Why support NPR?

Here's why.

Because NPR isn't owned by someone who is concerned to make money for themselves or stockholders. Profit isn't a motive. Truth is. Rupert Murdoch or the Koch brothers or the Kennedy family or whoever can't control this kind of news or analysis. If you treasure democracy, you must treasure independent sources of information because you cannot vote well if you cannot get good information.

I for one do get annoyed at NPR from time to time because it seems to me that they bend over backwards to allow some voices to be heard that I really don't want to hear. But I know they need to be heard, and I myself NEED to hear them. But as I've said on this blog before, I also consult a variety of newspapers and news sources, such as the BBC and Al Jazeera (both the online news source and the magazine -- don't be afraid, you won't get "Muslimized" or something if you go to their site. But you will definitely get a different view of the news, and your view of the US may indeed be challenged. Even if you don't agree, you'll have to do a better job of defending your point of view! If you can't take that and deal with it, you have no claim to be pursuing the truth. So stop telling the rest of us that you are.).

More on "charity"

From Slavoj Zizek, First as Tragedy, Then as Farce (p. 81):

Towards the end of 2008, a research group studying trends in tuberculosis epidemics in Eastern Europe over the last few decades made their main results public. Having analyzed data from more than 20 states, the researchers from Cambridge and Yale established a clear correlation between loans made to these states by the IMF and the rise in cases of tuberculosis---once the loans stop, the TB epidemics recede. The explanation for this apparently weird correlation is simple: the condition for getting IMF loans is that the recipient state has to introduce "financial discipline," i.e., reduce public spending; and the first victim of measures destined to reestablish "financial health" is health itself, in other words, spending on public health services. The space then opens up for Western humanitarians to bemoan the catastrophic condition of the medical services in these countries and to offer help in the form of charity.

Thomas Merton on charity and justice

Too often Christian charity is understood in an entirely superficial way, as though it were no more than gentleness, kindness, and affability. It certainly includes all these things, but it goes far beyond them. When charity is regarded as merely "being nice to" other people, this is generally because our outlook is narrow and takes in only our immediate neighbors, who share the same advantages and comforts as we. This conception tacitly excludes those who most need our love--those who are unfortunate, who suffer, who are poor, destitute, or who have nothing in this world and who therefore have a claim upon everyone else who has more than he himself strictly needs.

There is no charity without justice. Too often we think of charity as a kind of moral luxury, as something which we choose to practice, and which gives us merit in God's sight, and at the same time satisfying a certain interior need to "do good." Such charity is immature and even in some cases completely unreal. True charity is love, and love implies deep concern for the needs of another. It is not a matter of moral self-indulgence, but of strict obligation. I am obliged by the law of Christ and of the Spirit to be concerned with my brother's need, above all with his greatest need, the need for love. How many terrible problems in relations between classes, nations, and races in the modern world arise from the sad deficiency of love! Worst of all, this deficiency has manifested itself very clearly among those who claim to be Christians! Indeed Christianity has repeatedly been called upon to justify injustice and hate!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . Christian charity is meaningless without concrete and exterior acts of love. The Christian is not worthy of his name unless he gives from his possessions, his time, or at least his concern in order to help those less fortunate than himself. The sacrifice must be real, not just a gesture of lordly paternalism which inflates his own ego while patronizing "the poor." The sharing of material goods must also be a sharing of the heart, a recognition of common misery and poverty and of brotherhood in Christ. Such charity is impossible without an interior poverty of spirit which identifies us with the unfortunate, the underprivileged, the dispossessed. In some cases this can and should go to the extent of leaving all that we have in order to share the lot of the unfortunate.

Moreover, a shortsighted and perverse notion of charity leads Christians simply to perform token acts of mercy, merely symbolic acts expressing good will. This kind of charity has no real effect in helping the poor: all it does is tacitly to condone social injustice and to help to keep conditions as they are--to help to keep people poor. In our day, the problem of poverty and suffering has become everybody's concern. It is no longer possible to close our eyes to the misery that exists everywhere in the world, even in the richest nations. A Christian has to face the fact that this unutterable disgrace is by no means "the will of God," but the effect of incompetence, injustice, and the economic and social confusion of our rapidly developing world. It is not enough for us to ignore such things on the ground that we are helpless, and can do nothing constructive about the situation. It is a duty of charity and of justice for every Christian to take an active concern in trying to improve man's condition in the world. At the very least, this obligation consists in becoming aware of the situation and of forming one's own conscience in regard to the problems it offers. One is not expected to solve all the problems of the world; but one should know when one can do something to help alleviate suffering and poverty, and realize when one is implicitly cooperating in evils which prolong or intensify suffering and poverty. In other words, Christian charity is no longer real unless it is accompanied by a concern with social justice.

(Thomas Merton, Life and Holiness [Image Books, 1964], 88-90)

From Henry Nouwen:

In the sixties we were concerned with social change; we learned change comes slowly at best, and it doesn't come at all without a spiritual grounding. The real protesters, the ones who are still protesting, receive their strength and inspiration not from social theorists but from the mystics. Jim Forrest, head of the International Fellowship of Reconciliation, came to see me last night. What did he talk about? He talked about Thomas Merton; he talked about prayer. We prayed more than we talked. Prayer gives him strength to continue to fight for a better world.

There is a Jewish story about a little boy who went to a prophet and said, "Prophet, don't you see? You have been prophesying now for fifteen years, and things are still the same. Why do you keep on?"

And the Prophet said, "Don't you know, little boy, I'm not prophesying to change the world, but to prevent the world from changing me?"

We must say no to war, killing, and poverty, not because people are going to listen, but because it belongs to an authentic witness of the living God. And you can do that only when your heart is rooted in the love of God. . . .

George Washington and the (inaccurately described) "Ground Zero Mosque"

From today's Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/16/AR2010081604681.html?wpisrc=nl_pmheadline

Please notice how so many of the "counter-arguments" (especially Newt's) follow this line of thought: since Muslims don't act "Christian," Christians don't have to act Christian. Gotta love it.

Can Muslims be good American citizens?

I published a link to this article some time ago, but it seems appropriate again now in regard to the plans to build an Islamic Mosque and community center a few blocks from the site of the former World Trade Center.

Most of us know that there are many who oppose the plan, considering it an insult to those killed on 9/11. They also usually associate all Muslims with terrorism, and believe that all or at least most Muslims are bound by their religion to kill "Christian infidels," and that therefore Islam is an inherently violent religion. Therefore, the reasoning goes, Muslims cannot be good American citizens.

That reasoning is wrong at the level of its premises, and this article (Muhammad’s promise to Christians) demonstrates that fact quite well.

Muslims have historically treated Christians very well. The fact that some Muslims now have radicalized is due to other factors, not to the Quran, not to Muhammad.

Way to a Christian Virtue

From Nietzsche, Mixed Opinions and Maxims (his sequel to Human, All Too Human, quoted from The Portable Nietzsche, p. 66):

Way to a Christian virtue. Learning from one's enemies is the best way toward loving them; for it makes us grateful to them.

What a great comment not only on loving one's enemies, but on the Old Testament command to welcome the stranger (foreigner) -- and then, of course, on our current discussion on immigration and the recent Arizona law (which just yesterday was put on hold by a federal judge).

Jesus the Politician

It's cute, quaint, and totally wrong -- but I hear it frequently when I get into political "discussions" with other Christians. At some point (I suspect it's usually when they sense they're losing the argument) they will tell me: "Well, we shouldn't be arguing about this stuff, because you didn't see Jesus making political speeches and campaigning or fighting for social causes. He was all about changing lives, one individual at a time. The important thing is getting to heaven, not politics or social justice."

Seven quick points:

1. There is no such thing as a human action that is not political. All human actions are political, because there is no human action that has no effect on fellow human beings. None. All of my actions, even if done in secret, have an effect on my identity, and unless I live in complete, total solitude somewhere, I will interact with other human beings at some later time, and I will do that on the basis of who I am, which includes every act I have ever committed. There is no such thing as a human action that is not political.
2. Jesus died as the result of a political execution. Crucifixion was reserved for enemies of the Empire. His calls for allegiance clearly were threatening to the powers that be.
3. The concept of the "kingdom of God" is not a call to have your mind drifting among the clouds. It is a call to live out the kingship or the reign of God in your life each day. "Kingdom of God" does NOT equal "church," though we would hope there would be a great deal of overlap. But, just as there are parts of my own life that are not fully under God's reign, so there are parts of his creation that are in rebellion against him. In fact, the whole creation is fallen, and "waits with eager longing" for the redemption promised to the children of God so that the whole "creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God" (Romans 8:21). Ultimately, God's plan is to bring everything he created back under his reign. That is the kingdom of God.
   
4. When Paul the Apostle tells Christians that their "citizenship is in heaven," he is not telling them to abandon God's creation as if it were worthless. After all, when God created it, he pronounced it good. Yes, it is fallen, but that pronouncement was never reversed or taken back. Even the "burn it up" text of 2 Peter 3 includes a "new heavens and new earth" clause, equivalent (perhaps) to Paul's (2 Cor. 5) and John's (Revelation 22) "new creation" concept.
   
5. Jesus' ministry is a revival of part of the Jewish tradition that seems to have been neglected in his day -- the tradition of the Hebrew prophets. That's why he uses Isaiah's text in Luke 4 as a paradigm for his ministry. The prophets, of course, were staunch advocates of social justice. Just as all human acts are political, all human sin is social sin. The Hebrew prophets address societal and systemic sin = oppressive social systems. The "system" was rigged to advantage the rich over the poor and to oppress the widows, orphans and strangers. God's "justice" isn't to give a person what he or she deserves, it is to defend the defenseless, to show mercy to the people who are disadvantaged. "Give the king your justice, O God," begins Ps. 72. When the king has God's justice, it is shown in his acts of mercy: "For he delivers the needy when they call, the poor and those who have no helper. He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. From oppression and violence he redeems their life; and precious is their blood in his sight" (Ps. 72:12-14; cf. Isa. 1:17, et al.).
6. There is no concept in the Bible that is equivalent to the modern concept of the individual. Our modern concept is just that: modern, having been invented during the modern or Enlightenment era by such philosophers as Rene Descartes and Immanuel Kant. This concept was unavailable to the ancient writers, for whom the human being is always a part of some community or communities. Even in the famous "the soul that sins shall die" text of Ezekiel 18 must be understood communally. The sins Ezekiel lists in that chapter are societal and communal sins (for some, you have to check their context in, for instance, the holiness code of Leviticus 18). Yes, the "individual" will be held responsible -- for sins against the covenant people and the covenant God. To break covenant with God is to mess up the people's covenant with God (the covenant context is explicitly set up in Ez. 17). So, even here it is a mistake to read into the ancient text a modern concept of the individual.
7. Jesus, therefore, also did not have our modern concept of the individual, and salvation in the New Testament is not individualistic. Nowhere do you find one of our favorite modernistic construals of salvation: "You must have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ." It's not a biblical phrase and not a biblical concept. Salvation is always corporate: it occurs "in Christ." Count the number of times in Ephesians 1 you find the phrase "in Christ" or its equivalent. All of God's blessings on Christians, including that of salvation, are said to occur "in Christ."

Summary: if you understand Jesus in the way proposed in the introductory paragraph above, you've misunderstood Jesus. That's not a judgment on your salvation, just on your scholarly preparation.

If someone were to want to do the scholarly preparation, here are three books you should start with -- all by John Howard Yoder, one of the foremost scholars of the New Testament in the last half of the 20th century.

1. John Howard Yoder, The Original Revolution (Herald Press, 1971).
2. John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus (Eerdmans, 1972).
3. John Howard Yoder, The Priestly Kingdom: The Gospel as Social Ethics (Notre Dame, 1984).

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