Congress Woman McKinney

Why does Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney have this section of the constitution on the front of her homepage today? This is the section of the Constitution that she feels justifies her in striking a member of the congressional police because he questioned her regarding her failure to wear a pin that congresspeople must wear in order for the congressional police to identify them as a member of congress. "She entered a House office building without passing through the metal detector that screens visitors. Members of Congress are permitted to bypass the machines, but she was not wearing the pin that identified her as a House member at the time.The officer … has said he asked McKinney three times to stop. She did not."

From the United States Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 6::"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."

Congresswoman McKinney's website further provides a link: "legal action by black officers against capitol hill police department." Never mind this article is regarding a discrimination suit that was filed in 2001 and subsequent allegations of retaliation.  Never mind this article was updated last on August 15, 2003! Never mind the fact that one wrong does not justify another. Hitting a security member because of your failure to abide by the procedure that every other member of congress must abide by is never acceptable.  wrong #1.  Exactly what was her purpose in making this link on her home page now?  I can only assume it is an attempt to justify her assault because the capitol police dept. has discriminated against black capitol police members at one time or another.  The belief that this justifies her actions is astounding. For one moment, assume that a white member of congress assaulted a black security guard. Assume that guard was a member of the Black Panthers or had a self proclaimed hate for white persons. It would NOT justify the white congressperson from striking that security guard, especially since it was that congressperson who violated the rule. However, McKinney, without any knowledge of this capitol hill policepersons beliefs or prejudices, imposed the alleged discrimination of the department onto one person, and physically assaulted him to top it off.  It is clear that her link to an article about capitol hill police deptartment discrimination is doing it yet again, by implying that this officer that she struck was somehow responsible for this past discrimination.  This falls within the definition of stereotyping and Kathryn McKinney owes that person on apology.  Simply stating that "I regret the incident occurs" is not sufficient.  Especially when her website implies the man questioned her lack of a pin because he was somehow racist.  wrong #2.

Secondly, according to the constitution, the congressional police exercised alot of restraint in failure to arrest Congresswoman McKinney. Article 1, Sec. 6 clearly states that for breach of the peace, a representative may be arrested while going to a house session.  Assaulting a security guard is clearly breaching the peace. They would have been entirely in their right to arrest McKinney on the spot. Thankfully they did not .Sometimes when one is justified in taking action against someone, but does not, they turn the other cheek. I know the reason may not have been to turn the other cheek, since it was instead because there was a question of constitutional authority to arrest her, but it was for the better all the same.  McKinney, as a representative of the People of Georgia and a self proclaimed representative of the black race, could have turned this situation into a unifying incident. She could have thanked the guard for his attention to detail and spoke to him kindly so that he really would remember her next time and apologized for not wearing her pin. But she did not.  She chose to resort to violence. Eliminating racial hatred must take forgiveness.  Assume that security guard has racial bias in his heart.  McKinney could have practiced love and forgiveness and possibly broken through the hatred.  Unfortunately, she chose to add fuel to the racial divide by responding to (Hate?) with Hate.  I say (Hate?) because its hypothetical. 

Well, things have just changed. See Washington Post article. After the case had been refered to a federal grand jury for possible prosecution, Congresswoman McKinney has issued a new apology.  "There should not have been any physical contact in this incident," McKinney said in brief remarks on the House floor. "I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation and I apologize."  However, on Wednesday, McKinney had charged that racism is behind what she said is a pattern of difficulty in clearing Hill security checkpoints, arguing that officers assigned to protect Congress members should recognize her, even without her congressional pin. Hopefully she won't be prosecuted despite the fact that her actions may warrent it.  But she should take this incident to heart and ask herself if she responds with hatred rather than forgiveness and love in other areas.  I haven't researched into what incidents lead Congressman Tom Delay to say that Congresswoman McKinney "has a long history of racism", but this single event indicates an unforgiving attitude in her heart.  Until we as humans are willing to practice true forgiveness, the hatred will continue. 

How do we practice this forgiveness in the face of hatred directed at us? It is all to easy to forgive when one side is willing to admit wrong. But we must follow Jesus's example by forgiving even those who hate us.  When Jesus was hanging on the cross, being killed for what he did not do, he did not look at those carrying out the act with anger. Instead, he said "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."  Only God could enable humans to forgive in the face of such hatred.  Our human nature does not lead us to forgive when we are wronged. In the film Les Miserables, when the main character was let into a priests home and fed and given a place to stay the night, he returns the favor by stealing his silver and knocking the priest out in the middle of the night.  The next day, when the police bring the main character back to the priests house, after finding him without proper documentation and with the silver, the police ask the priest if the main character stole that silver from him. The priest says, I gave that stuff to him.  Why? The priest was wronged and may desire "justice." Yet the forgiveness allowed that main character to change forever from that point on, practicing the love that was shown him when he didn't deserve it.  When we seek to live by Christ's example, He can change the world through us.  Without forgiveness, there can be no love. 

Matthew 5:44:  I tell you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven … if you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect.

Posted by Summa Theologiae

France: Come for the free unicorn rides. Stay for the free five week vacations.

Elisabeth Eaves at Foreign Policy is reporting on the internal disintegration that France’s social infrastructure is causing.

With strikes and demonstrations seizing France again this week, French politicians and protesters appear to be radically at odds. In fact, they are strangely allied. From the president on down to the sign-waving teenagers, no one seems to have any idea how the global economy works.

It’s tempting to criticize the protesters, who are clamoring for airtight guarantees against “la précarité.” The leaders, though, are as much to blame for the unrest that now threatens to bring down Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin. A calcified political elite has long promised that public spending and protectionism can maintain the French standard of living. Indeed, modern French governments have staked their legitimacy on a strong, cradle-to-grave social safety net. But with chronic unemployment and public debt at 66 percent of gross domestic product and rising, the state can no longer deliver the goods.

It took a wake-up call—two weeks of nightly riots last fall in the minority suburbs—for French politicians to get religion on free market reforms. In February, the prime minister attempted to loosen the rigid job market by creating the “First Job Contract,” or CPE. The legislation allows large companies to hire people younger than 26 without offering them permanent contracts within their first two years of work. It is supposed to help reduce an unemployment rate that is stuck at 10 percent nationwide, hovers at 23 percent for young people, and is higher still for black and Arab young men, the demographic that accounted for last fall’s unrest.

And, voilà, a mock revolution was born. Nationwide, more than a million protesters last week filled the streets of cities such as Paris, Marseille, and Bordeaux. They’re not calling for political freedom, which the French enjoy in spades, both in the street and at the ballot box. The current protests lack even the altruism of France’s anti-war movement, which at least suggested a certain engagement with the outside world. It seems that saving Arab lives in Iraq was desirable, but improving Arab lives in the banlieues is not—certainly not if it promises a whisker less reassurance to educated, middle-class youth. When Marie Antoinette purportedly said, “let them eat cake,” it showed how out of touch the French aristocracy was with the people. Now, it’s the people who are out of touch with the world beyond France. The new generation wants what their parents had: jobs guaranteed for life, complete with five-weeks of vacation every year.

(Posted by Trask)

Church Divide Over Immigration

The Washington Post is reporting on a divide in the church over how to deal with illegal immigrants.

More than 50 evangelical Christian leaders and organizations voiced their support yesterday for an immigration bill that would allow illegal immigrants to become U.S. citizens without returning to their native countries.

The statement marks a deepening split among evangelicals over immigration. It was signed by a mixture of Hispanic and white church groups. But most of the nation's large, politically influential evangelical organizations either back rival legislation that focuses on border enforcement and the deportation of illegal immigrants, or have been silent on the issue.

Hispanic evangelical leaders said yesterday that they have received support from Roman Catholic, Jewish and Muslim groups, but have been bitterly disappointed by the response of most of their fellow evangelicals, both white and black.

"This is the watershed movement — it's the moment where either we really forge relationships with the white evangelical church that will last for decades, or there is a possibility of a definitive schism here," said the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, which serves 10,700 Hispanic evangelical churches with 15 million members.

"There will be church ramifications to this, and there will be political ramifications," he said.

(Posted by Trask)

Loving our neighbors with the ABCs

Recent articles report that congressional investigators feel that Bush's 15 billion global AIDS initiative is emphasising sexual abstinence and fidelity more than Congress intended, and that this focus is undermining prevention efforts in poor countries.

The amount of money for treatment and care for persons with AIDS has been increased substantially over the amounts of money that the Clinton administration allocated towards persons with the disease.  This is a trend that all Presidents have participated, spending more money on tratment and care than the last President.

The key difference here is deeper than whether condoms or abstinence/fidelity should be the focus. Sustainability is also a factor.  Tolerance simply tells us to let them live how they want to without imposing values upon them that they don't already practice.  Sexual promiscuity, Sexual relationships with many partners, and infidelity to one's spouse in our own society are sometimes celebrated and at best, looked at as unfortunate but inevitable.  If persons in our own society don't practice fidelity and abstinence, how then should we convey that message to other cultures?  One method is to let their behavior be secondary and just try to stop the problem with condoms.  This will not work.  Its clear that it won't work because the behavior continues.  And when the behavior continues and becomes reintrenched in generation after generation, the problems will just continue growing. 

Changing the "others" assumptions is acceptable for most persons in the U.S. when it comes to those scientific problems that some societies promulgated.  The assumption that sex with a virgin would cleanse one of the disease are targeted for elimination from the minds of all the "others". And thats as it should be.  Information on how the disease occurs is paramount for all to know.  However, at the same time, we critique those who seek to eliminate the root causes of the disease. 

The root cause of the disease is not the contact with an infected person.  Rather, the root cause is our assumptions that we can do what ever our desires tell us will make us happy, as long as we use rubber to avoid certain contact.  Non of this is to say that condoms are not necessary.  However, the ABC approach is the way to love our neighbors, (yes our neighbors are persons with different cultures and values than our own) in this situation.  We know that abstinence and Fidelity are the solutions.  If marriage and monogomy are imposing our own values (they are), so is a little rubber device that inhibits sexual feelings and prevents pregnancy.  The only difference between the two is that one is foolproof and could solve the AIDS problem and protect future generations from the terror it causes.

How do we love our neighbors as our self when we don't love ourselves first? Love for our neighbor, would include helping them find the most effective solution to the problem.  Cultures always present barriers. We must operate within those cultures, in ways that communication and understanding is fostered.  When dialogue is effective between two cultures, our knowledge of the solution will be heard in a clear voice.  Generations depend on it.  Without these values, abstinence/fidelity, the good and wonderful things that a culture has to offer the world and eachother will be engulfed and eliminiated by a disease. 

If we impede the solution, it is akin to walking by the "other" on the side of the road while he lay in the ditch.