UK Cardinal Dares Speak Truth to Power

The BBC reports on the scathing assessment of the British austerity programs which hurt the poor while asking nothing of the rich.

Britain's most senior Roman Catholic, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, has accused the prime minister of acting immorally by favouring the rich ahead of ordinary citizens affected by the recession. 

The cardinal also denounced David Cameron's opposition to a "Robin Hood tax" on financial institutions. 

And he urged Mr Cameron not just to help "your very rich colleagues".

It is a breath of fresh air, although immorality is too weak a criticism. Evil and utter depravity would be better descriptors. The economic mess in the UK was the fault of the bad decisions and worse behavior by people in the financial sector and in government. Those with the least were not responsible for the deficits and financial setbacks, but suffered the most through job losses. In response to the impact of the recession on government revenues, the British government has enacted austerity programs that reduce deficits on the backs of the poor.

Using economic data from the US, Canada, and eurozone countries over the past 30 years, the International Monetary Fund reports that austerity programs increase unemployment, contract the economy, and dramatically widen the gap between the wealthy and poor. In other words, austerity means taking a stick to the poor for the sins of the rich.

Adding insult to injury, the cowardly politicians who preach austerity also refuse to increase taxes on the rich. Cardinal O'Brien sums it up nicely.

"It is not moral, just to ignore them and to say 'struggle along', while the rich can go sailing along in their own sweet way."

Contrast that statement to the tepid response given by US Bishops on the budget proposed by Paul Ryan and friends. A moral budget should protect the poor. No kidding, but that is not even a tap on the wrist. It is more like a a gentle reminder. It is the cowardly, particularly as it is the second consecutive year Ryan has proposed draconic cuts that will hurt the poor while protecting the rich and the military. Let's not forget the overwhelming evidence that tax cuts for the rich and two wars are the largest contributors to the US federal debt since 2001. The bishops had no problem expressing their outrage over contraception so one can only conclude that harming the less fortunate is far less important. The bishops even stayed quiet as Ryan attempted to justify his vicious budget blueprint as consistent with Catholic teachings. Well, they are consistent with the decrees of Tomás de Torquemada, but substitute starvation for burning at the stake. The new heretics are the poor.

But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you, ye that are full now! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you, ye that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep. (Luke 6:24-25)

Going beyond celebrating indigenous people

This past Sunday, I attended a very moving celebration of Native American culture and spirituality as part of the United Methodist Church's Native American Ministries Sunday services. The goal of these observances is to "recognize the gifts and contributions of Native Americans to American society and the Christian church."

These efforts are a welcome step toward building a loving heart for people that have been the target of genocidal policies in service of greed. Compounding injustices of the past are injustices of the present as many Native Americans still live in abject poverty.

A special collection is also taken to raise money for Native American ministry programs.

The funds collected will allow The United Methodist Church to partner with existing native ministries and create programs on behalf of Native Americans. Money collected also supports seminary scholarships for United Methodist Native Americans. 

Fifty percent of the offering remains in the annual conference to develop and strengthen local Native American ministries. Should no such ministries exist within the conference, the offering is remitted in full to the General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA). The funds are then distributed equally between the United Methodist Board of Higher Education and Ministry to provide scholarships for American Indians attending the church's schools of theology and the Native American Urban Initiative of the General Board of Global Ministries.

Most of the Native Americans I have met in my lifetime have had a better sense of oneness with the Creator than I do. It is a reverence that almost seems to be part of their genetic makeup. If the focus of these ministries is to preach to these people, more harm than good will come from it. We need to work harder to give these people a hand up from privation.

Let me illustrate my concern with a look at the Navajo (Diné) Nation, which is served by the UMC's Four Corners Native American Ministry. The Nation's most urgent needs are poverty, energy, water, and access to healthcare. With nearly half of the Diné residing on the reservation living below the poverty line, financial resources are scarce.

A special collection taken once a year by the UMC is not going to be enough to dent the poverty of the Diné or other indigenous people. But there are many things that are imminently feasible which would make a big difference.


One is water. Thanks to the aridity of the region and the contamination of aquifers from uranium mining, fresh water supplies are limited and obscenely expensive.

A 2006 water-pricing analysis by the tribe found that 3,800 liters (1,000 gallons) of hauled water carried a price tag of $US 133, compared to $US 2.73 for the same quantity of water that was delivered directly to homes via water infrastructure in nearby Flagstaff, Arizona. The high price of water is a contributing factor to the reservation’s high poverty rate — more than 40 percent — which is among the highest in the country.

The Diné have to pay 50 times more for their water as people living in nearby cities. Fifty times as much for water. The very idea defies imagination.

Water is not a luxury. Everyone knows that. Everyone. When water is this expensive, it makes personal hydration, cooking, and hygiene very difficult and agriculture, even efficient closed loop systems like aquaponics, virtually impossible. And let's not forget the ultimate injustice. The Little Colorado River runs through the middle of the reservation, but the Diné have no legal right to its water.


The only champion the Diné have in Congress is retiring Arizona Senator John Kyl. 

While all parties are reporting steady progress, the final agreement, which requires Congressional passage, is not assured, largely because of an approaching and crucial political deadline. Earlier this year Kyl, who has helped guide several Indian water-rights settlements through Congress, announced that he will not run for a fourth Senate term in 2012. Thus, Navajo leaders and their attorneys are racing to submit the Little Colorado agreement to Congress by early next year, so that Kyl has sufficient time to make the case to his colleagues before he leaves office in January 2013.

Is it rude of me to ask why more have not come to the aid of the Diné Nation? If the UMC stood with the Diné and lead a grassroots campaign to get a water rights settlement passed, perhaps the mammals wallowing in the tar pit of Congress would do the right thing.


Another area that needs immediate attention is energy. Many on the reservation lack electricity and the few that have must rely on coal, dirty energy at its worst. There are clean alternatives. Eagle Energy is attempting to replicate a successful solar light program used in developing nations for the Diné. Small scale solar and wind power applications have been developed for the U.S. military to reduce reliance on  gasoline-powered generators. With incentives to clean energy companies for partner with the Diné, even larger scale development is possible that would provide energy without having to tethered to the regional grid. Advocacy and seed money are critical to get the ball rolling and the UMC can have an impact.


Finally, the lack of healthcare for the Diné and other indigenous people is a disgrace. While some progress has been made as part of the healthcare reform law, even these modest steps are at risk from the "family values" locusts in Congress itching for a chance to help the rich at the expense of the poor. The UMC and other people of conscience need to stand with the indigenous people to protect and expand existing programs. 


I am no expert on how much the religious rights of this country's indigenous peoples have been trampled over the past 500 years. Ojibwa of Street Prophets has written extensively on the subject (here is a good starting point to learn more). It is safe to say that the religious traditions of these people have largely been ignored. It is also safe to say that anyone who claims to care about the spiritual well-being of others while ignoring their physical needs is a liar. 


Now is the time for people of conscience to stand with the Diné. Roll up your sleeves and work to meet their needs for affordable clean water, clean energy, and healthcare. Please contact your critter in Congress and demand passage of a water settlement that provides access to the Little Colorado River and expand healthcare coverage for Native Americans. Many will hesitate because they want austerity for the poor. Call them out on social media as spiritually dead if they do. Finally, contact the Four Corners Native American Ministry of the United Methodist Church and ask them to serve as advocates for the basic physical needs of the Diné people. Together we can make a difference for a people who have suffered too many injustices for too many years. 

Pass the plate and burn the Koran

"Pastor" Terry Jones has announced his third Koran burning to attract attention, stir up hatred, and, raise money. He also tries his hand at comedy. 

Jones told The Christian Post Wednesday that the service will be roughly an hour long, during which he will speak on "the last 1,400 years of Islamic persecution of Christians, believers, nonbelievers, homosexuals, and women."

I am sure the irony of someone that has consistently promoted hatred of Muslims, nonbelievers, homosexuals, and women will be lost on those in attendance.  The joke is on them.

"We would like Islam-dominated countries to adapt at least some form of human rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion rights; individual rights [and] civil rights. That would be the outcome that we would desire," he added.

A man that has made a name for himself by preaching hate is demanding others respect human rights. Too funny.

These Kids are Alright

In an event organized by the World Evangelical Alliance, students from four Christian colleges visited the White House to meet with representatives from the Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives. The students message was simple - environmental stewardship matters. An executive of the WEA noted that older generations have dropped the ball on protecting the environment.

Deb Fikes, Executive Advisor for the World Evangelical Alliance and a coordinator of the event, expressed regret on behalf of her generation and offered encouragement to the young people gathered. “I am grieved by my generation of Christians,” she said from the podium. “We haven’t been doing what we need to be doing. … What are school textbooks going to say about what we did in our lifetime to make a difference? You here are going to write that chapter.”

Older generations of evangelicals have not dropped the ball as much as been duped. There has been a very well-funded campaign aimed at making sure people of faith remain divided along political lines. The fear of these big money secular groups is that Christians might put their faith first and work together on issues like social justice, condemning greed, and protecting God's creation from corporate plunder. As long as people of faith are at each others throat over issues like abortion, contraception, and homosexuality, the Mammon worshipers are free to plunder and profit will remain the only real ethic.

One of the most powerful and well funded of these groups is the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD). As noted by Rev. Andrew Weaver, their first target was mainline Protestants.

The political right-wing, operating in the guise of a gaggle of so-called "renewal groups," particularly one named the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), has acquired the money and political will to target three mainline American denominations: The United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church USA, and the Episcopal Church. The IRD was created and is sustained by money from right-wing foundations and has spent millions of dollars over 20 years attacking mainline denominations. The IRD's conservative social-policy goals include increasing military spending and foreign interventions, opposing environmental protection efforts, and eliminating social welfare programs 

In a document entitled "Reforming America's Churches Project 2001-2004," the IRD states that its aim is to change the "permanent governing structure" of mainline churches "so they can help renew the wider culture of our nation." In other words, its goal extends beyond the spiritual and includes a political takeover financed by the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife, Adolph Coors, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee.

When Robber Baron foundations talk about reforming churches, what they mean is to recreate them in the image of Mammon. Renewal is nothing more than a code word for keeping people of faith fighting culture wars and out of the way of corporate interests. A major goal of groups like IRD is to end environmental regulations and open up all natural resources to unfettered exploitation. In short, to hell with stewardship of God's creation. It is the story of the snake in the Garden all over again. This time the snake is hissing that God gave you dominion and that means you are free to use, waste, squander, and destroy without consequence or conscience.

The IRD and other corporate lobbying organizations were forced to expand their focus to evangelical groups in recent years. Under the guidance of Richard Cizik, the National Evangelical Association began to advocate environmental stewardship, including taking action on climate change. Those efforts started to bear fruit and build momentum, much to the chagrin of the corporate watchdogs. In 2006, prominent evangelical leaders created the "Evangelical Climate Initiative" to push for action on reducing carbon pollution. Almost immediately, some politically connected religious conservatives began to spout talking points developed by oil, gas, and coal companies.

Some of the nation's most high-profile evangelical leaders, however, have tried to derail such action. Twenty-two of them signed a letter in January declaring, "Global warming is not a consensus issue." Among the signers were Charles W. Colson, the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries; James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; and Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Back then, there was consensus across the political spectrum to move toward clean energy and away from fossil fuels. Over the next four years, thanks to billions spent on lobbyists and public relations campaigns, support for action waned among religious conservatives. One does not have to search particularly hard on Google to discover what the IRD has been pushing among evangelicals and other religious conservatives. It is all about culture wars with careful attention to make sure 'pro-life' is limited to the unborn. To hell with with the already born, especially the poor and the rest of God's creation.

Perhaps this action by the World Evangelical Alliance signals a rebirth of concern for stewardship for God's creation, particularly among younger generations. Other green shoots are not hard to find, such as ConservAmerica and the Evangelical Environmental Network. This editorial by David Jenkins of ConservAmerica does a marvelous job of framing the issue.

Does it not then stand to reason that God, after designing the earth’s processes to sequester excess carbon, would prefer that we respect his creation and find better ways to heat our homes and power our cars than using huge amounts of oil and coal? 

Climate skeptics -- particularly those on talk radio -- like to peddle the notion that the earth was created on such a grand and complex scale, it is impossible for mankind to mess it up. In other words, we can do anything we want without serious consequence. 

Does that sound like something God would say? 

Actually, it sounds a lot more like something the snake in the Garden of Eden would say.

Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2012/04/08/1977721/easter-stewardship-and-gods-climate.html#disqus_thread#storylink=cpy

That is spot on. The idea that we can use and abuse without consequence does not sound like God talking at all. You can imagine God's reaction if Adam and Eve had decided to cut down all the trees in the Garden of Eden, poison the waters with filth, and kill all the birds, fish, mammals, reptiles, and insects.

Consider this parable. There is a wealthy couple with two children. The couple sets up a generous trust for each child that is meant to meet the their needs as well as the needs of future generations. One child uses only what they need, but the other one decides to squander the inheritance on mansions, fancy cars, private jets, yachts, and every possible creature comfort. Which child was a faithful steward of the great gift they received?

There is reason to believe that the group of college students that participated in the WEA advocacy campaign are far from alone. In fact, there is growing evidence that younger evangelicals are sick and tired of the culture wars. They are much more interested in social, economic, and environmental justice.  When people of faith come together to talk about what God wants and how best to help each other, then there is reason to hope. It is only when all we hear about is the virtue of greed, hatred of people we disagree with, and the glory of war that I start to wonder how long until the trumpets sound and the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse gallop across the face of the Earth.

Gardens of Eden

This is what faith in action looks like:

The Hell’s Kitchen Farm projected evolved out of the Chelsea-West Side Neighborhood Network of emergency food programs. Two member congregations with food pantries formed a collaborative. This natural partnership came about out of the desires of MCCNY Sylvia Rivera Food Pantry to include urban agriculture in its food sourcing and Metro Baptist Church’s vision of a green roof and sustainability. As discussion continued it became clear that the expert advice of Clinton Housing Development Company’s horticulturist was needed. The collaboration grew and conversations developed into envisioning a rooftop farm at Metro Baptist Church as a site of education and a sort of urban agriculture hub for the community. As designs developed and interest grew within the community throughout 2010, funding for the project became a reality in 2011 as the United Way of New York recognized our project as part of their Urban Farming Seed Grant program.

The project was a collaboration between two faith communities who were struggling with how to improve food security for  impoverished  residents. The partnership has helped created an urban farm that feeds others and serves as resource for others in the community. From the Huffington Post:

The vision for The Hell’s Kitchen Farm Project, named for the ‘Hell’s Kitchen’ neighborhood in which the church is located, is to create a hub of urban agriculture that grows vegetables and contributes to greater food security in the neighborhood, while providing a platform for education on nutrition and environmental sustainability. 

Now in its second year, the rooftop farm has become an integral part of the church's identity. “I think of it as public witness,” explains Metro Baptist’s current pastor, Rev. Alan Sherouse, "The farm project has given people another point of entry to our church, community ministry and our understanding of the Gospel.”

 This project provides a clear example of what is possible, even within a short period of time, to improve food security for those with too little. There is an obvious gospel parallel. The story of Jesus feeding the multitudes is found in all four gospels. Although the details vary somewhat, the idea is the same. A very large crowd had gathered to hear Jesus. At the end of the day, there was no place for this crowd could go for food as they made their way back to their homes. So Jesus took what little food was available and turned it into a sumptuous feast. Everyone had more than enough to eat, with leftovers to boot.

The Pope Hearts A Hateful Sect

It has been a banner year for the Vatican. It absolves itself of any wrong-doing in its handling of pedophile priests. Bishops in America go on a holy war against contraception. The pope uses his Holy Thursday homily to condemn priests that dare to question his authority. The Vatican publicly spanks the Superiors of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious for advocating the ordination of women and insufficient preoccupation with genital morality.

In case there is any doubt that the Vatican has become a whitewashed tomb, the stench grows stronger.

For the pope's 85th birthday on Monday, his own brother showed up in Rome empty handed. But the brothers of the controversial Catholic splinter group Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) were more generous. They sent a letter -- and its contents may be the greatest gift yet to the papacy of Benedict XVI. The pope has long wanted to heal the schism with the SSPX and bring the conservative followers of the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre back into the fold. That hope may now become reality. 

The Catholic traditionalist Lefebvre founded the SSPX in 1969 in answer to the reforms pushed through by the Second Vatican Council, also known as Vatican II, earlier that decade. The group has grown to include tens of thousands of followers and hundreds of priests -- a "painful wound in the body of the church," Benedict XVI has said. 

Even when SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson made global headlines in 2009 by publicly denying the Holocaust, the pope remained steadfast. Indeed, talks between the Vatican and the SSPX continued a short time later once Williamson, a native of Great Britain, had been marginalized. Now, it looks as though an agreement may be imminent.

The SSPX has long had a deep vein of anti-Semitism that extends well beyond Bishop Williamson. It also does not hide its disdain for women, homosexuals, Muslims, liberals, journalists, and even fellow Catholics that embrace Vatican II reforms. The fact that reconciling with this malignant sect warms the heart of Benedict XVI speaks volumes about his defective moral compass.

Race and liberation theology

CNN has an interesting story about the formative years of theologian James Cone and his views of the relationship between race and theology. Cone is widely regarded as the father of black liberation theology, giving birth to the movement with the publication of Black Theology and Black Power (1969) and A Black Theology of Liberation (1970). These works focused on God's love for the oppressed as both a source of pride for the African American community and a warning to the white community, particularly religious leaders. The common thread in Exodus, the prophets (e.g., Isaiah, Jeremiah), and the New Testament is that God champions the oppressed and will eventually punish the oppressors. Black liberation theology is an valuable component of a larger campaign of empowerment - spiritually, emotionally, economically, culturally, and politically. Cone was addressing the moral foundation of the civil rights movement after the assassination of Dr. King and the riots that followed.

There are several things that caught my eye about the CNN story on Cone. One is the discussion of theologian Reinhold Niebuhr and his failure to speak out about segregation, discrimination, and lynching of African Americans as injustices that need correction. Cone, while having great admiration for Niebuhr's work, is critical of Niebuhr's silence. Note the defensive reaction of a Niebuhr scholar:

Cone’s criticism of Niebuhr baffles at least one well-known Niebuhr scholar. Charles Lemert, author of “Why Niebuhr Matters,” said King often cited Niebuhr as an inspiration. He said he’d never heard that Niebuhr rejected a petition request from King. “It would be so remote from everything the man was. 

Lemert said Niebuhr had established a long record of speaking out against racism, beginning when he became a pastor in Detroit. Niebuhr may not have spoken out against lynching and other forms of racism later on because of another reason, Lemert said. 

“He had a debilitating stroke in 1951,” Lemert said. “By the time the civil rights movement was full blown, he was retired and getting ill.”

Lemert defends Niebuhr by saying he had a severe stroke in 1951 and was only a ghost of his former self after it. That absolves Niebuhr from not taking an active role in the civil rights movement, but it does not address his silence from 1920 to 1950 about the racial injustices that were too common and prominent to have been overlooked. It is not good enough to talk about the reality of evil in the larger world while saying too little about the oppression of African Americans. His theology of pragmatism found a way to accommodate segregation while nominally opposing racial injustice. With the separate but equal doctrine, Niebuhr set a bad example for white religious leaders instead of calling them to action.

Cone was especially critical of the fascination of white theologians with ethereal spirituality and the afterlife. People with too little to eat, too few opportunities to escape poverty, and too much pain from racism have a hard time caring about abstract spiritual ideas. It is why Cone labeled himself as the "angriest theologian," especially since his own father was a victim of a lynch mob. There needed to be a theology grounded in the black experience to counteract the pretense that Jesus was a man with white skin and light colored hair that came to lift gauzy white souls to heaven.

An excellent case for the continuing relevance of black liberation theology comes from the more than 2000 comments to the CNN article. One common theme in the comments is it is racist to bring up lynchings and other racial injustices from long ago. Bringing up these atrocities of the past is viewed as nothing more than an attempt to make white people feel guilty for the sins of previous generations. How dare this black man whose own father was lynched speak about the horrors of the past. Another theme is that CNN is playing the race card to inflame racial tensions in the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin murder and the first black president running for re-election. Judging from the volume of comments, the white power movement is indeed alive and well.

Finally, Cone questions the direction of churches in the African American community in recent years. Many of these churches have fallen prey to the gospel of prosperity, the disease that has become epidemic among white evangelicals. Churches should force people to wrestle with their conscience rather than providing assurances that greed is good and your sins are minor as long as you keep your genitals clean, all set against a backdrop of soothing music.

It sounds like Cone's new memoir, The Cross and the Lynching Tree, is a must read.

Earth Day card

Amen.

[Source: Some Ecards]

The Pope wags his fat finger at uppity American nuns

The Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) is the largest organization of Catholic nuns in America. Despite dedicating their lives to acting on their faith, they attracted the attention of the Vatican purity police in 2008. The membership of the LCWR stand accused and now convicted of allowing Sr. Laurie Brink to question the actions of the Church as LCWR president; failure to support papal orthodoxy on the ordination of women, bigotry against homosexuals, and preoccupation with genital morality; and engaging in what the Vatican considers "radical feminism." The LCWR will now have to submit to five years of contrite deference to dickish bishops and close supervision by their betters.

Therefore in order to implement a process of review and conformity to the teachings and discipline of the Church, the Holy See, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, will appoint an Archbishop Delegate, assisted by two Bishops, for review, guidance and approval, where necessary, of the work of the LCWR.

The Vatican Cardinal in charge of putting the nuns in their place, William Levada, promises to verbally abuse the nuns until they comply fully with the doctrine of privileged old men.

Cardinal William Levada, a former Archbishop in the United States and the now the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, said in a statement that the Vatican process is aimed "fostering a patient and collaborative renewal of this conference of major superiors in order to provide a stronger doctrinal foundation for its many laudable initiatives and activities."

Cardinal Levada leads by example. He recently claimed the Vatican was beyond reproach in its handling of pedophile priests.

The irony is that if you go to the LCWR website, you will find women who have worked very hard to put the teachings of Jesus into action. And for raising the issue of allowing women a greater leadership role in the Church, they have been branded "radical feminists."

Here is their statement on the heavy-handed actions of the Vatican and its minions on any questioning of Doctrine.

The presidency of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious was stunned by the conclusion of the doctrinal assessment of LCWR by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. We had received a letter from the CDF prefect in early March informing us that we would hear the results of the doctrinal assessment at our annual meeting; however, we were taken by surprise by the gravity of the mandate.

This is a moment of great import for religious life and the wider church. We ask your prayers as we meet with the LCWR National Board within the coming month to review the mandate and prepare a response

Below that statement on their website is contact information. I strongly encourage you to offer your support for these courageous women as they seek to serve God while being forced to walk in the shadows of arrogant and morally bankrupt men that have all too often betrayed the teachings of Jesus.

Remember these women when you listen to the all male leadership of the Catholic Church make self-serving and hypocritical claims about religious freedom. The Vatican must be free to dictate health care policy for all women in the United States but nuns are not allowed to question Church doctrine. I guess that is not hypocritical after all. In the eyes of the Vatican, women are second class citizens that should never be allowed to make personal decisions about reproduction, aspire to leadership roles in the Church, or challenge papal authority.

Southern Baptists need new ethics leadership

Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Convention's (SBC) Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission for nearly 25 years, went on a racist rant on the radio that turned out to be plagiarized from a conservative political pundit. Land also appears to have plagiarized much of an editorial published in International Business Daily. When discovered, he wrote a laughable letter of apology for his slights and oversights to the SBC president. You cannot have an unethical leader of a religious ethics commission. Hell no, Richard Land has to go.

Sometimes saying that you are sorry is not enough

Here is yet another example of our Christian nation in action. During the 1940's, our government decided to conduct disgraceful medical experiments on poor people in Guatemala.

More than 1,300 Guatemalans, almost all of them poor or otherwise vulnerable, were intentionally exposed to the diseases syphilis, gonorrhoea or chancroid without their consent. The experiments also took blood and cerebrospinal fluid from 5,128 adults and children, again with no consent. Of those infected, unknown numbers contracted the diseases and died; others suffered for decades, in some cases infecting their spouses or their children (see Nature 482, 148–152; 2012).

For some ridiculous reason, information about this obscenity did not become public until 2010. When the news broke, the Obama administration was quick to apologize and appointed a blue ribbon panel to investigate, which issued a scathing report ("Ethically Impossible STD Research in Guatemala from 1946 to 1948"). So far, so good. Unfortunately, when it came time to actually do something to help the victim's families, the injustices began anew.

But when lawyers for the victims asked US Attorney General Eric Holder to set up a claims process that would meaningfully compensate the survivors, they hit a wall of silence.

And when the victim's families filed suit against the government agencies that paid for the "research," the government went to court to get the case thrown out.

In a court filing last week, the US government reiterated a stance that it first took in January: that the court should throw the case out because government officials are shielded from lawsuits that arise from actions taken in the course of performing their jobs, and because current officials cannot be held responsible for the acts of their predecessors decades ago.

Pay these people anything they ask for. Anything. “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice, for they shall be satisfied." When you engage in the "ethically impossible," saying that you are sorry is not good enough.

The lazy theology of T.D. Jakes

On this Day of Silence it is important to remember that people calling themselves Christians have been the major inspiration for the bullying of homosexuals in our society. Jesus called us to love others as we would wish to be loved. By that criteria, often called the "golden rule," many in the Christian community have failed.

Here is a perfect example of the sloppy theology that gives rise to hateful behavior, courtesy of T. D. Jakes in an interview with Oprah Winfrey.

"I think that sex between two people of the same sex is condemned in the Scriptures, and as long as it is condemned in the Scriptures, I don't get to say what I think. I get to say what the Bible says," Jakes said.

What makes this view sloppy and spiritually lazy is that we are all sinners. Without exception. Jesus said we are not entitled to judge the sins of others (Matthew 7:1-5), but rather need to clean up our own spiritual houses. Some begrudgingly acknowledge that prohibition, but try to create a loophole to wag their finger and throw stones anyway. The reasoning goes something like this. If you succeed in removing the log from your own eye, then you are free to stick your finger in someone's eye to "lovingly" correct them. Here is an example:

Before you ever start to tell someone else what is wrong with their life, make sure you take a good look at your own life first. But notice, Jesus does not say, take the log out of your own eye and don’t say anything about the speck in the others persons eye. That would be the result of never judging anyone about anything. Instead Jesus says that after you take care of your own stuff, then go and help your brother. So you are to help then with their issue but only once you have done a personal spiritual check to make sure that you are right with God.

Some Christians, including T. D. Jakes, want to elevate homosexuals to a special class of sinners. What a clever way of pretending to be superior to others! We are both sinners, but you are worse and God loves me more.

It is interesting that only one sexual act made God's top ten list - adultery. Adultery harms other people. Adultery destroys trust in relationships. It is not homosexuality that is a threat to marriage. It is infidelity. So how come so much energy goes into condemning homosexuality when the real threat to marriage is largely ignored? Is that because very few members of a congregation are likely to have engaged in homosexual acts but at least half are likely to commit adultery at some point in their life?

You do have to wonder if someone actually believes that Jesus was God in human form, then why do they work so hard to get around His very simple command to love and respect others. And when you start mistreating people, regardless of how supposedly noble your intentions, then you have violated that command.

A breath of fresh air from a Republican meteorologist

Rejection of climate science and human contributions to climate change have become articles of faith for many conservative politicians. It is a part of a clever stratagem. Fossil fuels companies realized that they did not have to buy off everyone; just enough to make political action impossible. So, in face of unprecedented changes in global temperature patterns, hydrological cycles, ocean acidification, and atmospheric chemistry, we have the most powerful conservatives demanding that we maintain carbon pollution business as usual. 

Meteorologist Paul Douglas, a lifelong Republican, dares to admit that carbon pollution is destabilizing the climate and is not a hoax concocted by Al Gore. Perhaps the reason that he has broken ranks with the politics of greed is because he takes stewardship of the planet, God's property, quite seriously.

How did so much of the Republican Party enter perpetual denial? We’ve turned climate science into a bizarre litmus test for conservatism. To pretend that heat-trapping gases can be waved away with a nod and a smirk is political fairytale. No harm. No foul. Keep drilling. 

I’m a Christian and ultimately come to Christ through faith. With climate change no faith is required. There is a large and growing body of evidence. The way nature works applies the same to Republican and Democrat, Christian and Muslim, animal, tree and stone. Why do people who profess to love and follow God roll their eyes? Luke 16:2 says “Man has been appointed as a steward for the management of God’s property, and ultimately he will give account for his stewardship.”

Amen, brother.

Is a thoughtful conservative an oxymoron?

Research conducted by Scott Eidelman and colleagues from the University of Arkansas suggest that traits associated with conservative ideology are more likely to be expressed in situations where complex cognitive processes are constrained. Here is the basic idea:

Conservative political ideology in Western democracies may be identified by several components, including an emphasis on personal responsibility, acceptance of hierarchy, and a preference for the status quo. These ideological components map closely onto nonideological psychological processes, which support attitudes consistent with political conservatism. We describe how attitudes and behaviors consistent with these components increase as a consequence of thinking that requires little time, effort, or awareness. From this starting point, we develop the argument that political conservatism is promoted when people rely on low-effort thinking. When effortful, deliberate responding is disrupted or disengaged, thought processes become quick and efficient; these conditions promote conservative ideology.

Evidence from four experiments support the basic hypothesis that situations that disrupt complex, effortful processing increase the expression of conservative attitudes. The situations used in the experiments included alcohol intoxication, divided attention, and rapid decision tasks. The authors argue that endorsement of personal responsibility, deference to authority, and desire to maintain the status quo represent our default ideology. Think of it as our basic instinct in situations where we have to act quickly rather than think deeply.

In life-threatening crisis situations, such as catastrophic events, epidemics, and wars, personal responsibility for action, deference to authority, and restoring the status quo as the goal make perfect sense. In these circumstances, negative emotions like fear, anger, and sadness dominate information processing and there is less of a premium on complex cognitions. Your survival is enhanced by taking care of yourself and allowing authorities to efficiently manage the crisis.

These "conservative" traits are likely entrained during childhood. When we are dependent on parents for our survival, individual actions are rewarded or punished, we are expected to defer to our parents, and prefer stability and comfort to uncertainty and change.

The researchers argue that the study shows that humans tend to exhibit conservative traits in circumstances that prevent complex information processing, making it a normal part of our cognitive construction.

Our findings suggest that conservative ways of thinking are basic, normal, and perhaps natural. Motivational factors are crucial determinants of ideology, aiding or correcting initial responses depending on one’s goals, beliefs, and values. Our perspective suggests that these initial and uncorrected responses lean conservative.

The problem comes when people try to portray these "conservative" dispositions as superior. It is not quite so simple. These dispositions are antithetical to social cooperation, empathy, and compassion. Cooperation requires sharing responsibility and rewards. Blind allegiance to authority also fosters status hierarchies that result in unjust control and distribution of resources. Every abusive political system in history has feed the pigs, slaughtered the sheep, pampered the predators. and nailed dissenters to trees. The conservative mindset also undermines innovation and problem-solving in favoring the status quo.

I bring up this point for a simple reason. There has been a deliberate attempt in American society to conflate Christianity with conservative political ideology. That equation is dishonest on many levels. Jesus encouraged his followers to be radically compassionate, inclusive, merciful, forgiving, and unconditionally loving. All of those things require considerable thought and run contrary to self-centered personal reward systems. He also condemned the religious authorities of his day to such an extreme that they had him killed. Finally, he turned over the apple carts of the status quo by telling his followers to value spiritual rather material rewards. And just for good measure he said you did not have to born into a particular tribe to be loved by God.

In an overpopulated and resource-depleted world that requires cooperation, compassion, and effective problem-solving to maximize human survival, thoughtlessness does not seem like a smart option. Of course, that is just my bias.

Powerful statement on stewardship of our natural resources

Mitch Hescox has written a powerful post, entitled "New Wine," for the Creation Care blog of the Evangelical Environmental Network. Read it and share it with friends. What had me shouting with joy was the elegant way Hescox summarized the fight between the old and comfortable with the new and transformative.

Our predisposition to "old wine" demonstrates why so many in the evangelical church openly resist many of the Christian social justice issues hotly debated in today's world. These issues become culture wars as they force us to consider how to press new wine versus the old vintage. The new wine presses us to reconsider our models, lifestyles, and understanding of the good news in Jesus, and perhaps nowhere is that more apparent than the reaction of some to climate change.

No one denies that cheap and abundant energy transformed the United States into a world power. Our inexpensive energy fueled a national sense of independence and self-reliance. Fossil fuels provided the individual freedom to get in our cars and go anywhere. The creation of the rural electric-cooperative powered even the most remote household with cheap electricity. These societal advancements quickly transformed from a blessings to idolatry. We became dependent on fossil fuel, and our energy addiction foils Christ's goal for the common good. As with all addictions, they transform into self-interest idolatry. Our self-interest for cheap energy fails to account for all costs, especially those dumped upon our neighbors.

Preference given to culture wars, self interest, and maintaining the status quo at all costs instead of being advocates for the common good and the most vulnerable is not just an affliction of the evangelical community. All who follow Christ have seen it in action. Until we reject old wine past its prime and the temptation to put the best new wine in the same old containers, change will be far too slow.

Is Bishop Jenky an enemy of Christ?

Daniel Jenky, Bishop of an Illinois diocese, lead a Catholic men's march in opposition to contraception and forcing insurance companies to cover contraception for women. His homily of lies began by claiming the Catholic Church has been persecuted during its entire history and people supporting the health care law are as bad as Hitler and Stalin.

For those who cannot access the video, here is a transcript of Jenky's sermon.

For 2,000 years the enemies of Christ have certainly tried their best. But think about it. The Church survived and even flourished during centuries of terrible persecution, during the days of the Roman Empire. 

The Church survived barbarian invasions. The Church survived wave after wave of Jihads. The Church survived the age of revolution. The Church survived Nazism and Communism. And in the power of the resurrection, the Church will survive the hatred of Hollywood, the malice of the media, and the mendacious wickedness of the abortion industry. 

The Church will survive the entrenched corruption and sheer incompetence of our Illinois state government, and even the calculated disdain of the President of the United States, his appointed bureaucrats in HHS, and of the current majority of the federal Senate.

May God have mercy especially on the souls of those politicians who pretend to be Catholic in church, but in their public lives, rather like Judas Iscariot, betray Jesus Christ by how they vote and how they willingly cooperate with intrinsic evil.

As Christians we must love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, but as Christians we must also stand up for what we believe and be ready to fight to defend our faith. The days in which we live now require heroic Catholicism, not casual Catholicism. We can no longer be Catholics by accident, but instead be Catholics by conviction.

In our own families, in our parishes, where we live and where we work – like that very first apostolic generation – we must be bold witnesses to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. We must be a fearless army of Catholic men, ready to give everything we have for the Lord, who gave everything for our salvation.

Remember that in past history other governments have tried to force Christians to huddle and hide only within the confines of their churches like those first disciples before the Resurrection locked together in the Upper Room. 

In the late 19th century, Bismark waged his “Kulturkamf,” a culture war against the Roman Catholic Church, closing down every Catholic school and hospital, convent and monastery in Imperial Germany. Clemenceau, nicknamed “the priest eater,” tried the same thing in France in the first decade of the 20th Century.

Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.

In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, President Obama – with his radical, pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.
Now things have come to such a pass in our beloved country that this is a battle that we could lose, but before the awesome judgement seat of Almighty God this is not a war where any believing Catholic may remain neutral.

That is an interesting retelling of history since the leaders of the Catholic Church have engaged in monstrous acts since Roman Emperor Constantine blessed them as the official religion of Rome in the fourth century. What followed has been seventeen centuries of privileged status, not only in Rome, but also throughout Europe, Africa, North America, and South America. Bishop Jenky appears to have forgotten some of the abuses that Catholic Church leaders have engaged in during that period. There was the jihad against Muslims and Jews commonly known as the Crusades. And who cannot forget torture and murder against political and religious opponents of the Catholic Church known as the Inquisition. What fun the Bishops of that era must have had as they watched people strapped into torture machines, burned alive, and hung, with the Church taking their property to teach future generations of Muslims and Jews that they better not live in central Europe. Or how about selling indulgences to people who could afford a sin tax, just one of the many abuses Martin Luther publicized. What about traveling with genocidal Conquistadors as they rampaged across North and South America? Oh, and let's not forget making deals with Hitler and Mussolini. In exchange for  saying nothing about murder of Jews, homosexuals, and political opponents, the Church could keep its privileged position in German, Italian, Polish, and French societies. Surely even Bishop Jenky has not forgotten Catholic religious leaders protecting priests that sexually and psychologically molested children in parishes throughout America and Europe.

Jesus said that what comes out of your mouth betrays your corruption (Matthew 15: 1-20). Perhaps Bishop Jenky should whip out his trusty scripture and check out that chapter, paying ever so close attention to the words in red. Jesus was in great form in that passage. For instance, He rips the Pharisees for their perverse encouragement to give them money instead of telling people to take care of mothers and fathers in their time of need (i.e., when no longer able to work). And when the disciples asked him about irritating the religious leaders, His response was that God would eventually pull these weeds from the garden.

May God have mercy especially on the souls of those Catholic leaders who pretend to follow the teachings of Jesus, but in public, rather like Judas Iscariot, betray Jesus Christ by how they distort truth and abuse their authority to gain political power, even if it means engaging others with intrinsic evil.

Bishop Jenky was leading a march of Catholic men to condemn the use of birth control and having insurance companies pay for it. The big lie in all of this is these same people condemn women for ending unwanted pregnancies, but are out marching against contraception and the increase in unwanted pregnancies that will result. Teen pregnancy rates have fallen across the country over the past four decades because of contraception but remain high in places promoting abstinence only education. Just ask Bristol Palin about the effectiveness of abstinence education.  If I were a woman in the Catholic Church, it would be difficult to choose between leaving the Church or leading a revolt against the corrupt patriarchal hierarchy. That is particularly true after Pope Benedict XVI, a member of the Hitler Youth as a teenager, used his homily on Holy Thursday to castigate priests in Europe for supporting the ordination of women.

Jesus should get the last word when we are confronted with a Bishop that says next to nothing about the abuses by the privileged, barely lifts a finger to ease the suffering of the poor and sick, but condemns all who stand in the way of the Catholic Church dictating whether health insurance companies should cover contraception for women. What was it Jesus said about whitewashed tombs (Matthew 23:27-28)?

27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

Amen on taxes

With opposition to taxes tackled with religious fervor in some quarters, it is helpful to recall the words of Jesus. Courtesy of Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, former president of Chicago Theological Seminary, in the pages of the Washington Post:

Jesus’ famous line on paying taxes is “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Mark 12:17) What is less well remembered is the reason Jesus called out both the political and the religious leaders who asked him about whether you should pay your taxes: Jesus “knew their hypocrisy.” (Mark 12:15)

Speaking of hypocrisy, the article of faith in some corners is that there should be no government safety net for the poor. Religious organizations can pick up the slack in their fantasy. The only problem is that fantasy is dishonest, and not in a well meaning idiotic way. Money coming into private sector organizations, including religious charities, to care for those in need always goes down in times of economic difficulty. So, when the need is greatest, the private sector is less able to care for the need.

The “small government” or even “no government” folks want to say that the churches should pick up the slack on taking care of the poor instead of us paying taxes for a social safety net. Rev. Joel Hunter, a prominent evangelical pastor, has recently noted how unrealistic that view really is in a recent talk with the title, “Government is Not the Enemy.” 

We have far too many who squeal like pigs over paying a few dollars to help the poor while gladly paying thousands in taxes to cover military spending. It seems only fair to call these people self-centered cowards who need the largest military in human history to feel safe.

Grow up, Kirk Cameron

It has been fun to watch Kirk Cameron stir up controversy in advance of the release of his schlock revisionist history film. In case you missed it, Cameron went on Piers Morgan and lovingly bashed homosexuals. I have always thought that junk food television sitcoms with third rate actors are unnatural, detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization, but that is just my opinion.

Cameron is just another promoter of infantile "rapture" theology which teaches Christians to gaze deeply into their navels and fantasize about their rewards for believing in Jesus. It appeals to people who want to believe that God loves them more than all the people that do not act, think, vote, or look like them. Many, like Cameron, also believe that God wants them to have dominion over the nation. Nothing reflects humbly walking with Christ like trying to control everything and everyone.

I have to give Cameron his due. He skillfully manufactured a timely controversy that was guaranteed to play well among his target audience for his new movie. Whether former tabloid editor Piers Morgan was a shill or just the tool that Cameron felt would help him get the most publicity does not really matter. What matters is that he was able to milk the media for free publicity, aided in no small measure by the indignation from the people offended by his insensitive comments. Getting bashed by gay rights advocates helps Kirk sell more tickets. He knows that. Cameron is very, very, very good at serving himself.

More evidence that politics kills our soul

God does not care what political candidates we vote for or what political ideology we subscribe to. None of these things of Mammon matter. In fact, the more politicians talk about God and morality when they run for office, the more morally bankrupt they become when in office. Power corrupts. You also cross a line to outright evil when you imply that God wants you to be powerful. It is blasphemy in service of lust for power. Or worse, intoxication with power leads you to justify injustice and cruelty in the name of God.

A new study published in Psychological Science illustrates the inherent evil in our political allegiances. The experiments by Ed O'Brien and Phoebe Ellsworth examined the impact of our political identification on our ability to empathize. The moral of the story is very simple. We are less likely to empathize with the sufferings of people with different political identifications.

This shows that the tendency to project your feelings onto others does not extend to people who are very different from you, even when the feelings otherwise overwhelm your judgments. This might reveal a surprising limit to our ability to empathize with people we differ from or disagree with. For example, other research has shown that people are less likely to endorse torture after they’re given a brief burst of pain. But these results suggest that people might feel less opposed to torture if it’s being used on people very different from themselves. Similarly, feeling hungry or cold might not be enough to make people appreciate the plight of the homeless, if they perceive the homeless as very different from themselves. “Even if you’re feeling shared pain, you may not let that connection affect your opinions of people are very, very different from you,” O’Brien says.

The more we view each other as fellow children of God, the less likely we are to ignore the suffering of others or be tempted to harm others. Loving others as Jesus taught comes naturally the more we believe that God loves us all. It becomes more difficult when you start to view others as so different from ourselves that we cannot empathize with their struggles and suffering. Or worse yet, we succumb to the temptation to believe that God loves us more than others. Then if we see these perceived inferiors suffer, we smugly believe that they have it coming.

Jesus said that sibling rivalry among God's children is not acceptable to Him. In fact, Jesus said to love your enemies and pray for those that harm you (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27). Politics is just another way we devalue the humanity of others. It is also a temptation to stay silent about injustices promoted by people with the same political identification.

Left, right, and wrong on the budget fight

The Christian Post cleverly frames the controversy over the Paul Ryan budget proposal as political. Christians critical of the plan to cut programs that help the poor and give more to the rich are characterized as merely politically liberal. Thus, it is a political squabble among Christians and Ryan should be given the benefit of the doubt when he claims that scripture and religious principles informed his plan. Does this framing pass the smell test?

Here is Paul Ryan's defense of supply side "subsidiarity" as summarized by the Christian Post:

In particular, Ryan mentioned the Catholic tenets of "subsidiarity," the principle that large, complex organizations should not deal with problems that can be dealt with by small, simple organizations, and "preferential option for the poor," the principle that the needs of the poor should be considered before the needs of others. The Republican budget is consistent with these principles, Ryan said, by reducing the role of the federal government in civic society and eliminating programs that keep the poor dependent on government.

Never mind that subsidiarity as defined within the Catholic social teaching never said government has no role. In fact, the role of government and other complex organizations is to fill needs not meet by individuals and private groups according to papal writings.

One question never gets asked of Ryan and his collaborators. Who will pick up the slack for the safety net they are shredding? That little detail is never specified.

Perhaps congregations and religious organizations will be able to feed, clothe, house, and provide medical care for the poor, sick, elderly, and disabled. Not likely. During the recent recession, contributions to churches and other faith-based organizations declined even as membership grew. In other words, contributions to religious organizations parallel the larger economy so there will be less resources available when the need is greatest.

What about the wealthy? Jesus never had much faith in the rich.

Luke 6:24-25: "Woe to you who are already rich for you have your comfort.  Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep."  

Mark 10:25: "It will be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

The Lord was more than justified in his dim assessment of the rich. Study after study has found that the wealthy give a smaller percentage of their income to charitable causes than people of modest means. Even more damning than the hoarding by the rich is where they contribute their money when they do give. It is all about vanity rather than helping the less fortunate. Most of the money goes to private colleges, hospitals, and the arts, which offer naming rights and cater to the affluent.

Another interesting trend is where the money goes. About 41% of the $89.9 billion donated to charity in 2005 by households with incomes under $100,000 went to causes that helped the poor meet their basic needs, according to a study (.pdf) by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. Of the $51 billion donated by households with incomes above $1 million, less than 15% benefited causes that helped the poor. The very wealthy tended to favor health- and education-related charities and to give to religious causes over giving to the poor.

Paul Ryan has no plan to replace the government safety net he wants to shred and there is no substantive reason to believe that giving more to the wealthy will trickle down to locally controlled empowerment programs for the less fortunate. Ryan is on the wrong side of scripture and the politics of greed.

Southern Baptist Land Mines

Richard Land is head of "ethics and public policy" for the Southern Baptist Convention. I think that means he speaks for what public policies should be supported (aka what is viewed as politically correct) by Southern Baptists. That is a big responsibility. Since Land is the person at the top of the denomination's public morality food chain, the buck stops with him. 

While SBC presidents are elected for one-year terms, as the head of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission for 23 years, the outspoken Land is arguably the most powerful person in the denomination and certainly its most visible spokesman.

Here are the some of the mines Richard Land put out in remarks about the Trayvon Martin killing. 


1. He criticized Barack Obama for expressing empathy to the Martin family by saying that "if I had a boy, he would look like Travyon." Land takes that one statement of empathy and calls it a political ploy to win votes in the African American community and abject racism. From the AP report:

Land says he stands by his assertion that President Barack Obama "poured gasoline on the racialist fires" when he addressed Martin's slaying and that Obama, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton have used the case "to try to gin up the black vote for an African American president who is in deep, deep, deep trouble for re-election." 

I wonder if Land would say the same thing about a white Republican president if the situation were reversed. Say if an unarmed white teenager was killed by an armed African American claiming to be part of a community policing program and the white Republican president said it could have been his son. According to Land, any criticism of an unarmed black teenager being killed by a white man is stirring "racialist fires." Even if he thinks it was an accident for a big armed white guy to kill a small unarmed black kid, I assume that he would still think the grief of that black kid's family should be acknowledged and sympathy extended to them. No such expressions of empathy, sympathy, and compassion can be found in the words of Richard Land. Sure seems like Land is worshiping the Mammon of politics rather than serving Jesus by emulating His teachings and examples. 


2. You cannot argue that Land is not capable of empathy. He just chooses to limit that empathy to the gunman and his family. Then he stoops lower to claim that he understands why white people feel threatened by black people. Also from the AP report.

Land, who is white, said in an interview he has no regrets about his remarks. He said he understands why the case has touched a nerve among black leaders, but he also defended the idea that people are justified in seeing young black men as threatening: A black man is "statistically more likely to do you harm than a white man."

"Is it tragic that people react that way? Yes. Is it unfair? Yes? But it is understandable," he said.

3. The Southern Baptist Convention has had a long history of supporting slavery, discrimination, and racism against African Americans and has been working hard to ask forgiveness for those wrongs and welcome African Americans to worship as part of the Southern Baptist family. Land's comments offended African American members of the Southern Baptist Convention, but instead of apologizing for his poor choice of words Land doubled down.

Land stood by his comments on Wednesday, saying the media and some political leaders have been unfair in their portrayal of George Zimmerman.

4. The words Land used to criticize Barack Obama, African American religious leaders, and the entire discussion of the Trayvon Martin case were taken directly from a conservative political columnist. Whether you call Land a plagiarist for not crediting his original source or simply a political tool in repeating talking points is up to you. The bottom line is that the head of "ethics and public policy" at the Southern Baptist convention failed to mention that his criticisms were taken nearly verbatim from another source and a secular political one at that. 


5. Land's arrogance in refusing to apologize is hurtful to the body of Christ. One clear sign of the divisiveness is the resolution for the Southern Baptist Convention to disavow the statements by Land. The fact that the resolution is not likely to pass with add further fuel to racial divisions.


What did Jesus say about false prophets (Matthew 7:15-20)?

  15“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16“You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17“So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18“A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19“Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20“So then, you will know them by their fruits.

If Richard Land claimed to be speaking as an individual rather than as a high ranking official of the Southern Baptist Convention, any rotten fruit would only reflect on his little tree. Unfortunately, Land is out peddling his fetid fruit as representative of the Southern Baptist orchard, no matter how badly it tastes.

Now that is prayer

A 19-year-old college student walked 70 miles to pray at the tomb of Saint Mother Theodore Guerin in Indiana. His inspirations for the trek were a friend with cancer and the story of Guerin's work. From CNN:

An aging friend of Domini’s who lives nearby in Crawfordsville, Indiana, had been diagnosed with stage IV cancer six months earlier.  

“He wasn’t doing well, and he’s the kind of guy who gives so much and doesn’t expect anything in return,” Domini said. “I wanted to do something for him.”  

Without telling his friend, Domini, who isn’t Catholic and said he has tried out different churches but considers himself more spiritual than religious, said he decided to take a long walk in search of spiritual assistance.

Many were touched by his action - his friend with cancer, the sisters at the convent, and Domini himself who came away inspired to make the world a better place. It was a simple act of faith.

Yeehaw: Tennessee defines holding hands as a gateway sexual activity

The fine folks in the Tennessee legislature want to define holding hands and kissing as "gateway sexual activities."

Tennessee senators approved an update to the state's abstinence-based sex education law that includes warnings against "gateway sexual activity." 

In a new family life instructions bill, holding hands and kissing could be considered gateways to sex. 

Well, then holding a gun should be considered a gateway to murder. It is the same logic. By the way, the sponsor of the hand-holding hysteria also "opposes any and all efforts to limit our gun rights."

The problem with these "family values" clowns is that their actions demean the sacrifice and significance of Jesus. They are obsessed with sexual morality but are silent on the broader context of how we treat one another. It is acceptable if people starve and go without shelter. They do not raise their voices when people die of hyperthermia or hypothermia because they cannot afford their utility bills or suffer because they lack access to medical care because they cannot afford health insurance. It is also not a problem for greed-driven corporations to pay people next to nothing so both parents end up working multiple jobs with no time or energy to raise their children. It is fine and dandy to execute people, particularly those without access to adequate legal representation. A majority of Christians even support the use of torture.

Jesus boiled morality down to two commandments (Matthew 22:36-40) - love God and love each other. All other commandments followed from these two basic principles. Would you be willing to seriously consider the teachings of Jesus when people making a display of their piety by pontificating about sexual morality turn a blind eye to suffering, violence, greed, exploitation, and neglect? 

Faith leaders call Paul Ryan a hypocrite

Paul Ryan wins prizes for audacity and depravity in claiming that his vicious budget blueprints have been "informed" by his faith. It is refreshing to see faith leaders call him a hypocrite.

“It’s the height of hypocrisy for Rep. Ryan to claim that his approach to the budget is shaped by Catholic teaching and values,” said Fr. John Baumann, S.J., founder of PICO National Network. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has been clear about where they stand on protecting the poor in the federal budget.

Ryan is a serial hypocrite as religious leaders condemned his 2011 budget blueprint for the exact same reasons. Ryan and his fellow conservatives want to increase the suffering of people at the bottom of the economic ladder while giving more tax cuts for the wealthy.

For the second year in a row, the Catholic Bishops have pointed out the moral failure in the Ryan budget blueprint.

“A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” (Matthew 25).  The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first.” 

By these measures, the Ryan budget is a severe failure. It places the burden of reducing the deficit on the backs of struggling families, while cutting the taxes of the wealthiest Americans by trillions dollars. The non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that two out of every three dollars cut from non-defense spending would come from program that serve people of limited means. The Center’s analysis is that the Ryan proposal would produce “the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history and likely increase poverty and inequality more than any other budget in recent times (and possibly in the nation’s history).”

I could only stand and cheer this characterization of the Ryan budget.

Rep. Ryan’s claim that he is helping the poor by making their lives more difficult is inspired by radical Libertarian novelist Ayn Rand (author of a book entitled "The Virtue of Selfishness"), not Holy Scripture. The mission of the Church is to “bring good news to the poor” and to protect the vulnerable, not to justify the impoverishment of the very young, the very old and the sick in order to enrich the wealthy. The debate over the federal budget is not an intellectual exercise.  It has real life consequences for families, parishes and communities. American families are under enormous economic and social pressures; the Ryan budget would make their lives more difficult by removing much of the social safety net that families rely on at times of need.

What more needs to be said? Well, I can think of one thing. As incisive as these statements condemning Paul Ryan are, I cannot help but wonder about another double standard. John Kerry was denied communion and harshly criticized by Catholic leaders for his support for abortion rights. How come deliberately and repeatedly attempting to harm the poor, sick, and vulnerable all over America warrants only a wag of the finger?