Progressive Revival

Thursday's fatal shooting at Fort Hood military base in Texas, in which 12 people were killed and over 30 wounded, would be horrific under any circumstances. But the reported identity of one of the shooters killed, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, is only going to make things worse. The 39 year-old is a reported convert to Islam, which will make religion the prism through which this act of murder is viewed.

Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, was reportedly troubled by his impending deployment to Iraq. Mental instability and depression has resulted in violence within the armed forces before. But unless Hasan left an explicit message to that effect, a religiously-inspired political act of violence is, much as we'd be unwilling to admit it, entirely plausible. With that in mind, Muslims will have to ask themselves some difficult questions as to why there are still those among us who continue to find justification for acts such as this in their faith.

Until then, American Muslims should consider this an act of betrayal and treachery, regardless of the political sphere surrounding America's wars overseas. It is clear that Islam does not condone (if we must entertain the killer's possible motives) any sort of extrajudicial punishment. It is also clear that any scholarly consensus on the matter has not been communicated widely enough, particularly - it must be said - with those who may be new to the religion.

Unfortunately, current active-duty Muslim servicemen and women will have to try even harder in the wake of this shooting to prove their loyalty to their fellow soldiers. It must be said that dozens of Muslim-Americans have already given their lives in the service of their country just in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to offering our condolences to the families of the fallen, we must reassert our solidarity with Muslim-Americans currently in the services who don't deserve to face hostility from two fronts.

crossposted from Alt Muslims

Aborttion has been part of the healthcare debate from the beginning.  The effort was supposed to be that the healthcare bill would be "abortion neutral" meaning it neither expanded the opportunities for abortion, nor restricted them.  Now it seems that no longer suffices for the US Catholic Bishops who want to impose their view on abortion on all of American citizens and make this an anti-abortion health Care bill.  Sara Posner at Relgion Dispatches explains the current fight over abortion in the health care bill:

As the House of Representatives health care reform bill edges closer to a vote, anti-choice Democrats continue their threats to hijack the bill over abortion funding. These members, and their supporters, are the very constituency Democrats have been urged to placate on abortion-related issues. That strategy, misguided to begin with, seems even more so as the "pro-life" Democrats are trying to bring down their own party's signature legislative initiative.

As part of Democrats' re-tooling in the post-"values voters" election of 2004, they tried to be more "friendly" to religion. A big part of that strategy included making anti-choice Democrats feel more "welcome" in the party by being less doctrinaire on choice, and acknowledging the claimed heartfelt religious belief at the core of these Democrats' position.

But now some of these Democrats, who claim to be pro-life, are playing politics with health care reform, aligning themselves more closely with the anti-choice hard right and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) than their own party. They insist that efforts to ensure that no public funds will be used to cover abortion services are insufficient. This game-playing is not about public funding of abortion, already outlawed in the Hyde Amendment (which bars federal funding from being used to pay for abortions for low-income women under Medicaid and other programs). Indeed, the House bill already incorporates Hyde through its own amendment authored by pro-choice California Democrat, Rep. Lois Capps.

Instead, these Democrats, led by Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, are pushing for an amendment to restrict womens' access to abortion. And that's not theology, it's politics.

Even so, says Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, those attempting to torpedo health care reform over the abortion issue do not represent mainstream religious views. "Pro-choice religious groups and leaders are very mainstream. They are supporting health care reform in the broadest framework," she said in an interview with RD.

While the USCCB has taken a hard line on opposing health care reform (which it claims to support) if abortion isn't sufficiently restricted, it does not represent the views of most Catholics. A recent poll commissioned by Catholics for Choice found that 68% of Catholics disapproved of the Bishops' opposition to health care reform that includes abortion coverage; 56% believed the Bishops shouldn't even be taking a position on the health care reform legislation. The views of the country's 65 million Catholics, said Jon O'Brien, the group's president, "are not represented by 350 members of the USCCB."

Other pro-choice religious leaders are similarly dismayed. Rev. Debra Haffner, president of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing, reacting to efforts to restrict abortion coverage in health care reform, wrote on her blog, "It is profoundly unjust when the private moral choices of women... are subject to majority vote and political trading. There can be no common ground when votes are allowed to strip people of their existing rights."

Planned Parenthood, said Richards, wants the Hyde Amendment repealed because low-income women should have equal access to abortion services. But, she added, "we're not taking the position that health care reform is the place to relitigate that issue... unfortunately a handful of people would rather bring down health care reform in its entirety than provide the coverage women already have."

Read the entire article on abortion and health care over at Religion Dispatches:

Tom Krattenmaker is a Portland, Oregon-based writer specializing in religion in public life and a member of the USA Today Board of Contributors. He is the author of the new book "Onward Christian Athletes" examining Christian engagement with pro sports. 

            It's midday Sunday. Soon I'll be watching the Minnesota Vikings--the pro football team of my dreams since I was eight--playing the Green Bay Packers. I'll be watching. But not with a clear conscience.

It's becoming harder and harder not to feel creepy about enjoying and supporting an enterprise that uses up men's bodies--and healthy brains--for the sake of entertaining the masses each weekend of the football season.

            The ugly and increasingly unavoidable reality about pro football was brought home for me last week by two chilling articles.

One, by the New Yorker's Malcolm Gladwell, explored the mounting piles of evidence of the devastating effects of football-playing on the combatants' heads and cognitive health. As Gladwell provocatively asked, is football all that dissimilar from the "sport" of dog-fighting that we unanimously reject as cruel and barbaric?

The other convicting piece was a blog post at the Sojourner's website in which writer and football fan Ernesto Tinajero said Gladwell's piece had hit him "like a ton of bricks." He announced that he has watched his last Super Bowl.

I wonder if I'm on my way toward a similar declaration.

Truthfully, the bloom has been coming off the pro football (and pro sports) rose for me gradually over the past seven or eight years. In researching and writing my recently published book "Onward Christian Athletes" on Christian engagement with pro sports, I've had to examine the object of my fandom with a critical eye and a scholar's skepticism.

What was once fun and games for me--drama, eye-popping athleticism, the thrill of victory and agony of defeat--has become increasingly tarnished by my awareness of the profit-driven abuses and excesses of big-time sports in America. I have come to see our fixation on the sports spectacle as borderline idolatrous and largely unproductive in a time when so many urgent common-good needs are going unmet.

As a progressive, I have also found pro sports disturbingly complicit in the promotion of militaristic patriotism and religious nationalism. As I explore in my book, sports-world Christianity has often aligned strongly with the Christian Right ideology and interests that have harmed not just our national politics, but Christianity itself.

The taste in my mouth just got worse.

To read Gladwell's article is to feel your good conscience absorb a bone-crunching tackle by Ray Lewis or one of the other ferocious linebackers roaming the fields of the NFL. Retired players are experiencing off-the-charts rates of dementia brought on by the innumerable blows to the head that are a fact of life in pro football. We are witnessing more tales of ex-players suffering breakdowns, cognitive dysfunction and/or suicide. (Cases in point: Mike Webster and Andre Waters.)

            Gladwell's gift is his ability to see things, and show them, in a different light. Given the drama around NFL quarterback Michael Vick and his incarceration for running a dog-fighting ring, Gladwell's comparison of football and dog-fighting is a highly effective attention-grabber. And absolutely convicting for anyone with a religious and/or moral compass. It has me asking how I can continue enjoying pro football knowing that some of those players entertaining me will end up with their brains scrambled and their lives in shreds.

Imagine the dilemma for the Christian men and ministry organizations that have helped make pro sports, and football in particular, one of the most outwardly religious sectors in American popular culture. Since the formation of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes more than a half-century ago, sports ministry has devoted itself to leveraging the visibility and influence of big-time sports to reach the public with the evangelistic message. It's called using "The Platform." But what if the platform is becoming so morally degraded that it robs the gospel message of any authenticity and credibility?

            This unfolding drama is shot through with other dilemmas as well.

            Contemplate the bind in which Commissioner Roger Goodell and the rest of the pro football power structure find themselves. If they appear dismissive or calloused about the mounting evidence and alarm, and a public relations disaster awaits. Exhibiting too much concern could lead them down a dead-end alley. Let's face it: Other than forcing players to wait longer before returning to action after concussions, there appears to be little that football can do to protect players from head injuries without turning football into something other than the action-packed, high-thrill (and violent) spectacle that it is.

            To say there is a lot at stake is an understatement. Pro football is an enormous money-making enterprise, its two most valuable franchises (Washington and Dallas) worth an estimated $952 million and $851 million, respectively, in 2008.

            I can't help thinking, too, about the race overlay. Like pro basketball, the NFL draws most of its talent from the African American community, meaning it's mainly black guys getting their heads bashed Sunday after Sunday. One has to be careful about going too far with this; the dynamics of football competition being what they are, offensive linemen appear to be the ones most exposed to head injury, and that's a "trade" within the NFL where large numbers of white men still find employment. Nevertheless, Gladwell's likening of pro football to dog-fighting seems especially poignant in view of the unmistakable race dynamics.

            A day of reckoning may be coming for pro football--and those of us who watch it.

John Gehring is the Media Director and Senior Writer for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good

As an urbanite fortunate to live within walking distance of work and trendy restaurants, I rarely drive these days. But running late to a pickup basketball game recently, I was low on gas and quickly pulled into the first station on the road. It wasn't until my tank was nearly full that I looked up and saw a glowing CHEVRON sign. My stomach sank. Last Friday, I attended the premier of "Crude," a powerful documentary that chronicles the 16-year lawsuit waged against the oil company on behalf of nearly 30,000 indigenous people living in the rainforests of Ecuador.

The lawsuit alleges that Texaco (bought by Chevron in 2001) dumped more than 18 billion gallons of toxic waste into the Amazon from 1964 to 1990. Plaintiffs for the indigenous tribes believe the ecological disaster poisoned an area the size of Rhode Island and is at least 30 times larger than the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska. The once pristine waters that nourished generations of indigenous communities now run black with oil. Infants are born with birth defects, cancer is ravaging villages, and a way of life dating back 500 years has been destroyed. Chevron executives deny responsibility and have used deep pockets to drag out the case. The company, based in San Ramon, Calif., recently reported profits of $3.8 billion and has no shortage of savvy PR consultants or expensive legal minds at their disposal. The non-profit Amazon Watch is leading a coalition of international groups demanding accountability from the oil giant. Rep. James McGovern of Massachusetts, who attended the premier in Washington, DC, visited the affected areas of Ecuador last year and in a letter to President Obama described what he saw as a "terrible humanitarian and environmental crisis" that as an American left him "angry and ashamed." 

The film raises haunting questions for those of us privileged to live in comfort while others suffer from the greed of U.S. corporations. How do we reconcile our call as Christians to live simply and seek justice for the most vulnerable amid a culture of excessive consumerism? How do we avoid becoming indifferent to human rights abuses far from our daily experiences? "Crude" shakes us out of the cocoon of complacency. It forces us to consider how personal choices relate to systemic injustices.

I grew up steeped in the intricate vocabulary of sin. In classes that should have been called Catholic Guilt 101, I learned about mortal sins, venal sins, sins of omission and sins of commission from the good sisters at Immaculate Conception Elementary School. It was also a sin, I was sorry to hear, not to confess all my sins during confession. I suspect most of us still think about sin as personal slights and wrongdoing against another individual. Christian conservatives are particularly fond of railing against sexual sins and could barely contain themselves when Bill Clinton got into trouble in the Oval Office. But we hear much less indignation about "social sins" that include environmental exploitation or the humanitarian impact of war. Consider the potential for progress on some of our most urgent moral challenges if we could channel some of the anger fanning the flames of our ubiquitous "culture wars" into campaigns against global poverty, preventable diseases and ecological disasters.    

While some elected officials like Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma still deny the reality of global climate change and lobbyists for Big Oil engage in what amounts to legalized bribery on Capitol Hill, I'm proud that Christians are on the front lines of a growing movement for environmental justice and corporate accountability. Sister Patricia Daly and her fellow Dominican sisters of Caldwell, N.J. challenge companies like Exxon Mobile, Dow and General Electric at shareholder meetings. The Catholic sisters are part of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, an association of 275 faith-based institutional investors that press companies to be socially and environmentally responsible. Each year religious institutional investors sponsor over 200 shareholder resolutions. Pope Benedict XIV has been dubbed the Green Pope for his resolute commitment to environmental justice. The Vatican even became the first "carbon neutral" state in the world. The pope's latest encyclical addressed the need for sustainable development, and the responsibility wealthy nations have to help developing countries escape the deadly traps of debt and poverty. Last spring, the Catholic Coalition Against Climate Change launched A Catholic Climate Covenant: the St. Francis Pledge to Care for Creation and the Poor. As Christians, we recognize that ending the poisoning of our planet is a pro-life issue central to defending human dignity.

Colonialism, in the official sense, is the shameful legacy of a bygone era. But multinational corporations that plunder and exploit the rainforests of South America or the mines of Africa continue this brutal cycle with tragic consequences. If those of us who know the truth fail to speak out, we stand complicit in our silence.