Scene On- Seeing White

Scene On- Seeing White

http://podcast.cdsporch.org/seeing-white/

Scene On has a fantastic series going on. It's 14 episodes about race, addressing things white people don't see because they don't have to. I think it could promote a lot of good conversation and self examination. The first one or two episodes are kind of in introduction, but it builds, getting exponentially better with each episode. By the 5th, I had to take some notes and write them out. Probably no one reads this, but I want to remember these things.

Here are the transcripts: http://podcast.cdsporch.org/seeing-white/seeing-white-transcripts/

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

Episode 35: Little War on the Prairie (conveniently episode 5 of the Seeing White series)

This one is primarily about an episode in the Midwest happening at the time of the Civil War that was happening in the east. There is a monument in Minnesota saying how hundreds of settlers were killed by the Dakota warriors. The process of uncovering the actual history and trying to teach the context and actual facts is detailed. I can't do it justice, but Gwen Westerman does in the episode.

AND she wrote a book! 

Mni Sota Makoce: The Land of the Dakota

Also a point that grabbed me was how in the reteaching of the actual facts of the altercation, there was a terrible disparity in quality. One teacher quoted on the show maintained a familiar ethnocentric narrative that you can hear in the Palestinian Israeli conflict or in the run up to our invasion of Iraq of any number of conflicts which is- THOSE people attacked US because that's the only was they know how to solve conflict. We are superior. We use our words to solve problems. And we had to kill to defend ourselves, not because we were trying to steal others' land. That's not an exact quote; I read between the lines a bit.

Tim Tyson captured this problem of mis-remembering on purpose toward the end of the episode: 

And yet there's no memory that white people opposed the Civil War. There's no memory of General Pickett, of Pickett's Charge. He came to Kinston, North Carolina, in 1864. And the first thing he did was he hanged 22 local white boys on the courthouse lawn because they were loyal to the United States government. And you go down to Kinston now and you go out to King's Barbecue, and you look down the row of cars at all those trucks and all those Confederate flag bumper stickers. And I just want to say, you don't know who you are. They hanged your great granddaddy and you got their flag on your bumper. That's kind of interesting.

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

Episode 36: That’s Not Us, So We’re Clean

This one is about the faux superiority of white northerners over white southerners over the topic of race.

This is a topic I've heard many white southerners complain about, especially when I wanted to talk about how we should take all the Confederate monuments down in the south and how it isn't about history or heritage unless there are memorials also to slaves or black people who were lynched, be they slaves before our time or people like Henry Marrow in 1970. 

There are people who wanted to redirect me to talk about how the North isn't so great either, which is both true and  was a diversion from a necessary confrontation that needs to happen.

Also covered in this episode was some overlooked nuance of the PC and anti-PC camps. I often deride (I'm guilty!) the anti-PC crowd for not acknowledging that it is in fact not good to use racial epithets, but I didn't see what they may have been getting at but never clearly delineating- that PC is sometimes partly a code for educated whites to beat up others, to use that as a class distinction. I mistook it for a primarily party divide before, but it was a class division. I don't agree with that use of PC, I always saw it as essentially the golden rule- don't call people names, be kind, treat people with respect.

Also in the episode, Tim Tyson talks about living in Wisconsin as a southern transplant. He heard the complaint of those people from Chicago coming over to get the welfare, which was code for those black people coming to take something of "ours." This kind of thing isn't acknowledged as racism so much as the memory of the segregation in the south, but is just as present and poisonous.

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

Prayers for Obama

I have a bit of a rant today, I guess. It's a politics and religion one, so it may rub some people the wrong way. I've been noticing this inconsistency since, oh... around January 20.

James's thoughts on what exactly is pro-life could have inspired this, but since I find myself in the minority among another minority here, I suppose it is always on my mind.

Let me just say first that I am all for praying for the President, the country, the world, etc. Thank God for our freedoms every day. These are all good things and I am all for it. There just seems to be some differences in how this is applied while Democrats vs Republicans are in office and I think that shouldn't be the case. The other problem is when some folks say we should pray for the President, you can read from context and tone of voice that what they mean is- pray that that heathen Democrat you people elected to kill babies and glorify homosexuality doesn't do too much damage before we get another righteous Republican in office. Ok, that's a bit extreme, but you know what I'm saying. We've all heard it. No party has a monopoly on Godliness; all are made up of individuals who will fail from time to time and both parties deal with corruption and the like. Not one of our Presidents was sent from God... any more than any other world leader, that is. And if that is scripturally false, someone please correct me.

These groups were formed on Facebook (some just after the election, it seems):


Millions of Christ Followers Praying for the United States

Stop the Silencing of God-
This country was founded on Christian values
Separation of church and state means the government doesn't restrict my rights as a Christian
If we don't get God back in our country we will collapse


I keep hearing very frequently now about how we need to pray for the President, they're taking God out of schools, things aren't as good as they used to be, pray for the direction of our nation, etc. People seem to be giving the impression that now that Obama's president, the burden of sin is pressing so hard, it will soon envelop and suffocate us all. There wasn't nearly the urgency and frequency of calls to pray for our nation and President. When GWB was President, I occasionally would hear a reminder to pray for our leader and the troops, but other than that, it seemed people thought he didn't need prayers or he was from God so people didn't feel they had to pray the nation back on track (???).

And people, you really need to stop and think what the implication of more church in the state ("going back to our religious roots") means in this country before you ask God for it continually. Do we really want to go back to a time when one denomination ruled and if you weren't a part of that, then you couldn't hold public office or other things and probably would get thrown in prison for preaching anything else?? Or would we like such laws as:

"Settlers who failed to observe the Sabbath lost provisions for a week (first offense), received a whipping (second offense), or were executed (third offense). "

(From Steven Waldman's book, Founding Faith)

You have to remember that putting church in the state will also put state in the church.

I think rather than pushing for public communal prayers in schools, events, etc, we should embrace our freedom of speech and assembly. Perhaps we should think of it another way. If God isn't mentioned much anymore, maybe it's our fault. Maybe we don't use our freedoms to the extent we could. Do we really need the state to "bring God back" ?

Another thing I don't get is that many a Republican will say how they are against government hand outs in monetary form and yet they are up in arms that government isn't handing out religion. They want all these obstacles in the way of government aid to individuals, they are against welfare, and government programs to help the poor which I would think Christians would be in favor of. To be fair, they do often say that the individual Christian should be giving to the church and community instead of the government (which doesn't distribute wisely, etc?). I can understand that to some extent. But, that being said, why criticize Democrats for "taking God out of schools" and public life? In the same vein, shouldn't the individual rather than government be the one to put God in various places (free speech)? If you think the government can't distribute the money to the poor properly, what is it going to do to the Bible and God???

Just seems kind of odd to be ok with the individual tending to the poor (rather than the government) but to turn around and call the other party Godless for applying the same principle to religion.

It also seems that if you value your freedom of religion (freedom to practice as you see fit) that you'd want the church and state separate... maybe that's just me.

And after 4 sessions, I think that's all I've got for now...

journey from peacenik to warmonger

I do love The Story on NPR,

these are a few I really liked:
To Catch a Thief
http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_287_ID_Theft_Anarchy.mp3/view
Scammed
http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_425_Scammed.mp3
Scamming the Scammers
http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_433_Commodifying_Race.mp3/view

BUT some do bother me. I guess that's why I like this program, though. There is such a variety of people and situations represented. I almost deleted the podcast, A Father’s Rite, but ended up listening to it later, despite the description. The last one to really bother me like this one below was about a girl who shoplifted habitually, made it a game, had rules and didn't really feel any remorse in hindsight.
http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_385_Oil_Game.mp3/view

Oh, and another one that got under my skin was about a family who squatted in a foreclosed home and felt as though they had some right to stay there rent free. They did clean it up and possibly kept crackheads away, but is that worth $100,000 or whatever the value is? Maybe I should stop paying my mortgage- hey, maybe they owe me for paying my mortgage for some 6 years? That said, though, I think there should be some help available for those who were wronged by mortgage and credit companies (I can’t remember if this family falls into this category). Maybe there could be a temporary rental situation to be worked out matching homeless families to all the foreclosed properties, but if that occurs, it would make sense for the family foreclosed on to get dibs. While I don’t think all the blame for people getting in over their heads with credit cards and mortgages and loans should be on the individuals all of the time, I was dumbfounded that they thought that because they found a vacant property, cleaned it up, and moved in it was theirs- and not just theirs- theirs free and clear. Perhaps I’m not as socialist as I thought!
http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_475_New_Life_In_A_Foreclosed_Home.mp3/view


This ended up being a rather long analysis or over-analysis of this particular “The Story,” but everything the guy said ruffled my feathers. Enjoy- or not!


The Story: A Father's Rite
http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_702_Israeli_Father.mp3

This story is described as one of a guy's turning point from optimistic leftist peacenik to not so sure. In listening to this, I really doubt how much of a peacenik he actually was. That’s going a bit far. Maybe he was on the Zionist left as opposed to the peace-loving left. I have recently learned there may be a difference between “leftists” like Yossi here and the likes of Amira Hass, Gideon Levy, Uri Avnery, and Jeff Halper that I have enjoyed reading for some time.

He talks happily about Israel basking in the 6 Day War victory against 3 Arab countries when he went to visit Israel with his parents when he was young. He said the attitude there was that anything is possible (as long as you can beat down your neighbors?). Peace is possible (only when you are in the position to dictate the terms?). He used to think peace without weapons was possible and now he's not so sure (because your enemy now has access to guns instead of rocks?).

This optimism seems driven by military victory rather than a real desire for peace. The Israeli view seems always to be colored by military superiority and getting their way; equality doesn't enter their equation, which is a big problem and obstacle to peace as far as I can see.

From the time of that first visit, he was committed to coming back to live in Israel. He thought it was “the most compelling place on earth for him as a Jew to live.” This seems to indicate a love for Israel (and it's Jewishness) above all else which would lead one to believe that he won't ask the hard questions- should it be a Jewish state, do Palestinians have a right to the land as well, etc- that leftists generally ask for the good of their country and their neighbors. If keeping Israel Jewish is your primary concern, peace will take a distant second or worse. After all, when you've got to worry about demographics, dismantling illegal settlements becomes a bit of a problem and equal rights for Palestinians may mean a more involved Palestinian Israeli presence at the polls which would obviously “threaten” Israel's Jewishness. The Occupation is good for demographics, but bad for peace and saving and improving lives of Israelis, Palestinians, Jews, Christians and Muslims. That's part of what makes Israel's response disproportionate. When they say some violence was necessary or for security measures what they really mean is that it's necessary in their view to help maintain a Jewish majority and Jewish state. This is a political goal for which they are willing to terrorize and collectively punish the Palestinian population in order to maintain. A former Mossad agent has said that the Gaza blockade is counterproductive, so why is it in place? We probably will never hear them say they target civilians (unless Lieberman and his ilk gain still more power), but there is ample evidence that they, at the very least, do not take care to minimize civilian casualties.

In contrasting the effect of war on Israelis during the 6 Day War and 1982, Yossi equated war and existential threat and said that that usually united Israelis, but in 1982 there were anti-war protests. Later in the story, he also said that if Israel doesn't go to war with Hamas, it will say that Israel doesn't have the nerve to survive. Peaceniks are able to separate war and existential threat; they aren't always the same. In Israel's case, the two haven't been the same since the beginning; not even the existence of Israel as a Jewish state has been under existential threat. I have a hard time believing that anyone who equates war and existential threat is or was anywhere near the left or peace camp.

Another part of his story that makes me doubt he was ever in the peace camp was his account of an experience on a "mission" during his alleged peacenik phase:

He woke a man and his two sons in the middle of the night to paint over anti-Israel slogans on the wall and looking for militants. (???) First, isn't this free speech? Is that an Israeli value? Guess not. And what did this have to do with their supposed mission to find militants?? He didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with making civilians do slave labor to cover up free speech. It's standard practice for the IDF to deface everything with the star of David and derogatory things about Arabs. Shall we wake Israeli families up at night and have them come clean that up- and while they're at it, rebuild Gaza?? Even if he's become more of a hawk, surely he would have remembered some feelings of guilt, thinking it was odd, etc about this, but nothing.

He did say that his reservists would discuss why were they here and what were they doing in general. Yossi even expressed empathy for Palestinians throwing rocks at soldiers with guns. Now that's generous of him. Now that Palestinians have guns- I wouldn't say they are on an equal playing field, but it's better than rocks- suddenly Yossi thinks they have to be crushed.

He also describes how he would fight with his kids about going out for fear of an attack, but let them go once his wife framed it this way: we should let them go out or move and concede Israel is a failed project. So it comes back to Zionism once again. They have the right to live there, but these Palestinians whose land they are on don't. Not only don't they have the right to land in Israel, they barely have the right to land in the Occupied Territories and don't have the right to freedom of movement (not just into Israel, but from city to city in the Territories), safety, security, schooling, food, water, electricity, trials, not to be imprisoned indefinitely without charge, not to be extra judicially assassinated, not to have tanks roll over your possessions at will, not to be fired at indiscriminately, not to have your house taken over by the IDF for a base, not to have your house bulldozed, the list goes on. So when I hear about Israelis being sad they cannot go to a discotech or café (teen hood stolen??) I get a little mad. It seems like such a silly thing to complain about when you look at the other side. I mean in relative quiet, three times as many Palestininas die as Israelis, and in conflict, 1000 more Palestinians die. I know that it would be hard to be an Israeli parent, but what about Palestinian parents?? No one ever asks this. The media is always putting us in the shoes of Israeli parents, comparing our feelings after 9/11 with Israelis who get attacked so much more. Of course they has the right to defend themselves. No one ever talks about a Palestinian's right to defend himself and his family. If we were in the Palestinians' position, what would we do? Perhaps more people should think about that.

He feels the difference between him and his kids was his kids grew up after Israel had made a serious offer and accepted a two state solution. He also made a big deal about the fact that Israel offered to share Jerusalem. Those gestures made him feel the guilt of occupation largely was removed. (???) That it's the Palestinians' fault now. He also said- and this is the part that got me- his kids had an advantage because they weren't guilty Israelis. Similarly, he proudly said he was conflicted in his service and his son wasn't. Proud of the rage he said his son felt, proud of the lack of empathy. He was glad his son felt like he had no choice and that he was doing the right thing because that's what you need to win. That's one thing if he feels Gaza is necessary, but why does this change the past? So he's ashamed or regrets feeling empathy for Palestinians who defended themselves with rocks against guns??? Regardless of morale, they really should have been able to "win" against rocks. That should tell them that violence isn't the solution. Oppression, in a way, makes resistance stronger. Israeli Jews should really look to their history to relearn that lesson. Did Jews in Nazi Germany roll over and die? No, they did what was necessary to survive.

He feels Israel tried to prevent the recent Gaza action; it's not a war of choice. This makes no sense. I have addressed this before, I think. If I haven't, there are tons of analyses out there now.

Another rather disturbing thing was that he feels conflicted with his reconciliation work and defending Israel. This shouldn't be, unless with his hawkish attitude comes the Zionist racism of the right as well. A person who desires peace, regardless of how optimistic they are about it, should be able to work on the individual level with Israelis and Palestinians, Muslims and Jews, to connect the people, appreciate that all the civilians suffer, promote dialogue, or whatever his reconciliation work is about. I don't see how he is conflicted unless he blames the Palestinian civilians for everything that's going on and is a big racist. Or, perhaps deep down, he knows and asks the questions the real Israeli left asks, the hard, self-critical questions. Maybe he knows Israel is guilty of some of the things it's accused of, feels guilty for that, and blames Palestinians for that.

Yossi in his analyst mode:
http://wamu.org/programs/dr/09/02/11.php#24677

Articles by the actual left:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1063597.html
http://newmatilda.com/2009/01/12/jailer-state
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery

http://www.icahd.org/icahdukdev/eng/articles.asp?menu=6&submenu=2&site=UK&article=380

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1037879.html

Israel bans Arab parties, embraces ethnic cleansing

Much is made of Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East, a country over there with our values, their freedom, their equal treatment of Arabs despite what Arabs do to them, etc, but is it past time to re-examine Israel's status both democratically and as an entity we are supporting? It seems to me they are less democratic than people in America want to believe. I believe we just can't come to terms with the US supporting such a regime, so believe Israel’s lines about security, necessity and collateral damage. They have a right to defend themselves. They are under attack like we were on 9/11, except continually and existentially. The truth is that this is code; they don't have our values- unless apartheid and racism are American values. What people are saying with the “Israel has a right to defend herself” line is that Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves, let alone have their own sovereign country. I know, some folks who think Israel’s actions are reasonable are going to say they support a Palestinian state, but think about the logic and facts on the ground- the two ideas are practically incompatible.

Israel was founded by terrorists using terrorism. This perfectly acceptable to us and it is something many Americans think we should defend to our financial and moral detriment. Somehow, the Palestinian struggle for statehood and rights in general is not the same; the context always manages to get separated from the actions in the US and Israeli coverage. These are savages attacking Israel for the sake of “pushing Israel into the sea”; hatred of Jews.

In lists of reasons to support Israel, democracy always is near the top.
In the recent elections in Israel, two of the major Arab parties were banned in Israel for not supporting the Gaza massacre of Dec08-Jan09. What if we banned the Democratic party because too many of them didn't support or had questions about the Iraq invasion?? Is that democratic? Is that free?

Israel disqualifies Arab parties
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7825032.stm

These are just two of the contradictions of Israel as a democracy.


Another code to decipher in this is the Israeli left. It’s not as leftist as you’d think or even perhaps as it used to be. A recent test or proof of this is the popularity and success of well-known racist Avigdor Lieberman.

For those of you who don't follow these things and want to know what the big deal is with this guy, here are three items that should raise the red flag, so to speak:

1. He has proposed a loyalty oath for Arab Israelis who wish to be or remain citizens, which means citizenship can be revoked for those not deemed to be in full support of Israel's policies, etc. You aren't allowed to criticize the government lest you put your citizenship in jeopardy?? Somebody please remind me why they are called the only democracy in the Middle East and why do we support them?? Does this remind anyone of anything?

• Also problematic is that they are swearing loyalty to a state that only really guarantees the safety, security and rights of Jews. The Declaration of the Establishment of Israel speaks to Jews. It does mention that it will ensure the rights of others, but all the talk of the natural right of Jews to the land and justice based on Israel’s prophets, etc are kind of a slap in the face to aforementioned non-Jewish inhabitants. Why would or should they swear allegiance to that? To agree to that is to deny one’s own God-given rights as though God gave rights and land to Jews and they will generously grant you some of it – if “security” (read: from the whim of an 18 year old soldier to actual terrorist threat) warrants it.

2. He is also the guy who said this:
"It would be better to drown these prisoners (~11,000 people!!) in the Dead Sea if possible, since that's the lowest point in the world." (Avigdor Lieberman, 7 July 2003)
This is the rule rather than the exception for this guy. He is openly for ethnic cleansing where other government officials in recent years have only made veiled threats and cloaked action in some well-meaning and acceptable term like "security measures."

And this:
"At the end of the Second World War, not only the criminals were executed at the Nuremberg Trials, but also those who collaborated with them. I hope that this will be the fate of the collaborators in this house." (May 2006- Lieberman talking about Arab Knesset members who negotiate with Hamas)

Other quotes here:
http://www.peacenow.org/pr.asp?rid=&cid=5933

3. He's a neo-fascist. And you thought Obama was a threat to peace, freedom, and everything good. The “Obama’s a socialist” was a rather trumped up pre-election charge (scare tactic). Lieberman’s for real. No exaggeration.

OK, he's a curious character. But, he's a fringe element and can't possibly be a serious mainstream competitor, right? A few years ago I thought this, but not now. And what’s worse is Israel's election front-runners fought to be more extreme than he! This speaks to the direction Israel is going and why we should reconsider our “special relationship”.

Netanyahu said Lieberman's loyalty policy didn't go far enough because there wasn't a way to enforce it.

Barak, the “leftist”, about Lieberman, said, "This is a lamb in hawk's clothing. And when did he ever shoot anybody by himself?" First, this, from the center left?? Second, transfer and revoking citizenship aren't good enough, you have to have killed Arabs to be a contender??

Due to the loyalty oath requirement for citizenship for Arabs and the fact that two Arab parties were banned from the election, apartheid like situation, neo-fascists like Avigdor Lieberman rapidly gaining popularity I think Israel's racism will become more entrenched, accepted and institutionalized a lot faster than a just peace will be negotiated.

Where I had once believed most Israelis desired peace, but the government was preventing it, I now seriously doubt it. The people are driving the trend toward apartheid and embrace racism. This is in no one's best interest.

Yes, these are government officials I just discussed, so you might say I can’t rule out the Israeli public that way. It just bothers me that they felt they had to be more extreme than the guy who wants to drown Arabs to appeal to their public. Given the reaction (or lack thereof), they are right. The Israeli public voted and either way, Lieberman will probably be asked to form an integral part of the coalition. I thought there was no way this guy would be a force to be reckoned with – ever. His popularity surprised me. In the Democracy Now podcast I reference (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/11/palestinian_lawmaker_mustafa_barghouti_on_the), they mentioned a student election (or several?) which he won. Maybe it doesn’t matter officially, but it tells us what direction things are going. Students have been more open to the left in the past, they have refused service in the Occupied Territories, but now they are embracing racism and ethnic cleansing en masse.

Politics and the pulpit

2019 edit: Interesting how even at this early stage, how I was putting things together. If abortion was truly murder, then rape and incest wouldn't be exceptions. I didn't quite come round to the full thought put forward in  Trust Women: A Progressive Christian Argument for Reproductive Justice - that the fact that they allow for those exceptions shows they aren't interested in the zygote so much as the woman's behavior...

Back to 2008...
It’s an election year again and I’m reminded of my unending personal debate. I’m fairly conservative religiously compared to the general population, but fairly liberal otherwise. I grew up listening to my dad, my parents’ friends, and even sermons in church say and imply that the Republican party offers the most Godly platform and positions and candidates and so we Christians should vote that way. The sermons generally wouldn’t say vote Republican explicitly, but you could tell what they were getting at. In my parents’ house, with their friends and to some degree among the Christians I grew up with, liberal was a dirty word- used almost like a slur.

For the Christians, including my parents, that I speak of I have the utmost respect and I agree totally with them on matters of Scripture. I do take issue with when Bible and Christianity mix with politics, though, and I hope if any of them happen to read this that they don’t take offense or think me disrespectful. I’m still trying to muck out my political position exactly. There isn’t really a party that captures my beliefs perfectly, no candidate that I can feel passionate about supporting.

I have a problem with saying candidate or party A is against abortion and gay marriage and the Bible is against them, therefore I must support A. I believe and can provide Scriptural support for their (and my) position that abortion and homosexuality are sin, but I think the fact that you must support candidates that have that position is opinion because it’s not that simple. Let me explain my thought process.

What was and is Jesus’/God’s goal or desire? That all would come to Him, that is, believe and live faithfully. 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 say this quite well. When we look at Jesus’ example, he didn’t want to change (inside or outside the set process of government) the government even though the Romans were quite harsh on Christians and it was far from Godly. His focus was on individual responsibility because that is how we’ll be judged- John 12:48 and Rom 2:6. While I can see some value to having Christian leaders of a country, there are problems, too. One being the issue of having religious influence in government such that laws would be specific to certain denominations or something like that-the slope is slippery and I fear that myself and those who believe like I do wouldn’t be in the majority, so we’d be at their mercy.

One way to accomplish this (Jesus’ desire), some might say, is electing Christian officials to enact Christian laws and ones that don’t violate God’s law. This seems a little backwards to me, though there is some truth to the expression “fake it til you make it”. Another, the opinion I hold for now, is to focus on spreading the gospel individually such that people choose not to have abortions, rather than go the more authoritarian route. I think everything has a moral issue to consider whether it’s the abortion stance, how well he will handle money (money God blessed me with and I am to be a good steward of), or whether he will attack countries at will, killing innocent people for no real reason. The point is, is that how to accomplish God’s desire is opinion. Sin is sin and there is Bible proof for that, but who you elect, whether you are pro separation of church and state or against, and other political issues are open for debate. There has been a movement in the past decade to politicize certain religious issues, which has removed the necessity to think for oneself. Not to say that those who disagree with me aren’t thinking for themselves-far from it-but the propaganda doesn’t help us talk intelligently and freely about these issues.

I also have an issue with the fact that the abortion ban poses some problems. It is murder when used as birth control and even in the case of rape and incest (on which most Republicans will take exceptions BTW), but what about ectopic pregnancy or other instances that I can’t think of where the question is to save the baby or mother or both are in danger? Will an abortion ban account for those, albeit, small number of cases? Should it, Biblically? Since I can’t answer that, I have a hard time with saying ban abortion absolutely and vote for those who will work to ban abortion. Never mind the fact that the so-called family values candidates are willing to murder a baby when the mother was raped. It’s a hard situation for sure. Would I make the right decision? I don’t know. But there is a right decision there and Republicans and Christians who support Republicans as the Godly choice have no problem with murder in those cases (or they must not because they say they can’t support a pro choice candidate because he leaves the door open on murder).

Also invoked in election years is how the country needs to get back to its Christian roots. I don’t think we want state established religion, do we? That’s how we started. If you didn’t attend twice on Sunday there were a set of consequences that involved the gallows at sea. And if you weren’t the “correct” denomination, there were harsh consequences including but not limited to prison. Founding Faith is an interesting book to read on this subject. The Founding Fathers and others of the time (who weren’t part of the state enforced denominations) tended to believe, with some exceptions, that separation of church and state would be good for both in different ways. Now, religious folks often look at separation of church and state as evil, worldly, and trying to take God out of schools, etc.

I hesitate to post this as some will probably think it heresy or worse, but this is a pet peeve of mine-politics from the pulpit- and I don’t always say what I want and don’t always have opportunity to say it, so I’ll write it here and move on. I hope you can do the same. I apologize if anyone reads it and it’s hard to follow or if I don’t explain myself clearly-I did my best with the time I have.

I guess I'll post it. Here goes...

Israel and children

10-year-old subjected to torture by Israeli soldiers
http://www.dci-pal.org/english/display.cfm?DocId=811&CategoryId=1

How many times have you heard this story in the last week?? If this were an Israeli killed or injured by a homemade rocket, we'd hear it several times a day for several days.

We have very cozy relations with this country, one that we call the only democracy in the Middle East. WHY? It is debatable whether or not they have "democratic values" and respect for human rights. Ok, it's not debatable. They flout international law, continue to build settlements in defiance of international law and our restatement of international law on the subject, and think it's just fine to punish/torture a whole population for the crimes of a few.

McCain, Obama and Hillary Clinton all made appearances at the AIPAC, trying obsequeously to win them over. Obama even abandoned his diplomacy theme (which is something that drew me in) for tough talk on Iran. Our Senators and House members preface their comments in the chamber with prolific praise and examples of how their constituents are friends of Israel. This is disconcerting to say the least, but I'll bet you won't hear them reprimanding their "friend" for this abuse, people that have died at checkpoints, use of human shields, settlement building, etc any time soon.

Why not? We hear about every injury and the periodic death by homemade Palestinian rocket. The Palestinian injuries and deaths mount in almost total silence, though they are almost triple the Israeli deaths. Are there just so many, that people would or have gotten tired of hearing about it? Is it because Israelis look and dress like "us" and Palestinians are brown? Are the Territories just too dangerous to report in, so they look to Israel, which has some action, but not too much? Conspiracy, carelessness, desensitization?

Congress can't speak out or they will lose their AIPAC funding or AIPAC will fund their opponent to get a more pro Israel candidate. Where are the journalists? Journalists seem to love covering hurricanes. They will stand there until they themselves blow away and seem to love every second of it.