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
Showing posts with label Evangelical left. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evangelical left. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Friday, September 12, 2008
Whoa! Carol, Me, and Wal-Mart: What We Didn't Know
My previous post, up just minutes ago, shouldn't be left an orphan. The Wall Street Journal underscored just how NON-neutral Wal-Mart is about this election in an August 2008 article, "Wal-Mart Warns of Democratic Win":
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they'll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies -- including Wal-Mart.
Ah. So this book thing my Dearling and I noticed may not be mere paranoia on our part? No sirree!
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they'll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies -- including Wal-Mart.
Ah. So this book thing my Dearling and I noticed may not be mere paranoia on our part? No sirree!
In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses the downside for workers if stores were to be unionized.
According to about a dozen Wal-Mart employees who attended such meetings in seven states, Wal-Mart executives claim that employees at unionized stores would have to pay hefty union dues while getting nothing in return, and may have to go on strike without compensation. Also, unionization could mean fewer jobs as labor costs rise.
One Wally World employee told WSJ:
"The meeting leader said, 'I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won't have a vote on whether you want a union,'" said a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri. "I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote," she said.
Yep. Just like they are apparently telling their customers how to vote.
(Related BlueChristian link: Wal-Mart Promotes Anti-Obama Books)
Wal-Mart Promotes Anti-Obama Books
.
Some weeks ago, my wife and I visited a Wal-Mart (itself a politically incorrect act). Playing the sociological role of typical male, I got impatient with Carol's shopping and wandered to the Wal-Mart book aisle. On top of that shelf were two books on Barack Obama: The Obama Nation by Jerome Corsi and David Fredosso's The Case Against Barack Obama. Both are predictable Right Wing shrieks, filled with fear-gas and the usual maiming of truth such pundits produce like diarrea. But that wasn't the point to Carol and I.
We went to the counter of the Wal-Mart, located in Macomb, Illinois, and asked them if Wal-Mart was backing John McCain. This provoked a startled response from a teller, who sent us to a manager, who in turn suggested we call Wal-Mart's national headquarters (1-800 Walmart for those interested). She gave us the number, and a few weeks passed before Carol called. The spokesperson told Carol that "We're not making a statement for or against John McCain or Obama." Carol remonstrated with her that indeed Wal-Mart was making a statement by nationally carrying books slanted against one political candidate and only those books. Again, Carol was told that it was not up to Wal-Mart but rather to the book company supplying Wal-Mart. "And we have the freedom to carry anything we please," she told my wife.
To review: In short, we were told what the local manager had told us to start with. Wal-Mart was "not in control" of what books they carried, as a third-party distributor[*] was responsible for supplying Wal-Mart's book shelves. When we challenged this assumption on grounds that Wal-Mart was not powerless, but of course could tell a distributor what books it wanted and did not want, they responded by not responding (going in a logical circle). Of course they are free to carry whatever they want in their store, including copies of Mein Kampf if they'd like, but dimes to dollars says they would never do so (a lot of people still remember the results of that book).
But Wal-Mart also added one other issue to the pile. And that is that both of these books are currently best-sellers. This lets them completely off the hook, doesn't it? Well... not really. You see, Wal-Mart (like Oprah) can create best-sellers. Let's not kid ourselves here. Ideological books sold by Wal-Mart and without any balancing voice from the opposition are probably going to be read by a lot of people. And so, Wal-Mart sells ideology and not just product.
Things online are a little better, if not much. As of today, Wal-Mart's online bookstore, Walmart.com/books, is featuring Obama Nation at the top center of the page. If one does try to find a "good" Obama book, using Obama as a search term, out of the books listed under Obama, even there the top three are Rightist diatribes. But at least Obama's own books are represented down the page.
I'm not sure what we should all do about this. Call Wal-Mart in swarms complaining about these books? Sit at home, bemused and wondering about just where "political neutrality" ends and a superstore's choice of shelf placement reflects its' owner's political slant? Maybe we could ask they carry Barack's two books on their store shelves to counter-balance these Rightist flame-outs. Yes, they have the freedom to sell whatever they want to... but we have the freedom to make our intense displeasure at the sale of such things known. One way or another.
We'll keep tracking this one.
* Still trying to find out who the third-party book distributor is. If it is any company owned by Rupert Murdoch of FOX and News Corps fame, I'm going to start laughing and biting my laptop simulateously.
Some weeks ago, my wife and I visited a Wal-Mart (itself a politically incorrect act). Playing the sociological role of typical male, I got impatient with Carol's shopping and wandered to the Wal-Mart book aisle. On top of that shelf were two books on Barack Obama: The Obama Nation by Jerome Corsi and David Fredosso's The Case Against Barack Obama. Both are predictable Right Wing shrieks, filled with fear-gas and the usual maiming of truth such pundits produce like diarrea. But that wasn't the point to Carol and I.
We went to the counter of the Wal-Mart, located in Macomb, Illinois, and asked them if Wal-Mart was backing John McCain. This provoked a startled response from a teller, who sent us to a manager, who in turn suggested we call Wal-Mart's national headquarters (1-800 Walmart for those interested). She gave us the number, and a few weeks passed before Carol called. The spokesperson told Carol that "We're not making a statement for or against John McCain or Obama." Carol remonstrated with her that indeed Wal-Mart was making a statement by nationally carrying books slanted against one political candidate and only those books. Again, Carol was told that it was not up to Wal-Mart but rather to the book company supplying Wal-Mart. "And we have the freedom to carry anything we please," she told my wife.
To review: In short, we were told what the local manager had told us to start with. Wal-Mart was "not in control" of what books they carried, as a third-party distributor[*] was responsible for supplying Wal-Mart's book shelves. When we challenged this assumption on grounds that Wal-Mart was not powerless, but of course could tell a distributor what books it wanted and did not want, they responded by not responding (going in a logical circle). Of course they are free to carry whatever they want in their store, including copies of Mein Kampf if they'd like, but dimes to dollars says they would never do so (a lot of people still remember the results of that book).
But Wal-Mart also added one other issue to the pile. And that is that both of these books are currently best-sellers. This lets them completely off the hook, doesn't it? Well... not really. You see, Wal-Mart (like Oprah) can create best-sellers. Let's not kid ourselves here. Ideological books sold by Wal-Mart and without any balancing voice from the opposition are probably going to be read by a lot of people. And so, Wal-Mart sells ideology and not just product.
Things online are a little better, if not much. As of today, Wal-Mart's online bookstore, Walmart.com/books, is featuring Obama Nation at the top center of the page. If one does try to find a "good" Obama book, using Obama as a search term, out of the books listed under Obama, even there the top three are Rightist diatribes. But at least Obama's own books are represented down the page.
I'm not sure what we should all do about this. Call Wal-Mart in swarms complaining about these books? Sit at home, bemused and wondering about just where "political neutrality" ends and a superstore's choice of shelf placement reflects its' owner's political slant? Maybe we could ask they carry Barack's two books on their store shelves to counter-balance these Rightist flame-outs. Yes, they have the freedom to sell whatever they want to... but we have the freedom to make our intense displeasure at the sale of such things known. One way or another.
We'll keep tracking this one.
* Still trying to find out who the third-party book distributor is. If it is any company owned by Rupert Murdoch of FOX and News Corps fame, I'm going to start laughing and biting my laptop simulateously.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Just Wondering: Why Do Evangelicals Embrace the Republican Party's Demonization of Others?
My life, unremarkable as it is, has since 1973 been dedicated to trying to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. I believe the gospels are historically accurate as well as revelatory gifts from God. I'm an old-school Jesus Freak -- even live in a "commune" started by Jesus People and called Jesus People USA. We're in many ways vanilla-flavored Evangelical Christians -- looking to the Old and New Testament Scriptures as our primary guide in all matters of faith and practice. (In 1989, we joined an egalitarian, woman-positive denomination, the Evangelical Covenant Church.) We also share the American experience and many American distinctives culturally, and realize how intertwined (for good and for evil) America's history and Evangelical history have become.
I have a novel idea for Evangelicals. Let's look at evil as conceptualized by the Republicans of 2000-2008. Evil is postulated as a "them" problem. Remember George W. Bush's comment that we were going to eradicate Evil in the world? This view puts evil out there, as a "them" problem. But biblically speaking Evil is an "us" problem. WE -- individually and corporately in our various communities of faith, social networking, and national identity -- are the place where Evil exists. Further, more often than not, Scripture specifically speaks to "us" and "I" rather than "them" and "he" or "she." The Bible is a relentlessly personal book addressed to us / me.
Here' s another novel idea, building on the above. Let's look at history as evidence. That is, history will reveal to us our own complicity in the Evil of our world. Consider, for instance, racism. Evangelicals show a remarkable and commendable eagerness to dismantle any remnants of racism. Yet, I gently suggest we often do so while far under-estimating the breadth and depth of racism's legacy in these United States. I am old enough to have personally watched a bigot dancing -- literally -- on his lawn, celebrating one warm April morning the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. "They shot him -- they shot that commie nigger Martin Luther King!"
And who created the historic context and social rationalization for slavery in the United States? Christians. No, there's no dodging it. Just as South Africa built a sophisticated God-frame around apartheid, their torturous system of color and class, America did so. And Christians rationalized with proof-texted Scripture (as they do now in regards to oppressing women in churches and in marriage). Christians bought slaves, whipped slaves, destroyed black families by selling parents from children and wives/husbands away from one another. Christians raped slaves, using the Old Testament stories in an a-historical manner to justify these "relationships." Our Constitution, for a convoluted set of reasons, defines a black slave as "three-fifths of a person." The largest Evangelical denomination of today, the Southern Baptists, came into existence as the result of a church split with northern Baptists over slavery.
Regarding history and Evil, human beings have a funny way of not seeing its most obvious lessons. For instance, as another Christian leftie co-worked said to me recently, "When we look at Nazis as inhuman monsters instead of human beings inspired by their own sense of right, we are on the verge of becoming Nazis." That is, he continued to explain, when we recognize Evil in others yet fail to understand the commonality of that Evil with all humans throughout history, we risk endlessly repeating history in a demonically naive manner. We "other" the other. This is true of all of us, this writer included. As much as I loathe George W. Bush's thinking, policies, and acts as President, believing he's the worst President this nation has ever suffered, I suspect he's quite a nice guy in person. That is, a lot like me.
That raises the possibility that I could, given the amount of power a President has, create and activate deeds of Evil as a Christian every bit as horrendous as those he's committed in Iraq. And maybe worse... who knows? Fortunately for all of us, I'll never hold such power.
But in light of the above, there's yet another issue we as Evangelicals have to confront. That issue is nationalism. The previously spoken, more often now unspoken, assumption regarding America is that it is God's chosen nation. There is no biblical basis for that idea. Only Israel -- not modern-day, but Old Testament Israel -- is called by Scripture "God's people." And, as any Jewish scholar will tell you, it appears that being God's people usually involves a lot of pain.
We Evangelicals assume a lot of things about our centrality in God's plan, our expectation of material blessings, our belief that militarism is not only a necessity but a positive good. And much more. But beneath all of that runs a river of arrogant pride. We often fall into the root error of believing in our own goodness, our "deserving" blessings both material and relational.
And here is where history and the present collide. The Republicans sell us two things successfully. Fear and Anger. What are we to be fearful of? The Evil in the Other, that evil that our President promised us we would defeat and destroy. What are we to be angry with? The resistance of the Other to our goodness and rightness.
Jesus was murdered by people who thought that way.
People like us.
And Jesus continues to be murdered. "As you have done to the least of one of these, you have done it to me." Those Iraqi mothers and children and fathers and sons who died via American bombs, missiles, and bullets died at the hands of America. And America is us.
Yes, I believe the gospels to be about Jesus in history and (as Kierkegaard warns) even more about the contemporaneity of Christ. Jesus is here now, calling us now, consistently reminding us of our absolute need of Him. He is Love, and His Way does not include pride but rather the crucifixion of pride. We are not a Christian nation and should not expect to be a Christian nation. We as Americans are a nation of individuals and groups of people with thousands of differing beliefs. As Christians we are citizens not primarily of this world but of a coming kingdom.
That kingdom is to be rooted in Jesus' command: "Love one another." This idea is not historical -- that is, it rarely appears as an actuality in history. It is a dark thought with which I end this rambling. But I think that true love can only be actualized by people who see their own Evil, and capacity for Evil, most or all of the time. This is not the way Republicans think these days. Evil is Other, Good is Us.
Fear sells in this setting because we are truly afraid, we have not yet laid our lives down in surrender to Christ the way we think we have. Anger excuses our fear, legitimates it. Anger is the illusion of being righteous, the emotional ace that overrides the suffering heart. To love is to suffer.
History's lesson is that especially in recent years since 9/11, the Republicans have taken this fear/anger paradigm to incredible lengths. Democrats in the past have done the same thing. But Democrats have not tried to sell Evangelicals a bastardized version of the Bible. Obama is a committed, regenerate Christian, yet more importantly than that his attempts to integrate faith and politics are impressive in their cautious humility.
I, as one Evangelical, cannot agree to uphold the Republican Party. The crimes of Iraq -- one million more times worthy of impeachment than a former president having his penis sucked by an intern and lying about it -- will never be punished on this earth. But I am damned if I will support a party, or a candidate, who uses the same language, the same cynical reliance upon god-fearing people, to garner power. Damned because how can I love my neighbor while caving in to the Christless hate and arrogance such language and actions reflect? For the past two elections, we Evangelicals have helped elect an administration rooted in the godless, ultra-elitist ideas of Leo Strauss.
Will we do it again? Will we?
History says we will. The gospels say history is important, but the present potentially even more so.
I have a novel idea for Evangelicals. Let's look at evil as conceptualized by the Republicans of 2000-2008. Evil is postulated as a "them" problem. Remember George W. Bush's comment that we were going to eradicate Evil in the world? This view puts evil out there, as a "them" problem. But biblically speaking Evil is an "us" problem. WE -- individually and corporately in our various communities of faith, social networking, and national identity -- are the place where Evil exists. Further, more often than not, Scripture specifically speaks to "us" and "I" rather than "them" and "he" or "she." The Bible is a relentlessly personal book addressed to us / me.
Here' s another novel idea, building on the above. Let's look at history as evidence. That is, history will reveal to us our own complicity in the Evil of our world. Consider, for instance, racism. Evangelicals show a remarkable and commendable eagerness to dismantle any remnants of racism. Yet, I gently suggest we often do so while far under-estimating the breadth and depth of racism's legacy in these United States. I am old enough to have personally watched a bigot dancing -- literally -- on his lawn, celebrating one warm April morning the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. "They shot him -- they shot that commie nigger Martin Luther King!"
And who created the historic context and social rationalization for slavery in the United States? Christians. No, there's no dodging it. Just as South Africa built a sophisticated God-frame around apartheid, their torturous system of color and class, America did so. And Christians rationalized with proof-texted Scripture (as they do now in regards to oppressing women in churches and in marriage). Christians bought slaves, whipped slaves, destroyed black families by selling parents from children and wives/husbands away from one another. Christians raped slaves, using the Old Testament stories in an a-historical manner to justify these "relationships." Our Constitution, for a convoluted set of reasons, defines a black slave as "three-fifths of a person." The largest Evangelical denomination of today, the Southern Baptists, came into existence as the result of a church split with northern Baptists over slavery.
Regarding history and Evil, human beings have a funny way of not seeing its most obvious lessons. For instance, as another Christian leftie co-worked said to me recently, "When we look at Nazis as inhuman monsters instead of human beings inspired by their own sense of right, we are on the verge of becoming Nazis." That is, he continued to explain, when we recognize Evil in others yet fail to understand the commonality of that Evil with all humans throughout history, we risk endlessly repeating history in a demonically naive manner. We "other" the other. This is true of all of us, this writer included. As much as I loathe George W. Bush's thinking, policies, and acts as President, believing he's the worst President this nation has ever suffered, I suspect he's quite a nice guy in person. That is, a lot like me.
That raises the possibility that I could, given the amount of power a President has, create and activate deeds of Evil as a Christian every bit as horrendous as those he's committed in Iraq. And maybe worse... who knows? Fortunately for all of us, I'll never hold such power.
But in light of the above, there's yet another issue we as Evangelicals have to confront. That issue is nationalism. The previously spoken, more often now unspoken, assumption regarding America is that it is God's chosen nation. There is no biblical basis for that idea. Only Israel -- not modern-day, but Old Testament Israel -- is called by Scripture "God's people." And, as any Jewish scholar will tell you, it appears that being God's people usually involves a lot of pain.
We Evangelicals assume a lot of things about our centrality in God's plan, our expectation of material blessings, our belief that militarism is not only a necessity but a positive good. And much more. But beneath all of that runs a river of arrogant pride. We often fall into the root error of believing in our own goodness, our "deserving" blessings both material and relational.
And here is where history and the present collide. The Republicans sell us two things successfully. Fear and Anger. What are we to be fearful of? The Evil in the Other, that evil that our President promised us we would defeat and destroy. What are we to be angry with? The resistance of the Other to our goodness and rightness.
Jesus was murdered by people who thought that way.
People like us.
And Jesus continues to be murdered. "As you have done to the least of one of these, you have done it to me." Those Iraqi mothers and children and fathers and sons who died via American bombs, missiles, and bullets died at the hands of America. And America is us.
Yes, I believe the gospels to be about Jesus in history and (as Kierkegaard warns) even more about the contemporaneity of Christ. Jesus is here now, calling us now, consistently reminding us of our absolute need of Him. He is Love, and His Way does not include pride but rather the crucifixion of pride. We are not a Christian nation and should not expect to be a Christian nation. We as Americans are a nation of individuals and groups of people with thousands of differing beliefs. As Christians we are citizens not primarily of this world but of a coming kingdom.
That kingdom is to be rooted in Jesus' command: "Love one another." This idea is not historical -- that is, it rarely appears as an actuality in history. It is a dark thought with which I end this rambling. But I think that true love can only be actualized by people who see their own Evil, and capacity for Evil, most or all of the time. This is not the way Republicans think these days. Evil is Other, Good is Us.
Fear sells in this setting because we are truly afraid, we have not yet laid our lives down in surrender to Christ the way we think we have. Anger excuses our fear, legitimates it. Anger is the illusion of being righteous, the emotional ace that overrides the suffering heart. To love is to suffer.
History's lesson is that especially in recent years since 9/11, the Republicans have taken this fear/anger paradigm to incredible lengths. Democrats in the past have done the same thing. But Democrats have not tried to sell Evangelicals a bastardized version of the Bible. Obama is a committed, regenerate Christian, yet more importantly than that his attempts to integrate faith and politics are impressive in their cautious humility.
I, as one Evangelical, cannot agree to uphold the Republican Party. The crimes of Iraq -- one million more times worthy of impeachment than a former president having his penis sucked by an intern and lying about it -- will never be punished on this earth. But I am damned if I will support a party, or a candidate, who uses the same language, the same cynical reliance upon god-fearing people, to garner power. Damned because how can I love my neighbor while caving in to the Christless hate and arrogance such language and actions reflect? For the past two elections, we Evangelicals have helped elect an administration rooted in the godless, ultra-elitist ideas of Leo Strauss.
Will we do it again? Will we?
History says we will. The gospels say history is important, but the present potentially even more so.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)