Sightings 2/18/08
Growth, Violence, and the Coming
Religious Peace
-- Martin E. Marty
Decades ago an Atlantic
editor suggested an idea for an article which I somehow failed to produce.
I recall him saying that the magazine rarely covered religion, but
when it did, as it had in a recent feature article, it quickened an enormous
response. Today, Atlantic editors, along with so many
others, recognize the ever-growing power of religion in the world and treat it
in depth, as in the commendable March issue.
The cover banners the three major
stories. First is Walter Russell Mead's: In sum,
"America's evangelicals are growing more
moderate—and more powerful." His observations and thesis run
counter to favored opinion of not long ago, pioneered by Dean Kelley in 1972 in
Why Conservative Churches Are Growing, which contended that in order to
grow and grow powerful, churches had to be strict, hardline, demanding, and
counter-cultural. Mead notes that today, Adam Smith-ian
enterprising competition to 'get butts in the pews" has turned this around.
Yes, there are still some latter-day Fundamentalists, but the
winners are churches that offer most, are most at home in pop culture, and are
"flexible, user-friendly, and market-driven." They are moderating,
and thus growing more powerful.
Contrast this with the major and
tragic story, "God's Country" (Nigeria) by Eliza Griswold.
"Using militias and marketing strategies, Christianity and Islam
are competing for believers by promising Nigerians prosperity in this world as
well as salvation in the next." There are mass conversions,
defects, animosities, and massacres in this dire competition between the Muslims
of the North and the Christians of the South. Rene Girard's thesis
about "the mimetic principle" is in effect: The two sides imitate
each other and escalate in both marketing efforts and militial action.
The well-document killings by Muslims are truly abhorrent;
Christian belligerency, reactive or initiatory, is apocalyptically fierce.
Griswold tells, for example, how the Christian Association of
Nigeria "militia" attacked a Muslim town, killing 660 Muslims, burning twelve
mosques and three hundred homes.
Griswold's father had been primate
of the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A at the time of the massacre, and a
colleague of Archbishop Peter Akinola, who was then the president of the
Christian Association of Nigeria. Akinola is now the head of the
eighteen-million-member Anglican Church in Nigeria, and the spiritual and
ecclesiastical host to many dissident American Anglicans who have accepted him
as their bishop. To put it politely, Akinola, stiffing Griswold,
launched into an attack linking Islam and liberal Protestantism while defending
what Americans call "the prosperity gospel." "I've said before:
let no Muslim think they have the monopoly on violence." Both
sides in the Muslim-Christian conflict cite their Scriptures; one pastor
legitimated rape by Christians on the basis of Matthew 24:19: "But
woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those
days."
Those who think Atlantic is interested in religion only when
there is conflict in its name can find a match for Mead's piece in a third
article by Alan Wolfe, a regular commentator on religious trends in the
U.S. He writes on "the
coming religious peace" in an article called "And the Winner Is…" The price of
peace, says Professor Wolfe, is an American version of "secularism," which
pervades market- and success-minded churches. I think his
definition is a bit too neat and he is too sure about its victory, but he has a
strong point overall. Given the cost in lives—on both sides—of
Nigerian religious self-assurance, the American compromise looks attractive.
Archbishop Akinola would call that confession a sell-out,
typically "satanic," and would cite biblical texts to back himself up.
----------
Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at
the University of Chicago Divinity School.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Did the federal court get it wrong? Wasn't it legally wrong for the Bush Admin to have tried to prevent the states from being more strict against mercury than are the feds? Doesn't every Admin, Democratic too, make morally indefensible choices? Credit where credit is due: e.g., the Bush Admin's aid to African countries to help our sisters and brothers there deal with HIV/AIDS. But discredit where discredit is due, Rick: Protecting the interests of the economically powerful rather than protecting the public's health is indefensible.
I just re-read the NYT article. Rick, we seem to be reading different articles. MOJ readers, if you haven't read the article yet, do so now, here.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Is there a way to understand this story such that what the the Bush Administration has done seems genuinely defensible?
New York Times
February 16, 2008
Feds Nip State Efforts to Slash Mercury
WASHINGTON (AP) -- While arguing in court that states are free to
enact tougher mercury controls from power plants, the Bush
administration pressured dozens of states to accept a scheme that would
let some plants evade cleaning up their pollution, government documents
show.
A week ago, a federal appeals court struck down that
industry-friendly approach for mercury reduction. It allowed plants
with excessive smokestack emissions to buy pollution rights from other
plants that foul the air less.
Internal Environmental Protection Agency
documents and e-mails, obtained by the advocacy group Environmental
Defense, show attempts over the past two years to blunt state efforts
to make their plants drastically reduce mercury pollution instead of
trading for credits that would let them continue it.
An EPA official said the agency's job ''is not to pressure states.''
The federal plan capped overall mercury releases from power plants
nationwide. But it allowed plants to avoid reductions by purchasing
emission credits. Critics have said that creates ''hot spots'' of
mercury releases harmful to communities.
Many states did not want their power plants to be able to buy their way out of having to reduce mercury pollution.
A neurotoxin linked to learning disabilities, mercury is most
dangerous to fetuses, infants and small children, usually when pregnant
women or children eat mercury contaminated fish. The National Academy of Sciences
estimates that 60,000 newborns a year could be at risk of learning
disabilities because of mercury their mothers absorbed during pregnancy.
''There was an extraordinary degree of aggressiveness by EPA in
pressing states to abandon a more protective mercury program. EPA
devoted enormous effort to preventing states from doing more,'' said
Vickie Patton, a lawyer for Environmental Defense. The group obtained
the documents through a Freedom of Information Act filing.
The push to rein in uncooperative states continued until the eve of
the Feb. 8 appeals court decision that struck down the EPA's program.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the
agency did not adequately address the health impact of its plan.
The administration was poised to take even tougher measures against maverick states. A day before the ruling, the White House Office of Management and Budget
approved a draft regulation to impose a ''federal implementation plan''
for mercury reduction in states whose mercury control measures did not
meet EPA approval.
It would have required power plants to comply with the national
cap-and-trade provisions, even it that meant ignoring state
restrictions.
Both the emissions trading approach and any further requirement on
states have been put on hold after the court ruling, EPA spokesman
Jonathan Shradar.
[Read the rest, here.]
Thursday, February 14, 2008
[From The Borowitz Report for February 14, 2008:]
Conversation with a Superdelegate
Actual Transcript
-- Hello?
-- Doug, my man, is that you? Glad I
caught you, buddy! You’ve had your voicemail on the past few days. Hillary and I
have been worried sick.
-- I told you to stop calling me.
-- What?
That’s a fairy tale.
-- The last time we talked, right before I hung up on
you, I said, “Stop calling me here.”
-- Doug, when you said that, you were
in your bedroom, weren’t you?
-- Yes, I was in my bedroom. You called me at
two A.M. But I don’t --
-- and you’re not in your bedroom now, are you? I
hear a coffee maker. You’re in your kitchen now, aren’t you, Doug? So when you
said, “Stop calling me here,” I naturally assumed you meant, “Don’t call me in
my bedroom, but the other rooms in my house are fine.” It depends on the meaning
of “here” I hear.
-- I’m changing my phone number.
-- Hillary can do
that for you.
-- What?
-- Hillary can change your number. She’s been
making change for thirty-five years. Now, when it comes to calling Verizon
customer service and getting your number changed, who do you trust, someone
who’s been a change agent for thirty-five years or someone who’s been making
viral videos with the Black Eyed Peas?
-- I don’t --
-- Now, I’ve got
nothing against the Black Eyed Peas. I like the girl, what do they call her,
Fergie? She’s hot. I like that song that she does about her humps, and what
she’s gonna do with that junk, all that junk inside her trunk. Her humps, her
humps, her humps, her lovely lady bumps. But she’s not even in the video Barack
made, and when you make a video with the Black Eyed Peas I think you owe it to
the American people to let them know right up front that the hot girl with the
lovely lady bumps isn’t going to be in it, so that people won’t waste their time
freeze-framing it.
-- I…
-- Let’s say you, Hillary, and Barack are on a
life raft in the middle of shark-infested waters. And Hillary offers you a life
preserver and Barack offers you a line of blow. Who would you vote for?
-- I
have to take my kids to school.
-- Hillary will take them.
-- What?
-- She’ll be over there in ten minutes.
-- She doesn’t know where I
live.
-- Sure, she does. We drove by your house last night.
-- You drove
by my house?
-- We were hoping to chat with you. By the way, the drainpipe
in the back needs fixing. It kind of separates from the house when you try to
shimmy up it.
-- I’m getting a restraining order.
-- No, you’re not,
Doug. Hillary’s going to drive your kids to school, and then you and I are going
to sit down and have ourselves a nice little talk. Let’s say you were stranded
on a desert island. Who would you choose to help you survive: someone who had
thirty-five years of experience making real change on Day One, or someone who
spent his high school years surfing and sucking on a giant bong?
-- [click].
[Sit down, Rick. Are you ready for this?}
Doug Kmiec--of Pepperdine Law; formerly dean of the Catholic University School of Law--was a Romney supporter... but now he is supporting Obama. According to Kmiec,
"Barack Obama is a natural for the Catholic vote."
Why? Read Kmiec's posting yesterday in Slate, here.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Interesting story in this morning's New York Times, here.
Monday, February 11, 2008
If you would like to be a signatory to this statement on civility in poliitcs, please e-mail Professor Ed Gaffney at Valparaiso Univeresity School of Law: Edward.Gaffney@valpo.edu
If you would like to see a list of the current signatories, click here.
Statement
A Catholic Call to Observe Civility in
Political Debate
Civility – should
be a guiding principle in our public life. Civility
and its potential impact on the fabric of the Catholic Church should be of
concern to all faithful Catholics, both clergy and lay people.
It is apparent that the political debate in the United States is becoming divisively partisan. The
political debate preparing all American citizens for the 2008 Presidential
elections is increasingly filled with attacks on private conduct and
recriminations.
As Americans we acknowledge deep divisions over some policy
issues; and recognize that some, who are active in political life and who
differ with the Church’s teachings on certain issues, such as, abortion, stem
cell research, the death penalty, and the justification for war, air their
differences in public and criticize the Church for these teachings. Others, for political and even ecclesiastical
reasons, seek the public embarrassment of politicians whose public positions
differ with Church teachings through
the public refusal of the sacrament of
Holy Communion or public admonition by the Bishops.
To right this wrong, we should observe the following
principles.
- As Catholics we should not enlist the Church’s moral endorsement for our political preferences. We should do this out of respect for our fellow Catholics of equally good will but differing political convictions and our interest in protecting the clergy from being drawn into partisan politics to the detriment of the Church’s integrity and objectivity.
- As lay Catholics we should not exhort the Church to condemn our political opponents by publicly denying them Holy Communion based on public dissent from Church teachings. An individual’s fitness to receive communion is his or her personal responsibility. And it is a bishop’s responsibility to set for his diocese the guidelines for administering communion.
- Catholic politicians who advertise their Catholicism as part of their political appeal, but ignore the Church’s moral teachings in their political life confuse non-Catholics by giving the appearance of hypocrisy.
- Bishops, and all involved in the leadership of The Church, should not permit The Church to be used, or appear to be used, as a partisan, political tool.
- As Catholics we must learn to disagree respectfully and without judgment to avoid rudeness in expressing our opinions to those whom we suspect will disagree with us, or in reacting to others’ expressions of opinion.
- As Catholics we need to keep in mind the common humanity that we share with those with whom we disagree. We must avoid seeing them as “the enemy” in a life-or-death, winner-take-all political contest.
- As Catholics we should never lose faith in the power of reason – a unique gift from God to mankind – and we should always keep ourselves open to a reasoned argument. In this spirit we should defend our views and positions with conviction and patience, but without being obnoxious or bullying.
- As lay Catholics we should not pass judgment, and should avoid public statements that undermine the authority of the Church’s leaders. American Catholics know who their Church leaders are: their Bishops, Archbishops, and Cardinals.
Aggressive personal attacks may help reach a desired
political goal, but these actions will burden one’s personal conscience and
endanger the peace of Christ’s Church. By observing the principle of civility
in all our political actions we will protect our conscience and protect our
Church against harm. Civility for Catholics, as for all
Believers, is grounded in the teachings of the Lord, who demands we love one
another as we love ourselves, that we be kind, and that we forgive. From this
teaching flows the command to respect even a bitter opponent, to exercise
restraint in political combat, and to not use the Church for one’s political
purposes.
These guidelines may assist the Catholic community to
maintain the spirit of civility and to protect our beloved Church from being
stained by the appearance of partisan political involvement. With God’s help we can participate in our
elections, discuss the issues, and practice civility as we make our decision on
who should be the next President of the United States
Co-Organizers
Amb. Thomas P. Melady
Former U.S.
Ambassador
to the Holy See
President Emeritus
Sacred Heart University
Timothy J. May
Senior Partner
Executive Committee
Patton Boggs LLP, and
Trustee Emeritus,
The Catholic University of America
