Obama's Secret Prisons

Here's one that should make all my Republican Anti-Obama friends happy:

Does the Obama administration have their own "Gitmo"? If this article is true, nothing has changed except the names and locations. We're still torturing people.

The creation of a "liberal"

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/11015

Point one: I'm not a "liberal," really. I'm philosophically and morally conservative.

Point two: I get called "liberal" because I don't accept the arguments about the alleged "good" of capitalism. Of course, even "liberal Democrats" in America accept those arguments. Strange world we live in.

The root issue, it seems to me, is that I really believe that we as a society have an obligation to take care of our weakest members -- those who cannot take care of themselves. And I believe that capitalism resembles the card game we used to play: "Poverty," a game in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The game is rigged to the advantage of those who are already winning. It is VERY difficult for a person who has been dealt a bad hand to EVER rise to the top of the heap.

And that's what capitalism seems to do: those of us who grew up in privilege -- in good, American middle class homes -- have lots of advantages. I'm grateful that I received a good education, that I had enough motivation (just barely!) to work hard enough in college to succeed; that my Christian parents and my church instilled in me not only a half-way decent work ethic, but the values that made me want to do "something meaningful" with my life.

But what about the people who didn't have those advantages? Unfortunately, I've seen people -- kids from areas of New York City and Philadelphia that didn't readily welcome white people -- who couldn't see college or a successful career as a real possibility for them. Of course, when working with those kids, we tried to tell them they could be and do anything they really wanted to be or do. Many times they just didn't believe us. We could not make the possibilities we took for granted seem like real options for them. All they could see, much of the time, was a future of poverty and welfare, or crime and an early death.

What made their vision so limited? I don't know all the factors, but it just seemed to them like going to college would be like, well, hitting the lottery. Sure, it could happen. But what are the odds? So, these kids needed help in reshaping their view of the world so that they might actually attempt something we would take for granted. The world they lived in had so conditioned their view of reality and of our society that they could not see my "obvious possibilities" as real for them. The "system" of our society disadvantaged them.

And then we could talk about racism. Most of the kids I'm thinking about were black. A few were Hispanic. They were certain that college was for rich white kids. So, even if we told them that racism didn't really exist in college admissions, they weren't likely to believe it. Even if we told them that racism wouldn't keep them from getting a good job after college, they would be very skeptical. They'd seen examples. Can't argue with history, right?

So, like it or not, I came to believe that some people just really do need a "boost" of some kind, and that some of those "boosts" would have to be in the form of social programs. Not just "giving a handout," but in really trying to help people better their lives, better themselves.

But, I believe it is necessary to do this because, as a Christian, I believe we have an obligation to the poor. We have an obligation to help them help themselves, and if necessary to see to it that they have sufficient food, shelter, and even health care. Does that make me a "liberal"? Whatever. What I'm talking about is conserving a long Christian tradition of taking care of the poor and helping them help themselves. I say that makes me a conservative.

Christianity and Islam -- peaceful coexistence?

See this article in the Al Jazeera magazine:

Muhammad’s promise to Christians

President Obama and the Just War Argument

Though President Obama's decision to "surge" in Afghanistan should not have been unexpected by the American public, I was grieved to finally hear the announcement. I was surprised -- and happily -- that he enunciated a defense of the military efforts there in terms of the classic "just war" theory because it seems to me that we Americans always assume our wars to be "just" simply because they always seem to be defending "our freedoms" or "our way of life." In other words, we rarely question our nation, and we do so only on the most selfish level. Even protests against the Viet Nam war for the most part only dwelt on the issue of whether or not America had some kind of national interest at stake, so that if we did NOT have a vested national interest, then we should NOT be fighting in Viet Nam.

Such an explanation flies in the face of classic "just war" arguments. One of the primary qualifications for "just war" in those arguments is that the war CANNOT be fought for selfish purposes.

So, again, it was good to hear our President articulate a logical defense of his decision to surge. In part, it was good to hear because it may become clearer to all of us that this war and the one we are fighting in Iraq are indeed NOT "just." We are invaders in foreign countries; we are attempting to spread our empire; we are not fighting by just means. Thus our wars are not just, according to "just war" theory.

For an insightful analysis of President Obama's speech on the surge, see this short piece by Professor Stanley Hauerwas:

http://hopeofalltheworld.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-do-you-know-war-is-war.html

"Peace on earth." (unidentified angels)

Death Panels

Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, yada yada yada -- people claiming that the proposed health care reforms include "death panels" have gotten some folks pretty upset, including some people pretty close and dear to me. They cannot understand how I could support the reform of our health care system when it includes death panels = the plan to kill of the elderly because their health care would cost the system too much.

Now, I have to admit I'm insulted that someone would think I was in favor of such a proposal, since I do love my parents and want them to live as long as possible, so long as THEY are happy with their quality of life!!!! To be honest, I want them to live longer than that, but they've talked to me over the years about not wanting to live out the end of their days hooked to machines in a hospital room. It's hard for me to talk to them about it, but they have "no heroic measures" clauses in their living will statements. I will be very hard to convince that we should "pull the plug" (even writing that makes me shudder) at any time when there is still breath in them. But they have already made some decisions, far ahead of time, about their desired quality of life. And they've forced me to think about those issues for my own life as well. And though I love my parents, my siblings and I may at some point have to make some very, very difficult decisions. But we will do that with full consideration of my parents' wishes.

That being said: it is insulting to me for someone to claim that I -- or in general people who favor the reform of the American health care system -- want to kill off our parents because we don't think their lives are worth paying to preserve. But that is how some of the hate-mongers in our country have portrayed this effort, including Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. They are lying and they need to repent.

Is it even logical to think that the people who are promoting this reform all want to kill off their parents? I mean -- they're not teenagers! It just makes no sense to think that they want to do that. And they don't.

On the other hand, maybe they just don't know what's in there! Maybe the wicked writers of the bill have hidden the "death panel" provision somewhere in there, and since the bill is so long (so they criticize), people who are promoting it haven't even read it! They're just ignorant, and the wicked Obama-wizard wants to keep them that way so he can kill old people.

Ok -- really? The bill is out there for public viewing. But it's so nice and easy to assume Palin and Beck are right (because, after all, they're conservatives, and they are Christians!!!), and to attribute horrid, horrible motives to the "liberals," so, well, it MUST be true.

So I decided to check into it myself. Here's what I found.

The bill that was passed by the house ("America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009," available at http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf) has a provision in Section 1236 (pp. 438-443) for a "DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ON USE OF PATIENT DECISIONS AIDS." This is the provision that has been construed as the attempt to establish "death panels."

A "patient decision aid" is defined as:

an educational tool (such as the Internet, a video, or a pamphlet) that helps patients (or, if appropriate, the family caregiver of the patient) understand and communicate their beliefs and preferences related to their treatment options, and to decide with their health care provider what treatments are best for them based on their treatment options, scientific evidence, circumstances, beliefs, and preferences.

So, what this program intends to do is to make sure patients fully understand their treatment options and have thought through them based on their OWN BELIEFS AND PREFERENCES. Now, having been a cancer patient over the last year, let me assure you of how important this is! I'm grateful for the treatment I received, but I admit I have been surprised a time or two during the process because I did NOT understand all the implications. I wish I had had better information, information I could understand, and had been able to think through it all better. But I was so overwhelmed by the thought of having cancer, and the treatment options were of a wide variety, and I just couldn't get my head around it -- and in part I didn't want to. I just wanted to get it over with. Thankfully my wife had her wits about her throughout the process, so I had good guidance even when I didn't have a clue what was going on. But I've wished I'd understood better, and this provision is trying to accomplish just that sort of thing.

And it wants to do so by establishing "a shared decision making demonstration program . . . under the Medicare program using patient decision aids to meet the objective of improving the understanding by Medicare beneficiaries of their medical treatment options."

The section says: "An eligible provider participating in the program shall routinely schedule Medicare beneficiaries for a counseling visit after the viewing of such a patient decision aid to answer any questions the beneficiary may have with respect to the medical care of the condition involved and to assist the beneficiary in thinking through how their preferences and concerns relate to their medical care." Death panel? Get real.

Now, I can see how the phrase "shared decision making" could spook someone. But here's how the bill defines it:

The term ‘‘shared decision making’’ means a collaborative process between patient and clinician that engages the patient in decision making, provides patients with information about trade-offs among treatment options, and facilitates the incorporation of patient preferences and values into the medical plan.

If the test program is established (i.e., if the bill is signed into law), it is ordered to create a final report within a year of its end. That report must "include an evaluation of the impact of the use of the program on health quality, utilization of health care services, and on improving the quality of life of such beneficiaries." In other words, the intent of the program is to make sure people understand their treatment options, make sure their own beliefs and wishes become part of the treatment plan (so that the doctors can't just push for their own preferred treatment), and in general to try to improve the quality of life of the patients.

It is NOT A DEATH PANEL. Its intent is not to counsel someone to end their life, or to tell someone that their life has become too expensive for the system to maintain. Anyone who tells you different either has not read the bill or is lying.

Some folks have insisted that this provision will result in the government sending out "little blue pills" (i.e., "suicide pills") with instructions to old folks that they have to take it because the government will no longer pay for their health care. People who make such outrageous claims are using scare tactics and lies to manipulate the elderly and the already "anti-liberal" into protesting against this reform effort. That's just plain wrong.

Observations on the Health Care Argument

I posted a link on Facebook for people to petition the Democratic Congressional leaders on behalf of the Public Option as part of health care reform. (Yes, some are afraid they're going to abandon it.) So, though I just post these things for people who would want to follow up if they want or to ignore if they don't (I even said that in the post!), some people can't resist commenting/arguing. And the comments seemed to go on and on, and all while I wasn't looking. So, here's a few observations that are specific to comments already posted there on my Facebook wall. Feel free to read. Or ignore.

1. Jesus died in a political execution. To claim he had no interaction with the political systems of his day is not only to miss that fact, but also to miss the fact that he borrows not only the words but the program of the OT prophets. See his statements in the synagogue in Luke 4, for instance. A thorough study of the concept of the “kingdom of God” will also lead to the prophets and to concepts of justice and mercy.
2. “The poor you always have with you” was not a social program but an observation about the continual injustice of political (and perhaps economic) systems.
3. To observe that the present system can be abused, and to argue that a reformed system might or will also be abused, is not an argument against reform.
4. To argue that we can’t get a perfect system is also not an argument against reform, but better understood as a warning that the process will likely take a long time and go through several stages.
5. Since capitalism is a conscious effort to eliminate ethical input into the economic system, and Marxism is an effort to put ethics INTO the economic system, it can be argued that Marxism could (if truly employed – which it has never been) is more ethical than capitalism. So, to label a reformed system as “neo-marxist” isn’t an argument against reform of the health care system to make it more ethical. It plays well in Oklahoma as a scare tactic, of course.
6. As James pointed out, we’re already paying for health care of people who don’t have insurance. But putting some insurance regulations in place has the intention of keeping the costs down for everyone. It will not be free to anyone, except those who are verifiably unable to contribute. The intent of the program is to have everyone contribute and everyone benefit. Certainly good stewardship is important, but from a Biblical perspective no stewardship that excludes justice for the poor would be called “good.”
7. If we exclude WWJD from the argument, then, yes, we end in moral relativism. I think Harold is right about that. If we don’t have divine input into our ethics, then we’re just making it all up, and then the strong get their way and Mao was right: “truth is found at the end of a gun.” Oh – but that’s pretty close to what we have going right now!
8. Speaking of stewardship: Jesus statement about giving to Caesar’s what is Caesar’s needs to be understood as the best gag Jesus ever pulled, since Jesus knew, and his opponents there SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, that in reality none of this stuff belongs to Caesar, but it all belongs to God. So Jesus walks away unscathed -- no doubt scratching his head and wondering how his good Jewish opponents could have missed that one. Now, since it all belongs to God, we have to think pretty carefully about what we do with it. I don’t expect our government to be Christian in any way, shape or form, but I do want it to be more just.
9. Final comment on justice: while we tend to define it as “getting what one deserves,” in the OT prophets (and even in the Psalms) “justice” is equated with taking care of the helpless: the widows, the orphans, the aliens. So, in essence “justice” in the OT means “acts of mercy.” See Isaiah 1:17, for instance, or Psalm 71:1-4.

Beating up Jesus

Pat Boone has recently written about several statements made by President Obama. (You should read his column on the Newsmax.com website [http://www.newsmax.com/boone/Obama_Muslims_Christians/2009/06/08/222718.html] before reading my comments.) At the top of Boone’s column you’ll find the following statements from Mr. Obama:
"We're no longer a Christian nation." - President Barack Obama, June 2007

"America has been arrogant." - President Barack Obama

"After 9/11, America didn't always live up to her ideals."- President Barack Obama

"You might say that America is a Muslim nation."- President Barack Obama, Egypt 2009

Boone then states: “I keep wondering what country be believes he’s president of.”

Now, a political column by a 1950s pop star would not normally be worthy of comment, except that I have seen it passed around with great approval by Christians, and by some that might be considered prominent. Unfortunately, there are some real problems with Boone’s comments – both logical and historical.

First of all, Mr. Boone needs to pay attention to the context of President Obama’s comments. Meaning is derived from context, and Boone has excerpted these remarks out of their original context and placed them alone at the head of his column. If I were to do the same to Boone’s column, I might comment quite truly that Boone wrote, "Damn the United States ! I wish I might never hear of the United States again!"

Or further, it could be truly stated that Boone makes a case for the US being a Jewish nation. Yes, read his column and you’ll see it.

Boone also refers to the story by Edward Everett Hale, “A Man Without a Country,” but tells it as if it were really true. He begins by saying it is one of his favorite stories, but then recounts the movie version in which the main character, Philip Nolan, damns America. Boone remarks: “The stunned silence in the courtroom is palpable, pulsing. After a long pause, the judge soberly says to the angry lieutenant: ‘You have just pronounced your own sentence.’”

Um, Pat – it’s fiction! I’m glad it moves you to tears, but it has no bearing whatsoever on reality. And people who can’t tell the difference between fiction and reality . . . . Oh, nevermind.

But the fiction continues as Boone asks President Obama: “Just what country do you think you’re president of?” And this because, according to Pat, “America is emphatically a Christian nation, and has been from its inception!”

Uh, really? You mean the nation that arrogantly committed genocide on the original residents of “our country,” many of whom continue to live in poverty on “reservations”? And the history of the “reservations” in my state of Oklahoma is more than enough to make you want a dictionary definition of the word “reservation,” or at least wonder if it has any concrete meaning at all!

Do you mean the nation that imported and enslaved Africans for a couple of centuries, and in which civil rights were only for white people until the 1960s, and in which those civil rights for black people had to be won through long and difficult battles? And the nation in which bigotry is still rampant?

And Pat – aren’t you a citizen of the nation that also invaded Viet Nam and fought an unjust war there? And secretly bombed Cambodia? And . . . . And . . . the list could go on for pages. Sorry, Pat, but I cannot accept your arrogant claim that America has not been arrogant. BTW: “imperialism” probably equals “arrogance.” For the record.

For which of these actions do we get to be called “Christian”? If I understand the Bible much at all, it seems clear that the nation of Israel was condemned by its God because of its injustices, especially toward the weakest members of its society (the orphans, widows and the foreigners). Can we hope that we have done better? I think not.

But Boone goes on to claim that 70% of Americans claim to be Christian. I suppose that could be true. It will, of course, depend greatly on which poll numbers you accept. At any rate, it’s interesting to note that Boone was once a member of the Churches of Christ but was essentially run out because of his beliefs in spiritual gifts. He can now be seen on some of the Christian cable channels from time to time. You might think he would be a little sensitive about Christians who refuse to accept the faith of others who call themselves Christians. Hmmmph. Nope – he questions the Christianity of Obama’s home church in Chicago, the Trinity United Church of Christ, and asked if that’s where he got the idea that America has been arrogant. So, let me get this straight: Boone is arrogantly asking if Obama’s church, which Boone (arrogantly?) has a difficult time calling “Christian,” is the place where Obama learned that America is arrogant. Got it.

So, does that mean that any church that believes that America has been arrogant is no longer really Christian? If so, Pat, you probably just severely cut into your percentage of Christians in America, since many American Christians are black. Given the American history of racism – and isn’t racism inherently arrogant? – and since most American political leaders in our 200 plus year history have been white – seems to me almost impossible to make the claim that America has NOT been arrogant! But in Pat’s view, that would make me not a Christian, so my view will no longer count.

I’m also pretty sure Boone would not accept the “Christianity” of Thomas Jefferson, nor of most of the other “founding fathers,” most of whom had Deist beliefs. Jefferson even published a version of the Christian Gospels that edited out everything that was in any way miraculous, believing all that to be mere superstition. So, for Jefferson, there was no virgin birth, no resurrection, no miracle of any kind. Jesus was just a really nice guy and pretty good moralist. Mr. Boone, would you call him and his Deist friends “Christian”? Highly doubtful.

Of course, those who want to claim that America has always been a Christian nation will tend to overlook the Deist doctrines of the Founding Fathers and point to their alleged “Christian morality” and the idea that the basic ideas of our republic are Christian ideas. An interesting concept, but not demonstrable. Tell me: where in the Bible do you find any talk of “rights”? There is only one passage – 1 Corinthians 9, where Paul the Apostle speaks of the rights he could claim based on his status as apostle, and then clearly states that he has given them up! So, if we Christians are to follow the Biblical pattern concerning rights, not only can we not fight for them, we must give them up! There is no talk anywhere in the Bible about “basic human rights,” or about any “rights” that are “unalienable.” So, while I would argue that Christians should indeed value human lives God has created, to think about life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as “rights” is to go outside of Biblical language and concepts. Further, if you believe that “life” is a right, then you cannot justify killing someone to gain that right. To do so would be a self-contradiction. But that is precisely what our Founding Fathers did in the Revolutionary War. So, apparently “life” is only a “right” if you are not standing in the way of my pursuit of happiness. Can the concept of setting aside “life” in favor of “pursuit of happiness” be found anywhere in Christian scripture? No. So, the “Christian principles” of the Founders only guided them so far – to the extent that such “rights” might interfere with their economic pursuits. Not very Christian, I’d say.

Moving on: it is almost laughable – ok, it is COMPLETELY laughable – that Mr. Boone attempts to educate the former law professor about American legal precedent. Talk about arrogance.

Boone also asks President Obama: “Did you not ever read the statement of John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and an author of the landmark ‘Federalist Papers’: ‘Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers - and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation - to select and prefer Christians for their rulers’?”
Fair enough. I’d bet my last dollar Obama has not only read, but dissected and taught about the Federalist papers. But we might ask of Mr. Boone: why does this particular opinion of one man continue to matter? If it does, we should do away with the Bill or Rights, because Federalist Paper no. 84 argues that we don’t need it. So, while the opinion of John Jay is important for constitutional law, it is indeed nothing but one man’s opinion. John Jay’s opinion that we are a Christian nation was his pipe dream, nothing more.

Further, since Mr. Boone is presumably speaking as a Christian, we might ask if he can provide any support for Mr. Jay’s statement from Christian scripture. For Christians scripture is supposed to matter more than any other document, even more than the Federalist Papers, so we ultimately have to ask whether Scripture supports the idea that we Christians have the duty to elect Christian rulers. Of course, the answer is no. The viewpoint of the authors of the New Testament, as a whole, is that governments are always pagan and evil, so Christians should have very little to do with them. Certainly the New Testament authors do not envision a “Christian government” or even a “Christian nation.” So, trying to tell us that Christians have a duty to elect Christians to public office, while perhaps now and then a good idea, is certainly an error.

Boone also quotes some statements from the Quran about killing infidels, jihad, etc. Mr. Boone, an opponent of Christianity could also point to passages in the Christian Bible that, for instance, tell the Jewish people to commit genocide on the inhabitants of Palestine (book of Joshua), and pronounce a blessing on those who slam babies of the Babylonians against rocks (Ps. 137). Of course, Mr. Boone might reply that those statements are in the Old Testament and are not directed to Christians. Fair enough. Consider, then, Galatians 5:12, where the Apostle Paul wishes that those who are trying to force Galatian Christian men to circumcise themselves would go a step further and emasculate themselves! So, wishing ill on one’s enemies is not just a Muslim concept.

Furthermore, historically Christians have been quite well treated in areas ruled by Muslims. Unfortunately, the reverse has not been true (does the word "Crusades" mean anything to you?). So, despite Boone’s citation of the Quran coupled with his reference to some contemporary nations which are ruled by “conservative” Muslims, his insinuation that all Muslims want to kill all Christians, or that Muslim nations always persecute their Christian citizens, cannot be upheld. It is simply more right-wing scare-tactics. I would be willing to bet that Boone has never consulted a contemporary Muslim scholar to hear how they interpret those passages in the Quran. I would advise him to do so before he starts throwing around charges of hate and violence.

It should also be noted that Boone’s citation of a Supreme Court decision of 1892 is a fabrication. It’s not Boone’s fabrication, but he has propagated an error that is commonly found in writings that seek to prove the United States is a Christian Nation. Information on the proper citation can be found by clicking on the following links:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=126
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2S2J7I203FDVC

As you’ll see, the statement quoted by Boone occurs in a State of Illinois Supreme Court case, so at best would only be binding in the State of Illinois. But, since it is making a statement about the nation as a whole, it is not really rendering a judgment even on Illinois. Again, it is just the opinion of some of the judges in Illinois in the year 1892. It is not binding on our nation as a whole, and is in fact irrelevant.

What Boone (and others) seem to want is something that never has really existed: a Christian United States. Mr. Boone, the America you imagine never existed. You are, therefore, a citizen of a non-nation. Please move back there immediately.

If you do wish to stay here in the real world, we would love to have you contribute to our conversation about how we can all get along in this nation and in this world – all of us, including the Dutch and the English, as well as the Native Americans, the Korean Americans, the Chinese Americans, the Japanese Americans, the African Americans, and the variety of our citizens and immigrants who happen to profess the Muslim faith. But Pat, if you wish to be part of the conversation, you will be required to do better research, think more logically, and speak more politely to other conversation partners. A “power play” by which you try to “take America back for Christians” not only has no historical foundation, it is simply one more episode of attempted coercion by Christians, one more example of hate by professed followers of the Son of the God of love, one more episode that gives Jesus a black eye. Jesus doesn't need to rely on Muslims to beat him up -- his own followers have done a pretty good job.

My dad baptizing my son, Aaron

________________ New Year!

I'm afraid to fill in that blank. Those of you who know me at all know I have a real tendency toward the morbid, or at least the cynical. But as I sat and watched the Rose Parade this morning -- go figure -- there I was greeted with a stark reminder that events like the Rose Parade are just the facade some of us use to cover up reality: watching the Sesame Street float waddle down the Pasadena Boulevard, while overhead a B2 bomber glided by and the crowd went wild with cheering at this "awesome sight," this awesome display of death-technology, empire and American military supremacy. The camera left the parade temporarily to focus on the plane, while the commentators praised our soldiers for their sacrifices in "defending our freedom."

Now, back to Sesame Street and Pasadena Boulevard.

I'd already been perusing the BBC headlines, noting that scores had died in a night-club fire in Thailand while celebrating the new year, that Israel had killed a Hamas leader in one of its airstrikes (along with several members of his family), that Israel was refusing to honor the French proposal for a cease fire that would allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, that Russia had shut off the natural gas pipeline into the Ukraine, that the Taleban killed 20 policemen in a raid in Afghanistan, and so on and so on.

I also remember an email I received just yesterday containing pictures gathered from soldiers serving in the fields of both Afghanistan and Iraq -- showing the conditions in which they're spending their "holidays" -- with a reminder that they're sacrificing to protect our freedoms.

How easily people forget that the wars we're fighting were based on lies (Iraq in particular), and that we are the invading, conquering force (well, "conquering" could be disputed) -- that we have disrupted and ended countless lives, many and perhaps most of them INNOCENT of enmity against us, and that in reality there were no real threats against our freedoms. Yes, Sadaam Hussein was an evil man, just as many other national leaders are throughout the world. Yes, Osama bin Laden struck at us and we lost about 5000 lives and two large buildings. The tragedy of those actions should not be minimized -- there were great personal losses; families were broken, lives were lost.

But at the same time, it takes a large and effective propaganda machine to turn those actions into "threats against our freedoms." I guess I could admit they were threats against our freedoms if we also classify mosquitoes as "threats against my blood supply." The American institution and economy are far too large to truly be threatened by those actions, tragic as they were. Our institution and economy, and indeed our freedom, were not really threatened by those actions. What those actions accomplished was this: we got ticked off. They triggered our revenge instinct, so we saddled up and headed out to (in the words of Wiley Miller) "shoot the gol-durned varmints." In other words, we felt that our collective manhood had been called into question, so we had to stand up tall, pound our national chest and launch the weapons. As the first president Bush had said: "As for the manhood question, I'll put mine up against his any day." (I have no idea what he really meant. :-o)

I do know that on an individual basis our soldiers really have given up a great deal to be where they are rather than being at home with their families, and that some of them end up sacrificing their lives. The tragedy there breaks my heart -- but more so because of the lies that underly these sacrifices. I grieve over those losses, just as I grieve over the losses in the Gaza strip this last week, and the losses suffered by both Iraqi and Afghan families. I pray for peace.

And I pray that truth and justice will prevail. Only through truth and justice will we ever approach peace. "Peace" without truth and justice isn't really peace -- it's just a temporary lull in the violence that will resurface at some point when the lies and injustice become too much for people to tolerate.

I also know that as a nation (generally speaking) we want peace. But we become convinced that war is necessary. We become convinced of that idea because we believe the lies, and because we become comfortable in our little corner of the world, and because we think that (generally speaking again) justice really does reign everywhere except for places so remote from us and our reality that they really don't count. In other words, part of the function of the propaganda machine is to convince us that we don't need to worry about those "odd places" where people feel oppressed -- or that we should worry about them only when our comfort seems to be directly threatened. Believing the lie is easier than going after the truth.

Truth is the first casualty of war -- so goes the adage. But further: war is the end result of lies. And one more: Satan is the father of lies.

May we seek truth. May we have a truthful New Year, and may it move us closer to peace.

Stephen, the first martyr

Because I'm one of those "crazy pacifists," I am sometimes challenged to defend its apparent impracticality. In other words, challengers will say, it sounds great as an ideal, but we live in the "real world," and we all know what happens in the "real world" if you "turn the other cheek": your other cheek gets hit, and harder!

Of course, this objection is true. On the other hand, making peace was never offered to followers of Jesus as a recipe for "success," and in fact, if anyone portrays it as such, they're sadly mistaken. The truth is that, at least sometimes and perhaps often, it will not "work." But "success" and "work" are in quote marks here because their use in the objection employs definitions that Christians cannot accept: they are definitions of worldly power constructed by marketplace values. As Christians, "success" has to be defined by our faithfulness to the one we follow. This is why Christians have always esteemed martyrs: they have been successful.

Today is the feast day of Stephen, the first martyr. You can read his story in Acts 6:8-7:2,44-8:1. The following comment on Stephen's martyrdom is from a sermon of St. Fulgentius of Ruspe.

Yesterday we celebrated the birth in time of our eternal King. Today we celebrate the triumphant suffering of his soldier.

Yesterday our king, clothed in his robe of flesh, left his place in the virgin’s womb and graciously visited the world. Today his soldier leaves the tabernacle of his body and goes triumphantly to heaven.

Our king, despite his exalted majesty, came in humility for our sake; yet he did not come empty-handed. He brought his soldiers a great gift that not only enriched them but also made them unconquerable in battle, for it was the gift of love, which was to bring men to share in his divinity. He gave of his bounty, yet without any loss to himself. In a marvelous way he changed into wealth the poverty of his faithful followers while remaining in full possession of his own inexhaustible riches.

And so the love that brought Christ from heaven to earth raised Stephen from earth to heaven; shown first in the king, it later shone forth in his soldier. Love was Stephen’s weapon by which he gained every battle, and so won the crown signified by his name. His love of God kept him from yielding to the ferocious mob; his love for his neighbor made him pray for those who were stoning him. Love inspired him to reprove those who erred, to make them amend; love led him to pray for those who stoned him, to save them from punishment. Strengthened by the power of his love, he overcame the raging cruelty of Saul and won his persecutor on earth as his companion in heaven. In his holy and tireless love he longed to gain by prayer those whom he could not convert by admonition.

Now at last, Paul rejoices with Stephen, with Stephen he delights in the glory of Christ, with Stephen he exalts, with Stephen he reigns. Stephen went first, slain by the stones thrown by Paul, but Paul followed after, helped by the prayer of Stephen. This, surely, is the true life, my brothers, a life in which Paul feels no shame because of Stephen’s death, and Stephen delights in Paul’s companionship, for love fills them both with joy. It was Stephen’s love that prevailed over the cruelty of the mob, and it was Paul’s love that covered the multitude of his sins; it was love that won for both of them the kingdom of heaven.

Love, indeed, is the source of all good things; it is an impregnable defence,- and the way that leads to heaven. He who walks in love can neither go astray nor be afraid: love guides him, protects him, and brings him to his journey’s end.

My brothers, Christ made love the stairway that would enable all Christians to climb to heaven. Hold fast to it, therefore, in all sincerity, give one another practical proof of it, and by your progress in it, make your ascent together.

God, you wouldn’t do THAT, would you?

I have prostate cancer. Actually, I can now officially say “had.” Yesterday’s robotic surgery removed the prostate and ALL of the cancer with it. I’ve been overwhelmed with the prayers and concern, and truly humbled by it. Many, many prayers have been offered and answered positively.
Many of you already know the story, and I’m sorry if this is repetitive (but you can stop reading, can’t you?), and I really do not want to be melodramatic. In fact, I made sure to make one old friend promise to NOT start a world-wide 24/7 prayer chain on my behalf. Not that I don’t want prayers or think they don’t mean anything, but I’m a firm believer in God’s gracious guidance over my life, and a firm believer that God will do what is best for the people who mean the most to me. God and I have had a continual 3½ month conversation about this thing, so he’s well aware of all the angles I can possibly conceive.
So, here’s the story. I had a routine blood screen a few weeks ago, on September 5, because my prescription for cholesterol medicine had run out and I didn’t have more refills without having my liver enzymes checked, i.e., a blood test. The routine blood test showed an elevated PSA level – about 7 – which raised a “yellow flag” for Dr. Geoff Hoover. Geoff sent me to a specialist, Dr. Stephen Archer, a urologist, for further investigation.
Dr. Archer, on September 26, examined me. (Now comes the gory details, so if you don’t want to know, skip a few paragraphs!) First, I had to give a urine sample, which turned up negative. Dr. Archer even asked if I’d been sick on the day they took the blood at Dr. Hoover’s office, to which I answered no. He then had to do the “DRE” (if you don’t know what that is, consider yourself very fortunate! Thank God for doctors with small hands.)
The DRE showed nothing, so he ordered another blood test, which again showed an elevated PSA, this time up to 11. When the results came back from that test the next week, he ordered a biopsy, which he did on October 10. The biopsy showed cancer in both sides of the prostate.
Next step was to try to determine whether or not the cancer was isolated in the prostate or had spread. On Monday of this week, October 20, I had a bone scan. The next day, Tuesday, October 21, I had a CAT scan.
Apparently, something turned up on the bone scan, so Dr. Archer ordered an Xray on the 8th and 9th ribs. That was done on October 24 in place of the consultation with the Dr. we’d had scheduled for that day. That was more than a little disconcerting, and we had to wait over the weekend – the consultation was pushed back to the 28th (the next Tuesday). But Dr. Archer got the results on Monday morning, and called immediately to tell me that the Xray was negative – which meant that the cancer had not spread outside of the prostate.
At that point, we began thinking about treatments. Because of my “young age” (at least for this kind of disease ;-) ), surgery was the recommended treatment. Radiation might allow the cancer to re-emerge in the prostate at a later date, or ro re-emerge somewhere else, and if I have radiation now it would no longer be a possibility in the future. Even the “proton therapy” is radiation – though with a newer and presumably better method of delivery. Despite potential problems, surgery is the cure here.
So, we decided to look into the robotic surgery method, which led us to go to Dr. Mays in Midwest City, who works out of Midwest Regional Medical Center where they have one of the robots (the “DaVinci” robot). Everything about this process seemed positive, so we elected to have the surgery on Dec. 17th. The robotic procedure is less radical than the “strip mining” old method, with less recovery time, less blood loss, and fewer side effects afterward. Sounds great, but waiting from early November until December 17th seemed like a bit of a risk, especially to Mendy, so Dr. Mays recommended a hormone shot to keep the cancer from spreading until the surgery. I had that shot back on November 7th. The side effects have been minimal.
At any rate, last Sunday was the feast day of St. John of the Cross, a 16th century Spanish mystic and poet and truly one of the great spiritual giants in the history of Christianity. I noticed Friday as I read about him that he had died at age 49. Rats. I’m 49. On the other hand, there are so few other parallels between my life and John of the Cross that. . . . Well, you get the picture.
Further, December 17 was the feast day of . . . Lazarus. Yeah, you know – they guy who Jesus let die and then resurrected him. That was NOT what I wanted to hear! I wanted something like Saint George who slew the dragon! Why couldn’t Wednesday have been HIS feast day?
And finally, those of you who know me well know how much I “love” Stamps-Baxter songs (just as much as I love reality shows and Barry Manilow and, well, cancer!), and last Sunday in church the last song we sang was one of those: “Victory in Jesus!” God, you wouldn’t make my last ever song sung in church one of those, would you? No way. Of course, I could have just refused to sing it, but the song just before it, though not of the Stamps-Baxter genre, was just as bad, and I’d sang along with it already. So I went ahead and sang along with “Victory in Jesus,” knowing I’ll be back in a couple of weeks.
On a serious note, some of my friends have wondered about my recent obsession (?) with the saints of the Roman Catholic calendar. Not really an obsession, but I admire holiness, and these folks were indeed (usually) incredibly holy. If the writer of the sermon we call “Hebrews” in the New Testament can call upon a “great cloud of witnesses” with the knowledge that these are God’s holy ones who apparently now dwell with God yet continue to witness to the gospel, well, maybe a few of these can also fill that role.

A Thanksgiving Meditation

http://www.alternet.org/story/108876/

America's Role in World Politics

Last week I heard a prayer offered on behalf of our upcoming election. The prayer asked for national guidance that we would select the man who would lead America in such a manner that "it would rise again to be the most powerful nation on the face of the earth."

Many people, including me, had a problem with that, especially a number of non-Americans in the congregation at that time! Personally, I'm thinking about petitioning the elders to supply barf bags in the song book racks.

I probably don't need to offer any comment on that prayer -- the blatant nationalism, the subjugation of God to our national agenda -- these are clear. On the other hand, why not?

A little more subtle assumption of this prayer is that America has LOST its prominence! How interesting. Darn it, W, how could you let that happen? You need a louder rattle on your sabre! Maybe you should take that $700,000,000,000 (gotta stop -- running out of zeros) and spend it on more military might! That'll show those turds who's boss! Obviously you've been spending way too much time at the negotiating table and not enough where it really counts! Obviously the last eight years have been a miserable failure. Go figure -- W dodged his military service (for the most part). What we need now is a seasoned war hero! Let's hit 'em with a little McPain! (Or would that violate the Geneva Convention's definition of torture? O, wait -- we don't care about that. Sorry, my bad.)

I could go on, but it's Saturday morning, and I've only had one cup of espresso (so far).

But, another assumption: God WANTS the U.S. to dominate! Well, aren't we the most righteous, most just, fairest nation of them all? Mirror, mirror, on the wall. . . . If we would just actually look into the mirror we would see that such claims are preposterous. In fact, I doubt that ANY nation should make ANY claim to "righteousness." Almost by definition, nations pursue self-interest, and national self-interest always comes at the expense of the self-interests of other nations. In fact, "self-interest" itself is nowhere near any Christian virtue! Events in the history of our westward expansion could be cited here to debunk the "righteous nation" claim, but let's not go there. Would God want us to dominate the world? I can't imagine why.

Third assumption: that God might actually answer the prayer! We just ASSUME God is on our side -- because of our righteousness, I guess. Let's see, going back to the thoughts of the previous paragraph: "No one is righteous, no not one." "All our righteousness is like 'filthy rags'" (if you don't know what the "filthy rags" refers to, look it up -- pretty gruesome analogy). So, we're just asking God to underwrite our national agenda. (Sarcasm begins here.) So, of COURSE he'll do that! I mean, clearly we're God's chosen nation -- the ones God wants to bless! We're such great people, and he wants us to spread the gospel of democracy to all the world, right? So, we have the mandate to spread democracy even to people who don't want it or don't understand it, and if they resist, well, we have the God-given right to cram it down their throats, wrapped around the barrel of our guns if necessary. (End sarcasm . . . for now.)

"But what about Romans 13?" I can hear someone asking. Doesn't that state that God puts all governments in place? Therefore if we win a battle or war, it's because God wills it. And since we indeed have been the most powerful nation on the face of the earth, that's God's tacit endorsement of our nation and its agenda of world domination.

I've written on this in a previous post, so now I'll briefly comment: no. It doesn't mean that. If anything, it shows that we are in the position of the nations in the OT that God moves around like chess pieces on a board in order to maintain relative peace in the world. Being utilized by God in that sense says absolutely NOTHING about our alleged "righteousness." In fact, since God uses all things to work for good, it means he can even turn evil into good. And it's not that God causes evil things to happen, but that he can take the evil that humans create and perform on each other to somehow work for general good. So God can take the evil inclinations of a nation and use them for his own purposes. I mean, if nations are going to do evil anyway, why not try to bring some good out of it?!

Finally, there is the assumption, built onto the previous assumptions, that helping the US attain world domination is inherently Christian -- something Christians should endorse (because it is clearly God's purpose and work) and in which they should participate.

On the other hand, if it is truly an inherently evil and selfish goal, and merely one more example of God using selfish national interests to somehow keep relative peace in the world, then Romans 13 cannot be used to validate Christian participation in such enterprises.

Funny how "freedom of religion," as one of our "basic rights," can turn us into warriors for the Prince of Peace. Ok, not so funny.

Photo Essay by Phillip Toledano

Photo essay called "America: The Gift Shop," Toledano's commentary on the Bush administration. Thanks to Michael O'Keefe, Professor of Art and Design at Oklahoma Christian University, for pointing me to this work.

Perhaps you may want to start with this introduction/commentary on the display from the Word Press blogs.

The direct link to the display is:

http://www.americathegiftshop.com/#/start

I would love to be proud of my country. Right now, I'm not.

9-11

I've noticed lots of Facebook status notes about people remembering where they were on the morning of 9/11/2001 when the planes hit the WTC in New York and the Pentagon, and crashed in Pennsylvania. Personally, I was jarred. It was heart-rending. I have a difficult time watching even fictional television shows that depict horrendous violence -- especially on children -- because of grief over the amount of hate in the world. Events like this make me apologize to God on behalf of the human race. We're a sorry lot. Period.

Unfortunately, such events happen in our world on almost a daily basis. We here in the U. S. just aren't used to such things -- they usually only happen in distant countries we can barely pronounce, let alone find on a map. But they are there, every day. Every day there are people somewhere whose lives are torn apart by horrendous and unnecessary evil. But in the U.S., we're more or less insulated from those stories, and this insulation has led us to believe that we're somehow exempt -- or should be -- from such violence. Well, EVERYONE should be, not just Americans.

Christians long ago gave a name to such horrendous, pervasive evil: original sin. Yes, I believe in original sin -- though not the Augustinian version that focuses on a (more or less) "genetic defect" handed down through the sex-act by which a person is conceived. I believe in what I think is Thomas Aquinas's version of the doctrine: that "original sin" names what is essentially a sociological phenomenon. In other words, "original sin" names the pervasiveness of evil -- the ubiquitous nature of evil that so deeply inhabits our world that no individual can escape it, save Jesus.

Read Ephesians 2.1-2 and think about what it means for one to be "dead in trespasses." What does it mean to be dead? "Dead" in verse 1 is the same as verse 3's "we were by nature children of wrath, like everyone else." In other words, there is something here about who we are at our deepest level.

Now, Ephesians 4.17-22: notice the effects of sin on the human person. It goes to the very depths of the person, to the point that one's thinking itself becomes corrupt: what is right seems wrong, and what is wrong seems right.

In other words, for me it is a mistake to think about 9-11 as something "those evil people did to us," "us" meaning "the good guys." We're not any less evil, on the whole, than those who hijacked the planes. This "war" we're fighting is not a "good vs. evil" war -- President Bush's claims notwithstanding.

Now, I know some people have just quit reading because they will think what I just said is completely ridiculous. Fair enough -- some minds can't be changed (another characteristic of the power of evil!). On the other hand, there is evidence. Let's think about it from the point of view of those who are at war with us.

Why are they at war with us? I mean -- doesn't everyone want to be American? They must be jealous -- right? Jealous of our freedoms -- that's why President Bush repeatedly says that "they hate our freedoms."

Well, I suspect they do hate our freedoms, because they value certain moral injunctions more than they value American-style freedoms. They don't WANT their young women to dress the way many young women dress in America -- nor do they want their young men to dress like American young men! They don't WANT to go to the movies and see the things common in American movies. They don't WANT to be able to download porn on the internet. And the list, I'm sure, could go on much further. (Yes, I know there are political issues as well.) If it is true that "they hate our freedom," then perhaps we can see why.

So, in their understanding (the understanding of the radical Muslims who declare themselves at war with us = only a small minority of Muslims) they are fighting against evil. It is an evil so dark that it, in their minds, is worth killing or being killed over. And many American Christians would agree with the idea that our society as a whole is sex-obsessed, violent and corrupt.

A second issue, however, is also important to note at this point -- and here's what got me thinking in this direction. Because the anniversary of 9/11 has just came and went, some attention was drawn to the event itself and to the U.S.'s response to it -- i.e., the "war on terror." Sorrow over loss was mingled with calls for patriotism and revenge. I ran across this video. Take a look. I'll wait here.

Now, I know the person who put it together has really good intentions. I don't know his/her religious affilation (if any), but putting the bagpipe rendition of "Amazing Grace" behind some of the pics at least puts it in the "Christian Ballpark" (if there is such a thing). And the person who sent it to me (with approval) is a Christian. As I watched it, I found myself asking: "Where's the grace?" as the bagpipes rang out. Indeed -- where is the grace? Where is the forgiveness? Where is the love for our enemies? Aren't we told that vengeance belongs to God alone?

No, we shouldn't forget what happened seven years ago on September 11. Those who were killed were killed unjustly and even criminally. Real families suffered real loss of people of tremendous importance in their lives -- people who can never be replaced. You don't "get over" that kind of loss. You merely learn to live with it, if you're lucky.

I wish Christians in the United States would learn to love our enemies. Loving them wouldn't mean saying that they were right in attacking us, or in the continuation of suicide bombings in Bahgdad and other cities in Iraq. But it does mean letting go of the vengeance motive. It means recognizing real hurt, but foregoing the hate rather than contributing to the amount of hate already in the world.

I believe the power to do this comes through Jesus -- the one who saw the complete picture of evil in the world, felt it come down on his shoulders, and willingly succumbed to it. And he died with forgiveness on his lips.

Getting the News

There is a lot of talk out there about how biased the news agencies are in the US. "Conservatives" talk about "liberal bias," and "liberals" talk about "conservative bias."

First, I think the labels "liberal" and "conservative" are completely useless and misleading -- except that they tell more about the one using them than about those they're labeling! The only thing "conservative" means is "that person is somewhere to my right" on the ideological or theological scale, and "liberal" means only "that person is somewhere to my left" on one (or both) of those scales. So, if you really want people to know where YOU are, go around labeling others! Let me know how that works out.

Second, in the historical sense the word "liberal" has functioned as the opposite of "conservative." So, what is a "conservative"? Well, it's someone who wants to conserve something -- some tradition he or she thinks is important. "Liberals," on the other hand, are those who want "tradition" to go away and want everyone to "think for themselves." This is what the philosophical movement known as "The Enlightenment" preached: "think for yourself," which Kant said meant to think independently of tradition, community, church, political authorities, religious authorities and even the Bible (witness his famous book, Religion Within The Bounds of Reason Alone). This "Enlightenment" itself became a tradition, of course (see the works of Alasdair MacIntyre to see this history laid out clearly) -- to the point that the very concept "think for yourself" became completely unquestionable.

But, what it meant was "think without tradition." Those who consciously and conscientiously thought within the tradition were the "conservatives" who wanted to conserve the tradition. Those who purported to "think for themselves" were the liberals.

So, since in our culture the concept of thinking for oneself has become part of our intellectual and cognitive furniture, we by definition are liberals. Now, in our country there are indeed a variety of types of liberals: there are "right-wing" liberals like Rush Limbaugh, and "left-wing" liberals like Al Gore, but they're all still liberals because they all claim to be thinking for themselves without the benefit of tradition. In our country we think everyone has to figure it all out for themselves.

The truth is that no one really can do that. We all rely on the thoughts of others, whether it's great minds of the past (like Kant, or Thomas Aquinas or Einstein), or just the books we've read. We all think within communities, and communities have histories that are called "traditions." The Enlightenment itself became a tradition! We learn what it means to be "rational" because of traditions of thought, and we learn what counts as evidence. In essence, we learn what is a "good thought" and what is not a good thought. These things are just handed on to us as "the way things work." They are part of our intellectual and rational furniture.

So, OF COURSE the news agencies have biases! Though they want to claim they are completely unbiased, to be unbiased is impossible. And in the United States, even the "liberal" news agencies (if such there are) are still very much slanted toward providing the news that seems relevant to people in the US, and that is generally pro-American. It's the same with the "liberals" as with the "conservatives." They all provide news that is biased toward the viewers -- toward citizens of the United States. Even NPR ("National Public Radio"), which I like very much and listen to almost daily, and may be the best news agency in the US, is biased.

So, since I don't trust ANY news agency to give me all the relevant news or all of the details of any one story that may be important, I make it a point to read news written by non-Americans. I have three RSS feeds on my web browser: NPR, the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), and the Arab news service Al Jazeera (yes, the one that publishes Osama bin Laden's videos every now and then).

In addition, I pay attention to "Alternet," an organization that is decidedly liberal in its politics and ethics, but frequently gives a side to stories that you won't typically get on major US news programs. Frankly, it's often refreshing, though very much biased against religious views.

So: get the news. Don't believe everything you hear on the US news outlets -- they're owned by major corporations and they serve their owners' interests, not the interests of the American people. By the same token, don't believe everything you hear on NPR, BBC, Alternet or Al Jazeera! But at least give yourself a chance to hear different points of view so you can make an informed decision. One thing traditionally valued by Christians is good information, and loving our enemies by hearing their voices.