Fr. Scott’s Neighborhood

Pacifism, Non-Violence, Christianity, and Catholicism

For the next several months--or as long as it takes--the Ghost of Tom Joad Blog is going to be dedicated exclusively to talking about non-violent resistance and what that means for Catholics and for all Christians. Many of the initial discussions will take place between myself and Daniel Baker, whom you'll meet shortly. The idea to blog about this subject came to mine and Daniel's faculties during an e-mail conversation. The e-mail conversation began with this e-mail of mine to the Catholic Peace Fellowship:

Dear CPF: I probably know what your answers are to the following

questions, but I'd like your advice on them.

One of the hardest things for me has been speaking out about what I

believe. It's hard for me to hear the criticism, especially from

conservatives who were once my friends but turn their backs on me

when I tell them how I really feel about America or what I learned

from my time in Canada. I've also gotten in trouble with the Chair

of my Department here in the States, who considers himself a

"liberal," but doesn't want his faculty "stirring the pot" so to

speak. So, when I wanted to go and protest with 3 other professors

about the Iraq War, he said, "No!"

Someone recently said to me, "As someone who practices non-violent

resistance and pacifism, you don't have any problem do you arguing

for your positions." They went on to say that such arguments are

very violent and then added no pacifist would ever say things like

"damn or hell..." because such rhetoric is violent...

What do you think about this and what do you do? Don't Christians

have a right to speak out? Don't they have a right to be angry

about what's going on in this world?

Do we just have to let this stuff roll off of our shoulders? I'm

really at a loss here, because I've begun to see that a lot of

people--Christians even--in American culture don't want to hear the

truth! And, when the truth is spoken, we get stereotyped as being

"violent" for telling the truth. But, this seems inconsistent with

protest movements like those of MLK. He said what he meant, and I

always assumed that this was biblical since Christ said, "Let your

Yes be Yes and your No be No..."

Second, what do you do with all those people who write back and

say, "Stop sending me this crap!" What do you do with people who

don't want to engage on the issues? Furthermore, what do you do

with people who say, "You take this stuff too seriously... lighten

up... I don't want to be your friend if you're going to be this way?"

Finally, is it possible to stay friends with people who are

adamantly pro-War? Who at every turn want to argue with you and

tell you why you're wrong? Do some relationships just need to be

cut off or is that itself violent?

Thanks... (I'm just curious what your experience has been)

In the Struggle for Justice and Peace,

David Wheeler-Reed

*** Daniel's response was this:

Dear Mr. Wheeler-Reed,

Hello. Thank you for your message. While I feel like the least qualified one here to answer your questions, I'll give it a shot.

I am a 22 year old who has no formal theology training or college experience. I live with two ND theology professors at the South Bend Catholic Worker where I work and live with the homeless and study independently.

I am a conscientious objector who was still in the Navy only a year and a half ago. I would consider myself a pacifist.

From the time leading up to my becoming a "full-fledged" conscientious objector until my discharge, I encountered a lot of opposition to my developing stance against war and belief in a non-violent Jesus. Even though I still loose my temper arguing
issues of war, Christianity, and conscience, I REALLY would loose my temper while still in the military trying to argue my position. I would curse and speak in violent tones. While I personally feel like Christians should speak out against injustice, i've come to believe that cursing and loosing control of your temper does nothing to further your case. Having said this however, I don't feel that violent words should discredit someone's sincere beliefs. After all, being pacifist means not killing. It doesn't mean speaking nicely. (Muhammad Ali was a conscientious objector!) Nonetheless, as you know there is certainly a biblical basis for anyone who brings that argument against you.

***"You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.'But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, 'Raqa,' will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, 'You fool,' will be liable to fiery Gehenna.
Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift'. (Matt 5:21-24)***

This, of course, leading up to "love your enemies", puts a heavy burden on those who argue for peace and pacifism from a Christian stance.

Nonetheless, Jesus said it. To not practice it, I believe, does give someone else the groundwork to argue that they just as well should ignore or "not take so seriously" the "love your enemies" talk.

In regards to MLK, he was a HUGE inspiration to me while still in the military. It struck me that even though he spoke (and wrote) with such passion, that he didn't curse anyone or direct his frustration at others or call for retaliation. A man who can have his house bombed with wife and child inside and call for the gathering crowd to love the people who did it, I think is a great example of how to be passionate, but not violent. After all, I don't believe that any of his words or arguments changed anyone's mind who were in opposition to him. It was his witness that converted people- the way he lived his life.

After reflecting on this and on the Gospels, I have personally decided NOT to attend protests, especially violent ones which seem to do nothing but further polarize people along right-left party lines. If one is to make the argument for peace from a Christian faith, I believe the argument should not be about who gets elected to the White House or how stupid George Bush is. The issue is not conservative or liberal. In fact, if forced, I would probably side with conservatives on many more issues than I would liberals. Yet I reject war, live voluntary poverty (try to at least), help the homeless (without passing the buck to the state who doesn't do a very good job with the taxes we give them), and support life at every stage, from conception to natural death. Raising these other issues, from a Catholic stance, from the Pope's messages, breaks down any kind of dividing lines between liberal and conservative and forces people to think outside of those pre-packaged boundaries.

Simply educating yourself on the history of pacifism in the Church (early Church especially), the development of just war theory, and the pretty radical statements the Pope is making today, is enough of an argument in itself- at least when it comes to talking with Catholics. It always helps to be able to say "The Pope is on my side".

-Furthermore, what do you do with people who say, "You take this stuff too seriously... lighten up... I don't want to be your friend if you're going to be this way?"-

I feel like the Catholic Worker (at least the one here in South Bend which is composed of Christians who try to practice their faith) and like organizations who try their best to practice ALL teachings of Christ (practice the works of mercy AND reject the works of war), do the best job at planting a seed in those who have yet to think that Christ could have ACTUALLY MEANT what He said. It brings legitimacy to it all. I've yet to be told by anyone that I take my work with the homeless too seriosly! And yet this makes it possible for me to speak out on more controversial issues like war. At monthly gatherings held at our drop-in center for the homeless in down town South Bend, I have gotten up in front of a crowd of friends, strangers, and guests. Some conservatives with sons in the military and others liberals. I pleaded with all of them (they were mostly all donors by the way, so I was risking loosing a lot of money from half the crowd) that they should not pay their federal
taxes that support the works of war and STOP supporting the troops in what they are doing. I said that it is a soldier's individual choose to pull the trigger and follow orders. Who has George Bush pulled the trigger on directly? I could say this because I spend my mornings here at CPF providing real support for the troops by counseling them with whatever problems they have and helping many of them get out of the military for various reasons, sometime conscientious objection. I care about them all and do more than put a yellow magnet on my car.

I know I may be slipping into a self-righteous tone here, but I'm just trying to make the point that I can remain friends with the guys I knew in the Navy, yet still reject war. I can talk with a Sergeant over the phone and listen to him lecture me about "American values" and still end the conversation peacefully. I brought my supervisor in the Navy( who was a great guy) to some kind of a conversion by talking with him about the Christian faith and being vocal about my struggles with him. He didn't agree, but I didn't argue with him. Seeing me sit there all day and read about Mother Teresa and the Bible eventually got him to think again. I was passionate about my faith. Before I left the military, he told me "You may just be right, you pinko-commi-bastard"( He meant this in the nicest way). That's more than I could ever have hoped for. It was the guys I argued with who just continued to reject my statements more and more.

I hope I got around to most of your concerns. I can only speak out of experience. The experience of a self-righteous 22 year old Christian anarchist at that. I would be happy to continue this conversation and will keep you and your faculty in my prayers.

Peace,
Daniel Baker
Catholic Peace Fellowship/
GI Rights

*** We invite everyone to participate in this most serious discussion. If you don't want to participate, please check back often and continue to read, read, and read even more! We need informed consciences in this destructive day and age that we all live in ***

In the struggle for peace,

David

Counting the Cost but Doing it Backwards...

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit... Amen!

Our text today is Luke 14:25-33. It's a familiar text, because we often call it "The Cost of Discipleship," to borrow from the title of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's classic book by the same name.

(see text at end of post)

If you're like me, you remember what it was like to have become "Born Again." At the time it was a spectacular experience, but it soon fizzled away when we realized the Jesus we were told about wasn't going to help us win the lottery nor was he going to take away our genetic flaws such as chemical dependence or generational depression. Not that I'm an alcoholic mind you, but I've suffered with depression for years, as have many people in my family. In my younger days it was all the fault of some "sin" of mine, or it was some supernatural abomination that attacked me day after day--again, because of something I'd done. Today, though, I realize it's "my thorn in the flesh," but that's another story for another time.

A few days ago I started to think about "Born Again" language after I read a blog post by my friend, Brian Walsh. The post went on and on about how "Born Again" language is actually violent language. When one says "I'm a Born Again Christian" they often mean, "I'm better than you and you're going to hell because your not like me!" In a sense--and this is my own addition to Walsh's perceptive commentary--this is no different than when Christians vote for leaders who are pro-death penalty. "Your a bad person," the say, "so you deserve the electric chair!" This isn't Christian, of course, and it seriously smacks in the face of "redemption," which even "Born Again" Christians need, since Paul is very clear that none of us are completely redeemed until the second coming of Jesus.

What struck me though as I reflected on Walsh's post is how in today's consumerist Christian market, where it seems more important how large your church is or how many people you've saved--as if the number of souls you've saved is akin to making marks on your bed post based on the number of times you've done you know what...--is that we do the "salvation thing" backwards from the way Jesus did it in the 1st C CE. And, this is certainly the case if we take Luke 14:25-33 seriously! Then again, who wants to take a passage of Scripture seriously that says to all of us straight, upper-middle class, white folks that we should "sell all of our possessions?" (More on this below).

For years Scripture scholars have pointed out how Jesus' rhetoric in vv. 25-26 is hyperbolic. In fact, "hating father and mother" is a Semitic expression from the Hebrew Bible that simply means, "You must love God more than you love your father and your mother." In fact, this isn't even the hard part of the text. If you want to know the truth, it's v. 27 that bothers me the most, along with that whole thing about "sell your possessions!"

In v. 27 where Jesus tells his followers that they must "carry their cross" we find one of the most anti-imperialist sayings in all of Jesus' teachings. The cross is a Roman symbol of terrorism. If someone got out of line in the 1st C, then the Romans went and made an example out of you by crucifying you on a cross. It was that simple! Jesus, by the way, wasn't crucified between two thieves, as far too many of your English translations tell us, but he was crucified between two political insurrections--two enemies of Rome. No matter how we've tried to whitewash Pilate over the years as well as the numerous Roman soldiers that mocked Jesus, Rome had it in for Jesus because his kingdom--his empire--conflicted with Rome's.

When I reflect on "carrying my cross," I'm reminded of all the times I was told that this was just about some fantastic spiritual journey. "Carrying a cross" was about the hazards of American life; the hazards of introspection, and the hazards of being persecuted by some professor who gave you a "B" instead of an "A" for a course. (I now know why I got that "B" by the way. It had nothing to do with the professor persecuting me, it had to do with my being unbelievably arrogant toward a non-believer. So much for love...). Today, though--and it only took me 10 years of graduate school to figure this one out (really, I'm starting to realize just how dumb I truly am)--I read this text in a whole new light.

Today, I realize this is Jesus telling us, "If you want to be my disciple you're going to have to get in trouble with the governments and empires of this world. You're going to have to say things like 'love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you' and face the fact that they will kill you for telling the truth!" More to the point, Jesus is saying, "You may not be a political insurrectionist--I certainly wasn't--but they're going to think you're a threat to the established order, because you're not like them!"

I think this same theme occurs in Revelation. In that book Christians are told to accept martyrdom over selling-out to the Roman empire. And, I've got to admit, this always leaves me wondering, "Are we as Christians--Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox--saying anything that the powers that be in our country might actually want to send us to the new symbol of American imperialism, the electric chair?"

As is always the case with Jesus, he supports his teaching by stories--by parables. He tells these amazing stories about people wanting to build a tower. He wants us to reflect and say to ourselves, "That's dumb! Yeah, what kind of idiot would go out and start a massive project on a new World Trade Center without thinking through whether or not the people of New York have enough change to spare for this project? And, if we build it, will terrorists come and knock them down again?" Jesus is such a rationalist here! Of course people will ridicule a failed project! If we rebuilt the Twin Towers and terrorists knocked them down again the world would say, "Those Americans! They never learn..." and perhaps they'd be right!

Jesus then goes on to talk about a king--an emperor really--who goes out to fight another emperor. The first emperor's army is too small to face that of the other emperor's army. Can the first emperor win? Can a gigantic empire like the United States take on a backwards country like Iraq? Can a first rate military hyperpower take on a country like Afghanistan, where most of the people have yet to experience the intellectual revolution known as the "Enlightenment?" Notice, if you will, that contrary to all the wisdom in Washington, DC that Jesus is for diplomacy and for the negotiation of peace. Need I say more? Don't blame me here, it's Jesus who says, "If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace." But, let's ask the appropriate question, shall we? Why is Jesus telling us these stories?

I think the answer is obvious, but it's not so obvious to us because we "count the cost by doing it backwards!" Yes, in the Catholic Church we do do things like RCIA and catechesis, but do we ever sit down and just say to people wanting to become Catholic, "You will be persecuted for your beliefs! Maybe not today, but someday you will pay a price"? Do we ever tell these converts, "You will have to take political positions that will upset both Democrats and Republicans"? Do we ever once mention that "the cross" is a political symbol and that if we are to imitate Jesus, we will have to say things that upset the empires of our own day? Do we ever once tell begging converts that when the going gets tough we must accept martyrdom at the hands of empires instead of fighting back with all our of might? The same holds true for those who evangelize in the "born again" crowds.

Do Evangelicals and Pentecostals and Charismatics and Mega Church goers tell people to think long and hard about what they are about to do after they've just been given the wisdom of the "Four Spiritual Laws?" Have these evangelists ever told people to read about Christians in Africa who are experiencing mutilations, rapes, and murder after murder because of what they believe? Have these evangelists ever told people about what happened to the Christians in Iraq who were exiled from their homes when the US invaded and how they were sent to Syria where they may live out their remaining days far away from their homeland? Do these evangelists ever tell their converts that one day they might have to stand up and shout to the politicians in Washington, "I'm a member of the Empire of God! My President is Jesus! I'm a Christian and not an American!!!"?

The problem for most of us is that we become Christian and then count the cost at a much later day and date. We count it long after our baptism or long after our conversion. We just do the whole thing backwards from how Jesus did it!

If I may be so bold here, let me just say that Jesus didn't care about numbers! He didn't care about creating a "cult of personality." He needed people who were going to say, "Give mercy at all cost because that's what God does--God gives mercy at all cost; even at the cost of God's precious dignity!" This reminds me, by the way, of something the 20th C Neo-orthodox theologian Karl Barth once said, "Show me a big church and I'll show you a place where the Gospel has never been preached."

Now, all that's left to say is, "What about 'sell your possessions'?"

To this day I still don't understand why we are so willing to take injunctions about homosexuality seriously but never once those parts of Scripture that exhort us to give everything we have to the poor. I don't believe Jesus was a socialist, nor that he was a communist. Why? Because he was Jesus. But, I don't think Jesus was kidding.

I grew up as a well-off kid. I'd the silver spoon in my mouth. As my mom once told me, "There's never going to be a day in your life that you will know what it's like to be poor." I remember thinking about this when Kari and I were in pre-marriage classes at St. Stephen's in Sewickley, PA. One of the priests asked all of us, "What teaching from Jesus bothers you the most?" I think I got the answer wrong, because apparently you were supposed to say something about adultery, pre-marital sex, or divorce. Instead, I said, "It's hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven!" The room fell silent as if those present had never read this in the Bible. I guess when your in a church where the average income is in the low six figures and the priest belongs to a local country club, well, you should expect silence.

Right now in this country we may not have to count the political cost of discipleship, but we do have to count the economic cost of it.

Even if we are doing it backwards, are we ready after years of the illusion to give up all that we have? If not, then maybe the Kingdom of Heaven--Jesus' movement--isn't for us.

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit... Amen.

25Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. 27And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

28"Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? 29For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, 30saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.'

31"Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. 33In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.

On Why Republicans Aren't Pro-Life

Check out this blog from the Huffington Post... UNBELIEVABLE!!! You'll love it...

Link to Huffington Post Blog

Catholic Democrats

For Immediate Release:      Media contacts:
August 25, 2008                    Steve Krueger, krueger@catholicdemocrats.org
                                                 C: 617-817-8617

Catholic Democrats Will Provide Catholic Perspective at Democratic National Convention in Denver

WHAT:

Representatives from Catholic Democrats will be available to speak to the media regarding the Catholic case for Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama and running mate Senator Joe Biden at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado.

Catholic Democrats is an association of state based groups representing a Catholic voice within the Democratic Party, and advancing a public understanding of the rich tradition of Catholic Social Teaching and its potential to help solve the broad range of problems confronting all Americans. The organization initially formed in 2004.

Dr. Patrick Whelan, founder and president of Catholic Democrats, and Steve Krueger, national director of Catholic Democrats, will be on site at the Convention in Denver and will be available to speak to media regarding current Catholic thinking regarding hope, personal responsibility, and the common good. If you are interested in speaking with either of these individuals, please contact Catholic Democrats by phone at 617/817-8617 or by e-mail at media@catholicdemocrats.org.

WHO:

Dr. Patrick Whelan, Co-founder and President, Catholic Democrats
Steven A. Krueger, National Director, Catholic Democrats

To schedule an interview, please contact Steve Krueger atkrueger@catholicdemocrats.org or by phone at (617) 817-8617

Catholic Democratic Leadership Bios

Patrick Whelan, MD PhD, is the co-founder and president of the Catholic Democrats. He has written widely on the medical issues that dominate the interface between Catholicism and American political life, and contributed to faith-based efforts to bring an end to the tragic war in Iraq. Dr. Whelan is a founding member of the Dominican Lay Scholars Community in Boston, is the co-director of Massachusetts Pax Christi, and has been active in parish life in many capacities. He is a member of the pediatrics faculty at Harvard Medical School.

Steve Krueger is a grass roots activist and commentator on local, national, and international issues related to the Catholic Church and society. He has been the founding Executive Director of several non-profit organizations, bringing his private sector start-up experience to mission driven causes, most notably as the founding Executive Director of Voice of the Faithful. He played a pivotal role in passing legislation in Massachusetts in 2006 that repealed the criminal statute of limitations for crimes of sexual abuse to children and minors. He is active in Parish life and helped establish a parish AIDS Outreach Program and other outreach ministries.

About Catholic Democrats

Catholic Democrats is an association of state based groups representing a Catholic voice within the Democratic Party, and advancing a public understanding of the rich tradition of Catholic Social Teaching and its potential to help solve the broad range of problems confronting all Americans. For more information about Catholic Democrats please go towww.catholicdemocrats.org

Quick Links

Catholic Democrats

Steven Krueger

Ph: 617-817-8617
krueger@catholicdemocrats.org

Forward email

This email was sent to dwheelerreed@mac.com by media@catholicdemocrats.org.

Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.

Email Marketing by

Catholic Democrats | PO Box 290331 | Boston | MA | 02129

Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace

http://www.sojo.net/

A Pop-Star Pastor's Public Fall and the Christian Cult of Celebrity (by Jarrod McKenna) 08-25-2008Mal-Engagement, Disengagement, and Wise Engagement (by Brian McLaren) 08-25-2008Talismans and Tokens (by Phyllis Tickle) 08-24-2008A Multicultural Witness Against the 'Homogenous Unit Principle' (part 2, by Jin S. Kim) 08-22-2008Death of Zambia's President -- and Zimbabwe's Negotiations (by Nontando Hadebe) 08-22-2008

"Brian Walsh on the Violence of 'Born Again' Language"

"Born Again," A Murderous Shibboleth

(from the Empire Remixed blog, July 28th, 2008)

So what’s wrong with being “born again”? In my last blog I suggested that the term “born again” is a ‘shibboleth.’ You remember where this word ‘shibboleth’ comes from, right? In Judges chapter 12 the Gileadites engage in genocide against the Ephraimites. But how do you know who an Ephraimite is and who is not an Ephraimite?

Well, when the men of Gilead met someone who they suspected of being an Ephraimite they asked him to say ‘shibboleth’ and if they replied ‘sibboleth’ then their accent and their inability to make the ‘sh’ sound in this word was proof that they were Ephraimites and they were then killed.

Nice stuff.

So when I say that being ‘born again’ is a shibboleth I am saying that this term functions as a foundational boundary marker of who is in and who is out, and that such boundary markers are a matter of death to those who are out.

Wait a minute, you say. Is Walsh saying that born again Christians want to kill anyone who is not one of them? Umm, well … yes, that is what I am saying.

Think about if for a minute. If you are not born again, then what are you? Well, you are not a Christian. And in ‘born again’ theology what happens to those who are not born again? They go to hell! So yes, I am saying that this particular shibboleth functions as all shibboleths function, to justify death – eternal death and damnation – to any who cannot or will not use this particular language.

That’s a bit of a stretch you say. It’s not as if born again Christians are going around killing people. At worse, their theology leaves the killing for God to accomplish.

I’m not so sure. To begin with, as a campus minister and lecturer I have met hundreds of people who have been killed by born again Christianity. Hundreds of people who have had their faith sucked out of them because they could not say ‘born again’ with the proper evangelical accent and enthusiasm. Hundreds of people who had their Christian faith killed because it could not conform to the constricted and narrow theology of the evangelicalism in which they were raised.

So yes, born again Christianity is killing people. Indeed, it tends to sacrifice its own children, and such a thing is not uncommon amongst idolatrous religions. And you may reply that this is a metaphorical killing. But killing it is.

Murder by metaphor.

But born again Christianity also engages in literal murder. On one level this is a theology that anticipates the suffering and violent deaths of millions of the world’s inhabitants during the Great Tribulation. It ought not surprise anyone that a faith that will condemn to hell those who will not use its particular shibboleth would then also have an eschatology that anticipates precisely such a genocide.

But there is one other way in which this is a murderous faith. There is no coincidence in the linking of the Religious Right and evangelical ‘born again’ faith. I know that there is a shift underway in the evangelical movement that has seen, or perhaps might see, the waning of the Religious Right. Check these sites out for more on that:

Emergent Village
Jesus for President
Revolution in Jesusland
Sojourners

And I see in this a movement of the Spirit of God. But we cannot move forward as a Christian community that seeks justice in the context of a dynamic relationship to Jesus and the kingdom that he brings, without facing the horrors of a born again Christianity that has legitimated a conservative politics that supports increased military expenditures, the ‘war on terror’, nationalism, unjust trade agreements, the death penalty, decreased support for the poorest of the poor, extreme individualism, capitalist greed, and despoliation of God’s good creation.

Okay, so I’ve been on a bit of a rant here. And I know that some of my friends are going to be upset with what I’ve written. But it seems to me that we have to face up to the evil that this ‘born again’ movement has been.

I was born again when I was sixteen years old. And it was a rebirth. I look upon that process of my conversion as a birth experience. My life, my true life as a child of God, as a son of my Father, began when I turned to Jesus. But the first time I walked into an evangelical church where everyone talked the talk of being ‘born again’ I had a disquieting feeling that what they were talking about wasn’t what I experienced when my life was turned to following Jesus and his kingdom. I’ve struggled with this all of my life.

So what do I do? Give up on the language of being ‘born again’ because it has become a murderous shibboleth? Or insist on reclaiming it?

You know, it’s one little metaphor in a Bible rich with metaphor. I think I can let this one go.

MotherJones.com | Home - Daily News, Political Commentary and Analysis

http://www.motherjones.com/

Mapping the Pentagon's Global Footprint Exclusive: In a yearlong project, Mother Jones investigated US military activity around the globe, country by country. Presenting our new primer of the post-Bush world order. MORE FROM MOTHER JONES: Mission Creep Intro US Troops Retake the Dragon's Lair How to Stay in Iraq for 1,000 Years Brzezinski Talks Bases

Progressive Book Club

http://www.progressivebookclub.com/pb...

Did the White House have the CIA forge a letter proving a Saddam-Al Qaeda link? Did the Bush administration know--positively know--there were no WMDs in Iraq? Read Ron Suskind's The Way of the World and decide for yourself.

Catholic Worker Bookstore - Index

http://www.catholicworker.com/booksto...

Salaam, Shalom, Solh: Nonviolence and Resistance in the Middle East and Beyond 2008 War Resisters League Peace Calendar Ed. by Jim Haber, Cover and inside design by Rick Bickhart $13.95, spiral bound, 128 pages