Prosperity Gospel?

If this is prosperity gospel, then let's all prosper. Now I understand most folks are concerned with Japan, and rightly so. If I were watching the news as much as I have in months pass, I'd be all over it myself. But, I've been sitting on this clip of Pastor Joel Osteen for a week now, and this is as good a time as any to go ahead and publish this post.

Before I do, though, a few words. Now of course, the issue of race in the US goes beyond individuals. It's societal, structural, cultural, I could go on.

And of course, racism among blacks ain't the issue. We aren't anti-white nearly as much as whites would like to think. And even if we were, there's not enough of us to form some sort of "ebony" ceiling.

That said, a society is only a collection, however large, of individuals. For any particular -ism to exist, something has to be going on fundamentally at the individual level. In my experience, one obstacle preventing an end to racism is white US-Americans' refusal to do any self-examination, collectively or individually. To wit, Joel Osteen's message is one that should be heard across the country.

Progressives, Your Approval Waiting is Low

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
National Displeasure
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Stewart puts it nicely. He makes us laugh. Or at least, he makes me laugh. Fair warning: after the jump, I stop laughing.

Double Life Sentences for $11? Som'em Ain't Right

So, will two black Mississippi women, whom so many agree have been unjustly imprisoned, now be freed?

On Sunday, syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. of the Miami Herald became the latest to raise his voice. He wrote:

"Let’s assume they did it.

"Let’s assume that two days before Christmas in 1993, a 22-year-old black woman named Jamie Scott and her pregnant, 19-year-old sister Gladys set up an armed robbery. Let’s assume these single mothers lured two men to a spot outside the tiny town of Forest, Miss., where three teenage boys, using a shotgun the sisters supplied, relieved the men of $11 and sent them on their way, unharmed.

"Assume all of the above is true, and still you must be shocked at the crude brutality of the Scott sisters’ fate. You see, the sisters, neither of whom had a criminal record before this, are still locked away in state prison, having served 16 years of their double-life sentences.

"It bears repeating. Each sister is doing double life for a robbery in which $11 was taken and nobody was hurt. Somewhere, the late Nina Simone is moaning her signature song: Mississippi Goddam."

It's Too Late to Plead the Fifth

Okay, so I could've posted about W Bush's confession that he authorized torture last week. But I decided to be a downer the week of Veterans' Day. However, that was last week, and I just got an interesting reminder via Portside, and an idea just occured to me. The reminder, the actual text of which I share later, is that there are two investigations related to the U.S. torture program pending in the National Court of Spain.

And the thought? Since the Republican party has decided to go tea pot crazy and co-sign the idiocy that Obama is some sort of jihadist Manchurian president, and since they promise a series of investigations into the Obama administration, Obama should go after BushCo full board. What does he have to lose? And is it really worth permiting the injustice of not holding war criminals accountable for their crimes?

Good News for NOLA

Apparently, the government is going to appeal, but I should hope Pres Obama will do the right thing.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

In Need of Aid?

I don't have any commentary except to maybe say I hurt for these people. Just thought you should that over the past several years, billions of money has been wasted by non-profit groups not ACORN. The money was supposed to go to help AIDS patients, or rather, as much money was wasted, maybe just people who're have AIDS.

Well I guess two things could be said: with a better health care system, a lot of this could've been averted; fixing this, doing right by people who have AIDS, or are HIV positive, is what I mean by "justice and righteousness."

So okay, two more things. First, there's an epidemic happening in DC. In affluent, white neighborhoods as well as poor, black neighborhoods. That's unacceptable. Completely unacceptable. Not just because people die; but also because we should treat each other and ourselves better. I know getting millions of people to all practice abstinence is something of a pipe dream; but just because you're sexually active doesn't mean you can't pass up it up sometimes! Please. Take time to ask yourself if you really want to share your body with this person. You are increasing your risk of infection and pregnancy. Is that what you really want to do? You're also increasing the risk of your partner becoming infected. Is that something you really want to do? Lots of people who're HIV positive may not even know it, including you. And your partner.

Which brings me to my next point: if you are sexually active, for heaven's sake, get educated, get tested, and use a condom! Don't just practice safe sex, perfect it. Don't get all full of yourself men and go out and buy condoms you know are too large. If you use illegal drugs, please use a clean needle. Or, better yet, try quitting altogether.

Okay. That's it. No more commentary.

Social Justice that Jesus Could Support

Okay. So "social justice" wasn't the next post after writing about the Bible's liberal bias. :eye roll:

I wanted to take my time with this. I didn't want to just lambast a bunch of idiots and their idiocy like I usually do. I took this seriously cause dammit, they had to go bring my God into this!

Now, I've already done a post on what I think about social justice:

For clarification, according to Glen Harold Stassen and David P Gushee, in Kingdom Ethics (p151), the Hebrew word for "righteousness" means "delivering justice."

--the kind of justice that delivers the downtrodden from domination and brings the outcasts into community

I pulled my working definition so that we could have it in front of us. I increased the font size so that I would stay in front of us.

Happily, I doubt this will take as long as I had thought. I read several articles and essays on social justice and especially whether or not "welfare" did more harm than good. I had hoped to get to hard and fast numbers, but that wasn't as easy I had hoped. But what I found is more than sufficient for my purpose.

And that purpose is to not so much argue conservative Christians to my perspective as is challenge them to question their own. By that I mean taking a good look at reality, read the studies and do the research, and then ask yourself if you really mean what you say about God and government.

More importantly, I wanna get God out of partisan politics. Don't get me wrong. I'm not asking that people leave their faith outside the voting booth. No. I'm asking taht people who vote based on religious conviction also take into account facts and reality. Let's have our working base be a just and righteous government, regardless of its size. Let's put in place laws and agencies to ensure justice and righteousness then worry about size.

Cause ultimately, I suspect far too many conservative Christians are forcing religion to fit their predetermined political leaning. And while that make happen with liberal Christians as well, liberals aren't complaining that the Bible is too conservative. Let's be clear. A bible which highlights and emphasizes passages concerning the environment and man's relationship to nature is quite different from a bible translated with an end goal in mind. (There is no "feminist" bible, only feminist interpretations.)

I was with the author of the article on Christian social justice for a good portion of the essay actually. It's when the discussion turned to government's roll that the author lost me. For example:

A word of caution about socialism (democratic or otherwise) is in order here. Should Christians advocate a state political and economic system that to some extent redistributes wealth in order to bring about equality and lift up the poor? This temptation to use the state as a collectivist Robin Hood that steals from the rich and gives to the poor must be avoided at all costs. In fact, socialism, in any form, only hurts the poor in the end. Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute clearly addresses the dangers of socialism in his paper, “Capitalism and Christianity: an Uneasy Partnership”:

Really? Shouldn't a person at least define socialism before issuing a word of caution? Or, have a more concrete idea of which just and righteous acts are better done by individuals and which government before being so cautious?

And from the same essay:

Some examples of seemingly helpful actions – distributing condoms in Africa, clean needles to drug addicts, or incremental welfare to unwed mothers – may address immediate or surface problems, but over time, they can lead to much worse social problems. It has been widely shown that distributing condoms, clean needles, and incremental child welfare only perpetuate the social problems those state distribution programs are attempting to alleviate. Christians have a duty to offer prudent and wise solutions.

So I did attempt to find hard numbers showing that these seemingly helpful actions can leed to much worse social problems. Nothing. I did find a study on how much teens in low-income families work. It was helpful to the extent that the teens who could use jobs the most had the least access to jobs and/or just not a good employment model. But nothing suggesting that distributing clean needles and condoms actually increased the number of AIDS infections. And the only time child welfare "perpetuated" the problem is when due to the costs of transportation, childcare, etc, remaining on welfare was just the better, wiser decision. But most conservative Christians I hear and see don't suggest bringing good-paying, green jobs into urban centers. No, instead they rail against Van Jones, a person who did. They don't suggest easier access to childcare or an increase in the minimum wage. Do they? No, they just . . .

I'm sorry. I forgot I'm trying not to point fingers. So let me make my point another way.

Let's take abortion as an example cause that's an issue that can run people hot. And let me make my position clear. I'm not "pro-abortion" as though I think every woman should have one at least once in her life. I'm pro-choice because whether or not to bring life to fruition is between a woman and her god. I'm not going to tell some teenager or even 40-year-old career woman that they have to carry this . . . I'm sorry. People have names and memories. So I can't say "person." And I can't say "baby." But whatever the term, that's 9 months in a body that's not mine wearing shoes that don't belong to me. And that's not even getting into the 18-year commitment.

You know what. Yes. Let's get into the 18-year-long commitment. If I'm gonna force a woman to have a baby against her will, as though that's not rape, because I want to protect the life of the unborn, shouldn't I really put my money where my mouth is? But remember the big hubbub about S-CHIP? And what about making sure all kids get a quality education? Cause trust me, it ain't just urban schools that are crumbling. Poor white kids are going to piss poor schools to.

But that's not all. Long-term studies show that poverty can damage the brain's growth. So basically, no matter how much the child studies or the parents are involved or turn off the TV; if the child is in a precarious financial situation, the stress of wondering what you'll eat and how much you'll get to have or where you'll live is gonna damage his/her prospects for school and life. Now, while we previously thought poverty only affected the child to the extent that s/he received proper nutrition and medical care, and only recently are we looking into the effects of stress chemicals on the child's brain; we've known for a very long time that a child born in poverty really didn't have "equal opportunity." But just recently, Republican Cynthia Davis of the Missouri house suggested that "hunger can be a positive motivator."

Again, I haven't found anything suggesting that people willingly choose welfare over work out of sheer laziness. Or anything suggesting that clean needle programs actually increased the rate of illegal drug use. So please. Before you start taking the Lord's name in vain politics, first have a concrete idea of what social justice should look like absent prejudices for any particular "size" of government; second, deal with the facts and not speculation and conjecture; last, just flat keep YHWH out of partisan politics!

What really pissed me off in the previously referred to essay on Christian social justice was this line: If the church were awake when abortion was passed in the 70’s, it wouldn’t have happened. But the church was asleep” (Goodstein, “Disowning Conservative Politics”). Now granted, he was quoting someone else. And granted I think I may have heard the quote before. I just wanna pop go the weasel till the weasel go pop!

God Has Heard Your Prayers!

And in record time, no less, as it was just last week that I requested your prayers. However sarcastic I may have been.

A group of conservatives have decided that the Bible as currently translated has a liberal bias. That includes the King James Version. Here's where they're collaborating to retranslate the Bible with it's true conservativism. Cause Jesus would've been a Republican. And my mother is Phyllis Schlafly.

You can google "conservative Bible project" to read a lot of opinions. They range from "liberal" mocking to religious admonishing. And let's not kid ourselves. If you're a conservative being chastised by beliefnet.com, you may have taken things a little too far.

Now, I'm going to address a few problems I have with the project right now. Then, I need to eat. But mostly, since one of their gripes is the the Bible as it's currently translated "improperly encourages the "social justice" movement among Christians," I'm gonna take some time later to show where the Bible encourages "social justice" regardless of the political bent of the translators/ions.

But as of right now, a few things. First, of course, is the most obvious, and that's the error of politicizing the Bible. And let me be clear. Am I a registered Democrat? Yes. Do I believe there is Biblical support for my political position? Yes, and by the way, I can use the original texts of both Testaments to prove my point.

If I'm wrong here, please correct me; but I never have and never will declare that Jesus would be a Democrat.

Again, I want to make sure I'm perfectly understood. Given the option of the two major political parties, and the civic duty to vote, do I think Jesus would vote Democrat? Yes, I actually do. That's my personal opinion.

So what am I trying to say, right? It's more than just not politicizing the Bible. It's my view that God is beyond partisanship. Just like I believe God is beyond gender. I try not to refer to God as "he" as though God is masculine, with a penis and testicals and facial hair. And unless I'm trying to make the point that we could pray, "Our Mother, who aren't in heaven," I shy away from "God/ess." It's not just because typing out "God/ess" is more cumbersome, but that I believe that God is beyond gender so much so that even to suggest God is both male and female would be incorrect. In my personal notes, yeah, I refer to God as "he"; again, it's easier to write than God; I've used that language all my life; and, I know what I really mean. But I don't believe God has a scrotum anymore than I believe God has a vagina. Listen, God is Spirit. God is Immaterial. God didn't come from dust. So let's not bog God down with "dust" labeling.

You get my point? If I were speaking to a group, I might even refer to God as "He" and in other masculine-form nouns to be able to speak about God in a way that wouldn't be distractive. But understand that part of the reason God is referred to as "He" in the Bible is that the word's available to descibe an All-Mighty Being were masculine! Just like "wisdom" in Proverbs is talked about like a woman; but it's the same concept John referres to in his Gospel where he says: "In the beginning was the Word."

So, are we all on the same page here? Yeah, it's my personal opinion that Jesus would be a liberal or progressive. I doubt that Jesus would vote for Democrats if there were a more liberal 3rd party. But my first instinct is that God is far above and beyond 21st century American partisanship.

Especially in light of the fact that even European conservatives support single-payer health systems!

Now. I don't have a problem with someone getting the original Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic so that they can better understand Scripture. In light of the fact that my health prevents me from taking a class in Greek or Hebrew, and that the different lettering makes my head buzz, I watch a lot of Pastor Melissa Scott. I dig her cause she uses these classroom size dry-erase boards to write out the original language, then goes through translating it in her sermons. Oh, it's just great! The lettering still makes my head buzz, but it's not as bad with the English written out nearby. And sorry folks, a complete interlinear Bible is out of my budget right now . . .

Though, if you wanna send a donation, let me know. I'll see if I can set that up! LOL!

So, no. I don't have a problem with the desire to go and dig out the true meaning of the Scriptures. But seeking to translate, or even retranslate (Not everyone wants to go so far as to start from scratch. Some are satisfied with editting the King James Version.), the Bible for the purposes of partisanship is unseemly and even wicked.

That's my first point.

Now, I like others think their goal of "Express[ing] Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning" is asinine, as well as wicked and false. But, I also think they're ignorant as to the meaning of "social justice." Or, at least what activisst mean when we use the term.

So, hopefully in my next post, I'll flesh that out as well as demonstrate God's call for social justice through the entire Bible, any version.

Oh! Let me just say here before I forget and not say at all that social justice, doing what's right and just throughout society, (Did I just flesh it out? I sure hope so.) shouldn't be so partisan an issue that someone would claim that Christians either shouldn't be involved in a movement for social justice or are motivated by false Bible translations that supports  it. (What? Huh?) In fact, it shouldn't be a partisan issue at all.

But anyway, God heard your prayers. :eye roll:

Health Insurance Whistleblower

Yeah, here's some more.

First up, Tim Wise. I thought I had already posted this clip, but I hadn't. Obviously. After him, a health insurance whistle-blower.

Man in the Mirror, No1KState Remix

Hopefully, this song is saying as much as I hope. Though I tend to focus on racism, and do suggests white people shut up and take a look at the man in the mirror, I also have a great concern about issues of justice and righteousness all around the world.

For clarification, according to Glen Harold Stassen and David P Gushee, in Kingdom Ethics (p151), the Hebrew word for "righteousness" means "delivering justice."

--the kind of justice that delivers the downtrodden from domination and brings the outcasts into community.

So, what I mean by righteousness is that we live in a society where everybody is treated equally in receiving justice, and even wrongdoers are restored back into a place of good-standing with the community. You may be familiar with principles of restorative justice, which includes restitution to victims of crimes, whether the "criminal" is an individual, a group, or a state.

The implications for this should be fairly obvious in terms of race. There's no way you can look throughout American history, from the moment some person realized that African indentured servants couldn't mix in with the crowd and escape, to the present, and claim that African Americans have received or are receiving justice.

But I don't just mean justice and righteousness in that a person who's robbed gets all his/her stuff back, or in that when a large company like Exxon destroys entire communities, that company pays the full cost to restore the communities. So, yes, I mean that even large corporations can't buy their way out of trouble. The way I'm using it, big financial executives would not receive bonuses; we'd make sure people stayed in their homes; credit would continue to flow; the banks would still have large amounts of debt to pay; and, we put in place regulations that would prevent these things from happening again. I believe you get the gist of that. That's justice, right?

Ok. So what do I mean when I say righteousness? Think of it first on an individual level, right? A righteous person who sees someone in need tries to meet that need, regardless of how the needy got there. See, in American capitalism, for the most part, everyone is supposed to sink or swim on their own. We leave everything to the "invisible hand" of the free-market. So, we have an entire group of people we call the "working poor" because even though they're good people and they're working as hard as they can, their work isn't valued enough such that they get paid a living wage. So, our economic system may allow for a waitress to work as hard as she can and be as nice and kind to all her customers as she can but still not make a decent income. So, the impetus (I hope I'm using the word properly.) is on the customer, and a righteous customer will give her a sizable tip. Right?

Okay. When I say righteousness, I include entire groups of people, whether it's one ethnic group to another, or a government to it's constituents, or one nation to another. I mean that, for example, the US government would do for the waitress what we intend for the customer to do. That is righteousness.

So, for me, justice and righteousness includes holding wrongdoers accountable, no matter how big or small. Obviously, they include not exploiting the poor. But I also mean the extent to which the government, in the case of the US, guarantees everyone healthcare, decent housing and food, and a competitive education. There are a number of ways to ensure this, from making the minimum wage always a living wage to single-payer health care. Again, I hope I don't have to spoon feed you what this means for race. But I will if necessary. The point is that we as a country don't just accept that, "There'll always be some unemployment," and hope we're not the ones unemployed. It's not that we want everyone at all times to have a job or career or business. It's that we don't leave citizen to the whims of the free-market.

Because, at the end of the day, the "government" is made up of people we elect to represent us, who're all presumably "good" people. So the "government" should be doing what we, a group of "good" people 300million strong, would do if we each had the power. Here's the dirty little secret: collectively, we each do have the power in the form of our representative democracy. (This is the reason why most black people hold all white people accountable for racial discrimination. We know that if even just a bare majority of white Americans really wanted to ensure equality for everyone and was really "sorry" for what happened in the past, the situation in regards to race would be drastically different.)

So, I don't just ask you to look at the "man in the mirror" as an individual. I ask that Americans look ourselves in the mirror as a nation. What kind of Supreme Court do we really want? I ask that the West look at itself in the mirror. Are you really carrying out foreign aid as though you're dealing with people who are your equal? I ask the all leaders of governments and heads of states, regardless of the legitimacy or perceived lack thereof of your position, look yourselves in the mirror. Do you really want your people to prosper, or just yourself and some friends? Whatever your answer is, for heaven's sake, be honest!

Cause if you're a white person, or a man, or anyone, who want to "conserve" the status quo, you're racist. If you really don't wanna be racist, we can talk later about how to make the US a nation of equality and not white supremacy. But the first step to solving a problem is admitting you have one. Take a look at the "man in the mirror, make that change."

And this is my response to just about every recent news development.