Dear Joe…. Thank you for your service. It is time to step aside.

Dear Joe,

First of all, thank you for your service in public office, as a Senator for 36 years, as Vice-President under Obama, and now as President. You have served well and have a strong legacy. Even when they disagree with you, in their heart of hearts, even your critics acknowledge your concern for the most vulnerable in our society. Your wisdom in international challenges has been welcomed and appreciated. You have stabilized our economy with growth and job creation, and you have lowered inflation.

Nevertheless, I think it is time for you to step aside and give the next generation their opportunity. The main reason is not your diminishing physical ability and mental acuity. (That happens to many of us.) I believe you would serve well if you had four more years in the White House. The problem is that so much attention is given to your occasional verbal gaffes, that the unethical character and flawed actions of ex-President Trump receive little attention. For example, in the “Debate”, Trump told more than 30 serious lies, but these are hardly mentioned.

I believe that Trump is very dangerous for our country (he is a convicted felon who is guilty of sexual assault, trying to steal the 2020 election, invoking a riot in our Capitol, and supporting autocrats around the world, including Putin in his invasion and war against Ukraine. The most consistent aspect of his character are his lies.) In “normal” courts he would become convicted again and again, but due to the actions of the stacked Supreme Court, Trump will not be tried again before the election. The best scenario for the country is that Trump loses the election in November. Joe, you are no longer the best candidate to beat Trump. Other Democrats (Whitmer, Harris, Newsome, and others) are now better prepared. For the good of our country and the world, step aside.

I Really Want To Respect The Supreme Court…, But Its Conduct Makes It Difficult

Healthy societies have institutions (schools, local, state, and federal governments, the police, legal courts, news sources, etc.) that are generally respected by the majority of the population. I strive to respect these institutions in the United States, but this does not mean institutions get a free pass. I take their actions and affirmations seriously because we humans, individually and collectively, are responsible for our words and deeds. Our Supreme Court does not have the approval nor respect of our citizens. Polls consistently show that less than 40% of Americans approve of the Supreme Court. Part of the problem is due to its rulings, but there are other issues of “process” that have led to this low respect. I will address the content of unsatisfactory rulings in future blog postings, but I will briefly point out two problematic processes.

In early 2016, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Leading Republican senators (McConnell, Graham, et al) refused to even bring the nomination to the Senate. They argued that nominees should not be approved by the Senate during a presidential election year. In October 2020, Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court even though early voting had already begun in some states! Instead of being consistent with their 2016 policy, Republican leaders brought her nomination to the Senate. This was blatant hypocrisy! Instead of denouncing this hypocrisy, many “pro-lifers” applauded it. They appealed to the unethical maxim of the “end justifies the means” (conservative justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade). I am disillusioned with leaders like McConnell and Graham who pushed through this nomination out of season, but also with those “Christians” who supported this double standard.
Over a period of twenty years, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has received millions of dollars in gifts from conservative billionaire Harlan Crow. He was required to report these gifts on governmental financial disclosure forms, but he did not do so. Although every other court in the United States has a Code of Conduct which specifies actions that are permitted or prohibited for their justices, the Supreme Court has no such Code and has repeatedly refused to implement such a code.

Although we affirm that “no one is above the law”, these two examples show how some SCOTUS Justices have demonstrated they are not subject to the norms of everyday citizens. In upcoming posts, I will analyze how Monday’s ruling on Trump’s claim of “total immunity” is extremely dangerous for our country.

Biden had a bad debate…Trump lied all night and didn’t answer the questions

Last night’s presidential debate was painful to watch. President Biden did not have a good night. His voice was hoarse, and he stumbled over some of his words. At times, he didn’t finish his train of thought, and at one point he ended an incoherent section with “We beat Medicare”. Even when he was defending some of his successful policies, he was not very persuasive. As the night wore on, Biden got a little better, but the damage was done.

Former president Truimp was more polished. He seemed more restrained than usual, but he also had a bad night. He told a litany of lies that are factually false: migrants commit more crimes than others, he won the 2020 election, and that Biden favors “post-birth abortions”. He refused to answer questions about what he would do regarding climate change, opioid addiction, child care, and the war in Ukraine, even when the commentators repeated their questions two or three times. He did not offer any policy proposals.

Many Americans do not like the two major choices of Biden and Trump. Influential Democrat leaders are urging Biden to step aside to allow someone else to become their party’s nominee. Some governors (like California’s Gavin Newsome) would be stronger than Biden and would shake up the race. If Biden really wants his party to win, he should consider this option.

Cognitive Dissonance and our Political Polarization

Back in the 1950s, Leon Festinger popularized the psychological theory of “cognitive dissonance”. This dissonance occurs when people experience two or more values, beliefs, practices, factual evidence, choices, etc. that are in conflict with each other. This often produces stress. Humans frequently strive to reduce this stress by “maximizing/minimizing” or “re-interpreting” one of these factors to bring it into consonance with the others.

This cognitive dissonance can easily be observed in our political polarization. On Thursday evening there will be a televised debate between Biden and Trump. The debate has not yet occurred. The candidates might perform poorly or well. They might make mental gaffes or perhaps they might be clear and insightful. Even though the debate has not yet happened, our minds are hard at work and we “know” which candidate “won” the debate. Trump’s supporters will claim that he won the debate and explain away any defect. Those who support Biden will do likewise. The truths spoken in the debate get lost in the shuffle, because “my preferred candidate is obviously the better public servant and must have won the debate. My favorite news source (Fox, MSNBC, etc.) agrees with me, so, it is clear that my candidate won.”

Another example is the role of chanting at political rallies. It is common for MAGA supporters to chant “Build the wall! Build the wall!” as the solution to the immigration crisis. The fact that most people at the rally are chanting the same slogan gives the impression that a wall must be the right answer. Nevertheless, it drowns out the dissonance of the weak points of the argument. Trump had four years to build the wall, but he did not do it. In addition, a wall might slow the flow of immigrants, but it would not stop the drug traffic. The drug trade is so lucrative that “better” methods will be used: boats, airplanes, drones, tunnels, and the border with Canada.

On the other side of the political divide are the pro-choice advocates who chant “My body, my choice! My body, my choice!” There is some truth in the chant, but here again, the chanted slogan drowns out the weakness of their position. At some point in the pregnancy, the fetus acquires some human rights. Pro-choice advocates are quite reticent about assigning a point in time for these rights, but Roe stated that it was at the beginning of the third trimester.

Our society is in trouble. The third of the population on “my side” thinks the third on the “other side” are crazy and bereft of any moral compass. Many have therefore resolved, “I won’t listen to my opponents. I will choose only those news sources and friends that agree with me.” Such a life is not worth living, because in such a world, big and small truths get drowned out.

Is there a way out of this morass? There is, but it is a road infrequently traveled. It means respecting the essential humanity of my opponent and accepting as much of her/his arguments as my conscience and integrity permit. It means accurately describing their positions and not distorting them. Are we up to the challenge? I have a deep hope in God, and a flicker of hope for all humanity because we are all created in God’s image.

A Latin American Journal Worth Reading

The Spring issue of our Journal of Latin American Theology is hot off the press! Since 2006 we have published two issues per year, but this issue is one of the very best. It has some excellent articles, book and film reviews and theopoetry.

One of my heroes in Latin American history has been Bartolome de las Casas. He denounced the immoral conquest of the Americas that used Christianity as a pretext. As a bishop, he became the Defender of the Indigenous. He urged Christians to preach the gospel with their lives and not with hypocritical words. Yet even heroes have their flaws. In his article on De las Casas, Luis Tapia Rubio alerts us to some of those flaws and sketches out a better way for Christianity to interact with society.

Most of us who live in the United States are frustrated by the low level of political discourse in our country. We can learn a lot from how Christians in Latin America interface with their political realities. Peruvian theologian Dario Lopez points out the failures and successes of “evangélicos” and their politics in his article “Anointed to Rule: Fundamentalist Evangelicals in the Public Square”. Milton Mejia analyzes the role of Christians in the reconciliation process in Colombia.

Regarding the complex phenomenon of global immigration, the Brazilian Mariani Xavier shares her insights from the Biblical texts. Fabio Salguero Fagoaga addresses the same issue in light of aporophobia, a disdain for the poor. He urges readers to do something quite radical: actually following the teaching and example of Jesus.

Theologian Valdir Steuernagel urges followers of Jesus to share the whole gospel to all peoples. He suggests many Latin American examples. The two examples of theopoetry explore the suggestive themes of a God who does not “sunset” and submerging ourselves in God’s mystery.

Of course, the journal is available on Amazon and the articles can be downloaded from the ATLA data base.

Clear Thinking in the Fog of War: Reflections on the Campus Protests

The protests on university campuses across the country have brought back powerful memories. In the spring of my freshman year at Ohio University (1970), protests against the US involvement in and expansion of the war in Vietnam spread across our country. On most campuses, the protests were peaceful and helpful and produced reasonable discussions regarding the morality/immorality of the war. On other campuses, the national guard was called in to preserve the peace. Confrontations took place and, sadly, four students at Kent State University in Ohio were killed by the national guard. All “hell broke loose” at many universities, including my own. Violence begat more violence. The president at Ohio University cancelled classes for the rest of the quarter and sent us home. Nevertheless, one basic truth emerged. The US war in Vietnam failed to meet the basic criteria of Just War Theory. The protests marked a turning point in the war. Plans were made (and slowly implemented) for the withdrawal of our troops from a costly, unwinnable war.

Earlier this month, Christian theologian Daniel Bannoura from Bethlehem, Palestine spoke on “Faith in the Fog of War: Theology and Politics of Palestine/Israel” at Wheaton College (his presentation is available on YouTube). He explained the factors that led up to the Israeli/Palestinian war in Gaza. He argued that genocide is taking place right before our eyes. Over 30,000 innocent civilians in Gaza have been killed. Many thousands more are facing imminent starvation. He made several excellent suggestions for resolving the conflict. He used the phrase “the fog of war” to illustrate how war can lead to a lot of erroneous thinking. Both sides are tempted to exaggerate the “goodness of our cause” and the evil of the enemy. In the midst of this fog, we need to strive for clarity of vision, courage, and clear thinking.

The protests on our campuses reveal a national fog, but also provide us an opportunity to lift that fog. Here are some of my reflections regarding the protests.

I celebrate that many students are actively trying to improve our world and are not consumed with greed and self-interest.
I acknowledge that outside agitators might be infiltrating the protests.
Violence against other students is never justified.
School administrators should provide venues for a respectful debate of the issues instead of provoking angry confrontation.

Last fall, I posted a brief reflection “Genocide against Israel is Evil…and so is Genocide against the Gazans” on this blog site which might guide our national dialogue. In that piece, I argued that the attack on Israel by Hamas on October 7 was morally evil. I also claimed that Israel’s response, although understandable, was excessive. Their indiscriminate bombing of civilian Palestinians was also evil. The same standards of justice must be applied to all. Regrettably, the war has continued. Sin (both personal and social) permeates all societies and people (including me). May we strive to honestly acknowledge the moral failures on all sides, turn from our evil ways, and be realistically courageous in seeking reconciliation and a lasting peace.

“Christian Nationalism” is not Christian

Christian Nationalism is the belief that a certain variety of Christianity should rule over a nation, usually by imposition. This nationalism is a misguided objective of some “followers of Jesus” and by questionable politicians who try to take advantage of people’s religiosity.

The New Testament does NOT teach that faith in Jesus should be imposed upon a society. The Gospel is the Good News that people can be forgiven by God’s grace and become reconciled with the Lord and with others. God invites people to respond in faith and respects their freedom and responsibility. Followers of Jesus are called to contribute to the wellbeing of their society as salt and light. In modern democracies, this means persuasion, voting, (even paying taxes), and in myriads of other ways, but not via imposition (even if it is well-intentioned). The New Testament urges government officials to practice commonly accepted forms of justice (fair treatment of citizens, no bribes).

In the long history of Christianity, there are many examples of attempts to create “Christian nations” which have been disastrous. Let’s begin with Constantine and his mythical “conversion” before the important battle at the Milvian Bridge. He supposedly saw a cross in the sky and the words “with this cross you will conquer”. During his reign (AD 306-337) Christianity was transformed from a persecuted religion into a tolerated one, then into a preferred one, and then into the religion of the empire. Freedom of religion was, in effect, abolished. Equally bad, Christianity was wedded with the goals of the empire: violently warring against their neighbors with the “blessing of God”. Christians’ faithful commitment to pacifism gave way to a sinful killing of humans made in God’s image.

We can see a continuation of the tragic idea of a “Christian nation” in Spain. The Spanish Inquisition did not permit religious freedom. It imposed Christian doctrines upon its citizens and forced Jews to convert. Christianity was also used by Spain as a major rationale for the horrendous conquest of the indigenous populations of the Americas.

To a greater or lesser degree, Protestant churches in Europe (Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anglicans) practiced a church/state alliance that greatly reduced religious freedom in many countries. This led to the emergence of Anabaptists, Mennonites, and a variety of “free” churches that yearned to practice their faith according to their conscience.

The USA did not develop a state church, but there have been attempts to have religious/ethical prescriptions imposed on its citizens. Some of these (like declaring Christmas to be a national holiday) are not coercive and have broad approval. The prohibition against murder and perjury have been upheld by the states and the federal government. “Blue Laws” and “Dry Counties” have some roots in religion and/or religious ethics. They used to be quite common across broad swaths of the United States but have generally been voted into obsolescence.

Some have argued that the United States was a Christian Nation in its founding. Although many of the colonists were devout Christians, most advocated for religious freedom. Other founders (like Thomas Jefferson) were Deists who did not believe in Christian Nationalism. For those who claim the United States was a Christian Nation, I urge them to get on their knees and confess our national sins: the devastation of indigenous people, the enslavement of Africans, and the most unjust, “imperialist war” against Mexico in 1846 (Lincoln’s words, not mine).

I strive to follow Jesus and I frequently fail. It is right for me to contribute to our national conscience through persuasion, an honest use of the evidence, and elections. It is not right for me to try to impose my convictions upon others. Let us seek the truth and let it set us free.

“Illegal”: From Linguistics to Divine Ethics

There is an ongoing debate about the use of the word “illegal”. For most of its five-century history, the word has been used as an adjective to describe actions that violate a law. Only more recently has the term been used to refer to people, usually immigrants who supposedly do not have the necessary documents to be in a country and usually with a derogatory connotation.

I suggest that the word “illegal” only be used as an adjective to describe actions. This would bring clarity to our discussions. The reason should be obvious. I (and most people who read my blog) have driven over the speed limit. Such action is illegal because it violates the law. Those who commit such violations should be fined (or at least warned). But driving over the speed limit does not make me an “illegal”. Actions can be illegal, people are not.

There is a much more important reason. According to most religions and philosophies, every human has immense value. The three largest monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) agree that people are valuable because each person is made in God’s image. This is abundantly clear in Christianity, my chosen faith. Jesus taught that every action directed towards another person was, in reality, an action directed towards God. (Matthew 25:31-46) We wouldn’t dare call God an ”illegal”, so why do we use that word to put down people created by a loving God’s? Those who claim to be followers of Jesus should be “pro-life” in the truest sense, by cherishing every human being as “wondrously made” in God’s image.

There’s another reason why I don’t use “illegal” to refer to immigrants. I (and many of my readers) have some ancestors who immigrated to North America hundreds of years ago. Most became settlers, but they usually did not get permission (or something comparable) from the indigenous people who were stewarding this land. Immigration is a two-edged sword which frequently reveals our own hypocrisy. If we don’t want to be descendants and heirs of “illegals”, we should use the word more appropriately.

The Judge’s ruling ironically favors both Willis and Trump

Judge Scott McAfee issued his decision this morning about the Georgia trial regarding former president Trump’s election interference. On the one hand, the judge decided that the Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis can continue on the case in spite of her romantic relationship with the special prosecutor. Ironically, his ruling favors both Willis and Trump, but is a setback for the American people.

The good news for Willis is that she can continue her legal career, although the judge criticized her for using poor judgment.

The good news for Trump is that his lawyers now have more fodder to delay this and the other trials until after the November election. Trump knows that a significant number of citizens would not vote for him if he were convicted of a felony. It should be obvious to all that his strategy is to stall, stall, stall. If he could just stall until the election, and if he would win, he could make all the trials disappear. Even if he were guilty, he would be “above the law”.

I am disappointed by everyone who favors this stalling tactic. Our citizens deserve to know whether Trump is found to be “guilty” or “not guilty” by a jury of his peers… before the election. In our country, nobody is supposed to be above the law, not even a president. Stalling is an attempt to distort justice.

The trial is to decide whether Trump tried to steal the 2020 election in Georgia. He officially lost the election in Georgia by 11,779 votes. We have a recording of the phone call from Trump to the Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (a conservative Republican) on January 2, 2021. I suggest listening to the entire conversation, but here are the pertinent quotes:

Raffensperger – “Well Mr. President, the challenge that you have is, the data you have is wrong…. We believe that we do have an accurate election.”

Trump – “Look Brad. I got to get … I have to find 12,000 votes.”

Most objective people who listen to the tape acknowledge that the former president attempted to steal the election. Listen to his own words… and you be judge.

The State of the Union address last night and the Republican response: Facts and Fiction

Last night, President Biden gave his State of the Union address. Before (and during?) his speech, Democrats were anxious that the president would make many gaffes, would come across as out of touch, and would appear a bit senile. Nevertheless, he surpassed the expectations of his friends and foes alike. He was coherent, fiery, and passionate. His frequent ad libs were on target. He even joked about his age.

In these addresses, presidents highlight their successes. Biden did this with a long litany of achievements, and his fellow Democrats roared their approval. Most of his affirmations were factually accurate, although some were misleading (example, taxes paid by corporations. See Fact checking Biden’s State of the Union | CNN Politics for the evidence that overwhelmingly confirms (and occasionally challenges) the accuracy of his statements.

Biden also tackled immigration, one of his weakest issues. He advocated for the immigration bill passed by the Senate and waiting for a vote in the House. It is a bipartisan bill, largely written by conservative Republican Senator James Lankford from Oklahoma. What are the facts?

Is it the toughest immigration bill of our generation? Yes.
Did Republicans originally support it? Yes.
Is it supported by the union of Border Patrol officers? Yes.
Did former President Trump communicate with Republican congressional representatives to not vote on the bill?
Is this because immigration is his best campaign issue and not a challenge to be resolved? Yes.
Is calling it a crisis and not voting on it in Congress hypocrisy? Yes.
Let’s have the vote!

The Republican response was delivered by Katie Britt, a Senator from Alabama. It was good to see an elected official from a younger generation. Although she was too dramatic for my taste, I agree with her statement that people are only as good as their word. Is our word honest, accurate, full of integrity? Sadly, her few affirmations did not match the truth. She said, “We have the worst inflation in 40 years” (present tense). That is false. Although inflation rose to 9.1% in June 2022, it is now 3.1%. Instead of criticizing Biden on this issue, she should have given him credit. On the topic of immigration, she conveniently forgot to mention that Trump had promised he would “build the wall and make Mexico pay for it”. Of course, the former president did not keep either promise.

The Republican Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, was sitting behind the President and was in clear view the entire evening. He has been roundly criticized for not applauding enough. Although I strongly disagree with him on some issues (for example, not bringing the Senate foreign aid bill up for a vote in the House), last night he did urge members of his own party to show respect for the office of the presidency. He applauded when he agreed with Biden and respectfully kept quiet when he did not.

We the people have the responsibility to seek and speak “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. Although our political preferences do shape what we see, if we work hard enough, we can overcome our biases, and reach some common ground of truth. For the sake of future generations, let’s seek those truths.