Forgiveness, Vengeance, and Justice

Some thoughts I had regarding the London bombings six years ago, seem relevant today. Vengeance is always wrong; justice is right. Forgiveness is always right; forgetting can be foolish.

Latino and Asian voters...cry foul! At-large elections not fair!



Years ago, when Harvey Milk first ran for office in the Castro District, he lost the first couple of times out at the polling stations.

That is a little known footnote in San Francisco (and LGBT) history.

The reason he failed to nab the popular vote first-time out in the heady days of open-and-out gay activism?

Quite simply, the city districts were structured in such a way, that the election process did not favor the homosexual community.

However, once the Castro District was rezoned, Milk was able to snap up the majority - in neighborhood where the voters were mostly gay or homo-friendly - go figure!

Now, the Asian and Latino communities in San Mateo County are crying foul for the same reason.

The two ethnic groups make up one quarter of the county's nearly 72,000 residents and a slightly smaller share of its voting-age population.

So, what is the fuss all about?

The two minorities are lamenting the fact that only one Latino - and no Asians-Americans - have held seats on the five-member Board of Supervisors since 1995.

According to a spokesperson for the disgruntled voters, the at-large system - combined with alleged "racially polarized voting" - unlawfully deprives Latino and Asian members in the community to voice their preferences meaningfully with ballot-in-hand.

For this reason, a lawsuit - based on voting rights - has been filed against San Mateo County.

The plaintiffs are demanding that the Judge presiding over the proceedings declare the upcoming county-wide elections illegal. 

Pursuant to state law, attorney Robert Rubin (Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights) has argued that new election districts should include a majority-Latino and majority-Asian American district.

"And, perhaps there should be a third district, in which two groups together form a majority," he noted, in an after-thought.

In response, County Counsel John Beiers has stated for the record in no uncertain terms, that he has not seen any evidence that the at-large system weakens the voting power of Latinos or Asian Americans.

The underlying arguments that the suit is based on refers to a 2002 California voting-rights Law that prohibits at-large elections in areas with a history of racially polarized voting - such as in the case where the majority voted as a bloc - against minority candidates and minority interests.

The litigants are optimistic about their chances of prevailing in court.

After all, an appeals court upheld the law in a suit against Modesto, in 2006.

On the heels of the ruling, the city switched from an at-large system to district elections.

In defense, opponents argue quite vigorously that at-large elections encourage voters to consider diverse views of an entire city or county.

But, critics pooh pooh that notion, for good reason.

In their view, the at-large elections allow a majority - whether racial or political - to control a governing board and ignore minority concerns.

We'll see which way the wind blows, after the issues are hashed out in court.

http://www.thetattler.biz

Beachfront property worth fighting for!

U.S. Supreme Court...Unconscionable ruling favors anti-gay protesters! 1st Amendment rights!



One headline said it all:

“Unconscionable but Constitutional”

Of course, I am referring to the high court’s ruling in favor of a hateful posse of protesters who were sued for picketing a soldier’s funeral because he was an “out” practicing homosexual.

While the actions of the rag-tag gang of Church-goers (!) from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka (Kansas) was considered deplorable (un-Christian-like, if you ask me) the Supreme Court was forced to recognize that the protesters (headed up by Fred Phelps) had a Constitutional right to voice their opinion that the “U.S.” was “overly tolerant of sin” and that God allegedly “Kills soldiers as punishment” for their “gay” lifestyle.

To many, though, the Church group’s anti-gay protests at funerals – where shameful parishioners waved signs that read – “God hates fags” and “Thank God for dead soldiers” – were “sick” and in bad taste.

Although their message may have been lacking in any resemblance to the loving God portrayed in the scriptures – or his message of compassion and understanding and forgiveness – Chief Justice John Roberts noted that Phelps and his bible thumpers observed the laws of the land because they maintained a thousand-foot buffer zone and protested without “physical” violence .

What about the mental and emotional anguish they wrought on innocent mourners?

With an 8-1 ruling to back his decision, the bench-warmer wrote in his opinion that “even hurtful speech on public issues” merits 1st Amendment protection.

In sum, the hypocritical religious zealots won this round – rightly so – for the aforementioned reasons.

However, in the eyes of God, their reprehensible conduct was not only unconscionable – but, sinful - as well.

The scriptures are quite specific in that regard in at least two passage as follows:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

John 8:7

“Judge not that ye be judged”

Mathew 7:1

Amen!

http://www.thetattler.biz




Chief Justice John Roberts votes for 1st Amendment rights!
(no matter how hateful in nature)

Forgiving the 9/11 Perpetrators?

A commenter on a friend's Facebook page said that, irrespective of what Christians are called to do, she would never forgive the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. Another commenter suggested that if a person can forgive the terrorists, "then you need to check yourself."

I understand their sentiments, of course. In the days following the 9/11 attacks, my wife and I were fond of the political cartoon showing an American eagle sharpening its talons preparing to respond. We liked it so much that we posted it on our refrigerator. Without getting into the specifics of endorsing or condemning any particular policies, my wife and I, like hundreds of millions of others thought that some response to the September 11 outrages had to come.

But I didn't agree with the commenters at my friend's site today when it came to this business of forgiveness. This is what I wrote:

There's a difference between forgiveness and heedlessness. In an imperfect world where people do evil things, God has provided for the establishment of governments in part to pursue justice--whether through domestic police powers, economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, imprisonment, or armies. The government that is heedless of injustices like the September 11 attacks would not be doing its job.

[Similarly, the woman, for example, who fails to get out of an abusive relationship or fails to take the necessary legal steps to keep an abuser from continuing to harm her, is not doing the right thing. She will be right to forgive, but she will be reckless to take no action, to be heedless of the threat her abuser poses in her life. She must do something to stop her abuser!]

But Jesus leaves no question as to whether we should forgive. Not forgiving will, if allowed to prevail in our lives, make us monsters who also commit injustices against others.

Forgiveness is hard to do. It requires supernatural power given to us only by God, which is why Jesus taught us to pray, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."

Vengeance is not the same thing as justice. 

Forgiveness is not the same thing as excusing. 

Release (aphiemi is the word in the Greek in which the New Testament was written) is one word for forgiveness used in the New Testament. [When we forgive,] we not only release others from their indebtedness to us, we release ourselves from the corrosive, hellish feelings that accompanying holding onto hatred, vengeful sentiments, and putting ourselves on God's throne of judgment. 

[Government leaders can only think clearly about how best to mete out justice, including the possibility of waging war, by getting all notions of revenge out of their minds. When armies wreak vengeance, they violate one of the most important principles of Christian belief on what constitutes a just war: proportionality.

[We similarly escalate relational discord in our own lives when we seek revenge rather than justice.]

I'm only a student of the lessons God wants us to learn, by the way.

What I try to do when faced with my inability to forgive or love others is to ask God to forgive or love them through me, in spite of my feelings. [Imperfectly,] I try to follow as Savior Who, as He died at the hands of hateful, violent people, against all common sense and evidence to the contrary, put the most charitable construction on his murderers' actions and prayed, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do!"

If Jesus can do that in His own power, maybe He can do it through [me in spite of] my weakness.

The Preacher, the Church, and Justice

The Christian preacher has a responsibility to speak for justice.

Pastor John Ortberg underscores this in a challenging article in the latest issue of Leadership Journal, Preaching Like the Prophets. There, he looks to the prophets of Old Testament times to show how important the quest for justice is for followers of the God Who revealed Himself to Israel and ultimately, in Jesus of Nazareth.

Writes Ortberg:

Events that horrified the prophets go on every day in our world, but we just get used to it--like you get used to wearing your watch. After awhile--we don't notice any more.

The prophets noticed. The prophets never got desensitized to sin. Injustice is sin. Justice is central to shalom.* We omit justice from our preaching at peril of our calling, and of our congregation's health and ability to see the reality around them.

Ortberg goes on to say that there are certain perils associated with preaching about justice, particularly in these times. "Our society has become so politicized," he points out, "that people often hear words like justice or life or the poor or compassion as code words for a partisan political allegiance in one direction or another." Also, he notes that preaching about justice can devolve into "self-righteous moralism" on the part of the preacher. But for all the perils it may entail, the preacher is still called to talk about justice as an outgrowth of Christian discipleship.

Most importantly maybe, Ortberg in this very good article, says that in preaching about justice, church leaders "will have to explain that the values embedded in the Bible do not necessarily have a straight-line translation into legislation." He writes:

For instance, all followers of Jesus are obligated to be concerned for the poor. But that does not mean that they should all be committed to passing a higher minimum wage law. Very bright economists disagree about whether such legislation actually results in helping the poor. As preachers, we do not further the cause of the authority of Scripture when we pretend to be experts over fields we have not mastered.

Amen!

Justice is an important element of the Christian's relationship with Jesus Christ. This is something we acknowledge in our Lutheran tradition, among other times, on the occasion of Confirmation, or Affirmation of Baptism, when adolescents or adult converts who have been baptized and trained in the faith publicly affirm their intention of living as faithful followers of Jesus Christ in their daily lives. Toward the end of the rite for Affirmation of Baptism, each individual is addressed and challenged to do just that:

You have made public profession of your faith. Do you intend to continue in the covenant God made with you in Holy Baptism: to live among God's faithful people, to hear His Word and share in His supper, to proclaim the good news of God in Christ through word and deed, to serve all people, following the example of our Lord Jesus, and to strive for justice and peace in all the earth?

The confirmand is then asked to respond with the words, "I do, and I ask God to help and guide me."

The message of the prophets was, in a nutshell, "Turn from sin, including injustice, and turn to God." None of them laid out specific political programs, recommended particular outlays of money to address specific issues, or commended particular laws. They trusted that if they shared God's Word, including the call and the command to seek justice, God would help the people see what they needed to do.

Today, preachers (and denominational groups) are called to preach justice and trust God to do the rest.

*Shalom is a Hebrew term. It means more than peace. It has the idea of our enjoyment of peace with God and all the good things--including justice and love--that flow from it in our relationships with others. Such peace begins in a relationship with Jesus Christ in which Jesus is our Lord, God, and Savior. As Paul writes in Romans 5:1, "...since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ..."

[UPDATE: Just today, Bishop Mark Hanson of the ELCA, released the text of a letter in which he got deep into the weeds of immigration reform, not my idea of what the bishop is best at or called to do.]