Lies, Damn Lies, and . . .

· 2 Comments ·

By Alan Bean

Like they say, you can prove anything with statistics.  I got an email this morning pointing out the ten American cities with the highest rates of poverty all have Democratic mayors.

Here’s the list:

1. Detroit , MI              32.5%
2. Buffalo , NY               29.9% poverty rate
3. Cincinnati , OH         27.8%
4. Cleveland , OH         27.0%
5. Miami , FL                26.9%
6. St. Louis , MO           26.8%
7. El Paso , TX              26.4%
8. Milwaukee , WI         26.2%
9. Philadelphia , PA        25.1%
10. Newark , NJ             24.2%

And the moral of that is:

It is the poor who habitually elect Democrats yet they are still POOR!

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away people’s initiative and independence.

You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.”

I have seen similar lists of American cities on racist websites.  There, the moral is that many poor cities have black mayors which shows that black people are incompetent.

Now let’s consider the opposite indicator: the ten American cities with the largest concentration of high net worth individuals.  These happen to be:

  1. New York (currently the mayor is independent, but NY historically favors Democrats)
  2. Los Angeles (Democratic mayor)
  3. Chicago (Democrat)
  4. Washington, D.C. (Democrat)
  5. San Francisco (Democrat)
  6. Philadelphia (Democrat)
  7. Boston (Democrat)
  8. Houston (Democrat)
  9. Detroit (Democrat)
  10. San Jose (Democrat)

How do we account for the fact that the American cities with the highest rates of poverty and the highest net worth individuals tend to have Democratic mayors?  (Detroit, by the way, makes both lists because it’s economy, after several years of free fall, recovered remarkably last year with the rebirth of the auto industry.)

There are two reasons. (more…)

Peter’s Vision and the Gay Rights Debate

· 1 Comment ·

By Alan Bean

Fred Clark’s Slacktivist blog features some of the best discussions of the Bible and the gay rights debate I have encountered.  In addition to the piece pasted below, this should interest you.

What is the Bible?  Is it a book of rules?  Pick it up.  Select a passage at random.  Does it sound like a book of rules?

So if the Bible isn’t a rule book, what is it.  Sociologist/theologian Christian Smith puts it this way: “The Bible is not about offering tips for living a good life.  It is about Jesus Christ who is our only good and our only life.”

When I find the time, I will write a post about the growing number of evangelical scholars who are breaking ranks with the Christianity-lite world of popular evangelicalism.  In the meantime, I commend Fred Clark to your attention.

‘God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean’

By Fred Clark

In comments a few days back, I see there was a question regarding whether I believe “that homosexuality is objectively immoral.”

It’s my fault if I haven’t been as clear as I need to be on that point: No. I do not believe that homosexuality is objectively immoral.

But that’s not strong enough. It’s more than that: I believe that denying LGBT people full legal equality is objectively immoral. I believe that excluding LGBT people from full inclusion, full participation and full equality in the church is objectively immoral — and objectively unbiblical.

Such civil discrimination and religious exclusion violates core principles of biblical Christianity — principles as pervasive and essential as the Golden Rule.

More specifically, I would point to Acts 10:1 – Acts 11:18 as a compelling argument that followers of Christ must not “call anyone profane or unclean.” This story teaches us that appealing to biblical law in order to declare another person or group of people as “profane or unclean” is not legitimate, even if we think we can make a strong case for interpreting the law in this way. The biblical laws regarding circumcision were not ambiguous or optional, yet such clear commandments regarding Other People’s Genitals were not to be allowed to exclude the uncircumcised from being baptized.

Let me be clear on that point: God commanded Peter to disregard those laws, commanded him not to allow those laws to exclude others. Peter wasn’t told that he now had the option of welcoming those who had been excluded. Peter wasn’t told he might maybe kind of sort of “tolerate” these people as second-class members of the community, “as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed” the gift of the Holy Spirit.

No, Peter was told that he must welcome them, fully and openly as equals. “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.” Anything short of full acceptance would itself constitute disobeying a command from God.

I’ve been preaching this sermon from Peter’s vision in the book of Acts for many years now (for a few examples, see: “The Abominable Shellfish: Why some Christians hate gays but love bacon,” “Slavery, seafood, sexuality and the Southern Bible” and “Selfish Gentiles and ‘Shellfish Objections’“). I think it’s important. I think it’s very important, because right now, throughout most of the American church, across almost all denominations, we Christians are calling profane those whom God has made clean.

And I believe that is objectively immoral.

“Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” Peter asks. LGBT Christians have received the Holy Spirit just as we have. To withhold the water for baptizing them, to call them profane or unclean, is wrong — it is disobedient, unloving, hurtful, harmful, unbiblical. It’s a sin.

It’s particularly astonishing that the very same American Christians now excluding LGBT Christians from full inclusion and full participation in the church are, overwhelmingly, Gentiles. We Gentile Christians would, ourselves, be excluded if it were not for that lesson Peter learned in Acts 10:1-11:18. Freely you have received, freely give. For the measure you give will be the measure you get back.

I’m very pleased to see an increasing use of this passage as the case for full equality — in the church and under the law — gains momentum. (“Who am I to Think That I Could Stand in God’s Way?” Mal Green asks in arguing for marriage equality in New Zealand.) I expect that this will produce some backlash — likely an attempt to reinterpret Peter’s vision to mean something other than what Peter himself said it meant (as both Al Mohler and Timothy Dalrymple have done recently).

There will always be a Jonah Faction in Christianity — a group that shakes its fists at God for “abounding in steadfast love” toward even the Ninevites whom that faction despises. They seem driven by the fear that if God’s love and mercy are extended even to include the Ninevites, then there will be less of them left over for us. From the perspective of the Jonah Faction, salvation is a zero-sum game.

Peter’s vision is a rebuke to Team Jonah, so that faction will eventually have to come up with a way of explaining away its expansive, explosive message. They will try to say, somehow, that this passage from Acts is only about Cornelius, or only about dietary law. They’ll dissect this passage with a lawyerly eye, studying the finger while refusing to look where it is pointing.

I’m sure they’ll find a lot to say about the finger, but it will all be beside the point.

Cell phones create new moral and legal challenges

· 3 Comments ·

By Alan Bean

Parents, coaches and administrators at DeMatha Catholic High School in Washington DC are expressing outrage and disbelief after five football players hired local prostitutes the morning after an away game in North Carolina.  According to the story in the Washington Post, chaperons did their level best to avert this kind of behavior.  Bed checks were performed until 1:30 am and motel hallways were monitored until 4:30 am.  But the players waited until 5:00 am to call the prostitutes on their cell phones.

Principal Daniel McMahon assured parents that “The school community is saddened and hurt by the actions of these few who do not reflect the character of the community.”

But what exactly is the character of the community?  Who defines that?

WP columnist, Petula Dvorak isn’t surprised that football players would dial up prostitutes as easily as they could call  out for pizza.

It all begins with internet porn, Dvorak believes.  Back in the day, the natural curiosity of adolescent boys was sporadically sated  by occasionally ogling the skin mags at the local newsstand or convenience store.  Then came the anonymity and convenience of internet porn.  Many parents countered by using filters like Net Nanny, but with the advent of cell phones with internet access all bets were off. Now fourteen year-old boys download hardcore porn on a daily basis.

The ubiquity of porn (sometimes called the “pornification” of America) isn’t just a problem for children, of course, but at least adults have some sense that pornographic images deviate wildly from sexual reality.  With little basis for comparison, adolescents easily assume that porn sex is standard issue eroticism.  The social consequences can be dreadful.

Much has been written in recent years about sexual addiction, an ailment that normally begins with the compulsive consumption of mainstream porn and frequently spins off into violent and degrading fare featuring the intentional humiliation and debasement of women.  These disturbing images have little appeal to the neophyte, many believe, but as the viewer becomes desensitized to standard issue sexual content it takes stronger and stronger stuff to produce the same psychic effect. (more…)

Giving God a Bad Name?

· 2 Comments ·
The Almighty

By Alan Bean

Republicans and Democrats are fighting about God.  The GOP scored points by publicizing the fact that the blue team’s platform doesn’t mention the Almighty.  Democrats responded by putting God back in their policy document and ensuring that virtually every speaker at this week’s convention referenced religion at some point during their presentations.

This Convention-as-Godfest idea didn’t sit well with all delegates.  Big-tent Democrats don’t want to exclude the non-religious or privilege any particular religion.  Moreover, the manipulation of God-talk on the right makes a lot of liberals uncomfortable with religious references of any kind.  This explains why sticking the Creator back into the party platform wasn’t easy.

Should the name of God be associated with party politics?  Let’s face it, both parties are working overtime to spin the issues in their favor.  Party conventions are about translating pretty faces and fancy words into votes.  Truth telling isn’t a big issue.  I’m not complaining; that’s the nature of the political process.  At least no blood is spilled.

Electioneering is a species of sales.  On two occasions I have tried to sell things.  First it was the Encyclopedia Britannica.  Then I tried to hawk high-end cook wear.   I’m not a good pitchman.  The guys who sold lots of books and pots were never on good terms with the truth.  Frankly, they would say whatever it took to move the product.  Some were outright liars; those with winning personalities just sold themselves.  It is no different with party politics.  It’s a form of rhetorical roller derby where a good elbow to the trachea always gets style points. (more…)

Great speech, Bill, but I’ve got a problem

· 1 Comment ·

By Alan Bean

Only Bill Clinton can hold an audience through fifty minutes of uninterrupted wonkery.  His speech at the Democratic Convention displayed rhetorical skill, a keen grasp of policy detail and a deep understanding of political reality that only comes with painful experience.  They say convention speeches have little lasting impact.  Clinton’s performance last night may qualify as the rare exception.

But I’ve got a problem.

Mr. Clinton’s triangulating legacy is a big part of the mess we face as a nation.  The Man from Hope mastered the art of the deal.  He met his opponents half way.  He stole their best material.  The new corporate aristocracy could live with a free trading Democrat like this.

Thanks largely to the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the speculative bubbles that followed in its wake, the middle class prospered on Clinton’s watch.  But the poor and the vulnerable (the folks Friends of Justice, and God Almighty, cares about the most) have paid a dreadful price for Clinton’s political success.

In 1996, Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Act that ended welfare as we know it.  The plan worked reasonably well where job markets were strong.  But in many small towns and urban neighborhoods the move from welfare to work, wonderful in theory, didn’t translate to the street.  Now that the job market for the poorest 20% has virtually disappeared, Mr. Clinton’s chickens are roosting everywhere. (more…)

Senator Rubio: What about my DREAM?

· 2 Comments ·

2012-08-31-ScreenShot20120831at12.16.22AM.png

By Pierre Berastain
As I heard Marco Rubio’s speech at the Republican National Convention, I was shocked by his words of hypocrisy. I recently came out as an undocumented student in the United States, and for me–a fellow Hispanic–Marco Rubio’s words were insulting. Senator Rubio’s message portrays an America of inclusivity, where dreams are possible. We are a land of endless opportunity that cares not about the color of the skin, but about the tenacity of the spirit.

Senator Rubio, American is just that, which is why I am convinced your party–the Republican Party–is fundamentally anti-American. Your party claims endless opportunity for all. Where is my opportunity to participate in my community? Are two Harvard degrees and a promise of a life in public service not enough for you? What else must I do to prove myself to your party?

I would like to take a look at a few excerpts from Senator Rubio’s speech at the RNC: (more…)

The Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s American Friends

· 1 Comment ·
The Rev. Jerry and the Rev. Sun Myung

By Alan Bean

Why were individuals and organizations as diverse as Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, Tim “Left Behind” LaHaye, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, the Washington Times, James “Four Spiritual Laws” Kennedy, Rex Humbard, Hal “Late Great Planet Earth” Lindsey, Oliver “Iran-Contra” North, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and a long list of Congressmen willing to associate their names and reputations with the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.  It’s simple, the good Rev. made the drop, he greased the wheel, he put his money where his mouth was.

And what a strange mouth it was.  Moon claimed to have been in communication with luminaries such as Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler (both of whom he personally “saved”), the founders of the five great world religions, and, of course, Jesus Christ himself.  He led crusades in the United States dedicated to ripping down the crosses from Christian churches (he didn’t like the competition), and claimed repeatedly to be the Son of God, the king of the world etc. etc.

It wasn’t just the money, of course.  Rev. Moon was a passionate anti-communist who believed strongly in free market capitalism (a system he worked with great success).  He was also virulently anti-homosexual, claiming that gays should be eliminated in the way Stalin disposed of his enemies.  In short, his politics, if not his theology, lined up with that of the Christian Right on a number of hot-button issues.

And then there was the tax evasion issue.  Moon did 13 months for the crime and Christian televangelists like Jerry Falwell and Tim LaHaye, realizing their own legal vulnerability, rallied to his support.  It didn’t hurt that Moon had donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to prop up Falwell’s faltering Liberty University.

In short, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon was an insane rich man.  While most mainstream religionists wrote him off early and often, it is surprising to witness the degree of support he received from American religious leaders long after his heretical (and downright bizarre) beliefs had become public knowledge.

Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows.

By the way, the Washington Times has been very kind to Moon because he bought the paper (he also owned United Press International at his death).  The Times has published a laudatory obituary for their owner which tells you all the good stuff while cleaning up the weirdness.  Sort of what FOX news does for the religious right.

Changing the wind in Waco

· 1 Comment ·

By Alan Bean

An earlier post, Immigration and the Heart of God, was written for the event described in this article.  The goal was to place the immigration issue on the agenda of the faith community.  Friends of Justice has been part of this work for several months now and, in cooperation with like-minded groups and individuals, we plan to expand the scope of the Immigration and the People of God program described below.  Lydia Bean’s comment captures the spirit of this work: “It is very clear this is something God cares about.  Politicians always have their finger in the wind to see how it blows.  Rather than trying to change the politicians, we’re trying to change the wind.”

Waco churches urged to join immigration reform discussion

By CINDY V. CULP
cculp@wacotrib.com

Sunday September 2, 2012

Local activists are encouraging Waco churches to join a nationwide effort that seeks to move the discussion about immigration policy from the political arena to church pews.

The effort kicked off this summer with a symposium that explored what the Bible says about immigrants and how Christians should respond. Held at First Spanish Assembly of God Church in Waco, it drew representatives from 27 organizations, most of them churches, organizer Manuel Sustaita said.

Now, the fledging group is encouraging pastors to follow through on pledges they made at the event, said Lydia Bean, another organizer.

Nine said they would preach sermons this fall related to God’s heart for immigrants. Others vowed to hold voter registration drives or host guest speakers to educate members about immigration issues, she said.

The group plans to meet later this month to talk about possibly hosting a broader community event, Bean said. But for now, the focus is on encouraging congregations to discuss immigration issues. That sort of grass-roots effort is the best bet for prompting meaningful immigration reform, she said.

“I think it is very clear this is something God cares about . . . Politicians always have their finger in the wind and see how it blows,” said Bean, an assistant sociology professor at Baylor University. “Rather than trying to change the politicians, we’re trying to change the wind.”

Bean and Sustaita — who is known to many in the community because of his role as founder of the Waco Vietnam Veterans Memorial — declined to publicly list the churches involved. They said they are sensitive to the fact that immigration policy is a politically touchy issue and want to let pastors approach it in their own time and own way.

But most of the churches involved are evangelical, they said.

The Catholic Church has long advocated immigration reform, Bean and Suistaita noted. So parishes here are already involved in the issue.

But the topic is only recently gaining traction in evangelical circles, Bean said. (more…)

The economic impact of mass deportation

·

Farmworkers in FloridaBy Alan Bean

The “They Take our Jobs” lobby would have you believe that the presence of undocumented residents is driving the United States to the poor house.  Not so, says the Center for American Progress.  In fact, if only 15% of the undocumented population in states like Texas and New Mexico was suddenly deported, the economic impact would be ruinous.

This research indicates that the prevailing policy of mass deportation isn’t just draining the American treasury of your tax dollars at an alarming rate, it is undermining economic stability.  If you doubt this is so, please check out the charts below.  I have copied the information for Texas and New Mexico, but you can find information on Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Nevada and Virginia as well.

As the report argues:

There is ample reason to suspect that at least a portion of these jobs would not be readily taken by other workers. Immigrants tend to live clustered in certain communities, where there may not be a ready supply of other workers to fill the openings they would leave behind. Additionally, undocumented workers tend to have skill sets that are specific to the industries they work in (for example, construction, home health services, etc.) that often do not match those of the nativeborn unemployed.

The Consequences of Legalization Versus Mass Deportation

Debates about the economic and fiscal benefits and drawbacks of immigrants typically oversimplify the role that immigrants play in our economy. When one looks more closely, they will find that the impact that immigrants (or any group for that matter) have on the economy is multifaceted and complex.

Immigrants are not just workers; they are also consumers and taxpayers. The effects of their labor and consumption on economic growth and fiscal health must be factored in as we consider how to address the situation of a large undocumented workforce.

In this report we describe the direct impacts of either deporting or legalizing undocumented workers in Texas. In reality, the effects would be much larger. Mass deportation, for example, would result in an indirect negative impact on local businesses because there would be less money circulating in the local economy, which would lead to further job losses. The estimates reported here should thus be considered conservative rather than exhaustive.

Texas

We estimate the economic contributions of immigrants, both documented and undocumented, for Texas. The state has one of the largest populations of unauthorized immigrants, and it has played and will continue to play a pivotal role in elections as a swing state. We then report the negative fiscal impact of four different deportation scenarios—namely what would happen if 15, 30, 50, or 100 percent of undocumented immigrants were removed from the state. Finally, we explore the positive economic outcomes that would result from legalizing undocumented immigrants. (For a detailed explanation of the methodology used, please see the appendix on page 9.)

effects of mass deportation in texas
 effects of mass deportation in new mexico
New Mexico
Dr. Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda is the founding director of the North American Integration and Development Center.