Thanks to Alan for sending this piece from the New Yorker on Solitary Confinement.  It is really a must-read, which not only teaches us a lot about prisons but also ourselves.  I strongly suggest everyone take the time to read it.

A few takes from me:

1) The notion of solitary is actually monastic in origins. Penance is the root for Penitentiary.  Historically you can track the notion of incarceration and “doing time” directly back to the early monastic movement.  In large part, that is why the incarceration based Penil-system is a distinctly western phenomenon. 

2) Solitary is the most dangerous part of the prison for guards.  It is where they are most likely to get “gassed” – a mixture of feces and urine, or stabbed by spears through the feeding whole, and face constant verbal abuse from prisoners who are going through severe psychological drama.  The conditions of guards is often left out of the prison reform conversations, but here is a case where solitary is not a healthy space for them either.

3) Solitary is an outcome of a vengeance-based legal system rather than a justice based legal system.  Biblically, justice and righteousness are the same word – actually in Greek and Hebrew.  Theologically, justice is best understood as a restoration to the creation we were meant to be.  Our legal system should be in the business of restorative justice towards our created selves (or a normative existence) rather than vengeance.  In a culture that rightly values the suffering of victims and their families this can be extremely difficult to do.  Yet, I’m unconvinced that emotive appeals are a basis for justice… as much as they are an appeal to our desire for vengeance.  Justice/Righteousness is not a “you-took-from-me/therefor, I-take-from-you” matter, yet a restorative one.  Solitary shows very little evidence of serving any restorative purpose.

Number 3 – Calvinism… Not sure what to make of this.  I think Time may be combining a more wide-held return to a neo-orthodox sovereign God with a certain hard-line Calvinism.  

3. The New Calvinism

If you really want to follow the development of conservative Christianity, track its musical hits. In the early 1900s you might have heard “The Old Rugged Cross,” a celebration of the atonement. By the 1980s you could have shared the Jesus-is-my-buddy intimacy of “Shine, Jesus, Shine.” And today, more and more top songs feature a God who is very big, while we are…well, hark the David Crowder Band: “I am full of earth/ You are heaven’s worth/ I am stained with dirt/ Prone to depravity.”

Calvinism is back, and not just musically. John Calvin’s 16th century reply to medieval Catholicism’s buy-your-way-out-of-purgatory excesses is Evangelicalism’s latest success story, complete with an utterly sovereign and micromanaging deity, sinful and puny humanity, and the combination’s logical consequence, predestination: the belief that before time’s dawn, God decided whom he would save (or not), unaffected by any subsequent human action or decision.

Keep Reading

By John Gehring

Cross Posted From Catholics in Alliance – Via John Gehring -

I argue in this Cleveland Plain Dealer op-ed that the time is ripe to end the abortion stalemate. But this will require a new perspective from both the far left and far right, who often seem more interested in defending turf and demonizing opponents than seizing a unique historical moment.

After more than three decades of political paralysis and legal gridlock, common-ground abortion reduction efforts are gaining traction. As the Washington Post reported back in the fall, the debate is shifting from culture-war polarization and righteous rhetoric to finding real solutions. At this time of economic crisis, it’s even more essential than ever that we debunk the false divide between social justice and pro-life advocacy. Policies that help put Americans back to work, ensure families have affordable health care and strengthen fraying social safety nets also lower the abortion rate, which is more than four times higher for women living in poverty than for women earning 300 percent above the poverty line.

Mark Silk of Spiritual Politics is moonlighting over at Beliefnet and gives his take on the possibilities and pitfalls here.

Keep Reading

Brilliant piece by Jonathon Walton.  My experience in a theological community very much reflects this.  Academics are first scholars and anything that is practical, or political, is a side venture.  Occasionally, as is the case with a George Hunsinger, academics are effective at basically having 2 full-time jobs – his are Barth and the anti-torture movement.But that is rather rare.  Anyway… here is Walton’s piece.

Is the Theologian an Antiquated Relic of a Dying Institution?

Keep Reading

Deal Hudson, who I’m sure is a decent enough man, just can’t seem to get his facts straight about us or Kathleen Sebilius. The media continues to trumpet him as a “Catholic Leader,” even though time and time again he is proven false.

Today Deal called us “surrogates” for Kathleen Sebelius. I guess for pointing out, accurately, that she reduced the number of abortions in Kansas. While I would be honored to be a surrogate for the administration or Sec. Sebelius, I felt it was necessary to clearly say we are not.

Further he calls our claims “dishonest” citing a commentary by his friend Dr. Michael New over on Robert George’s blog. New says the suggestion that Sebilius reduced abortions is wrong on three fronts. He starts

First and foremost, abortion statistics from Kansas are among the least reliable in the country. Between 1979 and 1987 data from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment indicate that the number of abortions performed in Kansas fell by almost 50 percent. Then between 1987 and 1992 the number of abortions suddenly increased by 73 percent. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment states that these sharp fluctuations are partly due to changes in reporting and not the actual incidence of abortion. Furthermore, according to data from the CDC, 40 percent of Kansas abortions are performed on out of state residents, which is one of the highest figures in the country.

Well, with a little research, one finds this is largely due to access to clinics in Kansas coupled with surrounding state laws. Further, his last point “40 percent of Kansas abortions are performed on out of state residents, which is one of the highest figures in the country,” actually suggest that Sebelius’ policies worked better than we initially reported because her abortion reduction policies are primarily focussed on citizens of her own state.

Furthermore, when discussing this abortion decline it is unfortunate, but unsurprising, that Catholics United makes no mention of the Casey style “Women’s Right to Know Bill” which took effect in Kansas in 1997. This bill gives women seeking abortions information on fetal development, health risks involved with abortion, and public and private sources of support for single mothers. My research indicates that these laws have been effective at reducing abortion rates in other states. Furthermore, Catholic United does not mention the increased scrutiny given to late term abortionist George Tiller by both former Attorney General Phill Kline and Operation Rescue.

“Women’s Right to Know Bill,” which New writes about here, simply does not justify a 1-1 correlation in abortion reduction measures. Especially if you control for the 40% out-of-state abortions. His suggestion that “My research indicates that these laws have been effective,” way oversteps the conclusions that his research ought to allow for. Further, we (and CU) took the George Tiller story head on. He then writes,

Furthermore, during her tenure as Governor, Kathleen Sebelius has failed to support a number of policies that would have further reduced abortions in Kansas. Sebelius cut state funding for abortion alternatives, vetoed a bill imposing minimal sanitary standards, on abortion clinics, and vetoed a bill that would have strengthened Kansas’s parental notification law. More shocking, is Sebelius’ unyielding support for late-term abortions. She has vetoed a measure that would require explicit medical reasons for late-term abortions and vetoed another measure which would require abortion providers to report the diagnosis which necessitated a post-viability abortion.

This is a faulty argument. I think what he means to say is that Sebilius faced a budget crisis and cut across the board – just like nearly every other state. And, This late-term stuff is the same lie they pushed with Obama. The law as written was unconstitutional. And, late-term abortion legislation already stood on the state and federal level.

You know it is fine to be unwilling to work practically to help women and reduce the numbers of abortions. This group of men have done that for years. But I just wish they wouldn’t distort the truth so openly.

Lots of opinions surrounding the release of the Religious ID Survey.  Wanted to ad a few of my own in terms of progressive politics.  There seems to be a wide-spread belief the main-line Churches are in inescapable decline. The new Religious Identification Survey points that out. But, also, as Chris Bowers discusses the rate of decline of Christianity in America has drastically slowed.

From 1990 to 2001, the rate of decline in the number of self-identified Christians was 0.86% (from 86.2% to 76.7%), but from 2001 to 2008, it that decline was only 0.10% a year (from 76.7% to 76.0%). That is a significant slowdown in the rate of decline of self-identified Christians as a percentage of Americans. The causes for this change are not at all clear, and far beyond the reach of hackneyed generalizations about the cultural mood of the 1990’s versus our current decade.

Yet, as anybody who has spent time around Churches over the past 10 years knows, the decline is being slowed by a burst in evangelical Churches. In fact, mainlines have continued to decrease reaching a mere 12% of the total population.

So why are we seeing these trends and what does it mean?

Read the rest of this entry »

More and more reports are coming out about modern day hoovervilles, or tent cities springing up around the country. As I see these reports, I wonder what ministry looks like in a tent city. I’m sure Churches are reaching out to clothe, feed, and care for people. But are Churches asking how did this happen? Are congregations demanding to know what their Congresspersons are doing about the local tent city?  That I don’t know.

Here is a tour of some of our modern Hoovervilles: Read the rest of this entry »

I imagine Alan, who recently spent a large amount of time in Kenya, will have more insight on this story.  But, Today’s NYTimes offered opposing op-eds from Franklin Graham and Desmond Tutu on the charges against President Bashir.  

Graham, who has spend years working for piece in the region, basically argues that we should work with Basher – despite his Crimes Against Humanity – because Bashir is the only means by which Sudan will reach peace.  Here is the crux of the piece.

For all his faults, Mr. Bashir has demonstrated that he is able to cooperate. On several occasions he has complied with my requests. When a hospital we operated in eastern Sudan was seized by government forces, Mr. Bashir granted us limited access. Mr. Bashir also made television time available for us to broadcast a Christian program at Christmas and Easter.

More important, Mr. Bashir helped make the peace agreement a reality. Now, his arrest could threaten the south’s elections and referendum, and hurl the country back into civil war. His removal could also spur retaliation by Bashir loyalists and other forces against civilians, United Nations peacekeepers or international aid workers.

Tutu, however, argues that there has been no peace because there has been no justice.  Writing,

African leaders argue that the court’s action will impede efforts to promote peace in Darfur. However, there can be no real peace and security until justice is enjoyed by the inhabitants of the land. There is no peace precisely because there has been no justice. As painful and inconvenient as justice may be, we have seen that the alternative — allowing accountability to fall by the wayside — is worse.

The issuance of an arrest warrant for President Bashir would be an extraordinary moment for the people of Sudan — and for those around the world who have come to doubt that powerful people and governments can be called to account for inhumane acts. African leaders should support this historic occasion, not work to subvert it.

This is an extremely sad, yet interesting theological question.  Do we set aside justice for peace?  Or is peace only possible through justice?  Neither man, being pretty well involved in the direct situation, abstracts to the broader ethical question here.  But I’m sure some folks in this community have thoughts.

Washington DC political paper The Hill goes back to the religion and politics status-quo 10 years ago in their recent piece on Sebelius and Abortion.  Seems like they simply published a Christian Right oppo. research piece.  I have sent this letter to Letters@TheHill.com and encourage you to do the same.

Mr. Wilson and The Hill editorial staff,

Your article entitled “Sebelius to face questions over abortion” contains a number of shortcomings I would like to address. Namely, it seems that you have published a hard Christian Right opposition research dump with only nominal balance countering those views.

Kathleen Sebelius has been one of the nation’s lead proponents of abortion reduction throughout her tenure as Governor. Her policies have dropped the abortion rate, dropped the teen pregnancy rate, and raised the number of adoptions in Kansas well beyond the national trends. Your piece amplifies the message of the Christian community’s most extreme Right leaders, while failing to recognize that Sebelius has the support of many of the more reasonable pro-life advocates. Your piece even seems to suggest, perhaps due to strange syntax, that Catholics United is a “pro-abortion rights” group — they are not. The fact that even the Senate’s number one trumpeter of a “pro-life” agenda, Sen. Sam Brownback, has come out in support of Sebelius shows how far on the extremes of the pro-life community her opposition is coming from.

Kansas Republicans are not commenting on her abortion record because they know the actual record. I don’t know how a piece that concentrates so much on the Dr. George Tiller story cannot mention the fact that Sebelius’ Attorney General prosecuted Dr. Tiller. Or, for that matter, fail to mention the hard facts surrounding her abortion reduction policies.

Tony Perkins, Patrick Mahoney, and Troy Newman speak for a small but vocal Christian minority. Simply look at last year’s exit polls as evidence for the dwindling of their political clout. They have lost much of their political voice in recent years by trumpeting mis-truths or half-truths, as is the case in this story. Christians, across denominational lines, are coming together – as Kathleen Sebelius has done in Kansas – to end these useless culture wars by reaching common, practical ground in facing our nation’s unwanted pregnancy issues. I hope The Hill will not simply rely on these outlying “leaders” in the future for your information or commentary.

Sincerely,

Grant Brooke
The Matthew 25 Network
Executive Director
www.Matthew25.org

M25 and our allies made a lot of progress last year in challenging the idea the the Christian Right should be the go-to commentators for faith and politics news.  Examples like this are why we need to stay on the ball.

Update:  The author of this piece in The Hill sent back a very pleasant note.  And hopefully they include religious progressive voices in future pieces touching on faith and politics.  I owe them props for a quick and reasoned response.

The progressive blogosphere  is abuzz with the “Accountability Now” project.  This is how  co-founder Glenn Greenwald describes it:

Accountability Now has a “single guiding principle of challenging the institutional power structures that make it so easy, so consequence-free for Congress to open up the government coffers for looting by corporate America while people across the country are losing their jobs and their basic constitutional rights while unable to afford basic health care.”

I think Pastor Dan is dead on when he says,  ”So if the religious Left wants a place at the table – even one that is not identical to that occupied by the Religious Right – this is going to be the kind of thing we’ll have to take on.”

Yeah it is hard politics.  But that is life.  We vote. We volunteer. We donate.  We should hold our leaders accountable for what we sent them there to do.  That is why last week’s pseudo-State of the Union was so great.  Obama spoke about the change we expected when we elected him.

Sometimes it seems that religious progressives are coming up short in terms of holding the people we worked hard to get elected accountable.  The reason for that is simple.  We do faith outreach in the most difficult races in the country.  Think of the recent campaigns that had a major faith-outreach component –  Strickland in Ohio, Sebelius in Kansas, Kaine in Virginia, Heath Shuler in North Carolina, Tom Perriello in Virginia, and the list goes on.   These candidates win tough races.  And, in order to hold office, they often take moderate positions on a number of issues.  Further, because the religious progressive movement is really just growing, we put our full force behind these tough races in helping them craft “common ground” positions.  Often, because of this political reality, we find ourselves holding these swing-district positions because the people we’ve worked hard for do.

The relation of the religious left to our supported candidates is drastically different than the religious right.  The religious right wins in extremely conservative districts.  They will challenge sitting Republicans who are not in-line with them.  They do not have much interest in reaching across the isle, because these seats are won by being as conservative as possible.

The religious left, however, targets swing districts.  We have never, to my knowledge, challenged a sitting democrat (no organization has really ever existed to do so).  Because we challenge in swing-districts we lean in a bipartisan direction (M25 is one of the few organizations willing to get behind candidates in a partisan manner).  And, because so many of us came from religious right backgrounds, we understand their culture a lot better than they understand ours and tend to be beholden to some of their issue-frames.

Religious progressives are not captivated by two issues.  In my opinion that makes us more complete citizens, which is better for the body politic.  But, not having one or two big issues also makes it harder to galvanize support.  For example, as much as I care about SCHIP, it just does not get people fired up the same way a Prop. 8 does.

That is kind of the lay-of-the-land, but where do we go from here?

Read the rest of this entry »