Showing posts with label church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label church. Show all posts

Monday, June 29, 2015

More black churches targeted after Charleston

Did you guys hear that 5 black churches had fires since the SC massacre? 3 are confirmed arson. So assuming it's not a one-in-a-billion coincidence, we as a nation clearly haven't put this behind us. Black people didn't do anything provocative to upset anyone since Charleston (no riots, revenge, etc.). There's no "reason" to burn churches except that racists were tired of seeing black faces and hearing about racism stuff on the media all the time. Intimidation, suppression, and fear - that is the terrorist's playbook.
I read a black commentator write about healing after Charleston (sorry I can't find the link now). It's all well and good that whites and blacks hold hands to cry and sing together after such a tragedy. Then we return to the same society that spawned such a horrific event. America heals and achieves closure after tragedies on the white schedule. When the whites (majority) feel better and want to move on, that is what the nation does.

But what if blacks are still hurting and don't want to pretend that we're done with this? They know that they still have to live with all the same shit when the funerals are over. They know they are more likely to be murdered than whites. They know nothing has really changed after the news vans clear out. So why don't they have the right to say, "No - you don't get to have catharsis and feel normal again, because WE don't. You don't get to act like this tragedy has brought us closer together, when I am still upset with no relief in sight?" I am taking artistic license, but that is what I think he was getting at.

While the victims of SC have been exceedingly Christ-like though this tragedy, I actually wish they weren't. Don't be so nice and let the mainstream society sweep this under the rug. Keep feeling outrage and rub our face in the fact that we have a messed up country and it's unacceptable. Because as good as they are reacting and behaving now, it's not going to stop the next violent bigot (or even cop) from abusing them. Maybe a Malcolm X approach is needed (arm yourselves, or just leave America if they don't feel wanted here).

---

This is a good interview regarding the costs/symptoms of America's refusal to confront its racist heritage: http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/06/30/bryan-stevenson-racial-tensions

Friday, April 4, 2014

How TV mega "churches" are raking in tax-free profits and DC doesn't seem to care

This is not an old story (remember the Jim and Tammy Baker?), but the scale has grown (money and gov't incompetence). Televangelists now have nearly billion-dollar empires, that are conveniently mostly tax-free as a "religious nonprofit". They also enjoy stronger privacy status (financial and otherwise). Even the huge luxury compounds that these orgs own don't have to pay property tax because they are classified as parsonages (had to wiki this one: a church-owned abode for the clergy to live in).

Since 2009, the IRS can no longer audit churches without the approval of a top official at Treasury (and who can be bothered to sign off for that?). Supposedly an org must meet the IRS' 14-point checklist to be called a church, but few of these "TV ministries" do. Too bad no one is checking but folks like NPR apparently.

And what do these churches do with their huge rakes? Private jets, Bentleys, publishing subsidiaries, and generally Wall St. level compensation for the preachers.  They claim that they route congregation donations to worthy causes, but an investigation of TX-based Daystar Ministries revealed that they only gave 5% of revenue to charity (they claimed it was 30%). In comparison the secular Red Cross is >90% and Catholic Charities USA is 75%. But hey, Daystar sponsored a Christian NASCAR team to the tune of $600K. And remember that the congregation is getting tax breaks as well.

The Senate Finance Cmte. led by C Grassley (R) investigated 6 mega-churches recently. They found evidence of abuse, but didn't take action and more or less dropped the issue (church leaders were threatening to sue over religious persecution). They recommended "self regulation" and Grassley hopes that the problem will "cure itself". I guess there is a lot of gov't paranoia/precedent about interfering in religious matters. Maybe DC has no right to decide what a preacher gets paid, but if the gov't can legally make us fight in a war, spy on us, seize our property, and sentence us to death, I think they can revisit whether they need to at least tax and monitor religious orgs a little more (even tightening up how they define them would make a big impact).

Friday, September 20, 2013

I hope Pope Francis delivers more hope and change than Obama



Not sure if you've been following some of the recent comments from Pope Francis, but he is definitely a better "Maverick" than McCain and Palin. I know there are many different levels of belief on this email list (each no better than the rest), so I don't mean to get too deep in the religion weeds here. But as a lifelong confused/jaded Catholic, I mostly just want to comment on the new pope's effectiveness vis-a-vis the core beliefs of the church, and what his org needs to do to be more successful in the 21st Century.

http://news.yahoo.com/pope-says-church-cannot-obsessed-gays-contraception-abortion-163220900.html

Yes, Christianity has to be about more than quasi-arbitrary rules... all the things we are not supposed to do (and imposing that on others who are doing no harm). That is Taliban style. Faith isn't about prohibition and guilt - it's about being happy and doing good. And what is the point to fight for the welfare of unborn fetuses when you will turn your back on them after they are born into bad circumstances? Many Christians do act like Christ, but many more are astoundingly silent or complicit regarding greed (Francis spoke out), violence, and basically any other bigotry and injustice that doesn't directly affect them. But that is the strange marriage of Christianity and western free market & social conservatism - for them to pretend to be compatible, something's gotta give (and it's usually an abdication of core Christian values).

Francis is like the polar opposite of Benedict (the least inspiration pope since the Nazi appeasers IMO), and is more in tune with reality and modernity (and Jesus' teachings). I think some hardliners are seriously going to plot to kill him (it has likely happened before). Francis is saying/doing all the right things considering the constraints of his office, except really coming clean and contrite about the sex abuse scandals and the inferior role of women in the church. Maybe he's working up to that. But so far he has chosen to live like a common man (as opposed to Benedict's Prada slippers), literally washed the feet of his flock, and held a peace vigil and fasting for the people of Syria.

Other Christian denominations are leaps and bounds ahead of the Vatican on gender and sexuality tolerance, but on the record Francis said that he is not opposed to gay priests, and has no right to judge anyone who practices goodwill and searches for the Lord. Let's see if he actually implements this in the church. This contrasts Benedict's statement in 2005 that gays would not be welcomed in the priesthood (but bishops who cover up sex abuse are fine?), and that homosexuality is an evil disorder. Supposedly God loves all his children, so why would he create and curse some to lead "evil" lives just so self-righteous bigots can denounce them to feel better about themselves? Well, why would God curse innocent children to be born into starvation, war zones, and AIDS (and bless others with safety, riches, and opportunity)... but I guess we'll never have an answer for that.

He's also said that atheists can go to heaven just like believers. Doing good is the criterion, not some ceremonial label. Clearly stuff like this has ruffled some feathers among the stuffy establishment types. But the College of Cardinals picked this man to lead (and came to their decision rather quickly compared to Benedict). It's not like Francis was always a rebel, or he would have never risen in the church's ranks. As recently as 2010 Francis spoke out against gay adoption in his native Argentina, but apparently he has changed his views for the greater needs of the office (some might think divine inspiration, or just sensible rebranding?). Maybe the Cardinals realized that the church has pretty much been failing in every way, especially with the young, vulnerable, and poor of the world (the most blessed people according to Jesus). So a big change was needed, like Obama-sized change. I just hope at the end of his papacy, we have more to show for it than a health care policy mess and drone strikes.

So far Francis has been mostly talk, though that's kind of his job. He isn't the head of a state (well, not a very big one), so he can't really change our lives as much as civic leaders. He does have a lot of financial and human resources at his disposal that he could deploy. But in general he is there to inspire. And it seems he is doing a good job of that, especially in the "growth markets" that the church will depend on in the future. He's the first non-European born pope in centuries (though he is ethnically Italian), and he is a huge hit among the young of the developing world. During the Brazil protests, he mingled with the crowds and spoke about inequality (Brazil is the largest Catholic country in the world and also has one of the biggest wealth gaps). While the silver-haired septuagenarians in the west are the church's core following (and cash cow), everyone knows that their time is short (and their kids and grandkids are not going to church anymore). Maybe the pope's message doesn't resonate with them, and he may make them uncomfortable (not necessarily a bad thing for a leader to do at times). But where are they going to go... join the LDS? :) Maybe Francis could get some of them to rethink their antiquated and frankly un-Christian beliefs. Ironically or maybe not, most of this email has nothing to do with religion. It's about getting people to consider the benefits of not being intolerant, selfish pricks. If Francis can move the needle a bit there, then he should be canonized.  

Like the GOP, there is a struggle for the soul and future of the church. The hateful, egocentric, self-serving, and power-hungry factions of both the GOP and the Catholic Church may hold disproportionate sway now, but it can't last or their future is doomed. Just get back to basics: why does the church exist? Not to look after itself, conceal crimes/corruption, and act superior judging others. It should help people through education and compassion. I think Francis realizes that the bigger the leader, the more of a servant he or she must be. A servant, not a king. Any leader could benefit from that lesson, from POTUS to parent.

Thursday, August 7, 2008

Obama courting Evangelicals


Describing why some white blue-collar rural voters in states like Pennsylvania might hestitate to support Obama or have faith in the Federal Government, spoken at a SF fundraiser, first published on the Huffington Post blog, April 2008:

"It's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
- Barack Obama

-----------

Obama targeting Evangelical voters, from NPR, August 2008:

"When working as a community organizer with other churches, helping to build struggling neighborhoods, I let Jesus Christ into my life. I learned that my sins could be redeemed," Obama said.

"Their efforts to show Obama to be a religious man are not subtle," said Steve Waldman, the founder and editor-in-chief of Beliefnet, a Web site dedicated to spirituality. Waldman said Obama's emphasis on faith is even more aggressive than that of President Bush, but that it's not entirely aimed at religious voters.
"If Obama can show himself to be a person of faith, it also helps him combat the idea that he's an elitist, that he's not a mainstream American. Because if he shows that he prays and he's a churchgoing guy and he's a religious guy, that's a very mainstream characteristic," Waldman said.

The irony of a liberal Democrat showcasing his faith is not lost on Gary Bauer, a leading conservative religious activist. "Let me just point out all the things that, when Republicans do them, your colleagues in the media are all over them for exploiting religion, and yet when Obama does it, it's considered refreshing, and he's competitive," Bauer said.

-----------

I find this sort of pandering to a specific voter demographic, whether religious or otherwise, to be contrary to Obama's message of unity and universal inclusion. How about the Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Quakers, Mormons, Atheists, Santerians, etc.? All American votes count and all are equal, right? Where is the talk of securing 70% of the Sunni or Agnostic vote? I know previous Democrats have shied away from discussing religion and their personal faith (maybe to their political peril), and Obama is one of those "special" candidates who doesn't easily fit a political mold. But in comparison, religion plays a much smaller role in McCain's campaign. Yes it's true that if Obama manages to secure at least 25-30% of the white Evangelical vote, he will pretty much lock up the election. McCain only has 60% of their votes, versus George W. Bush's >70% in 2004. And even if this recent "faith offensive" is not totally aimed at religious voters, but instead meant to dispel misperceptions that Obama is elitist (and/or Muslim), it's pretty darn sad for Obama and America if he has to engage in such public displays of Christianity to convince people he's "one of them".

One of the few things I like about the Democratic Party is they don't shove religion down your throat, and don't consider it a prerequisite to being American. Maybe it's because they're too "politically correct" and fear offending people, as Obama said in his celebrated speech on religion and politics in June. But I also think it comes from a sense of humility, respect for personal privacy, and maybe the realization that religion won't solve or even help with many pressing matters of government, so why bother opening such a dogmatic, divisive Pandora's Box? Many progressives endorse a woman's right to choose (not pro-abortion, but legally permitting the procedure if a person decides to) and same sex unions (more Americans committing to relationships with each other and strengthening the family/home can only do our country good). Yes some "anti-religion" Dems go overboard with removing religious content in public spaces, but many Dems who are religious tend to keep it to themselves. Religion (especially Protestant Christianity, of which Evangelicals belong) is inherently a private relationship between a person and his/her creator, and doesn't have to be publicized and institutionalized. Sure your preacher acts as the intermediary between you and your maker, and you may enjoy worshipping in the context of a congregation. But for Obama to get up on his "pulpit" and often spout scripture like he was Reverend MLK Jr. concerns me, especially because he didn't before the Iowa Caucuses. I suppose the feedback he's getting from advisors and the public is that it's working. The Washington Post's E. J. Dionne said that Obama's speech on religion and politics in June in was the greatest by a Democrat since JFK. But maybe a problem with American politics is that we inject religion much more than anyone else in the developed world. We don't have to be "secularism Nazis" like the Turks, but I think it would help the political discourse and electoral process to tone it down a notch.

Obama grew up without religion in his life, and may have joined Trinity Church in Chicago for its social-political connections, according to The New Yorker. As a community organizer, he only targeted South Side churches because those were the easiest conduits by which to contact and mobilize local black voters. He wasn't "drawn" to church by faith alone. So maybe his god did touch him, and now he is a real believer and agent of his will. Kudos to him. That has NOTHING to do with the job of President of the USA, except for being an attractive addition to your resume when you court skeptical Christian voters. His explicit displays of religion are also peculiar, especially considering his statment above about rural whites. Not long ago in April, he made the argument (if I'm interpreting it correctly) that rural whites are frustrated from decades of decline and being ignored by Washington. They feel the government has failed them with countless unmet promises of better jobs returning, so they are bitter and blame global trade, immigrants, and others not like them for their predicament. They also "cling to guns or religion" as a way of coping with their situations. So in essence, Obama was saying that rural whites (many of them are Evangelicals) medicate themselves with their religion, yet now he is invoking those same sentiments to profess his kinship with them. He implicitly mocked rural whites for using Jesus to make them feel better about their problems (which doesn't really solve anything or address the root causes of their economic situations), but now he is saying that he draws his strength from Jesus, and is inspired by him to try to help those same people.

However, those voters may not be easily won over. On his website, Obama clearly states that he supports a woman's right to choose, access to birth control, and stem cell research, which may be at odds with many Evangelicals. For same sex unions, his positions are less clearly defined. He has said several times that marriage should be between a man and a woman, though he does support same-sex civil unions and equality under the law. He also denounced the "discriminatory" proposition in the CA ballot to amend the state constitution to prohibit gay marriage, of which McCain supports. But just by being a Democrat, I don't know if the "defense of marriage" Evangelicals will hear him out. Though clearly many Christians take more into account than just their religious views when they vote ("It's the economy, stupid!").

So I guess it's ok to do whatever it takes to win, even speaking from both sides of your mouth. That's not much "change" from the Washington status quo. In addition, Obama first vowed to take public campaign financing if McCain followed suit (after all, he is above all that lobbyist influence and special-interest money, right?). Deep in financial trouble at the time, McCain went public, but Obama changed his mind because he knew he could raise more money privately (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=5201819&page=1). The Obama and McCain camps supposedly agreed to a series of debates prior to the 3 official presidential debates, but depending on who you ask, either Obama or McCain reneged on that commitment too (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080802/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_debates). Obama also used to denounce immunity for telecoms who helped Bush spy on Americans without warrants, but ended up voting for the FISA bill in the end, much to the chargrin of many liberal supporters (http://news.yahoo.com/s/cnet/20080702/tc_cnet/830110784399828987). I know McCain has done his share of "flip-flopping" too, and has said some really stupid things about energy policy just to score PR points with cash-strapped voters (he thinks that expanded US drilling will actually make gas fall below $4/gallon, but by the time we tap those new fields, gas may be $6!).

But I expected "The One" to hold himself to higher standards.

Election 2008: Issues
Evangelicals Up For Grabs? Candidates Court Voters
by Mara Liasson

Listen Now [7 min 45 sec] add to playlist

"We believe that more Americans of faith, including evangelicals and modern mainline Protestants and modern conservative Catholics, will give Senator Obama a hard look."
Joshua DuBois, director of religious affairs for Obama campaign
Morning Edition, August 7, 2008 · On Aug. 16, Barack Obama and John McCain will appear together at Rick Warren's Saddleback Valley Community Church in Lake Forest, Calif. Joint appearances by the presumed nominees of the major parties are rare, and this one shows that both parties are working hard to court the votes of white evangelical Christians.

This year, there's been a role reversal in the competition for those voters. Now, it's the Democrat who is comfortable quoting Scripture and talking openly about his beliefs. "When working as a community organizer with other churches, helping to build struggling neighborhoods, I let Jesus Christ into my life. I learned that my sins could be redeemed," Obama said.

John McCain is more reluctant to talk about his own faith. And he has had rocky relations with religious conservatives. But McCain is a believer, and he has a powerful story about the time his own faith was tested — when he was being tortured as a prisoner of war. One Christmas morning, he was allowed out of his cell for a few moments. As he stood alone in the prison courtyard, one of the Vietnamese guards — who had shown some small kindness to McCain in the past — walked up to him. "Then with his sandal, the guard drew a cross in the dirt," McCain said. "We stood wordlessly there for a minute or two, venerating the cross, until the guard rubbed it out and walked away. To me, that was faith: a faith that unites and never divides, a faith that bridges unbridgeable gaps in humanity. It is the faith that we are all equal and endowed by our creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is the faith I would die to defend."

'Mainstream' Man Of Faith

That story is often about all the Arizona senator will say about his faith, much to the chagrin of his evangelical supporters. Obama, however, is making an all-out push to court religious voters. The Illinois senator has promised to expand President Bush's faith-based initiative. During the primaries, the senator distributed leaflets with headings like "Committed Christian" and "Called to Christ."

"Their efforts to show Obama to be a religious man are not subtle," said Steve Waldman, the founder and editor-in-chief of Beliefnet, a Web site dedicated to spirituality. Waldman said Obama's emphasis on faith is even more aggressive than that of President Bush, but that it's not entirely aimed at religious voters.

"If Obama can show himself to be a person of faith, it also helps him combat the idea that he's an elitist, that he's not a mainstream American. Because if he shows that he prays and he's a churchgoing guy and he's a religious guy, that's a very mainstream characteristic," Waldman said.

The irony of a liberal Democrat showcasing his faith is not lost on Gary Bauer, a leading conservative religious activist. "Let me just point out all the things that, when Republicans do them, your colleagues in the media are all over them for exploiting religion, and yet when Obama does it, it's considered refreshing, and he's competitive," Bauer said.

A Volatile Mix

Religion and politics can be a combustible mix. For McCain, it has sometimes been an exploding cigar. This year, McCain accepted the endorsement of fundamentalist pastors Rod Parsley and John Hagee. But McCain had to reject their endorsements after it was discovered that Parsley had called Islam evil, and after Hagee said the Holocaust was part of God's plan for the Jews. "I didn't attend their church for 20 years, and I'm not a member of their church. I received their endorsement, which did not mean that I endorsed their views. But the comments made most recently by Pastor Hagee are just too much," McCain said in a statement at the time.

In that statement, McCain was reminding voters about the 20 years Obama spent in a Chicago church led by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose many controversial remarks included accusations that the government created the AIDS epidemic to kill blacks. Obama had to cut his ties to Wright, saying the minister's comments "were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate."

Closing The Gap

The Wright episode planted seeds of doubt about Obama in the minds of many voters, and the rejection of Hagee and Parsley reopened the old wounds between McCain and evangelicals. But Richard Land, a Southern Baptist leader, says McCain still has a good chance with those voters. "What I hear a lot from Southern Baptist pastors and lay people ... is a variation of this sort of theme: 'John McCain was not my first choice, John McCain was not my second choice, but I'll take a third class fireman over a first class arsonist.' And when it comes to the issue of life, when it comes to the issue of marriage, they perceive Barack Obama as a first class arsonist," Land said.

Land thinks that, in the end, evangelicals will vote for McCain. But Bauer worries about something else: McCain needs a committed army of volunteers — the kind President Bush found in the evangelical community four years ago. Bauer said he sends out an e-mail to a quarter-million Christian activists every day.

"I've noticed in the feedback from my own daily reports, that if I go back three months ago, there was a large number of people saying, 'Gary, there's just no way I can do this.' And now people are saying, 'We've got to elect him,' and 'How do I volunteer?' So that gap is going to close, too. But whether it closes quickly enough over the next hundred days remains to be seen," Bauer said.

A 'Humble' Outreach

In 2004, President Bush got 78 percent of the evangelical vote. John Kerry got only 22 percent. Right now, Waldman said, polls show McCain has about 60 percent — about 10 points behind where Bush was at this point in 2004; Obama has about 25 percent, a little better than where Kerry ended up. "What the polls are showing in terms of evangelicals is that John McCain has lost a bunch of them compared to George Bush, but that Barack Obama has not yet gotten them. … He has an opportunity that Democrats haven't had in a long time, but he has not yet succeeded in bringing them over," Waldman said.

At least some of these voters are up for grabs. And in the next few weeks, Obama will be stepping up his efforts to get them. He'll launch a new outreach project aimed at younger evangelicals with community service projects, house parties and Christian rock concerts. "We're pretty humble in this outreach. We certainly don't plan on winning outright the evangelical vote … but we do believe that more Americans of faith, including evangelicals and modern mainline Protestants and modern conservative Catholics, will give Senator Obama a hard look and will end up supporting him," said Joshua DuBois, Obama's national director of religious affairs.

No one expects Obama to even get half the evangelical vote. But just breaking 30 percent would be a kind of miracle for a Democrat. The last Democrat to do so was Bill Clinton, a Southern Baptist who got 32 percent of the white evangelical vote. It may not be a coincidence that he was also the last Democrat elected president.

Related NPR Stories
July 8, 2008
Evangelical Leader Discusses Candidates
July 7, 2008
Evangelicals Take a Second Look at Obama
July 28, 2008
Evangelicals Eye Presidential Race