Insightful Coverage of the “Mosque” Controversy

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

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

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

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

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


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

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




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

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

Listening to A.M. Talk Radio This Past Summer

This past summer our family spent time camping in West Texas and Eastern New Mexico. At times we were in really remote areas where there was no television or internet access. The local newspapers had only local news, and we felt out of touch with what was going on in the rest of the world.

We were in a part of the country with vast expanses of land and a very low population density. We kept trying, but couldn’t ever find an NPR or other news station. Frankly, there were only a few radio stations at all. Finally, my husband and I were so desperate for some non-local news, so we took a break from listening to our children’s audiobooks and music CDs to listen to right wing talk radio on A.M. stations. There were some local talk radio programs, as well as some national programs. Although there was a time in my life when I forced myself to listen to Rush on a regular basis, these days I don’t listen to such programs very much. I was shocked at the extreme and nasty nature of some of what was said in the radio programs we listened to. Particularly I was horrified at a reoccurring theme of hostility towards Muslims, Arabs and South Asians.

First of all I was appalled at the use of a particular term that I heard on these programs: r-- h---. I had never heard the term before, and I am not entirely sure what it is even supposed to mean. But I heard it several times on several different shows, mostly from listeners who called in to share their thoughts with the hosts. From the context, I gather the term is an epithet. Indeed, the hosts did not seem comfortable with its use. They tried to distance themselves from the term when listeners used it. I only heard one host use the term, but he made it clear that he was quoting someone else. That host was also quick to add he did not endorse the use of the term himself.

I found these attitudes of the hosts rather remarkable for two reasons. In other portions of their programs they attacked “political correctness” as a nefarious ploy of the left. The hosts also seemed quite comfortable with pretty vile bigotry against Muslims, Arabs and South Asians in other parts of their programs. The hosts just seemed to draw the line at name calling. I find that curious.

On one local West Texas program, the host was ranting about plans to build a “mosque” on the grounds where the World Trade Center once stood. My husband and I listened to this program months ago. Interestingly, that talk radio rant was actually the first either of us had heard of this proposed construction; it was not yet on the national news. In extremely bitter terms, the host described his utter disgust and deeply felt outrage over the proposed construction. He characterized the proposed “mosque” as an “insult,” a “kick in the gut,” and an “attack” on Americans. He expressed his anger that President Obama would not “stand up” to such Muslim insults. I was appalled when one of his callers later chimed in by stating: “Obama is not black, he is yellow.” The host of that particular program ended his rant by stating in a frankly scary tone that if he went to Manhattan and the “mosque” was there, he would spit on it. I was stunned, disappointed and generally rather creeped out to live in the same country with the folks who participated in this particular talk radio show.

While listening to another program, a listener called in to share insight from a recent experience. He explained he worked at a gas station in Florida, and a British tourist had just told him during his purchase of gas that a Pakistani engineer helped design the BP well that exploded in the Gulf of Mexico last April. The caller stated rather agitatedly that that connection needed to be explored because it was “evidence” that the BP oil spill was a terrorist attack. Oh, my. If I had been the host, I would not have even known where to start with such a comment. Sadly, the program’s host seemed to just encourage the listener’s paranoia and bigoted assumptions.

The hosts of several of the talk radio shows we listened to were really up in arms about Helen Thomas’s then-recent comments expressing hostility towards the state of Israel. Astonishingly, one host noted that her heritage as a Lebanese American was the reason for her attitude. He explained that “her people” hate Jews and it was natural to assume she was brought up in with that same mindset. Wow.

Listening to the bigotry, hostility and paranoia of the hosts and listeners of these A.M. talk radio shows was really eye-opening. Obviously, I live a sheltered life because previously I had never been exposed to such ugly and ignorant statements about Muslims, Arabs and South Asians. Since childhood, I have had friends and acquaintances who fell into these demographics; they are absolutely lovely individuals, for whom I have much admiration and affection.

Moreover, I just cannot fathom someone wanting to spit on a place of worship. Frankly, spitting is just a disgusting habit wherever one does it. But on a place of worship?! I can only imagine how hurt (and threatened) I might feel if someone came to my church and spit on it. I cannot comprehend doing that to another human being.

Finally, I am astounded that gossip from a gas station patron would be taken so seriously, and that the alleged existence of a Pakistani engineer’s involvement would be grounds for a conspiracy theory. There is a reason that hearsay is generally not permitted as evidence in a court of law.

Because our country does not produce enough engineers, we actually have a large number of foreign-born engineers who do important work in our country and make innumerable valuable contributions to our economy. Are we now supposed to assume such engineers are terrorists if they are from Pakistan? What if they are from the U.K.? What about all the doctors and nurses who come to work in the United States from other countries? Should we now fear going for our cholesterol screenings and flu shots due to the specter of foreign-born health workers? Next time I take my kids to the doctor, is it ok if the nurses are from Canada, but I’m supposed to get suspicious if they are from the Philippines? I really don’t follow the logic. Perhaps I need enlightening on this point.

Though bigotry against Muslims, Arabs and South Asians was apparently acceptable to the hosts and listeners of these talk radio shows, I found it interesting that one host and his listeners were so touchy about anti-Semitism. Maybe I’m being simplistic, but I would think if one is fine with bigotry against one group, then bigotry against another would also be viewed as acceptable. Apparently, it doesn’t work like that. The rules of bigotry are very confusing!

Finally, I am horrified that all Lebanese Americans are—at least in some quarters--labeled as anti-Semitic bigots simply because of their heritage. I know many white Southerners (like myself) do not appreciate stereotypes that we are all racist and sympathetic to the Klan. Assuming that anyone of a particular racial or ethnic group is bigoted by virtue of his/her heritage is simply unfair and un-American.

Luke 6:43-45 (New International Version)

No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.
Each tree is recognised by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thorn-bushes, or grapes from briers.
The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.



Mark 9:40 (New King James Version)

For he who is not against us is on our side.

Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara and the Consequences of Structural Injustice

Because of his famous quote mentioned in the prior post, I was curious to know a more about Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara and did a little research.

Câmara is perhaps best known for having written "Spiral of Violence," an influential essay that has been characterized as a work of liberation theology. Câmara wrote the essay in 1971; the Cold War and the Vietnam War provided important context for his views. The essay links structural injustice with escalating rebellion and repressive reaction. In the essay, Câmara praises Gandhi as a prophet. The essay is hopeful; Câmara expresses confidence in the future because of the promise of the world’s youth.

An English translation of "Spiral of Violence" is available at the following link:

http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/general/spiral-of-violence-camara.pdf

In 1973, Câmara was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. In 1975, he won the Pacem in Terris Award, which is a prestigious Catholic honor that has also been bestowed on Dorothy Day, Mother Teresa, Sister Helen Prejean and Lech Walesa, among others.

Psalm 146:7 (New King James Version)

Who executes justice for the oppressed,
Who gives food to the hungry.
The LORD gives freedom to the prisoners.

Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara and the Communist/Socialist Label

At some point, I came across an intriguing quote:

"When I give food to the hungry they call me a saint; when I ask why the poor
are hungry they call me a communist."

The words are attributed to Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara, a Brazilian Roman Catholic priest and archbishop. He lived from 1909 until 1999.

This quote is appealing to me because it describes an old ploy that is unfortunately still being used today to discredit people who raise concerns about structural impediments to justice. I guess with the fall of the Soviet empire twenty years ago, the term “communist” no longer gets thrown around. Now days, they instead throw the term “socialist” at folks who raise structural concerns about economic and/or social justice issues. The term has such a negative connotation in our modern American culture that just labeling someone or some proposal as “socialist” is often enough to make it unpopular. No one wants to be associated with the term because it is toxic and will ensure that most Americans will discount your positions.

It particularly frustrates me when fellow Christians throw out the phrase “socialist” to discredit their brothers and sisters in Christ. I’ve heard conservative Christians refer to more progressive Christ followers as embracing “more of a socialist philosophy” than a “Christian world view” when such progressive Christians advocate ideas like universal health care or rolling back tax cuts for high income taxpayers. The implication seems to be that such ideas are not Christian. It is implied they are inspired by Karl Marx, not Jesus Christ.

This attitude makes no sense to me. I grew up at the end of the Cold War, and witnessed the implosion of the Soviet Bloc as a young adult. I don’t know anyone who seriously thinks a command economy is a feasible or desirable policy alternative. People of my generation saw Marxism as a miserable, failed experiment that has mercifully ended in most parts of the world.

I don’t think anyone can deny that the Bible is full of concern for the poor and other vulnerable members of society. That is a pervasive theme that one just cannot miss with even a casual reading of the text. By contrast, the accumulation of wealth and property was just not a core value of our Lord. Indeed, at his encouragement, Jesus’s followers often sold or left behind their belongings before they joined his ministry. Jesus often warned against the love of money and accumulating material possessions.

Christ also taught us to love and care for one another. Indeed, the early Christians took this teaching so seriously that they lived communally. They pooled their resources and try to provide for all within the Christian community. I myself am certainly not looking to join a Christian commune, but pooling and sharing resources has always been a quintessentially Christian thing to do even if we haven’t always done it to the same (extreme) extent of the early Christians. And of course, Jesus himself astutely noted that some of us have more to contribute to the community’s resources than others.

Job 36:15 (King James)

He delivers the poor in their affliction,
And opens their ears in oppression.



Psalm 10:18 (GOD’S WORD Translation)

In order to provide justice for orphans and oppressed people
so that no mere mortal will terrify them again.



Luke 12:48 (American Standard Version)
And to whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required: and to whom they commit much, of him will they ask the more.



Mark 12:41-44 (Amplified Bible)

And He sat down opposite the treasury and saw how the crowd was casting money into the treasury. Many rich [people] were throwing in large sums.
And a widow who was poverty-stricken came and put in two copper mites [the smallest of coins], which together make half of a cent.
And He called His disciples [to Him] and said to them, Truly and surely I tell you, this widow, [she who is] poverty-stricken, has put in more than all those contributing to the treasury.
For they all threw in out of their abundance; but she, out of her deep poverty, has put in everything that she had--[even] all she had on which to live.

“No Socialism” v. “No Selfishness”

As a follow up to the prior post, another interesting part of the aforementioned Methodist pastor’s sermon on “Peace with Justice Sunday” involved his reality check to the congregation that justice doesn’t come easy. He noted it generally requires sacrifice.

In that context, the pastor described that locally in San Antonio there had recently been a big political debate involving a potential increase in taxes. In response to the controversy, he mentioned that some folks in town had put up signs in their lawns that stated “no new taxes” or “no socialism.” The pastor observed that others in town had responded to such signs by placing their own signs in their lawns: “no selfishness.” Indeed, during our trip, we did notice several of those “no selfishness” signs around town.

I really did not know much about this phenomenon other than the brief mention in the pastor’s sermon. Recently, my mother (an avid newspaper reader) sent me an article about this war of signs the pastor had referenced. I thought it was an interesting article. It is available at the following link:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/community/north_central/signs_of_a_struggle_in_alamo_heights_surrounding_area_98865364.html?showFullArticle=y

Psalm 12:5

“For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, Now I will arise,” says the LORD; “I will set him in the safety for which he yearns.”

Peace with Justice Sunday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sand and Sorrow (2007)

Sand and Sorrow is a documentary detailing the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. Like many crises, we tend to hear about the key events in small chunks via the daily news. But such explanations are often hard to comprehend because we don’t have enough context. We are given such small bits of information at a time that it is hard to process the big picture and make sense of what is happening. Like many documentaries, Sand and Sorrow rectifies this situation by telling the story in a more comprehensive manner, detailing events over many years.

Although this approach is helpful, as with many documentaries, the viewer becomes numb after a while due to the shear scale of the problems and the scope of the human suffering. This numbness is exacerbated in some sense because—unlike Hotel Rwanda and Night—Sand and Sorrow doesn’t focus for any length of time on the plight of particular individuals. The human suffering is less impactful in some respects because it is relayed in generalities. That is not to mean that Sand and Sorrow is a light film. It certainly is not. It is a deeply upsetting film that documents an immense human tragedy.

Several aspects of the film were particularly noteworthy in my opinion. Sand and Sorrow documents the complete collapse of the stability and former social order of the local population. The film describes the Darfur region as an area that had been self-sufficient; it was an agrarian economy founded on a number of small villages. When the genocide began, that economy and social order collapsed. People that had been able to provide for their families were no longer able to do so.

The effects on families were particularly evident in the film. In genocide, even children are not spared. The film describes children being murdered by the Janjaweed and children witnessing the rape and/or murder of their parents and other family members. Families and remnants of families were run off their homes to live in squalid camps where they are lucky to get food and water, but have no opportunity to build a life. The film profiles the art work of children that shows violent images including killings, rapes and bleeding bodies.

The film also describes the systematic rape of women and girls as a tool of the Janjaweed. Brutal gang rapes are terrifying and humiliating in any context. But the film explains that in the culture of Darfur there is a particular devastating effects. Due to previous female genital mutilation rituals, rape is particularly painful. And there is a deep local social stigma to rape. As one interviewee explained, rape was simply unacceptable and it was better for a rape victim to die.

The film interviews a number of high profile individuals. The footage of Elie Wiesel was particularly depressing. He noted honestly that we always vow “never again” when we hear after the fact of genocide, but in truth genocide does happen again over and over. Sand and Sorrow at times explores why this happens.

The film focuses on the failure of the American media (particularly television) to pay attention to genocide, and to instead focus on celebrities. Because of media inattention to genocide, there is little public outcry and little resulting political pressure for governmental action. Sand and Sorrow focuses on Nicolas Kristoff of the New York Times, who broke the story of the Darfur genocide. The film emphasizes the importance of investigative journalists in leaving studios to speak to regular people rather than media pundits.

Sand and Sorrow also focuses on international political realities that contributed to the suffering in Darfur. China and Russia have protected the Sudanese government at the UN, and other member states frankly have not wanted to do anything. Moreover, the film spotlights the ties between the Sudanese government and the CIA in the post-9/11 era. The film charges that the United States has not wanted to get involved because of the intelligence benefits it has received from the Sudanese government. As a result, President Bush declared the situation in Darfur to be “genocide,” but then consistently failed to speak publicly about the tragedy.

The film tries to provide some hope for a seemingly hopeless situation. It spotlights grassroots movements in high schools, colleges and churches where concerned Americans protest passionately and try to call attention to the suffering. The film encourages more such outcries as the only way to prompt politicians to act.

Proverbs 31:8-9 (The Message)

"Speak up for the people who have no voice,
for the rights of all the down-and-outers.
Speak out for justice!
Stand up for the poor and destitute!"