Monthly Archives: January 2004

Lotteries

Posted on by

Jay Voorhees, whose blog I have recently discovered, had this post last week about his fight against the coming of the Tennessee Lottery. He coordinated the United Methodist Church campaign against the initiative establishing a lottery; of course they lost, and as of last week, the lottery tickets went on sale in Tennessee. His words are better than mine:

Everywhere I turn I see lottery machines and tickets. And I hear folks talking about buying tickets, and how much money they are going to win from the lottery.

My heart is breaking. Oh, I know that there are kids that will go to college on these funds. But I also know that addicted persons will be the primary funders of these scholarships. I know that pre-school programs will be started. But I also know that lotteries prey primarily on the poor. I know that it’s all in fun. But I also know that bankruptcy rates rise when gambling enters a state — and that Tennessee already has one of the highest rates of bankruptcy in the state.

I’m not going to protest, carrying signs and screaming that folks are going to burn in hell if they buy a lottery ticket. In fact, I don’t really think that. But I do think that it’s an unjust system of funding government, and it makes me sad to realize that most folks don’t have a clue as to what we’ve gotten into.

I was passionately opposed to the coming of Indian Gaming to California. I haven’t bought a lottery ticket since I became a Christian; it strikes me as perhaps the worst form of regressive taxation imaginable. Here’s a link to an old Sojourners article on gambling; eight years later, it is still sadly relevant:

Put aside questions about gambling’s potentially negative effects on local economies, families, and society as a whole. From a faith perspective, a more basic reason to oppose gambling will remain: It is a spiritual parasite.

Gambling feeds off of resources, energy, and hope that could be turned toward the common good, and spawns false understandings of what is of true value. The meaning of words like “play,” “excitement,” “courage,” “winning,” “risk,” and “security” become distorted and empty. Gambling may sometimes bring what seem like concrete benefits to individuals or communities, but an exorbitant price in soul and culture is paid. And, despite gambling industry claims of easy gain and wealth to share, there is evidence that most often the monetary cost is exorbitant as well.

Yup.

Brief Oscar Notes

Posted on by

As I am an early riser, I watched the Oscar nomination announcements this morning while playing with the splendid Matilde. I haven’t seen Cold Mountain, and thus am not disappointed that it was ignored; I am disappointed, however, that Scarlett Johannson was not nominated for her work in the sublime Lost in Translation. Easily, easily, easily, the best film I have seen this year (“In America” would be my second choice). The last ten minutes of the film were as perfect as any 600 seconds in cinema. It deserves any and all awards that it may receive…

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

More on why I am not an Episcopalian

Posted on by

Because I have a heart for teenagers, and because my Mennonite church has no kids over ten (we are a very young church), I work with the high school youth at my old church, All Saints Episcopal here in Pasadena. I resigned from the Vestry of the latter church because of its profound ambivalence about the identity of Jesus, and its evident discomfort with a genuinely Christian message. However, I stay involved with the All Saints youth because I love the kids, and I — subversively — try and slip in some evangelical doctrine from time to time.

But then I read things like this. Here is a link to a PDF file of All Saints’ newsletter, “Saints Alive”. The cover article, written by the church’s senior liturgy associate, a woman whom I know well and like very much, typifies what is so fundamentally deadly about contemporary Anglicanism. I quote:

“Not long ago, on a flight from the East Coast, I was working on a Sunday morning presentation at All Saints. The woman in the seat next to me leaned over and asked, ‘Are you a Christian?’ ‘No’, I said, ‘I’m just doing some research.’ Because the religious right has so co-opted the term Christian, I am reluctant to identify myself to a total stranger as ‘a Christian’. I would have to answer, ‘Yes, I am a Christian, but it’s not what you think.’ I would have to explain that Christianity is inclusive, not exclusive, that the Bible needs interpretation, not literal acceptance, and that the Christian story is not the only story of faith, although it is the story which inspires, challenges, and transforms me’”.

AAARGH!

As I said, I know and respect the woman who wrote this. But this refusal to “claim the name” of Jesus, this absolute disdain for the Great Commission, this tiresome construction of the straw man of the religious right — this is what is killing the Episcopal Church, and liberal Protestantism in this country. Right there, on the plane, the good Lord handed our senior liturgy associate a chance to witness — and instead, like Peter in the courtyard, she denied Him. (And Peter had the slightly better excuse of fearing for his life; she feared nothing more than being lumped together with Jerry Falwell.) Furthermore, she does not want to be part of a Christianity that is inclusive of conservatives. If you can’t give an honest answer to a stranger on an airplane, it beats the heck out of me how you can claim to be “inspired, challenged, and transformed”.

I still love the teenagers at All Saints so much! But I wonder how long I can continue to work with them in good conscience.

Why not Lieberman?

Posted on by

The Times this morning has a rather unhappy piece entitled: Even His Mom Wonders Why Lieberman ‘Didn’t Catch On’. The article wraps up thus:

Joe will be in the book of great Americans never to be president. It’s funny because there was a place for Lieberman’s message in this campaign, but somehow he missed the boat,” he said. “I’m sure he’s scratching his head and asking himself why.”

Lieberman insists there are too many undecided voters to count him out. Standing before reporters in minus-3 degree temperatures Sunday, he said, “We’re going to do a lot better than people predict.”

Yet on the primary’s eve, Lieberman insiders — including his sister Ellen Lieberman, a theater director in Connecticut — still search for answers.

Following the Nashua City Hall speech on Saturday, she pushed her mother’s wheelchair, pondering why “the honest man who is as he appears to be” is not connecting with voters.

“I just don’t know,” she said. “Do you know why?”

Well, Ellen, let me have a crack at it. First of all, I would rather spend time with Joe Lieberman than with any of the other candidates in the Democratic race. That includes my own favorite, Kucinich. (Dennis is a vegan, and I am not yet ready to extend my “seamless garment” pro-life stance to include the entire animal kingdom. Maybe someday, but not yet). I would enjoy having him over for supper and a time of intense discussion on faith in the public sphere! I have tremendous admiration for Lieberman’s unusually high scruples, and his willingness to talk about his faith in public, even when it is not in his best political interest. I think his famous censure of his friend Bill Clinton in 1998 was to his lasting credit (imagine if Bill had resigned that summer, and President Gore had won narrow re-election in November 2000!) Unlike some, I don’t see Joe Lieberman as a traitor to the Democrats because of his insistence on a place for morality and religion within our party. I think his attacks on Hollywood have been, for the most part, right on.

And I don’t think Joe Lieberman is lagging so badly in the polls because of his faith or his morality. He is lagging because of his support for the war in Iraq and his consistently conservative positions on economic issues. His support for welfare reform in 1996 (which looked good short term, but has turned out to be DISASTROUS) was unforgiveable. And his more recent support for the Patriot Act is also simply unacceptable to the Democratic left.

I honor Lieberman’s decency, his integrity, and his insistence that individual politicians see a relationship between public and private morality. But he is lagging in the polls for the same reason he won’t have a chance at my vote — his positions on the issues that really matter to progressives (war, economic justice, civil liberties) are far more in synch with his brethren in the GOP than they are with us. May he remain a conscience in the senate for decades to come. But he has no place on our national ticket.

Kucinich on electronic voting machines

Posted on by

Though I continue to make progress in my flirtation with John Edwards, my vote in the California primary remains solidly committed to Dennis Kucinich. New on his website this weekend is an extensive section on the very serious problems surrounding the new electronic “touchscreen” voting machines (the very sort I used to vote early during last fall’s recall election). The main problem revolves around the mysterious refusal of the machine’s manufacturers to provide “voter-verified” receipts, receipts that could be used in a recount. Dennis is co-sponsoring HR 2239 to address the problem; details here.

I remember voting “touchscreen” and enjoying it, but also regretting the absence of a receipt. As others have pointed out, if ATMs can spit out receipts, so too can these machines.

Friday Night Small Group

Posted on by

Last night, I went to my regular (bi-weekly) church small group. We meet regularly for a simple potluck dinner (or supper, as most Midwestern-bred Mennonites call it), followed by a time of prayer and discussion. Since tomorrow is our Consecration Sunday (where we make our financial pledges for the coming year), the topic was stewardship and simplicity. We had a great conversation, and I walked away at 9:00PM convinced once again that my life is far too cluttered!

I’m still struggling to get back to where I was just a couple of years ago, which was giving 10% of my gross income to the church. My pledges for 2004 will put me at about 6.8% of my estimated gross income for this year; more than most secular folks might imagine ever giving to charity, but far less than I feel called to give. This isn’t the place to list all the reasons why I am not willing or able to make a larger commitment, but I can note that I am slowly returning to an earlier level of giving. I also need to give myself a break. I only made my first stewardship pledge to a church a few years ago, when as a new and uncertain Christian, pledging 1% seemed more than sufficient! Progress not perfection…

Mennonite news

Posted on by

I know you aren’t all keeping up with the Mennonite Weekly Review, but two articles this week caught my eye.

James Schrag has a short editorial on “bridging the gap” between the antiwar and the pro-life movements (given that Mennonites are just about the only folks regularly to march for both causes). Here’s an excerpt:

Mennonites are prime candidates to bridge the gulf between the antiwar and antiabortion causes. Our pacifism grows from a desire to follow Jesus’ teachings fully. It is based on a conviction that it is always wrong to kill, not on an analysis of whether killing might be justified in a particular situation. Our antiwar position therefore has an affinity with the prolife movement, which is based on a similarly absolute conviction that human life is sacred.
Yet here’s where the tension arises: Each group views the other as inconsistent. “How can you claim to believe all life is sacred,” says the antiwar person, “if you don’t object to the killing of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?” The antiabortion person replies, “How can you claim to believe killing is always wrong if you don’t object to the destruction of life in the womb?”

The convenient thing about dwelling on other people’s inconsistencies is that it saves us from facing our own. Rather than denouncing the failings of others, people in both camps could more profitably search their own hearts and ask themselves: Ought I develop a stronger conviction against abortion? Ought I develop a stronger conviction against war?
We need to lay aside the attitude that says, “I won’t listen to you about war unless you agree with me about abortion,” or, “I won’t listen to you about abortion unless you agree with me about war.” This approach leaves everyone stuck in their own rut, tearing each other down.

And on a marginally lighter note, all Anabaptists should be troubled by this: UPN is proposing a new reality show, to be entitled “Amish in the City.” When I first became a Mennonite, I had to do a lot of explaining to folks who got us confused with our distant cousins, the Amish. Though most contemporary Mennonites live far more modern lives than the Amish, our theologies are still quite similar, both rooted in the 16th century “radical reformation”. So I feel a personal anguish when I hear that the Amish might become a subject for ridicule and exposure.

Here’s what the jack#@s who runs the network said: “To have people who don’t have television walk down Rodeo Drive and be freaked out by what they see, I think will be interesting television,” CBS chairman Leslie Moonves, who also oversees UPN, told the Associated Press. “It will not be denigrating to the Amish.”

Anabaptist historian and sociologist Donald Kraybill responded: “It’s really ridiculous for a whole host of reasons. I think it’s highly sensational and it sort of makes the assumption that the Amish are unenlightened, and that these other people are going to enlighten them, and then everyone’s going to laugh… It’s just really repulsive to me,” Kraybill said. “I think there could be a substantial movement against it, if someone would organize it.”

Overwhelmed by advice

Posted on by

In our household, we are adjusting to life with Matilde the chinchilla. As blissful as we are, we are finding the internet to be both blessing and curse: typing “chinchillas” into Google produces an extraordinary number of sites, many filled with contradictory and self-serving advice. It is hard to be a novice at something when another life — albeit a tiny fluffy one — is at stake! Still, she seems happy — and we just bought her this LARGE cage, called a “chinchilla mansion”. She seems very happy.

Pro-life Democrats

Posted on by

Today is, of course, the 31st anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. Among those marching today in Washington D.C. at the annual March for Life will be Democrats for Life, whose members once included (but, alas, no longer) the likes of Dennis Kucinich and Dick Gephardt. For those who think “pro-life liberal” is an oxymoron, Mary Meehan produced this history of anti-abortion Democrats. It’s worth the read.

And from a year ago, here is an article in Counterpunch by Green activist and secular professor, Carl Estabrook; it’s entitled “Abortion and the Left”. Here are his concluding remarks:

Some recent defenses of the moral legitimacy of abortion have shifted from arguments based on the non-humanity of unborn children (i.e., that the fetus is not human enough to have rights) to what in the US are called libertarian arguments — e.g., “I have the right to do what I want with my body (including the contents of my womb).” Defense of abortion on the basis of the ownership of one’s own body is then similar to the right- wing account of “takings,” which resists governmental attempts to limit what can be done with real estate.
But I don’t own my body; I am my body. Talking of owning one’s body arises from a malign mix of factitious capitalist theory and debased Christianity: I am then regarded as an immaterial mind/soul related to my body as the bus driver is to the bus — a ghost in a machine, in the classic phrase. (Some Christians seem to forget that the fundamental Christian doctrine is the resurrection of the body, not the immortality of the soul.) It’s finally this distancing, dualist, indeed Manichean idea of the self that casts abortion into the capitalist discussion of ownership.

Defense of the general acceptability of abortion on the basis of one’s ownership of one’s body is a capitalist position that the Left should be skeptical of, on its fundamental principles. But it’s certainly correct — if a little oddly put — to say that every person has rights over her or his body: inalienable rights indeed (which means you can’t even give them away), to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The abortion argument reduces to the question of how many persons are involved.

Strong stuff, Carl. But right on.

I don’t post about abortion lightly. I know how it — above all issues — tears at the soul and at the heart. I am well aware (as a professor who teaches gender studies) that for a man to declare himself a “pro-lifer” is inherently problematic. I’ve had a long and painful journey on this issue, a journey that has been informed as much by science as by my faith. And because there are so few genuine progressives who are consistently pro-life on topics ranging from capital punishment to abortion to war, I just had to blog on this, today of all days.

Peace.