Border Forum

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

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

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

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

Psalm 116:3

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

Luke 12:4

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

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008) (Extreme Views of Darwinism)

The first half of the film focused on the issue of academic freedom, which I found pretty intriguing and compelling. But then the film took a rather odd turn. After a promising start, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed became more of a documentary in the Michael Moore style. Ben Stein purported to investigate questions, but had a pretty obvious political aim by the second half of the film. After the mid-way point, the focus shifted from an exploration of the persecution of the scientists who embrace or even just explore intelligent design concepts to a full-on attack on Darwinism and Darwinists. And at times, the attack was pretty over the top.

Particularly in the second half of the film, Stein spoke with scientists whose study of science led them to lose all faith in religion. Some of those interviewed even went so far as to express rather shocking hostility towards religion, and the desire to have it rigidly contained or wiped out entirely. It is explained in the film that Darwinism leads to believing that evolution simply occurs, there is no life after death. And from there, it is an apparently simple extension to decide life is not really all that important, it just comes and goes. Essentially, it is explained that an embrace of Darwinism leads to a belief that there is no sanctity of life and no basis for morals. Although they had me with the persecution of dissenting scholars and the restrictions on academic freedom, the film lost me when it came to conclude that Darwinism leads ipso facto to such a nihilistic view of the world.

Interestingly, it is then extrapolated in the film that Darwinism leads to viewing human beings in merely economic terms; the branch of Darwinism called eugenics springs forth naturally. It is noted that Margaret Sanger was a believer in eugenics and founded Planned Parenthood. It is insinuated that the mere availability of birth control is a conspiracy to form a master race. From there, Mr. Stein then goes to Germany to visit Nazi death camps to learn about the Nazis’ embrace of Darwinism and eugenics to exterminate “useless feeders” and those who were viewed to be of lesser genetic pools that were holding back the human race. I’m not kidding. With a straight face, Stein seems to suggest that when we embrace the Theory of Evolution, it is just a matter of time before we start rounding up “undesirables” in torture camps and committing genocide.

It is subtle but the film mentioned briefly that these repulsive views of rabid atheistic scientists and the eugenics supporters are based on just a very radical and extreme notion of Darwinism. I find it hard to believe that more mainstream understandings of the Theory of Evolution lead ipso facto to atheism and genocidal tendencies.

There have been many surveys over the years that indicate most scientists are atheists or agnostics. The reasons for this are not clear, at least to me. I’ve always suspected that it had something to do with the personality type of someone who is attracted to the sciences. Science involves proving laws of nature via evidence-based tests. I have sometimes found chatting with scientists on even non-religious topics to be irksome because if something cannot be proven, they often don’t believe it to be true.

That attitude goes against my orientation as a lawyer. In my discipline, we rarely have absolutes and we live in the grey areas. When opposing parties argue a case, there is not one absolute truth as to who has the winning side. In many respects, it depends on how persuasive the lawyers are in arguing their positions and how inclined the finder of fact is to accept one side or another. Indeed, we have several stages in the appellate process, and different courts often come to different conclusions. And we have nine justices on the Supreme Court. Rarely do they all agree on how a case should be decided; unanimous opinions are quite uncommon.

In light of these observations, I personally doubt that it is Darwinism that leads scientists to be more skeptical of religion. I rather suspect that the sorts of folks who are most skeptical of religion and other beliefs that are essentially not provable and require faith, are the same sorts of folks inclined to like the black or white nature of science. As a result, it seems a stretch to me to argue that Darwinism must lead to atheism. I also don’t particularly see how one can argue with a straight face that believing in the Theory of Evolution leads one to devalue of human life. Unless they were leading a secret double life, none of the science-y folks I’ve know over the years have been sociopathic or genocidal.

And as noted before, not all Christians reject the Theory of Evolution. As mentioned previously, my first high school biology teacher, who taught me what I know about evolution, shared early in the school year that he was a Christian and active in his church. As I recall, he shared that information with us so we would know he did not see his religious faith and his scientific expertise as being in conflict. I think he meant it as an encouragement for anyone in the class who might have been concerned about a potential conflict between their own faith and the subject matter of the course.

Though out my adulthood, I have had a number of friends at churches I’ve belonged to who were scientists. I remember one friend, who was a Ph.D. candidate in physics at the time. He shared with a group at our church that it was sometimes lonely at school because most of the other grad students and professors were non-believers. Yet he described quite beautifully how his study of science fed his religious faith. He explained that the more he learned about the way the universe was organized, the more convinced he was that it did not just come into being by accident but was the deliberate crafting of a higher being.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed seemed to align sanctity of life issues with an anti-Darwinist agenda. As I watched the film, it occurred to me that it was odd that some folks can be so passionate about the sanctity of human life when it comes to issues like abortion and euthanasia, but then that same passion somehow does not carry over to other issues involving economic justice and human rights. Apparently, a slower death from food insecurity, a lack of (safe) housing and inability to access medical care do not always merit similar sanctity of life concerns. Issues involving an affront to human dignity but not death (e.g., torture, hate crimes) also do not seem to warrant the same type of passionate response. I find it highly ironic that some who are passionately opposed to Darwinism in the scientific arena don’t seem to mind Darwinism in the economic context. I don’t understand that, it does not seem to be consistent. And that inconsistency makes me suspicious of a political manipulation of issues like abortion and euthanasia for the benefit of those who would not benefit from similar attention paid to economic social justice issues. Perhaps it is thought that if we in the electorate are encouraged to spend our time on just a few sanctity of life issues, we won't have the time or energy to also focus on other issues that impact the sanctity of human life.

Genesis 4-25

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush. And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he madeinto a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,

"This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man."
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Thy Kingdom Come by Randall Balmer (Abortion, Homosexuality and Divorce)

Randall Balmer begins Thy Kingdom Come questioning the “odd choice” of the Religious Right to choose abortion as its defining issue to consolidate power in the 1980s because of the movement’s emphasis on biblical literalism and the paucity of biblical references to the abortion issue. Moreover, he notes those in the movement had taken inconsistent positions on the “right to life” in supporting capital punishment and “various armed conflicts.” Nonetheless, he explains that in the 1980s abortion was viewed as a political issue that had traction despite weak biblical arguments.

With similarly weak biblical arguments against homosexuality, Balmer notes that at about the same time the Religious Right pushed aside much clearer condemnation of divorce in the New Testament to focus instead on homosexuality as a rallying cry. He describes this as a politically motivated use of selective literalism to “locate sin outside of the evangelical subculture” by “designating as especially egregious” the conduct of others. Balmer asserts divorce was “too close for comfort” because many fellow believers had transgressed that prohibition (including Ronald Reagan, an early hero of the Religious Right). Balmer points out that to be consistent with their aim of making abortion illegal, the Religious Right ought to be expending equivalent effort to make divorce illegal (not just more difficult to obtain).

Balmer also notes hypocrisy on the abortion issue. Reagan and George H. W. Bush campaigned hard on antiabortion rhetoric, but never delivered on promises to outlaw abortion. Balmer also talks about the construction of an “abortion myth” that the movement began in direct response to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. He explains that in reality few Christians paid much attention to the decision when it was first issued, and those who did generally viewed it favorably. Instead, Balmer musters evidence that the inspiration for political activism was actually the 1975 IRS attempt to rescind the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University ("BJU") due to its racially discriminatory policies. Balmer asserts abortion was a much more expedient rallying cause that the tax status of BJU.

1 Timothy 4:11 (The Message)

Teach believers with your life: by word, by demeanor, by love, by faith, by integrity.

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]?

President Obama’s Christian Faith as a Political Issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





John 3:20-21

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

"Point of View" Radio Program with Jackie Gingrich Cushman

Most evenings as I drive home from work, I listen to NPR’s “All Things Considered” to catch up with current events. But during the semester, several evenings each week I teach late and come home after the news programs are over. Those evenings I typically listen to one of several Christian radio stations, and at that hour they have switched over from music to paid programming by various ministries. I enjoy listening to the sermons given by these ministries. They tend to be more conservative theologically than I am, but I always get something out of the preaching. Sometimes the message will be an encouragement in dealing with life’s difficulties. Other times they will teach on a passage of the Bible, and they might share insights that I hadn’t heard previously. It is always interesting.

A few months ago, I was driving home late and found something new on one of the Christian stations I have pre-programmed on my car radio. Instead of a preacher giving a sermon, there was a new program called “Point of View.” As I listened initially, it seemed to have nothing to do with God, church or Jesus. I was confused for a while. I wasn’t sure if my husband had programmed another station over the old one. Alternately, I thought maybe the Christian station had been sold and converted to a political talk radio format. Turns out I was still listening to one of the local Christian stations that night. A link to the “Point of View” program’s website is below. The tag line on the website is “Defending Faith, Family & Freedom.” However, I did not hear anything about “Faith” when I listened that first night.

http://www.pointofview.net/site/PageServer

When I tuned in to the program that first time, the host (a woman who never identified herself) was welcoming a guest—Jackie Gingrich Cushman, the daughter of the former Speaker of the House. Initially, Ms. Cushman was plugging her book: Five Principles for a Successful Life: From Our Family to Yours by Newt Gingrich and Jackie Gingrich Cushman. I had frankly never heard of Ms. Cushman before hearing her interview on this program. But I was struck by the audacity of Mr. Gingrich co-writing a book on family. After all, he is the thrice married, twice divorced man, who committed adultery during both his first and second marriages, and famously asked his first wife for a divorce while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery. It is clear that we all fall short of the glory of God, and we are all very imperfect beings. As a sinner myself, I don’t judge Mr. Gingrich for his short-comings. I’ve got enough of my own to keep me plenty busy. But I’m stunned at the gall and hypocrisy of writing a book being marketed on some fictionalized notion that his family life is something to be emulated. What is next—a book from Bill Bennett lecturing us on faithful stewardship of one’s financial gifts or a book from Ted Haggard about integrity?

After Ms. Cushman briefly plugged the book on the “Point of View” program that evening, the discussion quickly shifted into a tirade against “Obamacare.” Ms. Cushman spoke about the American guarantee of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” and argued the “government take-over” of health care infringed on our liberty. This statement stunned me. I don't understand the characterization of a "take-over" since Congress did not pass a bill with a single payer option. I suppose that a government mandate to carry health insurance coverage could be viewed as a limitation on one’s liberty. But I think it pales in comparison to the significant infringements on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that have been suffered for years by the millions our fellow Americans who have not been able to obtain medical insurance and to receive appropriate medical treatment when they have the misfortune to become seriously ill.

For the life of me, I don’t understand the resistance of any Christians to health care reform. It is a huge source of frustration and disgust to my friends and family who fall into the “progressive Christian” demographic. Christ taught us to care for the sick, and for centuries Christians were often the folks who established hospitals in their communities. I don’t understand how a “Christian” political movement in the modern era has now morphed into a force to fight against structural reforms to ensure more people have access to medical care. What the heck happened?

In listening to the many tirades against “Obamacare” in the last year, my understanding is that many conservative Christians who oppose health care reform are particularly concerned about an expansion of government power. In the abstract, I can appreciate such a concern about government power. But with respect to health care reform, it has not just been a theoretical issue about the proper size and scope of government. The decades long delay in enacting health care reform has had real life, catastrophic repercussions for so many of our fellow citizens. Tragically, people have lost their lives. Families have lost loved ones due to an inability to get proper medical treatment. To me, ideological rigidity has no place in this context because people’s lives hang in the balance. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to have health insurance and/or have not had to endure serious illnesses in our own families are not in a position to make life or death judgments impacting those who are not as fortunate.

When I was listening to “Point of View” that evening, in the context of their “Obamacare” grievances, Ms. Cushman and the program’s host kept referencing “the government” and “they” in ominous terms: they want to impose big government on us, and they want to require us to have health insurance that we don’t want to have. Ms. Cushman and the host spoke as if we lived in some sort of totalitarian state, glossing over the fact that President Obama was elected in a landslide on a platform that included a promise to effect (finally!) health care reform. It is not as if the Democrats seized power in a coup d’état; they were elected by a majority of our citizenry. The health care reform was not enacted at gun-point; this is what “we the People” voted for.

At one point in the program, the host took calls from listeners. The first was a frankly nutty woman who was allowed to ramble for a long time. She shared her theory that the government wanted to control health care to effect policies to reduce human overpopulation. She cited as proof some meeting Bill Gates called of famous rich folks including Warren Buffet and Oprah. Apparently, the consensus at this meeting was there was a need to reduce the number of people on this planet. The caller indicated that this led to the government wanting to control our health care to get rid of babies and old people. I actually was trying to follow the logic of the caller’s passionate concerns, but couldn’t ever figure out the supposed connection between the apparent Bill Gates meeting and the government “take-over” of health care. To me, it seemed more likely that if the government wanted to reduce overpopulation via health care policy, they would continue the status quo since people are already dying needlessly for lack of access to medical care. I was infuriated listening to the caller’s slander, but because of the lunacy of the assertions, I just assumed that the host would provide a reality check once the caller finally stopped speaking. Wrong! The host indicated she agreed with the caller’s views. Indeed, she added that because of the health care reform legislation that had just been enacted, the government would be pushing abortions and rationing end-of-life care to seniors in order to kill off folks at both ends of the age spectrum. Ms. Cushman eventually chimed in that she thought the caller made excellent points. I was incredulous.

The next caller mentioned that according to recent polls, the health care reform legislation was now more popular since it has been signed into law. The caller indicated that Democrats were actually picking up popularity points and the Republicans were now lagging in polls. That caller was abruptly cut off by the host, who suddenly lost her previous enthusiasm. Ms. Cushman dismissed the referenced polls as indicating only that the public was tired and just relieved to have the political fight over.

The other guests that evening didn’t really seem to have anything to do with faith issues, but at a programming break the announcer indicated that the “Point of View” program is a listener supported ministry. “Point of View” seems to be in the same general programming genre as Janet Parshall’s show. But in the few times I’ve listened to Ms. Parshall’s program, she does involve references to faith. Janet Parshall’s programming does focus a lot on political current events, but she hosts a more clearly Christian show. Indeed, I have heard some programs where Ms. Parshall focused exclusively on faith issues and did not raise political ones at all. By contrast, while I was listening to “Point of View” that first evening, I don’t believe I heard even one reference to Christianity or religious faith in the discussion with Ms. Cushman. Indeed, I couldn’t distinguish the program that night from a secular talk radio format. As a result, I was confused as to why it is a “listener supported ministry.” What’s next? Is Rush going to form his own “ministry” so that his show can gain tax-exempt status?

The link below summarizes the program the night I tuned in. I’ve listened to “Point of View” several times since that first evening. To be fair, there have subsequently been references to faith issues. One program was devoted entirely to plugging a software product that enables users to do in-depth Bible studies. However, most evenings I’ve listened to the program, the discussions tend to be focused on political current events. When I’ve listened, there have been some references to faith, but they seem to be only parenthetical and not a primary focus of the show.

http://www.pointofview.net/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13384

Matthew 23:23-24 (King James Version)

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

National Organization of Women

As a follow up to the prior post, it seems that in conservative Christian circles I’ve often heard the concept of feminism linked to the promotion of abortion (and not just the de-criminalization of medical abortions). I’m not entirely clear about the source of this perception. Personally, I cannot imagine anyone actually wanting women to have abortions—let alone feminists who purport to have the best interests of women in mind. However, my own belief is that the perception is rooted at least to some degree in the fact that the National Organization of Woman has been an ardent supporter of the pro-choice position for many years. I know full well that “pro-choice” does not mean “pro-abortion,” but I think that some conservatives conflate the two, particularly when a person or a group (like NOW) seems to focus exclusively (or almost exclusively) on the issue of abortion rights.

These days it seems that NOW only makes the news with respect to abortion issues. A few weeks ago, I was watching Bill Moyers Journal and the current NOW president, Terry O’Neill, was invited to discuss the recent passage of health care reform. Though many progressives were rejoicing and exchanging high-fives that week, Ms. O’Neill was apparently not at all pleased. The interview began with her passionate critique of a lack of inclusion of abortion coverage in the bill that President Obama signed. She was so angry in the interview, she reminded me of Rush Limbaugh ironically enough. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03262010/profile2.html

This recent interview does not appear to be aberrational. When you go to NOW’s website, the group has a list of six leading issues important to its mission. The first issue listed is “Abortion and Reproductive Rights.” http://www.now.org/

I certainly don’t favor the re-criminalization of medical abortions. But I would take great offense to ever being labeled someone who is “pro-abortion.” That would be a cruel mischaracterization of my actual views. It is a topic for another post, but in my limited, indirect experience with the topic, I have come to the conclusion that abortion is never a happy choice. I have known women who struggle for years with a past decision to have an abortion. I would not wish that experience on any woman.

But the reality of the situation is that Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for nearly forty years despite decades of hollow GOP campaign promises to overturn it. At this point, it is pretty entrenched law. Even if it were somehow overturned, I highly doubt there would be a widespread move in state legislatures to re-criminalize abortions. Maybe I’m naive, but that is my sense of where our society currently stands on that issue.

And I recognize that even if the legal status of medical abortions is not seriously threatened at this time, for a variety of reasons there are many logistical obstacles to getting abortion care. Fewer and fewer doctors are willing to perform medical abortions for a variety of reasons including nonviolent but harassing protestors, very credible death threats, and varied economic pressures. Consequently, in some parts of the country abortion rights are effectively compromised for lack of access—particularly for women in rural communities and in states with few or no providers.

Nonetheless, in this day and age in the United States, I just don’t understand how the highest profile women’s rights group still touts abortion rights as its top priority. Abortion is only even a possibility for women while they are in their child-bearing years, so the issue has the potential to directly affect only one relatively small segment of the female population. And not all of the women in that segment are even ever going to consider having an abortion. In my mind, there are a lot of other more pressing issues facing women--issues that are important to a much larger cross-section of the female population of our country.

Though NOW continues to be viewed by many as the preeminent voice of feminism in our country, I’m not sure how reflective the group really is of most women today or even the modern women’s movement. Indeed, as far as I am aware, I have personally only known one individual who was an actual member of NOW. That person was a lovely human being, but frankly he had some odd views. He was an aging hippy with a Ph.D., and an erratic work history. He had several failed marriages, and used to reminisce about the good ole days of the 1960s when people smoked marijuana and shared “free love” without being “up-tight.” Hmmm.

To be honest, I haven’t ever followed NOW closely. One of my biggest memories of the group was that Patricia Ireland was its president for about a decade during my young adulthood in the 1990s. The one thing I remember about Ms. Ireland was that she caused controversy when she took over the NOW leadership because of her admission that in addition to a husband, she also had a female partner (who was a long-time member of the Socialist Workers Party). In the base case, being a polygamous bisexual is a tough sell in many parts of our country. But if your partner is also a card-carrying Socialist, you might as well pack up your bags. Interestingly enough, however, that didn’t happen; Ms. Ireland was at the helm of NOW for a number of years. For this and other reasons, I think the organization seemed out of touch with many of my generation. As young people beginning careers and families, none of my friends rushed to join NOW. It just wasn’t on our radar.

In conclusion, I don’t think access to abortion is the most important issue facing women these days. In fact, it would not even make my short-list. Perhaps because of NOW’s overemphasis on abortion rights to the exclusion of other issues, I think that conservative Christians are not the only ones who seem to think that at least modern feminism is primarily concerned with access to abortions. In my opinion, that has not served the cause of women’s equality. I also don’t think that helps others embrace the term “feminism.” It drives many of us from it.




2 Corinthians 8:13 (Today’s New International Version)

Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality.

Feminism—What’s in a Name?

Recently I was in contact with a fellow law professor, who teaches at another law school. She has been in the academy longer than me, and is a well-respected teacher and scholar. She is active in a group of feminist law professors, and at one point kindly asked me to affiliate with them. Oddly enough, that was actually the first time I’ve ever explicitly or implicitly been asked if I were a feminist. To be honest, I wasn’t sure how to reply. Basically, I deferred and said I needed to think about it.

As I do frequently when I’m unsure how to define a key term, I consulted a dictionary. The dictionary definition of “feminism” that I found simply explains that the term means, “the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.” That sounds pretty innocuous to me. In this day and age, in the United States of America, who would not support the notion that women should enjoy rights “equal to those of men”?

But despite a pretty tame dictionary definition, there seems to be a pretty negative reaction to the concept of “feminism” in many quarters. For example, in my daughters’ Girl Scout troop, a recent controversy erupted as a few mothers passionately advocated that the troop should affiliate with the American Heritage Girls. There were strong concerns that the Girl Scouts might be promoting a “feminist, socialist agenda.” Rumors that Planned Parenthood was somehow affiliated with the Girl Scouts’ website seemed to fuel some of these concerns. In that context, I understood the term “feminist” to be equated with locally unpopular concepts such as abortion and big government. I’m still not clear on the connection between feminism to these other concepts, but for some folks there is apparently a connection.

Somewhat similarly, the late Jerry Falwell famously blamed the tragedy of 9/11 on feminists among other outcasts. Speaking to Pat Robertson on the 700 Club right after the tragedy, Reverend Falwell provided commentary on the terrorist attacks, “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’” From this statement in 2001, I understand that Reverend Falwell (and his followers) at that point equated “feminists” with abortion, homosexuality and a separation of church and state. Again, I’m not clear on how these concepts get linked in the minds’ of some, but they do.

In contrast, there are people like actress Patricia Heaton. (Ms. Heaton is probably best known for her role on Everybody Loves Raymond.) She has been outspoken on a number of political issues including the war in Iraq and the presidency of George W. Bush. (She strongly supported both.) Heaton is a conservative Christian who is passionate on “pro-life” issues. However, she is also affiliated with a group called Feminists for Life. http://www.feministsforlife.org/ Contrary to popular conceptions, not all who embrace the term “feminist” are in favor of abortion rights.

Luke 7:37-44 (Amplified Bible)

And behold, a woman of the town who was an especially wicked sinner, when she learned that He was reclining at table in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment (perfume).
And standing behind Him at His feet weeping, she began to wet His feet with [her] tears; and she wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed His feet [affectionately] and anointed them with the ointment (perfume).
Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw it, he said to himself, If this Man were a prophet, He would surely know who and what sort of woman this is who is touching Him--for she is a notorious sinner (a social outcast, devoted to sin).
And Jesus, replying, said to him, Simon, I have something to say to you. And he answered, Teacher, say it.
A certain lender of money [at interest] had two debtors: one owed him five hundred denarii, and the other fifty.
When they had no means of paying, he freely forgave them both. Now which of them will love him more?
Simon answered, The one, I take it, for whom he forgave and cancelled more. And Jesus said to him, You have decided correctly.
Then turning toward the woman, He said to Simon, Do you see this woman? When I came into your house, you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.
You gave Me no kiss, but she from the moment I came in has not ceased [intermittently] to kiss My feet tenderly and caressingly.
You did not anoint My head with [cheap, ordinary] oil, but she has anointed My feet with [costly, rare] perfume.
Therefore I tell you, her sins, many [as they are], are forgiven her--because she has loved much. But he who is forgiven little loves little.
And He said to her, Your sins are forgiven!

God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It by Jim Wallis (Wallis's Views on Abortion)

Wallis has some interesting comments on the issue of abortion: “Religious and political conservatives often raise the issues of abortion and gay marriage. I have clearly disagreed with the Democrats on abortion, believing that Christians can be both progressive and pro life. I’ve urged the Democrats to be much more respectful and welcoming of pro-life Democrats. Someday, a smart Democrat will figure out how both pro-choice and pro-life people could join together in concrete measures to dramatically reduce the abortion rate by focusing on teen pregnancy, adoption reform, and real support for low-income women. That would be so much better than both sides using the issue as a political football and political litmus test during elections, and then doing little about it afterward.”

Wallis also stated: “If the Democrats could be persuaded by both good political sense and sound moral values to moderate some of their positions by becoming anti-abortion without criminalizing an agonizing and desperate choice, and being pro-family without being anti-gay, they would change politics in America by giving permission to millions of voters who would naturally vote for them except for the cultural and moral divide they feel with Democratic language and policies.”

Wallis warns that political “liberals generally fail to comprehend how deep and fundamental the conviction on ‘the sacredness of human life’ is for millions of Christians, especially Catholics and evangelicals, in forming their view of abortion.” Such “pro-life” Christians may be economic populists, feminists, and even radical on other issues of peace and justice. Wallis decries a political litmus test amongst Democrats that alienated Robert Casey from the opportunity to speak to the party convention in 1992 and 1996, and “virtually forced” Jesse Jackson to change his pro-life views to run for president. Wallis also criticizes the Republicans as too rigid on their pro-life platform, and as not vocal or active enough in efforts to bring down the number of abortions in our country. By contrast, Wallis endorsed the emphasis of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin on a “seamless garment of life” that links the “life issues” of abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, nuclear weapons, poverty, and racism.

Deuteronomy 30:11-20 (King James)

11 “For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it. 15 “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, 16 in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the LORD your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. 17 But if your heart turns away so that you do not hear, and are drawn away, and worship other gods and serve them, 18 I announce to you today that you shall surely perish; you shall not prolong your days in the land which you cross over the Jordan to go in and possess. 19 I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; 20 that you may love the LORD your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days; and that you may dwell in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.”