Social Justice is Biblical

(Just not understood)

Dear Gentle Readers,

We are looking at the subject of Theocracy, which if you remember we used the definition of a government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.

Many people came to this nation and they were trying to escape from societies that tried to tell them what they could say and what they could think and here we come reintroducing it through the back door. And we need to remember that it is not important that we all think the same thing and the emphasis should not be on us all saying the same thing. The emphasis should be on learning how to be respectful of individuals who have a different opinion.

That's one of things that made America great, the ability to engage in dialogue. And I've always written that if two people think the same thing about everything, one of them is redundant. We need to be able to understand that if we're going to make real progress.

There was a time in the history of the world when there was great intolerance for anybody who thought differently than the mainstream. It was called the Dark Ages. And there are some things that can be learned even in places and societies where we think we know everything, because if you look over the course of time you will find a migration of what is thought to be the truth. And if we all engage in appropriate intellectual discussion I think we will get there much faster.

Pluralism is, in the general sense, the acknowledgment of diversity. The concept is used, often in different ways, in a wide range of issues. In politics, pluralism is often considered by proponents of modern democracy to be in the interests of its citizens, and so political pluralism is one of its most important features.

But since that I have suggested that it is a matter of Evolution which is for me  is a matter of personal growth not one belief system that should have predominance in governing an entire country. One could call that Sharia Law.

Shari'a is an Arabic word meaning "path" or "way." Today the term is used most commonly to mean "Islamic law," the detailed system of religious law developed by Muslim scholars in the first three centuries of Islam and still in force among fundamentalists today.

However this country was not founded on Shari’a law. There's been a lot of rustle in the press lately--and in many Christian publications--about the faith of the Founding Fathers and the status of the United States as a "Christian nation." Home schooling texts abound with references to our religious heritage, and entire organizations are dedicated to returning America to its spiritual roots. On the other side, secularists cry "foul" and parade their own list of notables among our country's patriarchs. They rally around the cry of "separation of church and state." Which side is right? Oddly both, after a fashion.

Who Were the Founding Fathers?

Historical proof-texts can be raised on both sides. Certainly there were godless men among the early leadership of our nation, though some of those cited as examples of Founding Fathers turn out to be insignificant players. For example, Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen may have been hostile to evangelical Christianity, but they were firebrands of the

Revolution, not intellectual architects of the Constitution. Paine didn't arrive in this country until 1774 and only stayed a short time.

As for others--George Washington, Samuel Adams, James Madison, John Witherspoon, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams, Patrick Henry, and even Thomas Jefferson--their personal correspondence, biographies, and public statements are replete with quotations showing that these thinkers had political philosophies deeply influenced by Christianity.

Three of the four cornerstones of the Constitution--Franklin, Washington, and Madison--were firmly rooted in Christianity. But what about Thomas Jefferson? His signature cannot be found at the end of the Constitution, but his voice permeates the entire document. Though deeply committed to a belief in natural rights, including the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, Jefferson was individualistic when it came to religion; he sifted through the New Testament to find the facts that pleased him.

Sometimes he sounded like a staunch churchman. The Declaration of Independence contains at least four references to God. In his Second Inaugural Address he asked for prayers to Israel's God on his behalf. Other times Jefferson seemed to go out of his way to be irreverent and disrespectful of organized Christianity, especially Calvinism.

It's clear that Thomas Jefferson was no evangelical, but neither was he an Enlightenment deist. He was more Unitarian than either deist or Christian. This analysis, though, misses the point. The most important factor regarding the faith of Thomas Jefferson--or any of our Founding Fathers--isn't whether or not he had a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. The debate over the religious heritage of this country is not about who is ultimately going to heaven, but rather about what the dominant convictions were that dictated the structure of this nation.

Even today there are legions of born-again Christians who have absolutely no skill at integrating their beliefs about Christ with the details of their daily life, especially their views of government. They may be "saved," but they are completely ineffectual as salt and light.

By contrast, some of the Fathers may not have been believers in the narrowest sense of the term, yet in the broader sense--the sense that influences culture--their thinking was thoroughly Christian. Unlike many evangelicals who live lives of practical atheism, these men had political ideals that were deeply informed by a robust Christian world view. They didn't always believe biblically, having a faith leading to salvation, but almost all thought biblically, resulting in a particular type of government. And so gentle reader, one could say that while Christian values were applied to this country’s origin the values of other belief system were not precluded, at least in theory and in intent.  The Founders stopped short of giving their Christian religion a position of legal privilege. In the tradition of the early church, believers were to be salt and light. The First Amendment insured the liberty needed for Christianity to be a preserving influence and a moral beacon, but it also insured Christianity would never be the law of the land.

This ought to call into serious question a common tactic of the so-called Religious Right. "We were here first," their apologists proclaim. "Our country was stolen from us, and we demand it back." Author John Seel calls this "priority as entitlement."

The sad fact of the matter is that cultural authority was not stolen ; it surrendered it through neglect. Os Guinness pointed out that Christians have not been out-thought. Rather, they have not been around when the thinking was being done.

But you may say Denis, how does this subject concern Social Justice, and how does social justice become Biblical ("you have dug yourself a rather deep hole mister, let’s see how you get out of this one").

Let me give you just one current example. We have heard recently much about "traditional marriage" meaning as these proponents say "one man and one woman".

They totally ignore that women in the Bible were considered property and could be bought and sold at the whim of the man. Is that the "traditional marriage" they are talking about? One might conclude so given the fact that since the 2010 election more than 1100 laws restricting the rights of women have been place into effect.  What about the concept of equality? For women - not so much. Men could have hundreds of wives. Remember Solomon? And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.  ( 1 Kings 11: 3 )

According to Torah, Bereshit (Genesis) And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. (Gen 2; 22 )  Which some Jewish authorities believe that Adam was androgynous (that is having the characteristics of both male and female, which could shed some light on the same sex issue)

Women had more legal rights in Ancient Egypt than in Colonial America, or even today.

A woman's place in the world was carved out by ancient legal principals and traditions that evolved over centuries such as:

Women were denied a separate legal status from their husbands.

A husband and wife were considered one person under the law and that one person was the husband.

Women were denied rights of inheritance.

Women were denied the right to own property in their own right.

Men could be compensated for the loss of a wife due to another man's negligence.

Men paid a bride price to the parents of his wife in the same way he purchased livestock.

But how is the concept of Social Justice Biblical?

The Apostle Paul put it plainly enough "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus". (Gal 3:2

It is the right of each person in this country to choose to follow the ethical principles that guide their personal lives religion notwithstanding. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. (4) No government or governmental agency should be allowed to interfere with persons desiring to commit to another their life.

The Founding Fathers sought to set up a just society, not a Christian theocracy.

They specifically prohibited the establishment of Christianity--or any other faith--as the religion of our nation.

Each of us Gentle Reader has within us the knowledge of the rightness or wrongness of our actions.

And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left. (Isa 30:21)

Somethings to think about Gentle Reader,  

A theocracy, Gentle Readers, is government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. Which in these uncertain times doesn't sound like a bad idea, at least the first part, but the second . . . ?

As the resident theologian and polymath at Scripture Institute it is my responsibility to think about the things that would otherwise put children to sleep.

I have noticed recently (in the past dozen or  so years) that America has fallen behind in a number of (what I would consider important areas) despite those who would like to convinced you that America is exceptional in everything!

Well Gentle Reader, I hate to be the one to break to you, and I will do it as gently as I can, But it is not true! The reason that it is not true is that so many in America have abdicated their responsibility to continue to grow beyond their own shallow interests, to dare I say it, evolve. Ask many "bible believing Christians" "Do you believe in Evolution?" And in most cases your answer will be a resounding "NO!" And if you follow that question up with a statement such as "I am a Christian, and I believe in evolution" You are immediately as at best a crack pot or at worst a heretic!

Words, Gentle Reader are our way to communicate, and evolution is one of those words that meaning has become twisted. When I speak of evolution much of the time I am referring to "a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, intellectual and economic advance".

Now then Gentle Reader, look around at America, circa 2000. Consider the concept of being peaceful. Americans are already painfully aware that violent crime is experiencing a massive upsurge in the United States. As the U.S. economy has tanked and as unemployment has skyrocketed, many Americans have found themselves becoming increasingly desperate. Hard economic times usually lead to an increase in crime, but what is happening across the U.S. now is absolutely stunning. In economically-troubled areas such as Detroit crime statistics are climbing into the stratosphere. In fact, there are many communities in the United States where it is simply not safe to go out at night anymore. Millions of Americans find themselves prisoners in their own homes as they lock themselves in their houses in an attempt to keep the crime out. The truth is that it is really hard to live the American Dream when there is a raging crime wave going on right outside your door. The truly frightening thing is that crime is almost certainly going to get even worse as economic conditions continue to deteriorate.

How do crime and evolution equate? Peacefulness would require that one would allow their neighbor to live in peace. But we have not evolved For as long as I can remember we have had WAR as a way of life.

Jeremy Black in his work "Why War happens" points out "We prefer to forget the fact, but war has played a major role in human history This is true not only of periods of killing but also of the years of so-called `peace' -- years in which the military have prepared for war, wine the rest of society has paid the costs, ranging from caring for the wounded and bereaved to dealing with the often crippling financial costs, from previous conflicts".

Christianity points to Cain and Able in the Bible And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. Christians declare

that is was SIN that caused the murder of (H)Abel from sins of the father visited upon the sin of the son. (Gen 4: 8 ) 

In Jewish teaching in a Midrash (Genesis Rabbah 22: 7) there are three opinions as to why the brothers quarreled. According to one opinion the brothers divided the world between them, one taking all the land, the other all the movables. The one who took the land ordered the other to get off his land and fly in the air. The one who took the movables ordered the other to strip naked because the clothes belonged to him. Another opinion is that the quarrel was about in whose territory the Temple was to be built.

A third opinion is that Cain had a twin sister (Genesis 4: 17 says that Cain took a wife and otherwise whom did he marry?) but Abel had two sisters born at the same time as him (i.e. they were triplets). Abel claimed both his sisters for himself but Cain wanted the additional one by his right as a first-born to have a double portion.

It is fairly obvious that the Midrash uses the original narrative as a paradigm for human conflict. Why do people engage in violence and what are the basic causes of war? One reason is disputes over land and property, another is arguments over women, and a third disagreements over religion.

In the Jewish tradition Cain is a bad character and Abel a virtuous one, but occasionally there is to be found, if not a justification of Cain's act, at least an attempt to understand it on the grounds that Cain had no experience of killing or death and must have been unaware of the seriousness of what he was doing. Cain also features as one of the biblical characters who admitted their fault and hence is a prototype of the penitent, although his repentance is sometimes described as less

than totally sincere.

Peace or war evolution or not a choice to be made I have certainly heard a number of ministers, evangelists, religionists and theologians—usually representing a particular church denomination, ministry or organization—express their own personal view about particular wars. But their views are nothing more than what they think or feel! Without exception, such religious thinkers believe that war can be "just and noble" in purpose. Also, virtually without exception, these same churchmen were part of the country that was attacked. Is it surprising that they chose to agree with the opinion of the overwhelming majority surrounding them, which was already driving the course of the country? Modern religious leaders lack the moral and spiritual strength to reflect what God commands, so they cave to national peer pressure.

However, I have heard nearly all of these same churchmen ask God—after the fact—to bless what men had already decided to do through means of war. In their appalling weakness, they have the gall to ask God to bless their sin—war!

Consider Gentle Reader, have you evolved? Mankind, in his rebellion against God (Rom. 8:7), likes to present his civilization in the best possible light. But, through the prophet Ezekiel, God states that the false prophets of the modern-day descendants of ancient Israel will declare, "Peace; and there [is] no peace" (Ezek. 13:10). The Bible shows that peace will remain elusive to those who forsake God’s ways (What I call evolution).

Similarly, nations at war also see themselves, ultimately, as part of a "peace process." They depict war as a temporary interlude to the peace

that they feel they are working toward in the only way available to them. Yet, since peace is usually followed by more war, "peace processes" inevitably become "war processes."

Consider these things until next time.

Fight back with an education!

Gentle Reader,

 Remember back in school when you said "What do I need this for... I never use that (fill in the blank) You were perhaps right... Right after advanced math was History And sure enough Your Government based on History has failed you as you have failed it.

How did the U.S. become the world's largest economy? A key part of the answer is education. Some 85% of adult Americans have at least a high school degree today, up from just 25% in 1940. Similarly, 28% have a college degree, a fivefold gain over this period. Today's U.S. workforce is the most educated in the world.

But now, for the first time ever, America's educational gains are poised to stall because of growing demographic trends. If these trends continue, the share of the U.S. workforce with high school and college degrees may not only fail to keep rising over the next 15 years but could actually decline slightly, warns a report released on Nov. 9 by the National Center for Public Policy & Higher Education, a nonprofit group based in San Jose, Calif. The key reason: As highly educated baby boomers retire, they'll be replaced by mounting numbers of young Hispanics and African Americans, who are far less likely to earn degrees.

Because workers with fewer years of education earn so much less, U.S. living standards could take a dive unless something is done, the report argues. It calculates that lower educational levels could slice inflation-adjusted per capita incomes in the U.S. by 2% by 2020. They surged over 40% from 1980 to 2000.

Not everyone is so pessimistic.  former Education Secretary Margaret Spelling argues that President Bush's 2001 education reform law, the No Child Left Behind Act, is working to lift minority education levels. "It makes me bristle when I hear people say, 'There's no way in hell we can have our children reach grade-level proficiency,"' she says.

Still, the Center's projections are especially alarming in light of the startling educational gains so many other countries are achieving. U.S. high school math and reading scores already rank below those of most of the advanced economies in Europe and Asia. Now education is exploding in countries such as China and India. There are nearly as many college students in China as in the U.S. Within a decade, the Conference Board projects, students in such countries will be just as likely as those in the U.S. and Europe to get a high school education. Given their much larger populations, that should enable them to churn out far more college graduates as well. More U.S. white-collar jobs will then be likely to move offshore, warns National Center President Patrick M. Callan. "For the U.S. economy, the implication of these trends is really stark," he says.

Callan's projections are based on the growing diversity of the U.S. population. As recently as 1980, the U.S. workforce was 82% white. By 2020, it will be just 63% white. Over this 40-year span, the share of minorities will double, to 37%, as that of Hispanic workers nearly triples, to 17%. The problem is, both Hispanics and African Americans are far less likely to earn degrees than their white counterparts. If those gaps persist, the number of Americans age 26 to 64 who don't even have a high school degree could soar by 7 million, to 31 million, by 2020. Meanwhile, although the actual number of adults with at least a college degree would grow, their share of the workforce could fall by a percentage point, to 25.5%.

STEEP SLIDE IN TEXAS

These trends aren't carved in stone, of course. Bush's No Child law is helping to lift minority kids' test scores, says Jack Jennings, president of the Center on Education Policy, a Washington think tank that studies No Child. But the gaps are still enormous. On the recently released National Assessment of Educational Progress exams, 39% of white eighth graders were proficient in reading, vs. just 15% of Hispanics and only 12% of blacks. "Given these scores, there's no way the country will reach the 100% proficiency goal" of the No Child law, predicts Jennings.

Even with No Child, backsliding already has happened in Texas, the laboratory President George W. Bush used for the law when he was governor of the state. Why? The Lone Star State's Hispanic population is exploding. Because minority students are far more likely to drop out of high school, Texas now ranks dead last among the 50 states in the percentage of adults who have a high school degree. That's down from 39th in 1990.

Similarly, Texas ranks 35th among the states in the percentage of adults who have a college degree, down from 23rd in 1990. State demographer Steve H. Murdock is telling anyone who will listen that Texas public schools will be 80% minority by 2040, up from 57% in 2000. If the education gap persists, he warns, the income of the average Texas household will fall by $6,500 by 2040, after inflation adjustments -- potentially fueling a spike in poverty, the prison population, and other social problems. "We've been very hard hit," says Murdock.

In Texas and across the country, No Child's focus on test results skirts the biggest Achilles' heel of the public schools: the growing dropout rate. Nationally, the on-time high school graduation rate is lower now than it was in 1983, when the report A Nation at Risk first sounded the alarm about the nation's failing schools, says Michael Cohen, president of Achieve Inc., a nonprofit school standards group created by governors and business leaders.

In 2002 just 68% of high school students graduated four years after they started ninth grade. That's down from 75% in the early 1980s. True, many later earn a general educational development degree. But the GED has never been the same as a high school diploma. Once students quit school, it's difficult for them to make it into college, says Thomas G. Mortenson, head of Postsecondary Education Opportunity, a higher education newsletter.

Minority students who do get through high school face even greater obstacles in earning a bachelor's degree. Because many come from low-income families, they have been hit especially hard by the shift in student financial aid policy away from need-based grants toward loans and merit scholarships that favor the middle class. So just 10% of students from the bottom quartile of family income brackets earn a BA by the time they're 24, figures Mortenson, vs. 81% of those from the top quartile. "We are not dealing with the changing demography of the country," he says.

How can the trends be reversed? Jennings argues that the U.S. must push harder to get better teachers into poorer schools. States must also work far harder to keep students from dropping out of high school even as they raise graduation requirements. Today, only about a third of high school grads are prepared for college, estimates Achieve's Cohen. Many need remedial courses, a key reason why fewer than half of those who begin college earn a BA, says Cohen, whose group is working with 22 states to raise their high school graduation requirements. And more generous financial aid could make it easier for low-income students to go to college.

The prospects for U.S. education levels are a lot like global warming. Since erosion occurs gradually, it's easy to ignore. But if the U.S. doesn't pay more attention, everything from its competitiveness to its standard of living could sink.

 But now Gentle reader, we have allowed the less educated in our government to rule over us. We have one of the brightest Presidents in History. But many hate him Why? Because they don't understand... What a shame that more people didn't learn when they were in school...

We have those who will do anything to keep you ignorant Are you going to sit by and allow it to continue?.  I for one am going to stand up and praise education. That's you way out Gentle reader, that and to get involved in your Government, learn from history (remember Rome) or repeat it!

Dear Gentle reader,

America has witnessed the proliferation of gun-happy laws in recent years, especially laws making it easy for citizens to carry concealed handguns, and the now widely discussed “stand your ground” laws. The spread of such legislation would lead you to believe that Americans are fonder of guns than ever before, but in fact fewer citizens own firearms now than in the 1960s. Why have America’s gun laws loosened even as guns themselves decline in popularity?

Behold the political power of the National Rifle Association. The gun lobby’s muscle in Washington is famous. But critics often overlook the NRA’s motivations. There are more than Second Amendment principles at stake. The NRA confronts an existential threat to its recruitment base: declining gun ownership and use among Americans.

 

Gentle Readers,

Things do not just happen by accident. The fact that big banks foreclosed on your home, you lost your job of 20 years, you are hearing people (nay sycophants, like Rush Limpballs, or Sham Hanity (Shanty Irish by all accounts) bought and paid for by the wonderful people who would restrict your right to vote (Voter ID laws) and eliminating Unions in your state (the right to bargain for wages and safety). And then we have the stand your ground laws which gives those who so decide the right to shoot you down in cold blood! All brought to you by American Legislative Exchange Council backed by those whose middle name spells GREED!!!

You see Gentle Reader, The bying of America is easy once you know how. Buy Politicians (better still a whole party their cheap) Make up laws benefitting you and your friends (your not in this group Gentle Reader)

 You need to learn these facts Gentle reader Founded in the early 1970s to promote   personal Corporate  policies at the state level, the American Legislative Exchange Council's focus has shifted to favor the promotion of state legislation and regulation that benefits its corporate sponsors. A fact that should come as no surprise given its funding by foundations and corporate membership fees ranging from $5000 to $50,000. The council boasts a large clearinghouse of research, model bills, and legislative strategies to promote its agenda.

　

Hundreds of ALEC’s model bills and resolutions bear traces of Koch DNA: raw ideas that were once at the fringes but that have been carved into "mainstream" policy through the wealth and will of Charles and David Koch. Of all the Kochs’ investments in right-wing organizations, ALEC provides some of the best returns: it gives the Kochs a way to make their brand of free-market fundamentalism legally binding.

No one knows how much the Kochs have given ALEC in total, but the amount likely exceeds $1 million—not including a half-million loaned to ALEC when the group was floundering. ALEC gave the Kochs its Adam Smith Free Enterprise Award, and Koch Industries has been one of the select members of ALEC’s corporate board for almost twenty years. The company’s top lobbyist was once ALEC’s chairman. As a result, the Kochs have shaped legislation touching every state in the country. Like ideological venture capitalists, the Kochs have used ALEC as a way to invest in radical ideas and fertilize them with tons of cash.

Take environmental protections. The Kochs have a penchant for paying their way out of serious violations and coming out ahead. Helped by Koch Industries’ lobbying efforts, one of the first measures George W. Bush signed into law as governor of Texas was an ALEC model bill giving corporations immunity from penalties if they tell regulators about their own violation of environmental rules. Dozens of other ALEC bills would limit environmental regulations or litigation in ways that would benefit Koch.

ALEC’s model legislation reflects parts of the Kochs’ agenda that have little to do with oil profits. Long before ALEC started pushing taxpayer-subsidized school vouchers, for example, the Koch fortune was already underwriting attacks on public education. David Koch helped inject the idea of privatizing public schools into the national debate as a candidate for vice president in 1980. A cornerstone of the Libertarian Party platform, which he bankrolled, was the call for "educational tax credits to encourage alternatives to public education," a plan to the right of Ronald Reagan. Several pieces of ALEC’s model legislation echo this plan.

The Kochs’ mistrust of public education can be traced to their father, Fred, who ranted and raved that the National Education Association was a communist group and public-school books were filled with "communist propaganda," paranoia that extended to all unions, President Eisenhower and the "pro-communist" Supreme Court. Such redbaiting might be ancient history if fifty years later David were not calling President Obama a "hard-core socialist" who is "scary."

The Kochs have not just multiplied the wealth of their dad; they’ve repackaged and amplified his worldview. David’s latest venture, Americans for Prosperity, subsidizes the Tea Party movement, which repeats this "socialist" smear. Charles is a member of the exclusive Mount Pelerin Society, inspired by Frederic von Hayek’s antisocialist polemic The Road to Serfdom. Through the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, the Institute for Humane Studies administers the Hayek Fund for Scholars and sister programs to fund academics and staffers for like-minded groups across the country. "Charles G. Koch Fellows" and interns stock ALEC, and have gone on to direct ALEC task forces.

Another David Koch project, Citizens for a Sound Economy—which launched the effort to repeal Glass-Steagall protections keeping banks from gambling in securities—helped fuel the fight for "free trade," an unpopular policy in the 1980s. The North American Free Trade Agreement passed with help from CSE and its corporate allies. ALEC resolutions for state legislators have long supported such trade agreements in the face of local concerns about job losses, and today the Koch free-market fantasy is reflected in ALEC’s support for free trade pacts with Korea, Georgia, Colombia and other countries. On just about every issue taken on by Koch’s CSE, ALEC has provided legislative tools to carry them through to state legislatures, from privatizing "federal and state services and assets," as CSE put it, to blocking common-sense caps on unlimited credit card interest rates.

ALEC and the Kochs often pursue parallel tracks. Just as ALEC "educates" legislators, Koch funding has helped "tutor" hundreds of judges with all-expenses-paid junkets at fancy resorts, where they learn about the "free market" impact of their rulings. But ALEC also operates like an arm of the Koch agenda, circulating bills that make their vision of the world concrete. For a mere $25,000 a year, Koch Industries sits as an "equal" board member with state legislators, influencing bills that serve as a wish list for its financial or ideological interests.

It’s a pittance for the Kochs but far out of the reach of working Americans. Ordinary citizens rely on our elected representatives’ efforts to restore what’s left of the American Dream. But through ALEC, billionaire industrialists are purchasing a version that seems like a real nightmare for most Americans.

Remember when you said ''I'll go to church when hell freezes over"? (slightly used pre published blog Sept 2000) 

Gentle family,

Marti, and I were talking last night after viewing a stirring episode of Law and Order followed by a theologian on the Catholic channel ETWN [ Eternal Word Television Network ] and Marti turned to me, pointed her finger ( you know the one I mean and said in her best declarative sentence voice "He's just like you"! To which I replied "I AM NOT" [ whispering, you can tell I was not listening or at best I would have kept my mouth shout] I drew myself up to all of three feet ( remember I was sitting down at the time) and said "I am a Biblical Gestalt teacher" Now I was pretty sure I knew what that meant I had received notice earlier that I would be receiving the Doctor of Biblical Philology degree [ The study of linguistics] Well, I know when I use a word like [Gestalt] I will stir up controversy that I am exercising my Spiritual gift of harassment! "Whats that" she asks half afraid I might actually answer and we're off on a marathon explanation ( just like this one). You see Gentle reader, Preachers are like fire horses or race horses. They hear a bell and that sends them running for all their worth. "Well' I said, "Gestalt teaching is like ( pausing for dramatic effect, careful to remember that I was sitting down and could not fall off the sofa) Lasagna!" I stop here for a sip of wonderful Irish coffee and to enjoy those who are already saying "I knew I should have not stayed in bed but gone to church" You see there are layers in Lasagna one layer does not make a Lasagna not two but several [ 7 I think?]

"You see Gestalt teaching has layers one doesn't make it complete but several one on top of another on top of another. What may seen like a mess becomes when eaten a wonderful taste delight! [As I hope my teaching becomes like Lasagna] Take for example the Book of Kells at Trinity College in Dublin. The Book of Kells is not simply a religious manuscript. True, it contains the four gospels of Mark, Mathew, Luke and John and that was the sole original purpose of the book. But its age and its design, although damaged, allow us a glorious glimpse into the art and style of ancient Ireland. The book is, quite simply, considered a crowning glory of the Celtic art form, and possibly one of the most important treasures of Western Europe What appears to be simple decoration is in fact the Gospel of the New Testament

Which reminds me of Why God Never Received Tenure at Any University He had only one major publication. It was in Hebrew. It had no references. It wasn't published in a refereed journal. Some even doubt he wrote it himself. It may be true that he created the world, but what has he done since then? His cooperative efforts have been quite limited. The scientific community has had a hard time replicating his results. He never applied to the Ethics Board for permission to use human subjects. When one experiment went awry he tried to cover it up by drowning the subjects. When subjects didn't behave as predicted, he deleted them from the sample. He rarely came to class, just told students to read the Book. Some say he had his son teach the class. He expelled his first two students for learning. Although there were only ten requirements, most students failed his tests. His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountain top.

Now then Gentle Reader, don't you wish you had gone to church?

Love,

Denis

Gentle Readers,

he press, in theory, is supposed to safeguard democratic principles. During a parliamentary debate in 1787, Edmund Burke supposedly referred to the press corps reporting the activities of the House of Commons as the Fourth Estate. Hypothetically, the press was the champion of the public.

According to its supporters, the Fourth Estate acted as a mediator between the public and the elite. Journalists listened to and recorded the activities of those with power. An enthusiastic John Dewey believed that the public was capable of understanding and discussing policies and should be part of the public vetting process. Thus, the press would provide a forum where the people could weigh the consequences of policies being considered by those who governed.

Hence, the journalist's foremost duty was to tell the truth. But, over the years there has been an erosion of the public trust in the Fourth Estate, as the media has been monopolized by those President Franklin Roosevelt in 1936 called "economic royalists" that control the country.

President Roosevelt summed up this process of the monopolization of society saying, "New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital - all undreamed of by the Fathers - the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service."

The Arizona media is the worst example of an institution abandoning its mission to educate the public. On the current immigration crisis, the media's coverage of SB 1070 has been spotty both inside and outside the state. Regarding HB 2281 that outlaws ethnic studies, the media has been mute, with the news either distorted or not reported.

I learned recently from two reporters that new editors around the state had directed their staffs not to cover opposition to the laws. For example, coverage of civil disobedience by students has gone unreported.

In order to shine a bright light on what is happening, I contacted several Chicano journalists. A respected journalism professor wrote of Arizona: "As you well document and others have also, in recent years Latinos have been unfairly targeted, scapegoated and vilified by much of the general audience media, not just the usual right wing targets. This isn't the first time, as we both know from our long work in this area. But at a time when the 'mainstream' media are steadily losing audiences, they seem to think they can build a more credible news report by either ignoring or misrepresenting the largest and fastest growing segment of the population...."

The problem in Arizona, and indeed in most of the country, is nothing new - it is systemic. As the traffic of undocumented Mexicans and others increased through southern Arizona in the 1980s and 1990s due to federal policy changes, the issue of immigration was politicized. Border Patrol sweeps in El Paso and San Diego channeled the traffic of undocumented Mexicans through southern Arizona, forcing many to brave the hazardous desert of southern Arizona. In this atmosphere, many of the ranchers took the law into their own hands: hunting down Mexicans and entreating others to join them in the hunt.

Beside herself, Professor Guadalupe Castillo of Pima College asked a New York Times reporter in 1980 why the national media was so silent. He responded, "The border is a Third World country, and people just don't give a damn."

The silence of the press encouraged Patrick Hanigan, his brother Thomas, and their father George, in August of 1976 to round up three undocumented workers who crossed their ranch, which fronted the Mexican border west of Douglas, Arizona. The Hanigans tortured them, using hot pokers, cigarettes and knives, and fired a shotgun filled with bird shot at them. The ordeal lasted several hours before the Hanigans sent the three workers naked and bleeding back across the border.

An all-white jury acquitted Patrick and Thomas Hanigan in 1977 of fourteen counts of assault, kidnapping and other felonies. Their father died before the trial. A public outcry led by Chicano organizations forced the Jimmy Carter administration to try the Hanigans on civil rights violations in 1981. A federal jury found Patrick guilty. Thomas, because of his young age, was acquitted. At least fifteen killings and more than 150 incidents of alleged brutality occurred against Mexicans in Arizona alone during the 1970s.

In 1981, another all-white jury in Arizona state court found a former rancher, W.M. Burris Jr., 28, guilty of the unlawful imprisonment and aggravated assault of a Mexican farm worker. Burris suspected his employee of stealing, so he chained the worker around the neck. The jury, however, found him not guilty of the more serious charge of unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping.

The most obnoxious wanna-be ranger was Roger Barnett, who boasted that he made thousands of arrests of Mexican migrants on "his ranch." Barnett and his followers sent out a racist flyer inviting white supremacist groups to come help them "hunt" Mexican "aliens."

During these three decades a reasonable person would have expected the Arizona media to inform Arizonans about civil behavior. Instead, they had been intimidated by those who shouted the loudest. They had betrayed their public trust and not had the courage of their convictions.

Edward R. Murrow must be turning over in his grave. The media has abrogated any duty to objectively inform the public. For instance, Arizona just passed a law allowing almost any adult to carry a concealed or unconcealed weapon for any reason - with or without a permit. The media has refused to take a position.

However, I wonder what the position of the media would be if Mexicans, Latinos and African-Americans started showing up at rallies with guns strapped to their waists?

Occasionally the media gets it right. Recently, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch advocated the securing of the border, but also called for providing a path to legal status for all undocumented immigrants. Neither is a liberal, but they recognized good economic policy. The news conference was mentioned by the press and then dropped; the electronic medic was even less probative.

Clearly the Fourth Estate is no longer a factor in American life. It does not want to offend the Burrises and Barnetts of Arizona. Hence, as Roosevelt foresaw, "... the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service," with the media serving clients and investors.

"And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none."  (Eze 22:30)

 

"Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind."

I won’t lie to you . . . .or for you! Dear Gentle Readers, I took a wee survey to ask this burning question “As a Christian, do we have an obligation to speak up or out when we see corruption which if left unchecked could ruin our beloved America”. These are the themes that Saint Augustine said are ‘ever ancient, ever new’: the connection between religion and politics, between spiritual faith and temporal power, between our best and our worst instincts. I examined the Sacred Writ to find my answer to this question, The words of Christ “My kingdom is not of this world” The words of Paul, “And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; “(2Ti 2:24-25). I looked to the wisdom of Salomon “Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.”(Ecc 1:2). "Vanity," in Ecclesiastes, and usually in Scripture, means, not foolish pride, but the emptiness in final result of all life apart from God. It is to be born, to toil, to suffer, to experience some transitory joy, which is as nothing in view of eternity, to leave it all, and to die. So what I am I to do? Allow things that I observe around us to go unchecked? Do we Christians allow evil men to gain at the expense of others within the range of our voice? Or do we become like the watchman in Ezekiel who does not warn his people?

A countryman of mine John Dominic Crossan wrote an excellent wee book called “God & Empire- Jesus against Rome, then and now in which he points out that Rome acted as a protector for the people and communities. They were civilized. But it was a two fold trap. Both biological and social. The biological trap was the dilemma of the need or food, the problem of pollution and the restraint of the population. The social trap even more concerned the violence of hierarchy, oppression and the threat of war. Ronald Wright in his book “A Short History of Progress” points out that while “all civilization are cultures not all cultures are civilizations. All civilizations become hierarchical; and the upward concentration of wealth ensures there will never be enough to go around.

I intend to show how this phenomena works in America through those who hate, use violence and the uninformed to do their bidding, and the greed that propels them. So dear gentle reader be prepared for me to show how this works and I will show you how these work their will on an unsuspecting and uninformed public and then how you can save your country from being bought and sold. What you do with this information will be up to your own moral sensibilities. For this believer in the Radical One called the Christ I will speak up and out against those who lie, cheat and steal and proclaim “greed is good”

Stay tuned.....

Denis

Gentle Readers,

 I asked this question of my colleagues " Should a Christian speak out against evil  e.g. (political, moral etc. ) in America?"' Here is one response you might consider.

Denis  

 

We have the obligation to be heralds of righteousness and to speak out against wickedness. However, I do not believe that we have the obligation to emplace lobbyists in Washington that will impose Christian morals via legislation. Joseph did not "protest" against Pharaoh, the injustice he experienced, and his godlike mindset, instead he impacted Pharoah's life and was appointed as his right hand man. Christ, more than anyone on earth, had every right to protest against the injustice he experienced and to demand justice. He could have a legion of angels come to his aid, instead he submitted to the authorities in accordance with God's will. We submit as long as the government is not violating our conscience, which is should be controlled by the Holy Spirit, which says love of God and love of your neighbor are what God commands of us.

I used to be GOP. I believed that my party was "righteous" and for "the cause". Yet I became confused as to why we relished the thought of going to war to "smite down our enemies". I believe we should have killed Bin Laden, but then this just snowballed into an outright war against Iraq and our occupation of other Muslim countries all in the name of "American Security". We bombed Libya because we felt we were helping them, and we sent aid to Egypt to help overthrow their government, and now both countries have pro-Islamic, pro-Sharia Law, and Anti-American leadership taking over. War is a necessary evil, yes, but it should be the last resort and it should only happen when it has been legally declared through a vote in congress. This was not the case. Yet the GOP is standing behind this wickedness. We endorse Israel, a country who has every right to defend herself against her enemies, yet also a country who makes it mandatory that one embrace a specific religion (Judaism) just be considered a citizen. We would not accept this in this country, why do we stay silent about this when our "allies" do this? Also, there are many Christian Palestinians who are suffering because they are not Jewish so they are not citizens of Israel and they are treated like enemies of the state. While I will agree that much of so called "Palestinian suffering" is fabricated, there are still those who do not get government aid because they are not Israeli.

It appears that Christians have taken political sides over "Biblical" sides. This is the biggest problem in our country. African Americans vote Democrat in large numbers, yet Biblically and oftentimes socially they are 100% conservative. Many Christians who vote Republican are conservative yet when their party shows a disregard for the poor or a thirst for war and money, they overlook these things. We have chosen political parties over the Word of God.

Our obligation is to speak out against wickedness wherever it is.

Posted by Xavier Rivera  Thank you Xavier