My quote of the day for July 4th will come from Francois-Marie Arouet, known to most of us by his most popular pseudonym, Voltaire. By the way, he had 174 pseudonyms. Why would an 18th-century Frenchman be an appropriate quote of the day for the Fourth, you may ask?
July 4th in the U.S. is a day of extraordinary expressions of patriotism mixed with a lot of explosives (fireworks--invented by the Chinese). This, moreover, is often mixed with religious sentiments. "God bless America" is only the most quotidian of these. Often these are mixed with hyper-religiosity, and, at times, religion and patriotism mix so inextricably that in some quarters showing lagging patriotism apparently indicates religious doubt or backsliding. How dare one say that the "founding fathers" were not dedicated Christians of the same ilk of evangelical Christianity today? So, the mixture of patriotism and religion follows a wide range of sentiment from almost innocuous to ridiculous. Yes, many of the founders were Christians, but sometimes in almost the widest usage of the term. Many of the "big names" were Deists--those who believed that God, as the great "watchmaker," basically created the world (the intricate watch), whose ticking followed the rules laid down by God--the laws of Nature (yes, with a capital "N"). Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin--Deists. George Washington, too, never really spoke of a personal God either, but preferred to speak of "Providence."
These people, and subsequent generations of U.S. citizens, have fought, some living and others dying, for "liberty." "Give me liberty or give me death," right? They fought against "tyranny." But who gives "liberty" and who is the "tyrant" is a matter of point of view. Ironically, many of the things we associate with "freedom," such as eradication of the tyranny of slavery, occurred in England before the U.S. after the U.S. broke away from England. Today, who is the tyrant and who is free? Who has freedom? When the Patriot Act chips away at the Bill of Rights, it appears to mock so much of what we are celebrating. In 1776, we declared Independence from a Christian Empire (the British Empire) only to create one ourselves--the "wall of separation" between Church and State that Jefferson wrote about has been difficult to maintain--it crumbles sometimes, and sometimes is patched back up. It was in part the mixture of religion and politics, the state-sponsored religiosity that many tried to escape in the New World.
It was against such things, the tyranny of the inextricable links between government and the church, laws in the church's interest or more in accordance with church doctrine than legal principles derived from a conception of a just society as imagined by the philosophes of the 18th century (those such as Rousseau, Locke, Jefferson, and their most famous exemplar, Voltaire) that Voltaire, with whom Ben Franklin shared a mutual admiration, proclaimed a clarion call:
"Ecrasez l'infame"
"Ecrasez l'infame" resounded throughout the 18th century and perhaps inspired the "founding fathers." But when spoken today, who represents "l'infame"? It is no longer George III... At least those who a couple centuries ago attempted "to erase infamy" gave us the tools, the checks and balances, to work through our own "l'infame," but we must choose to use them and in our erasing not end up erasing those tools instead of the infamy.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Catholic Aid for an Abortion?
From the New York Times:
By IAN URBINA
Published: July 3, 2008
The Roman Catholic bishop of Richmond, Va., apologized this week after workers from a Catholic organization helped a teenager in its care have an abortion.
“I join my sadness to yours at the loss of the life of an unborn child whose teenage mother was in the foster care of Commonwealth Catholic Charities,” said Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo in a letter published on Monday in The Catholic Virginian. “Obviously, respect for the life of the unborn is a basic tenet of our Catholic faith and morality.”
“I express my profound apology for the loss of the life of one of the most vulnerable among us,” the bishop added.
The situation involved a 16-year-old Guatemalan, who church officials said already had one child and wanted to end her pregnancy, said Stephen S. Neill, a spokesman for the bishop.
The girl was being cared for by a program that helps illegal immigrant children in the country without guardians obtain foster care, Mr. Neill said. She received the abortion in January after a staff member of Commonwealth Catholic Charities signed a consent form and after a volunteer drove her to the facility, he said.
Four staff members were fired in March in connection with the case, Mr. Neill said.
Joanne D. Nattrass, executive director of Commonwealth Catholic Charities, said in a statement on Tuesday that she had been told on the afternoon of Jan. 17 that the girl was scheduled to have an abortion the next morning. Ms. Nattrass said that she had notified Bishop DiLorenzo that day and that he had said, “I forbid this to happen.” Based on incorrect information provided to Ms. Nattrass, the bishop was told that the abortion could not be stopped, the statement said.
“That information included that there was nothing Catholic Charities and the Catholic Diocese of Richmond could do to affect the outcome,” Paula Ritter, a spokeswoman for Ms. Nattrass, said in an e-mail message.
Neither agency nor diocesan money was used to pay for the abortion, Mr. Neill said.
A spokesman for the United States Department of Health and Human Services said that in April the department asked its inspector general to investigate whether the charity or the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops had violated state and federal laws. The conference receives $7.6 million a year in federal money, and Commonwealth Catholic Charities is a subcontractor of the bishops’ conference, the spokesman said.
Federal law forbids the use of federal money to pay for abortions, with exceptions for rape, incest or threats to the life of the pregnant woman. Virginia law requires parental consent for an abortion for a girl under 18.
Mr. Neill said neither the bishop nor Ms. Nattrass had been contacted directly by federal officials.
This is a difficult case. It seems odd that a Bishop would "forbid" something to happen, as if it were any of his business? I would grate if an institution, like a church, forbade me to do something rather than just offering advice for something in which the ultimate decision is mine. But this is more complicated. Firstly, the church, in general, seems to be doing a beneficial thing by having this foster service to begin with, giving these minors a place to go. And if the "church" as an institution is technically the foster parent of this 16-year-old, and the law states that a parental guardian must give permission for an abortion for children under 18, then this creates an odd situation. The institution seems more worried about whether or not any federal laws were broken rather than the well-being of their ward. I do wonder if they could circumvent this by giving permission, but using private money from those who work for the foster service, to pay for the procedure. It that case, it is merely (yes, just "merely") the Catholic Church's general position on abortion that would stand in the way. Yet, in the end, was there in this case "Catholic Aid for an Abortion" as the NYTimes headline runs, or just a few people who belong to a Catholic organization individually (and not in their Catholicness, but in the interests of their ward) provide aid for this child? But, in keeping with my previous post, the real question is, WWFSMD?
By IAN URBINA
Published: July 3, 2008
The Roman Catholic bishop of Richmond, Va., apologized this week after workers from a Catholic organization helped a teenager in its care have an abortion.
“I join my sadness to yours at the loss of the life of an unborn child whose teenage mother was in the foster care of Commonwealth Catholic Charities,” said Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo in a letter published on Monday in The Catholic Virginian. “Obviously, respect for the life of the unborn is a basic tenet of our Catholic faith and morality.”
“I express my profound apology for the loss of the life of one of the most vulnerable among us,” the bishop added.
The situation involved a 16-year-old Guatemalan, who church officials said already had one child and wanted to end her pregnancy, said Stephen S. Neill, a spokesman for the bishop.
The girl was being cared for by a program that helps illegal immigrant children in the country without guardians obtain foster care, Mr. Neill said. She received the abortion in January after a staff member of Commonwealth Catholic Charities signed a consent form and after a volunteer drove her to the facility, he said.
Four staff members were fired in March in connection with the case, Mr. Neill said.
Joanne D. Nattrass, executive director of Commonwealth Catholic Charities, said in a statement on Tuesday that she had been told on the afternoon of Jan. 17 that the girl was scheduled to have an abortion the next morning. Ms. Nattrass said that she had notified Bishop DiLorenzo that day and that he had said, “I forbid this to happen.” Based on incorrect information provided to Ms. Nattrass, the bishop was told that the abortion could not be stopped, the statement said.
“That information included that there was nothing Catholic Charities and the Catholic Diocese of Richmond could do to affect the outcome,” Paula Ritter, a spokeswoman for Ms. Nattrass, said in an e-mail message.
Neither agency nor diocesan money was used to pay for the abortion, Mr. Neill said.
A spokesman for the United States Department of Health and Human Services said that in April the department asked its inspector general to investigate whether the charity or the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops had violated state and federal laws. The conference receives $7.6 million a year in federal money, and Commonwealth Catholic Charities is a subcontractor of the bishops’ conference, the spokesman said.
Federal law forbids the use of federal money to pay for abortions, with exceptions for rape, incest or threats to the life of the pregnant woman. Virginia law requires parental consent for an abortion for a girl under 18.
Mr. Neill said neither the bishop nor Ms. Nattrass had been contacted directly by federal officials.
This is a difficult case. It seems odd that a Bishop would "forbid" something to happen, as if it were any of his business? I would grate if an institution, like a church, forbade me to do something rather than just offering advice for something in which the ultimate decision is mine. But this is more complicated. Firstly, the church, in general, seems to be doing a beneficial thing by having this foster service to begin with, giving these minors a place to go. And if the "church" as an institution is technically the foster parent of this 16-year-old, and the law states that a parental guardian must give permission for an abortion for children under 18, then this creates an odd situation. The institution seems more worried about whether or not any federal laws were broken rather than the well-being of their ward. I do wonder if they could circumvent this by giving permission, but using private money from those who work for the foster service, to pay for the procedure. It that case, it is merely (yes, just "merely") the Catholic Church's general position on abortion that would stand in the way. Yet, in the end, was there in this case "Catholic Aid for an Abortion" as the NYTimes headline runs, or just a few people who belong to a Catholic organization individually (and not in their Catholicness, but in the interests of their ward) provide aid for this child? But, in keeping with my previous post, the real question is, WWFSMD?
WWFSMD?
How did I not know about this website for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
http://www.venganza.org/
Have a look...their merchandise and their gospel can be bought on Amazon.
http://www.venganza.org/
Have a look...their merchandise and their gospel can be bought on Amazon.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Another Quote from "The English Patient": On the Nation-State
"We were German, English, Hungarian, African--all of us insignificant to them. Gradually we became nationless. I came to hate nations. We are deformed by nation-states."
Michael Ondaatje, The English Patient, 138.
Speaking of which, has anyone read Spivak and Butler's co-written book, Who Sings the Nation-State? If so, how is it?
Michael Ondaatje, The English Patient, 138.
Speaking of which, has anyone read Spivak and Butler's co-written book, Who Sings the Nation-State? If so, how is it?
Quote of the Day: A Reading Lesson from "The English Patient"
The book, The English Patient, is interesting for someone in my position if, for nothing else, its emphatically explicit interrelationships Herodotus' Histories. While reading through it, in a section about Rudyard Kipling, one reads a lesson on reading, or the art of reading, a lesson I need to recall from time to time and hopefully will convey to my students next year:
"Read him slowly, dear girl, you must read Kipling slowly. Watch carefully where the commas fall so you can discover the natural pauses. He is a writer who used pen and ink. He looked up from the page a lot, I believe, stared through his window and listened to birds, as most writers who are alone do. Some do not know the names of birds, though he did. Your eye is too quick and North American. Think about the speed of his pen. What an appalling, barnacled old first paragraph it is otherwise."
Michael Ondaatje, The English Patient, 94.
May your own readings dwell on the pauses, fully inhabiting the text so you can hear the chirping birds the author listened to when applying ink to paper.
"Read him slowly, dear girl, you must read Kipling slowly. Watch carefully where the commas fall so you can discover the natural pauses. He is a writer who used pen and ink. He looked up from the page a lot, I believe, stared through his window and listened to birds, as most writers who are alone do. Some do not know the names of birds, though he did. Your eye is too quick and North American. Think about the speed of his pen. What an appalling, barnacled old first paragraph it is otherwise."
Michael Ondaatje, The English Patient, 94.
May your own readings dwell on the pauses, fully inhabiting the text so you can hear the chirping birds the author listened to when applying ink to paper.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Obama Courting Evangelicals with "Faith-Based" Initiatives
As the general election begins in earnest, Obama appears to be moving to the center...or further... I am almost convinced that due to courting swing voters, the parties will eventually trade sides on a lot of issues...
So, in a recent AP article, Obama says that he had been "tagged" as being on the left, but these positions that he is now revealing to the public have been long-held. What are these positions? They have to do with guns (n.b. the recent Supreme Court decision on the 2nd Amendment), government surveillance, and capital punishment. If he was "tagged" as a liberal before and he is trying to move to the center, you can just guess what he is saying about these issues. Evidently, he's also taken to quoting Reagan. These are all "centrist" positions...or, perhaps, conservative, but what will help him with Evangelicals is that he is saying that he supports faith-based initiatives, taking a page out of G. W. Bush's playbook. Forgive me for quoting the article at length:
"On Tuesday, touring Presbyterian Church-based social services facility, the Democratic senator said he would get religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty efforts if elected.
"We need an all-hands-on-deck approach," he said at Eastside Community Ministry.
"The event was part of a series leading into Friday's Fourth of July holiday aimed at reassuring skeptical voters and shifting away from being stamped as part of the Democratic Party's most liberal wing.
"He said the connection of religion and public service was nothing new in his personal life.
Obama showed he was comfortable using the kind of language that is familiar in evangelical churches and Bible studies by calling his faith "a personal commitment to Christ." He said that his time as a community organizer in decimated Chicago neighborhoods, supported in part by a Catholic group, brought him to a deeper faith and also convinced him that faith is useless without works.
""While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work," he declared.
"His talk on faith in the battleground state of Ohio came a day after a speech on patriotism in Missouri, another November election battleground. Wednesday, he travels to Colorado Springs, Colo., a hub of conservative Christian organizations, for a speech focused on service."
The rest of the article goes on to things I've already posted about: problems with his former pastor, his relationship to Islam, issues he supports that Evangelicals find hard to swallow (being pro-life and supporting gay marriage), but how environmental evangelicals may support him, etc. And then stating the obvious--by moving to center (on the aforementioned issues of gun control, capital punishment, government surveillance, and faith-based initiatives), he will upset much of his base. Nonetheless, I highly doubt they will abandon him for McCain--for Obama's sake, let's just hope a third-party candidate from the Green party doesn't move in. But, I think the U.S. electorate has learned its lesson on third-party spoilers.
So, in a recent AP article, Obama says that he had been "tagged" as being on the left, but these positions that he is now revealing to the public have been long-held. What are these positions? They have to do with guns (n.b. the recent Supreme Court decision on the 2nd Amendment), government surveillance, and capital punishment. If he was "tagged" as a liberal before and he is trying to move to the center, you can just guess what he is saying about these issues. Evidently, he's also taken to quoting Reagan. These are all "centrist" positions...or, perhaps, conservative, but what will help him with Evangelicals is that he is saying that he supports faith-based initiatives, taking a page out of G. W. Bush's playbook. Forgive me for quoting the article at length:
"On Tuesday, touring Presbyterian Church-based social services facility, the Democratic senator said he would get religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty efforts if elected.
"We need an all-hands-on-deck approach," he said at Eastside Community Ministry.
"The event was part of a series leading into Friday's Fourth of July holiday aimed at reassuring skeptical voters and shifting away from being stamped as part of the Democratic Party's most liberal wing.
"He said the connection of religion and public service was nothing new in his personal life.
Obama showed he was comfortable using the kind of language that is familiar in evangelical churches and Bible studies by calling his faith "a personal commitment to Christ." He said that his time as a community organizer in decimated Chicago neighborhoods, supported in part by a Catholic group, brought him to a deeper faith and also convinced him that faith is useless without works.
""While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work," he declared.
"His talk on faith in the battleground state of Ohio came a day after a speech on patriotism in Missouri, another November election battleground. Wednesday, he travels to Colorado Springs, Colo., a hub of conservative Christian organizations, for a speech focused on service."
The rest of the article goes on to things I've already posted about: problems with his former pastor, his relationship to Islam, issues he supports that Evangelicals find hard to swallow (being pro-life and supporting gay marriage), but how environmental evangelicals may support him, etc. And then stating the obvious--by moving to center (on the aforementioned issues of gun control, capital punishment, government surveillance, and faith-based initiatives), he will upset much of his base. Nonetheless, I highly doubt they will abandon him for McCain--for Obama's sake, let's just hope a third-party candidate from the Green party doesn't move in. But, I think the U.S. electorate has learned its lesson on third-party spoilers.
Trivial Pursuit after Trivial Pursuit, part II
A while back, I posted on a fruitless journey throughout NYC, seeking a non-children's version of Trivial Pursuit.
Since then, after noting how much they are worth on eBay and Amazon (quite a bit), my mother has been searching for them at garage sales. Growing up, we've always had one (sometimes two) garage sales a year, and then we would go to a few occasionally, but lately it has become my mom's hobby. She gets the paper on Thursday when they are being advertised for the weekend, finds the ones she wants to go to, then goes online to find where they are all located, and maps the route. This may be more than a hobby, perhaps a passion, but not yet an addiction--she claims she can stop at any time! In any case, this almost addiction is working out for me. She found a 1981 Genus edition for $2. Playing it is an interesting exercise for a historian, since a lot of the answers are out of date. But trying to settle into a 1981 mentality, trying to think about what was only knowable at the time, and trying to answer accordingly, despite your knowledge of the intervening two and a half decades, is a challenging and, I think, a fun exercise. In a way, this is what I try to do when studying antiquity. So, I found the exercise fun, even though I lost. My brother-in-law ended up winning when we played.
Last weekend, I decided to would go with my mom on her garage sale run, and I, too, was lucky enough to find a Trivial Pursuit for $2, this one being a 2002 20-year anniversary edition. This originally baffled me, because if I had the 1981 copyrighted edition, how could the one from 2002 be the 20-year anniversary? They are 21 years apart! But I discovered that the original version was not released to stores until 1982. I actually thought the game was much older than this, but considering that it has been around nearly my entire life it is easy to think it is timeless. The questions were much more up-to-date, but I oddly found them a bit more difficult than the original edition.
And then today I was in a Target store in Illinois, and there before my eyes was a 2007 edition of Trivial Pursuit. It is sort of a greatest hits edition, containing a set of questions from the 80's edition, the 90's edition, and Pop Culture 2 edition. You get two dice, one tells how far to move, and the other indicates from which edition your question card will be drawn. And it was about $25, which, actually, is not bad. Original editions, like the 2-dollar one my mom found on a garage sale are going for much more! I considered buying it, but then I thought I am already lugging a Trivial Pursuit box back to NYC with me, and I found this at Target! We had looked in a Target during our original pursuit a couple weeks ago! There were many gaps in the board game section, however, and one of them probably was where this three-way Trivial Pursuit was. So, I decided that we just went to the wrong Target, and if we really want to find it, we can find it at another Target in NYC.
Since then, after noting how much they are worth on eBay and Amazon (quite a bit), my mother has been searching for them at garage sales. Growing up, we've always had one (sometimes two) garage sales a year, and then we would go to a few occasionally, but lately it has become my mom's hobby. She gets the paper on Thursday when they are being advertised for the weekend, finds the ones she wants to go to, then goes online to find where they are all located, and maps the route. This may be more than a hobby, perhaps a passion, but not yet an addiction--she claims she can stop at any time! In any case, this almost addiction is working out for me. She found a 1981 Genus edition for $2. Playing it is an interesting exercise for a historian, since a lot of the answers are out of date. But trying to settle into a 1981 mentality, trying to think about what was only knowable at the time, and trying to answer accordingly, despite your knowledge of the intervening two and a half decades, is a challenging and, I think, a fun exercise. In a way, this is what I try to do when studying antiquity. So, I found the exercise fun, even though I lost. My brother-in-law ended up winning when we played.
Last weekend, I decided to would go with my mom on her garage sale run, and I, too, was lucky enough to find a Trivial Pursuit for $2, this one being a 2002 20-year anniversary edition. This originally baffled me, because if I had the 1981 copyrighted edition, how could the one from 2002 be the 20-year anniversary? They are 21 years apart! But I discovered that the original version was not released to stores until 1982. I actually thought the game was much older than this, but considering that it has been around nearly my entire life it is easy to think it is timeless. The questions were much more up-to-date, but I oddly found them a bit more difficult than the original edition.
And then today I was in a Target store in Illinois, and there before my eyes was a 2007 edition of Trivial Pursuit. It is sort of a greatest hits edition, containing a set of questions from the 80's edition, the 90's edition, and Pop Culture 2 edition. You get two dice, one tells how far to move, and the other indicates from which edition your question card will be drawn. And it was about $25, which, actually, is not bad. Original editions, like the 2-dollar one my mom found on a garage sale are going for much more! I considered buying it, but then I thought I am already lugging a Trivial Pursuit box back to NYC with me, and I found this at Target! We had looked in a Target during our original pursuit a couple weeks ago! There were many gaps in the board game section, however, and one of them probably was where this three-way Trivial Pursuit was. So, I decided that we just went to the wrong Target, and if we really want to find it, we can find it at another Target in NYC.
Obama Seeking Evangelical Votes
The NYTimes, once again, has an article on Barack Obama seeking Evangelical votes that during the last two elections went to Bush--according to this article's estimation, they made up about 25% of Bush's support.
Obama is relying upon the shifting ground of Evangelical positions on issues such as the environment, poverty, AIDS, and genocide. See my previous posting on Evangelicals for Obama from May 11, and my general posting on Religion, especially Evangelicals, and the Democratic Party, from last summer.
How will he do this? The Article says:
"Between now and November, the Obama forces are planning as many as 1,000 house parties and dozens of Christian rock concerts, gatherings of religious leaders, campus visits and telephone conference calls to bring together voters of all ages motivated by their faith to engage in politics. It is the most intensive effort yet by a Democratic candidate to reach out to self-identified evangelical or born-again Christians and to try to pry them away from their historical attachment to the Republican Party."
I know that "Christian rock" may sound like an oxymoron, but nevertheless they are well-attended events. Reading on...
"On Tuesday, Mr. Obama is scheduled to deliver a speech about faith in Zanesville, Ohio, in a battleground section of a battleground state, one where Mr. Bush relied heavily on evangelical voters to provide his narrow margin of victory in 2004. Mr. Obama’s speech will follow by two days a trip by his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain, to visit the evangelist Billy Graham and his son the Rev. Franklin Graham, part of an effort by Mr. McCain to shore up his standing with religious conservatives."
As discussed previously, McCain has had a difficult time courting Evangelicals--see here. Getting the support of the evangelist giant, Billy Graham, who is widely respected among Evangelicals, could be a major boost for him. Again, back to the article:
"Mr. Obama is building his appeal in part on calls to heal political rifts and address human suffering. He is also drawing on his own characteristics and story, including his embrace of Christianity as an adult, a facility with biblical language and imagery and comfort in talking about how his religious beliefs animate his approach to public life.
"But the subject of religion has become entangled in the false rumor that he is a Muslim. And it has been complicated by the effects of his association with his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., whose brand of black liberation theology brought religion, race and patriotism into the campaign in ways not helpful to Mr. Obama. He also faces significant hurdles in appealing to religious voters because of his tolerance for abortion and same-sex marriage."
On Obama and Islam, see here. I hear liberation theology all the time, so I guess I find it less shocking to hear than the average U.S. citizen. Of course, I basically reside at the place where it began--Union Theological Seminary, where famous liberation theologian, James Cohn, still teaches.
Basically, the question boils down to whether Obama can get the Evangelicals who appear to be shifting in their positions on the environment, poverty, etc., to not get tripped up on the perennial voting issue (and the issue that no President has touched once elected) of abortion. But abortion, it seems, does not rally the conservative electorate as much as it used to, and its void is being filled by same-sex marriage. It has been a galvanizing issue for about a decade (if not longer), but recent decisions, especially in California, and the decision in my own state (NY) to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states (although not yet allowing same-sex marriages to be performed in NY itself), brings the issue into focus in a way that abortion has not been in focus for decades. Will same-sex marriage rally the conservative Evangelical base the same way abortion used to? Or will Evangelicals vote based upon a variety of factors, muddying the waters a little on assumed or expected party loyalty--by the way, even if they do not vote based only on these last two issues and vote on multiple platforms (Iraq war, environment, international relations, etc.), this does not mean that they will necessarily vote for Obama rather than McCain. But Obama does better at speaking about religion than McCain. His former pastor has made things more difficult, but it sounds much more strained when McCain speaks about faith.
Despite their intense dislike of McCain, some on the religious right have been firing at Obama lately. See here. On the other hand, Obama's director of religious affairs, is Joshua DuBois, a former pastor in the Assemblies of God, which is a major Pentecostal denomination.
“We’re not going to convince everybody,” said Mr. DuBois. “The most committed pro-lifers probably won’t vote for him. But others will be open to him because they see he’s a man of integrity, a person of faith who listens to and understands people of all religious backgrounds.”
According to the article, "The Obama campaign does not need to convince everybody in order to have an effect on the voting outcome in key states, only a relatively narrow slice of the religiously motivated voters who supported Mr. Bush by substantial margins in 2000 and 2004. And polls indicate that evangelicals and other religious voters are already migrating away from their overwhelming support of the Republicans, some because of disillusionment about the war, others because of concern about global warming, still others because of uncertainty about the economy."
These are all things we all already knew, but I found the following very interesting: "Mr. Obama won one important vote from the evangelical community when he received the endorsement of the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, leader of a Methodist megachurch in Houston, who has long been close to Mr. Bush and who officiated at Jenna Bush’s wedding in May in Crawford, Tex. Mr. Caldwell denounced Mr. Dobson for his critique of Mr. Obama’s faith and has assembled a group of religious leaders to defend Mr. Obama."
And later on: "Mark DeMoss, a public relations executive who represents Franklin Graham and other church leaders and conservative religious organizations, said recently that Mr. Obama could conceivably win as much as 40 percent of the evangelical vote."
This seems rather high, but given that McCain will never garner as much support as Bush did, and Obama is actively seeking Evangelicals, it is perhaps possible, albeit remotely possible.
"Mr. DeMoss cited the meeting two weeks ago in Chicago in which Mr. Obama met privately with 30 religious leaders from many traditions and political persuasions, including several, like Mr. Graham, who were never likely to support him.
"Mr. Obama won praise for his openness to those who disagreed with him, Mr. DeMoss said, but he stood firm in his support for abortion rights and cemented opposition from those for whom that is a bedrock issue.
"Mr. Obama is also reaching out to young evangelicals, the so-called Joshua generation, a group that would seem to be a fertile ground for recruitment."
What is the "Joshua generation"? Other than the generation after Moses, does anyone know?
In sum, more than the past two elections, the Evangelical vote is up for grabs.
Obama is relying upon the shifting ground of Evangelical positions on issues such as the environment, poverty, AIDS, and genocide. See my previous posting on Evangelicals for Obama from May 11, and my general posting on Religion, especially Evangelicals, and the Democratic Party, from last summer.
How will he do this? The Article says:
"Between now and November, the Obama forces are planning as many as 1,000 house parties and dozens of Christian rock concerts, gatherings of religious leaders, campus visits and telephone conference calls to bring together voters of all ages motivated by their faith to engage in politics. It is the most intensive effort yet by a Democratic candidate to reach out to self-identified evangelical or born-again Christians and to try to pry them away from their historical attachment to the Republican Party."
I know that "Christian rock" may sound like an oxymoron, but nevertheless they are well-attended events. Reading on...
"On Tuesday, Mr. Obama is scheduled to deliver a speech about faith in Zanesville, Ohio, in a battleground section of a battleground state, one where Mr. Bush relied heavily on evangelical voters to provide his narrow margin of victory in 2004. Mr. Obama’s speech will follow by two days a trip by his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain, to visit the evangelist Billy Graham and his son the Rev. Franklin Graham, part of an effort by Mr. McCain to shore up his standing with religious conservatives."
As discussed previously, McCain has had a difficult time courting Evangelicals--see here. Getting the support of the evangelist giant, Billy Graham, who is widely respected among Evangelicals, could be a major boost for him. Again, back to the article:
"Mr. Obama is building his appeal in part on calls to heal political rifts and address human suffering. He is also drawing on his own characteristics and story, including his embrace of Christianity as an adult, a facility with biblical language and imagery and comfort in talking about how his religious beliefs animate his approach to public life.
"But the subject of religion has become entangled in the false rumor that he is a Muslim. And it has been complicated by the effects of his association with his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., whose brand of black liberation theology brought religion, race and patriotism into the campaign in ways not helpful to Mr. Obama. He also faces significant hurdles in appealing to religious voters because of his tolerance for abortion and same-sex marriage."
On Obama and Islam, see here. I hear liberation theology all the time, so I guess I find it less shocking to hear than the average U.S. citizen. Of course, I basically reside at the place where it began--Union Theological Seminary, where famous liberation theologian, James Cohn, still teaches.
Basically, the question boils down to whether Obama can get the Evangelicals who appear to be shifting in their positions on the environment, poverty, etc., to not get tripped up on the perennial voting issue (and the issue that no President has touched once elected) of abortion. But abortion, it seems, does not rally the conservative electorate as much as it used to, and its void is being filled by same-sex marriage. It has been a galvanizing issue for about a decade (if not longer), but recent decisions, especially in California, and the decision in my own state (NY) to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states (although not yet allowing same-sex marriages to be performed in NY itself), brings the issue into focus in a way that abortion has not been in focus for decades. Will same-sex marriage rally the conservative Evangelical base the same way abortion used to? Or will Evangelicals vote based upon a variety of factors, muddying the waters a little on assumed or expected party loyalty--by the way, even if they do not vote based only on these last two issues and vote on multiple platforms (Iraq war, environment, international relations, etc.), this does not mean that they will necessarily vote for Obama rather than McCain. But Obama does better at speaking about religion than McCain. His former pastor has made things more difficult, but it sounds much more strained when McCain speaks about faith.
Despite their intense dislike of McCain, some on the religious right have been firing at Obama lately. See here. On the other hand, Obama's director of religious affairs, is Joshua DuBois, a former pastor in the Assemblies of God, which is a major Pentecostal denomination.
“We’re not going to convince everybody,” said Mr. DuBois. “The most committed pro-lifers probably won’t vote for him. But others will be open to him because they see he’s a man of integrity, a person of faith who listens to and understands people of all religious backgrounds.”
According to the article, "The Obama campaign does not need to convince everybody in order to have an effect on the voting outcome in key states, only a relatively narrow slice of the religiously motivated voters who supported Mr. Bush by substantial margins in 2000 and 2004. And polls indicate that evangelicals and other religious voters are already migrating away from their overwhelming support of the Republicans, some because of disillusionment about the war, others because of concern about global warming, still others because of uncertainty about the economy."
These are all things we all already knew, but I found the following very interesting: "Mr. Obama won one important vote from the evangelical community when he received the endorsement of the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, leader of a Methodist megachurch in Houston, who has long been close to Mr. Bush and who officiated at Jenna Bush’s wedding in May in Crawford, Tex. Mr. Caldwell denounced Mr. Dobson for his critique of Mr. Obama’s faith and has assembled a group of religious leaders to defend Mr. Obama."
And later on: "Mark DeMoss, a public relations executive who represents Franklin Graham and other church leaders and conservative religious organizations, said recently that Mr. Obama could conceivably win as much as 40 percent of the evangelical vote."
This seems rather high, but given that McCain will never garner as much support as Bush did, and Obama is actively seeking Evangelicals, it is perhaps possible, albeit remotely possible.
"Mr. DeMoss cited the meeting two weeks ago in Chicago in which Mr. Obama met privately with 30 religious leaders from many traditions and political persuasions, including several, like Mr. Graham, who were never likely to support him.
"Mr. Obama won praise for his openness to those who disagreed with him, Mr. DeMoss said, but he stood firm in his support for abortion rights and cemented opposition from those for whom that is a bedrock issue.
"Mr. Obama is also reaching out to young evangelicals, the so-called Joshua generation, a group that would seem to be a fertile ground for recruitment."
What is the "Joshua generation"? Other than the generation after Moses, does anyone know?
In sum, more than the past two elections, the Evangelical vote is up for grabs.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Quote of the Day: Cervantes
So, a little out of the normal for me, but I've been reading Don Quixote lately, and here is a few lines that caught my attention today:
"...I do not know what God will reply to your complaints, nor can I tell what His Majesty's response will be: all I do know is that if I were the King I should refrain from replying to the countless irrelevant memoranda handed him every day; for one of the most tedious of the many, many chores of a monarch is having to listen to everybody and reply to everybody; so I shoudl nto like him to be bothered by my affairs."
Cervantes, Don Quixote, part II, chapter VI
"...I do not know what God will reply to your complaints, nor can I tell what His Majesty's response will be: all I do know is that if I were the King I should refrain from replying to the countless irrelevant memoranda handed him every day; for one of the most tedious of the many, many chores of a monarch is having to listen to everybody and reply to everybody; so I shoudl nto like him to be bothered by my affairs."
Cervantes, Don Quixote, part II, chapter VI
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
NYU and Polytech
There is a joke in New York concerning the two premier private universities, Columbia University and New York University, that due to their appetite for real estate, they will together take over all of Manhattan and eventually meet somewhere around Columbus Circle. But with NYU's recent takeover of the Engineering school, Polytech, this university is expanding outside of Manhattan into Brooklyn. So, what do you do if you are a university without a school of engineering? You go out and buy one!
Here is the article from the Chronicle:
Here is the article from the Chronicle:
New York Regents Approve Merger of Polytechnic U. and NYU
The New York State Board of Regents has approved the merger of Polytechnic University and New York University despite vehement opposition from some Polytechnic alumni and a critical report from the chairman of the State Senate’s Committee on Higher Education, NYU’s student newspaper, The Washington Square News, reported today.
Under the terms of the deal, the Brooklyn engineering school will be renamed the Polytechnic Institute of New York University. The state board approved an amendment altering Polytechnic’s educational charter to allow the merger.
The arrangement had been approved by trustees of both institutions, although it was bitterly opposed by some engineering alumni, who argued that Polytechnic was giving away control of their alma mater without assurances that it would benefit the institution.
In a statement on Polytechnic’s Web site, President Jerry Hultin called the merger “the perfect fit between two great universities.” The president of NYU, David McLaughlin, released a similar statement, calling it “a great day for NYU, for Poly, and for New York.”
Unconvinced, some Poly alumni, current and former trustees, and faculty members filed a petition to delay the vote and to remove the entire board of the Brooklyn university, the alumni group said. —Katherine Mangan
God is an African American Woman
Who knew? Or, at least, in a new fiction novel, "The Shack," God is depicted as an African-American woman. Jesus makes his appearance as a Jewish workman (pretty traditional). And the Holy Spirit shows up as "an indeterminately Asian woman" named Sarayu.
This book is written by an otherwise unknown author, William Paul Young:
"He chose to make God an African-American woman, he said, because he wanted to alter religious preconceptions. “It was just a way of saying: ‘You know what? I don’t believe that God is Gandalf with an attitude or Zeus who wants to blast you with any imperfection that you exhibit,’ ” Mr. Young said."
I had never heard of this novel until I saw an article about it in the NYTimes today. But evidently it is number 1 on the New York Times best seller list for fiction, beating out even Oprah's book of the month, "A New Earth," by Eckhart Tolle. Maybe I should look at the bestseller list more often.
So, in a world in which "Christian Fiction" usually means cheesy storylines or stereotyped end of the world scenarios, How did this book get there? Not by mass marketing campaigns or by celebrity endorsements, but by grass-roots word of mouth, sped up by the blogosphere, the electronic word of mouth. And, perhaps interest has been fueled by the Southern Baptist Convention and other conservatives labeling the book as heresy:
"Sales have been fueled partly by a whiff of controversy. Some conservative Christian leaders and bloggers have attacked “The Shack” as heresy. The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, devoted most of a radio show to the book, calling it “deeply troubling” and asserting that it undermined orthodox Christianity. Others have said the book’s approach to theology is too breezy to be taken seriously."
If the SBC hates it, it must be good! ;) The book seems to take on a more affective cast, which may be part of the issue (SBC folk tend to be rationalistic and play down emotional elements, such as can be found among Charismatic and Pentecostal groups). Although the "undermining" may be that they feel a bit uncomfortable with an African-American Woman as God.
Nevertheless, I doubt I will ever pick it up, since I am just not into the "inspirational" reading material. That's why I study the Bible!
This book is written by an otherwise unknown author, William Paul Young:
"He chose to make God an African-American woman, he said, because he wanted to alter religious preconceptions. “It was just a way of saying: ‘You know what? I don’t believe that God is Gandalf with an attitude or Zeus who wants to blast you with any imperfection that you exhibit,’ ” Mr. Young said."
I had never heard of this novel until I saw an article about it in the NYTimes today. But evidently it is number 1 on the New York Times best seller list for fiction, beating out even Oprah's book of the month, "A New Earth," by Eckhart Tolle. Maybe I should look at the bestseller list more often.
So, in a world in which "Christian Fiction" usually means cheesy storylines or stereotyped end of the world scenarios, How did this book get there? Not by mass marketing campaigns or by celebrity endorsements, but by grass-roots word of mouth, sped up by the blogosphere, the electronic word of mouth. And, perhaps interest has been fueled by the Southern Baptist Convention and other conservatives labeling the book as heresy:
"Sales have been fueled partly by a whiff of controversy. Some conservative Christian leaders and bloggers have attacked “The Shack” as heresy. The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, devoted most of a radio show to the book, calling it “deeply troubling” and asserting that it undermined orthodox Christianity. Others have said the book’s approach to theology is too breezy to be taken seriously."
If the SBC hates it, it must be good! ;) The book seems to take on a more affective cast, which may be part of the issue (SBC folk tend to be rationalistic and play down emotional elements, such as can be found among Charismatic and Pentecostal groups). Although the "undermining" may be that they feel a bit uncomfortable with an African-American Woman as God.
Nevertheless, I doubt I will ever pick it up, since I am just not into the "inspirational" reading material. That's why I study the Bible!
Quote of the Day: Augustine
I was perusing Augustine's City of God, and this passage struck me as perhaps still relevant:
"Peace and War had a competition in cruelty; and Peace won the prize. For the men whom War cut down were bearing arms; Peace slaughtered the defenceless. The law of War was that the smitten should have the chance of smiting in return; the aim of Peace was to make sure not that the survivor should live, but that he should be killed without the chance of offering resistance."
Augustine, City of God, 3.28.
"Peace and War had a competition in cruelty; and Peace won the prize. For the men whom War cut down were bearing arms; Peace slaughtered the defenceless. The law of War was that the smitten should have the chance of smiting in return; the aim of Peace was to make sure not that the survivor should live, but that he should be killed without the chance of offering resistance."
Augustine, City of God, 3.28.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Obama and Muslim Voters
Although I typically do not consider myself particularly political, I have noticed that a good number of my postings tend to be about politics, particularly politics and religion. I have posted a few times on Evangelical voters, Catholic voters, and the different candidates, partly because they seem to be getting the most press. But NYT has an article today on Muslim voters and Barack Obama, particularly Obama's apparent distancing himself from Islam and Muslim voters.
According to the article, many Muslim voters were originally enthusiastic about Obama as a candidate. And when Keith Ellison, the country's first Muslim congressman, volunteered to help out in Iowa last year, particularly to speak at a Mosque in Cedar Rapids, which has a sizable and older Muslim population, Obama's aides asked him not to do so because it might stir up controversy, quoting, "We have a tightly wrapped message," suggesting that a Muslim politician speaking at a mosque on Obama's behalf somehow does not fit that message. What message might that be? Whatever it is, it sent a message--Barack Hussain Obama wants to distance himself from Islam. but not overtly so.
There's more...unfortunately, much more. I quote from the article:
"While the senator has visited churches and synagogues, he has yet to appear at a single mosque. Muslim and Arab-American organizations have tried repeatedly to arrange meetings with Mr. Obama, but officials with those groups say their invitations — unlike those of their Jewish and Christian counterparts — have been ignored. Last week, two Muslim women wearing head scarves were barred by campaign volunteers from appearing behind Mr. Obama at a rally in Detroit."
On the other hand, Obama's aides have denied this, claiming that Obama's campaign is inclusive and inter-faith:
It seems that Obama is walking a fine line. He is trying to maintain broad appeal to voters who remain wary or suspicious of Muslims in general (or worse), and an important constituency that he will probably need to win in November. Thus there seems to be a disconnect between his message of unity and change in his slogans and his campaign strategy.
What makes things worse is his language in response to rumors that he is a Muslim (or closet Muslim). While he has stated (on 60 Minutes) that such rumors are offensive to Muslims because they amount to "fearmongering," playing into the biases of the portions of the electorate that remain suspicious of Muslims in general, his website has recently listed this as a "smear"! In response, Muslim congressman Ellison says, “A lot of us are waiting for him to say that there’s nothing wrong with being a Muslim, by the way."
This constituency should not be ignored, as no constituency should. But, what is more, they CANNOT be ignored in the general election. Sizable Muslim populations exist in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Virginia (with smaller pockets elsewhere, such as Iowa, NY, etc.). Florida was the swing vote in 2000; Ohio, in 2004. Michigan tends toward Democratic, but can be swung. Virginia, as the 2006 mid-term elections demonstrated, can go either way as well. In fact, Virginia Muslims overwhelming voted for Jim Webb, who upset his opponent and now sits in the Senate! Obama and McCain cannot ignore this population especially in these states.
What is more, there appears to be a political awakening among these groups, especially in response to the policies put forth by G. W. Bush, such as, uh, the Patriot Act! They are engaged in state-wide and nation-wide campaigns to get Muslims registered to vote, to actually vote on election day. Before 9/11, Muslim political organizations focused on professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc.), but now they are moving grass-roots (taxi-drivers, etc.).
What probably does not help Obama is what he said and where he spoke the day after he clinched the nomination. I actually had jury duty that day and was sitting in a waiting room at a courthouse, watching coverage of Obama speaking with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a huge lobby in Washington, D.C.--and, by the way, Obama was not alone, because Hillary Clinton spoke there the same day. He basically presented a Zionist metanarrative and ended by saying that Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel--later he modified this by saying that it should be negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians.
I will quote the end of the article:
What are the consequences of this tightwalking? I think it might mirror McCain's problems with conservative Christians in the Republican party (not equating Evangelicals and Muslims, but the similarity of the situation and how these two figures walk a tightrope between a particular constituency and broader appeal when those two things seem in tension). If the snubs continue, or, what I like to call, "embracing someone at arm's length," I doubt that Muslim and Arab-American (which includes Muslims, Christians, and Jews from the Middle East) constituencies will turn to McCain. At worst, like some Evangelicals might with McCain, they will either stay home on election day or quietly and with qualms vote for Obama.
According to the article, many Muslim voters were originally enthusiastic about Obama as a candidate. And when Keith Ellison, the country's first Muslim congressman, volunteered to help out in Iowa last year, particularly to speak at a Mosque in Cedar Rapids, which has a sizable and older Muslim population, Obama's aides asked him not to do so because it might stir up controversy, quoting, "We have a tightly wrapped message," suggesting that a Muslim politician speaking at a mosque on Obama's behalf somehow does not fit that message. What message might that be? Whatever it is, it sent a message--Barack Hussain Obama wants to distance himself from Islam. but not overtly so.
There's more...unfortunately, much more. I quote from the article:
"While the senator has visited churches and synagogues, he has yet to appear at a single mosque. Muslim and Arab-American organizations have tried repeatedly to arrange meetings with Mr. Obama, but officials with those groups say their invitations — unlike those of their Jewish and Christian counterparts — have been ignored. Last week, two Muslim women wearing head scarves were barred by campaign volunteers from appearing behind Mr. Obama at a rally in Detroit."
On the other hand, Obama's aides have denied this, claiming that Obama's campaign is inclusive and inter-faith:
"Aides to Mr. Obama denied that he had kept his Muslim supporters at arm’s length. They cited statements in which he had spoken inclusively about American Islam and a radio advertisement he recorded for the recent campaign of Representative Andre Carson, Democrat of Indiana, who this spring became the second Muslim elected to Congress.
"In May, Mr. Obama also had a brief, private meeting with the leader of a mosque in Dearborn, Mich., home to the country’s largest concentration of Arab-Americans. And this month, a senior campaign aide met with Arab-American leaders in Dearborn, most of whom are Muslim. (Mr. Obama did not campaign in Michigan before the primary in January because of a party dispute over the calendar.)
"“Our campaign has made every attempt to bring together Americans of all races, religions and backgrounds to take on our common challenges,” Ben LaBolt, a campaign spokesman, said in an e-mail message.
"Mr. LaBolt added that with religious groups, the campaign had largely taken “an interfaith approach, one that may not have reached every group that wishes to participate but has reached many Muslim Americans.”"
It seems that Obama is walking a fine line. He is trying to maintain broad appeal to voters who remain wary or suspicious of Muslims in general (or worse), and an important constituency that he will probably need to win in November. Thus there seems to be a disconnect between his message of unity and change in his slogans and his campaign strategy.
What makes things worse is his language in response to rumors that he is a Muslim (or closet Muslim). While he has stated (on 60 Minutes) that such rumors are offensive to Muslims because they amount to "fearmongering," playing into the biases of the portions of the electorate that remain suspicious of Muslims in general, his website has recently listed this as a "smear"! In response, Muslim congressman Ellison says, “A lot of us are waiting for him to say that there’s nothing wrong with being a Muslim, by the way."
This constituency should not be ignored, as no constituency should. But, what is more, they CANNOT be ignored in the general election. Sizable Muslim populations exist in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Virginia (with smaller pockets elsewhere, such as Iowa, NY, etc.). Florida was the swing vote in 2000; Ohio, in 2004. Michigan tends toward Democratic, but can be swung. Virginia, as the 2006 mid-term elections demonstrated, can go either way as well. In fact, Virginia Muslims overwhelming voted for Jim Webb, who upset his opponent and now sits in the Senate! Obama and McCain cannot ignore this population especially in these states.
What is more, there appears to be a political awakening among these groups, especially in response to the policies put forth by G. W. Bush, such as, uh, the Patriot Act! They are engaged in state-wide and nation-wide campaigns to get Muslims registered to vote, to actually vote on election day. Before 9/11, Muslim political organizations focused on professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc.), but now they are moving grass-roots (taxi-drivers, etc.).
What probably does not help Obama is what he said and where he spoke the day after he clinched the nomination. I actually had jury duty that day and was sitting in a waiting room at a courthouse, watching coverage of Obama speaking with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a huge lobby in Washington, D.C.--and, by the way, Obama was not alone, because Hillary Clinton spoke there the same day. He basically presented a Zionist metanarrative and ended by saying that Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel--later he modified this by saying that it should be negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians.
I will quote the end of the article:
For Ms. Ghori and other Muslims, Mr. Obama’s hands-off approach is not surprising in a political climate they feel is marred by frequent attacks on their faith.
Among the incidents they cite are a statement by Mr. McCain, in a 2007 interview with Beliefnet.com, that he would prefer a Christian president to a Muslim one; a comment by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton that Mr. Obama was not Muslim “as far as I know”; and a remark by Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, to The Associated Press in March that an Obama victory would be celebrated by terrorists, who would see him as a “savior.”
“All you have to say is Barack Hussein Obama,” said Arsalan Iftikhar, a human rights lawyer and contributing editor at Islamica Magazine. “You don’t even have to say ‘Muslim.’ ”
As a consequence, many Muslims have kept their support for Mr. Obama quiet. Any visible show of allegiance could be used by his opponents to incite fear, further the false rumors about his faith and “bin-Laden him,” Mr. Bray said.
“The joke within the national Muslim organizations,” Ms. Ghori said, “is that we should endorse the person we don’t want to win.”
What are the consequences of this tightwalking? I think it might mirror McCain's problems with conservative Christians in the Republican party (not equating Evangelicals and Muslims, but the similarity of the situation and how these two figures walk a tightrope between a particular constituency and broader appeal when those two things seem in tension). If the snubs continue, or, what I like to call, "embracing someone at arm's length," I doubt that Muslim and Arab-American (which includes Muslims, Christians, and Jews from the Middle East) constituencies will turn to McCain. At worst, like some Evangelicals might with McCain, they will either stay home on election day or quietly and with qualms vote for Obama.
Obama and Evangelicals
James Dobson has now fired at Barack Obama. He claims that Obama has distorted the Bible and has a "fruitcake" interpretation of the Constitution. See full AP Press story here.
The following caught my attention:
Perhaps Obama is right--folks haven't been reading their Bibles very carefully, and those folks are at Focus on the Family.
The following caught my attention:
"Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?" Obama said. "Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?" referring to the civil rights leader.
Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy — chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application."
"Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," Obama said.
Dobson and Minnery accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus' teachings in the New Testament.
"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said.
"... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."
The first part of the quote is a series of excerpts from Obama speeches that Focus on the Family is going to include in an upcoming radio show. But I am not sure what the problem is according to Dobson (or Dobson's spokesperson).
Perhaps Obama is right--folks haven't been reading their Bibles very carefully, and those folks are at Focus on the Family.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Lit Hum Desk Copies!
Today I picked up my desk copies for Literature of the Humanities fall term. Only TWELVE books for just the fall term! They really weigh you down! Although carrying them home made for a good workout.
So...my students will be reading:
Epic of Gilgamesh
The Bible (RSV)
Iliad
Odyssey
Homeric Hymn to Demeter
Aeschylus, Oresteia
Sophocles, Oedipus trilogy
Euripides, Medea
Aristophanes, Clouds
Plato, Symposium
Herodotus
Thucydides
So the year-long course that ends with Virginia Woolf is very antiquity-heavy, but being an antiquarian, I'm not complaining! So, we have three epic poems (four if you include the "epic" of the Bible), an epic hymn, four playwrights, two historians, a philosopher, and a partridge in a pear tree.
So...my students will be reading:
Epic of Gilgamesh
The Bible (RSV)
Iliad
Odyssey
Homeric Hymn to Demeter
Aeschylus, Oresteia
Sophocles, Oedipus trilogy
Euripides, Medea
Aristophanes, Clouds
Plato, Symposium
Herodotus
Thucydides
So the year-long course that ends with Virginia Woolf is very antiquity-heavy, but being an antiquarian, I'm not complaining! So, we have three epic poems (four if you include the "epic" of the Bible), an epic hymn, four playwrights, two historians, a philosopher, and a partridge in a pear tree.
George Carlin, RIP
I am saddened to hear that famous comedian and originally Morningside Heights native, George Carlin, died today of heart failure. His incisive wit, philosophical humor, and outright obscenity will all be missed. Here is a quote from his on religion:
"The whole problem with this idea of obscenity and indecency, and all of these things — bad language and whatever — it's all caused by one basic thing, and that is: religious superstition," Carlin told the AP in a 2004 interview. "There's an idea that the human body is somehow evil and bad and there are parts of it that are especially evil and bad, and we should be ashamed. Fear, guilt and shame are built into the attitude toward sex and the body. ... It's reflected in these prohibitions and these taboos that we have."
See an article from yahoo here.
"The whole problem with this idea of obscenity and indecency, and all of these things — bad language and whatever — it's all caused by one basic thing, and that is: religious superstition," Carlin told the AP in a 2004 interview. "There's an idea that the human body is somehow evil and bad and there are parts of it that are especially evil and bad, and we should be ashamed. Fear, guilt and shame are built into the attitude toward sex and the body. ... It's reflected in these prohibitions and these taboos that we have."
See an article from yahoo here.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Quote of the Day: Leviticus 19:30; 26:2
את־שבתתי תשמרו ומקדשי תיראו אני יהוה
(Lev. 19:30; 26:2)
For you non-Hebrew readers, this says, "Observe my Sabbaths and venerate my Sanctuary. I am YHWH." Both quotations come from a part of the Pentateuch called the Holiness Code (Lev. 17-26). Some distinctive elements of the Holiness School (which produced the Holiness Code) is God's self assertions, as in this passage: "I am YHWH." And the first-person singular possessive: "my Sabbaths" and "my sanctuary." Moreover, HS tends to give quite an increased reverence for the Sabbath. Taking a look at this passage, as well as how the Sabbath is interwoven in the instructions to build the Tabernacle and the actual building of the Tabernacle (Exod. 31:12-17; 35:1-3; the entire instructions are Exodus 25-31; 35-40), the question arises: "What does the Sabbath have to do with the Sanctuary?" Why bring them together, and, in this case, even seem to privilege the Sabbath over the Sanctuary? The Rabbis suggested that this meant that even the construction of the Tabernacle does not supersede Sabbath observance (Sifra, Qedoshim 7:7). There may be something to that. But this layer of the Pentateuch elevates the Sabbath, magnifying its importance to ever-new heights. In short, the Priestly texts (including HS) place the Sabbath's sanctity on par with the Sanctuary, the typical benchmark of holiness. For example, in this layer, the Sabbath is added to the list of festivals, and, contrary to previous parlance, becomes a day of "proclaimed holiness." The language for violating the Sabbath is similar to defiling the Sanctuary--חלל (Exod 31:14; Lev. 21:12, 13). The punishment is karet. Most of all, the Sabbath becomes a "sign of the covenant" at Sinai. Overall, the Sabbath and the Sanctuary become equivalent in holiness as the HS elevated the Sabbath to the sanctity of the Sanctuary: they are qualitatively equivalent in holiness. Put another way, the Tabernacle expresses God's holiness in space and the Sabbath expresses God's holiness in time. Both, in turn, relate to Israel's holiness--by constructing the Tabernacle, observing the Sabbath, and obeying the commandments (Leviticus 19), Israel becomes holy as God is holy.Henry Chadwick
The great church historian, Henry Chadwick (1920-2008), died this week. I always appreciated his very lucid translations of ancient works. I think the first work of his I ever read was his translation of Augustine's Confessions. For a very nice reminiscence, see Mark Goodacre at NTGateway.
Requiescat in pace
Requiescat in pace
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)