Greenpeace at Mt. Rushmore

From Democracy Now

In South Dakota activists with the environmental group Greenpeace scaled the Mount Rushmore National Monument Wednesday and hung a banner urging President Obama [to] take the action on global warming. The banner was hung next to the carved mountain face of Abraham Lincoln. It reads quote “America honors leaders, not politicians: Stop Global Warming.” The action came as Obama was in Italy for talks with other world leaders of the G8 summit. The group of 11 Greenpeace activists were arrested and charged with trespassing. They each face up to six months in prison.

It's hard to believe that environmental activism in South Dakota made news around the world. I can't say that I support everything that Greenpeace does or stands for, but I like this action. They felt that they needed to engage in civil disobedience to make a point. Their actions in South Dakota combined with their other advocacy efforts, combined with the movement to care for the environment have led to significant policy changes and new legislation aimed at reducing pollution, expanding sustainability, and assisting those most hurt by climate change.

I think the decision to engage is civil disobedience in never one people should take lightly; people must consider safety and ethics, and wisely discern the best course of action. If this does not occur, civil disobedience can be counterproductive or even immoral.

Last year six Greenpeace activists painted a smokestack in the United Kingdom as part of an effort to stop the expansion of coal plants. They were also arrested and charged, but they were found not guilty.

They were accused of causing £30,000 (US$53,000) of criminal damage to the Kingsnorth smokestack from painting. The defence was that they had a 'lawful excuse' - because they were acting to protect property around the world "in immediate need of protection" from the impacts of climate change, caused in part by burning coal.

Nick Broomfield directed this fascinating documentary of their story. Do you think the actions of either group of activists was justified?

Colbert & Matthew 25

This is from last week, but I had to give a plug for Colbert referencing Matthew 25 in this segment. Colbert reports on Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis' recent statement that "Hunger can be a positive motivator." The comment was made in reference to her opposition to subsidizing school lunches for low income children during the summer.

In fairness, Davis later wrote, "We all agree on the importance of feeding children, but we differ on who should do this. I believe this duty belongs to the parents." I'm glad she thinks that children should be fed. Unfortunately she doesn't seem to understand that in American we have a great deal of poverty and many children go hungry.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Tip/Wag - Cynthia Davis & Fox News
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Jeff Goldblum

Faith Communities & Healthcare

Can you feel it? The momentum for healthcare reform is building. If you pay attention at all to the news it feels like there’s some story about this issue everyday. I’m really excited because I think things are shaping up politically for this to really happen. Michael Moore, though imperfect, has laid the groundwork, the economic crisis has intensified the healthcare crisis, and Democratic leadership is in place. But that’s not all--the faith community is organized! As one phenomenal example, check out this excerpt of a press release from Faith in Public Life. It publicizes a faith-based healthcare campaign sponsored by them, PICO National Network, Faithful America, Sojourners, and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.

As the health care debate heats up and Senators head home for Independence Day Recess, pastors from across the country are taking to the airwaves with radio ads to remind lawmakers that the status quo on health care is "not who we are as a nation" and that "America can do better," emphasizing our nation's values in the days leading up to July 4th.

Drawing on the Scriptural call to act with a spirit of courage, love and action, the ads will run beginning today through July 4th in five key states--Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Nebraska and North Carolina--urging Senators from those states, whose support will be critical to the passage of meaningful legislation, to support reform that makes quality coverage truly affordable for every American family. The ad script and audio are available here.

On top of faith communities airing radio ads and being locally and nationally organized to encourage their Senators to support “reform that makes quality health care choices affordable for all families,” these efforts were covered by over 100 newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal.

Unfortunately some faith-based groups like the Family Research Council and the Institute on Religion and Democracy seem to be trying to derail healthcare reform. Last week I blogged about Tony Perkins debate with Jim Wallis and this week Mark Tooley sent an email out blaming the Religious Left for the plague of fatherlessness, illegitimacy, crime, social decay, and further poverty in the 1960’s. Why are conservative Christian groups actively opposing efforts to ensure sure that Americans have affordable and accessible healthcare.?


This goes to demonstrate the importance of having groups like Faith in Public Life--who provide an alternative to the Religious Right, but also groups like the Beatitudes Society---who work to counter the harmful actions and influence of the Religious Right (more about that in my previous post).

Here's one other great ad that highlights the importance of healthcare reform. It's from PhRMA and Families USA. It's not faith-based, but I think it should inspire persons of faith to act.

Countering Christians?

This past week I have had several conversations with staff, friends, and family about the mission statement of the Beatitudes Society. Up until now I have felt torn about the language of “counter” within the statement. On one hand, I believe very strongly that Christianity has been hijacked and distorted by the Religious Right. As a 1st year college student in the fall of 2001, I was horrified by the post 9/11 blending of violence and nationalism with Christianity. Since then I have realized that there is a great need for Christians to reclaim the faith by proclaiming and embodying the “message of the welcoming and generous love of Jesus as expressed in the Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount.” Advocating for “justice, compassion, and peace” is one component of this. However, if there is not a strategic method to counter the harm that the Religious Right has and is causing, the Beatitudes Society is simply another social justice and leadership organization. Such a group would not be bad and would have a powerful witness, but we need more than that. More Christians saying, “James Dobson doesn’t speak for me,” is also important, but we need more than that too. We need the Beatitudes Society to intentionally work to counter and diminish the power and influence of Christian groups who are encouraging hate, fear, and violence.

On the other hand, being apart of an organization that is explicitly countering a Christian movement that my conservative grandfather (a retired UM minister) is apart of, makes me a little bit uncomfortable. How can I build bridges with him on moderate issues, if I associate myself with an organization that opposes a significant part of who he is? We are both members of the body of Christ, but by the Beatitudes Society “counter[ing] the Christian Right,” he is not welcome at the table. The implications of this part of the mission statement seam to exclude anyone who even partly identifies with the Religious Right from working together with the Beatitudes Society on points of agreement. Does the Beatitudes Society really want to alienate the growing number of evangelicals who are becoming involved in issues of creation care, poverty, human trafficking, torture, immigration, and genocide? Some of those folks may or may not fully on board with issues of war, LGBT, pluralism, or hermeneutics, but they can be powerful allies in the work of “justice, compassion, and peace.”

After reading Kimberly’s post about this issue on the Beatitudes Society’s blog, I have come to some new realizations and conclusions. First, while generational dynamics and Religious Right infrastructure are influencing this discussion, I don’t think they are at the heart of this issue of maintaining or discarding the “counter” language. What’s at stake for me is whether or not a Christian organization is going to make it apart of its mission/purpose/goals to be against people. Granted the wording is, “counters the Religious Right,” but essentially that makes a statement of being against the people in that movement. In thinking about my own life and all of the things I’ve said against the military, I’m realizing that even though I’m almost a pacifist, I don’t think I should be against the military. Rather I am against every aspect of the military that contradicts loving your neighbor; I am against the violence. In the same way, I am against every aspect of the Religious Right that contradicts loving your neighbor; I am against harm. I am not against my grandfather, James Dobson, or Fred Phelps for that matter. And so I don’t think the Beatitudes Society’s mission should be to “counter the Religious Right” because you might as well exchange the words, “counter fellow Christian brothers and sisters.”

What do I believe is the solution? Well I still think that when talking about the Beatitudes Society, you need to talk about the organization differently to different people. And I sincerely believe that that can be done in a way that reflects honesty and integrity, and is faithful to progressive Christianity. But I just discovered tonight that the mission statement opens with these words of context:

Today in America, the widespread perception of Christianity -- one centered in nationalism, materialism and intolerance -- bears little resemblance to the life and teachings of Jesus, particularly as they concern justice, compassion, and peacemaking. To counter that, The Beatitudes Society develops and sustains a national network of emerging Christian leaders at seminaries and divinity schools who will:

These words provide the framework for what the Beatitudes Society is doing. It is not just concerned with justice, compassion, and peace, but also pushing back against a Christianity that is “centered in nationalism, materialism, and intolerance.” This is what the Beatitudes Society is countering. And in my opinion, that is a more accurate reflection of progressive Christianity than countering people.

P.S. As practical alternative word choices, I would suggest the second goal begin with “Embody a message…” or Melanie’s suggestion “Proclaim a message…”