Blue Christian on a Red Background

Getting Back on the Bus: "Who Do You Say that I Am?"

2011-04-22T15:28:00.008-05:00

Christ's death on a day with the most post-modern name I know of -- "Good Friday" -- is the summation of tragedy, the sucking of meaning from the world. After he is dead, the rest of us move on. But can we move on? How have we been affected? His death as well as his life speak to our own guilt. Open your eyes and look upon Him you -- you and I -- have pierced with our transgressions. His miracles, his Presence, His Love, His washing of our feet -- none of it was enough. We did as He knew we would do and demanded, then obtained, His Death. What came next had not yet happened, and for some of us has not yet happened now. Still, we seek to crucify Him.

John Chapter 19 (New Revised Standard Version)

1 Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged.

2 And the soldiers wove a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and they dressed him in a purple robe. 3 They kept coming up to him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" and striking him on the face.

4 Pilate went out again and said to them, "Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no case against him." 5 So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, "Here is the man!" 6 When the chief priests and the police saw him, they shouted, "Crucify him! Crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and crucify him; I find no case against him."

7 The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has claimed to be the Son of God." 8 Now when Pilate heard this, he was more afraid than ever. 9 He entered his headquarters again and asked Jesus, "Where are you from?" But Jesus gave him no answer.

10 Pilate therefore said to him, "Do you refuse to speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?" 11 Jesus answered him, "You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."

12 From then on Pilate tried to release him, but the Jews cried out, "If you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor. Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against the emperor." 13 When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus outside and sat on the judge's bench at a place called The Stone Pavement, or in Hebrew Gabbatha.

14 Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon. He said to the Jews, "Here is your King!" 15 They cried out, "Away with him! Away with him! Crucify him!" Pilate asked them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but the emperor."

16 Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.

So they took Jesus; 17 and carrying the cross by himself, he went out to what is called The Place of the Skull, which in Hebrew is called Golgotha. 18 There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, with Jesus between them. 19 Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." 20 Many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek. 21 Then the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, "Do not write, "The King of the Jews,' but, "This man said, I am King of the Jews.' " 22 Pilate answered, "What I have written I have written."

23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four parts, one for each soldier. They also took his tunic; now the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top. 24 So they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see who will get it." This was to fulfill what the scripture says, "They divided my clothes among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots." 25 And that is what the soldiers did.

Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, "Woman, here is your son." 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Here is your mother." And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.

28 After this, when Jesus knew that all was now finished, he said (in order to fulfill the scripture), "I am thirsty." 29 A jar full of sour wine was standing there. So they put a sponge full of the wine on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth. 30 When Jesus had received the wine, he said, "It is finished." Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

31 Since it was the day of Preparation, the Jews did not want the bodies left on the cross during the sabbath, especially because that sabbath was a day of great solemnity. So they asked Pilate to have the legs of the crucified men broken and the bodies removed. 32 Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out. 35 (He who saw this has testified so that you also may believe. His testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth.) 36 These things occurred so that the scripture might be fulfilled, "None of his bones shall be broken." 37 And again another passage of scripture says, "They will look on the one whom they have pierced."

38 After these things, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, though a secret one because of his fear of the Jews, asked Pilate to let him take away the body of Jesus. Pilate gave him permission; so he came and removed his body. 39 Nicodemus, who had at first come to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds. 40 They took the body of Jesus and wrapped it with the spices in linen cloths, according to the burial custom of the Jews.

41 Now there was a garden in the place where he was crucified, and in the garden there was a new tomb in which no one had ever been laid. 42 And so, because it was the Jewish day of Preparation, and the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.

Songs for Lent #19: Andy McCarroll & Moral Support's "How the Kids Are Feelin'"

2011-04-21T15:58:00.006-05:00

One of the premier Christian punk bands of the early 80s, Moral Support offered a Clashesque sound and highly articulate lyrics. This song reminds me that I must not get lost in my own sense of mortality, but should rather focus on "How the Kids Are Feelin'." Which reminds me that this hunger for reality, for meaning, starts very early. Lord, help me be ready to offer You, the Bread of Life, to the young (and their parents).

Songs for Lent #17 and #18: Mind Garage (1967) "Processional" and "Our Father" from "Electric Liturgy"

2011-04-21T14:44:00.003-05:00

My love of psychedelic rock is fully met in this wonderful early, early example of faith meets amplification by the Mind Garage. The first song is a prayer...

And for perhaps *the* prayer, there's always "Our Father":

Songs for Lent #16: Soundtrack for Godspell's "By My Side"

2011-04-21T10:36:00.004-05:00

In contrast to the "interested agnosticism" of Jesus Christ Superstar, Godspell borrowed heavily from Anglican hymnody for its message. Ambiguous at points, sure... but faithful. "By My Side" is to me the most haunting of Godspell's songs, and upon relistening to it I sense its heavy message of community -- we walk together through a life of light and shadows. In the movie, Judas' betrayal is announced during this song, and that makes the community message all the more poignant. "By My Side" is, in the end, a song of adventure... and a song of discipleship.

Dear Jesus, thank You for my sisters and brothers, who share my sorrows, failures, joys, and successes, giving my walk with You additional meaning. I am blessed to have them... in You.

Godspell - "By My Side"

Where are you going?
Where are you going?
Can you take me with you?
For my hand is cold
And needs warmth
Where are you going?

Far beyond where the horizon lies
Where the horizon lies
And the land sinks into mellow blueness
Oh please, take me with you

Let me skip the road with you
I can dare myself
I can dare myself
I'll put a pebble in my shoe
And watch me walk (watch me walk)
I can walk and walk!
(I can walk!)

I shall call the pebble Dare
I shall call the pebble Dare
We will talk, we will talk together
We will talk (chorus) about walking
Dare shall be carried
And when we both have had enough
I will take him from my shoe, singing:
"Meet your new road!"
Then I'll take your hand
Finally glad
Finally glad
That you are here
By my side

By my side
By my side
By my side

Songs for Lent #15: Soundtrack for Jesus Christ Superstar's "Superstar"

2011-04-21T10:09:00.005-05:00

Jesus Christ Superstar (the LP) was for me as a young man a weapon to use against my Christian friend. I played it whenever he came over. It seemed to me an overtly agnostic, angry take on the Gospel Story. Over the years, however, as I've moved deeper in my own acceptance of the New Testament's narrative, Jesus Christ Superstar seems to me one of the most honest (and also contemporary, therefore immediate) tellings of that story.

Lord, help me not to be afraid to face my own doubts and fears about my faith in you. Help me to remember the agnosticism -- and also the anguish -- with which I initially faced You. Help me never to make of the Gospel Story a Hallmark Cardish, "Precious Moments" sort of narrative. Help me to know your humanity and your suffering every bit as much as I trust in and rely on your Godhood. Help me to remember what it is like to yearn to love you, yet be blocked from you by my own doubts, to indeed be asking "Who are you what have you sacrificed?" Give me compassion for others who likewise struggle in that way. Thank you for faith. Thank you for doubt, especially doubt when it is asking the right and most vitally central questions.

Voice of Judas
Every time I look at you
I don't understand
Why you let the things you did
Get so out of hand
You'd have managed better
If you'd had it planned
Now why'd you choose such a backward time
And such a strange land?

If you'd come today
You could have reached the whole nation
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication
Don't you get me wrong
Don't you get me wrong
Don't you get me wrong, now
Don't you get me wrong
Don't you get me wrong
Don't you get me wrong
Don't you get me wrong, now
Don't you get me wrong

Only want to know
Only want to know
Only want to know, now
Only want to know
Only want to know
Only want to know
Only want to know, now
Only want to know

Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ
Who are you? What have you sacrificed?
Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ
Who are you? What have you sacrificed?
Jesus Christ
Superstar
Do you think you're what they say you are?
Jesus Christ
Superstar
Do you think you're what they say you are?

Tell me what you think
About your friends at the top
Now who d'you think besides yourself
Was the pick of the crop?
Buddah was he where it's at?
Is he where you are?
Could Muhammmed move a mountain
Or was that just PR?
Did you mean to die like that?
Was that a mistake or
Did you know your messy death
Would be a record breaker?

Don't you get me wrong Don't you get me wrong
Don't you get me wrong, now Don't you get me wrong
Don't you get me wrong Don't you get me wrong
Don't you get me wrong, now Don't you get me wrong

Only want to know Only want to know
Only want to know, now Only want to know
Only want to know Only want to know
Only want to know, now I only want to know

Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ
Who are you? What have you sacrificed?
Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ
Who are you? What have you sacrificed?
Jesus Christ
Superstar
Do you think you're what they say you are?
Jesus Christ
Superstar
Do you think you're what they say you are?

Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ
Who are you? What have you sacrificed?
Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ
Who are you? What have you sacrificed?
Jesus Christ
Superstar
Do you think you're what they say you are?
Jesus Christ
Superstar
Do you think you're what they say you are?

Songs for Lent #14: Jamie Owens-Collins "I've Never Had to Go This Far Before"

2011-04-21T08:58:00.005-05:00

Jamie Owens Collins is far off my musical radar (I don't normally "do" ccm), but deeply touched my wife long ago at a moment when the ministry Carol was part of unexpectedly fell apart. Carol would sit with headphones on listening to Jamie's "Growing Pains" LP, and the music helped her slowly rise out of her depression. "I've Never Had to Go This Far Before" is a prayer for those struggling with unexpected downturns in their lives.

Songs for Lent #13: Gavin Bryars and unnamed hobo's "Jesus' Blood Never Failed Me Yet"

2011-04-21T01:00:00.000-05:00

This strange song came about, legend says, when a short recording of a hobo's singing accidentally got "looped" by musician Gavin Bryars -- who then realized he'd stumbled onto something lovely. Various recordings of this, including one with Tom Waits dueting with the hobo's vocal, have been done.

Prayer: Let me love you, Lord, as the very poor and homeless love you.

Gavin Bryars and unnamed hobo:
Jesus' Blood Never Failed Me Yet

Jesus' blood never failed me yet
Never failed me yet
Jesus' blood never failed me yet
There's one thing I know
For he loves me so

Jesus' blood never failed me
Never failed me yet
Never failed me yet
One thing I know
For he loves me so

Songs for Lent #12: Billie Holliday's "Strange Fruit"

2011-04-20T19:04:00.007-05:00

Billie Holliday sings a crucifixion song. Prayer: silence.

Billie Holliday: Strange Fruit

Southern trees bear strange fruit,
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
Black body swinging in the Southern breeze,
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.

Pastoral scene of the gallant South,
The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,
Scent of magnolia sweet and fresh,
Then the sudden smell of burning flesh!

Here is fruit for the crows to pluck,
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,
For the sun to rot, for the tree to drop,
Here is a strange and bitter crop.

Songs for Lent #10 and #11: Paul Robeson and Odetta "Motherless Child"

2011-04-20T10:41:00.005-05:00

This song has, since the first time I heard it (Paul Robeson singing), haunted me. Rooted of course in the black slave experience, it speaks universally to human suffering and sadness and loss. Lord, help me to cling to you in those moments I realize there is an end to myself, an inability for me to travel on from the place I'm at. Help me to rely on your strength, and the strength of those you've given me to love me, and to abide in you at the moments of absolute weariness.

Paul Robeson:

Odetta (w/ interesting European Jesus movie clips):

Despair's End

2011-04-16T20:50:00.002-05:00

Another lyrical outing...

Despair's End

Jesus you are my floor
You are my walls
And you are my door
You are my windows
And you are my room
You are my stairway
You are my house
And the rock it sits on

Don't matter, boy... let the tears run out and down
I've nowhere else I need to be hide your head against me
Let the sorrows you feel be our shared companion
I'd gently remind you that there's nowhere I'd rather be

Jesus you are my eyes
You are my ears
And you are my sighs
You are my screams
And you are my words
Past this despairing
You are my dry lips
And you are my everything

Jesus you are my sorrow
You hold my despair
And you are my Savior
I'm in your tender care
You are my Beloved
My faithful wounding friend
You hold my broken soul
Here at despair's end

Songs for Lent #9: Staples Singers' "Why Am I Treated So Bad?"

2011-04-15T15:17:00.006-05:00

This song might seem like a self-pitying whine... but I don't think so. Sometimes a Christian really does feel beat down by his/her fellow believers... and sometimes he/she feels beat down by non-believing relatives or acquaintances. For sure, getting beat down does seem to be part of the Christian's job description. As the old preacher says, if you don't encounter resistance in your walk with Jesus, you probably aren't walking with Jesus!

Lord, help me to keep my eyes on you not on me. Help me to know the difference between whining and real persecution. And help me respond in Christ-like love no matter what. And Lord, help me answer the question "Why Am I Treated So Bad?" with the response, "Because you were... and I'm just trying to follow in your foot steps!"

By the way... aren't the Staples Singers just amazing?

Staples Singers - "Why Am I Treated So Bad"

Why, am I treated so bad?
Why, am I treated so bad?
You know I'm all alone as I sing this song,
Hear my call, I've done nobody wrong
But I'm treated so bad

I'm gonna walk out in the Master's name
Things I do, they seem to be in vain
You may be blind, you may be lame,
walk on out in the Master's name
Though you treaed so bad

Ooh ooh ooh ooooooh
Ooh ooh ooh oooooooh
oooh ooh ooh oooooh ooh ooh oohhh
you may be blind, you may be lame
walk on out in the Master's name
Though you treated so bad

Songs for Lent #8: Thompson Community Singers' "It's Gonna Rain"

2011-04-15T14:53:00.004-05:00

The first time our own now-disbanded gospel choir, Grace & Glory, did this song I got absolute goosebumps. My wife and I, in a move that might have seemed odd to some, had G & G members do the song for our wedding. Strange to hear a joyful song about impending judgement, but there it is. And I don't think the emotions are misplaced. Lord, help me to "get on in this house" -- among your people -- so that I am not as vulnerable to my own stormy inner world or to the fiery rain of temptations which face me from outside directions. Help me find you among yours so I can tell those not yet yours about you... and find shelter.

Thompson Community Singers (Milton Brunson) - "It's Gonna Rain"

Sopranos:
Can't you see the clouds gathering?

Altos:
Don't let it be said too late.

Tenors:
There's a brand new feeling in the air.

Baritones:
Better run to the ark, before the rain starts.

Chorus:
(You better come on in this house),
(it's gonna rain), it's gonna rain.

(Rain down fire),
(it's gonna rain), come on in this house.

(Come on in this house),
(it's gonna rain), it's gonna rain.

(Rain down fire),
(it's gonna rain), come on in this house.

(Doors have been) opened wide open,
just call His name, don't wait too late
because it's gonna rain.

Vamp:
Come on follow me,
it's gonna rain.

Ending:
(Doors have been) opened wide open,
just call His name, don't wait too late
because it's gonna rain.

Terry Jones Demands Retribution for U.N. Deaths... that His Actions Triggered

2011-04-15T09:50:00.001-05:00

Floridian Terry Jones calls himself a Christian pastor, but his actions in "trying" by jury (a jury made up of his own fundie congregation) and then burning a Qu'ran this March 20th in Gainesville were certainly satanic and had satanic results. Twelve people at a U.N. compound in Afghanistan died when a mob rioted over news of Jones' actions.

Now Jones demands retribution against Islamic countries for what happened to these twelve people.

Sorry, buddy. There's blood on your hands. Nothing will get it off. You grossly misrepresent Jesus Christ -- in fact, you do not represent Jesus Christ. You represent your own false gawd. "By their fruits you shall know them." We now know you.

Terry Jones Demands Retribution for U.N. Deaths - NYTimes.com

What Is Cornerstone Community Outreach?

2011-04-14T10:08:00.004-05:00

This ten minute introduction to Cornerstone Community Outreach offers an encouraging response to homelessness in Chicago... CCO is always looking for partners in empowering and equipping those who are on the margins of society. I'm a member of the intentional community (Jesus People USA) responsible for CCO's existence and outreach.

cco - cornerstone community outreach

For more on CCO's Outreaches, including ways you can help, see: http://ccolife.org

Strive4More: A Long-Distance Runner Ultra-marathons for CCO Shelters

2011-04-14T09:43:00.003-05:00

Patrick “Paddy” McCormack is running 240 miles in 8 days. Why? There are over 80,000 homeless in Chicago. Half of those are families, and over 28,000 are homeless children. His goal is to increase awareness about the needs of the homeless, and to raise support on behalf of Cornerstone Community Outreach.

strive 4 more

For more info on Cornerstone Community Outreach and their work with homeless kids and families in Uptown Chicago, see: http://ccolife.org

Appeal for Help Improving Homeless Kids' Playground at CCO Shelter

2011-04-14T09:33:00.004-05:00

Hey, here's something we can actually DO rather than just be bummed about... Cornerstone Community Outreach needs help improving the rooftop playground for the homeless kids CCO serves. Want to help?

For more on CCO's overall outreach, see: http://ccolife.org.

Songs for Lent #7: Bjork's "All Is Full of Love"

2011-04-14T00:04:00.005-05:00

I'm a sucker for Bjork. And for an old metal head, that's something. "All Is Full of Love" may seem too ambiguous, too "easy" as far as theological truth goes. I'm not saying such a critique is totally off-mark. But for me, that ambiguity is something to not be afraid of. Love is larger than we imagine. God's love exalts us, breaks our hearts, seems hidden from us more often than not. Or maybe we're -- at least I'm -- blind to it? "You just ain't receiving." Lord, let me see your love shining through others, through this creation, through... myself. Let me allow it to do so.

By the way, I hate the high-production techno-robot themed video done for this song, which seems to me to nearly completely undermine the song's message. This live version, which quite appropriately takes place in a church, is far nicer.

Bjork - "All Is Full of Love"

You'll be given love
You'll be taken care of
You'll be given love
You have to trust it

Maybe not from the sources
You have poured yours
Maybe not from the directions
You are staring at

Trust your head around
It's all around you
All is full of love
All around you

All is full of love
You just ain't receiving
All is full of love
Your phone is off the hook
All is full of love
Your doors are all shut
All is full of love!

All is full of love
All is full of love
All is full of love
All is full of love
All is full of love

Songs for Lent #6: Adam Again's "I Mean Every Word I Say"

2011-04-13T22:19:00.003-05:00

"I Mean Every Word I Say" is raw truth, as we used to say in the old days of Cornerstone magazine. This clip is from the other Cornerstone -- Cornerstone Festival back in 1992. I think the song is its own sermon and prayer rolled into one. "If you tell me you love me / It had better be the truth." Who's saying that... Jesus? An unbeliever? A fellow believer who's in deep trouble and desperate for some compassionate honesty and comfort?

[To hear the studio version with better sound, here.]

Everybody is talking, many words are spoken
And they're telling me things they think I wanna hear
Enough is enough it's time to get serious
If you tell me you love me
Well it better be the truth

I mean every word I say

Well I know that the things that we say are sometimes automatic
We just follow a script like a character reading his lines
Enough is enough it's time to get serious
And if you talk about love
Know the meaning of the word

I mean every word I say

From my heart to my head
From my head to my mouth
Can the words cross the air between us
Oh, and be true?

I mean every word I say

Barack Obama's Federal Deficit Speech: One More Reason I Appreciate this President

2011-04-13T17:31:00.007-05:00

At risk of being flamed by many of my more conservative Christian brothers and sisters, I thought President Obama's speech on government budget reductions was yet another of his wonderful "teaching moments." I also appreciated his balanced approach regarding the deep subtext in American politics -- what he views as two basic visions re the role of government. He does not dismiss either wholly, but it is apparent that he (as do I) lean toward the idea of governance as expressing our social contract with one another.

Thus the name of his speech -- "The Country We Believe In: Improving America's Fiscal Future." No matter what one's politics, this is another speech with content worth hearing and discussing at home, work, and play. Or here, if folks would like!

Both video and text of "The Country We Believe In" below:

The Country We Believe In
The George Washington University
Washington, DC
April 13, 2011

As Prepared for Delivery—

Good afternoon. It’s great to be back at GW. I want you to know that one of the reasons I kept the government open was so I could be here today with all of you. I wanted to make sure you had one more excuse to skip class. You’re welcome.

Of course, what we’ve been debating here in Washington for the last few weeks will affect your lives in ways that are potentially profound. This debate over budgets and deficits is about more than just numbers on a page, more than just cutting and spending. It’s about the kind of future we want. It’s about the kind of country we believe in. And that’s what I want to talk about today.

From our first days as a nation, we have put our faith in free markets and free enterprise as the engine of America’s wealth and prosperity. More than citizens of any other country, we are rugged individualists, a self-reliant people with a healthy skepticism of too much government.

But there has always been another thread running throughout our history – a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We believe, in the words of our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. And so we’ve built a strong military to keep us secure, and public schools and universities to educate our citizens. We’ve laid down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. We’ve supported the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire industries. Each of us has benefitted from these investments, and we are a more prosperous country as a result.

Part of this American belief that we are all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff, may strike any one of us. “There but for the grace of God go I,” we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities. We are a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments.

For much of the last century, our nation found a way to afford these investments and priorities with the taxes paid by its citizens. As a country that values fairness, wealthier individuals have traditionally born a greater share of this burden than the middle class or those less fortunate. This is not because we begrudge those who’ve done well – we rightly celebrate their success. Rather, it is a basic reflection of our belief that those who have benefitted most from our way of life can afford to give a bit more back. Moreover, this belief has not hindered the success of those at the top of the income scale, who continue to do better and better with each passing year.

Now, at certain times – particularly during periods of war or recession – our nation has had to borrow money to pay for some of our priorities. And as most families understand, a little credit card debt isn’t going to hurt if it’s temporary.

But as far back as the 1980s, America started amassing debt at more alarming levels, and our leaders began to realize that a larger challenge was on the horizon. They knew that eventually, the Baby Boom generation would retire, which meant a much bigger portion of our citizens would be relying on programs like Medicare, Social Security, and possibly Medicaid. Like parents with young children who know they have to start saving for the college years, America had to start borrowing less and saving more to prepare for the retirement of an entire generation.

To meet this challenge, our leaders came together three times during the 1990s to reduce our nation’s deficit. They forged historic agreements that required tough decisions made by the first President Bush and President Clinton; by Democratic Congresses and a Republican Congress. All three agreements asked for shared responsibility and shared sacrifice, but they largely protected the middle class, our commitments to seniors, and key investments in our future.

As a result of these bipartisan efforts, America’s finances were in great shape by the year 2000. We went from deficit to surplus. America was actually on track to becoming completely debt-free, and we were prepared for the retirement of the Baby Boomers.

But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program – but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts – tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.

To give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our national checkbook, consider this: in the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years.

Of course, that’s not what happened. And so, by the time I took office, we once again found ourselves deeply in debt and unprepared for a Baby Boom retirement that is now starting to take place. When I took office, our projected deficit was more than $1 trillion. On top of that, we faced a terrible financial crisis and a recession that, like most recessions, led us to temporarily borrow even more. In this case, we took a series of emergency steps that saved millions of jobs, kept credit flowing, and provided working families extra money in their pockets. It was the right thing to do, but these steps were expensive, and added to our deficits in the short term.

So that’s how our fiscal challenge was created. This is how we got here. And now that our economic recovery is gaining strength, Democrats and Republicans must come together and restore the fiscal responsibility that served us so well in the 1990s. We have to live within our means, reduce our deficit, and get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt. And we have to do it in a way that protects the recovery, and protects the investments we need to grow, create jobs, and win the future.

Now, before I get into how we can achieve this goal, some of you might be wondering, “Why is this so important? Why does this matter to me?”

Here’s why. Even after our economy recovers, our government will still be on track to spend more money than it takes in throughout this decade and beyond. That means we’ll have to keep borrowing more from countries like China. And that means more of your tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on all the loans we keep taking out. By the end of this decade, the interest we owe on our debt could rise to nearly $1 trillion. Just the interest payments.

Then, as the Baby Boomers start to retire and health care costs continue to rise, the situation will get even worse. By 2025, the amount of taxes we currently pay will only be enough to finance our health care programs, Social Security, and the interest we owe on our debt. That’s it. Every other national priority – education, transportation, even national security – will have to be paid for with borrowed money.

Ultimately, all this rising debt will cost us jobs and damage our economy. It will prevent us from making the investments we need to win the future. We won’t be able to afford good schools, new research, or the repair of roads and bridges – all the things that will create new jobs and businesses here in America. Businesses will be less likely to invest and open up shop in a country that seems unwilling or unable to balance its books. And if our creditors start worrying that we may be unable to pay back our debts, it could drive up interest rates for everyone who borrows money – making it harder for businesses to expand and hire, or families to take out a mortgage.

The good news is, this doesn’t have to be our future. This doesn’t have to be the country we leave to our children. We can solve this problem. We came together as Democrats and Republicans to meet this challenge before, and we can do it again.

But that starts by being honest about what’s causing our deficit. You see, most Americans tend to dislike government spending in the abstract, but they like the stuff it buys. Most of us, regardless of party affiliation, believe that we should have a strong military and a strong defense. Most Americans believe we should invest in education and medical research. Most Americans think we should protect commitments like Social Security and Medicare. And without even looking at a poll, my finely honed political skills tell me that almost no one believes they should be paying higher taxes.

Because all this spending is popular with both Republicans and Democrats alike, and because nobody wants to pay higher taxes, politicians are often eager to feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse –that tackling the deficit issue won’t require tough choices. Or they suggest that we can somehow close our entire deficit by eliminating things like foreign aid, even though foreign aid makes up about 1% of our entire budget.

So here’s the truth. Around two-thirds of our budget is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and national security. Programs like unemployment insurance, student loans, veterans’ benefits, and tax credits for working families take up another 20%. What’s left, after interest on the debt, is just 12 percent for everything else. That’s 12 percent for all of our other national priorities like education and clean energy; medical research and transportation; food safety and keeping our air and water clean.

Up until now, the cuts proposed by a lot of folks in Washington have focused almost exclusively on that 12%. But cuts to that 12% alone won’t solve the problem. So any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table, and take on excess spending wherever it exists in the budget. A serious plan doesn’t require us to balance our budget overnight – in fact, economists think that with the economy just starting to grow again, we will need a phased-in approach – but it does require tough decisions and support from leaders in both parties. And above all, it will require us to choose a vision of the America we want to see five and ten and twenty years down the road.

One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party’s presidential candidates. It’s a plan that aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years, and one that addresses the challenge of Medicare and Medicaid in the years after that.

Those are both worthy goals for us to achieve. But the way this plan achieves those goals would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known throughout most of our history.

A 70% cut to clean energy. A 25% cut in education. A 30% cut in transportation. Cuts in college Pell Grants that will grow to more than $1,000 per year. That’s what they’re proposing. These aren’t the kind of cuts you make when you’re trying to get rid of some waste or find extra savings in the budget. These aren’t the kind of cuts that Republicans and Democrats on the Fiscal Commission proposed. These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can’t afford the America we believe in. And they paint a vision of our future that’s deeply pessimistic.

It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them. If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can’t afford to send them. Go to China and you’ll see businesses opening research labs and solar facilities. South Korean children are outpacing our kids in math and science. Brazil is investing billions in new infrastructure and can run half their cars not on high-priced gasoline, but biofuels. And yet, we are presented with a vision that says the United States of America – the greatest nation on Earth – can’t afford any of this.

It’s a vision that says America can’t afford to keep the promise we’ve made to care for our seniors. It says that ten years from now, if you’re a 65 year old who’s eligible for Medicare, you should have to pay nearly $6,400 more than you would today. It says instead of guaranteed health care, you will get a voucher. And if that voucher isn’t worth enough to buy insurance, tough luck – you’re on your own. Put simply, it ends Medicare as we know it.

This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves.

Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can’t afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can’t afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. Think about it. In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working Americans actually declined. The top 1% saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. And that’s who needs to pay less taxes? They want to give people like me a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut that’s paid for by asking thirty three seniors to each pay six thousand dollars more in health costs? That’s not right, and it’s not going to happen as long as I’m President.

The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. As Ronald Reagan’s own budget director said, there’s nothing “serious” or “courageous” about this plan. There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill. And this is not a vision of the America I know.

The America I know is generous and compassionate; a land of opportunity and optimism. We take responsibility for ourselves and each other; for the country we want and the future we share. We are the nation that built a railroad across a continent and brought light to communities shrouded in darkness. We sent a generation to college on the GI bill and saved millions of seniors from poverty with Social Security and Medicare. We have led the world in scientific research and technological breakthroughs that have transformed millions of lives.

This is who we are. This is the America I know. We don’t have to choose between a future of spiraling debt and one where we forfeit investments in our people and our country. To meet our fiscal challenge, we will need to make reforms. We will all need to make sacrifices. But we do not have to sacrifice the America we believe in. And as long as I’m President, we won’t.

Today, I’m proposing a more balanced approach to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over twelve years. It’s an approach that borrows from the recommendations of the bipartisan Fiscal Commission I appointed last year, and builds on the roughly $1 trillion in deficit reduction I already proposed in my 2012 budget. It’s an approach that puts every kind of spending on the table, but one that protects the middle-class, our promise to seniors, and our investments in the future.

The first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week – a step that will save us about $750 billion over twelve years. We will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in programs I care about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments we need to grow and create jobs. We’ll invest in medical research and clean energy technology. We’ll invest in new roads and airports and broadband access. We will invest in education and job training. We will do what we need to compete and we will win the future.

The second step in our approach is to find additional savings in our defense budget. As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than protecting our national security, and I will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America’s interests around the world. But as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, has said, the greatest long-term threat to America’s national security is America’s debt.

Just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense. Over the last two years, Secretary Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. I believe we can do that again. We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but conduct a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world. I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it’s complete.

The third step in our approach is to further reduce health care spending in our budget. Here, the difference with the House Republican plan could not be clearer: their plan lowers the government’s health care bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead. Our approach lowers the government’s health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself.

Already, the reforms we passed in the health care law will reduce our deficit by $1 trillion. My approach would build on these reforms. We will reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments. We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare’s purchasing power to drive greater efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market. We will work with governors of both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid. We will change the way we pay for health care – not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. And we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need.

Now, we believe the reforms we’ve proposed to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid will enable us to keep these commitments to our citizens while saving us $500 billion by 2023, and an additional one trillion dollars in the decade after that. And if we’re wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect, this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare.

But let me be absolutely clear: I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs. I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations.

That includes, by the way, our commitment to Social Security. While Social Security is not the cause of our deficit, it faces real long-term challenges in a country that is growing older. As I said in the State of the Union, both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.

The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code. In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again.

Beyond that, the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions. And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, like homeownership or charitable giving, we cannot ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 while doing nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn’t itemize.

My budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2% of Americans – a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over ten years. But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further. That’s why I’m calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple – so that the amount of taxes you pay isn’t determined by what kind of accountant you can afford. I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the Fiscal Commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures so that there is enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit. And as I called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive.

This is my approach to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next twelve years. It’s an approach that achieves about $2 trillion in spending cuts across the budget. It will lower our interest payments on the debt by $1 trillion. It calls for tax reform to cut about $1 trillion in spending from the tax code. And it achieves these goals while protecting the middle class, our commitment to seniors, and our investments in the future.

In the coming years, if the recovery speeds up and our economy grows faster than our current projections, we can make even greater progress than I have pledged here. But just to hold Washington – and me – accountable and make sure that the debt burden continues to decline, my plan includes a debt failsafe. If, by 2014, our debt is not projected to fall as a share of the economy – or if Congress has failed to act – my plan will require us to come together and make up the additional savings with more spending cuts and more spending reductions in the tax code. That should be an incentive for us to act boldly now, instead of kicking our problems further down the road.

So this is our vision for America – a vision where we live within our means while still investing in our future; where everyone makes sacrifices but no one bears all the burden; where we provide a basic measure of security for our citizens and rising opportunity for our children.

Of course, there will be those who disagree with my approach. Some will argue we shouldn’t even consider raising taxes, even if only on the wealthiest Americans. It’s just an article of faith for them. I say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more. I don’t need another tax cut. Warren Buffett doesn’t need another tax cut. Not if we have to pay for it by making seniors pay more for Medicare. Or by cutting kids from Head Start. Or by taking away college scholarships that I wouldn’t be here without. That some of you wouldn’t be here without. And I believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me. They want to give back to the country that’s done so much for them. Washington just hasn’t asked them to.

Others will say that we shouldn’t even talk about cutting spending until the economy is fully recovered. I’m sympathetic to this view, which is one of the reasons I supported the payroll tax cuts we passed in December. It’s also why we have to use a scalpel and not a machete to reduce the deficit – so that we can keep making the investments that create jobs. But doing nothing on the deficit is just not an option. Our debt has grown so large that we could do real damage to the economy if we don’t begin a process now to get our fiscal house in order.

Finally, there are those who believe we shouldn’t make any reforms to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security out of a fear that any talk of change to these programs will usher in the sort of radical steps that House Republicans have proposed. I understand these fears. But I guarantee that if we don’t make any changes at all, we won’t be able to keep our commitments to a retiring generation that will live longer and face higher health care costs than those who came before.

Indeed, to those in my own party, I say that if we truly believe in a progressive vision of our society, we have the obligation to prove that we can afford our commitments. If we believe that government can make a difference in people’s lives, we have the obligation to prove that it works – by making government smarter, leaner and more effective.

Of course, there are those who will simply say that there’s no way we can come together and agree on a solution to this challenge. They’ll say the politics of this city are just too broken; that the choices are just too hard; that the parties are just too far apart. And after a few years in this job, I certainly have some sympathy for this view.

But I also know that we’ve come together and met big challenges before. Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill came together to save Social Security for future generations. The first President Bush and a Democratic Congress came together to reduce the deficit. President Clinton and a Republican Congress battled each other ferociously and still found a way to balance the budget. In the last few months, both parties have come together to pass historic tax relief and spending cuts. And I know there are Republicans and Democrats in Congress who want to see a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

I believe we can and must come together again. This morning, I met with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress to discuss the approach I laid out today. And in early May, the Vice President will begin regular meetings with leaders in both parties with the aim of reaching a final agreement on a plan to reduce the deficit by the end of June.

I don’t expect the details in any final agreement to look exactly like the approach I laid out today. I’m eager to hear other ideas from all ends of the political spectrum. And though I’m sure the criticism of what I’ve said here today will be fierce in some quarters, and my critique of the House Republican approach has been strong, Americans deserve and will demand that we all bridge our differences, and find common ground.

This larger debate we’re having, about the size and role of government, has been with us since our founding days. And during moments of great challenge and change, like the one we’re living through now, the debate gets sharper and more vigorous. That’s a good thing. As a country that prizes both our individual freedom and our obligations to one another, this is one of the most important debates we can have.

But no matter what we argue or where we stand, we’ve always held certain beliefs as Americans. We believe that in order to preserve our own freedoms and pursue our own happiness, we can’t just think about ourselves. We have to think about the country that made those liberties possible. We have to think about our fellow citizens with whom we share a community. And we have to think about what’s required to preserve the American Dream for future generations.

This sense of responsibility – to each other and to our country – this isn’t a partisan feeling. It isn’t a Democratic or Republican idea. It’s patriotism.

The other day I received a letter from a man in Florida. He started off by telling me he didn’t vote for me and he hasn’t always agreed with me. But even though he’s worried about our economy and the state of our politics, he said,

“I still believe. I believe in that great country that my grandfather told me about. I believe that somewhere lost in this quagmire of petty bickering on every news station, the ‘American Dream’ is still alive…

We need to use our dollars here rebuilding, refurbishing and restoring all that our ancestors struggled to create and maintain…We as a people must do this together, no matter the color of the state one comes from or the side of the aisle one might sit on.”

I still believe as well. And I know that if we can come together, and uphold our responsibilities to one another and to this larger enterprise that is America, we will keep the dream of our founding alive in our time, and pass on to our children the country we believe in. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

Songs for Lent #5: Rez Band's "Someone Sleeps Tonight"

2011-04-12T14:59:00.003-05:00

For a band living in an intentional Evangelical community called Jesus People USA, this song is peculiarly non-Evangelical, even non-American in its political outlook. As a lyricist, I was honored to be part of the team that wrote this. Today, its final lines are the ones I cannot forget. Lord, please... help us as believers not to unwittingly become party to the abuse of the powerless at the hands of the powerful.

Someone Sleeps Tonight - REZ Band

Yellow moon rise
And the shadows are so long
Comes as no surprise
I hear another night song
And the echoes
In those hills
A random rhythm
The silence fills

And someone deals in pain
And someone deals in power
And someone sleeps tonight (forever)

Ragged children left to play
Fear, then hear the sound
Run, run, oh run away
Stumbling feet on dusty clay
In the rockets glaring red
A weeping mother hangs her head
'Cause someone sleeps tonight, forever

And someone deals in pain
And someone deals in power
And someone sleeps tonight (forever)

And in the flames' inferno
Consuming human flesh and soul
Innocence becomes a stranger
Despair a burning coal
An old man's eyes are vacant
His callused hand is open, still
Children wander in the ruins
Where grief roams, never filled

Sometimes at night they hear
The wind of a past they cannot change
And in the morning silence
Tell me what goodness will remain?
The bitter cup is filled once more
A bloody history paints this land
They try to seal a tomb that's empty
While they build the cross again

And someone deals in pain
And someone deals in power
And someone sleeps tonight (forever)
And someone deals in pain
And someone deals in power
And someone sleeps tonight (forever)
Forever.... Forever... Forever... Forever...
Forever.

My Father's Passing (A Poem)

2011-04-12T09:43:00.007-05:00

James E. Trott, myself, Lucile H. Trott in Fort Benton, Montana,
Feb '09, near my Dad's 90th Birthday

Yesterday... wrote this.

My Father's Passing

Can't come up from under grief's blue-green
the tears unshed, wet-eyed from those that have been
Sky too bright, sharp light, my heart over-borne
The sea of me filled yet sorrow's torrents coming

I sat there alone with my father busy dying
My hand upon his thin grey hair, sweat clinging
to my fingers upon it and I couldn't stop touching
the one so near yet going so far away past reaching

His face not his face, where is the man I knew in this
Emptied suffering stranger, eyes as blue as harsh sky
Opening to see me / not see me, opaque with mystery
Touching his lips with wet sponge as long ago was done

Suffering, he me we, in our own twinned mystery
What history halves the solitude of dying
Between the suffering going and the one who waits
for the suffering of the other, and his own as well to pass?

I sang hymns, random, softly to not ungentle his struggle
to breath; none were with us in those small dark hours
as I emptied the red-covered Methodist pages, almost hoarse,
and my unyoung voice was that of an orphan-in-waiting

Praying to God yet unable to feel anything but the sorrow,
the loss of him, oh, the loss loss loss, sorrow, sorrow,
in waves upon this sudden barren shoreline of myself,
Understanding all at once -- with terrible clarity -- why Jesus wept.

My Father's Death and Dylan Thomas' "Do Not Go Gentle into that Good Night"

2011-04-12T08:55:00.006-05:00

The Dylan Thomas poem, "Do Not Go Gentle into that Good Night," has always deeply affected me. So, this past February in the moments before my father died with his wife and children there beside him, I spontaneously quoted the title of the poem and its refrain: "rage, rage, against the dying of the light." My brother Drew, who ironically is more the Agnostic in contrast to me the Christian, said "No, no, that's not appropriate." And he began to sing "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot." We all joined in, and as we sang our father's breathing stopped and the death pallor fixed his features.

My brother captured the sacred moment, and I was glad he had done so. Yet within me I still felt the other lines.

[Here is Dylan Thomas himself reading "Do Not Go Gentle into that Good Night":]

Why do I -- and for that matter Dylan Thomas, who was a Christian as well -- find the refrain "Rage, rage, against the dying of the light" so compelling? Is that not a cry of futile despair rather than one of muscular faith? Where was my trust in God's heaven?

Jesus wept. He stood, looking at a grave with a man he knew he would raise from the dead, yet he wept. Why? All the sorrow of this life seems to me rooted in the knowledge we understand immortality, at least dimly, yet experience our mortality. On the face of it, to cling to life so fiercely seems the act of a pagan; shouldn't we welcome death's embrace as the entryway to everlasting life? Yes... but. Jesus not only wept at the grave of Lazarus. In Gethsemane He sweated blood and pled His Father would deliver Him from the trials he faced. "Not my will, but Thine be done."

Thomas' poem was specifically about his own father, something I'd forgotten until after my own dad's death -- and my spontaneous quoting of the poem's title -- I had to go back and revisit it. To me, the outcry against death is the response of a whole person, a deeply Christian person who nonetheless understands how outrageously wrong death is. Yes, it is "the good night" for the believer... but it is not what we were meant originally to experience. Death is not an everlasting night, morning will come. But death itself is only good because it has been defeated by Christ's perfect obedience, which suffered death in order to break death's bonds. Raging against death is in a deep way an affirmation of sanity, and of goodness, and of a faithful despair not unknown to the Biblical writers.

There is one more layer, I think, to this poem that I'd not have known before experiencing my own father's death. The raging against death is something for the survivors of the one dying as well as -- and perhaps moreso than -- the one doing the dying. Thomas urges his father to resist death, and why? Because he does not want his father to leave him, and there is a terrible surrendering to death that those left behind may have to watch occurring. The irrational but wholly sane response of the lovers to the beloved is "No. Do not go. Please, stop this." It is rage, but an impotent resigned rage.

Dylan Thomas - "Do Not Go Gentle into that Good Night"

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on that sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Richard Burton reads Gerard Manley Hopkins' "The Leaden Echo" and "The Golden Echo"

2011-04-12T00:52:00.011-05:00

Highly interesting, but to me only, set of disconnected circumstances led to my discovery of this Gerard Manley Hopkins poem read by Richard Burton. It seems to me almost a perfect response to the Tennessee Williams poem (in a movie clip from "Night of the Iguana) I just posted. Burton is in that movie... and I found tonight that Burton's old sweetheart, Elizabeth Taylor, asked this very poem be read at her funeral. Hopkins was a Christian, and one who knew how to ask the right questions, as this poem's first part -- "Leaden Echo" -- proves. "Golden Echo" offers his response. For me, it is what I believe.

The Leaden Echo and the Golden Echo
(Maiden's song from St. Winefred's Well)

The Leaden Echo

How to kéep—is there ány any, is there none such, nowhere known some, bow or brooch or braid or brace, láce, latch or catch or key to keep
Back beauty, keep it, beauty, beauty, beauty, … from vanishing away?
Ó is there no frowning of these wrinkles, rankéd wrinkles deep,
Dówn? no waving off of these most mournful messengers, still messengers, sad and stealing messengers of grey?
No there ’s none, there ’s none, O no there ’s none,
Nor can you long be, what you now are, called fair,
Do what you may do, what, do what you may,
And wisdom is early to despair:
Be beginning; since, no, nothing can be done
To keep at bay
Age and age’s evils, hoar hair,
Ruck and wrinkle, drooping, dying, death’s worst, winding sheets, tombs and worms and tumbling to decay;
So be beginning, be beginning to despair.
O there ’s none; no no no there ’s none:
Be beginning to despair, to despair,
Despair, despair, despair, despair.

The Golden Echo

Spare!
Not within the singeing of the strong sun,
Tall sun’s tingeing, or treacherous the tainting of the earth’s air,
Somewhere elsewhere there is ah well where! one,
Oné. Yes I can tell such a key, I do know such a place,
Where whatever’s prized and passes of us, everything that ’s fresh and fast flying of us, seems to us sweet of us and swiftly away with, done away with, undone,
Undone, done with, soon done with, and yet dearly and dangerously sweet
Of us, the wimpled-water-dimpled, not-by-morning-matchèd face,
The flower of beauty, fleece of beauty, too too apt to, ah! to fleet,
Never fleets móre, fastened with the tenderest truth
To its own best being and its loveliness of youth: it is an everlastingness of, O it is an all youth!
Come then, your ways and airs and looks, locks, maiden gear, gallantry and gaiety and grace,
Winning ways, airs innocent, maiden manners, sweet looks, loose locks, long locks, lovelocks, gaygear, going gallant, girlgrace—
Resign them, sign them, seal them, send them, motion them with breath,
And with sighs soaring, soaring síghs deliver
Them; beauty-in-the-ghost, deliver it, early now, long before death
Give beauty back, beauty, beauty, beauty, back to God, beauty’s self and beauty’s giver.
See; not a hair is, not an eyelash, not the least lash lost; every hair
Is, hair of the head, numbered.
Nay, what we had lighthanded left in surly the mere mould
Will have waked and have waxed and have walked with the wind what while we slept,
This side, that side hurling a heavyheaded hundredfold
What while we, while we slumbered.
O then, weary then why
When the thing we freely fórfeit is kept with fonder a care,
Fonder a care kept than we could have kept it, kept
Far with fonder a care (and we, we should have lost it) finer, fonder
A care kept.—Where kept? Do but tell us where kept, where.—
Yonder.—What high as that! We follow, now we follow.—
Yonder, yes yonder, yonder,
Yonder.

"Without a cry, without a prayer": Tennessee Williams' poem from "Night of the Iguana"

2011-04-11T23:04:00.005-05:00

This poem, by Tennessee Williams, comes from his "Night of the Iguana," made into what I believe is the best movie adaptation of anything he wrote. (Yes, better than "Streetcar Named Desire" or "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" -- even them!) Take one weak and lustful scandal-chased minister of the gospel, mix in various women, a couple beach boys and an aging poet. Add a dash of despair-laced faith (or maybe faith-laced despair) and a hot Mexican night... a great story. The poem? It stands on its own.

How Calmly Does the Olive Branch (Nonno's Poem)

How calmly does the olive branch
Observe the sky begin to blanch
Without a cry, without a prayer
With no betrayal of despair

Some time while light obscures the tree
The zenith of its life will be
Gone past forever
And from thence
A second history will commence

A chronicle no longer gold
A bargaining with mist and mold
And finally the broken stem
The plummeting to earth, and then

An intercourse not well designed
For beings of a golden kind
Whose native green must arch above
The earth's obscene corrupting love

And still the ripe fruit and the branch
Observe the sky begin to blanch
Without a cry, without a prayer
With no betrayal of despair

Oh courage! Could you not as well
Select a second place to dwell
Not only in that golden tree
But in the frightened heart of me?

[Apparently, the written version of this poem in the original play used an "Orange Branch" rather than the "Olive Branch" included in the movie version. Thus the poem in the play's title was "How Calmly Does the Orange Branch."]

Songs for Lent #4: Robbie Robertson's "Fallen Angel"

2011-04-11T19:25:00.003-05:00

Robbie Robertson's "Fallen Angel" was a song I first encountered only a few weeks after my first wife left me. It was literally too painful for me to hear -- the song's mourning over the lost friendship of another was not to be endured -- I gave away the entire album it was on.

Today, it still cuts right to the heart of things. (I'm not in love with the video story, which though beautiful doesn't match the song's message in my opinion).

My prayer: "Lord, you know sorrow. I feel sometimes too weak to endure it. I am tired of tears. I am tired of being tired. Please, meet me here. Help me. Please help me not give in to despair."

Robbie Robertson - Fallen Angel

Are you out there
Can you hear me
Can you see me in the dark

I don't believe it's all for nothing
It's not just written in the sand
Sometimes I thought you felt too much
And you crossed into the shadowland

And the river was overflowing
And the sky was fiery red
You gotta play the hand that's dealt ya
That's what the old man always said

Fallen Angel
Casts a shadow up against the sun
If my eyes could see
The spirit of the chosen one

In my dream the pipes were playing
In my dream I lost a friend
Come down Gabriel and blow your horn
'Cause some day we will meet again

Fallen Angel
Casts a shadow up against the sun
If my eyes could see
The spirit of the chosen one

All the tears
All the rage
All the blues in the night
If my eyes could see
You kneeling in the silver light

Fallin', fallin', fallin' down
Fallin', fallin' down
Fallin', fallin', fallin' down
Fallin', fallin' down

Fallen Angel
Casts a shadow up against the sun
If my eyes could see
The spirit of the chosen one

All the tears
All the rage
All the blues in the night
If my eyes could see
You kneeling in the silver light

If you're out there can you touch me
Can you see me I don't know
If you're out there can you reach me
Lay a flower in the snow

Songs for Lent #3: Johnny Cash's "I Walk the Line"

2011-04-11T18:56:00.003-05:00

Nothing quite as devotional as a love song. Here's one of the absolute best. Prayer: "Lord, I know I am yours... but You are also mine. Help me apprehend just a little what it means to have You, Lord of all, to in an absolutely real sense belong to me, be my Beloved."

I keep a close watch on this heart of mine
I keep my eyes wide open all the time.
I keep the ends out for the tie that binds
Because you're mine,
I walk the line

I find it very, very easy to be true
I find myself alone when each day is through
Yes, I'll admit I'm a fool for you
Because you're mine,
I walk the line

As sure as night is dark and day is light
I keep you on my mind both day and night
And happiness I've known proves that it's right
Because you're mine,
I walk the line

You've got a way to keep me on your side
You give me cause for love that I can't hide
For you I know I'd even try to turn the tide
Because you're mine,
I walk the line

Songs for Lent #2: Midnight Oil's "Outbreak of Love"

2011-04-11T18:36:00.005-05:00

Midnight Oil's "Outbreak of Love" is a sort of minimalist praise music. Struggles not ignored... "this is the end of the beginning of the outbreak of love." Prayer inspired... "Lord, help me to endure the sharks and not want to just get out of the water and walk away."

"Outbreak of Love": Midnight Oil

The world is crashing down on me tonight
The walls are closing in on me tonight

Cos I know this is the end of the beginning of the outbreak of love

The stars come falling down on me tonight

Sharks are coming up to feed
I believe it's time to move
Diver's coming up to breathe
But I'm not in the mood
No I'm not in the mood

Songs for Lent #1: Bruce Cockburn's "Postcards from Cambodia"

2011-04-11T16:24:00.008-05:00

I am a lover of lyrics. For lent, keeping my own commentary to absolute minimum, I am going to post selections from various artists who speak to me of my faith's struggles. Bruce Cockburn is without equal lyrically. This song is dark... as others I post here are likely to be. I meditate on these things because I must. I am called by Jesus to do so.... I think. Or is it just my own melancholy? Sometimes that line is blurred, which is another thing for me to pray about.

Postcards from Cambodia
Bruce Cockburn (1999)

Abe Lincoln once turned to somebody and said,
"Do you ever find yourself talking with the dead?"

There are three tiny deaths heads carved out of mammoth tusk
on the ledge in my bathroom
They grin at me in the morning when I'm taking a leak,
but they say very little.

Outside Phnom Penh there's a tower, glass paneled,
maybe ten meters high
filled with skulls from the killing fields
Most of them lack the lower jaw
so they don't exactly grin
but they whisper, as if from a great distance,
of pain, and of pain left far behind

Eighteen thousand empty eyeholes peering out at the four directions

Electric fly buzz, green moist breeze
Bone-colored Brahma bull grazes wet-eyed,
hobbled in hollow of mass grave
In the neighboring field a small herd
of young boys plays soccer,
their laughter swallowed in expanding silence

This is too big for anger,
it’s too big for blame.
We stumble through history so
humanly lame
So I bow down my head
Say a prayer for us all
That we don’t fear the spirit
when it comes to call

The sun will soon slide down into the far end of the ancient reservoir.
Orange ball merging with its water-borne twin
below air-brushed edges of cloud.
But first, it spreads itself,

a golden scrim behind fractal sweep of swooping fly catchers.
Silhouetted dark green trees,
blue horizon

The rains are late this year.
The sky has no more tears to shed.
But from the air Cambodia remains
a disc of wet green, bordered by bright haze.
Water-filled bomb craters, sun streaked gleam
stitched in strings across patchwork land and
march west toward the far hills of Thailand.
Macro analog of Ankor Wat’s temple walls
intricate bas-relief of thousand-year-old battles
pitted with AK rounds

And under the sign of the seven headed cobra
the naga who sees in all directions
seven million landmines lie in terraced grass, in paddy, in bush
(Call it a minescape now)

Sally holds the beggar's hand and cries
at his scarred up face and absent eyes
and right leg gone from above the knee

Tears spot the dust on the worn stone causeway
whose sculpted guardians row on row
Half frown, half smile, mysterious, mute.

And this is too big for anger.
It’s too big for blame
We stumble through history so
humanly lame.
So I bow down my head,
say a prayer for us all.
That we don’t fear the spirit when it comes to call.

Poll Results: Most say "No Hidden Human Conspiracy"

2011-04-07T16:46:00.005-05:00

My poll question was:

Do you believe there is a hidden human conspiracy responsible for much of the evil in the world?

Results were lopsidedly on the side of rational folks (in my opinion, anyway!). Of 40 people who voted, 29 were liberals and 11 conservatives. 33 folks (24 liberals, 9 conservatives) said "Nope, no hidden human conspiracy." 7 people (5 liberals, 2 conservatives) said they believed there was a hidden human conspiracy. Percentage-wise, that means virtually the same number of conservatives and liberals were skeptics. And that makes me happy. Of course the accuracy of this in any larger statistical way would likely be completely bogus. But one can hope.

New poll coming soon...

Jim Wallis: Ten Reasons I am fasting for a better budget

2011-04-07T16:41:00.007-05:00

1. Because I am an evangelical Christian and the root of the word "evangelical" is found in the opening statement of Jesus in Luke 4, where Christ says he has come to bring "good news (the 'evangel') to the poor." So to be an evangelical Christian is to try and bring good news to poor people.

2. Because some very bad news is happening to the poorest and most vulnerable people in Washington's battle over the budget -- both those at home and around the world.

3. Because budgets are moral documents -- they reveal our priorities, who and what is important, and who and what are not. To address excessive deficits is also a moral issue -- preventing our children and grandchildren from having crushing debt. But how you reduce a deficit is also a moral issue. We should reduce the deficit, but not at the expense of our poorest people.

[Go to Huffington Post to read the rest.]

The Results are IN: James Cappleman Elected Alderman with Heavy Majority

2011-04-05T21:33:00.004-05:00

Bluechristian was for Molly. Well too bad, Trott! Eat it and like it! With 100% of precincts reporting, the results say it:

MARY ANNE ''MOLLY'' PHELAN	4,422	44.56 %
JAMES CAPPLEMAN	5,502	55.44 %

James Cappleman is the new Alderman of the 46th Ward. Period.

VOTE for 46th Ward Alderman.... today?!

2011-04-04T20:50:00.002-05:00

VOTE: Tuesday April 5!
Hey... is that TODAY?!?

The Lesson I learned on April 4, 1968

2011-04-03T22:36:00.003-05:00

This has become a bit of an annual event for me on April 4... to remember what that tragic day in 1968 did to an-almost-eleven year old Montana boy...

Read about it here.

Patsy Moore's "Blood" from "Expatriates" tells a familiar story in a powerful, painful way

2011-04-03T19:08:00.005-05:00

Patsy Moore's ambitious 2011 concept album, "Expatriates," comes from a woman whose creativity has never quite allowed her to comfortably exist within any musical subculture. She appeared at our Cornerstone Festival years back as a young poet / musician, even then outside any pre-fabricated "contemporary Christian" music designation. Severely challenged by cancer and other disease-related issues, Patsy's art reflects her journey. "Expatriate" indeed, and perhaps a voice for others of us who feel the same way.

(Below: Patsy Moore, "Blood," from Expatriates [2011]; Purchase online here.)

Helen Shiller Announces Change of Heart, Is Running as Write-In Candidate!

2011-04-01T15:43:00.008-05:00

Helen Shiller, current Alderwoman of Chicago's 46th Ward, announced today that she is not retiring after all. "I made a mistake." Asked if it was a bit late to get into the race, she responded, "I can't disappoint my fans on Uptown Update, can I?"

She is asking people to write her name in. Curious, as well as eager to show off my knowledge of arcane political facts, I asked her how people could write her in on a run-off ballot. "You mean because write ins on a run-off ballot aren't allowed?" I nodded.

"I hadn't thought of that," she said, reflecting for a moment.

Trying to be helpful, I paused, then said: "Perhaps they could print it instead?"

April Fool's! ;-)

And Some Good History (along with an endorsement?)...

2011-03-31T17:50:00.003-05:00

The Chicago Reader offers background to this year's 46th Ward Aldermanic run-off (plus a couple other Ward races in Chicago)... and gives Molly Phelan a thumbs-up:

"As for Phelan, whose specialty is real estate law, she says she inherited a strong belief in social justice from her mother, who was a social worker, and her father, who was a federal prosecutor. "A lot of people thought the Wilson Yard lawsuit was about affordable housing—but it wasn't," says Phelan. "We filed to correct a continuation of an injustice in the TIF law."

Amen to that.

If I lived in the ward, I'd probably go with Phelan."

Getting Uptown Update's -- AHEM! -- "Shitler" Out of My System

2011-03-31T17:05:00.004-05:00

Maybe I'd just better try and get this "Shitler" thing out of my system altogether. And the only way to do that is to expose Uptown Update's usage of the term in toto (at least as far as I can find).

Here are the "Shitler" posts I've been able to find so far. And if you wonder why I go on about this, it is because I know Helen. She takes it and keeps on ticking, but is not a watch... she's a human being. And she deserves to be apologized to. So here are all of the comments [bolding in them is mine]:

#1:

Nickname unavailable said...

Can you be mailed a ticket if an officer is never at the scene? Maybe if you piss off a Shitler you can!
September 29, 2008 2:56 PM

#2

Trey said...: Shitler credibility=zilch.; November 13, 2008 9:49 AM

Anonymous said...: "who wants to rally with me against fat women next weekend?"

Hey now! Fat women need loving too. Just not by me.

I love the fake posts about selling. Leaving a 3 bedroom for a 1 bedroom elsewhere? Yeah ok, not even if Cracky McCrakerton had the condo next door. I love how Shitler people think it goes Downtown, Lincoln Park, Uptown, Wisconson.

Keep it up and I am going to pee on your hemp plants.

-Uptown Dad; June 8, 2008 4:06 PM

[James posted on this thread only two hours and a few posts after the above. Warning, it is a very mean thread also abusing overweight folks... because of course poor people are also overweight?]

#4

themooshisloose said...: My car was broken into two weeks ago (marine drive). I think it was cased for a while before being broken in to because the job of removing the stereo system was really clean. No wires were cut (like other break ins I experienced in the past) and the equioment removal was super clean.

No one gives a crap anymore. No one is doing anytng to clean things up around here. There is a ton of talk, but no action.

Sorry kids, but I have taken steps to leave Illinois completely. Im excited to live near a real beach without having to wade through trash and gangs to get to it.

I won't have to walk down the street and have to figure out who is wearing what color, and if I need to think about ducking stray bullets in my neighborhood, and I wont have to deal with Helen Shitler or Mayor Douchebag Daley's poor decisions and corrupt bullshit.

I feel sorry for those who have to stay (unless Michael Carroll gets elected as alderman). I am lucky enough to live wherever I want, and the North side of Chicago no longer appeals to me.

So until I leave, I will keep posting sarcastic remarks and share the photos I take, but hopefully it won't be long until Im outta here!

:-D; July 27, 2010 1:52 PM

themooshisloose said...: I'm loving some IP for making me laugh so hard this morning. A two hooker night!

Dear SHITler,
I still have my eyes on you. I will have my eyes on you 'till the day you run out of here with your tail between your legs yipping like the low down dirty dog that you are.

....and anyone even thinking about voting in Nowotny needs to get a psych eval. STAT!

Where's the party at to celebrate the Shitler announcement? Wooot!; August 2, 2010 10:30 AM

yo said...

Where's the party at to celebrate the Shitler announcement? Wooot!

Options (feel free to add):

Driftwood <- my preference
the Spot
Nick's on Wilson/Uptown

This news certainly deserves on toast.

August 2, 2010 10:41 AM

#7 [late addition]

2010-07-28T16:29:50.694-05:00

PLEASE tell me when the next rally will take place. I NEED to know!

Dearest Shitler,

We didn't have this technology in 1987 when you were first elected. You can't hide from us now. We can organize easier and communicate faster than ever before. This should scare you out of your Birkenstocks.

I'm doing my part by telling everyone I know about your carelessness. Guess what? People get it and they can't wait to exercise their right to vote you out.

Power to the people who care. Power to the people who want a safe neighborhood. Power to the people who want their money handled correctly. POWER TO US! THE VOTER!

Down with you, Shitler. You will not be missed. Ever.themooshisloose

Sigh... And there you have it. Just some of the winsome charm of Uptown Update, the blog where anonymous people say incredibly nasty things about their neighbors. Not much more to say... but of course I'll find something.

Poll about "hidden human conspiracies"

2011-03-31T16:51:00.005-05:00

I'm a skeptic... real much so... and (I admit it) irrationally anti-conspiracy theory. For instance, Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald and that's all. So Glenn Beck drives me nuts. Also the 9/11 folks, liberal / progressives like me they may otherwise be but not 9/11. Some really mean people with a brilliantly simple plan did it. That's all. I do not like conspiracies! So... thought I'd throw a poll out there to see if others disagreed with me. And am a little surprised in a good way at the result so far.

Uptown and the '60s: the Activism of JOIN

2011-03-30T11:37:00.006-05:00

Harry Belafonte visits JOIN in Uptown, Chicago - 1968?

There's progressive... and then there's progressive. The rich history of the struggle for justice and housing in Uptown has a fascinating chapter rooted in a "new left" group known as JOIN (Jobs or Income Now). Areachicago.org carries a wonderful piece, "Uptown's Join Community," underscoring not only the group's effect on Uptown's Appalachian white and black communities, but also on the then-still-emerging feminist movement. Current Alderwoman of the 46th Ward, Helen Shiller, has her roots in much of this history. A famous sociologist and commentator on the 1960s left, Todd Gitlin, was with JOIN in Uptown and co-authored with Nanci Hollander the book Uptown: Poor Whites in Chicago.

Related link: Life's Lessons, Part 7 (This portion of a JPUSA history I wrote discusses our "education" politically speaking, and mentions JOIN in passing.)

President Obama, Health Care, Abortion, and the Right's Credibility Gap

2009-09-10T09:31:00.010-05:00

One of the Right's talking points against the White House health care plan is that it will allow government-funded abortions. President Obama dealt forcefully with that issue in his speech, specifically: "And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up - under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place."

Predictably, if depressingly, the Right doesn't believe Obama. For instance, Bill Donohue of the pro-life group, Catholic League, said before the speech that there "wasn't a chance" the President would mention abortion. Afterward? Donohue accused Obama of deception.

This obtuse approach to reality has worked for the Right... to a degree. The relentless bashing apparently has eroded support for Obama among Americans overall. But it has also backfired -- Republican unpopularity remains constant.

As a pro-life Democrat I would like to point out a few things.

1. Obama isn't an idiot. His promise to exclude abortion from government funding (as is done in most cases with Medicare, following Hyde Amendment guidelines) is a promise which was made to a huge viewing audience. All he had to do was leave out one or two sentences, and the issue wouldn't have been there. Yes, pro-lifers should keep the pressure on. But they serve their cause badly by accusations of bad faith against a man who apparently has heard them. Why is this? Ah...

2. The pro-life movement has been co-opted by the Right. There are various reasons for that, many understandable. Liberals often (though not always) have been tone-deaf on the right to life for the unborn. But that said, the Right has cynically used pro-lifers (esp. committed Catholics and Evangelicals) to over and over again elect Presidents who did relatively little for the pro-life cause. (Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush both appointed pro-choice justices to the Supreme Court, and it was a Republican -- Harry Blackmun -- who authored Roe v Wade).

3. Right-wing pundits claim that the Health Care bill in its various present forms does allow abortion, despite Obama's express claim that in final form it will not. Again, this is where a bit of civility and dialogue goes so far... yet is not happening. I think pro-lifers should publicly praise the President for what he said, then ask him sincerely to make sure language is included in the final bill establishing his assertion as law. Why not work with the White House instead of -- again -- working on the assumption that everything Barack Obama says is said in bad faith?

Why Pro-lifers Are Acting in Bad Faith

I believe it is our movement, the pro-life movement, which is acting and speaking in bad faith. As a pro-lifer who is also a feminist, I have to bring up uncomfortable realities my Right Wing friends won't like.

Former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg told The New York Times Magazine [quoted in Salon]:

"There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often."

Yes, Ginsberg is pro-choice. But her point deserves careful consideration. This is one reason why, as a pro-life advocate, I cannot be a conservative.

My wife, Carol, and I live full-time in an intentional community of Christians called Jesus People USA (JPUSA). Part of JPUSA's outreach to the wider inner-city Uptown Chicago community we live in is our Cornerstone Community Outreach system of shelters for homeless women, children, and men. We are now, and have always been, pro-life. We are now, and have always been, supportive of both private and government programs aimed at creating a safety net for the women we serve.

Right Wing politics are caught on the horns of a dilemma. They overtly disavow responsiblity to via government programs aid the poor. They proclaim their belief in small government, non-intrusive government. YET.... they proclaim the government's right and even responsibility to intrude between a woman and her unborn fetus.

Barry Goldwater, who in many ways founded the modern conservative movement, was pro-choice. And he based that position on the fact that a woman's right to choose what happened to her own body was the ONLY consistent position for a conservative to take.

I agree with him... that it is the only position for a consistent conservative to take. I disagree with him that it is a good position.

I believe that the government does have the responsibility to intervene, with the exceptions of rape/incest or in the case of a mother's life being endangered. This is being a consistent liberal and pro-lifer.

But there's another layer. The woman's right is a right. If we are going to require protection for the unborn, we must also go to extraordinary lengths to support, empower, and safeguard not just the pre-born child but also the woman and born child from birth through all her or his childhood.

Wait! That's socialism! I can hear it already. But I don't much care for the name calling. I'm just looking for some sort of consistently pro-life ethic, one which forgets about political labeling and focuses on human beings -- both mother AND child.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg's words should haunt us. We say we want life... but what do we mean? I look at the women in our Cornerstone Community Outreach programs, hear my wife talk about how hard it is for them once they leave CCO to find jobs, housing, or even basic health care for themselves or their children.

I've always thought it strange that liberalism became the champion of abortion. But perhaps stranger still is the marriage of the pro-life movement with the political Right.

President Obama presents us with an opportunity. We can, as pro-lifers, support his health care proposals while gently pressuring him to make sure his promise is explicitly contained in the language of the bill itself.

And on a deeper level, we can also allow ourselves to imagine a new pro-life movement, one not rooted ideologically in an anti-womanist, anti-liberal, and therefore self-contradictory soil. Imagine it. Look for it. Help to create it. Talk with pro-choice advocates as though they are human beings rather than demonic entities. Admit that the pro-choice movement's roots are not entirely flawed, especially when it comes to their feminist interpretation of history.

We need to re-conceptualize politics because politics isn't just rhetoric and tea parties and talking heads (left and right) demeaning one another while making private fortunes. Politics is about human lives.

Jesus said "As you have done it to one of the least of these, you have done it to me." That is a very political statement. And, I suggest, it is also both pro-life and liberal.

Glenn Beck Implies racially-based Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments Never Happened

2009-09-07T13:02:00.016-05:00

(An acquaintance informed me that MY facts were also partially incorrect regarding the nature of the Tuskegee Experiments, namely, that I said black men were injected with syphilis... they were not -- instead, men with syphilis were purposefully not treated over a period up to forty years. I have revised this post to reflect that reality, and appreciate the correction.)

Glenn Beck cites Jeremiah Wright talking about one of America's tragic crimes against African Americans... and he cites it as though it is fiction!

Beck's bizarre mix of nonsense phraseology with ulta-emotive imagery and conspiracy-theorist buzz words isn't enough, in itself, to brand him a racist. But the following comes darn close.

This passage comes from the FOX web site transcript of Beck's show (entire transcript):

GLENN: .... Now, this is from an interview he [Van Jones] did as the head of the Ella Baker Center.

VAN JONES: The white polluters and the white environmentals [sic] are essentially steering poison into the people of colored communities.

GLENN: Have you heard this any has the president ever been around anyone who has ever said anything like that before Van Jones?

REVEREND WRIGHT: The government lied about the Tuskegee experiment. They purposely infected African American men with syphilis.

GLENN: The president of the United States has tried to pass himself off as a guy who just sat in Jeremiah Wright's Black Liberation Theology church for 20 years. A friend. He's like an old uncle. He didn't even notice. He baptized Barack Obama's children. He baptized Barack Obama, but he never heard these things before. And even if he did hear them, he didn't really even notice. Okay, so that's the explanation for the crazy uncle. What is the explanation this time? What is the excuse this time for appointing the same type of radical, saying almost damn exact same words as Jeremiah Wright to an influential position in our government? Is it that you didn't vet these people? Because gee, that sounds like a problem, that our president of the United States didn't vet him enough to know. Is it that the FBI didn't do its job? I mean, we found all of this stuff. Sure, I only have a staff of seven producing books, TV, radio shows, I only have a staff of seven. And all of a sudden we can come up with these things. Gee, you'd think the FBI or the president of the United States would surely be able to find these things.

Let's review here.

Government poster advertising the syphilis study. (Wikipedia, source.)

First, the Tuskegee experiments, where black men with syphilis were sought out by doctors who pretended to treat them but then left them untreated for up to forty years, is HISTORIC FACT. The part Jeremiah Wright apparently got wrong was the claim that our government injected these men with syphilis. However, just how different is it to purposely not treat someone -- and without their knowledge! -- while you, as a representative of their government, tell them you are treating their disease? The nuance is not a large one.

Our government did, however, misrepresent itself as there to cure men some of whom it effectively murdered by intentionally withholding penicillin when that drug became known as curative of syphilis. Need it be said that the wives and any children of these infected men were, by intentional negligence, infected by the men who'd been left untreated? Just how wrong is Wright? Yes, the line is very, very thin.

Second, Mr. Beck, you fail to explain the difference above, leaving in the hearer's mind the impression that the entire story is false. No, most of it is not false. Only the active introduction of syphilis into healthy black men is, apparently, untrue. (I use the word "apparently" because in light of what else went on, I remain open to further revelations in this matter.)

Third, your argument actually ends by shoring up Mr. Van Jones' position -- as you cite historic racial crimes with which to compare his claims of such crimes. (I don't suggest it actually works -- but for those aware of history your argument is at best just more Beckian gobbledygook.)

Tuskegee University's web site summarizes the horror of that Beck-denied history:

For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,” their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all.

The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. “As I see it,” one of the doctors involved explained, “we have no further interest in these patients until they die.”

Now. What part of that was NOT our government? In short, though Jeremiah Wright has certainly not been correct on everything he's said, this instance is one where he is far closer to historic truth than Glenn Beck, who is exposed as a rabble-rousing racist. There is no excuse. FOX News has no excuse.

You wonder why liberals such as myself view the Right with such grave suspicion and active dislike?

Glenn Beck should be removed from FOX News. But as long as his non-factual jingoism remains popular with a large enough minority of Americans, FOX will keep him on TV. They don't care if he rants for five minutes about how the old artwork on Rockefeller Center is really part of a commie / fascist (never sure which) plot, and how it all somehow ties into Obama being President... and they don't care about him misrepresenting the Tuskegee Experiments as fiction rather than fact. So he'll keep it up.

Meanwhile, I will make it a personal mission to boycott FOX -- not only their news channels but also their entertainment channels. Racism is still alive in America. And I'm not gonna take it.

If other readers agree, please link to this on your blog or face book pages!

[This post has been revised a number of times since earlier today.]

Twenty Years of Being Married to (and Writing about) My Dearling Carol

2009-09-01T12:28:00.002-05:00

Twenty Years with Dearling (September 2, 1989 - September 2, 2009)

Carol Elaine and I sporting our cool mullets.
Hey! It was 1989. Mullets were still cool back then...
(the pic was for our wedding announcement).

-=-

I love my wife. This is no great virtue on my part, no real sacrifice. Rather, it is as close to involuntary an act and emotion as I experience. And it is Grace.

In what is surely a writer's act (and smells suspiciously of self-indulgence) I offer links to various Carol-based reflections and inspirations, lyrics and poetry and prose. Some of it is so sweet you'll need to brush your teeth afterward, while a little of it describes biblical "knowing" in ways not normally indulged in by Evangelicals. Then there were the two cancers she went through, taking me along for the scary ride.

Consider what follows my way of letting friends look into a family album of sorts, my way of celebrating these two decades with this singular lover, friend, sister in Christ. Or maybe it is a box of candy... so again, have that toothbrush ready.

--==++==--

The book Trees and Roots and Growing Things, published by Cornerstone Press in 1994, is now out of print but on the web in toto. It began as a present for my wife but was embraced by our house publishing board as something worth printing:

http://highromance.com/poetry/jbtrott/treeroot/index.htm

In 2000, we were in the midst of breast cancer treatments for Carol. This inspired not a little anxiety, but also growth, in each of us. I tried to capture some of that with these poems:

http://highromance.com/poetry/jbtrott/misc/carol2000-1.htm

Not much later, I was dinking around with the rather adolescent (in my opinion) miming of e. e. cummings' habit of using no capitalizations. It led to breaking a few other rules of English as well, all framed as if on a drive with Carol from Chicago to Bushnell (about a 4 1/2 hour trip) [PG, maybe PG-13 in a few spots]:

http://highromance.com/poetry/jbtrott/misc/sun_and_bible.htm

My attempt at a lover's dialogue with the Song of Solomon - [PG-13 rated]:

Part I: http://highromance.com/poetry/jbtrott/misc/purity_and_pomegranates.htm
Part II: http://highromance.com/poetry/jbtrott/misc/flashes-of-fire.htm

Carol and I have long been involved with Christians for Biblical Equality. Here is the talk we gave at a CBE Conference in Portand (yes, I wrote it all down, as I'm lousy at extemporaneous speaking):

http://highromance.com/articles/jtarticles/cbe2002.htm

Two short poems:

"She Is" captures love in the midst of dissimilarity:

http://highromance.com/poetry/jbtrott/misc/sheis.htm

And "Rock Tumbler" captures our larger context, the community of believers called Jesus People USA:

http://highromance.com/poetry/jbtrott/misc/Rock_tumbler.htm

And an addendum - Two sermons (neither mentions Carol, both are profoundly influenced by her):

This was a sermon I did in one of my "pinch hitter" moments when the A-string pastors were out of town. It doesn't mention Carol, but her influence on my theology of marriage is profound:

http://highromance.com/articles/jtarticles/eph5sermon.htm

And another, this one rooted in the Song of Solomon... again, Carol so profoundly influences my views of marriage, sexuality, and spirituality!:

http://highromance.com/articles/jtarticles/first-love.htm

God, Intelligence, and the Mentally Challenged: "Wisdom Is the Knowledge of God's Will" - Robert Kennedy, Jr.

2009-08-13T16:10:00.004-05:00

I happened to catch the following remarks on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports," and am writing them down now (TiVo!). Robert Kennedy, Jr., talked about his Aunt Eunice Shriver and how her Catholic faith affected her treatment of her sister. Rose was born mentally challenged. Eunice often took Rose with her on travels here and around the world... Eunice also founded the Special Olympics. Here are some of Robert's comments:

I tuned in mid-sentence... I think Robert was in the midst of talking about Eunice and Rose's parents (Joseph and Rose Kennedy), who decided that Rose would live with them rather than be sent away. He begins here speaking in their voices:

"'She has just as much value as a human being as any other child in this family. Her intellect is absolutely meaningless in terms of the way God sees her, and we're going to keep her in this family.' During that experience, Rosemary flourished. They were never embarrassed, they were never ashamed. They took her in ski races, they took her in sailing races, they took her to meet the queen.

"Eunice at one point, in 1962 my uncle was in the White House, and she looked at this population [the mentally challenged]. There was more bigotry towards them, more prejudice, more disenfranchisement, more alienation than any other population, more vulnerability than any other population. And she decided to be their champion."

Andrea Mitchell comments, "I remember when I was a child, we had a neighbour who was quote 'retarded' and I was his babysitter often. . . but there was so much shame attached to the condition of these children."

Kennedy responds in a deeply Christian (and I would say pro-life) manner:

"She never felt that way about her sister. And I think a lot of that was her Catholic faith, that she believed that every human being has a soul, and every soul is beloved by God.

"Everybody has certain capacities. That first international Special Olympic Games... and I was there in South Bend Indiana in 1987. There was a child who was winning the race, a sprint, and the child fell. The person who was running second went toward the finish line, and just before he crossed the finish line, he stopped, turned around, and went back and picked up the boy who was going to beat him. And they both crossed the finish line together, and they were last and second-to-last. I think that was the spirit of the Special Olympics. And Rune Arteledge of ABC played that over and over again. I think it showed something about sportsmanship that you didn't see in the 'real' Olympics.

I think was something like, Wisdom is not the province of the intellectually gifted. You can have read every book in the Library of Congress and still not have wisdom. Wisdom is the knowledge of God's Will. And it is accessible to these people who are intellectually disabled on the same basis that it is accessible to the rest of us. This child knew right from wrong and he knew what compassion was and he knew what love was. And Eunice was able to see that and say that these children are not disabled in any real sense, it's the rest of us who are disabled for looking at them and looking at this as a disability."

Let's Do Our Homework on Health Care (or) "The Facts, Ma'am. Just the facts."

2009-08-13T16:06:00.002-05:00

I'm posting this as a more positive than negative response to some of the crazy anti-health-care-bill stuff out there right now. Released by David Axelrod of President Obama's office, it might calm the waters and (I pray) even convince a few folks to rethink things. I had to reformat it for face book, so any such mess is my fault, not the fault of others.

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage

Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/

8 COMMON MYTHS about health insurance reform

Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.

We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.

Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.

Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The

VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.

Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.

You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.

No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.

Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq

8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now

Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html

Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html

Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html

Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes

Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline

The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction

Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html

The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf

[PLEASE... if you find these facts important to you and your neighbors, please repost this as a note on your face book / myspace page, or email it to friends not on face book. --Jon Trott]

Chicago Protest for Iran - June 21

2009-06-25T12:50:00.004-05:00

Remembering Iran. Please pray. This is raw footage of a protest at Chicago's Daley Plaza last Saturday. I did a fairly terrible job, but maybe someone in Iran, or outside of Iran, will be motivated by it.

Dialing It Back on Abortion: Jon Stewart & Mike Huckabee Set the Tone

2009-06-24T09:08:00.006-05:00

The following guest post comes from Alise McCoy Wright, a cyber-friend of my wife's and mine.

When I was growing up, my parents (and especially my mom) were very involved in the pro-life movement. I believe my first pro-life march in Washington, D.C. was when I was in 7th grade (maybe 8th -- definitely before high school). At that time and through high school, it was a very black and white issue. Abortion was bad. No ifs, ands or buts.

Fast forward to 1997. I've just graduated from college and have my first job teaching in an inner-city school. I'm in a city where I don't know anyone and have only been married for 9 months. I've known for probably a week that I'm pregnant, but kept hoping that I was mistaken. I finally take a pregnancy test and confirm that I am indeed pregnant.

I wish my first reaction when I saw those two lines had been joy, but in reality, it was fear. I was not prepared for a pregnancy and certainly not prepared for a new baby. Fortunately, by the end of the day, I was feeling much better about it and by the time I told Jason, I was absolutely thrilled at the prospect.

But I don't think I've ever forgotten my initial reaction to the circumstance. I was someone who was in a happy (if young) marriage. We had two very supportive families who were able to help us. We were getting involved in a new church and Bible study. Overall, the circumstances were pretty good for us which made it much easier for me to move from fear to excitement. Not every woman has that luxury.

That's not to say that I'm not still pro-life. I still think that in almost all instances it would be better for the woman to choose to have her baby rather than to terminate the pregnancy. As I watch my beautiful daughter growing into an amazing young woman, I have no regrets about being that young mom. But that experience has also shown me that things aren't quite as black and white as I once thought. That there may be other events that play into a woman's decision to continue or end a pregnancy.

Sadly, much of the discourse surrounding this issue is very polarized and polarizing. People on opposite sides are painted with the most extreme brushes and rather than listening, they just shout past one another. Which was why I was absolutely astounded to watch the discussion between Jon Stewart and Mike Huckabee on last Thursday's show. In a time when the major "news" networks do their best to get the most extreme voices on, The Daily Show was able to have a very calm, rational discussion. If you have about 20 minutes, I would strongly suggest checking out these three videos.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Despite these men having very different opinions on the issue, they manage to have a great conversation. And in a day where conversations seem to take a back seat to emotionally charged language and one group trying to out-argue the other, this was a refreshing change. I hope that maybe "the news" will take a cue from The Daily Show and maybe encourage people to talk for a change. I think we'd all appreciate that.

Life to Iran (For Neda)

2009-06-23T14:58:00.006-05:00

Thinking about Iran, and a casual comment made by my friend Mike, I came up with this lyric.

Life to Iran (For Neda)
© 2009, Jon Trott

They’re in the streets of Tehran
And the byways of my mind
Not looking for freedom that’s political
But freedom of an existential kind

And I wonder at their bravery
I tremble sickened at their dying
I see in their eyes that they are me
And I am them, at least I’m trying

Life to Iran
Life to every woman and man
Life to Iran
Face the dragon, I know we can…
I know we can

Protested with them in Chicago
Cost me just an afternoon
They sang the saddest song in Farsi
I felt joy was coming soon

Life to Iran
Life to every woman and man
Life to Iran
Face the dragon, I know we can…
I know we can

Jesus is my start, my end, my love
Their journey is no less than mine
All round the world love’s bleeding
Yet hope’s green ribbon is a sign

Life to Iran
Life to every woman and man
Life to Iran
Face the dragon, I know we can…
We are all Iran…
We are all Iran…
We are all Iran…
Life to Iran.

(all rights reserved)

The Gorilla in this Room is Racism, Republican-style

2009-06-15T10:34:00.000-05:00

As the far right's numbers continue to dwindle like a rain puddle on hot July pavement, the nature of those who remain seems increasingly clear. I have little to say on this one. Watch it.

"Michelle Obama's Ancestor a Gorilla" just a joke?

Naomi Wolf Gets Nakedly Honest About Pro-Choice Rhetoric

2009-06-10T16:00:00.001-05:00

I hesitate to post this one. As a feminist, though of course a man, I concede Ms. Wolf's own logic fails at points (as far as I can tell). She remains pro-choice. But her naked honesty, transparency, and -- yes -- vulnerability here lead me to urge us who are pro-life to tread carefully in responding. To me, her internal agony is a place to start a conversation between pro-life and pro-choice advocates. Please read it -- even the parts that will irritate you -- with that in mind. What she does is admit that the unborn are human, and that abortion is the taking of a human life. Her existential encounter with those truths is powerful.

Feminist Naomi Wolf Questions Pro-Choice Rhetoric

Democrats For Life of America

2009-06-10T15:53:00.001-05:00

This is a great page, even if you are Republican. Especially encouraging is the Obama administration's apparent willingness to meet with and listen to DFLA's spokespersons regarding abortion reduction.

For those of us who usually vote Democrat, perhaps we need to ally with and work alongside DFLA.

Democrats For Life of America

Abortion and the American Left

2009-06-10T15:35:00.001-05:00

The below link should have been the first I posted on this issue of liberal pro-lifers. It offers some seriously thoughtful stuff, and is the home page of sorts for a few of the other links I have (or maybe will later on) offer up. One caveat... a lot of these articles seem rather old. I'll try to find some newer stuff as well.

Abortion and the American Left

Nat Hentoff on Abortion

2009-06-10T15:03:00.001-05:00

A raft of articles by very liberal, very pro-life (atheist!), Nat Hentoff. As a liberal Christian pro-life advocate, also a feminist, I find his arguments very compelling and would hope to see many of my liberal compatriots consider them. While it is nearly impossible not to want to gag when dealing with Rightist "pro-life" groups who do in fact use the pro-life issues as a wedge in their anti-feminist agendas, I strongly urge feminists and liberals to read Hentoff's thoughts on this. There really is another way.

Nat Hentoff on Abortion

Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life

2009-06-10T14:57:00.000-05:00

As a liberal who voted for President Obama, but also a pro-lifer who is distressed that many on the left champion the pro-abortion cause, I will be offering some liberal pro-life voices from around the web. Here's one such voice. (And if you want to know how I justified voting for Barack Obama as a pro-lifer, my various articles on that issue can be easily found by browsing this site's topic links.)

From The Progressive magazine. Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life

Mogadishu carnage devastates lives

2009-06-10T13:44:00.000-05:00

Much of my political commentary has focused on specific American issues. Below is something that doesn't require much commentary... but does require our prayers and (where applicable) action.

BBC NEWS | Africa | Mogadishu carnage devastates lives

Ex-I-Anity (another aimless lyrical moment...)

2009-04-27T15:48:00.002-05:00

As usual, my lyrical output reflects a somewhat dark (and obscure?) take on things. Not hopeless, though... was reading Lewis' opening chapter on Natural Law in Mere Christianity. . .

Ex-I-Anity
(c) 2009 Jon Trott

What is the inner compulsion
I'm safe, why should I risk myself?
The other is no love or friend
This could end up bad for my health

Instinct's inner voice says
Keep you in you with you sheltered
Another voice is mere whisper
We live to love - true love suffered

Against love there is no law
Against love
Against love there is no law
Against love

I'm not so sure about the moral law
It's a weapon power-mongers hurl
But if you mean the still small voice
I'd sell all to gain that pearl

Against love there is no law
Against love
Against love there is no law
Against love

He'd known girls and men and hurt
She'd always believed in Christ
He was deaf to rules like most fools
And she judged his life was not nice...

[instrumental break]

Face in darkness covered with tears
He cried out in his despair
She heard and felt her pride break
And we who are we to breathe their air?

Up on a cross down in a grave
What do you think it takes to truly save?
Is loving going to win you friends
Or is it going to make you break?

Against love there is no law
Against love
Against love there is no law
Against love
Against love . . .

Women & Girls, Men & Boys, and Sexuality

2009-03-21T10:37:00.007-05:00

The CBE Scroll, dedicated to bringing women and men into full egalitarian mutuality within the Church and marriage, brought up The Effect of Pornography on Women and Girls. In turn, that discussion (to which I contributed some quickly-typed thoughts) began opening out into various linked issues. Some of that discussion began going into sexuality in ways that the folks at the Scroll thought might better be served in another forum. Since I was involved in the discussion, and they figured I was foolish enough to blurt out whatever comes to mind, they asked me to continue any of the more overt discussion points here. So please, digest their thoughts, and if appropriate post there. But if you want to offer more pointed questions / statements, return here.

I do moderate this site, which means when you post your post will not immediately appear. Particularly in discussions of this variety, it is a good idea. One additional note: be wise in using your real name if you post something you don't want everyone on the web to know about you personally. I don't want to stifle discussion -- far from it. But I do want to prevent anyone from getting hurt.

Discussion points might include in part:

1.) From spouses, girlfriends/boyfriends of porn users, how has your significant other's use of porn affected your relationship?

2.) What is relational sexuality meant to be, biblically speaking, and how do pornographic portrayals of sexuality affect its relational meaning?

3.) What does pornography tell us about women? About men?

4.) Some "Third Wave" feminists disagree w/ the Second Wave feminist emphasis on pornography's destructive nature. Anyone who's versed in that discussion is welcome to defend, or at least explain, it here.

5.) Men and women affected by porn, are you desperate to escape its addictive qualities? Are there some of you who have walked in sobriety for a time, and can help others here by telling your stories?

6.) What is pornography? We use the word, but do we always know what it means?

And so on. Ask your own questions as well, of course.

I'd like readers to peruse the original post, and (if so inclined) come back here to discuss. Have at it!

The Political Implications of Loving My Wife

2009-03-06T10:03:00.007-06:00

Carol Elaine Trott, standing, heads up a gang of assorted Trott kids in a painting project.

It has been way too long since my last post. Slowly, I'm trying to pull myself back into blogging, so those of you with belief in prayer's efficacy may liberally bathe me in prayers for the discipline to get back to business here.

'Nuff said.

Carol Elaine Durkin Trott, my beloved, is today being routinely scanned for any recurrences of her thyroid cancer back in 2000. Her thyroid was removed then, but every so often she has to be checked to insure no thyroid tissue remains to spread cancer in her body. This is done by injecting Carol with radioactive iodine, as happened a few days ago. Iodine "sticks to" thyroid tissue, and the radioactivity of the iodine will hopefully kill off the thyroid tissue it finds. So in short the test is also a treatment, one of the reasons thyroid cancer has such a high cure rate compared with some other cancers.

The scan's results will come back in a week or so.

Over the past few days, Carol wasn't allowed to be closer than three feet from me. She had to clean up after herself wherever she went, which was limited to within our small apartment. I was put in the position of being her servant for anything she needed. (Ah, say my female readers, a male put into a role he probably doesn't inhabit all that much normally... and those readers would be more correct than I am at all comfortable admitting!) Carol disliked this situation more than I did, I suspect; she's active, a go-getter. Being stuck sitting on a couch wasn't much to her liking.

But as always happens when the spectre of Carol's past cancers -- no matter how ephemeral -- comes to the fore, I find myself feeling a breath of fear on my neck. Fear, but also gratefulness. Carol has survived not only thyroid cancer but also breast cancer, which I discovered while we were being close one evening. My own grandmother died of breast cancer, and it affects many women on my side of our family, some of whom have died as a result. So I fear it. Many others we've both known also died via cancer. Yet others we know struggle at present with cancer, including one of our JPUSA sisters and a Facebook friend of mine, Patsy Moore.

So... I love my wife. I am glad she's alive and tremble just a little even in these routine moments which remind me of our journey through cancer together. Because I am thinking of Carol, then, I offer the following.

* * *

How do I love my wife?

This is a question with at least two very different meanings. The first meaning one might find in the question has to do with my efficiency, my ability, my talent for loving her. Am I good at loving my wife the same way a basketball player is good (or not) at scoring? The question becomes one with pragmatic rather than philosophical / theological implications.

The second meaning touches on the first, but is more a question I ask myself. How do I do this love thing? What is loving someone about? Or, to be specific, what language of love can I speak to best meet Carol's own love-hunger rather than my own hunger disguised as how I *want* her to hunger? Tricky.

These aren't the questions I'll answer here, by the way. Instead, I want to examine how these questions are political questions.

Carol is a person as I am a person, yet she is not me. In my gut, I often believe that her needs aren't quite all that my needs are. In my dark places I think I deserve to have my needs met before hers are met. I also, too often, think that my thoughts are more intelligent, coherent, and (gulp!) true than her thoughts. In short, there is a little fascist in me.

My faith assaults that inner Nazi. "Do to others what you would have them do to you." "Love your enemies." (Oh, yes... sometimes Carol becomes my enemy because she will not be friends on my terms!) " Or, as Philippians 2:3,4 put it, "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others."

How does this sort of love radically redistribute my internal values regarding Carol? My material goods? My goals and purposes for what I do, how I do it, when I do it? Carol -- the Other -- looks at me for her own orientation in this world, and as she does this so do I look to her (we are mutuality/egalitarian folks, not hierarchalist/complementarian).

As I try to love her as described by Jesus and Jesus' Apostles, I find my own needs, wants, thoughts, and feelings intermingled with hers progressively. That is, the further we go on together the more difficult it becomes to tell where my own hungers / needs end and hers begin. I consider this the Grace of God.

I also consider it the basis for my politics. If God's Son, He Who Perfectly embodied Love in full humanity as well as full Godhood, demoted himself to become Servant of all... what does that say about a political framework majoring on the gathering of power, the usage of progressively more and more military might, the intentional ignoring of scientists' warnings to continue abusing our planet, and finally the "othering" of those we deem "evil" (a strange term to exclude ourselves from!)?

I love my wife. But I don't love her well at all times. I don't love my neighbor well at all times, either. But both personally and politically, I don't have permission not to try.

My Heart is too full to write

2009-01-19T21:13:00.002-06:00

On this, the eve of a day with more hope in it than I feel I can endure (though endure it joyfully I will!), I have little to say. May the Lord bless our new President, Barack Obama, with wisdom and the integrity of humility. May we all hold on to this moment of hope in the days, months, and years to come as we face communal hard times. And may we all remember -- especially when disagreements re-emerge between us -- we are neighbors even in our deepest differences.

God speed to our new President, and may Christ heal our wounds.

"God Hates WHO?!" December 13 Counter-protest by Project 12

2008-12-15T14:45:00.003-06:00

A handful of Project 12 students and staff went into the heart of downtown Chicago Saturday, December 13, to again stand against the Westboro Baptist Church's defamation of the character of God. (Sorry, no photos... we did get some video which I am trying to get copied for the web.)

Westboro Baptist, actually one extended family with a patriarch, Fred Phelps, became known initially for their "God Hates Fags" signs and website. But when they began picketing the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq, carrying signs such as "Thank God for Dead Soldiers." If you feel an adrenaline rush, and not of a good kind, when thinking on such things, consider that Westboro finds that reaction just what they're looking for.

We focused our protest upon the fact that they misrepresent the Bible and God by nearly everything they say. This wasn't lost on passers-by, a number of whom thanked us.

One of our Project 12 students, Rebecca, attempted to communicate with an older woman leading the group (a woman I believe is Fred Phelps' daughter, and a spokesperson for Westboro). Rebecca said to her, "God is love."

Her response, delivered in the most disdain-laden tone imaginable: "Oooo, my itty bitty private parts!"

Rebecca's response? "But God is love!"

And later, on the way home in the van, Rebecca commented: "How can they be so lost that they don't know God is love? That's so sad!"

Pray for this group. They are easy to hate back, but that "natural" response isn't the right one.

I'll try to get back to blogging on more than Westboro...

Only one of us could go today to protest the "God Hates Fags (and everyone else)" people

2008-12-08T13:45:00.006-06:00

Last Thursday, a van load of us Project12ers went downtown to protest a group called "God Hates Fags." The latter, however, didn't show as they'd said they would (though did show up elsewhere later in the day after we'd gone home).

Today, I couldn't get our Project 12 students sprung from their job and class responsibilities to go downtown with me. The G. H. F. people again had promised to show up, this time to picket President-Elect Barack Obama, who they (so predictably) say is the Antichrist.

And they were there this time as advertised.

"God Hates Fags"... and Barack Obama. Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church
displays their signs on the corner of Michigan Avenue and Wabash, Dec. 8, 2008.
[Photo: Jon Trott]

I took up a spot across the street from them, not wanting anyone to think I was part of their group. My own signs read "Gays are Our Neighbors" and "Jesus' Answer to Hate was the Cross." Holding both signs was awkward, and it was quite cold, but since Monday had also prevented anyone else from showing up in opposition to Westboro, I stayed until they left around an hour after it began.

Chicago's well-known gay newspaper, Windy City Times, did cover the event (the reporter is an old friend from days when she was part of Queer to the Left and we worked on homelessness and poverty issues). A van pulled up, a guy jumped out and... well, let's say what he did with a water bottle mimicked one of Westboro's signs. A few minutes later, that van pulled up to me and I noted they were filming. Those inside told me they were doing footage for Showtime, asked me for a waiver (which I gave), and then drove off.

I handed out fliers to a few passers-by, mostly those who saw I was in opposition to Westboro and stopped to thank me. (The flier's contents I've posted in my Dec. 4 bit on Westboro.)

We hope to be present when Westboro shows up again in Chicago, perhaps this Saturday. By the way, Westboro... God LOVES you. Just thought you should know.

People Who Are Kind to Me: Thanks.

2008-12-08T13:30:00.003-06:00

Two recent "15 minutes of fame" moments for me...

1. Christianity Today's Brandon O'Brien came to JPUSA and interviewed me, then put his reputation in further danger by actually posting a podcast of part of that interview on Audio Ur. Apparently even that isn't enough for him, as Leadership Journal's Winter 2009 issue will apparently offer even more of my brilliant babblings.

2. While I'm not a Christian Universalist, I do appreciate an apparently C. U. blog, Mercy Not Sacrifice, noting my blog entries re homosexuality and the Christian Right.

Okay, now that I've proven yet again that humility is not one of my strong suits, I'll shut up. But thanks, guys.

NO SHOW!! Fred Phelps' "God Hates Fags" Fails to Appear in Chicago After All...

2008-12-04T13:39:00.005-06:00

Where was everybody?!

A few passers-by were the only people we initially saw where the "God Hates Fags" /
Westboro Baptist Church had said on its website it would march
against Barack Obama. Ah, well. We'll save our signs and try again!

As I posted yesterday, our Project 12 program's students went downtown today in order to picket the picketers. The infamous Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church (actually all members of his own biological family), were set to tell Barack Obama, the Canadian embassy, the Chinese embassy, and the Democratic National Party, that Phelps' gawd hates them. We thought Jesus ought to be represented. So we made signs, wrote up a press flier, and drove our old rickety Project 12 van downtown to the Federal Building on South Dearborn.

But... We were there. Numbing cold weather was there. Lots and lots of police were there. Barracades were there. After a while a self-proclaimed satanic group called "S. I. N." (Sodomite Insurgency Network) was there. (We tried to talk with them but they had no interest in our message.) Who was not there, however? Westboro Baptist Church. No idea on why.

UPDATE: It appears that Westboro changed the time of the event as well as the targets of it. They may or may not be appearing later today (near noon) at 233 N. Michigan Avenue. That is a severe scale-back from what had been planned. They also plan (if they're to be believed) to appear at the same spot a number of times this month (as this pdf from their website lists).

At any rate, here we were:

Project 12 Response to "God Hates Fags" Chicago-area Protests

2008-12-03T16:00:00.004-06:00

Project 12 students will be gathering in downtown Chicago tomorrow to voice our opposition to the message of Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church. The latter will be picketing the offices of Barack Obama, the Canadian and Chinese embassys, and the Democratic Party headquarters.

Below is the text of a flier we will hand out at tomorrow’s events downtown. Hopefully, photos and perhaps even video will appear here and on http://project12.wordpress.com tomorrow.

–

God loves Fred Phelps.
God hates Fred’s hate.

God commands us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. We affirm that loving our neighbor means robustly loving the homosexual, the non-Christian, even loving Fred Phelps and his family. This is the message we of Project 12 (a discipleship program sponsored by Chicago’s Jesus People USA Evangelical Covenant Church), offer here today. Our message is an attempt at one Christian response to the very unchristian message of Westboro Baptist Church.

Fred Phelps and his extended family misrepresent both God and the Bible in their continuing assault on homosexuals, Jews, U. S. servicewomen and servicemen, other Christians, Swedes (?), and various others. Selective and out of context interpretation of Scriptures does not make one’s own moral darkness into Christian theology. From our biblical viewpoint, Mr. Phelps’ teachings are not Christian in any way, shape, or form.

We mourn the spiritual wasteland Mr. Phelps has led his family into, as well as the incredible pain he and his family have inflicted on others all over the world. Mr. Phelps over and over again violates the heart of the gospel – Grace.

The book of Proverbs, Chapter 26:4-5, says two things about someone who refuses wisdom:

“Do not answer fools according to their folly,
or you will be a fool yourself.”

And,

“Answer fools according to their folly,
or they will be wise in their own eyes.”

In short, Project12 understands that to come here today is somewhat of a fool’s errand. By speaking out we are calling more attention to Mr. Phelps, thereby fulfilling his felt need for media attention. That is frustrating. But as the second half of the above verses point out, if we do not answer Mr. Phelps’ assault on our neighbors, we are not fulfilling the calling of God to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Proverbs also says:

“Lying lips conceal hatred,
and whoever utters slander is a fool.”
Proverbs 10:18

We are here today to bear witness to the Triune God of Love, who to bridge the relational gap between human and human, and God and human, sent his own Son. That is the good news of the gospel.

Fred Phelps’ failure to understand that God is a God of Love rather than Hate lies at the heart of his own agony. We sincerely pray that Fred will hear God’s truth and learn of God’s all-encompassing love, but in the meantime we must stand against his false message that God hates our neighbors.

Hating human beings on God’s behalf is a hellish deception, and smolders at the heart of much darkness in the world.

Sincerely,
The Students and Staff of Project 12 Discipleship Training School
939 W Wilson Avenue, Chicago IL / 60640

Contact: Jon Trott (jon@jpusa.org) Phone: 773 633 6026
Websites: http://project12.us http://bluechristian.blogspot.com http://www.jpusa.org

California's Proposition 8 Same-Sex Marriage Ban Passed: Should Evangelicals Be Glad?

2008-11-06T14:55:00.013-06:00

As I went through election results other than the incredibly joyful (and still tear-producing for me) election of Barack Obama, I noted that California's Proposition 8 had passed by a fairly large margin (5%). Proposition 8 defines marriage as between one man and one woman -- "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" -- which reverses laws previously made in California allowing same-sex marriage.

This Proposition, perhaps not surprisingly, had intense backing from Evangelicals, including James Dobson and Rick Warren. The single largest organization behind it may have been the Mormon Church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints [*] ). Protests state-wide in California are underway as I write these words.

My progressive Californian brother and I have had some sparky discussions re homosexuality, my "orthodox Christian" position seeming pure bigotry to him. (He's kind of a hero of mine, so I feel not so good re his assessment!) But regarding Proposition 8 being a bad idea, I found myself agreeing with him that it was a bad law.

I hope everyone reads to the end of what follows, because while no one may like my tentative conclusions, I don't want to be misunderstood re what those conclusions are. And even more than usual, I remind all that these thoughts do NOT represent any organization or entity with which I am associated, whether that be Jesus People USA Evangelical Covenant Church, Project 12, or whomever else I have written for, spoken for, bla bla bla. My views are solely my own.

Homosexuality and Scripture

Before fellow Evangelicals freak, let me reiterate: I believe God's Word that marriage as created by God is meant only for one woman and one man. I would submit that not only does Scripture contain verses directly targeting homosexuality as outside God's will (Lev. 20:13; Romans 1:26, 27; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 1 Tim. 1:9-11), but also an overwhelming number of verses defining marriage as between one man and one woman. (Professor Linda Belleville wrote a multi-part article on sexuality and Scripture for us sometime ago, and here are parts One, Two, and Three -- the last most directly addressing homosexuality in Scripture. Parts four and five never got posted on line, sorry to say.)

God's marriage model remains that found in Genesis: 2:23, 24 : "Then the man said, 'This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.' Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh" [NRSV]. This is reiterated in Matthew 19:5-6 and Mark 10:7-8. Paul reiterates the Genesis model twice more, once in a negative context regarding prostitution (1 Cor. 6:16, and the larger passage afterward expands into a discussion of the same heterosexual one man, one woman marriage), and once in a positive and startling context (Eph. 5:31,32).

What of polygamy? someone might ask. Yes, polygamy is abundant in the Old Testament, but never is it suggested that God founded such a practice. Further, it is expressly discouraged in the New Testament (no Elders or Deacons may be married to more than one wife / husband). In the biblical narrative, God tolerates things He doesn't like. A for-instance? The frivolous divorce laws under Moses, where a man could ditch his wife simply by writing a decree of divorce, Jesus negates by saying "It was because your hearts were hard" (Mark 10:5a, NIV) . Then Jesus sets the record straight on divorce, reminding his listeners of the heart of the law.

There are other arguments pro-gay folks attempt to argue from Scripture, including the rather sad (to me) argument that since David's love for Jonathan (my namesake) "surpassed the love of women," that love was sexual in nature. Such interpretation seems to me possible only in our western culture where male love is so circumscribed that love such as David's for Jonathan is automatically assumed to be sexual. Can't men love each other with incredible depth and even passion without it turning sexual? As a man, I hate this traditionalist view of males which (with a sense of irony) I note is being used by pro-gay forces.

But this isn't meant as an in-depth treatise on homsexuality in Scripture. My only point here is that within a Scriptural world view homosexuality appears to me to be excluded. I hasten to add that heterosexuality outside of marriage is also excluded, and that homosexual desires are not in themselves sins, but rather temptations.

FINE, Trott! Get back to Prop 8!!

So with the above beliefs, must I support Prop 8, as well as other present and future laws like it? Shouldn't we Christians attempt legislating marriage in in all fifty states as "one man, one woman" just like Genesis says? Isn't this one time bluechristian should read a little bit redchristian?

I don't think so.

Defining Marriage for ourselves vs. Defining Marriage for our Neighbor

I think we Evangelicals, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and anyone else who holds to the one-man, one-woman definition of marriage on religious grounds are caught in a major difficulty when it comes to making it law. Not just on legal grounds, mind you, though I personally suspect that the "Traditional Marriage" people are about to provoke state courts, federal courts, maybe even the Supreme Court into doing the very thing they fear. But I think there's something ethically wrong here, frankly.

It was James Dobson, speaking negatively about Barack Obama's morals, who helped me begin clarifying for myself what seems wrong with Prop 8:

"What terrifies me is the thought that he [Obama] might be our president. . . might be in the Oval Office . . . might be the leader of the free world . . . might be the Commander in Chief," he said to Sean Hannity back in June of this year. "As I said a minute ago, the man is dangerous, especially in regard to this issue of morality. I can't tell you how strongly I feel about this. He's saying that my morality has to conform to his because we all have to agree or else it's not democratic."

Um.... I have at least three issues with the above.

(1.) Isn't this inverting the truth? That is, aren't WE the ones who are saying that everyone else -- from Hindu to Christian to Agnostic to Atheist -- must accept OUR morality as their morality?

(2.) When James Dobson claims that "my morality has to conform to [Obama's]" it shows mainly that Dobson is misreading the entire basis for the conversation. Who is demanding conformity more, a person who narrows marriage's definition for everyone or a person who widens it? Especially in the context of a secular polycultural democracy, it seems increasingly problematic to attempt legislating one subculture's version of marriage. The legal definition of marriage in America should reflect a wide spectrum of Americans' understanding, not just Christian Americans' understanding.

I don't like mixing up race with homosexuality because they to me appear quite different topics on a number of levels, especially the deepest moral and spiritual levels. But Prop 8 begs for the comparison to interracial marriage, because the way it frames same-sex marriage is highly similar legally to how segregationists framed interracial marriage. Using Dobson's logic, when the 1967 Supreme Court decision Loving vs Virginia prohibited state laws against interracial marriage, the state was forcing moral conformity on everyone. In actuality, churches could have and in fact still do (unfortunately!) teach against interracial marriage. That is their right. What isn't their right is to define marriage legally for everyone (as opposed to theologically for their own community).

(3.) Dobson's unspoken assumption here is that America is a Christian nation. No, it is not. It never has been. And as a fervent Christian, I never think it should be (or could be for that matter). It is true that "traditional" values -- sometimes Christian and sometimes not -- are eroding in America and have been for decades. Barack Obama could not have been elected President or even thought of running in the 1950s-early 1960s "Christian America" James Dobson wants to "restore." I grew up in that era, and I do *not* want to go back.

Aren't Dr. Dobson and Rick Warren attempting to enforce Christian belief when it comes to marriage, making that belief a required law rather than human choice? Many Christians want marriage to remain identified with a mono-cultural America, one rooted in Judaeo-Christian principles. Yet for me, who see in that same old paradigm the roots of a dangerous nationalism which I firmly believe could result in an all-out fascist state if not politically defeated, I find myself wondering if we need to rethink this whole "traditional values" thing. It -- once again -- assumes the myth of a once or future Christian America. Never was one. Never will be one. [**]

That is what bothers me about Proposition 8. Because, you see, Christians (along with all supporters of so-called "traditional marriage" [***] ) are assuming they have the right to define marriage not only for themselves but for everyone else as well. God could, of course, define marriage any way he wished simply by causing all same-sex individuals to start yearning heterosexually. But God doesn't use force very often, despite how many of his self-appointed spokespersons suggest he does. In fact, God is the most coy about relationship of any Person. He woos us in thousands of ways, yet never forces us into relationship with him and never requires of us that we force our neighbors to believe as we believe. EVER.

My question -- and despite all the above I remind everyone it is a question I'm answering for myself here, not you -- Do we as Christians really believe that pushing our moral values via legislation furthers the cause of Jesus Christ? I think Dr. Dobson, Rick Warren, and others who think they've won a victory have actually done something which may be immoral, not because it violates God's Word re marriage, but rather because it violates the heart of Love itself. It violates the opportunity each person has to discover God's Way for her or him self.

As a believer in Jesus Christ, I have little interest in converting my neighbor to heterosexuality, or from homosexuality. What I am interested in is first of all to love my neighbor as myself, second only to loving God with my whole heart and mind and soul. Loving my neighbor is firstly about introducing him or her to Christ -- using words only where necessary. Prayerfully, I see Christian marriage itself as one of the greatest potential weapons of love in causing a non-believer to become attracted to Christ. Very prayerfully, I dare hope that sometimes even my own marriage might cause such attraction to observers of it. If a gay person enters into a relationship with Jesus Christ, wouldn't one assume that she or he might also encounter the words of Scripture? And wouldn't the Holy Spirit within that person aid them in beginning to see, and act on, a realization that homosexuality isn't what their Lord wants of them? The issues are hard to cope with, complex in scope. But I trust God's Grace (Agape love) over the law (of God or men) which biblically is said to lead to death.

As far as Proposition 8, I would have voted against it if it had been an issue here in Illinois. I probably would not vote for defining gay marriage as equivalent to one man and one woman -- I'd be violating my conscience (and God's Word) to do so. But I also would violate my conscience to vote for a Proposition that dictates what love is and is not to my homosexual neighbors. They, like me, make choices regarding love and right and wrong before a Personal, Holy, Just, and Loving God. Admitting some ambiguity in just how that unpacks as far as legislation goes, I believe I do God no service by engaging in "culture wars" wherein my ego rather than God's righteousness seems most reflected.

It does cause me suffering to think my neighbors will enter into relationships which are outside the will of a Loving God. And isn't part of my hesitation, even now, in actually posting these ruminations rooted in wishing I could avoid that suffering? It is incumbent on me to bear witness to God's ideas on marriage, even while I refuse to block the democratic rights of others to legally define marriage their own way. I also acknowledge that my own views on marriage cause my homosexual neighbor to suffer. She feels diminished when she realizes I do not see her relationship with her beloved as healthy or biblical. Yet I love my neighbor -- and I am talking about a real person here, not an abstraction. All I can do is bear witness to what God has done and is still doing in me, in my relationships, in my own broken but healing heterosexuality. And I can simply be silent, affirming her personhood even though unable to affirm all her choices.

It hurts to be a Christian, and the more it hurts the closer I suspect it gets to actually being real Christianity. But of course suffering and loving and failing and starting again can't really be the topics of legislation. The law kills. The Spirit gives life. As an Evangelical, I am indeed a person of the book. But I am also a person of the Living Word, Jesus Christ. If you are a fellow Evangelical who thinks I've terribly erred, pray for me that I would see better. If you are a homosexual and deeply troubled, even hurt, by what I've said here regarding the Scriptures, please forgive my ineptitude and gracelessness and pray for me that I learn better to communicate God's heart, not just my own mind. And if you are an observer, wryly fascinated by my obtuse and overly-verbose attempts to reflect both "Truth" and "Love," pray for me that I might understand far better how it's done.

-=-

I welcome feedback on this post... hopefully of a reasoned manner. I do moderate comments due to a few recurrent rascals, but will post almost all comments made unless they're downright hateful and/or astonishingly monofocused on topics which are off-topic. For more (and perhaps more intelligent) postings on this topic, see:

Randall Balmer's Huffington Post article takes Rick Warren to task: "Rick Warren on Prop 8: He Knows Better"

The Evangelical Outpost blog has some good back and forth: "Proposition 8: The Same-Sex Marriage Debate"

* Does anyone else find it odd that the Mormon Church -- founded in part on the doctrine of polygamous marriage -- would be a principal sponsor of Proposition 8?

** (Well, actually it's up to God what happens when all Creation is at last redeemed on that day of His appearing... a New America along with a New [fully redeemed and healed] Earth? Sorry, that's pretty theological for my non-christian readers).

*** "Traditional marriage" is one of the most unfortunate, as well as inaccurate, phrases I know. Marriage is so sexy, so adventurous, so challenging and painful and demanding and life-altering. "Traditional"? That term in addition suggests the usual male-dominant union of powerful husband, submissive wife, a model many of us Evangelical egalitarian / feminist types reject as overtly unbiblical. See http://www.cbeinternational.org for more on egalitarian biblical theology and support. They, by the way, have NOTHING to do with the views expressed here on Proposition 8.

BlueChristian's Election 2008 in Pictures

2008-11-06T08:26:00.009-06:00

Instead of much text this time, I thought I'd offer some personal pictures of my family's 2008 election experience. Oh, and here's a very silly Obama moment we got on film...

And now that silliness is out of the way, here are some pics I took while being an Election Judge at a Precinct near our house:

I did sneak the above pic without really compromising anyone's anonymity as they voted... though it wasn't a secret who was voting for who... the final tally in this precinct was 331 some for Obama vs 21 for McCain.

Blue Christian (a.k.a., Jon Trott, yours truly) holds a royal flush of voter touchscreen cards (the little machine in front of me activates the cards for use in a touchscreen voting machine). Katy, my fellow judge, looks on.

Two of our fellow judges are keeping a lock on the main balloting machine/box.

Katy, Julie (a fellow JPUSAn), and Trina our PPA (the one that fixes it when we Judges manage to mess up the computer touch screen). The day was wildly busy through the entire morning, but slowed down in the afternoon. Everyone had the idea to vote early this year.

My grand daughter Naya again, wearing her Aunt Tamzen created Obama shirt, which while not fully visible here, reads: "OBAMA - I need a change. No, not my diaper."

Grant Park pics from my four children (plus the two boys' wives) who went down to see it all happen may be forthcoming...

VOTE!

2008-11-03T21:20:00.003-06:00

Okay, I'm not here this Tuesday, Election Day. I'm busy being an Election Judge at a nearby Precinct in my neighborhood. I'll be up in seven hours (Lord knows when I'll go to bed, but 4 am is when I have to get up). Then, I'll watch this historic day go by from behind a pile of blank ballots that will shrink all day long. A whole lot. And, one way or another, tomorrow will be historic.

But your role is to go vote. I hope you vote for Barack Obama. But whoever you vote for, do vote. And vote the rest of the races as well. Tomorrow on our ballot, we have two very local referendums that will only affect a small number of Americans. But in my neighborhood, they could mean more affordable housing and more locally held jobs.

So yes, VOTE. And I'll see you in a day or two.

Young, Black, Female, and Evangelical: Why she voted Bush last time and Barack this time

2008-11-03T15:04:00.004-06:00

I'm a middle-aged white guy. So let's hear from an Evangelical who's young, black, and voted for George Bush in 2004. Alissa Griffith explains (CBS News) how she and many other young black believers were impressed in 2004 by the double-barreled social issues of same sex marriage and abortion. The result was they voted for George Bush, helping to propel him back into the White House.

Not this time, though. "Four years later, I am still the young, black, evangelical, 'moral conservative' that I was in 2004 - and I support Barack Obama," she writes.

Alissa believes Obama's policies touch on many of the issues which are most important to her, including some not often seen on the radar of white Evangelicalism. Further, she dismisses single-issue voting with some fervor:

A vote for Obama is not a dismissal of morality in favor of social justice. It is an acknowledgement that morality encompasses much more than just abortion and same-sex marriage issues. Judging based on rhetoric throughout this election, Obama has exhibited his competency in social justice issues and McCain is still just trying to figure out why it matters.

Her critique is specific:

Unemployment, a poor economy, an expensive war, fatherless homes, high incarceration rates, poor education and a lack of access to higher education are at the forefront of all voters' minds. The presidential debates exposed John McCain's illiteracy on these issues.

But why are those issues able to trump the abortion issue? Yes, here race does matter:

This is of more consequence to black young evangelicals than the larger evangelical group because these issues disproportionately affect our families and our community.

Alissa's response to Evangelicals who think she's turning her back on the unborn is forthright.

We still think it is important to halt the outrageous number of abortions performed in this country, but we also are acutely aware of the plight of those people who did not have abortions and are struggling to raise their children in the inner cities of this country. We believe in prayer in schools, but disagree with abstinence-only education. We think that welfare is not the key to success, but we understand that some children will not eat without it. We roll our eyes at accusations of racism, but we can see the class differences and know that minorities populate the lower classes of America. We believe that people should pay for their crimes, but we know that capital punishment and longer prison sentencing are the fate of a disproportional amount of black men. We don't believe in handouts, but know that many black people simply can't afford higher education. We believe in morality, but believe the definition is too narrow.

And Alissa... I couldn't agree more.

The Prophet of Pretend: James Dobson's "2012 Obama Letter" spells the end not for America, but for Focus on the Family

2008-10-25T00:11:00.025-05:00

[What follows is an incomplete, badly edited set of observations and even rants. I have been pondering what to say, and how to say it, since reading Focus Action's "2012 Obama America" letter last week. I was so angry initially that everything I wrote sounded the same way. Some of that anger, and a bit of the shrillness (sorry) are in the below. But I had to address this. So, consider the below an incomplete set of thoughts more conversational than scholarly. As far as Dr. Dobson and Focus on the Family go, I may have to revisit them after the election is over.]

I've cut Focus on the Family's James Dobson slack in the past, even in my harshest critiques. Not any more. Dr. Dobson has long been involved in a project to return America to a "Christian era" which in truth it never enjoyed. His enemies are the usual suspects: "far left" Democrats, gays, liberals, commies, and apparently naive young evangelicals willing to vote for Barack Obama. But especially gays (and we'll get back to that issue later).

This all comes to light on Dobson's political website, Focus Action, where he has published his most nightmarish fantasy, "Letter from 2012 in Obama's America." This pseudo-prophetic work of fiction takes place in 2012, and the narrator is telling us all about how terrible the new Obamafied America is. In short, America has gone to hell under Obama's alleged wimpy / socialist / Muslim-friendly / terrorist friendly / gay-marriage friendly / just plain unAmerican leadership.

This may be the most harsh thing I've ever said on this blog. But with this letter Dr. Dobson has created one of the more overtly fascist things I've seen from the Christian Right (and that's saying something!). By "fascist" I don't mean swastika-wearing, Jew-gassing Nazis. I mean people who are interested in forcing their fellow citizens into their imagined perfect world, who use the very word "freedom" itself to attempt taking freedom away. Here's Webster's definition of the fascism I speak of: "a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control."

Fascism works using fear and hate. Usually, it works best by creating fear of someone (the "Other") which quickly is focused into a hatred of that "Other." This technique requires dehumanizing the other, treating her or him as a 3/5 person, so to speak. From there, it is an easy thing to legally marginalize that person and even commit legalized violence against that person. (The above is one reason, by the way, for me personally supporting gay Civil Unions -- and more on that later.)

Now that I'm in that far I might as well take it all the way. The Evangelical / Christian Right's treatment of women, also echoed by Focus on the Family, is fascist. This is where my personal pot of water comes to a boil. And it is easily documented. Read the elaborate (though faulty) theological edifices of the Southern Baptist Convention. The SBC's Southeastern Seminary has systematically stripped women from all real roles of leadership, even from the pulpit and from the mission field, and offers what amount to Home Economic degrees to women. To drive that point home, no men are allowed to take the course.

But I digress. The letter's admixture of fear and hate seems intended to bring a populace toward an autocratic leader by causing them to hate a wholly imaginary other:

[H]ere is a picture of the changes that are likely or at least very possible if Senator Obama is elected and the far-left segments of the Democratic Party gain control of the White House, the Congress, and perhaps then the Supreme Court. The entire letter is written as a “What if?” exercise, but that does not make it empty speculation because every future “event” described here is based on established legal and political trends that can already be abundantly documented and that only need a “tipping point” such as the election of Senator Obama and a Democratic House and Senate to begin to put them into place.

This isn't prophecy, it is only a "pretend" letter from 2012... except it isn't pretend. Its Halloween-like scenario is, according to the letter's preamble, "likely or at least very possible." So what we're dealing with is a "prophetic" letter here, and since it is allegedly prophetic, it therefore presumably carries with it the authority of God. James Dobson is thus made a virtual pope of Protestants, a voice we fail to heed at our own peril. (Remember those "young evangelicals" who voted for Obama? He's talking to YOU!) So, as our Christian authority on all things from family to White House, to whom we should listen without criticism, we shut off our brains and open our gosling mouths wide as he stuffs the worms of fear and rage down our throats: why we MUST NOT vote for Barack Obama!! Feel the wiggle?

Documented? Sure. Like there's a few footnotes. I and others have exposed numerous books on alleged "satanic ritual abuse," some of which were chock full of footnotes. I recall one book in particular which had multiple footnotes per sentence, yet with a bottom line that was patently bogus (it claimed that a massive intergenerational satanic "cult" of high-up politicians, money men, and religious figures was controlling world events). What I learned is to pay attention to the text and what it claims, not some sort of massive footnoting enterprise there to offer the appearance of actual scholarship. The text itself is what I find so incredibly, shockingly offensive. The footnotes rarely actually apply to the central fear and hate mongering "future" the letter claims to know about.

After the above mentioned introduction, the letter opens and immediately sets a tone for what will follow:

Dear friends,
I can hardly sing “The Star Spangled Banner” any more. When I hear the words,

O say, does that star spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

I get tears in my eyes and a lump in my throat. Now in October of 2012, after seeing what has happened in the last four years, I don’t think I can still answer, “Yes,” to that question. We are not “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Many of our freedoms have been taken away by a liberal Supreme Court and a majority of Democrats in both the House and the Senate, and hardly any brave citizen dares to resist the new government policies any more.

Get it? Being a Democrat equals being unAmerican. Despite the fact that more Americans this year are Democrats. Voting Democrat to James Dobson means loss of freedom. And what is his "freedom"? A return to 1950s America is no freedom at all, and no one wants that. Yet all Dobson's dark prognostications are "proven" by a fictional letter written by a fictional character in the fictional and very apocalyptic 2012 of the actual writer's fevered imagination.

So when I look up the hammer and sickle are flying over my head, right? Oh, wait. That's the movie "Red Dawn." Maybe "2012 Obama's America" could be a sequel. As far as "tears in my eyes and a lump in my throat," that's my reaction to dinner trying to make a comeback.

Who, according to Dr. Dobson, is guilty for electing this cartoonishly evil slimeball dude with the overly dark skin to the Presidency?!

The 2008 election was closer than anybody expected, but Barack Obama still won. Many Christians voted for Obama – younger evangelicals actually provided him with the needed margin to defeat John McCain – but they didn’t think he would really follow through on the far left policies that had marked his entire previous career. They were wrong.

Dang, all those kids don't know how to vote. Maybe Focus on the Family should send someone with them to the polls to help them out. They should have done what the Benevolent Patriarch(alist) told you to do, and vote for John McCain. Sure, I know a few months back James Dobson said he'd never vote for or support John McCain, but I guess... he lied? This Obama dude has to be stopped at any cost!! Or is it more that Mr. Dobson and Focus on the Family are losing their grip over the present generation, that young evangelicals no longer even understand the scarey lingo and reactionary images Dobson presents as "Christian"? Could this be a power thing, the real nightmare for James Dobson in that his power base is aging itself out of existence? What about the fact that an estimated sixty-six percent of Hispanic Evangelicals are likely Obama voters? That doesn't bode well for Jim Dobson, either. We have seen the future, and it is brown and Democrat.

Here's a shocker! it turns out that Barack Obama is going to destroy the Boy Scouts of America, and/or make every scout the potential victim of a pedophile.

Boy Scouts: “The land of the free”? The Boy Scouts no longer exist as an organization. They chose to disband rather than be forced to obey the Supreme Court decision that they would have to hire homosexual scoutmasters and allow them to sleep in tents with young boys.

Sleep in tents with young boys?! Yikes, sounds like an Anne Rice vampire novel. (I will come back to this lie later.)

Elementary schools: “The land of the free”? Elementary schools now include compulsory training in varieties of gender identity in Grade 1, including the goodness of homosexuality as one possible personal choice. Many parents tried to “opt out” their children from such sessions, but the courts have ruled that they cannot do this, noting that education experts in the government have decided that such training is essential to children’s psychological health.

Wow, that is scary... as in ridiculous. If you really think the above is what voting for Barack Obama will lead to, I'll sell you Lake Michigan. Send me $20 and I'll email the whole thing to you. The above is fear-mongering. It is also, as if I need to note it, more "focus" on homosexuality, which seems to really be an interest of Dr. Dobson's. I mean, REALLY an interest. :

Businesses with government contracts: “The land of the free”? All businesses that have government contracts at the national, state, or local level now have to provide documentation of equal benefits for same sex couples. This was needed to overcome “systemic discrimination” against them and followed on a national level the pattern of policies already in place in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle.

Two issues here, though arguing with a fantasy written by a right-wing hack is an exercise in stupidity of my own:

Issue One: If the government is funding (or helping fund) a business via using that business, shouldn't the government also get to call the tune as to fairness re hiring and firing in that business? That is, the government isn't forcing the business to do anything... unless that business wants contracts with the government.

Issue Two: as someone who thinks Civil Unions are a good alternative to Gay Marriage (in that they take care of both the gay couple's civil rights and the religious community's proper sense of ownership re what "marriage" means), I think Christians who fight the above sort of thing are being neither wise nor neighborly. By all means, let's attempt to stuff our own definition of moral reality down everyone else's throat, until and if they gain power instead. Then, with our having tutored them on how it is done (with cruelty, unreason, and depersonalizing uniformity) we can have our turn as victims. Not very smart, Mr. Dobson. But since you're the oracle of God and I'm just a poor mutt Christian trying to follow Jesus, I guess you win the authority war. I am the authority of nothing, and you may quote me.

Public broadcasting: “The land of the free”? The Bible can no longer be freely preached over radio or television stations when the subject matter includes such “offensive” doctrines as homosexual conduct or the claim that people will go to hell if they do not believe in Jesus Christ. The Supreme Court agreed that these could be kept off the air as prohibited “hate speech” that is likely to incite violence and discrimination. These policies followed earlier broadcasting and print restrictions that were already in place prior to 2008 in Canada and Sweden.

Oh, please. This reminds me of the crazy -- and false -- charge that atheists had sued the FCC to force removal of all religious programming from radio. Despite the fact that this was not true, the rumor refused to die and continued to resurface in various forms over the years. I guarantee you that we'll be hearing all the right-wing folks on the radio and TV for years and years to come, no matter who's in the White House.

I could go on. But as Jim Wallis of Sojourners and others have already done a fine job overall, I'd like to get a little more focused on one aspect of the letter that really bothered me.

This started off as me reading about Dobson's take on Barack Obama. But it ended with me angry over his treatment of gays. I am trying hard to live in a biblical space regarding homosexuality. I believe Scripture does place homosexual acts (as opposed to temptation / orientation) outside the pale of right Christian behavior. Yet at the same time, I am commanded to love my neighbor.

What I think Dobson has done, is doing with this letter, and apparently will continue to do is to abuse self-identified gay people. And he has done so using the exact approach once used against women militating for the vote and blacks working for their civil rights. He has identified the "other" as the enemy. This is curious, since I myself have suggested for years that homosexuality should not be confused with feminism or race-related issues but is rather an issue with unique characteristics, biblically speaking. Yet James Dobson's twisted fantasy story makes of homosexuality a sin of special nature, a sin that is sensationalized into something... how do I say it... pornographic. In short, I am left wondering if a parent would want the writer of this letter to sleep in a tent with the boys!

Perhaps worst in this shrill bit of rightist propaganda is the conflation of two totally different sexual issues: homosexuality vs. pederasty. Homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than are their heterosexual counterparts. The entirety of the "Boy Scout" bit in this "pretend prophecy" is vile, cruel, and unloving in the most strictly Scriptural sense. There is so much else to loath about that letter, but for this one point alone I personally have moved from upset with Dobson to an anti-Focus on the Family activist. We cannot allow these cruel individuals and ministries to continue representing us to a watching world, much less our non-believing neighbors... some of who are gay!

We are required to bear witness to biblical ideals regarding sexuality, whether addressing homosexuality or America's norms re heterosexuality. But doing so, with great care and meekness and humility while admitting we too struggle with sexuality, is far different than Dr. Dobson's shrill, illogical, and immoral (yes indeed!) attack on our neighbors. I personally repudiate Dr. Dobson or Focus on the Family as representing the Christian Faith I believe in.

And it makes me extremely sad, not glad, to say so.

Is There Such a Thing as a "Pro-Life Feminism"?

2008-10-24T09:39:00.006-05:00

Is there such a thing as a "Pro-Life Feminism"? Dang, I sure hope so. It is a position I've tried to articulate for years. I don't pretend it it is easy -- either mentally or emotionally -- to support womens' rights while also supporting the unborns' right to life. But for this poor male nimblewit, womens' rights have haunted me over the past fifteen years at least. And as I read and think and pray, I've had to discard all sorts of muck both theological and political, the "conventional wisdom" of an astonishingly reactionary Evangelical subculture. At the same time, I continue to encounter my own blindness re feminism's depth of critique. That is, I am handicapped by my maleness from existential knowledge of what being a woman means now, or has meant in the past. As those who've read my blogs, both bluechristian.blogspot.com and the moribund aremenreallyhuman.blogspot.com, may remember my lengthy and sometimes uneven journey.

Sarah Palin, whom I think would be a terrible president, nonetheless is a member of "Feminists for Life," one group whose name neatly encapsulates an anti-abortion position with a pro-feminist one. I hope they are more than a Republican front, however, as my cynicism forces me to ask the question. Are any of them voting for Obama, despite the pro-life portion of their name?

Meanwhile, it now appears Sarah Palin isn't willing to call herself a feminist any longer, as she did earlier in the campaign. Interviewed by Katie Couric of CBS a while back, and asked by Couric "Do you consider yourself a feminist?", Gov. Palin answered:

"I do. I'm a feminist who believes in equal rights and I believe that women certainly today have every opportunity that a man has to succeed, and to try to do it all, anyway."

But when asked days ago by NBC Nightly News' Brian Williams the same question, Gov. Palin's answer seemed aimed at her very conservative Evangelical base:

"I'm not gonna label myself anything, Brian. And I think that's what annoys a lot of Americans, especially in a political campaign, is to start trying to label different parts of America different, different backgrounds, different . . . I'm not going to put a label on myself."

Well, I have to put the feminist label on myself, because it has a whole lot to do with how I look at things. When I see on television a spokesperson (male and white) from the Southern Baptist Convention talking about pro-life issues, I experience the urge to either assault my television or regurgitate. The Southern Baptist Convention has removed women from nearly all positions of leadership within that denomination, even from the mission field where those women are winning hearts to Christ and serving with their hands the poorest of the poor. The level of offense this causes me cannot be measured on the Richter Scale.

It is of some comfort to find that so-called "secular" feminists also struggle with the pro-life issue, though usually those who do so in public get significant push-back against their efforts. Camille Paglia, writing on Salon.com, does some real soul-searching. (Thanks, Annie, for pointing this article out to me.) I don't agree with Paglia's conclusions in more than one respect, but they are worth hearing:

Let's take the issue of abortion rights, of which I am a firm supporter. As an atheist and libertarian, I believe that government must stay completely out of the sphere of personal choice. Every individual has an absolute right to control his or her body. (Hence I favor the legalization of drugs, though I do not take them.) Nevertheless, I have criticized the way that abortion became the obsessive idée fixe of the post-1960s women's movement -- leading to feminists' McCarthyite tactics in pitting Anita Hill with her flimsy charges against conservative Clarence Thomas (admittedly not the most qualified candidate possible) during his nomination hearings for the Supreme Court. Similarly, Bill Clinton's support for abortion rights gave him a free pass among leading feminists for his serial exploitation of women -- an abusive pattern that would scream misogyny to any neutral observer.

But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, "Sexual Personae,") has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature's fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive.

Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman's body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman's entrance into society and citizenship.

On the other hand, I support the death penalty for atrocious crimes (such as rape-murder or the murder of children). I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?

What I am getting at here is that not until the Democratic Party stringently reexamines its own implicit assumptions and rhetorical formulas will it be able to deal effectively with the enduring and now escalating challenge from the pro-life right wing. Because pro-choice Democrats have been arguing from cold expedience, they have thus far been unable to make an effective ethical case for the right to abortion.

The gigantic, instantaneous coast-to-coast rage directed at Sarah Palin when she was identified as pro-life was, I submit, a psychological response by loyal liberals who on some level do not want to open themselves to deep questioning about abortion and its human consequences. I have written about the eerie silence that fell over campus audiences in the early 1990s when I raised this issue on my book tours. At such moments, everyone in the hall seemed to feel the uneasy conscience of feminism. Naomi Wolf later bravely tried to address this same subject but seems to have given up in the face of the resistance she encountered.

If Sarah Palin tries to intrude her conservative Christian values into secular government, then she must be opposed and stopped. But she has every right to express her views and to argue for society's acceptance of the high principle of the sanctity of human life. If McCain wins the White House and then drops dead, a President Palin would have the power to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court, but she could not control their rulings.

It is nonsensical and counterproductive for Democrats to imagine that pro-life values can be defeated by maliciously destroying their proponents. And it is equally foolish to expect that feminism must for all time be inextricably wed to the pro-choice agenda. There is plenty of room in modern thought for a pro-life feminism -- one in fact that would have far more appeal to third-world cultures where motherhood is still honored and where the Western model of the hard-driving, self-absorbed career woman is less admired.

But the one fundamental precept that Democrats must stand for is independent thought and speech. When they become baying bloodhounds of rigid dogma, Democrats have committed political suicide.

I find in Barack Obama someone who seems willing to forego his party's "rigid dogma" on abortion, to the extent he has echoed some of Paglia's language regarding the pro-life movement's legitimate ethical issues regarding abortion. While he is pro-choice, he seems unusually attuned to the suasive power of the unborn being actual human beings. His central argument, with which I disagree but carefully and tentatively, is that the woman carrying a child should have a right of privacy regarding her own choices re having an abortion and that government doesn't belong in the mix. That reasoning is the heart of Roe v Wade, of course.

For me, who's already blogged at length on why the Republicans will never overturn Roe and why I as a pro-lifer am nonetheless compelled to vote for Barack Obama, the issue of abortion remains large on my radar screen. I continue to hope that both camps -- pro-life and pro-choice -- can open their insular worlds up to the other in order to find at least some commonalities. Being pro-life for me means being pro-woman as well. And being pro-woman means that I acknowledge women's singular responsibility, biologically and therefore psychologically / intellectually / emotionally, regarding the unborn. What I hope to find is that the pro-choice movement under an Obama presidency can perhaps find room to re-examine stale doctrines birthed in the 1970s regarding the unborn as mere tissue, and replace those ideas with a far more humanizing, and therefore morally complex and challenging, set of realities regarding the unborn AND women... and men.

For those of us who are pro-life in a wider sense than that meant by the Christian Right and the Republican Party, we need to grapple with the painful realities of voting our consciences. I personally believe that voting for Barack Obama may decrease the actual numbers of abortions, as well as provide wholistic pro-life positions which may be far more attractive to feminists such as myself than are the anti-womanist positions often held (illogically, but historically) by many Catholic and Evangelical pro-lifers.

I realize this will irritate many readers. That is understandable. Each of us feels terrible pain over certain issues, things that become so central to our empathy re suffering and injustice that we tend to base everything else on those issues. In the past, I voted at times as a "single issue" pro-lifer. But history and my own experiences encountering feminism have led me to a place where I often feel sad and torn. It is a place where, with a very small "s" (let's not posture here, Mr. Trott), I do suffer. I think maybe that's where Christians should find themselves more often than they do.

We Americans want resolution, complete and total. But the reality is this: in some of life's deepest things, there is no simple resolution but rather a continuing struggle to find a place where love is expressed in an embracing way toward all parties involved. On this fallen planet, all our hearts ache. Injustice is everywhere, even in the attempts to do justice we humans attempt. Yet hopelessness is not an option. The struggle to love one another as Christ loved us continues. How that looks, whether in an election or at an abortion clinic, is something each human being must take up with that person's Maker.

Pray for me in my struggle to do so. Please.

So that's where Republicans get it! Noam Chomsky, Muslims, and Fear Mongering in America's Historical Pedigree

2008-10-23T15:43:00.005-05:00

"The [mythical] theme is 'We are about to be destroyed by a horrifying enemy.' And at the last minute, a super-weapon is discovered, or a hero arises such as Rambo... this goes right back to the Eighteenth Century..." - Noam Chomsky

Thanks to CNN's iReport pages, I ran across this thought-provoking video featuring professor Noam Chomsky being interviewed by American University Professor Akbar Ahmed. I think it offers some historical context regarding not only anti-Islamic expressions within America, but also (in a larger context) some of the fear/hate mythologies currently being attempted against the Democratic Presidential ticket by Republicans (see my previous two posts).

For more on and from Akbar Ahmed, I'd advise a visit to Journey Into America. And again... please don't forget to vote, preferably early if your state still has early voting open (Illinois, for instance has early voting until October 30).

New "Terrorists" mailer: Republicans ask us to insert head in toilet, swallow

2008-10-23T09:36:00.012-05:00

Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy, and do not fear what it fears, or be in dread. Isaiah 8:12 NRSV

Last night, I attempted a bit of humor here in posting my list of negative labels the Republicans have attempted to affix on Barack Obama. This morning, out comes a massively distributed Republican Party mailer:

And this morning I'm not laughing.

The flier is a load. And we're being asked to swallow it. Once again, the McCain/Palin folks are going back to the Karl Rove playbook of nasty, baseless, negative campaigning. And let's be honest here. What is being implied? "Terrorists don't care who they hurt" the flier's cover says. And below it, fake newsprint headlines reading "Terrorist. Radical. Friend of Obama" and "Obama Close Ties...Terrorist." Get it?! Obama... TERRORIST! The large airplane reminds us of 9/11... Ah. Obama, Al Queida. No logical connection exists, but this is about effective illogic, vile lies being used to stir up hatred and fear.

Inside, just to drill the message home...

Forgive all the exclamation points which follow, as I'm a bit peeved this morning...

First starts the whining over Obama actually wanting to talk to terrorists instead of blowing their countries to hell! "Barack Obama Thinks Terrorists Need a Good Talking to." OH MY GAWD! He might actually favor diplomacy over attacking nations without provocation! So if diplomats are terrorists, as opposed to bomb-wielding nations, I'm left wondering what, in light of that definition, Al Queida would be called. Using this Republican pretzel logic, Perhaps Osama bin Laden deserves the Nobel Peace Prize!

"Barack Obama. Not Who You Think He Is." screams the banner along the bottom edge of this masterpiece of McCarthyite defecation. Well, I know who Barack Obama is. He's an American, he's a Christian, and he's a man who has spent his entire life in a disciplined effort to become a positive, unifying leader. His story (as evidenced in his two books) should (and I pray will be) an enduring part of our national legacy. Liars are fryers, baby.

I also know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, who John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the Republicans are. They are desperate people who are going to use the politics of fear and hate to attempt to win. This is frustrating, and scarey. Why? Because it worked in the past two elections. And despite Obama's current lead in the polls, I for one am not at all convinced that lead will hold up.

I have two messages for readers of this puny little BlueChristian blog.

One: This is short and sweet. Anyone who supports Barack Obama's candidacy for President needs to respond to this attack immediately by donating money to Obama's campaign. If you are really ticked at this, the Obama folks have a page just for us so we can make a specific, powerful statement. I'm going to do so today. I hope you will as well.

Two: Evangelical readers currently supporting John McCain and (perhaps even more enthusiastically) Sarah Palin. Can you step back for a moment and ask yourself why you would support a campaign capable of flinging this kind of hate-mongering poop? Can you ask yourself about your own theology -- and here I'm thinking about loving one's neighbor and loving one's God vs. embracing end times narratives from Hal Lindsay, Tim LaHaye, and such? The Republicans are counting on you as their base! That's the narrative here. They want you to be frightened of an American leader, a fellow Christian.

Let's get right down to it: they want you to believe Barack Obama is a closet Muslim terrorist. Well, do you? Honestly? You've seen him in the debates. Do you think he is anti-American? Do you think he is part of some massive conspiracy? Well, if you do, go ahead and vote for the Republicans. But if you sense they are lying about Barack, why would you trust them? We've been lied to for eight years. Here is a man with whom we may not agree on everything, but who has made repeated and thoughtful overtures to Evangelicals despite being slapped down in most of those efforts.

Who are we Evangelicals? That's what I'd like to know. I know who Barack is, and I know who the Republicans are... I've had years and years to watch them scream about abortion, then get into office and appoint pro-abortion justices. Go figure. I've seen them create a narrow litmus test set of issues (abortion and same-sex marriage) from which we are told to make every political decision. That day is over, people. Jesus cared about a LOT more than that. Read Matthew 25. Read the prophets, who along with immorality condemn Sodom and Gommorah for their mistreatment of the poor.

Evangelicals can no longer afford to believe the Republican version of reality. It ignores massive injustices outside that neat and small list of "family values." Affordable housing in my neighborhood is a "family value"... one ignored by the Republicans. And what about all the single parents -- most of them women -- who are more vulnerable than ever in this terrible economic recession we're experiencing? The Republicans say "pro-life," yet assault the poor repeatedly by stripping away programs offering rural and inner-city families hope.

No. No more. Evangelicals, are you willing to remain tools in the hands of hate mongers? We always seem to be on the wrong side of these things. From the days of slavery and lynchings, where entire huge denominations supported slavery (on what they called "biblical" grounds) to today, when those same huge denominations support the oppression and marginalization of women by men -- using the very same bible verses they used in the slave days -- we remain reactionary instead of biblically revolutionary. Where is that third way?

Barack Obama will not be the solution to all of this. Far from it. He's one man. And at times we may even find ourselves having to play the role of prophet against a man we voted for. That is the strange and salty role Christians are supposed to play. But hating is as unchristian as it gets. And the Republican Party's willingness to be hateful, to lie openly over and over again in hopes that their vicious assault on Barack Obama will give them the White House, should be a prime reason we stop being the "Republican base."

Base has another definition: "stresses the ignoble and may suggest cruelty, treachery, greed, or grossness." That, to me, sounds applicable to the Republican Party's treatment of Barack Obama. Can we, as the people of God, the Bride of Christ, continue to be part of that "base" (in both senses of the word) political crowd?

I of course have my own answer, but what matters is your answer.

All the Nasty Things They've Called Obama: A List

2008-10-22T22:14:00.005-05:00

I just couldn't help making a list of all the negative labeling Republicans have attempted to paste on Barack Obama. Why? Because they sometimes make me laugh, other times want to scream in frustration. If readers have more of this nonsense, please add it and I'll update this list. Try to add sources if it's something we all haven't already heard.

First, the oldie goldies:

Socialist

Do any of the nimblewits posting this term in reference to Obama/Biden even know what a socialist actually IS? McCain/Palin have defined it this way: "spreading the wealth around." Whoa! Mommy, there's a socialist under my bed spreading wealth around! Okay, just to help, here's the dictionary definition:

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. (Webster's)

In other words, people, it's exactly what George Bush just did when he partially nationalized our banks! And McCain's a socialist, too, since he voted yes on this bail-out. By the way, as far as McCain/Palin's own definition, "spreading the wealth around"... uh, that's what taxes do. Like you know, fund building highways or AIDS medicine for Africa or... bombs to drop on Iraq.

Communist

See above. Except worse.

Liberal

Dang. Liberal. Liberal means bad, right? Like they eat people and sacrifice cats in their basements. I think. Well, read the actual Webster's definition:

[O]ften capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties dcapitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party.

Hmm. Other than (a) the gold standard, and (b) the essential goodness of humanity, which all politicians believe in as long as we vote for them but none of us fully believe when pondering our ballots, I'd say that's a pretty Hallmark Card definition. Of course, if McCain doesn't like civil liberties, perhaps he could speak up now and save everyone the headache of voting for him come election day. After all, when it turned out Dubya didn't like political and civil liberties so much, it was too late for us to do much about it.

Extreme Liberal

This is a liberal with tattoos and piercings. Sometimes riding a Harley. Wait. Isn't John McCain the one that took his wife to Sturgis, SD, and suggested she run for a motorcycle momma award? Hm, begging for an expose...

Un-American

Everyone knows what this means. Anyone living in America who does not appear to agree with my interpretation of what being an American is.

"Boy"

"I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button... He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country." - 49 yr old Geoff Davis, Kentucky congressman, about 46 yr old Barack Obama

Yep. In 2008. Nice how, no matter what, some things stay the same.

"not one of us"

See above. Almost any of the above, actually.

Antichrist

Coolest evil label ever. We "liberal communist socialist" people also use the word at times, though usually with a touch more irony than our conservative counterparts. The trouble with the label is, of course, that it is usually applied to fairly decent folks. Like Rush Limbaugh.

-=-

Second, some 2008 firsts, for a Presidential election at least:

Muslim
and/or
Arab

The obvious problem with both of these terms is that they contain a double insult; first, that Obama is being called something he is not (either Muslim or Arab), second that Muslims and / or Arabs are Un-Americans by default. Oh, and did anyone clue the Muslim/Arab haters that massive numbers of Muslims are not Arab (Indonesia, anyone?) while large numbers of Arabs are not Muslim. I apologize, however, for being factual.

One more thing, haters: a Muslim American could be President one day, and none of us would have to worry about head scarves or jihads... yep. This Evangelical Christian is telling you, not asking. The vast majority of Muslim Americans actually love their country! What malevolent idiocy to spread these lies or -- just as shocking -- to *believe* the lies! Or, as a 1970s era me would have said, "DUH!" The Bible would say "Love your neighbor as yourself..." but we're not gonna get biblical here because it might require cutting the locks from abandoned minds.

"friend of terrorists"

Bill Ayers Bill Ayers BillAyersBillAyersBill billayersbillayersbillayersbillayers bill -- aw, shuddUP!!

Hokay, well, that's about all I got. But just for fun, let's put them all together:

Barack Obama is a socialist/Arab/communist/Muslim/liberal/extremeliberal/unAmerican/"Boy"/not one of us/Antichrist!!

(And a friend of Bill Ayers BillAyersbillayersbillayersbillayers.)

And there, ladies and gentleman, we have the entirety of the Republican platform for 2008!

Cool Tool: Obama's "Check your tax savings!" machine

2008-10-22T21:47:00.003-05:00

So you want to find out how much tax money you'd get back under Barack Obama's tax plan vs. John McCain's? Wonder no more. The Obama campaign provides a handy, 30 seconds of time tax plan tool to find out. Or, you can just check it out right here!

Campaigning via Conspiracy Theory: Ayers, Acorn, and Obama the Alien

2008-10-16T14:47:00.006-05:00

I have written quite a bit about conspiracy theories, most of them having to do with urban myths regarding "Satanic Ritual Abuse," alleged inter-generational Satanists who brainwash their followers and sacrifice adults and children to the devil. A major feature of almost all these myths requires the existence of a secret super-cell of Satanists, often said to be world leaders. [Photo at left from "Conspiracylol.com"]

During the 1980s and on into the 1990s, I wrote various articles exploring the Satanist myths. Most of them promulgated by (sigh) my fellow Evangelicals and/or (in the case of the infamous Michelle Remembers) Catholics. I also took part in co-researched and written articles (plus one book, Selling Satan: Mike Warnke and the Evangelical Media), which exposed various "former satanists" and/or "former victims of satanists" as fakes.

And as a result, I realized that questioning everything anyone told me was a pretty good idea. That went double when it came to conspiracy theories, which as incredible stories demanded incredible evidence to verify. Or so my suspicious mind works. Heck, I'm so hard to convince I actually believe John Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald. Alone.

Go with me just a little way on this.

Why, for instance, do we believe conspiracy theories. Or rather, believe some while disbelieving others? After all, by definition, a successful conspiracy has no evidential trail left to follow.

I think we believe conspiracy theories that agree with our own way of seeing, of understanding, and of locating evil. Locating? Yes, this is the single most important feature of a conspiracy theory. Evil must have a location. And, that location must be with other entities, almost always human, who are "other" than I and those closest to me. Commies (Joe McCarthy's insanity, remember?). Blacks (every black man wants to rape a white woman). Even whites... AIDS was designed to eliminate blacks, you know. And so on. There has to be an evil other.

One of the best examples of this is found in the painful, even terrifying novel by Bernard Malamud, The Fixer. A Russian-Jewish peasant finds his life in peril due to the false anti-Semitic myth that Jews often sacrificed babies in secret ceremonies. The novel is, of course, rooted in the reality of what Christians often believed about their Jewish neighbors (and in the reality of violence committed against Jews by such Christians).

Another example of this lies in the current distribution of a rabidly anti-Islamic video 18 million households nationwide (though particularly in "swing states" currently drifting toward Democrat Barack Obama). Radical Islam, the videos claim, has been discovered to have an inside plan to take over America, a plan led by seemingly innocent American leaders. By video's end, one suspects that all Islam is radical, and (by necessity) nearly all American Muslims (as well as Arab Christians) may be "one of them."

And of course playing into this conspiratorial theme above are threads from the Republican Party (via both the McCain/Palin campaign directly and others backing them but not officially connected). "Who is Barack Obama?" one McCain ad asks. "A friend of terrorist Ayers," is the answer, the "Ayers" of course not really being necesssary other than as a cover for running such an unhinged conspiratorial message. That beat goes on as of today via "Robo-calls" (automated calls) by the Republican National Committee:

Hello. I'm calling for John McCain and the RNC because you need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. capitol, the Pentagon, a judge's home and killed Americans. And Democrats will enact an extreme leftist agenda if they take control of Washington. Barack Obama and his Democratic allies lack the judgment to lead our country. This call was paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee at [of course I deleted the number!].

The above illustrates the thing with conspiracy theories: Most conspiracy theories make no sense!

Break the above quote down, and it becomes a series of unconnected factoids which require the listener's own bias to make cohere into a single unified story. Obama knows a guy. The guy, when Obama was 8, was involved with the '60s radical group, Weather Underground. The group blew some stuff up and killed two people. Democrats will enact an "an extreme leftist agenda" if they "take control" of Washington. Obama and his terrorist/commie buddies lack the judgement to lead the USA.

Each sentence in itself is independent of the previous one or the next one. The parts do not make one whole, but instead are illogically thrown together. The reader processes them and by so doing experiences either an instinctive "a ha!" moment or (I hope) just as instinctive recoils from the attempt to create fear, and an explanation for that fear, at Obama's expense.

My most riveting moment re the absolute non-rationality of conspiracy theory came while interviewing a parent of one of the children allegedly abused by supposed satanist Ray Buckey (the now-infamous McMartin Preschool case, where both Ray and his mother were found not guilty). Looking very somber, this upper-middle class mother told me about how one child at McMartin was abused by Raymond... who at the time was over 100 miles away from where the abuse occurred.

Startled, I attempted to correct her. "But Ray was 100 miles away... he'd have had to be two places at the same time!"

She nodded understandingly. "Oh, yes. Those Satanists can do anything."

So, apparently, can the Republicans, at least where inventing conspiracy theories are concerned. Consider the latest one involving ACORN, a social activist group with whom I have worked a few times (though years back). The group among other things is known for regularly doing voter registration drives, paying folks to get others signed up to vote. The obvious happens. A small number of hired registrars end up falsifying voter cards, creating voters who do not exist.

So what does the Republican Party say about ACORN... with who their own candidate John McCain has worked in the past?

Allegedly, ACORN is involved in subverting the nation's voting process, despite the fact that non-existent voters can't very well vote. And, should someone show up to attempt voting for them, there is the small matter of signature comparison required by most polling places (all of them in Illinois, for instance).

Meanwhile, the Republican Party is attempting to strip new voters from Ohio's (and other swing states') registration logs. That's no conspiracy. That, for the Republican Party, seems business as usual.

And speaking of business as usual, how about yet another Republican Conspiracy Theory (RCT's we can call 'em) regarding the Democrats having started this financial mess by allowing Freddie Mac to lend to poor borrowers? John McCain's attempt to paint Barack Obama as fomenter of class warfare seems to be the classic case of man pointing one finger at other man while pointing three more back at himself.

Conspiracies in real life inevitably fall apart for the most pedestrian of reasons. A secret may be safe with one human, but once a second, third, or fourth human is included, the conspirators have the devil of a time not leaking it to someone.

Anyway, my favorite conspiracy theory about Barack Obama is that we know so little about him that it won't be until he is elected we find out his real name is Bxqz Oxynana from the planet Xerx, and that he's here to enslave humanity. Turns out Xerxians like nothing better than human beings... lightly toasted with a dab of Zyx spread.

Don't believe it? Disprove it, then!! Remember, beware the Alien Obama! Vote for Obama and we're ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!

Uh, pass me the Zyx.

Vice President Cheney Hospitalized Again for "Abnormal Heart Rhythm"

2008-10-15T10:01:00.007-05:00

Christian lefties such as myself are reminded this morning of the need to pray for those with whom we disagree. Vice President Dick Cheney is experiencing abnormal heart rhythm, and is headed to George Washington University Hospital. Mr. Cheney has had four heart attacks in the past. This episode is not a heart attack, but was detected during a checkup. I urge all Christians to pray for Vice President Cheney today. [CNN] Update: Mr. Cheney is back at work and plans on a visit to his doctors tonight.

"123456..." Worst Pro-Obama Video EVER!

2008-10-14T14:36:00.003-05:00

A Project12 student, Danielle, brought the following very serious message (NOT) to my attention. In order to bring about world peace and solve the current economic crisis, here it is... 1 2 3 4 5 6.... HERE WE GO!

(Gotta lighten up bluechristian once in a while!)

Newsweek on Joel and Victoria Osteen: "What's God Got to Do with It?"

2008-10-14T11:09:00.004-05:00

Admission here. I have never liked Joel and Victoria Osteen's version of Christianity. For one thing, he smiles way too much. (And no, I'm not kidding.) For another thing, his low-key but ever-present focus on "prosperity gospel" messages leaves me wondering how he would play in Darfur or various other ravaged portions of this world. No, he seems to me a uniquely American phenomenon, part of our long history of "Prosperity" / Faith preachers including Reverends Copland, Hagin, Creflo Dollar (best preacher name EVER!), and all the way back to Father Divine.

But that could all be me. I'm a bit of a brooder, a doubter, a cup half-empty kind of guy.

Maybe that's why I resonated with Newsweek's Lisa Miller, who subjected the Osteens to what appeared to me a theological critique. For instance,

Prosperity preachers are neither new nor unique in America, but the Osteens' version seems especially self-serving. Victoria's book betrays her interest in the kind of small gratifications that rarely extend to other people, let alone to the larger world. She recommends that women take "me time" every day, and indulge occasionally in a (fat-free!) ice cream. She writes repeatedly about her love for the gym. Her relationship advice is retrograde dross: submit to your man, or at least pretend you're submitting, and then do what you want anyway. "I know if I just wait long enough," she writes, "eventually my idea will become Joel's idea, and it will come to pass." When I asked her how she kept her two children interested in church, she answered that even though they were a broccoli and lean-meats household, she gave them doughnuts as a special treat on Sundays. All this is fine, in the pages of a women's magazine or a self-help book. But what has God got to do with it?

"What's God got to do with it?" Shades of Tina Turner, that is my question exactly. And when one throws Jesus into the mix -- Jesus in turn introducing suffering, taking up one's cross to "follow me" -- things get even stranger for the Osteens.

The biggest lie -- and that's a very strong word for folks I think are probably quite sincere -- hidden in the Osteen's theology is that God is there to please us. That's exactly 180 degrees wrong. We are here to please God, to adore God, to pursue God, though in all of those things He precedes us and draws us. (Not, however, "irresistibly" -- I'm not a Calvinist.) But God is God of all peoples in all places, many of those places completely antithetical to and unable to comprehend the sort of Americanized Christianity offered by the Osteens.

There is tremendous blessing and fulfillment in loving God, a God C. S. Lewis once called "a hedonist at heart." God does want to bless us. But he also, and on a deeper level I believe, wants us to enter into the suffering this world knows every day, every hour, every second. Such a calling, central to the biblical message, is completely absent from Prosperity preaching.

Joel Osteen smiles too much.

Paul Krugman's Nobel Prize for Economics: More Good News for Obama Campaign

2008-10-13T11:13:00.002-05:00

Today Paul Krugman won the 2008 Nobel Prize for Economics. Today the markets are up. Why? Well, part of that answer has to do with that same Paul Krugman, Princeton University scholar and New York Times columnist, and what Krugman has been advocating. Oh, did I mention Mr. Krugman appeared yesterday on "Meet the Press" as an avid supporter of Barack Obama, and has been doing so in various other media outlets? Did I mention he supports Obama primarily because of the latter's economic policies, which he contrasts with the Bush/McCain policies (summed up by CNN)?:

Whereas U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson rejected a "sort of temporary part-nationalization" involving governments giving financial institutions more money in return for a share of ownership, the British government "went straight to the heart of the problem ... with stunning speed."

Krugman said the major European economies have "in effect declared themselves ready to follow Britain's lead, injecting hundreds of billions of dollars into banks while guaranteeing their debts."

"And whaddya know," Krugman continued, "Mr. Paulson -- after arguably wasting several precious weeks -- has also reversed course, and now plans to buy equity stakes rather than bad mortgage securities."

Today's rise in stock values is being attributed primarily to the European approach in this economic crisis. Paul Krugman's Nobel Prize is one more sign that Barack Obama, not John McCain, is listening to the right experts. The market's rise is another sign of the same.

Why it is wrong -- twice! -- to say Barack Obama is "Arab"

2008-10-11T10:19:00.005-05:00

This shouldn't need to be noted, but calling Barack Obama an "Arab" is a charge which says a whole lot about the person mouthing it. The short summation would be this:

First, Barack Obama is Kenyan (African) and Anglo-American. Thus, the business of him being Arab is incorrect.

Second, though he is not Arab there would be nothing wrong with him being Arab. Could the USA have a President of Arab descent? Apparently not, if we listen to the Right. That's clearly racism, but no one is calling them on it yet.

Dear God, what a stupid election this has turned into. Right Wing blogs continue this crapulous sort of racism (google "Obama Arab" if you don't believe me). The hate mongering is getting more and more shrill as the election progresses.

The news is not, however, all bad. There are some signs that John McCain is beginning to tire of the rabid negativity his campaign has embraced over the past few weeks, even months. He ended up having to defend his opponent after a woman said she couldn't trust Obama. "Obama is Arab," she said. Senator McCain shook his head no, then took the mic from the woman. "I want to be President of the United States, and obviously I don't want Senator Obama to be. But I have to tell you he is a decent person and you don't have to be scared [of him] as President of the United States." At this point, the crowd began to boo their own candidate! [CNN Video of Sen. McCain's comments, below, or use link at left]

Yet it must be remembered that McCain's campaign has systematically sought out this anger in an attempt to solidify their base and -- as done successfully in the 2000 and 2004 elections -- use negativity against another candidate in order to push down that candidate's poll numbers. Obama's race, his name, and his having lived overseas as a small child all seem to suggest a special vulnerabilty.

It remains to be seen if the McCain campaign has stopped the hate mongering. If so, good on them, though it may be too late to undo much of the damage. If they waffle -- even a little -- expect every news source, blog, and armchair pundit to notice.

Again, as an Evangelical Christian, I expect to hear from my fellow Evangelicals about this issue. Racism against Arab-Americans, many of whom may be Muslim but who are also Christian or even Atheist, is absolutely sin, wrong, a violation of the heart of the Gospel. "Love your neighbor as yourself and the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind."

That includes Arabs and / or Muslims. As Evangelicals, we know that Christ also died for them, and that they are created in the image of God, and (again) are our neighbors. Racism is Satan's domain.

Fellow Evangelicals, Will You Please Speak Out Against McCain/Palin Hate-Mongering?

2008-10-10T16:47:00.011-05:00

I am excited to see my candidate doing so well in pre-election polls. But I am afraid as well, seeing a swelling of anger and verbalized violence among many of John McCain's core supporters. His base, I am told, contains nearly 3 out of 4 Evangelical Christians. And that deeply troubles me. Are Evangelicals in the Republican party calling on their candidates to stop encouraging their audiences toward hateful words... and potentially actions?

"Kill him!" shouted one audience member after Gov. Sarah Palin again accused Barack Obama of "ties" to former terrorist Bill Ayers. Did the man want Ayers or Obama dead? And was Gov. Palin aware of what her jingoist repetition of this non-news was creating in the audience? "TERRORIST!" yelled another man during a McCain speech which also focused on the alleged Obama/Ayers connections.

Ayers, a member of the violent Weather Underground in the 1960s, went to prison back then for his part in a bombing incident. At the time, Barack Obama was eight years old. Obama met Ayers through a Republican (one who contributed to John McCain, it turns out) as part of a committee aimed at school children in Chicago. Ayers is now a professor at the University of Chicago.

But let's really look at why, and what, John McCain is doing here. I'm not asking you to vote for my candidate, mind you. I'm just asking you to stop McCain/Palin from creating a dangerous environment and encouraging dangerous minds.

Even someone as calm as commentator David Gergen worries that the Republican Party is creating a potential for violence with their current anti-Obama crusade.

"There is this free floating sort of whipping around anger that could really lead to some violence. I think we're not far from that," he told CNN's Anderson Cooper on Thursday. "I really worry when we get people -- when you get the kind of rhetoric that you're getting at these rallies now. I think it's really imperative that the candidates try to calm people down." [CNN]

Consider this new McCain/Palin slogan: "Who Is Barack Obama?"

Could this question be seriously asked of anyone who was named "John" and didn't have the middle name Barack has, or the funny-sounding (to many American ears) last name?

Could this question be seriously asked of a white candidate?

And SHOULD this question be asked by Evangelical Christians, even those who may be disheartened by their own candidate's slip in the polls?

No, it should not be. We know who Barack Obama is, and whether or not one chooses to vote for him, the hate mongering campaign currently being mounted by McCain/Palin's ticket is outside the bounds of propriety, decency, and -- can I clearly say this and be heard? -- Christian discipleship. We are called to be Jesus followers. Even in the midst of disagreeing over which candidate is better for our nation, we must not dishonor the name of Jesus Christ by allowing a hateful, xenophobic rage to enter our discourse.

Rage is a self-righteous anger which excuses its own excess. Unbelievable acts of horror -- including 9/11, I might add -- occurred as the result of arrogant rage. This type of anger dehumanizes its targets. Once dehumanized, they become puppets in the hands of hate, to have done to them whatever the hater in his/her own distorted sense of duty finds to do.

This election is historic. We've seen the first black man ever nominated by a national party as its candidate for President. Unfortunately, we're also learning this election season that the old American demons can be recalled. Rage is a tool, but so is Christian charity. Disciples of Jesus, whomever you support, make sure your calling is manifest in how you support them. And here's an Obama campaign response to "Who Is Barack Obama?" -- a video that shows us the same guy we've been watching all election long. We know who Barack is. Whoever you support, stop the hate.

"That One"

2008-10-08T16:25:00.005-05:00

Doug Kmiec, Prolife Legal Counsel under Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Campaigns for Barack Obama

2008-10-07T16:10:00.005-05:00

This radio ad, now running in Ohio and possibly elsewhere, offers the views of Douglas Kmiec, professor of Constitutional Law at Pepperdine University, head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, and author of Can A Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question about Barack Obama.

The Matthew 25 Network is funding this ad, and as someone involved with that network I'd like to suggest Evangelicals for Obama consider supporting their effort. See below the video for a link to do so.

Contribute to the Matthew 25 Network's ongoing efforts.

Uh-Oh! Reviewing Sarah Palin's "Pro-life" Position in Light of Couric Interview

2008-10-07T10:06:00.008-05:00

I'm a bit ashamed of myself that I didn't catch this in the now-infamous Katie Couric interviews with Sarah Palin. We all heard the gaffs and soundbites... but what about some of the more substantial answers Gov. Palin did come up with?

Beliefnet's Steve Waldman suggests something startling: "Amidst Her Dodging, Sarah Palin Contradicts the Republican Platform on Abortion."

Waldman notes, in a number of cases during the fairly lengthy exchange on abortion between Couric and Palin, that the Governor seemed to actually hold a pro-choice position!

For instance, Couric asks: "If a 15-year-old is raped by her father, you believe it should be illegal for her to get an abortion. Why?" Gov. Palin does not answer the "why" but she does offer this as her punchline: "I would counsel to choose life." The unavoidable conclusion one would reach there is that Palin supports choice, but counsels that choice be for life.

But there's more. Gov. Palin continues:

"I would like to see a culture of life in this country. But I would also like to see taking it one step further. Not just saying I am pro-life, and I want fewer and fewer abortions in this country. But I want, then, those women who find themselves in circumstances that are absolutely less than ideal, for them to be supported for adoptions to be made easier. For more support given to foster parents and adoptive families. That is my personal opinion on this."

I would note this sounds stunningly similar to Barack Obama! There is not one mention of legislating abortion out of existence, of overturning Roe v Wade, and in fact her language -- "I want fewer and fewer abortions in this country" -- sounds almost word for word like Barack Obama (except with less finesse). Consider these comments by Obama, made April 13, 2008 at Messiah College. He is responding to a question on finding any common ground between pro-choice and pro-life polarities:

"I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. It requires us to acknowledge that..

1. There is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that's a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.

2. People of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.

And if we can acknowledge that much, then we can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion." [italics added]

Back to Couric's interview with Sarah Palin:

Couric: So you want more support so women have more options, or girls have more options. But you also think it should be illegal, that there should be no punishment if a woman does break the law...

Palin: I would like to see more women given more support so that those of us who say, "You know, a culture of life is what we believe." Is best ... for human kind, you know, to respect the sanctity of every human life. And to understand ... that we live in a pretty messed up world sometimes.

When you consider what's going on in this world. The most promising and good ingredients in this world ... is a child. The hope that a child brings. And just understanding that. Being near and dear to my heart. I want to do all that I can to reduce the number abortions.

And to usher in that culture of life. And in my respect for the other side of this issue, I have not spoken with one woman who do, may disagree with me on, when abortions could or should be allowed, not one woman has disagreed, as we sit down and rationally talk about ... the common goal we have, and that is to see fewer and fewer abortions. And to provide more and more women support in this world.

Palin again seems to echo a Democratic understanding of the abortion issue rather than supporting the Republican Platform here. Gov. Palin keeps referencing a "culture of life," but remains within a paradigm of choice. That is, a culture where all involved seek to have more support for women and fewer and fewer abortions. Again, this sounds quite similar to Barack Obama.

Couric isn't done yet:

Couric: But, ideally, you think it should be illegal ...

Palin: If you ...

Couric: ...for a girl who was raped or the victim of incest to get an abortion?

Palin: I'm saying that, personally, I would counsel the person to choose life, despite horrific, horrific circumstances that this person would find themselves in."

Waldman once again notes that again Palin is reiterating a pro-choice position here. I would suggest, for further clarification, that very few pro-choicers think abortion is a "good" choice -- rather, most would readily call it a "bad" choice, a last resort which (to them) might be necessary but is not frivolous nor painless (physically or psychologically) to the mother making such a choice. There is nothing in Palin's responses to Couric to contradict that sort of pro-choice reasoning.

The interview continues:

And, um, if you're asking, though, kind of foundationally here, should anyone end up in jail for having an ... abortion, absolutely not. That's nothing I would ever support.

Did Palin mean just the mothers who abort, or also the doctors? In light of her apparent inability to communicate clearly on many topics, she may have meant the former. But one is left with what at best is an ambiguous response. I'm left wondering if these responses are yet further evidence of a disingenuousness on the part of the Republican candidates. In short, I think the blurring of pro-life vs. pro-choice positions is being done intentionally by Gov. Palin here, for reasons entirely having to do with polling numbers and the McCain campaign's desire to draw in more women voters... many of whom are pro-choice.

But here, in an exchange over the "morning after" pill, is where Gov. Palin does in fact overtly contradict the Republican Party platform on abortion. It takes Couric three tries to get an answer to her very simple question, but she does finally get it:

Couric: Some people have credited the morning-after pill as for decreasing the number of abortions. How do you feel about the morning after pill?

Palin: Well ...I'm all for contraception. And I'm all for any preventative measures that are legal and safe and should be taken. But, Katie, again and we can go round and round about the abortion issue, but I am one to seek a culture of life. I am one to believe that life starts at the moment of conception. And I would like to see ...

Couric: And so you don't believe in the morning-after pill.

Palin: I would like to see fewer and fewer abortions in this world. And, again, I haven't spoken with anyone who disagrees with my position on that.

Couric: I'm sorry. I just want to ask you again. Do you not support or do you condone or condemn the morning after pill?

Palin: Personally, and this is isn't McCain-Palin policy ...

Couric: That's OK. I'm just asking you.

Palin: But, personally, I would not choose to participate in that kind of contraception. It ...

Couric: Do you think it should be illegal?

Palin: I don't think that it should necessarily be illegal.

So, for all my fellow pro-lifers out there that feel so compelled to vote McCain/Palin due to the pro-life issue, I hope this is one more reason to reconsider that concept. And again, I thank Mr. Waldman for drawing my attention to this interview.

Liars and Idiots: Kenya's Straightforward Solution for "Obama Nation" Author

2008-10-07T09:02:00.004-05:00

Barack Obama is crazy popular in Kenya. His face is on t-shirts, posters, busses, and more. He's a national celebrity and hero there. So, it turns out some Christian missionaries asked Jerome Corsi, author of the discredited poop in book form, "The Obama Nation," to come to Kenya in order to battle Islam.

Huh?!?

Obama is not now, nor has ever been, Muslim, a fact that all but the most terminally self-hypnotized Obama haters admit. So just what these missionaries were thinking remains a mystery. But it is true that Corsi, as other right-wing haters and cons before him, repeats the lie that Obama is Muslim in his book.

At any rate, Jerome Corsi found himself ejected from the country by Kenyan officials. Reason? Lack of a work permit.

For some reason, I find that wildly funny.