Imitatio Christi

News Links, 7/28

    Good day, fellow bloggers.  Here are a few news articles of interest at mid-day.  First, glad to see circumstances seem to be forcing the repubs to face the fundamental injustice of seeing their salaries automatically increase, while the minimum wage stands at merely 5.15.  Election year pandering, of course, but we'll take it how we can get it, I suppose.  However, these folks think the trade-off of some "poison pill" amendments makes the whole thing a loser.  While we are on the poor, homeless, etc., note that another city has made it illegal to feed the homeless.
    On the middle eastern front, there were numerous reports.  Here are just a few.  In this one, the remarkable upsurge in support for Hezbollah is noted (here, as well).  Just as our administration's heavy handedness in Iraq has fueled support for insurgents, are we likely to see the same thing here with Israel's response in Lebanon?  Here, some US officials are expressing concern that the Israelis have claimed US authorization for their activities in Lebanon.  Bush is upset, but how much?
chuck gutenson

Jim Wallis on the Middle East Crisis

    One of our regular readers asked that I link today's Sojomail post from Jim on the Israel/Lebanon war.  It begins:

Like many of you, I have been glued to CNN and other cable news channels and feeling my heart broken by the vivid scenes of war's devastation and human suffering in the Middle East. We mourn this violence and, habitually, pray for peace. But what does that mean? What is the context and why is this happening?

Go here for the rest, scroll down just a bit.

Bill Moyers for President

    Well, here is another piece that seemed to me worthy of posting on its own.  Molly Ivins is proposing that Bill Moyers run for president. Does she think he can win?  Well, no.  But, I think she is on to something with the idea that idea that there are very few people who could actually impose some decent level of morality upon the discourse.  One never knows this for sure, of course, but check it out and let me know what you think. For sure, we could stand some improvement in the quality of the moral discourse.
chuck gutenson

Global Warming

Important enough to link by itself, one of our regular readers forwarded this link to me today.  Check out how this scientist bewails the intentional misuse of the findings of him and his colleagues (I call it intentional, I guess it could also be ignorance).

Another Stereotype

    A link at JesusPolitics took me to an article that contained the following paragraph about a particular scientist's testimony to his eventual conversion to Christian faith:

He started by telling us about his godless youth, when atheism meant he "wasn't responsible to anyone but me." Barely a few minutes into the interview, and he'd already said something stupid: no, that's not what atheism means. Atheists are responsible members of their community, and care just as much for others as the most devout believers. He might have been shallow and selfish, but that does not mean that all atheists are. (Go here for the whole piece.)

    By now, all of you know that I am unabashedly Christian, but I do have to wonder exactly what it is we think we gain, either in credibility or in "apologetic force," when we engage in this sort of stereo-typing.  As this writer notes, to be an atheist does not mean solipsism or some sort of moral relativism that is answerable to no one else.  A-theism means, as we all should know, that one does not believe that God exists, and while I think they are mistaken on that point, it does not follow from a denial of God's existence that they cannot have rational grounds for making moral decisions.  In face, in my limited experience, atheists may well think "harder" about what constitutes moral behavior because they do not have the concept of revelation (from God) to fall back on as a moral guide.
    At any rate, I come not to defend atheism, but we Christians need not create false arguments in attempt to cast aspersion on disbelief.  Let us stick to the facts, and let us go about making a difference in the world by living out our faith in the One whom we believe gave himself for us.  Perhaps, then, our credibility with believers and non-believers alike would increase.
chuck gutenson

U2--One

    Stumbled across this at YouTube this evening.  I've always found this a remarkable song.  Odd as it may seem, a really good friend played this as a "gathering song" for chapel one day. Remarkable indeed, enjoy!

Evening News Links, 7/26

    I've stumbled across a few more news stories that I thought you might find interesting.  First, I hope this is a trend that continues to grow, i.e., the trend to take on, rather than ignore the
health care crisis in the US.  While it is starting at the state and city level, perhaps we can find some workable solutions and expand from there.  It is not, I think, the ideal way to proceed, but it's a start.  I once had an African student who commented, in an ethics paper he wrote for my class, that in his country, one could not consider one's self well-to-do if one's village mates were still poor.  Perhaps we could begin to think about access to health care in the same way.  The appropriate model for community life is neither independence nor dependence, but rather mutual interdependence. Health care access would be a great place to start thinking that way.  What continues to amaze me is how narrowly we Christians think of "salvation," as if God cares not a wit about how we interact with each other and accept mutual accountability.
    Along, perhaps, a somewhat similar line, this story reports the increasing salary pressure on increasingly large swathes of the marketplace.  First, the most vulnerable suffer wage stagnation, and then we move up the economic ladder.  Of course, the repubs will continue to protect their wealthy supporters--social darwinianism at its best.  There is an awful lot of "not reading the bible" going on amongst those who defend these policies as "christian," so it seems to me.  While we are on the economic front, imagine a president who goes to speak before a people group who suffer disproportionately from poverty, but speaks to them about the estate tax?
    By the way, this one is just a reminder for those of you who are hearing that they found WMDs in Iraq.  Lie enough, and it starts to sound like the truth.  I saw one poll, recently, that suggested that half of Americans think we have, indeed, found them!
    What do you make of this piece entitled "Bush gut check"?  While we are at it, the administration is working on new detainee rules.  Can't wait to see these....well, on second thought, I can wait.
    Finally, a couple of updates on the situation (is that a euphemism?) in the middle east, here and here.
chuck gutenson

News Links, 7/26

    Good day, fellow bloggers.  Here are a few news stories for the day.  First, here is a report on some of the corruption surrounding the Iraq war and those seeking to profit from it.  Do you ever wonder what it is that makes some folks think that it is acceptable to profit from selling devices that will be used to kill others--and sometimes "our" others?  I once asked a friend how he thought folks like this expected to respond on the day when they give account of their lives before God.  He said he didn't figure they believed in such a thing, even if they claimed to be in the religious tradition that affirms it.
    Here Dowd asks, in essence, what it would take to get the administration to join the real world and stop the platitudinous frivolity.  The immutable bush, she writes, has no ability to change to changing circumstances and no answers that are not vacuous.
    May we pray for our brothers and sisters who seem to be rejoicing at the goings on in the Middle East.  It seems I recall a passage about terrible things coming, but woe to those who egg them on?  (chuck paraphrase)
chuck gutenson

Late Afternoon News Links, 7/25

    Good afternoon, fellow bloggers.  Here is a partial news fix for the day.  First, one of the statments one frequently hears with regard to the situation in the Middle East is that Israel has a right to defend itself.  Not a particularly large percentage of folks are likely to disagree with that.  The question one has to ask, though, is what does it mean to defend one's self?  On what grounds, for example, does one argue that the death and displacement of huge swathes of non-combatants is an acceptable cost?  Is there some kind of limit such that, as one goes beyond it, one has surrendered the moral highground?  The Geneva Conventions, the Just War criteria, etc. are generally taken to give some moral guidance on these matters.  Consider the headline to this piece:  "One in five Lebanese is now a refugee."  I heard someone say, on an early morning radio show today, that the response has to be proportional to the "threat."  I found myself wondering what that means and how it would guide moral decision-making.  Israel has by far superior fire-power.  How does one rate the relative threats?  In this piece, we are told that the hospitals in Beirut are indicating that over half of the casualties are 15 years of age or younger.  Do we think this is going to reduce the number of terrorists or is it likely to recruit more to the "cause"?  Here are the articulate concerns of an Israeli who thinks the response has been over the top.  In fact, he characterizes the situation by saying that "Morality is not on our side."  Robinson simply observes that "it's disproportionate."  What if it were my children--on either side?  What would I be willing to do?

Ralph Redux

    I hope it does not seem that I am being unnecessarily harsh with regard to Ralph Reed.  I think, rather than judging the problems that are coming to surface, all of this might serve as a reminder of just how enticing and seductive is the lure of power.  When we locate ourselves in positions that tend to accumulate power, the perqusites that attend that power are remarkably alluring.  Think about it:  adulation from many, material goods, and so on.  How many of us, when situated in a location that makes these things readily available would be able to resist the temptation?  Don't get me wrong, there are folks who do resist them.  However, rather than judging Reed so harshly, perhaps we would benefit by taking a minute to pray for him (and his children!) and to reflect on how we avoid our own fallings.  Having said that, I am linking a pretty satirical piece by Stephen Colbert, more than anything to show the sorts of criticism this opens us up to, and then the piece on Ghandi being a "ninny" that is referenced in the video clip.  Again, I recognize that all of us have our failings, most not as out in the open as this.
chuck gutenson