Paul Raushenbush: April 2009 Archives

The Hate Crimes Bill passed the house yesterday 249-175 and so we have taken another step towards decency in our country and respect for all of our citizens.  This has been seen as a threat by conservative religious and legal groups, but others of us see it as evidence of the goodness of our democracy that nobody should be singled out for abuse and violence for who they are.  

It has been gratifying to see new Evengelical voices supporting this legislation. One of these is Dr. David Gushee, Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University who has offered crucial contributions to the Christian opposition to torture. Now he is speaking up about this current Hate Crimes legislation writing through the folks at Faith in Public Life:  

"As a Christian, I believe in the immeasurable and sacred worth of every human being as made in the image of God and as the object of God's redeeming love in Jesus Christ. In our sinful and violent world, there are tragically very many ways in which this sacredness is violated. This bill deserves Christian support because its aim is to protect the dignity and basic human rights of all Americans, and especially those Americans whose perceived "differentness" makes them vulnerable to physical attacks motivated by bias, hatred and fear. The bill simply strengthens the capacity of our nation's governments to prosecute violent, bias-related crimes. I am persuaded that the bill poses no threat whatsoever to any free speech right for religious communities or their leaders. Its passage will make for a safer and more secure environment in which we and all of our fellow Americans can live our lives. For me, the case for this bill is settled with these words from Jesus: "As you did it to one of the least of these, you did it to me" (Mt. 25:40)."

 

The legislation does raise the interesting question that most vexes the religious right.  If a person were to commit a violent crime directed specifically against a gay person and then claim that a pastor incited the violence through repeated condemnation of gay people, describing them as agents of satan and urging battle against them (this is not at all far fetched) would the pastor be subject to prosecution for contributing to a crime?

My guess is that it would be hard, and should be hard, to make a direct link. But hate speech from the pulpit probably indirectly contributes to such crimes if only in offering an ideological framework.   Dr. Gushee is persuaded that this legislation poses no threat to free speech and I believe he is right.  But hopefully religious leaders will think twice about demonizing specific groups from their pulpit.   A few weeks ago I wrote about the practice in South Africa of  'corrective' rape of lesbians.  I wonder who pounded it into them that being a lesbian was wrong to begin with, and if they have some responsibility in these crimes of hate.

Ultimately I come down in favor of free speech almost always (fire in the threatre etc excepted).   But this is a salient issue.  Should clerics be allowed to incite viiolence, terrorism or sedition from the publpit?  Clerics should not be prosectuted from what she or he says in the publpit no matter how vile, but they should be thinking about how their words may translate into action by people who are sitting in the church, synogogue, mosque or temple. 

I remember reading something by that famously spiritual sage Dan Savage about abortion.  He was reporting an argument he had with another guy about abortion, with Savage taking the position that if a woman hadn't gotten around to having an abortion by the time she was in her third trimester then she should go ahead with the birth.   

It struck me at the time that this famously liberal, gay sex columnist was taking the stance that as the fetus progressed it became more deserving in rights, and at the time I chocked it up to his Catholic upbringing.  But now it makes more sense to me.  As a fetus progresses from a potential life to a viable life, the rights of the mother to terminate that life should, in my opinion, decrease.  This idea was reinforced after reading Steve Waldman's seminal piece called Safe, Legal & Early - A New Way of the Thinking About Abortion.   

He writes:

This belief that life within the womb is on a continuum is not explicitly reflected in the political debates about abortion. We debate whether we should have parental notification--not when we should have it. We question politicians on whether they'd provide government funding for abortion, not ever asking whether subsidies should be provided for early abortions but not late.

My fantasy is that if the political system embraced the safe-legal-early doctrine, a few activists might even accept the legitimacy of part of their opponents' argument. Pro-choicers who accepted this framework would be implicitly conceding that, for at least part of the pregnancy, there's a "baby" in the womb--and the woman's right to terminate that life is neither absolute nor nine months in duration. With early abortions not only legal but easier, pro-choice activists could then have the confidence to accept what many of them have publicly avoided but privately wanted: reasonable, tightly written prohibitions on third trimester abortions while genuinely protecting the life of the mother.

Open minded pro-lifers would take note of these concessions from their "enemies," viewing them as a sign that these pro-choicers--far from being hideous baby killers--fully embrace a moral dimension to the abortion decision.

Meanwhile, any pro-lifers who accept this framework would be making a concession, too. They'd be saying, in effect, that if the other side can concede that something precious is alive - and becoming more alive with each day - then they could, in turn, acknowledge that reasonable people, of different faiths, can disagree about when exactly that baby becomes alive enough to have legal rights.

President Obama has been in office 100 days and apparently that means that we get to evaluate him.  I don't know when this time frame was established but 100 days doesn't even equal a semester so it seems pretty early to be giving "report cards."  However, why not weigh in on how it is going?  I should say that at Princeton, where I serve as Associate Dean of Religious Life we have instituted policies to combat grade inflation, so President Obama shouldn't expect "A" s across the board.   

Cabinet and Advisors: B

For all the talk about how carefully people were going to be vetted, President Obama had a hard time.  There was a pattern of nominating people and then having them bow out, either for corruption reasons - Bill Richardson and Tom Daschle; or political ones - Judd Gregg.   Tim Geitner and Larry Summers still seem like weak choices.   Even though it is clear that both are intelligent men, they have not been convincing as public figures and that is part of what that job requires right now.  On the other had, Steven Chu (energy), Hilary Clinton (state) and Robert Gates (defense) were inspired choices; as is Kathleen Sebellius (HHS) once the republican silliness dies down.

Economic Recovery: B

This inherited mess is still the major issue facing our country and it is hard to say what effect Obama's efforts will have.   The stimulus package, according to almost every serious economist, was the way to go.   As a layperson when it comes to the economy it is hard to compare the talk of a strengthening market with the rising unemployment.  Let's hope that money gets used to put as many people to work as possible.   While the republicans put on a show of tea bagging for tax day, I am not sure their efforts resonated with those many more people who are hoping that the stimulus package can help them get or keep a job so they can pay taxes to begin with.  It is surprising and telling the amount of Americans who now approve of socialism. 

Foreign Policy: A-

It is very nice to again see huge crowds gathering to cheer not protest when our president visits a foreign country.   He is enormously popular abroad, including in countries which are traditionally viewed as our enemies.  He has promised to lead by listening and being part of a global community and all of that plays well abroad and (contrary to the outrageous bullshit that Dick Cheney is spewing these days) it will make us safer. His outreach to the Muslim world including an interview on al Arabiya news, and a speech in Turkey has begun to shift opinions about American in that part of the world.   He and Secretary Clinton appear to be serious about maintaining pressure on Israel and Palestine to restart efforts at peace after years of neglect under George Bush.    The main issues still to confront the President are Afghanistan and Iraq and it is not clear at all that he has an exit plan from either of those countries or is clear that we should have one.

The issue of torture almost rises to its own category but let's just say that Obama is doing a very good job on this (B +).  He is balancing his promise of transparency with trying not to get enmeshed in a protracted political battle around prosecution of the previous administration.   I hope we can avoid that battle but if the republicans continue to insist that there was no wrongdoing (Bill Bennett was especially disgusting on CNN when he compared the water boarding that our own troops endure from one another in training to the actual practice of water boarding of prisoners for which we prosecuted the Japanese for after WW2)  then prosecution may be the only way forward. 

Culture Wars: B+

Barack Obama has taken the steam out of the culture wars somewhat by his efforts at reaching across the aisle on questions such as abortion and gay rights (which, lets face it, are the culture wars). While there is no question that Barack Obama supports full rights for gay people, hopefully he will have the courage soon to voice that opinion vis a vis marriage although it is probably wise for him to hold off until after the 2012 election. While some are claiming he is the most radical pro-abortion president ever, he also has defenders among the pro-life crowd who appreciate his abortion reduction strategy. Largely he has his Council on Faith Based and Community Partnerships to thank for the muted tone of the culture wars.  The President appointed a diverse group of people to help advise him on religious and social policy - throwing almost too many olive branches towards the right in my opinion (but I guess that is why it was a good idea from the stand point of calming the culture wars).    Still, it will remain to be seen how this council actually functions and whether they can agree on anything. 

Environment: A-

While the President has not been able to implement major reforms yet, it is clear they are coming.  For the first time we are taking climate change as well as oil independence seriously and putting money behind it.   

American Sense of Hope: A-

In a recent AP poll, 48 percent of Americans believe that we are headed in the right direction - that is up 8 points from February and 30 points from last October!  This is an extraordinary turn and it may provide the key to our long-term recovery as a nation.  From my own perspective, turning on the television and listening to our president share his viewpoints clearly and intelligently after 8 years of cringing has made a huge difference.   It is clear we have elected a man of integrity who is slowly turning our nation in the right direction. 

Overall grade:  B+

Barack Obama has done a remarkable job - but there is room for improvement.  Let's check back in 2010 - oh yeah, there is an election then.

Ps

Grade for Republicans: C-

Does America really still want Newt and Cheney and their disproven ideas?  It will be interesting to see what comes of the Grand Old Party.  

When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry.... These are evil people. And we're not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.
--Former Vice President Dick Cheney, February 4, 2009[1]

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
--Jesus, Luke 6:27-31.
 

These two opposing statements by former Vice-President Dick Cheney and Jesus Christ bring into sharp relief the contradictions of being a country that simultaneously lays claim to Judeo Christian values while going to any lengths to protect and preserve the American empire - including torture.   

There are compelling pragmatic questions that need to be raised about torture such as the evidence that shows that torture is ineffective in getting trustworthy information; and whether US torture practice has provided recruitment tools for al Qaida and severely damaging our global reputation. But putting these questions aside - what does the practice of torture by our government say about those of us who are American Christians and our commitment to Jesus?

Some of the great evangelists of the early church were the martyrs (Paul and Stephen being the main figures) who were themselves tortured, but continue to profess what they believe.  They never used violence or coercion to spread the faith; rather people came to Jesus in part because of the non-violent Christian witness of the early members.   

They were a strange crew these Christians who followed this even stranger Jesus who was himself tortured and killed and rose again.  They espoused love in the face of hate, generosity in the face of theft, blessings for curses, and turning the cheek in the face of violence.  They did this not out of a sense of weakness, but out of strength.  They had been admitted into God's royal spiritual kingdom and so they granted a certain noblesse oblige of love and peace to the violent material world around them.

This changed when Constantine made Christianity the official church of the Roman Empire and the church was co-opted.  Members of the church began to use the violent techniques of force that had formerly been used against us - the Crusades and the Inquisition being two prime examples. George Bush and other professing Christians succumbed to the temptation of perceived expediency to employ torture in order to preserve national economic and security  interests.  Dick Cheney says "these are evil people" as a way to justify torture. But Christians have dealt with evil people before and Jesus taught us explicitly that evil is never overcome by evil; it is over come by Good.  Plus, Jesus' final words in Luke 6 - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you - have a chilling resonance when it comes to torture.  

These torture documents do make me frustrated that our legal system was subverted, and our national reputation damaged.  But mostly they make me fearful for our national soul.  Let us practice the time-honored tradition of confession and repentance.  The airing of these memos by President Obama is a good place to start, now let us continue to rid ourselves of this stain on our society and banish the barbaric and un-Christian practice of torture forever. 

There were a lot of good spoofs of the National Organization for Marriage's video The Gathering Storm.  This one called a $#it Storm of Intolerance wins first runner up.  But again, the Colbert Report wins the prize.

What all of this means is best said by Frank Rich's column in the Sunday New York Times

What gives the ad its symbolic significance is not just that it's idiotic but that its release was the only loud protest anywhere in America to the news that same-sex marriage had been legalized in Iowa and Vermont. If it advances any message, it's mainly that homophobic activism is ever more depopulated and isolated as well as brain-dead. 

It is interesting that this one issue is really what divides progressive and conservative Christians.  Even the most conservative Evangelical has seen the light (after years of feet dragging) of the inherent value in the helping of the poor although there is still considerable arguement about how that is best accomplished.  It is the gays that divide the camps now.  

The reasons are complex but one way of looking at it is that progressives listen to the people who are experiencing the effects of bigotry and oppression and believe that their testimonies count when gauging whether society and religion should reconsider policies or beliefs regarding these same people.  Conservatives undervalue these same voices in favor inherited narratives and traditions whose importance is weighted according to longevity.

I am a progressive because I believe that we are constantly learning and improving in the ways we understand and value human difference which includes race, gender, culture and sexual orientation.  I value these voices as testimonies of truth that have every bit as much weight as any person before them.  As gay people become fully accepted as human beings, society and eventually religions will change to reflect that new understanding.  May that day come quickly.