Message for Obama: Children of Light Need to Wise Up

For the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. Jesus, Luke 16:8

Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Jesus, Matthew 10:16

Do not cast your pearls before swine lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. Jesus, Matthew 7:6

Deceivers, yet true. Reinhold Niebuhr

A worthy politician needs to keep a proper balance between two sets of perspectives: 1. idealism and realism, 2. principles and pragmatism. Idealism without realism will end in cynicism and passivity. Pragmatism (doing whatever works) without principles leads to a naked struggle for power guided solely by self-interest.

1. Proper idealism means devotion to the true and the good, but not in a naive way that assumes mere moral suasion is sufficient to win the day. Ideals must be connected to interests and perceived needs. The power of the civil rights movement resided in the coincidence of justice and self-interest in black people. A few saints may prefer the interests of others to their own but not enough of them can be found to populate a mass movement. Idealism must be tempered by realism -- a recognition of the way things actually are in this world where people tend to prefer their own wants to the needs of others and seek present rewards for themselves rather than sacrifice for the present and future good of all.

2. A good politician, where good means both successful and devoted to justice, must be anchored in moral principles and a quest for the common welfare. Principles have to be flexible enough to conform to what can actually be achieved. Politics is the art of the possible. An idealistic politician cannot exercise power in behalf of justice without being elected. Devotion to justice must be tempered with wisdom about the way the world actually works. Principles without pragmatism yields no success. Success at all costs means a quest for power for its own sake rather than power as the necessary means for attaining good ends.

I think this is what the three quotes I began with add up to. The children of light must learn the ways of the world from the children of darkness without losing the light that guides them. They must be worldly wise like serpents as they battle the evil forces without losing their innocence and their ideals, remaining harmless as doves. They must even be seen as agreeing on some points with the children of darkness while in this deception remaining true to their fundamental moral principles and the quest for justice. It is foolish to give pearls to pigs, since they cannot possible appreciate them.

I learned politics in the segregated South of the 1930's and 40's. Candidates for governor of Georgia who embraced integration from the left got a few thousand votes, as did the extreme white supremacists on the far right. Any moderate who could be perceived as compromising segregation in the slightest was damned by his opponent -- usually successfully. So we either got strict white supremacists or moderates who pretended to be more orthodox than they were in order to get elected so they could do something for black people within limits of of the pragmatically possible. I never faulted the moderates for espousing white supremacy as long as I believed they would actually be better in practice than their rhetoric suggested, i. e., were deceivers yet true, wise as serpents yet harmless as doves, making use of the wisdom of the children of darkness in order to let in some light. It would have been foolish for an integrationist politician at heart to espouse this notion to white voters in Georgia in 1940, for they could no more understand this crazy idea than pigs can be awed by a precious pearl.

All this has become fresh with the mess Barack Obama finds himself in dealing with his "bitter" comments and the harm Wright. has done without doing wrong to Wright. He has not been at his shining best recently. Three brief comments based on the words of Jesus and Niebuhr.

1. Before he announced his candidacy for president, he should quietly have left the Wright church. If he didn't know about the extremist comments he now denounces, why didn't he? He should have known that the mean machine of the Republicans would make a "Willie Horton" event out of it. It is the kind of thing the blood-thirsty, audience-hungry, ratings-driven media loves-- controversial, emotional, involves conflict, and can be simplified, presented visually, and repeated endlessly.

We social gospel liberals with some knowledge of black liberation theology can understand and appreciate most of what Wright said, but trying to get a sympathetic response from white audiences generally is not a challenge to undertake in a political campaign, which the media translates into simplistic, distorting thirty-second summaries. Wright seems to me to be stuck at about 1970, and Obama cannot afford to repeat that fight as a politician in 2008.

2. He should not have offered a psycho-social analysis of the working class -- a muddled one at that -- to a privileged group in private in California. Didn't he know that nothing is private any more and that his words were toxic?

3. In his press conference today (4-29) he went further in disassociating himself from Wright than before. Why didn't he do this earlier? My theory is that Obama is a man of integrity who previously tried to include in his explanations all the nuances, complexities, and ambiguities in the situation. That is fine for a professor in the classroom -- which he was -- but not in a political campaign. I wanted to see more passion and some simple statements, e. g., "I have had it with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright." He used some strong language, but he appeared calm, controlled on TV. although reporters present on the scene said he was visibly angry. In any case, he should have thrown Wright under the bus earlier -- if he wanted to maximize his chances to be president, and I, for one, earnestly want him to be.

In Plato's Myth of the Cave the freed prisoner who has escaped into the realm of light, truth, and goodness from the dark cave where he could only see fleeting shadows on the wall was not able to make them out at all after returning to the dark cave and thus faced derision from the unenlightened prisoners because the enlightened one was not as good as they were at interpreting the shadowy figures on the wall. Want to know what this Myth means? Start over with the quotations from Jesus and Niebuhr.

Obama, Bittergate, Elitism, and the Historical Debacle

The truth is that among segments of the Democratic party there is an ugly elitism. Some highly educated, culturally liberal, affluent Democrats share a disdain of ordinary, working-class folks. They are viewed as racist, sexist, homophobic, flag-waving, gun-toting, unenlightened, religiously conservative foes of abortion. Truth is not altogether absent in this mental portrait of rural, small-town Protestants and urban Catholics. But the negative attitude toward them by elitist liberals at the feeling level is distinctly "elitist." Moreover, for Christians in this camp (I have known some), this unloving outlook is utterly unattractive and sad.

The larger historical background of all this is a tragic disjunction between the economic interests of ordinary working people which inclines them toward the Democratic party and their conservative cultural, social, and religious outlook which attracts them to the Republicans. It began when Lyndon Johnson signed civil rights and voting bills and, as he said to Richard Russell, handed the South over to the Republicans for a generation.

To those who believe that justice requires equality of race, gender, and sexual orientation without discrimination and more economic equality among social classes, this split has been painful indeed. We are puzzled that there is more tolerance of the greedy rich than of cultural and religious conservative folks among working class strivers.


The Republicans, who never tire of championing the money interests of the wealthy, have cleverly managed to portray themselves as the friend of the ordinary religious, patriotic American -- factory and office workers, small farmers, lower[paying service employees, etc, who usually. get paid by the hour. Their success in this endeavor is found in the stereotypical Southern Bubba and Northern Joe Sixpack who by economic interest should be Democrats becoming Reagan "Democrats," the "angry white men," who voted for Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I and II for racial, religious, and cultural reasons. Too often devoted to cultural diversity at the neglect of economic equality, the Democrats have lost a series of elections.

The asses of the Democratic Party have aided and abetted the Republican elephants by aligning themselves with a variety of liberal interest groups whose focus is on social and cultural values that puts them at odds with the conservative, white working class, small-town, rural, ethos of religion, patriotism, and tradition that may include bias toward minorities, immigrants, and others who are different from them. At them same time the Democrats moved toward the center on economic issues, becoming so friendly to business that the economic policies they offered were less attractive than the conservative social and cultural agenda of the Republicans.


Into this pile of historical, cultural, and political manure stepped Barack Obama so clumsily and so deep that he may not be able to shake it off his boots -- and will not succeed at all if Hillary Clinton and John McCain succeed in their demagoguery. Obama's remarks to a private group of the privileged about the less privileged contained such mangled thought and such a poor choice of words that it is hard to forgive him -- he should have known better.

I think Obama in his heart of hearts is sound in his empathy and identification with all races and classes, especially the less privileged. I hope he survives, but he better wise up politically lest his awkward bowling take its place in the cast of historical failures along with Dukakis in the tank and Kerry wind surfing -- all elitists. and losers.

Health and Mortality

During the last year doctors figured out several interacting issues I had and resolved them. Now instead of seeing doctors three or four times a week, I'm seeing them three or four times a year. Two have dropped me completely. That is progress for which I am grateful. However, I still check in with my mortician frequently just to make sure I am still alive.

Dr. Pepper and Wine: The Debate

Resolved: If all the wine in the world were turned into Dr. Pepper, there would be a net gain in taste.

Deja Vu a la Clinton

Headline
Bill Clinton: I didn't play the 'race card.'

Previous Headline
Bill Clinton: I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

William F. Buckley, Jr. 1925-2008

He was a conservative I hated to hate. I admired his perverse perspicaciousness, his clever pleonasm, his gifted periphrasis, his polysyllabic dexterity. He had no sympathy for antisesquipedalianism. Though he was wrong on many things, he charmed you with his style. and generally was not nasty to his opponents in intellectual combat. Born to wealth, he unashamedly enjoyed its privileges. He was personally gracious to his many friends and debated others with skill and good humor. His libertarianism did allow him to denounce the futile war on illegal drugs, which was one of the few point on which I found myself in agreement. A man of many talents, including playing the harpsichord, he will be missed.

Yawn -- Nader is Running Again

Ralph Nader is right on the issues, e. g., that we live in what is dangerously close to a plutocracy and that making Medicare universal is a better plan than either Clinton or Obama offers.

The only possible justification for his candidacy is that it would actually change the political climate in ways that would make what he advocates more politically feasible in the future -- his own reason for what he is doing. Will it? I doubt it seriously. But as long as he does not prevent a Democrat from being elected, let him have his say.

Should be be allowed in the presidential debates? Only if he qualifies in enough states to make him a possible winner and the reputable polls show convincingly that at least 15% of voters intend to vote for him.

King/Queen or President?

The way Hillary and Barack are quibbling over the details of their respective health care plans, you would think they were running for Queen/King, that the day after they took office they could by royal decree enact their version into law. Any policy either of them recommended could be rejected, modified, or put aside for one Congress prefers.

So all the debate about whose plan is better is a minor point at the moment. Each has strong points, and both have weaknesses. Either plan would be a lot better than any Republican President would support. Neither is as good as simply making Medicare available to everybody.

The question before us is whether Hillary or Barack should be the Democratic nominee, and that will not be settled -- and should not be -- on the basis of which has the better plan right now. Remember: we elect Presidents not Kings or Queens.

In any rational discussion each would acknowledge the valid criticisms against what they offer and merely claim that their proposal is on the whole better than the other's and the best that can be hoped for in the current political climate. Boy, am I a dreamer!

Suddenly Feeling Ancient

I always thought that "Golden Oldies" music was the good stuff from the 40's and 50's. I just learned that radio now uses the term to refer to the 1980's! Boy, do I feel old.

Why Obama is Winning

Obama has integrated his masculine-feminine sides. In Clinton one dimension is usually behind the other, and the integrated person is seen only sporadically. We never ask who the real Obama is. We often do ask that question about Clinton.

Barack is the woman who doesn't cry. Hillary is the man who sometimes does.

Obama can be soft in speaking of uniting, working together, going beyond the old he-man politics, cooperating, overcoming the past and seeking transformative change without destruction -- all in a deep voice and preserving his manliness. He has it together in a unified package – an authentic person.

Most of the time Clinton presents herself as strong, invulnerable, experienced, smart, tough, a battle-scarred veteran who has been tested by Republican dirty tricks, i. e., the well-prepared man who is ready from day one to send the troops into battle if necessary. Moreover, too often she comes across as cool and controlled -- a persona she has worked hard to project in this man-dominated world. Even worse she frequently gives the appearance of being programmed and calculating, careful to seem on both sides of every issue, offering something for everybody in her zone of support and offending as few as possible.

Behind that John Wayne exterior is a soft, vulnerable, human being with feelings who is hurt by being disliked and who can cry. For a brief time in New Hampshire and in her closing remarks at the Austin debate last night, this side came through, and it was appealing and persuasive. In these moments she was empathetic, genuinely concerned about hurting people and ready to champion their cause.

Oh, I know about the demographics, the fund-raising, the contrast between Obama's purple poetry and Clinton's plodding prose, the organizations on the ground, Clinton fatigue, and all that other stuff the TV pundits peddle ad nauseam. All this is important, of course, but I think the decisive difference that may get him into the Oval Office and her back in her Senate office is his ability to project persistently a winsome, compelling, unified personality, whereas the face she presents most of the time is losing and the appealing face that could make her a winning candidate is seen only now and then and too late..

PS: Maureen Dowd has the same idea (NY Times, February 24) but probably didn't get it from me, though hers is cuter. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24dowd.html?hp

Word and Idea Stealing

Plagiarism is unacceptable. Therefore Clinton and McCain should give credit to each other when they make the same criticisms of Obama in almost the same words.

Thoughts on a Snowy Day: Happiness

Happiness: Happiness is the last day of the pledge drive on NPR. And today is the day. Pledge week on public TV and radio has been called "the fund raising equivalent of waterboarding." NY Times Magazine (February 17, 2008)

Dream Team in 08 Not Likely

No Clinton-Obama team:

Would you want to be Vice-President if Bill is in the White House all day and sleeping with the President at night? Naah! At the prospect BO would remember Cactus Jack Nance Garner's -- FDR's Vice-President --1933-41 -- statement that being VP is "not worth a bucket of warm spit." (The New Yorker, March 22, 2004, claims that he actually said "warm p*ss.")

Garner's dictum did not hold with Bush-Cheny and some other recent occupants, of course, but, if it were Clinton-Obama, it might become true again -- in fact if not in outward appearance.

But, on the other hand, politics makes for strange bedfellows, so Hillary-Barack in bed could happen (we refer here to "political" bedfellows, of course -- a clarification necessary whenever Bill is in the vicinity, since he has had some strange "non-political" bedfellows).

An Obama-Clinton team?

Hill and Bill playing second fiddle to Barack? Naah!

Theological Question

News Report: February 7, 2008
At least 55 killed in tornadoes in the South

Write an essay on one of the following:

1. Show how this event illustrates intelligent, benevolent design.
2. Show how this event expresses the love of God without appealing to ignorance, mystery, or eschatology.

Multiple Choice Test:

1. God caused.
2. God did not cause but permitted.
3. God neither caused nor permitted, in fact had nothing to do with it.
4. God could have prevented it but didn't.
5. God would have prevented it but couldn't.
6. None of the above.
7. I don't know. It's a mystery. (The coward's answer, permitted in my classes only on the first day.)

For the correct answer send $1.23 in a plain brown package containing a stamped, self-addressed envelope. For express service, send $1.79. For a 30 second personal lecture on the subject, park a 2008 BMW (any model) in my driveway and hand me the keys and title.

One Final Time: the God-Critics

Recent best-sellers by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens have urged the thesis that religion is bad and should be eliminated. I have had my say about this before, but today I administer the coup de grace.

Their intellectual sin is that, in the words of Alfred North Whitehead, they commit the "fallacy of misplaced concretion." They mistake an abstraction about religion for the whole of the concrete reality. They look at history and the present and find many reprehensible ideas and practices associated with religion and attribute them to religion. They take what they and many of us would regard as untrue and wrong, i. e., bad, and take that to be the essence of religion, its reality.

This neglects the fact that religion is always embedded in a cultural context and inexplicable apart from that setting. To abstract religion from its cultural setting is to mistake what is abstracted for the reality itself, i. e., "to commit the fallacy of misplaced concretion."

Remember Paul Tillich, "Religion is the substance of culture; culture is the form of religion."

In short, religion is more complex and ambiguous than the simplistic representations of the God-deniers.

Finis

Too Often the Media Lack Self-criticism and Are Ignorant of Their Ignorance

A free press is essential to a democracy -- to expose corruption in high places, to inform the public about important matters, and so on. Our press frequently fulfills its role well and is to be commended. But journalists tend to think of themselves more highly than they ought to think. (Like some preachers?) It is impossible to be totally fair and balanced since reporters and commentators are human beings with finite perspectives even when they try their damnedest to be competent and impartial. By the very choice of the topics they cover, they make judgments about what is important and what is not.

Two criticisms in particular:

1. They lack sufficient self-criticism. For example, long ago the major reporting agencies decided that the Democratic race was between Clinton and Obama. Edwards was not given the attention he deserved. They will, of course cry, "Don't shoot the messenger," but they forget that the media can shoot the candidate by their lack of attention. They don't just report reality, they participate in determining what people think is reality.

2. They are sometimes ignorant of their ignorance. Most would not attempt to say much about string theory in physics because they know how little they know about it. But they do not hesitate to speak freely about religion, politics, faith, separation of church and state, and the like. They lack sophistication but don't realize it. They lack depth of understanding and don't recognize the shallowness in themselves and others.

On religion and politics, e. g., they apparently can conceive of only two options: political decisions based explicitly on a particular set religious beliefs and a total relegation of religion to the private sphere totally divorced from political choice. They are apparently innocent of other "live options" (W. James) between and beyond this simplistic dichotomy. Note their typical approval of John Kennedy's statement to the Houston Baptist preachers in 1960, which actually is superificial and leaves unanswered what his "conscience" -- his guide -- is guided by. If it is not guided in any sense by his religious faith, then one wonders how broad and deep this faith is.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkhoustonministers.html

Mario Cuomo is a much better guide here. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mariocuomoreligiousbelief.htm

My advice is to journalists is this: Heed Socrates, who said, "Know thyself."

Question of the Day

Do we really want the Billary Clintons to be president of the United States again?

If Hillary does become president, maybe Bill, the ex-boyfriend of Monica Lewis, could teach a class on ethics to the female interns. He could make the point that shaking a finger vigorously for emphasis when lying does not work. Perhaps he could also give them some tips on how to get stubborn stains off a dress.

Success of "the surge"

Soldier Suicides at Record Level

"Suicides among active-duty soldiers in 2007 reached their highest level since the Army began keeping such records in 1980, according to a draft internal study obtained by The Washington Post. Last year, 121 soldiers took their own lives, nearly 20 percent more than in 2006."

CNN Election News, November 5, 2008

CNN Breaking News
November 5, 2008

This is Bluf Witzer, along with the most conceited political team in television, bringing you the results of yesterday's extraordinary election. This special report is brought to you by HARD ON, HEAT UP--HARD ON HEAT UP -- good for both men and women. You know what it is for.

CNN can now confirm that Barack O'Hillary has been elected president of the United States. The victorious candidate has the most remarkable resume in the nation's history.

The president-elect has a white Christian mother from Kenya, a black Muslim father from Kansas, and grandparents who are Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, and Agnostic. There is also Native American, Asian, Hispanic, Polynesian, and Australian aborigine blood in the ancestral line.

The President-to-be is an Omnitarian who believes everything that has ever been believed by anyone, anytime, anywhere and professes to have been born again fourteen times, each time into a different religion.

The winner in yesterday's election has White House experience, having been the spouse of a former president.

The newly elected soon to be resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has been both a father and a mother and once was both.

The newly elected Vice-President, John Mary Smith, is of unknown parentage, has no resume, no religion, and is of indeterminate gender.

This special report has been brought to you by HARD ON, HEAT UP--HARD ON HEAT UP-- good for both men and women. You know what it is for.

Post-South Carolina Words to the Candidates

Here are my unsolicited messages to the Democratic candidates:

To Bill: Just shut up. (Oh, I forgot, Hillary is the candidate.)

To Hillary: Tell Bill to shut up and remind him who the candidate is.

To: Barack: You are inspiring, idealistic, and hopeful, and your message of partisan-transcending politics sure makes for a good speech and may even be a good strategy to get elected, but you are naive if you think the Republicans are suddenly going to play nice if you are elected president. You said it is wrong to think that rich people do not care about the poor. Of course they care about the poor but only if it does not cost them much to help them. How many are willing to pay substantially higher taxes, for example, if that is what is required? You should be reminded of what Walter Rauschenbusch and Reinhold Niebuhr knew and what John Edwards knows: the privileged will not surrender their self-interests without a fight. But the thought that you could be the President moves this white Southerner to tears and would be for me as an old man a dream come true. If you are inaugurated in January 2009, Martin, my fellow-Georgian and Crozer graduate, will be looking down upon the scene and smiling.

To John: In South Carolina you were, as you claimed, the grown up. You have the most passion for the poor and the best programs to help the poor of all races and ethnicities. You know that the quest for a justice is a fight and not simply a matter of inspiring everybody with great speeches to join in -- although they are supremely important as M. L. King, Jr. demonstrated. But most Democrats are not buying your message. That is too bad, but I don't see much hope for your campaign. I deeply regret that. If you drop out, I hope you will support Barack and try to teach him a little realism about the world, but he needs to do what is necessary to get elected. Maybe what the world needs now is inspiration and hope even if the high idealism of Barack is not altogether realistic, so don't overdo your instruction.


PS TO ALL AMERICANS: Think about it -- an African-American man with a white American mother from Kansas and a black father with a Muslim background from Kenya -- that man President of the United States!

O my, what a day that would be! What a day that would be for the United States. What a day that would be for the world. O my, what a day!

Warning: New Peril-- a Spoof

A new menace threatens us -- the invention of new technologies that tempt people to use more gasoline.

Example 1: The Prius gets great mileage, the champ. A whole bunch of people are experimenting to see just how many miles they can squeeze out of a gallon of gas. They have developed elaborate procedures and written instruction manuals with their own jargon. Why, just recently four men from West Virginia went on a 600 mile trip, not because they needed to get somewhere but because they were all experts at pushing the limits of the Prius to get the best possible mileage and wanted to set a new record. Wasting gas on a trip to nowhere.

2. Alas, some close relatives of mine just purchased a new Honda Accord with all the gizmos and gadgets imaginable, including a state of the art GPS. They projected a destination-- somewhere they didn't need to go -- and set out to test the wisdom of the device, an object that you can talk to and interact with. On the way, they decided they didn't really want to go that far and made turns to head back home. GPS said, "Try to make a U turn!" When they persisted, it said, "Well, OK, I am recalculating."

Two trips to nowhere using gas just to play with big boy toys. Suppose this catches on? Our dependence on foreign oil will explode. We must put a stop to it now before it spreads..

PS My daughter points out that in the examples given, the perpetrators were men. What can we learn from this?

The Mystery at the Farmhouse: A Short Story

Scene: The 1880's, a small farmhouse. Emily is talking to Vince on the porch. The back of Emily's hand rests on her forehead, her fingers gently curling, she looks slightly toward the sky . . . .

E: Vince, O Vince, you can't leave me now, my Darling!
V: But Emily . . .
E: Vince, you can't leave me now, not when Dr. Jessup told me this very morning I am going to have a baby, your baby, Vince, my baby ....
V: But Emily, I have to, I must . . .
E: O Vince, you can't, not when that mean old man from the bank is coming out today to repossess the house because my sick, aging Mother can't pay the mortgage . . .
V: That mean old man, Emily, is my Father, and I drew up the foreclosure papers. We are just doing our jobs.
E:Vince, you didn't. You couldn't, but you did, didn't you?. O, you awful cad, you rotten scoundrel! I am so angry. I am so depressed, so angry, so depressed. I HATE you! I HATE myself. Don't you dare move one step til I get back.

Emily runs in the house and presently comes back with a pistol in her hand.

E: I hate you so much I could kill you. I hate me so much I could kill myself. Kill me, kill you! You, me, me you! Which? Both? Neither?

BANG. . . BANG. . .

THE END

Thought for the Day

My friends, we have to meet the challenge of these obnoxious TV commercials HEAD ON, HEAD ON, HEAD ON . . . . .

Weep for Sister Benazir

Weep, O World, O tragic world, for Sister Benazir. Weep, all you who long for a little more justice, a little democracy, a little better prospect for the masses who yearn for a more decent life.

In a nation where most options range from bad to worse, she was a glimmer of light, a beacon of hope -- limited though it may have been. Maybe she was corrupt, as they say, but still she was the best that Pakistan had for the near future. Now she is gone.

Why, O why, dear Sister Benazir, did you have to stand up in that car to wave once more, when the bullet-proof car might have saved you? Maybe they would have killed you anyway somehow, someplace, some way, but at least you could have lived one more day to wage the fight.

Dear Sister Benazir, today you join all the other martyrs who tried to shine a light in the darkness and hate symbolized by Chairman Mao's dictum that "power comes out of the barrel of a gun." You are with Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Anwar Sadat, who joined Yitzhak Rabin in saying, "Enough, enough of blood and tears!" All together in a great cloud of witnesses with all whose efforts over the centuries to improve the lot of humankind cost them their lives, they will welcome you, Sister Benazir, to watch what we will do with their sacrifice.

Today, then, let us weep for Sister Benazir and for the better days she might have brought to that troubled complex land. But tomorrow, somebody else has to light a candle in the darkness that might light other lights that might light others until . . . . . .

And in despair I bowed my heart;
"There is no peace on earth," I said,
"For hate is strong and mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good will to all."

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
"God is not dead, nor doth God sleep;
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail
With peace on earth, goodwill to all."
I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day

O Sister Benazir, O Sister Benazir . . . . For her and all who like her long for a better day, we must keep the hope alive, but today we weep for Sister Benazir.

Open Letter to Our Children

Dear Offspring,

My Spouse and I had been considering whether we wanted to get gifts individually or choose something as a family for both. After some days of pondering, the more bold, daring, and audacious member of the duet exclaimed giddily, "Why don't we throw caution to the wind and go ahead and get an HD TV and not wait for the Zenith to go POOF, so we can enjoy it before senility and affliction get any worse?" The more cautious, frugal, slow-moving one after thinking it over seriously for about a second and half shouted out with glee, "Capital notion! I'm free to go shopping now, right after I go pee." (Identities of the aforementioned characters will be disclosed upon written request.)

Armed with our shopping bible -- Consumer Reports -- we set out. Bottom line: We will soon (January 8 installation of new HD hardware) be in possession of a Panasonic TH-42PZ77U plasma set with new programming from Direct TV including HD channels.

Tickets for viewing will be available for family members at a discount. Popcorn will be on sale at typical movie prices. Butter is extra. Discounts will not be available for Super Bowl Sunday. Other restrictions may apply.

The original idea had been that when the Zenith went BOING, we would consider HD. But despite the fact that the more impatient member of the zany pair has been beating the Zenith in the face repeatedly over the last few months with a baseball bat, the thing keeps right on playing, so it looked like no HD in our lifetime until -- begin over at the first sentence --

Your Wild and Crazy Parental Units

Are there any Christians?

A prophet of our age, Will Campbell, once said, "Baptists are the hope of the world, if we could only find some." My claim is that Christians are the hope of the world, if we could only find some.

For purposes of discussion, let me begin this way. If we were really Christians in the New Testament sense, most of us would give 50% or more of our income to help those who are worse off than we are. This is a simple implication and a modest, even weak, interpretation of the commandment to love your neighbor equally with yourself, not even to mention Matthew 5: 38 ff. To put it another way to get things going, Christians need to justify why they spend more on themselves than the median family income in this country, which by world standards makes us quite affluent. Radical Christianity would insist that we cannot have two coats as long as anybody in the world has none.

Peter Singer in a provocative essay pointed out that if we had the chance to save a child's life right before us, we would do so even at considerable sacrifice to ourselves. But he rightly noted the fact every time we spend a few dollars for something we don't absolutely need, a child dies who might have been saved had that money been given to, say, Oxfam. There is no way to escape the logic of that.

In another place I argued that the radical ethic of the New Testament was incompatible with civilization, i. e., the assignment of responsibilities with rules and expectations in a continuing society. Total self-giving love that demands nothing from the other is irreconcilable with assigned roles, duties, division of labor, accountability, and so on. The unqualified demands of sacrificial love require their implementation in the moment without regard for future consequences for self or others. Orderly life could not go on if no one ever insisted that others play their part, share the load, live by the rules of civilized society, and carry out their obligations. I concluded that the compromises necessary to have a continuing, organized society were not wrong but that we make the compromises long before and far more extensively than we need to for the sake of civilization.(1)

What, then is the value of an ethic of absolute ideals demanding perfection in this ambiguous, complex civilized world?. Reinhold Niebuhr and Alfred North Whitehead are my guides. Whitehead said that the impractical ideals of the first century are a standard by which to measure the shortcomings of society. "So long as the Galilean images are but the dreams of an unrealized world, so long they must spread the infection of an uneasy spirit" (Adventures of Ideas). A morally serious person of faith cannot read take equal love of neighbor seriously and be at ease with any social status quo.

Reinhold Niebuhr made the same point. Agape, Christian love, is an "impossible possibility" that is relevant in all situations as both judge of every present achievement and guide to further moral advance

OK, the objections: You want to make us feel guilty all the time. No, I am suggesting that our unrealized ideals are a spur and guide to action not a guilt-inducing mechanism.

You don't appear to know about salvation by grace through faith, not by works. O yes I do; it is our only hope. But I also know about "cheap grace" (Bonhoeffer), and that that "right strawy epistle" (Luther), James, says that faith without works is dead. Nobody has ever worked out the relation between grace and law, faith and works in a satisfactory way that is descriptive of everybody, not Protestants, not Catholics, not Luther, not Calvin, not Wesley, not Reinhold Niebuhr.(2) They, however, along with the New Testament all teach that genuine faith expresses itself in good works.

I prefer a pragmatic, experiential approach. Those who are burdened by guilt at their lack of moral perfection need to hear the liberating word of grace. Those who are at ease in Zion need to hear the demand to do better and to reread Matthew 25 where Jesus teaches a doctrine of salvation by works that warns our failure to meet the neighbor's need will get us cast into the eternal flame. My observation is that the population of those at ease in Zion far, far outnumbers the guilt-ridden.

So why am I getting into all this? Here is why: The typical operational assumption among us is that being a Christian means living a respectable life by middle-class standards, being an active, faithful church member, giving generously to church and charities, and doing a usually modest (sometimes zero) amount of good works on a volunteer basis. That is the definition of a cultural Christian. Is it a definition of a New Testament Christian? I don't think so. For my reasoning, see the first two paragraphs.
____________________________________________
(1) Complicating all this is the fact that we don't expect the end of the world very shortly (or live as if we do, even if we say we expect it) as Jesus and early New Testament Christians generally did. Even fundamentalists have life insurance policies and have savings plans for retirement.

(2) For one things the usual assumption is that you are either saved or lost; you either have faith or you don't (although this note is muted in modern liberals), whereas actual experience is too multifarious and variegated to fit a strict either-or logic. Both faith and works come in all sizes, varieties, strengths, and patterns.

Presentism and Selfishness

I will begin with a big audacious claim and weasel out of it as refutations require. Most of the major problems in this world can be traced to two sources: presentism and selfishness. Presentism is the preference for immediate satisfactions over future ones. Selfishness is the preference for our own satisfactions over those of others.

Where to begin? We cannot deal effectively with global warming because the benefits of not doing so are enjoyed now, while planetary catastrophe will be experienced later. The same holds for other environmental problems. We cannot move quickly enough toward energy independence because it would be costly now, and the good results would come later. We should have been taking steps like adding a substantial tax to gasoline at least as far back as the Carter era. President Carter advocated a strong future-oriented energy policy but was thwarted.

Congress will not take steps now to deal with Medicare financing that will sooner or later confront us because politicians are focused on getting reelected in the nearer future. Bush pushed through massive tax cuts assisting mainly the rich, especially the obscenely rich, resulting in huge national deficits whose consequences will have to be faced later. A tragic, unnecessary war has been financed by deficit spending because lowering taxes has become a religion for the Republicans, and responsible fiscal policy in the here and now is bad for electoral politics. The enemy is us, not just our politicians, because they know we want our goodies now with as little cost to us as possible and that we are not easily persuaded by futuristic logic.

We have a housing mortgage crisis because people wanted a larger house that small beginning interest payments a few years ago would allow, and banks promoted bad loans out of greed for bigger immediate profits. When the larger payments became due, homeowners defaulted, and the banks had to foreclose, hurting everybody. Now we are in a credit crunch because in the past present interests took precedence over ignored future outcomes.

We are funding our national spending spree with loans from nations like China and Dubai. No one knows what the future results will be. Individuals are getting more and more behind on credit card payments because of past and present purchases. Devotion to presentism shuns frugality and responsible spending. In 2005 we had a negative savings rate. From the Associated Press:

"Consumers depleted their savings to finance the purchases of cars and other big-ticket items. ... The Commerce Department reported Monday that the savings rate fell into negative territory at minus 0.5 percent, meaning that Americans not only spent all of their after-tax income last year but had to dip into previous savings or increase borrowing.The savings rate has been negative for an entire year only twice before — in 1932 and 1933."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11098797/

Christopher Jencks beautifully points out how difficult immigration reform is because of what I am calling presentism:

"Many employers would accept more stringent penalties for hiring illegal immigrants in the future if that were the only way to legalize their current workers, and many immigrant groups would do the same. On the other side, many conservative activists might accept legalization of today's illegal immigrants if that were the only way to ensure a crackdown on hiring illegal immigrants in the future. In principle, therefore, a deal should be possible. But this deal turns out to have a fatal flaw. Legalization can be implemented within a few years, while penalties for hiring illegal immigrants have to be enforced indefinitely. That means employers get what they want right away, while opponents of illegal immigration have to wait.
"The Immigration Charade," The New York Review of Books (September 27, 2007)http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20602

We could go on. Much that is not accounted for by presentism can be attributed to selfishness. They overlap but cannot be reduced to each other. Presentism is selfishness in the moment for ourselves and others disregarding the future. Selfishness is preference for ourselves disregarding the neighbor in the present and the future. Selfishness in theological terms is sin; presentism adds disregard of wisdom to sin.

Selfishness is such a staple of moral theology that it needs no illustration. Just observe any issue that arises and see how the parties (individuals or groups) line up, taking positions that benefit them, interpreting or ignoring the facts to suit their interests.

Protestant ethic with your emphasis on frugality, self-restraint, discipline, and responsibility -- where are you when we need you?

So what is the cure? If you are a preacher, you might start with Romans 1:27ff. and take it from there. Secularists can point out the consequences of selfishness and the folly of presentism, quoting the old biblical and cultural adage that we reap what we sow. Obviously the gospel in both its religious and secular forms calls for repentance (change of mind) and reformation of character with the appropriate deeds (fruits meet for repentance Matthew 3:8 KJV) that follow. Rates of expected success for prophets or secular reformers: small. The pleasures of presentism and selfishness are too seductive to be resisted.

Here endeth the lesson. Remember: hell is truth seen too late (Thomas Hobbes).

Christmas Memories

Christmas is about anticipation and realization. For people my age, however, Christmas becomes more and more about memories. For me one image in particular stands out.

Christmas was big with my former wife, who passed away twenty years ago last October. Eloise would trudge all over Rochester in the treacherous snow and ice to find what the children wanted and would always try to have at least one surprise for them. We added at least one new ornament every year to the collection, which therefore grew larger each season making the tree brighter and more colorful.

The rule in our house was that the children could not come downstairs until 7 AM on Christmas morning. So Paul, Nancy, and Melissa would huddle at the top of the stairs clock in hand waiting as the minutes ticked away like hours. At the appointed time on the dot, they would hurry down the stairs and into the living room to look at the pile of gaily-wrapped presents. under the bright and glorious tree in all its splendor . The parents were still sleepy and tired from having been up until 2 or 3 AM getting everything ready. "Some assembly required" will suggest why. My limited mechanical abilities and obscurely-written instructions frequently tested my usual restraint against the use of profanity. But somehow it all got done, and here we were all together at the magic moment when wondrous anticipation turned into joyful realization.

The children are all grown up now and into middle-age with their own families far away from 2961 Elmwood Avenue. They are wonderful human beings and a joy to Gloria and me along with her own adult offspring and our grandchildren.

But deep in a treasured corner of my heart at this season of the year they are all little again standing in the door to the living room in the glow of the bright colorful shining tree reflecting in their beautiful eyes the joy and wonder of Christmas.

.

Breaking News

Word has just been received from the headquarters of Jesus that he wants to answer the question, "What would Jesus do?"

The spokesperson, who had an angelic countenance and was of indeterminate gender, said, " This is what Jesus would do. He would tell everyone to quit asking and answering this stupid question."

The messenger added that anyone who wants to know why asking and answering the question is stupid, should consult Ken Cauthen.

Et tu, Tutu?

Bishop Desmond Tutu was in a meeting with some other Bishops. The doorbell rang, and three Messengers appeared at the door at once. An Aide answered and asked, "To whom do these messages go?"
First Messenger: "One to Tutu."
Second Messenger: "Two to Tutu."

Third Messenger: "Two to Tutu too."

My How Times Have not Changed

News Item

The Fresno Bee
12/08/07

Delegates at the annual convention of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin voted Saturday in Fresno to withdraw from the U.S. Episcopal Church. Delegates said they voted to break away from the church because it allows the blessing of same-sex unions, the ordination of gay bishops and the ordination of women.

Another news item in The Cauthen Herald attracted less attention but is equally noteworthy:

Last Saturday the Neanderthal Province of the National Progressive Church of America voted to separate itself from the larger body because it has departed from the historic faith and has taken positions in violation of biblical teachings.

They listed three specific complaints: 1, The National Progressive Church has stated that we are not obligated to obey Deuteronomy 21:18-21, which requires that persistently disobedient sons be stoned to death.

2. The NPC has taken an abolitionist position, saying that although numerous passages in the Bible support slavery, we believe that slavery is contrary to standards of Christian ethics.

3. The NPC has taken action to support the right of women to vote.

The Neanderthal Province, located in California, indicated that it intends to join the Paleolithic Church of Nomadia and attach itself to Bishop Anakro Nism of the Paleolithic Church. The letter of separation said that while it highly valued the unity of the church, it can no longer be a part of a group, claiming to be Christian, that is in such deep violation of biblically rooted traditions that have prevailed for centuries. Loyalty to historic beliefs dictates this serious action, they maintained. The modernism now so prevalent in the Progressive Church cannot be tolerated, they concluded.

Always Be Thankful

This morning I was barely on time for my doctor's appointment. I dashed in the building and scurried effortless up the stairs. As I hurried to the top, I passed a man walking with a cane as if every step were a painful struggle. As I drew near, he said to me about my speedy ascent, "God, I wish I could do that!" As I walked on, I said, "I wish you could too."

This simple little event reminded me that no matter how bad things are with us, there is somebody who is even worse off.

I was reminded of Brother George Russell when he was called on to pray at Friendship Baptist Church in rural Georgia when I was a child during the 1930's. Brother George would get down on his knees and address the Creator in the formal language of the King James Bible as follows: "Almighty God, we thank Thee that things are as well with us as they are."

Brilliant! This statement of gratitude fits all contingencies no matter how good or how bad. To wit, "O Lord, you know that the boll weevils destroyed the cotton, the drought ruined the corn, and Aunt Susie is real bad off sick, but we thank Thee that things are as well with us as they are."
OR
O Lord, you know that the cotton crop is bountiful this year and prices are up, the corn crop will overflow the barn, and Aunt Susie got well and is fit as a fiddle, so we thank Thee that things are as well with us as they are."

As we get older and more frail, we will all see somebody who will prompt us to say, "God, I wish I could do that." But still we can thank God that "things are as well with us as they are."

The Really Deep Questions

I spent my career dealing with fundamental questions: Why is there something rather than nothing? Why are things the way they are and not some other way? What is the meaning of life? Do we really have free will? Is there a God? Etc.

But in my old age I have come to see that there are questions even more ultimate than these? Some examples of the superultimate:

1. Why do people of all ages throw snowballs at each other?

2. Will anybody in the package industry involving plastic ever get into heaven?

3. Not that I would ever notice such a thing, but Fox News and MSNBC News seem to be in a contest to see which can expose within legal limits more of the female leg on their shows, leaving CNN far behind? But why?

4. Why when I am late for church do I get nearly all red lights and when I leave early, I get mostly green lights?

5. What is it that we don't drive on the driveway or park on the parkway but drive on the parkway and park on the driveway?

6.Why do antidepressants that make you feel good reduce your sexual ability, which makes you feel bad?

7. Reliable reports indicate that three Republicans have been admitted to heaven since the McKinley era. How can this be if God is infinitely wise?


8. Why is there an inverse relationship between what we like to eat and what we ought to eat?

9. Why is that many scientists (and TV journalists) feel they can speak authoritatively about religion, faith, and theology (and routinely confuse the three) in total ignorance of their ignorance about the topics?

10. Why is it that conductors of symphony orchestras always look like they are in a state of perpetual orgasm?

11. How can someone or something show up missing?

12. If you want to make it cooler, do you turn the air conditioning up or down?

13. What is the difference between an enhanced sponsor acknowledgement on PBS and a commerical on for-profit tevevision?

14. Is it possible that anyone claiming to like -- I mean really like -- the taste of a martini can be telling the truth?

15. Will people who leave their grocery carts in the parking lot instead of the designated places have any chance at all of getting into heaven?

16. Will anybody who has more than 15 of these questions have any readers or friends left?

16. Are people who say per se necessarily weird per se?

God and Noah talk about rain and a boat

Here's how the conversation between God and Noah might have gone:

G: Hi ya, Noah, how are things down there?
N: Pretty good, I guess, but my rheumatism has been acting up, like there might be some rain on the way. How are things up there?
G: Mostly OK, but Eve has been acting out, running around with nothing on but a fig leaf offering all the men a piece of, uh, uh, fruit. And Adam is still feeling guilty about infecting all his descendants. As Augustine will put it, everybody was seminally present in him, you know, and as soon as they reach the age of accountability start sinning like crazy.
N: Who the hell is Augustine?
G: O, I forgot, he comes later. Never mind. But now back to your rheumatism and the rain. That's what I want to talk to you about. It's gonna rain, a lot and for a long time. .
N: Yeah?
G: Yeah, I'm gonna drown the whole human race. I mean you never saw such rain before, plus I'm turning on the fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven will open
N: Good God Amighty, why?
G: Watch your tongue there, old man. I'm' mad, real mad. The whole race is wicked, terrible -- all but you and your family.
N: Well, gee, thanks, Big Guy, but how will we escape the flood?
G: You are going to build a boat, a big boat, a very big boat.
N: Why so big, I can put my whole family on a mid-sized raft?
G: Yeah, I know, but you have to take a pair of every animal -- a boy and a girl -- on the boat with you to preserve the species.
N: Now, you're talking crazy. Two elephants, two rhinoseri, and a pair of hippopotami would take up a lot of room, I mean a lot of room. Besides we'd have to have skunks -- can you imagine the smell? Think how high the ceiling would have to be for the giraffes? And they would all have to have food. Worst of all, there would be a lot of, of uh -- mess. Who the hell is gonna clean up all that ..........
G: You are, Noah, you and your kids.
N: I can't build a boat that big, and I won't even try. This is nuts.
God: Well, Noah, my righteous remnant patriarch, have you considered the alternative, remember there's gonna be a lot of water, a whole lot of water.
N: Well, you have a point there.
G: Well, are you gonna build it?
N: I'm thinking it over.

God tells Abraham to stick a knife in Isaac

The preceding blog reminded me that I have had other attacks of craziness and zany impious humor regarding certain biblical stories. I think the story is awful and morally irredeemable. Here is my rewrite:

God: Hi Abraham, this is God. Howya' doin' today?

Abraham: Hello, I'm doing very well. What do you want this time? You're not going to ask me to move again, are you?

God: Not at all. This time I have something else in mind.

Abraham: Yeah, what?

God: I want you to sacrifice your son Isaac, whom you love, as a burnt offering.

Abraham: Would you mind repeating that. There must be some interference between earth and heaven, you know, with all the cell phones these days. It sounded like you said you wanted me to sacrifice my son Isaac. I know you wouldn't do that. Ha, ha!

God: No, Abe, you heard me right.

Abraham: You've got to be kidding, right? That's a good one - a God perfect in love, mercy, and compassion asking a father to kill his son, to stick a knife through his heart and set him aflame, on some silly stone altar.

God: No, I am not kidding. That's really what I want you to do. It's a test.

Abraham: Some test! You know I'd do a lot for you. After all because you asked me to, I left a good home to come to this God-forsaken place . Oops, sorry! Let me rephrase that. What if I flunk this test?

God: I'd really rather not get into that. Well, are you going to do it or not?

Abraham: I'm thinking it over.

Mary Tells Joseph About the Angel

I have always wondered about the conversation Mary and Joseph had when she told him about being pregnant. Use your own imagination, but it might have gone something like this:

M: Honey, I have something to tell you.
J: OK, dear.
M: Be patient with me, dear, but I have some news that may surprise you.
J: Yeah.
M: Yeah, well, you see, I mean, well, there was this angel.
J: Angel?
M. The one that told me I was pregnant.
J: PREGNANT?
M:By the Holy Spirit.
J: The Holy Spirit?
M: Well, I know that comes as a shock since we have never, uh, ..... uh. . . .
J: Done it? I am WELL aware of that, so how can you be in a family way?
M: I told you -- by the Holy Spirit.
J:Come on, sweetie, this is serious. Don't joke with me. It's not April Fools Day. Let's start over. What are you really trying to tell me.
M:That I'm pregnant by the Holy Spirit. That's what the angel told me.
J: There you go again. You know and I know that girls don't get pregnant unless they .. they do it with somebody -- a guy. Uh, Oh. O my goodness, you have been messing around with that Abraham who lives on the other side of the village. I've seen the way he looks at you and how you look back. I'll push his nose out the back of his head . . . .
M: No, No, it's not that it at all. It's all about what the angel said.
J: The angel. The ANGEL. The angel told you that the Holy Spirit knocked you up, and you didn't even know when it happened?
M: That's right. I swear, . . . I mean, I solemnly affirm.
J: Let me get this straight. Even though you and I have never ...... done it .. and you haven't been messing around with any other guy, but you're pregnant, and the Holy Spirit did it, and you are still a virgin, and this angel told you all this!
M: You do believe me, don't you?
J: I'm thinking it over.

The Dishonesty of Preaching

I recently heard a sermon based on the story of the Last Judgment in Matthew 25. The emphasis was on the imperative to meet the needs of our neighbors -- all eloquently stated. But I noted that nothing was said about the consequences of not doing so, you know the part about the non-loving being cast into the eternal fire, i. e., verses 41 and 46. The ethical mandate was there, but the eschatology was absent, totally ignored, whereas in the story itself, ethics and eschatology are inseparably joined. Is this dishonesty?

Liberal Christians generally do not believe in an everlasting hell for the wicked. It would not be fitting for a nice God, and the liberal God in nice middle-class congregations must above all be nice. Lots of commendation and exhortation but hardly any judgment, and seldom any wrath at all.

Conservatives quote Leviticus 20:13 condemning male homosexuality but ignore the rest of the passage that says both men shall be put to death. They also ignore other passages in which practices are condemned that are commonplace today among all citizens and believers, e. g. , wearing garments combining two types of material. Is this dishonesty?

Conservatives and liberals alike are equal opportunity practitioners of avoiding in Scripture what is unpalatable.

In liberal churches I have attended miracle stories are read or told as if they are to be taken literally. Seldom are any qualifications offered. The same is often true of the creation story, the second coming of Jesus, and other staples of orthodoxy when I know the pastors have a different point of view than the one that seems to be offered without question.

The Christmas season is upon us. The wondrous birth stories in Matthew and Luke will be read. Pageants will reproduce the ancient drama. Will anyone suggest how improbable it is that these startling events occurred just exactly like they are reported -- a pregnant virgin visited by an angel, wise men from afar led by a star -- unerringly-- right to the very stable where the baby was born (what a GPS that was!), a choir of angels in the heavens addressing some shepherds, and the like. Will any hint be given anywhere that these are imaginative stories, beautiful and powerful, but not literally true in detail?

Of course, everybody ignores Matthew 10:8 in the institution dedicated to continuing the ministry of the Apostles. Or do you know of some churches with a ministry of raising the dead (excluding Oral Roberts).

Students in schools like the one at which I taught are given the modern critical tools for dealing with the Bible in historical terms that highlight the humanity and cultural relativity of all these magnificent texts. Non-literal versions of the creation, incarnation, last judgment, the return of Jesus, etc. are offered in books by contemporary scholars and theologians. Students learn to speak of myth and symbol that deepen and enrich a mere literal rendering of the Bible and the creeds. But what happens to all this apparatus when they become pastors, teachers, and preachers in churches?

In my youth when there was much more freedom in the Southern Baptist Convention, I heard biblical scholars who wrote material for Sunday School classes talk about how it got watered down by the editors in Nashville, who removed any hint of the historical-critical approach to Scripture that was then being taught the seminaries of the denomination. The result was a harmless pablum absent of any of the wisdom of modern scholarship that forever left children and adults alike locked in a naive reading of the Bible. Preachers trained in these institutions left all their sophisticated learning behind as they became obsessed with larger churches, larger budgets, and having the largest number of baptisms in the association, if not in the state. Must not rock the boat, you know.

I could go on with endless examples, but the implications are clear -- at least to me. It seems like dishonesty to me but maybe I am missing something.

In the latter years of my tenure as a seminary teacher, I pestered everyone with the this teaser: "Is it possible to use the Bible with integrity?" My answer was that it was possible but the actual occurrence was so rare that it was a miracle worthy of note. I find no reason to change my mind.

A Curious Logic That Makes Sense

I am opposed to encouraging teenagers to use seat belts. They will just drive faster and with reckless abandon knowing they are safer wearing seat belts. Therefore, we should risk having them get injured for life or killed rather than insisting they wear seat belts.

That is the kind of reasoning used by conservatives who are opposed to teaching teenagers about contraception. It will just encourage them to have sex, they say. So it is better to risk having them get pregnant than to make contraception available.

What is wrong here?

What is wrong is a perverse sense of values and the failure to see the wisdom of a curious form of logic.

So what should we do? My message to teenagers and everybody else is this: Don't drive too fast or take chances on the road, but if you do at least wear a seat belt because it might save your life. I will take the chance that using a seat belt might lead to complacency. Saving a life is where the priority ought to be.

Likewise, I would say to male and female teenagers: Don't have sex until you are mature enough to understand fully what you are doing and its dangers, but if you do at least least protect yourself from an unwanted pregnancy. I will take the chance that knowing how to prevent pregnancy and having the means to do so might encourage more sex. An unwanted pregnancy is worse than promiscuous sex.

Why don't conservatives agree with this point? I don't know for sure, but I suspect it is because they have a kind of emotional aversion or psychic revulsion at the thought of premarital sex. This is more than a conviction that such behavior is wrong. I suggest this as a result of examining my own inner feelings from years past. Were not something like this at work, the subject would be more open to a dispassionate study of the facts. The evidence is that comprehensive sex education does not lead to earlier or more sex in young people.

http://www.siecus.org/policy/research_says.pdf
http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102206744.htm

In any case, I insist on the cogency of sentences that have this curious form: Don't _________but if you do, _____________________.

Open Letter to Christopher Hitchens

In the Washington Post, Hitchens wanted to hear a response to the following:

Name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever.
Below is my response to him:

I don't doubt that unbelievers can make moral statements that match in excellence any moral statement made by a believer. But what is the point?

Can believers make statements that are morally bad or do morally bad things? Yes. Can non-believers make statements and do things that are morally bad? Yes.

My morality is based on a religious foundation, but I would not argue that one can have excellent moral beliefs or live a life of virtue only on the basis of religion.

I judge moral beliefs and actions on their own merit not by what their philosophical or religious basis is.

All moral beliefs rest on some set of assumptions, but good morality does not necessarily require reference to God, but it may.

I am a religious person but seldom find myself included in your objections to religion. I don't believe much of what you condemn. I am a liberal Baptist Protestant theologian, just for the record. A survey of your latest book contained no reference to any modern Christian theologian I read in seminary or ever put on any of my reading lists for courses I taught for forty years, although I found a few references to Popes and to Protestant fundamentalists.

Do you condemn all religion or just bad religion? If the latter, I am on your side and have argued against bad religion for half a century. If the former, you and I have a difference.

Kenneth Cauthen

Making Hillary Acceptable

It appears more likely every day that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. My candidate John Edwards looks hopeless at this point. Many say he lost the day it was announced that Elizabeth's cancer had returned. (Wouldn't any decent man drop out and take care of his wife, and what about that expensive haircut and enormous mansion he built -- never mind that his policies would benefit the middle class and the poor far more than anything offered by his rivals?) Obama has reached his peak, and the magic is gone, despite Oprah. The others apparently might as well quit now, although there is great talent among them.

I don't like Hillary for reasons earlier blogs have spelled out, but it looks like she is our candidate for 08. I will vote for her without enthusiasm and hope she is elected, since any of the Republican alternatives would be disastrous. Let Hillary, Bill, and all the smart people around her figure out how to win. Once she is elected we need to torment her unmercifully in an attempt to move her left on economic and other domestic issues like health care. Her wing of the party is too beholden to business and wealth. She needs to be moderate on social and cultural issues -- not my preference but a political necessity to get and keep power. Nearly everybody with much power is beholden to the Jewish lobby, so I see no hope for the kind of radical dealing with Israel that is necessary to get justice for the Palestinians. She will be better on foreign policy than Bush-- heck, Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun would be better -- but she was wrong on Iraq from the start and has changed only enough to get in tune with public opinion, never yet having apologized for her bad judgment..

John Edwards would be better for labor, the middle class, and the poor, but you have to get power before you can exercise it. He won't get the power of the President, unless I am badly mistaken.

We can only hope that the Republicans cannot capitalize sufficiently on the widespread hostility toward Hillary -- those persistent negatives -- to sink her hopes in the general election.

Maybe we can get strong enough Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress to push a liberal agenda on domestic issues. That is the best hope I see at the moment.

Please somebody cheer me up!

The Dismal Political Scene

It is hard to find something to cheer about on the political front. The dreary argument about Iraq goes on with much talk and little, if any, progress toward a unified peaceful country. The Democrats have waged a futile campaign to bring the troops home soon. Presumably, they are beleaguered by their left-wing, anti-war faction, to which I belong, who cannot come to terms with the fact that the party does not have enough votes to bring about a quick and defensible end to the war.

Obstinate President Bush is persisting in his policies and will follow the advice of General Petraeus to bring the troops back to pre-surge levels by next summer -- an outcome dictated by military necessity regardless of policy preferences. All this means is that we have to wait for Bush to leave before a drastic change of policy is possible -- assuming the Democrats win the presidency and enough congressional seats to bring it about. (See my blog of January 26, 2007 )

Meanwhile, urgent domestic issues like health care go without serious attention, not to mention the longer term crises of Social Security, Medicare, global warming, reducing our dependence on oil and finding alternative energy source, and the like. Democratic Congressional leadership is far from inspiring and, judging by results, not at all impressive.

I have seen no evidence that the Iraqi government can bring about an effective, peaceful reconciliation among warring factions to ensure a stable, peaceful, democratic rule. Whether we stay or leave, it is difficult to find grounds of hope for anything desirable in the near term, and the long term is shrouded in mystery. It looks like a long-term de facto segregation of Iraqis into geographical subdivisions of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds is the best hope for any kind of tolerable peace, assuming some acceptable arrangement can be worked out regarding oil revenues. Too few love more Iraq more than they love their own ethnic-sectarian group to hope for a unified country that is workable and free from violence. Haddam Hussein was awful, but he did rule in maybe the only way it can be a unified country-- by coercion, brutality, and terror. Reports after World War I when Iraq was being formed predicted what has actually occurred.

The presidential campaign trudges dismally on with no excitement and nothing but the prospect of more of the same until the 2008 election. Candidates behind Clinton in the polls vainly search for some way -- any little gimmick or minor point of criticism -- to stop her steady march toward the nomination, barring some unforeseen developments. I find no excitement in any of them any more, and I pay little attention to the daily flow of news about the whole dull process. If Hillary wins, I will vote for her but without enthusiasm.The Republicans have nothing to offer but the same dreadful old stuff, whether we focus on domestic or foreign affairs. We can only hope their numbers will be so reduced by the next election that enough sensible Democrats and moderate Republicans can do some serious work on our most pressing problems.

The religious scene is about equally dismal, but that is a topic for another time.

Help! Does anyone know any reason to be hopeful.

Should Prostitution be Decriminalized: A New Look

About a decade ago I put an essay on my web site that advocated the decriminalizing of prostitution and treating it as a public health problem. The goal primarily would be to assist women, especially young ones, to find a better way of life. Force, violence, and sex trafficking of all kinds would still be prohibited and punished severely.

See:http://www.frontiernet.net/~kenc/pros.htm

I just learned that in 1999 Sweden, which long before had legalized prostitution, became convinced that this was not working. A new approach was tried in which it is illegal to buy sexual services but legal to sell them -- regardless of gender. The assumption is that prostitution is primarily a form of violence against women. Men become the offenders liable to prosecution, and women are regarded as victims who need to be helped.

Some evaluation are quite positive. See:http://www.justicewomen.com/cj_sweden.html

Some Swedish sex workers have protested vigorously that this hurts them and is discriminatory. Gone are the "good and kind" men. Present customers are more likely to be violent, refuse to use condoms, and generally made sex work less desirable. Scaring male customers away has put downward pressure on prices, etc. See:http://www.petraostergren.com/content/view/44/67/
See also:http://www.bayswan.org/swed/swed_index.html

I have not done enough research to form an opinion, but this novel approach is intriguing and deserves investigation. I am reconsidering my own previous view.

I think one original proposition I offered a decade ago still holds. There is no good solution to the problem of prostitution, only bad and worse. Perhaps Aquinas had a point when he wrote that prostitution is a necessary evil needed for the same reason that we need sewers.

Well, I actually I do have in mind something, but I have not found a way to implement it. The most nearly perfect answer would be that every time a man paid for sexual services with money, one testicle would disappear immediately while angels in heaven cheered. I propose this only for lusty, irresponsible males who only want easy sex without emotional entanglements. Lonely, shy men lacking social skills need assistance in finding healthy relationships with the opposite sex, which might or might not involve sex.

Time for a Massive Revolt Against Perpetual Compaigning

I am already tired of this election cycle. I am sick of perpetual campaigning. I do not listen to the debates and do not intend to. From news reports, on which the preceding blog was based, they do not seem to be producing much of significance. The Democrats behind Hillary are looking anything they might throw at her to block her way -- with notable failure so far. I don't really care what the Republicans do.

The main point, however, is that the whole process is insane. Starting the next campaign the day after each election is unnecessary, absurd, crazy. We have not even mentioned the amount of money that is being wasted. The only people who benefit are the 24 hour news networks that need something -- anything -- to fill the hours to help reduce the hourly repetition of the same old thing plus endless inane commentary. We can only hope that people will become so disgusted that they will rise up in wrath and demand that an end be put to it.

YouTube Debates -- Same Old Thing?

What is the difference between having a "real person" on an amateur video ask a candidate about Iraq, gay marriage, and health care, etc. rather than a journalist? To hear all the self-congratulation going on today, especially on CNN, a great deal. But it seemed to me we essentially got the same old questions to the same old candidates standing behind the same old podium stands giving the same old answers.

It hardly seemed like the rebirth of the old town hall meeting in which grass roots democracy flourished with citizens in the same room interacting in person with their leaders.. Note that only a tiny number of American citizens submitted entries, and they were screened by a panel, and a few were chosen to go on the air. In the end journalists chose the questions. By the time all this processing took place, a great deal of selectivity had diluted the spontaneous immediacy supposedly displayed here. This is hardly the pure democracy touted in all the hype.

Yes, it was different, but did it make a difference? Were great new insights displayed in the questions and the answers? Were hitherto unknown facets of character and personality brought to light so that we have a deeper understanding of who they are and what kind of leaders they might make? Not that I could tell to any appreciable degree. To think otherwise is to exalt format at the expense of content, to assume with Marshall McCluhan that "the medium is the message." To test my big yawn at the excitement at CNN, let us ask if this events changed anything. Did one candidate win large numbers to his/her cause? Were new issues addressed in a fresh way that produced greater understanding about who the candidates are and what they stand for and how they would govern? Show me the evidence.

The only value I could see was that possibly this novel approach to a debate got more people to participate and to listen in -- perhaps among the young. Maybe we will find out whether this occurred and whether any lasting results flow from it.

The main problem is that these debates should not be occurring this far in advance in any format. There are too many of them to get very far on any issue with any of them. No gimmick will resolve the difficulties of having a debate among eight people half a year before any actual voting takes place.

No Profit from Matters of Life and Death

Capitalism is great for creating wealth. It harnesses a powerful motivator -- private self-interest -- to run its engines. Even Marx was effusive in his praise of the capacity of capitalism to produce goods and services in enormous quantities. The great drawback, of course, is the massive inequalities it creates and that are perpetuated by the money and power of the big winners. Unfortunately, we -- unlike European countries -- never developed a sustainable socialist tradition capable of winning national elections.

In general, I prefer to let the market system work (with appropriate regulation, which we now lack, to protect the health, safety, and welfare of citizens) to distribute income and wealth as long as it is done fairly, i. e., without special advantages that law can correct. We can use the tax system to produce funds for public purposes and put a steep rate on those who have enormous salaries and amass great wealth. Let the corporations decide much to pay their CEOs, e. g. We will just tax the obscenely high results at high rates.

But there are two areas that should be removed from the private profit-making arena: health care and national defense. These are literally matters of life and death. Expanding Medicare to cover everybody, e. g., will take care of the health insurance problem, and perhaps independent non-profit enterprises can be established to build weapons and produce the new drugs that scientific advances make possible. Economists can tell us how to do it and get the job done efficiently.

Health care and national defense are too important to national life to allow private interests to be in charge. Remember President's Eisenhower's warning about the dangers inherent in the expansion of the power of the "military-industrial complex?" Perhaps we should now speak of the "military-industrial-university-medical complex." Let people make money on other things, but the nation needs to make sure that the lust for money-making does not corrupt the enterprises that defend us from diseases that produce sickness and death and from the hostile people at home and abroad. I would suggest that it is not good policy to give people a reason to love wars and the the rumors of wars when the possibility of making a lot of money out of it is involved.

On the defense industries see:
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/TiesThatBind.html

See the case for nationalizing the defense industry: http://hnn.us/articles/28109.html

John Kenneth Galbraith made a similar proposal in 1969 in an article in The New York Times entitled, “The Big Defense Firms Are Really Public Firms and Should be Nationalized.”

Senate Democrats: Determined Idealists or Cynical Politicians?

Tonight the Senate will remain in session all night in the latest effort of Democrats to bring about an end to the Iraq war. Three motives may be in play:

1. They are determined idealists who are sincerely doing their best to end this tragic war.

2. They are realistic, smart politicians who are thinking not so much about Iraq now as about the elections in 2008. By trying to embarrass the Republicans who continue to support the President, they are acting in the long run interest of the country since more Democrats in Congress would be a good thing.

3. They are blatant cynics who know all these efforts will fail since the President is determined to stay in Iraq until whatever objective prevails at the time is achieved regardless of Congressional action or public opinion, so they might as well get as much political advantage out of the situation as they can.

My guess is that all three are present to some extent. Option 1 is naive and futile. Option 3 abandons morality. The second, while it has its own shortcomings, is the only one that comes anywhere close to the combination of idealism, realism, and pragmatism that is needed in these perilous times. There really is not a thoroughly good policy option for the Democrats given their slim majorities and the fact that the President has the final say given the impotence of the Congress to act with sufficient power to overcome Presidential vetoes. I have argued repeatedly that there is no good policy for Iraq at the moment. That is the larger truth. Senate overnighters cannot escape this fact.