January 2006 Archives

On The State of the Union Address
by the President of the United States

by Rev. Nancy L. Wilson

For far too many Americans, the President's declaration that, "The state of our union is strong," is far removed from their everyday experience.

The reality is this: So long as millions of our citizens live beneath the poverty level and are denied access to quality healthcare, out union is not strong. So long as the U.S.' reputation in the world deteriorates and so long as our nation remains divided by a war that is not supported by a majority of people in either country -- a war that continues to claim a horrifying number of lives -- our union is not strong. And so long as civil liberties are endangered at unprecedented levels, our union is not strong.

Coretta Scott King was right, when in echoing the words of her late husband she said, "We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny." So long as any people are left behind, our nation's garment is frayed and in need of mending -- and our union is not strong.

Are graphic depictions of senseless torture and brutality more acceptable viewing to conservative Christians than depictions of same-sex love? Is it possible to see a Christian message in the former while only being appalled at the latter?

Apparently so, according to one commenter on this post at GetReligion.org (as reported by Joe Perez in the Gay Spirituality & Culture blog):

'Therefore, anthropologically speaking Brokeback is more objectionable—I would argue—than a movie like Hostel, and even though a movie like Hostel is decidedly uglier, that is part of its moral appeal—if you will.'

An unhealthy obsession with pathologizing 'abnormal' sexuality (some might call it extreme bias) can clearly lead to a skewed sense of morality and values in general. I guess this type of viewpoint makes it easier to understand why millions could love the murderous, bloodthirsty and vengeful savior depicted in the 'Left Behind' series. Or how some 'Christians' can feel morally justified in bombing abortion clinics.

"The Church must denounce rebellion as of all evils the greatest ... I do not shrink from uttering my firm conviction that it would be a gain to the country were it vastly more superstitious, more bigoted, more gloomy, more fierce in its religion than at present it shows itself to be. ... Rationalism is the great evil of the day."

— John Henry Cardinal Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864) 

"The vice of Bigotry has been so indiscriminately imputed to the religious, that they seem apt to forget that it is a real sin. To the millions of Europe, bigotry has been a confutation of all pious feelings. So unlovely has religion been made by it ... that now, as 2,000 years ago, men are lapsing into Atheism or Pantheism."

— Francis William Newman (the Cardinal's wiser brother), Phases of Faith (1854) 

A couple of blogs I came across today that are well worth reading:

Straight, Not Narrow: A blog promoting GLBT equality in Christianity and politics. The author is a member of PFLAG Washington, DC.

 

A Badchristian Blog: The musings of a 'bad' Christian. Bad as in nonconformist/heretic (as defined by fundamentalists).

Side note: I took the stupid fundamentalist poll recommended by badchristian, and found out that I'm bad too! So bad that it recommended I attend a weekend of Branson Howse's fundamentalist 'worldview adjustment' as a matter of urgency, LOL.

The Wasington Post ran an excellent editorial today on election-year machinations in Virginia and Maryland:

POPULIST CHAMPIONS of intolerance in Virginia and Maryland are pushing constitutional amendments that would outlaw not only gay marriage but also civil unions, domestic partnerships and any other arrangement between consenting adults who happen to be homosexuals. Those amendments could have cruel and discriminatory effects, but that is of little moment to some of their advocates, who, confident that the wind of popular opinion is at their backs, assert a monopolistic claim on morality and God's law. We don't doubt that some state lawmakers genuinely believe that gay marriage somehow constitutes a threat to the traditional variety, or that they think that the children of gay unions may in some way be disadvantaged. But those views are tainted by an atmosphere of blatant political opportunism now seizing Richmond and Annapolis.

The hardened cynicism of many Republicans (and some Democrats) must innoculate them to their own consciences as they posture and play with our civil and economic rights.

All but the most extreme among them must surely understand that the common purpose of all these marriage amendments is not to protect anyone's family, but to constitutionally prohibit state recognition or support for all non-'traditional' families, and to entrench a form of legislative apartheid for a whole class of people that not even the old sodomy laws had contemplated.

Emory Study Lights Up the Political Brain

I noted previously the ambivalence around recent proposals to classify 'extreme bias' as an official psychiatric diagnosis. Now, results from a new study conducted at Emory University appear to indicate that biased thought engages totally different neurological processes from those engaged in normal reasoning.

Researchers conducted a study in the lead up to the 2004 presidential election, using partisan Democrats and Republicans as their subjects. Subjects were assigned reasoning tasks that required evaluating threatening information about both their preferred candidate and the opposing candidate. Functional neuroimaging (fMRI) scans were used to determine which parts of the brain were activated during the exercises.

From a behavioral perspective, subjects responded as predicted: partisans of either strip denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate that they had no difficulty detecting in the opposing candidate. No surprise there...

I'm tired of hearing the prophets of the globalization movement describe its onslaught as inevitable. The rhetoric goes that we need to adapt to social change if we are to survive, that globalization follows inexorable natural laws that cannot be changed or reversed, that its ruthless 'efficiency' will ultimately lead to a better world, blah blah blah.

The Washington Post's David Ignatius waxes lyrical on the positive social effects of the World Economic Forum in Davos:

Davos has come to symbolize the dominant force of our time — the wealth-creating, job-destroying whirlwind of the global economy. Each year I come here I marvel at the reach and leveling power of this economic hurricane...

Business today is the leading agent of social change. That's really the message of Davos. It can be a pitiless process, and its seamless efficiency is in frightening contrast to the incompetence and mismanagement of the public sector. Globalization can be tamed, but it can't be stopped — nor should it be.

Such assertions are presented as self-evident truths that need not be explained, demonstrated or proven. The world must accommodate itself to a process that is as inevitable as the dawning of the sun each day...

Not content to secretly eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant, the Bush administration is now demanding that internet search engines such as Yahoo and Google turn over millions of internet search requests and IP addresses.

Why? According to court papers obtained by the San Jose Mercury, the administration 'depicts the information as vital in its effort to restore online child protection laws that have been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.'  The government claims it needs the data to 'understand the behavior of current Web users, [and] to estimate how often Web users encounter harmful-to-minors material in the course of their searches."

Sounds like another big fishing expedition. Are the requests legal? Yahoo and others have already complied, but Google is refusing to. According to its attorney, 'Google's acceding to the request would suggest that it is willing to reveal information about those who use its services. This is not a perception that Google can accept.'

When will our nation's leaders ever learn? 

 

Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. was America's greatest religious liberal. A biblical, progressive Christian. Many clergyman at the time labeled him as too liberal, an extremist. To cite Chip Berlet, 'if King was alive today, he would probably be under surveillance as a potential "terrorist"; just as he was spied on during the 1960s.'

King's thoughtful response to such attacks was:

'[T]he question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice — or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?'

King and the civil rights movement were not part of the religious right. Some who speak in King's remembrance today would have the world believe that gays and lesbians (black and white) have no right to draw on his magnificent legacy. They try to narrow that legacy, misquoting the Bible, denouncing efforts at understanding and solidarity between gays and African-Americans (and between gay and straight African-Americans). Yet King's vision of justice was open, expansive and unifying.

Revisionist clergy who want to keep King in the ghetto, women in the kitchen and gays in the closet need to just shut up. You do not speak for God or for King. Justice will roll down like waters, you wait and see.

Number 1 reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, according to Focus on the Family's James Dobson:

'Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth.'

That's right. The Bible foretells the destruction of the Earth in the great battle of Kok and Makok...

Or is it Armageddon Married?

Hat tip to Pam Spaulding.

A nauseating story in the Times about the Rev. Creflo A. Dollar Jr. (yes, that's his real name) and his World Changers Churches in Atlanta and Manhattan, with combined annual operating budget of $84 million.

Where does this lucrative revenue stream come from? Largely, it seems, from thousands of low income wage earners tithing ten percent or more of their income to the church each week. In turn, the church sponsors Dollar's lavish lifestyle, as he as his wife Taffi shuttle between a million-dollar church-owned mansion in Atlanta and their own $2.5 million apartment in Manhattan, driving Rolls-Royces donated to them by congregants.

And when this level of giving results for some church members in serious financial hardship, they continue to give with questioning the scriptural basis this arrangement:

But just as they started to give, their children became sick, and the family began to fall badly behind on the bills. "Things went from bad to worse," Mr. Anderson said. 

A few weeks ago, they had no food and no money. A concerned neighbor, however, surprised them with groceries. Another friend offered winter coats for their children, ages 5 and 7.

The Andersons attributed the unexpected gifts to God's provision and said they looked to the testimonies of others in the church for inspiration.

The family went into debt as a result of Rev. Dollar's teachings. Here we see cognitive dissonance at work. The concerned neigbor's response is not viewed as a natural reaction from someone who was worried about their financial situation (which was being worsened by their continued tithing), or as a stark wake up call to get their financial priorities right, but as evidence that God was blessing them in adversity.

The prosperity gospel is little more than a flattened pyramid scheme. A handful at the top become dubiously wealthy, not through their own effort, but through convincing a sufficient number of people underneath that tithing is an absolute guarantee to material rewards in this life.

Pam Spaulding notes how the Faith and Freedom network in Washington state is trying to bully the state's Supreme Court into not overturning the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, a ruling which is expected sometime during the legislative session ending in March.

Faith and Freedom commissioned, wrote and paid for the poll of 405 registered voters by Elway Research. Heavily loaded questions were asked about 'gay marriage' vs. 'a union of one man and one woman,' and whether or not courts or the legislature should decide on the matter. Faith and Freedom then used the poll results to insinuate that Supreme Court justices who interpret the law to find the DOMA unconstitutional would suffer 'political consequences' at the next election:

"I think a person who is thinking about it would realize there is a political consequence to it," said Joseph B. Fuiten, chairman of the Faith and Freedom Network, which paid The Elway Poll to conduct the survey in late December. The group was "just making the observation," Fuiten said, when asked if the network was warning justices and Democrats to oppose gay marriage.

Göran pointed me to a wonderfully succinct article by Father Tobias Stanislas Haller concerning the general poverty of 'one man, one woman' religious arguments against homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

A chief strategy of fundamental/ist religionists is to assert their pronouncements to be fundamentally and unequivocally rooted in scripture and natural (or divine) law. Many hold the Christian bible to be the 'inspired, inerrant word of God'. Yet their use of scripture generally betrays a lack of reverence for an instrument held to contain such a divine revelation. Interpretation and exegesis is largely 'unsophisticated and sub-critical', as Father Tobias points out:

For example, the relevance of the “Sodom” story to male homosexuality (apart from assault) has surely been widely debunked — even among reasserters.

More problematical is the casual mixing of the two creation accounts in a way that fails to acknowledge that in the second account there is no sexual congress until after the Fall. The procreative and unitive functions are therefore clearly separable: human society requires procreation for its propagation, but unity for its well-being; nor does the church forbid marriage to those incapable of fertility, nor does it terminate marriages at the onset of infertility. It is also clear that the command to multiply, which is also given to the wild creatures in Genesis 1, is supplemented and crowned by the command to loving society established in Genesis 2, which endures in the absence and beyond the cessation of any capacity to procreate; and which indeed also allows for the recognition of celibacy as a legitimate way of life, contrary to the explicit command of Genesis 1:28.

Minneapolis-St. Paul Catholic Archbishop Harry J. Flim-Flam advised the faithful on January 5 that "now is the time to recommit ourselves with all of our energies to the ideal of marriage as intended by God: the lifelong union of one man and one woman with an openness to welcoming new life." Pope Rat-Zinger, in June, insisted insisted that marriage “is not a casual sociological construction,” and that, “in accordance with the plans of God, marriage and the family are irreplaceable and do not allow for other alternatives.”

Not all Catholics agree, and some had the personal courage to speak out in the online diocesan newsletter, Catholic Spirit.

I'm thrilled that God communicates his intentions so clearly to Harry and Rat-Zinger. But I'm wondering if God has a habit of changing his mind, or if Harry and Rat both are telling a little zinger about marriage. You see, I can't find their 'ideal' and 'irreplaceable' version of marriage in the Bible, the divine revelation upon which church teaching and tradition supposedly rest.

In Genesis, the first 'marriage' was between Adam and... Eve, his own flesh. Now Eve was made from Adam (not as a separate act of creation, and not the result of human conception), so the exact nature of their relationship to one another is somewhat murky. By virtue of being the first humans it is difficult to describe their partnering as 'traditional' in any sense. We do not know if they were 'married', that's for sure. It could even be argued that the relationship was a little too close, since both shared the same DNA. I'm told these sorts of relationships are popular in parts of Tennessee, but I don't see the church encouraging it at all these days.

An arrangement dedicated to the promoters of Justice Sunday, borrowed from the Hebrew prophet Amos. Amos had much to say concerning his own generation's version of 'compassionate conservatism':

This is what the LORD says:

For three sins, even for four, I will not turn back. They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals. They trample on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed.

Burn leavened bread as a thank offering and brag about your freewill offerings—boast about them, for this is what you love to do, declares the Sovereign LORD.

You who turn justice into bitterness and cast righteousness to the ground, you hate the one who reproves in court and despise him who tells the truth.

Remembering the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Chip Berlet explores the contrast between "those who preach about their narrow definition of justice on Sunday; and those who teach about liberty and justice for all, not just on Sunday, but every day of the week."

In the year before his assassination, King published a prophetic book: Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? The theme was justice for all, but there was a warning that unless we all worked together to ensure justice for all, then we beckon chaos rather than building community. King often spoke of the beloved community. He sought to unite rather than to divide.

Division, discord, and demonization are the themes from the Christian Right, which has tried to drive a wedge between black people and gay people, and to stigmatize women who favor reproductive rights. A government role in crafting economic justice is decried by Christian Right ideologues as coddling the poor who they suggest just need a broom and a Bible. Peace and tolerance are denounced as giving succor to evil enemies. Justice primarily consists of handing out stiff jail terms.

What's most amazing is how people like James Dobson and Jerry Falwell manage to hijack the language of civil rights and universal justice -- "Justice and Liberty for ALL" is their new mantra -- to lend legitimacy to their attempts to control the judiciary in service of a narrow, theocratic political agenda that is anything but just, libertarian or civil. And how those judges who don't fall into lockstep with this nasty, mean-spirited theocratic agenda and who dare to defend religious liberty against the tyranny of establishmentarianism are themselves accused of 'judicial tyranny'.

'Just-Us' Sunday anybody? Or justice everyday?

Slacktivist comments on the unfortunate tale of a promiment figure in the Southern Baptist Convention and senior pastor of South Tulsa Baptist Church, Rev. Lonnie Latham, arrested last week outside a hotel for propositioning a plainclothes policeman for oral sex.

Rev. Latham's previous public disclosures concern gay sex were of the most anti- variety: he has opposed equal marriage rights for lesbians and gays and supported a denominational directive urging Southern Baptists to convert them to heterosexuality "by accepting Jesus Christ as their savior and reject[ing] their 'sinful, destructive lifestyle."'

Slacktivist questions the commonly held theory that religious conservatives love to target gays and lesbians for condemnation because we're perceived as relatively safe and easy targets:

Condemning anything as a sin is a dangerous business. You get up on a soapbox and start railing against envy, sloth, gluttony, greed, wrath, lust or pride and eventually people will begin to realize that you're very well acquainted with your subject matter.

The only safe "sin" to preach against is one you can be sure you'll never commit -- never even be tempted to commit. So, if you're straight, you preach against homosexuality. You can further protect yourself by portraying it as the worst possible sin. That way when you get caught doing whatever it is you will inevitably get caught doing, you can argue that at least you're not as bad as those wretched homosexuals.

More on Pat Robertson.

The Southern Baptists, AFA's Don Wildmon and so on are "embarrassed" with his "idiotic public statements". Talk about the pots calling the kettle black... Well, he may be idiotic, but he does not speak for "an ever-diminishing number of American evangelicals" as these and other conservative Christian commentators are claiming.

Those on the religious right who distance themselves from him and say he doesn't represent their views are being disingenuous to say the least. What they dislike is not his opinions but how he delivers them. Their disagreement is not over substance, but style.

Robertson's great sin is his lack of civility and self-control, not his views (which they largely share in one form or another). He is holding the rest of them back by his buffoonery, making it more difficult for them to take control of the public square through calm, 'compassionate conservativism'. In reality, whatever their outward differences, they are all cut from the same ideological cloth.

Rumor's of Ariel Sharon's death are premature, although this hasn't stopped lunatics of both Christian and Muslim worlds from claiming that his impending death is the result of divine intervention:

Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "The Butcher of Sabra and Shatila has joined his ancestors and others will soon follow suit ... We don’t shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world ... We must prepare ourselves to rule the world and the only way to do that is to put forth views on the basis of the Expectation of the Return ... Our interpretation is that the hand of the Almighty is putting every piece of the jigsaw puzzle of the future of the world in place in line with the goals of Islam."

American Taliban, Pat Robertson: "Sharon was personally a very likable person, and I am sad to see him in this condition, but I think we need to look at the Bible and the Book of Joel. The prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who, quote 'divide my land' ... And I would say: Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the E.U., the United Nations or the United States of America."

The State Department yesterday condemned Ahmadinejad's remarks as "hateful and disgusting". The White House issued an even more scathing rebuke to Robertson just today.

The remarkable thing is that Robertson and Ahmadinejad are in agreement that it is God's will that Sharon be struck down for his defiance of that same will, in order to make way for the Second Coming. Both believe that God has ordained their people to take over the world and enforce a divine dictatorship. Some 'Christian' conservatives are apparently coming around to the Islamist's viewpoint that the Jews are the ones preventing God's will from being carried out on earth.

Dominionists of the world, unite!!!

The discussion continues on the topic of homosexuality over at Emergent Voyageurs. Some of my original comments to Jamie's post have been quoted in the new post.

It is always difficult when engaging 'orthodox' Christians on this subject. Often times people want to constrain the discussion to biblical 'certainties', and sometimes the most progressive or liberal Christians can display a remarkable obsession with proof texts and 'natural law' arguments when it comes to their understanding of sexuality and sexual minorities. It is difficult to bring the focus forward to the lives and experiences of real people (like the one in my preceeding post).

In my view, theology is a living process of dialogue with and about the Divine. Theology that is not contextualized through dialogue with real people (both inside and outside the church) is at its best scholasticism, and at it worst, philosophical tyranny -- witness the false 'discussion' within Catholicism about 'intrinsically disordered persons'. While theology may engage in the process of discussing and elaborating beliefs and convictions it is only authentic if it leads to theopraxis, which is the living out of our understanding of God's grace and what it means to follow Christ in the community and in the world.

Another heart-wrenching story illustrating how state enforcement of so-called 'family values' only serves to destroy families and cause harm to children.

A woman has sued her former partner of 11 years to be recognized as a parent of the two children they raised together until 2002. The court dismissed the case, ruling that although Donna Ellis "lived as a family" with her partner Rachel Burg and their two children, she is not legally entitled to compensation for the time, money and commitment she made to the family, nor is she entitled to visitation rights with the children. Ellis intends to appeal to a higher court.

According to Florida law, Donna Ellis and Rachel Burg's family was an illusion. When the relationship dissolved, so did the past. In a long-shot attempt to prove the illusion was real, Ellis sued Burg to show that she was as much a parent to the girls as Burg - their biological mother.

Burg, the biological mother, dismissed their relationship as one of 'room-mates', even though they were partners for 11 years, jointly owned a home and raised two children together. "We were a family in every respect", said Ellis -- except in one important respect, that of the law.

Interesting post on the topic of homosexuality and the church over at Emergent Voyageurs. It attracted a stream of intelligent and (mostly) respectful discussion from a range of viewpoints (some 45 comments when I last looked).

I'm not sure I understand yet what the emerging/ent church movement is all about, but any movement within Christianity that seeks to move away from dogma and broaden the basis of religious discussion and praxis is welcome.

If anyone can shed some light on the relationship between the emergent church and other movements such as liberal/progressive Christianity, evangelicalism, neo-orthodoxy, etc -- please jump in!

Update, January 6: Jamie pointed me to Scot McKnight's blog for a discussion of the emerging church.

Those that represent the so-called intelligent design debate as being about religion vs. science, or about faith vs. materialism, largely miss the point.

ID as conceived and propagandized by the Discovery Institute and others seems to rely largely on the teleological argument (or 'argument from design') for the existence of God, which should be familiar to any undergraduate philosophy student.

This argument, first espoused by Roman philosophers, was subsequently incorporated into orthodox Christian theological arguments for the existence of a Creator. It later became one of the central pillars of Deism, an enlightenment philosophy popular with more than a few of America's founding fathers. Deists held that an understanding of God could be arrived at purely through the use of reason and logic, and without appeal to divine revelation. Teleological thinking can also be seen in some branches of modern Christian theology as well as in the philosophy of science (e.g. in the anthropic cosmological principle).