http://www.micahscall.org/content/index.php?topic=so_home Top thinking and reflections from MicahsCall Think/Discuss Copyright 2010 MicahsCall GeekLog Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:58:45 -0700 en-gb http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100727105324111 Peter Wong http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100727105324111 Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:53:00 -0700 http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100727105324111#comments Think/Discuss Posted on behalf of and with the permission of Jim Burklo (Associate Dean of Religious Life, University of Southern California).         ***************      Elephant Eggs       By Jim Burklo Have you ever eaten an elephant egg? Scrambled with pieces of rattlesnake leg? And served with a order of otter-beak sauce With soup from the fin of a rhinoceros?   Cooking these eggs is a hard thing to do; The biggest of boxcars can’t hold more than two. For an elephant egg I would sell my old truck! But in finding this egg I have run out of luck.   I searched all the day and then looked some more They laughed me out of the grocery store. Elephant eggs are as strange and as rare As feathers all over the back of a bear   Or ducks with trunks instead of their bills They’re nearly as scarce as buffalo gills Or platypus teeth or ladybug tails Or kangaroo horns or antelope scales.   I searched in the deserts, I traveled the seas; In the strangest of places I fell to my knees. For directions to find them I’d cry and I’d beg But no one could show me an elephant egg.   Until in the jungle of Quintana Roo, I met an old woman who said what to do: “A chicken’s egg omelette is something to taste, But searching for elephant eggs is a waste.”   I took her advice and I went to the store, I picked up ten dozen and then picked up more. To break them and whip them took oodles of work; There were so many eggs that I used a hay fork.   I fed my whole village one omelette that day, And over the chatter I heard a child say, “If I am a girl and my name is still Meg, I’m certain we’ve eaten an elephant egg!”   http://www.micahscall.org/content/trackback.php/20100727105324111 http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100608125743193 Peter Wong http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100608125743193 Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:05:00 -0700 http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100608125743193#comments Think/Discuss Introduction New York Times writer Nicolas Wade’s provocative new book “THE FAITH INSTINCT – How Religion Evolved & Why It Endures” contends that the growth and utility of religion can be explained by the principles of Darwinian evolutionary biology. Highlights from a Wade’s synopsis of the book are below, followed by discussion questions….. Read more from Wade’s synopsis by clicking on the above book title. Natural Selection Favors Religion Wade central thesis is that “religious behavior was favored by natural selection because of the survival advantage it conferred on early human groups.” Internal And External Threats To A Group’s Survival “Early human … faced two social problems of the utmost severity—the threat of free riders from within [i.e., people who don’t contribute to society’s survival] and the threat of hostile neighbors from without. How were the new societies to be fortified against these threats?” “A solution gradually emerged to counter the two acute threats of freeloading and of warfare: religion.” How Does Religion Enhance A Group’s Survival “Religious behavior addressed these two leading challenges to social order in the evolving human lineage. It both enforced the moral instincts and motivated people to pay any cost in defense of their community. Religion secured a new level of social cohesion by implanting in people’s minds a stern overseer of their actions.” Religion Promotes Social Cohesion For Survival Wade explains that religion’s key contribution for group’s survival is that it promotes social cohesion.  “It is striking that … evolution should have made cooperation and warfare two sides of the same coin [for survival]. Social cohesion is critical to … human systems.”  Evolutionary Biology Does Not Challenge The Existence Of God Wade contends that the evolutionary biology explanation for religion “does not challenge the central belief of either atheists or people of faith, since it offers no opinion as to whether or not God exists.” ***** Postscript ***** Controversy: Does Darwinian Selection Take Place At The Group Level?  Among evolutionary biologists there is a controversy as to whether Darwinian selection takes place only at the individual level, or at the group level as well? Central to Wade’s thesis is the assumption that Darwinian selection takes place at the group level – i.e., groups that effectively practiced religion to promote social cohesion where likely to prevail over those which did not.   ***** Questions For Thought, Comment, And Small Group Discussion ***** (1) Do you agree with Wade’s evolutionary biology theory to explain religion – why or why not? (2) Do you agree that the two most severe threats to a group’s survival are “free riders” and external hostile threats – why or why not?  What is a “free rider” and explain the threat to a group’s survival. (3) How does religion control “free riders”? (4) How does religion promote the defense of the community? (5) Are there other threats to a group’s survival that Wade overlooks – and are these also addressed by religion? (6) How does religion promote social cohesion?  (7) Do you think the principles of evolution biology can be applied to “group selection” in the way that Wade theorizes – why or why not? (8) Does the evolutionary biology theory of religion affect your religious views and your view of God – why or why not?              ***** Relevant Articles Previously Posted On MicahsCall ***** (1) “What I believe: Faith is complementary to reason” (by Peter Wong) is a personal faith statement about belief in God – and, why faith and reason together have much to contribute in making us whole beings, as both "reasoning" as well as "feeling" beings.      http://www.micahscall.org/content/trackback.php/20100608125743193 http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100608110045390 Peter Wong http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100608110045390 Sat, 17 Jul 2010 08:00:00 -0700 http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100608110045390#comments Think/Discuss Introduction And Background Do we need a new ethics of nature?  Paul Collier – Professor of Economics at Oxford, former head of Development Research at the World Bank, and author of the Plundered Planet – thinks so. Prof. Collier explains his proposed new ethics of environmentalism – based on the future’s right to the “value” of natural assets –  in his Financial Times op-ed titled “Towards a new ethics of nature.”  Among other things, Collier uses Jesus’ “Parable of the Talents” to support his new ethics of nature. He is a specialist in the political, economical and developmental predicaments of poor countries. His views have stirred much discussion in the environmental community. Why do we need a new ethics of environmentalism?  Prof. Collier is critical of the what he calls “romantic environmentalism”, with its emphasis on “preservation” – which he claims condemns poor societies to poverty. He is also critical of “mainstream economics”, with its emphasis on a utilitarian calculus in which “remote” future generations count as much as the current generation in the use of natural assets.  This utilitarian calculus, he claims, doesn’t accurately model human behavior – and, thus, explains why we have a  hard time convincing today’s generation to sacrifice for the future. His new rights-based ethics in the “value” of natural assets allows for the “use” of natural assets on behalf of future generations, when appropriate – and, alternatively, the “preservation" of natural assets for future generations, when appropriate.  Highlights of his op-ed are below, followed by discussion questions  Whether you agree with Prof. Collier or not, his viewpoint raises many thoughtful questions, some of which are listed below….. To read more of Prof. Collier’s Financial Times op-ed – you can access the article by: (1) using Google to search on the words “towards a new ethics of nature” (the article title), and (2) clicking on the search result with the URL beginning “FT.com” (the Financial Times internet domain name), generally the first Google search result.   *  The Present Expropriates What Should Belong To the Future “Natural assets are valuable and they are vulnerable. The current frontier for their exploitation is the quarter of the earth’s land surface home to the bottom billion: hence the new scramble for Africa. This is the last technically accessible region to be explored, but much of it is weakly governed.…. Ungoverned natural assets are subject to plunder: the few expropriate what should belong to the many, and the present expropriates what should belong to the future….. Plunder can only be avoided by robust collective action.” *  Preventing Plunder In The Societies Of The Bottom Billion “The struggle to prevent the plunder of nature will be fought mainly in the societies of the bottom billion, which control the current frontier, and in the international conference halls that must regulate the future frontier. Neither is a promising venue. Rallying around a simple common ethics of nature would improve the chances.” *  Romantic Environmentalists – Preservation For Future Generations “Unfortunately, nature has been moralised before it has been analysed. In popular debate the high moral ground has been seized by romantic environmentalists who define our ethical obligation as preservation. Even in the west this can never be more than a minority view.” *  Economic Utilitarians – Future Generations Count As Much As We Do “Meanwhile, in the more rarefied technocratic debate, the high ground has been occupied by economic models. The models judge choices about the future by an austere utilitarianism in which future people, however remote, count for just as much as we do….. If transferring a dollar from you to someone in the 23rd century helps them more than it hurts you, then away it should go irrespective of the fact that you worked for it and they did not. While this may describe the ethics of an anthill, it bears little resemblance to any human society.” *  Both Views Demand We Be Saints  “Both romantics and [economic utilitarian] modellers demand that we be saints. Condemned to fall short of these standards, people retreat into a shrug: God make me good, but not yet.” *  We Are Custodians Of “Value” In the Natural Assets  “The ethical test is the thought experiment of putting ourselves in the position of some future generation. In an impoverished society, the future will prefer to inherit schools and cities rather than to remain in impoverished purity [of the natural asset]. This simple ethical test of whether we are infringing the rights of the future is much closer to how we see our obligations than either utilitarianism or romantic environmentalism. Respecting the rights of the future [in the value of he natural asset] is manifestly more compelling than basing decisions on the esoteric sanctity of the infinite-horizon utilitarian calculus.” *  Simple Ethics Of Nature: To Pass On The “Value” Of Natural Assets “Our obligation to the future is not to preserve purity [of the natural asset] but to pass on equivalent value for the natural assets we deplete. If, by converting natural assets into more productive assets, a poor society can escape poverty, then it should do so.” *  The Parable Of Talents – About Being “Custodians” Of Nature “[T]he idea that natural assets oblige us to be custodians of value is common to widely differing cultures. Custody is echoed in the Christian concept of “stewardship” as told in the parable of the talents. The rich man leaves talents with his stewards. On his return, the steward who has merely preserved the talents, wrapping them up and handing them back, is chastised. The ones who are praised are those who have used them fruitfully.” *  As Custodians – When To “Use” And When To “Preserve” Natural Assets Under this custodial ethic, “the future may want us to use nature rather than preserve it distinguishes humane environmentalists from romantics: we are the custodians of value, not the curators of artifacts.” On the other hand, “the same ethical test is likely to yield the opposite result. If we spew out carbon we are obliged not to infringe the rights of the future. We would therefore have to bequeath sufficient man-made assets that it feels fully compensated. But since the future will be awash with man-made assets, the cost of compensation would be exorbitant: better in this case to preserve nature.” ***** Postscript: An Interview With Paul Collier ***** Paul Collier was interviewed in the Ecologist in an article titled:   “Paul Collier: saying 'nature has to be preserved' condemns the poor to poverty” – which further explains, among other, things his views on a new ethic for nature. To read his Ecologist interview – click on the above interview title.   ***** Questions For Thought, Comment, And Small Group Discussion ***** (1) Do you agree that natural assets are valuable and subject to “plunder”?  If so – then how do we decide what is “plunder” and what is a “legitimate use” of a natural asset? (2) Do you think Collier’s new ethics of nature is a better approach in dealing with the “plunder” of natural assets residing in the home of the “bottom billion” – why or why not?    (3) Do you think Collier’s new ethics of nature is merely “semantics” or is a “substantive” contribution to in the environmental debate?  (4) Do you think the so-called “romantic environmentalists” mistakenly define our ethical obligation to the future as “preservation” – why or why not?  And if so – is there problem with “preserving” natural assets for the future?  (5) Do you agree that “preserving” natural assets for the future “can never be more than a minority view” – why or why not? (6) Do you think that economic utilitarians do not take into account the behavior of current generations who may not want to share or sacrifice for remote future generations – why or why not?  Give examples or counter examples. (7)  Do you think the problem with our current environmental ethics is that it demands that we be “saints” – why or why not?  Why is this a problem in getting things done – if at all? (8) Is Collier’s ethical test of “putting ourselves in the position of some future generation” equivalent to applying the Golden Rule to future generations – “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Mathew 7:12)? (9) Do you agree with Collier that “[o]ur obligation to the future is not to preserve purity [of natural assets] but to pass on equivalent value for the natural assets we deplete” – why or why not?  (10) Who (what organization?) and how (what decision rules?) should we use to decide whether it is better to “use” or “preserve” natural assets for the future. ….. What do you think may be the practical and political obstacles to the  “who” and “how” of implementing Collier’s new ethics of nature?   Give examples or counter examples to support your view? (11) Do you think the “Parable of the Talents” (Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-28) supports Collier’s new ethics of nature – why or why not? …. To what extent is “custodianship” a central theme in the parable and in Collier’s new ethics of nature? (12) Do you think Collier’s new ethics of nature helps to more properly frame the environmental debate regarding the use of the natural assets residing in the home of the “bottom billion”  – why or why not?  (13) How does the Biblical notion of our obligation to “care for God’s creation” (Genesis 2:15) fit in with Collier’s new ethics of nature?          ***** References To Relevant Articles Posted On MicahsCall ***** (a) “Global Warming: A Dialogue With Uncommitted Christians,” (by Peter Wong) presents a Socratic-like dialogue supporting actions to mitigate global warming, weaving facts and Biblical citations into the dialogue. (b) “LET’S DIALOGUE WITH THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT: A Syllabus Of Strategies, Moral Values, And Biblical Citations” (by Peter Wong) is a book-length syllabus that presents strategies, moral values, Biblical citations, and example Socratic-like dialogues on “hot button” social issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, stem cell research, global warming, immigration, and universal health insurance.    http://www.micahscall.org/content/trackback.php/20100608110045390 http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100716141144984 Peter Wong http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100716141144984 Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:11:00 -0700 http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100716141144984#comments Think/Discuss Introduction The San Francisco Chronicle reports in the article “Argentina legalizes gay marriage in historic vote” (by Michael Warren, AP), that Argentina has become the first country in socially and religiously conservative Latin America to legalize gay marriage – thereby, inspiring activists in other Latin American countries.  Highlights are below, followed by discussion questions. …. Read more by clicking on the above article title Argentina – The First Latin American Nation “Argentina became the first Latin American nation to legalize gay marriage Thursday, granting same-sex couples all the legal rights, responsibilities and protections that marriage brings to heterosexuals.” Argentina Has Inspired Other Latin American Countries “The law's passage — a priority for President Cristina Fernandez's government — has inspired activists to push for similar laws in other countries, and a wave of gay weddings are expected in Buenos Aires.” “’Argentina's political class has provided a lesson to the rest of Latin America, said Rolando Jimenez in the Chilean capital, Santiago. ‘We hope our own countries and political parties will learn that the human rights of sexual minorities are undeniable.’” Approval Came Despite Campaign By Roman Catholics And Evangelicals “The approval came despite a concerted campaign by the Roman Catholic Church and evangelical groups, which drew 60,000 people to march on Congress and urged parents in churches and schools to work against passage.” Argentina Is Now A More Just and Democratic Country “’From today onward, Argentina is a more just and democratic country,’ said Maria Rachid, president of the Argentine Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender federation. The law ‘not only recognizes the rights of our families, but also the possibility of having access to health care, to leave a pension, to leave our assets to the people with whom we have shared many years of life, including our children,’ she said.” America Should Lead – Not Lag? "Today's historic vote shows how far Catholic Argentina has come, from dictatorship to true democratic values, and how far the freedom-to-marry movement has come, as 12 countries on four continents now embrace marriage equality," said Evan Wolfson, who runs the U.S. Freedom to Marry lobby…. Wolfson urged U.S. lawmakers to follow suit: "America should lead, not lag, when it comes to treating everyone equally under the law."   ***** Questions For Thought, Comment, And Small Group Discussion ***** (1) Are you surprised that a socially and religiously conservative country like Argentina legalized gay marriage – why or why not? (2) Do you think Argentina will inspire other countries in Latin America to legalize gay marriage – why or why not? (3) Why do you think the Catholic and Evangelical campaign against gay marriage failed to prevent legalization of gay marriage in Argentina? (4) Do you think the Catholic and Evangelical campaign against gay marriage in the US is more successful – and, if so, why? (5) Do you agree that "America should lead, not lag, when it comes to treating everyone equally under the law" – why or why not? (6) Do you think it is ironic that the US, which has “equality” written into the US  Constitution, should lag behind socially conservative Argentina, which once was a dictatorship – why or why not? (7) Do you think it is ironic that the US, where “all religions” are protected under the US Constitution, should lag behind a religiously conservative Argentina, wherein the Catholic Church dominates the religious landscape – why or why not?   ***** References To Relevant Articles Posted On MicahsCall ***** (a) “Why Prominent Conservative Attorney Argues For Gay Marriage?” is a review of and with a link to the Newsweek article entitled “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage” (by Theodore B. Olsen), wherein Olsen gives his reasons – as a conservative – for taking on the San Francisco Federal District Court case challenging Prop 8, which will most likely be appealed to the US Supreme Court.  (b) “Jesus Accepted Gays – As Christians We Must Also!” (by Peter Wong) discusses Jesus’ teachings on accepting gays in Matthew 19:12, with a detailed discussion of Norwegian theologian Raghnild Schanke’s research uncovering the term “eunuchs” in Biblical times included gays. (c)  “Isaiah’s God Welcomed Gays – As Christians We Must Also!”  (by Peter Wong) explains that when God spoke through his prophet Isaiah to his people in Isaiah 56:4 welcoming eunuchs, he also welcomed gays, since the term “eunuchs” in Biblical times included gays. (d) “What Bible Really Says About Traditional Marriage?” is a review of and with a link to a provocative Newsweek article entitled “Our Mutual Joy” (by Lisa Miller) that examines what the Bible and Jesus teach about traditional marriage. Surprisingly, our notions of traditional marriage come not from the Bible or Jesus’ teachings, but rather from custom and tradition. (e) “Same-Sex Marriage: A Dialogue With The Christian Right,” (by Peter Wong) presents an example Socratic-like dialogue supporting same-sex marriage, weaving facts and Biblical citations into the dialogue. (f) “LET’S DIALOGUE WITH THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT: A Syllabus Of Strategies, Moral Values, And Biblical Citations” (by Peter Wong) is a book-length syllabus that presents strategies, moral values, Biblical citations, and example Socratic-like dialogues on “hot button” social issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, stem cell research, global warming, immigration, and universal health insurance.    http://www.micahscall.org/content/trackback.php/20100716141144984 http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100608121328389 Peter Wong http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100608121328389 Sat, 10 Jul 2010 08:13:00 -0700 http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100608121328389#comments Think/Discuss Introduction Large US budget deficits are not sustainable in the long run – witness the Greek deficit crisis unfolding in Europe and spreading to Spain and Portugal.  Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and the UK are now taking serious measures to cut their budgets.  The lesson to be learned is that eventually the US must face up to the difficult task of cutting its federal budget.  The largest portion of the US budget – the defense budget –  has always been considered untouchable, a “sacred cow”.  Cynthia Tucker, who is the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's political columnist, wrote a blog entitled “Where are the deficit hawks who want to trim defense spending,” where she challenges this  “sacred cow” –  arguing that if fiscal conservatives are serious about cutting the deficit, they must also consider cutting the defense budget. Highlights from her blog are below, followed by discussion questions….. Read more of Tucker’s blog – by clicking on the above blog title. Defense Spending Is 23% Of Federal Budget – A Deficit Reduction Target? “In fiscal year 2009, according to the Office of Management and Budget, defense spending accounted for 23 percent of the federal budget, more than Medicare/Medicaid (19 percent), more than Social Security (20 percent) and more than the hated bank bail-out (four percent.) Any serious effort to address the deficit, then, will have to include the Pentagon.” Does Military-Industrial Complex Thwart Defense Budget Cutters? “Nearly fifty years after Dwight Eisenhower famously warned Americans about the military-industrial complex, it still manages to hold its few critics at bay, to thwart the designs of budget-cutters and to exert a peculiar pull on the American popular imagination.” Is Defense Budget Geared To Fight  Yesterday’s “Cold War” Protagonists? “Americans have bought into the false idea that the military needs super-sophisticated, hyper-expensive technology to keep us safe from the enemy — even if the enemy is using civilian airliners and crudely-made car bombs. The war against al-Qaeda and its ally, the Taliban, is currently being waged largely with ground troops and Predator drones, which are manufactured at a tiny fraction of the cost of stealth fighter jets.” Why Is US Defense Spending Equal To Rest Of The World Combined? “[T]he U.S. spends nearly as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. ….. The spending continues unabated partly because defense contractors have done a masterful job of turning weapons-production into a massive jobs program spread across several Congressional districts.” Why Is Defense Budget More Than Obama Requested? “The Department of Defense budget for fiscal year 2010, passed last October, came to a whopping $680 billion, $16 billion more than Obama requested.” Why Did House Bill Include A Jet Fighter The Pentagon Doesn’t Want? “[T]he House passed a defense spending bill that includes $485 million to develop a jet fighter engine that the Pentagon doesn’t even want.” Is Bloated Defense Budget Simply A  Sophisticated “WPA”? “In a deep recession, with unemployment still hovering near ten percent, a federally-sponsored, taxpayer-funded jobs program isn’t a bad idea. But taxpayers reject the notion of a modern Works Progress Administration (WPA)— unless it’s run by Boeing or Lockheed Martin.” Deficit Hawks Should Also Target Defense Budget? “If fiscal conservatives are serious about reining in spending, the Pentagon presents a fat juicy target. Paint a bull’s-eye on that defense budget.”    ***** Questions For Thought, Comment, And Small Group Discussion ***** (1) Do you agree that the US defense budget should be a target for fiscal conservatives and deficit hawks – why or why not?  (2) Why do you think fiscal conservatives and deficit hawks have shied away from cutting the defense budget? (3) Do you think the lobbyist and vested interests, i.e., the military-industrial complex will continue to be successful in thwarting cuts to the defense budget – why or why not?  Give examples or counter examples. (4) Do you think the defense budget is geared to fighting the “wrong war” – yesterday’s “cold war” protagonists – rather than terrorists, insurgents, regional “hot” spots, etc. – why or why not? (5) Why should the US defense spending be so large as to be nearly equal to the rest of the world combined? Pragmatically, can we continue this fiscal burden – why or why not? (6) Do you think the US can continue to be the main “policeman” for  the world – why or why not?  If not, what should be the new paradigm for the US? (7) Why do you think the 2010 defense budget is larger than President Obama requested – with money to develop an advanced fighter jet the Pentagon does not want? (8) Do you think the defense budget is essentially a WPA program, i.e., a tax payer funded jobs program – why or why not?  If so, do you think there are infrastructure projects which are better targets for tax payer funded jobs programs – give examples? http://www.micahscall.org/content/trackback.php/20100608121328389 http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100514114110848 Peter Wong http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100514114110848 Sat, 03 Jul 2010 08:05:00 -0700 http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100514114110848#comments Think/Discuss Introduction A new survey of voters with religious affiliations by the Public Religion Research Institute finds broad support across religious groups for comprehensive immigration reform. Strongly Shared Immigration Reform Values The poll results indicate that Americans in different religious traditions strongly share a set of 4 values that should guide immigration reform by at least 80% of those polled: (1) Enforcing the rule of law and promoting national security (88%), (2) Ensuring fairness to taxpayers (84%), (3) Protecting the dignity of every person (82%), and (4) Keeping families together (80%). Golden Rule Should Guide Immigration Reform A strong majority of 71% of those polled say the Golden Rule—“providing immigrants the same opportunity that I would want if my family were immigrating to the U.S.”—is a very or extremely important value.  Broad Support Among Evangelicals, Mainline, and Catholics Of those polled, there were few significant differences among religious groups.  For example, white evangelical voters are just as likely as white Mainline, Catholic, and unaffiliated voters say protecting the dignity of every person is a very or extremely important value. Read more in the Public Religion Research Institute poll report “Religion, Values, and Immigration Reform” – by clicking on the report title.        ***** Questions For Thought, Comment, And Small Group Discussion ***** (1)  Do you think comprehensive immigration reform is needed – why or why not?(2)  What are your main concerns in reforming our immigration laws? (3)  What do you think should be the main priorities in reforming our immigration laws? (4)  How would you priority rank the following immigration reform considerations: (a) enforcing the rule of law, (b) national security, (c) ensuring fairness to taxpayers, (d) protecting the dignity of every person, (e) keeping families together, (f) bringing in immigrants with scare expertise and skills, (f) following the Golden Rule, (g) providing a “legalization path” for the 12 million undocumented immigrants now residing in this country, and (g) securing our borders? (5) Does it surprise you that there is broad support among Evangelicals, Mainline, and Catholics in the underlying priorities that should guide immigration reform – why or why not?  (6)  Are there common underlying religious values that would account for this broad support among Evangelicals, Mainline, and Catholics – and what are these common religious values?         ***** Relevant Article Previously Posted On MicahsCall ****** (1) “UCLA Study: Immigration Reform Will Add $1.5 Trillion To GDP” is a synopsis of and a link to a Los Angeles Times article reporting on a UCLA study that concludes that legalizing undocumented immigrants will boost the economy by $1.5 trillion. (2) “Earned Citizenship: A Dialogue With The Christian Right,” (by Peter Wong) presents an example Socratic-like dialogue supporting an earned citizenship pathway for undocumented immigrants, weaving facts and Biblical citations into the dialogue. (3) “LET’S DIALOGUE WITH THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT: A Syllabus Of Strategies, Moral Values, And Biblical Citations” (by Peter Wong) is a book-length syllabus that presents strategies, moral values, Biblical citations, and example Socratic-like dialogues on “hot button” social issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, stem cell research, global warming, immigration, and universal health insurance.  http://www.micahscall.org/content/trackback.php/20100514114110848 http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100618091742459 Peter Wong http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100618091742459 Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:17:00 -0700 http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100618091742459#comments Think/Discuss Posted on behalf of and with the permission of Jim Burklo (Associate Dean of Religious Life, University of Southern California).                 **************** The Lord's Prayer: An Interpretation By Jim Burklo Dear One, closer to us than our own hearts, farther from us than the most distant star, you are beyond naming.  May your powerful presence become obvious not only in the undeniable glory of the sky, but also in the seemingly base and common processes of the earth.  Give us what we need, day by day, to keep body and soul together, because clever as you have made us, we still owe our existence to you.  We recognize that to be reconciled with you, we must live peaceably and justly with other human beings, putting hate and bitterness behind us.  We are torn between our faith in your goodness and our awareness of the evil in your creation, so deliver us from the temptation to despair.   Yours alone is the universe and all its majesty and beauty.  So it is, Amen.     http://www.micahscall.org/content/trackback.php/20100618091742459 http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100617124048708 Peter Wong http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100617124048708 Sat, 26 Jun 2010 09:05:00 -0700 http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100617124048708#comments Think/Discuss Introduction Two star litigators, Ted Olsen (a prominent conservative) and David Boies (a prominent liberal),  are working together on a federal challenge to Prop 8 – in a case called Perry v. Schwarzenegger.  Final arguments in the case were heard on June 16 (see MicahsCall article on the final arguments by clicking on Prop 8 Trial).  The case will be likely be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and, then ultimately appealed to the US Supreme Court.  Olsen and Boies will likely continue to play starring roles in this high stakes case. Olsen is a prominent conservative. Olsen and Boies were on opposite sides of the historic Florida ballot case Bush v. Gore that essentially decided the 2000 Presidential election – and put George W. Bush into the White House. Why did Olsen take on this case in support of same sex marriage?   In the Newsweek article entitled “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage” (by Theodore B. Olsen), Olsen gives his reasons – as a conservative – for taking on the case challenging Prop 8.   Highlights from the article are below, followed by discussion questions…. Read more by clicking on the above article title. Same-Sex Marriage Fosters Conservative Values “Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize…. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. … We [as conservatives] encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. … The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance.” Same-Sex Marriage Recognizes Our Commitment To Equal Rights “Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation's commitment to equal rights.” Marriage Is A Fundamental Right Recognized By US Supreme Court “The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans under our Constitution…. The Supreme Court has said that marriage is a part of the Constitution's protections of liberty, privacy, freedom of association, and spiritual identification. In short, the right to marry helps us to define ourselves and our place in a community. Without it, there can be no true equality under the law.” Tradition Is Not A Reason To Deny Gay Marriage “The explanation mentioned most often [against gay marriage] is tradition. But simply because something has always been done a certain way does not mean that it must always remain that way. Otherwise we would still have segregated schools and debtors' prisons.” “California and many other states have allowed gays and lesbians to form domestic partnerships (or civil unions) with most of the rights of married heterosexuals. … It therefore seems anomalous to cite ‘tradition’ as a justification for withholding the status of marriage and thus to continue to label those relationships as less worthy, less sanctioned, or less legitimate.” Marriage Is Not Only For Procreation “The second argument [against gay marriage] I often hear is that traditional marriage furthers the state's interest in procreation—and that opening marriage to same-sex couples would dilute, diminish, and devalue this goal…. [A]llowing gays and lesbians to marry someone of the same sex will not discourage heterosexuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex. How, then, would allowing same-sex marriages reduce the number of children that heterosexual couples conceive?... We do not inquire whether heterosexual couples intend to bear children, or have the capacity to have children, before we allow them to marry.” Gay Marriage Does Not Harm Heterosexual Marriage “Another argument [against gay marriage], vaguer and even less persuasive, is that gay marriage somehow does harm to heterosexual marriage. … In what way would allowing same-sex partners to marry diminish the marriages of heterosexual couples? Tellingly, when the judge in our case [Perry v. Schwarzenegger] asked our opponent to identify the ways in which same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual marriage, to his credit he answered honestly: he could not think of any.” Religious Convictions Does Not Warrant Unequal Treatment “Even those whose religious convictions preclude endorsement of what they may perceive as an unacceptable ‘lifestyle’ should recognize that disapproval should not warrant stigmatization and unequal treatment.” ***** The Liberal Case For Gay Marriage Presented By David Boies **** The Newsweek article entitled “Gay Marriage: The Case from the Left” (by Eve Conant) presents Boies’ reasons – from a liberal perspective – for joining Ted Olsen in challenging Prop 8 under federal law. …..  Read his reasons by clicking on the above article title. ***** Questions For Thought, Comment, And Small Group Discussion ***** (1) Do you agree with Olsen’s arguments supporting gay marriage – why or why not? (2) Which of Olsen’s arguments do you think are the strongest and, which are  the weakest – why? (3) Do you think is marriage vital social institution that benefits and stabilizes society and, therefore,  committed couples living together (whatever their sexual orientation) should be married – why or why not? (4) Do you think gays are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals – why or why not? (5) Do you think that marriage is a fundamental right that should only be available to heterosexuals – why or why not? (6) Do you think that “tradition” is a good reason to deny rights to others – why or why not? (7) Do you think that marriage should be reserved only for those who will have children – why or why not? (8) Do you think gay marriage harms the institution of marriage – why or why not? (9) Should religious convictions play a role in developing a society based on the “rule of law” – why or why not?....  If religious convictions shape the “rule of law,” what type of society do you think will evolve?   ***** References To Relevant Articles Posted On MicahsCall ***** (a) “Jesus Accepted Gays – As Christians We Must Also!” (by Peter Wong) discusses Jesus’ teachings on accepting gays in Matthew 19:12, with a detailed discussion of Norwegian theologian Raghnild Schanke’s research uncovering the term “eunuchs” in Biblical times included gays. (b)  “Isaiah’s God Welcomed Gays – As Christians We Must Also!”  (by Peter Wong) explains that when God spoke through his prophet Isaiah to his people in Isaiah 56:4 welcoming eunuchs, he also welcomed gays, since the term “eunuchs” in Biblical times included gays. (c) “What Bible Really Says About Traditional Marriage?” is a review of and with a link to a provocative Newsweek article entitled “Our Mutual Joy” (by Lisa Miller) that examines what the Bible and Jesus teach about traditional marriage. Surprisingly, our notions of traditional marriage come not from the Bible or Jesus’ teachings, but rather from custom and tradition. (d) “Same-Sex Marriage: A Dialogue With The Christian Right,” (by Peter Wong) presents an example Socratic-like dialogue supporting same-sex marriage, weaving facts and Biblical citations into the dialogue. (e) “LET’S DIALOGUE WITH THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT: A Syllabus Of Strategies, Moral Values, And Biblical Citations” (by Peter Wong) is a book-length syllabus that presents strategies, moral values, Biblical citations, and example Socratic-like dialogues on “hot button” social issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, stem cell research, global warming, immigration, and universal health insurance.  http://www.micahscall.org/content/trackback.php/20100617124048708 http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/2010062212095097 Peter Wong http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/2010062212095097 Sat, 26 Jun 2010 07:05:00 -0700 http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/2010062212095097#comments Think/Discuss The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the “U.S. will challenge Arizona immigration law” (by Randal C. Archibold & Mark Landler, NY Times).  Highlights from the article are below. *  “The Obama administration has decided to file suit to strike down an Arizona law aimed at deporting illegal immigrants, thrusting itself into the fierce national debate over how the United States should enforce immigration policies.” *  “At least five lawsuits already have been filed in federal court, and civil rights groups have asked a federal judge to issue an injunction while the cases are heard.”  *  “At home, polls show that a majority of Americans support the law, or at least the idea of states more rigorously enforcing immigration laws. But Latino groups and elected officials have denounced it as an affront to Hispanics.”  *  “[T]he Obama administration is making a politically risky calculation: the move could help repair America's image south of the border but open the administration to charges that it is trampling states' rights. And a legal battle could energize the right during an election year.” Read more by clicking on the above article title.   ***** Questions For Thought, Comment, And Small Group Discussion ***** (1) Do you agree with Obama’s decision to challenge the Arizona law – why or why not? (2) Do you think that Obama’s decision to challenge the Arizona law is politically risky vis-a-vis the upcoming midterm elections – why or why not?  (3) If the polls show that the majority of Americans support the Arizona law – why do you think Obama decided to challenge the Arizona law?  (4) If a state law violates the US Constitution, do you think a federal challenge to the state law “tramples” states’ rights – why or why not?  Can you give examples where the federal government challenged a state law as being unconstitutional?    ***** References To Relevant Articles Posted On MicahsCall ***** (a) “Earned Citizenship: A Dialogue With The Christian Right,” (by Peter Wong) presents an example Socratic-like dialogue supporting an earned citizenship pathway for undocumented immigrants, weaving facts and Biblical citations into the dialogue. (b) “LET’S DIALOGUE WITH THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT: A Syllabus Of Strategies, Moral Values, And Biblical Citations” (by Peter Wong) is a book-length syllabus that presents strategies, moral values, Biblical citations, and example Socratic-like dialogues on “hot button” social issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, stem cell research, global warming, immigration, and universal health insurance.      http://www.micahscall.org/content/trackback.php/2010062212095097 http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100622115749701 Peter Wong http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100622115749701 Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:57:00 -0700 http://www.micahscall.org/content/article.php/20100622115749701#comments Think/Discuss The Bay Citizen wrote about “South Bay Ahmadi Muslim Women Have Power to Change the World” (by Pam Marino).   The article begins: “Like others who have grown up exclusively in the West, my assumption was that Muslim women are oppressed with little power. But I recently discovered that the ladies of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Mosque, Bait-Ul-Baseer, in Milpitas, believe that women have the power to change the world.” “The women from the mosque, known as the Ladies Auxiliary of the Silicon Valley chapter of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, translate that belief into action, donating hundreds of hours of volunteer time to local charities. They have also reached out to women of other faiths through an informal group known as Women’s Interfaith Dialogue Encounter, hoping to spread a better understanding of the Muslim faith.” Read more by clicking on the above article title. http://www.micahscall.org/content/trackback.php/20100622115749701