ONIM For May 27, 2015

Christian News

• Kenyan Evangelicals Warn Obama Not To Use His Visit To Press For Gay Rights -- Christian Today (UK)
• Prosperity Preacher Creflo Dollar Makes Fresh Appeal For Funds -- Christian Today (UK)
• Oldest Biblical Text Since Dead Sea Scrolls Deciphered -- Christian Today (UK)
• Contraception Mandate Heading To Supreme Court -- Christianity Today
• Two CCCU Colleges Allow Same-Sex Married Faculty -- Christianity Today
• Os Guiness: Welcome To The 'Grand Age Of Apologetics -- Christianity Today
• Dear NonChristians: What Would You Do In Our Shoes? --The Christian Post
• United Methodists Call For Ending Drug War -- The Christian Post
• Franklin Graham Should Worry About Radicalizing Right-Wing Christians, Not Muslims -- Huffington Post
• An Open Letter To Franklin Graham -- Carl Medearis
• Muslims Raised Over $100,000 To Help Rebuild Black Churches In The South -- Huffington Post
• Evangelicals, Muslims Denounce Franklin Graham's Anti-Islamic Views -- Huffington Post

World News

•  Two Police Agencies Built A Money-Laundering Machine -- Truthout
•  Western Media Continue To Ignore The Palestinian Human Rights Community -- Truthout
•  They Knew, They Lied: ExxonMobil And Climate Change -- Truthout
•  Private Defense Contractors Need War To Keep Profits High -- BuzzFlash.Com
•  The Battle To Breathe: Chile's Toxic Threat -- Truthout
•  California And Arizona Miscount Water Supplies, Avoiding Realities Of Scarcity -- Truthout
•  Whole Foods Exploits Prison Labor For Your Goodies, While Ripping You Off -- Alternet
• One Map Shows How Many People Police Have Killed In Each State So Far This Year -- Policy.Mic
• It's Not Dixie's Fault -- The Washington Post
• Japan Has Started Turning Abandoned Golf Courses Into Solar Power Plants -- Science Alert
• World's Oceans Could Rise Higher, Sooner, Faster Than Most Thought Possible -- Common Dreams
• Bernie Out Of The Closet: Sanders' Longstanding Deal With Democrats -- Counterpunch
• In West Bank, Palestinians Count Down To Their Village's Demolition -- Reuters
• US Reportedly To Offer Israel 'Unprecedented' Arms Deal -- Newsweek
• Meet The Apache Activists Opening For Neil Young -- RollingStone
• 3.5 Million Americans Are Homeless, 18.6 Million Homes Are Empty -- Ring Of Fire
• Exorbitant Tuition And Youth Unemployment Lead More College Students Into Sex Work -- Salon
• Richard Wolff: On Bernie Sanders And Socialism -- Youtube
• Red Cross Itself May Not Know How Millions Donated For Haiti Was Spent -- Truthout
• U.K.'s Climate Scientist Urge Immediate Climate Action -- Truthdig
• ALEC Admits School Vouchers Are For Kids In Suburbia -- PR Watch
• Noam Chomsky: What Exactly Is Threat Of Iran -- Aljazeera
• An Open Letter To White Men In America -- Huffington Post
• Judge: Pa. Code Unfair To Third Party Candidates -- Philly.com
• Racist New Yorker Berates MTA Employee -- Alternet
• Chilean Army Officers In Custody Over 1986 Attack On Activists Burned Alive -- The Guardian
• Shooting At Louisiana Theater Leaves Three Dead -- Huffington Post
• Sandra Bland Shows There Are Different Rules For Black People -- The Boston Globe
• Texas Trooper Had No Right To Tell Sandra Bland To Put Out Her Cigarette -- Alternet
• House Passes Bill Blocking States From Requiring GMO Labels On Food -- TrueActivist
• The Big Hole In The Iran Debate -- The Atlantic
• Protesters Question Denver Police Killing Of Mentally Ill Native American -- Aljazeera 
• Newsletter: Prejudice, Racism, Privilege In The US -- Popular Resistance

Pick(s) Of The Litter

• Two Women Lynched In Jail Cells After Minor Arrests, Police Calling Both 'Suicides' -- Counter Current News
• City Fires Investigator Who Found Cops At Fault In Shootings -- WBEZ
•  Bias In The Workplace: Consistent Evidence Of Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity Discrimination--June of 2007 -- Stanford University
• 3 Million More US Children In Poverty Since Onset Of Great Recession -- Aljazeera
• Dave Chappelle Says 'Artists Have A Responsibility To Be Activists' And Confront Police Brutality -- Counter Current New
• Lewis Black On Capitalism And Such -- Youtube
• How To Shape Market Society And Redefine Democracy: Naomi Klein & Raj Patel On Economics -- Youtube
• Three Unedifying Lessons From The Greek Deal -- Financial Times

Is The Conservative Church Nuance Impaired?

This article is written for the daughter who brought John Pavlovitz's article to our attention by commenting on it on social media. She has for a long time been sensitive to the plight of those who are marginalized in society.

An important article to read is written by John Pavlovitz on the Church and the LGBT community (click here or there). The article first appeared on his blog and was then picked up by the Huffington Post. The article is important because of how those in the LGBT community and the reputation of the Gospel are suffering by our treatment of them.

What's causing this suffering? According to Pavlovitz, one cause is how we translate the Christian theology on homosexuality into how we speak the truth. 

Pavlovitz starts with a somewhat gruesome list of ways Christians show their disapproval of the LGBT life. These ways include beatings, bullying, shaming, ostracizing, marginalizing, and so on. In essence, the Christian community acts to "dehumanize" those in the LGBT community. This results in causing some people to want to do more than just "shoot the messengers." And who could blame them? Don't the messengers also represent the message?

Another result is that gays cannot feel free to worship with us. And to add insult to injury, we bid them good riddance when they leave.

In short, there is something about the sexual views and practices of the LGBT community that leaves those of us in the Christian community discontent with merely tackling the sin of homosexuality, to use football terminology. We feel both bound and free to pile on, spear, and target those in the LGBT community. We feel bound because we must show the proper level of righteous indignation in order to prove our love for God, our Christian street cred. But we also feel free because the transgressions committed by the those in the LGBT community have given some of us permission to release our own pent-up hostility. This means that the sins of others can be to us Christians what hot water is to a teabag. As the hot water simply draws out what is in the teabag so the sins of those in the LGBT community have drawn out our true colors.

Though not mentioned by Pavlovitz, if how we treat the LGBT community in Church is not enough, we insist that society must follow our example by punishing and stigmatizing homosexuals and the transgendered as well. Much of this punishment revolves  around denying homosexuals equality lest they escape stigmatization and are counted as normal. 

The overall theme of how many of us Christians treat the LGBT community is that those in that community must know their place. Many of us want them to think that they are not only not up to our standards, they are a threat to us, to our society--and that is despite their many personal and historical contributions. And after we call on society to punish those in the LGBT community, we have the audacity to wonder why we get push back. We wonder why people not only disagree with our views of sex, they question our religion. And though we, in our usual self-flattering way, want to view their resistance against us as resistance against God, we need to realize that not only have we hurt fellow people who are made in the image of God and fellow sinners, we have harmed the Gospel's reputation by not speaking as Jesus would have. This is the point of Pavlovitz's article.

Pavlovitz prefers to finish with a question rather than a suggestion or two. So to try to answer his questions might require that we return to the drawing board. The most immediate solution would be to change our theology. We could rewrite it to accept homosexuality. But to do so would be to betray the Scriptures. For while some LGBT apologists want the Biblical debate on homosexuality to revolve around the definitions of a couple of words, the scriptural passages in Leviticus and Romans, both of which condemn homosexuality, remove the issue beyond the reach of individual definitions by talking about the concept and how it falls short of God's design.

Therefore, changing our theology about sex is not an option. So we must, for the sake of some who are made in God's image and the Gospel, look for changes in how we communicate our theology for the solution. And if we listen to the complaints raised by those in the LGBT community, it will not be too difficult to solve some, but not all, of the sources of contention.

What many in the LGBT community seem to be saying is that we are overstating our case. We are, to repeat the above football references, doing far more than just tackling the sin; we pile on, spear, and target the people involved. And we do so while being blind to our own sins. In short, we come across as the pharisee in the parable of the two men praying (click here). The sins of others have given us delusions of self-righteousness. We forget that while Paul associates the sin of homosexuality with the Gentiles in Romans 1 (click here), he then goes on to describe the sins of the Jews in Romans 2 (click here), and then finishes by stating that no one is better than the other in Romans 3:9-21 (click here).

Thus, our ways of speaking to and treating gays have shown that we have not only exercised bad bedside manner when telling homosexuals about sexual sin, we've made matters worse by not treating them as equals both as individuals and as people in society. And until we change that, much of our teaching about Biblical sexual morality will be lost in translation and we will become stumbling blocks rather than preachers of the Gospel.

All of this starts with how we want society to treat those in the LGBT community. For we cannot expect to have the Church be more loving toward those in the LGBT community when we require, in varying degrees, that society marginalizes both homosexuals and the transgendered. So how we want society to treat those in the LGBT community is where it starts though it isn't where it ends. And we must also realize that because of the past unjust suffering, the sensitivity of some in the LGBT will prevent them from distinguish those who preach in love and those who don't.

Yes, we must be firm in holding to Biblical moral standards regarding sex. But that doesn't preclude us from being gentle with those who do not meet those standards and speaking to them as equals, as fellow sinners.

A Flawed Attempt To Be Fair

I like Carl Trueman from Westminster Theological Seminary. I like him because he has a certain penchant for independent thinking which is often missing in many of my fellow Conservative Christians. And so when he weighed in on the current skirmish between the Conservative Christian community and those supporting gay rights and equality, it was time to read what he had to say.

In the current conflict, Conservative Christians have felt attacked. For not only has there been a successful lawsuit filed against a Christian businessperson for refusing to provide photography services for a same-sex wedding, a law "protecting" Christian businesspeople from such litigation was vetoed in Arizona and now a CEO from Mozilla was pressured into resigning because he contributed money to the passage of California's Proposition 8, a law that would ban same-sex marriages in that state.

And while many Conservative Christian bloggers have already spent an inordinate amount of time lamenting over the current direction of our culture with regard to gay rights, the already here "gay-mafia" "persecution" of Conservative Christians, and the approaching criminalization of the Christian faith for its opposition to the gay and other progressive agenda, Trueman made an attempt, though inadequate, at fairness. For he writes in a Reformation 21 blogpost about the Brendan Eich incident that what served the Conservative Christian interest with regard to World Vision, hurt the same in Mozilla. And thus what Trueman is saying invokes what Jesus said to Peter when he was defending Him in the garden about living by the sword. 

So Trueman's point is one about consistency. If we can use economic pressure on World Vision to change their policies toward gays, then we can't complain when gay advocates and sympathizers turn the tables on us such as what happened at Mozilla. Of course some details are missing here. In the effort to protest World Vision's inclusion of same-sex married couples as employees, approximately 10,000 child sponsorships were withdrawn (click here) as a protest. Here, we might ask who paid the real price for the changing of the policy?

But Trueman's attempt to be consistent and fair only goes so far. For example, when he predicts further hardships for Christians over gay issues, such as what Eich experienced, he didn't mention fairness when he could have. After all, under Christian influence, homosexuality has been criminalized, been grounds for losing one's job, and marriage between gays has been highly resisted by the Christian community. When we consider the history of how the Conservative Christian community has treated homosexuals, should we regard it as fair should the gay community try to ban Conservative Christians from being married or from having certain jobs, or should they try to criminalize the Conservative Christian faith? Nobody I know would feels that way but such is the logic that Trueman uses when he tells Conservative Christians that because Christians used economic pressure to change World Vision's allowance for same-sex married couples, then it is only fair that gay advocates or sympathizers can exercise similar kinds of pressure as what happened between Eich and Mozilla.

This brings us to the basic problem my fellow Conservative Christians have with regard to how respond to society's acceptance of homosexuality. Allowing Conservative Christians and gays to treat each other in same way does not make such treatment by either side fair. And perhaps, the Conservative Christian treatment of homosexuals has contributed to society's acceptance of homosexuality because we have equated opposing homosexuality with legislation that prevents gays from being treated as equals in society. So it is easy for nonConservative Christians to accept homosexuality because to oppose it has come to mean relegating homosexuals to a second class status.

We might also ask ourselves whether our society's drift from Christianity and its values might have to do with how Conservative Christians handled society when Christianity was society's dominant influence. Did we attempt to rule over those who were different? Did we assume a privileged status that would allow us to dictate laws and societal values? 

The above questions are important considering that we have entered a post-modern period and one of the main concerns of post modernism is that of combatting empire and domination. Post-modernists are all too familiar with exclusive claims to knowing absolute truths being followed by feeling entitled to rule over others, and that rulership is, of course, always for the benefit of those who would be submitting.

What is really needed by the world in order for it to see the sinfulness of homosexuality is for the Church to distinguish between opposing homosexuality and trying to rule over homosexuals so as to control them and deny them equality in society. For as long as the Church equates opposing homosexuality with legislation that denies homosexuals equality, most fair-minded people will defend equality for homosexuals and thus will reject what the Church teaches about sexuality.

We should note that this blog has had to address this issue more times than I really care to. And the driving force for the frequency in covering this issue is the number writings by Conservative Christians who lament the current circumstances regarding the status homosexuals in society and the Church's loss of influence in the same.

An Almost Harbinger Of Things To Come

For the majority of people who are outside the loop, the Conservative Christian community just dodged a bullet. What was the bullet? It was one of their own resigning itself to the same-sex marriage wave that was washing over the country. The ministry World Vision  had announced that would allow its Christian employees to be involved in same-sex marriages. Such would allow employees in a ministry of confessing Christians to violate Biblical sexual standards while remaining in good standing with the ministry.

Much was written about this on the blogs including the sample piece being reviewed here. This piece was written by Darrell Bock who has a blog on the Bible.org website. The blogpost we are reviewing here is called, More World, Less Vision. 

This blogpost was nothing but a lamentation for the fall of a well respected and admired, Christian humanitarian ministry. This ministry had decided on adopting a policy change that would allow its employees to either abstain or be married, but those who were married could belong to a same-sex marriage. This was first reported by Christianity Today.  This change of policy was done in the name of unity.

In his blogpost, Bock first calls this decision a betrayal of the care provided for children whom the ministry serves. He wrote this because the decision showed a reversal in the standards that drove World Vision into its ministry.  Bock correctly states that this new policy approved by World Vision was not about the current same-sex marriage debate in society. He went on to say that the policy betrayed the Christian community by abandoning God's standards for how Christians are to live and be different in the world.

Apparently, World Vision's decision to allow employees to belong to same-sex marriages was made for two reasons. First, to foster Christian unity by avoiding conflict with those denominations it serves which support same-sex marriage. Second, it seems that World Vision was conscious of possible legal problems since its employees lived in areas where same-sex marriage was legal.

But Bock interpreted World Vision's policy change differently. He saw it as a withdrawal from controversy over an issue which now implied, by the policy and its apologetic, that same-sex marriage were to be thought of as disputable as some doctrines such as the varying doctrines on how to baptize believers. In the end, Bock claims that the world was determining World Vision's morals and thus it was abandoning Biblical standards of righteousness.

Before responding to Bock's blogpost, we should note that World Vision reversed its policy decision (click here). But that should not stop us from making our observations here. And the first observation we should make is this, World Vision's late controversial policy decision could be accurately seen as a betrayal. But the kids to whom World Vision ministers are not the real, or first, victims of its breach of faith. Rather, the first, and perhaps the only, victims would be the Christian employees who would first benefit from the policy change.

How could the group receiving leniency become such a victim? Those Christians involved in same-sex marriages would be the victims of false feedback. It would be similar to a doctor who examines us and tells us there is nothing wrong when, in reality, he knew that we had a progressive disease. The failure to warn us of a serious condition would move us to ignore what was threatening our health. Such was basically setting up Christian employees to be shot with a gun they never saw. The gun was hidden by the feedback they received.

Would there be some compromises to the care the kids would receive? Yes and no. Certainly there would be no let down in the physical and emotional care the kids would experience. So in that sense, there would be no betrayal of the kids. But if the kids were also looking to World Vision for Christian teaching and moral standards, then there would be a false representation of God's Word. But it is the Christian employees who would or are involved in a same-sex marriage who would be betrayed the most.

Now, there are a few things that Bock fails to notice. And the first thing he fails to notice are the possible reasons why some of the denominations which World Vision serves have an unbiblical view of same-sex marriage. The first reason could be that the Conservative Church has overreached its bounds. It is one thing to deny same-sex marriage to those in a voluntary organization whose first loyalty is to God by following His Word as found in the Bible. It is another to try to coerce those in society, who do not share that loyalty, to follow the same standard. The varying degrees in which the Conservative Church has been forcing itself on the personal morals and lives of those who did not volunteer to adhere to the same standard has rightfully been seen as persecution. 

And this leads us to something else that both Bock and many of us suffer from. We have a personal and an emotional disconnect with our history of harming others. At best, we intellectually acknowledge some of our failures to others. But emotionally, we are unaffected and perhaps this is why we struggle to fully understand society's resistance to our agenda.

It is not until we do fully connect with how we have made others live and feel that we will know how to balance a proper commitment to Biblical morality with recognizing the equality of others in society. And it isn't until we find such a balance that we will know how to both promote that equality without making others feel persecuted.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For Feb 26, 2014

This post consists of comments which were blocked from a number of different conservative blogs. Please note that because there is less editing in the writing of comments, there can be more errors made than in the regular blogposts



Feb 19

To Collin Hansen's blogpost on the debate between Science and Religion as seen in the Ham-Nye debate on creation. This appeared on the Gospel Coalition Blog.

Why do we insist on portraying the interaction between Science and Religion as a tribal rivalry? We, on the Christian side, seem to speak and act as if we have everything to teach those on the side of Science and nothing to learn from them. However, history shows that such a position is not only wrong, it brings discredit to the Gospel.
And why is it that we have described the debate with Ham and Nye in such a way that both those who side with religion and those who side with science are monoliths. Ham represents only 1 exegetical approach to interpreting Genesis. There are other Christians who believe in inerrancy who would have had a significantly different debate with science than Ham did.

On the other side, there are scholars who could have thrown penalty flags on Nye for some of his comments. For example, Nye seemed to have said that those societies that rely on oral traditions have the same whisper down the lane issues with the oral transmission of information that societies relying on written traditions have. That is not the case.

And both sides proved inductively that scientists coming from either side of that debate can make positive contributions to research.

So again, why do we portray the interaction between religion and science as a tribal rivalry?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 21
To Russell Moore's blogpost on Christian Businesspeople denying public services to a same sex wedding ceremony. This appeared on the Gospel Coalition blog

I would like to offer a different perspective here. First, we should note that us Christians have been taught to emphasize personal holiness and morality while deemphasizing the significance of social morality--the latter concerns sins committed by groups. As a result, a greater quest for personal holiness can lead us to a more spiritually vigilant state and the more vigilant we are about ourselves, the less aware we are of how what we do impacts others. That being said, there are other issues here besides the personal accountability of the person doing photography.
Second, a businessperson who offers some public service must now realize that that public competes/conflicts with personal liberty. One cannot deny public services to groups without being in danger of practicing discrimination.

Third, if one businessperson can refuse to provide public services to a specific group, then there is no reason why other businesspeople can't refuse to provide public services to the same group. And the more who refuse to provide public services to the same group, the more inaccessible those public services are to the people in that group. In other words, the refusal of one businessperson to provide public services can set a precedent for others. And if such a precedent is established, what happens to the individuals in the group who need the public services being denied?

Now, if Christian businesspeople refuse public services to participants in a same sex wedding ceremony, how much more can they refuse services to a couple in a same sex marriage. After all, what is ceremonially celebrated in a wedding is actually practiced in the marriage. In the ceremony, we say words. In the marriage, we perform actions. Thus, there should be a stronger reaction to the marriage than the ceremony. And if that is the case, then why shouldn't Christian businesspeople feel free to refuse provide lodging, provide housing, or provide food service to a couple in a same sex marriage?

Is the above a realistic possibility? Consider that both Kansas and Arizona are considering bills that allow people to refuse to provide public services to same sex couples if those providing the services have religious reservations.

Now suppose that Arizona and/or Kansas passed the above legislation. How similar would what would be practiced in those states be to what was practiced during Jim Crow?

Now, certainly the person's conscience must rule the day here. But realize that the state has a valid interest in protecting any legal group's access to public services. Thus the state has a valid interest in identifying and combatting discrimination and thus eliminating group privileges in favor of promoting equality. On the political Left, we have had people go to jail, voluntarily in some cases, because they followed their conscience. Now for the person in this dilemma, would they like to rethink?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 25

To Andrew. Walker and his blogpost on the consciences of Christians who are asked to provide public services to same-sex weddings. This was posted on the First Things blog

Speaking as a Christian Fundamentalist, the typical view expressed here by fellow Conservative Christians shows a strong tendency in many of my fellow Fundamentalists that they can only see what is happening to them. And the problem here is that it prevents them from doing something very Christian: loving one's neighbor.
We have been taught to focus so strongly on personal holiness that we have become hyper-vigilant as to our own spiritual state. So personal holiness becomes like a mirror that keeps growing and growing as we notice something else about ourselves that needs fixing. And we allow this to happen oblivious to the fact that our mirror can become so big that we can't see our neighbor.

The point being that one's scruples over whether one is supporting a sinful wedding is not the only issue. And, in fact, if Christians are truly concerned about not participating in sinful weddings by providing goods or services, then there would be other weddings to boycott too. Those weddings would include a Christian marrying a nonChristian or a wedding where at least one of the partners was divorced for unbiblical reasons. 

What my fellow Christians want here is legal protection of their religious liberties. But the corollary to that is that others could deny public services to gays as well so that such public services become impossible to obtain for some or even all homosexuals. This is where Christian businesspeople who want to refuse gays public services are starting to emulate the Jim Crow laws of the past and even present.  And that a number of states are considering legislation to expand the right to refuse public services to gays for all businesses provided they can demonstrate their religious scruples as being the cause for their decision proves the corollary. 

One other thing has to be added here. The reason why Christians do not have these scruples over other unBiblical weddings is because of the exaggerated gulf between heterosexual and homosexual sins Conservative Christian leaders have created in the minds and hearts of their flocks. It isn't that homosexuality, and thus same-sex marriage, is not strongly condemned in the Bible. It is whether the degree of difference between heterosexual sexual sins and homosexual sins has been unBiblically inflated so that the decision to participate in sinful heterosexual weddings is tolerable but participating in same-sex weddings is equated with attending idol worship at a temple. Is there a difference between the two? Yes. Does it justify saying yes to one and no to the other?

Consider that our society has experienced a growing tolerance to homosexuality. Back in the day, homosexual practices were criminalized. Then homosexuality could be an adequate reason to terminate employment--their means of making a living and possibly supporting a family. Then, it was just that homosexuals were not allow to marry the person of their choice. Now that that barrier is falling, some are calling for the institution of Jim Crow laws against homosexuals. Regardless of the legal form of discrimination practiced, those in heterosexual relations have advantages over those in same-sex relations. And perhaps, keeping that hierarchy and heterosexual privilege, if not domination, is the reason for conservative ministers to associate the right to refuse public services solely with religious liberties and to promote the new Jim Crow laws.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter's 4th blogpost on what liberal evangelicals should know about the economic views of conservative evangelicals found in the Acton Blog.

This installment of telling liberal evangelicals about the economic views of Conservative evangelicals is simply more of the same. We can't afford to find fault with the system nor are we allowed to challenge those with wealth and power to change. Rather, the impetus for change is mostly placed on the poor. And yet Conservatives insist that they are not blaming the poor. 
Looking at point #9, the assumption seems to be that wealth inequality is not related to social mobility. And this is an odd assumption considering that we live in a world of finite resources. In addition, it is an assumption considering social mobility here is harmed by the outsourcing of jobs overseas. And the motive for the outsourcing of jobs overseas is to increase the wealth of those with wealth and power which increases wealth disparity or income inequality.

In addition, while the first factor for increasing income mobility was, at least, just partially covered. Let's look at the rest. The correlation of income mobility with both the percentage of 2 parent households and better schools is a correlation. They have effects on each other such that the lack of income mobility can lower the percentage of 2 parent households as well as the quality of schools just as the converse is true. There is a symmetric relation here. And one of the factors for the lower percentage of 2 parent households has to do with the criminal justice system and the inequitable waging of the War On Drugs. That is because this war is waged mostly in poor, minority neighborhoods. Michelle Alexander documents this in her book, The New Jim Crow and video presentations can be found at

http://newjimcrow.com/media/speeches

But Jim Crow II, as it is sometimes called, is never mentioned by conservatives.

In addition, where there is little to no hope of economic mobility, not only is the percentage of 2 parent households harmed, so is the quality of the schools because much of student education occurs outside of the class and school building. It occurs at home and if the household environment is tumultuous, student performance is harmed along with the student behavior and thus the quality of the schools.

But don't blame the Maximize Profits system that reduces all people into objects of profit. Instead, we will opt for voluntary help, factor #4, rather than mandate that those who are succeeding have a degree of responsibility here. And that brings to #10 and a moral economy. 

A moral economy is not one that reduces all human value to an extrinsic value. Rather, there is a sometimes fluctuating balance between recognizing the intrinsic and extrinsic value of each person. Our current economy only recognizes people as having an extrinsic value. And that is illustrated in our wage labor in a world job insecurity and maximizing profits. Note that a wage laborer, or worker, is paid a certain amount per unit of time. This makes his/her labor power a commodity much like the cost of a unit of raw material. And note that when a manufacturer can buy raw material at a cheaper cost, then  the manufacturer does business elsewhere; so the same goes for the labor power. When an employer goes elsewhere because they can cut costs by employing cheaper labor, the worker becomes disposable. And the only way that the worker can keep his/her job is to underbid the competition even if that underbidding leads to poverty wages. And we should note that poverty wages often involves gov't subsidies for employer payrolls. Of course, the problem with this description is that in the US, minimum wage provides a floor for a worker's poverty wages. That the moral economy of which conservatives boast.

One more point, that Krugman says something different in 2013 than he did in 1990 does not imply that he changed his mind. The change could be explained by a change in the conditions.

What we have to recognize is that the free market is not free. It is controlled and manipulated and is there to serve the interests of those with wealth and power. And as Carter praises the likes of Milton Friedman who believed that those driven by greed to the extent that they hoard wealth others need just to live should be free from gov't constraint to run the free market. And that the introduction of Friedman's economic views often required military coups and violence to install and maintain. Chile in '73, Argentina a few years later, and Russia in the 90s are prime examples.

ONIM For Feb 10, 2014

Christian News

• Sacrifice And What We Are Willing To Do To Love Others -- Christian Today (UK)
• Cry For Help From Syrian Church Leaders -- Christian Today (UK)
• British Children No Longer Know Bible Stories -- Christian Today (UK)
• For God And Country: Christian Athletes To Watch In Sochi --  Christianity Today
• U.S. Abortions Fall To Lowest Rate Since Roe V. Wade -- Christianity Today
• Will The Faithful Inherit The Super Bowl? Sports Fans Split On Prosperity Gospel -- Christianity Today
• 7 Reasons Very Active Church Members Drop Out -- The Christian Post
• The Brilliant Way Jesus Calls His Disciples -- The Christian Post
• Analysis: 'Obamacare' Discourages Work And That Is A Bad Thing; Here Is Why-- The Christian Post
• True Or False: Less Religion Means Greater Diversity? --Religion Dispatches
• Vatican, 'Cool Pope' Blasts UN Link Between Sexual Abuse Scandal And Church Attitudes On Gays, Contraception, Abortion -- Religion Dispatches
• Religious Freedom In Peril -- Religion Dispatches

World News

• Russian Neo-Nazis Made These Horrifying Videos Of Anti-LGBT Attacks -- Yahoo News
• DeBlasio Won't Be In NYC St. Patrick's Day Parade -- Yahoo News
• The FBI Seized All Of TorMail's Data And Is Using It To Catch Hackers -- Gizmodo
• Congressman: Extending Safety Net For Long-Term Unemployed Is 'Immoral' -- Think Progress
• At Least 26 Children Or Teens Have Died In Florida Stand Your Ground Cases -- Think Progress
• ACE Documents Radiation Spikes Near Limerick Nuclear Plant -- Mercury Letters
• 47 Years A Slave: A New Perspective On The Occupation -- Haaretz
• Student Debt Profiteers Exposed -- Jobs With Justice
• NSA Spied On German Chancellor Over 10 Years Ago -- The Guardian
• Duke Energy Coal Ash Spill Pollutes River And Threatens Drinking Water -- EcoWatch
• Israel Destroying Emergency Shelters Of Home Demolition Victims, Says Red Cross -- The Electronic Intifada
• Human Rights Groups Criticize IOC Over Sochi Abuses -- Deutsche Welle
• Russian LGBT Activists Arrested On First Day Of Sochi Games -- Aljazeera
• Russian Oppositional Artists Criticize The Cost Of The Winter Olympics -- CBS News (Video Report) 

Pick(s) Of The Litter

• Can Occupiers Struggle Alongside The Occupied? -- The Electronic Intifada

Saying The Wrong Thing For Almost All Of The Right Reasons

Trauma can have many effects on people. It can cause phobias. A child who is bitten by a dog could become afraid of all dogs. And what is easy to observe here is that that trauma has inhibited the child from telling the difference between dogs that are friendly and dogs that could be threatening.

Some of us have experienced a phobia after the horrendous attacks of 9/11. Some of us reacted with a fear of some from the Middle East or of Muslims. In some, that fear grew to hatred that led to attacks. And like the child who loses the ability to distinguish between a friendly dog and a dangerous dog after being bit, some Americans have become xenophobic to certain groups.

It is with this knowledge that we should attempt to understand the recent statements on homophobia (see BBC article) by Bishop Desmond Tutu. The most alarming statements that came Bishop Tutu are as follows, 

I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place

and

I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this.

To us religious conservatives, rejecting these statements is a slam-dunk, a no-brainer because we know what the Bible says about homosexuality and we know what it says about God and eternal life. However, how should we regard the person who made these statements? Also, in so easily denouncing these statements, are we missing some grains of truth which could be hidden deep inside these statements? To answer these questions, we must look at the context of the statements made. The first part of the context is to look at the Bishop Tutu, the man who made these statements. And the second part of the context is to look at the people he is defending. And in both cases, we should look to see if trauma has played a role in blurring distinctions.

Bishop Tutu grew up and lived under horrible racist conditions in South Africa for decades. The apartheid system sought to separate the races, Black, Colored, and White, and to separate nonWhites from wealth and power. Blacks and Colored, with the Colored consisting of people who were of mixed races, had land stolen from them and were often placed on unproductive land called "homelands" which plunged many into poverty. In addition, they were stripped of their South African citizenship though they were ruled over by the South African government. Both Blacks and Colored faced constant humiliation, police repression, torture and even murder by death squads. Dissent was harshly punished and sometimes met with deadly violence. There was resistance which sometimes included violence. 

Despite these horrors, Bishop Tutu headed the Truth And Reconciliation Commission after Apartheid. This commission sought to peacefully resolve the conflicts and hatred that came because of the atrocities. Since then, Bishop Tutu has spoken out or has been active against other instances of racism in places including Zimbabwe, the Solomon Islands, Israel and Palestine, and China. He has been harshly condemned by some for some of his work such as his criticisms of Israel's actions against the Palestinians. 

Lately, Bishop Tutu has been working for equality for gays. Approximately one-third of the nations in the world make homosexuality a crime and there are some countries that punish it by death. Though homosexuality is legal in his own country of South Africa,  some in the LGBT community there have been harassed, assaulted, sexually assaulted, and even murdered. Since Bishop Tutu rightfully equates this persecution with racism, it seems that he might attribute homosexuality to physical causes.

What we should note here is that we who have lived as privileged people haven't a clue when it comes to understanding the atrocities that Bishop Tutu has had to endure, resist and work through in his life. When he is defending gays, he is defending people, some of whom are oppressed, and working for equality. And what I would add here regarding those who have criticized his statements on preferring hell to a homophobic heaven is that they have neither mentioned nor criticized the horrible atrocities being committed against some in the LGBT community. How is it that people offering a "Christian" analysis on Tutu's not so good choice for eternity are so quiet about the persecution and even murdering others which he is reacting to? How? 

Just as Tutu could not be more wrong in saying that he would prefer "the other place" to a  homophobic heaven, he could not be more right in both opposing the brutal abuse some in the LGBT community have to live through as well as working for equality for gays. And Tutu could not be more correct than when he equates persecution of those in the LGBT community with the racism he has so heroically opposed in South Africa and other places. 

So with all that he has lived through and all the good that he has done, can we understand why he confuses man's inhumane acts of homophobia with God's judgment on sinners? Is it possible that Tutu would not have made his statements if Christians had not so harshly persecuted those in the LGBT community or had not remained silent about the severe abuse some of them must live through? In other words, are Tutu's current sentiments and confusion a reflection on some of us Christians?

Tutu's startling statements are not new, they have been said before. Consider what the Indian chief Hatuey from Haiti said before he was to be burned at the stake by Spanish "Christians." This chief sought refuge in Cuba because of the Spanish atrocities in Haiti and the surrounding islands which, according to Bartolomé  de Las Casas, a contemporary of Columbus and an eye witness to the Spanish violence in Haiti, killed millions of Indians. Being tied to the stake in preparation for his execution, a priest told Hatuey what he must believe in order to go to heaven. Hatuey asked the priest if all Christians went to heaven. The priest said yes. Hatuey then told the priest that he preferred to go to the other place.

References

1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-23464694
2. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/i-would-not-worship-a-homophobic-god-tutu/story-fni0xqll-1226686648794
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3yxFzs73Ss
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2PEfZvthxg
5. http://www.history.com/topics/apartheid
6. http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~cale/cs201/apartheid.hist.html
7. http://www.history.com/topics/apartheid
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Tutu
9. Voices of a People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove, pg 35-41

Should Christians Support Gay Marriage?

What appears to be a simple question, see the title, with a slam dunk answer is full of nuance. And it is an important question in the light of President Obama's recent statements on the subject. But more than that, this is one of the most emotionally charged questions that many Fundamentalists try to answer.

Whether Christians should support gay marriage  depends on location, location,  location. Location here, does not refer to a geographical place but to a sphere. So we need to clarify the question and ask whether Christians are being asked to support gay marriage in the church, in society, or in both.

Those who adhere to the whole Bible must firmly and gently say no to gay marriage in the church. Though Jesus never mentioned the subject, some of his predecessors and followers did and did so unambiguously. The basic gist of the Biblical objections to gay marriage is that it is contrary to  God's creation. Here, we are talking about His creation before the fall. He created men and women to be in physical union with one another other rather than with those of the same sex. That doesn't mean that we should not celebrate the love any 2 people have for each other since there is simply not enough love in the world to do that. But, if we are to remain faithful to all of God's Word, we cannot agree with any love that includes the physical union of two people of the same gender.

Because God's Word tells us that homosexual relations are wrong, and since God's Word should be the rule for the church, it is logical to say that Christians should not support gay marriages in the Church. Christians should challenge the practice of some denominations that support gay marriages in the church or recognize gay church officers. But they should only do so after they have first learned why those denominations lend such support for gays. Denominations that support gay marriages and ordain gay officers often do so to stand in solidarity with those who are being oppressed and for equality. Certainly such churches are going too far in their standing with others; but they are Biblically correct in standing in solidarity with gays who are not treated as equals.

But what about supporting gay marriage in society? Should Christians do so? Here, the question must be clarified. Does support here mean encouraging or does it mean defending the right to do so? Though the church should not encourage what goes against the God's Word, the church must defend the right of gays to marry in society and have equal rights.

Many of my fellow fundamentalist Christians struggle with making such a distinction. According to them, right is right and wrong is wrong and you cannot defend the practice of doing what is wrong. However, if we use that same logic for all other practices including our faith, we would end up merging Biblical law with civil law and every personal sin could be punished by both the state and the church. For example, having a different faith would make one a criminal and thus eligible for a prison sentence. Also, history, more than strongly, suggests that such a merging is extremely tragic for both the church and its victims.

The real question for the Church regarding gay marriage is whether or not the church will take a legal or evangelical approach to addressing it. If we take the former approach, we move towards making God's law the law of the land. Here, not only will we go beyond what the New Testament prescribes, but we will reveal something disturbing about ourselves. We will unveil a deep desire to control those who are different. To justify this control, some of us will overstate our case and even demonize homosexuals. And in so doing, we have forgotten that Romans 2:1 follows Romans 1:26-27--the verses that condemn homosexuality. For Romans 2:1 tells us that those who judge are as guilty as those whom they judge because all sin. In other words, heterosexuals and homosexuals are equals in that they all sin.

Those who wish to control others have cut the words equal and equality out of both their dictionaries and, if they are fundamentalist, Bibles. Those who desire to rule over others must make the case, and that will almost always be both overstated and unsubstantiated, that they are superior to those they wish to rule over. And, such people are either unaware of or apathetic to the past atrocities committed by the church as previously hinted to.

Those who rely on evangelism alone trust in the Gospel and respect the listener. When a disagreement remains, they part as equals and one cannot part as equals while not defending the rights of the other. This is not enough for those who want to control. For they want both guaranteed results, and to look down on others.

I can't join my fellow fundamentalists who choose to rely on control rather than evangelism. I cannot join them for Biblical reasons. And I cannot follow them because I have gay friends some of whom have made very important contributions to my life. And despite the fact that I cannot agree with these friends on homosexuality, I know that each of them has strengths that I don't have and I have weaknesses that they don't have.  I am not the only fundamentalist who can say this. And despite our disagreements, I believe they must have all of the rights heterosexuals have. I can't condone using the law to control their behavior.

I'm also afraid for many of my fellow fundamentalists. That is because while Obama's latest statements on same sex marriage will inspire them to reacquire homosexuality and gay marriage as targets, pride and hatred will fly under their radar to conduct their insidious attacks. For pride is described as being the antithesis to faith (Romans 3:27) and one cannot both love God and hate those made in the image of God (James 3:9ff; I John 4:20).

And though I applaud how the liberal churches stand in solidarity with gays who have been ostracized and abused and how they defend their rights, I cannot join them in saying that involvement in gay relations is acceptable before God.

The above points to a common error committed by both conservative and liberal Christians regarding sensitive issues like gay rights. The error is the belief that agreement and support go hand in hand. Conservative Christians find it difficult to support equal rights for gays because they cannot agree with their behaviors and lifestyles. Liberal Christians struggle with expressing disagreement with gay relations because they realize the moral imperative of standing in solidarity with gays when they are not treated as equals. However, just as Jesus' real test for love was when it was for someone who did not belong to one's own group, the real test for belief in equality is found in whether we defend the rights of those with whom we disagree.

All of this points to the need of making careful statements and well-thoughtout distinctions regarding issues like gay rights. It is important to be precise as to where we agree and disagree with others. It is also vital to understand how we could sin against those with whom we disagree particularly when we call our desire to control and rule over them "concern" or "love." This desire to control, whether it is out of ambition or fear, is a major cause for much of the suffering and violence we see today.