Keith

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

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

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

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

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

Proverbs 10:14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 John 2:15

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


1 John 4:16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proverbs 16:18

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

Washing Hands and Feet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 Chronicles 15:7

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

Matthew 25:35

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

Rush Limbaugh’s Comments about Michelle Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200508160001

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

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

Genesis 1:26-28 (The Message)

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

Rush Limbaugh Explains the True Meaning of Thanksgiving

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

The article below contains Mr. Limbaugh’s comments:

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

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

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

Philippians 4:6

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

Colossians 4:2

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

Trying to Disagree without Being Disagreeable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew 5:14 (The Message)

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

Talk Radio (and TV)

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

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

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

Romans 1:13 (The Message)

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


Ephesians 4:26 (The Message)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew 17:5

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

Senator Mitch McConnell and the Struggle Against Vilification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew 9:12

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

Thy Kingdom Come by Randall Balmer (Battles Over Schools, Evolution & Environmentalism; Political Expediency & Hypocrisy)

Thy Kingdom Come provides insightful history lessons on a number of hot button issues involving the Religious Right. Balmer describes the growing debate over school vouchers and inadequate financial support for public schools. He goes into great depth to explain the continuing cultural scars to fundamentalists from the humiliation of the Scopes “monkey trial,” as well as the more recent quest for legitimization via the label of “intelligent design.”

Balmer also notes that one would intuitively predict Creationists would be passionate about conserving God’s creation, but that has not been the case in recent years. He explains how the Religious Right came to align themselves with conservative, pro-business politicians that worked aggressively to fight against any legal efforts to protect the environment. He also describes how some Evangelicals are beginning to rebel against this approach based on biblical principles of stewardship.

In his “Conclusion,” Balmer reflects back on the bottom line of the various themes he has explored. He concludes that the Religious Right has distorted the teachings of Christ by ignoring clear teachings on protecting the vulnerable in society and peacemaking in favor of politically expedient themes with flimsy biblical support. He notes the hypocrisies of leaders of the Religious Right including Tom DeLay, Ralph Reed, William Bennett, and Randy “Duke” Cunningham. Balmer concludes that the ultimate aim of the Religious Right is to establish a “homogenous theocracy” analogous to that in seventeenth-century Massachusetts. But historian Balmer describes the lesson of Puritan New England as being clear:

Religion...functions best outside the political order, and often as a challenge
to the political order. When it identifies too closely with the state, it
becomes complacent and ossified, and efforts to coerce piety or to proscribe
certain behavior in the interests of moral conformity are unavailing.

Moreover, Balmer describes the Religious Right as more interested in moralism than morality, and are frankly “frightened by pluralism.” Consequently, the Religious Right is waging war on the First Amendment “in the interest of imposing its own theocratic vision” despite the irony that “no group has profited more from the First Amendment and the disestablishment of religion in American than evangelicals.”

Balmer ends the book with an exhortation to fellow believers:

[t]o reclaim their birthright as evangelical Christians and examine the
scriptures for themselves—absent the funhouse mirror distortions of the
Religious Right. For those equal to the task, I suggest a form of shock therapy:
juxtapose the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), arguably the highest expression
of Christian ethics, with the platform of the Republican Party.

Luke 11:9-10 (Darby Translation)

And I say to you, Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you.
For every one that asks receives; and he that seeks finds; and to him that knocks it will be opened.


John 9: 25, 30, 33

Then he answered, I do not know whether He is a sinner and wicked or not. But one thing I do know, that whereas I was blind before, now I see.
The man replied, Well, this is astonishing! Here a Man has opened my eyes, and yet you do not know where He comes from. [That is amazing!]
If this Man were not from God, He would not be able to do anything like this.

Luke 18:9-14 (The Message)

He told his next story to some who were complacently pleased with themselves over their moral performance and looked down their noses at the common people: "Two men went up to the Temple to pray, one a Pharisee, the other a tax man. The Pharisee posed and prayed like this: 'Oh, God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, crooks, adulterers, or, heaven forbid, like this tax man. I fast twice a week and tithe on all my income.'
"Meanwhile the tax man, slumped in the shadows, his face in his hands, not daring to look up, said, 'God, give mercy. Forgive me, a sinner.'"
Jesus commented, "This tax man, not the other, went home made right with God. If you walk around with your nose in the air, you're going to end up flat on your face, but if you're content to be simply yourself, you will become more than yourself."

Peace with Justice Sunday

This past summer our family traveled to and around Texas to visit our relatives and do some camping. While on the road, we were blessed by some terrific preaching. We tend to be pretty ecumenical. Our family belongs to a wonderful Episcopalian church in Arizona, but denominational divides sadden us greatly. One Sunday during our trip, we worshipped with a lovely Methodist congregation. The day we visited was apparently “Peace with Justice Sunday” in the Methodist church. The link below provides some information about that day:

http://www.umcgiving.org/site/c.qwL6KkNWLrH/b.3833883/k.F990/Special_Sundays__Peace_with_Justice_Sunday__Overview.htm

The children’s pastor taught a great lesson to the kids gathered at the front of the sanctuary. She taught about how we all look different on the outside, but we’re the same inside and God loves us all equally. She used an analogy kids could understand: M&Ms. She had a volunteer child close her eyes and eat an M&M she was given. The child was asked to name which color of M&M she had eaten. She guessed incorrectly. The process was repeated several times. None of the volunteer children guessed correctly. The children’s pastor explained that our eyes can mislead us by having us focus on things that are irrelevant in the long run. And just like we enjoy all M&Ms equally, God treasures each of us the same regardless of what we look like on the outside. Amen!

After the children left the sanctuary to go to Sunday school, another pastor gave a sermon to the adults that hit upon a number of interesting points involving the overarching theme of “peace with justice.” The pastor spoke about the idea that justice is typically achieved via relationships. In one example, he spoke with humility that previously in his walk with Christ, he had been very bigoted against homosexuals. He shared humbly that God had softened his heart with regard to his attitudes due to a particular relationship.

The pastor explained he had had a friend at church for a long time, a very kind-hearted man who had ministered to this pastor spiritually and helped him in his walk. Eventually, the friend told this pastor he was gay. It was quite a shock to the pastor, but their friendship helped him understand homosexuality and his friend’s experience. The pastor went on to explain that because of that friendship he eventually became a supporter of an inclusive stance towards gays and lesbians in the church, and is an advocate of Reconciling Ministries. (For those of us who are not familiar with the Methodist church, an explanation of Reconciling Ministries is available at the following link: http://www.rmnetwork.org/).

Luke 5:27-29 (New King James Version)

After these things He went out and saw a tax collector named Levi, sitting at the tax office. And He said to him, “Follow Me.” So he left all, rose up, and followed Him.
Then Levi gave Him a great feast in his own house. And there were a great number of tax collectors and others who sat down with them.

Luke 19:1-2, 5-8 (New King James Version)

Then Jesus entered and passed through Jericho. Now behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus who was a chief tax collector, and he was rich. And when Jesus came to the place, He looked up and saw him, and said to him, “Zacchaeus, make haste and come down, for today I must stay at your house.” So he made haste and came down, and received Him joyfully. But when they saw it, they all complained, saying, “He has gone to be a guest with a man who is a sinner.”
Then Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord, I give half of my goods to the poor; and if I have taken anything from anyone by false accusation, I restore fourfold.”

The Footprints of God—Paul: Contending for the Faith (2004)

I think the Apostle Paul is fascinating, so I recently rented this documentary about his life. It is part of a multi-volume series, “The Footprints of God,” but this is the only one I have ever watched. It was produced by a Catholic film company.

To be quite honest, my husband couldn’t get beyond the cheesy film techniques. The narrator was an American who dressed a bit like the Crocodile Hunter. His analogies and theatrics were at times a little over the top. My husband kept laughing and shaking his head.

I agreed the documentary’s style had a high cheese factor, but I was able to overlook these cinematic foibles. I thought the film did a great job of telling St. Paul’s story in greater detail than a lay person can glean from just reading the Bible. The documentary wove together coherently many different parts of the New Testament, as well as the research insights of historians, anthropologists and archeologists.

I would characterize the film as being like an episode of Rick Steves’ show if he became a televangelist with a Catholic bent. The narrator told the story of St. Paul’s life while traveling to the various places the apostle lived. I don’t know if I’ll ever get to visit the places where the people described in the Bible lived, so it was fascinating to at least see what those varied places look like via film.

There were several aspects of the film’s telling of Paul’s life that struck me in particular. I have always been amazed at the conversion story of Paul. A devout, zealous Jew goes from persecuting Christians to becoming the most celebrated Christian evangelist and missionary of all time. What a dramatic 180! The film talks about Paul’s prior confidence in the righteousness of his own observance of the Mosaic laws and persecution of the Christians. Then he has a miraculous encounter with the post-Easter Jesus, who asks “Why are you persecuting me?” The narrator emphasizes that Jesus did not ask why Paul was persecuting the church or his people, but “me.” The film talks about how that encounter laid the foundation for much of Paul’s later theology.

Subsequent to the encounter, Paul is humbled; he is physically blinded and led to Damascus like a child. The Bible tells us that the miraculous encounter on the road to Damascus convinced Paul that some of his most strongly held beliefs had been incorrect. What tremendous humility Paul must have had to accept that. It is probably human nature to be very confident in our own beliefs and think others are wrong. I’m not sure all of us would have had Paul’s humility to admit he had not been as correct as he thought. What a great example for the rest of us.

The film also describes Paul’s later presentation to the leadership of the early Christians, and how he spent a number of days alone with Peter, who gave him instruction in the faith. How remarkable that Peter, who had much to fear and mistrust from Paul, was able to see that God was going to use Paul to spread his message of unconditional love. And it was striking that Paul, the learned scholar, would humble himself to take instruction from Peter, an uneducated fisherman. How amazing that God can use each of us, regardless of our backgrounds, to do great things. I admire Peter’s courage. And again, I admire Paul’s humility.

It was also amazing to me that Paul was almost constantly in trouble with the authorities. He was often jailed, or he was fleeing those who wanted to arrest him. I guess I had not previously thought of St. Paul as an outlaw. But indeed that is exactly the point that the film made. The film demonstrates quite dramatically the daring escapes Paul made to avoid capture by the authorities, and it describes how he was often fleeing just one step ahead of the law. It is interesting to me that Paul did not just turn himself in to authorities when they were looking for him. On at least one occasion, God did perform a miracle to get him out of jail. And Paul trusted God fully, constantly putting himself in harm’s way to do what he understood to be God’s will. Paul survived all kinds of things that ought to have ended his life, e.g., shipwrecks, a snake bite, a stoning. As a result, Paul did not have reason to fear the authorities. But perhaps Paul did not equate compliance with misguided human laws or fallible human authorities with compliance with God’s will.

Acts 16:25-26 (King James)

But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them. Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were loosed.

Immigration Laws and Moral Judgments

In all the debate about S.B. 1070 and illegal immigration, I have heard a lot of bitter and emotionally-charged arguments made. The saddest, in my opinion, have been certain arguments raised on moral grounds. Specifically, I have heard supporters of S.B. 1070 assert that people who come to our country in violation of our immigration laws are acting immorally. It has even been asserted that parents who come here in violation of U.S. immigration laws are setting a poor example for their children. Some have even argued that parents who are here illegally ought to take their families back to their countries of origin in order to teach their children proper ethics. I have heard the people who make such arguments point out rather proudly that their own forbearers came to this country in compliance with its immigration laws. They believe others ought to do the same.

To be clear, I certainly believe in the rule of law. I am a lawyer and a law professor after all. It would be a betrayal of my profession and my entire professional life to believe otherwise. And having lived in border states the vast majority of my life, I am acutely aware of the violence and crime that can be associated with human trafficking.

However, I also do not believe in turning a blind eye to reality. In my opinion, we should take our patriotism seriously enough that we question both the underpinnings and the repercussions of our laws. And we ought to be critical of unjust or ill-advised laws; we ought to advocate appropriate changes when they are warranted. Ours is a country built on democratic values after all, not one built on blind allegiance to those in power who enact our laws. For several reasons, it saddens me deeply to hear such comments that express moral superiority over those who violate our immigration laws.

We should note that many of our own citizens frequently violate our laws. Drivers routinely operate their vehicles in excess of the posted speed. Such actions are violations of our traffic laws, which are intended to keep us safe on the roads. But most speeders are never even pulled over or issued a ticket.

It is also widely acknowledged that there is a huge “tax gap” (i.e., the difference in the amount of taxes legally due and the amount that is actually paid). Such underpayment of what is owed is a violation of our tax laws, which are intended to keep the government operating. Among other things, such tax revenues enable the government to provide supplies and salaries to our men and women in uniform, and to build roads that support the many transactions upon which our economy depends. Interestingly, experts tell us that most violators of our tax laws are individual taxpayers, not corporations.

Possession and use of narcotics have also been illegal for a number of years in the United States, yet the use of such narcotics is widespread in this country. Our prisons are populated largely by people who violated such laws, though many others violate them and are never arrested or prosecuted. (Notably, the last three men elected president have fallen into that latter category.)

In my experience listening to the debate, the folks who argue that it is morally unacceptable to violate our immigration laws do not seem to ever argue it is also unethical to violate speed limits and/or tax laws. I do not even hear them making moral condemnations of our citizens who use narcotics illegally. Personally, that latter example of hypocrisy is particularly offensive to me. Surely we can all agree that much of the current narcotraffic-related violence terrorizing people in Mexico is at least partially the fault of the United States. We have collectively insisted on criminalizing drugs in our country, yet our own people ignore those laws and (tragically) have created a huge demand for illegal narcotics. To be consistent, if we are wagging fingers at violators of our immigration laws, shouldn’t we also look down our noses at our citizens who violate our drug laws (and foolishly risk their health)? To be clear, as a Christian, I am not advocating that we make moral judgments against anyone. But I flag the hypocrisy of making moral judgments against those who break certain laws, but not making moral judgments against those who break others.

In my own experience, people who make morality-based arguments against illegal immigration tend to be of European ancestry. I have yet to hear Asian Americans or African Americans make such comments for example. But European Americans, who boast that their forbearers came here legally, overlook (or are perhaps simply ignorant of) certain structural advantages their forbearers enjoyed. (As an American of European ancestry, my own forbearers certainly enjoyed those same structural advantages.) When I was a law student and took a course on Immigration Law I became aware that through out our history as a nation American immigration laws have been heavily skewed in favor of immigrants from Europe. Until certain reforms were instituted in the 1960s, it was very difficult—or at times outright impossible--for people from Asian, African or Latin American countries to immigrate legally to this country. Yet at the same time, the doors were typically open to immigrants from Europe as long as they were not mentally ill, did not have a communicable disease or otherwise were not personally deemed to be undesirable. To be sure, those European immigrants were not always warmly welcomed when they first came or even after they arrived. But the bottom line is that legal immigration was typically much easier for those European immigrants than if they had come from other parts of the world. It is no wonder that the forbearers of European Americans largely obeyed the immigration laws in effect when they came to this country. Those laws were pretty favorable to them. It generally benefited such individuals to obey such laws. Indeed, there was no real incentive to do otherwise.

Daniel 9:11 (New King James Version)

Yes, all Israel has transgressed Your law, and has departed so as not to obey Your voice; therefore the curse and the oath written in the Law of Moses the servant of God have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against Him.


Galatians 5:1, 7-8, 14 (New King James Version)

Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.

You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion does not come from Him who calls you.

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”[

The Death of Marty Ginsburg

Marty Ginsburg died last week. I never knew him personally, but I knew of him and admired him from afar. I would like to devote some time on this blog to express my admiration for him.

Some of you may not know who Marty Ginsburg was. He was a well-respected tax scholar and teacher at Georgetown. He broke the stereotype of tax lawyers as dry and humorless. Marty was actually very funny, and tried to inject humor into his teaching. As a tax lawyer and tax professor, I appreciated him for breaking the negative perceptions of those who work in our discipline.

Beyond his own professional successes, Marty was also known as Ruth’s husband. He was the beloved husband of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the nine justices currently sitting on the United States Supreme Court. Marty’s death apparently came just days after they celebrated their 56th wedding anniversary. I always mourn for people who lose their loved ones. I can only imagine how hard it must be to lose one’s life partner after so many years together. It absolutely breaks my heart.

I have always read what a devoted, inseparable pair Ruth and Marty were. They married just after Ruth finished her undergraduate degree. At various times, they each made geographical moves and made sacrifices to support the other’s career. They also cared for each other through serious illness; both Ruth and Marty have battled cancer.

I have also always read how very proud Marty was of Ruth’s professional accomplishments. The love and support of one’s partner means so much and is invaluable in helping us reach whatever accomplishments we achieve in this life. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has achieved a lot; she has been a pioneer. With the support of her husband, she went to law school when that was a rare path for women. Indeed, she was one of only nine female law students in a class of over 500. She was a trailblazer through out her career, and was the second woman to ever sit on the United States Supreme Court.

When I myself was a first-year law student, I remember reading an article about Justice Ginsburg. There was a description of how female law students flocked to her when she was a professor. The few other female professors on faculty were unmarried and did not have families. By contrast, the female law students admired and wanted to emulate Ginsburg because of her success in melding her career and family life. Similarly, as a law student, I know that I really studied the examples of the few female professors at my alma mater, who were married and/or had children. Though they may not have realized it at the time, they were a huge encouragement to me as I began my career. I remember studying their examples for clues to their successful juggling.

Now that I am a professor, I know that some female students look to me in a similar fashion. A number of young women have privately sought my thoughts and advice on the possibility and logistics of balancing career and family. Unfortunately, I never have any silver bullets for them. I’m sure Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not have any for her students either. But one thing I know for sure is that for most of us mere mortals the juggling would be nearly impossible without a loving and supportive partner. Whatever successes I have had in my professional life, I know I could not have achieved without my amazing husband. (I tell him that frequently though he typically rolls his eyes in modesty.) I certainly do not know Justice Ginsburg, but have a hunch she would agree about the importance of a supportive partner.

Husbands who support, encourage and applaud their wives’ professional talents are absolutely remarkable in my opinion. It requires selfless and sacrificial love to celebrate the talents of one’s spouse regardless of one’s gender. But it frankly takes a lot of guts for men to defy the cultural gender-based expectations of our society to support a wife’s career and at times even play second-fiddle to her professionally. It takes a strong and loving man to not be petty when his wife’s career gains more attention than his own. In many ways such men have been critical to the advancement of women in our society, and I am very grateful for them. With a husband like Marty as her partner, it is no surprise to me that Ruth has been celebrated as one of the best legal advocates for women’s rights our country has ever had.

The link below includes remembrances of Marty Ginsburg by his fellow tax professors around the country: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/06/remembering-.html.

The link below includes a piece from NPR about Marty’s love and support for his wife: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/07/npr-martin.html.

Romans 12:15 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

Rejoice with those who rejoice; weep with those who weep.


Ephesians 5:25 (The Message)

Husbands, go all out in your love for your wives, exactly as Christ did for the church—a love marked by giving, not getting. Christ's love makes the church whole. His words evoke her beauty. Everything he does and says is designed to bring the best out of her, dressing her in dazzling white silk, radiant with holiness. And that is how husbands ought to love their wives. They're really doing themselves a favor—since they're already "one" in marriage.

Reflections on Patriotism

Our pastor gave a wonderful talk this weekend. She shared that it concerned her that a lot of the build-up to Independence Day (and talk about patriotism generally) involves the promotion of "American Pride." She noted that as Christ-followers, it is clear that we are to avoid pride, which involves exultation. The Bible teaches us that we are only to exult God. The Bible has plenty of warnings about the poisonous effects of pride.

Instead, she suggested we abandon the phrase "American Pride" to talk about the blessings of living in the United States. Instead of boasting of pride, we ought to adopt a spirit of humility and gratitude. Instead of indulging in pride, she encouraged us to recognize and give thanks for the blessings we enjoy.

She shared that she was thinking this week about all the many blessings we enjoy by virtue of living in this country. For purposes of her talk, our pastor said she just wanted to focus on the blessings of the people in our lives. This week she didn't want to give a sermon on the many freedoms we're blessed with, though those are very important too. Instead, she encouraged us to give thanks for our friends and family, and everyone else who makes our lives safe and happy. Our pastor said she was grateful for teachers who share their knowledge with students, for people in the medical field who keep us in good health, for police, firefighters and soldiers who keep us safe, for the folks who take away our trash so we don't live in squalid filth. She said she was even thankful for politicians, who do a very unpleasant job in her opinion. They work hard and are always criticized from all corners.

Our pastor closed her talk by reminding us that the Body of Christ recognizes no nationalities, and every single human being ever on this planet is a beloved child of the most high God. Amen!

Proverbs 8:13 (King James Version)
The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

Proverbs 13:10 (King James Version)
Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom.

1 John 2:16 (King James Version)
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Holy Week

Today is Palm Sunday, which begins Holy Week. Like at many Christian churches, in my congregation this weekend, we read the Gospel account of the arrest, condemnation and cruxifiction of Jesus. It is very powerful. The reading contrasts the joy and hope of people hailing Jesus as messiah when he entered Jerusalem, and the later shouts of the crowd calling for Jesus's death.

Our pastor's sermon was very touching and very humbling. She pointed out that we are supposed to recognize ourselves in both groups. We are also supposed to identify with Peter who passionately pledges his loyalty to Jesus, but then repeatedly claims to not even know him. We all fall so short of our best intentions. It is a pretty depressing thought. Indeed, our pastor confessed that Palm Sunday was her least favorite service in the whole year.

In listening again to the readings, I was reminded of several truths. We all need to be tolerant and gentle and forgiving with one another. This need comes from the fact that we are all imperfect. It is humbling to remember this. It is human nature to think of ourselves as better than the next fellow. We all tend toward self-righteousness. But the truth is that we all have plenty of short-comings, and we should always retain the humility to recognize that fact.

I think that point is not only important for theological reasons, but also for secular ones. I've read and heard a lot of news coverage in recent months about the break-down in civility in our political realm. If we'd all tone down the self-righteousness and adopt more humility, civility would be restored and there would be less cynicism towards government.




Matthew 26: 33-34, 74-75

Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended. Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

Congregational Spotlight: Travis Park United Methodist Church in San Antonio, Texas

As noted before in this blog, in the modern era, many non-believers have unfortunately come to view Christianity as a subcomponent of conservative politics and to simply equate the faith with political stances against legalized abortion, same sex marriage and taxes. Such a view of the faith tremendously distorts the message and ministry of Jesus Christ, and is one of the motivations for this blog. As a result, I would like to spend some time in this blog focusing on more positive examples of the church in order to provide a more balanced and a more accurate view of the faith. In that vein, I am beginning an occasional series of posts that I will call “Congregational Spotlight.”

It is probably helpful to note that I personally do not necessarily agree with or endorse 100% of the things espoused by the leaders of each of these spotlighted congregations. Contrary to popular misconception, Christ followers are not a homogenous group. Heck, even my husband and I do not see eye to eye on every topic. God made each of us to be unique with our own perspectives. Consequently, I do not think it is necessary to agree on every detail to spotlight a particular congregation.

The first congregation I would like to spotlight is Travis Park United Methodist Church (TPUMC) in San Antonio, Texas. When our family is in San Antonio visiting relatives, TPUMC is the church we typically attend. Our children enthusiastically refer to it as the “cookie church” because at the end of the service, volunteers are in the hallway with trays of cookies that they offer to people as they leave the church building. This is one the highlights of my gourmand kiddos’ day! I admit the cookies are pretty tasty, but that is hardly the reason I wanted to spotlight this particular congregation.

TPUMC was founded in 1846, which is ancient in Texas terms. (Texas became a state in the union in 1845.) TPUMC is located in downtown San Antonio in a lovely old building amongst well-appointed hotels like the St. Anthony and the Menger. It is close to the tourist revelry of the River Walk. The church also sits cattycorner to Travis Park, a public park that is home to a number of the city’s homeless population. For this reason, the church has long had a robust ministry to the homeless. Its Corazon Ministries program is the umbrella for its homeless ministry programs. (In Spanish, the word "corazon" means "heart.")

TPUMC states it is “grounded in history and vision” and its people “seek to live and love as God does: passionately and unconditionally.” The church also believes that “God calls us on a journey forward, to break down the walls of prejudice, and to embrace all our brothers and sisters.” As a result, the church’s motto is “We serve and learn with brothers and sisters from all walks of life: rich and poor, housed and homeless, gay and straight, black and brown and white, secular and sacred, PhD and GED.” That diversity is evident when we attend the 11 a.m. “celebration” service. There are conservatively-dressed older white folks, young people in hip jeans, biracial families, same sex couples, and tired-looking people in tattered clothing. The 11 a.m. jazz band and choir are a composite of very talented folks from different backgrounds. Their music really energizes the diverse congregation.

One of the most moving bible studies my husband and I have ever attended was an adult Sunday school class at TPUMC, which was attended by a number of homeless folks. It is hard to know for sure, but beyond the pastor who faciliated the class and his assistant, my husband and I might have been the only attendees who were not homeless. A couple of the other attendees frankly slept through the class, presumably due to a rough night with no place comfortable to sleep for an extended period. But the (many) others were very engaged in the pastor’s morning lesson. Many of them had brought their own bibles to consult during the lesson. My husband and I were pretty quiet during the class, but the other attendees answered the pastor’s doctrinal questions knowledgeably and responded to his more open-ended questions with moving, personal testimonies of their faith. They gave us a lot of food for thought. They also taught us powerful lessons about judging people without even listening to them and discounting a person’s insights due to their exterior appearance. It was very humbling.

A link to TPUMC’s website is provided below. If you have occasion to visit San Antonio, I encourage you to visit the “cookie church.”

http://www.travispark.org/templates/System/default.asp?id=42710

Matthew 22:37-40

He said to him, ‘ “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.’

Friends of God: A Road Trip With Alexandra Pelosi (2007) (The Film's Title)

The title of the film comes from the song “Friend of God” by Israel Houghton. Perhaps I am wrong, but my impression is that Ms. Pelosi chose the title in order to insinuate that the Christians featured in the film were self-righteous people who believed themselves to be God’s chosen people and/or to have special insights as to God’s will. Again, that subtle message does not serve the purported aim of the film to help the rest of society to better understand Evangelicals. Moreover, it distorts and misrepresents the song, from which the film’s title is taken.

Israel Houghton’s song is not a boastful song. Quite the opposite. The song begins with humble questions that are typically sung softly:

Who am I that You are mindful of me
That You hear me when I call?
Is it true that You are thinking of me?

The chorus rejoices in the answer to these questions:

I am a friend of God
He calls me friend.

The song is based on James 2:23, which references Isaiah 41:8. The point of these passages is that the Creator of the Universe loved Abraham so much that He called him his “friend,” a term that denotes intimacy and love. As the spiritual descendants of Abraham, God loves us all in the same way. This is a beautiful, powerful concept to many if not most Christ followers. It is the essence of the Good News of Christ—that God loves each us very deeply and personally.

If one listens carefully to the lyrics, it is clear that Houghton’s song is not at all boastful or self-righteous. Instead, the song actually expresses great humility and awe that despite being relatively powerless human beings our omnipotent Creator loves each of us so ardently and intimately.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu4PWSnVabg

http://www.logon.org/English/s/p035.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMnMN08sv4k&feature=fvw

James 2:23 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

So the Scripture was fulfilled that says, Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness , and he was called God's friend.



Isaiah 41:8 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)


But you, Israel, My servant,
Jacob, whom I have chosen,
descendant of Abraham, My friend