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
10-24-05
CONGOblog A weblog of The Congregational Church of Manhasset (UCC)
The last week around here has been consumed with getting ready for Vacation Bible School and then Vacation Bible School actually happening. So far, so good. It's been great and meaningful fun teaching some terrific children some of the basics of our faith. In the meantime, each hour seems to bring worse news about the terrible aftermath of hurricane Katrina. This naturally raises the question of "why?" Why has this happened and could it have been prevented? Unlike Pat Robertson, I make no claims as to God causing such massive destruction as punishment for a particular group or region. In this blog, we've discussed natural disaster and how God is involved in such events back when the tsunami hit south Asia--a disaster far greater in scale than this one, as hard as that is to believe. Check out those posts for a discussion of why God allows natural disasters to occur. Although now is the time for help rather than blame, I do think it's worth considering that before we begin to blame God for the destruction of the Gulf Coast, we do some thinking about human responsibility. (I do think, however, we're justified in asking why God allows things like a devastating hurricane. Again, see the previous posts.) Newscasts are full of people saying that everyone knew New Orleans was a sitting duck for a major hurricane, but government officials refused to address potential dangers, corruption sapped funds for such efforts, government bureaucracies stalled progress. Along the Gulf Coast, houses flooded and destroyed by previous hurricanes have been rebuilt with federal money in the same locations with little thought as to how to prevent the same thing happening again. Andrei Codrescu, LSU literature professor and New Orleans resident had an interesting commentary on NPR about his feelings about the failure of his city to prepare for a disaster like this one. Furthermore, it's worth considering how we, as a society, have failed to address the chronic problem of poverty, since it is the poor--especially in an economically depressed city like New Orleans--that fare the worst in disasters. Jim Wallis has an excellent commentary on why disasters take a higher toll on the poor and how addressing the concerns of poor people on an on-going basis can literally save lives in future disasters. In the coming weeks, our church will take up a collection of money to help the victims of Katrina through Church World Service. If you would like to donate now, check out this list of legitimate charities provided by FEMA. I'll be headed out of town over Labor Day Weekend, so the CONGOblog will be back next week. Peace, Chase
It's been all over the news this week that Pat Robertson, fundamentalist media mogul and would-be Republican presidential nominee, declared on his show that the U.S. should assassinate Hugo Chavez, the leader of Venezuela. Robertson first claimed he was misunderstood and then when shown the videotape offered something that seemed like it might be related to an apology. Then he compared himself to Dietrich Boenhoffer, a Christian theologian who plotted to kill Hitler. I daresay that Chavez and Hitler are not comparable--neither are Robertxon and Boenhoffer. I guess I wonder why anybody should be surprised by Robertson making a whacko remark. Let's review:
Many Christian groups have denounced Robertson's remarks, but why the hubbub over Robertson this week? American politicians and preachers use Christianity all the time to justify their agendas, mixing nationalism and faith in a dangerous manner to gather support for violence that Jesus would never support. Yes, Robertson is a egomaniacal nutjob, but let's use his remarks as an opportunity to really consider the way people of influence in our culture use the name of Christ to justify oppression and death. Robertson criticized Islam as a religion that teaches violence. Could it be that his perspective of Islam is shaped by fanatics who use religion to justify their own political agendas? I hate to think of what the average Muslim thinks about Christianity when all they know about it are the comments of hatemongers like Robertson. Peace, Chase
Here's a quotation I came across today: The ache for home lives in all of us--the safe place where we can go as we are."--Maya Angelou Often we have to wear so many masks--assume so many identities--be different things to different people--that we "ache" for a place where we can be ourselves. God calls us to authenticity. Church should be "home" for us. ******* I've been saving this one for a while. I almost used it in a sermon two weeks ago, but it didn't quite fit. As a minister, every once in a while you come across a sermon by another minister and it's such a good idea that you think, "I'd like to think I would have thought of that eventually. I was just beaten to the punch." Here's a sermon concept that I wish I had come up with: The Gospel According to Duct Tape. By the way, did you know that in Finland duct tape is called "Jesus Tape?" Peace, Chase
Here's a quick quiz of your biblical literacy: Where in the Bible can you find the phrase "God helps those who help themselves? Give up? It's a trick question. This phrase comes from Ben Franklin not the Bible and certainly not Jesus. I'm sure that old Ben was advocating the idea that we cannot remain passive instruments in the improvement of our own lives, but there are times when we are unable to help ourselves or perhaps the circumstances we find ourselves in are beyond what we can cope with. At the heart of the Christian religion is the idea that as sinners, we humans can't help ourselves. We are incapable of overcoming our own self-destructive tendencies. We need God's help and that's why we have Jesus, the cross and the resurrection. Furthermore, Jesus' teachings about God's grace and the grace we are to show others show that God's love and our love for others should not be dependent upon what another can or cannot do in return. But wait, doesn't the idea of grace overrule the ideal of personal responsibility that we hold so dear in our culture? Sometimes, yes, it does. Isn't that unfair? Yes, grace, by its very nature, is not about fairness. It's funny how we never complain about the blessings we receive that we did not earn, but when someone else is the recipient of grace we are quick to judge. Being a Christian means swimming against the stream of popular culture and opinion. Yet, the counter-cultural nature of following Jesus is often reduced to certain political issues (sexuality, abortion, etc.), when claiming the name "Christian" involves questioning everything that our culture takes for granted--especially the idea that God's help is determined by our own abilities and that our help for others should be based upon what they can do for themselves. I decided to take issue with Ben Franklin when I read Bill McKibben's essay "The Christian Paradox: How a Faithful Nation Gets Jesus Wrong" in the August edition of Harper's. ******* Speaking of grace. I was amazed to read the story of Victoria Ruvolo, the Long Island woman who's face was literally smashed to pieces when Ryan Cushing, a 19 year-old threw a frozen turkey out of a speeding car and it crashed through her windshield. She convinced prosecutors to give a lighter sentence to the young man, despite what must have been hours of intense pain and many different surgeries. In the courtroom on Monday, Ruvolo held the sobbing and apologetic young man and stroked his head, whispering "It's O.K. It's O.K. I just want you to make your life the best it can be." What a remarkable example of the beautiful unfairness of grace. (The NY Times had a great editorial today about this story.) Peace, Chase
The funeral service of Jim Rather took place at the church yesterday. Jim grew up in this church and became active again as an adult. He was a remarkable man who did amazing things and suffered greatly over the last fifteen years with ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease). Among the many people who attended yesterday's service was Rudy Giuliani, with whom Jim worked in the 1980's as a U.S. Attorney to prosecute organized crime cases. For me personally, it was a true honor to know him and to be present with his wonderful family this week. They expressed appreciation for the regular visits by ministers and deacons to serve communion to Jim at his home over the years and shared that it was always meaningful during the Christmas season when our children would come to Jim's house and sing Christmas carols. If you would like to honor Jim, the family requests donations be made to the Greater New York Chapter of the ALS Society. Peace, Chase
Yeah, okay... my post on 8.3.05 may fall somewhat outside the category of well-considered response and somewhat into the realm of reactionary rant. David M. wrote me about it and called me on my lack of nuance (or perhaps less charitably some holes in my argument). Hey, but at least there's some dialogue here--maybe I need to be even more inflammatory to get some feedback--or not. David M. correctly called me on making the REALLY big leap from searching men who look like Arabs to the phrase I used "Locking up men who look like Arabs..." In my defense, I think I actually meant to type "Searching" rather than "Locking up" and was merely pointing out the imprisonment of Japanese Americans as an example of where I believe racial profiling can lead. HOWEVER, none of the subtlety I'm raising now appeared in the 8.3.05 post--so David was right to call my hand. I should have done this type of clarification before I posted it to the web. It is a big jump from searching young Arab men to the interment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, but I do feel the latter case is an example of the dangers of racial profiling, albeit an extreme one. I guess my fear is that when a group is singled out because of race, religion, appearance, etc. (always a minority group be it ethnic, religious, whatever) such actions will naturally lead to the dehumanization of that group or put another way that the rights or the individual worth of people in this group will be degraded. At what point does risk assessment become presumption of guilt? When does a security search become harassment? It's such a fine line that I do not want to go anywhere near it, although obviously many people feel such a distinction can be made.. David M. also brought up in his e-mail the valid criticism that random searches are ineffective. He writes: There is just something absurdly wrong with the premise that we should be singling out 5-year-old kids and 90-year-old grandmoms for heightened scrutiny equally with the rest of the population (let alone higher-risk segments) in an airport security line or underground while we’re under threat of attack. It’s been offered that bag searches aren’t likely to catch many would-be terrorists, which is probably quite true. But that argument overlooks another purpose of the process, which is deterrence. Of course profiling for scrutiny isn’t a precise instrument….but at least it’s not a tool blunted to uselessness by PC. No doubt David is right. I am sure a lot of time is wasted on people that pose no threat, but is this drawback worse than the potential for abuse that exists with more targeted searches? Is there a third option? Interestingly, I happened to be in the city yesterday and while entering Penn Station I got called over by a policeman and my bag was searched. I just smiled and said "hello" and let them search my bag. Apparently they didn't think my Harry Potter book and pile of half-finished crossword puzzles were dangerous. I didn't mind getting searched--there was some novelty in it. I do feel, however, that if I had been searched not because I was a person with a bag but because I was say a United Church of Christ minister or a white guy with glasses or some other reason, then I would have felt somewhat victimized. Davd M. also helped elevate this discussion by recommending an editorial by Tunku Varadarajan of The Wall Street Journal. Varadarajan's ethnicity is Indian (as in the country) and his religious background is Hindu, but in his editorial he faces the fact that he will most likely be mistaken for a Muslim and in the right circumstances would be searched. Although he doesn't feel good about this possibility, he does feel it is necessary given the times we live in. He notes that both "profilers" and "profilees" are targets of terrorism and that profiling is for the purpose of "scrutiny not punishment" This is an important difference and a delicate balance--one I'm not sure we can maintain. Again, I think that our country has a bad record of scrutiny leading to victimization. Varadarajan writes, "When scrutiny becomes stigma, and stigma leads to victimization, a clear jump to evil has occurred. This has not happened in America, and must not." I would disagree with Varadarajan. Perhaps there has not been a case of this jump to evil in the month since the first London bombings, but certainly such jumps occurred following September 11. The number of Muslim men or non-Muslim men from Muslim countries incarcerated without representation speaks to such an evil. He notes that in these times "we have to ask one section of society to bear up under heightened scrutiny..." and "we must ask the rest of society not to stigmatize those who conform to the broad physical category while also not allowing feelings of racial and moral guilt to slow our society's response to danger." I guess I feel that stigmatization is unavoidable under the scrutiny of racial or ethnic profiling. Furthermore, he writes, "If I'm sounding overly nuanced on a subject that should, in the view of some, have bright moral outlines, it's because the devil resides in this predicament." On this, I emphatically agree with him. This is a difficult subject and these are difficult times. My disagreement with him comes from my own pessimism towards our country's--culture's--government's ability to navigate such difficult waters. Alright, I've stuck my thoughts out there--let's hear your thoughts in response. Thanks to David M. for giving such a thoughtful response and passing along Varadarajan's article. You've certainly given me and hopefully other readers more to think about. Peace, Chase
I just read an article about two NY politicians who are advocating the use of racial profiling against "young Arab fundamentalists." Although I haven't heard the full statements by state Assemblyman Dov Hikind (Democrat from Brooklyn) and Republican City Councilman James Oddo, the words contained in the AP article by Hikind ("They all look alike.") are rather chilling. Judging an entire group of people by supposed ethnic characteristics because of a criminal few is a terrible mistake. Our nation's history is filled with examples of the abuses of law enforcement and government based upon appearance and/or the perception of ethnicity. The possible damage done by racial profiling seems to far outweigh whatever benefits of security that may be found. Does anyone remember the detention of Japanese citizens during WWII? How come all those people of German descent didn't get locked up? Locking up [later edit: I meant to say "Searching men who appear to be Arabs" see the 8.5.05 post where I try to dig myself out of a rhetorical hole.] men who appear to be Arabs wouldn't necessarily help us anyway. Al Qaeda and its clones draw their members based upon ideology rather than ethnicity or nationality. Adherents to its brand of hate come from places ranging from Morocco to Indonesia. One of the July 7 London bombers was from Jamaica! Exactly which nationality or ethnicity are we looking for and how are police supposed to know the difference. Is it everyone with dark skin, brown skin, olive skin or tan skin? I wonder how the constituents of Assemblyman Hikind who happen to resemble the Arabic stereotype but who also happen to be Jewish or Christian would feel about his words. The argument that those who are innocent should have no fear of being searched doesn't hold water when the basis for the search is an arbitrary determination of someone's ethnic background. It is just too easy for those in power to slip into a mode that demonizes a particular religious or ethnic group and then ignores their rights and their dignity. The detention of many men of middle eastern background for little or no cause without legal representation following September 11 should give us pause. The case of the Brazilian man shot dead in the London Underground by police should make us terrified. In the interest of following the command of Jesus to love my neighbor as myself (including my Muslim neighbors), I reject any and all calls for the New York police or any other law enforcement agency to begin ethnic profiling of men who appear to be Arabs. I do not want anyone judging me on the color of my skin or how I look, so therefore I do not want anyone doing the same to Muslims. Peace, Chase
|