Tibetan Refugee (2004)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mother Jones Magazine

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

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

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

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

http://motherjones.com/

Deuteronomy 24:19

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

The Role of Journalism in Shaping Public Perception and Public Opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark 4:24 (Amplified Bible)

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

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.”

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008) (Academic Freedom)

Having explained my own perspective in watching the film, it is hopefully easier to understand my reaction to it. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed does not interview fundamentalist preachers or homeschooling parents whose religious faith leads them to reject Darwinism without any scientific training to support their beliefs. That is the typical stereotype of Creationists, but the film takes a more sophisticated and more interesting approach to the subject by exploring the belief of some who have apparently studied the issue in great depth and rejected Darwinism.

The film explains that the Theory of Evolution is accepted to some degree by virtually all scientists—everyone agrees there is adaption within species. But the film describes that some scientists believe the Theory of Evolution has limits; it does not explain sufficiently how life first came into being from primordial soup. It also does not explain sufficiently how different species came into being. Per the film, this is really where the academic debate is rooted.

To develop these points, the film interviews a number of scientists who have expressed openness to the concept that there are limits to the insights we can glean from Darwin. A central theme in the film is that such scientists have had their careers ruined because of persecution for a lack of conformity to the prevailing academic consensus about Evolution. People have been denied tenure and/or lost their jobs because of voicing openness to “intelligent design” concepts.

I have no idea if this persecution really has happened or if these incidents have been contrived by the filmmakers to serve a political purpose. But I am inclined to believe that some of the scientists interviewed really were persecuted as they claim. There were a lot of them, and the testimonial evidence they offered seemed credible to me. If their claims are true, this is truly a frightening trend even if one is a devoted Darwinist. Academic freedom is so important to colleges and other institutions devoted to intellectual pursuits and the advancement of human knowledge.

As mentioned in another blog post this year, I value the marketplace of ideas concept that underpins the First Amendment. I believe that truth will make itself known eventually. Repressing the expression of a person’s ideas does not alter this fact. I believe that only those who are threatened and fearful of other ideas try to silence their opponents. As a professor, I for one value academic freedom because it helps us discern as a community the most valid ideas in our respective disciplines. It is frightening to hear from academics, like those in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, who claim to have lost their jobs and had their professional reputations ruined because of openness to or outright embrace of ideas that are not popular within their discipline.

In the so-called “culture war,” conservatives often complain that media and academic elites look down on them and try to prevent the expression of conservative beliefs. In July of this year I blogged about the film Rated R: Republican in Hollywood, which focused on the former type of elitism. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed focused on the latter type. To the extent the sort of blacklisting described in these two films does go on, it would be very tragic. In supposedly “liberal” communities, openness to new ideas and an embrace of heterogeneity are purportedly embraced. Such values are inconsistent with demands that everyone in the community share the same “liberal” beliefs.

Matthew 5: 23-24 (New Century Version)

"So when you offer your gift to God at the altar, and you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there at the altar. Go and make peace with that person, and then come and offer your gift.

Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America: An Evangelical's Lament by Randall Balmer (Sep. of Church/State)

This book was a revelation to me. I read it not long after it was published in 2006. It was a time when I felt increasingly alienated from the media’s portrayal of Christianity as well as many local faith communities in Texas where I was living at the time. When I read the words of Jesus in the Bible, I was at a loss to understand how they could be used to support preemptive war and economic policies favoring the wealthy, as well as to foster hostility towards efforts to protect the most vulnerable in our society and the health of our fragile planet. However, until I found Thy Kingdom Come, I had begun to feel like one of the only folks who saw any type of a contradiction.

Dr. Balmer’s Preface begins:

I write as a jilted lover. The evangelical faith that nurtured me as a child and
sustains me as an adult has been hijacked by right-wing zealots who have
distorted the gospel of Jesus Christ, defaulted on the noble legacy of
nineteenth-century evangelical activism, and failed to appreciate the genius of
the First Amendment. They appear not to have read the same New Testament that I open before me every morning at the kitchen counter.

Randall Balmer is a professor of American religious history. One of the aspects of Thy Kingdom Come that I found most compelling was the historical commentary he provided to put into perspective the relatively recent attempts in the United States to impose religion on government. Although he is a committed Christian and well-versed in the Bible, Balmer makes clear he is not a theologian. He explicitly leaves to theologians the analysis and interpretation of Scripture.

As someone with many friends and family who belong to Southern Baptist congregations, I enjoyed reading of the history of the Baptist tradition. Balmer traces its roots to reformers in sixteenth century Europe who were deeply suspicious of church-state entanglements. In the New World, the Baptist tradition took root under the leadership of people like Roger Williams and Isaac Backus, who championed the ideas of separation of church and state. Williams was concerned that state endorsement of religion would diminish the authenticity of faith. Backus shared such concerns and noted that Jesus “made no use of secular force” in establishing the first Gospel church. Later, in the nineteenth century, George Washington Truett, characterized the Roman Empire’s embrace of Christianity as disastrous because “when Constantine crowned the union of church and state, the church was stamped with the spirit of the Caesars.” Truett also championed the concept of religious liberty as the “chiefest contribution” of America to civilization; he also declared it “preeminently a Baptist achievement.”

Balmer then compares the traditional Baptist scorn for mixing religion and government with the modern trend of many Baptists to meld the two. Since the late 1970s, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) was taken over by conservatives. (Ironically, this took place during the presidency of a Southern Baptist, Jimmy Carter.) Since that time, the SBC has aligned itself more and more with the political movement of the Religious Right. Balmer gives examples of Baptist leaders advocating a mixing of religion and politics in the context of court rulings on school prayer, same sex marriage, reproductive choice issues, and the posting of the Ten Commandments on public property. Indeed, some leaders mentioned in the book are promoting the notion that the separation of church and state is a “myth” propagated by political opponents.

Nonetheless, historian Balmer builds a persuasive case that religion tends to flourish in societies where it is independent and not supported by the state. Indeed, I have witnessed this phenomenon first hand when I have traveled abroad. In countries where the government provides financial support to churches and/or regulates the activities of the church, I have been saddened by the way religion is marginalized in society. Certainly I witnessed this when I have traveled to the People’s Republic of China, and worshipped with local Christians. But I have also seen this happen in Europe, a traditional Christian stronghold in the two centuries since Jesus walked on this Earth.

When I lived in Europe for a school year in the 1990s, I traveled a fair amount around the continent and worshipped at a number of churches in the towns I visited. There were not as many churches as one typically encounters in the United States. Moreover, many of the church buildings are no longer even used for worship. Instead, many are vacant structures left to decay or are in decent shape physically but have been reduced to mere tourist venues. The churches that do open their doors for worship services typically have just one or two services each week, and have just a handful of worshippers at even the most popular services. When I lived in Europe, I was often one of the very few persons under the age of 60 in the churches I attended. I always wondered what would happen when those worshippers died or were physically unable to come to church any more. I was not sure if the folks who were middle aged at the time might take their place, or if there would eventually just be no worshippers.

In his book, occasionally Balmer does step aside from his role as historian and does inject a bit of theology:

But I know of no concept more radical than Jesus’ declaration of love.

This radical notion of love doesn’t comport very well with most
political agendas. Politics and politicians concern themselves with the
acquisition and the exercise of power, whereas the ethic of love, more often
than not, entails vulnerability and the abnegation of power. For the Religious
Right, the quest for power and political influence has led to both distortions
and contortions—the perpetration of the abortion myth, for instance, or the
selective literalism that targets certain sexual behaviors for condemnation,
while ignoring others. History, moreover, teaches us the dangers of allying
religion too closely with politics. It leads to intolerance in the political
arena, and it ultimately compromises the integrity of the faith.

This last line rings true to me and causes me particular concern. As a citizen and patriot, I am concerned about the intolerant attitudes displayed in our political arena these days. That is not good for our country. But perhaps more importantly, as a Christ follower, it disgusts me that the beliefs I hold so dear are betrayed by some Christians and non-believers for short-term political exploitation.

Ultimately, it is all in God’s hands. As a Christian, I believe my creator is omnipotent. He can install whomever he chooses in the White House, Congress or any other political office. Even the longest serving politicians are in office for only a finite political term. We human beings forget that God’s time line is much longer. To turn our back on his teachings in order to gain earthly power for a brief period, it astoundingly short-sighted, imprudent and tragic.





Matthew 22:21

Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."


John 6:15

So Jesus, perceiving that they were intending to come and take Him by force to make Him king, withdrew again to the mountain by Himself alone.

Mark 8:36 (Amplified Bible)

For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life [in the eternal kingdom of God]?

The Nobel Peace Prize is Awarded to Liu Xiaobo

This week the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced it was awarding the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, a man who has worked for decades in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to promote human rights through nonviolent means. The Committee’s announcement is available at the link below:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2010/press.html

Members of our family were born in the PRC, so the honor bestowed on Mr. Liu is particularly noteworthy to us. The world has been awed by the PRC’s dramatic economic growth in recent years. We sometimes hear the downside to the growth is that Chinese workers are exploited in factories where they work long hours under poor conditions and are paid very little. We think of the mistreatment occurring at the hands of the private sector; the PRC government generally takes a laissez-faire approach to capitalism. There seems to be little regulation to protect human beings or the environment.

In recent years, as the country has embraced capitalism, we sometimes forget the PRC is still technically a communist country. At this point in time, however, the benefits of communism have evaporated, while all the horrors of communism remain. The state no longer guarantees a job, housing, or health care to its people. But it still limits basic freedoms we take for granted in the West like determining the size of one’s family, the freedom to speak one’s mind, the ability to criticize the government without fear of reprisal, and the ability to freely practice one’s chosen religion.

Our family has some American friends who currently live in the PRC. They moved there to work in a local start-up business. They are Christians, who have worked in their church back home in the United States, and would like to support local Christians in the PRC. However, the Chinese government does not welcome missionaries, and our friends are fearful of attracting the wrong kind of attention because it could lead to their expulsion. They realize that their e-mail can be monitored, so they have urged friends in the U.S. to be careful in the wording of religious messages in their e-mails. In keeping with their request, last Easter I sent them greetings but tried to avoid buzz words that might be a red flag to authorities. I am not adept at inventing code, but wrote to express my hope that our friends would find joy over the “son’s victory.” They understood my funky phrasing and were excited to get such greetings in an officially atheistic nation. The link below contains an article about missionaries in the PRC at the time of the Beijing Olympics.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2007-05-17-499802743_x.htm


After the announcement that Mr. Liu had won the Nobel Peace Prize, the PRC implemented a news blackout and people in the country do not even know who won this year’s Peace Prize. I heard on the news yesterday that Mr. Liu himself had not yet been told. The article below describes the news blackout.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/10/08/china.internet/index.html?hpt=Mid


It is amazing that the government is able to manipulate information so effectively in this day and age in a country with over a billion people. When I’ve traveled in the PRC and had an opportunity to speak with people who have lived their entire lives there, they are often not familiar with the Great Chinese Famine of 1958-1961, the Tiananmen Massacre, or the huge numbers of children in orphanages (mostly abandoned girls due to the One Child Policy). Because I don’t speak any Chinese dialect, I have only been able to speak with people who are fluent in English. Thus, I tend to only talk to some of the best educated folks in society. It is interesting because the folks I’ve spoken with are not sure what to believe when told by Westerners about these events that the government has not permitted the press to report. It is understandably difficult for them to try to decide who is more trustworthy--a friendly Westerner whom they do not know well, or their own government. They often have hesitation in believing what their government says, but it is hard to take in that the level of misinformation might be as wide in scope as it is.

The PRC is a country with a staggeringly large population. Much of its vast land is uninhabitable, so the people often live in crowded cities. Poverty is still a tremendous problem despite all the economic growth. In such a context, it can be easy to overlook individuals’ stories.

The link below includes a touching, personal description of Mr. Liu. It includes a profoundly beautiful letter that he wrote to his wife when he was being sent to prison last year. The depth and strength of his love is inspiring beyond words. Mr. Liu is clearly a patriot and a humanitarian who has been working for years at great personal risk to improve human rights in his country. But he is also a man with a soul who loves his wife very much. That love is helping him to bear the horror of a long imprisonment.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130451559

Mr. Liu’s words of love for his wife, as well as his hopes for freedom of expression in his country, remind me of my own blessings. I am deeply grateful for my husband and to live in a country where I can speak my mind without fear of imprisonment. May each of us not take for granted the blessings we enjoy.

Psalm 79:11

May the groans of the prisoners come before you; by the strength of your arm preserve those condemned to die.


Matthew 14:3-4, 9-10

Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, for John had been saying to him: "It is not lawful for you to have her."
The king … had John beheaded in the prison

Comments to this Blog

I welcome and encourage readers of this blog to comment on posts. The purpose of a public blog is to try to stimulate reflection and dialogue on different issues. It is interesting to hear the diverse reactions that various people have to the issues addressed in individual posts. If I were not interested in the dissemination and exchange of ideas, then this blog would be private with a password shared only with friends and family.

Moreover, I do not only welcome and encourage views that echo my own or those of my guest bloggers. Contrasting views are certainly welcome and encouraged as well. We learn from one another when we hear what our neighbors believe and what their motivations are for embracing particular positions.

Though I welcome and encourage reader comments, the comments on this blog are moderated. In other words, as the editor of this blog, I must approve reader comments before they are visible publicly. However, I take a permissive approach in what I approve to be published. I have no desire to be the thought police or cherry pick the comments that I find most compelling from a substantive perspective.

There have only been a few comments that I did not publish. Until recently, they were all spam for commercial pornography sites. Indeed, I take such a permissive approach in publishing comments that I inadvertently published one of those X-rated comments a while back. Fortunately, my husband soon flagged for me that a seemingly innocent reader comment had an imbedded link to a pornographic website. I deleted the comment immediately after he flagged the issue for me. (I apologize profusely to any readers who may have been inadvertently transported to a porn site because of that oversight!)

Because my moderation of reader comments is aimed primarily at screening out offensive spam, I have permitted reader comments to be published even when the words were rather repulsive to me and were ugly in tone. A difference of opinion is not threatening to me. I’m a lawyer by training. It comes with the job that others are going to disagree with positions I embrace. That is the reality of the adversary system. I’m used to it. Not a problem.

Indeed, I have expressed before my own belief that truth will eventually make itself known. As a Christian, I try to have a sense of humility and recognize that I do not have a monopoly on understanding the truth. I’m a mere mortal, and am grateful that God is tolerant when I just don’t get it. I’m sure that happens more often that is should. Heck, when you read the New Testament, there are numerous examples of not even the disciples understanding the truth initially. If those folks who spent so much time with our Lord when he was on this Earth didn’t always understand, it is comforting to those of us who are trying to discern truth two thousand years later.

I also understand that God often uses our brothers and sisters to help guide us to the truth. In that vein, I try to keep an open mind when others express a difference of opinion on this blog (or in other venues). Even if I typically disagree with the perspective a particular reader is expressing, I do try to discern if his or her comment might contain some truth that could be enlightening to me.

I find it interesting, however, that most of the reader comments left on this blog that have an ugly tone to them are left anonymously. In my opinion, anonymity is the hallmark of cowards. If one does not have the courage to take a stand publicly and to include one’s name, to me, that suggests a lack of conviction. At least in my eyes, that also diminishes the value and amount of respect owed to a particular (anonymous) individual’s position.

That having been said, I will admit that Blogspot’s format makes posting comments a little confusing. But it is easy to submit comments on a non-anonymous basis when a reader selects the “Name/URL” profile option, then specifies just his/her name. A reader does not have to specify a URL (whatever that is!). Indeed, a reader can submit a comment that way by providing only one name, e.g., his/her first name or his/her last name. To submit a non-anonymous comment in this fashion, it is not even necessary to leave one’s e-mail address or any other contact information.

Recently, a reader left a rather long comment anonymously on this blog that I opted to not publish. It was the first non-spam comment I have not published, and I did not reach that decision quickly or lightly. I shared the comment with my husband and a number of colleagues to seek their interpretation of the reader’s words.

The gist of the comment was that there are “wolves” in the modern Christian church and President Obama is not a Christian. Interestingly, the reader was not commenting on the prior blog post about the topic of Mr. Obama’s professed Christian faith; instead the reader was commenting on other readers’ comments from the January 12, 2010 post about “Janet Parshall’s America.”

The unpublished comment also expressed the (unsubstantiated) belief that Mr. Obama was not “born here,” and the anonymous reader referred to our president by including his middle name. It is interesting how those who argue he is Muslim often feel the need to include Mr. Obama’s middle name “Hussein.” The insinuation seems to be that Mr. Obama’s religious beliefs are dictated by his middle name. It had frankly never occurred to me that everyone bearing the name “Hussein” is an adherent of Islam. Interesting. I have known several gentlemen with the name “Jesús,” but I’m not sure they were necessarily all Christians. I have also known several women with the name “Gay,” but I’m pretty sure they have all been heterosexual. Indeed, each of their husbands would have been pretty surprised to hear otherwise.

If this particular anonymous reader had only included in his/her comment the points about wolves in the church, President Barack Hussein Obama not being a Christian and the allegation that our president was not “born here,” I would have published the comment though I would have disagreed with some of those views. (The anonymous reader may have had a point about wolves in the church.) However, this particular reader’s comment also included several additional statements that were open to different interpretations, but could be fairly read as veiled encouragements to violently overthrow our government.

I carefully reviewed the reader’s words with several learned individuals, whom I respect. We puzzled over the ambiguity of the statements. Several colleagues thought the comment was innocuous and could be published in good conscience. But others thought the reader’s words were veiled references encouraging violence. The reader’s statements were very ambiguous, but ultimately I opted to not publish them because I do not want this blog to potentially be a forum for the encouragement of violence, even if the encouragement is veiled. There are plenty of other sites on the web that will provide such a venue.

To be transparent, I want to try to be clear about my own guidelines for publishing reader comments. I will continue to publish comments with which I disagree (even vehemently) because I think there is value in an exchange of ideas. However, I will not publish what appears to be spam, particularly if it is sexually explicit. And I will not publish comments that can be fairly understood to encourage violence. So, I am pretty tolerant with respect to reader comments, but I don’t want to promulgate commercials for the sex trade or veiled encouragements of violence.

Even though I did not publish this particular reader’s comment, I thought it important to mention its existence to readers. In my mind, this unpublished anonymous comment demonstrates that there is sometimes a fine line between the anti-government rhetoric we are often hearing in public discourse these days and a call to embrace violence to achieve political change. Regardless of one’s political beliefs, I think it is important to avoid crossing that line.

Indeed, even in the recent past, at times of bitter division in this country, we have avoided crossing that line. For example, in January 2001, some earnestly believed that the presidential election had been “stolen” and George W. Bush was illegally installed as president. Those individuals protested at President Bush’s inauguration parade, but I’m not aware that there was a left wing call to install Al Gore in the White House by means of violence. As I recall, the rule of law was respected by those on the left though they were bitterly disappointed by the outcome, and though some even believed the law had been abused to achieve that outcome. That hesitancy to embrace violence as a means to achieve political ends is not always present in other countries. In some nations, if the military or other powerful elites do not like the outcome of an election, they seize control of the government through violence. I am grateful we do not live in that type of political climate and I pray we never do.

Nonetheless, in the current political climate, some have openly begun to call for “Second Amendment remedies” as a sort of Plan B in the event they are not successful in the political arena. In a country that is supposed to be a model to the world that the rule of law works and should be respected, such calls are horrifying, deeply repulsive and frankly unpatriotic.

Moreover, in a country that some have asserted is founded on Christian values, such calls are particularly incomprehensible. Jesus lived at a time and place where there was truly brutal political repression and rampant corruption. Yet Jesus did not opt to lead a violent campaign to overthrow those in power. That was not his way. It would have been fundamentally at odds with his teachings. That is apparent from even a cursory reading of the New Testament.

The links below provide some background on this recent unfortunate suggestion of “Second Amendment remedies.”

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20100909/OPINION/9090313/1049/OPINION

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/sharron_angle_floated_possibil.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/16/sharron-angle-floated-2nd_n_614003.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20008167-503544.html

Exodus 23:1

"Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness.”


Matthew 26:49-54

Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him. Jesus replied, "Friend, do what you came for." Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?”

Christian Legal Society v. Martinez

A coincidental follow-up to the prior post, Justice Ginsburg authored an important Supreme Court opinion this past week, and that opinion has relevance to the themes discussed in this blog. Coverage of that opinion is available at the link below:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/06/supreme-court-uchastings.html

http://www.clsnet.org/center/litigation/christian-legal-society-v-martinez-uc-hastings

http://volokh.com/tag/christian-legal-society-v-martinez/




Matthew 5:43-35 (New International Version)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love you enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.”

Independence Day

Independence Day falls on a Sunday this year, so that gives us all an excuse to celebrate the holiday all weekend long. Indeed, my church is having a community party tonight. So, it is probably forgivable that I publish this post a day early.

Happy Independence Day! If you are in the United States or are an American abroad, I hope you have a wonderful time celebrating with friends and family. And I hope you do something to celebrate beyond getting a good deal on a mattress, big screen TV or craft supplies. As is probably obvious from past posts on this blog, I think holidays are useful for us to reflect on whatever milestones or causes that inspired them. There are many blessings to living in this great country. We are reminded of that fact with much frequency recently as the debates over immigration take center stage. For a variety of reasons, people continue to sacrifice and risk their lives to get a chance to live in the United States. By accident of birth, many of us are fortunate enough to have lived in this country all (or nearly all) our lives. We in particular should never overlook that blessing and we should always be grateful.

This July 4th weekend I am personally grateful for many blessings bestowed upon me by virtue of being an American. In some ways, I am particularly grateful for freedom of speech. As a budding scholar, who has had her articles published in legal journals and who is able to publish her ideas instantaneously on this blog at any time, I owe much to the First Amendment.

I love the marketplace of ideas. I have a healthy skepticism about the ability of markets generally to produce positive results when completely unregulated. However, I believe in Truth and certainly do not fear differences of opinion. As an imperfect, weak human being, I certainly don't claim to always know the Truth. And I am sure that our Creator looks down at me in loving patience wondering when the heck I'll figure more of it out. But I have confidence that the Truth will make itself known over time and Truth will always prevail.

In that vein, I even love the anonymous and often bitter comments left on this blog--particular those left by fans of Janet Parshall. (God bless them!) As Americans, we all have the right to speak our minds without fear of government interference and to let other people decide for themselves the wisdom of our ideas. How wonderful is that?!

Some colleagues of mine were recently scheduled to speak at a scholarly conference in a country with a repressive government that engages in widespread censorship and has an appalling human rights record. At the last minute, however, the conference was cancelled by that repressive government. If the position you hold is wrong and untenable, your best option might be to prevent others from ever advocating a different position. In that context, the market place of ideas is not your friend.

I came across a great editorial about Independence Day this morning. It is in a local community newspaper that I enjoy. It is available at the link below. Enjoy and have a safe holiday weekend!

http://www.westvalleyview.com/main.asp?SectionID=6&SubSectionID=2&ArticleID=37474

John 8:32 (King James Version)

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

A Village Called Versailles

I recently saw a wonderfully moving documentary on PBS’s program Independent Lens. A Village Called Versailles told the story of the Vietnamese American community in New Orleans before and after Katrina. Their story was largely overlooked by the mainstream media, but I had heard snippets of their experiences over the years. It is an amazing story that the film tells in greater detail.

The film begins by explaining how this group of Vietnamese refugees initially came to New Orleans, and settled in a cluster of apartments called Versailles in New Orleans East. The trauma of their escape from Vietnam after the fall of Saigon, and their journey to the United States was heart-wrenching. The film shows how the refugees worked hard for over 30 years to rebuild their lives and build a strong community in their new homeland. Then Katrina hit.

The Vietnamese American community of Versailles was devastated when the levees broke. The community was forced by rescue workers to go to the convention center, where they languished for days. Then they were eventually placed on buses for evacuation centers in Texas and Arkansas. The experience was particularly painful for the older Vietnamese Americans because it was so reminiscent of their initial arrival in the U.S. as refugees. Perhaps because of that prior experience, they were arguably even more determined than some New Orleanians to return. One elderly man was interviewed for the film, and explained that when he was forced from his home in Vietnam, he could have no hope of ever returning. But he was determined to not be permanently forced from his second home, New Orleans. That was not an option. The film focused largely on the community’s efforts to return to New Orleans and rebuild their community.

For purposes of this blog, I would like to focus on the role of the community’s church. Most in the community are Catholic, and Mary Queen of Vietnam Church has been the spiritual center of the community. The pastor, Father Vien, helped organize the parishioners as the waters began to rise after the levees broke. When the community was evacuated from New Orleans, he traveled great distances to visit his flock and minister to them in person. He also began rebuilding the church almost immediately. Footage shows him on the roof of the church with a hammer in hand in the blazing sun. Just weeks after Katrina, they were able to begin having mass again. Parishioners drove hours and hours on Sundays just to participate in worship at their home parish. It was a huge encouragement to the scattered community, and served as a major impetus for members of the community to return.

As the city began to rebuild, plans initially were made in a vacuum to not repopulate much of New Orleans East. Then Mayor Nagin used emergency powers to establish a major storm debris landfill on the edge of the Versailles community. The Vietnamese American community was outraged. They feared the toxicity of the landfill would be the death nail in their community, and they wouldn’t stand for it. Under the leadership of their priests, Fathers Vien and Luke, the community organized and protested effectively to close the landfill. The community had not been active in politics before, but through the leadership of their priests and the galvanization of their community, they found their political voice. It was particularly beautiful to see the elderly residents of Versailles participate in rallies. They had escaped a totalitarian regime that stifled freedom of expression. They were fighting for the continuity of their community.

I also found it very moving that the people of Versailles organized events to reach out beyond their own ethnic community. They held masses and candlelight vigils that were attended by Vietnamese Americans as well as African Americans. Currently, Mary Queen of Vietnam Church offers services in Vietnamese, English and Spanish.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/village-called-versailles/

John 13:35

By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

Brit Hume’s Comments on the Tiger Woods Scandal on Fox News (double standards and perceptions of persecution)

I personally don’t quite understand the concern about a “journalist” expressing religious beliefs while in his or her role as a journalist. Traditionally, our ideal in the United States has been that the media would objectively report the facts and not express personal opinions. However, in my lifetime, I’m a little hard pressed to come up with real life examples of that ideal. In fact, in recent years, there seems to be an acceleration in the divergence from that ideal. There also has been a concurrent trend to blur the lines between news reporting and entertainment. I rarely watch television news any more, but I turned it on the other morning to see what was going on in the world. The news anchors were interviewing a correspondent for a gossip show who was telling viewers that Heidi Montag had recently had breast augmentation surgery and had appeared in public with a very revealing blouse. I have to admit that I’m not entirely sure who Ms. Montag is, but that did not strike me as a particularly newsworthy story. I immediately went back to NPR.

Indeed, within these trends away from the ideal of objective journalism and towards the melding of news and entertainment, Fox News is often held up as one of the worst offenders. They are considered by many to be at the forefront of these unfortunate trends. Watching Fox News, it is not uncommon for the “journalists” (or perhaps “news personalities” or “media pundits” are more accurate labels?) to explicitly express their own views on the news stories of the day. Indeed, much of the round-the-clock programming on Fox News (and other news channels) involves various individuals sitting around a television studio discussing their own opinions with respect to current events. As a result, I don’t really see how anyone should be so shocked by Mr. Hume’s advice for Mr. Woods. The only difference is that typically the views expressed by the “journalists” are based on their political beliefs, not their religious convictions. In my opinion, the outrage over Mr. Hume seems to have been triggered by his choice to go against an unspoken rule that religious views should never be expressed publicly. I don’t quite understand why it is ok for people on the news channels to give commentary on current events if they are based on political beliefs, but it is prohibited to mention one’s faith. Frankly, I don’t think either should be expressed in news programs. But if one is acceptable, why not the other?

Indeed, this apparent double standard simply plays into the existing defensiveness of culturally conservative Christians—perhaps like the DJ I heard talk about the reaction to Mr. Hume’s comments and many of the listeners of that Christian radio station. Within culturally conservative American Christian circles, I have repeatedly observed a deep-seated belief of a cultural war against religion and those individuals who espouse a religious faith (especially those who are Christians). Most non-Christians seem to be unaware of such beliefs or are disinterested in them. Because of the strength of such beliefs and the growing number of people who share them, I think it is important to be cognizant of this trend.

I have heard countless people with such beliefs express very deeply held, sincere fears that those in power in government and in the news/entertainment media are hostile to religion, and aim to eliminate its practice and expression. Such individuals are concerned that as Christians they are targets for persecution and their beliefs are under attack.

To some extent, I can understand this sort of siege mentality. In mainstream pop culture, Christians are often held up to ridicule and scorn. Christians are often held out as the antagonists or comic relief in movies, television and other media. Often this is subtle, but it is clear (and offensive) to many Christians nonetheless. Think of the rigid preacher who hates dancing in Footloose, goofy Ned Flanders and cynical Reverend Lovejoy in The Simpsons, the corrupt warden in Shawshank Redemption, and Robert DeNiro’s crazed Bible-quoting killer in Cape Fear. In the Jim Crow era, I’m sure African Americans did not exactly feel affirmed by the hate-filled ridicules of minstrel shows. Similarly and more recently, the GLBT community has expressed their sharp disapproval when the few GLBT characters in movies were portrayed as dangerous sociopaths (e.g., Basic Instinct, Silence of the Lambs, JFK). The link below expresses an interesting analysis of the negative portrayals of Christians and Christianity in the mainline media.

http://books.google.com/books?id=yq-gY3Cj1ZkC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=negative+Hollywood+images+of+Christians&source=bl&ots=SsY80lCDSz&sig=ky3bP4kn_Yzy-aChZljEdZRtz5w&hl=en&ei=QaVQS6j5OITGsQOv0Kz-Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CBsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=negative%20Hollywood%20images%20of%20Christians&f=false

I must confess I don’t always understand the feelings of persecution by many culturally conservative Christians. Sure there is a bias by large segments of the entertainment media and probably the news media (to the extent it is separate). But the siege mentality I’ve observed also seems to be grounded in enforcement of First Amendment principles. For example, these fears of religious persecution (or annihilation) seem to arise from enforcement of the Supreme Court’s determination that institutionalized prayer is constitutionally impermissible in the public schools, from efforts to teach Darwinism in public schools, and from removal of religious (particularly Christian or biblical) references in public places by the government (e.g., the White House creche, postings of the Ten Commandments in court houses). I personally feel rather disaffirmed by Hollywood caricatures of Christians, but I suppose I’ll live. However, I don’t feel at all threatened by the government’s attempts to try to appear neutral and not overtly favor one religion over another. That is the disconnect for me. I have struggled but failed thus far to understand it.

Deuteronomy 28:37 (New Century Version)

You will become a hated thing to the nations where the Lord sends you; they will laugh at you and make fun of you.

Janet Parshall’s America

Our family does not watch a lot of television, but our radios are turned on frequently. We tend to stick to the left side of the dial, alternating between NPR and Christian radio stations. Last month, I attended a CLE on the other side of town, and listened to a local Christian radio station during the long drive home. The CLE had ended at mid-day, and on weekdays that tends to be a busy time for me. Generally I’m not in the car then and don’t have time for the radio. As a result, I happened upon a program called “Janet Parshall’s America” for the very first time. I almost could not believe what I was hearing. When I tuned in, Ms. Parshall was extremely angry and was venting about President Obama’s anti-Christian bias. In that our president is a professed Christian who was baptized several decades ago, I found this frustration perplexing to say the least.

While I was in the car and listening to the program, Ms. Parshall talked about a luncheon of past White House social secretaries before Obama took office. They were meeting with Desiree Rogers (the in-coming social secretary) to welcome her and support her in her new role. According to Ms. Parshall, Ms. Rogers had shocked the group by indicating at the luncheon that the Obamas were considering not displaying a creche that had been displayed in a public room of the White House (not in the private family quarters) by many past presidents. Apparently, the Obamas had concerns about offending people of other faiths. Ms. Parshall indicated that the creche was eventually displayed in the Obama White House, but seemed to dismiss it as simply bowing to public pressure (by indignant Christians?).

Ms. Parshall also talked with great anger about the president’s preferences for Muslims, who were given priority in getting H1N1 vaccinations before leaving for the Hajj. She also mentioned President Obama had issued proclamations to Muslims during some religious holiday. Ms. Parshall equated these preferences and the hesitancy over the creche as evidence of anti-Christian hostility.

Frankly, I was not aware of the White House creche. I do not follow White House decorations and celebrations. I missed that Oprah special. It does not really matter to me one way or the other, but certainly I would appreciate concerns about offending non-Christian Americans with a creche in a public room of a building that is owned by our country’s taxpayers. If the United States one day has a Buddhist or Muslim majority, I don’t think I’d be thrilled by prominent displays of those religions in public buildings.

Moreover, it seems like a basic public health policy to give Americans traveling on the Hajj priority for a vaccine against a highly transmittable virus that they could bring back to our country. It also seems like very basic political common sense to issue proclamations to any sizeable demographic on days of importance to those groups. I’d be surprised if President George W. Bush and his predecessors did not issue similar celebratory proclamations to Muslims as well.

As a more general matter, I just don’t understand the apparently continuing furor against President Obama and the suspicion of his faith by some conservative Christians. Mr. Obama was baptized as a Christian in 1988, well before he entered politics. He was an active member of Trinity United Church of Christ for about twenty years. If that was all a facade to woo Christian voters, it was quite an elaborate hoax and it apparently did not work too well. Why would anyone would fail to accept someone’s profession of faith at their word? I have always accepted President Bush’s assertion that he is a Christian. Why wouldn’t others accept President Obama’s? I don’t understand what is going on.

I also don’t understand how the White House creche “issue” can be cited as evidence of hostility to Christianity and not just sensitivity to non-Christians in a pluralistic democracy. The American people elected Barack Obama to be our president, not our head pastor. He was elected to govern all of us, not just the Christians.

To me, the most concerning aspect of Ms. Parshall’s program that day last month was that it seemed to be a desperate, even silly attempt to come up with some reason to dislike and oppose President Obama. I’ve perused Ms. Parshall’s website, a link to which is provided below.

http://www.jpamerica.com/

The website is quite interesting. Ms. Parshall’s radio program is labeled a “ministry” but conservative politics are pervasive. In listening, her radio program was very reminiscent of Rush Limbaugh. She certainly had the angry tone down pat. Beyond gender, the main difference between Mr. Limbaugh and Ms. Parshall was Ms. Parshall’s quoting of Scripture and references to prayer. I have actually listened to Mr. Limbaugh on numerous occasions and don’t recall him ever quoting Scripture or talking about prayer. Maybe I just missed those broadcasts.

From her website, I take it that Ms. Parshall’s show is not always as political as it was the day I happened upon it. Looking at her past program topics, some do not appear to be political at all. Indeed, I caught a little of her program earlier this month, and she seemed much less angry as she spoke with former Redskins coach, Jim Gibbs.

It is interesting because when I was looking at Ms. Parshall’s website, the summary of the show on December 11, 2009 (the day I first caught her radio program) mentions nothing of President Obama’s anti-Christian hostility, the White House creche or the president’s Muslim bias. The show is apparently a three hour program, and I listened to about half an hour of it, all of which focused on such concerns. I’m not sure why the program summary does not mention that part of the program.

http://www.jpamerica.com/showsummary.aspx?show=12/11/2009

Ephesians 4:31 (New American Standard Bible)

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.



1Peter 2:13-15

Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority,
or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.
For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.

West Valley View editorial on Christmas

I am a fan of community newspapers. I like to read the West Valley View (a secular periodical) because it informs me of the geographic area where I live. It also has a vibrant editorial page, where my neighbors in the West Valley passionately proclaim their political views and rip to shreds those of their opponents. (Long live the First Amendment!)

Recently, the newspaper ran a really interesting editorial about how the religious meaning of Christmas has been exploited and degraded in our culture. The editors do not mention Focus on the Family’s “Stand for Christmas” Campaign explicitly, but that campaign seems to be the implicit target of the editors’ anger. The link below pulls up the editorial, which is entitled “Would Jesus Celebrate Christmas?” Food for thought.

http://www.westvalleyview.com/main.asp?SectionID=6&SubSectionID=2&ArticleID=35984&TM=72632.77

Luke 12:33 (Wycliffe New Testament)

Sell ye those things that ye have in possession [Sell ye those things that ye wield], and give ye alms. And make to you satchels that wax not old, treasure that faileth not in heavens, whither a thief approacheth not [whither a thief nigheth not], neither moth destroyeth.

With God on Our Side (2004) (School Prayer As Political Motivation)

With God on Our Side insinuates that conservative Christians began to affiliate with the Republican Party after the Supreme Court determined that institutionalized prayer in the public schools was unconstitutional. This was apparently a galvanizing event. Frankly, I’ve never understood the “school prayer” issue. Those who are most active on the issue seem to phrase it as a question of permitting children to pray in school. However, this is of course quite misleading.

Prayer is typically a personal and quiet discipline. It can take place any time and any where without others even being aware. Such prayer is certainly not forbidden in public schools or anywhere else in our country. I’m very confident that such prayer take places constantly in most if not all public schools. Indeed, when I was a kid, I myself participated in such prayers all the time. Instead, the hot-button legal and political issue technically involves whether there will be institutionalized group prayer during the school day. I’m not sure why anyone would advocate that kind of prayer in a public school. Who would lead such prayer? If you have people of different faiths in the classroom, then one of two things will happen. Either the prayer will be watered down and made vague to avoid contradiction of the theological beliefs of some in the class, or the prayer will be more specific and will offend some teachers, students and/or parents. Neither option seems desirable to me.

Further, my thinking on the whole school prayer issue was crystallized when I was a grade school teacher (prior to attending law school) and realized the main focus of teaching is classroom management (i.e., maintaining order so kids don’t get out of line such that chaos prevents learning). I’ve seen first hand that classroom management and institutionalized worship are not happy bedfellows. My first year as a teacher I taught sixth, seventh and eighth graders in a Catholic school where we had institutionalized prayers several times each day and we attended mass as a group at least once a month. Initially, I was very excited about these group worship opportunities, but I soon came to dread them. Kids will be kids, and in my experience as a teacher even “good kids” are not inclined to be spiritually devout when their peers are around. It used to offend me deeply when my middle school students were playing during prayers or mass. Instead of showing respect to God, many would use the distraction and the gap in discipline to pass notes or communicate to one another in other covert ways. It was disillusioning to me that instead of being a leader or role model of faith to these young students, I was reduced to having to hand out demerits for infractions during prayer times or mass. Pragmatically, it was also very concerning to me that such a system likely turned many kids away from God at a critical, difficult time in their lives. Because of these experiences, I vowed that if I were ever a parent, I would never send my kids to a religiously affiliated school where God was mandated. Trying to force religion unfortunately has the opposite effect of what is intended. I would not recommend it to anyone.

As a teacher in a religious school, not only did I see that forcing kids to worship in a group setting was unsuccessful, I also used to be very concerned about the kids in the school who did have a budding faith in God. I worried about the impact on them when they saw their classmates being so disrespectful. Maybe some of them began to see faith in God as un-cool or silly as a result. Peer influences mean so much to young people. I would have much rather taken the kids with a budding faith in God to a church service of mature, respectful Christ followers. That would have provided better, more supportive role models. However, that was not an option.

With regard to the legal and political “school prayer” issue, I’m further perplexed because those who seem to be most adamant about the need for institutionalized group prayer in school tend to be from faith traditions where a personal, intimate relationship with God is emphasized. Such a relationship is primarily developed by an individual’s one-on-on time with God. Realistically, it does not seem that such a personal relationship is fostered by forced, impersonal group prayer in a secular setting. Instead, people are supposed to come to their own personal decision to accept Christ into their heart or to reject him.

Moreover, in such faith traditions, spontaneous prayer is typically emphasized over rote formulaic prayer. Pragmatically, it seems to me that such formulaic prayer lends itself best to a pluralistic, secular group setting where different faith traditions are represented. Only if one writes down and tweaks the wording of a given prayer ahead of time can one be sure to avoid references or phraseology that will offend some of the people being led in prayer. In my own opinion, that type of rehearsed precision tends to defeat the purpose of prayer. I am just not sure what proponents of institutionalized group prayer in public schools would hope to achieve.






Matthew 6:5-8 (Contemporary English Version)

When you pray, don't be like those show-offs who love to stand up and pray in the meeting places and on the street corners. They do this just to look good. I can assure you that they already have their reward. When you pray, go into a room alone and close the door. Pray to your Father in private. He knows what is done in private, and he will reward you. When you pray, don't talk on and on as people do who don't know God. They think God likes to hear long prayers. Don't be like them. Your Father knows what you need before you ask.

Sojourners Blog & Colbert’s Satire of Justice Scalia

The Sojourners website features a blog called “God’s Politics.” It has a variety of short articles not published in the magazine. I enjoy reading it when I have time.

The link below this paragraph pulls up a post from the “God’s Politics” blog that discusses Justice Antonin Scalia’s recent remarks at oral arguments in the Salazar v. Buono case, and contains a clip of Stephen Colbert’s very funny satire of those same remarks.

http://blog.sojo.net/2009/10/16/video-colbert-on-the-cross/

For those unfamiliar with the Salazar case and/or the legal issues raise by the case, a little background may be helpful.

The United States Constitution is our nation’s most fundamental legal authority. Adopted in 1791, the First Amendment to the Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(emphasis added) This one compact provision contains several distinct guarantees, but the first is commonly referred to as the “Establishment Clause” because it prohibits the establishment of a national religion or even the preference of one religion over another. The Establishment Clause was enacted due to our Founding Fathers’ rejection of the European tradition of churches that were officially sanctioned by the government. Membership in the state church was typically required to hold government posts, and was often a pragmatic necessity for acceptance and advancement in civil society. During the Colonial era, the Church of England had been imposed as the official church of the colonies. The Founding Fathers thought that approach to religion was unwise. They preferred freedom of conscience and freedom of religion instead of a state-sponsored religion. (Indeed, many social scientists point out that in societies where religion is free from government meddling, religion tends to flourish most, but where religion is supported or endorsed by the state, religious devotion tends to be much weaker.) Additional information about the Establishment Clause can be found at the link below this paragraph.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm

The issue of religious symbols on government property has generated a number of court cases over the years. The First Amendment guarantee of the “free exercise” of religion ensures that churches and individuals can display religious symbols on their own property. However, the Establishment Clause prohibits such displays on government property (e.g., courts, parks, etc.) because such displays are an implicit endorsement of a particular religion. The link below this paragraph provides more information about the legal issues in such cases.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/religioussymbols.htm

The Salazar case involves a challenge to the presence of a Latin cross about six feet tall on the top of a prominent rock outcropping on federally-owned land in the Mojave National Preserve in California. The case was brought in 2001 by Frank Buono, an observant Catholic who displays a Latin cross in his own home. Mr. Buono has served his country through out his life; he is a veteran and a retired employee of the National Park Service. He brought the suit because he objected to the implicit governmental endorsement of one religion by allowing the erection of a prominent religious symbol on government property. While the case was pending, Congress designated the cross as a war memorial to honor World War I veterans. Additional information about the Salazar case can be found at the link below.

http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/41247prs20091007.html

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Salazar case. At that time, Justice Scalia made several comments that seemed to diminish the religious significance of the cross and insinuate that the cross was merely a secular symbol. The Sojourners “God’s Politics” blog post above criticizes Justice’s Scalia’s comments and includes Stephen Colbert’s comical satire of Scalia’s denial of the religious symbolism of the cross.

Parenthetically, in interviews, Colbert has professed to be a man of faith. He is a practicing Catholic and has taught Sunday School.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060820014908/http:/www.timeout.com/newyork/DetailsAr.do?file=hotseat/506/506.hotseat.html
http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2007/edition_09-23-2007/AStephen_Colbert

John 19:17-18, 30, 20:11-16 (New American Standard Bible)


They took Jesus, therefore, and He went out, bearing His own cross, to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha. There they crucified Him, and with Him two other men, one on either side, and Jesus in between.

Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.

But Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping; and so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying. And they said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him." When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?" Supposing Him to be the gardener, she said to Him, "Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away." Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, "Rabboni!" (which means, Teacher).

1 Corinthians 1:17 (New American Standard Bible)

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.



Colossians 1:20-22 (New American Standard Bible)

And through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach.