Homeless Jesus

                                      Carlos Osorio / Toronto Star

Who is Jesus? This question has haunted the Christian church since it's very earliest days. In fact, it is the point of four different Gospels in the New Testament, each having it's own interpretation of Jesus of Nazareth. For all four, Jesus led a group of disciples, performed miracles, preached in Jerusalem, was crucified and resurrected from the dead. However, each of the Gospels has it's own particular point of view. (Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, referenced in "Gospel", Wikipedia: 12 April 2013 http://bit.ly/B1WNk .)

"The synoptic gospels represent Jesus as an exorcist and healer who preached in parables about the coming Kingdom of God. He preached first in Galilee and later in Jerusalem, where he cleansed the temple. He states that he offers no sign as proof (Mark) or only the sign of Jonah (Matthew and Luke).[67] In Mark, apparently written with a Roman audience in mind, Jesus is a heroic man of action, given to powerful emotions, including agony.[36] In Matthew, apparently written for a Jewish audience, Jesus is repeatedly called out as the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy.[36] In Luke, apparently written for gentiles, Jesus is especially concerned with the poor.[36] Luke emphasizes the importance of prayer and the action of the Holy Spirit in Jesus' life and in the Christian community.[68] Jesus appears as a stoic supernatural being, unmoved even by his own crucifixion.[66] Like Matthew, Luke insists that salvation offered by Christ is for all, and not the Jews only.[68][69]
The Gospel of John represents Jesus as an incarnation of the eternal Word (Logos), who spoke no parables, talked extensively about himself, and did not explicitly refer to a Second Coming.[36]
Jesus preaches in Jerusalem, launching his ministry with the cleansing of the temple. He performs several miracles as signs, most of them not found in the synoptics. The Gospel of John ends:(21:25) 'And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen' " (Multiple sources referenced in "Gospel", Wikipedia:14 April 2013 http://bit.ly/B1WNk ).

So, Jesus has ever escaped the grasp of the Church, refusing to be caricatured by anyone, even the earliest Christians. Was he Man of Wonder, Son of God, Son of Man, Teacher, Healer, Messiah?  Was he the Savior of all humankind or the fulfillment of Hebrew prophesy? The questions, seemingly, never end. And perhaps that is as it should be.

The latest formulation of " the Jesus question" appeared in the form of a statue by Timothy Schmalz. It depicts Jesus as a homeless person, covered and laying on a park bench. "Jesus, the Homeless" is the Savior who was made flesh, and lived among us. Jesus the homeless, became one of us and, more than that, identified with the poorest of the poor, the disenfranchised, the ones without a place to stay. In short, Jesus the Homeless is the Jesus born in a humble stable (or grotto).

This Jesus has not always been well accepted, especially by the wealthy and well-off. These folks prefer Jesus the Teacher. Teaching has always (till now) been a respected and accepted occupation. The wealthy have no problem accepting the One who came and taught humanity. They do not, however, care much for the Jesus who overturned the tables of the money changers in the Temple or the Jesus who healed Lepers and related to outcasts. Most of all, they do not like Jesus the revolutionary.

It should be no surprise, then, that two prominent Roman Catholic Churches, one in Toronto, the other in New York, turned away "Jesus the Homeless". The statue was not welcomed by either archdiocese ("Sculpture of Jesus the Homeless rejected by two prominent churches"  by Leslie Scrivener in The Star, 14 April 2013 ) Apparently, church administrators do not appreciate the humility of Jesus either. Perhaps they do not like the mirror this statue holds up for them. In the homeless Savior, the well-off and powerful see themselves in stark contrast to Jesus who calls us all to identify with the "least of these"

It is too bad that "Jesus the Homeless" only found a home in front of a seminary. Somehow, I don't believe that this Jesus was meant to be seen and embraced only by the scholarly. Jesus was never meant to be captured by books but is understood best through service.

Guns and Private Prisons

There are many people in jail and many of them used guns in the commission of their crime. This led me to wonder whether there is a connection between the gun industry and the prison industry.

It is pretty clear that the private prison industry benefits from crime created by poverty, drugs and personal desperation. The more people incarcerated the more money they make. The less private prison companies have to spend per prisoner the more money they make. This leads to substandard conditions in private prisons as the company tries to hold costs down. Prisons that can pack them in stand to profit the most as do prisons which don't spend as much on medical care, rehabilitation, food etc.

In general, private prisons profit off people's misery and pain. And there is plenty of human misery to go around. The rate things are going, there may soon be more of us behind bars than on the outside. Already 1 in approximately 30 people either are in jail/prison, are out on parole or otherwise in the prison/court system (1,2).


 Since exposure to violence increases the risk of violence in teenagers (3) one wonders if the vicious cycle this implies can ever be broken. If not, the private prison industry will continue to thrive. Indeed, I cannot help wondering if there is a connection between the NRA, the gun industry, the promotion of guns and private prison companies. The more guns, the more violence. The more violence, the more crimes prosecuted. The more convictions, the more prison space required.

All these parties seem to benefit from the cycle of guns and violence. On the gun industry's part, the more violence, the more people are frightened. The more frightened people are, the more likely they are to buy a gun for protection. The more guns for protection, the more people get shot. The more people get shot the more people end up in prison. It is such an intriguing correlation that I can't help wondering if someone, somewhere, isn't intentionally seeking to profit from it.

The answer, apparently is, "Yes":

" It sounded like a throwaway line. Toward the end of a four-hour Senate hearing on gun violence last week, Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association’s executive vice president of over two decades, took a break from extolling the virtues of assault rifles and waded briefly into new territory: criminal justice reform. "We've supported prison building," LaPierre said" (4).

Quite literally, the NRA went on a campaign to push for more prisons: 

"Starting in 1992, as part of a now-defunct program called CrimeStrike, the NRA spent millions of dollars pushing a slate of supposedly anti-crime measures across the country that kept America's prisons full—and built new ones to meet the demand. CrimeStrike's legacy is everywhere these days" (5). 

"LaPierre launched CrimeStrike that spring with $2 million in seed money from the parent organization and a simple platform: mandatory minimums, harsher parole standards, adult sentences for juveniles, and, critically, more prisons. "Our prisons are overcrowded. Our bail laws are atrocious. We'll be the bad guy," he announced." (6).

Wayne LaPierre, NRA

They are not even hiding their connections. The NRA and the Prison Industry are hand and glove and profit is their motive. No matter how they word it, the truth is there for all to see. The NRA and prison corporations both profit from violent crime: Guns create violence which create the demand for more guns. The gun violence results in criminal convictions and thus more people in prison. That means more money for both the gun industry (NRA) and prison corporations. What we have are entire industries profiting from violence, death and dying: The new Merchants of Death. 

For more see:  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/wayne-lapierre-crime-strike-three-strikes

ENDNOTES

1.    Probation and Parole in the United States, 2006. By Lauren E. Glaze and Thomas P. Bonczar. Quoted from Wikipedia, "United States Incarceration Rate."

2.    U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), US Department of Justice. Quoted from Wikipedia "United States Incarceration Rate."

3.   Exposure to Gun Violence Increases Teen Violence by Charles Montaldo, About.com Guide May 26, 

2005.

4.    Tim Murphy, "The Big House That Wayne LaPierre Built" Mother Jones, 2/8/2013, quoted from the Democratic Underground, 2/10/2013).

5.   Ibid.

6.   Ibid. 

Christianity, Guns and the Constitution

What part of the Constitution do we NOT understand? Apparently, all of it. There has been holy hell to pay by gun folks over proposed universal background checks because the Second Amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Guns should not be regulated in any manner  according to these Second Amendment fundamentalists. The only problem is that their literal reading is a mistaken reading. In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution says this about Congress' responsibilities:

15:  To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16:  To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

According to the Constitution, Congress has the responsibility to call forth the Militia, the same Militia referred to in the Second Amendment which is the reason for the right to keep and bear Arms. The Militia in Article I, Section 8  is more akin to the National Guard: they are called up to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. This Militia is to be well- regulated (by Congress). It is to be well organized and CONGRESS is responsible for arming them. The words "well-regulated" are crucial. Congress has the DUTY to regulate the ARMS kept by the people. You cannot understand the Second Amendment without the context of Article I, Section 8.  To quote the Amendment without the context is misleading and specious.

These same people seem to want to do away with the FIRST Amendment as North Carolina tried to make Christianity the official religion in that state. It was defeated but a poll by Huffington Post shows that 31% of Americans want Christianity to be the State Religion. The First Amendment says, as we all know:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that there should be separation of Church and State and it should be an absolute separation. Congress cannot make Christianity a State Religion. Period. Yet, the same people who are absolutist about the (misunderstood) Second Amendment are not so excited by the First. It seems that they want to pick and choose what part of the Constitution they want to follow. Sorry, my friends, you can't have it both ways.

The worst part would be the SORT of Christianity they want to impose on the rest of us. They want us all to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior but also to accept the rules THEY choose, like making homosexuality illegal, abortion illegal, contraception illegal, etc. They want us to be the land of the Christian Taliban, imposing their version of Sharia Law. Once again, they totally misunderstand Jesus who was, in his day and age, a radical breaking from Pharisaic legalistic religion. Jesus was the opposite of Pharisees and the present day Right Wing is the modern equivalent of the Pharisees. Jesus interpreted the Law this way: You shall love the Lord Your God and love your neighbor as yourself. Love, not Judgment. In the Gospels Jesus was a teacher of Mercy and Grace while the Pharisees were rule oriented. The modern day Pharisees would impose their rules on Christianity and make God in their own image: legalistic AND idol worshippers.

What we ALL need is Love. If you call yourself a Christian, that is what is required. In what sense is unregulated gun worship Christian? Jesus told Peter to put away the sword when he cut off the ear of a Centurion in Gethsemane. He healed the Roman soldier. Weapons were not the answer. Neither are they the answer now.

"Entitlements"

Much of the debate about the budget and deficit has centered around an attempt to cut Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. While the debate is controversial, the language used in the debate (on both sides) is incorrect. Social Security Medicare and Medicaid are NOT "entitlements".  We need to be more precise in how we speak about this issue. The language we choose to use is reflected in our politics and politics tends to distort. To be clear about the language can inform the politics, or so we hope.

The word "entitlement" comes from the French word "intitulare" ( to give a name to, to entitle) and the Latin "titulus" (distinction, claim to fame, honor, title) [myEtymology: http://bit.ly/16zxSpJ,  4 April 2013] Thus, the original meaning of the word is "to give a title". In this sense Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid are clearly not entitlements. There are no entitlements in the United States in the original sense of the word, which refers to giving a title of nobility to someone.

The Constitution of the United States says this: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign " (Article I, Section 9).  Entitlements don't exist here, therefore Social Security/Medicare are not entitlements.

The word, however, is most commonly used this way: "the right to guaranteed benefits under a government program, as Social Security ..." (Dictionary.com: http://bit.ly/Zel0Gl; 4 April 2013). Even this definition is incorrect.  Social Security and Medicare not guaranteed benefits nor are they good deeds or gifts, per se, but earned benefits into which we pay our entire working lives.

The word "benefit" comes from the Latin, "benefactum" (good deed). Though Social Security and Medicare can, I suppose, be considered to be good deeds because they help people in their old age and disability, they are not good deeds in the sense of unearned gifts. We do not normally pay for a good deed.  Indeed, we work very hard and pay into all three, as we pay for health insurance or life insurance. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are best to be understood as "insurance programs" which ensure our well-being through pre-paid policies or taxes. If we speak of this trio of programs this way perhaps we would be less hasty about making cuts.

It is easy to talk about cutting a program which is a good deed or unearned gift but not so easy when we speak of cutting insurance programs. Indeed, most of the time, the government is very harsh with companies which do not fund their pension programs fully. If companies are forced to do what is right with their employees pensions (which ARE usually GIVEN),  how much more should the government fully fund Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? 

The bottom line is this: say what you mean and mean what you say.

Exxon Mobil Oil Disaster Part II

From the people at Exxon Mobil, who brought us the Exxon Valdez debacle come the newest oil spill disaster, this time from a tar sands pipeline in Arkansas. The spill from the pipeline was "tens of thousands" barrels of the same toxic kind of oil which would flow through the Keystone XL pipeline if it is approved (You Tube Video : http://bit.ly/16l12qJ). The difference would be a matter of scale, any leak from the Keystone XL pipeline almost certainly would be far worse.

According to LeeCamp2, the poster of the You Tube Video, the media is being kept away from the spill itself only being allowed the limited close up footage which shows nothing of the scale of the disaster.  What the aerial footage on You Tube shows, however, is the widespread nature of the leak. It has affected neighborhoods  oil running down streets) and environmentally sensitive wetlands, killing ducks and other wildlife as it spreads. What remains an unknown is the possible effect on drinking water in the area.

The question that comes to my mind first is, "Who allowed Exxon Mobil to build a tar sands oil pipeline through wetlands?" What kind of idiot would allow that? It may be a rhetorical question but the probable answer is: someone who is beholden to the oil industry and its lobbyists. Even so, it was the height of stupid.

Expect more of the same  to the 10th power.











 

Politics By Any Other Name is Still Politics

Have you ever witnessed something that bothers you so much it is still fresh in your memory months later? The past several days I have been thinking a great deal about an incident at the Michigan Democratic Convention in Detroit on February 23rd. A real race was shaping up between two good candidates for Chair of the State Party. Mark Brewer had many years experience under his belt while Lon Johnson had youth,organizing experience and the backing of the entire congressional delegation.  Going into the afternoon sessions before the general session, I was still uncertain who I would vote for. 

Rep. Sander Levin

After lunch we went into our Congressional District Caucuses. Mine happens to be the 9th District and the Congressman is Rep. Sander Levin. The election of officers went smoothly (a little TOO smoothly if you ask me - only one slate of officers was presented). There was, however a major dust up between Sandy Levin and a member of the Rules Committee. It started because the UAW presented 1300 new members. It wouldn't have been an issue except that the payment for those memberships arrived past the deadline. No one was supposed to be allowed to vote at the convention if they paid their dues after January 25th. However, these new members from the UAW were credentialed and were going to be allowed to vote. All these votes, presumably, would have gone for Lon Johnson. Mark Brewer wouldn't stand a chance against that onslaught. So, the "discussion" from the meeting of the Rules Committee spilled over into our District Caucus. It was quite heated as the usually calm, even tempered Congressman let fly a few colorful words and phrases. 

Sandy Levin argued that the state Party never made it a requirement to pay to vote. To require a paid membership was, in essence, a poll tax and he said, "we never have had and never will as long as I can help it, have a poll tax to vote." 

On the other hand, the member of the Rules Committee also had a valid point: How fair is it to allow new members to vote when their memberships weren't paid on time? Other people missed the deadline and would not be allowed to vote. Why were the UAW members being allowed to vote? The reason seemed quite clear: The UAW members would make it virtually impossible for Mark Brewer to win. The Congressional Delegation hand picked Lon Johnson and would do anything and everything in their power to get him that Chairmanship.

Brewer and Johnson

It was not a pretty sight especially for a newcomer to state politics like me. The drama finally ended at the general session later in the afternoon. Mark Brewer, seeing the handwriting on the wall, withdrew his name from nomination which left the convention with the task of declaring Lon Johnson the winner by acclimation. Some of us were left with a bad taste in our mouths, thinking that we had been railroaded and set up. Whether Lon Johnson was the right choice or not was actually immaterial. It was the way he won which was the point. 

In my estimation, anyone who is willing to go as far as Lon Johnson and his supporters did has a rather large issue with their character. To go to any length to win, even at the expense of others, rather reminds me of Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal. He and his minions performed every dirty political trick in the book as well as many crimes. All in the name of winning. Winning at any cost is a good way to lose integrity. It means we are no better than the other Party. If you win at the expense of others you are actually the biggest loser. 

I was shocked by what I had witnessed that day. The man who I had looked up to for 38 years, my Congressman, displayed that 'win at any cost' attitude. He was rather blunt about his power play and I couldn't believe what I was seeing and hearing. If he represented what the State Democratic Party is about, I am not sure whether I want to remain a member. 

If that wasn't enough, another incident occurred which made me even more uncomfortable. I read several Facebook posts that indicated that the 13th District was also in some turmoil. Apparently, Lon Johnson was not satisfied with the results of their election of officers. I have no idea why he sees it this way but duly elected representatives were stripped of the position and, for some, even of their membership rights. It looks like Mr. Johnson is trying to hand pick all officers. Overturning legitimate elections is no way to run the state Party. It is NOT democracy in action. I am ashamed to call myself a Democrat after this series of raw power plays that make voting irrelevant. It actually sounds like the OTHER Party which is attempting to rig the state and national voting process so that millions are disenfranchised and makes it almost impossible for Democrats to win.
 
Then there are Michigan's Emergency Managers, who go into financially desperate cities and removes the elected officials and take control of the community. These citizens don't get a vote either. 

What is happening in the Michigan Democratic Party is not that different in spirit. I think the Party needs to look at itself, re-evaluate its behavior and make a u-turn before it is too late. There is still time but the clock is ticking.

The New Civil Rights Movement(s)

Below are maps one showing support levels for marriage equality as quantified by Facebook. The bottom map shows where abortions is now banned at 20 weeks or earlier. If you compare the two maps you might notice the overlap. Many of the same areas that restrict abortion are the least likely to support marriage equality. That is not too surprising but I didn't expect to see it in such a graphic way. Apparently and to a large extent the same places that are homophobic are also misogynistic. Generalities are usually dangerous but in this case I would tend to believe the old adage that the exceptions prove the rule.

  FACEBOOK MAP SHOWING MARRIAGE EQUALITY SUPPORT

 

Map From Planned Parenthood

 

The lesson for women and the LGBT communities couldn't be clearer: we are all in this together. The bond between us should be unshakeable because we fight the same bigotry and hatred from the same people. As for me, I will never see this country quite the same again. Though I knew about the pattern of red versus blue states on an intellectual level, these maps bring it home on a visceral level. The regional differences are real and we would ignore it at our peril. 

Women and the LGBT community need to work and organize together to overcome the ignorance and prejudice, especially in these "red" areas (in this case, light pink and caramel). If we stand together we SHALL overcome. And yes, it is a matter of civil rights and the struggle is just as real. Women and abortion doctors have died and so have bi, lesbian, gay and transgender human beings. We cannot afford to stand apart now.  We need to organize, organize organize.