Author: Alan Bean

The myth of redemptive violence

· 1 Comment ·

This article originally appeared in the Red Letter Weekly.

By Shaine Claiborne

I had a veteran friend once tell me, “The biggest lie I have ever been told is that violence is evil, except in war.”  He went on, “My government told me that.  My Church told me that.  My family told me that… I came back from war and told them the truth – ‘Violence is not evil, except in war… Violence is evil – period’.”

Every day it seems like we are bombarded with news stories of violence – a shooting in Colorado, a bus bombing in Bulgaria, drones gone bad and the threat of a nuclear Iran, a civil war in Syria, explosions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This week’s cover story of Time magazine is — “One a Day” — showing that soldier suicides are up to one per day, surpassing the number of soldiers that die in combat. The US military budget is still rising — over 20,000 dollars a second, over 1 million dollars a minute spent on war, even as the country goes bankrupt.

Our world is filled with violence – like a plague, an infection, a pandemic of people killing people, and people killing themselves.  In my city of brotherly love, Philadelphia, we have nearly one homicide a day – and in this land of the free we have over 10,000 homicides a year.

Today, Barack Obama called the shooting in Colorado “evil”.  And he is right.

But perhaps it is also time that we declare that violence is evil, everywhere – period.  It’s obvious that killing folks in a movie theater is sick and deranged, but the question arises – is violence ever okay? (more…)

Fort Worth Preacher was the Klan’s best friend

·
J. Frank Norris

By Alan Bean

Bud Kennedy, a columnist with the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, recently submitted a column linking J. Frank Norris, the infamous Fort Worth hell-raiser, to the Ku Klux Klan.  It has often been noted that leading fundamentalists of the first half of the 20th century tended to be anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic and thoroughly racist, but is there a logical link between fundamentalism, as a religious phenomenon, and racism?

The fighting fundamentalists of the 1920s and 30s (Norris in Fort Worth and Detroit, T.T. Shields in Toronto, W.B. Riley in Minneapolis, John R. Rice in Dallas and Illinois) supported racial segregation and railed against evolution.   But as Randy Moore pointed out a decade ago, a dumbed-down version of Darwinism was used by self-conscious racists to support the doctrine of white supremacy long before evolution became the whipping boy of racist fundamentalist preachers.

The link between religious fundamentalism, anti-evolutionary rhetoric and support for segregation was more sociological than logical.  The common folk who flocked to the fundamentalist movement were reassured by talk of an inerrant Bible,  support for white supremacy and opposition to scientific theories that appeared to undermine biblical authority.  Men like Shields lashed out at evolutionists for the same reason they supported racial segregation–it put butts in the seats.  For self-promoters like Norris, that was always the bottom line.

Pandering to the fears and enthusiasms of the ignorant is still a smart marketing principle for professional religionists, but appeals to white supremacy are no long in vogue.  Fundamentalists like Al Mohler oppose evolution in part, because it has been used to support the doctrine of white supremacy.

Recent book brings revelations about crusading preacher’s ties to KKK

By Bud Kennedy
Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Sixty years after his death, we are still learning about America’s first over-the-top radio preacher.

We know the Rev. J. Frank Norris crusaded from Fort Worth against liquor, liberals, commies and, yes, Catholics.

We know he killed a man in his First Baptist Church office and successfully claimed self-defense. (more…)

Immigration and the Heart of God

· 2 Comments ·

This presentation was part of a People of Faith and Immigration gathering, July 24, 2012 at the First Spanish Assembly of God in Waco, Texas.

Immigration and the Heart of God

By Alan Bean

Why are our churches so silent on the immigration issue?    Is it because a range of opinion exists within our congregations on the immigration issue and pastors fear they might spark a civil war if they touch on the subject?

Or do we fear that if we approached the immigration issue from a biblical perspective, or viewed the subject through the lens of Jesus Christ, we might arrive at mushy, impractical conclusions that don’t wear well in the real world?

The biblical narrative begins as Adam and Eve are exiled from the garden.  Next we meet Abraham, Sarah and their descendants.  These people are sojourners, undocumented aliens.  They wander the Promised Land as exiles, never finding a true home.  Eventually, the sons of Jacob show up in Egypt with a message for Pharaoh: “We have come to reside as aliens in the land; for there is no pasture for your servants’ flocks because the famine is severe in the land of Canaan.”

God’s children move from being undocumented aliens in Canaan to being undocumented aliens in Egypt.  They were driven by hardship, by the need for food, work and the means of survival.  They have come to be reunited with their brother Joseph.

Which is why the oldest confession of faith in the Bible begins:

A wandering Aramean was my father; he went down into Egypt and lived there as an alien, few in number, and there he became a great nation, mighty and populous.  When the Egyptians treated us harshly and afflicted us, by imposing hard labor on us, we cried to the LORD, the God of our fathers; the LORD heard our voice and saw our affliction, our toil and our oppression.  (more…)

Paid by the criminals of Red River County

· 2 Comments ·

By Pierre R. Berastain
Image

Image

These photographs I took back in 2010 when I visited Red River County to investigate residents’ complaints of injustice.  I was somewhat taken aback by the painted sign that reads, “Paid for by: the Convicted Criminals of Red River County Texas”.  After speaking with some people, I realized such a sign may convey a very loaded and political message.

A number of citizens indicated that the town very much depends on probation fees.  I was told that the District Attorney will not bring a case to court (by delaying the case as long as he wants)  This alleged lingering of justice  intimidates and frustrates individuals.  To “make the case go away”, thus, the DA’s office offers a “deal”: a plea of guilty from the accused–which remains on the person’s criminal record–no jail time, and a commitment to pay probation fees for a determinate number of years.  The above sign could point to the hypothesis that perhaps the “convicted criminals”—those who pled guilty—are, indeed, paying for the police cars through the probation fees.  Though I was never able to confirm these allegations, there exists a possibility the interpretation is apt.  Regardless, the mere signs seem tasteless.

Youth Pride Parade

· 1 Comment ·
By Pierre R. Berastaín

Image

A couple of months ago, I took my friend DeSean to Boston’s Youth Pride Parade. Pride was as new for him as it was for me, except he had an excuse; I didn’t—I am twenty-four; he is sixteen.

I never really gave much attention to Pride. Even as someone who has never attended, I saw the festivities as a strange mix of debauchery and activism, of partying and self-reflection, and of acceptance of those who fit in and rejection of those unlucky to fall outside the stereotypes. Judging from afar, Pride seemed to act as a misnomer—what were people proud of? How much they could drink? How few clothes they could wear? How much they could shake their bodies dancing to Madonna?

Youth Pride in Boston seemed a bit different. As we entered the festive grounds, the five of us (my sister, her boyfriend, my best friend, DeSean, and I) were greeted by people eager to tell us about their services, organizations, and upcoming events. Present were religious institutions—from Christian to Buddhist—health care organizations, support groups, and even a man who lured us all into his delicious candy tent. People of all ages had the opportunity to enter a raffle for an i-Pad if they went through HIV testing.

Against this backdrop of information and activism, the youth danced to Lady Gaga and Rihanna (for next year, I suggest more cultural variation in music and diversity in genres, although DeSean tells me “the music was very cool!”). Taken as a whole, Youth Pride was not only a celebration of youthfulness and queerness, but also of the community we have created, of the services we provide, of the faiths we follow, of the activities we involve ourselves, and of the mouth-watering candy only gays know how to make. For a sixteen year-old, I think Pride was important in helping solidify his identity in a hetero-normative society. It was important in helping him understand that as weird—or queer—as he is, there are others who are even stranger but who are nonetheless proud of their bizarreness. Youth Pride also gave both DeSean and me something else to be proud of: that as an LGBTQ community can take care of our youth, that we have progressed to a more inclusive society, and that we have expanded the support and services for the LGBTQ in Boston. When I asked DeSean what he thought of that day, he said, “Youth Pride was very fun and amazing. All the people there were very cool and entertaining. I enjoyed walking around and seeing all the tables and stands and I learned a lot of the services we have.”

But as proud as I am of my community, I am also cognizant that many others despise the idea of ‘promoting the gay agenda.’ To them—some family members included—a Youth Pride is a way to turn more kids gay or lesbian and a way of spreading immorality and disease. I do not expect to change people’s views in this short posting, but I would like to ask that we consider that LGBTQ youth experience higher rates of depression, substance abuse, and suicide than does the general population. Supporting Youth Pride, therefore, is not about coming out in support of gay marriage or accepting the “homosexual lifestyle” (though it can be). Most importantly, youth pride is about being pro-community, of coming out in favor of support systems for a population traditionally marginalized; it’s about affirming to ourselves that in a sea of non-inclusiveness, we can find pockets of acceptance and love. I think we can all relate to these desires.

Note: DeSean and Pierre are both part of the Hispanic Back Gay Coalition’s Mentorship Program.
The original article appeared in the blog Turn It Up Boston.

Zimmerman blames God for Trayvon Martin’s death

·

By Alan Bean

I almost hate to share this bizarre snapshot from the George Zimmerman reality TV show.  Zimmerman is an idiot, and it’s not fair to exploit the feeble-minded, even when they request an interview with Sean Hannity.

On the other hand, Zimmerman’s statement that he doesn’t regret what transpired the night Trayvon Martin died reflects a uniquely American heresy: the idea that everything “happens for a reason” and is therefore the direct will of God.

George, God did not pull the trigger, you did.  God did not want you to pull the trigger.  God did not want you to leave your vehicle.  God did not want you to resort to vigilante justice.  God didn’t even want you to buy that gun.  This is all on you, my brother, every last, tragic bit of it.

Zimmerman should ‘regret’ Hannity interview

There were many contradictions in George Zimmerman’s softball and leading interviewwith Fox News’s Sean Hannity last night. But none was more revealing and disturbing than the killer of Trayvon Martin’s response to being asked if he had any regrets.

 

HANNITY: Is there anything you regret? Do you regret getting out of the car to follow Trayvon that night?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: Do you regret that you had a gun that night?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: Do you feel you wouldn’t be here for this interview if you didn’t have that gun?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

HANNITY: You feel you would not be here?

ZIMMERMAN: I feel it was all God’s plan, and for me to second guess it or judge it —

Folks understandably have zeroed in on Zimmerman’s “God’s plan”remark. But if you read the transcript carefully — and honestly — you’ll see that he was responding to Hannity’s question about whether he thought he would not be alive today if he didn’t have his gun that night. Still, what he said immediately before that stood out as particularly callous.

No regrets about getting out of his car? No regrets at all? Not even of taking another life? In the capias request written by Sanford Police Detective Christopher Serino on March 13, which sought to have Zimmerman arrested for manslaughter — a request that was denied — he noted, “The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement.” There’s no arguing with that assessment.

Asked by Hannity at the end of the interview to turn to the camera and address America and Trayvon’s parents, the man who said he had no regrets getting out of his car, no regrets following Trayvon, no regrets carrying a gun, sought to clarify his remarks.

First, I would like to readdress your question when you asked if I would have done anything differently. When you asked that, I thought you were referring to if I would not have talked to the police, if I would have maybe have gotten an attorney, if I wouldn’t have taken the CVSA and that I stand by, I would not have done anything differently.

But I do wish that there was something, anything I could have done that wouldn’t have put me in the position where I had to take his life. And I do want to tell everyone, my wife, my family, my parents, my grandmother, the Martins, the city of Stanford, and America that I am sorry that this happened.

I hate to think that because of this incident, because of my actions, it’s polarized and divided America, and I’m truly sorry.

On the “Today” show this morning, Trayvon’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, was having none of it. Asked by Matt Lauer if she would be open to meeting with Zimmerman one day, the still grieving and visibly angry mother said forcefully, “Absolutely not.” And after last night’s interview, I don’t blame her.

New York activist arrested for protesting “stop and frisk” policing

·

I met Jazz Hayden, the subject of this story, the same way Sharon Kyle met him, and in precisely the same company.  The only difference was that I met Jazz in Chicago instead of LA.  In other words, this story is kind of personal.  Hayden, a reformed criminal with a record as long as your arm, understands the dynamics of what Michelle Alexander calls “the New Jim Crow” from the inside out.  Recently, his efforts to undermine the NYPD’s infamous “stop and frisk” style of policing, Jazz took to photographing officers in action.  They didn’t like having their picture taken, and now Jazz faces criminal charges that could place him back in prison.  Please read this account and join me in signing the Change.org petition at the bottom of the story.

iStock 000011299509Small 300x199 Stop and Frisk Citizen JournalistsStop-and-Frisk Citizen Journalists

In November of 2011 Dick and I attended an event in south Los Angeles where we met three friends face to face for the first time. Even though we were meeting for the first time in persom, I characterize them as “friends” because  we established a bond online as we all worked to support the work of Michelle Alexander.  All three live in New York and all three are progressive activists. When we learned that they’d be attending a conference in Los Angeles, Dick and I extended an invitation to have them come to our home in Mt. Washington for dinner during one of the evenings they were here in town. (more…)

Two conflicting explanations for the decline of the liberal Church

· 2 Comments ·
David Hollinger

By Alan Bean

The Christian Century has a fascinating interview with Berkeley Professor David Hollinger who argues that “ecumenical Protestants” (he intentionally avoids the word “liberal”) shifted American culture in positive directions because they were willing to go to the wall on issues like civil rights.

This view conflicts with Ross Douthat’s critique of liberal Christianity, expressed most recently in the New York Times’ Sunday Review that liberal denominations have declined numerically because they are “flexible to the point of indifference on dogma, friendly to sexual liberation in almost every form, willing to blend Christianity with other faiths, and eager to downplay theology entirely in favor of secular political causes.”

Hollinger disagrees.  Ecumenical churches have suffered drastic numerical declines, to be sure, but for all the right reasons:

Ecumenical Protestants were way ahead of the evangelicals in accepting a role for sex beyond procreation and in supporting an expanded role for women in society. The ecumenical Protestants understood full well that the Jim Crow system could not be overturned without the application of state power, rejecting the standard line of Billy Graham and many other evangelicals that racism was an individual sin rather than a civil evil. The ecumenical Protestants developed a capacity for empathic identification with foreign peoples that led them to revise their foreign missionary project, diminishing its culturally imperialist aspects—and that led them, further, to the forefront of ethnoracially pluralist and egalitarian initiatives as carried out by white Americans. The ecumenical Protestants resoundingly renounced the idea that the United States is a Christian nation, while countless evangelical leaders continue to espouse this deeply parochial idea.

It could be that Douthat chooses to focus on the lame aspects of liberal Protestantism while Hollinger celebrates the heroic side of that tradition.  Both are certainly part of the mix.  The big difference is that Douthat describes Protestant Christians desperately trying to adapt to secular liberalism; Hollinger sees the ecumenical Protestant tradition establishing the foundations for secular liberalism on issues like civil rights, feminism, gay rights and a non-aggressive foreign policy.

Please read both articles and tell us what you think.

Children of undocumented parents face foster care, adoption

· 1 Comment ·

By Pierre R. Berastain

What happens to children of parents who are caught in the process of deportation?  According to a judge in Missouri, those children go to foster care.  The logic couldn’t make more sense: the parents abandon their children, so the state is in its right to take over.  It is estimated that over 5,100 children are in foster care while their parents face deportation.  It doesn’t matter the parents provided a home for the children, or that the children enjoyed a bed every night and a meal every day.  All that matters is that the parents committed the civil offense of remaining in the country without papers.  It is one thing to enforce the law; it is another to separate families that have done nothing wrong besides seek a better future for themselves, a more comfortable lifestyle for their children, a safer place to call home.

Judge Terminates Detained Mom’s Rights, Allows  Missouri Couple to Adopt
By Jorge Rivas

On Wednesday a Missouri juvenile court judge terminated a Guatemalan woman’s rights to her 5-year-son because they believe she abandoned her child when she was imprisoned after a 2007 immigration sting at a poultry processing plant.

Encarnacion Romero, the mother of the child, cried as she was leaving the courtroom, according to the Joplin Globe. Romero’s attorney say they will appeal the decision.

The case garnered National attention when ABC’s “Nightline” covered the story in February 2012. (more…)