Blog Post

Once in a while I review my files, re-reading articles I've gleaned from the mass media. By divine coincidence I came upon an article entitled "Greed: The Mother of Sin", authored by Phyllis Pickle, then, in 2002, a Contributing Editor at Publishers Weekly. It relates directly to my recent posting re: Paul's contention that money is the root of all evil.

Subtitled "Many world religions say greed is the stuff other deadly sins are made of.", she references (the 2002) testimony by Alan Greenspan, then the head of the Federal Reserve Bank, as saying he believed "infectious greed" was the culprit in the (then) recent rash of corporate scandals. Some thought that the fact that Greenspan was "spanking businessmen for exhibiting greed" felt like some sort of betrayal. Afterall we'd been told that greed, properly regulated was good, for business and society as a whole, that we'd come to think of greed as being an ambigious quality; sometimes good and other times bad.

Ms. Tickle said that "the major religions had no such illusions about greed. Greed, say many of them, is not only unambiguous, it is the Mother of All Sins".

Sightings 6/30/08

More Pew Findings

-- Martin E. Marty

In this business and with pleasure one cannot not comment on the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life surveys. They are the most ambitious and expansive polls and draw the most public attention. Chancy as all opinion polls are, these Pew products provide at least some broad-brush understandings of the subject. In the nature of things, press releases lift out and slightly exaggerate evidences of trends in the face of so much continuity in American religion. For example, last winter we were told that there is much "switching" from one church community to another, which is true—but when historians checked in we also learned that there has long, perhaps always, been much of such.

Here's a radical idea; that we take seriously the whole concept of Christian forgiveness and apply it to our foreign policy with Iran.

In the Lord's Prayer we ask that our trangressions towards other be forgiven as we ask others to forgive ours. We all know how much of a challenge it is to forgive. We all know it is more blessed to give than recieve. That's why the Lord's prayer asks 1st for forgiveness of our transgressions, it frees us to then forgive others. That's the psychological basis of The Golden Rule.

Now let us summon up the courage to face, quite honestly, our history with Iran over the past half century or so. In the late 1890's a British oil company found significant oil reserves in Iran, set up shop and after concessions were granted in 1901, began to exploit those resources, mostly for their own profit. In 1933 improved terms were granted to Iran. During WW2 Reza Shah Pahlevi, seeking to gain greater control over his nations oil reserves from the British sided with the Axis powers which resulted in a British-Soviet Union occupation of the oil fields in 1941. Reza Shah Palevi abdicated. His son, Muhammad Reza Shah Palevi succeeded to the throne and adopted pro-Western policies. (This is the Shah we are most familiar with.)

Nowhere in the New Testament do I find any reference to Jesus and homosexuality. Why I ask? I suspect it has to do with he being concieved, by divine plan, in the lowliest of stations in ancient Jewish culture that he was accepting of all persons, without exception.

As Our Creator accepts all of divine creation without exceptions, Jesus was conceived in this lowliest of states as Our Creator's living example of unconditional love for all, no matter their station in life. Moreover I believe Jesus could see into the hearts of all who came before him, and saw the love in their hearts. He understood that sexual orientation is a condition of birth, not a choice and thus accepted everyone where they were. Hence he did not, and could not, condemn anyone for being who they were by the nature of their birth.

As the current leading political issue is, rightfully, the economy, I would like to assemble a team of writers, editors and reviewers to author a white paper on the topic of progressive Christain economic policy. With Kety's inside connections to the Obama campaign I would like us to develop a paper that places economic issues in a progressive Christian context.

Rev. Roger has graciously provided us with several good biblical references. With Bill Peltz' well established experience as a stock broker I invite others like these two to step forth and offer your thoughts and experiences.

I would base it in the premise that we, as divinely created creatures, have free will to choose and are bound by the consequences of our actions to provide mutual service one to another. The Golden Rule, AKA, the Ethic of Reciprocity, would be our guide. We would pursue policies that provide a level playing field for all persons.

So if we are a Christian nation, then what would a Progressive Christian Economic Policy encompass, how would it be implemented, what kind of legislation would be needed to put it into action?

You Have Heard of the "Dear John" Letter? Well, this is my “Dear Sean” letter. It’s a perfect inversion. Instead of being about break-ups, it’s about reconciliation. And leper kisses. That part is important. Dear Cardinal Sean O'Malley, Archdiocese of Boston:

Originally posted at Talk to Action.

The Catholic Right, Part Sixty

On June 13, 2008 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops approved a declaration condemning embryonic stem cell research. Bill Donohue's Catholic League issued an immediate statement of support, proclaiming, "The life issues, then, are of preeminent importance to Catholics. To discuss social justice, for example, while being dismissive of the life issues is profoundly un-Catholic."

But as a Catholic who both actively supports and would benefit from this research, I began to wonder, what does it take for something to truly constitute a life issue for the princes of the Church?

To add to an article that was posted here earlier today... More evidence that Obama could capture a significant portion of the religious right vote.

Thoughts?

By Deborah Jian Lee
Sun Jun 22, 9:58 AM ET

PRINCETON, New Jersey (Reuters) - Matt Dunbar is not your typical evangelical Christian.

ADVERTISEMENT

With his tousled hair, sideburns and a scruffy "soul patch" beard, the 26-year-old New Yorker belongs to a growing minority of young evangelicals who want to broaden their political agenda beyond the traditional opposition to abortion and gay marriage.

Evangelicals like Dunbar are eager to move on and tackle such hot topics as global warming and social justice.

As they move to the center of the political spectrum, they are deciding whether Republican presidential candidate John McCain or Democrat Barack Obama aligns best with their values and deserves their vote in the November presidential election.

A former Republican, Dunbar's political views began to change with the war in Iraq. "I couldn't keep my political affiliation with the Republican Party at that point," he said.

Research shows many young white evangelical Christians are moving away from the Republican Party.

In his recent May 28, 2008 piece entitled "Evolution and Homosexuality: The Twin Terrors of the Christian Church", Bishop John Shelby Spong wrote of "a new, human, celebratory theology struggling to be born. In this new theology the call of the Christ figure is not to rescue the sinner so that the sinner can become the abuser of others; it is rather to empower us to become so fully human that we do not need a victim to victimize, but can become a new humanity, people who are not struggling to survive, but who are capable of giving our life and love away. A fully human Jesus, a new way, besides sacrifice, to view the cross and a new meaning to be found in early
Christian creed that in Jesus God has been engaged, will be the hallmarks of this new theology. It is time for the Christian Church to make this shift in a conscious way."

These past few months following the primaries have been a lot of fun for me, as I’ve found the Democrats running for President this year to be the most interesting in quite a long time. The candidates ran the gamut from middle of the road candidates like Hillary Clinton to traditional liberals like Joe Biden and Bill Richardson to more progressive candidates like Dennis Kucinich, and it was healthy for us to hear the spectrum of ideas within the Democratic Party. Early on I supported Joe Biden because of his experience and his plan of partitioning Iraq. When he dropped out, I briefly supported Bill Richardson but he soon dropped out. When the California primary came along, I settled on supporting Hillary, as I was impressed with her toughness. Now that the primaries are over and Obama is now the Democratic candidate, I wholeheartedly support Barack. I think this was an especially strong Democratic field of candidates, and they all would be better as President than George W. Bush and the Republican field this year. Though I didn’t vote for Barack during the primaries, I’ve always thought of him as being an intelligent and charismatic leader who brings unique gifts to the Presidency.