by E.J. Dionne
"African-Americans read their own collective experience into the agony and exaltation of Jesus. The story of the Christ child, blessed by God yet born in the shadow of poverty and violence, was their story. Jesus' humble birth in antiquity signified the humble origins of African peoples in modernity. In his impoverished entry into the world, Jesus turned the tables on earthly valuations. Fulfilling the promise of the oracle that celebrates his advent in a stable, the hills of the privileged and the valleys of the humble are inverted, marking the beginning of a new era."
-- Allen Dwight Callahan in "The Talking Book: African-Americans and the Bible."
Great traditions are subversive. They constantly call the imperfections of the present to account in the name of a more exalted standard.
Abraham Lincoln marshaled the power of the Declaration of Independence to challenge slavery, and every year, the Christmas story overturns our daily understandings of power and privilege. A newborn king and savior appears among us, born to a most unlikely family, in a most unlikely venue, in the least promising of circumstances.
Callahan's remarkable book, published this year by Yale University Press, describes the rich and intense relationship between the Bible and the African American imagination. But even more powerfully, it suggests--without making the case directly--that the reading of the Christian tradition offered by African Americans is as close as any to the authentic meaning of Christianity.
A Harvard-trained New Testament scholar and ordained Baptist minister, Callahan traces the role of "the talking book" (the phrase belongs to Henry Louis Gates Jr., lead editor of "The Norton Anthology of African-American Literature") from slavery to civil rights and from Gospel music to hip-hop. Callahan makes his case in the book's first sentences: "African-Americans are the children of slavery in America. And the Bible, as no other book, is the book of slavery's children."
It is hard, I think, for anyone nurtured in the Christian or Jewish traditions to dispute Callahan's claim that the Bible "privileges those without privilege and honors those without honor" and that it has a "penchant for bringing peripheral people to the center of history."
"The God of holy scripture has made slaves no less than their masters in the divine image and likeness," Callahan writes. "The Apostle Paul had declared that master and slave were equal in God's sight. And in the book of Exodus, God had freed the ancient Hebrews from bondage in Egypt; the liberation of slaves had been God's will. These were ideas at least as revolutionary as any Jeffersonian proposition."
All this might sound odd to members of two groups. Some on the left see religion as an "opiate of the masses" that offers the oppressed "pie in the sky when you die," in the words of the old song, by way of diverting them from rebellion against this world's injustices. Many on the right see Christianity demanding allegiance to conservatism, and there are a few who can't seem to distinguish between the scriptures and any given year's Republican Party platform.Callahan is alive to the fact that the scriptures and the meaning of Christ's story have always been contested. Elijah Muhammad of the Black Muslims called the Bible "a Poison Book." Slave owners emphasized passages calling upon slaves to submit to their masters. "According to the testimony of slaves themselves," Callahan writes, "obedience was the first commandment...preached to them."
Yet the Bible's subversive message could not be successfully blocked. Ex-slave Frederick Douglass spoke of two religions called Christianity, "the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land" and "the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ." Many years later, W.E.B. DuBois, a founder of the NAACP, called Jesus "the greatest of religious rebels."
And no story has played as large a role in African American faith as Exodus. Introducing Martin Luther King Jr. in 1963 to a Jewish audience as a modern prophet, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel declared: "The exodus began but is far from having been completed. In fact, it was easier for the children of Israel to cross the Red Sea than for a Negro to cross certain university campuses."
Callahan cites the words of an old Negro spiritual:
Poor little Jesus boy
Made him to be born in a manger.
World treated him so mean
Treat me mean, too.
The poor, the outcasts, the slaves: If Jesus spoke to anyone, it was to them, and they have responded to him through the centuries. The African American religious tradition is a blessing to all because it requires us to remember that Jesus of Nazareth really did revolutionize the world.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Truth and Power
By Reza Aslan
In 2000, when Pope Benedict XVI was still Cardinal Ratzinger, he penned a peculiar tract entitled "Dominus Iesus," in which he laid out the ground rules for interreligious dialogue. The future pope wrote that it is perfectly fine for Catholics to engage other faiths in religious discourse. But, he cautioned, one must never "close one's eyes to the errors and illusions" of other religions. Nor should one lose sight of how "gravely deficient" those religions are when compared with Catholicism.
Such a position is perhaps to be expected from a pope who believes that quoting a 14th-century Crusader's absurdly archaic views on Islam is an invitation to dialogue. Having repeatedly criticized his predecessor's tireless efforts to reach out to Muslims as bordering on religious relativism, Benedict has focused his papacy on the issue of "reciprocity" in interreligious dialogue. By this, the pope means the perfectly reasonable expectation that Christians in Muslim lands should have the same freedoms as Muslims in Christian lands to propagate their faith.
Of course, there is no question that much of the Arab and Muslim world has a poor track record when it comes to tolerance of non-Muslims, let alone promotion of interreligious dialogue. But there was a time, a mere 400 years ago, when Rome considered interreligious dialogue to be most effectively facilitated by a Grand Inquisitor, while Muslim Spain, Baghdad, and Cairo opened their gates to Christian and Jewish scientists, philosophers, and theologians, many of whom enjoyed the patronage of the royal courts.
To be sure, this tolerance of Jews and Christians had less to do with the precepts of Islam than with the fact that the Muslim world was basking in a golden era of scientific achievement and religious experimentation. In other words, the Muslims of the era had an unshakable confidence in their cultural, economic, political, and even religious dominance over the region. If this historic commitment to interreligious dialogue has now given way to religious repression and brutal intolerance, it is not because Islam's view of "the other" has changed. It is because the power dynamics of the region have changed.
Today, in large parts of the Arab and Muslim world, many Muslims consider themselves to be under siege by what they perceive to be the unrelenting hegemony of the "Christian West." For many, "interreligious dialogue" often looks suspiciously like religious coercion, and Christian proselytizing is sometimes difficult to distinguish from the still fresh, still bruising, memory of colonialism.
None of this is to excuse religious oppression in the Arab and Muslim world. The pope is right to demand greater freedoms of faith and expression in particularly conservative countries like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, where Islam's historic commitment to religious pluralism has long been forgotten.
But while an argument can be made that interreligious dialogue should have a purpose, it should not be to shed light on the "errors and illusions" of your neighbor's faith. One should never forget that what we call interreligious dialogue is rarely divorced from the dynamics of power between religions. For those, like the pope--and many other conservative Christian, as well as Muslim and Jewish, believers--who believe that such dialogue must begin with the prima facie recognition that one's own religion represents Truth, this is an important lesson indeed.
In 2000, when Pope Benedict XVI was still Cardinal Ratzinger, he penned a peculiar tract entitled "Dominus Iesus," in which he laid out the ground rules for interreligious dialogue. The future pope wrote that it is perfectly fine for Catholics to engage other faiths in religious discourse. But, he cautioned, one must never "close one's eyes to the errors and illusions" of other religions. Nor should one lose sight of how "gravely deficient" those religions are when compared with Catholicism.
Such a position is perhaps to be expected from a pope who believes that quoting a 14th-century Crusader's absurdly archaic views on Islam is an invitation to dialogue. Having repeatedly criticized his predecessor's tireless efforts to reach out to Muslims as bordering on religious relativism, Benedict has focused his papacy on the issue of "reciprocity" in interreligious dialogue. By this, the pope means the perfectly reasonable expectation that Christians in Muslim lands should have the same freedoms as Muslims in Christian lands to propagate their faith.
Of course, there is no question that much of the Arab and Muslim world has a poor track record when it comes to tolerance of non-Muslims, let alone promotion of interreligious dialogue. But there was a time, a mere 400 years ago, when Rome considered interreligious dialogue to be most effectively facilitated by a Grand Inquisitor, while Muslim Spain, Baghdad, and Cairo opened their gates to Christian and Jewish scientists, philosophers, and theologians, many of whom enjoyed the patronage of the royal courts.
To be sure, this tolerance of Jews and Christians had less to do with the precepts of Islam than with the fact that the Muslim world was basking in a golden era of scientific achievement and religious experimentation. In other words, the Muslims of the era had an unshakable confidence in their cultural, economic, political, and even religious dominance over the region. If this historic commitment to interreligious dialogue has now given way to religious repression and brutal intolerance, it is not because Islam's view of "the other" has changed. It is because the power dynamics of the region have changed.
Today, in large parts of the Arab and Muslim world, many Muslims consider themselves to be under siege by what they perceive to be the unrelenting hegemony of the "Christian West." For many, "interreligious dialogue" often looks suspiciously like religious coercion, and Christian proselytizing is sometimes difficult to distinguish from the still fresh, still bruising, memory of colonialism.
None of this is to excuse religious oppression in the Arab and Muslim world. The pope is right to demand greater freedoms of faith and expression in particularly conservative countries like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, where Islam's historic commitment to religious pluralism has long been forgotten.
But while an argument can be made that interreligious dialogue should have a purpose, it should not be to shed light on the "errors and illusions" of your neighbor's faith. One should never forget that what we call interreligious dialogue is rarely divorced from the dynamics of power between religions. For those, like the pope--and many other conservative Christian, as well as Muslim and Jewish, believers--who believe that such dialogue must begin with the prima facie recognition that one's own religion represents Truth, this is an important lesson indeed.
Faith and Reason
By Richard John Neuhaus
Contrary to older theories predicting the unstoppable course of secularization, the world is becoming more religious and more religiously assertive. Western Europe may be the exception, even though that is much in dispute. Beyond dispute is the new prominence of religion and religiously-grounded morality in American public life. This is a surprise, and mainly an unpleasant surprise, to secularists who are committed to what I have called "the naked public square," meaning public life stripped of religious practice and conviction.
On the world stage, we are confronted by a newly assertive Islam and by radical political movements, aptly described as jihadist, advanced in the name of Islam. Samuel Huntington of Harvard has written of an ominous "clash of civilizations" between Islam and the West (which most Muslims continue to view as Christendom). The alternative to a bloody and open-ended clash of civilizations, beyond the containment of jihadism by force, is interreligious understanding and the cultivation of the virtue of tolerance.
Since religion is not going to go away, religious tolerance must itself be grounded in religion. The great question is whether there are within Islam religious resources for legitimating peaceful coexistence with "the infidel." Or is it the case that Islam cannot move beyond the doctrine of a world divided between the "house of Islam" and the "house of war"? Needless to say, Christianity has had its own confusion about the uses of violence, as witness the attempt of the Crusades to retake territory that had fallen to Muslim conquest.
On the question of religion and violence, the most important speech that has been made by a world figure since 9/11 was delivered by Pope Benedict XVI at the University of Regensburg on Sept. 12 of this year. The use of violence in advancing religion is a violation of reason, the pope said, and to act against reason is to act against the nature of God. This understanding of the necessary connection between faith and reason, he said, is the product of centuries of philosophical and theological reflection resulting in a synthesis of Hellenic and biblical understandings of reality. His suggestion that Islam has not undergone a similar philosophical and theological development and is therefore prone to employ violence in the name of religion met with violent protest by thousands of Muslims.
That violent reaction, we must hope, is not the last word. In his later visit to Turkey, the pope--without backing off from the argument made at Regensburg--reached out to his Muslim interlocutors in a plea for interreligious and intercultural understanding. Religion and culture, he insists, are inseparable. The alternative to jihadism and a clash of civilizations is not the secularization of Islam and the creation of a naked public square in the Islamic world. The alternative, rather, is a religious commitment to a civil public square in which differences are engaged on the basis of reason and mutual respect.
Whether this can be achieved between Islam and the West is, one might well argue, the most important question of this century.
Contrary to older theories predicting the unstoppable course of secularization, the world is becoming more religious and more religiously assertive. Western Europe may be the exception, even though that is much in dispute. Beyond dispute is the new prominence of religion and religiously-grounded morality in American public life. This is a surprise, and mainly an unpleasant surprise, to secularists who are committed to what I have called "the naked public square," meaning public life stripped of religious practice and conviction.
On the world stage, we are confronted by a newly assertive Islam and by radical political movements, aptly described as jihadist, advanced in the name of Islam. Samuel Huntington of Harvard has written of an ominous "clash of civilizations" between Islam and the West (which most Muslims continue to view as Christendom). The alternative to a bloody and open-ended clash of civilizations, beyond the containment of jihadism by force, is interreligious understanding and the cultivation of the virtue of tolerance.
Since religion is not going to go away, religious tolerance must itself be grounded in religion. The great question is whether there are within Islam religious resources for legitimating peaceful coexistence with "the infidel." Or is it the case that Islam cannot move beyond the doctrine of a world divided between the "house of Islam" and the "house of war"? Needless to say, Christianity has had its own confusion about the uses of violence, as witness the attempt of the Crusades to retake territory that had fallen to Muslim conquest.
On the question of religion and violence, the most important speech that has been made by a world figure since 9/11 was delivered by Pope Benedict XVI at the University of Regensburg on Sept. 12 of this year. The use of violence in advancing religion is a violation of reason, the pope said, and to act against reason is to act against the nature of God. This understanding of the necessary connection between faith and reason, he said, is the product of centuries of philosophical and theological reflection resulting in a synthesis of Hellenic and biblical understandings of reality. His suggestion that Islam has not undergone a similar philosophical and theological development and is therefore prone to employ violence in the name of religion met with violent protest by thousands of Muslims.
That violent reaction, we must hope, is not the last word. In his later visit to Turkey, the pope--without backing off from the argument made at Regensburg--reached out to his Muslim interlocutors in a plea for interreligious and intercultural understanding. Religion and culture, he insists, are inseparable. The alternative to jihadism and a clash of civilizations is not the secularization of Islam and the creation of a naked public square in the Islamic world. The alternative, rather, is a religious commitment to a civil public square in which differences are engaged on the basis of reason and mutual respect.
Whether this can be achieved between Islam and the West is, one might well argue, the most important question of this century.
A Christian Imperative
by Mark A. Noll
The barriers to serious and effective interfaith dialogue have become mountainous. Antagonism between and among Christians, Muslims, Hindus, secularists, and animists is a prominent feature of the contemporary world. Especially when that antagonism overlaps ethnic tension, the potential for violence is all too familiar.
In the recent past, a number of distinctly modern circumstances have exacerbated age-old possibilities for sectarian strife. Nation-building, as in Iraq, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, and Lebanon, is sabotaged by conflict stoked by religious difference. Instant electronic communications favor impressionistic extremism over analytical moderation, as witnessed by the furor over Pope Benedict's recent comments about Islam. Great wealth tied to great corruption, as in Nigeria, undermines a society already divided by escalating religious competition. The potential for nuclear war is heightened when, as in the Middle East, religious passions fuel diplomatic standoffs.
Yet speaking as both a historian and a Christian, there is every reason to insist on the necessity of conscientious interfaith exchange. The history of Christianity itself offers a wealth of examples for how things go wrong without it. So long as Catholics and Orthodox existed in self-enclosed isolation, so long as Catholics and Protestants could not imagine the possibility of insight from the other, so long as establishmentarians and dissenters sniped away from a distance -- under these conditions, simmering conflict could easily burst into flame. But when hereditary antagonists met, spoke, and finally prayed with each other, fear and loathing dissipated, to at least some degree, and trust, however fragile, began to grow.
Such meetings have happened increasingly over the last half century. When Pope Paul VI met Athenagoras I, head of the Orthodox Church, in Jerusalem in 1964, the result was a rescinding of excommunications that had been in place for more than 900 years. On a different scale, the Second Vatican Council set in motion a number of consequential dialogues between Catholics and Protestants. Some have been formal engagements between learned theologians; more have been informal gatherings in neighborhoods to study the Bible or provide shelter for the homeless. But whether in high places or low, these interchanges have transformed the once acid relationship between Catholics and Protestants.
Especially at this time of year, Christian believers have every reason to view the challenge of dialogue as essential. Christian faith urges a strong note of realism first of all on believers themselves: Just as the message of salvation features God's mercy, rather than the superiority of the redeemed, so too does the universal scope of the Gospel imply respect for all people, whether inside or out of the household of faith.
At Christmas, Christians are reminded that Jesus Christ, the eternal Word of God, took on human flesh--not just the flesh of the Christian subset of humanity, but the flesh of humanity as a whole. At their best, Christians realize that the narrative begun in Bethlehem encompasses the story of the whole world.
Despite very real difficulties, such Christmas realities make respectful dialogue with all humans--of whatever faith, and none--a Christian imperative.
The barriers to serious and effective interfaith dialogue have become mountainous. Antagonism between and among Christians, Muslims, Hindus, secularists, and animists is a prominent feature of the contemporary world. Especially when that antagonism overlaps ethnic tension, the potential for violence is all too familiar.
In the recent past, a number of distinctly modern circumstances have exacerbated age-old possibilities for sectarian strife. Nation-building, as in Iraq, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, and Lebanon, is sabotaged by conflict stoked by religious difference. Instant electronic communications favor impressionistic extremism over analytical moderation, as witnessed by the furor over Pope Benedict's recent comments about Islam. Great wealth tied to great corruption, as in Nigeria, undermines a society already divided by escalating religious competition. The potential for nuclear war is heightened when, as in the Middle East, religious passions fuel diplomatic standoffs.
Yet speaking as both a historian and a Christian, there is every reason to insist on the necessity of conscientious interfaith exchange. The history of Christianity itself offers a wealth of examples for how things go wrong without it. So long as Catholics and Orthodox existed in self-enclosed isolation, so long as Catholics and Protestants could not imagine the possibility of insight from the other, so long as establishmentarians and dissenters sniped away from a distance -- under these conditions, simmering conflict could easily burst into flame. But when hereditary antagonists met, spoke, and finally prayed with each other, fear and loathing dissipated, to at least some degree, and trust, however fragile, began to grow.
Such meetings have happened increasingly over the last half century. When Pope Paul VI met Athenagoras I, head of the Orthodox Church, in Jerusalem in 1964, the result was a rescinding of excommunications that had been in place for more than 900 years. On a different scale, the Second Vatican Council set in motion a number of consequential dialogues between Catholics and Protestants. Some have been formal engagements between learned theologians; more have been informal gatherings in neighborhoods to study the Bible or provide shelter for the homeless. But whether in high places or low, these interchanges have transformed the once acid relationship between Catholics and Protestants.
Especially at this time of year, Christian believers have every reason to view the challenge of dialogue as essential. Christian faith urges a strong note of realism first of all on believers themselves: Just as the message of salvation features God's mercy, rather than the superiority of the redeemed, so too does the universal scope of the Gospel imply respect for all people, whether inside or out of the household of faith.
At Christmas, Christians are reminded that Jesus Christ, the eternal Word of God, took on human flesh--not just the flesh of the Christian subset of humanity, but the flesh of humanity as a whole. At their best, Christians realize that the narrative begun in Bethlehem encompasses the story of the whole world.
Despite very real difficulties, such Christmas realities make respectful dialogue with all humans--of whatever faith, and none--a Christian imperative.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
The Clergy Letter Project
Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible--the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark--convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
--Signed by 10,418 Christian clergy as of December 2006
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
--Signed by 10,418 Christian clergy as of December 2006
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Bend History
Let no one be discouraged by the belief there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills, against misery and ignorance, injustice and violence. Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of our generation.
--Robert F. Kennedy
--Robert F. Kennedy
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Some Real Tensions
As Christians in the Anabaptist tradition, my Mennonite church and I seek to apply the life and teachings of Jesus to real life. We are committed to the belief that Jesus’ words and actions are relevant to the real and complex issues of our day. So to be a follower of Jesus means that we will attempt to follow his teachings and example. So we don’t write off the Sermon on the Mount as impractical in today’s world. Jesus’ call to love our enemies and do good to those who persecute us means that our calling as Christians will place us in some real tensions with the systems and powers of the world.
--Brian Miller
--Brian Miller
The Less We Find
The more we try to ground our identities in external possessions or triumphs, the more we plaster our names on everything we can accumulate, the more we cling to surface and style, the less we find underneath.
--John F. Kavanaugh
--John F. Kavanaugh
This War Was Wrong
I have been saying, over and over again, that this war was wrong—from the very start. And I will continue to say that, because until we admit the war was just wrong, we will never find a way out. We are not winning, nor are we going to win in Iraq. We have already lost. We just made a very bad situation much worse, and have to just stop doing it some more. When a war is so wrong and so bad, there are not often any good solutions to be found. Let's just say it—there are no longer and good solutions to the war in Iraq. There is only responsible withdrawal. Of course, it is a civil war, with factions that are far less committed to a unified nation than to their own tribe (read Tom Friedman), and no number of American troops can solve a political disaster with mostly military means. I did say "responsible withdrawal" so don't give me any "cut and run" stuff—nobody is saying that. Unless the Iraqis change their behavior and unless far more international involvement is achieved, everything will just get worse and worse.
--Jim Wallis
--Jim Wallis
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Humbled by Mystery
[M]any religious folks insist on answers that are always true. We love closure, resolution and clarity, while thinking that we are people of "faith"! How strange that the very word "faith" has come to mean its exact opposite.
People who have really met the Holy are always humble. It's the people who don't know who usually pretend that they do. People who've had any genuine spiritual experience always know they don't know. They are utterly humbled before mystery. They are in awe before the abyss of it all, in wonder at eternity and depth, and a Love, which is incomprehensible to the mind. It is a litmus test for authentic God experience, and is--quite sadly--absent from much of our religious conversation today.
--Richard Rohr
People who have really met the Holy are always humble. It's the people who don't know who usually pretend that they do. People who've had any genuine spiritual experience always know they don't know. They are utterly humbled before mystery. They are in awe before the abyss of it all, in wonder at eternity and depth, and a Love, which is incomprehensible to the mind. It is a litmus test for authentic God experience, and is--quite sadly--absent from much of our religious conversation today.
--Richard Rohr
Jesus and Women
Throughout his life Jesus' response to women was one of compassion and inclusion, a rare posture in his day. He was not afraid to be seen in public with the most marginalized 'sinners' - prostitutes, adulteresses, and a woman who had been 'unclean' for many years with a flow of blood. He revealed himself as the Messiah to the Samaritan woman at the well, invited Mary of Bethany to sit with him and learn, welcomed Mary Magdalene into his circle of friends, and received an anointing of rich ointment before his death, rebuking his disciples for criticizing the woman who lavished such attention on him.
--Joyce Hollyday
--Joyce Hollyday
Monday, December 18, 2006
The Politics of Joy
by Brian McLaren
Earlier this week, I was speaking to a group of Methodist ministers and we sang the Christmas carol "Joy to the World." Two moments in the song took my breath away.
The first came when I sang "let every heart prepare him room." If the carol is right, the way earth receives God's "prince of peace" is through individual hearts like ours. By making space, by opening our hearts to Christ, by letting our lives be the stable and manger into which good news quietly comes, by rendering the vacuum and vacancy within us vulnerable to the incoming of the Spirit...we become, like Mary, "theotokos"--God-bearers.
That might sound kind of mystical, not political, and I guess it is. It is something that I believe we all can actually experience: the possibility of preparing room in our hearts so that Christ truly comes.
That brings me to the second transcendent moment in the carol for me this week: "No more let sin and sorrows grow, nor thorns infest the ground. He comes to make his blessings flow far as the curse is found."
The coming of a good king in the ancient world meant a lot, and although kingly language may sound archaic today, I think we can recapture its meaning when we think of a thorny land, polluted by sin and cursed by sorrow, becoming verdant and fertile and healthy again--blessedness flowing over the land like a warm breeze.
And of course, this is where the personal and political meet. Thinking about justice, talking about peace, debating public policy, and working for social change are important...but not as a substitute for the very personal choice to "prepare him room" in our hearts, so that (as the saying goes) we can be the change we want to see in the world.
The way "earth receives her king" (and the blessings he brings) is not by bombs and guns and wiretaps and coups; not by aggressive blog postings or passionate media pronouncements by pundits. Rather, the king (and the kingdom) come first to the quiet hearts of humble people who "prepare him room," and the joy flows to the world through them.
That's the language of spiritual formation, no doubt. But how can there be political transformation in the external world of thorns, sins, and sorrow if our inner lives don't become the manger into which hope, healing, empowerment, love, and joy are born?
What happens in the political realm--in the public world where people treat one another justly or unjustly, peacefully or violently, as neighbors or as enemies--can never be separated from what happens in the personal realm. And the reverse is true, too.
That's the source of the politics of joy.
Earlier this week, I was speaking to a group of Methodist ministers and we sang the Christmas carol "Joy to the World." Two moments in the song took my breath away.
The first came when I sang "let every heart prepare him room." If the carol is right, the way earth receives God's "prince of peace" is through individual hearts like ours. By making space, by opening our hearts to Christ, by letting our lives be the stable and manger into which good news quietly comes, by rendering the vacuum and vacancy within us vulnerable to the incoming of the Spirit...we become, like Mary, "theotokos"--God-bearers.
That might sound kind of mystical, not political, and I guess it is. It is something that I believe we all can actually experience: the possibility of preparing room in our hearts so that Christ truly comes.
That brings me to the second transcendent moment in the carol for me this week: "No more let sin and sorrows grow, nor thorns infest the ground. He comes to make his blessings flow far as the curse is found."
The coming of a good king in the ancient world meant a lot, and although kingly language may sound archaic today, I think we can recapture its meaning when we think of a thorny land, polluted by sin and cursed by sorrow, becoming verdant and fertile and healthy again--blessedness flowing over the land like a warm breeze.
And of course, this is where the personal and political meet. Thinking about justice, talking about peace, debating public policy, and working for social change are important...but not as a substitute for the very personal choice to "prepare him room" in our hearts, so that (as the saying goes) we can be the change we want to see in the world.
The way "earth receives her king" (and the blessings he brings) is not by bombs and guns and wiretaps and coups; not by aggressive blog postings or passionate media pronouncements by pundits. Rather, the king (and the kingdom) come first to the quiet hearts of humble people who "prepare him room," and the joy flows to the world through them.
That's the language of spiritual formation, no doubt. But how can there be political transformation in the external world of thorns, sins, and sorrow if our inner lives don't become the manger into which hope, healing, empowerment, love, and joy are born?
What happens in the political realm--in the public world where people treat one another justly or unjustly, peacefully or violently, as neighbors or as enemies--can never be separated from what happens in the personal realm. And the reverse is true, too.
That's the source of the politics of joy.
Serious About Peace?
If we are serious about peace, then we must work for it as ardently, seriously, continuously, carefully, and bravely as we have ever prepared for war.
--Wendell Berry
--Wendell Berry
Friday, December 15, 2006
Peace
True Christians do not know vengeance. They are the children of peace. Their hearts overflow with peace. Their mouths speak peace, and they walk in the way of peace.
--Menno Simons
--Menno Simons
Thursday, December 14, 2006
The Greatest Poverty
You can find Calcutta anywhere in the world. You only need two eyes to see. Everywhere in the world there are people that are not loved, people that are not wanted nor desired, people that no one will help, people that are pushed away or forgotten. And this is the greatest poverty.
--Mother Teresa
--Mother Teresa
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
What Should the Church Do?
What do we want the Church to do? We don't ask for more cathedrals. We don't ask for bigger churches of fine gifts. We ask for its presence with us, beside us, as Christ among us. We ask the Church to sacrifice with the people for social change, for justice, and for love of brother. We don't ask for words. We ask for deeds. We don't ask for paternalism. We ask for servanthood.
--Cesar Chavez
--Cesar Chavez
Monday, December 11, 2006
Friedman's Cruel Legacy
by William Greider
Now that the economists and their camp followers have mourned and celebrated the life of Milton Friedman, allow me to kick a little dirt on the icon. Without question, Friedman was the most influential economist of the second half of the twentieth century, as his admirers claim. What they do not say is that he was also the most destructive public intellectual of our time.
Friedman actually failed as a scientific economist but succeeded as a moral philosopher. His greatest scholarly accomplishment--his monetarist theory of how to regulate money and credit--was intellectually flawed at its core and collapsed when the Federal Reserve tried to follow it. The central bank wisely discarded Friedman's money-supply approach before it did more damage. It is now a forgotten relic at the Fed.
Friedman's broader argument--that a society should be governed by self-regulating markets instead of big government--did better but also did not lead to the utopia he promoted. His "free market" faith has produced instead the very thing Friedman regularly denounced: a bastardized system of interest-group politics that serves favored sectors of citizens at the expense of many others. Enterprise and markets were indeed set "free" of government regulation, but big government did not go away (it grew bigger). Only now government acts mainly as patron and protector for the largest, most powerful interests--the same ones that demanded their liberation. Instead of serving the broad general welfare, government enables capital and corporations to feed off the taxpayers' money and convert public assets into private profit centers, shielded from the wrath of any citizens trying to object. If that is what Friedman really had in mind, he should have said so.
His most profound damage, however, was as a moral philosopher. He championed an ethic of unrelenting, unapologetic self-interest that effectively pushed aside human sympathy. In fact, humans' responsibility to one another has been delegitimized--portrayed as an obstacle to the hardheaded analysis that maximizes returns. Friedman explained: "So the question is, do corporate executives, provided they stay within the law, have responsibilities in their business activities other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible? And my answer to that is, no, they do not."
Pay no attention to the collateral consequences. Your only obligation is to the bottom line. Friedman's message was highly appealing--he promised people a path to freedom--but it triumphed, ultimately, because it served the powerful forces of capital over labor, economic wealth over social concerns. Government was indeed failing on many fronts, especially inflation, and liberalism had no answer. Friedman's answer was alluringly simple. Get rid of government.
People everywhere now understand what Friedman's kind of "freedom" means. America has been brutally coarsened by his success at popularizing this dictum--millions of innocents injured, mutual trust gravely weakened, society demoralized by the hardening terms of life. Most people know in their gut this is wrong but see no easy way to resist it. Friedman's utopia is also drenched in personal corruption. The proliferating scandals in business, finance and government flow directly from his teaching people to go for it and disregard moral qualms. When you tell people in power that their highest purpose in life is to maximize their own returns, there is no limit to how much "good" they will do for the rest of us. I don't recall hearing Friedman express any discomfort. Perhaps he regarded looting and stealing as natural features of capitalism that market forces would eventually correct.
This is what the memorials left out: the cruel quality of Friedman's obliviousness. Art Hilgart, a retired industrial economist, recalls hearing Friedman lecture in 1991 and recommend the destruction of Medicare, welfare, the postal system, Social Security and public education. The audience was dumbfounded.
Finally, a brave young woman asked what this would mean for poverty. "There is no poverty in America," Friedman instructed. A clear voice arose from the back of hall: "Bullshit!" The audience cheered wildly.
Now that the economists and their camp followers have mourned and celebrated the life of Milton Friedman, allow me to kick a little dirt on the icon. Without question, Friedman was the most influential economist of the second half of the twentieth century, as his admirers claim. What they do not say is that he was also the most destructive public intellectual of our time.
Friedman actually failed as a scientific economist but succeeded as a moral philosopher. His greatest scholarly accomplishment--his monetarist theory of how to regulate money and credit--was intellectually flawed at its core and collapsed when the Federal Reserve tried to follow it. The central bank wisely discarded Friedman's money-supply approach before it did more damage. It is now a forgotten relic at the Fed.
Friedman's broader argument--that a society should be governed by self-regulating markets instead of big government--did better but also did not lead to the utopia he promoted. His "free market" faith has produced instead the very thing Friedman regularly denounced: a bastardized system of interest-group politics that serves favored sectors of citizens at the expense of many others. Enterprise and markets were indeed set "free" of government regulation, but big government did not go away (it grew bigger). Only now government acts mainly as patron and protector for the largest, most powerful interests--the same ones that demanded their liberation. Instead of serving the broad general welfare, government enables capital and corporations to feed off the taxpayers' money and convert public assets into private profit centers, shielded from the wrath of any citizens trying to object. If that is what Friedman really had in mind, he should have said so.
His most profound damage, however, was as a moral philosopher. He championed an ethic of unrelenting, unapologetic self-interest that effectively pushed aside human sympathy. In fact, humans' responsibility to one another has been delegitimized--portrayed as an obstacle to the hardheaded analysis that maximizes returns. Friedman explained: "So the question is, do corporate executives, provided they stay within the law, have responsibilities in their business activities other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible? And my answer to that is, no, they do not."
Pay no attention to the collateral consequences. Your only obligation is to the bottom line. Friedman's message was highly appealing--he promised people a path to freedom--but it triumphed, ultimately, because it served the powerful forces of capital over labor, economic wealth over social concerns. Government was indeed failing on many fronts, especially inflation, and liberalism had no answer. Friedman's answer was alluringly simple. Get rid of government.
People everywhere now understand what Friedman's kind of "freedom" means. America has been brutally coarsened by his success at popularizing this dictum--millions of innocents injured, mutual trust gravely weakened, society demoralized by the hardening terms of life. Most people know in their gut this is wrong but see no easy way to resist it. Friedman's utopia is also drenched in personal corruption. The proliferating scandals in business, finance and government flow directly from his teaching people to go for it and disregard moral qualms. When you tell people in power that their highest purpose in life is to maximize their own returns, there is no limit to how much "good" they will do for the rest of us. I don't recall hearing Friedman express any discomfort. Perhaps he regarded looting and stealing as natural features of capitalism that market forces would eventually correct.
This is what the memorials left out: the cruel quality of Friedman's obliviousness. Art Hilgart, a retired industrial economist, recalls hearing Friedman lecture in 1991 and recommend the destruction of Medicare, welfare, the postal system, Social Security and public education. The audience was dumbfounded.
Finally, a brave young woman asked what this would mean for poverty. "There is no poverty in America," Friedman instructed. A clear voice arose from the back of hall: "Bullshit!" The audience cheered wildly.
Spiral of Destruction
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction...The chain reaction of evil--hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars--must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.
--Martin Luther King Jr.
--Martin Luther King Jr.
Gender Inequity Hurting Kids
by Michael Doyle
Poverty, violence and discrimination affect women worldwide and undermine their children's futures, a U.N. agency concludes in a report being issued today.
Women in developing countries work longer hours for lower pay, the United Nations Children's Fund has found. Girls are less likely to get past elementary school. In many countries, women are shut out of household decisions.
"Where you see extreme discrimination against women, you see more problems for children," said UNICEF's executive director, Ann Veneman.
In its data-packed State of the World's Children report, UNICEF spells out the problems nation by nation. The microscope can be painfully acute. In Nigeria, 1 million children younger than 5 die annually. Half of Azerbaijan's residents lack adequate sanitation. A third of the young pregnant women in Botswana's capital are HIV-positive.
This year, the organization also identifies potential solutions. Some raise eyebrows, if not hackles.
Gender quotas can be a "potentially effective vehicle for bolstering women's representation" in legislatures, UNICEF notes as one example. More women can lead to better policies, the agency suggests.
The 160-page report favorably cites, as well, the international United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.
"When you empower women," Veneman said, "you benefit children."
A native of Modesto, Calif., Veneman has her own experience as a gender trailblazer. She was the first female head of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, and, between 2001 and 2005, she served as the nation's first female secretary of agriculture.
The Bush administration in which she served, though, has steadfastly argued against quotas in this country.
The United States is also the world's only industrialized nation not to ratify the U.N. treaty on discrimination against women.
Drafted in 1979 and since ratified by 185 nations, including Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.N. treaty is criticized by conservatives as inciting lawsuits, family planning or interference in parenting.
Quotas, likewise, get mixed reviews.
UNICEF notes approvingly a fourfold increase, since 1995, in the number of countries where women make up at least 30 percent of the national legislatures. These include such male bastions as Afghanistan, Burundi and the newly established Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste.
"The levels of representation in all three countries are examples of the successful introduction of quotas during their political transitions," states the report, which will be formally released today in a news conference in New York.
Poverty, violence and discrimination affect women worldwide and undermine their children's futures, a U.N. agency concludes in a report being issued today.
Women in developing countries work longer hours for lower pay, the United Nations Children's Fund has found. Girls are less likely to get past elementary school. In many countries, women are shut out of household decisions.
"Where you see extreme discrimination against women, you see more problems for children," said UNICEF's executive director, Ann Veneman.
In its data-packed State of the World's Children report, UNICEF spells out the problems nation by nation. The microscope can be painfully acute. In Nigeria, 1 million children younger than 5 die annually. Half of Azerbaijan's residents lack adequate sanitation. A third of the young pregnant women in Botswana's capital are HIV-positive.
This year, the organization also identifies potential solutions. Some raise eyebrows, if not hackles.
Gender quotas can be a "potentially effective vehicle for bolstering women's representation" in legislatures, UNICEF notes as one example. More women can lead to better policies, the agency suggests.
The 160-page report favorably cites, as well, the international United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.
"When you empower women," Veneman said, "you benefit children."
A native of Modesto, Calif., Veneman has her own experience as a gender trailblazer. She was the first female head of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, and, between 2001 and 2005, she served as the nation's first female secretary of agriculture.
The Bush administration in which she served, though, has steadfastly argued against quotas in this country.
The United States is also the world's only industrialized nation not to ratify the U.N. treaty on discrimination against women.
Drafted in 1979 and since ratified by 185 nations, including Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.N. treaty is criticized by conservatives as inciting lawsuits, family planning or interference in parenting.
Quotas, likewise, get mixed reviews.
UNICEF notes approvingly a fourfold increase, since 1995, in the number of countries where women make up at least 30 percent of the national legislatures. These include such male bastions as Afghanistan, Burundi and the newly established Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste.
"The levels of representation in all three countries are examples of the successful introduction of quotas during their political transitions," states the report, which will be formally released today in a news conference in New York.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Buy Nothing Christmas
Buy Nothing Christmas is a national initiative started by Canadian Mennonites who offer a prophetic "no" to the patterns of overconsumption of middle-class North Americans. They are inviting Christians (and others) all over Canada to join a movement to de-commercialize Christmas and re-design a Christian lifestyle that is richer in meaning, smaller in impact upon the earth, and greater in giving to people less-privileged.
Who are the Mennonites?
A group of Christians who are community-oriented, counter-culture pacifists (at least in theory). But this campaign is open to everyone, regardless of religion, faith, creed or conviction.
Can I be a part of Buy Nothing Christmas even if I buy a few things?
Definitely. We are all going to have to buy some things. When you do buy things, we encourage you to remember principles like buying locally, fairly-traded, environmentally friendly packaging, recycling or re-using, buying things that last, and so on. The main aim of this campaign is not to save money (although that can be a side benefit), it's not to slow down the pace of Christmas (although that can be a side benefit), it is to challenge our over-consumptive lifestyle and how it affects global disparities and the earth. So, even though you might buy a few things at Christmas, it's important to think in these global economic terms.
Do you think a Buy Nothing Christmas will make a difference?
It already has made a significant difference. Getting people to recognize problems (North American over-consumption) and begin to imagine new, more life-giving solutions is a big deal.
Are you against giving gifts at Christmas?
Giving gifts at Christmas is a good thing to do--it's a small re-enactment of the incarnation of God's love. Gift-giving, as we know from other occasions (like birthdays, weddings, housewarmings), serves as a kind of social glue that keeps us together. It shows affection, thoughtfulness and love. While gift-giving is a good thing to do at Christmas, that doesn't mean we have to go overboard.
Who are the Mennonites?
A group of Christians who are community-oriented, counter-culture pacifists (at least in theory). But this campaign is open to everyone, regardless of religion, faith, creed or conviction.
Can I be a part of Buy Nothing Christmas even if I buy a few things?
Definitely. We are all going to have to buy some things. When you do buy things, we encourage you to remember principles like buying locally, fairly-traded, environmentally friendly packaging, recycling or re-using, buying things that last, and so on. The main aim of this campaign is not to save money (although that can be a side benefit), it's not to slow down the pace of Christmas (although that can be a side benefit), it is to challenge our over-consumptive lifestyle and how it affects global disparities and the earth. So, even though you might buy a few things at Christmas, it's important to think in these global economic terms.
Do you think a Buy Nothing Christmas will make a difference?
It already has made a significant difference. Getting people to recognize problems (North American over-consumption) and begin to imagine new, more life-giving solutions is a big deal.
Are you against giving gifts at Christmas?
Giving gifts at Christmas is a good thing to do--it's a small re-enactment of the incarnation of God's love. Gift-giving, as we know from other occasions (like birthdays, weddings, housewarmings), serves as a kind of social glue that keeps us together. It shows affection, thoughtfulness and love. While gift-giving is a good thing to do at Christmas, that doesn't mean we have to go overboard.
Challenging the System
by Kit & Ian Danley
Neighborhood Ministries has been working in Phoenix's hard neighborhoods for almost 25 years. What began as a simple emergency food and clothing bank has now grown into a Christian Community Development organization which includes a multiethnic-bilingual church, outreach serving over 1,000 kids and youth weekly, aggressive stay-in-school programs, a medical clinic, jobs placement, head start for preschool children, mentoring programs, a growing arts emphasis, an economic barter system, and a lot more. All of these programs have at their foundations an incarnational, relational heartbeat.
Neighborhood Ministries has been working in Phoenix's hard neighborhoods for almost 25 years. What began as a simple emergency food and clothing bank has now grown into a Christian Community Development organization which includes a multiethnic-bilingual church, outreach serving over 1,000 kids and youth weekly, aggressive stay-in-school programs, a medical clinic, jobs placement, head start for preschool children, mentoring programs, a growing arts emphasis, an economic barter system, and a lot more. All of these programs have at their foundations an incarnational, relational heartbeat.
A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion
by Nicholas D. Kristof
If God is omniscient and omnipotent, you can’t help wondering why she doesn’t pull out a thunderbolt and strike down Richard Dawkins.
Or, at least, crash the Web site of www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com. That’s a snarky site that notes that while people regularly credit God for curing cancer or other ailments, amputees never seem to enjoy divine intervention.
"If God were answering the prayers of amputees to regenerate their lost limbs, we would be seeing amputated legs growing back every day," the Web site declares, adding: "It would appear, to an unbiased observer, that God is singling out amputees and purposefully ignoring them."
That site is part of an increasingly assertive, often obnoxious atheist offensive led in part by Professor Dawkins--the Oxford scientist who is author of the new best seller The God Delusion. It’s a militant, in-your-face brand of atheism that he and others are proselytizing for.
He counsels readers to imagine a world without religion and conjures his own glimpse: "Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as ‘Christ-killers,’ no Northern Ireland ‘troubles,’ no ‘honor killings,’ no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money."
Look elsewhere on the best-seller list and you find an equally acerbic assault on faith: Sam Harris’s “Letter to a Christian Nation.” Mr. Harris mocks conservative Christians for opposing abortion, writing: "20 percent of all recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage. There is an obvious truth here that cries out for acknowledgment: if God exists, He is the most prolific abortionist of all."
The number of avowed atheists is tiny, with only 1 to 2 percent of Americans describing themselves in polls as atheists. But about 15 percent now say that they are not affiliated with any religion, and this vague category is sometimes described as the fastest-growing "religious group" in America today (some surveys back that contention, while others don’t).
Granted, many Americans may not yet be willing to come out of the closet and acknowledge their irreligious views. In polls, more than 90 percent of Americans have said that they would be willing to vote for a woman, a Jew or a black, and 79 percent would be willing to vote for a gay person. But at last count, only 37 percent would consider voting for an atheist.
Such discrimination on the basis of (non) belief is insidious and intolerant, and undermines our ability to have far-reaching discussions about faith and politics. Mr. Harris, for example, makes some legitimate policy points, such as criticism of conservative Christians who try to block research on stem cells because of their potential to become humans.
"Almost every cell in your body is a potential human being, given our recent advances in genetic engineering," notes Mr. Harris. "Every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a Holocaust of potential human beings."
Yet the tone of this Charge of the Atheist Brigade is often just as intolerant--and mean. It’s contemptuous and even...a bit fundamentalist.
"These writers share a few things with the zealous religionists they oppose, such as a high degree of dogmatism and an aggressive rhetorical style," says John Green of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "Indeed, one could speak of a secular fundamentalism that resembles religious fundamentalism. This may be one of those cases where opposites converge."
Granted, religious figures have been involved throughout history in the worst kinds of atrocities. But as Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot show, so have atheists.
Moreover, for all the slaughters in the name of religion over the centuries, there is another side of the ledger. Every time I travel in the poorest parts of Africa, I see missionary hospitals that are the only source of assistance to desperate people. God may not help amputees sprout new limbs, but churches do galvanize their members to support soup kitchens, homeless shelters and clinics that otherwise would not exist. Religious constituencies have pushed for more action on AIDS, malaria, sex trafficking and Darfur’s genocide, and believers often give large proportions of their incomes to charities that are a lifeline to the neediest.
Now that the Christian Right has largely retreated from the culture wars, let’s hope that the Atheist Left doesn’t revive them. We’ve suffered enough from religious intolerance that the last thing the world needs is irreligious intolerance.
If God is omniscient and omnipotent, you can’t help wondering why she doesn’t pull out a thunderbolt and strike down Richard Dawkins.
Or, at least, crash the Web site of www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com. That’s a snarky site that notes that while people regularly credit God for curing cancer or other ailments, amputees never seem to enjoy divine intervention.
"If God were answering the prayers of amputees to regenerate their lost limbs, we would be seeing amputated legs growing back every day," the Web site declares, adding: "It would appear, to an unbiased observer, that God is singling out amputees and purposefully ignoring them."
That site is part of an increasingly assertive, often obnoxious atheist offensive led in part by Professor Dawkins--the Oxford scientist who is author of the new best seller The God Delusion. It’s a militant, in-your-face brand of atheism that he and others are proselytizing for.
He counsels readers to imagine a world without religion and conjures his own glimpse: "Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as ‘Christ-killers,’ no Northern Ireland ‘troubles,’ no ‘honor killings,’ no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money."
Look elsewhere on the best-seller list and you find an equally acerbic assault on faith: Sam Harris’s “Letter to a Christian Nation.” Mr. Harris mocks conservative Christians for opposing abortion, writing: "20 percent of all recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage. There is an obvious truth here that cries out for acknowledgment: if God exists, He is the most prolific abortionist of all."
The number of avowed atheists is tiny, with only 1 to 2 percent of Americans describing themselves in polls as atheists. But about 15 percent now say that they are not affiliated with any religion, and this vague category is sometimes described as the fastest-growing "religious group" in America today (some surveys back that contention, while others don’t).
Granted, many Americans may not yet be willing to come out of the closet and acknowledge their irreligious views. In polls, more than 90 percent of Americans have said that they would be willing to vote for a woman, a Jew or a black, and 79 percent would be willing to vote for a gay person. But at last count, only 37 percent would consider voting for an atheist.
Such discrimination on the basis of (non) belief is insidious and intolerant, and undermines our ability to have far-reaching discussions about faith and politics. Mr. Harris, for example, makes some legitimate policy points, such as criticism of conservative Christians who try to block research on stem cells because of their potential to become humans.
"Almost every cell in your body is a potential human being, given our recent advances in genetic engineering," notes Mr. Harris. "Every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a Holocaust of potential human beings."
Yet the tone of this Charge of the Atheist Brigade is often just as intolerant--and mean. It’s contemptuous and even...a bit fundamentalist.
"These writers share a few things with the zealous religionists they oppose, such as a high degree of dogmatism and an aggressive rhetorical style," says John Green of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "Indeed, one could speak of a secular fundamentalism that resembles religious fundamentalism. This may be one of those cases where opposites converge."
Granted, religious figures have been involved throughout history in the worst kinds of atrocities. But as Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot show, so have atheists.
Moreover, for all the slaughters in the name of religion over the centuries, there is another side of the ledger. Every time I travel in the poorest parts of Africa, I see missionary hospitals that are the only source of assistance to desperate people. God may not help amputees sprout new limbs, but churches do galvanize their members to support soup kitchens, homeless shelters and clinics that otherwise would not exist. Religious constituencies have pushed for more action on AIDS, malaria, sex trafficking and Darfur’s genocide, and believers often give large proportions of their incomes to charities that are a lifeline to the neediest.
Now that the Christian Right has largely retreated from the culture wars, let’s hope that the Atheist Left doesn’t revive them. We’ve suffered enough from religious intolerance that the last thing the world needs is irreligious intolerance.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
In Community
It is in community that we come to see God in the other. It is in community that we see our own emptiness filled up. It is community that calls me beyond the pinched horizons of my own life, my own country, my own race, and gives me the gifts I do not have within me.
--Joan Chittister
--Joan Chittister
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Prison Record
A record 7 million people--one in every 32 U.S. adults--were behind bars, on probation or on parole by the end of last year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
