Christians Against Hypocrisy

2011-12-13T22:47:00.005-05:00

In Search of Whoville

Once more, it’s that time of year when millions of Christians not only reflect on the truly important things in their lives, but prepare to celebrate the birth of their savior. They also set out in their annual quest to do battle against what they perceive as the single greatest threat to their faith. No, not the plight of the oppressed; no, not the increasing gap between the wealthy and poor; and no, not the corporate corruption that has permeated, polarized and paralyzed every aspect of our politics. No, the battle that these Christians are waging that poses the greatest threat to their very way of life is the war on Christmas.

Yes, you heard right, the war on Christmas. Poverty, injustice, corruption, that’s small potatoes. For these “dedicated” followers of Christ, the only thing it seems that matters to them is the assault by the secular Left on not only Christmas, but on Christianity as a whole.

And this year the assault began early; Thanksgiving in fact. Our beleaguered and elitist-socialist President, Barack Obama, threw the first salvo when he neglected to mention God in his Thanksgiving dedication. The faithful wasted little time answering the affront by blasting the Dark Overlord.

Never mind that, in the words of Jon Stewart, Thanksgiving is really the celebration of pagans teaching religious zealots to farm, just neglecting to mention God was enough to whip up the hoards of the faithful into a frenetic lather.

Really now, this has gone way beyond bizarre. With all the problems that beset our country, that any reasonably sane believer could spend even a nanosecond worrying about such trite and irrelevant issues as whether or not the President included God in a Thanksgiving message, or whether someone, in an attempt to be “politically correct,” opted to say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” is sad. To suggest, as some do with a straight face, that their faith is somehow under siege or in jeopardy of becoming extinct just because of a less overt seasonal expression is pathological to say the least.

And yet every year now for the last two decades the rest of us have had to put up with these “believers” as they rant and rave about their phony war and the erosion of a holy day that long ago got sold down the river by the very same corporate interests they purport to hold as equally sacrosanct. That’s the irony: the very same followers who defend with every fiber of their being the right to keep Christ in Christmas continue to worship at the alter of the very agencies that are ripping the guts out of it.

I’m not talking about the over indulgence of gift giving – though that certainly is systematic of a trend that has escalated to as yet unheard of heights over the last couple of generations. No, the real culprit is the mindset that has persisted within this segment of Christians that their faith and the system of greed and avarice that embodies the heart and soul of capitalism are somehow joined at the hip. To suggest that maybe the very basis for their way of life is at odds with the teachings of Jesus is met with the most fervent of denials. One would have more success questioning the deity of Jesus than to insinuate that everything they have come to know as true is in fact a lie.

And yet a lie is what it is, pure and simple. Think about the actual story of the first Christmas. A young child in a manger surrounded by his mother and father and some farm animals. Hardly the way most of us would want to enter the world. And yet from that humble beginning, God would usher in a new kingdom that would offer the world a chance at true freedom and salvation.

The price for admission into this kingdom? Simple. Live your life according to the principles of that child, who as a man gave his life to save us all. Those principles are contained in that most famous of sermons that Jesus gave his followers, called “The Sermon on the Mount.”

“Blessed are the poor in spirit,

for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

None of us – even on our best day – is up to the challenge of those daunting words. Fortunately we have grace to compensate for our shortcomings. But if it’s a war Christians are looking for, why not a war against anything that would challenge the righteousness of those words. Where is the outrage for the suffering of millions who every winter have to choose between starving or freezing to death? Where are the shouts of anger for the corruption that steals our elections and causes tremendous economic upheavals that rob us of our savings and cost millions their jobs? Where is the indignation at the hypocrisy of a movement that would forbid a woman from terminating her baby, yet provide her with no assistance to help raise it? Where is the outcry over the injustice at the incarceration of countless men and women whose only crime is that they fit the profile of someone who might mean us harm? And finally, where is the condemnation of those who, in their ignorance, have badly tarnished the reputation of a faith they claim to hold near and dear to their hearts and whose actions might well have resulted in millions of lost souls turning away from a chance at everlasting salvation?

These words of St. Augustine are as relevant now as they were when he wrote them more than a thousand years ago.

“Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

This is our war: to feed the hungry, to tend to the sick, to help the oppressed. We don’t need phony wars about holidays and seasonal greetings to distract us from what Jesus has commissioned us to do. Keeping Christ in Christmas ought not to be something we do only every December 25^th, but rather all year long. But to do that we must truly understand what Christ was and what he stood for. Only then will we be able to “follow” him and be worthy dwellers in his kingdom.

Wishing someone a Happy Holidays doesn’t mean you don’t care about Christmas, any more than wishing someone a Merry Christmas means you do. In the end, it’s what’s in your heart that counts. And, after all, wasn’t it our hearts that Christ was after in the first place?

2011-07-30T16:02:00.006-04:00

Well Done!

Every once in a while, the good Lord puts someone in your path who changes irrevocably the trajectory of your journey. And while I have never subscribed to the notion that every single thing we do is somehow orchestrated and predestined by God to happen – as so many Christians seem to – I nonetheless acknowledge the all too apparent fact that there are a lot of “coincidences” out there that just aren’t reconcilable by anything other than Devine intervention.

The summer of 2005 tested my faith. I had grown increasingly bitter over the growth of fundamentalist Christianity in America. It was even seeping into my own church. Frustrated at the lack of pushback I saw coming from more moderate and progressive groups within the Christian community, I considered giving up and leaving the Church altogether. Note, I wasn’t giving up on Jesus, but I had had it with His people. If there was a better way, I was determined to find it, even if it meant leaving the familiar surroundings of a congregation I had been a part of for nearly fourteen years.

But before leaving, I decided to give one of the associate pastors at the church a call. I had known Steve Munson for about five years. We were both in an accountability group with two other men from our church, and I wanted to run what I was thinking and feeling by him. I once had a very close and trusting relationship with another member of the church, but she had made a decision to leave the faith altogether. I guess what I was after was a reality check.

After listening to me for what must’ve seemed like forever, Steve said something that quite frankly surprised me. On every single point I made about the Church and the direction it seemed to be heading, he concurred. He also said he shared my concern and frustration, and while he did not chide me about my decision to quit the whole thing, he did make a suggestion that shall we say intrigued me.

He informed me that he had been writing a blog for several years, which he said was an outlet for the frustrations and concerns he was feeling as a Christian. In it he could share those thoughts that he could not otherwise share with certain members of the congregation. He showed me the blog – Where Do I Go To Surrender (I still remember it) – and as I read the postings two things hit me almost simultaneously: one, Steve was a helluva good writer; and two, I had never known that side of Steve before. I always knew he was somewhat left of center on certain issues, but I never knew he had such passionate views about certain topics.

He explained how easy it was to set up a blog and that I might find it an enjoyable outlet just like he did. And then he issued a challenge. Steve is not one to confront you right away; rather he takes a more deliberative and delicate tact, which I’ve always found is far more effective, especially with strong-willed types such as me.

The “challenge” he issued was not to make any decisions just yet. Rather, he said, I should set up a blog and start expressing my thoughts and feelings on it. It would be a shame if I let the enemy win and deprived God’s church of yet another soul. He said there were more of us out there than I was willing to concede and that I owed it to them as well as myself to stay in and fight the good fight. If, after I gave it a whirl, I still felt like leaving that option would still be there.

I wouldn’t say I left his office totally convinced, but I did stay in the Church. And over the last six years, I have in deed fought the good fight, putting in more than my nickel’s worth of opinion, some of it welcomed, the rest not so much. So, you see, it’s Steve’s fault that I became the blogger that I am and the canker soar I can be to some.

Seriously, from that moment on, though I didn’t know it at the time, I would develop a trusting and special relationship with Steve. We would often discuss topics that were of mutual interest to us, trading blog postings and commenting on each other’s sites. More often than not, he was the only one who made any comments at all on mine. At least I knew somebody out there was reading me and for that I was and am grateful.

In my times of need, I could always count on his Godly advice and compassionate heart. When I had gone through a severe mid-life crisis in the autumn of ’07, which again tested my faith – not to mention my sanity – Steve was once again there for me. He didn’t judge or lecture me, but rather consoled and comforted me. He was far more a counselor than a pastor, a teacher more than a preacher.

Over my fifty years of living, I have gotten to know a good many people, some of whom left a positive impression with me; others, well let’s just say I shed no tears that they are no longer around. Go with God, I say. Steve Munson has been one of those few men who has not only left a positive impression with me, he has taught me to rethink what my definition of a man is and what it means to be one of God’s children. No matter what ordeal – emotional or physical – he might’ve been going through, he always found the time to ask you how you were doing. Me? I get a hangnail and I’ll bore you to tears about how heavy my cross is. Not Steve. He was always other focused. Like Jesus, he considered it his mission to be a humble servant. And it that endeavor he was found not wanting.

That was Steve. That IS Steve. Never the complainer, always the trusted servant. His flock was who ever happened to be in front of him, and he felt it his duty to ensure that all the sheep were present and accounted for. In a world that only sees and acknowledges the stupendous and Herculean-type feats, men like Steve Munson are rare in deed. But what I have come to realize and appreciate is that the glory that some crave is all too fleeting, but the true nobleness of the selfless man is the only thing that endures.

A while back, I learned that this man, who had been so instrumental in my walk, would soon be leaving the church. When I first heard the news, my heart was heavy. It was a bittersweet moment for me. On the one hand, I was happy for him and his family. While I always enjoyed Steve’s sermons, deep down I knew that was not his calling. He always seemed like the square peg in a round hole. There was something else out there that the Lord had in store for him, and I always suspected he would one day leave in search of it. So I was NOT surprised to hear that he was leaving.

What makes this bittersweet is the thought that I am losing someone in my life who has made a difference; someone who has been a mentor of sorts and someone I can bounce ideas off of. And while I know that in this age of social media no one is ever truly gone from our lives, it just won’t be the same, somehow. A chapter has come to an end and now it is time to turn the page. Parting is such sweet sorrow, after all.

So I want to send this off to you, my good friend, to thank you for all the phone calls, emails and personal visits (both in your office and at your home) that helped steer this listing ship of mine safely into port. Knowing you the way I do, you will undoubtedly defer all the credit to God, and that is fitting, I suppose. After all, we are nothing without Him who gives us strength.

But I think, nay know, that in this Kingdom, many are called to serve; few have answered the bell so faithfully and tirelessly as you have. As you depart with your family to North Carolina, I hope you find what your true calling is. I know, once you do, you will bring the same selfless dedication to it that you brought to your vocation here. Our loss will be their gain.

You have touched profoundly the lives of so many that words alone cannot suffice both the loss and joy I feel at this moment, but I will try nonetheless. If I may evoke a passage from scripture, this one, I believe, would crystallize the sentiment perfectly. “Well done, good and faithful servant.”

2011-05-15T20:23:00.002-04:00

Are Christians asking the wrong questions concerning Bin Laden?

The following blog post is a letter written by a believer who posted it on facebook. Out of respect for him, I will withold his name. Suffice to say, he has helped me reconcile what has been a seemingly troublesome contridiction concerning my faith. I am indebted to him.

The question that keeps cropping up a lot is do we have the right to take "vengeance" on Bin Laden? That is the wrong question; it is nothing but a red herring. The question denotes an ignorance of the Bible as well as the situation. 1) A Christian is not going to be asked by the President of the United States to kill Bin Laden. 2) Bin Laden was killed by the government of the United States, not the Baptist Church on the corner. If the president asked the local Baptist church to "carry out this mission" than they would have an argument to make as to why they should not kill Bin Laden. But Christians are not being asked to kill, so the entire question is very moot. So why are Christians asking this question?

The reason is they are asking this type of question because they are under the assumption that America is a Christian nation, governed by the Sermon on the Mount as its constitution, and that the US Government are filled with Christians who are breaking the rules of "not loving your enemy." The other reason I think they do this is because they want to be relevant somehow to the event of Bin Laden's death.

The assumption is that all men are "In the image of God" and therefore, should be given the assumption of such an image. Therefore, the image of God should not be killed, at least by a Christian. Yet no one is asking a Christian to do such a thing. But even if that was the case, here is a man who is killing/murdering others who are in the image of God, so where is their justice in this? Does the murderer, who is still living, get more rights to the image of God then the ones who were murdered? That seems to be the implication of this argument.

I think one of the reasons for this is because Christians have made the word "Justice" into a four letter word that Christians should never say nor do. So the idea of allowing Justice to be executed would be counter to the argument of all men being in the image of God, and therefore, only God should execute such justice. So the cycle continues, a Christians should never execute justice against an evil person, because, that evil person is a person in the image of God. It is a vicious cycle of nonsense. The question that arises from this: How can Christians make the right decision on justice today, if they are making such nonsensical logical statement, and still be trusted by Christ to judge the angels and the world at His return?

At this point, I would trust Obama to make the right choice than I would a Christian, who holds the view that only God should execute vengeance. But the problem is, no one is executing vengeance, but Justice. If Christians are willing to defer Justice to God all the time, how can God trust them to execute Justice during the reign of Christ? At least Obama did the right thing and executed the order to bring Usama Bin Laden to justice. I assume they wanted to bring him in person and try him, but he put up a fight and had to be killed. As President of the United States Obama did the right thing, he ordered Seal Team 6 to bring in Usama Bin Laden.

The question that Christians need to be asking is: “how does justice works within the world and how Christians should respond to such justice?” By this example Christians are asking the wrong questions and they are making themselves irrelevant to the situation. The way the questions are being asked, they are inserting themselves into the situation where they are not supposed to be. Vengeance belongs to God, but no one is asking you to commit Vigilante justice on Bin Laden. The President of the United States is not asking the local Baptist Church to send out the choir to kill Bin Laden. The Pastor is not the President of the United States to determine such actions against Bin Laden. America’s government is not based on the Sermon on the Mount and Ten Commandments, where we are commanded to love God and our neighbor as our-self. So stop judging the situation, it is not your responsibility to condemn the actions of the U.S. Military who were ordered by the President of the United States to go after and bring Bin Laden to Justice. President Obama was doing what was required of him, Seal Team 6 were carrying out their orders given to them by the President of the United States. God ordained that Governments do exactly what the US Government did to Bin Laden. The killing of Bin Laden was a just act in the eyes of God.

The question of “Does God delight in the death of Bin Laden” posed by John Piper. “Should we love our enemies by the Resurgence” (Mars Hill Church, Pastor Mark Driscoll) are irrelevant to the situation. They are just muddying up the waters; making a simple act into a more complicated situation by dragging in questions that have nothing to do with the situation. Stop trying to be relevant to the situation until you gain a proper understanding of what it means to execute Justice.

2011-04-03T12:49:00.008-04:00

Remembering King: Forty-Three Years Later.

On April 4, 1968, a violent act by a hateful man deprived the nation and the world of one of its true visionaries and men of peace. Martin Luther King, Jr., like Gandhi and Jesus before him, was that rare bread of leader: a man who spoke truth to power and challenged all of us to look in the mirror. As Robert Frost would say, he took the road less traveled, and for millions of us that made all the difference. More than forty years later, what he stood for is no less relevant than it was at the time of his untimely death.

Of all the eloquent and moving speeches King gave throughout his relatively brief life, none more crystallized the state of the nation both then and, sadly, now as the one he actually never gave but wrote from a Birmingham jail in 1963. Never one afraid to stir the pot, King held nothing back and, like the good parent with a wayward child, he did not spar the rod.

If his words make you squirm, so be it. For like Gandhi and Christ, King never seemed all that concerned with the comfort level of his followers. This letter – a rebuke to his fellow clergymen who were critical of his stances – is both biting and salient, for the issues it deals with are as old as society itself and they challenge much of what we have come to accept as our pre-conceived core values in this so-called Christian nation.

It needs no explanation, nor justification, for it suffices on the sheer merit of its truth, wisdom and conviction.

Bon Appétit!

MY DEAR FELLOW CLERGYMEN:

While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities “unwise and untimely.” Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statements in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

I think I should indicate why I am here In Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against “outsiders coming in.” I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty-five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct-action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here I am here because I have organizational ties here.

But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their “thus saith the Lord” far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.

In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action. We have gone through all of these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation.

Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants --- for example, to remove the stores humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained.

As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self-purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves : “Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?” “Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?” We decided to schedule our direct-action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic withdrawal program would be the by-product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.

Then it occurred to us that Birmingham’s mayoralty election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene “Bull” Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run-off we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run-off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct-action program could be delayed no longer.

You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension, which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken .in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: “Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?” The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily.

Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we stiff creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, “Wait.” But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?”; when you take a cross-country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading “white” and “colored”; when your first name becomes “nigger,” your middle name becomes “boy” (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John,” and your wife and mother are never given the respected title “Mrs.”; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you go forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodiness” then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may want to ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I-it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and awful. Paul Tillich said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression 'of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.

Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to ace the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fan in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with an its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.

I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: “All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth.” Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely rational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this 'hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At fist I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self-respect and a sense of “somebodiness” that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best-known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible “devil.”

I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the “do-nothingism” of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle.

If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as “rabble-rousers” and “outside agitators” those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black-nationalist ideologies a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides--and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: “Get rid of your discontent.” Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist.

But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Was not Amos an extremist for justice: “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: “I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.” Was not Martin Luther an extremist: “Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God.” And John Bunyan: “I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.” And Abraham Lincoln: “This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.” And Thomas Jefferson: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ...” So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime---the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some---such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle---have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach-infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as “dirty nigger lovers.” Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful “action” antidotes to combat the disease of segregation.

Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a non segregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago.

But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of Rio shall lengthen.

When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leader era; and too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows.

In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.

I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: “Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother.” In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: “Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern.” And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, on Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.

I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious-education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: “What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?”

Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? l am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great-grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

There was a time when the church was very powerful in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.” But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.” By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests.

Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an arch-defender of the status quo. Par from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent and often even vocal sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ecclesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom, They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jai with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches; have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment.

I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham, and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation-and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands.

Before closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping “order” and “preventing violence.” I doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.

It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handing the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather “nonviolently” in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: “The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason.”

I wish you had commended the Negro sit-inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. There will be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. There will be the old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy-two-year-old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: “My feets is tired, but my soul is at rest.” There will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience' sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Never before have I written so long a letter. I'm afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers?

If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.

I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear-drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.

Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,

Martin Luther King, Jr.

2010-12-24T11:46:00.001-05:00

Do They Know It’s Christmas?

Each year we celebrate the Christmas season. We open up a plethora of gifts, count our blessings, congratulate ourselves on being a fine God-fearing nation, steeped in Christian ideals and charged with telling the world just how wonderful our way of life is.

But the sad truth is that if we really look at ourselves objectively, we are anything but “blessed.” We are arrogant, self-absorbed, fat, lazy, insular, judgmental and contemptuous of anything and everything we don’t understand or agree with. In every way imaginable we are about as far removed from what Christ represented as the nations we have the temerity to criticize as being godless and bereft of compassion and mercy.

America remains that ultimate paradox of nations. On the one hand, a self-proclaimed lover of God, country and freedom; on the other showing an almost complete disdain for that love, possessing an utterly warped perception of its own history and lacking even the most rudimentary understanding of what true freedom really means. Of the true spirit of Christmas, Americans know precious little. Our chief occupation appears to be preaching not the Gospel of Christ, but the gospel of greed and corruption. And now we sit on top of our heap of ashes that serve to remind us, if we dare look, of the wages of our sins, comfortable in our drug of denial. In every way imaginable we have reaped what we have sowed.

So oblivious are we to our sinful ways that we have become numb to their affects, not only on us, but on the world. Whether America ever once stood for something great or not - and the jury is still out on that one - one thing is certain: we have worn out our welcome, severely damaged whatever reputation we might have once enjoyed and used up all the credit we have amassed over the generations. In many ways the United States more closely resembles the Roman Empire prior to its collapse than a beacon of justice and liberty.

Humbleness and humility are nowhere to be found; I’m not sure that they ever existed in the first place. Charity is mentioned only in the context of distant fairytales that our children read and watch with amusement. “Are there no workhouses?” has become our enjoining banner. Were Christ alive today, I fear he would call out America in much the same way he called out the Pharisees of his day. He would call us a brood of vipers as sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. And with every damnable phrase that would leave his lips, we collectively would be condemned as the hypocrites we truly are. There would be no escape from our just desserts, for we would’ve earned each and every slanderous charge accorded us. Our fate would be as sealed as the envelopes that hold the meaningless Christmas cards we send to one another.

Many years ago, there was a song I remembered that was released around this time of year. Fittingly, it was titled, “Do They Know It’s Christmas?” Of all the songs of this holiday season, none are more fitting or appropriate than this one. It is hardly joyous or cheerful, but it is, nonetheless, on point. I may be presumptuous, but I feel if Christ were with us now, he would not only appreciate this song, but would encourage us to keep it in our hearts all the year round.

Merry Christmas.

It's Christmas time, there's no need to be afraid
At Christmas time, we let in light and we banish shade

And in our world of plenty, we can spread a smile of joy!
Throw your arms around the world at Christmas time

But say a prayer - pray for the other ones
At Christmas time, it's hard, but when you're having fun
There's a world outside your window
And it's a world of dreaded fear
Where the only water flowing is a bitter sting of tears
And the Christmas bells that ring there are the clanging chimes of doom

Well tonight thank God it's them instead of you

And there won't be snow in Africa this Christmas time
The greatest gift they'll get this year is life

Where nothing ever grows
No rain or rivers flow

Do they know it's Christmas time at all?

Here's to you
Raise your glass for everyone
Here's to them
Underneath that burning sun

Do they know it's Christmas time at all?

Feed the world
Feed the world
Feed the world
Let them know it's Christmas time and
Feed the world
Let them know it's Christmas time and
Feed the world
Let them know it's Christmas time and
Feed the world
Let them know it's Christmas time and
Feed the world
Let them know it's Christmas time and
Feed the world
Let them know it's Christmas time

2010-10-08T21:14:00.000-04:00

Sweet Sixteen

Today is the sixteenth anniversary of my marriage to the most wonderful, most patient, and most loving wife a man could have, my darling Maria. It was a beautiful early autumn morning when I saw my wife being escorted down the aisle by her mother. They say there is nothing so beautiful as a bride on her wedding day, and that was no less true for Maria. She was radiant.

There I stood, waiting at the alter with my cousin and best man, for my bride to be to make her way toward my side. She has been there – at my side – ever since through thick and thin. And, I don’t think it’s stretching the truth one bit to say I am the luckiest man alive. I still can’t believe where the time has gone. We have reached incredible heights and gone through our share of tough ordeals. Life is the ultimate test to a marriage and while our commitment to one another may have been tested, I thank the good Lord it has never failed.

Our wedding song happens to be the last song Buddy Holly ever recorded before he went on his famous winter tour of 1959: True Love Ways. Sixteen years later, the words still ring as true as they did that October day in 1994.

Just you know why
Why you and I
Will by and by
Know true love ways.

Sometimes we'll sigh
Sometimes we'll cry
And we'll know why
Just you and I
Know true love ways.

Throughout the days
Our true love ways
Will bring us joy to share
With those who really care.

Sometimes we'll sigh
Sometimes we'll cry
And we'll know why
Just you and I
Know true love ways.

Throughout the days
Our true love ways
Will bring us joy to share
With those who really care.

Sometimes we'll sigh
Sometimes we'll cry
And we'll know why
Just you and I
Know true love ways.

Happy anniversary, sweetheart. I love you, truly.

2010-10-02T16:43:00.000-04:00

Last Call

I remember it as though it were yesterday. It was a lovely early autumn afternoon in downtown Fort Worth, Texas – warm by New York standards, but I’m sure quite chilly for the locals – and my cousin’s wife was giving me a grand tour of all the hotspots. I was visiting them and this was to be my last day before returning home. Up and down the streets we walked, occasionally stopping into a clothing store to check out some threads. I can’t remember if I bought a hat or not that day, but I’m sure I tried on one or two.

After about an hour or two we happened to come upon a local club called Billy Bob’s, which to this day still refers to itself as the world’s largest honky tonk. There’s no disputing its enormous size; in deed what struck me most about the place was how cavernous it was when we walked inside for a brew. With the exception of Sue, myself, the bar tender, and some guy in the corner sweeping up the floor, there wasn’t a soul in the joint. In fact, given how nice a day it was outside, I though it weird that we would even be in a place like this.

It had been only two nights earlier that my cousin and I got so lit up that his wife had to drive us both home. I have very little recollection of what happened that night other than we just wanted to go out and have a good time. That had been the story of my life. I was always just going out to have a good time. What was so wrong with that? The problem was that having a good time had long ago passed. Over the last few years, the truth was I was just going out to get drunk, pure and simple.

So there I was in this dank, dark, cavernous bar in the middle of the afternoon of a beautiful day, and what was I doing? Drinking, that’s what. Except something seemed different this time. Suddenly, something felt out of place. I was acutely aware that something was wrong with this picture. Two people in the middle of an empty bar drinking. Hmm. I finished the beer – a Budweiser I think – and suggested to Sue we should split, which we did.

I did not know it then, but that would be my last alcoholic drink. October 2, 1990, in the middle of the afternoon, in downtown Fort Worth, Texas, at Billy Bob’s. Who’d have thunk it? Not I, that’s for sure. I loved beer; it had become such a part of my life that if you had blindfolded me and gave me samples of each of my favorite beers, I could tell you which one was which.

But the problem was, though I loved beer, it did not love me back. I had long ago lost control of my drinking to the point that it was no longer fun any more. I was no longer taking the drink; it was taking me. I was an alcoholic, and I drank to get drunk, period, not because I was thirsty, like so many other “social” drinkers. To this day I still don’t know what a social drinker is.

It would take some time before I would find a program of recovery where I could share about my drinking and learn to live a sober life, but I will never forget that early autumn day lo those twenty years ago. Much as happened in my life in the years since. I have found God, gotten married, bought a house, and quietly built a life for myself. The hardest thing I have had to do in this journey was grow up and become a man. Putting down the bottle proved easy; living life one day at a time became the tough job. All that I have today, I owe to that decision I made back there in that bar to stop killing myself and join the human race.

It has not been easy living this life. I had become quite good at running from my problems. Alcohol doesn’t just deaden nerve endings in the brain, it stunts your emotional and spiritual growth. Though I was 29 when I stopped drinking, intellectually I was more like twelve. Twenty years later I still sometimes feel like a kid. The difference is I don’t act like one; and if I do step out of line and screw up, I can be a man and own my part. I don’t run from my problems anymore; I meet them head on. I’ve learned there is nothing I can’t handle, if I don’t take a drink and I rely on God’s guidance.

My faith in Jesus would’ve been very unlikely had I not found the rooms of recovery. I came across a man in one of my meetings who recommended a church to me. Two weeks later I attended my first service in almost a decade, with the exception of weddings and funerals. I stayed and within a couple of months had made a decision to accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior. The rest, as they say, is history.

It's funny how things work out sometimes. While I have never subscribed to the wildly held belief by so many Christians that everything in this life revolves around some master plan, pre-ordained from the beginning of time, I do believe that God provides us with sign posts along our journey to nudge us along the right path. All we have to do is follow them to know the peace he has in store for us.

The journey, I hope, is far from over. There is still so much left to do. The last five years I have been developing my skills as a writer. The first fruits have been this blog and the progressive one I started earlier this year. I fervently believe that God is using these blogs in some way to speak through me, and it is my hope that I have done His will justice.

No matter what happens or where this journey leads I will always look fondly back at that fateful day in 1990 when I made a decision to close one door and open another. Life is like that, isn’t it? One door closes and another one opens. All we have to do is choose to trust in God that the door we are walking through is a safe one. He hasn’t lead us this far to abandon us, and he has personally never let me down. My worst day in sobriety is a thousand times better than my best day before it.

There is a reading from a book that all of us in the rooms know by heart. It goes like this:

“If we are painstaking about this phase of our development, we will be amazed before we are half way through. We are going to know a new freedom and a new happiness. We will not regret the past nor wish to shut the door on it. We will comprehend the word serenity and we will know peace. No matter how far down the scale we have gone, we will see how our experience can benefit others. That feeling of uselessness and self pity will disappear. We will lose interest in selfish things and gain interest in our fellows. Self-seeking will slip away. Our whole attitude and outlook upon life will change. Fear of people and of economic insecurity will leave us. We will intuitively know how to handle situations, which used to baffle us. We will suddenly realize that God is doing for us what we could not do for ourselves.

“Are these extravagant promises? We think not. They are being fulfilled among us—sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly. They will always materialize if we work for them.”

Amen!

2010-09-14T23:38:00.009-04:00

The Coming War, and the Unprepared Church.

This past weekend the nation commemorated the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks; in Florida a pastor is threatening to burn Qurans to protest Islamic extremism; in lower Manhattan tensions continue to mount over the proposed building of a Mosque two blocks north of the World Trade Center site; and just last month a commentator turned demigod held a rally to restore America on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr's I have a Dream speech.

The country, in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression, is deeply polarized and divided like no time since the Civil War. The luster of the election of the first black president has given way to long-standing and latent racial bigotry that is being stoked by scandalous politicians looking to cash in on the base fears and economic frustrations of the electorate.

And, as lines continue to be drawn and hearts continue to harden, the Church, for the most part, seems perfectly content to remain on the sidelines, while its congregants have at each other. Perhaps not wanting to be dragged into an argument it has judged to be a distraction from what Jesus commissioned it to be, the Church has, for lack of a better term, missed the proverbial forest for the trees.

On any level one cares to examine, the lack of an official response from the Church is profoundly wrong. Its reluctance to jump into the turbulent waters of the political quagmire the U.S. is caught up in, under some misbegotten belief that it should somehow remain above worldly conflicts, has not only created a vacuum that the enemy has taken advantage of, it is not even Biblically accurate.

We have been told by well-intentioned and otherwise thoughtful Christians that this debate is nothing more than your run of the mill conservative vs. liberal conflict that is as old as the nation itself and will eventually play itself out, as so many conflicts have a habit of doing. Why get caught up in a dog fight and further exacerbate heated tensions among the flock. Isn’t that the sort of thing the enemy feeds on: dividing us and thus making us ineffectual? Well, I have some bad news. With regards to division and ineffectual Christians, I’m afraid the horse has already left the barn on that one. The Church needn’t worry about exacerbating tensions. The ensuing silence has done more to further the cause of bitterness within its ranks than anything the enemy could possibly do.

I’m sorry, but this isn’t as simple as deciding which flavor ice cream one prefers; or choosing which local baseball team has the best chance of winning the pennant, or even whether one feels the rich aren’t paying their fair share of taxes. The issue before the Church is no mere classic liberal vs. conservative splitting of hairs; it’s as old as civilization itself and it is tearing apart the very fabric of the nation’s soul. Playing the role of the proverbial bartender who dares not offend his patrons, lest they not leave a tip, is a poor substitute for the role the Church was called to play. The Church cannot afford the “lofty” stance of being worried about what its customers think of it, especially with so much at stake. To paraphrase a line out of the movie “The Lord of the Rings,” war is upon the Church, whether it would risk it or not. Not showing up is not on the option list.

I have made no secret of my disdain for the growing trend of social Darwinism that is plaguing and, sadly, taking over Christianity. The incessant belief among many “believers” that one can follow the teachings of Jesus, while at the same time, espousing economic philosophies that are inimical to the very faith they claim to love, has perverted that faith and rendered much, if not all, of its teachings irrelevant. When a single pastor – who obviously has no idea what it means to be a Christian – can threaten an action so thoroughly despicable as burning the holy book of another religion; when a buffoonish, cult-like TV personality can rubber stamp his approval on his brand of Christianity, thus rendering all others blasphemy; when a majority of the population of this country still doesn't understand that freedom of religion is an absolute right, irrespective of what feelings it may elicit, and there is not a unified and unambiguous message of condemnation emanating from every pulpit in the country, one can only wonder what it was that was more important for those pastors to preach about! Another message on God’s grace being sufficient? Perhaps yet another in a series of how our unaided will can get us into trouble? Or maybe just how much Jesus truly loves his children? Sometimes I wonder what those pastors would be preaching about if their sanctuaries were on fire. Perhaps the story of Noah’s Ark?

I have always took it for granted that the Word is not a history lesson; that it is a living, breathing blueprint for how we are to live here in the present. What better way to demonstrate its profound relevance to the world we live in than to unleash its awesome power upon the millions of Christians who every Sunday flock to their respective sanctuaries to be fed? Instead, what many hear are not relevant lessons that they can incorporate into their daily walk, but empty words that drop to the floor dead on arrival.

Now, before I am called to task for ignoring the plethora of sermons, which do in deed have some merit and have on the whole done justice to scripture, let me also point out that the fundamental failure or reluctance to repudiate false doctrines that have seeped into their congregations, and which are an anathema to God’s revelation, end up canceling out whatever good their sermons might accomplish. In other words, preaching on the fact that you cannot serve both God and money, while remaining silent on the inequities of society doesn’t wash. One cannot quote from passages that decry greed and the accumulation of wealth, yet turn a deaf ear to the injustice that surrounds us all. To do so does violence to the very scripture they are quoting from.

And yet many pastors and priests do this every Sunday to the great relief and delight of the majority of their congregants. These people hear just enough “truth” to make them squirm a bit, yet escape the piercing blade of conviction that the scripture was intended to invoke. Somewhere in Heaven Jesus is weeping at the emasculation of the words he so deliberately and painstakingly chose. This was not what he lived his relatively short life to bring about, and it was not what he intended his followers to be doing.

It comes down to this: Is the Church simply content with delivering a message that stirs but never riles up its followers? Is it OK with peddling a kinder, softer, watered down Gospel that gives just enough truth and hope, yet stops short of jumping to the unalterable conclusion that virtually all the history we as a nation have been brought up to believe – that we live in a just world where we can “be all we want” and “God helps those who help themselves” – is just flat out wrong and must be rebuked?

These are not easy questions to ask, for they require of our leaders a determined fearlessness that is in deed Christlike. And no doubt, were the vast majority of churches to employ this tactic and preach the Gospel in such a manner, many within those congregations would flee rather than stand for the conviction they would no doubt receive. But for those who would remain and the millions more who yearn for such a message of true hope and salvation who would march in through the doors, they would find an authentically relevant Gospel, that is as fearless as it is alive.

Such churches might well be treated as pariahs and called all sorts of names from divisive to anti-American to socialist to whatever. Many so-called liberation theology churches bare the stain of unjust branding from a world that simply can’t or won’t deal with its own wickedness, in a country that still can’t look its past in the eye and atone for its transgressions. The only response permissible for any religious body that wishes to represent Christ on Earth should and must be, “So what?” There is only one ultimate criteria that any local church ought to have with respect to preaching the good news. The good news must first and foremost be good! It is not enough to stock food pantries and provide shelter for the homeless if the very institutions that create the need for such charities are themselves left unchallenged. If we are going to refer to this world as "fallen" the very least we can do is discuss why it is that way, and what can be done to change it.

I have been writing this blog for five years now and, while I am certainly no paragon of virtue in that I fall far short of the mark, as many of us do, I have nonetheless been relentless in calling out the flagrant hypocrisy within the Church, and God willing will continue to do so. Chief among my criticisms has been this nagging reluctance to reclaim the mantle that Christ commissioned His followers to hold. For most of the last two thousand years since Jesus ascended to Heaven, the Church has run away from and not toward its founder. It has made peace with corrupt worldly powers and chosen to stand on the sidelines during tumultuous periods in its history. We are living in just such a tumultuous period and time is running out.

The coming war is fast approaching and not only is the Church unprepared; it seems strangely aloof and indifferent. The damage that this is doing is exacting and, I fear, irreversible. If it does not wake up from its slumber soon the war as we know it could be lost, and millions will pay the ultimate price for a Church that was apostate and derelict in its responsibilities. For such a ghastly and reprehensible crime there can be only one final judgment from above, and the Lord, in His infinite wisdom, will dispense it.

2010-08-11T12:18:00.009-04:00

Houston We Have a Problem!

On July 29, 2010, noted author Anne Rice publicly renounced her dedication to her Roman Catholic faith, yet remained committed to Christ on her Facebook page, stating,

“For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being ‘Christian’ or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to ‘belong’ to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.”

She then followed up her original post a few hours later with the following,

“As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.”

To those of us who share many of Rice’s concerns and qualms about the Church in general, this is a bittersweet moment for us. Forget for a moment that it is impossible to “remain committed to Christ” without being a Christian. The two go hand in hand. Forget for a moment, as Rice has apparently done, that there are far more progressive congregations she could have sought out and joined that would’ve allowed and even encouraged her social and political sentiments, and might well have helped her in championing them.

Forget all of that for a moment and let’s examine where we are as a Church right now. For that, I feel, is the more distressing issue before us. People like Rice should serve as painful reminders that there are serious issues that continue to haunt the Church, and which, sadly, define it in the eyes of many: believer and non.

Those who have read this blog – yes all four of you – are well aware of my deep contempt for the right-wing assault on Christianity that has been going on for quite some time. On several occasions I have toyed with the idea of leaving the Church altogether, such was my disgust for what I was witnessing. It was only after much prayer and discussions with a few members that I decided to remain.

This past February I had published a blog – some would call it a treatise – titled “A Declaration of Sorts” in which I laid out my issues in rather blunt terms. What all but two of you don’t know is that it was originally intended to be a resignation letter, if not from the Church altogether, at the very least from the one I was attending. I had had enough. Like Popeye, I could stands no more. I rewrote much of it and made the decision to stay and fight for my beliefs. I was damned if I was going to let the enemy win this battle. Instead the piece became my line in the sand, rather than a hasty and loud retreat.

I called out not just those who were kidnapping our faith in the name of their narrow political agendas, but also those who seemed unwilling to stand up and say, “Enough!”

“Are not all of us commissioned to speak out against injustice, to stand up for those who are less fortunate, to challenge lies with truth and paranoia with reason, to act as Paul did when he rebuked James? Did not Jesus rebuke Peter? Did He not love him nonetheless? Why are so few of us willing to stand our ground when presented with the unalterable conclusions of our lot? Are we exempt simply because we are church elders, senior and associate pastors, small group leaders, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, doctors and nurses, lawyers and bankers, athletes and journalists, politicians and statesmen, salespeople and consumers, professors and students? What is the level of our comfort that keeps our mouths shut when our spirit cries out in anguish? Is our new suit too delicate to be soiled if only just a little? Perhaps a new car, the mortgage payment, or the children’s tuition hangs in the balance. What reputation is it we seek to protect when God’s people cry out for justice and we turn away? Did Jesus care about his reputation or his ministry?”

I ripped away, caring not whose feathers I might be ruffling; drawing a line in the sand and daring anyone who cared to cross it. Sadly, Anne Rice chose to cut and run, and for that I am angry. Not at her, but at the rest of us. For no sooner had she made her announcement than the throng of religious zealots descend upon her and ostensibly ripped her to shreds for bailing out on her faith.

A friend of mine, Scott, wrote on his facebook page, “I don’t mean to be harsh toward Christians, but when people give up on the Christian community, I think Christians should start, not by criticizing them, but by listening to them and by looking at themselves.”

Well put Scott, but if you are somehow adverse to being harsh, allow me please to take the hammer from you and continue. There are times we couch our feelings to protect and nurture; and then there are times when only brute honesty will suffice. This episode begs for the latter.

It is my contention that we do the cause of Christianity a disservice if we focus on Anne Rice as being the issue here. Instead what all of us should do is take a step back, examine those reasons for her decision, admit that, however painful it might be, there is some validity to her charges, and then do all we can to ensure that, at least as far as we're concerned, we won't let the corporate cancer that is eating away at the foundations of our faith claim more victims. And make no mistake about it, it IS a cancer!

I remember after the '04 election I was having a conversation with a couple of co-workers, both of whom were Jewish. They couldn't believe Bush had been re-elected and they were outraged at the connection between the religious Right and politics in this country. This was my first exposure to the concerns that non-believers had over the encroaching right-wing ideologues that were speaking on behalf of the faith I held near and dear.

I spent the next half hour explaining to them that as a Christian I too was embarrassed and offended by those people who were speaking on behalf of my faith and claiming a moral superiority. I also told them that not every Christian was a fanatic hell bent on rewriting the Constitution and forcing Christianity on those who didn't believe in it.

You see, I think part of our problem is that we think too much like we're in a box. We suffer from tunnel vision. We don't see what others see; hence we are either taken by surprise by it, or act indignant to it. How could Anne Rice leave us and abandon her faith? How about, How could we have abandoned our moral compass and allowed our faith to be hijacked? See what a little perspective can mean to a discussion?

I think there are a lot more Anne Rice's out there, and a lot more who will never get as far as she did. In other words will never get to know the Lord at all. And mainly because we as a Church, corporately, have chosen to abandon the very principles that Christ stood for and opted for a bunch of slogans, political agendas, and catch phrases that may get a few officials elected and may even overturn a few laws we don't like, but in the end will do more harm than good. And for that I am deeply angered. In fact, I’m pissed!

Anne Rice’s defection from Christianity should serve as a wake up call to all of us. It is time we got up off our collective asses and reclaimed the Church Peter started over 2,000 years ago. We should stop worrying about our good manners and good reputations. We should be as protective of our faith as a business owner is of his merchandise. More so, for our reward is not measured in dollars and cents but in our eternal rest with Him who sent us.

Whenever anyone, anywhere either leaves the faith or decides not to join it and the principle reason is due to the message they get from the modern-day Pharisees who have chosen to speak on our behalf, we are all guilty of driving the bus they’re on out of town. And woe to all of us for allowing that to happen! Do not think for a moment that we will not be called to justify ourselves before God when our time comes. Their souls are our souls!

This is the question we should be asking ourselves. If Christianity were a department store, would we or anyone else want to shop there? Or for that matter would we buy anything there? If the answer to both is not unequivocally “yes” then we must be honest and say, “Houston we have a problem!”

2010-07-16T23:52:00.003-04:00

Chasing Gandhi:
Understanding the Difference Between Nonviolence and Pacifism.

I have a confession to make. I am far better at talking the talk than I am walking the walk. I have always admired the tremendous courage men like Gandhi and Martin Luther King exhibited in their public and personal lives, while sadly admitting that I could never hold a candle to them. I cannot even imagine what Christ’s final moments on this earth must’ve been like. To come to this stage of one’s life and realize that you are as far removed from your personal heroes as the moon is from the earth is a sobering reality.

Worse, while I have a deep and profound respect for what those men stood for, I also have to confess that I feel more of an affinity for those individuals who more often than not flexed their muscles in response to oppression. Whenever I have seen an injustice – regardless of what it is – my first response has not been to pray for the perpetrator, but rather to lash out at the transgressor and fight for the victim. I feel an almost reflexive need to come to the aid of such people and a strong, intense hatred for those who caused the malady. Out of all the sins of the world, cruelty to those who cannot fend for themselves and poverty anger me the most.

My writings have often reflected this deep sentiment and I have always felt a peculiar and profound calling to continue to bring to light any inequities that scar the Kingdom of God. So-called believers who besmirch the very faith I hold near and dear have earned the bulk of my wrath. In this endeavor I have been unapologetic to say the least.

But of late I have listened and read, with great interest, the words of King and Gandhi in the writings of other Christian men and I feel a sense of bewilderment. It is clear that both King and Gandhi were proponents of nonviolence in their lives. It is equally clear that both were profound men of peace who represented the very best principles of what it means to be a Christian. As such, they have earned the status accorded them.

But I sometimes wonder whether both men may have been as misunderstood as they were admired. There has been a long tradition of nonviolent movements throughout history. The Great Samil Movement of 1919 during Japanese colonial rule was one of the largest nonviolent demonstrations in the twentieth century and resulted in over 7,000 martyrdoms. And of course the most obvious example of nonviolence was the life and ministry of Jesus. But the biggest problem I have with nonviolence is not its resistance to violence but its connection to pacifism. Over the years the two words have somehow become synonymous with symbolizing an almost pathological resistance to any form of aggression whatsoever. At first glance both terms seem somewhat similar in scope, and in deed both share some qualities. But a closer look reveals a staggering distinction. See for yourself.

Pacifism: The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully. An opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes. Such opposition is demonstrated by a refusal to participate in military action no matter the provocation.

Nonviolence: A philosophy and strategy for social change that rejects the use of violence. As such, nonviolence is an alternative to passive acceptance of oppression and armed struggle against it. Practitioners of nonviolence may use diverse methods in their campaigns for social change, including critical forms of education and persuasion, civil disobedience and nonviolent direct action, and targeted communication via mass media.

In other words, while proponents of pacifism may employ some of the techniques of nonviolence, proponents of nonviolence can hardly be called pacifists. If anything, they typify the very essence of what it means to be a revolutionary. In fact, the more I learn of Gandhi and King, and for that matter Jesus, the more revolutionary they become for me.

Part of the problem I, and I’m afraid many good-natured Christians, have when delving into this arena is that we tend to focus on the peaceful and loving parts of these men to the exclusion of all else. Yes all three of these men loved their neighbors, and all three felt it their moral duty to give his life for his fellow man. But there has been an almost glossing over by many historians of the very traits that truly defined what each man singularly accomplished.

Jesus’ mocking of the Pharisees, Gandhi’s refusal to acknowledge British sovereignty over India, and King’s admonishment of the Christian Church are as much a part of their stories as the feeding of the four thousand, the hunger strikes, and the march on Selma respectively. It would do violence – no pun intended – to their contributions to humanity to highlight the latter at the expense of the former. In deed if all these men had accomplished were a few good deeds – and in the case of Jesus a few good miracles – I suspect that we would not revere them to the extent that we do. Their collective rantings and rebukings were what ultimately came to define their lives and helped usher in the elements of change we now take for granted: Christianity, an independent India and an awakening of a race and a blind nation. One could no more separate the peaceful elements of their lives from the volatile than to separate oxygen from water. Truth be told, their volatility was what gave their serenity weight and authority. They were no mere pushovers. They were righteous in their indignation, confident that they were justified before God, and in the case of Jesus before the Father.

And so should we. Nonviolence is not a call to lay down one’s arms and roll over. Rather, if anything, it is a call to rise up and make a stand. Temerity must overrule timidness if our lives are to have any meaning before God. We must resist the urge to permit ourselves to be used as doormats and, in the naïve hope that we might persuade those with whom we are diametrically opposed, grant even a semblance of latitude. There is only one correct stance for any of us to have when faced with hypocrisies, bigotry, and outright hatred. We are to call it out, like poison from a wound, and curse it to the ground. Jesus never minced his words when confronted. Why then are we so polite when we find ourselves in similar situations?

We must acknowledge the painful reality that to truly seek a path of nonviolence means we must abandon our pacifist ways, identify who are enemies are, and pursue them with all the vigor of an exploding sun. Each of us has a Jerusalem and a Memphis in his or her life. The only question is whether we will be moving towards that destination or away from it.

2010-07-09T00:37:00.006-04:00

No Party Pooper Am I

The following petition is currently making its way around the internet and is being embraced by many thoughtful and conscientious Christians. It is worthy of serious consideration.

Declaration of Unity

Dear Candidates, Incumbents and Party Leaders, In this election, please find a way of campaigning without deliberately triggering anger, hatred and fear. Please avoid contributing to the DISUNITING of America. It is the last thing we need in a time of two wars, an environmental catastrophe and an economic crisis.

We will hold accountable those who engage in the politics of division. We will support those who offer facts, civility and solutions. We choose to be united as a People and refuse to be divided. We hereby Declare Our Unity.

Now, while I appreciate and respect the thought behind this petition and agree in principle on the importance of civility in American politics, the sad and simple truth is that neither side would ever willingly sign it, and furthermore I think all of us deep down know it.

I also am of a mind that our correct posture as concerned Christians should be anything but civil in the face of what can only be described as the battle of our lifetime. Yes we are not to behave as our enemies do, but we should stop being so high-minded and eager to reach consensus. There is a time for a righteous indignation that I feel is way overdo.

I have been saying this now for well over year. The far Right, and with it fundamentalist Christianity, is actively engaging in tactics that are downright despicable and, in the case of the fundamentalists, unChristian. To show even the slightest hint of civility in the face of such rampant hatred and evil is akin to throwing down with it. You do not negotiate with evil; you confront it and expose it to the light of day.

The country DOES need a healthy and spirited debate on real issues; what is taking place more closely resembles the rumble scene from West Side Story. It is nothing short of insane to ask one side to lay down their sticks while at the same time allowing the other side to pummel the opposition with theirs.

To those who would say I am being obtuse and exposing my heart, I would say wake up my friends and smell the very coffee you want to drink. This isn’t about winning the hearts and minds of those who have fallen; it has always been about not letting the enemy get a foothold. Do not kid yourselves; silence and complicity are one in the same. Would Jesus have sat down with Satan? Did he once seek compromise with the Pharisees? Of course not and neither should we. It is foolhardy to believe we have no enemies, especially when they have no problem seeing us as theirs’.

Two wrongs may not make a right but it at least preserves balance; a balance that one day may yield to saner and more rational participants in this experiment we still call democracy. And when that day arrives, I will be more than willing to share a cup or two of hazelnut or French vanilla with anyone who seeks mutual respect and honors honest disagreement.

In the meantime, I will hold off singing Cumbayá, and suit up my armor, thank you.

2010-06-28T17:11:00.006-04:00

The Living, Liberal Bible:
Why Conservatism and Christianity simply don’t mix.

I have heard many supposed cogent arguments in support of conservatism over the years. Lower taxes, less government, a spirit of entrepreneurship, greater freedom and liberty, etc… I can certainly understand where this comes from. Deep within the American experience there lies the mythos of a rugged individualism that is unique to Western society. We can debate not only the merits of that mythos but also its historical accuracy till Kingdom come and still not have a resolution. But what I cannot wrap my head around is how so many Christians continue to hold onto these “virtues.” Because when I read my Bible, what comes straight at me has little to do with accumulation of wealth, or personal liberty, or greater freedom. The central theme, if anything, is about giving to the poor, personal sacrifice and being a slave to, of all people, Christ! And Christ was hardly an accumulator of wealth. His life was a testament to the ultimate sacrifice: that of his own life for our salvation. And it is clear that he expected nothing less from his followers.

Pick a verse:

Luke 3:11: “The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same.”

Luke 16:13: “No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”

Matthew 6:19-21: “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

And one of my personal favorites, 2 Corinthians 8:13-15: “Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, as it is written: ‘He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.’”

You can go through the Bible all you want in search of the spirit of Adam Smith, and you will not find him. What you will find, if you are honest and have an ear to hear, an eye to see, and/or a heart for Jesus is that the very things that make up the essence of a capitalistic society are intrinsically inimical to the Christian walk. This isn’t debatable. It’s just a fact. Scripture maybe used contextually, but its core tenants are not open to interpretation or dispute.

Even the classic parable of the Ten Talents, long a staple for many conservative Christians to prove that God intends for us to be prosperous and rewarded for our wise investments, is often misquoted and misunderstood. Yes, it is important to invest wisely, but what is it we are to invest in? The parable, upon closer examination, could just as easily be about our God-given abilities and having trust that as we step out in faith we will be rewarded. To the ardent follower, this can be risky. Bucking over 200 years of established thinking can rub certain people the wrong way. But the opposite carries its share of risks too.

“The master took his one talent away from him and gave it to the man who had ten talents, and the one talent man was punished because he had not properly used the talent he had been given.”

Clearly there are penalties for not using the talents (gifts) we are given. In the Gospel of Mark there is a particular reference that is analogous to the above parable.

Mark 11:1-3: As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethpage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples, saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ tell him, ‘The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.’”

Mark’s Gospel is, for lack of a better term, the shorthand Gospel. Meaning it is the shortest and most concise of the four Gospels. And because it is short, Mark deliberately chooses his words carefully. Why then does he specifically mention that the colt has never been ridden? Why is it intrinsic to the story? Or for that matter that the Lord needs it? Wouldn’t it be obvious that Jesus needs it? Otherwise why would he be taking it? Unless Mark is trying to remind us, like the aforementioned parable, that those things we do not use God will take back from us.

Hmmm. So it is clear that we are given certain gifts that the Lord intends for us to utilize in the building of His kingdom. And those who ignore them or, out of fear and or greed, let them go to waste, earn God’s wrath. And if we are indeed his agents on Earth we are called to do those things that he himself did while on this Earth: show mercy to the sinner, tend to the poor, feed the hungry, cure the sick, house the homeless, and encourage those who are discouraged. This is our calling in a nutshell.

And yet millions of American evangelicals hold onto a world-view that contradicts the very core of their faith. Worse, the very things they seem to grasp onto – namely issues dealing with homosexuality, sexual purity and abortion – are completely blown out of proportion and made to look more important than they are. Not that living a virtuous life and wanting an end to abortion are not important issues, but there are many more things that constitute a virtuous and Godly life than the quality of one’s sexual purity or one’s stance on unwanted pregnancies. It is quite possible to be completely faithful to one’s spouse, oppose abortion, and yet still betray the very essence of the Christian walk.

Now to be sure, God does desire us to be free from lust and wants us to be advocates for the unborn, but I suspect that the reason so many evangelicals are drawn to these stances is that it gives them a reason to examine other people’s behavior and not their own. Sexual deviance is always the other guy’s problem, just as the woman who seeks an abortion becomes the moral failing of someone else’s upbringing; but pride, arrogance, gluttony and avarice are vices we as a nation have never dared examine. And for good reason. Who cares to come face to face with such a staggering conclusion? Who wishes to wake up and realize that the very system they have come to acknowledge as symbolic of everything that is good and pure and Godly, is in fact none of the above?

Now before I go any further, let’s be clear. There is nothing wrong with money in and of itself. As Christians we are called to be good stewards and be responsible providers for our families. We could no more neglect our duties at home than we could disown our own faith. The two are joined at the hip. And clearly there are limits as to how much we can give those in need and still be responsible providers at home. When Jesus commands those of us who have two tunics to “share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same” he clearly intends for us to hold onto the other tunic and for us not to starve.

It is what we do with those resources that we do not need to sustain ourselves that define us as a people before God. And as of right now, I feel we are failing that test. America, the richest nation on Earth, a nation deeply steeped in the Judeo / Christian tradition is facing a moral dilemma that threatens to tear it apart, not to mention earn the wrath of God.

For a nation so blessed, we still have intense poverty in many urban areas. In some northern cities some families have to choose between freezing to death in the dead of winter or having enough food to eat. Childhood illiteracy within these areas approaches that of third-world countries. Even with the latest healthcare bill signed into law, tens of millions will have to wait as long as four years before they can gain access to basic medical treatment, all the while running the risk of getting sick and perhaps dying prematurely.

It is clear that the churches and synagogues are ill-equipped to handle the needs of the poor in their local communities, and while private charity has certainly helped, it too is insufficient to meet such a Herculean challenge. The only agency even remotely able to address many of these problems – the government – has been under attack by many fundamentalists who see it as an over-reaching behemoth, sucking the life out of our precious freedoms. Charges of socialism and government takeovers fill the ether and stir the passions of many a believer to such heights that is it any wonder we are gripped by fear, especially when such fear is unwarranted and completely over the top.

Not that the government hasn’t had its share of scandals and hypocrisies. Many of the criticisms thrown at it have their basis in some truth. It is terribly inefficient, has been corrupted – one could almost say bought – by outside influences that have no interest in seeing a flourishing democracy survive. But when all is said and done, it is still our best hope for giving those without the relief they so desperately need. Without it, most of our so-called freedoms would not exist. Like it or not, the federal government has often stopped the encroachment of corporate domination that ironically threatens the very freedoms we take for granted, and historically has prevented many oligopolies from taking root. Witness the early 1900s when the Trusts were broken up. Without government regulation, such as it is, we would be a vastly different country than we are today. Many of the landmark decisions handed down by the Supreme Court helped paved the way to end discrimination in our nation and bring about many of the reforms we now take for granted. Yes government has always had a role to play; to ignore that truth is to ignore common sense.

But to many believers most, if not all, of this is superfluous. They righteously hold onto their Bibles and defy all “doubters” to find any scriptural references that specifically call for churches and the government to partner up to help the oppressed. Perhaps Psalms 72:1-4 slipped by them.

“Endow the king with your justice, O God, the royal son with your righteousness. He will judge your people in righteousness, your afflicted ones with justice. The mountains will bring prosperity to the people, the hills the fruit of righteousness. He will defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; he will crush the oppressor.”

Or perhaps Proverbs 31:4-9,

“It is not for kings, O Lemuel— not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer, lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights. Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more.

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”

Or perhaps Isaiah 1:17 and 23,

“Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.”

“Your rulers are rebels, companions of thieves; they all love bribes and chase after gifts. They do not defend the cause of the fatherless; the widow's case does not come before them.”

Or perhaps Isaiah 10:1-3,

“Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless. What will you do on the day of reckoning, when disaster comes from afar? To whom will you run for help? Where will you leave your riches?”

Or perhaps Jeremiah 22:14-16,

“Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness, his upper rooms by injustice, making his countrymen work for nothing, not paying them for their labor. He says, ‘I will build myself a great palace with spacious upper rooms.’ So he makes large windows in it, panels it with cedar and decorates it in red.

“Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar? Did not your father have food and drink? He did what was right and just, so all went well with him.

“He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" declares the LORD.

Or finally Isaiah 32:1-8,

“See, a king will reign in righteousness and rulers will rule with justice. Each man will be like a shelter from the wind and a refuge from the storm, like streams of water in the desert and the shadow of a great rock in a thirsty land.

“Then the eyes of those who see will no longer be closed, and the ears of those who hear will listen. The mind of the rash will know and understand, and the stammering tongue will be fluent and clear.

“No longer will the fool be called noble nor the scoundrel be highly respected. For the fool speaks folly, his mind is busy with evil: He practices ungodliness and spreads error concerning the LORD; the hungry he leaves empty and from the thirsty he withholds water.

“The scoundrel's methods are wicked, he makes up evil schemes to destroy the poor with lies, even when the plea of the needy is just. But the noble man makes noble plans, and by noble deeds he stands.”

I could go on, but by now I think you get the drift. God does not distinguish between the private citizen and the established government, so why should we? If the words “We the people” mean anything it is that this government and this nation belong to us. That means that as a nation – as a government – of the people, by the people and for the people we have a moral obligation to look out for those who are less fortunate. This is not an option; it is a requirement. One that we dare not ignore any longer.

Over the last few years I have heard many conservative preachers rant and rave about the moral decay of the United States. They have spoken at great length about a promiscuous society that has lost its moral compass, and warned repeatedly that unless America repents of its sinful ways, a day of reckoning will be at hand. For once I agree with them. But I submit that our greatest sin has been a closed heart and a callous attitude. Our unwillingness to look within our own hearts and find the mercy that Jesus himself bestowed upon us, now more than anything else defines our fallen condition. We know what we are commanded to do; the only decision before us is whether or not we will obey it.

Like the parable of the talents, we are endowed with certain gifts. If we use them wisely, He will increase them so that our lives will glorify Him. And conversely, if we misuse or ignore them we will certainly earn our just deserts. True freedom comes with a price. Christ felt his freedom a worthy price to pay for our eternal salvation. What excuse have we to shun his example?

2010-05-23T16:48:00.007-04:00

Shame On You!

Another month, and another opportunity to bring to light yet more stupid and inane behaviors that consistently defy common sense. It’s getting so bad, I’m finding it harder and harder to “narrow” the field.

So this month I will devote the entire piece to one winner. This nominee has had some, shall we say, interesting and colorful moments during his lifetime, but his actions of late have taken the proverbial cake, as it were. Hence he has earned this month's spotlight all by himself.

On a personal note, this will be the last time this piece appears in this blog. Starting this month I have started a new blog aptly called “The Conscience of a Progressive.” A takeoff on Paul Krugman’s blog on The New York Times website titled “The Conscience of a Liberal” I decided that the word liberal for me was too vague for my liking and invites the usual stereotypical, knee-jerk responses from opponents. There is nothing vague about being a progressive, and it’s time I realized who and what I am and stop trying to wax poetically around it.

This blog was supposed to be about hypocrisy within the Church, and while I have made a concerted effort to keep it on track, I must also admit that at times it more closely resembled a political blog. And while I have nothing to apologize for regarding my stances, the two lines were beginning to blur way too much for my tastes. In the spirit of keeping it simple, it was time to reassess what the original goals were for this blog and return to them.

The envelope please…

John McCain: Whatever political capital and self respect this self-described maverick once had has long since gone the way of the dinosaur. It is hard to imagine that once upon a time this man was taken seriously as a presidential candidate and that voters on both sides of the political aisle viewed him with respect. He was his own man, beholden to no one. A Republican, yes, but he had the courage to stand up to the base of his own party and challenge its conventional wisdom.

He called out the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and properly referred to them as intolerant and called then candidate George Bush’s proposal for a massive tax cut for the rich something he could not “ in good conscious support.” He was a moderate Republican at a time when the Party was moving farther and farther away from the center and towards a much more militant base; a base which now completely owns and controls it.

During the 2000 Republican primaries, it looked as though McCain might actually eke out a win against Bush and give the nation a chance to vote for the first moderate Republican since Eisenhower. And then South Carolina happened. The vicious rumor that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child – posed as a question to avoid the appearance of a direct attack by the Bush campaign – ostensibly did in the Arizona senator. He never recovered. Bush went on to secure the nomination and eventually was elected President. The nation was this close to having a legitimate choice and electing a leader who wasn’t afraid to admit that the gap between rich and poor was widening and needed to be dealt with.

In the ensuing years McCain did distinguish himself by authoring various by-partisan legislation, and with the exception of his continued and ardent support for the Iraq War, he remained in the eyes of many America’s best hope for a presidential candidate that could transcend political polarization.

And then 2008 came. McCain had run a successful primary campaign against the likes of Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, not by moving to extreme base of his party, but by once more steering towards the middle. The strategy proved successful. Despite attacks from Rush Limbaugh and Mary Matalin, McCain beat the odds and went on to win the Republican nomination.

And then, in what can only be described as a Titanic moment, McCain chose to run one of the most negative campaigns against Democratic nominee Barack Obama. McCain didn’t just move to the right, he threw himself at his base in a desperate attempt to garner their support. In the desperation move of the century he chose as his running mate Alaskan governor Sarah Palin, a move that gained him the long awaited support from ultra conservatives, but which cost him the bulk of his support from the center, once considered his strength.

In the final six weeks of the campaign, McCain became more desperate as poll after poll showed his support eroding. The attacks were stepped up, but to no avail. McCain and Palin were routed in the general election.

In the year and a half since that humiliating defeat, McCain has continued his slide into a caricature of himself. The “maverick” had become Palin’s side kick. So damaged was his reputation both among independents and conservatives that the Tea Party movement nominated its own candidate to challenge him for his senate seat in the Arizona primary.

And now the man who stood not once but twice on the precipice of becoming President of the United States has outdone himself by declaring earlier this month that Times Square Bomber Faisal Shahzad – an American citizen – should be denied his Miranda rights. You heard right. Old blood and guts, in yet another desperate attempt to curry favor with conservatives in his home state, has sold himself out.

What next? An appearance with a fake sheriff along the Mexican border imploring the government to “complete the danged fence?” Oh, he did that too!

What happened John? Where did your soul go? I know politics is one of the two oldest professions in the world; the other has to do with selling your body for money. And I know it can’t be easy being a Republican these days and holding onto your principles. But you weren’t just any Republican and you didn’t just run for any office in the land. OK, so you saddled us with the mouth that keeps roaring in the person of Sarah Palin. That would be bad enough for one lifetime, but the depths you have sunk to over the last year has completely destroyed any hope of salvaging what was once a brilliant and distinguished career in the Senate.

Regardless of what happens in your state’s primary, you need to know this. What you have traded for is not worth the price you paid for it. Whether you win or lose, you have lost all respect from those who once believed in you, who saw in you a transformative figure who could be relied on to speak his mind and lead with conviction and dignity. Now the only thing any of us can rely on from you are the comic relief bits you bring to life on Letterman and Saturday Night Live.

Shame on you, sir. You knew better.

2010-05-03T22:34:00.008-04:00

What If? … No, What When?

The morning was like any other. I woke, went down to the local deli to get my usual egg sandwich and took my dog for his morning walk. I had a few chores to do that day, and one of them involved going down to the Apple Store at Roosevelt Field to register my AppleCare pack for my iTouch.

I got to the mall just before 1:00 and spoke with one of the sales reps at the store. After several attempts to register the product on his computer, he finally printed out a document with my product’s serial number along with a fax number and said I would have to fax it along with a copy of my receipt of purchase.

I was a bit frustrated at having to drive all the way down there only to be told that I would have to go back home and register it manually. I walked around the mall’s food court. Since it was lunch time I thought I’d kill two birds with one stone and grab a bite. Problem was despite a plethora of choices I wasn’t all that hungry. I finally left the mall and headed toward my car, which was parked about 50 or so yards from the south entrance right by Macy’s.

No sooner had I gotten into the car and put my key into the ignition than I felt an incredible pressure hit me right in the solar plexus that immediately took the wind out of me. The windows of my car exploded and a sound that I can only describe as reminiscent of a subway train pulling into a station only a hundred times louder popped both my eardrums. It was like being thrown into the middle of a war zone with no warning.

I threw open my door and hit the ground petrified. I shouted out, “What the f***!” I looked up and saw an immense cloud of smoke and fire coming from the direction of the mall. Debris was raining down all around me and there was nowhere to hide. I thought about crawling back inside my car but there was glass all over the seats.

I instinctively ran away as fast as I could along with a throng of people, some with burned and torn clothing, all screaming, or at least that’s what it looked liked. In the explosion I lost my hearing and couldn’t hear their screams.

I had run as fast and as far as I could, all the way to Stewart Avenue, before turning around. What I saw stunned me. The whole of Roosevelt Field was engulfed in a massive wall of flame. It poured out of the structure as though it were a tanker set ablaze. As my hearing began to return gradually I could hear the shrills of the people around me who were hysterical, but I could also hear from what must’ve been a half mile or so, the screams of the souls who must’ve been still inside, and I could also hear the flames that were engulfing the whole of the mall.

I was in a state of shock, but I was also quite cognizant of the fact that what I was witnessing was the worst calamity to befall the country since 9/11. I had no idea who might have done this or why, but I knew the horrific nature precluded the possibility of an accident. This was deliberate. We were under attack, again!

All I could think of was reaching my wife Maria to see if she was OK. I reached for my phone, but in the blast it had been ripped from my belt cover and was gone. I also noticed I was bleeding around my ears and arms. I was covered in the dust from the debris that rained down all over the parking lot.

I was scared and disoriented. I could hear the emergency vehicles as they arrived on the scene. I began wandering aimlessly along Stewart Avenue wondering how I was going to get home. I couldn’t believe what my eyes and ears were telling me. I had seen the images of the terrorist attacks that September morning, and saw the throng of people rushing over the Brooklyn Bridge but, while they were gut wrenching, not until that afternoon did I know the horror of what those people went through. You don’t know if you’re going to live or die, and every sense in your body is hyper sensitive. It’s as though you’re existing out of time. I was on pure adrenaline.

Eventually, after a time, I made it to the Meadowbrook Parkway. All northbound traffic had been diverted at Zeckendorf Blvd. Glen Cove might as well have been in China for all the good it did me. All roads around the mall were either closed or were diverting traffic away from where I needed to go. I walked – it was more a stagger – eastward and northward toward Best Buy on Old Country Road. Everyone I passed was staring at the wall of flame and smoke coming from Roosevelt Field. Eventually someone noticed me and saw that I was obviously in need of medical treatment. He put me in his car and drove me to the hospital.

I kept muttering for him to take me home, but he insisted I needed to get medical help. Once at the hospital I was admitted to the emergency room. I managed to get one of the nurses to give me her cell phone and I called Maria. She was hysterical but was relived that I was alive. She drove down as fast as she could to be with me, and stayed at my side while my wounds were treated. While in the emergency room I couldn’t help but think how fortuitous it was that I did not stop to eat lunch that afternoon. I would’ve been right in the middle of the mall when the explosive went off and more than likely I would’ve been killed.

After being treated for minor cuts, I was released and Maria drove me home. When we got home we both hugged one another and cried our eyes out, grateful to God that I was alive and well. Many people that day weren’t nearly as fortunate and many of them met their maker.

Over the next few days we learned that more than 1,500 people were killed, and another 500 or so suffered third degree burns. The explosive was placed in the basement directly under the food court and went off at 1:15 P.M. The blast blew a crater more than 200 feet in diameter and 100 feet deep, completely demolishing the main section; the ensuing inferno consumed most of the mall. Many around the epicenter were either immediately killed or were burned to death within seconds after the blast. The Taliban took credit for the attack, the second worst in U.S. history. Our worst fears were realized; what we were praying wouldn’t happen finally came to pass. America once more was hit and once more the face of terrorism reared its ugly head and claimed more innocent lives.

*************************************************************

Now obviously, none of this happened. Yet. Though I did in fact visit the mall to register my itouch, and I did indeed leave before eating lunch, all the events that appeared above were the figment of my morbid imagination. But don’t think for a moment that this scenario cannot become a reality.

Just Saturday someone drove a Nissan Pathfinder right into the heart of the theater district of Manhattan loaded with explosives in an obvious terrorist attack attempt. The attempt failed and, as we speak, the driver is being hunted. Though we don’t at present know who is responsible, the Taliban have taken credit for the attempt. And while the nation may have dodged a bullet this time, experts agree it is only a matter of time before a successful attack is carried out. No matter what precautions we take as a nation, eventually those who hate us will get through our defenses. A bomb will go off and people will be killed.

The neocons and the vast right-wing ideologues have had a field day over the last 24 hours ripping the Administration and liberal Democrats for being weak on the War on Terror and for making America vulnerable to attack. We were lucky. What about next time? Once more we are being subjected to the same cheap rhetoric that we had to endure after the last attack. In the months after 9/11 the nation, lost in the grip of xenophobic fear, succumbed to the bassist of its prejudices and sold out its very laws and values in a vain attempt to feel more secure. An illegal war was fraudulently launched, thousands of civilians were killed, and hundreds of suspects were unjustly rounded up and detained in a clear violation of both our Constitution and international law. Fake patriotism ruled the day as the mainstream media reneged on its responsibility as the guardians of truth.

One can only surmise what will happen the next time we are attacked. And there will be a next time. The only question that begs to be answered is not what, when, where, or how the attack will be launched, but rather what our response as a nation will be. Evil will always exist and seek to bring about paralyzing fear. That is the essence of terror itself. The Terrorists know that. They know they cannot kill all of us; their only hope is to bring us to our knees and force us to compromise the very thing that separates us from, and at the same time threatens, them: our way of life.

We cannot give them their victory. Death is inevitable; but fear of death is an option, one that we cannot afford. Throughout our illustrious history we have met many external challenges from formidable opponents and we have defeated every single one of them. But the greatest challenge now lies not from without but from within. If we are up to that challenge, the terrorists can never win.

2010-04-25T22:15:00.009-04:00

Shame On You!

With the month coming to a close I’m glad I waited to almost the last minute to present this month’s awards. I think you’ll agree the delay was well worth it. As in past months the nominees all earned the honor accorded them, and as always it was difficult to limit the number to three. As my friend Steve has pointed out, “So many silly people, so little time.”

The envelope please…

First Place goes to The Entire Government of Arizona. For the first time since the days of the segregated South an entire state government has decided to enact a law that is the embodiment of Jim Crow and allows racial profiling in an attempt to “deal” with its illegal immigrants. State Senate Bill 1070 – dubbed the “Papers Please” bill by critics – would require law enforcement officials in the state of Arizona to investigate someone’s immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person might be undocumented. What constitutes reasonable suspicion and just how exactly a law enforcement official can tell who might be undocumented is of course the sixty-four thousand dollar question that Governor Jan Brewer, who did her best impersonation of a deer caught in someone’s headlights when she signed this bill into law, could not answer. The best Brewer could come up with at the press conference was that she would not tolerate profiling and that “we need to trust our law enforcement officials to know what they’re doing.” She made that last statement with a straight face.

There is no other way to put this. This law is an abomination. It runs counter to all we hold near and dear, namely that we are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Now anyone suspected of being “illegal” will have to prove they are not, and if for some reason they do not have the proper documentation on them, they will be arrested, even if they are in fact legal. And who is likely to be stopped and asked to “prove” their status? People who look illegal, that’s who. Brewer, when asked whether she could recognize what an illegal looked liked, could not answer. If she couldn’t, how on earth are the law enforcement officials who we are supposed to “trust” going to be able to tell? And therein lies the problem. Arizona has just enacted a law that on its merits now requires its local police departments to troll for people of Hispanic origin in order to root out its illegal alien problem. How could reasonably intelligent people not believe that this would constitute profiling when the essence of the law itself requires its use in order to be effective? To quote Stephen Colbert, “It’s like they’re saying that harassing Latinos with racial profiling is an inevitable side-effect of this law. It’s not; it’s the entire point of this law.” The law’s sponsor Russell Pearce was quoted as saying, “When you make life difficult, most will leave on their own.” Who is most?

Even if you grant the argument that the law’s intention is to reduce if not eliminate the illegal immigration problem that plagues not just Arizona, but all border states, the fact is that this law throws out the baby with the bathwater. The fourth and fourteenth amendments are quite specific: The fourth amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, the kind of search likely to happen under this new law. The fourteenth amendment states in pertinent part, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” The law’s intent, however noble its proponents believe it to be, will be subverted by the harsh reality that many innocent Hispanics will be subject to needless invasions of their privacy and encroachment of their civil liberties. This is unacceptable in any free society. Imagine if the Statue of Liberty’s inscription read: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free - can I see some ID please?”

Shame on you, Arizona for passing this law and for showing the world that we still have a long way to go before we bury our racial prejudices, and for completely ignoring the Constitution in the process. In an ironic twist, owing principally to concerns over Brewer’s safety, the press conference was held in a non-disclosed setting. Reporters had to show their credentials and driver's licenses twice to enter the building, thus giving them a little taste of what Hispanics in this state will have to go through every day now.

Second place goes to The Obama Administration. In what can only be described as the best case of the pot calling the kettle black in quite some time, the Administration is expressing concerns over learning that Pakistan is holding thousands of suspected militants in indefinite detention without benefit of a trial.

WTF?

Ever since February of last year when the Obama Administration announced that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights and cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention – a decision that shocked human rights attorneys – thousands of detainees have been held almost virtually incognito without any right to due process, mirroring to a tee Bush Administration’s policies. Incredible!

As recently as January of this year, the New York Times and Washington Post blasted the Administration for its decision to ignore international law as well as the Constitution. The New York Times wrote in an editorial on January 17th, “We keep waiting -- in vain -- for the Obama Administration to stop trying to block judicial scrutiny of some of the Bush Administration’s most outrageous policies on the detention of prisoners.” And on January 22nd the Washington Post wrote, “A Justice Department-led task force has concluded that nearly 50 of the 196 detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be held indefinitely without trial under the laws of war, according to Obama Administration officials.”

And now the current administration is up in arms and expressing concerns because another country has decided to follow in our footsteps. How disingenuous can a government be? For the last eight years we have continued to circumvent our own Constitution, spit in the face of international law, and continue to undermine our credibility within the Muslim world, and yet we call out a sovereign nation when it does the same thing. Small wonder Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, in his op-ed piece, sarcastically quipped,

“Let's teach those Pakistanis that we're not going to tolerate their lawless and tyrannical detention of people without charges and trials. We won't put up with it. Especially not when it's "justified" with the Orwellian claim that their real civilian courts can't handle the prosecutions and they're "afraid" that Dangerous Terrorists might be released if they give them due process because they're unprosecutable. Kudos to the Obama Administration for teaching them that countries that live under the Rule of Law simply don't deny people trials based on such excuses. It'd be one thing if they were assassinating these people without any charges or trials -- that of course would be understandable -- but not detaining them. We're the Leader of the Free World and we simply can't be seen associating with or supporting regimes that would do such a thing. Besides, unlike the U.S., it's not like Pakistan really faces an Existential Threat from Islamic radicals or anything, so (unlike us) they really have no acceptable excuse for doing these things.”

Shame on you Obama Administration for not only refusing to live under the letter of law, but for being hypocrites while doing it.

And bringing up the rear, Sue Lowden. If you thought Michelle Bachmann had the exclusive on crazy, Lowden’s recent interview will have you believing the end times are at hand. The Republican candidate for Harry Reid’s Senate seat had some, shall we say, unique takes on how to combat the high cost of medical treatment. We’ll let Lowden tell it in her own unadulterated words.

“You know, before we all started having health care, in the olden days our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor, they would say I’ll paint your house. I mean, that’s the old days of what people would do to get health care with your doctors. Doctors are very sympathetic people. I’m not backing down from that system.”

No she isn’t; not only that, the tea party darling has continued to insist that she wasn’t misquoted and unabashedly stands behind her comments. Somewhere in an undisclosed bunker under the Capital building Harry Reid is muttering to himself, “I can’t believe I’m trailing this whack job!” So, the next time you lose a limb, or need a transplant, or have a disease that requires an “experimental” treatment make sure you bring some chickens to your local hospital or doctor’s office. Tell them Sue Lowden sent you.

Shame on you Sue Lowden for trivializing the seriousness nature of healthcare costs in this country and for insulting your constituents in the process.

2010-04-22T00:56:00.008-04:00

Coming Out:

One brave bird dares fly against the wind.

There are many things that have always bugged me about Christianity. Its ties to moneyed interests throughout its history – at least the history that post dates the early days of the Church – has been a great cause for concern for many progressives who view such ties as contrary to the teachings of Christ; the incessant view held by many conservatives that the Bible should be interpreted literally has been a thorny issue that has plagued the religion since the days of Augustine, and there appears to be no resolution forthcoming any time soon; and the endemic conservative bent throughout the Church on virtually every issue from global warming to healthcare reform has pitted brother against brother and sister against sister and forced many outside the faith to question what our real priorities are. What can we possibly offer those seeking everlasting salvation if we cannot show that we ourselves are saved?

But while all the above are significant enough to make a saint swear, none has been more puzzling and damning than the issue of homosexuality. One would rather admit to being a leper than to admit to being gay. The Church has treated such “aberrant” behavior like a doctor would treat an infectious disease. Support groups like Living Waters offer to “cure” the afflicted of their malady by convincing them that they have somehow been wounded early in their lives. Once that wound has been brought to the Cross the natural heterosexual drives that exist in all God’s creatures are restored. Life resumes as it should and all is well in the universe.

Now it’s not my wish to belittle the faith that I have called my own for nearly twenty years, nor do I mean to suggest that support groups like the one mentioned above have not helped the broken and downtrodden, for the tragic truth is that many Christians, as well as non-Christians, have suffered deep wounds at the hands of predator adults who were supposed to be our protectors in our formative years. The damage that such wounds cause are played out in our adult lives and must be rooted out if we are to be set free. But to jump from A to C and suggest, as so many in the Church do, that homosexuals are nothing more than heterosexuals who have been sexually wounded quite frankly is offensive to the homosexual community. To lump these people into the same pot of damaged goods because their lifestyle runs counter to certain Biblical teachings seems most, well, un-Christ-like. The problem with quoting scripture is that you can use it to make any point you wish to make, no matter how hurtful or myopic it might be.

Case in point, last week’s announcement by Christian singer/songwriter Jennifer Knapp that she is a lesbian has rocked the Christian music world. No other artist of Knapp’s caliber has ever come out of the closet, and the shock waves were predictable. Based on the treatment Amy Grant received when she got divorced, one can only imagine the scorn that is awaiting Knapp for her bravado in acknowledging her status.

Yes, I said bravado! Regardless of how one may feel about the homosexual lifestyle, it took courage for Knapp to come clean, especially knowing the community to which she has called her home for so many years. But courage has never been Knapp’s problem. The four-time Dove award winner has not only been a staple of many Christian groupies, she has also earned the respect of her peers throughout the music industry as a whole. Her cover of Shawn Colvin’s “Diamond in the Rough” remains one of the better covers of the last fifteen years.

I have never hid my disdain for the bulk of Christian music. Fact is I often find such music banal and just flat out lame. It is lifeless and artless. Gospel, by comparison, buries it. Knapp’s music was one of the few exceptions to the rule. Unlike so many of her peers who leap from A to D – you know, I was a sinner and now I’m free; thank you Jesus; God is great – Knapp got it. The struggle wasn’t over just because we surrendered to God; in fact it was just beginning. She knew she was wounded and she never shied away from baring her soul as well as her heart. She is that rarest of artists in the Christian music industry. She embraces her pain - you could almost call it angst - and uses it as a vehicle to allow us into her journey in the same way a Bruce Springsteen or a Lucinda Williams might. And while I am certainly not suggesting that Knapp deserves inclusion into that “sacred” group – she has quite a ways to go before crossing that bridge – among all the artists of her genre, she is the only one I take seriously, because she is the only one who never forgot where she came from. Too often, in our zeal to tell the world how wonderful salvation is, we forget that pain is still an integral part of our life story. Artists like Jennifer Knapp, who do not recoil from it as from a hot flame, in the end dignify their music as well as their fans.

And now she has another story to tell: a story of suppression and denial and, yes, shame. The road ahead for Knapp will no doubt be a rocky one, and she has earned it. But she has also earned the right to live it out and to sing about it in what ever manner she chooses, no matter how it may rub the majority of Christians a certain way. Knapp has said that her forthcoming album, aptly titled “Letting Go,” will honor her faith even while it seeks to appeal to a more mainstream audience and that is the way it should be. Knapp isn’t abandoning her faith; if anything she will need it now more than ever. Whether the Christian community ever receives her back into its “good” graces remains to be seen. If they can look past their own stigmatizing biases, I submit they may be pleasantly surprised; if they can’t and choose to shun her, it will be their loss. Either way the sun will still rise in the east tomorrow, only there will be one less bird flying with the flock.

2010-04-12T18:44:00.002-04:00

A Hate That Endures:
Why the Tea Party Movement may be here for some time to come and why we must be steadfast in our stance.

In the original Star Trek pilot, Captain Christopher Pike is captured by a race called the Talosians, who have the ability to make him do anything they want by reading his thoughts and manipulating his surroundings. The only emotion they cannot read is intense feelings of hatred or rage. Try as he might Pike is unable to keep his hatred up and, when the emotional rush is finally over, is punished by his captors for wrong thinking. The moral of the story is that no matter how hard one tries he or she can never sustain such “primitive” emotions for long. Eventually the wave subsides and we are restored to a state of emotional stability. Gene Roddenberry knew a thing or two about human beings and he knew no rational mind could hold onto that much rage for long; no rational mind that is.

But Roddenberry was a bit of an idealist. Like most science fiction writers of his day, he believed that man would eventually rise above the fray of pettiness and bigotry that has defined most of his somewhat limited existence on this planet. Our destructive natures would eventually be replaced by a more utopian-like lifestyle. The concept of primitive emotions such as hatred or rage controlling the mind for more that a brief interlude was something he could not fathom. Certainly we would “evolve” beyond that point and be able to live together without killing one another either literally or figuratively. But Roddenberry’s optimism seems strangely out of touch with the stark reality of our present-day circumstances. If today’s Tea Party Movement is any indication it could be a very long time before we ever see the kind of world Roddenberry envisioned for humanity. Like the famous cereal commercial, one is apt to say of his naiveté, “Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids.”

The rage that emanates from this movement is not unique to our history. We have seen it before. But it has seldom been so concentrated and enduring. I have written at great length of my concerns about this movement and what it means to our future as a country. I have warned that we are vulnerable to a national tragedy the likes of which have not been seen in this country since 1963. The emotional madness that defines the bulk of these tea partiers is well passed the pathological stage; it is a national phenomenon that has already deeply wounded one of the two prominent parties in the country and is attempting to use acts of intimidation against the other. What it cannot achieve through legitimate means, it will attempt through coercion. Zero accountability coupled with zero tolerance equals a recipe for disaster.

To the rational mind – the one Roddenberry believed existed in us all – this seems like a bad dream. This can’t possibly be happening, not in America. My wife, who has always taken the high road and describes herself as a progressive with a moral compass, is blessed with a strong intellect and a superior ability to reason things through and resolve conflict peaceably. She has no stomach for such abhorrent behavior. In her heart of hearts, she sees passed the asinine and racist signs and sees a frustration that others have manipulated to suit their ends. Of course she has a point – the cart / horse analogy is germane to any discussion involving this group – and she has proven far more resilient than I have ever been when it comes to patience and compassion.

But she has also chosen not to listen to the rhetoric that is coming out of this movement. She has refrained from listening to the Hannitys, Limbaughs and Becks. Whether manipulated, stoked or just flat out inflamed to a riotous mass, the proverbial Genie is out of the bottle and isn’t going back in. The issue before us is not who lit the fuse, but how can we prevent the ensuing explosion from bringing down the whole damn house?

Well for one thing, we – all of us – need to stop believing that cooler heads will prevail. There are none within this lot, and those who still might possess an ounce of sanity are more likely to go along with the majority of their brethren rather than risk being called a traitor. You don’t have to believe me, just look at the GOP. Could anyone have guessed that this once prominent and majority party would be reduced to the status of mouth piece for the likes of Dick Morris and Sarah Palin? David Frum was right when he said, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we're discovering we work for Fox. And this balance here has been completely reversed. The thing that sustains a strong Fox network is the thing that undermines a strong Republican Party.” Loathe though I am to give any credit to a Republican, especially one who worked in the Bush Whitehouse, Frum has nailed it so to speak. The tail is now waging the dog.

Another thing that we all need to do is stop pretending that this fight is not ours to wage. I am so sick and tired of well-meaning Christians who keep quoting Ephesians 6:12 as though it somehow absolves them from having to speak up and challenge hypocrisy. The scripture reads as follows: “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” If I’m reading it accurately it clearly states that while we are not to fight against one another, we are commanded to fight against that which poisons the minds of our fellows, and call it out whenever it rears its ugly head. Those who insist on spreading hatred and lies, in the spirit of Psalm 63:11 “shall be stopped.”

In all of scripture I keep looking for the passage where God, all by himself, accomplished every task. With the exception of the Creation account, it is not there. Even the birth of his only son required the services of a virgin woman. We do violence to scripture by sitting on our hands and looking upward toward the heavens. We need to get up off our knees and bring the fight to those who would pervert and subvert our values in the name of the king of darkness. Do not deceive yourselves; Satan is having a grand old time of it sitting back and watching his creation unleashed and unchecked. You would say Satan cannot do that which God does not allow. I would say that is a cop out for the weak and timid. We are all called to be soldiers. The only question is whose army are we in?

Lastly, we need to present to our fellows a cogent and rational mindset that best represents the heart of what Jesus would have for us as a people. Nature abhors a vacuum. It is not enough to refute the lunacy of the Right, if at the end of the day all we do is substitute our own brand of intolerance in place of theirs. We may win the battle, but we will eventually lose the war. We needn’t be lambs led along to the slaughter house, but we cannot, no matter how tempting it might be, subscribe to the same methods and traits as our sworn enemy. That is the real meaning of Ephesians 6:12. We do not lie down; we stand firm, shielded in His armor and resolute against all that the enemy will throw at us.

The next few months will be as great a test for this nation as any it has yet seen. In a way we are witnessing a sort of Civil War. This war may not result in the killing of thousands of soldiers as the last one did, but there will be casualties nonetheless. It is our duty to be resolute and steadfast in the face of the coming deluge. The enemy will not go quietly into the night, and neither should we. For we are the benefactors of a benevolent and all-powerful God that always triumphs over evil and will equip us for every struggle. He will never abandon us in our time of need so long as we call upon him for our strength.

2010-03-28T23:32:00.010-04:00

March Madness

If you thought getting healthcare reform passed was like passing a kidney stone, just sit back and watch as the carnage unfolds. To quote that famous Bachman Turner Overdrive song, “You Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet.”

Shouts of “Baby killer” being aimed at Bart Stupak; a Congressional map from Sarah Palin with crosshairs indicating Democrats to be targeted for defeat in November with a personal message imploring her readers on Twitter to “reload” and on facebook to “aim” at and “fire” those who voted for the bill; a suspicious package being delivered to Anthony Weiner’s office containing a white powder; death threats against Democratic members of Congress and even a few Republicans; a gas line cut in the home of the brother of a Democratic member of Congress.

Normally this would be the stuff of bad soap operas; alas such is not the case. The rage of the August Town Halls has come full circle. The insanity has begun again and this time it isn’t going to subside. Months and months of incendiary rhetoric from the Right has taken root and poisoned the minds of the gullible to such an extent that the fuse it has lit now threatens to blow up the whole damn nation. To the rational mind, this is a time to worry.

I have made no secret of my contempt for the right-wing media who deliberately mislead their viewers and listeners with distortions and lies. Whether it was decrying the path to socialism, fabricating claims of death panels, or underwriting astro-turf rallies, the non-stop, 24/7 onslaught, while it failed to stop reform, worked brilliantly to stoke the violence that now all too clearly resides in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans. These people are beneath contempt and there will undoubtedly be a special place in hell reserved for them when they depart this Earth.

To add insult to injury, the Right’s claim that they are somehow not responsible for these violent outbursts – that somehow these individuals, on their own, just decided to act deranged, show up at rallies with loaded weapons, sporting vulgar signs and shouting racist and derogatory slurs all without one iota of aid from them – is absurd and insulting. That there exists deranged people who are ignorant and frightened is one thing; that they can become this well organized without the assistance of an outside agency is quite another. Only a fool could fail to connect the dots.

Another insidious claim by the Right that the miscreants showing up at these rallies are merely the exceptions to the rule – that the vast majority of these people are law-abiding citizens who are simply expressing their concerns over the direction the country is headed – is NOT supported by the evidence. Find me the calm and collected among this group if you can. Oh, there might be a few sprinkled in among the throng. But far from being the exception, these marauders are the rule. They represent the heart and soul of a mob-like movement that is mad as hell and isn’t going to take it anymore. The problem with individuals who are that mad is that when they lash out you can’t always predict who they are likely to lash out against. That’s the problem with mob rule; ultimately it’s an oxymoron.

When challenged by critics, the Right’s response is predictable. This is all some conspiracy by the liberal media to kill a populist movement. All they seek is a platform to air their grievances, and anyone who dares question their motives is infringing on their freedom of expression, as if threatening a sitting President or Congressman is a matter of expression.

From the moment of his election, Barack Obama has been the target of a constant barrage of inane and outlandish claims, none of which have been borne out by the facts. He was to blame for the recession, even though it began well before the election; he was to blame for the TARP, even though his predecessor was responsible for implementing it; his stimulus was evidence of typical big government tax and spend liberal politics, even though many economists believed it was not large enough; his budget would balloon the deficit to unheard of heights, even though the last two two-term Republican presidents tripled and doubled the national debt respectively; his healthcare reform bill was branded as socialized medicine and a government takeover of the insurance industry, even though many progressives demanded a single-payer system and the insurance industry has been left relatively unaffected and intact.

Charge after charge is easily repudiated by a careful reading of the facts. But facts are not what is driving the bus over on the Right. Fear and hatred are stirring the pot of discontent. This isn’t politics as usual; it’s Munich incarnate. The only thing missing is the procession of brown shirts descending on the Capital. Scoff if you want; we have seen it happen before. The Tea Party movement, the hideous child monster of Dick Armey’s Freedom Works, is now fully self-actualized and, with the aid and comfort of the wingnuts on Fox News and most of the A.M. dial, is now massing for a date with destiny.

Get this straight: it is not peaceful coexistence that these tea partiers seek. Nothing less than total victory is permissible. They have cashed in on the nightmarish scenario woven by the demigods of misinformation and swallowed it hook, line and sinker. The Glenn Becks, Mark Levins and Sean Hannitys are their leaders now. They have no time or inclination for constructive dialogue; the intellectualism of William F. Buckley might just as well have been a figment of some idealistic dreamer’s imagination. Responsible conservatives like David Brooks, who call for collaboration, are shunned as being phony and traitorous to the cause. When David Frum is the one calling you out, you know you have problems.

The events of the last week are only a taste of what is ahead. Crazy does as crazy sees. While the tea partiers do not, thankfully, represent the opinion of the majority of Americans, theirs is the loudest and most obnoxious voice. As anyone who knows history even a little will tell you, if say something often and loud enough over time it will start to gain traction and momentum. It would be a tragic mistake to assume that this malignancy will peter out over time. If anything, it is growing. The damage has been done and the clock is ticking.

And what of the Republican Party? It is one thing for the deranged to burn down Rome; it is quite another for an entire political party to willingly pour the lighter fluid. The complicity of the Party of Lincoln and Eisenhower has been the most puzzling of all. One would think rational and clearer heads would prevail, but this is not a time for rational and lucid behavior. In what can only be described as the gamble of the century, the GOP is betting the ranch that this wave of hysteria will somehow propel them back into power in Washington. They are attempting to tap into and co-opt the rage of millions of people who neither know the truth of the matter, nor have the capacity to understand how they are being played for cheap political gain. Pawns have more say in how a chess game is played than these poor lost buffoons.

Moderates? One might as well look for water on the Moon. Any Republican who dares stand up to the party line is branded as a RINO (Republican in name only). How bad is it? John McCain – a four-term senator – is getting the fight of his life from the very party he represented in the ’08 Presidential campaign. Talk about gratitude! Ron Paul, a self-professed Libertarian, may well be the most lucid member of the GOP, and that is saying something. The party that once championed the abolition of slavery and worked with Democrats to bring about civil rights legislation has sunk to heretofore unheard of depths. Rather than work with Congressional Democrats to try to get a healthcare bill that was more to their liking, they decided to pick up their marbles and stay home. The Party of No has now become the Party of No Way Out. The only thing the GOP seems interested in these days is capitalizing on fear-mongering and reliving a past it should know full well never existed in the first place. Not even the Gipper himself could save this lot.

The shame of all this is that at a time when the country desperately needs boldness and balance in its political discourse, a party that could offer effective solutions would be a welcome sight. Instead what we have according to Bill Maher is a center-right party (the Democrats) and a crazy party (the Republicans); one is in the pocket of corporate America, the other in the pocket of the loons. Saints preserve us!

This is going to be one helluva long year. Before it is over we are going to witness stupidity on a massive scale. Republicans will no doubt run on repealing the healthcare bill; they will appeal to every frightened redneck and talk radio groupie who is convinced the government is out to get them. They will even net gains in both the House and Senate; perhaps even rest control from the socialist hordes. But in the end we will all lose. Because America, now more than ever, doesn’t need more ideologues who can’t see the forest for the trees; it needs visionaries who will challenge our perceptions of who we are and chart a course forward, not backward.

For all his perceived shortcomings by the Right, Barack Obama is still the best hope for the United States. He is, to quote David Brooks, “the most realistic and reasonable major player in Washington.” I would also add, perhaps a bit too pragmatic for some peoples’ tastes. But I would gladly take him over anyone the Republicans will bring to the table in 2012. Considering what’s in the cupboard, that isn’t much of a statement.

There is so much at stake. It would be a tragedy of epic proportions if this blight were to strike down this president and his agenda all in the name of fear and ignorance. Do not kid yourselves; the mood among many of their numbers is decidedly ugly and unlikely to change for some time. Such volatility is often a breeding ground for the kind of lunatics who would find it appealing to send a message and go out in a blaze of glory. It has been over four decades since this nation has witnessed an assassination of a sitting president. I pray we are all spared from having to live through that nightmare again.

2010-03-19T10:58:00.002-04:00

Pass the Damn Bill!

Over the last year we have seen an intense and contentious debate on healthcare reform like no other debate in modern history. We have seen every conceivable argument both for and against reform from scuttling the current system in favor of a single-payer system (Medicare for All) to shouts of death panels and a government takeover of healthcare. And after all the political posturing and back and forth banter I have come to the only rational conclusion possible. As flawed as this current healthcare reform bill is, it is still the best effort to date to bring about change to a broken system, and on the whole it should be passed by the House and signed into law by the President.

Yes I know full well that many of the bill’s provisions do not kick in for up to four years, meaning many millions of people will still have to wait to receive the proper care they so desperately need; and yes I realize that with healthcare now mandated by law and enforceable through punitive measures, many of these people will be compelled to purchase insurance from the very same industry that treated them so despicably in the first place – a windfall for an industry that heavily lobbied against reform; and yes after all the hoopla over the numbers, there will still be more than fifteen million Americans without coverage after this bill gets signed into law.

Even with all that and more, this bill should still pass and for two reasons and two reasons only.

1. The mid-term elections are fast approaching. Democrats will almost certainly suffer losses; to what extent no one knows for sure. But whether they lose control of both Houses of Congress, one chamber, or just have their majority cut down in size, this much is certain: next year’s Congress will have no stomach or inclination to discuss, let alone vote, on healthcare reform. Whether anyone cares to admit it or not, this ship is leaving in 2010. The only decision is whether or not this bill makes it on board. An Opportunity like this – flawed as it is – comes once in a lifetime. Clinton’s big mistake was that he wanted his bill his way. Congress punted and the rest is history. Critics who contend that the GOP will make healthcare reform a major issue in the fall campaign are missing the point. No matter what the Democrats do, the GOP will come after them, big time. So long as you’re going to get roasted, you might as well be roasted for doing something.

2. The fear by many progressives that passing this bill means it is etched in stone is absurd. If history has shown us anything it is that politics, like human beings, evolves over time. Social Security and Medicare were far more cumbersome and far-reaching, and yet today’s programs bear little resemblance to what they looked like at their inception. There will be time to correct the flaws in this bill, either through reconciliation or later amendments to it. The point is to start somewhere. Paul Krugman has said that the bill “wouldn’t transform our health care system; in fact, Americans whose jobs come with health coverage would see little effect. But it would make a huge difference to the less fortunate among us, even as it would do more to control costs than anything we’ve done before.” He’s right.

The tragic flaw staring back at all of us is that in this current political climate it was naïve of us to believe we would ever get the bill we wanted. Yes, Barack Obama badly mismanaged this process; yes the wingnuts on the Right should be ashamed of themselves for the fear-mongering they sponsored over what basically amounts to a Massachusetts type of reform bill, but if in our zeal to get what we think is best, we end up killing this bill, then woe to us. It will not be the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs who we will have to thank; it will be our own obstinance.

If Dennis Kucinich could be swayed to vote yes on this bill then maybe it is time we all came to our senses and realize what most moderates and pragmatists have learned all too well and what the Rolling Stones once sang in a famous song: “You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need.”

This nation desperately needs healthcare reform, and it has needed it for several decades. The time for posturing and pandering to our basic fears and petty desires is over. If we miss this opportunity, the next one might not come for years, if at all.

Pass the damn bill!

2010-03-04T10:41:00.007-05:00

Shame On You!

A new month beckons and with it another opportunity to shine the light of day into the squalor lives of individuals who so richly deserve the accolades accorded them. Certainly seems like a long way to travel to heap a ton of hurt onto the narrow shoulders of the despicable, but never let it be said I haven’t been guilty of occasionally laying it on a bit thick.

As in past months, the honorees went above and beyond to earn our collective wrath, but seldom as a Shame on You monthly awards segment highlighted such loathsome behavior. It was difficult picking a winner, so I’ll just let the chips fall where they may and allow God to sort it out later.

Bunning On Empty.

First up, Republican Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky, aka Pinhead. Like his fellow conservative colleague Richard Shelby, one of last month’s winners by the way who put a blanket hold on Obama Administration nominees, Bunning seems determined to let ideology rule out over common sense. He single-handedly held up a 30-day extension of unemployment and health benefits to millions of Americans, and for reasons only Bunning seems to have gotten.

Bunning says he held up the extension because the cost of it, approximately $10 billion, was not offset by cuts to other programs. In a nutshell – no pun intended – if the Senate is going to pride itself on passing "pay-as-you-go" legislation then Bunning has taken it upon himself to expose any approved unfunded spending, no matter who it hurts. Ironically, it was Bunning who opposed the very same “pay-as-you-go” legislation he now claims to be championing.

When confronted by Senate Democrats on the floor, Bunning had the nerve to complain that he was being made a victim for his stance and that he was missing a college basketball game; a game by the way he could’ve TiVo’d. Later he responded to one last plea for those affected by saying, “Tough shit. I’m trying to make a point to the people of the United States.”

Point taken, I guess.

While we have seen many examples of broken politics in Washington, this latest stunt beats them all. Bunning’s insensitivity underscores just how depraved some can get in their pursuit of partisan politics. While Bunning isn’t alone in his sentiment – Arizona Senator Jon Kyl went so far as to call it a “disincentive” to be on unemployment – he has unfortunately become the poster boy for the GOP as it attempts to obstruct just about any Democratic legislation coming down the pike. But this wasn’t some political nomination that was being held up for its own sake; this was a vital piece of legislation aimed at helping people caught in the worst recession in decades. Apparently the Party of No is now the Party of No Empathy and Bunning is its mascot.

It wasn’t until Senate Democrats called his bluff and were actually going to require him to personally filibuster the legislation, that Bunning backed down and withdrew his objection; but not before getting them to agree that one of his amendments get an up and down vote in the Senate. In what can only be described as poetic justice the amendment was defeated.

Congratulations pinhead, you’ve earned your stripes.

Fear and Loathing in America.

Next up we have “The Insane Right.” When Andrew Joseph Stack decided to do his own imitation of a kamikaze pilot and fly his plane into the I.R.S. building in Austin, Texas on February 18, he wasn’t just your typical lunatic out on a murder spree, he had a specific mission in mind: to take his wrath out on as many government officials as possible. His deep-seated hatred and contempt for anything connected to the government had been stewing for months and finally, like a volcano, could no longer be contained.

But Stack himself is not the principal cause for concern here. That there exists in this world people with severe emotional problems is a simple fact of life. The real alarm lies behind the impetus that is driving such people.

There is no polite and delicate way to put this. Stack and others of his ilk belong to a group, which is growing in numbers and fervor like a rash spreading throughout the body. For months now I have been writing about the lunatic right-wing fanatics, who are being co-opted by the Republican Party for the sake of cheap politics, and are acting like their own version of the Nazi Storm Troopers in Germany. I have warned about this malignancy spreading throughout the country. In Andrew Stack they finally have their martyr. I fear he will not be the last.

Frank Rich in a New York Times op-ed piece titled, “The Axis of the Obsessed and Deranged,” has correctly and appropriately drawn a comparison between the current Tea Party movement and the domestic terrorism of Timothy McVeigh.

“Anyone who was cognizant during the McVeigh firestorm would recognize the old warning signs re-emerging from the mists of history. The Patriot movement. "The New World Order," with its shadowy conspiracies hatched by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. Sandpoint, Idaho. White supremacists. Militias.”

The pattern is repeating itself, only now it is far more intense and toxic. What had been born out of Dick Armey’s Freedom Works as an organized campaign against Obama and Congressional Democrats over healthcare reform, has morphed into yet another full-blown firestorm that is completely contemptuous of establishment politics and has set its sites on all of Washington. Like Frankenstein’s monster turning on its creator, the Tea Party movement has taken on a life of its own and is beholden to no one except its own insular interests and agenda. Its ideology is one in which paranoia and delusion are given priority over even a modicum of reason. As Rich adroitly pointed out, “That ideology plays to the lock-and-load nutcases out there, not just to the peaceable (if riled up) populist conservatives also attracted to Tea Partyism. This ideology is far more troubling than the boilerplate corporate conservatism and knee-jerk obstructionism of the anti-Obama G.O.P. Congressional minority.”

Gone is the intellectualism of William F. Buckley, replaced by the anti-elitism of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin: the new heroes of the new counter-conservatism. Their followers run the gamut from conspiracy theorists to anti-government zealots to Oath Keepers to John Birch Society Brown Shirts, sprinkled with just a tad of the usual disillusioned bystanders who are still suspicious of Washington, but who haven’t gone completely off the deep end yet.

Last August I wrote in a blog about Fascism, “Pathological dissent often reads like freedom of expression until it is turned up a few notches and it is given voice in the form of riotous hatred. In such instances, the ignorant and frightened are often manipulated and mobilized to act in manners they normally would not be prone to do.” In the Tea Party movement we have the perfect example of freedom run amuck. America’s version of the Nazi Storm Troopers: racist, myopic, and contemptuous of law and order. It is the reincarnation of the mob that turned on Brutus in Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar,” only in this case it is the United States that is at peril from such mindless individuals.

Rational people often have a blind side when it comes to such groups. They see erratic and unbalanced behavior and dismiss it as being largely innocuous. The analogy they draw is that of a spoiled brat or an undisciplined child acting up and looking to draw attention to itself. It is best not to acknowledge the behavior lest you condone it. They see the Tea Partiers as a fleeting movement that will die of its own weight eventually. The problem with that thinking is that this movement is hardly shrinking; in deed it is growing by leaps and bounds. They are well organized, and many of them are equally well armed. The fervency of these people is unmatched by any other in recent memory and they are as unyielding as they are zealous. Far from your typical unruly child, this movement shows no signs of tiring out and grabbing a nap for itself. It is, if anything, loaded for bear. If the August Town Halls were any indication, we are in for one hell of a ride.

2010-02-25T22:45:00.007-05:00

Shame On You!

Well it’s that time of the month again. No, not that. It’s time for the monthly Shame on You awards. As always, narrowing down the field to three was tough, but this month’s nominees have earned their spot by going above and beyond. In honor of the Winter Games in Vancouver, I thought I’d go with an Olympic format. Game On!

The Gold goes to Senator Richard Shelby who has decided to place a blanket “hold” on all presidential nominations until a pair of billion-dollar earmarks for his home state are fast-tracked. At least 70 nominations are being held up, many non-political, by the Senator, who himself blasted Democratic efforts back in 2005 at blocking the appointment of John Bolton to the post of UN ambassador. Funny how selective his memory is. Shelby is no stranger to controversy. Last February, the Alabama senator seemed to question the citizenship of Barack Obama by commenting on a rumor that spread like a cancer throughout the campaign.

“Well his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate,” Shelby said. “You have to be born in America to be president.”

Whether Shelby is an actual member of the Birther movement, or just another political hack looking to garner favor among a myopic element within American society, this much we do know: all impromptu misstatements notwithstanding, this latest stunt has earned him a place atop this month’s list. You can’t call for transparency within the Administration and an end to wasteful spending, while grandstanding for earmarks and holding the government hostage. Shame on you, Mr. Shelby.

The Silver goes to the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Three major Native American reservations in South Dakota, particularly the Cheyenne River Reservation, have been buried under snow and ice with major power failures for weeks during what can only be described as the worst winter in recent memory.

On a “Worst Persons” segment on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Olbermann ripped the Committee. “Power lines down, thousands of other Lakota and other tribes people, already face 75 to 85% unemployment, before a blizzard and an ice storm that added six inches of ice weight to utility poles hit. Two weeks since those lines were knocked down and most of the electricity went with it. They managed to get the water turned back on at Cheyenne River, unfortunately most of the water goes into a pipe system that failed during the storm. The pipes are broken. With the wind chill it was minus 19 there today. What did we find out about this on the Senate Committee of Indian Affairs – some means of donating to the affected tribes, means of underwriting the energy companies now distributing propane tanks by hand? An emergency hearing on a crisis there? Nothing. There’s a committee meeting Thursday to discuss regular business.”

Now in the Committee’s defense, Senate rules do prohibit solicitations of aid of any kind “even in circumstances like this.” And since the Olbermann piece, the Committee has responded to the emergency by allocating funds for the removal of snow, rebuilding of roads, and the repair of power lines and water pipes. But why did it take so long for the Committee to act in the first place? And why only a paltry $300,000 in aid, with total costs projected to be two to three times that amount? More damaging was the fact that for almost a month, while thousands of native-Americans needlessly suffered, the very agency charged with being their advocate was virtually silent and inactive. Inexcusable!

But the Bronze goes to a surprise entry: Keith Olbermann. Last month’s special election in Massachusetts was about as divisive as they come with plenty of hyperbole to go around on both sides of the political aisle. But Olbermann went above and beyond when he went on a tirade against the newly elected Scott Brown in one of his Special Comment” segments last month.

“In short, in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history, this man would have been laughed off the stage as unqualified and a disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives. Instead, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States.”

Now you’d think that would be enough for even Olbermann, but the following day, he dug the hole a bit deeper by adding, “I need to apologize for comments made here last night about the Republican candidate. I’m sorry, I left out the word sexist.”

So over-the-top was Olbermann’s tirade that Jon Stewart mocked him on The Daily Show the following day, by doing a parody of his Special Comment segment, to wit, “How far, sir, how far will you fall?...But now, you're just kind of calling people names. To wit, you said this of Joseph Isadore Lieberman, Democrat Connecticut: "a Senatorial prostitute." Of Roger Ailes, "fat ass." Chris Wallace, "a monkey posing as a newscaster." Rush Limbaugh, a "big bag of mashed up jack-ass."...And of Michelle Malkin, you said, "a mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk, fascistic...mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it." That my fine, feathered friend sounds a lot more like violence against women than anything Scott Brown ever said. You can't resort to childish attacks as hominem as they are nauseam. You've ceded the high ground, and now you wallow in the fetid swamp of baseless, of baseless name-calling, and as we both know, sir, that's my thing. It is beneath you, it is next to me. A man of your intellect need not be me: petty, pompous, pusillanimous, or poopy-head.”

http://vodpod.com/watch/2908316-im-falling-in-love-with-john-stewart-all-over-again

Now whether one agrees with Olbermann’s viewpoints or not, and I have on most occasions agreed with them, the fact is that engaging in such displays debases whatever validity one wishes to bring to the forefront. As Stewart succinctly pointed out you can’t resort to childish attacks and name calling which cede the high ground. By doing so you undermine your credibility and give the wingnuts on the Right that much more ammunition with which to shoot you down. Shame on you, Keith!

2010-02-06T22:46:00.004-05:00

A Declaration of Sorts

When in the natural course of a man’s journey, he finds he is at an impasse between the reality of his situation and the natural fears he harbors regarding that reality, there demands but one course of action. To deny the reality ultimately is to deny his own heart and to call the God he worships a liar and a fraud, which by His nature is impossible. In this regard, the variable is not the nature of God, but the response of his supposed humble servant. If there is but one Truth, and all others are false, than there must be one action, which though arduous, is nonetheless non-negotiable. Our comfort has never been of much concern to God, so why should we give it any of ours?

The truth is the best of us, at any given moment, has been led astray by lies. We have chosen security over risk, comfort over difficulty, blind ignorance over awareness, and peaceful coexistence over confrontation. We have seen the two principal characters that dominate all four of the Gospels: Jesus and the Pharisees. We have publicly lauded the former, while privately comporting ourselves to the latter; and when push came to shove, even openly embracing the latter. We have, in spite of our stated creed, shown contempt for all that He stands for in the name of an ethic, which is neither historically accurate nor biblically permissible. We have seen the suffering of others and talked about costs; we have witnessed cruelty and injustice and acted timidly - worse, we were indirectly culpable in that suffering through our support of policies that wreaked unspeakable carnage on those who were guiltless in the eyes of the Lord; we have listened to the lies of the enemy and were complicit; we have been challenged to speak out and shrugged our shoulders in indifference. We have stood on principles that are about as secure as quicksand and remained steadfast in our arrogance, confident we were doing God’s bidding. We have, to put it bluntly, behaved shamefully in the eyes of the One who sent us.

And what evidence can we offer up as a rebuttal? Our good works? Our good deeds? Which works? Which deeds? We feed a few people, encourage newcomers to accept Jesus as their Lord and savior, attend weekly group meetings, pray for deliverance from our petty pains of the day and sing a bunch of songs that supposedly represent our act of worship. But in the end nothing changes. Where is the hand of Jesus in all this when many of the very same people who run the vast majority of these supposed ministries do not believe in the core tenants of their own faith? That the words “God helps those who help themselves” do not appear anywhere in the Bible and should be an affront to all they hold true, is irrelevant. That those less fortunate go without basic needs is of no great concern to them. They speak of charity but have none to give. They have professed to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps and condemn all who have not the means to do likewise. Their convoluted logic is wrapped in a flag that they worship above the cross our own Savior carried to his death. They trade in the true role models of the Bible for those of their country and then deliberately misrepresent what those very same countrymen stood for. They concoct scenarios in which gremlins and boogymen from the government will take away their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, all the while professing a devotion to a God who long ago sacrificed his own life, liberty and happiness for our sake and demanded the very same from his children. They know not that their hearts expose their very deeds. They are oblivious to the fact that the Lord sees all. They are lost in their self-aggrandizing.

These are the ambassadors of our faith. They sit in positions of leadership, well versed in biblical scripture, but ignorant to its meaning. They are eager to pray for each other and “praise” His name out of one side of their mouths, while spewing utter nonsense and hate out the other. Without quite realizing that their hypocrisy cancels out whatever credit may have been afforded them, they are nothing if defiant. They are like Sméagol becoming Gollum, consumed by a worship of something hideous and ungodly, yet unaware of its all-consuming power. By throwing in with the enemy they have become his ambassadors. The truth can longer stir them to repentance. They are dead to it.

They are on TV, radio and the print media, spinning lies and mocking the very faith they claim to represent, imploring others to join them in the march to damnation. But they are also sitting at home, nodding in tacit agreement with those very same lies, and actively spreading the word among their fellow cellmates and cyber comrades. Know this much: God sees not the distinction and forgets not the transgressions. Whether it is actively engaging in actions that aid and abed the kingdom of darkness, or whether it is the act of indifference towards that kingdom, the result is the same to God. These lost souls speak of truth, yet know nothing but lies. They are worse than the Pharisees, for the Pharisees did not know Jesus before his arrival. They have no excuse.

But that is not my principle concern here. That there exists within this world men and women who commit evil, and, along with their conspirators, speak lies has been apparent since we crawled up from all fours and began expressing cogent thoughts among each other. What wounds me deeply is how such evil is dealt with within the Church. This is where it gets personal. This is where all of us who know better must do better.

I speak now about a group which I fear represents the saddest lot of all: those of us who know the truth, who have ventured occasionally out of our comfort zones to speak it, but remain on the sidelines, unwilling to completely immerse ourselves for fear of retribution, or under some misbegotten belief that our position of authority or standing precludes us from speaking up. The warning of John to the Church in Sardis in the Book of Revelation serves as a wakeup call.

“These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God. Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; obey it, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you. Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

Are not all of us commissioned to speak out against injustice, to stand up for those who are less fortunate, to challenge lies with truth and paranoia with reason, to act as Paul did when he rebuked James? Did not Jesus rebuke Peter? Did He not love him nonetheless? Why are so few of us willing to stand our ground when presented with the unalterable conclusions of our lot? Are we exempt simply because we are church elders, senior and associate pastors, small group leaders, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, doctors and nurses, lawyers and bankers, athletes and journalists, politicians and statesmen, salespeople and consumers, professors and students? What is the level of our comfort that keeps our mouths shut when our spirit cries out in anguish? Is our new suit too delicate to be soiled if only just a little? Perhaps a new car, the mortgage payment, or the children’s tuition hangs in the balance. What reputation is it we seek to protect when God’s people cry out for justice and we turn away? Did Jesus care about his reputation or his ministry?

All of us know the answers to the above questions. They are as undeniable as they are irrevocable. And yet the enemy continues his lies with nary a peep out of us. The more timid our response, the more arrogant his. Know this: God sees our hearts as well. There will be no comfort or resting place for those who knew the truth yet hid away in relative anonymity for fear of retribution. God’s wrath is far more devastating and enduring than any slight we might have to withstand from a wayward disciple waltzing his way down the road to oblivion. Our hearts are not the issue here; it is our strength of will. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and many a timid follower has fallen victim to the greatest lie of all: that someone else will pick up the mantle. We must always remember two things: our merit alone cannot save us and our fears are unjustifiable before God. Temerity is not a trait one inherits; it’s one he develops, like muscles, through constant exercise. And atrophied of the soul is the greatest sin of all.

When we pass from this world to the next, God will have something to say to each of us. He will either say, “Well done, good and faithful servant,” or he will say, “I do not know you.” The sad truth is we have it within us to control that moment. It requires a brave heart, and a resounding faith that, though it may anger others and bring about scorn and ridicule, rejoices in the knowledge that God’s favor is eternal. I have struggled mightily with what response is appropriate in situations where lies are touted as facts, fear trumps reasoning and darkness blots out light, and have come to the only conclusion possible. It is not enough to occasionally poke one’s head out of the ground and politely instruct those who are not interested in learning anything of import. Nor is it sufficient to “pray” for those we know are blind to the truth in the naïve hope that their eyes will be opened. History has shown that such prayer is not redemptive; rather it is merely an excuse for us to feel better about ourselves. Did Jesus ever once pray for the Pharisees?

And what is it that we are praying for? Devine intervention? If it has not yet occurred within the transgressor, assume it is not going to. Our concern, therefore, should not be the hurt feelings of the sinner, but the ramifications, both to us and to others, of the continuation of that sin. There are only four possible responses to such conduct. We can first agree with it and encourage it, which is unacceptable; we can disagree yet remain silent for fear of retribution, in which case we have, without quite realizing it, condoned the behavior – again unacceptable; we can disagree, but object sheepishly, hoping to encourage repentance, which is a cop out; or we can choose to stand firm and call it out forcefully, as though exorcizing a demon from a possessed man.

One look at the Gospels is all you need do to discover which method Jesus preferred. And therein lies the rub and the challenge. Jesus chose the most difficult path of all; the one most likely to garner him the fewest friends and supporters, the path that virtually assured him his death. And yet when faced with the certainty of his fate – a fate he freely chose – he did not back down, but met it willingly. Imagine if we all had to endure what he did. Would we? Could we? The answer is of course not. In our best moments we are not even remotely capable of standing in his sandals. The good news is we don’t have to. He did it for us. But we are called to stand in the shoes that we were given and show the spine that He gave us. Our cross is not made of wood and nails, but it is uncomfortable nonetheless.

How many “friends” would we lose if we were truly fearless in our stances? How many times have we waxed poetically and danced around a subject we knew in our hearts was wrong, justified it on the grounds that it would be rude to speak up, rationalized that it was not our place to bring correction, or that our position did not afford us the option of pointing out wrongs? The answer is quite probably a lot. Who cares to be corrected, even if it is for their own good? Who would stand quietly by and be rebuked by a fellow believer? Few, if any.

But that is irrelevant. When Jesus said to Peter, “Get behind me Satan,” he could’ve cared less if Peter liked being rebuked. He heard Peter behaving inappropriately and acted swiftly and definitively. His main concern was his soul, not his wounded pride. How many times would you guess that any of us have acted that swiftly or definitively? Over a lifetime maybe a handful if we are fortunate. It is not enough. Evil never rests, so why should any of us. Our reluctance to roll up our sleeves and take back the moral high ground the enemy has called his own is an anathema to our faith. Too many feeble and misguided Christians make the mistake of assuming that just because we are not to use the tools of this world to fight Satan, that God alone will protect us. The thousands who perished in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 serve as a sobering reminder that evil exists in this world and all too frequently wins its share of battles. Ask Job whether God “protected” him. We are required to suit up and be spiritual warriors in God’s army. We are actors on his stage, not spectators in the audience.

I have looked for a spine in a Church that is as feeble as a doddering old man in a nursing home and been found wanting. I have looked for a moral compass worthy of the ministry Jesus began 2000 years ago. It is not there. Oh, there are ministries that feed the hungry and house the homeless and to be sure they do good works. They are pacifiers only, for the real problem lies in the inescapable conclusion that the Church corporately and privately has bedded down with the oppressors of the afflicted. It is worse than the lawmakers of Jesus’ day; it resembles more the Roman Empire, corrupt and rotting from within. It is a shell of its once glorious self. The martyrdoms of Peter and Paul are nothing more than symbols of a mostly dogmatic religion that long ago lost the meaning of why those men so freely gave up their lives.

While there a few notable exceptions to this rule - small churches whose light occasionally permeates the darkness - the very simple truth is that they are far too small, and way too ineffective to make a difference. And even when the pastors of these sanctuaries manage to stay out of the political fray that has engulfed the Church as a whole, the vacuum that ensues, far from creating the apolitical environment they had wished for, actually encourages the sort of conduct that now defines most of our faith in the eyes of the world. The result is that these parishioners end up “representing” and “dominating” the congregation’s message. If you want to know what a church stands for, you needn’t look at its literature; all you need do is visit the facebook, twitter and myspace pages of its members. In between the “have a blessed day” and “Jesus is good” exhortations, lies the painful and ugly truth that reveals the nature of the spiritual malady that besets many of them. It’s all there in black and white. What people say in open forums or in chat rooms is far more revealing and damning than what they say at the alter on a Sunday morning service. But what gets left unsaid and unchallenged by the stewards of these churches and the rest of their congregations is far more lasting. Where is the outrage to such ignorance? One can only conclude that its absence is due either to denial of its existence or a tacit agreement with its tone; neither is acceptable.

Whether it is the spiritual and social tunnel vision so widely adhered to by the majority of evangelicals or being on the wrong side of virtually every major cause of the day, the silence is deafening! How can any of us condemn moderate Muslims for failing to call out the extremists within their ranks, when our mouths remain shut where it concerns our own miscreants?

Ever since it left its fledgling days behind, the Church has married itself to power structures that were at odds with the very message of the Gospels. First the Holy Roman Empire, then the assault throughout Europe during the Crusades; then Feudalism, then Mercantilism, and now Capitalism. Most of the Protestant Ethic, so widely quoted by latter-day biblical gurus, is nothing more than a self-justification of the same rubbish the followers of Calvin adopted after his death. Those who are saved are blessed with prosperity, and those who are blessed with prosperity must be saved. Satan always completes his circles. For those who would argue that the Church did stand against the tyranny of Communism and fascism, I would counter only when it was threatened by a force inimical to its own vested interests did it finally find its voice and lash out. How much courage does it take to speak out against a totalitarian regime?

Many will say, and perhaps rightly so, that Jesus was ambivalent toward the established government, and chose instead to focus his attention on the religious leaders of the day. Fair enough. It was, after all, our hearts he was looking to capture. But while he remained mostly silent on the perversions and injustices of the Roman Empire, his ministry was filled with parables that spoke about greed, corruption, selfishness, pride and arrogance. Can anyone with half a mind dare suggest that the current economic system employed by the West and touted by so many conservative evangelicals is not loaded with these traits? With a few notable exceptions, most of the financial gains of the last two hundred years have come on the backs of those in relatively powerless positions. The very same disenfranchised flock that Jesus came to deliver has been exploited by the power brokers who call Christianity their own. That the Church has not disowned them is an abomination.

Were Jesus physically alive today, would he not behave much like he did when he walked into the Temple and drove out the money changers? Would he not say to the wealthy of today, “Sell all your possessions and give to the poor?” Are we not commanded to do as Jesus did? But, you would say, are these not impractical demands? Of course they are and one would certainly doubt the sanity and wisdom of any God who would expect his children to live in such abject poverty. Then why are our hearts so indifferent to the sufferings of those who do live in such squalor conditions? If it is unjust and unreasonable to expect us to forego our personal possessions for the sake of being humble, why is it permissible to allow others to do so? Is humility only for the poor?

Claims by supposedly “mature” Christians that the Church’s main purpose should not be to involve itself in the machinations of the world, are as reprehensible and hypocritical as the rebuking these modern-day Pharisees bestow on the conscientious objectors that occasionally dent their ranks. For one thing, the Church has had a long and well established involvement with the politics of the world, mostly on the wrong side; for another the largest offenders have been anything but apolitical in their stances. They have, if anything, been advocates for conservative movements that rarely, if ever, adhere to Christian principles. They are experts at what they stand against - abortion, same-sex marriage, global warming, universal healthcare, government assistance programs - yet rarely speak out for the poor and disenfranchised, as Jesus did, preferring instead to speak of some master plan God must have in store for them, as if that alone would mollify their discontent. To quote Ebenezer Scrooge, “Are there no workhouses?” And when they do find causes, like making sure we all say Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays - as if that alone could instill a spirit of Christ within the world – it becomes comical and downright sad.

Those of us who dare question the motives of these charlatans are called liberals, lefties, socialists, enemies of freedom, un-Christian, or simply disruptive and bringing disharmony to the Body. We are made to feel as though it is we who have the problem, not them. Can’t we all just drink the Koolaid and get on with the business of indoctrinating the ignorant and scorning those with the brains to know better?

Balderdash!

Such scoundrels not only miss the forest for the trees, they miss the trees as well. When Jesus fed the multitudes, did he ask who had a job first? Did he call them lazy oafs looking for a handout? What is it that these people are looking for? An engraved invitation? Perhaps the heavens will open up and the Almighty himself will call them out? If the only litmus test of our faith is our sexual purity or the quality of our financial portfolio, we are indeed lost. We should be advocates for the poor to the fullest extent, even if it means challenging the very economic system that caused their poverty in the first place. Archbishop Óscar Romero of El Salvador, a proponent of Liberation Theology, was assassinated by extremists in his country for speaking out against human rights violations and for defending the poor. Mahatma Ghandi, who almost single-handedly won India’s independence from Britain through non-violent civil disobedience, was likewise assassinated by extremists in his country who disapproved of his stance toward Pakistan. Martin Luther King, Jr., a prominent civil rights leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner, who lead the famous “March on Washington” in 1963, was assassinated in his own country for his stance on racism and segregation. All three men saw injustice and rebelled against it; all three men placed their principles ahead of their personal safety; and all three men paid the ultimate price. Where are the Romeros, Ghandis and Kings of our generation?

I have always felt that true Discipleship should mean more than just signing up people to join a religious movement. We are not the Price Club, so why do we behave as though we are? Disciples making Disciples is supposed to mean more than just increased attendance at the 9:30 Sunday service. It should mean instilling a yearning to know the true heart of Jesus. And that heart, if we are sincere, should cause us to squirm in our seats at the knowledge of just how far we fall short of his standards. Furthermore, it should produce in all of us a righteous anger towards anyone who would challenge those standards, regardless of social or political status, or even if they are church leaders.

But aren’t we called to obey our religious leaders whom we’re told represent Christ on Earth? And isn’t criticizing our leaders a sign of disobedience? Actually, we are called to obey Jesus. Was Jesus being disobedient when he called the religious leaders of his day a “brood of vipers” not once, not twice, but three times in the Gospel of Matthew? Was Paul being disruptive for rebuking the churches in his letters when they had strayed from the true message of Christ? I think not. In deed for the Son of God, Jesus was about as unorthodox a prophet as any in the Bible. He had little use for conventional wisdom and often challenged his Disciples to think outside the box. He was blunt and, when it suited him, rude towards his adversaries, shunning those he viewed as proud and arrogant, while bestowing compassion and mercy on those he viewed as meek and powerless. When Michael Jackson died last year the hordes of supposed Christians who derided his lifestyle was embarrassing. In deed, it was the world that comported itself with far more compassion than many of our own flock. Once more the “voice” of Christianity missed the boat, if not fell off it entirely. That they “worship” a God who hung out with tax collectors and prostitutes still continues to allude many of them. Their ignorance is astounding.

Why then with such a shining example within its midst does the Church insist on watering down the very reason for its existence? Why are so few Christians bothered enough by the injustices of the world to take a stand and walk the path their Lord walked two millennia ago? Why are so many so quick to judge the wicked around them, while ignoring the wickedness that resides within their hearts? And why are so many of us “afraid” to call it out?

Well, as Bob Dylan once wrote, “It ain’t me babe.” I am tired of scratching my head wondering what to do, when the answer has been right there in front of me all along. A little over four years ago I stood at a crossroads in my walk and pondered giving up on the Church altogether, such was the toxic atmosphere gripping it. A very wise and Godly man convinced me to stay and face my demons. He encouraged me to write about what troubled me most in the Church. For him, it showed more courage to stand my ground and speak my peace than it did to pull up stakes and run. After all, when faced with death threats and imprisonment, Paul did not wither and retreat. He stood up to injustice and incurred the wrath of both the Jewish lawmakers and the Roman authorities. In the end it cost him his very life. And while I am no Paul, I do belong to the same faith he called his own; a faith that compelled him to chose martyrdom over comfort. What excuse could I find to toss in the proverbial towel as it were and high tail it?

I have been dwelling on the words from John 15: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.” And while I realize it does violence to scripture to misquote it for personal gain, I feel strongly that this passage is speaking to me and has for some time now.

But as a former pastor of mine had a habit of saying, “Now what?” What does one do when faced with such an indelible truth? I have always been a fan of Robert Frost, and greatly admired his epic poem, “The Road Not Taken.”

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

To the undiscerning eye, the poem seems to be encouraging self-reliance, not following where others have led. But I have always felt that, rather than advocating a preference, Frost is simply saying that choice is inevitable, but you never know what your choice will mean until you have lived it.

And that, after all, is the essence of life itself. We are, all of us, the sum total of our choices, good and bad, wise and unwise, popular and unpopular. What we fear most is not the choice itself, but the ramifications of that choice. Being brave is easy when no sacrifice is needed and everything goes your way. It’s the courage that we hold onto in the face of certain condemnation that defines our walk. The Bible is basically a collection of stories of people who took the road less traveled, and for them, as for us, that has made all the difference.

It is no less true for me. I have come to a fork in my road that I can no longer ignore. A decision must be made regarding the impasse that I spoke of earlier. I have agonized over this decision for quite some time now, and, while I am still torn inside, I am bound by an inner voice that simply will not be still any longer.

Since becoming a Christian in late 1991, and even before that I suspect, I have wondered what my purpose on this Earth was. And while I have never been one to hold back my feelings on matters that meant a great deal to me – hence my blog – I confess that it has been a bit of a crutch. As far back as I can recall, writing has always come easy to me, perhaps a bit too easy. While I was no Shakespeare, I took great comfort in knowing I could make persuasive arguments for just about anything I put my mind to. Even when I was in college, I was always the protagonist, questioning authority, searching for the truth wherever it might be, and looking more at the macro than the micro when it came to economics and society. You could say that has been my biggest asset and my biggest problem. While the world needs its poets and provocateurs, it also needs its foot soldiers too. Putting pen to paper is one thing; getting up on one’s feet and marching forward is quite another.

The truth is, I have not always practiced what I’ve preached. In deed I have been far more comfortable playing the role of the critic than the selfless servant. I have been stuck in neutral in my walk and the time has come to put my money where my mouth is. I cannot call others out for their abhorrent behavior, while sitting comfortably behind a keyboard. To continue to do so would be hypocritical. The paradoxical truth of Frost’s poem is that one cannot proceed down two divergent roads at the same time; in the end only one road can be taken. Historically, I have always chosen safety over uncertainty, and playing the Monday morning quarterback was the role of a lifetime. Well that comes to an end today. Safety and comfort have worn thin with me. Wherever my new road may lead I am determined to meet it head on, come what may.

I would be lying if I said I was not apprehensive about what lies ahead. And while I do not know as of yet how it will all unfurl, I am, if nothing else, defiant. This does not mean I will “disappear” or stop writing. Our assets are God-given, and I would certainly hope that I am capable of chewing gum and walking at the same time to use a colorful metaphor. No, the path I choose is to step out and make a difference. The more I look into it, the more intrigued I become with Liberation Theology. While opponents of it have often cited that it takes a narrow view of the Bible, it’s propensity for radicalism is strikingly analogous to the ministry of Jesus. I wonder what it would be like to belong to a church that was that much of an advocate for the poor and oppressed. If there is such a thing as social justice then its proponents will be the ones who bring it to fruition, and I intend to be there with them.

Men like Jim Wallis have made social justice their life’s work, and are living proof that politics and Christianity needn’t be a four-letter word to be effective and righteous. Many of the social causes of the ‘50s and ‘60s were championed by people just like him. Likewise, Richard Stearns, who wrote “The Hole in Our Gospel,” has devoted himself to bringing to light the injustices of our world and has challenged his readers to question the pursuit of the “American dream of health, wealth and happiness,” and instead consider how our choices impact others.

In April 1967 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke to a convocation of concerned clergy and laity at the Riverside Church in New York City. His words continue to challenge us four decades later.

It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin...we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice, which produces beggars needs restructuring.

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war.

There has been enough pontificating on man’s inhumanity to man to fill a landfill. In every revolution there are men and women who have a vision and the will to carry it out. Jesus started with twelve apostles and look where we are now. If those of us who care about what He represents begin in earnest today, we can reshape this world and transform it into the land of plenty. We may wonder where to begin. It starts with rejecting what we know to be false, and then doing the next right thing the Lord puts in front of us. And while, like Jesus, prayer is essential to our strength, there are times when we spend a little too much time on our knees. The time to rise up is at hand. There are no insignificant servants or deeds on this journey. “Stand up! Stand up, for what you believe in. You know that God will back you up.” Those words come from a Veggie Tales song. Funny how songs work. They either remind us of what we once had or challenge us to grab what is within our reach. God gave us gifts to not only bless us, but to be a blessing to others. We can never fail so long as we remember that God does not call the equipped; he equips the called.

For those of you out there who feel as I do, have seen the terrible injustice and evil in the world, have become restless in your own journey, but privately wonder whether you have it in you to make a difference, I’ll leave you with this scripture from James 4:17. “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins.” God is watching and judging us. We are all in this together, and with the grace and strength that comes from above we will persevere!

2010-01-30T00:22:00.018-05:00

Obama: One Year Later

It was December 1944 and General George S. Patton was sitting in a room full of generals. The Germans had just launched The Ardennes Offensive, better known as The Battle of the Bulge, and General Eisenhower wanted to know who among them could relieve the beleaguered forces at Bastogne. Patton spied the room for a brief moment and then blurted out, “I can attack with three divisions in 48 hours.”

The other generals were astounded at Patton’s bravado and openly questioned how he could make such a commitment of his soldiers who were already involved in a substantial campaign and would have to travel over 100 miles in the middle of a fierce snow storm. His reply was equally astounding, “They’ll do it because they’re good soldiers and because they realize as I do that we can still lose this war.”

In one sentence Patton had nailed it on the head. Of his many memorable quotes, none were so on point and foreboding as that one, for Patton was not one to count his chickens before they hatched. Despite the apparent superiority of the Allied forces and the shrinking morale of the German army, the war was not over. The enemy had not yet been defeated. A misstep here, a misstep there could spell disaster. We all know what happened: Patton’s divisions arrived in time to rescue Bastogne and within months, the Germans had surrendered. The war in Europe was over. The moral of that story was simple: never assume anything. The fight is never over so long as your adversary is still alive. To quote the great Yogi Berra, “It ain’t over till it’s over.”

Pity President Obama never met George Patton. Pity the Democratic Party never met George Patton. Since their meteoric ascension last November, which gave them virtually unfettered power, both Obama and the Democratic House and Senate have behaved like a football team entering the third quarter with a three touchdown lead playing prevent defense. Anyone who has ever seen a football game knows full well that teams that employ such a defense usually prevent themselves from winning. They are constantly on their heals while their opponents continue to march up and down the field. The rationale given for this defense is based on the assumption that three touchdown leads are rarely overcome. And certainly of course, the way the political landscape looked last year, that assumption seemed as secure as gold. The Republican Party was in retreat and disarray, politically isolated and socially in the hands of individuals who neither had the intellectual capacity to understand the position they were in or the vision to plot a course out of the wilderness. Pundits began to openly wonder if a comparison to the Whig Party was not appropriate. But, as any competent sportscaster will tell you, that’s why they play four quarters.

From the beginning of his administration, Barack Obama has displayed an uncanny inability or unwillingness to follow through on the promises he made on the campaign trail. And even when he has found the willingness to pursue those promises, his ineptitude has been his own worst enemy. He has behaved like the coach of the team ahead by three touchdowns, desperately trying to hang on to the lead seemingly given to him by Providence. And the opposing side, far from calling it a night, has consistently chomped away at the lead, one grueling first down at a time. The result is an administration and a Congress that has lost the momentum and is in jeopardy of losing the game outright. Instead of taking it to them and forcing the issue, which got them the lead in the first place, the play it safe approach the Democrats have chosen has played right into the hands of the Republicans. And the Republicans have capitalized on their new-found fortune. Why bother crafting a message when your opponent keeps punting the ball back to you?

Astonishing!

The facts do not lie. They reveal in exact detail the nature of the malady that currently besets the majority party. Despite a mandate of epic proportions, not once in the first few months did Obama and the Democrats craft a message that clearly outlined what they stood for. Up till now they ran on the premise that they were not Bush and the Republicans. That worked for a while. The angst against the GOP was well deserved. Bush and his cronies had gotten us into two wars and wrecked the economy. True Clinton helped a bit when he allowed the Glass-Steagall Act to be repealed, thus setting in motion a series of events that eventually lead to the financial collapse. Still someone had to pay and the American people decided a change was needed. The problem was that Democrats misread the nature of the angst. They wanted change, but they also wanted boldness. What they got was a party that couldn’t get out of its own way; that often acted like it didn’t know who was driving the bus. By contrast, the Republicans seemed unified and displayed surprising determination. Their message was "no", "no", "no", and while many political pundits wondered about the wisdom of such a stance, it proved surprisingly successful.

Case in point, virtually every poll taken in the weeks and months after Obama took office showed overwhelming support for healthcare reform. A strong public option was what the public wanted. But the Administration, in an attempt to avoid the 93-94 fiasco, off-loaded the whole process into the hands of Congress. House and Senate Democrats, in an effort to appease the more moderate and conservative elements within their ranks, then ostensibly tore the guts out of the bill, removing the majority of the reforms the President had called for, including the public option. And while Democrats were playing politics, the GOP geared up its propaganda machine and by mid-August, the corporate-sponsored Town Halls were stoking the worst fears of Americans with false charges of death panels and a socialist takeover of healthcare, with nary a peep out of the President or Congressional Democrats.

By the time Obama finally addressed the nation in September to make his appeal for reform, the momentum had turned and the mood of the country was growing increasingly volatile. Support for the bill, however, had started going south as early as July. Why the two month delay? Why did it take so long for the President of the United States and the Democratic Party as a whole to stand up and challenge critics of the bill? Whatever the cause, the delay proved costly, as more and more Democrats in the center succumbed to cold feet. When the Senate bill finally passed in December, not only did it lack a public option, it lacked any meaningful support among progressives in the country who correctly felt they had been sold down the river. Moreover, independents were bailing on it as well.

The special election in Massachusetts was touted by conservatives as a referendum on Obamacare; in reality, polls taken on election night were quite revealing. 22% of registered Democrats voted for Republican Scott Brown - who had supported the Massachusetts healthcare plan - and the biggest reason they did so was their dissatisfaction with the Senate healthcare bill. They had wanted a robust reform bill and what they saw was a party capitulating on principles. That, plus a lackluster Democratic candidate, spelled disaster on election day.

The stimulus bill was another example of a half-measured response to a crisis situation. Virtually every prominent economist has stated that the government needed to step in to keep the economy from going off the cliff into a depression. The problem wasn’t the stimulus, but rather its size. Keynesian economists tend to agree that during periods of recession strong and massive infusions of capital are necessary to jump-start the economy. Paul Krugman has stated that a stimulus of approximately $1.5 trillion was called for to not only thwart a depression, but to revitalize the economy and get it back up on its feet. Larry Summers as early as December of 2008 warned that the risk of “doing too little poses a greater threat than doing too much.”

Unfortunately for the country, the President did not head the warnings of either man, and instead opted for a more middle of the road option that was more expedient and then committed the ultimate political faux pas by promising that unemployment would not rise above 8%. When it reached 10% by the fall, Obama’s critics had a field day. And now, with the worst over, but the economy still stuck in neutral, the political will to revisit this issue is all but gone. The forecast for 2010 calls for slow growth with little or no decrease in unemployment. GOP gains in Congress are inevitable; the only question remaining is how many Democrats will fall.

And the real shame is all this was avoidable. The senseless and destructive banter and the corporate-underwritten rage of the tea party movement gained traction within the body politic thanks largely to a President who showed an uncanny lack of spine when it came to defining his message and a stubborn reluctance to push back against the lies in the same manner FDR did so brilliantly during his three plus terms. The progressive many thought they were voting for turned into the consummate pragmatist at a time when the nation needed the visionary most. Worst, Obama’s lack of empathy coupled with the aloofness of a college professor that he sometimes showed a little too much during the campaign - and is emblematic among many liberal Democrats - began to rub independents the wrong way. Even those who still thought he was capable were growing a bit annoyed at his seeming detachment. The public was looking for the Commander in Chief; what they got was the Delegator in Chief.

But all may not be lost. Despite the setbacks of the last year and the hits this president has taken to his prestige, like the recession the worst may be over. In his State of the Union address, Obama seemed far more confrontational and determined to “set the record straight.” He challenged both Democrats and Republicans to solve the nation’s problems and stop the back and forth banter. He also acknowledged his own mistakes. It was the first time in almost a year that the nation saw a fighter.

But the biggest reason for hope is that despite the recent gains that Republicans have made, mainly as a result of the ineptitude of this President, we are still talking about a party that still has no coherent, viable solution that doesn’t include the word “no” or an overly nostalgic reliance on failed policies from the past.

But to take back the mantle and stem the tide, this President is going to have to do a much better job of defining a narrative that heretofore he has been reluctant to do. Whether he enjoys it or not, or even if it rubs him the wrong way, he is going to have to get it through his head that his political opponents are not now, nor have they ever been, interested in bipartisanship. As Jon Stewart so wryly observed, no matter how much he tries to move to the center, "They're not going to let you in the car!" The wingnuts of the GOP are running the show and their goal is nothing short of complete victory and that means stopping this President no matter the costs. Obama must stop trying to reach out to a party that has no intention of reaching back. He must abandon his pragmatism and assert his will. While he has lost a lot of the political capital he had at the start of his term, he still has the biggest and loudest pulpit from which to call out and challenge his opponents. The few times he has ventured out of his comfort zone and done this has worked. He must do it more often.

He also must become more empathetic and less detached. The articulate orator that thrilled the throngs on the campaign trail must be replaced by a more compassionate man who understands the dire straits that many Americans find themselves in, and who can relate to their suffering. Even when the depression was at its worst, Roosevelt was always able to identify with and reassure the millions who were hurting. His fireside chats were legendary and put his Republican opponents back on their heals. It also bought him the political capital to put in place the programs and reforms that helped bring the nation out of the depression. Obama desperately needs to find that spirit if he intends on being more than a one-term president. More importantly, he must honor the pledges he made on the campaign trail when he ran as a progressive. If he intends on fighting for healthcare reform, he must find a way to get progressives back on board and do a far better job at explaining what it is he wants. He cannot afford the luxury of naively believing that the majority of Americans will figure it out on their own. Nature abhors a vacuum, and if history has taught us anything it is that those who care enough to fight for what they believe in usually get their points across and prevail. Those who don’t become footnotes.

Obama must become his own General Patton and go on the offensive. He must realize that the war’s outcome is still in doubt, and that the enemy has not only not been defeated, but is launching its own winter offensive. The lead has shrunk to only a field goal, but it is a lead nonetheless. At stake is more than just a mid-term election; the future of the Republic and perhaps the whole planet hangs in the balance. The specter of a Palin Administration beckons and with it the hordes of ideologues whose intentions have been made all too plain. To the rational mind that is a fate too terrifying to contemplate. Now is the time for Obama to show the temerity he ran on and become the President this nation desperately needs and deserves.

The cost of failure is too high to calculate.

2010-01-16T00:47:00.003-05:00

Shame On You!

It took a tragedy of historic and epic proportions to bring to the forefront that which was most important. With the earthquake that devastated Haiti, suddenly the daily trivialities of life were tossed aside and we were all driven by an inner voice to put aside our petty differences and to think of what we could do – even in some small way - to help those in need. Well almost every one.

Over the last 12 months I have chronicled many instances of political chicanery by the Right, and yes even some by the Left. While all were deserving of winning the lofty status accorded them, not until now did I finally come across two shining examples of humanity that prove beyond the shadow of a doubt just how low some can sink when push comes to shove.

And while I find it abhorrent to start this year’s Shame on You awards in the backdrop of such a horrific event, to ignore the deplorable conduct of these individuals is equally wrong. They have not only earned this month’s infamous honors, they have gone above and beyond to display in full bloom their dizzying minuscule intellects. I’d say both these individuals have hit rock bottom here, but I fear sadly that may not be the case. For now, let’s just say this one takes the cake.

There is no first place; both are equally obnoxious. So without further ado.

Pat Robertson. For most of his scandalous and hypocritical career as founder of the Christian Coalition and host of The 700 Club Robertson has said many inflammatory and outrageous things and brought great shame upon a faith that sadly has had more than its fair share of shameful chapters throughout its history. But none were more outrageous and completely devoid of any sensitivity and Christian spirit than the words he vomited over the air less than 24 hours after the Haitian earthquake.

“Christy, something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French, uh, you know, Napoleon the third and whatever, and they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you, if you get us free from the French, true story. And so the devil said, 'OK, it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor. The Island of Hispaniola is one island cut down the middle. On the one side is Haiti, on the other side is the Dominican Republic. Dominican Republic is, is, prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty, same Islands, uh, they need to have, and we need to pray for them, a great turning to God. And out of this tragedy, I'm optimistic something good may come, but right now we're helping the suffering people, and the suffering is unimaginable.”

Forget for a moment the revisionist history lesson, which is always skewed when it comes to the West, the simple matter of fact was that Robertson, at a time when responsible religious leaders were doing their best to offer their prayers and imploring their congregations to lend whatever support they could afford, once more revealed the dark side of himself and Christianity to a world that doesn’t need any more examples of man’s inhumanity to man.

Too often men like Robertson have not only stuck their proverbial feet in their mouths but put a stain on all Christians in the process. The “devil” in this case is not some entity that the Haitians entered into a pact with some two centuries ago, but the ignorance and hatred that the Church has had to put up with from people of his ilk. Bill Maher, a noted comedian and self-proclaimed atheist, has made it his life’s work to expose just how fraudulent and idiotic all religions are. From his point of view he is correct. The unfortunate and sad truth is that it is the charlatans of our faith that have become its ambassadors to a mostly uneducated and susceptible world. A world that hardly ever sees the mercy and compassion of Jesus; merely the fire and brimstone of clowns like Robertson. It was at least gratifying to know that in this instance, he was outed not only by the majority of the world, but by many within the Church. Miracles, I guess, do happen.

And speaking of clowns, Rush Limbaugh really outdid himself this week. Always eager to show off his never bounding ignorance on anything resembling facts, his comments on Obama’s quick response to the Haitian earthquake surpassed even his “supercilious” heights. I’ll let the maestro tell it in his own words.

“Here's President Obama speaking about Haiti this morning in Washington at the White House. He held a press conference. Now, I want you to remember, it took him three days to respond to the Christmas Day Fruit of Kaboom Bomber, three days. And when he came out after those three days, he was clearly irritated that he had to do it. He didn't want to do it. He comes out here in less than 24 hours to speak about Haiti.

“Oh, this is what he lives for. He lives for serving those in misery. Now, don't misunderstand here, folks. I don't have the whole press conference, but I wonder did he apologize for America before acknowledging we are the only people on earth that can possibly help 'em out down there in any significant way? By the way, I've checked it out, Cuba has offered nothing. Venezuela has offered nothing. They have nothing to offer.

“Yes, I think in the Haiti earthquake, ladies and gentlemen -- in the words of Rahm Emanuel -- we have another crisis simply too good to waste. This will play right into Obama's hands. He's humanitarian, compassionate. They'll use this to burnish their, shall we say, "credibility" with the black community -- in the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country. It's made-to-order for them. That's why he couldn't wait to get out there, could not wait to get out there.”

Despicable would be a word in a half for the depravity of this man. Like his compadre above, Rush Limbaugh can reduce any thing to its basest element. It is one thing to have a disdain for political correctness; it is quite another to behave like an insensitive ass. When even Sean Hannity’s website has a link for Haitian relief, you know you’re out in left field, or should I say right field.

Jon Stewart said it best. “I think I know the cause of your heart trouble. You don’t have one.” Apparently he doesn’t have a brain either.

2009-12-31T22:52:00.005-05:00

Shame On You!

Thanks to a crazy December schedule, my usual plethora of blogs has been dramatically reduced; hence this will be my one and only entry for the month of December.

With that in mind, I decided to make this blog count with the first annual Shame on You Awards. There were many contenders, but I think you’ll agree all the winners were quite deserving of the prestigious honors.

And now the envelope please.

1. Fox News. Everything that has been said about this “news” organization has already been said. From the corporate-sponsored Tea Parties where correspondents acted like cheer leaders and riled up the natives, to “news” stories with Fox employees acting as their own sources, to the wingnuts that fill the prime-time slots, Rupert Murdoch’s garbage disposal was in rare form throughout 2009. No matter what was going on in the world, chances are after watching Gretchen Carlson, Steve Doocy or Chris Wallace, you’d be convinced it was Obama’s fault. I fully expect one of 2010’s “news” stories to be “Obama to blame for common cold.” Fox’s poison has already resulted in rot spreading throughout the mainstream media as rivals attempt to lure back some of the customers they’ve lost by resorting to some of their own mud-slinging. “Fair and Balanced” my foot.
2. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and Levin, et al. If this were a law firm, you’d be better off throwing yourself on the mercy of the court. Unfortunately for us, they don’t represent a law firm, they represent the “cream” of the lunatic Right, which has defined conservatism in this country. Their incendiary rhetoric has dragged American politics right into the gutter and badly wounded the Republican Party. Nothing is off limits and anything goes with these ideologues. They hide behind their First Amendment rights while spitting on the very Constitution they claim to uphold. They speak of liberty and freedom but know little about either. If 2009 was any indicator, 2010 should be quite a spectacle.
3. The Tea Party Movement. Of all the machinations of the paranoid Right, none were more devoid of any semblance of credibility and wreaked of outright gullibility than these deplorable nincompoops. When they weren’t chanting socialist and holding up signs of President Obama sporting a Hitler mustache at fake rallies, they were taking hostages at the August Town Halls. At heart they were symptomatic of a growing trend throughout the country, which says if you don’t like something, no matter how rational it might be, just shout it down and intimidate anyone who opposes you. Their conduct bore close resemblance to the Storm Troopers that ran roughshot in Nazi Germany. The worst part is they don’t seem to be going away. If anything they will likely grow in numbers next year as the mid-terms approach. Saints preserve us.
4. Sarah, Michele and the Rest of the Republican Party. Or as I prefer to call them, dumb, dumber and dumbest. It’s bad enough that the likes of Rush and the gang have become the mouthpiece of conservatism in this country, thus virtually eliminating any serious check on Democratic political hegemony, the Republican Party has apparently decided to kidnap itself and bludgeon its own future. Banking its hopes on a sluggish economy that they feel will steam roll them back into Congressional power in 2010, they have become the Party of No, that is when they aren’t busy embarrassing themselves. Can you say Whig Party? I knew you could.
5. President Barack Obama. A surprise entry here. Yes, he inherited the worst economic mess since Roosevelt, and yes he has managed to stave off what would’ve been a global collapse, but this president has simply been unable or unwilling to take the bull by the horns and bring the change to Washington he campaigned on. Whether it was continuing the domestic surveillance program that Bush unveiled, or not listening to economists like Paul Krugman who predicted correctly that the stimulus would not be big enough to drive the recovery needed to create job growth, or off-loading the healthcare bill completely to Congress, thus allowing the Right to define it and eventually strip it of most of the reform he promised last year, Obama has put both his Party and the nation into a precarious position. If the Republicans manage to win significant gains in both the House and Senate in 2010, it will not be because they brought anything substantive to the table; it will be due to a president who for most of his freshman year in office looked like a rookie pitcher getting lit up on the mound. He has managed to both rile up conservatives and drive away progressives all at the same time. Quite a feat. He wants to be the next JFK; the nation needs an FDR. If he doesn’t recover and find some kind of moral compass soon, this will be a one-term presidency.

2009-11-15T00:01:00.002-05:00

A Global Initiative.

Recently it has come to light that there exists a petition, which contains the signatures of more than 31,000 “scientists” who have collectively refuted claims of man-made global warming.

Organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, the purpose of this petition is to demonstrate that “the claim of 'settled science' and an overwhelming 'consensus' in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong.”

So what qualifications does one need to have the honor of signing his or her name to such a prestigious petition? Apparently not many. Anybody with a BS can qualify, even those who are no longer living, or hold degrees in relevant fields. The OISM also wanted to let everyone know that 9,021 of the signers hold PhDs. They don't specify what the doctorates are in, but they repeat that figure quite a bit, as if it means something.

I looked up one of the honorees - a professor of medicine and Nephrology Division Chief at the University of Virginia - and thought it would be appropriate to ask him in writing to explain his reasoning behind signing the petition. Below is the letter that I emailed to him. I encourage all conscientious objectors to take up this cause to call out those who continue to stand in the way of common sense and decency. Our planet’s health is at stake. It is time to end this madness once and for all.

To Dr. W. Kline Bolton

You recently signed a petition questioning the validity of man-made global warming. I was wondering what level of expertise you possess that allows you to make such an informed opinion on the subject.

Seeing as how you are one of some 31,000 scientists that have signed this petition, some of who it seems are deceased, I feel it is appropriate for you to address this issue. With so many experts in the field convinced we have a problem that needs to be dealt with, I'm sure you can appreciate how "bad" science can distort the truth and blind us all to the obvious.

With the lives of billions of people hanging in the balance, now is the time for responsible people to put aside political posturing and wishful thinking and strive to bring about real solutions to our planet's dilemma. The consideration of a reply is requested.

Regards,

Peter W. Fegan

2009-11-14T00:15:00.023-05:00

Making Sense of Independent Voters and Their Mood Swings.

There’s an old saying among Floridians that you might’ve heard of. If you don’t like the weather, wait five minutes. Whoever coined that saying must’ve been an independent voter. Only an independent could be perceptive enough to know how fickle the weather can be, not to mention his own voting record. While reading David Brooks’ op-ed piece in The New York Times, “What Independents Want,” I was struck by the above saying and found it curious that someone with as much gravitās into Washington politics as Brooks can be so easily fooled into reaching the conclusions he did regarding last week’s gubernatorial races. For a self-described moderate, Brooks shows an amazing lack of insight into how moderates and independents actually think. Let’s look at the piece shall we.

While Brooks correctly points out that independent voters represent “the largest group in the electorate” and lack “the think tanks to provide arguments, politicians and pundits to amplify them, and news media outlets to deliver streams of prejudice-affirming stories,” he couldn't have been more wrong about what actually happened election night and why.

As usual Brooks is thorough in presenting a narrative about the current volatility of independent voters. That he is astute enough to refer to them as “herds of cats who find out what they think through a meandering process of discovery” – one of his better metaphors I might add - underscores what everyone who has ever read him already knows: that he is nothing if eloquent. But then Brooks proceeds to make the same mistakes virtually every pundit on election night made; he draws the wrong conclusions from his own narrative.

The returns on election night ’09 do not portend any trend worth noting, much less a swing to the right by independents. Brooks writes,

“According to Gallup, the share of independents who describe their views as conservative has moved from 29 percent last year to 35 percent today. The share of independents who believe there is too much government regulation of business has jumped from 38 percent to 50 percent. Independents are in the position of a person who is feeling gravely ill at the same time he has lost faith in his doctor.”

Amazing how Brooks uses the image of a patient and a doctor to describe the current trend, yet fails to see the correlation and relevance that such imagery represents in the political landscape. The point is nobody stays ill forever. Today’s quack is tomorrow’s healer. Should the economy recover sufficiently by next year, I wonder what the Gallup polls will reveal about the level of government regulation. Deficit spending only means something to a voter when they’re out of work or hurting financially. Otherwise, it’s about as useful as a Glenn Beck monologue.

If we have learned anything about American voters – particularly moderate or independent voters - is that they value results over principles. Two plus two equals four always and everywhere. How one gets there is irrelevant. Brooks should know this; he has been writing about it for years. As I said in an earlier blog the results in last weeks elections represent one thing and one thing only: the American electorate is pissed off and is taking it out on whoever is in charge. Partisan hacks who talk a good talk, but who do not have any answers are out. More people may watch Fox News than any other cable news outlet, but so far it hasn’t translated into anything more significant than ratings boosts. One look at New York’s 23rd is all you need to know about how much ideology meant to a district that hadn’t voted Democrat in over a hundred years. Please!

Both political parties need to get their proverbial heads out of their butts and start offering solutions that work. Today it is Democrats who appear to be taking it on the chin; tomorrow it will be Republicans. Anyone in power who is perceived as not getting the job done will most likely be getting his or her pink slips over the next twelve months. This constant see-saw battle between the parties is nothing new, namely because it was never about ideology in the first place. It's the same thing that drives a Monday-morning quarterback and trying to figure it out or make any conclusions beyond tomorrow's sports scores is futile. The reason they're called independents is because they're independent. If they'd wanted an identity they've would've joined a major political party. Labeling them as shifting to the right, as Brooks did, ignores a basic tenant in American politics.

Just as no able-bodied seaman worth his weight in salt would ever rely on fair weather to get home safely, no political pundit should attempt to take the temperature of an entire electorate based solely on a few small elections. Counting on the weather is a fool’s errand, and has lead many a ship to a watery grave. It has also left more than just a few otherwise astute political columnists a bit red-faced.

2009-11-09T13:23:00.005-05:00

Shame On You!

Well it’s that time again. Once more we dive into the pit of despair and ignorance and pull out this month’s winners of the Shame on You awards. As always, it was a tough job narrowing down the nominees, but I think you’ll agree that this month’s winners are more than deserving.

The envelope please:

First place this month goes to lifelong space cadet and Captain Video alumna Michele Bachmann who held her own little Tea Party on the steps of the Capitol last week in protest of the pending vote in the House on healthcare reform – a bill by the way that passed. Not only did Bachmann do her best Glenn Beck impersonation of inciting the throng of malcontents who obviously have nothing better to do than waste an entire day listening to rubbish, but in the process she managed to enlist the participation of many of her Republican colleagues, among them Representatives Steve King of Iowa, Trent Franks of Arizona, Randy Forbes of Virginia, Jim Jordan of Ohio, and Louie Gohmert and Ted Poe of Texas. The significance? While they were attending the “Super Bowl of Freedom” as Bachmann referred to it, all missed votes in the House Judiciary committee on Republican-sponsored amendments to the reauthorization of the Patriot Act -- measures that would have toughened the Act, and which narrowly failed.

One measure, offered by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the committee, would have extended the "lone wolf" provisions of the Act, which would allow the FBI to conduct surveillance or search foreign nationals even if it can't be shown that the person is an agent of a foreign power. Many conservatives believe that had this provision been in effect before 9/11, the FBI might have caught Zacarias Moussaoui. Republicans said that extending the lone wolf provision this time around was crucial to protecting national security. Even some Democrats supported the measure, giving it a good chance of passage. But it failed by a single vote, 15-15. King and Gohmert were absent, no doubt doing their patriotic duty.

Maybe next time a crucial vote in the House comes up, we can all spare a few extra dollars and sponsor a Tea Party of our own on the steps of the Capitol. Maybe if we get enough contributors we can get the entire Republican Party and Fox News to leave Washington long enough so we can get some things done. Maybe Michele Bachmann isn’t so crazy after all; maybe she’s really a Democrat posing as a Republican. Hmmm. On second thought scratch that. That would require intelligence and the ability to feign stupidity. As we all know, dear old Michele is incapable of either. Shame on you, Ms. Bachmann, for posing as an earthling.

Our runner up is House Minority Leader John Boehner (pronounced Bayner, but better known as Boner for his latest faux pas). While attending the “Super Bowl of Freedom” Boehner began to read a passage from what he called the Preamble to the Constitution. The problem for Boehner was the words he was quoting came not from the Constitution, but from the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal,” as any grade school student would know does not come from the Preamble to the Constitution. The words Boehner should’ve quoted were as follows: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Perhaps it’s time for Mr. Boehner to go back to the 5th grade. We can accept such ignorance from the likes of a Rush Limbaugh or a Glenn Beck, but not from the senior leader of the Republican Party.

Not content to mangle the Constitution though, Boehner outdid himself by introducing the Republican version of healthcare reform. A bill that insures only an additional three million people, does nothing to curb costs and allows pre-existing clauses to remain in practice. In other words the perfect recipe for an insurance industry that never wanted reform in the first place. The Congressional Budget Office thoroughly trashed the plan. I guess there is justice after all. Seriously though, Boehner and his Republican cronies never expected their plan to get any traction; if was all just a show to convince the gullible that they were desirous of reform when in fact reform is the last thing they want. Shame on you, sir, for pretending to care, as well as have a brain.

Bringing up the rear this month is Connecticut “Independent” Senator Joseph Lieberman, who once more is proving his true colors by threatening to join a Republican filibuster against healthcare reform if it contains a public option.

Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Lieberman called the controversial public option, which is in the House bill and the Senate version being prepared by Harry Reid, an unnecessary provision intended to bring government-run health insurance in the future. "If the public option is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow the bill to come to a final vote," Lieberman said. He previously has said he won't oppose opening Senate debate on the bill despite the public option provision, and he maintained that stance Sunday.

Connecticut is home to some of the nation’s biggest health insurance companies, among them Aetna, which is the tenth largest contributor to Liebermann’s reelection committee. And Lieberman’s opposition to the public option puts him completely out of step with Connecticut voters. As this polling from 538.com’s Nate Silver shows, voters in every single one of Connecticut’s congressional districts favor the inclusion of a public option in healthcare legislation by wide margins. The stated reason for Lieberman’s stance on the public option — that it would increase the debt and create another entitlement — is misplaced and dishonest. As ThinkProgress has noted before, the public option would be self-sustaining and would cut the deficit. Leibermann knows this all too well.

It is time Democrats showed this pariah the proverbial door. Bad enough he actively campaigned for John McCain and Sarah Palin during last year’s Presidential election, he now threatens to side with Republicans on a bill his own constituents want. Despicable. I say strip him of his committee chairs and tell him if he wants to be a Republican, then he should have the courage to stand officially as one of them. Shame on you, Mr. Liebermann for being a fraud and ignoring your own citizenry.

2009-11-05T09:13:00.004-05:00

Spin City

While the GOP attempts to make gubernatorial gains in Virginia and New Jersey a referendum on Barack Obama, the real story was in a tiny northern New York Congressional District.

The spin doctors were all smiles at Fix News this past Tuesday night as Republicans won the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey. Shepard Smith was practically beside himself with glee as he read off the election results. At the risk of sounding a bit crude, I thought we were going to witness cable news’ first on-air orgasm. The Obama party is over! Yeah! Break out the champagne. Look out Dems, the GOP is back. 2010 is just around the corner and we’re gonna kick some major political butt.

Well, at the risk of being a party pooper, hold onto your champagne glasses – especially you Shep! - and don’t pop that cork just yet, or anything else for that matter. True losing two states’ governorships – one in a blue, the other in a purple – hurt a bit. But, as any first year political science major will tell you, governor’s races are NOT particularly indicative of mood swings within the national electorate at large; they are far more indicative of conditions within a rather small geographic area. Also, with the country in a recession, voters tend to take their frustrations out on either the incumbent or, as was the case in Virginia, the incumbent’s party. Virginia, in fact, is a case study in that for the last 36 years, the party that wins the White House loses the governorship; only twice – in 1993 and 2005 – has the state election portended anything significant for the mid-terms.

Claims by the GOP that independent voters have suddenly flocked over to the Republican Party and abandoned the President are baseless. For one thing, Obama’s approval numbers continue to be strong in both states (51% in Virgina and 54% in New Jersey). Secondly, it is always a given that no political candidate can win an election without the independent vote. Why should it be a surprise that both Republican candidates did extremely well in this demographic? And lastly, anyone who followed the New Jersey race knew all too well that Democrat Jon Corzine ran a lousy campaign; his attack ads against his opponent Chris Christie gave the 527s a run for their money. His own negatives were way too high for an incumbent and in the end they did him in.

Seriously, does anybody expect this state to turn red in 2012? Even the exit polls in northern Virginia continue to indicate that the state is far more moderate than it is conservative. If the current trend of transplanted northerners migrating southward continues, and all indications are it will, the chances are the middle-Atlantic states will mover farther to the center and away from conservatives. Barring a complete economic meltdown, Barack Obama could still fare well there in 2012 and carry the state again. The only message anyone with a half a brain can take from both these elections is that the electorate was very frustrated at the way things were going and that tends to mean change at the top. If Republicans had held both states, in all likelihood they would’ve gone Democrat and we’d be talking about the continuing Obama revolution.

But the election that the GOP doesn’t seem to want to talk much about today is the one they threw everything but the proverbial kitchen sink at: New York’s 23rd Congressional District. In a stunning repudiation of the wingnuts that have been driving the Republican bus, voters in that district elected the first Democrat to represent them since 1871. That’s right, you heard correct: 1871, not 1971. More than one hundred thirty years have passed since the last time a Republican did not call this district his home. Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Fred Thompson, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Mike Savage, and the rest of the stooges who are looking to “take back” the GOP were about as effective at convincing the voters in upstate New York to vote for Doug Hoffman, as a drunk driver at a sobriety checkpoint trying to convince a cop he was dry as a whistle.

For what the results in the New York 23rd should’ve indicated not only to the GOP, but to everybody else who paid close attention, was that the voters rejected ideology over substance. They went for someone who could best represent their local interests, even if it meant voting for a Democrat. Dick Armey may have called Doug Hoffman the “real Republican,” but the simple truth was he didn’t even live in the district, had no idea what the major issues were, and the voters, in the end, saw through the smoke screen. He may have been popular in Sarah Palin’s facebook account, but it wasn’t enough to put him over the finish line.

Attempts by the Right to say that they “saved” the district from a far worse humiliating defeat by ousting liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava are lame at best. Before Hoffman was dragged into the race by the wingnuts, Scozzafava was ahead in virtually every poll. Without their interference, she most likely would’ve been elected by a comfortable margin. And as for the other claim by the Far Right that they sent a clear message to the Republican Party that those who don’t embrace a true conservative message will be challenged and defeated, point taken. Attention all moderates: your services are no longer required by the GOP. To paraphrase a well-known airline commercial, “You are now free to roam the political landscape.”

Sadly the Republican Party doesn’t even understand what happened Tuesday night. They insist that victories in Virginia and New Jersey, along with a few other local areas, as well as the defeat in New York’s 23rd are a repudiation of the President’s policies and indicate a building tide of conservatism that will sweep them into power in 2010 and 2012. And you thought children only suffered this badly from naiveté. The real truth is that the people voted for those candidates that ran to the center and spoke to their needs. In Virginia, Bob McDonnell – a conservative – ran a centrist campaign, avoided much of the controversy swirling around his own Party, “declined” offers from ultra conservatives to speak on his behalf, and offered solutions to the electorate that made sense to many of them. In the end it got him elected. Hmmm, makes you think doesn’t it? When Republicans field candidates who are inclusive, are likeable, and have real solutions to real problems they do well; when they are beholden to useless ideology, engage in divisive discourse, and are perceived only as obstructionists they do poorly. It’s that simple. If there was a repudiation of anything election night, it was stupidity and the GOP had best pay close attention if it expects to pick up seats in both the House and Senate in next year’s mid-terms.

As for the Democrats, a wakeup call was delivered loud and clear that should be heeded. True the Democrats and Obama inherited this economic mess, but they are now the incumbents, which means they are responsible for it going forward. Bush may have torpedoed the ship, but the passengers want to know how the current officers are going to keep it from foundering. Pulling the economy back from the brink was critical, and probably kept the nation from plunging into a depression, but on Main Street, where unemployment remains at, near, or, in some places, above ten percent, people demand answers. Talking about GDP growth when people don’t have jobs and can’t pay their bills shows a lack of empathy for real suffering, and that translates to election losses. While Republican gains may not be indicative of any paradigm shift in the nation’s political mood, they are indicative of a growing angst within the electorate. The public has a short fuse; hence elected officials are on a short leash. The warning to all incumbents – Democrat and Republican alike - could not be clearer: Shape up or ship out! If you can’t cut the mustard, we’ll find someone who can. In the coming years, Party affiliation will continue to mean less and less and voters will be far more interested in results-oriented candidates who can get the job done, be they Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Vulcan! Loyalty isn’t what it used to be. Jon Corzine found that out the hard way, and ideologues on both sides of the political aisle should pay close attention. The American people want solutions, not rhetoric.

2009-10-30T23:38:00.004-04:00

What Do We Stand For?

I have asked myself this question over and over now for months, perhaps years. I confess I am at a loss for an answer. A former pastor of mine used to say that the enemy has two goals: 1. Keep you from becoming a Christian; and, failing that, 2. Keep you ineffectual as a Christian. OK, so the vast majority of those who read my blog and who are in my facebook “friends” list are Christians. Goal number one is thwarted. We’re in like Flynn, to borrow an old and vulgar, but ultimately appropriate quote. In other words we know, as it says in the Good book, where we’re going when it’s all over. But that, sadly, is where the good news ends, for many in the Church have comported themselves like the old venerable sex symbol of yesteryore. Christian? Nailed it! Want to get saved? Raise your hand! Can’t pay your bills? Pray harder! Can’t eat? Food pantry! Sick? Call a doctor! Need healthcare? Not my problem! Out of work? Stop being lazy! The painful truth is that too many of our flock have not only been ineffectual in their Christian walk, their conduct has probably driven away thousands if not hundreds of thousands from ever entering the Kingdom. For those responsible it would’ve been better if they had flown off to a tropical island to live out the rest of their non sequitur lives. Unfortunately for all of us they are fast becoming the voice of Christianity for the world.

The marriage of politics and the Church is not a new phenomenon. It is as old the Crusades, perhaps older. What is new, or at least more apparent, is how the corporate corruption has become so mainstream and how quickly the cancer has metastasized throughout the Body. Death panels, socialism, terrorist sympathizer have become more than just the vocabulary of right-wing extremists; they are now firmly imbedded in the vocabulary of many Christians, as well. Polls clearly show that the vast majority of Christians are far more likely to agree and identify with the Far Right’s take on politics than with either the Left’s or a more moderate view. It isn’t just abortion and gay rights that is driving the bus anymore. Pick an issue – global warming, cap in trade, healthcare, preemptive air strikes on Iran, torture, domestic wiretapping – and the polls reveal a frightening similarity between evangelical Christians and GOP talking points. Almost completely absent from any dialogue is the allowance for alternative and or more moderate views. The mere mention of a stance that doesn’t directly coincide with the party line among this group is likely to elicit a response akin to that of John McEnroe screaming at an official at the U.S. Open. Offenders are made to feel subhuman and not worthy of being called a Christian.

How did this happen? How did a faith steeped in the values of caring for those less fortunate align itself so willingly with such a malevolent force? The answer is far more complicated than you might suspect.

For one thing conservatives and evangelicals often share many of the same core values, in that both groups believe in the sanctity of life and traditional marriage. Both groups also traditionally favor smaller, less obtrusive government and lower taxes. And both have had long histories with the Republican Party. OK, so far so good. While there are some evangelicals who are Democratic, voting Republican is not in itself the main crux of the current problem. As I have said repeatedly, the problem here has nothing to do with liberalism vs. conservatism; it goes way beyond that.

What I believe has happened is that the enemy has seized upon these shared core values and used them to drive a wedge among many Christians. What should have been an opportunity to discuss common ground between Right and Left and Republican and Democrat among Christians to advance the Kingdom has been perverted into a vitriolic dance that is nothing short of demonic. Like the serpent in the Garden egging on Eve, the enemy seems to be delighting in putting itching powder in our shorts; and like the gullible Eve, we can’t resist scratching.

Need evidence? Look at what has happened within the Republican Party over the last twelve months. It has been virtually hijacked by the ideologues to such a point that rational debate even within its own ranks is almost non-existent. Moderates who seek to broaden the Party’s appeal are shunned. The special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District is a case study in how the enemy is helping the Republican Party eat their young. Not content with the local GOP candidate Dierdre Scozzafava, the wingnuts of the Republican Party have backed independent conservative Doug Hoffman, who as it turns out doesn’t even live in the district, thus splitting the conservative vote. Not surprisingly, the Democratic challenger is ahead in the polls. The last time a Democrat held this seat was 1871. Astonishing. And the reason for this maddening divide? Scozzafava isn’t conservative enough for the likes of a Sarah Palin and the other far-right zealots. In their world view anyone who isn’t cut from the same mold as them isn’t fit to be a true Republican. No matter what the costs they are determined to show the world how righteous they are, much to the chagrin of the GOP. When Newt Gingrich is the one seeking to widen your tent, you know you have problems.

But, politics aside, haven’t we heard this same rhetoric coming out of the mouths of Christians? It was one thing to hear shouts of socialism, terrorist sympathizer and other slurs – some of them racial – being thrown at Barack Obama from many conservative pundits; it was quite another to hear supposed followers of Christ going along for the ride. Having litmus tests for political candidates to determine their stances on key issues is one thing; having them for Christians to determine how “Christian” they are, or how they are supposed to vote, is an affront to the very faith we are all sworn to represent. And yet that is the sort of thing that has been happening all too frequently lately. When any Christian dares assume that there is only one way to vote or one way to behave or one value to uphold, and that all other options are somehow dismissed as being “un-Christian” then all of us are slimed.

During last year’s election Dutch Sheets sent out a letter to his “flock” imploring them not to vote for Barack Obama. While there is nothing wrong with taking a political stand, the arrogance of his position was what rubbed me the wrong way. For him it came down to one thing and one thing only: Obama’s stance on abortion. Ignoring everything else, Sheets threw the full weight of his ministry behind the McCain campaign. That is of course his right; but what isn’t his right is to speak on behalf of a faith, many of who might actually hold a different point of view. That there might be Christians who have just as much discernment as Sheets, who respect life as much as he does, but who also see the forest as well as the trees apparently hasn’t dawned on him. The idea that those who support candidates who are “pro-choice” means that they must by definition be “pro-death” is offensive to many within the evangelical community. These people are no less Christian and no less deserving of having their voices heard and respected, be they Protestant or Catholic.

Sadly, Sheets is not alone in his contempt of others feelings. He and his fellow modern-day Pharisees like John Hagee and James Dobson have so polluted the true message of Jesus by their proselytizing for what they refer to as “true” Christian values that they have driven away countless non-believers and deeply divided Christianity as a whole. I firmly believe that God will judge them accordingly.

But my greater concern is how will God judge us? The latest test to our faith is the ongoing healthcare debate in Washington. If we say we are believers, than we must know that God could care less about our political affiliation. In all the Gospels, not once does Jesus have anything substantive to say about Rome. In deed when questioned by the Pharisees on whether it was right to pay taxes to Caesar, Jesus brilliantly sidesteps the trap by asking them whose portrait and inscription was on the denarius used to pay the tax? When they replied it was Caesar’s, he told them to "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." Sadly that brilliance is lost on many of His children. For the moral of that scripture and virtually all the New Testament is that God is first and foremost concerned with the condition of our hearts.

It is obvious that this particular debate has divided many within the Christian community. I will not belabor the particular merits, for I have made them all too clear in this blog. What I am going to say is that as Christians it is appalling that we could be so cavalier about the needs of our fellow human beings, thus ignoring the marching orders of our Lord and Savior. Healthcare reform is NOT a conservative or liberal issue; it is a moral cause that all true believers should be behind. While it is correct to ask probative questions of our elected officials to fulfill our ethical obligations as stewards of our nation’s economy, such discussion cannot and must not deter us from the greater good. That there are still millions of people in our country that have no access to affordable healthcare; that there are millions more who are dangerously underinsured; and that there are insurance companies making billions of dollars in profit on the backs of their customers whose only crime was they had the temerity to get sick, is a sin in any language. Our failure to do what we can to rectify that sin is contemptuous of God and will be dealt with, make no mistake about that.

Healthcare isn’t the only issue dividing the evangelical community. A recent poll found that a rapidly growing percentage of Christians believe that the use of torture on enemy combatants is justified in certain situations. How a faith that began as the direct result of the use of torture on its Lord and Savior could justify its use on any human being defies all belief. Yet that is where we stand: a growing malignancy within our community aligned against God and justifying the very same tactics the enemy would applaud. Astonishing, but true.

Equally astonishing, and puzzling, is the stance many Christians have on global warming. For well over twenty-five years we have had conclusive evidence of man-made CO2 emissions causing global temperatures to rise, and yet this group, taking their lead from their fellow political conservatives, resists the evidence and instead hangs its hat on a recent study that shows that global temperatures have fallen slightly over the last ten years. That is analogous to a basketball team trailing by 40 points going on a 15 to 2 run. And even when some of the less belligerent of this group admit that there is a problem they remain steadfast in their opposition to legislation that would reduce greenhouse gasses, insisting it would cost too much and damage our economy irrevocably. Still some maintain that global warming is not a threat to our existence not because of any data, but because the world will end only when Jesus returns. Apparently the vast majority of these Christians have not figured it out that global warming doesn’t have to necessarily destroy the planet or kill off all human civilization; only severely harm both. The fact that we are stewards of the planet as well as our wallets, and as such are no less accountable before God for its condition, is too much for their limited minds to comprehend.

So, as you can see, I am right back where I started. What do we stand for? Perhaps, a better question would be not what we stand for, but what are we willing to do about what we know in our hearts to be true? Do we stand idly by, like spectators, waiting for someone else to stand up and make a difference? Do we hide behind our narrow political differences, and in the process advance the enemy’s agenada?

I have said many times that my favorite book in the Bible is the Epistle of James. I refer to it as the action book. For all the talk that Christians do about praying and waiting on the Lord, I have always found it amazing that the good works of the Bible came not by waiting on God, but by stepping out in faith. While it is true that we cannot “earn” our way into heaven, it is equally true that our actions define our faith. Who we are is the direct result of what we do. Are we walking the walk or just merely talking the talk? If it is true that faith without works is meaningless, than sadly many of us have led a meaningless existence.

But it is not too late to make our voices heard. We can help our fellow man by doing what we can to advance His calling. We can contact our elected officials in Washington and tell them how we feel about healthcare, the use of torture, global warming, etc. If we act we can make a difference and advance the Kingdom. Failure could lead to millions of Americans needlessly suffering, the continued undermining of our Constitutional beliefs and values, and the erosion of our environment. If that happens woe to all of us - the good, the bad and the indifferent - who stood by and did nothing but watch.

2009-10-23T18:13:00.017-04:00

Slant Right

As Fox News continues to reap profits from selling crazy to its audience, its competitors follow along for the ride.

That Fox News – and I use the term News loosely and only to distinguish and separate the division from Fox Network, you know the people who brought you The Simpsons and Family Guy – should be accused of not being a news organization by the White House, is hardly, no pun intended, newsworthy. To those of us who have had the "privilege" of tuning in from time to time – just for entertainment value mind you – that fact was already self evident.

That it took the Obama Administration so long to realize that this 24 /7 tabloid operation would never relent in its constant badgering of it and therefore finally found it necessary to deploy that age old football axiom of letting a good offense be its best defense was the real news story. Claims by Fox of Nixonian tactics are juvenile and irrelevant. Every president since Teddy Roosevelt has used the bully pulpit to his advantage, including the last one, who never passed up an opportunity to dismiss and lock out any journalists he felt were leaning too hard on him or just plain calling him out. All Obama did was state the obvious to a nation, most of which probably replied something like “Duh” when it heard the news. For the record Obama did not deny them access to the White House Press Room or revoke their credentials. What he did, if you’ll pardon the crude analogy, was call a spade a spade.

And so the injured party, just to prove the point, has spent the better part of this week pounding the Administration harder than ever. In a Newsweek op-ed piece called “The O’Garbage Factor: Fox News isn’t just bad. It’s un-American,” Jacob Weisberg ripped the network for its tactics, writing:

“Any news organization that took its responsibilities seriously would take pains to cover presidential criticism fairly. It would regard doing so as itself a test of integrity. At Fox, by contrast, complaints of unfairness prompt only hoots of derision and demands for ‘evidence’ that, when presented, is brushed off and ignored.”

As of this morning, foxnews.com had as its number one story: “Will Gov’t-Run Health Care Become a Case of …FATAL ATTRACTION?” Underneath the headline is the Fox Forum, which reads: “YOU can still stop Obamacare.” Find me another network that has a ridiculous forum like that and actually has the audacity to refer to itself as a news organization. Even the one lone bright spot regarding the Obama Administration’s attempt to “exclude” Fox from interviewing its Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg being rightly thwarted by the Washington bureau chiefs deteriorated into the usual “it’s all about us” article. Not one question about Feinberg’s role or what he intends to do in the position is anywhere to be found. If you were looking for any information about that, you had to turn to other “news” sources. For instance, did you know that Feinberg is looking to “trim” AIG bonuses as well as other executives pay? Not if you were looking at Fox News, you wouldn’t. I googled Feinberg’s name and without exception every newsworthy item about him came from anywhere but Fox. At Fox News the story, as always, is about how fair and balanced they are, and how the big, bad president is out to get them. Even six year olds behave with more maturity.

Whether it’s the banal stupidity of a Steve Doocy or Gretchen Carlson masquerading as news anchors, or the lame attempt by Chris Wallace to somehow resemble his father or even a moderator, or Bill O’Reilly spinning on his “No Spin” zone, or Glenn Beck selling crazy to the bunch of space cadets he calls his audience, Fox’s “news” division has become the laughing stock of an industry that, sadly, has grown fat, dumb and lazy in its quest for the almighty ratings point. For as reprehensible as Fox News has become with regard to journalistic integrity, the rot it has spawned throughout cable news in general is far more deleterious. Weisberg elaborates:

“That Rupert Murdoch may tilt the news rightward more for commercial than ideological reasons is beside the point. What matters is the way that Fox's model has invaded the bloodstream of the American media. By showing that ideologically distorted news can drive ratings, Roger Ailes has provoked his rivals at CNN and MSNBC to develop a variety of populist and ideological takes on the news. In this way, Fox hasn't just corrupted its own coverage. Its example has made all of cable news unpleasant and unreliable.”

In other words, it isn’t enough that Fox is killing its own viewers through its irresponsibility; its second-hand smoke, as it were, is poisoning its competitors’ audience, as well. An industry that once heralded the virtues of CBS’s Walter Cronkite, now kowtows to the likes of CNN’s John King. Probative reporting and investigative journalism have taken a back seat to the drive-by segment in which any guest is allowed to say whatever they want without fear of challenge. Truth is not the ultimate goal; ratings are. The more outlandish and provocative the guests are, the more viewers tune in.

And that is the good news. The bad news is that each of the twenty-four hour cable news channels have ostensibly filled their prime-time evening slots not with news people, but basically with ideologues. A look at the current lineup will tell you all you need to know about the state of affairs.

CNN: The Most Trusted Name in News
4:00 to 7:00 The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer
7:00 to 8:00 Lou Dobbs
8:00 to 9:00 Campbell Brown
9:00 to 10:00 Larry King Live

MSNBC: The Place for Politics
5:00 to 6:00 Hardball with Chris Matthews
6:00 to 7:00 The Ed Show with Ed Schultz
7:00 to 8:00 Hardball with Chris Matthews
8:00 to 9:00 Countdown with Keith Olbermann
9:00 to 10:00 The Rachel Maddow Show

Fox News: Fair and Balanced
5:00 to 6:00 Glenn Beck
6:00 to 7:00 Special Report with Bret Baier
7:00 to 8:00 Fox Report with Shepard Smith
8:00 to 9:00 The O’Reilly Factor
9:00 to 10:00 Hannity

Now to be truly fair and balanced - another pun? - Wolf Blitzer, Campbell Brown and Larry King are not ideologues, and probably don’t deserve the lion’s share of the blame going around here, but many of the segments on their shows do have an element that is shared by their competitors in that guests can often get volatile during interviews. As such their programs, however CNN would like to portray them as news, are more like soft-core porn to use yet another crude analogy. They get you all worked up and then leave you hanging. And while none can claim the mantle of irreverence that the Fox lineup has richly incurred, all have at one time or another unfortunately sunk to their levels to drive ratings. That I share many of the viewpoints of Olbermann and Maddow is beside the point. The integrity of the media as a whole is threatened when such a mockery is dressed up as journalism. Somewhere, Edward R. Murrow is throwing up in his grave.

This atrocity has been a long time in coming. Its genesis may have started when Fox News was launched back in 1996, but the greater issue may be moot. Not only is the proverbial genie out of the bottle, the bottle has been tossed overboard at sea and the genie is pulling for the shore. Even if it were possible to kick Fox off the air, and believe me there is scarcely a day that goes by when that thought doesn’t delight me to no end, it is doubtful that CNN and MSNBC would alter their programming. Keith Olbermann would continue to espouse Democratic opinions, Lou Dobbs would continue doing his best Glenn Beck impersonation, and Wolf Blitzer would continue saying, “We’ll have to leave it there” just as the topic started getting serious.

Oh death where is thy sting? While an industry implodes under the weight of its own incompetence, aided and abetted by the toxicity of Rupert Murdoch’s hellish monster, the remaining worthy bearers of journalistic integrity continue to dwindle to a precious few. The News Hour with Jim Lehrer is now and has been for some time the bastion of relevant and diverse political opinion unfettered by corporate greed or political agendas. Conservative and liberal ideas are treated with equal aplomb. It is refreshing to hear passionate viewpoints that do not deteriorate into divisive commentary. You will not see the likes of a Sean Hannity or Ed Schultz anywhere near its confines, nor is it likely that you will witness fake news being propagated as factual, and that is the best news of all.

I could say more about this, and will as time permits, but unfortunately my ride is here and I’m afraid I will have to leave it there. For now this closing line will have to suffice. Goodnight and good luck. Mostly good luck.

2009-10-18T23:21:00.011-04:00

Don't Ask, Don't Care

Every once in a while we get yet another example of just how hypocritical all of us can be. This appeared in The Onion quite recently and was forwarded to me by a friend. If it makes you feel uncomfortable, GOOD!

For all the high-sounding words and bible thumping that seem to emanate from the Church these days, this op-ed piece lays bare our empty rhetoric and reminds us all that we still have a long way to go both as a nation and as a faith.

Conviction is good for the soul.

Opinion

If God Had Wanted Me To Be Accepting Of Gays, He Would Have Given Me The Warmth And Compassion To Do So

By Jane Kendricks October 13, 2009 Issue 45•42

I don't question God. The Lord is my Shepherd and I shall put none above Him. Which is why I know that if it were part of God's plan for me to stop viciously condemning others based solely on their sexual preference, He would have seen fit—in His infinite wisdom and all—to have given me the tiniest bit of human empathy necessary to do so.

It's a simple matter of logic, really. God made me who I am, and who I am is a cold, anti-gay zealot. Thus, I abhor gay people because God made me that way. Why is that so hard to understand?

Here, let's start with the basic facts: I hate and fear gay people. The way they feel is different from how I feel, and that causes me a lot of confusion and anger. Everyone knows God is all-powerful. He could easily have given me the capacity to investigate what's behind those feelings rather than tell strangers in the park they're going to hell for holding hands. But God clearly has another path for me. And who am I to question His divine will?

Compassion, tolerance, understanding, basic decency, the ability to put myself in another person's position: God could have endowed me with any of those traits and yet—here is the crucial part—He didn't. Why? Because the Creator of the Universe wants me to demonize homosexuals in an effort to strip them of their fundamental human rights.

I'm sorry, but you can't possibly ask me to explain everything God does. He works in mysterious ways, remember?

Try to understand. If I were capable of thinking and acting any other way, then I'm sure I would, but God seems to be quite adamant about this one. He's just not budging at all. So unless our almighty Lord and Savior decides to change His mind about my ability to empathize on even the most basic level—which I find highly unlikely—then everyone is just going to have to accept the fact that I'm going to keep on hating homosexuals. And I know that He will fill me with the strength to remain mindless and hurtful in the face of adversity.

Which isn't to say that my faith hasn't been tested. Believe me, there have been times when I've drifted from the bitter and terrified life God has chosen for me. When my younger brother told me he was gay, it shook my faith to its very core. But here I am, 27 years later, still refusing to take his calls. Just the way God intended.

It's actually pretty astonishing how many complaints to the school board you can make regarding the new band teacher you've never met when you are filled with the Light of Christ and devoid of any real kindness or mercy toward His other children.

At the end of the day, I'm just trying to lead a good Christian life. That means going to church on Sunday, following the Ten Commandments, and fighting what I believe to be a sexual abomination through a series of petty actions and bitter comments made under my breath. Sure, I sometimes wish God would just reach into my heart and give me the ability to treat all people with, at the very least, the decency and respect they deserve as human beings. But unfortunately for that new couple who moved in three houses down, He hasn't yet.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have God's work to do.

2009-10-16T00:27:00.007-04:00

Snowe Job

How Senate Democrats Capitulated on Principles to Get a Meaningless Vote.

In the end they didn’t even need Olympia Snowe’s vote. The Senate Finance Committee passed the Baucus Healthcare Reform Bill 14 to 9. Snowe’s “yes” vote, it turns out, was window dressing. The Democrats had enough votes to pass it without her. To court her approval and call the bill “bipartisan” the Democrats scuttled every meaningful initiative such as the public option, employer mandates, meaningful penalties for people who fail to buy insurance, and allowed for up to 17 million people to be without coverage, not to mention no cap on insurance premiums, meaning that insurance companies are now free to pass along the added costs to their customers. All that for one lone Republican vote. Jon Stewart summed it up best. “So her vote made it 14 to 9 instead of 13 to 10? They didn’t even need her vote? Well good thing they gutted the whole f*****g bill!” And you wonder why Washington is broken?

Never has a political party with so much leverage acted so sheepishly in the midst of such a national dilemma. With millions of its citizens priced out of affordable healthcare and millions more precariously under-insured, the Senate Finance Committee acted more like a teenage boy trying to woo a teenage girl to a prom dance than a deliberative body taking on a serious challenge to our nation’s well being.

“Will you go out to the prom with me, will ya, please? What’s that, not unless I wear that light-blue geeky suit that everybody makes fun of and throws fruit at? Well OK, but only if you let me give you a goodnight kiss. What’s that, only on the cheek? Well, OK! And we’re really not going steady, you say? OK, I can handle that.”

And while it is true that the Baucus bill will be merged with the other Senate bill and then reconciled with the House bill, all signs, sadly, point to a final bill that will inevitably end up resembling in some manner the Baucus bill. In other words they went to all this trouble to get Snowe so that they could show the world they were serious about bipartisanship, they aren’t about to throw her back into the sea of political oblivion. When you make your bed with the devil, as the Democrats have done, you lie in it, no matter what.

And after all the capitulation on the part of Baucus and his fellow blue dogs, the Insurance industry issued a report critical of the bill and threatened to raise premiums by 110%. While Baucus and other Democrats blasted the report and a spokesman for AARP said it was not “worth the paper it’s written on,” the simple truth is that the bill, as constructed, has no provisions within it to prevent the very hikes the industry is threatening. Nice job guys!

The United States Senate’s new slogan should read as follows: “Abandon hope all ye who enter this chamber.” For that is exactly what happens when anything of real meaning gets debated in the Senate: hope flees the building like fish from a net. And it isn’t just the Senate where hope goes to die. Apparently the executive branch is infected with the malady as well. President Barack Obama practically drooled all over himself in adulation of the Maine Senator, calling her vote “a critical milestone.” Critical milestone for whom? The insurance cartel? New York Senator Chuck Schumer has said that if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid puts the public option in the final bill, it would take 60 votes to take it out.

Unfortunately for Schumer that would require some semblance of testicular fortitude on the part of Reid, and that is a quality sorely missing from the majority leader. Indeed it is a quality sorely missing from a good number of Democratic senators these days. And that is why a meaningful healthcare reform bill that insures all people, eliminates pre-existing conditions, keeps insurance companies from dropping customers who have the audacity of getting too sick, prevents those same insurance companies from passing on the added costs to their customers, and reduces overall healthcare costs for the millions of people presently covered by insurance plans is looking bleaker and bleaker with each passing day. No one doubts that a bill will be signed into law; the real issue is whether it will be a good bill and whether it will ultimately make a difference in the lives of millions of Americans.

No wonder the insurance industry is still brazenly spreading vicious lies about healthcare reform and issuing threats about massive rate hikes. Who’s going to stop them? The big bad-assed Democratic Party? Please! Not even the threat of losing its anti-trust exemption has managed to make this juggernaut’s knees quiver. They are defiant and steadfast to the last. And while they continue to earn billions in profits and the Right continues to be their public relations’ arm, the country turns to a political party that is as bereft of backbone as any political party in history. The Democrats’ failure to stand up and seize the opportunity afforded them by their huge advantage in numbers is both mind numbing and disgraceful. In spite of overwhelming support in the House for a public option, not to mention the vast majority of Americans, Senate Democrats seem hell bent on caving in to a false spirit of bipartisanship and selling out the country for a cause their opponents could care less about, and all while an industry sits by laughing at and double daring them in open defiance.

2009-10-10T01:02:00.007-04:00

A Nobel Endeavor

What America’s real challenge will be in the twenty-first century.

The announcement Friday morning that President Barack Obama had won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was both shocking and, yes, undeserved. For in the final analysis, the award was mostly symbolic, as the deadline for consideration came less than two weeks into his administration. And to be fair, some of the past recipients of the award have had checkered histories. What can you say when the virtues of a Mother Teresa and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. share the stage with the likes of a Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat? That so many people got so worked up was understandable but unnecessary. Because what so many people are missing here – particularly the Far Right – is that far from heralding a litany of accomplishments, the award represents the hope that America may be ready to finally assume the mantle of leadership the world so desperately needs. That hope was ushered in the moment Barack Obama took the oath of office on the steps of the Capital.

I have written at great length about the titanic battle between fundamentalism and pluralism, not just in America but within the world, and my hope that the latter would eventually win out. But an even greater battle is taking place between neo-conservativism and multiculturalism and the presidency of Barack Obama represents what many hope is a turning point in our history. For too often, the United States has operated on the world stage like it was its moral compass and police force. Direct engagement meant armed conflict. For most of the twentieth century, America arrogantly presumed it knew what was best not only for its own interests but for just about everybody else’s too. It behaved as though the rest of the world was too primitive and backward to understand what it was trying to do. Extending its hegemony throughout the globe may have been sold to gullible Americans as exporting democracy, but what was really going on behind the scenes resembled more a raping of indigenous cultural values and an instilling of a series of fraudulent regimes that owed their allegiance not to their respective citizenry but to Washington D.C. Over the last few decades that arrogant policy helped ignite a growing rage against the United States, which has witnessed a plethora of anti-American sentiment in the very nations it had co-opted. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a case study in how not to conduct a foreign policy. The Islamic revolution that took place in 1978 was brought about in large part due to U.S. intervention in the country in the first place. Decades of propping up a corrupt regime led to a build up of fundamentalist sentiment that culminated in the collapse of the Shah and the creation of the current government. To this day, many Iranians, even those who desire greater freedoms, are suspicious of American intentions. That President Obama decided not to interfere in the election controversy that occurred earlier this year is indicative of the new direction U.S. foreign policy seems to be taking.

Even during its isolationist periods before each of the World Wars, the U.S. acted more like the snob Ivy Leaguer thumbing his nose at the Community College graduate. It was not so much that America respected the sovereignty of the rest of the world; rather it was more like America was too big to concern itself with the world’s trivial conflicts. It was not until those trivial conflicts impacted its interests directly than its indifference gave way to a far more officious attitude. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 resulted not from any lack of military preparedness within the nation but from a lack of a thorough understanding of world politics and the nation’s proper place on its stage. In both instances, the U.S. believed that it was untouchable and that the global conflicts that were taking place were largely benign to it. In both instances it was rudely awakened.

For most of its 200 plus years America has pivoted between two seemingly extreme juxtapositions: isolationist detachment and imperialist nation building. Both have had dire consequences for its national image and its long-term interests. Whether one believes that Barack Obama is up to the challenge or not, it appears as though, for the first time since Jefferson, the nation has a president that isn’t willing to allow either world view to be its modus operandi. Constructive engagement need not lead to armed excursions resulting in the overthrow of legitimate, if odious, governments in order to be effective. Developing trusting and meaningful relationships with allies who have common interests and working with them to obtain mutually beneficial results can be far more effective and far less costly.

Much has been made of Theodore Roosevelt’s domestic policies, which helped put an end to much of the financial monopolization that was strangling the nation’s economy, but with respect to his foreign policy he was nothing less than an American imperialist, hell bent on global domination, and every president since has, one way or another, adopted Roosevelt’s mantra. The big stick, cowboy diplomacy that shaped so much of our history has run its course. The world isn’t buying it anymore; worse they’re demanding a refund of most of what they did buy in the past. There is only so much good will a pair of Air Jordans can get you in downtown Tehran.

Neo-conservatives worry about a loss of American prestige and respect, as though America had any prestige and respect left to lose. It cannot accept a world in which America doesn’t own Boardwalk and Park Place with at least two hotels a piece on them. The specter of an America that leads not by dominating the world, but by being a team player within its confines, frightens them to no end. They see multiculturalism as a threat to U.S. hegemony and all Western values and beliefs. What they fail to see is that those very same values and beliefs are already threatened by an overextended military presence that is resented and despised by most of the world, even in those parts who support our interests.

The real challenge for Barack Obama and the United States is to break free of the 200 year-old paradigm of foreign policy that has shaped our history and defined our existence as a nation. We must redefine what true leadership means as it pertains to global expansionism. Exporting democracy at the point of a gun or the barrel of a canon does not work anymore. The world needs an American presence that is proactive rather than provocative; that is respectful rather than condescending; that seeks to understand rather than to be understood; that upholds the very truths it declares to be self evident; that places principles before profits and honors all citizens of the world, even those who aren’t particularly fond of us.

This does not mean we lie down as a people and allow hostile nations and groups free reign to attack us. Pacifism is no substitute for imperialism. When legitimate threats are posed, we have the right to defend ourselves. Our mistake after 9/11 wasn’t that we weren’t outraged at the heinous act committed against us; it was our failure to seize the opportunity afforded us to go after those truly responsible and at the same time forge a partnership with moderate elements within the Muslim world to eradicate the nemesis once and for all. Because we went it alone, we alone incurred the wrath of a region. Why seek partnerships when being a cowboy had worked so well in the past. Not even John Wayne would’ve been so foolhardy.

Well the past is over and the future is at hand. It is time for the United States to join the twenty-first century and rise up out of the ashes of its imperialist past and join the human community. We do not lose our sovereignty by yielding to other nation’s sovereignty. The respect we gain by playing by the rules, instead of trying to dictate them, will gain us more cooperation in the long run, advance our causes, defeat the enemies of liberty that seek to destroy us, and lead to a far more secure planet for all to live.

The President was gracious in accepting the honor accorded him. "I will accept this award as a call to action," he said. "This award must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity." It was refreshing to hear a president speak of justice and dignity in a macro setting and who looks to include others. If he can abandon all of the follies of his predecessor - and that means not just renouncing torture publicly, but prosecuting those who committed it, as well as respecting habeas corpus for all - he may yet deliver on the promise of the Nobel Committee. For our sake he had better not fail.

2009-10-08T07:45:00.004-04:00

It's Been a Wonderful Journey!

To my dearest and most loving companion, Maria.

15 years ago we said “I Do” before God, our family and our friends. We've gone through a lot and accomlished so much together. And while the years may have flown by, I still remember how beautiful you looked walking down that aisle. I was the luckiest man in the church that day; 15 years later I still am.

Happy anniversary, honey!

You know how I love music; well I think this song sums up how I feel about you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ga9Bs4fzSY

I'll Never Find Another You.

There's a new world somewhere
They call The Promised Land
And I'll be there some day
If you will hold my hand
I still need you there beside me
No matter what I do
For I know I'll never find another you

There is always someone
For each of us they say
And you'll be my someone
Forever and a day
I could search the whole world over
Until my life is through
But I know I'll never find another you

It's a long, long journey
So stay by my side
When I walk through the storm
You'll be my guide, be my guide

If they gave me a fortune
My treasure would be small
I could lose it all tomorrow
And never mind at all
But if I should lose your love, dear
I don't know what I'll do
For I know I'll never find another you

Another you,
Another you!

2009-10-07T23:12:00.004-04:00

Shame On You!

Well it’s time for this month’s winners of the "Shame on You" celebrity under-achievement contest. As always, the nominees were tough to narrow down, but I did my best, hopefully, to hit the nail on the head.

The envelope please:

First place this month goes to the entire Far Right for their disgusting display of fake patriotism in response to the news that Chicago had lost its bid to host the 2016 Olympics. From Fox News to Rush Limbaugh to Drudge to Glenn Beck to the Americans for Prosperity, it was a virtual free for all for the wingnuts when they found out that the I.O.C. had eliminated Chicago on the first ballot. The Americans for Prosperity erupted in a thunderous applause upon hearing the news; Limbaugh mocked, “The ego has landed;” and Matt Drudge’s headline proclaimed: “World Rejects Obama.” Shameless is a word in a half. It’s one thing to “hate” Obama; it’s quite another to root against your own country and then applaud when it gets eliminated. I have said everything I care to about what I consider to be the national malignancy that is the Far Right, but this time they collectively went above and beyond and took the cake. Fox News actually spent the better part of Friday afternoon talking about how wonderful Rio was compared to the corruption and crime of Chicago.

Later attempts to “suggest” that their jubilance was aimed only at Obama and was not indicative of any ainti-American rooting were weak at best. After spending much of the summer manufacturing rage against healthcare reform through intimidation, manipulation and fear mongering, this latest spectacle is yet another sad chapter in the annals of a movement that is about as insular and xenophobic as any movement in modern history. Go away, just go away!

Our runner up is Betsy McCaughey. The former Lieutenant Governor of New York, who played a major role in defeating healthcare reform back in 1994, and who coined the phrase “death panel” that Sarah Palin took and ran with, has once more outdone herself with an “op-ed” piece in the New York Post, titled: The “Kill Granny” Bill. In it she once more resorts to the same fear-mongering that has defined most of her fellow colleagues by suggesting that “the Senate Finance Committee bill robs the elderly to cover the uninsured -- like snatching purses from little old ladies." She actually quotes a doctor who predicts that if this bill is passed, “The only doctors left in Medicare will be those willing to ration care and practice cookbook medicine." The doctor’s name? David McKalip, the neurosurgeon who forwarded email pictures of President Obama dressed up as a witch doctor in a loin-cloth and headdress with bones in his nose. McKalip was eventually forced to step down from his position as president-elect of the Pinellas County Medical Association for his racist act. This was the expert McCaughey felt obliged to quote.

McCaughey “resigned” herself from her position as a director of Cantel Medical Corp. one day after her interview with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, in which Stewart read her out when she tried to spin the death panel claims, calling her ideas “hyperbolic and dangerous.” The highpoint of the interview was when McCaughey couldn’t even find the very section of the bill she was trying to misquote! There is a very special and warm place set aside in hell for this lady, and God help me for saying it, she can’t get there fast enough for my taste.

But bringing up the rear is a surprise entry: Alan Grayson. His comments on the floor of the House of Representatives were inappropriate, pure and simple. No matter ones views on healthcare reform – and the truth is that the Republican Party as a whole has not had any tangible or substantive contribution to it other than to state its unequivocal opposition to it - using a platform to suggest that Republicans want you to die quicker or that the current state of healthcare in the United States, no matter how dire, is equivalent to the holocaust is disingenuous at best and does a disservice to the cause of meaningful reform. Worse, it gave the wingnuts on the Far Right more ammunition to attack yet again the very thing we all assume Grayson and most intelligent people actually want. Furthermore, while Grayson’s rage was aimed at his Republican colleagues, he conveniently left out the Blue-Dog Democrats, many of who have taken tens of thousands of dollars of contributions from insurance companies over the last few years and are now the number one stumbling block to a Public Option in the Senate Bill.

That’s right, representative Grayson, it’s the Democrats who are killing true and meaningful reform. They have enough votes in the Senate if all of them voted as one. But because many of them, including Max Baucus – a Democrat! - have been in the pocket of corporate lobbyists for years, more Americans will needlessly die this year because they don’t have affordable healthcare insurance. Bill Maher was right. “Every time Obama tries to take on a progressive cause, there’s a major political party standing in his way: the Democrats. We don’t have a left and a right party in this country any more; we have a center-right party and a crazy party. Democrats are the new Republicans.” The guys in the movie “Dumb and Dumber” have nothing on Alan Grayson and the whole Democratic Party. I’m going to borrow a line from this blog that I swore I would never again invoke, because I feel it is fitting. Stupid is as stupid does. Way to go Alan!

2009-10-02T01:08:00.012-04:00

Unfair and Unhinged:

When Right is Wrong.

Over the last few months, and indeed for most of this year, I have been writing about what I consider to be a growing malignancy within the country. This malignancy has been relentless and single-minded in its intentions. It refers to itself as conservative, yet it betrays everything responsible conservatives have been about for decades; it refers to itself as Godly, yet there is nothing Godlike about it; it refers to liberals as fascists, yet its actions expose a fascist tendency within its ranks that is unmistakable; it refers to itself as patriotic, yet with every vile and twisted stunt it pulls it reveals itself to be a threat to the very Constitution it claims to love and support; it claims to have the facts on its side, yet it is largely ignorant of anything even remotely resembling the facts; it claims to be on the side of the middle class, yet it is in bed with entities whose interests are injurious to such folk; it claims to love liberty, yet through its racist and xenophobic tendencies it seeks to deprive the less fortunate of the very liberties that it enjoys; it speaks of bringing democracy to the world; yet its actions at home belie its rhetoric; it talks about freedom of speech, yet it seeks to stamp out all who disagree with it; it rallies its supporters to “take back” its country, yet doesn’t realize or doesn’t care that to do so would destroy the very country it wishes to take back.

I have called this malignancy many things: the far Right, the Christian Right, the lunatic Right, the conservative Right, the fascist Right, or just plain old Right. In any incarnation one cares to call it, it is the single greatest threat to the future of our Republic. I call it relentless and single-minded, because that is what it has become. It is now a twenty-four hour, seven day a week, fifty-two week a year, year in year out fixation that has defined not just a major political party, but virtually anything right of center in the country. It is consumed with its own self-righteous rage and contempt for anything not of its own ilk, and openly threatens violence against any and all who oppose it. Its obsession with this current President has become a case study in paranoia. Through its agents - Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and the rest of the rat pack - it has been on a non-stop crusade to berate and disparage everything he says or does.

There has been an astounding lack of respect for this President that has seen no equal in history. Bill Clinton may have been despised by the Republicans, but he was never subjected to such utter contempt. Riotous mobs who show up at town-hall meetings some with loaded weapons, shouting down anyone who dares to have a differing opinion from theirs; Republican Congressmen and Senators who encourage continued contempt for the President at these town-hall meetings by not correcting attendees who shout out flat out lies and threats, many nodding in agreement with the absurdities; fake Tea Parties and D.C. rallies decrying what they think is socialism that sport racists signs and are whipped up into a lather by “fair and balanced” correspondents, are all part of the script. Stoking the emotions of ignorant citizens through deliberate misinformation and fear mongering is part of a greater effort to blame everything that happens on Obama. This is leading to a vitriol tide that is sweeping across this country like a tsunami coming ashore. Wave after wave continue to pound the body politic of our nation, until the water is completely and irrevocably polluted. No matter what this President does, he’s wrong for doing it. The attempt to capture the 2016 Olympics for Chicago is yet another example of damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. The constant barrage of hate from the far Right is taking its toll.

I have mentioned the increase in death threats against the President that the Secret Service has had to contend with; witness now the latest threat to appear on facebook in the form of an “opinion poll” titled: “Should Obama Be Killed?” The choices were a) yes; b) maybe, c) if he cuts my healthcare; or d) no. The poster of the poll didn’t even have the courtesy to use the word assassinate. The reluctance to even acknowledge the Office was almost as bad as the threat itself. Recently newsmax.com ran a column by John L. Perry – one can only wonder what the L stands for - that suggested the military “will intervene as a last resort to resolve the Obama problem.” While the column was pulled from the site, an official retraction or apology was never issued by newsmax.com.

Where is the moral indignation and condemnation from supposedly responsible conservatives over these acts of sedition? True enough Lindsey Graham recently came out against Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly, accusing Beck of cynicism: "Only in America can you make that much money crying." It remains to be seen what price Graham will pay for speaking his mind. And therein lies the problem. When legitimate attempts are made to call out this madness they are met by the usual objections from the Right as infringement of First Amendment rights, and dismissed from the center as over reacting to a largely innocuous trend. CNN practically belittled Bill Clinton's interview on Meet The Press in which he described the vast right-wing conspiracy that plagued him during his administration as alive and well. "It's not as strong as it was, because America's changed demographically, but it's as virulent as it was." Thomas Friedman’s op-ed piece in The New York Times, however, speaks to this insanity and is quite on point.

“I have no problem with any of the substantive criticism of President Obama from the Right or Left. But something very dangerous is happening. Criticism from the far Right has begun tipping over into delegitimation and creating the same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of the Rabin assassination. Even if you are not worried that someone might draw from these vitriolic attacks a license to try to hurt the President, you have to be worried about what is happening to American politics more broadly.”

RNC Chair Michael Steele responded by calling Friedman “a nut job.” He then defended recent conservative protests, and warned Friedman and others against drawing a connection between outrage at the President’s policies and implications of racism or threats of violence. That Steele was adamant about deflecting criticism over the Right’s actions was typical; that no one is challenging him and others on the Right, save for the rare brave voice, is appalling. Lost in Steele’s denial of any wrongdoing was any effort on his part to reject such vitriolic demonstrations as not representing the Republican Party or being in the best interest of serving the country. And that is the problem in a nutshell. You can’t criticize the bus driver when you’re still allowing him to drive the bus. The lack of any responsible voices on the Right and the inability or unwillingness of more moderate conservatives to rise up against this malignancy is the real heart of the matter.

To quote Jeremiah 5:21, “Hear this, you foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear.” What we are witnessing is a pivotal moment in our nation’s history and I am very much afraid that we are headed towards a national tragedy. Friedman’s warning, if it is not heeded, will have dire consequences for all of us. For regardless of Party affiliation or political leanings, there is no room for out and out hatred and violent rhetoric. Those who use our airwaves to spew hate should not be allowed to hide behind the First Amendment. While the press enjoys protection under this Amendment, there is no such protection for broadcasters like News Corp. and Citadel Broadcasting, which own Fox News and WABC A.M. respectively. The airwaves, under FCC rules, are licensed by the government to private corporations for the expressed purposes of serving the community. The assumption is that this public trust will be honored by the broadcasters and will not be used irresponsibly. When that trust is violated, there are consequences. In 1978 the Supreme Court ruled against Pacifica Radio for airing a George Carlin bit uncensored. The FCC argued that Pacifica Radio was guilty of obscenity; Pacifica claimed freedom of speech under the First Amendment, to no avail. Which is worse, hearing George Carlin say the word “shit” or listening to wingnuts repeatedly incite their minions to possible acts of violence?

To those who claim that this is nothing more than censorship, I say get real. There is an enormous difference between legitimate political commentary and the kind of antics Glenn Beck pulls on his cable show. I have broached this subject before, so forgive me for repeating myself. It is time to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine to ensure that there truly is a fair and balanced message that is being heard by the masses. Talk shows that lean considerably to one side of the political spectrum may seem entertaining at first but they are launch pads for people who don’t need much of an excuse for going off the deep end in the first place. There are responsible news outlets out there: PBS has been doing a yeoman’s job for decades discussing the major issues of the day with civility. Passion needn’t give way to extremism in order to be free. With great freedom comes great responsibility. Imagine the target market for Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity being constantly bombarded by hate. Now imagine, if you will, if these blowhards had to devote a segment of their shows to a less volatile and inflammatory opinion. Still think we would’ve seen the riotous Tea Party scenes and raucous town halls in August? Do you think we could’ve had a serious discussion on the budget and health care instead of talk on death panels and socialist tyranny?

Enabling deeply disturbed and emotionally wounded people by convincing them that big brother is their sworn enemy and then encouraging them to take back their government by any means necessary, even if it means killing its “supreme leader” is not what our Founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. Allowing deranged personalities to speak on behalf of your interests and then calling those who call you out on it “nut jobs” is cowardice. That no one within the ranks of this cancer has stepped up and made a concerted effort to thwart such irresponsible conduct implies consent. No other conclusion is possible.

It therefore must fall on those of us who are responsible, be they Democrat or Republican to say, “Enough is enough!” If we start now, we can send this message, loud and clear, that violent rhetoric and sedition are not to be tolerated. One is free to agree or disagree with their duly elected government officials, and to peaceably protest when they wish to; one is not entitled to threaten aggression against such officials or to whip up into a frenzy the ignorant and the gullible merely because they lost an election.

Of all the speeches Abraham Lincoln made, none seem more moving and appropriate for our time than the one he delivered on the occasion of his first inaugural. His closing words are worth noting here.

“If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there is still no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way, all our present difficulty. In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being you yourselves the aggressors. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

May the peace and courage of our Lord be with us as we move forward in His name!

2009-09-28T08:11:00.005-04:00

The Way We Never Were

How nostalgia and perception clouds our understanding of who we are and how we came to be.

Lately I’ve had the occasion to reflect at great length on what I see in our society as a growing fondness for the way things used to be. It’s called nostalgia, and while it is not a new phenomenon, it has grown into a national obsession over the last few months.

Simply stated nostalgia is defined as a longing for the past, a sort of homesickness if you will that borders on romanticism. Those who suffer from its effects often have feelings of melancholy about change and often react morbidly when confronted with the fact that no matter how hard they try, they cannot return to the past. And even when they reflect fondly back upon it, their recollection of how things were is skewed by a distorted perception.

I have been a victim of nostalgia myself and quite recently. Earlier this month, for instance, my wife and I went on vacation to San Francisco for the occasion of our fifteenth wedding anniversary. We had gone there for our honeymoon and thought it would be nice to “relive” the experience. The city did not disappoint; it was magnificent, just as it was back in 1994. North Beach, China Town, Fisherman’s Wharf, Golden Gate Park, the Muir Woods, Berkeley, the cable cars, and both the Oakland Bay and Golden Gate bridges. It was breath taking. To say I was sad to leave would be an understatement. As it began to dawn on me Friday that we would be leaving the next day, I couldn’t help but wonder where the time had gone; and, as we sat on the grass of Washington Square Park, I was hoping that this moment my wife and I were experiencing would last forever. It was as though I wanted time to stop moving forward, just so we could always stay right where we were in our vacation. But time doesn’t stand still; it keeps on moving forward no matter how hard we resist. The problem with the present is that it all too quickly becomes the past, and all you are left with are memories. Like it or not, my wife and I boarded the plane for home the next day. Exit vacation stage left; enter reality.

Looking around the political landscape of the country these days, I see an awful lot of people who have been caught up in a nostalgic haze. For them it isn’t so much a longing for a longer lasting vacation, but rather for a return to a time when things were simpler and less chaotic. People left their doors unlocked, children walked to school without supervision, people stood on their own two feet, father knew best, and everyone left it to Beaver.

Compare and contrast those times with today and it is easy to understand how some might be caught up in an over zealous melancholy. Home invasion, children being abducted, welfare fraud, South Park and Family Guy. Yes, I suppose if those two extremes were presented to me, I might tend to agree that today’s world is no match for yesterday’s. The good old days are pretty tough to beat aren’t they?

Gladys Knight once said, “Come to think about it, as bad as we think they are these will become the good old days for our children.” Those words were the opening lines in a remake of the classic Barbra Streisand song “The Way We Were.” Knight sang that song in 1975, more than thirty years ago. Those children are now fully grown, many of them with children of their own. I was one of those children that grew up in the ‘70s, and while I have no children of my own, I have often thought about that time in my life. Was it really that much better? Or did it just feel that way? Knight goes on in the prologue of the song, “Why does it always seem that the past is better? We look back and we think the winters were warmer, the grass was greener, the skies were bluer, and smiles were brighter.” And then she begins to sing the first verse of the song:

Can it be that it was all so simple then?
Or has time rewritten every line?
And if we had the chance to do it all again
Tell me
Would we?
Could we?

Deep down we know what the real answers are. The problem, however, is that reality is not what we’re looking for. It never is. Like me on that vacation last week, I wanted no part of reality. All I wanted was for my good time to keep going on. Returning home and going back to work was not something I was looking forward to, no matter how essential it was. My perception was not based on facts but fantasy. The fantasy was that we could stay in San Francisco forever on vacation without a care in the world; the facts were that we could never have afforded to stay there indefinitely and we both needed to return to work in order to pay for the vacation we had just enjoyed. To the rational mind, facts, no matter how inconvenient or unpopular, eventually win out over fantasy.

But since perception, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, it can often become twisted and distorted over the years. We conveniently forget the bad times we lived through, and choose only to remember the good ones. When thinking about history we forget about the McCarthyism and segregation of the ‘50s, the Vietnam War and the riots of the ‘60s, or the political scandals and runaway inflation of the ‘70s. No matter how many episodes we watch of Ozzie and Harriet, Gunsmoke or the Carol Burnett Show, nothing but our selective amnesia can hide the painful truth that most of what we believe and know of the past has been influenced not by real events, but by our distorted perceptions of them.

That the good old days weren’t that much better than the present is a truth we simply don’t want to hear, because it means facing up the realities of a complex, and sometimes upside down world. We may have wanted the world in which Robert Young and Jane Wyatt had it all together, everybody got along, and hardship never darkened their door, but deep down we were smart enough to know that life more closely resembled the world in which Carroll O’Connor and Jean Stapleton headed up a dysfunctional family that argued constantly and was mired in the controversies of the day. The two worlds of Father Knows Best and All in the Family were about as stark a dichotomy as any imaginable. The former represents our fantasy; the latter our reality. They were separated by two decades, yet they may as well have been in different galaxies as far as anyone could tell. Fantasy often seems real until you wake up in the morning and find the light of the new day shining brightly upon your face.

Take good old-fashioned self-reliance for example. Sociologist Stephanie Coontz in her book, The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap, wrote that “most Americans agree that prior to federal ‘interference’ in the 1930s, the self-reliant family was the standard social unit of our society. Dependencies used to be cared for within the ‘natural family economy,’ and even today the healthiest families ‘stand on their own two feet.’ The fact is, however, that depending on support beyond the family has been the rule rather than the exception in American history, despite recurring myths about individual achievement and family enterprise. It is true that public aid has become less local and more impersonal over the past two centuries … but Americans have been dependent on collective institutions beyond the family, including government, from the very beginning.”

Coontz goes on to expose yet another myth about self-reliance, this time with respect to the American West. “Prairie farmers and other pioneer families owed their existence to massive federal land grants, government-funded military mobilizations that dispossessed hundreds of Native American societies and confiscated half of Mexico, and state-sponsored economic investment in the new lands. Even ‘volunteers’ expected federal pay: Much of the West’s historic ‘antigovernment’ sentiment originated in discontent when settlers did not get such pay or were refused government aid for unauthorized raids on Native American territory. It would be hard to find a Western family today or at any time in the past whose land rights, transportation options, economic existence, and even access to water were not dependent on federal funds.”

Between the $15 million it spent on the Louisiana Purchase and the $200 million it spent on building canals that linked the eastern seaboard with the new settlements in the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley, government intervention and funding were critical in the development of United States hegemony in the hemisphere. The rugged, go-it-alone approach, so widely held to by many of today’s conservatives, was nothing more than a myth started by individuals who felt slighted by the government and passed on by one generation to the next in perpetuity.

And it wasn’t just the establishment of an American empire that required a massive government undertaking. By the early twentieth century most of the wealth of the nation was held in the hands of a very few powerful men like J.P. Morgan, who owned U.S. Steel, the International Mercantile Marine and controlling interests in several banks as well as most of the railroads in the country. At one point Morgan and his partners controlled aggregate resources of more than $22 billion, equal to the value of all the property in the twenty-two states west of the Mississippi River. In December 1912, Morgan testified before the Pujo Committee, a subcommittee of the House Banking and Currency committee. The committee ultimately found that a cabal of financial leaders were abusing their public trust to consolidate control over many industries. The findings of the committee inspired public support for ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, passage of the Federal Reserve Act that same year, and passage of the Clayton Antitrust Act in 1914. Government intervention, far from being intrusive, was essential in the break up of the Trusts and in restoring the level playing field needed for a truly competitive market.

The establishment of National Parks such as Yellowstone and Yosemite was yet another example of reality triumphing over myth; the myth being that government encroachment into the private sector is always disastrous. Without the protection of the federal government most of the parks that had been set aside would’ve been the victim of private development interests, their beauty lost to future generations forever.

Noted conservative and sometimes hypochondriac, Pat Buchanan, has been lamenting for some time now the loss of traditional American values and sounding the warning bells over the grave threat posed by illegal immigration.

“The European-Christian core of the country that once defined us is shrinking, as Christianity fades, the birth rate falls and Third World immigration surges. Globalism dissolves the economic bonds, while the cacophony of multiculturalism displaces the old American culture.”

Buchanan fails to see that every ethnic minority that immigrated to these shores brought with them experiences and values that were unique to this country and could not help but shape its culture. His myopia is no different than that of his predecessors who feared the Italians, the Germans, the Jews, the Irish, or the Poles. Irrational fear makes us see things that aren't really there and blinds us to the truth.

But of all the myths that have been perpetrated on the country, none have been more hideous than the idea of black poverty being tied inexorably to the disintegration of the black family. Stephanie Coontz again writes “The image of black family collapse feeds on racist stereotypes and media distortions, ignoring the diversity of African-American family life. Yet it also draws on some real, and very disturbing, trends affecting a section of black America. The most striking of these is a social and economic polarization in which poor African Americans have lost ground, both relatively and absolutely, for the past twenty years.

“Journalist Ken Auletta’s The Underclass (1982) first popularized the concept that black poverty is linked to a degraded inner-city subculture locked into self-defeating personal and familial behaviors. The argument became increasingly stark over the 1980s: Black poverty exists because black men are irresponsible, black women are immoral, and black children run wild. What African Americans need, according to what is often called ‘the new consensus,’ is not government programs but a good dose of sexual restraint, marital commitment, and parental discipline.

“No other minority got so few payoffs for sending its children to school, and no other immigrants ran into such a low job ceiling that college graduates had to become Pullman porters. No other minority was saddled with such unfavorable demographics during early migration, inherited such a deteriorating stock of housing, or was so completely excluded from industrial work during the main heyday of its expansion. And no other minority experienced the extreme ‘hypersegregation’ faced by blacks until the present. All these circumstances greatly affected African-American family life.”

Another hideous myth that is accepted as fact is “the so-called explosion of childbearing among single black women. Birth rates for black women have actually fallen by 13 percent since 1970, compared to an increase of 27 percent among unmarried white women.” Much of what we know of the African American experience in this country is based on false perceptions fed to us by a largely white media, which knows “next to nothing” about the true facts of black poverty.

In an excellent example of perception over reality consider that one of the more realistic television shows depicting a black family – at least for the first three seasons – was Good Times. It featured a conventional nuclear black family with a strong black man as the head of the household who often worked two jobs just to put food on the table and a mother who nurtured her three children and raised them to be respectful. Though poor and living barely above the poverty line, they nonetheless got by and remained intact. In every way imaginable, the show bucked the perception of racial stereotypes for black families, and by all rights should have been a hit. And yet its ratings, with the exception of season two, remained poor throughout its tenure on CBS.

By contrast, a decade later NBC launched The Cosby Show, depicting an upper middle-class black family featuring Dr. Heathcliff Huxtable and his wife, a practicing attorney, who, despite an obviously demanding schedule, manage to successfully raise their family. The show was a hit for the entire length of its run, tracking number one five seasons in a row. Many have concluded that the popularity of The Cosby Show when compared with the small appeal of Good Times was due to the fact that a larger percentage of Americans found it far more plausible to believe in a financially affluent black family that stays together than a struggling one that doesn’t fall apart. In other words, John Amos’ character of James Evans was unbelievable as a father who chose not to run out of his responsibility as a father, whereas Bill Cosby’s character of Dr. Huxtable fit right in with viewers’ expectations about a successful black father. Ironically, the producers of Good Times, in a contract dispute with Amos, decided to write him out of the series after the third season by having him die in a car accident.

So you see myths, while they have played a crucial role in our development, have also taken on a life of their own and, when carefully explored, do not hold up to the light of day. That they are still kept alive is proof that reality, despite being essential for our survival, is still way too inconvenient and sometimes just too painful to bare. But when we have the courage to wake up from our denial and embrace reality, far from consuming us, the freedom it provides, allows us to grow into the people God intended us to be.

No matter how much I may have resisted returning home from my wonderful vacation, when I woke up the next morning I was in my own bed in Long Island, New York. My melancholy would last a few days until I finally accepted my reality. I still have my nostalgic moments when I retreat into the past. Like the population, my old habits die hard. The "City By the Bay" still beckons, and no doubt Maria and I will return to it again one day. For now it remains where it has always been and must stay: 3,000 miles to the west.