Mitt recognizes faulty bootstraps, changes entire political philosophy

Sike! Gov. Romney still believes social safety nets are for the illusive "poor", definitely not for him or anyone he ever came in contact with before he entered politics. BUT! During the debate in Sioux City last night, Romney threw out this jab at President Obama:

"I think the president is going to ... go after me and say, 'You know, in businesses that you've invested in, they didn't all succeed. Some failed. Some laid people off. And he'll be absolutely right.' But if you look at all the businesses we invested in, over a hundred different businesses, they added tens of thousands of jobs. In the real world that the president has not lived in -- I actually think he doesn't understand that: that not every business succeeds, that not every entrepreneur is lucky enough to do as well as the entrepreneurs that I described ... I myself have had the chance of leading four different organizations. Each of those was highly successful, in part because of hard work, in part because of good luck.

As Liz Lemon might say, "What the what?" Hard work is only part of the #winning equation? He goes on to point out the president's handling of the GM bailout resulted in the closing of factories to save the company, which is what Romney did in his business pre-politics life, which is why the president doesn't understand economics? That part doesn't really matter (or make a lot of sense). What matters is that he recognized that sometimes, you can try your darnedest, and fail. Sometimes, you tug on your bootstraps, at they just pull right off.

As Christians, we can see the causes for such a footwear malfunction: systems of injustice and oppression which give all the "luck" to some people, at the cost of keeping others chronically in debt, jobless, and homeless. Jesus knew this, too. How could the people he healed even begin to live a life of integrity when the religious institution and the Roman Empire thrived off their required submission? We are compelled to respond as Jesus responded, to heal the individual and the community, to extend humanity to people in every capacity of life.

We live in a country where success is a commodity, and luck a privilege. While Mitt Romney might have accidentally stumbled upon inequality, he only scratched the surface of disenfranchisement in the United States. There is a reason some people have all the luck.

Theology <-> Politics

I need not discredit philosophy by laborious criticism of its arguments.  It will suffice if I show that as a matter of history it fails to prove its pretension to be "objectively" convincing.  In fact, philosophy does so fail.  It does not banish differences; it founds schools and sects just as feeling does.  I believe, in fact, that the logical reason of man operates in this field of divinity exactly as it has always operated in love, or in patriotism, or in politics, or in an other of the wider affairs of life, which our passions or our mystical intuitions fix our beliefs beforehand.  It finds arguments for our conviction, for indeed it has to find them.  It amplifies and defines our faith, and dignifies it and lends it words and plausibility.  It hardly ever engenders it; it cannot now secure it.

-William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience

I'd just as soon argue that theology, too often, does much of the same.  So back to my age old question: Does our theology inform our politics, or does it merely serve to, as James puts it, find arguments for our convictions?

-Tim

Who is spreading the "religion is private" rumor, and how can I stop it?

Whenever I come across someone opining on the question of religion in America, I'm interested, because I myself get pretty opine-y about that very subject. And when it comes up in a national media outlet, say, the New York Times, I get my hopes up, because the Grey Lady has standards. However, I was fairly disappointed this morning when I read Eric Weiner's opinion article, Americans: Undecided About God?.

Weiner invoked the growing "spiritual, but not religious" (which is like nails on a chalkboard for this writer) contingency in the United States, blaming religion's effort to influence the political sphere as the catalyst for the trend.

"Their idea is that we’ve mixed politics and religion so completely that many simply opt out of both; apparently they are reluctant to claim a religious affiliation because they don’t want the political one that comes along with it."

I'm not sure I can swallow such a hypothesis. People are turned off by "institutional religion" (*see "spiritual, but not religious") for many reasons: hypocrisy, perceived exclusions, rigidness, promotion of antiquated practices, etc. That a specific denomination (as it seems Weiner is actually speaking of, rather than Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, as a whole) supports certain public policy is an outgrowth of a particular understanding of theology. No religion exists neatly packaged apart from human existence. Teachings compel concrete responses. But Weiner seems to long for a more sterilized understanding of God:

"Religion and politics, though often spoken about in the same breath, are, of course, fundamentally different. Politics is, by definition, a public activity. Though religion contains large public components, it is at core a personal affair... There lies the problem: how to talk about the private nature of religion publicly."

This guy has traveled extensively as a correspondent for NPR, won a Peabody award, and written a book about finding God, and yet he still states rather cavalierly something at which a first semester seminary student would gawk. Religion is a private affair?! Nothing could be further from the truth. Christianity (the only religion on which I can speak with any sense of authority) introduces a way to live in a community that reflects God's mercy and grace. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism (as emphasized by Dr. Barry Bryant) spoke of piety, the love of God, and mercy, the love of neighbor, as twin components of the Christian faith. You cannot love God without extending compassion and justice to world around you. Whether Weiner likes it or not, religion is public.

He ends his article waxing poetically about a religion for the non-religious, yearning for a "Steve Jobs of religion" who can "invent a new way of being religious." Well, Mr. Weiner, the individualistic fulfillment you crave exists within the confines of modern consumerism and capitalism, but you are correct in assessing that you won't find it in the Bible, or most any religious text. I feel as though you might be looking in the wrong places (read: the television) for the religion you seek. That new way of being religious exists around you, in churches, shelters, agencies, seminaries, and many other places where people are attempting to live in the world as an expression of God's love. And as it turns out, that way of being religious is not new at all.

Mitt Romney Believes in America and So Should You!!: Part 2

***This is part 2 of a post on Mitt Romney's campaign ad, "Believe in America." If you haven't yet had a chance to read part 1, you can scroll down and find it on the right hand side under "Blog Archive."***

So as it turns out, Romney’s campaign voluntarily admitted the full context of Obama’s comments in a blog post written by Gail Gitcho, a Romney spokeswoman, the very same day the ad was released:

“Three years ago, candidate Barack Obama mocked his opponent’s campaign for saying ‘if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.’ Now, President Obama’s campaign is desperate not to talk about the economy…Now, the tables have turned – President Obama and his campaign are doing exactly what candidate Obama criticized. President Obama and his team don’t want to talk about the economy and have tried to distract voters from President Obama’s abysmal economic record.”

From this statement, it seems that Romney’s campaign is suggesting that their ad is actually pointing out the hypocrisy of 2008 Obama’s criticism of McCain in light of the fact that 2011 Obama is ‘desperate not to talk about the economy.’

But am I honestly supposed to accept that Romney’s campaign sincerely believes the American public would pick up on that subtle, highly implied criticism in a 60-second TV ad? Or, just as unlikely, that more than a few thousand voters will read Gitcho’s full explanation of the ad? No. The reality is that the Romney campaign’s intention was to make Obama look bad in the eyes of the general American public, while pre-empting the response from the Obama camp and generating extra media attention in the process. A media strategist might say that they achieved their goals. But as a citizen interested in seeing more honesty and integrity in our politics, I am irritated—though sadly, not surprised.

Look, I’m not trying to make Obama into a saint on this matter. His 2008 comments on McCain’s campaign strategy were sensationalized and somewhat decontextualized in their own right. We can debate who was more deceptive, but the bottom line is that we need to learn to think for ourselves. Rather than take politicians’ words at face value, we need to critically examine their statements, their sources, and their motives. It is the responsibility of both the public and the news media to avoid being manipulated by highly-paid political strategists and well-crafted rhetoric. 

We are accustomed to throwing up our hands and saying, “That’s politics for you!” We label idealistic (or worse, naïve) those people—like me—who believe that we can cultivate a political system grounded in honesty and transparency. But collectively, we have the power to hold accountable those who prevent this very system from taking root.

Mitt Romney Believes in America and So Should You!!: Part 1

Mitt Romney, who is running for the Republican Party’s nomination for President in 2012, released a new TV spot a couple weeks ago. It’s title—“Believe in America”—proves once again that campaign slogans are always moronic. Check it out...

The first half of the ad uses audio from Barack Obama’s speech to New Hampshire residents in October of 2008, just weeks before the national election. Graphic overlays (highlighting what Romney perceives to be Obama’s greatest economic failures in office to date) claim in no uncertain terms that Obama has not lived up to his promises. But the real knockout punch comes when Obama says, “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”

Romney is clearly capitalizing on this rather embarrassing oratory gaffe by Obama. I mean, how could the President have implied that discussing a plan to rebuild our economy isn’t a constructive use of our time? Well…he didn’t. Before you jump to any conclusions, I’m not insinuating that Romney’s campaign actually doctored a video of Obama! I am, however, suggesting that Romney took that line from Obama’s speech completely out of context. You can read the full transcript of Obama’s October 2008 speech if you like, but here is the direct context for his statement on the economy:

“Even as we face the most serious economic crisis of our time; even as you are worried about keeping your jobs or paying your bills or staying in your homes, my opponent's [John McCain’s] campaign announced earlier this month that they want to "turn the page" on the discussion about our economy so they can spend the final weeks of this election attacking me instead. Senator McCain's campaign actually said, and I quote, ‘if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.’…But here's what Senator McCain doesn't seem to understand. With the economy in turmoil and the American Dream at risk, the American people don't want to hear politicians attack each other - you want to hear about how we're going to attack the challenges facing middle class families each and every day. You want to hear about the issues that matter in your lives. You want to hear about how we're going to bring about the change that we desperately need for our country. That's what the American people want to hear. So let's debate our genuine differences on the issues that matter.”

So, what President Obama actually said was more like, “If we don’t keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.” It looks as if Mitt Romney is attempting to criticize Obama for a statement that Obama himself was in fact criticizing. Or is he?

Check back on the blog tomorrow to find out how Romney's campaign explained the ad and what I think is really going on here... 

/ryan wallace/

Silly Government, Taxes are for Everyone!

Have you ever read Illinois’ State Constitution in its entirety? Be honest. And it doesn't count if the last time you "read" it was in 8th grade history. Well, go ahead and take a few moments to read over the preamble—it's only a paragraph. Not surprisingly, it's saturated with language relating God's providence and extolling lofty ideals of justice and equality. And unless you're a political history buff or you're over the age of 55, then you, like me, might assume that it was written way back in the day (more precisely, 1818) when Illinois was incorporated into the Union. But you’d be wrong. In fact, our current Constitution was written a mere four decades ago in 1970. And that little historical detail, to put it bluntly, gives me the urge to smash something in rage.

 You see, when I thought the Constitution was written in 1818, I had an easier time swallowing the first sentence of Article IX Section 3: “A tax on or measured by income shall be at a non-graduated rate.” Being the generous man I am, I was going to give the 1818 authors of the Constitution the benefit of the doubt and presume that this edict outlawing a graduated income tax was not in direct conflict with some of the core values put forth in the preamble (i.e. the elimination of poverty and inequality, and the assurance of economic justice). But for those holding the pens in 1970, living in a modern society not all that different from our present one, this incongruity could not possibly have escaped them. Now, I will—once again, on account of my generosity—concede that modern Illinoisans are significantly more unequal (in terms of their pre-tax incomes) than their 1970 counterparts, which means that a flat income tax would have been less unfair 40 years ago than it is today. However, a regressive tax system is...well, regressive. It is inherently unequal and cannot engender real economic justice by any stretch of the imagination.

Many of my fellow Illinois citizens agree with me that our tax system is unfair. However, some contend that it is unfair not for the poor, but for the wealthiest taxpayers. They decry a tax system that allows the average person in the bottom 20% of earners to pay only $1,300 a year in state taxes, while the average person in the top 1% forks over $102,000 in state taxes.[1] Although that line of reasoning certainly makes it seem as though the wealthy are paying more than their fair share, we must consider effective tax rates to understand what a 'fair share' really is.

Effective tax rates are the most accurate measure of tax burden because they reveal just how much of a person's total income he or she is spending on taxes.  So, the average person in the bottom 20% of earners may only pay $1,300 a year in taxes, but since he only makes $10,100 a year, he’s paying an effective state tax rate of 13.0%. Conversely, the average person in the top 1% of Illinois earners who pays $102,000 a year in taxes earns $2,084,700, which makes her effective rate only 4.9%. So even though wealthy Illinois taxpayers contribute a much greater sum of money to the state, the poorest taxpayers give more than two and a half times as much when taxes are considered as shares of their incomes.

To put it in different terms, after taxes the average person in the bottom 20% is left with $8,787 to live on while the average person in the top 1% has $1,982,549.70.

So, we must ask: “Is this tax structure really the best we can come up with to ‘eliminate poverty and inequality’ and ‘assure economic justice?’”

/ryan wallace/

---

[1] Primary state taxes in Illinois include sales and excise taxes, property tax, and both personal and corporate income tax. For more information on Illinois’ tax system, read this report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

Herman Cain, the Model United Nations Student

When I was in high school, I was involved with something called Model United Nations, which was basically an exercise in students dressing up in their parent's gigantic formal clothes, and going to conferences where they debated topics they knew very little about.  Now I don't disparage the program, because it was actually quite formative in opening up my world view and exposing me to tons of issues (like the debates over throwing trash away in space...COPUOS anyone?).  But let's be real here.  For the majority of us participants, our knowledge about things like state-sponsored terrorism were not up to even Wikipedia standards.

With such a shallow pool of facts and critiques to draw from, students were often left to bring up the same talking points over and over and over again.  Once someone found a shtick that worked for them, they held onto it for dear life, and with the utmost conviction.  For example, one notorious classmate of mine, no matter what proposal you offered, would always get up and demand to know where the funding would come from.  Brilliant!  The art of saying something while saying absolutely nothing at all.  Which brings me to Herman Cain:




Brilliant!  I am actually quite impressed, once he gets going, with his ability to confidently hammer home a non-point over and over again.   I am pretty sure Cain would've won the MUN Best Delegate Award multiple times.

-Tim

Meet the Williamsons

          Maybe you know a family like the Williamsons. Despite two full-time incomes, Mary and Jeffrey Williamson cannot adequately provide for their family of five, which also includes their teenage daughter, Angelica, their middle child, Jake, and their toddler, Marcus. Looking back, they realize how good they had it just a couple years ago. Mary worked part-time and took care of the kids, and Jeffrey had a union construction job that paid him a wage they could live on. But the virtual collapse of the construction industry cost Jeffrey his job, and left him with little recourse but to settle for a minimum wage job as a cashier at a grocery store. Mary was fortunate that the diner where she worked part-time as a waitress was able to start giving her full-time hours, but she too makes only minimum wage, even with her tips.

            If the Williamsons were members of your church, how would you expect your congregation to respond in their time of need? Presumably, you would walk with them and find creative ways to help get them back on their feet. After all, that’s what the community of the Church is all about. The pastor might offer temporary financial assistance, a few members might tap into their business networks to help find Jeffrey a decent job, and other members might volunteer to watch the Williamsons' kids after school while Mary took an extra shift at the diner a couple days a week.

            If you open up a newspaper these days, you don’t have to look far to find a story on unemployment or underemployment. The deflating reality is that the Williamsons are not an outlier. They are just one of hundreds of families in your surrounding community who find themselves in a constant struggle to make ends meet. You wonder to yourself, “How is our church supposed to respond to all these families?” Your church doesn’t have the resources to help everyone. But more importantly, it’s clear that there is a much larger issue at hand. There’s no question that your church should continue to support the Williamsons however it can. But shouldn’t the church also be asking how it’s possible that a family with two full-time incomes has to choose between paying rent and having enough to eat this month?

            If you take a closer look at the minimum wage, the federal poverty line, and real cost-of-living figures in Illinois, it wouldn’t take you long to realize that things don’t add up quite right. Since Mary and Jeffrey each work full-time at minimum wage ($8.25 in Illinois), they’re earning roughly $34,320 a year before taxes. According the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the federal poverty line for a family of five is $26,170. As a result, the Williamsons don’t qualify for public assistance programs like SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) or TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). But wait a minute…we already know that their $34,000 a year isn’t enough to get by. Needless to say, the federal poverty line is no longer an accurate metric. So what does it really mean to be ‘in poverty?’ Or to put it another way, how much would Mary and Jeffrey actually have to earn to be self-sufficient in providing for their family of five? According to the Social IMPACT Research Center, Mary and Jeffrey would need to bring in over $60,000 together—nearly twice what they can earn at the current minimum wage. To put that into perspective, they would each need to work full-time at a rate of $14.25 an hour just to earn enough to pay for the basics for their family. And I do mean the basics. That means rent, groceries, health care, clothing, childcare, school books and supplies, and transportation. We’re not talking about vacations, after-school tutoring, savings for college, birthday gifts, summer camp, or even a family night out to the movies.

            Some of the folks who oppose raising the minimum wage in Illinois have voiced concern that the added expense to businesses that employ minimum-wage workers would force them to cut jobs, which, at the end of the day, only further exacerbates the problem. This is a valid concern and a logical conclusion to draw. But, as it turns out, a recent national study comparing job growth in bordering counties with differing minimum wages has effectively proven that increases in minimum wage do not affect job growth. Additionally, several other studies have demonstrated that raising the minimum wage actually saves businesses money (by reducing employee turnover and thus the cost of training new employees), generates new revenue for businesses (by increasing worker productivity), and creates a better work environment (by significantly elevating employee morale).

            From an economic standpoint, there is also strong evidence that suggests we should raise the minimum wage. It's been estimated that raising the minimum wage would generate over $1 billion in new consumer spending in Illinois over the next four years. Raising the minimum wage means putting more money in the pockets of families like the Williamsons who will turn around and spend that money every month, primarily on goods and services in their own local communities. And if that’s not convincing, I imagine most of us would agree that minimum wage should, at the very least, grow at the same rate as our economy. However, as our economy has expanded, minimum wage has lagged behind. If minimum wage had simply kept pace with inflation over the past forty years, it would be over $10 an hour today.

            No doubt there are some convincing reasons to support a raise in minimum wage. It would ease the burden on financially vulnerable individuals and families, it would benefit businesses in a number of ways, and it would pump some much-needed new revenue into our flailing state economy. These are indispensible arguments we should bring to the public square to bolster our appeal. But if you consider yourself a person of faith, I really shouldn’t have to work so hard to convince you to support an increase in the minimum wage. When it comes down to it, we’re talking about standing with some of our most vulnerable neighbors, like the Williamsons, insisting that their stories be heard and their lives valued the same as yours and mine.

~ryan wallace

Go to Raise Illinois to learn more and take action.

Bonhoeffer in a Time of Global Crisis

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a theologian and pastor who was hung for his involvement in an assassination attempt against Hitler during World War II.  Here, Ric Hudgens looks through Bonhoeffer's eyes and offers a method by which to engage today's global crisis. Please take the time to click on the link and read the rest of the article.

Ric Hudgens/What did Bonhoeffer See?:

What might have led someone as insightful, brave, and devout as Dietrich Bonhoeffer to turn towards the Sermon on the Mount and the practice of communal discipleship as the appropriate initiative for engaged Christians in a time of global crisis.  What did Bonhoeffer see in Jesus’ sermon for such a time as that?  What might we still see for such a time as ours?

Bonhoeffer saw in the Sermon on the Mount the resources for responding to the German crisis in at least three ways.  First, he saw that the Sermon contained the resources for resistance to National Socialism, German patriotism, and the war.  Resistance would be practiced not just in subversive anti-government actions, but also in the formation of a church that could not be seduced by the false promises of blood and soil.  Crucial to the practice of cultural resistance was the formation of a Christian people, a confessing church, trained in and practicing the Sermon on the Mount without compromise.

Second, Bonhoeffer saw that the Sermon and the founding of a “new type of monasticism” would lay the foundations for a new social order after the war was over.  It did not matter whether Germany won this war or not (and it was clear through Bonhoeffer’s efforts that he hoped for Germany’s defeat); what mattered was establishing centers for renewal where a new type of recovery could begin and a new type of society be established.  These were in reality communities of and for the future, not communities trying to preserve or recreate an idyllic past.

Finally, Bonhoeffer saw that the Sermon on the Mount was the key resource for the restoration and renewal of the church and the church’s capacity to recover her voice as God’s people.  The Barmen Declaration had unmasked the false religion of the established church for the idolatry that it was.  A renewed church where Christians were catechized in the Sermon on the Mount would not look like the mainline churches that had been so susceptible to the appeal of National Socialism.   It would be a church founded upon and shaped by Christ alone.

More...

Cleverness, Not Justice

In response to national debate on wealth disparity and Warren Buffett’s call to stop coddling the rich, Protestants for the Common Good board member, Nancy Brandt, shares the following thoughts:

Those against tax fairness at the federal level have proposed an answer to Warren Buffett’s rule that his effective tax rate should not be lower than that of the people who work for him.  They have introduced H.R. 3099, Buffett Rule Act of 2011, which allows people like Warren Buffett to donate their taxes to the federal government.  

That is superficially clever, but it begs the question and proposes a substitute for what really should take place.  

Our problems will never be solved without systemic change in the tax code.  The Governmental tax system does not need charity from Warren Buffett or anyone else; it needs fairness built into it: that would be justice.

When the World Ends

What is the point of the Church?

It can be the institutionalized body that keeps the gospel message alive through passing it along families and bringing in new converts.  It can be more of a social club whose purpose is to provide a space for those with common interests to gather and do things together.  It can be something of a support group for disparate and similar people to support one another in the name of a binding doctrine.  It can be a place for those with common hopes to work towards an end (eschatology style, meaning the end of time and not something more temporal like lets build a shelter together) goal.  It can be a mix of all these things or a few of them or maybe you think none of the suggestions I have put forth are correct.

But grant me, if you will, my last definition and disagree with me on it at the end if you still want to.  When I think of this primarily eschatological argument, I am immediately drawn to think of the sorts of Anglo-Evangelical ideas that believe in the literal translation of Revelations, the rapture that will come when all have heard the message of Christ, the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem, etc.  We need not get into all of the theological and political ramifications that those particular beliefs have produced.  Instead, if we focus on eschatology in a different way, it is possible to understand and see a hope for end things that is not explicitly about end things at all.  Rather, the end things are more of a way to focus our attention acutely on what is actually happening before us right now.

To offer up a metaphor, lets say that I was someone who believed the end goal of my life was to have children to carry on my good name, and any person worth a damn should do the same (I am in the stage of my life where children ages 5-18 annoy me to death so this is just a metaphor).  That does not mean that the steps I take in the time between now and my demise are merely about this end goal.  The person I fall in love with, I should be in love with (hopefully) from start to end, and with a love that is for love's sake and not just so that I can die knowing there are other human beings that have my unusually large palms.  This is why I would argue against reductionists who see human action as primarily a matter of biology, neurology, etc.

Ok, I hope you're still with me.

All this is to say that my biggest concern with Occupy Wall Street has been that it will lead no where.  What will come of this?  What if it all fizzles away and the rich CEOs are only spurred on to fight harder for the status quo?  What is the end goal suppose to look like? 

If you ask me, I see in the eschatology of Occupy Wall Street the same sort of eschatology that the Church does know, and if not, should know.  An end where the meek inherit the earth, the ones who hunger for justice are satisfied, and those who mourn are comforted.

There are theories of culture, and movements, and organizing that can be used to show why these seemingly shepherdess sheep who are hanging out together in parks and street corners are building the ground swelling for true change.  I hope that is true.  But I also see an eschatological hope in play here.  This is a not a moment merely for an end that is hoped for, where success and failure are defined by consequences.  It is a moment because of an end that is believed in.  And that doesn't make it any less valuable.

-Tim

Justice Will Surely Follow

by Ryan Wallace

Stop! Put aside all the other things cluttering your mind for a moment, and follow me as we float away from this world into Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood of Make-Believe. You and I appear there amidst a sea of people. Ok, the people aren’t literally a sea...there’s just a whole bunch of them. In fact, it’s every last one of the 6,967,766,637 (and counting) other people who were living with us in the Old World. The only difference is: we can’t remember who we are. We can all recall the details, purposes, and values of our societies and cultures at large in the Old World, but no one can seem to recollect who he or she was individually. That is, memory of your family history, your skills, your social standing, your education, your occupation, your personal wealth, and everything else that makes up your personal identity has mysteriously vanished. Confusion reigns over the neighborhood. Suddenly, on an oversized screen to your right, you watch three people you have never before seen file onto a stage and settle themselves behind three identical podiums. What is going on? Who are they? Who are you?

“You have been gathered here,” one of them announced, “because you have lost control over your own societies. We can no longer idly stand by as you destroy the earth and trample upon one another.” Another picked up, “You have left us no choice but to initiate a ‘reset.’ None of you has any recollection of your identity in the world as you knew it. This is because you will no longer be you. Though you will soon return to your world, you will return with a new identity. Just who you will be…well, that is what we are here to determine. You will have no knowledge of your new identity, your social standing, or any other details until you return to your world.” The only remaining luminary who had yet to speak continued on, “Together, you will decide one another’s fate. Before returning to your world, you must come to a consensus on how resources will be distributed. How will wealth be shared? Who will have the power? Which groups will receive a good education? Whose voices will be heard?” The figure who had spoken first—and who seemed to be the leader of this delegation—concluded the message saying, “As you make these decisions, give careful consideration to the fact that you may be placed anywhere within this new world order. We can assure you that you will have no control.”

I don’t know about you, but for me, this fairytale narrative is a pretty powerful demonstration of our deeply inculturated sense of justice as fairness and equality. It would be expected that if we were charged with reordering civilization without any knowledge whatsoever of who we would be in that new world, we would devise a world with remarkable equality. Why? Well, would you want to create a world in which there was a possibility you would be assigned to a position of abject poverty? This story I’ve invented is an adaptation of the late 20^th century philosopher John Rawls’ social contract. Rawls proposed that if a veil of ignorance were to shield us from knowledge of our own identity, we would arrive at an original position from which we would be able to make perfectly selfless and moral decisions in the interest of the common good. Essentially, if we did not know enough to favor ourselves over others, then we would be compelled to advocate for equality—maybe not communistic equality, but nevertheless, a society vastly more equal than the one in which we currently live.

I happen to find Rawls’ line of thinking both intuitive and insightful. Yet, the more time I spend considering it, what strikes me is that, as a Christian, I shouldn’t need a veil of ignorance to understand the way things should be. As a Christian, I should (theoretically) be fully aware of my identity and still understand that I am called to spend my entire life advocating for distributive justice—even if that redistribution happens to mean taking money out of my own pocket. In a thousand different ways, Jesus communicates that caring for others is our responsibility. In this sense, ‘sin’ is a violation of our relationality. When we do not treat one another—or the earth for that matter—with the utmost respect and dignity, then we have committed a sin. And when we put our own needs and desires above those which contribute to the common good, we have sinned.

The widespread ‘occupy’ protests and the ‘We are the 99 percent’ campaigns have undoubtedly been politically and socially divisive. But if we can manage to put aside the partisan political issues for a moment, what we can see is a group of people committed to protecting the common good. You may disagree with these movements’ positions on certain policy matters or the tactics they use to convey their points, but I implore you to recognize and respect their dedication to seeking justice for all people. But whatever your reaction may be, the reality is that we are living amidst the greatest economic inequality in the history of our country. To put it another way, we are living in the sort of society that no one in the original position would ever choose. In fact, a recent study backed up this idea that we are drawn towards fairness and equality by revealing that: 1) Americans believe that our wealth is distributed much more equally than it really is—for example, we believe that the top 20% holds only 59% of the wealth when in fact it’s closer to 84%, and 2) The average American’s ideal distribution of wealth is even more equitable—we give only 32% of wealth to the top 20% in our ideal distribution. And all this while still knowing where we personally stand in the hierarchy of wealth! 

But since I don’t foresee a trip to a make-believe neighborhood where we can reorder the social structures of the world anytime soon, the question we must consider is: What can we do today to make things more just tomorrow? As humans, I believe we have a deeply ingrained sense that relative equality is just and fair. As Americans, we have voiced our dream of a more equitable economic system. And as Christians, I am convinced that we are called by God to bring justice to every corner of our world, including our economic systems. Simply put, we are charged with reforming that which does not serve the common good.

Now after spending all this time trying to persuade you to advocate for economic equality, I’d like to finish by making a succinct case that it should not be our end goal. Instead, we should view equality as but one outcome of a far greater end. If we aim above all for the love, respect, and dignity of all people, then economic justice will surely follow. If you learn to truly love your neighbors, I am quite confident that you will not let them go hungry, and neither will you cease to ask the question, “Why is there not enough for everyone?”

Occupy Wall Street and the Church

This week in Chicago, masses of people gathered for Occupy Wall Street marches, the largest such action that has occurred here so far.  With what has already been happening in New York, and with the movement growing across the country (if not in bodies, at least in minds), it would seem we have a reached a point where the protests can no longer be written of as an inconsequential hippie party.

As I have tried to wrap my head around all of this for the past few weeks, admittedly with equal parts skepticism and hope, I have begun to view these current events from a different perspective.  At the forefront of my turning was Ezra Klein's blog post on wearethe99percent.tumblr.com, which unfortunately has been taken down for some reason.  If you have seen it and find it, let me know.  But more recently, I read an amazing piece by Matt Stoller, entitled, "#OccupyWallStreet is a Church of Dissent, and Not a Protest."

What these people are doing is building, for lack of a better word, a church of dissent. It’s not a march, though marches are spinning off of the campground. It’s not even a protest, really. It is a group of people, gathered together, to create a public space seeking meaning in their culture. They are asserting, together, to each other and to themselves, “we matter”.

You can tell this is a somewhat different animal than other politicized gatherings. No one knows what to expect. There are no explicit demands. It’s not very large. And yet, celebrities are heading to Zuccotti Park. Wall Street traders are sneering and angry. The people there are getting press, but aren’t dominated by it. People are there just to be there, because it feels meaningful. The camp is clean and well-organized, and it feels relevant and topical rather than a therapy space for frustrated radicals. Just a block away is the New York Fed, a large, scary, and imposing building with heavy iron doors, video cameras, and a police presence that scream “go away”.

For as much criticism as I have read (this is nothing but AdBusters' efforts to create meaningless chaos, these young people didn't vote and the Tea Party took the House creating a bigger mess, what the hell is the point of this, etc.), the analogy that Stoller is arguing for makes all of that something of a moot point.  As a Christian, such criticism is the exact kind of stuff that I have lobbed personally at the Church, and somehow it (the Church) still makes sense.  Could we be looking at something of a religious movement?

More on the religious nature of Occupy Wall Street tomorrow.

-Tim

#OccupyChurch

You might have heard some increased chatter pertaining to large groups gathering in cities around the nation protesting... ummm... big banks? disproportionate distribution of wealth? lack of government oversight? Lots of things, really. If you haven't, you can read about it here (NYC), here (Chicago), or here (DC). The protesters have been called "mobs... pitting Americans against Americans" by Majority Leader Cantor, but Minority Leader Pelosi said that has more to do with him than the demonstrators. Anyway, there is a lot of opinion out there about the Occupy movement, much of which I am unqualified to respond to with any sense of authority. My hat is, for better or worse, thrown in the proverbial ring of theological response. And until today, the only thing I could muster was that the greed perpetuated by unbridled capitalism and rewarded by a neglectful system is so obviously unbiblical that stating it seemed patronizing to anyone who might listen. What virtue is more evident in Christian texts than care for the poor, and what vice more deplorable than defrauding the marginalized?

Today, however, in a wonderful sermon by United Methodist pastor Rev. Amy DeLong (you might remember her from the trial this summer addressing homosexuality and the UMC), I was reminded of an idolatry that accompanies greed - the internalization of scarcity. Rev. DeLong spoke of the feeding of the 5000 in Matthew's gospel. The disciples wanted to send the crowd home so they could feed themselves, but Jesus told the disciples to feed them. The disciples protested, pointing out that they did not have enough food to go around. But Jesus told the disciples to feed them. And when they did, there was enough, and even more than enough. Because there is no scarcity in Christ.

And it seems that this is the heart of the Occupy protests. There is enough for everyone to have enough. The government's job is not to provide tax shelters to the rich (I think we can all agree their voice is pretty effectively heard), but to provide protective shelter to the vulnerable in its midst. As Christians, Jesus tells us to feed the crowd, without verifying their citizenship, without testing them for drugs, without questioning their sexuality.

The Occupy demonstrators are defying the theology of scarcity preached by those too cowardly to give freely, because those protestors know there is enough. They know each person, from a terminally unemployed worker to a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, is worthy of a life of integrity and purpose. There is enough life for all of us.

Rev. DeLong said that when you forgo justice in favor of personal or institutional preservation, then "the Gospel is a casualty of fear and damage control." Battling those in power (popularly elected or amassed in wealth) is imperative at this moment when so many have so little. The Church can and must gather strength enough to tell the world to feed the crowd.

Urge President Obama to Oppose the Keystone XL Pipeline

The Keystone XL Pipeline is a proposed tar sands pipeline that would stretch 1700 miles from Alberta Canada to the Gulf Coast in Texas. It's a project proposed by TransCanada, and could ship up to 900,000 barrels of tar sand oil a day. This particular type of oil is difficult to extract and considered much dirtier than crude oil. (see fact sheet)

The pipeline would traverse Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas - passing under significant portions of our countrys agricultural heartland, and leaving our rivers and water aquifers at risk of pollution from pipeline leaks. In 2010 alone the Enbridge pipeline, which runs from Alberta through the great lake states, spilled over one million gallons of tar sands oil. TransCanada's recently completed Keystone pipeline has already had three spills. 

The Keystone XL Pipeline is not worth the devastating environmental impacts it will cause - the potential for water, air, and land pollution is far too great, not to mention the health risks that come with increased emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and other toxins.

In order for the construction of the pipeline to begin, a presidential permit is required. In other words, President Obama has the power to prevent this pipeline from being built.

Please sign the petition and pass it along to others. Thank you for taking the time to act.

Many Voices, One Gospel

This is my third (and last, for those of you hiring) October at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, which means courses are in full swing, due dates are starting to pop up, and the library is beginning to feel more like home than my apartment. It also means that in chapel every Tuesday, we switch to singing Spanish responses to the Great Thanksgiving, as we celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month. I will admit I am sometimes a little worn out by the transition to a foreign language and a different tonality. The congregation stumbles over the unfamiliar words and rhythms, and everyone seems a little embarrassed or uncomfortable at the insecurity of our collective voice. But that does not stop October from coming every year, like clockwork.

G-ETS never shies away from introducing diverse voices into the services of Word and Table, and thank God for that. Those who habitually hear only people like themselves in church (especially if "themselves" happen to be in the majority) cannot possibly entertain the fullness of the gospel message. Instead gospel message starts to resemble quite closely how their lives are already being lived, rather how their lives can and should be transformed. So, when we silence an entire group, as seen last week when a Federal judge in Alabama upheld the state's harsh immigration law, we miss the good news completely. Criminalizing a people (legally or socially) because of their appearance means stifling their voices, lest they be prosecuted for being unwelcome guests in a world not open to their existence. And we all lose.

So, if every October we fumble a bit around the Spanish Sanctus, or if we attend a gospel service with a few more Amens and Yes Lords than we might be comfortable with, or if the traditional Korean drumming proceeding the call to worship doesn't seem as meditative as a Bach prelude, then good. We can be reminded of what it feels like to be the other, and to be constantly uncomfortable, outside the norm of what being a Christian "should be." Maybe then, we can remember that all voices are necessary to hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church.

Bankers, Jesus, Slave Marriage, Newt, and A Friday Song

There are too many things going on in the world right now.

There is this meme going around:

Kind of related to this: The Nation/Occupy Wall Street FAQ

And this meme:

Definitely related to this:

"I believe that marriage is between a man and woman. It has been for all of recorded history and I think this is a temporary aberration that will dissipate."

 -Newt Gingrich via Teagan Goddard via Des Moines Register

And I leave you with this for the weekend.  Its cold, rainy, and windy in Chicago.  May God be with you.

(I unfortunately have a soft spot in my heart)


-Tim

Life in Marvelous Times

Praying and expecting everything to come from God and not doing anything yourself is not praying. This is laziness; this is alienation. This is passivity, conformity. This is not the time, dear brothers and sisters, to say: It is God’s will. Many things happen that are not God’s will. When people can contribute something of themselves to improve the situation and ask God for the courage to do so, then there is prayer.
Oscar Romero, 1979, El Salvador

This week, amid news of political debates, two death row executions, mass graves in Libya, plummeting stocks, and hand-wringing from the General Assembly of the United Nations, I found myself standing in a crowd in downtown Chicago listening to the words of the rapper and political/social critic, Mos Def in his song, Life in Marvelous Times:

…we are alive in amazing times
delicate hearts, diabolical minds
revelations, hatred, love and war
and more and more and more and more
and more of less than ever before
it’s just too much more for your mind to absorb…

In times like these, when world issues swirl in our heads and politicians ascend the bully pulpit with what seems like no direction at all, I struggle to find focus. I struggle to avoid hopelessness, even despair. What can we do in the face of all of this pain, this fear—what, among all of these issues, lies at the heart of the upheaval?

On Friday, new statistics were released on poverty in the state of Illinois. This information comes on the heels of national poverty stats that place the U.S. poverty rate at its highest level in 52 years. As both sets of census information reveal, poverty levels have skyrocketed.

Given the fact that there are 1,731,711 million people in Illinois and 46.2 million in the U.S. living below the poverty line, I think this is a good place to start.

The effects of the economic crisis on working people in Illinois and throughout the nation have been devastating. The vulnerable include the unemployed, the under-employed, the elderly and the disabled. As unemployment rises and the state of Illinois experiences yet another budget crisis, a growing number of working people are falling into poverty. As income disparity between the upper and lower classes grows, those who had least to begin with are now faced with, in the words of Mos Def, “more of less than ever before.”

In the wake of these startling figures, and in the face of the utter devastation of countless sisters, brothers, children around us, people of faith are called to respond. The poor are always with us, yes, but this does not mean that poverty is an issue to be ignored, and while it’s hard to imagine a simple solution to an overwhelming problem, I would propose that the first step we should take as Christians, people of faith, or even just as people of conviction, is to simply bring attention to this issue.

The poverty line in the United States is established at an annual income of $14,710 for a family of two. For a family of four, the poverty threshold is an annual income of less than $22,350. There are 46.2 million people in this country living below that line. These numbers are astounding, and the worst part of looking at figures like these is the realization that behind every statistic is the face of a person who cannot make ends meet.
Last week, we heard presidential candidates wax poetic about everything from HPV vaccinations to climate change. We shook our heads as Barack Obama introduced a bill that may or may not increase jobs and boost our economy. We walked down the streets of our major cities and passed protestors calling for an end to corporate personhood. But then what did we do? What can we do?

Perhaps the easiest place to start (or maybe this is the hardest) is to think about the way we are voting. When we think about the upcoming elections we are inclined to think about our own self-interest, but now is the time as people of faith to remember the 46.2 million people around us and to be sure that our voices and our votes speak out for this population.

In these hard times, there are glimmers of hope. Churches and charities continue to do a really good job of helping people in need. There are more and more food pantries, shelters, etc. popping up all over the city of Chicago. These are all helpful and necessary resources when poverty is running rampant. But clearly poverty is a systemic problem and one that continues to grow.

In the coming months, we are going to hear all sorts of politicians talk about the policies that are good and the policies that are bad. I urge you to do your best to remember these facts and figures. Think of the faces of the people you pass on the street. And imagine raising your two children on $22,000 a year.
We have seen the way that politics can stir a nation. As a new election season approaches, and as a host of potential new leaders emerge, my prayer is that our hands, our feet, our voices and our votes can be used to help those who need it most.

We Owe Troy Davis Nothing Less...

Barring a 180 degree legal turn, Troy Davis will be executed by lethal injection at 7 p.m. Eastern Time today.

Troy Davis, 42, convicted of and sentenced to death for the 1989 murder of Savannah, Georgia Police Officer, Mark MacPhail, has maintained his innocence for over 20 years.  Seven of the nine eyewitnesses who testified against Davis have since recanted their trial testimonies.   The murder weapon was never recovered and no other physical evidence links Davis to the murder.  Furthermore, new witnesses linking Sylvester "Redd" Coles to the murder have stepped forward.  And, of the two eyewitnesses who have not retracted their original testimonies, one is Redd Coles himself.

Regardless of your views on capital punishment, the fact the of matter is this:  there is simply not enough information to justify the execution of  Troy Davis.  At the very least, this execution will go through based on evidence that is entirely too shaky, and, for the most part, non-existent.  The worst, and most probable outcome is that the state of Georgia will condone and proceed with the murder of an innocent man.

In the words of Dave Zirin:

For those unfamiliar with the case, let’s be clear: Davis’s execution is little more than a legal lynching. As the New York Times wrote this morning in a featured editorial, "the Georgia pardon and parole board's refusal to grant him clemency is appalling in light of developments after his conviction."

As people of faith, or even just people with a reasonably intact moral compass, it is clear that the execution of Troy Davis is not justified.  Despite the fact that clemency has not been granted, and even as early as this morning, Davis's request for a polygraph was denied, there is still time to have the execution stayed.  Call Judge Penny Freeseman, who still has the power to withdraw the death warrant (912.652.7252), or sign this petition. 

Again, Dave Zirin:

I know that Judge Penny Freesemann still has the power to withdraw its death warrant. These are slim options, but I also know that this isn’t over until they send the poison into Troy’s veins. Troy himself has refused a “last meal,” choosing to fight until his last breath. We owe him nothing less.

Does Christianity Clash With Capitalism?

Laura Dean F. Friedrich/Protestants for the Common Good/Worthy Work, Worthy Wages:

As a nation, we value families, and we value work. We hold dear the notion that people in the U.S. can succeed if they work. Their [minimum wage earners] jobs make it possible for them to take care of their families, guide their children, and contribute to their communities. This vision of a stable, productive—and adequately compensated—work force falls short when it comes to workers who earn the minimum wage. These low-wage earners do not make enough to cover their basic needs, much less afford the extras many of us feel are essential for the good life.

As people of faith, we value all human life, and we believe in the dignity and integrity of all people. Stories about work fill our holy scriptures, beginning with creation itself. God speaks to us through psalm, prophet, and parable, and Christ calls us into relationship with one another and sets forth justice and compassion as integral aspects of our community life. PCG articulates our understanding of God’s claim and Christ’s call in our vision of a beloved community in which all flourish and all contribute.

Susan Brook Thistlethwaite/Washington Post/It's not 'class warfare', it's Christianity:

Capitalism isn’t “God’s Plan,” it’s an economic system that runs on the human desire for more, our own self-interest. This is not necessarily evil. It can actually be a very productive system, but it is not beneficent. In order for there to be good values in our economic life, capitalism needs to be regulated so it does not wreck the whole ship with unfettered greed...

The Christian approach to economics is to be the conscience of the nation and to insist that we regulate capitalism so it does not become reckless and destructive.

Blogging for Protestants for the Common Good, I am well aware of the pragmatic nature of our work.  We are an organization that seeks to create changes in an already given economic and political structure.  You will not find Che Guevara shirts, and Molotov cocktails in our downtown Chicago office.

But as a Christian, reading LDF's call for minimum wage increases and SBT's assessment of the inter-Christian debate over economic policy, I cannot help thinking about where we draw the line.  SBT describes capitalism as a system based on self-interest, and thus in need of regulation in order to fight the evils that come along with pure self-interest.  At what point do the regulations need to stop so that "capitalism" no longer looks like capitalism but more like something else altogether?  LDF describes the economic benefits that come with a higher minimum wage, but this is far from a consensus position amongst our pro-capitalism economists.

There is a level at which the Christian, the Christian who believes in a God who is about love and equality rather than profit and prosperity, has to stop thinking that it is their job to correct a system that fundamentally asks us to look out for ourselves above all other things. 

I want higher wages for workers not because it makes for good capitalism, but because it is how I view God's will.   Class warfare, higher taxes for the rich, call it what you want.  I don't care if its good for capitalism either.  I care if it is aligned with the gospel.  I am pragmatist, a realist, etc. etc.  But really, I long to be a dreamer.

-Tim

3 Videos and One Awesome Picture

Emma's last post on Rick Perry and the death-penalty-cheers got me thinking about a few things.

First (awesome):


Secondly (the clip in question):


Third (just sad, please note Ron Paul's response):

Side Note: I worked for two years at an NPO that directed people to social services available to them, and I can't count how many times someone went on a tirade about why so and so church wasn't helping them.  Removing government mandates to help the sick is not about freedom and belief in the human spirit to help all those in need.  It is about passing the buck. 

Lastly (An awesome screenshot from the first video):

Nothing says I <3 You like sexually ambiguous hair kissing while Jesus looks on.  This really had nothing to do with anything but I thought it was extremely funny.

-Tim

Friday Links - Plus a Special Song

Chart Via Ezra Klein's Blog

 

-President Obama said last night that the media was painting everything in terms of re-election, and that should not be the point.  I don't think that is going to change, and I also don't think 99.9% of politicians think that way either (nor should they? though that is a question for another day). 
-A number of other reactions to President Obama's speech, as put together by Andrew Sullivan.
-Paul Harvey (Religion Dispatches) argues that 9/11 did nothing to change the narrative of war in America.

As we think about 9/11 this weekend:

Gov. Perry and American Gladiators

I've had a few days to process the absolute shock I felt when I heard the audience at the Republican Debate last Wednesday break into applause when Brian Williams mentioned the huge number of executions that have taken place in Texas. If you missed it, here's a link to the video, courtesy of TPM.

I hardly remember Gov. Perry's response to the question because I was dumbfounded by the audience's uncontrollable joy at the death of 234 people. How could a group of people, no matter their political affiliation, join in such at outburst at the loss of human life, whether they understood it to be justifiable, or not? Did I somehow time travel centuries back to the Roman Colosseum? Or maybe just months back to the entire country's celebration of Osama bin Laden's death?

Bruce Reyes-Chow, in his reflections on the GOP debate, writes, "Revenge, payback and ultimate justice may work for the movies and it may indeed fall right in line with “American” triumphalism, but these are not Christian values." Perhaps the Californians were mourning their state's overwhelming debt or its overcrowded prisons, two issues not to be easily disregarded, but certainly they would not look towards Texas, a state with its own budget shortages, as an appropriate role model. It is almost impossible, though, to pinpoint the thoughts of each member of an audience, and harder to hold them accountable to a religion they may or may not follow.

However, for a candidate who has so unabashedly flaunted his faith, Gov. Perry has some explaining to do. When I looked back over transcripts of the debate, I saw someone who is not only blind to inherent flaws in capital punishment, but in the justice system as a whole. Gov. Perry called state mandated death the "ultimate justice." So I suppose Jesus' death, as ordered by the Roman empire, would be seen as ultimate justice, according to Perry? I'm sure he would disagree, but I would love to see the theological acrobatics that went into the backtracking.

The Presidency and Angry Progressive Christians

Jonathan Chait/New York Times:

Yes, Bush passed his tax cuts — by using a method called reconciliation, which can avoid a filibuster but can be used only on budget issues. On No Child Left Behind and Medicare, he cut deals expanding government, which the right-wing equivalents of Greenwald denounced as a massive sellout. Bush did have one episode where he tried to force through a major domestic reform against a Senate filibuster: his crusade to privatize Social Security. Just as liberals urge Obama to do today, Bush barnstormed the country, pounding his message and pressuring Democrats, whom he cast as obstructionists. The result? Nada, beyond the collapse of Bush’s popularity.

Chait, Obama defender extraordinaire (and I do not say that negatively), comes back with a follow up to his New Republic article defending Obama against those who feel our president is failing due to a lack of rhetorical backbone.

I highlight this quote because we should not lose sight of the fact that legislative success and failure is a part of every presidency.  Charisma is not the same as totalitarian power. 

Progressive Christians would benefit from harping less about Obama, and doing more to actually try and persuade our brothers and sisters (yes they still are our brothers and sisters are they not?) that Jesus was not a free market crusader.  Part of me always wants to give up on this task, because it seems like a giant waste of time.  But what is the purpose of the Church if not to make such a task worthwhile?

-Tim

Friday Links - Plus a Special Song

A carefully curated list of interesting links just for you:

Lillian Daniel/Christian Century: On people who claim to be spiritual but not religious.  A piece that has been burning up the internet (at least amongst my small, insular circle of divinity school students). 
Ed Kilgore/The New Republic: An argument for why Bachmann and Perry are religious radicals.  I am still not sure that Perry is.  I think he is playing the game just like G.W. did.  Though I am not sure which is worse at this point.
Andrew Sullivan/The Daily Dish: Differing opinions on the Keystone XL pipeline.
Matthew Yglesias/Think Progress:  All genders and races can vote in America.  Doesn't mean there still aren't ways to make it hard.
Killing the Buddha: An online magazine about religion, culture, and politics. Check it out.

I leave you with a fun song about finding heaven on earth.  Have a great weekend.  Thanks for supporting the blog.



-Tim

Zizek: Learning to Love Trash

As we think about the environment today, here is Zizek screwing with my mind.  (warning: there are about 2 seconds of potentially offensive things. well worth overlooking if you ask me, but I have warned you)



-Tim

Support the Clean Power Ordinance! (Chicago Residents)

The Clean Power Coalition - of which Protestants for the Common Good is a member - is attempting to collect over 5,000 signatures from Chicago residents on a petition to Mayor Emmanuel in support of the Clean Power Ordinance.

The Ordinance would require that the two coal-fired power plants in Chicago (Fisk and Crawford) reduce their emissions of soot, particulate matter, and carbon dioxide. The ordinance is co-sponsored by 35 of 50 aldermen and alderwomen, and while the Mayor has expressed support for the effort, we need to keep the pressure up and remind him that the public cares about this issue.

Please download the signature form, bring it to your churches or community groups this week and over the weekend, and then mail in the sheets to:

Protestants for the Common Good  
77 W. Washington St.  
Suite 1124
Chicago, IL 60602

or email Courtney Eccles and she will come pick them up.

Embracing Uncertainty

A guest post from a friend of mine, Kevin Corek, a graduate from UCLA Law School who has worked for the Democratic National Committee.

Tim's post on uncertainty got me thinking about a recent TED talk (embedded below) that Tim Harford gave on "Trial, error, and the God complex." The thrust of the talk was that as humans we fail to recognize our own fallibility with respect to solving complex societal problems. Perhaps there's something instinctual to the kind of thinking that demands or proffers solutions to every problem without acknowledging our limits.

To put this in the political context, it's a rare politician who would say, "I don't have a solution to X problem, but let's try these 5 different approaches and see what works." The party system and political ideology exerts a powerful influence in shaping the discussions we have about public policy. In the prevailing atmosphere, a political party can't admit they don't have a solution or that a problem is too complex and we might just have to use trial and error. Trial and error isn't a solution in the mold of a political principle, like say, the validity of a social safety net or philosophical opposition to wealth redistribution through taxation.

If we want to change this mentality within our existing political structure, uncertainty needs to be embraced as part of a political platform. The Democratic Party is closer to this today by virtue of not disputing the scientific method and empirical evidence. But that's not the same thing as valuing uncertainty in and of itself. How do we get there? It's complicated, but to start, let's try talking about uncertainty more and see what happens.

-Kevin