Mary Daly Dies

Radical feminist theologian Mary Daly has died. An appreciation in the independent Catholic paper National Catholic Reporter calls her "a mother of modern feminist theology." What does radical feminist theology sound like? National Catholic Reporter shares an excerpt from a piece Daly wrote for the New Yorker: "Ever since childhood, I have been honing my skills for living the life of a radical feminist pirate and cultivating the courage to win. The word ‘sin’ is derived from the Indo-European root ‘es-,’ meaning ‘to be.’ When I discovered this etymology, I intuitively understood that for a woman trapped in patriarchy, which is the religion of the entire planet, ‘to be’ in the fullest sense is ‘to sin.’" That's classic Daly.

The above is excerpted from an article at the UTNE Reader. To read the rest of the article: http://www.utne.com/Spirituality/Mary-Daly-Radical-Feminist-Theologian-Dies-6291.aspx

Thanks to blogger Jon for sending this along!

Back in the Saddle Again

Well, that didn't take long...

Our old home church in Highland Park was short a "guest minister" for this coming Sunday, so they scraped the bottom of the barrel and asked me.

Ridin' the range once more

That's right, fans, I will be preaching this Sunday, in West Seattle. The theme: Speak Boldly. Oh yes... yes, I will.

Totin' my old .44

The Old Testament has 44 books in it (well, almost). The scripture for this Sunday? The story of Esther, a daring heroine who saves the Jewish people from disaster in Persia!

Where you sleep out every night, and the only law is right

Esther is practically a Marxist dramedy (seriously!). It is one of the only books in the Bible not to mention God at all (really!). It is fraught with tension, irony and humor (no, really!). The collaborationist bourgeoisie get their comeuppance (well, they get hanged), and the ruling class is a pawn of their own vanity and the conspiracies of capitalist climbers, and in the end the workers come out on top (well, they survive at least).

Back in the saddle again.

Yeehaw! That's right, folks, the greatest show on earth is BACK! (And, besides the Puyallup Fair, I'm preaching, too!)

Seriously, if you have any inkling, you're more than invited (I mistyped "incited" just now... hmmm) to come.

Show starts at 11AM at 8611 11th Avenue SW, Seattle WA 98106.

And who knows, afterward lunch buffet at Maharaja?!

Percy Bysshe Shelley died this day in 1822

Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number -
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you -
Ye are many - they are few.

Read about his life and work here.

Seattle's Labor History

Part of my heart still resides in Seattle, and many of my loyalties still with the labor movement. And in the wake of the closure of the generaly-labor-friendly newspaper in Seattle, my respect for the local alternative culture magazine has risen. So when a friend and nominal anarchist (and, it must be said, a punk rock afficionado and the happy-hour activity coordinator for our circle of friends - yes, we have one) sent me a link to this article in The Stranger, I remembered a little of why I am on this journey in the first place. Thanks, Nic.
The State of Our Unions: A Look at Seattle's Deep, Bloody Labor History - and Its Uncertain Future. (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-state-of-four-unions/Content?oid=1393334)

Deliver us from amnesia

God of peace,
God of justice,
God of freedom,

We give thanks for your cadences of peace, justice, and freedom,
Cadences that have surged through the lives
of Martin,
and Ralph,
and Rosa,
and John,
and Fred,
and Hosea,
and Jesse,
and Andy,
and all that nameless mass of risk-takers who have been
obedient to your promises
and susceptible to your dreams.

Deliver us from amnesia
concerning their courage in the face of violence,
their peace-making against hate,
and their hunger for you in a devouring economy.

Deliver us from amnesia:
turn our memory into hope,
turn our gratitude into energy,
turn our well-being into impatience.

That these same cadences of your will may pulse even among us.
Amen.

-Walter Brueggemann
prayer after Martin Luther King Day, 1999

Why Religion At All?

I was having a discussion with a friend recently - a friend who has been reading a lot of books in the "New Atheism" movement. (I don't know why they call it "New Atheism" - except that perhaps it's a new movement, a resurgence or renaissance.) And perhaps it's the fact that we share so many sympathies on the subject that I found it difficult to answer her questions the way she seemed to want me to. None of my answers were apparently getting at her fundamental question. So she sent me away from the discussion with something to think about: why have religion at all? Wouldn't our efforts and energies be more constructively placed elsewhere?

It got me to thinking.

Even if we take the most natualistic definition or description of "God" - God being the experience of neurons firing in our heads and our brains being bathed with certain chemicals as a result (as some recent articles have suggested, our brains might be hard-wired to come up with the idea of God) - that doesn't mean that the experience isn't valid or even helpful. It is much the same thing as love - our brains doing certain things with certain data, causing emotional and intellectual reactions, moving us to do (or avoid doing) certain things. Even knowing this, the most convinced neuroscientist doesn't give up on Love.

But the question is not about "God" - whatever that is or how it is experienced. The question is about religion: is it necessary or helpful for people to become the best they can be - as individuals and as a communal whole.

Obviously, this critique (in part) is reacting to the enormous and horrific narrow-mindedness of various fundamentalisms and the religiously-infused history of the 20th century. The Holocaust was committed by Christians as Christians, capitalizing on centuries of Christian anti-semitism. World War I saw every country - on each side - declaring God on their side, with the attendant implicit divine blessing on unthinkable death and destruction. The New Atheist critique is also laying claim to the Human Rights culture that has been growing since the 18th century and has oftentimes been explicitly beyond religious distinctions in its call for fair treatment of all people. (Curiously, the New Atheists don't lay much blame for the horrors of the past at the feet of nationalism, capitalism, imperialism or colonialism. But that might just be too broad a front to engage the world on. And, it must be said, the New Atheists are English-speakers from the Northern Hemisphere, whose nations and cultures are steeped in capitalist rhetoric of "freedom" being equated with "buying power.")

I will have to save a larger discussion of this for another post - or perhaps a book - but I do believe that American Christianity deserves this New Atheist critique. Religion in the Western world (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) has been astoundingly complicit in (if not outrightly encouraging) nationalism, prejudice and violence. We have directed enormous resources at our own comfort while neglecting (if not capitalizing) on the suffering of others - most horrifically when our comfort comes at the expense of others. New Atheism raises some profound and legitimate questions that Christians (my community) should take seriously - searching inside and among ourselves for a Christ-like response rather than reacting in fear and offense, and continuing to ignore the fundamental premise of their complaint. (Recognizing that the Christ-like response might be to change the way we are acting, speaking or thinking.) With American Christianity the way it is, I can't blame anyone for wanting to be an atheist. The questions resonates inside me deeply: why be religious at all?

To begin an answer, let me start with the analogy I mentioned earlier: love. Is it necessary for love (both the neurological "happening" and the experience of love in people's lives) that we have ritualized behaviors and communal expectations? Of course not. People can feel love without dating or marriage, monogamy or... whatever. I must admit that my partner and I decided to get married (almost five years ago now) without knowing precisely why - but that I have found our marriage to be profoundly moving and formative for me. I have been made a better person by my marriage in ways I never imagined or was aware of - and part of that was, honestly, giving myself over to the convention of the ritual relationship, and exploring my new personhood within it. But my partner and I certainly don't begrudge any of our friends or family who don't get married, who only date or live together, or have even decided against romantic relationships for the present. We also don't begrudge our friends and family who have gotten married - and for most, marriage has served them well, while others not quite as well. I can imagine a person who has neither the need for nor would be helped by "marriage" or even monogamy - who can have healthy, honest, full relationships with people in ways that I am unaware or incapable of. My way of being in relationship is not the only right way. I don't think for a moment that "marriage" is necessary for love, or for a person to fully actualize themselves, or to grow in compassion toward others, or for a thousand other virtues that flower from healthy intimate relationships.

Is it necessary for people to participate in an organized religion in order to find fulfillment and become healthy individuals? Of course not. I can imagine someone being healthy and dynamic, self-aware and challenged, compassionate and sensing a call to profound generosity and vulnerability, without being taught or encouraged to within a ritualized framework. Those people, I would probably find enviable.

I am not nearly so strong, creative, self-aware or self-challenging. To be honest, if it were up to me, I would probably spend most of my existence comfortably within my own prejudices, feeling a sense of distant concern for the poorer situation of others but that's about it, and would likely find my own righteous indignation adequate for sustaining my views about myself and my world. I would likely be quite comfortable not holding myself within a community that demands critical introspection, not being held accountable by a community, or wrestling with a tradition and the inheritance of millions of lives before mine. I feel like a pretty ritualistic person, so I'd probably come up with my own significant ritual acts - but there would be little basis for me to share these with others or invite their participation in them with me. But, if I didn't have religion in general - and progressive, peace-church Christianity in particular - I just wouldn't have the personal hutzpah or gumption to really set myself to work on these tasks. And I'd be a worse person for it.

In the end, I'd have to say that religion isn't necessary for a full and happy life. I'm just saying I couldn't do it. By being a participant (and now a minister) in a Christian community, I am opened up to challenges and ways of being that I don't think I would have were I not here. (I also think most everyone could benefit from being in a union. And, really, I probably begrudge people not being union more than I begrudge anyone being irreligious.) I also wonder if people who haven't been brought up in a religious community - or who's experiences have been markedly different than mine, even - can't know what they're missing.

I've been both religious and secular in my life, been both theist and atheist, and I like myself better as a minister in this particular Christian peace church. It isn't that I just "feel better" - sometimes being a Christian fills me with profound sadness and awareness of suffering, and being a Christian also denies me easy answers to many of life's truly difficult questions. I am constantly pushed outside my prejudices and self-centered thinking. I am pulled to engage with, feel for, and perhaps even love people that I don't like, don't care being around, and disagree with. (I don't always do very well at this, it must be said. But forgiveness and grace are also Christian tenets.)

I don't like it when religions - Christianity in particular (since it is my larger community - teach prejudice and superiority. When someone is religious, or admits to a belief in God (not necessarily the same thing), one thing that can signify is that they are confessing they don't know everything, that there is more that they are subject to than they can know or explain, but that they feel it nonetheless. To use the word "God" can oftentimes do one of two things: it can open people up or close them off, it can say 'I am seeking the truth' or it can say 'I have the truth,' it can mean 'I am open to connection and genuine growth' or it can mean 'I am right and if you don't agree with me then you are at best misguided and at worst evil.' I cannot express strongly enough my disdain for religion that does the latter - and I assume it is to this variety that the New Atheism is responding. And there's plenty of that kind of religion around - it seems they own most of the television channels and radio stations, have the biggest churches and promote retrograde politics. I wish the New Atheists good luck in their quest to break the hold of this kind of religion on people's minds and hearts.

But there is also the kind of religion that opens people up, that seeks to love and grow, and seeks to change the world not to be more like 'us', but to be more like a generous, just and loving God would want it to be. And there as many different kinds of being faithful to that kind of God as there are ways of loving. Religion isn't necessary for that to happen. But for some of us it really, really helps. For me, it is indispensible.

Priests and Workers Cry "Nun Intimidation!"

From the SanFrancisco Gate

Labor organizing can be tense under the best of circumstances, but in bucolic Sonoma County, one such effort has escalated to a theological debate of sorts, pitting Catholic nuns against their ecclesiastic brethren in a dispute involving labor rights, the church's social teachings and a multibillion-dollar business.

On one side are the Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange, who operate Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital as part of the $3.35 billion St. Joseph Healthcare System, a business that supports their order. On the other are local priests, labor leaders and hospital employees who have accused management of creating an atmosphere of intimidation.

The tension has escalated in recent months, which have been punctuated by marches, vigils and meetings.

Read the whole article

"Mission" as Neo-Colonialism?

I spent the last two and-a-half weeks in Europe, meeting most of my staff and co-workers and beginning to become acquainted with some of the local lay leaders of our church across Europe. It was a tremendous tour, and a lot could be said about it. But there's one thing in particular... (of course).

My denomination is just starting to talk about "mission" - and has even re-named regional administrative units "Mission Centers." But the "Europe Mission Center" has consistently declined using that term in reference to itself, preferring simply "the Europe church." You see, Europe has had enough of "mission-talk."

Europe is made of of former-Empires: the Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain, Hungary, Russia, and so on. To their credit, when they look at their histories, even discussion of their respective "Golden Ages" (when they were at the peak of their imperial expanse) is trimmed with shame at the arrogance of imperialism and colonialism, embarrassment for their exploitation and oppression of other peoples, and a self-consciousness about even historical talk of military, racial or ideological superiority. To the European Christians in our church, "mission" sounds too much like a re-birth of this ancient vice.

Mission and missionaries are language that harkens to a period in Christianity (specifically European and American Christianity) where "civilization" and "European-style Christianity" were considered the same - and the spread of "our culture" went hand in hand with the gospel and the sword. Religious conversion (or corraling) was most often the first step in economic expansion, likely in the form of exploitation of labor and resources, if not outright slavery. Mission was the destruction of native sensibilities and structures, and the imposition (forced, if not voluntary) of North-Atlantic norms.

Now, don't get me wrong, there's something powerful about contemporary "missional" Christians attempting a redemption of that term - actually turning it on its head, meaning to serve those disadvantaged and oppressed, and taking place largely outside of official organizational structures. There is something powerful about converting the tools of the oppressor into ones that serve liberation. But there is also danger there that, in our eagerness, we might overlook.

Remember that even those most colonial of missionaries likely thought of themselves as serving the people they met. Civilization and the gospel, after all, were in the best interests of everyone - from the perspective of the missionary. The question we are now able to ask about that time period is did those missionaries (and armies and businesses that followed) have the right to determine what was in the best interest of another people? And is it any surprise that they determined that their own way of thinking and acting, their own values, were the superior ones that needed to be brought to those poor heathens, by carrot or stick or lash? It is easy for us to point to those years and those motives and eye them with suspicion. But are we so able to look at ourselves with the same critical eye?

Consider this. "Mission" talk has taken hold first and foremost in the United States in the last five years or so. This is at the same time that the United States has been talking about itself as an empire, even considering itself (favorably in some cases, unfavorably in others) the new Roman Empire. Is there something in imperial politics that draws the church along? Or is it simply a matter of people talking who hold both discipleship and citizenship?

Have we North American Christians unwittingly embraced a revised ("kinder, gentler") imperial theology? Are we assuming that our values are the values that should be universalized and normative? (Don't we think that, surely, the world would be better if it adopted our way of thinking?) We may not be as culturally imperialistic as our forebears, but that is something to watch out for. And could it serve as a distraction from prophetic discipleship to focus on patchwork social justice without working toward a larger, revolutionary system?

I'm just throwing these ideas out there. Honestly, I'm a missional Christian. I'm just starting this discussion in my head. So I'm less prepared than many to identify the imperialistic qualities of my theology. Perhaps in this way I actually do need Christians and people of other faith persuasions to push back against me. Perhaps, for my own sake, those whom I would convert must first convert me.

That seems to me the only way out. But again, I may be narrow-minded here.

December Scriptures: Not Your Usual Christmas Story

"In North America, December marks the start of our annual frenzy of conspicuous consumption, and churches often counter the market’s hijacking of our feast day with poor substitutes: charity and triumphalism.

"The scripture passages for these weeks do not support our holiday evasions. While sometimes hopeful, the verses are neither cozy nor celebratory. Certainly we find stories of Jesus’ birth, but they come amid news of prisons, lions, vipers, swords, armor, and genocide. The lections’ strongest themes are of justice, violence, and the role of prophets.

"Over five Sundays the lectionary takes us through seven books spanning eight centuries, and we engage with some of the best-loved passages in scripture: “A shoot shall come up from the stump of Jesse” (Isaiah 11:1); “a little child shall lead them” (Isaiah 11:6); “the voice of one crying out in the wilderness” (Matthew 3:3); and “my soul magnifies the Lord” (Luke 1:47). The dominant texts are Isaiah, the book from the Hebrew Bible most quoted in the Greek Testament, and the gospel of Matthew, the book in the Greek Testament that draws most often from the Hebrew Bible. In a complex interplay, the texts read each other, we read the texts, and the texts read us and our times.

Read the whole article and commentary
for each Sunday's scriptures online at Sojourners.

How I Became Union

I became Union roughly the same way I became Christian: I was lucky - I stumbled into it accidentally, not knowing what I was getting myself into.

This past week, at a meeting of regional ministers, a book was mentioned as being available from Amazon.com, and I gave a passing shout-out for Powells.com - a union run bookstore (headquartered in our very own Portland, no less). Afterwards, another minister came up to me and asked how I became a union supporter, since he thought it was pretty rare for someone my age (young, he meant) to even be aware of labor unions, let alone be an outspoken supporter of them. My answer got side-tracked by arguing that unions advance zionic conditions (better health care and working conditions, fairer wages and vacation policies, empowerment of people, and so on). I felt bad that I never got to answer him as to how I became a union supporter. To be honest, though, I hadn't thought of it before.

So this post is for Carman - and for the curious.

I left my previous job (2006) as a member of my union's Executive Board, a Shop Steward and work-site coordinator, a member of the contract negotiating team, a volunteer organizer and political activist. When I applied for a job with the church, most of my resume listed labor movement experience, and I still feel that heritage informing much of my ministerial outlook.

I first became a member of Service Employees International Union, Local 925, when I was hired as a mail-room clerk at the University of Washington in 2003. The University is largely closed-shop, so it was a legal obligation to join the union - I had no choice, and really didn't know what I was doing. I didn't think about it other than signing the membership card (under penalty of losing my job if I didn't). If anything, I was against compulsory membership in the union. I thought of it like Homeowners' Associations: vaguely fascist and dictatorial, and serving the powerful, rather than the powerless. (I may be retrojecting this concern for the underprivileged into my thinking then... I may honestly have been more concerned about the 1.5% taken out of my paycheck.)

For a year or so, the union was invisible to me. I didn't know it then, but my department was historically, notoriously anti-union - and few representatives of the union ever set foot inside there (and even fewer pro-union employees spoke up in the lunchroom about it). It wasn't until the union was doing an opinion poll in preparation for upcoming contract negotiations that I even realized what the union was. I filled out my little card and walked across the street to deliver it to the union representative (and later my friend) waiting in a room off the cafeteria. She introduced herself and said that if I had a few minutes to listen to what the union had in mind for the contract negotiations, she'd give me a tee-shirt for my time.

A free tee-shirt for listening to a five-minute spiel?! The union had me hooked. (This is an inside joke for anyone who's active in a union. A tee-shirt or button or hat or tote-bag for every action, and pretty soon one's wardrobe is overflowing with the union color and logo. And at that point, you just start going to the actions because you believe in it - and wearing your old tee-shirt to avoid being given a new one.)

Of course, the point of the spiel is to get you emotionally involved, at best even outraged at the offenses of the employer, in order to motivate you to become active in the contract campaign, and into the larger life of the union. It worked, and I slowly increased my activity with the union through the course of that contract campaign and the following political electoral season.

As I got more involved, I eventually became the "shop steward" for my building, and started organizing my co-workers. But it was the work as "steward" that most affected my class consciousness.

For me personally, the union was only so helpful. I had sympathetic and supportive supervisors, and administration above them that generally worked hard to be fair and helpful to the workers. My wages and benefits, however, were negotiated far above even my dean or director - and those administrators were much less likely to be sympathetic or helpful, to say the least.

It was in the course of a year or so of representing workers who were being disciplined or fired or something of that sort - and it was part of the job of a steward to help the worker understand what was going on and also support them in (if need be) objecting to the discipline and articulating why. (It did happen more than once that the worker recognized some poor performance and reacted positively to their supervisors' discipline, but that was all-in-all relatively rare.) About half of the time, it felt to me like I was helping defend workers against unfair discipline or working conditions. It only took a few ardent and seemingly vengeful bosses to make me a lifelong union supporter. (In the coming years, of course, it would take struggling to defend a couple wacky and irresponsible workers to temper my ardent one-sided-ness on the issues.)

I, myself, was never the subject of disciplinary action, or the victim of unfair working conditions. (It could be said that I was the victim of uncharitable and unfair conditions by virtue of the University's wage or vacation schedule, but after a lot of struggle the union did a pretty good job of keeping the University administration in check. The pic above is me arguing with the Public Relations Director of the University during a demonstration in the midst of 2007 contract negotiations.) It was as I witnessed what the union did for people who spoke English as a second (or third) language, and for women, and for folks who aren't white, and janitors or basement administrative assistants, that I became a union man. Supporting the union wasn't so much beneficial to me individually - except in the sense that what benefits all people benefits me. Supporting the union became an act of solidarity with and support of all workers, especially those who are least able to defend themselves and are therefore most in need of my solidarity.

Why I'm talking about this on a religio-personal blog is this: Jesus' life and ministry demonstrates to me the essential need to identify with and empower marginalized populations. That means my "class consciousness" has to align itself with "classes" "below" me (och, I struggle with that language, but indulge me), to identify their interests as my own, to work for their welfare as part of my work generally. I think it would be in most everyone's interest to be in a union - but as a Christian I don't want people to be in a union because it is in their interest. I want people to join unions because of the interest of others that it serves.

As a minister, when I left employment at the University and therefore faced giving up membership in my union, I signed up as an associate member - a status of virtually no benefit to myself, but an act of solidarity with my sisters and brothers still negotiating with hardened bosses for a fair living. And my wife joined the union with me.

Now, three years after I begrudged the union forcing me to join even though it directly benefited me to do so, I now join eagerly even though it benefits me directly hardly at all. I've been born again. I once was lost, but now am found; was blind, but now I see. Praise God, indeed.

Local Efforts Continue to Address Homelessness

Religious leaders work to tackle homeless problem
By JOHN IWASAKI, P-I REPORTER

While chatting with friends Wednesday morning at a coffee shop in Ballard, Carolyn Swanson mentioned that she was headed to a meeting to learn how local churches could host Tent City 3, the traveling homeless encampment now in North Seattle.

Because Scandinavians pride themselves on "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps," she said, her astonished friends fired back questions:

"You're going to do what?" "Why don't those people work?" "Isn't that great to live off the state?"

Homelessness is a complex issue, and those with a roof over their head often don't understand it, said Swanson, a member of the justice committee at Our Redeemer's Lutheran Church.

Representatives of 16 congregations met Wednesday at St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral to gather information on homelessness and Tent City 3. The encampment will be moving from Haller Lake United Methodist Church to Riverton Park United Methodist Church in Tukwila on Sept. 22.

The larger question, not on the agenda at the St. Mark's meeting, is how to make homelessness a problem of the past. That daunting topic will be discussed Tuesday when an interfaith group holds its seventh-annual conference on "creating the political will to end homelessness."

Read the whole article at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

A New Book Remembers Sacco & Vanzetti, and Injustice Served

(From the Washington Post)

Eighty years ago this week, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts executed two first-generation immigrants from Italy, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, for crimes they almost certainly did not commit. Before and after the executions, passions aroused by the case, in the United States and around the world, were incredibly intense. In part, this was because the case had strong political overtones at a time when much of the country was swept up in the Red Scare. In part, it was because, as the noted newspaper columnist Walter Lippmann wrote, "No man . . . should be put to death where so much doubt exists." And, in part, it was because Sacco and Vanzetti were appealing men, whatever one may have thought of their politics. In an interview with the New York World three months before his execution, Vanzetti was quoted as saying, in halting but powerful English:

"If it had not been for these thing, I might have live out my life, talking at street corners to scorning men. I might have die, unmarked, unknown, a failure. Now we are not a failure. This is our career and our triumph. Never in our full life can we hope to do such work for tolerance, for justice, for man's understanding of man as we now do by dying. Our words, our lives, our pains -- nothing! The taking of our lives -- lives of a good shoemaker and a poor fish peddler -- all! That last moment belongs to us -- that agony is our triumph!"

Read the whole article/book review at the Washington Post.

Thanks to blogger Jon for pointing this out to me.

"Sometimes crossing the street can save a life."

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle's fairest and most objective major daily newspaper) last week featured an article about an outreach program focused on people on the streets. It tells the story of Mary Williams (who also happens to be an active member of Community of Christ) and her on-the-street "ministry" (my word) of compassion and help to people weighed down by poverty, drugs, abuse or any of a host of other inner-city plagues.

The outreach starts simply with offering a drink of water. How tremendously appropriate.

I spent an afternoon with Mary Williams not too long ago, when she set up her table on the sidewalk brimming with brochures and helpline information, and a basket of cupcakes and bottled water. She is a sight to behold: unafraid to talk to anyone, to strike up a conversation, start building relationships, offering information without being the least bit pushy - in short, showing the passers by that she actually cares about them. She doesn't just see sickness or mental illness or depression or poverty or addiction. Williams manages to convey a healthy care in her work. That one afternoon was inspiring enough. The P-I article last week raised my estimation of her and her work even higher.

Read the article. It's enough to give me hope.

The Day Hope Died

Today - August 4, 1914 - the greatest socialist party ever, died. The German socialist party voted in Parliament to authorize "war credits" in preparation for World War I. It violated every felt and expressed impulse to hold solidarity with the workers of every country, and fell tragic victim to nationalism and patriotic myopia.

The German socialist party held the swing vote - a sizeable portion of the Reichstag, actually - and could have prevented World War I and perhaps ushered into Europe a prosperous and exemplary society that valued protecting lives more than gaining land, resources, prestige and power. Instead, they bought the old nationalist line and voted in financing of the war machine, and authorized sending German workers against French workers, for the benefit of German politicians and bankers.

At the time, socialists were well represented in the Reichstag - oftentimes vying for majority control in the ruling body. They had a party membership in the millions, had thousands of news dailies, had established grassroots networks of activists and union halls, community centers and soup kitchens, and determined the politics in much of the southern half of the country. They could have ended WWI before it started - and there was heated debate among them whether they should or not. But in the end, they made the wrong choice, and put their extraordinary weight behind an unjust cause, just for the sake of nationalism. As a result, the rest of the century would be spent in warfare of spiraling severity and scope.

Also as a result, the fractured, hypocritical, failed socialist party infrastructure disintegrated, and is virtually forgotten in Western history. Americans only know the Cold War propaganda version of "socialism" - and react to the very word.

This is a sad day in history - one that we would do well to remember and keep close to our hearts. Never violate our principles, especially for the sake of nationalism and patriotism. Our conviction of peace and solidarity with all peoples, our commitment to welcoming the stranger, caring for the widow and orphan, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, healing the poor - this is our rock, our worship of God. And no false god or idol can take its place, no matter what flag it is wrapped in or over which it waves. History proves the folly of nations. God will bear out our faith with righteousness.

Political Observation: Voting

Forgive me. I'd like to make a political comment.

If we (citizens and government of the United States of America) want to maintain or even improve democracy in our nation, I humbly submit some suggestions. Two ideas off the top of my head for simple, easy, low-overhead, low-infrastructure ways to increase democracy in our government are: Instant Run-Off Voting (IRV) and universalizing polling places.

Instant Run-off Voting is not a new idea. It simply allows voters to rank their choices - if your first-pick of candidate doesn't get enough votes to contend, then your vote goes to your second choice. If your second choice is knocked out of the running, then your vote counts toward your third pick. And so on. This allows (encourages) people to vote their principles first, and virtually eliminates the "spoiler" effect. A "spoiler" is someone like Ross Perot in '92 or Ralph Nader in 2000, who supposedly draws enough votes away from one or another of the two major party candidates to win the race for the other major party. IRV allows people to vote for the person they would genuinely rather have in office, without looming over them the threat that their least desired candidate might be elected because of it. The system as it is now clearly benefits the two entrenched parties who both use "spoiler" language to discourage disloyalty. Both the Dems and Rebs want to discourage consideration of IRV because it is easier for them to remain in power without it. IRV would open the door to all kinds of "third-party" or "independent" candidates, and the public would be exposed to a genuine variety of viewpoints, and the major parties themselves would be held more accountable to their constituencies' expectations. Simply put, Instant Run-off Voting is a necessity if we are to make any strides toward genuine democracy in this country.

Also helpful, and requiring virtually no change to infrastructure, would be to eliminate the restrictions on polling places. Simply don't assign people to polling places. Have voter records accessible electronically. Allow any voter in the state or county to go to any polling station - close to their work, close to their hairdresser, close to their school, close to where they'll be having lunch. Allow them to walk in, check their card, and have the ballot they need printed for them right there, and drop it off as they leave. No more contested ballots based on who shows up at what polling station. No more hours-long lines in poor neighborhoods. Just let people vote wherever they are. This would benefit the poor and working families, who are less likely to work near their home, and therefore have their poling station be inconveniently located for their workday.

Come to think of it, make voting day a holiday. Don't think people will come vote on their day off? Make it legally compulsory. Make it illegal not to vote. If all they want to do is show up and sign their name (essentially not voting at all), that's fine. But if they don't vote, there's a fine or something. If we want people to vote, there has to be a combination of carrot and stick. The present system works to actually discourage people from voting, because the entrenched powers want people to not vote. It is easier to have one's way if the people don't care what happens to them.

So there. Some ideas to get the conversation going (or keep it going). As Christians, it seems a faith issue to empower the disempowered, to make sure the meek have a voice. Our so-called "democracy" at present doesn't do that very well (if at all). Our faith conviction ought to compel us to consider alternatives.

Progressive Christian Radio?

Yup.
Living Faith Radio
is a weekly radio show from a progressive Christian perspective. Broadcast from Ballard (a Seattle neighborhood), it covers some really pressing and controversial issues. Some of the shows in the last month have been:
"Can we use our money for good? Investing as a Way to Change the World."
"Can the Church Be Gay? Homosexuality As Christian Sacrament."
"Does Lady Liberty still welcome the poor, tired, huddled, and homeless masses? The New Sanctuary Movement."
"Who would Jesus Bomb? Militarism & Christian Faith."
"What Happened on 9/11? The Church Under Empire."
"George Bush and the Spirit of Anti-Christ"
...and that's just the beginning. You should see his guest list alone. This guy isn't avoiding any conversation, and bringing in people who are in the streets and in the know. Today's topic: "None Dare Call It Treason: The Bush Administration and 9/11". Holy Moly! Leave it to community radio to ask the questions we all want answered. Listen to the broadcast today (Friday) at 2PM on KKNW 1150AM, or streaming online at http://www.livingfaithnow.org.

Mapping Tool for Faith-Justice Organizing

America's faith community has a broader values agenda than the small number of hot-button issues promoted by the Religious Right, and the nation is less divided between blue and red states than the media suggest, according to a new online database that maps 3,000 religious organizations working for social justice across the country.

Unveiled Thursday by Faith in Public Life, the Mapping Faith database is intended as "tech-savvy advocacy" for organizing the faith community around social concerns like justice, compassion and working for the common good, David Buckley, the principle author of a report accompanying the database, told reporters in a telephone press conference.

The report challenges conventional wisdom that evangelicals care only about issues of personal morality like abortion and gay marriage. Buckley said there is a "tremendously diverse values agenda" that is driving faithful Americans to advocate causes like poverty, peace, human rights, discrimination, civil rights, healthcare, AIDS and the environment.

Read the whole article online.

Churches Face Dilemma Over Sheltering Migrants

by Angie Chuang and Nancy Haught
Religion News Service

It's a question that vexes many in the often-silent middle of the immigration debate: What is legal -- and what is right?

That dilemma permeates discussions in churches here after 167 suspected illegal workers were detained in a June 12 raid at the Fresh Del Monte Produce plant. In community-room meetings and in pulpits, church leaders are asking whether they should provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants.

Some local church representatives have started an e-mail list of churches with entries like "open to those needing shelter" or "can provide food, money."

Augustana Lutheran Church in Portland has officially signed on with the New Sanctuary Movement, a national effort to shelter people facing deportation. Others are contemplating that move.

Read the whole article at Religion News Service.

June-teenth!

By Guest-Contributor Mary Dell Williams

Juneteenth celebrations date back to 1865 when on June 19, Union soldiers, led by Major General Gordon Granger, landed at Galveston, Texas with news that the war had ended and the slaves were free. This was two and a half years after President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation became official on January 1, 1863.

The celebration of June 19 was soon coined "Juneteenth" and grew with participation from slaves' descendants. Indeed, Juneteenth continued to be highly revered in Texas, with many former slaves and descendants making an annual pilgrimage back to Galveston. Initially, Juneteenth was not celebrated outside African American communities. Most of the festivities were in rural areas around rivers and creeks that could provide for additional activities such as fishing, horseback riding and barbecues. Often church grounds were used for Juneteenth celebrations.

Juneteenth began to gain prominence during the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. In 1968, the Reverend Ralph Abernathy celebrated Juneteenth at the Poor Peoples March to Washington D.C. Many of those attending returned home and initiated Juneteenth celebrations in areas previously absent of such activity. The Juneteenth celebrations in Milwaukee and Minneapolis, which are two of the largest celebrations, were founded after the Poor Peoples March of 1968.

On January 1, 1980, Juneteenth became an official state holiday in Texas. It is considered a "partial staffing holiday" meaning that state offices do not close but some employees use a floating holiday to take the day off. Thirteen other states list it as an official holiday, including New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Alaska, and California. However, some of these states, such as Connecticut, do not consider it a legal holiday and do not close government offices in observance of the occasion. Its informal observance has spread to other states, including Alabama, with a few celebrations taking place in other countries.

Summary:
House Bill Report - 1 - HB 1870
June 19 is declared as a day of remembrance for the day the slaves learned of their freedom and will be recognized as Juneteenth.
<>Votes on Final Passage:
House 94 0
Senate 48 0

Effective: July 22, 2007

Here in Seattle, Juneteenth is celebrated at Pratt Park led by Central Area Chamber of Commerce Founder DeCharlene Williams. Ms. Williams has been heading up the festival for many, many years (like 20??)

Links:
Official Sites:
http://www.juneteenth.us/
http://www.juneteenth.com/aboutjuneteenth.htm

Letter from President Bush:
http://www.juneteenth.com/whitehouse.htm

Washington State Juneteenth Recognition:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1870&year=2007

Other Sites:
http://www.howard.edu/library/Reference/Cybercamps/camp2000/juneteenth.htm

Diggers Begin Occupation (1649)

In response to the dramatic events and privations of the English Civil War, a group of people motivated in part by the New Testament occupied vacant public lands and started to cultivate them with crops and homes. Starting on St. George's Hill in April, by May communities were springing up all over the country. The government and the wealthy conspired to destroy the communal experiments, and within a year all the communities were dispersed. But, for a short time, the Kingdom of God was built on Earth.

More info if you're interested: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk