The Dimming Torch

King John Economics

2012-01-29T23:19:00.006-06:00

According to many versions of the Robin Hood legend, King John was in the habit of tkaing all of the peasants' Meager resources for his own ends. The very epitome of injustice, the vile king legalized robbery and forced the peasants into misery. He did all of this simply to make himself even wealthier than he already was.

The contemporary United States is clearly following the King John Model of Economics. We have created a system that enables a very small few to become obscenely wealthy as the direct result of policies that harm a great many of the rest of us.

Before addressing that injustice,however, we all must agree on indisputable facts. First among those facts is the massive inequality in our present American economic system.

To see just how unequal our system is consider the following chart from Bill Moyers web page:

The obvious thing to notice is that most American's incomes have not changed much over the last 30 years. The top 1%, however, has seen a massive explosion in their wealth. This is not, furthermore, a bit of good luck or hard work. The top 1% has profited directly from changes in public policy. Their taxes have been cut, slashed, dropped, and cut again ... they now pay but a fraction in taxes compared to what they did in the 1970s. Furthermore, the top 1%, consisting of largely financial industry fat cats, has made a bundle on deregulation of the banking industry. Many more examples could be cited, but you get the point: public policies have, almost without exception been geared to favor the extremely wealthy. The system has been rigged to make the richest among us even richer.

The primary defense of such a system is that allowing the top 1% so much wealth is better for all of us. It is claimed that all that wealth will eventually trickle down and find it's way into all our pockets. If the wealthy have more money, they will create more jobs, and invest in building communities. (another possible defense is to claim that it is unfair to tax the wealthy any more than we do. I have addressed this objection in another blog post, read it here)

But we have had these tax slashing, deregulating policies for over thirty years now. The wealth has NEVER trickled down. As the above chart shows, only the wealthy have seen their wealth explode greatly, the rest of us are not particularly better off regarding our income. Nor have policies created jobs. On the contrary, The American manufacturing industry has been all but destroyed, as jobs were outsourced overseas. Communities have not been rebuilt or restored, but eviscerated. We once had small family restaurants and little local book stores. Now we have only Walmart, Starbucks, and McDonalds. Small main street cities have become ghost towns, or perhaps just Walmart storage facilities.

And the cost for the 99% of us who have not benefited from the tax breaks and deregulation is that far fewer of us have health insurance, or if we do have it, it costs far more and covers much less. Not very many of us have pensions or reliable savings accounts. We are buried in debt, losing our homes, and seeing the retirement age pushed up as the amount of social security we will one day receive falls down.

There is only one truly reasonable conclusion we can reach. The massive profits of the 1% are the direct result of the huge losses for the 99%. By scamming us in the housing markets, stealing our money in the banks, denying us needed health care, wiping out our retirement, and burying us in debt, the richest have prospered almost beyond imagination.

These same wealthiest 1% drove the economy into the dust and, rather than be punished for all of the jobs they cost us, the homes they lost us, and the debt they piled on us, our government took our tax dollars and handed them over to the financial elite so they could pay bonuses and take spa days. Of course that's hardly surprising, given that our elected officials run campaigns financed by the 1%, and are thus beholden to their wealthy masters.

History tells us that the nobility of King John's age forced him to sign Magna Carta; to share much of his power and resources with them. The would not longer suffer personal injustice for the benefit of the King alone.

We are called today to force those who run our system to something far more far reaching than Magna Carta. Any system that benefits the few at the expense of the many is an unjust and immoral system. Because our system, more than most in the contemporary democratic world, greatly benefits a very few to the detriment of nearly everyone else, it is deeply unjust.

In itself, this realization does not tell us what economic system is most just; importantly, however, we know that we are obligated to change the system we have.

Premier of the New Bill Moyers Show

2012-01-13T20:02:00.001-06:00

Moyers & Company Show 101 SD from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.

Why I don't Tebow: A Problem with Prayer

2012-01-08T22:24:00.005-06:00

Why do we pray?

Those of us who do pray do so for several reasons. We pray to contemplate, to give thanks, to release stress, to focus our minds, to come closer to God, and to ask for things. We pray publicly and we pray privately. There is nothing wrong with any of this.

Now enter Tim Tebow.

For those who may not know. Tim Tebow is the quarterback of the Denver Broncos. As far as NFL quarterbacks goal his skills as a passer are, so far as I can tell, average at best (although he is a good "running" QB). Yet, somehow, this average-at-best quarterback is the talk of the nation. For better or worse as much of the talk about Tebow is about his religious beliefs and behavior as it is his prowess (or lack of it) on the football field.

Tebow's faith is a standard fundamentalist/evangelical one. He is pro-life, anti same-sex marriage, registered and votes Republican, believes in an infallible Bible and that only Christians go to heaven. Full disclosure: I reject, emphatically, each of these beliefs (though I have much sympathy with pro-life positions), so I'm not exactly prone to view Tebow's beliefs in a positive light. That said, my problem with Tebow is not his fundamentalist religious beliefs or his public admittance of them.

My problem with Tebow, rather, is his ostentatious public prayer, which have come to be known as "Tebowing." For those who don't know, Tebowing looks like this:

I have several problems with this behavior.

To begin with I find petitionary prayer problematic. If God really answered our requests then there would not be so much pain, sorrow, and loss in this world. Also, would God refuse to say, heal Grandma Joe, unless the right person asks? Do our requests determine the actions of an all-knowing and all-powerful being? I find that impossible. But I won't quibble over this factor. I'm not bothered by people in need asking God for things. When your loved ones are hurting or our pain is deep you tend to call out for a higher power to aid you. This is understandable. And if Tim Tebow were offering up these kinds of prayers, there could be no objection to his doing so. I might dispute the efficacy of such prayers, but I'm not bothered by people offering them.

My real problem with Tebow is what he prayers for: Tebow prays to win football games. He asks God to let him win. In one notorious example, in overtime against the San Diego Chargers, Tebow actually knelt down and asked God to make sure that the Chargers' kicker missed his field goal attempt!

This is sheer tribalism!

To ask God to favor your team or to in anyway intervene in football games is not merely silly, but evokes the notion of a petty deity who plays favorites and rewards those who grovel before Him sufficiently.

Does Tebow actually believe that God will ignore prayers to heal people from cancer, but make sure that Tim Tebow wins a football game? Does God care most of all about how often we praise Him and grovel before Him?

The god of such prayers is no different from a narcissistic despot!

In short, my problem with Tebowing is that it insults those who pray for more serious matters and presents an insulting picture of divinity.

Finally, however, my biggest problem with Tebow is that he is deliberately "showy" about his prayers. He presents himself in such a way that everyone sees him on one knee and every sees how "holy" he is. The whole thing comes off as rather self-righteous.

I know, of course, that many will tell me that Tebow has a right to show his faith. Others will argue that he is a "good guy" and therefore it is wrong to "hate" him. But this is all irrelevant. Tebow may be a loyal friend, devoted son, and great neighbor. He may be a nice as Mr. Rogers. And surely he does have a right to express himself in the way he does.

But Tim Tebow is being held up as a model of what a good clean American should be. There are those who call him a "great American" and a "force for good" simply because he asks Jesus to help him win football games and score touchdowns. His ostentatious and tribal prayer and piety is held up as a heroic model to imitate.

But this is no model for people of real faith.

What would be such a model?

Imagine a quarterback who prays as often as Tebow. But there is nothing showy about his faith. He quietly and unassumingly makes his requests of God. Imagine further that he does not pray for his team's victory or the other team's kicker to miss a field goal. Suppose, rather, that he prays that each and every player do his best, that all on the field be safe from injury and humiliation, and that the best team wins.

Would not this be a model of faith that we should imitate? Rather than a showy kneeler who asks God to win one for him on account of his righteousness?

That is why I don't Tebow.

Christmas Reflections: Light only Shines in Darkness

2011-12-23T23:59:00.008-06:00

Christmas is - and has long been - a predominately commercial holiday. In other words, it is marketed, increasingly early and more forcefully with each passing yuletide, in order to make people buy things.

Because of this the holiday is typically presented as pure happiness; everyone feels good, everyone sings, and everyone has a great old time. I suppose that advertisers have long realized that a holiday bereft gloom, loss, struggle, and pain is a holiday best able to sell all manner of trinkets.

The fact is, however, that Christmas, like any other time of the year, has it share of sorrow, loss, and pain. Loved ones die, people divorce, homes are foreclosed, and jobs are lost.

Christmas (as marketed) cannot handle these tragedies. It's sappy sentimentalism and consumer driven "feeling good" is simply not equipped to deal with real suffering in life. People who are seriously soul searching and struggling with real human experience are at lot less inclined to consume.

This is Ironic.

Christmas is, both in symbol and in origin, a celebration of light in the darkness, warmth in the winter, hope in the shadow of fear. Ancient pagan festivals from which Christmas evolved, like Yule, Solstice, and Saturnalia, were all filled with symbols of triumph, joy, light, and life in the midst of a winter filled with death and darkness.

Coming at the darkest time of the year (in the northern hemisphere at least), when the world is cold, the trees bare, the ground frozen, and the elements harsh, Christmas is a reminder that in the face of death life persists, in the dark of night light can still be found, and that in the death of winter, there is still food to eat and warmth to warm us.

We have chosen to use only half of the holiday symbols. We think of the joy, the light, the warmth, and the cheer. But there is no joy without sorrow, no warmth without the cold, no light without darkness. In order to truly celebrate Christmas, we are going to have to keep the other aspects of the season before us.

One may argue, of course, that the holiday is meant as some form of escapism from the dark side of life. Sure, many think of it that way; the advertisers revel at that fact.

In reply I simply appeal to the history behind the holiday, both pagan and christian. We can reject those. We can buy into the the Christmas that makes retailers a fortune and drives us crazy with commercial-induced stress. But if we do we are leaving something deeper and more significant, for something sappy, cheaper, and far less meaningful.

By embracing the pain, suffering, and grief symbolized in the dark side of Christmas, we are leaving aside the shallow "cheer" of consumerism and cheap tinsel, for the deeper joy that results from what some might call a "tragic-optimism" or even, perhaps, a "tragic-romanticism."

To clarify what I mean, let us compare tragic-optimism and tragic romanticism, with their commercialized counterparts. The commercial brand of optimism tells us that all things are right with the world, that only "grinches" get sad during the holiday, and that if we just spend enough of our money at Hallmark and Target, Christmas will warm our hearts with its eggnogy bliss.

Commercial romanticism tells us that if we just put up the right decorations, buy the right "goodies" and follow the formula, we can have the kind of Christmas we had when we were 7 years old.

What I mean by tragic-optimism, on the other hand, is a view that life is hard. People die, dreams are broken, prospects fail to materialize. The tragic-optimist understands that great sorrow is an inescapable aspect of life, and we would be fools to deny that. But, despite this, the tragic-optimist finds existence ultimately joyful. Life is good, being is good, it is all worth it. In spite of all the pain and suffering, life is filled with joy. And this joy is not experienced in spite of pain and sorrow, but somehow, in part, because of it.

This is where tragic-romanticism comes in. Tragic-romanticism, as I understand it, is the appreciation that pain, sorrow, suffering, and grief can add to the joy of life, by making there opposites all the more potent and complete.

In searching for a Christmas image or song that exemplifies what I'm trying to express, I found myself drawn to the Judy Garland performance of "Have yourself a Merry little Christmas." [the story of this song fits in well with my position here, check it out] The song is filled with pain. And yet, somehow, one cannot miss the hope and triumph in Garland's voice.

Real optimism should never be confused with the attempt to delude ourselves that nothing bad is going to happen. Bad things will happen to us all. We cannot, and we ought not, downplay that. But hope, as opposed to delusion, is the conviction that it is all worth it. Despite the tragedies we must encounter in life, living is a beautiful and joyous thing. It is this kind of optimism, this genuine hope that Christmas should really be all about.

Christmas is indeed about being joyful and triumphant. But to know joy, we have to know pain, and to be triumphant we must conquer something, presumably the tragedy and pain in our lives

Should we still celebrate Thanksgiving?

2011-11-23T11:35:00.002-06:00

The question of this post's title might seem totally irrelevant, since it seems that most of America skipped Thanksgiving and jumped right on to Christmas within minutes of the end of trick or treating hours on Halloween! But I think the question is relevant.

There are at least two possible objections to observing Thanksgiving: 1) Animal rights, and 2) the plight of American Indians.

The first objection, I suppose, would look like this: Our food production system is one of intensely cruel factory farming. Pigs, Cows, Chickens, and other livestock are treated so inhumanely, that is sickening. In light of this, can we really contribute to a holiday that asks us to consume so much animal product, thus supporting this cruel system?

That objection is rather easy to answer. We can, of course, have a vegan, vegetarian, or free-range & small family farm version of thanksgiving.

The second objection is more serious. Thanksgiving celebrates the founding of this county, symbolically at least. But was not this country, in part, founded by stealing land from American Indians, killing them off, and generally treating them with inhumane cruelty and treachery? Yes. Sadly it was.

Despite this, I don't think Thanksgiving has ever been about this tragic and sorrowful fact. It's simply a time for families and friends to gather together and be thankful. It need not, and I think for almost no one is, about how this nation wronged the American Indians.

Thanksgiving is a time to celebrate and rejoice in what we have, to express a profound gratitude for life and living; for friends, family, and other loved ones. It is the start of the Holiday season; the one time of year left in this country when we actually slow down our mechanical routines a little bit and celebrate what really matters in our lives.

So by all means celebrate tomorrow! Eat your Turkey (or Turkey substitute) and mashed potatoes, watch football, say grace, and retire for the evening comfortably full and happy. Despite the struggles in life, there is always something to be profoundly grateful for.

Happy Thanksgiving!

The Christ of Faith: The Face of God

2011-08-20T18:41:00.009-05:00

Regarding my post on "the historical Jesus"A thoughtful reader asked me if I cared so much about what the Jesus of history said because, perhaps, I thought "he was God." This is a question I've heard many times "was/is Jesus God?" I think the very question itself misunderstands the issue.

In popular imagination God is a supernatural (and usually male) person who "lives" outside of the universe somewhere and periodically intervenes in it to perform "miracles." If one believes in this kind of God and adds to it the un-nuanced belief that "Jesus is God." On believes presumably that Jesus was not really a human being, but simply God visiting us incognito. This perspective sees the humanity of Jesus as some kind of costume that he temporally donned before flying up back home to heaven.

I might take the view seriously if a kindergartner suggested it, but it is far from the view of any sophisticated Christian theologian.

First I repeat my own position about the reality we appropriately term "God":

I ascribe to a theology known as panentheism. To sum up this position briefly: I understand panentheism as the view that the term "God" does not refer to a separately existing supernatural and person-like being "out there" beyond us. The term "God" refers rather to reality at its ultimate level, "Being itself," "The ground of being," the all-inclusive whole. The best way to understand what these abstractions signify is through an analogy: We know from physics that reality has levels of being which require ever deeper descriptions of the same object. Take, for example, a table. At the level of human interaction the table is a solid object of such-and-such size, weight, height and so on. But at a deeper level of physical description the table is properly described as a certain relationship of interaction between fundamental particles. Both descriptions are correct, the latter simply describes the realty of the table at a "deeper" level.

The panentheist takes this basic claim about the table and extends it to reality as a whole. The universe at the level of physical observation is the total collection of matter and energy interacting in space and time. If we go deeper, however, we can think of the universe as being reality itself only at a less than ultimate level of description. If we think of reality at its greatest or ultimate depth, we must think of it has having no boundaries or limits of any kind (after all what could limit it?). Ultimate reality would then be infinite (no limits), eternal (no beginning or end), and self-caused. All things in our universe can be seen as simply various expressions of the one ultimate reality at a level of less depth. Panentheists call ultimate reality "God" partly because it is eternal, infinite, and self-caused, but also because reality as a whole is so awe-inspiring, mysterious, and tremendous, that we can only feel reverence, humility, and awe when we contemplate it. In other words, for the panentheist all things are parts of God, but the reality of God goes deeper than reality at the level of things, though God does not exist apart from things as another being; God is, rather, the "ground of all being."

Now, let us try to understand the traditional idea of the "divinity of Jesus" in light of this panentheistic understanding of God. To begin with, a great many theologians and New Testament scholars would never say, crudely, "Jesus was/is God." The position is usually stated with far more nuance. Theologians tend to say things like "Jesus is the decisive revelation of God," "the place where we meet God most clearly," "our fullest of experience of the divine in our lives," or other subtly worded variants.

Usually the theologian makes the following moves: 1) The truest way to God for the Christian is through love and justice. In other words, in fighting for justice, in compassion, in loving others, we meet the divine. 2) Jesus is the clearest expression of a human being dedicated to compassion and love that we can know (more on this point below). 3) Therefore, to the extent that Jesus incarnates the very compassion and justice that is where we find God, he is the clearest expression of God to us and for us.

In short, theologians need not - and typically they do not - say that the historical Jesus was/is God; but they are committed to the view that, for the Christian, God is made known most clearly, most fully, and most powerfully in the life, deeds, words, death, and abiding presence (for my view of the resurrection of Jesus click here) of this first century Galilean.

This is my position as well.

Let me now consider two objections to it:

Objection 1: Christians for many centuries called Jesus God, so you can't be a Christian without saying it so bluntly.

Reply: It is not the case that all Christian theologians said, so bluntly, "Jesus is God." But even if they did, the claim that religions can never change, and must always and forever express exactly the same ideas in exactly the same sense is both absurd and manifestly false.

Objection 2: "Why do you choose to follow Jesus as the decisive revelation of God? Lot's of people are committed to justice and compassion! Can't the same claims be made for Buddha, Muhammad, Gandhi etc?"

Reply: Yes the same claims can be made for other figures. In fact, to the degree that anyone lives a life of justice and compassion, that person incarnates God. There is a necessarily subjective element at play here in seeing Jesus as the fullest incarnation of God. It's similar to my love regarding my wife. I often tell my wife that she is "the most amazing, or the most beautiful, woman in the world." When I tell her this I mean it and believe it. But I'm not claiming it as some kind of objective fact about her; rather, I am proclaiming my commitment to her. My statements are statements of my commitment to her; not objective facts about her person. Yet they are not totally subjective either. If my wife turned out to be very different than the person I thought she was, say she turned out to be a cruel and evil person (she is not- don't worry!), then my commitment would end.

Exactly the same is true of my commitment to Jesus as the clearest and fullest incarnation of God for me. In saying, "in Jesus is where I see God most clearly." I am making a claim about my commitment to Jesus; not simply stating facts about Jesus (e.g. that he was 5'3). But again, this claim is not without objective content. If historical research revealed that the Jesus who actually lives was not a man committed to compassion and justice, but was actually a violent sociopath, then I could not follow him, could not see God in him.

To use another analogy. Suppose I declare that Tolstoy is the greatest novelist in history. One way, perhaps the most helpful way, to understand that is to say that this is how Tolstoy effects me: the power and beauty of literature comes to me most clearly and fully in Tolstoy. Furthermore, although there are many other novelist I also find great, none quite effect me like Tolstoy does. This claim does require, I think, that Tolstoy actually be a remarkably great writer, but to call him the greatest instead of say Dostoevsky or James Joyce requires an element of subjectivity.

Similarly, I do see God made known in lives like Gandhi and Desmond Tutu, but other lives just don't quite bring God to me like Jesus does.

I believe that we all incarnate God to the degree that we are passionate about justice and have compassion for our fellow human beings. Jesus of Nazareth, both in the gospels and, as far as I can tell, in history was a person who manifested these traits to a remarkable degree. I do not, of course, claim he did so to an unparalleled degree. But, in a way similar to my love and commitment to my wife, or my personal view that Tolstoy is the greatest novelist of them all, I find that it is Jesus who most clearly makes God known to me.

That is how I understand the divinity of Jesus.

Update (8/24/11):

In conversation with a Theologian friend on this post, I mentioned to him that:

The suffering of Jesus and the failure of his mission is clearly part of this revelatory package too. In the brutal death of this man, his betrayel by those close to him, etc, we learn, clearly, that God is present - maybe even most present - in our moments of pain, sorrow, suffering, defeat, and loss.

He replied to me by adding:

I would add that in Jesus Christ God pronounces a final verdict on the choice human beings have made and continue to make for violence. But instead of inflicting violence on his enemies, God chose to absorb their violence in himself, in the one nailed to the cross.

It is clear to me that these insights have to be added and developed to my account of the "divinity of Jesus."

Angry White Voters: The Truth about the Tea Party

2011-08-18T01:10:00.008-05:00

I have long thought that the tea party was nothing more than a group of far-right extremists that have long spewed their uninformed, bigoted, and angry opinions toward all things they perceive - with fear and trembling racking their frightened forms - as "liberal," "progressive," "humanistic," and "secular."

The only difference between them now and over the past 50 years is that obscenely rich and self-interested charlatans like Dick Armey and the Koch Brothers - feel free to snicker at the thought of a "Dick" and the couple of "Koch's" funding the "tea-baggers" - have given them odd signs and banners, and bankrolled their crank rallies.

It appears, unsurprisingly, that I was correct. Hard data now demonstrates that the so-called tea-party is, in Joan Walsh's words:

Scholar Robert Putnam, best known for his study of American atomization in "Bowling Alone," has produced new data on the Tea Party and it's being billed as a shocker. Sit down before you read this: They are older, white conservative Christians "who were highly partisan Republicans long before the Tea Party was born."

Putnam's article is available at the New York Times. According to his research:

Beginning in 2006 we interviewed a representative sample of 3,000 Americans as part of our continuing research into national political attitudes, and we returned to interview many of the same people again this summer. As a result, we can look at what people told us, long before there was a Tea Party, to predict who would become a Tea Party supporter five years later. We can also account for multiple influences simultaneously — isolating the impact of one factor while holding others constant.
Our analysis casts doubt on the Tea Party’s “origin story.” Early on, Tea Partiers were often described as nonpartisan political neophytes. Actually, the Tea Party’s supporters today were highly partisan Republicans long before the Tea Party was born, and were more likely than others to have contacted government officials. In fact, past Republican affiliation is the single strongest predictor of Tea Party support today.
What’s more, contrary to some accounts, the Tea Party is not a creature of the Great Recession. Many Americans have suffered in the last four years, but they are no more likely than anyone else to support the Tea Party. And while the public image of the Tea Party focuses on a desire to shrink government, concern over big government is hardly the only or even the most important predictor of Tea Party support among voters.
So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.
More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 — opposing abortion, for example — and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics. And Tea Partiers continue to hold these views: they seek “deeply religious” elected officials, approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government.
This inclination among the Tea Party faithful to mix religion and politics explains their support for Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. Their appeal to Tea Partiers lies less in what they say about the budget or taxes, and more in their overt use of religious language and imagery, including Mrs. Bachmann’s lengthy prayers at campaign stops and Mr. Perry’s prayer rally in Houston.

In short, the tea-party is nothing but a new name for the same old right-wing bigots who have opposed every socially progressive policy since the Civil Rights act! The same bigots who wanted to make sure black people could not vote, live in their neighborhoods, or attend their schools, now oppose a black president. The same right-wing religious extremists who want Genesis taught in their kids' biology courses and think America should be a nation for Christians only, now want Michelle Bachmann to lead their country.

Enough nonsense! There is no such thing as the tea-party; it's just the same far right cranks and loons we've had to deal with for a very long time. So let's do what you ought to do with such quacks: let them rant and rave like the madmen they are, and ignore their wild chants when we actually sit down as rational people to attempt policy.

It's time to throw the tea-bag in the trash.

Jesus: Proclaimer of the Now and Future Kingdom

2011-08-02T12:49:00.010-05:00

When I first created this blog my purpose was to discuss politics. But it appears that religion has come to dominate more and more of my posts. Things change of course and I will, no doubt, return to politics as a primary focus eventually. For now, however, I shall continue to post on the matters most in my thoughts, and presently those matters pertain to religion.

I want to write briefly about the central message of the Historical Jesus.* But first some necessary preliminaries:

1) By the term "Historical Jesus" I refer to the actual flesh and blood person who walked the dusty roads of ancient Israel, insofar as that individual can be reconstructed by means of historical-critical scholarship. This Jesus is not to be confused with the "Jesus of Faith." The latter is Jesus as he is experienced in the religious life of Christian believers. The difference between these two is crucial to solid scholarship.

2) The four New Testament gospels are not straightforward historical accounts. This is a fact that no serious Bible scholar or historian doubts and it has been well known for around 200 years now. The gospels contain myths and legends (e.g. the birth stories, the temptation by the devil, walking on the sea) exaggeration, theological musings projected into narratives about Jesus, propaganda, and so forth.

3) Despite (2) the gospels are not useless as historical documents. Two centuries of painstaking historical research has established beyond reasonable doubt that the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) have a solid historical foundation. The gospel of John is not close to history and is not accorded the same status as the synoptics by historians.

4) The narrative spine of Mark (and thus Matthew and Luke who used Mark as a primary source) is broadly historical: Jesus came from Nazareth, briefly followed and was baptized by John the Baptist, shortly after John's arrest went out on his own mission, chose disciples to follow him and do what he was doing, taught in parables, gathered people together around a common meal, worked as an itinerant healer and exorcist, and, at Passover in the year 30, journeyed to Jerusalem, confronted the leaders there with the judgment of God by word and deed (the demonstration in the temple) and was crucified by Rome for his troubles.

5) Scholars also generally agree that much of the teaching in a hypothetical document called "Q" is authentic to the Jesus of history. Q is a source that was used by Matthew and Luke (they also used Mark). We have no copy of this source as it is lost. But it is clearly visible in the passages that Matthew and Luke have in common but that are not in their other source, Mark. It is also fairly clear that the majority of the parables (though not the interpretive gloss gospel writers sometimes give them) go back to the Jesus of history as well.

6) But, even in "Q" and Mark we do not have unbiased plain history. And scholars are careful to point out that in those two early sources some material is still suspect. In particular, passages that too obviously reflect the theology of the later Jesus movement (as evidenced in, say, Paul's letters) is unlikely to go back to Jesus. Passages in which Jesus speaks to the conditions of his followers in the 50s and 60s (see Mark 13) are clearly not from the Jesus of history, nor are passages in which Jesus speaks of himself as a heavenly judge and one who will come again - this rules out all future "son of man" passages, which has very important ramifications, as will be seen below.

With these preliminaries in place we can now ask who Jesus was? Or better, what picture of Jesus emerges from our earliest sources (Q and Mark - excluding the obviously unhistorical passages)?

I will here restrict myself to the core image in the teaching of the historical Jesus: The Kingdom of God. Better translated as the "ruling activity of God" this phrase refers to the concrete activity of God in the world whereby He establishes that He is in charge. The phrase does not indicate a place or nation in which God is actually the king.

Though the phrase "Kingdom of God" could mean many things, by the time of Jesus it serves as an eschatological image. Eschatology is that branch of theology dealing with "end-times," death, judgement, eternal life, Heaven and Hell. But used in reference to the period in which Jesus lived it refers rather to the expectation and hope, shared by many of the Jewish people at the time, that God would soon act decisively in human history to once and for all end injustice, oppression, and evil and usher in an age of prosperity, peace, and harmony.

Some scholars misleadingly speak of the time that God would do this as "the end of the world." But that is not what most of these Jewish people expected (Crossan The Greatest Prayer, 79). What they expected, rather, was that God would transform this world, not end it. Many did expect that only a supernatural act could accomplish this and thought also that events like the raising of the righteous dead to new life would accompany the eschaton. Indeed, most early Christians thought that the kingdom would be decidedly established by a return of Jesus to earth, to end evil and usher in an age of everlasting peace.

Many scholars have claimed that Jesus' own eschatology was close to that of the early Christians. He too, so they argue, expected a supernatural event in the very near future that would transform the world forever. On this view, Jesus' message was simply "the kingdom is coming soon, so you better repent and get ready for it."

I don't think this position is particularly well supported for several reasons. First the only gospel passages in which Jesus speaks of an imminent and spectacular arrival of God's kingdom are in the passages in which he speaks of the coming of the son of man (himself) from heaven. But the work of such scholars as Geza Vermes and Norman Perrin (as well as many others) demonstrate clearly that such passages do not go back to the historical Jesus, but are products of the early Jesus movement and depend upon the belief that the executed Jesus is raised up to God's right hand and that he will return from there to establish everlasting justice and peace. These passages reflect the view of Jesus' followers after his death, not the view of Jesus himself.

Second, Jesus' message in Q and Mark is simply not "repent, pray and wait for God to act." On the contrary his message reads more like "This is what the kingdom is, you are called to live out and participate in that kingdom, so get to work!" (Crossan The Greatest Prayer, 90)

So the overtly apocalyptic or end-of-the-world Jesus is not the Jesus of history. Nevertheless, I cannot quite agree with those scholars who claim that for Jesus the Kingdom of God is only a present reality made known to those who realize it in themselves. Even without the son of man passages there are enough texts that show that Jesus did teach that the kingdom, though clearly a present reality to enter now, in its full glory lies in the future (Matthew 5: 3-11, Mark 14: 25, etc.).

Did Jesus then believe that the great eschaton was soon to come? That God would indeed radically act so as to transform the world forever?

It seems to me that a careful reading of the earliest sources does not support the claim that Jesus spoke of a Kingdom of God about to burst upon the world in the future, either immediately or at some unspecified time. Nor do those teachings support that Jesus denied this in favor of a mystical present kingdom. Geza Vermes has expressed the position I am reaching for well:

[Q]ueries concerned with whether the kingdom had come, was on the way, or would come later, must be irrelevant. At issue in New Testament eschatology is the actual movement itself of turning back, of entering into the kingdom. It is in the surrender of the self to God's will that his sovereignty is realized on earth (Jesus in his Jewish Context, 35).

And Norman Perrin expressed it similarly:

In the teaching of Jesus the emphasis is not upon a future for which men must prepare, even with the help of God; the emphasis is upon a present which carries with it the guarantee of the future (Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, 205).

In short if we are to understand the eschatological mindset of the historical Jesus we must look to what he actually says about the kingdom. Jesus speaks of the kingdom as a reality that people can enter now (Luke 16.16), that is among us (Luke 17:20), but that will be our destiny in the future as well (Mathew 8:11). The kingdom is known in acts of healing (Luke 11:20) in the embracing of social outcasts, forgiving each other, in peace, non-violence, love for others, and the fight for justice (Matthew 5-7). In short, it is in healing each other, forgiving each other, battling injustice, and ending oppression that the kingdom is entered into by all who choose it here and now.

For Jesus, it appears, the full fruits of the kingdom do lie in the future, but it does not seem that his message is about waiting for that future. Rather than seeing the kingdom as imminent - as about to burst forth on the earth - it seems that Jesus saw the kingdom as ultimate. The Hebrew God of justice and compassion would, in the end, perfect the world, would eliminate injustice and usher in a time of everlasting peace and plenty for all. This is the heart of prophetic Judaism, and the core of the vision of the historical Jesus. Where Jesus takes his faith in God's kingdom a step further is in his clear conviction that the coming kingdom is even now already present. Like the leaven in the dough that has not yet risen, or the mustard seed that has not yet grown into a great tree, the kingdom is here, now and we may enter it, confident that the tree will grow and the bread will rise, and we must work with it.

So the message is not to wait for God to fix things. The message of the historical Jesus is rather, embrace the outcasts, combat injustice, forgive those who have wronged you, heal the sick. Do all this and you have entered the kingdom. As John Dominic Crossan puts it:

[Jesus called others] to do exactly what he himself was doing: heal the sick, eat with the healed, and demonstrate the kingdom's presence in that reciprocity and mutuality. It is not, he said, about intervention by God, but about participation with God. God's Great Cleanup of the World does not begin, cannot continue, and will not conclude without our divinely empowered participation and transcendentally driven collaboration (The Greatest Prayer, 90).

*My understanding of the Historical Jesus is most indebted to the work of John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg. But I also draw considerably on Geza Vermes and Norman Perrin. To a lesser but non-trivial extent I am indebted to the work of N. T. Wright and Richard Horsley. I find the Jesus of such scholars as Paula Frederickson, Ed Sanders, and Bart Erhman to be historically problematic (given its rejection of politics and its reliance on "the son of man" style eschatology), and the very non-jewish wondering sage (who seems to have no relation to Jewish politics or eschatology!) of Robert Funk and Burton Mack even more so.

Note: The Picture accompanying this post is from a BBC documentary which attempts to construct a face for Jesus that actually looks like a 1st century Galilean.

Touching the Eternal

2011-07-26T21:20:00.008-05:00

Is there life after death?

I have briefly raised this question in an earlier post. Since life after death was the topic of my philosophy of religion class tonight, I thought I should sum up that discussion as a continuation of this topic.

Let us first consider the concept of an immortal soul. On this view we are essentially non-physical souls that inhabit bodies during this life only to "go to the spirit realm"- or something like that - upon the death of the body.

There are a few problems with this view. Most importantly, our consciousness and thinking processes are so intimately connected with our brains that is strains credulity to think that there is some non-physical substance that accounts for our minds. Furthermore, since I can explain mental processes in terms of bodily processes, it would seem that Occam's razor obliges us to reject any explanatory need for the soul in the first place. Indeed, it is a very good principle of critical thinking to avoid positing entities - particularly entities we cannot explain or understand - unless very compelling evidence forces us to do so.

On the other hand, should strong evidence for an immortal soul exist, we should embrace it. But there is no such evidence. The most commonly sighted evidence are the following:

1) Near Death Experiences

2) Ghosts

3) Accounts of past lives

4) Visits from recently deceased loved ones

5) Mediums

This evidence is simply not compelling. Near Death Experiences can be replicated in the laboratory, there is no hard evidence of any merit for ghosts, accounts of past lives are not confirmably accurate often enough to overcome skepticism, visits from the recently deceased could very well be grief hallucinations - they are impossible to confirm or deny - and mediums have far too often been exposed as frauds and never passed the rigors of controlled experiments (The case against all these varieties of evidence is nicely summed up by Paul Kurtz).

When all is said and done, given the strong physical evidence that our minds are, if not identical with our brains, at least strongly interconnected with our neural processes, and the very inconclusive - at best - nature of the above pieces of evidence, it seems that we must say the existence of an immortal soul is rather unlikely. I personally do not entirely rule it out, as I know that my knowledge and reasoning skills are limited, but I'm strongly inclined to disbelieve it.

Another possible belief in immortality rejects the immortal soul idea in favor of "bodily resurrection." On this traditional Christian view God will, at the end of time, raise up the dead to live again and forever in transformed bodies. The only evidence of this view is an appeal to divine revelation. But it is clear to me that human beings have never received any specifically articulated divine revelation. All holy books, creeds, etc, are clearly human inventions. We cannot argue from such sources.

Does this mean then that death is the end of us?

Not necessarily.

As I have often written on this blog, I ascribe to a theology known as panentheism. To sum up this position briefly: I understand panentheism as the view that the term "God" does not refer to a separately existing supernatural and person-like being "out there" beyond us. The term "God" refers rather to reality at its ultimate level, "Being itself," "The ground of being," the all-inclusive whole. The best way to understand what these abstractions signify is through an analogy: We know from physics that reality has levels of being which require ever deeper descriptions of the same object. Take, for example, a table. At the level of human interaction the table is a solid object of such-and-such size, weight, height and so on. But at a deeper level of physical description the table is properly described as a certain relationship of interaction between fundamental particles. Both descriptions are correct, the latter simply describes the realty of the table at a "deeper" level.

The panentheist takes this basic claim about the table and extends it to reality as a whole. The universe at the level of physical observation is the total collection of matter and energy interacting in space and time. If we go deeper, however, we can think of the universe as being reality itself only at a less than ultimate level of description. If we think of reality at its greatest or ultimate depth, we must think of it has having no boundaries or limits of any kind (after all what could limit it?). Ultimate reality would then be infinite (no limits), eternal (no beginning or end), and self-caused. All things in our universe can be seen as simply various expressions of the one ultimate reality at a level of less depth. Panentheists call ultimate reality "God" partly because it is eternal, infinite, and self-caused, but also because reality as a whole is so awe-inspiring, mysterious, and tremendous, that we can only feel reverence, humility, and awe when we contemplate it. In other words, for the panentheist all things are parts of God, but the reality of God goes deeper than reality at the level of things, though God does not exist apart from things as another being; God is, rather, the "ground of all being."

So how does this relate back to surviving our death?

Since, according to panentheism we are all a part of God, we are, like everything else, one with God at the deepest level of reality. This means that the core of who we are, that part of us that causes us to be, to love, to think, is nothing other than the very power of being-itself and since being itself is eternal, that core part of us is eternal. In a classic analogy we are like waves in relation to the water. The waves perish, but the water remains. In like manner, it may be true that our memories, personality, and self-awareness perish at death (though I am open to the possibility that something of these remains, I am not convinced that any of it does), but something of us, something that makes us who we are is eternal and imperishable.

Many find this less than reassuring. On this non-personal understanding of immortality, there is no reunion with departed loved ones, and probably no self-conscious awareness of an everlasting life. On the other hand, I'm not so sure that living forever with a conscious awareness like we have now would be enjoyable or rewarding. I could easily imagine it as a kind of inescapable tedium.

But I find the idea that the core of my being is eternally one with reality at its ultimate level to be quite inspiring. This means that my thoughts, loves, deeds, and joys have something of eternal value and meaning to them, that something of my true being partakes of the rhythm of the eternal dance, that the relationships I've had, the things I've learned, and who I've been are taken into and indeed part of the eternal creative act of Being itself.

In short, I am inclined to agree, to an extant at least, with Paul of Tarsus, when he says that

For none of us lives unto himself,
and no one dies unto himself.
For if we live, we live unto the Lord;
and if we die, we die unto the Lord.
Therefore whether we live or die
we are the Lord's (Romans 14: 7-8).

Indeed just as "we live and move and have our being" in the reality that is God (Acts 17:28), so we die into that same reality, our deepest being taken into and included in that divine essence.

Bill Moyers on Memorial Day

2011-05-30T11:18:00.002-05:00

The following video is from 2009 but it is still timely and relevant. Moyers' comments should help us to reflect more carefully on what memorial day is really about.

Here's the video:

Reflections of Eternal Life: Part 1

2011-05-25T20:07:00.004-05:00

I've decided to do a few blog posts together as a series on the issue of - for lack of a better term - "life after death." I don't know how many posts this series will finish up with, although I'm sure I will write at least three. I should begin with a candid admission that I am agnostic regarding life after death. I simply do not know - and am pretty sure that none of us can know - anything about what might happen to us after death (other than the facts that our bodies will decompose).

I thought, however, that I ought to compose a few reflections on the topic, since it has of late become something of a newsworthy item.

A well known evangelical pastor has recently come out with a book questioning the existence of Hell. There is, predictably, much controversy over this. The Religious left has long embraced this universalist conclusion, and the religious right damns it as blasphemy. But in my opinion he is only half right. I think it is VERY UNLIKELY that anything like the traditional concept of a personal afterlife can be true.

The idea that after death we will hang out again with Grandma and the beloved family dog we lost at age 12 is without any support of any kind. And it requires a commitment to the view of God as a supernatural being "out there" somewhere in a equally supernatural heaven; a God who makes plans, has intentions, thoughts, feelings, and will judge our merit (or gracefully forgive us all our failings) based on our moral behavior.

Belief in such a person-like God is hard to sustain given the impersonal nature of the laws that govern the physical world, the vast age and size of the universe, and the rather obvious historical development of that concept of God over time together with its clear role as a psychological projection. This is not to say that I embrace atheism. I do not. But I think that any viable conception of God must recognize that the view of God as person-like and supernatural is deeply problematic. If we are to retain concepts of deity, they must be of a different nature. I've discussed this elsewhere and refer my readers to that earlier material.

The reader may already guess where I am going with this. Just as it is possible to reject a supernatural and person-like creator without eliminating God all together, it seems to me that it is possible to reject a continuation of ourselves as persons after death without rejecting some essential continuation of ourselves all together. What I have in mind is something like this: Perhaps it is true that we do not "go to heaven," do not continue to exist after death in the same person-like state (filled with memories, images, sense-perception etc.) after our death - at any rate I'm inclined to believe that we do not so exist; but this need not mean that we completely cease to exist. It could well be that there are important senses in which something non-personal but essential about us continues to exist for eternity.

It is such non-personal conceptions of eternal life that I will consider in my future posts for this series.

Dissertation Defense : Videos of the Questions and Answers Round 1

2011-05-19T05:34:00.005-05:00

Following the post of my summary of the dissertation, I thought I'd add some videos of the first round of the question and answers sessions. In many ways this is more important and interesting than my summary:

Spinoza's theory of individuals: Video of my dissertation defense

2011-05-17T19:46:00.006-05:00

Hello Readers!

I successfully defended my dissertation today and am now "Dr. Wion." It is very nice to have earned this degree after 16 years of toil, debt, and struggle. I provide here the videos of my summary of the dissertation. The Q&A sections of the defense will be posted later. If you don't know Spinoza's thought that well, I recommend that you read the Introduction to my dissertation which I have pasted here right below the video.

Introduction

Spinoza speaks often of individuals. Indeed, the well-being of a particular set of individuals, namely human individuals, is the principal focus of his philosophy. Naturally we expect such a systematic philosopher as Spinoza to provide a theory about what, precisely, an individual is. This expectation is bound to be present with regard to any philosopher who stresses the importance of individuals. For Spinoza, however, the problem is particularly acute, for he famously argues that there is only one substance, one self-existent being. If there is only one substance, it seems to follow that there is only one individual. Since substance in the western philosophical tradition is ordinarily restricted to particular individuals, this seems to be a sensible conclusion. It thus appears that Spinoza would conclude that there is only one individual. He does not do this, however. He repeatedly speaks of individuals in the plural, in particular of human individuals and their well-being. It is obvious that Spinoza holds that there are multiple individuals. Since he holds that there are many individuals but only one substance, it follows that most individuals are not substances. This invites the question of what an individual is for Spinoza.

In this study, my principal concern is to answer the question of what Spinoza holds an individual to be. My secondary aim is to argue that Spinoza's conception of an individual has important moral and political consequences regarding the nature of the state and the role of the community in the life of the individual.
I will present my reading of what an individual is for Spinoza and the moral and political implications that follow from his conception of individuals over the course of five chapters. Chapter 1 will argue for and explain my reading of Spinoza's system as a whole. We cannot begin to understand Spinoza’s conception of an individual without a firm grasp of the nature of his larger metaphysical system. This means that we must first clarify Spinoza’s central metaphysical concepts. These concepts are principally found in Ethics 1 and 2. They include the concepts of substance, attributes, and modes, as well as the central ideas which Spinoza offers on the relationship of the mind to the body, and his argument for universal casual determinism. A thorough investigation of Spinoza’s conception of the individual requires an adequate comprehension of these concepts.

In my second chapter, I will look closely both at Spinoza's primary texts for his understanding of what an individual is and at the work of leading interpreters on this aspect of his thought. The critical issue that I will examine in chapter 2 is what exactly counts as an individual for Spinoza. Although this issue, for reasons that will be presented, cannot be fully resolved, I will venture some conclusions about the origins of Spinoza's account of individuals and what he considers to be paradigmatic individuals.

Chapter 3 proceeds from the doctrine of individuals in general to a particular application of that doctrine. My focus here will be on whether or not the state (or “civil society”) counts as an individual. This question is important because Spinoza claims that the human individual is part of some larger individual, though he never explicitly says what this larger individual is. Since, for Spinoza, to be part of a larger individual is to have one's very nature determined by that individual, it is absolutely critical to determine what that individual is. In this chapter, therefore, I will carefully examine the work of Alexandre Matheron and his critics, primarily Steve Barbone and Lee Rice. Matheron argues that Spinoza thinks of a civil society as a kind of individual of which human beings are a part. Rice and Barbone argue against Matheron's reading.

In chapter 4, I will shift my analysis to the moral and political implications that follow from Spinoza's understanding of what an individual is. I will argue that Spinoza, contrary to some common readings of him, is not an egoist. Spinoza is not an egoist because his conception of individuals is primarily a relational one; whereas egoism, I will argue, depends upon a non-relational theory of individuals. To demonstrate this contrast between a relational and non-relational understanding of individuals and its role in interpreting Spinoza's position, I will carefully examine the work of feminist scholars who have written extensively on this issue. I will also contrast the work of these thinkers with the contribution of Rice.

Chapter 5 will briefly examine some political implications for Spinoza's theory of the individual. In particular, I will argue that Spinoza's understanding of the individual requires a strong commitment to what is often called “the welfare state.” To illustrate his commitment to a strong welfare state, I will argue, on the basis of his general political theory and several key texts, that Spinoza would support universal health care coverage.

Spinoza: The Movie

2011-04-17T18:11:00.003-05:00

I have just discovered that there is a movie about Baruch Spinoza! As I have written my dissertation on Spinoza, I find this very interesting.

The film does not present a very deep or even an entirely accurate understanding of Spinoza's philosophy. But presenting Spinoza as "the Apostle of Reason," weeping, cringing, screaming, and feebly coughing blood as tuberculous saps his life away, makes for interesting viewing.

As he implores all those around him to think rationally and live honestly, the irrational fanaticism of his society grows more violent, more deceptive, and ever less sane.

As you watch (it's only 52 mins long) pay special attention to the angry mob and Spinoza's reaction to their ways.

Here's the film:

How to Become a Teacher...: Preface: A Change of Plans

2011-03-10T11:37:00.001-06:00

So I just discovered a new blog on teaching that I think all my readers should check out. Here it is:

How to Become a Teacher...: Preface: A Change of Plans: "A funny thing happened while pursuing my dream of becoming a philosophy professor. I hated, (this may even call for all caps) HATED my mast..."

Mr. Moore comes to Madison

2011-03-05T23:30:00.001-06:00

The protests on part of unions in Wisconsin is drawing big names. Michael Moore gave a speech in Madison today to support the cause. Here is that thirty minute speech:

A Word about Unions

2011-03-03T21:46:00.003-06:00

As the conflict in Wisconsin over Gov. Walker's proposal to strip unions of their right to collective bargaining continues, I find that many still do not understand what the debate is all about and why Walker's actions are terribly wrong and even deeply immoral.

First, let us dispel a few red herrings. This debate is not about whether unions have their flaws and foibles. Unions, like any other organization, have weak points, make mistakes, and are imperfect. So what? The criticisms of unions are no different than any other type organization. Second, the debate in Wisconsin has nothing to do with "balancing a budget" or "reducing the state deficit." To begin with, taking away the right of unions to bargain collectively does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to reduce a deficit. Even worse, since Walker created the so-called deficit by giving tax breaks to his rich donors and even refusing stimulus money and the jobs that would be created by high speed rail, he can hardly say that we "must" strip unions of anything, let alone their right to bargain collectively!

Second, there are those who think this is about union members' greed. The unions have agreed - I would not have - to the cuts in their pensions and to pay more for health care. They insist only on holding onto to collective bargaining. Furthermore, many of the same people who insists that teachers are greedy for having a good health care plan also claim (out of the other side of their face I guess) that we have no right to raise any taxes on millionaires! If I hear from someone that millionaires should be given a break from their estate tax, but that teachers getting a solid pension is what we should really cut, I will simply laugh off this kind of stupidity and address it no further.

Third, I hear, all too often I am afraid, that public employees should not be given "fat benefits" that private employees lack. This is just absurd! If you think that public employees enjoy better jobs than their private sector counterparts, then you should fight to bring back union membership to private workers, to get them those "fat benefits," rather than want to remove them from public employees! Again, however, this misses the point. Unionized public employees and their allies are not fighting for better benefits, but for their right to bargain collectively! Let's please stay on track here.

These red herrings dispelled, we can now look at the justification for the existence of unions. In the employee/employer relationship the employer has all the power. The employer pays the wages, hires and fires, decides who takes breaks, when, and for how long, and so forth. If each employee must face their employer alone, they simply lack the power to fight for better wages, more time off, better working conditions, etc. The only way for employees to have anything like the power of their employer in this relationship is to come together and bargain collectively. This is what a union is, this is why unions are needed, and this is why their right to collectively bargain must be preserved.

The heart of the Battle in Wisconsin, and other states, is the battle to allow working people some power, some equality, some voice in determining their working conditions. As the collapse of unions in the private sector has already made clear, when unions go, working conditions for people fall dramatically. Without the existence of unions the power is solely in the hands of the employer, and we should all have long since understood that history clearly reveals that in any and all relationships where the power is all one side, the powerless never find themselves treated justly.

Walker asks Unions to "Sacrifice," but cuts taxes for the Rich!

2011-02-23T20:14:00.004-06:00

The Battle for Wisconsin: What's happening and why

2011-02-18T22:20:00.006-06:00

The working people of Wisconsin are under attack. The hand-picked corporate stooge that is now Governor of the state has decided to risk his entire political career and the well-being of the people of Wisconsin (admittedly the latter mean little, if anything, to him) to destroy unions, to hurt the opposing political party, and to strip away one of the very few protections left to working people. I intended to blog about what is happening in Wisconsin and what it means, but Mother Jones has already written exactly what I wanted to say! Here is what MJ says (I will add my own thoughts at the end):

What's Happening in Wisconsin: Explained
— By Andy Kroll
| Fri Feb. 18, 2011 3:30 PM PST
Activists protesting new GOP Gov. Scott Walker's anti-union proposals have occupied the rotunda of the Wisconsin capitol building in Madison for the past week, but Walker is pressing ahead anyway.Flickr/Peter Gorman.
If you need to know the basics of what's going on in Wisconsin, read on. If you're already up to speed, you can follow the action on Twitter or jump straight to today's updates from our reporter on the ground in Madison.
—With additional reporting by Nick Baumannand Siddhartha Mahanta
The basics:
For days, demonstrators have been pouring into the streets of Madison, Wisconsin—and the halls of the state's Capitol building—to protest rookie Republican Governor Scott Walker's anti-union proposals. Big national unions, both major political parties, the Tea Party, and Andrew Breitbart are already involved. Democratic state senators have fled the state to prevent the legislature from voting on Walker's proposals. And the protests could soon spread to other states, including Ohio [....]
What's actually being proposed?
Walker says his legislation, which would strip most state employees of any meaningful collective bargaining rights, is necessary to close the state's $137 million budget gap. There are a number of problems with that argument, though. The unions are not to blame for the deficit, and stripping unionized workers of their collective bargaining rights won't in and of itself save any money. Walker says he needs to strip the unions of their rights to close the gap. But public safety officers' unions, which have members who are more likely to support Republicans and who also tend to have the highest salaries and benefits, are exempted from the new rules. Meanwhile, a series of tax breaks and other goodies that Walker and the Republican legislature passed just after his inauguration dramatically increased the deficit that Walker now says he's trying to close. And Wisconsin has closed a much larger budget gap in the past without scrapping worker organizing rights.
What's really going on, as Kevin Drum has explained, is pure partisan warfare: Walker is trying to de-fund the unions that form the backbone of the Democratic party. The unions and the Democrats are, of course, fighting back. The Washington Post's Ezra Klein drops some knowledge [emphasis added]:
The best way to understand Walker's proposal is as a multi-part attack on the state's labor unions. In part one, their ability to bargain benefits for their members is reduced. In part two, their ability to collect dues, and thus spend money organizing members or lobbying the legislature, is undercut. And in part three, workers have to vote the union back into existence every single year. Put it all together and it looks like this: Wisconsin's unions can't deliver value to their members, they're deprived of the resources to change the rules so they can start delivering value to their members again, and because of that, their members eventually give in to employer pressure and shut the union down in one of the annual certification elections.
You may think Walker's proposal is a good idea or a bad idea. But that's what it does. And it's telling that he's exempting the unions that supported him and is trying to obscure his plan's specifics behind misleading language about what unions can still bargain for and misleading rhetoric about the state's budget.
Walker's proposals do have important fiscal elements: they roughly double health care premiums for many state employees. But the heart of the proposals, and the controversy, are the provisions that will effectively destroy public-sector unions in the Badger State. As Matt Yglesias notes, this won't destroy the Democratic party. But it will force the party to seek funding from sources other than unions, and that usually means the same rich businessmen who are the main financial backers for the Republican party. Speaking of which....
Who is Scott Walker?
Walker was elected governor in the GOP landslide of 2010, when Republicans also gained control of the Wisconsin state senate and house of representatives. His political career has been bankrolled by Charles and David Koch, the very rich, very conservative, and very anti-union oil-and-gas magnates. Koch-backed groups like Americans for Prosperity, the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Reason Foundation have long taken a very antagonistic view toward public-sector unions. They've used their vast fortunes to fight key Obama initiatives on health care and the environment, while writing fat checks to Republican candidates across the country. Walker's take for the 2010 election: $43,000 from the Koch Industries PAC, his second highest intake from any one donor. But that's not all!:
The Koch's PAC also helped Walker via a familiar and much-used political maneuver designed to allow donors to skirt campaign finance limits. The PAC gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association, which in turn spent $65,000 on independent expenditures to support Walker. The RGA also spent a whopping $3.4 million on TV ads and mailers attacking Walker's opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. Walker ended up beating Barrett by 5 points. The Koch money, no doubt, helped greatly.
What are the Democrats and the unions doing to respond?
Well, they're protesting, obviously—filling the halls of the Capitol and the streets of Madison with bodies and signs. They're calling their representatives and talking about recalling Walker (who cannot be recalled until next January) or any of eight GOP state senators who are eligible for recall right now. Meanwhile, all of the Democratic state senators have left the state in an attempt to deny Republicans the quorum they need to vote on Walker's proposals, but if just one of them returns (or is hauled back by state troopers), the GOP will have the quorum they need. (Interestingly, the head of the state patrol in the father of the Republican heads of the state senate and house of representatives, who are brothers.) Finally, Wisconsin public school teachers have been calling in sick, forcing schools to close while teachers in over a dozen other school districts picket the capitol, plan vigils, and set up phone banks to try to block Walker's effort.
How could this spread?
Other Republican-governed states are trying to mimic Walker's assault on public employee unions. The GOP won a resounding series of state-level victories in high-union-density states in November. Now they can use their newly-won power to crack down on one of the Democrats' biggest sources of funds, volunteers, and political power. Plans are already under consideration in places like Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan.
Speaking of Ohio:
As Suzy Khimm outlined on Friday, an estimated 3,800-5,000 protestors came out in full fury in Columbus, Ohio, to vent their anger over a similar anti-union bill that would limit workers' rights to bargain for health insurance, end automatic pay increases, and infringe upon teachers' rights to pick their classes and schools. As in Wisconsin, both the Ohio state house and governor's mansion flipped from blue to red last year. "This has little to do with balancing this year's budget," former Governor Ted Strickland told the AP. "I think it's a power grab. It's an attempt to diminish the rights of working people. I think it's an assault of the middle class of this state and it's so unfair and out of balance."
How are conservatives working to support Walker?:
It was only a matter of time till the Tea Party got in on the action. Stephanie Mencimerreports that activists are bussing into Madison, and are "promising a massive counter-demonstration." The push is being led by American Majority, a conservative activist group that trains impressionable young foot soldiers to become state-level candidates (check out their ""I Stand With Scott Walker Rally" Facebook page). Founded by Republican operatives, the well-funded group (which, according to tax fillings, had a budget of nearly $2 million in 2009) gets much of its money from a group with ties to those adorable Koch brothers. Conservative media baron Andrew Breitbart will be leading the rally, and will be joined by presidential candidate Herman Cain and maybe—if we're lucky—Joe "The Plumber" Wurtzelbacher. Expect fireworks.

I wish to add to Mother Jone's analysis only this: The rights of workers in this country are under serious assault. This is an absolutely historical moment. If we fail, if Walker successfully destroys the unions in Wisconsin, we are headed back to the age of robber barons and unaccountable corporate power. We have already taken too many steps in that harmful and unjust direction. Not only must we stop walking toward such an abyss, it is time - NO LONG PAST TIME! - that we turned around and walked the other direction.

St. Valentine's Day: Celebrate love and justice

2011-02-14T11:03:00.003-06:00

A standard joke on American sitcoms is a single person, lonely on Valentine's Day, who says that the day is "nothing more than a bogus holiday dreamed up by corporate interests to sell greeting cards, candy and flowers." In fact, I once held this view myself (both when I was single and when I was in a relationship).

Obviously there is truth in this view of the holiday. Mass produced and overly sentimental "love" is largely what Valentine's day is in our commercialized culture. But - and I freely concede that being happily married to a wonderful woman has affected me here - I've come to see meaning and purpose in this holiday.

If we step back and think of this day as a day to set aside for the celebration of love, we shall see that it is well worth the observing. And I mean ALL LOVE. We love our family and friends, our lovers, and to some degree - when we are at our best - all of our fellow human beings. Having a day to recognize this love is important. Of course, the day loses meaning if we don't love the whole year around, but holidays serve as symbolic reminders that bring such truths to our consciousness.

Love is what is best about human beings. Yes, I know that we are also full of hypocrisy, hate, greed, and foolishness. And for this very reason it is all the more important that love be remembered, that love have the final say in our lives.

There are various legends and tales about a supposed St. Valentine. These tales come out of the later middle ages and the 19th century, and have nothing to do with any possible "Historical Valentine." Common to all the tales is the idea that either Valentine himself, or young people whom he as a priest married, were forbidden to love and wed by the forces of tyranny, oppression and empire. Valentine defies these powers and their laws, celebrating and sanctifying love. For his courage, Valentine is martyred.

The message in the tales of St. Valentine is that love liberates us. By loving each other we discover ourselves, and only then. This, in the legends of Valentine is why love is forbidden and why Valentine is proclaimed a hero for championing love against the power of empire.

Romantic love in particular is celebrated on this day. I used to hold that this was nothing more than a bias on our part. Privileging one kind of love over the others. Well, we do in fact misconceive and over sentimentalize romantic love (just as we do childhood). Nevertheless, romantic love unites two people like nothing else can.

Romantic love burns down the walls that separate us and compels us to grow, mature, and change in ways we never thought possible and never knew we could. I have come to see, however, that we cannot celebrate Romantic love, or even all love alone, we must also remember to celebrate justice.

The Biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan has often written that love and justice require each other. In The Greatest Prayer, he writes that:

Think, then, of justice as the body of love and love as the soul of justice [....] Combined you have both; seperated you have neither. Justice without love or love without justice is a moral corpse. This is why justice without love becomes brutal and love without justice becomes banal.

In short, love by itself is not always just or world-transforming, and there is a real danger it will degrade it to an empty and sappy sentimentality; and justice without love shows no mercy, heeds no compassion: we must have both together. And what is justice? For this Crossan has an answer as well:

The biblical tradition insists that God is a God of "justice and righteousness," that is, of distributive justice and restorative righteousness. Think, for example, of this divine claim:
"I am the Lord; I act with steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth, for in these things I delight, says the Lord" (Jeremiah 9:24). Furthermore, rulers are expected to participate in that same divine character. "Thus says then Lord: act with justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor anyone who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the alien, the orphan, and the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place" (Jeremiah 22:3). The most serious and far-reaching misunderstanding of that biblical tradition is to interpret divine justice as retributive rather than distributive, as if it meant a proper punishment for some rather than a fair share for all [....]
The biblical tradition got that vision of God from the most obvious source imaginable, from growing up in a decent home and a well-run household. Most children either experienced that normalcy positively or recognized its absence negatively. The Bible simply took that expectation of a decent household and applied it to God as the Householder of the World-House. Given their world's patriarchal prejudices they spoke of God "as Father" but God "as Householder" is what that title meant.
Think, for a moment, about the first-century world of Jesus and especially of that prayer which begins with, "Our Father in Heaven." There is an especially striking irony when God-as-Householder is called God-as-Father by Jesus. Demographers of the Roman world agree that, owing to the late marriage-age of males, one third of young people would have been fatherless by the age of fifteen -- across all strata of society. Women married around 12 or 13, men married around twice that age, general life expectancy was under 30 years, so that a father as actual householder must have been mostly theory rather than practice and nostalgia rather than reality. In other words, in a first-century household across the Roman world, hear "father," think "mother," but understand "householder." And, as on earth, so also in heaven.
If, in that first-century world, you entered a small family farm and its courtyard house, how would you judge the householder? Are the fields well administered, the livestock well provisioned, the family members well-fed, well-clothed, well-sheltered?? Does a sick child get special care? Does a pregnant mother get special concern? Does everyone get a fair share? Does everyone get enough? You would judge the householder not by the criterion of egalitarianism but of enoughism. That is how -- then as now -- you would assess the householder of any home. Is there a fair distribution of goods and resources, of duties and obligations?
But what if some of the children were starving and others were over-fed? What if some received food while others did not? What would you think of that householder -- then or now? That is the mega-model or mega-metaphor underneath the biblical tradition's understanding of its God. That is why the biblical God can demand of the powers-that-be, the rulers of this world, that they,
Give justice to the weak and the orphan;
maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute. (Psalm 82:3

So let us celebrate love today, let us celebrate each other. But let us celebrate justice as well, for we need to honor both, and the two must never be separated.

Our Wedding

2011-01-14T00:32:00.003-06:00

I thought I would go ahead and share my wedding video with my blog readers, provided any are interested. My wife and I got married on Jan 1st, 2011. Here is the wedding ceremony in two parts. Watch if you'd like!

They are guilty for their violent words!

2011-01-12T17:46:00.007-06:00

Rep. John Dingell today read out a list of quotes of violent rhetoric from the right wing:

This is not at all new and has been brewing for some time. Bill Moyers, a couple of years ago, did a whole segment on it:

I know what those who would defended the far right - Note: we should distinguish between a right-winger and a conservative, they are not identical - will say. They will say that words don't kill people, that no real violence was actually intended by those who used violent language, and that you can't blame pundits and politicians for the actions of a few wackos.

This argument is too stupid to take seriously. When Glen Beck tells us that he wants to strangle Michael Moore, and kill Charlie Rangel with a shovel, when Sarah Palin tells us to reload because Obama and his people are dangerous socialists who will kill off grandma with their death panels, when tea-baggers bellow that they must "take their country back," "water the tree of liberty," and that Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist who is going to ruin our country from within, can we honestly say this does not lead to a violent political climate? Can so many violent and fearful comments really never lead "some wacko" to kill? That is nearly impossible to believe.

But if you are still in doubt that this does lead to such disasters, I quote Robert Wright from yesterday' New York Times

People on the left and right have been wrestling over the legacy of Jared Loughner, arguing about whether his shooting spree proves that the Sarah Palins and Glenn Becks of the world are fomenting violence. But it’s not as if this is the only data point we have. Here’s another one:

Six months ago, police in California pulled over a truck that turned out to contain a rifle, a handgun, a shotgun and body armor. Police learned from the driver — sometime after he opened fire on them — that he was heading for San Francisco, where he planned to kill people at the Tides Foundation. You’ve probably never heard of the Tides Foundation — unless you watch Glenn Beck, who had mentioned it more than two dozen times in the preceding six months, depicting it as part of a communist plot to “infiltrate” our society and seize control of big business.

Predictably the right-wing hate mongers have responded to the recent violent attacks in Arizona by whining and playing the victim. Sarah Palin, who has taken much heat because of rifle targets she put on a map over several democratic congress districts (including the poor woman who was shot!), responded by crying that we demean and offend her by saying her words could of led to this, and saying that we commit "blood libel" if we hold her in any way accountable.

Palin's response is, of course, shameful. Even worse are the many pundits who rushed to her defense, as if the real tragedy of the Arizona shootings is that some people thought Palin should tone down her violent rhetoric!

When some idiot like Palin runs around saying that the President of the United states "pals around with terrorists," wants to create "death panels" to kill grandma, puts bull eyes over districts of the opposing parties representatives, tells people that Obama wants to take away their guns and Bibles, can anyone honestly tell me that she is not contributing to a climate of violence?

Enough nonsense. Let us please be honest the words of these hate-mongers are violent and they must be held accountable for that.

Sarah Palin's words are not likely responsible for the shootings in Arizona. But the violence in her words and the words of many like her are creating a climate of fear, hostility, and anger. Those who speak like her must be held accountable for their words.

Mrs. Palin, Obesity is no laughing matter!

2011-01-11T00:33:00.005-06:00

Sarah Palin is taking a lot of heat as a result of the Arizona shooting. This blog post, however, is not about that. If you wish to know my views on that matter, another writer has stated them quite well, and I refer you to that link here. This post is about Sarah Palin's curt dismissal of Michelle Obama's efforts to fight childhood obesity. In this matter too, I find that another person has stated my own opinion better than I could.

With her permission, I reproduce here an open-letter to Sarah Palin from my friend Eve Parker

Dear Mrs. Palin,

I recently read about your objection to Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” initiative and the Child Nutrition Act . I am sure this is not the only letter you have received on this matter, but I am deeply concerned with your lack of interest in this issue. As an obese child to a family who were not the most educated or able to provide healthy meals, I relied heavily on my school district to provide me with the nutrients my developing body needed for breakfast and lunch, the two most important meals of the day. I received breakfast pizzas, buttered waffles, chicken fried steak, and corn dogs. Is this the adequate food choices you have been talking about?

CDC.gov highlights the obesity rate amongst children which has tripled in the last 30 years. They are expecting to watch this figure grow if no affirmative action is taken. Does this show how well our country is doing by leaving all meal planning in the hands of our parents when clearly children eat at school? According to “Fighting Obesity in the Public Schools,” children ages 6-15 consume one-third to one-half of their daily calories there. If parents are left completely responsible for their children’s food choices, does that honestly allow schools to turn a blind eye and serve children what is proven to clog arteries, increase risk of high blood pressure, and effect cognitive functions?

Wiping your hands clean of this issue since you feel we have bigger issues and assuming all American families are willing and able to provide their children with a well balanced meal is foolish. “Support parental choice for what is best for their children,” sounds like you are playing it safe. Why not intervene and join forces with Michelle Obama when in 2007 researchers from Harvard Medicine School’s showed nearly 1 out of every 5 children are considered either overweight or on their way to becoming obese? Do not assume everyone understands what a serving size is or what an adequate amount of protein is, let alone how much Vitamin A a child needs. I believe too many parents are more concerned with convenience when planning meals rather than the nutrients their children are getting from their diet. I also think it is reasonable to consider child obesity as a form of child abuse, seeing as how disregarding the health and future of your child is neglect. Just because your children didn’t suffer from it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening Mrs.Palin.

If your focus is on the future and making our country optimal and efficient, why do you not care about the future generation and their well being? I can hear your contagious laugh as you read this, but truly that is what you are doing when you scoff at the First Lady’s efforts. Obesity is amongst the top preventable disease affecting our country today. If we do not have healthy children it decreased their chances of being healthy adults, and without healthy adults we do not have a fully functioning society.

I find it sad that a 24 year old Nutrition major has to even write such logic to a well-educated politician. I employ you to reconsider your narrow-minded attitude toward this country’s children. A quote by an unknown author exemplifies the problem with nutritional education “An educational system isn't worth a great deal if it teaches young people how to make a living but doesn't teach them how to make a life.”

Sincerely,

Eve Parker

Well said Eve! And thank you for your permission to post this.

The real problem with Ebenezer Scrooge

2010-12-22T21:53:00.004-06:00

How can I even begin to review the book that, more than any other source, gave us the modern Christmas?!

I've read A Christmas Carol at least 6 times and I always find something new to enjoy about it with each read. The narration is absolutely entrancing, the dialogue beautiful, and the story - even to call it "gripping" is to underestimate it.

The story is too well known to repeat here, but I should point out that, as a result of over saturation with many film adaptations, we don't properly understand the story. All too often, we think of Scrooge as a greedy miser who simply does not want to be charitable. Though this is correct, it is trivial and even peripheral to the character. Scrooge's basic problem is a failure to relate.

Scrooge is first introduced to us as a man who was

a tight-fisted hand at the grind- stone, Scrooge! a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner! Hard and sharp as flint, from which no steel had ever struck out generous fire; secret, and self-contained, and solitary as an oyster.

Nobody ever stopped him in the street to say, with gladsome looks, "My dear Scrooge, how are you? When will you come to see me?" No beggars implored him to bestow a trifle, no children asked him what it was o'clock, no man or woman ever once in all his life inquired the way to such and such a place, of Scrooge. Even the blind men's dogs appeared to know him; and when they saw him coming on, would tug their owners into doorways and up courts; and then would wag their tails as though they said, "No eye at all is better than an evil eye, dark master!"

But what did Scrooge care? It was the very thing he liked. To edge his way along the crowded paths of life, warning all human sympathy to keep its distance.

As if that were not enough to clarify that Scrooge's real problem is his refusal to relate to other people in any way other than through doing business, Scrooge tells us as much in his conversation with the "Portly Gentlemen" who come collecting funds for the poor

"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge," said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.
"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."
"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.
"Both very busy, sir."
"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."
"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavoring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"
"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.
"You wish to be anonymous?"
"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that."
"But you might know it," observed the gentleman.
"It's not my business," Scrooge returned. "It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!"
Seeing clearly that it would be useless to pursue their point, the gentlemen withdrew. Scrooge returned his labours with an improved opinion of himself, and in a more facetious temper than was usual with him.

Scrooge here comes off as an extreme libertarian who simply wishes to be left alone and to leave others alone; his affairs are no concern to them, nor should their affairs be any concern to him. He does not refuse to donate to the poor out of greed, so much as he simply thinks that he and the poor have nothing to do with each other, and he does no appreciate an attempt to get him to put himself in any kind of personal relation to them.

Most tellingly, Scrooge fails to even identify himself as a unique individual. He answers to the name of his firm, Scrooge or Marley! Scrooge has reduced all transactions, all relations with others, and even his own identity to matters of business transactions!

The story of his redemption is the story of reconnection. Scrooge remembers the relationships from his past, sees what relationships he fails to attain in the present, and, in the future, sees what life would be like if his wish to "be left alone" were granted ... he finally would be alone, "unwept, unkept, uncared for...." he finds that he cannot stand it.

So when you read A Christmas Carol read it with new eyes. Don't think of this as as story of a greedy jerk who learns to be kind and generous. Think of the novella rather as the tale of a man who thinks he wishes to be left to himself "warning all human sympathy to keep its distance" until he sees what that wish would really mean and what he misses out on by trying to live it.

Peace On Earth? A closer look

2010-12-15T21:03:00.005-06:00

I just learned about a 1939 cartoon called "Peace on Earth." It is really a creative and remarkable twist on the fake good will and meaningless peace that too often adorned home decor and greeting cards this time of year!

Check out more about it here

You owe it to yourself to watch this short!

After you have played this video ask yourself, can we ever really have peace on earth without the scenario imagined here? Could peace on earth be obtained with human beings still here? Or is our species perpetually doomed to violence and warfare?

Sadly, I fear that in a real human being created apocalypse the we'd take the poor animals with us.

Peace on Earth: Justice and the meaning of Christmas

2010-12-13T09:11:00.004-06:00

Each December I bring out my DVD of "A Charlie Brown Christmas." The climatic scene occurs when an exasperated Charlie Brown yells out "isn't there anybody who can tell me what Christmas is all about?!!" Linus' famous soliloquy answers that question:

Whether Linus is right that Christmas is all about "Peace on Earth and good will to men" depends very much on how we understand those phrases.

All too often these are just empty words. "Peace on earth" and "good will toward men" are simply part of the seasonal decor, like Rudolph, and Frosty, and multi-colored light bulbs. Those who rail at Christmas as sheer commercialism frosted with empty sentimentalism and manufactured good will, are clearly correct about how much of Christmas is celebrated. But the Hallmark version of Christmas need not be the way we celebrate this holiday.

The Christmas stories in the gospels are about justice. Jesus is born a poor peasant child in both Matthew and Luke. In Matthew this poor child is attacked by an oppressive ruler; King Herod. In Luke the message of Jesus' birth if first delivered to a group of highly despised and marginalized social outcasts; Shepards. To see how clearly the gospel message of Christmas it he message of justice, one need simply read the central lines of the Magnificant:

He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts
of their hearts.
52 He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and
lifted up the lowly;
53 he has filled the hungry with good things,
and
sent the rich away empty.

The Christmas stories make it quite clear: Herod and Caesar (remember that story about the census) are cruel tyrants who oppress the people; but Jesus is a people's champion who fights against oppression and for inclusion, equality, and non-violent justice.

The most famous secular Christmas story is probably Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. This book also is concerned with social justice and the plight of the poor. The story is too well known to repeat here, but seldom noticed is the fact that the tale is not so much about the reform of a man gone wrong, as it is about the need for a deep transformation away from selfish isolation and toward the good of the community, particularly its least well off members.

Dickens nicely sums up the message of peace on earth with his strange figure of the Ghost of Christmas present:

It was clothed in a a simple green robe, or mantle, bordered with white fur. This garment hung so loosely on the figure, that its capacious breast was bare, as if disdaining to be warded or concealed by any artifice. Its feet, observable beneath the ample folds of the garment, were also bare; and on its head it wore no other covering than a holly wreath, set here and there with shining icicles. Its dark brown curls were long and free; free as its genial face, its sparkling eye, its open hand, its cheery voice, its unconstrained demeanour, and its joyful air. Girded round its middle was an antique scabbard; but no sword was in it, and the ancient sheath was eaten up with rust.

The rusted and empty scabbard is particularly telling. Remember that the Ghost of Christmas present sits in a well lit room overflowing with good food, warmed by a blazing fire, and filled with joy. When all are fed, warm, and cared for, there will be peace on earth. The scabbard is rusted and empty because violence will never bring about peace, only good will and plenty can do that.

Dickens understood the social message of the gospels' Christmas stories.

Finally, even jolly Old Saint Nicholas (who has been sadly commercialized and turned into the coca cola Santa) is originally a figure of social justice. A protector of the poor, of sailors, of children, and other marginal figures, Saint Nicholas was originally a non-violent warrior for those who were left out.

In short, let us forget about the over-commercialization of Christmas. We should ignore that. Let us divorce the holiday from its sappy and falsely sentimental trappings. Christmas is - or least should be - about justice, about food for the hungry, clothing for the naked, shelter for the homeless, and inclusion and acceptance of the excluded and marginalized.

Let us have a just Christmas. Perhaps then we can, like the reformed Scrooge, know how to keep Christmas well.

Why we must Raise Taxes on the Wealthy

2010-11-21T20:53:00.006-06:00

The great lie fed to us is that tax cuts are necessary during this recession. Some argue that if we raise taxes, then job losses will multiply and things will get worse. But we've had big tax cuts for a long time now. The Bush Tax cuts are nearly a decade old and they have failed to create jobs and improve the economy. In fact, these tax cuts have added to the deficit by costing the treasury hundreds of billions of dollars. By what logic then, should we extend these tax cuts? If they have failed to do anything positive in a decade, why do we think that they will now magically fix things?

Trickle-down economics has been forced down our throats for decades now. But tax cuts for the wealthy never trickle down. Giving rich people big tax breaks does not, in the long run, help the rest of us. Such cuts increase the deficit, do not create jobs, and simply widen the gulf between rich and poor, fermenting social unrest and populist rage.

Simply listen to Warren buffet in this video

Buffet knows what he is saying. He's been a key insider in the world of finance for a very long time now. This should, however, be obvious in all of us. The most prosperous time period for the middle class, for poor and working people, even for the nation as a whole, was when taxes on the wealthiest were at their highest.

Honest.

Just look at the tax rates tax rates from previous decades, during the prosperity of the 1950s and 60s. Income tax rate on the wealthiest Americans during that period were never lower then 70% and often much higher. They still lived privileged lives and the nation as a whole has never been more financially healthy.

Since we began to undo all this, slashing tax rates for wealthy people (most of whom make their money by underpaying middle class employees, ripping people off by advertising and selling overpriced products, slashing benefits, and taking handouts from tax payers) we have had recession after recession and the plight of working people has become steadily worse.

No one in their right mind can honestly suggest continuing the Bush era tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans.

No doubt some will rant and rave about "punishing the successful," or "socialism," or it being "unfair to take someone's hard earned money, to that logic I respond with a previous blog post of mine, part of which I quote here:

In order for society to function we need public services and only a progressive income tax can provide the government with the money to properly create and maintain such services. Let us put ideology aside here and just look at these facts.

The most common objection to the progressive income tax is that it is unfair to take a rich man's "hard-earned money" and give it to somebody else. There are numerous problems with this objection.

First, that someone makes 300,000 dollars a year and someone else makes 45,000 seldom has anything to do with how hard they work. The hardest workers in our country are blue-collar working people, who sometimes work 60-70 hours a week and will never see a pay check over 40,000. So the hard work argument is absurdly false. Indeed, wages don't even depend very much on education. I will have my Ph. D. in May and will never make more than 60 or 70 thousand. There are people with Bachelors' degrees who make twice or three times that much. And this is not always - not even all that often - because of the importance of my and their respective occupations' importance for society

Second, the person making 300,000 a year did not create that money all by themselves. People who defend this "don't raise taxes on the wealthy" line of argument often talk as if such wealthy people accomplished this entirely through their own power. This is absurd. Take a person making six figures. Someone built the roads he drives on, the car he drives in, and the clothes he is wearing. Someone built his home, set up the plumbing and wiring in it, his cable, and so on. Someone slaughtered his food, processed it, packaged it, and sold it to him in the grocery store. Even more telling, he had teachers who gave him the tools for success.

None of us are self-made men, none of us operate in a void. We are not atomistic souls pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps. We are all part of a network of relationships, we are interdependent, interconnected, and interlinked with those who are in our community. Unless you live in the woods, built your own house from trees you chopped down, hunt and cook all your own food, and wear only the fur from your kills - you are radically dependent on other people. Without the hard work of millions of others, we could not survive and certainly could not flourish or earn high salaries. We owe a great deal to a large number of hard working people - many of whom live on meagre incomes and are often in need of public services and government aid.

If you earn six figures most of these people earn far less than you. The teachers who taught you the basic skills needed to function in society made a scant salary; many who provide you your food and clothing made far less than that. Is it really too much to ask that Uncle Sam take a few percent more of your income and then redistribute it so these people who teach our kids, build our roads, feed and clothe us might have health care? Or food stamps? Can you honestly look these hard working people in the face and say that the government cannot provide needed social service because it is wrong to raise taxes on the wealthy by 1 or 2 percent?!

Finally, the whole logic of this argument misses the point. It is NOT the case the a progressive income tax takes money from party x to give it to party y. The government takes income from party x in order to provide necessary social services available to everybody - including party x should he fall upon harder times. So we are not taxed to support "other people." Rather, we are taxed according to our means so that all people - and that includes us and our loved ones should we need it - may have access to necessary public services and government aid.

I remain convinced by these arguments. To be honest, I cannot see how anyone looking at the issue of income tax rationally and with an open-mind could honestly conclude any differently.

If we fail to end the Bush era tax cuts on the wealthy, we will be adding to our deficit, failing to do anything to create jobs, widening the gap between rich and poor even further, and harming ourselves and our futures.

It is immoral to extend these tax cuts.

BlogItemURL>

Bill Moyers still speaks to us

2010-11-11T23:36:00.001-06:00

BUniverse: Bill Moyers at the Howard Zinn Lecture
- Watch more Politics Videos at Vodpod.

Bill Maher rightly chastises Jon Stewart

2010-11-08T22:55:00.004-06:00

I'm no fan of Bill Maher, but he's right about this. Please Watch:

Let us please keep in mind here (as I don't think Maher does), that there is a difference - often a large difference - between a conservative and a right-winger. The one should not be confused with the other. Nor does being Republican mean that one is on "the right" either.

The right-wing, as I understand the term, applies to militia groups, people who think that Obama was born in Kenya, Fred Phelps, the late Jerry Falwell, people who think Climate Change is a liberal conspiracy, and other such radical loonies.

The right-wing has become absurdly extreme and very dangerous. There are, however, a great many thoughtful conservatives and moderates, many of whom are Republicans, I want to stress that, at least for me, the right-wing is the danger, not all Republicans are all conservatives.

Why we must Vote Democrat

2010-11-02T14:50:00.006-05:00

There is much to criticize Obama and the Democrats for, Just read Glenn Greenwald and Paul Krugman for some of the best of such criticism. Despite this, however, it is very clear that we must vote for Obama's Democrats.

Think they have done nothing for us? Think again .... Rachel Maddow explains the legislative victories of this president in the video I embed below. I'm more critical than she is, but I agree on fundamentals.

No rational and informed person can listen to John Boehner, Mitch Mcconell, Newt, Palin, or the Tea-party loons; no intelligent voter can read the GOP's "Pledge to America," or the "Tea-Party Manifesto" and not decide that the Democrats, despite great flaws, must get our vote.

To bring the point home, please watch Ms. Maddow's articulation of what the Democrats have done ...AND PLEASE VOTE TODAY!!!!

God, Reason, and Sam Harris

2010-10-25T22:08:00.006-05:00

I have long been troubled by the fact that public discussion of and media attention to the existence of "God," assumes that the word "God" refers to a supernatural person who is rather like a super version of a human person, a "guy" who lives way "out there" somewhere, answers our prayers, and occasionally performs magical acts called miracles.

I do not understand the term God to be restricted to signifying this cosmic super-being, and many professional theologians and philosophers do not either. Just read Charles Hartshorne, Paul Tillich, J.A.T Robinson or David Griffith and you will quickly see that there are other possibilities.

I've posted on this before and I refer my readers to my previous posts on God and religion, for my own views. Public discussion, however, has very seldom recognized this distinction.

I am happy to report that Newsweek has changed this trend. In a recent article on so-called "atheist" Sam Harris We learn that for Harris

The answer to the question “Do you believe in God?” comes down to this: It depends on what you mean by “God.” The God Harris doesn’t believe in is, as he puts it, a “supernatural power” and “a personal deity who hears prayers and takes an interest in how people live.” This God and its subscribers he finds unreasonable. But he understands that many people—especially in progressive corners of organized religion and among the “spiritual but not religious”—often mean something else. They equate God with “love” or “justice” or “singing in church” or “that feeling I get on a walk in the woods,” or even “the awesome aspects of existence I’ll never understand.”

Even more encouragingly

According to a 2008 study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, a quarter of Americans believe that God is “an impersonal force.” Among Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and the unaffiliated, the number rises to a third. Among Jews, it’s half. In a Gallup study done in May, 9 percent of respondents said they believe in a God who doesn’t answer prayers.

When polled about God, “people substitute in their own ideas,” says John Green, senior research adviser at Pew. “People have a vague, fuzzy notion of transcendence, and they substitute God for it...When you try to make the definition more specific, fewer people answer in the affirmative.” Or put another way, “If you let the concept of God float a little bit, almost everybody is a theist,” says Stephen Prothero, author of God Is Not One. What Sam Harris believes in—rationality, morality, transcendence, humility, awe, community, selflessness, and love—meets a fairly common definition of God.

It seems that a sizable, though I confess a minority, of people who think that they believe in God reject the idea of a divine super person who answers prayers and performs miracles, they believe in "God," but don't believe "the old man in the sky."

Harris has a reason for his beliefs, a reason that will resonate with many spiritual people

Harris is ... promoting The Moral Landscape, his new book. Even here, he briefly explores the connections between spiritual experience—especially an experience of selflessness—and human happiness. “I see nothing irrational about seeking the states of mind that lie at the core of many religions. Compassion, awe, devotion and feelings of oneness are surely among the most valuable experiences a person can have,” he writes. Over lunch, he says with a smile how much he looks forward to working on the next project, which will allow him to pull back, after six long years, and focus on things that support human flourishing. “Ecstasy, rapture, bliss, concentration, a sense of the sacred—I’m comfortable with all of that,” says Harris later. “I think all of that is indispensable and I think it’s frankly lost on much of the atheist community.”

This is really quite astounding. I've very often been told by atheists and theists alike that because I don't believe in a rather crudely anthropomorphic conception of God, I am really, therefore, an "atheist," despite my claims to the contrary. It's refreshing to finally see a major news magazine, and a popularly known atheist, recognize and embrace the fact that the world "God" need not refer to merely one idea.

I hope this becomes far more common.

Tea, Racism, and Armey's Billions

2010-10-23T18:45:00.005-05:00

Please watch the following video to the end, look at all the signs:

Now, can anyone honestly tell me that these "Tea-Party groups" are really but a grassroots movement of "simple folks" who just don't like big government?!!!

No. They are largely a pack of racists and other extremist bigots. Nor are they grassroots. The Tea-Party is pretty much bankrolled and organized by far right billionaires. Their mental illness, ignorance, xenophobia, religious fanaticism, homophobia, and racism is being used to protect and serve corporate interests.

Don't believe me?

Check out the following:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html

or this

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/charles-koch-david-koch-b_n_690825.html

And finally,

Enough of this game of pretend. The Tea-Party is not a group of decent conservatives who are just "mad as hell," they are, rather, a group of radicals and unbalanced lunatics who are bought and paid for by corrupt rich men looking to increase the size of their already grotesquely swollen wallets.

Other Political Halloween Masks

2010-10-12T14:03:00.004-05:00

It turns out that you can find Halloween/monster images of other political figures:

here are a few:

First: Reaganstine

It will be noted that this mask, unlike the Obama mask, is actually rather "cute" and "cuddly." The guy looks more like Herman Munster than the genuine Frankenstein's creature.

Next, Sarah Palin as a "rogue Zombie."

A bit more gruesome than Reaganstein, but still a nice smile and much more clearly a "funny" and "goofy" Halloween Mask.

Again contrast that with the cruel face of Baruckula:

The difference strikes me as very marked. Finally however, there is a parallel to Obama, with Bush as a Vampire:

It would appear, then, that my worries about Racism in portraying Obama were without foundation? Not so fast. Here again is the Obama statue of Liberty/Vampire picture:

Notice that obama's features are greatly exaggerated in a parody of stereotyped ideas of African American faces, but Bush's normal face is used. Why is that?

Why is "Barackula's" mask cruel and malicous looking, but Reaganstine, lovable and grandfatherly? And why is Palin's mask merely goofy?

Perhaps the vampire images of Obama are not racist, I don't insist that they must be, but the differences in portrayal cries out for explanation, and racism is clearly a possible explanation of these different looks.

Obama Vampire Mask: Racism and Xenophobia for Halloween

2010-10-08T20:15:00.011-05:00

It is obvious to anyone who has paid attention that Barack Obama has been demonized by the right-wing. He is regularly referred to as a "Keynan anti-colonialist," birthers rave that he was not really born here, and others shriek that he is a secret muslim terroirst!

It appears that this demonization has gone to new extremes. I checked out some of the seasonal Halloween stores the other day and found the mask you see in the above picture.. The mask was called "Barackula." It is normal to make and sell masks of political figures, I have not, however, ever seen one as a vampire. This mask is not an isolated incident, the image of Barackula has been used fairly regularly by the far right, as a simple Google search will reveal.

And look at the picture: Obama is here portrayed clearly has a bloodthirsty demon. I can't help but see racism behind the image. The reason I see racism here, is that the stereotype of African-American physical features are the very features that seem to be cruelly twisted into the the disturbing and demonic features of the vampire. And, then, of course, there is this image form a Tea-Party rally:

Before some reader protests that portraying Obama as a vampire is not racist, remember three things; first the vampire is regularly portrayed as an embodiment of the frightening "other." For instance, in Bram Stoker's Dracula, the Count is clearly a foreign and alien power who has come to destroy all that is good about "our" British society. Now, and this is my second point, I've not seen other Presidents portrayed as demons or vampires. I grant, however, that it could have been done. If anyone knows of such a case, please point it out to me. Finally, I could avoid reading "Barackula" in terms of "the other," and the "alien," were it not for the already mentioned hysteria about his Kenyan ancestry, and the lunatic conspiracy theories that he was not born here. It seems likely that the mask is part the fears of some people who see Obama as an alien force, threatening "real Americans."

If this is an instance of racism, it may very well be about Obama's perceived "Muslimness" and not his "blackness." I am even willing to believe it merely reflects anger at "liberals" - though I suspect all three biases are at work here - but it is clearly a demonization. If any of my readers are prepared to see the mask as something intended to simply be funny, look at the image again. The face is cruel, nasty, and terrifying.

But what do my readers think? Am I right to fear that racism, or, at the very least, tremendous hatred of Obama is manifested in this Halloween mask?

Personally, in light of the tradition of portraying "the other" as a vampire, the xenophobia and racism of prominent groups who oppose Obama, and the actual appearance of the mask, I find myself greatly disturbed and can't help but ask the question if this image does not cater to that kind hostility towards our President. In the end, I am strongly inclined to think that it does appeal to the demonization of Obama constantly spewing forth from right wing extremists.

White House Summit On Community Colleges

2010-10-05T23:29:00.003-05:00

Today the White House held a massive summit on Community Colleges. This is crucial for putting such institutions center stage.

Most higher education is very expensive and, therefore, favors the wealthy and powerful. Community Colleges serve the middle and working classes. It follows that this is higher education for the rest of us, for the people! We have a moral duty as a nation to support such colleges.

The Chronicle of Higher Education provides a good analysis of the merits and problems with this summit and the administration's treatment of Community Colleges. Rightly angry that the funding for Community college has been greatly cut from what Obama originally promised, as well as the hasty and half-hearted nature of the entire summit, the Chronicle nonetheless claims that

most participants said they were looking forward to the event and appreciated the fact that the summit will thrust community colleges into the spotlight like never before .... At least three national efforts to expand the work of community colleges are scheduled to be announced at the summit. President Obama plans to announce a national public-private partnership to help retrain workers for jobs that are in demand. The national program is in response to frustrations that have been expressed both by workers and by employers who complain that public-retraining programs frequently do not provide students with employable skills. The new program is intended to help better align community-college curricula with the needs of local companies.

The Aspen Institute, a Washington-based not-for-profit, private research organization, will run the partnership, named Skills for America's Future. The president will also announce the creation of a government task force that will include representatives from the Department of Labor, the Department of Commerce and other federal agencies. The task force will ensure that federal efforts are coordinated and facilitate the private sector's access to federal training and education programs.

Melinda Gates, who is attending the summit, will announce that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will spend $35-million over five years to help increase the graduation rates of community-college students. The Completion by Design program will award competitive grants to groups of community colleges, which will then use the money to devise and enact new approaches to making the colleges more accessible to students, especially those from low-income families.

Community Colleges are filled with great teachers, fine administrations and students of a very high quality. Watch the summit here, I embded the videos for the full summit below:

Remembering Mr. Gandhi

2010-10-02T09:18:00.003-05:00

Today marks the anniversary of the birth of Mohandas Gandhi. I paste the following video of Gandhi's words to remember what he stood for.

I find that, unlike Gandhi, I cannot fully embrace total non-violence. For instance, Gandhi opposed the use of force even against Hitler! Even in self-defense! I don't say he was wrong, just that I cannot take the doctrine that far myself.

Non-violence, however, is more than just not using force. It is a commitment to a way of life, a way of life that rejects the normal injustice, discrimination, and brute use of power by governments, in relationships, and between people in every day encounters.

For Gandhi, we must stop responding to each other in hostile terms, stop thinking of each other as separate and opposed. Non-violence is really about our connections with each other, the unity of the human family, and the rejection of hostility and power struggles as part of our relationships to one another.

It is this rejection of hostility and distrust and its replacement by cooperation, love, and peace that we remember when we remember Mr. Gandhi. In the current political climate, where extremists shout out fears of government take overs and communism, where tea-baggers bring automatic weapons to political rallies, and where disagreements on policy are primarily expressed by ranting and raving and bullying your opponents ... we would do well to reflect on the example of Gandhi

More Nonsense from Global Warming Skeptics

2010-09-29T23:51:00.005-05:00

This is beyond absurd at this point. The scientific data is so compelling that one has to be either (a) unable to actually understand science, (b) brainwashed, or (c) simply lying in order to deny that global warming is happening and that we are the cause.

But the deniers are with us and their numbers keep growing.

For some of you deniers out there, first. 97% of climate scientists agree that Global Warming is real and that it is caused largely by human pollution. Even more problematic to skeptics who will not accept proper expert opinion, the empirical evidence and causal reasoning behind why climatologist believe this is nearly impossible to dispute, as can be quickly viewed in a handy video from National Geographic, posted here below:

For those who cannot accept the solid conclusions of firm scientific reasonsing and expert consensus, by all means shout out your madness so that we know you for madmen; but for God's sake, be honest; admit that you simply don't trust science, or that you feel (in your insatiable greed) that money made from oil is worth the losses, don't lie about the facts anymore .... PLEASE!!!

If Jesus came back as Glenn Beck

2010-09-29T10:46:00.001-05:00

Colbert before Congress

2010-09-24T11:59:00.008-05:00

In what may be his greatest feat since the White House Correspondents dinner of a few years back, Stephen Colbert, once again, publicly and boldly calls our government out:

See the whole story at Talking Points Memo

What one must wonder, however, is whether such a satirical assault on congress has any kind of positive effect? Any thoughts from my readers?

UPDATE: Colbert has contexuaized the issue of immigration and migrant farm workers, on which he testified, on his show. Check out those videos here and here.

UPDATE 2: Colbert did apparently briefly come out of Character, Politico shared that video. It is very moving and sheds new light on his testimony.

Here it is (do watch):

Crossan's Revolutionary Prayer Book

2010-09-19T23:19:00.009-05:00

The Greatest Prayer: Jesus's Revolutionary Manifesto by John Dominic Crossan

John Dominic Crossan's newest book - besides offering tremendous literally criticism and poetic insight - provides much needed depth into a subject matter that those who ascribe to liberal theology sometimes struggle with.

Accustomed as we are to a Christian tradition that all too often reduces prayer to "asking God for things," but at the same time philosophically unable to think of God as a person-like being, we simply don't know what do to with prayer; or as Paul of Tarsus (quoted approvingly and used at length by Crossan) puts it "We do not know how to pray as we ought" (Rom. 8:26).

Crossan shares a rejection of any crude anthropomorphic understanding of prayer, "it is an immature view of prayer that addresses a Supreme Being radically apart from us who thinks, and wills, knows and hears, grants and refuses more or less as we do, but with infinite broadband" (28).

Noting that the Prophets of ancient Israel seem to reject prayer and insist that God requires distributive justice (care for widows, aliens, and orphans) instead of prayer and ceremony, Crossan nonetheless does not think we are faced with some either/or. For him, prayer and justice are distinguishable but inseparable. Like two sides of a coin, we cannot have prayer without justice or justice without prayer (20-21).

From this starting point, Crossan turns to the most well known prayer in the Christian tradition, variously called the "Our Father," or the "The Lord's Prayer." This prayer, Crossan argues, expresses the heart of the message of Jesus. The prayer asks us to come together as equals, to become heirs of God, and to work together to establish the divine reign here on earth. We do this by sharing with each other fairly and equally.

Crossan spends much of the book describing the vision of an egalitarian justice found throughout the pages of the Bible. Most striking is his thouhtful examination of the use of the Sabbath tradition. Crosssan argues, persuasively, that the Sabbath is the crown of creation in Genesis Chapter one, and that the later traditions of the weekly Sabbath, Sabbath year (every Seventh year), and year of Jubilee (a kind of super Sabbath every fiftieth year), is designed to recall and enact a world of unity, non-violence, equality, and peace. His discussion of the Sabbath is among the finest I have read.

Prayer, Crossan argues, is meditation on the divine vision of a just, fair, peaceful, and non-violent world. The message of Jesus is a message that we can and must work together with God to bring about such a world. When we pray, then, "The Lord's Prayer," we remind ourselves that God and God's kingdom are present only when share our resources, forgive others their debts, and work together for peace, and that God's kingdom will only be fully present when ALL have enough, when ALL debts are forgiven and when ALL people are free to live together and live peacefully.

The book builds on Crossan's earlier work, especially God and Empire, and most of the themes are found throughout his writings. Yet there is a freshness to the presentation here, an application that warrants attention. Although most of the themes are not new for Crossan, how those ideas effect our prayers, and particularly how we say "The Lord's Prayer" is a novel application of them.

If you are open to non-traditional Christian theology and a faith informed by reason and historical method, this is the prayer book for you.

Constitution Day

2010-09-17T14:32:00.003-05:00

Today is "Constitution Day," the Anniversary of the ratification of our nation's founding document. Though George W. Bush dismissed the Constitution as "just a god damned piece of paper," most of those who share his right-wing ideology think of themselves as its greatest defenders. The Tea-Baggers carry copies with them to rallies - almost as often as they carry firearms and racists political signs.

Of course many of them have a very narrow and literalist view of the document; much like many of the same people have a very narrow and literalist view of scripture. Just as the Bible, in their mind, is an eternal document and must be followed with wooden and a-contextual literalism, so too the constitution must be read as carved in stone, exhaustive, and eternal.

I encourage those of us who don't share Bush's dismissal or the Tea-Baggers fundamentalism to actually reflect on our constitution today. Think about it deeply, carefully, and critically.

If we do not examine it carefully, we sacrifice our founding document to the constitutional idolatry of the Tea-baggers. And just as we should not sacrifice the Bible to the wacko fundamentalists who worship it, as if paper and ink were their God, we must not allow the Constitution to suffer such a fate either.

Postscript: Here is a little info on Constitution Day

A Move toward Socialism? Hardly.

2010-09-17T14:27:00.004-05:00

Nice story from NPR here. Could we stop using the term "Socialist" without understanding what it means or how it works? Please, listen to this interview and let's start to think more clearly about what's really going on.

Rule one: KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!

Labor Day casts a grim shadow

2010-09-07T00:17:00.006-05:00

Labor Day has come and gone. The ceremonial ending of summer, a holiday - for federal workers, but not many of the rest of us - has been celebrated, grills made use of. Sadly, however, we find the outlook less than rosy on this holiday meant to honor working people.

It has been some time since being a working person in America has been a worse bargain. Unions - which give workers their only power to bargain for fair wages and decent benefits against massive corporations and other big employers - have been, with some notable but few exceptions, abolished, or at least broken and neutered, rendered impotent by pro-corporate legislation passed by the bought and paid for members of the United States Congress and White House, over the last 30-35 years. The gulf between rich and poor continues to grow and the those who are not rich are seeing their standard of living drop further and further.

Our current economic collapse shows no real sings of abetting, and nobody is adding jobs. Even federal employees, once thought safe from such disasters, are seeing their wages and benefits reduced.

To borrow a phrase from Obi-Wan Kenobi, "it is a dark time for the empire."

I would like to say something optimistic, to praise working people, and to argue that they can get some of their rights and power back. And indeed, I am quite sure that they can do so. But the immediate outlook is grim.

By pursuing fairly conservative economic policies, by eschewing more progressive ideas, Obama has failed to create jobs, failed to boost the economy. The stimulus was too small, too weak, too focused on tax cuts and minor lending. There was no real attempt to move the country toward a green economy, which would have created far more jobs, no attempt to hire more teachers, no attempts to bolster public service ... at least no more than minimal attempts. Apparently when we require money to build bombs, bail out banks, and kill people in distant lands, we have a bottomless pit of funds, but when it comes to building better roads, hiring more nurses, hiring teachers and paying them better, funding public libraries, and so on, we just "can't spare the cash."

Obama, I think, did this because he did not want to seem too "radical" too "liberal." And what has he accomplished? In all probability a radically far right, and, to be honest, rather crazy, GOP will probably take control of both houses this November. They will undo even the minimal gains Obama's white house has brought us. They will hurt working people more than they ever did before.

Ironically, many working people will vote in to office the very hacks and liars who are going to destroy their livelihood even further than it has already been destroyed.

Not only is it a dark time for the empire and for working people, but, to quote now from the Scarecrow in Wizard of Oz, "I can't be sure, but I think it's gonna get darker before it gets lighter."

U.S. Judge Overturns Prop. 8 In Gay Rights Victory : The Two-Way : NPR

2010-08-04T19:28:00.000-05:00

U.S. Judge Overturns Prop. 8 In Gay Rights Victory : The Two-Way : NPR

What Democracy means

2010-07-30T21:10:00.003-05:00

At a time when we are losing our democracy to the interests of the rich and powerful, we should be reminded what Democracy is, how we got it, and what we must do to keep it.

With that in mind, I offer this video, from a few years back, narrated by former MP Tony Benn:

I think Benn is correct. We have never really had much democracy, we have had to fight hard for what little we do have, and we better keep fighting hard to stop losing it and to get more of it.

The Case for Elizabeth Warren

2010-07-22T21:49:00.000-05:00

Petition - A Petition in Support of Elizabeth Warren as Director of Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont)

2010-07-22T17:08:00.001-05:00

Petition - A Petition in Support of Elizabeth Warren as Director of Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont)

Please sign the above position to tell your president that we want Elizabeth Warren to lead our consumer protection agency. She is one of the few people who combine the competence, energy, honesty, and real concern for the people who we have in Washington.

This is, for once, a chance to put a real democratic populist in a position that can do people good. She is not a stooge for the big banks, nor a wall street puppet; unlike most of the people in D. C.

Fight to put Ms. Warren in charge of this post!

Health Care Reform Will Help Everybody

2010-06-22T20:37:00.003-05:00

The following post is contributed by Barbara O'Brien, who blogs regularly at Mahablog

Many Americans assume the new health care reform act will benefit mostly the poor and uninsured and hurt everyone else, according to polls. As Matt Yglesias wrote, “Basically, people see this as a bill that will take resources from people who have health insurance and give it to people who don’t have health insurance.” Those who still oppose the reform say that people ought to pay for their own health care.

We all believe in the virtues of hard work and self-reliance, but these days it’s a fantasy to think that anyone but the mega-wealthy will not, sooner or later, depend on help from others to pay medical bills. And that’s true no matter how hard you work, how much you love America, or how diligently you take care of yourself. The cost of medical care has so skyrocketed that breaking an arm or leg could cost as much as a new car. And if you get cancer or heart disease — which can happen even to people who live healthy lifestyles — forget about it. The disease will not only clean you out; it will leave a whopping debt for your survivors to pay.

And the truth is, we all pay for other peoples’ health care whether we know it or not. When people can’t pay their medical bills, the cost of their health care gets added to everyone else’s bills and insurance premiums. When poor people use emergency rooms as a doctor of last resort, their care is not “free.” You pay for it.

Another common fantasy about medical care is that the “free market” provides incentives for medical companies to develop innovative new drugs and treatments for disease without government subsidy. It’s true that private enterprise is very good at developing profitable health care products. But not all medical care can be made profitable.

For years, the U.S. government has been funding medical research that the big private companies don’t want to do because there is too much cost for the potential profit. This is especially true for diseases that are rare and expensive to treat. An example of a recent advance made possible by government grants include new guidelines for malignant pleural mesothelioma treatment developed by MD Anderson Cancer Center researchers. Another is a blood screening test developed by mesothelioma doctors like thoracic surgeon Dr. David Sugarbaker. The health reform act provides for more dollars for such research, from which even many of the tea party protesters will benefit.

The biggest fantasy of all was that people who had insurance didn’t have to worry about health care costs. But the fact is that in recent years millions of Americans have been bankrupted by medical costs, and three-quarters of the medically bankrupt had health insurance. And yes, insurance companies even dumped hard-working, law-abiding patriots. But the health care reform act will put an end to that, and now America’s hard-working, law-abiding patriots are more financially secure, whether they like it or not.

Nothing can stop this train wreck!

2010-06-21T01:20:00.001-05:00

Death, Fear, and Division in the Holy Land

2010-06-12T17:40:00.007-05:00

PBS presents us with a story about the murder of a Palestinian child and the story of how his organs went to six other children. The father of the murdered boy meets with each of the kids who received his son's organs.

This video is hard to watch. It is painful, it is tragic, is shows how much hatred and fear can divide us.

Watch the full episode. See more Need To Know.

I am particularly disturbed by the fellow who says that he "hopes the organs come from a Jew, not an Arab," and later says that the Palestinian father should "immigrate to the US or Turkey, since there is nothing for him here." Even in the face of an outstanding act of Generosity, that gentlemen holds on to his hatred and fear.

The whole situation is just plain heartbreaking.

The Sin of Helen Thomas

2010-06-11T00:13:00.006-05:00

By now most of my readers are probably aware of Helen Thomas' regrettable and shocking remarks about Israel. But in case you missed it, here is the video:

Thomas' remarks are troubling. To claim that the Jews should "go home" to Poland and Germany is insensitive and thoughtless at best, and anti-Semitic at worst. She should have apologized for these remarks and people are justifiably offended by them.

And yet the reaction to what Thomas said has been so extreme I feel that I must speak out.

Despite what pundits like Ari Fleisher say, Thomas cannot be interpreted as calling for "ethnic or religious cleansing." It is an extreme overreaction to suppose that Helen Thomas was calling for another Holocaust. She was not hoping to "destroy" the Jewish people.

Thomas was responding to the very real suffering of the Palestinians and the truly unjust fact of their occupation. Let me stress again - before I get an angry comment or two - I DO NOT SUPPORT WHAT SHE SAID. Thomas' remarks were offensive and wrong. We should not, however, suppose she was spewing out the views of the third reich.

Another disturbing factor in this case is how quickly the Obama administration, the former Bush administration, and their lap-dogs in the media called for Thomas' head. We were immediately told that Thomas should resign, that her remarks were reprehensible, and that she must be called to account. I don't necessarily dispute that. Perhaps she should have resigned over her remarks, that is not what bothers me.

What bothers me is how rare this reaction is to comments equally bad from other media personalities. When Glen Beck raves about how liberals are Nazis and says Obama "hates white people," when Rush Limbaugh plays a song called "Barack the Magic Negro" on his radio show, when Newt Gingrich calls someone a "gay facsict," and a politician running for office refers to a fellow candidate as a "f----ing raghead," no one makes them apologize, forces them to resign or recoils in total horror. Let us please be consistent in our hatred of bigotry and bias

Laura Flaners at Alternet sums up the problem nicely:

After video hit YouTube of eighty-nine year old reporter, Helen Thomas, telling an interviewer that Israelis should “get out of Palestine” and go back to Poland and Germany and other places, the white House issued an immediate condemnation. Reprehensible was their word. In the ritual flagellation that’s followed, one can’t help thinking that the grande dame of the White House press corps would have gotten less grief if she’d purposely cheated the financial system and took taxpayer money to recover, or killed eleven and destroyed an ecosystem in an avoidable deep water drilling disaster, or let 29 men die in a push for more mining profits. Or shot nine men dead — in the head — in international waters.
Thomas’s comments were regrettable, and she’s regretted them and she has resigned her post with Hearst because of them. Which is more than can be said of most pundits who say hateful things in the money media.
The White House Correspondents Association showed more fury in 24 hours towards Thomas than they’ve ever shown towards the journos who, unlike Thomas, softballed Bush for eight straight years and passed on government lies that lead us into the Iraq invasion.

To which I add Glenn Greenwald's observation that

As for the Helen Thomas condemnation fest and subsequent resignation today, the central issue -- as both my Salon colleague Gabriel Winant and The American Prospect's Adam Serwer adeptly document -- is not the perception that she's guilty of bigotry, but the wrong kind of bigotry. Anyone who doubts that should compare the cheap, easy and self-righteous outrage orgy against the powerless, 89-year-old columnist to the total non-reaction in the face of the incessant and ongoing anti-Arab bigotry of The New Republic's Marty Peretz, or to the demands of then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey that the Palestinians leave the West Bank and go back to where they came from, and similar statements from Mike Huckabee (still gainfully employed at Fox News).
That's because, as I wrote the last time Peretz had one of his vicious anti-Arab rants, severe punishment is meted out to those who engage in the wrong kind of prejudice while those who spout the right kind do so with total impunity. That, and the fact that there are consequences for the actions only of the powerless in Washington, but never the powerful. Then again, look at the bright side: with Thomas banished, White House press briefings and presidential news conferences will be much friendlier and more harmonious with the amiable, star-struck Ed Henrys remaining in place.

I cannot help but wonder if the Obama and Bush administrations seized on this as their chance to be rid of Helen Thomas. She asks real questions about American Foreign policy, challenges "official narratives," and "speaks the truth to power". Few Journalists still engage in these practices. The norm these days is to attend Beach Parties at Joe Biden's place; to play water tag with Rahm Emmanuel, and ask the President what he thinks about professional sports. When the "journalists" who cover our leaders wine, dine, and water slide with them, we should be very disturbed. I find this coziness with power among our media to be even more "reprehensible" than Helen Thomas' words.

By all means let us be disturbed by Helen Thomas' remarks. But let us finally wake up and find ourselves far more disturbed by many other far more "reprehensible" words and deeds that we are not nearly disturbed enough by.

Israel attacks Aid Flotilla headed for Gaza

2010-06-01T11:46:00.006-05:00

Israel does not look good these days. The country continues to demolish Palestinian homes to build new settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, continues to threaten Lebanon and Iran, and continues to blockade - and thereby impoverish - the people of Gaza. And now, Israel has used military force to stop aid ships from delivering aid to the starving and impoverished people of Gaza. This attack on the aid ships had brought world-wide condemnation of Israel's actions. Only the United States has failed to unequivocally condemn this action.

AlJazeera English provides the full story and analysis in the following video:

I leave my readers with a few basic questions: How would the United States respond to any other country that attacked aid ships? What would Obama say if Iran did this? Add to that the fact that Israel recently refused to sign on to the anti-nuclear treaty (in fact does not even admit it is a nuclear power). What would the United States say of Pakistan if it did these things? Finally, add to the fact that Israel has occupied The West Bank and Blockaded Gaza for decades in direct opposition to UN resolutions and international law. What would happen if Iraq had done this?

These are questions it is long past time we asked ourselves.

In Defense of Erin Andrews and her Wardrobe

2010-05-26T20:45:00.010-05:00

Erin Andrews is now being attacked for wearing "sexy" outfits on dancing with the stars. First by Elizabeth Hasselbeck and now by the New York Daily article. Here is what the Daily piece claims:

Andrews' "Dancing With the Stars" stint fulfills a longtime dream. Dancing has been her own sport; she was a member of the University of Florida Gators basketball dance team while at the school. Can't a female journalist dance?

Sure, but the trouble is that Andrews wants it both ways. She wants to be considered a journalist. She wants to be the observer, not the observed. But a journalist uncovers the facts, not her navel.

Let's face it: Andrews is a sports sidelines reporter. While she undoubtedly knows the games she covers, she's still there as eye candy.

She was voted America's Sexiest Sportscaster - twice - by Playboy, and accepted the kudos. She's posed for racy photoshoots in Sports Illustrated and GQ. She has sought celebrity.

But when when the peephole perv story broke and the paparazzi transformed her from storyteller to The Story, she called 911 and yelled to the operator, "I'm being treated like f---ing Britney Spears!" (Ironically, she employs Spears' stylist Paige Geran to dress her for her ESPN gigs.)

Now that "Dancing with the Stars" is over, Andrews is going to have to decide whether she wants to be a proper journalist or continue to be a journalistic lightweight who's light on her feet.

This is the classic problem of seeing women as either "sex objects" or as someone we should take seriously. They cannot, on this view, be both. That is sheer nonsense, and it should not be allowed to pass without response. A woman has every right to celebrate her body and to be taken seriously as a professional. Furthermore, Ms. Andrews' outfits on dancing with the stars were hardly as objectionable as this article would have it; but even if they were, that does not nullify her skills as a journalist.

The worst part of this article is its rather shocking implication that Andrews deserves to be objectified because she has accepted playboy's claim that she is sexy (where by the way, is the proof for this assertion? Furthermore, what does it even mean?!), and employs Britney Spears' stylist. This is outrageous and plays to the absurd prejudice that women are somehow at least partially responsible for cases in which they are reprehensibly exploited.

Erin Andrews has posed for sexy pictures. Erin Andrews bared some flesh for dancing with the stars. Erin Andrews is quite a beauty. So What? This has no bearing on her ability as a journalist and it should not effect our assessment of her skills, nor the level of professionalism she is accorded as an ESPN broadcaster.

I for one think Ms. Andrews (and any other woman) has every right to bare her mid-section AND be taken seriously as a journalist.

Tongues of Flame

2010-05-23T22:47:00.004-05:00

On the Church calendar today was Pentecost. For those who do not know, Pentecost is the day set aside to recognize the founding of Christianity as a new religion. The story in Acts 2 is as follows:

When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. ²And suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. ³Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them. ⁴All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability. ⁵Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem. ⁶And at this sound the crowd gathered and was bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in the native language of each. ⁷Amazed and astonished, they asked, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? ⁸And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language? ⁹Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, ¹⁰Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, ¹¹Cretans and Arabs—in our own languages we hear them speaking about God’s deeds of power.”

As history it won't work. In the Jewish Tradition the Law was given on Pentecost. The author of Acts is simply using that date to have the "New Covenant" given on that same day. This is parable, not history (as if the flaming tongues and gift of languages were not enough to reveal that!).

In fact, it seems quite clear that the author is presenting this event as an undoing of the Tower of Babel. The Tower of Babel is that myth in the book of Genesis wherein God divides the human race by forcing them to speak in multiple languages, making them incomprehensible to each other.

What the author of Acts is saying is that the Holy Spirit which comes to the believer by the spirit of the Risen Jesus reverses this division and instead brings all together in unity. The great barriers separating humanity are conquered in the Spirit of the Risen One. As the ministry of Jesus was defined by breaking down the barriers that divide us from each other, this story is an admirable recognition of that same power alive in those who follow him.

The symbolism of reunification is very clear from the beginning of the the text. We are told that "they were all together in one place," and, lest we should still not get it, the Author ends his story of Pentecost with the following account of the life of the Early Jesus movement:

⁴⁴All who believed were together and had all things in common; ⁴⁵they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.

It is not too surprising that the early Jesus movement "had all things in common," as Jesus himself seems to have lived this way and taught others to do the same ( see Luke 9:58, & Luke 18:18-25). And this passage should be read very carefully by those who champion big corporations and unregulated markets before they declare that they truly follow Jesus. But that is not my point here.

Historians of early Christianity are certain that Christianity as a religion separate from Judaism cannot be dated to before the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 A. D. And the break is not complete until the early second century. Pentecost therefore, cannot really be about the founding of a new faith.

What Pentecost is about is unity. The world is and always has been deeply divided. These divisions all too often cause harms. The story of Pentecost tells us that division is not final, that we need not cave to it. Beneath our divisions there is a unity. That unity can be grasped, can be seen, can be lived.

As far as history is concerned the Apostles never did speak in multiple languages at once. Neither can we. But perhaps, if we but let ourselves be "filled with the Holy Spirit" we can come to understand each other and finally all come "together in one place."

Discrimination, Jodi O'Brien, and Catholic Mission

2010-05-18T01:06:00.006-05:00

From the moment that Marquette University president Father Wilde's decision to rescind a job offer for Dean of College of arts and letters made to Jodi O'Brien went public, Marquette has erupted in ideological warfare.

There are those, well-represented in my philosophy department, who immediately decided that Dr. O'Brien was discriminated against because of her sexual orientation (O'Brien is an out lesbian), and on the basis of that began at once to write letters, make phone calls and engage in public protests. Fair enough. The anger over this recension is quite understandable. To be quite clear, I agree that the recension of the job offer to Dr. O'Brien was, without qualification, deeply unjust. Protests are a good way of fighting this unjust decision.

Then there are those who represent, in their mind at least, "traditional catholic values." This Group has blogged, and written letters supporting Father Wild (Some had called for his immediate resignation) and expressing their concern that the "protesters" do not value catholic mission and christian identity. At its worst some members of this group are just plain homophobic and using the banner of their faith to legitimize their bigotry. Just see former Marquette Prof. Chris Wolfe's rather vile Op-ed on the subject

For detailed expression of the views and arguments of both sides, I refer my readers to Bento, at the Word Warrior and John McAdams over at Marquette Warrior. Among the issues disputed are (1) was Jodi O'Brien truly the best candidate or a "diversity" hire? (2) was the offer rescinded because of her sexual orientation or because of certain themes in her scholarly work? And (3) is it appropriate for a private Catholic University to hire or not hire for administrative positions based on Catholic teachings on human sexuality, and (4) did forces outside the University pressure Father Wilde into rescinding the offer.

Here, for what it is worth, is my analysis:

We now know the answer to (4). The Archbishop of Milwaukee did ask Wilde to rescind the job offer. He has admitted as much. Another claim, widely circulated among the student body - and originally speculated by the leaders of the protest groups - that wealthy conservative donors threatened to take their money away if O'Brien was hired has not been substantiated and remains mere speculation.

As to (1), I am no expert in who would count as the best candidate. From what I can tell Dr. O'Brien was qualified. Some have argued that her scholary work wast not as good as other canditates. I do not have the expertise to examine such claims. I see no reason, however, to suspect the search committee failed to do their job. Some of the voices questioning O'Brien's scholarly ability seem to have an issue with what she writes about, that is mere bias, and irrelevant to her actual accomplishments. Furthermore, it is standard procedure for someone like Father Wilde to trust the judgment of his search committee. The claim by some, most notably John McAdams, that O'Brien was a "diversity" hire is nothing more than an ideologically motivated speculation.

Looking at (2). I firmly believe that Father Wilde did not rescind the offer because of sexual orientation. The recension was indeed based on passages in O'Brien's work. I do not think Father Wilde is a "nasty homophobe." This is, of course, merely my impression of the man, but there it is for what it is worth. Of The Archbishop's motives, I could only guess. Guessing is not helpful here, so I won't. On a side note, I think some of the criticism of Father Wilde and demands for his immediate resignation seem to me too extreme. He must indeed answer for his actions, but must he be vilified? Is that fair? Was he "caving to bigotry"? Or honestly doing what he thought best for Marquette - though, I stress that his actions were actually what is worst for Marquette!

Number (3) is the most difficult to address. There is certainly nothing wrong with a catholic college hiring in accordance with a catholic mission. Would O'Brien's hire really go against catholic mission? That is a highly charged theological query, which is beyond the space of this post. I will note however that catholic clergy, laity, and theologians are quite divided here. This makes the matter very difficult to assess from a catholic perspective. The present Catholic Church is in a state of slow and painful transition on matters of human sexuality.

Speaking as a non-catholic Christian, I will say that I do not personally believe homosexuality to be a sin or any kind of wrong-doing. I see neither same-sex marriage nor other aspects of the work O'Brien has written on to conflict with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Message of Jesus is to feed the hungry, heal the afflicted, forgive our fellows, soothe the brokenhearted, and champion the oppressed and down-trodden. Issues of human sexuality are, it seems clear to me, outside of that Gospel.

In short, I side with the protesters in thinking that Dr. O'Brien, once picked by the search committee and offered the job, should have been hired with no fuss (and by the way, many of those concerned with "Catholic mission" agree on this point as well, they are not all opposed to Dr. O'Brien). I think also that the voice of the Archbishop should not have prevailed on Father Wilde.

But I want to make a plea to those who share my view that Dr. O'Brien was deeply wronged.

Several faculty members have voiced their concern that Catholic mission and Christian identity is being brushed aside in favor of political correctness. I do not claim that this assertion is true. I do not know enough about the inside players to enter that dispute.

I am concerned, however, that anyone who writes in favor of Catholic mission, or against some of the tactics of those protesting the rescinding of O'Brien's offer are dubbed by a few parties as "homophobes" who are peddling "the traditional catholic agenda." Some have seen these faculty members as mere "bigots." In certain cases that is probably true.

But I cannot and do not believe that all of those writing about their concern for catholic values and catholic mission are raging homophobic bigots. And I do not think we gain much from writing them off as such.

There is a deep divide at Marquette. There are those committed to Catholic faith, or at least Christian faith broadly construed, who see that faith threatened by groups pushing a secular agenda on campus. This may very well be a false perception on their part, but they do feel this and it is worth trying to figure out why they do. Even if totally wrong, and they may be, their concerns come from somewhere, and not all people with such concerns are mere "bigots."

Like it or not, Marquette University is a Catholic Institution and Catholic identity is a factor that should be central in University life. This does not, of course, mean Marquette must slavishly enforce Rome's theology, but it does mean that the concerns of certain parties regarding what they perceive as the down-playing of catholic mission can be taken seriously, can be listened to and dialogued with.

Simply staging walks outs and shouting in megaphones is not always as effective as dialogue, listening, and open struggling with conflicting positions.

I must ask my friends protesting what they are trying to accomplish. Are they hoping to take the university forward? Are they hoping to bring about positive transformation? Do they think their tactics will accomplish this? Is nothing to be gained from an attempt at dialogue with those who value "catholic mission"?

Real progress, real transformation, these are what we should work toward.

Milwaukee Archbishop takes away Job offer to prospective dean

2010-05-12T10:22:00.004-05:00

Marquette University has been all over the news lately, and not for a good reason. Dr. Jodi O'Brien was offered the position of Dean of the college of arts and letters, only to have that offered rescinded by university president Father Wilde.

The official reason was that "some of her published writings are contrary to Marquette's" mission. This was oddly not noticed before, which sent up red flags. It seems to many on campus (as multiple protests and letters from faculty and students attest)that Marquette has blatantly discriminated against O'Brien because of her sexual orientations (she is an out lesbian) and/or her scholarship, some of which favors same-sex marriage, or at least appears to.

This entire fiasco has been blogged in detail by "Bento" over at the word warrior and I refer you to his posts for a full account. I stress here only that many believed that powerful forces exerted pressure on Marquette to force Wilde's hand.

We now know that this true and who those powerful forces are.

The Milwaukee Journal sentinel reports:

Milwaukee Archbishop Jerome Listecki and the judicial vicar for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee separately raised red flags over Marquette's hiring of a Seattle University professor as Arts and Sciences dean.

Listecki called Marquette President Father Robert A. Wild about the university's offer to Jodi O'Brien after receiving calls from clergy and lay leaders, the archbishop's spokeswoman said.

Also expressing concerns about O'Brien's appointment was Father Paul Hartmann, the archdiocese's judicial vicar. Hartmann sent a March 3 letter to the chair of the search committee that said the gender studies professor "pursues subject matter that seems destined to actually create dichotomies and cause tensions (if not contradictions) with Marquette's Catholic mission and identity."

In the letter, obtained Tuesday by the Journal Sentinel, Hartmann referenced O'Brien but didn't name her.

The comments from Listecki's spokeswoman and Hartmann's letter are the first public indications that archdiocese leaders raised concerns about O'Brien.

This is extremely disturbing. Marquette has allowed the archdiocese to limit academic freedom and to enforce a polcy of discrimination against Jodi O'Brien. The Archdiocese has here claimed the right to determine what is acceptable scholarly activity at a University. This destroys the very nature of the academic enterprise.

Even worse, Marquette University has violated its own principles of diversity and non-discrimination and possibly violated federal law as well. All of this in the name of obedience to Catholic authority.

This is a serious stain on Marquette and a further reason for disgust with the hiearchacal nature of the catholic church.

The standpoint that maintains that those in authority can and must move into to silence and punish those who "disobey" is rotting the church from within. It is this same mentality that has led to clergy being held unaccountable for sex crimes against children.

This is deeply troubling for Marquette and for the Catholic Church.

The Gospel of Cornel West

2010-05-12T00:06:00.003-05:00

If only Dr. Cornel West were White House Chief of staff (and Paul Krugman chief economic adviser for that matter) ... alas we are stuck with Summers and the gang.

In any case, enjoy the the following video of Cornel West:

Happy Birthday Mr. Padre

2010-05-09T15:05:00.006-05:00

Anthony Keith Gwynn

May 9th, 1960

Tony Gwynn, The Hall of Famer, with 3,141 hits, .338 lifetime batting average, 8 Batting Titles, 5 Gold Gloves, 15 time All-Star and 20 seasons with one team! All amazing accomplishments and now he is turning the big 5-0! Mr. Padre, Tony Gwynn, means a lot to the city of San Diego and a lot to Padres fans. He is certainly the best hitter of his time, and one of the best of all time. (In my opinion second only to Ted Williams). Having grown up a San Diego Padres fan, I wanted nothing more than to meet Tony Gwynn since I was 2 years old. I waited 20 years to meet the man. No matter what, I always seemed to miss him. Then finally, in 2008 I met him. I tell you it was worth the wait. Tony Gwynn is the epitome of class and kindness. We were lucky to have such an amazing player, an amazing person as a part of the Padres, and a part of our lives.

HAPPY 50TH BIRTHDAY MR. PADRE!!!

Post Contributed by my sister: Caitlin Wion

Putting Away Childish things: Marcus Borg turns to fiction

2010-05-08T23:51:00.002-05:00

Putting Away Childish Things: A Tale of Modern Faith by Marcus J. Borg

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Borg is a very fine New Testament scholar and a good popularizer of liberal theology. I've never been dissappointed by his books.

I am happy to report that Borg's first work of fiction is no exception to this rule. The story is solid and engaging, the plot has an intrinic interest, and - like his non-fiction - the prose is just plain enjoyable. Borg is candid that he is not writing to produce masterpiece fiction here. And indeed, as a work of fiction there are some plot holes, and worse some underdeveloped characters and unresolved conflicts, one quite major! But the fiction, as fiction, is decent and enjoyable despite these flaws.

The heart of the book, however, is not the storyline. Borg uses the form of a story to show how the theological struggles he has long written about play out in the lives of genuine individuals from all manner of perspectives. Basic Liberal theology is well described by Borg's characters, as are the various reactions to it, ranging from fear and confusion to curiosity and excitement.

Most interestingly, Borg presents his liberal christians as passionate about their faith. God is central to their lives. There is a tendancy to think of Christians who embrace liberal theology as lukewarm about their faith. This is false, and Borg brilliantly creates characters who prove that a more progressive theology can, or rather should, go hand in and with passionate faith.

Borg's book is not merely a primer in liberal theology, not simply pop evangelism in fictional wrapping. This is a book about true spirituality, about real faith.

By the end of the novel we have come to learn something very important about faith. We have learned to let go of anxiety and give ourselves over to the divine in an act of trust.

Unless you are an anti-religous atheist or a religous fundamentalist, I highly recommend sitting down and letting Dr. Borg tell you a story this summer.

Dan Maguire lays the smack down

2010-05-08T23:08:00.002-05:00

I was going to post something bout the controversy currently brooding at Marquette. But others have done better.

I was just sent the text of Theology Professor Dan Maguire's Open Letter on the issue. I paste it here:

Professor Daniel C. Maguire

Theology Department

Marquette University

May 8, 2010

To: Robert Wild, S.J., President, Marquette University
John Pauly, Provost, Marquette University

When I came to Marquette 40 years ago I was told Marquette supported academic freedom. I believe that and acted on that assurance and was tenured and promoted to the highest rank. That is the Marquette I know. That is the Marquette I respect, and that is the Marquette I have just seen demeaned and betrayed.

The decision by a handful of administrators to break the oral contract with Dr. O’Brien a decision that broke all the canons of collegiality, was the worst decision made at Marquette in decades. In one act you managed to insult Dr. O’Brien, the Marquette faculty and student body, and the Jesuit Seattle University. You based your decision on an interpretation of what was or what was not compatible with Catholic teaching. However, you did not consult the faculty experts on Catholic moral teaching on this campus. The Theology Department is one of the major theologates in North America, just a few yards away from your offices. You ignored them as you also ignored teachers of ethics in the Philosophy department and professors in Sociology, Dr. O’Brien’s field..

Much of the damage you caused is beyond repair and will hover over this university for years..... but not all of it. Confession of sins and reparation are central to Catholic spirituality.

A Lesson from History

A similar breach of contract occurred in 1999 when Fr. Charles Curran was invited to give the annual Pere Marquette Lecture. When the then chair of the Theology Department learned that the invitation had been made and accepted, he contacted Dr. Curran and withdrew the invitation because of Fr. Curran’s liberal views. The Theology Department, led by Michael Fahey, S.J., protested vigorously and Fr. Curran was re-invited. He was gracious enough to accept.

Solution

As to the disastrous disinvitation of Dr. O’Brien: all blame may not reside with the president of Marquette, but the “buck stops” on your desk, Fr. Wild.. You should shoulder all the blame and make your already given notice of resignation effective immediately. Your pro tem successor should then re-invite Dr. Jodi O’Brien to be Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.

If she accepts, and it would be a supreme act of generosity for her to do so, I can guarantee this: Dr. Jodi O’Brien will be the most warmly received dean in the history of this great university.

Professor Daniel C. Maguire
Theology Department
daniel.maguire@marquette.edu

What's the fuss about National Prayer day?

2010-05-06T20:08:00.006-05:00

I have no interest in National Prayer Day.

I do not understand the mentality of the religious right who bellow about the need for the ten commandments, want creationism taught in schools, insist on the crucial importance of the name of God on our cash and in the pledge of allegiance.

I've always thought that the separation of church and state is an absolute necessity for a free society. It is also better for the church. Religions go bad when they have too much power. I've never thought faith should be part of the power structure, this is never a good thing. Faith should be a God-intoxicated voice of social protest; a demand for justice against the domination system.

In short, separation of church and state is necessary for the good of the state and the good of religion.

That said, I have absolutely no sympathy with those atheistic zealots who would ban all religion from public view. When I hear atheists lament about how "oppressed" they are because of national prayer day, I must confess I turn a shade of green.

Years ago I heard an atheist on TV (this was in California) weep and wail about how his daughter was "wounded" by the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. He went on to ask how a Jew or Muslim might feel if they had to say that!!!

These Atheist zealots crusade to take down crosses, and remove all mention of God from any public view. This is a clear example of bigotry and irrational anger.

I have to confess that I have no personal sympathy with atheism. I've never found atheism attractive, appealing, or even plausible. It is foreign to my mindset and temperament, and I don't even really understand it. That is not meant as condemnation of atheists. Many good and wonderful people are atheists. I just want to be candid about how far removed from it I am.

Don't get me wrong. I have no concern with putting God in public. I do not think we need the ten commandments in our courtroom, Genesis in our classroom, or God on our money. What I object to is the fanatic hatred of religion some atheists revel in. let me repeat that I mean ONLY SOME atheists. I'm aware that most atheists are not the kind of zealot I am here railing against.

Take the suit by the Freedom from religion group. These folks want to ban the National Prayer Day, because they are "offended" by the mere idea of God. I don't find that praiseworthy.

Usually such atheists are extremely arrogant. They think themselves much wiser, more intelligent, and greater than "those religious yokels and idiots." It is not an attractive attitude.

By all means go ahead and ban the national prayer day. Perhaps it is unconstitutional. I've never given it any attention and don't see the need for it.

But please, let's not pretend that these fanatical atheists are not smug and bigoted. They claim to be persecuted minorities who are just so wronged.

This is nonsense.

For Profit Colleges

2010-05-06T18:09:00.003-05:00

There is a growing trend of for profit colleges . These are largely professional schools, focusing on business, medicine, and criminal justice. I currently teach a couple courses for Bryant and Stratton College which is one such school.

I find it difficult to say whether such schools are a good or bad thing. On the one hand they spread higher education to a wide variety of people and they are every good at teaching people the skills they need to land jobs. On the other hand I am deeply suspicious of the profit motive. We have been shown again and again that the profit motive is destructive and horrid. That may be a moot point, however, as traditional universities are far more "profit-driven" and "corporate minded" then many would care to admit.

NPR explained the whole situation today. I post that discussion here:

On the whole I see some value to them. They offer a needed service. But my hope is that non-profit universities start to truly mean what they claim: that they stop letting the drive for cash dominate their thought and they begin to return to a broad emphasis on the humanities and liberal arts.

A Liberal arts education is designed to create well-rounded individuals who can learn to become good citizens, friends, parents, neighbors, and just plain good people. So let us turn over the money-making to these for profit schools, let them get people jobs. But let us use this to return the focus of non-profit schools to improve character and educating the whole person.

Remember Working People!

2010-05-01T23:28:00.001-05:00

In most of the world today May Day will be honored as a celebration of the rights of working people. This is a day to champion their cause, to celebrate their labor, and to think of ways to improve working and living conditions for working people everywhere.

In honor of May Day, I offer the following book review:

The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power by Joel Bakan

It is no secret that nearly all human societies - including our present societies - favor the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else.

The dominant institution for implementing this type of exploitation today is the corporation. Corporations get politicians elected, take over our minds with advertising, dump pollution into our environment, and routinely commit crime upon crime.

The basic Premise of this book is fairly simple: Corporations are not run by evil people, but are systematically designed in such a way that harming and exploiting people is a necessary component of their operation. Corporations are created to maximize profit and minimize cost. Corporations are legally bound to put profit above all other concerns. These claims are backed up by an enormous amount of legal data.

The second point is that currently Businesses are insufficiently regulated and not remotely penalized severely enough for their crimes. This means that, given that their structure is to maximize profit, they will lie, cheat, fraud, and harm consumers and employees - as this is in the long run the most profitable course.

What is the solution to this? A rethinking of and legal rewrite of the purpose and function of a corporation. Instead of merely a profit making machine, a corporation, the author argues, should be highly regulated, and subject to severe penalties when it violates the law. Furthermore, social responsibility must be legally written into the charter of a corporation and the common good, not merely profit, must be part of their tasks as a social institution.

Only by so re-creating the corporation and its structures can we remove the horrible harms corporations do and make them a force for good, rather than a force for harm and destruction.

As we celebrate the workers of the world this May Day, let us not only honor their labor and speak out for their rights; let us also come to understand the systemic problem of the corporate structure which keeps them exploited.

If we are to have true rights for working people, then we must restructure the corporate machine into something very different

Note: Originally published last year

The Legacy of Bill Moyers

2010-04-30T21:43:00.007-05:00

Bill Moyers has ended The Journal. It is possible to make too much of this. Moyers will still be around and will not be entirely silent. He will, however, no longer host a regular television show. Though this may very well be the right thing to do for the soon to be 76 year old journalist, it is a sad thing for the rest of America.

Much could be written about Moyers' contribution to journalism. From his time in the White House as press secretory and his impact on the founding of the Peace Corps, to his interviews with Joseph Campbell, on death and dying, and on world religions - to name but a few of his many creative and informative projects. But others have done this far better than me. I refer to Eric Alterman's fine piec e on what Moyers has meant to journalism and the country and Fresh Air's thoughtful retrospective involving past interviews with him.

There is little I can add to the tributes I mention. I will say only this: In an age dominated by partisan hacks and pompous blowhards, when shock jocks are the norm and vulgarity toward one's opponents encouraged, Bill Moyers remained a Christian Gentleman.

Always courteous, kind, generous, respectful and well-mannered, Moyers nevertheless spoke the truth to power with courage, stood on principle no matter what, and battled against power interested for the good of working people everywhere.

He has been the most honest man in journalism.

Moyers' professionalism, commitment to truth, openness to others, and above all genuine integrity and humanity have seldom been seen together in a single newsman.

It is above all his combination of passion for truth, commitment to principle, compassion for his fellow human beings, together with his generosity toward others, respectful tone, courteous manner, open mind, and refusal to engage in the smear tactics and name calling that have dominated journalism and media for some time now, that make him a personal hero to me - (I concede by the way that I've not measured up to his standard here).

Mr. Moyers will be greatly missed by many of us. As for his replacement? Let us be frank: Moyers is NOT replaceable. He is a unique contributor to American Journalism. But we can carry on his mission.

We must all pick up Bill Moyers' mantle. Let us also strive, like Moyers, to seek the truth with gentility, kindness, openness, but also with perseverance, integrity, and a desire for truth over pleasing those in power.

Let's continue to fight his fight!

Let us make it our own.

Here are some of Moyers' parting thoughts (from the second to last episode, not the last):

Bill Moyers Retires

2010-04-23T00:03:00.000-05:00

Bill Moyers Retires

We are part of the Earth: let's start acting like it

2010-04-22T13:14:00.008-05:00

We would do well to remember that we are part of this Earth. Sadly We in the west are heirs to a spiritual and ethical tradition that encourages us to think of ourselves as fundamentally separate from the Earth and nature. We think of ourselves as beings injected into the earth from some "beyond." It is not true.

Even more disturbing: Corporate Capitalism encourages us to reduce the Earth to a set of commodities the value of which is entirely reducible to economic worth. This is a travesty of our real relationship to this world that we are part of.

We are earth grown. We are part and parcel of our surroundings. The world is not "out there" its surrounds us and fills us and IS us.

There are a vast number of ways in which we are harming and even destroying our environment. We are quite good at spoiling the earth. The most pressing issue, however, is Global Warming. As there are still some skeptics out there. I will quickly explain why the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY (with VERY rare exceptions) has concluded that human-originated global warming is a fact and dangerous one.

The science behind global warming is actually very simple. Carbon Dioxide traps sun rays in the atmosphere which is how the planet warms itself. This is a natural process. It follows that the more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere the hotter the planet will be. As a clarification, when the planet gets hotter as a whole it does NOT mean that every place on the planet will be warmer. Weather and temperature are complex and massive systems. To increase the warmth of the planet as a whole will result in a wide variety of changing conditions in various places; some places getting more rain, some less, some getting hotter, some colder. Let's please get our facts straight on this.

It is empirically obvious that we are dumping vast amounts of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. Given the basic facts of planetary warming, it automatically follows that we are increasing Global Warming. But this would never be enough to satisfy a scientist. Science works by testing theories. You test a theory by making predictions. This means that if a certain theory is true, certain observable phenomena will be present. If those Phenomena are not present, we have good reason to doubt the theory.

In the case of Global warming ALL OF THE PREDICTED CONSEQUENCES OF THE THEORY ARE PRESENT

Here are the basic facts via National Geographic:

Here's the lowdown on why it's happening, what's causing it, and how it might
change the planet.Is It Happening?Yes. Earth is already showing many signs of
worldwide climate change.• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees
Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in
recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.• The
rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the
hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according
to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the
dozen warmest since 1850.• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average
temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice
the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact
Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.• Arctic ice is rapidly
disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free
summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar
bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.•
Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's
Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the
Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin
a week later.• Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water
temperature, suffered the worst
bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998, with some
areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to
increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures
rise.• An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat
waves, and strong
tropical storms, is also attributed in part to climate change by some
experts.Are Humans Causing It?• "Very likely," the IPCC said in a February
2007 report. The report, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists in more
than 130 countries, concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current
planetary warming. Human-caused global warming is often called anthropogenic
climate change.• Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly
increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane,
and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's
surface. (See an interactive feature on how
global warming works.) • Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere much faster than plants
and oceans can absorb it. • These gases persist in the atmosphere for years,
meaning that even if such emissions were eliminated today, it would not
immediately stop global warming.• Some experts point out that natural cycles
in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain
the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles
roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such
changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have
taken place over the past hundred years or less. • Other recent research has
suggested that the effects of variations
in the sun's output are "negligible" as a factor in warming, but other, more
complicated solar mechanisms could possibly play a role.

So there you have it. The basic science is pretty flawless. This is a perfect example of a verified Scientific theory. And it is not even very hard to grasp. And yes the Consequences are nightmarish. The effects of Global Warming include:

What's Going to Happen?A follow-up report
by the IPCC released in April 2007 warned that global warming could lead
to
large-scale food and water shortages and have catastrophic effects on
wildlife.•
Sea level could rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 to 59
centimeters) by century's
end, the IPCC's February 2007 report projects.
Rises of just 4 inches (10
centimeters) could flood many South Seas islands
and swamp large parts of
Southeast Asia.• Some hundred million people live
within 3 feet (1 meter) of
mean sea level, and much of the world's
population is concentrated in vulnerable
coastal cities. In the U.S., Louisiana
and Florida are especially at risk.• Glaciers around the world could
melt,
causing sea levels to rise while creating water shortages in regions
dependent
on runoff for fresh water.• Strong hurricanes, droughts, heat
waves, wildfires,
and other natural disasters may become commonplace in many
parts of the world.
The growth of deserts may also cause food shortages in
many places.• More
than a million species face extinction from disappearing habitat,
changing
ecosystems, and acidifying oceans.• The ocean's circulation system,
known as the
ocean conveyor belt, could be permanently altered, causing a
mini-ice age in Western Europe and other rapid changes.• At some point
in
the future, warming could become uncontrollable by creating a so-called positive
feedback effect. Rising temperatures could release additional greenhouse
gases by unlocking methane in permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing
carbon
trapped in sea ice, and causing increased evaporation of water

The time has come to cease arguing about human-generated Global Warming. The skeptics have no case and are either willingly blind, grossly misinformed, are simply being dishonest.

The Earth should mean something to us. We should love and cherish the planet which is our only home and the numerous living beings who inhabit it with us. Enough nonsense. No more debate. Global Warming is real and we are causing it.

This Earth Day, let us commit to fighting it.

Who Was Jesus?

2010-04-16T20:29:00.003-05:00

Amazing Discovery channel documentary on the historical Jesus. Watch, Enjoy, and learn.

Tea-baggers, Tina Fey, and Taxes

2010-04-15T15:52:00.004-05:00

Turn on your local news and you will see them, Tea-baggers screeching about high taxes and "evil" government spending. They are, of course, very stupid and very crazy. But we do not do well to merely mock them.

Don't get me wrong, they deserve mockery and we should be glad to give them what they deserve. But they are not merely silly, they are scary. The Tea-baggers are VERY dangerous.

They seethe with the same kind of hate and irrationality that has constantly marked the wild masses who support rising dictators. We should be very worried about these tea-baggers.

They have now expanded their "movement" into the armed forces and militia groups, they are large, influential and growing increasingly violent. To observe how absurd their irrationality has become one need only note that they are belligerently protesting taxes today, when overall current taxes are the lowest they have been in decades!

Just observe them on any television channel or on youtube.

They are a very real danger to this society. As is their leader.

Tina Fey has brilliantly portrayed Sarah Palin as a clueless idiot. Undoubtedly Palin is rather stupid or at least highly uniformed and incompetent. But the former Governor of Alaska is far more dangerous than Fey's ditsy version of her.

Sarah Palin is a highly corrupt, dishonest, and manipulative person. Hungry for power and fame she will stoke the anger of even (perhaps especially) the most extreme and violent members of the tea-bagger party. This should alarm us all.

Sarah Palin and her tea-baggers are dangerous, not just funny.

Beware.

The Full story of Health Care reform

2010-04-13T23:30:00.004-05:00

I have frequently blogged about how incomplete and flawed the new health care reform is. It far from anything that will provide truly first class care to a high number of Americans. But It is good to have the whole story documented in one place.

Such documentation is now ready to hand.

Tonight's episode of Frontline offers a pretty clear presentation of just what the new health care reform laws are and how the Obama White House got them passed.

Despite the neutrality of the program, the facts make clear how flawed this "reform" is and how much corruption, betrayal, and backroom deals with special interest poisoned the process.

I post the link to the video here:

Frontline: Obama's Deal (April 13, 2010)

Never again

2010-04-12T17:24:00.004-05:00

Today is Holocaust remembrance day. A day we remember, with great sorrow, the horrors of the Holocaust. The Holocaust was the end result of centuries of persecution and hatred directed toward the Jewish people and others. As one of the worst atrocities of history it is good to look to it and try to learn from it, learn how to stop it.

Sadly it does happen again. Often. The world is still full of hate, persecution and violence. We have, apparently, not yet learned our lesson. Perhaps we never will.

But there is hope.

On this Holocaust Remembrance day, let us commit ourselves to non-violence, inclusion, equality, forgiveness, healing and peace.

Maybe if we truly make that commitment it will really never happen again.

Why do you seek the living among the dead?

2010-04-04T01:29:00.000-05:00

For those who are not interested in Easter at all, this post will not matter. Also, for those who do celebrate Easter, but as a family (non-religious) holiday, or fertility festival, this post is not relevant either. I have no quarrel with these views, I merely am not addressing them here. Fertility festivals and family holidays can be very fine things, but I want to write on the importance of Easter as a commemoration of the resurrection of Jesus.

Let me state clearly that I affirm the resurrection of Jesus. There is, however, a twist. I do not believe that Jesus was physically raised from the dead. That is, I do not believe that on the third day the body of Jesus was physically transformed and his tomb found empty.

The reasons I doubt this are lengthy and complex and I will here only summarize them: 1) most crucified victims were not buried, and if by rare chance one was they were dumped in a common or shallow criminal's grave. The burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea reads like a contrived tale to (a) save Jesus from this fate, and (b) help account for the resurrection in narrative terms. 2) The stories read like symbolic accounts. The resurrection is said to happen at sunrise, there are angels, the stone is magically "rolled away." This reads like legend. 3) The appearance stories in the gospels cannot be harmonized and are the clear inventions of their authors' theology. 4) It seems clear to me that by presenting the stories as they do, the gospel writers did not intend to convey literal fact. 5) Paul, our earliest Christian writer and a self-proclaimed "witness" of the risen Jesus says nothing about an "empty tomb," and strongly indicates that the resurrection of Jesus - whatever it was - was not the transformation of a corpse.

Nevertheless, I don't want to press this issue. If you believe that Jesus really did bodily rise up from the dead on Easter Sunday, and the tomb was really empty, then fine. I have no desire to combat that belief. My question is this: can the resurrection of Jesus be affirmed by one who does not believe the empty tomb story? Who does not affirm bodily resurrection?

I believe that it can.

Here is how I understand what the earliest followers of Jesus were saying: When Jesus was crucified they were afraid and they fled in despair, but they soon found that the power that they knew in Jesus was still present in them! Not only that, they felt that it was still Jesus bringing this power. That is, the earliest followers of Jesus were somehow aware (visions were most likely involved here) that Jesus was still with them, empowering them to do what he did; to heal the sick, condemn injustice, champion the poor, and include the outcasts.

I do not mean by this that they merely continued Jesus' mission or that his teaching or ideas lived on. Rather, I mean to say that the disciples of Jesus felt the "living presence" of Jesus empowering them to do as he did, and this forced them to say "Jesus lives." Jesus, they now believed, was "with God" and "with them." And I believe they were right.

Don't get me wrong, I have no idea what happens after death. I do not think traditional views of heaven and hell are likely to be true. And I have no idea if any of our personality survives death, in fact I lean against that. But I do think that something of the essence of what we are is eternal and not merely mortal. It is this contact with and experience of the eternal aspect of Jesus' being that caused his disciples to say "He is risen!"

But "Jesus Lives" is only half of the Easter proclamation. These disciples affirmed also that "Jesus is Lord." For them, Jesus did not merely continue to be with them, but to call them and challenge them, and bring to them the very being and power of their God. The risen Jesus challenges those who encounter him to radically reorient themselves; not only his presence but his call to mission is the heart of Easter faith.

I do not profess to know what kinds of experiences these disciples had. I was not there, and what we have (other than Paul) are the purely symbolic accounts in the gospels. But I am convinced that they experienced the real presence of the real Jesus as a compelling power within themselves.

The success of the Jesus movement resulted in the fact that these experiences of the "risen Jesus" were not isolated, but could be had by others. Christians who had never known Jesus during his life, could and did experience him as a "living power" calling for their authentic response.

And what was the call of Jesus? The call to "follow him." And this meant, a life committed to forgiveness, inclusion, compassion, healing, non-violence, social justice, and peace. It is this life that the risen and living Jesus still can bring to those who look to him, and to me this is what faith in the resurrection of Jesus means.

So, what happened to the body of Jesus? Presumably one of the few horrid fates that befell most crucifieds. But it is irrelevant. As the gospels rhetorically ask us, "why do we seek the living among the dead?" The spirit of Jesus lives on calling us. If we answer that call he can empower us to walk as he did and follow his way.

He is risen indeed!

Happy Easter.

Note: Originally Published last year.

Good Friday: a Passion for Justice

2010-04-02T15:00:00.001-05:00

On Good Friday Christians around the world commemorate the death of Jesus. I confess I've never been able to entertain the strange notion that Jesus' death magically takes away our sins.

There are various versions of how this works: the most common being a very primitive and barbaric suggestion that Jesus died in our place. Such a claim presents a view of God that is hardly lovable.

So I don't prefer to think of today as the day of remembering how Jesus "died in our place" or some other such weird notion.

What I choose to remember is that Jesus was crucified by imperial power. The reason, historically, that Jesus was executed - think about that executed! - was because he disturbed the status quo. In the name of the Kingdom of God - the Jewish God of justice and peace - Jesus condemned the ways of empire, and the system of domination and exploitation.

The death of Jesus was a direct result of his passionate commitment to peace, justice, and compassion in the name of God and God's kingdom. That is what ought to be remembered.

The great Medieval theologian Peter Abelard argued that Jesus' death should not be understood as a substitution or a ransom paid, but as an example of divine love. An example that, if we truly contemplate it, transforms us so that we become better people.

Abelard, it seems to me, was right. The importance of the death of Jesus is that it shows how committed he was to the central goal of his life, and inspires us to be just as committed.

The religious importance of this death, for Christians, is this: Jesus' death was not merely the result of his commitment to justice and compassion. Rather, it was also his firm conviction that God is found chiefly in a life of Justice and compassion; a life he himself embodied.

Note: I originally published this post last year. I thought it worth re-posting

Do this in Remembrance of Me

2010-04-01T18:16:00.004-05:00

Today is Holy Thursday, the day when Christians remember the last supper, the foundation of that most sacred of Christian meals, the Holy Communion.

It is historically very uncertain if the accounts of the last supper actually go back to the Historical Jesus or if they are later constructions of the church. My own inclination is that Jesus did celebrate a "last supper" with some of his followers. I doubt he said the "words of the institution," but I suspect he asked them to "remember him while they ate and drank." But perhaps not even that is historical. There is something more important about this meal.

In standard Christian theology Holy Communion is deeply connected with Jesus "dying for the sins of the world." I'm not very interested in that theology. Jesus' death is very important. He was put to death by an Empire and a leadership that despised everything he stood for to make an example to would be rebels. That death is, in many ways, a profound conclusion to his life and mission. But I don't believe in vicarious sacrifice or magic rituals, so the "dying for our sins" part does not move me. I am, however, deeply moved by the ritual of Holy Communion.

Communion reminds as that we are all one, like cells of one body, and that we were meant for "life together" in Boenhoffer's phrase. It is also a reminder that God is intimately near to us, as near as the bread and wine we digest. But there is more to the ritual even than that. Eating together was a (perhaps the) central element in the ministry of the historical Jesus.

Historians and New Testament scholars are unanimous in recognizing an "all-inclusive table fellowship" or "open commensality" as a central practice of the ministry of Jesus. In the ancient world who you ate or did not eat with mattered very greatly. Table Fellowship was a microcosm of the lager society, you did not eat with the the "lower people" or "outcasts."

Jesus directly challenged this ancient table practice with his own. Jesus dined with all manner of people, rich and poor, righteous and sinner, outcast and respectable soul, tax-collect and harlot, P and scribe. For Jesus, all set together to dine as equals. Jesus, from all accounts, appears to have been principally concerned with undoing the divisions of society. His ministry of eating and healing appears to have been designed to radically transform human relationships from exclusive to inclusive, from hierarchical to egalitarian.

The practice of all eating together as equals was the realization of Jesus' vision. In having all dine together as equals, Jesus was not merely proclaiming, but actually destroying the boundaries that divide. No one was to be an "outcast" any longer.

It all probability that is what communion grew out of - Jesus' mission to unite us all; to break apart the divisions which cause strife between us.

So if you take communion tonight or anytime this Holy Week do indeed remember Jesus. But forget theological claims about his divinity or sacrificial death (I suspect that the Historical Jesus would have found such claims a profound waste of time) try to remember his mission to unite, heal, reconcile, and bring together.

In a world still so divided and marred by the violence of those divisions, perhaps it would be good to remember Jesus' call to unity and to try to live it a little.

Palm Sunday: A Passion for Peace through Justice

2010-03-28T12:42:00.004-05:00

Today is Palm Sunday, the beginning of Holy Week for Christians. On Palm Sunday Jesus enters Jerusalem riding a donkey, hailed by followers waving palm branches. The action is a deliberate symbolic protest.

Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, in their excellent book The Last Week, explain:

The Meaning of the demonstration is clear, for it uses symbolism from the prophet Zechariah in the Jewish Bible. According to Zechariah, a king would be coming to Jerusalem (Zion) "humble, and riding on a colt, the foal of a donkey" (9:9).... The rest of the Zechariah passage details what kind of king he will be .... This king, riding on a donkey, will banish war from the land - no more chariots, war-horses, or bows. Commanding peace to the nations, he will be king of peace.

Jesus' procession deliberately countered what was happening on the other side o the city [that Sunday, Pilate entered the city in a pompous pro-empire procession]. Pilate's procession embodied the power, glory, and violence of the empire that ruled the world. Jesus' procession embodied an alternative vision, the kingdom of God.

The kingdom of God is the heart of Jesus' life and message. Dedicated to non-violence, inclusiveness, justice for the poor and afflicted, and peace through justice for all, Jesus entered Jerusalem intentionally opposing his message and his mission to the power and injustice of empire.

To follow Jesus, therefore, is to oppose the forces of empire and violence. To fight for the radical inclusion and healing of all people.

Palm Sunday offers us a choice: we can follow Jesus the messiah of peace and justice, or align ourselves with the forces of empire. THAT is the gospel; THAT is the passion of Holy Week.

The Occupation Continues

2010-03-23T12:15:00.002-05:00

Israel continues to occupy Palestine.

For those who don't know, Israel took the lands of the Palestinian people in 1967 and has violated international law and treaty ever since by continuing to build settlements on land that is not their own. In doing so Israel has subjected the Palestinian people to all manner of cruelty. From shameful and life altering check points, cruel beatings at the hand of the Israeli Military, loss of land, job, and pride, to mass killings and collective punishment, the Palestinian people are among the most abused and exploited peoples in the world. (Please don't just take my word for this, look into the facts of the matter).

To date the United States has been Israel's major international ally in this shameful occupation. That trend continues.

This is a tragedy. We hear often of Israel's need for peace and security. A worthy goal. I too hope that the people of Israel can live in peace and security, free from threat, pain and death. I want to see Israel prosper and thrive. But there can be no peace in Israel until the people of Palestine receive justice.

We are far from any justice for the suffering and afflicted of Palestine. Netanyahu continues to have settlements built on Palestinian lands, evicting Palestinians from their homes in order to provide homes for Israeli settlers. This is a blatant effort to expand power at the the expense of the lives, dignity, and basic humanity of the people that Netanyahu is tossing out of their homes, the people whose land he is stealing.

Officially the Obama administration has rebuked Netanyahu for building new settlements in East Jerusalem. In reality they have done nothing. The amount of money that the United States provides Israel is staggeringly vast, and the Obama administration has not so much as hinted that a single penny of this loot with be withheld if Israel continues its settlement construction.

On the contrary, the Obama administration has declared its "undying support" for Israel, it's eternal alliance with Israel, its' pure love for Israel and its absolute desire to do whatever Israel would like it to.

The problem is that American imperialism is well served by supporting Israel's occupation of Palestine. Israel is an important ally, it helps us keep strategic control in he middle east, helps us to protect our empire.

But let us at least be honest. The condemnation of Netanyahu's refusal to stop settlements has been so mild and the affirmations of loyalty to Israel so strong that the position of the administration cannot be missed: The Obama administration has no intention of stopping or even slowing the occupation.

The time has come for honesty. Either the administration supports the occupation and has no desire for "peace" - for make no mistake, there can be no peace until the occupation is ended - or the administration actually wants to see real justice for an occupied people. This administration has made it clear that their position is the former rather than the latter; let us be honest about that, and let us insist that the administration be honest too.