Standards are the lifeblood of WSJ and its related properties. … I remember being told in a meeting that not only were advertising representatives who sold for WSJ.com on a different floor; we weren't even allowed to know their names. That way, ad reps and their clients could never influence a story.
It is hard to imagine that News Corp. — a juggernaut with more than $25 billion in revenue in 2006 — will keep such ideas in place, considered almost relics in a struggling business. Since Murdoch’s bid was announced, The Wall Street Journal has excelled at covering the story about itself. If bad news erupts about News Corp., will Murdoch dare let reporters investigate the problem and potentially scare off advertisers?
Earlier this month marked four years since President Bush issued the following brazen pronouncement about our presence in Iraq: "There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on. We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation." U.S. troop casualties at that time were about 200; now they stand at over 3,600, with thousands more injured and estimates of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties, many of them children. And there is no end in sight.
One of the troops who knows all too well the real security situation in Baghdad is Capt. Jon Powers. As an artillery platoon leader in the Army's 1st Armored Division, and later as the Battalion Commander's Adjutant in Baghdad and Najaf, Capt. Powers led his soldiers through one of Baghdad's most volatile sectors. It was there that he saw four friends die, and it was there that he "witnessed firsthand the devastation and lost opportunities that resulted from the Bush Administration's mismanagement and lack of planning for post-invasion Iraq. He saw how his and his fellow soldiers' idealism, dedication and patriotism were dishonored by a government that sent them to war without proper equipment, training or forethought." It was also there that he saw, all too closely, the effects of this war on its most vulnerable victims—Iraqi children.
Rather than remaining paralyzed by inaction or apathy, Capt. Powers decided to do something about what he saw. He founded War Kids Relief, a non-profit dedicated "to help the children of war-torn nations recover from the disruptive effects of war and give them hope for a better future." They seek to do this through a variety of initiatives, including creating a network of safe havens with existing orphanages, launching a family program to reintegrate children into family programs, improving education and training, and empowering the children's caretakers. And they are also focusing some of their efforts here at home by "developing a curriculum on Iraqi culture and youth that will be based on the current national standards for geography to be introduced into American schools this fall."
Jesus confounded his disciples in Matthew 19 by calling for the children to be brought unto him despite the disciples' rebuke of those who brought them. Capt. Powers models this in his work with War Kids Relief, and I hope that we as a nation also model this when we draw up our budgets to help rebuild and repair what we have destroyed in Iraq. This is the sort of "bring 'em on" that we need from our highest leaders—bring on the hurting, the broken, the forgotten, the injured. We don't need pronouncements of arrogance—we need to ask for the needy and damaged to come, and then we must do what we can, responsibly and respectfully, do to make things right.
Say what we will about the justifications or lack thereof for this war, we must acknowledge that many innocent lives have been damaged and lost. Make no mistake: We have destroyed much, and it will be on our heads as a nation to repair and heal much, just as Capt. Powers does in his own small but powerful way.
It is refreshing to me that Jon is taking responsibility for the damage that our nation has done and trying to bring healing, hope, and a future to kids caught in a war they did not start. But what's more, Capt. Powers has also taken personal responsibility: "If I can go back there and I can make a positive influence on a country that I helped partially destroy, then maybe I can sort of regain the whole reason that I went."
So much in Iraq has already been tragically undone, but may we follow Capt. Powers in our efforts to make right. His example of honesty, humility, and healing action is one our administration would do well to imitate.
A Baptist church rooted deep in the heart of Red-State, Bible-Belt America might not be the place you’d expect to see people of faith rallying behind a Christian social justice agenda.
Last week I spoke at Wilshire Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas, just miles from President Bush’s home congregation, Highland Park Methodist Church. More than 1,000 faith-inspired activists filled the pews.
I spoke to the group at the invitation of the Texas Freedom Network (TFN), an organization offering an alternative voice to the Religious Right since 1995 in a state where conservative religious operatives have dominated the public square for decades. In 12 short years, TFN’s membership has grown to include 26,000 religious and community leaders.
Often my most encouraging moments on the road take place at the book-signing table immediately following my speaking engagements. That’s when I get to meet people who most deeply resonate with the message. Among them:
• A young hipster in beat-up jeans and a white V-neck T-shirt approached me after the event. He explained how he abandoned his faith while coming to grips with his fundamentalist Southern Baptist upbringing. “Something just didn’t ring true about all that,” he said, “but your book helped bring me back to faith.”
• A beaming middle-aged man with a cadenced Texan twang thanked me for “getting him off of his retired butt” to embrace involvement in the movement.
• A 15-passenger van of 20-something Baylor University students - who drove more than 100 miles for the event - included two impressive Latino women who really inspired me with their passion and vision to transform their communities from the ground up.
Events like these continue to show how much has changed in just a few years. It’s no longer presumed that when Christians speak publicly about moral values, they’re mainly trumpeting two hot-button issues that once defined evangelical involvement in politics. Instead, overcoming poverty, challenging the logic of endless war for purposes of national security, and responsibly stewarding God’s creation are becoming foundational moral commitments to a whole new generation.
Something is happening in the heartland. The spirit is moving. A movement is growing. People are increasingly pursuing social justice as an authentic expression of their faith. I believe that a new “Great Awakening” is close at hand. Even deep in the heart of Texas.
So you Americans who really want to help the poor have to change your own government first. You Americans who want to see an end to hunger and poverty have to take a stand. You have to fight just like we’re fighting—even harder. You have to be ready to be jailed, to be abused, to be repressed. And you have to have the character, the courage, the morale, and the spirit to confront whatever comes your way.
- Elvia Alvarado
from Don’t Be Afraid Gringo: A Honduran Woman Speaks from the Heart
In my search for an ethically made bra, I came face to face with the two distinct worlds of justice issues. There are those who are passionate about caring for the environment and then there are those who seek justice for people, and it appeared that ne’er the twain shall meet. I found the sites where collective groups of women in Africa made clothing for fair wages, but used cloth made with environmentally unfriendly practices. Or I found clay-dyed organic cotton bras, but had no clue to how they were made. After e-mailing the company, I might hear back that they care about their employees (whatever that means), but there was no concrete certification that fair practices are used.
Granted, there were a small handful of companies that carried lines of trendy organic fair trade t-shirts designed for the emo crowd. They’re cool, but I needed a bra. Eventually I found a site in the U.K. that carries organic, ethically hand-stitched lingerie. But I needed everyday wear, not five-minutes-in-the-bedroom wear. And I wasn’t willing to pay their $100 price tag either. I knew this endeavor would require more funds than the typical sale bin at the mall, but I had my limits. There has to be a balance between saving a buck at the expense of a worker in a third world nation and throwing one’s money away on luxury items. (And no, I don’t see being an ethical consumer a luxury, just part of living out that whole loving one’s neighbor thing.)
Then finally, after a couple of weeks of fruitless searching, I stumbled across Rawganique.com. It's a business based out of an off-the-grid island in Canada where they grow their own organic food (eaten vegan and raw), power their computers with solar and wind energy, and promote their products as “a quiet, old-fashioned retreat from the hecticness and rampant chemicalization that are characteristic of the modern, conventional world.” It looked promising. As I researched further, I discovered that their clothing met all of my criteria—they care about the environment and people. And they sell bras (which are actually cheaper than those I typically buy at the mall—ethical and affordable!). Mission accomplished: I found my justice bra.
But why, I have to ask, did I have to dig up some hippie commune sort of place in order to find this? It’s great that they are doing this, but with all the attention justice issues are getting these days, one would hope that ethical shopping would have become a bit more mainstream. What’s the deal? Is it just easy to talk about this stuff and never actually live it out? What will it actually take for us to change the injustices in our economic system and shop for a better world? That’s what I want to know.
And in case you were wondering, I really like my new bra.
When Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves, it was not just for our neighbors' sakes that he commanded it, but for our own sakes as well. Not to help find some way to feed the children who are starving to death is to have some precious part of who we are starve to death with them. Not to give ourselves to the human beings we know who may be starving not for food but for what we have in our hearts to nourish them with this to be, ourselves, diminished and crippled as human beings.
--Frederick Buechner from Secrets in the Dark: A Life in Sermons
Ray LaMontagne’s recent album "Till the Sun Turns Black" ends with one of the most beautiful songs about peacemaking I’ve ever heard—in which he simply repeats the refrain "War is not the answer, the answer is within you" over the most delicately lilting instrumentation. It’s the kind of sentiment that could be accused of being too vague to have any practical meaning, but warm and positive enough to be popular. But there’s something about it that feels deeper than that.
It comes to mind as I sit in a cramped and crowded airport in Missouri, between cities on a trip that will take me from the Deep South to the Pacific Northwest, meeting and talking with people seeking to explore faith at the margins of institutional Christianity. I’ll be part of a conference the week after next on the topic "Dangerous Living"(www.solitonnetwork.org)—a title ambiguous enough to invite further interrogation. The organizers aim to build a temporary community of fellow travelers asking questions and sharing experiences of what it means to follow the radical Jesus in a culture that often seems to privilege consumerism above all else and seeks to avoid anything resembling physical work at all costs. We’ll talk about faith and social justice—just what does it mean in our day to hear Jesus tell the rich young ruler how hard it is to get into the kingdom of heaven? We’ll investigate faith and authority: What kind of leadership is required when so many of our public role models leave so much to be desired? We’ll immerse ourselves in faith and creativity, hoping to become more attentive to the voice of God in art, film, music, and nature. Most of all, we will wonder together what it means to be stewards of the Christian tradition that we inherit without falling into the trap of religious imperialism. In other words, how can we take responsibility for sharing our faith without imposing it on others in a way that prevents anyone taking us seriously?
These questions were not far from my thoughts this afternoon, as we sat down for a meal at one of the in-house airport restaurants. Just after my Diet Coke arrived, the gentleman next to our table took a phone call, the first few lines of which went as follows:
‘Hi there—didn’t realize you were on that side of the pond. You looking for more bombers, or just drinking Irish car bombs?’
I froze in my seat, absorbing the impact of his comedic spin on the horrific conflict around which I grew up. I thought of the people I know back home in Belfast who have lost relatives or friends to bombs, sometimes hidden under their cars, and became so incensed that my body began to shake. It turns out that "Irish car bomb" is a name for a drink mixed from Bailey’s Irish Cream, whiskey, and Guinness. As the guy kept talking, I had to seriously consider whether or not to speak to him when the call was over. Wouldn’t it be a betrayal of all the Northern Ireland troubles’ dead if I remained silent? I freely admit that in the grand scheme of things, whether or not a burger-eating business-class traveler understands the pain he may cause by invoking the name of an insensitively-christened cocktail should not be the greatest of our concerns. But at the same time, I have come to believe that it is the small moments of dehumanization that allow the larger context of destruction on our planet to occur. What the late cultural critic Benjamin DeMott in the August issue of Harpers magazine calls the obsession with "impact"—the catharsis that is present when human beings watch images of other human beings violently killed—has become one of the driving forces of our society. Jokes about Irish car bombs not only reveal the ignorance of the speaker, but reinforce the often brutal way in which we are teaching ourselves to relate to each other.
In the end, I didn’t speak to our table neighbor; I felt that it would be unfair to make him carry the responsibility for all the angst I feel about the decades of death from which my home society is emerging. But when we have lost touch with our humanity—and the humanity of others—to the extent that we are willing to sacrifice the dignity of those who have died in war for the sake of the name of a drink, then perhaps our desire for "impact" is stronger than our hopes for peace. When Ray LaMontagne sings that the answer is "within you," might he just be suggesting that we already know that the path we’re on is the way of destruction? That, for a start, we could at least commit ourselves to being careful with the words we use for fear they may re-victimize people who have already suffered far too much?
Gareth Higgins is a Christian writer and activist in Belfast, Northern Ireland. For the past decade he was the founder/director of the zero28 project, an initiative addressing questions of peace, justice, and culture. He is the author of the insightful How Movies Helped Save My Soul and blogs at www.godisnotelsewhere.blogspot.com
The latest news on Kids Count, Iraq, Faith & Politics, Farm bill, Childrens health insurance, investigations of Congress, AG Gonzales, Afghanistan, US-India nuclear deal, Darfur, Faithworks-UK, and select commentaries.
Imagine a popular program that has existed for 10 years with bipartisan support, providing health insurance to about 6 million low-income children. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is up for reauthorization this year and Congress is debating how to extend the hope of coverage to 9 million children who are currently uninsured, while protecting coverage for the 6.6 million children who depend on SCHIP to see a doctor. But SCHIP is caught in the middle of a political battle—between a bipartisan majority in Congress and the nation’s governors on one hand and an isolated, defiant ideological president on the other.
A Senate bill was approved by the Finance Committee last week by a 17-4 vote, with six Republicans and all 11 Democrats supporting an increase of $35 billion over five years. Several leading conservatives were strong supporters. The New York Times reportedSenator Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) as saying, "I am proud to support this important bill, which will provide health insurance coverage to approximately four million more children who would otherwise be uninsured." According to the Los Angeles Times, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), one of the original authors of the program, said: "It doesn't make me comfortable to advocate for such a large increase in spending. But it's important to note that [the program] has been tremendously successful. And one of the lessons we've learned is that it's going to cost more to cover additional kids." The bill is scheduled to be on the Senate floor next week.
For its part, the House is proposing legislation that would provide an increase of $50 billion, which would cover an estimated 5 million more children. Both versions would be at least partially funded by an increase in the federal tax on tobacco products.
Last weekend at their annual summer meeting, the National Governors Association sent a letter to the president and Congress. While not specifically supporting either bill, the governors said: "While we have not taken a position on the actual overall funding amount or the sources of revenue used as offsets, we are encouraged by the Senate Finance Committee's efforts to move a bipartisan reauthorization bill that provides increased funding ... "
And President Bush? He says he’ll veto either version. "It's a way to encourage people to transfer from the private sector to government health-care plans. ... I think it's wrong, and I think it's a mistake." A White House spokesman added that the president’s advisers "will certainly recommend a veto" of the Senate committee's proposal because of its size and the plan to fund it with a tax increase. The administration's plan for only an additional $5 billion wouldn’t even cover all the children currently insured.
Remember, this is a president who is content with spending $12 billion a month on war, yet finds spending $7-10 billiona year on making sure that kids have health insurance "wrong" and "a mistake." I can’t imagine a more clear case of utterly distorted priorities. Compassionate conservatism has been on life support for the last several years of this administration. President Bush's threatened veto of SCHIP will officially pronounce it dead.
We have been working with the PICO National Network, one of the leading groups organizing for SCHIP, to remind policymakers that children’s health coverage is a moral issue for the faith community. Father John Baumann, executive director of PICO, had this reaction to the president’s threat: "(SCHIP) is a highly successful program that has always had bipartisan support as a pragmatic way to help states reach children who are not poor enough for Medicaid but whose parents cannot obtain coverage for their children at work. SCHIP is a popular and successful program that should not be dragged down into a partisan political fight over health care ideology."
I agree. For far too long, Americans in poverty have been trapped in a partisan debate. Now, a strongly bipartisan program that works is trapped by a president who sees only ideology. Call your senators and members of Congress, and urge them to support the necessary expansion of SCHIP for America’s kids. It’s the right thing to do.
Take Action
Your congressional members need to hear that as a person of faith you believe that no child should go without treatment or depend on an emergency room for care because they lack health coverage. If we are judged by how we treat the least among us, we must make sure that all our children have coverage. Call your members of Congress today at (877) 367-5235, a free number set up by our friends at PICO National Network.
Tell them that people of faith are counting on them to stand up for the millions of uninsured children in the U.S. SCHIP has successfully reduced the uninsured rate for children by one-third over the past decade. Now Congress needs to pass a strong SCHIP bill by a veto-proof majority to provide hope to the millions of children in America who still go to sleep at night without health coverage.
I realized the other day that I needed a new bra. Usually I would hop in the car, drive to the nearest Victoria’s Secret, and buy some mass-produced, synthetic hot pink thing that claimed to make me sexy. Easy enough. But I just couldn’t do it this time. My conscience wouldn’t let me.
Over the last few years, my knowledge of justice issues has grown. I can no longer ignore the realities of sweatshops, child labor, toxic pesticides and dyes, and unjust trade laws. Sure, it’s easy to walk into the mall and buy whatever is on sale. It’s easy to not care about where my clothes came from, who made them and under what conditions, and what their long-term effects will be. I buy things without asking those questions all the time—like I’m sure the ad execs want me to. Of course, I’ll buy the fair trade coffee or the organic produce when it’s readily available, but, when it comes to just about everything else, I still know how to mindlessly consume with the best of them.
But not this time. I decided to see if I could find a new bra that was ethically made—just to see if I could do it and to force myself to actually put my money where my mouth is. So as my friends rolled their eyes and offered sarcastic “good lucks,” I began my search for the justice bra. But first I set my criteria.
The bra had to be made from an organically grown material. No synthetics made from petroleum, no pesticides that harm the environment and the farmers, and no unsustainable practices. Since hemp growth is restricted, bamboo isn’t usually sustainably grown (and who would ever want a wool bra?), organic cotton seemed to be my best option. Cotton is the most pesticide-dependent crop in the world, accounting for 25 percent of total pesticide use. Since we don’t eat cotton, the amount and types of chemicals dumped on cotton crops aren’t as restricted as for other crops. These chemicals are taking their toll on the environment as well as on human health. The EPA considers seven of the top 15 pesticides used on cotton as "likely" or "known" human carcinogens. Every t-shirt made of conventional cotton requires a quarter pound of harmful chemicals. I can’t knowingly support that. So to be ethical, it had to be grown using ecologically friendly practices.
It also couldn’t have toxic dyes in the fabric—dyes that hurt the environment and are potential carcinogens. I didn’t want fish to die or metals and chlorines to seep into my skin just so I could have hot pink. Numerous chemicals are used to dye most fabrics and these chemicals generally do not break down in wastewater treatment plants. And often to get the dyes to set heavy metals are used in the process. All of this is in the clothes we wear. It hurts the environment and it’s unhealthy. So standard number two was that the bra had to be free of harmful dyes.
Finally, the bra had to be fairly made. From the farmers who grew the fibers, to the weavers who spun the fabric, to the tailors who assembled it, each person (adults, not children) along the way had to have been paid a living wage (usually much more than minimum wage), not been coerced to work, and treated humanely. I’ve read the reports of the growing numbers of Indian cotton growers who are committing suicide because under "free trade" agreements they can’t earn enough to survive by growing cotton. They deserve to be fairly compensated for their labor, not cheated because the hypothetical potential of cotton flooding the markets drove down prices. I also didn’t want to support a company that holds women (or children) as virtual slaves in a sweatshop (where often the women also have to perform other “services” for their male employers in order to keep their jobs). Nor did I want to support a company that pays their workers a wage that isn’t sufficient to live on just so the company could make a bigger profit. Whoever made my bra needs to be able to make a living doing so. And not a degrading, oppressive living either, but one that treats them as a real person.
Not too much to ask, just an ethically made bra. I could find that somewhere, right?
The latest news on veterans healthcare, Iraq-refugees, abortion, Farm Bill, Iraq-military bases, immigration, nuclear fuel, nuclear weapons, Al Qaeda, PM Brown terror reforms, Israel-Palestine, contempt of Congress, children's health insurance, adoption and Darfur.
In a democracy we’re all supposed to be equal before the law, but in Honduras the rich are more equal than the poor. In a democracy if you break the law you’re supposed to get punished, right? But here in Honduras the rich don’t get punished, only the poor. The rich don’t go to jail when they kill campesinos or labor leaders.... The rich don’t go to jail when they steal from the people. No, the law only applies to the poor.
While the rest of the world buried its collective nose in Harry Potter last weekend, I spent my time reading early Christianity. It proved a tough call: The fate of Hogwarts or the Roman Empire? I chose Constantine over Voldemort.
I am not a total geek, but I am writing a new book on church history for progressives. One problem of classical liberalism was its rejection of tradition and the inability to ground its vision in Christian history. The past was seen as imperfect, full of injustice and mistakes, and incomplete understandings of nature, humanity, and God. Thus, liberal Christians embraced the future as the major arena of God’s activity—tending to privilege what is new over what was old.
The past? What does that have to do with pressing issues today?
Well, take the allegations against Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick for animal abuse and dog fighting, for instance.
One of the texts I re-read this week was On the Soul and the Resurrection (c. 380 C.E.) by Gregory of Nyssa, a theologian in the Eastern Christian tradition. The manuscript takes the form of a dialogue between Gregory and his sister, Macrina. In it, she instructs her brother on the nature of creation. Macrina argues that human beings and “irrational animals” share common gifts from God, the ability to perceive and passions. What separates human animals from “irrational” ones is the capacity of free will, part of human ability to discern and choose. Thus, humans are given the responsibility to care for animals, as irrational animals are subject to human free will.
Gregory, quoting his sister, goes on to say: “For when reason does not control the impulse which naturally lies in them, the fierce animals are destroyed by anger because they fight among themselves.” Likewise, human beings who fail to discern and act upon what is good will be consumed by irrational sin. Gregory directly links human treatment and care for animals to acts of human violence, and implicitly develops a Christian theology of creation care.
The dialogue between Gregory and Macrina is one of the gossamer threads in Christian tradition. Unlike Soul, much of Christian theology emphasized distinctions between humans and animals, rather than stitching connections between aspects of creation (indeed, Macrina even develops a connection between humanity and plant life). Dividing creation into superior and inferior ranks served as an excuse for rampant injustice on the part of Christians toward the rest of creation—and, sadly enough, toward other human beings (for example, women denied the priesthood or race-based slavery). What if instead of organizing humans and animals into hierarchical ranks, Christians had theologically developed the commonality of creation so tantalizingly suggested in the fourth century?
In her recent book, The Frontiers of Justice, philosopher Martha Nussbaum points out that Jews and Christians practice ethics of compassion for animals, but that these ethics are incomplete—that “cruel and oppressive treatment of animals raises issues of justice.” Nussbaum insists, “not only that it is wrong of us to treat them that way, but also that they have a right, a moral entitlement, not to be treated in that way. It is unfair to them.” (Emphasis hers.)
The Michael Vick allegations revolt good people, those who believe it is wrong for a person to treat animals viciously. If proved true, Vick failed to meet even the basic Christian requirement to employ reason and free will to care for his dogs. But this case pushes further: What of the animals? What are the fundamental rights of the dogs to happiness and life? How can those rights be guaranteed and protected? (Interestingly enough, India’s highest court recommended a course for the construction of animal rights in 2000.) And how do religious people generate a vision for animal justice from their theological traditions?
Some Christians may think that we have fallen so short on practices of human justice that to consider justice for animals is beyond our capabilities. But Nussbaum insists that “truly global justice” requires constructing a decent life for “other sentient beings with whose lives our own are inextricably and complexly intertwined.”
Of course, that is pretty much what Macrina pointed out to her brother, Gregory of Nyssa, in 380. Maybe the doing of justice just requires going back and paying attention to gossamer threads.
While Pope Benedict XVI has been criticized for some of his recent statements, here's a short speech he delivered on Sunday before the midday Angelus that is well worth reading. Noting that he is on vacation, he said, "I feel all the more intensely the impact of the sorrow of the news that comes to me about bloody altercations and episodes of violence that are occurring in so many parts of the world." The Pope went on:
War, with the mourning and destruction it brings, has always been rightly considered a calamity that contrasts with God's plan. He created everything for existence and, in particular, wants to make a family of the human race. In this moment it is not possible for me to not return to a significant date in history: August 1, 1917—almost exactly 90 years ago—my venerable predecessor, Benedict XV, published his celebrated "Nota Alle Potenze Belligeranti" (Note to the Warring Powers), asking them to put an end to the First World War (cf. ASS 9 [1917], 417-420).
As that huge conflict raged, the Pope had the courage to affirm that it was a "useless bloodbath." This expression of his left a mark on history. It was a justified remark given the concrete situation in that summer of 1917, especially on the front here in this part of northern Italy. But those words, "useless bloodbath," have a larger, prophetic application to other conflicts that have destroyed countless human lives.
He concluded his remarks:
From this place of peace here in the north of Italy, where one feels even more vitally how unacceptable the "useless bloodbaths" are, I renew the call to follow with tenacity the way of law, to firmly renounce the arms race, to reject in general the temptation to face new situations with old systems.
the latest news on the Farm Bill, children's health insurance, falling wages, immigration, Iran, Iraq and al Qaeda, Pakistan, the Mideast, Africa poll, Darfur, faith and politics, D.C. vote, foreign policy, "theology on tap", Evangelicals Against Torture, and select commentaries
Thus says the Lord God: Enough, O princes of Israel! Put away violence and oppression, and do what is just and right. Cease your evictions of my people, says the Lord God.
My mother used to say that through her life, through her living testimony, she tried to tell women that they too had to participate, so that when the repression comes and with it a lot of suffering, it's not only the men who suffer. Women must join the struggle in their own way. My mothers’s words told them that any evolution, any change, in which women had not participated, would not be a change, and there would be no victory.
- Rigoberta Menchu I, Rigoberta: An Indian Woman in Guatemala
For those who'll accuse me of Bush-bashing, the headline was Christianity Today's. Ted Olsen has an interesting round-up of conservative bloggers, mostly criticizing recent statements by Bush about his theology of foreign policy:
And people have said, you know, this is Wilsonian, it's hopelessly idealistic. One, it is idealistic, to this extent: It's idealistic to believe people long to be free. And nothing will change my belief. I come at it many different ways. Really not primarily from a political science perspective, frankly; it's more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom.
Olsen's accompanying commentary, including the question, "Are we all a bunch of heretics?" is worth some critical discussion. And for the Sojourners magazine prequel, read our 2003 article, "Dangerous Religion."
The bishops have responded. Thomas G. Wenski, the bishop of Orlando and chairman of the USCCB's Committee on International Policy, wrote in a letter to the members of Congress:
The Catholic Bishops of the United States share your deep concern for the dangerous and deteriorating situation in Iraq. Too many Iraqi and American lives have been lost. Too many Iraqi communities have been shattered. Too many civilians have been driven from their homes. The human and financial costs of the war are staggering. Representatives of our Conference welcome the opportunity to meet with you and other policy makers to discuss ways to pursue the goal of a "responsible transition" to bring an end to the war in Iraq.
The current situation in Iraq is unacceptable and unsustainable, as is the policy and political stalemate among decision makers in Washington. Our Conference hopes to work with the Congress and the Administration to forge bipartisan policies on ways to bring about a responsible transition and an end to the war.
After summarizing the Bishops' previous statements on the war, Bishop Wenski continued:
Our Conference is under no illusions regarding Iraq. None of the alternative courses of action are without consequences for human life and dignity. There is no path ahead that leads to an unambiguously good outcome for Iraq, our nation and the world. It was for this very reason that we raised serious moral questions regarding military intervention in Iraq in the first place. Nevertheless, our nation must have the moral courage to change course in Iraq and to break the policy and political stalemate in Washington so that we can walk a difficult path that does the most good and the least damage in human and moral terms.
This war may finally be coming to an end. And the role of the church could and should be decisive in making it so.
the latest reports on the CNN/YouTube debate, minimum wage, VA failing vets, Blair in the Mideast, Iraq, Iran, Darfur, food costs and the poor, religious schools, rainfall, and select commentaries
Therefore I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities for the sake of Christ; for whenever I am weak, then I am strong.
Can you give us a snapshot of what daily life is like for people living in Bethlehem?
The "little town of Bethlehem" is becoming more and more like a prison surrounded with a 25-foot high concrete wall. Once the wall is completed there will be only three gates leading in and out. The situation has a psychological impact on people living here. On the other hand, 75 percent of the people in Bethlehem live on tourism. In the last seven years, the situation for tourism was very difficult, which resulted in a very high unemployment rate (over 55 percent).
But daily life goes on as if it were normal in Bethlehem. Kids go to school, right now to summer schools. People go out shopping and dining, etc.
I grew up in this church; was baptized, confirmed, and got married here. I felt a call to serve Christ in his hometown and especially among the young people. I'm here by choice. I can leave tomorrow and immigrate to another country where life is much easier and where I can get a much higher salary, get better services, etc. But I believe that the Lord wants me to be here and to be here now, where the need is greater.
What is Diyar?
Diyar is a consortium of three Lutheran-based, ecumenically oriented institutions (Dar Annadwa (ICB), Dar al-Kalima College, Dar al-Kalima Health & Wellness) serving the whole Palestinian community, from "the womb to the tomb," with an emphasis on children, youth, women, and the elderly through unique programs that are contextual and holistic in nature.
Our vision statement is "that we might have life and have it abundantly." Everything else around us is telling us the contrary: that we will not have life and definitely not abundantly. But the Christ came for this reason and he is calling us to be agents of life. The center is "the" cultural hub in Bethlehem trying to create a cultural life where there isn't. We train needy women that they might earn a livelihood. We produce TV programs that aim at helping people to become pro-active in shaping their future. And we have two major programs: One of them is Bright Stars for children and young people ages 6-16, that they will know that there is life before death that is worth living.
The other program is an authentic tourism program, where we arrange tours for international groups to meet "land, people, and cultures," and to follow the footsteps of Christ today in the Holy Land. Groups can stay at our guesthouse and enjoy hospitality at our center.
How are you implementing this mission during this recent conflict in Gaza?
The conflict in Gaza is a very difficult one. People now are convinced that we are dealing with so much politics, but there is no concern for the "polis," for the city and community ... and that there is too much religion in Palestine and yet too little spirituality. We have too many peace-talkers and only a few peacemakers. Our mission is therefore about caring for the community not through words but deeds. Our mission is to introduce a different kind of spirituality that gives people room to breath. Here at our center we show the potential for our people and country in a way that people can touch with their own hands. It's all about giving a foretaste of the kingdom to come here and now and in the midst of a difficult context.
What does it say to you that these conflicts are happening in the place designated as the birthplace of Christ?
Christ came to this, our land and world, because this is where he is most needed. The light is needed in dark contexts, and hope is crucial at times of despair. And he helps us to become agents of transformation.
How can people support your ministries?
They can do that by participating in the "Three P's": that is prayers, personal visits, and projects. We have an office in the U.S., in D.C. at Capitol Hill. Through this, Bright Stars of Bethlehem, people can also support our ministry financially and even donate online.
Becky Garrison took her first pilgrimage to Israel in January 2007, making a short visit to Evangelical Lutheran Christmas Church. She touches on this trip in her forthcoming book, The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail.
The latest news on children's health insurance, Pakistan, Nuclear reactor-Japan, Aid for workers, Prosecuted GIs, diplomacy on hold, Iran, Nuclear weapons-Korea, Canada-Afghanistan, Darfur, Colombia, immigration, Evangelical-Muslim dialogue, house churches, special feature on reporting faith. and select commentaries and editorials.
I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the injured, and I will strengthen the weak, but the fat and the strong I will destroy. I will feed them with justice.
- Ezekiel 34:16 + Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail
I understood that in view of my decision to give myself unreservedly to God and my neighbor, it would be absolutely necessary for me to devote space and time to prayer.
I've seen two powerful documentaries over the past week: Michael Moore's new film Sicko, and the lesser-known Manufactured Landscapes. Both films are intensely political, but the contrast in their approach is striking.
Moore, as usual, is on a crusade. The healthcare system in the U.S. is broken, and we get to see many of the shattered pieces, up close and very personal. To our national shame, we also get to see what a great job the Canadians, Brits, French, and even Cubans are doing.
As with most of Moore's films, his agenda is obvious and immediate. We are presented with a mountain of evidence—some quantitative, much anecdotal—as to why some form of socialized healthcare would be better than what we have now. No dissenting views are presented, and Moore pretty much tells us what to think. And I find myself agreeing with much of what he says. (For example, when was the last time you heard anyone complain about socialized fire departments?)
However, I think he'd greatly increase his credibility if he interviewed at least one Canadian who has some complaints about their system, one Brit who fell through the cracks, one French person who thinks the taxes that pay for their system are too high. We shouldn't expect any system to be perfect—just way way better than one that creates financial incentives to deny care to those who most need it. But instead we have interviews with Che Guevara's daughter, extolling Cuba's virtues. I'm sorry, but I do not think this is an effective strategy for convincing doubtful Americans that government-funded healthcare is the way to go. But as with Moore's other films, there's plenty of entertaining red meat for his left-leaning fans.
Contrast Moore's approach with that of director Jennifer Baichwal, whose Manufactured Landscapes, takes us to scenes of intense environmental and social devastation caused by unrestrained economic development—and simply shows them to us. Monochromatic Chinese factories, grounded oil tankers being scrapped in Bangladesh, the vast scars of open mines. Enough context is provided to explain what you're seeing, but the relative lack of narration is as refreshing as the scenes are stunning. The film chronicles the work of Edward Burtynsky, whose large-format still photographs capture these transformed landscapes in all of their horrible beauty. One leaves the theater in a meditative state, contemplating the origins of one's possessions, rather than chattering about the relative merits of HMOs versus state-run healthcare.
I'm not sure it's necessary to debate which approach is better. One states its bias clearly, rather than pretending to be fair and balanced, energizing activists and alienating opponents. The more subtle approach lacks the rabble-rousing populism that Moore employs, but at the same time might be an easier film to convince your nature-loving conservative cousin to see.
Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the web editor for Sojourners/Call to Renewal.
Posh Spice might hope to feel at home in her new life in Los Angeles, but hubris is winding its way into her week as the ratings of her "Welcome to America" pseudo-documentary come in. In the U.K., where I live, this program was billed as a light-hearted, even "spoof" piece about her reputation for excess. But it seems the U.S. audience, or at least its television critics, weren’t quite ready for this. At any rate, whether or not she was joking, Victoria Beckham and her husband have become today’s totems of consumerist overdrive.
At the same time, according to media reports, the well-known environmentalist and anti-war activist, Barbra Streisand, has apparently issued the staff of a London hotel with demands about how they are to treat her while she stays there—including instructing them not to look her in the eye. You have to wonder just why someone who is about to sing to 15,000 people who are paying up to a thousand dollars each might be scared of a little personal interaction with just one of them, but I guess Barbra feels she’s earned the right.
It makes me wonder just who in public life is willing to set an example that imagines simplicity and economic stewardship as an admirable goal. George W. Bush has been no better than Barbara or Posh—indicating long ago that his environmental and foreign policies would be marked by not doing anything that would affect "the American way of life." When even presidents are afraid to suggest that some moral issues require a tightening of our own purse strings, then we have missed the lessons of two world wars, and have failed to understand the responsibilities of living under rapid globalization.
It may seem obvious, but we need better public discourse than this. Barbra Streisand is not more important than any of us. Posh Spice appears not to know who she really is either. And presidents need to realize that part of their role in today’s world is to endorse the idea that the common good matters more than individual or even national self-interest. Whether pop star or politician, people active in public life should perhaps think a little more clearly about how, at the very least, they are often embarrassing themselves. Bono once said that fame is "a mask that eats the face"—and perhaps the fact that he hardly ever takes his sunglasses off shows that he really means it.
Filmmaker Michael Moore and journalist Mika Brzezinski have both discovered recently what happens when you try to challenge the upside-down celebrity status quo—with Moore being bumped from Larry King Live in favor of an interview with Paris Hilton, and Brzezinski learning just what "values" drive the TV news when she tried to report on Iraq instead of the hotel heiress’ release from prison. Sometimes it seems impossible to do anything to resist the fiasco of much of our popular culture other than turning off our television sets. But, for most of us, that would be a mistake—for one thing, there’s too much good stuff out there in pop culture-land if you look hard enough.
Michael Moore stated last week that his bottom line in life and work was that he hasn’t "forgotten the lessons I learned when I was young ... that we will be judged by how we treat the least among us and that the first shall be last and the last shall be first." Whether or not you agree with his politics, Moore’s assertions are a far cry from a written contract that prevents you being looked in the eye by another human being. But I can see a reason for a certain kind of looking away—perhaps we, like Bono, need shades to shield us from the glare of celebrity bling, because some of us are increasingly concerned that it’s the kind of brightness that only blinds us to the common good.
Gareth Higgins is a Christian writer and activist in Belfast, Northern Ireland. For the past decade he was the founder/director of the zero28 project, an initiative addressing questions of peace, justice, and culture. He is the author of the insightful How Movies Helped Save My Soul and blogs at www.godisnotelsewhere.blogspot.com
I’ve been thinking a lot about "beloved community" lately, rereading the stories of Martin Luther King, John Lewis, and the civil rights movement (where the phrase gained prominence) and reflecting on my own experience in building community over the last 40 years on the west side of Chicago.
King became convinced that love, transformative love, was the key to moving toward that beloved community. In the face of the hatred and violence, he said, “We’ve got to love people no matter what …love the unlovable. Love the hell out of them.” The Montgomery bus boycott was the catalytic experience, a chairos moment that crystallized his thinking. “We have before us the glorious opportunity to inject a new dimension of love into the veins of our civilization,” he said in calling for a boycott of the buses. He went on explaining that the boycott was but a means to an end. “But the end is reconciliation; the end is redemption; the end is the creation of the beloved community.”
This rings true with my experience in community. The times we were fueled by our faith, stretched to think bigger and bolder than our prune-like minds could fathom, and yes, the times when there was a threat, an external challenge to be overcome, were indeed the times when we had little experiences of the beloved community.
What a world it would be, if we could take this as our new/old motto and approach the so-called enemies and bad guys in the world with the energy to "Love the hell out of them" ... it would take a boldness and confidence to try. But what do we have to lose? The path we are currently on as a nation is deadly, dead-ended, creates more enemies every day, and makes us an unloved nation. Anyone want to join the new offensive?
Mary Nelson is president emeritus of Bethel New Life, a faith-based community development corporation on the west side of Chicago. She is also a board member of Sojourners/Call to Renewal.
An interesting and important development in the 2008 race for the White House: conservative evangelical hatchets are out in force, trying to cut down a prominent 2008 presidential hopeful. Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama? John Edwards? Wrong on all three counts.
Having already publicly attacked Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani in a remarkably candid editorial last month, Focus on the Family and Family Research Council have now unleashed their political machine against none other than Mitt Romney, working in tandem with some of Fred Thompson’s online organizers. It’s fair to interpret this as an early signal about where these groups are likely throw their political weight in the lead-up to Super Tuesday.
With onetime Republican presidential frontrunner Senator John McCain in meltdown, Mitt Romney suddenly finds himself under fire from some of the Christian right's most influential activists. Romney's evangelical critics claim the former Massachusetts governor and devout Mormon was complicit in the Marriott hotel chain's sale of pay-per-view porn on its in-room television sets when he served on the corporation's board of directors from 1992 to 2001. Two Christian-right operatives involved in orchestrating the charges have enlisted as Internet organizers for former Senator Fred Thompson, who is preparing to enter the race formally. The tactics of these religious-right players, targeted below the radar against Romney, are calculated to alter decisively the outcome of the Republican primary contest.
The assault was launched on July 5 with an opening shot in the form of a breathless press release issued through the mega-ministry Focus on the Family. In it, veteran antiporn crusader Phil Burress called Romney's failure to take action against pay-per-view hotel porn during his tenure on Marriott's board "extremely disturbing." That same day, a Focus on the Family spokesman took to the radio airwaves to ask whether Romney would "turn a blind eye" to pornography if elected president. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, which functions as Focus's Washington lobbying arm, immediately joined the pile-on. He briefed the Associated Press on the record, explaining that Romney must "take some responsibility" for his supposed connection to Marriott's porn profiteering. The AP report on the accusation against Romney was subsequently reprinted in the pages of major outlets from The Boston Globe to The Washington Post. It only took a full six years after Romney resigned from Marriott's board for the Christian right's leading lights to profess their outrage—and only hours for the press to echo it.
Chris LaTondresse is the special assistant to the CEO at Sojourners/Call to Renewal.
The latest news on children's health care, Iraq, urban infrastructure, student aid, Iraq-Senate, Iraq-Administration wants more time, Darfur, Middle East, Dems-poverty, GOP-family values, Canada-healthcare, urban infrastructure, faith builds New Orleans, and select commentaries.
If I have rejected the cause of my male or female slaves, when they brought a complaint against me; what then shall I do when God rises up? When he makes inquiry, what shall I answer him? Did not he who made me in the womb make them? And did not one fashion us in the womb?
I know no class of my fellowmen, however just, enlightened, and humane, which can be wisely and safely trusted absolutely with the liberties of any other class.
In the few weeks of the defense authorization debate in the Senate, Republican senators began falling like dominoes—Chuck Hagel (NE), Susan Collins (ME), Richard Lugar (IN), George Voinovich (OH), Pete Domenici (NM), Olympia Snowe (ME), and even John Warner (VA) are looking for a way out, although not all are willing to vote for a withdrawal timetable. The Republican defections are bolstered by public opinion. Columnist Robert Novak wrote about Sen. Hagel: "As the first in a succession of Republican senators to be critical of Bush's Iraq policy, Hagel feared the worst when he returned home to conservative Nebraska for Fourth of July parades. Instead, he was pleasantly surprised by cheers and calls for the troops to be brought home." And the Democrats seem to be getting stronger in their willingness to follow the public mandate against this war that gave them a congressional majority in 2006.
The most recent USA Today/Gallup Poll showed that change in public opinion. Sixty-two percent now say the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, the first time that number has topped 60 percent.
U.S. casualties now exceed 3,600, with the number of those wounded or emotionally and mentally scarred almost as countless now as the stories about returning veterans not receiving the help and attention they need. The human cost of this war has been as enormous as it has been discriminatory and unjust, with almost all the burden borne by working-class families whose sons and daughters chose military service, and not by the families and children of the elites who fabricated the case for it, grossly mismanaged its prosecution, and politically force its continuance.
The financial cost is staggering—a new Congressional Research Service study reported that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan now cost $12 billion per month. When that monthly price tag is compared to the $10 billion per year it would cost to educate the world's 800 million children under six years old, the contrast opens up a real debate on what truly makes for national and global security.
While the troop "surge" has failed to bring the stability and security it promised, the progress report on Iraqi political benchmarks remains completely unsatisfactory. Nobody even pretends any longer that American young men and women are not dying daily in the cross-hairs of a civil war. Meanwhile Iraq has become an unlivable country, bleeding itself to death in a tribal sectarian conflict that is modeled by its so-called political leaders and not just by its violent insurgents.
And while the president continues to talk about the threat of al Qaeda, the Los Angeles Times reported the following on the author of a new "National Intelligence Estimate on the Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland," released this week: "During a briefing with reporters, the principal author of the estimate, Edward Gistaro, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, said flatly that Al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist before the U.S. invasion. He also said that the group's 'overwhelming focus' remains confined to the conflict in Iraq."
As the legislative battle continues into the fall, our message must be clear. Bring all U.S. troops home safely on a timetable that begins now. They are caught in the middle of a civil war where the U.S. occupation is the problem. The solution to Iraq is political, not military. The war was wrong and it's time to do our best to right the wrong.
This brutal, ugly, and wholly unnecessary war may finally be coming to an end. And the role of the church could and should be decisive in making it so. I hear no more voices who still say this is a "just war." Many of us don't believe it ever was and that the nonviolent path of Jesus has again been vindicated. But regardless of past positions, we should all now agree that unjust wars must be ended as an obligation of faith.
Recently, I was talking with someone who serves in Congress, a Democratic representative from a liberal constituency out west. My friend reported that people in the home district—especially those who make up the base—were furious with Congress.
“Over what?” I asked, “That you haven’t ended the war in Iraq?”
“No,” the Member sighed, “that we won’t impeach President Bush.”
This response startled me—perhaps it should not have. According to a poll released last week, 45 percent of American adults think President Bush should be impeached and 54 percent believe that Vice President Cheney should be. A few days before the poll hit the news, I was at my high school reunion in Scottsdale, Arizona. Sipping margaritas at a lovely hotel, many of my classmates—almost all of who had been Teenage Republicans back when—confessed anger about the current administration.
I do not like George W. Bush. I never voted for him. Following Sept. 11, when Bush had a 95 percent approval rating, I was one of the skeptical 5 percent. I think his policies have been consistently divisive, dangerous, and disingenuous. But I do not favor impeaching him.
The last time the nation went through impeachment was, of course, with President Clinton. We now know that the Republican crusade against Bill Clinton distracted that administration from increasing terrorist threats, leading almost directly to the events of Sept. 11. At this moment, it seems like impeaching Bush may play out in a similar way—distracting an already less-than-capable administration from issues with potentially deadly implications. I may not like them, but I want them focused on both terrorism and Iraq.
Of course, the “base” (of which I am part) may protest that Bush’s offenses are far worse than Clinton’s. Therefore, since Congress impeached Clinton, it should impeach Bush. From my perspective, the charge that Bush is worse is true. But the conclusion—that a Democratic Congress should now impeach Bush—strikes me as revenge politics rather than constructive policy. What is needed now is a reconciling national vision to pull troops from Iraq in the least harmful way, to restore American credibility in international affairs, and to direct attention toward the real threat of terrorism.
For religious voters, the call for impeachment should act as a call for discernment. What do spiritual and religious progressives believe God wants us to do? Since 2004, a renewed religious left has regained a voice in the politics. But much of that voice has been around policies—specific recommendations about poverty, immigration, and peace. But faith-filled politics is about more than policies. Progressive Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims ought to engage more than policy concerns. We also bring to the table dispositions and practices of faith, ways of being that strengthen the polis—things like mercy, charity, love, forgiveness, hospitality, and justice—that create more generous, loving, and honest community. Our policies should reflect who we are; our outer concerns and inner lives should interweave.
Impeachment is the politics of retaliation, a tool of political violence that should be used in the most extreme of circumstances (and something that was wrongly used against President Clinton). Religious progressives should not practice tit-for-tat politics. We are supposed to be peacemakers, agents of forgiveness, and those who build bridges across human divides. Drawing from this disposition, we are called to practice reconciliation—to create restorative possibilities for trust, healing, and shalom where no such hope currently exists.
Like many Americans, I am angry. And I am not particularly in the mood to forgive an administration that has endangered the course of human history for the next century. As much as I hate to say it, I am called to love George W. Bush and I do not think impeaching him serves that end. As a Christian, and as a religious progressive, I must move beyond revenge politics to reach deeply for spiritual dispositions and practices that nurture God’s dream for shalom. And I fear that if the religious left only becomes part of the “base,” our desire for a wiser and more just America will fail before it even begins.
the latest reports on the presidential campaign, illegal drugs, the Iraq war and policy, Japan's nuclear accident, Iran, Darfur, the Mideast, human rights, Pakistan, and a bit of satire
In the early Christian communities, the character of the Jesus movement found expression in the abolition of social distinctions of class, religion, race, and gender.
The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land.
The New York Times ran two pieces this week that tell us a great deal about where our country is economically. On Sunday's front page, "The Richest of the Rich, Proud of a New Gilded Age" told the story of how
many of the nation's very wealthy chief executives, entrepreneurs and financiers echo an earlier era—the Gilded Age before World War I—when powerful enterprises, dominated by men who grew immensely rich, ushered in the industrialization of the United States. The new titans often see themselves as pillars of a similarly prosperous and expansive age, one in which their successes and their philanthropy have made government less important than it once was.
The story noted:
Only twice before over the last century has 5 percent of the national income gone to families in the upper one-one-hundredth of a percent of the income distribution—currently, the almost 15,000 families with incomes of $9.5 million or more a year, according to an analysis of tax returns by the economists Emmanuel Saez at the University of California, Berkeley and Thomas Piketty at the Paris School of Economics. Such concentration at the very top occurred in 1915 and 1916, as the Gilded Age was ending, and again briefly in the late 1920s, before the stock market crash. Now it is back...
Democrats are talking more and more about the anemic growth in American wages and the negative effects of trade and a globalized economy on American jobs and communities. They deplore what they call a growing gap between the middle class, which is struggling to adjust to a changing job market, and the affluent elites who have prospered in the new economy.
It is indeed time for a new populism, a new progressive era. Charges of class warfare will certainly be raised, and when they are, let us point out that it is indeed—the class warfare of tax cuts and budget priorities that make the rich richer while decimating low-and middle-income families.
When you think of labor unions, do you think of men in coveralls, meeting in dingy buildings late at night, trying to get the public's attention through strikes or maybe a small newspaper clipping? (I'll admit it, I kind of do). Well, it's time to reset that union image—the fight for fair labor practices just got a lot hipper.
They're spoofing the new Harry Potter movie, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, to raise awareness about the evil practices of Lord Waldemart (aka Wal-Mart).
As the Chicago Tribune reports, Wal-Mart Watch (which is backed by the Service Employees International Union) has released a YouTube video and an accompanying Web site, WaldemartWatch.com, to get its serious message across to a new generation, in a lighter way.
As Andrew Slack, a comedian, activist, and actor in the video says: "I'm a big believer in the power of humor to create social change and get the message out there. … We don't want anyone feeling that they're being lectured at. We want to break away from that to what they're interested in, and humans tend to be interested in laughing."
For those humans who adamantly support Wal-Mart's labor practices, the movie won't likely strike a chord. But for fans of Harry Potter who are indifferent or already see a darker side to Uncle Sam Walton's smiley face, this video is a stunning debut for the latest player in YouTube politics: Big Labor.
Laurel Mathewson is an editorial assistant for Sojourners magazine.
the latest reports on terrorism, Iraq policy, nuclear energy, the Mideast peace, Gaza, the Vatican, North Korea, Dick Cheney, and Habitat for Humanity.
A friend recently brought to my attention the July 8, 2007, column by Rod Dreher in the Dallas Morning News. Dreher, famous as a "Crunchy Con"—a conservative who cares deeply about the environment—provides another excellent example of the important shift taking place on the fault line that for too long has polarized and paralyzed "left" and "right." His title, "Evils of Capitalism," and the subhead, "Big business can be as dangerous a threat as big government," tell you that he defies old binary categories.
The greatest challenge facing American conservatives today, he says, is not liberalism but capitalism, which he says, "in its current form, undermines not only the virtues necessary to the kind of society conservatives claim to want, but ultimately risks subverting itself."
He acknowledges capitalism's strengths, but laments that today's capitalism "is defined not by a producer mentality but by a consumer ethos," evidenced by the fact that personal savings—undercut by credit card debt—have slipped into the negative zone for the first time since 1933.
He calls the mentality promoted by consumerism "childishness," quoting Benjamin Barber's recent release, Consumed. When big business promotes consumerism by inhibiting adult judgment and self-discipline, Dreher says, it works against the very family values conservatives cherish, making them "prisoners of their own cravings."
"Childishness" sounds like the mentality that has been reinforced by our political and corporate titans. On one hand, we hear warnings that inspire fear, and then on the other, we hear a lot of "Trust me and don't ask questions." These titans profit if the rest of us act like children, trusting and submitting without thinking and making mature decisions with foresight, self-discipline, and concern for the common good.
Rod Dreher is so right. Consumerism, whether in government or business, sucks.
But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.
You cannot love others and harbor resentments toward them at the same time. The love we are speaking of is not romantic love, but a spiritual love that views another through the eyes of compassion. Love produces a quality of life that is more enjoyable and healthy than a life with resentment and anger.
- Sage Bennett
from Wisdom Walk: Nine Practices for Creating Peace and Balance from the World's Spiritual Traditions
I heard this report on NPR this morning while getting ready for work and was inspired. I'm not only encouraged that poverty is finally getting on the national agenda; I also found this particular report to be almost poetic. At our candidates forum on CNN, John Edwards made a commitment to keep poverty on the political agenda in this presidential election, and he is following through on his commitment.
From today's NPR segment by Dee Davis, who directs the Center for Rural Strategies in Whitesburg, Kentucky:
This week, presidential candidate John Edwards is coming to retrace the RFK visit. I wish they were all coming. These things matter. It is not about party; it's about eyeballs. And there are sights that need seeing. ...
People will tell you government doesn't work. But I've seen it work. It starts with somebody showing up and making an effort. I have also seen it fail. Mostly that happens when no one's paying attention.
Davis (who was a high school Republican when Bobby Kennedy came through Kentucky in 1968) is right—this isn't about party, it's about real people and places becoming part of our national political conversation.
Last Wednesday, over 40 internally displaced people gathered in a local Mennonite church to reflect on congressional movement regarding U.S. policy toward Colombia. According to the latest U.N. reports, Colombia now contains the second highest number of internally displaced people in the world—more than Iraq, and second only to Sudan. As victims, they are tired of war and discouraged by the preferential treatment for some victimizers: For every dollar given by the U.S. to help a victim of internal displacement, $50 goes to help a demobilized paramilitary combatant.
Safety and a life without fear are still far off for these victims, but recent achievements in Congress represent steps in the right direction. Nods, smiles, and lively responses affirmed that they speak to our distant hope. From the latest Latin America Working Group e-mail newsletter:
We are delighted to tell you resolution 426 for displaced Colombians has passed the House of Representatives. The resolution, first introduced by Rep. Jim McGovern, brings renewed attention to the plight of the many Colombians violently displaced from their communities while also recommending an increase in humanitarian aid. Increasing aid in this way will give internally displaced persons a real opportunity to rebuild their lives in a dignified manner. However, the passage of this resolution is only one of many victories for peace and justice in Colombia in recent weeks.
After many years of advocating for change, we are thrilled to report the positive new approach to Colombia has recently been approved by the full House of Representatives. ...
The foreign aid bill cuts military aid to Colombia by $30 million while greatly increasing aid for poor farmers and victims. For example, Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities will receive $15 million in development aid planned in consultation with these communities.
The aid package aims to strengthen respect for human rights by providing judicial institutions with the resources they need to investigate abuses and collaboration with paramilitaries. Human rights conditions will now apply to 40 percent, not just 25 percent, of military aid in the bill.
Given the failure of aerial spraying to curb coca cultivation by even a single hectare in seven years, the House has also sensibly reduced funding for spray planes used to fumigate farms and increased aid for small farmers. It's not perfect—but it's a huge step in the right direction!
Now, we must shift our efforts to securing a positive new direction for Colombia on the Senate side. Since the foreign aid bill will be coming before the full Senate soon, now is the perfect time to contact your senator and ask them to support this new approach in aid to Colombia. Encourage them to provide greater assistance to help Colombia's victims of violence, to strengthen the justice system, and to provide real economic alternatives to small farmers. We are on a roll—let's keep the pressure on!
Janna Hunter-Bowman works for Mennonite Central Committee in Bogotá, Colombia, as the coordinator of the Documentation and Advocacy Program for Justapaz, the peace and justice ministry of the Colombian Mennonite Church.
A 6.8-magnitude earthquake shook Japan on Monday. The quake caused a leak of radioactive water at the Kashiwazaki Kariwa nuclear power plant—and that should shake the rest of the world.
According to a report from the Associated Press ("Japan Quake Causes Nuke Plant Leak, Fire"), the power company that runs the nuclear plant initially announced that a fire in the plant had been put out with no damage to the reactor and no release of radioactive material. But later in the day, the company admitted that 315 gallons of water had spilled from a tank at one of the plant's reactors and been flushed into the sea.
The leak of radioactive material—and especially the delay in reporting it—"fed fresh concerns about the safety of Japan's 55 nuclear reactors, which supply 30 percent of the quake-prone country's electricity and have suffered a long string of accidents and cover-ups," according to the AP story. "The leak itself doesn't sound significant as of yet, but the fact that it went unreported is a concern," said Michael Mariotte, executive director of the U.S.-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service. "When a company begins by denying a problem, it makes you wonder if there's another shoe to drop."
The nuclear industry around the world has a long track record of denying problems, covering up accidents, and underplaying the dangers of nuclear power. If we fail to listen to the warnings in such small-scale accidents such as this week's in Japan, we may very well be fated to learn by much more catastrophic means.
Iraq-Senate, Iraq-military, Iran, Middle East, North Korea, Canada-Colombia, Senate, pverty tour, death penalty stay, divorce, Darfur, Canada-Cree nationhood, Church and sex abuse.
We campesinos are used to planting seeds and waiting to see if the seeds bear fruit. We’re used to working on harsh soil. And when our crops don’t grow, we’re used to planting again and again until they take hold. Like us, you must learn to persist.
- Elvia Alvarado
from "Don’t Be Afraid Gringo: A Honduran Woman Speaks from the Heart"
But those who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere, being not hearers who forget but doers who act they will be blessed in their doing.
A number of Jewish leaders have expressed concern that a return to the pre-Vatican II missal will mean a return to anti-Jewish language. The specter of adversus judaeos is legitimate to raise given the horrific history of anti-semitism in the Catholic church. While most of the "hate speech" was removed before Vatican II, all of the theology and intellectual framework remains. Says Mark Francis in his article, "Beyond Language" (The Tablet, 14 July 2007):
Perhaps the most problematic aspect of the "Tridentine Rite" is its treatment of Judaism. While the adjective "perfidious" describing the Jews was removed from the 1962 edition of the Missal there are still prayers that call for their conversion in direct contradiction to Vatican II's "Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions" …
In much the same vein, the Missal refers to Christians of other Churches as heretics and schismatics—descriptions of fellow Christians that are unlikely to promote much ecumenical dialogue.
And since the lectionary attached to this Missal proposes practically no readings from the Old Testament it represents a deficient liturgical presentation of God's Word—a problem that the Council fathers sought to remedy.
Phil Lawler's article, "Pope broadens access to 1962 Mass," gives a pretty thorough overview of the history of saying the mass in Latin and what the pope intends. Lawler accepts the pope's spin, while Francis does not. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has also issued a newsletter with guidelines and "20 Questions."
Since the vast majority of Catholics world-wide support the mission and message of Vatican II (though most also acknowledge that there have been excesses and also areas where Vatican II didn't go far enough) and do not want to return to the archaic world-view of the Latin Mass, it saddens me that Pope Benedict "threatens to reduce the liturgy to a simple matter of individual 'taste,'" as Mark Francis puts it, "rather than what it is meant to be: an accurate reflection of what we believe as Catholic Christians who live in the twenty-first century."
As post-Vatican II Catholics, we have our work cut out for us. We have failed to educate the two or three generations of Catholics behind us on why Vatican II is so important to a vibrant Catholic expression of the gospel. When Pope John XXIII (who was named in 2000 by the International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation as "Righteous Among the Nations" for his actions in support of people persecuted by the Nazi regime) was asked about his motivation in convening the Council, he said: "I want to throw open the windows of the Church so that we can see out and the people can see in."
If Catholics want to advance the fresh, engaged movement of the Holy Spirit that Vatican II represented, then we better start teaching the lessons and documents of the Council. In other words, we better clean off the windows and let the Light shine in.
Rose Marie Berger, an associate editor of Sojourners, is a Catholic peace activist and poet.
This is tied to the concept that only those clergymen who stand in a direct line from the apostles can rightly administer the sacraments, and the sacraments, being the primary vehicle for salvation, are pretty darn important. Why the pope felt the need to restate what had been already restated by his predecessor in 2000 has been the subject of much conjecture. Is it the massive headway being made by Pentecostalism in the global south? Is it the all-too-ecumenical Catholicism in the U.S.? Or is it another attempt by Benedict to win back his beloved—but backslidden and postmodernly relativistic—Europe (I'm paraphrasing him here)?
Probably all of the above. But in this stance, the Roman Catholic magisterium seems increasingly out-of-step with the Catholics that I know. When I ask Catholic friends, in-laws, and even priests I know about my salvation, they assure me that I'm safe. (I know there are American Catholics who don't agree, so don't bother commenting just to prove that that's not a unanimous opinion.) American and European Catholics tend to be just as committed to civil, respectful, religious pluralism as I am. In fact, they warmly welcome me to partake in the Eucharist when I visit their churches, a stance in direct contradiction to Catholic teaching.
I'm not suggesting that the pope should water down his views based on popular opinion, or that the magisterium should back down from its doctrinal positions. I just think they should consider a different tack. Everything in world religion is bending toward populism, whether it's the aforementioned growth of Pentecostalism or the American/European emergent movement. Dictating positions down-from-on-high works about as well in religion as it does in President Bush's defense of his war policy. In an age of new media and a "flattening world," opinion will be changed from the grassroots level by convincing thoughtful people that you're worth listening to. It's a bear market, you might say, for papal bulls. In fact, maybe Benedict should start blogging...
(In the interest of full disclosure, I was ordained as a Congregational minister in 1997. But I had a Catholic priest there to lay hands on me, just in case they're right about that apostolic succession thing.)
The latest news on children's health insurance, Iraq-Senate, campaign spending, death penalty, a new Gilded Age, Iraq bombing, Iraq, antiwar movement, Darfur, Iran, North Korea, election- African Americans, Barack Obama, climate change, education, vatican, Lady Bird Johnson, and select commentaries.
All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us.
We hunger to be known and understood. We hunger to be loved. We hunger to be at peace inside our own skins. We hunger not just to be fed these things but, often without realizing it, we hunger to feed others these things because they too are starving for them. We hunger not just to be loved but to love, not just to be forgiven but to forgive, not just to be known and understood for all the good times and bad times that for better for worse have made us who we are, but to know and understand each other to the same point of seeing that, in the last analysis, we all have the same good times, the same bad times, and that for that very reason there is no such thing in all the world as anyone who is really a stranger.
Sinead O’Connor’s not angry anymore; or at least not angry in the same way. Her tearing up of a photo of Pope John Paul II on Saturday Night Live 15 years ago, combined with what we think we know about her ordination into an unofficial offshoot of the Catholic church, give a convenient excuse for people to ignore her. This is a pity, because it makes us forget that she produced one of the only memorable and honest songs about love in the 1990s, her cover version of Prince’s "Nothing Compares 2 U," and one of the most beautiful hymns of spiritual comfort (1997’s "This is to Mother You" on her Gospel Oak EP).
She has made her spirituality more explicit than ever on Theology, her new double album, and the anger of early Sinead has given way to songs of hope, confidence, and worship. In 23 tracks she sings of God being present in the earthiness of a life lived between the search for truth and the struggle to get by—when she relates how God met "my need on a chronic Christmas Eve" it is easy to imagine the pain that many people feel at the times when the culture is forcing them to pretend to be happy.
In an album infused by the Hebrew Bible ("They dress the wounds of my poor people as though they’re nothing; saying peace when there’s no peace"), she expresses her desire to "make something beautiful" for God. O’Connor, who grew up in the 1970s and '80s in an often culturally bleak Ireland, is speaking out of a context that is trying to shake off its sometimes theocratic past. So it’s a risk to make music that quotes the Bible favorably. But she gets away with it—even bringing new moods to "I Don’t Know How to Love Him" from "Jesus Christ Superstar" and "By the Rivers of Babylon" —because she’s not afraid to show that she is indeed sometimes afraid.
Frederick Buechner famously wrote that, in the search for God, "without room for doubt, there would be no room for me" —I for one am grateful that Sinead O’Connor has not allowed dogma to suppress her personality and questions about what authentic spirituality is. Indeed, to sing "I Don’t Know How to Love Him" is a pretty good summation of much contemporary religion, which often seems so unsure what to do with itself.
Her spirituality doesn’t fit easily within ecclesial borders—there’s more than enough Rastafarianism, Buddhism, and generic "God as energy" ideas to go 'round here; not a bad marketing hook or a bad idea since O’Connor has said that the album is partly a response to the global insecurity that affects all faiths and none since Sept. 11. But as the Celtic writer John O’Donohue says, the best response to evil is to make something beautiful. You get the sense that when Sinead O’Connor says that railing against injustice is an act of love, that she also believes it’s better to light a candle than to curse the fact that it’s dark out there. No one can know the depths of the soul-search that goes in inside the heart of Sinead O’Connor—her music over the past 20 years has revealed someone never less than honest—sometimes painfully so. If she can stand in place for seekers like me—who sometimes yearn for the certainties of youthful faith, but know that mature spirituality has to transcend fundamentalism—then I’m grateful. Here’s to the next 20 years.
Gareth Higgins is a Christian writer and activist in Belfast, Northern Ireland. For the past decade he was the founder/director of the zero28 project, an initiative addressing questions of peace, justice, and culture. He is the author of the insightful How Movies Helped Save My Soul and blogs at www.godisnotelsewhere.blogspot.com
This story in today's Washington Post made my day. As a pacifist Mennonite, I can't count the number of times someone has posed "The Question": If someone had a gun to your loved one's head, and you could use lethal violence to save them, what would you do? This scenario that unfolded in a D.C. backyard doesn't fit that exact hypothetical scene in every detail, but it does help point out the absurdity of it—what are the chances that reacting violently in such a situation is guaranteed to save your loved one and only hurt or kill the "bad guy"?
A grand feast of marinated steaks and jumbo shrimp was winding down, and a group of friends was sitting on the back patio of a Capitol Hill home, sipping red wine. Suddenly, a hooded man slid in through an open gate and put the barrel of a handgun to the head of a 14-year-old guest.
"Give me your money, or I'll start shooting," he demanded, according to D.C. police and witness accounts.
The five other guests, including the girls' parents, froze—and then one spoke.
"We were just finishing dinner," Cristina "Cha Cha" Rowan, 43, blurted out. "Why don't you have a glass of wine with us?"
The intruder took a sip of their Chateau Malescot St-Exupéry and said, "Damn, that's good wine."
The girl's father, Michael Rabdau, 51, who described the harrowing evening in an interview, told the intruder, described as being in his 20s, to take the whole glass. Rowan offered him the bottle. The would-be robber, his hood now down, took another sip and had a bite of Camembert cheese that was on the table.
Then he tucked the gun into the pocket of his nylon sweatpants. ...
"I'm sorry," he told the group. "Can I get a hug?"
Of course, this story (and please, read the whole thing) is ripe with indirect biblical allusions—though the article makes no mention of any spiritual or philosophical motivations for anyone's actions. And of course, there's every possibility that in spite of a nonviolent response, it or similar situations might not have ended as happily—but Jesus never promised as much when he taught us to love our enemies and bless them. In fact, he promised the opposite. Still, it's beautiful when turning the other cheek, giving your shirt, and going the extra mile have the intended effect: confronting our enemies with our humanity—and their own.
Though theological arguments aside, I suppose another moral of the story could be, quite simply: In case of armed robbers, always have a bottle of good wine handy.
Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the web editor for Sojourners/Call to Renewal.
We don’t need another election. We need an exorcism. It is this that leads me from vigil to vigil and I burned with it on the evening of March 16, when I participated in nonviolent civil resistance and was arrested with more than 200 others as part of the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq. I shook from it in court some three months later when I pleaded “no contest” to failing to obey a lawful order.
There were 13 disciples in court that day, each with a unique mission. Many spoke beautifully to issues of amendments, traditions, permits, and codes. I ask you, sisters and brothers, what is our message? I wonder: Should we defend ourselves in finite opportunities to testify, or ought we defend the lowliest victims of war?
I stood at the podium that day, my throat dry and my hands cold, testifying to the message of the nonviolent Jesus. I stood and prayed there—as I had in front of the White House on that bitter cold night so many of us remember—strictly to relieve the ringing in my ears: speak for the dead or join them. I could not discuss the First Amendment or the parameters of the permit. Rather, I felt commissioned by God to speak to one truth alone: The frontline in Iraq is everywhere and the children have no place to hide. When I sat down I felt, but for a moment, clean.
Eda R. Uca is a member of Jonah House, an intentional faith-based resistance community in Baltimore, Maryland. She is the author of Ana's Girls: The Essential Guide to the Underground Eating Disorder Community Online.
The lastest news on Iraq-White House report, housing, US-UK, Canada-Afghanistan, US military, Edwards-poverty, Dem debate-NAACP, health care, America's children report, Darfur, Iran, Pakistan, Canada-Jordan, and select editorials.
Many conscientious service members have been speaking out despite an often oppressive and unforgiving atmosphere. Some of us have even been persecuted and attacked while exercising our civic duty of speaking truth to power in times of moral crises. The Rev. Lennox Yearwood, an Air Force chaplain, faces accusations of working against national security. Liam Madden, fellow IVAW member and co-founder of Appeal for Redress, is defending his project against comments that are similarly repeated daily to men and women in the armed forces who are speaking out; effectively demanding that our GIs remain silent and obey our leaders blindly.
In a few months, the Vatican will beatify a fellow conscientious objector who stood for peace over prejudice, humility over arrogance. Like a growing number of servicemen and women in our modern conflict, this soldier of conscience would not bend to demands that he serve the country’s militaristic intentions. He faced accusations of cowardice and outright treason, even of threatening national security. The book In Solitary Witness, by Gordon Zahn, revealed that Franz Jägerstätter, an Austrian farmer, was beheaded by the Third Reich in August 1943 after refusing to serve in the German army. The Catholic Peace Fellowship reports he will be beatified on October 26, 2007, in his home country, and provides information on how Jägerstätter and countless other Christians have chosen conscientious objection, often in the face of significant harassment from Christian and secular critics alike.
The United States is not, nor will it ever be, Nazi Germany, but Jägerstätter's witness remains relevant and powerful for our current context. As Jägerstätter's testimony attests, the question of how a pacifist would address the problem of violence as manifested by Hitler has a response: The blame does not rest solely on Hitler, but is shared by the social classes (including the German church in status confessions) that enforced strict nationalism in the pursuit of economic revival, killing its own prophets, such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in the process.
If every soldier obeyed God and their conscience rather than human leaders, as Jägerstätter did, the world would be spared just as much from the likes of the German war machine as we would the American military industrial complex. Franz Jägerstätter, just as Saints Maximilian of Tebessa and Martin of Tours before him, was courageous enough to stand by the conviction "Miles Christi ego sum; pugnare mihi non licet: I am a soldier of Christ; it is not permissible for me to fight."
Logan Laituri is a six-year Army veteran with combatant service in Iraq during OIF II and experience with Christian Peacemaker Teams in Israel and the West Bank. He is an active member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and currently resides in Camden, New Jersey, in an intentional Christian community called Camden House, where he continues to seek ways to wage peace wherever he goes. He blogs at courageouscoward.blogspot.com.
The latest news on Iraq-Senate, working mothers, Katrina, Iraq benchmark report, Al Qaeda, Iraq Study Group, Lebanon, Darfur, student loans, and GOP candidates.
Moreover I saw under the sun that in the place of justice, wickedness was there, and in the place of righteousness, wickedness was there as well. I said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for he has appointed a time for every matter, and for every work. I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testing them to show that they are but animals.
"I fully understand that when you watch the violence on TV every night, people are saying, 'Is it worth it, can we accomplish an objective?'" Bush told a Cleveland business group. ...
"I've seen this movie before from the liberal left in America, who share no responsibility for what happened in Cambodia when we said no," said McCain, whose campaign has lost support partly because of his advocacy of the war.
It reminded me of yesterday's post by Gareth Higgins, and the connection between violence of TV and movies and the real violence of terrorist acts and war. It was the juxtaposition of the quotes that caught my attention, for certainly a veteran like McCain understands how far from a movie is the violence of war. But why do Bush's comments on the war so often reference the "violence on TV"—as opposed to violence in Iraq? You can do your own Google search—but here are a few examples:
From the same Cleveland speech: ""They know we're kindhearted, decent people who value human life, and they understand that Americans will recoil from the violence on our TV screens."
Feb. 14, 2007: "And I can understand why people are concerned when they turn on the TV screens and see this violence. It's disturbing to people, and it's disturbing to the Iraqi people."
April 19, 2007: "Americans, rightly so, are concerned about whether or not we can succeed in Iraq. Nobody wants to be there if we can't succeed, especially me. And these—violence on our TV screens affects our frame of mind...."
June 14, 2006: "I understand how tough it is for the American people to reconcile death on their TV screens when the president's saying we're making incremental progress toward an important goal."
One possible criticism could be that Bush is trying to create some subtle distance between his policy and the reality of Iraq's violence by so often referring to it in relation to TV coverage. Is the conservative response that Bush is correctly identifying part of the problem as the media's negative coverage of Iraq's carnage? Neither of these satisfy my curiosity regarding the consistency of this mantra, so seriously, can somebody explain Bush's fixation with our TV screens?
Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the web editor for Sojourners/Call to Renewal.
If a glacier falls into the ocean, and no one is there to record it, did it really happen? Perhaps anticipating the question, artist Katie Paterson has created an art installation in which the sounds of Iceland glaciers are recorded through a real-time feed from her cell phone. Audiences that see her cell number displayed at an art gallery in London can call the number and listen, live, to the sounds of large pieces of ice groaning, cracking, and breathing their last.
As global warming changes the landscape and seascape of our planet in a way that feels as permanent as it does ominous, people are already finding ways to remember the natural world as it once existed, or at least bear witness as it changes. In Greenland, glaciers are melting fast, too, reports The Washington Post. One woman marvels at the fact that global warming seems to have left a permanent mark on the island. "Already we are starting our sentences by saying, 'In the days when it was cold … We're starting to talk about it like it was history, and it's only been about five years."
Human civilization has always found ways to remember what is important to its essence. The Inuits of Greenland use good old-fashioned oral history, and a British art student uses a cell phone. But are these acts of remembrance thinly veiled resignations—signs that we're giving up hope for the planet? Or, on the other hand, can they help to inspire us? In the Hebrew scriptures, the God of ancient Israel repeatedly called the nation to remember their roots, often as a way of waking them up. Maybe the fact that our ice caps are becoming history should serve as a wake-up call for us.
Jesse Holcomb, a former Sojourners intern, performs content analysis at the Project for Excellence in Journalism and is a graduate student at George Washington University's School of Media and Public Affairs.
McCain campaign, Iran, pensions, Iraq-Congress, Pakistan, Al Qaeda, GI Bill for Guard/Reserves, Ugandan peacemaker, death penalty, Muslims and Evangelicals, Benedict on the Church and select commentaries.
"When you are invited by someone to a wedding banquet, do not sit down at the place of honor, in case someone more distinguished than you has been invited by your host; and the host who invited both of you may come and say to you, "Give this person your place,' and then in disgrace you would start to take the lowest place. But when you are invited, go and sit down at the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he may say to you, "Friend, move up higher'; then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at the table with you. For all who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."
The spirit in which Scriptures should be read: search first to know God and the mysteries of our religion, and to know oneself; and to understand the ways to travel to God, and how to make good use of creatures. In a word: seek in this reading only truth and justice and the practice of charity and other virtues. The particular qualities needed are purity of heart, humility, simplicity, control of curiosity, and enthusiasm.
When I was doing missionary work in Southeast Asia, I attended a service in a language that I didn’t speak. At a certain point, I discerned that they were saying the Lord’s Prayer. It was an amazing moment; I felt the depth of our connection as brothers and sisters in Christ, beyond all of our differences. When we got to the line, “Forgive our debts as we forgive our debtors,” I was struck by the insight that one of the deepest roots of our connection is the common experience of God’s mercy. While we were yet sinners ... while we did not deserve forgiveness … before we had any capacity to repent ... someone loved us enough to die for us. Someone had compassion on us—literally “com” (with) and “passion” (feeling)—someone felt with us, felt our pain as if it was his pain, our hopes and dreams as if they were his hopes and dreams.
Sanctuary is an act of compassion, an expression of mercy. It is, however, not mercy at the expense of justice. Participants in the New Sanctuary Movement believe that our current immigration system is profoundly unjust—so unjust that we believe that we are facing one of those unique moments throughout history when divine law and human law are in conflict and God’s justice demands that we stand with those who break unjust laws even at the risk of sharing their punishment. Sanctuary is not only about mercy; it is also about justice.
But for many of us, the decision to provide sanctuary is rooted in the impulse of the heart to love as we have been loved—to hear the cries of Liliana and Joe and Mae and Jose and Juan and Jean’s children and respond with compassion.
Yet, the act of sanctuary is more than simple charity. What we do with someone who has broken into our house only to go on to clean it, take care of our garden, remodel the deck, watch over the children, and cook us dinner? We read in Hebrews that those of us who provide hospitality have entertained angels unaware. To offer sanctuary is to recognize that the strangers in our midst are blessing us, in clear and mysterious ways. May we respond with the hospitality that we have received.
Rev. Alexia Salvatierra is the Executive Director of CLUE (Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice), an organization of religious leaders in Los Angeles county who support low-wage workers in their struggle for a living wage, health insurance, fair working conditions, and a voice in the decisions that affect them.
The letter was sent to Bishop William S. Skylstad, president of the USCCB and Bishop Thomas G. Wenski, International Justice and Peace Committee Chair, requesting a meeting with the USCCB. The members explained:
We have taken great comfort in the prophetic words of many Catholic leaders, relied on them for inspiration during our deliberations, and welcomed them in helping shape policy. If we understand the Catholic tradition correctly, thoughtful Church leaders around the world do not believe that the war in Iraq meets the strict conditions for a just war or the high moral standards for overriding the presumption against the use of force. We agree and seek an end to this injustice.
Our concerns are rooted in both the political realm and in our faith and manifest in our efforts to enact legislation that will bring an end to this war. Pope John Paul II framed the moral question well when he said: "When, as in Iraq in these days, war threatens the fate of humanity, it is even more urgent to proclaim with a strong and decisive voice that peace is the only path for building a society which is more just and marked by solidarity. Violence and weapons can never resolve the problems of man."
Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the USCCB, said the bishops were considering the letter and that they have already made repeated statements about the war. "Certainly the bishops have made no secret about their concerns over the war in Iraq," Walsh said.
As Congress begins this week to seriously debate legislative proposals to end the war, the continued voice of the church is critical. As the members of Congress concluded:
In our own education in the faith, we find the testimony of the scriptures compelling, and although we have no illusions about the complexities of our current situation in Iraq, we have come to believe that peace cannot simply exist as an ideal—our efforts must be accompanied by actions as we embrace the teachings of peace and justice.
Great helicopters and explosions abound, the witticisms are barbed, and the cinematography is silver-grey in Die Hard 4.0 (or Live Free or Die Hard, depending on which empire you see it in). I was tired to start with, but the film couldn't wake me up. I vacillated between being bored and horrified, as Bruce Willis yet again stands in for the lone American male whose first resort is always violence (in the first film he was the archetype of a Vietnam War vet, assailed by terrorists on the one hand, and a frustrating civil service bureaucracy on the other; this time he clearly represents the guy who'd go to Iraq just because it's the right thing to do, even though he knows the government sending him is corrupt).
Bruce may well be caught in the middle between two kinds of bad guys—government flunkeys and monstrous villains—but this film makes it very clear where its allegiances lie: with the worship of commerce. The villain's consistent objective seems to be to destroying the U.S. financial system, partly to take some cash for himself, partly just to show the government where it is vulnerable. He's a public-service kind of terrorist, you see. One of the scenes that's clearly supposed to make us feel horrified takes place on the New York stock exchange floor, when the bad guy uses a computer virus to creating a selling frenzy. I have to say that I found it difficult to muster much sympathy for rich boys freaking out at the prospect of not being so rich any more, but given that the film was paid for by Mr. Murdoch, I imagine I'm not the movie's target demographic.
This scene, however, was not the most striking example of cynicism in Die Hard 4.0—that would be the moment where the extremely attractive Asian woman, played by Maggie Q, gets kicked and beaten by our surrogate Bruce, and eventually crushed and blown up by an SUV while Willis chuckles at having destroyed a hot chick. We're supposed to laugh along with him.
But that's not all—for the price of our ticket we get hatred of people who ask legitimate questions about government power, we get an air force pilot who does the wrong thing for the right reasons and therefore gets to escape with his body intact, we get a decent FBI chief who could pass for being Middle Eastern—you can almost hear the film-makers screaming, "Look at us! We're inclusive!" We even get a propaganda speech by the tech-geek nerd/ wacky sidekick guy confessing his realization that his previous ideas about challenging authoritarianism and supporting a more equitable distribution of wealth are the kind of beliefs that lead to America being blown up by thin cheek-boned terrorists with expensive hardware. He's an Apple geek, of course—and the computers used by the bad guys are right out of Steve Jobs' daydreams. Willis' character may be "a Timex watch in a digital world," but this film is pure Microsoft—battering down the competition with a utilitarian ethic that owes more to John Wayne's arrogant self-belief than anything resembling the beauty of being in favor of life.
Now I know I sound like a killjoy—which is, I suppose, what Bruce Willis does to a lot of people in this movie—but the question still remains:
Why is it that when we fear this kind of thing in the real world, we still want to be entertained by it?
Gareth Higgins is a Christian writer and activist in Belfast, Northern Ireland. For the past decade he was the founder/director of the zero28 project, an initiative addressing questions of peace, justice, and culture. He is the author of the insightful How Movies Helped Save My Soul and blogs at www.godisnotelsewhere.blogspot.com
The latest news on Iraq-Congress, Iran, Canada-northern security, poll-record opposition to war, Iraq-President, Iraq-on the ground, Iraq-resources, executive privilege claim, Canada-northern security, Palestine-Jordan, Darfur, Colombia, Iran, NAACP, prayer and politics.
Forgive the iniquity of this people according to the greatness of your steadfast love, just as you have pardoned this people, from Egypt even until now.
At some thoughts one stands perplexed, above all at the sight of human sin, and wonders whether to combat it by force or by humble love. Always decide 'I will combat it by humble love.' If you resolve on that once for all, you can conquer the whole world. Loving humility is a terrible force: it is the strongest of all things, and there is nothing else like it.
- Starets [Elder] Zosima from The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky
The critics of the suburbs say that you and I live narrow lives. I agree. My life is narrow. From one perspective or another, all our lives are narrow. Only when lives are placed side by side do they seem larger. —D.J. Waldie, in Holy Land: A Suburban Memoir
Prompted by the ubiquitous bracelets and bumper stickers, many Christians are asking (or being annoyed by) the question, “What Would Jesus Do?” Thanks to the creative folks at the Evangelical Environmental Network, we’ve also been encouraged to ask, “What Would Jesus Drive?”
If you’re like most Christians concerned about justice and peace, “the suburbs” would probably not appear in your answer. You might say the city, where Jesus could minister to the poor and the oppressed and walk downtown to preach to corrupt politicians. Or perhaps you think of the country, where he and his disciples could raise organic tomatoes and share their free-range chickens with the hungry. But Jesus in a split-level, mowing his lawn on Saturdays and waving to the neighbor kids on their trampoline? Hmmmmmm....
So what about those of us who do live in the suburbs? Are we doomed to live narrow lives of conspicuous consumption, super-commutes, and obsessive lawn care? Or is it possible to be a faithful, broad-minded Christian in a land of housing developments, minivans, and strip malls?
The recent or upcoming publication of several books on Christianity and the suburbs shows that many Christians are ready to begin examining the particular privileges and challenges of the suburbs. While the authors vary in their perspectives, all of them conclude that Christians can live authentic lives of discipleship in the ‘burbs. “The things I am called to practice here in suburbia are the same Christian distinctives of love, witness, mercy and justice that all Christians should embody wherever they may live,” said Al Hsu, author of The Suburban Christian, in a recent interview.
Christians in the suburbs may have more chances now than ever before to practice those works of mercy and justice right where they live: a recent study from the Brookings Institution found that more Americans in poverty now live in suburbs than in cities. And many of them are finding that the suburban communities they now call home aren’t as equipped with services such as public transportation, accessible health care, and job training programs as the cities from which they moved.
This changing economic face of the suburbs may mean that the fabled narrow suburban life might not be quite so narrow anymore. It may remind us to look for Jesus in the suburbs after all....
Valerie Weaver-Zercher is a writer and editor in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. Read more about suburban spirituality in the July issue of Sojourners magazine.
Putting Robert Zoellick in charge of the World Bank, as that anti-poverty organization's board recently did at the U.S.'s behest, is a bit like making a power company lobbyist the Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality - oh, wait, we've already done that.
The problem with Zoellick is that he was formerly the U.S. Trade Representative - head of the agency responsible for mercilessly "negotiating" trade agreements or, more accurately, strongarming weaker countries into accepting agreements focused on widening market access for U.S. corporations, often at the expense of their smaller competitors.
A growing number of NGOs, like Center of Concern, believe that U.S. trade policy under Zoellick (and before and after him too) has actually been pro-poverty. Trade agreements have usually ended up forcing poor countries to give up any protections against more powerful competition from the U.S., which pays out billions of dollars in subsidies to our farmers each year. The agreements also force poor countries to allow privatization of their basic services, like water and electricity; they prevent governments from giving any preferential treatment to their own companies and industries; and they eliminate governments' abilities to control their own development policies. Still, Zoellick continually argued that trade liberalization is "the starting point for greater development, growth, opportunity and openness around the world." Add: "For rich countries." (Here's an overview of what's wrong with the U.S. trade agenda).
And then, of course, there's one other obvious question. Since 1985, Zoellick has worked for the Department of Treasury, Goldman Sachs, the Naval Academy, the State Department, and of course, the U.S. Trade Representative Office. Shouldn't the president of the World Bank be someone who has at least worked at an anti-poverty organization?
The latest news on Iraq-Congress, immigration, children's health insurance, Iran, Israel, White House-congress and courts, immigration, faith and politics, faith and business, Live Earth- climate change, and a feature essay on 'God and Country', select editorials and commentaries.
Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the Lord? There they shall be in great terror, for God is with the company of the righteous. You would confound the plans of the poor, but the Lord is their refuge.
We have all known persons who have lost everything and have not lost the joy of living; persons who are imprisoned unjustly and do not lose their peace and tranquility; persons who live in misery and take in orphans; persons who have suffered injustices and seek to reestablish justice with no desire to revenge.
Mark Tooley of the Institute on Religion and Democracy is so eager to attack Sojourners that he rarely pays attention to the facts. And, we usually ignore his smear tactics. But there are occasions when he steps over the line. His recent column, "Sojourners for Hamas," in which he attacks God's Politics contributing blogger Philip Rizk's article, "Christians in Gaza," is one of those occasions.
For Tooley, it seems that Rizk’s biggest sin is that he is trying to explain the reasons for the growing strength of Hamas and extreme Islamist groups in Gaza. Rizk cites a World Bank study on the desperate economic conditions in Gaza and writes, “In light of the constantly deteriorating situation in Gaza, extremism has been on the rise…” and that this situation is largely due to “the economic siege placed on the Gaza Strip because of the Hamas government.” To Tooley, simply noting this obvious reality means that Rizk (and by extension, Sojourners), “excoriates the U.S. and opponents of Hamas” for the violence in Gaza and earns us the inflammatory title of his piece.
But Rizk’s is hardly a unique observation. A new report covered in The Jerusalem Post—"Rights group: Israel ruining economy in Gaza Strip" notes that in Gaza, “Eighty-five percent of the population is already dependent on food aid from international organizations and the number is growing.” The report was issued by an Israeli human rights organization, Gisha, whose "goal is to protect the freedom of movement of Palestinians, especially Gaza residents, [and] promote rights guaranteed by international and Israeli law. "
The Gisha report was also covered by the British newspaper The Guardian in this story: "Blockade helps Gaza militants, says report." It notes the report’s conclusion that “Israel's latest blockade of Gaza is threatening to destroy the territory's commercial sector and drive more people into the hands of extremists … The report by Gisha, an Israeli human rights organization, concludes that the increase in poverty and dependency will lead to a further radicalization of Gaza's population, which will cause further violence and attacks on foreigners …”
According to Tooley's logic, I guess that also makes Gisha—whose board of directors and staff includes Israeli law professors, military veterans, and other human rights advocates—apologists for Hamas.
Just for the record, Sojourners supports Israel's right to exist and live in peace and security. We have consistently condemned terrorism—the deliberate use of violence against innocent civilians. And we have said that no matter what the grievances or injustices, deliberate violence against civilians must be universally and unequivocally condemned. Killing innocent civilians (often families and children) is evil and must be steadfastly opposed. We have also opposed the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the resulting human rights violations. Trying to explain the causes of extremist terrorism, as Philip Rizk did and as Gisha has, does not make them, or us, apologists. It means we look at the real world rather than an ideology.
Duane Shank is the senior policy adviser for Sojourners/Call to Renewal.
Among the many important causes Sojourners lends its energies to, I have come to understand that "family values" hovers at the top of the list. I must confess that it took me a long while to figure this out. The single thing I most admire about Sojourners is its commitment to broadening the faith-based agenda in this country. That is, to broaden and deepen the conversation to issues such as global poverty, global climate change, and HIV/AIDS. The divisive rhetoric of so-called "family values" from prominent conservative evangelical organizations—who use it as an effective media sound bite—has disillusioned enough people from political engagement, not to mention the Christian faith itself.
I speak from experience on this matter. I’ve only recently regained my faith in Christ. Growing up in the white upper-middle class American Midwest presented some serious challenges to my developing political philosophy. Many of my close friends who attended youth group claimed to include all peoples in their faith—provided that you shared the same interpretation of Holy Scripture. I came to confuse the conditional Christianity I experienced with the inclusive gospel I read. It took a long time before I was introduced to the writings of Jim Wallis and others who share his vision, and before I started back on the path toward reclaiming my personal faith.
It has been a long and contemplative journey, but it was capped by my being received into the Episcopal Church this past spring. Although certainly not unique to one tradition, what fascinates me about the Anglican tradition is its emphasis on the "church" being defined by its people—not the institution created by them. We believe the body of Christ includes all people of God—people from all walks of life. I love the idea that I can be a part of a family that is beyond my own immediate family—the idea that I can be a part of the family of God. It is truly a blessing to be a part of what Dr. King referred to as the “Beloved Community.”
As profound as that realization has been for me, it has been further enriched by the daily interaction with the staff here at Sojourners. Engaging in the community (serving as a summer intern) with others who share the vision of a global family has not only been a blessing for me, it has also demanded more of me. The power of the idea of the global family allows me to not only care about the outside world, but to actually do something about it. My work with Sojourners has illuminated the subtle insight that God’s family is my family, too. If I can take anything from this experience, let it be that.
Stephen Robishaw worked as an intern for Sojourners' media department for the month of June. He will be a junior at Kenyon College this fall.
The latest news on climate change, Afghanistan, Iraq-politics, Gaza, Iraq-another GOP Senator rebels, Iraq-oil, health insurance, Darfur, Colombia, religion-Joel Osteen in UK, and select commentaries.
Rep. Langevin (RI) is now circulating a letter to Colombian President Uribe that highlights the Justapaz break-in within the pattern of politically-motivated attacks against peace and human rights organizations in Colombia. Click here to read the letter. As you may already know, on June 14 the Justapaz office in Bogotá was broken into, as were the offices of Fellowship of Reconciliation on June 2. Computers containing sensitive information on cases of human rights violations and peace and church workers were stolen. You can read a letter from Justapaz to churches about the attack.
Since this loss puts the witnesses to the atrocities and church peace workers at risk, I invite you to call your representative immediately through the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and urge them to sign on to this letter to President Uribe. Ask to be connected to the office of your member of Congress, and when the receptionist answers, ask to be connected to the foreign policy aide. You will likely be asked to leave a message the first time around. Sample message:
I am a constituent from ___ and I am calling to urge Congressman/woman ___ to sign the "dear colleague" letter on the Justapaz and Fellowship of Reconciliation break-ins circulated by Representative Jim Langevin. It sends a strong message in support of churches and non-governmental organizations working for peace in Colombia. I hope ____ can sign this important letter before it closes on July 10.
Follow-up is always helpful as well! Many of our local churches in regions of Colombia fear reprisals if they convey their concerns about the case to Colombian authorities, so they are depending on support from the international community. Justapaz has also posted an update to their Web site that includes answers to frequently asked questions about the break-in, international support actions, and biblical passages that have been relevant in their reflections on the attack.
Janna Hunter-Bowman works for Mennonite Central Committee in Bogotá, Colombia, as the coordinator of the Documentation and Advocacy Program forJustapaz, the peace and justice ministry of the Colombian Mennonite Church.
If I have made gold my trust, or called fine gold my confidence; if I have rejoiced because my wealth was great, or because my hand had gotten much ... this also would be an iniquity to be punished by the judges, for I should have been false to God above.
Prayer and meditation have an important part to play in opening up new ways and new horizons. If your prayer is the expression of a deep and grace-inspired desire for newness of life—and not the mere blind attachment to what has always been familiar and "safe"—God will act in us and through us to renew the Church by preparing, in prayer, what we cannot yet imagine or understand. In this way our prayer and faith today will be oriented toward the future which we ourselves may never see fully realized on earth.
I spent the week of the Fourth of July speaking about religion and public life at the Aspen Ideas Festival. On Independence Day, there was a panel called “What Does America Stand for Today?” Various panelists extolled the American virtues of liberty, equality, justice, and equal opportunity. Another praised the fact that we are a nation of immigrants and have been an “open society” (despite the recent defeat of immigration reform). An evening panel, which included Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, discussed how important it is to be a nation that accepts the rule of law and that has a Constitution designed to always expand democracy and extend inclusion.
But when one panelist in the first discussion said that the question of “what America stands for” looks very different from inside the United States than from outside, you could see and feel people starting to bristle. From outside our borders in the rest of the world, he suggested, they don’t speak of U.S. liberty and justice but rather of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Another pointed out that American inequality is now greater than any time since the Gilded Age, and everybody talked about the horrible mistake of Iraq. When the suggestion was made that perhaps pride in our ideals sometimes leads us to the sin of hubris, to preaching more than listening, and ultimately to multilateral action in the world that proves disastrous, things got tense. And when he suggested more American humility—well, let’s just say we had some early Fourth of July fireworks right there on the stage.
But that reaction misses the point about American ideals. Many have pointed out how some of the most famous framers of the Constitution itself failed to live up to its ideals. And American history has been nothing less that the steady battle of a country trying to live up to its ideals. When it comes to their practice, we have certainly fallen short of the truths that we hold to be “self-evident.” I thought of the genius of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who held a Bible in one hand and a Constitution in the other as he called the American people to the values of both. Because we have said that these ideals about human rights are rooted in the belief that men and women are made in the image of God, an appeal to both our religious and constitutional convictions has often been the best road to social change. Most of the great social reform movements of our history have had those ideals at their heart and have been fueled and driven in part by faith and the need for spiritual transformation to undergird social transformation.
Then I read Michael Gerson’s op-ed piece in The Washington Post, which said much of what I was also feeling on this July Fourth. Mike and I disagree on some things, like the war in Iraq, but he makes some powerful points here about our history and our faith, and I thought I would pass them along to you. During your days of holiday rest and recreation, do think about our ideals and what each of us might do to more deeply put them into practice.
Chief among them is the fact that he supported Tony Blair’s policies, including not only such noble enterprises as the Northern Ireland peace process and the introduction of the minimum wage, but also the huge mistake of the war in Iraq. He did not raise concerns publicly against it, and has even said that he would have done the same thing as Blair had he been in charge in 2003. This is a serious problem for anyone who hopes he represents a decisive break with the foreign policy errors of the previous administration. We may take comfort from the fact that Brown has indicated support for a major investigation into the war, and his private beliefs may well be more suited to the path not yet taken. He has appointed a young Foreign Secretary known to hold progressive beliefs and to have questioned the war, but a thorough questioning of the reasons for the war may only be the beginning of a departure from Blair’s tragically failed policy.
Secondly, in the 10 years that Brown was Chancellor, while the U.K. got a minimum wage for the first time, and many people were helped to return to work through a ‘new deal’ program, the gap between rich and poor widened, the private equity industry mushroomed, and the tax burden for the rich was relatively unaltered. How will he provide the kind of moral leadership that recognizes that the poor cannot be released from poverty without it costing the rich? Will he have the courage to develop truly re-distributive economic policies?
Thirdly, the British public is used to hearing stories of fearsome conflicts with Blair, and a deeply controlling management style. These stories may or may not be true—but Gordon Brown needs to prove that he is not a control freak. He may have already begun this, by announcing this week that he was willing to give more power to Parliament, including surrendering or limiting the power of the executive to declare war. And while he is not the most charismatic public speaker, his response to the failed bomb attacks in London last Friday did sound the right note of reassurance.
I do hope that he proves to be, as he calls himself, a ‘conviction politician.’ He cares about addressing the root causes of injustice, and knows that defeating terror is a struggle of ideas at least as much as it is a matter of practical security. On these two counts alone, he deserves to be given a chance to prove himself.
His cabinet appointments this past week have been progressive; his vision for eco-towns suggests a greater commitment to environmental stewardship than has ever previously been visible in British politics; his understanding of the U.S. suggests that the ‘special relationship’ may be about to become mutually beneficial once again, rather than one in which the U.K. merely serves neo-conservative interests; he may indeed believe in the idea of a foreign policy based on something more than national self-interest; and the very fact that he has said he is willing to ‘learn the lessons’ of the Iraq war mean that there may indeed be room for optimism about a Brown premiership. While we still feel that we don’t know what he is really like, and he has not yet earned our trust, there now exists an opportunity for Gordon Brown to put the principles of mutual respect, equity, and social justice learned in a Scottish manse into practice. I wish him well.
Gareth Higgins is a Christian writer and activist in Belfast, Northern Ireland. For the past decade he was the founder/director of the zero28 project, an initiative addressing questions of peace, justice, and culture. He is the author of How Movies Helped Save My Soul and blogs at www.godisnotelsewhere.blogspot.com
the latest news on the freed BBC correspondent, Canadian casualties in Afghanistan, war tax resistance, Iraq, Gaza, Gordon Brown, Iran, missile defense, oil in Africa, nutrition education, polio, and select commentaries
As many in the United States are gathering to celebrate Independence Day, an event I attended last week has me thinking a lot more about the necessity of interdependence…
Last week four other Sojourners staff members and I journeyed to Atlanta for the first ever U.S. Social Forum, whose motto was "Another World is Possible. Another U.S. is Necessary!" It was a gathering of activists who commit "to challenge corporate globalization, its neoliberal policies, and the growing poverty, repression, and war that increasingly defines the dominant global capitalist economic and political systems." With somewhere between 10 and 20 thousand participants, it was a great carnival of peoples' movements, and an invitation to learn how our government's policies and the actions of corporations can disrupt and destroy the lives of those on the bottom.
What I found so hopeful was that the workshops were largely led by ordinary folks who cared deeply about the issues because they had been personally affected by them. For instance, veterans offered ways to build the antiwar movement, farm workers shared stories of poor wages and working conditions, and people of color being displaced by gentrification discussed strategies for achieving affordable housing in their neighborhoods.
Disinterested "experts," a fixture inside the Washington-area beltway, were nowhere to be found. Media-savvy pundits were absent as well. Instead, there were impassioned people talking about harsh realities not up for discussion in Washington or featured in the 24-hour news cycle:
The unintended results of our uncritical embrace of the global free market, including illegal migration
That with over 2.3 million prisoners, a majority of whom are people of color, the United States has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world
The privatization of public goods such as water and schools
The toxic effects of environmental racism
Those outside the power structures—including many participants at USSF 2007—often provide the strongest critique of them, largely because their disenfranchisement leaves them with nothing to lose. They are free to speak the truth as they see it in ways that many of us are not, which can be a liberating (if slow) process for all involved.
Certainly, the forum had its problems, particularly from a Christian perspective. Some of the participants demonstrated support for violence, celebrated an "anything and everything goes" understanding of sexual expression, and practiced silly, new-age style spirituality. It made me thankful for Sojourners, and its long history of presenting a radical biblical alternative to both the Religious Right and the activist Left. That being said, these movements often do a better job than churches and faith-based groups do of letting the poor speak for themselves.
The forum was an invitation for people to look around and realize, as Marvin Gaye put it, "What's going on" in our communities and throughout the world, and an opportunity to organize for change. I pray that the church will side with and celebrate the poor among us, and that we can work together to seek alternatives to the commodification of human life through the market and its domination through militarism.
Tim Kumfer is the executive assistant at Sojourners/Call to Renewal.
I live in a little town called "Scaggsville." I know what you're thinking. But really, it's a great town, nestled in the Patuxent Valley—in the last sliver of green between Washington, D.C., and Baltimore, Md.
Our little neighborhood has put together its own July 4 parade for the last few years. So on the fourth at 11 a.m., my wife and I will walk down the street with folding chairs to the parade route. We'll sit on the sidewalk under a shady oak as a few dozen kids come riding by on their bikes, decorated with streamers and such. We'll cheer and clap and laugh with our neighbors, ooo-ing and aaah-ing as if it were the Rose Bowl Parade or Macy's Thanksgiving Parade or something big and special. Because for us it is.
There will probably be a couple of fire trucks and a couple of pickups—one of which may, if we're lucky, contain some kids putting their music lessons to good use playing patriotic songs. I think we had a unicyclist last year, and one year somebody rode a horse, which was really exciting to see. Lots of people will have flags and some will evoke Mardi Gras by throwing candy to us spectators—who number, by the way, slightly fewer than the marchers because it's a small neighborhood and its so much fun to march.
There will probably be a few stray dogs barking and running rampant, plus other dogs on leashes. You really have your choice in this parade—you can be a spectator or join in at any time. The local sub shop (best in the world in my opinion) will give a prize to the house with the best decorated mailbox ... or maybe it will be for the best parade-participant, or both, I can't remember. It doesn't matter really: the whole thing is a delight, the closest a lot of us will ever feel to a small town parade.
I think I'll especially enjoy this year's parade because like a lot of people, I've been pretty disappointed by what's on the news lately. If you haven't noticed, our government can't seem to get much good done these days, whatever the party, whatever the binary leanings. The whole big top-down system feels like it's reached that moment in the Wizard of Oz when little Toto misbehaves and inadvertently blows the wizard's cover.
Our little neighborhood parade feels more like Dorothy and her ragtag companions, kind of clueless but completely sincere. Our parade represents bottom-up democracy ... people coming together in a neighborhood to do something simply because it's good for the kids and therefore good for us all. Shoot, I might even pump up the tires in my old bike, and if I wave a flag, it will be first and foremost to celebrate Scaggsville-style people-power. God bless America, and God bless all the neighborhoods that, like Scaggsville, know how to pull together for the common good—including the common good of good times.
Brian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) serves as board chair for Sojourners/Call to Renewal. His next book, Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope, will be released in October.
For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become slaves to one another. For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
Reasonable people can disagree about affirmative action. But it is important that we do not lose the sense of history, the compassion and largeness of vision that defined the best of the civil-rights era, which has given rise to so much of what is good about America today.
- Lee Bollinger, President of Columbia University, Newsweek Jan, 2003.
“Do We Still Need Affirmative Action?” was the cover story for the January 27, 2003, issue of Newsweek. It seems that this question will be the subject of dialogues and debates in schools, universities, places of employment, and other settings all over the U.S. in light of the recent Supreme Court decision concerning race and integration in Louisville and Seattle.
Many people are aware of some of the landmark cases. Still, I will name just a few: Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896), Brown vs. Board of Education (1954), University of California vs. Bakke (1978), Grutter vs. Bollinger (2003), and now Meredith vs. Jefferson County Board of Education and Parents Involved in Community Schools vs. Seattle School District (2007). The issue in these cases is the integration of school districts or the use of race as one factor for entrance into some institutions of higher education.
I remember taking an ethics methodology seminar in which one professor reminded us that you cannot do ethics without history. There are two major positions around this issue (with some nuance and complexity around each position). First, some feel that affirmative action policies have already done what they set out to do and that to continue to implement these policies would be, in their eyes, tantamount to “reverse discrimination.” Others feel that affirmative action is still very much needed to prevent re-segregation and exclusionary practices against minorities in higher education and employment, just to mention a couple places. In short, there is a fundamental difference of interpretation as to the benefits of affirmative action and its continued viability at the beginning of the 21st century. The 5 to 4 decision (with a strong dissenting opinion) in the highest court in the land is a manifestation of just how polarized these opinions are.
I have friends who have a strong position against affirmative action because they feel it has worked against them. While I understand this position, here’s what I say in response: Affirmative action policies are an attempt (however imperfect and flawed) to address a historical and still-prevalent gap in society. Due to the history of slavery, Jim Crow segregation, sexism, colonization, and economic disparities, large groups in our society have disproportionately been excluded from access to a good education, meaningful employment, and quality housing. The affirmative action policies are a way to intentionally provide access to a group that has been historically marginalized or excluded. While some progress has been made, much work still has to be done. So if you ask me, “Do We Still Need Affirmative Action?” I will reply, “Absolutely!” Can these policies be improved? Yes, but certainly we are not at the point of abolition, considering the problems solved. This would be a giant step backward and re-segregation would be one ghastly by-product.
As a person of faith who believes in the reign of God, integration is at the heart of my vision of God’s shalom. Neighborhoods and education and employment communities can benefit from diversity and exchange that historically has been missing. Still more important than this is to understand that turning back to the pre-Brown vs. Board of Education days is not to learn from history. Separate often means unequal. This is a question of justice. In the Bible, justice is often translated as righteousness. In the words of Dennis Hollinger, “There are multiple theories of distributive justice; merit, equality, and need.” The issue for our time and place is that we continue to honor merit and value equality without ignoring the blatant disparities that contribute to lack of education, employment, and housing for so many of our fellow human beings across racial, economic, and gender lines. Until the reign of God comes or we can do away with savage inequalities, affirmative action should be part of our national policy.
Rev. Gabriel Salguero is the pastor of the Lamb’s Church of the Nazarene in New York City, a Ph.D. candidate at Union Theological Seminary, and the director of the Hispanic Leadership Program at Princeton Theological Seminary. He is also a board member for Sojourners/Call to Renewal.
The Hebrew prophets warn us that when we don't hold our laws to God's standard of peace and justice, powerful people will use the law as a weapon to crush the poor and advance their own interests. I work with a faith-based organization called Friends of Justice, which organizes in poor communities across Texas and Louisiana to hold our criminal justice system accountable to our nation's highest values. This week, we brought international media attention to a dramatic trial in Jena, Louisiana, to show what happens when our criminal justice system becomes a weapon in the hands of the powerful.
It all started in Jena, Louisiana when white students hung three nooses in a tree at the high school courtyard, to warn black students that only white kids got to sit under the shade of that tree. The nooses appeared after several black students asked a school administrator if they could sit underneath that tree, and the administrator had given them the only answer he could legally give: that they could sit wherever they wanted. But it became obvious where the school administration's sympathies lay. They dismissed the noose incident as an innocent prank and a discipline committee meted out a few days of in-school suspension to the young white men who had taken credit.
The following day, black students staged a spontaneous protest rally under the tree where the nooses had been discovered. Six black male athletes took the lead in this protest. Immediately, the school held an emergency school assembly to address their problem…no, their problem wasn't the hate crime, it was black students protesting the hate crime. With a dozen fully uniformed police officers in the auditorium, the town's District Attorney Reed Walters warned protest organizers that with a stroke of his pen he could take their lives away. After the demonstration under the tree, white teachers branded these six leaders of the protest as "troublemakers": Robert Bailey, Carwin Jones, Mychal Bell, Theodore Shaw, Jesse Beard and Bryant Ray Purvis. Over the next few months, white teachers looked for any reason to crack down on them and brand them as bad kids.
At the end of November, the central academic wing of Jena High School was destroyed by fire (the smoke damage is evident in the picture above). Over the weekend, a stream of white-initiated racial violence swept over the tiny community, adding to the trauma and tension. The following Monday, a white student was punched and kicked following a lunch-hour taunting match. Six black athletes were arrested and charged with conspiracy to attempt second-degree murder—for a schoolyard fight in which no one was seriously injured. After Friends of Justice attracted international media attention to the "Jena 6," the district attorney was forced to lower the charges, but not by much. D.A. Walters was confident that he could get an all-white jury to convict these young men, no matter what the evidence.
He was right. Last Thursday, June 28, 2007, Mychal Bell was convicted of aggravated second degree assault and conspiracy to commit secondary degree aggravated assault. The alleged assault was "aggravated" because a dangerous weapon was used—namely tennis shoes. Mychal is a strong student who planned to go to college, but he could be 40 before he gets out of prison.
Mychal's defense attorney didn't even try to mount a defense. He could have called reliable witnesses to the stand to testify that Mychal didn't throw a punch in this fight. Most of the prosecution's witnesses who fingered Mychal as a "ring leader" in this fight had changed their stories in recent weeks: When they were first interviewed, none of them could even remember if Mychal had even been present at the fight. They only remembered that a bunch of "black kids" were there. But after the town's white community identified Mychal as a "troublemaker" for protesting the hate crime, these witnesses "remembered" that Mychal was the instigator in the fight. Psychologists tell us that memory is notoriously unreliable, and that social pressure motivates people to "remember" what suits them.
All over our country, young black males have been so demonized by our culture that it is almost impossible for them to get a fair trial. We know that our criminal justice system defies God's purposes when young black men are prosecuted for attempted murder for a school fight while their town stands behind the perpetrators of a hate crime. In Jena—as in Iraq—our nation is learning the hard way that true peace only flows from justice.
But politicians will never stand up for poor black teenagers like Mychal Bell unless people of faith embarrass them into doing the right thing. The church must witness to God's purposes for the criminal justice system. Our God is a God of justice, who holds judges and rulers to account when they crush people who are made in God's image. If we want to be the people of God, we must defend equal justice for the poor. If Christians hold out this prophetic vision, we will inspire Americans from all traditions to hold our government to a higher standard.
Lydia Bean is a founding member of Friends of Justice and a doctoral candidate in sociology at Harvard University. To get involved, you can visit the Friends of Justice blog, make a donation, and sign up for Action Updates. Hear a song about Jena, "Sitting on the Wall," performed by Alan and Lydia Bean at the Pentecost 2007 conference. (Refresh your browser if the song doesn't load correctly.)
Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will.
To my fellow Americans running for the office of the presidency:
I was an attendant of the recent Sojourners conference in Washington, D.C. Unfortunately, before the forum could take place, I was called to Rome on behalf of Iraq Veterans Against the War, an organization made up exclusively of service members of every branch who aim to end the very conflict they have served or are currently serving in. It was my sincere desire to be a part of the Vote Out Poverty campaign that met with much success on Capitol Hill. I was unable to remain in D.C., however, because I was invited by the Italian peace movement to speak on behalf of the growing number of Americans (in particular, the 450 service members represented by IVAW) who disapprove of the current administration’s policies and practices. Please permit me to submit my own question for your reflection, as well as the reflection of innumerable Americans charged with deciding the fate our beloved country.
Over four years, 4 billion dollars, and 3,000 lives ago, our nation was drawn into a conflict that few of our number now believe was initiated with our collective interests or values in mind. As a proud and decorated veteran of this conflict, I have suffered for and served my country with distinction and honor. However, my dreams and quiet moments have been mercilessly violated by the voices of the victims of our national terrorism. In Iraq, their liberation has cost as many as 655,000 Iraqis their lives. Their cries, and those of their families, have been uttered amidst a flood of sweat, tears, and all too much of their own blood.
I recognize and am troubled by the deep significance of the crossroads that lay before us. We should not underestimate the ramifications should we continue our course in the Middle East. Our armed forces face a critical point, in which our humble servants within the military are tasked with repeated deployments, extended tours, and likely conscription even after discharge. In the last year alone, the national GI Rights Hotline and the Center for Conscience and War fielded a record-breaking number of inquiries. Desertions and AWOL/UA reports have reached an alarming number, and many of my honorably discharged comrades face attacks on their free speech by the very institutions they served in defense of such freedoms. America is at a critical juncture that we must not ignore.
We cannot face issues of poverty without acknowledging the greatest architect of economic injustice nationally and globally: our own war upon the poor of the world. At home, the poorest neighborhoods face the highest concentration of military recruitment efforts. Abroad, our U.S. foreign policy has historically empowered the greatest enemies of liberty we have known, such as Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. We steal from our own school systems, homeless shelters, and medical institutions as we feed the military industrial complex year after year, with 41 percent of each dollar going into war, preparations, and reparations for war. We currently are at a point of deep moral and ethical crisis, one which demands our attention.
Not long ago, within the living memory of many of our citizens, America had great leaders who were not afraid or ashamed to live by principles, and not merely politics. Public figures such as John and Robert Kennedy and Marin Luther King approached the massive injustices of war and poverty despite intense pressure and threats on their very lives. In this time of immense tumult within the American consciousness, we need a real leader. How will history remember you if elected to the presidency? For your acquiescence to the status quo, to “politics as usual,” or for your profound moral courage and commitment to true freedom at home and overseas? Our country eagerly awaits your considered response.
Logan M. Laituri is a U.S. Army veteran of the war in Iraq who declared himself a conscientious objector and is now a social justice activist.
During Hamas' military takeover of Gaza in recent weeks, one of their biggest Fatah targets lay just behind a Greek Orthodox school in Gaza City. A friend of mine who lives near the school, himself a Christian and a Fatah security member, told me that Fatah security forces stationed themselves on the roof of the school building during attacks on their headquarters. Like many buildings that were used as strongholds during the fighting, the doors were blown open with a rocket-propelled grenade to ensure no resistance from inside. As widely reported in Western media, the chapel and the nun’s living quarters were vandalized, crosses were broken, and equipment was stolen. Looters were likely the perpetrators of this vandalism; Hamas was fighting a war, after all. Sadly, during the course of the chaotic fighting in Gaza this month many shops and homes were similarly looted.
I cannot excuse it, but I am reminded of a World Bank report, which stated that since 2000 the economic losses in Gaza have been more severe than those suffered during the Great Depression in the U.S. By 2002 the decline in real per capita GDP was almost 40 percent. In Gaza people are desperate. The world’s response to Hamas’ military takeover is even stricter closure. It is not just the Christians who are living in fear but rather the whole population; not just Christians in Gaza would leave here if they were given the opportunity.
Within days of the attack on the school, Hamas had identified some of the thieves and returned six stolen computers. Gaza’s Catholic priest, Emanuel Mussalam, was interviewed on Hamas radio, calling for the man who had ordered the forced entry into the chapel to be put on trial.
In light of the constantly deteriorating situation in Gaza, extremism has been on the rise and many unheard-of groups have formed, often in the name of Islam and with a fundamentalist agenda. These groups have carried out attacks against Internet cafes, cultural centers, and at times Christian entities, all in the name of religion.
Religious extremism is bound to rise up under conditions like those in Gaza. A number of times people I have visited who have lost multiple family members or their homes have told me that they have no where to turn but to God. I hope I could say the same if I ever find myself in a similar situation. Were these conditions to take place in the West, I think many suicides would be reported. Suicide is unacceptable in Arab society, and yet people are looking for a savior. The temptation of violence in the name of religion is one such idol.
None of these actions can be excused. But as outsiders we must look at the broader context. What is the root of the problem? Is it only the perpetrators that need to be condemned?
What Hamas carried out in Gaza practically took the shape of a coup, but one may ask: How does an elected government perpetrate a coup d’etat? Despite their election victory in 2006—an election that was largely forced by the U.S. policy of “democratization” of the region—Fatah, with the backing of the West and Israel, did not accept or consent to the outcome. Lawlessness peaked during the past year and a half for two reasons: First, the desperation in light of the economic siege placed on the Gaza Strip because of the Hamas government. Second, the existence of two governments and thus two security forces competing with each other, leading to chaos. The U.S. started funding Fatah to counter Hamas’ strength—a policy that for many Americans should bring to mind the Banana Republics of Latin America. This month Hamas responded with force, seeking to disable those security bodies that were receiving outside funds. What followed was four days of heavy fighting, over 100 deaths, and a Gaza Strip governed by just one political entity, Hamas.
One taxi driver explained life in Gaza this way: “Security is more important than bread, because what does one do with all the money in the world if you don’t have security to keep you alive to enjoy it?” Another driver told me a man can’t get married and say to his wife, “Good morning, habibti, my love,” and then disappear for the rest of the day without providing for her and their home. The first man is pointing out the positive—since their military takeover, Hamas has brought security. The second is speaking of the deteriorating economic conditions that were furthered by Hamas' actions, a fear that has gripped much of the population because of the uncertainty of the future.
Philip Rizk is an Egyptian-German Christian who has lived in Gaza since August 2004, where he works and writes. He blogs at: tabulagaza.com
The latest news on Israel-Palestine, Iran, Anti-poverty efforts in Africa, Massachusetts heath insurance, immigration, Supreme Court analysis, poll of policiatl independents, President Bush, and select commentaries.
When the men had come to him, they said, "John the Baptist has sent us to you to ask, "Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?' " Jesus had just then cured many people of diseases, plagues, and evil spirits, and had given sight to many who were blind. And he answered them, "Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news brought to them. And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me."
It is easier for a feeble straw to resist a mighty fire than for the nature of sin to resist the power of love. We must cultivate this love in our souls, that we may take our place with all the saints, for they were all-pleasing unto God through their love for their neighbor.
Copyright (c) 2006 Beliefnet, Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this site is subject to Terms
of Service and to our
Privacy Policy.
Constructed by Beliefnet.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Earlier this month marked four years since President Bush issued the following brazen pronouncement about our presence in Iraq: "There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. 
A Baptist church rooted deep in the heart of Red-State, Bible-Belt America might not be the place you’d expect to see people of faith rallying behind a Christian social justice agenda. 
Ray LaMontagne’s recent album "Till the Sun Turns Black" ends with one of the most beautiful songs about peacemaking I’ve ever heard—in which he simply repeats the refrain "War is not the answer, the answer is within you" over the most delicately lilting instrumentation. It’s the kind of sentiment that could be accused of being too vague to have any practical meaning, but warm and positive enough to be popular. But there’s something about it that feels deeper than that.
Gareth Higgins is a Christian writer and activist in Belfast, Northern Ireland. For the past decade he was the founder/director of the zero28 project, an initiative addressing questions of peace, justice, and culture. He is the author of the insightful 
While the rest of the world buried its collective nose in Harry Potter last weekend, I spent my time reading early Christianity. It proved a tough call: The fate of Hogwarts or the Roman Empire? I chose Constantine over Voldemort.
For those who'll accuse me of Bush-bashing, the headline was Christianity Today's. Ted Olsen has an interesting 
An interview with Rev. Dr. Mitri Raheb, general director, 
I've seen two powerful documentaries over the past week: Michael Moore's new film Sicko, and the lesser-known Manufactured Landscapes. Both films are intensely political, but the contrast in their approach is striking. 
Mary Nelson is president emeritus of 
In the few weeks of the defense authorization debate in the Senate, Republican senators began falling like dominoes—Chuck Hagel (NE), Susan Collins (ME), Richard Lugar (IN), George Voinovich (OH), Pete Domenici (NM), Olympia Snowe (ME), and even John Warner (VA) are looking for a way out, although not all are willing to vote for a withdrawal timetable. The 
A friend recently brought to my attention the July 8, 2007, 
A 6.8-magnitude earthquake shook Japan on Monday. The quake caused a leak of radioactive water at the Kashiwazaki Kariwa nuclear power plant—and that should shake the rest of the world. 
I feel for the pope. I really do. On the one hand, whenever he travels, he's expected to make nice with everyone in his host country. To that end, he meets with Protestants and Orthodox, Jews and Muslims. They exchange pleasantries and have photo shoots. But then he gets back to the Vatican, and he must feel compelled to remind the one billion Roman Catholics in the world that 
Sinead O’Connor’s not angry anymore; or at least not angry in the same way. Her tearing up of a photo of Pope John Paul II on Saturday Night Live 15 years ago, combined with what we think we know about her ordination into an unofficial offshoot of the Catholic church, give a convenient excuse for people to ignore her. This is a pity, because it makes us forget that she produced one of the only memorable and honest songs about love in the 1990s, her cover version of Prince’s "Nothing Compares 2 U," and one of the most beautiful hymns of spiritual comfort (1997’s "This is to Mother You" on her Gospel Oak EP). 
We don’t need another election. We need an exorcism. It is this that leads me from vigil to vigil and I burned with it on the evening of March 16, when I participated in nonviolent civil resistance and was arrested with more than 200 others as part of the 
Many conscientious service members have been speaking out despite an often oppressive and unforgiving atmosphere. Some of us have even been 
Logan Laituri is a six-year Army veteran with combatant service in Iraq during OIF II and experience with Christian Peacemaker Teams in Israel and the West Bank. He is an active member of 
Reading about the 
If a glacier falls into the ocean, and no one is there to record it, did it really happen? Perhaps anticipating the question, artist 
Why would a congregation 
Great helicopters and explosions abound, the witticisms are barbed, and the cinematography is silver-grey in Die Hard 4.0 (or Live Free or Die Hard, depending on which empire you see it in). I was tired to start with, but the film couldn't wake me up. I vacillated between being bored and horrified, as Bruce Willis yet again stands in for the lone American male whose first resort is always violence (in the first film he was the archetype of a Vietnam War vet, assailed by terrorists on the one hand, and a frustrating civil service bureaucracy on the other; this time he clearly represents the guy who'd go to Iraq just because it's the right thing to do, even though he knows the government sending him is corrupt). 
Mark Tooley of the Institute on Religion and Democracy is so eager to attack Sojourners that he rarely pays attention to the facts. And, we usually ignore his smear tactics. But there are occasions when he steps over the line. His recent column, "
Among the many important causes Sojourners lends its energies to, I have come to understand that "family values" hovers at the top of the list. I must confess that it took me a long while to figure this out. The single thing I most admire about Sojourners is its commitment to broadening the faith-based agenda in this country. That is, to broaden and deepen the conversation to issues such as global poverty, global climate change, and HIV/AIDS. The divisive rhetoric of so-called "family values" from prominent conservative evangelical organizations—who use it as an effective media sound bite—has disillusioned enough people from political engagement, not to mention the Christian faith itself. 
Brian McLaren (
The Hebrew prophets warn us that when we don't hold our laws to God's standard of peace and justice, powerful people will use the law as a weapon to crush the poor and advance their own interests. I work with a faith-based organization called 
To my fellow Americans running for the office of the presidency:
