“You each can play a critical role in this process by providing a qualified petitioner — one who has a clean record in prison, does not present a threat to public safety, and who is facing a life or near-life sentence that is excessive under current law — with the opportunity to get a fresh start,” Cole told the lawyers.

His remarks were part of a broader prison reform effort by the Justice Department. In August, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that low-level drug offenders with no connection to gangs or large-scale drug organizations would no longer be charged with offenses that called for severe mandatory sentences. President Obama later commuted the sentences of eight inmates serving a long time for crack cocaine convictions.

Each of them had served at least 15 years and had been convicted before the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act, which sought to reduce the sentencing disparity between those convicted of crack and powder cocaine crimes.

“The president’s grant of commutations for these eight individuals is only a first step,” Cole said Thursday. “There are more low-level, nonviolent drug offenders who remain in prison, and who would likely have received a substantially lower sentence if convicted of precisely the same offenses today.”

It’s unclear how many inmates could qualify for clemency, but thousands of federal inmates are serving time for crack cocaine offenses.

Civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, applauded Cole’s announcement.

“The Obama administration is taking an important step toward undoing the damage that extreme sentencing has done to so many in our criminal justice system,” said Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office.

In other action Thursday on criminal justice reform, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance a bill, sponsored by Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), that would reduce mandatory minimum sentences for federal drug offenders by half and allow 8,800 federal inmates imprisoned for crack cocaine crimes to return to court to seek punishments in line with the Fair Sentencing Act.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the ranking Republican on the panel, called the legislation “a step backward.” In a statement, he cited a letter sent to Holder from the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys that said “the merits of mandatory minimum sentences are abundantly clear.”

“They provide us leverage to secure cooperation from defendants. . . . They protect law-abiding citizens and help to hold crime in check,” the group said.

Julie Stewart, president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, called the bill “bipartisan and reasonable” and said it would “save taxpayers billions of dollars by locking up fewer nonviolent drug offenders for shorter periods of time.”

Holder, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, said federal prison costs represent one-third of the Justice Department budget. He called the enormous costs of overburdened prisons “a growing and potentially very dangerous problem.”

The cost of incarceration in the United States was $80 billion in 2010. The U.S. population has grown by about a third since 1980, but the federal prison population has increased by about 800 percent and federal prisons are operating at nearly 40 percent over capacity, Justice officials said.

By Alan Bean

The basic thrust of the Imago Dei Campaign will not come close to satisfying liberals, but it is an excellent beginning.

It is frequently assumed that when Pope Francis talks about God’s love for gays, atheists and other traditionally demonized demographics, he is backing away from traditional Catholic teaching.  Not so.  Whatever his personal views may be, Pope Francis must hue to the established party line.  That’s what popes do.

In Francis we see a pronounced shift in tone and emphasis.  Hard line liberals aren’t impressed.  After all, they say, Francis still believes that homosexuality does not reflect the creative intention of God, and he affirms his church’s absolute opposition to abortion under any circumstances.  So why is everybody so excited?

We’re excited because the world’s most prominent religionist is publicly celebrating God’s love for all humanity.  God loves everybody, all the time, no matter what.  That’s what a shift in tone and emphasis looks like.

Similarly, Sammy Rodriguez, evangelists like James Robison, and the good folks at Focus on the Family can’t back away from their established positions on gay rights and abortion.  To do so would instantly end careers and destroy the prominent institutions these men are associated with.

But they have done what people in their position can do.  They have acknowledged the humanity of their ideological opponents.   They have admitted that every person on every side of our futile culture war debate is a child of God and thus worthy of respect.

We can’t have a conversation until these affirmations are made by people of good will on both sides of the cultural and religious divide.

Rev. Rodriguez, the official voice of Imago Dei (Image of God), is right about one thing; young people, conservative and liberal, have had enough of the culture war.

The Imago Dei Campaign: Evangelical Groups Say Gays Made in God’s Image

By Elizabeth Dias @elizabethjdias

Jan. 20, 2014

Gays are created in the image of God. So are liberals. The rich. The undocumented. Unbelievers. Everyone, even, and most importantly, the people with whom you do not agree.

That’s the message of the Imago Dei Campaign, a new movement of prominent evangelical groups launched on Monday to erode the culture war battle lines that have helped define evangelical discourse for the better part of half a century. The Imago Dei, or Image of God, pledge is simple: “I recognize that every human being, in and out of the womb, carries the image of God; without exception. Therefore, I will treat everyone with love and respect.” (more…)

By Alan Bean

I was deeply moved by this poetic essay by Langston Hughes.  That might seem odd to you.  Hughes could never get comfortable with religion, and Salvation gives us a big part of the reason.  My life and work has been shaped by a religious vision from the beginning.  Yet I find an important piece of my own spiritual biography in this story.

Unlike Langston Hughes, I never “went forward” in response to evangelistic appeals, although, to be honest, the churches of my childhood never worked that hard to get me to “the front”.  I was twenty-two when I was baptized.  By that time I realized that, for me at least, there would be no flashing light from heaven, no strange warming of the heart.  I went forward because I loved Jesus and wanted to serve him.

Hughes describes the evangelistic fervor of his childhood congregation with tender affection.  He loved these people and wanted to honor them.  The brand of “come to Jesus” socialization described in Salvation, while a formative influence in many American lives, can bear bitter fruit in the most honest and sensitive souls.  It has very little meaningful relation to the Jesus of the Bible, and it glamorizes a species of religious experience that is foreign to all but a few.

Social conformity and Christian discipleship are antithetical concepts.  At least they should be.

Only by staying in his seat could Langston Hughes have honored a God of truth and integrity; but that kind of courage is beyond the reach of even the most stalwart children.  Martin Luther King Jr., the man we honored yesterday, was able to remain in the Christian fold because he found  a Jesus, rooted in the prophetic biblical tradition, who understood his passion for justice.  The same goes for me.

Langston Hughes was not so fortunate.  But you’d never get a critique of old school evangelism this poignant from inside the community of faith.  Langston may not have know it, but his unswerving honesty was inspired by a gracious God.  Langston Hughes may never have found God (we’ll have to take his word for that), but read Salvation and you know God found Langston.  Maybe that’s all that matters.

Salvation

By Langston Hughes

I was saved from sin when I was going on thirteen. But not really saved. It happened like this. There was a big revival at my Auntie Reed’s church. Every night for weeks there had been much preaching, singing, praying, and shouting, and some very hardened sinners had been brought to Christ, and the membership of the church had grown by leaps and bounds. Then just before the revival ended, they held a special meeting for children, “to bring the young lambs to the fold.” My aunt spoke of it for days ahead. That night I was escorted to the front row and placed on the mourners’ bench with all the other young sinners, who had not yet been brought to Jesus.

My aunt told me that when you were saved you saw a light, and something happened to you inside! And Jesus came into your life! And God was with you from then on! She said you could see and hear and feel Jesus in your soul. I believed her. I had heard a great many old people say the same thing and it seemed to me they ought to know. So I sat there calmly in the hot, crowded church, waiting for Jesus to come to me.

The preacher preached a wonderful rhythmical sermon, all moans and shouts and lonely cries and dire pictures of hell, and then he sang a song about the ninety and nine safe in the fold, but one little lamb was left out in the cold. Then he said: “Won’t you come? Won’t you come to Jesus? Young lambs, won’t you come?” And he held out his arms to all us young sinners there on the mourners’ bench. And the little girls cried. And some of them jumped up and went to Jesus right away. But most of us just sat there.

A great many old people came and knelt around us and prayed, old women with jet-black faces and braided hair, old men with work-gnarled hands. And the church sang a song about the lower lights are burning, some poor sinners to be saved. And the whole building rocked with prayer and song.

Still I kept waiting to see Jesus. (more…)

Rachel Held Evans finds herself stuck in the messy middle between the pro choice and pro life constituencies.  She understands the arguments being made on both sides of the debate, and finds many of them persuasive.  And that’s the problem.  When both sides of the argument are making valid arguments there is a strong possibility that we need to broaden the terms of the discussion.  I find her comments incredibly helpful and hope you do too.  Rachel is speaking here for many who rarely hear our position voiced in a public forum.  This quick quote will give you the gist of her argument but I encourage you to read the entire post and share your reaction.

It seems to me that Christians who are more conservative and Christians who are more liberal, Christians who are politically pro-life and Christians who are politically pro-choice,  should be able to come together on this and advocate for life in a way that takes seriously the complexities involved and that honors both women and their unborn children.

Readers of this blog will be familiar with the wit and wisdom of the Rev. Dr. Charles Kiker.  What you likely don’t know is that Charles has written a wonderful book, Haunted by the Holy Ghost: Memoirs of a Reluctant Prophet  This review of by Walter (Buddy) Shurden, published in the most recent edition of Christian Ethics Today, will make you want to read the book.  AGB

Haunted by the Holy Ghost: Memoirs of a Reluctant Prophet by Charles Kiker (Bloomington, Indiana: AuthorHouse, 2013. 226 pages.)

Reviewed by Walter B. Shurden

Charles Kiker may not be your vintage household Baptist name. But for those of you who read this important journal, believe me when I tell you that he is the kind of fellow with whom most of you will gladly identify, if not admire. This entertaining, at times humorous, memoir is the story of a guy who took a serious liking to Jesus in his younger days and for the rest of his days, by his own testimony, has been Haunted by the Holy Ghost. This “Holy Ghost haunting” unfolded in a challenging life of Christian ministry rather than in religious emotionalism.  The haunting led to justice-making, mercy-giving, truth-seeking, and risk-taking.

Here are some of the facts. Charles Kiker is a farmer who became a preacher, a Methodist who became a Baptist and a Methodist again (and for good reason), a Swisher County, Texas boy who, proud of his conservative roots, grew strong ethical liberal wings, a high school graduate who resisted the idea of college but later received a Ph.D. in Old Testament, a professor who became a pastor, a pastor who questioned the status quo, a husband who married Patricia, his childhood sweetheart, and a father who is obviously a committed family man. (more…)

By Alan Bean

A Mexican newspaper has published a thoroughly documented expose that makes a stunning case.  Beginning in the 1990s, the American Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) made a deal with one of Mexico’s deadliest drug cartels.  If the Cartel gave the DEA accurate information on rival cartels, the DEA would allow the Sinaloa Cartel to import narcotics into Chicago.

I know this sounds crazy.  If the goal was to staunch the import of illegal drugs into the United States, what difference did it make which cartel was bringing in the drugs?

But, as anyone associated with the Drug War realizes, the goal has never been to stop, or even slow the importation of illegal narcotics into the United States; the goal has been to make a series of highly publicized drug busts in order to justify the continual flow of federal funds to the DEA.

That was the the game in its entirety.

When I published “The Law Falls Silent” in May of 2012, many found it difficult to believe that the American government would allow a Mexican drug kingpin to leave the United States in exchange for setting up an innocent man, Ramsey Muñiz .  In that case, neither the US Attorney who prosecuted the case, nor any one who testified at the 1994 trial, understood the first thing about the relationship between Donacio Medina (a Mexican drug dealer) and Ramsey  Muñiz, a para legal based in Corpus Christi.  No one questions that Muñiz drove Medina’s vehicle from one motel to another.  But did  Muñiz know the car, which he claimed to be moving as a favor to Medina, contained $800,000 worth of powdered cocaine?

Muñiz says Medina approached him because the Mexican national was looking for an attorney to assist two family members who were incarcerated in federal prisons.  Although no one involved with the trial knew it at the time, the feds arrested Medina in Houston and told him he was going to prison unless he could give them something or somebody of value.  Medina set up the scenario in Dallas that brought Muñiz down and told his DEA handlers to arrest the guy driving the Camry.  As soon as the trunk was opened, Medina was allowed to leave the country a free man.

The story Ramsey Muñiz told at trial sounded incredible to the jury.  Why would the federal government put a man in prison for the rest of his life unless they knew for certain he was a dangerous drug dealer?  More to the point, why would the feds release a man they knew was importing millions of dollars of cocaine into the United States knowing full well that he would continue his illegal activities?  It made no sense.

Read the story below and you will know why neither the DEA nor the DOJ cared who put the drugs in the car or whether Ramsey Muñiz knew he was driving a hot car.  It didn’t matter.  Medina gave them a high-profile narcotics case on a silver platter. The fact that Muñiz, two decades earlier, their suspect had run for Governor of Texas only sweetened the story.

Once again, the legitimization of the drug war, and the vast sums of money that came with it, were all that mattered.  If you doubt that, read on.

CONFIRMED: The DEA Struck A Deal With Mexico’s Most Notorious Drug Cartel

By MICHAEL KELLEY

Business Insider

January 13, 2014

An investigation by El Universal has found that between the years 2000 and 2012, the U.S. government had an arrangement with Mexico’s Sinaloa drug cartel that allowed the organization to smuggle billions of dollars of drugs in exchange for information on rival cartels.

Sinaloa, led by Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, supplies 80% of the drugs entering the Chicago area and has a presence in cities across the U.S.

There have long been allegations that Guzman, considered to be “the world’s most powerful drug trafficker,” coordinates with American authorities. (more…)