on Constitutional amendments

Commenting on the recent passage in the House of Representatives of an amendment to the US Constitution, Michael J. Totten writes:

The U.S. Constitution is no place for Political Correctness, whether it’s left-wing or right-wing.

That's a good point, and, one would hope, a basic test that could be respectfully agreed to by most folks, regardless of their political orientation. I wonder if he would also agree that the U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary? Anyway, several of his comments are good but I'll give him the last word with this one:

Conservatives like to point out – correctly, I might add – that the U.S. Constitution is great in part because it limits the power of the state rather than the freedom of the people who live in this country. Is it really too much to ask that we keep it that way?

an interesting thought...

from the Chicago Tribune news:

"A true patriot loves what his country stands for, not necessarily what his country does, and I will not shrink from holding America to her ideals."

This statement, in an editorial by Eric Zorn, belongs alongside other statements such as "A true patriot supports his country's troops, not necessarily every war they're sent to fight" and "A true patriot recognizes that standing up for our civil liberties is an act of protecting our freedom." How do we put these statements into a theological context? That's a tougher question. It's often hard for Christians in America to remember that our faith knows no national boundaries. Perhaps the appropriate point/lesson is that we should treat our religion and our country the same way: at times, both require trust, even blind obedience; at times, both require serious investigation, reflection, and (respectful) challenge. We should be committed. We should not wear blinders. A true Christian struggles often; yet the struggle is made easier when she recognizes the need not just to follow, but to regularly examine the path. This line of thinking also strongly reflects on why I love Christ, not necessarily what other Christians do. In the context of my church home, I examine the path I am on and the path of others, in order to stay committed to the ideals of my faith rather than the sinful actions that are sometimes displayed. We must hold ourselves to Christ's ideals; we must ask often what those ideals are, what our words and actions truly display, and what changes we must make in our daily Christian living.

Southern Baptists end Disney boycott - but still affirm bigotry

from CNN.com (Jun 23, 2005):

'We felt like it was time to end it,' said Gene Mims, chairman of the Southern Baptist Convention committee that put a new Disney resolution before some 12,000 members at the denomination's annual convention Wednesday.

Of course, no real reason for ending their boycott is given. Sadly, the way that this article lays out changes that have taken place at Disney can easily be read to imply that the SBC boycott had an influence. Case in point:

"We have cost them hundreds of millions of dollars," said Wiley Drake, an SBC member from California, who spoke in favor of lifting the boycott because Disney had made corporate changes, including the recent stepping down of longtime Disney chief executive Michael Eisner.

But heaven forbid CNN actually report whether the boycott was in fact influential on any decisions or changes made by Disney! Unfortunately, the hateful denouncing of homosexuals continues in the form of a new resolution "that encourages parents to investigate their children's public schools to determine whether they are too accepting of homosexuality." Fortunately, at least some reasonableness resides even within the Beast that is the SBC:

Charles Warford, a 71-year-old retired Southern Baptist pastor, was among the opponents of the resolution who spoke at a news conference hosted by The Human Rights Campaign, a Washington-based gay rights advocacy group. "I think most Southern Baptists realize the importance of public education," Warford said. "And many pastors' wives teach in public schools. I think it's very unfortunate that homophobia is still very much promoted in the Southern Baptist Convention through publications and other means."

Sometimes it seems hard to know where even to begin with the subject of homosexuality. Opponents of all things gay generally come down hard on the Bible as God's Word, sometimes throwing out words like inerrant or infallible. Then they point to a few decidely anti-gay passages. What they ignore, however, are other clear passages that are completely offensive to any modern reading (one hopes!): including passages that condone or protect slavery, polygamy, and the subjugation of women. Christians who believe that there is room in God's grace, and therefore in the pews, without bias or prejudice, for homosexuals also affirm that the Bible is indeed God's Word; however, they are more likely to point out that it very rarely presents anything as "black and white" / "right and wrong." In fact, the Bible does contain contradictions and mistakes. Such mistakes are owed, not to Higher Inspiration, but to the many frail and fallible humans who actually wrote the books of the Bible. Therefore, it is best to urge caution on those who would judge. Jesus himself repeatedly warns his followers against judging each other. Important scriptural witness, then, includes the words of Genesis, that all humankind is created in God's image, and the commands (found in the Old Testament & repeated by Jesus) to love one another, just as you love yourself.

P.S. The Human Rights Campaign has posted their own comments on the SBC's resolution regarding public education, including this note: "Over the past 30 years, the SBC has passed 13 resolutions against gays and lesbians. That is compared to three resolutions on HIV/AIDS and a single resolution against homelessness."

yet another reason ExxonMobil hates our planet

from Time's Milestones (June 27, 2005):

HIRED. PHILIP COONEY, 45, former oil-industry lobbyist who, as a White House environmental adviser, came under fire from environmentalists when it was revealed that he had edited government scientific reports on global warming to downplay ecological threats; by ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil company, days after he resigned from the Administration.

He manipulated government reports to downplay or blatantly hide specific scientific findings linking climate change to fossil fuel consumption - and is awarded with a cushy job by Exxon. Perhaps Exxon deserves an award, too: how about the "We Hate the Planet" award?

The May/June 2005 issue of Mother Jones focused on the environment and climate change. This story lays out the facts about Exxon's anti-earth crusade:

News: Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil.
[also see accompanying chart]

Now, as I have determined not just to highlight certain events of the day but to speak to them from a religious/faith/theological/Christian conviction, let's ask the question, why is this important? An answer is found in the two accounts of creation in Genesis 1 & 2: in the first, God gives humanity dominion over the earth (1:28-30); in the second, God makes all of creation - plants, animals, and humans - from the dirt of the earth (2:7-9, 18-19). So humanity is put in charge of God's creation. However, this relationship is characterized by the fact that life is intricately linked to the earth: the word for man, adam (which becomes the first man's name), is derived from the word for ground, adamah. We have a special relationship with the earth.

In short, we are a people of the earth, given charge to take care of it in such a way that it can continue to produce and support life, just as it did in the beginning. A company that not only disregards such a charge but blatantly seeks to cover-up the truth about damage being done to God's creation by their product is a company that is seriously lacking in moral standards. ExxonMobil shows intentional disregard for our planet; we should return the favor.

Rep. Conyers tells it like it is

John Conyers' Letter to the Washington Post:

...The fact that I and my fellow Democrats had to stuff a hearing into a room the size of a large closet to hold a hearing on an important issue shouldn't make us the object of ridicule. In my opinion, the ridicule should be placed in two places: first, at the feet of Republicans who are so afraid to discuss ideas and facts that they try to sabotage our efforts to do so; and second, on Dana Milbank and the Washington Post, who do not feel the need to give serious coverage on a serious hearing about a serious matter-whether more than 1700 Americans have died because of a deliberate lie. Milbank may disagree, but the Post certainly owed its readers some coverage of that viewpoint.

Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.

A little motivation

Lots of factors have pushed me into speaking my mind more freely and educating myself more fully; none pissed me off as much as this report: Church & Scaife.

Andrew J. Weaver & Nicole Seibert
August 2, 2004
Church & Scaife
Secular Conservative Philanthropies waging unethical campaign to take over United Methodist Church

The United Methodist and other mainline Protestant churches are the targets of a continuing, orchestrated attack by determined right-wing ideologues who use CIA-style propaganda methods to sow dissention and distrust, all in pursuit of a radical political agenda.

Anyone committed to the Christian faith (or the principle of free religious expression, or even basic standards like honesty & integrity) should be appalled by this report. It documents the covert efforts of some to destabilize and delegitimize several Christian denominations, in order to weaken their social witness and to distract from the Truth of the Gospel: that Jesus lived & died for all people, cared for all people, and had a special interest in reaching out to those whom society neglected most.

On Watergate, then and now

From an editorial by Frank Rich, Don't Follow the Money - New York Times, writing on Deep Throat, Watergate, and the current political smokescreen:

"... THE journalists who do note the resonances of now with then rarely get to connect those dots on the news media's center stage of television. You are more likely to hear instead of how Watergate inspired too much 'gotcha' journalism. That's a rather absurd premise given that no 'gotcha' journalist got the goods on the biggest story of our time: the false intimations of incipient mushroom clouds peddled by American officials to sell a war that now threatens to match the unpopularity and marathon length of Vietnam.

Only once during the Deep Throat rollout did I see a palpable, if perhaps unconscious, effort to link the White House of 1972 with that of 2005. It occurred at the start, when ABC News, with the first comprehensive report on Vanity Fair's scoop, interrupted President Bush's post-Memorial Day Rose Garden news conference to break the story. Suddenly the image of the current president blathering on about how hunky-dory everything is in Iraq was usurped by repeated showings of the scene in which the newly resigned Nixon walked across the adjacent White House lawn to the helicopter that would carry him into exile.

But in the days that followed, Nixon and his history and the long shadows they cast largely vanished from the TV screen. In their place were constant nostalgic replays of young Redford and flinty Holbrook. Follow the bait-and-switch."

Faith and Evolution are not contradictory!

Accepting evolution is not an anti-faith position. Darwin, as with a great many scientists, was a Christian. Scientific achievement never displaces God; it helps us understand God's creation and our place in it and it is a tool (applied in such areas as medicine, biology, physics, and psychiatry, to name just a few) for improving our standards of living.

The following is a link to resources on evolution and the 'debate' maintained by a vocal minority against it:
National-Academies.org | Evolution Resources: "Evolution Resources
From the National Academies"

a good laugh from Letterman

CBS | Late Show Top Ten Archive: June 08, 2005:

"Top Ten Ways George Bush Can Regain His Popularity"

10. Dip into social security fund to give every American free HBO
9. Use diplomacy to bring peace to Brad, Jen and Angelina
8. Try fixing Iraq, creating some jobs, reducing the deficit and maybe capturing Osama
7. Figure out a way for the Yankees to win a game
6. Replace his 'country simpleton' persona with more lovable 'hillbilly idiot' image
5. Use weekly radio address to give Americans a Van Halen twofer
4. Get Saddam to switch to boxers
3. Ditch the librarian and make Eva Longoria First Lady
2. Resign
1. Jump on Oprah's couch while professing his love for Katie Holmes

Ohio Senators...worth every penny?

found the first bit on Daily Kos (posted Tuesday):

"In the heels of their 50-state governor approval/disapproval poll, SurveyUSA has polled similar ratings for all 100 Senators.

The 10 least popular Senators:
90. Nelson (D-FL)
91. Sununu (R-NH)
92. Dayton (D-MN)
93. Santorum (R-PA)
94. DeWine (R-OH)
95. Inhofe (R-OK)
96. Coburn (R-OK)
97. Martinez (R-FL)
98. Burr (R-NC)
99. Lautenberg (D-NJ)
100. Cornyn (R-TX)

I can't believe one of my own Senators is in the bottom 10. (Voinovich is tied for 77th.) Okay, maybe I can. But I'm shocked that he ranks below Santorum!

Let's just put those numbers next to a report from another interesting article on Ohio's Senators I came across yesterday, about how many millions they're worth. From the Cincinnati Enquirer:

... Congressional members must file financial-disclosure statements each year. These reports offer a broad look at lawmakers' finances.

... [Ohio Sen. George] Voinovich reported assets totaling $800,000 to $2.5 million, including retirement funds and a property in Cape Haze, Fla., that generated $5,000 to $15,000 in rental income.

Voinovich's assets pale beside fellow Ohio Republican Sen. Mike DeWine, who has shares in dozens of companies via a trust fund, holding company and partnership. DeWine reported assets of $7 million to $35 million.

DeWine Enterprises Inc. generated between $115,200 and $1,051,000 in dividends, capital gains and interest, DeWine's statement said.

How do you report an asset range or earnings of between $100,000 and a cool million -- let alone $7 - $35 million? There's a big difference! Boy, the life of a public servant (i.e. U.S. Senator) must be rough!

Public Opinion

*This data is not new - it was collected Feb. 24-28, '05.
Still, it's worth examining.

Washington News - New York Times:

Americans say President Bush does not share the priorities of most of the country on either domestic or foreign issues.

Initially, I went through the trouble of posting a number of the questions and responses as they appear. But this post was way too cumbersome and hard to read, so I summarized a few points being fair to the verbage of the poll.

The results are striking. What I want to know is, what's the deal? Most Americans now think we should have stayed out of Iraq (50% - 46%). They're opposed to military action in North Korea even if North Korea continues to develop nuclear weapons (59-33), and they're against attempts to change any dictatorship into a democracy (59-27).

By another huge margin, they don't believe that President Bush has developed a clear plan to deal with the situation in Iraq (71-21). Nearly two-thirds of Americans think that the President's priorities don't line up with their own (63-31 on domestic issues; 58-37 on foreign policy).

Three-quarters of Americans want some level of availability for abortion (75-23). Most also favor some legal rights and recognition for same sex couples (57-41 or 53-42, depending on how the question was asked). They name a need for changing Social Security (61-33) but think individual investments of Social Security is a bad idea (51-43; 69-22 when asked what they think if their guaranteed benefit were reduced by up to a third). Most favor raising the amount of income that is subject to Social Security taxes (61-31) and raising S.S. taxes (49-46) but oppose raising the age of retirement / receiving benefits (77-19).

Further, most Americans say their views are more in line with or they better trust Democrats on each of these issues - abortion (45-35), legal recognition of same sex couples (42-37 or 44-36, depending on how the question was asked), and social security (48-31).

On a whole host of issues, our great nation is not being led in the direction that most people believe it should be. Sometimes, of course, leaders must lead against the tide; to attempt to do so on so many issues, however, is a display of some mix of ignorance, ego, and selfish ambition, not to mention lack of concern for us common-folk, "we the people".

from Annie Lamott

Culture, Sort of:

"...I used to think it was necessary for religious liberals and progressives who follow Christ's teachings to align ourselves with Jesus, who 100% of the time, has always heard and drawn close to the suffering of the poor. But with every passing day, calling yourself a Christian makes it sound as if you have anything in common with the Right wing's imperialistic corporate Christianity. It makes them sound more legitimate, instead of the Christy-ins [see full column for reference] whom they have shown themselves to be. They are doing hideous things in the name of Jesus. They seem absolutely clueless about the fact that God is not a white American male, and is independent of American foreign policy. Everything they say is couched in language that makes them sound like they are right in the heart of Jesus, when they are doing is called, to use the theological term, ‘fucking the poor.’ So I think for the time being, I would like to be referred to as The Artist Who Formerly Called Herself a Christian. If anyone asks, I will explain that I do love Uncle Jesus, and I live for my church, and other churches that, like the early Christians, celebrate mystery and diversity, and believe that we are here to take care of our brothers and sisters."

Well said! Except, of course, for the part where she suggests no longer claiming her Christianity. I believe the best reaction is the opposite reaction: we need to claim our faith ever more boldly, strongly, and urgently, offering an alternative that embraces love, diversity, and caring for others, especially the 'lost, least, and last' -- all things that Jesus himself embraced. The entire column, linked above, is worth a read.

Little Talkers - The Elephant in Eden

from The Elephant in Eden:

"... When all of the animals were finished complete
The Lord took some dust and made man so neat.
[God] formed him and made him and called his name Adam
But he was alone, just a man with no madam.
Then God called to us in [God's] voice so deep,
'Adam will name you,' it made my heart leap.
We all marched in pairs, I was swinging my trunk
I was certainly glad I wasn't called skunk..."

This comes from a children's poem. While it may be perfectly okay for kids, it unfortunately reflects the sad state of many adult Christians' own faith-education: too many believers rarely progress beyond an immature, child-like faith. Even a cursory reading of the first two chapters of the book of Genesis shows the error in the verses of this poem and a glaring contradiction in the text itself. In the account of creation told by Gen. 1-2:3, God creates vegetation, then animals, and then, last but not least, people. Yet the creation tale that is told beginning in Gen. 2:4 states very clearly that "when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up" (2:5) God created adam; only then did God create a garden with trees and fruit and, a little later, animals and birds.

I suggested that these verses from "The Elephant in Eden" help to reveal a contradiction in the opening pages of the Bible. But this is only the case, and therefore only a problem, if one attempts to read the Bible literally. Such a reading fails right away - and this should be cause for celebration. What we learn from its opening pages is that the Bible is not a history book, not a science book, not a text book, not a cook book, not a political constitution, not a legal book, and certainly not a word-for-word, literally reported and completely inerrant statement by God. It is not any one of these things alone; it does, however, contain many of these kinds of writings, as well as many more (such as poetry, in the case of Genesis 1). It also clearly reflects the history, science, politics, laws, and culture of the people who contributed to its recording (much of which was itself flawed, relative, or contextual). Yet these people were incredibly faithful - or, at least, they tried to be. And in the pages of the Bible are displayed the working out of faith by a people who are in the thick of life: and mostly in the midst of hard, one-day-at-a-time living. They are not left to work out their life alone, and that is ultimately what sets the Bible apart: God is present and active in life and in their lives. Yet their own witness clearly shows that life is rarely a black-and-white, good-and-evil proposition. Honest, faithful study of the Biblical record replaces such child-like notions with a true understanding for the complexity of God's creation and reinforces our need for faithfulness even as we work together on deepening knowledge and faith.

Scientific discovery

For Fruit Flies, Gene Shift Tilts Sex Orientation - New York Times:

"When the genetically altered fruit fly was released into the observation chamber, it did what these breeders par excellence tend to do. It pursued a waiting virgin female. It gently tapped the girl with its leg, played her a song (using wings as instruments) and, only then, dared to lick her - all part of standard fruit fly seduction.

The observing scientist looked with disbelief at the show, for the suitor in this case was not a male, but a female that researchers had artificially endowed with a single male-type gene.
...
In a series of experiments, the researchers found that females given the male variant of the gene acted exactly like males in courtship, madly pursuing other females. Males that were artificially given the female version of the gene became more passive and turned their sexual attention to other males.
...
Still, experts said they were both awed and shocked by the findings. "The results are so clean and compelling, the whole field of the genetic roots of behavior is moved forward tremendously by this work," said Dr. Michael Weiss, chairman of the department of biochemistry at Case Western Reserve University. "Hopefully this will take the discussion about sexual preferences out of the realm of morality and put it in the realm of science."
...
The finding supports scientific evidence accumulating over the past decade that sexual orientation may be innately programmed into the brains of men and women. Equally intriguing, the researchers say, is the possibility that a number of behaviors - hitting back when feeling threatened, fleeing when scared or laughing when amused - may also be programmed into human brains, a product of genetic heritage.

Well, hopefully it will help continue to move the discussion about sexual preference into a larger conversation about sexuality within the realm of science and morality. Nothing is without moral implication, and it is dangerous to pretend otherwise.

Stop the Genocide!

Faithful America

"In what may be the worst human rights tragedy of our time, nearly a half-million state-sanctioned murders have occurred and continue as you read this. New reports of armed officers gang raping and torturing children (some as young as four!) simply cannot be ignored. It is time for all of us as people of faith to lift our voices to demand that President Bush take firm and decisive leadership to stop the killing."

Speaking of events about which we cannot be silent... the ongoing violence is nothing less than a crime against humanity. In reference to the genocide in Rwanda, Pres. Bush once stated: "Not on my watch." But now it is happening, and after some early positive action the administration has backed off on the issue. We must press for relief for these people, the millions who are refugees, victims, and potential victims of direct violence. The link above offers more resources, information, and a way to get involved.

Self-Restraint akin to Silence

War Made Easy: From Vietnam to Iraq

"When a country -- particularly a democracy -- goes to war, the consent of the governed lubricates the machinery of killing. Silence is a key form of co-operation, but the war-making system does not insist on quietude or agreement. Mere self-restraint will suffice.
...
There remains a kind of spectator relationship to military actions being implemented in our names. We're apt to crave the insulation that news outlets offer. We tell ourselves that our personal lives are difficult enough without getting too upset about world events. And the conventional war wisdom of American political life has made it predictable that most journalists and politicians cannot resist accommodating themselves to expediency by the time the first missiles are fired. Conformist behavior -- in sharp contrast to authentic conscience -- is notably plastic.
...
When the huge news outlets swing behind warfare, the dissent propelled by conscience is not deemed to be very newsworthy. The mass media are filled with bright lights and sizzle, with high production values and lower human values, boosting the war effort. And for many Americans, the gap between what they believe and what's on their TV sets is the distance between their truer selves and their fearful passivity.

Conscience is not on the military's radar screen, and it's not on our television screen. But government officials and media messages do not define the limits and possibilities of conscience. We do."

Taken from an article that excerpts Norman Solomon's new book War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. For information, go to: www.WarMadeEasy.com
(emphasis mine)

This article hits a few important points for me:
1) It is always easier to be ignorant.
2) Ignorance is at best an excuse, and at worse a lie, to protect and insulate ourselves.
3) I live in a representative democracy. That means that actions taken and decisions made by my elected leaders are done on my behalf, even if I didn't vote for this person.
4) Silence on any decision is an implicit endorsement of it.
Silence on any action is complicit participation in it.
5) I am sick of being silent. I am tired of being, to paraphrase Solomon, 'fearfully passive.'

Up and running!

Well, I'm up and running at last. Been talking about doing this for some time, and here I am.