"to bigotry, no sanction; to persecution, no assistance..." Congressman King vs the American Ideal

The words printed above were written by George Washington to the leaders of one of America's oldest synagogues in Newport, Rhode Island, as part of his assurance to the Jewish citizens of Rhode Island that this experiment in democracy would be something hitherto unheard of on this earth: a nation, by law, in which religious favoritism and bigotry would have no place. That promise, however imperfectly implemented throughout our history, has shone like a beacon of hope to persecuted people all over the world- people who have, by their contributions to our shared history proven beyond any doubt what diverse peoples can do together, in a society in which liberty,dignity and opportunity are available to all. When we have allowed racism, religious bigotry, or any form of prejudice to influence our behavior as a nation, from slavery, to Jim Crow to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, we have ultimately and always come to repent of that betrayal in bitterness and shame.

Unfortunately, political and personal opportunism as demonstrated by the likes of demagogues like Father Coughlin, Governor George Wallace and Senator Joseph McCarthy, has always been part of the public life of this nation as well. There have always been voices in our country, as in every other, making their bones or their careers by fanning the flames of prejudice against those whose race or faith or ethnicity or political views place them in the minority. Congressman Peter King of Long Island appears poised to become on of those demagogues with his plan to hold congressional hearings clearly designed to cast suspicion on the patriotism of Americans who happen to belong to the Islamic faith and to link them to terrorism. Despite public statements by law enforcement officials, including the FBI that Muslim Americans have and continue to assist them in combating terror, despite the fact that the trend toward terrorist acts in this country is increasingly found among domestic right-wing groups, rather than Islamists, King is focusing only and entirely on Muslims in genuine McCarthy style, calling as his witnesses, politically motivated individuals with particular axes to grind with the religion of Islam, none of which have anything to do with terror.

By doing what he is doing, Peter King is not simply demonizing the religion of Islam, or persecuting one group of people, he is attacking the principle of equality before the law, a foundational principle of our American democracy, and he is doing it by sanctioning bigotry on religious grounds. There is nothing more un-American and all of us, whatever our faith or political views should be outraged. If Congressman King believes congressional hearings are an effective means of combating terrorism and not just a political side show aimed at furthering his own career, then he should be looking at all forms of terrorism aimed at our country and considering the opinions of those who are on the front lines of the battle against terrorism, the FBI, Homeland Security and other law enforcement officials whose opinions he has thus far ignored. As people of faith, as patriotic Americans we must not stand by while our fellow citizens have their dignity stripped away and their commitment to this nation questioned simply because of their religious faith. The only way to stop this kind of pandering is to make it politically unprofitable for people like King. Please join us and stand up for America and Americans!

Gunfire and Rhetoric

Most of us are still reeling from the terrible massacre perpetrated by an obviously disturbed man in a shopping mall in Arizona in which a federal judge and a nine year old girl are among those killed and a congresswoman is fighting for her life in an Arizona hospital. No words are adequate to the magnitude of such a crime- in which people attending a public forum were targeted. The horrendous assault on human life is compounded by the assault on the very fabric of our democratic values in what is no less than an act of terrorism.

Also disturbing, though perhaps a necessary part of the process of dealing with this terrible deed, have been the accusations hurled from all sides of the political spectrum. These range from the patently absurd insistence from the always over-the-top Glenn Beck that the shooter was a liberal (the evidence points to disjointed but decidedly right wing political views), to the insistence by voices on the left that Sarah Palin, with her target-studded political map is directly responsible for this man's heinous acts, to the words of Senator Kyl who seems to be insisting that this act was solely a product of the shooters (obviously) disturbed state of mind.

Beck's predictably ridiculous comments notwithstanding, I think it is clear that this was a disturbed individual, but it is equally important to pay heed to the words of the Sheriff of Pima County, Arizona who pointed out that the atmosphere of overheated and hateful rhetoric that has come to characterize our politics, especially on the right, cannot be discounted when we look at the rise in acts of violence directed at people whose views or whose religion, sexual orientation or immigration status have made them targets of the right. After the plans for Park 51 for example, the Muslim community center planned in downtown NY City were announced for example, the vitriol against Muslim Americans reached a fever pitch with one self-proclaimed Christian pastor even threatening to hold a Qu'ran burning ceremony. Vandalism against mosques spiked and hate crimes against Muslims and Muslim institutions did as well. Members of a Unitarian congregation in Tennessee were gunned down a year ago by a man whose hatred of "liberals" was, in his own words, fanned by the rhetoric of right wing pundits and politicians and let's face it, putting targets on people may not rise to the level of an exhortation to kill them, but the violence of that image is impossible to ignore. It is wrong to make Sarah Palin responsible for what this young man did, but it is right to point out that we don't need and we are not well served by violent images and rhetoric in our political discourse. At best, they polarize us as a people and demonize our fellow Americans, without whose opposing views democracy is not possible. At worse, they are provide a justification for those who are already inclined to violence.

If the left is better, they are only a little better, possibly because they are slightly less enamored of their firearms. Self-righteous finger-pointing is not constructive and it belies the obvious: that all of us, of all political stripes are responsible for toning down the self-righteousness and the hate speech. Disturbed people don't need us egging them on, even if that is not what we intend to do, but more to the point, hate speech has no place in a democracy. The people we disagree with are our neighbors and our friends and they are trying to do what we are trying to do, to make the country a better place. A democracy requires us to be able to disagree in an enthusiastic but civil manner. We need to stop threatening each other, stop looking down our noses at each other and stop calling each other names. As people of faith, we have a special responsibility here. We need to lead on this and insist on civil, nay, compassionate discourse, spirited but loving debate and we need to remember ourselves as we remind our flocks that as Dr Martin Luther King Jr, said,"... the ends are inherent in the means." You can be right and still be wrong if you can't remember that the person you are arguing with is a human being like you. Enough dead public servants, enough dead children, enough with the hate speech. Mistakes have been made all around- let us honor the victims of this tragedy with our resolve to be more civil and more reverent for the rights as well as the lives of our neighbors.

Channeling Joe McCarthy

In an op-ed piece in Long Island's Newsday news paper this past Sunday, Congressman Peter King wrote an article justifying his intention to hold hearings on Muslims in America and domestic terrorism.In it Rep. King noted an abrupt change in his attitude toward Muslim Americans after 911 based on a remark by an individual Muslim (uttered in the heat of the moment during a contentious discussion) in which this individual indicated, not that the terror attacks were in any way justified, but that they might have been the work of someone other than a Muslim extremist group- a remark Mr. King says, the public record to the contrary notwithstanding, were never properly repudiated by Muslim leaders. In point of fact, it was not only retracted by the individual who made it, but denounced publicly over and over again- a fact to which I can personally attest.

Even if it wasn't, no one has demanded that I or any other Christian leader publicly apologize for the remarks of Terry Fox, the infamous would-be Quran-burner of central Florida and therein lies the crux of the issue. Peter King, is an elected representative of the US government who is sworn to uphold the constitution. That includes the right to be an individual whose patriotism is not subject to congressional hearings because someone else makes a statement that offends- even if it offends your local congressman. It is a sad commentary on Mr. King's own character that his opinion of an entire religion is apparently turned 180 degrees because of one or even a few ill-thought-out remarks, but it is worse when he uses his office to initiate a witch hunt against a group which, also contrary to what he claims, the Federal Bureau of Investigation as well as our local police commissioner have lauded for their cooperation with law enforcement in the fight against terror. But facts rarely matter when political opportunism rears its ugly head. Muslims are a vulnerable group, easy to victimize under the guise of concerns about security. A few well publicized incidents of domestic terror recruiting among Muslims in America, provide the excuse and anxiety about Islam and Muslims the fuel for a return to the Joe McCarthy-style congressional witch hunts that cast a shadow over our democracy, ruined countless innocent lives and disgraced our nation in the early 1950's. Is the threat of domestic terrorism real? Of course it is- not only or even primarily from Muslim extremists, but from right wing religious extremists in the mold of Timothy McVeigh, from so-called "sovereign citizens," armed militias and a number of other groups, the majority of which have nothing to do with Islam- extremist or otherwise. But King apparently doesn't see a political pay-off in going after domestic terrorism in general. Instead, he is picking on a vulnerable minority, cynically exploiting the fears of Americans and like his predecessor, Senator McCarthy, bringing shame to this nation, even as his enemies rejoice that America seems to be at war with Islam after all.
Shame on you Congressman King, shame on you!

The War on Christmas Revisited

It's that time of year again, when the Christian celebration of Christmas is upon us and the inevitable complaints about the so-called "War on Christmas" are being aired in many quarters in America. As more and more merchants are changing their "Merry Christmas" greetings to "Happy Holidays," as public schools and institutions are changing their "Christmas" pageants to "Holiday" pageants and Menorahs, Kwanzaa candles and even Star and Crescents are showing up in public places alongside of creches and Christmas trees, the complaints get louder and more urgent. Many of us Christians begin to wonder if indeed there really us a plan out there somewhere among the powers-that-be to erase this most important religious and cultural celebration from our land. Hey, what's wrong with "Merry Christmas" after all?

Not a thing- and as a Christian clergyman, I believe not only that Christmas is one of the two most important celebrations of our faith (Easter is the other), but that those who say that any religious celebration or proclamation has no place in the public square are not only wrong about what our constitution says, but profoundly misguided about the nature of religious belief itself. I believe as well that there is a indeed a kind of "War on Christmas." But that war is not being carried out by some secret cabal of anti-religious zealots, or by the so-called "liberal media" or by any of the other boogey-men (or boogey-women) one hears so much about from cable pundits. Rather, the war on Christmas is an internal affair that began when we Christians started turning the celebration of the birth of our Savior into a commercial buying spree so excessive that it became a cornerstone of our consumer economy and when far too many of us began looking for the "Christmas Spirit" at big box stores and malls, or in religious displays in the Village Square rather than where our faith has always said that spirit would be found. That is, in our houses of worship, among the poor and those whom the consumer economy has left behind and in acts of love and generosity that reflect our understanding of the incredible act of love we celebrate in the birth, the ministry, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Christians claim to be disciples of a Messiah who eschewed political and cultural domination, proclaiming instead that his kingdom "is not of this world." We are the followers of one who said that he would be found not among the wealthiest and most fortunate, but among the least and the last, a rabbi who told those who would attain righteousness to "sell all you have and give the money to the poor." When we seek to dominate the public and secular arenas with our symbols at the expense of our neighbors, when we turn his birthday into an orgy of consumption, when we look for the spirit of Christmas in stores, it is we who are waging war on Christmas, not some "liberal" cabal. When we are subjected to skepticism about this day's meaning by others because of those patterns of behavior, that too is a self-inflicted wound and one that should be cause to "look to the plank in our own eye," as Jesus said, and not "the mote in our neighbor's eye."

We have the right as citizens of a free society to proclaim our joy at the celebration of our Messiah's birth and the duty as Christians to put that faith into practice in our public as well as our private lives. But the teachings of Jesus would seem to make it clear that doing so would be more about caring for the least of his brethren, coming together in worship than about demanding merchants say "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays." Our religion calls us to struggle in our Savior's name to live our lives more compassionately and our faith more courageously, and maybe worry a bit less about getting "our" symbol up on the Village Green or our celebrations' name on the local school pageant. If those kinds of concerns are what Christmas is about, then the war is already lost because we've become just one more competing special interest group vying for power. But faith, all religious faith is about much more than that. Christmas is about the birth of Jesus Christ, about his love, his grace, his gift of salvation rather than about us. Remembering that and putting it into practice- that's how we'll "win" this one. To my fellow Christians, have a blessed Christmas. To my friends of other faiths, God bless and to all of my fellow human beings of ever faith and no faith, may this year bring you joy and good things!

A Rose by any other Name

In very era of America's relatively brief history as a nation, through every crisis, there are those among who insist that THIS TIME is unique, that this time, the crisis we face is so overwhelming, our need so dire that we cannot afford to abide by the foundational principles of our democracy, that we need to bend or break them for the sake of our survival. Whether it is the suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, the Alien and Sedition Acts of the early 20th century, the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II or the suspension of constitutional rights related to the Patriot Act, the internment of "enemy combatants" or the secret torture chambers at Gitmo and in CIA prisons throughout the world, arguments have been well and sincerely raised as to why the rules by which our society is governed, and along with them the principles that gave life to those rules are too lofty to be truly followed in the "real world."

And yet, as fiercely as we might defend these "exceptions" as they occur, so (history has taught us) we will come to regret them with the passage of time, when the heat of the moment is over and the crisis is past. As cooler times give way to cooler heads, we come to recognize that not only have we shamed our nation and our own most cherished beliefs, but that the suspension of our constitutional protections have not helped us to defend ourselves, they have not advanced our cause, they have not helped us surmount the crisis or win the war. Rather, they have demeaned and tarnished the cause in which they were employed and if anything, set it back by painting our most cherished freedoms not as unalienable rights, but rather as "luxuries" only for the best of times in direct opposition to the crucible in which they were first forged, the fight for human liberation that gave birth to this nation.

When we say, yes to civil liberties, but not for suspected terrorists, or for people of nations with which we are at war, or yes to religious liberty, but not for people of minority faiths or faiths which are shared, even if in name only with enemies of our country, we are putting conditions on all liberty. We are then taking what our founders declared as a fundamental human right and reducing it to a privilege of power. Our founders, not so far removed from the ethnic and religious wars of their countries of origin, still suspicious and all to familiar with the abuse of power by majorities over minorities understood that liberty is either for all or for none, that rights are only rights if they cannot be revoked by popular sentiment or national emergency and that freedom could not ever be defended by denying it, not even a little bit. In this current climate of fear, when so many are willing to throw the rights of others "under the bus" in favor of the illusion of security, we would be well advised to take the words of Ben Franklin, one of the architects of our democracy very seriously: "Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for a little bit of security, deserve neither liberty nor security." Indeed, they may find that they do not have it all.

Park 51: a Christian response

An acquaintance of mine, irritated and apparently surprised to hear that a Christian minister was a supporter of the Park 51 project to renovate a mosque as a Muslim community center near Ground Zero, called me a "Muslim lover." This person had written an article in which he had outlined some of the atrocities committed by those claiming the Muslim faith, particularly over the past few decades and it was, I have to admit, an impressive list of horrific acts resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocents. No such faith, he opined, could claim to be a religion of peace and no such faith should be practiced just a few blocks from where 19 young men claiming that faith had taken so many lives.
A reasonable argument on the face of it, unless one looks, (as Christ commanded) to the plank in our own eye at the bloody history of those who have claimed the Christian faith: from the greatest genocide in human history, perpetrated by the same nation that not only launched the Protestant Reformation, but gave Christianity so many of our theologians,to the 8000 Muslim men and boys slaughtered at Sebrenica in the mid-1990's by the "Christian" Bosnian Serb militias, to the "troubles" of Northern Ireland, the massacres of Native Americans, the Crusades and so on and so forth going back at least 17 centuries, in which the people who received Christ's commandments to love their neighbors as themselves instead twisted that religion of peace and reconciliation into an excuse for war, conquest and genocide. Jesus called upon the one without sin to cast the first stone and recognize that it is not another faith that is my enemy, but the hatred and self-righteous rage that would hold an entire people or religion or nation responsible for the perceived sins of a few.
I was called a "Muslim-lover" as an insult but in truth the epithet is a challenge and a compliment: a challenge to make it true through obedience to the commandments of my Savior to live his love in the world and a compliment because at least one person seems to think that I am already doing it. Christ's people, according to the New Testament, are commanded by our Lord to be lovers, not only of God, but of all of God's people of every faith and no faith. We are the disciples, after all, of an itinerant Jewish preacher who risked alienating his own disciples in order to reach out and embrace enemies, to offer his hand and his love to infidels, heretics and pagans. We believe that this man of Nazareth was the Logos, the Word of God himself and that his admonition that we love these "strangers" and "enemies" not just in word, "but in truth and action," was not just a moral teaching worth emulating but one of God's two Great Commandments on "which hang all the law and the prophets," and on which our own faithfulness will be judged. That is why I (along with clergy and lay people from nearly every major Christian denomination)support the efforts of my sisters and brothers of the Islamic faith to locate a holy place near ground that is hallowed, not by the deaths of the innocents, but by the efforts of those who work together to build a new and better world from the ashes of that terrible tragedy. That is what the resurrection faith of Jesus Christ tells us is the will and commandment of God and that is what Christians are commanded to do. Imam Rauf has reached out to his fellow Americans and to all people of faith and good will with an opportunity to live the love that as Christians we are commanded by our Savior to live. Islam did not destroy those innocent lives on 911, any more than Christianity built the death camps or commanded the genocidal paramilitaries of Bosnia-Herzegovina- hatred and self-righteous rage did. We do not serve God, our nation or God's people with more of the same. We do that, by recognizing an opportunity for reconciliation and seizing it, together.

What's Wrong with Prop 8

Marriage is a touchy issue and the debate over marriage equality is one that often generates more light than heat. Partly this is due to the fact that despite our nation's commitment to a separation of church and state, they often intersect and marriage is one of those intersections. Like most clergy, I not only preside over religious marriages, but over the civil institution of marriage as well, when I am called upon to sign marriage licenses and thereby act as an agent of the state. For me, the issue is less complicated because I believe that my Christian faith sanctions all marriages by any and all people committed to live together in fidelity, honor and love, and because I believe that Jesus' message was clear, that family are the people who love you, irrespective of gender or blood.

But for many traditions, marriage is about procreation, a sacrament. For these traditions, the struggle to accept marriage equality is more difficult. Luckily for them, there is a separation of church and state in this country. No law can require them to sanction or perform any marriage they do not approve of. Civil Marriage, is a legal institution, not a religious one. Some clergy and traditions, like me and mine, are happy to perform these marriages because they are, in our understanding valid. But if we did not, no law could make us. That is what is wrong with Prop 8, it takes that choice away for all people and it denies the benefits that go with the institution to people based on who they are. That separation of church and state goes both ways and right now, under current laws, there is no choice for anyone, those GLBT folks who wish to marry or the clergy who wish to transmit God's blessings on them. Equality under the law, freedom of choice, freedom of religion, all of these are being denied under proposition 8. That's not only shameful, it's anti-American. If you don't believe in marriage equality, that's your right, but it is not a license to deny the rights of your fellow Americans.