Obama and Strange Fire

Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. [Luke 17:1 (NIV).]

I hope I am not a rock of stumbling. This isn’t for my friends only; it’s for me, too.

1. Obama-hating.

I believe that some people hate Barack Obama more than they love America. When the economy ticks up, they’re not glad. They see America’s climb from this slump through the crystal of Obama’s re-election chances. So good news is, to them, bad news.

Likewise, a friend of mine heard early in the Obama administration that Defense Secretary Robert Gates was going to resign. My friend couldn’t conceal his percolating glee. He didn’t regret America’s loss of a competent leader; he rejoiced in potential disruption of the Obama administration.

2. More Obama-hating.

But it’s more than a willingness for America to sink as long as Obama sinks with it. Recently, partisans have been exploiting Obama’s verbal hiccup in his you-didn’t-build-that speech. In context, it’s clear that Obama knows that people build businesses by their initiative and hard work; his point was that America helps. His point was that the help that America gives includes help from our government. Government supplies (for example) roads, educated workers through free public education, fire protection, and police protection (so that you don’t need an armed posse to keep your business relatively safe). Non-partisan fact-checkers have shown that the partisan attacks on this speech are untruthful.

I have debated what Obama said with my friends. I have pointed out what the fact-checkers say. And I have pointed out other parts in his speech where he pays tribute to the initiative and hard work that business owners dedicate to their businesses.

What amazes me is this: some of my friends now think that context doesn’t matter. If somebody says something that sounds crazy, these friends now don’t think it’s necessary to look carefully at what that person said to make sure that they really meant that crazy thing. It’s legitimate, apparently, to lift a statement out of context, and impose on the speaker a belief that he doesn’t hold, and to judge him harshly if that belief happens to be crazy.

In other words, my friends hate Obama so much that they are willing to abandon logic, reason, and truth in the service of their hatred.

3. Defining evil and good by what Obama is and is not.

I lived in China for two years. A Chinese man compared America unfavorably to China. He said that America is young, implying that it is immature compared to China, who’s civilization goes back thousands of years. When I pointed out that the United States is older than the Republic of China, he missed a beat. Then he rejoined that China is "young and vigorous". In other words, whatever China is, that is good. Whatever America is, that is bad.

I find hatred of Obama is like this. Just like good or bad is defined to this Chinese man by China in comparison to America, so also, to Obama-haters, bad and good are defined by what Obama does or does not do.

No act by Obama is too trivial to overlook in the gathering of scorn. Do Obama and his wife tap their knuckles in exuberance and joy? That becomes a "terrorist fist-bump". Does Obama drink a Budweiser? Budweiser is foreign-owned!

Some hatred is directed at actions not so trivial. Obama kept America’s economy from sinking by bailing out American car companies. This saved jobs not only at those companies, but also at the American companies that supply parts to those companies. Almost all of that bail-out money has come back to the treasury now that those American car companies have regained their footing. Was this a worthy policy? Not to hear some say. To them, it was "socialism".

Recently, Obama expressed solidarity with families of victims in Aurora, Colorado. His said that his daughters like to go to movies; he expressed what it would be like for him if they were harmed in a movie theater. Naturally, this mourning with those who mourn (Romans 12:15) was a bad thing. According to Rush Limbaugh, it was "egomania" because it showed that to Obama the tragedy in Aurora was supposedly all about himself. Limbaugh is widely followed; I assume that that means that his words find many listening ears.

3. Obama-hating as a rock of stumbling.

It dis-eases me a little bit to tease out the implications of all of this. One of those dis-easing implications is this: if my friends hate Obama more than they love truth, then I worry that they hate Obama more than they love the one who is truth personified, namely God.

This is truly a dreadful thought. But it is not shocking.

We love God with our lips, if not with our hearts. Jesus knew this. "But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people." (John 2:24 (NIV).) One evidence of this is our preference for our own comfort. When we cherish our comfort instead of helping our needy brothers and sisters in Christ, we show where our loyalty lies. (1 John 3:17.) I don’t exclude myself from this judgment.

Barack Obama is a Christian. He is a flawed Christian like the rest of us, but a Christian nonetheless. He attended a Chicago church with his family. He professes Christianity. Recently, he recited very appropriate scripture when speaking words of comfort about the tragedy in Aurora, Colorado.

My brothers and sisters stumble over Obama. If we trembled before the word of God, and we don’t, we would tremble before this:

Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. [1 John 4:20 (NIV).]

If these words don't stir the waters by themselves, consider them with these words:

Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.  Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching.  [John 14:23-24 (NIV).] 

4. Furnaces of hatred.

Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come." Luke 17:1 (NIV)

We spend an hour or two in church; more time in front of the television. Some media companies are in American society great furnaces of hatred. Fox News might as well call itself the 24/7 hate-Obama network. And Keith Olbermann used to hate deeply on MSNBC. (I’ve watched almost no MSNBC lately, so I don’t know any current haters.)

This is the problem: we become what we behold. That’s why we are urged to keep our eyes on Jesus. (Hebrews 12:1-2.) Keeping our eye on the media haters, their strange fire touches us like a profane Pentecost, and we ourselves become little furnaces of hatred.

6. Hatred separates us from God.

As we hate, hatred marbles itself into our psyches. It becomes increasingly ingrained in our thoughts.

Jesus knew the danger of hating. That’s why he warned us not to oppose evil people, but to yield to them rather than to struggle against them. (Matthew 5:39-41.) (Yes, I know it’s hypocritical for a litigator to point this out.)

7. Better fire.

Not to finish down, but up:

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." [John 13:34.]

Also: John 13:35; Romans 12:10; Romans 13:8; Galatians 5:13; Ephesians 4:2; 1 Thessalonians 4:9; 2 Thessalonians 1:3; Hebrews 10:24; 1 Peter 1:22; 1 Peter 3:8; 1 John 3:11; 1 John 3:23; 1 John 4:11; 1 John 4:12; 2 John 1:5 (in case we didn’t get it the first time).

I write this essay as much for myself as for my friends. I will try to regard those I disagree with with sympathy. Maybe this will ripen into kindness, which will ripen into love. By grace.

The Case Against Voting for Republicans

You can trust Republican leaders to do in the future what they’ve done in the past.

1. Prosecuting political opponents.

George W. Bush broke precedents of decency. One precedent he broke was that you don’t use criminal prosecutions to destroy your political opponents.

So U.S. Attorneys have been above politics. Typically, when a new party came to power, U.S. Attorneys would resign, and the new administration would replace them. But once in office, while that administration was in power, U.S. Attorneys typically held their position unless they misbehaved. Then Bush was elected.

Bush fired U.S. Attorneys who were not partisan enough in their prosecutions. For example, David Iglesias, a Republican, was fired because he pushed back against political pressure to prosecute a Democratic state senator before an election.

Question: Do you want political parties to use criminal prosecution as an arm of politics?

2. Shrinking democracy.

Historically, politics was relatively simple. If a party wanted to gain power, it crafted a platform that would appeal to a wide segment of the electorate.

Not so in recent times in the Republican party. A new strategy has emerged in Republican-controlled states. Instead to broadening their platform to widen their appeal, Republicans in Republican-controlled states are shrinking the electorate.

Voter-fraud is a minuscule problem. It rarely happens. But there has been an avalanche of legislation nominally to combat this non-issue. The purpose of these laws is visible in their effect. This legislation discourages minority voters and discourages young voters – constituencies that skew Democratic. The venerable, non-partisan League of Women Voters is conducting no voter-registration drive in Florida this year; the onerous new laws make it too easy to get penalized.

The Republican plan is working.

The American Revolution began, and patriots gave up their lives, for the idea of "No taxation without representation." But in the worldview of Republican leaders, taxation without representation is fine for minorities and young people.

And these are people who might fight and die for America in war, without the voice of their vote.

Question: Do you want politics that shrinks the voting pool instead of making a platform more attractive to more people?

3. Attack on truth.

It’s a peculiar "news" organization that alters photographs of persons to make them seem sub-human. But that’s what Fox News did to New York Times reporters.

It’s a peculiar "news" organization that replaces footage of a crowd at a conservative rally with footage of a crowd of a more popular rally, to make the rally seem more popular than it was. But that’s what Fox News did with an anti-health-care-reform rally led by Michele Bachmann.

It’s a peculiar "news" organization that labels its enemies "socialists" to stir up hatred against them. But that’s what Fox News does. A Fox News person even wondered if Warren Buffett was a socialist, after Buffett said that he and people like him pay too few taxes. Buffett buys and sells companies for a living.

But Fox News is only nominally about news. It’s really a slick delivery system for Republican propaganda. Once, the Republican Party issued talking points about what to say about the improving economy. A Fox on-air personality obediently read the talking points on-air.

Fox News is the network face of the Republican Party, and Republican leaders have it’s habit of casualness about truth. So, the Affordable Care Act will save lives by guaranteeing that people with pre-existing conditions can get insurance. But Republican leaders claimed that it was all about killing grandma.

For the sake of their ideology, Republican leaders won’t dilute their positions. So they can’t broaden their platform to appeal to more people. Instead, they lie.

Question: do you want politics to slip the tether of truth?

4. Attack on Christianity.

You can spend your life improving your Christian walk, but the frame of Christianity can be taken in in a few minutes. Elements of this frame are: love your neighbor, and love your enemies.

But the political frame built by leaders of the Republican Party differs from the Christian frame. Their alternative frame is, basically, "What’s mine is mine, and screw my neighbor."

So: Republican leaders tout the freedom not to pay for health care by buying insurance. To them, this is more important than saving lives of men, women, and children by making insurance available to people with pre-existing conditions. To be clear: the Affordable Care Act will save lives. But it encroaches on Republican notions of liberty, so Republican leaders uniformly side with letting people die.

And the Bible is overwhelmingly on the side of the poor. But Republican leaders are overwhelmingly on the side of the rich and on the side of big banks and big corporations. They routinely top off the cups of the rich with tax cuts that favor those with vast wealth. But they are glad to drain the glass of the working class and the poor – so they resisted extending the payroll tax for workers, until political pressure made them reluctantly yield. They tear the social safety-net. This is not Christianity. This is social-and-political Darwinism.

And since the time of George Washington, America has treated war prisoners humanely. There never was a time when some advantage might not have been gained by torture; but, until recently, there never was a time when we touted torture. But the Bush administration changed that.

Question: Do you want politics to channel Darwinism instead of Christianity and decency?

 5. Conclusion.

Individual Republicans are often lovely persons. But they are dancing with indecency to music that mixes partisan prosecutions, partisan assault on voting rights, partisan lies as a tool of politics, and Darwinism.

The right-wing will probably continue to dance to this music. The left will not.

I hope that the center holds. I hope that the center rejects partisan prosecutions, attacks on democracy, lies, and Darwinism. I hope that the center rejects politicians who reject a fair criminal-justice system, broad-based democracy, truth, and Christianity and decency.

Sean Hannity Died for Your Sins

Actually, he didn’t.

That’s the point.

Because I see Hannity’s point of view more prominent than that of Jesus.

I never understood the expression, "You are what you eat." But I truly believe that you are what you behold. If you spend your time watching God, godliness arises in you. Paul always looked to the author of his salvation. And he could say that Christ lived in him. (Galatians 2:20.) He could say that the spirit of God lives in us; if the spirit of Christ does not live in us, we do not belong to him. (Romans 8:9)

But America today is not Paul. We Americans collectively spend more time beholding Hannity than beholding Jesus. Our thoughts are not Christ’s. Our thoughts are Hannity’s. Our priorities are not Christ’s. Our priorities are Hannity’s.

So the question is: on the last day, will we know Jesus? Or will we know Hannity?

I see America becoming false. In my professional life, I deal with liars like never before. And in public life, I see lies, lies, lies. I wonder what started this flight from godliness.

I see a willfulness. I see politicians willing to ruin the country and bring suffering to its people, for political gain. This is a new thing. There are no rules. There are only winners and losers. Patriotism exists in name only, especially among those who appeal most loudly to patriotism.

And the reason is that Christianity is being eclipsed by politics.

People regard Hannity because they are convinced that his message is important for today. Because the immediate enemy is not the devil; it is the Democrats. Like a clanging cymbal, Hannity proclaims the evil of Democratic influence. The prospect of Obama having two terms looms as a greater crisis than the prospect of eternal damnation.

People regard liberal media stars, too.  But I talk about conservative stars, because they are more likely to be the darlings of the religious.  If any liberal reads this and thinks my message is only for conservatives, they misread me.

As for Jesus? Beating back socialism will take work, but salvation is easy. It’s taken care of. It’s a done deal. No worries.

As if confirmation were needed – we go to church. We approve when Glenn Beck speaks admiringly of Christian martyr Dietrich Bohnoeffer. We hate Muslims – that’s the same as loving God, right? We disapprove of secular humanism – isn’t that Christ within us? We believe in the Bible word for word – isn’t that faith?

No. And if your burning heart doesn’t tell you that, this short essay won’t either. If the decline in American morals doesn’t frighten you, these words won’t. But I remember what we were 30 years ago, and I see what we are now. And I'm afraid. Because I see in the soiling of America proof of God’s withdrawal from us.

There is a popular saying that goes, "Don’t let the best be the enemy of the good." In other words, don’t be so determined to bring about the best solution that you forsake a good solution and instead get nothing.

But religion is the opposite of that. To love your brothers and sisters, spouse and children, and father and mother is a very good thing. But Jesus said, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26 (NIV).) That is, to Christ, the good is the enemy of the best.

Think of whether the "good" or your news outlet, the "good" of your political party, crowds out the "best" of salvation.

Think of whether any other "good" thing crowds out God.

I’m thinking that it does.

I’m thinking that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a long trip through harsh conditions. And to make it safely to the end, you have to leave everything behind that will hinder you. I remember reading about pioneers. Often, at the beginning of their journey, they would take everything that was dear to them, only to leave their once-precious cargo along the way, when sheer survival compelled them to know the difference between luxuries and necessities. Cut loose the unnecessary early; it holds you back.

I speak what I do not do – I have my heroes, although they are liberal, not conservative. But I think I speak the truth. And I think I’m wiser for doubting my salvation than those who are sure of their place in Heaven.

Eric Sevareid, Send Help!

If broadcaster Eric Sevaried were alive and working today, he would be like a giant among pygmies. His farewell speech expressed humility and exhibited profundity. It’s worth viewing, both to behold the man and to remember how different broadcasting was when Sevareid retired in November, 1977.

America at that time was neither bland nor homogeneous. The Watergate era ended with Richard Nixon’s August, 1974 departure from the White House in disgrace. Also in that year, the first "March for Life" pro-life rally took place in Washington D.C. Saigon fell in April, 1975, the same month that the last Americans died in the Vietnam War. In 1978, 100,000 persons marched in Washington D.C. to extend the time to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. Sevareid retired in turbulent times.

Yet Sevareid could look into the camera in his farewell address and say that the listening public "applies one consistent test, not agreement with one on substance, but the perception of honesty and fair intent." This generalization astonishes the listener of our era, when people often choose their news programming according to its correspondence with their cherished opinions. Fox News viewers choose Fox News for the Fox News slant. The same is true of MSNBC viewers. Neither station apologizes for its point of view. They revel in it.

These networks evoke extreme reactions. One night, I sat in my bedroom listening to MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, and a conservative friend who shares the house came by my room. Seeing who I was watching, he said he wanted to vomit. I have seen online expressions of raw hatred against Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.

So it would be refreshing if people today heeded Sevareid’s counsel "to retain the courage of one’s doubts as well as the courage of one’s convictions in this world of dangerous passionate certainties." "[C]ourage of one’s doubts" is a deep phrase. An open mind is a dreadful thing for people with no tolerance for uncertainty, of whom there are legions. The quest for certainty among them is like a hunger so intolerable that they will fill their minds with mental empty calories, rather than discriminately seek out what nourishes their judgment.

Instead of counseling the courage to embrace one’s doubt, some networks plant shallow certainties, fertilizing them with us-versus-them rhetoric, and watering them with appealing spokespersons. It is as if, once they implant in their audience's minds a conviction, they want to expel from their audience’s minds any openness to a contrary point of view.

So the media closes minds, and seals them with raw appeals to negative emotion. So Bush is a fascist. So Obama is Hitler. Or a racist, a socialist, or a tyrant. The recklessness of these hyperbolic accusations bears scrutiny. In my five decades, I have learned that reckless disparagement of someone else’s character always indicates the reckless party’s low principles. Low principles in an individual is disturbing. Low principles in a powerful media conglomerate is blood-draining-from-the-face frightening.

Low principles in a network give rise to no consoling belief that that network will heed one of Sevareid’s other counsels: "To elucidate when one can, more than to advocate." Disregard of this principle is not the failing of only one network. But one network fails more conspicuously than others. One network conspicuously promotes a political movement, the Tea Party. One network donated one-million dollars to the Republican Governors Association, a donation unmatched by any other media company to the Democratic counterpart. One network has on its payroll every major Republican candidate for President in 2012, who isn’t presently holding office or named Mitt Romney. I don’t mean to pick on Fox News, but Fox News and its parent, News Corp., go conspicuously beyond any other news organization. If I am wrong, I crave correction.

Sevareid counseled "[t]o remember that ignorant or biased reporting has its counterpart in ignorant and biased reading and listening. We do not speak into an intellectual or emotional void." Sevareid reminds us that a broadcaster can appeal to the better angel or the worse angel of our nature. Those that strive to inform, those who don’t have the motto "We report, you decide" but act as if they did, appeal to the better angel. Those that do have that motto, but only as a farce, appeal to the worse angel.

Let me here promote www.NYTimes.com. It has a point of view that it expresses on its Op/Ed pages, but its reporting is first class. It will satisfy the curious on topics from politics, to travel, to health, to world affairs, and all else. The right fulminates against it for partisan reporting, but it broke the story of Connecticut Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, misrepresenting his military record. Fox News cheerleaded for Bush, but New York Times columnists do not hesitate to criticize Obama. I love the New York Times, and I wish more people would read it on a daily basis.

Just before he said "goodbye", Sevareid said this: "Millions have listened intently and indifferently, in agreement and in powerful disagreement. Tens of thousands have written their thoughts to me. I will feel always that I stand in their midst." Sevareid thought of himself as standing in the midst of those who disagreed with him as well as those who agreed. This is a refreshing thought in times like his and ours when there were/are "dangerous passionate certainties"; and especially in times like ours when media stars use hate-mongering like a scourge to drive apart the American people.

Sources:

Eric Sevareid’s 1977 farewell broadcast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHGHm8iPeUY&NR=1

The fall of Saigon and the last American to die in Vietnam: http://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/timeline/index4.html

Timeline of women’s liberation movement, including 1974 pro life rally and 1978 rally to extend ERA: http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/his135/Events/womenslliberation/womensliberation.htm

News Corp. (Fox News parent corporation) donates $1,000,000 to Republican Governor’s Association: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/17/AR2010081704338.html

Every major Republican Presidential candidate for 2012 who isn’t currently in office or named Mitt Romney is on Fox’s payroll:  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/opinion/04krugman.html?ref=paulkrugman

New York Times breaks the story of Richard Blumenthal’s false claims that he served in Vietnam: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html?ref=nyregion