Maikimo.net taxonomy tags

Friday’s news that “in 96 hours of fighting and ambushes in far western Iraq, [this Marine] squad had ceased to be” hoists my ass once more onto the [theological] soapbox.

An imagined monologue from God, peering up from God’s browser (arising from Eyes Wide Open exhibit, after musing on “counting the cost”).

The extent of my silence lately surprises even me, someone who doesn’t say much anyway.

NY Times: Bob Herbert: ‘This will never be seen as a shining moment in U.S. history.’

I watched Howard Dean on Hardball with Chris Matthews last night, broadcasting from the JFK, Jr. venue at Harvard University (transcript, video). Wow.

I can’t imagine George lasting five minutes in a context like that, wherein you need to be smart as a whip, historically and politically knowledgeable, think quickly on your feet, and be blisteringly articulate.

Damn, it’s exhilarating to witness principled intelligence in action!

I was sold on Dr. Dean’s principles and positions already, but man — now I find I like him.

Great response to a question about why African Americans should vote for Dean “do Republicans use race to divide whites and blacks as a campaign tactic, and how do we overcome that as a nation?”

Dean answered that this election’s focus must be on matters that are important to all of us [“our common interests”], crossing all divisions among us:

“We have got to stop having the campaigns run in this country based on abortion, guns, God, and gays, and start talking about education, jobs, and health care.” <huge applause>

Yes. The former themes — especially in the cognitively- and semantically sloppy way they’re most often used — divide us as a people; the latter can unite us.

With Dean’s campaign something new and wonderful is happening, I think, a profound grassroots phenomenon much larger than one candidate. I imagine I’m seeing democracy being reborn, like Professor Dumbledore’s elderly pet phoenix Fawkes in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, who bursts into flame as Harry watches him, only to arise again from his own ashes, fresh and new.

We may yet again achieve for ourselves — with God’s help, for real this time, eyes wide open, no hubris, no living in denial — a government that uplifts instead of crushes, empowers instead of impoverishes, welcomes instead of excludes, that is truly of the people, by the people, for the people, in place of the present one that we have nearly let the Enemy, quoting God-talk to deceive us, render into ashes.

2003-12-03 update:
Added transcript- (thanks to Rich) and video links (QT, WMP);
updated blockquote above from actual transcript.

Thom Hartmann discusses well the differences between conservative vs. liberal perceptions of morality:

[Conservatives] define [morality] first and foremost in terms of personal behavior: What goes on in people’s bedrooms, what drugs others may be taking in their own living rooms, whether a woman should be allowed to prevent or terminate a pregnancy. In their fervor for these issues, many conservatives think they are the only ones concerned about morality in an otherwise decadent society. …

While personal morality is key in the conservative world-view, public morality is the overarching concern of liberals. Some are so passionate about this morality that they’re led to acts of civil disobedience.

Then Thom mentions a most compelling reason for conservative Christians to rethink/expand their understanding of morality, IMO: Jesus, according to the Gospels, indisputably emphasizes public morality:

Perhaps best summarized in Jesus’ description in Matthew 25 of who will (and who won’t) get into heaven, liberal morality asks: “Are the hungry fed? Does everybody have the housing, clothing, and health-care they need? Are those in prison treated humanely? Are we caring for the “strangers” — the less fortunate or less competent among us — in the same way we’d want to be cared for if we fell on hard times?”

Many liberals would say that what people do in [their] private lives is their own business, and that if we hold to the ancient standard that only those among us without sin may cast stones at those with personal failings, we’ll have a more humane and decent society.

It’s not that personal morality isn’t important. It is. But it’s not a useful behavioral emphasis because we’ve all fallen short. Personal morality is a fruit of the Spirit, an ongoing outcome of a changed life; it’s nothing we can effort into place. (As Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Bennett are learning.)

Public morality, OTOH, is a behavioral choice that’s crucial toward effecting a just and sustainable society. That is, if you’re theologically inclined, toward effecting the real Kingdom of God. Hence, it’s the kind of morality Jesus emphasizes we’ll be judged for.

What I observe here in the U.S., to my dismay and revulsion, is a thoroughgoing lack of public morality among loud conservatives in general and the Bush Administration in particular. There’s no excuse, and there’s no hiding: more and more, by their fruit we recognize them. The time of playing along that black is white, up is down, is drawing to a close.

See also related Farai Chideya encouragement, Avoiding the Rush to Gloat.

2003-10-28 update: Bob Herbert in a New York Times op-ed illustrates present intra-U.S. consequences of this Administration’s lack of public morality quite clearly IMO (also archived at Truthout).

And absolutely square-on to the point: Bill Moyers interviews Union Theological Seminary’s Joseph Hough —

There is a definite intentional move on the part of political leadership in this country … [that] is not at all compatible with the prophetic tradition in Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. And that is the obligation on the part of people who believe in God to care for the least and the poorest. That central teaching, that sacred code, I think, is very well summed up in Proverbs [14:31] where the writer of Proverbs says, “Those who oppress the needy insult their maker.”

Many approve of the U.S. Bush administration on faith, keying off its skill in using religious words and phrases. This is glowingly illustrated in this Washington Post story.

But use of religious vocabulary is not a useful measure of anyone's spiritual condition. The Pharisees of Jesus' day were masters of religious vocabulary. And of them Jesus said, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Instead, we're given a truer measure:
"By their fruit you will recognize them" (Matt 7:16, context).

Close your eyes; look deeply into the spiritual condition of the U.S. administration. What do you see? By what fruit may we recognize them?

Is there fruit of Spirit-led lives as enumerated by Paul -- "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control"? (Gal 5:22, context)

Or is there a different kind of fruit altogether? I see the U.S. administration saying "Lord, Lord" yet --

• stirring up hatred of enemy
• provoking fear among its citizens
• pressing hard for war against global counsel
• showing no mercy in its intent to annihilate Iraqi civilians
• showing no lasting commitment to rebuild lands and peoples it has destroyed
• intending to dominate and rule captured lands and oil fields
• obsessing over secrecy
• intending to silence voices of opposition
• willing to plunder nature for monetary gain
• willing to bankrupt the future to profit in the present

By this fruit I recognize them.

Be careful that you are not led astray.