Progressive Christianity & the Law

End of the Blog, A New Page

2011-10-07T15:26:00.000-07:00

Since September of 2009, I have been blogging at this site on issues at the intersection of faith and law. It has been an interesting experiment. I have had many more readers and followers than I would have ever imagined. And I appreciate the time that each reader has devoted to stop by this site to read my posts and those of the guest bloggers. Thank you.

When I began this blog, I shared with readers my struggle to find an appropriate name. Ultimately, I chose “Progressive Christianity and the Law,” but I expressed that it was not a perfect fit. As time has gone on, I have felt less and less comfortable with the “progressive” moniker. I do think that term probably describes me fairly well in many respects, but not all. Many of my progressive friends think I’m pretty conservative in some respects.

But that is beside the point. The term “progressive” in this blog’s title is modifying Christianity, not me. And I have never believed my religion to be progressive, conservative or moderate, at least not in the political sense of those terms. Those politicized terms just don’t fit well with a faith based on the resurrection of the tortured Prince of Peace who ministered to outcasts, demonstrated respect for secular authorities but had no interest in acquiring their power, and instead taught about the Kingdom of God whose values were quite at odds with earthly priorities.

As I’ve contemplated this dynamic over time, I eventually felt that I needed to put this blog to bed and start anew. To that end, this is my last post on “Progressive Christianity and the Law.”

I will continue to blog on similar faith and law topics at a newly founded blog with a slightly simpler title: “Christianity and the Law Blog.” I invite you to join me at that new blog, which can be found at: http://christianityandthelawblog.blogspot.com/.

In the meantime, I thank all the readers, commenters, and guest bloggers of this site for your attention, your engagement and your contributions. Without you, this experiment in blogging would have been pointless. Without you, it would simply have been a personal journal. I encourage you to continue your engagement at the new blog.

Peace and blessings!

Ezekiel 36:11

And I will multiply upon you man and beast, and they shall increase and bring fruit. And I will settle you according to your old estates, and will do better unto you than at your beginnings; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.

Tibetan Refugee (2004)

2011-10-04T20:34:00.000-07:00

I recently came across a short, low-budget documentary about Tibetans who have fled their homeland because of oppression by the Communist government of the People’s Republic of China. I must admit I have never followed the saga of Tibet that closely, so I gave this film a try because I wanted to learn more.

This particular film appears to have been made by novice filmmakers on a shoestring. As a result, I’m not sure I learned quite as much as I might have learned from a more expertly made film. Nonetheless, I was quite moved and would definitely recommend Tibetan Refugee to others.

The bulk of the film is simply spent interviewing Tibetans in exile in India. The vibe is less that of a documentary film, but more like a collection of Tibetans’ testimony to prove up the oppression that the People’s Republic of China claims is not happening. Common people--not celebrities--tell about their experiences in Tibet under Communist Chinese rule.

From children to young adults to older exiles, their stories are heartbreaking. Over and over again they tell of religious oppression and ethnic marginalization. Young kids tell of making the journey to India on their own because their parents wanted them to have a better life. Monks tell of torture and abuse at the hands of Communist authorities.

Over and over, inteviewees describe their dreams that motivated them to leave Tibet—they sought education and they sought the freedom to practice their religion. Those two dreams seem so simple, so basic to us in the United States. Our nation was founded on the dream of religious freedom. And despite the many serious problems we have in our educational system, there are a lot more educational options and opportunities in this country than people have in most places around the world.

I felt humbled and quite moved as I listened to the interviewees. I am not Buddhist, but I certainly sympathized with their cause. I cannot imagine being tortured for wanting to practice one’s religion openly. After watching the film, I felt gratitude that I could go to church, read my bible, display crosses in my home and talk opening about my faith. Those are privileges that not everyone around the world enjoys.

Psalm 119:134
Redeem me from the people who oppress me so I can keep your precepts.

Mary Harris Jones (a.k.a. “Mother Jones”)

2011-09-30T09:58:00.000-07:00

After reading Mother Jones magazine for the first time, I became interest in its namesake and did a little research. I learned that “Mother Jones” (the woman) had a fascinating perspective, which in many ways is actually quite apropos to the focus of this blog.

Mary Harris Jones lived a long life from 1837 until 1930.

Mary Harris was originally from Cork County, Ireland. Her family were Catholics. They were tenant farmers in Ireland. She immigrated to North America with her family as a teenager.

Miss Harris received a Catholic education in Toronto, Canada. She later worked as a teacher in a convent. Eventually, she moved south to the United States and married George E. Jones of Memphis, Tennessee. He was active in an iron molders’ union.
Early in her adult life, Mrs. Jones tragically lost her husband and all her children in a yellow fever outbreak. She had had four children. They were all under the age of five when they died. What an unimaginable loss for someone to bear.

However, Mrs. Jones apparently did not wallow in her grief. Instead, she turned her sorrow into productive outlets by pouring her considerable energies into labor organizing. “Mother Jones,” as she became known, was active in helping to form unions and was affiliated with the Socialist Party of America. She is particularly remembered for her leadership in fighting against the exploitation of child labor.

Mother Jones was apparently an effective labor leader in part because she was such a gifted orator. She was famous for using humor and spirited rhetoric to inspire audiences. Some of her more famous quotes include:

“I'm not a humanitarian, I'm a hell-raiser.”

“If they want to hang me, let them. And on the scaffold I will shout ‘Freedom for the working class!’”

“Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living.”

“Some day the workers will take possession of your city hall, and when we do, no child will be sacrificed on the altar of profit!”

“Injustice boils in men's hearts as does steel in its cauldron, ready to pour forth, white hot, in the fullness of time”

“Often while sewing for the lords and barons who lived in magnificent houses on the Lake Shore Drive, I would look out of the plate glass windows and see the poor, shivering wretches, jobless and hungry, walking alongside the frozen lake front. The contrast of their condition with that of the tropical comfort of the people for whom I sewed was painful to me.”

Interesting quotes.

Mother Jones is remembered as a passionate fighter for workers’ rights. Many modern people think of her as a godless communist. However, in reality, she had pretty traditional beliefs. Indeed, in many respects one might say she was a “conservative.” For example, Mother Jones was outspoken against female suffrage. She was famous for having said:

“working men deserved a wage that would allow women to stay home to care for their kids.”

I also read that Mother Jones blamed neglectful mothering as the root cause of juvenile delinquency.

As I understand her biography, if she was a radical leftist, it was simply due to class-based, economic concerns. She was not consistently left-wing on all issues. Other famous Mother Jones quotes include:

“I have never had a vote, and I have raised hell all over this country. You don't need a vote to raise hell! You need convictions and a voice!”

“I preferred sewing to bossing little children.”

“That is, the wife must care for what the husband cares for if he is to remain resolute.”

In light of all this, Mary Harris Jones seems like a rather curious inspiration for the modern magazine bearing her nickname.

Deuteronomy 8:17

If you start thinking to yourselves, "I did all this. And all by myself. I'm rich. It's all mine!"—well, think again. Remember that God, your God, gave you the strength to produce all this wealth so as to confirm the covenant that he promised to your ancestors—as it is today.

Mother Jones Magazine

2011-09-23T16:18:00.000-07:00

In the 1970s, an underground magazine took the name “Mother Jones.” Over the years, the magazine became more prominent and was no longer underground. For a period in the 1980s, Michael Moore (now known for his films) was affiliated with the magazine.

The magazine touts itself as a beacon of investigative journalism, a type of journalism I think we need more of these days. There is some investigative work in the magazine, but some of it is not very thorough. Much of it is heavily tinged with ideology, which makes the articles less than ideal in my opinion.

Nonetheless, I appreciate Mother Jones magazine. I may not always agree with its ideology or perspective. But despite what the right says, there aren’t really a lot of left wing voices in the media. With the rise of Fox News Channel and talk radio, I think that countervailing voices are important.

Unlike talk radio and FNC, which make lots of money, Mother Jones magazine is produced by a non-profit, the Foundation for American Progress. The magazine accepts donations to support its existence.

http://motherjones.com/

Deuteronomy 24:19

When you harvest your grain and forget a sheaf back in the field, don't go back and get it; leave it for the foreigner, the orphan, and the widow so that God, your God, will bless you in all your work. When you shake the olives off your trees, don't go back over the branches and strip them bare—what's left is for the foreigner, the orphan, and the widow. And when you cut the grapes in your vineyard, don't take every last grape—leave a few for the foreigner, the orphan, and the widow. Don't ever forget that you were a slave in Egypt. I command you: Do what I'm telling you.

“Political Lying” Article by Rick Perlstein

2011-09-19T18:23:00.000-07:00

In the May/June 2011 copy of Mother Jones, which my mother shared with me, there was an article addressing some of the same themes I’ve been describing in recent blog posts. The article is called “Inside the GOP's Fact-Free Nation: From Nixon's plumbers to James O'Keefe's video smears: How political lying became normal.” You can read it at the link below.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/history-political-lying

The article isn’t necessarily a piece of objective investigative journalism, but I thought the author had some good food for thought.

Proverbs 14:1

Every wise woman builds her house, but the foolish one tears it down with her own hands.

Texas Democrats

2011-09-16T10:34:00.000-07:00

I have always heard of Mother Jones magazine, but never actually read it until recently. In my next post, I am going to recommend an article from that magazine. It is an article that seems pertinent to the recent thread of posts to this blog. But in the meantime, it is sort of interesting how I even came to read an issue for the first time.

I tease my mom that if you look up “flaming liberal” in the dictionary, one might find her picture. This is funny to me for a number of reasons, one of which is the fact that she lives in Texas. My home state doesn’t exactly have a reputation for being the home of flaming liberals.

Indeed, when I was practicing law in Texas, I was a semi-closeted Democrat. With regard to non-GOP political affiliations, within my social circle, things were generally on a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” basis. Everyone assumed everyone else was a Republican, and you didn’t volunteer your political tilt if you were not.
In our family, there is an infamous anecdote that exemplifies this experience. At a neighborhood cocktail party in early 2001, my husband mentioned in passing that I had voted for Al Gore. I still question how that fact was at all relevant to anything that had come up in the conversation. And I have always been unsure why he only mentioned the person for whom I had voted. Indeed, my husband had also voted for Mr. Gore. Nonetheless, for whatever reason, my husband innocently and naively spilled the beans—inadvertently outting me at the neighborhood cocktail party.

When he did so, I was several yards away chatting with some other neighbors. It was like one of those old E.F. Hutton commercials from the 70s. Everyone in the room stopped and looked at me with dropped jaws. One gentleman was sincerely flabbergasted and asked in a loud, puzzled tone, “Claudine, why would you have done such a thing?” He just couldn’t fathom. And from then on, the neighbors seemed to think I was a nice but misguided woman.

Interestingly, during the same time and up to the present, while in the same state, my mom surrounded herself with senior citizen women with a decidedly progressive bent. That just astounds me. When we lived in Texas, we only knew a couple other Democrats. Indeed, there were so few in our community that on one primary day, I showed up at the Democratic polling place and the election workers were so delighted to just have someone come to vote. It was almost closing time and they had only had a handful of Democrat primary voters all day. It had apparently been a boring day.

After I voted, they asked if I wanted to sign up for the local Democratic Party distribution list. They were going to have a potluck so folks could meet one another. My gosh, there were so few of us that we apparently would all fit in one family’s living room!

Anyhow, my mom must have a sixth sense for finding Democrats because she has quite a few friends who are openly progressive. They are sweet ladies who do volunteer work with the homeless, participate in walks to raise money to fight hunger, sew quilts to donate to soldiers’ families, and went to hear Bill Clinton when he came to town for a lecture.

On a recent visit to our home in Arizona, my mom brought me a stack of magazines she had finished reading. She included a copy of Mother Jones with the address label of a friend of hers. The friend is apparently a subscriber. I had heard of the magazine, but did not know much about it and had never seen it on sale anywhere. I just had this vague sense that it was an ultra-left wing periodical that was probably only read by people who wear clothing made from hemp, are into composting, and bake their own granola. As a result, it surprised me that I first received a copy of the magazine via a straight-laced senior citizen who lives in suburban Texas. That should teach me to not think in such stereotypes!

2 Chronicles 1:10

Give me wisdom and knowledge so I can lead this people, because no one can govern this great people of yours without your help.”

A Prayer On 9/11

2011-09-11T11:22:00.000-07:00

Dear Lord,

Thank you.

Thank you for our lives.

Thank you for the privilege and blessing of being able to live in this country.

Thank you for the sacrifices our forbearers made to establish and preserve a representative form of government. Thank you for the abundant natural resources and natural beauty of our land. We live a life of relative bounty compared to our brothers and sisters around the world. We also have more input in the governing of our nation than most in human history. We thank you for our material blessings and our good fortune to not live in a nation of tyranny. We thank you for entrusting us with the responsibility of living in a democratic nation.

Lord, thank you also for the diversity of our people. Thank you for the various cultures that have made their home in this land. Thank you for the native peoples, the people who came here in hopes of creating a better life, and the people who were kidnapped and brutally forced to work the land to the enrichment of greedy men. I thank you for the sacrifices all of these people have made, the endurance they have shown, and the brilliant contributions they have made to create a country like no other in the world. When I have traveled in other countries I have been particularly cognizant of the richness our multicultural heritage has given us. We take it for granted when we see faces with different shades of melanin in a single family or in a school or a battalion of soldiers. We take it for granted when we hear different languages spoken in the same community. Jazz and Country & Western. Dim Sum and Creole. Ballet Folklorico and Clogging. Our diversity sets us apart from other natiosn and makes us infinitely richer. Thank you.

Lord, thank you for the people who lost their lives on 9/11. We thank you for the time they had on this earth, and we thank you for welcoming them with open arms to the eternal reward of being reunited with you. We thank you for their bravery and heroism. The firefighters who ran into burning buildings so that others might find safety. The police who tried to instill order when chaos reigned. The school teachers who guided their young students to safety, risking their own lives and bringing comfort to scared children’s hearts. The ordinary people on Flight 93 who stood up to violence and hatred, refusing to be victims and giving us all amazing examples of democracy and heroism. We thank you for the many less known acts of bravery and compassion in New York, the D.C. area, St. John’s and countless places across this land on 9/11 when our nation was in the chaos of a surprise attack and we weren’t sure where the next act of terrorism would occur. Thank you for the courageous voices after 9/11 who preached peace and counseled against pointless acts of violence as a response to the unspeakable evil we had encountered.

Thank you, Lord, for the wondrous plans you have for our nation and its people. I thank you for the courage, wisdom and guidance you bestow on us to carry out your plans. Help us to stay faithful to you and become the people that you intend. Help us to be good stewards of the riches you have entrusted.

In your name we pray. Amen

1 Chronicles 29:11-13

To you, LORD,
belong greatness and power,
honor, splendor, and majesty,
because everything in heaven
and on earth belongs to you.
Yours, LORD, is the kingship,
and you are honored as head of all.
You are the source of wealth and honor,
and you rule over all.
In your hand are strength and might,
and it is in your power to magnify
and strengthen all.
And now, our God, we thank you
and praise your glorious name.

Jeremiah 29:11

I know the plans I have in mind for you, declares the LORD; they are plans for peace, not disaster, to give you a future filled with hope.

Is There Bias in the Mainstream Media?

2011-09-08T21:06:00.000-07:00

Many political and social conservatives decry an alleged liberal bias in the so-called “mainstream media.” Concerns of such bias have led to a backlash that has led to the success of conservative talk radio and Fox News Channel.

To a point, I understand and agree there is a bias in the mainstream media. As someone who runs in a variety of different social circles—from conservative Christians to liberal idealists to pro-business capitalists—I actually think about this point quite a lot and have for a long time.

Many of my friends and acquaintances believe adamantly that there is a left-tilt in the mainstream media and it ticks them off. I also have plenty of friends who completely relate to the cultural perspectives shared by many mainline journalists, so it would never occur to them that there is anything wrong with the mainstream media’s worldview. As a consumer of such media who is fairly sensitive to each of these perspectives, I personally have for years had my antennae up listening and reading for evidence of such liberal bias.

In my observation, most journalists in the mainstream media seem to come from fairly homogenous backgrounds culturally. They seem to be college educated. Many are from the East Coast (but rarely from the South). Religion does not seem to be of much importance to them. And they seem to think they’re pretty clever.

I pick all this up from a plethora of fairly subtle things. NPR stations encourage listeners to contribute to support the “intelligent talk radio” on NPR. Such statements seem to be code for: “Yes, we are technically a type of ‘talk radio’ but we’re not blathering idiots like Rush, Glenn and their ilk.” I get the sense the point they’re trying to express is that Terry Gross and Diane Reem are qualitatively superior to the right wing windbags.

In mainstream media reporting, I’ve also noticed that acceptance of the Theory of Evolution is a given; no sane person would admit to Creationist sympathies. The unspoken assumption seems to be: “We are well-educated and smart; well-educated, smart people are always Darwinists.”

When religion is covered in various stories by the mainstream media, I often get the impression the people reporting are really thinking “WTF? Can you believe such crazy people exist?” Sometimes it is the tone of the reporting. But a lot of my impression is based simply on the type of stories that are chosen. We always seem to hear the stories of the religious bigots who are burning someone else’s scripture, or folks who are believing in something that defies scientific or other logical proof. It gives one the impression that if you run into these journalists at a cocktail party, it might be wise to not come out of the closet as a Christian.

I think that homogeneity in the culture of American journalism and perceived cultural bias is likely why Dan Rather (a native Texan) played up his regional accent and even added flaky colloquial phrases later in his career. I don’t know that for sure. That is just my gut reaction. But frankly why else would he start using those odd colloquialisms?

Indeed, some of those little witticisms were so darned wacky, I was truly embarrassed as a fellow Texan. (Classics: “Bush has run through Dixie like a big wheel through a cotton field.” “If [Gore] doesn’t carry Florida, Slim will have left town.”)

Clearly, Dan had not spent a lot of time in the Lone Star State in recent years. I don’t know anyone these days who talks like that. It was like a 40 year old stereotype of how Texans express themselves. But when he was still on the air, my assumption was that Dan spoke like that to appeal to the “common folk” and appear less of a New York liberal. I don’t know who he thought he was fooling, but I guess he thought it was worth a shot. For those who are unfamiliar, the link below has an article from 2000 about Dan’s “down-home witticisms.”

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/feature/2000/11/08/rather

So, yes, Virginia, I do believe the mainstream media has certain biases. I think all of us do. If I’ve learned nothing else as a lawyer over the past decade plus, I’ve learned that human objectivity is a myth. We are all shaped by our life experiences and the attitudes we’ve been exposed to. We should try to be objective if we are lawyers or journalists. But we should also be aware that subjectivity is always going to seep into anything we do. We should be aware of that tendency so we can fight against it as best we can. If we’re not even aware, then we won’t be successful in that struggle.

Frankly, I think it also helps to listen to different perspectives. I always encourage my students to listen open-mindedly to different opinions and points of view. We learn and grow that way. But hearing other perspectives also helps us to realize the biases that we carry around.

I imagine the newsroom of most mainstream media outlets to be composed of people from roughly similar backgrounds and values. They seem to have group think a lot of time. They don’t seem to realize many people in this country have different life experiences and belief systems that (gasp!) may be valid or at least deserving of equal respect. (See the November 19, 2009 post to this blog for some discussion of the media’s reaction to Jimmy Carter’s expression of his Christian faith in the 1976 election.) I think such work environments could benefit from less group think and more diversity of opinion. I’m not saying CBS and CNN should just hire a bunch more registered Republicans. That is too simplistic. Instead, I think that a real diversity of life experience and perspective would add a lot.

Now I want to make clear that even though I do believe there is a sort of cultural bias in the mainstream media, in my long-time, critical observation, I don’t necessarily perceive political bias in the stories that are typically reported. Even though I think that the mainstream media is likely dominated by secular, college-educated Northeasterners, I don’t typically notice that the mainstream media is more supportive of Democratic politicians and policies than Republican politicians and policies.

Indeed, the backlash against alleged media bias really ticks me off. For a long time, I have perceived the media to be rather meek and tepid to ask the hard questions. (See the May 18, 2011 post to this blog for a discussion of the media’s interaction with Lee Atwater.)

This kind of spinelessness has gone on for a long time, but the culmination, in my opinion, was the way the media essentially became George W. Bush’s cheerleaders after 9/11 and refused to ask tough questions in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.

Our country is about to observe the tenth anniversary of the horrific tragedy of 9/11. Many of us have not gotten over the shock and anguish of that awful day. Honestly, it is just impossible to get our minds around it fully even so long after the fact. The events of that day were just unimaginably agonizing.

You cannot make sense of such evil and such resultant human suffering. People who did nothing wrong and were just going about their business died unexpectedly in unthinkable ways. But you and I are still here. We cannot bring back the victims of the 9/11 attacks, but I think we have a duty to honor their memory. In my opinion, one way we do that is by keeping our democracy strong. Part of that involves challenging those in authority, asking inconvenient questions and holding our leaders accountable. If we fail to do that, we become no better than a totalitarian state.

Mark 3:27

No one gets into the house of a strong person and steals anything without first tying up the strong person. Only then can the house be burglarized.

“The Objectivity Bias”

2011-09-02T10:21:00.000-07:00

I’ve mentioned before in this blog my admiration for the radio program On the Media, and I wanted to mention a report they did this past summer. It was called “The Objectivity Bias” and was aired on July 29, 2011. It is available at the link below.

http://www.onthemedia.org/2011/jul/29/reporting-extreme-positions/

The report involved modern American journalists’ strong fears of being perceived by the public as biased and partisan. The report examined how that fear impacts journalists’ ability to do their job. Specifically, the fear is that the public will think the media is biased toward the Democrats and are overly critical of the Republicans. It was a very thought-provoking report.

James 3:17 (King James Version)

But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

"Trash City" Photographs

2011-08-27T10:21:00.000-07:00

I came across a short article and photo essay recently, which seemed apropos of recent posts to this blog. It documented life for hundreds of human beings in a dump outside the capital of Mozambique. The link below will pull up the article and photos.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/08/27/Mozambique.trash.city/index.html?hpt=hp_abar

In one sense I'm hesitant to share the article and photos in this forum. We Westerners often have a stereotyped view of Africa, that it is just a continent of human misery and hopelessness. I have already posted several heartwrenching articles about the dire famine in Eastern Africa. I'm torn between wanting to raise awareness of the suffering of others in our human family, and not wanting to perpetuate these stereotypes.

Personally, I have a real love and admiration for Africa and Africans. I have never been to the continent, but have read books and seen documentaries. I am well aware of the beauty of the land and its diverse peoples. It is my dream to one day spend time in Africa in some capacity.

There is a lot of human suffering in Africa, but that is not the whole story of Africa. Human suffering is also occuring on every other continent. I've seen stories about people living in garbage dumps in Central America and India. People elsewhere--and in our own country--live by collecting what others throw away. It is a truly profound difference in the standard of living among the members of the human family.

The photographs in the link above are difficult to look at. You can see how filthy the people are, how their skin is not healthy, and how desperate they are to attend to just the most basic human needs like quieting a hungry stomach or fending off the cold. The images of children and the elderly are particularly difficult to see.

There were two parts of the article that most made an impression on me.

First, the photographer talked about the generosity of the people he encountered at this trash dump. He said, "Despite all the circumstances of how they live, they keep on showing their kindness and happiness and hospitality. We don't find these human qualities in many places in the world."

Later, in conclusion, the photograph said, "The life we waste everyday because we want a better one or because we are never satisfied with it, is the life that many wish and yearn to have and would give everything to have it."

I think these two points are very profound and worth pondering.

Luke 6:21, 25
Blessed are ye that hunger now, for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now, for ye shall laugh.
Woe unto you that are full, for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now, for ye shall mourn and weep.

More on the Victims of Famine in East Africa

2011-08-26T14:49:00.000-07:00

As a follow-up to the prior post, another article about the plight of our brothers and sisters in Eastern Africa recently got my attention. The article involves the horrific choice parents have to make to leave sick and dying children behind to try to get siblings to relief centers.

The article is available at the link below.

http://news.yahoo.com/tortured-choice-famine-child-lives-170128855.html

I don’t really have anything to add. The anguish of a parent forced to make such a decision is unimaginable. My heart breaks at the suffering of my brothers and sisters.

Luke 10:30-37

Jesus replied, “A man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho. He encountered thieves, who stripped him naked, beat him up, and left him near death. Now it just so happened that a priest was also going down the same road. When he saw the injured man, he crossed over to the other side of the road and went on his way. Likewise, a Levite came by that spot, saw the injured man, and crossed over to the other side of the road and went on his way. A Samaritan, who was on a journey, came to where the man was. But when he saw him, he was moved with compassion. The Samaritan went to him and bandaged his wounds, tending them with oil and wine. Then he placed the wounded man on his own donkey, took him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day, he took two full days’ worth of wages and gave them to the innkeeper. He said, ‘Take care of him, and when I return, I will pay you back for any additional costs.’ What do you think? Which one of these three was a neighbor to the man who encountered thieves?”
Then the legal expert said, “The one who demonstrated mercy toward him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

High Salaries for Celebrity Journalists

2011-08-19T11:20:00.000-07:00

Apropos of my recent blog posts, I came across an article about the amazingly high salaries of the celebrity journalists who bring us the “news” in the major media outlets. The article is available at the link below.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/matt-lauer-makes-17-million-topping-annual-tv-150858412.html

On the very same day, I saw an article about desperate mothers in Kenya physically fighting other desperate mothers to get food for their starving children. As a mom myself, I couldn’t begin to imagine the horror of watching my own children starve before my eyes. That article is available at the link below.

http://news.yahoo.com/mothers-exchange-blows-kenya-drought-deepens-155527381.html?nc

I was talking recently with a colleague who mentioned that he could imagine I would be a real “Mama Grizzly” if anyone ever threatened my kids. When I read this article about the moms in Kenya, I thought about that “Mama Grizzly” comment. To the best of my recollection and with the possible exception of some minor naughtiness as a young child, I’ve never physically assaulted anyone. I cannot conceive of harming another human being like that. But if my children’s survival were at stake, I can imagine that might begin to be an option. It is horrifying to consider, but the love for one’s children is strong. It would kill me to see my children’s lives in danger and I would probably do just about anything to protect them. It would fly in the face of every value I embrace and I would hate myself. But the anguish of watching your child waste away is unthinkable.

The irony of the two stories appearing at the same time struck me. I don’t begrudge anyone good fortune and a windfall. There will always be people who earn outrageous salaries while others live in deprivation. These rich “journalists” are not alone in receiving such compensation.

But the services provided by these celebrity “journalists” is relatively cushy. They are in temperature regulated studios in places like Manhattan and Northwest D.C. They wear expensive suits and are well-coifed. They bathe regularly and have people who fuss over getting their make-up just right.

By comparison, the investigative journalists who bust their butts and often risk their lives to bring us the news from places of instability and violence are often unsung heroes. Tom Odula is the person who wrote the article above about mothers dealing with horrific drought in Kenya. Frankly, I’ve never heard of him before. I googled him and was not able to learn much. I could be wrong, but I’m assuming that he is making considerably less than Matt Lauer this year. However, to me, Mr. Odula is performing a much more important public service than Mr. Lauer’s hosting of the Today show.

I suppose the same sort of inequality exists in other professions. I began my professional life as a grade school teacher in an underfunded church school in a neglected part of town. The salary I earned that first year probably would have put me below the federal poverty level. The teachers at the best public schools on the other side of town made several times more than I did. Teachers at prestigious private schools in other more affluent communities also would have made many times more than I was making that first year.

When I was in practice as a lawyer, I was very fortunate and made more money than I could have ever imagined. Partners at big firms made a lot more, but I couldn’t complain. I made much more than the lawyers in my community who defended indigent clients to avoid deportation or incarceration. I also had a much nicer office in which to work.

Similarly, the plastic surgeons who play on the insecurities of various people perform tummy tucks and breast augmentations, for which they earn lucrative income. By contrast, the doctors who live in rural communities serving underserved populations often with substandard facilities live a much less opulent lifestyle.

I think it is interesting to note the way that market forces sometimes overcompensate services of lesser social value and undercompensate services of greater social value.

Galatians 5:13

You were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only don’t let this freedom be an opportunity to indulge your selfish impulses, but serve each other through love.

Juan

2011-08-10T20:17:00.000-07:00

In October of last year, it was announced that Juan Williams was fired from NPR. Mr. Williams had been an analyst for NPR for years. Hosts would bring him in to provide analysis of the day’s news stories. However, he was also working as a commentator for Fox News Channel in recent years. He appeared on FNC programs to share his opinion on the day’s news stories. Mr. Williams was fired by NPR because its management objected to things Mr. Williams had said on FNC in his commentator role; they believed it compromised his analyst’s role on NPR.

There was a lot of fall-out and debate after Mr. Williams’ firing. Many conservatives cited it as illustrative of the liberal political correctness and intolerance of differing perspectives on NPR. For a variety of reasons, many on the left wrung their hands in angst over the departure of Mr. Williams and his full-time defection to the dark side of FNC.

I heard one news report during that time that was interesting in putting the whole affair in perspective. It explained the different roles Mr. Williams had played at the two media outlets. For NPR, he had been an analyst, which meant that after someone else provided the supposedly objective facts of the news, Mr. Williams explained the significance and repercussions of those facts. Per the report I heard, a news analyst is supposed to still retain journalistic objectivity and not inject his own views on the news. But for FNC, Mr. Williams had been a commentator, which meant that he was paid to give his own opinions and debate the opinions of others.

After listening to that report, I thought a lot about these two roles: news analyst and news commentator. Initially, I was skeptical about the need for either in news programming. But after more consideration, I now understand that just straight reporting of the news may not be enough. For viewers/listeners/readers to understand the reported news facts, context may be necessary. For example, to understand the significance of a particular presidential veto, we may need to understand the legal and budgetary repercussions of the failure of the legislation to be enacted, the history of the bill in Congress, the political rivalries that may have played out and prompted the veto, the frequency with which a particular president uses his veto and a host of other facts. I can appreciate that news analysis may be necessary, but I also recognize that it may be difficult to maintain one’s journalistic objectivity when providing such analysis. It can be a fine line between analysis and commentary. I can imagine the line might even be illusory at times.

But I remain unclear why supposed news programs need commentators. Why in America do we pay the same relatively small group of people big bucks to sit around constantly debating their opinions? The Sunday morning talk shows, the cable news shows, the talk radio programs and others simply expose us to the same folks spouting their opinions over and over again on a number of topics. Why do we always have to hear from the same people?

If we have to have these opinion-based shows, why don’t we at least bring in more folks to share their opinions so we will have more perspectives to hear? That might challenge us more and it could be enlightening. But that is not what such programming is all about. Again, such programming masquerades as news but is simply entertainment.

We end up with these little cults of personality. People love to quote Rush or Glenn or Jon or Keith. But these gentlemen do little to inform us of what is going on in the world and they rarely give us a challenging new perspective. Right wing audiences listen to Rush or Glenn spout what they want to hear. Similarly, left wing audiences listen to Jon or Keith for similar reasons. It is just a depressing state of affairs.

When the whole Juan Williams brouhaha was going on, my in-laws were visiting our family in Arizona. I like to hear the perspectives of different people, so I asked my father-in-law what he thought of the whole thing. His reaction was surprising and quite interesting.

My husband’s family is from a small town several hours from the nearest urban center. There were only a couple of radio stations available when my husband was growing up, and until the advent of cable, they couldn’t really watch much TV. My father-in-law told me that before the firing, he had never heard of Juan Williams and had never listened to NPR. My in-laws are well-educated and intelligent people. I was surprised they had never listened to NPR even once, but my father-in-law indicated they didn’t get NPR in their town. As a result, it was hard for him to put in context the whole event.

I suspect that that was not an uncommon reaction. When our family has gone on road trips, my husband and I sometimes have trouble finding an NPR affiliate in remote areas. Though the media pundits were obsessed with the firing of Mr. Williams for a while, I’m sure that a lot of Americans were like my father-in-law and didn’t know who the heck Juan Williams was. We in urban centers often have no clue what life is like in more rural areas of our country. The popular media seem to share and reflect that same ignorance.

Proverbs 11:29

He who troubles his own house shall inherit the wind, and the foolish shall be servant to the wise of heart.

Keith

2011-08-03T19:42:00.000-07:00

Abruptly in January of this year, Keith Olbermann announced he was no longer appearing on MSNBC. There has been speculation why. Months later, it was announced he would be appearing on the Current TV channel, to which few people seem to have access. But don’t cry for Mr. Olbermann, he is going to receive a multi-million dollar raise.

Mr. Olbermann is a man of strong opinions and strongly-worded opinions. I happen to agree with many of them. Nonetheless, I’m not a fan. When I have watched his program, he is simply a left wing version of Bill O’Reilly, with whom he has had a public feud.

Such bombast and on-air confrontation is in my opinion the verbal equivalent of wrestling in the WWF. It should never be confused with journalism. People like Mr. Olbermann and Mr. O’Reilly give viewers little new information. They are a form of entertainment. The audience is supposed to listen to them spout their opinions in self-righteous style and berate anyone with whom they disagree. We rarely get new information from that type of broadcast.

I have always hated WWF wrestling. People with silly costumes pretending (?) to violently inflict pain on other human beings while embracing ridiculous personas to either cultivate audience support or audience antagonism. Why would anyone be interested in such senseless violence? I’ve never understood it.

But it seems to me that the same base appeal is used to lure people to watch Mr. Olbermann and his ilk. And that is tragic. We need to recognize that such shows are simply entertainment, not truly news. Again, there are only so many hours in the day. Time spent watching such programming means that we are likely foregoing opportunities to really learn what is going on in our world and to be truly informed about issues of importance.

Proverbs 10:14

Wise men store up knowledge [in mind and heart], but the mouth of the foolish is a present destruction.

Meredith and Katy

2011-07-28T09:44:00.000-07:00

In my opinion, one example of the decay in American journalism is the fact that the movement of journalists from one program to another has itself become news. When a journalist is fired or resigns or takes a new position, that journalist often makes the rounds on other shows and is interviewed about the move. The journalist is the news.

This phenomenon is part of our current focus on so-called “celebrity news.” The journalists themselves have become celebrities, so events in their lives are considered celebrity news in this day and age. But when a journalist is the news, it detracts from her ability to deliver other news objectively.

This summer two media stories received a lot of attention. One involved Meredith Viera’s departure from the Today show. The other involves Katy Couric’s departure from the CBS Evening News, her initial indecision about the next stage of her career and her eventual decision to host an afternoon talk show. I rarely watch TV, but when I turned it on this summer, I saw an awful lot of attention paid to these two news stories.

I am not even clear why we consider these stories to be newsworthy. Plenty of people make career changes. In modern America, it is indeed a frequent occurrence. When a journalist goes from one employer to another, it should not distract from learning about budget battles on Capitol Hill or the details of the violence in Syria.

But people like Ms. Viera and Ms. Couric are celebrities, so their career changes are lumped in with other celebrity news. To me, people like Ms. Viera and Ms. Couric don’t really seem like journalists any more. The line has been so blurred between journalism and celebrity. These big name “journalists” earn millions of dollars each year. Those big paychecks are not doled out for straight delivery of the news. They are doled out because these “journalists” have become entertainers, and like many entertainers in this country they earn the big bucks.

As fate would have it, on the day that turned out to be Meredith Viera’s last day on the Today show, I was under the weather. Confined to my bed, I turned on the TV and watched a bit. Frankly, I don’t think I watched the Today show the whole time Ms. Viera was co-hosting. On that last day, I caught a montage of what were apparently her finest moments on the show. The montage was accompanied by her on-air colleagues singing her praises. In the montage, she was shown in past appearances making goofy faces, playing jokes, dressing in costumes, and showing compassion to guests. Her on-air colleagues praised her warmth and sense of humor. They gushed at how she brought so much of herself to each interview.

I was horrified. Why are these thought to be laudable attributes of an alleged journalist? How does bringing so much of oneself aid the objectivity that is supposed to be the hallmark of good news programs? I was particularly horrified that the montage included clips of interviews where Ms. Viera was clearly shown sympathizing with a particular guest. This was seen as a good thing because she was being so compassionate. What about the other side? Aren’t there always at least two sides to every news story? How do we know the guests’ position was the best to support?

Even though I was a semi-captive audience due to my illness, I turned off the T.V. I couldn’t bear to watch any more. Despite the wildfires in Arizona, the devastating drug war in Mexico, and the cruelty of Qadhafi’s attempts to retain power, real news was being ignored to celebrate ad nauseum the five years Ms. Viera had been on the Today show.

The attention this summer to Ms. Couric’s next career move was also demoralizing to me. The news stories focused primarily on her ability to attract viewers and the changing realities of attracting ratings in the age of the 24/7 news cycle and internet updates. Even on NPR, real news was ignored and time was spent debating whether Ms. Couric’s talk show will be successful from a ratings perspective.

It is so sad that we allow ourselves to be sidetracked from more pressing matters to focus on such trivialities. The news is frankly now just viewed as another form of entertainment. Moreover, the presentation of the news has become just one segment of the entertainment industry. Thus, we pay attention to how many consumers it will attract because that is what drives the bottom line. We don’t pay attention to how well the news is being delivered and how much information we are getting about what is going on in the world around us.

Proverbs 9:6

Leave off, simple ones [forsake the foolish and simpleminded] and live! And walk in the way of insight and understanding.

The Decline of CNN and Hard News

2011-07-20T13:45:00.000-07:00

In our country, our news is delivered largely by for-profit media businesses. Their reporting is driven by the need to attract customers, i.e., readers, viewers, listeners. I’ve been worried for a while whether that model is compatible with the need for a well-informed citizenry. We as an electorate need to know what is going on in the world, in our country and in our communities so that we can form prudent opinions about policy and cast our ballots accordingly. But in the current age, we just aren’t getting enough information.

People blame the media, but in a for-profit model, the news outlets give us what we are most inclined to consume. If we prefer reading rumors about Jennifer Anniston’s love life or watching a report on a chain-smoking baby, that is the sort of thing the media will try to give us more frequently. By comparison, if we don’t tune in to learn more about the current humanitarian crisis along the Kenya-Somalia border or the structural issues causing unsustainable increases in our health care costs, then news outlets won’t give us as much of that. They give us what we’ll consume. And besides, it is more expensive to send reporters to remote regions in Africa or to investigate complicated economic issues than it is to pay some paparazzi to stalk celebrities.

I’m not saying that government funded media is the solution. Certainly, that approach has its own set of issues. But the profit-driven media approach we have is problematic and flawed.

I was particularly reminded of that point recently when I listened to an NPR report on the plight of CNN. The report is available at the following link:

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/01/137538689/new-cnn-news-chief-takes-stock

Our family canceled cable years ago and we don’t watch much TV except when we travel. I hadn’t realized that CNN’s ratings have become a casualty of the clash of the Fox News and MSNBC echo chambers. Per the report, CNN has tried to stay neutral and focus on actual reporting. Their forte is apparently delivering news. But apparently people aren’t tuning in for that. They would rather opt for the loud, bombastic talking heads of Fox News and MSNBC.

This really depresses me. As consumers of news and as citizens of the world’s oldest modern democracy, we can’t allow this situation to continue. We are so incredibly fortunate to live in our country. With great blessings come great responsibility.

Luke 12:48

“For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.”

“On The Media” and “Echo Chambers”

2011-07-14T13:15:00.000-07:00

Another “On the Media” show recently was really fascinating. It involved the concept of “echo chambers.”

For those who are unfamiliar with it, the World English Dictionary defines the term “echo chamber” as follows:

“Also called: reverberation chamber a room with walls that reflect sound. It is
used to make acoustic measurements and as a source of reverberant sound to be
mixed with direct sound for recording or broadcasting.”

The term “echo chamber” has been used in recent years to describe the concept that in our modern society people have so many choices about where to get information, and they are often choosing to get their information from sources that express beliefs or perspectives that are similar or identical to their own. Per this use of the term “echo chamber,” people who are disgruntled right-wingers listen to Rush or Bill to get their news because those gentlemen will put a conservative spin pleasing to their audience. Alternately, such members of the public may read books by Glenn or Ann for the same reasons. Along the same lines, the concept is that liberals will listen to Steven or Jon, or read a book by Al, or watch a film by Michael to get a spin on world events, with which they agree.

Previous discussions I’ve heard on the “echo chamber” concept essentially blame the news consumer. The standard antidote is that we should consume news from sources that at least try to provide a more objective presentation of events. It is also advocated that we should make a conscious effort to listen to viewpoints with which we do not agree.

However, the recent “On the Media” program on echo chambers explored the possibility that there may be behind-the-scenes efforts via the internet to personalized content such that there may be an echo chamber effect that we do not even realize. Despite our best efforts, we may not be escaping our own echo chamber. It was a fascinating program. The link below will allow you to access the report.

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2011/06/17/06

Job 5:3

I have seen the foolish taking root [and outwardly prospering], but suddenly I saw that his dwelling was cursed [for his doom was certain].

“On the Media” and “Internet Facts”

2011-07-09T06:36:00.000-07:00

Recently, “On the Media” examined a sensational, horrifying news story that traveled quickly around the world, but turned out to not be true. The “On the Media” piece explored the increasingly blurry line between television news reporting and social media. In internet-based “news,” fact-checking standards are often much looser or even non-existent. But the public is not always savvy about that. In that context, something that is completely false can become widely recognized as a “fact,” thus the coining of the term “internet fact.”

In listening to the “On the Media” report, it seemed to me that as news consumers we are often too believing. And it seems that is even more the case when the “news” source is one like social media. We need to be less trusting and we need to think critically about the media we consume—regardless of its source. But we need to be particularly skeptical when the source is an informal one where the authority in question may or may not have thoroughly investigated the claims it is making.

The transcript of the “On the Media” report is available below.
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2011/06/10/01

Proverbs 14:18

Foolish dreamers live in a world of illusion; wise realists plant their feet on the ground.

“On the Media” Radio Program

2011-07-01T07:31:00.000-07:00

I’m usually running around on the weekends, but sometimes when I’m in the car running errands or if I’m cooking in the kitchen, I turn on NPR and catch some of their weekend programming. One of my all-time favorite NPR programs—but one that I catch least frequently due to its afternoon weekend broadcast timing—is the “On the Media” program with Brooke Gladstone.

“On the Media” is an hour long radio program that analyzes how the media report the news. As the show’s website declares:

“On the Media” explores how the media 'sausage' is made, casts an incisive eye
on fluctuations in the marketplace of ideas, and examines threats to the freedom
of information and expression in America and abroad. For one hour a week, the
show tries to lift the veil from the process of "making media," especially news
media, because it's through that lens that we literally see the world and the
world sees us.

See http://www.onthemedia.org/about/.

I love the way that paragraph sums up the show. Because the media has such a critical role in shaping how we all think about different topics and ultimately the political policies we do or do not support, it is important for us as a society to think critically about the way the media do their job and how news is presented to us.

But the paragraph above is not just a bunch of clever words. The radio pieces are insightful and I often think about them for long periods of time afterwards. The next couple of posts will flag “On the Media” reports that I found particularly thought provoking.

Isaiah 21:6

This is what the Lord says to me:
“Go, post a lookout and have him report what he sees.

Climate Change: The Media’s Role in Shaping Public Perceptions and Opinions

2011-06-25T08:32:00.000-07:00

Very timely. As I’ve been reflecting recently on the role of the media in shaping public perceptions and our opinions on various policy issues, I recently heard a report on Morning Edition about that very topic.

In the context of the 2012 presidential election, the report addressed the growing public skepticism about climate change. At the same time, scientists are more confident than ever that climate change is happening and it is probably cause by humans. An obvious explanation for this discrepancy is that Americans reject science and/or are skeptical of what scientists tell them.

However, the Morning Edition report indicated that was not necessarily what was going on. The report interviewed Professor Anthony Leiserowitz of the Yale University Project on Climate Change Communication. He did a poll that indicated that Americans have an “overwhelming trust” in scientists, but are just not aware of the strong consensus in the scientific community about the reality and cause of climate change. The report cited cable TV and the reading of blogs for the lack of knowledge; from those sources, Americans are getting a more “conflicted view” of the scientific community’s views on climate change, which does not accurately reflect the strong consensus.

It was an interesting report and is available at the link below:

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309964/climate-change-public-skeptical-scientists-sure

2 Corinthians 4:2

Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.

The Role of Journalism in Shaping Public Perception and Public Opinion

2011-06-16T14:57:00.000-07:00

The news is important. It is how we learn what is going on in the world. That knowledge helps shape our political views. If we hear that the employment rate has hit a certain percentage, we may believe that certain policy choices should be taken by our elected representatives. If we find out that the government is spending a certain amount on a particular program, that information may lead us to the conclusion that either more or less should be spent on it. In turn that conclusion may influence our decision about whether taxes should be raised, lowered or kept constant.

Most of us are busy earning a living and taking care of our families. We are not in the halls of Congress when bills get passed, we’re not in the streets of Damascus as Syrians protest against their government, and we’re not in the death chamber when Texas executes another inmate. Journalism is the primary vehicle for bringing the news to us.

The World English Dictionary gives us four definitions for the term “journalism”:
1. the profession or practice of reporting about, photographing, or editing news stories for one of the mass media
2. newspapers and magazines collectively; the press
3. the material published in a newspaper, magazine, etc: this is badly written journalism
4. news reports presented factually without analysis

The fourth one I find particularly insightful. Our ideal of journalism is that a person presents facts to us objectively. We are then left to make our own decisions based on the facts presented. Per our idea, the journalist is an objective third party who tells us impassionately what is going on--without inflicting her own opinions on us.

When I was growing up in the 70s and 80s, I remember learning in school about the concept of “yellow journalism.” We learned that yellow journalism was problematic in our country in the late 1800s. Press titans like Hearst and Pulitzer tried to sway public opinion by their manipulation of the way news was presented. The sense we had in reading our history books was that this issue of yellow journalism was a problem our country had dealt with in the past. When our parents went home and watched Roger Mudd or John Chancellor, they were getting the straight forward truth of what was going on in the world. At that time, it was a very different situation for our Cold War enemies. TASS was the media mouthpiece of the Soviet Union and did not exactly present an unbiased perspective of the day’s events. But growing up, I took it for granted that our press in the United States was independent and gave us that straight scoop.

Sometime in my late teens I began to hear people complain about bias in the media. In particular, there were complaints that the media had a liberal bent. I didn’t particularly see it, but then again I’ve always been left of center.

In my adulthood, the complaints of liberal bias became more and more pronounced. People turned away from traditional media outlets. Plenty of people I knew were enthusiastic about new media like A.M. Talk Radio and eventually Fox News Channel.

I have tuned in to such outlets on many occasions over the years because I have felt that it was important to know what sizeable segments of the population were listening to in order to help shape their opinions. I always try to be open-minded, but was frequently demoralized when listening to such programs. They typically provided little in the way of news. Few facts were provided. And when facts were provided, there was often little or no attempt to be objective. There seemed to be a lot of whining about certain facts.

I suppose the people who produced such programming felt that the traditional media was biased and that justified their own biases. The difference seemed to be the amount and transparency of bias. If the traditional media was subtly biased, these new conservative media were explicitly biased and often did not hold any pretense of being objective. But such media degrade to gripe fests and the indulgence of like minded people giving each other verbal high-fives. Listeners are exposed to opinion, but little to no new facts.

The left then responded with their own explicitly biased media. We had Air America, which didn’t last long. MSNBC has emerged. Oddly, Comedy Central has become a news media outlet for some with their Daily Show and Colbert Report programs. More recently Current TV has come into existence. It has received more attention as Keith Olbermann has signed on to host his show on that channel.

Such explicitly liberal news programs are more palatable to me than their conservative counterparts, but just barely so. I am repulsed by the jump-on-the-bandwagon, bash-your-opponent mentality. The other side is always wrong and vilified. Let’s get angry and yell about our opponents for hours on end. Alternately, let us point out how stupid, arrogant or corrupt the other side is, then we’ll ridicule them mercilessly.

Whether conservative or liberal, such programming is a waste of time in my opinion. We only have so many hours in the day. If we opt to tune in to such programming, we likely are not making time to read articles or listen to programs with a more objective approach and with a greater focus on providing information. This sorry state of American journalism is dumbing down our political debates. We make up our minds without a lot of factual information. We often just parrot whatever our favorite pundit has publicly opined. Truly, that is a tragic, worrisome state of affairs. It makes me pessimistic about the future of our republic.

Mark 4:24 (Amplified Bible)

And He said to them, Be careful what you are hearing. The measure [of thought and study] you give [to the truth you hear] will be the measure [of virtue and knowledge] that comes back to you--and more [besides] will be given to you who hear.

Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story (2008) (Life Lessons About Appearances & Perceptions)

2011-06-09T11:28:00.000-07:00

In addition to reflecting on the futility of seeking power, in watching this documentary I was also struck by the futility of worrying about appearances and the opinions of others. I have no idea if the allegations in the film were true that in his final days Mr. Atwater told many that he was a frequent reader of the Bible, but never actually took his own Bible out of the cellophane. For the sake of argument, just assuming those allegations were true, that alleged hypocrisy is instructive and worth reflection.

Maybe the rest of us are not facing a terminal illness while under media scrutiny and worrying about public perceptions of us as we head into eternity. But that does not mean we are immune from the same type of pointless vanities that were alleged in the documentary. Such concerns are just on a smaller scale for most of us.

It seems to be human nature that we worry about what others think of us. Am I liked? Am I popular? Am I respected? From an early age, we are preoccupied with such things. But if we step back, we realize how silly and what a waste of time such trivialities are. It can make us feel good to be liked or to have others think well of us. Alternately, it can make us feel sad to be rejected or disrespected. But at the end of the day, how other people perceive us and what they think of us are really irrelevant.

Imagine that it is true that Mr. Atwater was more concerned that other people thought he had found God, but was not interested in actually finding God for himself. How tragic would that have been? As one is heading into eternity, it could not be less important what other humans think of us. What really matters is what God thinks. How sad it would be to spend one’s final hours on this planet cultivating public and private opinions instead of preparing for eternity with God. What a tragic waste. What a colossal juxtaposition of priorities.

If most people believe something about an individual—whether it is a positive or negative belief—it does not alter reality. Even if large numbers of Americans thought Barack Obama was born in Kenya, that would not make it true.

And particular gauges (e.g., class rankings, employment reviews, US News & World Reports rankings, etc.) are not always reflective of the reality that many believe. A student who ends up with the lowest score in a class is not necessarily someone who is lacking in skill or knowledge. Such a person may have mastered the course material quite well, but is forced by a mandatory grade curve to get a sub-par grade because others did relatively better on an exam.

If a person graduates second in her class from a third tier school and goes to work at a company in the Fortune 100, who really cares? In reality, those are pointless labels that simply reflect various elitisms and petty pecking orders. Such things always strike me as incongruous in a nation built on democratic values.

I would never dispute that that others’ beliefs and those types of gauges can have a huge influence on the decisions that people make. And some of those decisions have huge economic repercussions. Such perceptions can determine which house a person buys, which candidate gets a job offer, and which employee gets a raise, among other things. As a result, it is important for economic self-preservation to be aware of such economically important perceptions and to do one’s best to make sure perceptions are positive when they are associated with you.

But when economic repercussions are not at stake, we should realize that others’ opinions of us are just not important. If others don’t like you or think ill of you, who cares? Each of us should strive to be the best person we can be, but if others don’t appreciate who we are, tough cookies. As I have gotten older, I’ve realized that more and more. It is freeing to have that epiphany. I feel very fortunate to not be in my teens or twenties anymore!

Even when there are economic repercussions of others’ opinions, we should not become consumed with what others believe about us. We don’t have complete control over what others will think of us. Everyone has baggage. People may make judgments or prejudgments that negatively impact us and over which we have no control whatsoever. If one obsesses over what one cannot control, one will be unhappy and waste a lot of time.

We should never lose sight of the fact that perceptions are not necessarily reflective of reality. We should not buy into labels that ultimately are just words and may be quite different from whatever lies beneath. As Christians, we should always seek the truth and recognize that some will try to deceive us. Truth is not always easy to discern. It can take effort and time. Labels are easier. But that does not always make them true.

Proverbs 8:13

All who fear the Lord will hate evil. Therefore, I hate pride and arrogance, corruption and perverse speech.

Luke 6:22

What blessings await you when people hate you and exclude you and mock you and curse you as evil because you follow the Son of Man.

1 John 3:18

Dear children, let’s not merely say that we love each other; let us show the truth by our actions.

1 John 4:18

Such love has no fear, because perfect love expels all fear. If we are afraid, it is for fear of punishment, and this shows that we have not fully experienced his perfect love.

Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story (2008) (Life Lessons About Power)

2011-06-03T19:36:00.000-07:00

At the end of the day, this film taught me more about what people thought about Lee Atwater than what Mr. Atwater actually believed or experienced. I’m still not sure what his core values or beliefs (if any) were. But maybe that doesn’t matter. I still came away from the film with several lessons that may or may not have been particularly applicable to Mr. Atwater’s personal experience, but are nonetheless important truths for any of us.

First, I was struck by the futility of seeking power. Mr. Atwater lived his life in a profession focused on seeking to amass power. I’ve never found that appealing. As I’ve already mentioned in a prior blog post, I discerned early on that I’d not be a good fit for politics. I do not make a living by getting others elected and I have never run for any public office. Indeed most of us don’t do those things. But that doesn’t mean that we are immune from the thirst for power that allegedly consumed Mr. Atwater and tempted him to do unscrupulous things. We should not sit on our high horses and look down our nose at his choices.

Mr. Atwater’s quest for power was on a huge scale most of us cannot even fully image. But the rest of us face similar temptations on much more modest scales. Maybe it involves the possibility of stabbing a co-worker in the back to curry favor of a boss or management. Maybe it involves trying to get on a particular committee of a church or HOA to make important decisions for the community. Maybe it involves an intra-family power struggle to be the one to make decisions for the family or for a loved one. Just because we are not strolling the corridors of power in the capital of the free world does not mean that we are immune from the seductive attraction of power.

As humans, we want to be in control. It seems innate. We want to control our children’s decisions, our career trajectory, the remote control, and what we have for dinner. But the truth is, we have limited control over most things. We may work hard as parents and employees. But at the end of the day our kids will have opportunities to make decisions when we won’t be around to have any direct influence. And bosses and clients will have a lot of influence over our career and they are going to be guided by some factors beyond our control. We cannot control the weather, how long we’ll be in traffic on Monday or even the people with whom we will work. It is part of the human condition that we need to learn to accept that we have limited control in many important parts of our lives. Ultimately, God is in control and we have to learn to trust his plan.

And as Christians, we are called to love God and our brothers and sisters. As many theologians have noted, love and power are not equivalent. Indeed, one might assert they are mutually exclusive concepts. Choosing to love means a loss of control and a loss of power. Those who love are particularly vulnerable. That comes with the territory.

Watching this documentary about Lee Atwater was a good reminder to me about the futility of seeking power. That is a reminder we all need, even if we live far from the Beltway and are not involved in politics.

1 John 2:15

Do not love this world nor the things it offers you, for when you love the world, you do not have the love of the Father in you.

1 John 4:16

We know how much God loves us, and we have put our trust in his love.God is love, and all who live in love live in God, and God lives in them.

Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story (2008) (Struggle with Cancer and Deathbed Conversion)

2011-05-20T08:51:00.000-07:00

The final part of this film of course deals with Lee Atwater’s struggles with brain cancer beginning in 1990.

Tucker Askew describes Atwater as being consumed with fear during this period. Askew also noted that fear had been a staple of tool chest in politics. Ironically, when the gravity of his illness became apparent, Atwater had an attitude of sheer terror with respect to the imminence of the after-life.

In an interview in the film, Ed Rollins indicates that as Atwater’s health deteriorated, he and Atwater reconciled. Atwater asked for his help and indicated Rollins was the only person he could trust as others were trying to get him out of the RNC.

It was also noted that during this period of his life Atwater went on a frantic search for spiritual meaning, and had clergy of many faiths waiting in the halls to meet with him in the hospital. One friend indicated that Atwater told all of the clergy he was on board with their beliefs in the thought that if one of them were right, he’d be ok.

Another friend indicated Atwater told him he had never read the bible until his illness. He indicated he was consumed with the verse from the New Testament: “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?”

Despite the “boogeyman” person he cultivated, Ed Rollins expressed in the film the belief that Atwater was not evil, he was just insecure. His whole life was spent trying to gain power and prestige, and when he achieved it, Rollins believed he was terrified of losing it.

Mary Matalin expressed disgust with the misrepresentation of Atwater’s death bed conversion stories. I found this to be a fascinating attitude, but unfortunately it was not explored sufficiently in the film and I am not sure what exactly provoked her disgust.

The final scene in the film involves footage from the interview with Ed Rollins who explained that Atwater had indicated that a Living Bible was what was giving him faith in his final days. Rollins states that he said to Mary Matalin after Atwater’s death, "I really, sincerely hope that he found peace.” In the film, Rollins states, that Matalin responded, “Ed, when we were cleaning up his things afterwards, the Bible was still wrapped in the cellophane and had never been taken out of the package.” Rollins add that that fact “just told you everything there was. He was spinning right to the end."

That was certainly a fascinating way to end the film. However, I was left with certain questions.

Earlier in the film, Rollins had indicated that he himself was a former altar boy, but politics was not a field that typically recruited altar boys. Rollins also described with an incredible tirade of profanity his reaction to Atwater’s betrayal of him and the threats he made against Atwater at the time. Thus, it was evident in the film that Rollins had an extremely negative view towards Atwater and still held a lot of anger for him. Nonetheless, he later professed in the film that his anger for Atwater melted away when he saw how sick he was. The bottom line of all this is it is unclear to me whether one should even believe Rollins’ story about the cellophane.

Maybe Matalin made the statement, maybe she didn’t. Again, it is not clear in the film what provoked Ms. Matalin’s disgust at the deathbed conversion stories. Maybe it was because she had found a bible in Mr. Atwater’s office and it was in the cellophane. Perhaps Ms. Matalin’s disgust was prompted by her belief that Mr. Atwater’s deathbed conversion was insincere. But perhaps something else provoked her disgust. The reaction inside the Beltway towards Mr. Atwater’s tragic illness and death were enough to provoke disgust in plenty of people.

Indeed, that cellophane statement just seems odd to me. I myself own more bibles than I can count. Some were gifts, and others I bought myself at various times in my life. I’m not sure any of my bibles ever came wrapped in cellophane.

Even if Matalin did make the statement and even if it were true, it is not clear that it has the significance that Rollins suggests, i.e., that Atwater’s conversion was insincere. Like me, perhaps Atwater owned multiple copies of the bible and the one in the cellophane was one that he didn’t make use of. That doesn’t mean that he wasn’t reading another copy (or copies) regularly. Many people don’t do the bulk of their bible study at work. And it seems unlikely that Mr. Atwater would have been at his office much in the latter days of his life anyhow.

Although I own a lot of bibles, I have a few that I read more than others. I have one at my office at work that I have consulted most over the years for a variety of reasons. It is pocket size and has a bookmark ribbon that I find helpful. I have another bible with a different, more modern translation that I keep on my nightstand to read before I go to sleep. A third is one that I tend to use when I take a bible to church or when I go to our church’s small group meetings. Many years ago I tabbed the books in that particular bible, so I can find particular passages very quickly. A few other bibles of mine get read occasionally, but others are frankly rarely (if ever) opened. Though none of my bibles are wrapped in cellophane, if you judged my devotion to the bible based on the frequency these latter bibles are opened, the judgment would be skewed.

In the end, it is not for any of us human beings to judge the sincerity of Atwater’s death bed convergence, the sincerity of his statements of religious devotion he made to friends, or the frequency of his bible study. It does not really matter to me. That is not my place.

I disagreed with many things Mr. Atwater did in his earthly life, but I hope and believe he is at peace in the afterlife. As a Christian, I view God as merciful even when we are undeserving—and we all fit that description. Jesus taught us that God is not a vengeful god, he is the joyful father of the prodigal son.

To me, the ultimate take away from this film was that those who generally work in politics do not have the kind of values or ethics that I would aspire to embrace. I cannot ever see myself working in a political capacity. I cannot imagine ever deciding to run for public office or working in more than a casual manner (e.g., stuffing envelopes) for a politician.

These are not conclusions I have come to simply by virtue of watching this particular film. Experiences I had growing up in DC also underpin that decision. That does not mean that I am apathetic about politics or I’m disengaged. I think civic engagement is important. But I don’t have any illusions about politicians and those who get them elected. Even when I agree with the positions they take, I am not always convinced of their sincerity and I frankly doubt their integrity. Perhaps that is a horribly cynical view, but that seems to be a basic truth of the political process. I’m disappointed in the electorate that we’ve allowed that to be the case.

Acts 26:8
Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?

Romans 14:9
For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story (2008) (Manipulation of Journalists, Appeals to Superficial Patriotism & the Use of Fear)

2011-05-18T16:06:00.000-07:00

Multiple times in the film, interviewees explain that Mr. Atwater argued that perception is reality, and thus in politics one could create one’s own reality. That is a frightening assertion, but it unfortunately makes sense in the context of Mr. Atwater’s career.

Numerous members of the media are interviewed, and they frankly come off as rather lame. They explain how Mr. Atwater was charming on a personal level and befriended journalists. This made them vulnerable to manipulation as they unwittingly helped to spread innuendo and falsehoods as news stories.

For example, the film includes footage of Lee Atwater calmly telling an incredulous reporter repeatedly that he had no ad featuring Willie Horton. A friend of Mr. Atwater’s then recounts an occasion when Mr. Atwater showed him a tape of the notorious Willie Horton ad, and the friend urged him (unsuccessfully) to not use it.

It is also noted that due to the tremendous press attention it received, the infamous Willie Horton ad received more attention than it would have simply for the number of times it ran as a political commercial.

There are also interviews describing how the media knew that Republican leaders were lying about Iran-Contra, but the media not being willing to confront them publicly about it. The film describes the Washington press corps as being cynical and their reporting as being shallow.

In the film, the late Robert Novak stated at one point that Republican politicians just want to win elections; they are not ideologically committed. By contrast, he said Democratic politicians tend to have sincere beliefs about the causes they support. Novak, a conservative, laughed and added disparagingly that he thought Democrats’ beliefs—although sincere--were misguided. I found Novak’s perspective intriguing. His explanation is one that I’ve frankly often suspected as I’ve followed politics over the years, and I have even heard other progressives voice that same suspicion. But heretofore, I had never heard a conservative voice that perspective.

Tucker Eskew also made an interesting comment in the film. He talked at one point about people voting against their own interest because patriotism was stronger. That comment was made in the context of the issues the film notes dominated the 1988 presidential election: flag burning, mandating the pledge of allegiance in the schools, and perceived threats to gun ownership rights.

Eric Alterman also made several interesting comments. In the same context as Mr. Eskew’s statement, Mr. Alterman stated that people vote their fears, not their hopes. His point was that Lee Atwater recognized that reality and masterfully exploited it. Indeed, the film noted that in the 1988, polls indicated that voters were turned off by the negative campaign tactics. Nonetheless, the tactics worked for those who initiated them in the Bush campaign. They turned some voters against Dukakis. Further, they discouraging other would-be voters from going to the polls; voter turnout was low in 1988 and low turnout favored Republicans.

Mr. Alterman also described the Republican Party as a “stealth party.” He noted that the GOP deliberately tried to appeal to the common man in elections, yet in power deliberately provided all the benefits of power to a smaller group of the electorate: the wealthy. He also noted that the GOP advocated high levels of morality, but exhibited other behaviors in private.

Mr. Alterman did not elaborate what he meant in the film, but I think it is fairly obvious. At least since the 1980 election, the party has pandered to cultural insecurities and resentments of white folk at middle and lower socio-economic levels. In the last presidential election, this approach was focused on “Joe the Plumber” (or “Joe Sixpack” as he was sometimes called). But folks like Joe get ignored when the GOP gets into power. They are supposed to wait for “trickle down” economic benefits that never seem to trickle down. Moreover, when it comes to social issues, such voters are supposed to be patient (and frankly just shut up) when their supposed political allies never come through on their campaign promises to outlaw abortion or adopt a constitutional amendment forbidding same sex marriage.

Indeed, the GOP touts “family values” and embraces religion publicly, and such campaign tactics are directly responsible for many of the votes they receive in elections. However, despite Christ’s own teaching against divorce, many of the GOP’s most prominent leaders and allies have been divorced (some multiple times): Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, Rush Limbaugh, Phil Gramm, Mary Matalin, Bob Dole, Dick Armey, Pete Wilson, John Warner, John McCain, Ed Rollins, and George Will, among others.

Similarly, some conservatives currently accuse President Obama of not being a Christian and chiding him for not going to church regularly. It is interesting that such folks didn’t have a problem with President Reagan’s absence from the pews. But then again, I’m not sure he technically ever publicly professed to be a Christian in his political life. Perhaps it would have conflicted with Mrs. Reagan’s devotion to astrology.

Exodus 18:21

But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.

Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story (2008) (Bigotry, Deceit & Hypocrisy)

2011-05-15T16:57:00.000-07:00

Early in the film, some time is devoted to Mr. Atwater’s early days in Southern politics. There is mention of exploitative, divisive “push polls” that suggested slanderous things about opposing candidates or invoked bigotry. In that vein, there are claims that Atwater exploited anti-Semitism in the Bible Belt to win an early election. It is also asserted that Atwater had said that in a prior era Southern politics required extensive use of the n-word to win, but that day was past and one had to be more subtle. In that context, it is asserted that Reagan’s use of the term “welfare queen” became code for the n-word.

In a similar vein, it was also observed in the film that in 1980 Ronald Reagan began his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi. It was a small town off the beaten path, but was known internationally as the site of one of the most egregious, racially charged crimes. Three civil rights workers were killed there in 1964. Reagan famously used the term “states rights” in his speech in Philadelphia. The film asserts this campaign ploy was pandering to the basest instincts in the electorate.

The film portrays Atwater as a workaholic striving for power and recognition. Interviewees stated he had an amazing work ethic, working 7 days per week. People who worked closely with him when he first came to D.C. said they were shocked to hear eventually that he had a wife and child. Interviewees also described Atwater as devious, manipulative, and insecure. They expressed the belief that he was trying to prove himself; he was cynical about politics and not idealistic.

Along those lines, Ed Rollins described his betrayal in 1984 at the hands of Atwater. Mr. Rollins expressed in the film that he had been warned by those around him to not trust Atwater, but he did not heed that advice. Mr. Rollins did decide to trust Atwater, but he indicates he came to regret that decision bitterly. Rollins described Atwater as cold-blooded. He also noted that Atwater’s younger brother had died when they were little children in a tragic, grotesque kitchen accident. It was asserted that early childhood experience warped Atwater, proving to him that God was unmerciful.

The film described that the Bush family treated Atwater dismissively and viewed him as the “hired help.” Barbara Bush allegedly disliked Mr. Atwater’s vulgarity. George W. Bush was apparently assigned by the family to keep an eye on Atwater. The film asserts that George W. Bush ultimately became a fan and admirer of Atwater, learning much about politics from him.

There were a number of interviewee comments about the 1988 election that were interesting. One charged that Ronald Reagan desperately needed to prevent the Democrats from taking over the White House to make sure he did not face investigations and possible prosecution for the Iran-Contra Affair. The plan was to keep Dukakis constantly on the defensive; in such a context, even if you did nothing wrong, you seem guilty if you always have to defend yourself.

One of the things I myself remember about the 1988 campaign and found most insulting at the time was the obvious manipulation of image, which the film attributed to Atwater’s genius. Dukakis was the son of immigrants who had had to work hard for all he had achieved. Nonetheless, Dukakis was successfully portrayed as an elitist by the Bush campaign. By contrast, George H.W. Bush (who was a prep school grad, the son of a respected politician and well-entrenched in the aristocratic Yankee elite) was paraded around in fancy polished cowboy boots eating pork rinds.

As a native Texan whose family has been in the state for many generations, I had found that parody to be deeply insulting at the time. Even worse, I was disappointed that we Texans allowed this quintessential blueblood Yankee New Englander to briefly put on the most stereotypical of Texas costumes to pretend to be something he clearly was not. If you were born in Massachusetts, you were educated in elite private schools in Massachusetts and Connecticut, your home is actually in a place like Kennebunkport, you only came to the Lone Star State as an adult to exploit its oil resources, and your speech does not naturally include the word “y’all,” you are not a real Texan in my book. Nonetheless, the Bush family continues to be quite popular in Texas—much to my dismay and disgust.

The film interviews Mike and Kitty Dukakis. Sadly, Mr. Dukakis seems to still be kicking himself for the decision to stick to the moral high ground and not respond to the baseless negative campaign ads ran against him in 1988. In the interview with Dukakis, the film noted that the Massachusetts prison furlough program, with which the GOP pummeled him in the campaign, was actually initiated by other political leaders such as Governor Ronald Reagan of California.

Psalm 26:4 (New International Version)
I do not sit with deceitful men, nor do I consort with hypocrites.

Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story (2008) (Overview: The South and “Liberal Elites”)

2011-05-12T09:35:00.000-07:00

Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story was a fascinating documentary and quite different from what I was anticipating. I thought the film would be a straight-forward description of Mr. Atwater’s embrace of dirty tricks to win campaigns and his deathbed terror at the prospect of having to account in the afterlife for such misdeeds. That was certainly part of the documentary, but the film actually told a much more complex story.

A number of folks from varied backgrounds were interviewed in the film to tell Mr. Atwater’s story—admirers and detractors, Democrats and Republicans, blacks and whites. The film interviewed politicians, political operatives, journalists, as well as non-political, unsophisticated average Joes who knew Mr. Atwater in his home state of South Carolina. The famous people interviewed included Robert Novak, Ed Rollins, Mary Matalin, Tucker Eskew, Mike & Kitty Dukakis, Eric Alterman, and Sam Donaldson, among many others.

There were a number of points in the film that I found fascinating. I’ll explore those points in several different blog posts. The first I’ll address is Mr. Atwater’s intimate understanding of Southerners and his exploitation of that knowledge for political purposes.

Many of the interviewees early in the film focused on the significance of Mr. Atwater’s Southern roots. The interviewees made insightful comments about the role of the South in modern politics. They noted that the South was the only part of the United States that had ever been defeated and humiliated in war, and that experience fostered a backlash and resentment against so called “liberal elites.”

The interviewees mentioned the long-held perception that liberal elites think they are very smart and are generally better than Southerners (who are viewed by the liberal elites as being stupid). One white Southern interviewee asserted that liberal elites are biased against white Southerners in the same way that liberal elites accuse white Southerners of being biased against blacks. The film suggested this lingering resentment against liberal elites was well-understood by Mr. Atwater; he exploited it to his candidates’ advantage.

I think this is an important point of which “liberal elites” should take note. I never supported any of Mr. Atwater’s candidates, but this point about “liberal elites” even rang true with me. Throughout my life, I’ve spent a fair amount of time with folks from the Northeast, and have experienced such attitudes first and second hand. Though the title character in Forrest Gump had an intellectual disability, it has often been my impression that many people raised and/or educated in the Northeast believe the character Tom Hanks created is typical of all white Southerners. A while back I read an interview with Stephen Colbert (another native South Carolinian) who pointed out that when he was growing up popular culture always portrayed Southerners as dummies. This prompted Mr. Colbert at an early age to consciously neutralize his own speech to avoid being lumped in with such stereotypes due to his accent. Of course, it is hard for even the most enlightened of human beings to not find such stereotypical portrayals (and the underlying attitudes they betray) to be offensive and downright annoying.

What is even more irksome to many of us, however, is the more subtle attitude that white Southerners are all racists. I am very much aware of the extreme levels of violence that have been directed against African Americans in the South for several centuries. And despite the formal dismantling of Jim Crow several decades ago, I would never assert that racism is ancient history and no longer a problem in the South. I know there has been huge progress, but deep problems certainly still exist. Nonetheless, in my experience, there is currently as much racism in other parts of the country. This is true though folks in other parts of the country often get self-righteous--acting like the South is uniquely racist but places like Newark, Boston and Philadelphia are harmonious examples of racial tolerance.

I try to be open to and tolerant of all of God’s children, but I must confess one demographic that is particularly difficult for me to stomach is white, politically liberal Yankees with an educational pedigree. I struggle against prejudging people in that demographic; at times it is a real challenge. We may vote the same in most general elections, but such people typically have little else in common with me.
And to the extent that such people dominate or appear to dominate the Democratic Party and major media outlets, such an attitude is a real problem. If such institutions are at times even alienating Southern folks like me, they need to recognize that as a very serious problem and address it.

Proverbs 16:18

Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.

Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story (2008) (Preconceptions Before Watching the Film)

2011-05-10T10:33:00.000-07:00

In prior posts this year, I focused on the tragic lack of civility in public discourse in the modern era. Some people cite Lee Atwater as a chief cause of the polarization, the vilification of political opponents and the general breakdown in civility that we currently see in public life. Personally, I am not sure what the chief causes have been; I haven’t studied the subject enough to know what got us to this point. But I recently came across an interesting documentary about Mr. Atwater. Before I blog about the documentary itself, I think it is helpful to mention the attitudes and impressions I had about Mr. Atwater when I initially watched the film. One’s preconceptions impact how one reacts to new information.

I came of age as an adult in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Growing up in the DC area, I was attuned to politics for as long as I can recall. As a teenager, I volunteered on various political campaigns. It was so incredibly exciting when in 1987 I was finally eligible to register to vote. For the first time, I myself was able to vote for a particular candidate, not just encourage others to do so. It was thrilling and empowering.

Early on in the primary season for the 1988 presidential election, I backed Mike Dukakis. He was a little known, nerdy and frugal governor from a Yankee state. Despite being a Northerner, I thought he was great. He struck me as pragmatic, intelligent and committed. He really seemed to want to make our country better and help as many of us as possible live the American dream. Moreover, he seemed to have the attitude and skills necessary to get the job done. It was thrilling when my candidate actually did well in the primaries and secured the Democratic Party’s nomination for president. When he accepted the party’s nomination at the convention, he seemed well situated to beat George H.W. Bush, who seemed whiney and hopelessly out of touch.

Somehow it all unraveled in the fall of 1988. Our economy was going down the toilet and my fellow college students were pessimistic about our futures. The phrase “McJob” had been coined, and we half-joked we would be flipping burgers after we received our diplomas. Nonetheless, the presidential election somehow focused almost exclusively on red herring issues like flag burning and prison furloughs. I was incredulous, bitterly disappointed and deeply dismayed. When Dukakis lost the election, I shed a lot of tears not just because my candidate lost. That had happened before. It was not fun, but that was nothing new. But in 1988 my tears flowed because of how Dukakis was beaten. Negative campaigning had worked, and enough of the electorate was distracted with red herrings to vote against their own interests and against rationale policies.

The presidential election of 1988 was the first in which I was able to vote and the way that particular election was won ended up having a deep impact on me whether or not I really recognized it at the time. I suppose in retrospect I lost my political innocence and hopefulness just as I was taking my place in the electorate. Although it did not dissuade me from taking part in elections and voting, the 1988 presidential election taught me in a very real way that good guys don’t always win in politics, voters can be manipulated, and to win elections candidates must sometimes play dirty. Prior to that election, having grown up in DC, I think I had always had a vague thought that I might make a career out of politics. The lessons of the 1988 presidential election taught me that I ought to find a different path. I didn’t have the temperament needed to win elections.

By the time George H.W. Bush was inaugurated, the name Lee Atwater was not unfamiliar to me, but I didn’t know a whole lot about him. I knew he was a white Southerner who loved blues music, and he was credited as having turned the election around for George H.W. Bush. I remember him playing blues guitar at the inauguration gala. That was about all I knew at the time.

Several years after the 1988 election, I was taking classes to prepare for my baptism in the Catholic church. Just before my baptism at Easter in 1991, I attended a retreat in Austin, Texas led by a very sweet older priest. He was a white man from some Yankee state; his accent made me think of Brooklyn. But what the heck did I know, he could have been from Boston or Philadelphia. I don’t remember exactly what he was talking about, but the priest made a brief mention of Lee Atwater having converted to Catholicism right before his untimely death. This was a surprise to me, I had not heard about this in the secular news media and it got my attention at the retreat. The priest’s mention of this fact was very casual, he seemed to not find the (deathbed) conversion remarkable or suspicious. I forget the precise context of the priest’s reference to Atwater’s conversion, but he seemed to accept the conversion as earnest and fairly typical. By contrast, I was not so sure.

When Mr. Atwater had died, the secular media had mentioned his legacy as consisting of the infamous Willie Horton ads and being the king of dirty politics. Many of us felt unease that someone who’d apparently lived such an unscrupulous life was going to meet his maker and judgment was imminent. Unlike the priest at that retreat, my intuitive interpretation of Mr. Atwater’s conversion was that he was trying to avoid judgment by embracing a religion that offered forgiveness freely. As a result of this interpretation, I remember feeling very bad for Mr. Atwater.

That mention at my pre-baptism retreat was the only reference to Mr. Atwater’s
conversion I ever remember. I don’t remember hearing much else about his death until I recently watched the documentary Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story. It was a fascinating film, but not in the way I had anticipated.

Exodus 20:16

You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

Exodus 14:31

And when the Israelites saw the great power the LORD displayed against the Egyptians, the people feared the LORD and put their trust in him and in Moses his servant.

Washing Hands and Feet

2011-05-06T07:14:00.000-07:00

Two weeks ago was Good Friday, which is the remembrance of the day that Christ was crucified and died. It is a solemn and sad day for Christians. We can imagine the anguish that the disciples felt when they lost their teacher and friend, but did not yet understand that he would be returning soon.

The day before Good Friday (i.e., the Thursday before Easter) is referred to as “Holy Thursday” or “Maundy Thursday.” It is the time when many Christian churches commemorate the Last Supper including Jesus’ washing the feet of his disciples. Like many churches, our family’s church reenacts the foot washing.

To non-Christians, or even to Christians from different faith traditions, the foot washing ritual is admittedly sort of strange. Indeed, I myself never participate in the foot washing. I hate to be a wet blanket, but it is just not my cup of tea.

I even felt that way prior to an uncomfortable experience when my husband and I were serving in a church ministry years ago and the ministry’s leaders surprised the volunteers with a previously unpublicized foot washing activity. On that day, my toenail polish was unfortunately chipping and I was mortified to have to remove my loafers to present my feet for the leaders of our ministry to wash. It was not a positive spiritual experience for me.

So, even though I don’t enjoy participating in foot washing ceremonies directly, I am moved by them as a participant. This year, prior to the ritual, our pastor gave a sermon to give some context for what we were about to do. She explained that the point of the foot washing was not to just model humility. Instead, at the Last Supper, Jesus knew what was coming; he knew he would not be with his disciples much longer and he was concerned for them. He wanted them to have a model of love to take care of one another after he was gone. The foot washing ritual is an opportunity for the church to express their love and care for one another.

We love each other because Christ first loved us. That is such a beautiful concept. So, despite the social awkwardness of washing the feet of non-family members (sometimes people we barely know or don’t know at all), the ritual is quite moving. At my church, people are moved to tears in many cases and hugging each other. Heck, even though I never left the pew, I was in tears during the whole ceremony.

In the pre-foot washing sermon, our pastor reminded us that in preparation for Easter, we had actually read another story recently about washing. She reminded us that the weekend before at church we had just read the account of Pontius Pilate washing his hands after acquiescing to the crowd’s demands to crucify Jesus. In that account, Pilate washed his hands to symbolically show that Jesus’s blood was not on his hands. Though he did nothing to protect Jesus, he rejected responsibility for what was going to happen to him. Pilate looked the other way and refused to intervene. Though Jesus would be executed under his authority, Pilate insisted he bore no responsibility.

In her sermon, our pastor pointed out that these two contrasting stories of washing were complementary. Jesus uses washing to model care and love of his disciples. By contrast, Pilate’s symbolic hand-washing epitomized his refusal to help someone in need, his refusal to be bothered, his refusal to do anything on someone else’s behalf that might require some sacrifice or effort. Our pastor taught that was an insightful contrast, and we should pray for strength to not follow Pilate’s example but to follow Jesus’s. She noted that being a Christ follower is not easy. It is hard, but it is a choice we freely make.

I’ve been thinking about that sermon and the comparison of the two readings. It seems to have great relevance to the themes in recent blog posts—the humanitarian tragedy that has been going on in Mexico and on this side of the border as migrants are exploited and die in the desert. I pray that I (and all of us) have the courage to follow Jesus’s example and not Pilate’s in that context and others.

2 Chronicles 15:7

But you, take courage! Do not let your hands be weak, for your work shall be rewarded.

Matthew 25:35

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.

Children in Mexico

2011-05-01T11:08:00.000-07:00

Continuing with themes in the last few blog posts, I wanted to share a radio piece that was on the radio program "Morning Edition Sunday" this morning. It discussed how children have been impacted by the drug wars in Mexico. It was a heart-breaking report. The link below contains the text as well as the ability to listen to the audio.

http://www.npr.org/2011/05/01/135813656/war-turning-mexican-kids-into-targets-or-killers

1 Samuel 2:8

He raises up the poor from the dust;he lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with princesand inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s,and on them he has set the world.

Psalm 72:4

Help him to defend the poor,to rescue the children of the needy,and to crush their oppressors.

Psalm 82:3

Give justice to the poor and the orphan;uphold the rights of the oppressed and the destitute.

Border Ministries

2011-04-26T21:02:00.000-07:00

This post follows up on the prior one, which discussed the recent Border Forum at my church. This post includes more information about various Christian ministries and efforts to raise consciousness of the humanitarian tragedy along the border.

The Episcopal Diocese of Arizona has a Border Ministries program. The link below has information at it. The members of my church who visited the border recently indicate the program consists of just one priest and a few interns.

http://www.ebm.azdiocese.org/

The Reverend Seth Polley (who shepherds St. John’s parish in Bisbee and St. Stephen’s in Douglas) is very active in border issues and leads that Border Ministries program. The website for St. John’s is available at the link below.

http://stjohns.azdiocese.org/

Reverend Polley has had a blog, which is available at the link below. It has not been kept current, but his perspective is interesting to read.

http://seteo.wordpress.com/

The Presbyterian church has also been active in border ministries. They have founded “Frontera de Cristo,” which can be translated as “Christ’s Border.” Frontera de Cristo is a vibrant program with opportunities for short term and longer term service projects, and various outreach and advocacy efforts. During their trip to the border, my fellow congregants learned about the Café Justo cooperative program for fair trade coffee development in Mexico. Frontera de Christo also hosts the weekly precession in the desert that I referenced in the prior post. Take a look at the organization’s website below; they have some insightful pictures and information about things that are happening along the border.

http://www.fronteradecristo.org/

My fellow congregants also visited a clinic in Naco on the Mexico side of the border. The link below contains some information about that clinic, which is sponsored by Christians on the American side of the border.

http://stmary.azdiocese.org/digital_faith/news/233

Members of my church also visited the desert near the border and learned of the work of a non-denominational faith-based organization called “Humane Borders,” which helps to alleviate the suffering and prevent the deaths of migrants. Among the organization’s activities, they have established a network of water stations where migrants can get clean water while they are in the desert and exposed to brutal conditions. The organization’s website is available at the link below.

http://www.humaneborders.org/

Finally, my fellow congregants visited the Centro de Atención al Migrante Exodus (“CAME”) in Agua Prieta on the Mexico side of the border. It is a ministry of the Catholic church and provides short-term food and a place to stay for people who have attempted unsuccessfully to migrate to the U.S. In recent years, the U.S. Border Patrol has returned migrants to Mexico, but to a different place than their point of entry into the United States. As a result, the returned migrants are often disoriented and even unsure where along the border they have landed. CAME meets the acute needs of such migrants as they attempt to figure out what to do next. The link below is an old article, but contains a brief mention of the CAME ministry in Agua Prieta.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1708

Exodus 12:49

There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.

Leviticus 19:33

When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.

Leviticus 25:35

If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you.

Border Forum

2011-04-23T16:01:00.000-07:00

Our family’s church recently had a dinner where several members spoke about a trip they took to the Arizona-Sonora border to meet with Christians ministering to the needs of migrants and others in the area. It was a very somber discussion but very enlightening.

Several of the people who spoke have lived for long periods very close to the border, but had been away for about six years. They talked about how much the border area has changed in that time. It used to be that you rarely encountered the border patrol, but their presence is now quite noticeable. One woman talked about the new presence of the “ugly” and “wasteful” border wall. One man talked about how it used to be possible to cross the border casually to go shopping or to go to a restaurant, but now it took hours to cross into Mexico. Because of the drug wars, the U.S. authorities are stopping cars going into Mexico looking for weapons and cash from the drug trade.

The people who had been on the border trip talked about their visits with people who worked on the border ministering to migrants. There is a procession on Tuesdays where crosses are carried bearing the names of migrants who died trying to come into the U.S. Most die from exposure to the elements in the harsh desert climate. It was a moving part of the Border Forum discussion when our fellow congregants spoke of participating in the procession and carrying a cross in memory of one of the men who had died. Our deacon talked about the humanity of each of those people who died. Each one of them is our neighbor and a precious child of the most high God. That point is rarely if ever mentioned in the ugly rhetoric about immigration these days. It particularly grieves me that Christians don’t emphasize it more in the public debate. We Christians purport to value the sanctity of human life--all human life, not just unborn babies.

The panel at the Border Forum also talked about meeting some of the migrants when the folks from our church crossed to the Mexican side of the border. Most of the migrants were men and most were fairly young. The men our fellow congregants met were largely from Chiapas, a very poor and troubled region in Southern Mexico. There were also some men from Central America—Guatemala in particular. The people from our church asked these migrants why they came all that way to enter the United States illegally. The response was that there was dire economic need. They had families and there were no jobs where they came from. The bottom line was that the families of these men needed them to provide for them. Coming to the United States for work was their best opportunity. The men indicated they would rather stay home because they hated to be separated from their loved ones. But to stay home meant no way to provide for them.

Psalm 116:3

The danger of death was all around me; the horrors of the grave closed in on me; I was filled with fear and anxiety.

Luke 12:4

I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot afterward do anything worse.

Border Security and Drugs

2011-04-22T16:14:00.000-07:00

Mexico is an amazing country, but it also has a lot of difficult problems. These problems have various causes and there seems to be no easy fixes.

One of the biggest challenges Mexico faces at the current time is the dominance of illegal narco-commerce. It is has become a huge segment of the Mexican economy. The strength of the cartels has challenged the rule of law. The local and federal governments have been unable to get the situation under control. The cartels have become more ruthlessly violent as they compete for control and respond to government attempts to crack down. Regular folks are terrified. Their understandable fear has changed how they live their lives. The culture and the economy of Mexico have both been impacted negatively.

The drug violence tearing Mexico apart and ruining its economy is based on the profitability of supplying the United States’ huge appetite for narcotics. This is the case despite the fact that such substances have been criminalized in our country for decades. This point doesn’t get mentioned enough in American news or our civic discourse. Mexican drug cartels are the main foreign supplier of marijuana and methamphetamines to the American black market. Because of its geography, Mexico is also the main artery for cocaine from South America to enter the United States.

I admit that I have never used any of these drugs and I have no understanding of why anyone would use them. To be very honest, I also have little patience for people who use them.

Nonetheless, I try very hard to integrate Christ’s teachings in my life. I try really hard to not pass judgment on those who use illegal drugs. No one is perfect, and I’m very cognizant that we all sin. Maybe I’ll never smoke pot or do whatever one does with methamphetamines, but I know I have a big ole beam in my own eye and ought not worry about the splinters in the eyes of others.

But it is hypocritical for us Americans to vilify Mexicans fleeing Mexico when our nation’s schizophrenic approach to drugs is causing such devastating harm to our neighbors. Our nation’s appetite for illegal drugs is certainly not the sole cause of all of Mexico’s problems. But we certainly bear some responsibility for the current plight of our neighbor.

I’m frustrated with those who use illegal drugs. And I’m frustrated at the lack of creativity of our policy makers to continue with the same bankrupt policies. It seems to me we either need to find a way to cut our demand and consumption of these toxic substances, or we need to find a way to eliminate the huge profit potential from supplying our nation’s demand for narcotics. The status quo has had a devastating enough impact in our own country, but it puts our neighbor at risk for becoming a narco-state. If my neighbor’s house goes up in flames, my home is also at risk to burn.

Acts 17:30 (GOD’S WORD Translation)

“God overlooked the times when people didn’t know any better. But now he commands everyone everywhere to turn to him and change the way they think and act.

The Myopic Nature of the Current Border Debate

2011-04-15T09:52:00.000-07:00

Before things began to get so dangerous in Mexico, my husband and I had enjoyed traveling in different parts of the country. As an undergrad, Spanish was one of my two majors. My husband has also studied the language, but to a lesser degree. We both enjoyed being immersed in the Spanish language and getting the opportunity to practice our skills. We also enjoyed exploring the culture. We are both native Texans and have lived most of our lives in parts of the state with a significant Chicano influence and a fairly frequent interaction with Mexico. Because Mexicanidad has been part of our life experience in the United States, I suppose it makes logical sense we would feel an affinity for Mexico.

When my husband and I used to travel in Mexico, border towns like Juárez and Nuevo Laredo were fun day trips from Texas, but we particularly enjoyed traveling well beyond the border. We absolutely adored the culture, history and cuisine of Mexico City. I’ve had the good fortune to travel to a fair number of places around the world and Mexico City is one of my all time favorites. I spent a summer there studying law and interning with the Commerce Ministry, so I have not just seen the city as a tourist. I have been all over the metropolitan area, gotten to know some neighborhoods fairly well, and have braved rush hour on a regular basis.

When we used to travel to Mexico, my husband and I also found Monterrey to be modern and a lot of fun. We have also been to Mexican beach towns in the East. We spent our honeymoon in Cancun and years later went with our family to Isla Mujeres. My husband and I have also visited beach towns on the West Coast like Ensenada. But in our children’s young lives, we’ve never been able to take them to explore the beauty of Mexico because of the security issues.

Obviously, we’re not the only foreigners who are foregoing travel to Mexico. And plenty of Mexicans are fleeing the country due to the violence, political insecurity and economic implosion. Meanwhile, in the United States, our focus on Mexico has been myopic and unrealistic. We vilify Mexican peasants who risk their lives and endure all kinds of exploitation to come here in desperation to provide for their families.

In our public discourse, we insist on “securing the border.” We act like that is a simple task. In reality, it is a complicated, expensive and monumental task due to the huge expanse of territory involved. Some would say it is an impossible task to truly “secure” the border. Undeterred, we build an expensive, ugly (and useless) wall to keep out those whom we do not want to enter our country. But we never get to the root of the problem. We never ask why people are risking their lives to cross the border in increasingly large numbers.

Because we never seek to get to the root causes of the issue and only attack the issue in a simplistic manner, I fear we are doomed to fail in our efforts and simply waste a lot of government resources. If the motivations to cross the border are huge, no literal or figurative wall is going to be effective. The root causes of the exodus are in Mexico, but most Americans seem to have no interest in looking at those root causes.

My sense is that many Americans feel that we have plenty of problems in our own country and whatever is going on in Mexico is a problem exclusively for the Mexicans to solve. That certainly is an attitude with plenty of intuitive appeal. But the fact is that we’re neighbors and our common geography makes it impossible for us to ignore what is happening in Mexico to prompt escalating violence and increasing numbers of people to cross the border illegally.

Our family lives in a suburban subdivision. If our next door neighbor’s house caught on fire, it would be inhumane for us to refuse help. Putting ethics aside entirely, it would also be against our family’s own self interest. If our neighbors’ house fire got out of control, it could also destroy our common fence, our family’s yard or even our family’s home. It would be the right thing to do to let our neighbors use the phone or to call 911 for them. If we had a fire extinguisher or water hoses that could help put out the fire before it became unwieldy, that would not only be the humane thing to do, it would help us protect our own home and property. It certainly wouldn’t make much sense to sit around and ignore the fact that there was a fire. It would make even less sense to sit around griping about our neighbors while we heard them knocking on our front door asking for help.

Luke 10:25-29 (The Message) Just then a religion scholar stood up with a question to test Jesus. "Teacher, what do I need to do to get eternal life?" He answered, "What's written in God's Law? How do you interpret it?" He said, "That you love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and muscle and intelligence—and that you love your neighbor as well as you do yourself." "Good answer!" said Jesus. "Do it and you'll live." Looking for a loophole, he asked, "And just how would you define 'neighbor'?"

Changes Along the Arizona-Sonora Border

2011-04-14T21:28:00.000-07:00

I live several hours from the Arizona-Sonora border. To date, I’ve never crossed the Arizona-Sonora border. In part that is because I’ve been busy and I’ve only lived in Arizona a few years. But in part I’ve never crossed into Sonora because I follow the lead of my neighbors. I know plenty of people in the metro Phoenix area who used to enjoy going to towns like Nogales and Rocky Point, but no longer feel safe doing so. Security on the Mexico side of the border has deteriorated significantly in the last few years.

Several months ago I was touched by a report on NPR by Claudio Sanchez. Apparently, Mr. Sanchez (a regular contributor to NPR) is originally from Nogales, Sonora. In the report, he described changes to his home town.

The link below contains that report:

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/30/131859639/once-a-mexican-tourist-town-now-no-man-s-land

Psalm 27:1
The Lord is my light and my salvation; I will fear no one. The Lord protects me from all danger; I will never be afraid.

The Changing Dynamics of the El Paso-Juárez Metropolis

2011-04-08T16:32:00.000-07:00

Our family lives in the metro Phoenix area. Our home is located several hours from the U.S.-Mexico border. When we drive to visit our relatives in Texas, we drive along the border at various times. In El Paso, especially, we come very close to the border, and we can see people on the Mexico side in their Juárez neighborhoods.

In the past 5-10 years, El Paso has changed so much. The tourist brochures used to give information about crossing the border to go to Juárez for shopping, dining, bar hopping and cultural diversions. That is no longer the case. The tourist brochures now discreetly advise visitors to visit the State Department website to study current warnings before crossing the border.

Over the years, I have had friends and family in El Paso, and we used to love going to Juárez for lunch or to go shopping. It was a lot of fun and we felt safe. But that is no longer the case. The last time my husband and I crossed the border to visit Juárez was around 2002.

In recent years, the middle class merchants and professionals, as well as the affluent in Juárez, have been abandoning the city and moving to El Paso. The residential real estate market in El Paso has been catering to Juareños, and there is a flurry of new businesses on the U.S. side of the border as merchants from Juárez establish new businesses in their new hometown. This exodus has been devastating to the Mexico side of the border metropolis. But I don’t see how anyone could blame the people fleeing Juárez. The scale of the violence is astounding.

In 2007, Juárez had 307 homicides. In 2008, there were 1,600. In 2009 there were 2,600.

Beyond Juárez, nearly 24,000 people have been killed in all of Mexico since late 2006 when Felipe Calderón became president and began to wage war on the Mexican drug cartels. Nearly 24,000 human beings. That is about twice as many people in my husband’s hometown.

The links below include some insightful journalism on the situation in the El Paso- Juárez urban area:

http://www.elpasotimes.com/juarez/ci_16518734

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125427225

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/14/131765609/amid-unrest-juarez-symphony-orchestra-plays-on

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/28/132370340/mexican-teens-in-different-worlds-share-tragic-fate

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/30/133348396/Juarez-Erupts-Not-In-Violence-But-In-Protest

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1966988

Job 3:25 Everything I fear and dread comes true. Psalm 91:5 You need not fear any dangers at night or sudden attacks during the day.

Terry Goddard on Arizona’s Growing Reputation as the “New Mississippi”

2011-04-07T21:32:00.000-07:00

Terry Goddard was the Democratic challenger to Jan Brewer in the 2010 Arizona governor’s race. Mr. Goddard served as Arizona’s Attorney General from 2002 until 2011. He had also been the mayor of Phoenix from 1983 until 1990.

When our family first moved to Arizona several years ago, there were several prominent Democrats serving the state, and moderate Republican John McCain was the state’s most famous member of Congress. By 2010, the state had become more and more dominated by Republicans and partisan, conservative politics. Even though Mr. Goddard seemed to have done a good job as Attorney General and had strong credentials, the Democratic label seemed toxic in his gubernatorial campaign. After the primary results were announced, the local newscasts were already proclaiming that Mr. Goddard had no shot at winning and Jan Brewer would serve another term as governor. Even when Governor Brewer embarrassed herself (and the state) with an incoherent performance in the gubernatorial debate, she was a shoo-in simply because she was the Republican nominee. The links below have some coverage of the debate fiasco. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Governors/2010/0903/Jan-Brewer-debate-gaffe-How-badly-will-it-hurt-her-chances

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/sep/03/arizona-governor-debate-jan-brewer

I voted for Mr. Goddard in the primary and in the general election, though in my heart it did seem like a pointless exercise. I guess I am used to such experiences. When my husband and I first moved from Texas and went to the Arizona DMV, the woman who processed our license and voter registration paperwork was visibly surprised at a few details of applications. She said that she didn’t realize there were any Democrats in Texas and asked how that worked. We admitted we were used to being in the political minority in our home state. And now we are finding that we continue to be in the political minority in our adopted state. Terry Goddard left office as Attorney General at the end of December. Arizona no longer has any non-Republicans in state-wide elected office. Not long before he left office, I listened to an interview with Mr. Goddard, which raised even more my admiration for him as he spoke insightfully and pragmatically about the issues facing Arizona. In the interview, Mr. Goddard shared insights about the current border issues and Arizona’s growing reputation as the “new Mississippi” because of enactment of S.B. 1070. The link below contains that interview.

http://kjzz.org/news/arizona/archives/201012/hn_goddardcareer

Psalm 43:3 Send your light and your truth; may they lead me and bring me back to Zion, your sacred hill, and to your Temple, where you live.

Guest Blogger McKay Cunningham on the Divisiveness of Birthright Citizenship

2011-04-01T07:01:00.000-07:00

Few take the middle ground or are undecided. Websites devoted to the topic are rife with dire projections, and the comments posted by individuals after any given article are too often vitriolic.

But what does the Constitution actually say about birthright citizenship? What legal grounds support those who argue that children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants are not U.S. citizens?

The legal arguments focus, of course, on the language found in the Constitution itself. The Fourteenth Amendment (ratified in 1868) states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”

Most legal scholars agree that this provision contains two prongs: (1) persons born in the U.S., and (2) persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It is this later phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” that spurs legal disagreement.

Opponents of Birthright Citizenship

Those opposed to birthright citizenship argue that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” includes an allegiance component. If a person is born within the territorial boundaries of the U.S. and owes allegiance to the U.S., that person is a citizen. Because those who are in the U.S. unlawfully owe primary allegiance to the country of their origin, their children (by imputation) would also owe primary allegiance to that nation and therefore would not be citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Is there any legal authority for interpreting “subject to the jurisdiction” to include allegiance? What did those who drafted the phrase intend for it to mean? Opponents of birthright citizenship point to the Congressional debates that took place prior to ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in order to discern the intent of the drafters. At one point during the debates, congressmen suggested that that the phrase would not confer citizenship on children born of Native American parents because Native Americans owed primary allegiance to their respective tribes. This insertion of “allegiance” during the congressional debates bolsters the argument that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires allegiance to the U.S. before citizenship will be awarded.

There is little case law support, however, for this contention. A few U.S. Supreme Court decisions handed down shortly after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified imply that the Amendment narrowly applies to African Americans alone. As discussed below, this view has not prevailed.

Proponents of Birthright Citizenship

Those who support birthright citizenship argue that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means nothing more than what it says – subject to the power of the U.S. If a person is born within the territorial boundaries of the U.S. and that person is subject to the power or laws of the U.S., that person is a citizen. Because children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. are subject to the power and/or laws of the U.S., they are citizens.

Like those who oppose birthright citizenship, proponents point to congressional debates as authoritative support. Indeed, at one point during the debates, congressmen agreed that children born to Chinese nationals within the U.S. would automatically obtain citizenship. This portion of the debate supports the idea that “subject to the jurisdiction” merely means subject to the laws of the U.S.

Several Supreme Court decisions support this interpretation. Chief among them is Wong Kim Ark, a 1898 opinion that reviewed the history of birthright citizenship in England and the U.S. The Court articulated the English common law rule “of citizenship by birth within the dominion.” No allegiance component was required. Indeed, several U.S. Supreme Court cases have reiterated this concept. Although opponents of birthright citizenship quibble that these opinions are not authoritative for a variety of hyper-technical reasons, the clear import of the case law addressing the Fourteenth Amendment supports birthright citizenship.

Constitutional Consensus

Because the language of the Fourteenth Amendment does not textually include “allegiance,” and because Supreme Court precedent has not embraced an interpretation that includes allegiance, most constitutional scholars submit that birth within the U.S. plus an obligation to obey U.S. law confers citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Recent efforts pushed by a handful of states to create tiered citizenship for those born in the U.S. by parents who are unlawfully present in the U.S. are most assuredly unconstitutional. But that is an altogether different topic….

Arizona and Birthright Citizenship

2011-03-31T20:10:00.000-07:00

Last spring Arizona made national and even international news by enacting S.B. 1070, which mandates police to inquire into the immigration status of people under certain circumstances. That bill received a lot of negative attention nationally and in Mexico, but is credited with resurrecting Jan Brewer’s sagging poll numbers and landing her a second term as Arizona’s governor.

Despite budget woes of historic proportions, this spring the Arizona Legislature has taken its attention from serious issues involving the funding of education and health care for the poor to consider other bills targeting undocumented migrants. Illustratively, two companion bills were drafted to challenge the long-standing interpretation of the fourteenth amendment, which provides so-called “birthright citizenship.”

“Birthright citizenship” is a phrase that refers to the acquisition of U.S. citizenship by virtue of one’s birth, as contrasted to acquisition of citizenship by naturalization after birth. It is important to note that there are actually two different types of birthright citizenship. One can attain birthright citizenship by jus soli or jus sanguinis.

The latter term (jus sanguinis) refers to the bestowing of citizenship by being born to a parent who is American. If a person is born and at least one of his/her parents was an American citizen, then that person is also given U.S. citizenship, regardless of where they are born.

The former term (jus soli) refers to the granting of citizenship to anyone born in the territory of the United States. Even if neither parent is American (i.e., such that jus sanguinis is not possible), a child born in the United States will be a U.S. citizen. If a non-American woman gives birth on U.S. soil while on vacation or while working or studying here temporarily, her child is granted American citizenship. That has historically been the case regardless of the mother’s immigration status.

Though the recent Arizona legislation had been described as attacking “birthright citizenship,” to be clear, the proposed bills would only have challenged the interpretation of the fourteenth amendment granting citizenship via jus soli. The bills were not in any way challenging the practice of jus sanguinis, which is technically another form of birthright citizenship.

It is interesting to understand the approach to citizenship taken in other countries. Most countries emphasize jus sanguinis because racial or ethnic identity is considered to be a critical means of establishing national identity. Indeed, jus soli is relatively uncommon in the world. Currently, less than 20% of the countries in the world grant citizenship under the concept of jus soli. The United States is the largest exception to this rule. Most of the other countries on that list are in North or South America. One’s family can live for generations in some European countries, for example, without ever being granted citizenship.

To me, it makes sense and is a source of pride that the United States is one of the primary examples of jus solis citizenship. With the exception of native Americans, we are a nation of immigrants. We may come from many different places of origin, but once we’re here, we’re supposed to all be on the same footing. The links below contain some news coverage of the recent failed attempt by the Arizona legislature to challenge the long-standing interpretation of the fourteenth amendment:

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/local_news/hear_me_out/is-birthright-citizenship-bill-good-or-bad-for-arizona

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/02/22/20110222arizona-immigration-birthright-citizenship-bill-advances.html

http://www.azdailysun.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_af978376-e08d-552b-804b-38eb3da8b5c5.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/17/arizona-senate-rejects-birthright-citizenship-bills/

Deuteronomy 10:18

"He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing.”

The Cause Within You by Matthew Barnett (Commonality Despite Differences)

2011-03-27T06:51:00.000-07:00

I was inspired not only by the individuals Pastor Barnett described in his book, but by the commonality I saw in our Christian faith. He and his father come from the Assemblies of God, which is a denomination quite different from any church I’ve ever attended. I’m quite confident that Pastor Barnett and I would disagree on a number of theological points. But I was so encouraged that those points are not ones that he focused on in his book. Instead of emphasizing theology that might be divisive, he emphasized the tremendous needs of people and the imperative of trying to meet those needs. He takes seriously the call to be the hands and feet of Christ.

In his ministry, Pastor Barnett works with gang members, felons, people who use drugs, prostitutes, undocumented migrants and a host of other “outcasts.” Many in society look down upon such people. Sadly, many Christ followers mirror that same disapproval and condemnation. I was encouraged that Pastor Barnett did not seem to share that type of attitude. Instead, his writing seemed to evidence over and over again a tremendous compassion for such individuals. He describes heartbreak, not revulsion, when he is on Skid Row and a prostitute propositions him. He tells the story of a young gang member who used drugs, but in whom he saw leadership potential in ministry. In describing the story of Jim Bakker, Pastor Barnett did not go into the gory details, but simply talks in generalities of Mr. Bakker’s fall from grace and incarceration. The focus is not on the sin, but the redemption. I really admired that attitude.

I was also tremendously impressed when Pastor Barnett wrote about evaluating one’s ministry based on God’s metrics, not society’s. With humility he shares that when he moved to Los Angeles, he initially focused on building a great church with masses of people. He realized the futility of that goal when the small congregation he inherited shrunk to zero attendance! Hitting rock bottom in his ministry made him realize that he was focusing on his own goals, not God’s. Pastor Barnett had an epiphany that he needed to serve the many people in Los Angeles who were struggling and suffering. That was his calling, not building a church with huge numbers.

Pastor Barnett also wrote that when celebrating the 15th anniversary of the Dream Center, he sensed that the party the staff threw was not the appropriate way to mark the milestone. He knew that was the world’s way of celebrating—feasting and patting themselves on the back. As a more appropriate way to mark the milestone, Pastor Barnett felt moved to spend time (day and night) on Skid Row. He felt moved to be with the people he was trying to serve to better understand their plight. Those around him feared for his security, but he was undeterred. It was a moving experience once the initial terror wore off. I respect and admire his approach to celebrating. It is an example of radical love and courage to follow Jesus. It is also a reminder to reject the world’s values in favor of God’s. Being a Christ follower is supposed to be a counter cultural endeavor.

I sometimes get very discouraged by the great divisions in the church. And I am depressed at how Christ’s message gets warped to support politics and policies that to me are the antithesis of what Jesus would advocate. I feel hopeless at the attempts of fellow Christians to impose their own view of Christianity on secular society. But my faith in the church is restored to some extent when a Christian like Matthew Barnett, who I is so different in theology and social attitudes, clings so tightly to what I understand to be Jesus’s core teachings—loving and serving all of God’s precious children without judgment no matter what they have done in their lives.

Romans 14:10

You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister ? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.

The Cause Within You by Matthew Barnett (Inspirational Stories)

2011-03-26T22:24:00.000-07:00

Recently, I took my kids to the library and en route to the children’s section I had a moment to look at the new arrivals. One particularly caught my eye: The Cause Within You: Finding The One Great Thing You Were Created To Do in This World by Matthew Barnett with George Barna. The title and the summary on the jacket cover intrigued me, so I checked it out that day along with a slew of children’s literature.

The book is an easy read, and less than two hundred pages in length. I really enjoyed it and recommend it highly. I appreciate the premise. I’m middle aged, and people at my stage of life are trying to figure out if we’re spending our lives the right way. And I work with a lot of young people at the beginning of their careers. Many of our relatives are senior citizens, and are at a phase of their lives when they are not sure how much time they have left. We all want to do important things with our time on this planet, but it is hard to figure out what we should be doing. Matthew Barnett’s book focuses on helping the reader discern his/her purpose and calling.

Matthew Barnett is from Phoenix, the son of a mega-church pastor. In his early 20s, Matthew Barnett took over a failing church in Los Angeles. He was a young man with a passion to serve God. But under his leadership the church continued to decline and hit rock bottom. Eventually he turned that apparent failure around to found the Dream Center. I had not heard of that institution before, but from what I gather in reading the book, the Dream Center is a very vibrant Christian ministry. There are worship services, as well as a number of innovative ministries of various types to help bring healing to hurting people.

Throughout the book, Pastor Barnett shares the stories of a number of individuals who’ve gone through difficulties in their lives but been transformed into joy-filled people with a passion to minister and serve others. It was a very inspiring book to read. There was a story of a troubled young man who was suicidal and doing drugs, but ended up spending years of his life passionately serving at the Dream Center as a volunteer to help the homeless. There was an anecdote about a couple who began ministering to hopeless people in a dangerous housing project and their ministry expanded to consume their lives in a positive way. Pastor Barnett also wrote about a young woman who had been a prostitute and had overcome addiction; she became inspired to start a new ministry at the Dream Center, an outreach to pimps.

One of my favorite stories was about the former televangelist, Jim Bakker. I remember being in high school when Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker were the butt of jokes. Over the years, they have been the source of many negative stereotypes about Christians. When their televangelist empire crumbled and Jim Bakker went to prison, many cheered and others smirked. But Pastor Barnett and his father invited Mr. Bakker to the Dream Center, and he was apparently a transforming experience. Mr. Bakker arrived at the Dream Center a hopeless man who had been broken by his public disgrace and the abuse he endured in prison. He was called without forewarning to speak at a service, and felt appreciated and loved. He shared his experience in prison, and there were plenty of people in the church who had also had that experience. They did not judge him, they could relate to what he had gone through. Mr. Bakker ended up staying several months ministering in a variety of ministries to the homeless and the destitute. That service gave him back his hope and apparently transformed the subsequent part of his life.

After reading The Cause Within You: Finding The One Great Thing You Were Created To Do in This World, I have a real interest in visiting the Dream Center. The book was also an excellent reminder of the importance of serving others. I recommend it highly regardless of your age or your path in life.

Galatians 5:13

You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh ; rather, serve one another humbly in love.

Life and Death

2011-03-20T17:19:00.000-07:00

This has been a particularly tough week.

Like people around the world, I’ve been grieving for the destruction and loss from the earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Our family has relatives who are stationed in Okinawa. My sister thoughtfully sent a note immediately after the earthquake and tsunami to let us know they were ok. My kids have been praying in thanksgiving for the safety of their cousins, aunt and uncle. But we’ve also been praying for God’s provision for those who were impacted by the earthquake and tsunami. It is hard to comprehend the scope of the devastation.

And the grief for the destruction and loss from the earthquake and tsunami has now been overtaken somewhat by a pressing fear of potential nuclear catastrophe at the crippled nuclear plant. I worry about a catastrophe impacting the whole region. I worry that it will impact my sister’s family in Okinawa. Heck, even in Arizona some folks have been stocking up on potassium iodide, which apparently can provide the body with some protection against radiation.

Closer to home, I’ve also had several pieces of heartbreaking news this week. A dear friend of our family has been diagnosed with a particularly vile form of cancer. A beloved relative of ours has been in and out of the hospital a lot in the last few weeks; we just got word today that he is back in the hospital. A relative caring for him has now begun to face her own health issues in part due to the stress of being a caregiver. I also learned that a wonderful friend, who has been in a seemingly happy and stable marriage for several decades, is currently going through a divorce and custody battle. And then I learned of the sudden, unexpected death of a lovely young man I knew. I actually was in a situation where I had to break the news to a group of his friends, which was one of the most difficult things I’ve ever had to do. The young man had a wife and child, and I’ve been torn up by their loss.

Just before this tough week was the beginning of the season of Lent, which is the forty day period leading up to Easter. Easter is the celebration of Jesus’s resurrection, his triumph over the grave. It is the high-point in the Christian year. It celebrates the most pivotal event in the earthly life of Jesus. Indeed, Easter is the reason we call him the Christ. Because of the supreme importance of Easter, many Christian denominations prepare for the celebration by observing forty days of sacrifice and prayer.

Lent begins with Ash Wednesday. Like many Christ followers, our family went to church on Ash Wednesday and our pastor smudged our foreheads with dark ashes. When she did that she reminded us that we came from ashes and will return to ashes. It is a reminder of the finite nature of our time on this planet. It is not meant to be depressing. The reminder is supposed to give us a reality check that although we get caught up in the crises of what is going on on Earth, all of that is only a blip on the radar of time. It pales in comparison to the eternal nature of God’s Kingdom.

That reality check has come at a good time for me personally. It doesn’t take away the worry and the pain due to the recent tragedies I’ve mentioned. But it helps put things into perspective. It helps me to remember that although these tragedies seem overwhelming right here and right now, the pain and suffering will not last. As a Christ follower, I am comforted that Jesus has overcome the grave, death has no lasting sting. Death is only a temporary separation.

Many years ago, I heard a pastor give a sermon with the refrain that he could live and face today because of the knowledge that Jesus had died. To a non-Christian that may sound weird, even nonsensical, but it was the same point I have just described. The pastor’s point was that if Jesus had not truly died (and then risen from the grave), then the problems of this world would be too overwhelming to even get out of bed. But the hope and faith we have as Christians (i.e., that this life is not all there is) helps us face and even triumph when painful events occur.

This week I attended a service for the young man who died. I was very proud of his friends and colleagues who worked so hard to put together the service very quickly. They did a great job. It broke my heart to see all the tears, to hear people get so choked up when sharing their memories. Just before I left the service, I ran into a young woman I had not seen in many months. She was very pregnant with her first child. She is due in a matter of weeks and very excited. It was a real blessing to run into her in that context and learn of her impending motherhood. How wonderful at a time like this to know that she is bringing new life into this world to love and nurture. God does heal our wounded hearts.

2 Kings 20:4-6 (The Message)

Isaiah, leaving, was not halfway across the courtyard when the word of GOD stopped him: "Go back and tell Hezekiah, prince of my people, 'GOD's word, Hezekiah! From the God of your ancestor David: I've listened to your prayer and I've observed your tears. I'm going to heal you. In three days you will walk on your own legs into The Temple of GOD. I've just added fifteen years to your life; I'm saving you from the king of Assyria, and I'm covering this city with my shield—for my sake and my servant David's sake.'"

A Prayer for the People of Japan

2011-03-18T08:02:00.000-07:00

Dear Lord,

I’ve been heartbroken by the events in Japan this past week. The most powerful earthquake that country has ever experienced. A devastating tsunami that has wiped away whole communities. The death toll is hard to comprehend.

And now the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant has been teetering on the verge of catastrophe. People have been evacuated from the region. Others have been told to stay indoors. Foreign governments are evacuating their people out of fears there will be a nuclear meltdown and a massive release of radiation. It is hard to take in the scale and the repercussions of this perfect storm of tragedies.

I’m so overwhelmed with what has happened and what is continuing to happen that I am not sure what to do or what to ask. I am not a rich person. Giving money seems a pointless gesture in the face of the immense need. All I know to do it to lift the people in Japan up in prayer. But, my God, you know better than I what the people in and near Japan need. Nonetheless, I lift them up to you as best I know how.

I ask you to receive into your Kingdom those souls who perished in the earthquake and tsunami. I cannot imagine the terror of their last moments on this planet, but I trust that the glory of your eternal Kingdom makes up for those brief moments of anguish.

Lord, I ask your blessing on the survivors.

I ask you to mend the broken hearts of the many who have lost their loved ones. Especially I ask you to care for the orphaned and the parents who lost their children. The rupture of a parent-child relationship is particularly hard to bear and only you can mend such wounds.

I ask you to bring calm and recovery to the chaos of resource shortages and a disrupted economy. I ask you to guide people back to the business of living and to living productive lives. I thank you for the news stories I have read about the relative calm of the survivors and their attempts already to get to a new normal.

I ask you to bring a safe resolution to the difficulties at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. I thank you for the brave people who have sacrificed much to stay and to work to avert catastrophe. I thank you for their courage and their intellect to work with a dangerous and complex power infrastructure to keep millions of people safe. Please bless their work and make it fruitful.

Lord, I thank you that my relatives stationed in Okinawa were not impacted by the earthquake or the tsunami. I ask your continued protection of them so that they are not harmed by the events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. I ask you to give them peace of mind. I know how stressful it is for them to be living so close to where so many are suffering.

Lord, I thank you for the blessings my family, friends and community enjoy in this country. I know you do not provide those blessings so we can just enjoy a comfortable life but you bless us to be a blessing. I know you want us to use our God-given resources to help your hurting people. Please guide me and everyone in my community to know what we should do to help the people of Japan. Please help us discern your will for our lives. Please help us be obedient to that will, and to be instruments of your hope and love.

Thank you for your faithfulness and your love for all your people.

Amen.

A Prayer for Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann

2011-03-12T09:35:00.000-08:00

Dear Lord,

I thank you for the lives, the intellects and the dedication of my sisters, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. They are both women who love you, and who are passionate about their families and making a difference in our country. Thank you for their strength and tenacity.

Heavenly father, I get concerned about the ugliness in public discourse these days. It frustrates me that people seem to vilify those who have a different perspective, and there seems to be a tendency to take offense quickly and not even try to find common ground. When I read your Word, those things seem to be incompatible. As a result, I particularly don’t understand when my brothers and sisters in Christ do such things. It perplexes me. It overwhelms me. And to be honest, it depresses me and makes me feel somewhat hopeless about the future of our country. That alarms me, Lord, because I love my children and want them to live in a country that rises to challenges instead of falls into pointless bicker.

Lord, please help me to trust in your wisdom with all my heart and to lean not on my own understanding. Help me to remember that I am just one person, full of human limitations, and I do not know all that you know. Help me to remember that you have us in the palm of your hand. Help me trust in your plan for us all.

And Lord, I recognize it is human nature for all of us to take offense and not listen. I recognize it in myself. Help instill in me a patient heart and an open mind. Help me to listen and be enlightened to what my brothers and sisters have to say.

Thank you for your Word, and thank you in particular for James 1:19: This you know, my beloved brethren, but everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger. Help me to integrate that wisdom in my own life.

Lord, I thank you for strong Christian mothers. Help guide all “mama grizzlies” to protect their children from harm and to nurture them to be the people you intend. Help us raise a generation of children who will dedicate their lives to serving you by ministering to your people and saving this beautiful planet that you created for us so that it will nurture and sustain generations of your people to come.

Thank you for your unending love of us. Help each of us to reflect that love as we interact with others so that they will come to know you.

Amen.

A Prayer for Rush Limbaugh

2011-03-10T07:47:00.000-08:00

Dear Lord,

I thank you for the life of my brother, Rush Limbaugh. You gave him life out of your deep and abiding love for him as your precious child. I acknowledge that he is as precious in your eyes as I am. Moreover, I recognize that he and I are both as precious as any other child of yours who has ever walked this planet. Thank you for not playing favorites and loving all your children despite our many imperfections. I know you are the loving, overjoyed father of whom Jesus spoke in Luke 15:20. Thank you for your unceasing love and faithfulness.

Heavenly father, I get really concerned about the types of things that I hear Mr. Limbaugh speak publicly. What is expressed seems to come from an uncharitable, selfish attitude, and not an attitude of love for others. I try to not judge that attitude, but I fear for the destructiveness of such spoken words because they seem to find such an enthusiastic audience. But I know that everything is in your hands, and I must trust in your ways. I ask you to increase my faith to keep me from worrying over such things.

I also humbly acknowledge that I myself often exemplify an uncharitable, selfish attitude. I know I should not worry about the splinter in Mr. Limbaugh’s eyes when I have a beam in my own. I ask your continued guidance in helping me to remove the beam from my eye and to cultivate a more loving heart in me. Let me be clay that is easily molded by your hands.

Finally, Lord, I lift up my brother, Mr. Limbaugh to you. I know he is a troubled human being who has struggled with many challenges in life. I thank you for helping him lose weight. I thank you for medical technology that helps him overcome his deafness. I thank you that you have brought love to his life with his recent marriage.

Heavenly father, I ask you to watch over my brother, Mr. Limbaugh. I ask you to help him lead a healthy life and continue to lose weight so that he can live a productive life on this planet for many years to come. I ask you to bless his marriage. May it be a long and happy union. Lord, I also ask you to bless Mr. Limbaugh’s radio program. May it be an instrument of love and understanding so that more of your children will come to know you.

Amen.

Rush Limbaugh’s Comments about Michelle Obama

2011-03-05T14:55:00.000-08:00

After I became aware of Governor Palin and Representative Bachmann’s panning of Michelle Obama’s efforts against childhood obesity and in support of breastfeeding, I read about Rush Limbaugh’s comments. The link below contains an article explaining his views.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110222/ts_yblog_theticket/rush-limbaugh-says-first-lady-is-no-swimsuit-model

If Mr. Limbaugh believes that Ms. Obama has been hypocritical, I think that is fair game for commentary. If he thinks her conduct doesn’t live up to what she is preaching, that is one thing. I don’t know that I would agree with him, but Mr. Limbaugh is certainly entitled to his opinion.

I don’t understand that Ms. Obama has advocated that we never ever indulge in foods that aren’t healthy. I’ve heard interviews where she admits a penchant for French fries, but she indicates she is careful to not eat them often or in great quantity. She advocates healthier foods to be the mainstay of one’s diet. Personally, I haven’t seen evidence of hypocrisy, but I’m a busy person and haven’t studied the White House dietary choices in detail. Maybe I’m wrong and Mr. Limbaugh is right on this point.

I think Mr. Limbaugh has a right to point out hypocrisy if he thinks he’s spotted it, but I think it is completely undignified, unhelpful, mean-spirited and hypocritical for Mr. Limbaugh to make snarky comments about Ms. Obama’s qualifications as a swimsuit model. Indeed, Ms. Obama’s emphasis is improving the health of our nation’s children, and I think most people understand that swimsuit models are not necessarily the best role models for healthy living. For a variety of reasons, I don’t want swimsuit models to be role models my children try to emulate. Many other parents feel the same.

But if hypocrisy is Mr. Limbaugh’s concern, then there is of course tremendous irony in Mr. Limbaugh of all people harping on another human being for perceived imperfections in physique. Politely put, Mr. Limbaugh is a heavy set man. He has himself struggled with his weight for a very long time. I don’t know Mr. Limbaugh personally, but for as long as I’ve been aware of him (about twenty years), he is has been pretty overweight. Impressively, he has been successful in losing a good deal of weight in recent years. Nonetheless, I understand this is an on-going effort and he is not yet to his ideal weight.

Because of Mr. Limbaugh’s own serious weight issues, it boggles my mind that he would ever say ugly things about someone else’s physique. I myself am sorely tempted to say something snarky about Mr. Limbaugh’s own qualifications as a swimsuit model. I will refrain from doing so. Snarkiness is compatible with neither Christ’s commandment to love our neighbor nor the Christian value of humility.

Sadly, Mr. Limbaugh has a history of judging women on their appearance. He has famously described feminism as a strategy to “to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.” See link below.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200508160001

Additionally, Mr. Limbaugh famously popularized the delightful term “feminazi.” I understand he has since distanced himself from the term.

In my opinion, such rhetoric is incredibly demeaning and disrespectful of women. Mr. Limbaugh is a media celebrity and in essence an entertainer. Maybe he doesn’t mean any of the things he says. Perhaps he has a great deal of respect for women and just says such things because it makes him richer. I frankly have no idea.

Genesis 1:26-28 (The Message)

God spoke: "Let us make human beings in our image, make them
reflecting our nature
So they can be responsible for the fish in the sea,
the birds in the air, the cattle,
And, yes, Earth itself,
and every animal that moves on the face of Earth."
God created human beings;
he created them godlike,
Reflecting God's nature.
He created them male and female.
God blessed them:
"Prosper! Reproduce! Fill Earth! Take charge!
Be responsible for fish in the sea and birds in the air,
for every living thing that moves on the face of Earth."

Mike Huckabee Weighs In

2011-03-04T08:47:00.000-08:00

(Sorry. I just couldn’t resist the pun in the title of this blog post. For diehard pun-haters, I encourage you to stop rolling your eyes and just try to keep reading. No more puns. I promise.)

As mentioned previously in this blog, I have tended to have more respect for Mike Huckabee than other conservative politicians and media pundits. This may surprise some of my progressive friends who may view the former Arkansas governor as just another GOP politician turned well-paid Fox News pundit. My attitude towards Governor Huckabee may even surprise my more conservative friends and family, who love me though I’m sure they perennially wonder how a nice gal like me could be a registered Democrat.

In part, my attitude towards Governor Huckabee is based on the fact that he is a committed Christian. Certainly there are plenty of other conservative celebrities who also profess to be committed Christians, for whom my enthusiasm is admittedly much more measured. And there are certainly many areas where I disagree with Governor Huckabee. But as I’ve followed his career in the media, I’ve been left with the impression of a good deal of sincerity and integrity.

It is hard for me to put my finger on exactly what has created this impression of Governor Huckabee in me. However, I can offer that it is always deeply, deeply offensive to me when politicians of any ideological persuasion exploit their religious faith for short-term political gain. By contrast, I admire politicians who seem to try to integrate their faith into their secular work in a humble and non-exploitive manner. When I listen to Governor Huckabee in interviews, my sense is that he is sincere about trying to integrate his faith and politics. (In my opinion, Senator Sam Brownback is another person who fits into that category.)

Because of my respect for Governor Huckabee, it caught my eye when I read that he had defended Michelle Obama’s efforts to combat childhood obesity. The links below provide articles on his public comments.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/02/mike_huckabee_defends_michelle.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0211/Huck_No_obesity_fight_with_Palin_Bachmann.html

As a general matter, I appreciate Governor Huckabee’s defense of Ms. Obama’s efforts. But his words have particular gravitas because Governor Huckabee was himself once morbidly obese and had serious health problems as a result. He has since lost a tremendous amount of weight and has participated in several marathons. Those are amazing, laudatory accomplishments.

I also appreciate the specific words the governor chose in defending Ms. Obama:

"I still think her approach is the right one. I do not think that she is out there advocating that the government take over our dinner plates. In fact, she has not. She has been criticized unfairly by a lot of my fellow conservatives. I think it is out of a reflex rather than out of a thoughtful expression, and that is one of the things that bug me most about the political environment of the day."

Amen, governor. One thing I have admired about Mike Huckabee (along with a handful of other individuals) is that he does not always mindlessly defend his political party, and he does not demonize those on the other side of the aisle. I appreciate that he will express publicly disagreement with what fellow Republicans say in their political rhetoric.

I also agree with Governor Huckabee’s point that in the current political environment people condemn their political opponents “out of a reflex” instead of “out of a thoughtful expression.” My own observation is that conservatives do that more frequently. Indeed, that is the bread and butter of talk radio and Fox News Channel. And GOP politicians follow suit. But I certainly agree that those on the left often do the same thing. In my perspective, they do it in reaction to try to keep up with the conservatives. But that is still no excuse.

Regardless of who began it, this approach of criticizing political opponents “out of a reflex” is so deeply damaging to our nation. Reflexive criticism means you aren’t really listening to the other side, and you are not trying to find common ground. That probably works fine in a dictatorship or in a fascist state. But in a country that operates on democratic principles and that is facing huge problems in need of solutions, that dysfunctionality has no place.

Ezekiel 16:42 (Young's Literal Translation)

And I have caused My fury against thee to rest, And My jealousy hath turned aside from thee, And I have been quiet, and I am not angry any more.

Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann Pan Michelle Obama

2011-02-27T07:25:00.000-08:00

My last post focused belatedly on Rush Limbaugh’s take on Thanksgiving. In my mind, that ridiculous rant was yet another of the seemingly endless examples of angry people on the right spewing anger to serve no productive purpose. Mr. Limbaugh and people like him spew their anger to attract listeners or adherents, but then never seem to do anything productive with their followers. They just encourage people to gripe and indulge in self-righteousness and/or self-pity. And sometimes such media celebrities frankly start to run out of material to spark outrage, so they have to really get inventive and dig deep to find something new. To me, Mr. Limbaugh’s silly rant against Mr. Obama’s expression of gratitude to the Native Americans on the occasion of Thanksgiving is evidence of that desperation to continually find a source of fuel for unproductive anger and outrage Similar examples of such desperation can be found in recent rhetoric by Governor Sarah Palin and Representative Michele Bachmann as they pan First Lady Michelle Obama.

Ms. Obama has been trying to champion non-partisan issues that impact many Americans. One of the main causes she has championed has been the fight against childhood obesity. She has been promoting the eating of veggies, portion control and leading an active lifestyle. She has visited schools, appeared on the Disney Channel and cultivated a garden at the White House in support of this cause.

I personally appreciate Ms. Obama taking on this issue. My husband and I have both always struggled with our weight. We dreaded P.E. because we were never any good at the sports played and were last to be picked for teams. Our childhood memories are full of fast food and many hours watching T.V. We both want something different for our kids. We work hard to include a lot of fresh produce in our family’s diet, and to limit sweets and fried foods to occasional treats. And though my husband and I both loathe sports, we try to hide that fact from our kids and to encourage them to get plenty of exercise. Beyond their soccer teams and dance lessons, as a family we all go hiking, bike riding, and swimming together throughout the year. Despite my own sedentary work life, I also try to set a good example for my kids by regularly putting my treadmill to its intended use instead of using it as a coat rack (which frankly would be my natural preference if little eyes weren’t looking up to me).

I also appreciate Ms. Obama taking on the issue of childhood obesity because I have seen firsthand what a huge problem it is in our country. When I taught grade school, I had a lot of obese children in my classes. It always broke my heart. The health consequences of obesity are serious. Many of the students I taught had family members with diabetes. A few of my students had themselves already developed the disease. Beyond the health issues, I also felt for the obese students in my classes because they were socially ostracized at times despite my best efforts to intervene and encourage everyone to be friends. Children can be cruel.

So, yeah, for Michelle Obama. I’m so glad she has taken on this challenging issue. And one would think that everyone would rally around her in a nonpartisan manner. Bill Clinton and Mike Huckabee both have championed the cause. It seems like a no-brainer. I mean, no one is pro-childhood obesity, are they? Even if you have no intrinsic concern for the human suffering involved, from just a detached, economic point of view childhood obesity is a very bad thing. In this age of out-of-control health care costs, no one could possibly think rising rates of juvenile diabetes are a good thing, right?

Well, instead of being supportive of Ms. Obama’s efforts, Sarah Palin has chosen to make snarky public comments attacking the First Lady. Apparently, per Governor Palin, Ms. Obama needs to get off our collective backs. Governor Palin has always been slim and athletic, so maybe she hasn’t noticed that we have a nation of obese folks. The status quo has not worked. As a result, maybe it is not the end of the world to talk about this problem publicly and bring attention to it. I’m disappointed in Governor Palin’s attitude on this issue. Her ugly comments seem to have no purpose other than to encourage the anger of those prone to taking offense easily. The comments are not productive and do not in any way help solve the problem of childhood obesity.

For more information on Governor Palin’s comments, see the article in the link below:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/21/earlyshow/living/parenting/main7171134.shtml

Recently, Representative Michele Bachmann has jumped in along a similar vein. Ms. Obama made comments supportive of breastfeeding and making it easier for mothers who choose that for their infants. She has noted the evidence that breastfed children are less likely to be obese, so these comments are part of her efforts to fight childhood obesity. I frankly hadn’t heard about her comments, but good for her. Most women work outside the home these days, but logistically it is extremely difficult to breastfeed when you are not with your infant during the day. Again, who is against breastfeeding? What is wrong with Ms. Obama encouraging breastfeeding? Unless you work for a company making baby formula, I’m thinking no one could really be against it. Again, it should be a no brainer.

Michele Bachmann is even pro-breastfeeding. She has shared publically that she breastfed all five of her children. Good for her. Good for her kids. That is wonderful. But despite being in the pro-breastfeeding camp, Representative Bachmann finds fault in Ms. Obama encouraging others to breastfeed. Somehow such encouragement from the White House is a bad thing. A former tax lawyer, Representative Bachmann is also irate that modest tax incentives might be available in to help women who want to pump breast milk when they work outside the home. Per Representative Bachmann, this is all apparently evidence of a “nanny state.” I’m glad that Representative Bachmann was able to be with her five children in person to breastfeed them and/or to buy her own breast pump to provide them with breast milk when she was not with them. Not all women are financially able to do such things.
For more information on Representative Bachmann’s comments, see the article at the link below:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/02/18/20110218michelle-obama-breast-feeding-remarks-criticism18-ON.html

I find the attacks on Ms. Obama to be ridiculous. It is a good thing to encourage people to do things to benefit their health. That is particularly true when we live in a nation of folks suffering from diseases that are preventable and when we are in the midst of an unsustainable escalation in health care costs.

And Ms. Obama’s campaigns against childhood obesity and her comments in support of breastfeeding are certainly not unusual when looking at the work of her predecessors. Was Nancy Reagan being paternalistic (or maternalistic) when she encouraged kids to “just say no” to drugs? Were Barbara and Laura Bush pushing a nanny state when they were encouraging people to learn to read and patronize libraries, respectively?

Clearly there are a whole lot of Americans who use illegal narcotics and their lives are ruined as a consequence. But maybe First Ladies just shouldn’t get involved. Perhaps we ought to have told Nancy Reagan to get off our backs in the 1980s when she spoke out. The nerve. Lecturing us about drug use.

As First Lady, Barbara Bush used her platform to promote literacy. Maybe she should have just backed off. Maybe the folks who are unable to read just don’t like phonics. This is a free country. Step off, sister! Let us live in ignorance.

More recently, Laura Bush used her influence as First Lady to increase the funding of libraries. How dare she?! What meddling. We didn’t need her interference. We knew how much funding libraries needed without her butting in.

Obviously, the last three paragraphs have been sarcastic. That is how silly these recent attacks on Ms. Obama have been. What is Ms. Obama supposed to do? Is she not allowed to take on any causes? How pathetic that even nonpartisan efforts against childhood obesity and in favor of breast feeding can be manipulated to rile up the masses.

I feel frustrated that these types of manipulation have been so successful. It is just not productive and it is ugly. Clearly, as a nation, we did not achieve greatness by sitting around whining and indulging in pointless anger over minor points. That is not how we established the first modern democracy, stormed the beaches of Normandy to liberate Europe from fascism, developed a vaccine against polio or developed the internet. We Americans are better than that.

Job 26:2

"What a help you are to the weak!
How you have saved the arm without strength!”

Rush Limbaugh Explains the True Meaning of Thanksgiving

2011-02-25T12:26:00.000-08:00

It is late, but I recently became aware of Rush Limbaugh’s rant on President Obama’s Thanksgiving expression of respect and gratitude to the Native Americans.

The article below contains Mr. Limbaugh’s comments:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/11/25/2010-11-25_rush_limbaugh_slams_president_barack_obamas_thanksgiving_declaration_thanking_na.html?obref=obinsite

Mr. Limbaugh seems to deny that the European Pilgrims were in any way imperfect or that the Native Americans were/are in any way admirable. After calling President Obama’s expression of appreciation to the Native Americans as a “wildly distorted” view of the historical significance of the holiday, Mr. Limbaugh summed up his own beliefs about Thanksgiving. He explained that the “true story of Thanksgiving is how socialism failed.” He added that “the Indians didn't teach us capitalism" and "we shared our bounty with them… because we first failed as socialists."

How nice of Mr. Limbaugh to set us straight. Previously, I had always believed the point of Thanksgiving was for us to express gratitude to our omnipotent, loving and every-faithful God for the gifts he has bestowed upon us.

Philippians 4:6

Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.

Colossians 4:2

Devote yourselves to prayer, keeping alert in it with an attitude of thanksgiving.

Obstructionist Politics and the Filibuster

2011-02-19T12:40:00.000-08:00

The United States Senate website defines “filibuster” as:

Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.

See http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/filibuster.htm.

Currently, sixty of the one hundred members of the Senate must vote to end a filibuster. The filibuster procedure has traditionally been viewed as a way to protect the minority party in the Senate. It preserves some of the minority’s influence so that the majority party does not have free reign to do whatever they want with unfettered discretion. The filibuster is essentially a check against majority domination.

In recent years, the filibuster has been at the heart of nasty political squabbles and its future has come into question. A few years ago, the then-majority Republican Party threatened to end the filibuster procedure. The “nuclear option,” as it was dubbed by then-Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, would have changed the Senate’s procedural rules to allow a simple majority to end a filibuster. In 2005, then-Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee threatened to use the nuclear option due to the inability to confirm some of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees.

The Republicans’ threat was prompted because ten of President Bush’s judicial nominees were blocked by the Democrats, who charged those candidates were extremists. The then-minority Democrats in the Senate had allowed over two hundred of President Bush’s judicial nominees to be confirmed. So, in actuality, the nuclear option was threatened over the Democrats’ opposition to a relatively small number of judicial nominees. The links below describe the 2005 controversy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701425.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june05/filibuster_5-16.html

http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2005/05/12/nuclear_option_primer/

Senator Frist even took the issue to the Conservative Christian community and claimed that the filibusters were aimed at people of faith. The links below contain reports on Senator Frist’s campaigning.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4618019

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june05/judges_4-25.html

The 2005 crisis was resolved with a compromise of sorts by the “Gang of 14”—a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican senators who made a pact to oppose the nuclear option, as well as the filibuster of judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances. In essence, the Senate Democrats saved the filibuster in 2005 by promising to not use it. The link below contains a report on the compromise.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4663306

It is probably fortunate for the Republicans that they did not use the nuclear option. Shortly after the threats of the nuclear option, the Republicans became the minority party in the Senate. In the 2006 elections, they lost control of the Senate.

Neither Lott nor Frist are still in the Senate at the present time. Senator Lott resigned from Senate leadership in 2002 after making racially insensitive and ignorant remarks about Strom Thurmond’s platform in his presidential campaign in 1948 as a Dixiecrat. He remained in the Senate until 2007, when he resigned to pursue a career in lobbying. Senator Frist had had a long and successful career as a surgeon before entering politics. He was first elected to the Senate in 1995 and resigned in 2007. He has since continued his medical career by teaching at Vanderbilt University and being involved in various charities with a health care focus.

Since becoming the minority party in the Senate, the Republicans have embraced a new-found admiration for the filibuster procedure. They have used it a record number of times in recent years. In the past two years alone, there have been eighty-nine filibusters.

Although they are not proposing the “nuclear option,” this gridlock has led the current majority-Democrats to consider some more modest reforms of the filibuster procedure to make it more transparent. The report below provides some of the details of the Democrats’ current concerns about the filibuster:

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/03/132631424/Senate-Democrats-Propose-Filibuster-Changes

The wisdom of the filibuster procedure continues to be a controversial device. It is a thorn in the side of the majority party and a cherished tool of the minority. The link below contains a debate from 2005 on the wisdom of the filibuster. The text includes arguments both in favor and against the existence of the filibuster.

http://www.npr.org/takingissue/20050324_takingissue_judicial.html

About a year ago, Professor Gregory Koger was interviewed by Terry Gross on the radio program “Fresh Air” to discuss the filibuster procedure and Professor Koger’s book Filibustering: A Political History of Obstruction in the House and Senate.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122945445

James 4:4-6 (The Message)

You're cheating on God. If all you want is your own way, flirting with the world every chance you get, you end up enemies of God and his way. And do you suppose God doesn't care? The proverb has it that "he's a fiercely jealous lover." And what he gives in love is far better than anything else you'll find. It's common knowledge that "God goes against the willful proud; God gives grace to the willing humble."

Jon Stewart’s Frustration About Politics Trumping Assistance to 9/11 First Responders

2011-02-18T05:25:00.000-08:00

I rarely watch the Daily Show. I think Jon Stewart is very funny, but I just don’t have time to watch much television. Over the Christmas holiday break, however, I did watch an episode. In the last episode of 2010, Mr. Stewart railed against Republican obstruction of a bill that he thought was a non-partisan no-brainer: the Zagroda Bill.

The bill was aimed at assisting 9/11 first responders who are now suffering debilitating and often fatal illnesses brought on by their exposure to all kinds of toxins while working at Ground Zero for prolonged periods. At the time of the Daily Show episode in question, the bill had passed the House, but Republicans were blocking the bill’s passage in the Senate.

In an episode with very little humor and a lot of moral outrage, Mr. Stewart interviewed a diverse group of first responders to get their reactions to the partisan politics impeding the bill’s passage. It was a really heart-breaking discussion. These men were on the front lines and selflessly gave of themselves at a very bleak time in our nation’s history. They had been moved by patriotism and by the agony of the families of 9/11 victims to do the grueling and frankly disgusting work of clearing the debris after the Twin Towers fell. As they indicated in the interview with Mr. Stewart, their motivation was to try to bring closure to people who had lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks. These first responders ruined their own health in the process, and were getting bureaucratic run-around preventing them from getting compensation for these injuries. At the end of the interview, Mr. Stewart thanked the first responders and expressed that he felt he ought to apologize to them for some reason because of the country’s inability to take care of them in their hour of need.

In the next segment of the show, Mr. Stewart interviewed Governor Mike Huckabee. I personally have a lot of respect for Governor Huckabee. In the past, I have perceived him to have better values and priorities than most Republican politicians. However, his interview with Mr. Stewart was quite disappointing. He was ignorant about the Zagroda Bill, and essentially played the role of a GOP apologist. Governor Huckabee tried to deflect Mr. Stewart’s concerns about recent partisan obstructionism by sharing anecdotes about a first responder he knew and his own father who had been a fire fighter.

In the Daily Show episode in question, Mr. Stewart noted that Fox News focused a lot of attention on 9/11 outrage with respect to the “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy, but they had paid very little attention to the Zagroda Bill obstructionism. Mr. Stewart was very critical of that selective approach to 9/11 outrage.

Mr. Stewart was also quite critical of the Democrats handling of the Zagroda Bill obstructionism. He expressed that the Democrats had essentially dropped the ball in not exploiting for political gain the Republican opposition and stalling over the bill. Mr. Stewart indicated that the Republicans’ approach to the Zagroda Bill was appalling and that approach would have been helpful to exploit. Basically, Mr. Stewart insinuated the Democrats had been too nice, too naïve and/or too inept politically.

In the Daily Show episode, Mr. Stewart also expressed that he was so angry about the partisan obstructionism surrounding the Zagroda Bill that he could barely verbalize his thoughts. I can understand how he felt. I too sometimes get so frustrated at the injustices in this world that I cannot express myself as coherently as I might otherwise. All of us who are passionate about justice get that way at times. However, it is important for us to get a handle on our emotions and persevere. If we let our emotions get the better of us, it gives others an opportunity to discount our position.

The Daily Show episode in question can be viewed in full at the following link:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-december-16-2010-mike-huckabee

The episode in question was aired on December 16th. Subsequently, the Zagroda Bill did pass the Senate with some major changes (including cutting the total funding almost in half). The process also left a bad taste in many people’s mouth. It was deeply disillusioning that political gain was put ahead of helping people who had made great personal sacrifices for their fellow Americans. The link below includes some details about the bill’s passage:

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/politics/zadroga-bill-advocates-relieved-it-passed-1.2569396

John 15:13

"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.”

Family Promise

2011-02-12T16:28:00.000-08:00

My church participates in a non-denominational ministry to homeless families called Family Promise. The program provides temporary housing to families with children who do not have a permanent home. Each week, the families live at a different faith community’s campus. Several weeks each year our church’s nursery, library, and Sunday school rooms are transformed with cots and cribs into make-shift bedrooms for a week. Members of our congregation coordinate with the Family Promise program to make this happen. Volunteers from our congregation cook and serve meals in our parish hall for the families each night of their stay.

My own family has provided meals several times and we did so again a few weeks ago when Family Promise came to our campus. The first time we volunteered, my husband and I frankly found it very awkward. We didn’t know how to make small talk with the parents of the guest families. We didn’t want to say the wrong thing. We were overwhelmed with the plight of the families, but didn’t want to appear to be in any way pitying or condescending.

Though my husband and I were socially inept in that setting, we were very proud of our kids who were great at breaking the ice. We had explained to them beforehand why these families were living at our church for the week. Our kids definitely understood the difficulty of the families’ situation. But unlike their awkward parents, our kids had no trouble just interacting with the children of the guest families in a natural, genuine and loving way. The first time we helped with Family Promise, the kids of the guest families patiently took turns teaching our kids to play ping-pong in our church’s parish hall. The kids of the guest families were also very sweet to duck quickly and not admonish when our kids’ ability to return the ping-pong ball was not stellar.

On another occasion when we served dinner for Family Promise, the families had been taken shopping that day and were given a bit of money to be able to buy a couple things. That evening, my younger daughter and I sat down with a teenage girl to eat dinner. My younger daughter adores princesses and anything with a touch of bling. She was in awe of some little beaded bracelets the teenage girl was wearing. Without hesitation, the teenager asked my younger daughter which one she wanted. I protested that was not necessary, but the teenager insisted and I did not want to offend her. My younger daughter was over-the-top thrilled to get to wear and take home a lovely little bracelet. I later learned that bracelet was one of three the teenager had bought with the bit of spending money she had been given. It was a special treat for her to have those bracelets. It broke my heart that she had made that sacrifice, but it seemed to make her happy that my daughter admired something of hers and she was able to share it.

Parenthetically, when I was at the St. Anthony Foundation in San Francisco recently, the volunteer coordinator told a similar story and explained that it helped the dignity of the clients to be able to give something back to others. Sometimes it is just a kind word or a complement because that is all they have to give. But on the day I volunteered at the St. Anthony Foundation, a young man had gifted a scarf to one of the professors volunteering. The volunteer coordinator explained that for several reasons the scarf was very valuable to the young man. It was cold and he needed it to stay warm. And he had just received the scarf the month before as a Christmas present knitted by volunteers at the St. Anthony Foundation. It had undoubtedly been his only Christmas present. But the volunteer coordinator explained it was appropriate and helpful for the volunteering professor to accept the gift. The volunteer coordinator described that when one is always on the receiving end, it makes one feel inferior, powerless and unimportant. But giving to someone else helps level the playing field. Being able to give his scarf may have been a sacrifice to the young man in some respects, but the volunteer coordinator indicated it also helped raise his spirits and self-esteem tremendously.

Recently when our family served dinner for Family Promise, several toddlers I had never met ran up to me to hold my hand for the evening prayer circle to bless the meal. I felt like I had been mistaken for a movie star. My own kids (who had been holding my hands) generously made room for the toddlers on our side of the prayer circle. Indeed, they felt like big kids to hold the toddlers’ little fidgety hands.

One of the dads of the guest families had just come from work, and he still had his uniform on. Based on the uniform, he worked at a fast food restaurant chain that I won’t name. The dad seemed to really appreciate the baked chicken, salad and green beans we served that night. I guess at work he doesn’t serve that many vegetables.

Another dad was looking for work and had a hearing aid. His teen son seemed to have some type of a cognitive disability. After we went home, my husband said that he had learned that dad had had a particularly tough day. He had lost his wallet. It apparently fell out of his pocket at some point as the Family Promise coordinators took him to various places that day. I got teary-eyed to think what that must be like. These families have no permanent place to stay, they move each week, they have no place to store their belongings. I’m sure his wallet had his most important documents. With no fixed home or telephone number, I’m not sure how he’ll get back the papers he needs. I felt overwhelmed for him.

One a more positive note, there had been a real victory for one of the families staying with our church that week. Some friends of ours had counseled the families on job interviewing skills. One friend helped one of the dads find a decent outfit from our church’s thrift store, so he had a neat pair of clothes for a job interview he had at a landscape company. The dad got the job! His new bosses said he was the first person to ever come for a job interview in something other than jeans. We were all so thrilled for his success. But he won’t be making a huge amount of money and the family still has a lot of challenges in finding a more permanent place to live. We pray that this job will be the first step towards more stability for the family.

At dinner, my younger daughter and I ended up sitting with a single mom and her three year old. The mom had a serious look on her face the whole evening. I’m not sure she smiled the entire time we were with them. The little girl was beautiful but was a handful. The mom was struggling to make her sit down and eat some of the nutritious food being served. The little girl just wanted to eat cupcakes.

After dinner we went outside to the little playground at our church campus. After the sun went down, it became cold. The mom told me how she suffers from the cold and was very grateful because our church had heat in the rooms where the families were sleeping. Apparently most of the churches where they were staying did not. At the other churches, she had to ask for extra blankets and had trouble sleeping due to the cold.

Our family served dinner on the last night the Family Promise guests were with us that week. The next day they were being taken to a new church. That night my husband and I had such heavy hearts. It is hard enough to raise children with two parents and a steady roof over our heads. We couldn’t imagine the challenge of the young mom that night. I keep praying for her and her little girl.

If you would like to learn more about the Family Promise ministry, you can visit the link below:

http://www.familypromiseaz.org/

Ezekiel 22:7 (New Living Translation)

Fathers and mothers are treated with contempt. Foreigners are forced to pay for protection. Orphans and widows are wronged and oppressed among you.

St. Anthony Foundation in San Francisco

2011-02-11T07:19:00.000-08:00

For me, one of the highlights of the law professor conference was an optional service project at the St. Anthony Foundation in the Tenderloin district. It is a Catholic ministry serving the homeless and the poor.

The volunteers coordinator gave us professors an insightful talk about the backgrounds of the clients of the Foundation, the complex poverty issues in the Tenderloin area and the specific challenges encountered by the Foundation’s clients. I was surprised to hear that many of the clients of the Foundation are not homeless, they have jobs but do not earn enough to support themselves. They often do not show up early in the month, i.e., soon after payday. But they come seeking services once their meager funds for the month have been exhausted and they can no longer afford to buy food.

She explained that there are six basic demographic groups who are served by the Foundation: (1) the homeless, (2) the disabled and senior citizens who are dependent on government assistance, (3) families with children, (4) those who are mentally ill or have substance abuse problems, (5) veterans and (6) recent immigrants. She noted that these different groups overlap in many instances, but the identification of these groups helps one understand how clients come to need the services of the St. Anthony Foundation. She also mentioned that people in the latter category (i.e., recent immigrants) were most likely to escape the poverty of their current situation.

The volunteers coordinator explained that the people who have homes are in single room occupancy units in the Tenderloin. Typically their homes are the size of a closet, have shared bathrooms and have no facilities for preparing food. She noted the difficulty of families surviving under such circumstances—taking shifts to sleep, not getting nutritious meals, and not having a place for children to study or play.

I was privileged to be in a group of volunteers who were put to work in the St. Anthony Dining Room. The Foundation expressly does not use the term “soup kitchen” because that is impersonal; they would like the clients to build community over their meals, like people do at their family’s kitchen table.

After a brief training, I was set to work carrying trays of food to the clients sitting at tables. I was quite nervous. I’ve always been impressed by waiters and waitresses for their ability to carry trays of food and drink without dropping anything. I’ve been grateful that I had other avenues to earn a living because I frankly doubt I would be able to hold down a job as a waitress. Nonetheless, I am happy to report that I did not drop anything on any of the clients at the St. Anthony Dining Room. (Phew!)

Later, I was assigned to bus tables, which surprisingly I found to be even more of a challenge than delivering the trays. Many people did not finish their “juice” (which resembled Kool-Aid) and I had to balance lots of full cups in my bussing tub without spilling it all over myself, the floor or the clients. It was not easy.

And towards the end of my shift, they asked that I go around to serve clients water. This turned out to be quite a task because I could only manage to carry a couple of cups in my hand at a time and a lot of folks were thirsty! My water service was frequently interrupted as I ran back for more cups. As a result, there was a lengthy wait to get water if one was not inclined to drink the “juice” that came standard with one’s meal. Lugging a huge pitcher of water also hurt my wrist after a while. Consequently, I was very impressed by the petite nun who cheerfully handled water duty the entire time I was in the Dining Room. She seemed to be a regular at the St. Anthony Dining Room, and seemed to know many of the clients. Assuming she does water duty on a regular basis, I’m guessing she has arms of steel at this point.

I was extremely glad to have had an opportunity to work at the St. Anthony Dining Room during my visit to San Francisco. It was heart-breaking and humbling. There were several women with young children in the Dining Room. As a mother myself, that brought some moisture to my eyes. Parents want the best for their children. We can tolerate deprivations that impact just us, but I cannot imagine the agony of not having the basics to provide for one’s own child. See mothers with young children in the St. Anthony Dining Room was an important reminder of how fortunate my children and I are. And it frankly made me angry that in this country of abundance other children do not have the same experience.

Several things struck me while I was serving clients in the Dining Room. First, the folks were waiting in long lines to get into the modest sized room with tables and it was pretty cold outside. As a wimpy gal from the Sun Belt, being outside briefly was hard for me that day. The folks in that line were clearly very hungry to be waiting like that for a chance to get inside. The room itself was pretty cold. I don’t think there was any heat, but at least the wind was not blowing on us. I had worn a t-shirt because I thought I’d get messy; I was freezing though I was constantly moving around the Dining Room.

The clients of the St. Anthony Dining Room were very grateful for the meatloaf, mashed potatoes and doughnuts served that day. To take some food with them, many of the clients were shoveling extra helpings into flimsy sandwich baggies provided by the St. Anthony Foundation or filthy plastic containers the clients had brought with them. They understandably did not want to be hungry later, but I worried that the baggies were going to break and make a mess. I was also worried that they might get food poisoning from the way they were transporting food for later.

Despite the fact that folks were really hungry, few of them ate the bread or the fruit that was served on their trays. We volunteers felt bad that so much food was going to waste. A wise friend of mine volunteering that day guessed that it may have been an issue with the clients’ teeth. The bread that had been donated for lunch was French bread and sourdough. The fruit served was apples. The volunteer coordinator later confirmed my friend’s guess. Apparently, the city of San Francisco did not provide dental services to the poor, but would pay to have teeth pulled. The volunteer coordinator indicated many of their clients simply had few or no teeth. They probably would have loved to eat the tough bread and fruit, but were not physically able to do so. Meatloaf and mashed potatoes were more manageable.

Though the bread and fruit were not popular with the clients, many of them were enthusiastic about the little slabs of butter placed on each tray. Some of the clients were going around to various tables asking if anyone had any butter left over. I wasn’t sure what that was about. My wise friend indicated she thought they might use it for lip balm in the cold. That made a lot of sense. I had forgotten to bring lip balm with me that day and after just a matter of hours my lips were sore and chapped. I cannot imagine what would happen if you lived on the street exposed to the harsh San Francisco cold and wind.

Another thing that struck me about my visit to the Dining Room was the ways that the clients spoke to me. As a gal who is originally from the South, I instinctively “ma’am” and “sir” people I don’t know, and my mama taught me to say “please” and “thank you” early and often. Many of the clients seemed a little surprised by such courtesy, but they seemed to really appreciate it. Many extended it right back to me. They would thank me for serving them or they would voluntarily reach across the long table to hand me something I needed to pick up. Several ladies complemented me on my curly hair. Some of the clients read the name tag I was given by the volunteer coordinator and would make a point to thank me by name. Some of the clients called me “dear,” which seemed sweet.

I have to admit a few of the male clients called me “honey” and “sweetheart.” Those names were sort of borderline, but seemed generally well-intended. However, one gentleman called me “baby,” which didn’t sit real well with me, but I was mature enough to not get riled up. Another client was pretty rude to me and insinuated that I was deaf and/or not too bright when I was trying to serve water to a ridiculously large number of thirsty people and couldn’t stop what I was doing to serve him right away on the other side of the Dining Room. Again, I didn’t get bent out of shape. I’ve served under-served communities at many times in my life, and have found that sometimes people who continually are disrespected and dumped upon just need to vent a bit. None of us likes to be treated like that and it can be hard on one’s dignity. I understand that and am grateful my own dignity has not taken such dings over the years.

The St. Anthony Foundation’s website is available at the link below. Theirs is an extensive and very important ministry. I know they also always need funding. Things are particularly difficult for them right now because government grants have dried up and in the current economy demands for their services have risen.

http://www.stanthonysf.org/

Luke 18:7

Now, will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them?

Law Professor Conference

2011-02-06T06:58:00.000-08:00

Recently, I went to an annual conference of law professors. I always enjoy it and learn a lot. Professors give talks on a variety of legal topics from a wide array of disciplines. It is amazing and invigorating to listen to the different types of things about which legal scholars are thinking, studying and writing. Their ideas help inform my teaching and my scholarship—and it is just plain interesting.

Beyond the substantive content of the presentations, I admit I just also enjoy people watching at events like this conference. It is interesting to see certain patterns in the attendees depending on the topic.

For example, I attended a panel discussion about the dearth of conservative voices in the legal academy. I probably don’t fit the definition of a “conservative” in most respects, but the topic was interesting to me for a variety of reasons. I like to listen to perspectives different from my own. When compared to other sessions at the conference, there were relatively few attendees at the session on conservative voices in the academy. Apparently, there is not much interest in the topic within the legal academy, but that is probably not a shock to most people given the supposed “liberal” tilt of academics.

I must say, however, that the homogeneity in appearance of the attendees at that session struck me as rather funny. Initially, I was the only female in the room, but two or three other ladies eventually arrived. Nonetheless, it was an almost exclusively male audience and a completely all-male panel. While I was at that session, there was not one person of color in the whole room. Not one.

But what struck me as funny was the attire of the attendees at the dearth of conservative voices session. They were disproportionately dressed in tweed jackets. A large number were also wearing ties. As I didn’t see a lot of tweed or ties at the conference as a whole, this concentration really stood out and made me want to laugh. I could only stay for part of the panel discussion because I had committed to participating in a service project. And because I was going to be serving a meal at a homeless shelter, I was dressed very casually in jeans and tennis shoes. For a number of reasons, I rather stood out in the audience of the session on the dearth of conservative voices in the legal academy!

I saw similar patterns at sessions I attended on tax and business law topics. There were more women and some people of color in attendance at those sessions, but there were not huge numbers of non-males or non-whites. The dress of the attendees at tax and business law sessions was not quite as formal as the session on conservative voices in the academy. There weren’t as many suits and ties. But many of the women were in skirts and heels. The men often had dress shirts and jackets of some kinds. I guess the tax and business profs are used to a more formal dress code than some other parts of the academy.

During the conference, I attended a session on religion and the law, which was fascinating. There was a fair gender mix of the attendees, but almost everyone in the room was Caucasian. There was one person of color on the panel, but I didn’t see any other people of color in the audience, which was surprising to me. The folks at the religion and the law session were dressed somewhat conservatively. I didn’t see any tattoos or piercings, and no one was dressed in a particularly hip way. They dressed in a more traditional manner, but their attire wasn’t formal. Indeed, there were few people in suits. I would characterize the dress of most folks at the religion and law session as being dressy-casual. But there were also some folks in neat jeans and loafers.

I attended a session on minorities and the law. People in attendance were dressed similarly to those at the religion and the law session, but the racial composition was quite different. Most of the attendees and speakers were African American. I was one of only a few white folks in the room. I’m not sure why other academics were not interested in issues affecting minorities. Because the academy has a reputation for being very “liberal,” I would have thought more folks (and folks from more varied backgrounds) would have been interested in the concerns of the section on minorities and the law. Apparently not. That was pretty sad to me.

I attended several sessions on LGBT issues, and the audiences struck me as a pretty diverse group. Indeed, upon reflection, they were the most diverse-looking group of all the sessions I attended at the conference. There seemed to be a fair balance in terms of gender. A majority of the group was Caucasian, but there were many people of color representing different races and ethnicities. The attire of the attendees also really varied. There were folks very casually dressed in jeans and tennis shoes. There were people in knakis and button-down shirts. There were women in skirts and heels, or nice slacks and blouses. There were hip looking people and conservative looking fuddy-duddies.

Finally, towards the end of the conference, I attended a session on legal issues impacting women. Perhaps I was naïve, but I was sad to see that the attendees were almost all female. There were only three or four men in the room while I was there. I recognized several of those men because I had sat near them at one of the LGBT sessions I had attended. I’m not sure why more men were not interested in women’s issues. Again, the academy has a reputation for being very “liberal.” I am not sure why there aren’t more members concerned about issues impacting women.

Colossians 4:1

Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness,

knowing that you too have a Master in heaven.

Trying to Disagree without Being Disagreeable

2011-02-04T18:58:00.000-08:00

My local community newspaper provides a lot of great community news, for which I am grateful. However, it also publishes readers’ letters that are often quite vitriolic. I appreciate free speech, but the tenor of the letters leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many people. It has prompted some to stop reading this community newspaper altogether.

I understand that reaction. The letters to the editor are often ugly in tone, factually inaccurate and/or sanctimonious. They remind me a lot of what I hear when I tune in to conservative talk radio and the hosts take calls from their riled-up listeners. I appreciate friends of mine who simply don’t want to be exposed to such negativity.

But I also get frustrated that readers of this community newspaper rarely dispute any of the bitter and false things expressed in such letters to the editor. I have noticed that such unchallenged ugliness seems to actually encourage others to contribute to the downward spiral. It also seems to discourage more positive voices from even being raised. For this reason, I’ve written my own letters to the editor in a couple of instances in recent months. I have had enthusiastic feedback from friends in our community who are tired of all the letters spewing anger and non sequiturs.

Recently, I was motivated to write in response to two readers’ letters. Incredibly, one blamed President Obama for an unemployed neighbor becoming a “lazy” drug addict. The other reader bitterly threw blame in all directions for the state of Arizona’s health care system. Though he had blame to throw at undocumented workers and medical professionals, the reader specifically exempted our own governor, Jan Brewer, from all culpability. These readers’ letters are available at the link below:

http://www.westvalleyview.com/main.asp?SectionID=6&SubsectionID=143&ArticleID=38830

My letter in response was printed. It is available at the following link:

http://www.westvalleyview.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=38858&SectionID=6&SubSectionID=143&S=1

I think we ought to stand up and be heard when people speak out in an unproductive, hate-filled manner. It is so unworthy of a dynamic and optimistic country like ours. But we have to challenge such mean-spirited voices in a way that is not personally belittling and that ultimately encourages more productive discourse. It is a fine line to condemn the message and not the messenger in such instances. It is also a line that we in the United States are not always skilled at discerning. Indeed, we have not had a lot of role models to follow in recent years.

Matthew 5:14 (The Message)

"Here's another way to put it: You're here to be light, bringing out the God-colors in the world. God is not a secret to be kept. We're going public with this, as public as a city on a hill. If I make you light-bearers, you don't think I'm going to hide you under a bucket, do you? I'm putting you on a light stand. Now that I've put you there on a hilltop, on a light stand—shine! Keep open house; be generous with your lives. By opening up to others, you'll prompt people to open up with God, this generous Father in heaven.”

Vilification and Violence…and President Obama’s Leadership

2011-01-30T08:17:00.000-08:00

Not long after the Tucson shootings, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik of Pima County, Arizona made statements blaming the recent heated rhetoric and political vitriol for the shootings: “When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous." He added that Arizona had become a "mecca of prejudice and bigotry.” (With the latter comment, he seemed to be referencing Arizona’s notorious S.B. 1070.) Sheriff Dupnik attracted both jeers and praise for encouraging a toned down approach to political discourse.

I must admit that when I first heard of Sheriff Dupnik’s comments I instinctively praised his statements in my mind. My initial gut reaction was that he was right. I have been dismayed by the violent imagery used in some political websites and the uncompromising, intolerant tone employed by some in recent civic discourse. GOP senatorial nominee, Sharron Angle, made references several months ago to “second amendment remedies” in fighting government opponents she viewed as “tyrannical.” To me, that was probably the most chilling political vitriol because of the explicit linking of violence to political disagreement. However, I don’t think Ms. Angle was alone in her views; she was just more up-front and transparent about her attitude.

I do still believe there is a lot of merit to encouraging a more civil approach to politics. But I don’t think it is entirely fair to blame the Tucson shootings on politicians like Sarah Palin (as some have). By all accounts, the Tucson gunman was a very troubled man; he had serious issues that may have prompted violence even in a more temperate political climate. Not long after the Tucson shootings, NPR had an insightful report on the motivations of past political assassinations. The bottom line of their report was that political assassinations are rarely politically motivated.

I listened to President Obama’s speech at the Tucson Memorial Service. His words broke my heart, but also encouraged and up-lifted me. When he was done with his speech, I prayed with moist eyes in thanksgiving for such a wise president.

For those who have questioned President Obama’s assertion that he is a Christian, I think his speech provided ample evidence of the sincerity of his faith. President Obama could have easily pointed a finger at the over-the-top, inflammatory, anti-government rhetoric of many on the right. Many would have thought him justified. After all, he has been the recipient of incessant, ridiculous, baseless attacks against his faith and his citizenship. The current minority leader of the Senate has publicly announced his party’s priority of blocking the president from achieving any of his goals simply to ensure he does not win re-election. In that context, Mr. Obama had the right to chastise those on the right who have attacked him mercilessly with such an over-the-top approach.

But President Obama did not use the attention focused on him in that speech to chastise the right. Instead, he rebuked those on the left who were tempted to point fingers at the right for the Tucson shootings. President Obama called for us all to recognize that we share much in common and to work to make this country as good as Christina-Taylor Green believed it was. He encouraged us to recognize our interdependence and to work for the common good. He also encouraged us to recognize that relationships are more important than anything else in our lives. At a time when he could have sowed more anger and division for political gain, President Obama opted to not do that. In some ways I was surprised that he did not go in that direction. I was very proud and humbled by his speech.

Having grown up in D.C., I don’t tend to get idealistic about politicians. Despite being a pretty optimistic person in most situations, I tend to be pretty cynical about the motives of politicians. But President Obama’s speech lured me away from that cynicism and gave me great reason to admire him. I am grateful for his leadership, and in my own small way, in my own little corner of the world, I too want to make this a better country so that the hopes of idealists like Christina-Taylor Green and Gabriel Zimmerman will be vindicated.

Luke 6:27-37 (New American Standard Bible)

"But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
"Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.
"Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back.
"Treat others the same way you want them to treat you.
"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.
"If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
"If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount.
"But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men.
"Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned.

Reaction to the Shootings in Tucson

2011-01-28T09:12:00.000-08:00

I live in Arizona, so folks in different parts of the country have been asking for my reaction to the recent shootings in Tucson. I don’t live in that part of the state, however, and I don’t know any of the folks who were involved. But like Americans all over the country, I’ve been absolutely heartbroken. As a Christian, I view all human life as sacred, and a precious gift. The loss of any human life is tragic, but especially so when it is taken so senselessly and so cruelly.

I was deeply touched by several aspects of what happened that Saturday morning in Tucson. It was profoundly moving that two husbands—Dorwin Stoddard and George Morris--used their own bodies to shield their wives--Mavanell Stoddard and Dorothy Morris--from the bullets. To use one’s own body to protect someone like that is an amazing expression of love. My husband and I have talked about that sacrifice several times since the tragedy; we’ve been very moved.

I was so proud of the ordinary people on the scene at the grocery store who risked their own safety to stop the gunman’s violence. Patricia Maisch snatched away the gunman’s ammunition before he could reload and shoot again. Bill Badger, a 74-year old retired colonel, who himself had already been shot, somehow found the strength and presence of mind to tackle the gunman. Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio helped Colonel Badger restrain the gunman. I’m awed by the courage and selflessness these people displayed.

I was also so deeply proud of the selfless courage of Daniel Hernandez, a young man who had just begun an internship with Representative Giffords’s office days before. Mr. Hernandez is a twenty-year old college student. He is also an openly gay man, who is a member of Tucson’s City Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender issues. Amidst the chaos of the bullets, Mr. Hernandez rushed to the congresswoman’s side after she was shot; he applied pressure to her wounds and kept her from choking on blood. He is credited with having saved her life. Mr. Hernandez then rode to the hospital with Representative Giffords and comforted her in the ambulance. Afterwards, he explained that he had long looked up to Representative Giffords. He commented, “It was probably not the best idea to run toward the gunshots, but people needed help.” I am amazed that someone so young acted with such heroism, putting people who “needed help” above his own physical well-being. I’ve been on this planet twice as long as Mr. Hernandez, but with great humility, I admit that I am not sure I would have reacted in the same way if I had been in his shoes. Mr. Hernandez is an inspiration and a role model for all of us.

I was also proud of David and Nancy Bowman, a doctor and a nurse, who were doing their grocery shopping. They set up an on-site triage to minister to those who had been shot. It is amazing that such individuals could put aside their own fear and emotional trauma to use their professional skills to help save lives.

The tragedy of the Tucson shootings is very painful to me even though I have not known any of the victims personally. I could relate to many of the people who were impacted directly. As a mother, the unthinkable murder of a child is hard to comprehend or accept. As a wife, I was heart-broken for the spouses who were widowed. As someone who grew up in D.C., interned on Capitol Hill and have known plenty of fine people who worked for members of Congress, I was aghast that a congressional staffer was killed while doing his job and serving constituents. And as a lawyer and a person who believes in the rule of law, I’m absolutely devastated that a lawmaker was expressly targeted for assassination and a judge was killed in the shooting spree. Moreover, as a Christ follower, I can identify with the fact that the judge had just come from attending daily mass at his church. None of these people deserved the cruel, premature taking of their precious lives; none of their loved ones deserved to have them snatched from them. What an unimaginable void that must leave in their lives.

I was in an airport out-of-state when I first learned of the shootings. I had called my husband to check in with him when he told me what had happened. He had been running errands all day and first heard something about the events in Tucson when he was at church that evening; the victims of the shooting were included in the congregation’s prayers during the service. As we spoke on the phone and tried to piece together what had happened, my husband and I were both horrified and stunned by the violence. It was hard to process what had happened.

Even many days later, when people mention the shootings, my eyes moisten. I had felt embarrassed by this reaction until a friend of mine (who is also a wife, mom and a lawyer) mentioned she has been crying a lot.

Another friend of mine shared that she also has had a heavy heart because of the shootings. She told me her immediate reaction when she heard the news was to go into prayer to cover the victims, their families, the first responders and everyone else with God’s love. She added, she even prayed for the man who did the shooting because obviously he was troubled and needed prayer as well. I was so proud of my friend for her generous spirit. It is hard for us humans to pray for the well-being of someone who inflicts so much fear and pain. But of course, as Christ followers, that is what we’re called to do.

Matthew 18:21-35 (New American Standard Bible)

Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?"
Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.
"For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves.
"When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him.
"But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made.
"So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.'
"And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt.
"But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, 'Pay back what you owe.'
"So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you.'
"But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed.
"So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened.
"Then summoning him, his lord said to him, 'You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.
'Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'
"And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.
"My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart."

Talk Radio (and TV)

2011-01-23T14:25:00.000-08:00

Recently, I blogged about the growth of angry conservative talk radio, and its spill-over into other media. I lamented the efforts of those on the left to mimic the vitriol instead of finding another, more productive response.

I recently came across an interesting discussion of this issue. In a syndicated column, Peter Funt shed light on the topic: "Why Conservatives Win the Talk-Show War." I thought it was a good follow up to my blog on the topic. The column is available at the following link:

http://westvalleyview.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=38894&SectionID=6&SubSectionID=141&S=1

Romans 1:13 (The Message)

Please don't misinterpret my failure to visit you, friends. You have no idea how many times I've made plans for Rome. I've been determined to get some personal enjoyment out of God's work among you, as I have in so many other non-Jewish towns and communities. But something has always come up and prevented it. Everyone I meet—it matters little whether they're mannered or rude, smart or simple—deepens my sense of interdependence and obligation. And that's why I can't wait to get to you in Rome, preaching this wonderful good news of God.

Ephesians 4:26 (The Message)

Go ahead and be angry. You do well to be angry—but don't use your anger as fuel for revenge. And don't stay angry. Don't go to bed angry. Don't give the Devil that kind of foothold in your life.

An Open Letter to Mr. Joseph Farah (Founder and CEO of WorldNetDaily)

2011-01-21T09:58:00.000-08:00

Dear Mr. Farah,

You have honored me greatly by leaving a comment on my humble little blog. I am amazed that a man of such prominence with so many responsibilities would even take notice of my recent post and take time to provide feedback. Thank you very much.

Your comment expressed concern that it was inappropriate to mention in my prior post that WorldNetDaily had been founded with an “unabashedly conservative” viewpoint. That same blog post also indicated that WorldNetDaily’s purpose was "exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power." Both phrases were in quotes in my post because I understood these to be your words. If these quotes do not reflect your actual words and I have therefore inadvertently misquoted you, please accept my sincere apologies.

Since receiving your comment, I have modified the blog post in question to cite the sources where I found those quotes. The quote, to which you object, was found in two places: (1) on the Wikipedia page providing your biography and (2) in an article in the Los Angeles Times. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Farah#cite_ref-1990_WP_5-0. See Faye Fiore, “Raking Up Muck and Rolling in the Dough,” Los Angeles Times (Jan. 27, 2010). After reading your blog comment, I re-read those sources, and realized that quote was apparently referring only to the Sacramento Union. I apologize profusely for initially interpreting the quote more broadly, i.e., as describing all publications on which you worked subsequent to leaving the Los Angeles Herald Examiner.

Please know it is never my intention to promulgate untruths or to sow confusion. If I have unintentionally done so, I offer you my deepest apologies and I would like to extend to you the opportunity to set the record straight in greater detail on my blog. If at any time you would like to submit a guest blogger essay (of any length) about the quote in question, or to express a different opinion than I expressed about WorldNetDaily or the lack of civility in modern American political discourse, please contact me. I would be greatly honored to publish your thoughts as a guest blogger essay.

Respectfully and sincerely yours,
Your sister in Christ,
Claudine Pease-Wingenter

P.S. I am writing this note as an open-letter to you because you did not leave an e-mail address when you left your comment on my blog.

Lessons from Dr. King in an Era of Incivility

2011-01-17T09:21:00.000-08:00

This weekend at church, as our pastor led us in praying for our congregation, our community and the world, we prayed in thanksgiving for the “life and ministry of Dr. Martin Luther King.” That phrase has stuck in my mind.

We often hear Dr. King’s name invoked in secular, political contexts these days. And many gloss over the fact that Dr. King was a Christian pastor and his civil rights work was rooted in biblical teachings. I like using the phrase “ministry” to describe his work. I think it is very apropos. As Christ followers, a basic tenet of our faith is that God created all human beings in his image, and each one of us is infinitely valuable. We also believe we are part of the Body of Christ, and all parts are critically important. There are no second class citizens in the Body of Christ.

As I have been thinking about the gift of Dr. King’s life and ministry, it occurs to me that he provided us a wonderful example to follow in our current climate of uncivil public discourse. Two points from his ministry seem particularly helpful.

First, Dr. King was courageous and fair in flagging injustices. He didn’t just tell his flock to suffer through the indignities and dangers of Jim Crow. Dr. King had vision to decry long-established social norms that brought misery and kept African Americans from fully developing their potential. He encouraged people in the pews to go outside and peacefully demand justice outside the walls of their church.

Second, as Dr. King was flagging injustices, he did not demonize those who opposed his work. Instead, he appealed to our better nature and spoke in terms of brotherhood. Even after his home was bombed and his family was nearly killed, Dr. King preached love, not violent retaliation.

In “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Dr. King used the occasion of his incarceration to take time to respond to Christian leaders who had condemned his civil rights work. The text of the letter is available at the following link: http://abacus.bates.edu/admin/offices/dos/mlk/letter.html.

It is a beautiful, eloquent, wise letter written under challenging circumstances. Had I been in Dr. King’s shoes, I would have been sorely tempted to name-call the critical leaders to whom he was responding. At the very least, I would have wanted to use sharp language to call them hypocrites. The spirit is willing, but my flesh is weak. A more mature Christian than me, Dr. King refrained from such unproductive pettiness. He opens the letter calling the condemning clergy “men of genuine good will” and expresses his aspiration to respond to their criticisms in “patient and reasonable terms.” He clearly succeeded. In the letter, he is firm in pressing for the cause of social justice, but Dr. King’s words are full of respect, humility and love. They are a tremendous example for us all to follow at any time in human history. But they seem to have particular resonance in this current American climate.

One of my favorite parts of the letter is when he responds to charges that his actions have been extremist in nature, Dr. King writes:

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."

Another passage that also speaks to me is the following:

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.

May you have a blessed day, gentle reader. May you be enriched by the words of our brother, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Hosea 10:12-13

Sow with a view to righteousness,
Reap in accordance with kindness;
Break up your fallow ground,
For it is time to seek the LORD
Until He comes to rain righteousness on you.
You have plowed wickedness, you have reaped injustice,
You have eaten the fruit of lies
Because you have trusted in your way, in your numerous warriors

How Did We Get to this Pervasive Lack of Civility in Public Life?

2011-01-15T10:56:00.000-08:00

In the United States, we have always been passionate about politics. And dirty politics entered the scene very early in the history of our republic. So it would be factually incorrect and potentially disingenuous to mourn the loss of perfect civility in our American public life. Nonetheless, many long-time residents of Washington and others have noted a noticeable decline in civility in the past few decades. In Congress, there is now less reaching across the aisle to work in a bipartisan manner. Obstructionism trumps as political opponents look for any edge to prevent the other side from accomplishing anything on their agenda. Anyone who disagrees is vilified mercilessly.

In my observation and in my opinion, this sad trend really began at the grass roots level with conservatives. First, talk radio exploded in the 1990s as an opportunity for disgruntled conservatives to come together to gripe, blame others, and verbally high five each other. The hosts and listeners have often expressed tremendous amounts of anger and frustration, as well as a fair amount of sanctimoniousness. On such talk radio shows conspiracy theories have often received a lot more attention than they have in traditional news outlets (e.g., Bill and Hillary Clinton murdered their friend, Vince Foster, but made it look like a suicide).

During this time, we saw the rise of Rush Limbaugh. Despite his multiple divorces and drug scandal, his “dittoheads” still speak adoringly of him. Mr. Limbaugh has been the predominant icon of talk radio. But others have also achieved a lot of success in that arena including Laura Ingraham, Laura Schlessinger (a.k.a. “Dr. Laura”), Dennis Miller, Neal Boortz, and Michael Medved, among many others.

In the late 1990s, we also saw the advent of the Fox News Channel on cable television. It provided another venue for conservative talk programs. But when compared to talk radio, there was generally less interaction from the audience and more hours of broadcasting. Instead of just an hour or two in the afternoon, the Fox News Channel broadcasts 24/7. Like talk radio, Fox News programs often feature a lot of griping and blaming of others. Many of the programs are marked by a high level of anger and outrage. In its success, Fox News Channel has created celebrity pundits including Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity.

Some Fox News celebrities have also been successful in talk radio. Some came to Fox News Channel from talk radio. Others started in television and later branched out to the talk radio format.

Many talk radio personalities and Fox News celebrities have also written books. Some have also toured the country giving “shows” with pricey tickets where the audience is treated to in-person versions of their angry rants with some comedy thrown in for good measure.

During this same period when talk radio and Fox News Channel became staples for many, conservative journalists in on-line news media have also gained a following. They often lack the audience interaction that is the hallmark of talk radio. And they don’t necessarily have the angry tone common to both talk radio and Fox News Channel. But conservative on-line news media have gained notoriety in some quarters for providing attention to conspiracy theories that target liberal persons and institutions.

In the 1990s, we saw the emergence of the Drudge Report, an internet news website that provides links to a variety of other reporting sources. The site provides plenty of access to traditional news stories, but the Drudge Report has also gained prominence in publicizing scandals (or gossip of potential scandals) involving high-profile Democrats. For example, the Drudge Report had the dubious honor of being the first to break the story of Bill Clinton’s sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. The site also played a significant role in gaining attention for the accusations of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and in circulating a photo of then-presidential candidate Barack Obama in Somali tribal attire. The Drudge Report has also run controversial stories of questionable merit including allegations that Bill Clinton’s aid Sidney Blumenthal beat his wife, gossip that Bill Clinton fathered a child out-of-wedlock, and rumors of an intern scandal when John Kerry was running for president.

In the late 1990s, WorldNetDaily was founded with the stated purpose of "exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power" with an “unabashedly conservative” viewpoint. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Farah#cite_ref-1990_WP_5-0. See Faye Fiore, “Raking Up Muck and Rolling in the Dough,” Los Angeles Times (Jan. 27, 2010).
See http://www.wnd.com/About%20WND.

. WorldNetDaily has attracted high profile conservatives including Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, and Katherine Harris (among many others) to contribute commentaries and columns to the website. However, WorldNetDaily has also become known for its attention to conspiracy theories. It is cited as a significant contributor to the rise of the “birther” movement; as of January 2011, the site continues to run stories about the theory that President Obama is not a “natural born” citizen. WorldNetDaily has also made incredible allegations that the Girl Scouts have a secret “sex agenda”, and have a relationship with Planned Parenthood. The articles of WorldNetDaily often have semi-hysterical headlines that express a fair degree of paranoia (e.g., “Is this the end of America?,” “How to prevent mass murder,” “Cop, unprovoked, shoots Christian on train”). The articles featured on WorldNetDaily also seem to focus disproportionately on the legal status of abortion, efforts to impose prayer in secular settings and attacks on Christianity.

I force myself to listen to a lot of viewpoints, with which I disagree. To that end, I’ve spent a lot of time in my life listening to programs hosted by Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and others with similar view points. I’ve also read books by folks like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O’Reilly. There are only so many hours in the day, so I admit I myself don’t read the Drudge Report very often, but my husband reads it regularly and often fills me in on the latest stories. I force myself to find out what these different media sources are publicizing not because I’m a glutton for punishment, but because I believe in being open-minded, in listening to people and trying to find common ground.

Ultimately, in all honesty, I think most of these celebrity talking heads are in it primarily for the money and may not really care about the issues on which they rant. For example, Glenn Beck has described himself as an “entertainer” and even a “rodeo clown.” Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has derided Mr. Beck as a “cynic.”: “Only in America can you make that much money crying. Glenn Beck is not aligned with any party. He is aligned with cynicism and there has always been a market for cynics. But we became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers." See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/sen-graham-calls-beck-a-c_n_306434.html?view=print (Amen, Senator Graham!)

Not everyone shares this opinion. I personally know many lovely folks who listen to talk radio personalities and Fox News celebrities earnestly following their angry rants in agreement. If my neighbors are listening to these folks with enthusiasm, as a good citizen, I should know what is being said. I admit it does sometimes make me queasy. But at times I have found points, with which I agree.

Though I believe conservatives got us started in this trends towards vilification and away from civil discourse, liberals no longer have clean hands in the matter. Instead of having the vision for an alternate approach, most have reflexively jumped on the bandwagon to try to do the same thing as the Limbaughs, the Becks and the O’Reillys but with a left wing tilt.

Air America, a radio network specializing in liberal talk radio programming, went on the air in 2004. It never caught on and ceased operations in 2010. I was always curious about it, but never knew where to find it and frankly never had enough time to look. Presumably folks like me were the target audience of Air America. Maybe liberals and progressives are too busy to listen to talk radio in the day time. Younger generations do tend to be more liberal and/or progressive, and when we are young, we are in a particularly busy season of our lives. In our 20s and 30s, many of us are getting an education, getting established professionally and/or raising children. That makes for busy days and not a lot of time to listen to people rant on the radio.

One alum of Air America, Al Franken, did enjoy a great deal of success after his time on the radio network. A comedian, who wrote and appeared on Saturday Night Live in the 70s, 80s and 90s, he began hosting a program for Air America in 2004. Prior to joining the network, he wrote books combining liberal politics with humor. Who could resist classics like Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations? He famously took on Fox News Channel and others with Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Many of us discovered Mr. Franken’s books after he gained attention because of his work on Air America. He then translated that publicity into a (barely) successful campaign for Senate.

Though Air America was not successful, its cable news counterpart has done better. MSNBC was actually founded in 1996. In its early days, the news network featured celebrity conservatives like Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. But towards the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, the network was taking more of a progressive tilt and doing better in the ratings. It began to feature left-tilting talking heads like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews.

Again, I assume I’m probably in the target audience of such MSNBC shows, but I rarely watch the network. First of all, I am not a fan of television and our family does not even have cable. As a result, I only have access to MSNBC when I travel. Second, the network’s programming is just not appealing to me. Sure, it is generally less nauseating to listen to Rachel Maddow than Glenn Beck. But to me, MSNBC is only slightly better than Fox News Channel. I’m glad they call out hypocrisies and injustices. But the talking heads on MSNBC are smug, self-righteous know-it-alls. They have a snarky tone that really puts me off. In that respect, the talking heads on MSNBC have a lot in common with the talking heads on Fox News. They just embrace different political views.

I don’t want progressives to emulate the angry talk radio format or the in-your-face propaganda of Fox News Channel. I’d like progressives to take a different approach entirely. Instead of playing that same game, we ought to change the rules and find a better way. The snarkiness, the failure to listen, the default vilification—none of that is helpful to our society.

Matthew 17:5

While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, " This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"

Vilification v. Civil Discourse

2011-01-11T15:32:00.000-08:00

In recent posts, I’ve spoken out against the trend towards vilifying political opponents, as well as the break-down in civil discourse. In my last post about Representative Michele Bachmann, I deliberately opted to not write about my concern for her politics and polarizing rhetoric. I want to be clear about my rationale in deciding to not dwell on the negative and to focus instead on common ground. It is not because I advocate ignoring destructive political tactics to simply extend a hand across the aisle to sing “Kumbaya.” It is a lovely song, but that approach does not really get us anywhere. However, plenty of folks have already documented and spoken out against Representative Bachmann’s inflammatory rhetoric. There is no need for me to tread again on that same ground. Instead, I was trying to do something different that we don’t see enough in our current political climate. I was trying to see the congresswoman (someone with whom I disagree on a host of issues) as a human being and not as evil incarnate.

Vilification is defined as “to speak ill of; defame; slander.” “Defame” means “to attack the good name or reputation of, as by uttering or publishing maliciously or falsely anything injurious; slander or libel; calumniate.” Perhaps I’m wrong, but I’ve understood the term “vilification” to be related to the term “villain,” which has been defined as “a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel.”

With this understanding of the term “vilification,” I was trying to bring attention to the trend in recent years of speaking pejoratively about political opponents. These days, people routinely lob personal attacks against those, with whom they have political disagreement. Those on the other side of the aisle are called Nazis or Socialists. Alternately they are derided as crazy and/or of poor character.

We Americans do not debate ideas. We don’t even listen to each other. We just vilify anyone who does agree with us because they are wrong, they are bad, they are evil. It is all black or white. Many in our society never even consider the possibility of common ground. A person is either on the right side (no pun intended) or the wrong side. It is all very clear. Everything is very easily divided. Including our society.

That is not a healthy way for a democratic nation to operate. I suppose such vilification and division would be fine if we lived in a totalitarian dictatorship where the few folks in charge with an open-ended reign made all the decisions without consulting anyone else. But thank goodness we live under a different political system.

Because our government requires people from different parts of the country and different backgrounds to work together to make decisions collectively, it is absolutely critical that we take time to listen, to hear what the other person is saying and to understand their concerns. We’re not a homogenous society, so we’re not all going to agree 100% of the time. That is ok. We have to find a way to work through disagreements. We have to find common ground to make decisions about how we will be governed. And we have to be good losers. When we don’t get our way, when we lose an election, or a bill we endorse doesn’t pass, it cannot be the end of the world and consume us. When we do get our way, however, we should not let the power go to our heads. We should not let a short term “win” be an excuse for trampling our political opponents.

In my opinion, as a Christ follower, I think that as we’re trying to work through disagreements and find common ground, an overarching value we should embrace is the inherent dignity of each human being. As a Christian, I believe a loving, omnipotent and faithful God gave us this planet and gave each of us life. I believe that we human beings are God’s crowning achievement and glory amidst all his wondrous creation. God so loved each and every one of us that he sacrificed his one and only Son. God’s love extends to the lawmakers in Washington and to the street people trying to stay warm by sleeping on a grate a few miles from the Capitol. God so loves the firefighter who selflessly risks his own life to save others, but God equally loves the sociopath who heartlessly murders innocents causing pain, trauma and anguish. As a Christian, my God loves the brilliant atheist scientist, the little child saying her prayers at night, and the woman with Down’s syndrome who bags my food at the local grocery store. God loves the greedy investment banker living in an overpriced Manhattan loft, as well as the undocumented immigrant who risks exploitation and his very life to enter the U.S. to earn a little money to support his desperate family in Mexico. God loves each one of us, no matter who we are, what we’ve done, or how the world does (or does not) value us. As a Christ follower, I would hope and I would encourage that we’d all embrace that knowledge when we are discussing politics.

Genesis 1:26-27 (New American Standard Version)

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

John 3:16 (The Message)

"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn't go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again.”

Michele Bachmann

2011-01-09T11:19:00.000-08:00

I’ve been blogging about the modern trend towards vilification of political opponents and the Christian duty to see our brothers and sisters as God does. In that vein, I wanted to blog about Michele Bachmann.

Representative Bachmann began serving her Minnesota district in 2007, but she has gained particular prominence in the last year because of her affiliation with the Tea Party Movement. She has received a lot of media attention and her political star seems to be on the rise. Like many, I strongly disagree with much of her politics and I’ve been frankly horrified by some of her polarizing rhetoric, which has often vilified Democrats. Her political positions seem to be based on misinformation at times, which is quite concerning for a number of reasons. And her political posture seems chronically angry and antagonistic, which is not productive or promotive of healthy discourse.

There is much I could write about Representative Bachmann to express my disagreement and disappointment with her use of the political arena. However, I am not going to dwell on the negative. Even if she vilifies those who think and/or vote like me, I’m not going to waste my time to do the same. Instead, I would like to flag some common ground I see.

First, I note that Representative Bachmann does appear to be a sincere Christ follower. In reading about her, I see that before she got into politics, her life choices seemed to revolve around her faith. Though I glean that she and I might not share a lot of common ground in our respective Christian theology, I understand her faith seems to have directed her choice of law school, her family composition, her career choices, and her community activism. Representative Bachmann has apparently been a life-long Lutheran. She attended a Christian law school, Oral Roberts University. Prior to her graduation, the law school became affiliated with Regent University, which was founded by Pat Robertson. Representative Bachmann and her husband have raised five kids and been foster parents to 23 children. They have also owned a Christian counseling business. Representative Bachmann was raised in a Democratic family, but as an undergraduate determined Republican values were more in line with her own. She has publicly indicated she believes God called her to run for Congress; she and her husband fasted for three days in their discernment of God’s calling.

Second, I appreciate that Representative Bachmann is a professional woman. Like me, she has earned a bachelor’s degree, a juris doctor and an LL.M. in tax. Also, like me, she worked in the area of tax law when she was a practicing lawyer. She is well-educated and has held her own in the professional world. She is now one of the few female political leaders of prominence in our country. She is a trailblazer in that sense. Although she herself may chafe at the label, some would consider Representative Bachmann a feminist for this reason.

Third, by all accounts, Representative Bachmann is a caring mother. She gave up her professional career in tax law to be a stay at home mother. It is impressive to raise five children. My husband and I have just two, and are always awed by parents who are outnumbered by their children. Raising a large family is not for the weak or passive; it is a difficult, on-going challenge. But of course it has great personal rewards.

I particularly admire the fact that Representative Bachmann has been a foster parent to so many children. Children tend to be among the most vulnerable in any society and children without parents are arguably the most vulnerable. The Bible tells us repeatedly to care for orphans. I applaud Representative Bachmann for taking that command seriously to make a home for children in foster care.

Jeremiah 5:28

They are fat, they are sleek,
They also excel in deeds of wickedness;
They do not plead the cause,
The cause of the orphan, that they may prosper;
And they do not defend the rights of the poor.

Senator Mitch McConnell and the Struggle Against Vilification

2011-01-04T08:00:00.000-08:00

I’ve written recently about the breakdown in public discourse and the tendency for people to vilify their political opponents. As a Christian, I believe I’m called to resist that tendency and to look for the good in all my brothers and sisters. That responsibility encourages me to look for areas of commonality with those who embrace different positions on various issues. I must admit that in some contexts living up to that responsibility is a particular challenge.

In our current dysfunctional culture and political system, people get caught up in achieving their own short-term political gain. In the process, they ignore the long-term good of the country and/or the pressing needs of our brothers and sisters. In that context, people forget that politics is simply a means to an end. It should not be an end in itself. How empty and meaningless that would be.

After the recent mid-term elections, Senator Mitch McConnell publicly announced that his party’s chief goal is to make sure President Obama does not win re-election. Like others, I was floored by such a candid admission of a very twisted priority. To heck with achieving any progress on any of the pressing issues facing our nation and its people. Apparently, Senator McConnell simply wants to make sure his party gains control of the White House in 2012. At least he let us know what his priorities are. But I’m stunned that he would think such a priority is publicly acceptable. The following link discusses the senator’s comments and contains media pundit reaction.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/25/mcconnell-obama-one-term/

Senator McConnell later elaborated that one of his party’s specific goals was repeal of the health care law enacted by both houses and signed by President Obama. He suggested that his party would be unrelenting in their pursuit of such repeal.

I just don’t understand that. First of all, Barack Obama made it quite clear in his campaign for the presidency that he wanted to achieve health care reform that would help more Americans get meaningful health insurance coverage. On that platform, he won the presidential election handily—both in terms of the popular vote and the Electoral College. He did not squeak out a win by a razor thin majority or the assistance of the Supreme Court. Candidate Obama never hide his plans for health care reform. For that reason, it literally makes me want to scream when politicians and others whine in a revisionist manner that our president is forcing an unwanted policy on us. The facts make it clear that is not the case. A minority may be unhappy and quite vocal about it. But a majority of us voted for such health care reform.

The anti-health care reform crowd derogatorily refer to the law that passed as either “Obamacare” and/or the “government take-over” of health care. Like the misinformation over the “death panels,” that is distortive propaganda. Such manipulative word choice implies that the health care reform law that was enacted will be a form of “socialized medicine” similar to the systems adopted in countries like Canada, Britain and France. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

President Obama and his party compromised greatly to get some health care reform accomplished. A single payer approach was nixed early on. Even a more modest “public option” was abandoned pretty soon into the debate. What was eventually enacted was modeled after the Massachusetts plan implemented under Republican Mitch Romney. The law that was actually enacted will require us to all buy insurance plans from for-profit companies. Republican President Richard Nixon long ago though that was a good idea. I’m not sure why the current Republicans are so hostile to the approach. It creates more customers for the insurance companies. Simultaneously, it will help many Americans who could not otherwise get affordable health insurance coverage. There are a lot of things I don’t like about the bill. But at least, it makes some modest improvement in the lives of people in need. In all honesty, the only reason I can imagine the current Republicans oppose the bill is that it is likely to be considered an accomplishment for President Obama. It could be used as a basis for his re-election.

The GOP has controlled the White House for many years and never did anything to enable people to get affordable, quality health insurance. They did not get rid of impediments to insurability based on preexisting medical conditions. Why on Earth not? People have been dying because they could not get treatment for chronic conditions. Families have lost their hard earned life savings when family members get sick. Costs have continued to spiral out of control. Who on Earth thinks that the status quo is desirable? It is not even sustainable. And gutting malpractice liability is not a panacea to the very complex problem. Texas has shown us that.

The link below includes Senator McConnell’s comments about the repeal of the health care law.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44688.html

I simply do not understand Senator McConnell’s priorities. I try very hard to see the good in all my brothers and sisters. But when some people place political gain above all else, it is a tremendous challenge to me. I admit that with sincere personal humility.

To try to understand why Senator McConnell might have such priorities, I have done a bit of research about him. The senator has publicly indicated for a long time that he is a Baptist, but apparently he no longer is affiliated with any Baptist church. Senator McConnell has three children from his first wife. He has been married to his second wife, Elaine Chao, since 1993. They are considered to be a major power couple in political circles. Senator McConnell is a lawyer by profession, but almost immediately went into politics instead of practicing law. He has been in Congress since 1985. He is currently one of the wealthiest members of Congress; his personal fortune is over $30 million. I’m not entirely clear how he earned this huge amount of money. From what I have read, it appears to be from mutual fund investments. Many Americans invest in mutual funds, but few of us have that kind of phenomenal success. The links below contain some background on Senator McConnell:

http://congress.org/congressorg/bio/id/262

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/3741/97/

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.php?CID=N00003389&year=2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_McConnell

Matthew 9:12

But when Jesus heard this, He said, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick.”

Haiti: Then and Now

2011-01-02T10:00:00.000-08:00

I appreciate Governor Palin going to Haiti and bringing some attention to the plight of the people there. It continues to be a heart-breaking, desperate situation. As we begin a new year, it is important that we not forget that fact. In that vein, I wanted to share two recent broadcasts about Haiti that have nothing to do with Governor Palin’s visit.

First, as we were driving home from Texas after Christmas and listening to NPR in the car, we listened to a report that explained in disturbing detail what has been going on in Haiti recently. The report sheds light on the flow of aid from international donors, the state of health care, the cholera epidemic and the recent election. One emphasis in the report was that Haiti will not be able to rebuild without resources and assistance from foreigners. For that reason, it is critical that we not forget about the needs of the Haitian people. The link below contains the transcript of the report.

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/26/132341774/Help-For-Haiti-Slow-Frustrating

The second broadcast was a repeat of an earlier episode of the Diane Rehm Show featuring Isabel Allende. I had actually heard the original broadcast of the episode, but it was fascinating to listen a second time. Ms. Allende was discussing her recent novel, Island Beneath the Sea. The protagonist is a slave in the French colony of Saint-Domingue, which would become the nation of Haiti after the widespread slave rebellion that led to the Haitian Revolution. Ms. Allende spent four years researching the history and culture before writing her novel, and she shared a lot of interesting insights during her interview with Ms. Rehm.

Even before the earthquake last year, in the modern era, we Americans tend to think about Haiti as being such an incredibly impoverished nation. However, we are woefully ignorant of the nation’s history. Ms. Allende pointed out that prior to the Haitian Revolution, it was a land of incredible wealth and extensive resources. The riches of Saint-Domingue were cultivated via incredibly brutal oppression and inhumane working conditions of the enslaved Africans who were brought to the island. Ms. Allende pointed out that life was so miserable for the enslaved Africans that their life expectancy after being brought to the colony was only a few years. That unimaginable brutality created an environment where the slaves had a tremendous incentive to try to escape to just survive. This fed an atmosphere of constant terror among the Europeans who lived there. The interview with Isabel Allende is available at the link below.

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-12-28/isabel-allende-island-beneath-sea-rebroadcast

Deuteronomy 26:12

" When you have finished paying all the tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and to the widow, that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied.”

Sarah Palin Visits Haiti

2010-12-30T08:49:00.000-08:00

The world is full of extreme negativity these days. In our public square, people are always beating each other up verbally. Public discourse has become so uncivil and so polarized that people vilify one another and fail to see the good in those with whom they disagree. That situation saddens me greatly for a number of reasons. It is not a healthy situation for our country.

One of my biggest interests is finding areas of commonality amongst diverse groups. In working with my students, for example, I’ve come to realize that we Americans are often not nearly as polarized as the media pundits and politicians make us think. I’ve listened to students with different backgrounds and contrary worldviews discuss their beliefs about hot button issues, and discover to their surprise that they actually have much in common with the folks on the other side of the aisle. They often are stunned to realize that their bottom line views are not as far apart as they would have initially thought. Alternately, they discover that their bottom line positions are different, but their underlying motivations and values are actually the same or at least have similarities. Of course, that doesn’t happen with every issue. But it happens more often than we might think. However, we cannot have such epiphanies if we constantly vilify others and do not even try to listen to them.

Along those lines, I was intrigued by a recent news story about Sarah Palin. Governor Palin is someone who epitomizes the kind of polarization that has befallen the United States in recent years. Many adore her. Others are horrified by her. I have to admit I fall more into the latter category. But I try to keep an open mind and look for areas of commonality.

In that vein, I was encouraged by Governor Palin’s recent interest in the people of Haiti. I was glad she decided to travel there on a humanitarian trip. I was also glad to read of her deep compassion for the human tragedy in Haiti. I was also intrigued (if not surprised) by her suggestion that our government ought to give more aid to help the people of Haiti.

The bottom line is that although I disagree with her on many issues and her political tactics cause me great concern, I do appreciate her shedding light on the suffering of the Haitians, which continues to be so great almost a year after the earthquake. I always appreciate people in the spotlight using their fame to bring attention to overlooked human suffering and tremendous need.

My reaction to this news story does not mean that I’ll be voting for Governor Palin any time soon. Her politics are generally contrary to mine. And I try to not be a Pollyanna. I always have a healthy skepticism about anything that politicians say in front of a microphone and/or camera.

Nonetheless, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt and I try to acknowledge the good I see in people. As a Christian, I believe we are all made in God’s image and he loves each of us infinitely. As a result, it is my responsibility to try to see others as God does. It undermines that responsibility if I vilify people with whom I disagree. Vilification denies the good in my brothers and sisters.

The link below contains an article on Governor Palin’s trip:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/12/haiti.palin.remarks/index.html?hpt=Sbin

Hebrews 4:16

Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Reality TV

2010-12-28T10:25:00.000-08:00

I hope you have had a wonderful holiday season. Our family has been traveling to celebrate Christmas with our family in Texas. They don’t have Wi-Fi, and their computers either have dial up or other impediments to blogging. As a result, I’ve taken a bit of a break from posting to this blog.

We had a great visit with our relatives, but being away from home is always tough. For example, we don’t generally sleep well. I particularly have a hard time sleeping, and woke up in the wee hours several times with nothing to do but sit in the living room flipping channels. There is not a lot on at that hour no matter how many channels you have. I ended up catching up on some reality TV.

Yikes. Surely the end of civilization must be around the corner.

My husband and I both hate reality television, but for somewhat different reasons. My husband thinks everything is staged and there is no reality in “reality television.” Basically, he thinks it is all a fraud.

I don’t disagree with him. And I loathe the basic premise of such staging/fraud, which seems to be to show how screwed up others are so that we can laugh at them and/or wag our fingers at them. In essence, reality television encourages us to judge others and feel superior to them.

My other major source of disgust with reality television is that people are allowing their personal lives and their families’ personal lives to be exploited for monetary gain. That is tragic on so many levels. And it is a bargain that never seems to turn out well, but people keep doing it.

Anna Nicole Smith was one of the early reality TV stars, and apparently her teenage son did not handle the situation well. As I have read, Daniel was a shy young man and a good student with aspirations to go to college, but he began using drugs because of awkward attention at school about aspects of his mother’s reality television show. A couple years after the reality show ended, he tragically died of an overdose.

Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey signed on to do a reality show of their early married life. Marriage is tough enough under the best of circumstances, but I cannot imagine how a young couple can possibly sort out the difficulties of adjusting to being a married couple with cameras following them in their home and on dates. Ms. Simpson and Mr. Lachey ended up divorcing after just three years of marriage.

In my opinion, Jon & Kate Plus Eight is one of the worst reality television debacles to-date. Yet another couple’s marriage fell apart as the world watched it play out on their TVs. It was horrifying that a couple’s personal tragedy was entertainment for the world to watch and exploit in disgusting detail. Of course, the tragedy was exacerbated because the couple had eight young children. (At least Ms. Simpson and Mr. Lachey did not have kids.) As if all of that was not horrifying enough, Kate Gosselin signed on for another show without her ex-husband to let the world gawk some more at her children.

Because of my Christmas vacation insomnia, I saw a bit of two more recent reality TV shows. They were both so horrifying, I couldn’t watch entire episodes. The infomercials looked good by comparison.

The first of the two shows I caught was What Chili Wants. I was a young adult in the 1990s when the musical group TLC was popular, but I haven’t heard what they have been up to since the tragic death of one of their members, Lisa Lopes. What Chili Wants is a new reality show following TLC member, Chili Thomas, as she works with a relationship expert to find true love. In the first scene of the episode I caught, Chili described to the expert what she is looking for in a mate. She explained he had to be physically gorgeous and sexually appealing; there were specifications for both his abs and his genitals. Chili also demanded that her future mate be a believer in God and not consume pork. However, she was a bit more tolerant with regard to a potential mate’s family status; she would accept up to two baby mamas.

My mind reeled. I’ve never heard someone speak so shallowly and so selfishly about finding a life partner. Chili Thomas is a lovely, talented woman. She is about my age and has a son. I cannot imagine someone who is so accomplished, who is a parent and who has arrived in middle age being so self-absorbed and clueless about finding a mate. Consequently, I hope my husband is right and there was no reality to that reality show. Surely, the whole thing was invented to attract viewers. Even so, after about 15 minutes, I couldn’t take it anymore and had to change the channel.

The other reality show I caught during my insomnia was Sarah Palin’s Alaska.

I’m not even sure what to say about that show. I did give it a fair shot and watched almost a full episode. It was absolutely horrifying on so many levels. I’m just not sure where to even start.

And that may be a sign that I ought not even try. Perhaps it is best to not dwell on the many revolting aspects of the show. Instead, I’ll just sum it up by saying: oh, my goodness, I cannot believe we as a nation have sunk to this level.

Somewhat surprising, my apolitical husband is particularly disgusted that Sarah Palin has agreed to do a reality show. He thinks exposing one’s personal life to the cameras like that is about the most tasteless, undignified thing one can do. And he fears that Governor Palin has set a new (low) standard that other politicians will follow. His greatest fear is that we’ll have a president someday who has been a reality TV star.

My husband is not very interested in politics, so (unlike me) he is not even that offended by Governor Palin’s political rhetoric. His chief concern is just the cheapening of our democratic process and the stature of those elected to office. Serving in public office these days is not an opportunity for selfless public service, but simply another opportunity to exploit oneself for economic gain and public attention. In the past, politicians have done that primarily via book deals and honoraria for giving lectures. Apparently now there is a new avenue: reality television. President Snooki or President Palin? As my husband sees it, what is the difference? He has a point.

Mark 8:36

"For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?"

Mark 10:45

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

The Prince and the Paupers: A Tax Fable

2010-12-17T07:29:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine, Professor Brad Borden of Brooklyn Law School, recently published an article in the Huffington Post. That would be pretty exciting news in the base case, but it is particularly noteworthy because Professor Borden is a fellow tax nerd. We tax nerds seldom get our work included in non-tax or non-academic publications. So this is quite a coup!

I wanted to highlight the article here because I thought it was very well done. The article is written as a fable told to his young daughter. Even people without any interest in tax law can follow and appreciate Professor Borden's points. And he expresses them in a very engaging manner. Who knew tax policy could be so compelling!

I also thought the subject matter of the article would be of particular interest to readers of this blog. It hits upon structural injustices in the context of both our political system and our tax laws.

The link below contains the text of the article. Enjoy!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bradley-t-borden/the-prince-and-the-pauper_1_b_796745.html

Deuteronomy 16:19 (New American Standard Bible)

You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous.

What Would Jesus Buy? (2007) (Troubled by the Style of the Film)

2010-12-15T09:37:00.000-08:00

Although I agree with the substantive concerns of the film and I’m generally glad that a film was made to focus attention on the problems of commercialization and materialism, the style of the film was problematic to me.

What Would Jesus Buy? is described as a documentary. It purports to follow a man named Reverend Billy and his choir as they essentially go on a mission trip across the country. Reverend Billy speaks in an exaggerated preachy Southern drawl reminiscent of people like Jimmy Swaggart. Reverend Billy is a white man with a big bleached pompadour hairstyle and outdated, flamboyant attire. He resembles a blonde Elvis in the King’s later years. Reverend Billy is shown to exorcise people by putting his hand on their heads and pushing back in a dramatic fashion. His effect is like something from an SNL skit lampooning Southern Evangelical preachers. In watching the film, I half expected Lorne Michaels to appear at some point.

Similarly, the members of the Church of Stop Shopping Gospel Choir have a caricaturist style. Despite their message of anti-consumerism, they have elaborate matching long robes. They have rehearsed choreography to accompany their singing. And they flail about enthusiastically in (mock?) rapture when Reverend Billy preaches.

I try to be a good sport, and I think laughter is a gift. Satire can be helpful; it helps us see faults that we might not otherwise see. As a result, I’m certainly not opposed to poking fun at Christians. We should all laugh at ourselves from time to time. None of us should ever take ourselves too seriously. And it is insightful for us to see ourselves as others do.

But What Would Jesus Buy? goes beyond poking fun. The film blurs the lines between reality and satire. In watching the film, it is not clear whether Reverend Billy is a street preacher with sincere Christian faith or a mocking performance artist with a social conscience. It is also not clear if the “Church of Stop Shopping” is an actual religious congregation or the stage name of a group of performance artists who are trying to make a political statement.

The film includes footage of Reverend Billy and the choir in several churches. They seem to be leading a worship service, but the reaction of the folks in the pews was telling. The cameras show several with big, dopey grins. They appeared to be audience members enjoying a funny show, not religious worshippers. As a result, religion seems to be the butt of a joke. I’m not sure how that squares with the purported message of Reverend Billy. If the point of the crusade is to save Christmas, why is that goal of any importance if religion is merely a joke? A broader year-long crusade against materialism would make more sense.

Other scenes in the film are even more troubling. At one point, Reverend Billy speaks to several devout members of an African American church. He represents to them that he is a pastor of the Church of Stop-Shopping. They have a serious dialogue, but Billy seems to be taking advantage of their goodwill and hospitality. If he is a street performer mocking Christians, it seems rather mean-spirited to have represented himself as an actual Christian pastor. That portion of the film had a Borat-esque quality.

In another scene, Reverend Billy and the choir take their proselytizing/protest/show to a Wal-mart where they attempt to exorcise the store. After they are thrown out of the store, but while they are still lingering in the parking lot, Reverend Billy purports to baptize an infant of loving parents who are receptive to his message. A Christian baptism is a meaningful, sacred religious ritual, but in my opinion it was ridiculed by Reverend Billy’s spectacle in a sacrilegious way.

In the end, I appreciated the message and consciousness raising of What Would Jesus Buy? However, I was very disappointed by the disrespectful way the message was delivered.

Luke 18:32 (New King James Version)

For He will be delivered to the Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon.

What Would Jesus Buy? (2007) (Agreement with the Film’s Basic Premise)

2010-12-12T07:24:00.000-08:00

The title of this documentary is a play on the phrase “What Would Jesus Do?” That phrase was coined a number of years back as a quick guide to help Christians discern the right choices to make in various situations. It was particularly embraced by Christian youth who wore “WWJD” wristbands, but the phrase became popular more widely in Christian circles.

As a result of this background, when I originally heard of this film, I thought it would be an examination of ethical shopping choices. I assumed there might be a focus on human rights of workers and the destruction of our environment due to practices employed in manufacturing many retail products. What Would Jesus Buy? does touch on those themes, but it is certainly not the main focus of the film. Instead, the film follows “Reverend Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping Gospel Choir” as they go on a cross-country bus tour before Christmas to warn Americans of the pitfalls of consumerism and to “save Christmas from the Shopocalypse.”

The film was produced by Morgan Spurlock, who is better known for his assault on fast food in the documentary Super Size Me. I liked Super Size Me. In a simultaneously informative and comical way, the film examined a serious problem in our country: the disastrous effects of overconsumption of large portions of very unhealthy “fast food.” The film raised our consciousness while making us laugh. I’m down with that.

Similarly, I generally liked What Would Jesus Buy? As expressed in previous blog posts this year and last, I too have been disappointed and repulsed at the commercial exploitation of this important religious holiday. Christmas has been taken over by marketers in an effort to induce us to overindulge in material consumption. The irony of course is that the exploited holiday is the celebration of the birth of a man who taught us to not focus on material things, but to instead put our attention and energy into more lasting concerns. For that reason, I appreciate the basic concern of What Would Jesus Buy? It points out that Christmas shopping is really just emblematic of our culture’s wider year-long materialism and overconsumption, which the film equates (comically) to a religion unto itself. The filmmakers flag that this focus reduces us to worshipping material things. The film points out that on average Americans spend about 1 hour each week on spiritual pursuits, but about 5 hours each week shopping.

What Would Jesus Buy? explores the notion that Christmas is a marketing coup. Marketers have succeeded in equating childhood love with having material things. The film examines the myth of Santa, noting that parents go to extreme lengths to hide from their kids the fact that toys actually come from stores and do not have a magical origin. It is mentioned that other countries prohibit marketing to kids, but by contrast American kids absorb large numbers of hours of advertising each week and spend significantly less time in meaningful dialogue with their parents. The film mentions that child psychologists say that young children lack the developmental ability to distinguish between entertainment and advertising such that they are particularly receptive to marketing pitches. To illustrate these points, the film also interviews children who discuss the intense peer pressures of having the “right” brand labels on their belongings and the “right” clothes at school. The film also includes interviews with parents who are obsessed with giving their kids “quality” brand name presents, and having their kids celebrate Christmas with a slew of gifts. The film discusses the repercussions of such attitudes, including the financial vulnerability of overextended credit and the exploitation of workers in the developing world due to “big box” stores that emphasize an abundance of cheap merchandise.

Romans 1:25 (New Century Version)

They traded the truth of God for a lie. They worshiped and served what had been created instead of the God who created those things, who should be praised forever. Amen.

Christmas in Southern Louisiana

2010-12-09T06:52:00.000-08:00

Having lived in the eastern part of Texas for so long, we’ve known so many people who were originally from Louisiana. In particular, we’ve known a lot of folks from New Orleans and small towns in southern Louisiana. Our family used to go to Louisiana for long weekends. And many evacuees came to our part of Texas after Katrina. As a result of these experiences, I have a special love and affinity for Louisianans, and have been devastated by what they have gone through since the BP Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion last April.

Recently, I heard a really heart-breaking news story about the disaster’s economic impact to the local fishing industry in southern Louisiana. Interviewees spoke about the toll the economic situation had taken on their families. People had lost their homes, couples had broken up, children were stressed about such losses and the continuing uncertainty in their lives. You can read the story at the link below: http://www.npr.org/2010/11/29/131667797/bp-oil-well-capped-but-trauma-still-flowing.

For more background, the following blog is dedicated to documenting the damage from the oil spill, and contains a tremendous amount of information: http://bpoilslick.blogspot.com/.

My heart really breaks for the families in southern Louisiana. That region is not an area of affluence in the best of times. But in recent years, it has been hit hard by hurricanes, and now the local economy has been decimated by a new double whammy. The oil spill contamination in the waters has hurt the fishing industry, and frankly may impact it for generations. And the offshore exploration and development activities that have also been an important part of the region’s economy have been hit by the halt in petroleum industry activity in the wake of the BP disaster.

I wanted to make a donation to help provide relief for the people in that region, but when I did some research on the internet, it was surprisingly hard. Most relief efforts in the wake of the oil spill seem to have focused on the non-human animals harmed by ecological disaster. I love birds, fish and reptiles, but I love human beings more. From what I found in my research, there has not been a lot of humanitarian focus on the people suffering in the wake of the BP disaster.

The Second Harvest Food Bank of Greater New Orleans and Acadiana, however, is the primary food bank serving the region in Louisiana most impacted by the oil spill. Their website is available at the link below. It contains information about the group’s efforts to assist people impacted by the repercussions of the oil spill, as well as information about how one can contribute to their efforts. http://no-hunger.org/News/GulfOilSpill.aspx.

Matthew 25: 34-40 (New King James Version)

Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

Christmas 2010

2010-12-07T08:39:00.000-08:00

The weekend after Thanksgiving this year, our pastor gave an interesting talk. She mentioned that at this time of year people are always going around asking “Are you ready for Christmas?” And she noted what they meant was things like “have you put up your decorations?” or “have you bought all your presents?” She proposed a different response, “yes, I have prepared to banish evil in my life.” She thought that would really shake things up and get people’s attention. I think her point was that we should get back to the real reason for Christmas, which is not the flashing icicle lights, the eggnog or Gameboys. Amen!

Indeed, that point seems particularly apropos this year. The economy is in tatters. Unemployment is still a horrible problem. We have friends and family who have been out of work for well over a year, and have gone to heroic measures to find another job but to no avail. We have friends whose employers are not doing well and their jobs are not secure. And almost a year after the earthquake, the situation in Haiti is still desperate. The challenges and suffering seem to get worse for Haitians. Tropical storms struck people in tents last summer and now the cholera epidemic.

In such times, it particularly seems inappropriate to try to buy a lot of stuff to try to make merry. Many folks don’t even have the basics. Our family is trying to focus on the reason for Christmas. I know a lot of folks strive to do the same thing, but it is very hard to go against the grain. The mainstream culture is so influential and is very hard to escape. I thought it might be an encouragement to hear about the ways our family has found to reclaim Christmas. And I’m always open to new ways if readers have suggestions to share.

First, our kids’ Sunday School teacher gave all the parish’s families a “Jesse Tree” poster to help celebrate Advent. Every night we read a brief story from the Bible and place a sticker on the paper tree on the poster. The stories and stickers symbolize particular events from the Bible. Jesse was the father of David, so the Jesse Tree traces Jesus’s lineage and promise through the Old Testament. It is a simple and neat activity to help us remember the religious meaning of Christmas, and refocus on why it is such a special holiday. Christmas is the celebration of Christ coming into this world. It is a beautiful and awe-inspiring event particularly when we compare human existence before Jesus came to this Earth to live among us and teach us the Father’s ways. The link below provides some information about the Jesse Tree tradition: http://www.jesse-tree.com/.

Throughout the year our church frequently collects donations for a local food bank. Our family usually participates in them, but it seems particularly important to donate during the holidays. It is anguishing to be food insecure at anytime, but it is particularly hard when the rest of society is over-indulging. And this year in particular, the need seems to be so great. Like much of the country, the economy is really bad here in Arizona. We know plenty of folks who have lost their homes, who have been out of work or who are at risk to lose their job. In that context, donations to food banks have dropped off dramatically while the need has grown tremendously. Those who are fortunate enough to still have a job and a roof over our heads are particularly obligated to help. The following link has information on contributing to food banks in Arizona, but similar information for food banks in other communities is just a Google search away: http://www.azfoodbanks.org/.

Our church is participating in the Angel Tree program, which is part of the Prison Fellowship ministry. Prison Fellowship ministers to the needs of incarcerated people. But incarceration does not just impact the convicted individual. No man or woman is an island. We’re all interconnected, so incarceration impacts families and communities. In our society’s emphasis on getting “tough on crime,” we often overlook the impact on the children of convicted people. They bear the emotional loss of the absence of their parent, the social stigma of being a child of a convict, as well as the economic insecurity and deprivation that often is associated with having a potential breadwinner incarcerated. At the holidays, the Angel Tree program aims to minister to children in that situation by allowing individuals to buys gifts for specific children. Our deacon purposely asked that our church be responsible for sponsoring older children this year because they are often overlooked. More people volunteer to buy gifts for babies and toddlers because they are cute, but not as many people volunteer to buys gifts for older kids. Our family is sponsoring two children this year—a 7 year old and a 10 year old. We have done this kind of sponsorship (through various programs) ever year, and always involve our kids in the shopping and planning. We don’t want to shelter them from the reality that our family is very privileged, and not everyone has the same material comforts and advantages. We should be grateful for what we have been given, and never taken it for granted. We are proud of our kids’ interest and contributions to the shopping experience, and we hope that as they get older, they will do the same sort of thing sua sponte. The link below has information about the Angel Tree program: http://www.angeltree.org/deliverlove.

For several years, our family has made the World Vision Gift Catalogue a part of our family’s Christmas tradition. World Vision is a well-established and well-respected Christian humanitarian organization that works around the world to alleviate suffering due to poverty (and associated problems such as exploitation and disease). They have a catalogue of gifts at various prices that one can purchase to gift to people in need. The gifts are practical in nature and can make a wonderful difference in the lives of the recipients. You can choose to gift livestock, a water well, medicine, food, educational supplies, clothing, or a host of other needed things. Each year we give each of our children a budget and sit with them to go through the catalogue to let them choose how to spend their budgeted monies. It has brought tears to my eyes when they have chosen to buy things like ducks, blankets, seeds and mosquito netting for other families. I’m proud of the thought and reflection they put into the purchases. I’m also grateful that their own material needs are met, but I’m heart-broken for parents whose precious children are more vulnerable. More information on the World Vision Gift Catalogue is available at the link below: http://donate.worldvision.org/OA_HTML/xxwv2ibeCCtpSctDspRte.jsp?go=gift&§ion=10389.

On several occasions in the last few years, our family has sent notes and care packages to men and women in the armed services who are serving overseas. The site http://www.anysoldier.com/ provides a list of soldiers who are willing to act as the point person for their unit, and lists things that would be most useful and appropriate to send to that particular unit. It has been a privilege and a very moving experience when our family has sent things in the past at various times of the year. We plan on sending a package again this holiday season. Our family has known children whose parents are serving in the military abroad, and our own kids cannot image how tough it is to be separated from a parent like that. As a result, this activity is meaningful to our own family.

Like most families, our own financial resources are limited, so we certainly do other things to keep the focus on the meaning of Christmas. During the holidays, we particularly make a point to spend time with friends and family. Being together and enjoying each other’s company is a better gift than anything you could wrap and put under the tree.

This month, our kids are going to be in a holiday parade with a group of their friends, in which they are participating in a live nativity scene. Our kids and a friend of theirs were designated to portray the three Wise Men. In early January, they are also going to participate in our church’s annual Epiphany pageant, which is a lot of fun. My husband and I will be on hand to help the Sunday School director herd livestock (i.e., preschoolers) at appropriate times.

Our children enjoy the spectacle of Christmas lights, so throughout the holiday season, we take an occasional walk around the neighborhood to admire the light displays. It is fun to take a walk and get some exercise together. In our part of Arizona, the days are very pleasant because of all the sun, but when the sun goes down it can get a little nippy. We make a big to-do about putting on scarves and jackets and mittens when we go for our walks to admire the lights. We don’t otherwise have much occasion to get bundled up and wear such things. And we have to keep moving to keep the blood pumping. Then when we get home we sometimes make Mexican hot chocolate, which is a real treat. As opposed to traditional American hot cocoa, Mexican hot chocolate is a rich blend of chocolate and cinnamon. At our kids’ request, we add a couple mini marshmallows and/or sprinkle some ground up candy canes on top to really make it a party!

We make the long trek to Texas to be with our relatives in time for Christmas. Our family is from South Texas, where eating tamales on Christmas Eve is a tradition. My in-laws are from a small town and buy homemade tamales from someone they know for the Christmas Eve supper.

Our family is composed of people from different faith traditions, but we go to church on Christmas Eve. Before we were parents, my husband and I always went to midnight mass. That is way too late for our kids, so we go to an earlier service. Churches often have one geared for children’s short attention spans.

On Christmas day, one of our family traditions is Jesus’s Birthday Cake. We enjoy making the cake together and letting the kids decorate it with left-overs from prior Christmas cookie baking. Truth be told, they generally go a little overboard with the sprinkles and icing, but we think Jesus takes it all in stride. What mere mortals may consider to be gaudy is surely a work of art in his eyes. We serve the cake with dinner on Christmas day. We turn out the lights, sing “Happy Birthday” to Jesus, and blow out the candles for him. It is one of my favorite traditions—and not because I have a sweet tooth.

Isaiah 11:1-9 (Contemporary English Version)

Like a branch that sprouts from a stump, someone from David's family will someday be king. The Spirit of the LORD will be with him to give him understanding, wisdom, and insight. He will be powerful, and he will know and honor the LORD. His greatest joy will be to obey the LORD. This king won't judge by appearances or listen to rumors. The poor and the needy will be treated with fairness and with justice. His word will be law everywhere in the land, and criminals will be put to death. Honesty and fairness will be his royal robes. Leopards will lie down with young goats, and wolves will rest with lambs. Calves and lions will eat together and be cared for by little children. Cows and bears will share the same pasture; their young will rest side by side. Lions and oxen will both eat straw. Little children will play near snake holes. They will stick their hands into dens of poisonous snakes and never be hurt. Nothing harmful will take place on the LORD's holy mountain. Just as water fills the sea, the land will be filled with people who know and honor the LORD.

Black Friday

2010-12-03T19:35:00.000-08:00

One thing that makes me very sad is the erosion of the focus of Thanksgiving. I don’t particularly mind the Macy’s Parade or the football games. Families and friends can fellowship to some degree while watching those types of things on television. But what really upsets me is the interference from Black Friday.

To be clear, I’m down with capitalism. I’ve spent most of my life working for for-profit enterprises. I appreciate the need of companies to make a profit. I don’t have a problem with Black Friday sales in a very general sense. Certainly, it is upsetting and offensive to me as a Christ follower that the religious celebration of Christmas has been perverted via retail exploitation. But I do pragmatically understand that retailers depend on the consumer indulgence between Thanksgiving and Christmas to stay in business. I don’t want anyone to lose their job. I appreciate that getting a good start to that important retail season is imperative. Therefore, I accept that retailers have to attract shoppers on the Friday after Thanksgiving.

But in recent years, retailers have been pushing up the start of that Christmas shopping season to an earlier and earlier point. Days after Halloween this year, our family was already seeing Christmas merchandise in a number of stores. We started our little backyard garden a bit late this fall and tried to buy some seeds the first week in November. Despite the fact that in our part of Arizona you can grow vegetables year round, a major national hardware store had already gotten rid of its gardening supplies to make room for a huge collection of Christmas lawn decorations.

Black Friday has also started earlier and earlier in recent years. Instead of opening their doors at a reasonable hour (like 9 or 10 a.m.) on the Friday after Thanksgiving, some retailers are now opening their doors in the wee hours of the morning, e.g., just after midnight, 4 a.m., etc. A week before Thanksgiving, the local news was running stories of how people were setting up tents outside a national electronics store (and others) to be first in line for great deals on Black Friday. And each year as Black Friday approaches, I get nervous because in recent years we hear about violence and loss of life as people fight each other for cheap merchandise or stampede when the store opens its doors.

Some retailers have apparently decided there is no need to wait until the day of Black Friday. Some have begun to open their doors for special sales on Thanksgiving Day itself. Some families now plan their holiday meal so they can down the turkey and still make it to the sales on the same day. It is very distressing. Wisely, the weekend before Thanksgiving this year, our pastor preached proactively on the topic and encouraged all of us to prepare ourselves ahead of time to avoid getting sucked up in the culture’s approach to the Christmas season.

I’m always incredulous and disheartened about the violence, the camping out in parking lots, and the rearrangement of one’s Thanksgiving schedule to accommodate shopping. It is just stuff. Stuff breaks. Stuff can be lost or stolen. Stuff cannot give you a hug or say something to make you laugh. Why do so many folks sacrifice so much for stuff? I just don’t get it. It really depresses me that our culture has become so materialistic that we’re trampling over Thanksgiving to pervert Christmas. Such attitudes are just fundamentally counter to my values as a Christian.

But to be clear, I don’t judge or condemn folks who get caught up in it. That would be counter to my Christian beliefs too. I’m not under any illusions that any of us live up to all of Jesus’s teachings. We all fall short. I know I certainly do. Instead of judging or condemning, I mourn deeply for people who get caught up in the materialism of our culture—particularly in the Christmas season. A plasma screen TV, an iPad or snazzy shoes cannot bring any of us lasting joy. Chasing after such things is a losing proposition. It is a distraction from what can bring us true happiness and peace. I really mourn for people who try to find fulfillment in things that will ultimately disappoint them. I would like all my brothers and sisters to find a more permanent source of happiness.

Matthew 6:19-21 (New King James Version)

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Reflections on Thanksgiving

2010-12-01T17:41:00.000-08:00

I have a confession to make. I don’t really like turkey, stuffing is not that exciting to me, and personally I find pumpkin pie to be gross. Even though I don’t really enjoy the traditional menu of Thanksgiving, I love the holiday itself. I love being with my family and other folks to spend time in fellowship, relaxing and enjoying a festive meal. I also like the time to focus on our blessings and to give thanks.

As a Christian, I know that being grateful for my blessings and giving thanks to God is an important part of my relationship with my Creator and is critical to my own spiritual development. But even if one takes a more secular approach to the holiday, psychologists have been telling us for years that people, who are cognizant of and grateful for the good things in their lives, tend to be happier and more resilient than the rest of the population.

When our family still lived in Texas, Thanksgiving was sometimes sort of stressful to me. In large part it was because neither my husband nor I are particularly adept at the culinary arts. Despite this gap in our skill set, we often hosted many different groups of relatives on Thanksgiving. They were coming from different parts of the large state, so they often arrived and left at very different times. That made it hard to time the meal. And invariably folks would try to visit with me while I was cooking, but I frankly cannot walk and chew gum. So, I’d end up leaving out the baking powder when making biscuits, losing count with respect to how many cups of sugar I had added to the cranberries, or I’d forget to set the timer for the pies.

Despite these stresses, I loved having our many different relatives come together to share the special day. It made me so glad that despite our differences in political affiliation, education, taste in music, and theological belief, we all came together to enjoy each other’s company. Heck, even my mom and dad (who have been divorced for 30+ years) shared the holiday together at our home on many occasions. I was always so proud that they and their spouses fellowshipped together. No pettiness. They came together for the sake of the rest of us. Amazingly, my parents and their spouses actually seemed to even enjoy visiting with one another. Coming together despite differences. That is what family values are all about in my opinion.

1 Chronicles 16:34

Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good;
his love endures forever.

Blog Post on the Death of Feminism

2010-11-27T06:19:00.000-08:00

Last spring I posted a series of blog posts on feminism. I came of age after the feminist movement, and the word “feminist” had never had a lot of relevance to me. But upon invitation to associate with a feminist law professor group last spring, I began to ponder the term more.

I sought insight from a number of people of different backgrounds. It was really interesting to hear their varied insights. I noted in the resulting blog posts that the rather benign dictionary definition of “feminism” is so different from the modern connotations that have evolved. These days, in many quarters, the term is viewed very negatively and can inspire tremendous hostility.

I received a lot of interest and positive feedback from those blog posts on feminism. For those who continue to be interested in the topic, I thought you might enjoy the blog post at the link below; it was written by Stephen Prothero (a religion scholar at Boston University). It was posted on CNN’s “Belief Blog.”

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/02/my-take-feminist-theology-and-feminism-r-i-p/?hpt=Sbin

Acts 5:29 (New King James Version)

But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.

So Sexy So Soon: The New Sexualized Childhood and What Parents Can Do to Protect Their Kids by Drs. Diane E. Levin & Jean Kilbourne

2010-11-23T09:34:00.000-08:00

The prior post noted my concern about the sexualization of children. Indeed, in the summer of 2009, I read a book on the subject and wrote an article reviewing it. The book was So Sexy So Soon: The New Sexualized Childhood and What Parents Can Do to Protect Their Kids by Drs. Diane E. Levin & Jean Kilbourne. The book was published in 2008 by Ballantine Books.

My book review was published this past summer in the American Journal of Family Law. That review is available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1673611.

The journal trimmed some of the article for publication. The original, full-length article is available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1653630.

My article essentially praises Drs. Levin and Kilbourne for bringing attention to this serious problem facing children and families today. However, I note that due to the ubiquitous nature of the problem, structural changes are needed. The one-off strategies the book’s authors suggest to parents are well-intentioned, but woefully inadequate. The authors’ discussion of the problem in their book, as well as my own experience as a mom and grade school teacher, leads me to the conclusion that parents dealing with this issue alone within their own family is analogous to the passengers on the Titanic trying to bail water with tea cups.

The full-length version of my article also takes issue with certain tactics of the book's authors. For example, I assert that they hurt their credibility at times by taking on small (and admittedly rather benign) fish when they railed against the horrors of the Disney Princess marketing behemoth. The Disney Princesses are much beloved by many and are relatively harmless. Citing them as examples of the problem of sexualization, the authors appear to be overly sensitive and alarmist. Such examples also potentially alienate readers who might otherwise be sympathetic to the authors’ general concerns about the impact on children of sexualized media and marketing.

Moreover, in their book Drs. Levin and Kilbourne needlessly alienate natural allies in the Christian community with dismissive and derogatory statements about the religious right. It is apparent in various references throughout the book that the authors have taken a firm stand on culture war issues, and they are not on the same side as Evangelicals and political conservatives. That is fine. Everyone is entitled to their own views. However, when the problem of sexualizing childhood is so ubiquitous and entrenched, it makes no sense to refuse to reach across the aisle and seek allies to make progress on this critical issue. It saddens me that in our current climate, people accept the political polarization and don’t even try to find common ground with people who have a different overarching philosophy or worldview.

2 Thessalonians 3:3

But the Lord is faithful,
and he will strengthen and protect you from the evil one.

Feminist Law Professors Blog

2010-11-20T08:24:00.000-08:00

Although I don’t have time to follow it regularly, I enjoy the academic blog, “Feminist Law Professors.” It is accessible at: http://feministlawprofessors.com/. Contributors from a variety of scholars with a “feminist” perspective post essays and musings on a variety of topics. I don’t agree with everything on the blog, but some of it is interesting to me.

Two posts earlier this year particularly got my attention. One was about the gender divide in parenting. http://feministlawprofessors.com/?p=15830. The other was about the underrepresentation and oversexualization of females in the media. http://feministlawprofessors.com/?p=15827. Both are topics of great interest to me generally, and I thought both posts were worthwhile.

Issues affecting children and families are important to me. I have spent a good deal of my professional life and done a lot of volunteer work in the service of children. I have written two articles on issues involving children and the law, and have focused on children and families numerous times in this blog. Consequently, among other issues, I’m very interested in the role of fathers. For a variety of reasons, based on my own observations, I think that fathers are often undervalued in many families. (Sometimes they are undervalued by their own actions or inactions.) I wish more fathers had a greater role in parenting children. In my opinion, their contributions can be invaluable.

I’m also extremely concerned about the sexualization of women and girls in modern media. Particularly as a parent of daughters, this is a very disturbing trend. Such sexualization limits girls’ conceptions of who they are and forces them into adult roles prematurely. There are many aspects of being human. One’s sexuality is just one facet of one’s identity. Sexualization is a form of objectification, and denies the humanity of the individual. That is fundamentally inconsistent with basic Christian values.

Luke 12:7 (Contemporary English Version)

Even the hairs on your head are counted. So don’t be afraid! You are worth much more than many sparrows.

A Blog Post on a Little Boy’s Choice of Halloween Costume

2010-11-18T18:17:00.000-08:00

Around Halloween, a beautiful friend of mine sent me a link to a post from a blog I had never heard of. I don’t really have anything to add, but I recommend it highly. The link below brings up the post.

http://nerdyapplebottom.com/2010/11/02/my-son-is-gay/

I love the power of blogs. People we don’t even know can share their life experiences to teach and enrich the rest of us. Blogging is such a democratic medium. You don’t have to be rich, powerful or have a slew of academic credentials to share your perspective with the world. I’m often amazed by the eloquence of everyday folks, people who don’t earn a living by putting together words to express ideas.

I love that this blogging mom, whom I’ll likely never meet, has broken my heart and given me a lot of food for thought. As a fellow mom, I could understand her fiercely protective love for her son and anyone who might hurt him in any way. I’m not exactly a fan of Sarah Palin, and I am not sympathetic to Tea Party politics, but I can certainly identify with the “Mama Grizzly” metaphor.

In a time when the bullying of LGBT kids and resulting suicides have (finally) begun to get mainline media attention, I thought the timing of this mom’s post was particularly poignant. Children learn so much from us, their parents. Every one of us needs to work harder to teach our children to love all their neighbors.

Luke 6:37 (New King James Version)

“Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.”