Proof we’re not post post-racial

Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Among the guests behind him is Martin Luther King, Jr.

On July 2, 2014, the day after I posted Racism is alive and well in “liberal” Minnesota 2014, Alissa Scheller backed me up with 15 Charts That Prove We're Far From Post-Racial.

Scheller writes:

On July 2, 1964, the Civil Rights Act was signed into law, officially banning discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It also ended racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and in general public facilities. 

Fifty years removed from that milestone, it's apparently easy to think that we're over racism.

Here are 15 facts that prove that's not the case.

Read more:

Jesse Jackson, Jr., national co-chair of Obama's campaign in 08, facing criminal charges

 
Following Hillary Clinton's win in the New Hampshire primary in 08, Jesse Jackson, Jr., national co-chair of the Obama campaign, was obviously out of sorts, accusing Hillary of using tears to gain sympathy from the voters. Recall that in 08 racism was taboo, but sexist comments like Jackson's were perfectly acceptable.

Today, the once high-flying young man has been forced to step down from the House of Reps., and he and his wife are both facing criminal charges:

Jesse Jackson Jr. and his wife Sandi intend to plead guilty to federal charges alleging the former congressman misused $750,000 in campaign funds while she understated their income on  tax returns for six years, their lawyers say.

Jackson Jr., 47, a Democrat from Chicago, was charged in a criminal information Friday with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud and false statements. He faces up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000 and other penalties.

Sandi Jackson was charged with one count of filing false tax returns. She faces up to three years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000 and other penalties

The media’s cruel distortion of the life of Mary Richardson Kennedy

Mary Richardson Kennedy.

In its coverage of the Kennedy clan over the years, the mainstream media has been guilty of both classism and sexism.

One has to marvel at the free pass consistently awarded the philandering Kennedy men; whereas, lesser mortals, e.g., Bill Clinton, not blessed with the pseudo royal heritage of the Kennedys, are continuously vilified.

In the aftermath of Mary Richardson Kennedy’s death, Edee Lemonier discusses at the New Agenda the sexism in the media’s coverage of the women so unfortunate as to have been a part of the Kennedy clan at one time or another.

 Lemonier writes:

Mary Richardson Kennedy, environmentalist, architect, and mother, has passed away at age 52. Mary was a pioneer in the green architecture movement, was a co-founder of the Food Allergy Initiative, and was active with the Boys & Girls Club. She was also a highly intelligent, funny, fiercely loyal friend, and was naturally gifted at fundraising for good causes. She is survived by her estranged husband, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., their four children, ages eleven to seventeen, and six siblings. She was loved by many, and will be greatly missed.

What if that had been the announcement of Mary Kennedy’s death, instead of all the articles detailing some of the darker moments of her life? A lot has been written about her recently, and the information being disseminated immediately following her death seems intended to invite speculation both about how she lived and how she died. She has been painted as a drug-addled drunk who abused drugs and alcohol to cope first with being a Kennedy, then to cope with no longer being one. In true tabloid-style journalism, the writers are juxtaposing her depression with details of RFK, Jr.’s relationship with an actress, as if to fuel rumors that Mary Kennedy was unable realize her marriage was over, further causing the kind of mental instability that would lead to suicide.

Why did media outlets choose to highlight the sadness, instead of her accomplishments? And why did it take her siblings and her attorney coming forward to see a shift – albeit a very slight one – in what is being written about her?

Read more:

A reminder: thinking critically and living faithfully are not necessarily dualistic

The Christian Century’s slogan, “Thinking critically. Living faithfully,” has to be startling to anyone brought up in a religious tradition that forbids skepticism. As a graduate of United Theological Seminary in the Twin Cities; however, I can personally attest that thinking critically and living faithfully are not necessarily dualistic.

Steve Thorngate, Assistant Editor at the Christian Century, applies a bit of critical thinking to quotes attributed to MLK, Jr. on Facebook in the aftermath of the death of Osama bin Laden. 

It’s not all about inadvertently misquoting MLK, Jr., though; Thorngate lives up to the Christian Century’s slogan by also calling our attention to the religious dictum to “love your enemies.”

Thorngate writes:

The impetus for this {Facebook} thread and others like it was of course the following alleged quote from King, which went viral following the news that Osama bin Laden had been killed:

I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

The problem is that the first sentence of this quote didn't come from King. It's by a woman named Jessica Dovey, who posted it Monday along with the other three sentences, which she (correctly) attributed to King. A prominent Twitter user misread the post before tweeting it, at which point we all started seeing the fake quote on our Facebook walls.

Thornburg concludes by directing his readers to Loving Your Enemies and The Death of Evil Upon the Seashore, by MLK, Jr.

Read Thorngate’s entire post here.

Ted Kennedy, Jr. Remembers Dad: “He was a lover of everything French, cheese, wine, and women”

Mary Jo Kopechne

Much has been said and written in the past several days about the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy as the nation mourns his passing. For the most part, those who have praised him for the good he accomplished in his long career in the U.S. senate have not failed to note, without bothering with details, the public man was not without his personal flaws.

So it was that on Saturday morning while watching the Memorial Mass at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Basilica, I held my breath momentarily during the remembrance of Ted Kennedy, Jr. Describing his father, Ted, Jr. said, “He was a lover of everything French, cheese, wine, and, yes, women.”

The camera caught Vicki Reggie’s startled, pained expression an instant before she forced a smile.

Ted Kennedy and women. It was a topic seldom if ever mentioned during the 2008 Democratic primary while the Obama campaign, party leaders, a considerable coterie of upscale elitist Democrats, and their media allies celebrated Ted’s passing the torch to their preferred candidate in the hope of keeping Camelot alive.

However, the above rabid mob, zealous in their efforts to destroy Hillary Clinton, dug up every right wing attack on the Clintons they could find from the nineties, zeroing in on Bill Clinton’s sexual indiscretions. But they didn’t just heap ridicule and scorn on the former president. They repeatedly knifed Hillary Clinton for her choice to preserve her marriage and keep her family together over the years while pursuing an exemplary career of public service.

It’s way past time someone asked the questions that Maureen Callahan poses today in her article in the New York Post titled Kennedy’s Free Pass with Women. Callahan begins:

In all the obits published and specials aired this week, Chappaquiddick gets a few paragraphs, a few minutes, a tidy recapping of the events of July 19, 1969: The married Ted Kennedy, driving late at night with young campaign aide Mary Jo Kopechne, pitches off a bridge and into the water below. He escapes; she drowns. He does not report the accident for 10 hours. He pleads guilty and gets a suspended sentence, two months in jail.

In most of these narratives, Chappaquiddick is told as Ted's tragedy, the thing that kept him from ever becoming president. And in these narratives, he is chastened, goes on to make amends through a life of public service, advocating for the disadvantaged and the downtrodden -- and, especially, women. No one's perfect, right?

But how is it that so many women unabashedly revere Kennedy today? The particulars of Chappaquiddick are especially gory; his behavior after the accident approaches the amoral. Once he broke free and swam to the surface, Kennedy said that he dove back down seven or eight times to rescue Kopechne. Failing, he swam back to shore and checked back into his hotel, and a short time later lodged a noise complaint with the desk clerk. The people in the room next to his were partying and it was interfering with his sleep. Then he asked the desk clerk for the time.

According to the Aug. 4, 1969 edition of Newsweek, that clerk, Russell E. Peachey, told Kennedy it was 2:25 a.m., then asked, "Is there anything else I can do for you?"

"No, thank you," Kennedy replied.

Callahan continues:

In 1990, GQ magazine ran a devastating profile of Kennedy. Two 16-year-old girls near the Capitol startled by a limo rolling up, the door opening, Ted sitting in the back with a bottle of wine, asking one, then the other, to join. A former aide who acted as Ted's "pimp." His penchant for dating women so young that one did not know he was the subject of many books. Kennedy, at a swank DC restaurant with his drinking buddy Chris Dodd, throwing a petite waitress on his dinner table with such force that glass and flatware shatters and goes flying. Then Ted throws her on to Dodd's lap and grinds against her. He is interrupted by other waitstaff. He is later caught in the same restaurant, in a semi-private area, having sex on the floor with a lobbyist.

There’s more in Callahan’s article on Ted’s escapades, before she points out:

Most feminists don't think Ted Kennedy was a misogynist. Upon news of his death, NOW, Emily's List and Planned Parenthood all released emotional, laudatory statements. It's true that Kennedy's legislative record deserves such a response. And he was quiet enough in the last 15 years of his life that it's not hard to minimize his past behavior if you want to.

Keep in mind, many of these same feminists lauding Kennedy today were among those who chose to disparage Bill and Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic primary. And as I’ve mentioned repeatedly over the ensuing months, it wasn’t just Ted Kennedy, especially among Democrats, who has been given a free pass for his womanizing over the years – the list includes his brothers JFK and RFK, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Jesse Jackson.

Huffington Post Blogger Compares Rick Warren to Hillary Clinton

The other day, Huffington Post blogger David Quigg posted his thoughts on Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation. He titled his opinion-piece What Would Obama Do If Obama Was Mad At Obama About Rick Warren?

To buttress his argument, Quigg suggests that Warren’s slurs against gays are equivalent to Hillary Clinton’s criticisms of Obama during the Democratic primary:

“There are sensible people who look at Warren and see a man who belittled their marriages, lied about the perils California faced if it didn't pass Proposition 8, and -- in helping get gay marriage repealed -- thwarted their deepest aspirations for equality. Imagine that there was someone who'd belittled Obama, lied about him, and tried to thwart his most high-stakes aspirations. Would Obama invite that person to lead a prayer at the inauguration? The answer is no. Absolutely not. Because the Secretary of State doesn't lead inaugural prayers.”

Of course, Quigg fails to mention that throughout the Democratic primary, the Obama team used every despicable, underhanded weapon in its arsenal to smear both Hillary and Bill Clinton as racists even though the Clintons’ record on human rights throughout their years in public service has been impeccable.

If you go to YouTube and watch videos of the debates in the primary, you’ll notice that Obama questioned Hillary Clinton’s integrity at every opportunity.

And let me say it for the 100th time: Obama's national co-chair Jesse Jackson, Jr.’s sexist tirade against Clinton the day after her New Hampshire win remains one of the most egregious attacks on another candidate in modern history.

In yet another illogical attempt to defend Obama’s selection of Warren to pray at his inauguration, Quigg pulls a quote from The Audacity of Hope, "Megachurch pastors like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes are wielding their enormous influence to confront AIDS, Third World debt relief, and the genocide in Darfur."

So because Saddleback Church supports several worthy causes, Pastor Warren should not be accountable for his attacks on gays, Jews, and those who support reproductive rights for women?

This is the flawed reasoning writ large of the battered woman who stays with her abusive spouse because he occasionally does something nice for her.

It bears repeating: the Rick Warren controversy demonstrates that in the age of Obama, bigotry is acceptable against every group in our culture accept straight African-American males.

Defense Secretary Gates and National Security Adviser Gen. Jones, Jr. Back Clinton’s Efforts to Strengthen the State Department

Photo credits: Susan Walsh/AP

Headlined Clinton Moves to Widen Role of State Dept., the lead paragraph of a report in today’s New York Times on Hillary Clinton's steps to strengthen the State Department is guaranteed to fan the flames of controversy and incite outrage from the usual crowd of pathological Hillary haters.

Mark Landler and Helene Cooper write:

“WASHINGTON — Even before taking office, Hillary Rodham Clinton is seeking to build a more powerful State Department, with a bigger budget, high-profile special envoys to trouble spots and an expanded role in dealing with global economic issues at a time of crisis.”

Buried in the article is word from an anonymous official that Mrs. Clinton was being supported in her push for more resources by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Mr. Obama’s incoming national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones Jr.

‘“For years, some Pentagon officials have complained that jobs like the economic reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq have been added to the military’s burden when they could have been handled by a robust Foreign Service.

‘“The Pentagon would like to turn functionality over to civilian resources, but the resources are not there,’ the official said. ‘We’re looking to have a State Department that has what it needs.”’

The article continues:

“Mrs. Clinton’s push for a more vigorous economic team, one of her advisers said, stems from her conviction that the State Department needs to play a part in the recovery from the global financial crisis. Economic issues also underpin some of the most important diplomatic relationships, notably with China.”

A careful reading of this article would lead a rational person to conclude that Clinton is wisely positioning the State Department to make the best possible use of diplomatic tools and resources to help resolve several global crises expected to worsen in the days ahead.

Sadly, a quick glance at the readers’ comments in the Times indicates the irrational Hillary haters are already out in force.

Candidate #5 Jesse Jackson, Jr. is No Progressive

Jesse Jackson, Jr. Photo credits: CBSlocal.com

There are those who argue that if Hillary Clinton could get over the bruises from the rigged Democratic primary and gracefully move forward to become the new administration’s secretary of state, her supporters ought to be able to fall in line.

I’m not there yet.

All it takes to reopen my wounds from the primary is the re-emergence on the national scene of the likes of Jesse Jackson, Jr.

A post the other day by John Nichols that seeks to canonize Jackson, Jr., candidate #5 in the Blagojevich scandal, set me off again:

Nichols writes:

“Jackson was as close as there was to a frontrunner in the competition for a gubernatorial appointment to the seat. He had been endorsed by the Chicago Sun-Times, the Chicago Defender and other newspapers, as well as Progressive Democrats of America and individual activists who had come to know him as a champion in the struggle for peace and economic and social justice.”

Continuing his accolade to the Illinois congressman who served as the national co-chair of the Obama campaign during the primary, Nichols asserts:

“Since his election to the House in a 1995 special election, Jackson has compiled one of the most consistently progressive and reform-oriented records in the chamber. He has clashed not just with the Bush administration and its economic-royalist allies but with Democrats who have chosen to compromise with those interests. As such, he has cost himself politically. Jackson's stands on principle have made it harder for him to raise money and to attain the powerful positions that are apportioned to those who go along to get along.”

After every boast Nichols makes about Jackson, Jr., I have a flashback to the day after the New Hampshire primary when a grim-faced Jackson angrily lashed out at Hillary Clinton with his egregious racist and sexist charges.

Here’s a news update for John Nichols: misogyny and racism are not the hallmarks of a progressive leader.

Hillary’s Supporters Still Refuse to Sit Down, Shut Up, and Get With the Program

Hillary Clinton's supporters in the Democratic primary who still refuse to be coerced into voting for Barack Obama this November were insulted today, Oct. 18, by Derrick Z. Jackson in the Boston Globe and yesterday, Oct. 17, by Lanny Davis in the Wall Street Journal.

Jackson argues in the Globe that Obama’s poll numbers have risen in New Hampshire due to a change of heart by the Granite State’s Clinton supporters, and he provides several examples of anecdotal evidence to make his case. Judging from the 104 readers’ comments posted so far to Jackson’s op-ed, Clinton supporters, outraged by the assumption they've fallen in line with a corrupted Democratic party, far outnumber Jackson’s exaggerated claims.

(By the way, it was Jesse Jackson, Jr., the Obama campaign’s national co-chair, who went into a videotaped rage shortly after Sen. Clinton won in New Hampshire; This top aide to Obama revealed his Neanderthal sexism by accusing Clinton of faking tears to win the primary, and he went on to play the race card by making the horrendously false charge that she had not shown compassion for Katrina victims.)

To read Derrick Z. Jackson’s op-ed in its entirety, go here.

In the meantime, Heidi Li Feldman took issue with Lanny Davis for his suggestion in the Wall Street Journal yesterday that “Democrats should be glad Senator Clinton stayed in the race because she made Senator Obama a better general election candidate.”

Feldman points out:

“Mr. Davis, we were glad Senator Clinton stayed in the race because we watched her win the popular vote. Many of us believe that if the Democratic Party had followed its own rules and the superdelegates and regular delegates had not been coerced by Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Obama's campaign (who Chairman Dean turned over the DNC to in June when no candidate had actually won the party's nomination), Senator Clinton might very well have been the party's nominee.

“We were glad Senator Clinton stayed in the race because we thought she would make a superior President to either Senator Obama or any Republican, including Senator McCain. I still believe that.”

Feldman, a law professor at Georgetown University, highlighted a particularly offensive passage from the Davis piece:

“There always was a danger that certain working-class/rural voters who strongly supported Mrs. Clinton in such state primaries as Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia would not easily transfer their support to Mr. Obama. The same worry was often repeated about Democratic women who were angry or simply grieving about Mrs. Clinton not being picked as the nominee.”

Feldman explains:

'"Mr. Davis, by definition, I do not qualify as one of the 'certain working-class/rural voters' you disparage with the remark. But let me make it perfectly clear: I am not angry or 'simply grieving' about 'Mrs. Clinton not being picked as the nominee.' I am distressed that the Democratic Party rigged its own nomination process and PICKED a candidate rather than ELECTING one.

“You began this election cycle supporting Senator Clinton, Mr. Davis. And as the tagline in the WSJ article states you are ending it as an Obama supporter. Given the patronizing and dismissive tone of the passage I quote above, I imagine you feel much more comfortable with the candidate you now back than the one you originally preferred.”

To read Heidi Li Feldman’s post in its entirety, go here.

More on Teresa and Process Theology

It’s been a week since I posted my take on Mother Teresa’s loss of faith, and the media buzz continues with yet more commentary from atheist and orthodox on Teresa’s bleak life.

In Newsweek’s feature, “On Faith,” atheist Sam Harris offers an unsympathetic response to excerpts of Mother Teresa’s letters. “Christianity,” Harris says, “amounts to the claim that we must love and be loved by a God who approves of the scapegoating, torture, and murder of one man—his son, incidentally—in compensation for the misbehavior and thought-crimes of all others.”

Harris adds: “The notion that Jesus Christ died for our sins and that his death constitutes a successful propitiation of a ‘loving’ God is a direct and undisguised inheritance of the scapegoating barbarism that has plagued bewildered people throughout history.”

Harris diagnoses Mother Teresa’s despair as “run of the mill depression,” and he calls confessors and superiors to account for responding to her pleas for help by encouraging martyrdom.

Immediately after reading Harris’s piece, I turned to an op-ed in the New York Times by the Rev. James Martin, author of “The Lives of the Saints.” And sure enough, the Rev. Martin confirmed that at a confessor’s suggestion, Mother Teresa had apparently found solace in identifying with the suffering of the crucified Jesus.

In a 2006 interview with TruthDig Harris connects his concern about the dangers of martyrdom with those deluded Islamic faithful who chose to fly planes into the Twin Towers on 9/11. Harris says, “We can no longer ignore the fact that billions of our neighbors believe in the metaphysics of martyrdom, or in the literal truth of the Book of Revelation, or any of the other fantastical notions that have lurked in the minds of the faithful for millennia—because our neighbors are now armed with chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.”

In introducing Harris, Truthdig explains his fame/notoriety: “With the publication of his 2004 New York Times bestseller, ‘The End of Faith,’ a full-throttle attack on religion, Sam Harris became the most prominent atheist in America.”

Truthdig mentions Harris’s degree in philosophy from Stanford, where he’s currently completing a doctorate in neuroscience, and it also suggests that Harris has studied Eastern and Western religious disciplines for 20 years. Regrettably, many of his comments in Truthdig’s lengthy interview indicate that Harris has had little or no formal theological education. For one thing, he seems oblivious to modern day biblical criticism routinely included in seminary curricula. He also appears to be unaware that many thoughtful Christians rejected his interpretation of their tradition, including the element of martyrdom, long before he got around to it.

Some of us even found a spiritual home in process theology. For the uninitiated, process theology is derived from Alfred North Whitehead’s philosophical ruminations. My background in philosophy is limited to the introductory course in undergraduate school; however, I do have a theological education from an accredited seminary, whose instructors were undaunted by Whitehead’s integration of findings from quantum physics with his philosophical principles.

As a refresher, I recently reviewed “Process Thought and Its Applications,” in which theologian John Cobb, Jr. offered two theses: “First, the three dominant intellectual traditions of the modern West ― materialism, dualism, and idealism ― are leading us all to destruction. Second, process thought is the most adequate and promising alternative.”

In this article, Cobb nails materialism, dualism, and idealism for attitudes toward nature that are contributing to the global warming crisis. But he lets the church off the hook for repenting and becoming more ecologically sensitive ― coincidentally, Pope Benedict recently urged young Catholics at a youth rally in Loreto, Italy to take the lead in caring for the planet.

Process theology gets the gold star for an ecological attitude that acknowledges human beings are of nature ― not apart from it ― and we obviously cannot survive outside nature’s web of relationships.

Adherents of process theology believe the ecological web of relationships is the essential context of our faith. Noted process theologian Charles Hartshorne envisioned God’s relationship to the natural world as like that of the psyche or soul to the body, or most particularly to the brain, maintaining that all of life exists within God, and that we are as interconnected as cells within the human body.

To be clear: the God of process theology is not some big, macho guy in the sky who keeps a ledger of our good deeds and our misdeeds, handing out rewards and punishments accordingly. Instead, as process theology would have it, God relates to us in a consistently loving manner, respecting our free will, while continuously inviting each of us to act in the best interests of all of life ― including our own.

That should effectively rule out any kind of propitiating blood sacrifice, as described by Sam Harris, and the related dangers of martyrdom. It might even lead orthodox Christians toward focusing a little more on the life and teachings of the historical Jesus, instead of the cruel manner in which he died.

NOTE to readers: My schedule won’t permit me to update Katalusis again until next Tuesday, September 11, so have a great week and please check back in.

Peace,

Virginia