Salaam

Bank Reparations

2005-01-26T09:17:00.000-08:00

I was listening to KPFT 90.1 Pacifica Radio - Houston today. One guest on "Connect the Dots" was promoting awareness of institutions that profited from slavery and some of the reparation programs going on currently. This website, JPMorgan Chase, is quite interesting and thought provoking. What are the responsibilities of those of us who are benficiaries of evil actions committed by others in our history? I plan to do some research, thinking, and blogging on this in the future.

The Death Penalty

2005-01-22T13:46:00.000-08:00

I have to agree completely with Mllard Fuller in this article regarding the death penalty.

How would you meet God?

2005-01-22T13:39:00.000-08:00

CNN documented this article in which Saudi Arabia's top cleric asked the uma, "How would you meet God? With innocent blood you shed or helped shed?" I was struck by the question, which I in turn asked myself. "How would I meet God. With innocent blood I shed or helped shed?" Ask yourself this question. Remove the political rhetoric that has clouded the previous year. Ask yourself this simple question from a Muslim cleric. This is such a Baptist question from a Muslim. This is individual responsibility for personal action or personal complicity in the action of another. "How will you meet God?" I must say that I have blood on my hands. My nation is, as I write, shedding innocent blood. What have I done to prevent this beyond punch a card in a voting booth. Have I put myself at risk for the defense of another as Christ did? No, I must answer an emphatic, NO!

I have a dear brother and sister who are Muslim and live in another country. They are wonderful people who have performed the Hajj and have given sacrificially for the benefit of their family and friends. They work hard to follow God as they have been taught to do, and seek to know Him better every day. My nation's foreign policy is such that if they were near a target of my country's military and were killed in the pursuit of military targets, they would be classified as "collateral damage" and their families would possibly be sent a letter of condolence (forgive me if I doubt). Their crime is that they are not Americans. Would you condone your family's death in the war on terror or the war on drugs? Look around your neighborhood and imagine death and destruction in the name of war on whatever. This is "collateral damage". "Collateral damage" have names, dreams, laughter, children, God's plan for their lives, and love for each other. Please honestly ask yourself

"How would you meet God? With innocent blood you shed or helped shed?"

Hidden Agendas

2005-01-21T14:54:00.000-08:00

A few days ago I posted my thoughts on hidden agendas with some evangelical relief efforts. Not to be outdone, it seems that our former Sec. of State and soon-to-be confirmed Sec of State both felt the need to state the "silver lining" for the US in the tsunami relief effort. This article quotes them both as seeing this as an opportunity to improve the US reputation internationally. The person who will be our primary representative abroad has stated for the record that our tsunami relief has "paid dividends". I'm not at all surprised, just disappointed.

The new millenium and water issues

2005-01-20T17:55:00.000-08:00

Here's a good article on the issue of surface water, its commercialization, and the impact we will see in the years to come.
Blue Gold: An Interview with Maude Barlow This is important stuff to be pretty much "under the radar" as far as mainline news.
Salaam

Some Good News from 2004

2005-01-19T07:17:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Ben Cohen at TrueMajority for pointing out some good news from 2004. Grass roots efforts do work, and he points out evidence of it. By the way, if you follow the link you won't see the information I've copied below. It is from the e-newsletter he sends out, and I don't see it on the website yet. I suggest you sign up for the email alerts. They are great sources of information from time to time, and Ben has made contacting your representatives just a few clicks away.

Ben's Note:
Congress is about to get in full gear again, so it's a good time to take a look back at last year's successes for some inspiration. Yes, we know, a lot of us are trying to forget last year, too. But your faxes, e-mails, contributions, and phone calls generated results we can be proud of.

No New Nuclear Bombs

Who would have thought that Congress would ever cut all funding for a weapon called the "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator"? Sounds like just the kind of bomb Tom DeLay would love. But we're glad to report that after intense grassroots pressure, Congress cut this new bomb—which is designed to burrow underground and destroy bunkers. We should be dismantling the nukes we have, not building dangerous new ones. So this was a good victory.

Sudan

At first, the Bush administration wanted to essentially ignore the genocide in Sudan. Then Bush said he wanted to take action, but not call the atrocities "genocide." In the end, the administration not only joined Congress in calling the situation "genocide," which adds a new level of responsibility to the UN's reaction to the crisis, but Bush eagerly signed the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan bill. This bill puts the teeth of sanctions behind our demands that the Sudan government stop the genocide. This turnaround is directly attributable to grassroots pressure like ours. We are also glad for the media attention that you've generated—like the project funded by TrueMajority members that sent a camera crew directly to a refugee camp.

Renewable Energy

One of the Bush administration's top priorities for last year was enacting an energy policy that would further our nation's dependence on fossil fuels, locking our country into a future of more pollution, economic decline, and, almost certainly, more wars over oil. It was a great victory for us—and the planet—when, after a popular uprising, Congress stopped Bush's energy bill. We've got our work cut out for us this year, but this was a sweet win.

Star Wars

It makes sense only in the Bush administration's Orwellian mind to declare Star Wars "operable" even though it doesn't work. But this was Bush's goal for 2004. Thanks to you, the administration was not able to push this past Congress, due to failed testing, obvious incompetence, and serious grassroots pressure.

Voter Registration

We registered thousands of new voters and put the danger of electronic paperless voting machines in the national spotlight. Eleven states, including California, now plan to require voting systems that allow for recounts and issue verifiable paper ballots. Even Ohio—the home of Diebold, the nation's largest maker of electronic voting machines—now says it has no plans to buy any if the machines don't generate a paper trail.

Evangelical Response to Tragedy

2005-01-18T20:00:00.000-08:00

A few articles are circulating around looking at evangelical Christians' response to the tsunami tragedy. They vary from the Washington Post's article about WorldHelp's attempt to adopt out some of the orphans to the Denver Post's article featuring relief packaged with a little James Dobson. What should the "Christian" response to tragedy be? For me the Golden Rule is as applicable here as anywhere. How would I want to be treated if the circumstances were reversed? I am not opposed to person of faith performing acts of kindness and generosity out of their faith whether it is Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or any other. I'm not opposed to them indicating to me that their motivation for their actions is their faith. I think there is a distinction, however, between acting in kindness due to a faith and performing a kindness in order to get a chance to convert me to that faith.

I hope I'm able to communicate the distinction here. You see me hungry and offer me food. I ask you why you would leave the comfort of your home and come here to do this. You say that your faith in God and the transformation he has caused in your life has led you to this point. I have inquired- you have responded. The point of the effort, though, was to feed me in my time of need.

Another person sees me hungry and things, "He's hungry. This makes him vulnerable. He'll be open to my message whereas normally his ability to think clearly would interfere with accepting my message. I'll feed him and obligate him to listen to me." The point of feeding me is to have an opportunity to tell me about your faith. My hunger is a means to which you can achieve your end.

What kind of a God needs to be slipped in when a person is vulnerable in order to be seen as desirable?

At the same time I would say that Christian people and others of faith SHOULD be involved in the relief and development efforts in this disaster. Keep in mind that response to the poor and oppressed is linked to salvation many more times in the bible than being "born again". The rub is to avoid sinning in the response. Don't let compassion turn to manipulation. Christ's one recorded act of violence was running the money changers out of the temple due to their manipulation of and profiting from those without power in the religious system of the day.

If you are a person of genuine faith, then you honestly believe that you have good news for other people. Find ways to share it with them constructively and respectfully in times of normalcy, not when they are at their most vulnerable. A true faith will have to be liberating in all circumstances, not just when we are stressed.
Salaam

Bush says that accounabiltiy day was election day

2005-01-16T14:26:00.000-08:00

The Washington Post reports that Bush Says Election Ratified Iraq Policy In the article he says "We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections." I think it is interesting that our president sees accountability as being determined by a vote rather than a truthful assessment of what happened, what was true, what wasn't true, who made mistakes, etc.... Secondly, amidst all of the issues that he tried to bring up to keep the war out of the spotlight, he now chooses to say that his election by just over half of the country as a ratification of his entire Iraq policy. If less than 100% of those who voted for him don't agree with his Iraq policy, (I have personally spoken with several folks who reflect this, but they didn't like Kerry or voted based on other issues like same-sex marriage), then it's at least possible to consider that he was elected with under half of the country agreeing with his Iraq policy. I'm willing to conceed that most of those who elected him agree with his Iraq policy, but not 100%. I'm not surprised that Bush feels this way. I am disappointed that the administration feels this so completely that they will make it public in a statement. Of course, what I fear most is the practical implementation of his ratified policy.

It's time for Bush to Go

2005-01-14T18:16:00.000-08:00

Check this out.
What a Tangled Web We Weave . . .
How about someone in the senate or house gets some backbone and impeach the president. Americans are dying daily due to the decisions and actions of the current administration. I'm seeing the talking heads debate whether or not the war was STILL justified despite the reasons for going to war being refuted one after the other. This cannot be swept under the rug. Where is the remorse? Where is the apology to the UN, Blix and his teams? All I hear at this point is that it's worth the deaths if we have elections in Iraq. What a massive retrofit of a war.

Cut the Crap

2005-01-04T21:07:00.000-08:00

Bush is indignant. Here and there accusations abound, and defenses spring complete with statistics (versus the other statistics). Hundreds of thousands of people are dead. Entire towns are erased as if they never existed, millions more are without family members and means of income. Thousands of orphans, widows, and widowers were created overnight. Look at your house, your job, your children, your parents, your friends, your town, your possessions. Imagine them all gone in an instant. How much money, time, care and effort would be enough to make the pain go away? The fact is that rich and poor alike will never give enough. Whether it's 15 million dollars, 350 million, a billion, or more, I'm confident that it is not in our nature to give enough, let alone too much. Can we stop worrying about whether or not we're "stingy" or not and just boldly admit, "Yes, I spend well beyond what is needed on me and mine. I will give, but it will not really be generously by any religious or secular definition. I must admit guilt to the label of "stingy" as I spend more on war and recreation than on relief- but now what is important is giving. More is better than less." How much money have we spent on trying to defend our "stinginess"? What a sad, sad comedy of errors.

A Bit of Perspective

2005-01-04T20:55:00.000-08:00

As an OU fan from birth, in years past a night like this would put me into mourning for several days. However, over the last year I've had a cousin in Iraq, lost a nephew (age 15) to cancer, moved half-way around the world (leaving behind many friends and family), seen Bush re-elected, seen the tsunami destroy several places and people that I knew well, and, finally, learned of the melt-down of a friend's marriage. One fun respite from the cloud hanging over most of my activities and thought this year was watching OU on Saturday. The season was great. Every fan in America was hoping to see their team in the Orange Bowl but only us OU and USC nutters got that treat. Tonight, seeing my house intact over my head and my family alive and well in their beds make me feel very grateful and blessed. I know I'm not any more deserving than those who have lost everything, but I'm grateful all the same.

Can you be a follower of God and be a Democrat?

2004-12-19T19:46:00.000-08:00

I was asked by a close friend today whether or not I could be a follower of God and be a Democrat? The question went further to ask, "If you voted for Kerry/Edwards does that mean that you are pro homosexual marriage and pro-abortion?" My answer was something like this, although I admit it was an unfair situation since I'd been thinking about this at length and she was asking a simple question after seeing a bumper sticker on my rear window!

Yes, I feel like there are plenty of sincere followers of God who could feel themselves compelled to vote for Kerry/Edwards. Globally speaking, those in the monotheistic faiths are overwhelminly opposed to the current US leadership, particularly their foreign policy(ies). Speaking to the second part of my friend's question, think that same-sex marriage and abortion are not the only issues facing us on an election involving leaders who will form public policy. Issues such as poverty, abuse of power, environmental impact, and others are also issues that can be seen through the lenses of "theology", "morality" or "justice". For me, same sex marriage and abortion rights are ALMOST non-issues in a PRAGMATIC sense. Candidate are seldom consistent (big surprise?). Republicans think abortion is ok in cases of incest and rape. This makes the whole issue debatable on their part. If person-hood/humanity occurs at conception, then why the caveat of rape and incest? For me this screams that the circumstances of the conception have bearing on whether or not an abortion should take place. Who are we (collective) then to say that abortion and incest are the only circumstances that would warrant an abortion? This certainly is not specifically spelled out in monotheistic scriptures. Also, while used as a lightning rod issue, seldom has abortion evoked practical action on the part of legislators in the time following their successful elections. Jim Wallis' call to work together to reduce the incidence of abortion seems to be a unifying, constructive way to address this.

Next we have same sex marriage. I sometimes get the feeling that there are certain elements of the population that thing that if we make homosexuality inconvenient or illegal then they will stop being gay. My view of the constitution and it's amendments is that it has for the most part been a vehicle to GRANT rights to those in our society who otherwise might not receive adequate protection from the benevolent masses. A constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage or define marriage as between a man and woman would do the opposite, i.e. it would restrict rights of individuals. The beauty of a great democracy, in my view, is that it allows the majority to establish policy, but protects the rights of the minority even when they are in stark contrast to the majority. Nondemocratic situations such as fascist and communist states have historically stamped out the right of expression of the opposition and been extremely harsh on those outside of societal norms.

On a pragmatic level, and here's where I think we arrive at the "rub", you can be anti-same sex marriage and anti abortion without it affecting your life much on a daily basis. If these are the litmus tests of righteousness, then most Americans can be pure indeed and never adjust their lifestyles at all. If same sex marriage were legal in every state, what would the impact be on the average person? I believe little or none in reality. California and Vermont, reporting the highest percentage of homosexual/lesbian/gay couples by state, report 1% of their populations. If these, the most in the country, are at 1% AND you figure in the number that will be for whatever reason "low key", I think the impact on the individual in the US would be minimal. In addition to the minimal impact, we are not talking about the legalization of same sex marriage resulting in more gay people. These people are already gay and no amount of legislation will make them less so. The straight guy in the next cubicle will not suddenly become gay just because it's legal for him to marry his partner of how ever many years.

It's interesting to me that the New Testament or Injil speaks very directly to the issue of divorce, yet we do not see an amendment banning divorce or remarriage after divorce. The literalists or fundamentalists seem to be fairly quiet on this issue. Of course, this would affect at least half of the population. While I'm not advocating for this approach, it's interesting to me that there is little said from the "religious right" on this issue as it relates to public policy. It may be that divorce and infidelity are bad, but at least they are heterosexual.

So, lets say that theoretically people are gay by orientation and not by choice and that most people won't even notice anyway. Why all the fuss? Oh, I guess that means we're talking PRINCIPLE here. Something is wrong and I need to be against it. Well, now back to my friend's initial question. Can you be pro- or ambivalent about same sex marriage and abortion and still be a follower of God? In the JudeoChristian tradition, there is overwhelmingly more admonition surrounding how people treat the poor and disenfranchised, those over whom we have power, than anything at all about homosexuality and abortion. In fact, the holy books are silent on abortion specifically, and scant on homosexuality. The passages on homosexuality are at best open to debate. If, however, we are to really examine in a good fundamentalist fashion the literal instruction to take care of the poor and disenfranchised, to be peace makers (note active verbiage), to avoid the accumulation of wealth, to avoid the use of power unfairly over the powerless, then we are probably faced with evaluations and adjustments in our personal lives. The "American Way of Life" itself becomes subject to theological and moral evaluation. We may find our assumptions assaulted. This cannot be tolerated in our society.

Here we have a group of people, homosexuals, that are a small minority of the population and transcend race and socioeconomic groupings. Truly, they are potentially looked down on by every type of other group that they might belong. Surely this is a group of people whom Isa, the Christ, would see as demanding protection and embrace from his followers!

So, I guess I would say, "Who can truly say they are a follower of God?" "Who truly follows His/Her teachings?" The issues involved transcend the Democrat/Republican questions and go further into who we are, the structures we have erected in our society, and who benefits from oppressing someone else? These questions, however, do not fit neatly into our public debate. They are, however, the questions that I feel determine our salvation or damnation- individually and as a society.