Previous month:
December 2005
Next month:
February 2006

"Last Chance to Defeat 2006 Budget"

United Church of Christ Justice & Witness Ministries Action Alert

On Dec. 19, 2005, the House of Representatives passed the 2006 budget reconciliation bill under cover of darkness, institutionalizing substantial cuts to the vital social safety net programs on which America’s poor have come to rely. Among the most egregious of the bill’s provisions are new punitive requirements for Medicaid recipients and increased work requirements for parents receiving TANF, though this provision is not accompanied by increased funding for child care. The Senate passed the same bill, but with minor changes that require the entire House to vote again. February 1, 2006 is the scheduled day of the vote and there is one last chance to defeat this immoral budget bill.

Click here to send a letter to Congress

Related Post:  The Real Christmas Scandal: Bush Budget Will Hurt The Least Of These

Related Post:  Catholic Bishops Rip Republican Budget Plan

Related Post:  Bush Budget Immoral

Related Post:  Would Jesus Pass Tax Cuts For The Rich And Leave The Least Of These Behind?


The State Of The Union: A Response From Religious Americans

From FaithfulAmerica.org, a project of the National Council of Churches USA

In little more than two centuries the United States of America has grown from a band of fledgling colonies to one of the grandest nations in the history of the world.

Much has been said of the wisdom that has guided this great nation across the centuries; the wisdom of its founders, its constitution, and, at a few pivotal times, it's elected leaders.

Yet thousands of years before there was a United States of America, the Hebrew Prophet Micah proclaimed in just a few words what would be a moral standard for persons of faith and the nations they build. He declared, “What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God?”

In light of these words, the state of our Union is troubled indeed. As persons of faith and conscience we hold ourselves to a standard that measures more than our economic wealth and military might. We recognize that we are more than consumers, voters in red or blue states, taxpayers, polling numbers, demographics, target markets and all the rest. As human beings living together on this planet we know that we are, as the Judeo-Christian tradition reminds us – our brother's and our sister's keepers. We are, as Native American Tradition teaches, guests of this planet – not its owners. We are, as Jesus taught us, the “light of the world.”

We are also the living agents of Micah's prophetic call. So let us examine just how we are doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly.

JUSTICE:

Inscribed in the East pediment of the Supreme Court – the side few people see – are these words: “Justice the guardian of liberty.” Two things are significant about that.

One, it does NOT say, “Justice, the guardian of liberty for some” but rather implies liberty for ALL.

Two, the inscription appears on the East side – the back door, as it were, of the Supreme Court.

Few of us would dare approach the Supreme Court and openly declare, “My views are better, truer, and more important, than theirs and therefore you should interpret the law in light of me.”

That is why special interests choose the BACK door when trying to influence the courts. Recently some well-funded and organized fundamentalist groups have used massive media events to help load the open seats on the Supreme Court with ultra-conservative judges sympathetic to their fundamentalist agenda. They even said that those who disagree with them are “against people of faith.”
People of faith in the United States of America do not march lock step to the drums of fundamentalism, and we must resist the claims of those who claim to speak for people of faith and conscience everywhere.

It is an arrogant dinner guest who seizes the conversation and shouts his proclamation so loudly that nobody else can speak. That is why all who love their faith and their country must work to insure that everyone has a voice around the national table. It is only through dialogue, the free expression of ideas, and respect for all points of view can justice reach its full height. That is part of what it means to DO justice.

Yet justice extends far beyond the courts. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

The world has been shocked and outraged by the revelation that the U.S. has engaged, and perhaps continues to engage in torture of its detainees. Many are being held without charge and without access to legal representation. The United States embroiled in a torture scandal? It would have seemed unthinkable a few years ago. Yet using 9/11, the White House has tragically adopted a policy that bears little resemblance to the example of Christ.

The President has said “we do not do torture,” but he opposed a bipartisan anti-torture bill in Congress. When Congress passed the measure, the President signed it, but added a so-called “signing statement” – a disclaimer of sorts, reserving the right to interpret the law as he sees fit. In short, the President has declared himself above the law in matters of torture. Such action not only dishonors our nation's commitment to the rule of law, but also imperils our hard-fought reputation around the world as guardians of human rights.

Allegations of secret U.S. prisons, denying detainees due process, charges that the U.S. is “outsourcing” its torture to other nations, and the President's unapologetic seize of privacy rights by ordering electronic eavesdropping without Congressional approval, all signal a tragic sacrifice of our nation's most cherished moral values upon the altar of arrogant self interest.

An Arab proverb states that arrogance diminishes wisdom.

MERCY

After a lifetime of living in the public eye, a revered television personality remarked, “The longer I live the more I realize that the true drama of life is not in the spotlight but in the wings. The acts of kindness that go unnoticed by the cameras are perhaps the most important dramas we will ever see.”

Looking at the earth from space, only a degree or two separates shadow from light. In the same way, comfort and misery are often just a few degrees apart. For most Americans, a chilled room can be made toasty with just a touch of a button – a few degrees is all it takes. At 98.6 degrees our bodies thrive, laugh, love – we live. A few degrees colder, hypothermia sets in, and we die. A few degrees warmer – fever overtakes us, and we die.

It is no less true of our political climate. Congress' cruel and reckless decision to cut billions from aid programs may seem like a small shift in a massive budget, but that tiny shift is critical to those already on life's margins. The consequences will be real – in the form of more children frozen into lives of poverty, young people succumbing to the fever of despair, unable to afford an education. More and more seniors, many already living below the poverty line, will suffer and die for lack of medical care.

Budgets are moral documents We may speak of compassion, but in the final analysis, the truest measure of our government's political will is made clear every time our government completes the sentence: “Pay to the order of…”

If we say we care about the hungry but feast on corporate greed – if we say we love peace but kneel at the altar of an out-of-control war machine – if we say we cherish our children but steal their very futures through our own reckless spending – then all the excuses in the world cannot mask our true intentions.

Economic growth is important, but it isn't everything. Robert F. Kennedy once said:

"The gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans."

On February 1, the House will have one final chance to vote on what has been called one of the most immoral budgets in American History. If it passes, millions will suffer needlessly. If it fails, we will be given another chance to speak on behalf of all Americans – not just the wealthiest few.

As lobbyists for hundreds of special interests huddle outside the House Chamber wringing their hands and licking their chops over the billions they stand to gain either for themselves or for those whom they represent, who will stand in the chamber and speak for the poor, the young, the ill, and the elderly of this nation? Who will remember them?

We dare not forget that mercy and misery are only degrees apart. Thus far, Congress and the President have chosen misery over mercy. Let us hope that on February 1, the House has the courage to honor their sacred call to love mercy – and to act likewise.

Whether the need is to fix our nation's healthcare nightmare, lift the long-overdue minimum wage, or tear out the deep and destructive roots of economic inequality as revealed in the Hurricane Katrina tragedy, our mandate must be mercy on a massive scale. Not the bone-throwing, dignity destroying, cheap feel-good handout kind of mercy, but systemic, bold, committed, and faithful acts of courage worthy of our call as our brothers and sisters' keepers. If we fail to eradicate hunger in our nation, provide quality healthcare for all, grant every working American a living wage, and enable everyone to obtain a quality education – and do it with committed hearts, then all our proclamations are hollow.

At a gathering of political contributors President Bush had this to say to his audience:

“This is an impressive crowd: the have's and have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.”

At another gathering on a hillside in Galilee, Jesus had this to say to his audience:

“Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”

WALK HUMBLY

We are a nation at war. Ordinarily it is a time in our national life to come together around the effort to secure a victory and celebrate the rightness of our cause.

This is not such a time.

We are a nation at war, but our leaders have committed a grave error, for this war is of our own making. The Iraq war is unjust, unnecessary, and immoral. Nearly 2,300 U.S. soldiers have died in faithful service to their nation, but it did not have to be. More than 16,000 brave men and women have been maimed or wounded in service to their country. But it did not have to be. An estimated 30,000 Iraqi innocents – women, children, elderly – have been killed in the crossfire. But it did not have to be.

The Iraq war was not launched as an act of regrettable last resort but as an arrogant first strike - fueled by misinformation and perpetuated by fear. Now, nearly three years into the bloodshed, even terrorists laud the war for being the most successful terrorist recruiting campaign ever. Most of the world agrees.

Throughout history our greatest spiritual teachers – from Jeremiah to Jesus – from Lao-Tzu to Gandhi, have shown us that military might is no match for moral integrity. It is also true, as this war has shown, that all the firepower on earth cannot atone for moral weakness.

Napoleon once said that God was on the side of the country with the biggest cannons.

Napoleon was mistaken.

Whenever leaders invoke the name of God to justify a particular war, it speaks more of the leader than of God. For while many have used religion to justify individual wars, can there truly be a moral justification for war as a way of settling differences between members of the human family?

The decisions we make matter to more than we who inhabit this world. They affect the planet itself. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, our choices – from our refusal to sign onto the UN Kyoto treaty to gutting environmental standards for power plants – are killing the earth. Even as weather patterns destabilize around the globe, glaciers melt, seas rise and winds blow erratically, the Bush administration resolutely refuses to acknowledge U.S. responsibility and take action to halt these dangerous patterns. Some scientists believe it is already too late – that the events we have set in motion cannot be reversed in time to save our planet.

Native American wisdom teaches us to us to walk lightly upon the earth - so that all we do may bless the earth and its inhabitants for seven generations. The prophet Micah would agree. To walk humbly is to be in awe of creation. It is to be in gratitude for its blessings. It is to act in lovingkindness for the life it bestows and the miracles it sustains.

And so we stand here - today – together – to ask again, what is the faithful state of our Union? Are we doing justice? Are we loving mercy? Are we walking humbly?

More importantly, can our faith stir our hearts to lift our eyes to a higher standard, set our feet on a different path, engage our hands and our backs and our minds and our spirits toward building a more perfect union?

If we hope to save our nation from ruination, we must embrace the calling that we share across religions and the span of human history. By turning clenched fists into open hands we will see that in those hands are the keys to a better world - a world which we must help to save.

No longer can we move non-chalantly through life as though our presence makes no difference to others. Instead, we must move chalantly – with humility yes, but with purpose, courage, and grace:

Protecting our souls as well as our shores.

Opening our hearts as well as our minds.

Rejecting arrogance while embracing understanding.

Putting aside retribution while taking up love.

Printed on our currency are the words “In God We Trust.” Whether or not we live up to that claim, we should also consider that God has placed in us God's trust to care for each other. By virtue of our being alive together on this planet we are entrusted and empowered to live out creation's most sacred call – to love one another.


Mrs. Coretta Scott King: 1927 - 2006

Csk_3Biographical Information reprinted from The King Center.

Coretta Scott King is one of the most influential women leaders in our world today. Prepared by her family, education, and personality for a life committed to social justice and peace, she entered the world stage in 1955 as wife of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and as a leading participant in the American Civil Rights Movement. Her remarkable partnership with Dr. King resulted not only in four talented children, but in a life devoted to the highest values of human dignity in service to social change. Mrs. King has traveled throughout our nation and world speaking out on behalf of racial and economic justice, women's and children's rights, gay and lesbian dignity, religious freedom, the needs of the poor and homeless, full-employment, health care, educational opportunities, nuclear disarmament and ecological sanity. In her distinguished and productive career, she has lent her support to democracy movements world-wide and served as a consultant to many world leaders, including Corazon Aquino, Kenneth Kaunda, and Nelson Mandela.

Born and raised in Marion, Alabama, Coretta Scott graduated valedictorian from Lincoln High School. She received a B.A. in music and education from Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio, and then went on to study concert singing at Boston's New England Conservatory of Music, where she earned a degree in voice and violin. While in Boston she met Martin Luther King, Jr. who was then studying for his doctorate in systematic theology at Boston University. They were married on June 18, 1953, and in September 1954 took up residence in Montgomery, Alabama, with Coretta Scott King assuming the many functions of pastor's wife at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church.

During Dr. King's career, Mrs. King devoted most of her time to raising their four children: Yolanda Denise (1955), Martin Luther, III (1957), Dexter Scott (1961), and Bernice Albertine (1963). From the earliest days, however, she balanced mothering and movement work, speaking before church, civic, college, fraternal and peace groups. She conceived and performed a series of favorably-reviewed Freedom Concerts which combined prose and poetry narration with musical selections and functioned as fundraisers for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the direct action organization of which Dr. King served as first president. In 1957, she and Dr. King journeyed to Ghana to mark that country's independence. In 1958, they spent a belated honeymoon in Mexico, where they observed first-hand the immense gulf between extreme wealth and extreme poverty. In 1959, Dr. and Mrs. King spent nearly a month in India on a pilgrimage to disciples and sites associated with Mahatma Gandhi. In 1964, she accompanied him to Oslo, Norway, where he received the Nobel Peace Prize. Even prior to her husband's public stand against the Vietnam War in 1967, Mrs. King functioned as liaison to peace and justice organizations, and as mediator to public officials on behalf of the unheard.

Since her husband's assassination in 1968, Mrs. King has devoted much of her energy and attention to developing programs and building the Atlanta-based Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change as a living memorial to her husband's life and dream. Situated in the Freedom Hall complex encircling Dr. King's tomb, The King Center is part of a 23-acre national historic park which includes his birth home, and which hosts over one million visitors a year. For 27 years (1968-1995), Mrs. King devoted her life to developing The King Center, the first institution built in memory of an African American leader. As founding President, Chair, and Chief Executive Officer, she dedicated herself to providing local, national and international programs that have trained tens of thousands of people in Dr. King's philosophy and methods; she guided the creation and housing of the largest archives of documents from the Civil Rights Movement; and, perhaps her greatest legacy after establishing The King Center itself, Mrs. King spearheaded the massive educational and lobbying campaign to establish Dr. King's birthday as a national holiday. In 1983, an act of Congress instituted the Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Holiday Commission, which she chaired for its duration. And in January 1986, Mrs. King oversaw the first legal holiday in honor of her husband--a holiday which has come to be celebrated by millions of people world-wide and, in some form, in over 100 countries.

Coretta Scott King has carried the message of nonviolence and the dream of the beloved community to almost every corner of our nation and globe. She has led goodwill missions to many countries in Africa, Latin America, Europe and Asia. She has spoken at many of history's most massive peace and justice rallies. She served as a Women's Strike for Peace delegate to the seventeen-nation Disarmament Conference in Geneva, Switzerland in 1962. She is the first woman to deliver the class day address at Harvard, and the first woman to preach at a statutory service at St. Paul's Cathedral in London.

A life-long advocate of interracial coalitions, in 1974 Mrs. King formed a broad coalition of over 100 religious, labor, business, civil and women's rights organizations dedicated to a national policy of full employment and equal economic opportunity, as Co-Chair of the Full Employment Action Council. In 1983, she brought together more than 800 human rights organizations to form the Coalition of Conscience, sponsors of the 20th Anniversary March on Washington, until then the largest demonstration in our nation's capital. In 1987, she helped lead a national Mobilization Against Fear and Intimidation in Forsyth County, Georgia. In 1988, she re-convened the Coalition of Conscience for the 25th anniversary of the March on Washington. In preparation for the Reagan-Gorbachev talks, in 1988 she served as head of the U.S. delegation of Women for a Meaningful Summit in Athens, Greece; and in 1990, as the USSR was redefining itself, Mrs. King was co-convener of the Soviet-American Women's Summit in Washington, DC.

Always close to her family, in 1985 Mrs. King and three of her children were arrested at the South African embassy in Washington, DC, for protesting against apartheid. And, in 1995 she turned over leadership of the Center to her son, Dexter Scott King, who served as Chairman, President & CEO until January 2004. On that date, Mrs. King was named interim Chair and her eldest son Martin Luther King, III assumed the leadership position of President & CEO.

One of the most influential African-American leaders of our time, Mrs. King has received honorary doctorates from over 60 colleges and universities; has authored three books and a nationally-syndicated column; and has served on, and helped found, dozens of organizations, including the Black Leadership Forum, the National Black Coalition for Voter Participation, and the Black Leadership Roundtable.

She has dialogued with heads of state, including prime ministers and presidents; and she has put in time on picket lines with welfare rights mothers. She has met with great spiritual leaders, including Pope John Paul, the Dalai Lama, Dorothy Day, and Bishop Desmond Tutu. She has witnessed the historic handshake between Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Chairman Yassir Arafat at the signing of the Middle East Peace Accords. She has stood with Nelson Mandela in Johannesburg when he became South Africa's first democratically-elected president. A woman of wisdom, compassion and vision, Coretta Scott King has tried to make ours a better world and, in the process, has made history.

Related Link: Human Rights Campaign Statement

Related Link: NAACP Reflects On the Life of Coretta Scott King

Related Link:  Rev. Jesse Jackson Mourns Coretta Scott King

Related Link:  Senator Kennedy on Mrs. King: "Progess Teetering"

Related Link: Interfaith Alliance Statement

Related Link: United Church of Christ Statement

Related Link: National Council of Churches USA Statement

Related Post:  Pray For The Health Of Mrs. Coretta Scott King


"Hamas Must Order Permanent End to Civilian Attacks"

Democracy doesn't always work.  The radical Hamas group won the Palestinian elections this past week.  Some nations have reacted by announcing that they will no longer financially support the Palestinian Authority.  Human Rights Watch released a statement today demanding that Hamas make changes to improve their abysmal record on human rights:

(Jerusalem, January 30, 2006) - Hamas should announce publicly and without delay that it will not carry out attacks that target civilians or cause them indiscriminate harm, Human Rights Watch said today in a letter to the leaders of the group.

Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement, Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya), won the Palestinian parliamentary elections on January 25. The group's military wing has carried out suicide bombings and other attacks that have killed scores of civilians and gravely wounded many others. The organization declared and has maintained a moratorium on such attacks for more than a year, but has never made a commitment to end them. 

Over the past year Hamas has also been responsible for firing home-made Qassam rockets at Israeli towns, in violation of the international humanitarian law prohibition against firing weapons that cannot be directed at specific military targets in or near civilian areas. 

"Hamas's new role in Palestinian politics makes it essential as well as opportune for it to make a commitment that it will not attack civilians under any circumstance," said Joe Stork, deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa division at Human Rights Watch. "Whatever happens in its relations with Israel, it must make clear that it will no longer undertake attacks against civilians." 

Hamas spokespersons have claimed that such attacks are in response to Israeli attacks that kill Palestinian civilians. But the absolute prohibition against targeting civilians extends to acts of reprisal for attacks against one's own civilians, Human Rights Watch said. 

"Attacks that intentionally kill and maim civilians flagrantly violate the most basic humanitarian principles," Stork said. "These are among the very worst kinds of crimes - war crimes and crimes against humanity - and all states have an obligation to bring the perpetrators to justice." 

Under international law, persons who order or condone war crimes or crimes against humanity, as well as the direct perpetrators of such acts, can be held criminally responsible.

Hamas and Israel both need to take seriously their responsibilities not to target civilians and to improve the standard of living for all the people of the area. 

Related Link: Read the HRW letter to Hamas

Related Link:  Israel: Expanding Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Related Post:  Anti-Defamation League Wrong To Attack United Church Of Christ


Republican Lincoln Chafee: No On Alito

Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee announced today that he would vote against Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court. The Family Research Council, the Religious Right Group that backs the nomination and sponsors the “Justice Sunday” events, immediately attacked the senator. Chafee faces a tough primary challenge in Rhode Island this year from a conservative former mayor. His vote against Alito is a brave act and shows that he puts the interests of the nation ahead of his own political ambitions. America is fortunate to have Lincoln Chafee in the United States Senate. Here is his statement announcing his vote:

Judge Alito has outstanding legal credentials and an inspiring life story. However, I am greatly concerned about his philosophy on some important constitutional issues. In particular I carefully examined his record on Executive Power, women’s reproductive freedoms and the commerce clause of Article one, Section Eight of the Constitution.

On Executive Power, it is likely that cases dealing with the Fourth Amendment will beheard by the Supreme Court. The Fourth Amendment reads :

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

To me this language is very clear that a warrant is required for a search. That premise is now being questioned regarding warrantless wiretaps.

At the Judiciary Committee hearings, Judge Alito was asked a question on Executive powers and warrantless wiretapping. He said he would have to determine “whether the President’s power, inherent powers, the powers given to the President under Article II are sufficient, even taking away congressional authorization, the area where the President is asserting a power to do something in the face of explicit congressional determination to the contrary”.

The only power in Article II that Judge Alito could be referring to would be “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States…”.

Judge Alito was also asked “…is it possible under your construct that an inherent Constitutional power of the President could, under some analysis or some case, override what people believe to be a Constitutional criminal statue?” Judge Alito responded that this was possible noting a “possibility that that might be justified”.

How far do we want Commander in Chief stretched? As Justice O’Connor wrote in a recent case, “a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens”.

On the issue of Roe vs. Wade as with other issues, I am less interested in what Judge Alito wrote or said as a lawyer for his client the Reagan Administration, than how he has ruled as a judge and how he testified at his nomination hearing. As an appellate Court Judge, Judge Alito was the lone dissenter on Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, a court case reviewing the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act.

The Supreme Court wrote on this landmark affirmation of Roe vs. Wade:

“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the state”.

The five majority justices, who wrote that, were all Republican appointees: two Reagan appointees, one each of Bush “41”, Ford and Nixon.

An important standard of law is the concept of stare decisis--it stands decided. At the hearing Chairman Specter asked Judge Alito to discuss his view of stare decisis. He responded, “It’s not an inexorable command, but it is a general presumption that courts are going to follow prior precedents”. In the Supreme Court dissent on Casey, the justices who arguably wanted to overturn Roe vs. Wade wrote “stare decisis is not …… a universal inexorable command”.

Not only did Judge Alito rule in favor of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act as a lower court judge, he used the same language as the high court dissenters at his Supreme Court nomination hearing. Stare decisis is not an inexorable command.

Additionally, at his nomination hearing Judge Roberts was willing to call Roe vs. Wade “settled law” but judge Alito refused to make a similar statement.

The last point I’d like to make concerning constitutional law is on the commerce clause. As you know the Constitution creates a government of limited power--Congress can only enact legislation in areas that are specifically set out under the Constitution. Congress is expressly prohibited from enacting legislation in other areas, leaving this authority to the States per the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

Every law enacted by Congress must be based on one of the powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution gave Congress broad power to regulate immigration, national security and economic activity between the states, and left most other power with the States.

However, Section Eight of Article I states that “the Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce…among the several states”. This is the Commerce clause and it is the most powerful provision in the Constitution providing Congress the authority to enact legislation in a host of areas – including environmental protection. A key Supreme Court case regarding the Commerce Clause was in 1942 when the Supreme Court upheld legislation that allowed USDA to set quotas on local wheat growing. The Court noted that while crops regulated may never actually enter into interstate commerce, such local activity, coupled with similar activity in other states as an aggregate has a direct impact on interstate commerce. Since then using the “aggregate effects test” or “substantial effects test” Congress has passed broad ranging environmental legislation such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, all of which were signed into law by Republican President Nixon.

While I agree there should be constitutional limits on legislative power, Judge Alito seems to have agreed with Justice Thomas who wrote: “I believe we must further reconsider our substantial effects test with an eye toward constructing a stand that reflects the text and history of the Commerce Clause”.

Indeed in a dissent to a gun case heard before his court Judge Alito wrote: “In sum, we are left with no appreciable empirical support for the proposition that the purely intrastate possessions of machine guns, by facilitating the commission of certain crimes, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, and without such support I do not see how the statutory provision at issue here can be sustained”.

What is noteworthy in this dissent is that Judge Alito was alone with all members of his Appeals Court ruling the other way.

If “the aggregate or substantial effects tests” are overruled as Justice Thomas has advocated, federal environmental laws could be ruled unconstitutional. Indeed on February 21, the Court is scheduled to hear arguments on two cases, Carabell vs. United States and United States vs. Rapanos.

In both cases the lower court upheld protection of wetlands, which are currently protected under the Clean Water Act. Environmentalists argue that these wetlands are critical to the health of our nation’s water supply and wildlife habitat.

Industry groups argue that the Army Corps of Engineers has no authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate “isolated wetlands” that have no connection with “navigable waters.” This would be a major setback to the Clean Water Act.

The critical issue is whether under the Commerce Clause, Congress has the authority to regulate non-navigable bodies of water within a single state. Based on the writing of Judge Alito, he would appear to side with the faction what would greatly limit the ability of Congress to protect such “intrastate” issues.

These constitutional issues, the scope of Executive power, Women’s Reproductive freedoms and the commerce clause are likely to be heard by the Supreme Court in the coming months. I care deeply about these issues.

Believe me, having been an Executive in government, I want to support President Bush’s choice to the Supreme Court. The President did win the election. He has made his promises and I have made mine.

I am a pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-Bill of Rights Republican and I will be voting against this nomination.

Thank you again for your time.


Keep Praying For Christian Peacemakers

Today brings news that churches in Iraq have been bombed and that a prominent American journalist and his cameraman have been injured in the on-going violence that has torn Iraq apart since the US invasion. That invasion was opposed by the Vatican and the World Council of Churches (and most other Christian bodies). Four Christian peace workers are among the many hostages being held in Iraq. The National Council of Churches USA has an update on their situation:

ChristianpeacemakersvideoNew York, January 29, 2006 – The first pictures since last November of the Christian Peacemakers held captive in Iraq shows the four men looking haggard and gaunt.

The videotape, broadcast on Al-Jazeera Saturday (January 28) but dated January 21, was accompanied by the kidnappers' renewed threats to kill the men unless U.S.-led forces release all Iraqi prisoners.

Friends of the prisoners continue to reflect on the irony that the shadowy kidnappers selected these devout peace advocates and open critics of the Iraq war to make their point.

Other members of the Christian Peacemaker Teams, like people of faith across the globe, have not ceased praying for their friends or their kidnappers. The CPT released a message earlier this month, "We hope you are well . . . we light four candles every morning at worship."

The missing Christian Peacemakers -- Tom Fox, 54, from Clearbrook, Virginia Norman Kember, 74, from London, England, James Loney, 41, a community worker from Toronto, Canada, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32, a Canadian electrical engineer from Montreal (above) -- have not been seen since they were abducted by dissidents who accused them of being American spies.

The kidnappers, who call themselves "The Swords of Righteousness Brigades," set several deadlines in December for the U.S. to release its prisoners, but the deadlines passed without further word.

Since then, the Christian Peacemaker Teams have released statements of support for their friends.

"We are very worried about our four friends," the CPT said November 30. "We fear that whoever is holding them has made a mistake. Norman, Tom, James and Harmeet are four men who came to Iraq to work for peace and explain their opposition to the occupation. They are not spies."

The CPT issued a public appeal to the kidnappers on December 6. "While we believe the action of kidnapping is wrong, we do not condemn you as people," the statement said. "We recognize the humanity in each person, and respect it very much. This includes you, our colleagues, and all people. We believe there needs to be a force that counters all the resentment, the fear, the intimidation felt by the Iraqi people. We are trying to be that force: to speak for justice, to advocate for the human rights of Iraqis, to look at an Iraqi face and say: my brother, my sister...Perhaps you are men who only want to raise the issue of illegal detention. We don't know what you may have endured. As you can see by the statements of support from our friends in Iraq and all over the world, we work for those who are oppressed. We also condemn our own governments for their actions in Iraq."

"It takes courage and a profound faith to reach out with compassion to those who have harmed you," Kireopoulos said. "The Christian Peacemakers have shown that fragile human beings are capable of acting not out of resentment but out of love. They have lived into the roll of becoming the 'force that counters all the resentment.'"

Religious groups all over the world -- including Christian and Muslim -- are praying for the Peacemakers or have issued appeals for their release.

Similarly, religious groups are urging the release of journalist Jill Carroll who was captured January 7 and threatened with death unless all women prisoners in Iraq are released. The Council of American-Islamic Relations said Thursday (January 19), "We . . . call for the immediate and unconditional release of Jill Carroll, a journalist with a well-documented record of objective reporting and respect for both the Iraqi people and Arab-Islamic culture. We ask that her captors show mercy and compassion by releasing her so that she may return to her family. Certainly, no cause can be advanced by harming a person who only sought to let the world know about the human suffering caused by the conflict in Iraq."

"Clearly the cycle of violence is resulting in more violence," Kireopoulos said. "This war must end."

Please keep the members of Christian Peacemakers Team and their families in your prayers this week.


Son Of Man: How Do You See Jesus?

Since Frances and Katherine were born we've only made it out of the house three times to see movies (and only one of those, Walk the Line, was worth the time). But I'm always interested in hearing about new flicks and my interest doubles if the movie deals with religion in some way. So this story from Ecumenical News International, republished in UCCNews, caught my eye.

Has anyone seen this film yet or know much about it?

A new film from South Africa eschews an often-popular image of a meek, white European Jesus and replaces it with one of a strong-willed, black African Jesus who preaches hope to the poor and questions political authority.

The film, "Son of Man", has been showing at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah where it premiered on 22 January. Its creators are seeking worldwide distribution of the movie.

Filmed mainly in the black townships of Cape Town, "Son of Man" places the story of Jesus in a shantytown and brings a political flavor in depicting the Gospel narratives. It is a collaboration between director Mark Dornford-May and Dimpho Di Kopane, a theatre company from the South African town of Stellenbosch.

Dornford-May says that in other portrayals of Jesus, "Christ has been hijacked a bit - he's gone very blond-haired and blue-eyed," adding that the initial response to the film among church audiences in South Africa was favourable. "We wanted to look at the gospels as if they were written by spin doctors and to strip that away and look at the truth," Dornford-May told the Reuters news agency in an interview. "The truth is that Christ was born in an occupied state and preached equality at a time when that wasn't very acceptable."

The image of a black Jesus had emerged in the 1960s and 1970s with the development of black theology in the United States and Africa. The film adheres to black theology tenets - including the depiction of Jesus as a champion of the powerless.

"It feels a bit like apartheid, people living in fear that soldiers could come into the house at any time and kill children," said Pauline Malefane, who plays Jesus' mother, Mary, and is also the movie's associate producer, in an interview with South Africa's Mail and Guardian newspaper.

But the film also depicts the authorities Jesus opposes as black. To some, that might evoke comparisons with the government of President Robert Mugabe in South Africa's neighbouring Zimbabwe, Malefane told the Mail and Guardian.

How we literally see the image of Jesus shows the tremendous differences in how we understand our Christian faith. Every culture adopts Jesus. In the United States, Jesus is a superhero and most often portrayed as white with blond hair. In other parts of the world he is seen as black, or Asian, or even in images that depict him as female or powerless to affect events as he hangs from the cross. Some people see Jesus as gay and others as a brash - even sexy - warrior.

Whatever from you pick for what you think Jesus looks like speaks volumes about what your own theology sounds like. There are those afraid of all these differences. You hear them protesting at films that Jesus could never have looked or acted the way the film suggests. After all, we've created Jesus in our image so we should know what he acted like (or looked like).

Such a debate over Jesus doesn't make me frightened. We know a lot about what the historical Jesus might have looked like based on our understandings of human looks from that time in history. But the post-Easter Jesus speaks to a much broader audience than the historical Jesus did. It makes sense that Jesus would speak differently to people from one context to another. And it makes sense that we in the US, for example, have a lot to offer and a lot to learn from people in Southern India who have experienced and imagined Jesus differently than we have. God is still speaking to all cultures and we should be taking part in the conversation.

A movie like this makes us ask questions.

What are the images of Jesus that you grew up with?
How have those images changed?
Have your life experiences, readings of the Scriptures, or interactions with other cultures changed the ways in why you understand Jesus?
Would it matter if Jesus were a black African rather than a white American?

Don't be surprised to learn the Religious Right is already at the gates ready to fight the film. The Republican Party-aligned Institute on Religion and Democracy recently took aim at the director of the film:

"We wanted to look at the gospels as if they were written by spindoctors and to strip that away and look at the truth. The truth is that Christ was born in an occupied state and preached equality at a time when that wasn't very acceptable."

- Mark Dornford-May, director of Son of Man, a movie which retells the passion of Christ by placing Jesus in a modern African state in a state of civil war.

IRD placed Dornford-May's statement on the "Outrageous Quotes of the Week" section of their web site. IRD's Jesus is one who read the Republican Party Platform word for word during the sermon on the mount (forgetting all the parts about love and justice). IRD supports war, opposes anti-poverty programs, and charges that Christians that disagree with the President's Iraq war are un-American. IRD' staff and board are made up of many prominent Republican activists and funders.  They don't want anyone to ever mess with their Repubican Jesus.   

I'm looking forward to seeing this film. We just need a babysitter.


2.8

Having dinner tonight this is what we felt:

Magnitude 2.8
Date-Time Sunday, January 29, 2006 at 02:00:53 (UTC)
= Coordinated Universal Time
Saturday, January 28, 2006 at 6:00:53 PM
= local time at epicenter
Location 45.523°N, 122.633°W
Depth 14.5 km (9.0 miles) set by location program
Region PORTLAND URBAN AREA, OREGON
Distances 1 km (0 miles) E (91°) from Portland, OR
6 km (4 miles) WSW (239°) from Maywood Park, OR
9 km (5 miles) N (355°) from Milwaukie, OR
Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 1 km (0.6 miles); depth fixed by location program
Parameters Nst= 37, Nph= 37, Dmin=12 km, Rmss=0.25 sec, Gp= 54°,
M-type=duration magnitude (Md), Version=1
Source Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network
Event ID uw01290200

Do you think Pat Robertson will blame God for this?  Portland is a pretty liberal place....

Source: USGS http://earthquake.usgs.gov/recenteqsww/Quakes/uw01290200.htm


Ohio Restoration Project: How The Republicans Misuse God For Political Gain

You may have heard recently that clergy in Ohio from The American Baptist Churches/USA; the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ); the Episcopal Church in the USA; the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Judaism; the United Church of Christ; the United Methodist Church; Presbyterian Church, USA; and the Unitarian Universalist Association filed a compliant alleging that in violation of federal law two Ohio churches are supporting Republican candidates for state office.

All non-profits – including churches – are prohibited from engaging in partisan political campaigns (though both non-profits and churches can engage in issue advocacy).

The clergy who signed the letter undertook the action on their own behalf and not that of their congregations.

“The complaint to the IRS alleges that the Rev. Rod Parsley of World Harvest Church in Columbus and the Rev. Russell Johnson of Fairfield Christian Church in Lancaster improperly used their churches and affiliated entities for partisan politics,” reports the Associated Press.

One of those “affiliated entities” is the Ohio Restoration Project.

Bill Moyer recently wrote about this group:

Patriot20pastor_md_1In recent weeks a movement called the Ohio Restoration Project has been launched to identify and train thousands of "Patriot Pastors" to get out the conservative religious vote next year. According to press reports, the leader of the movement - the senior pastor of a large church in suburban Columbus - casts the 2006 elections as an apocalyptic clash between "the forces of righteousness and the hordes of hell." The fear and loathing in his message is palpable: He denounces public schools that won't teach creationism, require teachers to read the Bible in class, or allow children to pray. He rails against the "secular jihadists" who have "hijacked" America and prevent school kids from learning that Hitler was "an avid evolutionist." He links abortion to children who murder their parents. He blasts the "pagan left" for trying to redefine marriage. He declares that "homosexual rights" will bring "a flood of demonic oppression." On his church website you read that "Reclaiming the teaching of our Christian heritage among America's youth is paramount to a sense of national destiny that God has invested into this nation."

One of the prominent allies of the Ohio Restoration Project is a popular televangelist in Columbus who heads a $40 million-a-year ministry that is accessible worldwide via 1,400 TV stations and cable affiliates. Although he describes himself as neither Republican nor Democrat but a "Christocrat" - a gladiator for God marching against "the very hordes of hell in our society" - he nonetheless has been spotted with so many Republican politicians in Washington and elsewhere that he has been publicly described as a"spiritual advisor" to the party. The journalist Marley Greiner has been following his ministry for the organization, FreePress. She writes that because he considers the separation of church and state to be "a lie perpetrated on Americans - especially believers in Jesus Christ" - he identifies himself as a "wall builder" and "wall buster." As a wall builder he will "restore Godly presence in government and culture; as a wall buster he will tear down the church-state wall." He sees the Christian church as a sleeping giant that has the ability and the anointing from God to transform America. The giant is stirring. At a rally in July he proclaimed to a packed house: "Let the Revolution begin!" And the congregation roared back: "Let the Revolution begin!"

(The Revolution's first goal, by the way, is to elect as governor next year the current Republican secretary of state who oversaw the election process in 2004 year when a surge in Christian voters narrowly carried George Bush to victory. As General Boykin suggested of President Bush's anointment, this fellow has acknowledged that "God wanted him as secretary of state during 2004" because it was such a critical election. Now he is criss-crossing Ohio meeting with Patriot Pastors and their congregations proclaiming that "America is at its best when God is at its center.")

Groups like the Ohio Restoration Project are dangerous for many reasons:

1. They confuse the Gospel teachings with the Republican Platform.

2. They create a sense that to be a good pastor you must be a patriotic one (and they define patriotic as being in complete compliance with their own narrow views). The only loyalty a pastor should be concerned with is their loyalty to God. A minister cannot serve both church and state.

3. They seem to have no respect for the US Constitution or the other laws our land.

Those other brave religious leaders in Ohio who are working to put a stop to these crimes should be applauded for their efforts. Americans cannot afford to stand silent as the Religious Right works to replace our democracy with a theocracy where only their views are valued.  Democracy and respect for pluralism are ideals worth standing up for.

But the leaders of the Ohio Restoration Project believe they speak for God.  Johnson described the clergy that wrote the complaint "as part of an 'unholy alliance' and 'secular jihad' against expressions of faith," according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer.   

The truth is that his group represents the extremists of the Religious Right but it does not in any way represent God.  What they preach is a perversion of what Jesus preached.  That is a message we all need to preach whenever groups like this spring up.


A Faithful State of Union Address

From FaithfulAmerica.org:

Each year the President delivers his annual "State of the Union" address to the nation. In anticipation of that address, FaithfulAmerica is offering a non-partisan look at the state of our Union through the lens of the Hebrew Prophet Micah's call "To do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God."

Click here to read the statement or download the podcast.


John Kerry Calls For Filibuster Of Alito

This post has been updated

Urgent Action Alert from People for the American Way:

Senator John Kerry has called for a filibuster of the Alito nomination, heeding your calls to do everything possible to defeat it. He has asked that activists now help convince his colleagues to join him.

Please contact key senators who can provide critical support to the filibuster effort!

http://www.SaveTheCourt.org/AlitoFilibuster

Then forward this message to anyone you know who is worried that Alito would likely condone the abuse of power by the president, vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and help curtail Congress' ability to protect the civil rights, health, safety, and welfare of the American people.

We need to act now to prevent Senate Republican leaders from ramming this nomination through the Senate -- time is of the essence.

http://www.SaveTheCourt.org/AlitoFilibuster

This will make things interesting.

Update: Senator Kerry has posted a statement on Daily Kos outlining his reasons for undertaking a filibuster (there is also more about this issue on his Senate website).

I'll admit to a certain amount of amazement that Kerry would even undertake such an adventure.  A valid criticism of his Senate tenure is that he has always been so careful as to not take major risks in defense of principles he cares about.  A move like this might remind some of the Vietnam vet who showed such courage and came back to protest the war more than the 2004 democratic presidential nominee.  The real John Kerry just stood up.   

Related Post:  When Will John Kerry Be Brave?

Related Post:  Report From St. Louis On The Debate & Kerry Rally


Will Hillary Clinton Get My Vote?

Hillary Clinton will be in Portland this week for a fund raiser for her senate re-election campaign. You might think I’d be there. After all, I’ve attended other events in Portland and elsewhere where the senator has spoken. But not this time.

Senator Clinton’s support for the Iraq War – clearly the most important and far-reaching public policy issue of this decade – has been since the beginning a mistake.

The obvious reason for a West Coast trip is to build support for a 2008 presidential run (she clearly doesn’t need the money for her Senate campaign where the Republicans cannot even field a candidate against her). Many believe that her support for the president’s failed policies in Iraq is simply a move to counter her liberal image in a general national election.

You will not find me supporting a candidate for president in the primaries that voted for and continues to support a Middle East policy that destabilizes the region and increases the risk of terrorism against the United States. Former Senator John Edwards, another possible candidate in 2008, admitted in recent months that his vote to authorize the war was a mistake.

Senator Clinton will need to do the same if she ever wants my vote for president.


Statement of Senator Russ Feingold On the Nomination of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr. to the United States Supreme Court

US Senator Russ Feingold, a member of the Judiciary Committee, voted this week against the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.  His vote is remarkable because he has voted for every other nominee to the Supreme Court - appointments made by both democratic and republican presidents - because of his strong belief that a president should have extraordinary leeway in making executive branch and judicial appointments.  Feingold, for example, joined Republicans in voting for John Roberts to be Chief Justice.  Unlike John Roberts, Samuel Alito, argued the senator from Wisconsin, does not deserve a seat on the court because of his extremist positions on issue after issue.  No one can accuse Russ Feingold of being a partisan determined to simply defeat George W. Bush's nominations.  Americans ought to seriously consider the senator's words on Samuel Alito before the full Senate votes on his nomination.  Senator Feingold's full statement is below:   

Mr. Chairman, Justice O’Connor’s retirement in July touched off a period of intense and important work in this Committee. Just over six months later, that work seems finally to be coming to a close, at least for now. I want to commend you for the thorough and fair process you have overseen. The nominees have been treated fairly, and both sides on the Committee have been treated fairly as well. I want to thank you for that.

Supreme Court nominations truly are among the most important responsibilities of this committee and the Senate. I have given the nominations the President has sent to us in the past six months serious and careful consideration.

The scrutiny to be applied to a President's nominee to the Supreme Court is the highest of any nomination. I have voted for executive branch appointees, and even for Court of Appeals nominees, whom I would not necessarily vote to put on the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, alone among our courts, has the power to revisit and reverse its precedents, and so I believe that anyone who sits on that Court must not have a pre-set agenda to reverse precedents with which he or she disagrees and must recognize and appreciate the awesome power and responsibility of the Court to do justice when other branches of government infringe on or ignore the freedoms and rights of all citizens.

This is not a new standard Mr. Chairman. It is the same standard I applied to the nomination of Chief Justice Roberts. In that case, after careful consideration, I decided to vote in favor of the nomination. In the case of Judge Samuel Alito, after the same careful consideration, I must vote no.

Judge Alito has an impressive background and a very capable legal mind, but I have grave concerns about how he would rule on cases involving the application of the Bill of Rights in a time of war. Some of the most important cases that the Supreme Court will consider in the coming years will involve the government’s conduct of the fight against terrorism. It is critical that we have a strong and independent Supreme Court to evaluate these issues and to safeguard the rights and freedoms of Americans in the face of enormous pressures.

Confronted with an executive branch that has jealously claimed every possible authority that it can, and then some, the Supreme Court must continue to assert its constitutional role as a critical check on executive power. Just how “critical” that check is has been made clear over the past few weeks, as Americans have learned that the President thinks his executive power permits him to violate explicit criminal statutes by spying on Americans without a court order.

With the executive and the legislature at loggerheads, we may well need the Supreme Court to have the final word in this matter. In times of constitutional crisis, the Supreme Court can tell the executive it has gone too far, and require it to obey the law. Yet Judge Alito’s record and testimony strongly suggest that he would do what he has done for much of his 15 years on the bench: defer to the executive branch in case after case at the expense of individual rights.

Although he has not decided cases dealing with the Bill of Rights in wartime, he has a very long record on the bench of ruling in favor of the government and against individuals in a variety of contexts. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, this is an important distinction between Judge Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. Our new Chief Justice had a very limited judicial record before his nomination. Judge Alito has an extensive record. There is no better evidence of what kind of Justice he will be on the Supreme Court than his record as a Court of Appeals judge. He told us that himself.

A whole series of analyses by law professors and news organizations has shown that Judge Alito is very deferential toward the government, and one detailed analysis by the Washington Post concluded that he is more deferential than his Third Circuit colleagues and even than Republican-appointed appeals judges nationwide. This vividly demonstrates the concern I have about this nomination. Judge Alito is not simply a conservative judge appointed by a conservative President. His record is that of a jurist with a clear inclination to rule in favor of the government and against individual rights.

In particular, Judge Alito’s record in Fourth Amendment cases shows a recurring pattern. In almost every Fourth Amendment case in which Judge Alito wrote an opinion, he either found no constitutional violation or argued that the violation should not prevent the illegally obtained evidence from being used. In more than a dozen dissents in criminal or Fourth Amendment cases, not once did Judge Alito argue for greater protection of individual rights than the majority.

In one case that he was asked about on several occasions at his hearing, Judge Alito, in dissent, argued that the strip search of a 10-year old girl and her mother passed constitutional muster, even though they were not suspected of any crime or specifically mentioned in the search warrant. Judge Alito’s answers to questions at the hearing about this case only reinforced concerns identified by outside scholars that he seems to ignore the serious interests of privacy and personal dignity protected by the Fourth Amendment and instead relies on technical readings of warrants so that he can authorize the government action.

Cases challenging government power comprise nearly half of the current Supreme Court’s docket. A Supreme Court Justice should protect individual freedoms against government intrusion where justified, and, specifically, should appreciate that the Fourth Amendment serves to limit government power. As Yale Law School Professor Ronald Sullivan testified:

In the United States, perhaps no right is more sacred – more worthy of vigilant protection – than the right of each and every individual to be free from government interference without the ‘unquestionable’ authority of the law. Judge Alito . . . shows an inadequate consideration for the important values that underwrite these norms of individual liberty – the very norms upon which this constitutional democracy relies for its sustenance. . . . [T]his Senate’s decision on whether to consent to Judge Alito’s nomination will profoundly impact how liberty is realized in the United States.

At the hearing, I and many other Senators repeatedly asked Judge Alito whether the President can violate a clear statutory prohibition, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the ban on torture. He never answered the question. He returned again and again to a formulaic response that told us nothing at all: he said that the President must follow the Constitution and must follow the laws that are consistent with the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, any first-year law student could tell you that. That kind of stock phrase, which Judge Alito repeated over and over, tells us absolutely nothing about his view of whether the President can, consistent with the Constitution, violate a criminal law.

Judge Alito did point to Justice Jackson’s three-part analysis in Youngstown. That is an appropriate framework, but merely citing Youngstown doesn’t tell you anything about how he would apply that framework. Even when presented with the alarming hypothetical of whether a President can authorize a murder in the United States, Judge Alito would say no more.

These practiced and opaque responses gave me no reassurance about Judge Alito’s views on these issues. What troubled me even more was that he repeatedly, and in some cases gratuitously, raised issues of justiciability and the political question doctrine – that is, he seemed to question whether the courts can even weigh in on these serious legal battles between the legislature and the executive. Although he said he thought the courts could address questions involving individual rights, Judge Alito’s instinct in discussing these historic issues was to focus on whether the courts even had a role to play. It wasn’t to talk about the gravity of the issues at stake for our system of government, but to question whether he as a judge could even participate in the resolution of such critical constitutional conflicts.

Mr. Chairman, I found that very disturbing, and it has played a significant role in my decision to vote against him. Judge Alito’s record and his testimony have led me to conclude that his impulse to defer to the executive branch would make him a dangerous addition to the Supreme Court at a time when cases involving executive overreaching in the name of fighting terrorism are likely to be such an important part of the Court’s work.

I am also concerned about Judge Alito’s record and testimony on cases involving the death penalty. The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in death penalty cases. Judge Alito participated in five death penalty cases that resulted in split panels, and in every single one of those he voted against the death row inmate. A Washington Post analysis found that he ruled against defendants and for the government in death penalty cases significantly more often than other judges. And his testimony gave me no reason to believe that he will approach these cases any differently as a Supreme Court Justice.

To be blunt, Mr. Chairman, I found Judge Alito’s answers to questions about the death penalty to be chilling. He focused almost entirely on procedures and deference to state courts, and didn’t appear to recognize the extremely weighty constitutional and legal rights involved in any case where a person’s life is at stake.

I was particularly troubled by his refusal to say that an individual who went through a procedurally perfect trial, but was later proven innocent, had a constitutional right not to be executed. The Constitution states that no one in this country will be deprived of life without due process of law. It is hard to even imagine how any process that would allow the execution of someone who is known to be innocent could satisfy that requirement of our Bill of Rights. I pressed Judge Alito on this topic but rather than answering the question directly or acknowledging how horrific the idea of executing an innocent person is, or even pointing to the House v. Bell case currently pending in the Supreme Court on a related issue, Judge Alito mechanically laid out the procedures a person would have to follow in state and federal court to raise an innocence claim, and the procedural barriers the person would have to surmount.

Judge Alito’s record and response suggest that he analyzes death penalty appeals as a series of procedural hurdles that inmates must overcome, rather than as a critical backstop to prevent grave miscarriages of justice. The Supreme Court plays a very unique role in death penalty cases, and Judge Alito left me with no assurance that he would be able to review these cases without a weight on the scale in favor of the government.

One important question that I had about Judge Alito was his view on the role of precedent and stare decisis in our legal system. At his hearing, while restating the doctrine of stare decisis, Judge Alito repeatedly qualified his answers with the comment that stare decisis is not an “inexorable command.” While this is most certainly true, his insistence on qualifying his answers with this formulation was troubling. Combined with a judicial record in which fellow judges have criticized his application of precedent in several cases, Judge Alito’s record and testimony do not give me the same comfort I had with Chief Justice Roberts that he has the respect for and deference to precedent that I would like to see in a Supreme Court Justice.

With respect to reproductive rights, Judge Alito said that he would look at any case with an “open mind.” That promise, however, is not reassuring given his prior denunciations of Roe, his legal work to undermine Roe, and his failure to disavow the strong legal views he had expressed in the 1980s when given the opportunity at his hearing. In his 1985 Justice Department job application, Judge Alito wrote that he believed that the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion, and, as an Assistant to the Solicitor General, he wrote a memo advocating a strategy for the Reagan Administration to chip away at Roe v. Wade, with the ultimate goal of overturning that decision. Since he refused to say that he changed his mind, despite numerous chances, one can only think that he still believes what he said in 1985. And his opinions as a Third Circuit judge raise a legitimate concern that he will, if given the opportunity, be inclined to narrow reproductive rights.

Mr. Chairman, I want also to say a brief word about ethics. The Vanguard case could have been disposed of fairly easily if Judge Alito had only admitted his mistake up front. Under questioning, Judge Alito finally admitted that there is no evidence that he followed through on his 1990 promise to the Committee to recuse himself from any cases involving Vanguard. He also said that some of the explanations that he and his supporters gave for his failure to recuse from the Vanguard case in 2002-- such as a “computer glitch” or the fact that his promise to the Committee was somehow time-limited -- were not in fact the true reasons that he failed to recuse himself from the 2002 case.

While I am not basing my vote on this matter, it continues to trouble me. First, it is not clear to me that Judge Alito took his 1990 promise to the Committee seriously. Second, Judge Alito failed to clear up the inconsistent explanations before or at the outset of his hearing, even after documents revealed that those explanations were implausible and even though he knew that they were not the real reasons that he failed to recuse himself in 2002.

The concept of recusal, which recognizes that from time to time the public might reasonably believe that judges’ biases or interests may cast doubt on the integrity of a judicial decision, is part of ensuring due process and protecting the public’s confidence in the integrity of our system of justice. Despite numerous other reports of Judge Alito’s honesty and integrity, I am not satisfied that he appreciates the importance of recusal.

His written answer to my question about how he would analyze recusal motions related to the Third Circuit judges who testified on his behalf raises concerns about his approach to conflicts of interest. Judge Alito wrote that he thinks Supreme Court Justices have “less latitude to err on the side of recusal” than other judges, because recusal could lead to evenly divided decisions. But when Congress amended the federal recusal law in 1974, it specifically removed any so-called “duty to sit” in favor of a general standard requiring recusal if there is a reasonable basis for doubting the judge’s impartiality. The purpose of that change was to enhance public confidence in the impartiality and fairness of the judicial system. In my view, Supreme Court Justices should have no more latitude in interpreting ethics rules than other judges; indeed, the recusal statute specifically applies to Supreme Court Justices.

I would argue that treating recusal issues seriously is even more important for Supreme Court Justices since they are solely responsible for their recusal decisions. There is no judicial review of their decisions, no formal procedure for the full Court review of such decisions, and, when a Justice improperly participates, a tainted constitutional decision cannot be undone. That is why it is so important to have Justices who adhere to the highest ethical standards. Judge Alito repeatedly told us that he seeks to carry out his duties in accordance with both the letter and spirit of all applicable rules of ethics and canons of conduct. He wrote in a letter to the Chairman “my personal practice is to recuse myself when any possible question might arise.” Unfortunately, his description of how he would handle recusal motions as a Supreme Court Justice does not seem consistent with those statements.

Mr. Chairman, it gives me no pleasure or satisfaction to vote against a nominee to the Supreme Court. If confirmed, he may well serve for over 20 years. I would very much like to have confidence that this new Justice, who plainly has a keen legal mind, would be the kind of impartial, objective, and wise Justice that our nation needs. But I do not, so I will vote No. Thank you Mr. Chairman.


"Week of Prayer for Christian Unity plays role in developing ecumenical spirituality, Kobia says"

Today marks the final day of the 2006 Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.  Earlier this week the World Council of Churches (WCC) reported:

The marks of ecumenical spirituality are "readiness to rethink and to be converted" and willingness "to bear the otherness of the other, including refugees, people of another colour and other faiths, the old and the poor - all God's people," said Rev. Dr Samuel Kobia yesterday, the first day of the 2006 Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.

Preaching at a service in the French-language church in Switzerland's capital Bern, Kobia recognized that bearing the otherness of the other "is not a simple matter". For this to happen, Christians "must develop the spiritual capacity to hear and see the grace of God in the other, [...] the capacity to feel the pulse of the world around us and to listen to the voices of those far and near".

According to the WCC general secretary, the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity has a "very significant role" to play in such an endeavour. "As we meet, sing, pray and worship together here in Bern in the context of the universality of the world-wide Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, [...] we are one with our brothers and sisters in Bolivia, in Kiribati, in Botswana and, yes, with our Irish brothers and sisters who have prepared the liturgical materials we are using this week."

Kobia gave thanks to God for the "world-wide community" which each year comes "together in spirit to pray for God's energy and guidance in search of unity". "Prayer," Kobia said, "remains at the heart of the unity that we seek." A unity that is "not just for our sake, but also for the sake of the world".

Visit WCC's newly expanded website to learn more about the world-wide ecumenical movement. 

Related Post:  Week of Prayer for Christian Unity slated Jan. 18-25


Documents Show White House Incompetence During Katrina

The world watched in horror at the incompetence of the Bush administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina. How could the White House not know survivors needed help? Why wasn’t the Department of Homeland Security prepared for such a disaster?

The president told the American people not to point the finger at him.

"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.”

That was the president’s lame excuse for inaction in the days following the Hurricane as he praised his friend and FEMA director for doing “a heck of a job.” But people did know what damage the storm might do. Those people included the White House. The Washington Post reports:

In the 48 hours before Hurricane Katrina hit, the White House received detailed warnings about the storm's likely impact, including eerily prescient predictions of breached levees, massive flooding, and major losses of life and property, documents show.

A 41-page assessment by the Department of Homeland Security's National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC), was delivered by e-mail to the White House's "situation room," the nerve center where crises are handled, at 1:47 a.m. on Aug. 29, the day the storm hit, according to an e-mail cover sheet accompanying the document.

The NISAC paper warned that a storm of Katrina's size would "likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching" and specifically noted the potential for levee failures along Lake Pontchartrain. It predicted economic losses in the tens of billions of dollars, including damage to public utilities and industry that would take years to fully repair. Initial response and rescue operations would be hampered by disruption of telecommunications networks and the loss of power to fire, police and emergency workers, it said.

In a second document, also obtained by The Washington Post, a computer slide presentation by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, prepared for a 9 a.m. meeting on Aug. 27, two days before Katrina made landfall, compared Katrina's likely impact to that of "Hurricane Pam," a fictional Category 3 storm used in a series of FEMA disaster-preparedness exercises simulating the effects of a major hurricane striking New Orleans. But Katrina, the report warned, could be worse.

In the meantime, the White House is being accused tonight of hindering the congressional investigation into what went so wrong during Katrina. Reuters reports:

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the top Democrat on the Senate panel investigating the government's botched response to Hurricane Katrina, on Tuesday accused administration officials of failing to cooperate and trying to run out the clock on the congressional probe.

"The problems begin at the White House, where there has been a near total lack of cooperation that has made it impossible, in my opinion, for us to do the thorough investigation we have a responsibility to do," Lieberman said in a hearing held by the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

The Connecticut Democrat said the administration has delivered few of the documents requested by the committee and hindered it's ability to obtain information from agencies involved in preparing and responding to the hurricane.

"There's been no assertion of executive privilege; just a refusal to answer," Lieberman said.

"My staff believes that (the Department of Homeland Security) has engaged in a conscious strategy of slow walking our investigation in the hope that we would run out of time to follow the investigation's natural progression to where it leads."

No Democrat in Congress has gone out of his way more that Joe Lieberman to support this president – on issue after issue. You cannot accuse him with playing politics with this case.

But you can make the statement that this president’s dishonesty and incompetence makes him the most ineffective and biggest failure to occupy the White House in more than a generation.

Can you think of any other sitting president who has lost an American city since the British burned Washington?

Church World Service still needs donations to help those on the Gulf Coast.

Related Post:  America Left The "Least Of These" Behind In The Wake Of Katrina


Anti-Choice Cause Appears Headed For Major Victory

Protesters at the annual "march for life" in Washington (held each year on the anniversary of the Roe vs Wade decision) were reportedly jubilant over the expected confirmation of Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court.

The marchers have every right to be happy.  There is every indication that Alito is an extremist in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.  President Bush, after all, promised to name men to the courts who emulated that dynamic duo.  All but two of the members of the Supreme Court have now been appointed by Republican presidents who have vowed to make abortion illegal. 

Times were very difficult for women in the days before Roe vs Wade and if Alito votes to restrict a woman's right to make her own health care decisions those difficult days will return. 

Many clergy people took extraordinary risks to support women who needed an abortion in the pre-Roe days.  Their stories are chronicled in a piece available for download on the web site of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

Today there are still many in our churches - both ordained and lay people - who are willing to risk much to make sure that women have both the legal rights and the access they need to make their own decisions.  A victory for Bush, Alito and their allies in the Religious Right will not end the debate.   


John Dorhauer: New UCC Blogger

The Rev. Dr. John Dorhauer, minister for the St. Louis Association of the United Church of Christ, is a new writer on the blog Talk To Action. John will be writing weekly “on the attacks on the mainline churches and what is being done about it,” according to Talk To Action founder Frederick Clarkson. I had the good fortunate of working with John during my time in St. Louis and look forward to reading what he has to say on these critical issues. John is widely admired across the UCC for his work (he get bonus points with me for being an Eden grad). His first post, Religion Under Attack, is available today.


Conservative Evangelical Influence Over Military A Threat To Democracy

This week PBS' Religion and Ethics Newsweekly reported on the bizarre case of a Navy chaplain who claimed - falsely says the government - that he was prohibited from praying to Jesus.

Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt, a figure of near divine stature now among the Religious Right, was actually accused of using a funeral service to proclaim to Navy sailors they were doomed to hell if they didn't accept Jesus. 

He also led a boycott of a service held at a United Church of Christ congregation - because of the church's support of gays and lesbians.

Military chaplains are commissioned to provide religious support to all people of faith serving in the Armed Forces and not there to be proselytizing.

The Klingenschmitt case points to a larger issue that should be on concern to all Americans: the large number of conservative evangelical Christians serving in the military as chaplains (a group that often confuses the Republican Party platform for the Gospel teachings of Jesus). 

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State reported on this issue last year in a piece by Rob Boston on their web site:

Recent allegations of religious bias at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs may be only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to religious pluralism in the military.

A recent front-page New York Times article paints a troubling portrait of the military chaplaincy generally, noting that evangelicals who insist on their right to engage in aggressive forms of proselytism are a "growing force" in the military chaplaincy.

In that report, the Times noted a recent "Spiritual Fitness Conference" hosted and paid for by the Academy at a cost of $300,000. The conference was open to U.S. military chaplains and their families, and, although military chaplains pledge to serve all soldiers' religious needs, the four-day conference was clearly intended to help evangelical chaplains hone their ministerial skills.

Attendees were treated to "workshops on 'The Purpose Driven Life,' the best seller by the megachurch pastor Rick Warren, and on how to improve their worship services." Strewn throughout the hotel's hallways, according to the Times, were vendors from Focus on the Family, James Dobson's evangelical self-help ministry, which is headquartered in Colorado Springs.

The spiritual fitness event was "just one indication of the extent to which evangelical Christians have become a growing force in the Air Force chaplain corps, a trend documented by military records and interviews with more than two dozen chaplains and other military officials," the newspaper reported.

Military statistics show a major spike in the number of evangelical denominations that are now represented in the chaplaincy and a continued dwindling of Catholic and mainline Protestant groups. Things have gotten so bad that some non-evangelicals in the military say they are finding it increasingly difficult to practice their own faiths.

Brig. Gen. Cecil R. Richardson, the Air Force deputy chief of chaplains, told The Times, "We will not proselytize, but we reserve the right to evangelize the unchurched." Richardson attempted to draw a distinction, arguing, as The Times put it, "that proselytizing is trying to convert someone in an aggressive way, while evangelizing is more gently sharing the gospel."

Horror stories abound. A Mormon in the Marine Corps told The Times that during his service his fellow marines and some of his commanders often denigrated his religion. He said several chaplains tried to convince him his faith was "wicked" or "Satanic." He is now looking to become a military chaplain, in part, to help turn the tide. He said he wants to become a chaplain to help those religious service men and women who are now "underrepresented" and to make the military "a more spiritually accepting environment."

In the Navy, Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt, of the Evangelical Episcopal Church, complained that he was terminated after he used a funeral service for a Catholic sailor to warn attendees that for those who did not accept Jesus, "God's wrath remains upon him." Amazingly, Klingenschmitt insists he did nothing wrong, remarking, "The Navy wants to impose its religion on me. Religious pluralism is a religion. It's a theology all by itself."

A chaplain must be prepared to offer any religious service requested, or find someone who can. Clearly, some evangelicals are unwilling to do this and instead see their taxpayer-financed positions as launching pads for evangelism.

Members of the armed services stationed overseas where churches are few must have their religious view accommodated. At domestic bases, where houses of worship often abound in the surrounding community, the need seems less compelling.

Perhaps it is time to heed the words of James Madison, who in one essay warned that it might be "better to disarm...the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matter of Religion. The object of this establishment is seducing; the motive to it is laudable. But is it not safer to adhere to a right principle, and trust to its consequences, than confide in the reasoning, however specious, in favor of a wrong one?"

In a moment in history where the president of the United States believes that he was anointed by God and had divine sanction to wage unprovoked war - as we see in Iraq - the question of who provides spiritual guidance to the military is a troubling one. 

What kind of message is being preached in the military when an increasing number of chaplains are conservative evangelicals? 

What happens to democracy when soldiers are being taught by chaplains that pluralism - a hallmark of democracy - is evil and that war is always justifiable?

The message being preached by Klingenschmitt and his like-minded colleagues is not only a perversion of Christianity it is a threat to the separation of church and state - a core principle of our freedom.


Our Family Trip To The Bay Area

P1010084_webThis weekend we made our way down to the Bay Area to visit Liz’s family. It was a great chance to show off the twins to their grandparents, aunts, uncles and assorted cousins on the Smith side of the family. Unfortunately, a short visit like this didn’t afford us the opportunity to spend time with our many friends in the area. The occasion forP1010085_web  this mini-vacation was the 40th birthdays of Sarah and Paul, Liz’s sister and brother-in-law. Carolyn, Liz’s step-mother, also arranged a tour for me of the Pacific School of Religion (a UCC affiliated seminary connected with the Graduate Theological Union) and First Congregational United Church of Christ of Berkeley. PSR has an excellent reputation as a first rate theological school and a hope of mine is to partake in some of their continuing education programs in the years to come.  Make sure you check out P1010090_web_2 their new Progressive Christian Witness web site. Photos of the trip will be available shortly on our family web site but I’d thought on this blog I’d post two from PSR (including one of their chapel) and one from First Congregational UCC (note the good looking God Is Still Speaking banner – new commercials from the UCC using that theme are on the way).


'We light candles every morning during worship.' Christian Peacemakers remember missing friends

Statement from the National Council of Churches USA

New York, January 19, 2006 – The January 7 kidnapping in Iraq of American reporter Jill Carroll is chilling, and raises questions about the fate of four Christian Peacemakers who have been missing since November 29.

No word has been received from the Peacemakers since their lives were threatened in early December. But the other members of the Christian Peacemaker Teams, like people of faith across the globe, have not ceased praying for their friends or their kidnappers. The CPT released a message earlier this month, "We hope you are well . . . we light four candles every morning at worship."

The missing Christian Peacemakers -- Tom Fox,  54, from Clearbrook, Virginia Norman Kember, 74, from London, England, James Loney, 41, a community worker from Toronto, Canada, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32, a Canadian electrical engineer from Montreal -- have not been seen since they were abducted by dissidents who accused them of being American spies.

The kidnappers, who call themselves "The Swords of Righteousness Brigades," said the Peacemakers would be killed unless the U.S. released all its prisoners in Iraq. The group set several deadlines in December for the U.S. to release its prisoners, but the deadlines passed without further word.

Since then, the Christian Peacemaker Teams have released statements of support for their friends.

"We are very worried about our four friends," the CPT said November 30. "We fear that whoever is holding them has made a mistake. Norman, Tom, James and Harmeet are four men who came to Iraq to work for peace and explain their opposition to the occupation. They are not spies."

The CPT issued a public appeal to the kidnappers on December 6. "While we believe the action of kidnapping is wrong, we do not condemn you as people," the statement said. "We recognize the humanity in each person, and respect it very much. This includes you, our colleagues, and all people. We believe there needs to be a force that counters all the resentment, the fear, the intimidation felt by the Iraqi people. We are trying to be that force: to speak for justice, to advocate for the human rights of Iraqis, to look at an Iraqi face and say: my brother, my sister...Perhaps you are men who only want to raise the issue of illegal detention. We don't know what you may have endured.  As you can see by the statements of support from our friends in Iraq and all over the world, we work for those who are oppressed.   We also condemn our own governments for their actions in Iraq."

"It takes courage and a profound faith to reach out with compassion to those who have harmed you," said Dr. Antonios Kireopoulos, Assistant General Secretary of the National Council of Churches USA for International Affairs and Peace. "The Christian Peacemakers have shown that fragile human beings are capable of acting not out of resentment but out of love. They have lived into the role of becoming the 'force that counters all the resentment.'"

Religious groups all over the world -- including Christian and Muslim -- are praying for the Peacemakers or have issued appeals for their release.

Similarly, religious groups are urging the release of journalist Jill Carroll. The Council of American-Islamic Relations said Thursday (January 19), "We . . . call for the immediate and unconditional release of Jill Carroll, a journalist with a well-documented record of objective reporting and respect for both the Iraqi people and Arab-Islamic culture. We ask that her captors show mercy and compassion by releasing her so that she may return to her family. Certainly, no cause can be advanced by harming a person who only sought to let the world know about the human suffering caused by the conflict in Iraq."

"Clearly the cycle of violence is resulting in more violence," Kireopoulos said. "And all this violence is senseless.  This war must end."

Related Post: Pray For Four From Christian Peacemakers Team Held In Iraq


Since Newsworthy General Synod, United Church of Christ Reports Both Positive, Negative Fallout

Press Release from the United Church of Christ

CLEVELAND, Jan. 19 - Leaders of the 1.3- million-member United Church of Christ are reporting mixed statistical and financial outcomes -- both positive and negative -- during the six-month period that followed its General Synod's controversial decision to affirm support for same-gender marriage equality.

Since July, about 49 churches -- or less than one percent of the UCC's 5,725 churches -- have voted to disaffiliate, according to the denomination's research office. Most, but not all, of the departures appear related to disagreement with the marriage- equality resolution.

The withdrawals, however, also come amid a resurgence of interest in the UCC by new or existing churches, with 23 congregations affiliating with the UCC during 2005 and an additional 42 churches expressing a "firm interest" in joining. The year also ended with some hopeful financial indicators, including significant increases for some national offerings and special appeals.

"The number of departing churches is far fewer than some had earlier projected," said General Minister and President John H. Thomas, who nonetheless described the last half of 2005 as a period marked by "extensive conversation," "education," and at times, "exhaustion."

"We grieve the loss of any and every congregation that decides to leave," Thomas said, "not only because of the loss of members but also for the loss of shared history, ministry and fellowship."

Based on 2004 financial data, the withdrawing churches -- with a combined membership of 10,535 -- contributed about $89,000 annually to support Our Church's Wider Mission (OCWM), the denomination's shared purse that funds ministries at the Association, Conference, national and international settings. Those receipts represent less than three-tenths of 1 percent of the $32 million contributed to OCWM each year.

Most of the departing churches appear to have been distancing themselves financially from the denomination for many years, said William Morgan, the UCC's chief financial officer.

Morgan also acknowledged that an undetermined number of churches have voted to remain with the UCC but have indicated they will consider reducing financial support for OCWM in 2006. That effort, he said, could be offset by supportive congregations that intend to increase OCWM contributions.

"While some fluctuations in OCWM can surely be attributed to Synod-related issues," Morgan said, "we're also hearing from many churches that have other budgetary concerns, such as rising heating costs, insurance premiums and other expenses that impact their OCWM giving. There are other factors to consider."

The UCC is unique among many of the historical mainline denominations because individual congregations retain legal ownership of their buildings and property, making it easier for UCC congregations to decide their own futures. Worth noting, not all churches that vote to leave the UCC necessarily stay away forever. In the past two years, five once-departed churches have voted to return.

Church officials also reported a sharp increase in inquiries about UCC affiliation. The Rev. David Schoen of the UCC's Evangelism Ministry, said that, in addition to discussions with 42 existing non-UCC churches, his office has had conversations with more than 20 pastors or lay persons interested in starting new congregations where none currently exists.

"We've seen great new enthusiasm for new church development," Schoen said.

In October, the 4,300-member Cathedral of Hope in Dallas, Texas, voted overwhelmingly to pursue UCC affiliation and cited the General Synod's marriage resolution as a motivating factor behind its decision. At least two more large-membership churches with an eye toward joining the UCC have planned congregational votes in 2006.

The process by which local Associations grant formal standing to incoming churches can sometimes take several months to complete, Schoen said.

In addition to the inquiries, 10 churches were granted full standing during the year and 13 congregations were recognized as newly planted churches.

The UCC also marked a record-setting year for financial support of special offerings and appeals, global disaster response and the UCC's Stillspeaking Initiative.

"While every setting of the church has fretted over finances this year, members of the United Church of Christ have demonstrated amazing, record-breaking generosity," Thomas announced in late December.

UCC members contributed a record-shattering $9 million through national church offices to support national and international relief -- a response fueled by churchwide concern for victims of the tsunami in Asia and East Africa, the hurricanes in the southeastern U.S., violence in Darfur and the Sudan, the earthquake in Pakistan and Kashmir, as well as global hunger and the spread of HIV/AIDS infection. The 2005 financial total is more than three times the $2.1 million given over a two-year period in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Web-based giving through ( http://www.ucc.org ) quadrupled in 2005, with nearly $500,000 coming from 2,800 givers, a three-fold increase in online donors.

Although year-end remittances are not due until the end of January, Morgan projects the church will come close to its $32 million goal for national and Conference basic support, which funds the church's mission infrastructure. Plus, he said, it looks like the church will realize a 3-to-5 percent overall increase in receipts for the UCC's four national special-mission offerings, which are received annually and earmarked for global development, justice advocacy, evangelism and church renewal, and support for church retirees.

Also, more than $1.5 million in second-mile giving was received to support the Stillspeaking Initiative, the UCC's national advertising campaign, which is planning to debut a third TV commercial in late March.

The UCC, located in all 50 states and Puerto Rico, was formed in 1957 with the union of the Congregational Christian Churches in America and the Evangelical and Reformed Church. Many of the UCC's congregations and buildings are among this nation's oldest, with more than one-tenth of UCC churches formed before 1776.


Week of Prayer for Christian Unity slated Jan. 18-25

Press Release from the National Council of Churches USA:

'Wherever two or three are gathered in my name . . .'

Unityweekeng2New York, January 9, 2006 -- The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, a bellwether of the ecumenical movement since 1908, will be celebrated across the globe January 18-25, 2006.

The week of prayer, which has inspired members of most Christian traditions for 98 years, will be observed in ecumenical councils, communion headquarters, dioceses and local congregations in both hemispheres. The theme of this year's observance is, "Where two or three are gathered in my name," invoking Jesus' promise in Matthew 18:20 that when Christians gather, "I am there among them."

Resources for Christian Unity worship services and other activities can be obtained from the Graymoor Ecumenical and Interreligious Institute, 475 Riverside Drive, New York, N.Y., 212-870-2330.

The theme and text for each year’s observance of the Week of Prayer are chosen and prepared by representatives of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and representatives of the World Council of Churches. The international texts are developed, adapted and published for use in the USA by Graymoor.

The Faith and Order Commission of the National Council of Churches USA promotes the week among the NCC's 35 member communions.

According to Sister Lorelei F. Fuchs, S.A., associate director of the Graymoor Institute, the annual Week of Prayer for Christian Unity began in the Episcopal Church in 1908 at Graymoor, in New York’s Hudson Valley.

Ten years earlier Paul James Wattson, a priest of the Episcopal Church, co-founded the Franciscan religious congregations comprising the Society of the Atonement at Graymoor with Lurana Mary White, also an Episcopalian.Wattson was a vigorous advocate of Anglican and Roman Catholic reunion, and he emphasized the role of the papacy in the reunion of Christians.

With the Second Vatican Council, 1962-1965, Sister Lorelei reports, an increasing number of Roman Catholics joined other Christians each year in January for common prayer for unity. The council’s Decree on Ecumenism, promulgated in 1964, called prayer the soul of the ecumenical movement and encouraged the observance of what is now known as the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.

In 1966, the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches and the Vatican Secretariat (now Council) for Promoting Christian Unity began collaborating on a common international text for worldwide usage. Since 1968 these international texts, which are based on themes proposed by ecumenical groups throughout the world, have been developed, adapted and published for use in the United States Graymoor. To assist in this endeavor, the GEII invites contributions from ecumenists and church leaders in America.

In 1983, the National Council of Churches’ Governing Board urged their member communions to designate an "Ecumenical Sunday" for prayer for Christian unity. Eventually, conversations among organizers of the Week of Prayer and representatives of the NCC and local councils led to placing Ecumenical Sunday within the Week of Prayer context.

The full text of Sister Lorelei's history of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity is here. The history in Spanish is here.


Update: Supreme Court UpHolds Oregon's Death With Dignity Law

Good news for the people of Oregon:

The Supreme Court delivered a rebuff to the Bush administration over physician-assisted suicide today, rejecting a Justice Department effort to bar doctors in Oregon from helping terminally ill patients end their lives under a 1994 state law.

In a 6-3 vote, the court ruled that then-U.S. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft overstepped his authority in 2001 by trying to use a federal drug law to prosecute doctors who prescribed lethal overdoses under the Oregon Death With Dignity Act, the only law in the nation that allows physician-assisted suicide. The measure has been approved twice by Oregon voters and upheld by lower court rulings.

Faced with lower court rulings against his position, Ashcroft brought the case to the Supreme Court on the day he announced his resignation in November 2004. The case was continued by his successor as attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., dissenting for the first time since he joined the court in September, sided with the two most conservative justices -- Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- in voting for the minority view.

Click here for the full story in The Washington Post.

The bad news in this story:  John Roberts has confirmed our worst fears and sided with Scalia and Thomas.  Letting Samuel Alito take a seat on the court will further push America to the right - something we should not let happen.

Related Post:  Oregon's Death With Dignity Act: One Christian Perspective (Revisited)


Evangelical And Mainline Christians To Bush: Do More In Darfur

The conservative National Association of Evangelicals, a group which includes prominent political supporters of President Bush, has teamed up with the National Council of Churches and interfaith partners in a new campaign sponsored by the Save Darfur Coalition:

A Million Voices for Darfur

Evangelical Christians have been some of the most prominent advocates for action in Darfur.  

The aim of the campaign is to send 1 million electronic and paper notes to the President demanding that he support "a stronger multi-national force to protect the civilians of Darfur."

In the coming months, the campaign will collect one million of these hand-written and electronic postcards from Americans demanding that the United States government act in support of a stronger multinational force to protect the civilians of Darfur. The postcards will be collected in local communities and on college campuses, at houses of worship and over the Internet. The Coalition will then deliver Americans' messages to the White House and Capitol Hill, using the campaign to draw national and local media attention to the Darfur crisis.

Some background on the crisis in Darfur:

Open warfare erupted in Darfur in early 2003 when the two loosely allied rebel groups, the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), attacked military installations. This was followed closely by peace agreements brokered by the United States to end the twenty-year-old civil war in the south of Sudan which allocated government positions and oil revenue to the rebels in the south. At that time rebels in Darfur, seeking an end to the region's chronic economic and political marginalization, also took up arms to protect their communities against a twenty-year campaign by government-backed militias recruited among groups of Arab extraction in Darfur and Chad. These "Janjaweed" militias have over the past year received government support to clear civilians from areas considered disloyal to the Sudanese government. Militia attacks and a scorched-earth government offensive has led to massive displacement, indiscriminate killings, looting and mass rape, all in infringement of the 1949 Geneva Convention that prohibits attacks on civilians.

Click here for more history.

The current situation:

Two years into the crisis, the western Sudanese region of Darfur is acknowledged to be a humanitarian and human rights tragedy of the first order. The humanitarian, security and political situation continue to deteriorate: atrocities continue, people are still dying in large numbers of malnutrition and disease, and a new famine is feared. According to recent reports by the World Food Program, the United Nations and the Coalition for International Justice, 3.5 million people are now hungry, 2.5 million have been displaced due to violence, and 400,000 people have died in Darfur thus far. The international community is failing to protect civilians or to influence the Sudanese government to do so.

The international community is deeply divided -- perhaps paralyzed -- over what to do next in Darfur. The UN Commission of Inquiry on Darfur described the massive scope of atrocities carried out in the territory, primarily by the government and its allied Janjaweed militias. And the situation on the ground shows a number of negative trends, which have been developing since the last quarter of 2004: deteriorating security; a credible threat of famine; mounting civilian casualties; the ceasefire in shambles; the negotiation process at a standstill; the rebel movements beginning to splinter, and new armed movements appearing in Darfur and neighboring states. Chaos and a culture of impunity are taking root in the region.

Click here for more background.

Click here to send your letter to President Bush.

Related Post:  Is It Ok That They're Dying Because They're Just Black People?


Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence

This important speech is often overlooked and reprinted here in honor of Rev. King's enduring legacy of Christian ministry.  His words provide a model today for all those who struggle against the war in Iraq.  Thanks be to God for the gift of Dr. King. 

By Rev. Martin Luther King
4 April 1967

Speech delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on April 4, 1967, at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City, a congregation affiliated with the United Church of Christ (click here for an audio excerpt of this speech)

I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join with you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam. The recent statement of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: "A time comes when silence is betrayal." That time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.

The truth of these words is beyond doubt but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on.

Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation's history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movement well and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.

Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: Why are you speaking about war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent? Peace and civil rights don't mix, they say. Aren't you hurting the cause of your people, they ask? And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.

In the light of such tragic misunderstandings, I deem it of signal importance to try to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church -- the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate -- leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight.

I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia.

Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they can play in a successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reason to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides.

Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the NLF, but rather to my fellow Americans, who, with me, bear the greatest responsibility in ending a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents.

The Importance of Vietnam
Since I am a preacher by trade, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor -- both black and white -- through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would never live on the same block in Detroit. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.

My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years -- especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected and angry young men I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.

For those who ask the question, "Aren't you a civil rights leader?" and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957 when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: "To save the soul of America." We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself unless the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. In a way we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that black bard of Harlem, who had written earlier:

O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath --
America will be!

Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.

As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1964; and I cannot forget that the Nobel Prize for Peace was also a commission -- a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for "the brotherhood of man." This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances, but even if it were not present I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the good news was meant for all men -- for Communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the one who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the "Vietcong" or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this one? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?

Finally, as I try to delineate for you and for myself the road that leads from Montgomery to this place I would have offered all that was most valid if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned especially for his suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them.

This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy, for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.

Strange Liberators
And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond to compassion my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them too because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.

They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945 after a combined French and Japanese occupation, and before the Communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony.

Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not "ready" for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination, and a government that had been established not by China (for whom the Vietnamese have no great love) but by clearly indigenous forces that included some Communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.

For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam.

Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of the reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.

After the French were defeated it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva agreements. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators -- our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly routed out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords and refused even to discuss reunification with the north. The peasants watched as all this was presided over by U.S. influence and then by increasing numbers of U.S. troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictatorships seemed to offer no real change -- especially in terms of their need for land and peace.

The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received regular promises of peace and democracy -- and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us -- not their fellow Vietnamese --the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move or be destroyed by our bombs. So they go -- primarily women and children and the aged.

They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals, with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one "Vietcong"-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them -- mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children, degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.

What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?

We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's only non-Communist revolutionary political force -- the unified Buddhist church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men. What liberators?

Now there is little left to build on -- save bitterness. Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call fortified hamlets. The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these? Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These too are our brothers.

Perhaps the more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for those who have been designated as our enemies. What of the National Liberation Front -- that strangely anonymous group we call VC or Communists? What must they think of us in America when they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty of Diem which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in the south? What do they think of our condoning the violence which led to their own taking up of arms? How can they believe in our integrity when now we speak of "aggression from the north" as if there were nothing more essential to the war? How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence after the murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of death into their land? Surely we must understand their feelings even if we do not condone their actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts.

How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is less than twenty-five percent Communist and yet insist on giving them the blanket name? What must they be thinking when they know that we are aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam and yet we appear ready to allow national elections in which this highly organized political parallel government will have no part? They ask how we can speak of free elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the military junta. And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new government we plan to help form without them -- the only party in real touch with the peasants. They question our political goals and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth again and then shore it up with the power of new violence?

Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.

So, too, with Hanoi. In the north, where our bombs now pummel the land, and our mines endanger the waterways, we are met by a deep but understandable mistrust. To speak for them is to explain this lack of confidence in Western words, and especially their distrust of American intentions now. In Hanoi are the men who led the nation to independence against the Japanese and the French, the men who sought membership in the French commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and the willfulness of the colonial armies. It was they who led a second struggle against French domination at tremendous costs, and then were persuaded to give up the land they controlled between the thirteenth and seventeenth parallel as a temporary measure at Geneva. After 1954 they watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which would have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again.

When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered. Also it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva agreements concerning foreign troops, and they remind us that they did not begin to send in any large number of supplies or men until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.

Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard of the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the north. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor weak nation more than eight thousand miles away from its shores.

At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless on Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called enemy, I am as deeply concerned about our troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy and the secure while we create hell for the poor.

This Madness Must Cease
Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours.

This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words:

"Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism."

If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. It will become clear that our minimal expectation is to occupy it as an American colony and men will not refrain from thinking that our maximum hope is to goad China into a war so that we may bomb her nuclear installations. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horribly clumsy and deadly game we have decided to play.

The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways.

In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war. I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do immediately to begin the long and difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish conflict:

1. End all bombing in North and South Vietnam.

2. Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action will create the atmosphere for negotiation.

3. Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing our military buildup in Thailand and our interference in Laos.

4. Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front has substantial support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any meaningful negotiations and in any future Vietnam government.

5. Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva agreement.

Part of our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We most provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country if necessary.

Protesting The War
Meanwhile we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to raise our voices if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative means of protest possible.

As we counsel young men concerning military service we must clarify for them our nation's role in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection. I am pleased to say that this is the path now being chosen by more than seventy students at my own alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam a dishonorable and unjust one. Moreover I would encourage all ministers of draft age to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors. These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.

There is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter the struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing. The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality we will find ourselves organizing clergy- and laymen-concerned committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy. Such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.

In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which now has justified the presence of U.S. military "advisors" in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counter-revolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Colombia and why American napalm and green beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru. It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken -- the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investment.

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. n the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life's roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.

This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and through their misguided passions urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. We must not call everyone a Communist or an appeaser who advocates the seating of Red China in the United Nations and who recognizes that hate and hysteria are not the final answers to the problem of these turbulent days. We must not engage in a negative anti-communism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove thosse conditions of poverty, insecurity and injustice which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops.

The People Are Important
These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression and out of the wombs of a frail world new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. "The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light." We in the West must support these revolutions. It is a sad fact that, because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has the revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgement against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores and thereby speed the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every moutain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight and the rough places plain."

A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.

This call for a world-wide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all men. This oft misunderstood and misinterpreted concept -- so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force -- has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Moslem-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John:

Let us love one another; for love is God and everyone that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. If we love one another God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day. We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says : "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word."

We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. The "tide in the affairs of men" does not remain at the flood; it ebbs. We may cry out deperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is deaf to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residue of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on..." We still have a choice today; nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation.

We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world -- a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter -- but beautiful -- struggle for a new world. This is the callling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.

As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated:

Once to every man and nation
Comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth and falsehood,
For the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God's new Messiah,
Off'ring each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever
Twixt that darkness and that light.

Though the cause of evil prosper,
Yet 'tis truth alone is strong;
Though her portion be the scaffold,
And upon the throne be wrong:
Yet that scaffold sways the future,
And behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow
Keeping watch above his own.

(reprinted from Interfaith Communities for Peace & Justice)

Related Post:  Martin Luther King, Jr. Day 2005


Action Alert From The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

Too Much is at Stake to Risk Placing Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court 

Citing the long-standing national consensus supporting the right of women to make reproductive decisions, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) urges the U.S. Senate to reject the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. Aspects of Judge Alito's record on reproductive rights show a radical legal philosophy that would reverse and overthrow basic guarantees that have been essential to women's progress over the past 30 years. In a nation that affirms freedom, equality, and dignity, Judge Alito holds legal views that are directly counter to our country's highest aspirations.

RCRC bases its opposition to Judge Alito's nomination on two instances indicating Judge Alito's judicial philosophy and lack of respect for women's moral decision-making.

As a lawyer in the Reagan Administration, Judge Alito was actively involved in devising the government's position in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a 1985 Supreme Court case in which the government asked the court to uphold Pennsylvania and Illinois laws that imposed numerous restrictions on abortions, including that women be required to provide a variety of personal details. The government went even further and argued that the court should disregard precedent and overrule Roe v. Wade and "return the law to the condition in which it was before that case was decided." The Court rejected the government's argument and struck down the Pennsylvania statute.

Judge Alito expressed his pride in taking part in this case, writing in an application for a promotion to deputy assistant attorney general, "It has been an honor and source of personal satisfaction for me ... to help to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly. I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court ... that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

In his 1991 dissenting opinion in the Third Circuit Court decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Judge Alito disregarded expert evidence about spousal abuse of pregnant women and concluded that a law requiring married women to notify their husbands prior to an abortion would not unduly burden women's access to abortion. When the case reached the Supreme Court in 1992, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose seat he is nominated to fill, voted to strike down that provision. Justices O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter said Judge Alito's opinion would give a husband a "troubling degree of authority over his wife" and place the most vulnerable women "in the gravest danger" of abuse. The Justices invoked the possibility of state regulation over many more aspects of women's behavior--smoking, drinking, exercising, using contraception, having surgery--if husbands were granted control over their wives' decision about abortion.

Whether Judge Alito will uphold the precedent of Roe v. Wade and whether he will set aside his personal views about women's moral decisions cannot be answered before he is confirmed.
Alito, if confirmed, will replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been the pivotal vote in cases to protect reproductive rights. Justice O'Connor has brought an open-mind and pragmatic approach to every case. Alito's writings and record indicate he is likely to follow his personal views on the subject of moral choices and will narrow or reverse existing rights.

With two reproductive rights cases before the Supreme Court docket this term, the stakes are enormous. The next Supreme Court Justice will be in a position to shape laws regarding reproductive choice for the next generation. (The cases are Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England and Scheidler v. NOW/Operation Rescue v. NOW.) Too much is at stake for women and families to risk confirming Samuel Alito to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court.
November 17, 2005

1985 Memo Sets Out Strategy Used by Right-Wing Groups

A 17-page memo* written by Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito while an attorney for the Reagan Administration shows Alito as a passionate opponent of reproductive choice. Alito spelled out the legal and political strategy that right-wing organizations have used in their quest to eliminate access to abortion.

In his strongly worded legal analysis, Alito recommended upholding numerous restrictions as the surest way to undermine a woman's access to abortion services. Among the restrictions he named were state regulations requiring doctors to provide women seeking abortions with information about fetal development, the risks and "unforeseeable detrimental effects" of the procedure, and the availability of adoption services and paternal child support.

Alito advised against "a frontal assault on Roe v. Wade" because it might be rejected. He wrote: "What can be made of this opportunity to advance the goals of bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade and, in the meantime, of mitigating its effects?" The Reagan Administration incorporated some of Alito's recommendations in its brief in the 1985 Supreme Court case Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, but decided to ask directly for Roe v. Wade to be overturned.

The memo confirms that, contrary to his assertions that his views on abortion are only personal opinion and would not affect his judicial rulings, Judge Alito has long-standing ideological beliefs. He should not be confirmed to a lifetime position in which he can impose his personal views on women's moral decisions.

*The memo was written in response to a decision by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that overturned provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act. The act would have required doctors to inform women seeking abortion of fetal development and risks of and alternatives to the procedure, such as adoption or child support. Alito called the court's decision "extraordinary" but added, "No one seriously believes that the court is about to overrule Roe v. Wade." He suggested that the Reagan administration in a brief to the Supreme Court support the restrictions and withhold from calling for a ban on abortion. However, the administration asked the court to "abandon" Roe, and in 1986 the case was dismissed by a 5-4 vote.

More on Alito Rulings

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Judge Alito voted to uphold Pennsylvania's spousal notification requirement. In callous disregard of the increased danger of bodily harm to some women during pregnancy, Alito wrote separately from the other two judges hearing the case to support the provision, which would have required Pennsylvania women to notify their husbands prior to obtaining an abortion. Alito wrote that "time delay, higher cost, reduced availability, and forcing the woman to receive information she has not sought," although admittedly "potential burdens," could not "be characterized as an undue burden." This opinion indicates he would never find any burden to be undue.

The Supreme Court later ruled the spousal notification provision unconstitutional, holding that it not only placed the most vulnerable women "in the gravest danger" of abuse but deprived all women of a constitutionally protected liberty when they married. The opinion, co-authored by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter, stated, "A state cannot give a man control over his wife."

Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer
In Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, the Third Circuit was asked to rule on an abortion regulation that did not contain a valid health exception for the life of the woman. Alito ruled against the regulation, but wrote his own opinion instead of concurring with the opinion of the majority. Although he applied the Supreme Court precedents in both Roe v. Wade and Stenberg v. Carhart to overturn the statute, he refused to endorse the reasoning of the Supreme Court in either case.

January 11, 2006

Click here to send your senators a letter.

Related Link:  Can Christians Be Pro-choice? Yes.

Related Link:  Seven Reasons To Oppose Samuel Alito

Related Link:  People Of Faith Will Oppose Samuel Alito


Homeless Man Killed In Florida

Floridaattack

This week the National Coalition for the Homeless (a group on whose board I sat on for several years) and the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty released a report listing the 20 "meanest cities" to those experiencing homelessness.

The report focuses on specific city measures from 2005 that have targeted homeless persons, such as laws that make it illegal to sleep, eat, or sit in public spaces.  The report includes information on about 224 cities nationwide.

One of the least reported on issues related to homelessness is violence perpetrated against people living on the streets.

The issue, however, flashed vividly across television screens and web browsers today. 

FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida (AP) -- Assailants armed with baseball bats or sticks beat three homeless men in separate attacks Thursday, killing one of the victims, police said. One of the attacks was caught on a university surveillance video.

Police said the attacks may be related but they aren't yet sure.

Two to four young white males were involved, police said. Officials released the surveillance video from Florida Atlantic University. It shows two men beating one of the victims with what appear to be bats.

Norris Gaynor, 45, died of his injuries, and the other two men were in serious condition at Broward General Medical Center, police said. The survivors were not identified.

You can watch the video on CNN.com.

The National Coalition for the Homeless has tracked 156 murders of people who are homeless over the last six years.

Deaths

The number of deaths has increased 67% since 2002.


State of Belief

Air America is launching a new program in concert with The Interfaith Alliance:

State of Belief is based on the proposition that religion has a positive and healing role to play in the life of the nation.  The show explains and explores that role by illustrating the vast diversity of beliefs in America - the most religiously diverse country in the world - while exposing and critiquing both the political manipulation of religion for partisan purposes and the religious manipulation of government for sectarian purposes.

Each week, the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy offers listeners critical analysis of the news of religion and politics, and seeks to provide listeners with an understanding and appreciation of religious liberty.  Rev. Gaddy tackles politics with the firm belief that the best way to secure freedom for religion in America is to secure freedom from religion.  State of Belief illustrates how the Religious Right is wrong - wrong for America and bad for religion.

Through interviews with celebrities and newsmakers and field reports from around the country, State of Belief explores the intersection of religion with politics, culture, media, and activism, and promotes diverse religious voices in a religiously pluralistic world.

The show airs 5:00 to 6:00 PM EST each Sunday.  Walter Cronkite is the first guest.

Tune in on the web or your local Air America affiliate.


Former Pat Robertson Aide & Jack Abramoff Friend Ralph Reed In Trouble

Sometimes bad things happen to bad people.

Bloomberg.com reports on the dwindling fortunes of Religious Right politico Ralph Reed:

The Washington scandal over lobbyist Jack Abramoff may claim a casualty outside the nation's capital: Ralph Reed, a former presidential-campaign adviser who once headed one of the U.S.'s largest Christian activist groups.

Disclosures that Reed once ran an anti-gambling campaign that was secretly financed by casino-owning clients of his friend Abramoff have damaged his ability to raise funds for a bid to become Georgia's next lieutenant governor, other Republicans say. That may undercut his chances of winning an office that he could use as a steppingstone to national political ambitions, they say.

Campaign-finance reports filed this week show that Reed, 44, lagged behind opponent Casey Cagle in fundraising for the July 18 Republican primary during the past six months, after collecting more than twice as much money as his rival before that. Cagle raised $667,000 from June 30 to Dec. 31 to Reed's $404,000.

``A lot of those big corporate donors are now hedging their bets,'' said Matt Towery, the 1990 Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, who was once a colleague of Reed's on Capitol Hill. ``Ralph faces a very difficult and now problematic candidacy.''

Click here for the full story.

Reed, for those who don’t know, headed the radical Christian Coalition, Pat Roberton’s political group.

Democrats Greg Hecht and Jim Martin are among the other candidates for the office.


National Advocacy Groups Issue Report Warning Rise In Laws Criminalizing Homelessness

Press Release from the National Coalition for the Homeless

The National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) and the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty (NLCHP) today released a report, A Dream Denied: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities, tracking a growing trend in U.S. cities – the criminalization of homelessness.  The report focuses on specific city measures from 2005 that have targeted homeless persons, such as laws that make it illegal to sleep, eat, or sit in public spaces.  The report includes information about 224 cities nationwide.

The Dream Denied report also ranks the top 20 U.S. cities with the worst practices in relation to criminalizing homelessness.

The national ranking is based on a number of factors, including the number of anti-homeless laws in the city, the enforcement of those laws, the general political climate toward homeless people in the city, and the city’s history of criminalization measures. 

In addition to the “meanest cities,” the report identifies examples of more constructive approaches to homelessness.

NCH and NLCHP released their last joint report on the topic in 2002.  In the 67 cities surveyed in this report and in the 2002 report, there are currently more laws used to target homeless persons, including a 12% increase in laws prohibiting begging in certain public places and a 14% increase in laws prohibiting sitting or lying in certain public spaces.

Michael Stoops, NCH Acting Executive Director, said, “Advocates around the country continue to report that homeless people are being unfairly harassed for being on the street when they have no other place to go.”

Maria Foscarinis, NLCHP Executive Director, noted, “The report highlights these unjust practices and promotes approaches that aim to solve homelessness, rather than make it worse.  These practices that target homeless people forced to live in public spaces are not only cruel and counterproductive, but frequently violate homeless people’s constitutional rights.” 

While more cities are cracking down on homeless people living in public spaces, cities do not have adequate shelter to meet the need.  The U.S. Conference of Mayors report released in December 2005 revealed that 71% of the 24 cities surveyed reported a 6% increase in requests for emergency shelter, with 14% of overall emergency shelter requests unmet and 32% of emergency shelter requests by homeless families unmet.  At the same time, Congress is cutting key social safety net programs that could help reduce homelessness.  Legislation passed last month by the House and Senate proposes to cut Medicaid funding by $4.8 billion and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) assistance by $732 million over the next five years.   These cuts are supported by the Bush Administration, despite the Administration’s stated goal of ending “chronic” homelessness, which is especially prevalent among disabled homeless persons living on the street.

Another trend documented in the report is increased city efforts to target homeless persons indirectly by punishing or placing restrictions on service providers serving food to poor and homeless persons in public spaces.

Chris Cosden, a lawyer in Sarasota, Florida, who has represented homeless clients in court challenges to three different Sarasota anti-lodging laws, said, “These laws attempt to make the lives of homeless people so wretched that they are compelled to go elsewhere . . . for a legislative body to intentionally do that is just plain mean.”

The report also includes information about constitutional challenges to measures that criminalize homelessness.

Top Twenty Ranked Cities:

1.    Sarasota, FL
2.    Lawrence, KS
3.    Little Rock, AR
4.    Atlanta, GA
5.    Las Vegas, NV
6.    Dallas, TX
7.    Houston, TX
8.    San Juan, PR
9.    Santa Monica, CA
10.  Flagstaff, AZ
11.  San Francisco, CA
12.  Chicago, IL 
13.  San Antonio, TX
14.  New York City, NY
15.  Austin, TX
16.  Anchorage, AK
17.  Phoenix, AZ

18.  Los Angeles, CA    
19.  St. Louis, MO
20.  Pittsburgh, PA


Anti-Defamation League Wrong To Attack United Church Of Christ

Today the Anti-Defamation League, a group whose work I often respect and cite, sent out a press release attacking the United Church of Christ for supporting the work of the Palestinian Christian organization Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center.

ADL's charges against the UCC and Sabeel are groundless and harm the important relationships between Christian and Jewish groups in the United States.

From their press release:

New York, NY, January 10, 2006 ... The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is troubled by the United Church of Christ's continuing partnership with the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, a radicalized Palestinian Christian group whose leaders have openly questioned Israel's right to exist.

"While it is heartening that the United Church of Christ has come out strongly against those who advocate for Israel's destruction, it is troubling that church leaders continue to embrace the Sabeel Center while ignoring statements from its leader questioning Israel's right to exist," said Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor, ADL Director of Interfaith Affairs.  "You can't have it both ways."

In October, leaders of the UCC, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the Common Global Ministries Board issued a statement condemning both suicide terrorism and recent statements from the Iranian President calling for Israel's destruction.  "With our partner the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center," the church leaders said, "we assert the moral reprehensibility of suicide bombing."

While welcoming UCC's clear denunciation of violence, ADL is troubled by the church's continuing partnership with the Jerusalem-based Palestinian Christian group until such time as they recognize Israel's historic validity and right to exist.  Sabeel's founder and leader, Rev. Naim Ateek, has on several occasions openly questioned Israel's right to exist, at one point telling an audience of Christian and Jewish interfaith leaders: "I have come to the point of the reality - but not the right - of Israel's existence."

Charges of anti-Semitism have been flying against Sabeel since several Protestant denominations adopted resolutions over the last year critical of the Israeli government's policies toward Palestinians.  Groups such as Human Rights Watch have also been critical of Israel.  The same is also true for Jewish peace groups like Jewish Voices for Peace. ADL has charged that Sabeel has somehow manipulated American Christian denominations to adopt divestment resolutions targeting Israel (only the Presbyterian Church USA has in reality adopted a divestment resolution and that statement only targeted companies profiting from the military occupation of Palestine). 

James M. Wall, senior contributing editor at The Christian Century, wrote this past fall:

This move did not start, as some critics would claim, with Naim Ateek, an Anglican priest in Jerusalem who directs Sabeel, the Jerusalem-based ecumenical peace center. Aggressive supporters of Israel have been attacking Ateek and Sabeel. The focus on Ateek is ironic, since he advocates a nonviolent approach to ending the occupation.

In mid-October, those attacks included picket lines in front of the first of Sabeel's annual series of conferences in the U.S., presented this year in Chicago, Denver, Toronto, and Cedar Rapids, Iowa. After attending the Chicago conference, Dexter Van Zile, Boston-based David Project's Christian outreach director, wrote on the Stand with Us Web site that "to these folks, the Jews are the new Nazis." That comment, designed to evoke the Holocaust, has no basis in fact. (I attended the Chicago conference; no such statement was made or implied.) Sabeel describes the "moral basis" for its work this way: "We acknowledge the sufferings and injustices committed against Jews by the West, especially those inflicted in the Holocaust. Nevertheless, anti-Semitism does not justify the injustices committed against Palestinians."

Ateek was not the initiator of the divestment movement. The movement began with an overture from a Jacksonville, Florida, Presbyterian church, sponsored by a pastor who saw Israel's occupation up close while on a Christian Peacemaker Teams mission to Palestine. The Florida overture worked its way up to the General Assembly and was endorsed by the national church.

Dexter Van Zile is also a contributor to an anti-UCC web site known for taking liberties with the truth and supporting conservative political causes and groups.

Colleagues of mine that have visited Sabeel and talked with Rev. Ateek praise the clear commitment to non-violence advocated by the center.

Rev. Ateek, writing in a piece on Sabeel's web site condemning suicide bombings, says quite directly:

As a Christian, I know that the way of Christ is the way of nonviolence and, therefore, I condemn all forms of violence and terrorism whether coming from the government of Israel or from militant Palestinian groups.

In their press release ADL calls Sabeel "a radicalized Palestinian Christian group."  Several statements on the web have been particularly critical with Sabeel for advocating "liberation theology." 

Liberation theology is an important movement in Christianity - it was the center of the movement to abolish Apartheid in South Africa and other oppressive regimes around the world - and is only as radical as Jesus' teachings.  Sabeel's mission statement reads:

Sabeel is arabic for 'the way' and also 'a channel' or 'spring' of life-giving water, is an ecumenical grassroots liberation theology movement among Palestinian Christians which encourages women, men, and youth to discern what God is saying to them as their faith connects with the hard realities of their daily life: occupation, violence, discrimination and human rights violations.

Inspired by the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, Sabeel's liberation theology seeks to deepen the faith of Palestinian Christians, to lead them to act for justice and love, to work for the unity and renewal of the church, and to transform society. Sabeel is committed to a prophetic ministry in solidarity with the oppressed and to the holistic liberation of all people. Sabeel strives to develop a spirituality based on justice, peace, non-violence, liberation, and reconciliation for the different national and faith communities.

Sabeel strives to promote a more accurate international awareness regarding the identity, presence, and witness of Palestinian Christians as well as their contemporary concerns. It encourages individuals and groups from around the world to work for a just, comprehensive, and enduring peace informed by truth and empowered by prayer and action.

The United Church of Christ has a long history of supporting Israel.  Support for Israel - as evidenced once again by the UCC's recent statement condemning the Iranian president's call for Israel to "be wiped off the map" - is not a new development for the UCC.

ADL marginalizes themselves with such attacks on a Christian denomination that has done nothing more than prominent Jewish groups - support the peace process and those working for non-violent solutions to the crisis in the Middle East.


Catholic Group Calls For Abolition Of Nuclear Weapons

It really has become easy since the end of the Cold War to stop thinking about the danger posed by nuclear weapons.  Our biggest concern might be one of these weapons of mass destruction slipping into the heads of a terrorist or "rogue" state.  There are, of course, other dangers.  One of those dangers is that the United States - the only nation to ever use such a weapon - might do so again. 

Don't be shocked or outraged at the suggestion.  President Bush, after all, has advocated the development of new nuclear weapons.  The immorality of such weapons has been condemned time and time again by the world's religious leaders.

Pax Christi USA, the Roman Catholic peace organization, reminds us again in a statement this week how important the abolition of nuclear weapons is to the safety of our planet.

Pax Christi USA, the national Catholic peace movement, has endorsed a "Call for the Swift Abolition of Nuclear Weapons," a proposal issued by the Japan Council Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs (GENSUIKYO) that urges the United Nations and all world governments to begin negotiations to reach an international convention for a total ban on and the elimination of nuclear weapons.

The proposal was initiated on January 1, 2006, and will culminate at the 2006 Bikini Day on March 1, the World Peace Forum in Vancouver in June 2006, and the 61st U.N. General Assembly.

"It is now 60 years since the first session of the U.N. General Assembly adopted its first resolution in January 1946 pledging to move for the elimination of nuclear weapons," the proposal reads. "The overwhelming majority of both the people and the governments of the world is demanding the abolition of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, a large number of nuclear weapons, enough to annihilate the whole of humanity, is still being stockpiled and deployed."

Pax Christi USA Executive Director Dave Robinson said that this proposal is crucial toward maintaining the momentum for nuclear abolition, a call being led by the Hibakusha, the survivors of the atomic bombings in Japan. "There is only one response to the nuclear holocaust inflicted on Hiroshima and Nagasaki 60 years ago: Never Again!" Robinson said. "Despite calls from leaders around the globe for nuclear disarmament, the United States maintains the biggest stockpile of nuclear weapons, and under the Bush administration has reignited nuclear weapons development and testing. Our response to this must be a continued and intensified call for nuclear abolition - by our own country and all nuclear states around the world."

Click here to learn more about the proposal. 


Seven Reasons To Oppose Samuel Alito

This morning the United States Senate Judiciary Committee began hearings into Samuel Alito's nomination to the United States Supreme Court - a nomination strongly supported by the Religious Right and other extremists.

People for the American Way notes seven important cases in which Judge Alito's decisions on the federal court create solid reasons why his nomination should not be approved:

1. Privacy: In dissent, Alito would have upheld the strip search of a mother and her ten-year old daughter, even though the warrant allowing the search did not name either of them. Judge Michael Chertoff, now head of the Department of Homeland Security, criticized that position as threatening to turn the constitution's search warrant requirement into little more than a "rubber stamp." Doe v. Groody

2. Community safety: Alito, dissenting in the case of United States v. Rybar, said that Congress does not have the power under the Commerce Clause to restrict the transfer and possession of machine guns at gun shows. In response to Alito's assertion that Congress must make findings or provide empirical evidence of a link between a regulation and its effect on interstate commerce, the majority said, "Nothing in Lopez (an earlier Supreme Court case) requires either Congress or the Executive to play Show and Tell with the federal courts at the peril of invalidation of a Congressional statute."

3. Family and Medical Leave: Writing for a unanimous court in Chittister v. Dep't of Community & Economic Development, Judge Alito held that Congress did not have the authority to allow state employees to sue for damages under one section of the Family and Medical Leave Act. By contrast, the Supreme Court in a later case (Nevada Dep't of Human Resources v. Hibbs) upheld the FMLA against a similar challenge; the Court's decision was written by Chief Justice Rehnquist and joined by Justice O'Connor.

4. Reproductive Freedom: In dissent, Alito would have upheld a provision of Pennsylvania's restrictive anti-abortion law requiring a woman in certain circumstances to notify her husband before obtaining an abortion. His colleagues on the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court majority disagreed and overturned the provision. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey

5. Racial Discrimination in the Workplace: In dissent, Alito argued for imposing an evidentiary burden on victims of employment discrimination that, according to the majority, would have "eviscerated" legal protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In particular, the majority said that Alito's position would protect employers from suit even in situations where the employer's belief that it had selected the "best" candidate "was the result of conscious racial bias." Bray v. Marriott Hotels

6. Gender Discrimination in the Workplace: As a lone dissenter in a 10-1 decision of the full Third Circuit, Alito would have made it more difficult for someone alleging discrimination to present sufficient evidence to get his or her case to a jury. In particular, Alito would have prevented a woman claiming gender discrimination from going to trial, even where she had produced evidence showing that her employer's claim that it had a legitimate reason to deny her a promotion was a pretext for the employer's allegedly discriminatory actions. Sheridan v. E.I.DuPont de Nemours and Co.

7. Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection: Alito cast the deciding vote and wrote the opinion in a 2-1 ruling rejecting claims by an African American defendant who had been convicted of felony murder by an all white jury from which black jurors had been impermissibly struck because of their race. The full Third Circuit reversed this ruling, and the majority specifically criticized Alito for having compared statistical evidence about the prosecution's exclusion of blacks from juries in capital cases to an explanation of why a disproportionate number of recent U.S. Presidents have been left-handed. According to the majority, "[t]o suggest any comparability to the striking of jurors based on their race is to minimize the history of discrimination against prospective black jurors and black defendants …" Riley v. Taylor

Click here to send a message to your Senators asking that they vote against Samuel Alito.


FaithfulAmerica.org: Don't let the Religious Right Steal Your Voice

Millions of Americans from all faith traditions are coming together to say "No" to the extreme religious politics of Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and Tony Perkin's Family Research Council.  This well funded and heavily promoted effort called "Justice Sunday III is an attempt by politically-aligned right-wing religious fundamentalists to pressure Congress to load the courts with ultra-conservative judges.  They claim that the courts have been secretly “working... like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms” simply by upholding the constitutional separation of church and state.

The event's coordinator recently said, "Next week, when Judge Alito's critics bore in on him with their questions on "separation of church and state," we want people to understand what they really mean is to push people of faith out of the public arena. When they grill Alito on "privacy rights," they are really referring to abortion-on-demand and the newly-minted "right" to commit sodomy."

Wait a minute. Can they be serious? Join us in our common-sense corner for a moment.

When laws that protect persons of all faiths are said to “rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms,” then all constitutional logic about religious freedom is being turned on its head. If they succeed in loading the court with judges who favor one religious perspective over others, then religious freedom in our nation truly will be compromised.

Congress must not hear only from religious fundamentalists. The rest of us deserve a hearing, too.

You can help make that happen by signing FaithfulAmerica's Justice for ALL Petition below, which will be sent to your Senators in Washington.

Many of you have asked for a way to express a more thoughtful, inclusive, and tolerant view.  Here is your opportunity!

Blessings to you as ever,

Vince Isner and your FaithfulAmerica.org Team

Sign this petition

Sign this petition and notify:
Your Senators

On Sunday January 8th the organizers of the "Justice Sunday III" event will try to tell you that all those who question the Alito nomination and believe in the separation of church and state are "seeking to push people of faith out of the public arena."

As a person of faith, I strongly object to that false claim.

I am one of countless millions of persons of faith who love this country, value its diversity of thought, its protections under the law, and its respect for human dignity. We care profoundly about our country's values, the decisions of its courts, and the blessings of liberty it vows to uphold, We believe, just as all persons are equal in the eyes of God, so, too, all persons should be equal in the eyes of the law - no matter what their religious beliefs, personal moral convictions, or sexual orientation.

We pray that the actions of Congress in the judicial nomination and confirmation process will reflect our nation's historic commitment to religious freedom for all.

Sign this petition

Related Post:  Justice Sunday III


Pat Robertson’s Remarks On Sharon Part Of Apocalyptic World View Of Religious Right

No one should be surprised or shocked that today US televangelist and Religious Right icon Pat Robertson blamed God for Ariel Sharon's stoke.  Media Matters reports on Robertson's remarks:

On the January 5 edition of Christian Broadcasting Network's (CBN) The 700 Club, host Pat Robertson suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's recent stroke was the result of Sharon's policy, which he claimed is "dividing God's land." Robertson admonished: "I would say woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU [European Union], the United Nations, or United States of America." Although Robertson professed that "Sharon was personally a very likeable person," he nonetheless declared that "God has enmity against those who, quote, 'divide my land.' " Robertson called the 1995 assassination of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin "the same thing." A previous CBN news article, titled "Dividing the Land, Dishonoring God's Covenant," examined Sharon's decision to return control of the Gaza strip to the Palestinian Authority.

Robertson holds to a traditional millennialist interpretation of Scripture and as such believes that only the destruction of Israel will herald the second coming of Jesus.  Therefore, the Religious Right, most often opponents of the peace process in the Middle East, has felt betrayed by Sharon's decision to withdrawal from Gaza.  Peace, according to this thinking, is bad for Christianity.      

Vincent J. Schodolski wrote about these issues in The Chicago Tribune last April (link no longer available):

Modern interpreters of Scripture sometimes speculate that current events are signs of ancient prophecies coming to pass. Some view the United Nations as a vehicle for the modern Antichrist. Others see the European Union in that role.

There were those who even singled out the late Pope John Paul II as the Antichrist. Others have cited former President Bill Clinton or former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, notably for the mark on his forehead. Some theorists see that as the "mark of the beast."

Part of the biblical interpretation indicates that a re-established Israel--within its biblical boundaries--must precede the end of the world because that is where the battle of Armageddon is to take place.

As a result, there is a relationship between these conservative Christians and Orthodox Jews in Israel. Some of these Christians support efforts by Israelis to occupy lands not part of the modern state of Israel because, in doing so, the Christians believe the Israelis are hastening biblical prophecy and thus the end of days.

The support is welcomed by some Jews, though there is a paradox in that these Christians hold that any Jew who does not convert to Christianity will be sent to eternal damnation by Christ upon his second coming.

When Sharon's conservative forces drove the Labor Party from power in Israel the Religious Right was ecstatic.  Here was a man so driven by hatred - considered by many to be a war criminal because of his military conduct during campaigns in the 1980s in Lebanon - that he might personally drive the world right into Armageddon.  Sharon, fortunately, didn't quite walk that path (though no one would really consider him a peace-maker either).   

Unfortunately, people are going to be quick to dismiss Robertson's remarks as those of a crazy man (and on that charge there is fair ammunition).

But the geneses of his remarks are darker than the rants of a lunatic.  This leader of the Religious Right and former Republican candidate for president spoke a deep truth that helps drive foreign policy towards the Middle East at the high levels of the Bush Administration:

Chaos in Israel is the real goal of the Religious Right - no matter who has to suffer.   

Related Post:  Can We Stop Trying To Evangelize Jews Now?


Justice Sunday III

Leaders of the Religious Right will be hosting Justice Sunday III this weekend - a rally designed to support the nomination of Samuel Alito Jr to the US Supreme Court. 

Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and Tony Perkins are among the Alito allies speaking at the event. 

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State notes that Greater Exodus Baptist Church, site of the rally, has received over $1 million in "faith-based" grants since their pastor first endorsed George W. Bush in 2000.

Pastor Herb Lusk, the Philadelphia preacher hosting the Religious Right-led "Justice Sunday III" rally this weekend, has a long history of partisan activity on behalf of Republicans and has been awarded more than $1 million in "faith-based" grants by the Bush administration, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State....

"Lusk's case highlights one of the often overlooked dangers of the faith-based initiative," (Rev. Barry W.) Lynn said. "Government funding too often sucks churches into partisan politics. After all, if church leaders want to keep the pipeline to tax funding open, they had better back administration policies."

"Justice Sunday III" is sponsored by the Family Research Council, a Washington-based Religious Right group headed by Tony Perkins. The event, scheduled for Jan. 8 from 7-8:30 p.m., is the third in a series designed to pressure Congress to stack the federal courts with judges hostile to church-state separation and to promote Republican political hopefuls.

The event this weekend has been timed to coincide with the Senate Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearings of Alito, which get under way Jan. 9. Speakers include Lusk, Falwell, Perkins and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). (Santorum faces re-election this year and is locked in a tight race.)

The previous Justice Sunday events (Justice Sunday I & Justice Sunday II) have drawn intension criticism from mainline Christian leaders, Jewish leaders, and Roman Catholic leaders for suggesting that opposition to the Religious Right's political agenda and the president's judicial nominees is tantamount to bigotry against Christians. 

Click here to oppose Alito's nomination and to help stop the right wing take over of our judiciary.


Reform America

Watching the Republicans govern in Washington is a little like taking in an episode of The Sopranos.  Congressional and White House officials at the highest levels are under investigation for a multitude of crimes where they have put their own financial and political interests ahead of the common good.  Common Cause reports:

January 3, 2006: One of Washington's biggest ethics scandals in recent history deepened today with lobbyist Jack Abramoff's decision to cooperate in the ongoing federal investigation into congressional corruption.  Dozens of members of Congress and staff members have been implicated in the investigation and could now find themselves in legal jeopardy.

"The extent of Jack Abramoff's influence on our government is breathtaking," said Common Cause President Chellie Pingree.  "The fact that he was an unscrupulous criminal who managed to work his way deep into many of Capitol Hill's most powerful offices is an indictment on our system as a whole."

Abramoff's testimony will shine a new light into the darker corners of our federal lobbying system.  With little or no oversight for almost a decade, lobbying Congress has become a practice rife with abuses that routinely violate rules and regulations.  As a result, we have an anything-goes culture today in Washington that has left the public with little confidence about whose interest elected officials are working for.

If Congress is serious about tackling the problems of corruption, it will acknowledge its significant failure to enforce its own rules for members of Congress and lobbyists, and make serious reforms.

Visit our Ethics section for more information about one of the worst scandals in recent history and the legislative proposals that have been offered in response.  Also visit our blog for the most current information.

Corruption is a bi-partisan pastime.  But the level of corruption today - reaching to the highest levels of government - is particularly concerning.  Americans regardless of party must unite behind the reforms proposed by Common Cause and other advocates of democracy.   


The Religious Right Abandons The Poor

The Religious Right - a demographic so closely associated with the Republican Party that it is difficult to tell the difference between the two- marked the close of 2005 by completely abandoning the poor by either endorsing the president's budget (a budget that cuts services for the "least of these") or by offering their tantamount support by staying silent as Republican leaders slashed funding for anti-poverty programs.

The budget was opposed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Council of Churches USA.  Catholic bishops wrote the Congress that:

We urge you to remember that the federal budget is more than a fiscal plan; it reflects our values as a people. Budget choices have clear moral and human dimensions. A just society is one that protects and promotes the fundamental rights of its members--with special attention to meeting the basic needs, including the need for safe and affordable health care, of the poor and underserved. In these difficult times, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops urges you to work for a budget that does not neglect the needs of the "least of these" in our nation and the world.

The president's budget - as adopted in late December by Congress - will continue the process started in 2001 of cutting vital human services (such as health care programs for children) - at the same time new tax breaks for millionaires are phased in.

The "pro-life" United States Conference of Catholic Bishops was joined by "pro-choice" denominations such as the United Church of Christ and United Methodist Church in declaring the budget to be immoral. 

But the president's economic plans drew support from the Family Research Council and the Republican Party-aligned Institute on Religion and DemocracyThe Christian Century reports:

...the Washington-based Family Research Council urged its members to support the House budget bill.

Tim Wildmon, president of the Mississippi-based American Family Association, has been pressuring retailers to make more explicit references to Christmas, and said his 3 million members aren't galvanized by issues like federal spending policy. "The gospel message is about individuals helping individuals," said the son of AFA founder Donald Wildmon. "I don't see it in the Bible where it's the government's responsibility to take care of everyone." Besides, he said, "the budget bores people."

The Republican Party-aligned Institute on Religion and Democracy is funded by Republican Party activists.  IRD staffer and former 2004 Bush campaign worker John Lomperis used the same spin on the IRD web site:

Wrapping a quintessentially partisan political issue in the messianic language of Advent and Christmas, top officials of five mainline Protestant denominations have joined to urge Congress to "vote down the FY '06 Federal Budget."  The five insist that "there should be no compromise" regarding proposed spending "cuts" that might save $35 billion to $50 billion over the next five years (out of federal spending totaling almost $14 trillion over the period).  They "pray that Congress will use this Advent season for purposeful reflection and in so doing conclude that the compromises required are unfair."

IRD Interim President Alan Wisdom commented:  "This misuse of the Advent message to score political points is offensive.  Nothing in the Gospel of Jesus Christ prescribes how one should vote on a complex document like the federal budget.  These church officials, claiming to be `representing close to 20 million followers,' never even bothered to consult those church members.  The members would likely disagree on the federal budget.  But the vast majority would agree that the good news of this season centers on the birth of Jesus Christ, not on government spending patterns...."

The IRD's Wisdom observed:  "For these officials of declining denominations, unquestioning defense of every penny spent on the messianic welfare state is a matter of infallible doctrine.  They do not understand that differing estimates of the public good, and compromises among those holding the differing estimates, are the very essence of politics.  Therefore, they have no constructive advice for the Congress.  And they have little true `good news for the poor,' because even in Advent they prefer to preach about politics rather than about the Savior of the world."

The reality is that it is once again IRD that is really spinning a partisan message.  The Christian groups that opposed the president's budget on moral grounds included both those who supported the president's 2004 campaign and those who worked against it.  Pro-life and pro-choice groups opposed this budget.   

Mark Tooley, another IRD staffer, wrote in The American Spectator:

You will not find Religious Left leaders defending the doctrines of their churches as ardently as they defend the virtues of an unendingly growing federal welfare state. For them, the state is nothing less than messianic. Any compromises about its scope and power are "immoral." This political advocacy is supposed to be "good news for the poor." But these church officials, having exchanged the Gospel for liberal politics, are clueless that the true Good News is not based on events in Washington, D.C.

Tooley, who worked at the CIA before joining IRD, is one of the partisans who will never let the facts get in the way of his politics.  It doesn't matter if you're a pro-life Catholic or a pro-choice Protestant - if you don't agree with him you're the enemy. 

But these are the facts:

Poverty has increased under this president.  Hunger has increased under this president.  Despite these facts our Congress has adopted economic policies asked for by this president that further hurt those living in poverty while at the same time giving more and more to the richest of the rich.

Note to Alan Wisdom and the IRD:  If the complexity of the gospel is such that you cannot understand that Jesus stood with the least of these over the powerful you have misunderstood the basics of the Christian faith.  Budgets are moral documents that reflect our most deeply held beliefs.  This budget, tragically, continues us on a course that both Roman Catholics and mainline Protestants recognize as detrimental to those who are poor.  Look past the partisanship that blinds you, hear the words of Jesus, and abandon the politics that keeps IRD far off the Christian path.


A Prayer for the New Year (2006)

By Dr. Antonios Kireopoulos

Our Father in heaven

Lord, sometimes we forget that you created us, and that you watch over us from above, and from within our hearts.  Is there any doubt as to why we sometimes go astray?

Hallowed be your name.

Holiness is something foreign to our everyday reality, Lord.  Perhaps this started when we began to abuse the earth you gave as a gift to sustain us, and in which we once readily beheld your wonder.  How do we recover this sense of awe?

Your kingdom come,

Your presence, Lord, is the very meaning of peace:  in our hearts, in our communities, in our world.  Your scriptures continually remind us of this blessing.  Now that you have engaged us through faith, do we have a responsibility to help establish peace?

Your will be done

Lord, your will is to see justice done among your people.  Today, we hear that torture is committed against those we perceive as our enemies.  How can we reconcile what you expect with what we do?

On earth as in heaven.

Iraq would be a good place to start, Lord.  So many conflicts in the world are evidence of our denial of your will.  At least we can stop the war in Iraq.  Do we have the will to do so?

Give us today our daily bread.

You know, Lord, that the survivors of the tsunami in Southeast Asia, the hurricanes in the U.S. Gulf Coast, the mudslides in Central America, and the earthquake in Pakistan, could certainly use such basics as food, shelter, and medicine.  How far must we go to help restore them to well being?

Forgive us our sins

Often we read, Lord, of your love for the poor and the oppressed.  Just as often, thankfulness for our own comforts leads to our neglect of those in need.  How can we help them most?

As we forgive those who sin against us.

This is a tough one, Lord.  We all have shortcomings, we all have contradictions.  We all need mercy, and yet we don't always remember that it is up to us to also show mercy.  What is it that we need to do to see that self-righteousness only breeds arrogance toward others?

Save us from the time of trial,

We are always afraid of how we might be judged by you, Lord, especially when we say one thing and do another.  Genocide is taking place in Sudan; we know it, and we haven't done much yet to stop it.  Could this be the test of this generation?

And deliver us from evil.

Terrorism is a terrible thing, Lord, for the violent death it seeks to bring, often in your name.  Certainly human dignity requires only respect, love and understanding for one another.  How do we stop this insanity, and our inclination toward vengeance?


Amen.

Lord, to say "Amen" means we agree with what has been prayed.  Our eyes are now focused on you and your desires.  They are a challenge, a mighty challenge.  Can we, individually and in unity, begin to tackle them in the coming year?

Dr. Antonios Kireopoulos is Associate General Secretary of the National Council of Churches USA for International Affairs and Peace.