tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32535777998865156102024-03-05T01:59:10.319-08:00civitas terrenaA blog written by students in "Contemporary American Religion and Politics" at the Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. We welcome your constructive feedback! (And, of course, the views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Candler School of Theology or Emory University.)John Seniorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05348327401215014629noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253577799886515610.post-51151735403792781902010-12-03T14:29:00.000-08:002010-12-03T14:30:19.379-08:00Religious Liberals: as wishy-washy as the Democratic Party?<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:applybreakingrules/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:usefelayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">In a recent commentary for Religious Dispatches, Daniel Schultz is disappointed by what he sees as recent string of legislative failures in the Democratic Party. He wonders if “nice guys” really do finish last. He states: “<i>Simply put, the religious left is far less effective than the religious right because it won't turn political questions into us-versus-them. It's too divisive for them</i>” He suggests that religious liberals should get there hands dirty by responding to the religious right using equally uncivilized discourse. His proposal is for the religious left to come out and say something along the lines of “<em>My God is the God of the poor. You can be for the poor or you can go to hell.</em><em><span style="font-style: normal;">”<span style=""> </span>Why? Because although “</span></em><i>There's nothing nice about it</i>”, that’s what it takes to win, to get results. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">I too have felt the bitter disappointment that Schultz expresses in his commentary.<span style=""> </span>I cringe every time abortion and gay marriage become the touchstones of religious political discourse over the poor and needy ones. I too have felt like saying, “God is on my side.”<span style=""> </span>However, in my last blog I suggested that “<i>Today, Christians must become again a model of civility and reconciliation. If we fail to rescue our prophetic voice then the Christian contribution to the political community will be regrettably linked to violence, ignorance, and intolerance. As Christians and Americans this would be a failure to live up to our religious principles as well as our democratic values</i>”.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Schultz argues that we must balance civility with effective strategy.<span style=""> </span>I agree that liberal Christians should take a strong stance on political issues, maintaining a powerful voice in the public sphere. However I am also aware of my own lamentable moments of political mud-slinging. <span style=""> </span>In the end, all I gained from these tactics was a type of regrettable triumphalism a, ‘hooray for our side’ mentality, that seemed utterly disconnected from my Christian values. It also ceased to be persuasive, or compelling to my audience. If anything it made conversation more difficult between myself and those with whom I disagree.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style=""> </span>The role of religious discourse in political life has both its dangers and its contributions. At times we must speak critically about the ways in which Christians have engaged in political discourse. At other times we can recognize the powerful impact religion has played in securing human rights, and speaking on behalf of the marginalized.<span style=""> </span>Our finest moments, as Christians, and ultimately our most successful ones, have not been the result of political finger pointing, but the power of prophetic truth untainted by and with no need for intolerable language. If we lower the standards by which we engage, we will undermine our own cause, costing us the moral high ground, and turning us into the hypocrites we claim to despise. Our job as Christians is to be faithful witnesses in the world not to be politically successful.<span style=""> </span>Of course success is desirable, but we shan’t base our definition of success on how many bills we pass or how many debates we win or even how many votes we secure, but on weather or not we have been faithful witnesses to the Christian faith.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">So what do we do, how do we engage?<span style=""> </span>A first step is admitting humbly that we all see through a glass darkly, meaning we should take a giant step off our moral high horse. Listening respectfully has a place, especially between conservative and liberal Christians who ultimately confess the same faith. That being said, Daniel Schultz has a point.<span style=""> </span>Christian claims are important and compelling and we can and must state them assertively, while avoiding bad behavior.<span style=""> </span>Instead of telling our opponents to go to hell we could say as Schultz also suggests “<em>My God is the God of the poor. A vote against [unemployment benefits, child nutrition] or a vote for tax breaks for the obscenely wealthy is a vote against that God, and it's a vote against those who follow him.” </em><em><span style="font-style: normal;">This statement is confessional, but provocative; it’s strong, but not violent. What we should take away from Schultz’ commentary is that there is a place in between violent and pointless rhetoric and constructive but firm witnessing. The power of Christian claims doesn’t require intolerance, but sometimes it will require commanding and spirited speech. </span></em></p>Maria Caronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01985247306076338023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253577799886515610.post-46854101169939697022010-12-03T14:10:00.000-08:002010-12-03T14:11:41.240-08:00<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS';font-size:100%;color:#191C1E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 11px;"> <!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:200%"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";color:#262626">The rules do not always apply sometimes morality does.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:200%"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";color:#262626">A common metaphor in American society is “separation of church and state”. This figurative point where the church is encouraged to stay out of the state's business and the state staying out of the church’s business. The idea of the “wall of separation between the church and the state was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802.<a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn" href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character:footnote">[1]</span></span></a> Jefferson desire in his letter was to communicate the idea that there is a wall in between the church and state to protect them . Moreover, the original use of the correlation was mainly to make sure that the state did not interfere with the church’s business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:13.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:#262626"> The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof </span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Lucida Sans";color:#262626">“. <a style="mso-footnote-id: ftn" href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character:footnote">[2]</span></span></a>The notion that prohibits Congress from making any law that hinders the free exercise of religion could be a line that needs to be cross at times when it comes to protecting the safety of the state and it’s citizens. </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:13.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Trebuchet MS";color:#262626">The notion that prohibits Congress from making any law that hinders the free exercise of religion could be a line that needs to be cross at times when it comes to protecting the security of the state . The idea that the church should be governed by the national government on any matter is a tremendously dangerous proposition for the church. However, when exploitation and prostitution is happening within the boundaries of the United States region I think the government should intervene in some way. September 15, 2010 was a marvellous day for Americans, simply because Congress stood up to the power of the Internet and stopped exploitation and prostitution on craiglist.com. In the beginning of September, Craigslist told Congress in September that it had permanently terminated its Adult Services section in response to criticism that it was facilitating exploitation and prostitution.<a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn" href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote">[3]</span></span></a> Clint Powell, Craigslist’s director of customer service and law enforcement initiatives, listed a number of actions the company had taken to weed out and prevent ads.<a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn" href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character:footnote">[4]</span></span></a> They required people who took out Adult Services ads to provide a working telephone number and valid credit card information, he said. The company also manually screened all ads in Adult Services and reported abuses. Clint Powell, Craigslist’s director of customer service and law enforcement initiatives, listed a number of actions the company had taken to weed out and prevent ads. They required people who took out Adult Services ads to provide a working telephone number and valid credit card information, he said.<a style="mso-footnote-id: ftn" href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character:footnote">[5]</span></span></a> The company also manually screened all ads in Adult Services and reported abuses. As for members of Congress, they made it clear they were satisfied that Craigslist shuttered its services, and wondered if there wasn’t a way to pass a law to criminalize running an online classifieds service, given that the present federal law protects online services from civil liability for what users posted online. <a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn" href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote">[6]</span></span></a>Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Virginia) who as chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security presided over the meeting said “If there is no law on the books, is there any law we could put on the books that would pass constitutional muster,”<a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn" href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character:footnote">[7]</span></span></a> Also,Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee claimed “as a progressive and a supporter of the First Amendment, she was in a philosophical confusion about sites like Craigslist that allow prostitution ads, adding, My opinion is, ‘Shut them down”.<a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn" href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character:footnote">[8]</span></span></a> The Craiglist shut down was a brilliant measure by Congress by relatively protecting the citizens and moral integrity of the nation. However, should Congress step in when active members of the Christian church are being financially exploited and mentally prostituted? The “prosperity movement” of the Twenty-First century Christian community can be consider, like the spiritual Craiglist. I am not saying that the “prosperity movement” is a web site where you can sell and acquire goods but rather it is a movement that has promoted or allowed exploitation and prostitution of U.S. citizens similar to Craiglist. Pentecostal-Charismatic historian, Dr. Vinson Synan, offers and explanation of the “prosperity movement”. Synan said, “this “prosperity movement” an amazing phenomenon among Pentecostals and Charismatic is spreading around the world with the force and velocity of a raging wildfire in a dry forest. <a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn" href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character:footnote">[9]</span></span></a>It is generally known as the prosperity gospel or the word of faith movement, and although many have not heard of it, the teaching is now an international force that is gaining millions of enthusiastic followers each year”.<a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn" href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character:footnote">[10]</span></span></a> Dr.Vinson also declared that this movement is “Led by such popular evangelists as Joyce Meyers, Kenneth Copeland, and Kenneth Hagin, Jr., the teaching is inspiring some of the largest churches and evangelistic crusades in the history of modern Christianity”. <a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn" href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character:footnote">[11]</span></span></a>The Charismatic evangelist spreads the massage of “If you will believe the Gospel, the Lord will immediately break the power of sin in your life and you could be filled and empowered by the Holy Spirit to speak in tongues, cast out devils and evangelize the world. You can be instantly set free from your addictions to alcohol, tobacco, sexual promiscuity, and drugs and Jesus will make you into a healthy and honest member of society. God is not against you. There is no virtue in being poor just for the sake of being poor. So God will also bless you materially as you work hard, live honestly, save your money and give a portion of your own income to others.” <a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn" href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character:footnote">[12]</span></span></a>Also the prosperity preachers in order to raise their own monetary gain often times conveys to the congregation that if you pay more than your tithes to the church then you would get more blessing. This is a clear exploitation of the people of the church in order to support the materialist wants of the pastor. The problem that I have is that there is nobody to hold these “prosperity movement” pastors accountable. This is where I feel that lawmakers should find some way to make sure that religion is being practiced freely but it is not harming the citizens of the United States of America. Congress should act similar to Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, who in 2007 held a Senatorial investigation of the prosperity televangelists, all Pentecostals or Charimatics. I am not suggest that Congress should be free to go on a “witch hunt” after preachers. I am suggesting that Congress should protect all of it’s citizens from the abuse of power by any individual, preacher or not. Moreover, I am convinced that the notion that prohibits Congress from making any law that hinders the free exercise of religion could be a line that needs to be cross at times when it comes to protecting the safety of the state and it’s citizens.</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Lucida Sans"; color:#262626"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:#262626"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:#262626"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:#262626"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:#262626"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <div style="mso-element:footnote-list">
<br /> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn" href="#_ftnref" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote">[1]</span></span></a> <span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character:footnote">[1]</span></span> <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS";mso-bidi-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";color:#141517">"Separation Of Church And State." <i>Insert Name of Site in Italics</i>. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Dec. 2010 <http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p> </div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn" href="#_ftnref" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote">[2]</span></span></a> ibi</p> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><o:p> </o:p></p> </div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn" href="#_ftnref" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote">[3]</span></span></a> <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Trebuchet MS"; color:#141517">Adult Services' Shutdown Is Permanent, Craigslist Tells ..." <i>Insert Name of Site in Italics</i>. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Dec. 2010 <http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/09/adult-services-shutdown-is-permanent-craigslist-tells-congress/?</span></p> </div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn" href="#_ftnref" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote">[4]</span></span></a> ibi</p> </div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn" href="#_ftnref" name="_ftn5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote">[5]</span></span></a> ibi</p> </div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn" href="#_ftnref" name="_ftn6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote">[6]</span></span></a> </p> </div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn" href="#_ftnref" name="_ftn7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote">[7]</span></span></a> <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Trebuchet MS"; color:#141517">Adult Services' Shutdown Is Permanent, Craigslist Tells ..." <i>Insert Name of Site in Italics</i>. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Dec. 2010 <http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/09/adult-services-shutdown-is-permanent-craigslist-tells-congress/?</span></p> </div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn" href="#_ftnref" name="_ftn8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote">[8]</span></span></a> ibi</p> </div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn" href="#_ftnref" name="_ftn9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote">[9]</span></span></a> <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Trebuchet MS"; color:#141517">"Word of Faith - Oral Roberts University - Believers Stand ..." <i>Insert Name of Site in Italics</i>. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Dec. 2010 <http://www.believersstandunited.com/word_of_faith_movement.html>.</span></p> </div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn" href="#_ftnref" name="_ftn10" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote">[10]</span></span></a> ibi</p> </div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn" href="#_ftnref" name="_ftn11" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote">[11]</span></span></a> <span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Trebuchet MS"; color:#141517">"Word of Faith - Oral Roberts University - Believers Stand ..." <i>Insert Name of Site in Italics</i>. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Dec. 2010 <http://www.believersstandunited.com/word_of_faith_movement.html>.</span></p> </div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn" href="#_ftnref" name="_ftn12" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote">[12]</span></span></a> ibi</p> </div> </div> <!--EndFragment--> </span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16486642675147540651noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253577799886515610.post-85092190659399608802010-12-03T13:46:00.000-08:002010-12-03T13:48:13.103-08:00You Are What You Eat<!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"">You are what you eat.</span></i><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman""> It is a phrase I have heard for as long as I can remember, but what does it really mean? Does food have anything to do with faith? How do we re-evaluate our eating habits in light of food recalls, genetic alterations, exploitation of farm land and the livelihood of those connected to it, and our biblical mandate to rule over creation. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; ">There seems to be an ever-increasing amount of things to consider when shopping for food. Is it: organic, local, genetically altered, added hormones, animal treatment, grass-fed, corn fed, free range? The list seems to go on and on. But, as I explore all these different things I would like to add one more to the mix: biblically mandated.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; ">First things first, what is the current state of our national food system and secondly, how is it influencing our economy, our environment, our health, and our faith?</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; ">In her article entitled “Most Americans Worry About Safety of Food Supply,” April Fulton states “government officials have said for years that the U.S. has the safest food supply in the world.” In the same article, Fulton cites a survey conducted by NPR, which seems to put forth the idea that people don’t necessarily agree with that statement. 61% of Americans are actually concerned about contamination of the food supply. This is not shocking considering the amount of food recalls experienced in the last six months. Recalls are so common FoodSafety.gov has even “created an app for that,” alerting consumers to the ever-changing FDA recalls. If you were one of the unlucky ones to get sick due to food later recalled, you would nonetheless be in good company with 78 million <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">other</i> Americans who, Fulton reports, also get sick each year. According to Fulton in another article entitled “FDA Faulted for Gaps in Food Safety,” the American populous spends $150 billion a year to cover the cost of unsafe food.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; ">Why is so much of our food making us sick? There are many explanations to this, and way too many to put in this blog. So, let’s talk about meat. According to NPR, 51% of Americans are concerned about meat contamination, and rightly so. According to Ellen Davis in her book <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Scripture, Culture and Agriculture</i>, meat-processing plants are more of a jungle now than in Upton Sinclair’s 1906 book. Disease epidemics such as BSE (mad cow disease) and foot-and-mouth disease are directly related to the new system of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) that almost entirely dominate the industry. Davis describes CAFO as a system that raises pigs “from birth to bacon” which means that these animals “never feel soil or sunshine, and rarely the touch of a human hand.” And if that isn’t enough to make you rethink your bacon, Davis describes the life of a sow: “a 500-pound sow spends an adult lifetime – measured in terms of litters and terminated after the eighth, if she survives that long – in a metal crate seven feet long and twenty-two inches wide, covered with sores, her swollen legs planted in urine and excrement.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; ">Let me bring all these facts together. Our food is costing us $150 billion extra a year because it is making us sick. It is making us sick because of the way we process the meat. The meat is becoming infected because of the way we treat the animals before they are slaughtered, among other reasons. Not only is this process making us sick, it negatively impacts the environment. According to Davis, “the meat industry is responsible for dangerous inputs, including massive direct pollution of soil, water, and air from intensive ‘livestock units.’”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"">So what? Why should we as a faith community care about this? Lets look at a few images beginning with the creation stories. In the second creation story God creates man and animal from the same ground, the same material. </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana">Genesis 2:7 states, “then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground…” Later in Genesis 2:19, “Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky.” </span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"">In the first creation story, Genesis 1:28 gives a biblical mandate for the treatment of creation. God tells Adam and Eve, “</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:Verdana">Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and conquer it and exercise mastery among the fish of the sea and among the birds of the sky and among every animal that creeps on the earth.” This mandate means that we, God’s creation, are to “exercise mastery” over the rest of God’s creation. Throughout the Old Testament, we are given examples of what this mastery entails. In the retelling of the 10 Commandments found in Deuteronomy 5:6-21, the command to rest on the seventh day reminds us that not only are humans to rest, but animals are to rest as well. The ancient idea of shechita, which Shechitauk.org states is the “humane method of animal slaughter for food”, is also derived from the food laws found in Deuteronomy. This calls for the swift and compassionate killing of animals. Finally, the importance of a meal is seen during the last supper, where Jesus offers wine and bread as the ultimate symbol of his love for us.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; ">Everything about our food is connected to creation and to God. Humans and animals are made from the same divine elements. While humans are to be masters over the rest of creation, we are to treat it with compassion. When raising animals, we too are to give them rest, just as we are granted rest. And, when we slaughter animals for food we are to do so swiftly and compassionately. Finally, when our food is ready to be eaten, we are to be reminded of the meal in which Jesus broke himself for us so that we might have life.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family: Verdana">You are what you eat.</span></i><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:16.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Verdana"> It is good to remember this statement as we begin to adjust the way we view our food. Will we continue to act as we do now, costing us our money, health, and our relationship with creation and with God? Or, will we begin to see the interconnectedness of creation, readjust our practices of mastering creation as biblically mandated, and finally begin to heal the brokenness that has crept into our food? <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Remember:</i> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">You are what you eat.</i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; ">What you can do:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; ">Educate Yourself! Check out Ellen Davis’ book entitled <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Scripture, Culture and Agriculture</i> and Michael Pollan’s book entitled <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">The Omnivore’s Dilemma.</i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:Verdana">Read the label on your food (in some cases, food labeling offers information on the treatment of animals in the creation of the product).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:Verdana">Visit your local farmers’ market.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:Verdana">Check out local farms in your area. If you are from Georgia, Nature’s Harmony Farms is great for supplying meat and cheese from free-range, organically raised animals.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:Verdana"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <!--EndFragment-->Caroline Culverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15226301364989790489noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253577799886515610.post-3883492462875314392010-12-03T12:19:00.001-08:002010-12-03T12:19:32.330-08:00The American Dream and the Marriage's Nightmare<!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal">We’ve all been there, a bajillion frequent flyer miles to cash in and no way to get really anything of use.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>I found myself in a similar situation a few weeks back, so what did I do? I took up Delta’s offer and cashed in about 5000 sky miles for a subscription to Time Magazine.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The cover of the November 29<sup>th</sup>’s Time Magazine asks us very poignantly—Who Needs Marriage?<a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn1" href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character:footnote"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: JA;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">[1]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Recent polls and surveys have shown that the number of people marrying or wanting to get married has been dwindling because marriage is no longer seen as a necessity for happiness and success.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>But here’s the rub in my opinion—marriage is not an institution by which we should or even want to derive our happiness or understanding of success.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In drafting the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson noted that humans, by being humans, have inalienable rights.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>What were those? The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>When any of those are being upended we are, at our essence, being tyrannized. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">From the outset I think I ought to make it clear that I think Jefferson is mistaken.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>There is no such thing as an inalienable right.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>And when we start bestowing upon ourselves the notion that there are liberties that are intrinsic to our humanity we slowly slip from the notion of liberty and fall into libertinism.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Any time any outside force impinges upon our “freedoms” we must desperately strive against that influence.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The problem is this though—pretending we are in some ways not influenced by outside forces, social constraints, peer evaluation<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>etc. is a fallacy.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>There is no way for us to escape that which influences our decisions and behaviors.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">This is where the problem with marriage comes in.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Marriage as an institution is distinct because there is an acknowledged relinquishment of our “inalienable” liberties.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>America can’t understand marriage because America doesn’t have the discipline to create a decent and moral people willing to part with their “inalienable rights.”<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>America creates people who are told they have an inalienable right to pursue happiness—and this poses a problem for marriage.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Don’t get me wrong, happiness is an integral part of marriage and in some ways there must be some modicum of happiness for marriage to even be feasible.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>But thinking that the pillars of marriage are happiness and success ultimately lead to the staggering number of divorces and separations we see.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Marriage (Christian marriage to be exact) is an event witnessed and upheld by the church and family because the witnesses know that there is no way in hell the bride and groom standing at the altar know what they’re getting into.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Christians make vows to one another in marriage, not because vows express our deepest sentiments, but because vows require witnesses willing to take the married couple to task when these vows are being broken.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Consider it a covenant or a sacrament, but in either case marriage is not something that can be held to the whimsy of the American dream, because America and its “inalienable rights” simply cannot understand covenant or sacrament.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Both are theologically imbued terms that rail against the American libertinism that covenants the self only to the self.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Marriage is an act of forgiveness.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Marriage is an act of discipline.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>And marriage is a sign of grace.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Marriage is an institution that must be upheld by a community steeped in virtue with an understanding that the practicing of these virtues will inevitably derail American individualism.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So in some ways marriage in America is doomed to fail as long as our understanding of happiness and liberty are inextricably tied to the American ethos.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Because American’s have been born and bred with the notion that we have a “right to happiness,” it ultimately follows that anything intruding what we perceive to be happiness is a destructive power and in its tyranny is absolves us of any commitment.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>As a result, for more ways than just one we need to drop the “right to happiness” ethos that we have in America.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">C.S. Lewis has important thoughts about this “right to happiness” that Americans perceive to be integral to their being.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>He notes that “A right to happiness doesn’t, for me, make much more sense than a right to be six feet tall, or to have a millionaire for your father, or to get good weather whenever you want to have a picnic.”<a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn2" href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character:footnote"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: JA;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">[2]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>This being the case, our perceptions that we have a right to be happy do not coincide with the real facts that happiness is elusive at all times.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In reality, “When two people achieve lasting happiness, this is not solely because they are great lovers but because they are also—I must put it crudely—good people; controlled, loyal, fair-minded, mutually adaptable people.”<a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn3" href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character:footnote"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: JA;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">[3]</span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">What it ultimately boils down to is this—a synthetic understanding of happiness granted to us by the founders of this nation has wrecked the possibility of anyone ever being happy.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Happiness is not a transcendent gift, but a neuro-chemical reaction to stimuli.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>This will eventually fade.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>However when we train ourselves in the virtues and when we be the best possible humans we can be ala. Aristotle, we find pure and unfiltered happiness.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Therefore, happiness is not about feeling good or pleased all of the time, but about living life as a human in all of its complexities.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The best marriages are often those that understand happiness in terms of discipline and human development, not action and reaction.<a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn4" href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character:footnote"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: JA;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">[4]</span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></p> <div style="mso-element:footnote-list"><br /> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn1"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn1" href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: JA;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">[1]</span></span></span></span></a> Belinda Luscombe, “Marriage: What’s it Good For?,” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Time Magazine</i>, November 29, 2010, 48-56.<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn2"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn2" href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: JA;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">[2]</span></span></span></span></a> C.S. Lewis, “We Have No ‘Right to Happiness,’” The Timeless Writings of C.S. Lewis. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">God in the Dock</i>, (New York: Inspiration Press, 1970) 516.<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn3"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn3" href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: JA;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">[3]</span></span></span></span></a> Ibid. 518.<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn4"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn4" href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: JA;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">[4]</span></span></span></span></a> Thoughts and ideas for this blog also came from:<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoFootnoteText">Stanley Hauerwas, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">A Community of Character</i>, (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981).<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoFootnoteText">Alasdair MacIntyre, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">After Virtue</i>, 3<sup>rd</sup> ed. (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007).<o:p></o:p></p> </div> </div> <!--EndFragment-->Andrew Scheerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06292241339117231171noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253577799886515610.post-23130168076828300252010-12-03T11:47:00.000-08:002010-12-03T11:49:21.651-08:00Considering Zeitgeist<p class="MsoNormal">In her November 12<sup>th</sup> <a href="http://religionandpolitics2010.blogspot.com/2010/11/reclaiming-our-christian-voice.html">article</a> on this site, Marion Caron raised concerns for maintaining the prophetic voice of the Christian church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>One of the main problems in modern civil discourse, she argues, is the ubiquitous use of irresponsible, pointedly divisive language in politics that serves to create far more problems than it solves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>As she and a commenter on my previous <a href="http://religionandpolitics2010.blogspot.com/2010/11/does-religious-speech-belong-in-public.html">article</a> point out, holding tight to the central Christian tenet of unconditional, neighborly, Christ-like love should steer Christian participation away from such divisive speech.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>“Today Christians must become again a model of civility and reconciliation,” writes Caron, citing the example of President Jimmy Carter as an active and outspoken Christian who, in his book <i>Our Endangered Values</i><span style="font-style: normal">, stresses the need to find “as much common ground as possible” to solve the contentious issues of our time. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I could not agree more.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is absolutely imperative that public discourse focus on positive association rather than strict opposition and begin find common ground to solve problems instead of continuing to treat the political arena as a battleground.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Along these same lines, Peter Baker and Carl Huse <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/white-house-meeting-ends-in-kind-words-but-no-deals/">reported</a> in the New York Times on Tuesday that the new Senate Majority Leader John Boehner, upon leaving the bipartisan meeting between President Obama and the Republican Congressional leaders, commented, “We had a very nice meeting today.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Of course, we’ve had a lot of very nice meetings. The question is, Can we find common ground?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Good question.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Surely Christian love can aid us in this endeavor, providing an example in the public discourse that strives to find this common ground upon which the country could build progress.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">This notion is all well and good – but is it realistic?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>To answer this question, let’s first examine a general model for effective religious engagement in the political arena.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>According to Fowler, Hertzke et. al. in their book <i>Religion and Politics in America: Faith, Culture, and Strategic Choices</i><span style="font-style:normal">, there are five factors that may contribute to success: “amenable traditions and theological beliefs; internal strength and unity; strategic location; constraints and opposition from other groups; and favorable ‘spirit of the times,’ that is, whether the political culture is open to a group’s political advocacy,” or what they later call </span><i>zeitgeist</i><span style="font-style:normal"> (129).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Looking at the case of the American Christian Church, I’m not totally sure that any of these factors are presently at work; however, I am mainly concerned with the last one: zeitgeist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Is the current political scene receptive to what the Christians have to say?<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Before I answer that question, let’s try to paint a picture of the political mood.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Running on his reputation for bipartisanship and promising a departure from Washington politics as usual, President Obama gained immense support from voters across the political spectrum.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Two years later, after losing millions of jobs and just a few key seats in the Senate, with the Senate most likely to have a record number of filibusters in a year, and the Republican shellacking in the Democrats in the midterm election, politics isn’t about finding the common ground any more.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s about one side versus the other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s about finding a battleground.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In my first <a href="http://religionandpolitics2010.blogspot.com/2010/10/we-are-not-you-problems-with-american.html">article</a>, I explored the notion that Americans, including American Christians, have come to define themselves not by what they believe, but who is opposed to them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s true: <i>the other is the new identity</i><span style="font-style:normal">.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Here’s an example: as James C. McKinley Jr. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/us/15oklahoma.html?pagewanted=all">reported</a> in the New York Times on November 14<sup>th</sup>, last month, the Oklahoma legislature voted to pass a constitutional amendment that made it illegal for judges to consider Islamic law in deciding cases.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Feeling that the First Amendment would obviously forbid such an action anyways, Democrat Cory Williams voted against the amendment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In the ensuing election, his Republican opponent sent out fliers with Williams next to a “shadowy figure in an arab headdress,” claiming, according to McKinley, “that Williams wanted to allow ‘Islamic “Shariah” law to be used by Oklahoma courts’ and suggested that he was part of ‘an international movement, supported by militant Muslims and liberals,’ to establish Islamic law throughout the world.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Williams won the election, but the amendment passed and several of his fellow Democrats lost their seats, giving Republicans an absolute majority in the legislature, along with the governor’s office, for the first time in the state’s history.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Along with the rest of the country, Oklahoma voted Republican because they are decidedly not Democrats, who are supposedly responsible for the economic mess, and also apparently not Muslim, liberal, and probably not rich or poor, but middle class, and not native or immigrant, but American.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Right now, Maria is probably asking what this has to do with the Christian prophetic voice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Here’s the point: the zeitgeist, the modern political mood, is not conducive to an outspoken, politically active Church trying to find common ground with non-divisive language that encourages neighborly love and understanding. There is a reason why there are raging debates in Washington and on the news about homosexuality and abortion, but none about poverty rights.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Everyone knows that poverty is a problem (although not everyone knows the extent of the problem) but without an opponent, without a battlefield, the political conversation doesn’t lead to heated debate or to any kind of action.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In order to maintain the Christian prophetic voice, then, I propose that the Church focus more on itself than on contributing to political battlefield.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I tend to side with renown Duke University professor Stanley Hauerwas on this issue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In his piece <i>The Servant Community</i><span style="font-style:normal">, Hauerwas challenges the notion that “the primary goal of Christian social ethics should be an attempt to make the world more peaceable and just.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Rather, </span><i>the first social ethical task of the church is to be the church – the servant community… As such, the church does not have a social ethic; the church is a social ethic</i><span style="font-style:normal">” (374).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Hauerwas suggests that the Church do this first by caring for the widow, the poor, and the orphan, about which, if you browse the television and online news networks, you will hear and read nothing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The reason isn’t because no one cares about them, it’s because no one wants to argue about them.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I am not suggesting that American Christians extract themselves from society.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Rather, in a time where many Christians know <a href="http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx">shockingly little</a> about their religion, I am exhorting Christians to regain their identity not based on who they oppose, but who they are as a Church – defined by what they read in the Bible and the common experiences they share with their fellow worshippers in the pews and the homeless, hungry, and uneducated on the streets.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Rather than organize rallies in Washington, churches should organize more outreach efforts that are truly based on love of God and neighbor, rather than love of winning a political battle.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Hopefully, there will be a time soon when the zeitgeist is right for religious political action.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>When that time comes, if the Church can find itself again, its prophetic voice will ring true.<o:p></o:p></p> <!--EndFragment-->jcdavisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06801843216288101552noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253577799886515610.post-62547418184721567622010-12-03T11:17:00.000-08:002010-12-03T11:19:44.090-08:00Facebook: Defending the Online DebateWith over 500 million fans, Facebook is steadily becoming its own global empire. Its influence stretches every day, with more and more people adding the social network to their daily – or hourly – routine the world over. With so many joining the Facebook community to keep close to friends, post pictures, update their profiles, etc., it is little wonder why the media is so enthralled with finding out just how much influence Facebook really has on the political and religious mindsets of its members. <br /><br />In her article, “The Politics of Facebook,” Liz Funk of The Huffington Post affirms that the authority of the social network, while significant, fails to truly inhibit the political decisions of its online members. Despite the growing number of individuals joining activist groups every hour, Funk asserts that entering such organizations usually has little to do with the individual’s beliefs, and more to do with his or her desire to appear politically informed to the world. <br /><br />Such activist groups, ranging from the “Tea Party Patriots” (526,443 members) to the “Liberal Socialists” (1,456 members), have, according to Fink, distracted people from what Facebook was always meant to be, which is a social network for college students to enjoy discussing the goings on of their daily lives. <br /><br />“Facebook is not a place of politicking or a hotbed of Internet activism the way that Myspace might have construed, or utilized by grassroots activists” says Fink. “It's a place of fun and play and college student recklessness in a very online era.” <br /><br />After viewing the activist groups more closely, I was initially compelled to agree with Funk’s argument. I myself have joined an abundance of political organizations (more so than I can count) that have had very little effect on my daily routine, let alone my political mindset.<br /><br />Then again, when dealing with a social network that is quickly becoming Google’s biggest threat, it is useful to recognize that “politics” itself has always been in a state of flux. Even if Facebook’s activist organizations do not seem to meet the general definition of political involvement to people like Liz Funk – involvement that requires its members to meet face-to-face to discuss the issues – it is wrong to assume that such online groups do not manifest many of the qualities that traditional political activist communities have. <br /><br />On Facebook, members are encouraged to express their opinions, start conversations, post polls, debate controversial issues, and ask for answers. In light of these facts, my question to Liz Funk is this: If such activity doesn’t warrant “political engagement,” then what does?<br /><br />Facebook is garnering more and more discussions about controversial issues every day. “Positively Republican!” – a group over 303,376 members strong – offers a surplus of discussion threads for individuals to post their opinions on; these threads range from health care (26 posts) to the definition of American patriotism (a whopping 444 posts). Although a healthy number of these posts dwell on the sillier side of the issue (and some are just plain ridiculous), many of the posts exhibit a well-informed, educational perspective of the topic being discussed. <br /><br />The problem with Liz Funk’s opinion of Facebook is that it only considers one feature of the social network – the feature that allows people to stay connected via wall posts, pictures, etc. While this is the primary component of the website, it is plain to see that Facebook is no longer just for college students wanting to have fun. “Positively Republican!” remains politically involved by inviting government leaders to address an issue on the group’s page every few weeks, then asking them to respond to any questions members might have. Without Facebook, this conversation between the elite political sphere and the normal, everyday individual might not be possible.<br /><br />This online discussion of political issues is rivaled only by the social network’s outlet for religious issues. No other topic on Facebook garners the popularity that politics and religion have, perhaps because neither of them can be discussed as openly in any other forum. Religion – a controversial topic in itself – may be debated without fear of face-to-face confrontation, which is a plus when expressing an opinion that contradicts a religious doctrine. Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Baptist, Anabaptist, Orthodox, Catholic, Mormon… the list goes on. If you can think it, you can join it, and if you can join it, then you can discuss it – all within the safety of your own home. <br /><br />Just like the political activism groups, Facebook’s religious organizations comprise of both stimulating debate and impractical drivel. Facebook’s power, however, lies in its ability to convert whatever political/religious decision a person makes into a universal commodity, meaning that whatever information one puts into its database instantly becomes public knowledge to the Facebook community. Want to join a Jewish organization? Go ahead. Just be prepared for every person in Facebook’s empire (that’s 500 million and counting) to know about it within a few seconds. <br /><br />Facebook, then, is doing much to convert both religion and politics into community-based goods. The mere act of joining a Facebook organization has the power to alter the public opinion of any given topic, regardless of how active one is at replying to discussion threads on the group’s homepage. Once a member joins an organization on Facebook, that decision is made public to the entire Facebook community, thereby transforming the individual’s personal choice into a topic of discussion and debate across the network. <br /><br />Although I contend that Facebook may not yet be the global leader in political and religious activism, I find fault with those who ignore the value of a website that is at present generating more discussion than actual top news sites. As a member of the first generation to experience the birth of such a network, I am inclined to believe that websites like Facebook will only grow more influential as the years progress. With the number of online members increasing every minute, we must either acknowledge Facebook’s activist potential, or be left in the MySpace dust.Chloehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17157056270027355199noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253577799886515610.post-75211121553779611252010-12-02T20:17:00.000-08:002010-12-02T20:22:20.950-08:00My God Says Vote RepublicratTurn a television to Fox News or MSNBC and you will see pundits, commentators and “experts” pontificating on a range of topics from national defense to healthcare. Most Americans agree that the way in which the media handles such issues is frustrating and polarizing, but the fact of the matter is that they would not be able to sustain such an approach if people did not watch. As painful as it may be for each side to admit, both sides are guilty of using the same tactics and practices, albeit usually in support or denunciation of different political agendas. The right-wing nutjobs who call President Obama a socialist and terrorist are using the same approach as the left-wingers who called President Bush a Nazi and war criminal. Having voted for both men, I shudder to think what that makes me. Pol Pot reincarnate, perhaps? Joseph Stalin redux, maybe? God forbid someone find virtue in certain parts of two policies put forth by different political parties.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the same behavior is now applied within the Christian community of the nation with people self-segregating themselves into like-minded enclaves impenetrable to countervailing notions and hostile toward differing viewpoints. To an extent, this has long been the case, particularly in America, which has never had an official national religion. American Christians have always aligned themselves with various denominational ideologies, be they Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopalian or otherwise. <br /><br />For most of the nation’s history, it is safe to say that such denominational alliances shaped and informed their congregants’ religious and political views. Some placed greater emphasis on personal salvation and accountability, others on collective responsibility and social action. Still, without trying to gloss over the many accounts of intra-faith squabbling and subject legitimate accounts of unrest to the lovely patina of nostalgia, there was a separation of political belief and spiritual belief within individuals that allowed for someone to be both a Baptist and a Democrat, or a Republican and a Methodist. <br /><br />What’s alarming about the state of both political and religious discourse today is that there is very little effort made to understand or accommodate the other side. And why should we? Forty years ago, an elected representative likely had to appease the interests of a very diverse constituency. There were very few homogeneous congressional districts throughout most of the country. A legislator could not risk alienating minorities because while they may not hold a majority of the votes in his district, they may have enough to swing it to his opponent in the next election. <br /><br />Now, thanks to the short sighted belief that the only way to ensure adequate representation is to elect someone who looks just like you and thinks just like you and the subsequent redistricting, legislators are far more likely to represent a constituency that is so uniform in composition that he need not worry about offending a lesser yet still significant portion of his district. While this allows for largely black areas to elect a black man to Congress, they now only have one person looking out for their interests as opposed to several who could not neglect a vital portion of their electorate. In the democratic process of the legislature, this means that minority voices may be more apparent, but less effective.<br /><br />The same is true of America’s churches as Americans have increasingly sought religious sanctuary among the like-minded. Don’t like the preacher telling you to be nice to the poor? No problem. There’s probably another church preaching a message that poverty is a course from God right around the corner. While this allows Christians to take comfort in knowing their own beliefs will be reassured for an hour each Sunday, it is wretchedly detrimental to the quality and content of religious discourse among the citizenry.<br /><br />Another facet of this trend is the increasingly partisan character of these ever more political religious congregations. Sunday morning preaching is more and more taking on the character of the Gospel according to Reagan or to Roosevelt than to Christ. People seem to be shaping their spiritual beliefs to fit their political leanings rather than vice versa. So if you are politically liberal, you can find a church that condones homosexuality and defends abortion as a woman’s right to choose, while conservatives can attend one that teaches AIDS to be the righteous scourge on the wicked and that a woman’s place is in the kitchen. This is not a healthy atmosphere for fostering open and honest discussion.<br /><br />Both sides are to blame for this stalemate. Conservatives can be blamed for putting too great an emphasis on homosexuality as the great damning offense and denouncing pro-life advocates as wicked while ignoring their responsibility to the poor and disenfranchised set forth throughout Scripture. Liberal advocacy for gay rights often takes on such an air of condescension that it neglects Scriptural precepts against homosexuality, as their defense of a woman’s “right” to choose rejects even the possibility that abortion is the ending of a potential life. <br /><br />This results in a form of pendulum politics with the two sides alternating two-year policy binges while pitting Christian against Christian and church against church. It is true that MSNBC and Fox News over-emphasize the divisions between us, but as we increasingly divide ourselves along “fundamental” lines, the hyperbole of the punditry is gradually becoming more of a reality, with the American church at the vortex of the Zeitgeist. <br /><br />The Christian moral imperative is to do good in the world, but not to the extent that it ignores sin. Social Justice is a derivative of Scripture but not the Gospel in totality. Ironically, the Christian church could learn a lesson from a French Atheist, Albert Camus. “What I feel like telling you today is that the world needs real dialogue, that falsehood is just as much the opposite of dialogue as silence, and that the only possible dialogue is the kind between two people who remain what they are and speak their minds.thegentlemanfromgeorgiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16026296037873553371noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253577799886515610.post-33068066346516324532010-11-12T13:56:00.000-08:002011-03-31T13:47:47.063-07:00Gay Suicide and the Evangelical Ethic of Love: A Response to Eric Reitan’s Article<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivKYnJwz4rwAGlQKfkJurtfULRgqEOrV2ArteH5RLlPNH785Y8YmPwXVUb2OMMSp7j57Hm8cKfV_DFhEloiYF3zMk9_yph4A84X8P4zpqf6bVvMXWnNhwkVNlkjG6uZx3QuqG_HfQE5kTe/s1600/jesus+in+sky.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 300px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivKYnJwz4rwAGlQKfkJurtfULRgqEOrV2ArteH5RLlPNH785Y8YmPwXVUb2OMMSp7j57Hm8cKfV_DFhEloiYF3zMk9_yph4A84X8P4zpqf6bVvMXWnNhwkVNlkjG6uZx3QuqG_HfQE5kTe/s320/jesus+in+sky.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5590348599701581394" /></a><br />Eric Reitan’s article in Religion Dispatches, “Gay Suicide and the Ethic of Love: A Progressive Christian Response” addresses the recent string of tragic suicides of young gay men. He asserts that the evangelical response should be one of love rather than a fixation on a “conservative interpretation” of scripture that focuses on judgment. “Any theory of the Bible,” Reitman states, “that requires me to ignore my neighbors in favor of teasing out the correct meaning of Romans 1:24-27 seems to do an injustice to the Bible’s heart.” <br /><br />Reitan’s framing of this issue is on point—he suggests that many evangelicals focus on fragmented passages of scripture rather than the Bible’s overarching message. However, I take issue with the way Reitan structures possible responses in either/or terms: either one wholly celebrates or wholly condemns homosexuals and homosexuality. This is a shallow and unhelpful treatment of a complex matter. In an attempt to flesh out a fuller understanding of this issue, I will make two claims in what follows: first, that there is an alternative response to the problem at hand for evangelicals. Secondly, this response—given the fact that the conversion of many conservative evangelicals to what they see as a “gay agenda” is not to likely to occur quickly—is the most pragmatically fruitful.<br /><br /> Reitan says that: “If you accept the conservative view about the Bible’s content and its relation to God, either you’ll need to stifle the lessons of compassion and empathy, or you’ll need to refuse to listen with compassion and empathy in the first place.” Here Reitan asserts that there can be no loving response to homosexuals outside of total acceptance of all facets of homosexuality. He seems to assume that a full conversion of the deep-rooted beliefs of evangelicals is necessary in order for them to address gay suicide in any kind of meaningful way. It is undeniable that many of the evangelicals in question have paid little to no attention to this problem and have, in many ways, even condoned it. However, I question how constructive Reitan’s proposition is when it essentially calls for evangelicals to change much of their foundational moral authority overnight, but I will say more to that later. <br /><br />I suggest instead a third, seemingly obvious, but more pragmatic ethic to propose to opposing evangelicals: Christ’s command to love one’s enemy. An ethic of love founded in the gospel teaches us that we are intended to love not just our neighbor, but also our enemies. The implicit suggestion of this proposition may seem harsh—that homosexuals are the enemies of evangelicals, but it is a starting point for dialogue. It works to seat these parties at the table, in spite of their enormous differences. It reminds evangelicals that, regardless of their convictions about the (in)validity of homosexuality, they are morally obligated by the gospel to reconcile with this group. The discussion then is no longer about whether or not homosexuality has a biblical foundation—it can assumed for the sake of argument that it does not—but rather about how one can be most obedient to the gospel command. Evangelicals, if they heed Christ’s command, must sit down and address the safety of LGBTQ populations directly, instead of engaging in debates on its “naturalness” or biblical validity; tabling this issue is the beginning of an evangelical response.<br /><br /> Reitan’s starting point, conversely, seems to be that evangelicals should be persuaded by the progressive perspective to wholly change their views and accept the validity of homosexuality. In this sense, Reitan is not supporting an ethic of love, which obligates Christians to address the problem by working toward reconciliation, but rather he seeks to solve the problem by removing it altogether. He suggests an assimilation of progressive values by evangelicals which does injustice to the inherent complexity of this issue. An ethic of love which seeks assimilation instead of reconciliation is neither an ethic nor is it loving, but rather it is a patent annexation of one ideology by the other. Interestingly, this morally thick rhetoric is similar to that used by many of the said evangelicals who turn a blind eye to the issue of gay bullying and violence. Thus Reitan’s ethic of love may differ in content, but in terms of structure and style it is essentially the same argument as that of his opponents. Genuine transformation and reconciliation does not occur through polemical debates such as these but rather through mutual respect and dialogue.<br /><br />The reason why Reitan’s approach fails prima facie is because, as mentioned above, he frames the issue in a polemical manner that has a divisive function. Reitan’s approach ultimately fails because he takes for granted just how dissimilar conservative evangelicals and progressives are. Implicit in his article is the idea that these two groups share enough foundational values to challenge one another’s interpretations. However, they are two very different ideologies with distinct moral vocabularies. “At the center of each are two distinct conceptions of moral authority,” James Hunter explains, “two different ways of apprehending reality, of ordering experience, of making moral judgments. […] Each side represents the tendencies of a separate and competing moral galaxy.” Thus for Reitan to assert that conservative evangelicals can or will assume progressive views such as the affirmation of homosexuality is largely naive of the fact that the difference is essentially a categorical one. The conservative evangelical view of homosexuality then is not what stymies engagement between these groups. Rather, it is the evangelical understanding of the nature and authority of scripture, Christian doctrine, and traditional mores—which are the hermeneutical framework through which all other experience is adjudicated. All ideologies are necessarily mediated through experience. If homosexuality were simply a matter of the interpretation of scripture, then the views of these two groups regarding the discussion at hand (and many others) would be much easier to reach consensus on. <br /><br />Considering the fact that these two groups are fundamentally different, restructuring our understanding of how they should interact is pertinent. Dialogue between them should focus less on ideology and more on shared goals, since, as mentioned, change in ideology is not likely to happen quickly, if at all; such a change is not a pragmatic solution for an imminent crisis. A goal oriented approach which respects differences between groups while looking for ways to collaborate resembles healthy interreligious dialogue more than inter-Christian dialogue. In the former, religious groups do not challenge the premises of each other’s religion; they look for places of “shared righteous action,” as Christoph Schwobel conceives of the matter. They focus on common goals such as justice, compassion and safety for all people, despite the fact that they approach these issues from different premises. Many Christians may find my suggestion that these two groups are so radically different troubling. I find it troubling also. However I believe this is an important distinction to make in order to address the issue at hand. It is my hope that evangelicals and progressives can recognize this difference so that, rather than arguing over the premises in which their claims are founded, they can approach the crisis of gay suicide with a focus on ending it. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Works Cited<br />Hunter, James. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. New York: Basic Books Press, 1991.<br /><br />Reitan, Eric, “Gay Suicide and the Ethic of Love: a Progressive Christian Response.” Religion Dispatches (October 2010) http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender /3531/gay_suicide_and_the_ethic_of_love%3A_a_progressive_christian_response (retrieved October 31, 2010) [The article which the author is responding to]<br /><br />Schwobel, Christoph. “Particularity, Universality, and the Religions.” In Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions. Edited by Gavin D’Costa, 30-46. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books,1992.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253577799886515610.post-59947943418616946362010-11-12T13:27:00.000-08:002010-11-12T13:29:07.354-08:00Correctional Dilemma<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Cambria;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 32px;"> <!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal">During the last few months I have been given the opportunity to work in a local women’s prison as well as take a class learning about the justice system in the United States. My understanding of this system has been challenged during my time there. Until recently, I found myself apathetic to the topic of the prison system. People commit crimes, they must pay for their crimes, and prison is where they go to serve out these sentences. And while I do have strong opinions about the death penalty, I had forgotten the presence of a whole other population serving time as well.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">This experience has shown me first-hand the dilemma the United States correctional system faces. Incarceration rates are skyrocketing, the economic cost of housing inmates strains state governments, and the recidivism rate continually rises. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>At the same time, funding for rehabilitation programs is almost non-existent, and what is in place has not come easily. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Many times, in my own experiences and in the material I have read, it is as if we have forgotten that we all have a humanity, even those that have broken our laws. How do we fix this problem? How do we remind a nation—which is determined to have a system of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">punitive </i>justice—that our punitive <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">response </i>hurts society as a whole?</p> <p class="MsoNormal">To help put these statements in perspective, here are a few facts and statistics about the correctional system. According to Senator Jim Webb’s Fact Sheet, “the United States currently incarcerates 750 inmates per 100,000 persons; the world average is 166 per 100,000.” This means more than one in one hundred citizens are imprisoned in American jails or prisons. Both male and female incarcerations rates have increased dramatically over the past three decades. Each year, 3.2 million women are arrested, and while many of these women are later released without being charged, 156,000 of those women will be held prior to trial or as prisoners after sentencing. And, according to Beth E. Richie, author of “The Social Impact of Mass Incarceration on Women,” these numbers represent a tripling of the female inmate population since 1985. For men, the numbers are ever more staggering:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>the incarceration rate rose 573% from 1980 to 1997 and has continued to rise today. According to The Pew Center on the States, 1 in 13 adults is under correctional control in Georgia.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>While incarceration rates have gone through the roof without a proportionate increase in crime.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>According to Senator Webb, the rise in incarceration rates results from changes in the penal code.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Decreasing crime rate has less to do with increased incarceration as a deterrent to crime than with changing policy dealing with sentencing “in terms of time served and the range of offenses meriting incarceration.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Local, state, and federal governments face an economic crisis of prison cost. Senator Webb says “in 2006, states spent an estimated $2 billion on prison construction, three times the amount they were spending fifteen years earlier.” This amount, combined with the total cost of law enforcement and the daily expenditure associated with corrections, totals over $200 billion annually. To break that down, Christine Rathbone, in her book <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">A World Apart: Women, Prison, and Life Behind Bards, </i>says housing one inmate for a year costs $38,000 on average. According to The Pew Center on the States, Georgia spent $1.1 billion on corrections in 2007.</p><p class="MsoNormal">And while these costs could be somewhat understandable if they had a positive impact on society, the rising recidivism rate suggests otherwise . According to Senator Webb, “the number of ex-offenders reentering their communities has increased fourfold in the past two decades. On average, however, two out of every three released prisoners will be rearrested and one in two will return to prison within three years of release.” This is due much in part to the way our correctional system currently functions.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">During the 1970s, the correctional system went through a transformation. According to Bruce Western, in his book <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Punishment and Inequality in America, </i>“the official philosophy of rehabilitation was replaced with a punitive approach.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Western describes this approach as characterized by policy analyst James Q. Wilson—characterized by policy analyst James Q. Wilson—as the view “that criminals were not made in the poor and broken homes that dotted traditional criminology; they were born into the world wicked and covetous. Rehabilitation was a sentimental delusion for this tough-minded analysis. Incarceration could reduce crime only by locking away the hard cases and by deterring the opportunists. To deter, punishment had to be certain and not left to the vagaries of the sentencing judge and the parole hearing.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Because of this change during the 1970s and opinions akin to those of Wilson, we now face a dilemma. How should we approach rising rates of incarceration <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">and </i>recidivism along with the increased economic costs of the correctional system? We are unable simply to “lock offenders up” as a solution, we must again look closely at communities, they way households and neighborhoods foster crime, and these as ways of understanding how to prevent the formation of criminal behavior leading up to and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">after </i>prison.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Though not a new concept for the United States, perhaps a return to greater sentencing flexibility and supportive services would reduce recidivism in a manner less costly than housing inmates.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Western says the main objective of such a system was to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">correct</i> (not merely to punish). It gave judges freedom to determine whether an offender should be incarcerated, or be sentenced to community service under the direction of a parole officer. Further, Western argues that while most convictions did not lead to incarceration, those that did faced an institution focused on rehabilitating the offender to help them become a productive member of society. Western quotes David Garland as describing this system as a “combination of indeterminate sentencing, corrections, and community supervision as ‘penal welfarism.’” For the vast majority of convicted offenders, the criminal justice system was an extension of the welfare state—a government-sponsored effort to provide opportunity and lift society’s failures back into the mainstream.” This sort of approach would help decrease economic cost by reducing the rate of incarceration while promoting a type of rehabilitation proactively working to reduce the recidivism rate by educating and preparing offenders for society once more. Funding previously spent on prison facilities could be used to increase educational and job programs along with counseling and other types of rehabilitative curricula.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Something we seem to have forgotten when dealing with criminal offenders is that they too are human beings. They too are created in the image of God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They too deserve to be treated as such. While it is not okay to violate laws of our society, we cannot just lock individuals up and hope they learn from their mistakes. We must actively pursue an avenue that helps returns them to society with the resources for fulsome, appropriate participation in public life. Christine Rathbone quotes Jeanne Woodford, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>“I don’t want to forget that this is about people, about humanity.” As the United States faces this dilemma of rising rates of incarceration, recidivism, and economic cost in a system dominated by a punitive idea of justice, we must remember that this is about people, about humanity. </p> <!--EndFragment--> </span></span>Caroline Culverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15226301364989790489noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253577799886515610.post-38949418847727566332010-11-12T13:08:00.000-08:002010-11-12T13:09:49.418-08:00Reclaiming our Christian Voice<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:applybreakingrules/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:usefelayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style=""> </span>This past weekend at his satirical rally "to Restore Sanity”, Jon Stewart presented awards to individuals whose words and actions exemplify reasonableness. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style=""> </span>Jon Stewart isn't the first to point out what seems to be an escalating lack of civility, respect, and common courtesy, in public conversation.<span style=""> </span>Although there is much debate concerning the appropriate place of the Christian voice in public life, it is my opinion that the key area of influence for Christians is the arena of respectful public engagement.<span style=""> </span>Too often the Christian voice is an active participant in angry public rhetoric. At the very least the Christian population is not speaking up in a significant way against such demonizing behavior, thus condoning it and helping to perpetuate its existence. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style=""> </span>This is not just a matter of manners. Key democratic virtues such as equal opportunity, justice, fairness etc, are at stake in how we approach strong disagreement.<span style=""> </span>Respect and tolerance for one another must be evidenced by use of language that reflects these core democratic virtues</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Irresponsible language is language that, encourages fear, supports intolerance, and promotes suspicion of individuals or groups, demonizing them for the sake of scoring political points, manipulating public opinion, and turning opponents into enemies. It is an example of irresponsible use of language to go on national T.V. and say that Muslims killed US citizens on 9/11.<span style=""> </span>Although it is an indisputable fact that the perpetrators of this crime were Muslim, it was irresponsible to infer that being Muslim was the cause of the crime. Juan Williams, and Bill O’Rielly have both used language this way to encourage hate and fear of the Muslim people.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style=""> </span>Irresponsible use of language is in play also when either a direct or indirect assertion is made that President Obama is Muslim. Currently Muslims and political party candidates are among the many targets of defamation from the inflammatory unsubstantiated language used in our public discourse.<span style=""> </span>The intentionality of rhetoric is recognized in the use of the term swift boating which was coined to mean slandering someone to the point of destroying their chances of winning and also in the verbiage of harassment and bullying.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Defamation also leads to physical harm.<span style=""> </span>It is irresponsible to run ads on T.V that suggest that gay marriage will lead to the teaching of a homosexual agenda in public schools. This type of public language is dangerous because apart from being a gross manipulation of the truth, rhetoric of this variety can and has led to acts of violence. Examples of this abound.<span style=""> </span>It is not a stretch to see the recent string of suicides and other acts of violence against young gay men as connected to a general environment of intolerance perpetuated by anti gay T.V. ads.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style=""> </span>Timothy McVeigh committed his unspeakable crimes during the height of anti-government rhetoric and militia movements that closely resembles statements and campaign advertisements produced by the Tea Party movement today. It is also easy to make a connection between anti-Muslim rhetoric in the media and the Florida pastor's intention to hold a public burning of the Koran. In short our language itself can be violent. Even when our language carefully treads on the border of inference and suggestion, it has actively contributed to a hostile political environment.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">In a recent commentary for Religion Dispatches Gary Laderman argues that one can “Pick any decade from American history and find political leaders encouraging hate—both to protect American values and interests and to strengthen the civil religious ties that are supposed to bind us all together… hate Indians, hate blacks, hate Jews, hate anarchists, hate war protestors, hate government, hate the North, hate the South, hate the gays…” Laderman points out that political discourse, including an appeal to shared religious values, (often white Christian and protestant) is frequently used for the tactical purpose of demonizing any group with which we find ourselves in disagreement. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Although Christians are guilty of participating in this type of destructive rhetoric, religion is not solely responsible for the negative direction of public conversation, and people of faith are not solely responsible for its existence.<span style=""> </span>Despite the despicable ways religion and has participated in these political tactics, an appeal back to Christian virtues can contribute positively as a corrective to hateful discourse. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">I strongly believe that Christians can and must speak prophetically about the need for an environment of tolerance and even charity toward one another. The center of Christian ethics being neighborly love can make a powerful and positive contribution in the framing of public conversation. As Christians in community we should hold one another accountable when we fall short of anything less than civil, respectful public discourse.<span style=""> </span>This can occur in our daily lives among friends, family and colleagues, but it also has broader implications for shaping and discerning everyday media content. Individually, but also collectively we must form standards for civil conversation and then demand that standard be met in public discourse. We must use the Christian language of goodwill as the measure against which we judge our public discourse.<span style=""> </span>To not participate in intolerant, demonizing speech is not enough; we must speak out against violent and hate-filled language both as responsible Christians and good citizens.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Although Laderman is correct in his assessment that religious language has been used to demonize people and institutions, it is also within the American tradition to use religious language to call back and correct our moral failings.<span style=""> </span>I find powerful Lincoln’s second inaugural address as a powerful witness in his use of deeply religious language to explain the just cause of the civil war. Despite the horrific nature of the war, Lincoln spoke prophetically about bringing an end to slavery, using Christian language not for rallying hate toward the confederate states but “with malice toward none, with charity for all.” as Robert Bellah points out “he closes on a note of reconciliation” (Robert,<span style=""> </span>Bellah “Civil Religion in America”, 177)</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">President Jimmy Carter is a more recent example of a Christian politician who has used his Christian values to positively shape public discourse.<span style=""> </span>In his book “Our Endangered Values” Carter states that “many members of the general public, legislators, federal judges, Christians and other believers are still searching for harmonious answers to most of the controversial religious and political questions. <span style=""> </span>It is in America’s best interest to understand one another and to find as much common ground as possible.” (Carter, <i>Our Endangered Values</i>, 5) <span style=""> </span>Carter speaks candidly and civilly as a born again Christian, employing that language of goodwill for charitable conversations even with his strongest opponents. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Today Christians must become again a model of civility and reconciliation. If we fail to rescue our prophetic voice then the Christian contribution to the political community will be regrettably linked to violence, ignorance, and intolerance. As Christians and Americans this would be a failure to live up to our religious principles as well as our democratic values. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </p>Maria Caronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01985247306076338023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253577799886515610.post-17461104957166859832010-11-12T11:53:00.000-08:002010-11-12T12:02:57.186-08:00Does Religious Speech Belong in Public Discourse?<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: left;">The sudden spurt of suicides related to anti-gay bullying has shocked our country.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What is more shocking to me, however, is the vast difference between the responses of the secular communities and those within the Christian community.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There are Christian voices that have spoken out in defense of the marginalized, bullied, mentally and physically tortured, gay children.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But it is impossible to ignore the often louder voices on the Christian right backed up by their own interpretation of Christian </p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: left;">What we have in the wake of these tragedies, then, is an example of two dangerous trends in modern American society: the inability for the Christian religious right to engage in productive conversation with the left and the impossibility to create public discourse between the religious and non-religious due to a lack of common language. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">For example, in response to the outcry against anti-gay bullying, Tony Perkins, the president of the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council, wrote an <a href="http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/10/christian_compassion_requires_the_truth_about_harms_of_homosexuality.html">article</a> in The Washington Post entitled, “Christian compassion requires the truth about harms of homosexuality.” Perkins, who was a member of the Louisiana legislature for eight years before becoming president of the FRC (whose slogan is, according to their website, is “Advocating Faith, Family, and Freedom), argued a shift of blame from the teachings of Christian conservatives against homosexuals to the conduct of the bullies themselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The root of the problem, according to Perkins, is not the fact that society is still violently resisting homosexuality, but that homosexuals innately experience higher rates of mental health problems in general, unrelated to “society’s general disapproval.” </p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So far, any right-wing anti-gay politician, regardless of religious conviction, could have written this public response.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There is no religious language; it is intelligible to the entire American public.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But the problem for productive public discourse arises in the undergirding religious language in his argument.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>After citing scientific evidence for his position, he continues to write, “The most important thing that Christians can offer to homosexuals is hope-- hope that their sins, just like the sins of anyone else, can be forgiven and their lives transformed by the power of Jesus Christ.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This sentiment only communicates to Christians, leaving all non-Christians and those unfamiliar with Christian theology oblivious to its meaning. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">With respect to open, inclusive public discourse, however, the religious left is not a better alternative. For example, in his religionsdispatches.com <a href="http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/3479/why_anti-gay_bullying_is_a_theological_issue">article</a> “Why Anti-Gay Bullying is a Theological Issue,” Cody Sanders offered these comments by Boston College professor Dr. M. Shawn Copeland to the anti-gay bullying conversation:</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>“If my sister or brother is not at the table, we are not the flesh of Christ. If my sister’s <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>mark of sexuality must be obscured, if my brother’s mark of race must be disguised, if <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>my sister’s mark of culture must be repressed, then we are not the flesh of Christ. For, it <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>is through and in Christ’s own flesh that the <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>‘other’ is my sister, is my brother; indeed, the <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>‘other’ is me…”</p><p class="MsoNormal">The point is clear – even the language from the religious left can hope only to converse with the opposing language of the religious right, and vice versa.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They are not engaging with the wider American public, and if they are, the majority of that public is most likely not receiving the intended message.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Certainly, when, on a national <a href="http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx">quiz</a> of <i>basic</i><span style="font-style:normal"> Christian and Biblical knowledge given by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, the highest scoring denomination gets 60% of the questions correct, one can hardly expect any type of theological argument to be understood by more than small percentage of religious Americans.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></span> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">However, on the basis of free speech, it is impossible for me – and, ideally, for any other American – to claim that these voices should be silenced.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Nevertheless, when the language of these personal ethical convictions becomes unintelligible to the secular community, it can be destructive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>My concern here is not the destruction of public morals or discourse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Rather, the involvement of religion – specifically, Christianity – in political discourse threatens its sacred integrity. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">My concerns are rooted in the admonitions by two monumental political philosophers: James Madison and Alexis de Tocqueville. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In a remonstrance against a bill proposed by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia entitled, “A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” Madison argued for the separation of church and state not only to protect the personal religious convictions of the people from the meddling of the state, but also to protect the state from religion, condemning employing religion “as an engine of Civil policy,” claiming that such an act is “an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.” Likewise, in his book <i>Democracy in America</i><span style="font-style:normal">, de Tocqueville examined the roll of religion in American culture, warning:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-style:normal"></span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>“when a religion chooses to rely on the interests of this world, it becomes almost as fragile <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>as all earthly powers… Hence any alliance with any political power whatsoever is <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>bound to be burdensome for religion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It does not need their support in order to live, <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>and in serving them it may die” (298).</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Such profound admonitions, therefore, should encourage one to condemn the use of religious language in public, and specifically political, conversation. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Still, as the predominant Christian theologian Stanley Hauerwas points out in his essay “A Christian Critique of Christian America,” “our religious convictions cannot be relegated to one sphere of our lives and our social and political activities to another” (462).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Nevertheless, he maintains the same fear that excessive participation in the secular community threatens to degrade the prophetic and salvific power of Christianity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>One partial remedy to this problem, according to Hauerwas, is that Christianity shed its Constantinian status and permanently relegate itself to a position as a “diaspora religion,” where it can speak prophetically about social and political problems without corrupting its traditions as a means to personal salvation. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">It seems, therefore, that American Christians have a choice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The first is to continue religious discourse in the public conversation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The second is to restrict it to the private sphere.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The first solution risks continued association due to common opposition, as in when matters of social morality become national topics of heated contention simply because of their inherent nature to be argued (i.e. gay marriage and abortion, as opposed to poverty rights and widespread hunger that rarely experience the level of heated national conversation), and the secularization and corruption of religion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The second risks complete exclusion of religion from the public sphere where it may be needed to provide both an opportunity for common association and a tool for moral action, such as in advocating for the rights of the poor or alleviating neighborhood violence.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">I cannot hope to offer a cure-all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I can only hope that the religious left and right can find a way to speak to the greater American society without risking their own unique positions as prophetic Christian voices.<o:p></o:p></p> <!--EndFragment-->jcdavisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06801843216288101552noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253577799886515610.post-8084552998759455912010-11-12T10:04:00.000-08:002010-11-12T10:13:27.463-08:00<!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">Se</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">xual responsibility ( Preach and Politicians ) </span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> Eddie Dowdy II</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">"Aware of the suffering caused by </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">sexual</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> misconduct, I undertake to cultivate </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">responsibility</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> and learn ways to protect the safety and integrity of individuals, couples, families, and society. I am determined not to engage in </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">sexual</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> relations without love and a long- term commitment. To preserve the happiness of myself and others, I am determined to respect my commitments and the commitments of others. I will do everything in my power to protect children from </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">sexual</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> abuse and to prevent couples and families from being broken by </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">sexual</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> misconduct” -</span></span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">THICH NHAT HANH</span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=808455299875945591#_ftn1" name="_ftnref" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">[1]</span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">Sexual responsibility is a cultivated way of life that protects the safety and integrity of society.</span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=808455299875945591#_ftn2" name="_ftnref" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">[2]</span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> Sexual responsibility should be considered as a universal ethical virtue that governs humanity. Leaders in the human community should be aware that sexual irresponsibility could cause major interior fractions in society. Moreover, leaders should never engage in sexually irresponsible acts, due to the potential harm it could bring to the human community. The reality in American society is that social and spiritual leaders cannot seem to grasp the concept of being sexually responsible. In the last three decades many individuals, children, couples, and families have been destroyed by the </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">sexual</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> misconduct of preachers and politicians. The lack of sexual integrity is an embarrassing ground of commonality to find leaders such as preachers and politicians. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">Why Preachers?<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: 24.0pt;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">American Christian Preachers tragically have not been sexually responsible over the past three decades. Strangely sexual irresponsibility is becoming a cultivated norm within mega pastors circles especially in the Metro Atlanta area . In </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">2006 archbishop Earl Paulk, former pastor of mega church Cathedral of the Holy Spirit at Chapel Hill Harvester Church in Decatur, GA, was sued by former church employee Mona Brewer.</span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=808455299875945591#_ftn3" name="_ftnref" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">[3]</span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> In the lawsuit Mrs. Brewer claimed Earl Paulk manipulated her into an affair from</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">1989 to 2003 by telling her it was her only path to salvation.</span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=808455299875945591#_ftn4" name="_ftnref" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">[4]</span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">In a 2006 deposition stemming from the lawsuit, the archbishop said under oath that the only woman he had ever had sex with outside of his marriage was Brewer.</span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=808455299875945591#_ftn5" name="_ftnref" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">[5]</span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> However, a 2007 court-ordered paternity test revealed Archbishop Earl Paulk slept with his brother's wife and fathered a child by her.</span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=808455299875945591#_ftn6" name="_ftnref" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">[6]</span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: 24.0pt;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">Similarly, </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">Bishop Eddie L. Long ,who is the </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">pastor of an mega church in suburban Atlanta found himself in the center of a sex scandal of. In October of 2010, </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">four Georgia men filed a lawsuit claiming that the prominent Atlanta, GA, pastor coerced them into sex.</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">The suit, allege that Long used his position as a spiritual authority and bishop to coerce young male members and employees of his New Birth Missionary Baptist Church into sex. </span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=808455299875945591#_ftn7" name="_ftnref" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">[7]</span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">Bishop Paulk and Bishop Long </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> are just two samples of the tragic reality of sexual </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">irresponsibility</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> being practiced by American preachers. American preachers, or any preacher for that matter, should be fully committed to protecting the structure and integrity of community and individuals, but this has not been the case .<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: 24.0pt;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> </span></span></span></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: 24.0pt;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">Why </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">Politicians ?</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> </span></span></span></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:15.0pt;line-height:22.0pt;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">American politicians have also tragically been sexually irresponsible over the past three decades.</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> In January of 2010, former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards admitted that he had fathered a child outside of his marriage with a former campaign videographer, confirming tragic rumors and reports. Edwards publicly admitted to the affair with Mrs. Hunter, after the</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> </span></span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">National Enquirer</span></span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">reported that he was the child's father. </span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=808455299875945591#_ftn8" name="_ftnref" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">[8]</span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> Similarly, former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was caught practicing sexual misconduct. </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">In March 2008,then Governor Spitzer who gained national prominence by relentlessly pursuing Wall Street wrongdoing, was caught on a</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">federal wiretap arranging to meet with a high-priced prostitute at a Washington hotel . </span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=808455299875945591#_ftn9" name="_ftnref" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">[9]</span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">Mr. Spitzer, apologized for his behavior, and described it as a “private matter.”</span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=808455299875945591#_ftn10" name="_ftnref" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">[10]</span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> Spitzer also declared, “I have acted in a way that violates my obligation to my family”.</span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=808455299875945591#_ftn11" name="_ftnref" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">[11]</span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">John Edwards and </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">Eliot Spitzer </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">are two more examples of the tragic reality of sexual </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">irresponsibility</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> being practiced by American politicians. As public leaders, politicians should protect the public with their actions, but this has not been the case. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:15.0pt;line-height:22.0pt;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">How ?</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:15.0pt;line-height:22.0pt;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">It is clear that </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">sexual misconduct is an embarrassing ground of commonality for American preachers and politicians. However, the pressing question is, “Who is responsible for this lack of sexually integrity amongst preachers and politicians?”. I think that every preacher or politician is personally responsible for their own individual actions. However, American society as a whole is partly responsible for the actions of our spiritual and social leaders. We treat our preachers and politicians as if they are demi-gods and goddess. This type of treatment towards our spiritual and social leaders has in some way harnessed an untouchable attitude amongst our leaders. As an African American preacher, I am almost embarrassed by the unnecessary royal treatment given to me when I visit churches as a guest speaker. I can only imagine how communities treat powerful politicians. Spiritual and social leaders should try not to take advantage of the power given. Likewise communities should shift from treating our preachers and politicians like celebrities. Sexual responsibility is a cultivated way of life that protects the safety and integrity of society. We should all try to remember it is our duty to practice sexual responsibility. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> </span></span></span><div style="mso-element:footnote-list"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"><br /></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> </span><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"> <div id="ftn"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:21.0pt;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=808455299875945591#_ftnref" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">[1]</span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> </span></span></span><a href="http://dharma.ncf.ca/introduction/precepts/ForAFuture.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">Thich Nhat Hanh</span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> The Third Precept Sexual Responsibility </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=808455299875945591#_ftnref" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">[2]</span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> ibi</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=808455299875945591#_ftnref" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">[3]</span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> http://www.msnbc.msn.com</span></span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> The Associated Press 2007</span></span></span></i><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> </span></span></span></i></p> </div> <div id="ftn"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=808455299875945591#_ftnref" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">[4]</span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> ibi</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=808455299875945591#_ftnref" name="_ftn5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">[5]</span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> ibi</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=808455299875945591#_ftnref" name="_ftn6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">[6]</span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> ibi</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=808455299875945591#_ftnref" name="_ftn7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">[7]</span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> </span></span></span><a href="http://ww.cnn.com/"><span style="text-decoration:none; text-underline:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">http://ww.cnn.com</span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> 2010</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=808455299875945591#_ftnref" name="_ftn8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">[8]</span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/22/</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=808455299875945591#_ftnref" name="_ftn9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">[9]</span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10</span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=808455299875945591#_ftnref" name="_ftn10" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">[10]</span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> ibi</span></span></span></p> </div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=808455299875945591#_ftnref" name="_ftn11" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">[11]</span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> ibi</span></span></span></p> </div> </div> <!--EndFragment-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16486642675147540651noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253577799886515610.post-12093965480186083802010-11-12T09:30:00.001-08:002010-11-12T09:32:57.499-08:00Americanism and God Talk<!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal">In the infancy of Christianity, spread throughout the Roman Empire, the early church found itself without “voice” and without “power.”<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The Roman Empire persecuted the early Christians for a number of reasons, one being the thought that Christians were atheists.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Sure they believed in a God, but they didn’t believe in a god approved by the Roman Empire.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The Jews were fine because they had been practicing their Judaism for some time now and the Romans saw them as relatively harmless, the Greeks were fine because by and large they didn’t have a god, and the romans were ok because, well they had Caesar.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The Christians, however, were a weird anomaly, an insidious cult trying to subvert the Roman way of religion and life.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>We know that Christians weren’t atheists, but to the Romans they were because they didn’t believe in gods that were known to be “safe” to the empire, gods that weren’t going to stir things up, gods that were docile and domesticated.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>For all intents and purposes it was a new deity brought into the Empire that threatened the pantheon of the Romans and the normal way of doing things.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Not to mention these new Christians refused to participate in the standard religious fare of the time, which only further heightened suspicions of their atheism because of their refusal to pay homage to the god of the empire.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>All of these things compounded not because the Christians didn’t have a God, but because their God wasn’t inextricably tied up with the Empire.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Essentially, they were considered atheists because they wouldn’t “do as the romans did”<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">This ultimately leads me to my point—When in America it is meet and right to do as the Americans do.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In 2008 76% of Americans self-identified with having Christian convictions, while 15% claimed no religious convictions and a meager 3.5% associated with the “fringe” religions such as Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and New Age religions.<a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn1" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=1209396548018608380#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: JA;mso-bidi-language:AR-SAfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">[1]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Even more specific in the state I’m writing (Georgia) 68% said that religion is “very important in their lives,” and in my home state Indiana 60% said the same thing.<a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn2" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=1209396548018608380#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character:footnote"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: JA;mso-bidi-language:AR-SAfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">[2]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The point being, that overwhelmingly, Americans identify themselves as religious and predominately Christian.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>That’s all good and fine, but as most of us have read, the Pew research <a href="http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx">poll</a><a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn3" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=1209396548018608380#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character:footnote"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: JA;mso-bidi-language:AR-SAfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">[3]</span></span></span></span></a> taken recently effectively says that Americans know diddly about religion, more so, they know less than didly about Christianity—the supposed espoused religion of the masses.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>It’s important to keep in mind keep that the questions asked were on a Sunday-school felt-board learning level—like the four gospel writers, or the first book in the Bible.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>And Christians in America couldn’t answer the questions (correctly at least). Americans know very little about what they claim to be so important to them.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>And what’s more shocking, those who don’t even believe in a god, let alone the Christian God, know more about the tenets of the Christian faith than Christians.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>So what am I saying—the atheists have a more comprehensive and well thought out world view than the bumper sticker touting, bible-thumping, Merry Christmas wishing Americans do? Yep.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Ok, so no more statistics, no more demographics, no more numbers.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>What does this all mean?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>What is the take-away from the less-than-shocking discovery that the Pew Research Forum has dug up?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Here’s what it means: Americans are good at looking like Americans (any other nation in the world could probably attest to that).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Here’s what it also means: Americans are, by and large, bad Christians.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>We can have “god bless America” after every speech but it seems that Americans don’t even know what they mean when they invoke “god.”<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>But I understand, saying things like “Jesus have mercy on us” after every speech would be kind of a downer, and its just…so…churchy right?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>I mean serious religious convictions, with real names and disciplines might not fit so neatly with the American ethos, so I get it.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>And finally here is what it also might mean: if Christians in America aren’t willing to take their Christianity seriously, more seriously than their being American, maybe they should stop calling themselves Christians.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Cheap grace anyone?<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">What’s the take-away?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Well I’ll start by suggesting that any serious politician, political pundit, news anchor, writer, journalist or for that matter anyone in America who seriously considers themselves a Christian to drop the “god-talk.”<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>America is no more a Christian Nation than Wisconsin is made out of beer and cheese.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>So don’t assume that when you hint at something religious that it makes any sense or holds the least bit of theological value.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Lets start working things like the cross, or resurrection into the conversation.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Lets embody that which we say is so defining about our character.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Or maybe like Kurt Vonnegut (an atheist himself and true American patriot) said: “For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings…I haven’t heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere. ‘Blessed are the merciful’ in a courtroom?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>‘Blessed are the peacemakers’ in the Pentagon? Give me a break!”<a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn4" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=1209396548018608380#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character:footnote"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: JA;mso-bidi-language:AR-SAfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">[4]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Lovely, another atheist showing us up.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So much like the Christians in the early church I find myself being a modern day “atheist” who believes in a God that challenges the empire not a god who is held hostage by it.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>And I believe in a God that deserves to be named and wrestled with not mentioned and shooed away.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Therefore, let us consider for a moment and entertain the thought that maybe God doesn’t have the fetish for America like America has a fetish for god.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Let us consider for a moment that when most people talk about god in America, that they are <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">statistically speaking</i>: full of Sh*t.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Let us consider for a moment that all of this god-talk in America really isn’t about God at all, but about Americans trying to look American at all costs.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>And finally, let us consider that the god Americans invoke and “worship” is like the god the Romans worshipped—no god at all. <o:p></o:p></p> <div style="mso-element:footnote-list"><br /> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn1"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn1" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=1209396548018608380#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: JA;mso-bidi-language:AR-SAfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">[1]</span></span></span></span></a> http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/Demographics/map_demographics.htm<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn2"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn2" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=1209396548018608380#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: JA;mso-bidi-language:AR-SAfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">[2]</span></span></span></span></a> http://pewforum.org/How-Religious-Is-Your-State-.aspx<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn3"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn3" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=1209396548018608380#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: JA;mso-bidi-language:AR-SAfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">[3]</span></span></span></span></a> http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn4"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn4" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3253577799886515610&postID=1209396548018608380#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: JA;mso-bidi-language:AR-SAfont-family:";font-size:12.0pt;">[4]</span></span></span></span></a> Kurt Vonnegut, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">A Man Without a Country</i>, (New York: Random House, 2005), 98.<o:p></o:p></p> </div> </div> <!--EndFragment-->Andrew Scheerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06292241339117231171noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253577799886515610.post-48912591325698400712010-11-12T00:28:00.000-08:002010-11-12T11:02:55.202-08:00An Open Letter to the 112th Congress of the United StatesDear Congressmen,<br /><br />Change has come to America. Again. With the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives, the hope of many is that the dynamic in Washington is about to change. Some have called this election a referendum on the policies of President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the liberal Democratic regime that has passed sweeping reforms in Healthcare, attempted to bail out the automotive industry and banking interests and scaled back the war in Iraq while increasing U.S. troop involvement in Afghanistan. It may very well be, although a cursory knowledge of electoral history in American would show that midterm elections rarely go the way of the presiding party. I voted for President Obama in one of the most heavily Republican counties in the state of Georgia. My support for him has not changed.<div><br />With the midterm elections comes the possibility of sweeping reform in Washington. It won’t happen, but the potential is there. Even though I continue to support the President, I cannot say that I am particularly displeased with the outcome of the election. Frankly, the Democrats had an opportunity to do great things and, as usual, they blew it. Politically, I am center-right in my views. While I believe that those who supported Tea Party candidates are going to be in for a rude awakening when they realize their people have no political acumen and even less of a sense of political reality, I am glad to see one change they have already brought to the political process. Very few Republicans campaigned on the back of the preposterously vague idea of “family values.” And while they certainly stoked the flames of the xenophobic among us, doing little if anything to quell those who falsely accused the President of everything from Islamic sympathies to being an al-Qaeda Manchurian Candidate, most candidates did little more to appeal to Christian voters than to mention their own Christian beliefs as part of their biography. This is a welcomed shift from the races in 2004 and 2006 in which the crux of the Republican campaign strategy was an absurd advocacy of a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman, while preaching a message of Christian values more commensurate with Hitler’s Nuremburg address in 1932 than the Sermon on the Mount. </div><div><br />That is not to say that this year’s election did not bear witness to such ridiculous evocations of our nation’s “Christian” heritage. Georgia’s new Governor Nathan Deal opened his victory speech with “to God be the glory, great things He has done,” as if God Himself stumped for a man accused of a veritable checklist of ethics violations. In a race in which choosing a candidate seemed more like picking which form of execution you prefer for yourself than which man was better fit to lead a state, my guess is that The Almighty didn’t have much to do with it. Glenn Beck, grand dragon of ignorance and hysteria, had the audacity to claim the torch of Dr. Martin Luther King as the leader of the new struggle for civil rights, while simultaneously accusing hosts of individuals of things he knew to be spurious and defamatory. No need to come back to Mr. Beck. I doubt that God will.</div><div><br />Granting that these instances were not exactly aberrations, the theme of Republican candidates in this election had far more to do with fiscal responsibility and opposition to “socialism” than their God complex of previous elections. It was the debate surrounding those elections the led me to divinity school. I quickly tired of people with zero knowledge of history, theology or the Constitution claiming that we were a founded as a theocratic Christian nation, the Founding Fathers were all devout and practicing Christians and the Constitution was some political facsimile of a Second Covenant with the Creator. So I majored in history, am now in seminary, and will go on to law school to focus on Constitutional law. </div><div><br />It is clear that neither side of the aisle actually grasps what it means to be both a Christian and statesman. It’s not much of a stretch to say that neither side meets either qualification very well. While the Democrats claim the message of caring for the poor, the infirmed, the downtrodden and the suffering, many of their policy initiatives actually exacerbate these conditions. As for the Republicans, it’s difficult to maintain integrity when many prominent representatives and supporters are getting caught with male prostitutes or are off on dalliances in Latin America with their mistresses after extolling Christian values and the sanctity of marriage. Perhaps even more disturbing is their outright vitriol at the possibility of allowing for a 3% rise on the income tax of people who by definition make at least twelve times the stated minimum standard of living. They can couch this policy in language of job creation and fairness all they want, but in reality it is nothing more than greed. Not much in the way of Christian virtue there.</div><div><br />So here’s the deal. Neither party has any right to claim authority as the party of Christ. The Republicans were, at one time, the party of Crist, but they abandoned him as well. The Constitution is not a religious document, nor were the Founders all devout Christians. They were extremely intelligent and forward thinking men who realized the positive aspects of Christian faith for a new republic and created a government charter that allowed religion to thrive by formally separating its role from that of the government. Christian values could be of great benefit in policy making, but politicians must first learn what Christian values actually are. They do not favor the wealthy nor condone bigotry. Neither do they legitimize abortion or advocate gay marriage. They are not the weapons of political strategists. So Congress, do your job. Fund education, build new roads and bridges, protect our nation and ensure our progress. And for goodness sake, please leave God out of it. He has enough to do without having to answer for your sanctimony in His name.<br /><br />Sincerely,</div><div><br />The Faithfully Concerned</div>thegentlemanfromgeorgiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16026296037873553371noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253577799886515610.post-22379976296701858752010-11-11T16:34:00.000-08:002010-11-11T16:37:15.866-08:00The Deception of Contraception: Finding Fault in an Infertile AgeUntil the 1930s, almost every single religious community – including mainline Protestants – stood firm against the growing presence of contraception within the family setting. Today, only the Catholic Church remains unmoved on the issue, considering contraception as something that leads, in the words of Pope John Paul II, to “conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality” (“Silent Voices”). Today, we have lost sight of the negative consequences of birth control, not only because it is so readily available, but also because we attest that the ways in which we raise our families are ours alone, not to be influenced by the opinions of the church, any church. What our overly medicated society fails to realize is that the choice to insert contraception into the marriage bed is deteriorating the very fabric of marriage itself. <br /> <br />A couple’s decision to use contraception to prevent pregnancy can no longer be isolated from the increasing rate of marital problems (i.e. skyrocketing divorce rates) in the United States. Indeed, the divorce rate for those using contraception in marriage (regardless of religious affiliation) currently peaks at around 50%. By stark contrast, couples using Natural Family Planning have a divorce rate of only 4% (“Physicians for Life”). Natural Family Planning, or NFP, involves the husband and wife keeping track of the woman’s fertility rates by charting her temperature and other physical signs on a daily basis; this a testament to the Catholic Church’s traditions of keeping marriage a holy sacrament. Although I still contend that the methods of family planning (be they contraception, NFP, or other) should remain a private decision between husband and wife, I also argue for a more thorough exploration of how the use of contraception within marriage damages the foundation of marital unity, and, by extension, the social and political welfare of the people at large.<br /><br />Contraceptive drugs are often claimed to be 99% effective in preventing pregnancy. In fact, statistics show closer to a 7% "failure" rate for contraceptive drugs, with the condom itself having a 15% "failure" rate. In contrast, couples using NFP in marriage have a success rate of 98%, meaning that only 2% of those using Natural Family Planning became pregnant without meaning to. With these startling statistics, one wonders how contraception would gain such a footing in our society. The truth of the matter, however, is that the accessibility of contraception has now made the thought of not using it passé. After all, if so many couples are using contraception to prevent pregnancy with reasonably positive results, why is it so wrong in the eyes of the Church?<br /><br />There are a number of reasons why the Church challenges the use of contraception in marriage, including the high risk of harmful physical effects, and, on a more economic level, the burgeoning cost of supply. The primary reason that the Church favors Natural Family Planning over contraception, however, is that a contraceptive marriage cannot achieve the “oneness” that a husband and wife are meant to achieve. With contraception, the husband and wife are separated before they even get the chance of being united as one in sexual union. Contraception divides the pair – the woman to her pill, the husband to his condom. Why discuss the possibility of having a baby through intercourse when using a contraceptive is so easy to do? <br /><br />The barriers set in place by contraception negate the intimacy of sexual intercourse in marriage by promoting the idea that pregnancy is an issue that need not be discussed if both parties have taken the correct steps to prevent it on their own. Although I am not suggesting that this is the case for all couples using contraception in marriage – indeed, many couples may keep the walls of communication open by discussing family planning on a regular basis, thereby achieving their own “oneness” in marriage – but I do contend that the surplus of contraception is making it too easy for couples to simply have sex with their partner whenever they want instead of taking the time to discuss the consequences. That is what NFP does – it makes you yield your own sexual urges for the benefit of open communication. It is about listening to your partner first, then your body. <br /><br />Through the NFP process, the husband and wife are able to give of their whole selves every time they have intercourse, with the knowledge that the steps they have taken to get there have not been as two separate individuals, but rather as one unit. A person’s “whole self” means not just one’s body, then, but also one’s gift of fertility; seen in this way, a person using contraception during sex is withholding a component of their whole selves. Natural Family Planning, on the other hand, maintains that each partner’s reproductive gift will be present during every sexual act they share. By offering their fertility and their body, couples using NFP recognize that we, as humans, cannot control our fertility by “blocking” it with contraception, but rather that we should elevate our fertility by offering it to our partner as a gift during sexual union. Indeed, if fertility can be misrepresented as an infection to be attacked (as it with contraception), then it is no wonder that pregnancy is so often linked with abortion. <br /><br />Natural Family Planning is just that – natural. Those who use NFP are not working against the way God has created them, but are simply observing a cycle that God Himself created in the woman by limiting their intercourse to the wife’s natural periods of infertility during a month. Although many view the option of having sex whenever one wants as a key “bonus” to being married, Natural Family Planning recognizes that being made “in the image of God” constitutes an awareness of respect both to our partner and to ourselves. As divorce rates continue to climb in America, we must ask ourselves if we are willing to yield our physical urges in order to achieve a more contented family structure, and whether or not we can do that with contraception.Chloehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17157056270027355199noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253577799886515610.post-65372530717554113812010-10-03T08:06:00.000-07:002010-10-13T08:49:08.734-07:00He is Christian and Proud<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;color:#0D0D0D;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';color:#000000;"> <!--StartFragment--> </span></span></p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;color:#0D0D0D;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';color:#000000;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:16.0pt;line-height:normal;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">“Say it loud, I am black and proud, Come on Say it loud I am black and proud , I am black and proud.” -James Brown.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:16.0pt;line-height:normal;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">Honestly, I was convinced that those lyrics once luminously preformed by the “God Father of Soul “ James Brown , that articulated a since of self-respect within the African American community during the middle of the 20th century , was going to have to be the rally cry of the 44th President of the United States of America, Mr. Barack Obama However , rather than having to preserve his blackness, he has been on consist defense of his religious conviction and practice. This is a issue that has caused my mind to dwell in a sea of disarray. I can only content that Americans have become apprehensive, when it concerns the religious values of their president due to misguided perceptions of the past and recent traumatic current events that has agitated our nation at its core.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:16.0pt;line-height:normal;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">Recently I was scanning several blogs and messages boards across the and discovered that many internet using Americans have a very misguided perception when it comes the past religious ideology of our country and it’s leaders. Americans are conceived that the American political environment and reality has been and should continue to be, divinely ordained. Scholar Robert Bellah agrued that Americans have embraced a customary civil religion with certain fundamental beliefs, values, holidays, and rituals, parallel to, or independent of, their chosen religion</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">. [1]</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> Bellah also stated that some have argued that Christianity is the national faith however few have realized that there actually exists alongside and the churches an elaborate and well-institutionalized civil religion in America. [2] Civil Religion is a reality that many people ascribed to in American society. This commitment to God and country is a mindset of many Americans . More than two weeks ago on my personal twitter page I decided to send ten of my followers this question , “Where the American Fathers and establisher of our country Christian”? Seven out of the ten said yes , and that we should get back to those Christian ways of the past. As an ordained preacher I think that is great that people feel that our country should develop a better moral mindset. However as someone who has received a little education, I understand that this is not the way of the past. The reality that I have become aware of through several lectures and research projects is that the religious environment of the people who helped shaped this nation was very diverse in it’s nature. It is unfair for people to claim that our founding fathers where only Christian, when some where Deist and Atheist. Moreover, please do not forget how the people who shaped this nation pushed the Natives of this land to the margins and abused another group people into forced labor. My question is what is actually Christian about of any of those previous statements that I have made describing this history of our nation? So many of us Americans are convinced that every important leader in our past was a born again Christian. We have to move from this misguided reality that depicts every leader of the past as a great practicing Christian. The apprehensive nature of our nation when it concerns the religious values of their president due to misguided perception of the past and past leaders.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:16.0pt;line-height:normal;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">Not only does the misguided perception past have our country sitting on edge are the current events have many questioning if the President is Christian. In this post 9/11 society, if a individual shows themselves to be pro Conservative American then he is pro Christian and if that same individual shows he is anti Liberal American then that person is either radically Muslim or non Christian. Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright who was the pastor of President Obama preached a sermon that dammed America for it’s constantly unethical treatment of people of color in 2008. After this many questioned the Christian reality of President Obama and Dr. Wright. “</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">Post-Wright, Obama labored to create a public religious persona of conventionality, as his handlers struck back against birtherism and Manchurian candidate smears.”[ 3] Also recently, apparently President Obama, omitted the words "endowed by their Creator" when quoting the Declaration of Independence. This is somehow evidence according to the “conservative right” the President Obama is either a godless liberal or an anti-American one, or both.[4 ]Now rumors about President Obama being Muslim are dominating blogs and news websites. </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">The Muslim rumors are not about some kind of honest confusion, but rather, an attempt by his opponents to capitalize on the post-9/11 suspicion of Muslims that has recently manifested itself in the controversy over the so-called “</span></span><a href="http://traffic.outbrain.com/network/redir?key=5a077cf4dac9aad9990e9660dab8ff3c&rdid=164979157&type=IMP_D2D_def_prd&in-site=true&req_id=6b4fa6eab165f4e650908da7dcdd1b21&fp=false&am=get&agent=blog_JS_rec&recMode=2&reqType=1&wid=1&imgType=2&version=6.4.1&idx=1"><span style="text-decoration:none;text-underline:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">Ground Zero Mosque</span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">.”[ 5] A Time Magazine new poll showed that nearly one in five people, or 18 percent, believe Obama is Muslim. That was up from 11 percent who said so in March 2009. The survey also showed that just 34 percent said Obama is Christian, down from 48 percent who said so last year.[6 ]<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:16.0pt;line-height:normal;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">It should not matter if Obama is Christian or not . I will tell you what should matter, and that is can he fix the unemployment rate that is at 10% or the economy that needs heavy CPR. Christian or not , Mr. President just fix the real problems. Remember Mr. President </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">that Abraham Lincoln was accused of being a Catholic, and Franklin Roosevelt of being Jewish. Therefore ,your accusers are placing you in the same basket with two of America’s greatest presidents. Get the job Mr. President done time is running out.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:16.0pt;line-height:normal;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> </span></span></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:16.0pt;line-height:normal;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">1. </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Neelly_Bellah"><span style="text-decoration:none;text-underline:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">Bellah, Robert Neelly</span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> (Winter 1967). </span></span><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20050306124338/http://www.robertbellah.com/articles_5.htm"><span style="text-decoration:none;text-underline:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">"Civil Religion in America"</span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">. </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> </span></span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">96</span></span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> (1): 1–21. From the issue entitled "</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:16.0pt;line-height:normal;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">2. </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Neelly_Bellah"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">Bellah, Robert Neelly</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">; University of Chicago Press (August 15, 1992). </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">The Broken Covenant: American Civil Religion in Time of Trial</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:16.0pt;line-height:normal;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">3.</span></span><a href="http://www.alarabiya.net/views/2010/09/14/119237.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">http://www.alarabiya.net/views/2010/09/14/119237.html</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">*Published in the London-based AL-HAYAT on Sept. 13, 2010.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:16.0pt;line-height:normal;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">4. ibi<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:16.0pt;line-height:normal;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">5.ibi<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:16.0pt;line-height:normal;mso-pagination: none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">6.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;"> </span></span><a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FFFFFF;">www.time.com/time/magazine</span></span></a><span style="mso-bidi-mso-bidi-;font-family:Georgia;font-size:16.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <!--EndFragment--> </span></span><p></p>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16486642675147540651noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253577799886515610.post-30014603657666646562010-10-01T13:49:00.000-07:002010-10-01T13:50:02.990-07:00When Christians Kill<!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:Arial">"<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">We are worth more than</span> the worst act <span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">we</span> commit," says Sister Helen Prejean, an active supporter in the fight against capital punishment. This quote seems relevant in light of recent developments in the Virginia death penalty case involving Teresa Lewis. Lewis, along with two other conspirators, planned and carried out a gruesome murder against her husband and stepson in 2002. While Lewis plead guilty and received a death sentence in the case, the two men who carried out the crime only received a sentence of life in prison. According to CNN, court officials say that Lewis was sentenced to death because she was the, “head of this serpent.” According to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">The Washington Post</i>, after multiple rounds of appeals, Lewis’ case finally reached the federal Supreme Court. The justices of the Court handed down their decision on Tuesday denying a stay of execution. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">TIME </i>states that the Governor of Virginia, Bob McConnell also denied Lewis clemency and said, “</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">Having carefully reviewed the petition for clemency, the judicial opinions in this case, and other relevant materials, I find no compelling reason to set aside the sentence that was imposed by the Circuit Court and affirmed by all reviewing courts.” CNN also reported other officials have stated Teresa Lewis “does not deserve mercy.”<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">As humans, are we equipped to make the decision of whether someone deserves life or death? Are we also equipped to take another humans life in such an intentional and calculated fashion as the death penalty? This issue is of the utmost importance to those in the Christian faith community. The debate surrounding capital punishment in the Church is not a new one. Ancient biblical scripture has seemingly supported the idea of capital punishment. Among these verses is </span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"">Genesis 9:5-6 which states, “Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man.” While this verse is used now to support a positive Christian view of the death penalty, the ancient Jewish people viewed verses such as these much differently. Dennis Sasso in his article entitled, “Capital Punishment Re-Examined,” says that while they recognized this verse as justification of capital punishment, they still considered “execution by the State at the least undesirable, at the most, barbarous.” He also says “the rabbis of two thousand years ago did not slavishly labor under the conception that the Bible categorically favors capital punishment…they went beyond the Biblical tradition. They took the Bible seriously, but not literally.” </span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:Arial">The context and interpretation of such scripture has changed over time. While some modern day Christian denominations support capital punishment, many have issued strong statements against the practice. The United Methodist Church, along with </span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"">other religious organizations such as the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States, and many other Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish and Muslim communities have joined together to denounce the use of capital punishment. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"">We must also consider the effects capital punishment has on our society as a whole. When a person is put to death by capital punishment, it continues the victimization of human beings instead of correcting a wrong in society. While some people in support of the death penalty believe those against it are siding with the criminal, disagreeing with the death penalty is not supporting the actions of the guilty individual. By disagreeing with the intentional killing of another human being I am trying to forgive the sin and treat the sinner with compassion and love that he did not show his victim. Having an attitude of hate towards the criminal does not harm him, but continues to victimize the victim.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"">After presenting facts around the historical Christian debate of capital punishment, I ask again, are we equipped as humans to make the decision of whether someone deserves life or death? I do not believe we are. We are created in the image of God. In his article “Who Deserves to Live- Who Deserves to Die: Reflections on Capital Punishment,” Norman Dake states “No matter how dimmed or tainted that image may have become because of sin, it remains an essential part of us.” Capital punishment destroys a human being bearing the image of God. Instead of forgiveness, we offer death. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"">Christianity must decide whether it will stand for or against a state that allows the use of capital punishment. Can followers of Christ legitimately support this practice without calling into question their core beliefs? While the United States is not a Christian nation, there is a Christian community within it. As a Christian community, we are called to a qualitatively different moral standard of beliefs and practices then those necessary to maintain civil order. How will we let those beliefs and practices shape our political lives? Where will we stand in the public spectrum when the question of capital punishment’s merit is raised? <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:9.0pt;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:9.0pt;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"">On Thursday, September 23, Teresa Lewis was escorted to the death chamber in a Virginia state prison. She was put to death by lethal injection. Her death, along with countless others, is a sign of a broken system within this country. As her impending death approached, Lewis told the NY Daily News, “</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:Arial">I hope that something is going to turn around," she said, but "if I have to go home with Jesus... I know that's going to be the best thing. I don't think there is enough words to even begin to tell her how sorry I am... I want people to know that you can be a good person and make the wrong choice, I want people to know that.”<span style="color:#4E4E4E"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align: none;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman""><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <!--EndFragment-->Caroline Culverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15226301364989790489noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253577799886515610.post-29577667093924927322010-10-01T07:55:00.000-07:002010-10-01T20:19:03.678-07:00The Catholic Conscience: Maintaining Equality in a Mainline WorldThe media – and the political sphere, by extension – often neglects to explore the reasoning behind much of the Catholic Church’s ideologies, choosing instead to thrash out the more “controversial” issues surrounding the issues. The opinions of individuals – and, by a large degree, women – are constantly manipulated by the media into believing that the negation of the Catholic Church to elect women into the priesthood is wrong. My opinion is that these media masses are just as blinded as they accuse the Catholic Church of being, as they consistently starve the public of the nutrients of truth engrained in the Church’s teachings. Male-oriented priesthood is a long-held Catholic tradition necessary to sustain apostolic succession, a tenet essential for the worshiping of the Eucharist, which is the unequivocal core of Catholicism itself. To rebuke the Church’s ideology on women’s ordination, then, is essentially to rebuke the very core of the Catholic Church. The mistake that many media personnel make during all of this is to expect the same secular definition of “equality” that we expect from our political organizations, when in fact the Church’s structuring of equality is, though different, no less present.<br /><br />In her 2010 New York Times article, “Rome Fiddles, We Burn,” Maureen Dowd discusses her opinion of the current state of events happening within the Catholic Church. According to an unidentified Catholic document recently disclosed, says Dowd, the Church has now placed the ordination of women among one of the “graviora delicta,” or grave offenses, of the Church. As a response to this, Dowd argues, “Letting women be priests — which should be seen as a way to help cleanse the church and move it beyond its infantilized and defensive state — is now on the list of awful sins right next to pedophilia, heresy, apostasy and schism.” Dowd urges the Church to “embrace the normality of equality” by ceasing its subordination of women wishing to be priests, labeling the Vatican’s insistence on the tradition as wrong and “misogynistic poppycock.” <br /><br />Dowd’s article is not by any means unique. It expresses the long-standing negative opinion that many individuals have of the Catholic Church. Being a media representative, however, Dowd and others of her field should be expected to maintain a certain loyalty to the truth, and not just a biased perspective of it. In this aspect, Dowd inarguably fails. The “equality” that Dowd urges Catholicism to embrace is merely a secular construct; to expect the Church to maintain this worldly definition of equality for men and women simply because “that’s what we’re used to” in the public sphere is tantamount to expecting religion itself to maintain not just this but all the precepts of a political organization. <br /><br />The absence of Dowd’s secularized vision of equality in the Church does not mean that the Church does not provide equality, however. On the contrary, a closer examination of the Vatican’s teachings shows us that the Catholic Church does more to respect the values of each gender than most denominations. As the head of the parish, the priest acts as the father of the community and as the Christ figure in the Eucharistic setting, which occurs during every Mass. During the Eucharist, the priest, as the father of the church, is “standing in the place” of Jesus during the Last Supper, performing the necessary act of transubstantiation to turn the wine and bread to the literal blood and body of Jesus Christ. The apostolic succession of the Church guarantees that the line of male priests can be traced back to Jesus’ “sending forth” of the twelve male disciples – a tenet that is key to proving the priest’s authority to handle something as precious as Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and divinity.<br /><br />On the other side of the coin, the equality of women within the Catholic Church is sustained by the opportunities they have within the life of sisterhood. Although it is often difficult for non-Catholics to contemplate an individual finding self-fulfillment within a convent, I would argue that this perspective almost always stems from some false interpretation of nuns that that individual has come across in their lifetime. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The sisters of the Catholic Church are beautiful representatives of what it means to be brides of Christ. Their positions are powerful, taking on the responsibilities of leading thousands of volunteer efforts, school improvement projects, and upholding the dignity of Catholic women across the world. The efforts to divide the roles of the Church between men and women, priest and sister, then, are not meant to diminish gender equality, but rather to honor the natural attributes that God endowed us with. Only a woman can represent the true bride of Christ in the Church, just as only a man can represent the father of the church. This tradition ensures that both sexes have the ideal model for servitude allowed to them. The intent is not to exclude women from ordination but rather to honor the obligation that Jesus entrusted to the male gender. <br /><br />The media’s right to report controversial issues like female ordination is hampered by its insistent exclusion of verified information. Journalists like Maureen Dowd claim the truth reporting only a sliver of what the Church’s theology on women’s ordination really is. The expectations that we hold for the Church are incessantly tainted by our own secularized view. The media must take responsibility for what information is being left out of the religious packages, and must accept that how they view an issue like gender equality is not necessarily how another division will view it. If media representatives continue to detract from exploring a subject like female ordination beyond the superficial layer (the layer that says that the Catholic Church is wrong simply because most people says it’s wrong), then the average reader will almost inevitably fall short of knowing the truthChloehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17157056270027355199noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253577799886515610.post-29847406526651021792010-10-01T07:51:00.000-07:002010-10-01T07:53:11.426-07:00We Are Not You: The Problems With American Christian Identity<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: left;">I’m sure everyone is sick of hearing about the proposed Muslim community center/mosque near ground zero – that was <i>so</i><span style="font-style:normal"> last September.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>It seems to me, however, that the major issues emerging from the debate are not those addressing the construction of the community center.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The main question I want to ask is: If 71% of Americans, according to an August CBS News poll, believe building the mosque near ground zero is inappropriate, what does that say about who we are as Americans and what we believe?</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Surely, no Constitution-minded citizen of the United States could whole-heartedly object to the proposed building; we, as good, freedom-loving Americans, <i>should</i><span style="font-style:normal"> encourage diversity and at least tolerate religious difference.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>How, then, it is possible to reconcile with the fact that so many Americans (several among them members of the upstart Tea Party Movement with their Constitutions in their back pockets) deny that this religious group has a right to free exercise and assembly?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If most Americans object to this clearly benign attempt to exercise the freedoms that we so proudly tout, what does that say about who we think we are?</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">For the sake of my own interests, I’m going to approach this from a religious angle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>According to a Gallup poll taken last year, 78% of Americans claim to be Christian. Therefore, it is safe to say, the majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This is not to say that The United States is necessarily a Christian nation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In reality, however, it is difficult to argue against our deep Christian roots and their significance in our foundation, growth, and how we continually shape our identity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Indeed, the role of religion in general in American identity is indisputable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>As the American sociologist Robert Bellah points out in his discourse <i>Varieties of Civil Religion</i><span style="font-style:normal">, we all hold to a kind of civic religion that can be traced to the very roots of our American values.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>“It was a republican and a democratic religion that not only inculcated republican values,” writes Bellah, “but gave the first lessons in participation in the public life” (16).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Moreover, this civil religion is loosely based on concepts and themes found within the Bible – Exodus, Chosen People, Promised Land, and even Sacrificial Death – which, despite the much touted separation of church and state, vaults Christianity to a high status in our collective identity.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">If most Americans claim to be Christian and our country somewhat resembles a Christian nation, then why do I feel like we’re distinctly <i>not </i><span style="font-style:normal">Christian?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In his April <a href="http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/2414/what_do_%E2%80%98the_christians%E2%80%99_believe_easter_reflections_from_a_non-christian/">article</a> in the online religion blog Religion Dispatches, “What Do ‘The Christians’ Believe? Easter Reflections from a Non-Christian,” Emory University Professor of Religion Gary Laderman asks a similar question to mine, writing, “Over the span of a 24-hour news cycle, one hears about Christians in action with all sorts of spoken and unspoken moral commitments and sacred investments, but at the end of the day it is increasingly difficult to reconcile this array under one theological umbrella.” He notes the recent arrest of a Christian militia and the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church as prime examples of Christians in American acting decidedly </span><i>un-</i><span style="font-style:normal">Christian.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In his conclusion, he suggests that perhaps it is time to see Christianity similarly to how we define Native Americans or Hindus: a broad and antiquated classification that essentially eliminates differences and unites a large group of people under one umbrella of identity, and, as he contends, “does not hold up under serious scrutiny and distracts from real-world politics, power, and difference.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In other words, maybe it’s time to stop classifying Christians by their beliefs – presumably of faith, hope, love, and justice – because it clearly doesn’t coincide with real life.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Through this lens, then, it seems as though the identity of the American Christian – and perhaps of the American in general – is one that is not formed by beliefs in Bellah’s civic religion or by the tenets of faith, hope, and love in Christianity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What, then, shapes our identity?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In examining the responses to the proposed Muslim community center in New York, I am reminded of Samuel Huntington’s 1993 article in <i>Foreign Affairs</i><span style="font-style:normal"> entitled “The Clash of Civilizations.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Huntington asserts that civilizations, rather than countries, will be the main source of identity and conflict in the next era of humanity. In his discussion on the nature of civilizations, Huntington argues: “European communities…will share cultural features that </span><i>distinguish</i><span style="font-style:normal"> them from Arab or Chinese communities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Arabs, Chinese, and Westerners, however, are not part of any broader cultural identity. They constitute civilizations” (4, italics added).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Civilizations, because of their differences, will create conflict: “The most important conflicts of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating these civilizations from another” (5) The underlying assumption of his theory is based on the idea of </span><i>identity by opposition</i><span style="font-style:normal">: in order to have a civilization, one </span><i>must</i><span style="font-style:normal"> have an enemy to solidify one’s identity.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Critics of this theory, however, point out this unnecessary facet of negative identity construction and instead assert the need for positive association in the global community.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In a world where identities are positively constructed, the outlook is optimism, progress, and peace.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>One such proponent of this viewpoint is Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, who in his aptly titled book, <i>The Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations</i><span style="font-style:normal">, emphasizes the need for religion to be an active force in creating peace.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In this discourse, he argues for unity in difference by drawing on the biblical image of the Tower of Babel.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In the Hebrew Bible, God destroyed the Tower of Babel, a massive building representing the unity of all humankind, and purposely spread the human race throughout the earth with different races, languages, and cultures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This action, Rabbi Sacks contends, had the intention of “teaching humanity to make space for difference…The unity of God is to be found in the diversity of creation” (53), a notion which he then ties into the fact that “the Hebrew Bible in one verse commands, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ but in no fewer than 36 places commands us to ‘love the stranger’” (58). If heeded, such a viewpoint would forecast peace rather than Huntington’s ominous clash, and the difference is identity based on similarity rather than difference.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I believe that Americans are fulfilling Huntington’s horrifying prophecy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>As Christian Americans, we too often construct our identity based not on beliefs found in Scripture, but on whom we believe to be the enemy.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>If we note the words of Rabbi Sacks, perhaps we would not misconstrue Muslims, homosexuals, democrats, liberals, and anyone else who seems to oppose traditional Christian values as our enemies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Perhaps we could actually claim to be a <i>Christian</i><span style="font-style:normal"> nation.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p> <!--EndFragment-->jcdavisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06801843216288101552noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253577799886515610.post-73956550223905579552010-09-30T22:05:00.000-07:002010-09-30T22:08:23.645-07:00<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:applybreakingrules/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:usefelayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 20pt;">Fundamentalists in our Midst</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">By Maria Caron</p> <br /> <p class="MsoNormal">Last week when a pastor in Florida decided to burn the Koran, Christians, politicians, and government officials, rightly condemned what was universally agreed to be a hateful act.<span style=""> </span>The right to free speech aside, most Americans seemed to view such an act as bad for the country and a poor representation of American religion in the public square. Despite the attention this pastor received in the media he is little more than an extremist operating on the periphery of society with only a congregation of 50 parishioners.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">However, there are forms of fundamentalism at work in our political structure. More dangerous, and more worthy of our attention than the would-be Koran-burner, are Christian political organizations that hide behind slogans like “family values” but whose true agenda’s might reveal darker ambitions.<span style=""> </span>One of these groups is the Fellowship, also know as the Family. What is alarming about this group is their intentional lack of transparency. By operating just beneath the surface, the Fellowship exudes huge amounts of political and social pressure without drawing the negative attention that would be sure to condemn them.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Originally started in the midst of the great depression, Fellowship founder Abraham Veriede resisted the new deal and insisted in the value of free markets which he equated with his Christian beliefs. The group which ministers primarily to the rich and powerful operates a home that receives tax exemption as a church. The home’s primary purpose, however, is to house congressman, providing spiritual guidance while lobbying for what it understands as Christian values.<span style=""> </span>Underlying The Fellowship’s occupation with politicians is a belief that the powerful are the special few chosen by God for action. By becoming spiritual teachers to these men in power the family believes it can bring about God’s will in what Jeff Sharlet describes as “trickle down fundamentalism.” Every year this group hosts the National Prayer Breakfast, a tradition kept since the Eisenhower Administration. It is attended by Christian organizations, members of congress, other powerful politicians and the President. While the Family’s presence and power in Washington are undeniable little else is known about the group because it operates under a veil of secrecy.<span style=""> </span>Today a man named Doug Coe leads it but its other members, which undoubtedly include elected officials, are protected.<span style=""> </span>None the less some of its known members and associates include Senator John Ensign, Governor Mark Sanford, Attorney General John Ashcroft, and Rick Warren who gave the prayer at President Obama’s inaugural address.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Jeff Sharlet, who wrote a book about the Family back in 2009, exposed in a recent <i>Harper’s</i> article the family’s connections to an anti-gay bill in Uganda that would make homosexuality a crime punishable by death. The Fellowship has its own branch in the Ugandan Parliament. It has been a presence there since President Museveni “a dictator hailed by the west for his democratic rhetoric and by Christian conservatives for the evangelical zeal of his regime” ( 37) came into power. The family has provided millions in leadership development and been involved in anti-AIDS programs that have nearly eliminated condom distribution. Through the Family’s urging Uganda and other countries have received U.S. foreign aide to promote programs run by fundamentalists. These programs seem on the surface to be helpful, like AIDS education, but are inherently ideological and are used for the sole purposes of manipulating Ugandans to embrace fundamentalist positions. But more powerful than their money are their ideas, particularly against homosexuality that have united the diverse tribes of Uganda around a common enemy. Sharlet states that the Family “like most American fundamentalists came out in muted opposition to Uganda’s gay death penalty, but they didn’t dispute the motive behind it: the eradication of homosexuality…for years American fundamentalists have looked on Uganda as a laboratory for theocracy…they send not just money and missionaries but ideas.” (37)As Sharlet pressed members of Ugandan parliament to release the names of American politicians they had claimed were supporting the bill, one responded “We must protect each others secrets, eh? That is what the Fellowship is, men we can trust, take our sins to.” (45)</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Why should we pay attention to this group of fundamentalists? Although I find the family’s views and actions, especially in connection with Uganda’s Gay death penalty law, repugnant and anti-Christian, an alternative look in to the minds behind The Family appears in a recent article in <i>The New Yorker </i>suggests that Sharlet may have overstated the Fellowships involvement in some of its dealings abroad.<span style=""> </span>None the less the article acknowledges that he group “has made itself vulnerable to unfriendly assessments, because its insistent secrecy and Coe’s indiscriminate outreach to leaders of all kinds raise legitimate questions of accountability.” (Boyer, New Yorker) The Family’s secretive membership and lobbying in Washington are fundamentally undemocratic.<span style=""> </span>We really don’t have a clear idea about who are these people and what are their motives and goals. Although their representatives have claimed that their motive is to live a Jesus centered life, the strands of their influence that can be felt in and beyond Washington suggest more. How does a Jesus-centered group focused on small prayer meetings end up in Uganda at all? And what exactly does personal piety have to do with holding a big National Prayer Breakfast? If the family’s intentions are pure as they argue, why not at least dissociate themselves from those in such places as Uganda that takes their message to extreme and violent measures.<span style=""> </span>If the group wishes to continue its activism in the public square it ought to come out and tell us exactly what is trying to do.<span style=""> </span>This should be required for a group that exerts powerful influence in Washington under the guise of operating a church. In this country the fellowship may tone down its ideological rhetoric and keep quiet about its extremist positions, but that has not kept them from going oversees where their influence, intended or not, has incited mass violence and persecution of gay people.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">The pastor in Florida, who made the news by threatening to burn the Koran, is certainly an example of extremist Christianity in the public sphere. However his influence pales in comparison to the sway the Family and other fundamentalist groups have in U.S government.<span style=""> </span>We should ask ourselves if this is the best model for Christian engagement in political life.</p>Maria Caronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01985247306076338023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253577799886515610.post-82683834363123576492010-09-29T21:11:00.000-07:002010-10-01T22:50:47.684-07:00Everyone is Wrong About Abortion but Me!!by Jesse Milby<br /><br /><br />Rachel Maddow, titular host of a left leaning talk show on MSNBC, opened her September 16 broadcast with a segment on Christine O’Donnell. Maddow was hardly the first pundit to weigh in on the former —wait, has Christine O’Donnell ever had a real job? — in the wake of her Tea Party supported triumph over longtime Delaware congressman Mike Castle in the Republican senatorial primary. However, Maddow’s furor that night was aimed not at O’Donnell’s utter lack of qualifications or admissions she dabbled in witchcraft, but at what she referred to as “the great, unacknowledged, big honking political issue of this year’s election nationwide.” No, it wasn’t Bristol Palin (hopefully brief) staring turn on Dancing with the Stars. Her beef? That O’Donnell’s nomination meant there were now five congressional nominees who were in favor of complete prohibition of abortion, regardless of circumstance. <br /><br /> Maddow’s hyperbolic intonation aside (or perhaps contributory), this little instance presents both sides of the debate over abortion in allegorical terms with Maddow playing the neo-feminist liberal vehemently defending the sanctity of freedom of choice and O’Donnell as the paragon for the idealistic but painfully uninformed and self-defeatingly naïve pro-lifer. The debate over abortion is nothing new. Neither are the opportunists who prey open the whimsy of an enthralled public for votes, book sales and feigned legitimacy. Meanwhile, back in reality, two million abortions will be performed this year, just as they were last year and almost every year since a woman from Texas lied about being raped to challenge a state law proscribing abortion nearly forty years ago. The women who have them will be lauded by some, chastised by others, and ignored by all.<br /> <br /> Let me be upfront about my personal beliefs on the subject. I am adamantly pro-life. I believe abortion is murder, that more often than not it is an act of desperation, and that the very term “pro-choice” is an assault on the sanctity and legitimacy of liberty and life itself. That being said, I look at abortion as much more than a hot button issue, capable of generating heated debate, arousing staunch opinions on both sides of the issue, and raising vast sums of cash for political combatants. It is an issue which hits at the heart of nearly every socio-economic concern today, with serious implications for civil liberties, race, gender, poverty and bioethics. It is not the kind of issue which should be dismissed outright once one has formulated an opinion. <br /><br /> That being said, Ms. O’Donnell’s complete unwillingness to address the issue in depth is characteristic of those who are adamantly pro-life. For all their talk about the sanctity of life, their polemics rarely touch on the environments which breed nihilism antithetical to such language. Very few woman obtaining abortions do so out of callousness. For most, it is a very difficult decision influenced by the world in which they inhabit. To a 17 year old girl facing the possibility of single teenage motherhood in a world offering little hope, the $400 procedure is not only a practical solution, but may even be viewed as an act of saving grace to spare the child a life of suffering<br /><br /> Conversely, Maddow and her cadre of neo-feminist libertines often soil their own water in defending the practice. The apologetics of abortion usually centers on the idea that a woman’s decision to abort is a sacrosanct and undeniable. It is not. Unlike the “self-evident” rights of life, liberty, etc, this one was “discovered” in the course of Roe v. Wade. Mere decriminalization of an act does not raise it to the sacred status of a right. Couching the debate in terms of a woman’s right to choose may actually be counterintuitive. Furthermore, this appeal is largely ineffective, as it further offends the opposition without presenting a reasoned and sustainable position to those apathetic of the issue.<br /><br /> My point is this: the battle over abortion as it is waged today has no victors, but millions of casualties. Those who justify abortion as a woman’s right often seem to lose themselves in their own self-righteousness. Since Roe’s inception in 1973, the number of black children aborted in America is more than 1/3 of the current black population. I find it difficult to reconcile that figure with anything resembling liberty. Conversely, those who seek its proscription typically take an oversimplified view of the issue, its true ramifications and its root causes. At its heart the debate is not one of women’s rights or sanctity of life, but over the very definition of what constitutes life itself. Unfortunately, this debate rarely sees the light of day, buried as it is beneath scientific corruption and political agendas. Abortion has been legalized in America for almost four decades. It has survived five Republican presidencies and almost its entire tenure under a conservative Supreme Court. It is even supported for certain circumstances by 78% of the population. It isn’t going anywhere. The Left won. It might behoove its supporters to simply shut the hell up and remember that. Even before Roe, estimates on the number of illegal abortions are in the range of a million per year. It is not some novel entity manifesting from an un-Godly sect of secularists and a liberal activist judiciary. It is largely a symptom of poverty, with more than 2/3 of abortion performed on women within one strata of the poverty line. I want to see the eradication of abortion, but that requires an assault on poverty itself. Those holier than thou Christians so bent on criminalizing abortion would do well to go back and read the Sermon on the Mount. A wise man once posed a question to me that continues to engage my views of the subject to this day: “How many abortions are performed every year because the good, loving, God-fearing people of the Church turned their backs on the pregnant, unwed, teenage mother?thegentlemanfromgeorgiahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16026296037873553371noreply@blogger.com0