The Bosque Boys

This succinct and insightful Tocqueville comment from a recent thread merits attention:

Guest Blog: Tocqueville

People of faith should acknowledge that the countervailing force of secular thought has been an important corrective to the excesses and blindnesses of religious believers. But ardent secularists have their own blindnesses and excesses, among which is their failure to see how much their own conceptions of justice and human dignity rely upon the very religious traditions they reject. Secularism alone cannot suffice to address the largest questions about human existence.

Accordingly, secularists should aim at a reasonable modus vivendi with the believers around them, rather than to invest themselves in pointlessly polarizing struggles over the Pledge of Allegiance or faith-based initiatives and in complaining, absurdly, that America is becoming a theocracy. If they save their criticisms for the things that matter, they will be heard.

The ever astute Martian Mariner commented on my previous post on mainline turmoil and decline thusly:

I know you've posted extensively on the decline of mainline Protestant denominations in America. Most of the posts seem to be displaying the symptoms and warning signs. I was wondering if you could give us some of your analysis as to the causes of this decline. The disconnect between the leadership and congregants seems to be a major part of the decline, but what caused that disconnect in the first place?

I now will begin a series of posts trying to answer his questions. (Caveat--while I am a scholar of the interactions of religion, culture, and politics, my period expertise is the U.S. between the Revolution and the Civil War.) I think the state of the (formerly) Mainline Churches results from multiple causes. Please regard what I say as informed hypotheses, rather than definitive answers. (Blogging is a lot easier than writing books and articles in this regard.) Where to begin? (more below)

» Read More

The Okie Gardner notes that today is the National Day of Prayer. He offers an instructive scholarly summary of how Christian a nation we are (here).

Recently, in my Sunday School class at Church, we have been discussing the proper role of the Ten Commandments in the life of the church, the nation, and in our own personal spiritual journey. Here are some thoughts from that discussion:

I have two basic assertions in re the Ten Commandments:

1. In reality, public deference to the Ten Commandments as a symbol does not pose a significant danger to our national political-legal culture.

2. In reality, fidelity to the Ten Commandments within our Christian community and individual lives does not deter us from reaching our potential as Christians in God’s service.

Part I: History and Politics: The United States of America has always been a very Christian place. While it is true that the Constitution is one of the most secular public documents ever written, the secular government hammered out in that famous compact has always rested upon a very Christian culture. There has always been a tension in this arrangement. For example, the Bill or Rights forbade the establishment of a national religion, even as the national politicians understood that local entities would continue to support state-sanctioned churches for presumably generations (the last state with an established church, Massachusetts, disestablished of its own accord in the 1830s).

Back to the tension: We (the people) are responsible for preserving a healthy balance between secular government and American culture with its heavy Christian influences. We (the people) must take care that the church never hijacks the government, but it is also in our interests to prevent the government from sanitizing the culture of its religious underpinnings.

Where are we now? Are the nutty fundamentalist theocrats really a threat to take over?

W. Lee “Pass the Biscuits, Pappy!” O’Daniel ran for governor of Texas in 1938 on the platform of “the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule and increased old-age pensions.” With the help of God and the "Light Crust Doughboys," O’Daniel won comfortably.

However, with all due respect to the historical impact of “Pappy” O’Daniel, rarely has the Decalogue played a prominent role in American politics. Currently, there is no significant movement on our national political scene that seeks to impose a Christian version of “sharia” law on the public square. That is, even the most radical proponents of displaying the Ten Commandments in public spaces do not advocate implementation of the Decalogue as public law. For example, even the famous Alabama Ten Commandments judge, Roy Moore, does not propose to sentence adulterers, coveters, idol worshippers, and Sabbath breakers for crimes against God’s law.

So, let us be clear; a campaign to install the Ten Commandments as a binding code of public law is not a surging political movement on the march. To insinuate otherwise merely clouds the issue with scary hyperbole.

Then, what is this discussion about?

Consider the two most celebrated Ten Commandments cases in recent years:

1) Van Orden v. Perry, a ruling hailed as a great victory for the Ten Commandments, in which the Texas State Capitol won the right to keep its monument to the Ten Commandments on public grounds;

and 2) McCreary County [Kentucky] v. ACLU, in which the Court held that display of the Ten Commandments in two county court rooms violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, ordering two Kentucky counties to remove the display.

Writing as a dissenter in the Texas (Van Orden) case, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote:

"The adornment of our public spaces with displays of religious symbols and messages undoubtedly provides comfort, even inspiration, to many individuals who subscribe to particular faiths. Unfortunately, the practice also runs the risk of "offend[ing] nonmembers of the faith being advertised as well as adherents who consider the particular advertisement disrespectful" (full opinions available here).

We are back to a balancing act: inspiration, comfort and acknowledgement for the majority versus offense and alienation to a minority.

This is a significant question. As Americans we are dedicated to protecting the rights of minorities. As Christians, we ought to be sensitive to the feelings of others. The question (to paraphrase Justice Stephen Breyer in the aforementioned cases) becomes one of judgment.

How much injury does a monument to the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol do to citizens who are not Jews, Christians or Muslims?

It is a public discussion very much worth having. Let’s have it at some point.

Part II: The Ten Commandments as Profitable Moral Precepts:

Within our own community (church, Sunday School class, my home), I further suggest that we should have a discussion framed around questions like these:

• Do these injunctions conflict with or support our sense of what Christ wants from us?

• Do these principles of conduct conform to the Sermon on the Mount?

• Do these exhortations flow toward making us better citizens and neighbors?

• Do any of these commandments do us harm?

Below is the inscription on the celebrated monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds:

» Read More

Tocqueville draws our attention to an article that compares and contrasts two important figures in the modern conservative movement: Francis Schaeffer and Russell Kirk. Worth a read.

I must confess that neither speaker and writer was much of an influence on me, due in part to my ignorance I'm sure. I've never read Kirk. Twenty-five years ago I read a bit of Schaeffer. Perhaps some of you (Farmer, you paying attention?) could comment on these two and their influence on you.

Today is the National Day of Prayer. Groups all over this nation have and will gather to offer prayers for our nation. In out town we had a prayer breakfast this morning in a church basement, and will have a prayer gathering in a park at noon.

Lot's of claims will be made today that America is (or was) a Christian nation. My own view (brag alert, informed by PhD studies and scholarship) is that the situation is complicated. Was America founded as a Christian Nation? To answer with a simple yes, or a simple no, is to be wrong, I think.

» Read More

Being President of the United States has always been a lonely job, but it becomes increasingly more difficult and frustrating with the passage of time.

I have a whole list of serious complaints against our president. On the other hand, I would not want his job. I continue to believe that George Bush has been faced with a series of horrific problems to which there are no clear or painless solutions.

No matter, he moves forward step by step. He shows up at his job every day. He continues to love and respect his family, his nation and the office he occupies. He remains optimistic about the nature, history and the future of the United States of America. No matter how egregious the verbal assaults against his character, intelligence and motives, he never breaks faith with the system of self government and civil liberties that ensures that his persecutors will be heard.

I am not sure that we can ask for anything more from a Man.

I am convinced that one day history will credit him for his patience and faithfulness. For now, as his public approval rating hovers in the 30s, I am reminded of the timeless Rudyard Kipling poem:

IF

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,
If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings--nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!



What can we do? Pray for George Bush and the United States of America.

This is cool. Exploring in Nepal and finding lost Buddhist cave murals. Story here from The Times of India.

From the NYT today:

Study of N.B.A. Sees Racial Bias in Calling Fouls

"An academic study of the National Basketball Association...suggests that a racial bias found in other parts of American society has existed on the basketball court as well.

"A coming paper by a University of Pennsylvania professor and a Cornell University graduate student says that...white referees [call] fouls at a greater rate against black players than against white players."

"[The study] went on to claim that the different rates at which fouls are called 'is large enough that the probability of a team winning is noticeably affected by the racial composition of the refereeing crew assigned to the game.'”

Read the entire story here.

Not until the internet jump page (22 graphs into the story) does the Times acknowledge the obvious but pertinent fact that black players, according to the study, played 83 percent of the minutes on the floor during the period analyzed.

Even after the acknowledgement, the Times never takes the time to analyze what this might mean for the study.

By the way, the first online commenter (4:11 AM) makes this same seemingly manifest point; then, the sentiment is repeated often and enthusiastically among the commenters.

Why did that not occur to the Times?

Why did it not occur to the social scientists?

Stay Tuned...

Amnesty International condemns human rights abuses in China in a recent report. Excerpt from the news story:

In a report released Monday, the group cataloged a wide range of continuing human rights abuses, including extensive use of detention-without-trial by police, persecution of civil-rights activists, and the use of new methods to rein in the domestic media and censor the Internet.

Amnesty International web site. From the Amnesty press release:

In its latest assessment of China's progress towards its promised human rights improvements ahead of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Amnesty International also found that the Olympics is apparently acting as a catalyst to extend the use of detention without trial, at least in Beijing.

Yes indeed, economic liberalization will lead inevitably to political liberty. Bullfeathers.

Imagine yourself an average Methodist or Episcopal congregant. (Maybe no imagination is needed.) Then read this report from a conference on Queering the Church. Now perhaps you understand the concern many have. UPDATE: the link is correct but is opening very very slowly if at all. If and when I can open it again I'll try to paste the report in the extended section. Hat tip to MM for noticing.