Essence Restored

This past month, Google made a very disturbing agreement with Verizon. It was an agreement that would allow net neutrality to be done away with on wireless networks. Now, what does this mean and why is it dangerous for a democratic society? Essentially, net neutrality guarantees that webpages run at the same speed, regardless of how popular they are or how much money they pay to the cable/internet providers. For example, this website should have come up at roughly the same rate as Huffington Post, CNN, or White House.gov. This guarantees fair access and ensure that the freedom of speech and expression are protected.

Google originally supported this idea. However, it seems that their financial interest got in the way of their values and ideals. They made a deal with Verizon that would allow current office and home networks to remain neutral, but other “wireless” networks such as phones, ipads, and free roaming devices could avoid having to be neutral. Why this so important is that this is the internet of the future will be made up much more of these free roaming networks than the internet we currently have in our home and offices today. So, this lack of neutrality would most likely apply to the entire internet that will be used in 10 to 15 years. Essentially, whatever websites pay the most money or whatever websites the provider likes will run at a faster speed, while whatever sites don’t pay money or the provider does not agree with might run at a slower speed. It seems if Google would get in on this “faster” speed. This essentially would make a “two-tier” internet; a fast one for the large corporations and wealthy, and a slow one for those who cannot afford to spend large sums of money to promote their site.

Why is this important to society? For one, it undermines the whole idea of freedom of speech- the internet could become like everything else in communications where only the voice of the rich and the powerful are really heard. Just think why almost all talk radio is right-wing….Unwanted voices or opposition to these sources of power could be diminished or even eliminated. In the end, this goes back to the whole ideas of a democratic society. Are we truly a democracy if the voice of the common person is not allowed to be heard; when only the rich and powerful corporations get any real voice? We have already seen how corporations have been given the opportunity to destroy the ideas of a true democracy through the ability to now give unlimited amounts of money towards political advertising; it seems soon that they may have this same type of scary power online as well. It seems many of our politicians, especially on the right, are more concerned with the profits of corporations than defending the freedom of speech and the overall ideas of democracy for their citizens. If we are not careful, we could lose our liberties, rights, and political voice-not because of the government, but because corporations were allowed to run free and do whatever they want in order to satisfy their greed.

Bookmark to:

As I have been teaching about the Native Americans in my U.S. History class, there was one wise quote that really stuck out to me. It states, “Treat the earth well. It was not given to you by your parents; it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.”

Do we live with that realization in mind? How we currently treat the earth and the environment could mean a healthy world or an extremely treacherous world for our descendants. For some reason in our culture we tend not to live our lives with thoughts of the future- we are very much about the here and now. Some may think that science can solve anything that we are going to do wrong, or others may think the world is simply coming to an end soon-so there is nothing we can do to stop it. Both are unfortunate excuses people use- extreme optimism or extreme pessimism. Maybe we could use a bit of realism when approaching this issue- our actions will affect future generations. We are not divorced from the earth, and the way we treat the environment matters greatly.

We can choose to be willfully ignorant about the issue-which seems to be the position of many on the right recently, or we can simply refuse to take responsibility for the situation. In order for us to make a better future for our children, we need change on two levels- a personal and a societal. The first is vital. It could be simple things like buying more efficient light bulbs, carpooling, finding a more fuel efficient car, just remembering to turn off all the lights, recycling, and trying to incorporate alternative forms of energy into our lifestyles. However, personal change IS NOT sufficient. There has to be structural and political changes. If people care about the environment, they cannot be electing people who simply deny climate change or are more interested in helping out oil companies than preserving nature. We cannot underestimate how important government is in actually solving these issues and regulating the industries where many of the problems stem from. This issue has to be solved from the bottom up, but also from the top down.

A little activity you can do for this is simply close your eyes and imagine your great grandchildren. Imagine one scene where the earth has been greatly damaged by climate change. Natural disasters are even more intense, clean water is more and more difficult to find, people are scared to have more children because there are not enough resources to go around, the coastal areas are constantly flooding due to the rising sea levels which naturally affects the resources of the world. Life spans have actually decreased; many other needs have taken a back seat to the task of somehow managing the increasingly treacherous environment. Life has become less and less enjoyable and is more about simple survival. Now, Imagine another scene where your descendants are living on an earth that is still green, where they can breathe freely, where there is still fresh water for them to drink. They can actually focus on improving the earth and society, rather than struggling for mere survival. They can live without worry how the resources will be available for the next year. There is less international conflict because there are enough resources for everyone. As you consider the two scenarios, realize that you have a role to play in them. You have a role in shaping the world your great grand-children will inherit. We have a duty and obligation to them that we need to make sure we are fulfilling today.

Bookmark to:

When the controversy first surfaced about the “Ground Zero” mosque, I was of the basic opinion that it should have the legal right to be built there, and that the groups protesting it were making the situation worse; however, I thought it would probably be best for them to move to a different location. However, as the situation as progressed, my opinion on the issue has changed for a number of different reasons: the importance of not letting misinformation and mistruths influence decisions, the position and ideas of the Imam who wants the community center built, not giving into hatred and anger, and finally what it would mean for Christian/Islamic relations worldwide.

First of all, we have seen how this whole situation has been portrayed with a lot of half-truths or straight out lies. The whole name “Ground Zero Mosque” is misleading as it is really more of a community center and is not even visible from Ground Zero. There have also been a lot of lies about how this is going to be used by radical Islam and how the people building the center support terrorism, which is simply untrue. We have seen how lies from the media can cause harmful decisions to be made (the latest situation with Sharron Sherrod and Fox News is a good example) and this sets a dangerous precedent. If we allow outlets like Fox News to make significant social changes by pushing out lies and half-truths, we will be encouraging them to do more of the same.

Secondly, the Imam who wants to build the community center has been an outspoken supporter of peace and an opponent of terrorism and extremism. He is part of the Sufi sect of Islam, which is the more meditative branch of Islam. In fact, his sect (which has traditionally always been the most peaceful) has actually been attacked, and individuals were killed by members of radical Islam. He is actually building the center to have a place for people to go, especially young people, in New York. If the building was being built by a radical fundamentalist I would be much more skeptical, but when it is being built by a Sufi who is trying to lead the followers of his religion away from extremism it is a different story.

Another important reason I have changed my opinion on this issue is because of the danger of giving into fear, anger, and even hatred. If this community center is not allowed to be built, than people will think that if they can be angry and hateful enough they can stop any other legal project (political or religious) which they are opposed to. We cannot let our Democracy and freedoms be denied because there are enough uniformed and angry people yelling. That is not a democracy; that is anarchy. It sets a horrible precedent that could have long-term effects.

Finally, this mosque being moved because of all the misinformation and anger would be terrible for Islamic/Christian relationships around the world. It has already been reported that Al-Qaida is using this event in their own recruitment. It would signal to the rest of the world that there is still some type of “Holy War” between Islam and Christianity. While there are serious differences and goals between the religions, this type of conflict does not do any good for anyone and gives people the impression of hatred, intolerance, and unfairness. On the other hand, this could be a chance of forgiveness and a mutual understanding between Islamic and Christian groups both in the nation and around the world. The people who are building the community center had nothing to do with 9/11, and they should have every right and support to build their own center of religion. As a Christian who believes strongly in the freedom of religion and expression, which the United States is founded on, there can be no other option to support the rights of these individuals.

Bookmark to:

This past weekend was the anniversary of Dr. King’s famous, “I Have a Dream Speech”. People like to quote Dr. King on his stances on racial relations, but it seems that his dream for economic justice has been lost in history. It has been so obscured that people who hate Obama for his “Socialism” count Martin Luther King as a hero. Of course, these people are skipping over a large section of Dr. King’s life and legacy. It has gone as far as Glenn Beck saying that he is carrying on Martin Luther King’s dream. Here are a couple of things that Dr. King stood for that many people may not be aware of.

1. Slashing military spending to help with more social programs- He is quoted as saying, “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” Dr. King was certainly not shy on his beliefs against the Vietnam War and the overall military spending. He not only saw the program from a war/peace perspective, he realized with high military spending, less money can be put into social programs and towards creating a more economically just society.

2. The extreme limitations of the capitalistic system- “The profit motive, when it is the sole basis of an economic system, encourages a cutthroat competition and selfish ambition that inspires men to be more concerned about making a living than making a life.”- Dr. King understood that the current capitalistic system has some serious limitations and problems that needed to be regulated in some way. He also understood the personal and spiritual danger that the profit motive can cause on a society if it is not tempered.

3. The unjust disparity between the rich and poor- “The dispossessed of this nation — the poor, both white and Negro — live in a cruelly unjust society. They must organize a revolution against that injustice, not against the lives of the persons who are their fellow citizens, but against the structures through which the society is refusing to take means which have been called for, and which are at hand, to lift the load of poverty.” Dr. King did not make excuses or justifications for the disparity, nor did he simply ignore the situation; rather he called what it was. In a time, where the disparity in the nation is the greatest it has been since the 1920’s-perhaps his words should carry special significance.

4. How true religion has to be concerned with justice and the needs of the poor- “Any religion which professes to be concerned with the souls of men and is not concerned with the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them, and the social conditions that cripple them, is a dry-as-dust religion.”- He understood that a religion is of little good if it does not deal with the real issues that people are facing on a day to day level. Worse, religion can simply become a tool of oppression and justification of the status quo. While he did believe deeply in his Christian faith; he did not want his faith to only be applicable to the ever after, but the here and now.

 5. Our own responsibility for the poverty in the third world- “We in the West must bear in mind that the poor countries are poor primarily because we have exploited them through political or economic colonialism…..We must use our vast resources of wealth to aid the undeveloped countries of the world. Have we spent far too much of our national budget in establishing military bases around the world and far too little in establishing bases of genuine concern and understanding?” He realized that the United States has a very important responsibility as the richest nation and a nation that has often become rich off the backs of the world’s poor to be helping out the most economically vulnerable in the rest of the world.

 6. Why personal charity is not enough, but structural change is also needed-“Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary.” He understood that without true changes and more justice in the economic system, philanthropy would only be scratching the surface of a much more difficult and serious issue.

Perhaps, we can look towards Dr. King’s message today and realize that racial justice was not the end of his fight-he wanted a more economically just country and world. Hopefully, our vision will not only extend solely toward racial healing and tolerance, but instead will encompass the sticky economic realities which are of utter importance to the majority of the world’s population.

Bookmark to:

The nation has always been divided on politics; however, recently the divide has become so deep that it is hard for many to believe that people of the opposite political party could actually be a member of the same faith. Such is this case with much of the American population simply refusing to accept Obama’s Christian faith. Perhaps, it is because he has the first name of Barack, because his father was of a different faith, a purposeful misleading of the right-wing media, because he is a “liberal”, or simple racism- but over 30% of Republicans still believe that Obama is Islamic and a higher percentage don’t believe he is a Christian.  

While both sides can be judgmental on this front- it has been clear that the right holds most of the blame. I did not see near such a high percentage of people on the left doubting Bush’s faith. It is deeply disturbing and shows that we are really failing to live out the teaching of Jesus of refusing to judge others (especially deeply questioning their faith because we don’t like their political beliefs). It is also starting to drive an even deeper wedge in the American church, between left and right, which naturally causes further racial division.

As much as dislike Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee’s views, I do not doubt that they are sincere in their faith. For me to stand in judgment against them and state that they can’t be true Christians because I do not agree with their social and political beliefs would be horrible. However, this seems to have become common place for the right to do with more left leaning individuals-most notably, Barack Obama.

However, the ultimate loser in this type of judgment is the church of Jesus. While we stand by in doubt of other’s faith, we are showing the world a very dark and sinister side of the church. If we devour our own because of different political and social beliefs, how could we ever hope to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth? In conclusion- those who stand in by in judgment against Obama or other individuals because they don’t like their social and political beliefs are showing a lot more about their own pride and personal state than they are of the person they are judging. Maybe it is time to start worrying about taking the speck out of our “enemies” eye and realize that there is a huge forest in ours.

Bookmark to:

Imagine if Jesus were here today. What would he be doing? Would he be joining protestors in New York City against the building of a mosque? Would he be out crusading against Islam? The life and message of Jesus reflected that he wouldn’t be. In the end, the message of Jesus is not about a competition between religions in society, it is about the values of the Kingdom of God, forgiveness, salvation, and personal transformation.

Jesus lived at a time in History where people were very skeptical and angered at another “foreign” religion of the day- the Roman Religion- which placed Caesar as a God, worshiped many different deities, and denied Jehovah as Lord. However, you rarely see Jesus talking about or “fighting” against the other religion. Rather, he was more concerned about purifying and transforming the current religious tradition of the people in Israel. He knew that in the fight against a “foreign” faith, there is a great danger that your own faith loses its way, purpose, and direction.

In the end, he wanted people to know that it was not their responsibility to make sure that the balance stayed the same between their faith and foreign faiths or that they were winning the “competition” in the nation. He was less concerned about the number of people who “prescribed” to the Christian faith than he was that his true followers were truly committed to him and his Kingdom.

When Christians are out protesting and “fighting” other religions, they are the ones that end up looking bad, disrespectful, and even shameful. The true message and heart of Jesus is marred, and it reflects poorly on the majority of the Christian community. We must not trade the message of the Kingdom for a fight between religions. In doing so, we may win some battles, but we will lose the overall “war”. In this time in our History, let’s look inward and fight for our own transformation as individuals and allow that passion, grace, and hope to spill out and change the world- and that through that the love Jesus will be absorbed and received by all.

Bookmark to:

I always found Glenn Beck a little bit scary; however, after his latest comments he seems to be approaching the cultish. About his upcoming event “Restoring Honor” he proclaims, “the Spirit of the Lord is going to be unleashed like I think you’ve never felt it before.” I don’t claim to know the mind of God, but somehow it seems that Glenn has a little bit of a complex about his own importance.

How do demagogues like Glenn Beck become sources of spiritual advice in the first place? Are we so blinded by politics that we are willing to follow the “spiritual” lead of anyone who fits our political views. Glenn Beck has tried to basically turn the teachings of Jesus away from any real focus on justice, by painting this as Communism or Nazism. He has also tried to paint progressive Christians like Jim Wallis and the late Dorothy Day as time type of evil force on society. His most extreme statements come in the form of telling people to run far away from any church that preaches social or economic justice. While historically the Christian choice wouldn’t be taking advice for someone from the Mormon faith, it unfortunately seems that people have let go of that restriction because of Beck’s adherence to right wing views.

It scares me to death that people might be getting their views on the life of Jesus from someone like Glenn Beck. If his spiritual views are anything like his political or historical views, they are filled with a lot of conspiracy and half truths, but little validity. If Glenn wants to turn the teachings of Jesus into a very personalized gospel which upholds capitalistic ideals and cares little for societal justice, he is free to do that. However, I hope the U.S. church can be wise enough not to fall into his way of thinking. I do pray for the Spirit of the Lord to fall on this land; however, the Spirit is not just for white upper class conservatives, it is for people of all ethnic groups, economic backgrounds, and political ideologies, and true revival will not be seen through a return to capitalistic values and making the nation into a “Christian” land once again, it will be through loving our neighbor, seeking justice for the poor and needy, and learning to let go of our own greed, racism, and hate.

Bookmark to:

Right now, I am teaching about Columbus in my U.S. History Class. We are discussing the difference between the true story of Columbus (one filled with slavery, murder, and oppression)and the heroified version that he has often been presented as in both U.S. History and Latin American History overall. Columbus is somewhat of an extreme example; however, the problem of heroification does not stop with such a clear contradiction like Columbus, but extends to many other historical heroes as well.

If you are a conservative than Ronald Reagan is probably one of your heroes. However, in the midst of applauding  his famous speech at the Berlin Wall and his strong leadership, people may overlook the direct dishonesty of the Iran-Contra Scandal, how he brought the U.S. into a huge deficit, and his support of very undemocratic regimes in Latin America. On the other hand, liberals may have a tendency to make a hero out of someone like FDR. While FDR did do some great things in the nation and helped many Americans during the time of Great Depression, we cannot forget about the Japanese internment camps or his attempts to undermine the separation of powers by trying to add seats to the Supreme Court. It is important that we don’t even deify men like Gandhi or Martin Luther King. While they were amazing men, and their non-violence resistance should be applauded by all, we have to remember the shortcomings of Gandhi in his relationship with his own wife and Dr. King’s adulterous actions.

Why is heroifying leaders so dangerous? For one, it does not give us a true view of history. Making Columbus a hero mocks the plight of the Native Americans who were enslaved and killed under his rule. Making Reagan or Roosevelt blameless undermines the stories of the people that were hurt by their administration’s decisions. Understanding the faults of our heroes, even great men like Martin Luther King, is extremely important. We realize that all are human and that we all put up a façade at times. When we make these men out to be saints, we put them on a different plane than us; therefore, undermining our own potential to do great things. When anyone talks about the greatness of anyone, it always needs to be taken with a grain salt. There are great examples we can look up to, but let’s not fall into the trap of heroifying people whether they are like Columbus and don’t deserve the honor at all, FDR and Reagan which deserve praise to an extent, or are like Gandhi and Dr. King which we can learn extraordinary things from without deifying them as individuals. In the end, the great heroes are people like us- a mixture of right and wrong, good and evil.

Bookmark to:

This week, the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian people will meet in Washington with the hope of working out a peace agreement. Automatically, there is a lot of skepticism. Haven’t they been trying to find peace for years? “There will never be peace there.”

However, before we fall into this type of skepticism, perhaps it is important to remember a couple of things. For hundreds of years, people wondered if France and England would ever find peace. Today, most people forget that the two countries were even enemies. In fact, most of Europe was at war one time or another; today they are part of a common union. In more recent times, we can see enemies find peace in situations where people thought there would never be. Peace between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland was once thought of as impossible; though there is still tension today, great strides have been made towards peace. Even in Israel, peace has been achieved between nations such as Egypt and Jordan, where there was previously conflict and war.

There are doubters on both sides of the issue. On the one side, there is the Muslim World which on the whole is very skeptical of Israel and their intentions. Many do not like the idea of an Israeli state at all. On the other hand, in the Western World are many conservative Christians who do not believe that peace in Israel can be a reality because of a misunderstood view of the Book of Revelation and the end times. Many also have a fear of Israel giving away any of their land or the existence of a Palestinian state. Both views are hindrances in the way of a real movement towards peace. Let’s hope and believe that in despite of all the History, anger, and doubt that peace can be a reality in Israel. Let’s pray that peace on Earth would be seen in a special way in the Holy Land during this time in History. Peace is possible, but it will take hope, prayer, dedication, and hard work to make it a reality. Most of all, it will take us truly believing that peace is possible.

Bookmark to:

It seems that is becoming a prerequisite for any conservative politician to cast severe doubts or flatly deny any scientific claims about climate change. Is this because they have all done objective scientific research on the topic? It is amazing they all know more than 98% of climatologists. Of course, it is all political. However, when we look at it from a historical perspective-this is nothing new.

The conservative movement has usually stood against environmental protection- whether it was against Teddy Roosevelt reserving national parks for preservation, against the establishment of the EPA and other environmental organizations in the 1960’s and 70’s, or modern day movements against carbon reduction. It is often seen as more government. So, it is easier to deny the facts and the urgency of the situation than to change the political viewpoint on the role of government. However, this is extremely foolish.

It seems many people on the right love to eat up this Climate Change denialism. Unfortunately, it is because many are getting their scientific information from Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity rather than real scientists and climatologists. There is no real debate on this issue in the field of climatology. Just because Fox News can find a couple of obscure scientists to raise doubts about climate change, does not mean that the overwhelming evidence does not point towards human involvement in this environmental issue. It is a case of chosen ignorance. We all do this to one extent or another in our lives; however, we must realize that for our elected politicians to live in this state of ignorance on an issue with such global importance as climate change is extremely troubling and something that should be firmly rejected by the American people. Let’s starting listening to true wisdom and evidence on climate change from experts and scientists, not the foolish rhetoric of right wing leaders who have a huge political incentive to stay in the dark on the issue.

Bookmark to:

This past week in my U.S. History class we have been talking about some of the stereotypes the Native Americans faced. We then are relating this to the students own lives-both how they have experienced stereotypes and how they have been stereotypical of others. This is a vital practice we should apply to our own lives in overcoming our own hidden prejudices and judgmental attitudes.

First of all, try to think of areas in your life where you felt you have experienced unfair prejudice or stereotypes because of a certain part of who you are. In my life, I think can think of a few areas. For example, living in here in Costa Rica, I sometimes feel that I am stereotyped because I am from the U.S. There is a stereotype that most people from the U.S. are ethnocentric and ignorant about other cultures. I remember going to a diversity retreat during my time at the University and felt that I was being “stereotyped” because I was one of the only WASP’s (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) in the group. I have been stereotyped because I am a Christian. Often Christianity, especially in the U.S., has been associated with judgmental attitudes and right wing politics. I have also been stereotyped because of my progressive political views from the backdrop of my more conservative upbringing- which some people automatically label as reactionary.

After you have thought about the ways you have been stereotyped, try to think about the ways that you may have prejudices or stereotypes against other groups of people. These stereotypes and prejudices don’t make you a bad person; in fact, many of them are not even your fault. They have been programmed into you by society and your experiences. However, it is essential that you know are aware of what they are, so that you can try to reduce their influence over you as much as possible. Those who say that they don’t have prejudices and stereotypes are simply denying the truth to themselves and preventing any true change and personal growth. I have often found myself to be stereotypical of other individuals whether it is because of their nationality, religion, political beliefs, or upbringing. It is often more sub-conscious than conscious, but it affects me nonetheless.

If you can do this little practice it can be quite eye opening. It is important to see the ways in which we are stereotyped, because it makes more aware of the danger of stereotyping other people. It is also important to be aware of our own prejudices in order to not let them control our decisions and interactions with others. In the end, this activity applies to much more than just 8^th grade History class, it is a practice that can be great importance in each of our lives-no matter are age or background.

Bookmark to:

Did you know that the blown-out of proportion controversy over the mosque being built two blocks away from Ground Zero (not on the original site) is exactly what Bin Laden and the terrorists were hoping for- an open hostility of the West towards Muslims, including the moderate and peaceful Islamic communities. Bin Laden was not hoping that September 11^th ended with a onetime deadly attack but rather that it would bring the U.S. and the Islamic world into a full fledge international conflict. It seems that he got his wish. The U.S. is embroiled in two conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there is rising tension with a third nation-Iran. Hatred in the U.S. in the Middle East is at an all time high, and terrorist are finding it easier and easier to find young men to join in their ranks in reaction to their hatred of the U.S. and the West.

All this controversy is doing nothing to help heal relationships between the Islamic community and the general U.S. public; it is also failing to help heal some of the international wounds which have been created. It seems we have simply fallen into the trap that Bin Laden was hoping for. In many ways, we have alienated and gone after a whole ethnic and religious group of people. When this is done, peace, understanding, and moderation often become exchanged for extremism, hatred, and opposition. I hope that we as a nation can rise above these tensions and conflict and focus on real solutions to help create a more peaceful world. The real way to let Osama Bin Laden win is not by allowing a mosque to be built in southern Manhattan; it is by allowing the hatred and tension between the West and the Muslim world to become so great that peace and reconciliation are no longer possible. Let’s get out of the terrorist trap and realize that we live in a diverse and pluralistic society where all religions are guaranteed freedom, and all ethnic groups are to be treated with respect and dignity.  All this outrage and tension over the mosque being built accomplishes nothing and only causes the path towards peace to become more treacherous.

Bookmark to:

Many Republican leaders have recently come out with plans to do away with part of the 14^th Amendment which states that all individuals born in the United States are automatically granted citizenship. While I am sure this riles up the anti-immigrant vote, people need to realize that it is a movement that would actually require a complete change in the Constitution. It takes 2/3 of Congress and ¾ of the states to approve a change to the Constitution. Even if the Republicans were to take control of Congress; they would not have near enough support to make a change like this to the Constitution. The 14^th Amendment was established in the United States after the Civil War to guarantee freedom to the freed slaves. However, it also granted citizenship to the children of the large immigrant populations in northern industrial cities.

Republican leaders don’t want to tell people how extremely difficult it would be to “change” the 14^th Amendment, which has been part of the country for almost 150 years, because they are trying as hard as hell to ride the back of the anger and even hatred towards immigrants that is being projected by parts of the white population. It is shameful, and it should be easy to see that is only a guise. No one is going to change the constitution to deny the children of undocumented workers there citizenship rights. This is yet another sad example of the Republican Parties run to the right wing fringe where they will only find division, hatred, and disillusion. They will also find that they are driving away any remaining Hispanic vote that is left in the party by their attempts at race baiting. For the sake of their own party and for the sake of the racial relations overall in the nation, they need to stop.

Bookmark to:

The fastest growing form of Christianity in much of the third world is the type you often see when you turn on the local TBN station. It is based on the idea that if you follow God closely and have faith, you will have wealth and prosperity. The natural thinking that can follow is that those who have wealth and power must be blessed by God, and those who are not must not have quite enough faith or following God closely.

This past week, I went up to a small village on the border of the Nicaragua and Costa Rica, and a lady who works with the students in the area was lamenting how this type of philosophy has become the norm among the protestant congregations in the region. They hear the messages on Sunday, but on Monday nothing much changes in their lives. I would say this is one of the worst imports of American culture on the third world, and one that is being eaten up at a rapid rate by many in the churches of these countries. It is a distraction from working for real change and social justice in the society. Instead of understanding the social and economic forces that are set up to keep certain groups from prospering, they simply hope that their faith will lead them to some life of comfort. While there is certainly an individual aspect to success and prosperity, and while I do believe faith can do amazing things, I am fearful that this whole movement is being used to simply reinforce the American ideas of unrestricted capitalism and rugged individualism which tends to leave a few prosperous and the rest simply struggling to survive. It really downplays or completely eliminates the ideas of seeking societal justice and the reality social problems which make it extremely difficult for some groups to succeed.

As a Christian, seeing Christianity spread is something which I think is important. However, let’s make sure that the Christianity that is being spread is not the “capitalistic, American” version which shackles people into a way of thinking that in the end leaves them disillusioned, or even worse, blaming themselves for their own lack of faith. Instead, the true message of Christianity should be spread with the message of Jesus who came to preach good news to the poor and who was the voice of the oppressed and outcast of society, not of the wealthy, powerful, and “faith-filled”. In the end, the message of Jesus was not come to me and I will make you wealthy, it was come to me to find peace. With that new found peace and love you can start changing the world around you, especially by showing compassion and seeking justice for the poor, oppressed, foreigner, and discouraged.

Bookmark to:

When my parents were born in the South, it was still illegal for a black individual and a white individual to marry. In the school they went to in the 70’s, it was still illegal for inter-racial couples to date. It almost seems foreign to us today, but this was not that long ago. In fact, it was only 45 years ago when the Supreme Court finally stated that Southern laws against inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional.

Today, we have a president whose father was African and mother was White. Inter-racial dating and marriage is becoming less unique and actually quite normal. In fact a statistic in 2008 showed that 14.8% of all marriages are between individuals of different races or ethnicities. Even many social conservatives, such as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and former Florida governor, Jeb Bush have interracial/ethnic marriages. In many ways, this symbolizes a positive step forward in racial relations within the society. What was once greatly discouraged and feared is becoming more accepted. It is encouraging to see that my own engagement, which may have been illegal in my home state of South Carolina 50 years ago, is now not even an issue.

However, let’s not think that shows that racism is not still a big issue in society. I think we have seen with the reaction to the election of Barack Obama all the racial fear, anger, and hatred that is still alive and working within society. We can see it with how many churches are still divided strongly by political/racial lines. We can see when race is still used as a wedge issue by both the right and left. We can see it in the latest extreme anti-immigrant movement that is often pushed and incited by right wing media outlets through subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) racial stereotyping and prejudice.

The hope with the increase in inter-racial marriages is that the racial healing and reconciliation does not simply end with the individual marriage, but is a catalyst to help heal the greater racial issues within the society. Every generation has its own racial struggles, and in many ways, ours can be seen through the whole immigration issue. I am encouraged by the increase in racial marriages. I think it shows a great progress for our society; however, let’s not be naive to take this trend as a sign that race is not still a large issue in society and not forget that we still have much racial progress and reconciliation to work on in our current generation.

Bookmark to:

Henri Nouwen once stated, “Let us not underestimate how hard it is to be compassionate. Compassion is hard because it requires the inner disposition to go with others to place where they are weak, vulnerable, lonely, and broken. But this is not our spontaneous response to suffering. What we desire most is to do away with suffering by fleeing from it or finding a quick cure for it.”

Compassion is popular. We celebrate our philanthropic activities, applaud when donations are given to less fortunate people, and try to show our compassion without having to sacrifice much. But perhaps that is the problem, compassion without sacrifice and loss fails to change us as individuals. We have to find ways to soothe our conscience when we see the injustice, disparity of resources, and suffering that is all around the world, so we buy some fair trade products, support a candidate that pledges to help out the oppressed and poor, or perhaps even give some of our own resources (which are all good and even essential, things to do). However, perhaps we have to get our “hands dirty” and enter into the troubles and problems of those around us. Compassion hurts because it changes the way that we live and interact in the world; it forces us to come out of our comfortable ways of doing life, and to enter into the uncomfortable, unlovely, and dangerous aspects of life.

The author who was quoted Henri Nouwen illustrated this greatly. He was a priest, and later a professor at schools such as Notre Dame and Harvard. However, towards the end of his life, he decided he needed to sacrifice all the prestige and fame in order to live as a minister in a center for the mentally disabled. It wasn’t glamorous, it wasn’t popular, and I am sure at times it was excruciatingly hard, but he reported how much joy, peace, and love he experienced as a result.

I think we can see the same thing in the life of Jesus. He could have simply talked about compassion, justice, and the importance of loving others. Instead, he chose to live it out. Working for justice by throwing out the money changers in the temple who were exploiting the poor, healing the sick and disabled who were not accepted by the rest of society, and showing compassion and love to those who were looked down upon in society-the Samaritans, women, and children. Compassion in the end is not a positive feeling, but a way of living that transforms who we are. Let’s tread the long and often hard path to becoming compassionate people. It is much more difficult than simply being open-minded, liberal, religious, or empathetic. It is about opening our lives to the pain and experience of others and realizing that only through giving of ourselves do we find true joy and peace.

Bookmark to:

Today, the new President of Colombia will be sworn into office, Juan Miguel Santos. With his new administration, there is hope for a fresh start towards peaceful relationships for the two neighboring countries, whose political differences are quite stark.  However, the vital need for peace stretches far beyond the borders of Venezuela and Colombia, to all of the Americas, and even to the entire world community.

First, let’s examine what a hypothetical war which seems to be increasingly feared could do to world relations. The U.S. would most likely back its ally Columbia financially and with arms, as would other industrialized nations such as Israel and Great Britain. Venezuela would most likely receive the support of other leftist nations such as Ecuador, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia. It might also receive support from its other “new” allies such as Russia and Iran. Will this start some type of World War? Most likely not; however, it could greatly strain international cooperation and peace.

Obviously, a nation like the U.S. cannot be seen as a neutral player in the conflict with all the past and current involvement in the region. Fortunately, some nations such as Brazil are really trying to make sure that a peace agreement is worked out between the two nations. It will be interesting to see how these new “powers” start shaping international relations.

Colombia and Venezuela are not going to agree on most things in the government; however, that doesn’t mean that some type of peace cannot still be worked out. Chavez has shown to be very undemocratic and antagonistic in many ways; however, that doesn’t justify a war that would have devastating effects which would move past the borders of Colombia and Venezuela. Even Venezuela protecting Colombian rebel leader (which the Venezuelan government denies) is not a justification for a conflict that would cause much more destruction and cost many more lives than a few FARC members camped out in Venezuela would ever cause. No one is expecting Chavez and Santos to become buddies; however, let’s hope and pray that some type of agreement and understanding can be worked to out, to prevent a conflict which in the end would be devastating for everyone. Peace usually doesn’t come in the form of smiling faces and unity, but rather through compromise, conflict, and sacrifice. Peace is usually costly, and it is never easy- but in the end, it is the path we need to work towards. I like how the last President from Costa Rica Oscar Arias stated it,

Peace is a never-ending process, the work of many decisions by many people in many countries. It is an attitude, a way of life, a way of solving problems and resolving conflicts. It cannot be forced on the smallest nation or enforced by the largest. It cannot ignore our differences or overlook our common interests. It requires us to work and live together.

Bookmark to:

One of the latest conservative slogans has been to preserve the “sanctity” of marriage. It gets people active and angry. However, when we look past the surface rhetoric, we start seeing a different story. Evangelicals have a higher divorce rate than the general population. Interestingly, “red” Republican states have a tendency to have higher divorce rates than “blue” Democratic states (the same trend holds true with teenage pregnancy).

With the past week’s ruling on Prop 8; the crazy rhetoric has started up again. Some leaders like Chuck Colson have proclaimed that this is bringing us closer to Armageddon. It is almost nauseating to think about all the energy that goes into the anti-gay marriage movement, when marriage in the U.S., especially among evangelicals, has many more pressing concerns. The lives of the majority of the non-homosexual population will not be affected one way or the other by Prop 8; however, almost everyone will be affected by the rising rate of divorce among their family, friends, or themselves. Some divorces cannot be avoided nor should they be; however, the rates do show that perhaps our focus is on the wrong area.

This comes from someone who doesn’t support gay marriage. While I am certainly in favor of Civil Unions and full legal rights, I am not pushing for gay marriage. However, I also see how the evangelical energy against Gay Marriage has often turned hateful, bigoted, and shameful. It is also moved the energy of Christianity away from what it should be focusing on. Somehow, I think if Jesus were here today, he wouldn’t be wasting his time with protesting gay marriage and leading the movement for the “sanctity of the family.” He would be working to really help strengthen marriages, heal relationships, working with the poor, needy, oppressed, and foreigner, and leading people to personal transformation.

In the midst of fighting over the “sanctity of marriage”, we are in danger of losing our own true mission in the world and forgetting to strengthen and look after our own families. In the end, protecting the family has much more to do with loving your wife/husband, being there for your children, caring and respecting your parents, and seeking to rid yourself of the selfishness that destroys relationships, than it does with holding up some anti-gay marriage sign or starting some movement which in essence changes little and only puts a bad and distasteful light on the true message of Jesus. The struggle over gay marriage is an example where Christians may have won a battle, but suffered a great defeat in the overall mission of the faith. Let’s bring our priorities back to the right place.

Bookmark to:

They are considered one of the “axis of evil”. There has been growing talk of possible military operations in the country because of their attempts to build nuclear weapons. However, did the U.S. government cause their rise to power? Perhaps, we need to look back with a more critical eye towards our history.

In the early 1950’s, the new democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, tried to nationalize the countries oil and take power away from British and U.S. interests in the nation. The U.S. and British governments responded through the the CIA to overthrow the newly elected minister. They wanted to continue to keep influence in the region, and more importantly they wanted to keep their economic interests flowing. They were successful and installed their own “ambassador” as leader, the Shah. The Shah was an authoritarian monarch who while supporting foreign interests did little to support the liberties and the needs of his people.

By 1979, the rule of Shah was no longer acceptable to the Iranian people. Two groups were threatening a revolution-the Socialist party and Ultra-Conservative Islamic movement which wanted to set up a theocracy. As we know today, the Ultra-Conservative Islamic movement was able to overthrow the Shah and set up their own oppressive government. Since 1979, Iran and the United States have been at odds (except for Reagan’s shameful Iran-Contra Scandal where the U.S. helped support the Contras in Nicaragua with part of the money paid for by the selling of arms to an Iranian group). There was a similar trend throughout the Middle East. Many extremely conservative Islamic governments rose as different nation’s autonomy and self rule were undermined by foreign forces (both Western and Soviet).

Some may question the reasons for talking about this now. The past is the past. However, there are some important lessons that we need to learn for today. The first is that misguided actions can have impacts that are not seen until years later. When Eisenhower supported the overthrow of the Iranian leader, he probably never thought that of the current scenario we have today. The same could be true of past U.S. support of figures such as Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden in the late 70’s and 80’s. Obviously, this backfired greatly. The same can be seen in Latin America where much of the fiercely anti-U.S. leftist movement can find its roots back in the U.S.’s unjust actions in the region.

More importantly, perhaps this can help us realize about our current actions today. What we do for our own short-term benefit at the expense of other people and nations will have effects that could haunt us 100 years later. We have to get past thinking of the short term (how can we get Saddam Hussein out of power, how can the drug war be expanded in South and Central America) and realize what the long terms and destabilizing factors that can occur as a result of our foreign policy.

On a personal level, this is also vital. Do we only live in light of our current circumstances or do we think how are actions are going to affect our future and the future of those around us? It is easy to only think in the here and now and for our wants and needs. However, perhaps we could learn to be enlightened enough to live our lives with our children’s future in mind, and not do the easy and greedy thing at the expense of doing what is right and just.

Bookmark to:

There have been many conservative leaders and Tea Party protestors that have come out recently against a mosque being built near the Ground Zero Site. While I can understand some of the anger and resistance people may have to this idea because of the radical Islamic community which was behind the September 11^th attacks, to deny the Muslim Community the right to build a mosque (or any other religion to build a place of worship) anywhere in the United States is setting a very bad precedent and is in fact going against the first amendment of the Bill of Rights- the freedom of religion and the illegality of “respecting an establishment of religion”.

One thing that people need to keep in mind is that this mosque is not being built to spite the U.S. and make light of the attacks, rather it appears to be an attempt to simply build a place of worship and show that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and non-violent. One of the arguments being made by conservative leaders, including former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, is that countries like Saudi Arabia don’t allow churches or synagogues, so we shouldn’t allow this mosque. The one problem with this is that….we are not Saudi Arabia or Iran..We are free and open democracy. Why are we trying to follow the religious exclusion of these nations? We allow religious and political thought from all angles and points of views. We are a country that allows wackos like the Westboro Baptist Church to remain legal. Why? Because, we are a free and open democracy where freedom of religion is guaranteed. To start trying to deny this because people are offended by something is denying the very ideas of the nation. The conservative movement has been raving about the following the original constitution. Well, this is an opportunity for them to follow their own ideas.

Bookmark to:

If you look at U.S. Political History, there is a common theme. The rich and powerful have to find a way for the poor and middle class to support their cause and economic ideas. To do this, they often use race. One example would be the way poor Southern whites supported the Confederacy during the Civil War, even though the economic system of plantations and slavery was actually limiting their own possibilities. The poor southerners would at least be more powerful and not have to worry about the African-Americans around them if the system continued the way it was. Another famous example was Nixon’s Southern Campaign, where he used the Republican’s own opposition to the Civil Rights Movement to convince white southerners to switch to the Republican Party….and it worked.

Today, this old tactic is still being played. We saw it recently with the whole debacle surrounding the “edited” video of Shirley Sherrod, where her video where she explained how she learned to overcome racial hatred after her father was murdered by a white man and the man was easily acquitted by the all white jury was twisted into proving that she was a discriminatory racist. You can see it on outlets such as FOX News as they try to spark up fear of undocumented workers, painting them as criminals, lazy, and damaging to society. Of course, this ultimately leads to negative feelings to the whole Latin American population. You can see it with the “charges” against ACORN that were made by the right. More recently, you can see it in the passage of the highly racially charged new immigration law out of Arizona. You can also see it with the attempt to link Obama with in the words of Glenn Beck to, “a hatred for white people.”

Why is this done? It is a way to keep the poor and middle class white vote fearful and angry in order to mobilize them to be used for the cause of the wealthy and powerful. It is the same tactic that has been used for the last 150 years. If race were not still an issue, groups like the Tea Party would lose a great deal of their momentum. Republican white voter turnout would be lower. Now, it needs to be made clear that not every Republican or Tea Party member is a racist, not by a large stretch. However, race is being constantly used by the right to help strengthen these movements and the white vote.

What are the outcomes of this race baiting? For one, it is going to hurt the Republicans in the long run. The population under 18 is now shown to be 47% non-white. Whether people like it or not, the racial demographics are greatly changing. There is no way that the right can continue to push this race baiting and still hope to remain relevant in the future. More importantly, this phenomenon is continuing to keep racial relations from improving, and may be in fact, setting back racial relations in the nation. After living out of the country for a few years, I am amazed when I come back and still see how racially divided the country is. All countries deal with racism; however, there is still a more distinct division in the United States that many countries have moved past. Just look at the churches in the U.S. if you want to see the racial division. I really believe the country could have moved way beyond the point of racial relations we are at now, if it was not for politicians constantly trying to exploit race for their own gain.

I do believe there is hope. I believe there is even hope for the Republican Party. However, they are going to need to do something more than pick a few handful of token minorities to represent them. They will have to really work for the interests of minority communities and stop using racial politics to appeal to their white base. With the country as a whole, there have been wonderful signs of progress and change in racial relations (certainly since the 1950’s or 60’s). However, there is still a long way to go. Let’s not the sly racial political tactics make us fearful of one another and keep us from moving forward and coming together as one people-regardless of race, culture, or ethnic heritage.

Bookmark to:

Why is the abortion rate in South America double that of the U.S. and over triple the rate in Western Europe, when it is illegal in most countries? Why is the abortion rate among adolescents in the Netherlands 15% of that in the United States when their laws are similar? Perhaps, the whole pro-life and pro-choice is focused on an issue that is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the modern world-the legality of abortion. Perhaps, the energy from this debate should be shifted to something that will be more productive-reducing the amount of unwanted pregnancies and thus greatly reducing the abortion rate.

With our modern technological advances, where pregnancy can be detected at increasingly earlier stages and a simple pill can induce an abortion, do we really think making the practice is illegal is going to change the abortion rate much if at all? If we have learned anything from the prohibition on drugs (or alcohol in the 1920’s), it is that when you make something illegal it doesn’t stop it just goes underground. For example, ironically, in a country like the Netherlands where marijuana is legal the rate of consumption is less than its European counterparts such as France or Spain (which is a whole other topic). Having talked to people in Costa Rica about the ways abortion is often carried out in this country where it is illegal, usually a strong “medicine” is used that will end the pregnancy. Another option is that people simply purchase the abortion pill on the black market.

So what is the right move forward with the changing dynamics due to advanced technology? I think both sides should come together and try to work for a couple of things. First of all, there should be more of a focus on reproductive education in schools. There is no excuse in 2010, for there to only be abstinence only programs in the schools. Teaching abstinence to students is great, but it needs to be taught alongside instruction on birth control. We cannot be naive enough to think in 2010 with the current culture, that all teenagers will simply avoid sexual activity because we chose to give them limited information. They have all the sexual information they need from their friends and the media, however; they are probably not given as much wisdom on contraceptive use.

Second of all, both sides need to focus on improving economic conditions and health care availability. In the end, the economic and health care conditions are going to help the abortion rate go down faster than the legality issue. When so many pro-life people continue to support politicians that are trying to cut social services, deny expansion of health coverage, and make more difficult on the poorest among us-they are all but guaranteeing that the abortion rate will not drop as quickly. Like it not, it seems as if the “socialized” Western Europe system has caused there to be a lot lower abortion rate than the more free market based system in the U.S.

Finally, both sides need to focus on the culture of abortion. This may be where I part ways with many on the left, I think we need to make it clear that abortion is never the best option. With so many people wanting to adopt, there are solutions and beautiful gifts that can come out of unwanted pregnancies.  Girls, especially young teenagers, should be aware of the pain and guilt that often follows abortion. If we learned to make abortion less culturally acceptable, it would make more far reaching changes than if we make legal changes.

In the end, I think both sides want the unwanted pregnancy rate and thus the abortion rate to decrease. If we spent half the energy we do on the pro-life/pro-choice debate on finding common solutions, abortion would become extremely rare. Perhaps, in the midst of arguing ideology, we are missing out on the true issues and the true goals that both sides are trying to fight for. In the end, legality is only an increasingly smaller factor in the whole goal in the reduction of the abortion rate.

Bookmark to:

This past week, I was able to participate in an activity that is at first somewhat uncomfortable and certainly way outside of the social norms of modern society. We dressed up in red smocks in the middle of New York City and asked people if we could pray with them. Surprisingly, many people stopped even though they had no idea who we were. In fact, there were times where a line was created because there were too many people wanting prayer. Something was really impressed in my mind, people are hurting all around us and many just want someone to notice and take the time to talk, pray, or simply “be” alongside them.

Despite all the walls and defenses we create for ourselves, we all want help from others. No matter how independent we are, we still crave that personal connection and love. Our society teaches us to avoid that type of vulnerability; however, it is vulnerability that is often our salvation. It is also often hard for us to look past our own problems and concerns and to really look at the needs, hurts, and lives of others who are all around us. However, if we can learn to do this, we will not only help another individual, we will start to see transformation in our own lives. I encourage you to try and practice this way of living this week. Realize that what separates us as human beings is actually quite small. No matter what our background, political views, religious beliefs, or cultural differences, we all share common dreams, hurt, fears, and need. When we share our needs, joys, and pain with others, we are able to connect in a way that really helps understand the beauty of being human. In a small way, it also helps us make the world a more peaceful and wonderful place to live.

Bookmark to:

This past week, I was working in Spanish Harlem in New York City. We were running a Christian soccer camp where we were working with students and young children, the overwhelming majority immigrants or children of immigrants (both legal and illegal). I was able to talk to many of the mothers of the children and hear their stories. They talked about the hate that still abounds towards new immigrants, and the way they are just trying to make life better for their children.

As I was talking to them, I started wondering what inspires all the hate towards the immigrant population and the highly discriminatory laws such as the latest immigration moves in Arizona. If anything, it seems as if the new group of immigrants is helping renew the U.S. society, and it certainly is helping to revive passion and life into the U.S. church.  In many ways the U.S. church and the overall society has grown stale, spoiled, and very egocentric. It is important that new perspectives, experiences, and ways of viewing the world are constantly added to the society. This has been true since the founding of the nations, whether the new group of people was the Irish, Germans, Chinese, or Italians.  In fact, this is what the United States is all about. After all, we are a nation of immigrants.

After spending much time away from the United States and only seeing news online about immigration issues, it was very good to really see and share life with the immigrant community and see the issues that still plague the country. In the end, the nation is much better off filled with hard working and optimistic immigrants, than those filled with anger and fear as we see starting to abound in much of the white conservative movement recently. After all, being welcoming to the immigrant population is less about “saving” them then about saving our own society and national ideas. After all the fear, anger, and hatred towards the new generation of immigrants, we will realize they are what help keep the U.S. alive, and they are what is helping to revive and strengthen the U.S. church.

Bookmark to:

When you think of individuals in history who would have supported an estate tax on the very wealthy- perhaps you would think of reformers like Martin Luther King, Cesar Chavez, or Dorothy Day. You probably wouldn’t think of one of the Captains of Industry (or “robber barons”), Andrew Carnegie.

While much of the treatment of Carnegie’s workers was deplorable, there is no doubt that Carnegie had a different view towards wealth and possessions than many of his wealthy contemporaries. He officially published the “Gospel of Wealth” where he laid out the ideals of giving, philanthropy, and renunciation of greed. He ended up giving away 90% of his fortune, and thought it was not only unwise, but potentially damaging to give his children a large inheritance.

He supported the estate tax, not so the government could receive more money, but so that the rich would be more prone to give away their money to charitable organizations rather than simply pass on the large sums to their children and grand-children. He had a very similar philosophy to modern day billionaire, Warren Buffett, who refuses to give his children any type of inheritance-except a trust fund they have been given to do charitable work with. I was actually listening to an interview with his son recently on NPR, and he was describing how he had to refinance on his average house, because he received no money from his father. However, he was so grateful to his father for not lavishing him with wealth. Buffett has also stated the importance of a Capital Gains tax, because as he sees it now, the tax system is unfairly punishing the middle class rather than making sure the wealthy pay their fair share. Buffett is very interesting; he sent his children to public school, drives an old station wagon, and owns a modest house. He refused to allow his huge earnings to change him from living a simple and normal life.

I wish our politicians would listen to voices like Carnegie and Buffett more instead of the voices or rich greed and privilege. The wealthy gained their money through the system, and they should be paying back a large percentage to that system. If serious changes are not made, the country is going to continue with an upper class that seems to continually gain more, a lower class that is suffering more, and a middle class that is slowly dwindling.

Bookmark to:

As early as next week, President Obama will sign Financial Regulation Reform into law. A lot of progressives have been upset by the bill, because they see it as very weak and not creating enough consumer protections. I too wish the bill was much stronger; however, we must not forget that changes often happen in small steps.

There are some obvious problems with the final version of the bill-much of it due to the pandering to moderates and conservatives to get the 60 votes to avoid the filibuster (which is a procedure that has been highly abused). Nevertheless, it does put some good restrictions on banks and Wall Street practices and provides for more customer protection from corporate greed and recklessness.

Every final bill or resolution is usually weakened and watered down and made much more moderate. Every president who fought for progressive social reform whether it was FDR, Truman, or Johnson only did a portion of what they really hoped for. The same is true of the Obama Administration. I know fellow progressives may be feeling upset about his seeming grand compromises. However, the reality is that this is the way politics work-idealists help spread passion and concepts; however, lawmakers have to learn the often difficult and painful art of compromise.

I suppose in our own journeys the same rings true. We want big changes and immediate results. However, most of the time, we change as individuals slowly one small step at a time. There is no instant where all are problems are solved. However, when we look back, we see how far we have come. For the nation and for our own lives, let’s strive for something big and great, but when changes come in small increments let’s not forget to be grateful.

Bookmark to:

The new law in Arizona is about to go into effect. The Obama Administration is trying to counter it legally on a number of different levels-including the idea that this law will lead to racial profiling. Now, the Arizona government is trying to ensure us that this new law to question anyone who may be suspected of being an “illegal immigrant” will in no way lead to racial profiling.

This really seems insulting to our intelligence. How possibly could this law be enacted without racial profiling? In fact, that is the way the means of the law will be achieved. I would least have more respect for the Arizona government if they just came out and said what was really going to happen instead of hiding behind a cloak of political correctness. It is no longer proper or correct to be racist or conduct racial profiling, but the racism and xenophobia are obviously still there.

It is like a story I had about a student when I was teaching English classes at a company down here in Costa Rica. The day after Barack Obama won the election. He stated, I like Obama, except that he’s Black-but…I am not a racist. Whether it is stating “I am not a racist” or “there will be no racial profiling”, no one is being fooled. I hope the Obama Administration can expose this law for what it is, unconstitutional and deeply racist. Arizona should not be able to hide behind the smokescreen of saying “no racial profiling”. Political correctness can only go so far before the true motives and consequences are exposed.

In the end, this idea goes beyond the law in Arizona and deeply resounds in our own lives. We know the right things to say, the phrases to avoid, and the appearance to present to the world-but in the end, no one is being fooled. Our true being and intentions will be brought to the light to see. Perhaps, if we could learn to spend more time actually changing our inward life instead the appearance we want to present to society, we could really see transformation.

Bookmark to:

On Sunday, we went to one of my fiancé’s friend’s house for lunch. They went to pick up something at the store, and when they came back they had a little accident. Actually, her friend was driving the car and backed into his boyfriend’s car. Our car had a little damage, but his boyfriend’s car had much more damage. They came and told me what happened, and at that moment I had two different options-be angry because I was going to have to pay a little bit to fix the car or be thankful that my fiancé or I weren’t driving so we wouldn’t have to pay the damages of their car (which was more expensive). Even more so, I could be grateful that there was not a major accident where someone was hurt.

Obviously, in the light of bigger issues this is very trivial. However, it brings out an important issue in our lives. When life happens and things don’t go the way we wish, we automatically have a choice. We can think in the positive that could arise from the situation and be grateful that it was not worse than it was or we can be angry and resentful. The difference in how we respond will make all the difference in our lives-if we live happily or we live bitterly. This is a daily choice, because every single day we are going to encounter situations that are not ideal-but how we respond will determine if we let those situations turn us into better, more grateful people or more ungrateful and hard.

Obviously, when a major life tragedy happens, it is not normal or even healthy to immediately sit down and think about all the “positives” and things to be thankful for. It is a time to grieve. However, in our daily lives, with the inevitable ups and downs, we can learn to start changing our thinking. This ultimately is what sets people who are joyful apart from people who are bitter, not our circumstances but our way of viewing the world and being grateful for the life we have been given. The Bible says, that in everything we should give thanks. I think if we started applying this to our lives would experience a joy that would beyond our belief.

Bookmark to:

The U.S. and Costa Rican governments have come to an agreement to expand U.S. military involvement in the anti-drug trade in Costa Rica. As a U.S. citizen who resides in Costa Rica, the latest news has some troubling aspects. There are currently U.S. Coast Guard members off the coast of Costa Rica helping to patrol for drug smuggling. However, the latest agreement between the Costa Rican government and the United States would allow a much greater expansion of U.S. military power for the next six months, 7000 marines, 200 helicopters, and 46 warships. It also includes an agreement that allows the U.S. military to “enter and leave the country at will” and even more concerning “the right to carry out the activities it deems necessary in carrying out its mission”

The agreement was really pushed by the current leading party in Costa Rica which would be considered center-right. However, there is growing opposition from other party leaders and a grassroots opposition. No one wants to see drug trafficking increase, and U.S. assistance could be helpful in stopping some of this trade. However, sometimes things that seem completely positive could have a much more dangerous aspect to them.

Let’s take the latest actions in Afghanistan. The U.S. militaries goals are to assist Afghan government and to take out the insurgents. However, we can see that simple assistance can sometimes turn into something much darker for the thousands people caught in the middle of the conflict between the soldiers and the insurgents or in this case, the soldiers and the traffickers. The whole issue of fighting the drugs war has seemed to lead to more violence and bloodshed, but certainly has not stopped the trade. Where there is demand, there will be a supply one way or another (but that is a whole other issue).

Secondly, Costa Rica could be opening a door to increased U.S. involvement that they will wish they could close later on. While I truly don’t believe that the Obama Administration is going to circumnavigate the wishes of the Costa Rican government, future presidents certainly could if they see it as advantageous for U.S. interests. We have seen time and time again how the U.S. has tried to bully and affect the politics of Latin American nations. Let’s imagine that Costa Rica later says they want all the troops out of Costa Rican waters and territory, but a new hawkish U.S. administration wants the efforts increased. At that point, Costa Rica will be without options.

In the end, I think nations like Costa Rica need to be cautious when allowing foreign troops to come into their land. Though there may be good intent, it could turn into something that they deeply regret and actually undermine their own sovereignty. A helping hand can morph into an occupation quickly with the volatility of politics and the national interests which are constantly changing.

You can find more info on this story below:

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0711/anger-costa-rica-deal-invite-us-warships/

or in Spanish

http://www.elpais.cr/articulos.php?id=28431

Bookmark to:

“Pitiful is the person who is afraid of taking risks. Perhaps this person will never be disappointed or disillusioned; perhaps she won’t suffer the way people do when they have a dream to follow. But when the person looks back-she will hear her heart saying, ‘What have you done with the miracles that God planted in your days? What have you done with the talents God bestowed on you? You buried yourself in a cave because you were fearful of losing those talents. So this is your heritage: the certainty that you have wasted your life.”

This is a quote from Paulo Coelho’s book “By the River Piedra I Sat Down and Wept”. However, it is not a new idea. It was an idea taught long ago by Jesus himself. It is the story of the three men who were given “talents” and asked to invest them and gain more. How were these talents gained? Simply through obedience and hard work? No, like any investment they were gained through risk, setbacks, and failures. The first two men in the parable were willing to take that risk-and as a result gained more on their investment. However, the third man was too afraid to invest. He was afraid God was going to get angry if he failed; he saw good as some cruel and harsh judge, so he took it easy, didn’t take risks, and kept that talent…….but wasted his potential. His lack of faith in a loving God cost him everything.

I like how Susan B. Anthony famous stated it, “Cautious, careful people always casting about to preserve their reputation or social standards never can bring about reform. Those who are really in earnest are willing to be anything or nothing in the world’s estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathies with despised ideas and their advocates, and bear the consequences.” Somehow, that seems to ring true. Those who try to take it easy, never risking, never failing, never tend to achieve much of real substance and change. God wants us to learn to take these risks in our lives. It is the only way we can really become the people he has called us to be and make a real difference in the world. Just like any successful businessman had to first take risks and often fail miserably, in order for us to really reach our potential in our spiritual lives, we have to learn to risk failing and refuse to play it safe. Realizing in the end, that God is there to take all our failures and setbacks and weave it into a life that in the end is complete and worthwhile.

Bookmark to:

Did you know that we are actually living in the most peaceful time in world history? We might not realize this when we turn on the nightly news, and we start feeling depressed. There is story after story about a murder, a kidnap, a child abuse case, possible terrorist threats, a new sickness, etc. Before long we are thinking, the world is going to hell. However, if we actually take our sites away from the constant negative news coverage we get from television, internet, and newspapers-we might find a little different story.

While there is certainly conflict and major problems in the world today, the amount of large scale violence and war is actually rather small compared to much of world history. If we compare the infant mortality rates and average life span…..they are extraordinarily better than a century ago. More people have freedom and liberty now than they have ever had since the beginning of mankind. There is more political and religious right than any other time in history, and there are more social programs and humanitarian relief than in any other time in world history.

We fail to see the progress, because that is not we are used to hearing. We have so much more access to every bad event that happens, that it clouds are view of reality. 100 years ago, you would not have heard about a murder that happened in another state or another country for that matter-today you have the news in 10 seconds on your laptop. It is almost as if we are giving ourselves a very skewed view of the world as we allow ourselves to watch and hear every bad event that occurs. Unfortunately, this soon leads to pessimism about social change and progress

This does not mean there are not serious problems. There are the issues of global warming and climate change which could have a big impact on us in the future. There is a problem with the new trends in globalization where the world’s poor could be in an even worse position, and the insane nuclear weaponry we have acquired is certainly unnerving.  However, let us not forget how much progress we have made. Next time you turn on the nightly news, take it with a little grain of salt and realize that while many things are still in a very bad condition, many things are getting better and we certainly have made a lot of progress.

Bookmark to:

Dr. King once stated, “A nation that continues year after year spending more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom”  In a time of recession when public workers and programs are being cut left and right, the military spending is still increasing. The United States spends 41.5% of all military spending in the world. In fact, the spending is more than the next 15 countries combined. This list includes the largest and most powerful nations in the world: China, United Kingdom, France, Russia, Germany, Japan, India, etc. Many are afraid to cut this spending, because it will make them look weak to the public. However, it is a necessity for a type of spending that has grown to be insane.

Obviously, much of the military spending grew after World War II in the wake of the Cold War. However, while the cold war ended, our military “cold war” spending did not. This type of spending is simply not sustainable. Do we really still need military bases in Spain, Germany, Italy, and Japan? The military spending is also having a major toll on the U.S. society in other ways. The U.S. is essentially the only industrialized nation not to have universal health coverage, college education is becoming more and more unaffordable (even at public universities-my large college debt could attest to this), jobs are harder and hard to find, and public sector spending is having to be decreased. All the while, the military spending is still increasing.

Fortunately, there have been some congressman from both the right and left who have realized the danger in this military spending and expansion and are trying to reign it in. Obviously, a nation the size of the United States needs a military to keep itself safe, but nothing near the levels we currently have. If we are not careful, we could build up the largest military, only to realize that our society has fallen because of our wrong set of priorities.

To read more about the latest efforts to reduce military spending go to:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-barney-frank/why-we-must-reduce-milita_b_636051.html

Bookmark to:

The 4^th of July can be a very positive celebration or a negative one depending on how we celebrate it. The way it is celebrated negatively is when we turn a celebration of a people into an irrational nationalistic pride. When we spend more time pleading for God to Bless the U.S.A, and we forget about what our true slogan should be of God blessing the world. It is negative when we use it to convince ourselves of the righteousness of all our nations’ actions, wars, and policies, instead of taking a critical look on how our policies are affecting the rest of the world. It is especially negative when we let the Fourth of July turn into an us versus theme- whether “them” is the undocumented workers, Arab nations, etc. If we are not careful, unregulated patriotism can turn into dangerous nationalism, militarism, and xenophobia.

What we should be celebrating are the values of the nation. The nation that was one of the first in history to set up a Democratic system for its people-so that a monarchy or oligarchy would no longer control the lives of the people. We should celebrate the ideas of equality of mankind which past leaders such as Jefferson, Lincoln, and King so passionately proclaimed. We should celebrate the Fourth of July by remembering the commitment of the founders to provide for the general welfare and the common good-something we have seemingly lost over time. True love for country has less to do with waving a flag and singing a song as it does looking out for the best interest for the members of the society and community-especially the poor and vulnerable. True love for country is standing up for the cause of justice and speaking out against the voices of oppression and greed that are seeking to undermine the ideals of the nation. As we come into this time of celebration for citizens of the United States, the question we should be asking is what are we celebrating? The answer could make all the difference.

Bookmark to:

In the Bible, it says that Jesus ate and drank with the tax collectors and sinners. This outraged many people of his day. The Pharisees called him a drunk, and were angry with who he associated with. I think often we see this as a relief, that Jesus was very gracious and inclusive to people of all backgrounds and ways of living. We see him with the prostitute and alcoholics of the day and perhaps feel the same type of compassion. Perhaps these people just made some bad decisions in life, or perhaps they are really just victims of the system. However, the Bible also said that he ate with tax collectors.

No matter how much people may hate the IRS, it doesn’t fit into the same category of the tax collectors of that day. The Jewish tax collectors were traitors who worked for the Romans to help oppress the conquered people of the Empire. In fact, they didn’t just collect taxes for Rome they collected much more than what was required so that they personally could live in luxury. So, they were not only traitors they were thieves; the worse kind of thieves- the rich stealing from the poor. Perhaps realizing this starts changing the narrative a little bit for us.

Today, it would be like Jesus eating and drinking with CEO’s of the companies that people tend to despise the most. Worse, it would be like Jesus eating with Bernie Madoff and Kenneth Lay. How would we be outraged or even disgusted? Perhaps, this is the scandal of the Gospel that the grace of Jesus applies even to these types of individuals. Jesus still opens his arms to them to come and be a part of his Kingdom. This in no way means that Jesus approved of their activities or would sanction the economic structures they built. Jesus makes it clear that he stood on the side of the poor and against injustice. But, his love and redemption even spread to them.

What does this mean for us? In the midst of anger over the injustice, greed, and evil of others, we cannot turn to hate or dehumanize people in our minds. Kenneth Lay and Bernie Madoff are still created in the image of God, and are still loved and offered forgiveness. While we should fight and refuse to condone the injustice of the day, in the end we need to realize that goodness can still flow to the people we may consider the most despicable.

Bookmark to:

This past week, the town where Joseph Stalin was born in the modern day country of Georgia, tore down the statue built in his honor. The people no longer wanted to celebrate a history of a man so violent and evil.

However, some people could ask, “Didn’t Stalin do some important and even great things?” Of course. In many ways, Stalin can be thanked for stopping Hitler and the Nazi regime. If the Soviet Union had not been involved in the war, it would have been a much tougher victory for the Allies. However, this doesn’t negate what the man stood for and what he did-killing literally millions of his own people and completely destroying the rights and freedoms of the citizens of the nation. The people of Georgia realized that what Stalin represented to most of the people far outweighed any positive impact he may have had in Russian or World History.

I think there is a comparable situation in the South in the United States with the honoring of the Confederacy. While I in no way would try to put the actions of the Confederacy on the level of evil as Stalin, the Confederacy still represents a dark and oppressive time in our history that should not be a source of celebration.

When I was a History teacher in South Carolina, I took my students down to a special “youth in government” conference at the state capitol. While looking at the monuments around the state house, I saw a seeming contradiction and irony. One of the monuments was dedicated to the struggle of African Americans. However, many more were monuments celebrating the Confederacy and the pro-segregationist leaders of the State. It struck me as odd that you could celebrate both? Honestly, I don’t think you can. The Confederacy still represents this oppression that we are trying to overcome. I am sure that seeing all the Confederate celebration and memorial was not seen as harmless and benign to the African-American students whose ancestors were held for centuries in the cruel practice of slavery.

Do we celebrate all of our history just because it is ours, regardless of the ethics and justice of the events? Many still do, but I think that it is foolish and sets a bad precedent and a confused message to the new generation coming up. We need to celebrate the good, but also learn from the wrong and injustice-not blindly celebrate it. Perhaps, states like South Carolina could learn from the people of Georgia and start putting away some of their monuments to people and events whose memory continue to cause division, anger, and a confused message.

Bookmark to:

This past week, Al Gore was accused of forcing himself onto a masseuse on multiple occasions. The lady accusing him of this wanted 1 million dollars from the National Enquirer for the story. Of course, the National Enquirer printed the story without any thought to the trustworthiness of the source, though they refused to give the lady money.

This really makes me angry on numerous levels. First of all, if the lady really felt like she was being abused by Al Gore, why did she supposedly meet with him on various occasions? Why did she only come out now when it seemed an opportune time with Al Gore’s divorce?  Are there no red flags raised when she comes trying to sell her story for a million dollars?

The current state of wanting to “create” scandal is becoming a big problem in the nation. Lives and reputations are often destroyed for the sake of a story, which often has little base in reality. However, this problem does not stop with infamous publications like the National Enquirer; it is also an issue with established media outlets.

I think a good example of this is teachers accused of having sexual relations with one of their students. You see the front page headline or the top news story on the television, but the trial where they are found innocent or when it comes out that the accusations were completely false does not get much media coverage. However, at that point the teacher’s reputations is so damaged and his family so embarrassed that the damage cannot be reversed. Also, it damages the reputations of teachers and educators as a whole. This actually happened to a teacher from the school district I was from. One of the girls did not like him very much, because he wrote her up a referral. So, she made up a story that he had slept with her. His name was all over the media; his reputation destroyed, and then it came out that the girl had made the whole story up.

I guess the troubling question is if these people are abusing their freedom of speech. Wild accusations and our obsession with scandal and outrage can have a devastating effect on people’s lives. For one, I am very tired and sick of this type of scandal journalism- it debases us as readers and destroys the lives of the people we are reading about.

Bookmark to:

This morning, the longest serving senator in the history of the United States passed away at the age of 92. Robert Byrd, who was from  West Virginia, was first elected to the Senate when Kennedy was president. He served in the House of Legislators before that. In his early years, Byrd would certainly have not been called a progressive. He was a former member of the KKK; in fact, one of the Grand Dragons from the KKK was the one who convinced him to first run for political office. During the 1960′s,  he joined other segregationist Senators, like Strom Thurmond from South Carolina, in an attempted block of the Civil Right’s legislation.

However, time changes people. Later, Byrd apologized for his actions on Civil Rights and later supported other Civil Right’s legislation. He also came out and endorsed Barack Obama, one week after he was heavily defeated in West Virginia by Hilary Clinton, which was a very strong and symbolic statement about the issue of race and change. He has been a critical vote in much of this administration’s agenda-specifically, health care reform. He has also spoken out against the Iraq War, when most other senators were too afraid. He also made sure to champion the cause of the workers and the poor from his state.

I think Byrd should serve as in inspiration to us. People are possibly of change, even late in their lives. We like to pigeon-hole and label people in a certain way, and we assume they are going to stay that way forever. Nevertheless, we forget the stories of people going from racism to inclusion, hate to compassion, and greed to giving. KKK members can become progressive voices for change. Terrorists can become peace activists. Criminals can become humanitarians. Sinners can become saints. In the end, Byrd will not be remembered for the mistakes he made earlier in his career as much as the strong way he ended it. No matter what our age or our circumstances, it is never to late to start again and make changes for the better.

Bookmark to: