards and strong systems of checks and balances to avoid the dangerous accumulations of power and wealth.
It's why we doubt the goodness of all superpowers and the righteousness of empires in any era, especially when their claims of inspiration and success invoke theology and the name of God. Given human tendencies for self-delusion and deception, is it any wonder that hardly a religious body in the world regards the ethics of unilateral and preemptive war as "just"? Religious wisdom suggests that the more overwhelming the military might, the more dangerous its capacity for self and public deception. Powerful nations dangerously claim to "rid the world of evil" but often do enormous harm in their self-appointed vocation to do so.
The loss of religion's prophetic vocation is dangerous for any society. Who will uphold the dignity of economic and political outcasts? Who will question the self-righteousness of nations and their leaders? Who will question the recourse to violence and rush to wars, long before any last resort has been unequivocally proven? Who will not allow God's name to be used to simply justify ourselves, instead of calling us to accountability?
In an election year, the particular religiosity of a candidate, or even how devout he might be, is less important than how his religious and/or moral commitments and values shape political vision and policy commitments. Understanding the moral compass a candidate brings to his public life and how his convictions shape his political priorities is the true litmus test.
Jim Wallis is convener of Call to Renewal and executive director of Sojourners.
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
That rescue operation is crucial today in the face of a social crisis that cries out for prophetic religion. The problem is clear in the political arena, where strident voices claim to represent Christians when they clearly don't speak for most of us. We hear politicians who love to say how religious they are but fail to apply the values of faith to their leadership and policies.
When we take back our faith, we will discover that faith challenges the powers that be to do justice for the poor instead of preaching a "prosperity gospel" and supporting politicians who further enrich the wealthy. We will remember that faith hates violence and tries to reduce it and exerts a fundamental presumption against war instead of justifying it in God's name. We will see that faith creates community from racial, class, and gender divisions, prefers international community over nationalist religion and that "God bless America" is found nowhere in the Bible. And we will be reminded that faith regards matters such as the sacredness of life and family bonds as so important that they should never be used as ideological symbols or mere political pawns in partisan warfare.
The media like to say, "Oh, then you must be the religious left." No, and the very question is the problem. Just because a religious right has fashioned itself for political power in one predictable ideological guise does not mean those who question this political seduction must be their opposite political counterpart.
The best public contribution of religion is precisely not to be ideologically predictable or a loyal partisan. To always raise the moral issues of human rights, for example, will challenge both left- and right-wing governments who put power above principles. Religious action is rooted in a much deeper place than "rights"-- that being the image of God in every human being.
Similarly, when the poor are defended on moral or religious grounds, it is not "class warfare," as the rich will always charge, but rather a direct response to the overwhelming focus in the Scriptures, which claims they are regularly neglected, exploited, and oppressed by wealthy elites, political rulers, and indifferent affluent populations. Those Scriptures don't simply endorse the social programs of liberals or conservatives but make clear that poverty is indeed a religious issue, and the failure of political leaders to help uplift those in poverty will be judged a moral failing.
It is because religion takes the problem of evil so seriously that it must always be suspicious of too much concentrated power -- politically and economically -- either in totalitarian regimes or in huge multinational corporations that now have more wealth and power than many governments. It is indeed our theology of evil that makes us strong proponents of both political and economic democracy -- not because people are so good but because they often are not and need clear safeguards and strong systems of checks and balances to avoid the dangerous accumulations of power and wealth.
It's why we doubt the goodness of all superpowers and the righteousness of empires in any era, especially when their claims of inspiration and success invoke theology and the name of God. Given human tendencies for self-delusion and deception, is it any wonder that hardly a religious body in the world regards the ethics of unilateral and preemptive war as "just"? Religious wisdom suggests that the more overwhelming the military might, the more dangerous its capacity for self and public deception. Powerful nations dangerously claim to "rid the world of evil" but often do enormous harm in their self-appointed vocation to do so.
The loss of religion's prophetic vocation is dangerous for any society. Who will uphold the dignity of economic and political outcasts? Who will question the self-righteousness of nations and their leaders? Who will question the recourse to violence and rush to wars, long before any last resort has been unequivocally proven? Who will not allow God's name to be used to simply justify ourselves, instead of calling us to accountability?
In an election year, the particular religiosity of a candidate, or even how devout he might be, is less important than how his religious and/or moral commitments and values shape political vision and policy commitments. Understanding the moral compass a candidate brings to his public life and how his convictions shape his political priorities is the true litmus test.
Jim Wallis is convener of Call to Renewal and executive director of Sojourners.
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
between exclusion and embrace
A fair-haired, blue eyed friend, a native of the American Midwest, and one in generally consider an fine Christian lady recently shared with me her concern over immigration. She confided her certainty of the damage that the influx of foreigners are having on America. One of her family members works for a federal agency that funds childcare for an immigrant population in major city. The recipients of the federal aid frequently misuse the funds.
I am always taken a bit aback by the complaints about immigrants to North America from those of English descent. It may seem silly, assimilated as I am to be put off by the irony of it, but I admit I am.
The challenges upon American society to embrace the current wave of immigration include economic and political issues for sure, but the spiritual challenge weighs on my heart today. My limited knowledge of immigration policy leaves me short on suggestions on matters such as amnesty, but the spiritual response to the influx of strangers seems to demand less research.
All of this has been on mind this week as I have been reading a short, but well written book, An 8-track church in a CD world, by Robert N. Nash, Jr. I felt the most compelling passage in the book is his discussion of the church’s desperate need for a theology of “otherness.” He comments on how we have shed the need for welcoming strangers as we mask differences in ethnicity, socio-economic status, and theology by our forming of denominations and congregations. He particularly indicts the American South as having a culture unto itself.
He shares this definition of stranger attributed to Eli Wiesel:
"Someone who suggests the unknown, the prohibited, the beyond; he seduces, he attracts, he wounds—and he leaves…The stranger represents what you are not, what you cannot be, simply because you are not he…The stranger is the other. He is not bound by your laws, by your memories; his language is not yours, nor his silence.”
Elie Wiesel, From the Kingdom of Memory: Reminiscences (New York: Summit Books, 1990) 59f.
Nash points out that in today’s society, strangers watch. Strangers witness the clash in the current divide among traditional and progressive Christians. Nash wonders if the “damaging politics of exclusion” can give way to the embrace of the stranger. He fears that if we can hardly embrace one with whom we disagree about church function or politics, we will never be able welcome the stranger who doesn’t sit in church at all
As I consider about how to respond to my friend, Nash’s quotation from Miroslav Volf, a Croatian and Pentecostal theologian keeps coming to mind:
“Forgiveness is the boundary between exclusion and embrace.”
I am always taken a bit aback by the complaints about immigrants to North America from those of English descent. It may seem silly, assimilated as I am to be put off by the irony of it, but I admit I am.
The challenges upon American society to embrace the current wave of immigration include economic and political issues for sure, but the spiritual challenge weighs on my heart today. My limited knowledge of immigration policy leaves me short on suggestions on matters such as amnesty, but the spiritual response to the influx of strangers seems to demand less research.
All of this has been on mind this week as I have been reading a short, but well written book, An 8-track church in a CD world, by Robert N. Nash, Jr. I felt the most compelling passage in the book is his discussion of the church’s desperate need for a theology of “otherness.” He comments on how we have shed the need for welcoming strangers as we mask differences in ethnicity, socio-economic status, and theology by our forming of denominations and congregations. He particularly indicts the American South as having a culture unto itself.
He shares this definition of stranger attributed to Eli Wiesel:
"Someone who suggests the unknown, the prohibited, the beyond; he seduces, he attracts, he wounds—and he leaves…The stranger represents what you are not, what you cannot be, simply because you are not he…The stranger is the other. He is not bound by your laws, by your memories; his language is not yours, nor his silence.”
Elie Wiesel, From the Kingdom of Memory: Reminiscences (New York: Summit Books, 1990) 59f.
Nash points out that in today’s society, strangers watch. Strangers witness the clash in the current divide among traditional and progressive Christians. Nash wonders if the “damaging politics of exclusion” can give way to the embrace of the stranger. He fears that if we can hardly embrace one with whom we disagree about church function or politics, we will never be able welcome the stranger who doesn’t sit in church at all
As I consider about how to respond to my friend, Nash’s quotation from Miroslav Volf, a Croatian and Pentecostal theologian keeps coming to mind:
“Forgiveness is the boundary between exclusion and embrace.”
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Dynamite or Spitballs?
Even if I were a communist, which I AM NOT, I would have to say Arnold’s speech inspired me. I showed it to my high school government students.
Even if were a Republican, which I AM NOT, watching the senator from Georgia speak metaphorically, bombastically, but not Prozacly accurately, I would have to say, the experience repulsed me. Any wonder he did not get a ringside seat on Thursday night? Maybe the strategists of the RNC feared a similar response from other independents in places like Ohio. Reports have it that Miller spent Thursday night at home attending to personal business. Maybe he was out somewhere in New Jersey getting ready for a duel with Chris Matthews.
Even if were a Democrat, which I AM NOT, I would have to say that last week left me tense, a bit deflated, and tired of partisan politics. Although I teach government and politics, I feel a need for relief.
If you have not seen Napoleon Dynamite, let me give you a frame of reference. For any Greater Atlanta Christian School friends, Napoleon Dynamite is a Brigham Young University student answer to a Matt Elliott GACS Christmas video. A bunch of smart funny Mormon kids put together a geek makes good story and entered it in the Sundance Film Festival. The rest of the story will be a piece of cinematic history. MTV picked up some of the promotion and these kids have run a grass roots promotion of the cleanest, cutest, and funniest bit of celluloid I have seen for years--and just in time to relieve my experience of Zell Miller's diatribe, Swift-boat Veterans for Truth and Fahrenheit 9-11.
So if you are feeling uninspired repulsed, tired, deflated, or tense, sell your llama and buy a ticket to see Napoleon Dynamite.
Special thanks to my son, Trevor, and his friend, Anna Burns, for introducing me to this film. They have seen at least four times, as have 10,000+ other kids.
Even if were a Republican, which I AM NOT, watching the senator from Georgia speak metaphorically, bombastically, but not Prozacly accurately, I would have to say, the experience repulsed me. Any wonder he did not get a ringside seat on Thursday night? Maybe the strategists of the RNC feared a similar response from other independents in places like Ohio. Reports have it that Miller spent Thursday night at home attending to personal business. Maybe he was out somewhere in New Jersey getting ready for a duel with Chris Matthews.
Even if were a Democrat, which I AM NOT, I would have to say that last week left me tense, a bit deflated, and tired of partisan politics. Although I teach government and politics, I feel a need for relief.
If I were a card carrying member of the Napoleon Dynamite Fan Club, and I AM, I would prescribe for all those already tired of the race between W and JFKerry a refreshing alternative:
VOTE for PEDRO for PRESIDENT.
He will make your wildest dreams come true.
If you have not seen Napoleon Dynamite, let me give you a frame of reference. For any Greater Atlanta Christian School friends, Napoleon Dynamite is a Brigham Young University student answer to a Matt Elliott GACS Christmas video. A bunch of smart funny Mormon kids put together a geek makes good story and entered it in the Sundance Film Festival. The rest of the story will be a piece of cinematic history. MTV picked up some of the promotion and these kids have run a grass roots promotion of the cleanest, cutest, and funniest bit of celluloid I have seen for years--and just in time to relieve my experience of Zell Miller's diatribe, Swift-boat Veterans for Truth and Fahrenheit 9-11.
So if you are feeling uninspired repulsed, tired, deflated, or tense, sell your llama and buy a ticket to see Napoleon Dynamite.
Special thanks to my son, Trevor, and his friend, Anna Burns, for introducing me to this film. They have seen at least four times, as have 10,000+ other kids.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
