Salt

Anglican Resistance Website

My friend and classmate Bill Carroll, assistant Professor at Sewanee, has started a new site called Anglican Resistance.  I've advocated several times on this blog that people read Richard Horsely's work as a grounding for the perspective that Bill also advocates.  Cheer him on!

H5N1 Pandemic

The Avian Flu is on a lot of people's minds....

Foreign Affairs this month had several articles on the coming pandemic.  It is deeply troubling.  In particular, scientists are worried about the virus h5n1.  It's been around since 1997, when the flu hit Hong Kong.  There have been a few press releases.   The CDC has a very ... moderate description of the avian flu.  The NIH answers some questions about this highly pathogenic disease.

It seems to have spread to humans in Vietnam.    The Wall Street Journal today has an article on a professional chicken killer - to stop the disease from spreading.

Nature has a comprehensive listing of sites and essays.

So, why are we spending so much money in Iraq, again?   The ones running the country have no sense of public, or of health.  There is no way they could put the two together.

Against Terrorism: a little note for my conservative friends

I would like to make an announcement, especially to conservatives.

For their peace of mind. 

Because I know they are worried about me, a progressive, and a liberal of sorts.  I'm a Keynsian or a Georgian in my economics, and am Catholic in the generous, original sense of the word in my interests and philosophy.   I know that I worry conservatives, regardless of my affinity for Edmund Burke and Christopher Lasch.  I am one of the rare "left-wing" conservatives around, and these days I'm far more left than conservative given the radical incompetence of our current administration.

It seems that many conservatives, due to various troubling traumatic experiences with long haired latte drinking intellectuals who drive Volvos and Subarus, especially the WRX sti which is smokin', think that I have a secret desire for Osama's success in undermining our way of life.  They think that I cheer when a pregnant suicide bomber sneaks through an Israeli security check point.  They worry that I seek to make this country into a lawless orgy of chaotic sodomite Muslim abortionists.

I don't.  Such people should be punished, with the tools that our civilization has created. 
 

I confess that perhaps, in the dark corner of my mind, I may have confused freedom fighters with terrorists, and confused terrorists with freedom fighters.  I thought the Contras were terrorists.  I thought the IRA were terrorists.  And I think of Al-Queda as terrorists.  And I thought of the Sandinistas, in 1977, at least, as freedom fighters.  I have a bias that "the new boss is just like the old boss."

I have sometimes been confused in a time of war.  What is sure is that war sucks and few have clean hands.   I know tht you conservatives have a propensity for always being correct and that your criminals are probably heros.   But bless you in your certainty.  I do not share your views.

But to assuage your fears, and the fears of all conservatives.  This leftoid opposes terrorism. 

I do.  Even when committed by your guys.  I'm no moral relativist.

If I support treating the Palestinians as human beings, in spite of the sometimes violent reaction to being regularly humiliated, I still don't support terrorism.  If I think that Bush is incompetent in his management of the war, I still have no sympathy for the suicide bombers; and if I have a deep prejudice against Pakistani politics its not because I can't speak Urdu. 

If you want to end terrorism, you must acknowledge their political demands.  I believe that terrorism has a rationality.  Otherwise, we will react irrationally ourselves, and the war will never stop.  Fortunately, my conservative friend, don't lambast me about this.  The administration is already doing it in some places.  don't presume that rationality equals righteousness.  I think people can rationally make evil choices.  Even the best, smartest, and most well educated people do.

Fareed Zakaria has a much more rational idea, based upon Richard Haass new book:  rather than isolate ugly regimes, engage them with openness.

Critics could argue that I'm forgetting the many surprising places where regimes have fallen and freedom has been given a chance to flourish. Who would have predicted that Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan would see so much change in the past year and a half? But these examples only prove my point. The United States had no "regime change" policy toward any of these countries, and it had relations with all of them. In fact, these relationships helped push the regimes to change and emboldened civil-society groups.

We pragmatists were never for terrorism.  Rather - our policies promote the anger, rage and resentment that fuel terrorism and give it a populist sensibility.  Instead we would promote civil societies, trade, the rule of law and information.  Isolation and regime change merely make us easy targets.   Positive engagement changed China from brutality to a relative amount of openness.

I hope that this assuages your fear.  If it helps,you can quote me:  I luff America very much, like chocolate, rain on a hot day, or Salma Hayek, if only because I love my house, my friends - both American and non-American, my kitty [who is cute, but speaks no English], and I hope, from now on, I won't need to precede my equal committment to human rights, to opposing torture, to supporting democracy, to alternatives to war, by  a statement saying "I oppose terrorism and love my country, the flag, little statues of Lady liberty, and Harley Davidson Motorcycles, potato salad with too much mayonnaise, and all those other good things that make this country great."  If you must, just cut and paste it to any rant I might make against the incompetence and the contempt that this administration has demonstrated at every turn against the institutions that make this country.  I love America.  And I oppose terrorism.  Just repeat that to yourself when thinking about me, before I demolish your silly defenses of torture and brutality, your consumerist vision of humanity, and your evasion of financial responsibility.

Marijuana Lobbying Underway

Its incredible the amount of money we spend locking up people who wouldn't be dangerous to society if their desires weren't illegal.  It's illegality that makes drug use dangerous, not always the use itself.  Hard to understand for some, but easy to prove.  Apparently 500 economists and other smart people are suggesting that congress look at the facts.  It's mildly utopian, but these persons share the same religion as congress, the religion of the free market, which like most religions, is one we praise with our lips, although our hearts are elsewhere.  Maybe they'll be convincing.  Hard to get my parish on board.  Apparently one of my predecessors had the munchies just a little too often. 

One economist remarked: 

"If we banned Ben & Jerry's ice cream, there'd be drive-by shootings over Ben & Jerry's." We'd have a militarized sugar industry.

Another economist said, "We're split down the middle on everything, but you don't see us split down the middle on drug prohibition. It's a case where it's clear that the costs of prohibition exceed the benefits."

What a Rector Should Remember

It takes 14 miles of open water for a fully loaded open tanker to make a 90 degree change in direction.

New Blog Worth Mentioning

I want to call your attention to a new blogger:  Anglican Scotist.  I share his philosophical sensibilities.  Like Tobias Hallar and Questioning Christian he is smart and precise.  He's willing to take on the Anglican Communion Institute and a few of the other prominent fuzzy thinkers with - get this - examples and counter examples.  He has skillz in logic, and keeps a proper emotional distance from the subject.  I think he's a welcome addition to the conversation.

The Ugandan Response

We here in the diocese of Babylon have many Ugandans.  Ever since the Episcopal Church, faced with the choice between 1) being democratic and transparent and 2) being obedient to foreigners, went its reformist and jesus-loves-sinners route, these lovely Ugandans, tainted by the decadent smell of western inclusivity, have been personae non-grata in their home country.   

The Church of Uganda posted an article about sexuality from a traditional perspective.  The movement of Christ has tempered it from being merely hostile to homosexuality, to acknowledging the pastoral needs of homosexuals. Good for them.  They're trying. 

It begins with a bit of a complaint against ECUSA and Westminster, for doing as they please.  It doesn't mention the chaos of Lambeth 1998.  Nor does it mention how we make decisions here.  It begins where every other conservative begins:  "The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments teach that God’s design for sexual relationships is male-female."  As I've pointed out, this is etiological rather than moral.  If it were moral, it render the troubling relationships in scripture obscure - such as Lot's Daughters or the various ways concubines and wives would deceive their husbands.   My rule - if we're looking for justification, we'll find it.  A close reading of David and Jonathan would indicate a much more complex relationship than the Ugandans would allow.  Of course, I'm looking for justification and the reasserters aren't.

I'm not saying that finding a relationship in scripture justifies or trivializes homosexual relationships.  What it does do is render judging decontextualized activity impossible.  This is what Jesus means by saying "judge not."  First, get the facts. 

They continue:  "Homosexuality, bestiality, incest, pedophilia, fornication, adultery, polygamy / polygyny and polyandry are all manifestation of perverted sexual desire."   We now know where they place homosexuality.  I admit, if fantasizing about fornication with multiple women, some married, makes me a pervert, then I stand accused.  I know enough ethics, have the capability of guilt and obey my ordination vows, so those fantasies are just fantasies [yes, really, and no you can't ask my confessor]. 

I would hate to be in Uganda after admitting this, for according to them I might as well be the kind of priest who screws kitties.  Of both sexes.  Flaming transgendered kitties who cohabitate with geese.

They are also mistaken about the place of marriage in the sacramental life of the church, confusing baptism with marriage.  They harness marriage as the orienting metaphor for our relationship to the church and God.  Although marriage is a helpful metaphor, it has limits, given what Paul and Jesus both said about placing married couples and families above God and the end-times.  Baptism is where a Christian begins.

The article continues with an inspiring story about Christianity in Africa.  This is where it gets exciting.  The bible enriched African languages; it preached peace rather than vengeance; caring for the widow; interracial marriages.  Good stuff.

What we liberals have to manage is that they... really think we've allowed Satan into the church.  We're the stormtroopers.  We're the ignorant fools, succumbing to our own decadence and affluence.  In their eyes, we're in Germany 1933, and Robinson is going to bring a spiritual armeggedon, a war that will leave thousands of people dead.  We know this isn't true, but that's what they feel.   We're in Revenge of the Sith, and we aren't picking up that Gene Robinson, or Frank Griswold, is the emperor.  Ridiculous?  Yes.  Do people think this way?  Yes, alas. 

The document never engages our hermeneutical stance; it never addresses homosexuals as individuals for whom scripture is foundational.  It didn't respond to the arguments presented by our representatives.  In this way the Ugandan document untlimately fails, inspiring in its rhetoric perhaps, but intellectually wanting. 

Too bad. 

via Titusonenine

Eminent Domain

The recent Supreme Court decision regarding eminent domain is very important.  Of course, it makes it hard for individuals to do battle with the state.  The Progress Report explains why this isn't good news.

For organized environmentalists and interfaith bodies, however, this might be a win.  Perhaps we can set aside properties for proper stewardship.  It can also ensure that absentee landlords do not use tax incentives NOT to develop properties.  One of the most challenging aspects of revitalizing a neighborhood are landlords who have an interest in keeping properties divested, either for tax writeoffs or for sheer laziness. 

In some countries, any property that is absent for more than a given amount of time becomes taxed more heavily.  This gives the landlord and incentive to make the property attractive. 

Let us now review Henry George.   In my view - let there be two taxes:  land - rent [that takes into account environmental footprint] and an estate tax to society.  Income and interest to individuals.

An Episcopal Priest and Levinas

Michael Rips writes an article about finding a portfolio of drawings by his father.  He consults and Episcopal priest who gives him a book by Emmanuel Levinas.

To all conservatives:  if you want to know the writers who are most influencing the theology of your smart progressive Episcopal priests, start with Levinas; then go to Girard; Mary Douglas; Ricoeur - "all language requires interpretation."   For our ecclesiology, its Althasius.  Levinas articulates how we in ECUSA understand the lives of gay people in our midst - learning to see people as human beings rather than as damaged.

For Modern Anglican: its still Butler, Berkeley, Maurice, and Temple. 

Another Prolegomena

1) Genesis describes a general description of God's creative power.  Yet, God did not create the world in six human days.  This is merely descriptive and has little intrinsic ethical content.

1a) Genesis describes a general description of male and female as active and passive.  This is also descriptive.  It also has little intrinsic ethical content in and of itself.   Men and women may have sex with different sorts of moral or immoral intentions.

1b) Some men have passive qualities.  Some women have active qualities.

2) One consequence of men and women having sex is procreation.  Other consequences include familiarity; pleasure; reconciliation; love.  Procreation is one of the more demanding consequences of sexual activity for the community.  The act of procreation may or may not be the most important element of coitus, ethically.  Caring for children is surely important.

2a) In scripture, a woman's worth is linked to her childbearing.

2b) In scripture, the church cares for women who do not, or cannot, have children.

2c) All communities consider childbearing important.  Christians may consider childbearing important due to Jesus Christ.

3) The primary nature of the relationship between God and his people is one of Covanent.  Promises, and its corollary, trustworthiness, are foundational aspects of our life with God.  Religious people trust in God.

4) Human beings are made in God's image.

5) The promises and trust that human beings make to each other are like images of God making promises.

6) Cultures that adhere to promises intrinsically are different than cultures in whic promises are bought.

7) Sex is always a form of communication; but it is not always procreative. 

8) The church blesses sex when it communicates a covanent, as covanents represent God's work in human relationships.

I have other statements to ask and say about these things.