I need this

Available here

Jesus, Mark Zuckerberg, and the True Social Network

Here is Steve's sermon for tomorrow. He's preaching through Romans. Below he plays with the idea of network of faith in Christ,  the true social network--a connection of persons and Persons, which bridges all the differences on earth.

Romans 3:21-31,  May 1, 2011

“One Faith” Second Sunday in Easter

Two weeks ago I went to the barber to get a haircut for Easter. As he draped the apron over me, my barber Larry said, “You know, I saw you and your family at Costco a while back. You were across the store, so I couldn’t say hello, but you were there.”

As his scissors started to click away, I said, “You know, you’re the second person to tell me he saw us there that day. Joanna was home for spring break and we all just stopped in to Costco after seeing a movie at Gateway.”
Then Larry quit clipping and thought for a moment. “You know,” he said, “I think I was the one who said that to you. We talked about this the last time you got your hair cut.

I contemplated that for a bit, then told him, “I think you’re right. And if you tell it to me again next time, I’ll probably think three different people saw us that day!”

Larry’s first mention of sighting the Bilynskyjs at Costco was so long before I forgot where I heard it. I imagined there were two different people involved. That’s what happens sometimes when people read the Old Testament and then the New Testament. That God whom Jewish people encountered at Mt. Sinai and in Israel seems like a completely different person from the God the apostles and others encountered in Jesus Christ.
There almost seem to be two different religions, two different faiths presented to us as we turn from Old to New Testament. God dealt with the Jews one way. Now He deals with Christians in a new and better way. But that impression is just as wrong as my barber shop confusion about Larry’s sightings of our family.

One of the main reasons we get the idea that God is different in the Old Testament is this business of the Law, that long complicated list of rules that God directed Moses to give to Israel. That God was a God of rule and regulation. Our God, we say, is a God of grace.

So in this little chunk of Romans, Paul takes law head on and says in verse 21, “But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the prophets testify.” The only difference between Old and New Testament is now “the righteousness of God has been made known.” The Law told us about God’s righteousness, but now we can know it.
Children can feel a split personality in their parents. One moment Mom is all rules and law. Wash your hands after you use the bathroom. Eat your vegetables. Get home by 10 p.m. The next she is all grace and love and hugs and kisses like her children can do no wrong. But she’s the same mother. She just wants her kids to grow up as good people of character who love her like she loves them. She wants righteous children. So does God.

That’s why complete righteousness is the ultimate act of God’s work with human beings. He wants to give us what we do not have and cannot get on our own. Righteousness is what the law asked of the Jewish people, but their history in the Old Testament shows they could not produce it themselves. So in the end, God gave it to them, and to everyone.
Verse 22 says the righteousness of God is given through faith in Jesus Christ. Faith is the one way that God means human beings to receive righteousness. That’s why the end of verse 22 says, “There is no difference…” That’s all it says literally. Our TNIV translation adds the explanatory phrase “between Jew and Gentile.” But it’s more absolute than that. There is no difference between any human beings, however you select them, because, verse 23 tells us, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

There is the great unifying factor of the human race. You can talk about brotherhood or love or common needs or economic community or Facebook, but what really ties us together across all boundaries of race and gender and nationality and language is this: we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. As Paul has said right along, we have all failed to live up to God’s glorious design for good and fruitful lives, whether we know that plan from the written law or from our own consciences. So there’s no difference.
What Paul adds to that thought in this passage is the great good news of verse 24, “and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Jesus Christ.” That word “justified” needs to be explained. Even though English translators chose “justify,” it’s the same Greek root as that word from verse 22 translated “righteousness.” You could almost translate it, “and all are made righteous…”

The Gospel Paul teaches is that the righteousness of God, that glorious grand design for human life in His kingdom, which He first showed to the Jewish people in the law, is now being imparted to everyone, “by his grace through the redemption of Jesus Christ.”

I guess it’s dangerous to compare Jesus to Mark Zuckerberg, but Beth and I watched “The Social Network” a couple weeks ago about the creator and founder of Facebook. The story turns around the fact that two rich, athletic, connected students, twins Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss had an idea for an on-line student networking program at Harvard University. The Winklevoss twins enlisted Zuckerberg to write their program for them, but he took their idea and turned it into a social network not just for Harvard, but for any college that would adopt it and ultimately what we have today in Facebook, a network for the whole world.

Paul says that God took His own great idea, a glorious and righteous humanity living in His kingdom, which He first presented to Israel in the Law, and through Jesus Christ turned it into a program for everyone, for anyone.

God’s way of doing that is explained in verse 25, “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.” Jesus died on the Cross and shed His blood so that anyone could receive Him by faith. That’s what we read in the Gospel this morning as we saw Jesus showing Himself first to the disciples and then to Thomas. It was so they could believe. It was so everyone and anyone could believe. “Because you have seen me, you have believed;” Jesus says, “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” And John tells that Jesus did many, many things he didn’t have room or time to write down, “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

By believing, by faith—that’s how we connect to God in Jesus Christ. Zuckerberg’s vision was actually a bit limited, a community anyone can join if you have a computer and a connection to the Internet. God’s vision was a community that includes anyone anywhere who puts faith in Jesus. That network of faith is the connection which really bridges all the differences on earth.

Verse 25 continues to say that God “did this to demonstrate his justice,” but once again it’s that same word. It’s God’s righteousness that He demonstrated in the atoning work of Jesus. In the broken body and shed blood of His own Son, God showed us what righteousness, what real living looks like. It’s a life, it’s a whole community of people giving themselves to each other in sacrificial love.

That sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross is why, Paul goes on to tell us, God could forbear and leave previous sins, the sins of Israel and the rest of the human race unpunished. It was the great vision that even those sins, committed beforehand, could be forgiven in Jesus and that ultimately God would be just, would be righteous, and would justify, would make righteous everyone who has faith in Jesus.

The plot of the Facebook movie is all about who had the idea first, about intellectual property, about pride of innovation. The Winklevoss twins and ultimately Zuckerberg’s partner sue him to save their own pride of creating a great idea. But for Paul, God’s glory in the gift of righteousness through faith in Jesus completely excludes pride and boasting. That’s verse 27. Shall Jews boast because of their possession of the law? No, that law required works they could never perform. Neither they nor anyone else could never live up to the glory of the righteousness of God by working at it.
No, instead, the real law in God’s program is the “‘law’ that requires faith.” There is one and only one way to connect to God and His righteousness. That is the one faith He asks and offers to anyone who will receive it, to believe in Jesus Christ and to receive righteousness as a free gift.

So the rest of the passage pushes home the point of one way, one faith. Verse 28 says that “a person is justified [made righteous] apart from observing the law.” And verse 29 applies that to a current dispute and division between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. God is not just the God of Jews. He’s the God of Gentiles too.

Verse 30 addresses that confusion, which is as old as a heretic named Marcion, which makes us think the Old Testament God is different from the God of Jesus and the New Testament, and says, “there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised by faith.” There is no difference because there is only one way to God’s glorious righteousness. In all the Bible it’s only faith and that faith in finally and completely in Jesus Christ who shed His blood to remove our sins and give us His righteousness.

Let’s consider the implications of that one faith and that removal of difference between everyone who believes. When we log onto Facebook, we get to choose our friends. Our network isn’t really the world, it’s only the people whose “friend requests” we confirm. And if we decide we don’t like a friend we can remove them. As my friend Glenn mentioned to me Friday, “There was this one guy I just had to defriend. I couldn’t stand reading what he said any longer.”

But faith in Jesus Christ connects us and “friends” us to anyone who believes. That’s what Paul is trying to teach Jewish Christians about Gentiles. It’s what God wants to teach you and me about all the other sinners who share faith in Christ with us. We’re in it together, in the great and glorious kingdom of God’s righteousness demonstrated in the love and sacrifice of Jesus.

That means we’re in it with the annoying person across the sanctuary and with the especially annoying person who goes to that strange and different church down the street. We’re in it, as Jesus tried to tell us, with prostitutes and thieves and drug addicts and with the homeless and the illegal immigrants. One faith connects us all. There is no difference, because we are all sinners, but we are all made righteous by the blood of Jesus.

Talk about some of those categories I just listed and people will say, “But what about the law? You can’t throw out the law.” I think they may be talking about a different law than God’s, but it’s still law and Paul answers them in verse 31, “Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather we uphold the law.”

The law of God was given to show us His righteousness and to bring people into His kingdom, His great connected community meant to embrace the entire world. In the blood of Jesus, God showed us how anyone can have that righteousness and enter that community through faith. Faith doesn’t cancel the law. It completes what the law, any law means to do, to bring people together into the true righteousness and true community which is the kingdom of God.

There is no difference. There is just one faith, for anyone. Come to the Table of the Body and Blood of Jesus this morning and receive the gift of His righteousness, through faith. And believing in Him, you will have life in His name.

Amen.

Valley Covenant Church
Eugene/Springfield, Oregon
Copyright © 2011 by Stephen S. Bilynskyj

Billion-Dollar-o-Gram

David McCandless,at his website, Information is Beautiful, presents"The Billion-Dollar-o-Gram."

Did you know that the U.S. defense budget is equal to more than four times the combined amount of China, the U.K., India and Saudi Arabia budgets? Did you guess that amount is only about a quarter of the Afghanistan/Iraq wars' total estimated cost?  Compare BP's revenue to the fine they were assessed for their "mishap" in the Gulf. Finally, compare the worldwide cost of the financial crisis to everything else.

P.S. Don't miss Color in Culture

The Wages of Nominalism, II

Listen to or read the transcript of this NPR Story: 
Study: Narcissism On Rise In Pop Lyrics


April 26, 2011
A psychology professor at the University of Kentucky analyzed hit songs between 1980 and 2007 and found a correlation between egotistical song lyrics and increasing narcissism in society. Michele Norris talks with Dr. Nathan DeWall about his study.

On the Coincidence of Good Friday and Earth Day: May 22, 2011

This year, Good Friday and Earth Day were both April 22. Here in Oregon, Earth Day is the holier day. I didn't actually realize how much holier until I heard a spot on the radio, urging people to check out the "Ecotrope" site:

"In the Pacific Northwest, the environment is personal - it's where we live, work and play. Oregon Public Broadcasting's Ecotrope will bring you news and insight on the region’s most pressing environmental issues."

Seems that on Earth Day, the site invites people to confess their "eco-sins"  by directing them to another site, Grist, complete with virtual confessional booth, and the proper formula, "Forgive me Mother Earth for I have sinned." One can then type in one's transgression, view various "Prayer Cards" to Saints Cloud, Gorge, Sprocket, Umbra and Nino. But the really fun part comes in seeing what others have confessed, at the Sin Gallery:

"I think hybrid cars are for wussies."
"Not composting."
"I bought a new mobile phone."
"I secretly like to hear reports that global warming isn't real because it decreases my guilt level."

Now, we've been tilling the spiritual soil in the Northwest for almost 20 years, so I'm not shocked by any of this. Actually, it may even be cause for some hope! The very fact that people see that the way things are is not the way they ought to be is progress.  Genuine pagans do not even have the category ofor  sin; it is not part of their vocabulary or worldview. But here we have

people who are using that term, in a way that
denotes a real trespass-- one which demands repentance/penance,  forgiveness, and transformation.  If people in the Northwest can see how the environment is groaning under the burden of "eco-sins," then perhaps they will have an easier time seeing that human beings, as part of nature, are groaning under the burden of "human sins."

Romans 8:19-25
¹⁹For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
 ²⁰For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope ²¹that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
 ²²For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.
 ²³And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.
 ²⁴For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?
 ²⁵But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.

The problem is, we alone cannot save the earth.  We cannot save ourselves by saving the planet. Indeed, we will not be able to save the planet, muchless save ourselves, apart from the One who is Lord of all creation. It is not to Mother Earth that we must confess our sins; it is to Jesus Christ:

Colossians 1: 15-20
 ¹⁵He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
 ¹⁶For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
 ¹⁷He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
 ¹⁸He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, ⁽the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
 ¹⁹For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,
 ²⁰and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

It is a wonderful serendipity this year that Good Friday and Earth Day should coincide.  Fellow Oregonians, we cannot truly celebrate  Earth Day unless we celebrate  Him who created and is re-creating all things; and we cannot truly practice good stewardship of the environment until we are somehow changed from being proud, selfish, and greedy consumers to Christ's caretakers of creation.   Fellow Christians, we cannot truly understand and honor Good Friday unless we understand that Christ's mission of redemption extends not just to our own individual souls, but to all nature.

The Reason Christians Remember Good Friday (in Farsi)

Look here for a fuller explanation of Jomeyeh Neek (Dark Friday, Good Friday).

Why Patients are not Consumers

The reason patients cannot be reduced to consumers is that they are persons, not events. A naturalistic worldview can only account for that which is material: able to be quantified, therefore able to be measured; therefore able to be predicted, therefore able to be controlled. Events are able to be reduced to material explanations. Persons are not. Persons are both material AND immaterial; matter AND  form, body AND soul, events AND agents.  What is immaterial cannot be quantified,  it is unable to be priced: therefore it is outside the realm of commerce.


Patients Are Not Consumers
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 21, 2011

Earlier this week, The Times reported on Congressional backlash against the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a key part of efforts to rein in health care costs. This backlash was predictable; it is also profoundly irresponsible, as I’ll explain in a minute.

But something else struck me as I looked at Republican arguments against the board, which hinge on the notion that what we really need to do, as the House budget proposal put it, is to “make government health care programs more responsive to consumer choice.”

Here’s my question: How did it become normal, or for that matter even acceptable, to refer to medical patients as “consumers”? The relationship between patient and doctor used to be considered something special, almost sacred. Now politicians and supposed reformers talk about the act of receiving care as if it were no different from a commercial transaction, like buying a car ­ and their only complaint is that it isn’t commercial enough.

What has gone wrong with us?

About that advisory board: We have to do something about health care costs, which means that we have to find a way to start saying no. In particular, given continuing medical innovation, we can’t maintain a system in which Medicare essentially pays for anything a doctor recommends. And that’s especially true when that blank-check approach is combined with a system that gives doctors and hospitals ­ who aren’t saints ­ a strong financial incentive to engage in excessive care.

Hence the advisory board, whose creation was mandated by last year’s health reform. The board, composed of health-care experts, would be given a target rate of growth in Medicare spending. To keep spending at or below this target, the board would submit “fast-track” recommendations for cost control that would go into effect automatically unless overruled by Congress.

Before you start yelling about “rationing” and “death panels,” bear in mind that we’re not talking about limits on what health care you’re allowed to buy with your own (or your insurance company’s) money. We’re talking only about what will be paid for with taxpayers’ money. And the last time I looked at it, the Declaration of Independence didn’t declare that we had the right to life, liberty, and the all-expenses-paid pursuit of happiness.

And the point is that choices must be made; one way or another, government spending on health care must be limited.

Now, what House Republicans propose is that the government simply push the problem of rising health care costs on to seniors; that is, that we replace Medicare with vouchers that can be applied to private insurance, and that we count on seniors and insurance companies to work it out somehow. This, they claim, would be superior to expert review because it would open health care to the wonders of “consumer choice.”

What’s wrong with this idea (aside from the grossly inadequate value of the proposed vouchers)? One answer is that it wouldn’t work. “Consumer-based” medicine has been a bust everywhere it has been tried. To take the most directly relevant example, Medicare Advantage, which was originally called Medicare + Choice, was supposed to save money; it ended up costing substantially more than traditional Medicare. America has the most “consumer-driven” health care system in the advanced world. It also has by far the highest costs yet provides a quality of care no better than far cheaper systems in other countries.

But the fact that Republicans are demanding that we literally stake our health, even our lives, on an already failed approach is only part of what’s wrong here. As I said earlier, there’s something terribly wrong with the whole notion of patients as “consumers” and health care as simply a financial transaction.

Medical care, after all, is an area in which crucial decisions ­ life and death decisions ­ must be made. Yet making such decisions intelligently requires a vast amount of specialized knowledge. Furthermore, those decisions often must be made under conditions in which the patient is incapacitated, under severe stress, or needs action immediately, with no time for discussion, let alone comparison shopping.

That’s why we have medical ethics. That’s why doctors have traditionally both been viewed as something special and been expected to behave according to higher standards than the average professional. There’s a reason we have TV series about heroic doctors, while we don’t have TV series about heroic middle managers.

The idea that all this can be reduced to money ­ that doctors are just “providers” selling services to health care “consumers” ­ is, well, sickening. And the prevalence of this kind of language is a sign that something has gone very wrong not just with this discussion, but with our society’s values.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on April 22, 2011, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: Patients Are Not Consumers

ADDENDUM: On April 25, 2011, the Economist published a response to Krugman, entitled "Diagnosing Krugman." My further remarks can be seen, above, in an April 28 post, Why Patients are not Consumers, Part 2."

Meditation for Good Friday: Invisible Hands Don't Bleed

Adam Smith wrote about the invisible hand of the market, created by the conjunction of the forces of self-interest, competition, and supply and demand.  However, some Christians seem to view the invisible hand as the very hand of God.  Others are idolatrous in a different way: they worship the invisible hand instead of God, trusting it to miraculously produce a better world for all. Jim Wallis' comments at the 2009 World Economic Forum in Davos are as relevant today as they were then:

We have trusted in “the invisible hand” to make everything turn out all right, believing that it wasn’t necessary for us to bring virtue to bear on our decisions. But things haven’t turned out all right and the invisible hand has let go of some things, such as “the common good.” The common good hasn’t been very common in our economic decision-making for some time now. And things have spun out of control....


...Gandhi’s seven deadly social sins seem an accurate diagnosis for some of the causes of this crisis:  “politics without principle, wealth without work, commerce without morality, pleasure without conscience, education without character, science without humanity, and worship without sacrifice.”

On Friday, we will remember the Lamb of God, who was not an invisible hand, but the very Word and Image of God, incarnate.  He took on the sins of individuals, and societies, sacrificing Himself to redeem us, and forgiving us for trusting and worshipping false gods. An invisible hand doesn't itself bleed; it  bleeds others. However, Christ's hands bled, bled for our greed and pride and envy.

After His resurrection, his hands still bore the marks of that sacrifice. He invites us to be transformed: to replace our self-interest with love for God and neighbor; to quit competing and find agreement and cooperation through His Spirit; to trust him to supply our needs.

When I survey the wondrous cross

On which the Prince of glory died,

My richest gain I count but loss,

And pour contempt on all my pride.

Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,

Save in the death of Christ my God!

All the vain things that charm me most,

I sacrifice them to His blood.

See from His head, His hands, His feet,

Sorrow and love flow mingled down!

Did e’er such love and sorrow meet,

Or thorns compose so rich a crown?

His dying crimson, like a robe,

Spreads o’er His body on the tree;

Then I am dead to all the globe,

And all the globe is dead to me.

Were the whole realm of nature mine,

That were a present far too small;

Love so amazing, so divine,

Demands my soul, my life, my all.

Americans see Christianity, capitalism clash

By Nicole Neroulias

Are Christianity and capitalism a marriage made in heaven, as some conservatives believe, or more of a strained relationship in need of some serious couples' counseling?

A new poll released Thursday found that more Americans (44 %) see the free market system at odds with Christian values than those who don't (36 %), whether they are white evangelicals, mainline Protestants, Catholics or minority Christians.

But in other demographic breakdowns, several categories lean the other way: Republicans and Tea Party members, college graduates and members of high-income households view the systems as more compatible than not.

The poll, conducted by Public Religion Research Institute in partnership with Religion News Service, found that although conservative Christians and evangelicals tend to want their clergy to speak out on issues like abortion and homosexuality, they also tend to hold left-of-center views on some economic issues.

"Throughout the Bible, we see numerous passages about being our brother's keeper, welcoming the stranger, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and healing the sick," said Andrew Walsh, author of Religion, Economics and Public Policy and a religion professor at Culver-Stockton College.

"The idea that we are autonomous individuals competing for limited resources without concern for the welfare of others is a philosophy that is totally alien to the Bible, and in my view, antithetical to genuine Christianity."

The findings add a new wrinkle to national debates over the size and role of government, and raise questions about the impact of the Tea Party's cut-the-budget pressure on the GOP and its traditional base of religious conservatives.

The poll found stronger religious distinctions over the question of businesses acting ethically without government regulation, and whether faith leaders should speak out about economic concerns such as the budget deficit and the minimum wage.

White evangelicals (44 %) are more likely than other Christians or the general population to believe that unregulated businesses would still behave ethically, and they place a higher priority on religious leaders speaking out about social issues over economic concerns.

Minority Christians, in contrast, believe clergy should be vocal about both areas — particularly on the economic issue of home foreclosures, which 76 % considered important, compared to 46 % of the general population.

"Minority Christians have a deep theological tradition of connecting faith and economic justice, and we see that link in the survey," said Robert P. Jones, CEO of Public Religion Research Institute. "Because minorities in the U.S. generally continue to have lower incomes than whites, economic issues are also more salient in these congregations."

In other findings:

•Half of women believe that capitalism and Christian values are at odds, compared to 37 % of men.

•A majority (53 %) of Democrats believe capitalism and Christian values are at odds, compared to 37 % of Republicans and 41 % of independents. A majority (56 %) of Tea Party members say capitalism is consistent with Christian values.

•Nearly half (46 %) of Americans with household incomes of $100,000 a year or more believe that capitalism is consistent with Christian values, compared to just 23 % of those with household incomes of $30,000 a year or less.

• Most Americans (61 %) disagree that businesses would act ethically on their own without regulation from the government. White evangelicals (44 %) are more likely than Catholics (36 %), white mainline (33 %) or minority Christians (34 %) to say unregulated businesses would act ethically.

"The most idolatrous claim of the Christian right is that the invisible hand of the free market ... is none other than the hand of God," Walsh said, "and any attempt to regulate the free market, according to this theology, belies a lack of faith in God."


The Rev. Jennifer Butler, executive director of the Washington-based group Faith in Public Life, said the fact that religious values seem to trump political or class differences can help groups like hers advocate for the poor.

And in ongoing debates in Washington over the budget and cuts to domestic spending, that means "making the wealthiest Americans and corporations pay their fair share in taxes" she said.

"People of faith have a unique ability to show political leaders that the economy is a moral issue," she said. "Even some members of Congress are beginning to echo our argument that protecting the most vulnerable as we get out of debt is a moral duty."

The PRRI/RNS Religion News Poll was based on telephone interviews of 1,010 U.S. adults between April 14 and 17. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

MEDITATION for Maundy Thursday: Durufle's "Ubi Caritas"

After singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.---Matt. 26:30

"Ubi Caritas" is an ancient hymn of the church, that has been regularly used for Maundy Thursday services. According to Wikipedia,

The Gregorian melody was composed sometime between the fourth and tenth centuries, though some scholars believe the text dates from early Christian gatherings before the formalization of the Mass. It is usually sung at Eucharistic Adoration and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament and on Holy Thursday evening at the Mass of the Lord's Supper.......Maurice Duruflé's choral setting makes use of the Gregorian melody, using only the words of the refrain and the first stanza.

 I have long loved the music of Maurice Duruflé  (11 January 1902 – 16 June 1986). A perfectionist, he only published 13 works in his lifetime. "Ubi Caritas" is one of the  Quatre Motets sur des thèmes grégoriens, Op. 10.  His version only uses the first stanza:


Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.   / Where charity and love are, God is there.
Congregavit nos in unum Christi amor.   / Christ's love has gathered us into one.
Exultemus, et in ipso jucundemur.  / Let us rejoice and be pleased in Him.
Timeamus, et amemus Deum vivum. /  Let us fear, and let us love the living God.
Et ex corde diligamus nos sincero.  / And may we love each other with a sincere heart.

I can think of no better hymn to sing before following Jesus to the Mount of Olives.

Latin Text

Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
Congregavit nos in unum Christi amor.
Exultemus, et in ipso jucundemur.
Timeamus, et amemus Deum vivum.
Et ex corde diligamus nos sincero.
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
Simul ergo cum in unum congregamur:
Ne nos mente dividamur, caveamus.
Cessent iurgia maligna, cessent lites.
Et in medio nostri sit Christus Deus.
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
Simul quoque cum beatis videamus,
Glorianter vultum tuum, Christe Deus:
Gaudium quod est immensum, atque probum,
Saecula per infinita saeculorum. Amen.

 English Translation


Where charity and love are, God is there.
Christ's love has gathered us into one.
Let us rejoice and be pleased in Him.
Let us fear, and let us love the living God.
And may we love each other with a sincere heart.
Where charity and love are, God is there.
As we are gathered into one body,
Beware, lest we be divided in mind.
Let evil impulses stop, let controversy cease,
And may Christ our God be in our midst.
Where charity and love are, God is there.
And may we with the saints also,
See Thy face in glory, O Christ our God:
The joy that is immense and good,
Unto the ages through infinite ages. Amen.

The Wages of Nominalism...

"For as (a man) thinks within himself, so he is." --Proverbs 23:7 (NASB)


Heather Havrilesky's review of the film, Limitless, questions the culture's current obsession with individualism, overachievement, egocentricism. She asks, "Who's to blame for this state of affairs?" Christians give a fuller answer than she does.  Before there were helicopter parents and tiger moms, before Reaganomics, Oprah and Sedona sweatlodges, there was the Fall: "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened." (Rom. 1:21).

Paul goes on to discuss how God gave humans over to the sinful desires of their hearts. I wonder if Paul would agree that He gave us over to sinful ideas? The history of philosophy is scattered with all kinds of futile thinking. In my opinion, one of  the most deadly is a way of looking at the world called "Nominalism."   If one's ethic is a result of one's metaphysic, then perhaps the egoism that Havrilesky decries can be traced back to this intellectual error.

John 15:
9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. 17 This is my command: Love each other.

In the end, we are faced with a simple choice: through Jesus Christ, to be friends with God and all His creatures; or to be alone. Sartre was wrong: Hell is not other people, hell is Sola Self.





'Limitless,' Oprah, and Charlie Sheen: The Scary Side of Super-Sized Ambition
By Heather Havrilesky
Mar 18 2011, 10:35 AM
 The new Bradley Cooper film, about a power-obsessed writer-turned-Wall-Street-trader, raises the question: Has individualism gone too far?

Do we want too much? Now that blind ambition no longer carries the slightest taint and the term "sell-out" holds no meaning, now that earnest young men sing not of love but of "want(ing) to be a billionaire so frickin' bad," now that narcissistic outbursts and trips to rehab are tantamount to self-promotion, now that, on blogs and Facebook and Twitter, millions of self-branding voices cry out and are never silenced, now that reaching for the stars is encountered less, by young people, as euphemism than high-priority action item, it may be time to question, at long last, the reigning ethos of super-sized individualism.

This perspective manifests itself dramatically in the movie Limitless, where all-consuming ambition is depicted as a supreme blessing from on high, even as it seems to erase every trace of soul and human connection in those who are thusly blessed. A blocked writer named Eddie (Bradley Cooper) discovers a miracle drug that has him decluttering his apartment, then his life, and finally, using his drug-induced high-speed analysis to game the stock market. You'd imagine that such a twist would be a bit harder to cheer on in the wake of the financial meltdown than it was back in 2001 when Alan Glynn's entertaining novel, The Dark Fields, (on which the movie was based) was first published. Not so. As massive wealth transforms Eddie's life into a predictably dizzying merry-go-round of cheering on gigantic stock gains, clinking champagne glasses, jetting around the world, and impressing key members of the plutocracy, members of the audience are enlisted as cheering spectators to his meteoric rise.

What's notable about Limitless is not the manner in which Eddie uses and abuses his wealth (a tale as old as Midas), but the fact that Eddie treats the aggressive pursuit of excess as the only logical object of his new-found productivity. After finishing his novel in four days, aided by a drug-induced lightning-fast mind, he abruptly drops his interest in literature (borrring!) for the much more alluring and romantic life of... the day trader? Yes, instead of longing for creative self-expression or thirsting for spiritual freedom, what Eddie wants, most of all, is don a pin-striped suit and haunt somnambulant lunch joints in the financial district. In other words, even though we may roll out the piety in discussions of Bernie Madoff, Goldman Sachs, or Kenneth Lay, we still suspect that they're the smartest—and the luckiest—guys in the room. Joining the ranks of tech executives, professional athletes, oil moguls, and Wall Street high rollers at the depraved craps table of our culture and our economy is presumed to be a wet dream shared by the global populace.

Strange, that this fantastical film, which basks in excess and corruption without any major repercussions for our hero, plays less like a cinematic fable than a realistic snapshot of the times. With hand-wringing over the Great Recession finally subsiding a bit—even if the sickness that incited the economic collapse is far from cured—it's clear that the greatest American hero is not the honor-bound civic leader or the inspired artist or the thoughtful spiritual guide, but the self-serving entrepreneurial conquistador.

Tales of extreme overachievement dominated the Best Picture category at this year's Oscars, featuring strivers aggressively pursuing victory at the expense of friends, family, life, and limb, from The Social Network to The Fighter to 127 Hours to The King's Speech. "I was perfect," says Natalie Portman's ballerina character in Black Swan, secure that all of her suffering and sacrifice was worth it. Even the isolated and the doomed—Zuckerberg in his lonely perch at the top, Wahlberg's boxer hiding out with his girlfriend across town, the future king battling his own words in a drafty London apartment—are presented as odd sorts of modern victors.

Even when ambition is explored through the lens of exaggeration, parody, farce, or noir, it's still digested as inspiring, from the vainglorious proclamations of Lady Gaga to the semi-delusional chattering of Bravo's tireless self-branding reality stars. Television is filthy with high-capitalist morality plays, from Mad Men to Breaking Bad to Boardwalk Empire, but the tragic characters therein are more often than not encountered as heroes. Raw drive is touted as the special sauce that makes the world go 'round on every reality show in existence, from Survivor, to Top Chef to even non-competitive experiments in self-branding like Bethenny Ever After and The Rachel Zoe Project. Warrior-speak is so much the common lexicon of reality TV that each on-camera confession could stand in for any other: She wants to win at all costs. He's not going to give up, no matter what. She doesn't care who has to eat dirt along the way. The parlance of high school football coaches and insurance salesman has become the native tongue of cable TV.

Not surprisingly, the Oprah Winfrey Network, which launched this year on New Year's Day, represents the most colorful and dramatic reflection of this nationwide will to power. An uneasy mix of individualism and enlightenment is offered on every show, from the motivational platitudes spouted by the aspiring talk show hosts of Your OWN Show to the exacting standards and relentless drive of Oprah herself in Oprah: Behind The Scenes. But nothing typifies Oprah's embrace of the creation myths of celebrities more than Oprah Presents Master Class, which presents first-person narratives of success by everyone from Diane Sawyer to Jay-Z. The show relishes a peculiar "I pulled myself up by my bootstraps" and "I had to believe in myself—and so should you!" mélange, blending self-actualization and capitalism into a queasy cocktail that goes down smoothly, thanks to the simple syrup of Oprah's "You go girl!" ideology.

And while egocentric implosions were commodified long before Charlie Sheen cranked his delusions of grandeur up to 11, it's notable how swiftly the star's sociopathic flameout has been translated into a multi-tiered product launch—including a t-shirt line and a not-so-magical, death-of-mystery tour called the "Violent Torpedo of Truth." (We get the "violent" part, anyway.) Sure, it's a familiar story: Man loses job. Man lets loose grandiose, nonsensical tirade. Man is besieged by army of marketing yes men who set big, stupid wheels in motion overnight. How else to keep the Cristal and the high-priced hookers flowing? But has there ever been a time when merely grabbing the public's attention, largely for negative reasons, translated so rapidly into a merchandising blitzkrieg?

But it doesn't take star status to broadcast your aspirations to the world. The average Joe's focus on international success has never been quite so well documented as it is today. On Facebook and Twitter, on blogs and author websites and work profiles, individuals lay out their agonizingly detailed goals for the future with reckless abandon, taking pains to document every ego reward along the way. One author recalls the "transcendent moment" when she learned that Eat Pray Love author Elizabeth Gilbert wrote to tell her that her book was "destined to be deeply loved." "I still feel intoxicated by her words," the author gushed. Another author recently tweeted, "Yay! Just found out my paperback hit the bestseller lists in Boston, Denver, & SF. That's a happy Monday!" It's enough to make you nostalgic for the days when patting oneself on the back and other forms of self-stroking were reserved for sticky private rooms, far from the public gaze. Even the self-proclaimed enlightened elite don't seem to recognize the value of shame. One social media guru recently tweeted, "I have never, in my life, lived more honestly than I am living today." Please, consider living a little less honestly.

Who's to blame for this state of affairs? Some point to the toxic overindulgence of helicopter parents, who pumped up their children's egos without exposing them to the hardships of an unscheduled afternoon with nothing but to do but make mud pies in the backyard. Others conjure the overachievement culture incited by Tiger Moms (and dads), who create children whose Suzuki scales are as impressive as their panic attacks and acid reflux. But the concept that a rising GNP lifts all heavily-mortgaged boats founds its roots in Reaganomics, and extreme ambition hasn't loosened its death-grip on our culture since. Considering the economic rollercoaster ride of the last few decades, the obvious lack of long-term job security in this country, and the fact that, according the Economic Policy Institute, during the past 20 years, 56 percent of all income growth went to the top 1 percent of households, it's impossible for most Americans, whether working or middle class or even upper middle class, not to fixate somewhat unhealthily on finding true, lasting financial peace of mind. Instead of giving in to learned helplessness (the most logical choice, really), we cling more tightly to the myth of upwardly mobile miracles, telling ourselves pretty success stories in order to keep hope alive.

Ultimately, Limitless takes the precise shape that you'd expect from a powerless person's fantasy of power. The moral of the story seems to be that, with a few shortcuts and some help from important people, money, status, and happiness can be yours, with no emotional cost to pay on the back end. But as our world spirals closer to the moronic self-involvement of Mike Judge's Idiocracy mixed with the commercialized nightmare of David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest, what's lost, beyond simple good taste, is our connection to our own desires. After soaking in so many real-life tales of success and parables of excess like Limitless, it's easy to lose sight of the joys of working steadily toward a goal without undue fixation on the monetary rewards or prestige it might bequeath. Savoring the means over the ends, relishing the challenges, the wrinkles, the obstacles involved in your craft: the rewards of a dedication to something beyond the ego may be a difficult message to impart, but it's a message that needs to find its way back into our fables, our creation myths, our journalism, and into the stories we tell ourselves.

Why the Theory of Comparative Advantage is False

I am one of those who remember the days when "made in Japan" meant cheap goods. Will my children someday remember the days when "made in China" meant the same? This article is about the Theory of Comparative Advantage, which Wikipedia explains as follows:

In economics, the law of comparative advantage says that two countries (or other kinds of parties, such as individuals or firms) can both gain from trade if, in the absence of trade, they have different relative costs for producing the same goods. Even if one country is more efficient in the production of all goods (absolute advantage), it can still gain by trading with a less-efficient country, as long as they have different relative efficiencies.[1][2][3]

For example, if, using machinery, a worker in one country can produce both shoes and shirts at 20 per hour, and a worker in a country with less machinery can produce either 2 shoes or 4 shirts in an hour, each country can gain from trade because their internal trade-offs between shoes and shirts are different. The less-efficient country has a comparative advantage in shirts, so it finds it more efficient to produce shirts and trade them to the more-efficient country for shoes. Without trade, its cost per shoe was 2 shirts; by trading, its cost per shoe can reduce to as low as 1 shirt depending on how much trade occurs (since the more-efficient country has a 1:1 trade-off). The more-efficient country has a comparative advantage in shoes, so it can gain in efficiency by moving some workers from shirt-production to shoe-production and trading some shoes for shirts. Without trade, its cost to make a shirt was 1 shoe; by trading, its cost per shirt can go as low as 1/2 shoe depending on how much trade occurs.

This theory appears to me to be the economic equivalent of ethical egoism. In the end, the goal is to get everyone else to be altruistic, but not to be altruistic oneself. Similarly, it seems the economic goal is to pursue protectionist economic policies in order to get rich, and forbid other countries from doing the same, under the aegis of "free trade."

The Theory That's Killing America's Economy -- and Why It's Wrong

by Ian Fletcher, author, Free Trade Doesn't Work: What Should Replace It and Why

I wrote in a previous article how America's disastrous embrace of free trade is ultimately based on a false theory of how the global economy works: the so-called Theory of Comparative Advantage. This is what economists, from the government on down, believe in. This matters.

But I didn't explain why the theory is wrong -- which it is. Understanding its flaws is the price of admission to serious criticism of free trade, so it's well worth getting a grasp on them. Economic theory can be a tough chew, but it's worth the effort, if only to gain the intellectual confidence not to be intimidated by the so-called experts. So... let's take a look at some of that machinery behind the wizard's curtain, shall we?

The theory's flaws, which are fairly well known to economists but mostly ignored, consist of a number of dubious assumptions upon which the theory depends. To wit:

Dubious Assumption #1: Trade is sustainable.

The problem here is that the theory of comparative advantage pays no attention to the long term. So it can quite easily recommend a trade policy that gives us the highest possible living standard in the short run -- but by way of selling off our country out from under us.

This is what happens when a nation runs a trade deficit, which necessarily means that it's either sinking into debt to foreigners or selling off its existing assets to them.

The theory of comparative advantage is blind to this problem because it treats people's time horizons as a given. So if a nation wants a short-term consumption binge followed by long-term decline, the theory says "OK, no problem. You wanted it, you got it, what's not to like?"

A saner theory of trade (and of economics generally) would advise people that it's not a good idea to engage in decadent binges, regardless of how good it feels right now. It would recommend protectionist restraints on imports to force trade into balance, not free trade.

Dubious Assumption #2: There are no externalities.

An externality is a missing price tag. More precisely, it is the economists' term for when the price of a product does not reflect its true economic cost or value.

The classic negative externality is environmental damage, which reduces the value of natural resources without raising the price of the product that harmed them. The classic positive externality is technological spillover, where one company's inventing a product enables others to copy or build upon it, generating wealth that the original company can't capture.

If prices are wrong due to positive or negative externalities, free trade will produce suboptimal results.

For example, goods from a nation with lax pollution standards will be too cheap. So its trading partners will import too much of them. And the exporting nation will export too much of them, overconcentrating its economy in industries that are not really as profitable as they seem, due to ignoring pollution damage.

Positive externalities are also a problem. If an industry generates technological spillovers for the rest of the economy, then free trade can let that industry be wiped out by foreign competition because the economy ignored its hidden value. Some industries spawn new technologies, fertilize improvements in other industries, and drive economy-wide technological advance; losing these industries means losing all the industries that would have flowed from them in the future.

Dubious Assumption #3: Productive resources move easily between industries.

As noted in my original article, the theory of comparative advantage is about switching productive resources from less-valuable to more-valuable uses. It's about putting our economy to its own best use.

But this assumes that the productive resources used to produce one product can switch to producing another. Because if they can't, then imports won't push our economy into industries better suited to its comparative advantage. Imports will just kill off our existing industries and leave nothing in their place.

When workers, for example, can't move between industries--usually because they don't have the right skills or don't live in the right place--shifts in an economy's comparative advantage won't move them into a more appropriate industry, but into unemployment.

In the United States, because of our relatively low minimum wage and hire-and-fire labor laws, this problem tends to take the form of underemployment, rather than unemployment per se. So $28 an hour ex-autoworkers go work at the video rental store for eight dollars an hour.

The same goes for other inflexible factors of production, like real estate. That's why the shuttered factory rivals the unemployment line as a visual image of trade problems.

Dubious Assumption #4: Trade does not raise income inequality.

Even if free trade expands the economy overall (dubious), it can tilt the distribution of income so much that ordinary people see little or none of the gains.

For example, suppose that opening up a nation to freer trade means that it starts exporting more airplanes and importing more clothes than before. Because the nation gets to expand an industry better suited to its comparative advantage and contract one less suited, it becomes more productive and its GDP goes up.

So far, so good.

Here's the rub: suppose that a million dollars' worth of clothes production requires one white-collar worker and nine blue-collar workers, while a million dollars of airplane production requires three white-collar workers and seven blue-collar workers. So for every million dollars' change in what gets produced, there is a demand for two more white-collar workers and two fewer blue-collar workers. Because demand for white-collar workers goes up and demand for blue-collar workers goes down, the wages of white-collar workers go up and those of blue-collar workers go down.

But most workers are blue-collar workers -- so free trade has lowered wages for most workers in the economy!

This is not a trivial problem: Dani Rodrik of Harvard estimates that freeing up trade reshuffles five dollars of income between different groups of people domestically for every one dollar of net gain it brings to the economy as a whole.

Dubious Assumption #5: Capital is not internationally mobile.

The theory of comparative advantage is about the best uses to which America can put its productive resources, what economists call "factors of production." We have certain cards in hand, so to speak, the other players have certain cards, and the theory tells us the best way to play the hand we've been dealt. Or more precisely, it tells us to let the free market play our hand for us, so market forces can drive all our factors to their best uses in our economy.

Unfortunately, this relies upon the impossibility of these same market forces driving these factors right out of our economy. If that happens, all bets are off about driving these factors to their most productive use in our economy. Their most productive use may well be in another country, and if they are internationally mobile, then free trade will cause them to migrate there.

This will benefit the world economy as a whole, and the nation they migrate to, but it will not necessarily benefit us.

This problem applies to all factors of production, but the crux of the problem is capital. Capital mobility replaces comparative advantage, which applies when capital is forced to choose between alternative uses within a single national economy, with absolute advantage. And absolute advantage contains no guarantees whatsoever about the results being good for both trading partners.

Capital immobility doesn't have to be absolute, but it has to be significant and as it melts away, trade shifts from a guarantee of win-win relations to a possibility of win-lose relations.

David Ricardo, the British economist who invented the theory of comparative advantage in 1817, actually knew about this problem perfectly well, and wrote about it in his book on the subject. So there's no excuse for modern economists to ignore it.

Dubious Assumption #6: Short-term efficiency causes long-term growth.

The theory of comparative advantage is what economists call "static" analysis. That is, it looks at the facts of a single instant in time and determines the best response to those facts at that instant. But it says nothing about how today's facts may change tomorrow. More importantly, it says nothing about how one might cause them to change in one's favor.

So even if the theory of comparative advantage tells us our best move today, given our productivities in various industries, it doesn't tell us the best way to raise those productivities tomorrow. That, however, is the essence of economic growth, and in the long run much more important than squeezing every last drop of advantage from the productivities we have today. Economic growth is ultimately less about using one's factors of production than about transforming them--into more productive factors tomorrow.

The theory of comparative advantage is not so much wrong about long-term growth as simply silent.

Analogously, it is a valid application of personal comparative advantage for someone with secretarial skills to work as a secretary and someone with banking skills to work as a banker. In the short run, it is efficient for them both, as it results in both being better paid than if they tried to swap roles. (They would both be fired for inability to do their jobs and earn zero.) But the path to personal success doesn't consist in being the best possible secretary forever; it consists in upgrading one's skills to better-paid occupations, like banker. And there is very little about being the best possible secretary that tells one how to do this.


Dubious Assumption #7: Trade does not induce adverse productivity growth abroad.

When we trade with a foreign nation, this will generally build up that nation's industries, i.e. raise its productivity in them. Now it would be nice to assume that this productivity growth in our trading partners can only make them ever more efficient at supplying the things we want, and we will just get ever cheaper foreign goods in exchange for our own exports, right?

Wrong. Consider our present trade with China. Despite all the problems this trade causes us, we do get compensation in the form of some very cheap goods, thanks mainly to China's very cheap labor. The same goes for other poor countries we import from. But labor is cheap in poor countries because it has poor alternative employment opportunities. What if these opportunities improve? Then this labor may cease to be so cheap, and our supply of cheap goods may dry up.

This is actually what happened in Japan from the 1960s to the 1980s, as Japan's economy transitioned from primitive to sophisticated manufacturing and the cheap merchandise readers over 40 will remember (the same things stamped "Made in China" today) disappeared from America's stores. Did this reduce the pressure of cheap Japanese labor on American workers? It did. But it also deprived us of some very cheap goods we used to get.

And it's not like Japan stopped pressing us, either, as it moved upmarket and started competing in more sophisticated industries.

Oops!

When Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson -- author of the best-selling economics textbook in history -- reminded economists of this problem in a (quite accessible) 2004 article, he drew scandalized gasps from one end of the discipline to the other. But nobody was able to explain why he was wrong.

They still haven't.

I don't expect most readers to get all the above analysis the first time through. But I do hope that everyone who's read this far now understands that there is no good reason -- regardless of what most economists say -- to assume that free trade is necessarily best. The economic logic of those who say it is, is riddled with enough holes to sink a container ship.

My response to "Muslim Heritage, my eye:" Same tune, different lyrics

Sigh. This message is making the rounds, and appeared in my email today:

Barack Obama,
during his recent Cairo speech, said:
"I know, too, that Islam has always been a part
of America's story."

AN AMERICAN CITIZEN'S RESPONSE:

Dear Mr. Obama:

Were those Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims
first landed? Funny, I thought they were
Native American Indians.


Were those Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving
day? Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and
Native American Indians.


Can you
show me one Muslim signature on the United
States Constitution?


Declaration
of Independence ?
Bill of Rights?


Didn't think so.

Did any Muslims fight for this country's freedom from England? No.


Did any Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the
slaves in America ? No, they did
not. In fact, Muslims to this day are
still the largest traffickers in human
slavery in the world. Your own half brother, a devout
Muslim, still advocates slavery himself, even
though Muslims of Arabic descent refer to black
Muslims as "pug nosed slaves." Says a lot
of what the Muslim world really thinks of your
family's "rich Islamic heritage," doesn't it Mr.
Obama?


Where were Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this
country? Not present.


There are no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking
side by side with Martin Luther King, Jr. or helping to advance the cause of Civil Rights.


Where were Muslims during this country's Woman's Suffrage
era? Again, not present. In fact, devout Muslims demand that women be subservient to men in the Islamic culture. So much so, that often they are beaten for not wearing the 'hajib' or for talking to a man who is not a
direct family member or their husband. Yes, the Muslims are all for women's rights, aren't they?


Where were Muslims during World War II? They were
aligned with Adolf Hitler. The Muslim grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler, reviewed the troops and accepted support from
the Nazi's in killing Jews.


Finally,
Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th,
2001? If they weren't flying planes into the World Trade Center , the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on
our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle East . No one can dispute the pictures shown from all parts of the Muslim world celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other cable news networks that day. Strangely, the very "moderate" Muslims who you bent over backwards to kiss in Cairo, Egypt on June 4th were stone cold silent post 9-11. To many Americans, their silence has meant approval for the acts of that day.


And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the "rich heritage" Muslims have here
in America ..


Oh, I'm sorry, I
forgot to mention the Barbary Pirates.
They were Muslim.


And now we can
add November 5, 2009 - the slaughter of 12 American
soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim Major who was a
doctor and a psychiatrist and who was supposed to be counseling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nidal Malik Hasan, this Muslim Major was chanting "Allâhu Akbar" ("God is great") as he killed 12 American soldiers and an American civilian at Fort Hood, Texas


That, Mr. Obama is the "Muslim Heritage" in America .


Every American Should Read This!!
Be sure to forward this to as many people as you can!

Here is my response:

I. This Message is Historically Myopic

It seems the writer of "Muslim Heritage" is unaware of the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States#cite_note-26

Early national period

American views of Islam affected debates regarding freedom of religion during the drafting of the state constitution of Pennsylvania in 1776. Constitutionalists promoted religious toleration while Anticonstitutionalists called for reliance on Protestant values in the formation of the state's republican government. The former group won out, and inserted a clause for religious liberty in the new state constitution. American views of Islam were influenced by favorable Enlightenment writings from Europe, as well as Europeans who had long warned that Islam was a threat to Christianity and republicanism.[16]

When Benjamin Franklin helped establish a non-denominational religious meeting house in Philadelphia, he emphasized its non-sectarian nature by stating that "even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service".[17] Franklin also wrote an anti-slavery parody piece claiming to be translation of the response of a government official at Algiers to a 17th-century petition to banish slavery there; the piece develops the theme that Europeans are specially suited for enslavement on cultural and religious grounds, and that there would be practical problems with abolishing slavery in North Africa; this satirizes similar arguments that were then made about the enslavement of Blacks in North America.[18]

Peter Salem, a former slave who fought at the Battle of Bunker Hill, is speculated to have Muslim connections based on his Islamic-sounding name. "Saleem" means "one who is peaceful" in Arabic and is related to the word salaam. Salem's name was said by a Jewish man to be similar to the word shalom, which also means peace. Other American Revolution soldiers with Islamic names include Salem Poor, Yusuf Ben Ali, Bampett Muhamed, Francis Saba, and Joseph Saba.[19]

Between 1785 and 1815, over a hundred American sailors were captive in Algiers for ransom. Several wrote captivity narratives of their experiences that gave most Americans their first view of the Middle East and Muslim ways, and newspapers often commented on them. The views were generally negative. Royall Tyler wrote The Algerine Captive (1797), an early American novel depicting the life of an American doctor employed in the slave trade who becomes himself enslaved by Barbary pirates. Finally Presidents Jefferson and Madison sent in the Navy to confront the pirates, and ended the threat in 1815.[20][21][22]

Bilali (Ben Ali) Muhammad was a Fula Muslim from Timbo Futa-Jallon in present day Guinea-Conakry, who arrived to Sapelo Island during 1803. While enslaved, he became the religious leader and Imam for a slave community numbering approximately eighty Muslim men residing on his plantation. During the War of 1812, Muhammad and the eighty Muslim men under his leadership protected their master's Sapelo Island property from a British attack.[23] He is known to have fasted during the month of Ramadan, worn a fez and kaftan, and observed the Muslim feasts, in addition to consistently performing the five obligatory prayers.[24] In 1829, Bilali authored a thirteen page Arabic Risala on Islamic beliefs and the rules for ablution, morning prayer, and the calls to prayer. Known as the Bilali Document, it is currently housed at the University of Georgia in Athens.

Religious freedom

In 1776, John Adams published "Thoughts on Government," in which he praises the Islamic prophet Muhammad as a "sober inquirer after truth" alongside Confucius, Zoroaster, Socrates, and other thinkers.

In 1785, George Washington stated a willingness to hire "Mahometans," as well as people of any nation or religion, to work on his private estate at Mount Vernon if they were "good workmen." It was a rhetorical statement, as he hired no such people.[25]

In 1790, the South Carolina legislative body granted special legal status to a community of Moroccans. In 1797, President John Adams signed a treaty declaring the United States had no "character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen".[26]

Thomas Jefferson defended religious freedom in America including those of Muslims. Jefferson explicitly mentioned Muslims when writing about the movement for religious freedom in Virginia. In his autobiography Jefferson wrote "[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word 'Jesus Christ,' so that it should read 'a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.' The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination."[28] While President, Jefferson also participated in an iftar with the Ambassador of Tunisia in 1809.[29]

Anti-Islam sentiments

However, not all politicians were pleased with the religious neutrality of the Constitution, which prohibited any religious test. Anti-Federalists in the 1788 North Carolina ratifying convention opposed the new constitution; one reason was the fear that some day Catholics or Muslims might be elected president. William Lancaster said:.[30]

Let us remember that we form a government for millions not yet in existence.... In the course of four or five hundred years, I do not know how it will work. This is most certain, that Papists may occupy that chair, and Mahometans may take it. I see nothing against it.

Indeed, in 1788 many opponents of the Constitution pointed to the Middle East, especially the Ottoman Empire as a negative object lesson against standing armies and centralized state authority.[31]

19th century

There are recorded instances of Muslims in the United States military during the American Civil War. Muhammad Ali ibn Said (also known as Nicholas Said), formerly enslaved to an Arab master, came to the United States in 1860 where he found a teaching job in Detroit. In 1863, Said enlisted in the 55th Massachusetts Colored Regiment in the United States Army and rose to the rank of sergeant. He was later granted a transfer to a hospital department, where he gained some knowledge of medicine. His Army records state that he died in Brownsville, Tennessee in 1882.[32] Another Muslim soldier from the Civil War was Max Hassan, an African who worked for the military as a porter.[33]

A Muslim named Hajj Ali (commonly spelled as "Hi Jolly") was hired by the United States Cavalry in 1856 to raise camels in Arizona and California. He would later become a prospector in Arizona.[34][35] Hajj Ali died in 1903.[32]

Alexander Russell Webb is considered by historians to be the earliest prominent Anglo-American convert to Islam in 1888. In 1893 he was the only person representing Islam at the first Parliament for the World's Religions.[37]

Slaves

Many of the slaves brought to colonial America from Africa were Muslims.[38][39] By 1800, some 500,000 Africans arrived in what became the United States. Historians estimate that between 15 to 30 percent of all enslaved African men, and less than 15 percent of the enslaved African women, were Muslims. These enslaved Muslims stood out from their compatriots because of their "resistance, determination and education".[40]

It is estimated that over 50% of the slaves imported to North America came from areas where Islam was followed by at least a minority population. Thus, no less than 200,000 came from regions influenced by Islam. Substantial numbers originated from Senegambia, a region with an established community of Muslim inhabitants extending to the 11th century.[41]

Michael A. Gomez speculated that Muslim slaves may have accounted for "thousands, if not tens of thousands," but does not offer a precise estimate. He also suggests many non-Muslim slaves were acquainted with some tenets of Islam, due to Muslim trading and proselytizing activities.[42] Historical records indicate many enslaved Muslims conversed in the Arabic language. Some even composed literature (such as autobiographies) and commentaries on the Quran.[43]

Some newly arrived Muslim slaves assembled for communal Salah (prayers). Some were provided a private praying area by their owner. The two best documented Muslim slaves were Ayuba Suleiman Diallo and Omar Ibn Said. Suleiman was brought to America in 1731 and returned to Africa in 1734.[41] Like many Muslim slaves, he often encountered impediments when attempting to perform religious rituals and was eventually allotted a private location for prayer by his master.[43]

Omar Ibn Said (ca. 1770–1864) is among the best documented examples of a practicing-Muslim slave. He lived on a colonial North Carolina plantation and wrote many Arabic texts while enslaved. Born in the kingdom of Futa Tooro (modern Senegal), he arrived in America in 1807, one month before the US abolished importation of slaves. Some of his works include the Lords Prayer, the Bismillah, this is How You Pray, Quranic phases, the 23rd Psalm, and an autobiography. In 1857, he produced his last known writing on Surah 110 of the Quran. In 1819, Omar received an Arabic translation of the Christian Bible from his master, James Owen. Omar converted to Christianity in 1820, an episode widely used throughout the South to "prove" the benevolence of slavery. However, some scholars believe he continued to be a practicing Muslim, based on dedications to Muhammad written in his Bible.[44][4

Modern immigration

Small-scale migration to the U.S. by Muslims began in 1840, with the arrival of Yemenites and Turks,[41] and lasted until World War I. Most of the immigrants, from Arab areas of the Ottoman Empire, came with the purpose of making money and returning to their homeland. However, the economic hardships of 19th-Century America prevented them from prospering, and as a result the immigrants settled in the United States permanently. These immigrants settled primarily in Dearborn, Michigan; Quincy, Massachusetts; and Ross, North Dakota. Ross, North Dakota is the site of the first documented mosque and Muslim Cemetery, but it was abandoned and later torn down in the mid 1970s. A new mosque was built in its place in 2005.[37]

1906 Bosnian Muslims in Chicago, Illinois, started the D emijetul Hajrije (Jamaat al-Hajrije) (The Benevolent Society; a social service organization devoted to Bosnian Muslims). This is the longest lasting incorporated Muslim community in the United States. They met in Bosnian coffeehouses and eventually opened the first Islamic Sunday School with curriculum and textbooks under Bosnian scholar Sheikh amil Avdi (Kamil Avdich) (a graduate of al-Azhar and author of Survey of Islamic Doctrines).

1907 Lipka Tatar immigrants from the Podlasie region of Poland founded the first Muslim organization in New York City, the American Mohammedan Society.[46]
1915, what is most likely the first American mosque was founded by Albanian Muslims in Biddeford, Maine. A Muslim cemetery still exists there.[47][48]
1920 First Islamic mission station was established by an Indian Ahmadiyya Muslim missionary, followed by the building of the Al-Sadiq Mosque in 1921.
1934 The first building built specifically to be a mosque is established in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
1945 A mosque existed in Dearborn, Michigan, home to the largest Arab-American population in the U.S.

Construction of mosques sped up in the 1920s and 1930s, and by 1952, there were over 20 mosques.[37] Although the first mosque was established in the U.S. in 1915, relatively few mosques were founded before the 1960s. Eighty-seven percent of mosques in the U.S. were founded within the last three decades according to the Faith Communities Today (FACT) survey. California has more mosques than any other state.

Chinese Muslims have immigrated to the United States and lived within the Chinese community rather than integrating into other foreign Muslim communities. Two of the most prominent Chinese American Muslims are the Republic of China National Revolutionary Army Generals Ma Hongkui and his son Ma Dunjing who moved to Los Angeles, California after fleeing from China to Taiwan. Pai Hsien-yung, son of the Chinese Muslim General Bai Chongxi, is a Chinese Muslim writer who moved to Santa Barbara, California after fleeing from China to Taiwan.

Politics

Historically, Muslim Americans tended to support the Republican Party. In the 2000 Presidential election, nearly eighty percent of Muslim Americans supported Republican candidate George W. Bush over Democratic candidate Al Gore. However, support for the Republicans among Muslims declined sharply. By 2004, Bush's Muslim support had been reduced by at least half, who would vote for Democratic candidate John Kerry or a third party candidate.[85]

On July 31, 2000, Talat Othman opened the Republican National Convention with a Muslim benediction, marking the first time a Muslim had addressed a major US political gathering.[86]

Integration

According to a 2004 telephone survey of a sample of 1846 Muslims conducted by the polling organization Zogby, the respondents were more educated and affluent than the national average, with 59% of them holding at least an undergraduate college degree.[87] Citing the Zogby survey, a 2005 Wall Street Journal editorial by Bret Stephens and Joseph Rago expressed the tendency of American Muslims to report employment in professional fields, with one in three having an income over $75,000 a year.[88] The editorial also characterized American Muslims as "role models both as Americans and as Muslims".

As of May 30, 2005, over 15,000 Muslims were serving in the United States Armed Forces.[94]

A Pew report released in 2009 noted that nearly six-in-ten American adults see Muslims as being subject to discrimination, more than Mormons, Atheists, or Jews.[95] While Muslims comprise less than two percent of the American population, they accounted for approximately one quarter of the religious discrimination claims filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during 2009.[96]

The writer of "Muslim Heritage, my eye" might also be interested in these sites:

Your facts regarding Muslim Americans are incorrect written by Jamal Badaani, a Muslim marine.

Besa: Muslims Who Saved Jews in World War II by Norman H. Gershman

II. This Message is Nativistic

"Muslim heritage, my eye" reminds me of the sort of nativist sentiment that some Protestants have directed towards Catholics. It seems to me that Protestants need to repent of such calumnies, and that both Protestants and Catholics need to avoid being tempted to repeat them toward Muslims.

This site details Anti-Catholicism on the Net.  It provides a disturbing witness to the long history of anti-catholic prejudice in America. It's author, David Cruz-Uribe, SFO (third order of St. Francis, ) loosely categorizes Anti-Catholic themes, including the following ways:

• ridiculing or misinterpreting Catholic doctrine or practice;
• ascribing to the Catholic Church a sinister role in an anti-Christian or anti-American conspiracy
• distorting or taking out of context illegal or scandalous behavior (especially sexual misconduct) by Catholic clergy or laity.

ISTM you could substitute "Semitic" or "Muslim" for "Catholic" and arrive at the same sort of prejudice, which fuels the KKK and other nativist groups. As Sean Baker writes,

...nativism represents the dangers of a cultural identity gone too far, a nationalism which refuses to accept those of a different faith or place. Finally, the past effects of nativism should urge any national or cultural identity to ask itself this question: can a group have the ability to balance its cultural pride with the importance of respecting and accepting those who are different?

Messages like "Muslim heritage" stir up hysteria, not unlike the sort of hysteria raised by Paul Blanshard's American Freedom and Catholic Power

American Freedom and Catholic Power is an anti-Catholic[1] book by American writer Paul Blanshard, published in 1949 by Beacon Press, which asserted that America had a "Catholic problem" in that the Church was an "undemocratic system of alien control". The book has been characterized as "vicious",[2] propaganda[who?] and as "the most unusual bestseller of 1949-1950".[3] It was based on a series of articles that he had published in the magazine The Nation.

Reception and criticism

When the book was released, The New York Times refused to accept advertising for the book and many bookstores refused to carry it.[8] However, the book circulated widely, selling in excess of 300,000 copies.[citation needed] It was praised by John Dewey, Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell and Horace Kallen as well as scholarly reviewers.[9] A work of rebuttal, Catholicism and American Freedom was written by James M. O'Neill and published in 1952. Blanshard's rejoinder to O'Neill and others was the pamphlet My Catholic Critics.[10] Blanshard published a second edition that updated the book.

William A. Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights calls it a "hate-filled" book that raised the "old canard of 'dual loyalties'" and included such "rubbish" as Blanshard's "Catholic Plan for America", which purportedly entailed "seizing the government, repealing the first amendment, outlawing divorce, and making the pope the president's official superior".[11] Philip Jenkins, the Protestant author of The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice, notes that the book contains echoes of the views of the American Protective Association and the Ku Klux Klan and, although Blanshard's plan of "resistance" to Catholicism did not prescribe the violence of those earlier anti-Catholic predecessors, that in the shadow of World War II readers would read the word resistance to have such an implication.[12]

Catholic author Robert Lockwood states the work essentially makes a secularist argument, despite having its foundation in English anti-Catholism of a Protestant variety.[13]

Blanshard's autobiography indicates that his precipitating concern in 1946, which propelled him to commence research, was the influence of Catholic doctrine upon the practice of medicine generally, and obstetrics specifically. The book incorporated nativist sentiments into its anti-Catholicism, including that the Church was a foreign power in America determined to dominate the world.[4][5]

Sound familiar? "Muslim Heritage, my eye!" offers us the same tune, only with different lyrics.