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

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) (Preconceptions Before Watching the Film)

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.

A Prayer for Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann

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.

Mike Huckabee Weighs In

(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

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!”

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

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.”

Lessons from Dr. King in an Era of Incivility

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

Michele Bachmann

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.

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

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)

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.

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 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.

Letters to the Editor on the “Ground Zero Mosque” Controversy

I’ve mentioned several times in this blog my affection for community newspapers. In the West Valley View, local residents often write letters to the editor to debate current events (and blow off steam). In some ways I love the fact that my neighbors are so passionate about issues in our community. On the other hand, many of the letters are so filled with intolerance and bitterness. At times, I cannot bear to read them or can only bring myself to read a few. I have friends in my community who read the West Valley View, but deliberately skip the letters to the editor. Others have shared with me that they no longer even open that newspaper because of the ugliness of the letters to the editor.

In late August, I read two published letters to the editor in the West Valley View, which got my attention. One was a beautiful letter from a Christian pastor, who was speaking out against “anti-Muslim hysteria.” Instead he was encouraging grace and tolerance for our Muslim brothers and sisters. I was encouraged that for once the secular public was hearing the perspective of a Christian who was speaking love for--and not condemnation of--Muslims.

But next to the pastor’s letter was a letter more typical of the type published in the letters to the editor in this community newspaper. A woman wrote to denounce others who had dared to speak out against “anti-Muslim hysteria.” She claimed such attitudes were indicative of “political correctness” and demonstrated ignorance about the real issues at stake in the “ground zero mosque” controversy. Her point was essentially that if we allowed a mosque to be built near ground zero, the terrorists will view that as a victory for their side. For a number of reasons, I found the last line of her letter particularly heart-breaking: “This mosque, if allowed to be built, would not show the world American tolerance but American naivety and stupidity.”

Both of these letters were published in the August 31st edition of the West Valley View, and are available at the link below:
http://westvalleyview.com/main.asp?SectionID=8&SubSectionID=3&ArticleID=37894&TM=40062.8

I had never before written a letter to the editor, but those two letters from my neighbors spurred me (for differing reasons) to compose a response. I wrote in support of the pastor’s words, and to rebuke the misguided words of the other letter. My letter was published in the September 10th edition of the newspaper, and is available at the link below:
http://westvalleyview.com/main.asp?SectionID=8&SubSectionID=3&ArticleID=37975#item1

Like many Christians, I get tired of secular representations of my faith that are inaccurate. I believe it was Pastor Rick Warren who has noted that in recent years the Christian voices that are most often heard in the secular media are simply those that are the loudest. Like it or not, the secular media is an important vehicle for non-Christians to learn about Christianity. In this day and age, the media is very influential in shaping people’s attitudes and beliefs on a number of topics. However, when the secular media only pays attention to the loudest voices in the large and diverse Christian community, the impression that is often left is inaccurate. For example, a common misimpression is that Christianity is a religion of intolerance against sexual minorities and adherents of other religions, among others in our society. But I think any fair reading of our sacred scripture indicates that Christ modeled and advocated the opposite approach. He repeatedly reached out to the shunned and the isolated. His message of unconditional love was not just for one group, but for all human kind. In essence, I wrote my letter to the editor to echo the perspective of Pastor Souers and to show the community that popular impressions of Christianity don't necessarily hit the mark. In writing my letter, I tried my best to provide a more accurate Christian witness.

Proverbs 31:9

Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.


Ecclesiastes 4:12

Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.


John 13:34 (New International Version)

A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.


1 Peter 3:8 (New International Version)

Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble.

Christian Leaders’ Response to the Controversy over President Obama’s Christian Faith

I was encouraged to read that recently a number of Christian leaders signed an open letter denouncing the baseless speculation over the authenticity of President Obama’s Christian faith. Signatories included famous leaders like T.D. Jakes (author, pastor and televangelist), Jim Wallis (author and president of Sojourners), Donald Miller (author), Rich Stearns (president of WorldVision), Kirbyjon Caldwell (a pastor in the Houston area who is close to the Bush family), as well as a whole bunch of folks with lower profiles. I also found it encouraging that the signatories came from a number of Christian theological perspectives including nondenominational, Presbyterian, Baptist, Seventh-Day Adventist, Moravian, Catholic, Episcopalian, Pentecostal, United Church of Christ and a few others.

Information about the letter is available in the article in the link below.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/08/highprofile-christian-leaders-criticize-misrepresentation-of-obamas-faith.html

Deuteronomy 32:3

I will proclaim the name of the LORD.
Oh, praise the greatness of our God!



Psalm 15:1-3

LORD, who may dwell in your sanctuary?
Who may live on your holy hill?
He whose walk is blameless
and who does what is righteous,
who speaks the truth from his heart
and has no slander on his tongue,
who does his neighbor no wrong
and casts no slur on his fellowman

President Obama’s Christian Faith as a Political Issue

In the 2008 presidential election, the issue of Barack Obama’s status as a Christian was somewhat of a political issue. Some conspiracy theorists asserted he was Muslim despite the evidence that he has been a practicing Christian for several decades, well before entering public life. Amidst concerns about multiple wars and the worst economy since the Great Depression, the issue never really took center stage in the election.

Once Mr. Obama won the presidential election, I had thought the issue of his religion was going to fade away along with the baseless whispers over his “natural born” citizenship. Like the emergence of the post-election birther movement, I’m amazed (and rather demoralized) at the emergence of the authenticity of President Obama’s Christian faith as a political issue.

In recent months, the media have reported on polls indicating that relatively high numbers of Americans believe President Obama is a Muslim and the percentage has been growing since the presidential election. The polls indicate that more Republicans than other groups believe he is a Muslim. Articles about this issue from the last few years are available below:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1701/poll-obama-muslim-christian-church-out-of-politics-political-leaders-religious

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/30/obama-islamic-fundamentalist-gop-polled-majority-says_n_699883.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-04-01-obama-muslim_N.htm

I’ve written before in this blog at my great frustration with conservative Christians who deny President Obama’s profession of Christian faith. The vast majority of us who fall into the category of “progressive Christians” respected President George W. Bush’s own profession of faith though at times that was a tremendous challenge to us. Under his leadership, our country opted for war when it was not necessary, support for that war was mustered because of the dissemination of falsehoods, our government apparently engaged in torture of human beings, and our government let our own people die agonizing deaths along the Gulf Coast after the tragedy of Katrina. Engaging in violence, speaking falsehoods and turning a blind eye to human suffering are not Christian values. Indeed our Savior taught us to embrace the opposite values. We are to be peacemakers, speak truth and minister to our neighbors’ needs.

Despite these challenges, I personally know of no Christians who believe that President George W. Bush is not really a Christian and only proclaimed he was one for political gain. To my knowledge, not one (progressive) Christian whom I know personally or have heard in the media has ever expressed the belief that our former president is not a Christian. Not even one. Not ever. Indeed, famous progressive Christians like Jim Wallis and E.J. Dionne have even publically confirmed many times they believe the former president’s Christian faith was sincere. Indeed, while President Bush was in the White House, they even made appeals to him based on their common Christian faith to encourage President Bush to make certain policy decisions. I’m not famous, but I too have always accepted President George W. Bush’s profession of faith. Frankly, I do so in large part because I cannot fathom anyone using our beautiful, omnipotent creator for crass, short-term political gain.

This situation gives rise to a question that I’ve asked myself many times: If Christians on the left have been accepting of President Bush’s assertions of his Christian faith, why haven’t Christians on the right been similarly accepting of President Obama’s assertions of his faith? This is quite a puzzle to me.

I’ve repeatedly heard conservative Christians defend the attacks on Mr. Obama by saying he doesn’t represent Christian values since he “promotes abortion” and “fights for gay marriage.” Such arguments prompt two reactions in me. My first reaction is simply frustration because such arguments are based on falsehoods; I don’t understand how anyone can be so out of touch to say things that are so far from reality. My second reaction is admittedly more cynical. Because such assertions are so far from reality, I begin to suspect that folks making such statements know they are incorrect, but are making them nonetheless for political gain, i.e., to mislead others.

In point of fact, regardless of how you feel about abortion and same-sex marriage, it is a distortion of great proportion to assert that Mr. Obama “promotes abortion” or “fights for gay marriage.” If you look at Barack Obama’s record, those are simply falsehoods. Indeed, NOW is pretty unhappy with President Obama because they don’t think he has been a strong enough advocate for abortion rights. Similarly, many in the LGBT community have been dissatisfied with President Obama for a long time because he has not championed same-sex marriage rights.

But even if you think that President Obama’s actual policy positions are not grounded in Christian values, again the same argument could have been made about President Bush’s policy choices. Nonetheless, that situation did not result in a movement of progressive Christians waging an internet gossip campaign to convince our fellow citizens that George W. Bush was actually a Buddhist, an adherent of Wicca or an atheist.





John 3:20-21

For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

Insightful Coverage of the “Mosque” Controversy

In the prior post, I described a talk radio host’s hostility towards the proposed building of a “mosque” near the land where the World Trade Center once stood. I chose to put quotation marks around the word used by that talk radio host after I listened to a report on NPR about that controversy. The NPR report is available at the link below:

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=2&prgDate=7-15-2010

Although I am not Muslim and obviously have very different theological beliefs, I felt much empathy to the Muslim group as it was described in that NPR report. It was explained that they feel that their faith is often misrepresented in the media, which focuses mostly on extremists of the Muslim faith. Certainly, a progressive Christian in America at the dawn of the twenty-first century can relate to such an experience!

In the public discussion of the “mosque” controversy, I also saw an insightful post on “My Dog Ate My Blog,” which is a blog by people who work in the field of education. The post is available at the following link:

http://www.guidetoonlineschools.com/blog/2010/08/31/the-ground-zero-mosque/


On a related note, the Diane Rehm Show recently had a thought-provoking program on religious intolerance in the United States. Because of recent events, the issue of anti-Muslim intolerance in particular was a focus of the program. A transcript of that show is available at the link below:

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-09-09/religious-intolerance-us/transcript




John 4:7-9 (New King James Version)

A woman of Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give Me a drink.” For His disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.
Then the woman of Samaria said to Him, “How is it that You, being a Jew, ask a drink from me, a Samaritan woman?” For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.

Miracle at Moreaux (1986)

I don’t think I am going out on a limb here to say that these days most Christians understand that Jesus’s teachings are incompatible with racism. That hasn’t always been the case of course, but in my observation that is the current state of affairs. And I think it is clearly a correct understanding of Jesus’s ministry. On many occasions Jesus violated social norms to associate with folks whom his own culture thought were unclean, outcasts and/or unworthy. He hung out with all sorts of apparently despicable folks: women, Samaritans, children and tax collectors. His approach was revolutionary in that sense. And Paul makes pretty clear in the New Testament that divisions of race or ethnicity are simply irrelevant in Christ. As a result, I have never understood how Christianity could be used to justify bigotry.

Perhaps particularly baffling to me, I have never understood the perspective of Christians who are anti-Semitic. After all, as Christians, our savior was Jewish! How could we hate Jewish-ness when that was such an important part of who Jesus was? How could we hate Jewish people when his family was Jewish? Moreover, all of our early Christian heroes were Jewish. Jesus’s family and friends were all Jewish, as were most of the first generation of Christians. Even today, Christians and Jews share scripture. Much about the Christian faith is rooted in Judaism. As a result of these facts, Christianity and anti-Semitism are just fundamentally incompatible belief systems. (Indeed, though the Passion of the Christ was well-received by many American Christians several years ago, I have yet to hear any Christians express anything but disappointment and dismay at Mel Gibson’s subsequent anti-Semitic and racist rants.)

My husband and I do our best to instill in our children our Christian faith. An important part of that is to teach them about Jesus’s command to love our neighbors, as well as his expansive understanding of the concept of a “neighbor.” We encourage our children to be friends with people of different backgrounds, and to love them regardless of their religious or political beliefs. We explain to our children that that is what God wants us to do because he loves everyone in the whole world very, very much.

Recently, as we have been teaching our children about our duty to love all our neighbors, we’ve been trying to raise their awareness of racism and other forms of bigotry. Our family is biracial, and we have had friends of many backgrounds, so this is an odd concept to our children. They understand moral judgments based on behavior. Like any of us, they instinctively tend to get on their moral high horse when someone else does something naughty (e.g., so-and-so told a lie but I would never do that, that person was a bully so he is bad). But to our kids, it is not intuitive that people would prejudge others simply based on their race, ethnicity or religion. To help illustrate the existence and dangers of such bigotry, we’ve talked at sort of a high level about slavery and the Holocaust. Obviously, we haven’t gotten into all the horrifying details; our kids are too young. But they are starting to understand the grave consequences of bigotry and why we need to guard against it in our own hearts and minds.

To that end, our family recently watched a made-for-TV film from the 1980s. Miracle at Moreaux has a rather simple plot and was a low budget film. Loretta Swit played the lead, but I had not heard of the other actors. The setting is occupied France in the early 1940s. The story revolves around a nun running a small Catholic boarding school in the countryside, and three Jewish children fleeing for their lives from Germany. The nun becomes aware of the Jewish children’s plight and makes a split-second decision to hide them at her boarding school from the local Nazi patrol. The decision is terrifying because the Nazis are searching for these three Jewish children, and remind the nun that harboring Jews is a capital offense. The nun risks her own life, as well as that of the Catholic children in her care, to try to protect the three Jewish children. In the film, she is often shown on her knees praying to God. The situation is anguishing, but she sees no other moral solution but to violate the law to try to protect the three Jewish children.

The Catholic children at the school have been raised in a religious environment and their faith is omnipresent. Most of the children are very conscious of their Christian obligation to love their neighbor, and immediately try to make the three Jewish children feel comfortable by bringing them extra blankets and making sure they are comfortable in their room. One older Catholic child initially spews ugly falsities about Jewish people that her parents had taught her. But even that child eventually comes around after she gets to know the three Jewish children personally and she hears about their horrific experiences in being separated from their parents. The nun and the Catholic children eventually hatch a risky plan to help the three Jewish children escape to Spain.

There was a pivotal scene where a Nazi officer interrupts the school’s rehearsal of its Christmas pageant to interrogate the youngest of the Catholic children. The Nazi coaxes the young, impressionable child, “Do you know where the Jews are?” The child nods earnestly, and the nun looks horror-stricken. The little boy then points to two of his Catholic classmates and himself, “He is a Jew and she is a Jew and I am a Jew.” The nun smiles in relief and explains to the Nazi that the little boy has just identified the children playing Joseph, Mary and Jesus in the Christmas pageant. She points out to the Nazi officer that the Holy Family was Jewish, but he is not receptive to this fact.

The story was a little scary, but very compelling to my kids. The story line was perhaps far-fetched, but it was challenging nonetheless. We are each obliged to help our brothers and sisters in need. When the Good Samaritan stopped to help the man who had been robbed and left for dead, the Good Samaritan was not just being a nice guy doing a little easy charity work. As I understand, he was risking his own life and limb. There was a very real possibility that the same fate could befall him. The road was full of robbers and other outlaws. Moreover, a guest pastor to our church recently taught on the parable of the Good Samaritan and explained that there was another very real danger. The Good Samaritan was traveling in a land where his people were reviled. He risked his own safety by even showing up at a Jewish inn with a Jewish man who had been beaten savagely. In that cultural context, it was not clear the Good Samaritan would be welcomed or even tolerated.

Each of us likes to think we would be a Good Samaritan, but we all fall short of that even when the risks to us are not that great. I am unsure if I would have the courage to make the same choice as the nun in Miracle at Moreaux. I certainly hope I would. But it is always easier to make bold moral proclamations from a position of relative safety and security.

John 13:37-38 (New King James Version)

Peter said to Him, “Lord, why can I not follow You now? I will lay down my life for Your sake.”
Jesus answered him, “Will you lay down your life for My sake? Most assuredly, I say to you, the rooster shall not crow till you have denied Me three times.”

Anne Rice Quits the Church

Anne Rice made the news this week. On my way home, I heard her interview on NPR’s “All Things Considered.” I don’t do social networking, but apparently on Facebook she announced:

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

She also stated, “In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.”

She added, "My faith in Christ is central to my life. My conversion from a pessimistic atheist lost in a world I didn't understand, to an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God is crucial to me. But following Christ does not mean following His followers. Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been, or might become."

For those who are unfamiliar, Anne Rice is one of the best selling novelists of all time. She has written books on vampires and witches, which are full of graphic sex and violence. Under a pseudonym, she apparently has also written “erotica.” (But personally I cannot imagine how those books differ from the ones about vampires and witches; the latter were pretty raunchy.)

Ms. Rice is from New Orleans, but also lived in Denton, Texas as a teenager. She was raised a Roman Catholic, but left the church at age 18. For a period she described herself as an atheist, but in 1998 she returned to the Catholic Church with a renewed faith in God. She publically declared that this conversion experience would affect her writing as she intended to use her writing talents to glorify God. In the 2000s, she published several books with religious themes.

As an adult, she lived most of her life in New Orleans. However, prior to Katrina, in an effort to simplify her life, Ms. Rice moved from New Orleans to California to be near her adult son.

My own family lived for many years in Houston, which is in Southeast Texas. Due to the geographical proximity, I have had a certain familiarity with Louisiana. I’ve discussed in this blog my particular love for and fascination with the culture and people of New Orleans. Anne Rice apparently went to the same college as my mom, though not at the same time. I have also explained in this blog that most of my Christian walk I was a Catholic, but our family is now happily established in an Episcopalian parish. At least at first blush, Anne Rice and I may appear to have certain things in common, and one might assume I admire her.

However, before discussing her decision to leave the Church, I should admit that I’m not exactly a fan of Anne Rice. I’ve tried to read some of her books, but have finished just one or two. Years ago, I did see the film adaptation of Interview with a Vampire. But I just never understood the whole obsession with vampires and witches. It is not interesting to me in the slightest. Quite honestly, I find the subject matter gross, creepy and terribly overrated. My apologies to any readers who might fall into this category, but I’ve always found fans of Ms. Rice’s work to be very odd and unappealing. I have also never liked Ms. Rice’s goth style. She used to dress in a very dramatic, bizarre fashion. I’m all for freedom of expression, but at least her pre-Christian fashion sense used to spook me.

Despite all this, I can relate in some ways to Ms. Rice’s decision to leave the Church, and I mourn for her. This was obviously a difficult decision for her. She explains that it has caused her pain, but in good conscience she felt she had no other choice. In her interview with “All Things Considered,” Ms. Rice seemed to have been particularly disappointed with the Catholic Church’s political activism on the issue of same sex marriage. She was frustrated that the Church decided to “donate money to defeat the civil rights of homosexuals in the secular society.” I certainly empathize with and share Ms. Rice’s concerns on this point. I believe that that recent type of secular politicization of the church has alienated many Christ followers, and has repelled many who might otherwise be attracted to the Gospel message.

I was also moved by a part of the interview where Ms. Rice explained her decision to leave the Church: "... I am a person who grew up with the saying that all that is needed for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing, and I believe that statement." I definitely agree with this point. History has shown this to be true repeatedly. Good people failed to speak up in sufficient numbers in Germany in the 1930s; millions of people lost their lives as a result. Good people failed to speak up in sufficient numbers in our own country when African Americans were routinely terrorized and lynched in violation of our secular laws (and our nation’s supposed Judeo-Christian values); even people who worked in law enforcement typically failed to intervene. We who are Christ followers--and who value all parts of the Body of Christ and God’s creation--have a duty to speak up in defense of the vulnerable and disenfranchised in this world.

Although I can understand Ms. Rice’s motivations in leaving the Church, I cannot say I share them. I have not written about the motivations behind my own family’s decision to leave the Catholic Church because they aren’t relevant to the focus of this blog. Denominational squabbles sadden me greatly; the fracturing of the Body of Christ is a tragedy. In this blog, I don’t want to devote time to discussing the relative wisdom of one denomination over another. This is not a blog about theology.

Nonetheless, it may be helpful to clarify that my family’s decision to leave the Catholic Church was not due to theological or political disagreements. This is not to say that my husband and I agreed with every single teaching and decision of the Catholic Church. However, we did not have a theological or political falling out. Though I may share Ms. Rice’s disappointment with the secular politicization of the church, that disappointment has never provoked in me a desire to leave. I may have moved from one room to another, but I have not left the house. I believe you can speak up and be a force for positive change within the church if you stay.

More fundamentally, I deeply believe that being involved in a church community is an important part of living our Christian faith. Jesus taught that we should love God with all our heart, and to love our neighbor. Personally, I don’t think you can just love your neighbors from afar. We have to get to know our neighbors and spend time with them to truly love them. Jesus always did that. His ministry involved spending time and building relationships with all kinds of folks. Indeed, some of them seemed pretty repulsive per the cultural norms in which Jesus was raised and educated.

Loving our neighbors is not always easy. Frankly, it can be pretty messy at times. We don’t always agree or even get along. But I think God wants us to work through all that messiness to truly understand what love is, and to be able to see the reflection of God in each of our brothers and sisters. One thing that has been a challenge to me in my walk—and is likely a challenge to many other Christians—is the realization that not only does God love me profoundly and infinitely, but he also loves (just as much) the folks I think are jerks. The wacko who cuts me off on the highway, people who say unkind things about me, the xenophobic activist trying to blame our country’s problems on desperate people who risk their lives to come to this country to feed their families. God loves each and every one of them as much as he loves me. He doesn’t play favorites. One of my challenges as a Christ follower is to evolve and mature to grow to see such folks the way God does. I cannot do that if I cut myself off and refuse to associate with them.

Anne Rice’s NPR interview is available at the link below:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128930526

Matthew 18:19-20 (New Living Translation)

“I also tell you this: If two of you agree here on earth concerning anything you ask, my Father in heaven will do it for you. For where two or three gather together as my followers, I am there among them.”


Mark 2:15-16 (New Living Translation)

Later, Levi invited Jesus and his disciples to his home as dinner guests, along with many tax collectors and other disreputable sinners. (There were many people of this kind among Jesus’ followers.) But when the teachers of religious law who were Pharisees saw him eating with tax collectors and other sinners, they asked his disciples, “Why does he eat with such scum?”

Rated R: Republican in Hollywood (2004)

Rated R: Republican in Hollywood is an hour long documentary by Jesse Moss, who honestly admits his ties to the Democratic Party at the beginning of the film. He describes the impetus for the film as the election of Republican Hollywood icon, Arnold Schwarzenegger, as the governor of California. Moss viewed the timing as ideal to explore issues including whether the liberal reputation of the entertainment industry is deserved, and whether Schwarzenegger is an anomaly (or whether there are other conservatives in Tinsel Town).

To explore these issues, Moss interviews a number of Hollywood conservatives including Drew Carey, John Milius, Lionel Chetwynd, Vincent Gallo, Michael Medved, Pat Sajak, Ben Stein, Sam Haskell and Patricia Heaton. (I have to admit I had not heard of most of these folks before watching the film.) Rated R: Republican in Hollywood seems to do a fairly good job of sensitizing viewers to the apparent difficulties of “conservatives” in the entertainment industry including ideological bigotry that limits career opportunities, as well as the hypocrisy of “liberals” who shun those with opposing political views. However, the film brushes over specific ideology and lumps a seemingly diverse group together as if they were ideologically homogenous.

The interviews rarely give hints as to why the various interviewees are Republicans such that they should be included in the documentary. It is not clear what these individuals actually believe that makes them “conservatives.” Indeed, it is noted that Schwarzenegger himself is not considered to be a true conservative by many due to his stance on hot button issues such as abortion rights. In his interview for the film, Drew Carey indicates he actually considers himself to be more of a libertarian.

For purposes of this blog, I had hoped that the film might explore the motivation of Christian Republicans in embracing the GOP. In that respect, I was disappointed.

Although I disagree with her on many political issues, Patricia Heaton is rather a fascinating person to me, and I was initially excited to see that she was featured in the film. Heaton is probably best known for her Emmy winning role in Everybody Loves Raymond. She has also been outspoken about her Christian faith. She produced the film Amazing Grace, a biopic of William Wilberforce, the English MP whose embrace of Christianity inspired his long fight to end the slave trade. Heaton is a consistent life ethicist, which means she has take “pro-life” positions against embryonic stem cell research, abortion rights, euthanasia and capital punishment. I have read that she apparently supports gay rights to some degree, and is affiliated with Feminists for Life. Nonetheless, her interview in Rated R: Republican in Hollywood glosses over her faith and her reason for affiliating with the GOP. The interview makes it apparent that she was an enthusiastic supporter of George W. Bush, but it is not clear why.

Even more disappointing, the film spotlights Act One, which is described as a Christian screenwriting group founded by a former nun. Moss never explores why this particular group should be included in a film about Republicans. Per their own interviews, the other people featured in the documentary seemed to be well-aligned with the GOP or at least with conservative causes and candidates. But the political affiliations of these Hollywood Christians was just assumed and not actually explored. I was left wondering if all of the Act One Christians were actually Republicans. To me, that would seem an amazing coincidence. As a Christ follower, who has not aligned herself with the GOP, I certainly did not appreciate the film’s apparent assumption that the Hollywood Christians were all Republican. This just perpetrates the seemingly well-entrenched myth that all Christians are political conservatives. In turn, this implicitly feeds the misimpression of many that Christianity endorses militarism and economic Darwinism.

I assume that Moss chose to gloss over ideology due to time constraints with his film. Unfortunately, that decision helps to crystallize Christian stereotypes that have been especially prevalent during and since the presidency of George W. Bush.

Ephesians 4:1-3

“I...urge you to walk worthy of the calling you have received, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, accepting one another in love, diligently keeping the unity of the Spirit with the peace that binds [us].”

Religulous (2008)

Being aware of the basic premise of Religulous, I honestly cannot say I looked forward to watching it. But I appreciate that Bill Maher is an intelligent person and he feels a lot of hostility towards religion for a variety of reasons. I try to have an open mind, and force myself to listen to perspectives that are different from my own. I encourage my law students to do the same thing because it is often possible to find common ground that was not previously apparent. (And pragmatically, when common ground is not to be found, listening to different perspectives also helps you understand the position of others so that you can more effectively refine your own rhetoric.) With that attitude, I was hopeful that Religulous might have some beneficial insight for me on the role of religion in a secular society. I’m not sure I gained a lot of insight. Instead, in the end, I was just deeply disappointed in Maher.

Any person of faith who has had the awkward experience of having to defend his or her beliefs to a belittling skeptic with a gift for oratory would likely feel a flood of unpleasant flashbacks while watching this film. It can be painful enough to attempt in vain to put into words spiritual concepts that are frankly difficult to verbalize. But the task is even more uncomfortable when the belittling skeptic has prepped ahead of time with witty one liners, and the person of faith is essentially the victim of a barrage of hostility. That is essentially what happens through out this film.

At the beginning of Religulous, Maher declares he just doesn’t understand how otherwise intelligent people can believe in God and religion, and he wants the film to be an exploration of that mystery. However, the exploration starts out with Maher and his team heading for a humble North Carolina chapel for truckers to interrogate the men who are gathered for a modest worship service. Some of the men become frustrated and insulted when Maher’s bent becomes apparent and it does not appear to jive with what they had been told prior to the filming. As a result, the film often has a Borat vibe to it. Moreover, starting off with truckers in North Carolina seems to set an unfortunate, though accurate tone for the rest of the film.

Through out Religulous, Maher does not attempt to speak with theologians or philosophers who could eloquently answer his difficult questions because of their years of study. Instead, he picks on average Joes, whom he must know will not have sophisticated answers to his zingers. It is a little like if Venus Williams for some reason challenged me to a tennis match. I’m thinking Ms. Williams would never do such a thing even if she knew who the heck I was. I would be so outmatched if I had to play against her, she would look like a bully for even agreeing to step onto the court against me. Though she could definitely beat me in straight sets (and likely in record time), it would frankly be a waste of her time and energy to play with me. She would simply be humiliating me for no apparent reason.

There were numerous other examples of Maher picking on average Joes in Religulous. There was an “ex-Jew for Jesus” who earnestly tries to tell Maher about the “miracles” that led him to his embrace of Christianity; Maher cruelly rejects his experiences as unremarkable coincidences. There was a Jesus-portraying theme park actor who patiently listened to Maher’s belligerent questions and tried to answer them until Maher finally stumped him with references to obscure Mediterranean mystics who lived prior to Jesus Christ. These types of scenes leave the viewer with the inescapable sense Maher is not really exploring the mystery of faith; he is just trying to make those with faith look silly. In turn, this approach makes Maher look like a big ole bully with a giant chip on his shoulder, which is just not becoming or even persuasive. I can’t imagine it swayed any agnostics who were sitting on the fence. And poll after poll has demonstrated that most Americans believe in a higher power of some sort. So was Maher going after that small demographic of angry American atheists? Maybe I’m wrong, but that would not seem like a wise marketing ploy.

I’m not sure why Maher permitted this ugly, bullying tone in his film. For the most part, I do respect Maher. I disagree with him a lot, but he generally seems to be a sharp guy, he seems pretty well read, and he often has good insights on politics. And I admire his bravery to speak his mind despite all the flack he gets for it. I very much respect anyone willing to stand up and voice unpopular opinions publicly—whether or not I even agree with those opinions. That is not easy; it takes a lot of courage. And I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. For example, I am not inclined to think Maher is a bad guy who wants to hurt people. Indeed, he seemed quite familiar with the Bible and he seemed to admire Jesus a lot, though he was deeply cynical of Christian leaders whom he believes have corrupted Jesus’ teachings. However, because he seems to admire Jesus, I just cannot fathom why he would make a movie out of belittling people and insulting what they hold most dear.

When he was purporting to explore each religion, he certainly did not highlight a representational cross-section or the most shining examples of each faith. He focused on the low hanging fruit—those who were easiest to ridicule (or religicule?) such as wealthy Christian pastors preaching a “prosperity Gospel,” a man claiming to be the incarnation/descendant of Jesus Christ, an anti-Zionist rabbi, and gay Muslim barkeepers. Where were the missionary families who gave up their worldly goods to live in remote, impoverish parts of the world to minister to brothers and sisters whom the rest of the world has forgotten? Where were the Christians who rescue women from brothels and care for children in orphanages? Where were the Christians engaged in human rights activism? Where were the Christians working in American inner cities to give kids an alternative to gangs and the drug trade? Maher didn’t talk to any of them. Instead, the end of the film includes an over-the-top apocalyptic vision of mankind killing itself and the planet due to religion.

I’ve been concerned for quite a while about the degradation of public discourse in our society. Jefferson envisioned a well-educated, enlightened electorate. But the most cited representatives of right wing thought these days are demagogues who play on people’s base frustrations to incite their anger and their embrace of cynical anti-government political positions. Government needs to get out of our way; government is the problem, not the solution! (Isn’t that really just advocating anarchy?) By contrast, the most cited representatives of left wing thought are comedians who encourage viewers to mock politicians at the slightest foible. After all, they are all corrupt and greedy. (In such case, why vote?) Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, Tina Fey, Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher are entertainers, but people seem to disregard that fact and quote them as if they are deep political thinkers. In their line of work, they are successful if they get viewers or readers riled up or make them guffaw. Their success is not measured by the quality of their political analyses. I think Jon Stewart is a very funny guy, but that doesn’t mean I’m pleased that the Daily Show on Comedy Central is the main source of news for a large segment of young adults.

1 Peter 3:8-9 (Contemporary English Version)

“Finally, all of you should agree and have concern and love for each other. You should also be kind and humble. Don't be hateful and insult people just because they are hateful and insult you. Instead, treat everyone with kindness. You are God's chosen ones, and he will bless you.”