Uttering the Unspeakable

A week back, while at the NRA convention, former GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee made a stupid remark. After hearing a loud noise off stage, he joked that it was Barack Obama falling off a chair -- because someone had pointed a gun at him and he dove to the floor. It was a poorly crafted joke that didn't go over at the convention or nationwide. Huckabee apologized, noting that it was offensive.

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton in an interview with a South Dakota paper defended her continued run for the White House, despite the steep odds, in part because in the past Democratic nominations didn't get wrapped up until June, and pointed to the fact that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June. That analogy has caused a firestorm of protest. The Obama campaign's official responses have been muted, but outside the official channels there has been strong protest.

Now, I don't believe that Hillary was inviting someone to do Barack Obama in. But it does suggest the desperate straights of her campaign -- and this isn't the first time she's used the analogy. The problem is that in speaking of such a thing, she raises the specter of violence against a candidate who has had to receive Secret Security protection earlier than any other candidate precisely because there have been death threats. And if something were to happen to Obama, she wouldn't have to continue on till the end -- she already has sufficient delegates to claim the nomination.

The problem here is that speaking of assassination -- even if not directly pointed at the rival is in bad taste. I do think that it will have a negative effect on her campaign -- and likely nixes any chance of her joining the ticket. I think it's fine for her to continue on the trail until June 3, but now its time to slowly shut things down and let the process conclude peacefully. And no more dumb statements please!

Validation at Last? Gay Marriage Question

Penny Patterson, a young woman who writes a column for the Santa Barbara Independent, on issues facing the LGBT Community, offers a moving testimony to what the recent California Supreme Court decision means to her as a lesbian in a committed relationship. I met Penny at a showing of the documentary For the Bible Tells Me So.

Penny writes of her own struggles coming to terms with her sexuality and the response of her very religious family. She shares in this piece of her own faith and what that means as a gay woman. The evening of the decision a vigil was held her in Santa Barbara, which I wasn't able to attend, but as Penny shares, my friend and colleague, Mark Asman, the pastor Trinity Episcopal Church, and a gay man, spoke to the gathered crowd about faith, marriage, and homosexuality. As Penny recounts it, Mark pointed out that not all religious people stand as opponents of gays and lesbians. She writes:

I am a Christian who finds strength in the revolutionary aspect of Jesus’ teachings; as such, I believe that were he to walk on the Earth today, this would be his fight. Contrary to what right-wing fundamentalists want you to believe, Jesus’ message was one of radical inclusion. And while my knowing that gets me through the hateful and homophobic rhetoric of the Dobsons and Falwells of the world, hearing Asman reiterate the message reminded me why I became a
Christian in the first place.

For Penny and many other gays and lesbians this decision offers the opportunity to receive legitimation. Yes civil unions can provide legal protections, but in our culture it's marriage that offers cultural support to relationships. Now, as Penny suggest, she can now dream of one day marrying her partner.

To read the entire column click here.

There Will Be Blood -- DVD Review

I was looking forward to seeing Oscar nominated There Will Be Blood. The premise of this movie -- starring Oscar winner Daniel Day Lewis and based on Upton Sinclair's novel Oil! -- seems to be two-fold: first, oil is intoxicating, and second religion is itself demented. Lewis plays a California oil baron named Daniel Plainview who strikes it rich after numerous difficulties. Plainview's big strike comes after he's enticed to check out land that seems to be in the western edges of the San Joaquin Valley. The location is unclear because wherever it is the movie first locates about 100 miles from Santa Paula (near Ventura), but when building his pipeline west to the coast San Luis Obispo, the 1oo mile figure is again mentioned, and its quite a ways further north. Wherever this site is to be found, Plainview decides to buy up land and build a pipeline because he's losing his profits on a big strike in payments to the rail company.

The second part of the story relates to his relationship with Eli Sunday, the preacher son of the man Plainview leases land for the big strike. Eli negotiates a bargain requiring Plainview to pay him $5000 to start his church, money that Plainview never seems to pay. At one point, however, with one last tract of land not in his possession, Plainview is forced to seek baptism to gain access to the land to lay the pipe line. As he comes forward to receive baptism, Eli slaps him around and requires that he shout out: "I've abandoned my boy" (one of the more dramatic scenes in the movie).

This leads to the boy -- Plainview's son H.W., whose mother we're told at one point had died in child birth, but later is said to be an orphan Plainview picked up to assist his attempts to gain land for his oil speculations. Anyway, H.W. goes deaf when the oil well blows open. This changes the relationship, and Plainview sends the boy off to a school.

One of the principles that emerges from the movie, and perhaps it is the foundation piece is that he brooks no competition. Anyone who would threaten his domination, must be destroyed -- even if that person is his own son. Eli has to be destroyed, because he is also a threat, and because Eli humiliates Plainview.

Now, I've not read the book, which I understand is quite different. One of the key pieces that the movie changes, as I understand it, is the nature of the preacher. From what I hear, Sinclair modeled the preacher after Aimee Semple McPherson, a person he at one point admired.

As to the movie itself. I'm not a purist when it comes to movies. I enjoy an intellectually challenging film and films that push my values. I don't mind a film that's slow developing, but I found myself wondering how everything fit together. There are too many loose ends, and the movie, which goes on for more than 2 1/2 hours drags. Indeed, it's not until about 10 to 15 minutes into the film that we have any dialogue at all, and in the mean time we jump nearly 2 decades. It received Oscar consideration, so it's an important film, but I think it needed more editorial work.

Not a favorite, by any means, but it does speak in part to the lure of money and the possibility that religion can be manipulated for gain.

10 Favorite Movies Meme

Favorite movies as a meme is back in vogue. Danny Bradfield tagged me and suggested I write mine. So, here goes -- in no particular order:

1. About Schmidt -- wonderful piece with Jack Nicholson.

2. Field of Dreams -- "Build it and he will come." Indeed -- one of Costner's best (along with Bull Durham)

3. Star Wars -- Episode IV -- The special effects may have improved, but this was the original!

4. Elephant Man -- the story of a man thought to be a monster and an imbecile, simply because of his looks, but underneath was a man of tender intellect.

5. Star Trek IV: Voyage Home -- you can't beat Spock on a San Francisco trolley.

6. Star Trek: First Contact -- How the Earth was saved from the Borg and itself

7. Casablanca -- Play it again Sam!

8. Hotel Rwanda -- heroism amidst violent and dehumanizing tribalism

9. Gold Finger -- Bond, James Bond -- the Bond series never died!

10 Raiders of the Lost Ark -- On the weekend that Indiana Jones returns, we must celebrate the first of the series!

And I'm supposed to tag 5 people:

Mike Leaptrott
Roy Donkin
Rustin Smith
Michael Westmoreland-White
Brett Younger

Father Virgil Dies

Having lived these past ten years in Santa Barbara I quickly came to know the name Fr. Virgil Cordano. Father Virgil is almost the patron saint of the community -- a living one at that. He was closely identified with the annual Fiesta, which is one of Santa Barbara's primary events. He appeared at any number of forums and functions and was beloved for his warm and inclusive views. He passed away last night of cancer at the age of 89. Whether you'd met him or not, you had to admire his spirit and his impact on the community.

I first met Fr. Virgil early in my ministry here. I was invited to participate in the blessing of the boats at the harbor. I joined a couple of other clergy in this venture, including Fr. Virgil. Over time I would work with him in several other ventures -- especially during my time working with the ADL's interfaith committee.

Fr. Virgil's witness to inclusion will be missed. Hopefully others will pick up that message in the years to come.

Rejecting "Agents of Intolerance"

In 2000 John McCain spoke out against agents of intolerance, that is, leaders of the Religious Right that sought to divide Americans along social/cultural lines. In 2008, needing their support, he began by mending fences with the original target of his critique -- Jerry Falwell -- by accepting an opportunity to speak at Liberty University.

More recently he sought the support/endorsement of two of the most virile proponents of intolerance -- John Hagee and Rod Parsley. These guys make Falwell and Dobson look like leftists. Both preach an end times theology that appears to support Israel, but only for selfish purposes. They need conflict in the middle east so their end times scenario can take occur. Hagee's comments about Catholics has become well publicized, but only recently have we heard his bizarre theories about God using Hitler to push Jews to Palestine. Does McCain buy into these ideas? I doubt it. But by pursuing an endorsement without checking into his views, it appears as if he does.

As I noted in an earlier posting, more problematic in my mind is Rod Parsley -- for several reasons.

1. Parsley is politically active in Ohio.

2. His anti-Islamic statements are reprehensible and dangerous.

Again, McCain sought out Parsley's support -- probably as a way of garnering support in Ohio among religious conservatives. Once again he failed to vet this pastor.

Today we have learned that McCain has rejected both endorsements. That is a wise decision, for these are truly agents of intolerance whose views pose a a danger to American foreign policy. Just as I criticized McCain for seeking these endorsements, I applaud his rejection of them.

Now, as for the comparison to Jeremiah Wright. Obama was a member of Wright's church, but he did not seek Wright's political endorsement nor did he align himself with Wright's views. He made clear that Wright helped him find a faith in Jesus Christ and encouraged his commitment to social justice. Obama has not shown any evidence of supporting or aligning himself with Wright's more radical views.

McCain has suggested there's a difference here, and he's right. He sought these pastor's support for political gain, not because of religious agreement. All of which points out the dangers of trying to wrap ones' self within a religious flag. McCain, who isn't especially adept theologically, stepped into a hole, but his lack of support among religious conservatives led to this debacle.

What McCain may need to do at this point is explain his views on Middle East policy. How does he view Islam and America's relationship with predominately Muslim countries? With that in mind, how does he view Israel? Those are legitimate questions that both candidates need to address, because the Middle East will be center stage in American foreign policy for the foreseeable future.

Finally, perhaps we can now take the pastor question off the table. Neither Jeremiah Wright nor Rod Parsley should be of any interest in this election process.

John McCain, Rod Parsely, and Anti-Islam sentiment

Much has been made about Barack Obama's membership in Jeremiah Wright's church -- and Wright's rhetoric. Although not a member of Rod Parsley's church, McCain, seeking connections to the Conservative Christian movement -- Religious Right more particularly -- sought out an endorsement from Rod Parsley. He has broken with John Hagee because of statements about Hitler and the Jews, but so far has said nothing about Parsley's very troubling anti-Islamic rhetoric.

Here is a video that links McCain and Parsley. I post this, though I was troubled by the postings about Wright, because Parsley poses a danger to our nation. Don't think that this stuff doesn't find its way into the Middle East. If uttered by an imam about America, people here would have a fit. Is this not the same thing and isn't it much worse than anything Jeremiah Wright said?

Note too that McCain speaks of him as a spiritual guide and a moral compass for America. Has John listened to Parsley?

Hat tip to Faithfully Liberal

My Son the Radical

My son, a senior at Santa Barbara High School, came home today to tell me that he'd participated in a little civil disobedience. About 100 students sat in the main hallway for two hours to protest a school decision not to allow the showing of a documentary about the Iraq War and Arlington West produced by Veteran's for Peace.

Students participating in this effort, of course, will be marked as truants.

It's his first brush with radical politics. Back when I was his age, of course, I was a good Gerry Ford Republican, and we didn't do sit ins. How times have changed!

Here's a brief run down.

Hillary's Hypocrisy

Hillary Clinton signed off on the DNC rules that she now thinks are oppressive and that her battle to count the Michigan votes (in her favor) is akin to the abolitionist effort and more is the height of hypocrisy. If she wanted to seat the delegations she would agree to a compromise that's fair to all and would stop the rhetoric. She's made this an issue because she's behind and it's her only hope -- though even there she's likely wrong. If she were ahead it's doubtful she'd be leading the charge.

Listen to her statement about Michigan not counting:




Remember that essentially all the other candidates pulled their names off, and she still only took about 54% of the vote. In essence she beat noncommitted by about 10%. If Barack Obama had been on the ballot, wouldn't he have pushed that margin?

Give it up Hillary.

Hagee--McCain break up

John McCain's attempts to connect with a religious group he once called them agents of religious intolerance, but in 2008 he has sought to rebuild the bridges he once seemed to burn. Besides courting Jerry Falwell, he went after other right wing voices including Rod Parsley and John Hagee. Hagee's embrace has become a liability of late, first as word of his anti-Catholic tirades became known. Now excerpts of sermons suggesting that God used Hitler and the Holocaust to push Jews to Palestine -- so that the foundations of the second coming of Christ could be put in place -- have become public. Today word comes that not only has McCain broken with Hagee, but Hagee has withdrawn his endorsement. McCain suggests that his relationship with Hagee is different from that of Barack Obama with Jeremiah Wright. This is true, Hagee wasn't McCain's pastor, but McCain did seek his support, probably because of Hagee's Christian Zionism made him seem like a supporter of Israel. What McCain seems not to have understood is that Christian Zionism doesn't support Israel out of a love of Judaism, but because a restored Israel is needed to start Armaggedon.

More problematic for McCain is the support he has sought from Rod Parsley, a rabidly anti-Muslim megachurch pastor from Ohio. Hagee is caught up in his end times scenarios, while Parsley echoes medieval calls for an anti-Muslim crusade. If John McCain wants to ever bring troops home from Iraq, choosing support from Parsley makes that infinitely more difficult. McCain's camp has said that they didn't properly vet Hagee, obviously they've not properly vetted Parsley either.

One thing to point out regarding Obama, Obama never sought his pastor's political endorsement. Indeed, he's made it clear that he didn't seek his pastor's poltical advice, though Wright's commitment to social justice does influence his own commitment to social justice. Politically, however, they have taken different routes to accomplish this task.

When Prosecutors Grapple with Prayer -- Sightings

Could reliance on prayer rather than medicine lead to charges of child abuse, neglect, and even manslaughter? Or, does the First Amendment shield parents from prosecution when reliance on prayer rather than doctors leads to illness, injury, or death? Shawn Peters of the University of Wisconsin takes that question up in today's edition of Sightings. It is an intriguing set of questions, one that calls for us to balance religious freedom with the protection of children's health and civil rights.

****************************


Sightings 5/22/08

When Prosecutors Grapple with Prayer
-- Shawn F. Peters

In recent months, prosecutors in both Oregon and Wisconsin have been confronted with a complex problem: Should parents who choose to treat their children's illnesses with prayer rather than medicine be charged with abuse, neglect, or even manslaughter when their children die? As these cases begin to play out in the courts, it has become apparent that their task in answering that question is going to be anything but straightforward, thanks in part to the ambiguity of laws that might be applied to spiritual healing practices

The Oregon case involves members of the Followers of Christ Church, whose faith healing practices generated an intense statewide outcry in the late 1990's. Church members Carl and Raylene Worthington currently face manslaughter and criminal mistreatment charges stemming from the death of their fifteen-month-old daughter, Ava. The toddler died on March 2 from bacterial pneumonia and a blood infection – ailments that her parents, citing the tenets of their religious faith, had chosen to treat with prayer rather medicine.

The Worthingtons appear ready to mount a vigorous defense. Their attorneys already have launched a website dedicated to both outlining the contours of their defense strategy and raising money to fund it. But, legally, this promises to be an uphill climb, thanks to changes in Oregon law that eliminated apparent exemptions from criminal charges for parents who engaged in faith healing practices. They most likely will fall back on the claim that their religious practices are shielded from regulation by the First Amendment and analogous provisions in Oregon's constitution.

The Wisconsin case is every bit as tragic, but it might proceed slightly differently in the legal arena. On Easter Sunday, an 11-year old girl named Kara Neumann died from diabetic ketoacidosis. Treatments of insulin almost certainly would have controlled the ailment, but Kara's parents – their beliefs about physical healing shaped in part by a Flordia-based online ministry – chose to treat her with prayer in lieu of medical science. Dale and Leilani Neumann later told police that their daughter had not been examined by a physician in more than seven years.

In late April, authorities charged the couple with second-degree reckless homicide, a felony punishable by up to twenty-five years in prison. But several observers have cautioned that the prosecution of the Neumanns is bound to be complicated, if not simply derailed, by the apparent exemption for faith healing practices that remains in place in the state's child abuse and neglect laws. The couple is likely to claim that this conflict in the laws (spiritual healing practices appear to be protected under one part of the criminal code but not under another) violates their right to due process of law.

Wisconsin's "treatment through prayer" provision is not unique: More than thirty other states offer similar kinds of apparent legal protections for devout parents who reject medicine and turn to prayer when their children are ailing. A number of groups have lobbied for the repeal of such religious exemptions, chief among them the advocacy organization Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty (CHILD). Its head, Rita Swan, has argued that these stipulations, while safeguarding the religious liberty of parents, endanger the health of children and violate several different interrelated constitutional standards.

Groups ranging from the United Methodist Church to the National District Attorneys Association also have called for the repeal of religious exemptions to child-abuse and neglect laws. Several prominent medical organizations – among them the American Medical Association and the Bioethics Committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics – have echoed those calls. In 1988, the latter body issued a statement declaring that "all child abuse, neglect, and medical neglect statutes should be applied without potential or actual exemption for [the] religious beliefs" of parents. Deeply committed to "the basic moral principles of justice and of protection of children as vulnerable citizens," the members of the bioethics committee called upon state legislatures to remove religious exemption clauses and thereby ensure "equal treatment for all abusive parents."

A decade after that call for reform, however, a majority of states, including Wisconsin, have failed to act. Unfortunately, it seems that legislators might only lurch into action and address the law's shortcomings if the prosecution of the Neumanns misfires.


Shawn Francis Peters' latest book, When Prayer Fails: Faith Healing, Children, and the Law, was published in November by Oxford University Press. He teaches at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.


----------

This month, the Marty Center's Religion and Culture Web Forum features an essay by John Witte, Jr. of Emory Law School: "More than a Mere Contract: Marriage as Contract and Covenant in Law and Theology" Commentary from Brian Bix (University of Minnesota), Don Browning (University of Chicago), Christine Hayes (Yale University), David Novak (University of Toronto), and Charles Reid, Jr. (University of St. Thomas) can be found on the forum's discussion board, where readers may also post responses.

Access this month's forum at:http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/webforum/index.shtml.

Access the discussion board at:https://cforum.uchicago.edu/viewforum.php?f=1

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Recycling Energy -- what an idea

If you've been filling up at the service station you may have noticed rising prices. The reports of energy price increases and the possibility of global warming is getting us to focus on alternative energy sources.

This morning, on my morning walk (during which I saw a guy walking his dog from his SUV) I listened to a piece from NPR about an entrepreneur who has found ways of recycling energy. Inspired by that Nuclear plant cooling tours that release steam into the air on the Simpsons, Tom Kasten (sp?) got an idea -- why not reuse all that steam to create power. Indeed, he says that for every 3 units used by industry, 2 are wasted -- sent up the stacks into the air. All told, if we recycled energy we could produce something like 200,000 megawatts of energy. That sounds very promising! Why waste energy and create greenhouse gases when we can find ways of reusing energy.

What's even more interesting is that current laws make it impossible for most industries to recapture energy for use.

Here's an issue for our politicians to take a look at. Indeed, Al Gore, are you listening?

Future Deficits -- of the Bushian kind

GW and JM along with Joltin' Joe Lieberman and Rudy are blasting Obama for talking about talking with our non-friends. Tom Friedman, yes I like Tom (thanks to the NY Times I can again read him), writes today that the issue isn't to whom we might talk, but whether anyone really cares to talk to us. As bad as Iraq is, Iraq isn't the biggest contributor to our problems. Our biggest challenge is the lack of an energy policy -- as Friedman points out, Bush begging the Saudis for relief isn't a policy. Because we don't have a policy that will free us from dependency on foreign oil, we're sending money to places like Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and elsewhere. At $200 a barrel they'll be hauling in money -- to such an extent that they'll be able to buy American companies -- with a couple months revenues.

In other words, GW has so badly bungled our energy policy and our foreign policy that we've become essentially irrelevant in the world. We may have military prowess, but our economic engines are clearly challenged.

He writes:

But that’s not all. Two compelling new books have just been published that describe two other big power shifts: “The Post-American World,” by Fareed Zakaria, the editor of Newsweek International, and “Superclass” by David Rothkopf, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment.

Mr. Zakaria’s central thesis is that while the U.S. still has many unique assets, “the rise of the rest” — the Chinas, the Indias, the Brazils and even smaller nonstate actors — is creating a world where many other countries are slowly moving up to America’s level of economic clout and self-assertion, in every realm. “Today, India has 18 all-news channels of its own,” notes Zakaria. “And the perspectives they provide are very different from those you will get in the Western media. The rest now has the confidence to present its own narrative, where it is at the center.”

GW has put the next President in a deep hole -- well in Friedman's analysis, three deep holes. Our ability to dig out will require considerable work and quite a bit of luck!

Israel and Syria -- Talking!

John McCain may not want to talk with Syria, but apparently the Israeli's are, with the help of Turkey. Now these talks may not go anywhere, but if Syria can be pried loose from Iran - -a nation with whom they have major disagreements on the role of religion, etc, that could be a boon for peace and a limit on Iran's power in the region.

Of course the issues here revolve around land and water, but if resolved, the result could have major ramifications for places like Lebanon and even the Palestinian territories. Whether Israel can sustain these talks is unknown, but we'll have to pray that they proceed to a just and fair conclusion.

Day After Election Post Mortem

What should we make of last night's two primaries?

Here are my thoughts:

1. Barack Obama has all but sewn up the nomination. All that remains now is for the remaining super delegates to put him over the top. Hillary Clinton's math simply doesn't add up -- she'd like to count Michigan and Florida in ways that giver her huge vote totals, while excluding caucus states won by Obama.

2. Race has played a significant role in the last few contests. That 20% of voters in WV and KY would admit that race played a factor in their votes for Clinton suggests that the numbers were much higher. This reminds us that racism is still a problem in this nation, and especially in places like this. As David Gergen said last night on CNN, Hillary probably needs to come out and say that if you're voting for me because you don't like blacks, then I'd rather not have your vote.

3. The huge wins by Clinton were fed by Obama's decision to not contest either state. My sense is that two things happened. Some voters chose to vote against him because they felt ignored. Others chose Hillary because they knew here and didn't no him.

4. The Oregon win, and his playing things close with Oregon's blue collar whites (I saw that he'd gotten about 47% of them), suggests that the issue is more an Appalachian thing than a white blue collar thing.

5. Gender has played a role here. Obama played Clinton to a draw among white women in Oregon (and they made up about 58% of the electorate), but Clinton continues to draw well among women, especially older women. Why is that? It's for the same reason that African Americans are flocking to Obama -- this is historic. Hillary Clinton is the first woman to effectively break through the glass ceiling. Many women, especially older women, don't want to let this dream die. That's understandable. Some may feel that Obama stepped in front of Hillary and may feel upset. All that being said, when November comes I doubt that most of these women will vote for McCain. On the issues that matter to women, Obama is much closer to Clinton than is John McCain and the GOP. Had Appalachia not been an issue for Obama, I think that Kathleen Sebelius would have been his running mate. He may have to go in another direction this time.

6. Looking at the electoral map. As they say with stocks and mutual funds, past performance is no indicator of future performance. I think that this may play true in this electoral cycle. Hillary has made her case about WV and KY being key swing states. Obama has demonstrated that he has had difficulty there. But, he has also shown great strength in other developing swing states. The Mountain West is up for grabs. Obama could do quite well in places like Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and even Montana. He should take California, Washington, and Oregon. In fact, he stands to do quite well west of the Mississippi. He could also take some southern states -- North Carolina and Virginia seem ripe. He should do well in New England, take NY, and with the help of people like Ed Rendel take Pennsylvania. Ohio can be turned and Michigan will be closely contested. Wisconsin and Minnesota look prime for him. What he must do is peel off states that Republicans have done well in lately, but which are in the process of changing demographically.

7. The VP choice may be very important. Indeed, he may want to start recruiting a cabinet team before November --especially State and Defense. If voters know that these important posts will be in trusted hands and they believe that Obama will listen to these voices, that could help undermine any McCain angles.

8. Finally, as Howard Dean said on Meet the Press several weeks back, the key to November is the person who comes in second place. If Bill and Hillary will go to places like KY and WV, Ohio and PA, and say to voters there -- we know Barack Obama. Yes we fought tooth and nail to get the nomination, but we know he'll be a great President, and if you trusted us then, trust us now and vote for Barack. He could turn some of these states with their help.

So, here we go!

Change we can believe in -- Obama speaks in Iowa

As the clock winds down, Barack Obama spoke to a crowd in Des Moines, Iowa. He didn't claim the nomination -- simply said that with a majority of delegates in hand, the nomination is in reach, and it is!

Here is his speech tonight:

Reflections on Ted Kennedy

We learned today that Ted Kennedy's seizure was caused by a malignant brain tumor. The youngest of the four Kennedy Brothers, he has served as the senator from Massachusetts since 1962. Only Robert Byrd has served longer among current senators. He took his brother's seat when he was old enough to run for the Senate and has held it since. He made a couple of tries for the Presidency but after 1980 chose to focus on the Senate. As a senator he has been one of the most important actors on the national scene. He is a liberal and hated by many -- except for colleagues. He has reached across the aisle when possible and stands firm when necessary.

What happens next only time will tell. He could go on serving in the Senate or be forced to quit. Time is not on his side, but he remains a powerful force nonetheless.

So, tonight, he is in our prayers.

Obama Wins Oregon

This evening my home state of Oregon is giving Barack Obama a very comfortable win. Unlike Kentucky, which even Hillary likely wouldn't win, Oregon is a definite place to play for Democrats. One of the things to look for here is the fact that because Oregon votes by mail, we might be seeing in its results something akin to the Fall. Note too the vote for Ron Paul -- there is a strong Libertarian streak, so the Libertarian candidate could steal from McCain there.

I won't guarantee, but I'm confident that Barack Obama will do quite well in Oregon come November! Tonight will be a grand win.

Clinton Wins Kentucky

Not surprisingly Hillary Clinton won big in Kentucky. But as she's pointed out with places like Idaho, Kentucky won't be in play for the Democrats come November anyway -- whether or not she's the nominee. The two candidates have seemed to choose their states and have focused on them. Obama made a visit or two to Kentucky, but essentially conceded victory to her. While she put her eggs in the Kentucky basket, Obama put his in Oregon. Being an Oregonian, I think it's probably a good bet he'll win handily. So, they'll split. But of the two, Oregon is the more important in November. I won't guarantee a win for Obama, but I doubt McCain will win in November.

One thing to note here, is that it seems that Obama did win the Lexington and Louisville areas.

Justice, peace in complicated Times

Published originally at the Lompoc Record -- Sunday, May 20, 2008. The event announced occurred last evening.



*******************



Faith in the Public Square
Lompoc Record
May 20, 2008

Israel is celebrating its sixth decade of existence this month. For many this is a joyous milestone, but for others it’s simply a reminder of loss and humiliation. So polarizing is the issue of competing claims to this land that one feels compelled to choose up sides. Our reasons for making that choice are complicated by a variety of other issues that range from national security to religious conviction. For Americans who have never been to the region, or whose visits to that region have been skewed by one side or the other, we must rely on the testimony of others – including the media.

As a Christian, I look to this region with a sense of spiritual longing. I’ve never been to the region, but this land has a strong hold on me spiritually, for it’s the land of Abraham and David. It’s where Jesus was born, lived, and died. Jerusalem, which is a sacred site for three religions, holds my attention. As consider the situation, I have conflicting loyalties and concerns. I understand the compelling need for a homeland that led to the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. My sympathies for this cause are reinforced by the legacy of anti-Semitism that has plagued the Christian faith for centuries, a legacy that enabled the horrors of the Holocaust.

I also understand that this wasn’t a land without a people when that nation was formed. Many of those people we call Palestinians lost their land, their homes, and their livelihood, and long to return to their ancestral homes. And many of those who have been displaced are Christians. And so, as sympathetic as I am to the Jewish claims to the land, I’m also sympathetic to those of the Palestinians. Indeed, it has been my constant prayer that these peoples, whatever their faith or national aspirations may be, might find a way to live together in peace.

Although seemingly far away, the US is deeply involved in the region’s disputes. Israel is a leading ally, but much of our imported oil comes from the region. We’re involved in a hot war nearby and in a war of words with another. It’s not an issue that can be taken lightly. Because we have a stake in this region, we need to educate ourselves as to the players and their concerns. As we do so, my hope is that we will commit ourselves to the cause of justice and peace for all of this region’s people.

The land of Israel and Palestine has been in a state of conflict for more than sixty years, and no just settlement to the competing claims to the land is in sight. The contemporary reality is this: There’s a state of Israel, and they’re Palestinian territories in Gaza and the West Bank under Israeli occupation. That situation cannot go on indefinitely, and the situation as it stands is both unjust and will not lead to peace. Although the US has a role to play, ultimately the residents of this land must find a solution that recognizes the rights and the freedoms and the responsibilities of all involved.

Understanding the issue requires listing to more than one voice. One of those voices is Ann Baltzer, a young Jewish American whose encounter with the Palestinian people led to her becoming an activist for the Palestinian cause. Anna will be speaking at the Lompoc Library tomorrow evening at 7 P.M. While I’m not able to be at that meeting, I had the opportunity to interview her. She talked about her eye-opening encounter with the realities of the Israeli occupation, an encounter that forms the basis of her presentation. In her mind, the occupation isn't only unjust, it runs counter to historic Jewish ethical understandings. While she understands the Jewish felt need for security and safety – needs that led to the establishment of Israel and prolongs its occupation – she doesn’t believe that the occupation really serves that purpose. To her, the denial of human rights doesn’t make her people any safer.

Hers is just one voice, but it’s one worth hearing – even if you don’t agree with her assessment. Indeed, she told me she doesn’t want people to take her word for it, she wants people to check it out for themselves. That’s a worthy goal, and one that might just lead to a peace that’s just for all involved.

Dr. Bob Cornwall is Pastor of First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) of Lompoc. He blogs at http://pastorbobcornwall.blogspot.com and may be contacted at faithinthepublicsquare@gmail.com.

Messages of Fear

FDR famously said: "Only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." With that FDR began his leadership of the nation. Now, three quarters of a century later, John McCain is running around sounding a bit like Chicken Little. If we were to talk to Raul Castro the world would fall apart -- yes America's national security would be at risk. Now this is a message that plays well in anti-Castro sections of Florida, but the reality is quite different. The rest of the world talks to Cuba -- only the US continues on as if nearly 50 years have not passed us by. Consider this, the "don't talk to Cuba" line has gone on through the presidencies of ten men, more than half of whom are now deceased.

Obama has made it clear that if it would benefit our interests he'll talk to the leaders of nations we are at odds with. John McCain thinks that's naive. My belief is that McCain's position is old hat and no longer valid. Besides, we've talked with enemies before -- consider high level talks with China and the Soviets. And as far as talking to the leaders of Venezuela and Cuba, consider that in recent years anti-American leaders have been elected in a number of Latin American countries. The GW positions haven't fared well.

Let us stop acting in fear and start talking to people. If we were to engage, let's say Syria, we could possibly woo them toward our views. Syria is a largely secular nation, with a fairly diverse religious make up. It has cozied up to Iran in many ways because it keeps them safe. But they are really fearful of an Islamist takeover. In other words, if we could talk with them, we might make things safer. But of course, McCain just wants to use bellicosity. We get to decide which is more productive.

James Baker -- Talking to Enemies not Appeasement

Two years ago, former Secretary of State James Baker stated clearly that talking to those we consider enemies -- like Syria -- isn't appeasement. Here's video:




Note: James Baker served under the first George Bush and is a Republican. He's also a fairly well respected diplomat, so perhaps Mr. McCain should take a listen. From the Washington Post.

Robert Byrd gives OK to Obama

West Virginia may have given Hillary Clinton a landslide victory, but it's favorite son and current Senate President Pro-Tem, Robert Byrd, gave his endorsement to Obama today. This comes on the eve of two important primaries, one of which takes place in neighboring Kentucky.

It would have been nice if that had happened a week ago, but it's an important word of affirmation to the person most of us assume will be the Democratic nominee. Byrd's endorsement should help in many quarters, because he's considered the wise old man of the Senate, the keeper of the rules, and someone who has a fairly close relationship to Hillary Clinton. He also has a segregationist past, one that he has disowned.

According to the report in the NY Times, Byrd stated:

“After a great deal of thought, consideration and prayer over the situation in Iraq, I have decided that, as a superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention, I will cast my vote for Senator Barack Obama for President,” Mr. Byrd said in a statement. “Both Senators Clinton and Obama are extraordinary individuals, whose integrity, honor, love for this country and strong belief in our Constitution I deeply respect.”

“I believe Barack Obama is a shining young statesman, who possesses the personal temperament and courage necessary to extricate our country from this costly misadventure in Iraq, and to lead our nation at this challenging time in history,” added Mr. Byrd, who voted against giving President Bush the authorization to go to war in Iraq in 2002 and has been a vociferous opponent of the war. “Barack Obama is a noble-hearted patriot and humble Christian, and he has my full faith and support.”

Besides Byrd, the state party chairs of Washington State and Kansas joined in the march forward!

On the IRS -- Sightings

When it comes to pulpit and politics, where do you draw the line? We've had this discussion here on several occasions, largely because like some other clergy-bloggers I decided to back a candidate in the primaries. Some of my blogging colleagues feel that I've crossed a line, but I've made it clear that I do this as a private citizen, do so from my blog, and do not endorse using my church's pulpit or its resources.

But where does one draw the line? That's a question that the IRS must discern. Both left and right toss charges and counter charges. Some Democrats on the left are uncomfortable with the overt religiosity of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but both candidates understand that faith is part of our national psyche, and since it's part of their lives, they will share it. Sometimes that can be a two edged sword, as we've seen, but neither candidate seems inclined to go in a theocratic direction. On the Right there is a more overt desire to combine church and state -- but this year's candidate is hesitant to speak on faith issues.

Well, this morning, Martin Marty reflects with his usual wit and analysis on the issue before us!

************************

Sightings 5/19/08

On the IRS
-- Martin E. Marty

Billy James Hargis, a now forgotten but once towering figure on the not yet couth religious right, built a radio ministry and developed an anti-Communist front that has to be remembered as rabid. The preacher of righteousness was so overtly political that the Internal Revenue Service tabbed him for violating revenue regulations. Having to pay taxes for a year is not what did him in. What weakened his empire and led to his demise was the standard brand "over the top moralist" syndrome. As the press delighted in telling, a female alum of his American Christian College, on her wedding night, confessed to her groom that she had had sexual relations with their college president. On fairness grounds he responded, "So did I!"

Hargis wanted to take others down with him and fingered The Christian Century as a violator. The year was 1964, and in the Goldwater-Johnson campaign the magazine's cover bannered "Goldwater No!" So far so good. Then it followed, in a momentary fit of affirmation, with a cover, "Johnson Yes!" No, no, and no! Hargis inspired the I.R.S to pursue the magazine, which, knowing it was guilty, lost its tax-exemption that year.

The IRS regulation does not permit a 501 (c) (3) tax exempt organization to deploy major energies or resources in support of specific candidates or legislation up for debate. The topic has become urgent in 2008, because religion has become ever more prominent in partisan politics, clerics have backed or fronted for candidates, candidates have sought church leadership support, some borderline-violators are being sought out and some of them are fighting back—strenuously.

Some years ago the IRS pursued a Texas Catholic diocese, whose bishop had the diocesan paper respond in a headline which, if I recall correctly, reduced everything to one word: "Nuts!" What IRS person is going to pursue the question further? Presidential candidates have regularly trouped to churches to give inspirational messages which could not not be partisan and vote-seeking. The IRS is closely watched by those who discern selective enforcement. Watch for more.

Some of the intentional violators are fighting back through legal fronts. Thus Suzanne Sataline told in the Wall Street Journal (May 9) how "Pastors May Defy IRS Gag Rule," and that a "Legal Group Urges Ministers to Preach About Candidates." The group is the Alliance Defense Fund, which aggressively promotes preachers of politics in pulpits so overtly that the IRS will some day have to swoop and the ADF can showcase government suppression of religious freedom. We are going to have a very busy set of enforcers. The black churches advertise nothing new in their actions: Great numbers of them have turned their pulpits over to politicians. "Justice Sunday" promoters work at the borders of legality as they instruct churches how to use their power to get votes for favored candidates and policies.

How stay clean and legal? You will hear preachers on the left, muzzled by tax law, telling you that no prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures could have survived the new scrutiny. (All Democrats?!?) But, then, they were acting within overt theocratic bounds. Few are sure as to where the bounds are now. Be thankful you are not a judge in these matters and enjoy the campaigns (more outside the sanctuary than in it, one hopes), and that churchly voices then find ways to be heard and be in the thick of things. Meanwhile, "501 (c) (3)" comes to view more frequently than "John 3: 16."


Martin E. Marty's biography, current projects, upcoming events, publications, and contact information can be found at www.illuminos.com.


----------

This month, the Marty Center's Religion and Culture Web Forum features an essay by John Witte, Jr. of Emory Law School: "More than a Mere Contract: Marriage as Contract and Covenant in Law and Theology"

Commentary from Brian Bix (University of Minnesota), Don Browning (University of Chicago), Christine Hayes (Yale University), David Novak (University of Toronto), and Charles Reid, Jr. (University of St. Thomas) can be found on the forum's discussion board, where readers may also post responses.

Access this month's forum at:
http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/webforum/index.shtml.

Access the discussion board at:
https://cforum.uchicago.edu/viewforum.php?f=1

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School

Oregon for Obama

Being that I grew up in Oregon, went to college there, and even did a brief stint of graduate work at the University of Oregon, I have a certain amount of interest in the Oregon primary. I was amazed to hear that 75,000 Portlanders went out to Waterfront Park to hear Obama yesterday. Apparently, from what I'm hearing, that is a record amount for any presidential candidate.

I don't know what kentucky will do tomorrow, but I think we can guess that Oregon is going for Obama! I think we can say that this will be true in the fall as well.

For more pictures go to the Daily Kos.

Mount St. Helens Day

28 years ago today, Mount St. Helens blew its top. I was a senior at Northwest Christian College (soon to be Northwest Christian University) in Eugene, and was just weeks away from graduating. The ash didn't travel down our way, but we heard about the explosion. A few weeks later I went up to Portland and experienced first hand the white stuff lying all over the ground. Later in the summer I drove further up into Washington to visit a friend in Kelso. There I could see banks of ash and mud everywhere. Quite a sight -- sure was something to remember.

Note the picture of the eruption and the mountain today.