The
Congregational
Church of
Manhasset (UCC)
We are a proud
part of
the
United
Church
of Christ.
The Congregational
Church of Manhasset
1845 Northern Blvd.
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: 516-627-4911
FAX: 516-627-4963
Copyright © 2002-5
The Congregational
Church of Manhasset
Questions
or |
Page last updated
6-15-05
CONGOblog A weblog of The Congregational Church of Manhasset (UCC) Archives--May 2005
5.26.05 Unlikely Alliances Can We All At Least Agree that Poverty is Bad?
Joe M. passed along today's editorial by David Brooks in the NY Times. Entitled, "A Natural Alliance," it speaks about the unlikely pairing of evangelicals and political liberals when it comes to eliminating extreme poverty. It's an exciting occurrence, one that gives me hope that American Christianity isn't entirely in thrall to the idols of free market capitalism. It also includes a nice mention of the work done by Bono, lead singer of the greatest rock band in the world, U2, to court the evangelicals and people of all religious and political persuasions in order to combat extreme global poverty and the AIDS epidemic. Once again, I'll mention the One Campaign and urge you to go to their site (www.one.org) and sign their petition.
Speaking of unlikely alliances, the Washington Post had an article (editorial?) about the One Campaign and its support by among others: Bono, Brad Pitt, Sean "P Diddy" Combs, Pat Robertson--huh?...yes that's right, even patriarchs of the Religious Right are joining this movement.
*******
The Not-So-Moral Religion of Star Wars
I haven't seen the latest Star Wars film yet, but don't worry "see it I will," as Yoda would say. Much has been made by fans of the series about "the Force" and the philosophy of the Jedi, since the original movie came out in the late 1970's. Some folks have even listed "Jedi" as their religion on census forms, leaving governments in Britain and Australia puzzled over how to court the sizable number of Jedi among their constituencies. Well, it turns out this sci-fi religion may not be so good for you after all.
Award-winning science fiction writer, Orson Scott Card, has written an article on Beliefnet that criticizes the Jedi as being morally relativistic, elitist and dictatorial. It may just be entertainment, but due to the many people who not only lay down cash to see the movie but also list their religion as "Jedi" on census forms, Card's critique may be worth some real consideration. This article may also prompt us to think about the types of religious and philosophical values that are implicit in all types of cultural phenomena.
*******
Krusty, you're now a man!
Since we just had Confirmation Sunday at our church, perhaps (or perhaps not) its appropriate to speak about other rites of passage. Nextbook, a site about Jewish culture and ideas, has an article about the top 10 bar mitzvah moments in television history. I'm personally a fan of #10 where everybody's favorite hamburger chain-owning, binge-drinking, TV clown, Krusty, from The Simpsons, becomes a man. Also, who knew that Arnold from Different Strokes almost became a Jew?
Peace,
Chase
5.24.05 Gilead by Marilynne Robinson On June 5, we'll have our next book club meeting. This time around we are reading Gilead by Marianne Robinson. It recently won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction and has become a bestseller. After reading this book, it instantly became one of my favorites of all time. Robinson is a wonderful writer with an amazing eye for seeing significance in the smallest and most mundane events.
Robinson said in one recent interview:
I would say as a statement of faith that reality is dazzling. The capacity for human perception is dazzling. And that these things exist in profound and beautiful relationship to one another. And I think that the centrality of that conviction is so intense for me that anything I do will reflect it. It's what I love. (KCRW's Bookworm, March 17, 2005)
Gilead is truly a product of Robinson's observation of that dazzling reality and the human perception of it.
People laugh when I tell them what the book is about, because the protagonist and I share the same profession. The form of the novel comes as letter from John Ames, a Congregational minister in the small town of Gilead, Iowa, to his seven year-old son. It is more than just ordinary correspondence, however, it is in some ways a last testament of Ames' life, prompted by a doctor's diagnosis of a fatal heart condition . He is in his seventies and married his current wife late in life (he was married once before at a young age, but his first wife and daughter died during complications from childbirth). Ames' letter, more like a journal, wanders from his deep love for his wife and child to reflections on his life as a minister to thoughts about his pacifist father and violent abolitionist grandfather, both Congregational ministers.
The drama contemporary to Ames' writing of his journal comes in the form of his namesake and godson, John Ames' Boughton, his best friend and fellow minister's son. Boughton, in many ways, is the prodigal son returned, yet Ames remains suspicious of his motives and unable to forgive him for past mistakes. The interplay between Ames' unabashed love for his son and hardened heart towards his godson is profound.
The real magic of this book, in my opinion, comes in Robinson's creation of Ames as a man both aware of his own weaknesses and gracious towards those of others. Yet, when this thoughtful man feels threatened and must reach deep inside himself to muster the strength to heal past hurts. His reflections upon life and God while working through his own struggles are deeply moving. Ames has rarely traveled outside of the small town of Gilead, but he is far from a bumpkin. He is well-educated and widely read, and his secluded and solitary life has produced significant spiritual insights.
Even though the book is written by a character that may soon die, it is far from morbid. The unfolding plot and the reflections by its main character make Gilead an optimistic work that inspires hope. I turned the final page feeling renewed in my appreciation for life and the way God works in the midst of it.
Robinson is the author of several books of non-fiction about philosophy and theology, so her story is rich with their perspectives as mediated through John Ames. She is also a deacon in a United Church of Christ Church in Iowa, where she teaches at the Writer's Workshop at the University of Iowa. It has been really interesting hearing her in various interviews explaining the beliefs of her character and herself, because she is a part of our church's tradition, as is her character John Ames. (The book takes place in 1956, a year before the Congregational Christian Churches merged with the Evangelical Reformed Church to form the United Church of Christ.)
Robinson apparently made the publicity rounds, because she showed up in all sorts of places to be interviewed about the book. There are a number of really good interviews with her on various NPR shows. Here are some of them:
- WKCRW's show Bookworm had two half-hour interviews with Robinson aired on March 17 and 24. Although the show's host Michael Silverblatt seems to have gone to the same smug and self-congratulatory school of interviewing that James Lipton of Inside the Actor's Studio went to, he does ellicit some really great stuff from Robinson. On the March 17 show, she has some great things to say about her understanding of God, and on the March 24 she offers an interesting thoughts on the decline of churches like those of our denomination during the 20th century.
- WAMU's The Diane Rehm Show had an interview with Robinson on March 11. Rehm does a nice job with the interview and the result is a nice helpful introduction to the book and to Robinson. Also, on May 18, Rehm had a program on Williamson's only other fiction work, Housekeeping, where literary critics and listerners discuss the book.
- Fresh Air with Terry Gross had an interview with her on February 8. Unfortunately, as is often the case when Gross has an interview that touches on issues of religion, Gross seemed at a loss on how to interview Robinson. This just baffles me. As a regular listener of Fresh Air, I love this show and I think Gross is a great interviewer, but whenever Gross interviews a person of faith, Gross seems out of her element. Only when she's talking to a religious person who critiques traditional religion does Gross sound comfortable. This is not one a great interview with Robinson.
- Book critic Alan Cheuse offers a nice review of Gilead NPR's All Things Considered.
- WNYC's The Leonard Lopate Show had Robinson on back in March as well. I find that I can take or leave Lopate, but I'm aware that so many people love his show. I feel like he's condescending in his interviews. As was the case with his interview with one of my other favorite authors, Anne Lamott, Lopate blows this interview with Robinson.
- WNYC also provides an excerpt of Gilead that you can take a look at in their "reading room."
Peace,
Chase
5.20.05 Chase's Review of the U2 Concert It was an incredible show. In a nutshell, that's my verdict upon seeing U2 Tuesday night over at the Continental Airlines Arena in NJ. Of course, those of you who know my musical tastes (along with those of the other minister of our church) are surely not surprised at my assessment of the concert. In fact, my fellow attendee of the concert was our minister, the Rev. Jimmy Only. Two UCC ministers, one concert, watch out.
Yes, I love this band. I love their music. I love their sound. I love that somehow they manage to be one of the biggest rock bands in the world along with being really the only celebrities who are using their cache to address extreme poverty throughout the world, especially in Africa.
It's such a strange juxtaposition to be dancing at a rock show, dazzled by the lights and bombarded with the music and at the same time confronted with the suffering of millions of people around the world. I found myself in the middle of the concert thanking God that somebody is saying the things that U2 is saying. And they're saying it while having a blast and moving 20,000 people to jump out of their seats and dance!
The mouthpiece of this band is its lead singer, Bono. Yeah, he's a bit preachy, but that's part of the appeal. A U2 fan goes to a U2 concert hoping for a bit of a rant from Bono about the inequalities of the world. He's part rock star and part preacher enjoining the flock to return to its fold. The drama of a U2 show is in some ways like a revival meeting--you are confronted with your own complicity in the world's problems, shown the way to repent of your ways and energized to start doing something about the suffering of the world out there.
In addition to just singing along with some of my favorite songs, there were several times in the concert that were especially moving for me. They are snapshots of the trip into U2's world that one takes when he or she attends a U2 concert.
- There's no doubt U2 loves America. Bono has described America as "more than a country, its an idea." It's a noble experiment in humanity that attempts to prove than anyone can come there and find equality, freedom and opportunity. Their catalog of songs are filled with odes to Elvis, Martin Luther King, Jr., the blinding glory of New York City and America's great landscapes of dreams. It is out of this love these Irishmen confront us Americans--over the years, they have reminded us that we are the only country to have used atomic bombs, we backed dictators in Central America, and we have ignored the suffering of millions. So, it was fascinating to see U2 change one of their songs of critique during Tuesday night's show--"Bullet, the Blue Sky," a song about among other things American backed troops killing civilians in El Salvador. The song, as recorded, tells the tale of refugees fleeing "into the arms of America," simultaneously their refuge and one of the causes of their flight. At the concert, Bono skipped the original ending and began singing, "When Johnny Comes Marching Home" and offered a brief prayer for a safe return of the men and women of the U.S. military. Then he dedicated another song, "Running to Stand Still," originally about a friend of the band that overdosed on heroin, to the "brave men and women of the U.S. armed forces." The song, however, is no paean to conquest but an expression of human pain and suffering. For me, it was as if Bono were reminding us of the toll that our soldiers bear on our behalf--the psychic and physical damage they bear as they carry out our nation's will defies calculation. Then, as the song ended, pictures flashed on the video screens of women, perhaps from Africa, the Middle East and Asia reading the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. As the resolutions rolled on, declaring that each human being should be treated equally under the law, has a right to life, and must be protected from torture, the band's commentary on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the treatment of U.S. prisoners in the war on terror was obvious. I was amazed that somehow the band did it--they were able to express their love and support for our men and women in the military while simultaneously call to account the sins committed in their--and our--name.
- After finishing the song of their new album "Love and Peace Or Else," which contains the line "Lay down/Lay down your guns/All your daughters of Zion/All your Abraham sons," Bono offered yet another wish for all the "people of the book"--Muslims, Christians and Jews to find a way to live together.
- Bono introduced one of the band's classic tunes, "Where the Streets Have No Name," by telling his American audience that he first encountered America when we put a man on the moon. When Kennedy outlined his plan to do so, he and other folks in Ireland thought it was crazy. Yet, he noted, when Americans put their heads and hearts together they can accomplish crazy and wonderful things. So, he remarked, "We're asking your leaders and the leaders of other countries--Bush, Blair, Chirac--to bring humanity back to earth and address the needs here on our planet. And we're asking you as Americans to eliminate extreme poverty in our lifetime." Then he recited MLK's famous "I have a dream" speech and changed the famous lines about the landmarks in America ("Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain Georgia...to Lookout Mountain in Tennessee...to every hill and mole hill in Mississippi...") and interspersed the sites in the U.S. mentioned by MLK with sites in Africa (Mt. Kilimanjaro, etc.). Then as the flags of African nations rolled by on the video screens, they sang, "Where the Streets Have No Name." The song originally has to do with the city of Belfast, Northern Ireland where your address and street name at the time of the writing told literally who you were, how much money you made, you religion, your politics--which side of the violent conflict you were on. It expressed Bono's dream for a place where the streets had no names and people could live unbound by their address and their allegiances to money, violent religion and ideology. Over the years, depending on the context, the song has come to refer to many places. When I saw the band after 9-11, the song seemed to point to heaven, as the names of people who had died on that day scrolled by on the video screens. On Tuesday night, I found myself thinking of Africa where so many roads do not have names and of the possibility of a world united rather than splintered into national, economic, religious and cultural districts--a world where those of us in the rich part of the world feel connected to and responsible for those in the part of the world where each day is a struggle to survive.
- It was after this last song that the band played "One," a song with so many different interpretations. Bono introduced the song by also introducing the "One Campaign" which seeks to get Americans, one by one, to petition the government to give one percent--that's right only 1%--of its budget to combat global poverty and the global spread of AIDS/HIV. Here's the "One Declaration":
"WE BELIEVE that in the best American tradition of helping others help themselves, now is the time to join with other countries in a historic pact for compassion and justice to help the poorest people of the world overcome AIDS and extreme poverty. We recognize that a pact including such measures as fair trade, debt relief, fighting corruption and directing an additional one percent of the U.S. budget toward meeting basic needs education, health, clean water, food, and care for orphans would transform the futures and hopes of an entire generation in the poorest countries. We commit ourselves - one person, one voice, one vote at a time - to make a better, safer world for all."
As I mentioned in the 5.12.05 post, I had already signed the petition, but there were plenty of volunteers there to get other signatures. I joined the legions of people with the little rubber band-like bracelets for various causes and put a "One Campaign" bracelet on my wrist. It's white.
It was an incredible show. My ears have finally stopped ringing, but my heart continues to resound.
Peace,
Chase
5.17.05 The Taming of Religion In this past Sunday's NY Times Book Review, Mark Lilla, a professor at U. of Chicago, writes about the debate over the separation of church and state in America. Lilla raises some interesting points, among them are:
1. Unlike the French Revolution which was inherently anti-religion, British and American social thinkers saw religion as an aid to democracy. "By teaching people to work, save and give, religion could prove a ballast to the self-destructive tendencies of both capitalism and democracy."
2. People like John Adams and David Hume believed that if religion was given freedom and exposure to liberal democracy it would be tamed and would grow less dogmatic and more rational.
3. The rise of 19th century "liberal" Christian theology seemed to prove thinkers like Adams and Hume right. Lilla explains what "liberal" means in a theological context, "It includes a critical approach to Scripture as a historical document, an openness to modern science, a turn from public ritual to private belief and a search for common ground in the Bible's moral message." (Look up Friedrich Schleiermacher, if you want to read the preeminent theologian during this period.)
4. On the continent, especially in Germany where Schleiermacher and his students taught, this understanding of Christianity as a part of the social order fell apart. Many felt like this type of Christianity was a reflection of culture rather than a challenge to it. The religio-political landscape changed, and religious thinkers could be found everywhere on the political spectrum (socialist left to fascist right) except middle-of-the-road liberal democracy.
5. Lilla goes on to point out that in his opinion, and that of many others, America is about in the place Germany was almost a century ago. "Liberal" theology has dominated the so-called mainline Protestant denominations since the 19th century, and those denominations have been in dramatic decline for decades. The rise of Pentecostal, Evangelical and other "ecstatic" movements in Christianity marks the splintering of the religious imagination of America.
6. So far, according to Lilla, the most disturbing aspects of this loss of religious cohesion have not yet caused a loss of political cohesion, but are manifest in "the fascination with the ''end times,'' the belief in personal (and self-serving) miracles, the ignorance of basic science and history, the demonization of popular culture, the censoring of textbooks, the separatist instincts of the home-schooling movement."
I found Lilla's article interesting, especially since I'm a minister in a mainline congregation. He brings up an interesting problem the church has always faced, namely its abdication of its prophetic role in society. By "prophetic," I'm not talking Nostradamus here but the kind of prophet like Martin Luther King Jr. that offered a critique of the injustices of society. Whenever the church gives this up, it becomes just another social club. The critique I'm thinking of is the kinds offered against racism, slavery, sexism, etc. by earlier generations, not the prudish condemnation of Janet Jackson's breast or a pre-Monday Night Football skit offered by the Religious Right today.
Lilla is coming out with a book, so I'll wait to pass judgment on his ideas. I do think, however, that based on this article (and who knows how much content was edited out) he fails to take seriously this "prophetic" role of the church, and instead sees the role of religion in terms of political science. I also think that the parallel he draws between contemporary America and early 20th century Europe goes too far. The rise of Christian fundamentalists over the last 25 years has a whole lot to do with fearful responses to modernity (e.g. the Scopes Monkey Trial, the Intelligent Design argument today, etc.) and globalism (new religions, new cultures, new ethnicities, etc. all arriving in America). At least in this article, I don't think Lilla gives additional factors in the rise of Christian fundamentalism their due.
Nonetheless, I do think that Lilla points to a troubling trend in our culture, namely religion as a destabilizing factor rather than a unifying one for society. Today, religion, especially Christianity, seems to be understood as a weapon for use in cultural and political battles rather than as an aid for reconciliation and conflict resolution. It seems to me that their must be a third way besides that of religion tamed by culture and culture embattled by religion.
Peace,
Chase
5.12.05 A Perusal of Harper's Magazine Once again its been another slow week on the CONGOblog. I was out of town over the weekend and have been playing catch-up ever since. For my plane ride last weekend, I picked up a copy of Harper's Magazine, a magazine I had never bothered to pick up before. My first impression with it was that its target audience seemed to be the "liberal elite"--that amorphous group of ne'er-do-wells that right-wing radio talk show hosts are always going on about. The ads, editorials and many of the articles reminded me a bit of my 8th grade English teacher who wore a really tight bow-tie and looked down his nose at anyone who didn't get his literary reference-tinged jokes. ("The Heathcliff I was referring to wasn't a cat...")
The prime example of this sort of snottiness comes in the editorial by Lewis H. Lapham entitled "The Wrath of the Lamb." I'm not familiar with Mr. Lapham, but I think he would have gotten along with my 8th grade English teacher. His editorial was a broadside against all people of faith, and through some allusions to Mark Twain and some boring and irrelevant autobiography, he proceeds to lump all religious people together with fundamentalists and psychopaths. His rant goes on to castigate anyone foolish enough to hold religious beliefs. What surprised me was how similar his language was to Christian fundamentalists. Just take out the words "Christian" and "faith" and replace them with "godless" and "secular humanist" and I don't think there would be a difference. It was astounding to me, because I just really didn't think the antireligious pseudo-intellectual types that fundamentalists were railing about actually existed as anything other than a straw man for their own lousy arguments. We'll see if I can muster up a letter to the editor about this lazily constructed diatribe.
The reason I picked up the magazine was not for Lapham, however, but for two articles in this issue, both of which are worth the cover price.
The first is by Jeff Sharlet, the editor of The Revealer, the best web site out there for examining the media's poor coverage of religion. (The Revealer has posted a link to this blog in the past and we're honored by the attention.). Sharlet's article, "Inside America's Most Powerful Mega-church," is an eye-opening look into New Life Church in Colorado Springs, whose pastor heads the National Association of Evangelicals and talks with President Bush on a weekly basis. Most interesting was his depiction of Colorado Springs as its own evangelical sub-culture and the militaristic and apocalyptic way many of its residents view the rest of the world. Most alarming was the way many of the people mentioned in the article understood the Iraq war as a part of the coming religious war between a Christian America and Islam (read: Satanism). This understanding of Christianity is so far removed from my own that I walked away from the article deeply troubled.
The second article is by Chris Hedges (author of the most interesting-sounding book that I haven't read yet War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning). Hedges is a former war correspondent and holds a degree from Harvard Divinity School, so he may be uniquely suited to understand the militaristic language used by leaders in the Christian Right. The article, "Feeling the Hate with the National Religious Broadcasters," is his account of attending the NRBA convention, where he got to mingle with such Christian dignitaries as James Dobson. Most interesting was his discussion with members of the Bureau of Tourism of the Israeli government who come to gatherings of American Christian fundamentalists, because these are the only people who want to visit Israel anymore. The Israelis find the convention-goers anti-Semitic and ignorant, but they come anyway, because Christian fundamentalists pump a ridiculous amount of money into their economy. Out of their particular skewed reading of the book of Revelation, Christian fundamentalists believe that the Jewish state is the future location of the battle of Armageddon--never mind the fact that the Jews will either all be converted to Christianity or slaughtered by a bloodthirsty Christ in their end of the world scenario. Most alarming was the comparison Hedges draws between the political tactics of the Religious Right and the Nazis in the 1930's. What at first seemed to me like an alarmist opinion quickly turned into me being alarmed at similarities between the scapegoating and demonization done by both groups.
So, all that is to say, I recommend this month's issue of Harper's Magazine, just disregard Lapham's editorial.
*******
Today I signed the electronic petition put out by the One campaign. I highly recommend others doing the same. It's efforts to eliminate Aids, extreme poverty and starvation seem radical in their simplicity. (A certain lead singer of a certain minister's favorite band is involved with this too.)
*******
Peace,
Chase
5.4.05 Anne Lamott's Plan B On Sunday, I concluded my sermon with a story from Anne Lamott.
She's one of my favorite authors. (I added a link to one of her articles
at Salon.com in a post during Lent.) Although she writes great fiction
it is her non-fiction that moves me the most. Her memoirs of her own
struggles as a single mother and as an adult convert to Christianity are
inspiring. She mixes together self-depreciating humor, liberal politics
and a fervent love of Jesus in a way that is truly unique.Taken together, her three memoirs form a narrative of her life thus far.
Operating Instructions told the story of her first year as a mother.
Traveling Mercies: Some Thoughts on Faith told the story of her
encounter with and eventual conversion to Christianity, along with the
childhood of her son. Her latest, Plan B: Further Thoughts on Faith
finds her as the mother of a moody teenager who is about to turn 50
and is also depressed over the success of the Bush Administration.It's this last item that has troubled me as a minister of a congregation
holding various political views. I identify with many of her feelings
towards the Bush administration and the war in Iraq, but I also know
that Lamott's vociferous--if honest--expression of her feelings on
current politics would offend many who do not share her views. This
is unfortunate, because Lamott is a gifted writer, as I said one of my
favorites, and I have repeatedly recommended her to parishioners,
friends, family and even strangers. Her quirky take on life and deep
devotion to God illustrate to my mind one of the best understandings
of God's grace that I have come across.Despite, the strong emotional criticism of Bush in this book that grace
still shines through. Indeed, I would offer that as she shares her
struggles to view Bush as Jesus does--through the eyes of love--she
demonstrates the necessary struggle all Christians must undertake to
love those with whom they disagree (and too often never bother with).My recommendation to readers who lean towards the Republican side
of things is to pick up Lamott's books and if possible, either skip over
the sections that deal with her feelings towards Republicans or better
yet read them and just take my word on it that she really does struggle
to show Christian love towards those with whom she takes issue with.The story I summarized on Sunday came from one such chapter.
Entitled "The Ham of God", it begins with Lamott's despair over the
Bush administration's policies--especially the war, yet it is really about
her struggle to find hope and purpose as a Christian in a world full of
suffering people. The ending of the chapter is classic Anne Lamott--
poignant, hilarious and emotionally moving. It is worth the read, even
for those who do not share her politics.As luck (or perhaps providence) would have it, Sunday's NY Times
Book Review had a nice review on Lamott's latest book, Plan B.*******
The Darfur Accountability Act in Trouble!
Nicholas Kristof continues to beat the drum on Darfur--it's just too
bad that nobody in power is listening. It's too bad that the Bush
administration is choosing to continue America's long tradition of
looking the other way when genocides happen and making worthless
apologies later.Also, NPR's Morning Edition had a good story this morning on what
could be done to stop the slaughter in Darfur.If you're new to reading the CONGOblog, I encourage you to read some
of the previous posts about Darfur and our mini letter writing campaign.Peace,
Chase
5.1.05 Filibustering Grace It's been a slow week here on the CONGOblog but not a slow week
for news. Since I gave the sermon this morning, I'll have some more
thoughts to add to the blog this week--sources I used, illustrations
that did not make it in, etc.Last Sunday, members of the Religious Right and a number of
politicians held a rally at a megachurch to protest what they see as
Democrats "filibustering people of faith." I've struggled a bit this
week with how to respond to this event and whether or not to say
anything on this blog. My struggle partly comes out of just plain
fatigue from watching members of the Religious Right like James
Dobson and others claim that their understanding of Christianity and
their brand of politics are the only way for people of faith to believe,
vote and live. It seems like this gang of folks just never seems to stop.
Outrage wars with my fatigue, however, because the spirit of judgment
and hatred exhibited by these Christians is so far from how I
understand Christ would have his followers live.No matter where one comes down on the political maneuvers in the
Senate over judicial nominees by both Republicans and Democrats,
I feel that everyone must recognize that there are good people of faith
on both sides of the issues at stake. To label one side as Christian
and the other side as unbelievers, pagans or heathens is atrocious.I'll pass on two responses to last week's rally that I think shed light
on the tactics used by its organizers.The first comes from Jim Wallis of Sojourners--whom I've mentioned
before in this blog (see the January posts). He takes them to task
not because they are Christians entering the political arena but for
how they have chosen to operate within that arena.The second is from Jeff Sharlet, religion reporter and editor of The Revealer,
the best blog out there on the coverage of religion in the
media. (The Revealer has also taken note of this blog). In this 4.29
interview with Sharlet from the WNYC show On the Media, he points
out the way the press has repeatedly misunderstand the political
maneuvers of the Religious Right and failed to grasp the alarming
level of violent religious rhetoric.Peace,
Chase
