I'm still "down under" -- wrapping up my book tour in Australia.  The news from the U.S. reminds me of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s first act on the day after his swearing in as prime minister.  In a moving speech, he delivered a speech of apology to the aboriginal people.

Tuesday, for the first time, the U.S. House of Representatives passed an official apology for slavery and segregation.  Over the past few years, five southern states have apologized, but efforts in Congress had failed. Congress has issued apologies before, to Japanese-Americans for their internment during World War II and to native Hawaiians for the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom in 1893. In 2005, the Senate apologized for failing to pass anti-lynching laws. But never for slavery.

It is appropriate, because ultimately it was government policies that were both complicit in and directly responsible for this great inhumanity and injustice. Nobody alive in America today participated in slavery, many have no ancestors who did, and large numbers of families came to this land only after slavery was officially abolished -- but all white Americans have benefited from the poisonous legacy of slavery and discrimination.

The language of the resolution is clear on the importance of apologizing as a step forward. After recounting the evil of slavery, it concludes:

Whereas a genuine apology is an important and necessary first step in the process of racial reconciliation;

Whereas an apology for centuries of brutal dehumanization and injustices cannot erase the past, but confession of the wrongs committed can speed racial healing and reconciliation and help Americans confront the ghosts of their past;

Whereas it is important for this country, which legally recognized slavery through its Constitution and its laws, to make a formal apology for slavery and for its successor, Jim Crow, so that it can move forward and seek reconciliation, justice, and harmony for all of its citizens: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) acknowledges that slavery is incompatible with the basic founding principles recognized in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal;

(2) acknowledges the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow;

(3) apologizes to African Americans on behalf of the people of the United States, for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow; and

(4) expresses its commitment to rectify the lingering consequences of the misdeeds committed against African Americans under slavery and Jim Crow and to stop the occurrence of human rights violations in the future.

I hope the Senate will quickly pass a parallel resolution and that President Bush will publicly endorse it.  It would be an important day in U.S. history.

Kosher law forbids you from boiling a calf in its mother's milk. But how are human mothers who work in slaughterhouses being treated? In the wake of revelations about the working conditions at kosher slaughterhouses, some rabbis are demanding a higher standard of worker treatment -- and they're willing to lay down the law. It is estimated that more than 350,000 U.S. households keep kosher, or follow the strict set of dietary laws outlined by the Hebrew Bible. Before the May immigration raids in Postville, Iowa, the Agriprocessors plant there run by an Orthodox family supplied 60 percent of the nation's kosher beef and 40 percent of the kosher poultry.

Stories are pouring out of Postville about the inhumane treatment of the immigrant workers. Underage workers were arrested in the raids, some as young as 13. Many workers were forced to put in overtime without extra pay or breaks. Vulnerable people were exploited by religious business owners who systematically violated immigration and workplace laws. Rabbi Morris Allen had firsthand experience with the workers and their conditions in Postville and decided a moral response was necessary.

His alternative certification philosophy is rising in popularity and has been endorsed by several progressive Jewish groups. Hekhsher Tzedek, which means "certificate of righteousness" in Hebrew, goes a step beyond current kosher guidelines. An additional seal of approval on existing kosher meat products would mean it was processed and packaged in compliance with a set of social justice criteria in keeping with the teachings of the Jewish faith, including wages and benefits, workplace safety, environmental impact, and corporate transparency.

Many people may not have known about the worker injustices at a meat plant in a small Iowa town, but the raid has sent aftershocks felt by those who keep kosher at the dinner table. The Boston Globe published an article about the differing opinions of Orthodox and Conservative Jews on the issue and responses to Rabbi Allen's proposed certification. If anything, the Postville raid has opened up conversations about how people of faith look at the products they consume and the value we place on the treatment of those who prepare it. We should not allow this issue to focus on just the kosher meat industry. Rather, we should be compelled to look at where all our food comes from and explore ways to spend our dollars that support businesses that treat their employees with dignity and value justice in the workplace.

Allison Johnson is the policy and organizing assistant for Sojourners.

Tragically, the culture war crossed over fighting words to shooting bullets. Once again, a community of faith was caught in the crossfire. While 25 children sang songs from "Annie," a gunman fired three shotgun blasts inside the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church. The seven people shot and two people murdered on Sunday morning are the latest victims of the culture war.  

Sadly, this wasn't the first shooting to occur at a house of worship in the U.S. and not likely to be the last. Do we remember the four teenagers and three adults who were murdered at Wedgwood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas, in 1999? Two more died at New Life Church in Colorado Springs last December. In each case, the shooter turned his frustration with particular religious expressions into an occasion to kill. (And as a nation we continue to support the right to shoot others over sane gun control policies -- but that deserves its own separate conversation).  

While many evangelicals celebrated Cassie Bernall and Rachel Scott as martyrs who died for their Christian convictions at Columbine High School, I wonder if we will extend the same heroism to the victims in Tennessee? Evidently, usher Greg McKendry shielded the children performing selections from "Annie" and took the brunt of the shotgun blast. A retired schoolteacher, Linda Kraeger, also died from gunshot wounds. She was merely visiting the church. In both Columbine and Knoxville, the cowardly shooters took out their grudges upon innocent victims. Those with a conservative faith died at Columbine. Those with liberal beliefs perished in Tennessee. We mourn for them all.

The shooter in Tennessee, Jim Adkisson, has been identified as an unemployed divorcee. A four-page note found in his car described his contempt for liberals. When the system failed to work (evidently, his food stamps had just run out), Adkisson took up arms, aiming at those he had been trained to hate -- gays and liberals. 

Why did he single out Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalists? Evidently, the church recently posted a sign welcoming gays to their congregation. It set off a firestorm on conservative and Christian talk radio in East Tennessee. I found this online:

The specific chain of events that brought Jim Adkisson to the TVUC sanctuary was a recent decision to erect a sign specifically welcoming LGBT people into the congregation. That choice evidently set off a firestorm in the local right-wing community with the specific church and its location named repeatedly on right-wing and evangelical radio. The gunman, already looking for someone to take out his rage on, evidently took the path of local least resistance.  At any rate, while I'm not sure it's even worth assigning blame, it's not likely that Jim Adkisson would have driven the ten miles from his exurban hovel to my family's church if he hadn't learned what he needed about where to go on the radio.

While ultimate responsibility resides with the shooters, we can also connect these deaths to too much toxic talk radio. Both the left and the right play the blame-game all day long. On talk radio, my problems are always somebody else's fault.

This is the kind of tragedy that occurs when we adopt war rhetoric, turning our fellow Americans into enemies. Both sides have effectively demonized the opposition, laying blame for our problems at others' feet. Would it "kill" talk radio announcers to tone down their tenor for the sake of the common good? Could they sacrifice a few ratings points by refusing to serve the red meat their most radicalized listeners relish? Can we discipline ourselves to change the channel when the scapegoating begins?

I still recall my shock and horror when Paul Hill murdered Dr. John Britton in the name of "life." How could a graduate of Reformed Theological Seminary and an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church of America take up arms, killing in the name of God? I recently saw the chilling documentary Lake of Fire, which illustrates all the tragedies surrounding the fight over abortion. Director Tony Kaye captured early footage of Paul Hill, boldly proclaiming death sentences upon abortion providers. Lake of Fire also presents the horrors of an abortion procedure, including the emotional trauma that also follows. This even-handed movie leaves you with an enormous amount of sadness. There are no winners in Tony Kaye's bold documentary (or in our current culture war).

In response to all the overheated rhetoric, I created a documentary, Purple State of Mind, with my college roommate, John Marks. As I was entering the Christian faith 20 years ago, John was exiting. We revisited that crossing as an example of a constructive dialogue across the religious and political divide. Purple State of Mind is rooted in the profound hope that we can co-exist despite our differences. But plenty of patient listening must precede that fragile peace. We will not get there by burying our differences, but by bearing one another's burdens enroute.

I write this with a fair amount of trepidation. To promote peace to a war-mongering people can get you in trouble. I don't want to be placed on anybody's hit list. I do not want to put my children in the line of fire because I extend an olive branch toward atheists, homosexuals, or anyone else deemed "other" by the conservative Christian community. Churchgoers in Fort Worth, Texas, Colorado Springs, and Knoxville want to worship in freedom rather than fear. When something your pastor says or your congregation does can get you killed, we live in decidedly dangerous times. Heaven help us all to cease fire.

Craig Detweiler directs the Reel Spirituality Institute at Fuller Theological Seminary. He blogs at www.purplestateofmind.com. His new book, Into the Dark, searches for the sacred amidst the top-ranked films on the Internet Movie Database.  

"Take care that you do not despise one of these little ones; for, I tell you, in heaven their angels continually see the face of my Father in heaven. What do you think? If a shepherd has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. So it is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones should be lost.

- Matthew 18:10-14

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

The latest news on Immigrants, Housing bill signed, AIDS bill signed, Consumer safety, Low-income workers, Olmert to resign, Darfur, Iran, Iraq, Terrorism, Brazil, Food crisis, Pakistan, Canada, E-mail, and Opinion.

+ Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

I know how very hard it is to be rich and still keep the mild of human kindness. Money has a dangerous way of putting scales on one's eyes, a dangerous way of freezing people's hands, eyes, lips and heart.

- Dom Helder Camara
Brazilian archbishop

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

Some compelling quotes from a recent Rand Corp. study caught my eye in today's Washington Post -- the emphasis is added:

The Bush administration's terrorism-fighting strategy has not significantly undermined al-Qaeda's capabilities, according to a major new study that argues the struggle against terrorism is better waged by law enforcement agencies than by armies.

The study by the nonpartisan Rand Corp. also contends that the administration committed a fundamental error in portraying the conflict with al-Qaeda as a "war on terrorism." The phrase falsely suggests that there can be a battlefield solution to terrorism, and symbolically conveys warrior status on terrorists, it said.

"Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors," authors Seth Jones and Martin Libicki write.

I was immediately reminded that the law enforcement approach was a position Jim Wallis took in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 -- long before the Bush administration's failures had created the political space for such concepts to be found in mainstream media. Jim wrote (emphasis added):

I’ve advocated the mobilization of the most extensive international and diplomatic pressure the world has ever seen against bin Laden and his networks of terror—focusing the world’s political will, intelligence, security, legal action, and police enforcement against terrorism. The international community must dry up the terrorists’ financial networks, isolate them politically, discredit them before an international tribunal, and expose the ugly brutality behind their terror. ...

I am increasingly convinced that the way forward may be found in the wisdom gained in the practice of conflict resolution and the energy of a faith-based commitment to peacemaking. For example, most nonviolence advocates, even pacifists, support the role of police in protecting people in their neighborhoods. Perhaps it is time to explore a theology for global police forces, including ethics for the use of internationally sanctioned enforcement—precisely as an alternative to war.

An I-told-you-so attitude is unseemly when it comes to the thousands upon thousands of lives lost in this conflict -- and not just those of U.S. forces and those killed by U.S. forces, but also those killed by continued terrorist attacks. Here's a sobering fact from the Rand study:

Addressing the U.S. campaign against al-Qaeda, the study noted successes in disrupting terrorist financing, but said the group remains a formidable foe. Al-Qaeda is "strong and competent," and has succeeded in carrying out more violent attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, than in all of its previous history.

The point is not to say "I told you so," but to continue to press for a smarter and more effective response to the very real threat of terror. Now that groups with such Beltway insider credibility as Rand are on record, perhaps future administrations can pursue such strategies with new courage.

Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the Web Editor for Sojourners.

The Dark Knight, unlike many summer blockbusters, is actually an astonishing movie -- a stunning fusion of craft and entertainment, which manages to be both gripping in an edge-of-your seat fashion, and philosophically interesting. It's a violent film in which none of the brutality is played for the audience's pleasure, and although it's a comic book story, it takes place in a world that feels authentic -- one of phone books, champagne glasses, and real crime happening to real people.

However, it has been difficult to find interpretations of this new Batman film that delve beneath the surface sheen of sexy black vehicles and leather tights, or the morbid fascination with the late Heath Ledger's performance (admittedly extraordinary -- and so obviously based on Tom Waits that that growly-voiced minstrel deserves the Oscar too, even though he's not in the movie) as the Joker. For most people, The Dark Knight simply tells an archetypal story of a hero who loses (or mislays) his own soul in the attempt at bringing justice to the world. Gotham City in this film feels like many Western urban capitals -- oversized, noisy, with a slightly sinister edge, and the site for a battle of wills between criminals, local government, and the police.  The citizens watch in horror as the newly-anointed godfather of the most ethnically diverse Mafia in cinema history plays games with their lives, and they rely on the man in the cape with the really cool gadgets to "clean up the streets." Mix in some typical comic book stuff about good guys and bad guys being two sides of the same coin (almost literally, in the case of DA Harvey Dent), a couple of spectacular action sequences, a love interest, and there you have it: the blockbuster hit of the summer.

But The Dark Knight is much more than this. It's one of the most politically interesting (and provocative) films of recent years -- but it seems that only The Wall Street Journal has noticed. Only half-marks to the WSJ, I'm afraid, for although they recognize the fact that this film relates nothing less than the story of the "war on terror," they go on to suggest that it is a "paean of praise to President Bush." I beg to differ, for although it's impossible to tell whether or not the movie is pro-neocon without getting inside the head of co-writers Christopher and Jonathan Nolan, just because Batman does something doesn't mean we're supposed to like it.

Oh Batman, Oh Batman, how shall I compare thee to a Fox News Talking Points memo? Let me count the ways.

The film takes place in a world where ordinary rules don't apply. There is an irrational evil threatening the good people of Gotham City/New York/USA, in the form of the Joker/al Qaeda (never mind the fact that those who claim to speak for al Qaeda do not generally present their political aims as anything other than rational). Mainstream methods of law enforcement (jury trials, accountable policing) have failed to prevent acts of terror, and to bring the perpetrators to justice. Early on, Batman travels to Hong Kong and kidnaps a criminal banker, carrying out a rendition so extraordinary it involves putty explosives and an airplane with a human scoop attached (he gets the idea from his mentor, Lucius Fox, who himself says he got it from an experimental CIA program from the 1960s). Questions of prisoner abuse and the use of torture are raised explicitly -- with the Joker waving a bat-mask in front of the face of a terrified captive in a manner that can only evoke the images of Abu Ghraib; Batman beating a suspect into revealing the location of -- wait for it -- not one, but two ticking bombs; and the judicious placement of dozens of men in orange jumpsuits being ferried from an island jail. Beyond the allusion to the post-9/11 icons of Iraq, waterboarding, and Guantanamo Bay, The Dark Knight also manages to take in the relationship between the U.S. and China, where, lest we forget, the political class is currently engaged in discussions about how to manage America's decline.

But ultimately this film is about society's desire for a scapegoat. "You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain," say at least two of the characters, and it climaxes with Batman on the run from the authorities because people have started to blame him for what is wrong with their lives. In this regard, the film ends on a note that either satirizes or endorses the view that George W. Bush has been a shining hero, defending the free world from masked evil. I tend to think that the film comes down on the side of the angels rather than the hawks, in the way it raises the prospect that violence meeting violence produces only more violence. Indeed, the most hopeful and heroic act in the whole story comes from one of the men in an orange jumpsuit. But these things can be read a number of ways, and I could be wrong. In fact, I'm pretty sure that in spite of the film's extraordinary quality, the politics of The Dark Knight are so subtle that this movie will be a great comfort to President Bush in his retirement.
 

Dr. Gareth Higgins is a writer and broadcaster from Belfast, northern Ireland, who has worked as an academic and activist. He is the author of the insightful How Movies Helped Save My Soul: Finding Spiritual Fingerprints in Culturally Significant Films. He blogs at www.godisnotelsewhere.blogspot.com and co-presents "The Film Talk" podcast with Jett Loe at www.thefilmtalk.com

On March 19, Israeli forces rounded up Assad Salach and his sons, Fahmi and Salach, and Assad's brother Sa'id and his son Ghassan -- along with more than 300 men age 16 and above -- along its northern border with the Gaza Strip. It is not the first time Israel has arrested the male members of the Salach family.

These days when militants launch homemade Qassam rockets into Israel from the Gaza Strip, they are usually launched from within the cities, not these border areas. Thus, it makes little sense for these men to be arrested solely for security purposes. Rather, it seems to be a method of pushing the families inhabiting the border areas into the cities and deserting their only source of income, their land. Israel is successfully destroying the potential of the fruit basket of the densely populated Strip. The once-luscious green land is now reduced to an arid no-man's-land, easily overseeable by Israel's security towers and drones overlooking it all. The economic crisis caused by this ongoing, intentional de-development of Gaza's economy is destroying the society's makeup.

The Salach's main family home was destroyed in 2001. Eight Israeli bulldozers crossed the nearby border and flattened the fields. Shortly thereafter, they came back and flattened the home with some family members still inside. That day Abu Assad, the Salach family grandfather, had a stroke, and he and his wife, Om Assad, were taken to the hospital. By the end of the day, Om Assad had lost her husband, her home, and the trees that had adorned the family's fields. She moved half a kilometer down the road to her other son's home. Today, Israel has taken him as well.

Despite a cease-fire, five of the Salach family members remain imprisoned without even a court case. Their fields still lie in ruin as the Israeli army fires at them when they try and approach it. Their old home remains demolished while the memories of the past continue to haunt them daily.

Assad and Sa'id used to collect the tank shells, things of ugliness, which Israel fired on them as they tended to their goats and fields. They would paint them, fill them with flowers, and turn them into vases -- things of beauty. "The day they started doing that the Israelis almost completely stopped firing at us," Assad's wife told me. As soon as the media spread pictures of their act -- turning death into life, ugliness into beauty -- the shells stopped falling. When the men were detained, so were the vases.

Philip Rizk is an Egyptian-German Christian who lived and worked in Gaza from 2005-2007. He is currently working on a documentary film, which is described at thispalestinianlife.blogspot.com.

Help me, O Lord my God! Save me according to your steadfast love.Let them know that this is your hand; you, O Lord, have done it.Let them curse, but you will bless. Let my assailants be put to shame; may your servant be glad.

- Psalm 109:26-28

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

We are going to render an account to God, not only for our idle words, but also for our ill-considered silence.

--John Trithemius

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

The latest news on Slavery apology, Sen. Stevens indicted, Homeless, AIDS-Black America, AIDS-global, Al Qaeda, Iran Afghanistan, Trade negotiations, Israel, Palestine, Karadzic extradited, Chile, and Opinion.

+ Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

MoveOn.org pioneered the art of online political advocacy. As it celebrates its 10th anniversary, it can look at enormous successes and a host of new questions. Do politicians take mass e-mails seriously? Is advocacy by e-mail being replaced by text messaging and social networking? Can online activism be turned into on-the-ground organizing? They're questions that face every organization now using the same methods.

Duane Shank is the senior policy adviser for Sojourners.

All of us who choose to vote must base our vote on something.

For some people, it's party. They're Democrats or Republicans and from election to election, they support whomever the party serves up. For others, it's a litmus-test issue -- abortion, homosexuality, war, whatever. For others, it's fear or hope or some other "gut-level" appeal -- whoever scares or inspires them the most gets their vote. And for still others, it's a "group thing" -- they belong to a group (a race, a religion, an interest group, trade union, a social class, or whatever) that issues a statement on which candidate is most attractive to their group, and that's who wins their vote.

For many of us, none of these factors are satisfying.

My faith and commitment as a follower of Jesus won't let me decide based solely on party, litmus test, emotional appeal, or group affiliation. Rather than voting along party lines, I evaluate each candidate on his or her merits. I don't have a single litmus-test issue -- I see a wide range of issues that are all in play with varying degrees of weight. (More on this in a future post.) While I realize that both hope and fear have a role in all my decisions ... I don't want to be swayed by emotion alone. And because my faith commits me to a concern for "the common good," I can't simply let the interests of the groups I am part of determine my vote, but I must have a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, and must even take the needs of my enemies into account.

That, by the way, means I can't simply vote on what's best for Christians, or Protestants, or evangelicals, or whatever. My Christian commitment obligates me to ask what's best for Muslims, Jews, atheists, Buddhists, and others. And my understanding of environmental stewardship obligates me to ask what's best for birds of the air, flowers of the field, and fish of the sea too. Since they don't have a vote, I need to try to speak on their behalf. And as a citizen of God's kingdom, which transcends all national boundaries, I can't simply vote based on what's best for U.S. citizens: My vote has to have in mind the good of Mexicans, Canadians, Iraqis, Iranians, Chinese, and Burundians as well.

In this way, my faith doesn't make my voting easier ... it calls me away from a broad and easy highway to the voting booth to a rough and challenging path. Harder, yes, but for me, better by far.

Brian McLaren is an author and speaker and serves as Sojourners' board chair. You can learn about his books, music, and other resources at brianmclaren.net.

Andrew Berg, an International Monetary Fund African department policy adviser, is a nice man. I know this because he spent some time talking earnestly with me after an IMF press conference in which I'd asked a pretty confrontational question about Malawi, whose 2002 famine is often partly attributed to IMF (and World Bank) advice, and whose current bumper crops are attributed to ignoring it.

Berg looks a tiny bit like The X Files' Agent Skinner, but what this conversation brought into focus for me is that the IMF is not a vast conspiracy of evil, cigarette-smoking men. It's a large, overly influential group of people who earnestly push policies that are often disastrous.

While many civil society advocates insist the IMF is imposing its will wholesale on poor countries, it insists it's just inspiring them to choose sound policies. Given the huge power imbalance here -- very poor countries often need IMF approval to help get other international loans and aid -- many critics, like me, view the IMF's claim as a farce. Berg's and his colleages' earnestness, however, convinced me that they genuinely believe they're empowering government officials to do the right economic thing in the face of their citizens' political pressure to, say, raise the salaries of civil servants when the price of food shoots up.

And the IMF's critics, including me, are wrong sometimes in blaming the IMF rather than other challenges poor countries face. Take Malawi's 2002 famine. After talking with Berg, I did more research, and discovered that he was basically right: The famine really was caused much more by bad (and likely corrupt) national governance, bad forecasts, bad weather, and bad roads, rather than by the country's agreement with the IMF to partly reduce maize reserves. (I wasn't taking Berg's word for this, but rather frequent IMF critic ActionAid's.)

It was clear that folks at the IMF did care about the food crisis (and, at least somewhat, about years of criticism from advocates for the poor). Berg agreed that policies like grain reserves should be considered on a country-by-country basis, and he was strongly supportive of crop insurance for small farmers. The IMF panelists I heard said that governments should respond to the food crisis by spending money on social safety nets. This may signal a partial change from the IMF's traditional preoccupation with cutting government spending, partly so governments can make national debt payments and partly on the theory that government spending would somehow "crowd out" otherwise-eager private investment.

Overall, though, the IMF is still disastrously wrong in its unjustified overemphasis on "market signals." Take Malawi's current abundance of grain, which happened largely because the government decided to subsidize fertilizer. In recent decades, various international "experts" have advised many poor countries to stop helping their farmers with affordable loans, seeds, and fertilizer. The theory was that it would be better for farmers to buy these things themselves after selling their crops on the world market -- a great idea if it worked, which it really hasn't.

Malawi's fertilizer program ran directly counter to the advice of the World Bank (which has since repented). And this advice was seconded by IMF executive directors' brief expression of concern last year that Malawi's "government interventions in grain and fertilizer markets have continued to impede private sector development." (At the same time, the IMF assented to the need to "protect ... pro-poor spending," and a recent IMF report says its Malawi staff is now "generally supportive" of the fertilizer program).

Perhaps the most relevant kind of market signal is the way in which, over the last four years, almost all the middle-income countries who had borrowed from the IMF (including 90 percent of its loan portfolio) have run for the exits to escape the IMF's policy, um, advice -- so that it is now mostly the world's poorest countries who are dependent on the nice, but wrong, people at the IMF.

Elizabeth Palmberg is an asssistant editor of Sojourners.

The latest news on Budget deficit, Vice-presidents, Illegal hiring, Education, Bridge repair, Church shooting, Military execution, Israel-Syria, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Darfur, Zimbabwe, Peru, and Editorial

+ Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

The job of the peacemaker is to stop war, to purify the world, to get it saved from poverty and riches, to heal the sick, to comfort the sad, to wake up those who have not yet found God, to create joy and beauty wherever you go, to find God in everything and in everyone.

- Muriel Lester
(1884-1968)

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

So, for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God. You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied rightly about you when he said:
"This people honors me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching human precepts as doctrines."

- Matthew 15:6-9

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

Though it is winter in Australia, the sun was shining on Sydney Harbor, one of the most beautiful urban landscapes in the world. With the dramatic architectural lines of the famous Sydney Opera House outlined against the sky-blue horizon and reflecting on the glistening sea, I couldn't wait to hop the ferry to Manley and from there walk to the crashing ocean to watch the surfers climb the waves. I love this place, and though I was suffering a bit of jet lag from the 18-hour trip from Washington, D.C., I knew this first day would be my best chance to get out on the water before the busy schedule began. I am here to do the Australian book and speaking tour for The Great Awakening -- which has a different title in both Australia and the U.K., Seven Ways to Change the World -- and to meet with the country's church and political leaders.

As the ferry headed across the harbor, I remembered fondly the first time I had seen these waters. I was rushing around the city of Sydney doing speaking and interviews, and I kept asking my hosts if we could go down to look at the harbor between appointments. Two of my guides were Aboriginals and began laughing at me. When I asked what was so funny, they told me that this harbor was a sacred place to the Indigenous People of Australia and that my attraction to it was spiritual. And, indeed, it still feels that way.

This time the ferry was packed with young people wearing backpacks. They were leftovers from World Youth Day, which had just concluded in Sydney. The event was highlighted with a historic visit from Pope Benedict XVI. Almost 300,000 young pilgrims had come to this land called "down under" from around the world, and the main mass had drawn 500,000 worshipers. This is a very secular country, but everybody was talking about the positive impact the presence of so many young people was having on the city of Sydney and all around Australia. Stories of warm welcomes, bright smiles, wonderful conversations, open spirits, and, most of all, a real sense of hope filled the streets and the massive media coverage of the event.

With all the problems of institutional religion, including in the Catholic church, many have been expecting that more and more young people would be turning "secular."

Indeed, my first media interviewers here asked about the attraction of the "new atheism" as a reaction against the failures of religion and of the American Religious Right in particular. But I kept getting nodding heads from reporters when I pointed out that the answer to bad religion isn't necessarily secularism -- it's perhaps better religion.

In the pope's homily, he addressed the challenges of secularism, greed, materialism, and injustice, while pointing to the alternative the gospel provides:

Empowered by the Spirit, and drawing upon faith's rich vision, a new generation of Christians is being called to help build a world in which God's gift of life is welcomed, respected and cherished - not rejected, feared as a threat and destroyed. A new age in which love is not greedy or self-seeking, but pure, faithful and genuinely free, open to others, respectful of their dignity, seeking their good, radiating joy and beauty. A new age in which hope liberates us from the shallowness, apathy and self-absorption which deaden our souls and poison our relationships.

In his welcome to the Pontiff, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, himself a confessing Christian, impressed the crowd with his own "homily":

Your Holiness, you are also welcome in Australia, a welcome guest for the wider Australian Christian community. You are also welcome in Australia on behalf of those Australians of other faiths and indeed for the general Australian community at large.

Your Holiness, you are welcome as an apostle of peace in an age where in an increasingly interdependent world peace is a much-needed voice among us all. You are welcome as a voice for the world's poor. You are also welcome as a voice of hope at a time in our planet's dealings when hope is most needed of all.

The kids on the boat were an absolute pleasure to watch and to be around, which isn't always the case with all aspects of youth culture. They were happy, even joyful, and thoroughly enjoying the spectacular harbor vistas before us. Apparently, my young Aboriginal hosts had been right decades ago about this sacred place.

I've often said that there are two great hungers in our world today: the hunger for spirituality and the hunger for social justice. The connection between the two is compelling, especially for this new generation. You could see that in these young faces and hear it in their conversations. While the beauty of Sydney Harbor has been described as almost magical, this day's combination of God's stunning creation and the possibilities of the next generation seemed to me more spiritual -- and very hopeful.

The latest news on Immigration, Housing relief, Food banks, Federal deficit, Iraq, Iran, Darfur, Military humanitarianism, Bombings, and Commentary.

+ Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

The Pharisees and Sadducees came, and to test Jesus they asked him to show them a sign from heaven. He answered them, "When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.' And in the morning, 'It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.

- Matthew 16:1-3

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

An inner monologue with myself, constant chatter with others, the invasion of the spoken word through the press and television are all the ever-present realities in my daily life over which I need to exercise some sort of discipline if I am to keep any quiet inner space in which to listen to the Word.

- Esther de Waal
A Life-Giving Way

Folks in my line of work ... i.e., writers in the field of religion ... do a lot of talking and lecturing during the fall, winter, and spring months when schools are in session and everyone more or less agrees that vacation time is over and done with for another year. Why exactly it is that the school year still determines vacation and play time for the whole of society has never been terribly clear to me, but I do recognize the immutability of the system.

During the summer months, however, when no one wants a lecture-series or special week-ends of emphasis or whatever, the job description for my tribe changes from writer and speaker to homilist ... or it does, if one knows how to make that transition. I, unfortunately, will never make a preacher, much less a homilist. I'll talk to any body of still bodies, and with real pleasure in the doing of it, but preach I can't. Instead, I tell stories, which is a round-about way of saying that I manage still to do something much nearer to a lecture than a homily ever will be.

Last Sunday, pray God, was my last this summer for playing the role of pseudo- or faux-homilist. Most of the clergy folk I know are now settling back into place and gearing up for the year ahead. Now normally, I would be sighing a sigh of relief, wiping my brow dramatically, and settling in to the usual late-July/early August pattern of preparing for September and the lecture trail. For some reason, though, I have not been able to do that this past week, and I think my hang-up has to do with last Sunday's story.

For years, I have said to publishers that someone needs to put out a volume of Bible Stories Your Mother Never Told You, a collection of stories about the grit and the realism and grandeur of the Bible as it is, not as we have sanitized and trimmed it to be. But there is also another book I have only recently begun to say needs badly to be written. That one is a collection of all the Bible Stories Your Mother Should Have Told You To Read.

The most dangerous thing that can happen to a religion, much less to those who follow it, is for that religion to become socially acceptable. Once that initially-welcomed shift in cultural acceptance has occurred, so too has the process of secularization, accommodation, and enculturation begun. Probably the most tragic and complete example of that progression in all of human history is the evolution of Christianity in the West after Constantine. And always, the thing above all others that must be debilitated or deactivated in such a process is the stories that have carried the faith and melded the community of believers into a body of the faithful.

Story is a function of time ... or Time, if that is a clearer naming of the thing. Story requires memory, and memory requires time. Story, not thinking, is the thing that separates us from the other creatures with whom we share the universe. It is not only that we have to retain and readily access the past, but also that we have to be able to access or conceptualize a future, if we are to live in time. And the minute we do those things, we have story. Not fact, but story. Persuade us, though, that facts are real in terms of Now and stories are ephemera of Elsewhere and Whenever, and we fall rudderless into a sea of roiling and disconnected events.

In order to enculturate or assimilate a religion completely, therefore, a social unit must be very sure to accomplish two things: it must suppress the bulk of the religion's not-so-nice stories; and it must somehow manage to domesticate the embedded stories that are too gripping or -- even worse -- are in violation of the society's worldview, common good, and general stability. Bible stories like that of Tamar or Jephthah's daughter fall in the first category, but Daniel in the lions' den or Noah and his ark fall into the second.

It was the story of Noah and his ark that I told last Sunday and that has played in my head all this whole week since. Noah, who was the first vintner ... a very noble acquisition of skills, may I add, and much appreciated, at least at our house.  Noah, who was the first to whom God gave animal flesh to eat, rather than simple grains and vegetables ... not so universally lauded at our place.

Noah, to whom the Noachide Covenant or the Seven Laws of Noah were given and upon which, on March 20, 1991, the Congress of the United States was pleased to proclaim, as signed by President Bush, that this country was founded.

Noah, who rode the waves of shift from pre-history into the general configuration of the earth as we know it. Noah, whose actions opened up the way for the creation of the doctrine of the Righteous Gentile.

Noah, whose name itself means "comfort" or "relief" and at whose birth it was said that he would grant surcease to people in our kind's toils upon a cursed earth. Noah, whose faith through the 40 days of rain and the 40 days of waiting in the water for a dove to return, pre-figured Moses' passage through the waters of the Red Sea and Israel's 40 years in the wilderness, and the baptism of Messiah followed immediately by his own 40 days of torment in the desert. That Noah, whose passage is re-enacted at the baptism of every Christian.

That Noah, who is not a fact or a non-fact or even anywhere in the neighborhood of that  construct of human function. Noah who dwells in story and is therefore. Noah who should never have been reduced to a child's toy or a silly rhyme about a floody-floody for children of the Lord. Noah whose grandeur and drama haunt me this Sabbath morning, for he stretches from then to here and from there to me. I am glad this Lord's Day for his abiding presence; and I am glad beyond all saying for the Story.

Phyllis Tickle (www.phyllistickle.com) is the founding editor of the religion department of Publishers Weekly and author of The Words of Jesus: A Gospel of the Sayings of Our Lord and the forthcoming fall release, The Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing and Why.

Impatience can be destructive. But it can also be a catalyst to work for social change. In this sense, one could argue that impatience can be holy in some respects. As a Sojourners intern, this summer is my introduction to Capitol Hill, to the rich landscape of D.C., and, yes, to the bewilderingly slow grind of Washington politics.

For the last month or so, I have been tracking the progress of proposals to address the housing crisis. The Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008, which was introduced more than a year ago, may indeed become law next week. The president withdrew his veto, the bill passed the House, and the Senate should pass it to the president for his signature. But it may not; the hopeful wind of swift enactment has carried this bill before -- only to leave with members of Congress for the July 4 recess.

After witnessing more than 2 million foreclosures, plummeting stock prices, and an increasingly beaten path from foreclosure to homelessness, I hope that this time the proposal will become policy. Call me impatient, but one would think that broad bipartisan support in the House and the Senate, a measured endorsement from the White House, and the plight of millions of Americans would have given birth to a law by now. Nope. The wheels keep turning, and at long last, something may come out.

I am tired of waiting. Millions of lives are looking to Washington for action. I cannot help but feel impatient. No, I choose to be impatient. And perhaps the Holy Spirit is stirring -- maybe even causing -- this impatience to move me to action. If you are willing to consider the possibility that a holy impatience occasionally summons us to act, and further willing to entertain the possibility that this impatience is calling us to act on the housing bill, I urge you to do something. Call your congressperson. Organize in the streets. Inform your faith community about the crisis. Maybe do all three.

Andrew Wilkes is a policy and organizing intern at Sojourners. He is currently pursuing a Masters of Divinity degree at Princeton Theological Seminary.

I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence;
       I possess knowledge and discretion. 
    To fear the Lord is to hate evil;
       I hate pride and arrogance,
       evil behavior and perverse speech. 
     Counsel and sound judgment are mine;
       I have insight, I have power. 
     By me kings reign
       and rulers issue decrees that are just; 
     by me princes govern,
       and nobles—all who rule on earth.

—Proverbs 8:12-16

Wisdom is the key ingredient in the revival of talks under way between the government's party (ZANU-PF) and the opposition MDC. On Monday, these two parties signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU), which sets down the framework for talks about a future government for Zimbabwe. The language of human rights, the dignity of the person, and freedom of speech and press, etc., makes this document a "foreign language" in the context of Zimbabwean politics! Here are some excerpts:

The Parties are committed to ensuring that the law is applied fairly and justly to all persons irrespective of political affiliation.

Each Party will issue a statement condemning the promotion and use of violence and call for peace in the country and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that the structures and institutions it controls are not engaged in the perpetration of violence ... [each] shall refrain from using abusive language that may incite hostility, political intolerance and ethnic hatred or undermine each other.

It is a small step in the right direction; as a Chinese proverb says, "a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step." Thank you for your prayers and support. There are many challenges that face the negotiation process, and in our prayers let us include the following:

a. The cessation of violence.

b. Wisdom for all involved to ensure that democracy, human rights, and the interests of the Zimbabwean people remain central to the process.

c. Implementation challenges that require “mind shifts” from security organs.

d. Extraordinary wisdom and strategy to come up with a solution that fits in with the unique needs of Zimbabwe.

e. Groups that have gained considerably from the status quo and have the potential to derail the process.

f. A way forward without violence.

May Wisdom bring forth justice, peace, and prosperity for Zimbabwe. Thank you so much for your prayers and commitment. May God bless you, too, in all your ways. Shalom!

Nontando Hadebe, a former Sojourners intern, is originally from Zimbabwe and is now pursuing graduate studies in theology in South Africa.

Would any Mennonite church group ever invite a group of Muslims to use their meeting house on Fridays? I wondered this as I stood last month in the Kyk Ota Mosque in Serabulak, Uzbekistan, because it happened in reverse in 1881, when the imam offered refuge for nine months to a wandering and very needy bunch of Mennonites.

I was in Uzbekistan with 15 other Mennonites from the U.S. and Canada to visit scenes from an amazing 2,000-mile journey a group of German/Russian Mennonites took by horse and wagon in the late 1800s. After a punishing months-long trip from Ukraine through Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, they had one nine-month stopover in Serabulak, Uzbekistan. There, the local imam gave them temporary shelter in the area around the mosque. They dealt with typhoid fever, their off-again, on-again hopes for settlement nearby, and the sad news of the deaths of two former advocates, General Kaufmann and Czar Alexander II. After leaving Serabulak and traveling for 40 more days, mostly through the desert, the surviving members finally established a colony near Khiva, which became their home for the next 50 years.

It is a tale of vision, of charismatic leadership gone astray, of courage, and of much suffering. We learned details from the diaries of leadership types -- all men; how I wished there were more remaining of the Mennonite Mama story!

Our trip followed that same Great Silk Road that had been traveled by this amazing bunch of pilgrims. We were welcomed at this mosque by local leaders who still have the local memory of the Mennonites' stay. Amazingly, the travelers at this location were even invited by the local imam to use the mosque for their worship services on Sundays -- in that same space used by Muslims on Friday! 

Standing together in this same mosque, we listened to three tour-group members read from diaries written by a grandfather and a great-grandfather, and a hymn from an account by Frank Bartsch -- all three had been part of the trek. After receiving permission from our hosts, we sang, "Come We That Love the Lord."  Tears surprised me as we sang, as those who "love the Lord" and as "children of the heavenly king." It was a holy moment shared with our new Muslim friends. The imam responded by thanking us for singing and added gracious words of peace and blessing for us and for the world. (This was interpreted for us by our expert and warm-hearted local Christian guide, Marina).

It was a time of discovery and pondering -- what made those Mennos behave as they did? Were they foolhardy? Courageous? Certainly interesting! What lessons should we take home?

But it is also a wondrous story of friendships between Christians and Muslims at that time -- with the Muslims offering hospitality and refuge. 

Helen Lapp lives in Lansdale, Pennsylvania, and is a retired administrator of the Mennonite Association of Retired Persons. Read about the end-times visions that fueled the 1880s trek, and the intercultural understanding that followed, in "Through the Desert Goes Our Journey," in the July issue of Sojourners.

So Jesus called them and said to them, "You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many."

- Mark 10:42-45

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

Greed says: "I snatch all things to myself. I hug all things to my breast; the more I have gathered the more I have.... When I have whatever I need, I have no worries about needing anything from someone else." Simple sufficiency replies: "You are harsh and devoid of mercy because you do not care for the advancement of others. Nothing is sufficient to satisfy you. I, however, sit above the stars, for all of God's good things are sufficient for me.... Why should I desire more than I need?"

- Hildegard of Bingen
Book of Life's Merits

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

The latest news on Obama in Berlin, McCain VP, Church & State, Human rights, Church & State-Venezuela, Afghanistan, Iran, Canadian election, and Opinion.

+ Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

In January of 1964, President Johnson declared "unconditional war on poverty in America." In response, the Census Bureau created a methodology for establishing an "official poverty line," determined the number of people whose incomes fell below the line, and calculated the poverty rate.  The formula for determining poverty was based on the assumption that food costs consume one-third of a family's after-tax income -- an assumption that is still used today, though food now constitutes closer to a seventh of family income. The resulting calculation means that a family of four is considered poor if total income is $21,200 or less. Except for adjustments to reflect inflation, this calculation has remained unchanged for more than 25 years.

At a recent hearing of the House Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, experts testified that the food measure fails to consider other necessities of contemporary life, such as housing, transportation, health care, child care, and other expenses that have become essentials of modern life. They called on Congress to modernize its method for calculating poverty. One expert at the hearing stated: "If we want to solve the poverty challenge, step one is to get our heads around the true scope, dimension, and dynamics of the problem."

Both political candidates for president have made poverty part of their political agenda. Sen. McCain promised to make the eradication of poverty a top administration priority in his April 2008 statement. Sen. Obama co-sponsored the Global Poverty Act, which calls on the president to develop a comprehensive agenda to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015. He has also endorsed the need for a new poverty measure that more accurately reflects the costs of living and the economic pressures on American families.

Whatever your political point of view, a key issue to consider in any election is the issue of poverty. Sojourners is using the '08 election cycle to focus specifically on the issue of poverty.  Poor people play a central role in the parables told by Jesus. As people of faith, we must not forget the poor in our midst.

Rosemary Du Mont is a participant in Sojourners' Windchangers grassroots organizing pilot project in Ohio, which works on the Vote Out Poverty Campaign. She lives in Cleveland.  

[ ...continued from part one]

So how do we help people who have been hurt so much psychologically and emotionally that they don't believe in themselves and don't believe they deserve better? How do we help children who have never heard a parent say, "I love you, you are special, talented, and will do great things one day"? Or those who watched their parents harm themselves through substance abuse or alcoholism? Is there hope for these men, women, and children? If we believe in God and the power of God to give us beauty for ashes, then the answer is yes!

For many people living in poverty, their change will not come through programs and policies, but it will come through personal responsibility. What I mean is that it will come through our personal responsibility to walk alongside them and show them through our actions that we are not going to give up on them. It will require that those of us who no longer live in poverty or have never known poverty develop substantive relationships with people who are poor. We must go out and meet people where they are and show them how we got out, show them through our interaction with them that they are loved. Invite them into our homes so that they can be exposed to a better life, see what healthy relationships look like, and hear us talk to our children using words of empowerment. When people see living, breathing examples of what God can do, that's when they believe God can do it.

And yes, I understand that this notion of stepping out of our comfort zones to have deeper personal relationships with people whom we don't know and perhaps don't understand, is not very appealing or makes us uncomfortable.  But is this not what Jesus did?  Every person he encountered was a stranger before that moment. In fact, we were strangers when he found us.  But as it was when Jesus walked the earth, reaching out to those in need of change, touching people who had never felt a compassionate hand, so it is today.

Yes, in our own power and limited ability we cannot do this, and I would daresay that some may not want to do it, but with God all things are possible.  If we humble ourselves and say, "God, I cannot move this mountain, I need you to move it for me, increase my faith," then and only then can we truly eliminate poverty by liberating the poor from the psychological bondage of their circumstances.

I know this is possible because it is my story.  Had it not been for men and women who believed in me when I didn’t believe in myself, people who refused to leave when I tried to force them out of my life, had it not been for them I  would either still be living in poverty, selling drugs, in a gang, or dead. But thanks be to God for those men and women who refused to give up on me simply because they realized that in their own lives, God refused to give up on them.  Yes, we need better policy, new programs, and personal responsibility, but perhaps what we need most is to stand alongside the people who need us most.

Rev. Romal Tune is the CEO of Clergy Strategic Alliances, a graduate of Howard University and Duke University School of Divinity, and a member of the Red Letter Christians.

The latest news on Minimum wage, Housing, Poverty, Men (not) in church, Global poverty, Obama in Middle East, Iraq, Famine in East Africa, Sudan-Darfur, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan North Korea, Editorial, and Commentary.

+ Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

During this election cycle, we have heard candidates talk about ways in which we can work to end poverty. John Edwards has a new initiative to cut poverty in half in 10 years.  These and other initiatives are certainly admirable ideas and much-needed programs that could help millions of men, women, and children.  

In additions to programs and needed policy changes from our elected officials, we are also hearing about personal responsibility.  And yes, inasmuch as we should look to our elected officials to address the needs of a growing “underclass,” those in need must also do something to change their circumstances.  However, as we work to address the needs of the poor through policy, programs, and personal responsibility, we must also take into account that something is missing from this dialogue. 

As someone who grew up poor in a single-parent household, I went without dinner more nights that I can even count. At times having to choose between using my bus fare for lunch and walking home, sometimes the decision to eat forced me to humble myself and stand on the corner asking strangers for change so that I could get home. I know from experience that there is more to the task of eliminating poverty than programs, policy, and personal responsibility. 

For those of us who either grew up poor or work in poor communities, you have likely come to realize that the psychological impact of poverty is just as damaging as the circumstance itself.  Perhaps the most difficult task, when trying to get people to engage in the work of their own liberation, is convincing them to believe that they are worthy of a better life.  Yes, there are those in poor communities who, given a fair chance, will rise above their circumstances and pursue a better life. But we cannot ignore the reality that there are others whose spirits have been broken and feel like the darkness of poverty is their destiny. There are those who have been told so many times that they will never amount to anything, will never achieve anything, and even deserve to be where they are, that they now believe it is true.  These are the men, women, and children for whom it will take more than good policy to get them out of poverty.  These are the men, women, and children who can no longer be inspired by words that seem foreign to them, because it has been words that have done them the most harm.

There is a saying that "hurt people, hurt people." In other words, many living in poverty are simply doing what they were taught by their parents. They are using the skills and words handed down to them by people who were hurting, and they are now instilling the same beliefs in their children.  They have not seen examples of how to do things in a different way, they do not know how to encourage their children because they were not encouraged as a child, and they do not know how to live as a community or family where people meet the needs of others so that everyone can succeed, because from early in their lives they have been left alone and had to fend for themselves.

[to be continued...]

Rev. Romal Tune is the CEO of Clergy Strategic Alliances, a graduate of Howard University and Duke University School of Divinity, and a member of the Red Letter Christians.

[... continued from part one]

And that is my back door into discussing the recent exploits of Rene Marie, an artist based in Denver, Colorado. (I wanted you to understand my presuppositions and how I define my terms.) Rene Marie was invited by the mayor's office in Denver to sing the "Star-Spangled Banner" at the mayor's State of the City address in June. Her artistic offering turned out to be the words of "Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing" to the melody of "Star-Spangled Banner" (how's that for a good gut check). Her arrangement is the third movement of a broader, evocative, and elaborate "love song to America." She had debuted the arrangement a month prior, in Denver no less, at the statewide Colorado Prayer Luncheon (for which the mayor was an honorary host), with many of Colorado's political elite in attendance. This second time, however, her contribution was met, days later, with venom and vitriol -- including death threats. Denver's mayor is up in arms and many are seeking to characterize the performance as a cheap publicity stunt. Rene has offered this statement and one interview in response.

Rene Marie was invited to sing precisely because she is a talented artist, and I would wager a guess that no one went out of her/his way to specify that only a specific arrangement be sung. Those who requested her participation just got more than they bargained for. Many have recited the words of the anthem as a poem without music -- and called it the "Star-Spangled Banner." At the Olympics, the music of the anthem is played without words -- and we call it the "Star-Spangled Banner." Marvin Gaye crooned the words of the anthem to an R&B groove at a NBA All-Star game (others from different musical genres have done variations of the same) -- and folks applauded it as the "Star-Spangled Banner." Finally someone has dared to complete the artistic set.

Though some may argue that Rene Marie breached her contract or at the very least showed poor manners, I would suggest that this was, even in the way it was structured by the Denver mayor's office, a "contribution" on Rene's part, not a transaction -- and thus should be understood differently. Rene Marie was solicited to offer her talents as a -- albeit public -- gift. No fee for service exchanged hands. There are no acceptable grounds for consternation concerning gifts given in love. This is the home-training we received every time a birthday rolled around (isn't it?). When we are given a gift, the appropriate response my parents taught me is always, "Thank you." Even if we spent time beforehand coming to terms about what the gift was to be and how it was to be presented (like in our Christmas lists), if we got on a stage and I made a monetary contribution to you, a politician, or charitable organization, it would be considered bad form for you to belittle it afterward on the grounds that it was somehow different than you expected. Why is Rene Marie's contribution any different?

One of the challenges of living in a society that is so fiercely market-driven is that we begin to think of every interaction as a "transaction." And we begin to believe that the appropriate response to interactions that fall short of our expectations is to appeal to the legal reasoning we've set in place to protect our transactions. That is one way of going about it, sure. But I don't see society so much the better for having reduced social interactions (i.e., with spouses, friends, teachers, colleagues -- and yes, even with our political representatives) to economic/legal transactions. Divorce is higher than ever, students certainly aren't learning more just because we now consider school a business, and here we have a mayor acting like a spoiled ingrate, and we don't have the collective good sense to chasten him.

Whatever one may think about what she did, Rene Marie did it in honor of America, not in desecration of her. Intent matters. We can't champion freedom of speech as a national virtue, and then crucify someone for exercising it in honor of our nation -- even if her specific expression of honor may not have been our own. In doing so, we miss the opportunity to see our world in new and living ways and to help shape our world into that beauty.

Those are my thoughts, but I'm open to other respectful points of view. What do you think?

Melvin Bray is a devoted husband, committed father, learner, teacher, writer, storyteller, lover of people, connoisseur of creativity, seeker of justice, purveyor of sustainability, and believer in possibilities.  This post is one of a series of essays titled Home-Training.

Following is a continuation of Becky Garrison's e-mail exchange with Tina Beattie, author of The New Atheists: The Twilight of Reason and the War on Religion. Click here for part one. 

Elaborate on what you meant by this statement: "To understand the impact of [Darwin's] The Origin of Species and the ongoing struggle between evolutionary science and religion, we need to situate Darwin in a wider context with regard to the changing relationship between theology and science in Victorian England."

My argument is that the 19th-century conflict between science and theology in England in particular, which is being played out again today by the so-called "new" atheists, has to be understood as much in terms of power as in terms of truth, bearing in mind that, since the Enlightenment, the relationship between knowledge and power have gone hand in hand -- to quote Francis Bacon, "Knowledge is power." Until the mid-19th century, the institutions and values of English public life were to a very considerable extent dominated by the Anglican church, and theologians and clergy were custodians not only of knowledge but of considerable power and influence. When scientists sought autonomy from theology, they had to struggle against the vested interests of a church that wielded considerable power, and not surprisingly the struggle was sometimes expressed in militant and hostile terms. However, just as today militant atheism masks a much more fertile and mutually informative debate between science and religion and often involves scientists who are themselves religious believers, so in the 19th century, the vast majority of those caught up in the debate did not see it in terms of an irreconcilable conflict between science and religion, but as a struggle for meaning that was capable of encompassing both the truths of the Christian religion and the new discoveries of science, even if the latter demanded considerable rethinking of the former. I think that's still very much the tone of the debate today, even if we often don't hear the quiet voices of reason amidst the din of militancy on both sides.

It's also worth pointing out that this is a debate that plays out very differently in Britain and America. A 2006 survey suggested that atheists are more feared and despised in America than Muslims, gays, or lesbians. In Britain, there is no stigma attached to being an atheist, and British thinkers like Dawkins and Hitchens are somewhat dishonest when they present atheists as universally reviled. In fact, until the recent resurgence of religion in British politics during Tony Blair's government, British politicians were very wary about declaring any religious convictions. Certainly, atheism remains every bit as respectable as liberal Christianity in mainstream British society, and a good deal more acceptable than Catholicism, Islam, or any overt display of religious enthusiasm.

How has science been co-opted by intelligent design theorists and militant atheists?

Intelligent design theorists such as Michael Behe and William Dembski seek to challenge the teaching of evolution by natural selection in American schools, by offering a different theory of the origins and evolution of life based on the idea of an intelligent designer. Their argument is that some living organisms (e.g. the bacterial flagellum) are so complex and so finely tuned that their existence cannot be explained by evolution alone. Because this is a theory that ostensibly does not rely on any particular religious understanding of God, intelligent design theorists argue that it should be taught in schools as a scientific alternative to Darwin's theory. Intelligent design theory is not the same as creationism, which challenges Darwin's theory by appealing to a literal interpretation of the creation account in the book of Genesis. Atheists such as Dawkins argue that the theory of natural selection eliminates any need for an intelligent designer, because it suggests that, given enough time and enough cumulative evolutionary modifications, even the most complex life forms can be explained without recourse to the idea of God. However, intelligent design theorists are not the only ones to point to considerable inconsistencies and improbabilities in the Darwinian hypothesis, so that even if the theory of evolution is broadly correct, there is still much work to be done on accounting for the emergence of complex life forms and, most importantly, the evolution of human consciousness as a capacity to reflect on the laws and phenomena of the material world. Of course, if we bring physics as well as biology into the picture, then the vision of the universe that modern science lays before us is far more mysterious and elusive than we once thought. Some would argue that the boundary between philosophy and/or theology and science dissolves in the face of quantum physics.

Why do you think we might be at "the dawning of a near era of plurality, diversity and freedom, but it may also be the beginning of a long night of violence and conflict?"

We live on the brink of environmental disaster and in an era of proliferating threats of war. Our global economy is in crisis, largely thanks to the corruption, greed, and cynicism of those who have profited from the unfettered capitalism of the last 20 years. We know that many people in our world today are willing to resort to violence to achieve their political and ideological goals, whether that is the ruthless violence of the modern nation-state with its high-tech armies and increasingly repressive techniques of government and imprisonment, the anarchic violence of tyrants such as Robert Mugabe, or the chillingly unpredictable and suicidal violence of Islamist extremism. We also have opportunities as never before to communicate across divisions of race, culture, and religion, to use this as a time of opportunity for the transformation of our political and economic structures, and to insist that our politicians, religious leaders, and others in power channel the earth's limited but still abundant resources into the service of human life and dignity. Faith and reason are not enemies. They enable us to cultivate a vision of human dignity and purpose, and to create the social and economic structures that allow humans to flourish in many different cultural, religious, and geographical contexts. Only if we rescue democracy from its alarming decline, in which apathy and tyranny together are turning our modern societies into dystopian nightmares, might we find the collective resources to meet the challenges we face. Only hope can give us the energy we need to change, and whether we find that hope in secular or religious visions of the future, we all need to discover it before it's too late. I think our starting place must be our relationship to violence and our acceptance of war as "politics by other means," and this is a challenge to the modern nation-state as much as it is to the world's religious traditions.

Becky Garrison is the author of The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail.

Then the scribe said to [Jesus], "You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that 'he is one, and besides him there is no other'; and 'to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength,' and 'to love one's neighbor as oneself,'--this is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God."

- Mark 12:30-32

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

If I accept myself as ordinary, weak, frail, in other words, totally human and totally dependent on God, then I am stripped of any sense of being in some way set apart, different, superior. It is then that the genuine, real self may begin to emerge.

- Esther de Waal
A Life-Giving Way

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

I've been on a real art binge of late. Reading, watching, listening to, experiencing, and creating as much as I can. Good art isn't just creative, it's generative -- that is, it inspires creative acts in others. It gives us hands to shape the world in new and living ways. And I've been thinking a lot about how much this world we share needs more of it.

Like any other act of love, I believe art is fundamentally contributive, not transactional. It's not an if-you-do-this-I'll-do-that proposition. By my experience, as soon as it becomes transactional, art more often than not simply becomes entertainment. The difference is the bottom line. The bottom line in entertainment is to perpetuate the transaction. At least they're honest about it, those who transact in performance art. They call it "the biz," show business, business being the operative word. I was chatting with an Atlanta-based artist friend of mine, Patdro Harris, who used to choreograph for Stevie Wonder. He mentioned Stevie once noted that the great thing for him was that when he broke on the scene in the '60s, the industry and the public were transacting for the very art that was stirring inside of him. Sadly, that is not often enough the case. More often, people transact for (give back to) that which affirms and leaves them right where they are, good, bad or indifferent. Art -- love -- says, "Even if you don't give back to me, I'm going to give to you, and it's going to be an attempt to seek your best."

As much as I'm extremely protective of people's right to create and contribute, I'm not one of those anything-for-art's-sake and all-things-are-art kinds of guys. For example, perhaps counterintuitively, I don't find a lot with the marketing label "Christian" to be good art. Don't get me wrong (I can hear some readers' blood pressure rising), brand-Christian has great Jesus-and-me-God-is-awesome-way-to-go inspiration and encouragement (which definitely has its place), but not enough ears-to-hear-tongues-to-taste-new-possibilities for my palate. Like this Christian comedy duo I recently saw on national network television. Fun, campy, entertaining, audience-participation act, but rather than subverting the Christian kitsch that has become the popular caricature of the way of Jesus, they seemed to be promoting it as adorably goofy and secretly cool because ultimately (shhhh!) "We're gonna win." Such triumphalism makes me nauseous. And we also can't overlook how often brand-Christian buys into notions that the Christian narrative totally overthrows. Take, for example, the alternative extreme, tragic hero/ine. Why are there so many tragedies of redemption (one dies a spectacular death so others can live) on brand-Christian shelves, but so few stories of resurrection (one succumbs to death and defeat, to be composted into a new iteration of life)? (I bet there are fewer than you think.) Resurrection (the anti-conclusion that manages to subvert every possible anticipated ending -- triumphant, tragic, cleverly ambivalent -- while being a bit of each and then something more, all at once) is the gift of hope-for-all that those who know the Jesus story have. However, many of the compelling tellings of it are currently coming from outside the brand. While we vacillate between Left Behind and The Passion, some have chosen a more/less _______ path (I couldn't think of a fully accurate word that would be worth the offense).

I don't find degradation very artful either. With art being quintessentially generative as far as I'm concerned, that which is degenerate doesn't do it for me. I can abide the grotesque and dark, but once I heard the story of an exhibit that was closed because of a piece debasing a graphic of The Virgin by placing it in a toilet with feces. I wholeheartedly agree with that decision. On the other hand, I was dismayed when the Secret Service shut down Yazmany Arboleda's installations The Assassination of Hillary Clinton and The Assassination of Barack Obama--which though provocatively titled, are purely symbolic portrayals of the media's treatment of these figures. . Assuming the best until evidence to the contrary surfaces, I think they are brilliant, though undeniably disturbing (á la The New Yorker). Sometimes a good gut punch is the only thing that will blur our vision long enough for us to see.

[to be continued...]

Melvin Bray is a devoted husband, committed father, learner, teacher, writer, storyteller, lover of people, connoisseur of creativity, seeker of justice, purveyor of sustainability, and believer in possibilities.  This post is one of a series of essays titled Home-Training.

Becky Garrison recently e-mailed Tina Beattie, author of The New Atheists: The Twilight of Reason and the War on Religion, to glean her insights on this ongoing debate.

Why is this new atheism primarily a British and American phenomenon?

Although the new atheists are sweeping in their condemnation of religion per se, they are by and large a rather homogenous bunch of disaffected white, male, English-speaking Protestants who seek in evolutionary science the kind of reassurances that perhaps they might once have sought in Christianity.

Sam Harris is Jewish.

Sam Harris is an exception. Not only does he come from a Jewish background, he is also a much more complex and clever philosopher with a smattering of mysticism and a neo-con approach to politics, which allows him to offer a quite terrifying philosophical justification for torture, war, and the inevitability of "collateral damage." Harris apart, most of the new atheists have much in common with their Christian fundamentalist counterparts.

How so?

They think that theirs is the one and only truth to which all other cultures and religions should submit; they interpret the Bible literally (they blindly condemn what religious fundamentalists blindly support); and they have very little insight into the psychological, philosophical, and historical complexities of their fellow human beings outside their own small circle. (Dawkins refers to French critical theorists as 'icons of haute francophonyism.') The new atheism reflects a certain intellectual zeitgeist currently fashionable in Britain and America (which are of course also two quite different cultures), rather than those of European cultures, which have been more deeply influenced by Catholic and Jewish thinkers, and where there is a greater concern for language and symbolism than science and fact in the construction of meaning. Continental atheism has its roots in philosophy and psychoanalysis rather than the material sciences (e.g. Nietzsche, Freud, Lacan), but it also arises out of the trauma of the 20th century and the Holocaust. I think it's fair to say that many Christian thinkers -- myself included -- have little difficulty reconciling Darwin's theory of natural selection with a Christian understanding of the world, but Auschwitz poses a much more fundamental challenge to the history and values of our faith. I would add that the new atheists fail to take seriously enough the challenge posed by the genocides of the 20th century to their own position, with its faith in science, progress, and reason. We should remember that, in the 20th century, a religious person was much more likely to be persecuted by an atheist than vice versa.

Why do you think you have more in common with Richard Dawkins than George W. Bush?

Well, for a start Dawkins has been fairly robust in his condemnation of the Iraq war, but I also agree with many of his criticisms about the dangers of religion -- not the least of those dangers is the alliance between recent American presidents and the Christian Right. (I have a friend who has a bumper sticker that says 'The Christian Right is neither'). My problem with Dawkins is not that he criticizes religious extremism, but that he is so undiscriminating and ill-informed in his criticisms. He blunts the impact of his own critique by spreading it too thinly and too wide. But if I had to choose between spending an evening with Dawkins or with Dubya, I'd choose Dawkins if only because I think the jokes would be better (the intentional ones, anyway).

[to be continued ...]

Becky Garrison is the author of The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail.

The latest news on Guantanamo trial, Women & Economy, Gleaning for food, Farm subsidies, Americans & Africa, War crimes suspect, Zimbabwe, Iraq, Iran, Middle East, India and Editorial.

+ Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

The virtue of discretion lies dormant without the fervor of charity; and intense fervor runs wild without the guidance of discretion.

- Bernard of Clairvaux
On the Song of Songs

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

He also said, "With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable will we use for it? It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth; yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade."

- Mark 4:30-32

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

My great-grandfather was one of the first Christians in a village near Pyongyang.  God's grace was poured over his entire family, but they experienced intense persecution because of their faith. As a result, he "escaped" one night with his entire family from what is now known as North Korea.  My father was 5. Not everyone in his family survived the journey south that one chaotic night.

North Korea, as some may know, is one of the most isolated nations. Subsequently, some of the gravest human rights violations and suffering go unnoticed -- including approximately 200,000 Christians who are in prison labor camps simply because of their faith in Christ. This past weekend, Minhee and I had the privilege of spending some time with friends who left Seattle three years ago to go to Yanbian, China (via Singapore). With their three children, they left the comforts of home, family, and friends to act upon their convictions. The father recently relinquished his well-paying job with full benefits to serve the people of North Korea -- initially at the border of China -- and in a few months, he'll hopefully receive his "resident card," which would allow him to travel to and from North Korea to do community development work. There is no salary to his work as a "tentmaker."

Who in their right mind wants to become a "resident" of North Korea?

It was humbling and inspiring.

When people ask us why we feel so compelled about starting and building the new global poverty organization, it's because of these people and thousands more who are on the ground fighting poverty by serving people, enabling education, building community development projects, digging water wells, distributing medicine, writing letters to governments, giving hope by restoring human dignity -- and so many who do these and so much more -- many who do so in the love of Christ.

Someday, I will return to North Korea.

Someday, I will return to the birthplace of my ancestors, the birthplace of my father and mother. We still have family in North Korea, that is if they are still alive. We do not know. Someday, I will return with my wife and children to not only proclaim and demonstrate the gospel of Jesus Christ but the good news of human dignity that must be afforded to all people because that is the will of God. Thirteen years ago, I climbed Mt. Baekdusan at the border of China and North Korea and prayed for an opportunity someday to return home. I echo that prayer again. Someday, I will return to Korea.

But until then, I hope to be an advocate and activist for many around the world who have no voice. Did you know that about 790 million people in the developing world are still chronically undernourished, almost two-thirds of whom reside in Asia and the Pacific?

Before I submit another entry in the coming days about some of my views about policies with North Korea, I want to draw your attention to an overview of the situation in North Korea via the organization Liberty in North Korea. Would you take three minutes to read this link to hear the story and suffering of my people?

Eugene Cho, a second-generation Korean-American, is the founder and lead pastor of Quest Church in Seattle, and the executive director of Q Cafe, an innovative nonprofit neighborhood café and music venue. He and his wife are also launching a grassroots humanitarian organization to fight global poverty. You can stalk him at his blog eugenecho.wordpress.com.

The prophet Isaiah says that the Lord will be a stumbling block for many, meaning that the majority of us will have difficulties living the way we ought to. Working in the field of social justice only seems to add another dimension to that difficulty. Poverty, economic inequality, and eradicating racism, sexism, and the like are all issues that "progressive Christians" care about, but how much do we really say about how things got this way?

From my experience, the progressive Christian movement has shown that it can advise its constituency on how to assist in uplifting burdened communities, but I've noticed an absence in acknowledging what got us -- a collective "us" -- into places of suffering in the first place. Effective movements all have two key elements: first is a thorough understanding of the root causes of their issues in order to heal whatever the "disease" may be. The other is an unrelenting commitment to be a cure and not a treatment.  Where we are right now in history begs the question: Do we want to be a cure or just a painkiller?

To illustrate my point, let's take an example from sports. The fact that Washington, D.C.'s NBA team is now called the Wizards, rather than the Bullets, is a treatment -- not a cure of the disease of gun violence in our city and society at large. The "progressive" nature of those who eventually voted and officially changed the name acted more like "pressure valves" than healers. What's unfortunate with a lot of progressivism nowadays is that we've lost sight of what's necessary -- the sacrifices and the struggle -- that's called for to break down systems of oppression and exploitation, and for a new order to rise.

What we do instead is become a pressure valve that takes a step in the right direction to relieve some pressure of a situation, but usually stops once that initial victory is achieved. There's nothing inherently progressive about changing a name. What we should be focusing on is changing the culture of violence. Ironically, from where we stand today, perhaps D.C. needs to revert back to its old NBA name, or maybe the "D.C. Militias" would be a good one if the Supreme Court, in all of its infinite wisdom, is the Truth we are satisfied with.

Let's be clear: Walking in love and faith through Christ is hard because it involves the death of things we'd rather hold onto: pride, privilege, our egos, grudges toward certain people, etc. But the Bible tells us many times that those things that make up ourselves are going to have to die in order for us to truly live through him. Hebrews 12 reminds us that we "have not yet resisted to the point of shedding our blood" -- or in other words, we have yet to come to a place in our struggle where we are willing to give up our ways of life, that while they may allow us to live comfortably above others, they help foster the "isms" we protest against.

To read the whole sermon, click here.

When the stomach hears the voice of insistent hunger, it confuses necessity and pleasure in a deceptive tangle. It is a rare person who can erect a wall or divider to distinguish in [one's] appetite between necessity and excess.

- Peter of Celle
The School of the Cloister

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

I will be swift to bear witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired workers in their wages, the widow and the orphan, against those who thrust aside the alien, and do not fear me, says the Lord of hosts.

- Malachi 3:5

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

The latest news on Obama trip, Detainee trial, Faith & politics, U.S. Highways, Education, Colombia, Death by mistake, Brown & Israel, Iran, Zimbabwe, The next war, India, Anglicans, Editorial, and Opinion.

+ Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

A Sunday or two ago, I made mention of -- more to the truth, wrote a whole "Summer Sundays" entry more or less about -- the canonical Jesus, thereby raising a small bevy of questions and responses and polite "say-what's?" I could not be more delighted. But delighted or not, I also feel some obligation to make my case.

All of us who were reared in modernity and/or in the afterwash of its ways of conceptualizing, have known the impact of modernism. In few areas of life has that impact been more keenly felt by Christians than in discussions of "Jesus Studies" or, as it is sometimes more popularly known, of "the quest for the historical Jesus." That is to say that many of the intellectual tools and much of the sophisticated technology of modernity, in addition to its conceptual principles, a lot of brilliant thinking, and a world's worth of patient research, have been brought to bear over the last century or so on the study of just who Jesus of Nazareth was.

The bulk of the questions have focused upon what he supposedly did and/or did not say and upon whether or not he was or was not accurately portrayed by those who became the church. Those questions have assumed from the start that the Jesus of the canonical gospels might well be a man-made or human-shaped figure different from the actual or historical creature who at one time lived among us. Working from that assumption, it should be no surprise that the Jesus who has emerged from all of this professional scholarship and lay furor is as multiform and various as the scholars and concerned laity who have engaged the quest. The end result, in fact, of our dozen or so decades of scratching through history is such a multiplicity of Jesuses that one has to say, "Whoa! Let's just hold up here a minute and think this thing through a bit more clearly."

Story, perhaps, is better than intellectual argument in this kind of process. Accordingly, I wrote a small story some months ago, one that I want to re-run here today. I do so, of course, with apologies to those who may have heard it before, but also in the hope that even they will find it to be worth a few minutes this summer Sunday morning.

                                                   *   *   *   *   *

Let us suppose then. Let us suppose that there is a huge, deadly wreck on busy Main Street, USA, in the midst of midday traffic. There are, technically speaking, several hundred witnesses, albeit from very different perspectives. Some of the witnesses are immediate, so immediate in fact that two or three of them are wounded themselves by the flying glass and careening steel. Others are simply immediate enough to have been splattered by blood and dust and specks of oil. Not so immediate, but still close enough, are those who had to jump out of harm's way and, in doing so, dropped possessions or skinned a knee or simply got an adrenalin rush of significant proportions.

Other of those who saw had a less dramatic experience, of course. Some of them really did see, in that they were standing at the curb waiting for the light to change and saw the whole thing as if in slow motion. Others were walking in the direction from which the wreck came and likewise saw the whole thing, also as if in slow motion, albeit from a safer distance. Some witnesses, of course, only "saw" the deadly accident in the loosest sense of saw. That is, the space between the sound of the crash in progress and their turning their heads to look was no more than a nano-second, or so it seemed. For some even, the screeching of tires laying down rubber was so dramatic that they turned and, in point of fact, really did "see" the wreck itself, although they hardly could be said to have "seen" the whole thing, since they witnessed only its final act of culmination.

And then, of course, there are all the window-gawkers ... the office workers who leaned out from the windows of all the surrounding buildings that line Main Street. Or the store personnel who came running out of the street-level shops and commercial businesses. And there's a couple of cops who were cruising in the opposite direction away from the wreck and therefore did not really "see" it at all, except that their deep experience with wrecks let them respond almost instantaneously, just at it allowed them to reconstruct what logically must have happened and include it in their report of the wreck itself.

Assume, then, that we have some several hundred good citizens -- maybe even some not-so-good ones and a few outright liars, thieves, and ne're-do-wells on Main Street. Each of them, from the purest to the most nefarious, now has a wreck in his or her head. Each of them -- it is one of the surest bets in this gossipy world -- each of them is going to tell some other human being about this phenomenal wreck, at some point at some time over the coming hours, days, weeks, and years. Maybe even, he or she will tell several someones, And what they are all telling is true. A wreck happened at midday on Main Street, USA. Yet for every witness, that wreck is distinct, is different, is so nuanced that there are as many wrecks as there are witnesses. Oh, the tales will, in all probability, share a common thread, but they will also contain some inconsistencies and some contradictions amongst them.

Yet the truth in all of this -- the one "fact" in it all -- is that each witness, bearing home his or her story of disaster on Main Street, is reporting the actual wreck. All of them who seek to speak the truth of what they witnessed are indeed speaking the truth. The inconsistencies and contradictions amongst their various stories, were we to collect those tales into some kind of whole, would not be erroneous or deliberated distortions or violations of fact. They would be honest and true reports of what happened, because what happened did happen within the vitality and experience of each tale's teller.

Now good and honest men and women are on the horns of a dilemma. We have the expertise of the police who have brought their training to bear on what will become the more or less official assessment of what happened. In addition, we have all the technology and brilliance of accident-reconstruction specialists who, by studying the lay-down of debris and tracks and the pressure required for such impact and the points of primary as opposed to secondary and tertiary impact can be reasonably certain about what or who hit what or whom first. They can even reconstruct enough to establish with some confidence which actions had to proceed which other actions in order to culminate in the impact in the first place.

All of this is absorbing. It can occupy the news media for weeks and conversation for a lifetime. It can cause consternation among those accused and angst among those deemed to have been not at fault. Reams and reams of paper, billions and billions of pixels, yards and yards of documentation, not to mention several hundred thousand dollars, will be spent in pursuit of the facts about this wreck on Main Street.

And when it is all over, when all is said and done by expert or ordinary citizen, the only absolutely certain thing ... the only "fact" beyond conceivable question ... is that there was a wreck one day on Main Street, USA, and that there was some take-away. We will never know the sum total of all the facts about the wreck nor will be ever know all of its specific details. What we have -- and all we have -- is the actuality of the wreck and the burgeoning largesse of lives changed in some greater or lesser way by their engagement with the wreck itself or with its story.

                                                            *   *   *   *   *

A parable always reveals itself early-on in its telling, as we all know. And as I said in the beginning, I tell you this dangerous tale on a mid-summer Sunday morning for a reason. That is, it was, and still is, the way of modernism to believe that there is some means by which to reconstruct and define, with detail, atemporal constancy, and specificity, the facts and truths about the wreck on Main Street. It is the way of post-modernity to doubt -- almost to disparage, in fact -- the possibility of that absolute position. Rather, what we really have here, despite all our analyses and probing, the post-modernist might well argue, is access to only one truth: There was once a wreck and, from the instant of its occurrence, it existed only in the actuality of hundreds and hundreds of people and in their engagement of it. The wreck, from its moment of impact, is as multiform, and all of its presentations as distinct and different, as are the hundreds and hundreds of individual universes in which the actuality of it now lives. The post-modernist would argue, in other words, that we should be leery of assuming that contradictions and inconsistencies are anything other than the evidence that things really are as they are when observed ... that potentially light is a wave and light is a particle. It just depends on who is watching.

Let us go forth, then, you and I, and enjoy to its fullest this lovely summer morning but may the wreck and its story also bother every one of us this whole day through. Because the operative truth here is that every single one of us, alive in 2008 and claiming Christianity as our belief system, is going to have to decide what he or she thinks about the wreck and all the words said about it. In other words, every single one of us, if we live another decade or so, is going to have to decide what he or she thinks not only about the crash, 2,000 years ago, of Messiah into space/time but also about how we understand and engage the records of that event that have come to us over the centuries. Pray God we do it well.

Phyllis Tickle (www.phyllistickle.com) is the founding editor of the religion department of Publishers Weekly and author of The Words of Jesus: A Gospel of the Sayings of Our Lord and the forthcoming fall release, The Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing and Why.

To presume is human, to reconsider sublime. At least that's what I'm beginning to believe as a father of three. Fatherhood asks one to do a great deal with often incomplete, misleading, and sometimes outright false information -- from arbitrating disputes to meting out appropriate consequences to picking cereal. I am loathe to admit the number of times I've rushed to judgment or totally misunderstood something as a dad. Sometimes the only thing that spares me from acting on dubious presumptions are a loving pair of deep mahogany eyes staring up at me, begging me to reconsider.

Art functions in a quite similar fashion. It asks us to reconsider our biases, our preferences, our intuitions, our world. That's what Barry Blitt was doing when he inked the cartoon, "Politics of Fear," which made the front cover of The New Yorker this month. And, yes, I join the ranks of Clarence Page and Jon Stewart believing that Blitt did a pretty good job.

With all due respect to my fellow God's Politics contributor, Becky Garrison, who critiqued this piece as sloppy satire, as well as the many others whose sensibilities were bruised by Blitt's biting wit, I don't get a lot of the hoopla.  Much ado has been made over whether the cartoon is funny, how easily it can be misconstrued, who it should offend and how else the cartoon shoulda-woulda-coulda been drawn. The reasons I think the piece works? First, whether or not satire is funny is irrelevant. The question is: Does it succeed at poking fun?  Ridicule and provocation are the objectives of satire; humor is just an often-used means to those ends. As for the fear of it being misconstrued, the point of the cartoon is that so much is so often willfully misconstrued. The cartoon seeks to deconstruct this impertinence. Third, of course any and everybody has the right to be offended; that's the beauty of democracy. Fourth, although I believe the satirical gist of the piece may have been better served by including the title somewhere on the front cover, who is anyone to say it should have been done this way or that?  Done any other way, it would have been a different piece of art. It seems to me that Blitt's art quite effectively accomplished what it set out to do, imperfect though it may have been.

I have two main concerns about the nature of the outcry against this cartoon. The first is that democracy doesn't abide the untouchable. Not losing sight of the fact that the cartoon isn't even about Sen. and Mrs. Obama, but rather about the ridiculous distortions that have dogged them throughout the campaign, there seem to be those who are intent on making Obama untouchable. In a democracy, a good lampooning is one of the time-honored ways we exercise our right to petition and protest. It would be different if The New Yorker cover represented the powerful, privileged, and strong going after the powerless, underprivileged, and weak -- such harpooning would be unseemly -- but it doesn't. As the historically underrepresented find broader audiences in the public square, we too have to be open to respectful forms of critique. America will have it no other way.

My second concern is that amid all the declarations of disdain, we might miss a golden opportunity for self-reflection. I would suggest that Blitt's art should not only be considered a mirror for the right but for the left and independent as well. Sure the fear-mongering of some conservatives must be seen for what it truly is, but so must the pious pretense of some liberals. Though some Republicans are doing all they can to enshrine the lies, smears, and half-truths scorned in Blitt's depiction, we must not forget that it was Democrats who in the name of "political vetting" first sketched that picture across the canvas of American consciousness. Both sides are equally responsible for nursing the notion that any criticism levied at America by a person of color indubitably comes out of a place of anger and militancy; both wings have bolstered the quiet bigotry that there might be something wrong with a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist running for president; both parties have fostered the fiction that freedom of expression is in fact unpatriotic; both factions have at times perpetuated the prejudice that anyone dressed in a headscarf is an enemy. Blitt simply offers us the opportunity to reconsider these insidious fallacies in contrast to our democratic ideals.  There's something about the way the picture at once forces the viewer to take a position, and then later, when words are ascribed to it and we come to know the intent of the author, challenges one on that position whatever it may be. That, to me, is good democratic stuff and well worth reconsidering.

Melvin Bray is a devoted husband, committed father, learner, teacher, writer, storyteller, lover of people, connoisseur of creativity, seeker of justice, purveyor of sustainability, and believer in possibilities. As founder of Kid Cultivators, he lives, loves, works, and dreams with friends in Atlanta, Georgia.

The breeze was blowing off of Lake Tanganyika, and I was enjoying the evening with a friend at the Hotel Club Du Lac. We were enjoying a cold drink and good conversation when it occurred to me that the beachfront was filled with foreigners enjoying the beach at sunset. It was July 1, and the beach was teeming with laughter, BBQs, and a game of volleyball.  This is something we have not witnessed in Burundi for more than 15 years, and it was almost like a dream as I watched the good humor and celebration around me.

This past July 1, we celebrated the 46th anniversary of our independence from Belgium. We celebrate our Independence Day every year, but not every year has been cause for cheering, parades, and national pride.  As a matter of fact, the past 15 years have been painful for Burundians, and the holiday seemed to be a reminder of what had gone miserably wrong with our country in the wake of colonialism.  Back in 1992 our government, after much pressure from Western nations to quickly implement democracy, introduced a multiparty political system.  The following year elections were held and the people elected a president.  This was the first time a Hutu would be the president of Burundi, reflecting the majority of the population of the country.  You can imagine the celebration!  However, the joy was short-lived.  Four months after taking office, our president was killed in a coup d'etat.  This plunged the country into a bloody civil war that has lasted for 15 years.

During these dark years, we have had more to fear than to celebrate.  No less than five armed rebel groups were formed.  They roved the country, creating havoc for rural residents and city dwellers alike. It is estimated that more than half a million people were killed in a long series of skirmishes and outright hostilities. Two million more Burundians fled the country altogether, seeking refuge in neighboring countries from the turmoil in their homeland. But a refugee camp is little solace; it is not home. You are not really living so much as waiting -- waiting for the day you can return to your farm, your community, your family.

So this year when July 1 came, there was actually reason to celebrate. For the first time we could boast that all the rebel groups have disarmed and integrated into the army, that there will be no fighting on the eve of our Independence Day.

The final group just began their integration process last month, so this is a fragile time as negotiations and political maneuvering continue. Many of the refugees are returning home to Burundi. Our second democratically elected president is in office and is still alive! For the first time in 15 years we have reason to hope, reason to believe that peace is about to break on the shore of our country. This may just well mark the end of the civil strife that has plagued Burundi for so many years. Our season of war might be over at long last.

This season I would like to invite our African and Western friends to reconsider Burundi, to begin to think of my country as a peaceful and beautiful nation on the mend. We need our friends more than ever, as we still have many challenges ahead of us. Poverty, disease, delayed economic development, and poor infrastructure are all reminders of the past we are emerging from. We have farms that need to work again, a government that needs to learn to function again, and a crippling national debt that we need to address immediately for the health of our country. Burundi needs friends, investors, advocates around the globe, and, most importantly, we need your prayers and presence.

Celebrate with us -- a new day is dawning in Burundi!

Claude Nikondeha is the director of amahoro-africa.org, and divides his time between Surprise, Arizona, and Bujumbura, Burundi

In the first weekend of June I watched some au naturel how-to videos on the oldest profession in the world.

Anyone who's read The Red Tent, by Anita Diamant, knows that I'm talking about the ancient practice of women supporting other women in childbirth. The assisting woman, whom today we would call either a midwife (medical training) or a doula (comfort techniques training), makes her first appearance in the Bible in Genesis 35 for Rachel's labor with Benjamin. And everyone knows of the heroic midwives Shiphrah and Puah, who in Exodus 1 defy the pharaoh's orders to kill every Hebrew male infant they deliver.

I'm trying to get my DONA doula certification, a process that, on average, takes about two to three years to complete. I took my first step toward certification with a doula childbirth class from a modern-day Shiphrah named Marilyn Hildreth. She's attended more than 4,000 births, both as a registered nurse and as a certified doula. When she talks about women's rights in the birthing room and best practices for the health of the baby, her eyes get bright and her voice trembles slightly. You could say she's passionate. All weekend long we went over the stages of labor, analyzed medical care standards, and practiced comfort techniques such as massage, laboring positions, and verbal encouragement. We also watched a lot of freaky birthing videos.

Better labor experiences for women mean a lot to me. It wasn't until a few years ago that I asked my own mother about the story of my birth. She said it was something so frightening and painful that she wept with fear in her heart when she found out she was pregnant with my younger sister. For women who could pay, Filipino urban hospitals in the mid-'80s were paragons of Western medical practice. Everything was scrubbed, shaved, and sanitary, and my mom received every industrial-world benefit she could have hoped for: her own room, an epidural, and an enema. After 24 hours of numb, lonely (no dads in the room!) labor, she was too exhausted to deliver me so the doctor cut into her vagina (an episiotomy) and used forceps to pull me out. While she slept, I was scrubbed clean and sent off to the nursery. It was hours before she could get up to see me.

Her testimony may not shock most women who read this blog, but after my DONA training I know that a doula by her side would have made a world of difference. Doulas have been credited with reducing the length of labor by more than 50 percent, reducing epidural use for pain relief by more than 85 percent, and reducing forceps use by more than 65 percent for every birth they attend. Massage isn't the only thing responsible for these rates. Women who employ doulas also receive education on their rights in the delivery room and the benefits, risks, and alternatives to hospital protocol before the birth takes place. That way, the birthing woman has more control over her own body and labor, as opposed to feeling trapped by a doctor-patient power dynamic in the heat and chaos of a delivery room. Quoting John Kennell, M.D., from the book Mothering the Mother: How a Doula Can Help You Have a Shorter, Easier, and Healthier Birth, Marilyn claimed that "if a doula were a drug, it would be malpractice not to use it."

If you haven't yet, I encourage you to talk to your own mother about the story of your birth. You'll be surprised at what you find out. If you're a mother yourself, please consider this blog a place to share your own childbirth stories.

Anna Almendrala is the marketing and circulation assistant for Sojourners.

We do not detach ourselves from things in order to attach ourselves to God, but rather we become detached from ourselves in order to see and use all things in and for God.

- Thomas Merton
New Needs of Contemplation

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

The latest news on Happy Birthday, Nelson Mandela, Economy, Global warming, Presidential campaign, Death penalty, Darfur Israel, Mideast diplomacy, Iran, India, North Korea, Latin America, Human Rights, Anglicans, Pope in Australia, Interfaith conference, Passing-Tony Snow, and Opinion.

+ Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, for all his works are truth, and his ways are justice; and he is able to bring low those who walk in pride.

- Daniel 4:37

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

I've been blogging lately about faith, politics, and voting. In a recent post, I reflected that this election season will require us to have thousands of conversations, millions even -- around dinner tables, sitting at the beach, during hikes and boat rides, online, in church fellowship halls, and parking lots -- about truly important issues for us as Americans and as Christians. We'll need to talk about race, war, poverty, sustainable prosperity, the environment, energy, national unity and fragmentation, torture, what it means to be a moral leader in the family of nations, and even the meaning of voting itself. I then expressed my prayerful hope that through these conversations:

... our nation will become a little wiser, a little less racist, a little more humble, a little more good-hearted and unified and respectful, one conversation at a time, one person at a time.

That prayerful hope came back to me the other day when I read a post by a good friend. He suggested we should advise everybody and endorse nobody. I'm quite certain that my friend meant, by the word endorse, "blindly, uncritically, and without reservation express support for." And, of course, with that I would fully agree.

Looking back over religious-political discourse in recent decades, many of our religious leaders implied, "If a candidate is right on issue A and issue B, support him without reservation," which carried the tacit message, "These issues are so important -- don't worry what he says about issue C and issue D." The result of this kind of endorsement was that millions of Christians supported President Bush on two issues, and then were strangely silent and uncritical about other issues -- like the failure of the Iraq war to stand the test of just war theory (not to mention the spiritual call to Christ-like peacemaking, etc.).

Millions of voters may do the same in 2008, uncritically endorsing the candidate who wins them by taking a for-against position on one or two issues -- whether or not he will actually make a positive difference in regard to those issues, and without critically assessing other issues that are also profoundly important. (For me, one such issue would be how itchy a candidate's trigger-finger is regarding war with Iran.)

On the one hand, then, if we tacitly define endorse as many have in recent years, I fully agree with my friend. But on the other hand, I worry that some people may unwisely extend my friend's comment to voting itself, or to talking openly about who we plan to vote for and why, for each decision is a kind of endorsement. In fact, voting and engaging in intelligent dialogue about voting are the kinds of endorsements that every one of us is expected to make as a responsible member of a democracy.

Again, even in voting, we must realize that we do so without giving uncritical, unqualified support to our political system. Our whole system is, as nearly all of us agree, a broken system, corrupted by big money at one level, distracted by superficial media on another level, subverted by unscrupulous political operatives on still another level, influenced by injudicious religious leaders on another, and weakened by voter apathy/ignorance on yet another level. Some may choose to protest the imperfection of the candidates or the imperfection of the system by not voting, or perhaps by writing in "Jesus" on their ballot. But doing so, we should remember, doesn't provide a pious shortcut to responsibility, any more than voting based on litmus-test wedge issues does. In fact, it could be seen as aiding and abetting the least scrupulous parties and candidates and subverting the more honorable ones by treating them as if there were no difference between them.

Anyway, these are the kinds of respectful conversations I hope we can have over the next two or three months. Speaking personally, I will vote in this election. I will continue to share with anyone who asks whom I plan to vote for and why. In that sense, I will endorse a candidate as a private citizen of this nation.

But whoever I vote for in this or any election, my vote will not imply uncritical, unqualified, unconditional, and unreserved endorsement. I know I'm choosing between the better of two good-but-imperfect candidates, or the less dangerous of two dangerously flawed ones. I know that I'm voting for a flawed human president in a flawed human system, not a Savior. But the Savior, after all, doesn't need or even ask for my vote in 2008. The Savior asks for much more: my life every day and every moment, expressed in the kind of daily voting that I've written about elsewhere.

If my preferred candidate is elected, I owe him something much more fitting than uncritical, unqualified, unthinking, unconditional support. But that's a subject for another time.

Brian McLaren is an author and speaker and serves as Sojourners' board chair. You can learn about his books, music, and other resources at brianmclaren.net.

Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows (Luke 12:6-7).

He will rescue them from oppression and violence, for precious is their blood in his sight (Psalm 72:14).

My friends and I were discussing the ongoing violence in Zimbabwe -- it seems senseless. Or is it? The explanation given for the violence prior to the recent elections was that it was part of "Operation: Who Did You Vote For?" -- also referred to as electoral cleansing. The goal was to ensure that the ruling party would win the elections, which they did.

But then why is the violence continuing? When the negotiations began last week between the political parties, cessation of violence was one of the key issues raised, and we all hoped the violence would eventually stop. But it has not, and the negotiations have hit a brick wall and are currently at a standstill. The loss and violation of human life goes to the heart of our faith. For each human being is made in the image of God and therefore has inherent dignity and is of infinite value.

I fear for myself and our faith communities that the ongoing violence may desensitize us to the value of human life and its preciousness to God. Somehow this is the "salt" and the "light" we need to be to keep the value of human dignity, especially the value of African life. Please continue to pray. Thank you.

Nontando Hadebe, a former Sojourners intern, is originally from Zimbabwe and is now pursuing graduate studies in theology in South Africa.

As [Jesus] taught, he said, "Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets! They devour widows' houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers.

- Mark 12:38-40

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

AIDS plan, Life expectancy and inequality, Children and war, Iran, Israel-Hezbollah swap, Nation-building Afghanistan, Iraq, Food crisis, Oil, Interfaith summit, Pope in Australia, Anglican conference, Editorial, and Opinion.

+ Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

Pray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living.

- Mother Jones

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

Some folks I've talked to are not going to vote in the 2008 elections. Some are disillusioned. Some don't like either candidate enough to vote. For some, not voting is an act of protest against the whole system, which they believe is hopelessly corrupt. Some believe that their citizenship in God's kingdom means they shouldn't become involved in "earthly" citizenship.

While I respect my friends who aren't going to vote -- especially those who have prayerfully thought the decision through from multiple vantage points -- I will vote in this election for several reasons.

1. True, there are plenty of reasons to be disillusioned with U.S. politics (corptocracy and plutocracy being major ones). But in my travels in other countries it has become clear to me that even though our system has a lot of problems (and that was a gentle understatement), many other nations are far more corrupt, far less transparent, etc. If we in the U.S. don't try to make our system work, we're setting a pretty poor example. Besides, in every other area of my life -- church, family, business, etc. -- I don't let disappointment or disillusionment or setbacks make me withdraw into inaction. Rather, I become more committed to make things work.

2. I don't expect any candidate to be perfect. In fact, my theological beliefs tell me that I will always be choosing between the lesser of two evils -- or more positively put, the better of two less-than-perfects. The fact that candidates are willing to endure the hard work, the media scrutiny, the pressure, the responsibility -- of both the election and the office -- can be seen as a sign of something good. After all, if all a candidate cared about was personal peace, personal comfort, or personal wealth, there are a lot better ways to get ahead. So rather than say, "I don't think either candidate is good enough for my vote," I'm more prone to say, "Thank God people are willing to run at all, and thank God we have two candidates as good as the ones we have." We could be choosing between Mugabe and Mugabe.

3. I believe there is much to protest in our current system. But noninvolvement, it seems to me, generally empowers those who are in control. So non-voting becomes a kind of passive vote for the people in power.

4. I believe that a commitment to Christian discipleship should make me a better neighbor, employee, spouse, child, or parent, too. Similarly, I believe that "citizenship in God's kingdom" should make me the best kind of citizen possible, not the worst. Of course, because of my commitment to God's kingdom, I have a broader range of concerns than I would without that commitment. (More on this in the next post.) But I believe that those concerns would in the big scheme of things make me an even more valuable citizen. My civic responsibility would certainly not end with voting, but I can't see why it would stop short of voting either.

One final thought. For those of us who do vote, it is a mistake to think that electing the better of two candidates necessarily guarantees things will get better. (Electing the worst of two candidates, however, can definitely make things worse!) I've lived in the D.C. area most of my life, and it's clear to me from where I live that there are powerful forces that resist the leadership of every new president -- political and economic lobbies, bureaucratic and institutional inertia, plus the frightening ever-present momentum of the military-industrial complex. I agree 100 percent with my friend Jim Wallis who says that what changes society is not just elections, but the wise and ongoing pressure of social movements on elected officials. Politicians are always checking the wind, Jim says -- and our job, through social movements, is to change the wind. And I also agree 100 percent with my friends Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw, who remind us as followers of Jesus that we don't elect our ultimate commander-in-chief. Rather, we discover that he has elected us to join him in his mission. In that light, I believe our vote must ultimately seek to express our fidelity to his good news -- which is (according to Luke) good news for all people, and especially good news for the poor.

Brian McLaren is an author and speaker and serves as Sojourners' board chair. You can learn about his books, music, and other resources at brianmclaren.net.

While Ben Franklin penned the first American political cartoon in 1776, Thomas Nast ushered in the gilded age of the modern political cartoon when he toppled Boss Tweed. Since then, no political party or scandal has been deemed off limits, as evidenced by the cartoon coverage given to the misadventures of George W. Bush, Grover Cleveland, Bill Clinton, Larry Craig, John F. Kennedy, and Teddy Roosevelt, to name a few of the powerful who have been stung by the power of the poisoned pen. (For an interesting international take on the history of political cartooning, check out The Political Cartoon Society).

When one places the July 2008 issue of The New Yorker cover into its historical context, one sees that the magazine has a long history of running covers that can be deemed controversial and at times crass, depending on one's political perspective. As a writer, I tend to side with those who wish to exert their first amendment rights, as long as they are not committing slander, plagiarism, or other illegal offenses. Such are the benefits of living in a democracy. (Let us not forget that no one has called for the execution of anyone associated with this drawing.)

But when editor David Remnick and artist Barry Blitt began defending as "satire" the depiction of the Obamas as a radical Muslim and Black Panther intent on invading the White House, sorry, but I beg to differ. If this particular piece was intended to parody the racist thoughts that people harbor toward Obama, it fell well short of its mark. For starters, if you have to explain repeatedly that "it was just a joke," then you need to refine your material.

While I am sure The New Yorker would never intentionally pen a piece that would benefit McCain, I can see how select groups can use this piece for non-humorous purposes to perpetuate this Muslim myth. After all, according to a Newsweek poll, 12 percent of respondents still believe Obama is a Muslim, despite the fact that he is a practicing Christian. Also, this cartoon could be seen as depicting the anger still felt by some Democrats that Obama is their nominee.

When describing the role of the political cartoonist, Daryl Cagle observes:

Cartoons can be outrageous in their exaggeration; we draw things that never happened, and never could happen -- but we have a contract with the readers who understand that we're drawing crazy things that convey our own views. The New Yorker's Obama cover fails to keep that contract with readers. Cartoonists don't exaggerate anything just because we have the freedom to do so; we exaggerate to communicate in a way that our readers understand.

Here Cagle offers his solution for how this cartoon could be fixed:

I would have Obama think in a thought balloon, "I must be in the nightmare of some conservative." With that, the scene is shown to be in the mind of someone the cartoonist disagrees with and we have defined the target of the cartoon as crazy conservatives with their crazy dreams.

The controversy over this cartoon does serve to remind us that race and religion continue to be used as roadblocks to prevent any sane and reasoned discussion of the issues that face our country today. We clearly need satirists to deflate the hot air and hooey that permeate the air during every election season. As much as I love The Colbert Report, The Daily Show, and The Onion, my heart yearns for the wisecracking wisdom of George Carlin right about now.

Becky Garrison is senior contributing writer for The Wittenburg Door, the country's largest, oldest, and only religious satire magazine.

The latest news on Bipartisan friendship, Economy, Medicare, Militarized foreign policy, Afghanistan, War resister deported, Guantanamo video, Iran, Iraq Israel, and Sudan.

+ Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God - not the result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.

- Ephesians 2:8

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

People must not only hear about the kingdom of God, but must see it in actual operation, on a small scale perhaps and in imperfect form, but a real demonstration nevertheless.

- Pandita Ramabai
Indian Christian and reformer (1858-1922)

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

Last week, Congress refused - for a second time - to fund the Bush administration's demand for a new nuclear weapon system, the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). However, cutting funding for the RRW is one of those big moves destined to generate little fanfare.

It is a little too technical and incremental to be heralded as a decisive step towards nuclear abolition, and yet the RRW program - which over the next decade or so would have upgraded the core workings of all U.S. nuclear warheads - was a life line for the nuclear weapons complex at a time when President George W. Bush was one of the few holdouts on the global consensus on disarmament.

So, cutting $10 million for the nascent program could very likely be the beginning of the end of the flow of resources into new nuclear weapons development.

The move "reflects a broad rejection of President Bush's aggressive nuclear doctrine, and may also signal a new opportunity for true American leadership away from nuclear weapons," notes Cara Bautista, deputy political director for Peace Action West.

Stephen Colecchi, director of the Office of International Justice and Peace for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, told Sojourners:

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has opposed funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead for a long time. As Bishop Wenski, the Chairman of the Committee on International Justice and Peace, wrote in a letter to Congress: 'The moral task today is to proceed with deeper cuts and ultimately to ban nuclear weapons entirely, not to create new ones. Just war moral criteria require that the use of force be proportionate and discriminate, minimizing harm to civilians. The use of nuclear weapons cannot meet these criteria in any meaningful sense.'

We can credit everyone from Henry Kissinger to Helen Caldicott to grassroots activists with groups like PeaceAction and the Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World with helping to create a political climate in which Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and others could act.

The religious community and nuclear arms reduction advocates can celebrate a victory on this one.

Frida Berrigan is a senior program associate at the New America Foun­dation's Arms and Security Initiative. Read what religious leaders have to day about nuclear weapons in A Crime Against Humanity (Sojourners, March 2008) Read Frida Berrigan's overview of the military spending budget in 'A Theft from Those Who Hunger' (Sojourners, June 2008).

[continued from part 1]

I double-checked the sign on the doors nearest me and looked around at the buttons and stickers of the people I was wedging my way through and breathed deeply, relieved to be in the right place. This was confirmed by the impassioned calls from my fellows, "They have defined the issues for too long. It is time for our voices to be heard!" "If people of faith don't come together and work to put him in the White House, they will set the agenda for the next four years, and then it might be too late!" Yes, now is the time, really the time. I nodded my head even more vigorously than before, almost jumped up and down to make up for my earlier perjury. I was about to complete my previously interrupted fist pump when my phone vibrated. I looked at it--a text from an unknown number. I read it.

What? I text back: What?

The reply came back immediately:

I try to clear some room around me with my elbows; my awareness of the crowd diminished to bodies bumping and jostling while I try to get my thumbs to type full sentences on the phone.

Who is this? What are talking about? Are you talking about this? Do you know where I am? I hit send.

Reply:

I am vaguely aware of a swell in the crowd noise, and then it recedes. The jostling and bumping increase, people moving past me, but I don't lift my head. I am focused only on this phone, trying to see through it to the prophet on the other end.

I am here to live out my values, right? This does matter. It can make a difference. I type and hit send with purpose, thinking it will emphasize my point.

Reply:

Is this the text of Isaiah or the texter of Isaiah watching me? My thumbs work resolutely. Are you some sort of stalker? Some radical separatist stalker prophet? Send.

Reply:

I pause. I am thinking. He doesn't wait for my response.

I look up. I look around and see that I am standing alone in front of Charles Colson Jr. High.

Russell Rathbun is a storyteller and a member of theGuild, along with Melvin Bray (language artist), Lisa Samson (novelist), Yaisha Harding (writer), Ercell Watson (comedian), Eugene Russell (singer-songwriter-rapper-actor), Daley Hake (photographer), Ed Sohn (multimedia artist), Prisca Kim (writer), and Claudia Burney (novelist), and Daniel Ra (singer-songwriter). Learn more on theGuild's Facebook page.

For more extended versions of the texts, see Undergoing God, by James Alison

Catholic social teaching tells us the dignity of the human person is the foundation and measure of a moral society. If the U.S. were put to this test based on our treatment of immigrants, how would we fare? If the recently released evidence from the heartland of Postville, Iowa is any indicator, I'd venture to say we're in danger of flunking.

In an exclusive New York Times interview and 14-page essay, federal court interpreter Erik Camayd-Freixas recounts the ICE raid at the Agriprocessors plant in Postville this past May in disturbing detail. In what is considered a groundbreaking departure from the code of silence observed by court translators, Dr. Camayd-Freixas' eyewitness account exposes the flaws in the "fast track" legal proceedings which took place in temporary trailers on the grounds of the National Cattle Congress. The majority of workers detained, mostly Guatemalans and many illiterate, did not fully understand the criminal charges brought against them.

As stories like this come pouring in, I am deeply saddened and angered by the flaws in our current immigration system that allows such traumatic enforcement tactics and hasty legal processing in the first place. I also give thanks for Erik Camayd-Freixas who spoke the truth so that all may know the full story. It's now up to us, based on the facts we know, to do something about it. If we are to live into the vision of a moral society, we need more people willing to stand up for the sake of those on the margins.

Click here to read the full essay.

Allison Johnson is the policy and organizing assistant for Sojourners.

The latest news on Economy, Jobs, Offshore drilling, Presidential campaign, War resisters in Canada, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan, Church of England, and Editorial.

+ Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

Jesus sowed his seed in our hearts, then off he went.... He knew things would not be ideal. There were the birds and the droughts, the weeds and the insects, the parasites and the blights. But there was also the power of the seed itself.

- Joseph G. Donders
Teacher and chaplain at the University of Nairobi, Kenya

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

- Galatians 5:1

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

As a confirmed newspaper addict, I've learned to pay attention to the bylines on stories, and over the years have learned which ones to look for on particular topics. In Sunday morning's New York Times, I see that one of my favorites is retiring. For nearly 30 years, Linda Greenhouse has covered the Supreme Court and I've come to trust her reporting - always well-researched and well-written. If I want to understand a complicated Court decision, I go to her story first. When the new Court term begins in October, it won't be the same.

In her final piece yesterday, she offered some reflections on her years covering the Court. She describes learning "a real sense of the court as an active participant in the ceaseless American dialogue about constitutional values and priorities, not a remote oracle" and points out that:

In fact, it is most often the Supreme Court that is the follower. It ratifies or consolidates change rather than propelling it, although in the midst of heated debate over a major case, it can often appear otherwise. Without delving into the vast political science and legal academic literature on this point, I'm simply offering my empirical observation that the court lives in constant dialogue with other institutions, formal and informal, and that when it strays too far outside the existing political or social consensus, the result is a palpable tension both inside and outside the court.

Although the piece doesn't say so, I for one certainly hope that she writes a book on her years covering the Court. I'll look forward to it.

Duane Shank is senior policy adviser for Sojourners.

I am standing in this big line outside of Charles Colson Jr. High waiting for the doors to open. I say "big line" instead of "long line" because it is more mob-ish, more wide than long. Our senior pastor was right. At a staff meeting he told us, "Get there early. I predict unprecedented involvement in Tuesday's caucus." His political insight as to the large turn-out comes, I am sure, from reading the front page of the USA Today, which reported huge turnouts for all the recent caucuses and primaries. "Unprecedented involvement," he continued, "And I want us to be involved in that involvement."

He had repeated this last line at all five services on Sunday. He had urged the crowds of Maple Lakes Community Church faithful to bring our values and commitments out of the church and onto the streets, which evidently led to the Jr. High.

"Of course, I am not telling you who to caucus for. I trust that the issues which this gospel," (his hand goes to Bible on lectern, and kind of rubs it a little), "is most concerned about will guide your choice. The Spirit is moving believers, like never before, into unprecedented political involvement." Then the line: "and I want us to be involved in that involvement."

So, here I am, shoulder to shoulder with other concerned citizens in a crush. I have to admit that though large crowds of well meaning people usually are a precursor to a panic attack for me, this is exciting. It feels good to be here, to be doing something, to be, well ... involved. I hadn't been to a caucus since I was 18, and that Reverend was running for president.

People all around me were talking passionately about what planks they would propose, or what the most important issues were and why. Most of this I couldn't make out because of the nearly cacophonous fervency of the voices and the loud buzzing in my head that, like a panic attack, usually accompanies my contact with large crowds. What I could catch made my head nod vigorously, ardent statements like, "They have defined the issues for too long. It is time for our voices to be heard!" Yes, that is true, my nodding head agreed. "If people of faith don't come together and work to put the president in the White House, they will set the agenda for the next four years, and then it might be too late!" Yes, now is the time, my nodding head, amen-ed, now joined enthusiastically by the upper half of my body. I was just about to add a fist-pump-supported "Yeah!" when the next declaration made it clear to me what issue these political compatriots were talking about.

My head stopped nodding. I looked around warily. How could I have not seen all the buttons and stickers so garishly adorning these people? I looked at the doors we were waiting to get in. There was a handwritten sign with the party's name on it. I panicked. I looked over to another set of doors nearby and saw a sign with my party's name on it. This wasn't one big mob waiting to get in; this was two big mobs related only by proximity. Both party caucuses were being held at Chuck Colson. The turnout was indeed so large and teeming that what was once, I am sure, two distinct lines had devolved into one nearly indistinguishable mass of political passion.

I ducked my head and made my way to the other side of the crowd as quickly as I could. I had almost accidentally acted on the deeply held convictions of someone else.

[to be continued...]

Russell Rathbun is a storyteller and a member of theGuild, along with Melvin Bray (language artist), Lisa Samson (novelist), Yaisha Harding (writer), Ercell Watson (comedian), Eugene Russell (singer-songwriter-rapper-actor), Daley Hake (photographer), Ed Sohn (multimedia artist), Prisca Kim (writer), and Claudia Burney (novelist), and Daniel Ra (singer-songwriter). Learn more on theGuild's Facebook page.

As we pass the half-way point of our Jesus for President tour, we remember Jesus' admonition that we be "as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves." There is a lot of momentum around our little campaign of political misfits - from some of the mainstream media and from the dozen cities where we've had thousands of folks come together to plot goodness. And with the momentum comes temptation.

We've been courted by candidates who want an endorsement... or who at least would like us to be "advisers." At first I thought advising a candidate was a subtle euphemism for endorsing them, but I have come to think that there is an important distinction to make between "endorsing" and "advising." I want to be an adviser to every politico that asks, and an endorser of no one but Jesus. Chris and I just joked that he could become an official advisor for Obama, and I'd take McCain just to make sure folks know that we are not partisan. We do take seriously the opportunity to dialogue with political candidates, or anyone else for that matter, especially as many people seem to be rethinking politics as usual. As for the presidential candidates, we're not sure how our counsel will go over, since it may begin with advising those seeking office to melt down the weapons of our arsenal and transform them into things that bring life to the suffering masses of this planet--"beating swords into plows" as the prophets say. But we'll see if anyone takes us up on the offer.

Chris and I end the 2-hour JFP presentation with these words:

We will not be endorsing any candidates. Rather, we will invite them to endorse the political manifesto of our Commander-in-Chief and to join the peculiar upside-down Kingdom that blesses the poor and the peacemakers...

Our central allegience is to God's Kingdom, and we invite everything else in the world to align itself with the norms of that upside-down Kingdom. That is what we endorse, and we stand behind everything and everyone that moves us closer to that - the coming of God's Kingdom "on earth as it is in heaven." And we get in the way of everything that contradicts and works against God's Kingdom - interrupting injustice with grace.

In post-Religious Right America, we want to learn from the mistakes of the generation before us (so we don't repeat them) - one of which was telling Christians who to vote for. Rather than spoon-feeding people answers, we hope to stir up the right questions - and trust that the Spirit will lead us as we "work out our salvation with fear and trembling." One of the places the religious right went wrong was telling people what to do rather than inviting them to think for themselves, with the help of the Spirit of God (in fact, it even seems a real lack of faith to to coerce or convince people to do exactly what we want them to... as if the Spirit is not at work in them). That's where Jesus shines - he stirs up questions and tells stories that unveil truth, rather than drafting a careful declaration or endorsement that's going to solve everything wrong in the world.

Folks come out of our JFP shows with all kinds of ideas churning. Some have shared that they are inspired to start an adoption agency to try and decrease the number of abortions. U.S. soldiers have said they are becoming conscientious objectors or are seeking discharge. Some folks have said they are going to organize for one of the candidates, and others have said they are going to write in "Jesus" on Nov. 4. To all of it we say, "Yes!" Thank God the Spirit is at work, and is renewing minds and imaginations in the Church, so that we might follow the command of Romans: "Do not conform to the patterns of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind."

Reporters often ask folks leaving our presentations funny questions like: "Young evangelicals are the swing vote in this election... has this evening affected how you are going to vote in November?" I heard one person say beautifully, "That's the wrong question... the real question is how can we become the change we want to see in the world TODAY and not just hope that every four years we can elect politicians to change the world for us." May it be so. May we continue to become the change we want to see in the Church and in the world. Enough donkeys and elephants - Long live the Lamb.

Shane Claiborne is the author of Jesus for President, a Red Letter Christian, and a founding partner of The Simple Way community, a radical faith community that lives among and serves the homeless in the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia.

I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them; I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, so that they may follow my statutes and keep my ordinances and obey them. Then they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

- Ezekiel 11:19

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

The pearl of justice is found in the heart of mercy.

- Catherine of Siena

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

The latest news on Mortgages, AIDS relief, Measuring poverty, Church & immigration, Afghanistan, Sudan-Darfur, Iraq, Mideast WMDs, North Korea, India, Supreme Court, Opinion.

+ Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

Tomorrow is Bastille Day. We Americans don't take much notice of that these days, but once there was a time when we did. Once was the time, especially as the storm clouds of World War II were gathering over us, when school children and working folk alike stopped to acknowledge a deep and compelling affinity between America and France. Not only had France, historically speaking, always been our most faithful and dependable ally, but she was also seen, politically speaking, as the other half of the Great Experiment.

Both of us had fought wars of ferocious and egalitarian intensity against the armies of kings and of the scabrous nobility that fawned upon them. We, the people, had won those wars, the French on their side of the Atlantic and we on ours; but we had done so with a great deal of mutual help and encouragement, one from another. And we had--the French too--done all of this in the name of a shared vision, in the name of democracy.

We had fought because of our belief in government by the consent of the governed; and in both cases, we were convinced we had won our battles because of the justness and righteousness of that cause. It followed then, especially in the 1930's and 1940's of my own childhood and adolescence, that sheer patriotism required a great celebration on July 4^th each summer and, ten days later, at the very least, a rousing public rendition or two of the Marseillaise, a lifting of the hat at noon, and a waving about of France's blue, white, and red in acknowledgment that together, united in principle and vision, even if separated by oceans and language, we had each secured democracy for the world and were determined to secure it still. We had established by mutual example and history, democracy's feasibility, its great utility, its role as benefactor for all people. Long live the rule of law and democratic principles in both our houses.

The first Fourth of July was two hundred and thirty-two years ago; the storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789, two hundred and nineteen years ago. In both cases, less than a quarter of a millennium. A mere dollop of time. No more than a passing interruption in the long reach of human history. But time enough for us, on this side of the pond, at least, to have some perspective, some distance for considering the course of the Great Experiment as it has played out in reality. Enough for us to inquire of ourselves about how well we have stayed, or not stayed, the course toward human equality; about how well we have achieved flagrant, rampant justice for all; about how fully we have created radical access for all to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

I am not a politician. God knows, it is enough in this day and age just to be Christian at some kind of serious and functional level. To the extent that I am Christian, though, it follows of necessity that what I write and what I say and the actions I take have political repercussions or consequences, for better or worse. I am not naïve enough to think otherwise. When I say I am not a politician, in other words, I simply mean to say that I have no knowledge of how to resolve all the contradictions and conflicts of interest that impede the easy execution of our common life, both domestic and foreign. I don't pretend, either, to have a professional's grasp of what all of those opposing forces are. I certainly don't claim the expertise that would be able to calculate accurately what the consequences might be of restraining any or all of those opposing forces for the sake of the common good of humanity and the on-going health of the Great Experiment.

What I do know, however, is that this July I am reading more and more about Guantanamo Bay and what we have done there. I can view again on the net pictures that have been taken in that place and understand to the depths of my soul, all over again, that something died there, that the Great Experiment was dealt something close to a fatal blow there, that the hope which birthed both the Marseillaise and the Star-Spangled Banner was mocked into impotence there.

I doubt seriously that I will hum the national anthem of France tomorrow, unless inadvertently. I certainly won't tip my hat at noon, and I no longer even own a tri-colored flag to either wave or wear. But I do plan to do again tomorrow what I did ten days ago. The Christian in me will look a while at the pictures of Gitmo on my screen and read the current reportage about Guantanamo in my newspapers and, that having been done, will beseech God somehow to release us all from the hell of what we Americans have permitted and empowered.

That ultimately is the dark side of the Great Experiment, isn't it? That in a democracy, it is not ever some "other" or some "they" who have permitted and empowered. It is we who have done so. It is we who at Guantanamo have desecrated within a single decade the hope of two centuries and, for the Christians among us, shattered completely the second half of the Great Commandment.

Gitmo and all its kind will not undo, nor will they ever be undone. That is our truth this Summer Sunday. But, by the grace of God, there is another and redeeming truth: Gitmo and all its kind can be repented of.

May that be done in all our houses this Bastille Day and every day thereafter, for so long as we who live now, shall live.

Phyllis Tickle (www.phyllistickle.com) is the founding editor of the religion department of Publishers Weekly and author of The Words of Jesus: A Gospel of the Sayings of Our Lord and the forthcoming fall release, The Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing and Why. Listen, Lord - A Prayer is from God's Trombones, by James Weldon Johnson.

This Fulfulde proverb is often quoted when somebody is losing his or her patience, when somebody is about to make a quick decision without thinking seriously and considering carefully all the consequences of his or her actions, when a trial seems to last forever, when there is a risk of revenge, when there is a risk of conflict, or when people are tempted to react violently to a provocation.

The above African proverb from the Fulbe people aptly describes the situation in Zimbabwe. Its advice to be patient is tough for many Zimbabweans who have had to endure so much suffering politically and economically. Yet it is advice that may prove beneficial especially when it is supported by efforts designed to bring a just solution to the crisis.

The events of the past few months have created an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty, ambiguity and ambivalence about the future. Talks between the opposition and government started this week in South Africa with the opposition referring to these talks as primarily about the conditions they have set for any negotiations to take place. These conditions include the end to ongoing violence and the appointment of additional mediators to oversee the process. The international pressure on both parties is ensuring that negotiations go on. Critical to negotiations is the appointment of mediators who will have the full trust of both sides. The choice of mediators is therefore crucial to ensure that democracy, human rights, accountability, justice and the best interests of the people of Zimbabwe are upheld. Please continue to pray in this regard. I want you to know that your prayers are appreciated. God bless you too!

Nontando Hadebe, a former Sojourners intern, is originally from Zimbabwe and is now pursuing graduate studies in theology in South Africa.

Recently, I had the unique opportunity of meeting with four Iraqi evangelicals at a conference in a country near Iraq. They were young church leaders. Despite the circumstances in their country, they were upbeat and gracious. Having never been to Iraq, nor having personally met an Iraqi, I was eager to hear their perspectives on current events. My conversations with them helped me understand to a greater degree the true complexity of war.

One of them was a church planter in a large city in Iraq. When he spoke about his people, he was enthusiastic. He talked about how Iraqis were responsive to the gospel in times of peace. But when I pointedly asked him about the war and made it clear he could be honest with me, his response was a mixture of anger and depression saying, "It has been a disaster. My church has been destroyed. Christians had more safety and security under Hussein than we do now."

Another told me that her street was called the "Street of the Dead". The corpses from surrounding areas are collected and deposited on her street. Everyday she sees them; she walks by them; she smells them in her home. One looked at me with eyes full of desperation saying, "my entire life has been a war. I hate war."

I had made it clear to my four conversational partners that they could speak their minds. I also let them know that, on the basis of my religious conviction, I had been opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Nevertheless I was startled at how angry and frustrated they were about their dire situation. All four of them, two women and two men from three different regions, assured me that life had been better under Hussein. I asked them what the other Iraqis thought. They said everyone they knew, Christians included, felt the same.

Later I mentioned this to an American evangelical who quickly retorted that they sounded like the Israelites after they had been brought out of Egypt. The intent of his analogy was to parallel the Israelites' desire to return to Egypt with the Iraqis' desire for the way things were. I responded, "Then who is God in this analogy? Who is Egypt? Who is Israel?" Though he did not respond, it seemed clear to me that he equated the related decisions of our current administration to the liberating acts of God. This shows the complexity of religion in the context of war.

I assured my new Iraqi friends that I would return to the U.S. and would try to find a place for their voices. I would try to convince others to see the complexity of war and face the fact that too often we equate the decisions of our nation's administration with the will of our loving God.

In a parting discussion, I asked them what message would they like to send to their brothers and sisters in the USA; what would they like for us to do? They unanimously said the following:

1) Insist the U.S. government make security its priority,

2) Help to develop the economy of Iraq so all Christians don't have to leave the country to find a job and

3) Please no more war in the Middle East.

Whether there is ever a "just war" is a matter of debate, but there is never "just a war."

Mark L. Russell (mark@markrussell.org) is Director of Spiritual Integration at HOPE International, a network of 13 Christ-centered Microenterprise Development organizations. He has a Ph.D. in Intercultural Studies from Asbury Theological Seminary, a Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and a Bachelor of Science in International Business from Auburn University. Mark lives in Boise, Idaho with his wife Laurie, and their children, Noah and Anastasia.

During this BBQ season we have to carefully consider what products are apart of our seasonal celebrations. Recently I attended the DC campaign kick-off for the Justice at Smithfield Campaign. "Smithfield Foods is the largest pork processor and producer in the world, the fourth largest turkey processor and fifth largest beef processor in the U.S." In the early 1990's Smithfield opened its Tar Heel, North Carolina plant, with 5,500 workers who slaughter and process 32,000 hogs per day. The Tar Heel plant is not unionized and overall only about 56% of Smithfield pork processing plant employees are unionized.

Though raised in Brooklyn, NY, my family hails from North Carolina which makes this campaign of personal importance to me. At the campaign kick-off two young women testified about mistreatment at the Tar Heel plant. A 22 year-old woman spoke of developing such a serious case of carpal tunnel syndrome that she can no longer lift more than 15 pounds. The testimony of this woman had a profound effect on me because I saw myself in her face. At 22 years-old I was a recent college graduate excitedly planning my future. I did not have to worry about an injury that could leave me disabled for life. If my grandparents remained in North Carolina instead of migrating to Brooklyn, NY, I could have easily been one of the Smithfield workers. What separates me from the workers at Smithfield?

Some of the tasks at the Tar Heel plant include cutting the skin off of frozen meat as it comes down the line, a task that is especially difficult when having to work at breakneck speeds. As stated in the Human Rights Watch report: Blood Sweat and Fear: Workers' Rights in U.S. Meat and Poultry Plants:

Many workers have painful reactions to conditions, but they do not act for fear of losing their jobs. In this report one employee is quoted as saying 'I am sick at work with a cold and breathing problems and my arms are always sore. But I am afraid to say anything about this because I am afraid they will fire me.'

Workers have also spoken of sexual harassment and racism. How can working conditions like this exist in our modern society? What is the role of race, class and economics in the Smithfield worker struggle?

As I reflect on the Justice at Smithfield campaign I am reminded of a common request made during the blessing of a meal--"may God bless the hands of those who have prepared our food." As we continue this season of BBQ's let us remember the workers of Smithfield when we bless our meals by asking God to bless their hands and their struggle.

Onleilove Alston is a native of Brooklyn, New York, and serves Sojourners in the Policy and Organizing department as a Beatitudes Fellow. She is a student in the dual M.Div/MSW program at Union Theological Seminary and Columbia University. In NYC she organizes with the Poverty Initiative and New York Faith & Justice.

It is a cardinal principle of discernment that the Lord always speaks in peace, even if he is rebuking or chastising those he loves.

- Thomas H. Green

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet"; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.

- Romans 12:8-10

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

The latest news on Immigration, Rove subpoena, Housing bill, Capital punishment, McCain, Zimbabwe, British troops, Iran, Serenity prayer, and Opinion.

+ Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

This summer, two friends and I are doing something that seems a bit outlandish (especially for 40-year-old guys). We've borrowed a friend's RV, and we're touring the country to talk about our books. Doug Pagitt (A Christianity Worth Believing), Mark Scandrette (Soul Graffiti), and I (The New Christians) are in the midst of a 32-city tour that we've dubbed, "The Church Basement Roadshow: A Rollin' Gospel Revival." We've completed our West Coast leg, and now we're about to roll down the center of the country (click here for dates)

What's a bit more outlandish is that we wanted to make this unlike any other book tour, so we conceived of and wrote a 90-minute show to highlight the core message in each of our books. And in that show, we each play our fictional great-grandfathers, two-bit revivalists from 1908.

Honestly, we stumbled on 1908 because it's 100 years ago, but then we started doing research and discovered what an incredible year it really was. (On the RV we've been reading the book, America, 1908: The Dawn of Flight, the Race to the Pole, the Invention of the Model T and the Making of a Modern Nation by Jim Rasenberger.) At the dawn of 1908 almost no one had heard of the Wright Brothers; by the end of the year they were household names. The race to the North Pole was on, and an automobile race from New York City to Paris (via the Bering Straight!) had captured the American imagination.

But while most Americans were extremely optimistic about the technological advances of the telephone, the automobile, and the airplane; all was not well. That winter, President Teddy Roosevelt (whom many in the country consider deranged for his fluctuations of temper) sent the U.S. Navy's Great White Fleet around the world, most probably to intimidate Japan. And that spring, New York and Chicago experienced frequent terrorist bombings by anarchist groups.

Over two million children worked in factories and mines. And sixty percent of the wealth in America was controlled by a hyper-wealthy two percent of the population (think Carnegie, Morgan, et al).

Things have changed in America in the last century, to be sure, but I keep thinking about a summer 100 years ago when our nation was sending Olympic atheletes overseas (to London) and preparing for a presidential election between a Republican insider (Secretary of War William Howard Taft) and a midwestern Democrat known for his scintillating oratory (William Jennings Bryan).

And the more I think about it, the more kinship I feel with my great-grandfather (the non-fiction one).

Tony Jones is the national coordinator of Emergent Village.

It's clear that one cause of the current food crisis is that poorer countries have been pressured into dismantling their food policies, leaving peasant farmers and eaters alike to bear all the risks of the extremely volatile world market. This has left corporations free to ship factory-farmed food to those countries, peasants free to migrate to urban slums, and corporately-dominated economic markets free to ignore those starving.

And we should blame ourselves, not the corporations. Expecting a corporation to give affordable loans to farmers, look out for the urban poor, and cut carbon emissions - unless those are the most profitable things it can do, which they aren't - is like expecting your kitchen stove to go out and join the Missionaries of Charity. (The difference is that, if your stove were a corporation, it would hire lobbyists to make sure that federal policies heavily favored stoves over toasters and George Foreman grills).

But many of the powers that be refuse to admit that our current trade model is a problem; so some are demanding that we respond to the crisis by drinking more corporate-trade Kool-Aid (by extending reach of the WTO, for example). In a move that clearly shows they are lost to common sense, such arguments often blame the food crisis on the only significant farm policy left on the planet: rich-country subsidies for food crops. For example, a story last week announced that U.N. head Ban Ki-moon had asked the world to respond to the crisis by "cut[ting] agricultural subsidies, particularly in developed countries."

Now, there are lots of reasons why U.S. farm subsidies, which push the export-driven factory-farming model, are broken and need to be radically reworked. (And, of course, subsidies for ethanol production, which converts food to fuel, really do drive up the price of food and are a huge problem).

But the crisis is that food prices have become way too high. Subsidies to food crops inherently lower food prices. You do the math.

I believe the underlying argument is that subsidies have dampened "market signals"--i.e., rising prices--that would otherwise have caused farmers to gradually increase production. But, as you may have noticed at the gas pump, some key farm inputs, like fuel and fossil-fuel-based fertilizer, have been anything but gradual in their price rise. On top of genuine supply and demand spikes, there's the still-more-volatile behavior of financial speculators.

And, on a more basic level, farmers often are unable to respond to price increases. In particular, small farmers in the global South don't have access to affordable loans, supplies, or marketing they would need to grow more.

Why? Because poor countries have dismantled most of their food policies as trade agreements decimated the government policy toolbox, and IMF pressure forced many governments to slash their farm investment. Now, there are belated calls for governments in the Global South to invest in farming once again. Amen to that.

Elizabeth Palmberg is an assistant editor of Sojourners.

The latest news on Wiretap bill, Kennedy & Medicare, Ohio poverty taskforce Census, Immigration, G-8, Darfur, Iran, Attack in Istanbul, Zimbabwe, Mideast, Pakistan, and Op-Ed.

+ Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will hardship, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? ... No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

- Romans 8:35-39

Verse:

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail