natalie's narrative

Read this now!

We are covering the death penalty in my criminal law class, so I decided to read a lengthy article in the New Yorker about a man in Texas who was sentenced to death, but who maintained until the end that he was innocent.  The piece is pretty long, but worth a read: Trial by Fire.  It is also extremely sad.  I really hope we can see changes soon with this system...

There are no words...

Again, the former Vice-President is being vocal.  Maybe he feels like he has to be in order to defend what he did for eight years:  Cheney: Torture probe "offends hell out of me."

Not only were his comments on torture and his views on Iran appalling as usual, but he stated this:

"In the intelligence arena, we ask those people to do some very difficult things,'' Cheney said. "Sometimes, that put their own lives at risk. They do so at the direction of the president...if they are now going to be subject to being investigated and prosecuted by the next administration, nobody's going to sign up for those kinds of missions.... It's a very, very devastating, I think, effect that it has on morale inside the intelligence community....''

If I remember correctly, didn't he out a covert CIA agent?  I cannot believe he would worry about the moral of the intelligence community!

Guns and the gospel of peace

I read an article today about a pastor encouraging his parishioners to bring their guns to a church service tonight (contingent on the pastor finding a new insurance carrier, as their current one canceled their coverage for today!!).  

This flies in the face of what Jesus said were the two greatest commandments.  I cannot reconcile supporting gun rights with loving your neighbor.  A different pastor who was shot in a different church while preaching is completely disgusted by the pro-gun pastor's actions, and commented:

“I don’t understand how any minister who is familiar with the teachings of the Bible can do this,” he added. “Jesus didn’t say, ‘Go ahead, make my day.’ ”

Troublemaking Jesus

I recently finished Becky Garrison's Red and Blue God, Black and Blue Church. Garrison contributes to Christian satire magazine, The Wittenburg Door, so her take on the ugliness of politics and religion takes on a little lighter tone. Here are some selections that I liked.

How being a Christian can cut through both the pro-life and pro-choice abortion stances:

...the "it's my body; forget about the baby" argument troubles me. As much as I'd like to champion my right to do as I please, this me-ism seems contradictory to the teaching that Christians are one body in Christ. I take this to mean that as followers of the teachings of Jesus, we have a collective responsibility to care for one another. Unless we consider an unborn baby to be a nonperson, I would include that baby as part of this Christian body. Having said that, watching a predominantly male pro-life leadership dictate how women should conduct their lives really gets me steamed sometimes. Compassionate conservatism? I think not. Let us not forget that this pregnant woman is also a member of the body of Christ. (88)

On churches' becoming entwined in partisan politics, Garrison quotes Brian McLaren: "To the degree that they have sold their spiritual birthright for a political ideology, they must repent; neither left nor right leads to the higher kingdom" (119). She continues:

...I do think one role the church has is to be prophetic--to speak truth to the powerful and hold the government's feet to the fire when our elected leaders neglect any segment of society. I don't see how the church can have a prophetic voice as long as it remains hostage to the particular whims of a political party--which as we all know is controlled in the end by the interests of those who bankroll the whole business of politics. (119)

Garrison also quotes another one of my favorite thinkers, Stanley Hauerwas:

Christians' first political responsibility is to be the church, and by being the church, they should understand that their first loyalty is to God, the God we worship as Christians, in a manner that understands that we are not first and foremost about making democracy work, but about the truthful worship of the true God. (129)

Finally, in the epilogue, Garrison cites Jesuit priest and peace activist John Dear:

Just because the culture and the cultural church have now joined with the empire and its wars does not mean that we all have to go along with such heresy, or fall into despair as if nothing can be done. It is never too late to follow the troublemaking Jesus, to join his practice of revolutionary nonviolence and become authentic Christians. We may find ourselves in trouble at the hands of so-called Christians, just as Jesus was in trouble at the hands of the so-called religious leaders of his day. But this very trouble may lead us back to those Beatitude blessings. (131)

Caught Up

I recently started reading immigration law professor Bill Ong Hing’s Deporting Our Souls: Values, Morality and Immigration Policy. This book is a great way to familiarize yourself with the ongoing debate, to which Hing brings extensive knowledge, common sense, and compassion.

In the introduction, Hing provides a good summary of the recent history of our nation’s immigration/border policies. When the Clinton administration began “Operation Gatekeeper” in 1994, the idea was to militarize the southern border, building fences along the popular crossing areas. The number of migrants did not drop, however. Instead, people have been forced to cross over more dangerous terrain, and the death toll has risen: 

In 1994, fewer than 30 migrants died along the border; by 1998, the number was 147; in 2001, 387 deaths were counted; and by 2005, 451 died. The pattern continued in 2006. Given the risks, why do migrants continue the harrowing trek? The attraction of the United States is obvious. The strong economy pays Mexican workers, for example, eight to nine times more than what they can earn in Mexico. For many, it’s a matter of economic desperation, and some observers think that migrants would continue to cross even if we mined the border. In a sense, they do not have a choice (3).

No matter what kind of enforcement is implemented, people are still going to attempt to cross. Hunger, and the promise of steady employment, are pretty strong motivators, despite the risk. Hing writes that Mexico and the U.S. are interdependent, and obstructing this interdependent flow is only killing people and separating families: 

Beyond the economic situation in Mexico, a socioeconomic phenomenon is at play. The phenomenon is the long, historical travel patterns between Mexico and the United States, coupled with the interdependency of the two regions. Migration from Mexico is the manifestation of these economic problems and social phenomena. The militarization of the border does nothing to address these phenomena. Instead, it is killing individual who are caught up in the phenomena. And yet we condone this enforcement strategy knowing that needless deaths will continue (4).

Looking for an alternative...

Just a couple of hundreds yards away from where I live, what is said to be the largest abortion clinic in the nation will open in a few weeks. I was oblivious to the chaos this weekend, but evidently a group of 1,000 Christians picketed the clinic, displaying very graphic images along the busy street for all to see. Even children were holding posters of aborted fetuses. One of my supervisors at work was caught in the traffic jam caused by the protests, and she commented, “Those Christians just came across as crazy.” She spat the word “Christians”…

I feel sick to my stomach for a couple of reasons. Planned Parenthood, when they were constructing the building, did not put up any signage so that no one would know what was being built. Every time I went to the grocery store, I would drive by that building, which is next door, assuming it was going to be another bank. Having something like that so close to me is unsettling, since I’m (consistently) pro-life. However, I am certainly in favor of women gaining access to better health care and education, which is something else that the center offers.

It’s also unsettling to think of the “Christian” response to the opening of the clinic. I’d like to think that the protesters are a small percentage of Christians, and that most believers are more reasonable and wouldn’t display disturbing, graphic images like that. I wish a more thoughtful, charitable, and holistic response to abortion was the norm in the media, but of course that view isn’t as exciting.

I was involved in an anti-abortion group at a church I attended when I was at Wheaton. I eventually left the group after a few meetings because I began to feel uncomfortable. They were planning to protest and pray outside an abortion clinic. I would have been happy supporting an expectant, lower-income mom instead, or just someone of any income experiencing an unplanned pregnancy. I eventually left that church altogether since it was strongly complementarian and began to feel uncomfortable for that reason, as well.

The close proximity of all this is making me wonder what an alternative to protesting and graphic images could be…

The suburban family

I tend to notice alternative ways of thinking about families, mainly because one political/religious group in our country has a monolopy on "family." They think they get to define and defend it. What bothers me most is some say their focus on the family is Christian-based, when really their notion of family comes from our culture or even capitalism. Since I'm currently reading The Suburban Christian by Al Hsu, a few sections regarding family jumped out at me.

The very layout of suburbia is driven by American individualism. Each family is to have its own home, yard, transportation etc. Hsu notes, "Inherent to American suburbia is an emphasis on the pursuit of individual homeownership rather than a communal or corporate vision of civic community" (39). He also includes a quote by Dolores Hayden, "Unlike every other affluent civilization, Americans have idealized the house and yard rather than the model neighborhood or the ideal town" (39). Capitalism perpetuates the single-family housing boom, as well. It is in the best interests of mortgage companies, Home Depots, developers, and other retailers to further the idea of one home for each family. No sharing here--that would hurt profits!

This idea of a single-family home is ingrained in our culture. It's expected of us; of course we can't live with our college buddies forever. Or heaven forbid with mom and dad! Owning your very own home is the ideal, the last thing along the continuum of living spaces, so in our culture it's a good thing. I think it's a good thing too, given that I hate throwing money away on rent. I've been wondering, though, about alternatives. Shane Claiborne has mentioned a neighborhood that got together and decided to share their stuff. They didn't have multiple lawn mowers and tools, etc. And Hsu brings up "sixplexes," a proposal by Christian futurist Tom Sine, where six families would live under one roof. They would share a larger kitchen, dining room, and living room.

In addition, Hsu mentions that the suburbs are not what we think: homogeneously white. Suburbs are in fact quite diverse, but since they are set up differently than cities, we tend to think they are full of middle-class whites. Suburbs were originally set up for mostly white people, after World War II, but now these communities are seeing a number of ethnic backgrounds. The set-up was also individualistic, single-family homes, but people from non-white ethnicities have transformed the uses of such homes. Multi-generational families live there, not just mom and dad with two kids.

Hsu points out that these families that may look different to us "demonstrate family values and identity not often seen in typical (white) American families, where relatives beyond the nuclear family rarely live under one roof" (43). He says that such families are similar to the descriptions of families in Scripture.

So it seems truly having family values involves more than making sure movies don't have sex scenes or curse words. It means more than focusing on "sanctity of marriage" or "sanctity of life." Espousing family values that correspond with the Gospel may mean practicing things that hit closer to home. Sure, it would be easy for me to parrot the talking points of James Dobson, but thinking about my living space in terms of economic justice and community is a different story!

Hmmm...

The Oklahoma Legislature will soon consider a provision that would extend state-funded prenatal coverage to the unborn children of undocumented pregnant women. Under the current law, state funds will pay only for the actual birth of a baby whose mother is not a U.S. citizen. Health care workers, who daily see the effects of little or no prenatal care, would like to see all of the unborn cared for.

I wonder what this intersection will mean to some. I don't have anything to back this up at all--but I wonder if many hard core pro-lifers are sympathetic to undocumented immigrants? Maybe I'm just giving in to stereotypes. The issue that anti-immigrant groups take with the undocument population is that they use up state/local funds that should go to citizens (although they forget to note that many undocumented workers pay sales, property, and income taxes). What about if state funds are used to protect the unborn of undocumented mothers? I just thought it was an intriguing intersection of issues...

Bridging the divide...an opening on abortion...

E.J. Dionne, in the Washington Post today, points out a House bill, called the "Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act." The co-sponsors are an anti-abortion congressman and a pro-choice congresswoman. Its goals include reducing teen pregnancy, promoting effective contraception, improving parenting skills, and it also supports better access to health care and child care assistance. Dionne notes (bolded words mine):

"The public debate usually ignores the fact that abortion rates are closely tied to income. As the Guttmacher Institute has reported, 'the abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level . . . is more than four times that of women above 300 percent of the poverty level.' The numbers are stark: 44 abortions per 1,000 women in the lower income group, 10 abortions per 1,000 women in the higher income group."

"In other words: If you truly care about reducing the number of abortions, you have to care about the well-being of poor women."

Pro-family?

On Monday’s God’s Politics blog, Jim Wallis writes about a low-income mother who would have aborted her baby had she not had the financial/health care assistance from the government. Now her daughter will soon graduate from Harvard. The idea behind Wallis’ entry is that being pro-life and pro-family has to include fighting poverty.

While Christians who are interested in reducing poverty may have different philosophies about the approach our government should take, Wallis is right on. I work with low-income married and unmarried couples who are about to have a baby, or who have recently had a baby. The goal is to keep families together, because studies have found that lowering the poverty rate is inextricably linked to lowering the divorce rate and keeping families from splitting up. Low-income couples have less of a support system, and thus have been dubbed “fragile families.” They are at a higher risk for divorce, domestic violence, and child abuse. This is turn adds to the cycle of poverty for the next generation. Moreover, once these fragile families begin to earn enough to move up the ladder, they run into what is called the cliff effect. Their earnings make them ineligible for government assistance, yet it is still not enough to live on without help.

In spite of these issues that families have, a lot of contradictions seem to exist. Groups that are bent on outlawing abortion tend to be in favor of cutting off the assistance badly needed by the couples who actually decide to keep the baby. Even if one is against relying on the government to provide the assistance, why aren’t other structures being set up in order to replace the seemingly ineffective and inept government? If a Christian says that the government shouldn’t have the job of caring for the poor, then why isn’t she or he working to make sure the church can do the job? Instead, we pour our money into the fancy new sound systems and “family life centers.” The name should actually be “middle-class white family life center.” Groups that are more likely to support our lower-income populations may overlook the need for a strong support group of community, church, family, etc., and many aren't accustomed to working with couples or promoting marriage.

Speaking of (and I think I’ve said this before), groups that say they focus on the family seem in reality to be focusing on the white middle-class family. Many parts of the church have turned into nothing but political machines that aim to end two things: abortion and homosexuality, all under the guise of being pro-life and pro-family. Yet their efforts are completely irrelevant to the needs of many, many families, many who, in the midst of trying to find adequate transportation to their jobs and diapers for their babies, couldn’t care less about gay marriage.

I guess after my very short period of time so far working with low-income refugees, immigrants, and expecting or new-parent couples, I’ve become frustrated with the big difference between what is and what should be, especially since I’m a Christian, and supposedly the Christian faith has much to do and say about caring for the poor. Again…big difference between what is and what should be.