Best reads of 2008

m | General, Book Reviews, Theology | Tuesday, January 6th, 2009

Here are a few of the best books I read in 2008:

Christ the Liberator - Jon Sobrino
No Salvation Outside the Poor - Jon Sobrino
Theories of Culture: A New Agenda for Theology - Kathryn Tanner
Remembering Esperanza: A Cultural-Political Theology for North American Praxis - Mark Lewis Taylor
Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed - William Herzog
God of the Oppressed - James Cone
Beyond Homelessness - Stephen Bouma-Prediger and Brian Walsh
Dance of Days: Two Decades of Punk in the Nation’s Capital - Mark Andersen and Mark Jenkins

Come Lord Jesus

m | General | Wednesday, December 24th, 2008

Merry Christmas to all. Hope to pick blogging back up in the new year. Peace.

Open Letter to Barack Obama

m | General, Political, Church | Monday, November 17th, 2008

I was pleased to be one of the initial endorsers of the following open letter to president-elect Barack Obama, spearheaded and drafted by my co-blogger at Vox Nova, Henry Karlson. Additional signatures and supporters here.

________________________

November 14, 2008

President-elect Barack Obama,

As American Catholics, we, the undersigned, would like to reiterate the congratulations given to you by Pope Benedict XVI. We will be praying for you as you undertake the office of President of the United States.

Wishing you much good will, we hope we will be able to work with you, your administration, and our fellow citizens to move beyond the gridlock which has often harmed our great nation in recent years. Too often, partisan politics has hampered our response to disaster and misfortune. As a result of this, many Americans have become resentful, blaming others for what happens instead of realizing our own responsibilities. We face serious problems as a people, and if we hope to overcome the crises we face in today’s world, we should make a serious effort to set aside the bitterness in our hearts, to listen to one another, and to work with one another

One of the praiseworthy elements of your campaign has been the call to end such partisanship. You have stated a desire to engage others in dialogue. With you, we believe that real achievement comes not through the defamation of one’s opponents, nor by amassing power and using it merely as a tool for one’s own individual will. We also believe dialogue is essential. We too wish to appeal to the better nature of the nation. We want to encourage people to work together for the common good. Such action can and will engender trust. It may change the hearts of many, and it might alter the path of our nation, shifting to a road leading to a better America. We hope this theme of your campaign is realized in the years ahead.

One of the critical issues which currently divides our nation is abortion. As you have said, no one is for abortion, and you would agree to limit late-term abortions as long as any bill which comes your way allows for exceptions to those limits, such as when the health of the mother is in jeopardy. You have also said you would like to work on those social issues which cause women to feel as if they have a need for an abortion, so as to reduce the actual number of abortions being performed in the United States.

Indeed, you said in your third presidential debate, “But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, ‘We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.’”

As men and women who oppose abortion and embrace a pro-life ethic, we want to commend your willingness to engage us in dialogue, and we ask that you live up to your promise, and engage us on this issue.

There is much we can do together. There is much that we can do to help women who find themselves in difficult situations so they will not see abortion as their only option. There is much which we can do to help eliminate those unwanted pregnancies which lead to abortion.

One of your campaign promises is of grave concern to many pro-life citizens. On January 22, 2008, the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, when speaking of the current right of women in America to have abortions, you said, “And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.”

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) might well undermine your engagement of pro-life Americans on the question of abortion. It might hamper any effort on your part to work with us to limit late-term abortions. We believe FOCA does more than allow for choice. It may force the choice of a woman upon others, and make them morally complicit in such choice. One concern is that it would force doctors and hospitals which would otherwise choose not to perform abortions to do so, even if it went against their sacred beliefs. Such a law would undermine choice, and might begin the process by which abortion is enforced as a preferred option, instead of being one possible choice for a doctor to practice.

It is because of such concern we write. We urge you to engage us, and to dialogue with us, and to do so before you consider signing this legislation. Let us reason together and search out the implications of FOCA. Let us carefully review it and search for contradictions of those positions which we hold in common.

If FOCA can be postponed for the present, and serious dialogue begun with us, as well as with those who disagree with us, you will demonstrate that your administration will indeed be one that rises above partisanship, and will be one of change. This might well be the first step toward resolving an issue which tears at the fabric of our churches, our political process, our families, our very society, and that causes so much hardship and heartache in pregnant women.

Likewise, you have also recently stated you might over-ride some of President G.W. Bush’s executive orders. This is also a concern to us. We believe doing so without having a dialogue with the American people would undermine the political environment you would like to establish. Among those issues which concern us are those which would use taxpayer money to support actions we find to be morally questionable, such as embryonic stem cell research, or to fund international organizations that would counsel women to have an abortion (this would make abortion to be more than a mere choice, but an encouraged activity).

Consider, sir, your general promise to the American people and set aside particular promises to a part of your constituency. This would indicate that you plan to reject politics as usual. This would indeed be a change we need.

Sincerely,

Deal W. Hudson
Christopher Blosser
Marjorie Campbell
Mark J. Coughlan
Rev. James A. Nowack
Craig D. Baker
Susan DeBoisblanc
Megan Stout
Joshua D. Brumfield
Ashley M. Brumfield
Michael J. Iafrate
Natalie Navarro
Matthew Talbot
Paul Mitchell
Todd Flowerday
Henry C Karlson III
Darren Belajac
Adam P Verslype
Josiah Neeley
Michael J. Deem
Katerina M. Deem
Natalie Mixa
Henry Newman
Anthony M. Annett
Mickey Jackson
Veronica Greenwell
Thomas Greenwell PhD
Robert C. Koerpel
Nate Wildermuth

Bush is over

m | General | Tuesday, November 4th, 2008

Why I decided to vote

m | General, Political, Church | Monday, November 3rd, 2008

I have actually never abstained in a presidential election. Four years ago was when I started thinking more seriously about not voting, both as a Christian and as an anarchist. But ultimately I decided to vote then, defensively, against Bush.

In the months leading up to this election, I’ve wrestled with the question of whether or not to vote quite publicly on this blog, and at Vox Nova. I’ve certainly come to believe that voting isn’t everything, especially when imagining the type of politics that Christianity calls us to. I also believe more and more that the electoral process as it exists in the united states reveals the divisions and conflict that exist in the church, and more importantly, that it seems to reveal where the true allegiance of most Christians lies.

Indeed, I continue to believe that not voting can be a powerful form of protest in many situations. But I have resisted the idea that Christians either must vote or may never vote, and likewise, the idea that anarchists should vote or should never vote. As I said a while back at Vox Nova, “I am not, nor have I ever been, an absolutist when it comes to voting. I find both positions problematic: to insist one has a duty to vote or to insist that Christians may never vote is to elevate voting to a level of importance that it does not deserve.”

In that same post, I said, “Sometimes, though, in the immediate circumstances, a particular election can mean the difference between life and death, or at least tip the scales slightly in favor of life.” What I was getting at was the importance of context. As I have said repeatedly, had someone like Hilary Clinton won the democratic nomination, I probably would not have voted. But after a lot of reflection, I decided that there are plenty of sufficient reasons to vote in this presidential election, and to vote for Barack Obama. Some scattered thoughts and positions I have come to as a result of this reflection:

1) Voting in the united states is indeed participation in a corrupt system. Critics of voting are indeed right that casting a vote is, in some sense, to be complicit in that system. There is a real danger, though, in believing that abstaining from voting will make us less complicit with this death-dealing system. While I believe Christians must witness to “the wider culture,” to imagine that we are completely separate from that culture, and that we play no role in making it and perpetuating its good aspects as well as its bad aspects, is an illusion.

2) I find it troubling that most of the Christians who call for abstention are twenty- and thirty-something white middle-class males. And I find it troubling that many of these Christians compare voluntary voting in the u.s. to rituals of allegiance such as forced worship of Caesar in the Roman empire. The pressure to vote is strong and it’s ideologically driven. But the fact that we are pressured to vote is not the sort of political oppression that many Christians believe it is.

3) I largely agree with the oft-repeated phrase “if voting could really change anything, they would make it illegal.” I agree with Chomsky and Zinn that there is only one party in america — the Business Party — and that it has two factions. I have also come to agree with them when they point out that these two factions are not identical, that, in Zinn’s words: “Even for the ‘purest’ of radicals, there must be recognition of differences that may mean life or death for thousands.” That recognition of differences is often on the level of individuals, and not so much on the level of political party. (Clinton, for example, seems to me a much different sort of candidate than Barack Obama.) In certain contexts, and with certain candidates, it seems to me that opportunities do arise, however limited, to derail certain aspects of the imperialism, racism, sexism, nationalism, and capitalism of this country.

4) One opportunity in particular seems to me to be quite obvious. Radicals consistently and rightly criticize the fact that the american presidential tradition has only included white, rich males. This election gives us an opportunity to break from that tradition in some respects and I am in favor of contributing to the breaking of that tradition and sending it to hell. The types of racism and scapegoating that republicans have shown in this campaign compels me to register a small action that indicates which side I want to stand on when it comes to race in america. Racism runs deep in the people of this country and is not limited to any political party. But one party has proven itself to be quite open about its racist worldview and political tactics. To hell with them.

5) Another opportunity that appears to be within our grasp is the potential for some changes in the health care system in the united states. American for-profit health care is unambiguously demonic. Libertarian types often ask me how an anarchist could be in favor of universal health care. Such libertarians prove how little they really care about “liberty.” The way I see it, there is a hierarchy of tyrannies and not all forms of rule are equal. The tyranny of corporate capitalism is one of the worst in that it thrives on the illusion of freedom. In an ideal, utopian community, people’s health needs would be cared for, and the “systems” that provide this care would be in the hands of the people. Universal health care can be imagined and implemented in various ways in the united states. None of them would be ideal. But any of them would be better than keeping the power over life and death in the hands of corporations. The opportunity for universal health care that we seem to have represents a much needed move toward taking power away from corporations. My understanding of “liberty” does not include capitalism. (More on the topic of anarchism and health care here.)

6) As a middle class, male, white american, I have the luxury of voting or not voting. (No, I’m not buying into the “gift” that american political ideology presumes voting to be, and I do not fall for the “your ancestors fought and died for your right to vote” stuff. I’m merely stating a fact: I have a choice whether to vote or not.) The majority of the world’s poor (and non-poor) do not have a say in who the leader of the “free world” is going to be, but their lives are affected by our choice too. Perhaps even more. Most of the world is terrified of four more years of the neoconservative nightmare, and not out of middle-class political discomfort or mere difference of opinion. They are the ones who will be on the receiving end of u.s. bombs, not us. I’m voting on their behalf to help keep John McCain out of the White House. He’s bombed human beings before and he’ll do it again.

7) “And what about abortion?” some have asked me quite directly. Many of them know that I am 100% against abortion in all cases. (What this means in terms of specific political practice is a long complicated question, and one I can’t deal with fully here. On this issue, like others, my anarchism informs my politics and from a Catholic perspective this is legitimate, as opposition to abortion may take form in various legitimate political options.) The problem, of course, is that we know by now that the republican party has done and will do nothing to defend the unborn and the rest of their policies are decidedly anti-life in the very deepest sense. I was duped for many years by the rhetoric of the republican party and of Catholic republicans. Been there, done that. Long ago I joined the ranks of those who say we will not be duped again. The republican party hates abortion, but refuses to see how their foundational principles contribute to abortion’s causes. If they will not attack the causes, their pontificating is meaningless and will only serve as an issue to exploit every four years to fool well-meaning folks who cannot (or refuse to) see the big picture. The best way to end abortion is to change our society at its roots, and in the mean time, to do what Christians have always done in the face of what seems to be an unchangeable situation of death-dealing systemic sin: change hearts one at a time.

It should be clear by now to anyone who has read my blog that I am no democrat. And voting for Barack Obama is not meant to suggest that I have any loyalty or allegiance to that party, which I consider to be a party of death much like the republican party. I reject both parties. Indeed, I reject this system entirely. Depending on the election, I could see myself sitting out of the process entirely. But sometimes opportunities present themselves which allow us to conduct some minor derailing of this death-dealing system. This time, I am voting primarily for those around the world who were on the receiving end of the republican party’s bombing raids because they are getting far too organized and must be stopped. I am voting to help do my part to send the all-white american presidential tradition to hell.

And I am voting for my daughter and my new nephew because, despite my cynicism, they deserve a better world and I am a part of the world that they are inheriting. I do not float above it in a pretty Christian cocoon and I can’t settle for the middle-class Christian illusion that sitting this one out will preserve my “purity.” I reject the culture and politics of death in every place I find it, and I won’t fall for the inflated rhetoric of “hope” and “change.” But strangely, perhaps miraculously, the system itself provides tiny openings that we can take advantage of in order to derail it toward its own destruction and the birth of something new. And every little bit helps in seeking out and exploiting those openings. Even my stupid little ballot.

If Obama wins

m | General, Political | Monday, November 3rd, 2008


Globalization

m | General, Anti-Capitalism | Friday, October 24th, 2008

I agree with the objections that so-called anti-globalization movements make against economic globalization. I think, though, that sometimes discussions about what is wrong with “globalization” are a way of not talking about what is wrong with capitalism.

Discuss.

Misleading numbers, misleading claims

m | General, Political, Church | Thursday, October 23rd, 2008

In a recent article Deal Hudson implies that 61 bishops have come forward to “clarify” what Faithful Citizenship means, implying or saying outright that a vote for Barack Obama is unacceptable. This statistic, and accompanying list of bishops, has been parroted around the Catholic barfosphere for days now. A simple click-though of Hudson’s list, though, shows that his numbers are simply, factually, wrong.

Hudson’s list is largely comprised of bishops who spoke out — rightly! — against the views expressed by Nanci Pelosi and Joe Biden in which they misrepresented Church teaching on abortion. If you actually click through to the statements cited by Hudson, it looks like less than 10 of them are statements which actually attempt to “clarify” or “interpret” Faithful Citizenship by binding Catholic consciences in favor of automatically disqualifying Obama as a potential choice.

Hudson’s list, and those who quote it, combines episcopal statements of various types, statements which serve different purposes and which have different messages. He, and his messengers, lump all of these statements together as if they are saying the same thing and to give the impression that a growing number of bishops are essentially forbidding a vote for Barack Obama when this could not be further from the truth. The number of bishops making this move remains, fortunately, very very low.

As a Catholic who definitely believes that, between the two of them, Barack Obama is the better choice, my pro-life commitments lead me to applaud the bishops on Hudson’s list who spoke out against the views of Pelosi and Biden which deliberately misrepresented the views of the Church. But I also applaud the fact that the number of bishops telling Catholics that they may not vote for Obama remains very small, contrary to Deal Hudson’s misleading presentation of the numbers. Indeed, I can count these bishops on one, maybe one and a half hands.

Episcopal and ecclesial communion? Not this time.

m | General, Theology, Political, Church | Monday, October 20th, 2008

We Roman Catholics talk an awful lot about being in communion with one another. Whether we are describing the nature of the Church, as in “communion ecclesiology,” or describing what we are doing at eucharist, or describing the collegial relationship of the bishops throughout the world and in each local church, the image of “communion,” being of one mind and of one heart, is often central to these discussions.

We all know the damage political elections do to our communities and to our Church as a whole. Partisan allegiances not only blind us to the motivation behind approaches to politics that differ from our own, but also to the demands of the Gospel. Election-time ugliness — american style — colonizes every moment, every conversation. Take, for instance, the fact that an acquaintance of mine recently sent me a message on Facebook to congratulate my wife and I on the birth of our daughter on Friday, only to punctuate it with a jab about how Obama is intent on killing babies. Is this what we have come to?

Sadly, this is not only a problem for “the faithful.” Our bishops — admittedly, human like the rest of us — are failing us too. Their Faithful Citizenship document indeed was overall an impressive moment of teaching, far more sophisticated than past efforts. As we draw nearer to November 4, we are seeing handfuls of american bishops, though, attempting to retract huge portions of that teaching under the guise of “clarification.” Baffling, isn’t it, that these bishops feel the need to “clarify” the content of FC, a document that is revised and updated every four years in order to be as clear as possible in each election’s political context? If the bishops really intended to say that a Catholic may not vote for a pro-choice candidate if there is a “suitable” “pro-life” candidate available, why wasn’t this said in the document itself? Not only was this not said, it was not even remotely implied. Indeed, the new (and few) “interpretations” of FC cannot in any real sense be connected to passages from the original document at all.

Among these new (and few) “interpretations,” the absolute worst moment so far has got to be the recent heavy handed approach of Scranton bishop Joseph F. Martino who didn’t even try to link his teaching with that of his brother bishops. He expressed his open defiance at a parish discussion on FC recently, saying, “No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese . . . . The USCCB doesn’t speak for me . . . . The only relevant document … is my letter. There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable.”

And unfortunately the result is that already confused Catholics are now even further entrenched in their own double standards. For years now, Catholic republicans have dismissed the teaching of the USCCB, especially FC, as irrelevant, as nonauthoritative. They continued to hold this view until said “clarifications” (such as that of the Dallas bishops) emerged. Suddenly, FC (or at least its “interpretations”) is seen to be as authoritative as scripture itself. Then, like watching a tennis match, comes Martino who is cheered by republican Catholics for his dismissal of the USCCB.

Such moves are revealing of several realities. First, they reveal another example of what many of us have known for a long time: Church teaching, at whatever level of authority, is used and abused over and over again for partisan political purposes and not for the true illumination they bring on the fullness of our social reality.

Second, they reveal that our bishops, human like us, are not immune from such nonsense.

And third, and most tragically, they reveal the extent to which we kid ourselves with talk of “ecclesial and episcopal communion.” We couldn’t be further from it.

Hazel Mae and Hazel Dickens

m | General, Music, Appalachia | Monday, October 20th, 2008

So Emily and I become parents on Friday afternoon and we decided to name this (freakin’ amazing!) kid Hazel after one of West Virginia’s most loved bluegrass singers, Hazel Dickens, who wrote a lot of songs about coal injustice and sang at protests, strikes, rallies, etc. She now lives in Baltimore, where my Dad lives. A couple weeks ago my Dad listed a stand-up bass on Craigslist and the guy who ended up buying it was Hazel Dicken’s nephew Arnold, who is himself a bluegrass musician. Dad got to talking to him and told him we were planning on naming our expected baby Hazel after his aunt and he got very emotional and was surprised that “kids our age” even knew who Hazel Dickens is.

After our Hazel was born, Dad called Arnold to tell him that Hazel was born and that her full name is Hazel Mae Iafrate. He called his aunt Hazel and she said her sister’s name was Mae and that she was the “independent” one in the family, the first to drive a car and to get a job.

Maybe little Hazel will get to meet the great Hazel Dickens someday.

Here are parts one and two of a WV PBS broadcast on Hazel Dickens’ career: (more…)

| Next Page »

Powered by WordPress | Theme by Roy Tanck | Hosted by D.I.Y. Web Hosting