The Moral Arc and the Daily Line

Santorum needs to chat with the Pope

2012-02-19T12:48:00.006-06:00

Sunday morning, GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum appeared on CBS's "Face the Nation" to defend his remarks to the Ohio Christian Alliance. While speaking to the conservative Christian group last weekend, Santorum stated that President Obama perpetuates “some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology.” This statement itself is problematic in several ways, not least of which is the tired implication that the president might not be a Christian. It was Santorum's clean up, though, that actually mucked everything up.

Santorum tried to explain that he was actually talking about "radical environmentalists", who “have a worldview that elevates the Earth above man and says that we can’t take those resources, because we’re going to harm the Earth by things that frankly are just not scientifically proven.”

This statement is the political equivalent of a "What's Wrong with this Picture" page in the back of a Highlights magazine. So let's ignore the obvious issues like inclusiveness or, you know, science, and jump right into the theological gaffes.

Claiming that humanity has unbridled control over God's creation is not only ignorant, but arrogant. The creation narrative of Genesis 2 shows God placing the human being in the garden "to till it and to keep it" (2:15 NRSV), not to strip it and to plunder it. Humanity was never meant to blindly and irresponsibly consume anything, especially something so specifically placed in our care. The earth and its resources are not ours to "take," as Santorum stated, but God's to give. This right-to-pillage mindset extends beyond matters of environmental concern, into justifications of exploitative economic systems and hugely disproportionate wealth.

The root of the problem is that Santorum's statement implicitly acknowledges a divorce of the fate of people from the fate of the world. Creation and humanity are inseparable, and if you don't believe the science, let us turn to the leader of Santorum's faith community, the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict XVI, in celebration of World Peace Day on January 1, 2010, offered a message entitled, "If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation," where he implores humanity to "renew and strengthen 'that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying.'" The Pope beautifully articulates the undeniable fact that as humans created by God, our lives and well-being are tied up with the rest of creation:

Our present crises – be they economic, food-related, environmental or social – are ultimately also moral crises, and all of them are interrelated. They require us to rethink the path which we are travelling together... The quest for peace by people of good will surely would become easier if all acknowledge the indivisible relationship between God, human beings and the whole of creation.

It's about the environment. But more accurately, it's about the sum of God's work. Santorum's myopic understanding of climate change has allowed him to be concerned about the deficit burden on future generations while ignoring the environmental squalor left for our children's children. The wholeness of the rich can no easier be separated from that of the poor, than the fullness humanity from that of our home. We are connected to each other and to the earth by the God who formed and redeemed all of creation. To live outside of that responsibility reflects the selfishness and conceit of the human condition rather than the humble discipleship of a people responding to God's continued grace.

Willing to be Arrested

2012-02-17T08:30:00.003-06:00

This statement was made yesterday by the Reverend Bonnie Osei-Frimpong who represents ARISE Chicago.

People ask me why I wanted to be arrested with Occupy Chicago last October. My answer is simple. I did not want to be arrested. Jail was cold. I was hungry. I didn't have any privacy. They took my timepiece. I had no idea how long I would be there. I did not want any of that. I did not want to be arrested.

I do want a political system in America that treats the poor, the sick, the aged, and the infirm like citizens, like human beings "endowed by their Creator" with inalienable rights. I do want to live in an America, and in a great American city, that honors its commitments to its residents and treats with dignity those in its midst who will hold it to its own promises.

When the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch of the United States of America, and the municipal powers of the city of Chicago, violate the promises on which our country is built, by criminalizing the poor and funneling resources and undue influence to the wealthy, I will gather with my fellow citizens and peacefully assemble to redress my grievances.

Although I do not want to get arrested, I am, however, willing to be arrested. I am willing to be arrested to defend our right to peacefully assemble in order to redress political grievances, and to redress economic corruption, and to redress social needs. I am willing to be arrested if that is what it takes to remind our government to concern itself with "the least of these." And I am willing to be arrested if that is the next step in a long-term plan to get corporate money out of our political system.

Sadly I cannot say that I have faith in the judicial system. The Courts have gotten it wrong in defining what constitutes a person. Why shouldn't I believe that they will get it wrong about what it means to peacefully assemble? But, I'm a faithful Christian, so I will give them a chance.

The question is not a matter of whether I wanted to get arrested. The question is a matter of what you are willing to do in defense of the "least of these." The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and we can and should do better. The question isn't why I am willing to be arrested. The question should be: why aren't you?

God bless you, and God bless America

It's Time for Clean Power

2012-02-16T13:57:00.000-06:00

It's no secret that coal-fired power plants are a major source of air pollution for the city of Chicago. In fact, Fisk and Crawford, the two Chicago power plants, have affected their surrounding communities profoundly. Effects of the plants on the Pilsen and Little Village neighborhoods have resulted in over 40 premature deaths, 2800 asthma attacks, and 500 emergency room visits per year.

Yesterday, the Clean Power Coalition of Chicago hosted a press conference urging the city to retire these two plants. Follow Coalition updates through this facebook group to get information about the progress of this movement. And raise your voices, Chicago. It's time for clean power!

A Moral Obligation

2012-02-10T13:37:00.000-06:00

This statement was made by The Reverend Bonnie Osei-Frimpong at the Raise Illinois Lobby Day in Springfield on Tuesday, January 31.

A family earning a minimum wage of $16,000 a year can not afford for the car to break down. They can not afford to take time off work if someone gets sick. They can not afford health care, child care, or elder care. A family living on a minimum wage can hardly afford nutritious food.

A family living on a minimum wage can afford to advocate for what is best for their well-being, and for their community's well-being. A family living on a minimum wage income can afford to march and move and mobilize for the sake of the American Dream. They can afford to buy-in to the common good, if they are given the chance to live, with a living wage.

There is one thing you learn very quickly when you are poor in America. Being poor is very, very expensive. When you are broke, and start cutting corners, juggling debts, when you skip your insurance payment just to get by, that is when things start to go wrong. That is when people get sick, home fires happen, bad luck hits.

When the only bill that gets paid this month is the bill that hit the ground first when you threw them all up in the air, then it is time for you to earn a wage that is enough to live on.

I was speaking to a man at my church. He told me, "It's not that I'm afraid to work. I work hard. I don't expect things to be easy. But what I don't understand is why it has to be so hard--why it feels impossible. I don't know why it is impossible."

Brothers and sisters in Christ, securing a living wage for the poor is a moral obligation. We in the state of IL have a responsibility to promote the livelihood of our fellow citizens by establishing a living wage. This is why the legislature should pass Senate Bill 1565 during this calendar year.

We are all criminals

2012-02-09T14:07:00.005-06:00

Last week, I had the opportunity to hear the author of The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander, speak. During my time at PCG, I had heard of Alexander and her work during our many ongoing conversations about criminal justice, but to hear her speak was certainly inspiring. The statistics, of course, are shocking. In no uncertain terms, African Americans, specifically African American men, are incarcerated at rates that far outpace whites in the United States. In fact, there are more African American adults in prison today than enslaved in the 1850s, a number not correlating to the actual increase in crime rates. She spoke on the effects the War on Drugs has had on poor communities of color, the engrained discrimination that African Americans encounter daily for "looking like" they might posses drugs, whatever that means.

However, the most poignant points that Alexander made were about the ways in which we might overcome such shame and stigma. She pointed out that, in our current cultural climate, we refuse to allow people deemed "guilty" to have their stories heard. They are silenced twice, once by the system that imprisons them and then again upon their release by society who refuses them housing, employment, and voting rights. We tell them they are less than human, not worthy of care or relief. This is what we can change regardless of legislation.

Michelle Alexander was talking about those labeled prisoners, but her words extend to all the "guilty" innocents - those in poverty, those without proper documentation, those who lack health care options. This is why ignoring the very poor is not a gaffe - it is an intentional, dangerous mindset. How can we all heal when we do not offer a hand to those who we have ourselves have harmed? In her lecture, Alexander said "We are all criminals." She mentioned off hand that she noticed church people have no problem claiming the mantle of "sinner," admitting their violation of God's law. However, they are much more uneasy when told they have all violated the law of the state. We are all guilty. We are all redeemed.

Raising the Minimum Wage Makes Cents

2012-02-03T17:14:00.000-06:00

It’s safe to say that 4:45am is earlier than I want to wake up most days. But this past Tuesday, that is precisely what time I (willfully) rolled out of bed. I had a good reason though. I was on my way to meet up with about 70 others to catch an early train down to the Capitol in Springfield to lobby for SB1565: a bill to raise Illinois’ minimum wage. After all, minimum wage workers all over the state wake up even earlier than 4:45 every morning to start preparing the breakfast and coffee we grab on our way into the office a few hours later, so maybe I owe ‘em one.

At 7am sharp, our train pulled out of Union Station. After some bagels and coffee, we got down to business. We had but a few short hours to teach crash courses in minimum wage reform and lobbying. Our train car was filled with a veritable potpourri of folks—clergy, minimum wage workers, nuns, lawyers, community organizers, lobbyists, and even an economist—but we all shared in the common goal of raising the minimum wage in our state. However, in order to pass the bill, we’d need more of an argument than, “$8.25 an hour isn’t enough to live on” (though there’s no doubt that statement is woefully true). We’d need the facts to back up our moral and democratic argument that no one who works full time should qualify for food stamps. We knew we’d need to have answers to pointed questions like: How will businesses be affected by the wage raise? Won’t raising the minimum wage cost our state jobs? How can we pass a raise in the minimum wage during an economic recession?

Fortunately, we did our reading ahead of time…

First, a recent national study comparing job growth in bordering counties with differing minimum wages has effectively proven that increases in minimum wage do not negatively affect job growth. Additionally, several other studies have demonstrated that raising the minimum wage actually saves businesses money (by reducing employee turnover and thus the cost of training new employees), generates new revenue for businesses (by increasing worker productivity), and creates a better work environment (by significantly elevating employee morale).

From an economic standpoint, there is also strong evidence that suggests we should raise the minimum wage. It's been estimated that raising the minimum wage would generate over $2 billion in new consumer spending in Illinois over the next four years. Raising the minimum wage means putting more money in the pockets of low-income families who will turn around and spend that money every month (because they still won’t make enough to put it into savings), primarily on goods and services in their own local communities. In fact, some economists project that this new consumer spending could create as many as 20,000 new jobs in Illinois over the next four years.

If that’s not convincing, I imagine most of us would agree that minimum wage should, at the very least, grow at the same rate as our economy. However, as our economy has expanded, minimum wage has lagged behind. If minimum wage had simply kept pace with inflation over the past forty years, it would be over $10 an hour today.

While in Springfield, we collectively visited the offices of all 59 Senators and every last one of the 118 Representatives, delivering to each a scroll with the signatures of more than 200 faith leaders from around the state supporting an increase in the minimum wage. Many of us were even lucky enough to catch some of the legislators and sit down to chat about the reason for our visit to our state’s capital. We then gathered in the rotunda of the Capitol for a press conference featuring clergy, sponsoring legislators, workers, and experts, all attesting to the fact that the time is now to stand up for the lowest paid workers in our communities.

Many of us were also able to track down the legislators from our own home districts. Whether our Senators are co-sponsors or opponents of SB1565, we wanted to let them know where we as constituents stood on the issue. We hope you can join us for our next Springfield excursion, but until then…

Find your Senator, ask where she/he stands on SB1565, and let her/him know that you support SB1565 to raise the minimum wage in Illinois to $10.65/hour over the next four years.

/ryan wallace/

How Long Would It Take for Mitt Romney to Make Your Salary?

2012-01-30T15:47:00.000-06:00

With the recent release of Mitt Romney's 2010 tax returns, which list his total income for the year at $21.6 million, many of you may be wondering, "Just how long would it take Mitt Romney to earn my annual salary?"

Never fear! Slate has created a Romney Income Calculator just for you!

Simply plug in your annual income, hit "Calculate", and you will see in hours, minutes, and seconds how long it would take Mitt Romney to earn your salary.

Give a whirl, and then, if you're feeling gutsy, post the response in the comments section below.

I won't reveal how embarrassingly quickly Mitt Romney earned my salary last year, but I will say that, according to this little gizmo, it would take me 601 years 8 months 13 days 15 hours 2 minutes and 24 seconds to earn his. Brilliant.

The iPhone and Job Multipliers

2012-01-23T17:58:00.000-06:00

The American economy has been in a poor state for a while now. That much is obvious. Here is an awesome, easy to understand, video explanation that has little to do with what happened in 2008 and digs at the fundamental issues that are threatening social mobility and job creation:

New York Times: iPhone Economy

Romney, income inequality, and our deep seated jealousy

2012-01-12T14:45:00.006-06:00

This morning on the Today Show, Mitt Romney told Matt Lauer that the problem of wealth inequality is not inherent unfairness of a flawed, biased system, but petty jealousy of the "unsuccessful." Lauer questioned Romney's usage of the word "envy" when addressing those who question the policies of Wall Street or the disproportionate distribution of wealth

"You know, I think it’s about envy. I think it’s about class warfare. When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the 99 percent versus one percent — and those people who have been most successful will be in the one percent — you have opened up a whole new wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God. The American people, I believe in the final analysis, will reject it."

As the GOP's presumptive nominee for president (someone at MSNBC said the "Romin-ee" - you're welcome), it is more than a little concerning that he would so forcefully insist that such discussions are for "quiet rooms" and abstractions, rather than something that should be brought to the attention of the American people. In fact, the conflict between rich and poor is in the consciousness of the nation already, whether Gov. Romney likes it or not. A new Pew survey out today shows that a full two-thirds of Americans perceive the social tensions caused by income inequality as "very strong" or "strong."

Apart from his denial of the blatantly obvious, what most troubles me about Romney's statement is that he believes that questioning systems which give power to the very few while making all others beholden to such a system is inconsistent with the nature of God. As Christians, we can see God through the witness of Christ's life on earth - one of confronting the Temple structure when it concerned itself with promoting its own power rather than caring for those in need. These were and are the 99% to which Mitt Romney seems so indifferent.

As the GOP candidates move through the primaries, striving for the title of most evangelical, we need to continue to remind them that Christianity calls for the care of the least among us. Now that is evangelism.

"They Are Powerful Garments."

2012-01-04T13:53:00.000-06:00


From cnn.com

Just food for thought here:

The 2008 Canadian Federal Election will probably be remembered most for the blue sweater that Prime Minister Stephen Harper wore in a series of commercials that Reason Partners created.

The campaign was created to address the political opposition and media portrayal of Mr. Harper being “scary, cold and aloof” and at the same time attract more female votes.
With most political advertising these days, the emphasis is on defaming your opponent, often using the most unscrupulous means available.

We took the opposite approach by ignoring the opposition altogether and focusing instead on the truth and reality of Prime Minister Harper’s devotion to his family and his overall ideals, which are largely shared by most Canadians.

An optimistic approach and vision for the country.

The series of commercials worked right from the beginning, as the idea went massively viral.

It was mentioned in a pop song by the Barenaked Ladies, Billy Talent and K-OS. It was lampooned by comedians on and off the air. It was written about by fashion consultants. There were popular YouTube parodies. Not to mention, that it dwarfed all the other political parties ads combined on YouTube. It directly affected the sales of sweater vests in Canada. And it was the reference point for most media coverage during the election, including the NY Times and LA times.

It was integrated everywhere and into everything, including the Prime Minister’s campaign jet, nick-named the ‘Sweater Vest Jet’ by the media.

Perhaps the most memorable line during the English language debate was when the NDP’s Jack Layton said, “Where’s your platform Mr. Harper? Under the sweater?” Funny. But even funnier, as the CBC’s Rosemary Barton noted later in the campaign, “Jack Layton is now wearing a blue sweater.” And that, “Layton, pushing his bid to be Prime Minister this time round, is actually taking a page from the PM’s playbook. After a week away, one wonders if a sweater will ever just be a sweater again.” It was also noted that the Liberals, Stephane Dion and the Green Party’s Elizabeth May followed suit, err, sweater vest, as they both started wearing one in their respective party’s colour.

The Conservatives won the election. And for the first time, more women voted Conservative than Liberal. The Conservatives also had the best percentage gain in the popular vote versus the competition.

-Reason Partners

The quote in the title is from a friend of mine who wishes to remain nameless because he works for the man.

-Tim

Mitt recognizes faulty bootstraps, changes entire political philosophy

2011-12-16T17:08:00.004-06:00

Sike! Gov. Romney still believes social safety nets are for the illusive "poor", definitely not for him or anyone he ever came in contact with before he entered politics. BUT! During the debate in Sioux City last night, Romney threw out this jab at President Obama:

"I think the president is going to ... go after me and say, 'You know, in businesses that you've invested in, they didn't all succeed. Some failed. Some laid people off. And he'll be absolutely right.' But if you look at all the businesses we invested in, over a hundred different businesses, they added tens of thousands of jobs. In the real world that the president has not lived in -- I actually think he doesn't understand that: that not every business succeeds, that not every entrepreneur is lucky enough to do as well as the entrepreneurs that I described ... I myself have had the chance of leading four different organizations. Each of those was highly successful, in part because of hard work, in part because of good luck.

As Liz Lemon might say, "What the what?" Hard work is only part of the #winning equation? He goes on to point out the president's handling of the GM bailout resulted in the closing of factories to save the company, which is what Romney did in his business pre-politics life, which is why the president doesn't understand economics? That part doesn't really matter (or make a lot of sense). What matters is that he recognized that sometimes, you can try your darnedest, and fail. Sometimes, you tug on your bootstraps, at they just pull right off.

As Christians, we can see the causes for such a footwear malfunction: systems of injustice and oppression which give all the "luck" to some people, at the cost of keeping others chronically in debt, jobless, and homeless. Jesus knew this, too. How could the people he healed even begin to live a life of integrity when the religious institution and the Roman Empire thrived off their required submission? We are compelled to respond as Jesus responded, to heal the individual and the community, to extend humanity to people in every capacity of life.

We live in a country where success is a commodity, and luck a privilege. While Mitt Romney might have accidentally stumbled upon inequality, he only scratched the surface of disenfranchisement in the United States. There is a reason some people have all the luck.

Theology <-> Politics

2011-12-14T14:21:00.001-06:00

I need not discredit philosophy by laborious criticism of its arguments. It will suffice if I show that as a matter of history it fails to prove its pretension to be "objectively" convincing. In fact, philosophy does so fail. It does not banish differences; it founds schools and sects just as feeling does. I believe, in fact, that the logical reason of man operates in this field of divinity exactly as it has always operated in love, or in patriotism, or in politics, or in an other of the wider affairs of life, which our passions or our mystical intuitions fix our beliefs beforehand. It finds arguments for our conviction, for indeed it has to find them. It amplifies and defines our faith, and dignifies it and lends it words and plausibility. It hardly ever engenders it; it cannot now secure it.

-William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience

I'd just as soon argue that theology, too often, does much of the same. So back to my age old question: Does our theology inform our politics, or does it merely serve to, as James puts it, find arguments for our convictions?

-Tim

Who is spreading the "religion is private" rumor, and how can I stop it?

2011-12-11T13:27:00.009-06:00

Whenever I come across someone opining on the question of religion in America, I'm interested, because I myself get pretty opine-y about that very subject. And when it comes up in a national media outlet, say, the New York Times, I get my hopes up, because the Grey Lady has standards. However, I was fairly disappointed this morning when I read Eric Weiner's opinion article, Americans: Undecided About God?.

Weiner invoked the growing "spiritual, but not religious" (which is like nails on a chalkboard for this writer) contingency in the United States, blaming religion's effort to influence the political sphere as the catalyst for the trend.

"Their idea is that we’ve mixed politics and religion so completely that many simply opt out of both; apparently they are reluctant to claim a religious affiliation because they don’t want the political one that comes along with it."

I'm not sure I can swallow such a hypothesis. People are turned off by "institutional religion" (*see "spiritual, but not religious") for many reasons: hypocrisy, perceived exclusions, rigidness, promotion of antiquated practices, etc. That a specific denomination (as it seems Weiner is actually speaking of, rather than Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, as a whole) supports certain public policy is an outgrowth of a particular understanding of theology. No religion exists neatly packaged apart from human existence. Teachings compel concrete responses. But Weiner seems to long for a more sterilized understanding of God:

"Religion and politics, though often spoken about in the same breath, are, of course, fundamentally different. Politics is, by definition, a public activity. Though religion contains large public components, it is at core a personal affair... There lies the problem: how to talk about the private nature of religion publicly."

This guy has traveled extensively as a correspondent for NPR, won a Peabody award, and written a book about finding God, and yet he still states rather cavalierly something at which a first semester seminary student would gawk. Religion is a private affair?! Nothing could be further from the truth. Christianity (the only religion on which I can speak with any sense of authority) introduces a way to live in a community that reflects God's mercy and grace. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism (as emphasized by Dr. Barry Bryant) spoke of piety, the love of God, and mercy, the love of neighbor, as twin components of the Christian faith. You cannot love God without extending compassion and justice to world around you. Whether Weiner likes it or not, religion is public.

He ends his article waxing poetically about a religion for the non-religious, yearning for a "Steve Jobs of religion" who can "invent a new way of being religious." Well, Mr. Weiner, the individualistic fulfillment you crave exists within the confines of modern consumerism and capitalism, but you are correct in assessing that you won't find it in the Bible, or most any religious text. I feel as though you might be looking in the wrong places (read: the television) for the religion you seek. That new way of being religious exists around you, in churches, shelters, agencies, seminaries, and many other places where people are attempting to live in the world as an expression of God's love. And as it turns out, that way of being religious is not new at all.

Mitt Romney Believes in America and So Should You!!: Part 2

2011-12-09T16:14:00.004-06:00

***This is part 2 of a post on Mitt Romney's campaign ad, "Believe in America." If you haven't yet had a chance to read part 1, you can scroll down and find it on the right hand side under "Blog Archive."***

So as it turns out, Romney’s campaign voluntarily admitted the full context of Obama’s comments in a blog post written by Gail Gitcho, a Romney spokeswoman, the very same day the ad was released:

“Three years ago, candidate Barack Obama mocked his opponent’s campaign for saying ‘if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.’ Now, President Obama’s campaign is desperate not to talk about the economy…Now, the tables have turned – President Obama and his campaign are doing exactly what candidate Obama criticized. President Obama and his team don’t want to talk about the economy and have tried to distract voters from President Obama’s abysmal economic record.”

From this statement, it seems that Romney’s campaign is suggesting that their ad is actually pointing out the hypocrisy of 2008 Obama’s criticism of McCain in light of the fact that 2011 Obama is ‘desperate not to talk about the economy.’

But am I honestly supposed to accept that Romney’s campaign sincerely believes the American public would pick up on that subtle, highly implied criticism in a 60-second TV ad? Or, just as unlikely, that more than a few thousand voters will read Gitcho’s full explanation of the ad? No. The reality is that the Romney campaign’s intention was to make Obama look bad in the eyes of the general American public, while pre-empting the response from the Obama camp and generating extra media attention in the process. A media strategist might say that they achieved their goals. But as a citizen interested in seeing more honesty and integrity in our politics, I am irritated—though sadly, not surprised.

Look, I’m not trying to make Obama into a saint on this matter. His 2008 comments on McCain’s campaign strategy were sensationalized and somewhat decontextualized in their own right. We can debate who was more deceptive, but the bottom line is that we need to learn to think for ourselves. Rather than take politicians’ words at face value, we need to critically examine their statements, their sources, and their motives. It is the responsibility of both the public and the news media to avoid being manipulated by highly-paid political strategists and well-crafted rhetoric.

We are accustomed to throwing up our hands and saying, “That’s politics for you!” We label idealistic (or worse, naïve) those people—like me—who believe that we can cultivate a political system grounded in honesty and transparency. But collectively, we have the power to hold accountable those who prevent this very system from taking root.

Mitt Romney Believes in America and So Should You!!: Part 1

2011-12-09T15:42:00.000-06:00

Mitt Romney, who is running for the Republican Party’s nomination for President in 2012, released a new TV spot a couple weeks ago. It’s title—“Believe in America”—proves once again that campaign slogans are always moronic. Check it out...

The first half of the ad uses audio from Barack Obama’s speech to New Hampshire residents in October of 2008, just weeks before the national election. Graphic overlays (highlighting what Romney perceives to be Obama’s greatest economic failures in office to date) claim in no uncertain terms that Obama has not lived up to his promises. But the real knockout punch comes when Obama says, “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”

Romney is clearly capitalizing on this rather embarrassing oratory gaffe by Obama. I mean, how could the President have implied that discussing a plan to rebuild our economy isn’t a constructive use of our time? Well…he didn’t. Before you jump to any conclusions, I’m not insinuating that Romney’s campaign actually doctored a video of Obama! I am, however, suggesting that Romney took that line from Obama’s speech completely out of context. You can read the full transcript of Obama’s October 2008 speech if you like, but here is the direct context for his statement on the economy:

“Even as we face the most serious economic crisis of our time; even as you are worried about keeping your jobs or paying your bills or staying in your homes, my opponent's [John McCain’s] campaign announced earlier this month that they want to "turn the page" on the discussion about our economy so they can spend the final weeks of this election attacking me instead. Senator McCain's campaign actually said, and I quote, ‘if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.’…But here's what Senator McCain doesn't seem to understand. With the economy in turmoil and the American Dream at risk, the American people don't want to hear politicians attack each other - you want to hear about how we're going to attack the challenges facing middle class families each and every day. You want to hear about the issues that matter in your lives. You want to hear about how we're going to bring about the change that we desperately need for our country. That's what the American people want to hear. So let's debate our genuine differences on the issues that matter.”

So, what President Obama actually said was more like, “If we don’t keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.” It looks as if Mitt Romney is attempting to criticize Obama for a statement that Obama himself was in fact criticizing. Or is he?

Check back on the blog tomorrow to find out how Romney's campaign explained the ad and what I think is really going on here...

/ryan wallace/

Silly Government, Taxes are for Everyone!

2011-11-22T13:06:00.002-06:00

Have you ever read Illinois’ State Constitution in its entirety? Be honest. And it doesn't count if the last time you "read" it was in 8th grade history. Well, go ahead and take a few moments to read over the preamble—it's only a paragraph. Not surprisingly, it's saturated with language relating God's providence and extolling lofty ideals of justice and equality. And unless you're a political history buff or you're over the age of 55, then you, like me, might assume that it was written way back in the day (more precisely, 1818) when Illinois was incorporated into the Union. But you’d be wrong. In fact, our current Constitution was written a mere four decades ago in 1970. And that little historical detail, to put it bluntly, gives me the urge to smash something in rage.

You see, when I thought the Constitution was written in 1818, I had an easier time swallowing the first sentence of Article IX Section 3: “A tax on or measured by income shall be at a non-graduated rate.” Being the generous man I am, I was going to give the 1818 authors of the Constitution the benefit of the doubt and presume that this edict outlawing a graduated income tax was not in direct conflict with some of the core values put forth in the preamble (i.e. the elimination of poverty and inequality, and the assurance of economic justice). But for those holding the pens in 1970, living in a modern society not all that different from our present one, this incongruity could not possibly have escaped them. Now, I will—once again, on account of my generosity—concede that modern Illinoisans are significantly more unequal (in terms of their pre-tax incomes) than their 1970 counterparts, which means that a flat income tax would have been less unfair 40 years ago than it is today. However, a regressive tax system is...well, regressive. It is inherently unequal and cannot engender real economic justice by any stretch of the imagination.

Many of my fellow Illinois citizens agree with me that our tax system is unfair. However, some contend that it is unfair not for the poor, but for the wealthiest taxpayers. They decry a tax system that allows the average person in the bottom 20% of earners to pay only $1,300 a year in state taxes, while the average person in the top 1% forks over $102,000 in state taxes.[1] Although that line of reasoning certainly makes it seem as though the wealthy are paying more than their fair share, we must consider effective tax rates to understand what a 'fair share' really is.

Effective tax rates are the most accurate measure of tax burden because they reveal just how much of a person's total income he or she is spending on taxes. So, the average person in the bottom 20% of earners may only pay $1,300 a year in taxes, but since he only makes $10,100 a year, he’s paying an effective state tax rate of 13.0%. Conversely, the average person in the top 1% of Illinois earners who pays $102,000 a year in taxes earns $2,084,700, which makes her effective rate only 4.9%. So even though wealthy Illinois taxpayers contribute a much greater sum of money to the state, the poorest taxpayers give more than two and a half times as much when taxes are considered as shares of their incomes.

To put it in different terms, after taxes the average person in the bottom 20% is left with $8,787 to live on while the average person in the top 1% has $1,982,549.70.

So, we must ask: “Is this tax structure really the best we can come up with to ‘eliminate poverty and inequality’ and ‘assure economic justice?’”

/ryan wallace/

[1] Primary state taxes in Illinois include sales and excise taxes, property tax, and both personal and corporate income tax. For more information on Illinois’ tax system, read this report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

Herman Cain, the Model United Nations Student

2011-11-15T16:33:00.002-06:00

When I was in high school, I was involved with something called Model United Nations, which was basically an exercise in students dressing up in their parent's gigantic formal clothes, and going to conferences where they debated topics they knew very little about. Now I don't disparage the program, because it was actually quite formative in opening up my world view and exposing me to tons of issues (like the debates over throwing trash away in space...COPUOS anyone?). But let's be real here. For the majority of us participants, our knowledge about things like state-sponsored terrorism were not up to even Wikipedia standards.

With such a shallow pool of facts and critiques to draw from, students were often left to bring up the same talking points over and over and over again. Once someone found a shtick that worked for them, they held onto it for dear life, and with the utmost conviction. For example, one notorious classmate of mine, no matter what proposal you offered, would always get up and demand to know where the funding would come from. Brilliant! The art of saying something while saying absolutely nothing at all. Which brings me to Herman Cain:

Brilliant! I am actually quite impressed, once he gets going, with his ability to confidently hammer home a non-point over and over again. I am pretty sure Cain would've won the MUN Best Delegate Award multiple times.

-Tim

Meet the Williamsons

2011-11-03T08:59:00.007-05:00

          Maybe you know a family like the Williamsons. Despite two full-time incomes, Mary and Jeffrey Williamson cannot adequately provide for their family of five, which also includes their teenage daughter, Angelica, their middle child, Jake, and their toddler, Marcus. Looking back, they realize how good they had it just a couple years ago. Mary worked part-time and took care of the kids, and Jeffrey had a union construction job that paid him a wage they could live on. But the virtual collapse of the construction industry cost Jeffrey his job, and left him with little recourse but to settle for a minimum wage job as a cashier at a grocery store. Mary was fortunate that the diner where she worked part-time as a waitress was able to start giving her full-time hours, but she too makes only minimum wage, even with her tips.

            If the Williamsons were members of your church, how would you expect your congregation to respond in their time of need? Presumably, you would walk with them and find creative ways to help get them back on their feet. After all, that’s what the community of the Church is all about. The pastor might offer temporary financial assistance, a few members might tap into their business networks to help find Jeffrey a decent job, and other members might volunteer to watch the Williamsons' kids after school while Mary took an extra shift at the diner a couple days a week.

            If you open up a newspaper these days, you don’t have to look far to find a story on unemployment or underemployment. The deflating reality is that the Williamsons are not an outlier. They are just one of hundreds of families in your surrounding community who find themselves in a constant struggle to make ends meet. You wonder to yourself, “How is our church supposed to respond to all these families?” Your church doesn’t have the resources to help everyone. But more importantly, it’s clear that there is a much larger issue at hand. There’s no question that your church should continue to support the Williamsons however it can. But shouldn’t the church also be asking how it’s possible that a family with two full-time incomes has to choose between paying rent and having enough to eat this month?

            If you take a closer look at the minimum wage, the federal poverty line, and real cost-of-living figures in Illinois, it wouldn’t take you long to realize that things don’t add up quite right. Since Mary and Jeffrey each work full-time at minimum wage ($8.25 in Illinois), they’re earning roughly $34,320 a year before taxes. According the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the federal poverty line for a family of five is $26,170. As a result, the Williamsons don’t qualify for public assistance programs like SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) or TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). But wait a minute…we already know that their $34,000 a year isn’t enough to get by. Needless to say, the federal poverty line is no longer an accurate metric. So what does it really mean to be ‘in poverty?’ Or to put it another way, how much would Mary and Jeffrey actually have to earn to be self-sufficient in providing for their family of five? According to the Social IMPACT Research Center, Mary and Jeffrey would need to bring in over $60,000 together—nearly twice what they can earn at the current minimum wage. To put that into perspective, they would each need to work full-time at a rate of $14.25 an hour just to earn enough to pay for the basics for their family. And I do mean the basics. That means rent, groceries, health care, clothing, childcare, school books and supplies, and transportation. We’re not talking about vacations, after-school tutoring, savings for college, birthday gifts, summer camp, or even a family night out to the movies.

            Some of the folks who oppose raising the minimum wage in Illinois have voiced concern that the added expense to businesses that employ minimum-wage workers would force them to cut jobs, which, at the end of the day, only further exacerbates the problem. This is a valid concern and a logical conclusion to draw. But, as it turns out, a recent national study comparing job growth in bordering counties with differing minimum wages has effectively proven that increases in minimum wage do not affect job growth. Additionally, several other studies have demonstrated that raising the minimum wage actually saves businesses money (by reducing employee turnover and thus the cost of training new employees), generates new revenue for businesses (by increasing worker productivity), and creates a better work environment (by significantly elevating employee morale).

            From an economic standpoint, there is also strong evidence that suggests we should raise the minimum wage. It's been estimated that raising the minimum wage would generate over $1 billion in new consumer spending in Illinois over the next four years. Raising the minimum wage means putting more money in the pockets of families like the Williamsons who will turn around and spend that money every month, primarily on goods and services in their own local communities. And if that’s not convincing, I imagine most of us would agree that minimum wage should, at the very least, grow at the same rate as our economy. However, as our economy has expanded, minimum wage has lagged behind. If minimum wage had simply kept pace with inflation over the past forty years, it would be over $10 an hour today.

            No doubt there are some convincing reasons to support a raise in minimum wage. It would ease the burden on financially vulnerable individuals and families, it would benefit businesses in a number of ways, and it would pump some much-needed new revenue into our flailing state economy. These are indispensible arguments we should bring to the public square to bolster our appeal. But if you consider yourself a person of faith, I really shouldn’t have to work so hard to convince you to support an increase in the minimum wage. When it comes down to it, we’re talking about standing with some of our most vulnerable neighbors, like the Williamsons, insisting that their stories be heard and their lives valued the same as yours and mine.

~ryan wallace

Go to Raise Illinois to learn more and take action.

Bonhoeffer in a Time of Global Crisis

2011-11-02T13:16:00.000-05:00

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a theologian and pastor who was hung for his involvement in an assassination attempt against Hitler during World War II. Here, Ric Hudgens looks through Bonhoeffer's eyes and offers a method by which to engage today's global crisis. Please take the time to click on the link and read the rest of the article.

Ric Hudgens/What did Bonhoeffer See?:

What might have led someone as insightful, brave, and devout as Dietrich Bonhoeffer to turn towards the Sermon on the Mount and the practice of communal discipleship as the appropriate initiative for engaged Christians in a time of global crisis. What did Bonhoeffer see in Jesus’ sermon for such a time as that? What might we still see for such a time as ours?

Bonhoeffer saw in the Sermon on the Mount the resources for responding to the German crisis in at least three ways. First, he saw that the Sermon contained the resources for resistance to National Socialism, German patriotism, and the war. Resistance would be practiced not just in subversive anti-government actions, but also in the formation of a church that could not be seduced by the false promises of blood and soil. Crucial to the practice of cultural resistance was the formation of a Christian people, a confessing church, trained in and practicing the Sermon on the Mount without compromise.

Second, Bonhoeffer saw that the Sermon and the founding of a “new type of monasticism” would lay the foundations for a new social order after the war was over. It did not matter whether Germany won this war or not (and it was clear through Bonhoeffer’s efforts that he hoped for Germany’s defeat); what mattered was establishing centers for renewal where a new type of recovery could begin and a new type of society be established. These were in reality communities of and for the future, not communities trying to preserve or recreate an idyllic past.

Finally, Bonhoeffer saw that the Sermon on the Mount was the key resource for the restoration and renewal of the church and the church’s capacity to recover her voice as God’s people. The Barmen Declaration had unmasked the false religion of the established church for the idolatry that it was. A renewed church where Christians were catechized in the Sermon on the Mount would not look like the mainline churches that had been so susceptible to the appeal of National Socialism. It would be a church founded upon and shaped by Christ alone.

More...

Cleverness, Not Justice

2011-10-21T09:58:00.000-05:00

In response to national debate on wealth disparity and Warren Buffett’s call to stop coddling the rich, Protestants for the Common Good board member, Nancy Brandt, shares the following thoughts:

Those against tax fairness at the federal level have proposed an answer to Warren Buffett’s rule that his effective tax rate should not be lower than that of the people who work for him. They have introduced H.R. 3099, Buffett Rule Act of 2011, which allows people like Warren Buffett to donate their taxes to the federal government.

That is superficially clever, but it begs the question and proposes a substitute for what really should take place.

Our problems will never be solved without systemic change in the tax code. The Governmental tax system does not need charity from Warren Buffett or anyone else; it needs fairness built into it: that would be justice.

When the World Ends

2011-10-20T03:53:00.000-05:00

What is the point of the Church?

It can be the institutionalized body that keeps the gospel message alive through passing it along families and bringing in new converts. It can be more of a social club whose purpose is to provide a space for those with common interests to gather and do things together. It can be something of a support group for disparate and similar people to support one another in the name of a binding doctrine. It can be a place for those with common hopes to work towards an end (eschatology style, meaning the end of time and not something more temporal like lets build a shelter together) goal. It can be a mix of all these things or a few of them or maybe you think none of the suggestions I have put forth are correct.

But grant me, if you will, my last definition and disagree with me on it at the end if you still want to. When I think of this primarily eschatological argument, I am immediately drawn to think of the sorts of Anglo-Evangelical ideas that believe in the literal translation of Revelations, the rapture that will come when all have heard the message of Christ, the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem, etc. We need not get into all of the theological and political ramifications that those particular beliefs have produced. Instead, if we focus on eschatology in a different way, it is possible to understand and see a hope for end things that is not explicitly about end things at all. Rather, the end things are more of a way to focus our attention acutely on what is actually happening before us right now.

To offer up a metaphor, lets say that I was someone who believed the end goal of my life was to have children to carry on my good name, and any person worth a damn should do the same (I am in the stage of my life where children ages 5-18 annoy me to death so this is just a metaphor). That does not mean that the steps I take in the time between now and my demise are merely about this end goal. The person I fall in love with, I should be in love with (hopefully) from start to end, and with a love that is for love's sake and not just so that I can die knowing there are other human beings that have my unusually large palms. This is why I would argue against reductionists who see human action as primarily a matter of biology, neurology, etc.

Ok, I hope you're still with me.

All this is to say that my biggest concern with Occupy Wall Street has been that it will lead no where. What will come of this? What if it all fizzles away and the rich CEOs are only spurred on to fight harder for the status quo? What is the end goal suppose to look like?

If you ask me, I see in the eschatology of Occupy Wall Street the same sort of eschatology that the Church does know, and if not, should know. An end where the meek inherit the earth, the ones who hunger for justice are satisfied, and those who mourn are comforted.

There are theories of culture, and movements, and organizing that can be used to show why these seemingly shepherdess sheep who are hanging out together in parks and street corners are building the ground swelling for true change. I hope that is true. But I also see an eschatological hope in play here. This is a not a moment merely for an end that is hoped for, where success and failure are defined by consequences. It is a moment because of an end that is believed in. And that doesn't make it any less valuable.

-Tim

Justice Will Surely Follow

2011-10-18T11:43:00.000-05:00

by Ryan Wallace

Stop! Put aside all the other things cluttering your mind for a moment, and follow me as we float away from this world into Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood of Make-Believe. You and I appear there amidst a sea of people. Ok, the people aren’t literally a sea...there’s just a whole bunch of them. In fact, it’s every last one of the 6,967,766,637 (and counting) other people who were living with us in the Old World. The only difference is: we can’t remember who we are. We can all recall the details, purposes, and values of our societies and cultures at large in the Old World, but no one can seem to recollect who he or she was individually. That is, memory of your family history, your skills, your social standing, your education, your occupation, your personal wealth, and everything else that makes up your personal identity has mysteriously vanished. Confusion reigns over the neighborhood. Suddenly, on an oversized screen to your right, you watch three people you have never before seen file onto a stage and settle themselves behind three identical podiums. What is going on? Who are they? Who are you?

“You have been gathered here,” one of them announced, “because you have lost control over your own societies. We can no longer idly stand by as you destroy the earth and trample upon one another.” Another picked up, “You have left us no choice but to initiate a ‘reset.’ None of you has any recollection of your identity in the world as you knew it. This is because you will no longer be you. Though you will soon return to your world, you will return with a new identity. Just who you will be…well, that is what we are here to determine. You will have no knowledge of your new identity, your social standing, or any other details until you return to your world.” The only remaining luminary who had yet to speak continued on, “Together, you will decide one another’s fate. Before returning to your world, you must come to a consensus on how resources will be distributed. How will wealth be shared? Who will have the power? Which groups will receive a good education? Whose voices will be heard?” The figure who had spoken first—and who seemed to be the leader of this delegation—concluded the message saying, “As you make these decisions, give careful consideration to the fact that you may be placed anywhere within this new world order. We can assure you that you will have no control.”

I don’t know about you, but for me, this fairytale narrative is a pretty powerful demonstration of our deeply inculturated sense of justice as fairness and equality. It would be expected that if we were charged with reordering civilization without any knowledge whatsoever of who we would be in that new world, we would devise a world with remarkable equality. Why? Well, would you want to create a world in which there was a possibility you would be assigned to a position of abject poverty? This story I’ve invented is an adaptation of the late 20^th century philosopher John Rawls’ social contract. Rawls proposed that if a veil of ignorance were to shield us from knowledge of our own identity, we would arrive at an original position from which we would be able to make perfectly selfless and moral decisions in the interest of the common good. Essentially, if we did not know enough to favor ourselves over others, then we would be compelled to advocate for equality—maybe not communistic equality, but nevertheless, a society vastly more equal than the one in which we currently live.

I happen to find Rawls’ line of thinking both intuitive and insightful. Yet, the more time I spend considering it, what strikes me is that, as a Christian, I shouldn’t need a veil of ignorance to understand the way things should be. As a Christian, I should (theoretically) be fully aware of my identity and still understand that I am called to spend my entire life advocating for distributive justice—even if that redistribution happens to mean taking money out of my own pocket. In a thousand different ways, Jesus communicates that caring for others is our responsibility. In this sense, ‘sin’ is a violation of our relationality. When we do not treat one another—or the earth for that matter—with the utmost respect and dignity, then we have committed a sin. And when we put our own needs and desires above those which contribute to the common good, we have sinned.

The widespread ‘occupy’ protests and the ‘We are the 99 percent’ campaigns have undoubtedly been politically and socially divisive. But if we can manage to put aside the partisan political issues for a moment, what we can see is a group of people committed to protecting the common good. You may disagree with these movements’ positions on certain policy matters or the tactics they use to convey their points, but I implore you to recognize and respect their dedication to seeking justice for all people. But whatever your reaction may be, the reality is that we are living amidst the greatest economic inequality in the history of our country. To put it another way, we are living in the sort of society that no one in the original position would ever choose. In fact, a recent study backed up this idea that we are drawn towards fairness and equality by revealing that: 1) Americans believe that our wealth is distributed much more equally than it really is—for example, we believe that the top 20% holds only 59% of the wealth when in fact it’s closer to 84%, and 2) The average American’s ideal distribution of wealth is even more equitable—we give only 32% of wealth to the top 20% in our ideal distribution. And all this while still knowing where we personally stand in the hierarchy of wealth!

But since I don’t foresee a trip to a make-believe neighborhood where we can reorder the social structures of the world anytime soon, the question we must consider is: What can we do today to make things more just tomorrow? As humans, I believe we have a deeply ingrained sense that relative equality is just and fair. As Americans, we have voiced our dream of a more equitable economic system. And as Christians, I am convinced that we are called by God to bring justice to every corner of our world, including our economic systems. Simply put, we are charged with reforming that which does not serve the common good.

Now after spending all this time trying to persuade you to advocate for economic equality, I’d like to finish by making a succinct case that it should not be our end goal. Instead, we should view equality as but one outcome of a far greater end. If we aim above all for the love, respect, and dignity of all people, then economic justice will surely follow. If you learn to truly love your neighbors, I am quite confident that you will not let them go hungry, and neither will you cease to ask the question, “Why is there not enough for everyone?”

Occupy Wall Street and the Church

2011-10-12T14:06:00.001-05:00

This week in Chicago, masses of people gathered for Occupy Wall Street marches, the largest such action that has occurred here so far. With what has already been happening in New York, and with the movement growing across the country (if not in bodies, at least in minds), it would seem we have a reached a point where the protests can no longer be written of as an inconsequential hippie party.

As I have tried to wrap my head around all of this for the past few weeks, admittedly with equal parts skepticism and hope, I have begun to view these current events from a different perspective. At the forefront of my turning was Ezra Klein's blog post on wearethe99percent.tumblr.com, which unfortunately has been taken down for some reason. If you have seen it and find it, let me know. But more recently, I read an amazing piece by Matt Stoller, entitled, "#OccupyWallStreet is a Church of Dissent, and Not a Protest."

What these people are doing is building, for lack of a better word, a church of dissent. It’s not a march, though marches are spinning off of the campground. It’s not even a protest, really. It is a group of people, gathered together, to create a public space seeking meaning in their culture. They are asserting, together, to each other and to themselves, “we matter”.

You can tell this is a somewhat different animal than other politicized gatherings. No one knows what to expect. There are no explicit demands. It’s not very large. And yet, celebrities are heading to Zuccotti Park. Wall Street traders are sneering and angry. The people there are getting press, but aren’t dominated by it. People are there just to be there, because it feels meaningful. The camp is clean and well-organized, and it feels relevant and topical rather than a therapy space for frustrated radicals. Just a block away is the New York Fed, a large, scary, and imposing building with heavy iron doors, video cameras, and a police presence that scream “go away”.

For as much criticism as I have read (this is nothing but AdBusters' efforts to create meaningless chaos, these young people didn't vote and the Tea Party took the House creating a bigger mess, what the hell is the point of this, etc.), the analogy that Stoller is arguing for makes all of that something of a moot point. As a Christian, such criticism is the exact kind of stuff that I have lobbed personally at the Church, and somehow it (the Church) still makes sense. Could we be looking at something of a religious movement?

More on the religious nature of Occupy Wall Street tomorrow.

-Tim

#OccupyChurch

2011-10-11T15:11:00.006-05:00

You might have heard some increased chatter pertaining to large groups gathering in cities around the nation protesting... ummm... big banks? disproportionate distribution of wealth? lack of government oversight? Lots of things, really. If you haven't, you can read about it here (NYC), here (Chicago), or here (DC). The protesters have been called "mobs... pitting Americans against Americans" by Majority Leader Cantor, but Minority Leader Pelosi said that has more to do with him than the demonstrators. Anyway, there is a lot of opinion out there about the Occupy movement, much of which I am unqualified to respond to with any sense of authority. My hat is, for better or worse, thrown in the proverbial ring of theological response. And until today, the only thing I could muster was that the greed perpetuated by unbridled capitalism and rewarded by a neglectful system is so obviously unbiblical that stating it seemed patronizing to anyone who might listen. What virtue is more evident in Christian texts than care for the poor, and what vice more deplorable than defrauding the marginalized?

Today, however, in a wonderful sermon by United Methodist pastor Rev. Amy DeLong (you might remember her from the trial this summer addressing homosexuality and the UMC), I was reminded of an idolatry that accompanies greed - the internalization of scarcity. Rev. DeLong spoke of the feeding of the 5000 in Matthew's gospel. The disciples wanted to send the crowd home so they could feed themselves, but Jesus told the disciples to feed them. The disciples protested, pointing out that they did not have enough food to go around. But Jesus told the disciples to feed them. And when they did, there was enough, and even more than enough. Because there is no scarcity in Christ.

And it seems that this is the heart of the Occupy protests. There is enough for everyone to have enough. The government's job is not to provide tax shelters to the rich (I think we can all agree their voice is pretty effectively heard), but to provide protective shelter to the vulnerable in its midst. As Christians, Jesus tells us to feed the crowd, without verifying their citizenship, without testing them for drugs, without questioning their sexuality.

The Occupy demonstrators are defying the theology of scarcity preached by those too cowardly to give freely, because those protestors know there is enough. They know each person, from a terminally unemployed worker to a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, is worthy of a life of integrity and purpose. There is enough life for all of us.

Rev. DeLong said that when you forgo justice in favor of personal or institutional preservation, then "the Gospel is a casualty of fear and damage control." Battling those in power (popularly elected or amassed in wealth) is imperative at this moment when so many have so little. The Church can and must gather strength enough to tell the world to feed the crowd.

Urge President Obama to Oppose the Keystone XL Pipeline

2011-10-11T13:30:00.000-05:00

The Keystone XL Pipeline is a proposed tar sands pipeline that would stretch 1700 miles from Alberta Canada to the Gulf Coast in Texas. It's a project proposed by TransCanada, and could ship up to 900,000 barrels of tar sand oil a day. This particular type of oil is difficult to extract and considered much dirtier than crude oil. (see fact sheet)

The pipeline would traverse Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas - passing under significant portions of our countrys agricultural heartland, and leaving our rivers and water aquifers at risk of pollution from pipeline leaks. In 2010 alone the Enbridge pipeline, which runs from Alberta through the great lake states, spilled over one million gallons of tar sands oil. TransCanada's recently completed Keystone pipeline has already had three spills.

The Keystone XL Pipeline is not worth the devastating environmental impacts it will cause - the potential for water, air, and land pollution is far too great, not to mention the health risks that come with increased emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and other toxins.

In order for the construction of the pipeline to begin, a presidential permit is required. In other words, President Obama has the power to prevent this pipeline from being built.

Please sign the petition and pass it along to others. Thank you for taking the time to act.