Christmas Thoughts - Hark the Herald Angels Sang

And the angel said to them, "Fear not: for, I bring you great tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the City of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.  And this shall be a sign unto you: you shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger."
And suddenly there was with the Angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth, peace and good will toward men".  Luke 2:10-14


Let's think about the events that happened that wonderful night.  God decided that he was going to go to earth.  But, not with an army of Angels.  Not with an earthly army to defend him.  God was born, in the same way that babies have been born for thousands, even millions of years.  He wasn't born into luxury.  He was born in a stable, with the animals of the stable around him.  This meant, horses, some goats, perhaps some sheep, chickens, (probably no pigs), and other animals and certainly insects.  It was undoubtedly smelly, dirty and by modern standards outright disgusting.  Hardly the way one would want to bring a newborn into the world.  The danger to both mother and baby is frightening when one thinks of it.  Yet, God did it.

Once born, the baby was wrapped in crude cloth strips, and laid in a manger, a trough normally used to hold animal food (straw).  Yes, its true that God announced the birth to shepherds who were out tending their flock.  But, this was not the same thing as announcing to the High Priests and other important church leaders.  Shepherds were considered the lowest of the low.  They were not even laborers, they had no fixed address, and followed their flocks from place to place.  It wasn't exactly the occupation that every mother desired for her daughter's husband.  Yet, these shepherds came, and worshiped the new born king.  God accepted them, by making them among the first to know about the birth.  

The magi, long a source of controversy, then arrived, although not at the same time as the shepherds.  They brought gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. These were traditional gifts relating to royalty.  Gold's value goes without question.  Frankincense and myrrh, both powerful, fragrant incenses, were held in especially high esteem due to the general lack of bathing at the time, resulting in personal stench (combined with the squalor of a stable) that must have been nearly unbearable.  These gifts were accepted as well.  


The moral of the story presented in Luke is not just that Christ was born.  It is that Christ was born into horrible conditions, without armies of angels or earthly armies to protect him.  He thrived and lived, only to give His life for mankind's sins.  If God can love us so much that He was willing to accept all of this, shouldn't we accept not only each other, but God's gift of Grace and Love to us?  God accepts everyone.  The rich. The poor.  Those without hope.  Those who society rejects.  God came not into the world to treat with kings and the movers and shakers of the time.  If that was His wish, he wouldn't have been born in a manger, to a abjectly poor family.  He came for all of mankind, and the only way to know, truly KNOW all of mankind, is to start at the bottom, the least of the His peaple. 

The gift of God is Grace in accepting ourselves and others as being God's children, even if imperfect ones, whom He loves dearly.  When we accept God's gift of His Son at Christmas, we remember the gift to the world, and accept God into our hearts.  This Christmas, let's remember that wonderful gift, and how fortunate we are that God came to Earth, was born, lived, and died for us and for our sins.  Then, let us join the angelic voices in proclaiming, "Gloria in Excelsis Deo!"

May the the Love, Joy and Peace of the Christmas Season be to all!

 Amen

Burning the Qu'ran Costs Money

It appears that the cult-like "church" in Florida is about to learn another consequences of following the heretic that lead it.  Authorities in Gainsville, Florida plan to bill Dove World Outreach Church approximately $180,000 for the costs of providing the massive security efforts around Mr. Jones' threats to burn multiple copies of the Qu'ran.

Mr. Jones, after incredible grandstanding on the national and international media, called off his plans to burn copies of the  Qu'ran shortly before September 11.  As I said in other posts, Mr. Jones, whose knowledge of the Christian faith is sketchy at best, and more closely resembles heresy, is an acute embarrassment to the the Christian faith through his message of hate and intolerance.  His plan to burn the Qu'ran, a book holy to over 1 billion adherents to Islam, showed how little Mr. Jones had read of the book he claims to rever, the Holy Bible. 

"If someone strikes  you on one cheek, turn to him the other also.  If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic." Luke 6:29.  Mr. Jones at one point was asked in a CNN interview about this principle.  He replied, "I think in deed that most of the time, we as Christians are indeed call to turn the other cheek.  I believe that most of the time, talk and diplomacy is the correct way.  But I always think that once in a while, I think you see that in the Bible, there are incidents where enough is enough and you stand up." (Emphasis added) Oh, really?  I wish I had been there to ask Mr. Jones to show me where Christ said that Christianity was a "part-time" faith, or that we could pick and choose those parts that we don't like.  I have looked, and I can't find any such passage.  Instead, Christ ordered us, in Luke 6: 27-28, to "But I tell you who hear me, Love your enemies, Do good to those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you."  This is the fundamental lesson of love and tolerance by which Christians are known.

As the circus down in Florida was winding to a close, the emphasis of Mr. Jones suddenly shifted to a interest in the location of the Islamic Center in New York.  Whether this had been an interest of his in the past, and was just suddenly announced to the world when he found  himself of the attention that he so cravenly desired, or whether this was a sudden revelation that he could make brownie points with the right wing who oppose the Islamic Center but who had condemned his plans is unknown.  But the timing is suspicious.

Now, that the security concerns are apparently done, and Mr. Jones no longer claims to be interested in burning the Qu'ran, let us hope that the God that Mr. Jones claims is on his side will help him pay the $180,000 bill for the security on the circus that he caused with his heresy and self-aggrandizement.

War Crimes - The Obama Administration's Embarrassing Lie

President Barak Obama campaigned on a promise of change.  When he was elected in November, 2008, many of us were justifiably elated, because the administration of George Bush, who will be known throughout history as one of our most stupid presidents, would be shortly leaving office and hopefully, replaced with more intelligent and persons more interested in civil liberties.  Unfortunately, the sad truth is that this has not happened.

Torture of prisoners is a violation of not only the Geneva Conventions but a violation of US law.  Yet, under the Bush Administration, the CIA and others routinely engaged in torture, including but not limited to waterboarding.  The famous "torture memos" that were authorized by senior lawyers of the Ashcroft and Gonzales Justice Department were later released in connection with various litigation.  These document revealed that as early as 2002, the Bush administration, seemingly ignoring both federal law and international agreements, began torturing prisoners to extract "high value" information.

Despite the fact that torture doesn't work.. a person tortured will tend to provide the torturer information that the torturer wants, not necessarily correct, easily verifiable information, torture is legally and morally wrong.  A president who stands for such morally correct opinions that abortion is murder and that homosexuality is wrong should know that torture of a prisoner is morally wrong as well.  Obviously, this was an administration which preferred that people do what they say, and not what they do.

Now, two years after the administration is over, we come to a point where we do not have anyone standing indicted for their involvement in torture.  Rather, the Obama administration has indicated that it is not interested in prosecuting Bush era officials for ordering acts of torture, nor for war crimes or other committed under the Bush administration.  Some of those possible  charges would include: Levying a war of aggression... (note that this was a charge on which multiple Nazi leaders were convicted and executed after World War II), torture of prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions, (the US Supreme Court made it clear that the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay could not be held indefinitely without charge), and last, but not least, the most serious war crime of all, (which really isn't a war crime, but a crime of stupidity), is that of starting a war with no plan to win it, and of repeatedly lying to the American people.

I don't believe for a minute that George W. Bush is truly evil.  I think he's too stupid to form the requisite evil intent.  However, he willingly let himself be led by truly evil, rapacious men such as George Chaney and Donald Rumsfeld into a war in which the US should have never found itself. In doing so, they bankrupted the US, ruined our economy, are directly responsible for over 4,000 US service personnel dying, and may have lost us the opportunity to truly deal effectively with Afghanistan.  For this and their other crimes listed above, I am  truly sorry that the Obama administration is unwilling to prosecute these evil men.

The "Poverty" of the Wealthy

"Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God'" Gospel of St. Matthew, 19:21-24

This passage has often been touted as indicating that Christ thought money to be evil in some way.  However, examining the words closely, Christ did not say that.  Christ used this parable to teach us about the evils of having money for the sake of having it.  The young man in this case was unwilling to part with his riches, even at the cost of his soul, hence his riches were more important to him than acceptance into the Kingdom of God. We see some of the same forces at work in the US today. 

President Obama has suggested that the Bush tax cuts, scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, be extended for all except individuals earning over $200,000 per year and couples earning over $250,000 per year.  The result would be that taxes for this bracket would increase by about 3%, to a maximum of 39%.  This is still lower than taxes were during the Reagan administration, when taxes for this bracket were 50%, or even during the Kennedy administration, when taxes for the top bracket was 91%.  At the time, various tax cuts were put into place, and they seemed to have positive effects on our economy.  Yet, the same trick-down economics is being proposed today, in spite of the US economy being vastly different than it was in 1962 or even 1980.

Globalization was just in its infancy during the Kennedy administration, and still was not in full force during the Reagan administration.  Therefore, most goods consumed in America were made in America by American companies.  That is no longer true today.  American companies can and do continue to outsource everything that can possibly be outsourced,  unless somehow prohibited by law.  (Banking laws still limit some outsourcing by banks, although I am sure this is under attack also).  

If a tax decrease for the wealthiest Americans is continued, then it should be followed with legislation designed to counteract the effects of globalization, and to encourage investment and hiring in the US, not in China, India, or anywhere else in the world.  Such legislation should be in the form of a tax which would state that for every company which outsources a job to any other country, that company owes in the form of a tax the difference in the wage between what they are paying in that other country and what they would pay a comparable American worker in the US.  This removes the economic incentive to offshore American jobs, simply in to save salaries and working conditions. 

Unfortunately, we can look for the Republicans in Congress to block any such a progressive scheme, because the Republican party is, unfortunately, tightly tied to business concerns which would oppose any regulation of their right to make unlimited profits.  In that way, they are like the  young rich man, with the appropriate potential for problems of the soul.

September 11, 2011

"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
      for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
 Blessed are those who mourn,
      for they will be comforted.
 Blessed are the meek,
      for they will inherit the earth.
 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
      for they will be filled.
 Blessed are the merciful,
      for they will be shown mercy.
 Blessed are the pure in heart,
      for they will see God.
 Blessed are the peacemakers,
      for they will be called sons of God.
 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
      for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."  Gospel of St. Matthew, 5:2-10

     September 11, 2001 is another day which will live in infamy in the memory of Americans.  It was on that fateful morning that airplanes, hijacked by Islamic extremists caused unspeakable carnage at the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.  In doing so they violated the tenants of their faith, they dishonored their families through their acts of hate, and they cast an aspersion on the millions of peace loving people all over the world who adhere to Islam.

     Recently, there have been a number of controversies about the Islamic Center that is planned in the general vicinity of the former World Trade Center.  Let's be perfectly clear here: Islam did not attack America.  Terrorists, blinded by the words of a madman, did.  Islam, like the other great religions of mankind, is a faith of peace.  Yes, its true that in the past, there have been those who have killed in the name of Allah.  However, the history of Christianity is not without incredible acts of savagery done in the name of God, (the Crusades come to mind), and the acts of Jewish armies in the Old Testament cannot be easily reconciled with what we consider civilized behaviour today. The point is, no modern faith is without skeletons in its closet, and yet all still stand for for fundamental principles: Peace, Love of God, and that we, as the Children of God, should honor His commandments and not kill.

     America is a nation founded on freedom.  Our rule of law, our record of tolerance is held as a shining standard that most of the world looks to with envy.  Yet, there have recently been some who would tarnish that standard.  The leader of the cult-like Dove World Outreach Church, in Florida, with his message of hate and intolerance toward Islam, is an embarrassment to not only the Christian faith, but to America.  Yet, he has a constitutional right to be both.  Those who have protested against the Islamic Center proposed several blocks away from the World Trade Center site are another example of bigotry, intolerance and a tarnish on America's tradition of tolerance.  Again, they have a constitutional right to their opinion, but so do also the adherents of Islam have a right to practice their faith.

      On September 11, 2010, we should not be dealing with these devisive issues.  We should be remembering those who died that day, the thousands of men and women from not only the United States, but from many other nations also, whose only crime was to be in the wrong place.  We should remember that until those who wish to commit these acts of unspeakable evil, in the name of their faith (or for any other reason), are hunted down and brought to justice, that the battle against this evil is not over.

      Let us all, of whatever nationality, of whatever faith, stand together on September 11 and remember in silent prayer those who died that fateful day.  let us also pray for the souls of those who commited this act of violence and hate, remembering that God is their ultimate judge.  Finally, let us pray for peace, a peace in which all persons, of whatever faith, can worship their God in whatever fashion they feel right, without worry of reprisal, ridicule or harm.

Arizona Madness - The Totalitarians Continue

Unless a US District Judge issues an injunction prohibiting it from going into effect, Arizona law permitting law enforcement in Arizona to make inquiry about a person's citizenship status when they are otherwise stopped by law enforcement goes into effect on July 29, 2010. This bill is facially unconstitutional in that it oversteps and infringes on Federal supremacy in regulation of immigration. A person who regularly comments on this blog and I were discussing this law recently, and he brought to my attention a US Supreme Court case which he believed to be controlling. The case is De Canas v. Bica 424 US 351 (1976). However, the case, while discussing immigration, is not on point. There are several ways to distinguish De Canas from the case before us here.

In De Canas, supra, the Court held that a California law which made it a crime to hire an undocumented worker was not a regulation of immigration, and was not therefore preempted by the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA). However, the Arizona law, in its most insidious parts, has nothing to do with the hiring of undocumented workers. It purports to empower Arizona law enforcement to enforce immigration laws. The enforcement of such laws are specifically enforced by the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security (ICE). Although Section 287(g) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 does allow for ICE to partner with state and local authorities, it also requires that ICE supervise and train those officers who are going to be enforcing immigration law, and it requires a Memorandum of Understanding with the local or state law enforcement department which must state with specificity, among other things, the scope of authority and the limitations on what procedures or functions that the properly trained individuals in that department are able to perform. Arizona's law seeks to grant blanket authority for immigration investigations and determinations to all law enforcement officers in the State of Arizona, without any such training requirement or certification. This is clearly a case of where federal supremacy over a state's laws would apply, and federal law dictates that ICE agents are the primary enforcers of US immigration law. While it is true that ICE can and does delegate some of its responsibility to local law enforcement on occasion, under its partnership with local law enforcement, this delegation is also subject to federal oversight.

The proponents of the Arizona legislation say that because the US Government has failed to curb illegal immigration, they must take this action. However, the proponents of this legislation are all Republicans. It is also republicans who have thwarted any real movement on immigration reform by their mean-spirited and laughable attempts to repatriate all those who are in the United States illegally. At an estimated 11 to 12 million people, where do they think they are going to get all the buses necessary?

The proponents of the legislation also forget that US Law already makes it illegal for an employer to hire someone without the proper documentation of the right to work in the US, but that the business community has for years, (largely with the help of Republicans) fought any attempt to seriously stop the practice. Hugely punitive measures that would cause real pain to companies who routinely hire undocumented workers are unpopular with the business community, because these workers can be underpaid and have little recourse to demand better working conditions and higher pay. This results in higher profits which is pleasing to the stockholders and to their board of directors.

Hopefully, the Hon. Susan Bolton, the US District Court judge hearing this case, will issue a preliminary injunction blocking the law from going into effect, followed by a permanent injunction shoving this law into the dust pan of history. The Republicans who voted for this law should also be held to account by the registered Hispanic voters and other fair-minded citizens of Arizona who should recognize the heavy-handed police state tactics as being counter to the traditions of American fair play and democracy.

Tolerance, Palin Style

Former Alaska Governor and Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin has continued to delight her followers by recent remarks over the proposed building of an Islamic community center near Ground Zero in New York City. Her remarks, sent as a tweet to her followers were "Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts, Pls reject it in interest of healing." The developers of the site say that the site will contain only a prayer room were an Imam may conduct services from time to time. A mosque is generally defined as a place where Muslims worship.

People are free to conduct their religion in any place that they so choose. Our general tolerance of a variety of faiths is part of what makes this country as strong as it is today. While the Supreme Court of the United States has made it perfectly clear that any state (or government) sponsorship of religion is impermissible under the Constitution. Lemon v. Kurtzman 403 US 602 (1971) The Court in Lemon established a three prong test, namely: 1) The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose; 2) The government's action must neither advance nor inhibit the free exercise of religion and 3) The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. By even considering religious use as a reason not to grant the use of this property to an Islamic group, New York City imperils itself in violation of the 1st Amendment.

In the case in question, an application is before the New York City Landmark Preservation Commission on permission to demolish a 154 year old building or to place the building on the historical register. Even if the commission gives landmark status to the bu ilding, it will probably not halt construction of the Islamic center.

People opposed to this building have made a variety of statements about this, including an unnamed woman who commented on CNN.com "It would be a terrible mistake to destroy a 154-year-old building in order to build a monument to terrorism". It is truly sad that such bigotry still exists in the United States, but it unfortunately isn't shocking.

Ms. Palin, through her comments on this and other subjects, has fanned the fires of this. This, of course, is the same Ms. Palin who during her campaign for vice-president of the US, was unable to point out Afghanistan on a map, and in general was completely unfamiliar with world geography, the basics of US Civics, (including the role of the Vice President under the US Constitution).

Let us hope that as time goes on, that calmer heads will prevail in New York. It was not Islam that attacked the US on September 11, 2001. Islam is a faith of peace, like the other two great Abrahamic religions of mankind. (Judaism and Christianity) The attackers on September 11, 2001 were fanatics, deluded by a madman, who in his delusions and evil, decided the US was responsible for his plight. Of the thousands who lost their lives on September 11, 2001, at least 40 were Muslims, not counting the 19 hijackers. Islan doesn't promise those who slaughter innocents a place in paradise, not by any stretch of their holy writings.

As we contemplate this matter, let us remember that we should respect all faiths, even those with which we disagree. We should allow them to practice their faith without interference, and we should, both as Americans and Christians, provide an example of tolerance and charity. I don't see that example of tolerance or charity in Ms. Palin or her supporters.