Category Archives: politics/culture

The wretched refuse – bid thee come.

Posted on by

I want to revisit this quote – a quote that should be common knowledge. Alas, like most things these days Americans tend to be so unaware (positive bent) or willfully ignorant (negative bent) of those things which truly made this nation great.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
“A line from a poem, “The New Colossus,” by the nineteenth-century American poet Emma Lazarus. “The New Colossus,” describing the Statue of Liberty, appears on a plaque at the base of the statue. It ends with the statue herself speaking…”

These, these are the people who for three hundred years have come to these shores. We did the native Americans no good, yet with them in their downtrodden state, these came. We did the Africans no good, yet with them in their downtrodden state, these came. So came those from nations all who sought to leave their oppression, their poverty, their plight to find new life in this place called America.
Here, here is the unfounded dream that they can make a life for themselves far beyond what they could have known in their old places. And they did, come. And they still, come! Here in New York City, in Vermilion, Ohio, in Seattle, Washington they come and they make for themselves a better life and they with us all continue to make America.
We forget our past and selfishly clutch to ourselves our own stuff material and ideological for fear that it will all be taken from us. We forget the Dream, but they do not. Do we not remember that it is because of those ancestors of ours that came and with the native Americans and with the Africans and with the poor, dirty, huddled masses of nations all that this America was apprehended and fashioned? If we forget, we condemn ourselves to become something other than America. Too many of us have forgotten, because now we only want the clean, the educated, the well-off, the right-thinking and right-behaving to come to our shores. Woe to those who in seeking to preserve their privilege deny and defy the very American spirit that enables us to draw the best of the world to our shores, even if at first they look not like us – the wretched, tired, dirty, poor, huddled masses all.

Look out, McDonald’s

Posted on by

McDonald’s, the hamburger chain, is in big trouble! Oi!
First, the American Family Association has called for a boycott of the chain by anyone concerned about AFA’s definition of “family-values.” Why? Because by AFA’s estimation, McDonald’s has not “remained neutral” in the Culture Wars by “promoting the homosexual agenda.” In other words, McDonald’s does not abide by the demands of anti-gay forces such as AFA to not support in any way positive images of or groups related to gay people. The crime – McDonald’s sponsors events and contributes money to gay causes (this time, specifically the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce).
Anything or anyone that does not side with AFA in its anti-gay agenda or capitulate to its demands is considered non-neutral, biased, or radical. Convenient, isn’t it? They do know what “neutral” really means, but they spin the word for their own effect to try to manipulate people to their partisan, sectarian cause. It is a shame when so-called Christian groups do this kind of thing – just aping the worst of the world system.
It now seems that the “socially responsible” mutual fund, the Timothy Plan, has declared that they will no longer include McDonald’s stock in their portfolio. Here is what they say, according to source (I can’t find anything on The Timothy Plan website):

The president of a pro-family values mutual fund company says the extreme actions of McDonald’s has forced the investment firm to publicly clarify that its portfolios won’t include any stock in the worldwide hamburger retailer.
Timothy Plan’s socially responsible investing includes screening of companies whose revenues or actions support pornography, abortion, anti-family entertainment, or promotion of non-married lifestyles. But Art Ally, president of the investment company, says his group normally does not spotlight or publish notices on businesses they screen out. In this case, however, he says the Timothy Plan could not stay silent when McDonald’s went “over the edge.”
Read the whole report…

The politicized Christian-right really has made an idol out of homosexuality, just like it’s predecessors did out of Communism in the 70’s and 80’s. Fear mongering does tend to help raise money and gather legions of followers to your cause.

Heavy weights

Posted on by

It seems that major players are coming forward to push for a dramatic change from business as usual with regard to energy usage in the U.S.
Thomas Friedman has a new book entitled: Hot, Flat, and Crowded. Wired Magazine has an article about his call for a change in the way we all deal with this stuff.

Thomas Friedman is about to dive into the green-tech fray. In his latest book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded, the multi-Pulitzer-winning journalist says everyone needs to accept that oil will never be cheap again and that wasteful, polluting technologies cannot be tolerated. The last big innovation in energy production, he observes, was nuclear power half a century ago; since then the field has stagnated. “Do you know any industry in this country whose last major breakthrough was in 1955?” Friedman asks. According to the book, US pet food companies spent more on R&D last year than US utilities did. “The Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stone,” he says. Likewise, the climate-destroying fossil-fuel age will end only if we invent our way out of it. (emphasis mine)

Then there is T. Boone Pickens’ plan. Recently, NBC refused to air his most recent commercial, the latest in a series where Pickens advocates for reducing our dependence on foreign oil by increasing our production of wind power and natural gas.
Here is the “Iran” commercial that is causes the rouse.

The ONE Campaign & American Prayer

Posted on by

They did a good job with this:

The ONE Campaign
See all the advert’s on YouTube
HOPE
This is good, too, whether you are a supporter or not. American Prayer – Dave Stewart (Barack Obama Music Video)

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
“A line from a poem, “The New Colossus,” by the nineteenth-century American poet Emma Lazarus. “The New Colossus,” describing the Statue of Liberty, appears on a plaque at the base of the statue. It ends with the statue herself speaking…” Source

Please God Save Us…

Posted on by

I don’t know what to make of this:
PLEASE GOD, SAVE US

From the Website:

What Is Please God Save Us From Your Followers
A book of art and words that address a variety of modern day topics including: the Republican Party, the Christian right, America’s foreign policy, the environment, the Iraq War, stem cell research, evolution, rock and roll, the Fox News Channel, SpongeBob and Santa Claus. The book is intended to educate and inspire its readers whether or not they agree with either the art or the words. The book is not, however, meant to be an attack on Christianity but rather an interpretation of how religion is perverted to fit the needs of its followers, whomever they may be.

Wrong choice

Posted on by

Joe Biden is a mistake! Talk about going backwards – picking someone of the “old school” (and this time “old school” isn’t a cool thing).
I would never have voted for Biden if he won the Democratic nomination when he ran to be the party’s candidate years ago, and this choice by Obama will pull many non-committed, independent, or Republicans leaning toward him away from supporting the Obama campaign.
I just don’t know why he chose Biden. It really puts a bump in the road for me, even though I know that traditionally the Vice President does little. Biden knows what he is talking about – he is smart – I just don’t like the way he goes about his business.
I wonder why Biden accepted, also. At this point in his political career. It seems to be that he would have far more “power” in the Senate than he will in the office of the Vice President. Does he really want to play the “attach dog” role?
I don’t know. Maybe I am completely wrong.

Oh the hypocrisy of it all…

Posted on by

I’ve written about this before, but once again the hypocrisy and myopic vision and capitulation to the prevailing culture is so blatant that I just can’t help myself. The “politicized Religious Right” (which currently predominates American-Evangelical life and thought) loves to talk about their freedom to express their religious viewpoints within the culture and uphold their rights under the Constitution. They most certainly do have such a right, and I support their determination (as I would most groups) because I have witnessed first hand the discrimination and condescension that some so-called “progressives/liberals” engage in when it comes to Christian people of faith or conservatives.
That being said, while I will uphold the right of the politicized Religious Right to advocate for their positions and the right for their voice to be heard, they work against the same consideration for those who hold opinions and positions different than their own. They don’t immediately make apparent such determined thoughts or actions, but an undergirding goal is to squelch opposing viewpoints because they consider such viewpoints damning. After all, they believe they know absolutely God’s mind on things social and political and therefore have the divine right to squelch anything that “opposes God” (based on their sectarian and ideological opinion).
I don’t necessarily have a problem with them thinking such things (because all groups do to some extent), but I do have a problem with them presenting themselves as defenders of liberty and democracy and freedom when they know full well that is not their end-goal. Their end-goal is the imposition of their opinion upon everyone else, for everyone else’s own good since they alone know God’s will so completely. I was with the Evangelicals for a good part of my early adult life until I saw the writing on the wall concerning their drive for political power, so I know of their attitudes and their way of regarding and “handling” non-Christians within American culture. This is the working out of concepts informed by “Dominion Theology” or more broadly “Dominionism,” whether the principals involved ascribe to Dominion Theology or not.
In their quest to institute their presumed version of God’s Kingdom on earth, they have capitulated to the Kingdom of this World in ways they don’t realize – because in their quest for social and political dominance they succumb to very unChristian tactics, such as lying and spreading false information (bearing false witness). Sometimes, they do realize what they are doing, but the end justifies the means in their minds. The leadership is so sure of their presumed God-given mission to dominate and control the culture and social systems that their regard for the rights of others, if those others oppose their juggernaut, as dangerous or counter to God’s willing being done.
Take as an example the following warning that Focus-on-the-Family’s CitizenUpdate published yesterday in their daily e-mail message. It is about Hallmark greeting card company and the 1,000 or so newspapers that, in their opinion, disobey the will of The People and state Constitutions. The next step for them, if they could get away with it, is to attempt to pass laws that will forbid newspapers or private cooperations from making cards for or publish announcements for gay weddings or commitment ceremonies. It isn’t enough that by their efforts state consitutional amendments are passed denying same-sex couples equal protection under the law, but they must go further because these kinds of cards or announcements work against their vision for the country or their presumption of God’s will.
Here is the announcement:

Take Action: Hallmark, Newspapers Sidestep State Marriage Amendments
More than 1,000 daily newspapers in the U.S. now accept gay “wedding” announcements. And Hallmark now offers greeting cards for gay “weddings.”
While it’s not illegal for newspapers or Hallmark to cater to the homosexual community, they are disrespecting the law in 27 states — states that have defined marriage in their constitutions as between one man and one woman.

See here what they do – they will attempt to force private cooperations and generally law abiding citizens to bend to their will. It isn’t a matter of freedom of speech for all people, but freedom of speech only as long as it does not counter their “law.” Continuing on…

“It’s entirely possible that newspaper staff has not connected the dots between having a state constitutional amendment and requests to publish same-sex ‘marriage’ or commitment announcements,” said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of Issue Analysis at Focus on the Family Action. “Readers should give publishers the benefit of the doubt unless and until they determine that the newspaper is in fact disrespecting the vote of the people and publishing such counterfeit announcements.
“At that point, people need to hold the newspapers accountable.”
TAKE ACTION
Check this list to see which newspapers are sidestepping state law. If your state is not listed, there is no marriage amendment in place yet. Please call your local or regional newspaper. You can check our Action Center for contact information, or visit the newspaper’s Web site.
Ask to speak to the person who handles wedding announcements, then ask:
1) Are you aware the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation lists your newspaper as having a policy to publish same-sex “marriage” or commitment ceremony announcements? Is that correct?
2) If so, are you aware that our state has a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between one man and one woman?
3) If so, how do you reconcile publishing such announcements when such unions are illegal under state law?
If the answer you receive is unsatisfactory, ask to speak to the editor. You also may contact the publisher. Let us know how it goes.

I’m willing to bet that if a newspaper does not stop publishing wedding or marriage announcements for same-sex couples, these organizations will attempt to shame them into doing so, will attempt to boycott them into obeying, and will eventually sue the newspapers for “violating the state Constitution that defines a marriage as being between one woman and one man” by publishing same-sex wedding/marriage announcements. Whatever it takes to force their will upon the rest of the citizenry, in very undemocratic forms. (If Proposition 8 fails in California this fall – if The People vote to not define marriage as only between a man and a woman – these groups will certainly not abide by or uphold the Will of the People, because the People’s will in this case will be contrary to the Religious Right’s anti-gay agenda.)
Why do I give a rats-ass about this? Because currently the politicized Religious Right is the image of Christianity in American that most Americans see most often, particularly non-Christians. It is an image of Christianity that is so compromised by political aspirations and lying that they have sacrificed their witness to the secular world. Hypocrisy is too little of a word to convey the damage they continue to do to the cause of Christ, even as they see themselves of upholders and advocates of God’s very will.

Orthodoxy

Posted on by

Here is the sad truth (at least as I see it, and of course the way I see it is of the utmost importance, right?):
If you stand in a middle place where you can recognize the validity of arguments or positions concerning touchy issues held by opposing groups spanning the theological divide, you are called a “heretic” by the howlers standing on the edges of the opposing ideological cliffs. The considered middle-way gets you little respect in war zones. It is hard to hold a position between hyper-individuality and group-think. You can’t win, at least as the world defines “winning!”
Anglicanism has traditionally straddled the divide between Continental Reformation and Roman Catholic ideologies/dogmas, and of course it has been skewered by both Protestants and Roman Catholics, by Evangelicals and Ritualists, by conservatives and liberals alike.
Anglicanism can’t “win” on the world stage because most of the world demands certainty, conformity, and capitulation – but we don’t. At least we haven’t, generally. Well, at least it has continued on fairly successfully up until now, and we don’t know what will happen next. Will we now capitulate to those that demand conformity and certainty, whether they are yowling on this or that cliff side?
Nothing says such things as democracy, rationality, love/good-will, or even good manners will rule the day. Anglicanism survives – not as the largest expression of Christianity, not as the smallest, but it survives uniquely.
I read stuff put out by both sides of the angry and bitter theological and pietistic battles going on in The Episcopal Church and Anglicanism. I hold positions and opinions that some will call conservative or traditionalist and that some will call liberal or innovationist. I could be wrong on all of them. When some demand that I “choose this day” with whom I will align unquestionably, I say, “No, I’m not going to jump onto a conformist, sectarian cliff.” I’m determined to remain an Anglican with strong opinions but without desire to boot those with whom I disagree. I still have choice.
I can agree with many conservatives who say that The Episcopal Church has been going down a path that leads it into a wilderness of quasi-Christian belief and experience. I agree that by going down this path we lose the essence of what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ, we lose our power – rather the power of God working through the Church to transform lives – and we loose whatever it is that compels people to want to find and experience God within our walls. People may find nice ideology or music, but they may be hard pressed to find God, despite the verbiage. So, put me on the rack.
I agree with those who say that we are not a dogmatic or confessional Church, and that we should not become one! I agree that we can simply (and I do mean simply) choose to stay together. I agree that ambiguity and doubt are not twin evils. I agree that there can be a generous orthodoxy, and that the messiness of Anglicanism that stems from its refusal to codify certain sectarian or dogmatic statements is not giving ourselves over to the culture. I believe I have not be blinded by Satan for thinking such things (I can still verbally pronounce “Jesus is Lord” without conflict, so there!). I believe there can be legitimate and honest differences of opinion over biblical interpretation and application or pressing issues (over issues of homosexuality or women’s ordination, for example) without giving up the faith or giving up our catholicity. Pull the ropes tighter.
I, for one, wish we would obey Jesus in his two great commandments to love God with all of our selves and to love our neighbors as ourselves. All those standing on the edges of opposing cliffs demanding absolute assurity of opinion and position would rather shriek across the divide “HERESY” with fang laden smiles than love their enemies. It feels better.
Well, here is a statement, or a quote, that I read this morning from the blog of Fr. Jeffrey Steel. The post is entitle, “The Old Orthodoxy and a Fight.” The blog seems to be of the kind that is a bit reactionary and “Catholic” (as opposed to the reactionary and “American-Evangelical” variety). I readily agree, however, with what is written. I see it.

“It can always be urged against it that it is in its nature arbitrary and in the air. But it is not so high in the air but that great archers spend their whole lives in shooting arrows at it — yes, and their last arrows; there are men who will ruin themselves and ruin their civilization if they may ruin also this old fantastic tale. This is the last and most astounding fact about this faith; that its enemies will use any weapon against it, the swords that cut their own fingers, and the firebrands that burn their own homes.
“Men who begin to fight the Church for the sake of freedom and humanity end by flinging away freedom and humanity if only they may fight the Church. This is no exaggeration; I could fill a book with the instances of it. Mr. Blatchford set out, as an ordinary Bible-smasher, to prove that Adam was guiltless of sin against God; in manoeuvring so as to maintain this he admitted, as a mere side issue, that all the tyrants, from Nero to King Leopold, were guiltless of any sin against humanity…
“We do not admire, we hardly excuse, the fanatic who wrecks this world for love of the other. But what are we to say of the fanatic who wrecks this world out of hatred of the other? He sacrifices the very existence of humanity to the non-existence of God. He offers his victims not to the altar, but merely to assert the idleness of the altar and the emptiness of the throne. He is ready to ruin even that primary ethic by which all things live, for his strange and eternal vengeance upon some one who never lived at all.”
Orthodoxy

I would not agree with Fr. Steel (or the original author), however, if he believes that to save the catholicity or orthodoxy or validity of this Church Anglican that there can be little allowance for differences of opinion over hot-button issues, resulting in the demand to capitulate to a sectarian certainty (be it Roman Catholic or American-Evangelical, conservative or liberal). That kind of attitude is to attempt to beat into submission Anglicans that do not hold to the same dogmatic certainty demanded by all those standing on the edge of their own cliff, all the while yelling, “give us our own freedom.” It just isn’t Anglican (or maybe it is too Anglican??).